# Similar Composers to Sibelius



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Since many around here are into Sibelius lately, I thought it would be interesting to see what people are similar Composers to Sibelius. Pre-Sibelius and post-Sibelius Composers included. To me, Tchaikovsky is quite similar as mentioned before. Both have very melodic and Romantic sound to them.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Since many around here are into Sibelius lately, I thought it would be interesting to see what people are similar Composers to Sibelius. Pre-Sibelius and post-Sibelius Composers included. To me, Tchaikovsky is quite similar as mentioned before. Both have very melodic and Romantic sound to them.


Tchaikovsky was an inspiration for Sibelius, i heard that Tchaikovsky's 6th symphony made Sibelius want to write his first symphony.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

I do not believe at all that Sibelius is intrinsically similar to Tchaikovsky. The comparison is often made because of to main reasons:

1. In his youth, Sibelius was quoted as saying that he saw much of himself in Tchaikovsky

and

2. The First Symphony, and maybe the second, sound like Tchikovsky.

Sibelius said a lot of things in his youth. He also said he felt close to Liszt and he loved Wagner. (Parsifal tugged at his heart strings like nothing esle, to paraphrase.) However, I think we can probably say with ease that there is little to no Liszt nor Wagner in anything Sibelius wrote, at least not overtly. I suppose if you look long and hard enough you may hear a Lisztian orchestration in one of Sibelius's tone poems, or you may find a Wagner chord in the Swan of Tuonela or something, but thinsg like these would not mean that Sibelius is truly similar to either composer.

Back to Tchaikovsky, it is very possible that Sibelius wrote his First Symphony with Tchaikovsky on his mind, but I have always contended that there may be moments of orchestration in this work that are redolent of Tchaikovsky, or an instrumental gesture or an orchestral texture...maybe even a slight turn of melody, but that is it. By the time the Second of Sibelius rolls around, I feel that any and all Tchaikovsky influence, real or imagined, is long gone. And then go listen to Kullervo, or the Oceanides, or Tapiola and you will hear that not only Tchaikovsky is not there, but probably, he was never really there anyway.

So, for the matter of this discussion, I propose that Sibelius and Tchaikovsky are not similar.

Now, for composers who are similar.

This is hard for me because I feel that Sibelius is among the most singular composers of all time. One an artist is singular, trying to say who they are like is very hard.

I feel there is much in Bax that is similar. Bax was indeed a great admirateur of Sibelius. But Bax's structures are out-of-control, which makes his music hard to listen to for me. But in terms of mood and orchestration, I think similarities abound.

I have heard that a composer from New Zealand called Lilburn is similar, though I have never heard any of his music.

Occasionaly I hear passing and perhaps superficial similarities in lesser-known Holst and in some Vaughn-Williams. It's no secret tha the Brits loved Sibelius, so the fact that three British composers just came to mind for me, including another from within the Commonwealth, so that must be some amount of proof that if you want to hear composers that sound similar to Sibelius, start in the British Empire!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Bruckner was a huge influence throughout Sibelius's life. Sibelius wanted to study with the elder master, but his ill health and death prevented this. Many of Sibelius's procedures about tonality are prefigured in Bruckner's symphonic works (beginning on a tonality that acts as a stepping stone for a different tonality), as is the relatively unmixed orchestration (the opposite direction from where composers like Strauss, Mahler, and Schoenberg were heading at the time) and his building pieces on an urmotif (Bruckner's 4th has the flattened sixth/major chord on flat-II as a background concept, while Sibelius's 5th has the rising 4th/5th).

Sibelius once said the following: "Yesterday I heard Bruckner's B-flat major symphony [the 5th] and it moved me to tears. For a long time afterwards, I was completely transformed. What a strangely profound spirit formed by a religious sense. And this profound religiousness we have abolished in our country as something no longer in harmony with our time"

I'm not saying that this influence means that Sibelius and Bruckner sound alike (being quite individual composers, they have their own distinct voices), but it's undeniable from a personal and musical point of view.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

> I have heard that a composer from New Zealand called Lilburn is similar, though I have never heard any of his music.


