rhythmic and harmonic ambiguity in brahms

8/18/2019 Rhythmic and Harmonic Ambiguity in Brahms

1/42

Society for Music Theory

You Reap What You Sow: Some Instances of Rhythmic and Harmonic Ambiguity in BrahmsAuthor(s): Peter H. SmithSource: Music Theory Spectrum, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Spring, 2006), pp. 57-97Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society for Music TheoryStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4499848

Accessed: 06/05/2010 18:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4499848?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucalhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4499848?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/42

Tou

Reap

What

You

Sow.

Some Instances

of Rhythmic

and Harmonic

Ambiguity

in

Brahms*

PETER H. SMITH

Of all

composers

of the

common-practice

era,

perhaps

none has been associated with musical am-

biguity

more than Brahms. Several recent

essays

nevertheless

question

the

usefulness

of

ambiguity

as an

analytical

concept.

This article

defends

the

efficacy

of

ambiguity through analysis

of

metri-

cally

and

harmonically

bivalent

passages

from

the

composer's

C-minor Piano

Quartet,

Double

Concerto,

Clarinet

Trio,

G-major

String

Quintet,

and B-minor

Rhapsody.

The

analyses

proceed

from

contradictory readings

of

opening

materials to later statements that

develop precisely

those

characteristics

that

give

rise

to the

initial double

meaning.

In

each

case,

the result is an enormous

tonal

delay

whose resolution

corresponds

with

liquidation

of

the

contradictory

characteristics,

as

the movements

finally

achieve the

clarity

absent from their

ambiguous openings.

Keywords:

Brahms,

Ambiguity,

Metric

displacement, Linkage technique,

Sonata form

INTRODUCTION

ERHAPS NO

COMPOSER

of

the

common-practice

era

is

associated with the idea of musical ambiguitymore

than

Johannes

Brahms.1

Even

a

cursoryglance

at

any

contemporary

Brahms

bibliography

reveals citations that

make

reference to the

topic.

Several recent

explorations

of

ambiguity

nevertheless call

into

question

the usefulness of

the

concept

as an

analytical

category.

Carl

Schachter,

for

example, argues

that

"[i]t

is

just

as much

a

part

of the

com-

poser's

art as

it

is

of

the

sculptor's

or

painter's

to be able

to

create clear and distinct shapes; the more clearly and vividly

the listener

perceives

these

shapes,

the more

fully

and

deeply

will he live the

life

of the

composition

as he hears

it."

Kofi

Agawu goes

even further and

explicitly

denies the

possibility

for musical

ambiguity.

Like

Schachter,

Agawu

believes that

"[i]n

situations of

competing

meanings,

the alternatives

are

always

formed

hierarchically, making

all such situations

decidable."2

Despite

their

skepticism,

Schachter and

Agawu

neverthe-

less

qualify

their

arguments against ambiguity.

Schachter

is careful to

explain

that

it is

not his

intention "to

deny

the

possibility

that

ambiguity

and

multiple meanings might

exist

in tonal music."

His

point,

rather,

s that the function of am-

biguity

"is more

narrowly

circumscribed han some

analysts,

*This

essay

is

dedicated to the

memory

of

John

Daverio,

David

Epstein,

and David Lewin.

In

this

regard,

David

Epstein's

view

is

representative:"Perhaps

no com-

poser

of the

period

so reveled in

the structural

possibilities

of

ambiguity

as did

Brahms."

(Epstein

1979, 162)

Charles Rosen

is

even

more forth-

right:

"More

than

any

other

composer,

Brahms

exploited

the

possibili-

ties of

overlapping

sections,

the

ambiguities

of

the

boundaries of

sonata

form."

(Rosen 1988, 395)

Notions of

ambiguity

even

appear

to

have

in-

fluenced

biographical perspectives

on the

composer,

leading

Karl

Geiringer among

others

to

identify psychological

ambivalence as

a dri-

ving

force behind Brahms's

personality

and

behavior.

(Geiringer

1990)

2Schachter

1990, 169;

Agawu

1994,

107.

57


3/42

58

MUSIC THEORY SPECTRUM 28

(2006)

perhaps

misled

by

false

analogies

to

language,

seem to be-

lieve."3

Agawu similarly

uses

concepts

of

hierarchy

and

con-

text

in

assessing

interpretive

options

as means of acknowl-

edging

the existence of double

meanings

while nevertheless

making

such

apparently

bivalent situations submit

to

the dictates of a

single analysis.

For

him,

the

only

true

ambiguity

would

arise in a context

in

which "two

(or more)

meanings

are

comparably

or

equally

plausible,"

a situation he

believes

does not exist

in

tonal music.4

Although

I

am

sympathetic

to

Schachter's and

Agawu's

admonitions

for

us to avoid what

might

be called

an

"Old

MacDonald

Approach

to

Analysis"-here

an

ambiguity,

there

an

ambiguity,everywhere

an

ambiguity--I

am not

yet

ready

to abandon the idea of double

meaning

as a critical

category

for Brahmsian

interpretation.

Rather,

I am con-

vinced that Brahms

was

as dedicated to

creating

multivalent

ideas as he was to

crafting

the clear and distinct

shapes

of

Schachter's unnamed

sculptor

or

painter.

Moreover,

I

con-

tend that

it

is essential to

perceive

more than

just

the

clarity

of distinct

shapes.

We also need

to

perceive

bivalence and its

consequences

if we

are to

appreciate

more

fully

and

deeply

the life of

Brahms's

compositions.

But how are we to engage ambiguity in an analytically

meaningful way?

David

Epstein

suggests

the answer lies

in

part

in a focus on

multiple temporalperspectives.

Indeed,

he

argues

that Brahms

characteristically

confirms the multiva-

lence

of his

ambiguous

ideas

by exploring competing

struc-

tural

potentials

as his

compositions

unfold.

Epstein

even as-

serts

that,

for

Brahms,

exploration

of

"various

viewpoints"

often becomes the

impetus

behind a

passage

or even an en-

tire

composition.5

With his focus on

listening perspective,

Epstein anticipates a core component of the analytical

methodology

that David Lewin

was to formalize

in

his in-

fluential article

"Music

Theory,

Phenomenology,

and Modes

of

Perception."6 lthough

Lewin

does

not

address

ambiguity

per

se,

the

approach

to

analysis

that

he

advocates,

with its

dedication to

carving

out

analytical space

for

multiple

mean-

ings,

is

highly suggestive

for the

topic.

My

own contribution o

ongoing explorations

f

Brahmsian

ambiguity

takes

Epstein's

and Lewin's

emphasis

on

listening

perspective

as a

point

of

departure. Despite

my

differences

with

Schachter,

also find

it

useful to focus on

the

kinds

of

binary,

"either/or"

oppositions

that he

develops

as

a route

towards

analytical

nsight.

Yet rather than

analyze composi-

tions

in

which Schachter's call for

single,

correct

readings

rings

true, I

propose

to

explore passages

in which Brahms

takes considerable

pains

to

encouragemultiple nterpretations.

The

particular

orm of

binary opposition

that will be

my

focus arises

in both the metric

and

harmonic

dimensions.

Indeed

my argument

in

favor

of

ambiguity

as an irreducible

component

of Brahms'saesthetic centers on the similar

ways

in

which metric and harmonic double

meanings

emerge,

de-

velop,

and

ultimately

resolve.

In

both musical

dimensions,

ambiguity may

arise within

an

initial context

in

which

there

is not enough information to signal a univalent metric or

harmonic

interpretation.

The initial context instead

plants

the seeds

for the bivalence that is to become a source

for

musical

development.

