BRAHMS PIANO QUINTET IN F MINOR OP.

34

BY
MIKHAIL JOHNSON
MUCT 4080/ 5230- CHAMBER MUSIC LITERATURE
BOWLING GREEN, OHIO
MAY 2015

PIANO QUINTET IN F MINOR OP. 34

Brahms ability to combine ingeniously the traditional compositional practices of three

centuries with folk and dance idioms and adding to that the mid and late 19th century art music
language is a testament to Brahms colossal success as both traditionalist and innovator.1 Indeed,
he mastered counterpoint, the complex and highly disciplined art associated with Johann
Sebastian Bach, and the aspects of structure, development and compositional ethos associated
with Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and other composers. Yet, Brahms aimed to honour the purity
of these revered German structures and advance them to the Romantic idiom, in the process
creating daring approaches to melody and harmony. Many contemporaries such as Schoenberg
and Elgar have admired his dynamic contribution and artistry. With this, the nature of Brahms
works became the starting point and inspiration for a generation of composers.2
In the year of 1862, Brahms conceived the Piano Quintet in F minor. Even though he was only
29 years of age, by no means was he a beginner composing in the chamber music genre.
Between the years 1853 and 1860 he wrote a B-major Piano Trio (Op.8 which underwent severe
revisions years later), his first String Sextet and Piano Quartets in G minor and A major among
other chamber works.3 Acknowledging his incessant struggle for mastery (rather perfection),
represented in his countless revisions of his works, it is unlikely that this piano quintet would not
endure its fair share of transformation.4 The work started as a string quintet but with an unusual
instrumentation stimulated by Schuberts C major String Quintet Op.163 for string quintet with
two cellos.5 Brahms dearest friends Clara Schumann and violinist Joseph Joachim deemed the
string quintet in its current instrumentation ineffective, a critique Brahms took and off he went to
revise it. Unfortunately, the revisions failed to convince and so Brahms started anew with a
completely different texture in mind.6 A year later Brahms returned with the work as a piano duo
2

(Sonata in F minor), which he premiered with pianist and colleague Carl Tausig in 1864. Suffice
it to say the critics added to the list of unhappy clients indicating how much the work lacked the
warmth that the strings possessed. Interestingly, though Brahms burned the string quintet
version, he managed to publish the duo piano version (as Op. 34b).7 Clara Schumann thought
that this sonata felt more of an arrangement of the work and had massive orchestral potential.
She urged Brahms to give the work another revision and in a letter to him, she wrote:
The work is on a wonderfully grand scale, its skillful combinations are interesting
throughout, it is masterly from every point of view, but- it is not a sonata, but a
work whose ideas might-and must-scatter, as from a horn of plenty, over an entire
orchestra. A host of beautiful thoughts are lost on the piano, and are recognizable
only by a musician, the public would never enjoy them at all. The very first time
you played it, I felt as if it were a work arranged for the piano, please dear
Johannes, for this once take my advice and recast it. If you do not feel fresh
enough to do so now, lay it by for a year and then take it up again. Surely, the
work will come to give you great pleasure.8
Brahms himself was quite convinced as to the potential of the musical material and the coaxing
from Clara made him even eager to make a final attempt to give new birth to the work
incorporating the most idiomatic of both versions. The result was the now present Piano Quintet,
the only one Brahms wrote in the genre and indeed, it is telling that the trouble he endured to
bring the work to its current design has paid off, as it is now one of the towering creations in the
catalogue of Brahms. According to James M. Keller: A masterful interweaving of modes and
moods: majesty, serenity, tension, foreboding, anger, out-and-out joy. 9
The first movement (Allegro non troppo) possess impeccable illustrations as to how Brahms
transforms and nurtures his compositional materials before the minds ear and yet preserve
compositional unity. 10 It commences with a stark opening statement that might pose quite a
paradox to the first time listener as only three of the five instruments play in unison the theme. 11

Without the interference of harmony, Brahms intended for this skeletal assembly to form the
backdrop, a memorable one, for what will become a hardier embodiment accorded in the tutti.12

