# Sibelius vs. R. Strauss



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

"I have more skill, but he is greater."
-- Richard Staruss on Jean Sibelius

Was Strauss right? Is Sibelius greater? Or was the German master being deceptively humble or somehow backhanded?

Richard and Jean were close in age, Strauss having been born in 1864 and Sibelius in '65. Strauss was thrust onto the international stage somewhat earlier than Sibelius. The budding Sibelius recalled hearing Don Juan and was floored by it. It prompted the young Finn to try his hand at writining a large scale orchestral work, which he did in 1892 with the massive tone poem Kullervo.

Strauss conducted the premiere of the revised version of Sibelius's Violin Concerto in 1905 in Berlin.

Sibelius is known for his canon of 7 symphonies; Strauss is not considered a major symphonist. Strauss wrote several concerti, Sibelius only one. Both composers were, though, major exponents of the tone poem and both were reknown for their effective use of the orchestra to achieve dazzling effects in their "symphinic poetry."

Also, both composers were exact contemporaries. Both composers are known for acting as artistic bridges between the romanticism of the late 19th century and burgeoning modernism of of the early 20th century. Despite this, Sibelius stayed attached to the idea of the symphony whereas Strauss more or less abandoned it. 

Who is greater?


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

I voted Sibelius, by the way...! I do enjoy Strauss quite a bit, though,


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

I adored R. Strauss only for some time, before I've found my own taste. Now I rarely listen to him and though I still have respect and for some of his works honest enthusiasm, I don't count him among my favourite composers. 

I think this comparison is interesting because these two both grew on Wagner, but took totally diffrent things from his legacy. Richard Strauss took something I dislike about Wagner - certain heavyness, sometimes overweightness and tendency to make much of expressive noise. Sibelius, at the other hand, sucked what I love in Wagner best - musical sense of poetry, wonderful instrumentation - I know that Strauss is also master of this craft but the differece I wrote about these two applies also in this aspect. Sibelius is as blue as Wagner, Richard Strauss prefers flaring, flashy colouristics.

I can't say who is greater: surely I prefer Sibelius and his musical style, also I'm more impressed by what he proved with his music. At the other hand I can name more great composers influenced by Richard Strauss than Sibelius. None of those things can be taken as proper measurement of greatness though.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I voted Strauss. I don't know enough about Sibelius though to really be a good judge. The quote implies to my mind that Strauss viewed Sibelius as being a more genuine artist than himself, somehow more profound though less "crafty" at composition. This is an interesting comparison and from what I know of Sibelius, I think I'd somewhat agree, though Strauss was shortchanging himself at his best, probably. Its like the greatness of intuition(Sibelius) over intellect(Strauss). I don't know, really, but it is kind of an interesting quote. What other composers might have a similar relationship in your mind? That's another interesting thing to consider.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Aramis said:


> I adored R. Strauss only for some time, before I've found my own taste. Now I rarely listen to him and though I still have respect and for some of his works honest enthusiasm, I don't count him among my favourite composers.
> 
> I think this comparison is interesting because these two both grew on Wagner, but took totally diffrent things from his legacy. Richard Strauss took something I dislike about Wagner - certain heavyness, sometimes overweightness and tendency to make much of expressive noise. Sibelius, at the other hand, sucked what I love in Wagner best - musical sense of poetry, wonderful instrumentation - I know that Strauss is also master of this craft but the differece I wrote about these two applies also in this aspect. Sibelius is as blue as Wagner, Richard Strauss prefers flaring, flashy colouritsics.
> 
> I can't say who is greater: surely I prefer Sibelius and his musical style, also I'm more impressed by what he proved with his music. At the other hand I can name more great composers influenced by Rihard Strauss than Sibelius. None of those things can be taken as proper measurement of greatness though.


GREAT POINT that both were influenced by Wagner but took different aspects of his music and went in different directions. That is very true. Though one may more readily hear Wagner's orchestration and coloristic tendancies in Strauss, listen to the Four Lemminkäinen Legends by Sibelius...there is MUCH Wagner to be found there.


----------



## Conor71 (Feb 19, 2009)

This was an easy one for me - Sibelius


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

I'm not voting - I think it is essentially a meaningless question. Just because I prefer A to B, doesn't make A the greater composer. That's just hubris.

However, the difference between the two for me is something that hasn't been noted yet: Strauss is interested in people and SIbelius is interested in, well, I'm not quite sure - landscape, abstraction, structure and form.

Both might have written tone poems, but Strauss's best (_Till Eulenspiegel_, _Ein Heldenleben_, _Don Quixote_, _Don Juan_, even _Tod und Verklärung_) are about people while Sibelius's are about forests, mythology and nature (_Tapiola_, _Pohjola's daughter_, _Night ride and sunrise_ and so on). Of course, Strauss wrote non-personal tone poems (but even _Ein Alpensinfonie_ is mediated through the experiences of people travelling through the landscape) and Sibelius personal ones (though only the _Four legends_ - and the subject of that, Lemminkäinen, is a mythic archetype).

Even more obviously Strauss wrote operas: psychodramas about the emotions and interactions of believable people - whether Ariadne, the Marschallin or Salome. Sibelius wrote none. Strauss was well known for superb songs - while SIbelius wrote songs that are appendices to his main works.

It is fairly likely then that Strauss will be preferred by people who want to relate to people and personal emotions, while Sibelius will be preferred by those who get their emotions in a more generalised form - they might well argue, at a deeper, more cosmic level.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Jeremy Marchant said:


> ...
> It is fairly likely then that Strauss will be preferred by people who want to relate to people and personal emotions, while Sibelius will be preferred by those who get their emotions in a more generalised form - they might well argue, at a deeper, more cosmic level.


I know what you're saying and your argument makes sense, but I feel the opposite.

I feel that R. Strauss rarely let his mask slip, the work that I like by him above all is _Metamorphosen for 23 solo strings_, exactly for the reason that it came after a cataclysmic event - World War Two - that couldn't be ignored, really. His other post-1945 works like _The Four Last Songs _also come across to me as being highly personal and intimate. It's as if at that advanced age Strauss said something like "****, I've been telling other people's stories all my life, now it's time to kind of tell my own, speak my own emotions."

On the other hand, a lot of what's in Sibelius' music I find to be deeply personal and often troubling. Sure, his tone poems are about non-personal things, but often below that surface, there's things going on that's easy to relate to his life. Eg._ Tapiola_, that spine chilling storm sequence, is it a kind of mental image of what was going on in his own mind, re the depression and his history of alcohol dependency? I kind of hear this inner struggle and sadness in there, it's deep inside, embedded in much of his music.

But I don't think I'll vote, not one is greater than the other, they're just different and both unique. As to which one I like more, the tally is just about equal, with R. Strauss it's basically his post-1945 works, with Sibelius it's a handful of things, I esp. like the _Four Legends, Tapiola_ and the _Violin Concerto_. I like his_ Symphony #4_ but it's such a perfect image of depression that it goes too close to the bone for me, I avoid it as a result, but it's a masterpiece nonetheless. I have yet to listen to his string quartet _Intimate Voices_...


