National Piano Schools

[wojcia3333]

Hi everybody, I am doing at the moment Doctorate on the current state of National Piano Schools of teaching and performing (Russian, German, French etc.). I would like to hear some of your opinions on few things:

Do you think that National Piano Schools exist in the 21st century (If yes, in what way, what might be their characteristic features)?
Can you tell just by listening to someone, what are the origins of a performer's education (eg. is he or she Russian pianist or a teacher that represents eg. German style of teaching)?
How did the situation of National Piano Schools changed in the 20th and 21st century?

I am open to any discussion.

Regards,

wojtek

[quantum]

Actually I do think they exist.  Most evidence of this I have observed is towards a methodology or philosophy of teaching.  While the final goals may be similar the way teachers choose to approach them may be different. 

An important issue which needs examination is a teacher's culture and upbringing, and its potential influence on teaching.  Just how much of our national identity seeps into our teaching without us even realizing it?

See my Dictatorship teaching methods thread, for what I think is possibly linked to national schools.

I would be interested in you research results. 

[wojcia3333]

Hi Quantum,

Thank you very much for your reply. I will check your thread about the Dictatorship methods.

Do you think that regardless the origins of one's education, today, pianists are required to achieve quite homogeneous style? Especially the influence of recordings had an impact on creation of a style were the clarity and technical perfection seems to be something of an utmost importance.

Again those are all very broad questions, difficult to discuss on the forum like this.

[CC]

There certainly are differences.  My musical education is not sufficiently advanced to comment on whether you can HEAR the differences technically, but the difficulties with that are obvious: (1) the greatest pianists are generally aware of other greats around the world and can learn from each other (2) unless you go way back in history, the world globalization is blurring such differences and (3) individual differences/idiosyncrasies often overwhelm national differences. But there remain numerous differences in how students are taught. The Russian school, represented by H. Neuhaus,  is initially based on diligence and hard work, like a pre-requisite; without that, you aren't even a piano student.  Having the technique to perform isn't sufficient; you must demonstrate by conquering those difficult technical pieces that are not necessarily concert menu, but mainly illustrate technical prowess.  One distinguishing characteristic of all national schools is their expertise in interpreting composers of that nation or region. Such as Sibelius (tho he was a Fin, I think), whose music overflows with distinctly Russian national pride and patriotism. So one way to distinguish national schools is to find out what they like to perform and their quality of interpretation; it's hard to get away from that. The Russian language has one of the most convoluted sentence structure (you need to know the last word before you can start a sentence) and the mental training needed to conquer such a language probably helps with intellectual pursuits such as chess and music. Most of the French School is based, or claim to be based, on Liszt, and perhaps best represented by Van Cliburn's mother. However, there is nothing in the literature that defines Liszt's methods or technique. Youngsters are taught hands separate, bar-by-bar practice and the chord attack, and French pianists are unbeatable in their interpretations of French composers. But often their interpretations of Beethoven and Mozart are sub par; perhaps they had too many wars between them. Similarly, the Spanish school concentrates on Spanish music and themes.  The Japanese are quite interesting, as they were johnny-come-lately's to piano and simply copied others, especially the German school, complete with Beyer and Hannon for students.  This was possibly helped by the fact that both German and Japanese languages have inverted grammatical structure compared to English or Chinese and the Japanese initially copied anything German and became allies in WWII. In spite of the popularity of learning piano (in the cities, every other house has at least one piano student), the number of good pianists is extremely low compared to the number who take lessons.  There is a cultural explanation for this.  When the Japanese study, they feel that they are accomplishing their objective as long as they are studying, regardless of whether they are actually learning or not. Thus if they practice for hours and learn nothing, they are not particularly bothered, because "they did their job". This attitude results in the majority of students taking lessons for years and achieving very little. However, because everything in Japan is based on systems (which results from their finely tuned and structured social rules), they are good at inventing or adapting systems.  Thus the Suzuki school system broke from "traditional teaching" of the time and instead taught music by ear before reading any notes, which turned out to be the biologically correct approach.  The Chinese have suffered from the poverty and deprivation of the region as a whole, and the piano was an impossibly expensive instrument for the people in general. They also tend to be proud, rebellious, and independent, which means that instead of learning established lessons, they would rather learn on their own which doesn't help them to learn from experts.  Of course, the diligence and desire to study and learn among Orientals is legendary, but their pride and lack of ability to see the real world in all its complexity hinders progress. Thus most great Chinese pianists have been generally copies of their western idols, and have yet to develop their own characteristics.  Only recently have Chinese music been composed for the piano and are starting to be performed.  However, the traditional musical instruments and music have held their ground and are unmistakably Oriental and distinct. So here again, the music performed is a easier way to distinguish national schools than differences in technical playing.  Clearly, some of the difficulties of characterizing national schools are the complex distinctions that are often contradictory and controversial.

