Sibelius Studies and Notions of Expertise Tim Howell Music Analysis, Vol. 14, No. 2/3. (Jul. - Oct., 1995), pp. 315-340, Stable URL http: flinks.jstor-org/sici%sici=0262-5245% 28199507%2F10%29 14%3A2%2F3%3C3 3ASSANOEW%3E2.0.CO%3B2L Music Analysis is currently published by Blackwell Publishing, Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at bhupulwww.jstororg/about/terms.hunl. JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of « journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial us. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use ofthis work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at hutpy/wwww jstor.org/journals/black html Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission, JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to ereating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support @jstor.org, bhupulwwwjstor.org/ Wed Nov § 17:29:35 2006‘TIM HOWELL SIBELIUS STUDIES AND NOTIONS OF EXPERTISE I es rather like waiting for a bus: no significant analytical publications on the music of Sibelius for some time, then two books come along at once. Moreover, the two studies in question, James Hepokoski, Sibelius Symphony No.5! and Veijo Murtomiki, Symphonic Unity: The Development of Formal Thinking in the Symphonies of Sibelius,’ are radically different in terms of their scope, approach and intended readership. As such, they neatly encapsulate the range of analytical writing about this composer that is available today. However, before embarking on a discussion of these most recent contributions to the literature, it is worth reflecting upon the development of Sibelius studies in general, especially those involving analytical expertise ‘At a risk of being too autobiographical, not to say anecdotal, I should like to begin with a story. Once-upon-a-time, an earnest, young undergraduate wrote to several British University Music Departments seeking support for his proposal to undertake doctoral research. His enthusiasm was undeniable; the proposal — to apply modern, analytical techniques to a survey of all the Sibelius Symphonies and Tone-Poems — was sound; the thesis ~ to reassesss the historical significance of this composer's achievement — was intriguing and original; the reaction, however, was disappointing. In 1978, the number of appropriate Departments, given the extent to which analytical study was established and accepted, was somewhat limited. Nevertheless, the strength of rejection for the proposal appeared rather extreme then; it seems all the more so today. Here was a major composer whose ceuvre had not been subject to rigorous, analytical study and whose position in music history had, for such a long time, been wrongly assigned as merely anachronist yet very few scholars would support such a study, let alone admit to having expertise in this area. ‘We cannot muster up any enthusiasm for a research project on Sibelius’ came the replies; ‘we cannot advise you where else you Music ANALYSIS 14:2-3, 1995 315 Be Macs a 005, Pabi by Rustwel Publis, 18 Covey Hon, Oxo OR IF, UK andmight apply, since most Sibelius experts appear to work at the BBC these days ...” To some, in the late 1970s, the music of Sibelius did not appear worthy of serious academic study. To the student in question, such setbacks ultimately had a positive effect; the challenge became immense, the evangelical zeal of championing the Sibelian cause was ever more pressing, since it was precisely this attitude that the research was designed to counter. This story actually has a happy ending. By 1980, an MMus. dissertation at King’s College London presented the first voice-leading graph of Sibelius’s music in an exhaustive study of Tapiola (see Howell 1980). This analysis aimed to challenge traditionally-held views of Sibelius’s music alongside those of Schenkerian reduction, since it adapted that technique in order to demonstrate the extent to which the piece may be viewed as non-tonal in its pitch organisation. By 1985, a doctoral thesis had emerged and was the first comprehensively analytical study of Sibelius’s music to be completed (see Howell 1985). To bring this story up to date, you are currently reading the first article on Sibelius to appear in this illustrious periodical. ‘What does this tell us about changing attitudes towards Sibelius studies over the last fifteen years or so? The music of Sibelius has always enjoyed an enthusiastic following in Britain (and America). Early writers on the composer, such as Gray, Newmarch, Abraham — even Tovey ~ reflected this enthusiasm. Yet, despite the earnest strength of feeling about the value of Sibelius’s music expressed at that time, traditional analytical techniques revealed traditional compositional methods; although this achieved great success in increasing Sibelius’s popularity, it did so at the expense of genuine, critical appraisal. Conservatism has always been a peculiarly endearing trait for a British audience, but not for its academics, Consequently, in time, critical orthodoxy became suspicious of an artist who enjoyed such immense public acclaim during his lifetime so that Sibelius’s death (1957) prompted something of a negative reaction. That attitude was still prevalent in the late 1970s, On the one hand, Sibelius’s music appears to have suffered from its very accessibility which became unfashionable: the Fourth Symphony, for example, was dismissed as ‘futurist music’, ‘cubist music’ even ‘music of the twenty-first century’ (Slonimsky 1953: 178-9). By now, of course, many are aware of a balance between the traditional and the innovatory within Sibelius's output and, with the benefit of hindsight, it is difficult to comprehend why such prejudice should have persisted for so long, ‘There have been numerous contributions to the analytical literature on Sibelius which, gradually and cumulatively, have helped to formulate a balanced view of the composer's achievements. Gray (1931 and 1935) and Abraham (1947) are rather dated, lacking the analytical depth we would expect today, but the latter does include some significant essays on stylistic influences and formal compression within the symphonies. David Cheriavsky’s contribution, ‘Special Characteristics of Sibelius’ Style’ 316 MUSIC ANALysts 14:2-3, 1995(Abraham 1947: 141-76) was especially influential, though his over- emphasis on ‘germ-motive theory’, the idea that kernel-motive thinking represents a guarantee of musical unity, has been subjected to considerable criticism. An emphasis on motivic derivation was something of a characteristic of early analytical thought, particularly in England, and to some extent that approach has persisted, still making an appearance in Pike (1978). The problems with Cherniavsky’s kernel-motive idea were challenged quite early on in an article by M. Stuart Collins, ‘Germ Motives and Guff (1962). Collins (1973) was the first British doctoral thesis on Sibelius, but the desire to say something about everything means that very little is said at all. Coad (1985) succeeds well in illuminating Bruckner’s musical language and its influence on early works by Sibelius, though the section on Sibelius, as Veijo Murtomaki says, ‘turns out to be a mere collection of general, haphazard observations’ (p.5). British scholars have been influenced by the writings of Robert Simpson; his Sibelius and Nielsen (1965) contains much of historiographical interest. Although Sibelius’s music has always been enthusiastically received in America, it is surprising that until recently little of significance has emerged there. Scholars such as Glenda Dawn Goss (University of Georgia) and Kaleel Skeirik (Xavier University, Ohio) promise the start of a new, more rigorous approach than is to be found in Gerschefski (1962) or Jordan (1984). ‘The background to Sibelius scholarship in Finland is difficult to summarise; many writings, particularly the early ones, are not available in English. Parmet (1959), written from a conductor's point of view, is something of a curiosity, but its influence has been considerable, as will emerge in relation to Veijo Murtomaki’s study especially with regard to the Seventh Symphony. It is really with the work of Erik Tawaststjerna that Sibelius research began properly in Finland. After his doctoral thesis, available in English as The Piano Compositions of Sibelius (1957), came his five-volume, biographical study, Jean Sibelius [-V (1965-88). It is lamentable that the last of the three-volume, English version has still not yet appeared, though full credit must be given to Robert Layton in so successfully producing the translations thus far: these are not only reassuringly accurate and