The 4th - the 'Taking Stock' Symphony?
Described by Robert Schumann as a "Grecian maiden between two Nordic giants", I wonder to what extent the 4th Symphony could be described as a "Taking Stock" symphony. Placed after the Eroica, & directly prior to the great 5th, the 4th does seem to be lyrically more akin to the lovely 2nd. At the time of composing the 4th, Beethoven was enjoying his dalliance with Josephine Brunswick, & I wonder to what extent this "distraction" interrupted his forward-thinking inspiration. Or was it exactly what the doctor ordered (& indeed what LvB intended) after he had changed the face of symphonic music for ever, with the Eroica?
-
-
Originally of course the 5th was planned to succeed the Eroica, but work on that Symphony was halted in order to fulfil a commission from Count Oppersdorf, who had been impressed by a performance of B's 2nd symphony and offered him 350 florins for the new work. Beethoven explained the events in a letter to Oppersdorf dated Nov 1st 1808 "....the Symphony which I had intended for you I was compelled by want to sell with a second one to someone else. But be assured that you will very soon receive the one which I design you to have."
The sunny nature of the 4th has some things in common with the 2nd , though I think the 4th is a far more polished and refined work. Has anyone noticed the similarity pointed out by Antony Hopkins (the musicologist not the actor!) regarding the openings of the 4th and 5th - both open with falling 3rds, with totally different effect obviously.
------------------
'Man know thyself'
[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 06-21-2001).]'Man know thyself' -
In addition to what Peter has said, I suggest B siezed ther opportunity with the Count's commission to produce a contrasting work to that of the 3rd, as was typical with his output. If the 5th had become in fact the 4th, I'm sure it's impact would have been less after the already heavyweight(ish) 3rd. I hadn't noticed Hopkins observation until now, but yes he is quite right.Originally posted by PDG:
Described by Robert Schumann as a "Grecian maiden between two Nordic giants", I wonder to what extent the 4th Symphony could be described as a "Taking Stock" symphony. Placed after the Eroica, & directly prior to the great 5th, the 4th does seem to be lyrically more akin to the lovely 2nd. At the time of composing the 4th, Beethoven was enjoying his dalliance with Josephine Brunswick, & I wonder to what extent this "distraction" interrupted his forward-thinking inspiration. Or was it exactly what the doctor ordered (& indeed what LvB intended) after he had changed the face of symphonic music for ever, with the Eroica?
------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin
[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 06-22-2001).]Comment
-
I'm not sure about this, as Beethoven's letter to Oppersdorf makes it quite clear that he originally intended the 5th for him. At the time of the commission the first 2 movements of the 5th were already pretty advanced and then as we know B layed the work aside to complete this commission. However he was also under obligation to Lobkowitz and Razumovsky who jointly received the dedications of Symphonies 5 & 6. I think the only answer can be the logical one, that B thought no.4 was the best work to come after the Eroica.Originally posted by Rod:
In addition to what Peter has said, I suggest B siezed ther opportunity with the Count's commission to produce a contrasting work to that of the 3rd, as was typical with his output. If the 5th had become in fact the 4th, I'm sure it's impact would have been less after the already heavyweight(ish) 3rd. I hadn't noticed Hopkins observation until now, but yes he is quite right.
------------------
'Man know thyself''Man know thyself'Comment
-
Yes this is quite right. B discussed the 5th's unusual scoring with the Count. B's choice of instruments may have even been influenced by Oppersdorf. But as I have said, on reflection B must have thought a lighter work would have been more effective at that time.Originally posted by Peter:
I'm not sure about this, as Beethoven's letter to Oppersdorf makes it quite clear that he originally intended the 5th for him. At the time of the commission the first 2 movements of the 5th were already pretty advanced and then as we know B layed the work aside to complete this commission.
As I have said...Originally posted by Peter:
I think the only answer can be the logical one, that B thought no.4 was the best work to come after the Eroica.
------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod CorkinComment
-
Quite. So the consensus is that, following the 3rd, the 4th took stock as Beethoven girded his loins for the challenges ahead. This is just as I thought. Interesting about the falling thirds, Peter; I'd not thought of that before. And did Rod really just post with a smiley?!?
Comment
-
Well that doesn't take account of the fact that the first 2 movements of the 5th were virtually complete before the 4th was begun.Originally posted by PDG:
Quite. So the consensus is that, following the 3rd, the 4th took stock as Beethoven girded his loins for the challenges ahead. This is just as I thought.
Had Oppersdorf not commisioned a symphony from B, then in all probability the 5th would have followed the Eroica.