I have one Lilburn work in my collection, the early Drysdale Overture (1937), and it certainly sounds like Sibelius. According to Grove, in the early part of his career Lilburn was influenced by both Sibelius and Vaughan Williams (who taught him).


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Mahlerian said:


> Bruckner was a huge influence throughout Sibelius's life.


I think Sibelius has affection for Bruckner when the Finnish master-to-be was a young man, and he was influenced by him at the time (the third movement of Sibelius's First Symphony is often described as Brucknerian) but I think it's going too far to say that Bruckner was a _huge_ influence _throughout_ Sibelius's life. I think we can easily say that, by the time Sibelius gets past the Violin Concerto and gets closer to his Third Symphony, any influences he had as a young man, be it Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, Liszt, etc., was very vigorously shaken off and he became, decisively, his own man.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Tapkaara said:


> I think Sibelius has affection for Bruckner when the Finnish master-to-be was a young man, and he was influenced by him at the time (the third movement of Sibelius's First Symphony is often described as Brucknerian) but I think it's going too far to say that Bruckner was a _huge_ influence _throughout_ Sibelius's life. I think we can easily say that, by the time Sibelius gets past the Violin Concerto and gets closer to his Third Symphony, any influences he had as a young man, be it Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, Liszt, etc., was very vigorously shaken off and he became, decisively, his own man.


The quote in question dates from 1911, around the time of the 4th Symphony. You're absolutely right that Sibelius is an individual composer, not simply a collection of the influences you mentioned, but that doesn't mean that he did not continue to be shaped by them, it only means that his own voice provides direction the entire time.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Mahlerian said:


> The quote in question dates from 1911, around the time of the 4th Symphony. You're absolutely right that Sibelius is an individual composer, not simply a collection of the influences you mentioned, but that doesn't mean that he did not continue to be shaped by them, it only means that his own voice provides direction the entire time.


I agree with you that any composer or artist can continue to be influenced throughout their career. And I am aware of this quote and where it dates from. I guess where I was respectfully disagreeing is with the notion that Sibelius was HUGELY influenced by Bruckner THROUGHOUT his life. I think he _admired_ Bruckner more than he was truly _influenced_ by him. I think there is a difference.

Despite that, it is entirely possible that there are things even in later Sibelius that are similar to techniques that the like of Bruckner pioneered.

But despite any influence, real or imagined from Bruckner, I think we can both agree that Sibelius does not sound like Bruckner.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Lilburn is definitely a composer worth exploring (start with his 3 symphonies). Nielsen is a possibility as well (start with his concertos).


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Tapkaara said:


> But despite any influence, real or imagined from Bruckner, I think we can both agree that Sibelius does not sound like Bruckner.


I agree, but substance is far more important than sound. That is where the true essence of a composer lies. Early Sibelius bears some similarities in _sound_ to Tchaikovsky, but Sibelius's music throughout his life is influenced by the _substance_ of Bruckner. The opposite is true of Mahler. Early Mahler has some of the _sound_ of Bruckner (diluted somewhat by his later orchestration revisions), but the _substance_ was always profoundly different.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*John Vincent?*

There is a very obscure mid-twentieth century American Neoromantic Composer who at times sounded very much like Sibelius, John Vincent. It has been years since I have heard any of his music and my memory may be off. At one time there was a recording of one of his symphonies.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Mahlerian said:


> I agree, but substance is far more important than sound. That is where the true essence of a composer lies. Early Sibelius bears some similarities in _sound_ to Tchaikovsky, but Sibelius's music throughout his life is influenced by the _substance_ of Bruckner. The opposite is true of Mahler. Early Mahler has some of the _sound_ of Bruckner (diluted somewhat by his later orchestration revisions), but the _substance_ was always profoundly different.


