Fourth Symphonies

[DavidRoss]

Yesterday I listened to one of my favorite symphonies: Mahler's fourth.  Today I listened to another of my favorite symphonies: Sibelius's fourth.  That got me thinking about fourth symphonies.

My other favorite symphonist, Beethoven, also wrote a great fourth symphony that seems underappreciated, just like Mahler's and Sibelius's.  Come to think of it, RVW's fourth and Dvořák's fourth get short shrift, too...although Tchaikovsky's and Brahms's are repertoire staples, and Bruckner's may be his most popular, or at least is often described as his most accessible.

Anyway, I just wondered if anyone else thought there might be anything special about fourth symphonies in general  or any one fourth symphony in particular that they'd like to share.  Do they usually mark a turning point or summation of sorts?  Might this have something to do with their diminished popularity?  Are there particular composers' fourths you either love or hate or don't get?  Is this just another BS excuse to discuss the music we love and should we stick with polls comparing our hat sizes?

[Luke]

In an idle moment I remember once thinking the same thing about Thirds - about Beethoven's Third, which apparently is quite good and slightly influential; about Brahms's, which is my own favourite of his; about Mahler's, which is so huge and so summatory of everything important about the Mahler of those years (if the symphony must be like the world and contain everything, as Mahler said, then surely this is where he comes closest?); about Szymanowski's, which is a cataclysmically powerful work; about Sibelius's, which is undermentioned given that it is, according to some, his first faultlessly personal work in the genre; about Scriabin's, which is his last true symphony, before he went of to other planets, and as such the summation of half of his work, in a sense; about Enescu's, which similarly is a ne plus ultra in his oeuvre (no wonder he didn't complete his other symphonic sketches); about Dvorak's, which is secretly or not-so-secretly my favourite of his symphonies, not that that means anything.... But then along come all these composers with wonderful-but-not-standing-out-from-the-others Thirds - Nielsen, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn to say nothing of less well known composers, and make the little fantasy worthless. And then along comes Shostakovich with his third and I'm left very confused....

[DavidRoss]

You may be confused, Luke (aren't we all?), but now I'm determined to give Dvořák's 3rd a hearing since I haven't in ages. 

[Luke]

See, this thread didn't turn out as you expected, did it! I adore that piece, however much Dvorak was struggling with the Wagnerian influence in it. It's such a glorious little piece, it almost provides a justification for Wagner....      (I jest, I jest...) Actually, the propulsive rhythmic subtleties of the first movement in particular are really very special, and texturally it is very interesting. I could go on about that symphony for hours!

[some guy]

Well, if the next new poster follows the trend and starts talking about his favorite second symphonies, like that really rambunctious second of Prokofiev's, or that quirky little adventure of Nielsen, or the various little tunes of the opening of Corcoran's second that all end up on the same pitch. Not to mention....

And then if the next one after that follows suit, well then...

...eventually someone's going to wish that Mr. Peabody had started with a higher number. 32 or 41 or 104 or 239, maybe. Give this thread's tendency a little more room to breathe.

[Brian]

Since you solicited invitations for this kind of thing: I just don't get Bruckner's Fourth. Don't get it at all.

I'm not sure I could justifiably form a trend to link all the various Fourth Symphonies together, but we have a lot of composers dealing with very personal musical ideas which conflict with each other. The darkness and hesitation vs. dance spirit in Beethoven's Fourth; the despairing and hope and resignation in Sibelius' Fourth; the terror at fate and joy in human company in Tchaikovsky's Fourth; the almost comically futile attempts at tragedy in Schubert's Fourth.

Of course, not everything fits that paradigm. I've long considered Brahms' Fourth to be a near-Shakespearian tragedy. Recently it's become a fixture of my imagination to try to create a symphonic world which could rival Shakespeare, which could have characters and flaws and betrayals and dramatic irony without the benefit of words. How, I've been wondering, would one do such a thing in a "pure music" symphony? So far the best answer has been Brahms' Fourth. It does seem to have a protagonist, a struggle, a story, and the inevitability of great tragedy.