[jbmorel78]

I don't even know how to begin to answer Mr. Chang's post...

To begin with, formatting would be helpful, as well as the avoidance of certain existing, or just-invented stereotypes.

RE: the Russian school being based on hard work, this is true of any GOOD pianism.

RE: The French playing French music well and the Spanish playing Spanish music well, this is axiomatic.

RE: Intellectual effort on the part of Russians in mastering their language, it is no more intellectual effort than one spends mastering French, or English as a native tongue.  Certainly it may be comparable on some level to the mental rigor of chess for those who are not native, but these are not the key figures in Russian pianism!

More later...

JBM

[prongated]

Thus most great Chinese pianists have been generally copies of their western idols, and have yet to develop their own characteristics.

Huh? Such as? [really, I'm not aware of any...]

...and actually, I find that there is a common style of playing among China-trained Chinese pianists: practically all of them strive to learn all Chopin Etudes before they turn 18 (or younger), and hence all of them know only how to play fast and loud. [America or Europe-trained Chinese pianists are different again]. This is pretty much always the case in any international piano competition. [and it's interesting to note that ALL of the China-trained Chinese pianists got knocked out at the earliest opportunity in the last Sydney International Piano Comp].

Exceptions probably always exist though, and I am aware of at least one studio - Eleanor Wong's - that has produced sound Chinese musicians.

[m]

The Russian school, represented by H. Neuhaus,  is initially based on diligence and hard work, like a pre-requisite; without that, you aren't even a piano student.  

Mr. Chang,

As it's been already noticed, formatting the messages would be of great help to avoid unnecessary eye strain. I would think, as somebody who writes and publishes books you should know it better...

In any case, I hope you realize that unlike the way you put it and your passage might suggest, the Russian school was not reperesented by Neuhaus alone. In fact, he was rather uncharacteristic for the Russian school and in comparison to some other titans like Rubinstein, Igumnov, Blumenfeld, Goldenweiser, Flier, Oborin, Zak, Timakin, Artobolevkaya, as a teacher was rather on a smallish scale. He was one of those who was loved for his quite charismatic and artistic personality, and knew how to talk and present himself.

Some say, he was the one who taught Richter and Gilels. Let me remind you, Gilels never considered him as his teacher and in fact, hated him with great passion. As for Richter... well he was RICHTER and would have been "Richter" no matter with whom he was studied.

Somehow Neuhaus got very popular outside of Russia--my guess, mainly due to his book. But again, if we take S. Feinberg's Pianism as an Art, it is much more monolitic, serious, nonsense and BS free essay. I'd say Feinberg's book reflects the way of thinking about art, music, piano, and pedagogy in much more "Russain" way than Neuhaus' fluff, full of nonsenses. And I am talking here as someone who for many years was studying with Neuhaus' assistant--Lev Naumov (who IMO, was much BIGGER figure and teacher than Neuhaus, and probably the last of the "Great Old Russian Piano School"!)

