Professional Documents
Culture Documents
You Reap What You Sow: Some Instances of Rhythmic and Harmonic Ambiguity in Brahms
Author(s): Peter H. Smith
Source: Music Theory Spectrum, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Spring, 2006), pp. 57-97
Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society for Music Theory
Stable 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 at
http://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 support@jstor.org.
University of California Press and Society for Music Theory are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Music Theory Spectrum.
http://www.jstor.org
H. SMITH
Of all composers of the common-practice era, perhaps none has been associated with musical ambiguity 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 metrically 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-practiceera is
associated with the idea of musical ambiguity more
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
*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 composer of the period so reveled in the structural possibilities of ambiguity
as did Brahms." (Epstein 1979, 162) Charles Rosen is even more forthright: "More than any other composer, Brahms exploited the possibilities of overlapping sections, the ambiguities of the boundaries of sonata
form." (Rosen 1988, 395) Notions of ambiguity even appear to have influenced biographical perspectives on the composer, leading Karl
Geiringer among others to identify psychological ambivalence as a driving force behind Brahms's personality and behavior. (Geiringer 1990)
create clear and distinct shapes; the more clearly and vividly
the listener perceives these shapes, the more fully and deeply
decidable."2
Despite their skepticism, Schachter and Agawu nevertheless 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,is that the function of ambiguity "is more narrowly circumscribedthan some analysts,
2Schachter
57
58
methodology that David Lewin was to formalize in his influential article"Music Theory, Phenomenology, and Modes
of Perception."6Although Lewin does not addressambiguity
per se, the approach to analysis that he advocates, with its
dedicationto carving out analytical space for multiple meanings, is highly suggestive for the topic.
My own contributionto ongoing explorationsof Brahmsian
ambiguitytakes Epstein's and Lewin's emphasis on listening
perspective 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 route
towards analyticalinsight. Yet rather than analyze compositions in which Schachter's call for single, correct readings
rings true, I propose to explore passages in which Brahms
takes considerablepains to encouragemultipleinterpretations.
The particularform 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 similarways
in which metric and harmonic double meanings emerge, develop, and ultimately resolve. In both musical dimensions,
ambiguitymay 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,the
passages I will explore involve motivic cells whose strongweak or weak-strong metric identity is open to question.
Repeating such a cell in shifted positions and in varied musical contexts heightens the overall sense of ambiguity such
that the ambiguity itself becomes a narrative thread in a
Brahms work. Similarly, in the harmonic dimension, when
roots are a fifth apart context can make it unclearwhich root
is controlling: I-V or IV-I. A Brahms piece may, through
repetition and recontextualization, make this harmonic ambiguity a topic for elaboration. In the case of both types of
perhaps misled by false analogies to language, seem to believe."3Agawu similarly uses concepts of hierarchyand context in assessing interpretive options as means of acknowledging 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 comparablyor 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 convinced 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 contend 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'scompositions.
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 temporal perspectives.Indeed, he
argues that Brahms characteristicallyconfirms the multivalence of his ambiguous ideas by exploring competing structural potentials as his compositions unfold. Epstein even asserts that, for Brahms, exploration of "variousviewpoints"
often becomes the impetus behind a passage or even an entire composition.5 With his focus on listening perspective,
Epstein anticipates a core component of the analytical
3
4
5
Schachter 1990, 169. For a similar qualified skepticism regarding notions of ambiguity specifically as they apply to issues of metric and
hypermetric interpretation, see Schachter 1999, 97-100.
Agawu 1994, 89.
Epstein 1979, 162-69.
Lewin 1986.
AND HARMONIC
AMBIGUITY
IN BRAHMS
59
60
AND HARMONIC
AMBIGUITY
61
IN BRAHMS
Ivla./cello l
99
Violine
I I
p
Bratsche
--0001-
----
Violoncell
p ~Allegro non troppo
Pianoforte
T4th 4th
dim.
iio6
dim.
aligned
EXAMPLE
I. Brahms, C-minor Piano Quartet, i, 1-34.
METRIC AMBIGUITY
12
the term and specifically links the idea of a quasi-fermata as unmeasured time to his related category of uninterpreted durations.
See Caplin 1998, 35-42, for definitions of the form-functional terms
presentation and continuation that appear in Ex. 3.
62
1 4th
13
p1
1 4th
----
rI--
--|
dim. sempre
espress.
dim.
------
Sespress
espress.
sempre
dim. sempre
i6
iio6
aligned
weak-strong!
orweak-strong?
27
then
strong-weak
-but
strong-weak
J
pizz.rco
-pp
pp
V.
pizz.
p marc
sf
.aarco
Aige
ir)
V/displaced
i/aligned
EXAMPLE I.
