Thread: Sibelius vs. Mahler

Two of the greatest symphonists of the 20th century...but who is greater?

Sibelius and Mahler both took on the symphony with quite different philosophies. In their famous exchange, Sibelius said: " I admire the symphony's style and severity of form, as well as the profound logic creating an inner connection among all of the motives," wheras Mahler said: "The symphony is like the world; it must embrace everything."

Who is right here? Both? Neither?

As an admirer of both symphonists, my vote goes to Sibelius. While Sibelius's seven symphonies often lack a sort of "hysteria" and hyper-emotion that one encouters in Mahler, his works can still certainly elicit strong emotional responses. And he does this within fairly strict means, concentrating the musical rhetoric so every theme, phrase, motive and note seems to be concentrated with meaning.

Plus, Sibelius seems to have a masterful handle on the symphonic form, which I think is important here. A symphony is not a suite or a rhapsody; it, by its very definition, has rules and conventions. Sibelius seems to take the symphony head on and make music that adheres to the "severity of style." whereas Mahler seems to go more rhapsodic and bend the rules quite a bit more.

Not that there is anything intrinsically wrong with that; again, I love Mahler's symphonies. But from a technical standpoint, Sibelius seems to understand symphonic form much better.

Obviously, there are no right or wrong answers here; not one of us can say definitively who is the greater. But I think a civil and respectful discussion on this would be most interesting!

I don't know who is right or wrong, since everyone has a different approach and mentality on things, but as far music I have to stand for Mahler.

I like them both for two totally different reasons. They sound different and are poles apart from each other.

If I had to pick, I would choose Sibelius for the simple reason that he branched out of just writing symphonies and composed a lot of different kinds of music besides symphonies, but ultimately it's a very hard decision for me to make, because they are so different.

If we're talking about a pure emotional reaction Mahler wins hands down every time. I'm not saying there isn't a lot of feeling in what Sibelius composes, but Mahler hits me very hard..emotionally speaking.

Originally Posted by MEDIEVAL MIAMI

I don't know who is right or wrong, since everyone has a different approach and mentality on things, but as far music I have to stand for Mahler.

Care to elaborate?

I'd largely agree with the balanced views of Mirror Image, which emphasise the pluses and minuses of both composers' approach to the symphony.

But if pressed, I think that Mahler was greater because he was more influential globally. He carried on the symphonic tradition, whilst Sibelius was simply doing his own thing, really (apart from the early influence of Tchaikovsky on him). You can see a thread going right back to Haydn, through Beethoven, Schubert, then Bruckner, Mahler and on to more modern composers like Shostakovich, Gorecki, Lutoslawski & Penderecki.

Sibelius was not only concerned with, obviously, expressing his own personal musical ideas, but worked much to put Finland on the map, musically speaking. Mahler's reach, however, was not only European but global. He also worked on expanding his musical ideas, such as being more progressive with the musical forces needed to perform his symphonies. He employed not only the orchestra, but extra soloists and choral forces. Undoubtedly, he was also the better orchestrator, having intimate knowledge of how to employ these forces.

I guess that one can also argue, that Sibelius with his 'less is more' approach, also made an impact. His Symphony No. 7, in a single continuous movement, presaged similar works by composers like Penderecki. But I think that this may only be coincidence. I mean, Sibelius so restricted his orchestral palette that I find that final symphony to be like a black and white photograph. Although Sibelius made the precedent of having a single movement symphony, contemporary composers writing such works inevitably use much more colour in their orchestration. I am also suspicious of why Sibelius didn't compose (or at least publish) anything in the last 30 years of his life. I mean, what was the point of all that reduction of form, colour and thematic ideas in his symphonies? Was it simply to arrive at a dead end and produce nothing? Had he lived as long, I very much doubt that Mahler would have done this.

So I think that it was good, as Mirror Image says, that Sibelius branched out to other genres. I actually think that he was a better as a tone poet than a symphonist. I have the deepest respect for the Lemminkainen Suite, for example. But I think that Mahler was a much greater symphonist, even though I am not really a big fan of his longer symphonies.

Originally Posted by Andre

Sibelius was not only concerned with, obviously, expressing his own personal musical ideas, but worked much to put Finland on the map, musically speaking. Mahler's reach, however, was not only European but global. He also worked on expanding his musical ideas, such as being more progressive with the musical forces needed to perform his symphonies. He employed not only the orchestra, but extra soloists and choral forces. Undoubtedly, he was also the better orchestrator, having intimate knowledge of how to employ these forces.

I get a little annoyed with the suggestion that Sibelius was a "Finnish" composer only or a "regional composer. Yes, he did start out as a"nationalist," but I think very much by his middle period, we was also very much a progressive, "international" composer as well.

He was loved in Britain as well as in the US. We was accepted less in mainland Europe, however, because he was seen as mainly a reactionary to the more modern composers like Schonberg and Stravinsky. This, I think has nothing to do with the fact he was somehow a "lesser" composer, he just refused to glom onto any trend du jour that was sweeping throug more "intellectual" circles.