In

the case of

rhythmic ambiguity,

he

passages

I

will

explore

involve motivic cells

whose

strong-

weak or

weak-strong

metric

identity

is

open

to

question.

Repeating

such a cell

in

shifted

positions

and

in varied musi-

cal

contexts

heightens

the overall sense of

ambiguity

such

that

the

ambiguity

itself

becomes a

narrativethread

in a

Brahms work. Similarly,in the harmonic dimension, when

roots are a fifth

apart

context can

make

it

unclear

which root

is

controlling:

I-V

or

IV-I.

A Brahms

piece

may, through

repetition

and

recontextualization,

make

this

harmonic am-

biguity

a

topic

for elaboration.

In

the

case of both

types

of

3

Schachter

1990,

169.

For a similar

qualified skepticism

regarding

no-

tions of

ambiguity

specifically

as

they

apply

to issues of metric and

hypermetric

interpretation,

see

Schachter

1999,

97-100.

4

Agawu

1994,

89.

5

Epstein

1979,

162-69.

6 Lewin

1986.


4/42

YOU

REAP WHAT YOU

SOW:

SOME

INSTANCES OF

RHYTHMIC

AND HARMONIC

AMBIGUITY

IN BRAHMS

59

ambiguity,

a decisive recontextualization

typically

resolves

the

double

meaning

as

part

of

the

work's

close.

Brahms'sC-minor Piano

Quartet,

op.

60,

provides

fertile

ground

in which to

begin

to

explore

metric

dualities

and

their

consequences.

Following

this

analysis,

I

address

similar

metric

ambiguities

as

they

interact

specifically

with Brahms's

linkage technique

in

the Double

Concerto,

op.

102,

and

Clarinet

Trio,

op.

114. A

comparison

of the function

of

am-

biguity

in these works establishes

characteristic

strategies

of

double

meaning, strategies

we

see in effect even as we shift

our focus to harmonic

ambiguity

in the

Adagio

of the G-

major String

Quintet,

op.

111,

and the B-minor

Rhapsody,

op.

79,

no.

1.7

Each

analysis

proceeds

from

conflicting interpretations

of

an

opening

theme to later

developments

of this

material,

always

with attention

to the remarkabledetails of musical

craftsmanship

that

Brahms's

compositions

offer in abun-

dance.

We

will see that the works'

thematic

processes

gravi-

tate

towards

precisely

those

competing

characteristics

hat

give

rise to the initial sense

of double

meaning.

In

the

case of

both metric and harmonic

ambiguity,

the notion of retro-

spective

clarification of

puzzling

events

will thus inform

my

analyses. But in expanding on Edward Cone's notions of

"promissory

notes" and

"unfinished

business,"

my

approach

highlights

the fact that

it is often the

very presence

of an

elemental double

meaning

that later

contexts

support.8

The

result,

regardless

of whether we

are confronted with

metric

or

harmonic

ambiguity,

is an enormous

tonal

delay

whose

resolution

corresponds

with

liquidation

of the

contradictory

characteristics,

so that

the movements

finally

achieve

the

clarity

absent

from

their

bivalent

openings.

The fact

that

double

meanings play

a

central

role

in these

larger

tonal

processes supports

the

idea

that

we are

dealing

with

genuine

cases of

ambiguity

rather

than

passages

in

which

a

single

interpretation

dominates.

Before

forging

ahead

with

analysis,

we

need to return

for

a moment to

issues

surrounding

the

relationship

between

listening perspective

and double

meaning.

As

previously

mentioned-and

in contrast to

the view that

I

will

develop

-Agawu

argues

that the

possibility

for

ambiguity evapo-

rates once

an

analysis

sorts

out the different

temporal

con-

texts

in which

competing

interpretations

arise. Take the

conflicting

metric

interpretations

of the

opening

motive of

the C-minor

piano

quartet suggested

in

Example

1. As

Lewin

asserts,

it is

illogical

to claim

that we hear

this

figure

as both

strong-weak

and

weak-strong

at

the

same time. His

solution-one that both

Agawu

and I

adopt-is

to draw

at-

tention to different

temporal

contexts

in which we

might

hear the motive

in one

way

or the other.

But does this

poten-

tial

for diverse

interpretations

amount

to a robust

ambiguity?

Agawu argues

that a

single interpretation

will dominate in

any

of

these

different

contexts;

thus no

ambiguity

arises.

In

the absenceof the 50-50 balance he requires or ambiguity, t

is

simply

a matter

of

a

rhythmic

motive that we hear one

way

in one context and

another

way

in another context.

I

nevertheless

contend that

the

special

characterof

many

Brahms

passages

is

only

partially captured

by

this more in-

clusive,

temporally-sensitive

version

of either/or

hearing.

Although

it

may

be

impossible

to hear

conflicting

rhythmic

interpretations

simultaneously,

some

motives nevertheless

have less

clearly-defined

metric

identities than

others.

I will

demonstrate that Brahmsmay indeed hold us in an ongoing

state of ambivalence

as

he

develops

such

materials.

The sum

total of the

process

of

hearing

a

motive that

keeps

switching

meanings

may

indeed

produce

ambiguity.

For

it is

my

con-

tention

that,

as

we

listen,

we

assess

musical ideas

not

merely

as isolated

components

within

discrete

temporal

contexts.

We also

respond

to these

ideas as

entities that live a

life of

7

My

interest

in the concerto and

quintet

has been stimulated

by

the

work

of

John

Daverio,

a scholar whose

writings, along

with

Epstein's

and

Lewin's,

were

very

much on

my

mind as

I

developed

the

ideas

for

this

essay.

Daverio's

published

work

on

the

Adagio

from

the

Quintet

appears

in

Daverio

1993,

144-54. He

provides

a critical reevaluation of

the

concerto

in Daverio 2002.

8

Cone 1986 and

1989.


5/42

60

MUSIC

THEORY SPECTRUM

28

(2006)

continuity

across the

unfolding

of a work. In other

words,

while it

may

be

analytically productive

to

adopt

a

Lewin-

esque emphasis

on

cognition

and

temporality,

we need not

reject

outright competing

notions

of

Platonic

atemporality

and

idealism. Once we are

engaged

in

analysis,

both

perspec-

tives

may

lead to

insight-provided

that we are

willing

to

approach

our work

pragmatically,

without

aspirations

for

an

allusive

methodological

purity.

To

illustrate

the

point,

consider the

repetitions

of the

quarter-note

motive

in

Example

1. When we

speak

of the

motive in

measures3 or

4--or

mm.

13, 14, 32,

or

33-we are

not

speaking

exclusively

of

fragments

that

we

perceive

only

in

different

temporal

contexts. In

as much as

the

motives are

related

by

an

identity

relationship-and

this after all is what

allows us to

speak

of

them as

repetitions-we

are

hearing

the

evolution

of a

musical idea. We

mentally

retain this idea

independent

of

its isolated

iterations,

during

the

process

though

which

we assess the idea from various

viewpoints.

As

we

experience

the motive

from

these

viewpoints,

we will see

that

it is

possible

to become less and less sure of the idea's

metrical

identity.

This

is the case even

despite

(or

perhaps

because

of)

any

momentary

clarity

that

may

arise at

isolated

moments in the listening process,that is, despite the contex-

tual

clarity

that

Agawu

believes disavows the

possibility

for

ambiguity.

It

is also crucial to observe

that,

even within one or an-

other

of

Agawu's

or

Lewin's

contexts,

there

may

be

varying

possibilities

for

attribution

of double

meaning.

An

analogy

with the

famous

rabbit/duck

sketches clarifies what is

in-

volved here.

