# Sibelius vs. Mahler



## Tapkaara

Two of the greatest symphonists of the 20th century...but who is greater?

Sibelius and Mahler both took on the symphony with quite different philosophies. In their famous exchange, Sibelius said: " I admire the symphony's style and severity of form, as well as the profound logic creating an inner connection among all of the motives," wheras Mahler said: "The symphony is like the world; it must embrace everything."

Who is right here? Both? Neither?

As an admirer of both symphonists, my vote goes to Sibelius. While Sibelius's seven symphonies often lack a sort of "hysteria" and hyper-emotion that one encouters in Mahler, his works can still certainly elicit strong emotional responses. And he does this within fairly strict means, concentrating the musical rhetoric so every theme, phrase, motive and note seems to be concentrated with meaning.

Plus, Sibelius seems to have a masterful handle on the symphonic form, which I think is important here. A symphony is not a suite or a rhapsody; it, by its very definition, has rules and conventions. Sibelius seems to take the symphony head on and make music that adheres to the "severity of style." whereas Mahler seems to go more rhapsodic and bend the rules quite a bit more. 

Not that there is anything intrinsically wrong with that; again, I love Mahler's symphonies. But from a technical standpoint, Sibelius seems to understand symphonic form much better. 

Obviously, there are no right or wrong answers here; not one of us can say definitively who is the greater. But I think a civil and respectful discussion on this would be most interesting!


----------



## MEDIEVAL MIAMI

I don't know who is right or wrong, since everyone has a different approach and mentality on things, but as far music I have to stand for Mahler.


----------



## Mirror Image

I like them both for two totally different reasons. They sound different and are poles apart from each other.

If I had to pick, I would choose Sibelius for the simple reason that he branched out of just writing symphonies and composed a lot of different kinds of music besides symphonies, but ultimately it's a very hard decision for me to make, because they are so different.

If we're talking about a pure emotional reaction Mahler wins hands down every time. I'm not saying there isn't a lot of feeling in what Sibelius composes, but Mahler hits me very hard..emotionally speaking.


----------



## Tapkaara

MEDIEVAL MIAMI said:


> I don't know who is right or wrong, since everyone has a different approach and mentality on things, but as far music I have to stand for Mahler.


Care to elaborate?


----------



## Sid James

I'd largely agree with the balanced views of Mirror Image, which emphasise the pluses and minuses of both composers' approach to the symphony.

But if pressed, I think that Mahler was greater because he was more influential globally. He carried on the symphonic tradition, whilst Sibelius was simply doing his own thing, really (apart from the early influence of Tchaikovsky on him). You can see a thread going right back to Haydn, through Beethoven, Schubert, then Bruckner, Mahler and on to more modern composers like Shostakovich, Gorecki, Lutoslawski & Penderecki.

Sibelius was not only concerned with, obviously, expressing his own personal musical ideas, but worked much to put Finland on the map, musically speaking. Mahler's reach, however, was not only European but global. He also worked on expanding his musical ideas, such as being more progressive with the musical forces needed to perform his symphonies. He employed not only the orchestra, but extra soloists and choral forces. Undoubtedly, he was also the better orchestrator, having intimate knowledge of how to employ these forces.

I guess that one can also argue, that Sibelius with his 'less is more' approach, also made an impact. His _Symphony No. 7_, in a single continuous movement, presaged similar works by composers like Penderecki. But I think that this may only be coincidence. I mean, Sibelius so restricted his orchestral palette that I find that final symphony to be like a black and white photograph. Although Sibelius made the precedent of having a single movement symphony, contemporary composers writing such works inevitably use much more colour in their orchestration. I am also suspicious of why Sibelius didn't compose (or at least publish) anything in the last 30 years of his life. I mean, what was the point of all that reduction of form, colour and thematic ideas in his symphonies? Was it simply to arrive at a dead end and produce nothing? Had he lived as long, I very much doubt that Mahler would have done this.

So I think that it was good, as Mirror Image says, that Sibelius branched out to other genres. I actually think that he was a better as a tone poet than a symphonist. I have the deepest respect for the _Lemminkainen Suite_, for example. But I think that Mahler was a much greater symphonist, even though I am not really a big fan of his longer symphonies.


----------



## Tapkaara

Andre said:


> Sibelius was not only concerned with, obviously, expressing his own personal musical ideas, but worked much to put Finland on the map, musically speaking. Mahler's reach, however, was not only European but global. He also worked on expanding his musical ideas, such as being more progressive with the musical forces needed to perform his symphonies. He employed not only the orchestra, but extra soloists and choral forces. Undoubtedly, he was also the better orchestrator, having intimate knowledge of how to employ these forces.


I get a little annoyed with the suggestion that Sibelius was a "Finnish" composer only or a "regional composer. Yes, he did start out as a"nationalist," but I think very much by his middle period, we was also very much a progressive, "international" composer as well.

He was loved in Britain as well as in the US. We was accepted less in mainland Europe, however, because he was seen as mainly a reactionary to the more modern composers like Schonberg and Stravinsky. This, I think has nothing to do with the fact he was somehow a "lesser" composer, he just refused to glom onto any trend du jour that was sweeping throug more "intellectual" circles.

As far as the orchestration goes, I would by no means say that Mahler was the "better" orchestrator, I would say he's the "bigger orchestrator. Sibelius was a completely competant orchestrator and knew exactly the types of sounds he wanted to produce. In fact, as he progressed into his career, his orchestral forces often got smaller. Is making a knowing effort to reduce the size of your orchestra a sign of not being good at it? I'd say not. I'd say it's someone who has confidence in what he wanted his orchestral textures to sound like, and he only wrote for exactly what he wanted to express...no more, no less. The chilly, sometime hollow sound of his works "the sound of wind in trees" I thnk is VERY much what he was going for.



Andre said:


> I am also suspicious of why Sibelius didn't compose (or at least publish) anything in the last 30 years of his life. I mean, what was the point of all that reduction of form, colour and thematic ideas in his symphonies? Was it simply to arrive at a dead end and produce nothing? Had he lived as long, I very much doubt that Mahler would have done this.


This is another comment that is often made and it irks me. Let's remember that Sibelius was an alcoholic and someone who was often depressed. I think if he wasn't suffering as he was the last 30 years of his life, he very well could have kept going. I think it's presumptuous and wrong to think that he must have simply run out of ideas. I think the man deseves some sympathy for being in not so much a sound mind, and this had an obvious effect on his abilities to create.


----------



## Sid James

Tapkaara said:


> As far as the orchestration goes, I would by no means say that Mahler was the "better" orchestrator, I would say he's the "bigger orchestrator. Sibelius was a completely competant orchestrator and knew exactly the types of sounds he wanted to produce. In fact, as he progressed into his career, his orchestral forces often got smaller. Is making a knowing effort to reduce the size of your orchestra a sign of not being good at it? I'd say not. I'd say it's someone who has confidence in what he wanted his orchestral textures to sound like, and he only wrote for exactly what he wanted to express...no more, no less. The chilly, sometime hollow sound of his works "the sound of wind in trees" I thnk is VERY much what he was going for.


You make some excellent points. I would just like to add, that he got those effects you speak of right on the mark in works like the _Lemminkainen Suite, Tapiola _& the _Violin Concerto._ Those works are excellent examples of their genre, but I think that his symphonies(especially the later ones) become far too restricted and 'minimalist,' if you like, for their own good. I mean, he was good at he was doing, but there is a whole world of sounds that he began to explore in the works I mentioned earlier, ideas and techniques which he could have easily gone on to develop, but didn't. It's like he chose to take black and white photographs instead of colour, to use an analogy. He'd opened up a whole new sound world in his earlier works which he chose, for some reason, not to explore further.



Tapkaara said:


> ...Let's remember that Sibelius was an alcoholic and someone who was often depressed. I think if he wasn't suffering as he was the last 30 years of his life, he very well could have kept going. I think it's presumptuous and wrong to think that he must have simply run out of ideas. I think the man deseves some sympathy for being in not so much a sound mind, and this had an obvious effect on his abilities to create.


Mahler was also a neurotic and suffered from depression - from what I can gather, he had a few sessions with Sigmund Freud. Undoubtedly, his later health problems would have compounded this. But somehow, through all this, he was able to compose right until he was very sick & new that he was about to die. I think he actually responded to adverse events like the loss of his daughter with music which expressed his feelings.

Sibelius' style itslelf seemed to go on a reductionist trajectory, stylistically speaking. Of course, he also responded to adversity, like the throat cancer operation, with excellent works expressing his feelings, such as the _Symphony No. 4_, one of his finest and most autobiographical. Although it would be indeed harsh to say that he had run out of ideas, I think that he just musically minimised everything until there was really nothing much left. As you suggest, he had really sunk to the depths personally speaking, and I don't know how better he could have expressed that than in the aforementioned symphony, for example. At least he didn't go on repeating himself or composing superficial pap, like some composers I can think of but won't name. He was a perfectionist, and this actually works in the listener's favour, as all of his works are of an excellent quality.

I just think that there is a much broader palette of ideas, colours and possibilities in Mahler's symphonies. Maybe they are polar opposites, so it is somewhat unfair to compare them. Perhaps (in the end) Sibelius became too restricted, and Mahler too broad. But this was just a feature of their different styles & approaches, I guess.


----------



## Tapkaara

Andre, you make many good points, and I think your "black and white" photo analogy works well for Sibelius's orchestration. One might say Mahler painted with garish pastels, Sibelius with charcoal and ink. At least in many of his later works.

Mahler may have composed until the end of his lifetime, but I still don't think one should come down too hard on Sibelius for his 30-year "silence." In fact, if you think about it, Mahler composed reletively little himself over his whole career, Sibelius was very much more prolific in general. But, as he got older, the depression and self-loathing became stronger and stronger, and this put a psychological lid of the "faucet of musical ideas" the composer had had in hiw youth. Of course, this was a time before medication for mental illness, so what was the man to do? So, to combat his depression, he drank, which, no doubt, compounded his inability to continue writing major works even more after the 7th and Tapiola. This is not because he ran out of talent, it's because his mentel illness overpowered him.


----------



## Sid James

Tapkaara said:


> ...I think your "black and white" photo analogy works well for Sibelius's orchestration. One might say Mahler painted with garish pastels, Sibelius with charcoal and ink. At least in many of his later works...


I think that, despite such differences, neither shied away from expressing the darker aspects of the human condition. This is something that they had in common. It's really a profound experience to listen to their late symphonies. They had both been through alot in life, and expressed this through their music.

On the radio the other night here in Sydney, Geoffrey Lancaster, a great pianist of ours was expressing his opinion on the difference between the keyboard works of Haydn & Mozart. He said that the former offers you one chocolate at a time, gives you the opportunity to savour it, then offers another one. Mozart, on the other hand, just relentlessly throws chocolates at you, before you have time to eat them!

I think the above analogy can be translated to Sibelius & Mahler. Sibelius presents one big idea in each symphony (maybe across his whole cycle of symphonies?), whilst Mahler just showers you with different juxtapositions of ideas & themes in the one work, let alone across the whole cycle of his symphonies! For this reason, I find Mahler's longer symphonies very difficult to get into, indeed.



Tapkaara said:


> ...But, as he got older, the depression and self-loathing became stronger and stronger, and this put a psychological lid of the "faucet of musical ideas" the composer had had in hiw youth...


You have put what I was trying to say perfectly here. I find that Sibelius' _Symphonies Nos. 4 & 7_ in particular seem to express these feelings of loneliness and depression so well. I think that he must also have felt somewhat out of place amongst the new breed of composers who were more at the cutting edge. We have to remember that Sibelius lived longer than any of his generation born in the 1860's - Debussy, Mahler, Richard Strauss, Janacek all died earlier. He must have felt somewhat like a relic of the past in the 1950's, when the whole notion of what is music was being redefined, and the old genres were being challenged and toppled. It was only in later decades of the C20th that Classicism, Romanticism and impressionism were no longer seen as dirty words. Composers can now freely borrow from those more tonal styles, but during Sibelius' old age, there was a new orthodoxy of serialism, which took a long time to end. Undoubtedly, he would have felt out of place in such an environment.


----------



## PostMinimalist

An easy win for the big Finn! Probably a KO in the first round. Bet your shirt on Shredder Sibelius!


----------



## Mirror Image

In all honesty, I think it's kind of crazy to put two composers against each other. I mean Mahler had his strengths and weaknesses as did Sibelius.

Sibelius, even though he quit composing, still composed more than Mahler did and traveled down many more musical avenues than Mahler, but does this make him a better composer? Absolutely not.

Perhaps instead of pitting the two composers against each other in a who's greater thread, it might kind of cool to discuss what made both composers so great and why we each personally like them.


----------



## Lisztfreak

Debussy was right: pleasure is the law. It's impossible and unimportant to say who is greater.


----------



## Tapkaara

Reall,y the point of this thread wasn't so much who's the better orchestrator or composer per se, but who had the greater philosophy towards writing symphonies. It all comes from their famous exchange which I quoted above. Both took very different approaches to what the symphony should be, and wrote their symphonies accordingly.

And to restate what I said at the onset, there is no definitive answer on this, just an opinion. I am not trying to pit two composers I personally adore against each other, I am just "stirring the pot"a little to see who YOU THINK had the better (if posible) symphonic philosophy in your opinions.

So, let's have an interesting discusion!


----------



## Mirror Image

Tapkaara said:


> Reall,y the point of this thread wasn't so much who's the better orchestrator or composer per se, but who had the greater philosophy towards writing symphonies. It all comes from their famous exchange which I quoted above. Both took very different approaches to what the symphony should be, and wrote their symphonies accordingly.
> 
> And to restate what I said at the onset, there is no definitive answer on this, just an opinion. I am not trying to pit two composers I personally adore against each other, I am just "stirring the pot"a little to see who YOU THINK had the better (if posible) symphonic philosophy in your opinions.
> 
> So, let's have an interesting discusion!


Again, you're comparing apples and oranges. Who's greater? That's an answer I don't have, because neither one of them was the better composer or symphonist. They both created compelling music that means a lot to me for different reasons.


----------



## World Violist

I can't think that Mahler is the greater composer. I'm very closely familiar with both of them and their music, but I feel that after all this time I _still_ haven't totally penetrated into Sibelius' soundworld (and I've been listening to his music for a longer time than I have the music of Mahler, technically!). Besides, I still feel that Sibelius' music contains more depth in a smaller space, that it's far more concentrated (and just for the record, I think that Mahler's ability to draw out music to unfathomable lengths and still allow it to be extraordinarily dramatic and emotionally involving the whole time is also a very good thing... but did not Sibelius do that in Kullervo as well???).

Besides, while the symphonies of Mahler are very different, I get the feeling that Sibelius went a step further and redefined the symphony with each take on the subject, and I feel that it is not at all an exaggeration.

So my vote goes to Sibelius.


----------



## Mirror Image

World Violist said:


> I can't think that Mahler is the greater composer. I'm very closely familiar with both of them and their music, but I feel that after all this time I _still_ haven't totally penetrated into Sibelius' soundworld (and I've been listening to his music for a longer time than I have the music of Mahler, technically!). Besides, I still feel that Sibelius' music contains more depth in a smaller space, that it's far more concentrated (and just for the record, I think that Mahler's ability to draw out music to unfathomable lengths and still allow it to be extraordinarily dramatic and emotionally involving the whole time is also a very good thing... but did not Sibelius do that in Kullervo as well???).
> 
> Besides, while the symphonies of Mahler are very different, I get the feeling that Sibelius went a step further and redefined the symphony with each take on the subject, and I feel that it is not at all an exaggeration.
> 
> So my vote goes to Sibelius.


Ah, but your viewpoint, as with all viewpoints is still subjective isn't it WV? I mean don't you agree that both composers are worlds apart from each other?

If we're going to put personal taste into this discussion, then my vote goes to neither one of them. My vote goes to a composer not even in this discussion, but nevertheless had an influential impact on symphony writing, Bruckner.


----------



## Tapkaara

Mirror Image said:


> Ah, but your viewpoint, as with all viewpoints is still subjective isn't it WV? I mean don't you agree that both composers are worlds apart from each other?
> 
> If we're going to put personal taste into this discussion, then my vote goes to neither one of them. My vote goes to a composer not even in this discussion, but nevertheless had an influential impact on symphony writing, Bruckner.


But, you see, Bruckner doesn't play in to this discussion! 

I agree very much with Violist. And by the way, Violst is one of the biggest Mahlerians out there! I too am a Mahlerian, and we are not putting down one composer as much as we are propping one up just a wee bit higher.

I think the Sibelius/Mahler discussion is a fair one as the two are often referred to as the "greatest symphonist" of the 20th century, and, of course, they had that famous discussion. Now that time has been able to judge both of their musical paths and impact, I think it begs an interesting discussion to see which could have been "right" when they had that talk so many decades ago...


----------



## Mirror Image

Tapkaara said:


> I too am a Mahlerian, and we are not putting down one composer as much as we are propping one up just a wee bit higher.


I guess that's my problem with this discussion is that one isn't higher than the other one. They both composed music that was worlds apart from each other. It all comes down to personal tastes in these types of discussions.


----------



## Tapkaara

Mirror Image said:


> I guess that's my problem with this discussion is that one isn't higher than the other one. They both composed music that was worlds apart from each other. It all comes down to personal tastes in these types of discussions.


But see, that is a completely valid entry to this discussion. There will be some who think one is a better symphonist than the other, one (like you) wh think they are equals, and then maybe those that thinki neither of them wrote good symphonies.


----------



## World Violist

I agree that it takes personal taste in this music. And they're both very much on the same plane, all things considered. It depends on what aspects get a higher emphasis from a given person that says which composer gets the "pick." For me it just happened to be Sibelius. I'm not ruling Mahler out whatsoever.


----------



## Tapkaara

World Violist said:


> I agree that it takes personal taste in this music. And they're both very much on the same plane, all things considered. It depends on what aspects get a higher emphasis from a given person that says which composer gets the "pick." For me it just happened to be Sibelius. I'm not ruling Mahler out whatsoever.


I echo that!


----------



## Mirror Image

Tapkaara said:


> But see, that is a completely valid entry to this discussion. There will be some who think one is a better symphonist than the other, one (like you) wh think they are equals, and then maybe those that thinki neither of them wrote good symphonies.


In that case....I pick Rubbra!


----------



## World Violist

Mirror Image said:


> In that case....I pick Rubbra!


Rubbra's a good choice... Langgaard?


----------



## Mirror Image

World Violist said:


> Rubbra's a good choice... Langgaard?


Yes, Langgaard is a very good choice!!


----------



## Sid James

World Violist said:


> ...I still feel that Sibelius' music contains more depth in a smaller space, that it's far more concentrated (and just for the record, I think that Mahler's ability to draw out music to unfathomable lengths and still allow it to be extraordinarily dramatic and emotionally involving the whole time is also a very good thing... but did not Sibelius do that in Kullervo as well???).
> 
> Besides, while the symphonies of Mahler are very different, I get the feeling that Sibelius went a step further and redefined the symphony with each take on the subject, and I feel that it is not at all an exaggeration.


I think Mahler actually recognised the symphony as almost obsolete, this is maybe why he pushed the boundaries so much. With this, he seemed to be pointing towards music post WWI & beyond. Some of his longer symphonies use vast forces - choir, brass, percussion, etc. - to render moods & textures that Sibelius only did early on, such as in works like _Lemminkainen_ & the first two symphonies, then stopped. I can point to works like Edgard Varese's _Ameriques_, composed in the 1920's, which uses a similar gargantuan orchestra to Mahler (155 musicians in the orginal version!) to render an epic picture of the American continent. I am pretty sure that Varese would have been familiar with Mahler's music, though it is unclear which symphonies he had heard. & the same thing can be said of Ernest Bloch's _America: An Epic Rhapsody_. I think that without Mahler's (even residual) influence, these composers would not have been able to do what they did.

So I think that Mahler's simulation of many physical & emotional states was a more comprehensive encapsulation of the human condition that what Sibelius did in his later works. I think that people are right in suggesting that Mahler's symphonies are less typical examples of the genre than Sibelius. But I think Mahler's genius was that he recognised the limitations of the genre, & worked to really push the boundaries. I think that this is why his works are more challenging to listen to than Sibelius, they have something in common with the longer works of some post WWI composers, like Varese & Bloch. Who knows, maybe if Mahler would have lived to an older age, he would have even stopped calling his compositions 'symphonies' as such, and given them titles more appropriate to their content. We all know that he already did this in his _Song of the Earth_, right?

I must add that I am by no means either a big Mahler or Sibelius fan. I agree that they were both great composers. Sibelius did contribute a solid reworking of the established symphonic tradition, but it was Mahler who began to actually challenge the traditions and conventions. This is why he was more radical & progressive than (especially late) Sibelius.


----------



## JAKE WYB

i would contradict that comment for i believe sibelius had the more innovative and influential contribution to the smphonic form - sibelius's use of all musical content like rhtyhm and melodic flow and particularly orchestral colour as an integral part of the symphonic progression md unity make for the greater symphonies - not necessarily the greater music though even thouh i prefer sibelius as being so much more unique and emotionally gripping than mahler. 

Symphonic works also should end in a great sense of gravitas - and mahler takes the huge dramatic canvas of his worlds but sibelius packs an equal punch in a work like his 7th symphony - leaves me with the unmistakable feeling of an unearthly and magical process having happened and means that mahlers emotional and self pitying gesturing tests my patience in comparison.


----------



## Bach

Tapkaara said:


> Two of the greatest symphonists of the 20th century...but who is greater?


Mahler is far better. Sibelius is like the Finnish Vaughan-Williams.


----------



## Tapkaara

Bach said:


> Mahler is far better. Sibelius is like the Finnish Vaughan-Williams.


Care to elaborate your thoughts on this? And also, what does being the Finnish Vaughan-William entail, actually...that does that mean, especially in releation to this discussion?


----------



## handlebar

This question is too difficult. Like asking one to pick between mother or father. 
Sorry. Can't do it. They were both great in their respective ways.

Jim


----------



## Bach

His symphonies were nationalistic in the same way, representing little more than patriotic spirit. (or at least, that's what I feel) but then I don't like Sibelius. What is his best symphony in your view? (I know you're quite the sibelian) I will listen to it with great care and attention. I want to reevaluate Sibelius but I've never found any reason to.


----------



## Tapkaara

Well, the fact that his symphonies are "nationalist" is not really accurate, though many take this view.

Sibelius's nationalism is really contained in many of his tone poems, which are based on the Finnish national epic, the Kalevala. He made no bones about that. He was especially passionate about the Kalevala because it represented something "truly and uniquely Finnish" in a time when Finland was ruled by Tsarist Russia. The early tone poem Finlandia, of course, was written as a nationalist work during this period, no doubt about it. But, a mistake many people make is that they imprint the overt nationalism of works like Finlandia onto the 7 symphones, which are works of pure absolute music.

The first two symphonies, in particular, are singled out as nationalistic/patriotic statements. Not so. No folk music is used in either work, or in any of his symphonies, or in any of his larger symphonic works. Nor were either written as anthems of uprising. The 2nd is usually labelled something of a "Liberation Symphony." Again, not so. Sibelius wrote this work at a villa in Rapallo, Italy and actually had the story of Don Juan on his mind as a primary source of inspriation for the work at one point. I really don;t see what Italian Villas and Don Juan have to do with Finland's liberation from the Tsarist yolk, but many Finns at the time imprimted their own yearnings for freedom onto this work, and its nationalistic underpinnings, as it were, actually came from the work's audience, and never once from the composer. (How can a composer control what an audience takes from his works?)

And now on to the rest of the symphonies. There is absolutely no programmatic content or intent in the third. It is an attempt by Sibelius, however, to write in a more "classical" style with a smaller orchestra and a stricter, less rhapsodic style. The 4th is a dark and weird work writtenwhen the composer was undergoing treatment for throat cancer. But is it a "tone poem" about the dark, sunless winters in the north? No. Is it even about throat cancer? No. It is absolute music with no program, though the composer's feelings at the time no doubt colored the tone of the work.

The 5th, 6th, and 7th are, again, works of absolute music with no intention of describing Finland, fjords, polar bears, and the like, that are so often (and erroneously...there are no real fjords or polar bears in Finland!) attributed to his idiom. In fact, with the 7th, Sibelius originally envisioned a "Hellenic rondo" and mentioned that the instruments are handled in this work much like they would have been in ancient Greece. Again, what ancient Greece has to do with Finnish nationalism is lost on me.

Mahler on the other hand, I think, was more nationalist...at least he was overt in his usage of "folk effects." Marches, ländlers, cow bells, klezmer music...yup, it's all there. Sibelius never resorted to such "effects in any of his symphonies, so, again, what are we really talking about here? Seems like Mahler was perhaps much more entrenched in local color that Sibelius was...!

The best of Sibbe's 7? That's a very hard one for me to answer. I'd have to say the 4th or the 7th. The 4th for its fresh, forward-looking modernistic singularity (it premiered 2 years before the Rite) or the 7th for its achievement in defining (or redefining?) what a symphony is...can be...or perhaps should be in terms of its "severity of style and emotional impact.


