It is – or at least was – a rather common belief (even among the most ardent admirers of Sibelius; cf. section 2.1.2, Lambert) that his music is sometimes (if not totally) lacking in polyphony.104
Since then many complex polyphonic structures have been found by analysts.105 Sibelius employed devices such as cantus firmus technique,
where a previously heard theme is heard as a counterpoint,106 canon,107
double canon,108 as well as augmentation imitation where the theme appears
simultaneously in different rhythmic forms (original and augmented, original and diminished).109
Still, the immediate aural impression, even in those complex places, is very different from traditional contrapuntal Satz (see chapter 12.9).110
Tanzberger has noticed that the relationship between main and accompanying voices in the Satz may differ from traditional sharp distinction. When analyzing Lemminkäinen’s Return op. 22 no. 4 (1895/1897/1900) he gives a reduction of two bars (bars 269–270/p. 40:1–2) as an example from a section where the accompanying ostinato of the double-basses is a heterophonic version of the theme played in the upper strings (bars 263–314/pp. 39:2–46:3).111
Normet found a very interesting imitative structure when dealing with the main theme of the first part of the First Symphony (from bar 33). There the violas and ‘celli “it is true, imitate the melos of the energetic main theme, but they give a quite different character to it. There is balance, two vigorous downward leaps by fourths are missing. So, there are two simultaneous contrasting traits”.112
Normet fails to mention that the last tone of the phrase, B, is also treated differently: there is a reiteration of B in the form of a new rhythmic figure (bar 37). Besides, when the theme begins over again (bars 37–40), the lower strings leave out the up-beat-like figure E–F sharp which occurs on the down-beat in the violin part (bar 37).
104 See Tawaststjerna IIIF:18, IIIS:19, IIE:24 (1905), Johnson 1960:96 (P. Kovalev 1910), Leibowitz
1955:5. However, the polyphonic nature of the Fourth Symphony was already recognized by a critic of
The Times in 1912 (Tawaststjerna IIIF:292, IIIS:284, IIE:220).
105 According to Maasalo 1964:196 the style in the as yet unpublished music for the play Jokamies
(Jedermann) by Hugo von Hofmannsthal op. 83 (1916) “is very restrained and more contrapuntal than perhaps ever with Sibelius”.
106 Parmet 1959:116–117.
107 Heiniö 1977:24, Coad 1985:286.
108 Parmet 1959:111–112, Maasalo 1964:154, Coad 1985:289.
109 Tanzberger 1943:55, Parmet 1959:83–85, Maasalo 1964:150, 1964:153, Coad 1985:287.
110 Coad 1985:286 characterizes Sibelius’s polyphony as “self-effacing”.
111 Tanzberger 1943:26.
52
In Salmenhaara’s opinion “Sibelius has not, to any degree worth mentioning, indicated interest in writing true contrapuntal ‘Satz’”. Instead he sees the structural thinking of Sibelius as being “often contrapuntal in nature. He does not use the means of polyphony in proper polyphonic texture, but the inner way of construction of apparently homophonic music is polyphonic" (italics mine).113
The following remarks make the above-mentioned principle more clear: “The units [of Sibelius’s polyphonic thinking] are not different lines, but different planes. About this there are excellent examples in Tapiola. In bars 51–105 there appears three-layered structure: the bottom element is the organ point of basses; above it there proceeds the motive in parallel thirds by bassoons and ‘celli, and the third plane consists of the fragments of the opening motive” (italics mine).114 Salmenhaara notes: “In connection with
formal structures it is especially important, that these different planes by no means always proceed simultaneously”.115 As an example he mentions bars
106–182 from Tapiola where the form of ‘accompaniment’ differs from that of “musical incidents”, to which it forms a background.116
Tawaststjerna also has something to say concerning the last-mentioned feature: “Usually Sibelius allows his thematic material to disappear into the background to form a fund of new melodic substance. But here [op. 52:III:51–70] the procedure is reversed: from this fund he takes an idea, which is subtly transformed into foreground”.117
To my mind these words “background” and “foreground” should not be understood as Schenkerian terms based on abstraction, but from the listener’s point of view; metaphorically, colloquially.
The point of view of Lorenz Luyken is fundamentally novel, although from a historical perspective it may be considered a culmination of some of Göhler’s (cf. section 2.1.2) and Tanzberger’s ideas. The work of Luyken embraces all aspects dealt with in this chapter, but here they are restricted to some basic ideas only. Luyken sees the Satz of Sibelius as being inseparably
113 Salmenhaara 1970:64.
114 Salmenhaara 1970:35; see also Collins 1973:455–456. Salmenhaara uses three terms of near
relation (plane, layer, element) in his description. Out of these I have chosen the term “layer” as the general term in this study. In his English Summary (Salmenhaara 1970:121–126) the author does not deal with Sibelian Satz.
115 Salmenhaara 1970:35. R. W. Wood 1975:72, 203 (Ex. 67) – in connection with bars 207–213
(pages 30–31) and its later variants in En saga op. 9 (1892/1902) – already speaks about Sibelius’s “own special game of dovetailing themes and textures”. (This dovetailing, though orchestrated in lesser form, occurs in – page 24 of – 1892 version.)
116 Salmenhaara 1970:35; see also Salmenhaara 1970:109–110, R. W. Wood 1975:43–44 and Coad
1985:283, 284.
117 Tawaststjerna IIIF:92, IIIS:87, IIE:73. See also Tawaststjerna IIIF:136, IIIS:129, IIE:102 and
53
connected with musical space and instrumentation.118 Not unlike
Salmenhaara, Luyken divides the Satz (in the three last Symphonies and in Tapiola) into levels (Ebene),119 or into orchestral planes
(Orchesterschicht).120 The combinations of these levels defy the traditional
categories; they may equally well be explained either as melody- accompaniment, or as counterpoint.121 The levels are not synchronized; they
proceed as if according to their own time-span.122 The content of levels may
diversify; it may vary from contrast to likeness. In this process both heterophony,123 as well as lines fusing together are utilized.124