I am sorry, but the rest of your message is full of errors/cliche/stereotypes/wrong information, either, and just shows a lack of general musical education. Your passage about Russian language does not make any sense (and I am talking here as someone whose first language is Russian). Most likely you are confuisng Russian with German.

Your assertion about French school based on Liszt is... incomplete, at the best, and wrong at the worst (and I am talking here as someone who taught history of pianism on a colledge level)! One left wondering what is Van Cliburn's mother passage is all about!  

Unfortunately, it would take lots of time to go point-to-point with all those fantasies... So maybe the best would be just call it a day.

Best, M

[wojcia3333]

Dear Marik, Prongated, and Jbmorel78,

I have studied in Poland for most of my life and only for the past 5 years I have been under strong influence of the Russian Piano School. I can really speak for the Polish School, or rather what is left of it nowadays.

From your experience, would you be able to define the main focus of the school you personally know the best? Is such definition possible at all?

Do you guys think that looking for some sort of definitions, there would be a necessity to differentiate between the approach to the acquisition of pianistic skills and approach towards content of music, or maybe just how those 2 things relate one to another?

How did the state of National Piano Schools (NPS) has changed over the last 50 years or so?

Is there one 'preferred' piano style nowadays?

Any thoughts will be much appreciated.

I also have created a short internet questionnaire on the topic. You can find it here:

https://www.concertpianist.com.au/nps/



Mr. Chang,

I would like to hear some of your thoughts on your own method described in your book, and how successful is it amongst pianists and teachers?

Thank you again for the discussion.

Best wishes.

wojtek

[fnork]

"Such as Sibelius (tho he was a Fin, I think), whose music overflows with distinctly Russian national pride and patriotism."

When trying to give an example of a composer whose music "overflows with Russian national pride and patriotism", you mention someone who wasn´t even born there? (and was born in a swedish-speaking family by the way) Anyone who has studied music history should know the name of one of his most famous orchestral pieces - Finlandia....

[prongated]

I have studied in Poland for most of my life and only for the past 5 years I have been under strong influence of the Russian Piano School.

Really? I didn't know Mr Willems' teaching is based on the Russian piano school...

From your experience, would you be able to define the main focus of the school you personally know the best? Is such definition possible at all?

Of any school that I'm aware of, I think sound is definitely always one of the main preoccupation. The way this is achieved (i.e. the technique to acquire it) is thus different. For example, the traditional British school of piano playing (perhaps especially exemplified by Tobias Matthay) is probably characterised more by very clear, articulate sound, which they achieved through lifting fingers. The Russian school of piano playing is, to me, usually characterised by big, rich, lush sound that is achieved through careful consideration of applying weight into the playing. [which perhaps sometimes degenerate into simply bashful, heavy playing at the hands of less competent pianists]

To make things trickier, there is no single NPS. For example, as Marik mentioned, Neuhaus is rather different from what can perhaps be expected from a Russian teacher - to me, the sound is perhaps uncharacteristically not heavy, for one.

Reginald Gerig's book, "Famous Pianists and Their Technique" can give more information regarding this.

Do you guys think that looking for some sort of definitions, there would be a necessity to differentiate between the approach to the acquisition of pianistic skills and approach towards content of music, or maybe just how those 2 things relate one to another?

? It surely cannot be different! In order to realise the content of music as one envisages, one must have the appropriate pianistic skills, or else the performance will come across differently to what the performer has in mind.

How did the state of National Piano Schools (NPS) has changed over the last 50 years or so?

As Mr Chang points out, many factors have contributed towards the blurring of the traditional NPS. We often find professors of different educational background in a single conservatory alone these days...

~

...actually, I wonder why you posted such questions on a public piano forum like this? Although there are many of us who pursue piano studies professionally or who are knowledgeable piano enthusiasts, most of these questions can only be comprehensibly and accurately answered by a real expert on the matter. [my opinion above, for one, is obviously an extremely limited observation, if not flawed]

Actually, it's perhaps only luck that someone like Marik happens to post on this forum - I believe he is one such expert on this matter, and indeed this exceptional circumstance is a privilege for this forum!