----------



## Mirror Image

Tapkaara said:


> Well, the fact that his symphonies are "nationalist" is not really accurate, though many take this view.
> 
> Sibelius's nationalism is really contained in many of his tone poems, which are based on the Finnish national epic, the Kalevala. He made no bones about that. He was especially passionate about the Kalevala because it represented something "truly and uniquely Finnish" in a time when Finland was ruled by Tsarist Russia. The early tone poem Finlandia, of course, was written as a nationalist work during this period, no doubt about it. But, a mistake many people make is that they imprint the overt nationalism of works like Finlandia onto the 7 symphones, which are works of pure absolute music.
> 
> The first two symphonies, in particular, are singled out as nationalistic/patriotic statements. Not so. No folk music is used in either work, or in any of his symphonies, or in any of his larger symphonic works. Nor were either written as anthems of uprising. The 2nd is usually labelled something of a "Liberation Symphony." Again, not so. Sibelius wrote this work at a villa in Rapallo, Italy and actually had the story of Don Juan on his mind as a primary source of inspriation for the work at one point. I really don;t see what Italian Villas and Don Juan have to do with Finland's liberation from the Tsarist yolk, but many Finns at the time imprimted their own yearnings for freedom onto this work, and its nationalistic underpinnings, as it were, actually came from the work's audience, and never once from the composer. (How can a composer control what an audience takes from his works?)
> 
> And now on to the rest of the symphonies. There is absolutely no programmatic content or intent in the third. It is an attempt by Sibelius, however, to write in a more "classical" style with a smaller orchestra and a stricter, less rhapsodic style. The 4th is a dark and weird work writtenwhen the composer was undergoing treatment for throat cancer. But is it a "tone poem" about the dark, sunless winters in the north? No. Is it even about throat cancer? No. It is absolute music with no program, though the composer's feelings at the time no doubt colored the tone of the work.
> 
> The 5th, 6th, and 7th are, again, works of absolute music with no intention of describing Finland, fjords, polar bears, and the like, that are so often (and erroneously...there are no real fjords or polar bears in Finland!) attributed to his idiom. In fact, with the 7th, Sibelius originally envisioned a "Hellenic rondo" and mentioned that the instruments are handled in this work much like they would have been in ancient Greece. Again, what ancient Greece has to do with Finnish nationalism is lost on me.
> 
> Mahler on the other hand, I think, was more nationalist...at least he was overt in his usage of "folk effects." Marches, ländlers, cow bells, klezmer music...yup, it's all there. Sibelius never resorted to such "effects in any of his symphonies, so, again, what are we really talking about here? Seems like Mahler was perhaps much more entrenched in local color that Sibelius was...!
> 
> The best of Sibbe's 7? That's a very hard one for me to answer. I'd have to say the 4th or the 7th. The 4th for its fresh, forward-looking modernistic singularity (it premiered 2 years before the Rite) or the 7th for its achievement in defining (or redefining?) what a symphony is...can be...or perhaps should be in terms of its "severity of style and emotional impact.


I feel very much the same way, Tapkaara. I'm not sure where people get this "Nationalist" vibe from listening to Sibelius. I think this is another one of those descriptive words like "impressionism" that doesn't mean that much at all. These words like this that get coined are "factory generated" ones.

You can't put into words the music of Sibelius or Mahler. These composers conjure up some many mental images for everybody that it would hard to come up with some kind of concrete word that sums them up. It's simply impossible for you to describe them for anyone and vice versa.


----------



## Tapkaara

Mirror Image said:


> I feel very much the same way, Tapkaara. I'm not sure where people get this "Nationalist" vibe from listening to Sibelius. I think this is another one of those descriptive words like "impressionism" that doesn't mean that much at all. These words like this that get coined are "factory generated" ones.
> 
> You can't put into words the music of Sibelius or Mahler. These composers conjure up some many mental images for everybody that it would hard to come up with some kind of concrete word that sums them up. It's simply impossible for you to describe them for anyone and vice versa.


I've encountered on more than one forum almost a hostility towards Sibelius, and indeed this wrong notion that he was nothing more than some "nationalist" or "regional" composer. I have to think that the folks who say this really are not familiar with his oeuvre. They've heard Finlandia and maybe one of the tone poems, but that's it.

Plus, should "nationalist" be a bad word? Many important composers were "nationalists." Dvorak was a nationalist. As was Elgar, Liszt, and the list (pardon the pun) can go on and on. So what would the big deal be, anyway...as long as the music is good?


----------



## Mirror Image

Tapkaara said:


> I've encountered on more than one forum almost a hostility towards Sibelius, and indeed this wrong notion that he was nothing more than some "nationalist" or "regional" composer. I have to think that the folks who say this really are not familiar with his oeuvre. They've heard Finlandia and maybe one of the tone poems, but that's it.
> 
> Plus, should "nationalist" be a bad word? Many important composers were "nationalists." Dvorak was a nationalist. As was Elgar, Liszt, and the list (pardon the pun) can go on and on. So what would the big deal be, anyway...as long as the music is good?


I just don't like the word "Nationalist." I mean I think it has some negative connotations like for example those connotations you hear about Smetana, Dvorak, Sibelius, the Mighty Handful, Glinka, Grieg, etc. This word just doesn't mean anything. If anything it distracts from the music.

On a positive note, it can be said that it means pride of one's country. I don't look at this word like this, I think it's yet another manufactured word to describe something that doesn't need a description.


----------



## wolf

Tapkaara said:


> ...I've encountered on more than one forum almost a hostility towards Sibelius...


Which one, a minority perhaps, nowadys he is so popular it's disgusting. I own quite a few Sibelius CDs myself (although they are in a hiding place, should one of my snooty high-falutin classical friends come unexpectedly) but I would never admit it lol. No, it's not about being 'regional' but he has always had a reputation among the cognocenti of being a really bad composer. Remember Weberns pupil Leibowitz, "Sibelius, le plus mauvais compositeur du monde", and that was NOT only because Sibelius refused to follow Schönberg, goodness no, (although Leib WAS of the opinion that everyone should do that) there were heaps of composers around, wanting nothing to do with atonality, why did he chose him? And why is he STILL not liked in Germany as in US? Why is Sibelius a red flag to musical chritics around the world, Grieg or Puccini has never been their favorite either, but I think they are xtra maddened of the fact that such a lousy composer has such an immense following.

There is no order, he is chaotic, more subjective than Tchaikovsky ever dreamed of being, the developments of his themata stinks etc etc etc I havent read the book myself as my french nowadays is far from good, and in a book of musical theory, lol nono. But there is so much more to say that has only with his composition to do. Now, I listened to his 7th and 2nd symphony just before I wrote this to freshen up my memory - actually I preferred the 2nd, although prefer is a strong word. But it was by no means nauseating - I mean it wasn't like listening to Elvis or Stones or something that really sickens you - but the fact that anyone can prefer him to the great ones is rather strange. And I think that makes the ones really understanding classical music mad.

Not that Mahler is my favorite, and I DO know Mahler, not just the f-g adagietto of 5th, but to mention him even on the same day as Sibelius is an insult. To Mahler that is.


----------



## Mirror Image

wolf said:


> Which one, a minority perhaps, nowadys he is so popular it's disgusting. I own quite a few Sibelius CDs myself (although they are in a hiding place, should one of my snooty high-falutin classical friends come unexpectedly) but I would never admit it lol. No, it's not about being 'regional' but he has always had a reputation among the cognocenti of being a really bad composer. Remember Weberns pupil Leibowitz, "Sibelius, le plus mauvais compositeur du monde", and that was NOT only because Sibelius refused to follow Schönberg, goodness no, (although Leib WAS of the opinion that everyone should do that) there were heaps of composers around, wanting nothing to do with atonality, why did he chose him? And why is he STILL not liked in Germany as in US? Why is Sibelius a red flag to musical chritics around the world, Grieg or Puccini has never been their favorite either, but I think they are xtra maddened of the fact that such a lousy composer has such an immense following.
> 
> There is no order, he is chaotic, more subjective than Tchaikovsky ever dreamed of being, the developments of his themata stinks etc etc etc I havent read the book myself as my french nowadays is far from good, and in a book of musical theory, lol nono. But there is so much more to say that has only with his composition to do. Now, I listened to his 7th and 2nd symphony just before I wrote this to freshen up my memory - actually I preferred the 2nd, although prefer is a strong word. But it was by no means nauseating - I mean it wasn't like listening to Elvis or Stones or something that really sickens you - but the fact that anyone can prefer him to the great ones is rather strange. And I think that makes the ones really understanding classical music mad.
> 
> Not that Mahler is my favorite, and I DO know Mahler, not just the f-g adagietto of 5th, but to mention him even on the same day as Sibelius is an insult. To Mahler that is.


This general attitude people have about Sibelius' music, like yours Wolf, is what makes me sick. He was an amazing composer. The beauty of Sibelius lies in the pauses where you can gasp your breath for a minute, because he takes you on such a beautiful sonic journey.

If you have friends that scowl at you because you own Sibelius, then they're not really your friends in the first place.

This seems to happen a lot with composers that get too "popular," as if that's a bad thing. I think it's a shame that you, Wolf, can't express your opinion without resorting to some kind of degradation of the composer's music.

You don't like Sibelius? That's fine, but don't degrade his music because you don't "get it." There are plenty of people that love his music and I'm one of them.

I would like to know are there any composers that you actually like and don't have something negative to say about them?


----------



## Air

wolf said:


> Which one, a minority perhaps, nowadys he is so popular it's disgusting. I own quite a few Sibelius CDs myself (although they are in a hiding place, should one of my snooty high-falutin classical friends come unexpectedly) but I would never admit it lol. No, it's not about being 'regional' but he has always had a reputation among the cognocenti of being a really bad composer. Remember Weberns pupil Leibowitz, "Sibelius, le plus mauvais compositeur du monde", and that was NOT only because Sibelius refused to follow Schönberg, goodness no, (although Leib WAS of the opinion that everyone should do that) there were heaps of composers around, wanting nothing to do with atonality, why did he chose him? And why is he STILL not liked in Germany as in US? Why is Sibelius a red flag to musical chritics around the world, Grieg or Puccini has never been their favorite either, but I think they are xtra maddened of the fact that such a lousy composer has such an immense following.
> 
> There is no order, he is chaotic, more subjective than Tchaikovsky ever dreamed of being, the developments of his themata stinks etc etc etc I havent read the book myself as my french nowadays is far from good, and in a book of musical theory, lol nono. But there is so much more to say that has only with his composition to do. Now, I listened to his 7th and 2nd symphony just before I wrote this to freshen up my memory - actually I preferred the 2nd, although prefer is a strong word. But it was by no means nauseating - I mean it wasn't like listening to Elvis or Stones or something that really sickens you - but the fact that anyone can prefer him to the great ones is rather strange. And I think that makes the ones really understanding classical music mad.
> 
> Not that Mahler is my favorite, and I DO know Mahler, not just the f-g adagietto of 5th, but to mention him even on the same day as Sibelius is an insult. To Mahler that is.


So you don't like Sibelius. Enough for this discussion, I suppose.

It's so curious to see how much our tastes differ. There are so many Mahler, Sibelius, and Bach cults around that it's good to see some Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert fans too, as long as they don't flame things up. I had to breath heavily (in and out) not to explode at your post but I assume that Tapkaara, Mirror Image, and World Violist will do that for me. 

It's all good and well to have a balance of opinions here. It's great to have you here because I need to admire Mozart and Haydn way more than I do now. Hope I can learn some from you.

Air


----------



## Mirror Image

airad2 said:


> I had to breath heavily (in and out) not to explode at your post but I assume that Tapkaara, Mirror Image, and World Violist will do that for me.


 Yeah, I kind of did, but it wasn't so bad. I could've said a lot of things, but I held my tongue, because I'm sure Tapkaara and World Violist will come in right behind me at some point.


----------



## Tapkaara

Well, Wolf, all I can say is that it's too bad you don't enjoy/appreciate Sibelius as much as I do!

Regarding the the likes of René Leibowitz (no composer of any note himself) or "critics" like Theodor Adorno (both of whom made Sibelius their whipping post), they DID primarily diss him because he was seen as a reactionary, "backwards" composer in a time when serialism and such were the rage. Andre had a good point earlier in this thread. Sibelius lived a very long life and died in 1957...much later than other noted composers of his generation. He was certainly alive when your Schonbergs, Weberns, Messiaens, etc. came onto the scene with their avant-gardism, which Sibelius was no fan of. Sibelius was seen as a living relic of the past; a composer unwilling (and perhaps, in their view, unable) to "progress" with their art.

I am shocked that you call Sibelius's idiom chaotic. His works are very well tuned in terms of their thematic progression. The composer saw to that personally as that was one of his main concerns in music.

Sibelius has always been liked in the US and in the UK. Sibelius's star faded just about everywhere to some extent after WWII due to the "backward" flavor of his style in favor of more "progessive" atonal music, but nowadays I think Sibelius has come around to be quite popular just about anywhere where classical is liked, including the US for sure!


----------



## Mirror Image

Tapkaara said:


> Well, Wolf, all I can say is that it's too bad you don't enjoy/appreciate Sibelius as much as I do!
> 
> Regarding the the likes of René Leibowitz (no composer of any note himself) or "critics" like Theodor Adorno (both of whom made Sibelius their whipping post), they DID primarily diss him because he was seen as a reactionary, "backwards" composer in a time when serialism and such were the rage. Andre had a good point earlier in this thread. Sibelius lived a very long life and died in 1957...much later than other noted composers of his generation. He was certainly alive when your Schonbergs, Weberns, Messiaens, etc. came onto the scene with their avant-gardism, which Sibelius was no fan of. Sibelius was seen as a living relic of the past; a composer unwilling (and perhaps, in their view, unable) to "progress" with their art.
> 
> I am shocked that you call Sibelius's idiom chaotic. His works are very well tuned in terms of their thematic progression. The composer saw to that personally as that was one of his main concerns in music.
> 
> Sibelius has always been liked in the US and in the UK. Sibelius's star faded just about everywhere to some extent after WWII due to the "backward" flavor of his style in favor of more "progessive" atonal music, but nowadays I think Sibelius has come around to be quite popular just about anywhere where classical is liked, including the US for sure!


If somebody listens to "Pohjola's Daughter" and doesn't comment that it's a beautifully moving piece of music is sadly missing out on an amazing experience for the ears.

I don't look at Sibelius as some kind of relic or some kind of reactionary. I look at him as somebody who stuck to what was true in his heart and composed music that meant something despite what was going on around him.

Look at Samuel Barber, you might as well call him a relic or call Saint-Saens a relic of his time, but I think that it's an admirable quality when a composer sticks to what's true to them and make music from those experiences and those principals.

Also, it's the music that should always be evaluated not what a composer should've or could've done. Sibelius didn't compose for 30 years doesn't mean anything. Look how much Ravel wrote! He only wrote 88 compositions, but they were all very high quality. How much a composer writes or doesn't write has NOTHING to do with the music.


----------



## Tapkaara

Mirror Image said:


> If somebody listens to "Pohjola's Daughter" and doesn't comment that it's a beautifully moving piece of music is sadly missing out on an amazing experience for the ears.
> 
> I don't look at Sibelius as some kind of relic or some kind of reactionary. I look at him as somebody who stuck to what was true in his heart and composed music that meant something despite what was going on around him.
> 
> Look at Samuel Barber, you might as well call him a relic or call Saint-Saens a relic of his time, but I think that it's an admirable quality when a composer sticks to what's true to them and make music from those experiences and those principals.


Oh, the list can go on and on as far as "reactionary" composers go. Look at Khachaturian. It's ASTONISHING that he composed the music to Spartacus in the 1950s.

But Khachaturian, like Sibelius, had a style and voice that they loved and stuck to it, not giving in to trendiness. That, in and of itself, should be admired!


----------



## Mirror Image

Tapkaara said:


> Oh, the list can go on and on as far as "reactionary" composers go. Look at Khachaturian. It's ASTONISHING that he composed the music to Spartacus in the 1950s.
> 
> But Khachaturian, like Sibelius, had a style and voice that they loved and stuck to it, not giving in to trendiness. That, in and of itself, should be admired!


This was the underlying theme of my last post. Sibelius composed music that meant something and that was powerful and had a distinctive character. Like I said, he stuck to his guns and what he felt inside of him.

That aside, if somebody says that don't like "Pohjola's Daughter" either a: they weren't listening or b: clearly have no idea about good music. Sorry, but that's how I feel. I played that piece for a Baroque friend of mine who HATES most Romantic and later composers and she about flipped out and couldn't believe what she was hearing! Needless to say, she wanted copies of everything I owned by Sibelius! I just laughed at her and said "Pick a cycle, any cycle."


----------



## Air

Tapkaara said:


> Oh, the list can go on and on as far as "reactionary" composers go. Look at Khachaturian. It's ASTONISHING that he composed the music to Spartacus in the 1950s.
> 
> But Khachaturian, like Sibelius, had a style and voice that they loved and stuck to it, not giving in to trendiness. That, in and of itself, should be admired!


I agree whole-heartedly with both of your posts. It saddens me how post World War II, music seemed to be admired not as an art but as an invention. From that point on, the admired composers were the "trendy", "complex" ones who "tried new things" like minimalism, etc. and as I admire their "creativity" to an extent, I truly believe in the cliche that "real music comes from the heart." Not to say that you shouldn't borrow ideas (all ideas have an origin), but that almost all of the composers became loyal followers of the 12-tone system, in my opinion, has hindered many great compositions from coming into being. I'm sorry to those who have found a passion for atonal music, but I really prefer Webern and Schoenberg's pre-atonal works to their atonal works.

It's all back to the thread about Simplicity vs. Complexity.


----------



## Mirror Image

airad2 said:


> I agree whole-heartedly with both of your posts. It saddens me how post World War II, music seemed to be admired not as an art but as an invention. From that point on, the admired composers were the "trendy", "complex" ones who "tried new things" like minimalism, etc. and as I admire their "creativity" to an extent, I truly believe in the cliche that "real music comes from the heart." Not to say that you shouldn't borrow ideas (all ideas have an origin), but that almost all of the composers became loyal followers of the 12-tone system, in my opinion, has hindered many great compositions from coming into being. I'm sorry to those who have found a passion for atonal music, but I really prefer Webern and Schoenberg's pre-atonal works to their atonal works.
> 
> It's all back to the thread about Simplicity vs. Complexity.


*"There is no such thing as abstract music; there is good music and bad music. If it is good, it means something.

-Richard Strauss*

This is a quote to live by I think.


----------



## wolf

We must clear up some things here, I see that you took my 'his thematic works stink' for MY views and that's not so strange when I read it again, BUT I meant that this was THEIR critic against him, I have read so much about this, although it's some years ago. MY view is that I find it's strange that anyone can prefer him to the great ones - Bach, Mzt, Beethoven etc (Haydn is not my cup really) AND that Mahler is much better. That he is so popular that it's disgusting I thought you could say as a joke. But if you look at my post I posed a question, why is it that critics etc, and I answered that, they were angry because he is SO popular, and then I tried to explain why, but should have made that more obvius.

If I truly hated him I would not own a lot of his records/CDs! As for hiding, that wasnt really a joke, it just IS like that. They are intelligent but you just can't like Sibelius. One or two CDs but 25 like I have? My god! They would never speak to me again.

Airad I am afraid that I cannot teach you to like Mozart though. In my view you can't learn to like something. If you like it it's because you like it...


----------



## Tapkaara

airad2 said:


> I agree whole-heartedly with both of your posts. It saddens me how post World War II, music seemed to be admired not as an art but as an invention. From that point on, the admired composers were the "trendy", "complex" ones who "tried new things" like minimalism, etc. and as I admire their "creativity" to an extent, I truly believe in the cliche that "real music comes from the heart." Not to say that you shouldn't borrow ideas (all ideas have an origin), but that almost all of the composers became loyal followers of the 12-tone system, in my opinion, has hindered many great compositions from coming into being. I'm sorry to those who have found a passion for atonal music, but I really prefer Webern and Schoenberg's pre-atonal works to their atonal works.
> 
> It's all back to the thread about Simplicity vs. Complexity.


The mentality after WWII (or thereabouts) in many circles was pretty much "atonal or nothing!" I wonder if there were (and I'm sure there must have been) some composers who composed serial music in order to save face with the musical establishment and garner favor. Otherwise, other composers (insert Leibowitz here) could have written pamphlets about you calling you the "Worst Composer in the World."
Who wants that, after all?


----------



## Tapkaara

wolf said:


> MY view is that I find it's strange that anyone can prefer him to the great ones - Bach, Mzt, Beethoven etc (Haydn is not my cup really) AND that Mahler is much better...


Sibelius is one of my favorites, but I do not really "prefer" him to Beethoven or Bach, two composers I admire immensely. I can enjoy them all, and I do. I do prefer him to Mozart, though, no doubt. But that's just me, isn't it?


----------



## wolf

Tapkaara said:


> Sibelius is one of my favorites, but I do not really "prefer" him to Beethoven or Bach, two composers I admire immensely. I can enjoy them all, and I do. I do prefer him to Mozart, though, no doubt. But that's just me, isn't it?


No that is NOT just you, and as I explained, the anger against him nowadays is fuelled by the enormous popularity he has. Look at this forum, I was absolutely astounded when I realised that Sibelius was so popular. Perhaps he is 'modern'. In the times so to speak. And I am absolutely sure that Leibowitz hatred of him had to do with his composition, it was no structure at all or something like that. A friend of mine read the whole book but goodness that was 25 years ago we talked about it...Not that Leibowitz is an expert for all times but to publish a book with that name, then you have to hate. If I can remember rightly the book is never translated but I can't say this for sure.


----------



## Mirror Image

wolf said:


> Look at this forum, I was absolutely astounded when I realised that Sibelius was so popular..


You were astounded that people like a great composer's music?


----------



## Tapkaara

As far as I know, the Leibowitz text is not a full book, but more like a pamphlet.

I think Sibelius is not all that popular in here. At least he certainly has his detractors. But I doubt that, should one of our fellow members not like him, it's because he's popular...!


----------



## Mirror Image

wolf said:


> We must clear up some things here, I see that you took my 'his thematic works stink' for MY views and that's not so strange when I read it again, BUT I meant that this was THEIR critic against him, I have read so much about this, although it's some years ago. MY view is that I find it's strange that anyone can prefer him to the great ones - Bach, Mzt, Beethoven etc (Haydn is not my cup really) AND that Mahler is much better. That he is so popular that it's disgusting I thought you could say as a joke. But if you look at my post I posed a question, why is it that critics etc, and I answered that, they were angry because he is SO popular, and then I tried to explain why, but should have made that more obvius.
> 
> If I truly hated him I would not own a lot of his records/CDs! As for hiding, that wasnt really a joke, it just IS like that. They are intelligent but you just can't like Sibelius. One or two CDs but 25 like I have? My god! They would never speak to me again.
> 
> Airad I am afraid that I cannot teach you to like Mozart though. In my view you can't learn to like something. If you like it it's because you like it...


I'm not sure if you hate him or like him, Wolf. There seems to be some kind of communication block here or something.

Who cares if your friends don't like Sibelius? If they can't respect the fact that you like Sibelius, or don't (?), then that's their problem. You should never be ashamed of what you like.

I will tell you this from what I've read so far, Wolf, it seems like you place too much importance on what your friends think and what has been written, instead of going with your own emotions and how YOU feel about something.

I don't ever listen to what the critics say, because they don't know anything about the music nor do they seem to really care. If you don't like something make sure it's because of personal reasons not because of what somebody has written.


----------



## wolf

Mirror Image said:


> ...Who cares if your friends don't like Sibelius? If they can't respect the fact that you like Sibelius, or don't (?), then that's their problem. You should never be ashamed of what you like.
> 
> I will tell you this from what I've read so far, Wolf, it seems like you place too much importance on what your friends think and what has been written, instead of going with your own emotions and how YOU feel about something.
> 
> I don't ever listen to what the critics say, because they don't know anything about the music nor do they seem to really care. If you don't like something make sure it's because of personal reasons not because of what somebody has written.


Who cares? I care, since I have to keep quiet of it! Anyway who cares about anything anyone say here if it comes to that, this is only a forum and to be honest I'd never dare to say I write in this one either. You are writing 1000s of letters, what of it if I mention that my 'snob' friends would shrug me off, it was a way to explain how disliked Sibelius is by the cognocente! I wouldn't dream of irritating them, there are so few left that understand classical music that I can't afford to lose them actually. If I didn't lose them, at least they would never listen anymore to me in our discussions.

Don't the critics know anything? Lol, some of them do not, but I'd say that most of'em are among the few who do...

I have stated everywhere on this forum that I only go by what I feel. That is why I have my Sibelius CDs still. They aren't crap. BUT why should I mention this to ppl, I mean if one of my friends would say that he liked Elvis, I wouldn't strike him in the face, but certainly say - with sorrow in my voice - 'you know guys and gals, X has lost the ability to understand music´- Perhaps you don't like it but that it's the things we say when we turn our backs at you. And thats why I'd never mention TC to them....Why aren't there any real classical listeners here - well a VERY few - because they would be attacked immediately and also because...Oh I give a f***...


----------



## Mirror Image

wolf said:


> Who cares? I care, since I have to keep quiet of it! Anyway who cares about anything anyone say here if it comes to that, this is only a forum and to be honest I'd never dare to say I write in this one either. You are writing 1000s of letters, what of it if I mention that my 'snob' friends would shrug me off, it was a way to explain how disliked Sibelius is by the cognocente! I wouldn't dream of irritating them, there are so few left that understand classical music that I can't afford to lose them actually. If I didn't lose them, at least they would never listen anymore to me in our discussions.
> 
> Don't the critics know anything? Lol, some of them do not, but I'd say that most of'em are among the few who do...
> 
> I have stated everywhere on this forum that I only go by what I feel. That is why I have my Sibelius CDs still. They aren't crap. BUT why should I mention this to ppl, I mean if one of my friends would say that he liked Elvis, I wouldn't strike him in the face, but certainly say - with sorrow in my voice - 'you know guys and gals, X has lost the ability to understand music´- Perhaps you don't like it but that it's the things we say when we turn our backs at you. And thats why I'd never mention TC to them....Why aren't there any real classical listeners here - well a VERY few - because they would be attacked immediately and also because...Oh I give a f***...


What I'm about to say is very simple: what in the world are you even talking about? You make absolutely no sense at all.


----------



## wolf

Tapkaara said:


> As far as I know, the Leibowitz text is not a full book, but more like a pamphlet.
> 
> I think Sibelius is not all that popular in here. At least he certainly has his detractors. But I doubt that, should one of our fellow members not like him, it's because he's popular...!


HE IS! Look at all the lists...not your members but the critics weren't pleased about his popularity. My goodness how some ppl barked at him, it was unbelievable. As for Leibowitz book, it certainly must have been thin if my friend went through it! He was no better than me at french although he became better.


----------



## wolf

Mirror Image said:


> What I'm about to say is very simple: what in the world are you even talking about? You make absolutely no sense at all.


No that is not what you said. You were EVER so anxious to hear my answer but changed that sentence to this one above instead. So you will get this answer instead: Of course I do not make any sense to you, if I would I'd be really worried.


