Why is this Symphony still perhaps the least performed of the seven? Sibelius described it as 'His beloved and least fortunate child'. As I see it, the work is less obviously appealing than the more colourful heroics of the first two, but it is a more powerful work than either. Any views?--kullervopete.

Good question and I'm sure people will give answers regarding its length, style and so on... but I love it and cannot understand why other people are less positive. Incidentally, the slow movement of this symphony is said to be Osmo Vänskä's favourite Sibelius symphony movement. So, all you other conductors, how about it?

My instinct would tell me that it is the 6th and not the 3rd that is least performed, but that is based on nothing other than my Toronto experiences and casual surfing of orchestral websites. The Finnish and British scene are probably better indicators of which is more (or less) popular.

To the question at hand: after having heard (on recording only) and studied the piece, I always wondered if the ending would "come off" when performed live, whether it is strong and affirmative enough, or whether it will leave the audience with an unfulfilled sense of further expectation. The reason I say this is that on the several recordings I sampled (good ones by all accounts...), it never quite "came off" for me.

This said, the 3rd was my first big Sibelian venture in Marienbad in March 2006 (having already done Finlandia, Valse Triste, Kurkikohtaus and the Violin Concerto), mostly by default. We are too small to play the 1st and 2nd, and not "good enough" (yet) to play the 4th or 5th, and weren't versed enough in Sibelius at that time to play the 7th.

Well, the ending was very satisfying for the orchestra, after the grueling technical demands of the scherzo, the arrival of the hymn was a breath of fresh air (or a drink of cool, clear water, to paraphrase everybody), and the steady climb to the top with the final arrival on the C+ triad was a well deserved and well enjoyed moment for the entire orchestra. And I believe that is why it "came off" for the audience as well. Because they were there and they felt the orchestras sigh of relief and renewed commitment to the enjoyment of the music once the hymn started, and felt each individual players exhiliration while playing the last bars. Perhaps this is the experience that is missing on recordings, which is why it may not sound as affirmative over stereo-speakers as it does live in a concert hall.

Yes, undoubtedly the 6th runs the 3rd closely as regards relative neglect, but one element in the Third Symphony as always intrigued me. Two schools of thought seem to exist as to the speed of the exquisite middle movement. On the one hand we have the very slow and measured pace adopted by Robert Kajanus in his early recording, a tradition carried on by Osmo Vanska and Sir Colin Davies and in complete contrast, the much quicker and more dance like style. Two examples of this approach being Anthony Collins and Kurt Sanderling. Could I ask maestro Kurki how he sees this music?.--kullervopete.

(always bearing in mind that Sibelius himself conducted it in six and wished to make it a proper slow movement - after all it would be goofy to have two consecutive scherzo sections!)

I knew of this issue going into the piece, having heard the various speeds of various conductors. 3 months before the concert I banned myself from listening to any more recordings in hopes that I would find some inner tempo that was right for me.

In the end I did the movement in a faster 6, occaisionally melding into 2.

I may have a clip of the dress rehearsal somewhere, I will see if I can post it in the media section if I dig it up.

Tovey described this movement as an Intermezzo combining the function of slow movement and scherzo 'The key is remote: G sharp minor stands to C, as Beethoven's F sharp minor stands to B flat in his Sonata, op, 106. The rhythm revives an ancient ambiguity of triple time. In ancient days the notion of triple time was by no means as rigid as it is in modern music. To the modern musician twice three is not only different from thrice two but hard to reconcile with it. Once you have established the system one-two-three-four-five-six, you will find it hard to change casually into one-two-Three-four-Five-six. A poetic ear has no such difficulty: for poetic stresses are much lighter and less rigid than the powerful muscular energies of musical rhythm. Nevertheless, in the sixteenth century the musical triple times were as vague as the poetic. In all Palestrina you will find no sustained passage on a six-beat basis that does not shift from twice three to thrice two. In the 18th century the shift from thrice two to twice three is a regular characteristic of the French courante: and in every cadence in triple time in Handel's works you will see the opposite shift, the majestic broadening from twice three to thrice two'. Tovey claims that Sibelius has erected 'Handel's faulty declamation. into a system throughout the charming intermezzo of his Third Symphony and Granville Bantock to whom the Third is dedicated as remarked that Sibelius requires the conductor to beat the time in such a way as to emphasize these shifting accents.
Much food for thought here for conductors.--kullervopete.

On Tovey's comments:

A nice way to put Sibelius' use of hemiola into historical perspective, albeit a little vague. But obviously he knew what he was talking about and could most certainly give detailed examples.

As for his reference to the "remote" key of G#, he may have missed the boat a little on this one.

G# is the enharmonic of Ab, which in C is the Neapolitan of the Dominant, a chord and a key area firmly established by Beethoven ...

