# Final Three Sibelius Symphonies



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

Which of his final 3 symphonies is the best?


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Definitely not six. It was either five or seven. I just voted based on whichever one I'm in the mood for, and right now it would be five.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

Tchaikov6 said:


> Definitely not six. It was either five or seven. I just voted based on whichever one I'm in the mood for, and right now it would be five.


That's funny because my choice of 6 is why I made the thread.


----------



## Michael Diemer (Nov 12, 2017)

For me it is 7. The culmination of his organic method of growing musical form, perfected in a single movement. Dizzying in its irresistable forward motion, captivating in its solemnity, and absolutely transcendent in its climax, which leaves you momentarily breathless, suspended in space and time; then dissolving into a mysterious sadness, which almost suggests he knew this would be his last symphony; then regaining its trajectory, and ascending into the ethereal with that final cadence. (How's that for purple prose? But such magnificent music calls for it).


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Gonna give them a spin and vote later.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Still #5 for me. But it's a good excuse to give the other two a listen!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Michael Diemer said:


> For me it is 7. The culmination of his organic method of growing musical form, perfected in a single movement. Dizzying in its irresistable forward motion, captivating in its solemnity, and absolutely transcendent in its climax, which leaves you momentarily breathless, suspended in space and time; then dissolving into a mysterious sadness, which almost suggests he knew this would be his last symphony; then regaining its trajectory, and ascending into the ethereal with that final cadence. (How's that for purple prose? But such magnificent music calls for it).


I agree with your sense of the work. But as far as colorful prose is concerned, I prefer a cool blue-green.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

As usual, I'll take _best_ to mean my favourite.

5, just over 6, clearly over 7.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

No. 7 by far, it's one of my favorite symphonies in general.


----------



## T Son of Ander (Aug 25, 2015)

I love all three, but I definitely listen to 6 the most. I'd have to say it's the outer movements, especially the finale, that put it over the others for me.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

#5 for me, it is also my favorite of all Sibelius symphonies....#1 a close 2nd.
#6 is my least favorite....I think it's the only misfire of the 7....


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

My favorite out of these is 6, I think one could make a decent argument the 7th is the greatest of them. 5 has fallen out of favor for me, there are some works where I think Sibelius abuses the timpani (used too often to similar effect), 5 is one of these works.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

I used to like the 5th over all his others, but for the past ten years or so, the 4th and 6th have risen to the top.


----------



## cougarjuno (Jul 1, 2012)

5th by a comfortable margin


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

The final one was his finest. Usually are for many composers.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Sibelius called his 6th a drink of clear, cold spring water, in contrast to the exotic cocktails concocted by his contemporaries. I wonder if he had Mahler in mind? The 6th is perhaps a bit elusive for both conductors and listeners, but its pastoral freshness and delicate melancholy are deeply touching to many Sibelians, including me. 

I don't know why we're choosing only among the last three symphonies, since the stark and troubled 4th certainly belongs in their company as both a masterwork and a favorite. They're all unique and wonderful, and I can't rank them except for the 7th, which attains something I can only call sublimity. When it's over, the very idea of an 8th is difficult to entertain - and obviously difficult for Sibelius to produce. Our loss.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Did anyone attempt to complete the unfinished symphony?


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

A toss up between Nos 6 and 7, with No.6 getting the final nod. It's Sibelius' most perfect symphony, clean, clear and serene. And I tend to end up loving the Cinderella symphonies with quite a few of the big symphonists - Schumann's 2nd, Dvorak 8th, so why not?


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

ArtMusic - I assume you are referring to Sibelius 8th as the unfinished one? All I have heard are a few bars/snippets, which I don't think were even performed until a few years ago. Really not much to go on, a bit like piecing together a full human body based on a small patch of thigh! If anyone ever tried, it would be pure conjecture, surely?

Those bits - all three-ish minutes of them - are available on John Storgards otherwise pretty unremarkable Chandos cycle.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Seven is my favorite of the three. Four is my favorite overall.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

The Seventh is great but the Fifth and Sixth are very nearly as good. I don't think there's a Sibelius symphony that I don't like. Even the Third, which seems to be the least popular for some reason, although I don't understand why.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Robert Pickett said:


> A toss up between Nos 6 and 7, with No.6 getting the final nod. It's Sibelius' most perfect symphony, clean, clear and serene. And I tend to end up loving the Cinderella symphonies with quite a few of the big symphonists - Schumann's 2nd, Dvorak 8th, so why not?