----------



## Mirror Image

wolf said:


> No that is not what you said. You were EVER so anxious to hear my answer but changed that sentence to this one above instead. So you will get this answer instead: Of course I do not make any sense to you, if I would I'd be really worried.


That made no sense either. Where are you from anyway? Mars? The bottom of the ocean?


----------



## Sid James

I don't think that it is really a problem that Sibelius did not respond to atonalism. What was the problem, as we discussed above with Tapkaara, is that he stopped composing altogether. Bach compared him to Vaughan Williams, although I know he was making a joke/putdown, the fact is that Vaughan Williams went on composing to the very end. Listen to his last two symphonies & you get an idea how far he was willing to push the envelope (eg. variations without a theme in the 8th's first movement).

My main criticism of Sibelius has nothing to do with what Adorno or Liebowitz said. I don't really care what they said, it was so long ago, that today it's basically irrelevant. The issue with Sibelius is that after some brilliant pieces early-mid career - eg. _Lemminkainen Suite, Violin Concerto, Symphony No. 4_ - he seemed to have nothing new to say, really. Although late works like the _Symphony No. 7_ or _Tapiola_ are brilliant pieces, they just stay within the same sphere as the early works (which I find to be better, as they have more of a white hot intensity).

I do think that it's a pity how Sibelius didn't give us any new insights, unlike Mahler. I also find the output of the others of the 1860's generation, such as Richard Strauss, Janacek or Debussy more varied & interesting. I kind of sense a certain inflexibity in Sibelius which, as some have said, can be a positive thing, staying true to your ideals. But didn't the other composers do this, as well as change and be more flexible? & what Sibelius did was unrelenting, churning out these intense pieces one after the other. I think he set a very high standard for himself; this had something to do with his method of composing, which he was not willing to change as he aged. He's the complete opposite of centenarian Elliot Carter, who wasn't so prolific when young, but for him the past few decades have bought an Indian summer of composing. Same could be said of late Janacek. These guys, the older they got, the better.


----------



## Tapkaara

Andre, what _new insights_ did Mahler provide?


----------



## wolf

Mirror Image said:


> That made no sense either. Where are you from anyway? Mars? The bottom of the ocean?


You have to blame yourself as you are so quarrelsome, what was hard to understand? You said in your post 'Please wolf explain what you mean before I go home' or something like that. BUT you changed it while I wrote my answer to tapkaara, so it sounded more unfriendly and icecold. As for ppl here undertanding classical music, no that is not so many actually and you are not one of'em.


----------



## wolf

Andre said:


> ...My main criticism of Sibelius has nothing to do with what Adorno or Liebowitz said. I don't really care what they said, it was so long ago, that today it's basically irrelevant. The issue with Sibelius is that after some brilliant pieces early-mid career - eg. _Lemminkainen Suite, Violin Concerto, Symphony No. 4_ - he seemed to have nothing new to say, really. Although late works like the _Symphony No. 7_ or _Tapiola_ are brilliant pieces, they just stay within the same sphere as the early works (which I find to be better, as they have more of a white hot intensity).
> 
> I do think that it's a pity how Sibelius didn't give us any new insights, unlike Mahler. I also find the output of the others of the 1860's generation, such as Richard Strauss, Janacek or Debussy more varied & interesting...


I don't really care about Adorno either, nor Leibowitz, but my explanation was that it wasn't ONLY the serialism etc but his alleged 'heavyhandedness'. But although your critizism isn't totally wrong, there is no reason to put him above Mahler because of that. When you are listening, you are listening, even if Mozart had never been better than at K449, he would still be gorgeous. I mean how bored can you get? You aren't listening to music because you want a certain composer to 'advance'. Mahlers symphonie 2,3 and 4 are no less than 7. If you want to feel that they 'bettered' themselves, you can always go to someone else. I like Mahler better - although talking of the same day was a bit crude - but I never think of any 'achievements' when listeniing.


----------



## bdelykleon

Hm, I never quite understood the reasons for this Sibelius cult. Perhaps his music is just too cold for a Brazilian to understand, it melts before arriving here. Some years ago I bought a CD with Rattle conducting Sibelius and Nielsen, this one I already knew from his piano sonata (great piece). I love Nielsen (I think it was Sinfonia espansiva) and found the Sibelius, a few months later, I found a great bargain with all his symphonies and tone poems with the same Rattle. I never got the music, found it too much rhapsodic, too slow, too monochromatic, and never went back to it. Since I arrived in this forum and found the excitement of its members, I decided to give Sibelius a go. I can't like it. I'm even listening now to his most "acessible" symphony, but for me it is just empty. Void of any meaning, even musical.

I was, as so much people are, a Mahler fan in my teens, I bought with my sparse earnings all his symphonies and songs, and had almost all of then in my head. And then I grew up, his overblown sentimentality doen't appeal anymore to me. Not that I don't like Mahler, I still listen quite frequently to most of his symphonies, and the Song of Earth is one of my favorites, but Mahler just doesn't excites me anymore. To me he is so much ahead of Sibelius, his works have a germanic coherence totally lacking in Sibelius.

So I would vote for Mahler, but that's not a great duo for me.

And as for the guy who said about the second half in 20th century music, Messiaen's Turangalîla is as good as a symphony as anything I heard: exciting, great melodies, incredible orchestration (and that Ondes Martenot). At least to me some miles ahead of everything Sibelius did and and most of what Mahler did.


----------



## Sid James

Tapkaara said:


> Andre, what _new insights_ did Mahler provide?


Well I've posted about this above already extensively. Notably on Mahler's new way of composing for large orchestra, in particular, and combining it as well with soloists and chorus. Sure, there were precedents such as what Beethoven, Berlioz, Mendelssohn & Liszt had done, but since then, no other composer had looked at the symphony in this way until Mahler.

I'm certainly not rubbishing Sibelius. I just think that Mahler's handling of the symphonic form opened it up to newer possibilities, rather than restricting it. Of course, the pendulum swings back & forth, even within a single composer's career. Look at Penderecki, who has composed big Mahlerian symphonies as well as single movement Sibelian ones. It just depends on what approach you as a listener value more, & for me, it has to be Mahler. Although I do think that the _Lemminkainen Suite _is one of the greatest pieces ever written. I just don't have a preference for his restrictive & rather gloomy symphonies like the 4th & 7th, although they are probably what he did best.


----------



## Tapkaara

bdelykleon said:


> Hm, I never quite understood the reasons for this Sibelius cult. Perhaps his music is just too cold for a Brazilian to understand, it melts before arriving here. Some years ago I bought a CD with Rattle conducting Sibelius and Nielsen, this one I already knew from his piano sonata (great piece). I love Nielsen (I think it was Sinfonia espansiva) and found the Sibelius, a few months later, I found a great bargain with all his symphonies and tone poems with the same Rattle. I never got the music, found it too much rhapsodic, too slow, too monochromatic, and never went back to it. Since I arrived in this forum and found the excitement of its members, I decided to give Sibelius a go. I can't like it. I'm even listening now to his most "acessible" symphony, but for me it is just empty. Void of any meaning, even musical.
> 
> I was, as so much people are, a Mahler fan in my teens, I bought with my sparse earnings all his symphonies and songs, and had almost all of then in my head. And then I grew up, his overblown sentimentality doen't appeal anymore to me. Not that I don't like Mahler, I still listen quite frequently to most of his symphonies, and the Song of Earth is one of my favorites, but Mahler just doesn't excites me anymore. To me he is so much ahead of Sibelius, his works have a germanic coherence totally lacking in Sibelius.
> 
> So I would vote for Mahler, but that's not a great duo for me.
> 
> And as for the guy who said about the second half in 20th century music, Messiaen's Turangalîla is as good as a symphony as anything I heard: exciting, great melodies, incredible orchestration (and that Ondes Martenot). At least to me some miles ahead of everything Sibelius did and and most of what Mahler did.


Messiaen miles ahead of Sibelius? No way. The Turangalila Symphony is self-indulgent, formless musical nonsense. But that's just my opinion. 

Sibelius lacks Germanic coherence? What exactly is that? Whatever it is, Turangalila most certainly lacks it, but you like this work. So what does "Germanic coherence" really matter, then?

Anyhow, I know Sibelius is a little bit difficult for some people, so I can only respect your comments on the matter. Perhaps Sibelius is a little "cold" and those seeking the "warmth" and outgoing nature of other composers may be turned of to Sibelius who can be, admittedly, a little on the grim side at times.


----------



## Tapkaara

Andre said:


> Well I've posted about this above already extensively. Notably on Mahler's new way of composing for large orchestra, in particular, and combining it as well with soloists and chorus. Sure, there were precedents such as what Beethoven, Berlioz, Mendelssohn & Liszt had done, but since then, no other composer had looked at the symphony in this way until Mahler.
> 
> I'm certainly not rubbishing Sibelius. I just think that Mahler's handling of the symphonic form opened it up to newer possibilities, rather than restricting it. Of course, the pendulum swings back & forth, even within a single composer's career. Look at Penderecki, who has composed big Mahlerian symphonies as well as single movement Sibelian ones. It just depends on what approach you as a listener value more, & for me, it has to be Mahler. Although I do think that the _Lemminkainen Suite _is one of the greatest pieces ever written. I just don't have a preference for his restrictive & rather gloomy symphonies like the 4th & 7th, although they are probably what he did best.


I don't think big ochestras and voices are all that earth-shattering as far as symphonies go, and you agree by mentioning Beethoven and the like. I think the internal/structural complexity in Sibelius is more innovative than Mahler's large orchetras.


----------



## Sid James

I'd have to agree with *bdelykleon* in saying that I'm neither a big fan of either Mahler or Sibelius. However, I think that Mahler made more of an impact on the next generation of composers, which I have already discussed extensively earlier.


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> I don't think that it is really a problem that Sibelius did not respond to atonalism. What was the problem, as we discussed above with Tapkaara, is that he stopped composing altogether. Bach compared him to Vaughan Williams, although I know he was making a joke/putdown, the fact is that Vaughan Williams went on composing to the very end. Listen to his last two symphonies & you get an idea how far he was willing to push the envelope (eg. variations without a theme in the 8th's first movement).
> 
> My main criticism of Sibelius has nothing to do with what Adorno or Liebowitz said. I don't really care what they said, it was so long ago, that today it's basically irrelevant. The issue with Sibelius is that after some brilliant pieces early-mid career - eg. _Lemminkainen Suite, Violin Concerto, Symphony No. 4_ - he seemed to have nothing new to say, really. Although late works like the _Symphony No. 7_ or _Tapiola_ are brilliant pieces, they just stay within the same sphere as the early works (which I find to be better, as they have more of a white hot intensity).
> 
> I do think that it's a pity how Sibelius didn't give us any new insights, unlike Mahler. I also find the output of the others of the 1860's generation, such as Richard Strauss, Janacek or Debussy more varied & interesting. I kind of sense a certain inflexibity in Sibelius which, as some have said, can be a positive thing, staying true to your ideals. But didn't the other composers do this, as well as change and be more flexible? & what Sibelius did was unrelenting, churning out these intense pieces one after the other. I think he set a very high standard for himself; this had something to do with his method of composing, which he was not willing to change as he aged. He's the complete opposite of centenarian Elliot Carter, who wasn't so prolific when young, but for him the past few decades have bought an Indian summer of composing. Same could be said of late Janacek. These guys, the older they got, the better.


All of what you just said Andre is purely subjective and hypothetical. So what if Sibelius didn't offer any new insights? Is this the criteria you use to evaluate all composers? Whether they pushed the boundaries of experimentation or not? This is totally irrelevant I think. Charles Stanford composed amazing music, but there was nothing innovative about it or Earth-shattering, but this doesn't make it bad music. Stanford is an amazing composer whether he broke new ground or not.

I'm sorry my friend, but I think you're way off the mark here. Also, what does change and being flexible have to do with good music? Absolutely nothing, it's either good or it's not.

Have you heard all of Sibelius' tone poems, Andre? Have you heard his choral works? Have you heard anything besides the same old pieces you continue to mention over and over again?

I mean it's one thing to criticize a composer having heard their a lot of their work, but I seriously doubt you've heard as much as Tapkaara or I have heard.

You're a fan of composers like Berg, Webern, etc. Does their music touch you? Does it move you emotionally?


----------



## Air

bdelykleon said:


> Hm, I never quite understood the reasons for this Sibelius cult. Perhaps his music is just too cold for a Brazilian to understand, it melts before arriving here. Some years ago I bought a CD with Rattle conducting Sibelius and Nielsen, this one I already knew from his piano sonata (great piece). I love Nielsen (I think it was Sinfonia espansiva) and found the Sibelius, a few months later, I found a great bargain with all his symphonies and tone poems with the same Rattle. I never got the music, found it too much rhapsodic, too slow, too monochromatic, and never went back to it. Since I arrived in this forum and found the excitement of its members, I decided to give Sibelius a go. I can't like it. I'm even listening now to his most "acessible" symphony, but for me it is just empty. Void of any meaning, even musical.
> 
> I was, as so much people are, a Mahler fan in my teens, I bought with my sparse earnings all his symphonies and songs, and had almost all of then in my head. And then I grew up, his overblown sentimentality doen't appeal anymore to me. Not that I don't like Mahler, I still listen quite frequently to most of his symphonies, and the Song of Earth is one of my favorites, but Mahler just doesn't excites me anymore. To me he is so much ahead of Sibelius, his works have a germanic coherence totally lacking in Sibelius.
> 
> So I would vote for Mahler, but that's not a great duo for me.
> 
> And as for the guy who said about the second half in 20th century music, Messiaen's Turangalîla is as good as a symphony as anything I heard: exciting, great melodies, incredible orchestration (and that Ondes Martenot). At least to me some miles ahead of everything Sibelius did and and most of what Mahler did.


You misunderstand me. Messiaen is a great composer and the Turangalila Symphonie is great and all though I personally can't agree he's "miles ahead of everything Sibelius did and most of what Mahler did". What I was trying to say is that there are composers like Messaien who are the originators of the craft and love and know what they write and others who copy the art merely to "compose the new, cool stuff". Just read the biography of any "atonal" composer and you'll find out they made a "conversion" some time in their life. I won't name any of these but there are enough of them today...


----------



## Mirror Image

bdelykleon said:


> And as for the guy who said about the second half in 20th century music, Messiaen's Turangalîla is as good as a symphony as anything I heard: exciting, great melodies, incredible orchestration (and that Ondes Martenot). At least to me some miles ahead of everything Sibelius did and and most of what Mahler did.


It amazes me that you view music as some kind of competition. If you don't view it this way, then maybe you wouldn't mind explaining the comment that you wrote above. I'm awaiting your answers.


----------



## Tapkaara

I still think the "but Sibelius didn't/couldn't compose anything the last 30 years of his life" thing is a bizarre and unfair critique of a composer who created a substatial catalog over works spanning about 4 decades. Since when is it requisite for all great composers to write till the very end of their lives? Shouldn't it be quality over quantity, anyway? After all, that applies to Mahler.


----------



## Mirror Image

Tapkaara said:


> I still think the "but Sibelius didn't/couldn't compose anything the last 30 years of his life" thing is a bizarre and unfair critique of a composer who wrote hundreds of works in his lifetime. Since when is it requisite for all great composers to write till the very end of their lives? Shouldn't it be quality over quantity, anyway? After all, that applies to Mahler.


EXACTLY THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING!!!!

All caps aside, the music is what's being evaluated, not what he should've, could've, would've done. That's an irrelevant argument Andre is making and quite frankly a peculiar one at that.


----------



## Tapkaara

Well, it's an arguement that I've seen others besides Andre make. Not singling him out, but I really would like to know what this is supposed to prove?

What it does NOT prove is that Sibelius simply ran out of ideas. I understand how it could look like that on the surface, but any substatial scholarship into the man's life proves otherwise.

He became so self-critical that he would compose works then not release them and/or destroy them. He did write an 8th symphony that he destroyed in the 1940s. Many believe he wanted to destroy Tapiola, but only got around to thinking it should be destroyed after it was already published.

Bottom line: Artists like Sibelius do not simply run out of ideas. His depression, alcoholism and extreme self-criticism got in the way. Yes, this is a character flaw, but THIS is what prevented the further production of major works, not lack of artistic steam.


----------



## Mirror Image

Tapkaara said:


> Well, it's an arguement that I've seen others besides Andre make. Not singling him out, but I really would like to know what this is supposed to prove?
> 
> What it does NOT prove is that Sibelius simply ran out of ideas. I understand how it could look like that on the surface, but any substatial scholarship into the man's life proves otherwise.
> 
> He became so self-critical that he would compose works then not release them and/or destroy them. He did write an 8th symphony that he destroyed in the 1940s. Many believe he wanted to destroy Tapiola, but only got around to thinking it should be destroyed after it was already published.
> 
> Bottom line: Artists like Sibelius do not simply run out of ideas. His depression, alcoholism and extreme self-criticism got in the way. Yes, this is a character flaw, but THIS is what prevented the further production of major works, not lack of artistic steam.


Bravo! 

Well put, Tapkaara. I couldn't have said it any better.


----------



## Sid James

Mirror Image said:


> All of what you just said Andre is purely subjective and hypothetical. So what if Sibelius didn't offer any new insights? Is this the criteria you use to evaluate all composers? Whether they pushed the boundaries of experimentation or not?


Of course what I said is "subjective & hypothetical" as you say. But so is the whole nature/topic of this thread!

As for whether music has to be challenging or ground-breaking to be enjoyed, of course not. But I myself am somewhat tired of some of the cliches, and am interested in music that is innovative as such. But that's just my preference.

As for how much I've heard of Sibelius, I've heard all of his symphonies on radio, as I have most of Mahler's, so I think that qualifies me to share my comments on this thread (even though I don't own much music by them). I've also heard most of the tone-poems & the Violin Concerto, but they are somewhat outside the more restricted scope of this thread: comparing the Mahler & Sibelius symphonies. So I haven't heard as much as you or Tapkaara, but share in common with those posters above who listen to classical music, but don't count these two as their favourite composers.


----------



## Tapkaara

It seems there are several in this thread that think Mahler and Sibelius are both feeble composers, but I don't think that's the path I intended for this thread to go down. Basically, this thread is about which composer's philosophy towards the writing of a symphony is more "true," and ultimately, who was the better symphonist. Perhaps someone who likes neither composer, or is not sufficiently well acquainted with either composer's symphonic output is not really in line to comment in this thread.


----------



## Bach

Sibelius has always reminded me of Vaughan-Williams (not Mahler) - and I think he is a composer of the same stature and of comparable influence. 

Mahler is of an older and grander tradition and his acute ear and musicality as a conductor is testament to this intense training. 

Neither Sibelius or Vaughan-Williams quote the folk songs of their respective countries in their symphonies, but both are overwhelmed by a sense of national colour and identity.


----------



## Tapkaara

Bach said:


> Sibelius has always reminded me of Vaughan-Williams (not Mahler) - and I think he is a composer of the same stature and of comparable influence.
> 
> Mahler is of an older and grander tradition and his acute ear and musicality as a conductor is testament to this intense training.
> 
> Neither Sibelius or Vaughan-Williams quote the folk songs of their respective countries in their symphonies, but both are overwhelmed by a sense of national colour and identity.


I agree that Mahler is part of an "older and grander" tradition, In other words, his music is more traditional and thus, perhaps, less original. Sibelius's sound is very unique to the composer. While Sibelius may have more in common with RVW as opposed to Mahler, I think it's silly to say the Sibelius and RVW are clones of each other somehow. They sound very different.

Sibelius "overwhelmed" with national color and identity? In the early part of his career, perhaps. But after the 2nd Symphony and Violin Concerto, his his music took a turn away from "overwhelming nationalism" towards overwhelming Sibelianism. I mean, if you are trying to compare him to what I call "picture postcard" composers like Grieg or Dvroak, I'd like to know what is nationalistically "Finnish" in the 5th Symphony, lets say? Where are the folk tunes or melodies based on folk tunes? Or cyou even point anything like this out in Pohjola's Daughter, a work based on the Kalevala? It's based of folk poetry, so there has to be something MUSICALLY there that is Finnish. Or is it just in the program? Where are the quaint regional effects?

I'm not sure where you are getting the "national color," Bach. I'm curious what you know about Finnish folk music and where you think it seeps into Sibelius's oeuvre. And I'd like to know how you think Sibelius's sense of "national color" compares to the use of landlers and cow bells in a Mahler symphony?


----------



## Mirror Image

Bach said:


> Sibelius has always reminded me of Vaughan-Williams (not Mahler) - and I think he is a composer of the same stature and of comparable influence.


Yet another misinformed statement. Sibelius and RVW are worlds apart from each other. Quite an absurd comment to make I think.

Clearly, Bach knows nothing about either composer to make such a silly accusation as this.


----------



## Bach

Tapkaara said:


> I agree that Mahler is part of an "older and grander" tradition, In other words, his music is more traditional and thus, perhaps, less original. Sibelius's sound is very unique to the composer. While Sibelius may have more in common with RVW as opposed to Mahler, I think it's silly to say the Sibelius and RVW are clones of each other somehow. They sound very different.
> 
> Sibelius "overwhelmed" with national color and identity? In the early part of his career, perhaps. But after the 2nd Symphony and Violin Concerto, his his music took a turn away from "overwhelming nationalism" towards overwhelming Sibelianism. I mean, if you are trying to compare him to what I call "picture postcard" composers like Grieg or Dvroak, I'd like to know what is nationalistically "Finnish" in the 5th Symphony, lets say? Where are the folk tunes or melodies based on folk tunes? Or cyou even point anything like this out in Pohjola's Daughter, a work based on the Kalevala? It's based of folk poetry, so there has to be something MUSICALLY there that is Finnish. Or is it just in the program? Where are the quaint regional effects?
> 
> I'm not sure where you are getting the "national color," Bach. I'm curious what you know about Finnish folk music and where you think it seeps into Sibelius's oeuvre. And I'd like to know how you think Sibelius's sense of "national color" compares to the use of landlers and cow bells in a Mahler symphony?


Hardly clones, Tappy - but they shared a nationalistic aesthetic - wrote similar kind of works - symphonies, songs, concerti etc. (RVW can hardly be said to be English in his arctic symphony.. )

To be thoroughly unscientific - Sibelius's use of icy strings in, say, the 6th symphony are descriptive (in my imagination) of Finnish snowfall - this constitutes to what I was calling 'national colour'. (I'm certain there are many other examples - many would be orchestrational - which I'm not familiar with)

It's subjective, I know, but then RVWs use of warm strings, emotional stability and folk-song like melodic contours are ever evocative of the English spirit without any specific quotations.

I think Mahler was very influenced by his cultural surroundings (I hear not only Austrian and German influence but Jewish and Bohemian too) - I think he avoids classification as a nationalist due to his far more personal and introspective form of expression (and perhaps his embracing of several cultures). Both Sibelius and RVW are public property in their respective countries - you get the impression they wrote for the country and not for themselves. (Again, horribly unscientific and easily debatable)


----------



## Mirror Image

Bach said:


> Mahler is of an older and grander tradition and his acute ear and musicality as a conductor is testament to this intense training.


While I don't disagree that Mahler had tremendous musical ability in all aspects from composing to conducting, I find your opinion rather interesting considering that you've shown nothing but pure and utter dislike for his music.


----------



## Tapkaara

Well Bach, if you think Sibelius wrote for his country more than for himself and his own self-expression, I can tell you that you are wrong, at least to some extent. I don't doubt Sibelius's beginnings as a nationalist composer, but not long after the turn of the last century, while his love for Finland did not waver, he, like Mahler, took a very personal approach to the symphony and, really, his 7 symphonies have NOTHING to do with Finnish nationalism. I encourage you to read more about Sibelius, and any text with prove this.

But, as subjective as music is, I suppose if you cannot tear your mind away from snowmen and icebergs when you hear Sibelius, then there is nothing I can say or do to promt you to like at his output in a different light. But I encourage you to try!


----------



## Bach

Mirror Image said:


> While I don't disagree that Mahler had tremendous musical ability in all aspects from composing to conducting, I find your opinion rather interesting considering that you've shown nothing but pure and utter dislike for his music.


I'm sure I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Mahler has beautiful moments and tedious half hours. I like his harmonic language and melodic construction but the overall symphonic structure is too organic and meandering to retain my musical interest at a stretch. I think the same can be said of Sibelius - although I enjoy his tone poems and songs.

In general, I don't like the 20th century symphony - I think the symphony is very much a 19th century form and when it lost its rigidity (post Brahms - in fact, Bruckner was largely responsible for this loss) it lost my interest.

I certainly don't think 20th century symphonists are rubbish (and this is where it comes down to personal taste) and I have the upmost respect for those who do like them. I'm just not among you.


----------



## Mirror Image

Bach said:


> I'm sure I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Mahler has beautiful moments and tedious half hours. I like his harmonic language and melodic construction but the overall symphonic structure is too organic and meandering to retain my musical interest at a stretch. I think the same can be said of Sibelius - although I enjoy his tone poems and songs.
> 
> In general, I don't like the 20th century symphony - I think the symphony is very much a 19th century form and when it lost its rigidity (post Brahms - in fact, Bruckner was largely responsible for this loss) it lost my interest.
> 
> I certainly don't think 20th century symphonists are rubbish (and this is where it comes down to personal taste) and I have the upmost respect for those who do like them. I'm just not among you.


That's a fair statement, but I have one question. How does a person who loves Wagner as much as you, do whose operas are notorious for their long-length and over-the-top emotional excess, say some of the things you said about Mahler like he's overblown, over-sentimental, and way too emotional when you love Wagner, so much whose very operas were criticized for the same thing?

Please explain this fascinating logic for me.


----------



## Tapkaara

This is a perfect example of subjectivity in music.

Of course, Mahler and Wagner are different composers. BUT...they are very SIMILAR. Everything you said, Mirror: big orchestral sounds, long-winded, and highly emotional. To say the two did not have these in common is borderline criminal.

Why Bach can stand all of the above from one composer and not the other is a litle odd I will admit, but then again, it comes down to Wagner's packaging of a certain sound vs. Mahler's. Something in Wagner appeals to Bach, but not in Mahler. It's just personal tatse, somehow.