Despite

their

potential

duality,

Lewin

points

out

that no one

looking

at these sketches claims to see a

rabbit

and a duck simultaneously.9Lewin highlights this fact to

bolster

his

argument

about the

importance

of

temporal per-

spective

for

analysis

of musical multivalence. Another

point

worth

highlighting

is that not all sketchesof rabbitshave the

potential

to be

seen

as ducks

and visa versa.The same is also

true for

musical ideas.

Some

are

absolutely

clear in

either

metrical

identity

or

tonal

function. Others

may

have

varying

capacities

to

be heard in

multiple ways.

Thus

although

it

might

be

difficult

to

argue

for a 50-50 balance

between com-

peting interpretations,

it is

nevertheless

analytically

mean-

ingful

to

distinguish

between cases that come close versus

situations

in

which there is near or absolute

clarity.

With

respect

to

rhythmic

issues,

we

might

consider the

piano quartet's

basic idea

in

light

of a continuum

extending

from materials

that are

metrically unequivocal

to those

that

are

a-metric,

that

is,

situations in which there is

absolute

clarity

one

way

or the other.

The

quartet's

motive stands

between these extremes and thus has

greater potential

for

double

meaning

than an idea at the continuum's

endpoints

of

univalence.

Moreover,

Brahms creates and

develops

this

double

meaning

with masterful

acuity

and

range.

Although

we

might

be hard

pressed

to locate an extended

a-metric

passage

in

Brahms,

it is

obviously

not difficult to

find

examples

of clear and distinct metrical

shapes.

Take,

for

instance,

the

passage

from the

Eb-major

Rhapsody,

op.

119,

no.

4,

shown

in

Example

2(a).

What is

noteworthy

here

is

that,

although

the

rhapsody's rhythmic

motive of m. 65 is

similarto the piano quartet'sbasic idea, Brahmsplaces it in a

context in which one cannot

help

but

perceive

the

notated

meter.

By

contrast,

the other

excerpts

in

Example

2

possess

a

degree

of metric

ambiguity comparable

to

that

found in the

quartet.Although

a detailed

analysis

of these works

falls

be-

yond

the

scope

of this

article,

I will nevertheless return to

them later in order to

compare

some

consequences

of their

rhythmic

double

meanings

with the

impact

of metric ambi-

guity

in

the

quartet.'0

At the

least,

my analyses suggest

a

stylistic basis for the kinds of relationshipsI will pursue in

the

quartet

and as such

provide

intertextual

support

for

my

argument

that

this

specific type

of

metric bivalence

serves

as

a

driving

force

in Brahms's ormal

processes.

9

Lewin

1986,

370-71.

o0

Readers nterested

n

more detailed discussion of

the

horn trio and

clarinet rio canconsult

Smith

2001.


6/42

YOU REAP WHAT YOU

SOW:

SOME

INSTANCES

OF RHYTHMIC AND HARMONIC AMBIGUITY IN BRAHMS

61

Ivla./cello l

Allegro

non

troppo

99

Violine

I I

p

B r a t s c h e

I -----0001-

Violoncell

p

~- _

Allegro non troppo

4th

th

Pianoforte

f

dim.

f

dim.

iio6 .

aligned

EXAMPLE

I.

Brahms, C-minor

Piano

Quartet,

i,

1-34.

METRIC AMBIGUITY AND

TONAL

DELAY IN THE C-MINOR

PIANO

QUARTET

The absence of metric articulation within the initial

quasi-fermata

on

C

is crucial

to

the

possibility

for

multiple

rhythmic interpretations

of

the

quartet's

head motive

(see

Example

1).11

Contrast the

openness

of this

rhythmic

context

with the clear definition of

meter

provided

by

the

measures that

precede

the C-minor motive of m. 65

in

the

op.

119

Rhapsody.

Supporting

factors

for

the

competing

metric interpretationsin the quartet are listed in Example

3.12

Note in

Example

1 that

although

the

viola and

cello

ii

For

discussion

of other instances of

quasi-fermatas

in

Brahms,

see

Smith

1994a, 254-55,

and

1992,

235-37.

Samarotto

1999,

47,

also uses

the term and

specifically

links

the idea

of a

quasi-fermata

as unmea-

sured time to his

related

category

of

uninterpreted

durations.

12

See

Caplin

1998, 35-42,

for

definitions of

the

form-functional terms

presentation

and continuation that

appear

in Ex. 3.


7/42

62

MUSIC THEORY

SPECTRUM 28

(2006)

13

1

4th

1

4th

rI--

----

--|

p1

-

-

-

espress.

dim. sempre

Sespress

------

dim.

sempre

p

-

espress.

dim. sempre

iio6

i6

aligned

i

-but

then

strong-weak

weak-strong

strong-weak

or

eak-strong?

27

pizz.rco

sf

-pp

pizz.

.aarco

pp

p

marc

f

V.

Aige

ir)

i

V/displaced

i/aligned

EXAMPLE

I.

[continued]


8/42

YOU

REAP WHAT YOU

SOW:

SOME

INSTANCES

OF RHYTHMIC AND HARMONIC AMBIGUITY

IN

BRAHMS

63

SS

W

S W

etc.

W- S

7f-

or S

-

W

Andante

p

dolce

espress.

Horn in Es

r

A I

,

I

Andante

d.oc-..I

Iwl--

"

-

f

Sf Sf Sf

Sf3

P

Pianoforte p

dolce

(b)

Brahms,

Eb-major

Horn

Triody,i,

-8.

EXAMPLE

2.

provide

metric clarification in the continuation

portion

of

the

sentence,

a residue

of

conflicting

cues

remains

n

the vio-

lin.

Moreover,

the

phrase

culminates

in

yet

another

metri-

cally

undefined

quasi-fermata

even before the

opening

B%

octaves return

n m.

11.

The

Bk

octaves

prepare

a second

progression

from metric

uncertainty

to

partial clarity

within the

varied

repeat

of the

opening phrase.

There

is, however, perhaps

a

heightened

sense of

displacement

due to

Brahms's transference of the

motivic

ascending

fourth-a

characteristic anacrusic

gesture

-into the

top

voice.

Moreover,

as he

sits

on

the

goal

domi-

nant of

m.

27,

Brahms effaces

the

somewhat clearer

articula-

tion

of

the

meter

that

again

has

just

emerged

in

the lower

strings.

An element

of

metric

liquidation

thus

complements


9/42

64

MUSIC

THEORY SPECTRUM 28

(2006)

(c)

Brahms,

A-minor

Clarinet

Trio, i,

12-17

w-

or S Wor

W

(c) Brahms, A-inor Clarinet Trio, i, 2- arc7.

153

o

1

-(il

p

dolce

StringsI

(i.)

p

(d) Brahms, A-minor Double Concerto,

,

153-57 (simplfied).

EXAMPLE

2.

[continued]


10/42

YOU

REAP

WHAT YOU

SOW:

SOME INSTANCES

OF

RHYTHMIC AND HARMONIC AMBIGUITY

IN

BRAHMS

65

Strong-weak

as notated

Forpresentation

(mm. 3-4)

(1)

appoggiatura

character

of

Eb

(2)

p -

(3)

possibility

for

short-long

"sarabande"

rhythm

in

3/4

For

continuation and cadence

(mm.

5-10)

(1)

agogic emphasis

on

cello

Ab,

F, D,

G

(2)

crescendo to cello D at m. 8

Weak-strong displacement

(1)

agogic emphasis

on

D

(2)

tendency

for

ii6

to

fall on

accented

beat as in: C

I

F6

G6/4

G5/3

1

C

(3)

C-F

ascending

4th in cello

(cf

B

-E6

and

Db-G6

in

vl.

of mm. 14

and

16)

(1)

agogic emphasis

on

vl.

