I think the 3rd is Sibelius's most conservative symphony. When one considers the lush grandeur and romanticism of the two symphonies that preceded it then the stark, alien modernism of the symphony that came after it, the 3rd must come off as rather "uninteresting" when seen in that context.

Even I will readily admit that, while I love every Sibelius symphony, the 3rd is the one I listen to with the least amount of frequency. This is not because it is a "bad" work by any means; in fact, I contend that it is Sibelius's "Pastoral" and it is filled to the brim with light and radiant Nordic sunshine on a brilliant spring day, except for the pensive second movement, obviously. It's a wonderfully concise and direct work.

But due to it being the "lightest" symphony in my estimation, I suppose I am drawn to the more heavy, "grander" symphonies. Even the 6th which has a similar "lightness" at times has a bizarre power over me. The 6th is, to me, Sibbe's gothic cathedral. Would you believe I envision vaulted ceilings when I hear this piece???!!!

Perhaps Karajan and Ormandy had feelings similar to mine. Again, this is not a dismissal of the 3rd. Not at all. It's a fantastic work. I am just drawn more to the other symphonies, and that's that!

Hmm... I'll say (right after Tapkaara's response, no less!) that the Third is what speaks to me most... and therein I think lies the problem... sort of.

Why it's least popular, I mean. The Second, Fifth, Seventh all have this very universal feel about them. Then you have the Fourth, a violent dissenter of seemingly all Sibelius has done up to that time, so that's an added point of interest. The Sixth goes with the Third in my mind, but also seems very interesting to a general public mainly because of its gorgeous opening. The First is very, might I say standard symphonic material: very like Tchaikovsky, etc., and a great one at that.

The Third, to my mind, is far more intimate, inward, personal than any of the others (and the Sixth is also) to my mind. It speaks to individuals rather than to everyone; there aren't any particular thunderous gestures like in the Second or Fifth, no cosmic infinity as in the Seventh. No; the chorals that end each movement speak directly to the soul.

And too many people prefer the thunderous, dramatic tension that surrounds Beethoven's music or Sibelius 2, 5, and 7. The Third (and Sixth) symbolize a "breath of fresh air" so to speak, to rejuvenate before moving on to the unknown.

A breath of fresh air? Exactly!

That is exactly how I see the 3rd (and perhaps the 6th)...as rests between greater (by this I mean "bigger") symphonic works.

There is no doubt the intimate 3rd speaks directly and clearly to the listener. I think the 6th does too, but in a more mysterious, mystical language. It's that mysticism that makes me prefer the 6th over the 3rd.

But, again, this is NOT to deride the 3rd. Sibelius and Ifukube are my two favorite composers. I like them equally. One of the many reasons I revere Sibbe with so much passion is because of his immortal symphony cycle. The 3rd is an important part of this cycle, and and important part of who Sibelius was as a composer.

But we all have Sibelius works we listen to with more frequency than others, but just because I take in the 3rd less than I do the 7th (for example) this is not knocking the 3rd. It just means I REALLY like the 7th. I hope that makes sense.

Of course it makes sense! You can't listen to something without not listening to something else!

And besides, I've not listened to either Kullervo or the Fourth symphony nearly as much as I should. But that's just because I listen to the 3rd, 6th, and 7th a lot more (plus the works of a bunch of other composers).

Well, there you have it. Just because you don't listen to the 4th or Kullervo as much as the 3rd doesn't mean that you don't like either the former or the latter.. It just means you have other works that you enjoy with more frequency.

THIS is my relationship to the 3rd.

To take up a few points and with great respect to Tapkaara, I would not describe the Third as Sibelius's most conservative symphony. I would contend that this amazing work is 'Quietly radical'.
Certainly to the casual listener, the third, sandwiched as it is between the epic grandeur of the second and the intensly personal fourth, can sound lightweight. But it is a greater and more powerful work than either of the earlier symphonies.
I seem to go through periods were I listen to one particular symphony more than the others, or it might even be a song that relentlessly exercises my imagination. But at the end of the day, all eight of Sibelius's Symphonies equally share my passion and admiration.--kullervopete.
Ps Yes, I do include Kullervo!

kullervopete wrote:

Certainly to the casual listener, the third, sandwiched as it is between the epic grandeur of the second and the intensly personal fourth, can sound lightweight.