Bach mentioned earlier about Mahler's ''masturbatory" ego-centric works or something to that effect. This doesn't apply to Wagner, who said he wanted his opera's to be "religious experiences" for his audiences? No one with a ego could have said anything like that, right?!


----------



## Bach

I don't really see how Wagner and Mahler are all that similar.. yes, Mahler was in awe of Wagner - hence the massive influence, but Wagner wrote OPERA and Mahler wrote SYMPHONIES. If Wagner had lived 10 years longer and gotten 'round to writing his instrumental music, I probably wouldn't like his symphonies much either.. 

Wagner is more succinct and coherent with his use of motif - not to mention how absurdly original he was (Mahler being a cheap imitation) - and I love the stories and sublime 'continuous melody' vocal parts that Mahler lacks.


----------



## Lisztfreak

Bach said:


> I don't really see how Wagner and Mahler are all that similar.. yes, Mahler was in awe of Wagner - hence the massive influence, but Wagner wrote OPERA and Mahler wrote SYMPHONIES. If Wagner had lived 10 years longer and gotten 'round to writing his instrumental music, I probably wouldn't like his symphonies much either..


Wagner did write a symphony.


----------



## Yosser

*Influence*



Tapkaara said:


> In their famous exchange, Sibelius said: " I admire the symphony's style and severity of form, as well as the profound logic creating an inner connection among all of the motives," whereas Mahler said: "The symphony is like the world; it must embrace everything." Who is right here? Both? Neither?


I understand this 'exchange' was recounted by Sibelius, but I'm not aware of how Mahler reported on this meeting (anyone know?). It's hard to take issue with Sibelius' statement. which obviously is not the sum total of what he felt about the symphony. Mahler's statement sounds a tad bloated, and one has to wonder whether this is what he actually said (even though he did indeed appear in his symphonies to 'try to embrace everything').

That both composers wrote fine symphonies is not contested. Of course, like anyone else I have a personal view which has as much to do with who I am as with the music.

One thing I would say, though, is that whereas Mahler's influence on later composers is widely quoted, Sibelius is sometimes viewed more as a one-off, a cul-de-sac. I think this is a shame. IMHO Sibelius made contributions to symphonic form that were as least as important as Mahler's. For example, as Beethoven made masterly use of the 'reduction' of a theme as a movement progressed, so Sibelius mastered the reverse process, beginning with the fragments and building up to his theme.

Shostakovich referred to influence by Mahler and clearly carried the symphony further than Mahler. Perhaps we are still waiting for a composer of symphonies to adequately build on Sibelius' innovations and take the next step.

Schoenberg thought of himself as a successor to Brahms, and Sibelius seems not to have referred to having a strong relationship with Brahms' symphonies. However, Sibelius' statement above could have been made by Brahms (if one were able to drag it out of him) and I've always wondered why musicologists downplay the rather obvious connection. In a very loose formulation, one might say Sibelius took innovations of Wagner and combined them in his symphonies with the rigorous structural integrity demanded of Brahms.

Not a bad basis for someone to pick up on.


----------



## Tapkaara

Great post, Yosser. And welcome to the conversation.

History shows that the conversation between Mahler and Sibelius did indeed take place, but it is always reported from the "Sibelius side." Perhaps Mahler died before someone could personally ask him about that conversation. But they did speak, and it was in German as Sibelius spoke the language nearly fluently. I do have the German version of what Mahler said to Sibelius lying around somewhere...I should find it.

I'm sure Sibelius has influenced many composers in ways we may not realize at a first glance. But I think Sibelius is so unique sounding that composers may be afraid to let too much influence shine through in their own works, lest they be criticized for imitation!

Sibelius was indeed influencd by Wagner during his early days and by Bruckner to some extent. Sibelius was not really touched by Brahms in anyway, however.


----------



## Mirror Image

Bach said:


> I don't really see how Wagner and Mahler are all that similar.. yes, Mahler was in awe of Wagner - hence the massive influence, but Wagner wrote OPERA and Mahler wrote SYMPHONIES. If Wagner had lived 10 years longer and gotten 'round to writing his instrumental music, I probably wouldn't like his symphonies much either..
> 
> Wagner is more succinct and coherent with his use of motif - not to mention how absurdly original he was (Mahler being a cheap imitation) - and I love the stories and sublime 'continuous melody' vocal parts that Mahler lacks.


It doesn't matter who wrote what, Bach. The point I was making is that you like Wagner who is one of the biggest over-the-top emotionally driven composers of all-time who wrote LONG, I mean REALLY LONG operas. The same thing applies to Mahler but only in symphony form.

I'm sorry, but you're so far off the mark here, it's just too funny. One contradictory statement after the other. Your logic still makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.


----------



## Bach

I like Wagner but not Mahler - how is that a contradiction? I'm sure there are many people who like Wagner but not Mahler..


----------



## Mirror Image

Bach said:


> I like Wagner but not Mahler - how is that a contradiction? I'm sure there are many people who like Wagner but not Mahler..


You're free to like whoever you want to Bach, but from this point forward you shouldn't make a comment to anyone about a composer being over-blown, over-emotional, etc., because you like Wagner who is the epitome of this description.


----------



## Bach

Yes, but he gets away with it because: A) he was the first to do it, B) because he is a supreme genius and C) because he is expressing a story and not himself so his emotions, although grand - never seem self-indulgent or whiney.


----------



## Yosser

Tapkaara said:


> Sibelius was indeed influenced by Wagner during his early days and by Bruckner to some extent. Sibelius was not really touched by Brahms in anyway, however.


I agree that Sibelius did not refer to Brahms much (if at all). The puzzle for me is in the music. In their symphonies, both composers shared three essentials: they tended to perfectionism (Brahms was for sure a perfectionist): they used material sparingly in a tightly woven structures; they used dense orchestration very effectively to create wonderfully dark colours.

Sibelius may or may not have been 'touched' by Brahms. In my mind the musical link is clear cf. Brahms 3 ; Sibelius 5, 7.

Of course, in the late 19th century it was fashionable to be of one school (supposedly Beethoven-Brahms-) or the other (Wagner/Liszt - Mahler-), not both. However, these 'schools' were largely an invention of Wagner's, who wrote rather nasty things about Brahms, essentially creating a controversy where there really was none. Brahms quite liked Wagner's music, actually, and he even contemplated showing up at Bayreuth. He backed out at the last minute merely because he feared his presence there would set off a further round of vitriolic attacks.

Possibly Sibelius' reticence about Brahms was influenced by the 'with me or against me' atmosphere created by Wagner, who, though he wrote great music, was not notorious for his generosity!


----------



## Tapkaara

The funny thing about Sibelius is that in his youth he was very open about his adiration for Wagner, but later in his life he attempted to distance himself from the great composerof operas.


----------



## Yosser

*Sibelius/Wagner*



Tapkaara said:


> The funny thing about Sibelius is that in his youth he was very open about his admiration for Wagner, but later in his life he attempted to distance himself from the great composer of operas.


Interesting. There is an allusion to this in his Wikipedia entry. Do you have a more reliable source for that? I am woefully ignorant of Sibelius' writings.

I find it odd that Sibelius says (apparently) that his inspirations devolve from Wagner and Brueckner, while his music says that Brahms was at least as important. Of course, he used Brueckner's technique of leaving one 'hanging', resolving only when the fragments coalesce -- the technique I referred to earlier of 'constructing' the theme before enunciating it. But otherwise I do not see much evidence of Brueckner, and certainly rather little of Wagner, who, as you note, was not a symphonist.

There is a very simple explanation why Sibelius made no mention of Brahms, but it would assume a subconscious insecurity. Brahms was after all the pre-eminent symphonist of the romantic era. It would be all too human if Sibelius felt he did not want to be measured against this standard. The same feeling plagued Brahms with regard to Beethoven, especially since Robert Schumann had publicly proclaimed him to be Beethoven's 'successor'. Imagine how that could weigh on one!

If Sibelius did feel this way, it is understandable. But his symphonies stand. One would no more measure them against Brahms' than one would Brahms' against Beethoven's. We are thrilled that they were written at all.

As a rider on the subject of 'giant footsteps behind', Mahler was (reportedly) so intimidated by Beethoven that he could not bring himself to write '9th Symphony' over a score. He called it instead 'Das Lied von der Erde'. Hard to believe that a composer/conductor as successful as Mahler would be insecure. But this one is documented. He was!


----------



## Mirror Image

Bach said:


> Yes, but he gets away with it because: A) he was the first to do it, B) because he is a supreme genius and C) because he is expressing a story and not himself so his emotions, although grand - never seem self-indulgent or whiney.


So what if Wagner did it first? Many people would disagree and say Beethoven put that kind of emotion into music first and influenced everybody else.

Anyway, all of this has nothing to do with the fact that what you've been saying all along about Wagner is the same thing you've accused Mahler of.

Just say you're wrong and be done with it.


----------



## Bach

you're wrong and be done with it.


----------



## Mirror Image

Bach said:


> you're wrong and be done with it.


Now you're mocking me? Oh this is funny.


----------



## Bach

It wasn't that funny, I don't need sympathy laughs.. 

Mahler and Wagner are different in their treatments of emotion. It's not so much the deep emotion in Mahler that I dislike, so much as the sprawling symphonic construction.


----------



## Bach

And although Wagner's music is grandiose in its emotional gestures, I wouldn't describe it as sentimental.


----------



## Mirror Image

Bach said:


> It wasn't that funny, I don't need sympathy laughs..
> 
> Mahler and Wagner are different in their treatments of emotion. It's not so much the deep emotion in Mahler that I dislike, so much as its personal nature.


Okay well there you go. They do portray totally different emotions, but they still are both bombastic, intense, over-the-top, and the compositions are very long in length.

While they are two different composers they share many common things in common. I just find it funny that all of this time you seem so hellbent on persecuting any composer that goes emotionally overboard.

So the bottomline is simple: you like what you like and you can't explain it, no matter how badly you talk about other composers who wear their emotions on their sleeves.

I think we're making some great progress here Bach. Your therapy session is over for today. That will be 90 pounds please...lol.


----------



## Bach

Wow, charging me in my own currency too, how can I resist - I'll wire it you immediately!


----------



## Mirror Image

Bach said:


> Wow, charging me in my own currency too, how can I resist - I'll wire it you immediately!


Well I could say give me $145, but you don't have $145 do you?


----------



## Bach

Well, currency on the internet is a bit of a spurious thing..


----------



## Mirror Image

Bach said:


> Well, currency on the internet is a bit of a spurious thing..


Well I also charge 1 pound for converting your currency over to American dollars.


----------



## Bach

That's a whole dollar forty-five! That's it! The deal's off, you scandalous *******! I'm skipping to Cuba!


----------



## Tapkaara

Yosser said:


> Interesting. There is an allusion to this in his Wikipedia entry. Do you have a more reliable source for that? I am woefully ignorant of Sibelius' writings.
> 
> I find it odd that Sibelius says (apparently) that his inspirations devolve from Wagner and Brueckner, while his music says that Brahms was at least as important. Of course, he used Brueckner's technique of leaving one 'hanging', resolving only when the fragments coalesce -- the technique I referred to earlier of 'constructing' the theme before enunciating it. But otherwise I do not see much evidence of Brueckner, and certainly rather little of Wagner, who, as you note, was not a symphonist.
> 
> There is a very simple explanation why Sibelius made no mention of Brahms, but it would assume a subconscious insecurity. Brahms was after all the pre-eminent symphonist of the romantic era. It would be all too human if Sibelius felt he did not want to be measured against this standard. The same feeling plagued Brahms with regard to Beethoven, especially since Robert Schumann had publicly proclaimed him to be Beethoven's 'successor'. Imagine how that could weigh on one!
> 
> If Sibelius did feel this way, it is understandable. But his symphonies stand. One would no more measure them against Brahms' than one would Brahms' against Beethoven's. We are thrilled that they were written at all.
> 
> As a rider on the subject of 'giant footsteps behind', Mahler was (reportedly) so intimidated by Beethoven that he could not bring himself to write '9th Symphony' over a score. He called it instead 'Das Lied von der Erde'. Hard to believe that a composer/conductor as successful as Mahler would be insecure. But this one is documented. He was!


I have read much on Sibelius and I can assure you this is the case. Sbelius attended Bayreuth early on and saw an opera (was it Parsifal?) and wrote back to his wife in Finland that the experience moved him like nothing else (I am paraphrasing). But later in his life, when asked about Wagner, Sibelius more or less denied ever having any affinity for him, which of course is not true at all.

I think the influence of Wagner probably best comes through in the Lemminkainen Legends. I suppose it should, because this music actually comes from an aborted opera 'The Building of the Boat" which was planned as an opera on Finnish mythology, in the vein of Wagner. The Swan was originally going to be the opera's overture. Sibelius abandoned the opera idea and took what he had and turned it into the suite of tone poems that it is today.

As for Bruckner, while Sibelius liked this composer, I think his actual influence of the Finnish composer was less. I think one of the most obvious Bruckner influences in Sibelius is the use of sforzando brass, and perhaps the use of pedals. There are moment's in Sibelius's Kullervo that are very Brucknerian with the grand, sustained brassy climaxes, and, to some extent, we hear this in the 1st Symphony, which was probably influenced by Tchaikovsky more than anything.

Sibelius also once said he felt his style of music was closet to Liszt's! This though has to do with Sibelius's concern for the tone poem, which was a genre Sibelius at one time felt he was closest to. This has to do with Liszt, being the "father" of the tone poem. But Sibelius said this very early in his career and I think that had to do more with Sibelius's love for the genre of the tone poem more than Liszt's compositions in that genre.


----------



## Mirror Image

Bach said:


> That's a whole dollar forty-five! That's it! The deal's off, you scandalous *******! I'm skipping to Cuba!


 I know, I'm so bad.


----------



## bdelykleon

Mahler has too many influences to just call him Wagnerian. He was also very fond of Brahms, and they were even friends for a time, and the formal aspect of his symphonies have more of Brahms then, say, Bruckner. Many of Mahlers most distinct procedures, like the folkish scherzo, have their origin in Brahms and even earlier from Beethoven, whence also came his expansion of the symphony. Mahler's lied is also not quite the Wagnerian Lied (c'est a dire, the Wesendonck) and sound, at least to me, more over-Schubertian than Wagnerian.

But I suspect most of what Bach's dislike comes not from influences, or musical style, but from Mahlers psyche. things like funeral marches, cheesy lyrics (Ewig, Ewig...), are not for everyone's taste.


----------



## Mirror Image

bdelykleon said:


> Mahler has too many influences to just call him Wagnerian. He was also very fond of Brahms, and they were even friends for a time, and the formal aspect of his symphonies have more of Brahms then, say, Bruckner. Many of Mahlers most distinct procedures, like the folkish scherzo, have their origin in Brahms and even earlier from Beethoven, whence also came his expansion of the symphony. Mahler's lied is also not quite the Wagnerian Lied (c'est a dire, the Wesendonck) and sound, at least to me, more over-Schubertian than Wagnerian.
> 
> But I suspect most of what Bach's dislike comes not from influences, or musical style, but from Mahlers psyche. things like funeral marches, cheesy lyrics (Ewig, Ewig...), are not for everyone's taste.


I'm aware of Mahler's influences. He still has a strong Wagnerian bend to his music regardless of what you say.


----------



## bdelykleon

I didn't say otherwise! But I really can't see any contradiction in someone liking Wagner and not so much Mahler. This is actually quite common. Wagner's overblown sentimentality comes from a specific setting (as a matter of fact, I really can't imagine Isolde singing "Entartet Geschlecht, unwert der Ahnen" in a tuneful Bizet aria) not from a guy desperately in need of psychiatric support.

I mean Mahler's Ninth symphony is one of the greatest things I've heard, but Mahler's fixation with death comes near spoling it.


----------



## Sid James

Tapkaara said:


> I agree that Mahler is part of an "older and grander" tradition, In other words, his music is more traditional and thus, perhaps, less original. Sibelius's sound is very unique to the composer. While Sibelius may have more in common with RVW as opposed to Mahler, I think it's silly to say the Sibelius and RVW are clones of each other somehow. They sound very different.


I'd disagree strongly that Mahler was less original. His use of large forces was at least a subliminal influence on later generations of composers who were doing very radical things, like Varese in _Ameriques_ which I've already discussed. There was only a small step from Mahler's use of cowbells to Varese's use of sirens, for example.

As for Sibelius, he seemed to be of some influence on British composers. Vaughan Williams dedicated one of his symphonies to Sibelius (I think the 4th?). I can strongly hear the influence of Sibelius in Walton's film music to _Hamlet_ (late 1940's). The rather Sibelian pared down monochromatic orchestration which Walton used in that score really suited the psychological atmosphere needed in that film. I think we can thank Sir Thomas Beecham for making Sibelius so popular in the UK during the early days.

So both had an influence. I'd return to some posters earlier comments that perhaps it's just a redundant thing to compare them, as they aimed to do different things with the symphony. Although they were of the same generation, they had very different lives and experiences. This is why it is perhaps unfair that I judged Sibelius earlier for his 30 year silence.


----------



## Tapkaara

Andre said:


> I'd disagree strongly that Mahler was less original. His use of large forces was at least a subliminal influence on later generations of composers who were doing very radical things, like Varese in _Ameriques_ which I've already discussed. There was only a small step from Mahler's use of cowbells to Varese's use of sirens, for example.
> 
> As for Sibelius, he seemed to be of some influence on British composers. Vaughan Williams dedicated one of his symphonies to Sibelius (I think the 4th?). I can strongly hear the influence of Sibelius in Walton's film music to _Hamlet_ (late 1940's). The rather Sibelian pared down monochromatic orchestration which Walton used in that score really suited the psychological atmosphere needed in that film. I think we can thank Sir Thomas Beecham for making Sibelius so popular in the UK during the early days.
> 
> So both had an influence. I'd return to some posters earlier comments that perhaps it's just a redundant thing to compare them, as they aimed to do different things with the symphony. Although they were of the same generation, they had very different lives and experiences. This is why it is perhaps unfair that I judged Sibelius earlier for his 30 year silence.


Sibelius did indeed influence British composers. And why not? His music was VERY popular in Britain.

RVW was especially fond of Sibelius. He once told Sibelius that he "lit a candle in the world of music that will never go out." And on Sibelius's 7th, RVW mentioned that Sibelius was the only composer around who could do something original with C major.

On Sibelius's birthday one year, none other that Winston Churchill sent the Finnish master cigars. Now THAT'S what I call British admiration!


----------



## tahnak

Tapkaara said:


> Two of the greatest symphonists of the 20th century...but who is greater?
> 
> As an admirer of both symphonists, my vote goes to Sibelius. While Sibelius's seven symphonies often lack a sort of "hysteria" and hyper-emotion that one encouters in Mahler, his works can still certainly elicit strong emotional responses. And he does this within fairly strict means, concentrating the musical rhetoric so every theme, phrase, motive and note seems to be concentrated with meaning.
> 
> I agree. Sibelius' symphonies , by no means Gothic or structurally Giants like Mahler carry concise juices from the heart and therefore weigh more ......
> But can we do without Mahler ? No. He carries the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and right from the opening chords of the 'Titan' to the climax of the Symphony of a Thousand, he shakes the pillars and opens the gates to the Land of Heaven that even God would not resist or deny.


----------



## Lisztfreak

Andre said:


> As for Sibelius, he seemed to be of some influence on British composers. Vaughan Williams dedicated one of his symphonies to Sibelius (I think the 4th?).


The 5th it was. And Sibelius was truly delighted with the work.

Also don't forget Arnold Bax. A lot of Sibelius in his music.


----------



## Tapkaara

tahnak said:


> Tapkaara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two of the greatest symphonists of the 20th century...but who is greater?
> 
> As an admirer of both symphonists, my vote goes to Sibelius. While Sibelius's seven symphonies often lack a sort of "hysteria" and hyper-emotion that one encouters in Mahler, his works can still certainly elicit strong emotional responses. And he does this within fairly strict means, concentrating the musical rhetoric so every theme, phrase, motive and note seems to be concentrated with meaning.
> 
> I agree. Sibelius' symphonies , by no means Gothic or structurally Giants like Mahler carry concise juices from the heart and therefore weigh more ......
> But can we do without Mahler ? No. He carries the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and right from the opening chords of the 'Titan' to the climax of the Symphony of a Thousand, he shakes the pillars and opens the gates to the Land of Heaven that even God would not resist or deny.
> 
> 
> 
> What a beautiful post from beginning to end.
Click to expand...


----------



## starry

Andre said:


> But if pressed, I think that Mahler was greater because he was more influential globally. He carried on the symphonic tradition, whilst Sibelius was simply doing his own thing, really (apart from the early influence of Tchaikovsky on him). You can see a thread going right back to Haydn, through Beethoven, Schubert, then Bruckner, Mahler and on to more modern composers like Shostakovich, Gorecki, Lutoslawski & Penderecki.


How do you measure influence? And what does influence matter anyway? After all influence can be good but it can also be _bad_, lol.

How didn't Sibelius carry on the symphonic tradition? Tchaikovsky was part of that tradition surely, that means Sibelius must have been. Surely Sibelius was influenced by Beethoven for example in his organic use of motifs.

I prefer Sibelius personally. I find his symphonies of a very consistent quality, I enjoy all of them. With Mahler I prefer the earlier ones like 1,2 and 4. So I liked how Sibelius developed more than how Mahler did. Bigger isn't always better and the tighter classical structure of Sibelius I like (which very much follows in the symphonic tradition).


----------



## Mirror Image

starry said:


> How do you measure influence? And what does influence matter anyway? After all influence can be good but it can also be _bad_, lol.
> 
> How didn't Sibelius carry on the symphonic tradition? Tchaikovsky was part of that tradition surely, that means Sibelius must have been. Surely Sibelius was influenced by Beethoven for example in his organic use of motifs.
> 
> I prefer Sibelius personally. I find his symphonies of a very consistent quality, I enjoy all of them. With Mahler I prefer the earlier ones like 1,2 and 4. So I liked how Sibelius developed more than how Mahler did. Bigger isn't always better and the tighter classical structure of Sibelius I like (which very much follows in the symphonic tradition).


Good post, Starry. You made some very good points.

I do want to say that I think Mahler wrote some of the most beautifully organic, emotional music ever produced. I don't think anyone, when talking about Mahler's greatness, discusses the size of his symphonies that's really an irrelevant argument that most of his critics seem to go after much of the time. The truth is Mahler was an outstanding composer and an honest one. I'm not saying that Sibelius isn't of course, but Mahler's outpouring of emotion somehow does more for me then Sibelius. I think it shows a vulnerability that I can't find in much of Sibelius' symphonies, although, Symphony No. 4 is one of my personal favorites. Now, Sibelius' tone poems, on the other hand, are a thing of beauty.

The question remains is this kind of heart on your sleeve composing style something you enjoy hearing? In the end, it all comes down to personal taste and I like both composers too much to have to choose.


----------



## starry

I probably do like 'heart on sleeve' composing at times, but maybe find it harder to take when it's a really big piece like that. And it's a general belief of mine that critics tend to hold up the biggest pieces of composers as their best just because they seem the most ambitious, even though it's hard to write with consistent quality throughout a really big piece.


----------



## Yosser

Andre said:


> The issue with Sibelius is that after some brilliant pieces early-mid career - eg. _Lemminkainen Suite, Violin Concerto, Symphony No. 4_ - he seemed to have nothing new to say, really. Although late works like the _Symphony No. 7_ or _Tapiola_ are brilliant pieces, they just stay within the same sphere as the early works (which I find to be better, as they have more of a white hot intensity).


Like many, I have wondered about this long, fallow late period of Sibelius. I wonder what would have happened if he had not been in receipt of a government 'stipend' that, while scarcely princely, provided for his basic needs.

To set this in perspective, I wonder whether we would ever have had the late string quartets of Beethoven if they had not been commissioned.

I'm not attempting to make a political point here, just noting some facts and wondering about them.


----------



## Yosser

Tapkaara said:


> This doesn't apply to Wagner, who said he wanted his opera's to be "religious experiences" for his audiences? No one with a ego could have said anything like that, right?!


Wrong! You cannot be a composer unless you have a blind belief in the rightness of your vision. Most great composers had well developed egos. Some were egomaniacs. Wagner was unquestionably in this category.


----------



## Tapkaara

Ressurecting this thread! Mahler or Sibelius? Who is YOUR pick?


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Mahler by a longshot. He broke more rules and engrosses me more. Nothing against Sibelius, but a lot of his music just makes me envision him cramped up at his desk writing and burping. If I tried to explain Mahler visually it would be embarrassingly gushing and abstract.


----------



## Ludders

A fascinating thread to read!
I know Mahler reasonably well, and love his symphonies, but i don't know Sibelius at all. 
Any recommendations for a Sibelius newbie?


----------



## TxllxT

Ludders said:


> A fascinating thread to read!
> I know Mahler reasonably well, and love his symphonies, but i don't know Sibelius at all.
> Any recommendations for a Sibelius newbie?


Beware of the many many recordings that just produce (beautiful) sound but no metaphysical brooding from the pre-civilised times of humanity. Personally I like Karajan on symphony 4, 5, 6, 7 and Okko Kamu for 1, 2, 3 (all with the Berlin Philharmonic on DGG). Sir Thomas Beecham is an authority too. For the violin concerto: Christian Ferras or David Oistrakh.

Sibelius lookes back to the first days of the earth; Mahler looks forward to the last. That's IMO the difference.


----------



## Art Rock

Mahler, but I love Sibelius as well.


----------



## haydnfan

A few years ago I would say Mahler... but I think Sibelius. I feel that he manages to say more in less time. Sibelius' symphonies are impactful and beautiful.


----------



## Tapkaara

TxllxT said:


> Beware of the many many recordings that just produce (beautiful) sound but no metaphysical brooding from the pre-civilised times of humanity.
> 
> Sibelius lookes back to the first days of the earth; Mahler looks forward to the last. That's IMO the difference.


WONDERFUL quotes. That last one in particular really makes an impact. I knew there was a good reason to start this thread again.