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

I have really enjoyed these comments. THIS is what TC should be about, not whether or not counter tenors are creepy, what you are going to eat later or whether or not you pee in the shower.

I think both Sid James and Jeremy Marchant make very good points. I would agree to an extent that Strauss was more overtly interested in people (to speak very generally) and Sibelius was interested in more abstract subjects, though, I agree with Sid that Sibelius's output is VERY highly personal, and he is not quite as cold as many believe him to be.

I won't even talk about the 4th Symphony as that is perhaps the most obvious example, though it is a good one.

The truth is, Sibelius was a very complex human being. And, to a very large extent, a melacholic one. There is an undercurrent of this dark side, I think, in just about every one of his major works. And minor ones, too. The problem is, I think, is that people need the EXTROVERT display of emotion in Mahler and in Strauss to even pick up on what is perceived to be "emotion" and "feelings." Because Sibelius speaks in more obscure, introverted tones, his message can go past people more easily, quite undetected. Indeed, the man brooding intensly in the corner (Sibelius) is expressing just as much about himself as the guy weeping on the soapbox (Mahler), but the guy on the soapbox is just more blatant and obvious.

But again, what about Strauss being insterested in people and Sibelius being interested in more abstract subjects, like myths and nature? There is some truth in this, I feel. But it seems to me Strauss was more interested in SPECIFIC people and their psychologies: Salome, Don Juan, Don Quixote, Ariadne and even himself and his own family. Sibelius was, perhaps, less interested in specific figures (except maybe mythological characters) and more interested in the cosmic threads that bind ALL people and personalities together. Strauss was into specific people, Sibelius was into people (humanity) in general.

It's BECAUSE of the personality in Sibelius and his universality, among other things, why I prefer him. Strauss was more of a technician and effects guy. I feel Strauss is more artificial gesture whereas Sibelius has the soul. Maybe Strauss thought this, too. I think it's the key to his statement that I quoted at the start of this thread: indeed, Strauss had the (technical) skill, but Sibelius (or more to the point, Sibelius's music) is GREATER.

Strauss talks _at_ me wherease Sibelius talks _to_ me. Both have great things to say, but it's the intimacy I experience with Sibelius that wins me over, ultimately.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Thanks *Tapkaara*, I didn't agree with the whole of your post above, but I liked how you argued your points.

& in terms of what you said here -



Tapkaara said:


> ...
> ...Both have great things to say, but it's the intimacy I experience with Sibelius that wins me over, ultimately.


I think it's interesting how both R. Strauss & Sibelius moved towards a kind of intimacy or pared down approach as they got older. Eg. with Strauss, those post-1945 works that I mentioned above & I'd add the _Concerto for oboe and small orchestra_. & with Sibelius, he started writing more heroic symphonies in the Tchaikovskyan vein, but by the end he had whittled and pared down those Romantic tendencies, things became more lean and modern. Intimate if you like, at least more kind of personal & psychological. I've also read that Strauss' final opera, _Capriccio_, is more intimate in some ways, eg. the story. It also contains a favourite chamber piece of mine by him, the string sextet.

But it's funny that I love Sibelius'_ Four Legends _and other tone poems, whereas I don't like R. Strauss works in that genre much at all. I don't necessarily know/think it's a technical difference, eg. size of orchestra used, it could be the same or similar for all I know, but Sibelius somehow grabs me more, maybe his treatment of themes is more unified, wheareas Strauss does come across, as you suggest, as a grab-bag of flashy effects, music on steroids...


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Sid James said:


> Thanks *Tapkaara*, I didn't agree with the whole of your post above, but I liked how you argued your points.
> 
> & in terms of what you said here -
> 
> ...


There are surely moments of intimacy in Strauss. Four Last Songs comes to mind immediately. This is an EXTREMELY moving work that speaks to me on a very intimate level. Maybe even in Death and Transfiguration. But when I speak of the difference in intimacy across the board among these two composers, in my eyes, Sibelius is the one to outdo.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Tapkaara said:


> It's BECAUSE of the personality in Sibelius and his universality, among other things, why I prefer him. Strauss was more of a technician and effects guy. I feel Strauss is more artificial gesture whereas Sibelius has the soul. Maybe Strauss thought this, too. I think it's the key to his statement that I quoted at the start of this thread: indeed, Strauss had the (technical) skill, but Sibelius (or more to the point, Sibelius's music) is GREATER.


This is similar to what the quote implies to me as well. Still, don't you think Strauss is shortchanging himself a bit? Also what of Strauss's later works like Elektra? Strauss had SKILL on many levels, not just the flashy pyrotechnic level. But I think I'd agree that Sibelius has a unique soul(after Aramis).

There is a similar situation with Medtner and Rachmaninoff, though perhaps not with the same underlying concepts that differentiate the two. Rachmaninoff said Medtner was the better composer, but who was more successful?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

This was somewhat a tough one for me for the mere fact that Strauss wrote one of my very favorite operas, Elektra. But I voted Sibelius because for me, ultimately I think his music has a little bit more to offer as far as exploration/repeated listening.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Death and Transfiguration certain has soul, you are right to mention that work.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

clavichorder said:


> This is similar to what the quote implies to me as well. Still, don't you think Strauss is shortchanging himself a bit? Also what of Strauss's later works like Elektra? Strauss had SKILL on many levels, not just the flashy pyrotechnic level. But I think I'd agree that Sibelius has a unique soul(after Aramis).
> 
> There is a similar situation with Medtner and Rachmaninoff, though perhaps not with the same underlying concepts that differentiate the two. Rachmaninoff said Medtner was the better composer, but who was more successful?


Well, yes, I'd say Strauss does shortchange himself somewhat by saying what he said. Do not get me wrong...I am NOT anti-Strauss. I have a more comprehensive collection of his music in my personal library than I have for most other "big" composers. And there must be some soul in his music...all composers have that. But I feel that Strauss was more concerned with technique and Sibelius was more concerned with something grander.

Strauss had great technique, though. Sibelius thought so himself when he heard Don Juan for the first time. He felt incredibly humbled that a composer the same age as himself could have produced sounds so amazing and overwhelming.


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2011)

I have to go for Sibelius it sits easily with me whereas Strauss is sometimes a strange sound it depends what mood I am in, I do not consider one better than the other


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

I vote Sibelius. Never much enjoyed R. Strauss, so I can't be very objective in this matter.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

_Salome_ >>> _Finlandia_.

Strauss.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Couchie said:


> _Salome_ >>> _Finlandia_.
> 
> Strauss.


That's hardly fair. To me it seems that Salome is one of Strauss' greatest works and Finlandia is one of Sibelius' weaker pieces. Shouldn't you compare best to best?