[m19834]

(and I am talking here as someone who taught history of pianism on a colledge level)!

Best, M

Perhaps there is also some kind of "eternal level" in there, too .

[wojcia3333]

Really? I didn't know Mr Willems' teaching is based on the Russian piano school...

I have never had a single lesson with Mr. Willems. Feel free to ask him:)

I do agree that posting this question here might be a questionable move, and that answers to my questions should be looked for elsewhere. This is just one of the  components of my research and surely not the most important one. Just looking for additional ideas, unique thoughts etc.

I do know Gerig's book, and the problem with it is that by being just a book it cannot really explain certain things. It also deals almost exclusively with the skill acquisition. Schonberg's Great Pianists and many others (Grindea, Dubal, Bower, Cooke, Barnes etc.)  that contain interviews or transcripts of lessons/masterclasses with pianists can give you an insight into pianist's personalities and some methods, but that is also only a part of the whole story.

In order to understand even just few of those schools, I would have to go and study for few years in each of the countries we are talking about. And not only at the level where I am now but also the beginners level too. I am looking for people who can say: I have been studying in Russia all my life (or most of it), that is what I think... I cannot expect anybody to give me ready comparison.

Thank you again for all your thoughts. 

[CC]

"Such as Sibelius (tho he was a Fin, I think), whose music overflows with distinctly Russian national pride and patriotism."

When trying to give an example of a composer whose music "overflows with Russian national pride and patriotism", you mention someone who wasn´t even born there? (and was born in a swedish-speaking family by the way) Anyone who has studied music history should know the name of one of his most famous orchestral pieces - Finlandia....

That's exactly what I said "Fin" -- Finland at that time was politically under Russian control and culturally, Russian culture dominated the entire region and Sibelius himself considered himself culturally Russian.

[CC]

Mr. Chang,

I would like to hear some of your thoughts on your own method described in your book, and how successful is it amongst pianists and teachers?

My book is for beginners to intermediate; advanced pianists should not need it, though it contains new info for practically anyone, so it is worth going over even for advanced pianists just in case, especially if they intend to teach.

I only took 7 years of private piano lessons from age 10-17, and thereafter, my piano education has been thru watching the numerous teachers I came to know, and my own research because it was such a mystery why  many pianists were technically so advanced while others floundered all their lives without success.  That's why I get hammered by guys like Marik when I stick my neck out too far. 

Aside: Marik - of the 7 languages I studied, Russian was the hardest. Of course, Japanese might be harder because it is a combination of Japanese and Chinese (Kanji words) and you really have to learn 6 forms to be able to really speak it (low, middle, and polite levels, each with male and female) for a total of twelve; you see, you can not judge the difficulty of a mother tongue because you automatically learned it effortlessly, just as Mozart learned piano. Those with English as native don't know how difficult it is until you ask a Japanese; half of them will tell you that English is impossible to speak and pronounce.  -- dosvidania! (I don't remember much else).

I worked at Bell Labs where I was also instrumental in hiring and firing some of the smartest scientists, and have experience judging the intelligence of people. I found that there was no direct correlation between piano technical skill (defined as winning competitions) and intelligence.  The strongest correlation was with the teacher -- good teachers ALWAYS produced good pianists. The standard answer to this was that good teachers only took in smart students, which I found to be untrue. I'm already straying too far off the main road so I won't go into substantiating the previous sentence because the explanation is complex. These facts didn't make sense so I knew that research should lead to some insights -- that's how my book got started.

My book, personally, was far greater success than I ever imagined possible; in fact, I was put into an embarrassing situation where advanced piano major students from topmost conservatories were emailing me, asking why their teachers did not teach some of the basic things in my book, and asking me how to practice pieces I couldn't play. 

