Brahms and the Shifting Barline

fiveBrahms and the Shifting Barline:

Metric Displacement andFormal Process in the TrioswithWind Instruments

Peter H. Smith

Recent discussions of the technique called developing variationand its exemplification in Brahms’s music often emphasize therole of metric irregularities in the composer’s thematic pro-

cesses. Both Walter Frisch and David Epstein have extended Schoen-berg’s insights by moving beyond metric issues on the phrase levelto consider the impact of Brahms’s rhythmic invention on the overallshape of a piece. The present study explores motivic-metric process viapassages from two Brahms works: the first movements of the Horn Trio,op. 40 (1865), and of the Clarinet Trio, op. 114 (1891). These piecesprovide an ideal context in which to build on Frisch’s and Epstein’swork on rhythmic aspects of developing variation. The trios are prof-itably approached through a synthesis of their ideas with David Lewin’sinsights into the relationship of harmony and meter in Brahms as wellas with Harald Krebs’s and Richard Cohn’s recent explorations of thetopic of metric dissonance.1

An earlier version of this essay was read at the annualmeeting of the Society forMusic Theory

in Phoenix in 1997 and at the annual meeting of Music Theory Midwest in Northfield mn

in 1997. I wish to thank Michael L. Friedmann, Robert P. Morgan, and Margaret Notley for

their critical comments on a preliminary draft.

1. See Walter Frisch, Brahms and the Principle of Developing Variation (Berkeley: University

of California Press, 1984), passim, and “The Shifting Bar Line: Metrical Displacement in

Brahms,” in Brahms Studies: Analytical and Historical Perspectives, ed. George S. Bozarth (Ox-

{191}

Example 5.1: Horn Trio, 1st mvt., mm. 1–7.

The rhythmic technique that will be my chief concern is metricdisplacement or what Krebs calls type B dissonance.2 The opening phraseof the Horn Trio, shown in ex. 5.1, provides a paradigmatic example.The passage typifies the complexity of Brahms’s rhythmic invention: thematerial ismarked both by signs ofmetric displacement and by cues thatdo indeed signal the notatedmeter. Though choosing a primary metricpattern may lead to interpretive insights, it is nevertheless important torecognize the bivalence of metric cues. With respect to displacement,the appoggiatura character of the first eighth note in the phrase’s basic

ford: Clarendon, 1990), 139–63; David Epstein, Beyond Orpheus: Studies in Musical Structure

(Cambridge ma: mit Press, 1979), 162–76; David Lewin, “On Harmony and Meter in

Brahms’s Op. 76, No. 8,” Nineteenth-Century Music 4 (1981): 261–65; Harald Krebs, Fantasy

Pieces: Metrical Dissonance in the Music of Robert Schumann (Oxford: Oxford University Press,

1999), passim, “Some Extensions of the Concepts of Metrical Consonance and Dissonance,”

Journal of Music Theory 31 (1987): 99–120, and “Robert Schumann’s Metrical Revisions,”

Music Theory Spectrum 19 (1997): 35–54; and Richard Cohn, “The Dramatization of Hyper-

metric Conflicts in the Scherzo of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony,” Nineteenth-Century Music

15 (1992): 188–206, and “Metric and Hypermetric Dissonance in the Menuetto of Mozart’s

Symphony in G Minor, K. 550,” Intégral 6 (1992): 1–33. Also relevant to the topic of metric

displacement is David Lewin, “Vocal Meter in Schoenberg’s Atonal Music, with a Note on a

Serial Haupstimme,” In Theory Only 6 (1982): 12–36.

2. Krebs contrasts metric displacement with hemiola-style conflicts, which he labels type A

dissonance (“Some Extensions,” 103–5). In “Schumann’s Metrical Revisions,” he puts aside

the type A and type B labels in favor of the descriptive terms grouping and displacement disso-

nance. He borrows these terms from Peter M. Kaminsky, “Aspects of Harmony, Rhythm, and

Form in Schumann’s Papillons, Carnaval, and Davidsbündlertänze” (Ph.D. diss., University

of Rochester, 1989), 27. Lewin and Cohn focus on grouping dissonances in the analytic

essays cited in n. 1 above. They both extend the concept to multiple hypermetric levels.

{192}

brahms and the shifting barline

idea makes the beginning of each motivic repetition sound metricallystrong; the placement of the piano chords enforces the metric shift,as does the swell that leads to the melodic arrival on F in m. 7. Yet,if the accompaniment is heard as an echo of or a response to theviolin’s notated downbeats, then the written meter suddenly becomesmore convincing. In this hearing, the eighth-note pairs lead ahead tothe quarter notes, which receive stress through agogic accent. Nor dolater statements of the material solve the quandary. Rather, as we mightexpect inBrahms, ambivalencebecomes a sourceof development. Scoreannotations in ex. 5.2 highlight additions to two restatements thatcontribute to a heightened perception either of the metric shift, onthe one hand, or of the notated meter, on the other.3

These excerpts illustrate several concepts of general applicabilityto the topic of metric displacement. First, though it is often possibleto argue for a predominant accent pattern, we should be ready toacknowledge the coexistence of multiple rhythmic impulses. Second,the reciprocal relationship between performance and metric interpre-tation should not be underestimated. Nuances of tone, dynamics, andphrasing can have a decisive impact on the projected accent patternof a metrically ambiguous passage. At the same time, a performer’sreading ofmetric cues in the score has a seminal influence on the entirecomplex of physical activity that creates an expressive performance.The question of whether a performer should articulate the notatedmeter in the face of conflicting signals, or should allow the signs ofdisplacement to dominate, remains open. The answer will depend onthe particular musical context as well as on the performer’s own taste,style, and interpretation. What is clear is that a discussion of metric dis-placement implicitly engages performance issues in addition tomattersof structure and aural experience.Another point that will emerge is that the impact of a metric dis-

placement depends on its position in the larger form and, indeed,on the formal type itself. Reciprocally, a shifting barline will influenceboth local and large-scale formal relationships. Frisch notes a tendency

3. The metric bivalence of the theme resonates beyond the first movement. The Adagiomesto slides the material onto the downbeat of its 6

8 meter and reinterprets it as the second

thematic idea in an A B A' ternary form (m. 19). The new position of the theme in relation

to the notated meter supports the idea of a metric shift for the original version in the first

movement. The 68 reinterpretation nevertheless introduces its own set of conflicting metric

signals.

