Talk:Symphony No. 3 (Sibelius)

	Classical music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Finland High‑importance

	Finland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Finland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FinlandWikipedia:WikiProject FinlandTemplate:WikiProject FinlandFinland articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Encyclopedic?[edit]

A pretty good essay on this symphony, but some parts are maybe a tad POV. For example, "a manner that is brilliant in its simplicity," "a movement of supreme clarity," and "with woodwinds and horns providing masterful, touching comments." Not sure how to clean this up! Opus131 (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All such statements need to quote a specific reliable source, and there should not be too many of them in any case. The problem here is that if the author is copying text directly from the book mentioned it is a copyright violation and if not it is original research and, as you say, own point of view. Other authors have also been adding information without providing sources so the whole article as, from the point of view of sourcing and reliability, a mess. The phrases you have quoted, and anything similar, should probably be removed. --Mirokado (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out: if saying that a musical passage is "clear" is a copyright infringement, there is no language to talk about music here (and I'm not against technical language, but sometimes to describe a musical bar is meaningless to the general signification of a work of music). --Leonardo T. Oliveira (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no issue with "clear" (as long as it's sourced). But "a movement of supreme clarity" is not a form of words that people typically use, and hence it can be reasonably identified as coming from a particular source, and hence a cut and paste job. "... a manner that is brilliant in its simplicity" is not exactly a household expression either. We can certainly use words taken from sources to some degree, but all these are doing is parrotting someone else's POV. I'm sure we could find a source that's nowhere near as adulatory about the alleged clarity and brilliant simplicity of this passage. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of this symphony, or even the first movement only -"supreme" clarity? All the textures in this symphony are clear throughout, surely? But I suspect "austere romantics" to be a mistranscription from an anonymous source - mind you, if that is what the original author originally wrote, he or she will probably be a little shy of claiming any proprietorship. It might be more useful to set this movement's exploitation of hemiola rhythm in the context of Sibelius's modes of dramatic incidental music. Nothing like this occurs in either of the first two symphonies, but the style will recur in the inner movements of the Fourth and Sixth. The coda is very carefully poised to anticipate the opening of the third movement. It's not completely absent from the music of the Seventh, either. None of that would involve original research - Tovey covers some of the ground.Delahays (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with previous commentators about this article, which is subjective to a fault in language and interpretation, and hardly factual enough. Nor is there any mention of the important controversy over the interpretation of the second movement, which is perhaps more an intermezzo than a slow movement proper. Its (possibly) ambiguous marking '6/4: Andantino con moto, quasi allegretto' has led to extreme divergences in tempo from conductors down the years, and really needs to be unpacked for readers. Describing the movement definitely as a 'nocturne' seems to me almost inexplicable: it perhaps represents a traditional, "romantic" view of this classically light (but never lightweight), transitional symphony. I'd have a go at rewriting this myself, if I wasn't afraid of being murdered! Zarzuelauk (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music (audio) clips?[edit]

I see music (audio) clips placed in this article but I don't hear music. My browser, or a problem with the page source? 107.77.221.116 (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Score error[edit]

The second theme of the first movement appears to be incorrectly quoted. The 4th and 5th notes should be D - C, not B - A as shown. See for example this recording https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZST63q-vGM with the second theme appearing at 0:37" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.179.215 (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. intforce (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]