I disagree. I believe "sound" and "substance" (these are abstract terms, but I will work woth them beause I think I know where you are coming from) are not mutually exclusive nor do I believe one is more important than the other when appraising a composer's art and thus relating this art to that of other composers. If the substance is the root and the sound is the flower, they are part of the greater whole and the flower is a direct result of the root. You can't have one without the other; they are one.

It would be silly for me to say what was going on in Sibelius's head regarding Tchaikovsky when he wrote the First or what his thoughts of Bruckner were when he wrote the Fourth. All composers admire other composers, become inspired by the and sometimes even directly influenced by them. It is entirely possible that Sibelius had Tchaikovsky very firmly in mind whilst writing the First or Bruckner in mind when writing the Fourth or this or that. We can't know for sure but we can draw conclusions from anecdotes like something written in a letter or from a first-hand listen where we say "Did you hear that harmony? That's very Wagner!" or something like that.

My personal appraisal of the "whole" of Sibelius's music, not just the "substance" or the "sound," leads me to feel that he was neither influenced SIGNIFICANTLY by either Tchaikovsky or Bruckener. That is not to say he didn't study the techniques of other composers and employ them in his own works. What composer never did this?

I feel if you scrounge around the inner workings of any composer, you will find things that seem to relate to the techniques of other composers before them. Sibelius may have expressed admiration for Bruckner here and there in his career (certainly his most ardent admiration was in his youth), and Sibelius may have used, knowingly or unknowingly, techniques that were cornerstones of a Brucknerian sound, but when we review the totality of Sibelius's output, despite subtle similarities her or there to something Bruckner had done at one time, we still cannot say "Sibelius was heavily influenced by Bruckner." I guess my real disagreement, then, is with the word "heavily."

Just as an aside, I am reminded of Sibelius's In Memoriam, a funeral march for orchestra. Some speculate that Sibelius wrote this after hearing a performance of Mahler's 5th. Hearing Mahler's own funeral music in that work, Sibelius was, shall we say, influenced to write a work in that style. If this is true, it's a great example of how one composer influences another to write something in a certain way. Having said that, though, we cannot say that Sibelius was truly "influenced" by Mahler, despite having borrowed an idea or tecnique from him.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Tapkaara, I think that no one here is accusing Sibelius of being a musical copycat or not being his own man musically. We can all agree that Sibelius is a hugely singular phenomenon and a most distinctive voice. But that said, I think that the obvious answers like Tchaikovsky, Wagner and Bruckner all have some truth in them. One can hear a bit of Wagner in the "Wood-Nymph", I think.

Oh, and Mahlerian, wonderful insight in your last post!!


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Tapkaara said:


> I guess my real disagreement, then, is with the word "heavily."


I think this is the key here


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Xaltotun said:


> Tapkaara, I think that no one here is accusing Sibelius of being a musical copycat or not being his own man musically. We can all agree that Sibelius is a hugely singular phenomenon and a most distinctive voice. But that said, I think that the obvious answers like Tchaikovsky, Wagner and Bruckner all have some truth in them. One can hear a bit of Wagner in the "Wood-Nymph", I think.
> 
> Oh, and Mahlerian, wonderful insight in your last post!!


I, too, don't think anyone is accusing Sibelius of being a copycat. Even the most original composers do things that others before them have done.

I can agree there is a little Wagner in the Wood Nymph. I even hear some in the final moments of the first movement of the 5th Symphony.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

There's host of Finnish composer of the generations around when Sibelius was active that are quite influenced by the master, names like Erkki Melartin, Selim Palmgren, Toivo Kuula, Leevi Madetoja, Väinö Raitio, Yrjö Kilpinen and Aarre Merikanto all took inspiration, most of them still very rooted in an earlier romantic (late) style, some of their stuff is quite inspired.

Even composers of later generations like Uuno Klami, Erik Bergman, Einar Englund, Joonas Kokkonen, Einojuhani Rautavaara, Usko Meriläinen and Aulis Sallinen have "similarities" to Sibelius, especially in their youth works, some later, some deviating quite a lot in their mature works tho.

