Andrew B wrote:

... neoclassicism has elements and overtones of pastiche ...

Like Stravinsky's Pulcinella. Pastische with a capital PAS.

Sibelius' third was always one of my favorites of his symphonies, probably second to the seventh symphony. Though on first hearing, the first movement seemed a bit weird to me until a little while into it. Then it was absolutely gorgeous throughout the rest of the symphony. The second movement is pure magic to me, and it is certainly my favorite of all Sibelius' movements so far.

I believe that the slow movement of No. 3 is also Osmo Vänskä's favourite movement of any Sibelius symphony. He certainly conducts it with tremendous empathy!

At the start of this thread on the Third Symphony, I posed the question 'Why is this symphony still perhaps the least performed of the seven'.
I have recently come across an interesting remark from Sibelius himself on the Third. 'The 3rd Symphony was a disappointment for the audience, as everybody was expecting that it would be like the Second. I mentioned this to Gustav Mahler, and he also observed that 'with each new symphony you always lose listeners who have been captivated by previous symphonies'.
So their was more to Sibelius and Mahlers conversations in 1907 than the oft quoted 'The symphony must be like the world'.--kullervopete.

I have read that Sibelius and Mahler discussed quite a wide variety of matters, of course the most famous being the music discussions, etc. In fact, they somewhat became friends. According to Sibelius, he felt that music was one of the lesser conversations between them; when asked curtly by Mahler what Sibelius wanted him to conduct (by Sibelius), Sibelius replied simply, "Nothing."

Anyway, about the third's unpopularity, I can't think of any other reason than that of expecting more of the first and second symphonies... that's why Mahler's fourth was such a disaster.

kullervopete wrote:

'with each new symphony you always lose listeners who have been captivated by previous symphonies'

What an interesting idea, I can see how this would be the case when you have an eager and expecting audience, anxiously expecting each new work.

I guess the way to work around this is to make sure that your early symphonies are derivative and untinteresting, only to break through into maturity with your later ones. Dvořák comes to mind here, as does Bruckner in a sense.

or Brahms.

Somehow I knew that "that guy's" name would eventually pop up in this discussion, and somehow I knew it would be Andrew B who would mention him. But you surprise me Andrew B, because it seems that in relation to my post, you are granting Brahms' later symphonies approval! Somehow I suspected that your opinion would be that Brahms' symphonies begin as derivative and uninteresting and then stay that way, 1 through 4.

Could this mark the beginning of a long period of Brahms admiration?

Before Andrew gets back, could I just say that Brahms 1 is probably the greatest 'First' Symphony ever written!--kullervopete.

Ah, Kurki, you caught me out! But I think the point was still made!

Kurki hints that Dvorak's early symphonies are derivative and uninteresting--I beg to differ!
My favorite is No.4 in D minor, certainly Wagner's gaze can be felt in the second movement, but the symphony holds my interest and my heart too the final bars. Anyone heard the first 'The Bells of Zlonice' this was written in the year that Sibelius was born [1865] long missing, it was only discovered in the Prague Archives in 1923.--kullervopete.

I have conducted the Bells of Zlonice with the Prague Philharmonia (www.pkf.cz -- Bělohlavek's orchestra) back in 2003 or 2004. I suppose it comes down to preferences and opinions. I simply believe that Dvořák found his voice from Symphony No. 6 onwards. I think if he had stopped writing Symphonies after No. 5, he would today be know as the composer of the Slavonic Dances and a rustical, folksy violin concerto. I believe that his great later tone-poems and the cello concerto are a direct extension of the new language and symphonic thinking that was developped in the later symphonies.

Lets remember that in 1885, Mrs Jeanette Thurber, a wealthy widow founded The National Conservatory of Music in NewYork.
In 1891 she was determined to secure a leading European composer as Director of the Conservatory. She hoped that such an appointment would stimulate the development of an American school of composers.
Mrs Thurber's first choice was Jean Sibelius, who declined the offer, despite a tempting salary. Antonin Dvorak also could not be tempted at this time. But in 1892, Mrs Thurber lightened the duties, increased the salary and Dvorak accepted.
What might a Sibelius 'New World' have been like if he had taken the post. Well thats a hypothetical question, but come to think about it--Sibelius's Fifth Symphony was born following his highly sucessful visit to America in 1914. We know that America made a powerful impression on him, from the hustle and bustle of the traffic to the Nigagra Falls. Maybe some of this experience found its way into the Fifth Symphony.--kullervopete.

Continuing with the Dvořák aside:

Legend has it (this is unconfirmed by all accounts) that when Dvořák saw Niagara Falls, awestruck, he proclaimed:

"This will be a Symphony in B minor."

Of course, there was to be no B minor symphony, but a certain cello concerto happens to be in that key.

Back to Sibelius and this thread, can anyone think of a piece (off the top of their heads) by Sibelius in B minor? I can't, but I have a feeling that in the 3rd Symphony, the 2nd theme of the first movement, in the recapitulation, is in B minor (I think it's in E minor in the exposition).

I am in Belgium presently with no score and it has been 2 years since I last looked at the 3rd Symphony.

Well thats a difficult one but unless I'm mistaken, Sibelius's final great masterpiece 'Tapiola' never leaves B minor until the very last bars were it finally reaches B major and a kind of peace.--kullervopete.

Dear kullervopete,

How incredibly stupid of me. Thanks for pointing that one out so quickly, sometimes the most obvious answers are the hardest ones to find... for me, anyway.

It's always hard when travelling... Belgium, eh... beer... chocolate... Poirot... on, and our dear friends in Brussels....

As for me, my excuse for forgetfulness today is that I'm in Finland for the world première recording of Kullervo's 3rd and 5th movements in the version for piano and choir (and soloists obviously in the third mov). It's published in the Breitkopf JSW edition, so it counts as an authentic piece. Might irritate some of our mates in the critical fraternity - words like Kullervo and piano seem to propel them straight into the saddles of their high horses. Giddy up!

It is interesting how third symphonies often seem to fail in gaining popularity. I know that Beethoven and Gorecki do not fall into that pattern but symphonists like Brahms, Rachmaninov, Prokofiev, Mahler, Williams, Tchaikovsky, Schumann & Nielsen all composed first or/and second symphonies that became more popular than their third.

Kurkikohtaus wrote:

Back to Sibelius and this thread, can anyone think of a piece (off the top of their heads) by Sibelius in B minor? I can't, but I have a feeling that in the 3rd Symphony, the 2nd theme of the first movement, in the recapitulation, is in B minor (I think it's in E minor in the exposition).

Yes it is
Technically it is in aeolian mode since no a# is present.

I just heard the second movement played by Berglund/Helsinki and my interest was really piqued when I heard him give a slight breath/pause right before the strings first come in with the main theme. It was brilliant! The simple things, you know...

The third Symphony is clearly very popular with everyone on the forum. Its puzzling then that for a number of eminent Sibelius conductors, Sibelius's Third has been something of a 'blind spot' for them. I am thinking particuarly of Karajan and Ormandy. Both admitted that they did not understand it.
This has always mystifyed me, as the 'Third' is undoubtedly the most brilliant and direct of the cannon. Gerald Abraham remarked 'In clearness and simplicity of outline, it is comparable with a Haydn or Mozart first movement....' The haunting middle movement shares a kinship with the second movement of the Fifth Symphony and the Finale, though challenging to bring off in performance with its Scherzo-like first part followed by a huge Hymn-like Chorale that thunders to a mighty climax.
Anyone care to speculate just why the work posed such a problem for Maestro's Karajan and Ormandy--after all they both felt able to explore the egnimatic Fourth Symphony!--kullervopete.