Cs,

Ab,

G

EXAMPLE

3.

Supportingfactorsfor competing

metric

interpretations.

the

more conventional

thematic

liquidation

as

the

phrase

reaches

its

harmonic

goal.

By

the time

the dominant enters

at m.

27, then,

we

have

experienced

two

progressions

from metric ambivalence to

partial clarity

and back

to

ambivalence.

In

both

cases,

as

the

notated

meter

emerges

somewhat more

vividly

in the

continuation portion of the phrase, the basic idea receives

retrospective

definition

as

a

strong-weak gesture.

Thus when

the same

quarter-note figure

enters

in the form

of

the E

pizzicatos

in

m.

28-note

again

the

quasi-fermata

context--

it seems

logical

to

expect

that the

motive

will

emerge

again

as

a

strong-weak

utterance.

This,

however,

is

precisely

what

Brahms avoids. As the notated meter resurfaces at

m.

31,

the

weak-strong

motion to

F

defines a new anacrusic

placement

for the

rhythmic

cell. On the one

hand,

this anacrusic

posi-

tion casts some doubt on

perceptions

of the

original

version

of the basic idea as

strong-weak. Perhaps

the

previously-

rejected

intuitions

of

weak-strong

accentuation were

indeed

correct.

Yet

it

is also the case that

the

dominant

of m. 31 re-

solves into

a

thematic counterstatement

that

articulates the

downbeat

position

of the head

motive

without

equivocation.

Brahms's

rhythmic

idea

finally

achieves

a

state of

clarity

in

which there is absolute conformance

between

heard

and

notated

meter.

Thus at

this

stage

in the

piece,

two

rhythmic

identities

have been

posited

and both

have

received later

confirmation

in

more

metrically

determinant

environments.

To this

point

our

focus has been on metric issues. But

what about the potential for tonal bivalence? Do the pizzicato

Eqs,

for

instance,

point

toward an

ambiguity

of

pitch

func-

tion?

Moreover,

is there

any particular

way

in

which

metric

and tonal

ambiguity

might

interact

in a

Brahms movement?

Given

their

oddity,

it

is

surprising

how

easy

it is

to

interpret

the

Eis,

as outlined

in

Example

4. Their

passing

function

argues

against

the

idea

of a

double

meaning.

Yet at

the

moment

they

enter,

before

the voice

leading

carries them

on

to

F,

the

pizzicatos

do

indeed

introduce

an

element

of func-

tional

uncertainty.

Not

only

are

they tonally odd-they

enter

abruptly

and from an

implicit

D

rather than

an

explicit

5-6

motion-but

they

are

timbrally

isolated

as

well.

Brahms

also

lingers

on the

Eis,

within another

quasi-fermata, creating

a

further sense

of

isolation. These factors

encourage

an

experi-

ential

perplexity,

that

is,

a

pregnant

pause,

until the

entry

of


11/42

66 MUSIC THEORY SPECTRUM 28

(2006)

5

6 7

5-

6 -7

V i

V

i

EXAMPLE

4.

Passingfunction for

E#.

F provides retrospectiveclarification. Observe the interac-

tion

of

the

metric and tonal

dimensions

at this

point

in

the

form: the

very

moment that

the arrivalof

F

clarifies the con-

trapuntal

function of

E?,

the

passage

likewise

clarifies,

at

least

momentarily,

he metric

identity

of the

pizzicato

quarter

notes.

We will see that

this

type

of

coordination

between di-

mensions has

far-reaching

consequences

not

only

for the

piano

quartet,

but for

Brahmsian

ambiguity

in

general.

Returning

to the

Eis

themselves,

notwithstanding

the

initial moment of suspense, it would seem dubious to at-

tribute

E?-minor

harmonic function to the

6

chord at

m.

28.

We are

much more

likely

to hear the chord as some

type

of

unusual

byproduct

of voice

leading

even before its function is

made clear

by

the continuation

to

F. An

E?-minor

function,

however,

is

precisely

what Brahms

assigns

the

6 chord in the

recapitulation,

as

highlighted

in

Example

5. It turns out

that

the

chord does have

potential

to function as

an

inversion,

even

though

Brahms realizes

that

potential only

in

a

later

context.

This element

of

bivalence is nevertheless

distinct

from the

metric

duality

of the

main theme's basic idea. An

EN-minor

function for the

3

chord remains

inactive

within

the

context of the

expository

dominant

expansion.

The

chord's

harmonic

potential

lies

fallow until

the

recapitula-

tion. The

possibility

for

tonicization

thus

represents

a case

of

"unfinished

business,"

whose fulfillment is

long-postponed

and

unlikely

yet

in

retrospect

nevitable.13

By

contrast,

multiple

metric

interpretations

of the

quarter-

note motive

are

availableto

compete

from

the outset.

There

is a

palpable

tension between the two

hearings

within the

tonic

area,

and

the

rhythmic

cell

thus

achieves a

degree

of

ambiguity

absent from the

pizzicato

Eis.

Brahms

presents

his idea

notationally

in

two metric

positions,

and confirms

both

rhythmic

identities

with the

unambiguous

anacrusic

Eq-F motion

(m.

31,

weak-strong)

and the clear downbeat

orientation

for the head motive at the counterstatement

m.

32,

strong-weak).

It is not a matter of one or the other

possi-

bility

functioning

as a dormant

seed,

awaiting

later

growth;

both rhythmicidentities begin to germinatewithin the ini-

tial

appearance

of the

material.

Moreover,

as is well known

and as the

excerpts

n

Example

2

illustrate,

discrepancies

be-

tween heard

and notated

meter are

a

Brahmsian hallmark.

By

contrast,

harmonic status for

a

?iii

chord otherwise

inci-

dental to

a

5-6

motion,

represents

an esoteric

possibility

that

requiresexplicit

realization

to

achieve

perceptual

relevance.

One issue raised

by

the realization of the harmonic

po-

tential of the

6

chord is the role

of

compositional

intent in

discussions of ambiguity. Put otherwise, one strategy for

defending

the

notion of

ambiguity

is to

demonstrate a

posi-

tive

compositional

function

for the

proposed

bivalence.

Otherwise

ambiguity might imply

either creative weakness

or

analytical incompetence,

an

inability

for

a

composer

to

craft

Schachter's

"clearand

distinct

shapes"

or

for an

analyst

to

perceive

them.14

In the

quartet's

opening paragraph

of

Example

1,

there

is

strong

evidence

of

Brahms's

commit-

ment to

double

meaning.

How else are

we

to

explain

the

13

Brahms's

strategy

of

eventually realizing

the latent harmonic

potential

of

a

contrapuntal

6

chord

informs many ofs

many

of his

compositions.

For an in-

vestigation

of the

topic

see

Smith 1997. On "unfinished

business,"

see

Cone

1989.

14

Schachter

1990,

169.


12/42

YOU REAP WHAT

YOU

SOW:

SOME

INSTANCES

OF

RHYTHMIC

AND HARMONIC AMBIGUITY IN BRAHMS

67

217

pizz. arco

PP

pizz.

arco

p dim.

marc

P

p dim.

p..

pimm.

S5 6

i

.'.. I I

l

,

I

,

S6

7

p

dim.

p

dim.

p

espress.

(a

dim.

C

a)iIIp

Bmu

(a)

Bra.ms,

C-mlorPiano

uartet,

217-37.

