The 4th - the 'Taking Stock' Symphony?

[Peter]

Originally posted by PDG:
As to why Beethoven set aside the 5th when working on the 4th, there may be a big clue in my opening post; namely that he was enjoying his relationship with Josephine Brunsvik so much at this time that perhaps he felt too distracted to continue on the monumental 5th; whereas the lyrical 4th gave him opportunities to pour his inner happiness (at that time) into his work.

I agree - work was done on the 4th at the Brunsvik estate in the summer of 1806 and this was a time when B's feelings towards Josephine were very strong.

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

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
Well I'm sure I recall you using this letter originally to state how B apparently offered O the 4th instead of the 5th! Regardless, there is no doubt that B was considering another (7th) symphony after the 6th with the Count in mind as there are communications to prove it, this project was obviously delayed and yet again the Count was frustrated. My reference the the actual 7th was an oblique on baring this in mind.

You're muddling my arguments here - the letter is quite clear - "the Symphony which I had intended for you I was compelled by want to sell with a second one to someone else" refers to the 5th and 6th. "But be assured that you will very soon receive the one which I design you to have" refers to the 4th - this is the case I stated from the start. Your theory that the symphony he designed him shortly to have was one that had not yet been conceived is interesting, and I accept possible - but I don't think likely.
What I also do not understand is if B originally intended the 5th for the Count, why did he interrupt work on it to write the 4th? particularly if the commission came as early as you suggest. If the Count commissioned the 5th, when was this?

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



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 06-26-2001).]

[PDG]

Originally posted by Rod:
Have you got a letter to prove it!

Yes. Dated August, 1806, I quote: "My dearest PDG, I have set aside the 5th in order to work on the 4th 'cos Josephine distracts me too much - you know what women are like. By the way, thanks for your insights into Schubert; this kid's almost as good as me!........"

Oh, hang on..........I recognise this handwriting. It's Schindler's!! This letter's a FAKE!!!!

[~Leslie]

so that's what you meant
by "taking stock".....

[Michael]

I remember reading somebody's theory (probably Robert Simpson) that the reason B temporarily abandoned work on the Fifth Symphony was because he got well and truly stuck. He wanted something new for his scherzo and finale, and his experiences with the openings of the Fourth Symphony and the third Rasumovsky gave him the brilliant idea of joining the last two movements of the Fifth, in all three cases emerging from darkness into light.
I forget where I saw this (probably on this thread - it's so full!)

M.

[PDG]

Yes, Michael. Full, but not conceited!

[This message has been edited by PDG (edited 06-26-2001).]

[PDG]

Originally posted by ~Leslie:
so that's what you meant
by "taking stock".....

Yes, Leslie. Or in Josephine's case: Lock, stock & barrel. Beethoven wasn't prepared to share her..........

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
You're muddling my arguments here - the letter is quite clear - "the Symphony which I had intended for you I was compelled by want to sell with a second one to someone else" refers to the 5th and 6th. "But be assured that you will very soon receive the one which I design you to have" refers to the 4th - this is the case I stated from the start. Your theory that the symphony he designed him shortly to have was one that had not yet been conceived is interesting, and I accept possible - but I don't think likely.
What I also do not understand is if B originally intended the 5th for the Count, why did he interrupt work on it to write the 4th? particularly if the commission came as early as you suggest. If the Count commissioned the 5th, when was this?

Why I got your argument muddled is because your argument is muddled I'm afraid. The passage in question does not refer to no4. Why would B be offering the Count no4 in 1808 when he wrote in Nov 1806 that he had already given the count no4 and that it was his for 6 months, then he receive payment from the Count for no4 in Feb 1807!!!!!!! In the letter you quote, B is trying to pacify the Count , the designed symphony was a '7th' that the Count never got. I doubt if B liked the idea of a work being locked away for 6 months, it would mean poor exposure from a marketing perspective.

I have no reason to believe that B began composing the 5th with Oppersdorff in mind in 1804. It was later that O was involved with the 5th.

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

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 06-26-2001).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
[B In the letter you quote, B is trying to pacify the Count , the designed symphony was a '7th' that the Count never got. I doubt if B liked the idea of a work being locked away for 6 months, it would mean poor exposure from a marketing perspective.

I have no reason to believe that B began composing the 5th with Oppersdorff in mind in 1804. It was later that O was involved with the 5th.