{193}

Example 5.2: Horn Trio, 1st mvt.: a, mm. 61–69; b, mm. 138–46.

in Brahms for metric shifts to occur both toward the end of sonata-form exposition and at the overlap that he often fashions betweenthe development and the recapitulation.4 I hope to contribute to anappreciation of Brahms’s rhythmic genius by shifting attention awayfrom metric displacement as an attribute of formal culmination andexploring instead characteristics and consequences of the techniqueas a premise for formal departure. I will also highlight the reciprocalrelationship between a movement’s overall form and the characterof its metric processes. These motivations provide a rationale for apairing of the two trios. The Clarinet Trio, like the Horn Trio, raisesa metric issue at the outset; the two movements, however, adapt thetechnique of metric displacement to different formal types: rondo inthe case of op. 40, sonata form in the case of op. 114. Because wehave already begun to look at the Horn Trio, it will be convenient tocontinue with it before moving on to the clarinet work. In addition

4. Frisch discusses both locations for metric displacement in “Metrical Displacement inBrahms.”

{194}


to relationships between form and meter, the analyses will address thefollowing topics: the intimate bond that Brahms often forges betweenmetric displacement and harmonic function; the interaction of metricshifts with Knüpftechnik; and the role that rhythmic dissonance plays increating extensive tonal delay. The trios also provide an opportunityto extend the concept of prolongation into the metric dimension andto explore the idea of motivic dissonance and resolution in Brahms’sthematic processes. Let us begin with the role of metric displacementas a constituent of formal articulation in the Horn Trio.

iExample 5.3 presents a global view of the form. Score excerpts illustratethematic relationships and the pattern ofmetric shifts; roman numeralsindicate the main prolonged harmonies for each section. Before mov-ing into analytical details, it is necessary to make two preliminary ob-servations. First, the formal analysis is based on an interpretation of theopening theme as metrically shifted; the material is labeled [x] or [x']throughout ex. 5.3. Emphasis on metric displacement is not intendedto deny the internal ambivalence of the material, which is certainlyimportant to its expressive character. Rather, I simplify, in favor of whatI regard as the predominant accent pattern, in order to facilitate accessto larger issues. Over the course of the analysis, information will accu-mulate to support the idea of a metric shift, though there will also be aplace in my interpretation for cues that signal the notated barlines. Thesecond preliminary point relates to issues of formal organization. Themovement is a special type of five-part rondo in which the two episodesconsist of the same thematic material. (This is why ex. 5.3 presentsan excerpt only from the first episode.) Brahms uses a similar form onseveral other occasions; examples include the secondmovements of theF-Major Viola Quintet, op. 88, and the A-Major Violin Sonata, op. 100,and the third movement of the Second Symphony, op. 73. The HornTrio, however, is the only instrumental cycle that begins with this typeof rondo; indeed, Brahms’s first movements are otherwise all in sonataform. In the second movements from the quintet and the violin sonata,it is not absolutely clear until the final cadence whether the tonic of therefrain or of the episodes is primary.5 In the Horn Trio, the primacy ofE b is never in doubt. Instead, a conflict between displaced and notated

5. In the quintet, the tonic of the B section, A, wins out over the C# of the A section. In theviolin sonata, it is just the opposite; the F tonic of the A section wins out over theD tonic of the

{195}

peter h. smith

meters creates the high-level dissonance that remains unresolved untilthe final refrain. It is this metric dissonance along with what we willsoon see is an associated harmonic instability that perhaps allows therondo to substitute for a sonata form as first movement.I will return shortly to the issue of rhythmic dissonance and reso-

lution. First, it is necessary to explore the relationship of meter andform throughout the body of the rondo; we will then be in a position toappreciate the climactic impact of the metric reconciliation toward theendof themovement.Of special interest is the correspondencebetweenmetric change andpatterns of primary and secondary thematicmaterialon multiple formal levels. The most obvious example of metric-formalcorrespondence is the change from 2

4 in the refrain to 98 in the episodes.

Along the lines of the analogy that Lewin makes between tonal andrhythmic structure, we can speak of 2

4 as a tonic meter, 98 as a nontonicmeter, and the change as a modulation.6 Within the refrain itself, meterplays a similar role in formal articulation. In terms of harmonic-metricrelations, however, it is important to observe that the motion out ofthe tonic key for the episodes corresponds to the more extreme formof metric modulation. Within the tonic area, a simple displacement ofthe two-beat module coordinates with shifts in harmonic function. Thepattern of shifted 2

4–aligned 24–shifted 2

4 complements Brahms’s reversalof the standard I–V–I layout for the small ternary form of the refrain.The shifted 2

4 of the A section is dissonant against the notated barlinesand requires resolution through alignment, just as the material’s domi-nant prolongation needs to resolve to an opening structural tonic. Bothaspects of resolution converge at the structural downbeat that initiatesthe B section at m. 29.7 With these details in mind, it is possible to

B section. For a discussion of the quintet movement and its possible relationship to Chopin’s

Ballade, op. 38, see Kevin Korsyn, “Directional Tonality and Intertextuality: Brahms’s Quintet

op. 88 and Chopin’s Ballade op. 38,” in The Second Practice of Nineteenth-Century Tonality, ed.

William Kinderman andHarald Krebs (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1996), 45–83.

Margaret Notley analyzes the violin-sonata movement in “Brahms’s Chamber-Music Summer

of1886: A Study ofOpera99,100,101, and108” (Ph.D. diss., YaleUniversity,1992),82–107.

6. Lewin, “On Harmony and Meter.” Lewin identifies tonic, subdominant, and dominant

meters in the first part of Brahms’s Capriccio, op. 76, no. 8. The situation is more complex

than the metric-harmonic relations in the Horn Trio because the different accent patterns

involve hemiola structures on hypermetric levels.

7. Lewin (“Vocal Meter in Schoenberg’s Atonal Music,” 12 n. 1) notes the dual aspects

of resolution at m. 29. The absence of metric shifts within the B section creates another

{196}


refine the concept of a tonic meter: 24 is the overall accent pattern forE b as a key; within the E b area, Brahms modulates between dominant(displaced) and tonic (aligned) meters.Although the analysis has thus far made the correspondence of

dominant prolongation and displaced meter appear straightforward,extension of the concept of dissonance into the metric dimensionrequires clarification. It is also important to explain why the A andA' sections are governed by the shifted meter despite the presence ofsubsections that do in fact articulate the notated barlines. Because themovement begins in the shifted 2

4 meter, onemight question attributionof dissonant character to the rhythmic dimension. One hint of met-ric instability is the aforementioned ambivalence of the [x] material.The internal conflict an example of what Krebs calls direct rhythmicdissonance makes the dominant meter somewhat more analogousto an opening prolongation of V7 rather than a straight dominant.8

Though an initial V7 may be locally in control, it nevertheless remainsunstable; a dominant without the seventh, on the other hand, might bemistaken for a tonic. A still better analogy, perhaps, is to a passage thathovers between light tonicizations of the dominant and reinterpretationof V as a chord directed toward tonic resolution. At those momentswhere the shifted meter seems more convincing, we experience a “toni-cization” of the displacement. Hints of the notated meter, on the otherhand, undermine the local stability.9

Another factor that creates rhythmic tension is the metric shift

parallelism between formal articulation on the level of the refrain and on the level of the

movement as a whole. Middle sections on both the A B A' level and on the refrain-episode-

refrain level are metrically stable and articulate the notated meter. In contrast, both the A

sections and the refrain statements contain internal alternation between metric consonance

and dissonance.