What imperfections do you find in the others?


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

For a start I find those big final chords and the big empty pauses at the end of the Fifth a tad irritating! That's the only Sibelius symphony I don't really love, sorry.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

chill782002 said:


> I don't think there's a Sibelius symphony that I don't like.


I can certainly relate to that.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

chill782002 said:


> The Seventh is great but the Fifth and Sixth are very nearly as good. I don't think there's a Sibelius symphony that I don't like. Even the Third, which seems to be the least popular for some reason, although I don't understand why.


Agreed, the consistent quality over the whole cycle is almost unparalleled (the only one that can compete in this respect is Brahms' four to my taste).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Robert Pickett said:


> For a start I find those big final chords and the big empty pauses at the end of the Fifth a tad irritating! That's the only Sibelius symphony I don't really love, sorry.


It is an unusual ending, and for a time I couldn't understand why I liked it. Then I realized that it outlines harmonically the big horn theme; you can fill in the tune mentally, so the pauses aren't empty at all. I've asked myself what else he might have done after the big buildup to the subdominant chord, and I suspect his only other option would have been a quiet ending.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

Art Rock said:


> Agreed, the consistent quality over the whole cycle is almost unparalleled (the only one that can compete in this respect is Brahms' four to my taste).


I agree entirely with you on the Four Brahms Symphonies.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

Haydn67 said:


> I agree entirely with you on the Four Brahms Symphonies.


Hard to argue with that. I'm struggling to think of any composer other than those two where I like all the symphonies they wrote to such a high degree and regularly rotate between them.

I count several of Beethoven's symphonies as some of the greatest works ever written but a couple of the others don't hugely grab me and I don't frequently listen to them. Same with Bruckner and Mahler. In fact, Mahler's 7th and Bruckner's 9th may be my two favourite symphonies of all but a couple of their others I barely listen to.

All personal taste at the end of the day but Sibelius and Brahms were extraordinarily consistent, at least, as far as my symphonic listening is concerned.


----------



## Michael Diemer (Nov 12, 2017)

I agree that his 7 symphonies are all tremendous, there is nothing sub-par about any of them. Consistently of the highest quality. But then, I'm still waiting to hear something by him that is not immediately appealing, while also standing up to the nth listening. Perhaps some of his light or parlor music, of which I understand he wrote a tremendous quantity, but which we in the states almost never hear? What I find so interesting about Sibelius is that his music is instantly recognizable, yet all his works are so individualistic. Each of the symphonies is cut from a fresh new block of granite. Same with the tone poems. No formulas for him. One of the most amazing things about his incredible genius.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I'm a sucker for the 5th. I need to listen to the first version more.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Robert Pickett said:


> For a start I find those big final chords and the big empty pauses at the end of the Fifth a tad irritating! That's the only Sibelius symphony I don't really love, sorry.


for #5, Try Bernstein/NYPO - it all makes sense...the closing section is overwhelming...


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

chill782002 said:


> Hard to argue with that. I'm struggling to think of any composer other than those two where I like all the symphonies they wrote to such a high degree and regularly rotate between them.
> 
> I count several of Beethoven's symphonies as some of the greatest works ever written but a couple of the others don't hugely grab me and I don't frequently listen to them. Same with Bruckner and Mahler. In fact, Mahler's 7th and Bruckner's 9th may be my two favourite symphonies of all but a couple of their others I barely listen to.
> 
> All personal taste at the end of the day but Sibelius and Brahms were extraordinarily consistent, at least, as far as my symphonic listening is concerned.


We're close to being twins here: Ditto on the Brahms and Sibelius Symphonies; otherwise, Beethoven never a big favorite for me. His "Eroica" and 8th okay; Bruckner 7th and 8th, ditto; enjoy Mahler's 4th and 9th; same for Dvorak's 7th and especially his 8th, as well as Mendelssohn's "Italian" and "Scottish", Schumann's "Spring" and "Rhenish", Schubert's 5th and 9th. Love Vaughan Williams' 3rd and 5th, and enjoy about half of Haydn's 104 Symphonies.