[continued]
AND HARMONIC
SS
Sf
Sf
Sf
W-
Sf3
S
AMBIGUITY
W
IN BRAHMS
63
etc.
7f-
or S - W
Andante
p dolce espress.
Horn in Es
,A
Andante
Pianoforte
Iwl--
"
d.oc-..I
p dolce
EXAMPLE 2.
64
or S
S W
Wor
ws
(c) Brahms, A-minor
153
So
(c)
Brahms,
A-inor
Clarinet
-(il
Trio,
i,
2-
arc7.
dolce
StringsI
(i.)
[continued]
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
EXAMPLE
AND HARMONIC
AMBIGUITY
IN BRAHMS
65
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
66
5- 6 -7
i
EXAMPLE 4.
F provides retrospective clarification. Observe the interaction of the metric and tonal dimensions at this point in the
form: the very moment that the arrivalof F clarifies the contrapuntal function of E?, the passage likewise clarifies, at
least momentarily,the metric identity of the pizzicato quarter
notes. We will see that this type of coordination between dimensions 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 attribute 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 byproductof voice leading even before its function is
made clear by the continuation to F. An E?-minor function,
however, is preciselywhat 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 recapitulation. The possibility for tonicization thus representsa case of
13
14
217
pizz.
PP
p
marc
dim.
IN BRAHMS
67
arco
arco
pizz.
p dim.
p..
dimm. p
.'..
S5
l ,
dim.
dim.
Bdim.
(a)iIIp
(a
S6
Bmu
1,217-37.
C-mlorPiano
(a)
Quartet,
Bra.ms,
EXAMPLE 5.
espress.
68
227
223
230
236
pizz.
i
-.. --
.
.i
- ..,II"LOL-
5-6
5
V
5-6
5-E5
5 - 6
10
07
7 4
t 2
8-7
6 -5
4-3
5 - 6
4 -3
[continued]
17
AMBIGUITY
IN BRAHMS
69
AND HARMONIC
18
To a large degree, a decision about how to hear the passage will depend
on performance factors. A chamber group that emphasizes the downbeat 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.
70
etc.
~
Y
k"
espress
xf
coespress
fr
fff
S--W
notated or:
204as
S --W
S -W
(Displaced
di;
i
N-
f
--Im
--
V
EXAMPLE6. Brahms, C-minor Piano Quartet, i, 196-213.
hemiola)
of the tonally anomalous pizzicato figure. What was originally associated with the tonic and the notated downbeat
becomes dominant oriented and displaced in a mannerthat
solidifies a connection with the pizzicato version.Yet despite
the new position of displacement, the metric identity of the
motive remains ambiguous.As the annotationsin 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.
Furtherdevelopment of metric-tonal correlationsarisesin
consequences Brahms draws from the pizzicato idea as it returns in m. 224. The aforementioned tonicization of the E s
becomes a stepping stone to recapitulationof the secondary
material in the unlikely key of the major dominant (see m.
236 of Example 5). Thus in a somewhat more abstractmanner, the displacedversion of the quarter-notemotive 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
structuraldownbeat 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 furtherprolongs the dominant that originatesin the retransition and flows across the return of the primary thematic material.The result is that we find ourselvesstill waiting for a structuraltonic as late as m. 312 of the coda.19As
Example 7 shows, a passage characterizedby relentlessarticulation of the notated meter prepares the restatement of
the opening C octaves that finally provide this delayedtonic
at m. 313. (The clear delineation of the meter in m. 312
reflects the overall metric clarity of the preparatorypassage,
AMBIGUITY
IN BRAHMS
71
TRIO
20
21
i9
AND HARMONIC
72
largamente
espress.
vi
Piano
(vla. + cello not shown)
EXAMPLE
(+ 8)
+ via. (+8)
Headmotivenowclearlyheardas notated:S-W
23
AND HARMONIC
AMBIGUITY
IN BRAHMS
73
28 (2006)
MUSICTHEORYSPECTRUM
74
Sw S-W
s-w
25s-s
FL
25.S--W
p7
dokee
p=dolce
dod/ce
Sdolcece
Hr.
p
arco
Solo
:
Vc.
S
-w
for the 3-2 dyad.The clarinet also articulatesits closing 6-appoggiatura as a strong-weak gesture. Brahms thus places
the second theme in another context of linkage that encourages the same internal conflicts found in the opening
orchestral-cadenza alternation. Listeners attuned to the
preparatoryarticulation 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
4 11
AND HARMONIC
AMBIGUITY
IN BRAHMS
75
41
p dolce
Fl.