8. Krebs, “Some Extensions of the Concepts of Metrical Consonance and Dissonance,” 105.

9. For some listeners there may be no internal conflict. In the case of a listener who

unambiguously hears the notated meter, the second-beat emphasis never achieves the status

of metric tonicization; it remains a syncopation. On the other hand, a listener who hears an

unchallenged metric displacement will only retrospectively become aware of the “off-tonic”

status of the rhythmic point of departure. For the performers, however, there will always be

an element of what Krebs calls subliminal dissonance (“Some Extensions,” 106). The pianist,

e.g., will see the notated meter even as he or she executes an accompanimental pattern that

is oriented around the second beats. The tension that the pianist feels from this dichotomy

will most likely be projected in the performance and thus will contribute to the listener’s

perception of direct dissonance.

{197}

Example 5.3: Horn Trio, 1st mvt., formal outline.

{198}

Example 5.3: continued

{199}


between the A section’s subunits an example of Krebs’s indirect disso-nance. The middle or [y] section, which appears in ex. 5.4, repositionsthe neighbor motive so that it temporarily corresponds with the no-tated meter: the melodic leaps, articulation slurs, and dynamic swellscreate metric accents on each downbeat. The realignment provides thestrongest clue yet that metric displacement will emerge as a structuralcomponent. It also retrospectively solidifies attribution of a metric shiftto the opening phrase by confirming the appoggiatura character ofthe neighbor motive. The question of which accent pattern is primary,however, remains open until the tonic resolution at m. 29. Indeed, untilthen, thedisplacedmeterwould appear to takeprecedence: not only is itthefirst tobeheard, but it is also the accentpattern that is associatedwithmore stable and expository thematic material. The formal emphasis ondisplacement allows us to view mm. 1–28 as governed by a metric shift.The articulation of the notated meter by the [y] section is subsidiary tothedisplacedmeter that frames it, in the sameway that a tonic resolutioncan function as part of a dominant prolongation. Thus, it is only at thestructural downbeat of m. 29 that we fully realize the dissonant statusof the dominant meter. From the vantage point of m. 29, the notatedmeter takes priority because it is associated with tonic resolution. A bitlater, I will reconsider the prolongational relationship between tonicand dominant meters in the context of the entire refrain.Although the analysis has established the control of the dominant

meter within the A section, the task remains to explore rhythmic rela-tionships at the return of the material toward the end of the refrain.Example 5.5 reproduces the A' restatement along with the end of the

{200}


{201}

Example 5.6: Horn Trio, 1st mvt., mm. 1–76, middleground (left).Example 5.7: Horn Trio, 1st mvt., mm. 1–85,

alternative middleground (right).

B section. The metric situation is a bit more complex because Brahmsno longer provides a frame surrounding the [y] phrase. The displacedmeter nevertheless remains primary. Brahms cuts the first [x] statementand creates a formal overlap. The [y] material functions in two ways:it begins to signal large-scale return, but it also extends the notatedmeter, parallel-minor inflections, and triplet eighth-note pattern of theB section. The parallelism between m. 55 and m. 58 also contributes tocontinuity across the formal units. A fuller sense of return emerges atthe entrance of the opening themewith its shift back to displacedmeter,parallel major, and expository thematic material.10 The association ofmetric displacement with resolution of the formal overlap establishesthedominantmeter as themain accent pattern for theA' section, similarto the situation in the opening A statement.Now that we have an idea of the refrain’s formal andmetric organiza-

tion, we are in a position to interpret its tonal structure. One plausiblemiddleground appears in ex. 5.6. The graph responds to the senseof release at the structural downbeat of m. 29. Indeed, it interpretsthis articulation as the opening structural tonic for the movement asa whole. (The graph includes the foreground details of Übergreifung inmm. 29–33 to help readers orient their ears around G as Kopfton.) Therefrain’s formal reversals, however, can be marshaled in support of thecompeting interpretation in ex. 5.7. The idea that the A and A' sectionsprolong a single V Stufe might seem odd in the light of the structural

10. The focus on the parallel major is short-lived. Note the return of C b and G b beginningin m. 66.

{202}


downbeat. But there are several factors that make the tonic resolutionless than satisfactory. First, the structural downbeat lacks complete met-ric stability, as outlined in ex. 5.8. Attention to Brahms’s Knüpftechnikreveals that, even at the point of resolution, the weight of emphasiscontinues to gravitate toward the second beat. The continuation of themetric shift in the accompaniment all the way up to the cadence makesthe half notes in the horn sound syncopated. It is true that the entranceof the same melodic line in the piano at m. 29 begins to articulate thenotated meter. Yet the potential to hear the thematic entrance as animitation of a syncopation somewhat obscures its metric identity. Theindecision at m. 29 is heightened by the absence of a downbeat attackin all other parts, in favor of motion to the second beat.11

The fact that the B section spends very little time solidifying the res-olution raises further doubts about its resolving force. As ex. 5.9 shows,the first tonal goal of the B material is a half-cadential dominant (m.37), followed immediately by a modulation to G b major. The tonicizedbIII is itself a temporary goal on the way to an arrival back on V. Undermore conventional circumstances, resolution of this dominant wouldform a strong prolongational connection back to a big opening tonic.Instead, Brahms remains on V and reestablishes a connection with theopening dominant through the return of the A material. This part ofmy argument about the predominance of V is similar to the supportthat I offered in favor of the shifted meter for the A section. On the

11. This interpretation presumes a “conservative” listener, i.e., a listener who hangs on to

a previously established metric framework for as long as possible in the face of conflicting

signals. A “radical” or flexible listener will be more inclined to adjust immediately to the

articulation of the notated meter at m. 29 or even as far back as the shift to half notes in

the horn. The conservative/radical distinction is Andrew Imbrie’s (“ ‘Extra’ Measures and

Metrical Ambiguity in Beethoven,” in Beethoven Studies, ed. Alan Tyson [New York: Norton,

1973],45–66). It is interesting to observe that the accompaniment continues to deemphasize

downbeats throughout theB section.The articulationof thenotatedmeter by themelody and

the harmonic rhythm, however, defines the second-beat emphasis as a (light) syncopation

rather than as a metric shift. One way to think of the syncopation, however, is as a motivic

residue of the A section’s displaced meter. The relationship becomes more explicit when

Brahms retains the first two triplet eighths of the B section’s accompaniment pattern as part

of the accompaniment in the A' section (seem. 61). The lightness of the structural downbeat

at m. 29 can be set in relief by comparison with the first big tonic arrival in the Second

Symphony another piece that begins with a long anacrusis passage. In the symphony, the

structural downbeat (m. 44) is articulated by attacks in all voices present. Brahms further

locks in the tonic through a D pedal in the first part of the ensuing phrase (mm. 44–50) and

another V–I resolution at the forte arrival that initiates the transition (mm. 58–59).

