Talk:Symphony No. 4 (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.

Longer[edit]

This is an incredibly important work. This is an important work and it has a little, little article. Far more little than it deserves. There should be musical examples and an analysis and all sorts of stuff. It shouldn't be written by me, though. Someone smart should do it. Gingermint (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Length of available recordings[edit]

Of all the Sibelius symphonies, the fourth has the most variable duration, since different conductors make very different decisions of tempi in the first and third movements. The available recordings are between 31 and 39 minutes long.

This unsourced claim seems rather dubious to me. Does the person who wrote this sentence have access to every recording of the 4th every made? A quick Google search turned up a usenet thread that claims a Gibson recording is only 28 minutes long: [1]. I'm removing this paragraph from the main article until it can be backed up with citations. Grover cleveland 17:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The available recordings" doesn't have to mean "every recording ever made".

In fact, the recording conducted by Gibson does take 31 minutes. The playing times stated on the usenet thread are partly wrong. The correct timings can be found at the website of the record company Chandos. [2]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.10.162.15 (talk) 06:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. However, the original claim still fails WP:V and WP:OR without a citation. Grover cleveland (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Movements[edit]

The statement on the reversal of order of second and third movements relative to the norm for a classical symphony, while true, seems overstated to me. I do not think it is so unusual; Borodin's First Symphony and Rachmaninov's Second Symphony are just two other examples that spring to mind. Indeed, if one regards the first movement of Sibelius's Fifth Symphony in the 1919 version as the conflation of first movement and scherzo from its 1915 forerunner, then that work is another example from the Sibelius cycle. -- Alan Peakall 23:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bell part[edit]

Someone recently put in that the bell part is really for tubular bells/chimes. In fact it is a glockenspiel part, as the corrected score clearly indicates; there is also a letter from Sibelius (of which I own a copy) clarifying this point of confusion. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 19:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]