Insert wrote:

... again, he seems to misinterpret the F# to Bb relation, which is in fact Gb to Bb, again, the Neapolitan degree of the Dominant...

... as an important alternative to the dominant and subdominant.

The point of all this is that G# (or Ab) is not remote and is a hundred year old device by the time Sibelius used it here.

Most interesting and I for one would not wish to cross swords with the maestro here. But surely the key of this middle movement, G sharp minor contrasts very much with the two outer movements that are both in C. In this central movement that Sibelius marks, Andantino con moto, quasi allegretto, I feel a remoteness from the more dynamic outer movements. This music has all the elegance of a summers day.--kullervopete.

Or, to quote Axel Carpelan, 'a child's prayer'.

I hope you do find the dress rehearsal clip - would be fascinating!

Andrew B wrote:

...would be fascinating!

Or embarrassing...

Also, the Third Symphony reveals two kinds of musical extremes. In the opening, Sibelius revels in a complete mastery of 'Classical movement', it is music that Haydn, Beethoven and Schubert would have deeply understood. On the other hand in the last movement the motion is essentially Wagnerian, as Robert Simpson as remarked 'It is almost as fixedly rooted in C as The Rheingold prelude is chained to E flat'.
It seems that Sibelius would have to discover some very special chemistry before these two extremes of movement could be intergrated. This was triumphantly achieved in the Fifth Symphony.--kullervopete.

Chemistry - step forward Borodin!

So you regard the Third as inferior to the Fifth because the extremes are not integrated? (Or was that also quoting Robert Simpson?)

Emphaticly no! please do not put words into my mouth.

Each of the Sibelius Symphonies can stand on their own merits, but the problem of movement, frequent in Sibelius's earlier work was in my submission solved magnificently in The Fifth. [See Tovey, Quotes about the 7th]--kullervopete.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth; I am most reassured that you regard the Third as highly as the others.

The Thirds absence of 'up front' emotion and colourful rhetoric as no doubt contributed to its relative neglect, sandwiched as it is between the 'National Romantic' Second and the radical and intensly personal Fourth.
I was looking the other day at other music being written around this time [1904-07]--Mahlers 6th Symphony and Kindertotenlieder, Richard Strauss 'Salome' and Symphonia domestica, Ravel's Alborada del gracioso, Scriabin 'Divine Poem', Schoenberg's Pelleas und Melisand and Puccini's 'Madame Butterfly'. Quite a vintage!
Against these works, Sibelius's Third must have appeared somewhat at odds with its time.
But the Symphony in some ways is akin to an athlete flexing his muscles, lithe and supple with vast reserves of energy. During the next two decades, many Composer's heard the call for a 'leaner' life, but I think that Jean Sibelius heard it first.--kullervopete.

Ah, the second movement of the third is one of my favorites, simple and graceful beauty.

kullervopete wrote:

The Thirds absence of 'up front' emotion and colourful rhetoric as no doubt contributed to its relative neglect, sandwiched as it is between the 'National Romantic' Second and the radical and intensly personal Fourth. I was looking the other day at other music being written around this time [1904-07]--Mahlers 6th Symphony and Kindertotenlieder, Richard Strauss 'Salome' and Symphonia domestica, Ravel's Alborada del gracioso, Scriabin 'Divine Poem', Schoenberg's Pelleas und Melisand and Puccini's 'Madame Butterfly'. Quite a vintage! Against these works, Sibelius's Third must have appeared somewhat at odds with its time. But the Symphony in some ways is akin to an athlete flexing his muscles, lithe and supple with vast reserves of energy. During the next two decades, many Composer's heard the call for a 'leaner' life, but I think that Jean Sibelius heard it first.--kullervopete.

Yes, the symphony is akin to the neoclassicism that followed the pre-WWI heavy and dramatic music. I agree, it's maybe a bit ahead of its time.

I noticed the ending of the third symphony is similar to the ending of fifth symphony's first movement (the ending in the fifth is more powerful though). Does this type of endings appear in more Sibelius works?

I think one could classify the end of Lemminkainen's Return into this category of endings. As I posted elsewhere, I actually find it strikingly similar to the end of the 1st mvmt of the 5th, moreso than to the 3rd, but the category holds.

Saturnus wrote:

Yes, the symphony is akin to the neoclassicism that followed the pre-WWI heavy and dramatic music. I agree, it's maybe a bit ahead of its time.

Yeeeeeees... except for me neoclassicism has elements and overtones of pastiche that aren't present in Sibelius 3. People have tended to get around this by comparing it instead to Busoni's idea of Young Classicism, Junge Klassizität. That is convenient, bearing in mind JS's friendship with Busoni, but can in turn lead to the erroneous idea that JS was influenced as a composer by Busoni.

None of which detracts from the Third Symphony's greatness, of course!