Inspired by a thread in another forum, I start a similar one here...

Can you think of 5 (or more, or less...) pieces that define Sibelius as a composer?

The crieteria that define the word "define" is not rigidly defined. Whether for you it means historical significance, your personal favourites, his typical musical language, popularity among the masses, or a mix of all of these, I will leave up to you.

For me, it is the following list, chosen by a nice mix of all of the above criteria (and in no particular order):

En Saga
Violin Concerto
Symphony No. 5
Symphony No. 7
Tapiola
____________________________________________
It was excruciatingly difficult for me to leave about 5 or 6 more pieces off the list, but that's part of the fun.

After some thought here is my list.

Kullervo [1892]

As I suggest elsewhere in the forum, Kullervo shows the path that Sibelius choose not to take, but this early work tells us much about the masters subsequent development as a symphonist and can be seen clearly as a defining moment.

Symphony No. 3 in C [1907]

The third symphony is less obviously appealing than the colourful heroics of the first two symphonies, but I would venture to suggest that it is the first of Sibelius's symphonies fully worthy of his genius.

Symphony No.4 in A minor [1911]

A landmark in symphonic development. The masters most radical and essentially Sibelian symphony. Jean Sibelius here stakes a place in the vanguard of modernism.

Symphony No. 7 in C [1924]

A synthesis and summation of the Sibelian symphonic voyage.

Tapiola [1926]

Sibelius's final utterance, exploring the terror and exaltation of Tapio the forest God. Reaching to something deep in our psyche from a distant past, but most surely pointing to the future.

The distance travelled from Kullervo to Tapiola is light years and I would claim that each of the above works are important signposts on this journey undertaken by the greatest symphonic composer of the 20th century.--kullervopete.

The third symphony is Sibelius' big symphonic coming-of-age, so to speak. The first two are saturated with Tchaikovsky-like style, but the third is more purely Sibelian than the previous two.

The seventh symphony and Tapiola are Sibelius' two greatest achievements in organic development.

The violin concerto is his only concerto, thus it shows how he would write virtuosic passages.

Kullervo is what made it all possible, pretty much. It set him up with security for what was to come, much in the way Brahms was set after the success of A German Requiem. It also is his first "symphony," after a fashion, no less since he actually titled it "Kullervo Symphony," if I'm not mistaken...?

So I suppose those might be my five:
Symphony 3
Symphony 7
Tapiola
Violin Concerto
Kullervo

I'll have to come back to this when I hear more of his music.

As regards Kullervo, on the title page of the score Sibelius described it as 'A Symphonic Poem for Soloists, Chorus and Orchestra'. However it can be regarded as a Symphony in the line of Berlioz's 'Symphonie Fantastique' and Mahlers 'Resurrection'.--kullervopete.

Here is my list:

(In no particular order)

Symphony no. 4
Symphony no. 5
Symphony no. 7
Tapiola
Kullervo

Interesting that Kullervo is mentioned here as often as it is. How do you think Sibelius would feel about it being a "defining work" since he worked so hard to suppress it during his life?

I would like to think that Sibelius would not disapprove too strongly. He did after all accept that it was bound to be performed after his death and even discussed matters of interpretation in detail with his son-in-law Jussi Jalas, who conducted the 1958 're-première'. That performance was recorded by Finnish Radio and I'd be rather keen to see it made commercially available.

I agree, at least Sibelius did not retrieve the score of Kullervo and add it to the big bonfire at Ainola in the 1940's.--kullervopete.