See more about MusicaNova Orchestra of Scottsdale at
www.MusicaNovaAz.org
Two of the works in the next MusicaNova program-on Sunday January 15 at 4PM at Scottsdale Center for the Performing Arts are works that underwent significant changes after the initial performance. The Andriasov Symphony, which I will discuss in a separate entry, was revised in a relatively straightforward way that changed little of the impact or structure of the piece. In contrast, the story of the revisions of the Sibelius Symphony no.5 is one of radical surgery on a work that most people would assume did not need it. But then, most people are not Jean Sibelius.
In 1915, Sibelius unveiled his Fifth Symphony, performed at a concert honoring his Fiftieth birthday, an event that was practically a national holiday in Finland. The performance was a huge success, and subsequent performances were also very well received. For a concert about a year later, however, Sibelius made some significant changes, including linking the first two movements into a continuous musical fabric that has vexed musicologists and critics ever since-is this continuous music one movement or two? Unfortunately, the only surviving relic of this 1916 version is a bass part, so we do not know too much about it.
By 1919, he had done further revisions that significantly altered the structure of the piece. He cut about 400 bars of music; the relative importance of certain ideas and themes changed, and the relationship between ideas were altered, sometimes radically. One can get some of the important details of these changes from a DMA thesis by John Norine at the University of Texas. Google "Norine, Sibelius Symphony no. 5"-it is a pdf file and for some reason I cannot link to it from the blog.
Given the mission of MusicaNova, I was deeply attracted to the idea of doing the 1915 version (which has been performed in the United States only once in recent years, by the American Symphony Orchestra). But in the final analysis, I could not justify it. The 1915 version is fantastic-a masterpiece-but the 1919 version is one of the greatest creations of the human imagination, and unless one is dealing with an audience intimately familiar with the 1919 version, it makes no sense to deprive people of that experience. Perhaps someday I could put together a program where we play both versions side by side-now, that would be interesting!
www.MusicaNovaAz.org
Two of the works in the next MusicaNova program-on Sunday January 15 at 4PM at Scottsdale Center for the Performing Arts are works that underwent significant changes after the initial performance. The Andriasov Symphony, which I will discuss in a separate entry, was revised in a relatively straightforward way that changed little of the impact or structure of the piece. In contrast, the story of the revisions of the Sibelius Symphony no.5 is one of radical surgery on a work that most people would assume did not need it. But then, most people are not Jean Sibelius.
In 1915, Sibelius unveiled his Fifth Symphony, performed at a concert honoring his Fiftieth birthday, an event that was practically a national holiday in Finland. The performance was a huge success, and subsequent performances were also very well received. For a concert about a year later, however, Sibelius made some significant changes, including linking the first two movements into a continuous musical fabric that has vexed musicologists and critics ever since-is this continuous music one movement or two? Unfortunately, the only surviving relic of this 1916 version is a bass part, so we do not know too much about it.
By 1919, he had done further revisions that significantly altered the structure of the piece. He cut about 400 bars of music; the relative importance of certain ideas and themes changed, and the relationship between ideas were altered, sometimes radically. One can get some of the important details of these changes from a DMA thesis by John Norine at the University of Texas. Google "Norine, Sibelius Symphony no. 5"-it is a pdf file and for some reason I cannot link to it from the blog.
Given the mission of MusicaNova, I was deeply attracted to the idea of doing the 1915 version (which has been performed in the United States only once in recent years, by the American Symphony Orchestra). But in the final analysis, I could not justify it. The 1915 version is fantastic-a masterpiece-but the 1919 version is one of the greatest creations of the human imagination, and unless one is dealing with an audience intimately familiar with the 1919 version, it makes no sense to deprive people of that experience. Perhaps someday I could put together a program where we play both versions side by side-now, that would be interesting!
Looking at the genesis of the Symphony gives us insight into the plight of the creative
genius. Sibelius was able to listen to a work as thoroughly satisfying and successful as the
1915 version of this Symphony (beautifully performed in its only recording by the Lahti
Symphony conducted by Osmo Vänskä) and he understood that it could be
significantly better. This required both staggering insight, integrity and self-discipline. Furthermore, Sibelius had to cut some beautiful music to make this happen, illustrating that genius requires one to be not only inspired but absolutely ruthless.
