In his audition lecture whose title is “Some Viewpoints Concerning Folk Music and Its Influence on the Musical Arts”, Sibelius did not use any sub- headings in the text. Yet regarding the contents and grouping of the paragraphs, the lecture can be divided into five major sections. After the outspoken rubric the lecturer immediately presents his main thesis on the importance of folk music. Then the first section (paragraphs I:1–9) begins with the words: “The origin of folksong has been the topic of numerous …”. This section is a historical overview. At the end of it Sibelius sees proof of his main thesis “why Germans have played such a great part in the realm of music” (I:9). The first paragraph of the second section (paragraphs II:1–12) begins with the words: “To prove this I want to point to a few things …”. After a varied repetition of his main thesis, the historical overview is then selectively reviewed. The first paragraph of the third section (paragraphs III:1–10) begins with the words: “If I am asked how folksongs may have influenced a composer …”. Now the lecturer has left the vestibule and enters the atrium. After some general remarks (paragraphs III:1–4), the lecturer takes up “the Finnish folk tune” (paragraphs III:5–10). The lecture fragment (III:7–8) belongs to the culmination of the third section (paragraphs III:5– 8). Interestingly enough, right before the lecture fragment, between paragraphs III:6 and III:7 there is a cross-line.146 The first paragraph of the
fourth section (paragraphs IV:1–5) begins with the words: “When we compare Finnish folksongs to those of other countries …”. In this comparison the “uniqueness” of “the Finnish folk tune system” is recognized (IV:4).147
Perhaps for this reason the last paragraph of the fourth section (IV:5) harks back to the topic of the third section. The first paragraph of the fifth section (paragraphs V:1–6) begins with the words: “Time does not permit a detailed discussion …”. The fifth section is a short peroration. In it (V:1) Sibelius sees
145 In Musiikki 1980/2 the fragment discussed here covers pages 98–99 (Swedish–Finnish). In ed.
Grimley 2011 it is on page 322.
146 This typographical detail occurs only in Musiikki 1980/2:98–99, not in ed. Grimley 2011:322.
In the manuscript this cross-line seems to be an emphatic extended dash, yet is the only one of its kind in the whole document.
59
that “the peculiarities of Finnish folk tunes” have a “great importance for our future music”.148
The lecture was well received: “… according to the examining body his paper was ‘full of original ideas …’”.149 Yet in his tendency Sibelius was not
alone. It had its roots in the European ideology of nationalism. Sibelius does ground the lecture fragment (III:7–8) with a recollection on Mihail Glinka (1804–1857) who had “tried to set down rules for his harmonizing” of his homeland’s folk music (III:6).150 During the same decade as Sibelius a
Spaniard Felipe Pedrell (1841–1922) in his pamphlet Por Nuestra Música (1891) shared the view that “Every people should construct its system on the basis of its folk-songs”.151 Sibelius may not have been aware of the efforts of
his elder contemporary, but in Russia Pedrell’s affinity was recognized.152 The
later decades witnessed the culmination of this tendency in the endeavours and achievements of Bela Bartók (1881–1945).
Most probably the lecture fragment was among those ideas that the listeners considered “original”. It is practically the only place in the lecture where the craft of music is dealt with. In this lecture fragment both the explanation of the tonal system of the oldest Finnish folk-tunes as well as the possible harmonization that Sibelius suggests for them, are highly original. In the last decade of the nineteenth century a ninth chord (such as G–B–D– F–A) was neither a novelty, nor a worn-out device, but the originality lies in connecting principles (melodic & harmonic) that were worlds apart.153
Furthermore this ninth chord in the lecture fragment is achieved by combining consonant chords (G–B–D+D–F–A; see chapter 2.1.4), a practice alien to 19th century music.154
148 The reader may compare this report with a characterization in Mäkelä 2011:97: “His
opportunistic ideas on the fruitful influence of folk music (1896 …) begin with some conventional remarks about the development of Western music (Ars antiqua and Ars nova) and end up in chaos.”
149 Tawaststjerna IIF:100, 306–307, IIS:80, 241, IE:190.
150 Ed. Grimley 2011:322.
151 “For Our Music”; see Istel 1925:172. See also ibidem:175–178.
152 “In connection with the passage from Pedrell’s pamphlet cited above, [in 1893 a Russian
composer César] Cui [(1835–1918)] corroborates the statement that Pedrell is in close touch with the principles of the Russian school, concerning which he is very well informed.” (Istel 1925:175–176).
