some instances of rhythmic and harmonic ambiguity in brahms

8/18/2019 Some Instances of 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. SMITHReviewed work(s):Source: 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/10.1525/mts.2006.28.1.57 .

Accessed: 29/02/2012 09:26

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

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/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=smthttp://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/mts.2006.28.1.57?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/mts.2006.28.1.57?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=smthttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal


2/42

57

Y ou Reap What You Sow: Some Instances of Rhythmicand 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, DoubleConcerto, Clarinet Trio, G-major String Quintet, and B-minor Rhapsody. The analyses proceedfrom contradictory readings of opening materials to later statements that develop precisely thosecharacteristics that give rise to the initial double meaning. In each case, the result is an enormoustonal delay whose resolution corresponds with liquidation of the contradictory characteristics, asthe movements finally achieve the clarity absent from their ambiguous openings.

Keywords: Brahms, Ambiguity, Metric displacement, Linkage technique, Sonata form

introduction

Perhaps no composer of the common-practice era isassociated with the idea of musical ambiguity more

than Johannes Brahms.1

Even a cursory glance at any contemporary Brahms bibliography reveals citations thatmake reference to the topic. Several recent explorations of ambiguity nevertheless call into question the usefulness of

the concept as an analytical category. Carl Schachter, forexample, 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 tocreate 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 alternativesare always formed hierarchically, making all such situationsdecidable.”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 thepossibility that ambiguity and multiple meanings might existin tonal music.” His point, rather, is that the function of am-biguity “is more narrowly circumscribed than some analysts,

*This essay is dedicated to the memory of John Daverio, DavidEpstein, and David Lewin.

1 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 sonataform.” (Rosen 1988, 395) Notions of ambiguity even appear to have in-fluenced biographical perspectives on the composer, leading KarlGeiringer among others to identify psychological ambivalence as a dri-

ving force behind Brahms’s personality and behavior. (Geiringer 1990) 2 Schachter 1990, 169; Agawu 1994, 107.


3/42

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 neverthelessmaking such apparently bivalent situations submit

to the dictates of a single analysis. For him, the only trueambiguity would arise in a context in which “two (or more)meanings are comparably or equally plausible,” a situation hebelieves does not exist in tonal music.4

Although I am sympathetic to Schachter’s and Agawu’sadmonitions for us to avoid what might be called an “OldMacDonald Approach to Analysis”—here an ambiguity,there an ambiguity, everywhere an ambiguity—I am not yetready to abandon the idea of double meaning as a critical

category for Brahmsian interpretation. Rather, I am convinced that Brahms was as dedicated to creating multivalentideas 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 itsconsequences 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 inpart in a focus on multiple temporal perspectives. Indeed, heargues 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 Modesof Perception.”6 Although Lewin does not address ambiguity per se, the approach to analysis that he advocates, with itsdedication to carving out analytical space for multiple mean-

ings, is highly suggestive for the topic.My own contribution to ongoing explorations of Brahmsian

ambiguity takes Epstein’s and Lewin’s emphasis on listeningperspective as a point of departure. Despite my differences

with Schachter, I also find it useful to focus on the kinds of binary, “either/or” oppositions that he develops as a routetowards analytical insight. Yet rather than analyze composi-tions in which Schachter’s call for single, correct readingsrings true, I propose to explore passages in which Brahms

takes considerable pains to encourage multiple interpretations. The particular form 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 irreduciblecomponent of Brahms’s aesthetic centers on the similar waysin 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 thereis not enough information to signal a univalent metric or

harmonic interpretation. The initial context instead plantsthe seeds for the bivalence that is to become a source formusical development. In the case of rhythmic ambiguity, thepassages 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 suchthat the ambiguity itself becomes a narrative thread in aBrahms work. Similarly, in the harmonic dimension, when

roots are a fifth apart context can make it unclear which rootis controlling: I–V or IV–I. A Brahms piece may, throughrepetition and recontextualization, make this harmonic am-biguity a topic for elaboration. In the case of both types of

58 music theory spectrum 28 (2006)

3 Schachter 1990, 169. For a similar qualified skepticism regarding no-tions of ambiguity specifically as they apply to issues of metric andhypermetric interpretation, see Schachter 1999, 97–100.

4 Agawu 1994, 89. 5 Epstein 1979, 162–69. 6 Lewin 1986.


4/42

ambiguity, a decisive recontextualization typically resolvesthe double meaning as part of the work’s close.

Brahms’s C-minor Piano Quartet, op. 60, provides fertileground in which to begin to explore metric dualities andtheir consequences. Following this analysis, I address similar

metric ambiguities as they interact specifically with Brahms’slinkage technique in the Double Concerto, op. 102, andClarinet 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 shiftour 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 remarkable details of musicalcraftsmanship that Brahms’s compositions offer in abun-dance. We will see that the works’ thematic processes gravi-tate towards precisely those competing characteristics thatgive 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 approachhighlights the fact that it is often the very presence of anelemental double meaning that later contexts support.8 Theresult, regardless of whether we are confronted with metricor harmonic ambiguity, is an enormous tonal delay whoseresolution corresponds with liquidation of the contradictory characteristics, so that the movements finally achieve the

clarity absent from their bivalent openings. The fact thatdouble meanings play a central role in these larger tonalprocesses supports the idea that we are dealing with genuinecases of ambiguity rather than passages in which a singleinterpretation dominates.

Before forging ahead with analysis, we need to return fora moment to issues surrounding the relationship betweenlistening 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 theconflicting 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 figureas both strong-weak and weak-strong at the same time . Hissolution—one that both Agawu and I adopt—is to draw at-tention to different temporal contexts in which we mighthear 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 inany of these different contexts; thus no ambiguity arises. Inthe absence of the 50-50 balance he requires for ambiguity, it

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 character of 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 rhythmicinterpretations simultaneously, some motives neverthelesshave less clearly-defined metric identities than others. I willdemonstrate that Brahms may indeed hold us in an ongoing

state of ambivalence as he develops such materials. The sumtotal of the process of hearing a motive that keeps switchingmeanings 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

you reap what you sow: some instances of rhythmic and harmonic ambiguity in brahms 59

7 My interest in the concerto and quintet has been stimulated by the work of John Daverio, a scholar whose writings, along with Epstein’sand Lewin’s, were very much on my mind as I developed the ideas forthis essay. Daverio’s published work on the Adagio from the Quintetappears in Daverio 1993, 144–54. He provides a critical reevaluation of the concerto in Daverio 2002.

8 Cone 1986 and 1989.


5/42

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 notreject 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 toapproach our work pragmatically, without aspirations for anallusive methodological purity.

To illustrate the point, consider the repetitions of thequarter-note motive in Example 1. When we speak of themotive in measures 3 or 4—or mm. 13, 14, 32, or 33—we arenot speaking exclusively of fragments that we perceive onlyin different temporal contexts. In as much as the motives arerelated by an identity relationship—and this after all is what

allows us to speak of them as repetitions—we are hearing theevolution of a musical idea. We mentally retain this ideaindependent of its isolated iterations, during the processthough which we assess the idea from various viewpoints. As

we experience the motive from these viewpoints, we will seethat it is possible to become less and less sure of the idea’smetrical identity. This is the case even despite (or perhapsbecause of ) any momentary clarity that may arise at isolatedmoments in the listening process, that is, despite the contex-

tual clarity that Agawu believes disavows the possibility forambiguity.