Finnish Composers born in the 1950's and later still have a large portion of their national spleen (pimeys), wich is why the speak so much to my soul! Just listen to *Maria Kalaniemi*'s accordion and you'll just get the urge to undress, sit for an hour in a spitting hot sauna drinking pontikka and ending the whole thing wit a great ole' splash in the lake outside before You ravish some lost Swedish tourists! 

/ptr


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

ptr said:


> There's host of Finnish composer of the generations around when Sibelius was active that are quite influenced by the master, names like Erkki Melartin, Selim Palmgren, Toivo Kuula, Leevi Madetoja, Väinö Raitio, Yrjö Kilpinen and Aarre Merikanto all took inspiration, most of them still very rooted in an earlier romantic (late) style, some of their stuff is quite inspired.
> 
> Even composers of later generations like Uuno Klami, Erik Bergman, Einar Englund, Joonas Kokkonen, Einojuhani Rautavaara, Usko Meriläinen and Aulis Sallinen have "similarities" to Sibelius, especially in their youth works, some later, some deviating quite a lot in their mature works tho.
> 
> ...


Just a wonderful summary of the culture of my homeland! =)


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> I have one Lilburn work in my collection, the early Drysdale Overture (1937), and it certainly sounds like Sibelius. According to Grove, in the early part of his career Lilburn was influenced by both Sibelius and Vaughan Williams (who taught him).


I have a couple Lilburn CDs. The liner notes mention the Sibelius affinity. Later on Lilburn 'went electronic', but before that his symphonies suggest a vague Sibelius influence, along with stronger references to native New Zealand music.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Xaltotun said:


> Just a wonderful summary of the culture of my homeland! =)


Kiitos!! It is written with much love!

/ptr


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Tapkaara said:


> Just as an aside, I am reminded of Sibelius's In Memoriam, a funeral march for orchestra. Some speculate that Sibelius wrote this after hearing a performance of Mahler's 5th. Hearing Mahler's own funeral music in that work, Sibelius was, shall we say, influenced to write a work in that style. If this is true, it's a great example of how one composer influences another to write something in a certain way. Having said that, though, we cannot say that Sibelius was truly "influenced" by Mahler, despite having borrowed an idea or technique from him.


I had never heard "In Memoriam" before, so I'm listening to it right now (BIS recording, Vanska). I do in fact hear echoes of Mahler's 5th. Once again, though, it's the sound, not the substance. That theme in strings that enters 2 minutes or so in is pure Sibelius, no doubt. I think you're taking the concept of influence too far. Beethoven remained influenced by Mozart and Haydn through the end of his life, and later on, he added Bach to his influences. Does Beethoven sound like Mozart, Haydn, or Bach? Never! He always sounds like Beethoven, through and through. That doesn't mean he ceased to be influenced by others once he developed his own style.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Widening the definitions, one could also mention symphonists like

Bax (1.Symphony http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ues1W2t4UZE)(apparently Sibelius called him "my son in music" http://www.musicweb-international.com/bax/baxmusi.htm)
Atterberg (3.Symphony 



) 
Alfven (4.Symphony 



), 
Stenhammar (2.Symphony 



), 
Langgaard (4.Symphony 



)
Tubin (the 2nd might be a better example, but: 5.Symphony 



) 
Iannis Ivanovs (2.Symphony 



) 
Glazunov (4.Symphony 



 )

for instance.


----------



## Tero (Jun 2, 2012)

I can't find anything anymore that sounds like Sibelius. Ravel is Ravel etc. I played all Alfven symphonies. I did not see s connection. I have not found contemporaries I listen to. I do listen to Stravinsky but again, no connection. It may be I've memorized the Sibelius pieces and thus the others are inferior sounding because I do not grasp any of it. Such as Nielsen or Richard Strauss.

Many composers of the period just have too much unrelated STUFF in their works.

I also have the problem that I am not a Wagnerian at all, and not a Straussian either.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Mahlerian said:


> I think you're taking the concept of influence too far.


I don't, I think you and I have different definitions.