----------



## Terrapin

I love the first four symphonies of Sibelius. While I admire what he tried to do with the late symphonies, I also don't find them as satisfying as the early ones. Mahler, on the other hand, maintained a consistently high level through all his symphonies. While Mahler did not perhaps take as many chances as Sibelius, he kept improving the model, culminating with his masterpiece, the 9th. Since their approaches are so different, however, it is like comparing a grape to a watermelon (well, yes, they are both fruits...)


----------



## Tapkaara

Terrapin said:


> I love the first four symphonies of Sibelius. While I admire what he tried to do with the late symphonies, I also don't find them as satisfying as the early ones. Mahler, on the other hand, maintained a consistently high level through all his symphonies. While Mahler did not perhaps take as many chances as Sibelius, he kept improving the model, culminating with his masterpiece, the 9th. Since their approaches are so different, however, it is like comparing a grape to a watermelon (well, yes, they are both fruits...)


I fully agree that Sibelius took more chances than Mahler. Symphonies like the 4th, 6th and 7th demonstate this rather well, I think.

And again, I remind everyone of the purpose of this thread. A few people have said comparing the two is comparing apples to oranges. I agree...therein lies the crux of this thread.

It all has to do with the famous conversation they had on the nature of the symphony in Kaivopuisto Park in Helsinki. They had differing opinions on the symphony and I wonder which one of them was more spot on...


----------



## violadude

What's this about Sibelius taking more chances than Mahler? Mahler added cowbells, hammers, whips and an array of other instruments to the orchestra while Sibelius mostly used a conventional orchestra except for glockenspiel on some occasions. Mahler used voices in his symphonies (which back then was still kind of risky). Sibelius never wrote passages as banal and crude as Mahler from what I can tell. I would say that is pretty risky. 

I don't doubt that Sibelius took his risks with his symphonies and he made advancements of his own, but I would say that their risks were at least equal according to their respective times (remember Sibelius lived significantly longer than Mahler and his last symphony was written 13 years after Mahler had already been dead).


----------



## Tapkaara

violadude said:


> What's this about Sibelius taking more chances than Mahler? Mahler added cowbells, hammers, whips and an array of other instruments to the orchestra while Sibelius mostly used a conventional orchestra except for glockenspiel on some occasions. Mahler used voices in his symphonies (which back then was still kind of risky). Sibelius never wrote passages as banal and crude as Mahler from what I can tell. I would say that is pretty risky.
> 
> I don't doubt that Sibelius took his risks with his symphonies and he made advancements of his own, but I would say that their risks were at least equal according to their respective times (remember Sibelius lived significantly longer than Mahler and his last symphony was written 13 years after Mahler had already been dead).


I guess Sibelius didn't think his symphonies needed more cowbell.


----------



## violadude

Tapkaara said:


> I guess Sibelius didn't think his symphonies needed more cowbell.


Still, a risk for the time, nonetheless.

Also, I feel Mahler's use of counterpoint was far more advanced than Sibelius'.


----------



## Tapkaara

violadude said:


> Still, a risk for the time, nonetheless.
> 
> Also, I feel Mahler's use of counterpoint was far more advanced than Sibelius'.


Mahler may have been more adept at counterpoint, but I think it is safer and more accurate to say that he_ employed_ it more than Sibelius; this is because of his will to do so, not due to any lack of skill on Sibelius's part.

Mahler went big in just about everything he did. I suppose his symphonies may have been more layered than Sibelius, and in order to stack these layers, a knowledge of counterpoint would be requisite. Sibelius was, perhaps, more of a classicist and liked a greater sense of orchestral clarity. In his 4th, for example, there are many moments where only fractions of the orchestra are playing and all or most of the instruments only come in during brief tuttis.

So again, I think this is more of a design thing than a skill thing.

I think Sibelius's use of counterpoint is very adept in his 7th, though, and proves he could do it if he wanted to.


----------



## violadude

Tapkaara said:


> Mahler may have been more adept at counterpoint, but I think it is safer and more accurate to say that he_ employed_ it more than Sibelius; this is because of his will to do so, not due to any lack of skill on Sibelius's part.
> 
> Mahler went big in just about everything he did. I suppose his symphonies may have been more layered than Sibelius, and in order to stack these layers, a knowledge of counterpoint would be requisite. Sibelius was, perhaps, more of a classicist and liked a greater sense of orchestral clarity. *In his 4th, for example, there are many moments where only fractions of the orchestra are playing and all or most of the instruments only come in during brief tuttis.*
> 
> So again, I think this is more of a design thing than a skill thing.
> 
> I think Sibelius's use of counterpoint is very adept in his 7th, though, and proves he could do it if he wanted to.


About the part I bolded, even though Mahler's music was written for large orchestras, much of his music is like this as well. Only a couple groups of instruments at a time.

Anyway, again, I'm not denying Sibelius' skill as a composer in any way. His 7th symphony was very influential to many composers afterward, the beginning of the 6th has beautiful counterpoint. His 4th is very ahead of its time. However, I just don't understand how you can say Sibelius took more risks when no one had ever heard anything like the 3rd movement of his 1st symphony before Mahler wrote it. Nobody had heard of a 6 movement symphony with solo voice and children's choir ending in a 25 minute adagio before Mahler wrote it. Nobody had ever heard of using cowbells and a hammer until Mahler wrote it. In my mind, those were huge risks at the time. Maybe I don't know what you mean by risks in this context?

And harmonically, I think both were advanced in different ways. Mahler's harmonic language was the ancestor of the Second Viennese School. Sibelius' was the ancestor of modern modality.


----------



## Tapkaara

violadude said:


> About the part I bolded, even though Mahler's music was written for large orchestras, much of his music is like this as well. Only a couple groups of instruments at a time.
> 
> Anyway, again, I'm not denying Sibelius' skill as a composer in any way. His 7th symphony was very influential to many composers afterward, the beginning of the 6th has beautiful counterpoint. His 4th is very ahead of its time. However, I just don't understand how you can say Sibelius took more risks when no one had ever heard anything like the 3rd movement of his 1st symphony before Mahler wrote it. Nobody had heard of a 6 movement symphony with solo voice and children's choir ending in a 25 minute adagio before Mahler wrote it. Nobody had ever heard of using cowbells and a hammer until Mahler wrote it. In my mind, those were huge risks at the time. Maybe I don't know what you mean by risks in this context?
> 
> And harmonically, I think both were advanced in different ways. Mahler's harmonic language was the ancestor of the Second Viennese School. Sibelius' was the ancestor of modern modality.


Personally, I do not think the inclusion of cowbells and whips and such is that risky or innovative. Nor do I think the length of of work or the inclusion of a choir and so on and so on makes Mahler inherently more of an innovator than Sibelisu. Just because Mahler added something (sound effects like cowbells, choirs or length) doesn't put him ahead for me.

Sibelius's ability to grow this thematic material and fuse movements of the symphony together and his mastery of form over-all seems more advanced to me.

PLus, in an ironic way, his adherence to symphonic form was a bit of a risk as many other contemporary composers stopped writing them all together seeing them as old-fashioned. Mahler kept the banner of the symphony, but they are so big and out of control in terms of their structure, I wonder if they really could be called true symphonies.


----------



## violadude

Tapkaara said:


> Personally, I do not think the inclusion of cowbells and whips and such is that risky or innovative. Nor do I think the length of of work or the inclusion of a choir and so on and so on makes Mahler inherently more of an innovator than Mahler. Just because Mahler added something (sound effects like cowbells, choirs or length) doesn't put him ahead for me.


Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "risky." When I say risky, I mean writing something that had a strong potential to fail. I think of doing something that would make the audience members turn their heads. Maybe that's not your definition of risky?


----------



## Tapkaara

violadude said:


> Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "risky." When I say risky, I mean writing something that had a strong potential to fail. I think of doing something that would make the audience members turn their heads. Maybe that's not your definition of risky?


Well, if that's what you mean, Sibelius took risks with his 3rd, 4th, 6th and 7th symphonies, for sure! If you read about audience reactions to these works, especially the 4th, you would see just how much of a risk taker he was. After the sweeping 1st and heroic 2nd, people expected that he was going to be a composer of big crowd-pleasers every time. When he wrote the pastoral and classicist (and perhaps minimalist) 3rd, people were quite confused. It's with the 3rd that Sibelius really started writing in a style he could call his own.


----------



## violadude

Tapkaara said:


> Well, if that's what you mean, Sibelius took risks with his 3rd, 4th, 6th and 7th symphonies, for sure! If you read about audience reactions to these works, especially the 4th, you would see just how much of a risk taker he was. After the sweeping 1st and heroic 2nd, people expected that he was going to be a composer of big crowd-pleasers every time. When he wrote the pastoral and classicist (and perhaps minimalist) 3rd, people were quite confused. It's with the 3rd that Sibelius really started writing in a style he could call his own.


Ok, well I'm not arguing with you about Sibelius being a risk taker. I'm all I'm saying is that the things Mahler wrote took quite a bit of guts to premiere too and I would say the amount of risk taking is at least equal in both composers.


----------



## Tapkaara

violadude said:


> Ok, well I'm not arguing with you about Sibelius being a risk taker. I'm all I'm saying is that the things Mahler wrote took quite a bit of guts to premiere too and I would say the amount of risk taking is at least equal in both composers.


I certainly think both composers took risks, yes!


----------



## Xaltotun

Sometimes, in quiet moments, my thoughts start to wander and I start thinking that Mahler and Sibelius weren't actually that different. At the very least, they have lots in common. Both took risks in music. Both looked to the future of music as well as its past. Both were die-hard Wagnerians (I have a gut feeling that Sibelius remained a Wagnerian all his life, he just didn't want to wax about it, in order to find his own path from Wagner's overwhelming shadow). They also adored Bruckner, not a feeling that every composer of the time shared. Both were interested in man's internal world AND the external world. Both wrote music that was destructive as well as constructive. Both took symphonic writing VERY seriously and pushed the genre forward. Both expressed their deepest thoughts, emotions and beliefs in the symphony. Both were sensitive and neurotic (although this is much more evident in Mahler's music than Sibelius', you can read that Sibelius was described this way by his contemporaries). Both had an enormous love of nature. Oh and while they both had programmatic explanations for many parts of their symphonies, in the end they both shunned to reveal them for the very same reason - misinterpretation by the public. So, they sort of had one foot in the "programmatic" music lair, and the other in the "absolute" music lair. They both were clearly very intelligent and they read a lot. They married with somebody that they really loved and admired, and had children (don't laugh - not all people do this, especially composers).

A final observation: I have read, and often thought, that Mahler "was always" Mahler, even in the first symphony; meaning that, while his symphonies took on different forms, his inner self was always the same. Whereas it is often said that Sibelius' outlook changed all the time, completely. But recently I came upon a (late) quote by Sibelius, where he confesses that he has "always composed the same way", only that his "hearing has become slightly more sensitive over the years". So maybe he was that way too.

Of course their music still sounds and feels completely different and they deploy wildly different methods, techniques and forms... this is just something I've been thinking lately. I'll sum my feelings up by saying that they are a useful pair of composers to compare and think about, both because of their differences and their similarities. I may have felt differently in the past but this is how I feel now.


----------



## violadude

Xaltotun said:


> Sometimes, in quiet moments, my thoughts start to wander and I start thinking that Mahler and Sibelius weren't actually that different. At the very least, they have lots in common. Both took risks in music. Both looked to the future of music as well as its past. Both were die-hard Wagnerians (I have a gut feeling that Sibelius remained a Wagnerian all his life, he just didn't want to wax about it, in order to find his own path from Wagner's overwhelming shadow). They also adored Bruckner, not a feeling that every composer of the time shared. Both were interested in man's internal world AND the external world. Both wrote music that was destructive as well as constructive. Both took symphonic writing VERY seriously and pushed the genre forward. Both expressed their deepest thoughts, emotions and beliefs in the symphony. Both were sensitive and neurotic (although this is much more evident in Mahler's music than Sibelius', you can read that Sibelius was described this way by his contemporaries). Both had an enormous love of nature. Oh and while they both had programmatic explanations for many parts of their symphonies, in the end they both shunned to reveal them for the very same reason - misinterpretation by the public. So, they sort of had one foot in the "programmatic" music lair, and the other in the "absolute" music lair. They both were clearly very intelligent and they read a lot. They married with somebody that they really loved and admired, and had children (don't laugh - not all people do this, especially composers).
> 
> A final observation: I have read, and often thought, that Mahler "was always" Mahler, even in the first symphony; meaning that, while his symphonies took on different forms, his inner self was always the same. Whereas it is often said that Sibelius' outlook changed all the time, completely. But recently I came upon a (late) quote by Sibelius, where he confesses that he has "always composed the same way", only that his "hearing has become slightly more sensitive over the years". So maybe he was that way too.
> 
> Of course their music still sounds and feels completely different and they deploy wildly different methods, techniques and forms... this is just something I've been thinking lately. I'll sum my feelings up by saying that they are a useful pair of composers to compare and think about, both because of their differences and their similarities. I may have felt differently in the past but this is how I feel now.


Those are some really great observations, Xaltotun!


----------



## Xaltotun

Thank you! It feels really good to hear someone say something like this, violadude!


----------



## violadude

Xaltotun said:


> Thank you! It feels really good to hear someone say something like this, violadude!


No problem. With all the negativity I feel on this board lately, it's refreshing to see a post that brings composers and music together instead of tearing them apart/pitting them against each other.


----------



## FrankieP

I listen to Mahler every day, academically, as his music is what I want to spend my life studying.

After listening to Mahler, I feel that my head needs to be cleared, and Sibelius is what I listen to to do this.

They are so different as symphonists that they act as antidotes to eachother! (to me, at least!).

I cannot compare their philosophies as I don't know enough about Sibelius' yet (I'm relatively new to properly listening to him), but I really do love them both!


----------



## regressivetransphobe

I'm addicted to reading "vs." threads, admittedly. Not sure why. Maybe I imagine them having special attacks like in Street Fighter.


----------



## Tapkaara

regressivetransphobe said:


> I'm addicted to reading "vs." threads, admittedly. Not sure why. Maybe I imagine them having special attacks like in Street Fighter.


It is quite fun to see to composers go head-to-head in battle. It's sort of like that claymation Celebrity Death Match show that used to be on MTV years ago.


----------



## chalkpie

wolf said:


> Who cares? I care, since I have to keep quiet of it! Anyway who cares about anything anyone say here if it comes to that, this is only a forum and to be honest I'd never dare to say I write in this one either. You are writing 1000s of letters, what of it if I mention that my 'snob' friends would shrug me off, it was a way to explain how disliked Sibelius is by the cognocente! I wouldn't dream of irritating them, there are so few left that understand classical music that I can't afford to lose them actually. If I didn't lose them, at least they would never listen anymore to me in our discussions.
> 
> Don't the critics know anything? Lol, some of them do not, but I'd say that most of'em are among the few who do...
> 
> I have stated everywhere on this forum that I only go by what I feel. That is why I have my Sibelius CDs still. They aren't crap. BUT why should I mention this to ppl, I mean if one of my friends would say that he liked Elvis, I wouldn't strike him in the face, but certainly say - with sorrow in my voice - 'you know guys and gals, X has lost the ability to understand music´- Perhaps you don't like it but that it's the things we say when we turn our backs at you. And thats why I'd never mention TC to them....Why aren't there any real classical listeners here - well a VERY few - because they would be attacked immediately and also because...Oh I give a f***...


Ha. Just read this. I think Mr. Wolf was hittin' the meth even back in 2009.


----------



## neoshredder

I prefer Sibelius. I have to be in a certain mood to listen to Mahler. And it is taxing on the ear for me as my attention span starts to wonder after 40 minutes or so. And that is usually only the halfway point in Mahler's Symphonies. Plus I prefer Symphonies without vocals.


----------



## Musician

Sibelius, of course. Mahler's work is one big gigantic uproar of cosmic extravasation of sounds, flared up by a strong discharge of boisterous blasts that spread around a huge radius. Sibelius on the other hand has melody, wondrous!


----------



## starry

I prefer the economy of Sibelius, it probably enables more consistency. There's a folk element that links both of them from the start I expect, whether Austrian or Finnish. In that sense they were continuers perhaps of the romantic nationalism of Dvorak.


----------



## realdealblues

I enjoy both.

Sibelius paints the world while Mahler sculpts it.

They are two completely different styles.

My listening preference will always be Mahler. There is something that resonates at great depths within myself when I listen to his music.


----------



## Mahlerian

Everyone seems to know the story about the walk Mahler and Sibelius took together, when Sibelius told Mahler he loved the symphony as a form for its deep logic and "the interconnectedness of its motifs". Mahler said in reply that he thought a symphony should be like the world, "embracing everything". It is perhaps enlightening to know that both composers saw their immediate predecessor in Bruckner, rather than Brahms, but while Mahler's enthusiasm for Bruckner's music waned as he grew older, Sibelius's never seemed to diminish.

I do not believe there are many direct connections between the style of Mahler and that of Sibelius. Their aesthetic aims were quite far removed from each other. They are connected most clearly through their mutual relationship to Bruckner.

Mahler admired the weight and heft of Bruckner's symphonies, the rhythmic drive of their scherzos and the clear simplicity of their melodic content. He disliked their repetition, their frquent use of sequences, and their orchestration (although most of the versions Mahler knew are not the ones heard today). He found parts of them very clumsy and found himself frustrated by the more or less literal recapitulations that followed the development section, no matter how much he enjoyed the themes at first. He conducted Bruckner's Fifth Symphony in his own version, reorchestrated and cut still further than the Schalk version it was based on.

The most Brucknerian music Mahler ever wrote was the Scherzo of his First Symphony, which, save for its orchestration, sounds very little like mature Mahler. It is more repetitive than any other Mahler movement (on the large and small scale), and the outer sections of the trio are redolant of Bruckner's more folk-like trios, like that of the Third or Fourth (the inner section is much more Mahler-like).






Sibelius admired the purity of Bruckner's symphonies, their forthrightness. After a performance of Bruckner's Fifth in the 1910s, he was unreservedly positive about the work. Bruckner was one of the few composers, according to his wife, that Sibelius never spoke ill of.

The scherzo of Sibelius's own First is occasionally cited as Bruckner-like, although its trio sounds more like Tchaikovsky. Brucknerian characteristics include the prominent lowered second, frequent sequences, and the immediate repetition of an idea with additional accompaniment.






But the connections between Sibelius and Bruckner are deeper than mere surface features. They both used the orchestra to project thick textures and treated the instruments in groups during tutti sections, unlike Mahler, who progressively thinned his textures and treated instruments individually at all times. They shared a love of chorales (Mahler used them occasionally). They often wrote movements with a very slow rate of harmonic and textural change. But most importantly, the material develops on the surface. Bruckner will show you his use of the inversion of the main motif by employing it simultaneously with the original. Sibelius, likewise, will show you how this motif develops into that other one, showing you his own thought process. Mahler, on the other hand, will employ more distant variations rapidly and contrapuntally without introducing them first, sometimes simultaneously with other important variations.


----------



## starry

realdealblues said:


> Sibelius paints the world while Mahler sculpts it.


Some might think of it the other way round.



Mahlerian said:


> Sibelius admired the purity of Bruckner's symphonies, their forthrightness.
> 
> But the connections between Sibelius and Bruckner are deeper than mere surface features. They both used the orchestra to project thick textures and treated the instruments in groups during tutti sections, unlike Mahler, who progressively thinned his textures and treated instruments individually at all times.
> 
> Sibelius, likewise, will show you how this motif develops into that other one, showing you his own thought process. Mahler, on the other hand, will employ more distant variations rapidly and contrapuntally without introducing them first, sometimes simultaneously with other important variations.


And all of this might suggest a more sculptural aspect to Sibelius, with Mahler more painterly.



Mahlerian said:


> Everyone seems to know the story about the walk Mahler and Sibelius took together


In the countryside I expect, relating to the nature/folk elements.



Mahlerian said:


> , when Sibelius told Mahler he loved the symphony as a form for its deep logic and "the interconnectedness of its motifs". Mahler said in reply that he thought a symphony should be like the world, "embracing everything".


In a way this isn't a contradiction, both seek unity through diverse elements.



Mahlerian said:


> They often wrote movements with a very slow rate of harmonic and textural change. But most importantly, the material develops on the surface.


Slow rate of underlying change but busy surface, like nature.



Mahlerian said:


> They shared a love of chorales (Mahler used them occasionally).


I wonder if that's the most interesting link to Bruckner, the combination of religious elements with their nature/folk themes.


----------



## GiulioCesare

Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

Bur Mahler was greater.

And everyone who doesn't agree is clearly wrong.


----------



## neoshredder

GiulioCesare said:


> Everyone's entitled to their opinion.
> 
> Bur Mahler was greater.
> 
> And everyone who doesn't agree is clearly wrong.


I'm sure most would agree that Mahler is considered greater. But I enjoy Sibelius much more. And that is the most important thing to me.


----------



## GiulioCesare

neoshredder said:


> I'm sure most would agree that Mahler is considered greater. But I enjoy Sibelius much more. And that is the most important thing to me.


That's fine.

Everyone's entitled to be wrong.


----------



## starry

Of course not everyone is just looking at it as who is the greatest.


----------



## neoshredder

GiulioCesare said:


> That's fine.
> 
> Everyone's entitled to be wrong.


How can I be wrong about what I enjoy most?


----------



## GiulioCesare

I'm just messing with you guys.


----------



## chalkpie

GiulioCesare said:


> Everyone's entitled to their opinion.
> 
> Bur Mahler was greater.
> 
> And everyone who doesn't agree is clearly wrong.


I know you're busting balls, and I used to REALLY think the same thing.

Right now I am riding a huge Sibelius Tsunami (just did the 7 disc Jarvi/Goteburg DG set and I am started on the Lahti 15 disc BIS Essential Sibelius), and at the moment I find Sibelius to be way more diverse and fresh, and no doubt in part because I am a bit Mahlered-out (I own over 17 M2's on disc for example).

So, YOU'RE WRONG, pal. 

PS - It is idiotic to compare these two guys. Both utter geniuses and in many ways night and day from each other.


----------



## starthrower

I'm glad I finally got around to these two great symphonists. It's taken me 30 years. I have just one Sibelius cycle by Berglund, and single CDs of Mahler. Mostly Bernstein/NYP, and a couple of Gielen's.


----------



## hpowders

When I'm in a pithy mood and have a pressing appointment it's Sibelius.

When I'm not, it's Mahler.


----------



## neoshredder

Still Sibelius for me. His melodies are more memorable to me. Nostalgic moments.


----------



## starthrower

Sibelius sounds more outdoorsy (mountains, valleys, lush fields) to my ears, and Mahler more cosmopolitan.


----------



## Woodduck

starthrower said:


> Sibelius sounds more outdoorsy (mountains, valleys, lush fields) to my ears, and Mahler more cosmopolitan.


I agree, though I find both composers deeply responsive to nature. But with Mahler there's an emotional, even a sentimental, quality to his contemplation, a need to say how he feels in its presence, while Sibelius seems to capture nature's otherness, letting it speak for itself in a unique and uncanny way. _Tapiola_ is his last major work; human emotion has been nearly purged from it; it's as stark and implacable as a winter storm. Sibelius doesn't tell us how he feels about nature. He channels it. It speaks through him.


----------



## starthrower

Listening to the last movement of no. 2 by Sibelius, he sounds a lot more surface sentimental to my ears. Where Mahler is expressing some deeper core emotions/anguish/longing in his adagios.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

How about the last movement of No. 4?


----------



## Woodduck

starthrower said:


> Listening to the last movement of no. 2 by Sibelius, he sounds a lot more surface sentimental to my ears. Where Mahler is expressing some deeper core emotions/anguish/longing in his adagios.


The 2nd is early Sibelius, and the finale is a piece of rather conventional Romantic/heroic triumphalism, "big tune" and all, really the last such thing he wrote. The equally "heroic" finale of the 5th is emotional, but the human quality seems embedded in something much vaster and more impersonal. I'm not saying that Sibelius eliminates emotional expression from his music - I think a lot of his music is deeply personal - only that forces and rhythms and sound images of nature enter his musical "landscape" more and more on their own terms, not as occasion for Romantic nostalgia or other personal sentiment.

Of course not everyone will hear his music as I do.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> I agree, though I find both composers deeply responsive to nature. But with Mahler there's an emotional, even a sentimental, quality to his contemplation, a need to say how he feels in its presence, while Sibelius seems to capture nature's otherness, letting it speak for itself in a unique and uncanny way. _Tapiola_ is his last major work; human emotion has been nearly purged from it; it's as stark and implacable as a winter storm. Sibelius doesn't tell us how he feels about nature. He channels it. It speaks through him.


Exactly my experience with Sibelius and Mahler.

I would go on to say that Siblelius' nature music-- pieces like the _Fourth, Fifth, Sixth_, and _Seventh Symphonies_; and tone poems like_ Tapiola, En Saga, Pohjola's Daughter,_ and _Luonnotar_-- are absolutely 'distilled' nature music.

Orwell once said somewhere that one's writing should be like a piece of glass, where the reader sees the work and not the writer. The same could be said of Sibelius' artistry with regards to his nature music.


----------



## Morimur

I must confess to not being familiar with Sibelius' work, so by default, it's Mahler. Looking forward to exploring the former's music.


----------



## PetrB

Mahler. 

Never cared much for Sibelius, where there is no doubt the man could 'write a symphony.'


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> Orwell once said somewhere that one's writing should be like a piece of glass, where the reader sees the work and not the writer.


If indeed he did say this, and it does sound within the range of the kind of thing he could have said, then he was simply wrong.

And to think, this all goes back to an old, old squabble between Aristotle (and others) and the Sophists. We know who won that one, but since the losing side has more truth to it, it refuses to go away, quite.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

> Originally Posted by Marschallin Blair View Post
> 
> Orwell once said somewhere that one's writing should be like a piece of glass, where the reader sees the work and not the writer.





some guy said:


> If indeed he did say this, and it does sound within the range of the kind of thing he could have said, then he was simply wrong.
> 
> And to think, this all goes back to an old, old squabble between Aristotle (and others) and the Sophists. We know who won that one, but since the losing side has more truth to it, it refuses to go away, quite.


Why?-- do you work for the Ministry of Truth?