readable, but actually capture something of ‘Tawaststjerna’s delightfully idiosyncratic style. ‘The influence of Tawaststjerna’s research on Sibelius scholarship cannot be overestimated, since it has become the starting point for all subsequent investigations. While such a dedicatedly detailed, life-and- works study cannot be rivalled, it might have deterred other Finnish scholars daunted by this achievement. Although Tawaststjerna’s analytical insights are certainly illuminating and benefit hugely from being placed in a broad context (conditioned by hitherto forbidden access to diary notes) the comprehensive nature of his approach does leave room for more detailed and specialised analytical study. Of course, for me in England embarking upon doctoral research in 1980 (with only the benefit of the first volume of Music ANALYsts 14:2-3, 1995 317 (© Ba ache Le, 1995the English version), Tawaststjemna’s work was not overly intimidating, Indeed, I have only the fondest memories of our lengthy and agitated late~ night conversations during my research fellowship in Helsinki in 1982. In the spirit of the true expert in his chosen field, Erik Tawaststjerna was encouraging and wholly supportive of my early analytical investigations, only too willing to acknowledge my background knowledge of up-to-date methodologies. But, for those in Finland, the situation must have felt quite different and it is hardly surprising that subsequent research was taken up by some of Tawaststjerna’s students. Erkki Salmenhaara’s study, The Symphonic Poem Tapiola as Representative of Sibelius’ Late Style (1970, with English summary) has been especially influential, along with Eero Tarasti’s Music and Myth: A Semiotic Approach to the Aesthetics of Myth in Music, especially that of Wagner, Sibelius and Stravinsky (1978). Ilka Oramo’s articles on the Second Symphony and the tone-poem The Bard, also deserve mention. Of the newer Sibelius researchers in Finland, the contributions made by Teuvo Ryyninen, Olli Vaisila and Kari Kilpelainen have all been significant. Kilpelainen has diligently produced a catalogue of all the Sibelius manuscripts and sketches housed in Helsinki University Library and this, along with his doctoral dissertation (‘Studies on the Manuscripts of Jean Sibelius’, 1992), is a remarkable musicological achievement, I ‘Against this background, and the fact that the whole-hearted adoption of modem analytical study occurred rather later in Finland than, say, in this country, it is not very surprising that Veijo Murtomaki’s doctoral thesis did not appear until 1990. What is perhaps slightly surprising is the choice of James Hepokoski as author of the only Sibelius volume within the ‘Cambridge Music Handbook series. There seems to be something of a contradiction between the publisher’s assurances that ‘these books are written by the most informed commentators in the field” and the fact that Hepokoski has not, to my knowledge, published anything on Sibelius before. But this anomaly should not be allowed to prejudice our assessment of this eminently readable book. After all, additional expertise in Sibelius studies is surely to be welcomed, provided that we have not come full circle from a dearth of such credentials to the notion that this music is easy fodder for anyone to stake such a claim. Nevertheless, the writing of a CUP Handbook by a previously unpublished Sibelius scholar represents an extra kind of challenge. What seems unfortunate is that somehow, and it has something to do with the prevailing tone of the book, this challenge is all too readily communicated to the reader. The opening chapter, ‘Sibelius and the Problems of Modernism’, promises well in its reassessment of the categories under which Sibelius’s 318 Music ANaLysis 14:2-3, 1995music is perceived as part of the larger tensions which surround the Modernis/New Music confrontation. The perennial problem of the balance between tradition and innovation is thus addressed once more in an illuminating discourse. The issue of Sibelius’s attitude to form comes to epitomise this dichotomy, notably considering the extent to which his music refers to generic formal conventions. Traditionally, of course, many of these compositions were measured against an ‘obsolete sonata gauge’ (p-5) though, by now, this has long since been addressed. The danger, if anything, is to ignore the debt Sibelius owed to conventional practice, as if it might detract from his worth as a progressive figure. Hepokoski side- steps this issue, at least to some extent in favour of what he terms ‘““deformations” of the Formenlehre (standard-textbook) structures’ (p.5.). This, in itself, might raise the odd eyebrow in so far as great composers did not adhere to ‘standard-textbook structures’ (indeed, for most, the textbooks had not yet been written), or cause a frown with regard to the five categories of ‘deformity’ identified by the author: but the real concern arises from the use of these terms, The five are: The Breakthrough Deformation, The Introduction-Coda Frame, Episodes within the Developmental Space, Various Strophic/Sonata hybrids and Multi- movement Forms within a Single Movement. What all this means is that in setting out these categories (albeit with the best of intentions), the ‘sonata gauge’ is removed in order to replace it with another generalisation. Instead of a sonata yardstick we have a sonata-deformational one. The idea of form as a process-like phenomenon is under threat since no adopted formula reveals the dynamics of form creation. However, this discussion of, formal types is, at this stage, made relevant since it is placed within the context of Sibelius’s historical position and, as such, Hepokoski is able to offer a rather different perspective from that of many writers on the subject. Historical concems are pursued in a chapter addressing the period 1909-14, identified as one of crisis for the composer. In considering Sibelius’s position in relation to prevailing developments, some nicely- judged observations emerge: Sibelius’ ‘modern-classical” aim seems to have been to clench his teeth, and forge a more compact, harder-edged music than that of the two leading modernists, Strauss and (especially) Mahler. To be sure, this was risky in an age that was nurturing expansionist, experimental, of proto-expressionist currents (and that had come to know Sibelius through his earlier, more popular or overtly nationalistic works). And ‘by 1909 it was a risk that seemed in danger of not succeeding in the continental marketplace. Nonetheless, these were the terms on which he had chosen to compete. (p.11) ‘The use of ‘modern-classical’ has a particular resonance vis-d-vis the more anatysis 14:2-3, 1995 319all-embracing term ‘neo-classical’, but since this issue emerges within Veijo Murtomaki’s study, it can be considered more fully in due course. The problems facing Sibelius, as illustrated by the Fourth Symphony, are tellingly revealed through diary extracts of the time (quoted from ‘Tawaststjerna) as Sibelius began to ‘sense his own eclipse as a contending modernist’ (p.15). Out of this crisis, Hepokoski is able to detail what he calls Sibelius’s ‘Reassessed Compositional Principles, 1912-15’, which forms the title of his next chapter. The five central concepts adumbrated here pursue those of the earlier, sonata-deformational type. The definitions themselves, Content-based Forms (‘fantasias’), Rotational Form (varied, multi- sectional strophes), Teleological Genesis (‘phenomenological’ reflection), Klang Meditation and the Inter-relation and Fusion of Movements, do not subscribe to the easiest of terminologies. But to dismiss such intimations of an excess of jargon, prior to considering their place within analytical practice, could suggest an equal degree of preconception. In passing, it is worth mentioning Hepokoski’s consideration of the tone-poem, The Oceanides (1914), which is well documented as the immediate structural predecessor to the Fifth Symphony. He is blunt in his dismissal of anyone daring to call this piece a Rondo, apparently including myself, and since this provokes the only sizeable reference to my own work, I should like to address this point. Actually, what I say is ‘the piece displays evidence of rondo thinking’ (Howell, 1985: 254) so I must protest my innocence concerning the definition of The Oceanides as a Rondo; the distinction may seem a subtle one, but it is not insignificant. Moreover, given the form of the original version of the piece called, at that stage, Rondo of the Waves, and the change of both form and title, there is indisputable evidence that Sibelius was thinking in those terms ~ though, yet again, reinterpreting a pre-existing model. ‘Evidence of rondo thinking’ seems to me far more useful than Hepokoski’s definition: “The Oceanides is a three-rotation, sound-sheet piece that also displays features of a free sonata deformation’ (p.28). Despite its title, ‘On Heaven’s Door and Migrating Swans: Composing a Confession of Faith’, the next chapter does come down to earth by uncovering the complex genesis of the Fifth Symphony in its three versions (1915, 1916 and 1919). With access to recently catalogued sketch material via the fourth volume of Tawaststjerna’s biography, we are provided with a commendably lucid, yet highly detailed description of the composer's revisions of the work. A conductor's score of the 1915 version, reassembled from its orchestral parts for a performance in 1970 by the Helsinki City Orchestra under Jorma Panula, has recently been made available to scholars, having been kept under wraps owing to unfavourable reactions to that performance. Thus we are able to discern, in more detail than ever before, a kind of musicological journey from early sketches to the final version. 