I have read several biographies of Sibelius and have studied him for years. His references to Bruckner in his writings and so on, while there, don't add up in my mind to him being "heavily influenced" by Bruckner.

If you are saying that there was some influence here and there, I can agree with that. But I cannot agree with "heavily influenced," especially in a thread where the topic is composers who are similar to Sibelius. Bax and Sibelius have more in common than Sibelius and Bruckner. Therefore, I feel that is a more appopriate comparison in a thread where the author is looking for composers who are truly similar, as much as possible.

Anyway, if you feel that Sibelius was heavily influenced by Bruckner, I can't take that away from you, so you may have it! I feel differently, and that's where I shall stand on the issue.

And since you are a Mahlerian, I think it stands to reason that Mahler was much more tangibly influenced by Bruckner than Sibelius ever was, and that is not based on a quote where Mahler said that (though he may have explicitly mentioned Bruckner as an influence...I don't know that much about Mahler), but you can HEAR it very clearly.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Tapkaara said:


> And since you are a Mahlerian, I think it stands to reason that Mahler was much more tangibly influenced by Bruckner than Sibelius ever was, and that is not based on a quote where Mahler said that (though he may have explicitly mentioned Bruckner as an influence...I don't know that much about Mahler), but you can HEAR it very clearly.


I can't. Enlighten me. In what ways was Mahler's music (after the second symphony) influenced by Bruckner?


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Mahlerian said:


> I can't. Enlighten me. In what ways was Mahler's music (after the second symphony) influenced by Bruckner?


I think that Mahler likely was influenced by Bruckner based on my experience with their music. I don't have proof of this beyond my own observations. I do not know too much about either composer's comments on who influenced them (though I know Bruckner was influenced by Wagner), and I admit that freely. I guess I could research this but, if you feel there is no influence, I will take your word for it.

I think the lengthy, hugely orchestrated back and forth between moments of high bombast as pastoral serenity (that heavy, German sound) in Bruckner is much closer to Mahler's sound world than Sibelius. Whether or not Mahler ever heard a note of Bruckner, though, is unknown to me. It could be pure coincidence that there are similarities, great or small, between Mahler and Bruckner. I cannot prove this, nor will I try to.

Nor can it be proven, with all due respect, that based on a quote that Sibelius was moved by a Bruckner composition, or that they both used urmotives (something I had never heard of before) or employed similar types of tonality that this is because of Bruckner's heavy influence. These are nice anecdotes and observations, perhaps even valid ones, and I am sure you feel strongly about them and based your careful thoughts on a solid knowledge of music, but they simply do not prove to me that "Sibelius was heavily influenced by Bruckner throughout his life."

This has my curiosity piqued. So I went to my bookself and pulled out the firt four Sibelius books I could find. They are:

Sibelius by Andrew Barnett
Jean Sibelius by Santeri Levas (Sibelius's personal secratary)
Jean Sibelius by Guy Rickards
And Sibelius by Robert Layton

The Barnett book is 354 pages long. According to its index, Bruckner's name is mentioned five times in the text. Page 61 says "(Sibelius) set off to (to Vienna) on 19th October 1890 with vague dreams of being taught by Brahms or Bruckner, but with no predetermined course of study." On page 63: "Sibelius also attended the first performance of the revised version of Bruckner's Third Symphony, given in the presence of the composer, and the piece made a deep impression on him; Bruckner was the 'greatest of all living composers,' according to a letter tha Sibelius wrote (to his wife). The influence of this particular symphony can be heard in the first movement of Kullervo. He never met Bruckner personally, although he did sit close to him at a chamber concert and described him as 'a kindly old man, who seemed rather lost in the world,' but he claimed to his biographer Karl Eckman that he did manage to make contact with Brahms, at a fasionable cafe."

On page 73 of the same text: "Kullervo begins with a purely orchestral Introduction in sonata form. The opening theme, which returns at the end of the finale, has a Brucknerian sweep, although it also has a kinship to Finnish folk music."