153 A harmonic phenomenon close to that of the lecture fragment appears in Edvard Grieg’s song
op. 67 no. 8 Ved Gjaetle-Bekken (written in 1895, published three years later) bars 43–48 (An F sharp- rooted minor triad in the song part is now and then accompanied by the lower open fifth B–F# in the piano left hand part). See Taylor 2014:1, ibid.:ex. 2.
154 An interesting possibility is left ajar in the reasoning of H. Schenker. He explained the dominant
ninth chord (C: V9) as a combination of VII, VII7 and V7 degrees (Schenker 1980:190–191). He however did not take the concept of additive harmony (see section 3.5) into consideration, but denied the existence of ninth chords instead: “We explain the so-called ‘dominant’ ninth chord not as a real, hence not as an independent, chord formation but as a mere reflex of a kinship, sensed unconsciously, among all the univalent chords rising on the fifth (and only on the fifth!) scale-step” (ibidem:192). Yet a
60
Someone – reluctant to accept the importance of the lecture fragment – could claim that it is ‘a brief and highly generalized remark about Finnish folk-modal practice’. Firstly, the brevity of a remark is not necessarily proportional to its significance. Perusal of the whole lecture shows, that this fragment is not an accidental, but an essential part of it. Secondly, the general character of the lecture fragment gives it the force of example and excludes the possibility that merely a local trifle is under discussion. Thirdly, the lecture fragment includes more than a description of Finnish folk-modal practice. It is a demonstration of interaction between folk and art music; the latter as Sibelius understood it. Thus this fragment is connected with the very heading of the lecture (“Some Viewpoints Concerning Folk Music and Its Influence on the Musical Arts”).
One can complain that ‘Sibelius’s remarks are not as clear as they should be’. How clear is clear enough? To me the lecture fragment is clear enough for testing the idea presented in it.
It can be argued that ‘Sibelius never expanded upon them [i.e. the remarks] later’. Yet uniqueness does not necessarily lessen the importance. Furthermore, “never later” is correct only if merely literary execution is taken into consideration. In a case where the lecturer was also a composer at the same time, for this dominating alter ego a musical device described in the lecture fragment was to be best expanded upon in the realm of music. If this was already cogently accomplished – as I wish to prove – before and after the audition lecture till the end of his career, there was no necessity for literary execution, even more so the composer being reluctant to publish under his name “anything else but music”.155
It can also be claimed that ‘they [i.e. the remarks] were delivered in an artificial, academic context in which such fleeting displays of scalar theory might simply have been the expected thing to do’.156 Firstly, an “artificial”
academic context does not make the thoughts presented in that context artificial as well, or be secluded from the ‘natural’ context of the composer. Secondly, the “fleeting” comment can be answered in a similar way to the “brief” above. Even the typographical detail (a cross-line before the lecture fragment) underlines the importance of it and prevents us from considering
multitude of dominant ninth chords in the music of the 19th century can be explained as simultaneous
combinations of VII7 and V7. Anyway, in these cases an additive ninth chord contains only dissonant chords, not consonant ones, as is the case in the lecture fragment.
155 See chapter 2, footnote 38.
156 Cf. Mäkelä 2008:65 according to whom the lecture is “(a problematic, thoroughly functional
source, similar to the report on the study trip to Karelia in the summer 1892 …)”. Mäkelä neither explicates what is “problematic” nor the criteria of similarity between the documents. Yet what is “functional” becomes clear from Mäkelä 2008:69: “The reasons for sometimes emphasising the Finnish folk music … was most likely his political correctness – particularly as he was applying for a job in the University of Helsinki”. Cf. also “His opportunistic ideas on the fruitful influence of folk music …” in Mäkelä 2011:97.
61
it as merely “fleeting”. Thirdly, the matter under consideration is not merely “scalar theory”, as it was also explained above. Fourthly, “the expected thing to do” in an academic context does not mean that the lecture fragment must otherwise be meaningless or immaterial for the lecturer.
It is true that nowhere in his lecture does Sibelius exclaim: “that is what I am doing in my compositions”. However, this does not mean that the opposite is true. In an academic context a personal acknowledgement would have offered no benefit to the argument. From the point of view of posterity, the lack of personal acknowledgement does not prove that the theory in the lecture fragment is not applied in the compositional practice of the lecturer. The only thing that is needed in confirming the importance of the lecture fragment in the thinking of Sibelius is to find applications and analogies of it in his compositions. If these can be found (cf. Tolonen, section 3.), all the doubts and reservations may be disregarded.157 Contrariwise, all the doubts
and reservations will be confirmed, if one succeeds in proving that nowhere in Sibelius’s scores can be found a device put forward in the lecture fragment.