320 MUSIC ANALYSIS 14:2-3, 1995One crucial point that does emerge from this wealth of data, yet one that does not appear to be fully elucidated by Hepokoski, concerns the relationship between large- and small-scale events. As most people are aware, the final version of the Fifth Symphony is characterised by joining together of what were originally two separate movements into a single structure of considerable consequence for Sibelius’s interest in formal compression. The join is articulated by way of a climactic structural modulation to B major. The other single most striking difference between the 1915 and 1919 versions concerns the opening of the piece; the first two bars of the final version were added later (in 1915, the work began, in effect, at bar 3). The motivic cell presented in bs 1-2 (see Ex. 1) yields the greatest number of thematic derivations throughout this movement, supporting generally accepted views of Sibelius’s thematic process involving a growth of ideas from an initial, generative shape. But it also plays a crucial part in the cyclic tonal scheme that conditions the structure of the movement as a whole. Due to the symmetry of the major-third transpositions surrounding an E, major centre, a version of this cell emerges as the invariant pitch-classes within the E-G-B major cycle (Ex. 2). Ex. 1 Symphony No. 5: opening bars 3 ==] mor Fb major 6 a MUSIC ANALYSIS 14:2-3, 1995 321The G Major invariants (G-C-D) as scale degrees LIV-V have the potential of defining that key; while those of B major (enharmonically, Al- B,E;) could only define a key outside their collection, significantly E> major. Thus, these two cells of similar nature have differing functions in relation to the tonic of the piece; that of G major represents a move away from B, and is in conflict with the tonic, whereas the corresponding element from B major is closely related to E, and offers a systematic means by which that tonic can be regained, It is these properties, respectively of conflict and resolution, which the tonal scheme of the movement as a whole explores in its final version. It appears that only after the decision to join the movements together, when the full potential of a cyclic tonal scheme had been understood, that Sibelius realised the significance of this generative cell and therefore rewrote the opening of the symphony. Having addressed musicological concerns surrounding the origins of this piece, Hepokoski proceeds with an analytical chapter, ‘Musical Process and Architecture’, prior to a final summary of editions and comparative performances. He is dismissive of others who have considered the complex structure of the first movement, principally because of their ‘processing the movement primarily on the basis of what we have come to expect from textbook sonata patterns’ (p.61). This is problematic, not only because Sibelius himself was well aware of, and deliberately superseded, ‘sonata patterns’, but because many listeners’ expectations are based upon the same tradition. It is surely the composer's denial of these conventional expectations that plays a significant part in the listener’s experience; to ignore such a fundamental level of structural understanding will alienate some readers. But let us consider what is on offer: Elevating the rotational principle into our primary category, however, and then observing — secondarily — its dialogue with the sonata- deformational principle goes @ long way to eliminating these problems. ‘Along these lines the movement as a whole is best described as a series of four broad and increasingly free rotations through a patterned set of, ‘materials that may simultaneously be construed as a sonata- deformation of the breakthrough type. The first two rotations are in dialogue with the tradition of a repeated exposition; the third, and briefest, is a connective passageway occupying the developmental space; the fourth, and longest, beginning with the breakthrough, is based on the recapitulation principle but simultaneously transforms all the materials into a scherzo with trio and separate development. (pp.61-2) From this overview of events, we find an event-by-event account of the movement ( a ‘descriptive analysis’, according to the publishers) as a series of ‘rotations’. This type of presentation makes for some difficulty in 322 Music ANALYSIS 14:2-3, 1995 © Bl Backed 195grasping large-scale musical effects, but it is the issue of analytical effectiveness that really comes into question. Does the summary above tell us anything new about the musical processes at work? Is there simply a new terminology, so that the whole concept of ‘rotation’ is merely a reinvention of the wheel? Hepokoski’s enthusiasm and commitment to this music is undeniably impressive, but there is a curiously defensive tone in the book that is dismissive of earlier analytical research, even though this had moved well beyond attempting to fit Sibelius’s music into sonata-form models. I Veijo Murtomaki’s. Symphonic Unity: The Development of Formal Thinking in the Symphonies of Sibelius, is a slightly revised version, in English translation, of his doctoral thesis of 1990. The scope of the volume is clearly defined in its preface as follows: ‘The initial idea for this book was to study to what degree the weightiest part of Sibelius aeuvre can be seen as a continuation of Middle European symphonic tradition. Therefore this study does not centre on the most progressive features of Sibelius’ music ~ textural counterpoint, orchestral thinking and colouring — but instead on formal and tonal features and the thematic-melodic technique ~ elements in respect of which Sibelius continues the development of sonata form. The main weight is on Sibelius’ concept of ‘symphonic fantasy’, which emerges almost as a new symphonic genre, as well as on the thought that the increasing integration in Sibelius’ symphonies was a result of the fusion of the characteristics of the symphony and the symphonic poem in order to achieve formal compactness. (P.vil) The justification for such a study arises partly from the prejudices of others: ‘demonstrating the unity in Sibelius’s symphonies is necessary as long as even the slightest doubts about the coherence of this music (Adorno and certain other, mainly German, writers) resist their long postponed burial’ (p.vii). But, in the main, the introduction gives an informed overview of earlier analytical writings on Sibelius, setting an essentially urbane tone for Murtomaki’s own work which freely acknowledges other views in a wholly reasonable critique. ‘The introductory chapter specifies a focus on the inter-relationship between tonality and form, with motives, themes and melodies viewed as components of overall tonal organisation, Murtomaki’s paradig- matic and Schenkerian analyses are justly sensitive to such aims. At the same time he does not neglect traditional methods of harmonic, Music ANALYSIS 14:2-3, 1995 323motivic and formal analysis, but realises that formal models are superseded by an understanding of form as a dynamic and process-like phenomenon, Issues relating to sonata form are thus easily handled, echoing Rosen’s view on ‘sonata style’: ‘Sonata form must be understood as a principle arising from the opposition of keys and its various realizations rather than as an established form’ (p.9). Murtomaki’s approach has been carefully considered and the result is a refreshingly well-balanced analytical stance. With regard to Schenkerian techniques, he rightly dismisses the extremes of earlier misinterpretations — its