The 4th - the 'Taking Stock' Symphony?

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
Your explanation makes sense - it is Hopkins who confused me on this issue by stating that B originally intended to fulfil the commission with the 5th but abandoned that idea to work on the 4th. This cannot be - from the start Beethoven must have intended to begin a new symphony for the count (4th) and it was only when he received a second commission, after completing the 4th that he decided to finish the 5th for this purpose. Having sold the 5th and 6th he instead offered a new symphony (implying that it was nearly finished!)that was never even begun - Cooper makes no mention of a planned 7th in 1808/9 - there simply are no sketches for such a work.

This is near enough how I see things, but all the things I have mentioned are to be found in 'Thayers Life..'. You are right about this supposed '7th symphony' - it seems at best it was nothing more than typical wishfull thinking by Beethoven, or at worst it was a invention designed to pacify the Count, at least this is how it seems to me. But B discussed this '7th' for a while with the Count.

Originally posted by Peter:

Having sort of clarified this issue, I still would like to know more about the actual dates for the commissions.

If either of us had known this information, this chain would have been a lot shorter!

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
If either of us had known this information, this chain would have been a lot shorter!

Indeed - again Hopkins misleads on this issue as he states that the first commission came after O heard the 2nd symphony during B's visit to Lichnowsky in autumn 1806.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
It seems Peter and myself take pleasure in exploring the very depths of subjects that are ultimately of little consequence!

It makes a change from 'Immortal beloved' !

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Rod]

Originally posted by Michael:
Please don't stop!

Mmm....I'm sure I've heard these words before somewhere.

Well I can continue things a little longer. My memory served me well when I suggested that the Count had paid a deposit for the 5th, for this turns out to be the case. In fact he advanced the majority of the fee of 500 florins!! There exists a receipt for the first payment in which B states "200 florins received additional in June 1807, in cash, given account of 5. Sinphoni, not yet delivered however." A further payment of 150 florins was paid in March 1808. Whether B paid the money back I don't know, in 'Thayer's Life..' it states the letter quoted by Peter of Nov1 1808 is the last surviving correspondance between the two. No wonder B was trying to pacify the Count!!

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 06-28-2001).]

[Peter]

More confusion I'm afraid - Emily Anderson also states that B first became acquainted with Oppersdorf in the autumn of 1806.
If this was the case, then the 4th must have been written between Sep and Nov 1806 at Gratz Castle. Yet Cooper dates the 4th earlier to the summer and other sources claim it was begun at Martonvasar. I wish these musicologists would sort there facts out!



------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
More confusion I'm afraid - Emily Anderson also states that B first became acquainted with Oppersdorf in the autumn of 1806.
If this was the case, then the 4th must have been written between Sep and Nov 1806 at Gratz Castle. Yet Cooper dates the 4th earlier to the summer and other sources claim it was begun at Martonvasar. I wish these musicologists would sort there facts out!

I don't care what these researchers think, I only consider real letters, recorded events and dates with respect to this issue. Can you produce any hard evidence that B first met the Count in Autumn? More supposition serves no purpose in clearing up the matter. The real issue is not when but why the work was written. Beethoven states in black an white that no4 was 'composed for the Count' and not that he offered the count an already completed work shortly after they first met. I will not consider otherwise unless someone can produce a concrete piece of evidence to the contrary, and I do not believe such evidence exists.

It strikes me as too much of a coincedence that B could have produced no4 under his own motivation, then, virtually before the ink on the autograph had dried, a buyer suddenly appeared by chance to snap it up at a price of 500 florins.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 06-28-2001).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
I don't care what these researchers think, I only consider real letters, recorded events and dates with respect to this issue. Can you produce any hard evidence that B first met the Count in Autumn?

It strikes me as too much of a coincedence that B could have produced no4 under his own motivation, then, virtually before the ink on the autograph had dried, a buyer suddenly appeared by chance to snap it up at a price of 500 florins.

I agree - Emily Anderson of course is the lady who translated the letters, so perhaps she's right. The symphony must be a direct result of the commission from O which could have come in Aug 1806. B must have worked at lightening pace to complete the work before he left Silesia in November. The lack of sketches also suggest that this work was very spontaneous.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
I agree - Emily Anderson of course is the lady who translated the letters, so perhaps she's right. The symphony must be a direct result of the commission from O which could have come in Aug 1806. B must have worked at lightening pace to complete the work before he left Silesia in November. The lack of sketches also suggest that this work was very spontaneous.

The notion that no4 was a work of the 'summer' is based on sketchbook evidence according to Thayer's Life, as far as I can remember, but 'summer' is June to September! I agree that the work was probably composed quickly, I get this impression listening to the piece.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
The notion that no4 was a work of the 'summer' is based on sketchbook evidence according to Thayer's Life, as far as I can remember, but 'summer' is June to September! I agree that the work was probably composed quickly, I get this impression listening to the piece.

The facts as they are now clarified seem to suggest that O commissioned the 4th after hearing a performance of the 2nd at Gratz castle in Late Aug/early Sep 1806. The work was certainly complete by Nov 18th 1806, for B wrote to Breitkopf and Hartel that it was in the possession of 'a gentleman of quality' - obviously Oppersdorf.
Cooper says the 5th was commissioned in June 1807 when O paid the first instalment of 200fls.


------------------
'Man know thyself'

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 06-30-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 06-30-2001).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
The facts as they are now clarified seem to suggest that O commissioned the 4th after hearing a performance of the 2nd at Gratz castle in Late Aug/early Sep 1806. The work was certainly complete by Nov 18th 1806, for B wrote to Breitkopf and Hartel that it was in the possession of 'a gentleman of quality' - obviously Oppersdorf.
Cooper says the 5th was commissioned in June 1807 when O paid the first instalment of 200fls.

Probably so, but I'd like to know the 'fact' that establishes that B received the commission after the performance of the 2nd. The 'gentleman of quality' letter is the same one I was refering to earlier, when B also writes that the 4th was in this 'gentleman's' possession for 6 mths.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
Probably so, but I'd like to know the 'fact' that establishes that B received the commission after the performance of the 2nd. The 'gentleman of quality' letter is the same one I was refering to earlier, when B also writes that the 4th was in this 'gentleman's' possession for 6 mths.

You're probably right again on this one as it seems more likely that B began work on the 4th earlier that year, possibly when he was at Martonvasar. The performance of the 2nd symphony at Ober-Glogau in sep is probably a red-herring in that certain writers have stated that it was as a result of this performance that the commission was given. More likely is that B had the commission from O many months earlier and took the opportunity to visit him later that year and present him with the finished score in person as he was staying nearby with Lichnowsky at Gratz Castle.

------------------
'Man know thyself'