I once read a quote my the great Richard Strauss about Sibelius. It is as follows:

"I have more skill, but he is greater."

What do you suppose Strauss meant by this?

I've more or less felt this way, actually.

Richard Strauss has more "skill" in the way he employs his orchestra, whereas Sibelius is greater in scope and depth--his ideas are more clear.

Strauss is only alluding to a fact that's been blatantly obvious since Beethoven's symphonies got to be so darn popular: that orchestration ultimately doesn't mean a whole lot unless you're going entirely for flashy effects, which neither Beethoven nor Sibelius were, and Strauss more or less was.

World Violist wrote:

I've more or less felt this way, actually. Richard Strauss has more "skill" in the way he employs his orchestra, whereas Sibelius is greater in scope and depth--his ideas are more clear. Strauss is only alluding to a fact that's been blatantly obvious since Beethoven's symphonies got to be so darn popular: that orchestration ultimately doesn't mean a whole lot unless you're going entirely for flashy effects, which neither Beethoven nor Sibelius were, and Strauss more or less was.

I think you are right, and, by the way, all of that was very well put.

How many times have you heard "Strauss was a great orchestrater!" Probably a lot. I, too, think that could very well be the over-riding aspect to his art. Of course, he was a great composer, too, but I find in terms of structure and general cohesion of content, Sibelius is indeed greater.

What made me think of this, actually, was listening to Strauss's Don Juan the other day, This is a very popular work by someone who is considered one of the great tone poets. But I have trouble with this work. It's a lot of gesture and big, showy effects, but short of good themes and structure. It's just one orchestral swell after another, with some quiter passes in between. It actually comes off as quite boring.

Don't get me wrong, I like Strauss (some Strauss, I should say). But I think his quote really is fascinating...and insightful...and true.

What wise words from both of you. I can only agree.

I think the actual quote was 'I can do more.....' This is really a massive tribute from one composer to another. Most great and indeed lesser composers tend to find holes in the music of their rivals, so for Richard Strauss to confess that Sibelius is the greater is remarkable. Sibelius had much to thank Strauss for of course, ever since the German conducted the premiere of the Violin Concerto's revised version in 1905. Although Strauss was not a symphonist, the tone poem was a genre that both composers excelled in. When Sibelius the student heard Strauss's 'Don Juan performed in Berlin he was knocked for six! In just a few years JS would embark on a series of symphonic poems that would rival the German master and in many ways surpass them.--kp

kullervopete wrote:

I think the actual quote was 'I can do more.....' This is really a massive tribute from one composer to another. Most great and indeed lesser composers tend to find holes in the music of their rivals, so for Richard Strauss to confess that Sibelius is the greater is remarkable. Sibelius had much to thank Strauss for of course, ever since the German conducted the premiere of the Violin Concerto's revised version in 1905. Although Strauss was not a symphonist, the tone poem was a genre that both composers excelled in. When Sibelius the student heard Strauss's 'Don Juan performed in Berlin he was knocked for six! In just a few years JS would embark on a series of symphonic poems that would rival the German master and in many ways surpass them.--kp

"I can do more" or "I have more skill" perhaps means the same thing more or less, but either way, we do have Strauss making a very interesting statement.

Interesting how so many no-name hacks like Leibowitz, Adorno, Thomson went out of their way to discredit Sibelius at any opportunity, yet a musical giant like Strauss goes so far as to suggest that Sibelius was the greater of the two.

I wonder why Strauss would have wanted to compare himself to Sibelius in the first place. The two really were rather different, no? OK, both are masters of the tone poem, but Strauss was not a symphonist as Sibelius was. Their approaches to orchestration, content, structure, etc., also seem to be very different to me. Strauss wrote notable operas, Sibelius's only made one (rather obscure) foray into that genre.

So, again...why do you think this comparison was made...and by Strauss himself...in the first place?

