Hello Everyone!
It has been a very loooong time, since I've posted or visited the forums....
Anyway, I would like to ask a question regarding Sibelius' skill as a musician...Was he more skilled at the melody aspect or harmony aspect in music?
Please don't attack me, just be gentle and correct me if I have erred in any way...
Thanks!
3/4 player

In my mind, no one element dominates Sibelius' music. I believe that the Mark of Sibelius is his ability to meld melody (and rhythm, in terms of motives), harmony and structure into a unified and inter-related framework. In this I find that it is he and not Mahler that is the true heir of the symphony in the Mozart-Beethoven-Schuber-Brahms lineage.

But if I was to single out a single element that satisfies me more that the rest, it is his harmonic signature, the half-diminished seventh chord.

A brief explanation:

The fully-diminished seventh, ever-present in the works of Bach and Beethoven, is made up exclusively of minor thirds. To build a fully-diminished seventh chord on the note B (natural), one simply adds minor thirds on top of it, until one attains the following chord:

B-D-F-Ab

By contrast, a HALF-diminished 7th chord is very similar, with the difference being that the highest interval is not a minor third but a major third::

B-D-F-A

This half-diminished 7th chord, while offering less immediate dissonance than the fully-diminished 7th, is however much more flexible and versatile. The fully diminished 7th shown above basically resolves to a C major or minor triad and nothing else. Also, it is considered "bad taste" or perhaps even downright wrong to modulate with the aid of fully-diminished 7ths.

In comparison, Sibelius' favourite half-diminished 7th can go in many directions, and is a very powerful tool in modulations. But more than that, it provides a here-to-fore unusual and charged colour as a sonority in-and-of itself, with a wide range of possible expressions: movement, rest, tension, resolution...

The best example of Sibelius' use of this sound that I can think of are the brass chords in the 1st mvmt of the 4th symphony, but here I am just singleing-out one moment among hundreds. as this chord basically permeates his entire output from his very beginnings (En Saga) to his very endings (Tapiola).

That's a very tricky one. At least in his early years (pre-Kullervo) the melody aspect is very clearly his main concern, followed perhaps by rhythm (a consequence of his early exposure to central European dance music). The tonal scheme of the earliest works (pre-1885) is very free and doesn't correspond to textbook norms. But after that he certainly developed a strong feeling for harmony as well - one thinks of his troubled relationship with Wagner's operas and of the Symbolist works of the 1890s (Lemminkäinen, Wood-Nymph etc.). Overall I agree with Kurkikohtaus that he conceived his works - if not exactly as Gesamtkunstwerke in the Wagnerian sense - then at least as totalities, rather than just the sum of the medlodies, harmonies and rhythms they contain.

the general, non-technical aspect i will call 'mood painting'.

dj

Very appropriate. In his correspondence with his painter friend Oscar Parviainen, Sibelius refers to them both as 'mood people' (‘stämningsmänniskor’).

Returning to Kurkikohtaus's point, I aggree with him that no one element dominates Sibelius's music and his points about harmony and structure are very true. I think we can all aggree that what Sibelius explored was the more fundamental field of musical structure, what however amazes me about the music of the Finnish master is not his use of half diminished seventh, minor triads, diminished fifth or what have you, but his remarkable ability to make a simple chord sound entirely his own.

I have just been reading an astonishing attack on Sibelius by one 'Paulb' on Classical music guide forum from 2007 and I reproduce most of it below.