------------------
'Man know thyself''Man know thyself'Comment
-
This is still slightly confusing. If Beethoven originally intended the 5th for Oppersdorf (Peter), then why didn't he finish this symphony for him, instead of starting a new one from scratch. Did B perhaps feel that the 4th would be more appropriate for O since O had really enjoyed hearing the 2nd? Had O not commissioned a work from B, is the suggestion here that B may have held back on the publication of the 5th, anyway? If the 5th may have followed the 3rd, then why not offer it to O? B's letter to O, dated December, 1808, is fully two years on from the publication of the 4th; why tell O at this point what was already old news??Comment
-
Firstly, it wasn't old news as the publication of the 4th wasn't until 1808. B had begun work on the 4th in the summer of 1806 a few months before the commission from O, whilst staying at the Brunsvik estate at Martonvasar in Hungary, having layed the 5th aside - that Beethoven worked on several major compositions at the same time is well known. Beethoven's letter to O implies that he did originally intend the 5th for him and that other events or considerations made him change his mind.Originally posted by PDG:
This is still slightly confusing. If Beethoven originally intended the 5th for Oppersdorf (Peter), then why didn't he finish this symphony for him, instead of starting a new one from scratch. Did B perhaps feel that the 4th would be more appropriate for O since O had really enjoyed hearing the 2nd? Had O not commissioned a work from B, is the suggestion here that B may have held back on the publication of the 5th, anyway? If the 5th may have followed the 3rd, then why not offer it to O? B's letter to O, dated December, 1808, is fully two years on from the publication of the 4th; why tell O at this point what was already old news??
To further complicate matters, at the first performance of the 5th and 6th, the Pastoral was presented as the 5th and the 5th as the 6th!
------------------
'Man know thyself''Man know thyself'Comment
-
I went there a couple of years ago, its a great place to visit for Beethovenians, it has a museum, a couple of original fortepianos and has a beautiful lake.Originally posted by Peter:
...whilst staying at the Brunsvik estate at Martonvasar in Hungary,
------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod CorkinComment
-
Didn't Beethoven offer the 4th to the publishers, Breitkopf & Haertel, in September, 1806? Wasn't it first (privately) performed at Prince Lobkowitz's house in March, 1807? In any event, it was certainly played publicly in Vienna in January, 1808, fully 11 months before the letter you quote. Is it absolutely certain that Oppersdorff commissioned the work, since I've aways thought this was only an assumption, despite the dedication. Was Beethoven, after all, referring in said letter to the 5th?Originally posted by Peter:
Firstly, it wasn't old news as the publication of the 4th wasn't until 1808.
[This message has been edited by PDG (edited 06-23-2001).]Comment
-
Yes he did offer it to B & H when you say, but his later letter to O makes it quite clear the 5th was originally the work intended to fulfil the commision with - B says 'the Symphony which I had intended for you I was compelled by want to sell with a second one to someone else.' He must be referring to 5&6 as they were both dedicated to Lobkowitz and Razumovsky and sold as a pair.Originally posted by PDG:
Didn't Beethoven offer the 4th to the publishers, Breitkopf & Haertel, in September, 1806? Wasn't it first (privately) performed at Prince Lobkowitz's house in March, 1807? In any event, it was certainly played publicly in Vienna in January, 1808, fully 11 months before the letter you quote. Is it absolutely certain that Oppersdorff commissioned the work, since I've aways thought this was only an assumption, despite the dedication. Was Beethoven, after all, referring in said letter to the 5th?
In any event the 4th was definitely begun before the commission! It was not until the autumn of 1806 that O visited Lichnowsky (with whom B was staying) and heard the 2nd Symphony. The 4th was begun at least as early as the summer if not the spring of 1806.
------------------
'Man know thyself'
[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 06-23-2001).]'Man know thyself'Comment
-
Well, okay & thanks - the murky waters are clearing, but it still seems odd that the 4th wasn't published until well after that first March, 1807 performance. Were the orchestral parts hand-written?!Comment
-
Beethoven wrote to B & H in Nov 1806 that he couldn't let them have the work immediately as it was in the possession of 'a gentleman of quality' on the understanding that B would be free to publish 6 months later. The gentleman in question may have been O or possibly Count Moritz Fries. All I know about the orchestral parts is that they were not published until March 1809. The first performance was as you say in March 1807.Originally posted by PDG:
Well, okay & thanks - the murky waters are clearing, but it still seems odd that the 4th wasn't published until well after that first March, 1807 performance. Were the orchestral parts hand-written?!
According to Barry Cooper, both the 4th and 5th were commisioned by Opersdorff.
------------------
'Man know thyself''Man know thyself'Comment
-
Thanking you, kindly.Comment
Comment