EXAMPLE

5.


13/42

68


(2006)

217 223

227 230 236

pizz.

i

--..

.i

.

.

-

.,II"L-

OL

5-6 5-6

5-E5

10 5 - 6

5

- 6

5

8

07

8-7 6

-5

4

-3

7 4

4-3

5

6

t

2

V

E-minor

motivic

expansion

V (as

local

tonic)

(b)Analysis ofvoiceleading.

EXAMPLE

5.

[continued]

dramatic

shift from the

quasi-fermatas

scattered

throughout

the

opening,

with their

attenuating

effect on

metric

percep-

tion,

to the relentless definition

of the notated

meter at

the

counterstatement of m. 32?

This contrast s

part

of a

strategy

to

begin

not with a

straightforwardopening

accent

but

with

a tension-filled anacrusis leading to a delayed structural

downbeat.

Note

how

a

similarly sharp

contrast

of harmonic charac-

ter

joins

the

rhythmic-metric

dichotomy

to create this

pro-

gression

from

tension

to

release.

The

opening, although

it

unfolds within

a structural

tonic,

expands

that tonic

in

part

through

moments

of

seeming

tonal

discontinuity.

Here I

have in mind not

only

the shift

to

B

b

at

m. 11 and the intru-

sion

of the

pizzicato

E s. Also

disruptive

is the

progression

from the local

emphasis

on

Db

in m. 15 to the

Bb-major 6

chord at m. 17.

To be

sure,

one does

not

have to

delve too

deeply

to find

sources of

coherence for

these

striking

tonal

events:

B6

enters

through

chromatic inflection

of

the

B?

im-

plicit

in

the

dominant arrival

of m.

9;

E?

is a

passing

tone,

as

we

have

just

seen;

and the

violin's dissonant

Gb

in

the

viio6/

D1

chord at the end

of

m.

16 resolves

in

register

to

the

viola's

F.

The elements of surface

discontinuity

nevertheless

join

the

metric

ambiguity,

rhythmic

starts

and

stops,

and slow surface

rhythm

to embed a slow

introductory

characterwithin the

opening.

The extended

passage

of

descending

chromaticism

at

m.

17 likewise contributes

to the

sharp

contrast between

the unheimlischmbedded introduction and the fury of the

counterstatement's

pure

C

minor.

To

assert an

unambiguous

4

meter

throughout

the

opening

would be to

deny

a

signifi-

cant

component

of the

expressive opposition

between

the

passages.

In

addition to

their contribution

to a

pattern

of tension

and

release,

harmony

and meter

also interact to create

more

specific

correlationsbetween the tonal and

rhythmic

dimen-

sions.15 Its

rhythmic

tenuousness

notwithstanding,

the

aligned

version of the basic idea is associated

with tonic ar-

ticulation.

This

is the case

not

only

at the

very

outset but

15

My

attention

to

tonal-rhythmic

correlations

is

inspired by

Lewin

1981.

I

similarly

explore

correlations

between harmonic

prolongation

and

metric

displacement

in Smith 2001. For further extension of Lewin's

ideas,

see

Cohn 2001.


14/42

YOU

REAP WHAT

YOU

SOW:

SOME

INSTANCES

OF RHYTHMIC

AND HARMONIC

AMBIGUITY

IN

BRAHMS

69

also

within

the tonicizations of

Bk

and

Db

in

mm.

13-16,

as

highlighted

in

Example

1. The

pizzicato

displacement,

by

contrast,

alls within the dominant.The

tension

of

this dom-

inant

resolves both

tonally

and

metrically

with

the return of

the basic idea at m. 32, thus

confirming

the association of

metric

alignment

with tonic articulation.

Indeed,

Brahms

createsa

rhythmic corollary

or the tonal relentlessness

of the

C

pedal

in

the

suddenly

emphatic

articulationof the meter.

Not

surprisingly,

Brahms

develops

all

of

these characteristics

-especially

the metric

duality-when

the

opening

material

returns

in

the

recapitulation.16

The result is a

reinterpre-

tation of the

passage's

anacrusic

character

as

part

of a reca-

pitulatory

formal

overlap.

The thematic material reenters at

m. 199 of Example 6, but it is subsumed within a continua-

tion of the retransition's

dominant

prolongation.

The

tonic

chords

within

the

passage

are

apparent-not

structural--

tonics,

that

is,

they

are

chords built with the

pitches

of the

tonic

but without a tonic function."

What

is

noteworthy

for

our discussion

of

metric

ambiguity

is the

development

of the

quarter-note

motive

as

part

of

this

recapitulatory overlap.

The

process

of

development

occurs in both the

disguised

reentry

of

the main theme at m. 199 and the

newly-composed

segmentbeginning in m. 208, also shown in Example6.

In the

first

instance,

the metric

instability

of the head

motive intensifies as

part

of

the

process

whereby

retransi-

tional

tension extends across the

point

of

thematic return.

The

triplet

octaves

in

mm.

196-98

articulate the

quarter-

note

pulse,

in contrast to the a-metric characterof the

origi-

nal

C

octaves for which

they

substitute.

But in a

develop-

ment of the

quasi-fermata

character

of the

Cs,

the absence of

articulation on the dotted-half

level

(downbeat

of m.

197)

creates some doubt

regarding

the

rhythmic

status of the ma-

terial

in m.

198. Does the

shift to

Ab correspond

with the

heard downbeat or does the

agogic

accenton the

second beat

-note the

accent

in the

piano-articulate

a metric

shift?18

Annotations in

Example

6

highlight

the

fact that

repetitions

of the triplet motive, labeledX, across the formal hinge con-

tinue

to

emphasize

the second beat as the

piano

reintroduces

the head motive with its

intrinsic

tendency

for

displacement.

As

in

the

expository

version,

the notated meter

emerges

with

greater clarity,

above all

in

the

accompaniment,

as the sen-

tence continues

beyond

its basic idea

(m.

201).

The metric

confusion across the

reprise

nevertheless

joins

both the in-

trusive

Ab

and

textural-dynamic overlap

to blur the formal

boundary

and

thus

to

deny

thematic

or

tonal resolution.

The tendency for displacement further develops follow-

ing

the

dominant arrivalat

the end of the main theme

(m.

205).

In the

passage beginning

in

m.

208

of

Example

6,

the

fragmentary

iterations

of

the head

motive lose even

their

tenuous

grip

on the meter

and slide into

positions

of

dis-

placement.

This

aspect

of

development

builds

on the

rela-

tionship

between the head and

pizzicato

versions

of the

quarter-note

idea. At the

recapitulatory

point

of

crisis,

the

original

version of the

motive

is

overcome

by

characteristics

16 The

metric

ambiguity

of

the

quarter-note

motive serves as a basis for

development

at

other

points

in the movement as well.

A

noteworthy

passage

in this

regard

is the central

episode

of the

development

begin-

ning

in m.

142.

There the

grandiose B-major

transformation

of the

main

theme

clearly

projects

the notated

meter. It

is

in

the

passage

that

follows

at m. 154 that

Brahms

exploits

the head motive's metric

ambi-

guity

to undercut

the

apparent triumph

of the

major-mode

transforma-

tion. Once

again harmony

and

meter work hand in hand. The

shift

to

E-minor at m. 154

highlights

the

ephemeral

character of the

B-major

triumph by retrospectively redefining

it

as

an

unstable dominant

expan-

sion.

Likewise,

the

solidity

of

the notated meter

in

the

B-major passage

disintegrates

into the

rhythmic ambiguities

of the

turbulent

E-minor

section.