It is also crucial to observe that, even within one or an-other of Agawu’s or Lewin’s contexts, there may be varyingpossibilities 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 outthat no one looking at these sketches claims to see a rabbitand a duck simultaneously.9 Lewin 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 sketches of rabbits have thepotential to be seen as ducks and visa versa. The same is also

true for musical ideas. Some are absolutely clear in eithermetrical identity or tonal function. Others may have varyingcapacities to be heard in multiple ways. Thus although itmight 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 versussituations in which there is near or absolute clarity.

With respect to rhythmic issues, we might consider thepiano quartet’s basic idea in light of a continuum extendingfrom materials that are metrically unequivocal to those thatare a-metric, that is, situations in which there is absoluteclarity one way or the other. The quartet’s motive standsbetween these extremes and thus has greater potential fordouble meaning than an idea at the continuum’s endpoints

of univalence. Moreover, Brahms creates and develops thisdouble meaning with masterful acuity and range.

Although we might be hard pressed to locate an extendeda-metric passage in Brahms, it is obviously not difficult tofind examples of clear and distinct metrical shapes. Take, forinstance, the passage from the E -major Rhapsody, op. 119,no. 4, shown in Example 2(a). What is noteworthy here isthat, although the rhapsody’s rhythmic motive of m. 65 issimilar to the piano quartet’s basic idea, Brahms places it in a

context in which one cannot help but perceive the notatedmeter. By contrast, the other excerpts in Example 2 possess adegree of metric ambiguity comparable to that found in thequartet. Although a detailed analysis of these works falls be-

yond the scope of this article, I will nevertheless return tothem later in order to compare some consequences of theirrhythmic double meanings with the impact of metric ambi-guity in the quartet.10 At the least, my analyses suggest astylistic basis for the kinds of relationships I will pursue in

the quartet and as such provide intertextual support for my argument that this specific type of metric bivalence serves asa driving force in Brahms’s formal processes.


9 Lewin 1986, 370–71.10 Readers interested in more detailed discussion of the horn trio and

clarinet trio can consult Smith 2001.


6/42

metric ambiguity and tonal delay in the c-minorpiano quartet

The absence of metric articulation within the initial

quasi-fermata on C is crucial to the possibility for multiplerhythmic interpretations of the quartet’s head motive (seeExample 1).11 Contrast the openness of this rhythmic

context with the clear definition of meter provided by themeasures that precede the C-minor motive of m. 65 in theop. 119 Rhapsody. Supporting factors for the competingmetric interpretations in the quartet are listed in Example

3.12

Note in Example 1 that although the viola and cello


Š

š Ý

Š Ý

−−−

−−−

−−−

−−−

−−−

/0/0/0

/0/0

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ð ð

ð ð

ýý

ýý q

[

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ð ð

ð ð

ýý

ýý

Ł

Ł Ł \ Ł \

Ł \

ÿ

ÿ

Ł

Ł Ł Ł

Ł

¼¼¼

¼

¼

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł

Ł

ÿ

ÿ

Ł

Ł Ł Ł

Ł

¼¼¼

¼

¼

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł

Ł

ÿ

ÿ

Ł

Ł Ł Ł

Ł

ð

Ł Ł

Ł Ł

ð Ł

ð ð ð

ÿ

ÿ

Ł

Ł ¦

ð

Ł Ł

Ł Ł

ð Ł

ð ð

ð

ÿ

ÿ

Ł

Ł ¦

ð

Ł Ł Ł

Ł

ð Ł

ð

ð

ÿ

ÿ

Ł

Ł −

ð

Ł Ł Ł

Ł

ð ýŁ

ð ýð ý

ÿ

ÿ

ð

ð q ð ýð ýð ý

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ð ð

ð ð

ýý

ýý q

[

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ð ð

ð ð

ýý

ýý! ~ ~ii°6

“ ”

“ ”

“ ”

Violine

Bratsche

Violoncell

Pianoforte

aligned

vl.

vla./cello

i i

dim.

displaced:

as notated:

dim.

↑ 4th

Allegro non troppo

Allegro non troppo

example 1. Brahms, C-minor Piano Quartet, i, 1–34.

11 For discussion of other instances of quasi-fermatas in Brahms, seeSmith 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


Š

š Ý

Š Ý

−−−

−−−−−−−−−−−−

Ł −\

Ł \ Ł \

ÿÿ

Ł

Ł −Ł

¼

¼¼

Ł

Ł Ł −

ÿÿ

Ł

Ł −Ł

¼

¼¼

Ł

Ł Ł −

ÿÿ

Ł

Ł Ł −

¼

¼¼

Ł −

Ł Ł

ÿÿ

Ł −

Ł Ł

¼

¼¼

Ł

Ł Ł ¦

ÿÿ

Ł ¦

Ł −Ł

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł

ð −ð −

ÿÿ

Ł ¦ Ł −

Ł Ł

Ł

ð ¦ð −

ÿÿ

Ł Ł −

Ł −Ł

Ł ¦

Ł Ł

ÿÿ

Ł

ð Ł ¦

Ł −

Ł

ð ý

ð ý¦Ł

ÿÿŁ Ł

ð ý

ð ýð ý−

ð

ÿ

ý−\\

ð ý−

ð ý−ð ý

Ł

Ł −

Ł Ł −−

Ł Ł −−

ð ý

ð ýð ý

ð ð

ÿ

ýý

ð ý

ð ý¦ð ý

ð ð

ÿ

ýý

ð ý

ð ý−ð ý²

ð ð

ÿ

ýý²²

Š

š Ý

Š

Ý

−−−

−−−−−−−−−

−−−

ð ý¦\\ ð ý\\ ð ý\\

ð ð

ð ð

ýý

ýý¦ q

\\

ð ý¼ð ý

ð ð ð ð

ýýýý

¼

Ł Ł

Ł ¦\

Ł Ł ¼

Ł ¦ð ý

ð ð ð ð

ýýýý

¼¼¼

¼

Ł Ł Ł ¦

\ ¼

Ł Ł Ł ¦

ÿð ý

ð ð

ð ð

¼¼¼

Ł ¼

Ł

Ł Ł

¦

¦¦

ð ýŁ −[ Ł −[ Ł −[

ð ð ð

ð ð ð ð

ýýý

ýýýý¦

[

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł −

Ł −Ł −

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł ¦

Ł ¦Ł ¦

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł lŁ

Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł

−

−−

l

l

[

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł lŁ

Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł

l

l

Ł

Ł

¼

Ł

Ł

¼

¼

Ł

Ł

Ł lŁ

Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł

l

l

Ł

Ł

Ł lŁ

Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł

l

l

Ł

Ł

¼

Ł

Ł

¼

¼

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł Ł l[̂ Ł Ł

Ł Ł

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł l[̂ Ł Ł

Ł Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł

¼

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł

!

!

~

13

27

ii°6

ii

6

“ ”

aligned

strong-weak

or weak-strong?

pizz.

pizz.

weak-strong!

arco

arco

strong-weak but then

iB−: ID−:

V/displaced i/aligned

espress.

espress.

espress.

dim. sempre

dim. sempre

dim. sempre

marc.

marc.