I'll tell you something for sure, ask an orchestral musician, especially a string player, about the 3rd and he'll confirm kullervopete's thoughts that this is indeed not a lightweight piece.

The scherzo is as technically demanding as any orchestral work that Sibelius wrote save perhaps Night Ride, and much of the first movement demands a Classicaly refined and exact approach, where every note matters, but within a post-romantic framework. Very difficult to find the right "sound" here from a player's perspective.

While the second movement may seem "easy" to that aforementioned casual listener, it explores keys that are not readily found in most works, which presents yet another challenge to the orchestra.

A very demanding piece.

Well, I don't think conservative necessarily means easy to perform. The 3rd may demand great skill to play but I suppose all of the symphonies do.

This is what I mean by "most conservative."

The 1st and the 2nd explode with fervent romanticism and a youthful "wear your heart on your sleeve" attitude. Sibelius really doesn't hold back too much in either work. So, if you listen to the 3rd in comparison, you definitely can hear a more "conservative" classisicism and restraint.

Now compare the 3rd to the 4th. The 4th sounds like nothing before it. It sort of appears like a crop circle in the English country side. What kind of mad man could have conceived of such a strange but alluring work of radicalism? The 3rd, in comparison, is certainly the more "conservative" of the two.

Compare the 3rd to the 5th. The 5th is, in many ways, is a reminder of the 1st and 2nd with a true sense of epic grandeur but with a new-fangled Sibelian clarity. Listen to how the "first" and "second" movents seamlessly melt together to creat one movement. And then those peculiar "hammer blows" at the end to create one of the most distinctive symphonic endings in all of music. To my ears, the 5th is more readily revolutionary than the 3rd, so, the 3rd is a more conservative work than the 5th.

Let's now compare the 3rd to the 6th. This one's a little hard because, like most people, I see these two symphonies as sort of Gemini-like twins. Both are crytal clear pieces, lucid and lean...not an once of fat on either. But compare the rhythmic and harmonic structures of the 6th to the 3rd. I feel there is more invention and experimentation in this work.

Now compare the 3rd to the 7th. What can I say that you won't anticiapte? Among other things, Sibelius writes an entire, epic symphony that last just a little over 20 minutes in one rock solid movement. Also, listen how several rhythmic patters seem to layer on top of each other. Sort of like when you watch film footage of the atmospheric strata of Jupiter...the various "bands" of atmosphere are all turning, but at different tempi! This is the genius of the 7th, so, I think when you compare it tothe 3rd, it seems a bit more radical, thus making the 3rd seem a bit more conservative and traditional in its form.

I must remind you that I am not the arch-nemisis of the 3rd. I love the 3rd. Calling it conservative does not mean you are also calling it "lesser." I have hopefully laid out my reasoning for my opinions above.

And to address Pete's statement that the 3rd can seem lightweight to the "casual listener." I may not be a conductor or a symphonic musician, but I'd say I'm at least a little bit more than a casual listener. (I know this statement was not directly made towards me, but I still want to responde to it!) Again, this has NOTHING to do with the skill that it takes to pull of the piece. I'm sure there is very "hevy weight" string playing required of the 3rd because, after all, it is a very "stringy" work.

To address Kurki's excellent point about the remote keys of the 2nd movement, this proves that the 3rd is not without invention or Sibelian genius. This comes back to my underlying point. EVERY Sibelius symphony is a masterpiece. Every symphony has ample merits and reasons to be admired.

Anyway, these are just my opinions and are purely subjective. I'm not saying I'm right and everyone else is wrong, I'm just saying what I personally think and I know people will disagree. It what makes the forum interesting and worthwhile!