{203}


Example 5.9: Horn Trio, 1st mvt., mm. 1–56, middleground bass.

larger formal level, however, it is not only the notated meter but alsoa tonic prolongation that is formally framed. It is true that the toniceventually reenters at the end of the A reprise in the passage shown inex. 5.10. Yet Brahms adds an extra quarter note to the final phrase sothat the cadential tonic remains trapped within the dominant meter(cf. m. 71 with m. 27). The thin texture, senza ritard, and the shiftto D in the bass (m. 75) help sustain the tension of the dominant

{204}


prolongation until the entrance of the violin leads ahead to a newform of dominant emphasis in the episode. Thus, just as we can viewthe dominant harmony and shifted meter as predominant within the Asection, so too can we interpret them as the prolonged harmonic-metriccomplex for the refrain as a whole.12

12. Interpretations that “hear through” strong tonic articulations in favor of alternative

prolongational connections are not without precedent in the Schenkerian literature. This

is the case even on occasions in which the tonic-oriented interpretation would result in

a graph that is both more conventional and more easily defended. One example is Carl

Schachter’s analysis of the Larghetto movement of Mozart’s C-Minor Piano Concerto, K. 491,

in “Either/Or,” in Schenker Studies, ed. Hedi Siegel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1990), 173–75. Another is Schenker’s analysis of the first movement of Beethoven’s A-Major

Piano Sonata, op. 2, no. 2, in Free Composition, trans. and ed. ErnstOster (New York: Longman,

1979), fig. 100–5. Schachter argues for a middleground structure that bypasses the tonic at

the first return of a rondo refrain in favor of a large-scale VI–IV progression between the

{205}

peter h. smith

The search for a satisfactory tonic is an issue that Brahms developsacross the movement. We see this both in the first return of the refrainand in the two episodes. As previously mentioned, the quest for metric-tonal stability creates an issue of large-scale dissonance that allows theAndante to substitute for sonata form in the first position of the cycle.In the refrain, Brahms heightens the dominant emphasis by cutting theB section, as outlined in ex. 5.3; the only potential structural tonic isthe equivocal I chord at the final cadence. The cut of the B materialretrospectively supports the idea that dominant prolongation is therefrain’s essential harmonic andmetric characteristic. The same kind oftonal instability characterizes the episodes, where the contrasting keysexpress themselves via dominant prolongation.13 In summary, Brahmshas created a highly unusual rondo. His refrain is characterized byformal reversals that serve to prolong dominant harmony and a dis-placed meter. His episodes, in turn, function as a kind of variation onthis dominant emphasis. The first return of the refrain rather thanproviding some relief only serves to heighten the instability. It is evenpossible to consider a yet more global level of formal reversal: thoughthe refrain and its first return function as primary formal sections, they

first and the second episodes. Schenker relegates the tonicized dominant of a sonata-form

exposition to a lower level than the connection he hears between the tonic of the first key

area and the nIII of the development. A study that takes as its main focus these types of

design/structure conflicts is Timothy L. Jackson’s “The Tragic Reversed Recapitulation in

the German Classical Tradition,” Journal of Music Theory 40 (1996): 61–111.

13. Though a detailed look at the episodes falls beyond the scope of this study, we can at least

take a brief look at the thrice-repeated cadential phrase toward the end of the contrasting

material. The passage, in both G-minor and B b-minor versions, stands as an exemplar of

dominant/tonic ambivalence transferred to the episode. In the G-minor version, the D

dominant clearly governs mm. 109–16. (The analogous material in the B b-minor version

appears in mm. 178–85.) The question is, Does this dominant resolve at m. 117, or do we

have a half-cadential arrival followed by a fresh beginning on the tonic? It is certainly possible

to hear a shift to tonic prolongation. But the decrescendo and articulation slur at the end of

the dominant create a slight break before the tonic entrance. The tonic itself enforces the

sense of interruption with a crescendo that leads ahead to the new dominant preparation in

m. 118. In other words, Brahms creates a kind of tonal merry-go-round with each repetition

of the progression: in the approach to the cadences, we expect that the dominant will finally

resolve; but each tonic immediately becomes part of an anacrusis to another arrival back

on V. When Brahms finally breaks out of the circle, he treats 1̂ as a passing tone within an

extension of the dominant (m. 125). The absence of a final resolution retrospectively tips the

scales in favor of V as the prolonged harmony for the entire section. Indeed, V/G connects

directly to the V/E b (m. 127) that prepares the first return of the refrain.

{206}


emphasize rhythmic dissonance rather than stability. Their framing ofthe episode’s metric consonance prolongs the dominant meter acrossthe body of the movement, similar to the situation on the A B A'and [x]–[y]–[x'] levels. The result is an overwhelming sense of open-endedness within a formal type that we normally think of as sectional.A heavy burden thus falls on the final refrain: it not only must bringabout closure but also must resolve tonal-metric dissonance that hasaccumulated across the movement. Brahms characteristically stretchesout the process of resolution andwaits as long as possible to surrender toa closing tonic. The denouement is noteworthy for the way in which the[y] material breaks free from its metric subservience and helps bringthe [x] theme in line with the notated meter. The final refrain both“corrects” the original dissonant prolongation of the A section and putsto rest the indirect and direct rhythmic conflicts between the [x] andthe [y] sections.The complexity of the resolution process motivates a significant

recomposition of the refrain. The final version appears in ex. 5.11;the rightmost column in ex. 5.3 summarizes the main additions andchanges.14 The new sequential and developmental passages are wherewe see an indirect reversal in the rhythmic relationship between the[x] and the [y] material: the metric framework of the [y] sequencecarries over into the development of the [x] idea. A second stage ofindirect resolution occurs at the final statement of the [x] phrase at m.234; note that both the new accompanimental pattern and the eighth-note figuration in the violin fall in line with the barlines. The longcrescendo and the gradually more animated tempo of the developmentalpassage along with the delay in the return of the tonic key preparethis arrival as the climax of the movement.15 The cumulative effect iscrucial because it marks the point at which the opening theme finallyarticulates the notated meter without equivocation. Despite the new

14. The tonicization of G b at the beginning of the final refrain recalls the emphasis on bIII

in the original B section and, more generally, the tendency toward modal mixture for the

refrain as a whole. For a discussion of the role of G b as an agent of cyclic unity throughout

the Horn Trio, see my “Brahms and Motivic 63 Chords,”Music Analysis 16 (1997): 175–217.