[Brahmsian]

Schubert, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Schumann.  A lot of great and popular 4ths, but as mentioned, a lot of under appreciated 4ths.

[starrynight]

Anyway, I just wondered if anyone else thought there might be anything special about fourth symphonies in general

Basically.....no.

[MishaK]

Come to think of it, RVW's fourth and Dvořák's fourth get short shrift, too

RVW's 4th is IMHO his best. The most abstract in a sense, the most economically composed, the one that actually sounds like it was written in the 20th century  and the most emotionally intense, the one that defies the "cow in a landscape" stereotype of RVW.

But then along come all these composers with wonderful-but-not-standing-out-from-the-others Thirds - Nielsen, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn

I'll have to disagree with respect to the highlighted ones. Bruckner's 3rd is his first mature symphony (which makes it a parallel to Beethoven's 3rd), and with the direct quote of the opening theme of LvB 9 it occupies a special place in Bruckner's oeuvre. Schubert's 3rd is an underappreciated gem. I value it higher than all his others, but the last two. It is so full of the melodic inventiveness of Schubert the Lieder composer. What's not to love? Schumann's 3rd, the Rhenish, is the absolute standout of his four symphonies, IMHO, with that haunting slow movement and that, for its time unique, trombone scoring. Mendelssohn's 3rd, the Scottish, too, how can you call it not a standout? There is Mendelssohn, who often gets derided as a writer of "pretty" and conventional music, and here he goes and writes this brooding, melancholic symphony full of colors few of his contemporaries imagined. Absolute standout.

Of course, not everything fits that paradigm. I've long considered Brahms' Fourth to be a near-Shakespearian tragedy. Recently it's become a fixture of my imagination to try to create a symphonic world which could rival Shakespeare, which could have characters and flaws and betrayals and dramatic irony without the benefit of words. How, I've been wondering, would one do such a thing in a "pure music" symphony? So far the best answer has been Brahms' Fourth. It does seem to have a protagonist, a struggle, a story, and the inevitability of great tragedy.

That is very nicely put. That is exactly why Carlos Kleiber's B 4 has endured for so long, despite some honorable mentions that have appeared in the interim: he just gets that tragic teleology like nobody else. That final passacaglia has an inescapable inevitability in his hands that just sucks everything up like a black hole. Abandon hope all ye who enter.

Along the same lines, Barenboim at the end of his final season as music director of the CSO in 2006 performed a series of 9ths: Schubert, Mahler, Bruckner, Beethoven. That made some logical sense, in that all three are the pinnacle and the summation of each composer's symphonic oeuvre, and at least one is an overt farewell, fitting for an outgoing conductor's farewell.

[Brian]

That is very nicely put. That is exactly why Carlos Kleiber's B 4 has endured for so long, despite some honorable mentions that have appeared in the interim: he just gets that tragic teleology like nobody else. That final passacaglia has an inescapable inevitability in his hands that just sucks everything up like a black hole. Abandon hope all ye who enter.

It wouldn't surprise you at all, then, to find out which recording of the Brahms 4 I was brought up on.  0:)

P.S. Agree with you on Schubert and Mendelssohn; I find M's 3rd the most satisfying of his symphonies, until that odd final coda. If only he'd just tacked on a recapitulation of the first movement's opening bars; what a startling, gloomy, daring fadeout that would have been.

[Luke]

RVW's 4th is IMHO his best. The most abstract in a sense, the most economically composed, the one that actually sounds like it was written in the 20th century  and the most emotionally intense, the one that defies the "cow in a landscape" stereotype of RVW.

I'd say all of VW's symphonies defy that stereotype! Yes, even number 5!