Tapkaara, can I make it clear that when I referred to a 'casual listener] I was in no way elluding to yourself!
I think that the leap from the Third Symphony to the Fourth is greater than any other composers. The thing about Sibelius's Symphonies is that it would be completely impossible to foresee the 4th after the 3rd or the 5th after the 4th and so on. I would go as far has to suggest that the distance that Sibelius travelled from the early Kullervo Symphony, through to Tapiola is greater than any other Symphonic cycle.
For me, the Symphonies of Jean Sibelius are the expression of an awsome personality in its every variety of mood, and it is sometimes dangerous to attach to many labels to them.--kullervopete.

No worries, Pete. I know you were not making a statement directly towards me.

I think you are absolutely right. The thing that is so darn marvelous about Sibbe's symphony cycle is that each work is so original and individual. This is not a composer who wrote the same music over and over again. This is a composer who had a surprise each time. (What would that 8th have sounded like????)

The distance between Kullervo and Tapiola should be measured in light years. What a musical journey!

Tapkaara wrote:

The 4th sounds like nothing before it. It sort of appears like a crop circle in the English country side.

I shiver at this coincidence. For months now, I carry around a little notepad into which I jot down topics that occur to me during the course of the day to look up later on Wikipedia. Only yesterday I wrote down, yes, Crop Circles, and looked up the interesting article

Only registered users can see links on this forum! Register or Login on forum!

, which I read not even an hour before reading Tapkaara's reference.

Here's to coincidences... or not?

Only registered users can see links on this forum! Register or Login on forum!

I don't believe in coincidences, Kurki!

I think a "crop circle" analogy if very apt for the 4th. It's mysterious, profound, sort of "out of this world" at it came with no real warning. People are confused, awe-struck by it.

I find crop circles fascinating myself. There is a "inner logic" to them that is, I think, akin to a Sibelius symphony!

Kurkikohtaus wrote:

While the second movement may seem "easy"… it explores keys that are not readily found in most works, which presents yet another challenge to the orchestra.

Back to the Third for a moment - So Kurki... did your orchestra manage to get it in tune when you performed it a while ago?

I agree that each succeeding Symphony is so different from one to the other. I think I mentioned elsewhere that poor Bruckner was accused of composing the same Symphony nine times, an accusation that could never be levelled at Sibelius.
But here is an enigma. The contrasts between the Third and Fourth Symphonies or between En Saga and Tapiola are achieved despite the fact that the same handful of characteristic Sibelian ingrediants are present. The superb use of Ostinato, the pedal points, the passages in thirds, the cross hatching from the strings and the huge chords on the brass, swelling out from nowhere. All achieved with consumate economy and restraint.
'Crop circles' was a fantastic metaphor for the Fourth Symphony.--kullervopete.

Andrew B wrote:

... did your orchestra manage to get it in tune when you performed it a while ago?

Let's say that conductor, orchestra and audience alike were all very happy when the C major chorale finally arrived at the end of the 3rd mvmt.

We all know that Sibelius premiered most of his major works and conducted them around Europe. Its a darn shame that nothing was recorded apart from the 1939 Andante festivo. Not many people living who might have been in the audience during those far off days and might have given an account first hand of Sibelius's approach to a particular symphony. But I have come across an interesting tit-bit. When Sibelius conducted his third symphony in Birmingham, England in 1921, the young Arthur C. Rankin was in the audience and he observed that J.S. conducted the slow movement at approximately the same tempo as Simon Rattle. I don't have Rattles recording of the third with CBSO but I've taken a look at a review in 'Penguin guide to compact discs.

'Simon Rattles account of the third is vastly superior to his First and Second. He finds the tempo giusto throughout and is convincing not only in his pacing but also in his capacity to relate the parts to the whole. The slow movement is particularly fine: few have penetrated its landscape more completely, and the movement throughout is magical. The way in which he gradually builds up the finale is masterly and sure of instinct. The recording made in the Warwick Arts Centre, sounds very well balanced, natural in perspective and finely detailed'.

Anyone by any chance familier with Rattles Sibelius 3.--kp