----------



## Michael Diemer (Nov 12, 2017)

Perhaps another composer whose symphonic output is of consistently high quality would be Schumann. I also have found that they sound better the older I get. Whatever that might mean.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

Haydn67 said:


> We're close to being twins here: Ditto on the Brahms and Sibelius Symphonies; otherwise, Beethoven never a big favorite for me. His "Eroica" and 8th okay; Bruckner 7th and 8th, ditto; enjoy Mahler's 4th and 9th; same for Dvorak's 7th and especially his 8th, as well as Mendelssohn's "Italian" and "Scottish", Schumann's "Spring" and "Rhenish", Schubert's 5th and 9th. Love Vaughan Williams' 3rd and 5th, and enjoy about half of Haydn's 104 Symphonies.


Certainly not far off.

Beethoven - Love the 3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th, quite like the 4th and 9th, very rarely listen to the 1st, 2nd or 8th.

Bruckner - 9th is a favourite, really like the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th and 8th, hardly ever listen to the 00, 0, 1st and 2nd. Don't like the 6th at all.

Mahler - 7th is a favourite, really like the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th and the Adagio of the 10th, less keen on the 4th, 5th and 9th. Not keen on the 8th.

Dvorak - 7th and 8th are the best, 9th is nice but don't understand why it's more popular than the 7th and 8th. Not particularly interested in the earlier symphonies.

Mendelssohn - Far prefer his overtures to his symphonies, but the "Italian" is fun.

Schumann - Not really a fan although I guess the "Spring" is OK. I prefer his solo piano works.

Schubert - 3rd, 5th, 8th and 9th, can live without the others.

Vaughan Williams - Love the 5th and the "Sinfonia Antarctica", less keen on the others, avoid the 4th.

Haydn - Can't think of very many that I don't like but there are so many that some are obviously more popular than others. Particular favourites include 44 ("Trauer"), 49 ("La Passione), 59 ("Fire") and 64 ("Tempora Mutantur"), I like the Paris and London symphonies but wouldn't rank them higher than his Sturm and Drang period, which I think was his creative peak.

Brahms and Sibelius though, every symphony is a winner.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Morning, Heck! I seem to remember you trying to convince me of the merits of Bernstein's Sibelius over on the other place, on that wonderful long-running Sibelius Appreciation Thread. I still don't hear what you mean - about Bernstein in general, alas - and in that Bernstein box, the only performances I like are his Sixth, which is uncharacteristically cold, and his Pohjola's Daughter, which he gets absolutely right, a thrilling performance. But otherwise sadly, I remain unconvinced.

On the "most consistent symphonist" musings going on here too, I reckon I have six composers from whom there are no weak or uninteresting symphonies - personal feeling, as with others here - and Sibelius and Brahms have to be on that list. But I'd also add Beethoven, even if it's been a while since I listened to one or two of them; Mahler, all ten or eleven can keep me entertained all year long; and I have to endorse the rating above of Schumann's four too, not a weak or dull one among them. I'd nearly put Nielsen on the list too, but the first two are not quite on the same level as the last four; I don't like RVW's Sea Symphony; but 8/9 is not bad, everything that follows is wonderful, even the Antartica on its day; Dvorak from Five onwards is a true great; Bruckner from Three onwards. Shostakovich for me lets himself down with the vacuousness of Nos 2 and 3 and of course the biggest piece of rubbish by a major composer, the super-vacuous Twelfth. Haydn, of course is one of the absolute absolute symphonic giants, but while I reckon I am doing quite well with his hundred and whatever, I'm nowhere near knowing even half of them as well as I feel I ought.  Couldn't agree more that his Sturm und Drang works are at least every bit as good as the Londons or the Parises.
My sixth super-symphonist across the board has to be Bohuslav Martinu. None are weak works or unworthy of the set, even if for me the strongest and most wonderful have to be Nos 4 and 5. Interestingly, recently I bought the Cambridge Guide to the Symphony, cheaply as the Kindle edition, and Martinu doesn't even merit a mention.


----------



## manyene (Feb 7, 2015)

Impossible to choose - each has huge merits and an individual character that defies any attempt at judgement.


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

Sadly, there's not enough left of the 8th (as far aw we know) to even construct a fragment, let alone movement or complete work.


----------



## Neward Thelman (Apr 6, 2017)

Tchaikov6 said:


> Definitely not six. It was either five or seven. I just voted based on whichever one I'm in the mood for, and right now it would be five.


Definitely. Definitely. Not six. No. Definitely.

My vote - and these are important activities - goes to 4.6578.