Page 237 describes how Sibelius was "moved to tears" by Bruckner's Fifth Symphony and, finally in Barnett's text, on page 337, it says that Sibelius "made no attempt to conceal his admiration for figures such as Bach, Mebdelsson, Bruckner and Beethoven."

In Levas's text, which is 135 pages, Bruckner is mentioned six times. Most of the references made to Bruckner in this book are about Bruckner's religiosness and Sibelius's thoughts on religion and it's not necessary to quote these passages for the sake of this discussion. Levas, who again was Sibelius's personal secratary, does say on page 64: "Sibelius in fact seldom had anyting to say about Brahms and even less about his contemporary and rival Anton Bruckner, although he had very decided views about his music. I never heard him say a derogatory word about Bruckner."

In Rickard's text,which is 205 pages, Bruckner is mentioned three times. Page 42 discusses how Sibelius wanted to study with either Brahms or Bruckner, though neither was available. It also mentions how Sibelius describes how he thought that Bruckner was the "world's greatest living composer." Page 48 mentions Kullervo and says "(Its) epic scale was quite unprecedented in Finland; indeed in Europe only Berlioz, Bruckner and Mahler had achieved a like monumentality." Page 109 discusses the ending of the Fourth Symphony: "Bruckner, Tchaikovsky and Mahler had (also) departed in isolated cases to conclude softly."

In Layton's book, which is 201 pages, Bruckner is mentioned eight times. Some of the references are in passing and have no relevence to this discussion, so Iwon't reproduce them. On page 4, Layton, in describing Kullervo, says "Bruckner (is present) in the development of the first movement and Tchaikovsky in the second." On page 23 he mentions how Bruckner's Third Symphony "fired his enthusiasm." On page 114, Layton is discussing Kullervo and brings up a quote by Herbert von Karajan. Layton says: There had been Brucknerian echoes in Kullervo and there was (to quoye Von Karajan) 'a much deeper influence, affinity, kinship - call it what you like. There is a sense or the "Ur-Wald" (OK, there is that word again!), the primeval forest, the feeling of elemental power, that one is dealing with something profound." On page 150, there is more discussion of Kullervo how the listener is reminded of "Bruckner's breadth and mystery."

So, what does all of this mean? Everyone will draw their own conclusions, I am sure. But here is what I gather:

Sibelius wanted to study in Vienna with either Brahms or Bruckner. He got to study with neither. By the time he wrote his first major composition, Kullervo, he was influenced by Bruckner. This influence can be heard in the first movement. Herbert von Karajan certainly felt so. Througout his life, Sibelius was an admirer of Bruckner and even wept upon hearing his music. Despite this, Sibelius never spoke much of Bruckner but, when he did speak of him, it was in a positive light.

This is my summary of the Sibelius/Bruckner connection from four different texts. While there is some very interesting information here, and it does shed light on Sibelius's feelings toward Bruckner and the Bruckner influence in Kullervo is mentioned a few times, there is nothing here to suggest that Sibelius was "heavily influenced by Bruckner throughout his life." At least, there is nothing here to suggest it to me.

Additionally, I do not hear "Brucknerian substance" in any of Sibelius's mid to later works. OK, I will concede that there may be Brucknerian moments in Kullervo and in the third movement of the First Symphony, just as there may be some Tchaikovsky in either work or some Wagner in the Lemminkainen Legends or in the Wood Nymph. But we should all take into consideration that these are early works when, I suppose, Sibelius was only starting to establish his own voice and thus he was more impressionable than he ended up being in his full maturity. It seems to me that these influences would go on to be shaken off quite handily by the mid-point in his career. This, to me, suggests that any influence that was there was not heavy enough to remain in a tangible, substantial way for the latter 2/3 of his career, and thus cannot be considered to be present "througout his life." Hell, by the end of his career, Sibelius talked mad crap about Wagner quite openly even though, as a young man, Wagner made him weep and influenced him to write an opera based on Finnish myth, which eventually became the Lemminkainen Legends.