Cl.
29I
.x
Fgitd
/
29
0-3
/-
29
Solo
--
r---~~~~-3----r---3----_
"N
---3m3------
l3a.
__
Solo
Vcl.I
__
shifted: 1
or
as notated:
2 3 4
1 2 3
EXAMPLE
2 3 4
1 2 3
A
4
A-IC?
1 2 3 4 5 6
etc.
pocof
Krebs1999.
76
W- S
S -W
W-S
148
,
J
W
SoloVcl.
Fg.
dolce
dim.
dim.
-p
Strings
T(p
zz.')
[Idm
--p-
rdim.
sf
--"dm
155
Solo0
1,
Strings
espress.
dolce
arco
sf--
p dim.
EXAMPLE
IO. Brahms, Double Concerto,i, 148-68 (simplified).
W-
162
Vcl.
,-
-,li
AND HARMONIC
W-
AMBIGUITY
77
IN BRAHMS
S -W!
Solo
Vln.
Fg. I,,
dolce
dolce
pizz.
Strings
--
,v,
I/o
_
pp
EXAMPLE 10.
[continued]
158
156
153
pizz.
163
161
165
167
---
I4,
--,
10
ii
Ger.5
V/ii
III# V
I
IV
V
EXAMPLE II.
78
=4
3
421
Solo
Vcl.
-.
T.,,,,Hw.T
5
4
5
4
secondaryidea
4-
1,Fl.
4 (as notated)
___
4vas--
_"_
Vc.
Via.-%_
_
_
Vcl.
pizz.
4
425
A-E-(A) augmented
(8va)---------
--
+ Winds
arco
+ Fg.
arco
seminal thematic idea remains equivocal. As Example 13 illustrates, 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
26
(simplified).
ii~4/2
AND HARMONIC
AMBIGUITY
IN BRAHMS
79
99
po
unpoco
12
AE
112
1133
"ii "
..
0)?
.ii ."
EXAMPLE 13.
"
A E
t
sonority as a consequence of neighboring or passing motion over a sustained bass and thus not of independent harmonic significance.
80
V6
vii7/V
iv (iif
(a)33-37.
theme 2a
38
4-446
sf -sf
C,.VwIs
Sb
A: Ger. s
C: IV(7
,w s ,
3dolce-
vii67/V
37
(b) 38-47.
EXAMPLE
14. Brahms, Clarinet Trio, i.
IV
IN BRAHMS
81
82
tempo, the listener has lost contact with the notated downbeat. Yet as Example 15 illustrates,the parts realign with the
barline as the final tonic arrives at m. 217. Note that this
metric resolution again involves motivic linkage, as marked
with brackets in Example 15. The displaced version of the
head motive shifts to an aligned and augmented version at
m. 216. This aligned version subsequentlyreverberatesin the
weak-strong 2-3 motions of the following phrase, as the
heard and notated identity of the motive finally correspond.
The similarity with the strategy at the entrance of the trio's
second theme and in the final measuresof the piano quartet
is unmistakable.
VARIATIONS ON HARMONIC
DOUBLE MEANING
Daverio 1993, 144-54. Although my focus will be on harmonic ambiguity in the Adagio, the movement's unusual large-scale organization
has stimulated a diversity of opinion regarding its form. Although it is
perhaps best understood as a hybrid form, the movement's resistance to
straightforward formal interpretation provides further evidence of the
degree to which ambiguity stands at its core. In addition to Daverio-who views it as "an essay in the characteristic ... curiously suspended
between two formal paradigms, the variation cycle and the sonata
allegro"-it has been interpreted as a theme and free variations (Sisman
1990, 151-53), a three-part song form (Musgrave 1985, 208), a cavatina (Tovey 1949, 265), a modified strophic pattern, and even an
29
30
unusual sonata form (the latter two possibilities offered by Pascall 1972,
31-33).
The emphasis on these dyads is but one component of the movement's
overall evocation of the style hongrois, as noted by Daverio 1993, 150
and 152. For a stimulating discussion focused specifically on Brahms's
engagement with gypsy style, see Daverio 2002. The absence of an
intermediate harmony alone will not necessarily create harmonic ambiguity in an opening progression of fifth related harmonies. The G and
D harmonies at the outset of the quintet's first movement, for instance,
clearly function within a I-V-I progression, as does the similar D-A-D
motion that opens the first movement of Brahms's Second Symphony.
In both cases, elaboration of the dominant via a cadential 6 chord is
decisive for the clarity of harmonic relationships.There is at least one
composition in which Brahms considered the possibility of beginning
with an unambiguous iv-i plagal motion: the Fourth Symphony.