↑ 4th ↑ 4th

example 1. [continued ]


8/42

provide metric clarification in the continuation portion of

the sentence, a residue of conflicting cues remains in the vio-lin. Moreover, the phrase culminates in yet another metri-cally undefined quasi-fermata even before the opening B

octaves return in m. 11. The B 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 themotivic 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 lowerstrings. An element of metric liquidation thus complements


Ý Š Ý Š Š

Ý

−−−

−−− Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł

[[ Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł ¦

Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł ¦¦

[̂ Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł ¦

Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł

[̂ Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł ¦²¦

Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł

²¦

−¦ ²−

[̂ Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł ¦

Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł ²

l

l ¹

Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł ¦

l

l¹

ð ð ð

ð ð

−−̂[\ ð ð ð

ð ð ð

ð ð ð

ð ð ð

ð ð ð

ð ð ð

Ł Ł

Ł Ł n

\ Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł n

Ł Ł

Ł Ł n

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł n

Ł Ł

Ł Ł n

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł Ł

Ł n

Ł Ł

Ł Ł n

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł −−

Ł Ł

Ł n

Ł Ł

Ł Ł

ýŁ

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł Ł

Ł

! ~ ~ ~

56

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

S W S W S W S W etc.

(a) Brahms, E -major Rhapsody, 56– 69.

(b) Brahms, E -major Horn Trio, i, 1– 8.

example 2.

Š Š Š

Ý

−−−

−−−

−−−

.0

.0

.0

.0

Ł \ ¼

¼

¼

Ł ÿ

¼

¼

Ł ¦ l

Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł \ l

Ł l Ł ÿ

¼

¼

Ł l

Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł l

Ł l Ł ÿ

¼

¼

Ł l

Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł l

Ł l Ł ÿ

¼

¼

Ł l

Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł l

Ł l Ł ÿ

¼

¼

Ł l

Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł l

Ł l Ł ÿ

¼

¼

Ł l

Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł l

Ł l Ł ÿ

¼

¼

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł l

Ł ¼

¼

¼

¹Ł \

Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł l

Ł

!

?

Violine

Hornin Es

Pianoforte

Sor W

W S

dolceespress.

dolce

dolce

Andante

Andante


9/42


10/42

the more conventional thematic liquidation as the phrasereaches its harmonic goal.

By the time the dominant enters at m. 27, then, we haveexperienced two progressions from metric ambivalence topartial clarity and back to ambivalence. In both cases, asthe notated meter emerges somewhat more vividly in thecontinuation portion of the phrase, the basic idea receives

retrospective definition as a strong-weak gesture. Thus whenthe 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 againas a strong-weak utterance. This, however, is precisely whatBrahms avoids. As the notated meter resurfaces at m. 31, the weak-strong motion to F defines a new anacrusic placementfor 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 indeedcorrect. Yet it is also the case that the dominant of m. 31 re-solves into a thematic counterstatement that articulates thedownbeat 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 andnotated meter. Thus at this stage in the piece, two rhythmicidentities have been posited and both have received laterconfirmation 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

Es, for instance, point toward an ambiguity of pitch func-tion? Moreover, is there any particular way in which metricand tonal ambiguity might interact in a Brahms movement?Given their oddity, it is surprising how easy it is to interpretthe E s, as outlined in Example 4. Their passing functionargues against the idea of a double meaning. Yet at themoment they enter, before the voice leading carries them onto 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 5–6motion—but they are timbrally isolated as well. Brahms alsolingers on the E s, within another quasi-fermata, creating afurther sense of isolation.These factors encourage an experi-ential perplexity, that is, a pregnant pause, until the entry of


Strong-weak as notated Weak-strong displacement For presentation (mm. 3–4)(1) appoggiatura character of E (1) agogic emphasis on D(2) p (2) tendency for ii6 to fall on accented

beat as in: C | F 6 G6/4 G5/3 | C

(3) possibility for short-long “sarabande” (3) C–F ascending 4th in cellorhythm in 3/4 (cf . B –E and D–G in vl. of mm. 14

and 16) For continuation and cadence (mm. 5–10)(1) agogic emphasis on cello A , F, D, G (1) agogic emphasis on vl. Cs, A , G(2) crescendo to cello D at m. 8

example 3. Supporting factors for competing metric interpretations.


11/42

F provides retrospective clarification. Observe the interac-

tion of the metric and tonal dimensions at this point in theform: the very moment that the arrival of F clarifies the con-trapuntal function of E, the passage likewise clarifies, atleast momentarily, the metric identity of the pizzicato quarternotes. We will see that this type of coordination between di-mensions has far-reaching consequences not only for thepiano quartet, but for Brahmsian ambiguity in general.

Returning to the E s themselves, notwithstanding theinitial moment of suspense, it would seem dubious to at-

tribute E-minor harmonic function to the63 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 ismade clear by the continuation to F. An E -minor function,however, is precisely what Brahms assigns the 63 chord in therecapitulation, as highlighted in Example 5. It turns out thatthe chord does have potential to function as an inversion,even though Brahms realizes that potential only in a latercontext. This element of bivalence is nevertheless distinct

from the metric duality of the main theme’s basic idea. AnE -minor function for the 63 chord remains inactive withinthe context of the expository dominant expansion. Thechord’s harmonic potential lies fallow until the recapitula-tion. The possibility for tonicization thus represents a case of

“unfinished business,” whose fulfillment is long-postponedand unlikely yet in retrospect inevitable.13

By contrast, multiple metric interpretations of the quarter-note motive are available to compete from the outset. Thereis 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 E s. Brahms presentshis idea notationally in two metric positions, and confirmsboth rhythmic identities with the unambiguous anacrusicE–F motion (m. 31, weak-strong) and the clear downbeatorientation 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 rhythmic identities begin to germinate within the ini-

tial appearance of the material. Moreover, as is well knownand as the excerpts in 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 thatrequires explicit realization to achieve perceptual relevance.

One issue raised by the realization of the harmonic po-tential of the 63 chord is the role of compositional intent indiscussions 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 weaknessor analytical incompetence, an inability for a composer tocraft Schachter’s “clear and distinct shapes” or for an analystto 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 potentialof a contrapuntal 63 chord informs many of his compositions. For an in-

vestigation of the topic see Smith 1997. On “unfinished business,” seeCone 1989.

14 Schachter 1990, 169.

Š

Ý

−−−

−−−Ł Ł ¦Ł

Ł ¦ Ł ¦ Ł Ł Ł −

Ł

Ł Ł Ł ¦Ł

Ł ¦ Ł Ł Ł

Ł

$

%( ) ( )

(

5¦ ¦6 7

3̂

=

5¦ ¦6 7

3̂

V i V i

example 4. Passing function for E .