disciples who adopt it as if a religious truth, its critics who regard it as tautological and leading only to the voicing of trivialities — in favour of a conviction that this method is based on ‘profound intuition, “understanding” of music and thorough know- ledge of the central musical literature... a useful and practical tool for analysing tonal music’ (p.9). Additionally, he values its compre- hensiveness, the observation of different levels of activity and their inter-relationship while ensuring not only that a work has been thoroughly analysed but also that its specific characteristics have been fully taken into account. Nevertheless, Murtomaki fully realises that applying the conceptual apparatus of Schenker to the music of Sibelius must be done creatively, and he is generous in his acknowledgement of my own contribution in this area. Chapter Two, ‘The Problems with Symphonic Form’, gives an overview from Beethoven through the nineteenth century as historical background to Sibelius’s position. While this includes discussions of cyclic technique and fusion forms, as developments growing out of the sonata-form aesthetic, there is no necessity for recourse to ‘deformation’ of formal types. Instead, the focus is a positive one, on principles of unity and the metaphor of organicism, in an illuminating discussion which moves beyond analysis to twentieth-century compositional thought. Thus Schoenberg’s view of motive as expounded in ‘Brahms the Progressive’ (1947), ‘the continuous modification of intervallic and/or rhythmic components of an initial idea’ (p.25), are explored alongside those of the use of kernel motives in Sibelius, as evidenced in Cherniavsky and Collins. ‘The First and Second Symphonies are, of necessity, dealt with more generally than other works in this study within a chapter considering the continuation of tradition in these early pieces. Among general discussions of Sibelius’s relationship with both Romanticism and Nationalism, neatly countering those who have overstated the nationalist case in the past (as, for example, did Niemann), the influences of Beethoven, Brahms, Berlioz, Liszt, Wagner, Bruckner, Borodin and Tchaikovsky are variously discerned. In Murtomaki’s summary: 324 Music ANALYSIS 14:2-3, 1995At its worst, the romantic ideal of an original artist led into thinking that a genius could create out of nothing, by the gift of his nature, without models. Sibelius is no worse as a symphonist if and when the sources which influenced him are detected. What is essential is, that Sibelius was able to integrate these influences into his style, and forge a unified whole out of them ~ already in the First Symphony. It is dangerous to judge music as inferior just because influences can be detected in it. (p.36) In the details relating to the First Symphony, perhaps the most interesting Sibelian fingerprints to emerge, beyond early experiments in formal compression as evidenced by the Scherzo, is a characteristic form of tonality, a ‘modal scheme’ as an overall unifying device. Essentially achieved by combining a major or minor chord and its relative, Sibelius reassesses traditional relative key relationships. One of the most significant ramifications of this occurs in the early tone-poem En Saga (1892/1902): “There the tension between the E> major chord and the C-minor, six-three chord is finally resolved in a surprising, but poetically well formed, E, minor chord’ (p.38; see also Howell 1985: 206, and Murtomiki 1990: 178-9). An exploration of a broader balance between Romanticism and Classicism provides the basis for a discussion of the Second Symphony. Parallels are drawn with Brahms’s Second Symphony (also in D major), prefacing an analytical examination which clarifies many of the arguments surrounding the formal conception of the opening movement, essentially by underlining the limitations of form seen merely in terms of thematic disposition. The compactness of form that characterises this opening movement is well understood alongside the cyclic nature of the piece overall, which is viewed as emerging from a cyclic tonality originating in Beethoven, Added to this is Sibelius’s own systematic, axial tonality based on mediant relationships, though at this stage such tensions are always resolved with due deference to a prevailing tonic-dominant polarity. Correspondences with a thematic process also consistently based upon intervals of thirds thus become more meaningful (far beyond any germ-motive wishful thinking) when placed in this larger context of the inter-relationship of structural layers. Symphonies Three to Seven appropriately form the largest part of Murtomaki’s sequential study. Having noted that the unity within the first two symphonies descends ftom late Romanticism, Murtomaki rightly observes, that in the Third Symphony, Sibelius moves toward a new formal compression in one of his most problematic symphonic movements. While I agree that the combination of movement types in the Finale introduces the principle of fusion which was to lead to the increasingly organic way of welding separate movements together in the Music ANALYsis 14:2-3, 1995 325Fifth and Seventh Symphonies, I have to confess to never having found this early experiment to be wholly successful. Most scholars agree that the scheme of this movement originates in a desire to fuse Scherzo and Finale characteristics, though few have found such a fusion anything less than confusing. Murtomaki summarises the debate well; he is justifiably sceptical of previous sonata or rondo explanations and makes a cast-iron case for understanding the Finale only in the large-scale context of the design of the symphony as a whole. The tracing back of motivic characteristics that prefigure the Finale ‘tune’ is systematically achieved, while links with the central movement include the recurrence of fragmented versions which Murtomaki compares with Edward Cone’s ‘scissoring technique’ used to explain ‘montage’ in Stravinsky (ee Cone 1972). These thematic correspondences are paralleled by a discussion of the tonal design of the symphony as a whole, elaborated by way of Schenkerian reductions for the component movements. This is certainly the most detailed and systematically presented analysis of this piece we have, and it is completely convincing from the point of view of compositional intention. However, I remain unconvinced of the success of Sibelius’s realisation of these intentions in which there are difficulties with the pacing and presentation of this network of relationships. ‘This piece also raises other related issues regarding its stylistic place in Sibelius’s symphonic evolution. There is general agreement that one can speak sensibly of ‘European classicism’ as opposed to ‘national romanticism’ (to borrow Tawaststjerna’s terms), but Murtomaki emphasises that this change in style is not quite as dramatic as some have claimed. The Second Symphony does display elements of formal concentration, and intervening works like the Violin Concerto, Pohjola’s Daughter and the revision of En Saga all indicate a new level of thematic integration. However, the evidence cited from Sibelius’s conversations with Busoni in Berlin in 1905 is of significance, given the latter’s interest in a new ‘absolute music’ — ‘a form play without poetic programme, in which the form is intended to have the leading part (p.79) - and this seems especially pertinent if we view the Third Symphony as some kind of response to Busoni’s views. All this had led me to draw parallels between Sibelius’s reaction against late romanticism and adoption of a more classical approach in the Third Symphony and the general aesthetic of neo-classicism. Tawaststjerna’s summary of the characteristics of this piece — concentration of form, reduction of size and number of movements, concentration of expression, de-romanticisation of the orchestral sound, activation of rhythmic elements and reduction of the size of the orchestra (cited by Murtomaki, p.79) — may well be used to support such a view. However, Murtomiki does not support any notion that the ‘Third Symphony subscribes to some kind of neo-classical intent: 326 MUSIC ANALYSIS 14:2-3, 1995Howell is right in proposing that the movement opens ‘a new perspective for a type of (Haydenesque) monothematicism’ (1985:27). But what is peculiar is that Howell calls Sibelius’ style neoclassical. In the first place Sibelius’ classical ideal was bourne [sic] long before the fashionable neobaroque and neoclassical tends. Secondly Sibelius does not quote the outer stylistic features of Classicism or even fill old forms with Sibelian music, but continues instead Classicism from the