15. The final statement of the [x] phrase is only the fourth time in the movement that the

dynamic level has reached forte and the only time that the refrain itself has risen above piano,

with the exception of the forte at m. 47. The other forte passages are at mm. 92–94 and 101–4

of the first episode. Note also, as part of the crescendo to the climactic [x] statement, the

forte in the horn only at m. 228.

{207}


rhythmic stability, however, the [x] phrase continues to prolong thehome dominant. In addition, we have yet to see a direct reversal in therelationship between the [x] and the [y] material. Brahms saves thisaspect of resolution for the approach to closure. The predominance ofthe [y] idea, in the bass of mm. 246–55, forces the [x] fragments in theupper parts to be heard as syncopations. This preparatory passage, as

{208}


well as the accompanimental pattern atm.256, articulates the structuralclose of m. 258 within the notated meter. At last we have the finalelement of resolution: not only has the climactic [x] statement fallenin with the notated barlines, but its dominant prolongation has alsoresolved within a consonant metric framework.Lest we are too quick with this conclusion, however, it is important

{209}


to observe a complication in the rhythmic structure of the closingpassage. Though the horn continues to treat the eighth-note figureas a pickup, Brahms nevertheless recalls the metric shift by sliding thetriplet pattern in the piano over a beat (m. 258). The recall of thedisplacedmeter raises the issue ofmotivic dissonance and resolution a

{210}


generalization of a phenomenon that Epstein observes in the firstmovement of Brahms’s Second Symphony.16 This concept often appliesto motivic ideas whose identity is in part based on a metric problemor irregularity. In the symphony, motivic dissonance arises throughthe disparity between the anacrusic character of the initial neighbormotive and its function as the initiation point for a tonic prolongation.17

Example 5.12a illustrates. Brahms liquidates this motivic idiosyncrasyonly at the coda, where he repositions the neighbor so that it falls ona hypermetric downbeat. Score annotations in ex. 5.12b highlight thenew accented position for the thematic idea. The impact of the motivicresolution is all the more powerful since it coincides with the structuraldownbeat that Brahms has withheld across the recapitulation. In the

16. Epstein, Beyond Orpheus, 162–69.

17. Carl Schachter has many insightful things to say about this and other aspects of rhythmic

organization in themain themeof the symphony in “The FirstMovement of Brahms’s Second

Symphony: The Opening Theme and Its Consequences,”Music Analysis 2 (1983): 55–68.

{211}

Example 5.12: Second Symphony, 1stmvt.: a, mm. 1–10; b, mm. 475–85.

Horn Trio, the situation is similar. As ex. 5.13 shows, the structural closecorresponds with the sole transposition of the head motive to the toniclevel. Moreover, the fragment is forced to accommodate the notatedmeter: emphasis on the second beat throughout the final measuresfunctions as syncopation rather than displacement a liquidation ofthe original metric dissonance. Here, too, an enormous sense of delayheightens the effect of the motivic resolution: as I have already noted,this is the first time in the movement that Brahms has satisfactorilyresolved the refrain’s dominant prolongation.18

18. The final tonic is still prepared by an enormous sense of delay even for those who attribute

greater resolving force to the tonic at m. 29. The difference between their interpretation

and mine is one of degree rather than of kind. Another noteworthy similarity between the

symphony and the trio is the residueofmetric conflict that remains in the resolutionpassages.

The misalignment that the symphony coda maintains between the neighbor motive in the

bass and the main-theme fragments in the melody is analogous to the syncopation in the

final measures of the trio. In both cases, the residue of rhythmic conflict justifies the idea

of liquidation rather than outright elimination of characteristic features. Other noteworthy

examples of motivic dissonance and resolution are found in the first movements of the

C-Minor Piano Quartet and the Double Concerto and in the second movement of the G-

Major Viola Quintet. In the quartet, motivic dissonance centers around the metric identity

of the two-beat head motive in the very opening measures. The return of the figure in

the form of the pizzicato E ns just prior to the counterstatement (mm. 28–30) heightens the

ambivalence. Brahms develops and resolves this characteristic feature at the beginning of the

recapitulation (m. 199) and in the coda (m. 313) as part of an enormous delay in the return

{212}


iiFrom the example of the Horn Trio, it is clear that the influence ofmetric displacement can penetrate to the deepest levels of form. Theshifting barline achieves a similar fundamental status in the first move-ment of the Clarinet Trio. Though the work dates from the oppositeend of Brahms’s career and centers around a different set of formalconventions, it makes use of all the rhythmic strategies at play in op.40. Brahms adjusts these procedures, however, to satisfy the exigenciesof sonata form. In particular, the rhythmic processes take on a moredevelopmental character. Example 5.14 quotes themovement’s secondthematic idea. For convenience, I will refer to this entire phrase as theme1b and its two subsections as antecedent and consequent units, respectively.The 1b phrase has a rhythmic character similar to the opening themein the Horn Trio. On the one hand, the agogic accents on the firstand third beats of each measure articulate the notated barlines. Themelodic leap and shift to duple eighth notes at the second half of boththe antecedent and the consequent function similarly. Note also thechange from A to E in the piano bass at m. 16 and the correspondingarticulationprovidedby the arrival ofG# in the clarinet. Yet the groupingpattern of the head motive hints at a displacement, with the fourth andsecond beats as strong; the cello entrance in m. 15 likewise contradictsthe notated meter. Because the 1b idea follows a clear articulation ofthe barlines by the 1a theme, metric interpretation depends in part onlistening habits. A “conservative” listener will tend to fit the theme intothe notated meter. A “radical” or flexible listener will be more inclinedto give in to the signals of a shift and hear according to one of therebarrings in ex. 5.15. (The rebarred versions differ only in how theyreconcile the duple eighth notes with the shifted meter of the headmotive.) The sustained E in mm. 12–13 a kind of quasi fermata hasa dual function in relation to these two modes of perception. Forconservatives, it provides a challenge, forcing them to keep time even

of the structural tonic. The second theme of the concerto (m. 26) begins with the same type

of two-beat motive, but Brahms places it in a weak-strong position in relation to the notated

meter. Later in the movement (mm. 164–67), Knüpftechnik highlights the potential for the

motive to be heard as either strong-weak or weak-strong. The final (disguised) appearance of

the motive in the coda (m. 420, fl. and vn. 1) retains the metric bivalence before it dissolves

into the final cadence. In the viola quintet, motivic dissonance centers around harmonic

rather than metric issues. For an illuminating analysis, see John Daverio, Nineteenth-Century

Music and the German Romantic Ideology (New York: Schirmer, 1993), 144–54.

