I have recently been reading a review of Andrew B's Sibelius biography by Mr. D Gutman in the Dec, 07 issue of International Record Review.
Apart from attacking Andrew's writing style, quote 'As sentences trundle on like a lacklustre performance of Nightride and Sunrise, accumulating fact upon fact, the lack of critical distance becomes increasingly worrying'.
Sibelius, Gutman tells us 'is not a draw on the scale of Mahler or Shostakovitch. But he reserves his most vitriolic attack for Sibelius's keyboard works, and I quote, 'Witness Barnetts bizarre enthusiasm for some of the worst piano writing ever perpetrated by a major composer'.
Echo's here of Leibowitz's famous attack on Sibelius in the 60's.
Well I am gradually exploring Sibs piano music, and by and large I like what I hear.
It was that great Canadian pianist Glenn Gould who rightly said that Sibelius never wrote against the grain of the piano. Any views--kullervopete.

I'll try not to get sucked in too deeply, but...

Yes, one wonders if he would have been happier to ignore the facts (the presentation and ordering of which was one of the primary purposes of the book) and rely on glib generalizations such as, um, 'some of the worst piano writing ever perpetrated by a major composer'. There are factions within the British musical establishment who will attack anything that takes them out of their comfort zone - and in this case the border of that comfort zone is the admission that Sibelius might actually have written some piano music that people like. As far as I recall I certainly didn't make any hyperbolic claims for the piano music, merely placed it in context, as was my intention.

Having said that, YES, I do think that Sibelius's piano music is better than its reputation suggests; and I hope many people will follow kullervopete's lead and enjoy it on its own terms.

Yes indeed, I really do think that many critics have already convinced themselves about the piano pieces without taking the trouble to explore the music. Now with all the published piano works readily available--and more, this can no longer be an excuse.
That great pianist, Annette Servadei, who has recorded most of the piano music, confirmed to me that Busoni [a master pianist] must have given Sibelius much compositional advice for the piano and she finds Sibs piano music very pianistic, in his own unique harmonic style.
Sibelius wrote over one hundred works for the piano, yet for some critics they show absolutely no development, unlike the great orchestral scores. This is another fallacy, from the early student pieces right up to opus 114 [1929] Sibelius explores an abundance of rhythm, melodic and harmonic invention. In opus 58 No. 1, he even touches bitonality! showing a close proximity to the 4th Symphony.
Sibelius stated that he did not mind his symphonies achieving early fame at the expence of the piano works, for they would find their own place in time.
We live in exiting times with regard to Sibelius's music and research, books such as Andrew B's 'Sibelius' celebrate the masters resounding legacy and as the reputation of Sibelius continues to grow, tirades from the likes of Mr. Gutman can happily only have a transitory effect on the great Finn--and what was it that Sib said about critics.--kullervopete.

I can find one positive thing about Mr. Gutman's review as presented by kullervopete:

It is heartwarming to see the he acknowledges Sibelius as a major composer.

As for the rest, I can offer the following words of encouragement to Andrew B and to Sibelius: these men, both of whom we admire, knew what they wanted to express through their writing, writing with strong purpose and intention.

Getting back to the point of piano music, Andrew B makes a good point that if Mr. Gutman is going to make a sweeping generalization like that about Sibelius' piano music, he would do well to be a lot more specific and include both abstract and comparative analysis to his undoubted wealth of historical knowledge.

All but the most fanatical Sibelian would concede that Sibelius's piano writing is uneven, but along with some trifles can be found pieces of real stature.
The legendary pianist Wilhelm Kempff described one of Sibs Sonatinas as one of the most genius like movements in the whole of piano literature--praise indeed from one of the greatest pianists of the 20th century.
In fact Sibelius did consider writing a piano concerto a number of times. In March 1922, Wilhelm Hansen wrote to ask Sib if he had ever considered writing a concerto. Sibelius answered immediately: 'I have often been urged to do so on countless occasions--by among others Busoni. But it has always seemed to me that the world wants a piano concerto a la Tchaikovsky [sic] or Grieg, but not one of meine wenigkeit. All the same, I shall give the matter serious thoughts. I am certainly interested'.
But four days later Sib had second thoughts: 'I must take back my words about writing a piano concerto. Partly because I am to a greater extent than ever a slave of my ideas so that I can no longer write what I want, but what I must. Thus no promise but a hope'.
Did Sibelius realise the limitations of his pianistic prowess--I think not, a man who could write the Fourth Symphony could do anything.--kullervopete.

On the hypothetical idea of a Sibelius Piano Concerto...

I would imagine it to be For the Left Hand.

Kurkikohtaus wrote:

On the hypothetical idea of a Sibelius Piano Concerto... I would imagine it to be For the Left Hand.

So that the other hand can hold on to the vodka bottle?