basis of its musical thinking by creating his own unique forms. (p.80) I suspect the problem is merely one of terminology. Murtomaki views neo-classicism more from the perspective of mannerism or pastiche rather than from my broader and more optimistic position. The idea of taking classical form as a point of departure, to reinterpret events and generate a new solution, is something on which we both seem to agree. Unlike Murtomaki, however, I do discern an element of parody in the piece. The key-scheme of the initial sonata-form layout, a second group in B minor moving via E minor to G major when our expectations would be precisely the opposite (following a ‘transition’ that all too directly moves in whole-tone steps, C-D-E-F} , treating the latter as the dominant of the new key); the rather exaggerated nature of the ‘scherzo’ material that opens the last movement; and the corres- pondingly overdone ‘big-tune’ of the Finale theme that follows ~ all this seems rather tongue-in-cheek to me. It is both Sibelius’s acknowledge- ment and denial of the Classical precedent that led me towards the term neo-classical. I would go so far as to suggest that some of the issues addressed in the Third Symphony invite comparison with Stravinsky, some forty years later, in his Symphony in C. Indeed, Murtomaki’s own reference to Cone’s ‘scissoring technique’ might confirm such a view. ‘The issue re-emerges in relation to the Fourth and Sixth Sym- phonies which are stylistically so distinct from their immediate neighbours. Murtomaki makes the point that, in the Fourth Symphony, Sibelius explores a tonal scheme of the division of the octave into minor thirds. He offers a comparison with Bartok, whom I would consider to be a composer of neo-classical intent: ‘Like Bartok, Sibelius might have been inspired by Liszt, but it is exciting to notice that already a quarter of a century before Barték’s masterly symphonic work Music for Percussion, Strings and Celesta (1937) based on axial symmetry, Sibelius employed the same principle’ (p.138). Likewise, his concluding sentence regarding the Sixth Symphony: ‘The surprising paradox about Sibelius’s late works lies in that as he achieved an organic way of developing material and an apparently fantasia-like form he at the same time approached @ new kind of classicism, a compressed and abstracted musical thinking’ (p.241, my italics). Perhaps the term ‘Modern Music ANaLysis 14:2-3, 1995 327Classicism’ would satisfy everyone? Issues of modernism and classicism provide the focus for the next chapter, on the Fourth Symphony. At this stage of the book, the use of Schenkerian reduction is much more comprehensively adopted along with a full and detailed commentary which, despite a certain density of expression, remains commendably lucid. Murtomaki’s summaries regarding form confirm Sibelius’s interest in revitalising tradition. Of the first movement he concludes: ‘The result is a form which is old and new at the same time, Its classical sonata form character is supported by the recapitulation and the return to the tonal centre A ~ although in the major mode — and the modern process-like character by the tension between whole tone and triadic tendencies. Sibelius exploits the old models, but uses them for his own purposes in a creative way. Instead of being a conservative or a revolutionary he is, as Howell describes him in the abstract of his thesis, ‘a progressive composer’. The first movement is tight and concentrated, classical - but how much Sibelius succeeds in saying within this compact form. (p.98) ‘The problems surrounding the form of the Scherzo are carefully explored and the issue of neo-classical intent emerges once more: Even if one would not accept Howell's opinion that the Fourth ‘Symphony is representative of Sibelius’ neoclassical style his idea of the second movement as a neoclassical parody is partly correct .. . Sibelius breaks down the traditional Scherzo form, smashes it into pieces and plays with it, and ar its expense. (p.101) The improvisatory nature of the third movement is also subject to rigorous analytical scrutiny in which Murtomaki proposes a systematically articulated formal pattern beneath its rhapsodic surface. I myself had only gone so far as observing the alternation of self- contained blocks of music with no apparent linking material (though I could not resist drawing a parallel with the Stravinskian concept of calculated discontinuity). Any resultant static effect is countered by a sense of progress which may be discerned, as each resultant block of material is, in some respects, a development of its predecessor. The main opposition arises from the whole-tone character of A-material (emphasised by its tritone) versus the diatonic nature of B-material (with its perfect fifth). At the climax of the movement, a synthesis of these elements occurs at a point of tonal clarification. While ‘Murtomiki acknowledges such a view, his expansive and far more detailed approach sheds new light on the workings of this, the most enigmatic, of all Sibelian symphonic movements. Detailed motivic 328 Music ANALysis 14:2-3, 1995analysis and the use of Schenkerian reduction reveal, quite precisely, the way in which this material develops despite its improvisatory nature. The resultant, underlying formal scheme is represented in Fig. 1. Fig.1: Fourth Symphony, second movement (Murtomiki 1993:117) I 1 AL Bi (+b) A2 B2 +b) Ww We Thit2 9 Ww We Tha +4 VI bf i wur7 gt 29:1- 30:213- 31:11 32:0, Mm Vv a3 B3 Aa B4 AB as transp. ww Th. 5 Ww We Tho WweStr. v-Pp iov Wn bf i(VD-i6 Pp 3315/18 34:9- 35:7— 36:6- 36:12- ‘This can also be expressed in a more condensed form: a A+ WtB (bb) | A+ WrB (bb) || Ax+vPpB|A+WtBAx+iPp| | | i a a a (abbreviations: Ww = woodwind; Wt = whole tone; v-Pp = pedal point on dominant minor; i-Pp = pedal point on tonic minor; Str. = strings.) ‘The discussion of the last movement draws together many differing views regarding its form in a nicely-judged amalgam which recognises elements of rondo, sonata, arch-form and a prevailing symmetry of construction. Since Murtomaki is fully aware that any adopted formula does not reveal the actual dynamics of how form is created, the relationship between the process-like character of thematic develop- ment and how this informs the underlying drama of tritonal tensions is comprehensively explored. His conclusions about the cyclic aspect of Re Piece, the close relationship between its four movements — which sent four views of the same fundamental ideas — leads to an Ristosieal placing for the Fourth Symphony at the peak of modernism, ‘together with Stravinsky's Sacre, Schoenberg’s Pierrot lunaire, Debussy’s Jeux and Scriabin’s Prometheus’ (p.141). With such a wealth Music ANALYSIS 14:2-3, 1995 329of analytical detail to support this case, even the most sceptical of Sibelius’s critics will have to think again. In a thesis concerned with symphonic unity, it is not surprising that Fifth Symphony should be discussed at some length. The idea of an overall sense of continuity throughout the piece, that material explored in the opening fusion of the two original movements should inform later developments, is diligently explained. Motivic analysis in conjunction with Schenkerian voice-leading provides an impressive array of evidence to support this case. Murtomaki’s conclusions regarding form differ considerably from those of Hepokoski since he acknowledges Sibelius’s debt to traditional structural outlines, while demonstrating the extent to which the composer has completely reinterpreted those models: ‘The overall process does not totally exhaust the genre of each movement. The referential forms are sonata form, variation form and rondo form respectively. Nevertheless, it is exciting to observe that the binary form, the main form idea of the first movement, is, apparent also in the other movements. Also their general structures tum out to be binary, and so the actual forms of the movements exceed their generic starting points. The use of the same principle of form also unifies the symphony . .. and connects it to the similar phenomena in the Third and Fourth Symphonies. (p.152) ‘The conclusions drawn from the analysis, particularly regarding form, gain considerable credence by being placed in the larger context of a chronological survey of all the symphonies. By revealing Sibelius’s earlier reliance on conventional formal practice and charting his progress towards highly original structural solutions, Murtomaki offers a balanced assessment of the successfully unified design of the Fifth ‘Symphony. “Modern Classicism’ re-emerges in relation to the Sixth Symphony, concerning both