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

It's odd how startlingly different their careers were. Richard Strauss' career started early, Sibelius didn't gain notoriety until later on. Sibelius' music matured the entire duration he wrote- I think it's safe to say his late works are his best. Strauss reached maturity in middle age, and then his music decreased in quality and output for some time. Sibelius didn't write music at all at the end of his life. Strauss wrote some of his finest music at the end of his life.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Sibelius. My Strauss box set is basically a cupholder these days.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

violadude said:


> That's hardly fair. To me it seems that Salome is one of Strauss' greatest works and Finlandia is one of Sibelius' weaker pieces. Shouldn't you compare best to best?


Could be, although if we were to play a game whereas you yell the name of a composer at me and I have to yell back the first composition by said composer that come to mind, and you yelled Strauss and Sibelius, I would yell the above.

Would you like to play? :tiphat:


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Couchie said:


> Could be, although if we were to play a game whereas you yell the name of a composer at me and I have to yell back the first composition by said composer that come to mind, and you yelled Strauss and Sibelius, I would yell the above.
> 
> Would you like to play? :tiphat:


I think most people would yell "Also sprach" in this game when you yell "Strauss." But still, comparing Finlandia to Also sprach would not be very fair. Let's compare Aus Italien to Sibelius's 5th. You see, it can work both ways.

Or, to make it even more fair, let's compare Sibelius's Violin Concerto to Strauss's own. 

But please please PLEASE do not compare Sibelius's one and only opera, the Maiden in the Tower, to Salome.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Couchie said:


> _Salome_ >>> _Finlandia_.
> 
> Strauss.


To you, an opera fan, that would be the case, but for me, mainly into instrumental music, I would pick _Finlandia_ any day. Even the famous _Dance of the Seven Veils_ does nothing (or not much) for me, it comes across as a kind of modernised version of bits of Rimsky-Korsakov's Orientalist exotica. In any case, _Finlandia_ has sold more records than _Salome_ so it has to be better, doesn't it? :lol:...


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Sid James said:


> To you, an opera fan, that would be the case, but for me, mainly into instrumental music, I would pick _Finlandia_ any day. Even the famous _Dance of the Seven Veils_ does nothing (or not much) for me, it comes across as a kind of modernised version of bits of Rimsky-Korsakov's Orientalist exotica. In any case, _Finlandia_ has sold more records than _Salome_ so it has to be better, doesn't it? :lol:...


I have always felt that Strauss's 7 Veils is some of his weakest writing. It just comes off as very second-rate semi-exoticism to me. I do not know how authentic he was trying to be, but I just feel like he didn't try very hard.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^ I agree re R. Strauss' _Dance of the Seven Veils,_ but must stress that I haven't heard nor seen it as part of the opera, eg. in it's context. Having said that, same goes for many things like famous bits of Wagner operas like the _Ride of the Valkyries_ or the ballet musics of many operas, eg. Gounod's_ Faust_ to name one, but these all "work" and "gel" with me, regardless that I haven't heard the operas which they are part of...


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Sid James said:


> ^^ I agree re R. Strauss' _Dance of the Seven Veils,_ but must stress that I haven't heard nor seen it as part of the opera, eg. in it's context. Having said that, same goes for many things like famous bits of Wagner operas like the _Ride of the Valkyries_ or the ballet musics of many operas, eg. Gounod's_ Faust_ to name one, but these all "work" and "gel" with me, regardless that I haven't heard the operas which they are part of...


To digress briefly, no one could do oriental exoticism like the Russians. The great Russian composer just had a way with this type of writing that was completely natural. Perhaps the French (like Debussy) were good at this too. I don't know about the German composers, though...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^I can't disagree there & I'd add that in terms of "Arabian" exoticism, Grieg's _Anitra's Dance_ from_ Peer Gynt_, basically trumps R. Strauss' _Dance of the Seven Veils_. Well in my book, anyway...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I expected Strauss to run away with this poll, but I am another Sibelius voter. 

The modernist Strauss might have won my vote, but the late romantic Strauss is just beyond my appreciation.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Sid James said:


> ^^I can't disagree there & I'd add that in terms of "Arabian" exoticism, Grieg's _Anitra's Dance_ from_ Peer Gynt_, basically trumps R. Strauss' _Dance of the Seven Veils_. Well in my book, anyway...


Now that is a comparison I haven't thought of before. Give me a day or two and I'll chime in!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Couchie said:


> Could be, although if we were to play a game whereas you yell the name of a composer at me and I have to yell back the first composition by said composer that come to mind, and you yelled Strauss and Sibelius, I would yell the above.
> 
> Would you like to play? :tiphat:


That's interesting. I'd have yelled "Elektra" and...... "Kullervo" but that's just because it's been on my mind lately. I think normally "Finlandia" might be what I'd yell.

But, yeah, I think this would be a fun game. Let me start:

"Beethoven!" You respond...

I'll make a thread - ol' Tapkaara wouldn't want us to derail this one...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^Well there are similarities but in Grieg's dance the girl probably only gives a flash of navel & maybe a bit of thigh, but definitely doesn't go the full monty and strip as the saucy Salome does...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Sid James said:


> ^^Well there are similarities but in Grieg's dance the girl probably only gives a flash of navel & maybe a bit of thigh, but definitely doesn't go the full monty and strip as the saucy Salome does...


Well then, I don't even need to listen to the music to make this choice.

All I need to know is if I'm marrying the girl or if someone's head is coming off soon...


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> Let's compare Aus Italien to Sibelius's 5th. You see, it can work both ways.


No, let's compare their violin concertos. HOW ABOUT THAT, MR. STRAUSS, HOW ABOUT THAT? HEEEEEEEEEE?


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I hate these apples and orange threads ! It's so hard for me to choose between composers, because I love so much music by so many composers. Enough already !


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

superhorn said:


> I hate these apples and orange threads ! It's so hard for me to choose between composers, because I love so much music by so many composers. Enough already !


No two composers are ever EXACTLY the same, so one could argue the old "apples and oranges" frustration in just about any situation.

Of course Sibelius and Strauss are different. But the point is: they were born abot a year a part and both are considered bridges between late romanticism and modernism. As was pointed out earlier, both took early influence from Wagner. Despite all of this, they did go different paths and became two very different composers...apples and oranges, perhaps. THAT is what makes these comparisons fun. If they were somehow EXACTLY the same, we would not have much to talk about, would we?

I think comparing Sibelius to Guillaume de Machaut would be amore "apples and oranges" situation...though, it does seem like a good idea for a thread...


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

Both too good, can't pick.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

Strauss makes better jeans
Sibelius better software


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Tapkaara said:


> I have always felt that Strauss's 7 Veils is some of his weakest writing. It just comes off as very second-rate semi-exoticism to me. I do not know how authentic he was trying to be, but I just feel like he didn't try very hard.


I agree the dance is fairly stock "exoticism" in an otherwise remarkable tonality-breaking score with good use of dissonance and polytonality; the real breakthrough with the 7-veils was just having what is essentially a strip-tease in the middle of an opera.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Which seems tantamount to "first horror movie to show breasts". Not very high praise...


