Symphony No. 7, in C major
I. Andante; allegro non troppo II. Andante con moto III. Scherzo: allegro vivace; trio IV. Finale: allegro vivace
There are some who are not persuaded by Schumann and Weingartner into enjoying the extreme length of the symphony. They would fain have the work undergo some process of condensation, and yet it would be difficult for them to indicate the measures or sections that should be omitted.
It is still a marvelous work in certain respects. The Hungarian dash in the second theme of the first movement; the wonderful trombone passage; the melodic charm of the andante and the infinite beauty of the detail—but when one begins to speak of this movement he might vie with Schubert in length; the expressive trio of the scherzo; the rush of the finale—these place the symphony high on the list; and yet, and yet—but Schubert was not a severe critic of his own compositions. He wrote at full speed, and he had not the time to revise, to condense.
The manuscript of this symphony, numbered 7 in the Breitkopf & Härtel list and sometimes known as No. 10, bears the date March, 1828. In 1828 Schubert composed besides this symphony the songs “Die Sterne” and “Der Winterabend”; the oratorio, Mirims Siegesgesang; the song “Auf dem Strom”; the Schwanengesang cycle; the string quintet, Op. 163, and the Mass in E flat. On November 14 he took to his bed. It is said that Schubert gave the work to the Musikverein of Vienna for performance; that the parts were distributed; that it was even tried in rehearsal; that its length and difficulty were against it, and it was withdrawn on Schubert’s own advice in favor of his earlier Symphony in C, No. 6 (written in 1817). All this has been doubted; but the symphony is entered in the catalogue of the society under the year 1828, and the statements just quoted have been fully substantiated. Schubert said, when he gave the work to the Musikverein, that he was through with songs and should henceforth confine himself to opera and symphony.
It has been said that the first performance of the symphony was at Leipsic in 1839. This statement is not true. Schubert himself never heard the work; but it was performed at a concert of the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, Vienna, December 14, 1828, and repeated March 12, 1829. It was then forgotten until Schumann visited Vienna in 1838 and looked over the mass of manuscripts then in the possession of Schubert’s brother Ferdinand. Schumann sent a transcript of the symphony to Mendelssohn for the Gewandhaus concerts, Leipsic. It was produced at the concert of March 21, 1839, under Mendelssohn’s direction, and repeated three times during the following season—December 12, 1839, March 12 and April 3, 1840. Mendelssohn made some cuts in the work for these performances. The score and parts were published in January, 1850.
The manuscript is full of alterations. As a rule Schubert made few changes or corrections in his score. In this symphony, alterations are found at the very beginning. The subject of the introduction and that of the allegro were materially changed; the tempo of the opening movement was altered from allegro vivace to allegro ma non troppo. Only the finale seems to have satisfied him as originally conceived, and this finale is written as though at headlong speed.
The symphony44 is scored for two flutes, two oboes, two clarinets, two bassoons, two horns, two trumpets, three trombones, kettledrums, strings. There is a story that Schubert was afraid he had made too free use of trombones and asked advice of Franz Lachner.
The second theme of the first movement has a decidedly Slav-Hungarian character, and this character colors other portions of the symphony both in melody and general mood. The rhythm of the scherzo theme had been used by Schubert as early as 1814 in his Quartet in B flat. It may also be remarked that the scherzo is not based on the old minuet form, and that there is more thematic development than was customary in such movements at that period.
There is a curious tradition—a foolish invention is perhaps the better phrase—that the finale illustrates the story of Phaëton and his justly celebrated experience as driver of Apollo’s chariot. Others find in the finale a reminiscence of the terrible approach of the Statue towards the supper table of Don Giovanni.