I have been playing a lot of Tchaikovsky over Christmas and some Sibelius and I ask myself, just why is it that these two giants of music are constantly having their darker sides dug up.
With the Russian master its the 'neurotic homosexual' element and of course with Sibelius the 'chronic alcoholic'. Let the music speak.
As regards a piano concerto, it is clear that Sibelius did not have that inner compulsion to write such a work.
I have been listening recently to Sibs five Esquisses for piano opus 114 [1929] and it is clear that Sibelius is moving towards a new piano style. The Russian musicologist Joseph Kon has described how these pieces contain 'elements of tonal and harmonic innovation' that reveal a trend in the composers thinking, which unexpectedly draws Sibelius close to Scriabin and Bartok.--kullervopete.

Congrats on 200, kullervopete!

I think people are obsessed with the private lives of celebrities, entire media industries are built around digging up every minute detail about each and every actor/actress/pop-star. Certainly, the Classical composers deserve to be appreciated mainly through their art, nevertheless I think it is an incorrigable aspect of our fragile human psyche to be somewhat fascinated with all the "other stuff". Like Sibelius/Mussorgsky's drinking, Tchaikovsky's homosexuality, Mozart's vulgarity ... It is at the very least pleasant gossip, and at best another avenue through which to understand their art.

But kullervopete's point remains well made: "Let the music speak".

Those obsessed with the private lives of composers often want to believe that great music derives from virtuous personalities, in contrast to see musical creativity as a skill on its own.
My experience tells me that the private-life obsessed are wrong.

I agree with Saturnus. Certainly in a detailed biography, a composer should be shown warts and all so to speak, in order to give a full picture of the man and artist,
What I object to and Sibelius is a good case in point, is critics who are forever bringing up the drink problem while discussing a particular work, as if this weakness in Sibelius's makeup was an integral part of the music.--kullervopete.

Quite so - the drink may have slowed down progress on the Violin Concerto for instance but I don't think it impaired his musical judgement or affected the outcome at all.

I have Andrew B's book and I enjoyed it quite a bit. Thanks for you service to the world of Sibelius, Andrew!

I have often thought about what a Sibelius piano concerto would sound like.

The left hand was mentioned...yes, I think the left handwould have played a very important role in such a concerto. Sibelius seems to lean toward the darker, heavier end of the piano in his piano writing, so this would be expected.

I imagine a Sibelius piano concerto would sound more like Rachmaninov than Tchaikovsky...

Well possibly Tchaik or Rach if he had written a piano concerto during his National romantic period, say prior to 1907. On the other hand a 'late piano concerto might have sounded much different to the Russian romantics, Bartok perhaps.--kullervopete.

Interesting that you mention Bartok, Pete. But I don;t know if I agree with that. These composers (Sibbe and Bartok) are very different from each other. I'm really no big fan of Bartok...I find his music somewhat tacky. I think he was trying to be too much like a Stravinsky, but without the genius.

I think the best way to put it is that a Sibelius piano concerto would have sounded like...Sibelius! I guess when I mentioned Rachmaninov I was trying to suggest that there would be a certain heaviness or darkness to a Sibelius piano concerto...but I wasn't really trying to suggest that melodically or even harmonically there would be huge similarities. Just 'mood' similarities, perhaps.

I guess the closest we can get to a Sibelius piano concerto is the Piano Quintet of 1890. Interestingly that's a pretty well integrated piece in the sense that the piano has much the same status as the other instruments - it certainly doesn't dominate as much as the violin dominates the Violin Concerto. A similarly equitable approach is found in the other big chamber works such as the Piano Quartet (1884) and (though maybe to a slightly lesser extent) the piano trios. Mention of Rachmaninov prompts me to point out that the piano writing in the second group of the first movement of the 'Korpo' Trio always makes me think of Rachmaninov, especially in the recapitulation. And if you have ears that are even remotely open rather than stuffed with cloth, and if you are insightful enough to desist from making cheap cracks about Benny and Björn, you can hear the finale of this trio as a piece with the same energy as Beethoven's piano concerto finales.

I love Benny and Björn!!!

I will have to revisit the Piano Quintet you speak of Andrew. I'll let you know what I think.

Tapkaara wrote:

I love Benny and Björn!!!

Nothing wrong with that - but there was a certain UK critic (may he remain nameless) who made just this silly comparison!

I thought that our friend Tapkaara might be surprised or even shocked at my mention of Bartok in the context of a hypothetical 'Late' Sibelius piano concerto. But as I have mentioned elswhere, Sibelius admired Bartoks music above all other 'moderns'.
In the 1920's Sibelius continued to develop new and original techniques. For example in Tapiola he used 'chord streams' with parallels in the music of Berg and Bartok [Berg admired a number of Sibelius's works]
Sibelius also exploited these again in 'Five sketches for piano opus 114. Among Sibelius's late works are some facinating pieces for violin and piano opus 115 and 116. Listening to these remarkable pieces it is clear that the stylistic influence of Bartok is very strong, Sibelius was moving ever closer to Bartokian techniques.

The notion that Sibelius's piano music showed absolutely no development alongside the orchestral works is a fallacy. Sibelius was often testing out idea's in the piano works for later orchestral use, who knows where his path might have taken him if he had not lapsed into silence.--kullervopete.