12/42


Ý Š Ý

š Ý

Ý

Š

š Ý

Š

Š

−−−

−−−

−−−−−−−−−

ð ý\

ð ý¦\ Ł \

ÿ

Ł Ł

¼Ł ¼

ð ý

ð ýð ý−

ð

ÿ

ý−

\

ð ý−

ð ý−ð ý

Ł Ł −Ł Ł −−

Ł Ł −−

ð ý

ð ýð ý

ð ð

ÿ

ýý

ð ý

ð ý¦ð ý

ð ð

ÿ

ýý

ð ý

ð ý−ð ý²

ð ð

ÿ

ýý²²

ð ý¦\\

ð ý\\ Ł \\

ð ð

ð ð

ýý

ýý¦\\

¼ ¼

ð ý

¼ ÿ

ð ð

ð ð

ýý

ýý

¼ Ł ¦

¼Ł ¦

ÿ

ð ð

ð ð

ýý

ýý

¼

¼

Ł ¦

¼

Ł ¦

¼¼

ð ð

ð ð

¼

¼¼

Ł ¦\ Ł ¦\ Ł ¦\

Ł

Ł

¦

¦

¦¦¦ ²

¦¦¦ ²

¦¦¦ ²

¦¦¦ ²

¦¦¦ ²

ð ýð ý²

ð ý

Ł

Ł \ Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

²

²

Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł

ð ý²

ð

ð ð ýý

Ł Ł

Ł

Ł ýŁ

Ł

ð ð ýý

Ł ²Ł

Ł Ł Ł

Ł

Š

š Ý

Š Ý

²

²²²²

ð ý\

ð ý¦\ Ł \

ÿ

Ł \\

Ł Ł Ł

Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł

ð ý

ð ýð ý−

ÿð − ¼

ð ý−

ð ýŁ

ÿ

Ł − Ł − Ł Ł ¦

Ł −

Ł − Ł Ł Ł −

Ł −

Ł − Ł Ł ¦ Ł −

ð ý

ð ýð ý

ÿð ¼

ð ý

ð ýŁ

Ł ÿ

Ł Ł ¦

¼

Ł Ł Ł ²

¼

Ł Ł Ł ²

ð

ð ÿ

Ł

ÿ

Ł ² Ł Ł Ł Ł

¼

¼

Ł Ł Ł

ÿ

Ł \ ÿ

Ł Ł

Ł Ł \

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł Ł

ÿ

Ł ýÿ

Ł

Ł Ł Ł

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł Ł !

! ~

217

230

33 3

V 5C:

E¦:

pizz.

¦6i6

pizz. arco

arco

V 7 i

dim.

dim.

dim.

dim.

marc.

marc.

dim.

dim.

dim.

espress.

(a) Brahms, C-minor Piano Quartet, i, 217 – 37.

example 5.


13/42

dramatic shift from the quasi-fermatas scattered throughoutthe opening, with their attenuating effect on metric percep-tion, to the relentless definition of the notated meter at thecounterstatement of m. 32? This contrast is part of a strategy to begin not with a straightforward opening accent but witha 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 itunfolds within a structural tonic, expands that tonic in partthrough moments of seeming tonal discontinuity. Here Ihave in mind not only the shift to B at m. 11 and the intru-sion of the pizzicato E s. Also disruptive is the progressionfrom the local emphasis on D in m. 15 to the B -major 63

chord at m. 17. To be sure, one does not have to delve toodeeply to find sources of coherence for these striking tonalevents: B 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 G in the viio6/D chord at the end of m. 16 resolves in register to the viola’s

F. The elements of surface discontinuity nevertheless join themetric ambiguity, rhythmic starts and stops, and slow surfacerhythm to embed a slow introductory character within theopening. The extended passage of descending chromaticismat m. 17 likewise contributes to the sharp contrast betweenthe unheimlisch embedded introduction and the fury of the

counterstatement’s pure C minor. To assert an unambiguous34 meter throughout the opening would be to deny a signifi-cant component of the expressive opposition between thepassages.

In addition to their contribution to a pattern of tensionand release, harmony and meter also interact to create morespecific correlations between the tonal and rhythmic dimen-sions.15 Its rhythmic tenuousness notwithstanding, thealigned 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 andmetric displacement in Smith 2001. For further extension of Lewin’sideas, see Cohn 2001.

Š

Ý

−−−

−−−

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł −

Ł −

Ł −

Ł −

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł ²

Ł Ł ¦

Ł ¦

Ł ¦ ¦¦¦ ²

¦¦¦ ²

Ł Ł ²

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł ²

Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł ¦

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł −

Ł Ł −

Ł −

Ł Ł −

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł

Ł Ł Ł

Ł

$

%

( )

-

217 223 227 230 236

5

pizz.

6

E-minor motivic expansion

7²²742

8² 7 64 53 4 3

(as local tonic)

5

V

- 6 5 - 6 5- 10

-

5

-

- 6 5 - 6 5

-

8

V

°5

(b) Analysis of voice leading.



14/42

also within the tonicizations of B and D in mm. 13–16, ashighlighted in Example 1. The pizzicato displacement, by contrast, falls 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, Brahmscreates a rhythmic corollary for the tonal relentlessness of theC pedal in the suddenly emphatic articulation of the meter.

Not surprisingly, Brahmsdevelops all of these characteristics—especially the metric duality — when the opening materialreturns 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 atm. 199 of Example 6, but it is subsumed within a continua-

tion of the retransition’s dominant prolongation. The tonicchords within the passage are apparent—not structural—tonics, that is, they are chords built with the pitches of thetonic but without a tonic function.17 What is noteworthy forour discussion of metric ambiguity is the development of thequarter-note motive as part of this recapitulatory overlap. The process of development occurs in both the disguisedreentry of the main theme at m. 199 and the newly-composedsegment beginning in m. 208, also shown in Example 6.

In the first instance, the metric instability of the headmotive 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 character of 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 A correspond with theheard downbeat or does the agogic accent on the second beat—note the accent in the piano—articulate a metric shift?18

Annotations in Example 6 highlight the fact that repetitionsof the triplet motive, labeled X, across the formal hinge con-

tinue to emphasize the second beat as the piano reintroducesthe head motive with its intrinsic tendency for displacement.As in the expository version, the notated meter emerges withgreater clarity, above all in the accompaniment, as the sen-tence continues beyond its basic idea (m. 201). The metricconfusion across the reprise nevertheless joins both the in-trusive A and textural-dynamic overlap to blur the formalboundary and thus to deny thematic or tonal resolution.

The tendency for displacement further develops follow-

ing the dominant arrival at the end of the main theme (m.205). In the passage beginning in m. 208 of Example 6, thefragmentary iterations of the head motive lose even theirtenuous 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 thequarter-note idea. At the recapitulatory point of crisis, theoriginal version of the motive is overcome by characteristics


18 To a large degree, a decision about how to hear the passage will dependon performance factors. A chamber group that emphasizes the down-beat shift to A , perhaps with a Luftpause , will make it harder to hearthe agogic emphasis in m. 198 as part of a metric displacement. Aquartet that plays through the notated downbeat and onward to thesecond beat will make displacement all the more plausible.

16 The metric ambiguity of the quarter-note motive serves as a basis fordevelopment 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 themain theme clearly projects the notated meter. It is in the passage thatfollows 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 toE-minor at m. 154 highlights the ephemeral character of the B-majortriumph by retrospectively redefining it as an unstable dominant expan-sion. Likewise, the solidity of the notated meter in the B-major passagedisintegrates into the rhythmic ambiguities of the turbulent E-minorsection.