----------



## EdwardBast

Woodduck said:


> I agree, though I find both composers deeply responsive to nature. But with Mahler there's an emotional, even a sentimental, quality to his contemplation, a need to say how he feels in its presence, while Sibelius seems to capture nature's otherness, letting it speak for itself in a unique and uncanny way. _Tapiola_ is his last major work; human emotion has been nearly purged from it; it's as stark and implacable as a winter storm. Sibelius doesn't tell us how he feels about nature. He channels it. It speaks through him.


I like this. I can hear it this way - but only three-quarters of the way through … or seven eighths maybe? What undoes this for me and sends me down a different path is the last couple of minutes, where every harmonic change, every motivic fragment, every nuance of orchestration, seems pregnant with memory. Each utterance toward the end feels like the distilled essence of a great swath of earlier music; As though no matter where one turns, the past is inescapable. Every move, melodic or harmonic, brings back a flood of impressions with the immediacy of a glance, because each is an elemental cell from which this musical past was constructed. I just don't think nature remembers like this. And yet what you say about the work as nature painting seems exactly right to me. There is a fundamental contradiction in this and the way I explain it to myself is as a temporal incongruity or divergence: From the point of view of human memory and feeling, the time scale seems vast - like looking back over a lifetime (the effect which I believe only comes to the fore near the end). But for the forest it is only a day. So, reconciling and synthesizing: a supernaturally unsettled day in the forest as a metaphor for a whole life - which I like to imagine would make sense to a composer at work on his last masterpiece.

Oh yeah, the Sibelius versus Mahler thing. The question wouldn't occur to me. It is sort of like asking which is greater, steak or ice cream. I want them both. Now. In that order. Damn it!


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> I like this. I can hear it this way - but only three-quarters of the way through … or seven eighths maybe? What undoes this for me and sends me down a different path is the last couple of minutes, where every harmonic change, every motivic fragment, every nuance of orchestration, seems pregnant with memory. Each utterance toward the end feels like the distilled essence of a great swath of earlier music; As though no matter where one turns, the past is inescapable. Every move, melodic or harmonic, brings back a flood of impressions with the immediacy of a glance, because each is an elemental cell from which this musical past was constructed. I just don't think nature remembers like this. And yet what you say about the work as nature painting seems exactly right to me. There is a fundamental contradiction in this and the way I explain it to myself is as a temporal incongruity or divergence: From the point of view of human memory and feeling, the time scale seems vast - like looking back over a lifetime (the effect which I believe only comes to the fore near the end). But for the forest it is only a day. So, reconciling and synthesizing: a supernaturally unsettled day in the forest as a metaphor for a whole life - which I like to imagine would make sense to a composer at work on his last masterpiece.
> 
> Oh yeah, the Sibelius versus Mahler thing. The question wouldn't occur to me. It is sort of like asking which is greater, steak or ice cream. I want them both. Now. In that order. Damn it!


You've sent me back, in my mind, through the ending of _Tapiola_, and even in memory it evokes a strange and powerful emotion. I think I understand what you mean. The music, whatever it has been about - Sibelius, nature, Sibelius in nature, Sibelius as nature incarnate, its life as metaphor for his - becomes, after the ice storm has died down, a reminiscence, a glance back at something tremendous and final, now about to close. It closes on an "amen," a final cadence that differs from the traditional plagal "amen" only by the addition, to the triad of the subdominant, of a flatted seventh (in the bass!). That chord, holding in itself for a moment a last remembrance of all the power the work has gathered and spent, releases onto a final tonic cleansed and purified of everything but cold, clear light. What resolution could be more final and perfect? I've always wondered what Sibelius might have written after this.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Woodduck said:


> You've sent me back, in my mind, through the ending of _Tapiola_, and even in memory it evokes a strange and powerful emotion. I think I understand what you mean. The music, whatever it has been about - Sibelius, nature, Sibelius in nature, Sibelius as nature incarnate, its life as metaphor for his - becomes, after the ice storm has died down, a reminiscence, a glance back at something tremendous and final, now about to close. It closes on an "amen," a final cadence that differs from the traditional plagal "amen" only by the addition, to the triad of the subdominant, of a flatted seventh (in the bass!). That chord, holding in itself for a moment a last remembrance of all the power the work has gathered and spent, releases onto a final tonic cleansed and purified of everything but cold, clear light. What resolution could be more final and perfect? I've always wondered what Sibelius might have written after this.


Not a bad analogy.


----------



## Dim7

Sibelius at his worst is formless, dry and bland. Mahler at his worst... dunno, uses too much human voice?


----------



## muzik

I like both and I'm quite happy to be able to chose who to listen to. They are both in accordance with my different moods at different times.

I agree with a lot that has been said in this thread. I too experience nature through Sibelius and deep human emotion through Mahler. 

If a symphony embraces the world like Mahler says then it embraces its contradictions too. Contradiction lies at the heart of human emotions.

In nature however, mountains, hills, snow and rain, there are no possible contradictions. It's just a magnificent spectacle for us to admire. Very much like some of Sibelius Symphonies.


----------



## Guest

Tapkaara said:


> Two of the greatest symphonists of the 20th century...but who is greater?


I 'discovered' that I liked some of Mahler's symphonies in 2014. Previously, although I had heard bits and pieces, I was prejudiced against him. I love the 6th and have continued to explore 1st, 5th and 7th - there's plenty more to yet, ever since I discovered Sibelius' symphonies in 2015, having only previously known Karelia and Finlandia, I've stopped listening to Mahler in any depth.

I've not been able to let go of Sibelius since, listening to at least one of his symphonies weekly, sometimes three or four in a row. Perhaps these two more than any other exemplify how personal reaction is the determining factor. Sibelius meets my need for the kind of contemplation and emotion that matches who I am. Greater restraint, a constant undercurrent, with fewer highs and lows. He speaks to me in a way that no other composer does.

This does not make him 'greater' than Mahler, but it makes him more important for me.


----------



## Dawood

Sibelius.

For me both conductors produces works which illustrate what I think of - wrongly or rightly - when I think of a 'symphony' - building waves of energy - 'orchestral forces at work' - emotion - power - elemental.

If the two met at a table and Mahler presented a symphony and said 'there we go - have that.' And Sibelius presented his Second - I'm sorry but all bets would be off.


----------



## Dawood

starthrower said:


> Listening to the last movement of no. 2 by Sibelius, he sounds a lot more surface sentimental to my ears. Where Mahler is expressing some deeper core emotions/anguish/longing in his adagios.


You're probably right. The last movement of Sibelius 2nd is like a glorious magic trick - and I've always been a sucker for magic tricks.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Sibelius. Once you get beyond the Romanticism of the early works, such as 2nd symphony, he captures and reflects (not interprets) the implacable disinterest of the natural world. Tapiola is the sense of a stark, dark place in which people and our concerns are simply irrelevant. Mahler would have given us an invocation of how he felt about such a place. I think that's the difference.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Pat Fairlea said:


> Sibelius. Once you get beyond the Romanticism of the early works, such as 2nd symphony, he captures and reflects (not interprets) the implacable disinterest of the natural world. Tapiola is the sense of a stark, dark place in which people and our concerns are simply irrelevant. Mahler would have given us an invocation of how he felt about such a place. I think that's the difference.


Which symphony would you recommend I begin with? I'm a Sibelius newcomer (more or less) that's wanted to give him a try for quite some time.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

DiesIraeCX said:


> Which symphony would you recommend I begin with? I'm a Sibelius newcomer (more or less) that's wanted to give him a try for quite some time.


Oh, that's a tough one! The piece I come back to time and again is the 6th. It is quintessential Sibelius: deceptively understated, structurally complex but neatly interlocking. The 5th is the best of Sibelius giving it large - expansive in every way. The 3rd tends to be overlooked, which is a pity. It's an interesting piece. But I would save numbers 4 and 7 until you are better acquainted. 
As for Sibelius' many tone poems, Luonnotar and Oceanides are just lovely.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

I'd rather listen to early Mahler than early Sibelius any day, but by the time we get to their respective best - _The Song of the Earth_ and "Tapiola" - maybe it's a toss up.


----------



## EdwardBast

Pat Fairlea said:


> Oh, that's a tough one! The piece I come back to time and again is the 6th. It is quintessential Sibelius: deceptively understated, structurally complex but neatly interlocking. The 5th is the best of Sibelius giving it large - expansive in every way. The 3rd tends to be overlooked, which is a pity. It's an interesting piece. *But I would save numbers 4 and 7 until you are better acquainted*.
> As for Sibelius' many tone poems, Luonnotar and Oceanides are just lovely.


In other words, 4 and 7!!!  And Tapiola.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

EdwardBast said:


> In other words, 4 and 7!!!  And Tapiola.


And Pohjola' s Daughter?


----------



## Becca

I would describe Sibelius' 1st symphony as a Sibelius symphony for those who aren't quite sure that they like him. The 2nd moves you more into the Sibelian world and the 3rd is echt-Sibelius. The 4th is for those who like jumping into the deep end, as is the 7th to a slightly lesser degree. The 5th & 6th are two of my favourites.


----------



## violadude

Pat Fairlea said:


> Sibelius. Once you get beyond the Romanticism of the early works, such as 2nd symphony, he captures and reflects (not interprets) the implacable disinterest of the natural world. Tapiola is the sense of a stark, dark place in which people and our concerns are simply irrelevant. *Mahler would have given us an invocation of how he felt about such a place. I think that's the difference*.


I think I'm going to name my next piece, "This is how I feel about cheese".


----------



## Woodduck

violadude said:


> I think I'm going to name my next piece, "This is how I feel about cheese".


That's the Mahlerian approach. The Sibelian approach would be "This is how I would feel if I were cheese."


----------



## violadude

Woodduck said:


> That's the Mahlerian approach. The Sibelian approach would be "This is how I would feel if I were cheese."


Personally, I prefer the Stravinsky approach "This piece is not about cheese..or anything else".


----------



## Mahlerian

violadude said:


> I think I'm going to name my next piece, "This is how I feel about cheese".


Just don't name it "What the cheese tells me", or I won't be able to stop them from carting you away.


----------



## DeepR

I still have to and want to explore most of both composers but after being obsessed with the wonder that is Sibelius 7 I'm not sure I can go back to Mahler any time soon.


----------



## Enthusiast

DeepR said:


> I still have to and want to explore most of both composers but after being obsessed with the wonder that is Sibelius 7 I'm not sure I can go back to Mahler any time soon.


Oh dear. This is the danger of comparing the two. They are very different and set out to achieve very different things and probably with different motivations. Together they represent the last great flowering of The Symphony. It is fitting that the gap between the two marks a divergence in aesthetic. Divergences of form, intent and "true paths" became increasingly common in the 20th Century. But what we learned through that experience is that there wasn't really a one "true path" any more. We can easily like Rachmaninoff, Shostakovitch, Bartok and Schoenberg equally without betraying good taste!

It might be that Sibelius works best when you are in some moods while Mahler works best for others but I wouldn't be without either and I wouldn't be able to say I prefer one to the other. I love Sibelius' bleakness as well as his almost Classical rigour. Of course, Sibelius was a national of a country with little history of musical tradition. I think he looked outside himself - at nature (or, really, natural forces) and to myth to find the elements that would make up a style that sounds convincingly Finnish. Mahler, by contrast, seems almost decadent, as if he belonged within a tradition that was dying, and he was often rejected by critics until the mid 20th Century for being vulgar. But he tells us something very special. Did any composer before him succeed so well at looking inward for his inspiration? Berlioz, perhaps?

Mahler can be difficult to conduct, it seems, and I feel that we are often closer to hearing and being convinced by what he is capable of in more recent performances. Not that there are no wonderful historical accounts of some of his symphonies (I'm thinking of 2, perhaps 4, 9 and Das Lied). But to justify the length of his symphonies you really do need to make every bar count. Often Mahler performances can seem to be working too hard to make sense of an apparently sprawling and ungainly structure. By contrast, Sibelius himself often worked hard at his pieces so that what we have from him is a rigorously trimmed and edited work.


----------



## DeepR

Yes, it's a matter of the kind of aesthetics I prefer in the current stage of my musical journey. Sibelius' music appears to flow more naturally, less forceful, with Mahler I sometimes feel it's being forced down my throat (but when it works, it works alright). Anyway, I am very glad they both exist and that I got to know and appreciate some of their music.


----------



## clavichorder

violadude said:


> I think I'm going to name my next piece, "This is how I feel about cheese".


For me that would be a vivid musical expression of disgust. I hope you remember to what I am referring.


----------



## janxharris

Sid James said:


> You make some excellent points. I would just like to add, that he got those effects you speak of right on the mark in works like the _Lemminkainen Suite, Tapiola _& the _Violin Concerto._ Those works are excellent examples of their genre, but I think that his symphonies(especially the later ones) become far too restricted and 'minimalist,' if you like, for their own good. I mean, he was good at he was doing, but there is a whole world of sounds that he began to explore in the works I mentioned earlier, ideas and techniques which he could have easily gone on to develop, but didn't. It's like he chose to take black and white photographs instead of colour, to use an analogy. He'd opened up a whole new sound world in his earlier works which he chose, for some reason, not to explore further.
> 
> Mahler was also a neurotic and suffered from depression - from what I can gather, he had a few sessions with Sigmund Freud. Undoubtedly, his later health problems would have compounded this. But somehow, through all this, he was able to compose right until he was very sick & new that he was about to die. I think he actually responded to adverse events like the loss of his daughter with music which expressed his feelings.
> 
> Sibelius' style itslelf seemed to go on a reductionist trajectory, stylistically speaking. Of course, he also responded to adversity, like the throat cancer operation, with excellent works expressing his feelings, such as the _Symphony No. 4_, one of his finest and most autobiographical. Although it would be indeed harsh to say that he had run out of ideas, I think that he just musically minimised everything until there was really nothing much left. As you suggest, he had really sunk to the depths personally speaking, and I don't know how better he could have expressed that than in the aforementioned symphony, for example. At least he didn't go on repeating himself or composing superficial pap, like some composers I can think of but won't name. He was a perfectionist, and this actually works in the listener's favour, as all of his works are of an excellent quality.
> 
> I just think that there is a much broader palette of ideas, colours and possibilities in Mahler's symphonies. Maybe they are polar opposites, so it is somewhat unfair to compare them. Perhaps (in the end) Sibelius became too restricted, and Mahler too broad. But this was just a feature of their different styles & approaches, I guess.


Perhaps some specific examples of where you think Mahler used a greater palette than Sibelius would help?. Using a larger orchestra isn't really an example.

I'd say one is successful in creating 'colour' if it actually means something to the listen and Sibelius was a master of creating imagery was he not? Think of moaning wind section of his seventh symphony, chattering bird calls in the fifth and wood-sprites in Tapiola.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

janxharris said:


> Perhaps some specific examples of where you think Mahler used a greater palette than Sibelius would help?. Using a larger orchestra isn't really an example.
> 
> I'd say one is successful in creating 'colour' if it actually means something to the listen and Sibelius was a master of creating imagery was he not? Think of moaning wind section of his seventh symphony, chattering bird calls in the fifth and wood-sprites in Tapiola.


And the curlews calling in the opening of Oceanides.


----------



## Larkenfield

Both are worth hearing without being mutually exclusive of each other, and they are highly rewarding, each in their own way. It’s worth having a variety of recordings of the same works, just like having more than one set of Beethoven symphonies, in order to hear how convincingly or idiosyncratically they can be performed in a variety of ways. 

I find Mahler’s works highly autobiographical, as he seems to be sharing his personal interior life and memories. Despite his psychological and emotional ups and downs, he was far more than a neurotic, and I feel strongly he should not be predominantly portrayed that way because he was also tremendously resilient as a human being to overcome the losses, deaths, and health problems that he endured until his time ran out. His Symphony No. 10 is a testament to that when he could have entirely caved in emotionally but didn’t. But he was suffering!

Sibelius is far more oriented towards nature and myth, and the human element can sometimes be almost entirely absent, such as his magnificent but chilly Symphony No. 4, which is almost like eavesdropping on nature with no humans around, far more emotionally detached and impersonal. 

Both were master orchestrators, deep and profound, especially after repeated hearings. Great personal favorites. If only Mahler had been granted the 30 years when Sibelius wrote virtually nothing! He was still at the peak of his powers until his heart gave out on him. Maybe it was fitting that he died of heart problems when it has long been associated with love and affection.


----------



## Kollwitz

As someone entirely new to classical music 18 months ago, I found Mahler easier to get to grips with than Sibelius. I saw a live performance of Mahler 5 (Oslo Philharmonic, Vassily Petrenko, Symphony Hall in Birmingham) that really got me interested. I read various online reviews and then purchased the Rudolf Barshai Mahler 5. As someone with no real musical background, the variety of Mahler's scores was really interesting. I loved the Trauersmarsch most of all. The darkness, intensity, vulgarity, beauty and diversity of Mahler intrigued me. This spread to his other works. There appeared to be so much going on all of the time that it was relatively easy to interpret to some extent.

Sibelius was much less obvious. I discovered his symphonies down a youtube wormhole. The 4th was immediately enticing, but overall, I felt that I didn't quite get what was going on. This feelings persists. My lack of musical understanding makes me feel as though Sibelius is too subtle. I love the 4th, but can't really get a handle on the 5th or 7th, even though they're more popular.


----------



## janxharris

Kollwitz said:


> As someone entirely new to classical music 18 months ago, I found Mahler easier to get to grips with than Sibelius. I saw a live performance of Mahler 5 (Oslo Philharmonic, Vassily Petrenko, Symphony Hall in Birmingham) that really got me interested. I read various online reviews and then purchased the Rudolf Barshai Mahler 5. As someone with no real musical background, the variety of Mahler's scores was really interesting. I loved the Trauersmarsch most of all. The darkness, intensity, vulgarity, beauty and diversity of Mahler intrigued me. This spread to his other works. There appeared to be so much going on all of the time that it was relatively easy to interpret to some extent.
> 
> Sibelius was much less obvious. I discovered his symphonies down a youtube wormhole. The 4th was immediately enticing, but overall, I felt that I didn't quite get what was going on. This feelings persists. My lack of musical understanding makes me feel as though Sibelius is too subtle. I love the 4th, but can't really get a handle on the 5th or 7th, even though they're more popular.


I didn't rate the seventh of Sibelius for years but now consider it the greatest work ever written - just my humble opinion. I think you are right - it is subtle - but that for me is it's beauty. Unlike his earlier works, Sibelius doesn't laps into sentimentality here.

Try these versions if you get time. I link 'Tapiola' too:

7th









5th





Tapiola


----------



## RogerExcellent

Mahler for me every second day when I not listening to Opera


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

It's Mahler for me, though I love both composers. I said in another thread that Mahler feels as vast as existence itself. He said that a symphony should contain everything, and damn if he isn't the composer I think came closest to realizing that most grand of visions! Sibelius's world is much smaller, but in its own way just as fascinating. If I likened Mahler to experiencing the vastness of the cosmos and the diversity of life, then much of Sibelius is more akin to experiencing the deep mysteries of nature; landscapes, oceans, forests. There's an utterly unique, alien tonal world of Sibelius that I find seductive and rapturous, and in his best works it's like an enigmatic siren call that one follows into the mythical unknown. For the most part, Mahler feels much more tangible and human, embodying emotions, psychology, and the physical aspects of life; while Sibelius feels much more intangible and ethereal, embodying instincts, intuitions, and all the mystical aspects of life.


----------



## DeepR

They are both way up there, just below Bruckner.


----------



## Kollwitz

janxharris said:


> I didn't rate the seventh of Sibelius for years but now consider it the greatest work ever written - just my humble opinion. I think you are right - it is subtle - but that for me is it's beauty. Unlike his earlier works, Sibelius doesn't laps into sentimentality here.
> 
> Try these versions if you get time. I link 'Tapiola' too:
> 
> 7th
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5th
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tapiola


Thanks very much, I'll give them a listen.


----------



## Jacck

Personally, in terms of my subjective enjoyment of their symphonies, I rate both Sibelius and Bruckner higher than Mahler. Mahler is no doubt good, his symphonies are epic, but his music is maniodepressive, meandering, changing moods and too introspective and philosophical. If I want deep philosophy, I will read Dostoyevsky and not listen to Mahler.


----------



## Larkenfield

Imagine how good Bruckner might have been if he’d known personal intimacy and human sexuality in an actual relationship with a peer rather than with his usual naïveté and awkwardness with regard to dealing with such important matters. Everything could only exist as a yearning, a longing, instead of a reality, and then the religious aspect takes on all-importance as he tries to climb closer to heaven with each symphony. 

So it never happened for him in certain aspects of the human realm—it just wasn’t in the cards and there’s no blame in that—but could only remain a fantasy and part of the unknown while his contemporaries had experienced the real thing and one can hear it in their works, such as the two giants of Mahler and Sibelius. In Bruckner, it’s the religious and spiritual rather than human dimension that dominate, though there’s an obvious humanity there too, and that’s certainly a counterpart to philosophy and psychology in how he got through life, no better or worse.


----------



## jdec

I would think most of the more experienced people in classical music choose Mahler over Sibelius as the greater symphonist, as this list (Top 10 greatest symphonies ever - result from 151 conductors surveyed) can atest:

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2...oica-greatest-symphony-vote-bbc-mozart-mahler

I really LOVE Sibelius very much, but I still prefer Mahler overall if I have to choose.


----------



## janxharris

jdec said:


> I would think most of the more experienced people in classical music choose Mahler over Sibelius as the greater symphonist, as this list (Top 10 greatest symphonies ever - result from 151 conductors surveyed) can atest:
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/music/2...oica-greatest-symphony-vote-bbc-mozart-mahler
> 
> I really LOVE Sibelius very much, but I still prefer Mahler overall if I have to choose.


That poll has come up before and really surprised me. Perhaps you are right about having more experience - who knows, but there is no denying _their_ expertise.

Am re-listening to Mahler's ninth now.


----------



## janxharris

Jacck said:


> Personally, in terms of my subjective enjoyment of their symphonies, I rate both Sibelius and Bruckner higher than Mahler. Mahler is no doubt good, his symphonies are epic, but his music is maniodepressive, meandering, changing moods and too introspective and philosophical. If I want deep philosophy, I will read Dostoyevsky and not listen to Mahler.


Perhaps someone might step up and counter this common charge regarding Mahler's verbosity.


----------



## Jacck

janxharris said:


> Perhaps someone might step up and counter this common charge regarding Mahler's verbosity.


Mahler's verbosity is subjective. One can judge him too verbose, another one not verbose enough. I personally want to enjoy music, not brood over what it all means, ie I am more a fan of an absolute music and not program music
https://study.com/academy/lesson/absolute-music-vs-program-music.html
because as I sad, if I want philosophy, I prefer literature to music to deliver on this. And Mahler is contemplating death and resurrection etc. I want to enjoy music and not contemplate death while listening to it.


----------



## janxharris

Jacck said:


> Mahler's verbosity is subjective. One can judge him too verbose, another one not verbose enough. I personally want to enjoy music, not brood over what it all means, ie I am more a fan of an absolute music and not program music
> https://study.com/academy/lesson/absolute-music-vs-program-music.html
> because as I sad, if I want philosophy, I prefer literature to music to deliver on this. And Mahler is contemplating death and resurrection etc. I want to enjoy music and not contemplate death while listening to it.


Interesting - if I can't ascribe some meaning to what I am listening to - especially something that comes with an image - then I wont like the piece. When the image evoked in listening corresponds exactly with the programmatic claims of the composer it's all the more impressive.


----------



## Jacck

janxharris said:


> That poll has come up before and really surprised me. Perhaps you are right about having more experience - who knows, but there is no denying _their_ expertise. Am re-listening to Mahler's ninth now.


I refuse my taste in music to be dictated by so called experts in the field of art. In one thread here it is discussed that conductors are overrated (just stick waving and silly grimacing ) and now they are made into an authority in taste. None of the conductors can even remotely compare to Brahms and Brahms disliked Mahler's music. So taste is really subjective. 
Actually, one conductor is very seriously underrated IMHO - Furtwängler. His second symphony matches any of Mahler's symphonies in terms of complexity and beauty.


----------



## janxharris

Jacck said:


> I refuse my taste in music to be dictated by so called experts in the field of art. In one thread here it is discussed that conductors are overrated (just stick waving and silly grimacing ) and now they are made into an authority in taste. None of the conductors can even remotely compare to Brahms and Brahms disliked Mahler's music. So taste is really subjective.
> Actually, one conductor is very seriously underrated IMHO - Furtwängler. His second symphony matches any of Mahler's symphonies in terms of complexity and beauty.


 I wasn't actually yielding to their views.

I'll check out your tip when I get a chance. Ta.


----------



## DeepR

Larkenfield said:


> Imagine how good Bruckner might have been if he'd known personal intimacy and human sexuality in an actual relationship with a peer rather than with his usual naïveté and awkwardness with regard to dealing with such important matters. Everything could only exist as a yearning, a longing, instead of a reality, and then the religious aspect takes on all-importance as he tries to climb closer to heaven with each symphony.
> 
> So it never happened for him in certain aspects of the human realm-it just wasn't in the cards and there's no blame in that-but could only remain a fantasy and part of the unknown while his contemporaries had experienced the real thing and one can hear it in their works, such as the two giants of Mahler and Sibelius. In Bruckner, it's the religious and spiritual rather than human dimension that dominate, though there's an obvious humanity there too, and that's certainly a counterpart to philosophy and psychology in how he got through life, no better or worse.


This sounds rather peculiar to me. I'm glad his music is the way it is. I like to think that it exists in another world, a higher reality, independent of his own personal life and other earthly matters. If having a relationship and a sex life would've somehow influenced his music I would be... disappointed.


----------



## jdec

Jacck said:


> Actually, one conductor is very seriously underrated IMHO - Furtwängler. *His second symphony matches any of Mahler's symphonies in terms of complexity and beauty.*


Sorry, but NOPE.


----------



## chalkpie

Kollwitz said:


> I love the 4th, but can't really get a handle on the 5th or 7th, even though they're more popular.


Please don't give up on the 5th or 7th. Listen, listen, listen, and then listen some more. Hear as many versions as you can, and then hopefully it will click. They are both AMAZING gems (I also am a Mahler nut). David Hurwitz's book on Sibelius is great as well, that may help open some doors.


