I recently received a message through The Wranitzky Project concerning a case of possible modeling between Beethoven and Wranitzky. This concerns the Symphony No. 2 of the former and the Symphony, Op. 52 of the latter. The very beginning of the slow introductions to both symphonies have a similar sound and melodic contour that it begs the question if one was influenced by the other, or perhaps paying respect to the other.
Whenever a case of quotation or modeling appears, it must be approached with delicacy and caution, and this case is certainly no different. Let's begin with the genesis of the compositions. Beethoven composed his Symphony No. 2 in D Major, Op. 36 during the years 1801-02, and it was first performed on 5 April 1803. Beethoven composed his symphony during a tumultuous time in his life with his hearing fading and with a greater sense of isolation. When Wranitzky composed his Symphony in D Major, Op. 52 remains undetermined. As far as dating the work the only reliable source we have is the 1805 publication by the Viennese publisher, Andre. If this was his latest symphony, it would not be inappropriate to put the Op. 52 within the window of 1802-04 for its composition and first performance. Beethoven's Op. 36 was published by the Viennese Bureau des Arts et d'Industrie the year after its first performance. So presumably both symphonies could have been composed within the same window of time, but which one came first still presents a problem.
Before exploring this a little bit further, here is the issue at hand. First is the Beethoven, followed by the Wranitzky. There are a couple of slight differences such as the anacrusis in the Beethoven, and the Beethoven is in triple meter while the Wranitzky is in common time.
Hopefully you can hear that both composers firmly establish the tonic then skip to scale degree 3 and descend from there 2-1-1-7 (with the last two coming in the form of a 4-3 suspension over the dominant). From here Beethoven provides a varied repetition of the first four bars before launching into a development section. As for Wranitzky, he repeats the initial statement one scale degree higher and closes the second phrase on V/V. This sequential presentation of themes appear to be common in Wranitzky's symphonies, particularly with P material in his first movements. After the statement of the first four bars the two composers have chosen two different paths to follow. The only strong relationship between the introductions is the opening four bars in the Wranitzky and the opening two bars in the Beethoven. Even the overall character of the two introductions oppose each other. Wranitzky's is rather straightforward and somewhat chorale-like in character, whereas Beethoven's sounds like a French overture with dotted rhythms and imitative tirades across the orchestra.
From a personal perspective, both composers knew each other, and in fact it Wranitzky who led the premier performance of Beethoven's First Symphony. Whether Wranitzky heard Beethoven's Second Symphony and decided to give a nod to his contemporary, or whether Beethoven did the same to Wranitzky for leading the premier of his First Symphony is still a matter of conjecture.
While examining this I found a possible case of multi-movement unity in Wranitzky's Op. 52 based on the opening four bars of the symphony. The opening phrase and the closing theme to A in the rondo Finale share an affinity with regards to melodic contour and cadence. Also the sequential statement of the same melodic material is present in both areas. Here is the example:
Even arguments suggesting multi-movement unity come under the same scrutiny as making a comparison with a work by another composer. Did Wranitzky intentionally compose the closing theme to the A section of the finale to have a melodic affinity with the opening of the symphony? Or could this simply be a coincidence involving a simple and common melodic contour and cadence type?
No comments:
Post a Comment