I think that in some respects 'Pohjola's Daughter' comes quite close to the programatic tone poems of Strauss and with works such as Strauss's 'Sinfonia domestica' the German adhered to the 19th century programme symphony. Strauss must have been aware that Sibelius had re-invented the 'Symphony', created by the great classical masters, and now very much in decline for the new century. Strauss was a very modest and self-effacing man and I believe that he was one of the few musicians in Germany at that time who grasped the extraordinary achievement of Sibelius's art.--kp

kullervopete wrote:

Strauss was a very modest and self-effacing man and I believe that he was one of the few musicians in Germany at that time who grasped the extraordinary achievement of Sibelius's art.--kp

I did not realize that aspect of Strauss's personality. Such modesty is refreshing, is it not...?

Tapkaara wrote:

kullervopete wrote: Strauss was a very modest and self-effacing man and I believe that he was one of the few musicians in Germany at that time who grasped the extraordinary achievement of Sibelius's art.--kp I did not realize that aspect of Strauss's personality. Such modesty is refreshing, is it not...?

Huh... I always had the impression that Strauss was quite egocentric... oh well. Regardless, that is one heck of a compliment from anyone to anyone... I dunno, my brain is fried. Too late at night.

Tapkaara wrote:

kullervopete wrote: Strauss was a very modest and self-effacing man and I believe that he was one of the few musicians in Germany at that time who grasped the extraordinary achievement of Sibelius's art.--kp I did not realize that aspect of Strauss's personality. Such modesty is refreshing, is it not...?

Yes it is pretty refreshing, certainly one could not imagine, say Stravinsky lavishing such praise on a contemporary. As Tapkaara remarked earlier, small fry such as Adorno and Thomson pushed the knife in at every opportunity. In contrast a figure such as Schoenberg, whether you admire his music or not, was infinately more generous. The atonal guru remarked that Sibelius along with Shostakovitch breathed the air of Symphonists.

I have seen facinating footage of Richard Strauss conducting his own music, and what a master class in the art of drawing out the maximum from an orchestra with the minimum of effort. His economy of gesture was all the more telling on the odd occasions that he fully raised his arm--that really meant something!--kp

kullervopete wrote:

Tapkaara wrote: kullervopete wrote: Strauss was a very modest and self-effacing man and I believe that he was one of the few musicians in Germany at that time who grasped the extraordinary achievement of Sibelius's art.--kp I did not realize that aspect of Strauss's personality. Such modesty is refreshing, is it not...? Yes it is pretty refreshing, certainly one could not imagine, say Stravinsky lavishing such praise on a contemporary. As Tapkaara remarked earlier, small fry such as Adorno and Thomson pushed the knife in at every opportunity. In contrast a figure such as Schoenberg, whether you admire his music or not, was infinately more generous. The atonal guru remarked that Sibelius along with Shostakovitch breathed the air of Symphonists. I have seen facinating footage of Richard Strauss conducting his own music, and what a master class in the art of drawing out the maximum from an orchestra with the minimum of effort. His economy of gesture was all the more telling on the odd occasions that he fully raised his arm--that really meant something!--kp

Interesting that even Schoenberg had something complimentary about Sibelius. Schoenberg must have know that Sibelius was not big his style of composition.

I know Stravinsky had said some less-than-nice things about Sibelius, but it seems like he had bad things to say about pretty much every one. Stravinsky did have a big ego, and was certainly not afraid to put himself up on a pedestal.

You are dead right about Stravinsky. It seems that when asked for a few words at the time of Sibelius's death, Stravinsky slammed the phone down. He did however mellow somewhat when he was awarded the Sibelius prize in 1963 and made his arrangement of Sibelius's Canzonetta. Mind you JS himself was not exactly gushing about Stravinsky 'Mr. I.S. is always imitating someone...technique in music is not learned in school from blackboards and easels. In that respect Mr. I.S. is at the top of the class. But when one compares my Symphonies with his stillborn affections...!'.

