Well, I must admit...I did not not know Sibbe admired Bartok. I suppose I can see him taking an interest in more modern muisc toward the latter part of his career. Works like Tapiola certainly show a bent towards more modern...perhaps avant-garde techniques...so this all makes sense.

After my last post about Bartok, I got to thinking and maybe I was initially to harsh on him. I will admit, I only have a few Bartok recordings and, what I have, does not really get me going in any way. To me, he sounds like he was trying too hard to be like Stravinsky. But, since I have not heard a very wide array of his music, perhaps I shouldn't pass such a harsh judgement on him. This weekend, I'll take some time to listen to him and be a little more open minded.

In another discussion here, there was a quote by Bartok in which he derides Sibelius! Was Sibbe aware of this when he laid praise on the wild Hungarian?

Well we will probably never know for sure. Sibelius did remark 'I don't know what Bartok thought about my music, but I always had the highest regard for his'.
I myself have never been able to get exited over Bartoks music. I have the 'Concerto for orchestra' and thats about it. I sometimes wonder if Bartok might have been just a bit 'peeved' at the Finnish masters success in America, where he himself had settled. After all Sibelius had been voted the most popular composer in the history of music by concert audiences in 1935.--kullervopete.

kullervopete wrote:

I have the 'Concerto for orchestra' and thats about it.

Certainly Bartok's most popular work, but I find the Music for Strings, percussion and celesta much more engaging, it's actually a "Desert Island Disc" for me. While it is very much an intelectual work, for me it still manages to cut a very expressive path through a mysterious sound-world.

Kurki's post rang a bell with me and I began sifting through my LP collection. Out it came! Bartoks music for strings, percussion and celesta and the magical name 'Reiner' on the cover. I sat back to give it another try after a gap of thirty years.
Its an interesting piece and well crafted, but ultimatly I could not identify with it. Here was an example of 'absolute' music written in the 20th century by one of its great figures with no label. Bartok just called it 'music' for particular instruments. And yet this music was as taut and rigorous as any symphony. Why did Bartok, as with a number of other so called 'progressive' composers avoid the name 'symphony'. Perhaps they thought that the symphony was dead, an outmoded anachronism. Sibelius to, wondered whether persisting with the symphony at a time when many other composers had gone in a different direction had harmed his reputation. Could this be why Bartok remarked that Sibelius's symphonies would not last? Anyway I enjoyed Bartoks other work on Reiners recording 'Five Hungarian Sketches' these are orchestrations of his earlier piano music written when his music was more amicable.--kullervopete.