Cadence and Closure in Brahms’s Late Piano Music
Joan CampbellDepartment of Music Research, Schulich School of Music
McGill University, Montreal
A thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts in Music Theory
June, 2010
©2010 Joan Campbell
Abstract
The nature of closure is a major topic in modern theoretical discourse, as
theorists recognize that the type of closure in a composition has an impact on its
structure, direction, and overall character. The music of Johannes Brahms
(1833-97) attracts great interest due to his deliberate and complex manipulations
of the harmonic, formal, and melodic idioms associated with tonal music.
Through utilizing both syntactic and semantic devices to close his pieces, Brahms
creates intricate endings which potentially confirm or deny the listener’s
expectation that a piece will come to a complete and satisfying close. In this
thesis, I explore Brahms’s manipulations of cadential progressions and rhetorical
paradigms in the late piano works, and I discuss the fluid relationship between the
two as a result of the attenuation of common-practice harmonic and formal norms.
I extend William Caplin’s theory of cadence and Kofi Agawu’s theory of
rhetorical analysis to evaluate the individual devices of closure in the
Klavierstücke, Op. 76, 118, and 119, the Rhapsodien, Op. 79, the Fantasien, Op.
116, and the Intermezzi, Op. 117. After I discuss the specific parameters of
syntactical and rhetorical closure, I present analytical case-studies which highlight
the complex interactions between devices of closure in five of the most
ambiguous of the Klavierstücke. I suggest that as soon as the cadence in a piece is
problematized, the semantic devices play a compensatory role in the creation of
closure in Brahms. Furthermore, I demonstrate that closure does not necessarily
occur at a discrete point in time, but that it is a process which can extend through
the piece as a whole.
ii
Résumé
La nature de la clôture est un sujet important au discours théorique
moderne, car on reconnaît l’importance du type de clôture pour créer la structure,
la direction, et le caractère d’une composition musicale. La musique de Johannes
Brahms (1833-97) attire l’attention à cause de ses manipulations complexes et
mesurées des idiomes harmoniques, mélodiques, et formels de la musique tonale.
En utilisant des moyens syntactiques et sémantiques pour terminer ses pièces,
Brahms crée les dénouements qui ont le pouvoir de confirmer ou bien d’opposer
le sens d’une clôture complète et satisfaisante aux auditeurs. Dans ce mémoire,
j’explore les manipulations de la cadence et de la rhétorique dans les dernières
compositions pour le piano, et puis je discute du rapport fluide entre les deux
types de clôture grâce à l’affaiblissement des conventions harmoniques et
formelles du style classique.
J’élargis la théorie de la cadence de William Caplin et la méthode de
l’analyse rhétorique de Kofi Agawu pour identifier et pour analyser les moyens de
la clôture utilisés dans les Klavierstücke, Op. 76, 118, and 119, les Rhapsodien,
Op. 79, les Fantasien, Op. 116, et les Intermezzi, Op. 117. Après avoir bien
expliquée les moyens syntactiques et rhétoriques de la clôture, je présente
quelques analyses complètes qui soulignent les interactions complexes des
moyens de clôture dans les cinq morceaux les plus ambiguës parmi les
Klavierstücke. Je suggère qu’aussitôt que la cadence finale d’une pièce soit bien
problématisée, les moyens rhétoriques jouent un rôle de plus en plus
compensatoire dans la création de la clôture chez Brahms. En outre, je soutiens
que la clôture ne se trouve pas à un moment précis, mais que c’est plutôt un
processus qui se déroule tout au long de la pièce.