Clearly Sibelius could give as good as he got! --kp

kullervopete wrote:

You are dead right about Stravinsky. It seems that when asked for a few words at the time of Sibelius's death, Stravinsky slammed the phone down. He did however mellow somewhat when he was awarded the Sibelius prize in 1963 and made his arrangement of Sibelius's Canzonetta. Mind you JS himself was not exactly gushing about Stravinsky 'Mr. I.S. is always imitating someone...technique in music is not learned in school from blackboards and easels. In that respect Mr. I.S. is at the top of the class. But when one compares my Symphonies with his stillborn affections...!'. Clearly Sibelius could give as good as he got! --kp

But yet that famous photo of Stravinksy at the Finnish master's grave at Ainola...let's hope that Stravinsky was being sincere whilst paying his respects and not just posing for a photo op.

I love that "stillborn affectations" quote, though I will have to disagree with Sibelius here. Stravinsky was mostly a great composer. Hmmmm, and both were fairly innovative composers...I wonder if Stravinsky ever heard Sibelius's 4th.

Tapkaara wrote:

But yet that famous photo of Stravinksy at the Finnish master's grave at Ainola...let's hope that Stravinsky was being sincere whilst paying his respects and not just posing for a photo op. I love that "stillborn affectations" quote, though I will have to disagree with Sibelius here. Stravinsky was mostly a great composer. Hmmmm, and both were fairly innovative composers...I wonder if Stravinsky ever heard Sibelius's 4th.

I would guess that Stravinsky was pretty sincere standing at Sibelius's graveside. Stravinsky's widow confirmed that her husband had great respect for Sibelius as a fellow composer. Did Stravinsky ever hear Sibelius 4 --thats an interesting question. Certainly he might possibly have heard Koussevitzky or even Toscanini give it in concert. We know that Sibelius kept abreast of all new developments in music and studied many scores Schoenberg etc. Stravinsky clearly looked at some of Sibelius's music around the time of his Sibelius prize, could he possibly have looked at the score of No. 4.

Sibelius told Walter Legge in 1935 that he admired the early ballets of Stravinsky as ballet music, but he regarded the Russian composers succession of new styles as no more than a joke that became less funny at each repetition. Three styles were enough for Beethoven but he forgot whether the last Stravinsky work he looked at was his tenth or eleventh.

With regard to Richard Strauss, Sibelius told Legge that 'Strauss had prodigious gifts. I am afraid that the fire no longer burns with its old intensity, but he is a great composer. Yet for all his preoccupation with passion and abnormality he has a cold heart. His heart is full of music, and all his passion is in his head. For all their incandescence 'Salome' and 'Elektra' are cerebral, not cardiac'.--kp

Pete, where do you dig up these great quotes? I had never heard that Sibelius admired the early ballets of Stravinsky, for example. I'm kind of in line with Sibelius here. Eary Stravinsky is great...but the later stuff is just to avant-garde for my tastes.

And the quote about Strauss is interesting, too. "Cerebral and not cardiac." Just incredible.

Tapkaara wrote:

Pete, where do you dig up these great quotes? I had never heard that Sibelius admired the early ballets of Stravinsky, for example. I'm kind of in line with Sibelius here. Eary Stravinsky is great...but the later stuff is just to avant-garde for my tastes. And the quote about Strauss is interesting, too. "Cerebral and not cardiac." Just incredible.

I do have quite a large collection of music books on various subjects and also I have kept a note book for some years filled with quotes and anecdotes. I think that the interesting thing about J.S. is that as regards his own compositions, he prefared to let the music do the talking.--kp

kullervopete wrote:

As regards his own compositions, he preferred to let the music do the talking.--kp

Yes, and very eloquently it talks, too. Often when reading contemporary composers' descriptions of their own works (apologia!) I get the impression that they need to tell all sorts of goofy stories simply to justify having written what otherwise be perceived as a load of meaningless tosh.