Yes, I am taking into consideration Sibelius's ADMIRATION for Bruckner, which has never been in dispute and the texts I reference only add support to the notion that Sibelius liked Bruckner. Could a lifelong ADMIRATION for Bruckner necessarily translate into a lifelong INFLUENCE by Bruckner. This is indeed possible, but based on the information I gathered from these texts and from my own observations, I feel that the situation is too ambiguous to be proven at best. Anything is possible. But again, based on MY OWN PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS of having listened to both Bruckner and Sibelius, any influence past Sibelius's early career is probably too subtle/ambiguous to say definitively that Bruckner had a "heavy influence on Sibelius throughout his life." Admiration? Definitely. A little influence? In the early career yes and later in his career, it is just to hard to say. Heavy influence throughout his life? Based on my readings and personal experience with either composer, I say no, there is no heavy, lifelong influence.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> I agree, but substance is far more important than sound. That is where the true essence of a composer lies. Early Sibelius bears some similarities in _sound_ to Tchaikovsky, but Sibelius's music throughout his life is influenced by the _substance_ of Bruckner. The opposite is true of Mahler. Early Mahler has some of the _sound_ of Bruckner (diluted somewhat by his later orchestration revisions), but the _substance_ was always profoundly different.


I think that these distinctions of "substance" and "sound" are more subtle than it looks like. Take Ravel's Le Tombeau, for example. Ravel said he was influenced by Mozart. But if you listen to the piece, it does not sound like Mozart, superficially. Sounds like Mozart in a more deeper level, Ravel captured that mozartian serenity and round shape, simple and elegant. One can say then that Ravel captured the "substance" of Mozart. But Mozart's music also have "serenity and round shape, simple and elegant" in its sound. So, Ravel's Le Tombeau do sounds like Mozart!. I would say that there are two different levels, the superficial level and the deep level of sound of a piece.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Tapkaara said:


> I think that Mahler likely was influenced by Bruckner based on my experience with their music. I don't have proof of this beyond my own observations. I do not know too much about either composer's comments on who influenced them (though I know Bruckner was influenced by Wagner), and I admit that freely. I guess I could research this but, if you feel there is no influence, I will take your word for it.
> 
> I think the lengthy, hugely orchestrated back and forth between moments of high bombast as pastoral serenity (that heavy, German sound) in Bruckner is much closer to Mahler's sound world than Sibelius. Whether or not Mahler ever heard a note of Bruckner, though, is unknown to me. It could be pure coincidence that there are similarities, great or small, between Mahler and Bruckner. I cannot prove this, nor will I try to.


You have said that you are not very familiar with Mahler's work. I know every single note of every single work. I also know the Bruckner symphonies inside and out (in various versions). I have heard all of Sibelius's Symphonies and several of his other works. These are all very different composers, no doubt about that. They have their own adherents and champions, and appeal in different ways.

There is a connection between Bruckner and Mahler, and Bruckner and Sibelius, but not between Mahler and Sibelius. The famous conversation during a walk that they took together indicates this quite well.

Sibelius said that what he admired about the symphony was the intellectual rigor, and the unified nature of its motifs.
Mahler said that, in contrast, a symphony should "be a world, embracing everything".

Mahler was, in his early days, a friend of Bruckner's, and a champion of his music. But even early on he had reservations about it; he was bothered by Bruckner's use of form, while admiring the grandeur of his works. By the turn of the century, he had cooled off considerably about his friend and erstwhile teacher (although he never officially enrolled as a student of Bruckner's and even denied that such a relationship existed).

This is clearly a difference of temperament.

I will quote myself from the Bruckner and Mahler thread of a few months ago:
"That said, they're entirely different composers, as Sid James was saying, both in temperament and in practice. Bruckner's music is more conscious and deliberate, taking a clear path from point A to point B. Mahler will take the byroads in a more direct, winding, yet still logically coherent manner. The former says one thing at a time, and alternates between disparate statements, while the latter says disparate things simultaneously."