{213}

Example 5.13: Horn Trio, 1st mvt.: a, mm. 1–2; b, mm. 254–66.

more strictly than usual. For radicals, it opens up possibilities to respondimmediately to signs of a new downbeat wherever they might fall.Similarities of rhythmic character notwithstanding, the themes from

the two trios differ in at least one crucial respect. In the Horn Trio,the dominant prolongation of the [x] phrase is unambiguous, irre-

{214}

Example 5.14: Clarinet Trio, 1st mvt., mm. 12–17.

Example 5.15: Clarinet Trio, 1st mvt.: 1b theme rebarred.

spective of metric interpretation. In the Clarinet Trio, different metricperceptions give rise to different interpretations of tonal structure. Partof the ambivalence of the material arises from the fact that a morestraightforward tonal interpretation supports a metric shift: the tonicpedal and clarinet E of the antecedent suggest that B in the top voicefunctions as a passing tone, as outlined in ex. 5.15. The cues thatarticulate the notatedmeter, on the other hand, lead us to hear B as thecontrolling melodic pitch, along the lines of ex. 5.14 above. In otherwords, a listener who strives for a correspondence between melody andbass will face a confusing metric disruption; a listener who favors metricconsistency will face a conflict between the structural outer voices.As in the Horn Trio, it is possible to argue for a predominant accent

pattern despite these dimensional conflicts. Here, however, I prefer an

{215}

peter h. smith

interpretation that holds to the notated meter. There are two main fac-tors that support this view. The first is the retrospective influence of theconsequent. The two subunits are clearly parallel. In the consequent,however, the top-voice pitches that are consonant with the bass all fallon notated strong beats. This suggests that B can be heard as the mainmelodic constituent of the antecedent. The second factor that favorsthe notated meter is the possibility to hear a prolongation of B, not as aconflict with the tonic pedal, but as part of a motivically significant B–D–F–A source chord. The idea of B as part of an embedded supertonicis not difficult to accept when the antecedent is heard in relation to the1a theme. The phrase appears in ex. 5.16. Here, too, the upper voicesarticulate the source chord above a tonic pedal, with similar emphasison B. The figure marked X in ex. 5.14 and in ex. 5.16 helps solidifythe connection. The chord, however, functions differently in these twoappearances and this is where we see the correspondence of harmonyand meter in the Clarinet Trio. Passages that articulate the notatedbarlines feature the source chord as a plagal embellishment of the tonic.Along with the 1a phrase, another good example of plagal functionoccurs in the return to the1a idea inmm.18–21. By contrast, passages ofmetric displacement reinterpret the chord as a dominant preparation.The first statement of theme 1b hints at both possibilities a tonalanalogue to its rhythmic ambiguity. The contrasting tonal orientationallows us once again to speak of the aligned and displaced meters astonic and dominant, respectively.19

The metric-harmonic ambivalence of the 1b theme is the nexus forrelationships that extend, not only back to the opening phrase, but alsoahead through the counterstatement and transition into the secondgroup.The three statements of the1bmaterial in the expositionprovidean appropriate context to trace these relationships. The original has al-ready been cited in ex. 5.14; the expanded counterstatement of the ideaand the liquidated versionof the transition appear in exx.5.17 and5.18,respectively. Over the course of developing the 1b idea, Brahms gradu-

19. Toward the end of the development (mm. 118–20), Brahms uses the source chord to

embellish the dominant, without ametric shift on the quarter-note level. Though this passage

would seem to contradict theproposeddichotomyof tonic anddominantmeters, it is possible

to hear a metric displacement on the half-note level. A higher-level shift is supported by the

dynamic emphasis on the phrase initiation in the middle of m. 118. In any case, the idea of

tonic and dominant meters does not predict an absolute correspondence of harmony and

meter but rather represents a general tendency of dimensional interaction.

{216}



ally tips the scales in favor of the displaced barline and the pre-dominantfunction the two aspects of the theme that originally seemed to be atodds. In the original version, although the source chord leads to thedominant, it is embedded within the tonic; in the counterstatement andtransition, it emerges to control its own temporal span. In the process,the degree of phenomenal emphasis on the fourth and second beatsintensifies, up until the point that the notated meter abruptly returnsjust prior to the arrival of the second key area. Brahms also managesto transfer the metric-tonal correspondence to the mediant key as heprepares for the arrival of the “lyrical” second theme (2a). These aspectsof development contrast sharply with the alternation procedures ofthe Horn Trio. The differences in approach demonstrate one of the

{217}

peter h. smith

premises that I laid out at the beginning of this essay: that there is areciprocal relationship between a movement’s form and the characterof its metric processes. In the Horn Trio, the changes in the A sectionunfold along the lines of the traditional concept of variation. It is truethat alterations in the melody and/or accompaniment create slightlydifferent shadings of metric articulation. The material neverthelessremains constant in its essentials an invariance that is appropriate toits function as a refrain. (The exception, of course, is the final refrain,where the need for resolution of tonal andmetric dissonance motivatesa fundamental recomposition.) Brahms thus incorporates a theme-and-variations component into rondo form, as Haydn and Beethoven oftenhad done. In the context of sonata form, on the other hand, he submitshis metrically ambivalent material to a process of developing variationin which characteristic features undergo growth and change.20

The difference in thematic treatment becomes obvious from a closerlook at the 1b counterstatement in ex. 5.17. The counterstatementpresents a thorough recomposition that responds tohints of bothmetricshift and source-chord prolongation in the original. Brahms carriesus from a position of equivocation to a more explicit articulation ofrhythmic and tonal function. With respect to metric displacement, thefortissimo arrival at the entrance of the head motive makes it difficulteven for a conservative listener to sustain the notated meter. Moreover,there are no longer any triplets in the melody to create agogic accentson the strong-beat Bs. The bass motion to D# at the very beginningof the consequent likewise enforces the shift. Yet, as is characteristicof developing variation, a residue of original motive forms remains:the right hand of the piano retains the triplet-as-pickup idea, and thecadential 64 to 5

3 motion in m. 37 articulates the notated meter.In the tonal dimension, we see a similar contrast between the overt

development of some characteristic features and the subcutaneousretention of others. The new context gives the source chord an un-equivocal pre-dominant function a tonal analogue to the heightened

20. The distinction between the traditional concept of variation and the notion of developing

variation is implicit in Schoenberg’s discussion of variation form in Fundamentals of Musical

Composition, ed. Gerald Strang and Leonard Stein (London: Faber & Faber, 1970), 167–69.