Litterick 1987 reproduces the page from the autograph score that
includes this opening plagal progression, which Brahms ultimately
deleted in the published version.
Throughout all examples and discussion of the quintet and rhapsody,
I use a lower case Roman numeral and sharp symbol (i#) rather than
simply an upper case Roman numeral (I) to refer to minor tonics that
Brahms makes major through the addition of a Picardy third. I do so
to emphasize the fact that I hear these major tonics as altered versions
of minor tonics even in cases in which the major version may persist
throughout extended stretches of music. This Picardy-third character
arises primarily through expansion of the tonics via their minor
subdominants.
YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW: SOME INSTANCES OF RHYTHMIC AND HARMONIC
21
212
4,
4e
Poco meno
AMBIGUITY
IN BRAHMS
gro
TI
op
IL
Impr
pp
psempre
..
83
II
i
i
pp
pp
sempre
I
?p
EXAMPLE
an A-minor context. Example 16 illustrates. Still, for a discussion focused on the idea of double meaning, it is important to acknowledge cues that continue to implicate A as
dominant. The middle section of the theme begins at m. 9
by immediately transforming A into a dominant seventh
chord even as that A has just been tonicized. Repetitions of a
prominent B -A sigh motive in the first violin join the expanded V7 harmony to highlight this local turn to D minor.
It is not until the motion to the E dominant of m. 12 that
the progression leads back to A for a compressed reprise of
the opening material.
The theme thus consists of a harmonic back-and-forth
that projects through time-one is tempted to say prolongs
-the double meaning embedded within the basic idea. First
we waver between tonic and plagal interpretations of the
opening. Then A emerges as tonic through cadential articulation at m. 8. But Brahms immediately demotes A to the
rank of dominant, only to promote it again to tonic status
with the half cadence on E at m. 12. This final shift is crucial
because, as Daverio observes, the half cadence prepares a
84
Adagio
____
madolce
f madolce
FA
_f
arco
pizz.A
61:,
I
(viio)
.iv
cm
, ..
(viio)
dim.
dim.
HM
3
dzm.
dim.
[l
V
4-
IIIi
V
37
i#
El]-
v,
iv
85
ar. i
94 ..W
U.
vim
iv
-iv
iIII
FA-
IN BRAHMS
FD]-V
VwIo
IIv
io
EXAMPLE 17.
VV
pizz.
86
"
espress.
f
4iv
EXAMPLE
RHAPSODIC
It also initiates a variation that quickly merges into a developmental passage that builds to the Adagio's climactic
VariationIII.
At first glance, this climax appears finally to provide the
long-delayed structural tonic. Example 19 reproduces the
relevant passage. For the first time, the re-entry of the basic
idea is preparedby an A dominant so that D has a cleartonic
function. Furthermore,Brahms recomposes the idea so as to
eliminate any internal signals for alternativeinterpretations.
He supports the entire two-measure unit with a tonic pedal
and adjusts the melodic line so that F# remains in the forefront. The problem therefore is not so much tonal as textural. Rather than provide a point of resolution following the
developmental buildup, the tonic articulation falls within a
continuation of that buildup. The formal trajectorywashes
across the tonic articulationand continues to the more secure
IN BRAHMS
87
Var. II
FI
32
DEVELOPMENTS
OF TONIC/PLAGAL
DUALITY
88
III
Var.
51
If
,.=1
" 3''r-
.-i
III
,.
33
Ni
M1 ,1w,
LTLM I.
L
A_3 __ IIIT7
It)4
I..
..
If
64
mf3
o
Kr
1 1
67
1
ill
piz .
V
llh
0.4
..l
H I
"
,
ALAALA
[',l
,1
EXAMPLE
The opening unharmonized F# provides yet another example of Brahms'sproclivity for moments of structuralindeterminacy, a form of openness that functions in the tonal
dimension like the quasi-fermatas do in the rhythmic diof the passage in Lewin 1990, 16-18. Aspects of my analysis of the Bminor rhapsody were first stimulated by my participation in a workshop
led by Frank Samarotto at the Institute on Schenkerian Theory and
Analysis at the Mannes Institute for Advanced Studies in Music
Theory, 27-30 June, 2002. I would like to acknowledge both Professor
Samarotto and the other members of the workshop for their influence
on my own interpretation. In particular, Professor Samarotto drew my
attention to (and provided me with transcriptions of) Schenker's unpublished graph of the rhapsody in the Oster Collection, while Richard
Cohn first alerted me to the idea of a plagal relationship at the work's
opening with F# sounding as tonic. Samarotto has since published an
analysis of the rhapsody in Samarotto 2003, which reproduces part of
Schenker's sketch.
mension of our other examples.As was the case in the quintet's Adagio, Brahms avoids an intermediateharmony,whose
presence would tip the scales in favor of either B or F# as
tonic.32Instead, the first explicit harmony,viio7 on the second half of m. 1, tonicizes F# but itself resolves to an F#
dominant that tonicizes B. From that point until the F# arrival in m. 4, Brahms simply alternatesF# and B, which mirror each other in the same tonic/plagal duality as the
Adagio's D-A alternation.