17

Schachter

1990, 169-73,

provides

a

stimulating

discussion of

apparent

tonics.

18 To a

large degree,

a decision

about how to hear the

passage

will

depend

on

performance

factors. A

chamber

group

that

emphasizes

the

down-

beat shift to

A?,

perhaps

with

a

Luftpause,

will make it

harder

to

hear

the

agogic

emphasis

in m.

198 as

part

of a metric

displacement.

A

quartet

that

plays through

the

notated

downbeat

and

onward

to

the

second

beat

will make

displacement

all the

more

plausible.


15/42

70

MUSIC

THEORY SPECTRUM

28

(2006)

3 1 2

.

1 2 3

1 2 etc.

Y k"

~

~

xf

espress

fff

fr

p

coespress

S--W

204as

notated or:

S

--W

S -W (Displaced hemiola)

di;

N-

f

i

--Im

--

V V V

EXAMPLE

.

Brahms,

C-minor Piano

Quartet,

i,

196-213.


16/42

YOU

REAP

WHAT YOU

SOW:

SOME

INSTANCES

OF RHYTHMIC

AND HARMONIC

AMBIGUITY

IN BRAHMS

71

of the

tonally

anomalous

pizzicato

figure.

What

was

origi-

nally

associated with

the tonic

and

the

notated

downbeat

becomes dominant oriented and

displaced

in a

manner

that

solidifies a connection with the

pizzicato

version.

Yet

despite

the new position of displacement,the metric identity of the

motive remains

ambiguous.

As the annotations

n

Example

6

highlight,

there is a

very

real

possibility

to

hear

a

(displaced)

strong-weak

orientation for the idea

despite

the

articulation

of

the notated

meter in

the

piano.

No matter

how

Brahms

positions

the

motive,

it

stubbornly

resists

straightforward

metric

interpretation.

Further

development

of

metric-tonal correlationsarises n

consequences

Brahms draws from the

pizzicato

idea as it re-

turns in m. 224. The aforementionedtonicization of the E s

becomes

a

stepping

stone to

recapitulation

of

the

secondary

material

in

the

unlikely

key

of the

major

dominant

(see

m.

236 of

Example

5).

Thus in

a somewhat

more

abstractman-

ner,

the

displaced

version

of the

quarter-note

motive

remains

bound

up

with the dominant. Brahms takes care to

provide

both metric resolution

for

the head

motive and

tonal-timbral

resolution

for the

pizzicato

figure

as

part

of the

delayed

structural

downbeat that

results from

this off-tonic return.

Remarkably,the dominant expansion extends not only

across the

reprise

of the

secondary

material

(mm.

236-87)

but even

into the coda of m.

288.

This

extended dominant

itself

further

prolongs

the dominant that

originates

n the

re-

transition and flows across the return of

the

primary

the-

matic material.

The

result is that we

find ourselvesstill wait-

ing

for a structural onic as late as m. 312

of the

coda.19

As

Example

7

shows,

a

passage

characterized

by

relentlessartic-

ulation of the

notated

meter

prepares

the restatement of

the

opening

C octaves

that

finally provide

this

delayed

tonic

at m.

313.

(The

clear

delineation

of the

meter in m. 312

reflects

the

overall metric

clarity

of

the

preparatory

assage,

which

begins

in m.

308.)

The sense of

pulse easily

continues

through

the

octaves,

which

lose their

a-metric character.

The sustained

meter allows for clear

rhythmic

definition

of

the two versions

of the

quarter-note

motive as

they

enter

for the first time in

contrapuntal

combination. Indeed the

combination itself contributes

to the sudden metric

clarity.

There

is no

longer

any

doubt that the octave

leap

functions

as

an anacrusis

and that the basic

idea

sits

firmly

on the

downbeat.

In addition

to

this

element of

metric

resolution,

note that both the

timbral

and tonal dissonance

of the

pizzi-

cato motive

resolve: the

unheimlisch

E?

figure

now

appears

arco and

transposed

to the tonic

pitch

level.

Liquidation

of

motivic

idiosyncrasy-including

the movement's seminal

metric double meaning-thus complements the long delayed

resolution

of

the

recapitulation's

dominant

prolongation.20

METRIC

AMBIGUITY AND LINKAGE IN THE DOUBLE

CONCERTO AND CLARINET

TRIO

Although

I

have not

yet

described

it

in

these

terms,

the

motivic

process

across

the

formal

hinge

at

m.

32

in

the

quartet presents

a classic case of

Knipftechnik

or

linkage

tech-

nique (refer back

to

Example 1).21

The

motivic

substance

at

the end of

one formal unit-the

pizzicato

*s-becomes

the

thematic

point

of

departure-the

EB-D

basic idea-for

the

subsequent

section.

The

wrinkle

here is that the motivic

connection

is

primarily

rhythmic.

Although

both

passages

emphasize

3,

an

identity

relationship

arises

largely through

repetition

of

the

quarter-note

pattern.

Note also

that

the

rhythmic

motive occurs twice in each instance.

As

we have

i9

I

discuss his

tonal

delay

and its

implications

or

Schenkerian

iews of

sonata orm n

greater

detail

n Smith 1994b.

20

Epstein

1979, 162-69, tracesa similarcoordination etweenresolution

of

a tonal

delay

and resolutionof an elemental metrical

ambiguity

n

the firstmovement

of

Brahms's

Second

Symphony.

21 The

term

Knipftechnik

s

Schenker's.See his discussionof motive

in

Schenker

1954,

3-12

and

fn.

10. For additional

examples

and further

discussion

of

linkage,

see

Kalib

1973,

vol.

I:

89-92,

and

Jonas

1982,

7-10.


17/42

72

MUSIC

THEORY SPECTRUM

28

(2006)

Pizz. motive

now

arco and

transposed

to C.

Clearly

heard as

notated: W-S

largamente

312

vi

espress.

+ via.

(+8)

Piano

(+ 8)

cello

(piano

not shown)

(vla. + cello not shown)

V

i Headmotive owclearly eard s notated: -W

EXAMPLE

7.

Brahms,

C-minor Piano

Quartet,

i,

312-17

(simplified).

seen,

the

process

is

complicated

by

the fact that the metric

position

of the motive shifts across the formal divide.

This shift is crucial

to

my argument

in favor of

hearing

the tonic area in terms of an elemental metric

ambiguity.

To

summarize:

following

previous retrospective

confirmations

of

a

strong-weak

interpretation

of

the basic

idea,

the entrance

of the

pizzicato

motive can

easily

be heard

as

yet

another

strong-weakutterance. Yet not a moment later,an anacrusic

E?-F

motion

(mm.

30-31)

clarifies the situation

in

favor

of a

weak-strong

interpretation.

But

then

linkage

with

the counterstatement

forces

us

back

into the

just-rejected

strong-weak

hearing.

The result

is a

process

in which

we can

never be

certain about the status

of the motive-either the

version we have

just

heard

or

the

one we are

currently

hear-

ing,

or even

repetitions

still

to come. This is the case

despite

isolated

moments

in

which a

single interpretationapparently

comes into

focus,

that

is, despite

the context-sensitive

hier-

archy

of

interpretations

that

Agawu

believes disavows the

possibility

for

ambiguity.

Although

linkage

is

most often described

as a

pitch

phenomenon,

the

quartet

is far from the

only example

in

which

the

technique

interacts with

rhythmic-metric

devel-

opment.

Such

instances of

linkage characteristically

unction

within

larger processes

centered

on a back-and-forth

of

metric

ambiguity.

This is the case

in

the

first

movements

of

the double

concerto,

clarinet

trio,

and horn

trio,

works

whose

metrically-ambiguous

motives

I

have

already

cited

in

Ex-

ample

2.