This circular design (labeled x and y) of the main theme modestly combines the tonic and the
sixth scale degree in an expanded arpeggio that concludes on the dominant chord of C major.13
Following the opening, Brahms introduces the element of surprise using rhythmic displacement
and a reestablishment of the theme in diminution expanded by the piano with touches of
harmony provided by the strings (labeled z) into a rapid stream of sixteenth notes.14

This supposedly new material makes the stark opening sound like a false start, but in fact this
occurrence sought to dispel the idea of a mere introduction and more of a display of the material

that will be possess a life of its own and prove to be an integral cornerstone throughout the
movement.15 As shown in the excerpt above, the silences manufactured wrought accents that are
half a measure away from their original position. This device eliminates the aspect of audience
predictability, a device that made Brahms dear violinist friend Joachim change his mind four
years later about the work lacking sound charm.16 One may conclude that the subjects
themselves are not at all attractive from a melodic standpoint; nor is it expected that their
origination was mostly dependent upon design. Brahms did not value a subject by its sound
charm according to Joachim expression, but by its suitability for the treatment to which
Brahms destined it a standard of judgment which incidentally helps us to understand his
apparent indifference to timbre. This is apparent in the materials ability to transcend
instrumentation as revealed in its early metamorphic stages. 17
The area of the theme marked z marks the beginning of something unique to Brahms. This
seemingly obvious shift of a semitone will not only prove to be of great importance in its present
context on the thematic level, but indeed Brahms genius will be revealed in his treatment of said
semitonal shift on tonal and structural levels.18 Frisch adequately accounts for the magnitude of
such activity dominating the movement. He states the first 73 measures of this movement are
saturated with the basic motive and the intensity and concentration of the process far surpasses
anything found in Brahms earlier works.19 Interestingly, this semitonal activity was brought to
our attention in the opening phrase in which the D-flat was the only non-triad pitch to receive
emphasis.

Then it brings us to where we saw the semitonal shift first hand in punctuating emphasis in the
part of the first violin.20 Schoenbergs analysis in describing this semitonal shape in measure 15
being subject to the variation process until it because the shape found in measure 22 in the piano
part, which is then further varied in the first violin in measure 23 who states the secondary theme
of the first subject.21 With this variation of themes presented in should also be noted that the
basic shape of the opening has also been altered:

It is clear though these examples that the application of the variation process by Brahms is
paradigmatic of the term Schoenberg devised to explain this process, which is the Developing
Variation: having motives evolve step by step toward their new thematic statements in lieu of
mere repetition of motivic elements in varying contexts.22 Indeed, we see Brahms adapting
techniques of developing variation in two new ways reflecting the influence of Beethoven in his
Appassionata. The semitonal figure has been used to such heights that it achieves the truly
Beethovenian structural integrity.23
6

Further analysis of the movement reveals the D flat- C- D flat motion has been become a G#-AG# motion in measure 33, which possesses the second subject. Not only does it infect the
melody, it has subjugated the entire texture via the accompaniment in the piano. Approaching
measures 36-37 the operation of the motive is controlled in like manner but in the harmonic
context. The bass motive in the part of the piano alternates the G#-A over a C# pedal.24
Therefore, the semitonal motive operates not only on melodic material but also as a transition:

This leads us to the third theme in measure 35, which is characteristic of Schubert in this event
we experience the Neapolitan implication of the semitone being developed when this theme
drifts in sequence from C# to D in measures 39-46. The triad of A major in measures 45-46
functions not only as the dominant of the Neapolitan abut also as the submediant resulting in the
return to C# (with A-G# shift) and to the restatement of the second theme.25 These revelations are
indeed astounding as they present in itself momentous consequences especially for he
7

recapitulation, which is presented in the key of F sharp minor, a semitone higher than the tonic
and once again resulting in the a reason for the inevitable semitonal shift. Brahms ability to take
semitonal shifts in key relationship and create a dominant pedal to lead finally into the expected
tonic of F minor creates a state of wonderment.26
Frisch states For the first time in Brahms works, then, thematic transformation has
become an integral part of the sonata procedure. Or we might say that thematic transformation,
motivic development, harmonic process, and formal design are at last beautifully and powerfully
coordinated.27 The examples brought to the fore are only minute representations of the bigger
pictures being painted in the work as a whole. The use of simple and limited musical material to
such scope utilizing the avenues for expansion, compression and adding to it the element of
rhythmic and metric displacement adds significant dimension to Brahms art of the developing
variations. His real achievement in this quintet is essentially his ability to combine fluency with a
still freer metrical process and by extension its application to larger metric framework on the
music. Indeed this is the unveiling of Brahms new powers of motivic development and his
metric expertise. Throughout the work, this expertise continues to enhance, and be enhanced by,
the procedures of developing variation.28

END NOTES

1.