----------



## Kollwitz

Thanks for the Sibelius recommendations. Just listened to the Segerstam 7 and it made more sense to me than the Karajan recording I've got, particularly the rather playful section. Will keep listening to it, give the Harding a go and then explore others.

I'll check out the Hurwitz book too, I've enjoyed his reviews. Reading about music has played a big part in helping me to understand and enjoy it. I'm not the most intuitive listener and find learning through reading really helps to frame the listening experience. It's also nice to see that some of one's own observations about a work or recording are shared by others.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

janxharris said:


> Perhaps someone might step up and counter this common charge regarding Mahler's verbosity.


I feel no need to counter the charge against Mahler's verbosity. I agree with its accuracy, and frankly don't care. Tolstoy was verbose, and probably the greatest novelist the world has ever known.


----------



## Mozart555

Even Sibelius himself would have admitted Mahler was a far greater composer.

Mahler was one of the greatest composers of all time. He is ridiculously underrated because of how recently his music went mainstream. Most of it was only written 100 years ago, and it was drowned by antisemitism and the nazis for the first half of the 20th century. It wasn’t until the 70s that his music went mainstream, a mere 50 years ago.


When the same amount of time has passed as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Mahler will be mentioned in the same breath or even greater, and it won’t be controversial.

Sibelius was, much like Richard Strauss, a first class second rate composer. His music is fine, but it is mostly weak symphonic development with some neo-Tchaikovskian climaxes.

Mahler on the other hand wrote the greatest symphonies ever written by anyone. His music is so trascendental and magical I cannot even compare him to any other composer. I’ve read some of the negative comments here about his musical developments. These people should perhaps listen to the last movement of the 3rd, where he takes a quiet simple theme and builds it over the course of 30 minutes into one of the most beautiful finales in all music.


----------



## Guest

Mozart555 said:


> Even Sibelius himself would have admitted Mahler was a far greater composer.
> 
> Mahler was one of the greatest composers of all time. He is ridiculously underrated because of how recently his music went mainstream. Most of it was only written 100 years ago, and it was drowned by antisemitism and the nazis for the first half of the 20th century. It wasn't until the 70s that his music went mainstream, a mere 50 years ago.
> 
> When the same amount of time has passed as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Mahler will be mentioned in the same breath or even greater, and it won't be controversial.
> 
> Sibelius was, much like Richard Strauss, a first class second rate composer. His music is fine, but it is mostly weak symphonic development with some neo-Tchaikovskian climaxes.
> 
> Mahler on the other hand wrote the greatest symphonies ever written by anyone. His music is so trascendental and magical I cannot even compare him to any other composer. I've read some of the negative comments here about his musical developments. These people should perhaps listen to the last movement of the 3rd, where he takes a quiet simple theme and builds it over the course of 30 minutes into one of the most beautiful finales in all music.


Do you have some kind of enlightened knowledge that puts your appreciation of Mahler above people's honest appreciation and love for the music of Sibelius?

I enjoy Mahler's music more than Sibelius these days, but it's impossible for me to say whether one is objectively a better composer than the other, only what they personally set out to achieve.

I am here to celebrate things that are subjective in music, which is far more interesting than what is _objective_ to me. Sibelius may have developed motifs in ways different to Mahler, and I love how detailed his developments are and the overall dramaturgy that exists in a single movement of a Sibelius symphony. Mahler comes nowhere close to replicating Sibelius's sound. His music is quite different. His goals are different. Objectively, the notes on the page are different and it causes people's subjective responses to be different as well. I don't go about setting criteria upon which to judge existing repertoire; no one in their right mind has that level of authority to deem something as lesser than something else-or worse: to deem someone else's opinions as lesser than one's own.

I am sorry to hear that you did not have a pleasant time reading through this thread. Your response has, however, prompted me to think about why I like each one of these composers.


----------



## janxharris

Mozart555 said:


> Even Sibelius himself would have admitted Mahler was a far greater composer.


Citation?



> Sibelius was, much like Richard Strauss, a first class second rate composer. His music is fine, but it is mostly weak symphonic development with some neo-Tchaikovskian climaxes.


Possibly in his earlier works but not with the last 4 symphonies and Tapiola.



> These people should perhaps listen to the last movement of the 3rd, where he takes a quiet simple theme and builds it over the course of 30 minutes into one of the most beautiful finales in all music.


Much of the final movement sounds pretty banal to my ears (banality being a common criticism) - especially in the cadences (William Henry Monk's 'Eventide' (1861) comes to mind).

I doubt you will find any harmonic/melodic clichés in the Sibelius works cited.


----------



## Enthusiast

Mozart555 said:


> Even Sibelius himself would have admitted Mahler was a far greater composer.
> 
> Mahler was one of the greatest composers of all time. He is ridiculously underrated because of how recently his music went mainstream. Most of it was only written 100 years ago, and it was drowned by antisemitism and the nazis for the first half of the 20th century. It wasn't until the 70s that his music went mainstream, a mere 50 years ago.
> 
> When the same amount of time has passed as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Mahler will be mentioned in the same breath or even greater, and it won't be controversial.
> 
> Sibelius was, much like Richard Strauss, a first class second rate composer. His music is fine, but it is mostly weak symphonic development with some neo-Tchaikovskian climaxes.
> 
> Mahler on the other hand wrote the greatest symphonies ever written by anyone. His music is so trascendental and magical I cannot even compare him to any other composer. I've read some of the negative comments here about his musical developments. These people should perhaps listen to the last movement of the 3rd, where he takes a quiet simple theme and builds it over the course of 30 minutes into one of the most beautiful finales in all music.


And then there are others who will say with equal certainty and equal justice that Mahler was excessive and rather vulgar while Sibelius was rigorous and succinct. "Weak symphonic development - compared to Mahler"? they will ask with a hint of a laugh in their voice. But most of them will do so without insulting people who they disagree with and with a sufficiently mature understanding of aesthetics to know that different people have different tastes .... and that they often have good reasons for doing so.


----------



## janxharris

...and, of course, Mahler (imho) wrote some great pieces...


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> Possibly in his earlier works but not with the last 4 symphonies and Tapiola.


I don't think you should even concede this! It is true that the 1st and 2nd Sibelius symphonies do owe a debt to Tchaikovsky but it largely depends upon the conductor how much of that you hear - less with Vanska, more with Bernstein - and, anyway, even the 1st symphony is also very distinctively Sibelius. In fact, Sibelius's voice was distinctive in even the earlier (and withdrawn) masterpiece, Kullervo.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> I don't think you should even concede this! It is true that the 1st and 2nd Sibelius symphonies do owe a debt to Tchaikovsky but it largely depends upon the conductor how much of that you hear - less with Vanska, more with Bernstein - and, anyway, even the 1st symphony is also very distinctively Sibelius. In fact, Sibelius's voice was distinctive in even the earlier (and withdrawn) masterpiece, Kullervo.


Maybe it's just me; I'm not a great fan of the earlier work. There is clear change of direction somewhere around the fourth onwards.

I'll check out the Vanaska. Thanks for the tip.


----------



## jdec

janxharris said:


> *Much of the final movement sounds pretty banal to my ears* (banality being a common criticism) - especially in the cadences (William Henry Monk's 'Eventide' (1861) comes to mind).


Key words - to your ears (no mine at all).


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> Maybe it's just me; I'm not a great fan of the earlier work. There is clear change of direction somewhere around the fourth onwards.
> 
> I'll check out the Vanaska. Thanks for the tip.


It is most obvious in his first set recorded in Finland. His Sibelius 1 has a very Finnish wildness to it!


----------



## Jacck

janxharris said:


> Maybe it's just me; I'm not a great fan of the earlier work. There is clear change of direction somewhere around the fourth onwards. I'll check out the Vanaska. Thanks for the tip.


I am a big fan. The final movement of symphony 2 is epic


----------



## Judith

To me, they are two different composers with their own styles. Love them both equally. Between them they have composed some wonderful works. 

My favourites being

Mahler. Symphonies 1 and 5 with their beautiful slow movements. 

Sibelius. Symphonies 2, 5 and 7 with their typical Finnish sound to them.


----------



## Mozart555

Fellas, you are just wrong. Check page 356 of Mahler's biography by Lagrange (vol. 4), Sibelius himself admits in a letter to Mahler, and I quote, that he could “only hope to write symphonies like yours (Mahler's).” 

I know you are trying to be hip and cool by going for the underdog, but sometimes it's just corny.


----------



## Mozart555

janxharris said:


> Much of the final movement sounds pretty banal to my ears (banality being a common criticism) - especially in the cadences (William Henry Monk's 'Eventide' (1861) comes to mind). I doubt you will find any harmonic/melodic clichés in the Sibelius works cited.


Utterly uninformed, as I suspected from many of the posters on this thread. Just by reading this I can tell that this person has either never listened to this piece in full, has only listened to it once or twice, or perhaps respects the work and is purposefully disparaging it to make a point.

Whichever it is, the statement is wrong. Banality is a term that has been used for many Mahler movements (for instance the first movement of the 3rd), never for this one. Let me quote a critic, writing for the Allgemeine Musik-Zeitun, who attended the premiere of the symphony:

Of the first movement, he said: It is "sometimes soaring but also sinking to the most incomprehensible platitudes. What was this terrifying chaos of notes, the ear-splitting dissonance and the bizarre instrumental effects?"

But by the time he reached the Adagio, he writes that "starting as what seems like a simple polyphonic exercise, it rises to heights which situate this movement among the most sublime in all symphonic literature. …Only a genius could have created such a movement in which powerful and fervent emotions are expressed with incomparable nobility."

In fact, this movement is about as far away from banal as you can get in music. It starts off with a direct quote from Beethoven's last string quartet, the most classically polyphonic theme, one could argue, of the movement. But throughout the development, he goes through virtually every possible harmonic ambiguity, loosely inspired by Parsifal, with what one can only call neo-Wagnerian harmony. It is similar to Wagner in many ways, but the orchestration is virtually always ambiguous, resolving from one ambiguity to another, essentially drowning the piece with micro-climax after micro-climax (much like happens in the Adagietto from the 5th, to a lesser extent). The orchestration starts off as fairly Beethovenian, but throughout one can find extraordinary dissonances all throughout the orchestra, even in the most harmonious-sounding passages. The accumulating ambiguity and tension reach their peak during the final brass chorale, and even the orchestration of the resolution of this chorale (which is a re-orchestrated repetition of the main theme, this time using the full power of the orchestra) is largely ambiguous and dissonant, and gives the impression of an orchestral earthquake. It is only when the orchestra hits the final D major chord that everything resolves as it should, in true Wagnerian spirit.

This movement is an absolute monument of orchestration, and cannot be compared with anything Sibelius ever wrote. Even Richard Strauss, who attended the premiere and showed great enthusiasm for the first movement, walked out in shame in the middle of the last (which he confirms in a letter to his wife).


----------



## Larkenfield

Apples and oranges! It wasn't Sibelius's destiny to ever write symphonies like Mahler, and he had the artistic vision and integrity to go his own way. Mahler is wonderful too, and both are considered Titans of the symphony and not usually viewed as being mutually exclusive of each other. If that were the case, Sibelius wouldn't still be played and venerated by listeners who have obviously been attracted to him, including millions over the years; and the same could be said for Mahler because not everyone prefers him over Sibelius despite the objectivists who would like to claim Mahler's 'superiority' over others. They were friends and colleagues, and yet sometimes they are depicted as being one winner and one loser... and the spirit behind such comparisons can sound oppressive and offputting. Both have earned their place in the concert halls and both have survived, being played on a regular basis around the world after more than 100 years. So apples and oranges. There are no losers between them, only perhaps a personal preference of one over the other, or the enjoyment of both, or perhaps neither. But if one is _seriously_ dedicated to either one of these great composers, or both, I've rarely seen anything less than overwhelming enthusiasm on behalf of either one.

Esa-Pekka Salonen's perspective on both composers: http://www.metorchestramusicians.org/blog/2017/6/17/esa-pekka-salonen-on-mahler-and-sibelius


----------



## Woodduck

Mozart555 said:


> Utterly uninformed, as I suspected from many of the posters on this thread. Just by reading this I can tell that this person has either never listened to this piece in full, has only listened to it once or twice, or perhaps respects the work and is purposefully disparaging it to make a point.
> 
> Whichever it is, the statement is wrong. Banality is a term that has been used for many Mahler movements (for instance the first movement of the 3rd), never for this one. Let me quote a critic, writing for the Allgemeine Musik-Zeitun, who attended the premiere of the symphony:
> 
> Of the first movement, he said: It is "sometimes soaring but also sinking to the most incomprehensible platitudes. What was this terrifying chaos of notes, the ear-splitting dissonance and the bizarre instrumental effects?"
> 
> But by the time he reached the Adagio, he writes that "starting as what seems like a simple polyphonic exercise, it rises to heights which situate this movement among the most sublime in all symphonic literature. …Only a genius could have created such a movement in which powerful and fervent emotions are expressed with incomparable nobility."
> 
> In fact, this movement is about as far away from banal as you can get in music. It starts off with a direct quote from Beethoven's last string quartet, the most classically polyphonic theme, one could argue, of the movement.* But throughout the development, he goes through virtually every possible harmonic ambiguity, loosely inspired by Parsifal, with what one can only call neo-Wagnerian harmony.* It is similar to Wagner in many ways, but *the orchestration is virtually always ambiguous, resolving from one ambiguity to another, *essentially drowning the piece with micro-climax after micro-climax (much like happens in the Adagietto from the 5th, to a lesser extent). The orchestration starts off as fairly Beethovenian, but *throughout one can find extraordinary dissonances all throughout the orchestra, even in the most harmonious-sounding passages.* The accumulating ambiguity and tension reach their peak during the final brass chorale, and even the orchestration of the resolution of this chorale (which is a re-orchestrated repetition of the main theme, this time using the full power of the orchestra) is largely ambiguous and dissonant, and gives the impression of an orchestral earthquake. It is only when the orchestra hits the final D major chord that everything resolves as it should, in true Wagnerian spirit.
> 
> This movement is an absolute monument of orchestration, and cannot be compared with anything Sibelius ever wrote. Even Richard Strauss, who attended the premiere and showed great enthusiasm for the first movement, walked out in shame in the middle of the last (which he confirms in a letter to his wife).


Without for a moment wishing to deny the greatness of Mahler or rain on anyone's parade, I need to point out that your efforts to raise your personal enthusiasms to the status of objective judgments are undermined by your inability to understand accurately even such features of music as are objectively describable.

The parts of your statement which I've put in boldface are simply inaccurate. Mahler's harmony, in most of his music but certainly in the finale of his 3rd, is not at all Wagnerian, or ("neo-Wagnerian," whatever that means). Wagner's mature, ultra-chromatic idiom, his way of suggesting resolutions on the way to other resolutions that don't come, his preference for deceptive cadences, his frequent use of half-diminished chords both at climaxes and as pivots to unrelated key areas, even his reversal of the roles of diatonic and chromatic harmony by making the latter the norm and reserving the former for dramatic effect - Mahler certainly learned to do all these things, but they don't constitute the substance of this movement, which is fundamentally diatonic in nature. Frankly, there is nothing in it that approaches the pushing at tonal boundaries we find in Wagner's most harmonically characteristic works, _Tristan_ and _Parsifal._ Perhaps you're hoping that the term "neo-Wagnerian" will provide cover for your failure to appreciate these things.

Moreover, what does it mean to say that Mahler's orchestration is "ambiguous"? I don't hear it as particularly hard for the ear to decipher, certainly not in the way that Wagner's can be. Have you ever tried to figure out what instruments are playing in the first five minutes of the _Parsifal_ prelude, or in the last chord of _Tristan_, to name only two famous examples? Wagner wanted that kind of deep, mysterious sonority; Mahler generally had other goals.

Finally, what are the "extraordinary dissonances" to be heard in even the most consonant and diatonic passages of this movement? I would say that its basic harmonic simplicity, framing the modest complexity of its tenser, more dramatic moments, is what makes the piece the fundamentally serene and reassuring thing it is.


----------



## Mozart555

I know you have good intentions, but my response is just a gut reaction to comments I know for a fact are false. It is blatantly obvious you have never studied the work. I never suggested that Mahler is exactly like Wagner, if you had read my post you would have found the prefix neo- before Wagnerian. The piece is not chromatic and wandering in the way Wagner's are. But many of Wagner's techniques are used extensively in the harmonization of both main themes. If you don't believe me just pull out a score and go listen to the work right now. There are indeed many purely diatonic moments in the movement, and they are almost always a resolution of some chromatic ambiguity going on in some part of the orchestra.

If you want to see what this piece would sound like in a more classically diatonic form, you need only listen to the lento assai from Beethoven's 16th string quartet. 

You also suggested in your initial comment that it is not based on Parsifal. Mahler himself said it was based on Parsifal, which if you knew the work, you would have known.


----------



## Woodduck

Mozart555 said:


> I know you have good intentions, but my response is just a gut reaction to comments I know for a fact are false. It is blatantly obvious you have never studied the work. I never suggested that Mahler is exactly like Wagner, if you had read my post you would have found the prefix neo- before Wagnerian. The piece is not chromatic and wandering in the way Wagner's are. But many of Wagner's techniques are used extensively in the harmonization of both main themes. If you don't believe me just pull out a score and go listen to the work right now. There are indeed many purely diatonic moments in the movement, and they are almost always a resolution of some chromatic ambiguity going on in some part of the orchestra.
> 
> You also suggested in your initial comment that it is not based on Parsifal. Mahler himself said it was based on Parsifal, which if you knew the work, you would have known.


I see that in this post you're changing your tune from "I would debate this with you if anything you said were true, unfortunately for you it isn't" to "yes, I know, but that's not what I meant." So "neo-Wagnerian" is, as I suggested, a term you invented to cover an absence of scholarship.

Your effort to portray the finale of Mahler's 3rd as largely chromatic with "purely diatonic moments" will not fly. That describes the prelude to _Tristan_ very well, but not this piece. Let's take this performance:






There is no significant chromaticism, beyond the occasional passing tone, between 1:12:37 and about 1:17:45, over five minutes in, and what occurs even then is far too restrained to be described as "neo-Wagnerian." Then, at 1:18:42, we are back in diatonic territory, though with a tad more chromatic "spicing" in the transition back to the opening theme. At 1:21:30 we go into the minor, yet still with little chromaticism, and the proceedings are for the most part remarkably simple harmonically, with a little more instability heading toward a climax at 1:25:56 where we actually get to linger on a diminished seventh chord (wow!) which wouldn't have frightened Mendelssohn. Once this subsides, we're back to sweet consonance and tonic-dominant-subdominant. Drama beaks out suddenly at 1:27:30 (fifteen minutes into the piece now), a real, sustained bit of chromatic drama, but this lasts only until 1:29:05 - _less than two minutes_ - before we return for the final stretch in the most clear-cut diatonic harmony, rounding off a 22-minute composition in which there are only a few minutes of chromatic writing which could justify invoking the ghost of Wagner.

The music is there for anyone who wants to check my analysis. "Neo-Wagnerian" harmony my foot! And no, I didn't "suggest" that Mahler didn't have _Parsifal_ in mind, but the only part of _Parsifal_ this work suggests is the simple - and diatonic - "faith" motif that Wagner sets in contrast with the more chromatic music of the opera. As I said, this is a predominantly diatonic work, less chromatic even than the early Wagner of the _Tannhauser_ overture.

And now, having worked harder than this "discussion" merits, I will retire to the study.


----------



## Mozart555

You have just admitted what I said and pointed out several moments where it occurs. Not to mention you have skipped the vast amount of examples in the orchestration, which are absolutely abundant. Just open the score. And aside from the chromatic-diatonic dichotomy, the tonal ambiguities are also absolutely prevalent. It is in fact these very tonal ambiguities that give the piece its great beauty, you need only compare the sound with Beethoven's 16th string quartet. 


I'm glad you have ended up agreeing with me, it seems you just didn't realize you were wrong. Mahler was once said to pursue the objectives of Schubert with Wagner's approach. And that's exactly what this movement is a case-in-point study of. It is a beautiful seemingly harmonious continuous melody, but underneath is where he makes the magic happen, and he does so with heavy Wagnerian influence.


----------



## Woodduck

Mozart555 said:


> You have just admitted what I said and pointed out several moments where it occurs. Not to mention you have skipped the vast amount of examples in the orchestration, which are absolutely abundant. Just open the score. And aside from the chromatic-diatonic dichotomy, the tonal ambiguities are also absolutely prevalent. It is in fact these very tonal ambiguities that give the piece its great beauty, you need only compare the sound with Beethoven's 16th string quartet.
> 
> I'm glad you have ended up agreeing with me, it seems you just didn't realize you were wrong. Mahler was once said to pursue the objectives of Schubert with Wagner's approach. And that's exactly what this movement is a case-in-point study of. It is a beautiful seemingly harmonious continuous melody, but underneath is where he makes the magic happen, and he does so with heavy Wagnerian influence.


I've admitted nothing. Your initial analysis was inaccurate, both in essence and in detail. I quote:

the most classically polyphonic theme

There is no such thing as a "polyphonic theme." No musically knowledgeable person would use such a term. Polyphony is a texture, not a melodic trait, and Mahler doesn't treat his theme polyphonically.

throughout the development, he goes through virtually every possible harmonic ambiguity

No, he doesn't. In fact he goes through very few of the possibilities of harmonic ambiguity.

with what one can only call neo-Wagnerian harmony.

You can call it that, but no one who understands harmony would.

the orchestration is virtually always ambiguous, resolving from one ambiguity to another,

The orchestration is rather straightforward, with typical Mahlerian transparency.

throughout one can find extraordinary dissonances all throughout the orchestra, even in the most harmonious-sounding passages.

No, one can't. Most of the dissonance is quite mild and commonplace, which doesn't, of course, detract from its aptness and beauty. The "most harmonious-sounding passages" are not dissonant at all, unless you think major and minor triads are dissonant.

even the orchestration of the resolution of this chorale (which is a re-orchestrated repetition of the main theme, this time using the full power of the orchestra) is largely ambiguous and dissonant,

Calling orchestration ambiguous and dissonant is meaningless. Harmony can be those things, and the harmony here is isn't.

This movement...cannot be compared with anything Sibelius ever wrote.

Why not? I could make some interesting comparisons, but what would be the point? Many here can appreciate the uniqueness of these two master composers and don't need to prove what smarties they are by insulting those whose preferences are different.

So, no. I reject your description of this music, point for point.


----------



## Guest

Mozart555 said:


> Check page 356 of Mahler's biography by Lagrange (vol. 4), Sibelius himself admits in a letter to Mahler, and I quote, that he could "only hope to write symphonies like yours (Mahler's)."


Was this the quote? Sibelius may have been a worthy composer, but that doesn't make him a great critic of his own work or anyone else's.


----------



## Larkenfield

Outstanding performance of the Sibelius 7th with Mark Elder and the Hallé Orchestra:


----------



## Taggart

Please try and avoid personal comments.

Some *temporary *actions have been taken pending discussion by the moderating team.

Some posts have been removed and, consequently, the replies to them have also been removed.

Please stay on topic and be polite to your fellow members.


----------



## chalkpie

Kollwitz said:


> Thanks for the Sibelius recommendations. Just listened to the Segerstam 7 and it made more sense to me than the Karajan recording I've got, particularly the rather playful section. Will keep listening to it, give the Harding a go and then explore others.
> 
> I'll check out the Hurwitz book too, I've enjoyed his reviews. Reading about music has played a big part in helping me to understand and enjoy it. I'm not the most intuitive listener and find learning through reading really helps to frame the listening experience. It's also nice to see that some of one's own observations about a work or recording are shared by others.


Cool- glad you're digging the S7. Segerstam does a great job in that, and the Ondine sonics really help the piece come alive.

The only criticism of the Hurwitz book is that you really need to have the recordings handy as he does a thorough play-by-play of each movement. It can get a bit long-winded or tedious if you're just reading about it without actually knowing the music, but if you do have an idea of which parts(s) he is discussing it can truly open some huge doors to the music. He does an incredibly detailed job too. So I guess maybe its not a criticism after all!


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> Was this the quote? Sibelius may have been a worthy composer, but that doesn't make him a great critic of his own work or anyone else's.


Sibelius was modest, even insecure about his own work, and typically generous with praise of other composers and conductors. As for Mahler, it's questionable how much of his music Sibelius ever actually heard, given the scarcity of performances. The answer may very well be "none."


----------



## janxharris

Mozart555 said:


> Utterly uninformed, as I suspected from many of the posters on this thread. Just by reading this I can tell that this person has either never listened to this piece in full, has only listened to it once or twice, or perhaps respects the work and is purposefully disparaging it to make a point.
> 
> Whichever it is, the statement is wrong. Banality is a term that has been used for many Mahler movements (for instance the first movement of the 3rd), never for this one. Let me quote a critic, writing for the Allgemeine Musik-Zeitun, who attended the premiere of the symphony:
> 
> Of the first movement, he said: It is "sometimes soaring but also sinking to the most incomprehensible platitudes. What was this terrifying chaos of notes, the ear-splitting dissonance and the bizarre instrumental effects?"
> 
> But by the time he reached the Adagio, he writes that "starting as what seems like a simple polyphonic exercise, it rises to heights which situate this movement among the most sublime in all symphonic literature. …Only a genius could have created such a movement in which powerful and fervent emotions are expressed with incomparable nobility."
> 
> In fact, this movement is about as far away from banal as you can get in music. It starts off with a direct quote from Beethoven's last string quartet, the most classically polyphonic theme, one could argue, of the movement. But throughout the development, he goes through virtually every possible harmonic ambiguity, loosely inspired by Parsifal, with what one can only call neo-Wagnerian harmony. It is similar to Wagner in many ways, but the orchestration is virtually always ambiguous, resolving from one ambiguity to another, essentially drowning the piece with micro-climax after micro-climax (much like happens in the Adagietto from the 5th, to a lesser extent). The orchestration starts off as fairly Beethovenian, but throughout one can find extraordinary dissonances all throughout the orchestra, even in the most harmonious-sounding passages. The accumulating ambiguity and tension reach their peak during the final brass chorale, and even the orchestration of the resolution of this chorale (which is a re-orchestrated repetition of the main theme, this time using the full power of the orchestra) is largely ambiguous and dissonant, and gives the impression of an orchestral earthquake. It is only when the orchestra hits the final D major chord that everything resolves as it should, in true Wagnerian spirit.
> 
> This movement is an absolute monument of orchestration, and cannot be compared with anything Sibelius ever wrote. Even Richard Strauss, who attended the premiere and showed great enthusiasm for the first movement, walked out in shame in the middle of the last (which he confirms in a letter to his wife).