formal principles and modality. The composer had told Walter Legge in the 1930s that he had studied Palestrina and Monteverdi at the time of writing this piece; Sibelius’s technique of tonal organisation originates in his recognition of the compositional potential of modality for the modern composer. The way to move forward, ironically, seemed to be to look back, so that modes would provide the discipline, economy and originality of expression which he sought (see Howell 1985:74). Sibelius himself expressed a similar view: It is as if these new composers are incapable of writing anything vital based on the old Gregorian modes ... It is as if I who am. closer to Gregorian modes because of my heritage and upbringing, am somehow made for them. (Tawaktsjerna 1986:260, cited in ‘Murtomaki, p.195) 330 Music ANaLysts 14:2-3, 1995‘The effect of enlarging tonal concepts by way of modality, of Sibelius’s penetrating research into the symphonic possibilities of such a system, is reflected in an individual approach to symphonic form. ‘Murtomaki quotes Sibelius again, as cited in Levas (1972): tis often thought that the essence of symphony lies in its form, but this certainly nor the case. The content is always the primary factor, whilst form is secondary, the music itself determining its outer form. If sonata form has anything that is lasting it must come from within. (p.209) In assessing this individuality, however, Murtomaki is not affaid of drawing parallels with tradition. Thus, in relation to the first movement he concludes ‘that there can be no doubt that the first movement of the Sixth Symphony is a Sibelian-modal realization of sonata form’ (p.216). Correspondence with variation form within the slow movement are also explored with the interesting additional hypothesis that it is based on a Baroque passacagtia or chaconne model. A range of formal interpretations for the Scherzo is discussed and something of a hybrid solution — a scherzo in sonata form where the development is replaced by a trio — is offered It is the Finale that represents something of an enigma, though the idea that it pursues and resolves both tonal issues and thematic content of the opening movement, imparting an overall sense of unity to the piece, is convincingly evidenced. Fitting this music into some kind of formal stereotype is not Murtomaki’s aim and he fully recognises that a combination of many formal principles is exhibited here. What he does succeed in doing is demonstrating the tonal and motivic logic that governs its progress and the consistency of both content and process within the symphony as a whole. All this originates from the pre- dominant use of a Dorian theme based on thirds which conditions events throughout the piece. The opposition between Dorian and minor modes creates a network of tensions which are the equivalent of those normally associated with traditional tonality. As Murtomaki concludes, the overall effect is to generate a cyclic character for the symphony as a whole. Given that everything originates from the same basic material, this can be viewed as directly prefiguring the unity of the Seventh Symphony, even though these features are still distributed between separate, but closely inter-related, movements. The Seventh Symphony represents “Unity Gained’ in the last analysis in the book. Murtomaki’s starting point is firm: ‘The Seventh Symphony is not a gigantic movement in sonata form nor several movements put together in the manner of Liszt’s B minor Sonata, It is something new and revolutionary in the history of symphony’ (p.243). From here, the relative merits of a variety of views regarding the unique Music ANALYSIS 14:2-3, 1995, 331form of this work, as expressed by a range of past commentators, are outlined and subject to a well-balanced assessment. Simon Parmet’s interpretation (Parmet 1959:127) is seen as especially useful and is summarised as follows (p.246): Introduction G:1-9:1) First Comner-stone (9:2-12:5) Working-out section (12:6-30:1) Minore (30:2-36:3) Bridge Passage (36:3-40:1) Central Allegro (40:2-59:1) Coda (59:2-68:1) Second Comer-stone _(68:1-76:9) Murtomaki’s own analysis begins by pursuing the idea of form growing like an organism. The starting point is my own paradigmatic chart that reduces all the motivic shapes of the symphony into four basic categories (see Howell 1985:109 and Ex. 36). From this, he builds up his own detailed thematic analysis which convincingly demonstrates organic unity on a surface level. This, in turn, is comple mented by a discussion of the tonal organisation of the work, especially the extent to which it displays an element of monotonality regarding its ‘C-major centricity and a Schenkerian reduction of the piece. From this range of approaches, Murtomaki begins to construct a picture of the larger form, with an impressive demonstration of how commensurable small-scale forms are related and how large-scale units are corres- pondingly joined together. Having identified modulations of tempi and the avoidance of cadential closure as an important means of formal connection, the piece can be segmented on the basis of the few strong. cadences which articulate its four main sections. The findings are summarised in Ex. 3. This figure, which he acknowledges to be a variant of Parmet’s ‘comer-stone’ diagram, reveals a prevailing arch form where the central point is the Rondo, which begins ‘almost exactly at the point of Golden Section’ (p.279). ‘On its own terms, this is a perfectly valid and convincingly evidenced representation but, as Murtomaki himself recognises, the piece can be interpreted in many ways. There is even a sense of self- denigration when he says that ‘all this is only a game of boxes which tells us little about the internal life of the symphony’ (p.280). While this is unnecessarily cautious, his further point, that the piece ‘can be studied as a process moving forward simultaneously on many levels’ is certainly worth further consideration. ‘This, in fact, begins to concur with my own perceptions which view the piece far less as a succession of multi-movement contrasts welded together (the ‘boxes’ referred to above), but much more as simultaneous layers of events superimposed 332 MUSIC ANALYSIS 14:2-3, 1995,ERITICAL FORUM, Ex. 3 Symphony No. 7 (Murtomaki, p.279) g ‘scherzo* minora va.” rondo theme SS= = Serr 7 ; = Winer WE ithe gh el tie imi We sw 5 ¥ wavs wry over one slow-moving, large-scale, tonal structure. Different levels of activity operating on differing timescales generate the effect of diversity = the sense of multi-movement contrasts — yet are superimposed in such a way as to contribute to an overall sense of unity ~ a single- movement entity. The vital clue to the success of this original conception rests on the inter-relationship of the different strata, so that the rapid harmonic motion of implicit diversity directly informs and conditions the progress of the underlying tonal scheme. At a given moment within the Seventh Symphony where there has been an acceleration of musical activity, tempo, thematic process and harmonic motion, the listener experiences the effect of multi-movement contrast. It is only when the prevailing slower tempo and the tonal stability associated with it is regained that the listener becomes aware in retrospect that on one level a given passage was merely an interlude or episode within the overall scheme of things, while on another it directly contributes to that scheme. Given the vast, slow-moving nature of this background tonal motion, it is only when the pattern is complete, when the piece reaches its conclusion, that the listener can fully understand its significance. Segregation of tempi, tonal contrasts and moods associated with a traditional symphony in separate movements has, in the Seventh, been integrated in such a way as to create explicit single- movement continuity beneath an implicitly multi-movement surface. Such a diversification of a unity, which ultimately defines the piece as symphonic, is articulated to a significant degree by the adroit control of musical time. ‘Working directly in parallel with these temporal concerns is the tonal organisation of the piece. The progressive diversification of its basic C major/minor scheme coincides with increases in surface activity. Ex. 4 Music aNatysis 14:2-3, 1995 333summarises the form of the piece as articulated by tempo and tonality, its overall Statement/Counterstatement scheme being the product of two large-scale accelerandos, in effect, with the second an intensification of the first. The three versions of the trombone theme, at the slowest level of activity in the piece, play a crucial part