Symphony No.4 in E flat (“Romantic”)

Bewegt, nicht zu schnell

Andante, quasi allegretto

Scherzo: bewegt - Trio: nicht zu schnell

Finale: bewegt, doch nicht zu schnell

Bruckner’s gratitude to Hans Richter after the first performance of his Fourth Symphony - whether or not it was expressed with the legendary tip of a small coin and an invitation to “have a drink on me” - was genuine. It had taken him no less than six years to realise the implications of the first movement, which was the most problematic inspiration he would ever have to cope with, and now at last he knew that the long and laborious process of rethinking and reworking had been worthwhile.

The first version of the work, beginning with sketches for the first movement in January 1874,had been completed in a year. But that was no more than a preliminary stage. In 1878, having written the final version of the Third Symphony and completed the Fifth, he returned to the Fourth, revising the first two movements, discarding the third and fourth, and writing a new Scherzo and a new Finale. In 1880 he made further improvements to the new Finale, and it was in this state - with the first three movements as he had left them in 1878 and the Finale as revised in 1880 - that the work was given its first performance in 1881.

Grateful as he was to Hans Richter, incidentally, Bruckner would probably not have offered any kind of reward to gustav Mahler for his intepretation of the symphony: necessarily based on the spurious first edtion by Franz Schalk and Fritz Löwe, it quite unnecessarily made extensive cuts in the second, third and fourth movement, including just about every passage associated with the third subject of the finale. The 1880 version is the one which Bruckner regarded as definitive and which is usually performed today (from the Bruckner Society Edition of Robert Haas). It is, however, an indication of his concern for the long-term structure of the work that in 1886, in an otherwise unimportant last revision, the composer made the last bars of the work echo the opening very much more closely than they had done before (this version was edited for the Bruckner Society by Leopold Nowak).

the problem

The problem, or long-term virtue, associated with the first movement is that it cannot in itself resolve its differences. There is an enormous and, in the short term, irreconcilable divergence between its first and second subjects. The first consists of two elemental motifs - the four-note fanfare repeated by horn over tremolando strings in the opening bars and, also in E flat major, the five-note rising theme introduced by the whole orchestra in a characteristic 2+3 rhythm. The second subject on the other hand is a decorative contrapuntal complex, introduced in D flat major by the strings. Although first violins, second violins and violas each have their own distinctive melodic ideas, the most important seems to be the one in first violins. Certainly, it is combined with several other contrapuntal partners before the end of the exposition.

Bruckner does not attempt a reconciliation of the two subjects in the development. He emphasises the difference between them - the two elemental motifs always inviting massive orchestral treatment, the contrapuntal complex proving more elusive but, discreetly augmented in rhythm, sustainingone particularly beautiful episode for strings just before the recapitulation. Here, in the flute and cello counterpoint to the restatement of the first theme, the lyrical influence of the second subject seems to have some reconciliatory effect. But not for long: the 2+3 motif again attracts the full-orchestral sonorities proper to it and, after the second subject has been unrealistically recapitulated in B major, a long coda confirms the massive supremacy of the first subject.

To restore the balance Bruckner would have had to write a particularly expansive slow movement. In fact, this C minor Andante, quasi allegretto is, for him, peculiarly unexpansive. Its first theme, beginning on the cellos with a falling and rising fifth, must be intentionally reminiscent of the first theme of the first movement (the resemblance a little later to the César Franck Symphony is not, on the other hand, Bruckner’s fault). The march-like tread associated with the first theme accompanies also the second subject when the violas introduce it in G minor. So, in spite of the lovely, supple quality of the new melody, there is still no relaxation of the deliberate momentum. The development is confined to a section only half as long as the exposition, and it is actually shorter than the massively sonorous coda.

the solution

It is in the Scherzo, newly written in 1878, that Bruckner begins to reconcile the differences. The hunting-horn main theme is a diminution of the 2+3 rhythmic element in the first movement, and the quiet reply to it on the strings contains the falling fifth of the opening theme. The G flat major Trio section, on the other hand, is the most lyrical music since the last appearance of the second subject in the first movement.

In the masterful last movement, also freshly written in 1878 but revised in 1880, Bruckner finally settles the differences and balances the proportions of the symphony. Its main theme attracts the same massive sonority as the first subject of the first movement and, indeed, Bruckner goes to some introductory length to show how he has made it up of the two elemental motifs - the horn call and the 2+3 theme. Throughout the exposition of the first subject there is a whole series of allusions to the equivalent section of the first movement. It culminates in a full-orchestral climax with a direct reference to the opening horn call in the brass.

The beginning of the second subject also alludes to the first movement in a way, in its three-part contrapuntal make-up. But this, at last, is a second subject to match the status of the most elemental first subject. It is relaxed in tempo, abundant in melodic inspiration, and happily imaginative in elaboration. It is quite strong enough to balance a monumental third subject too - particularly when helped by a G flat major memory of the lyrical Trio from the preceding movement. The balance is maintained throughout the development, where one brief reappearance of the second subject is evidently quite enough. Its lyrical influence proves so effective in the recapitulation that the monumental and elemental are finally transformed into a massively serene chorale, which is the spiritual and structural culmination of the whole work.

Gerald Larner