The tonal ambiguity again raises two primary issues: is
B or F# the main middleground harmony? and does this
middleground harmony function in the foreground key of
32
It is again important to note that the absence of an intermediate harmony alone will not necessarily give rise to harmonic ambiguity. See
the opening progressions of the first movements of the quintet and
Second Symphony for counter examples, as mentioned in note 29.
YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW: SOME INSTANCES OF RHYTHMIC AND HARMONIC
AMBIGUITY
IN BRAHMS
89
Var. IV
66
FD
-1
espress.
Vss
p dim.dim.
ppzz.
Vdim.
EXAMPLE
20.
B or F#? As for the first question, F# receivesmetric emphasis and forms the goal for the opening phrase, factors that
support an interpretation of F# as controlling Stufe. Yet
Schenker indicates departure from a B tonic in his unpublished sketches of the rhapsody in the Oster Collection.33
The question of key orientation is crucialto harmonic interpretation. A reading oriented around the key of B (like
Schenker's)has either B or F# availableas possible points of
departure.It is not unusual for Brahmsto focus on the dominant of a key as an alternative to more conventional tonic
control. A reading oriented around the key of F#, by contrast,is almost certain to hear F# itself as middlegroundStufe.
33
34
90
74
?,?
V,
?
f
w I L
-0
o
I
_L
f'
-----
--
_
fT
limb
,no
,
II
IV -
FD-]pV
EXAMPLE 21.
IV
10
F#
Agitato
ED
--
F#- i
i#
vii?7
iv
1#
CO
I
1i
vi7
T5
[' aug.6
iaug.6
v7 i
'
&
94 9 44&4
91
iv
vi7/7
IN BRAHMS
&
iv
iv
4--
-- '
&
ivv
vii?7
EXAMPLE 22.
mii7i
MUSIC
92
1
i vii7
THEORY
iv
SPECTRUM
28 (2006)
i# etc.
12
iV
EXAMPLE 23.
VI
16
aug.6
Vi
Vi
AND HARMONIC
AMBIGUITY
IN BRAHMS
sostenuto sempre
22
i-i
V7/G
]
itof
30
V/G]
oco t.---------------n
36
tempo
J
_"
B1
EXAMPLE 24.
iv
etc.
93
94
--------8V9---------------------
59
a.
ow
LI
64"-
r)
kv
'
"1d
11
,
t
k..
LfI
"
J"!I
,I'--TI.
fz
Recomposition
begins
69
7rfb~i7
I I J J -'-'
k-bfmr-
2V
Pii
,W
TI
,--
I II
[-
Ad
Ilk
,m
r
liIIR1
Ii
f
.
Md-
1-1
TI
&4 0
.....
Recomposi
begins tion
F
?
....
inB-mnor
dIk
A
ologrpato
mnr3rsccl
I-AC)
Ritrpee
a at fuivln
Bmnr
retain
Cadentialmaeil eunsi
-mnr
AMBIGUITY
IN BRAHMS
95
AND HARMONIC
CODETTA
96
REFERENCES
California: Wads-
worth Group.
Caplin, William E. 1998. Classical Form: A Theory of Formal
Functions for the Instrumental Music ofHaydn, Mozart, and
-~
Structure.Cambridge:MIT Press.
Geiringer, Karl. 1990. "Brahms the Ambivalent."In Brahms
Studies: Analytical and Historical Perspectives. Edited by
. 2003. "Against Nature: Interval Cycles and Prolongational Conflict in Brahms's Rhapsody, Op. 79, No.
1." In A Composition as a Problem III: Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference on Music Theory, Tallinn, March
77-103.
. 1997. "Brahms and Motivic 6/3 Chords." Music
Analysis 16.2 (July): 175-217.
. 1998. "Brahms and the Neapolitan Complex: bII,
WI, and Their Multiple Functions in the First Movement
of the F-minor Clarinet Sonata."In BrahmsStudies,volume 2. Edited by David Brodbeck. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press: 169-208.
AND HARMONIC
AMBIGUITY
IN BRAHMS
97
University Press:220-70.