But hang on: in a letter to his uncle Pehr from 27th September 1887, Sibelius himself wrote [about the 'Korpo' Trio]: ‘When my big trio is eventually per­formed, it will take place with tableaux, because otherwise it cannot be understood.’ Personally I don't think the piece needs any extra-musical explanation. Perhaps in centuries to come, people won't need a written description for today's challenging scores either. There again, how many such scores will ever be heard in the future? And will anybody be able to read anyway?

Andrew B wrote:

kullervopete wrote: As regards his own compositions, he preferred to let the music do the talking.--kp Yes, and very eloquently it talks, too. Often when reading contemporary composers' descriptions of their own works (apologia!) I get the impression that they need to tell all sorts of goofy stories simply to justify having written what otherwise be perceived as a load of meaningless tosh. But hang on: in a letter to his uncle Pehr from 27th September 1887, Sibelius himself wrote [about the 'Korpo' Trio]: ‘When my big trio is eventually per­formed, it will take place with tableaux, because otherwise it cannot be understood.’ Personally I don't think the piece needs any extra-musical explanation. Perhaps in centuries to come, people won't need a written description for today's challenging scores either. There again, how many such scores will ever be heard in the future? And will anybody be able to read anyway?

Great quote Andrew. Its a fact that virtually all serious composers today and indeed right across the spectrum including pop icons and the like, can't say enough about their music. One can read loads of drivel every day in the press and elsewhere about the efforts of some of the least talented people on the scene today. Jean Sibelius's was undoubtedly one of the most original musical minds of the 20th Century, his Symphonies rub shoulders with Beethoven himself. Yet we have precious few comments from Sibelius about his own works. Just one liners. Sibelius's Fourth Symphony is in my opinion the greatest Symphony ever written. The composer refused to give any extended analysis of the piece, just one liners 'Nothing of the circus about it' or 'The Fourth is a physiological Symphony'. I am certain of one thing, if I could return in a thousand years, the music of Sibelius would still be at the top of the pack!--kp

Andrew B wrote:

kullervopete wrote: As regards his own compositions, he preferred to let the music do the talking.--kp Yes, and very eloquently it talks, too. Often when reading contemporary composers' descriptions of their own works (apologia!) I get the impression that they need to tell all sorts of goofy stories simply to justify having written what otherwise be perceived as a load of meaningless tosh. But hang on: in a letter to his uncle Pehr from 27th September 1887, Sibelius himself wrote [about the 'Korpo' Trio]: ‘When my big trio is eventually per­formed, it will take place with tableaux, because otherwise it cannot be understood.’ Personally I don't think the piece needs any extra-musical explanation. Perhaps in centuries to come, people won't need a written description for today's challenging scores either. There again, how many such scores will ever be heard in the future? And will anybody be able to read anyway?

One of the really interesting things to me is that the music of Sibelius remains un-programmatized. If you look at people like Beethoven or Brahms or Tchaikovsky or Mahler, you can see that people take all these random stories of their lives and pin them to the great works (Beethoven's "Moonlight" sonata, 5th symphony ("Fate" symphony of course), Tchaikovsky's 6th symphony being his "suicide note" and Mahler's entire opus being riddled with all sorts of inane programs and vignettes from his life that are only now being done away with). With Sibelius there is nothing of the sort--and rightfully so. Unlike with Mahler's symphonies, he didn't have any sort of programs to go by at the beginning, really, just images and ideas. After he finished them he refused to comment on them except in the most basic of terms. They are totally independent creations, his symphonies, and thus they must continue to stand. Otherwise, I dare say, they make quite a bit less sense. It's too pure to be weighted down by something as mundane as a program.

I, too, find the "absolute" nature of Sibelius's symphonies interesting. I really get a little irritated when I hear of the Second as the great Liberation Symphony or that there fjords and snowmen in everything else. Sibelius really wanted the seven symphonies to stand on their own as music. And he could have made them programmatic if he wanted...just look at his tone poems.