At first, I wondered why concert pianists or professors in conservatories hadn't written my book a long ago - they should have.  Then I realized that I was a scientist and all scientists must teach each other and learn new things EVERY DAY. In addition, I have diverse interests, and received quite a broad education. Pianists, OTOH had to practice everyday and had little time for anything else (until my book was written )), including learning/practicing how to teach, and never evolved advanced teaching expertise as exists in most other disciplines -- the best example may be Franz Liszt, and today's teachers don't seem to do any better than Liszt since so many respected teachers claim to teach the Liszt method. Teaching manuals and methods must be scientific -- even piano teachers know that -- Whitesides said as much. But piano skills and teaching are two different things, and often mutually exclusive.  So I finally began to understand why I ended up writing this book. It is by no means the final authority on practice methods, but just a great beginning compared to any other available book. My hope is that some music professor in a conservatory, as well as any accomplished musician, will pick up where I left off and advance it to limitless levels (that I could not even hope to achieve), just as scientific methods have lifted all other advanced fields of knowledge. We now know that the "art is not science" attitude is false, counterproductive, and has been the worst hidden enemy of aspiring musicians (advanced musicians know better).

So, what evidence do I have that the book works? There are now over 12 sites where my book can be accessed, and all combined, there are over 500 distinct downloads per day.  I estimate that there are now over 45,000 pianists reading my book, and increasing every year. About 10% of my emails are from teachers who have used material in my book to teach, and they all report that their students are very happy with the new approach and making better progress. Over 50% of emails are from pianists who either cannot afford/find a teacher, or had teachers, but gave up in frustration until they stumbled upon my book. The optimistic views in my book convinced them that they should give it another try, and they were pleasantly surprised that they can now play things that were impossible before. In this Forum, I noticed that after the announcement of my book here, there was a sudden increase in pianists playing Bach which they had previously considered a tad too difficult.

To read some of these emails, read the "Testimonials" section of the book. Those are typical testimonials up to 2004, and they have continued unabated to this day, and I have added major improvements since 2004. 

Why is the book special and better than other books? First, I found all the basic practice methods that were known and assembled them into a textbook. The thing I did differently is that it is written as a scientific treatise in that research results are reported together with any underlying mechanisms and theory that apply. For example I discuss how to do things as well as how not to do it, with the associated reasons.  These reasons are not plucked out of thin air but are logically deduced from known causes. The book is NOT a random series of "useful rules". The most important elements are the attempts to explain WHY. I'm not saying I'm always right just because I explained it.  But if wrong, someone can correct it and improve the book -- that's how science works. Without such "theory" and documentation, wrong methods can be inserted and correct ones lost, as has been happening in the past.  The way I wrote it, the book can only improve with time; my fear about anyone not trained in writing manuals rewriting my book is that it might regress. 

The book has been widely accepted by students; however, I think it is just as important for teachers as a way to increase their income. Enough for now; for more details, you will have to read it.

[m]

That's exactly what I said "Fin" -- Finland at that time was politically under Russian control and culturally, Russian culture dominated the entire region and Sibelius himself considered himself culturally Russian.

Actually, while indeed, it is true and Russia had a control, culturally it did not dominate that region. In any case, what makes you think that Sibelius' "music overflows with distinctly Russian national pride and patriotism"? Why do you think it is not distinctly FINNISH pride and patriotism?

I only took 7 years of private piano lessons from age 10-17, and thereafter, my piano education has been thru watching the numerous teachers I came to know, and my own research because it was such a mystery why  many pianists were technically so advanced while others floundered all their lives without success.  That's why I get hammered by guys like Marik when I stick my neck out too far.  