The

concerto,

where

linkage

is

ubiquitous, provides

an ideal context

to continue our

exploration

of Brahmsian

bivalence. Since I havewritten elsewhere aboutmetric orga-

nization in the

trios,

I will limit

my

discussion

here to the

most relevant

points

as

exemplified

by

the clarinet

work,

as

an

adjunct

to

my

discussion of the

concerto. These include

characteristics

we have also observed

in the

piano

quartet:

(1)

the function of

linkage

in

larger

metric

processes,

partic-

ularly

as

it

contributes to

ambiguity;

(2)

correspondences

be-

tween the

rhythmic

and harmonic

dimensions;

(3)

the role

of metric

displacement

n

creating

extended

tonal

delays;

and

(4)

the

tendency

for Brahms

to resolve metric

ambiguity

as

an

integralpart

of

closure,

following

these extended

delays.

The

secondary

dea

in

the

concerto's irst movement

plays

a crucial

role in

establishing

and

developing

the

work's

ele-

mental

metric

ambiguity.

The

omnipresence

of

linkage

in

Brahms's

reatment of this idea becomes

apparent

at the out-


18/42

YOU

REAP WHAT

YOU

SOW:

SOME

INSTANCES OF RHYTHMIC

AND HARMONIC AMBIGUITY IN BRAHMS

73

set

in

the concerto's amous

opening

alternationof orchestral

and cadenza-like

passages.22

As

Example

8

illustrates,

the

solo cello concludes

its

cadenza

in mm.

25-26

with an F-E

dyad

whose

appoggiatura

character

signals

a

strong-weak

(hyper)metricrelationship.The clarinet then enters with the

secondary

dea whose head motive forms

a

linking repetition

with the

cello's

appoggiatura.23

he fact that

the

horns ex-

tend the cello's E to form

yet

another

quasi-fermata,

means

that the metric context for the clarinet

entrance

is less than

clearly

defined. This lack of definition

conspires

with the

linkage

and

grouping

pattern

of the head motive to encour-

age

a

metric

displacement.

Listeners who

hold

tightly

to the cadenza's

meter,

even in

the face of the quasi-fermata,neverthelesswill recognizethe

clarinet's

syncopated

status.24The clarinet's

misalignment

is

further

signaled by

articulationof the barlines

n

the accom-

paniment

(third

and fourth

horns,

second

flute, etc.).

The

passage

thus

presents

a

threefold

rhythmic complexity.

Are

we to hear the theme as

notated,

with the

melody

out of

phase

with

the meter

as

defined

by

the

accompaniment?

Or

do

the

linkage

and

quasi-fermata

allow

us

to be

fooled

into

thinking

that

the

melody

corresponds

with the

meter,

thereby defining

the

accompaniment

as

syncopated?

Or do

we hear

something

in

between:

a

conflict between

a

strong-

weak

tendency

in the

melody

competing

against

the accom-

paniment's

articulationof the notated meter?

Rather than solve the

quandary,

he

passage

sustains

mul-

tivalence

through

further

linkage,

now

across

the

hinge

be-

tween the orchestral

phrase

and the violin'scadenza

of m.

31.

As

Example

9

suggests,

the violin

material

supports multiple

interpretations,

at least until m. 34 where the notated meter

decisively

reemerges.

From one

perspective,

the new

linking

motive can be heard to extend

a

displacement

in

the final

bars of the orchestralphrase.Yet the agogic accents on the

violin's

high

A

half notes

begin

to

signal

the notated barlines.

In

addition to

their

influence

on metric

interpretation

of the

cadenza,

these accents

retrospectively

effect

interpretation

of the

orchestral

passage.

As the violin's motive

locks

on to

the notated

meter,

the

passage

encourages

us

to reconsider

the statement

of the

same

figure

at

the

end of the

previous

phrase: perhaps

the

second

linking

motive did articulate the

meter

all

along.

This

revelation

in turn

calls into

question

a

strong-weak interpretation of the head motive of the sec-

ondary

theme. But this last bit of

retrospective

reevaluation

contradicts the

original linking relationship

with the

cello,

one source for the initial sense of metric

displacement.

Brahms thus

traps

us

in

a

seemingly

endless

loop

of

ambigu-

ity.

He never makes it

exactly

clear either

where we

are,

where we have

been,

or where he

might

take us.

Just

as the

music

seems to settle into one

perspective,

linkage

forces

us

to reconsider.The result

is

a

process

in

which

we are contin-

ually

uncertain

regarding

the

metrical

identity

of

Brahms's

motivic materials.

This

ambiguity

contributes

to the

yearning

and

gently

restless character of the

secondary

material.

Indeed,

Brahms

continues

to

marshal

linkage

in

the service

of

metric biva-

lence

when the theme returns

n the

C-major

secondary

area

(m.

153).

As

Example

10

highlights,

the clarinet line

at the

end of the transition reawakens both metric

possibilities

22 Daverio

interprets

linkage

across the entrance of cadenza

passages

in

the concerto as part of a strategy by which Brahms integrates "the chief

tokens of

virtuosic

display

with the

formal and

thematic

argument"

of the work.

For this

point

as well as

far-reaching

critical

commentary

on

the

entire

concerto,

see Daverio 2002.

23

The cello's cadenza

itself

enters

through

linkage

with the

opening

or-

chestral outburst

(mm. 4-5).

24 This manner of hearing corresponds with Andrew Imbrie's notion of

a conservative

listener,

that

is,

a

listener

who maintains

a

previously-

established meter

for

as

long

as

possible

in

the face

of

conflicting

cues.

Imbrie's

radical

listener,

by

contrast,

is

more

inclined

to

adjust

immedi-

ately

in the

face.

of

challenges

to

an

ongoing

metric

pattern.

See Imbrie

1973.


19/42

74

MUSICTHEORY PECTRUM8

(2006)

25s-s

w

s-w

p=dolce

p dod/ce

25.S--W

S

-

S-W

FL

d o k e e

Sdolcece

Hr.

p

S -w

arco

Solo:

Vc.

o

EXAMPLE .

Brahms,

Double

Concerto,

,

25-30

(simpliied).

for the 3-2

dyad.

The clarinet also

articulates ts

closing

6--

appoggiatura

as

a

strong-weak

gesture.

Brahms thus

places

the

second theme in another context of linkage that en-

courages

the same

internal conflicts found in

the

opening

orchestral-cadenza

alternation. Listeners attuned to the

preparatory

articulation of the

notated meter will hear the

second theme

syncopated

against

the

accompaniment.

For

those more focused on the

grouping pattern

in

the

solo cello

it will be

just

the

opposite.

In

either

case,

it is

noteworthy

that the

theme's

rhythmic

restlessness

complements

the

passage's

harmonic

instability.

As the

graph

in

Example

11

shows,

the

theme

expands

the dominant

rather than

the

local C

tonic. Similar

to

the

situation

in the

piano quartet,

metric

dissonance and

tonal

tension work

hand

in hand.

It

is not

the

case,

however,

that metric conflict dominates

the entire

thematic

statement.

The

cello and

accompaniment

do

finally

come

together

to articulate the notated

meter at

the

arrival

on

III# at

m. 161. What is remarkable

is that

Brahms

paradoxically

uses

this metric

clarity

to

prepare

or

the

reemergence

of

still more metric

ambiguity

via

linkage.

As

the cello reaches the end of its phrase, it arriveson two

final

statements

of

the

3-2

dyad,

now heard

clearly

as weak-

strong

in

conformance with the notated meter

(mm.