I'll have to disagree with respect to the highlighted ones. Bruckner's 3rd is his first mature symphony (which makes it a parallel to Beethoven's 3rd), and with the direct quote of the opening theme of LvB 9 it occupies a special place in Bruckner's oeuvre. Schubert's 3rd is an underappreciated gem. I value it higher than all his others, but the last two. It is so full of the melodic inventiveness of Schubert the Lieder composer. What's not to love? Schumann's 3rd, the Rhenish, is the absolute standout of his four symphonies, IMHO, with that haunting slow movement and that, for its time unique, trombone scoring. Mendelssohn's 3rd, the Scottish, too, how can you call it not a standout? There is Mendelssohn, who often gets derided as a writer of "pretty" and conventional music, and here he goes and writes this brooding, melancholic symphony full of colors few of his contemporaries imagined. Absolute standout.

Well, if you're right, my daydreaming 3rd symphony theory of many years back has legs! And of course everything you say about these pieces is correct - except that, to me, wonderful though these pieces are, they don't outstrip their fellows, or their nearer neighbours, in the cases when that's a more apt comparison. Just IMO of course.

[Luke]

(of course, though VW's Fourth may or may not be his best - I'd go for the 5th, myself, but we had that discussion a couple of years back on the VW thread, and very fine it was too - it's the third in which he is first fully VW, and so my silly 3rd symphony theory grows in plausibility by the minute    )

[starrynight]

I like Furtwangler in Brahms 4 and I think VW's 8th is his best. 

Concentrating on the numbers of symphonies tends to make the focus more on mid to late 19th century and early 20th century.

[Mirror Image]

A few of my favorite fourth symphonies are from the following: Vaughan Williams, Nielsen, Diamond, Bruckner, Braga Santos, Tubin, Villa-Lobos, Alwyn, Shostakovich, Martinu, Roussel, Ives, Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky, and, finally, Schmidt (one of the most astonishing fourth symphonies ever!).

[Brian]

"Don't get" in what sense?  I am not implying that there is anything wrong with that statement - quite the opposite - but am interested in how it seems to you.  Seeing as mostly you seem to have no trouble "getting" a piece of music even if you don't necessarily care for it.  Most folks seem to find the revised (usual) version of the 4th to be one of the most accessible of Bruckner's works.  That doesn't mean they're right and you're wrong.  I am interested in what it is that perhaps you find problematic about it.

I'm only part-way through my Bruckner voyage of discovery. Right now I love the 7th dearly, very much enjoy the 6th, am halfway through a breakthrough with the 8th - and yet find No 4 totally boring. I suppose that's what I mean by "don't get it": after that opening horn tune, it just bores me. The "most accessible" thing really mystifies me because I can't access anything in it to sort of hang on to while listening. It just keeps going on and on.

For me the most accessible Bruckner work is No 7, only because I "accessed" it first. Even that one took some time: the adagio had instant appeal, indeed was instantly hypnotic, but for a long time I listened to it independent of the other three movements.

[Brian]

A few of my favorite fourth symphonies are from the following: Braga Santos, Tubin, Roussel, Schmidt

Good calls, dude. Roussel's Fourth is a marvel.

[Luke]

...and Martinu's a joyous gem.

[Lethevich]

I've on occasion had a vague feeling about composer's 3-5 representing the Beethoven curve:

3: reaching maturity
4: underrated masterpiece
5: a universally loved masterpiece

Composers that fit this mould: Sibelius, Vaughan Williams, Prokofiev ?

Composers who do not: everybody else

But, there is something about this 3-5 region (or there-abouts), and other composers do seem to come close to fitting this (Bruckner, Shostakovich, maybe Tchaikovsky).

[Luke]

I've on occasion had a vague feeling about composer's 3-5 representing the Beethoven curve:

3: reaching maturity
4: underrated masterpiece
5: a universally loved masterpiece

Composers that fit this mould: Sibelius, Vaughan Williams, Prokofiev ?

Composers who do not: everybody else

But, there is something about this 3-5 region (or there-abouts), and other composers do seem to come close to fitting this (Bruckner, Shostakovich, maybe Tchaikovsky).

Yes, Shostakovich would fit perfectly if it wasn't for that 3rd  still, two out of three...

[Guido]

And Vaughan Williams fits that pattern.