Mr. Chang,

Let us put some things straight. Since (later in your passage) you mentioned something about intellingence, it doesn't take much to put together your way of using of some "others floundered all their lives without success" and then mentioning my name in the next sentence in relation to it. What makes you think you know me, who I am, what I know, and how I teach? Heck!--you even don't know my name.
But if you are interested, please PM me with your address and I will send you a copy of video of one of the recitals of my piano studio. You will find there 8 years old playing Bach prelude and Mozart Fantasy in D minor. You will find there a couple of 11 years olds with Schumann ABBEG and Mendelssohn Rondo Cappricioso. You will find there a 13 years old who plays Beethoven Sonata no.3, Liszt 12th Rhapsody, Chopin Etude op.10 no.1, and Prokofiev 3rd Concerto. All of them play professionaly, with finesse, perfection, and understanding of musical ideas of those rather demanding pieces (at least for the age) and artistry.
 
For your information, I don't "hammer" you--I just pay attention to obvious flaws of your deductions, reasonings, and apparent misinformation, so less experienced folks will be aware of it. In this respect, I'd say, you rather hammer yourself.

While you think it is a big achievement of the fact itself to "watch numerous teachers", as always, you don't mention any names. On the contrary, I have nothing to hide, so let me tell you, so far I studied piano and piano pedagogy for 35 years and received exhaustive training in both fields (as well as music theory, as a separate degree) under the very best teachers IN THE WORLD. I consider my main piano teachers to be Lev Naumov and Pnina Saltzman (eminent Israeli pianist, who studied with Alfred Cortot since she was 9 years old girl). I was observing lessons of such giants of piano pedagogy (and in fact, with many of them was taking lessons, private, or otherwise) as Artobolevskaya, Malinin, Vlasenko, Gornostayeva, Dorensky, Lasar Berman, Derevianko, Boguslavsky, and many others.

You might want stepping over your pride and consider that there is a good probability that "guys like Marik" (the way you put it off-hand) in fact might have some more knowledge than you possibly could, and what for you is a discovery or revelation for them might be just a part of everyday work.

To get to the bottom of my point, since you mentioned that "My hope is that some music professor in a conservatory, as well as any accomplished musician, will pick up where I left off and advance it to limitless levels (that I could not even hope to achieve), just as scientific methods have lifted all other advanced fields of knowledge", please let me have my doubts about your intentions.

So far you did not show even slightest interest in any "advancing" to any level. The only thing I see is how passionately you are talking about how awesome your book is and how many people love it. But as always, so far I did not see one single name of stature behind it...
From what I see, you did receive quite a bit of criticism on this board from rather experienced and knowledgable folks, and a lot of very good points to consider. But as always, you did not give a single more or less coherent explanation and/or never follow through those points, just constantly dropping the ball. This fact alone speaks for itself and makes one think that probably your 7 years of piano training as well as observing lessons and making research is not quite enough to know this subject deep enough to participate in such discussions.

Indeed, so far you did not follow or participate in ANY critical (i.e. the only one where the "truth" might be found) discussions about your book, which makes one think that the only reason of your presence on this board is to SPAM and sell your book.

Sorry, not interested--I saw enough of that going on this board!!!

Best, M

[CC]

Marik:

I never intended to mention your name in a derogative way, but rather in respect.  Perhaps you read my post too fast.  Please read it again.  If I caused you any anguish (because of your misinterpretation -- or my unclear English), I am sorry.  You are obviously more important than I in this Forum, I will stop posting soon (couldn't wait, could you? )), and we all benefit from your posts.  Hope this ends this misunderstanding, so we can go on with our discussions.

To wit:  I AM concerned about the relationship of my book to teachers.  Although practically every student who wrote to me embraced my book and thanked me for it, there is a certain group of teachers who seem intent on negatively criticizing it. What bothers me is that the criticisms denigrate the book without any comments on why or where it is wrong so I can correct it.  For example, saying that I never had paying students (which is true, but I have taught students, who could not afford to pay, for free since my high school days) doesn't mean the book is no good and doesn't help me to improve it.

