# IS Sibelius' Lemminkäinen Suite Really A Symphony?



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

David Hurwitz says it is. But is it REALLY a REAL symphony for reals?





Hurwitz makes a decent case for the first movement, and the Swan of Tuonela could surely pass muster as a slow movement. The problem may be in the third and fourth movements.

Does the 3rd movement "Lemminkäinen in Tuonela" really work as a scherzo?

Is the relatively short finale "Lemminkäinen's Return" really weighty enough for a 45 minute work to be called a symphony? *Notice the recording by Neeme Järvi (linked below) played the finale rather more slowly than usual, perhaps for this very reason?

Does the fact the 2nd and 3rd movements have been seen over the years by some conductors as interchangeable in order diminish its stature?

Does the fact that these sections are usually played separately diminish its stature?

Questions, questions.

For reference if you don't know the work yet:


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

No

Sibelius wrote it as, and named it, a suite. The fact that it has symphonic characteristics is a bonus.


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

What would your reason be? That's what really interests me. I am not sure it actually is a symphony (maybe by a lesser composer's standards, but not his), but I DO think it should be played in its entirety as the entire work is very interesting and deserves to be heard.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

It isn't a symphony because Sibelius didn't call it one. But it really doesn't matter, since there is no such thing as symphonic form that covers all instances. Mahler called _Das Lied von der Erde_ a symphony; I wouldn't have, but he was entitled to his own idea of what a symphony could be, just as every other composer of "symphonies" is so entitled.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

If I call my little piano piece a symphony, it is a symphony. If I do not call it a symphony, it is not.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

As there were titled symphonies with programmatic content and/or far more unusual form than Lemminkäinen (Berlioz, Liszt "Faust", Rimsky "Antar" etc.), I'd guess that Sibelius wanted to keep his "pure" symphonies apart and thus called it a suite. Call it a "symphonic suite" to express that it is not excerpted from incidental music or ballet or so...

(Similarly, it might be that superstitious Mahler called Das Lied v. d. Erde a symphony to cheat the "curse of the 9th", although it is at least as much a symphony as the 8th... it is still debatable if it "really is a symphony")


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

Kreisler jr said:


> As there were titled symphonies with programmatic content and/or far more unusual form than Lemminkäinen (Berlioz, Liszt "Faust", Rimsky "Antar" etc.), I'd guess that Sibelius wanted to keep his "pure" symphonies apart and thus called it a suite. Call it a "symphonic suite" to express that it is not excerpted from incidental music or ballet or so...
> 
> (Similarly, it might be that superstitious Mahler called Das Lied v. d. Erde a symphony to cheat the "curse of the 9th", although it is at least as much a symphony as the 8th... it is still debatable if it "really is a symphony")


The main value of this debate is to get more people to listen to this work as a whole and not just in parts. They can call it whatever they want so long as more people listen to the whole thing. Lemminkäinen's Homecoming and The Swan of Tuonela work well enough on their own, but the 1st and 3rd movements don't really work as well on their own and need the context.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Apparently many musicians, incl. Karajan and Berglund, not entirely without renown and merit for conducting Sibelius, found nothing wrong with recording one or two movements only, so I guess they thought of it as a loose suite that is not necessarily played and listened to as one 4 movement piece.


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

Kreisler jr said:


> Apparently many musicians, incl. Karajan and Berglund, not entirely without renown and merit for conducting Sibelius, found nothing wrong with recording one or two movements only, so I guess they thought of it as a loose suite that is not necessarily played and listened to as one 4 movement piece.


Well, it is a lot more frequently played all in one these days while still also played as stand alone pieces in concert and on record, so I guess we get the best of both worlds.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Agreed it is not a symphony. It is not treated as such by the music industry where only one section is often played in concert. It is a suite of music based on legends about the title character -- who is killed and dismembered in one section, only to be put back together, thrive and become victorious in the next.

I think this another reason not to take anything too seriously about Hurwitz or what he says. He's an entrepreneur and critic, not a musician or artist.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

HenryPenfold said:


> No.Sibelius wrote it as, and named it, a suite. The fact that it has symphonic characteristics is a bonus.