164-

66).

Yet the entrance of the

solo violin

immediately

contra-

dicts this metric consonance with its

displaced strong-weak

repetitions

of the

same 3-2 motive.

A

trace of the notated

meter nevertheless remains in

the

accompaniment,

which

shifts back to its

out-of-phase relationship

with

the

solo line.

As

we have

just

seen

in

the case of the cello's

phrase,

the vio-

lin

and orchestra also

eventually

come

together

to articulate

the notated

meter,

now at the

C-major

cadence of mm. 170-

71

(not

shown).

Once

again,

resolution of a tonal

delay

cor-

responds

with resolution

of metric

ambiguity.

Yet

although

soloists

and orchestra

remain

in

phase following

a

quasi-

fermata on

this

closing

C,

they

work

together

in the

subse-

quent passage

to articulate

a

displacement

(mm. 172-79).


20/42

YOU

REAP

WHAT

YOU

SOW:

SOME

INSTANCES OF

RHYTHMIC

AND

HARMONIC AMBIGUITY

IN

BRAHMS

75

1

2 3

4

1

1

2 3

41

p

dolce

29-

Fl.

I••

.x

Cl.

Fgitd

1

29

/

r---~~~~-3-----

r---3----_•

--

"N•

29

/-

r

-3

Solo

l3a.

---3m3------

Solo

__ _ _ __ _ _ _

Vcl.I

I

shifted:

1

2

3

4 1

2 3 4

or

A A

A

A

-IC?

etc.

pocof

as notated:

1 2

3 4 1

2 3

4

1 2

3

4

5

6 1

EXAMPLE

9.

Brahms,

Double

Concerto,

i,

29-36

(simplified).

Thus we see that

Brahms

thematicizes

the

seemingly

endless alternation

of metric articulation and

displacement,

as well as direct conflicts between the two.

Indeed,

this ele-

mental

conflict continues

to

animate

developments

of the

secondary

idea

throughout

the

movement.

The

tendency

for

internal

conflict

is

especially pronounced

in solo

passages

where

transparency

of

texture affords

Brahms the

opportu-

nity

to create

conflicting signals

in his musical narrative.

Big

orchestral

tuttis,

on the other

hand,

are

ideally

suited to un-

ambiguous displacement

in which all instruments

join

to

ef-

face the notated meter.

Comparison

of the

unchallenged

metric shift

in the

tutti statements

of

the

secondary

idea in

mm.

90-101

and

206-17

with

the

more conflicted version

for

the

soloists we have

just

examined

highlights

this

di-

chotomy.

To

borrow

terminology

from Harald

Krebs,

Brahms

heightens

the

contrast between

solo

and

tutti

sections

through

a contrast between

direct and

indirect

(or

even sub-

liminal)

rhythmic

dissonance.25

Given Brahms's

penchant

for sustained

tension,

it

is not

surprising

that

the metric

ambiguity

resolves

unequivocally

only

in the coda. As seen in

Example

12,

a final

disguised

statement

of the

secondary

idea in the flutes and first violins

counterpoints

the soloists'

push

to cadential closure. The

rhythmic liquidation

here

is

not as

straightforward

as the

metric resolution

in

the

piano

quartet.

Brahms

manages

to

highlight

both the head motive's

tendency

for

displacement,

25

Krebs

1999.


21/42

76


(2006)

W-S

S

-W W

-

S S

W

148

L

J

, Solo

Vcl.

Fg.

dim.

-p

dolce

dim.

Strings

T(p

zz.')

Idm

rdim.

--p-

sf

--"dm

155

Solo0 6

1,

S

espress.

-

dolce

Strings

I

,

arco

sf--

p

dim.

EXAMPLE

IO.

Brahms,

Double

Concerto,

,

148-68

(simplified).

and the

tendency

for

agogic

accents

on the theme's

high

As

to

reassert he

barline.

As the annotations

in

Example

12

in-

dicate,

the

medium

for

this dual accommodation

is the 5+3

grouping pattern

asserted

by

the soloists.

Brahms

finally

al-

lows the traces

of

displacement

to

evaporate

simply by

aban-

doning

the

head motive

following

its final

appearance

n

m.

423.

He focuses instead on articulation of the notated

meter

via the

high

A

fragment.

This

fragment,

in

turn,

liquidates

through

rhythmic

augmentation

as the

closing

tonic

arrives

at

m. 428.


22/42

YOU

REAP WHAT

YOU

SOW:

SOME INSTANCES

OF RHYTHMIC

AND

HARMONIC AMBIGUITY

IN

BRAHMS

77

W-

S

W-

S

S

-W

162

Solo

ln.

Vcl.

i

,-

i

--

,li

I

t

p

dolce

Fg.

-

I,,

p

dolce

pizz.

Strings

--

I/o

,v,

pp _

pizz.

EXAMPLE 10.

[continued]

153 156

158 161

163 165 167

I4,

--,

10

6

8

5

3

5

I

V/ii ii

Ger.

5

III#

V I

V

IV

V

EXAMPLE

II.

Voice-leading

analysis ofDouble

Concerto,

i,

153-67.

THE

CLARINET TRIO

Similar

metric

processes involving quarter-note

dyads

animate

formal

developments

in the clarinet

trio.

The

trio's

rhythmic

and

harmonic

dimensions,

moreover,

interact

along

the

lines

we have observed

in the

piano

quartet:

articulation

of

the notated

meter tends

to

correspond

with tonic articula-

tion while

displacement

tends

to

correlate with dominant

ex-

pansion.

A

further

similarity

arises

in

the function of a

quasi-

fermata to create

a

context

in

which the

metric

identity

of a


23/42

78

MUSIC

THEORY SPECTRUM 28

(2006)

=4

5

+

3

5

+

3

+

1

421

Solo

Vcl.

w

T.,,,,Hw.T

-.

5 3

5

4

(as notated)

4

secondary

dea

4-

4

4vas--

Vc.

1, l.

_ _ ___ _

_"_

_

Via.-%_

_ _ _ _ _

V c l

pizz.

4

425

(8va)--------- --

A-E-(A)

augmented

+

Winds

arco

+

Fg.

arco

EXAMPLE

12.

Brahms,

Double

Concerto,

,

421-27

(simplified).

seminal thematic idea remains

equivocal.

As

Example

13

il-

lustrates,

the

grouping pattern

of this thematic

idea,

the

passing

function of its

Bs,

and the cello's entrance in m. 15

support

a

metric

displacement.26

Nevertheless

the

theme

also includes

signs

that do

indeed

articulate

the

notated

meter. First

observe the

slight

pauses

on

the

Bs,

which result

from

the articulation

slurs and

staccato

markings

on each

downbeat.The downbeats

gain

further

salience

through

the

apparent

i'4/2

chords

that result from

this

B

emphasis.

The

ii~4/2

chords connect

motivically

to

the

apparent

ii04/2

chords

that fall within the clear articulationof the notated meter in

the movement's

main theme

(mm.

6-12).27

Brahms further

articulates

he notated

meter at mm. 15 and

17,

once

again

26

Brahms's

placement

of

the

virtually

identical motive on

both

the

heard

and

notated

downbeat in

the

E6-major

rhapsody,

shown

in

Example

2(a),

provides

further

support

for the idea of a metric shift.

27

I

adopt

the

designation"apparent

i'4/2"

romAldwell and Schachter

2003,

417-18. Aldwell and

Schachterdescribe his

type

of

supertonic


24/42

YOU REAP WHAT YOU

SOW:

SOME

rhythmic and harmonic ambiguity in brahms

Documents