'Should we follow collective opinion or is our inner voice of importance?
Sure collectivity is of the utmost importance, as this force builds, our concert halls, music schools, builds Cd manufacturing, recording studios, and inspires instrument makers to make objects to play music with. Not least collectivity provides composers with an audience to listen to their works. I mean a composer stuck in the middle of the desert with no community has no desire to compose. The inspiration comes from the epoch he lives in, time and place have some significant influence on shape and form. But does collective opinion have the right to object to the individuals feelings? even though these feelings may fall in stark contrast to collectivity? The Symphonies of Sibelius seem to me outdated and of little significance in todays world. More than that, critically, they do not seem to be coherent as a unified whole. There is a theme that opens and then stops, another starts in, but no lines leading up properly to introduce the new theme, chords are left hanging in mid air, dissapate then, disappears. Then at the end of the symphony you are not sure what is so significant about the symphony. Some beautiful, intriguing passages for sure, but taken as a whole, it lacks in integrity as though Sibelius had started with one central idea, but then somewhere he gets side tracked. Besides Sibelius harks back to a past that Debussy, Ravel and many others left behind. Even his closest countryman, Pettersson draws little inspiration from the great Sibelius. What I am asking is should collective opinion continue to speak so highly of Sibelius symphonies and perpetuate this myth of 'greatness', indeed! by all means tis so! with complete confidence and not allowing any objections to the decreed opinion from the censorship. Whereas I hear Pettersson as far excelling any of Sibelius's symphonies. Yet this belief should not be confronted with, 'how dare you even think to compare Pettersson as more important than Sibelius! or does the individual have a right to be heard without the threat of unfair attacking criticism?'

Well 'Paulb' seems to lose it in places but I invite comments on his remarks.--kp

Of course, what this guy says in nonsense!

I just wish he were around in here so we could gang up on him.

And I'm not sure how Pettersson is his closest countryman, but let us indeed consider the source.

These types of remark are not unique. In another forum, I remember getting irked when someone made reference to Sibelius's "supposed greatness." I guess there is a contingent out there that thinks a liking/appreciation for Sibelius is artificial. We like him because someone else said he was great.

Anyway, I don't tend to argue too much with these people. What can you possibly say? I don't get Mozart, and I know that is a controversial statement. To the majority, I'm sure my not liking Mozart is as outrageous as it gets. Yet I still think my point of view on the man's music should be respected as it's my opinion...this persons opinion is to be respected too...no matter how wrong it is!

Sibelius wasn't a fluffy composer. His music is earthy and perhaps a bit hard. One doesn't (or shouldn't) come to Sibelius expecting anything but Sibelius. He resides in his own plane of existance, and, obviously, not everyone feels comfortable there. Perhaps we Sibelians should be more understanding to the plight and blindness of others!

Paulb makes some "fair" points about why he doesn't like Sibelius:

Paulb wrote:

There is a theme that opens and then stops, another starts in, but no lines leading up properly to introduce the new theme, chords are left hanging in mid air, dissapate then, disappears. Then at the end of the symphony you are not sure what is so significant about the symphony.

I think the first part of this thought is fair game. As a matter of fact, it is precisely this element about Sibelius that Sibelians appreciate! He doesn't like it, others do. For him, these things lead to an ending that is puzzling, to others, an ending that brings it all together.

Paulb wrote:

Some beautiful, intriguing passages for sure, but taken as a whole, it lacks in integrity as though Sibelius had started with one central idea, but then somewhere he gets side tracked.

Sibelius is not "easy listening" and I can accept the opinion that he lacks the "instant appeal" that other composers (Tchaikovsky comes to mind) have. If one is expecting instant gratification then one will leave a performance feeling as Paulb describes above. When one penetrates into Sibelius' works, repeated hearings bring to light the importance of that "central idea" and its "integrity".

Paulb wrote:

Besides Sibelius harks back to a past that Debussy, Ravel and many others left behind.

An unfortunate layman's criticism that cannot be supported by real argument.

--- --- ---

With regards to being able to critisize an artist who is "collectively" regarded as "great", I encourage this right for anybody who wishes to express it. Criticism of Sibelius is fair game, here or anywhere, as long as that criticism can be backed up by logical arguments founded on knowledge of the music. I also believe that through criticism and discussion, one's knowledge of that which is being criticized will be enriched and perhaps lead to a deeper appreciation.

All of that was well said, Kurki. You makes excellent points.

Indeed, criticism of any composer is fair game, including Sibelius.