Bozarth, George S., and Walter Frisch. n.d. "Brahms, Johannes." Grove Music Online. Oxford Music
Online. Oxford University Press. Accessed April 7, 2015. http://0www.oxfordmusiconline.com.maurice.bgsu.edu/subscriber/article/grove/music/51879.

2.

Ibid. pg. 6

3.

Keller, James M. 2011. Chamber Music: A Listener's Guide. New York: Oxford University Press. pg
99-100.

4. Young,

John Bell. 2008. Brahms: A Listener's Guide. Wisconsin: Amadeus Press.

5.

Frisch, Walter. 1984. Brahms and the Principle of Developing Variation. California: University of
California Press.

6. (Keller 2011) pg. 100.

7.

Ibid.

8.

Larey, Franklin. 1996. Developing Variation, Thematic Transformation, and Motivic Unity in the
Quintet for Piano and Strings, Op. 34, by Johannes Brahms. DMA Thesis, College-Conservatory of
Music, University of Cincinnati, Indiana: Heckman Bindery Inc. pg. 58.

9. (Keller 2011).
10.

Keys, Ivor. 1974. BBC Music Guides: Brahms Chamber Music. Seattle: Universtity of Washington
Press. pg. 8.

11. (Young 2008) pg. 106.

12.

Ibid.

13.

Ibid.

14.

Ibid.

15.

(Keys 1974) pg. 8.

16.

Evans, Edwin. n.d. Handbook to the Chamber and Orchestral Music of Johannes Brahms. London:
William Reeves pg. 139.

17. Ibid.
18.

(Larey 1996) pg. 62

19. (Frisch 1984) pg. 85

20.

(Larey 1996) pg. 62

21.

Ibid. pg. 63

22.

Ibid.

23.

(Frisch 1984) pg. 84

24.

(Larey 1996) pg. 63

25.

(Larey 1996) pg. 64-66

26.

Ibid.

27.

(Frisch 1984) pg. 86

28.

Ibid. pg. 94-5

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bozarth, George S., and Walter Frisch. n.d. "Brahms, Johannes." Grove Music Online. Oxford Music
Online. Oxford University Press. Accessed April 7, 2015. http://0www.oxfordmusiconline.com.maurice.bgsu.edu/subscriber/article/grove/music/51879.
Evans, Edwin. n.d. Handbook to the Chamber and Orchestral Music of Johannes Brahms. London:
William Reeves .
Frisch, Walter. 1984. Brahms and the Principle of Developing Variation. California: University of
California Press.
Gal, Hans. 1963. Johnannes Brahms: His work and perosnality. Translated by Joseph Stein.
Connecticut: Greenwood Press Publishers.
Geiringer, Karl. 1947. Brahms: His life and work. 2nd edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jacobson, Bernard. 1977. The Music of Johannes Brahms. London: The Tantivy Press.
Keller, James M. 2011. Chamber Music: A Listener's Guide. New York: Oxford University Press.
Keys, Ivor. 1974. BBC Music Guides: Brahms Chamber Music. Seattle: Universtity of Washington
Press.
. 1989. Johannes Brahms . Oregon: Amadeus Press.

Larey, Franklin. 1996. Developing Variation, Thematic Transformation, and Motivic Unity in the
Quintet for Piano and Strings, Op. 34, by Johannes Brahms. DMA Thesis, CollegeConservatory of Music, University of Cincinnati, Indiana: Heckman Bindery Inc.
Musgrave, Michael. 1985. The Music of Brahms. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Young, John Bell. 2008. Brahms: A Listener's Guide. Wisconsin: Amadeus Press.