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

I registered my vote for the Seventh, primarily because it was the culmination of his development in symphonic form, although I might in actual fact rate the Second or Fifth Symphonies higher in terms of sheer enjoyment. The Fourth and Seventh are his most intense symphonies (followed by the First) and certainly not always "easy listening", although the First is a bit more digestible because it is more traditional in structure. In contrast to the First, Fourth and Seventh, the Third and Sixth are mostly genial works. Although I love all of the Sibelius Symphonies, and think the Sixth as an extraordinary work in its own right, I would probably rank in last place. So, in conclusion, perhaps the Second and Fifth are the most satisfying blend of darkness and light in all his symphonies, while the Sixth may ultimately be too light and genial to truly rate as one of the very greatest, and the Seventh may be his most impressive technical achievement although not the most enjoyable.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

As always, I took 'best' to intend 'favourite' and so voted for #6, currently lagging third in this poll. Much as I love #5 for its energy and sense of space and #7 for its drama and coherence, #6 is so beautifully, meticulously constructed out of modal fragments that seem to have little in common yet they slot together perfectly. #6 never shouts or waves its arms around to gain attention: it just quietly gets on with the job of being a complex but engaging symphony. And I love Sibelius's own comment on #6: "It always puts me in mind of the smell of the first winter snow".


----------



## kyjo (Jan 1, 2018)

The 7th is my favorite of the three overall - it's a deeply absorbing masterwork. That said, the finale of the 5th is one of my favorite movements in all of music. The 6th is great too, of course.


----------



## Beet131 (Mar 24, 2018)

All three are wonderful! I am partial to No. 5, but No. 7 is incredible too. The tension Sibelius creates in the beginning of the fourth movement is a brilliant depiction of swans about ready to take off, and the orchestration with horns honking like swans is absolutely thrilling. I prefer absolute music to program music, but Sibelius dazzles me with his interpretations of nature (such as in "The Tempest). Ah! Such a conundrum! No. 6 is great too!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

bz3 said:


> Which of his final 3 symphonies is the best?


I would vote for Symphony # 7, not only as the best among the final three Sibelius symphonies, but also as the finest among the complete seven symphonies.

Listen to the great Eugene Ormandy/Philadelphia Orchestra performance of Sibelius Symphony # 7 and see if you agree.


----------



## Beet131 (Mar 24, 2018)

I remember reading somewhere that Sibelius' Symphony No. 7 was a triumphant conclusion to the repertoire of C Major Symphonies, suggesting that as a key C Major might as well be retired because no will ever top it again. Does this ring true with you hpowders? Are there some contemporary examples of C Major Symphonies that can compare? I don't think so, but I'm not quite sure since I haven't heard everything yet


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Beet131 said:


> I remember reading somewhere that Sibelius' Symphony No. 7 was a triumphant conclusion to the repertoire of C Major Symphonies, suggesting that as a key C Major might as well be retired because no will ever top it again. Does this ring true with you hpowders? Are there some contemporary examples of C Major Symphonies that can compare? *I don't think* *so*, but I'm not quite sure since I haven't heard everything yet


I agree. Luckily for me, my main interest centers on Haydn and Mozart. Some great C Major symphonies there: No. 82 and 97 by Haydn and No. 41 by Mozart.


----------



## Beet131 (Mar 24, 2018)

So true! Haydn's No. 97 and Mozart's No. 41 are two of my favorite pieces. I'm not sure that Mozart's "Jupiter" can ever be beat for C Major!


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Pugg said:


> Gonna give them a spin and vote later.


Finally decided, going for No 7


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

In my opinion, the only reason you wouldn't vote for five is because you haven't heard the right recording. I like Bernstein, NY, personally.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

20centrfuge said:


> In my opinion, the only reason you wouldn't vote for five is because you haven't heard the right recording. I like Bernstein, NY, personally.


I have the whole box set so that is not the problem actually.


----------



## Steve Wright (Mar 13, 2015)

christomacin said:


> In contrast to the First, Fourth and Seventh, the Third and Sixth are mostly genial works (...) the Sixth may ultimately be too light and genial to truly rate as one of the very greatest.


'Light and genial' is not how I would describe the Sixth. Just because it's neither dramatic and tempestuous (1, parts of 2 and 5) or dark and brooding (4, parts of 7) doesn't make it light and genial. No, other words like 'evanescent', 'ethereal' and 'elusive' come much more readily to mind. As for a mood somewhere on the happy to sad scale, I can't particularly place it (wistful comes closest, perhaps) and that ambiguity is part of its (huge) charm.