Like Kurki said, Sibelius is often not "easy listening" like a Tchaikovsky. Even Mahler is, I think, and "easier listen" than Sibelius.

So, if you approach Sibelius looking for Tchaikovskian or Mahlerian immediacy, of course you'll be left wanting. So perhaps the problem is not Sibelius's music, but this listener's state of mind/expectations when approaching Sibelius.

Thanks guys for some interesting observations. Of course we on this forum venerate Sibelius but lets look at some points made by 'unbeliever' Paulb.

'The Symphonies of Sibelius seem to me outdated and of little significance in todays world'.--Paulb.
On the contrary I would suggest that it is the very timelessness of Sibelius's Symphonies that mark his music out from lesser figures and because of its unique originality it will remain 'new' throughout all the fashions and trends in music.

'There is a theme that opens and then stops, another starts in but no lines leading up properly to introduce the new theme, chords are left hanging in mid air, dissapate then disappear'.--Paulb.
Paulb speaks of real Sibelian proceedures here, and for me these techniques are qualitys that I much admire in the music. Indeed 'chords' and also we listeners are left hanging in mid air at times. But surely Sibelius's music is the most organic ever concieved.

'Some beautiful, intriquing passages for sure, but taken as a whole, it lacks integrity as though Sibelius had started with one central idea, but then somewhere he gets side tracked'.--Paulb.

I think Sibelius is unrivaled in his ability to make a point and then move on when he has nothing further to say about it. It is the very integrity of Sibelius that is the musics sustaining power.

'What I am asking is should collective opinion continue to speak so highly of Sibelius's Symphonies and perpetuate this myth of 'Greatness'--Paulb.
I was writing about the 'Greatness' of Sibelius as far back as 1965. Clearly collective opinion on Sibelius as never been unanimous and Sibelius has had his share of detracters. But I believe that his music will endure, which for me is a sure sign of 'Greatness'. Furthermore it is good that composers such as Pettersson have emerged from the enormous shadow of Sibelius. Indeed almost all leading composers today acknowledge their debt to the resounding legacy of Jean Sibelius.--kp

He thinks Pettersson is a countryman of Sibelius???? D'oh!

Andrew B wrote:

He thinks Pettersson is a countryman of Sibelius???? D'oh!

That invalidates everything he says right there! Anyone who thinks Pettersson and Sibelius hail from the same country really cannot possibly know what they are talking about!!

This PaulB (Paul Best from Louisiana,USA) was very vociferous several years ago on a few classical music forums and was notorious for, amongst other things:
- dismissing Beethoven's music as rubbish
- having the ability to dismiss a whole work based on 30-second samples on amazon!!
- placing Pettersson on top of the all-time great composers' pantheon
His frequent postings sadly caused mirth and open ridicule on several forums ; I can only say that the comments by members of this forum do great credit to this forum as they have not yet resorted to personal "attacks"!!

Why would we attack each other...we like each other too much!!!

Thanks for your insight into the PaulB mystery, hangos!

This is starting to make a bit of sense now. A common pattern one sees on forums is the trumpeting of an obscure composer's, followed by the harsh and often unfounded criticism of composers that are better known.

It's a shame, as I believe we can enjoy music by many composers, well known or otherwise, without having to artificially place them in competition with each other.

Thanks hangos for throwing some light on Paulb and I see now just why he brought Swedish composer Allan Pettersson into his argument with which to denigrate Sibelius. I suppose these type of people can liven up a music forum from time to time, but in Paulb's case I think that the novelty would quickly wear off! Clearly anyone that can rubbish Beethoven is the worst type of maverick. Yes we all have pet hates in music, blind spots that might obscure the achievements of many composers. Forum members may have noticed that I regard the music of Mahler as being over-rated, but, and this is the important bit--I have always been ready to respect his artistic integrity.--kp

Yeah… I even respect the artistic integrity of Brahms. Honest.
I've also heard that some musical and technical forums are peopled by individuals with rather odd ideas that are ridiculed by other members. It could never happen to any of us, of course…