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Which seems tantamount to "first horror movie to show breasts". Not very high praise...


There's also some good necrophilia desecrating a Christian icon.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

What Couchie's saying re _Salome_ (& it could probably be extended to _Elektra_) gels with what I've read by writers on music in books re Strauss' forays into "atonality" or vague tonality or whatever. It was more of a device/technique to shock than something he was interested in exploring in the long-term.

After those two operas, he went back to tradition, then after 1945 came my favourite work_ Metamorphosen for 23 solo strings _which kind of defies description, but has (for me) more to do with being more adventurous than traditional. The quote of Beethoven's _Eroica _symphony in the coda kind of speaks to that, putting that at the end of a tonally ambigious work shows how he needed to kind of "ground" it in some way, prevent it maybe from kind of just floating off. In any case, he said he didn't know why he put the Beethoven quote there, it just came kind of from his subconscious.

One of my & other's "issues" with R. Strauss is that like Stravinsky he was a chameleon in terms of style, changing all the time, and added to that, both were quite "objective" composers, they rarely let their masks slip, most of their works are not autobiographical. But Strauss seemed to have jumped on and off too many bandwagons, he didn't fully flesh out the directions he went in, he went back and forth, unlike Stravinsky who had a tendency to explore his stylistic about faces more fully, if that makes sense...


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

Your 'repeated listening' remark seems on the pulse to me, and I think Strauss's own assessment is correct.



violadude said:


> This was somewhat a tough one for me for the mere fact that Strauss wrote one of my very favorite operas, Elektra. But I voted Sibelius because for me, ultimately I think his music has a little bit more to offer as far as exploration/repeated listening.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

One of my & other's "issues" with R. Strauss is that like Stravinsky he was a chameleon in terms of style, changing all the time, and added to that, both were quite "objective" composers, they rarely let their masks slip, most of their works are not autobiographical. But Strauss seemed to have jumped on and off too many bandwagons, he didn't fully flesh out the directions he went in, he went back and forth, unlike Stravinsky who had a tendency to explore his stylistic about faces more fully, if that makes sense...

I don't see this is Strauss at all. His earliest works fall within the realm of a sort of Romantic/Classicism. With his discovery of Wagner, his music evolves into late Romanticism... rich and lush in terms of orchestration. His most well-known achievements among the earlier mature works are to be found in the tone poems: Don Juan, Tod und Verklärung, Till Eulenspiegels lustige Streiche, Also sprach Zarathustra, Don Quixote, and the Symphonia Domestica. It should be noted, however, that Strauss was a major composer for vocals from the start writing literally hundreds of songs including: Eight poems for voice and piano 1885, Five songs for middle voice and piano 1886, Six songs for high voice and piano 1887, Mädchenblumen for voice and piano 1888, Two songs for low voice and orchestra 1900, Five songs for voice and piano 1900/orchestrated 1918, Eight songs for voice and piano 1901/orchestrated 1918.

Strauss work was profoundly inspired by literature (Don Quixote, Til Eulenspiegel, Also Sprach Zarathustra, etc...) and his lieder made use of some of the strongest poetry (where even Schumann and Schubert often built upon second-rate poetry). Strauss' connection with literature led him logically to musical theater and opera. His first operas, Guntram, Feuersnot, Salome, and Elektra are commonly categorized as "Expressionist", but in purely musical terms, they are deeply indebted to Wagner and late Romanticism. The "Expressionism" lays in the shocking contrast between the blatant sexuality and violence of the subject matter, and the lush Romanticism of the music.

While some argue that after this early peak Strauss slipped into a reactionary conservatism, such an assessment is pure nonsense. _Der Rosenkavalier_ (1911) was composed just two years after _Elektra_. While the opera employs "classical" elements suggestive of both the operas of Mozart and those of Johann Strauss... the opera is a comic masterpiece making clever and ironic use of waltzes and other elements that were out of fashion in much the same manner as Mahler employed the waltz in his first symphony or Ravel in _La Valse_.

Subsequent major works include the opera, _Ariadne auf Naxos_ 1916, _Eine Alpensinfonie_ 1915, _Die Frau ohne Schatten_ 1919 (which some have suggested is his finest opera), Six songs (after poems of Clemens Brentano) for voice and piano 1918/orchestrated 1940, Krämerspiegel, twelve songs for voice and piano 1918, Three hymns for high voice and orchestra 1921, _Intermezzo_ (opera) 1924, _Die Ägyptische Helena_ (opera) 1928, _Arabella_ (opera) 1933,_ Die schweigsame Frau_ (opera) 1935, _Daphne_ (opera) 1938, _Capriccio_ (opera) 1942), _Die Liebe der Danae_ (opera) 1940, _Metamorphosen_ 1945, _Oboe Concerto_ 1945, _Four Last Songs_ 1950.

While there are certainly differences between the comic and tragic operas... and as with any composer there are some works that are better than others, Strauss oeuvre as a whole is rather consistent. While operas such as Arabella, Daphne or Capriccio may not attain the heights of Salome or Elektra, they remain, nevertheless, major works regularly recorded and performed within the opera repertoire... while _Die Frau ohne Schatten, Metamorphosen_, and the _Four Last Songs_ stand among the finest achievements of Strauss oeuvre and. 20th century music. Stylistically, there are no great chameleon-like shifts in the manner of Stravinsky or Picasso. From Strauss first mature works he retains a consistent voice rooted in Wagner and late Romanticism... to the point that many have spoken of the death of Strauss as the end of Romanticism.

Seriously, I don't see where Strauss was jumping about at all.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

How did I miss this poll? Nothing surprises me anymore here at TC. R. Strauss vs. Sibelius, Palestrina vs. Rachmaninoff, Bach vs. Everyone else etc.

But to answer this poll. I picked Richard Strauss. His works were of a consistent quality, and Romanticism could never have been complete without his contribution. I also enjoy Sibelius' music though I am less familiar with his than with Strauss, and I prefer Strauss' music. Sibelius' works that I have listened to were quite recognisable after one gets used to his style (I'm talking about his symphonies, concerto and miscellaneous chamber pieces). I would put Strauss quite well ahead of Sibelius. I just love to rank composers.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

I agree with pretty much all of both Sid James's and Tapkaara's positions, other than to say

(1)	I don't agree that it wasn't until _Metamorphosen _that Strauss let his mask slip. Surely _Ein Heldenleben_, _Intermezzo _and _Sinfonia domestica_, which Strauss acknowledged were specifically about him, him and his wife, and him and his family, respectively, make it only too clear that Strauss's music was absolutely about him. If it is shallower music than Sibelius's in this respect, that is presumably a characteristic of his personality, not automatically to be explained away as reticence without some evidence. I do recommend Norman del Mar's brilliant three volume book on Strauss, incidentally.