17 Schachter 1990, 169–73, provides a stimulating discussion of apparenttonics.


15/42


š

Ý

Š

Š

Š

Š Ý

Š Ý

−−−

−−−

−−−

−−−−−−

Ł

[[ Ł [[ Ł [[

Ł

Ł

[[

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł l

Ł l

Ł l

Ł Ł

l

l

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł l

Ł l

Ł l

Ł Ł

l

l

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł l

Ł l

Ł l

Ł Ł

l

l

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł l

Ł l

Ł l

Ł Ł

l

l

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł l

Ł l

Ł l

Ł Ł

l

l

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł l

Ł l

Ł l

Ł Ł

l

l

Ł

[[ Ł [[ Ł [[

Ł

Ł

[[

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł l

Ł l

Ł l

Ł

Ł

l

l

ð

ð

ð

ð ð

ð ð

n

n

Ł

Ł

ð ý

ð ð Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł l

Ł l

ð

ð

Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł ¼¼

Ł

Ł

ð ý

ð ð Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł lŁ l

ð

ð

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł ¼Ł Ł

Ł

[ Ł [ Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł

Ł

Ł

ð ý

ð ð ð ð ð

ýý

Ł ¦

Ł ¦

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł Ł

Ł

Ł

ð ý

ð ð ð ð

ýý

Ł ¦

Ł ¦

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł

Š š Ý

Ý

Ý

−−−

−−−−−−

−−−−−−

Ł

Ł

ð ý

ð ð

Ł Ł

ýý

Ł −

Ł −

Ł Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł

Ł

ð

ð ð

Ł

ýý

Ł

Ł

ð ð

¼

¼¼

ÿ

ÿÿ

ð

ð ð ð ¦

Ł

Ł Ł Ł

ÿ

ÿÿ

ð ð

ð ð ð

ýý

ýýý

[

¼

¼ÿ

ð

ð ð ð

ý

ýýý−

¼

¼

Ł [ Ł [

Ł ¦

Ł ¦ÿ

Ł Ł

Ł Ł

¼

¼

ð ð

ð ð

¼

¼

¼

¼ÿ

ð

ð ð ð ¦

¼

¼

Ł

[ Ł [

Ł

Ł Ł Ł

Ł ¦

Ł ¦ÿ

ð ð

ð ð ð

ýý

ýýý

[

Ł

Ł

Ł ¦

Ł ¦

Ł

Ł ÿ

ð

ð ð ð

ý

ýýý−

Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł \ Ł \ Ł \

Ł

Ł Ł

\

Ł ¦

Ł ¦

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł ¼

Ł

¼¼

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł ¦ ¼Ł ¦

¼¼

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

!

! ~ ~

196

204

arco

3 1 2 3

3

1 2

1 2

3

3

1 2

1 2

etc.

etc.

Sas notated or: W S W

S W S W (Displaced hemiola)

x x x

x

V V V

espress.

espress.

dim.

dim.

example 6. Brahms, C-minor Piano Quartet, i, 196– 213.


16/42

of the tonally anomalous pizzicato figure. What was origi-nally associated with the tonic and the notated downbeatbecomes dominant oriented and displaced in a manner thatsolidifies a connection with the pizzicato version. Yet despitethe new position of displacement, the metric identity of the

motive remains ambiguous. As the annotations in Example 6highlight, there is a very real possibility to hear a (displaced)strong-weak orientation for the idea despite the articulationof the notated meter in the piano. No matter how Brahmspositions the motive, it stubbornly resists straightforwardmetric interpretation.

Further development of metric-tonal correlations arises inconsequences Brahms draws from the pizzicato idea as it re-turns in m. 224. The aforementioned tonicization 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 abstract man-ner, the displaced version of the quarter-note motive remainsbound up with the dominant. Brahms takes care to provideboth metric resolution for the head motive and tonal-timbralresolution for the pizzicato figure as part of the delayedstructural 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 dominantitself further prolongs the dominant that originates in the re-transition and flows across the return of the primary the-matic material. The result is that we find ourselves still wait-ing for a structural tonic as late as m. 312 of the coda.19 AsExample 7 shows, a passage characterized by relentless artic-ulation of the notated meter prepares the restatement ofthe opening C octaves that finally provide this delayed tonic

at m. 313. (The clear delineation of the meter in m. 312reflects the overall metric clarity of the preparatory passage,

which begins in m. 308.) The sense of pulse easily continuesthrough the octaves, which lose their a-metric character.

The sustained meter allows for clear rhythmic definitionof the two versions of the quarter-note motive as they enterfor 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 functionsas an anacrusis and that the basic idea sits firmly on thedownbeat. 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 appearsarco and transposed to the tonic pitch level. Liquidation of motivic idiosyncrasy —including the movement ’s seminalmetric double meaning—thus complements the long delayed

resolution of the recapitulation’s dominant prolongation.20

metric ambiguity and linkage in the doubleconcerto and clarinet trio

Although I have not yet described it in these terms, themotivic process across the formal hinge at m. 32 in thequartet presents a classic case of Knü pftechnik or linkage tech-nique (refer back to Example 1).21 The motivic substance at

the end of one formal unit—the pizzicato E s—becomes thethematic point of departure—the E –D basic idea—for thesubsequent section. The wrinkle here is that the motivicconnection is primarily rhythmic. Although both passagesemphasize 3̂, an identity relationship arises largely throughrepetition of the quarter-note pattern. Note also that therhythmic motive occurs twice in each instance. As we have


19 I discuss this tonal delay and its implications for Schenkerian views of sonata form in greater detail in Smith 1994b.

20 Epstein 1979, 162–69, traces a similar coordination between resolutionof a tonal delay and resolution of an elemental metrical ambiguity inthe first movement of Brahms’s Second Symphony.

21 The term Knü pftechnik is Schenker’s. See his discussion of motive inSchenker 1954, 3–12 and fn. 10. For additional examples and furtherdiscussion of linkage, see Kalib 1973, vol. I: 89–92, and Jonas 1982,7–10.


17/42

seen, the process is complicated by the fact that the metricposition of the motive shifts across the formal divide.

This shift is crucial to my argument in favor of hearingthe tonic area in terms of an elemental metric ambiguity. Tosummarize: following previous retrospective confirmations of a strong-weak interpretation of the basic idea, the entranceof the pizzicato motive can easily be heard as yet anotherstrong-weak utterance. Yet not a moment later, an anacrusic

E –F motion (mm. 30–31) clarifies the situation in favorof a weak-strong interpretation. But then linkage withthe counterstatement forces us back into the just-rejectedstrong-weak hearing. The result is a process in which we cannever 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 despiteisolated moments in which a single interpretation apparently comes into focus, that is, despite the context-sensitive hier-

archy of interpretations that Agawu believes disavows thepossibility 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 function within larger processes centered on a back-and-forth ofmetric ambiguity. This is the case in the first movements of the double concerto, clarinet trio, and horn trio, works whosemetrically-ambiguous motives I have already cited in Ex-ample 2. The concerto, where linkage is ubiquitous, providesan ideal context to continue our exploration of Brahmsianbivalence. Since I have written elsewhere about metric orga-

nization in the trios, I will limit my discussion here to themost relevant points as exemplified by the clarinet work, asan adjunct to my discussion of the concerto. These includecharacteristics 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 roleof metric displacement in creating extended tonal delays; and(4) the tendency for Brahms to resolve metric ambiguity as

an integral part of closure, following these extended delays. The secondary idea in the concerto’s first movement playsa crucial role in establishing and developing the work ’s ele-mental metric ambiguity. The omnipresence of linkage inBrahms’s treatment of this idea becomes apparent at the out-


example 7. Brahms, C-minor Piano Quartet, i, 312– 17 (simpli fi ed).