Attention to the theme-and-variations component in the Horn Trio should not cause us to

overlook the signs of developing variation on more local levels. Certainly, the [x] phrase

evolves as the free elaboration of a single two-beat idea, and its neighbor motive carries over

as the primary substance for the [y] phrase.

{218}


emphasis on the displaced barline. The top voice, however, retains someambiguity in the melodic function of 2̂. Emphasis on A in the piano’sright hand supports an interpretation of the cello’s Bs as passing tones.The status of A and F# as chord tones in the consequent also seems toargue for a passing function for B in the antecedent. Yet the articulationslurs and eighth-note rests disrupt the passingmotions andhelp 2̂ retainsome of the character of a structural pitch. Perhaps A and C function asappoggiaturas within the displaced meter. The prominence of B in thevoice exchange at m. 35 also suggests that the governing harmony forthe antecedent may be a II65 chord rather than IV, with 2̂ as the maintop-voice constituent.The process of developing variation is carried a step further in the

transition. Notice, in ex. 5.18, that Brahms completes the gradualtransformation from metric ambivalence to an unequivocal shift: nocues remain to hint at the notated meter. The addition of sforzandi,in particular, forces the performers to articulate the beginning of thehead motive as strong. Development in the tonal dimension involvestransformation of the source chord into a pivot to C major, the sec-ond key of the exposition’s three-key plan. Roman numerals beneaththe score excerpt indicate the pivot relationship. The transformationinvolves a shift in pitch content from the original B–D–F–A version tothe F–A–C–E b form of the transition. The motivic connection of thesource and pivot chords is enforced by the bass parallelism between thecounterstatement and transition: A: D–D#–E = C: F–F#–G. It is impor-tant to observe that Brahms maintains the correspondence of shifted

{219}

peter h. smith

meter and pre-dominant function despite the move toward C major.The perseverance of this relationship, in the face of the modulation, isanother example of the balance between evolution and invariance thatis emblematic of developing variation.Up to this point, I have focused on how Brahms adapts the kind of

metric-harmonic relationships at work in theHorn Trio to a sonata-stylethematic process. The entrance of the 2a theme engages two othertopics that were introduced in the analysis of op. 40: the interactionof metric shifts with Brahms’s Knüpftechnik and the function of metricdisplacement as a means of articulation on multiple formal levels. Inthe Horn Trio, Brahms uses motivic linkage to create an echo of thedisplaced meter across the arrival of the opening structural downbeat(see ex. 5.8 above). In the Clarinet Trio, Knüpftechnik functions in justthe opposite manner: as seen in ex. 5.18, the linking motive of m. 43anticipates the reemergence of the tonicmeter at the arrival of Cmajor.The fragment articulates the barline via a cadential 6

4 chord and half-note agogic emphasis. The motivic repetition at the beginning of thelyrical theme thus clearly falls within the notated barlines.The realignment at the entrance of the second theme is wheremetric

shifts begin to function on multiple formal levels. The realignmentmirrors the original harmonic-metric dichotomy between theme 1aand theme 1b. Example 5.19 presents a schematic representation of twolevels of formal-metric interaction.Within the tonic area, the 1b idea sitsbetween statement and counterstatement of the 1a theme. This createsa situation in which dominant harmony andmeter are subsidiary to thetonic harmonic-metric complex that frames them. Brahms articulatesa similar framing relationship across the first and second groups: thetonal-rhythmic dissonance of the 1b material is again subsidiary, in thiscase to the stability of the 1a and C-major themes. Admittedly, the frameanalogy is imperfect because of the overt ways in which the arrival ofC major represents progress in the sonata-form design. (Even withinthe first group, there is an enormous sense of progress that arisesout of the textural and dynamic expansion of the 1a material in thecounterstatement.)Motivic and tonal connections nevertheless supportthe idea that the lyrical material constitutes a return to a previous stateof affairs. Example 5.20 identifies the main elements of thematic unitybetween the 1a and the 2a ideas. With respect to tonal connections,ex. 5.18 shows that Brahms restores the 1a correspondence of metricalignment andplagal function through a I–IV–I expansionof theC tonic

{220}


in mm. 45–46. Note also that the mediant harmony in mm. 47–48 islikewise expanded by plagal embellishment. Emphasis on VI within thelyrical material in several deceptive progressions and in the functionof A as the pivot into E minor creates another harmonic connectionwith the 1a theme. Example 5.21 illustrates.21

The final two rhythmic strategies that the trios share are the use ofmetric displacement to create tonal delay and the resolution of motivicdissonance as a component of structural closure. The tonal delay in theClarinet Trio occurs at the beginning of the recapitulation. Example5.22a provides a score excerpt that includes the end of the develop-ment, the return of the first group (m. 126), and the transition into the2a theme (mm. 146–50). Brahms could have recapitulated the 1a and1b themes, in their original form, only with great difficulty. On the onehand, thematerial both clings too closely to the tonic and articulates toomany stops and starts to facilitate the forwardmomentum that he favorsat the reprise. On the other hand, for all its tonic emphasis, the openinglacks a decisive point of initiation suitable for a recapitulatory structuraldownbeat. Brahmsmay have considered the possibility of beginning therecapitulation with the counterstatement of the 1a theme. With someadjustment, its opening tonic could resolve a retransitional dominant,and its continuation is animated enough to keep the form in motion.Instead, he reorders the thematic ideas and begins with the counter-statement version of the 1b phrase (m. 126). The thematic reordering

21. Continuity between the 1a and the 2a themes relates to a general issue often at work

in three-key expositions the diverse functions that the middle key may have in relation

to the traditional two-part division of the exposition. The arrival of the middle key may

initiate the second group, or the exposition may still be on its way to a more fundamental

articulation at the entrance of the third key. Or there may be a strong degree of ambiguity,

with some evidence supporting one interpretation and other evidence supporting the other.