Much the same goes for the difference between Sibelius and Mahler. Sibelius's music is deliberate, conscious. One hears the development of the initial motif of the 5th symphony as it grows into the scherzo and ultimately into the "swan song" of the finale. One is meant to hear this in order to understand the progression of the work. Bruckner is similar. His 4th symphony begins with a horn call, both the rhythm and melody of which are important for the rest of the symphony. As the finale begins, a new theme derived from that call is sounded, and we are immediately supposed to recognize the similarity.

Mahler is different. In his sixth symphony, the first note we hear is A, staccato in the strings. The chord that follows in the next bar, though, is F major (1st inversion). The first theme arrives shortly afterwards. After the whole first theme and transition, the second theme leaps in in the key of F major, completely unprepared. But Mahler had already played up this exact relationship earlier. The listener is not consciously aware of this, but it has an effect on the whole.

The similarities you point out are superficial, by comparison. Mahler's orchestration has far less in common with Bruckner's than Sibelius's does. Ditto for his way of juxtaposing various kinds of music. Bruckner would stick to one single texture for long periods of time, as would Sibelius. Mahler's textures are changing constantly.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

aleazk said:


> I think that these distinctions of "substance" and "sound" are more subtle than it looks like. Take Ravel's Le Tombeau, for example. Ravel said he was influenced by Mozart. But if you listen to the piece, it does not sound like Mozart, superficially. Sounds like Mozart in a more deeper level, Ravel captured that mozartian serenity and round shape, simple and elegant. One can say then that Ravel captured the "substance" of Mozart. But Mozart's music also have "serenity and round shape, simple and elegant" in its sound. So, Ravel's Le Tombeau do sounds like Mozart!. I would say that there are two different levels, the superficial level and the deep level of sound of a piece.


This is a fascinating idea and you make a great point. What is telling, too, about Ravel's quote is that he explicitly states that he was influenced by Mozart in that work. Therefore, since we the listeners are very well aware of the composer's intentions, especialy as these are the composer's own words, it acts as a very good guide to achieve the type of appreciation the piece is asking for.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Mahlerian said:


> You have said that you are not very familiar with Mahler's work. I know every single note of every single work. I also know the Bruckner symphonies inside and out (in various versions). I have heard all of Sibelius's Symphonies and several of his other works. These are all very different composers, no doubt about that. They have their own adherents and champions, and appeal in different ways.
> 
> There is a connection between Bruckner and Mahler, and Bruckner and Sibelius, but not between Mahler and Sibelius. The famous conversation during a walk that they took together indicates this quite well.
> 
> ...


Fine! I will take your word for all of that. I have no real conviction one way or the other that Bruckner and Mahler are similar to each other, though I still feel on a superficial level, at least, that Mahler and Bruckner sound closer to each other than Bruckner and Sibelius.

I see what you mean, though about the clarity of texture. I suppose this aspect of Bruckner is closer to Sibelius than to Mahler. Makes sense.

I didn't say I was unfamiliar with Mahler...I am quite familiar with him, though I have no doubt your knowledge of him exceeds mine by light years.

And I agree fully that Sibelius and Mahler have no real similarities at all.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Nielsen. He's more difficult in places and less pretty, but the moments of great beauty sound similar.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

There was a time when people thought Walton's 1st symphony was something like Sibelius and I guess you can hear the influence.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Holst


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

I've always grouped Sibelius, Nielsen and Hanson together as the "Scandinavian symphonists"...( I know, Hanson is American, but of Swedish ancestry)...there is a similarity...an angular, hard-edged quality...melodic for sure, but brassy, bold....


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Heck148 said:


> I've always grouped Sibelius, Nielsen and Hanson together as the "Scandinavian symphonists"...( I know, Hanson is American, but of Swedish ancestry)...there is a similarity...an angular, hard-edged quality...melodic for sure, but brassy, bold....


The conductor of my local symphony orchestra loves both Sibelius and Nielsen. I attended a concert not too long before the pandemic started that saw Sibelius's violin concerto paired with Nielsen's Inextinguishable; I found it to be a rather judicious pairing and would kinda have to, on the whole, agree with this assessment.


----------

