Page 4 - NW-UM0011-Concerto-C-majorViolin-Orchestra

Preface

There are four known works of Beethovenꞌs for the genre violin and orchestra. They were written in the period 1790-1806. These
are the Violin Romance No.1 in G major Opus 40, the Violin Romance No.2 in F major Opus 50, the Violin Concerto in D major Opus
1
61 and the earlier Violin Concerto in C major WoO 5 Hess 10 . The latter was handed down as a fragment which Beethoven most
probably composed in Bonn between 1790 and 1792. The Triple Concerto in C major Opus 56 will be disregarded as this work was
written for violin, cello, piano and orchestra.

There are no known indications which can date both violin romances with any certainty; some authors suggest that both romances
2
originated in 1802, while others suggest 1798 for Opus 50 and 1800 for Opus 40 . The similarities between the Violin Romance No.2
in F major Opus 50 and the fragment WoO 5 are remarkable. The orchestral complement of both works is identical although
Beethoven did use two separate viola parts in WoO 5 which were noted on different staves. The thematic relationship between the
material in the first two bars of the violin romance and the introduction of the solo instrument in the concerto fragment is an even
more significant detail. This is a method which Beethoven used more often on material, to arrange the functional relationship between
3
movements . It is therefore quite possible that the Violin Romance No.2 in F major Opus 50, is the original second movement of the
concerto in C major. Chronologically speaking this could be true, as the violin romance was composed during the so called early
Viennese period and because Beethoven based the theme on the fragment and not the other way around.

The relationship that I imply between the two compositions, has served as an inspiration to complete the fragment. I have repeated
the theme in the subdominant key of C major in order to confirm this. The fragment is composed of 259 bars written out in full which
stops abruptly as if the score was torn in two. It is therefore not known whether the score is incomplete in itself, or that a complete
first movement with eventually two other movements is missing. As the handwriting was handed down in so called Reinschrift, there
4
should be no doubt that this represents a complete concerto written by Beethoven which for some unknown reason has been lost.
This autograph is owned by the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde in Vienna, signature: IX 6820. The orchestral complement is composed
of flute, 2 oboes, 2 bassoons, 2 horns, 1st violins, 2nd violins, 1st violas, 2nd violas and basses. I have divided the basses into cellos
and double basses in order to obtain a clear overview of the total score. There are nearly no differences in the two groups in
Beethovenꞌs original.
The composition is broken off exactly 15 bars into the development. The motive in the last known bars 258 and 259 initiated the
task of joining the development as reliably as possible to the rest of the work. The chance to use the main theme and the second
theme in counterpoint was inspiring. I have used this arrangement more often in for instance the tutti previous for the cadence in
the violin solo and in the coda. It may seem surprising, but the phrasing of the main theme posed the most problems. Beethoven
did not note the dotted figures very logically in the main theme; the phrase marks and the staccato semi-quavers are noted so now
and again but are either missing in many places or divided occasionally over a number of voices. It seemed to me the right thing to
do, to try to note these details in the most logical places in order to achieve as consistent a whole as possible in all the voices.

In my additional 258 bars, I took Beethovenꞌs material into consideration; also in the development, reprise and coda. The most
remarkable is the coda. I use a third related key here, which may seem strange at first but was used more often by Beethoven
himself, for example in his Violin Concerto in D major Opus 61. It was necessary to compose this work backwards in a manner of
speaking. In other words I had to give all the global lines that Beethoven had so masterfully written as correct a place as possible in
the score. With respect to earlier completions by colleagues , I did not set out by literally copying and transposing the exposition in
5
the reprise. My aim was to write a completion as creatively as possible and still use Beethovenꞌs material and intricate weave of
voices to the full. Compare for example the opening theme with the same place in the reprise or the second theme in the reprise in
F major where the similarity of the Violin Romance No.2 in F major Opus 50 is indicated.

In the cadence for the solo violin, I purposely used Beethovenꞌs own cadence which is printed in the Kafka Sketchbook , and is based
6
on the main theme from the concerto fragment. Even though the cadence is in G major, the material is derived from the concerto.
The cadence was also consciously kept short, totally in line with the first movement and not so extensive as the earlier

1 Supplemente zur Gesamtausgabe III, Werke für Soloinstrumente und Orchester, Band 1, Wiesbaden 1960
2 Kurt Dorfmüller, Beitrage zur Beethoven-Bibliographie, 1978, page 309 Opus 40, page 312 Opus 50
3 Thematic similarities between A) WoO 5, bar 102 and B) the romance Opus 50

4 Wilfried Fischer, Tübingen 1971
5 1879: Klavierauszug und Partitur, Versuch einer Ergänzung des Fragments für den Konzertgebrauch durch
Joseph Hellmesberger, F. Schreiber, vormals C.A. Spina, Vienna
1925: Das Partiturfragment als Beilage zu Ludwig Schiedermair: Der junge Beethoven, Quelle & Meyer, Leipzig
1933: Klavierauszug von Juan Manén, Universal-Edition, Vienna
1943: Partitur, konzertmässig beendet und mit Kadenz versehen von Juan Manén, Universal-Edition, Vienna
Both Hellmesberger and Manén permitted themselves some alterations in the 259 measures of the fragment;
Hellmesberger has even added trumpets and timpani, Breitkopf & Härtel, Wiesbaden, page 44
6 Autograph miscellany from circa 1786 to 1799, British Museum, additional manuscript 29801, ff. 39-162, The
Kafka Sketchbook, London 1970
I