(2)	Is the range of Strauss's styles really that much greater than those of Sibelius? One can truly say Stravinsky (intentionally) went through a number of highly diverse styles - and placing _The firebird_ alongside _Agon _makes the point. Surely Strauss's music all sits on the same continuum: _Elektra _(probably) is at one extreme, and any number of those rather _gemütlich _pieces like the lovely oboe concerto at the other.

Noone, as far as I can tell, has mentioned Strauss's remark that he may not be a first class composer but he was a first rate second class one. [I hate unattributed quotations and I can't find where he said this. I believe it was towards the end of his life, in London, at an LSO rehearsal.]

Doesn't this point up one distinction between Strauss and Sibelius? Writing music was almost too easy for Strauss, his music could be facile - easy to write but not always as good as it could have been (someone has already mentioned _The dance of the seven veils_). With SIbelius, the composer clearly set himself standards, rightly or wrongly, which he strived to live up to - hence his stopping composing when he felt his powers were waning. Contrast that with Strauss who (_Metamorphosen _aside) largely fell for the comfortable in old age. (_Vier letzte Lieder_, in my opinion, is extraordinary in apparently being an exercise in writing something easy which happened to be a masterpiece almost by accident, whereas with _Metamorphosen _you get the sense of Strauss striving for profundity.)

Personally, I will not be sorry if I never hear _Finlandia _again, or even the Sibelius violin concerto, but what to me is a compositional failure is a reflection of my criteria, not Sibelius's, and not really of the music itself - I just don't like the jingoism and I am allergic to Tchaikovsky, however small the dose.

I stand by my original distinction between Sibelius and Strauss as being one in which the latter is interested in people and the former is not. At the same time I accept fully that SIbelius uses nature and myth as a landscape onto which to project (his?) emotions and feelings. It's just that, surely, all abstract music from Beethoven onwards is interpreted by the listener as an exposition of personal emotions. (And, where there is no evidence that the composer had this mind (eg, a lot of Bach), audiences of the last hundred years and more are only too happy to project their own emotions onto the music.)

I took it as read that you could find in Sibelius's music internal emotional psychodramas, because they are there in Beethoven's fifth, Sallinen's third, Simpson's seventh, Bruckner's eighth - and all the others. Strauss wasn't interested in the superficially abstract concepts of symphony, string quartet and the rest, so he turned to the theatrical - or more precisely, the voice (because we shouldn't ignore the Lieder or even the concerti (almost all of which were for wind instruments)) - as his medium. This isn't to say that his operas aren't fully structured, but their structure meets theatrical requirements not, first and foremost, intellectual ones.

So, both composers' music is about people: Sibelius's about himself (maybe), certainly the individual; Strauss's is about other people. (This is not the place to argue that characters in operas and plays are split off projected fragments of the creators' unconscious mind.)

Anyway, it turns out that even Strauss wouldn't have argued that he was the greater composer of the two, but he might have pointed out that there is more love in his music.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Great post, Jeremy. I enjoyed reading it very much. You state your case beautifully.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Jeremy Marchant said:


> So, both composers' music is about people: Sibelius's about himself (maybe), certainly the individual; Strauss's is about other people.


That's why I prefer Strauss. He cared about what I want.  His operas were utterly considerate despite even lavishing many with apparent 12-tone whatevers.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I love the music of both composers . IMHO , Strauss is actually a highly underrated composer . I love such much-maligned works as the Alpine symphony and the Symphonia Domestica, and his operas Die Agyptische Helena, Die Schweigsame Frau, Daphne,
Intermezzo, Friedenstag and Die Liebe Der Danae are works I've come to love now that I've had the chance to get familiar with them on recordings. 
I don't mind the Dance of the 7 Veils at all ; it's kitschy fun and entirely appropriate to the dramatic situation. 
The music of Strauss may be over-the-top and sensationalist at times, but it's never boring ! It's so full of life, color , high calorie warmth and sly humor . 
I even love his somewhat kitschy but highly entertaining ballet score "Josephslegende ", (The legend of Joseph) , commissioned by the Ballets Russe de Monte Carlo, and which tells the story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife in a delightfully
decadent manner . It's almost never performed and has had only two complete recordings as far as I know, by the Japanese conductor Hiroshi Wakasugi with a Japanese orchestra on Denon,which I have, and Sinopoli and the Dresden Staatskapelle on DG. 
The classic Kempe/Dresden EMI Strauss recordings have a version in excerpt form only . Try it if you can find the complete versions, which may not be easy.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

Tapkaara said:


> Great post, Jeremy. I enjoyed reading it very much. You state your case beautifully.


Thank you. I appreciate your compliment.

It's an interesting question for me because it points up something that has always fascinated me - the contrast between Apollo and Dionysus - in the context of two composers whom I love. To be honest, I agree with Strauss, that he isn't the greater (shall we say).



superhorn said:


> Strauss is actually a highly underrated composer.


It would be hard to know that I could never listen to Sibelius again. But then the emotional insights that Strauss illuminates are so varied and precious, I couldn't forego those either. Someone posted that Strauss talks _at _you while Sibelius talks _to _you. How true, I thought, if you're thinking of the opening to _Also sprach_. But think of passages in _Der Rosenkavalier_, where the Marschallin is facing her age: they're exquisitely poignant and, more importantly, true.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Tapkaara said:


> I voted Sibelius, by the way...! I do enjoy Strauss quite a bit, though,


This is a difficult one, because I love both of them, but in the end my choice has to be Strauss.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

Fsharpmajor said:


> This is a difficult one, because I love both of them, but in the end my choice has to be Strauss.


Because...?


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2011)

Sid James said:


> To you, an opera fan, that would be the case, but for me, mainly into instrumental music, I would pick _Finlandia_ any day. Even the famous _Dance of the Seven Veils_ does nothing (or not much) for me..


I am with you on that Sid,


----------



## Lucifer (Nov 5, 2011)

I disagree,Straussis the better of the two!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

> ...Stylistically, there are no great chameleon-like shifts in the manner of Stravinsky...


Stravinsky tended to fully flesh out his directions, eg. he was in the neo-classical phase/style between the two wars, which is quite a long time. But both Stravinsky and R. Strauss were chameleons, they were just different chameleons imo.

Scholars I've read would agree with me, some of them saying what I'm saying, which is proved by this, with_ Elektra _and S_alome_ Strauss went to the brink of tonality, but not quite leaping over like say Schoenberg, then he went back quite a bit. I don't know, maybe it was jumping on the neo-classical bandwagon? -



StlukesguildOhio said:


> _Der Rosenkavalier_ (1911) was composed just two years after _Elektra_...


As for what you say here -



> ...Seriously, I don't see where Strauss was jumping about at all.