[/B]

I have already accepted that your hypothesis of a 7th symphony is possible and that I may have been wrong in concluding that the intended symphony was the 4th - I'm only trying to establish the order of events.
So lets assume that sometime in early 1806 B received from the count a commission for a Symphony and decided to stop work on the 5th and proceed with the 4th. Then in the autumn of 1806 the count commissioned another symphony which B intended to fulfil with the 5th. Circumstances prevented this and B promised him a new symphony that never materialised. Is this how you see it?

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

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
I have already accepted that your hypothesis of a 7th symphony is possible.

It's more than a hypothesis, it's a fact.

Originally posted by Peter:

So lets assume that sometime in early 1806 B received from the count a commission for a Symphony and decided to stop work on the 5th and proceed with the 4th. Then in the autumn of 1806 the count commissioned another symphony which B intended to fulfil with the 5th. Circumstances prevented this and B promised him a new symphony that never materialised. Is this how you see it?

I'm not sure what the order of events was. I'm arguing on the basis that your own alternative 'hypothesis' is largely just that - hypothetical. At the end of the day, as I have already stated, B wrote clearly on his receipt for the fee that he composed the symphony for the count, he would not have wrote that if the 4th was already complete before the commision, I'm sure the Count was no idiot and would have saw through it if B had. These are the only firm words we have on the matter as far as I am aware. What the whole truth is I don't think we'll ever know, therfore, as usual, I'm sticking with the status quo until something more concrete arises.

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

[PDG]

This is still confusing. My original problem on this issue was with the 1808 letter, where Beethoven "intends" a different symphony for the Count instead of, presumably, the 5th. The 4th had been finished fully two years by then, so B couldn't have been thinking of this as his "intention". B decided to pair the 5th & 6th for Razumovsky & Lobkowitz, & these were also both finished by late 1808. So Rod's assertion that B had a 7th in mind is the only logical explanation, unless the date on the letter is wrong. This still leaves the questions: Why did the Count never receive the 7th? Why did B apparently never even make any sketches for a 7th? Can we be sure that the Count's payment to B was for only the one Symphony (the 4th)? Did B in fact remain indebted to the Count?

[This message has been edited by PDG (edited 06-27-2001).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by PDG:
This is still confusing. My original problem on this issue was with the 1808 letter, where Beethoven "intends" a different symphony for the Count instead of, presumably, the 5th. The 4th had been finished fully two years by then, so B couldn't have been thinking of this as his "intention". B decided to pair the 5th & 6th for Razumovsky & Lobkowitz, & these were also both finished by late 1808. So Rod's assertion that B had a 7th in mind is the only logical explanation, unless the date on the letter is wrong. This still leaves the questions: Why did the Count never receive the 7th? Why did B apparently never even make any sketches for a 7th? Can we be sure that the Count's payment to B was for only the one Symphony (the 4th)? Did B in fact remain indebted to the Count?

[This message has been edited by PDG (edited 06-27-2001).]

The letter refers to a future symphony. It seems to me that B at this stage was using the Count as a contingency in case he could not get a good deal with a publisher. Thus B was continually keeping the Count in the picture but ultimately offering him nothing. The payment made by the Count was for the 4th alone in 1807 - the receipt exists for it. I recall he put a deposit down for a further symphony however, but I will haver to check to be sure of this point and if and when B payed back the deposit.

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

[Rod]

Originally posted by Michael:
I remember reading somebody's theory (probably Robert Simpson) that the reason B temporarily abandoned work on the Fifth Symphony was because he got well and truly stuck. He wanted something new for his scherzo and finale, and his experiences with the openings of the Fourth Symphony and the third Rasumovsky gave him the brilliant idea of joining the last two movements of the Fifth, in all three cases emerging from darkness into light.
M.

Well the scherzo is hardly something 'new', it uses a 4 note motif almost identical to the 1st movment! So perhaps B did run out of ideas!! The slow openings you refer to with the 4th and the quartet were by no means a new feature at that time. Much is made of this being an influence from Haydn.

Originally posted by Michael:

I forget where I saw this (probably on this thread - it's so full!)
M.

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

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

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 06-27-2001).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
The letter refers to a future symphony. It seems to me that B at this stage was using the Count as a contingency in case he could not get a good deal with a publisher. Thus B was continually keeping the Count in the picture but ultimately offering him nothing. The payment made by the Count was for the 4th alone in 1807 - the receipt exists for it. I recall he put a deposit down for a further symphony however, but I will haver to check to be sure of this point and if and when B payed back the deposit.

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

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

[Michael]

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

Please don't stop! It makes great reading.

M.