You appear to be attempting to make a case for this piece's objective superiority over Sibelius and yet there is nothing in your post that achieves this.

Arguing that it isn't banal by suggesting it quotes Beethoven is contradictory isn't it? One might also cite the similarity to the second movement of the Eroica. I would also point to Mahler's use of the Italian 'turn' as problematic here.

Every possible harmonic ambiguity? Extraordinary dissonances? I am with Woodduck - it is essentially diatonic. 
Ambiguous orchestration? What do you mean?

Each to there own Mozart555 - I think Mahler was a genius but I wouldn't cite this as evidence myself. I think the Adagietto from the 5th does show great originality - so too the second movement of the 7th.


----------



## janxharris

Mozart555 said:


> Fellas, you are just wrong. Check page 356 of Mahler's biography by Lagrange (vol. 4), Sibelius himself admits in a letter to Mahler, and I quote, that he could "only hope to write symphonies like yours (Mahler's)."


Do you have the year of the quote?



> I know you are trying to be hip and cool by going for the underdog, but sometimes it's just corny.


No underdog has been established.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> No underdog has been established.


Indeed. These guys are both overdogs, although from another perspective Mahler is a hot dog and Sibelius is a cool cat.


----------



## Bulldog

Woodduck said:


> Indeed. These guys are both overdogs, although from another perspective Mahler is a hot dog and Sibelius is a cool cat.


In terms of beef, Mahler is a rib-eye while Sibelius is a filet mignon.


----------



## jdec

"_You have the greats: Bach of course, Mozart, Beethoven. And I think Mahler belongs in this group. But his vocabulary is so modern, that people don't fully understand it yet._"

- Iván Fischer, founder and conductor of the Budapest Festival Orchestra

[13:49]


----------



## EdwardBast

Thanks for posting this jdec ^ ^ ^. I've admired Fischer's conducting for a long time and have heard him conduct Mahler live in concert. It was good to find that his eloquence and depth of thought match the level of his performances.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Indeed. These guys are both overdogs, although from another perspective Mahler is a hot dog and Sibelius is a cool cat.


I now subscribe to this perspective; thank you, Woodduck! :lol:

Comments of mine [that were appropriately deleted as they were in response to very inappropriate behaviour] also earlier mentioned that these two composers had extremely different goals with their compositions...........

Very different careers, very different influences, very different (but equally interesting and innovative) approaches to symphonic form.


----------



## janxharris

Mozart555 said:


> Fellas, you are just wrong. Check page 356 of Mahler's biography by Lagrange (vol. 4), Sibelius himself admits in a letter to Mahler, and I quote, that he could "only hope to write symphonies like yours (Mahler's)."
> 
> I know you are trying to be hip and cool by going for the underdog, but sometimes it's just corny.


If it was written, then it was so before the completion of his fourth symphony.


----------



## chalkpie

These days is like a ratio of 7:1 in favor of Sibelius for me. I Just don't have the time and patience for Mahler all of the time, but he will always be in the top 3 favs for me, along with Sibelius. I would never compare these two geniuses - they both achieve what the other doesn't, and they are both beyond amazing for me.


----------



## Chronochromie

I used to be more into Mahler but these days it's Sibelius who calls to me more often. Mahler's a bit too Baroque in the more negative sense of the word for me right now.


----------



## janxharris

chalkpie said:


> ...they both achieve what the other doesn't...


I think this is very true.


----------



## Guest

chalkpie said:


> they both achieve what the other doesn't


Er...I'm not sure that's possible...is it? I mean, _one _of them can achieve what the other doesn't, or _each _achieves what the other doesn't...but _both_? That would mean that they achieve what they don't.


----------



## janxharris

MacLeod said:


> Er...I'm not sure that's possible...is it? I mean, _one _of them can achieve what the other doesn't, or _each _achieves what the other doesn't...but _both_? That would mean that they achieve what they don't.


In this case, 'both' has to mean 'each' where their respective achievements are different.


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> In this case, 'both' has to mean 'each' where their respective achievements are different.


You mean the English language has to be broken? That's like saying 'one' means 'two'!


----------



## janxharris

MacLeod said:


> You mean the English language has to be broken? That's like saying 'one' means 'two'!


I wasn't aware the meaning of 'both' was so restrictive.


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> I wasn't aware the meaning of 'both' was so restrictive.


There have to be limits to the meanings of all words, otherwise conversation would be impossible.

More importantly, @chalkpie, what is it that they each achieve that the other doesn't? And while I'm being in difficult mood, I'd like to know what it is about Sibelius' music - other than the fact that he came from Finland - that leads people to decribe it as 'Nordic', and use other descriptors which might lead one to think of it as programme music!


----------



## janxharris

MacLeod said:


> There have to be limits to the meanings of all words, otherwise conversation would be impossible.
> 
> More importantly, @chalkpie, what is it that they each achieve that the other doesn't? And while I'm being in difficult mood, I'd like to know what it is about Sibelius' music - other than the fact that he came from Finland - that leads people to decribe it as 'Nordic', and use other descriptors which might lead one to think of it as programme music!


Your probably right about the use of 'both' - _'regarded and identified together'_ whereas 'each' - _'regarded and identified separately'._

Regarding Sibelius being programmatic - do you not hear a desolate, even Nordic, landscape here swept by the moaning wind?


----------



## Jacck

janxharris said:


> Your probably right about the use of 'both' - _'regarded and identified together'_ whereas 'each' - _'regarded and identified separately'._
> 
> Regarding Sibelius being programmatic - do you not hear a desolate, even Nordic, landscape here swept by the moaning wind?


do you hear Mahler anticipating his own death here?


----------



## RogerExcellent

Sibelius is too modern so Mahler for me today


----------



## janxharris

Jacck said:


> do you hear Mahler anticipating his own death here?


I guess a lot of his music is about death - so you are probably right. I find it difficult getting beyond his use of the ornamental turn to be honest. It's in the finale of the third.


----------



## janxharris

RogerExcellent said:


> Sibelius is *too modern* so Mahler for me today


?.............................


----------



## janxharris

Compare this and this.


----------



## chalkpie

MacLeod said:


> More importantly, @chalkpie, what is it that they each achieve that the other doesn't? And while I'm being in difficult mood, I'd like to know what it is about Sibelius' music - other than the fact that he came from Finland - that leads people to decribe it as 'Nordic', and use other descriptors which might lead one to think of it as programme music!


I guess start with the fact that they both wrote _very_ different music, drawing upon their life experiences, cultures, lifestyles, geographical influences, musical education, etc etc. Sibelius never achieved the uplifting ending of M2, and on the other hand Mahler never achieved the grotesque, chilly nature of Tapiola. That is what I meant when I wrote that, and you seemed to turn it into some snarky response. I still stand by my comment.

In terms of the "Nordic" nature of his music, its so prevalent (at times) that if you can't really hear that particular aspect then maybe you need to explore more of his music. Now one could argue the definition of "Nordic" sounding music, but I think that is probably for another topic in another thread which I'm sure has been covered to death here.

Here is one example: the beginning of Symphony No 4 is so stark, so desolate, like some wanderer or nomad lost under the northern lights in the deep of winter. Did he really mean that? I'm sure not, but its there for me, its in his musical DNA, and its unmissable. That is one mere example of something he achieved that Mahler did not.


----------



## Mozart555

Woodduck said:


> I've admitted nothing. Your initial analysis was inaccurate, both in essence and in detail. I quote:
> 
> the most classically polyphonic theme
> 
> There is no such thing as a "polyphonic theme." No musically knowledgeable person would use such a term. Polyphony is a texture, not a melodic trait, and Mahler doesn't treat his theme polyphonically.
> 
> throughout the development, he goes through virtually every possible harmonic ambiguity
> 
> No, he doesn't. In fact he goes through very few of the possibilities of harmonic ambiguity.
> 
> with what one can only call neo-Wagnerian harmony.
> 
> You can call it that, but no one who understands harmony would.
> 
> the orchestration is virtually always ambiguous, resolving from one ambiguity to another,
> 
> The orchestration is rather straightforward, with typical Mahlerian transparency.
> 
> throughout one can find extraordinary dissonances all throughout the orchestra, even in the most harmonious-sounding passages.
> 
> No, one can't. Most of the dissonance is quite mild and commonplace, which doesn't, of course, detract from its aptness and beauty. The "most harmonious-sounding passages" are not dissonant at all, unless you think major and minor triads are dissonant.
> 
> even the orchestration of the resolution of this chorale (which is a re-orchestrated repetition of the main theme, this time using the full power of the orchestra) is largely ambiguous and dissonant,
> 
> Calling orchestration ambiguous and dissonant is meaningless. Harmony can be those things, and the harmony here is isn't.
> 
> This movement...cannot be compared with anything Sibelius ever wrote.
> 
> Why not? I could make some interesting comparisons, but what would be the point? Many here can appreciate the uniqueness of these two master composers and don't need to prove what smarties they are by insulting those whose preferences are different.
> 
> So, no. I reject your description of this music, point for point.


Both Michael Tilson Thomas and Leonard Bernstein said the movement was Wagnerian in nature. I'd love to agree with some amateurs on the Internet over Bernstein, but it's one of those things… And of course on this forum Bernstein is considered an idiot, having only recorded two Mahler cycles himself and being buried with a Mahler score. As has been said before, Mahler's musical language is very modern, and we have here people making technical judgements based on a skim-through one-time listen. This whole discussion is just one big caricature.


----------



## EdwardBast

Mozart555 said:


> Both Michael Tilson Thomas and Leonard Bernstein said the movement was Wagnerian in nature. I'd love to agree with some amateurs on the Internet over Bernstein, but it's one of those things… And of course on this forum Bernstein is considered an idiot, having only recorded two Mahler cycles himself and being buried with a Mahler score. As has been said before, Mahler's musical language is very modern, and we have here people making technical judgements based on a skim-through one-time listen. This whole discussion is just one big caricature.


Please show us where Tilson-Thomas and/or Bernstein endorsed any of the specific theoretical or stylistic comments you made. If you can't do this, then you have no business citing them as authorities in support of your statements. Who on this forum opined that Bernstein was an idiot? What makes you think you understood what these conductors meant when they called it Wagnerian?


----------



## Larkenfield

Reportedly Mahler's final words on his deathbed were "Mozart!, Mozart!" So it should be obvious what he meant since he didn't shout out his own name.


----------



## Woodduck

Mozart555 said:


> Both Michael Tilson Thomas and Leonard Bernstein said the movement was Wagnerian in nature. I'd love to agree with some amateurs on the Internet over Bernstein, but it's one of those things… And of course on this forum Bernstein is considered an idiot, having only recorded two Mahler cycles himself and being buried with a Mahler score. As has been said before, Mahler's musical language is very modern, and we have here people making technical judgements based on a skim-through one-time listen. This whole discussion is just one big caricature.


This discussion is not a caricature. It is a simple dissection by real musicians of one contributor's misconceived description of a piece of music he may feel deeply about but has been making a bloody mess of when he tries to talk about it in musical terms.

A number of us here 1.) are not amateurs, 2.) don't consider Bernstein an idiot, and 3.) would not consider him - or you - wrong to point out that there are Wagnerian qualities in Mahler. Indeed that's one of music's better known facts, with which no one is likely to argue. But your description of the finale of Mahler's 3rd makes clear that you don't understand the specific ways in which that is or is not true of this particular piece. It also makes clear that you don't know how to use some basic musical terminology to refer to what you're hearing. This is nothing to be ashamed of or defensive about. But since it's also clear that you don't want to know how you're misusing musical terms, it might be best just to drop the matter.


----------



## Dan Ante

Sibelius vs. Mahler

For me Sibelius wins by a mile.


----------



## janxharris

chalkpie said:


> I guess start with the fact that they both wrote _very_ different music, drawing upon their life experiences, cultures, lifestyles, geographical influences, musical education, etc etc. Sibelius never achieved the uplifting ending of M2....


Where specifically is the uplift you describe chalkpie?


----------



## chalkpie

janxharris said:


> Where specifically is the uplift you describe chalkpie?


Do you mean of M2? If so, its the ending!


----------



## janxharris

chalkpie said:


> Do you mean of M2? If so, its the ending!


I was wondering if you meant a specific section of the finale?


----------



## Enthusiast

Who would have thought that this question would go to nearly 20 pages and still has life in it? I think I'll go on a shopping forum and post the question "which is better: chalk or cheese?".


----------



## Phil loves classical

It's between Sibelius' 3rd and Mahler's 7th for me, which are less Romantic, and less fussy. Mahler is just so drawn out, his music never seems ideal to me. So Sibelius.


----------



## Dan Ante

Enthusiast said:


> Who would have thought that this question would go to nearly 20 pages and still has life in it? I think I'll go on a shopping forum and post the question "which is better: chalk or cheese?".


That is not a fair question, you should say which cheese.


----------



## MarkW

I don't necessarily know what this means, but over the last several years, when a Sibelius symphony comes up on my iPod, more often than not I find mysel clicking forward to the next piece.


----------



## Guest

chalkpie said:


> I guess start with the fact that they both wrote _very_ different music, drawing upon their life experiences, cultures, lifestyles, geographical influences, musical education, etc etc. Sibelius never achieved the uplifting ending of M2, and on the other hand Mahler never achieved the grotesque, chilly nature of Tapiola. That is what I meant when I wrote that, and you seemed to turn it into some snarky response. I still stand by my comment.
> 
> In terms of the "Nordic" nature of his music, its so prevalent (at times) that if you can't really hear that particular aspect then maybe you need to explore more of his music. Now one could argue the definition of "Nordic" sounding music, but I think that is probably for another topic in another thread which I'm sure has been covered to death here.
> 
> Here is one example: the beginning of Symphony No 4 is so stark, so desolate, like some wanderer or nomad lost under the northern lights in the deep of winter. Did he really mean that? I'm sure not, but its there for me, its in his musical DNA, and its unmissable. That is one mere example of something he achieved that Mahler did not.


Sorry - didn't mean to be snarky. They did write very different music. I guess I was wondering what might be meant by 'what they achieved', and why what one wrote was of a different achievement from the other. Mahler seems to me to want to say Big and Very Important Things About the Meaning Of Life; Sibelius wants us to feel something about the continuities of daily existence (do I mean he's existential?)

But I also remain unconvinced by the idea that what there is to be heard in Sibelius are places, ("dark" Finnish forests, for example). When comparing interpretations, it's those by Finnish conductors that seem to attract these images most frequently. I prefer this analysis, which makes interesting reading by referring to the inspiration he drew from the landscape, but recognised not 'the mountain' but what it meant to him.

http://www.sibelius.fi/english/musiikki/ork_sinf_04.htm


----------



## Enthusiast

Dan Ante said:


> That is not a fair question, you should say which cheese.


All cheeses versus all chalks, really. But it could be _cheese's 4th versus chalk's "song of the blackboard"_.


----------



## EdwardBast

MacLeod said:


> Sorry - didn't mean to be snarky. They did write very different music. I guess I was wondering what might be meant by 'what they achieved', and why what one wrote was of a different achievement from the other. Mahler seems to me to want to say Big and Very Important Things About the Meaning Of Life; Sibelius wants us to feel something about the continuities of daily existence (do I mean he's existential?)
> 
> B*ut I also remain unconvinced by the idea that what there is to be heard in Sibelius are places, ("dark" Finnish forests, for example).* When comparing interpretations, it's those by Finnish conductors that seem to attract these images most frequently. I prefer this analysis, which makes interesting reading by referring to the inspiration he drew from the landscape, but recognised not 'the mountain' but what it meant to him.
> 
> http://www.sibelius.fi/english/musiikki/ork_sinf_04.htm


I agree. However, Sibelius did depict Finnish forests in _Tapiola_ and perhaps some other programmatic works. I suspect people just thoughtlessly extrapolate this to similar sounding material in the symphonies. But there might be something about the character of Sibelius's music that invites comparisons to natural phenomena, as opposed to human action and emotion: Not much striving through tense harmonic processes, not so much in the way of long melodic arcs that sound driven like human utterance, more cumulative effects based on elemental motives? Sorry if that's vague. I haven't thought this through well enough or done enough analysis - just subjective impressions that need following up.


----------



## Larkenfield

Why don't people read more about the way Sibelius lived to get a deeper insight into what he wrote?

I didn't write the following description but feel that it's very true-that his predominate role in life was to let myth and nature speak through him; his music wasn't always about his psychological state or what was happening to him personally. He was connected with the larger natural forces of life.



> For Jean Sibelius his daily long walks in the gardens and forest at Ainola - "My Temple" as he used to call it - were a source of inspiration and it is this relationship with nature that he nurtured throughout his life.
> 
> As a schoolboy in Hämeenlinna Sibelius used to roam in the forest with his violin at hand. Among the pines, spruces and rowanberry trees he felt at home and found inspiration to his music.
> 
> Sibelius' creative and versatile mind cannot be separated from his strong identity with nature. The stunning landscapes around Sibelius' hometown Hämeenlinna, the Vanaja lake and Aulanko park, and the gardens and the Kielomäki forest at Ainola enable the visitor to understand the link between nature and Sibelius' music. This link remains in the way people analyze and listen to his music.
> 
> Sibelius' connoisseurs have described his music as a romantic-heroic representation of the Finnish landscape. Several of his musical pieces were named after nature: Birch, Spruce and Waterdrops. In his music elements of nature seem to spring from lakes and forests: the ripple of the lake's water and the breeze sweeps the branches of tall pines.
> 
> With Sibelius Finnish nature becomes music. [unquote]
> 
> When he was no longer able to carry on along those lines and go into it even deeper, I believe that was the beginning of the end of his career as a major composer and he was marking time for the remaining 30 years of his life. Mahler could have used those years.


----------



## Guest

I'm not surprised that Sibelius took inspiration from nature. Whatever worked for him. But I do not find it important or useful to consider Sibelius's motivations when listening to or thinking about the music he wrote.


----------



## GeorgeMcW

Woodduck said:


> I see that in this post you're changing your tune from "I would debate this with you if anything you said were true, unfortunately for you it isn't" to "yes, I know, but that's not what I meant." So "neo-Wagnerian" is, as I suggested, a term you invented to cover an absence of scholarship.
> 
> Your effort to portray the finale of Mahler's 3rd as largely chromatic with "purely diatonic moments" will not fly. That describes the prelude to _Tristan_ very well, but not this piece. Let's take this performance:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no significant chromaticism, beyond the occasional passing tone, between 1:12:37 and about 1:17:45, over five minutes in, and what occurs even then is far too restrained to be described as "neo-Wagnerian." Then, at 1:18:42, we are back in diatonic territory, though with a tad more chromatic "spicing" in the transition back to the opening theme. At 1:21:30 we go into the minor, yet still with little chromaticism, and the proceedings are for the most part remarkably simple harmonically, with a little more instability heading toward a climax at 1:25:56 where we actually get to linger on a diminished seventh chord (wow!) which wouldn't have frightened Mendelssohn. Once this subsides, we're back to sweet consonance and tonic-dominant-subdominant. Drama beaks out suddenly at 1:27:30 (fifteen minutes into the piece now), a real, sustained bit of chromatic drama, but this lasts only until 1:29:05 - _less than two minutes_ - before we return for the final stretch in the most clear-cut diatonic harmony, rounding off a 22-minute composition in which there are only a few minutes of chromatic writing which could justify invoking the ghost of Wagner.
> 
> The music is there for anyone who wants to check my analysis. "Neo-Wagnerian" harmony my foot! And no, I didn't "suggest" that Mahler didn't have _Parsifal_ in mind, but the only part of _Parsifal_ this work suggests is the simple - and diatonic - "faith" motif that Wagner sets in contrast with the more chromatic music of the opera. As I said, this is a predominantly diatonic work, less chromatic even than the early Wagner of the _Tannhauser_ overture.
> 
> And now, having worked harder than this "discussion" merits, I will retire to the study.


This is an interesting discussion. I think both WoodDuck and Mozart555 bring up interesting points. Makes me think of a Wagner vs Brahms discussion on form vs harmony.

Coming back to the last movement of Mahler 3rd symphony, I think Mahler was still referring back to Beethoven more than anyone. So was Sibelius. The Wunderhorn symphonies, Mahler was clearly more diatonic but expanding the symphonic sonata form from Beethoven's 6th Pastoral but with references to nature, and to Beethoven's 9th, with music set to texts. This movement clearly starts and ends in E flat major - the final timpani resounding E flat tells us this - evoking Eroica anyone? But when I listen to it, even though the foreground evokes tonality, it keeps shifting - not in a Wagnerian chromaticism sort of way, but like middle-ground fissures in tonality.

In his next few symphonies, from the 4th onwards all the way to the end, he continues to expand on these linear vs vertical shifts - sometimes keeping it within a formal sonata form like the 6th, and sometimes breaking it all apart like the 7th and 8th.

I think Sibelius also dealt with similar questions in different ways. Is his 5th symphony in E flat major?


----------



## Eclectic Al

The thing for me is that all the Sibelius symphonies are pieces I return to repeatedly. I would probably order them (favourite to least favourite) 7, 6, 3, 4, 5, 1, 2, but I relate to all of them strongly, and all seem genuinely "symphonic". (I don't really count Kullervo.)
With Mahler, I would order them (perhaps) 9, 5, 1, 6, 2, 3, 4, and I have a weakness for the completed 10. When it comes to 7, 8 and Das Lied, I don't really get them. Also, with 2 and 3, although I like them, I can't help but feel that they bend the definition of symphony further than I am comfortable with. I think it is often the vocal (not choral) movements that trouble me, when we seem to leave the world of symphony, and enter that of the orchestral song cycle. (They are beautiful, though.)
Hence, as a symphonist, Sibelius wins hands down for me, because he consistently writes pieces which are unambiguously symphonies, and ones which I happen to relate to strongly. With Mahler, I love bits of many of his symphonies, and the whole of 9 and 5, but have too many misgivings about other aspects of them. I suspect it's a personal preference for concentration over expansiveness. Nothing is as moving as passion expressed within a disciplined structure; if the passion is allowed its head too freely then it is dissipated and weakened. (This feeling is probably why I love Brahms.) Take the section in the slow movement of Sibelius' fourth when emotion is allowed to burst out, but only briefly and then it is stamped on almost before it gets going. It could have been given its head, but Sibelius will not milk it and that makes it special. Mahler creates great beauty, but I think I would feel closer to him if he held it in a bit more.


----------



## flamencosketches

In terms of sheer preference I must give the vote to Mahler, though I admit that one year ago today I would have said Sibelius with unbending certitude. In terms of an actual comparison, none can be made. Neither is better than the other. They reflect opposing ends of the spectrum of symphonic music in the early 20th century. I believe one of the Brits among us even used the phrase "chalk and cheese", what a great expression


----------



## Rogerx

This is comparing apples and pears comes to mind.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Eclectic Al said:


> The thing for me is that all the Sibelius symphonies are pieces I return to repeatedly. I would probably order them (favourite to least favourite) 7, 6, 3, 4, 5, 1, 2, but I relate to all of them strongly, and all seem genuinely "symphonic". (I don't really count Kullervo.)
> With Mahler, I would order them (perhaps) 9, 5, 1, 6, 2, 3, 4, and I have a weakness for the completed 10. When it comes to 7, 8 and Das Lied, I don't really get them. Also, with 2 and 3, although I like them, I can't help but feel that they bend the definition of symphony further than I am comfortable with. I think it is often the vocal (not choral) movements that trouble me, when we seem to leave the world of symphony, and enter that of the orchestral song cycle. (They are beautiful, though.)
> Hence, as a symphonist, Sibelius wins hands down for me, because he consistently writes pieces which are unambiguously symphonies, and ones which I happen to relate to strongly. With Mahler, I love bits of many of his symphonies, and the whole of 9 and 5, but have too many misgivings about other aspects of them. I suspect it's a personal preference for concentration over expansiveness. Nothing is as moving as passion expressed within a disciplined structure; if the passion is allowed its head too freely then it is dissipated and weakened. (This feeling is probably why I love Brahms.) Take the section in the slow movement of Sibelius' fourth when emotion is allowed to burst out, but only briefly and then it is stamped on almost before it gets going. It could have been given its head, but Sibelius will not milk it and that makes it special. Mahler creates great beauty, but I think I would feel closer to him if he held it in a bit more.


Maybe, a common way of playing Mahler adds to your assessment of his work. Mahler often is served with lots of easy-greasy sentiments on top. Boulez distills most of these sentiments and delivers a refreshingly different listening experience from many other conductors.

Also, there is more expression in Mahlers world as there is in the Finnish landscape. If Sibelius would have lived and hiked in Austria, he might have adopted a different style.

To me, in the choice of this long going thread, it is Mahler all the way and Sibelius second.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Sibelius is in my top 3 composers while Mahler is in my top 5 or so. They are my two favorite symphonists of all time. They both me touch me in a more personal way than almost any other composers. If I had to choose between Mahler 9 and Sibelius 7 for the desert island, I would be driven mad trying to pick. And I think Sibelius was just as expressive as Mahler, he just worked within a radically different aesthetic.


----------



## Waehnen

I am most happy that we have both Mahler and Sibelius! I feel no need to try to put one in front of the other objectively speaking.

From my point of view both played to their strengths. Mahler is not melodically too talented but managed to pour his rich imagination and vast emotional landscape into his huge orchestras and huge symphonies. Mahler is crucial in the development of the symphony in this regard.

Sibelius also seems to have realized where his strengths are and put his focus there: in rich tonal melodies, harmonies, orchestral colours and inventive symphonic forms. He rejected certain modernist tendencies of his time after some serious contemplation. He also rejected massive Wagnerian scale of expression and concentrated on concise forms.

Both did great job! I admire and congratulate both. And I have no doubt they would congratulate each other, too!


----------