I'm not saying R. Strauss had no consistency, I'm saying in some cases he didn't follow through things and branch off within that orbit. Eg. Stravinsky or probably Zemlinsky as well, who went from a trajectory starting out with late Romantic Brahmsian/Wagnerian like his pupil for a while Schoenberg did, then going more atonal, impressionism touched him, neo-classicism, as well as the fad of jazz. But he fully fleshed out these directions, exhausted them more or less as far as I know. With R. Strauss, he did some about faces, but that's okay in some ways, returning to vaguer tonality later on with _Metamorphosen_ gave me my favourite work. I just regret that he didn't fully flesh out and refine his earlier venturing towards the brink of tonality. But I guess I have to be happy with what I've got, that's all we can do...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Jeremy Marchant said:


> ...
> (1)	I don't agree that it wasn't until _Metamorphosen _that Strauss let his mask slip. Surely _Ein Heldenleben_, _Intermezzo _and _Sinfonia domestica_, which Strauss acknowledged were specifically about him, him and his wife, and him and his family, respectively, make it only too clear that Strauss's music was absolutely about him. If it is shallower music than Sibelius's in this respect, that is presumably a characteristic of his personality, not automatically to be explained away as reticence without some evidence. I do recommend Norman del Mar's brilliant three volume book on Strauss, incidentally...


Well maybe what I was saying that with_ Metamorphosen _R. Strauss expressed some quite uncomfortable things, some of his own feelings about what had happened during the war years, but in those other autobiographical works you mention, there is definitely less depth there. This is not a problem with me, I love light music, just as much as dark music, but with _Metamorphosen_ he just let it all hang out so to speak, his grief is there, but his optimism as well, I think he did see that Germany, Europe the world would recover from the catastrophe that had occured, he was an optimist in that way...


----------



## Guest (Nov 6, 2011)

Lucifer said:


> I disagree,Straussis the better of the two!


You can't really say that, you may prefer one over the other. To say one is better you would need to qualify the statement :tiphat:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Scholars I've read would agree with me, some of them saying what I'm saying, which is proved by this, with Elektra and Salome Strauss went to the brink of tonality, but not quite leaping over like say Schoenberg, then he went back quite a bit. I don't know, maybe it was jumping on the neo-classical bandwagon? -

Strauss pushed tonality to the edge for expressive purposes... not unlike the manner in which Wagner had pushed tonality in Tristan und Isolde... and Debussy, Scriabin, and probably most important to Strauss, Mahler had continued to push tonality.

I think you may need to read up on Strauss as written by some musical scholars who actually know how to read dates if you are getting the notion that Strauss was jumping on any sort of bandwagon with his "shift to neo-classicism"... if we can really lable _Der Rosenkavalier_ as such. _Salome_ was first performed in 1905 and _Elektra_ in 1911. _Der Rosenkavalier_ was first performed in 1911. At this time Strauss was still involved in overseeing productions of both _Salome_ (including a French translation of the same opera) and _Elektra_. The so-called Neo-Classical movement in music (and in the arts in general) was something which occurred toward the end of and following the First World War... largely as the philosophy of artists and the population as a whole pulled back from the unquestioning Modernist embrace of progress and technology ("Better living through science/technology") in light of the horrors of the the war. Pablo Picasso, for example, shifted away from the extremes of pre-war Analytical Cubism:



















Neo-Classicism in music is generally attributed to the shift led by Stravinsky... including works such as _Pulcinella_, which was built on themes by Giovanni Pergolesi (1919/20) as well as his _Symphony in C_ (1938) and his opera, _The Rakes Progress_ (1951). Many other composers picked up upon Stravinsky's lead in Neo-Classicism, including Prokofiev, Shostakovitch, Milhaud, Poulenc, and even American composers such as Elliott Carter, Aaron Copland, Roy Harris, and Virgil Thomson. As the entry in Wikipedia states:

_"Even the atonal school, represented by Arnold Schoenberg, showed the influence of neoclassical ideas. The forms of Arnold Schoenberg's works after 1920, beginning with opp. 23, 24, and 25 (all composed at the same time), have been described as "openly neoclassical", and represent an effort to integrate the advances of 1908-1913 with the inheritance of the 18th and 19th centuries."_

Considering the date of Strauss _Der Rosenkavalier_, it would appear that if there was any bandwagon, he wasn't jumping on it... he was leading it. Of course the embrace of earlier "classical" forms by Strauss, Mahler, Stravinsky, Ravel, etc... had much more to do with an ironic... melancholic... view of the past that was irreconcilably and recognizably lost, than it did with a reactionary shift toward conservatism.

Stravinsky or probably Zemlinsky... went from a trajectory starting out with late Romantic Brahmsian/Wagnerian like his pupil for a while Schoenberg did, then going more atonal, impressionism touched him, neo-classicism, as well as the fad of jazz. But he fully fleshed out these directions, exhausted them more or less as far as I know.

In what way did Stravinsky flesh-out his explorations of Neo-Classicism or serialism or the modernism of the Rite to a greater extent than Strauss exhausted late/post-Wagnerian Romanticism and modern opera/musical theater? His tone poems are virtually the last word on tone poems, the Alpine Symphony virtually the last Romantic symphony, his Last Four Songs virtually the last great Romantic song cycle... and quite likely the greatest song cycle of the century.

Again... I don't see any great shifts or second thoughts in Strauss' work at all. His early mature tone poems, his early "expressionist" operas, his later opera, and his final works all sit comfortably, as Jeremy put it, "on the same continuum." There is a far greater stylistic shift between different periods of Stravinsky's work... or even Shostakovitch' than in nearly anything in Strauss. How Stravinsky fleshed out his musical shifts more than Strauss is difficult to measure... considering I don't see any real huge shift in Strauss. _Salome_ and _Die Frau Ohne Schatten_ or _Daphne_ are clearly the product of the same composer. This unity does not exist between _The Firebird_ and _Agnon_ or the _Rite of Spring_ and _Pulcinella_. If anything, Stravinsky was the far greater chameleon... and as a chameleon (like Picasso) his incredibly innovative work often seems to dance along along the edges of ideas that others will explore in greater depth.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> I think you may need to read up on Strauss as written by some musical scholars who actually know how to read dates if you are getting the notion that Strauss was jumping on any sort of bandwagon with his "shift to neo-classicism"...


I don't appreciate you giving advice. Did you notice that I said "maybe" blah blah blah neo-classicism/bandwagons. I was just thinking out aloud.

The other part re what scholars say is pretty much across the board. There will always be questions why R. Strauss did what he did, just as with any other composer.

I don't have time, I agree with some things but some not. I'd say Mahler was pushing and pushing further and further, not just for effect, esp. his last two symphonies (the 10th not in any particalar key, for example & massive tone clusters in the opening _Adagio_). Probably also Scriabin. But neither of them went past the brink as Schoenberg came to do, as they died before they could develop further in that direction.

Strauss was a big supporter of new music by the young "radicals" early on - as was Mahler - but as he got older, Strauss pulled back from promoting new more "experimental" music. In terms of Schoenberg, they became estranged. He kind of developed a love-hate relationship with "new" music, maybe he felt it as a threat, but again, I'm just thinking out aloud.