As far as the orchestration goes, I would by no means say that Mahler was the "better" orchestrator, I would say he's the "bigger orchestrator. Sibelius was a completely competant orchestrator and knew exactly the types of sounds he wanted to produce. In fact, as he progressed into his career, his orchestral forces often got smaller. Is making a knowing effort to reduce the size of your orchestra a sign of not being good at it? I'd say not. I'd say it's someone who has confidence in what he wanted his orchestral textures to sound like, and he only wrote for exactly what he wanted to express...no more, no less. The chilly, sometime hollow sound of his works "the sound of wind in trees" I thnk is VERY much what he was going for.

Originally Posted by Andre

I am also suspicious of why Sibelius didn't compose (or at least publish) anything in the last 30 years of his life. I mean, what was the point of all that reduction of form, colour and thematic ideas in his symphonies? Was it simply to arrive at a dead end and produce nothing? Had he lived as long, I very much doubt that Mahler would have done this.

This is another comment that is often made and it irks me. Let's remember that Sibelius was an alcoholic and someone who was often depressed. I think if he wasn't suffering as he was the last 30 years of his life, he very well could have kept going. I think it's presumptuous and wrong to think that he must have simply run out of ideas. I think the man deseves some sympathy for being in not so much a sound mind, and this had an obvious effect on his abilities to create.

Originally Posted by Tapkaara

As far as the orchestration goes, I would by no means say that Mahler was the "better" orchestrator, I would say he's the "bigger orchestrator. Sibelius was a completely competant orchestrator and knew exactly the types of sounds he wanted to produce. In fact, as he progressed into his career, his orchestral forces often got smaller. Is making a knowing effort to reduce the size of your orchestra a sign of not being good at it? I'd say not. I'd say it's someone who has confidence in what he wanted his orchestral textures to sound like, and he only wrote for exactly what he wanted to express...no more, no less. The chilly, sometime hollow sound of his works "the sound of wind in trees" I thnk is VERY much what he was going for.

You make some excellent points. I would just like to add, that he got those effects you speak of right on the mark in works like the Lemminkainen Suite, Tapiola & the Violin Concerto. Those works are excellent examples of their genre, but I think that his symphonies(especially the later ones) become far too restricted and 'minimalist,' if you like, for their own good. I mean, he was good at he was doing, but there is a whole world of sounds that he began to explore in the works I mentioned earlier, ideas and techniques which he could have easily gone on to develop, but didn't. It's like he chose to take black and white photographs instead of colour, to use an analogy. He'd opened up a whole new sound world in his earlier works which he chose, for some reason, not to explore further.

Originally Posted by Tapkaara

...Let's remember that Sibelius was an alcoholic and someone who was often depressed. I think if he wasn't suffering as he was the last 30 years of his life, he very well could have kept going. I think it's presumptuous and wrong to think that he must have simply run out of ideas. I think the man deseves some sympathy for being in not so much a sound mind, and this had an obvious effect on his abilities to create.

Mahler was also a neurotic and suffered from depression - from what I can gather, he had a few sessions with Sigmund Freud. Undoubtedly, his later health problems would have compounded this. But somehow, through all this, he was able to compose right until he was very sick & new that he was about to die. I think he actually responded to adverse events like the loss of his daughter with music which expressed his feelings.

Sibelius' style itslelf seemed to go on a reductionist trajectory, stylistically speaking. Of course, he also responded to adversity, like the throat cancer operation, with excellent works expressing his feelings, such as the Symphony No. 4, one of his finest and most autobiographical. Although it would be indeed harsh to say that he had run out of ideas, I think that he just musically minimised everything until there was really nothing much left. As you suggest, he had really sunk to the depths personally speaking, and I don't know how better he could have expressed that than in the aforementioned symphony, for example. At least he didn't go on repeating himself or composing superficial pap, like some composers I can think of but won't name. He was a perfectionist, and this actually works in the listener's favour, as all of his works are of an excellent quality.

I just think that there is a much broader palette of ideas, colours and possibilities in Mahler's symphonies. Maybe they are polar opposites, so it is somewhat unfair to compare them. Perhaps (in the end) Sibelius became too restricted, and Mahler too broad. But this was just a feature of their different styles & approaches, I guess.

Andre, you make many good points, and I think your "black and white" photo analogy works well for Sibelius's orchestration. One might say Mahler painted with garish pastels, Sibelius with charcoal and ink. At least in many of his later works.

Mahler may have composed until the end of his lifetime, but I still don't think one should come down too hard on Sibelius for his 30-year "silence." In fact, if you think about it, Mahler composed reletively little himself over his whole career, Sibelius was very much more prolific in general. But, as he got older, the depression and self-loathing became stronger and stronger, and this put a psychological lid of the "faucet of musical ideas" the composer had had in hiw youth. Of course, this was a time before medication for mental illness, so what was the man to do? So, to combat his depression, he drank, which, no doubt, compounded his inability to continue writing major works even more after the 7th and Tapiola. This is not because he ran out of talent, it's because his mentel illness overpowered him.