----------



## Steve Wright (Mar 13, 2015)

Robert Pickett said:


> On the "most consistent symphonist" musings going on here too, I reckon I have six composers from whom there are no weak or uninteresting symphonies - personal feeling, as with others here - and Sibelius and Brahms have to be on that list. But I'd also add Beethoven, even if it's been a while since I listened to one or two of them; Mahler, all ten or eleven can keep me entertained all year long; and I have to endorse the rating above of Schumann's four too, not a weak or dull one among them. I'd nearly put Nielsen on the list too, but the first two are not quite on the same level as the last four; I don't like RVW's Sea Symphony; but 8/9 is not bad, everything that follows is wonderful, even the Antartica on its day; Dvorak from Five onwards is a true great; Bruckner from Three onwards. Shostakovich for me lets himself down with the vacuousness of Nos 2 and 3 and of course the biggest piece of rubbish by a major composer, the super-vacuous Twelfth. Haydn, of course is one of the absolute absolute symphonic giants, but while I reckon I am doing quite well with his hundred and whatever, I'm nowhere near knowing even half of them as well as I feel I ought.  Couldn't agree more that his Sturm und Drang works are at least every bit as good as the Londons or the Parises.
> My sixth super-symphonist across the board has to be Bohuslav Martinu. None are weak works or unworthy of the set, even if for me the strongest and most wonderful have to be Nos 4 and 5. Interestingly, recently I bought the Cambridge Guide to the Symphony, cheaply as the Kindle edition, and Martinu doesn't even merit a mention.


Nice summing up. I agree Martinu's six are extraordinarily consistent. Agree with your other summaries, though I think Nielsen 1 and 2 are a blast - but we're talking perfection here aren't we, and I don't have the in-depth musical knowledge to agree or disagree - I just know I enjoy them. 
Another composer I would rank very highly across the board is Tchaikovsky. 1-3 are generally held in less high esteem than 4-6, but I ADORE those first three. 3 is one of my favourite symphonies by anyone, though I think even I can recoognise it's not the last word in symphonic sophistication. And 2... so exciting.
And Haydn... what a strike rate! I am working my way through the 104, probably know roughly half now.. and by golly, not one of them is less than very enjoyable. Agree that the Sturm und Drang period contains some of his masterpieces - 44, 45, 49, 52...


----------



## Judith (Nov 11, 2015)

Voted no 7. Was introduced to this symphony by someone on Twitter and was hooked. Absolutely beautiful!


----------



## Guest (May 9, 2018)

Why, 6th of course...duh!


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Steve Wright said:


> 'Light and genial' is not how I would describe the Sixth. Just because it's neither dramatic and tempestuous (1, parts of 2 and 5) or dark and brooding (4, parts of 7) doesn't make it light and genial. No, other words like 'evanescent', 'ethereal' and 'elusive' come much more readily to mind. As for a mood somewhere on the happy to sad scale, I can't particularly place it (wistful comes closest, perhaps) and that ambiguity is part of its (huge) charm.


Nicely put, and you have expressed exactly why I would rate 6 above 7 above 5. But narrowly!


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

I didn’t get the 6th at first, but ultimately I have really come to love it. The 5th and 7th made their marks right away. I voted for 5 because I think it is one of the great Symphonies. The Seventh for me is the weakest,as I feel the Composer seems to have said the same thing better in Tapiola


----------



## Gottfried (Feb 16, 2018)

These are my three favorite Sibelius symphonies. Not easy, therefore, to give preference to just one. I voted for #7 as the most complete, well crafted and refined expression of Sibelius's symphonic approach. #6 has just the fresh and clean quality Sibelius sought to give to it. #5 is a particular favorite, wonderfully moving and memorable, and would have been my choice if the terms of the poll were more personal. In a sense, the choice between the two is akin to that between Mozart's #40 and #41.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

Another vote for No.7, for the same reasons others have already stated for this symphony


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

I will be at the Barbican (London) this Thursday (17th May 2018) to hear a performance of the 7th. I heard the 5th there last month and it was incredibly overwhelming.