Š

Ý

−−−

−−− Ł

Ł Ł

lŁ Ł ¦ l l[_ Ł Ł − l l

¹

Ł Ł l lŁ Ł ¦ lŁ Ł l[_ l Ł l

¹

¹Ł lŁ Ł

lŁ Ł l l[_ Ł l

¹

¹Ł lð ý

ð ð ð ýýý

Ł Ł ð ð ýý

¼

¼Ł [ ¼

Ł

Ł ¼[

¼

Ł ¼

¼

¼Ł [

¼

Ł Ł

¼

Ł ¼Ł

¼

Ł ý

Ł Ł

Ł ¦ Ł

Ł

Ł $

%

312 vl.

Piano(vla. + cello not shown)

(+8)

Pizz. motive now arco and transposed to C.Clearly heard as notated: W-S

cello (piano not shown)

Head motive now clearly heard as notated: S-W

vla.

+ vla. (+8)

V i

espress.largamente


18/42

set in the concerto’s famous opening alternation of orchestraland cadenza-like passages.22 As Example 8 illustrates, thesolo cello concludes its cadenza in mm. 25–26 with an F –Edyad whose appoggiatura character signals a strong-weak (hyper)metric relationship. The clarinet then enters with the

secondary idea whose head motive forms a linking repetition with the cello’s appoggiatura.23 The fact that the horns ex-tend the cello’s E to form yet another quasi-fermata, meansthat the metric context for the clarinet entrance is less thanclearly defined. This lack of definition conspires with thelinkage and grouping pattern of the head motive to encour-age a metric displacement.

Listeners who hold tightly to the cadenza’s meter, even inthe face of the quasi-fermata, nevertheless will recognize the

clarinet’s syncopated status.24

The clarinet ’s misalignment isfurther signaled by articulation of the barlines in the accom-paniment (third and fourth horns, second flute, etc.). Thepassage 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? Ordo the linkage and quasi-fermata allow us to be fooled intothinking 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 articulation of the notated meter?

Rather than solve the quandary, the passage sustains mul-tivalence through further linkage, now across the hinge be-tween the orchestral phrase and the violin’s cadenza of m. 31.

As Example 9 suggests, the violin material supports multipleinterpretations, at least until m. 34 where the notated meterdecisively reemerges. From one perspective, the new linkingmotive can be heard to extend a displacement in the finalbars of the orchestral phrase. 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 thecadenza, these accents retrospectively effect interpretationof the orchestral passage. As the violin’s motive locks on tothe notated meter, the passage encourages us to reconsiderthe statement of the same figure at the end of the previousphrase: perhaps the second linking motive did articulate themeter all along. This revelation in turn calls into question astrong-weak interpretation of the head motive of the sec-

ondary theme. But this last bit of retrospective reevaluationcontradicts 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 themusic seems to settle into one perspective, linkage forces usto 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, Brahmscontinues to marshal linkage in the service of metric biva-lence when the theme returns in the C-major secondary area(m. 153). As Example 10 highlights, the clarinet line at theend of the transition reawakens both metric possibilities


22 Daverio interprets linkage across the entrance of cadenza passages inthe 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 Imbrie1973.


19/42

for the 3̂–2̂ dyad. The clarinet also articulates its closing 6̂–5̂–appoggiatura as a strong-weak gesture. Brahms thus placesthe second theme in another context of linkage that en-

courages the same internal conflicts found in the openingorchestral-cadenza alternation. Listeners attuned to thepreparatory articulation of the notated meter will hear thesecond theme syncopated against the accompaniment. Forthose more focused on the grouping pattern in the solo celloit will be just the opposite. In either case, it is noteworthy that the theme’s rhythmic restlessness complements thepassage’s harmonic instability. As the graph in Example 11shows, 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 accompanimentdo finally come together to articulate the notated meter atthe arrival on III

at m. 161. What is remarkable is that

Brahms paradoxically uses this metric clarity to prepare forthe reemergence of still more metric ambiguity via linkage.As the cello reaches the end of its phrase, it arrives on two

final statements of the 3ˆ–2

ˆdyad, 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 3̂–2̂ motive. A trace of the notatedmeter nevertheless remains in the accompaniment, whichshifts 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 althoughsoloists 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).


Š

Ý

Ý

Ý Ł

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

Ð

½

ÿ

Ð w\

ð

¼

½

Ł ²\

Ł Ł \

Ł

½

Ðð ð ²

Ł ² Ł ²

¼ð ð ²

Ł

Ł ²\

ð

ð ¼

Ðð ð ý²

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł ²ð

Ł Ł Ł ²\

Ł Ł ²Ł

ð ð Ł ²²

Ðð ²

ÐÐð ²

Ł ² Ł ð ð ² ¦¦

ð ¦ð ¦

Ł ð Ł Ł ¦²

ð ð ý

ð ð ð ýý²

ð ð ² Ł

Ł ²Ł

¼

¼

¼

$

%$%

25

“ ”

( )

Cl.

Fg.

Hr.

SoloVc.

arcoS W

S W S W Fl.

-

- -

dolce

dolce

dolce

dolce

example 8. Brahms, Double Concerto, i, 25 – 30 (simpli fi ed).


20/42

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 thesecondary idea throughout the movement. The tendency forinternal conflict is especially pronounced in solo passages where transparency of texture affords Brahms the opportu-nity to create conflicting signals in his musical narrative. Bigorchestral 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 unchallengedmetric shift in the tutti statements of the secondary idea inmm. 90–101 and 206–17 with the more conflicted versionfor the soloists we have just examined highlights this di-

chotomy. To borrow terminology from Harald Krebs, Brahmsheightens the contrast between solo and tutti sectionsthrough a contrast between direct and indirect (or even sub-liminal) rhythmic dissonance.25

Given Brahms’s penchant for sustained tension, it is notsurprising that the metric ambiguity resolves unequivocally only in the coda. As seen in Example 12, a final disguisedstatement of the secondary idea in the flutes and first violinscounterpoints the soloists’ push to cadential closure. Therhythmic liquidation here is not as straightforward as themetric resolution in the piano quartet. Brahms manages tohighlight both the head motive’s tendency for displacement,


Ł ² Ł Ł

Š

Ý Ý

Ł Ł Ł ²\

Ł Ł ²Ł

ð ð Ł ²²

Ðð ²ÐÐð ²

Ł ² Ł ð ð ² ¦¦

ð ¦ð ¦

Ł ð Ł Ł ¦²

ð ð ý

ð ð ð ýý²

ð ð ² Ł

Ł ²Ł

¼

¼¼

ÿ q

ÿ qÿ q

$

%$%

Š Ý

ÿ

ÿ

½

ÿ¼ Ł Ł ¦\

ð

ÿ

Ł Ł Ł ²

ð

ÿ

Ł Ł Ł ¦

Ł

ÿ

Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł ² Ł Ł ²

ð ¦

ÿ

Ł Ł Ł ² Ł

ÿŁ Ł ² Ł Ł Ł ð

¼ Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł ²Ł Ł Ł

¼ Ł

29

29

( )

3 3

3

33

3 3

Fl.Cl.

Fg.

Hr.

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

SoloVln.

SoloVcl.

1shifted:or

as notated: 1

3 42A1

3

2

4

3

1

4

2A1

3

2

4

3 4A1 2 3

A4 5 6

C¦1

etc.

dolce

più [ poco [

example 9. Brahms, Double Concerto, i, 29– 36 (simpli fi ed).