The neo-classical movement was actually getting off the ground earlier than after 1918, really it was there for decades, or elements of it, even things like Ravel's _String Quartet in F major _of 1903 has aspects of the style to come later, not to speak of music of older generation composers like Saint-Saens. His chamber music was like a precursor to neo-classicism - in some ways he was more than the "conservative" as some (incl. myself) have labelled him. Aspects of neo-classicism were emerging before 1918, not only with _Rosenkavalier _but also things like Schoenberg's_ Pierrot Lunaire _(1912) which is chock-full of the old forms like canons, etc. & yes later after 1918 his music did strongly incorporate aspects of the fully fledged neo-classical style. It would have also been interesting had Max Reger lived, he was also developing these kinds of ideas, he was seen as a major composer of the time, dying in 1916 before neo-classicism came into it's own, he was doing things before that strike me as quite similar, although more heavy & less light, more Romantic perhaps...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Re this whole debate, the obvious thing is that R. Strauss' strengths were mainly opera, while Sibelius was stronger in instrumental, esp. in terms of symphonies. Where they overlap is their tone-poems, but as people have pointed out, they were very different in those.

My own bias is towards instrumental, esp. chamber, that's partly why Strauss'_ Metamorphosen _grabs me more than anything else by him (I always try to hear it live when I get the chance, so far I've done that about 3 times) & as Sibelius' textures are more leaner and his thematic development very very tight (even in the earlier _Lemminkainen Suite_, which is one of my favourites), his orchestral music is more interesting to me than Strauss' by far. So that's my bias, everybody has them, they're mine pure and simple...


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Re this whole debate, the obvious thing is that R. Strauss' strengths were mainly opera, while Sibelius was stronger in instrumental, esp. in terms of symphonies. Where they overlap is their tone-poems, but as people have pointed out, they were very different in those.


Isn't it, at root, a matter of approach to structure, rahter than genre?

Sibelius was interested in form and structure, and explored this particularly in the fifth and seventh symphonies. His interest is in internal structure and in writing pieces which, at one level, can be appreciated as pure music. Strauss was interested in dramatic structure, as I've already said. The music has to fit the story, so to speak.

This is reflected in the tone poems: Strauss's are episodic, dramatic, telling a strory. Sibelius's are more formal. You could make a case for the_ Four legends_ as a proto-symphony (or indeed actual symphony - there are worse works actually called symphonies). And _Tapiola _is near-symphonic.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Since both Strauss and Sibelius are amongst my 'Top 5' favorite composers, it made it incredibly difficult to make a choice. After thinking about this for awhile, I chose Strauss and this isn't because I think he is 'greater' (what a ridiculous assertion!), but he is closer to my heart and soul. With works such as _Der Rosenkavalier_, _Vier letzte Lieder_, _Tod und Verklärung_, _Eine Alpensinfonie_, _Elektra_, _Metamorphosen_, _Horn Concerto No. 2_, _Oboe Concerto_ et. al., the choice became much easier.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Strauss is in my top ten, Sibelius maybe top 50. His symphonies just don't click with me.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> Strauss is in my top ten, Sibelius maybe top 50. His symphonies just don't click with me.


The only Sibelius symphony that doesn't do much for me is his 3rd. Other than this, he was a masterful symphonist, but so much more of course.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

And yet the votes are very close. I don't vote in this polls. We already have so much to choose in the real world.
Strauss: Don Quixote-Sibelius: Kullervo who can choose between them...


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I am not the greatest fan of either but I think Strauss is superior. Sibelius did interesting things in a niche with his very own brand of nordic symphonies but Strauss really has claims for the last universal composer. Sure, he became less interesting in the last 30 years of his life (but Sibelius just quit in his last 30 years...). Just the three most famous operas (Salome, Elektra, Rosenkavalier) or a selection from tone poems would Strauss make a preeminent composer of his time and he wrote both and so much more, including great lieder, a very good violin sonata and one of the more famous oboe concerti.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Kreisler jr said:


> I am not the greatest fan of either but I think Strauss is superior. Sibelius did interesting things in a niche with his very own brand of nordic symphonies but *Strauss really has claims for the last universal composer.* Sure, he became less interesting in the last 30 years of his life (but Sibelius just quit in his last 30 years...). Just the three most famous operas (Salome, Elektra, Rosenkavalier) or a selection from tone poems would Strauss make a preeminent composer of his time and he wrote both and so much more, including great lieder, a very good violin sonata and one of the more famous oboe concerti.


What do you mean by universal?


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Sibelius is my choice, easily. I see much more depth in his music, even skill.



EdwardBast said:


> What do you mean by universal?


You didn´t ask me, but I still try to answer.

It is typical to see from the viewpoint of a dominant culture, that the values of the dominant culture are universal. It has been argued that from inside the dominant culture, composers like Grieg are more acceptable than Sibelius, because Grieg accepted the _langue _of the dominant culture and with his rather superficial nordic twists just created _parole, _whereas Sibelius also changed the _langue -- _and _that,_ my friends, has been hard for the dominant culture to accept. That is why Sibelius has always been more accepted and respected in the English speaking world than in the German speaking world.

Coming from outside the dominant culture, I have never cared for the canonic storytelling where Mahler or Strauss or Schönberg are inheriting or fulfilling some great German or Austrian musical story. The storytelling surrounding the music really doesn´t make the music better or worse.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Waehnen said:


> Sibelius is my choice, easily. I see much more depth in his music, even skill.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The main problem with Sibelius and gaining traction outside of Scandinavia, Finland, the UK and the US is he hails from a country that doesn't have an established classical tradition. Now that I'm thinking about it, it's the same with Grieg. Both of the these composers are outsiders and will remain outsiders, especially Sibelius. So if you look at Germany, Austria, France and Russia, you see a heritage and lineage in these countries. Finland didn't have one composer before Sibelius that made any impact, but, then again, it's still a young country and has produced many fine composers since Sibelius' own time. The same could be said of Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. These countries had to build their musical culture from the ground up. I honestly don't blame any of the Germans/Austrians, French or Russians for not programming more Nordic works, because their own cultures are rich in history and have produced some of the most magnificent classical composers that ever walked this planet. This doesn't make Sibelius a horrible composer or any such thing, it's just that he's not popular and aside from a few excerpts from _Peer Gynt_ or his _Piano Concerto_ neither is Grieg (whose greatest strength in my opinion is his solo piano and chamber works). Anyway, this is my own take.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Neo Romanza said:


> The main problem with Sibelius and gaining traction outside of Scandinavia, Finland, the UK and the US is he hails from a country that doesn't have an established classical tradition. Now that I'm thinking about it, it's the same with Grieg. Both of the these composers are outsiders and will remain outsiders, especially Sibelius. So if you look at Germany, Austria, France and Russia, you see a heritage and lineage in these countries. Finland didn't have one composer before Sibelius that made any impact, but, then again, it's still a young country and has produced many fine composers since Sibelius' own time. The same could be said of Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. These countries had to build their musical culture from the ground up. I honestly don't blame any of the Germans/Austrians, French or Russians for not programming more Nordic works, because their own cultures are rich in history and have produced some of the most magnificent classical composers that ever walked this planet. This doesn't make Sibelius a horrible composer or any such thing, it's just that he's not popular and aside from a few excerpts from _Peer Gynt_ or his _Piano Concerto_ neither is Grieg (whose greatest strength in my opinion is his solo piano and chamber works). Anyway, this is my own take.