in the listener’s recall of an overall shape, With the central version representing some kind of ‘development’ of the original, then something of the traditional concept of Exposition, Development and Recapitulation is evident, even if this is to be considerably modified in practice. With two balancing passages of scherzo material, a sense of an arch form emerges though the presence of an Allegro episode prevents such a scheme from falling into predictable symmetry. ‘The symphonic argument here surrounds the systematic under- mining of C major, not by the traditional establishment of secondary keys but by asserting, on different levels, alternative ‘centres’ which, Ex. 4 Symphony No. 7: Form and tonality (from Howell 1985:66) STATEMENT COUNTERSTATENENT + copa Aietidoonn du J. Woocning [Adagio Agron nno¥inace — | PretnAdagi ERPOSTTION firs Scherco | DEVELOPMENT Episode Second Scheco | RECAPITULATION MWR AL Maar fe Mone ce} sevor _sxason 19) [csivor ee aan PROPORTIONS 3 i although outside the tonic, are in some way related to it. The first stage in creating diversity while preserving unity of the basic collection is by adopting its minor-mode version which, in being closest to the original, is presented in the same Adagio tempo. Thereafter, tonal alternatives are less unequivocally established. The Allegro episode plays an important part in the overall scheme by directly pursuing consequences 334 Musi ANALYSIS 14:2-3, 1995of the C major/minor issue, Its temporary regaining of C major counters the dramatic effect of the preceding trombone-theme C minor but the central section of this episode directly recalls elements from that passage and, as a result, the main material here returns in By major. With C minor being presented as a varied statement of the (C- major) trombone theme and E} major as a transposed restatement of material originally presented in C major, it seems quite plausible that these secondary tonalities merely concern derivation from, rather than denial of, the fundamental C-major prolongation, and are eventually shown to complement rather than conflict. Structurally, these secondary tonalities have a dual function: they represent the diversity of a multi-movement piece while contributing to the unity of a single- movement scheme. This principle is used to consummate effect during the two scherzo- like passages where their fragmentary nature that results from accelerating tempo is directly paralleled in terms of tonality. While this combination of temporal and tonal diversity represents the greatest degree of contrast anywhere in the work in relation to the main trombone theme, one function of these passages is to prepare for the two reappearances of that material. The first scherzo, Vivacissimo, implies GyA, minor, while the corresponding Vivace explores its relative major (CJBi). Though neither of these areas is given the necessary harmonic support to confirm unequivocal key-establishment, each stands in subsidiary relationship to fundamental areas. Thus, while the increase in tempo and activity of the first scherzo may imply key-conflict of A} minor which, collectively, might suggest-multi- movement constrasts, the Ab actually functions as a Neapolitan to the dominant and directly articulates the modulation to C minor. Far from disrupting the underlying, single-movement tonal scheme, the progress of this first scherzo ultimately conditions it. Similarly, the CB major of the second scherzo also plays an important, essentially chromatic, role where B, is to be redefined as part of a dominant sonority and as a leading note to Cy By reviewing the relationship between these passages of instability, some sense of a schematic design is discernible: the three potential middleground areas (A) minor, E> major, C} major) arpeggiate that of the first scherzo. This illustrates an important aspect of Sibelius’s man- ipulation of time in relating local and large-scale events. A local event of implicit significance (the possible, but incomplete, establishment of Ay minor) will generate and condition the relationship between later, comparable statements (the arpeggiation of that sonority) eventually to reveal explicit structural significance. Essentially this is achieved in a simple but highly ingenious manner. The unity of C major is progressively diversified on several levels, each of which has specific temporal associations: the chromatic development of the minor mode; MUSIC ANALYSIS 14:2-3, 1995 335the exploration of conflict between a recorded version of that collection (its relative, E, major) and the original model; the use of Eb as a pivot- note between thitd-related areas of Al minor and C) major; their overall arpeggiation as an Al-minor triad. Ay minor is, of course, the sonori which uniquely distinguishes the key of C minor from that of C major and that distinction was, after all, the fundamental and slowest-moving basis for the entire work. Additionally, it formed the very first stage of the piece since its opening gesture directly presents that very issue: an ascending C-major scale interrupted by an Al-minor triad (bs 1-3). Iv Sibelius’s music will bear scrutiny from a variety of standpoints. What emerges consistently from the more recent literature is that Sibelius stands as a far more progressive figure within twentieth-century musical developments than had previously been recognised. Murtomaki’s conclusion, discussing the extent to which the composer is both a conservative and an innovator, identifies formal thinking as Sibelius’s most singular contribution: ‘His principle of unique form building deriving from organic variation and process-like development grant him a place alongside Schoenberg's atonal expressionism, Debussy’s impressionism and Stravinsky's neoclassicism as the fourth line of compositional practice of the early twentieth century’ (p.295). With thematic, harmonic, tonal and formal processes now so extensively examined, the question of future developments in Sibelius studies must surely be asked. For my own part, one of the most progressive features of Sibelian technique, not yet fully considered, concerns his man- ipulation of musical timescale. So far I have only been able to outline some ideas in a preliminary article (see Howell 1993) and I offer a summary of them by way of a conclusion. Peter Maxwell Davies, in conversation with Richard Dufallo, pays tribute to the way in which Sibelius can articulate time when there is almost nothing happening: A very sparse texture, with perhaps a few pulsations going, but you feel it’s multi-layered and it’s not just a simple rhythm expressed through the surface note values on the page. There are pulsations going on inside that. Bigger articulations which, I'm fairly sure, have to do with his perception of the way in which landscape is working, and the seasons working on the landscape. (Dufallo 1989:153) ‘The references to both landscape and seasons, the timeless quality evoked by extreme periods of both darkness and light, is pertinent in that it suggests Sibelius’s preoccupation with timescale to be 336 MUSIC ANALYSIS 14:2-3, 1995intrinsically Finnish in origin. The effect of such an influence may well have been as imperceptible to Sibelius as it is elusive for anyone to document, but its relevance to our perception of this music cannot be overlooked. The best example is surely Tapiola, where the exploration of contrasts within the Seventh Symphony has been reduced to an extreme of concentration on a single idea and where time and space are encapsulated in the depiction of a frozen landscape. Through the obsessive variation of one pitch-collection, the form of the piece directly arises from its inherent compositional potential, as differing perspectives on this single construct produce an organic process form, a kind of total variation structure. This raises issues of time and timelessness in an arrestingly acute manner. Without recourse to the drama of modulation, the static effect of non-modulatory procedure reacts against the ‘dynamic friction between two whole-tone subcollections, though their symmetry would counteract any sense of motion were it not for an adroit pacing of events and their manipulation in time, The monolithic quality of such tonal fixity renders those claims of Tapiola being firmly rooted in B minor absurdly simplistic, misleading if not meaningless, since a complete lack of functional harmony raises doubts as to whether this work is, or is not, genuinely tonal. With one such fundamental level of activity reduced to a non-functional state, the effects of timescale are correspondingly heightened, since to subdue the forces of one domain will elevate our