Just recommending that people hear this music live if they haven't yet


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)




----------



## Gottfried (Feb 16, 2018)

Quote Originally Posted by Robert Pickett View Post
On the "most consistent symphonist" musings going on here too, I reckon I have six composers from whom there are no weak or uninteresting symphonies - personal feeling, as with others here - and Sibelius and Brahms have to be on that list. But I'd also add Beethoven, even if it's been a while since I listened to one or two of them; Mahler, all ten or eleven can keep me entertained all year long; and I have to endorse the rating above of Schumann's four too, not a weak or dull one among them. I'd nearly put Nielsen on the list too, but the first two are not quite on the same level as the last four; I don't like RVW's Sea Symphony; but 8/9 is not bad, everything that follows is wonderful, even the Antartica on its day; Dvorak from Five onwards is a true great; Bruckner from Three onwards. Shostakovich for me lets himself down with the vacuousness of Nos 2 and 3 and of course the biggest piece of rubbish by a major composer, the super-vacuous Twelfth. Haydn, of course is one of the absolute absolute symphonic giants, but while I reckon I am doing quite well with his hundred and whatever, I'm nowhere near knowing even half of them as well as I feel I ought. Couldn't agree more that his Sturm und Drang works are at least every bit as good as the Londons or the Parises.
My sixth super-symphonist across the board has to be Bohuslav Martinu. None are weak works or unworthy of the set, even if for me the strongest and most wonderful have to be Nos 4 and 5. Interestingly, recently I bought the Cambridge Guide to the Symphony, cheaply as the Kindle edition, and Martinu doesn't even merit a mention.

Steve Wright
Nice summing up. I agree Martinu's six are extraordinarily consistent. Agree with your other summaries, though I think Nielsen 1 and 2 are a blast - but we're talking perfection here aren't we, and I don't have the in-depth musical knowledge to agree or disagree - I just know I enjoy them. 
Another composer I would rank very highly across the board is Tchaikovsky. 1-3 are generally held in less high esteem than 4-6, but I ADORE those first three. 3 is one of my favourite symphonies by anyone, though I think even I can recoognise it's not the last word in symphonic sophistication. And 2... so exciting.
And Haydn... what a strike rate! I am working my way through the 104, probably know roughly half now.. and by golly, not one of them is less than very enjoyable. Agree that the Sturm und Drang period contains some of his masterpieces - 44, 45, 49, 52...

Agree with both posts. Tchaikovsky's third is also my favorite of his symphonies. Shostakovich _very_ uneven, but likely inadvertently so (some of his musical virtues, _and _his vices, might well be attributed to the misfortune of his circumstances). I have long considered Haydn's sturm und drang, and other earlier symphonies, as equally deserving of esteem as the best of the London symphonies.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Triplets said:


> The Seventh for me is the weakest, as I feel the composer seems to have said the same thing better in Tapiola


I believe they say very different things. One work is a tribute to human love, hope and endurance. The other is a contemplation of the merciless power of nature, to which humanity means nothing. In the one, Sibelius undergoes the storm of life and survives. In the other, he gives us the storm in its terrifying purity and vanishes within it. These are the opposite poles of his nature: to assert himself as Man, come what may, but then to lose and restore himself through identification with the forest and the stars. It's his special art often to make us feel both at once, and to wonder how much of the man we're being permitted to see. These two works give us very different approaches to that paradox.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I can just about bear not choosing 6 but how is it possible to choose between 5 and 7, both so different and yet so great? 5 is perhaps more traditional in what it attempts (I'm not talking about structure or language) but is overwhelmingly successful in this. And then there is that heavenly ending that makes us all feel that the music is continuing for ever somewhere ... . 7 is striking in its ambition to encompass so much in such a brief span. It is both powerful and absolutely perfect (a rare combination).

Incidentally, I am not usually one who gets too excited by hearing the changes composers made on their way to their final version of a work but the earlier version of 5 - that Sibelius then revised to give us the version we know - is so different. It has so much that is good in it and it astonishes me that Sibelius was able to jettison so much. He was right - the resulting work is much tighter - but what discipline! It can be heard on this record:


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I believe they say very different things. One work is a tribute to human love, hope and endurance. The other is a contemplation of the merciless power of nature, to which humanity means nothing. In the one, Sibelius undergoes the storm of life and survives. In the other, he gives us the storm in its terrifying purity and vanishes within it. These are the opposite poles of his nature: to assert himself as Man, come what may, but then to lose and restore himself through identification with the forest and the stars. It's his special art often to make us feel both at once, and to wonder how much of the man we're being permitted to see. These two works give us very different approaches to that paradox.


 We are welcome to interpret the 'meaning ' of the works as we wish, but I was referring to how the works sound to me, harmonically. The Seventh sounds like a dry run for the great tone poem


----------