Well, there are 5 million people in Finland, 67 million in France, 83 million in Germany and 143 million in Russia.

The size of the musical community also kinda makes a difference in things musical, for sure!


----------



## AaronSF (Sep 5, 2021)

I have a lot of difficulty with these forced-choice scenarios. I like both these composers, but they couldn't be more different. 

Strauss wrote several great operas (especially Salome, Elektra, and Rosenkavalier) and his tone poems are also quite theatrical. I don't love his tone poems as much as I did when I was young, but the operas still amaze me.

Sibelius is basically a symphonic composer, so completely different from Strauss. Yes, I suppose they overlap a bit in that they both wrote "tone poems," but Sibelius's strike me as symphonic and minimally programatic, whereas Strauss's are totally programmed. 

Sibelius's symphonies are unique in the literature. He found new ways to structure them (compared to say Brahms or Bruckner), and even though I've heard them all many times, they always surprise me, which is the best thing a composer can do. It's what the great composers do...find new, surprising and idiosyncratic ways to compose.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

AaronSF said:


> I have a lot of difficulty with these forced-choice scenarios. I like both these composers, but they couldn't be more different.
> 
> Strauss wrote several great operas (especially Salome, Elektra, and Rosenkavalier) and his tone poems are also quite theatrical. I don't love his tone poems as much as I did when I was young, but the operas still amaze me.
> 
> ...


It's just for fun and shouldn't be taken so seriously. Both are masterful composers.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Sibelius over Strauss easily. Any one of Sibelius' symphonies is better than anything Strauss wrote.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Strauss was being sarcastic. Whether one is technically better he will always have the greater following with longer-lived works such as Also Sprach Zarathustra, Der Rosenkavalier, Ein Heldenleben and others that tug at the hearts of listeners. Sibelius is not in the same category as a romantic.

Sibelius did not like Strauss's and similar extravagance and purposely wrote his Third Symphony in an anti-lavishness vein as a sort of protest, limiting the dynamic range and orchestration for that purpose.

Is one composer better than the other? More popular? In my survey Strauss came in No. 12 and Sibelius No. 16 so there's not much difference.

I have about equal representation in my library and perhaps listen to Sibelius more often but that was not true when I was younger. And Sibelius never wrote a successful opera making him absent that realm.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

larold said:


> Strauss will always have the greater following and longer-lived works such as Also Sprach Zarathustra, Der Rosenkavalier, Ein Heldenleben and other works that tug at the heart of listeners. Sibelius is not in the same category as a romantic.
> 
> Sibelius did not like Strauss's extravagance and wrote his Third Symphony in an anti-extravagance vein.
> 
> Is one better than the other? More popular? In my survey Strauss came in No. 12 and Sibelius No. 16 so there's not much difference. I listen to Sibelius more often but that was not true when I was younger.* And Sibelius never wrote an opera* meaning he is absent that realm.


Another reason why I prefer him to Strauss


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

I definitely prefer Sibelius. His Symphonies are incredible.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

There is a chapter on Sibelius and Strauss ("Music, Language, and the Visual: The Divergent Paths of Sibelius and Strauss") in Leon Bostein's book "Jean Sibelius and His World", which is an interesting read.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

EdwardBast said:


> What do you mean by universal?


Nothing deep . Basically, broad appeal across several major genres with more central works for the respective genres. Of course this is technically true about Prokofiev or Berg (both hardly later than Strauss) and also a few later composers but I think they are all more niche/special interest (Prokofiev's opera are hardly repertoire and Berg has so few works overall). Strauss and Puccini are the dominating (early) 20th century opera composers (and there is none later, only very few single works that entered the repertoire like Wozzeck) and Strauss is one of the few opera composers after Mozart (Tchaikovsky probably the other one) to have many major works in other genres besides opera.

Sibelius was/is more accepted in the English speaking world because they had little music unlike Germany/Austria (or Italy or France, I think Sibelius is even more niche in romance language countries than in German speaking ones).

Sure, this has changed a bit in the last decades, Strauss has fallen from the elevated position he had until the 1960s (I think such a poll would have been overwhelmingly in favor of Strauss in 1950 or 1960).


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Kreisler jr said:


> Sibelius was/is more accepted in the English speaking world because they had little music unlike Germany/Austria (or Italy or France, I think Sibelius is even more niche in romance language countries than in German speaking ones).


You mean the English speaking world had little music of their own -- which is the opposite of the German speaking world?

It is no wonder that the German people like Sibelius more than the French. Sibelius studied in Berlin after all. And the grand old man who established much of the classical music in Finland was German as well, born in Hamburg in 1809 (the same year the Russian empire took Finland from Sweden and we became an autonomous Granduchy within the tsarist empire). He composed the Finnish national anthem and composed the first Finnish opera. Yeah, it kinda happened late in the timeline.





__





Loading…






en.wikipedia.org





That´s about the only thing I don´t like about Finland: the civilization and culture are so young. The oldest building in the centre of Helsinki is from the year Mozart died (and the previous capital Turku burned down in 1827, the same year Beethoven died). Luckily we are close to many old cultures around the Baltic Sea and much of their culture has always reflected upon us.

Of course we have always had strong folk culture with music and poetry, especially in the Karelia.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Ugh . Why do we always have to compare the proverbial apples to the proverbial oranges ? I love the music of both and wouldn't want to be without both .


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Kreisler jr said:


> Nothing deep . Basically, broad appeal across several major genres with more central works for the respective genres. Of course this is technically true about Prokofiev or Berg (both hardly later than Strauss) and also a few later composers but I think they are all more niche/special interest (Prokofiev's opera are hardly repertoire and Berg has so few works overall). Strauss and Puccini are the dominating (early) 20th century opera composers (and there is none later, only very few single works that entered the repertoire like Wozzeck) and Strauss is one of the few opera composers after Mozart (Tchaikovsky probably the other one) to have many major works in other genres besides opera.
> 
> Sibelius was/is more accepted in the English speaking world because they had little music unlike Germany/Austria (or Italy or France, I think Sibelius is even more niche in romance language countries than in German speaking ones).
> 
> Sure, this has changed a bit in the last decades, Strauss has fallen from the elevated position he had until the 1960s (I think such a poll would have been overwhelmingly in favor of Strauss in 1950 or 1960).


If that's what you meant then it's definitely dubious. Prokofiev excelled in several genres Strauss did not (symphony, concerto, solo sonata, piano character pieces). Shostakovich even more so. Prokofiev also has several operas in the repertoire and a couple with signs of having not yet peaked in popularity.


----------