perception of others. The consequence is an acute awareness of the rate of change in events arising from density versus sparseness of texture, colour and articulation, all of which contribute to a control of musical time which conveys a sense of vastness well in excess of the duration of this work. In overview, it is the perpetual variation of the ascending melodic minor scale on B natural channelled towards the final B-major chords that conclude Tapiola which, in its uncompromising simplicity, provides a sense of expectation and denial at a most elemental level. Above this, allowing for both surface continuity and underlying contrast, is the use of different tempi in a balanced, overall scheme. After the Largamente introduction, the remainder of the work alternates between Allegro moderato and Allegro. The amount of music confined to the two passages at the faster tempo is dramatically less than that of the prevailing Allegro moderato but it is significantly more unstable. Thus the first Allegro passage (from b.358) represents a peak of instability in terms of pitch organisation by means of an extreme and cumulative emphasis on whole-tonality. The ensuing poco rallentando al Allegro ‘moderato heralds the first large-scale return to (a varied restatement of) earlier material (cf. bs 463ff. and 106ff.) while the second Allegro passage places this material in a new context which again represents a Music ANALysis 14:2-3, 1995 337CRITICAL FORUM, peak of instability in its extreme chromaticism. Given the hierarchical qualities of the background B-minor scale, it is wholly appropriate that the two passages of instability are generated by way of symmetrical division (whole-tone/semitone) of the octave. There is a paradox in that these symmetrical constructs, theoretically, would suggest their own kind of static quality but the context in which they are placed renders them dynamic within the overall sense of tonality. On the largest scale, it is tempo change that articulates a pattern of tension and release in the equivalent manner to a conventional, tonally-based, formal scheme. In. Tapiola, the concentration on a single idea in order to derive multi-level music marks the peak of Sibelius’s experimentation with the control of musical time. The presence of different levels of activity operating on differing timescales, the manipulation of a given context 50 as to change the focus for the listener and the emphasis on process and its perspective, have a direct bearing on the work of more recent composers. The paradox of time as raised by Tapiola, a reductionist process creating an expansionist product, finds something of a corollary in the Minimalist aesthetic. The parallel is more deep-rooted than superficial textural similarities arising from the increasing trend towards more traditionally harmonic music, though I cannot resist. the temptation to point the reader towards a specific example in the work of Philip Glass (compare ‘Floe’ from the album Glassworks (1982) with the Finale of the Fifth Symphony). Meanwhile, correspondences with the manipulation of sound masses in the music of Ligeti (Atmospheres, 1961, for example) or between the formal conception of the Seventh Symphony and that of Elliott Carter’s Concerto for Orchestra (1969) may also be valid. However, it is not ultimately a question of pinpointing specific examples of post-Sibelian literature and speculating how directly influenced they might have been, but acknowledging that Sibelius’s control of musical time constitutes a significant and far- reaching aspect of his style that is still relevant to composition today. ‘The more we come to understand this fascinating yet elusive aspect of Sibelius’s technique, the more this will open up another dimension of his achievement. NOTES 1, James Hepokoski, Sibelius: Symphony No.5 (Cambridge: CUP, 1993). xi +107pp. £19.95 hardback, £6.95 paperback. 2. Viejo Murtomiki, Symphonic Unity: The Development of Formal Thinking in the Symphonies of Sibelius, trans. Henry Bacon (Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 1993). viii + 339pp. 338 Music ANALYSIS 14:2-3, 1995 © Bal Bahl Le 1995,REFERENCES, Abraham, G., 1952 (1947): “The Symphonies’, in Sibelius: A Symposium, ed. G. Abraham (London: OUP). Chemiavsky, D., 1942: “The Use of Germ Motives by Sibelius’, Music and Letters, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp-Iff. —— 1952 [1947]: ‘Special Characteristics of Sibelius’s Style’, in Sibelius: A Symposium, ed. G. Abraham, pp.141-76. Coad, P., 1985: ‘Bruckner and Sibelius’ (PhD diss. University of Cambridge). Collins, M.S., 1962: ‘Germ Motives and Guf?’, The Music Review, Vol. 23, No. 8, pp.238-43, —— 1973: ‘The Orchestral Music of Jean Sibelius’ (PAD diss., University of Leeds). Cone, E.T., 1962: ‘Stravinsky: the Progress of a Method’, in Perspectives on Schoenberg and Stravinsky, ed. B. Boretz and E.T. Cone (New York: Norton), pp.155-64. Dutfallo, R., 1980: Trackings: Composers Speak vith Richard Dufallo (New York: OUP) Gerschefski, P.E., 1962: ‘The Thematic, Temporal and Dynamic Processes in the Symphonies of Jean Sibelius’ (PAD diss., Florida State University). Gray, C., 1931: Sibelius (London: OUP). —— 1935: Sibelius: The Symphonies (London: OUP). Howell, T., 1980: ‘Tonality in Tapiola?: Tonal and Non-Tonal Pitch Organisation in Late Sibelius’. (MMus diss., King’s College, University of London), —— 1985: ‘Jean Sibelius: Progressive Techniques in the Symphonies and ‘Tone-Poems’ (PhD diss., University of Southampton). Published New York: Garland Press, 1989, —— 1993: ‘Jean Sibelius and the Fourth Dimension’, Sibelius-Ahatemian Aikakauskirja, pp.97-113. James, B., 1983: The Music of Jean Sibelius (London: Associated University Press). Jordan, A. T., 1984: ‘Harmonic Style in Selected Sibelius Symphonies’ (PAD diss., Indiana University). Kilpelainen, K., 1992: ‘Tutkielma Jean Sibeliuksen _kisikirjoituksista” (PHD diss., University of Helsinki) Levas, S., 1972: Jean Sibelius: A Personal Portrait, wans. Percy M. Young (London: Dent), ‘Murtomiki, V., 1990: ‘Sibelius Symphoniste’, Finnish Musical Quarterly, numéro spécial en frangais, pp.11-24. Newmarch, R., 1939: Jean Sibelius: A Shore Story of a Long Friendship (London: Goodwin & Tabb). Niemann, W., 1917: Jean Sibelius (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel) Oramo, I., 1978: ‘Motiivi ja muoto Sibeliulsen toisessa sinfoniassa’, Musik, Music ANALYSIS 14:2-3, 1995 339Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.1-27. Parmet, S., 1959: The Symphonies of Sibelius: A Study in Musical Appreciation, twans. Kingsley A. Hart (London: Cassell). Pike, L., 1978: Beethoven, Sibelius and the Profound Logic: Studies in Symphonic Analysis (London: Athlone). Ryynanen, T., 1989: “The Domino Principle in the Symphonies of Sibelius’, ‘Musiikki, Vol. 1, No. 4 (Proceedings from the musicological congress, ‘Turku, 1988), pp.208-13, Salmenhaara, E., 1970: The Symphonic Poem Tapiola as Representative of Sibelius" Late Style, Acta Musicologica Fennica, No. 4 (Helsinki). Schoenberg, A., 1947/1984: “Brahms the Progressive’, in Spyle and Idea: Selected Writings of Arnold Schoenberg, ed. L. Stein (London: Faber), pp.398-441. Simpson, R., 1965: Sibelius & Nielsen (London: BBC) Slonimsky, N., 1953: Lexicon of Musical Invective (Washington: University of ‘Washington Press), pp.178-9. ‘Tarasti, E., 1978: ‘Myth and Music: A Semiotic Approach to the Aesthetics of Myth in Music, especially that of Wagner, Sibelius & Stravinsky’, (PhD diss., University of Helsinki). Published as Acta Musicologica Fennica, No. 11 Tawaststjerna, E., 1957: The Pianoforte Compositions of Sibelius (Helsinki: Orava). — 1965-88: Jean Sibelius IV (Helsinki: Orava). —— 1976: Sibelius, Volume I 1865-1905, trans. Robert Layton (London: Faber). —— 1986: ‘Sibelius, Volume I 1904-1914, trans. Robert Layton (London: Faber) Tovey, D. F., 1935-9: Essays in Musical Analysis: Symphonies and other Orchestral Works (London: OUP), pp.492-506. Jonathan Dunsby, ed.: Models of Musical Analysis: Early Teoentieth-Contury Music (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1993). xi + 153pp. £45.00 ISBN 0-631-14335-1 I Models of Musical Analysis can seem not a little out of step with current trends in theory, analysis and musicology. Reproduced in detail are the massive analytical- theoretical orthodoxies of the 1970s and early 1980s, Schenkerian, set-theoretical and twelve-note, along with the large chunking of material (‘extended’ tonality, atonality and twelve-note or serial) that was designed to service those orthodoxies (as much as vice versa, it may now seem). Some of the leading players are in 340 Music ANaLysts 14:2-3, 1995