The first movement of the F-Minor Clarinet Sonata, op. 120, provides an example of this

ambiguous type and makes for an interesting comparison with the Clarinet Trio. The more

overt thematic and tonal connections between its first and its middle key areas create a

stronger sense of formal continuity than is the case in the Clarinet Trio. The similarities

of approach nevertheless suggest that Brahms may have been after a similar, though less

strong, effect in the Clarinet Trio. For an analysis that presents the arrival of the third key as

the main formal division in the clarinet-sonata exposition, see Roger C. Graybill, “Brahms’s

Integration of Traditional and Progressive Tendencies: A Look at Three Sonata Expositions,”

Journal of Musicological Research 8 (1988): 143–47. I discuss the middle key of op. 120 as partof an extended formal overlap in “Brahms and the Neapolitan Complex: bII, bVI, and Their

Multiple Functions in the First Movement of the F-Minor Clarinet Sonata,” in Brahms Studies,vol. 2, ed. David Brodbeck (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998), 169–208.

{221}

Example 5.19: Clarinet Trio, 1st mvt., mm. 1–51,formal-metric interaction.

Example 5.20: Clarinet Trio, 1st mvt.,thematic unity between 1a and 2a ideas.

has a number of important advantages. First and foremost, it allowsBrahms to exploit metric-tonal dissonance to create one of his favoritetypes of formal ambivalence: an articulation that simultaneously evokesand effaces the tonic. The return of the 1b phrase introduces the coor-dinated thematic-tonal return that traditional formal theory identifieswith the beginning of the recapitulation. Yet the tonic remains trappedin the dominant meter, similar to the internal tonic articulations in theHorn Trio. The rhythmic dissonance and the top-voice ambiguities thatgo along with it along with the overflowing of the agitated texture ofthe retransition into the reprise define the A chord as an apparenttonic. The graph in ex. 5.22b outlines the continued prolongationof the dominant across the thematic return. The result is that metric

{222}


displacement plays an integral role in creating a formal overlap betweenthe development and the recapitulation.Another advantage of the thematic reordering is that it affords

Brahms the opportunity to draw the 1a and 2a ideas into closer relation.A glance back at ex. 5.20 above reminds us of the function of the G–F–E or [y] motive as a link between the themes in the exposition. In therecapitulation, the [y] fragment becomes a crucial component in theredirection of the modulation to the submediant. Annotations in ex.5.22a highlight themotivic reinterpretation. Emphasis on the F–E dyadas the goal of the [y] repetitions connects back to both the F–Eneighborfigures and the [y] statement in the passage prior to the return of the1b theme (mm. 118–21 and 123–25; see the brackets in ex. 5.22b). Theconnection helps articulate E as the controlling melodic pitch acrossthe onset of the thematic reprise and thus further supports the idea of aformal overlap of development and recapitulation. The developmentalcharacter of the 1a return (m. 138) joins continued tonal instabilityto extend this overlap up to the entrance of the 2a idea (m. 150).And, though the lyrical theme provides a stable point of arrival, thetransposition to F further delays tonic rearticulation. A middlegroundA chord enters only with material analogous to the third part of theexposition first tentatively at m. 169 and then more decisively at theentrance of the 2b theme at m. 173.22

22. The double bar between m. 168 and m. 169 supports the idea that the recapitulation

delays the return of the structural tonic until the transposed restatement of the dominant

{223}

Example 5.22: Clarinet Trio, 1st mvt.: a, mm.119–57; b, mm. 119–31, middleground

material from the exposition. The double bar appears in the autograph as well as in the

complete-works edition. I thank Margaret Notley for bringing this point to my attention.

{224}


The 2b structural downbeat clearly resolves the overlap’s tonal in-stability. Brahms, however, saves the ultimate resolution of metric-tonalconflicts for the coda, where we see a liquidation of motivic dissonancesimilar to the situation at the close of the Horn Trio. The relevantpassage appears in ex. 5.23. Consider the function of the source chord

{225}


in thesemeasures. The final Poco meno Allegro statement of the 1b theme(m. 212) articulates the motivic harmony within the displaced meter.But the notated barline reemerges just in time for the supertonic toresolve to the closing tonic (mm. 216–17): once again, plagal func-tion corresponds with metric alignment. The plagal reinterpretationis echoed by the repetitions of the cadence in the subsequent tonicexpansion; observe both the transposition of the 1b head motive to theB–C# level and the clear articulation of B as a pickup. The 1b idea thusgives way finally to the metric-tonal consonance that until this point has

{226}


{227}


characterized only the 1a material. Closure is achieved not only in thetonal dimension but in the rhythmic and motivic dimensions as well.

* * *

This type of dimensional interaction seen not only here but through-out the first movements of both trios clearly demonstrates the pro-found influence of metric displacement on form. Yet my analyses haveonly scratched the surface of an enormous topic. A fuller understandingof metric-formal relations in Brahms will require us to move beyondthe narrow focus of two movements to address a variety of rhythmicstrategies in the context of multiple formal types. Consider the issueof metric-harmonic correspondence, to cite but one area of rhythmicdiversity. In the trios, we have observed an association of dominantprolongation and displaced meter. In a movement like the finale ofthe G-Major Viola Quintet, however, the reverse is the case: the tonickey area centers around a shifted meter; the notated barline emergesonly at the arrival of the tonicized dominant of the second group. Orthink of the first movement of the F-Major Cello Sonata. There, metricdisplacement also falls within the tonic area, but the shifts are irreg-ular. Moreover, elimination of the main theme’s rhythmic dissonancedoes not correspond with tonal resolution, as in our other examples.Rather, liquidation is part of an extreme ambivalence the dream-likerecollection of the theme that articulates an apparent tonic within themovement’s recapitulatory overlap.23 It is also important to recognize

23. For a detailed analysis of this formal overlap, see my “Liquidation, Augmentation, andBrahms’s Recapitulatory Overlaps,” Nineteenth-Century Music 17 (1994): 247–53.

{228}


the possibility for only partial coordination between the metric andthe harmonic dimensions. In the first movement of the B-Major Trio(revised version), for example, Brahms establishes a metric shift in thetransition that then flows across the entrance of the second theme (mm.69–79). A compositional principle that often functions in the service offormal articulation thus becomes a tool for formal overlap. And theseexamplesmerely touchon aspects of diversity withinBrahms’s approachto type B dissonance. I have not even mentioned the type A hemiola-style conflicts for which Brahms is famous. Nor have I consideredhypermetric levels of rhythmic organization. Finally, both the metriccomponent of Knüpftechnik and the topic of motivic dissonance andresolution suggest that the last word has yet to be written about Brahmsand the principle of developing variation. Nomatter where any of thesetopics may lead us, their exploration will undoubtedly demonstrate anenduring truth: that, more than one hundred years following his death,Brahms remains a composer who both challenges and fascinates.

{229}

Date post:	19-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dylan-richards
View:	48 times
Download:	0 times

Brahms and the Shifting Barline

Documents