Two moments stand
out: at the very end of the second movement in the 1915 version, as
the work rushes to its thrilling conclusion, there is a jaunty woodwind line with brilliant brass interjections. It is a wonderful moment but the 1919 conclusion is more effective, even without this great
music. The weakness of the earlier version-insofar as there is one-is that the material is
new, and does not connect as well with the rest of the movement, and
so it psychologically functions as a distraction from the onward thrust of the thrilling coda.
The other moment is in the last movement. At two points the 1915 version Sibelius introduces a extraordinarily unexpected dissonance against a tonic major chord during the famous "Swan Theme". The first appearance of this clash occurs in C major during the initial presentation of the theme and is in the trumpet. I was shocked and delighted on hearing it. for the first time. The second of these moments, in E flat major, occurs at 9:51- and that little E natural took my breath away. I mean this literally-I gasped in astonishment and tears rolled down my face. My first thought was that I could not believe that anyone could discard music of such beauty. I listened on to the end of the movement and there were several other moments that astonished me. I immediately listened to the familiar 1919 score to see if there was any justification for the radical surgery he had performed. And I decided that somehow, by ruthlessly cutting some of the most beautiful music ever written, Sibelius had created an ending that was not merely beautiful, but was music of unparalleled power and majesty. That he could even think of this, and bring himself to do it, was a miracle.
The process of creating the 1919 version was slow; one of the most distinctive feature of the whole Symphony-after the "Swan Theme", the thing that people remember about the work-is the ending. Six irregularly spaced hammer blow chords are separated by silences. I have seen people who do not know the piece shiver in astonishment the first time they hear it. And yet this feature was not present in the 1915 version, or even the 1916 version. It took three more years to come up with the perfect ending.
The other moment is in the last movement. At two points the 1915 version Sibelius introduces a extraordinarily unexpected dissonance against a tonic major chord during the famous "Swan Theme". The first appearance of this clash occurs in C major during the initial presentation of the theme and is in the trumpet. I was shocked and delighted on hearing it. for the first time. The second of these moments, in E flat major, occurs at 9:51- and that little E natural took my breath away. I mean this literally-I gasped in astonishment and tears rolled down my face. My first thought was that I could not believe that anyone could discard music of such beauty. I listened on to the end of the movement and there were several other moments that astonished me. I immediately listened to the familiar 1919 score to see if there was any justification for the radical surgery he had performed. And I decided that somehow, by ruthlessly cutting some of the most beautiful music ever written, Sibelius had created an ending that was not merely beautiful, but was music of unparalleled power and majesty. That he could even think of this, and bring himself to do it, was a miracle.
The process of creating the 1919 version was slow; one of the most distinctive feature of the whole Symphony-after the "Swan Theme", the thing that people remember about the work-is the ending. Six irregularly spaced hammer blow chords are separated by silences. I have seen people who do not know the piece shiver in astonishment the first time they hear it. And yet this feature was not present in the 1915 version, or even the 1916 version. It took three more years to come up with the perfect ending.
Hearing the
torturous process of revision of music that was already incredible
gives me both insight into and sympathy for the famous "Silence
of Jarvenpää"-the fact that Sibelius allowed the world to hear almost
none of the music he composed in the last thirty years of his life.
Sometime in 1943 he burned his Eighth Symphony, unable to be
satisfied with a work that had consumed him for fifteen years. On the
other hand, he said of Fourth Symphony that he "would not change a single note of it!" As hard as he was on himself, he knew what it felt like to be happy with what he composed. But satisfaction did not come easily, as illustrated in
the two extant versions of the Fifth Symphony.. One can understand how
eventually he would rather destroy music than give us less than
what he considered his best. We all mourn the loss of the Eighth Symphony, but we must be
grateful for the self-criticism that gave us the extraordinary masterpieces
that did survive the fires of his old age.