That's not so clear. At the 16:31 mark Hurwitz points out that "Sibelius was wont to say that in reality he had composed 9 symphonies". So, you have to ask yourself, what was he referring to? Presumably, he was referring to the Lemminkainen Suite and Kullervo but, for reputational reasons, opted to differentiate them from his "abstract" symphonies. So, Sibelius himself suggests that he considers it a symphony (programmatic) but named it a suite.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

vtpoet said:


> That's not so clear. At the 16:31 mark Hurwitz points out that "Sibelius was wont to say that in reality he had composed 9 symphonies". So, you have to ask yourself, what was he referring to? *Presumably, he was referring to the Lemminkainen Suite and Kullervo *but, for reputational reasons, opted to differentiate them from his "abstract" symphonies. So, Sibelius himself suggests that he considers it a symphony (programmatic) but named it a suite.


No, he was referring to the canonical 7, Kullervo and the destroyed 8th.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Waehnen said:


> If I call my little piano piece a symphony, it is a symphony. If I do not call it a symphony, it is not.


Reductio ad absurdum.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Who cares what it is --- how Hurwitz actually has a devoted following is beyond me. Anyway, if Sibelius felt it was a tone poem then that's all the answer one needs. A tone poem can contain multiple movement even if those movements are played without a pause. A good example of this is Strauss' _Aus Italien_ for example.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Becca said:


> No, he was referring to the canonical 7, Kullervo and the destroyed 8th.


Since it was never established that Sibelius actually completed the eighth and Sibelius himself never gave any indication that he _had_, and since Sibelius arguably made these statements while still working on the 8th, it's extremely unlikely he was referring to a symphony he hadn't even completed yet.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Now that I am a friend of Mahler, I am able to see that should the Lemminkäinen Suite be considered a Symphony, there is more in common here with Mahler than in any Sibelian symphonies proper. Same observation applies to Kullervo -- Sibelius didn´t get any closer to Mahler.

It was obviously a choice Sibelius consciously made later -- not to follow the Wagnerian route like Bruckner and Mahler did.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Hurwitz is probably overthinking after consuming too many chocolate bars and fizzy drinks while sat at his laptop for 18 hours but in the mind's ear perhaps _Lemminkainen_ can be considered more 'symphonic' than, say, Shostakovich's 14th (c'mon...it's an orchestral song cycle...) or Langgaard's 11th. The latter is essentially a six-minute one-movement work which is as non-symphonic a symphony as I know of - it might even be an obscure Langgaardian in-joke as the music may or may not have any connection to its classical Greek subtitle, _Ixion_. If, however, it is based on the legend of the mortal tied to a perpetually-rotating burning wheel, then surely at such short duration it has to be thought of as a tone poem?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I listen to it as a symphony.

Hurwitz's summary of the reasons, based on a conservative definition of the format and conventions of a symphony, makes perfect sense to me. In particular, the motivic links. Just as in his numbered symphonies, there is the Sibelius trademark of presenting seemingly disparate fragments which sort of congeal and build up to a theme throughout the entire work. Its like a jigsaw puzzle which the listener has to put together.

The late 19th century was a time when the conventional forms where challenged, especially given the impact of Wagner's ideas. Sibelius originally planned this piece as an opera based on the Kalevala, but decided to use the material in an orchestral work.

On the other side of the debate, we probably have to take into account Sibelius' separation of tone poems and symphonies. The former tell a story, the latter are entirely abstract. In their famous conversation about the symphony, Sibelius talked about the thematic integrity of the form, while Mahler said it contained the whole world.

Incidentally, I prefer the suite to his symphonies. Overall, I like his tone poems more than his symphonies. When I did a big cull of my collection, the tone poems made the cut along with the Violin Concerto.

There was an interesting thread on a related topic here which I took part in:
https://www.talkclassical.com/60351-what-difference-between-orchestral-2.html#post1603924


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

vtpoet said:


> Since it was never established that Sibelius actually completed the eighth and Sibelius himself never gave any indication that he _had_, and since Sibelius arguably made these statements while still working on the 8th, it's extremely unlikely he was referring to a symphony he hadn't even completed yet.


Or he was falling down drunk at the time and didn't know what he was saying.. or composing for that matter.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Waehnen said:


> If I call my little piano piece a symphony, it is a symphony. If I do not call it a symphony, it is not.


Suite yourself.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

I'll add this to the pretty long list of supporting evidence as to why Hurwitz is an idiot.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Suite yourself.


The original question could have been asked: "Is the Lemminkäinen Suite symphonic enough to be referred to as a symphony in everything but name?"