25 Krebs 1999.

6 8 ( 6)


21/42

and the tendency for agogic accents on the theme’s high Asto reassert the barline. As the annotations in Example 12 in-dicate, the medium for this dual accommodation is the 5+3grouping 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 in m.423. He focuses instead on articulation of the notated meter via the high A fragment. This fragment, in turn, liquidatesthrough rhythmic augmentation as the closing tonic arrivesat m. 428.


Ł Ł

Š

Ý

Š Ý

Ð¼

Ð¼−

ÿ

ÿ

¹

¹

Ł

Ł

Ł ý

Ł ý

Ł

Ł

ð Ł ý²

Ðð

Ł Ł Ł Ł ²

¼

¼

Ł ðŁý

ð

½

½

Ł ð Ł ý

Ðð

Ł Ł Ł Ł ¦

¼

¼

Ł ð Ł ý

ð

Ł Ł Ł Ł

¼

¼

Ł

ÿ

Ł ý

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

Ł Ł ý Ł

ÿð ý½

ÿ

ÿ¼ Ł

Ł

Ł Ł \

\

\

Ł

\ Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł

¹

¹

Ł

Ł Ł ²

¼

¼

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

²¦

¹

¹

Ł Ł Ł ¦−

¼

¼

ð Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

¦−

Ł Ł ¼

Ł

¼

Ł

¹ Ł ¼

½

½

Ł

Ł Ł

$

%$

%

Š Ý

Š Ý

Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł

¹

¹Ł Ł Ł ²

¼¼

Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł ²¦

¹

¹Ł Ł Ł ¦−

¼¼

ð Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł ¦−

Ł Ł

¼Ł Ł ¼

¹Ł ²½

¼½

Ł

Ł Ł Ł − l l

Ł ²ÿ

¼ÿ

Ł ý

Ł Ł Ł ² l l

¼

Ł ¦ Ł

Ł Ł Ł ² l l

Ł Ł ÿ

¼ÿ

Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł l l

Ł Ł ²

¼

Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł l l

Ł ¦ Ł ²ÿ

¼ÿ

Ł ý

Ł Ł Ł ² l l

¼

Ł Ł ¦

Ł Ł Ł ² l l

Ł Ł ý

ÿ

¼ÿ

ð ð ð ð ýýýý

¦²²

[̂

Ł Ł Ł Ł ð ýÿ

Ðð ð ð ÿ²\

ð ð ¦

Ł $%$

%

148

155

Cl.

Fg.

Strings

3̂ W

2̂S

(pizz.)

3̂S

2̂ W

3̂ W

2̂S

6̂S

5̂ W

Solo Vcl.

SoloVcl.

Fg.

Strings

arco

arco

dim.

dim.

dim.

dim.

dolce

dolce

espress.

dim.

dolce

example 10. Brahms, Double Concerto, i, 148 – 68 (simpli fi ed).



22/42

the clarinet trio

Similar metric processes involving quarter-note dyadsanimate formal developments in the clarinet trio. The trio’srhythmic and harmonic dimensions, moreover, interact along

the lines we have observed in the piano quartet: articulationof 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


Š

Ý

ð

ð

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł ² Ł

Ł Ł

Ł ² Ł

Ł ²

Ł ¦ Ł

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł ²

Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł ²

Ł ²

Ł Ł

Ł

Ł ¦ Ł ² Ł Ł ²

Ł ¦

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł ²Ł

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł Ł

Ł

Ł ² Ł

Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł ²

ð

ð

Ł $

%

( ) ( )

153

5 65

156 158

6

161

² 43

163 165

65

167

3̂

10 6 8

2̂ 3̂

V

I V/ii ii Ger. 65 III² V I

IV V

example 11. Voice-leading analysis of Double Concerto, i, 153– 67.

Ł Ł Š

ÝŠ Ý

ð ý

ÿ

ð Ðð ð

ÿ

¦ ð ð ð

Ł Ł Ł

ÿ

Ðð ð ð Ð

ÿ−

¹ Ł Ł ²

ð ð

¹ Ł Ł

ÿ

ÐÐÐð

ÿý

\\

Ł ¦ Ł Ł

Ł

Ł

ÿ

ð ÐÐÐ

ÿý

¼ ¼ Ł

Ł

Ł ½

½

ð ð ð ð

ÿ

²

¼ ¼

¼

½

Ł \ Ł Ł \

\

\

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł

¹

¹

Ł

Ł Ł ²

¼

¼

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł ²

¹

¹

Ł

Ł Ł ¦−

¼

¼

ð

Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

¦−

Ł Ł

¼Ł Ł ¼¹

Ł

¼

½

½$%$

%

162

SoloVcl.

Fg.

Strings

3̂ W

2̂S

3̂ W

2̂S

Solo Vln.

3̂S

2̂ W!

pizz.

pizz.

dolce

dolce




23/42

seminal thematic idea remains equivocal. As Example 13 il-lustrates, the grouping pattern of this thematic idea, thepassing function of its Bs, and the cello’s entrance in m. 15support a metric displacement.26 Nevertheless the themealso includes signs that do indeed articulate the notatedmeter. First observe the slight pauses on the Bs, which result

from the articulation slurs and staccato markings on eachdownbeat. The downbeats gain further salience through theapparent iiø4/2 chords that result from this B emphasis. Theiiø4/2 chords connect motivically to the apparent iiø4/2 chordsthat fall within the clear articulation of the notated meter inthe movement’s main theme (mm. 6–12).27 Brahms furtherarticulates the notated meter at mm. 15 and 17, once again


Š

Š Ý

Ł l[ Ł Ł

[ [

Ł [

Ł ² l Ł l Ł l

Ł Ł

Ł

Ł l Ł l Ł l

Ł Ł

Ł

Ł ² l Ł l Ł l

Ł Ł Ł ²

Ł

Ł l Ł l Ł l

Ł Ł Ł

Ł

Ł l Ł l Ł ¦

Ł Ł Ł

Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł ²

Ł Ł Ł ²Ł ²

Ł ² Ł Ł ² Ł l

Ł Ł Ł

¹ Ł l

Ł Ł

Ł

Ł ² l Ł l Ł

Ł Ł

Ł

Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł

Ł

Ł ² Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł ²

Ł

Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł

Ł

Ł Ł Ł ¦

Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł ²

Ł Ł Ł Ł ²

Ł ² Ł Ł ² Ł l

Ł Ł Ł

¹ ¼

Ł Ł Ł

$

%

Š

Š

Ý

Ł ¦

Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł ²

Ł Ł Ł ²Ł ²

Ł Ł ² Ł ² Ł l

Ł Ł Ł

¹ ¼

Ł Ł Ł

¾

ð ð ð

ð

Ł Ł Ł Ł ¾

ð ð ð ²

ð

Ł Ł ² Ł ² Ł ¾

ð ð ð

ð

Ł Ł Ł Ł ¾

ð ð ð ²

ð

Ł Ł ² Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł l

Ł l

Ł Ł

$

%

421

425

01 0/ 01 008va

(8va)

SoloVl. & Vcl.

Vl. 1,Fl.Vla.

Vcl.

pizz.

secondary idea

pizz.