Originally Posted by Tapkaara

...I think your "black and white" photo analogy works well for Sibelius's orchestration. One might say Mahler painted with garish pastels, Sibelius with charcoal and ink. At least in many of his later works...

I think that, despite such differences, neither shied away from expressing the darker aspects of the human condition. This is something that they had in common. It's really a profound experience to listen to their late symphonies. They had both been through alot in life, and expressed this through their music.

On the radio the other night here in Sydney, Geoffrey Lancaster, a great pianist of ours was expressing his opinion on the difference between the keyboard works of Haydn & Mozart. He said that the former offers you one chocolate at a time, gives you the opportunity to savour it, then offers another one. Mozart, on the other hand, just relentlessly throws chocolates at you, before you have time to eat them!

I think the above analogy can be translated to Sibelius & Mahler. Sibelius presents one big idea in each symphony (maybe across his whole cycle of symphonies?), whilst Mahler just showers you with different juxtapositions of ideas & themes in the one work, let alone across the whole cycle of his symphonies! For this reason, I find Mahler's longer symphonies very difficult to get into, indeed.

Originally Posted by Tapkaara

...But, as he got older, the depression and self-loathing became stronger and stronger, and this put a psychological lid of the "faucet of musical ideas" the composer had had in hiw youth...

You have put what I was trying to say perfectly here. I find that Sibelius' Symphonies Nos. 4 & 7 in particular seem to express these feelings of loneliness and depression so well. I think that he must also have felt somewhat out of place amongst the new breed of composers who were more at the cutting edge. We have to remember that Sibelius lived longer than any of his generation born in the 1860's - Debussy, Mahler, Richard Strauss, Janacek all died earlier. He must have felt somewhat like a relic of the past in the 1950's, when the whole notion of what is music was being redefined, and the old genres were being challenged and toppled. It was only in later decades of the C20th that Classicism, Romanticism and impressionism were no longer seen as dirty words. Composers can now freely borrow from those more tonal styles, but during Sibelius' old age, there was a new orthodoxy of serialism, which took a long time to end. Undoubtedly, he would have felt out of place in such an environment.

An easy win for the big Finn! Probably a KO in the first round. Bet your shirt on Shredder Sibelius!

In all honesty, I think it's kind of crazy to put two composers against each other. I mean Mahler had his strengths and weaknesses as did Sibelius.

Sibelius, even though he quit composing, still composed more than Mahler did and traveled down many more musical avenues than Mahler, but does this make him a better composer? Absolutely not.

Perhaps instead of pitting the two composers against each other in a who's greater thread, it might kind of cool to discuss what made both composers so great and why we each personally like them.

Debussy was right: pleasure is the law. It's impossible and unimportant to say who is greater.

Reall,y the point of this thread wasn't so much who's the better orchestrator or composer per se, but who had the greater philosophy towards writing symphonies. It all comes from their famous exchange which I quoted above. Both took very different approaches to what the symphony should be, and wrote their symphonies accordingly.

And to restate what I said at the onset, there is no definitive answer on this, just an opinion. I am not trying to pit two composers I personally adore against each other, I am just "stirring the pot"a little to see who YOU THINK had the better (if posible) symphonic philosophy in your opinions.

So, let's have an interesting discusion!

Originally Posted by Tapkaara

Reall,y the point of this thread wasn't so much who's the better orchestrator or composer per se, but who had the greater philosophy towards writing symphonies. It all comes from their famous exchange which I quoted above. Both took very different approaches to what the symphony should be, and wrote their symphonies accordingly.

And to restate what I said at the onset, there is no definitive answer on this, just an opinion. I am not trying to pit two composers I personally adore against each other, I am just "stirring the pot"a little to see who YOU THINK had the better (if posible) symphonic philosophy in your opinions.

So, let's have an interesting discusion!

Again, you're comparing apples and oranges. Who's greater? That's an answer I don't have, because neither one of them was the better composer or symphonist. They both created compelling music that means a lot to me for different reasons.

I can't think that Mahler is the greater composer. I'm very closely familiar with both of them and their music, but I feel that after all this time I still haven't totally penetrated into Sibelius' soundworld (and I've been listening to his music for a longer time than I have the music of Mahler, technically!). Besides, I still feel that Sibelius' music contains more depth in a smaller space, that it's far more concentrated (and just for the record, I think that Mahler's ability to draw out music to unfathomable lengths and still allow it to be extraordinarily dramatic and emotionally involving the whole time is also a very good thing... but did not Sibelius do that in Kullervo as well???).

Besides, while the symphonies of Mahler are very different, I get the feeling that Sibelius went a step further and redefined the symphony with each take on the subject, and I feel that it is not at all an exaggeration.

So my vote goes to Sibelius.