I do criticize some commonly used teaching methods and I understand teachers who get angry if they have been using related methods; in fact at one fairly large music conservatory, the students discovered my book, many started using it, and started asking their teachers why they weren't being taught certain concepts in the book.  I don't know the exact  reasons why (I can guess), but the conservatory banned my book!  The end result is that my book caused disruptions which was not my intent.  It is too late at nite now, but I would like to discuss this point in more detail later on.  I believe that my book will benefit teachers, but there is a cost also, possibly financial, and I want to know if the benefits are worth the cost, or what can be done about it. That's one reason I recently started re-posting in the Teachers' Forum about discounting my book to teachers.

[m]

You are obviously more important than I in this Forum, I will stop posting soon (couldn't wait, could you? )), and we all benefit from your posts. 

I don't think I am all that important here, besides, I don't post often because of lack of time. I just happened to have a look at the forum a couple days ago...
It is not my intention to stop you posting here. On the contrary, I'd urge you to KEEP posting, as it would be benefitial for those who needs help and also, might help to understand our differences... because as always, the truth is somewhere in between.

Indeed, it is late, so let's get to discussion tomorrow...

Best, M

[fnork]

Actually, while indeed, it is true and Russia had a control, culturally it did not dominate that region. In any case, what makes you think that Sibelius' "music overflows with distinctly Russian national pride and patriotism"? Why do you think it is not distinctly FINNISH pride and patriotism?

I was just about to ask the same thing. I might add that Sibelius was brought up in a swedish-speaking family in Hämeenlinna (from what I've been told, the family mixed between speaking finnish and swedish at home), and he studied in Helsinki, Vienna and Berlin. I would suggest you that if you'd ever go to Finland, don't say here what you just wrote on this forum, that Sibelius "music overflows with distinctly Russian national pride and patriotism". To quote a wikipedia article about S, his "music played an important role in the formation of the Finnish national identity", and I'm sure you'd upset some people and seem ignorant if you would say that his music is distinctly russian.

[fnork]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Sibelius

[fnork]

You also might want to read about the failed attempts of russification of Finland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification_of_Finland

These attempts were met with resistance in Finland, and were in retrospect one of the factors which led to Finlands independence in 1917.
If you have any information that would support your claim that "Russian culture dominated the entire region", please inform us...And WHEN did Sibelius say that he "considered himself culturally Russian"?

[CC]

What you guys say about Finnish nationalism and the dislike of Russia is certainly true today and what I posted would be considered heresy -- I understand that much, but history often gets rewritten depending on how politics change.  I may be wrong, but my understanding was that it wasn't always that way.  Is it true that Finland declared a (annual?) "Sibelius Day" for which he composed a symphony or something? and that Finnish is the craziest language (for lack of a better description - I don't mean to ridicule it) in the world if you were to try to learn it? My understanding is that Finnish nationalism had not yet completely awakened in S's time -- is that wrong?  what's the evidence? I've heard several (German) conductors describe S's music as "Russian", which I think may be objectionable to today's Fins, but perhaps not outside.

[fnork]

The answer to your questions are easily answered by a few searches on google.

"In the 1890s Finnish nationalism based on the Kalevala spread, and Jean Sibelius became famous for his vocal symphony Kullervo. He soon received a grant to study runo singers in Karelia and continued his rise as the first prominent Finnish musician. In 1899 he composed Finlandia, which played its important role in Finland gaining independence. He remains one of Finland's most popular national figures and is a symbol of the nation."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland

So, finnish nationalism was on the rise in S's lifetime, and the last sentence pretty much sums up Sibelius importance for Finland...

About finnish being the craziest language in the world - an answer from someone who is studying it and whose both parents (none of them are fins - my mom is polish, my dad is swedish) have done the same, could be of value. Finnish is certainly very different from most other languages in the world, but anyone who devotes him/herself to it can most certainly learn it. I have friends who have lived here for a year, and who only communicate in finnish with people here. The main problems I guess are that you have to learn all of the vocabulary, which is so different from other languages (although some loan-words from swedish exist, which is a help for me), and the grammar is difficult as hell. But I can promise you, that its not an impossible language!

By the way, I don't really know how the finnish language is related to this discussion at all.