The way it is and is called nowadays, it is not "really a symphony". It is what Sibelius said it is: an orchestral and programmatic suite. Is it symphonic? Sure, more so than many other tone poems by the composer. In both architecture and the material, even.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Define 'symphonic' ... if you go by what Robert Simpson says in his books 'The Symphony', the answer would be that it isn't. Personally I would be more willing to consider _Tapiola_ to be symphonic but Sibelius clearly didn't.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Becca said:


> Define 'symphonic' ... if you go by what Robert Simpson says in his books 'The Symphony', the answer would be that it isn't. Personally I would be more willing to consider _Tapiola_ to be symphonic but Sibelius clearly didn't.


I think symphonic poems truly are symphonic! When it comes to the definition of the word, one could write a doctorate on the matter.  Clearly there are both "programmatic" and "absolute music" symphonies in Beethoven's work too. Mahler isn't as strict on his use of material like Beethoven, Brahms and Sibelius, but still he is most symphonic.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

The Sibelius Symphony No. 7 did not start off its life as a symphony. "Sibelius originally intended his Seventh Symphony to be in three movements," Robert Cummings writes in the All Music Guide to Classical Music. "Initially entitled 'Fantasia sinfonica,' the work was subsequently restored to its status as a symphony by the composer." This all occurred in 1924.

The Lemminkainen Suite is titled _Four Legends from the Kalevela Op. 22_. It premiered 1896 and the first and third legends "bewildered listeners and displeased critics at the Helsinki premiere," said Roger Dettmer in the All Music Guide. The reception was good for the second and fourth legends, the Swan of Tuoenla and Lemminkainen's Homeward Journey (often today called Lemminkainen's Return), and they stayed on as popular items in concert schedules right up to our time. Sibelius then revised the other legends and the four legends found another life in 1939.

So, if the Lemminkainen Suite is a symphony, it is probably the only symphony in history where half of it was finalized and released by the composer more than 40 years apart while the other half was played independently in concert all that time. Many other composers, chief among them perhaps Anton Bruckner, regularly reworked their symphonies after initial playing when critical or audience response was poor. But no composer to my knowledge ever released two movements of a symphony to be played independently in concert all over the world, then re-released the entire symphony more than 40 years later.

I think this proves two things: the Lemminkainen Suite is not a symphony and David Hurwitz is incorrect in his assessment that it is a symphony. To me this is not surprising since I find many of Hurwitz's judgments rash. His service is free, perhaps the only reason anyone could rely on him as their source for information on classical music, proving another thing: you get what you pay for.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

But Talk Classical is free too and contains a real wealth of advice and opinions.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> But Talk Classical is free too and contains a real wealth of advice and opinions.


And a wealth of ill-advised and uninformed opinions as well.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Well, you can pick and choose. Variety helps me to find what I'm looking for. Dogmatism rarely does.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

I think Sibelius regarded it as way too programmatic to be a 'symphony', so it's a suite.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Of course Lemminkainen is not a symphony. Claiming it is is just clickbait. I guess Hurwitz is losing acolytes and getting desperate for more.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Is Alpensinfonie a symphony?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

More to the point, given that Sibelius considered _Kullervo_ to be a symphony, the fact that he didn't label _Lemminkainen_ as a symphony is relevant.


----------



## Ludwig Schon (10 mo ago)

Much like Stanford’s Irish Rhapsodies, these suites are sorbet trifles, mere palate clearers before the plat principal of the symphonies. Chapeau!


----------



## Fredrikalansson (Jan 29, 2019)

Comparing Lemminkainen to Sibelius' other suites (Karelia, Tempest, Pelleas, etc.), it's easy to see why people _listen _to it as a symphony, even if Sibelius didn't _write_ it as one.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ They do? I always thought that most people first encounter it through The Swan of Tuonela and that those who do go on to listen to the whole suite are pretty clear that the four pieces are somewhat separate.


----------



## Fredrikalansson (Jan 29, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ They do? I always thought that most people first encounter it through The Swan of Tuonela and that those who do go on to listen to the whole suite are pretty clear that the four pieces are somewhat separate.


Maybe I should have written _I_ instead of _people_. I got to know Swan and Lemminkainen's Return before I heard the entire suite. I don't think the longer movements stand on their own the way the shorter ones do. They're not separate. They strike me as needing the whole to make their impact. And maybe having two movements that could be excerpted, and two that couldn't, is what led Sibelius to label it a suite? Although suites are usually excerpts from a larger whole (think Nutcracker).


----------