5 + 3 5 +

(as notated)

3= 4

+ 1

4

+ Winds

+ Fg.

A-E-(A) augmented

arco

arco

example 12. Brahms, Double Concerto, i, 421– 27 (simpli fi ed).

26 Brahms’s placement of the virtually identical motive on both the heardand notated downbeat in the E-major rhapsody, shown in Example2(a), provides further support for the idea of a metric shift.

27 I adopt the designation “apparent iiø4/2” from Aldwell and Schachter2003, 417–18. Aldwell and Schachter describe this type of supertonic



24/42

with material derived from the main theme, as highlightedby brackets in Example 13. Note also that the clarinet’sanacrusic eighth-notes and the piano’s shift to E as bass em-phasize the downbeat of m. 16.

As in the piano quartet, the trio’s metric bivalence servesas a basis for development. It is in this process of develop-ment that a link emerges between the metric duality and aduality of tonic versus dominant function. The initial state-ment of the theme remains delicately poised between thesetwo harmonic poles. We have just seen that the passage provides conflicting signals for metric interpretation. The themelikewise begins with tonic expansion but then shifts to a


Ý

Š

Š Ý

Š Ý

−−− ½ð

½ÿ

¼ð

ð

Ł Ł ð

ð

ÿ

Ł Ł

ð

ð ð

Ł Ł ý

ð

ð ð

ÿ

Ł ð

ð

ð ð

Š Ý

Ý Ý

−−−ð ¦\ Ł

Ł

Ł

¼

¼

¼

ð ½

½

½

Ð ÿ

½

½

¼

¼

Ł

Ł \

Ł

Ł ¦

Ł

Ł

Ð ÿ

Ł

Ł Ł

l

l

¹

¹

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł

l

l

¹

¹

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

ð ½

Ł

Ł Ł

l

l

Ł

Ł Ł ²

l

l

Ł

Ł Ł

l

l

Ł

Ł Ł ¦

l

l

Ł ¼

Ł

Ł Ł

l

l

Ł Ł Ł \

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł ¦

Ł

Ł

Ł ¦Ð

Ł

Ł Ł

²

l

l

¹

¹

¼

Ł

Ł ²

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

½

Ł

Ł Ł

l

l

¹

¹

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

ÿ

ð

Ł

Ł Ł ²

l

l

Ł

Ł Ł ¦

l

l

Ł

Ł Ł

l

l

Ł

Ł Ł ²

l

l

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł ²

l

l

Ł ² Ł

¼

¼

Ł ¦

!

!

4

12

00 ä ý ã ä ä ý ã ä

33

P P

“ii∅42”

“ii∅42” “ii∅42” “ii

∅42” A E

un poco [

poco [

example 13. Brahms, Clarinet Trio, i, 4 – 6 and 12– 17.

sonority as a consequence of neighboring or passing motion over a sus-tained bass and thus not of independent harmonic significance.



25/42

( )

Ý

Š

šŠ Ý

−−− Ł l

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł ²

l

lŁ ² Ł Ł ²

Ł ¦

Ł ²

¼

¼

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł −

Ł

Ł ¦

Ł

¼

¼

Ł

Ł

Ł ¦

Ł ²

Ł ¦

Ł ²

Ł [[

Ł [[

Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł ¦¦¦

¦[ Ł

Ł Ł

Ð

Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł l

¹

¹

¹

Ł

Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł l

¹

¹

¹Ł

Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

ð ý

Ł

Ł Ł ð ð ýý

Ł

Ł Ł ð ð ýý

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł ¦

Ł

Ł

Ł

² Ł

Ł ²

Ł

Ł

Ł ¦

Ł ²

ð

Ł

ý ² l

¹

¹¹

Ł

Ł ²

ð

Ł

ý²

Ł Ł

Ł

Ł

ð

Ł

ý l

¹

¹¹

Ł ¦

Ł

ð

Ł

ý

Ł Ł

ð

Ł

ð ð

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł ²Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł

Ł ²

Ł

Ł

l

Ł Ł ² Ł !

33

6 6

5

²iv (ii

k 65?) ii

k 65 vii°7/V V

64

9

(a) 33– 37.

(b) 38 – 47.

example 14. Brahms, Clarinet Trio, i.

² Ý š

Š

šŠ Ý

−−− Ł [̂ Ł ²[̂

Ł Ł

Ł Ł [̂

Ł Ł

Ł Ł

Ł Ł

ð ²̂[ ð ²[̂

ð Ł

Ł Ł [̂ Ł Ł Ł

Ł −

Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł [̂

Ł ¦

Ł ¦

Ł Ł Ł

Ł

Ł −

ð ð ð

Ł

Ł

Ł −

Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł

²

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł Ł

ð −

¼

ð Ł Ł Ł

²

¼

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł −

Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł Ł

Ł

Ł −

ð ð ð ð

²

Ł

Ł

¼

¼

Ł Ł Ł Ł ²

¦[

ÿ

ÿ

Ł Ł Ł Ł

ð Ł ð Ł

² Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

ÿ

½

Ðð Ðð \

¼

ð ð ¦

Ł \

ÿ

ð

Ł Ł Ł Ł ¼

¼ð

½

½

ÿ

ð ý

¼

¼

ð Ł

ð Ł

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł Ł

Ł Ł

ÿ

Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

Ł Ł Ł Ł Ł

½

½Ł

ÿ

Ł

¼

¼ð

ð Ł

ð Ł

Ł

Ł Ł

Ł Ł

Ł Ł !

38 44 46

S W W S

W

theme 2a

S

Ger. 65A:IV −7C: vii°7/V V 64 73 I I IV I

dolce



26/42

dominant focus for its second half. By contrast, the plagalfunction of the iiø4/2 chords within the tonic-prolongingmain theme (mm. 1–12) and its fragmentary return at m. 18corresponds with articulation of the notated meter.

Similarly, when the secondary idea returns (see m. 34 of

Example 14(a)), the sense of metric displacement becomesfar more pronounced as the supertonic chord shifts to itsmore conventional function as a harmony leading to V. The voice-exchange pattern (m. 35) and the arrival on thecadential 64 chord (m. 37) remain the only traces of thenotated meter. Brahms goes a step further in the modulatory passage of mm. 38–43, shown in Example 14(b). Here, heremoves any signs of the notated downbeat. Althoughthe passage leads out of A minor, it nevertheless consists

of a motion from an intermediate harmony to the local Gdominant. Viewed from this perspective, the new intermedi-ate harmony —F –A–C–E —represents a transformed ver-sion of the motivic supertonic chord. Dominant expansionremains bound up with metric displacement.

Linkage enters the formal process as the passage resolvesinto the C tonic of the secondary theme at m. 44. Immedi-ately after any signs of the notated meter drop out and weare convinced that the basic idea must have been strong- weak after all, linkage pulls the rug out from under the dis-placement. As seen in Example 14(b), the final statement of E (m. 42) enters as part of a series of repetitions of the basicidea. Yet the agogically accented cadential 64 chord (m. 43)instantaneously transforms this quarter note E into an anacru-sis. The new motivic idea then becomes the head motive forthe second theme, following the conventions of linkage.

Crucially, the E of the linking motive maintains its new-found anacrusic function. Just as in the quartet, tonic articu-lation corresponds with re-emergence of the

some instances of rhythmic and harmonic ambiguity in brahms

Documents