iii
Table of Contents
Abstract iiRésumé iiiTable of Contents ivList of Musical Examples vAcknowledgements vi
Introduction 1 Brahms Research and Closure 1 Methodology 3
Chapter One: Cadence and Closure in the Theoretical Literature 7 Defining Closure 7 Cadential Modes of Closure 14 Rhetorical Modes of Closure 19
Chapter Two: The Cadence in Late Brahms 28 Melody, Cover Tones, and Cadence 32 Cadential Interpolations 36 Contrapuntal Cadences 37 Cadential Resolution to V7/IV 40 Elimination of Cadential Closure 43
Chapter Three: Rhetorical Closure 47 Semantic and Structural Functions of the Coda 47 Subdominant Harmony and Closure 52 Pedal Points and Static Harmony 58 Thematic Return and Closure 62 Motivic Fragmentation 68 Closure and Character 69 The Limits of Rhetorical Analysis 72
Chapter Four: Analytical Case Studies 75 Intermezzo in B Minor, Op. 119/1 75 Intermezzo in A Minor, Op. 118/1 81 Intermezzo in B-flat Major, Op. 76/4 86 Capriccio in C Major, Op. 76/8 89 Intermezzo in E Major, Op. 116/4 95 Conclusion: Closure as Process 100
Bibliography 104
iv
List of Musical Examples
Example 2-1: Intermezzo Op. 117/3, mm. 98-108 28Example 2-2: Intermezzo Op. 118/2, mm. 110-16 29Example 2-3: Romanze Op. 118/5, mm. 51-57 29Example 2-4: Intermezzo Op. 116/5, mm. 35-39 31Example 2-5: Capriccio Op. 76/1, mm. 62-65 33Example 2-6: Rhapsodie Op. 79/1, mm. 213-33 34Example 2-7: Intermezzo Op. 76/7, mm. 39-46 36Example 2-8: Capriccio Op. 116/3, mm. 93-103 38Example 2-9: Reduction, Capriccio Op. 116/3, mm. 98-102 38Example 2-10: Recomposition, Capriccio Op. 116/3, mm. 98-102 39Example 2-11: Intermezzo Op. 116/2, mm. 81-86 39Example 2-12: Intermezzo Op. 76/3, mm. 25-30 41Example 2-13: Intermezzo Op. 118/4, mm. 108-33 42Example 2-14: Capriccio Op. 76/2, mm. 99-119 44Example 3-1: Rhapsodie Op. 119/4, mm. 230-62 48Example 3-2: Intermezzo Op. 116/7, mm. 71-92 50Example 3-3: Intermezzo Op. 117/1, mm. 49-57 54Example 3-4: Intermezzo Op. 119/3, mm. 49-70 59Example 3-5: Intermezzo Op. 117/2, mm. 70-85 60Example 3-6: Intermezzo Op. 116/6, mm. 55-64 63Example 3-7: Intermezzo Op. 76/6, mm. 80-91 64Example 3-8: Intermezzo Op. 119/2, mm. 96-104 65Example 3-9: Ballade Op. 118/3, mm. 105-17 66Example 3-10: Rhapsodie Op. 79/2, mm. 116-23 70Example 4-1: Intermezzo Op. 119/1, mm. 1-17 76Example 4-2: Recomposition, Intermezzo, Op. 119/1, mm. 58-60 80Example 4-3: Intermezzo Op. 118/1, mm. 1-12 81Example 4-4: Recomposition, Intermezzo Op. 118/1, mm. 5-8 82Example 4-5: Intermezzo Op. 118/1, mm. 13-22 84Example 4-6: Reduction, Intermezzo Op. 118/1, mm. 30-39 85Example 4-7: Intermezzo Op. 76/4, mm. 8-15 87Example 4-8: Intermezzo Op. 76/4, mm. 40-47 88Example 4-9: Capriccio Op. 76/8, mm. 1-6 90Example 4-10: Capriccio Op. 76/8, mm. 10-15 91Example 4-11: Capriccio Op. 76/8, mm. 16-22 92Example 4-12: Capriccio Op. 76/8, mm. 32-34 93Example 4-13: Capriccio Op. 76/8, mm. 50-58 94Example 4-14: Intermezzo Op. 116/4, mm. 63-71 97Example 4-15: Intermezzo Op. 116/4, mm. 53-57 98Example 4-16: Intermezzo Op. 116/4, mm. 37-41 98Example 4-17: Intermezzo Op. 116/4, mm. 42-57 99
v
Acknowledgements
I gratefully acknowledge the encouragement of my advisor, Prof. Jonathan
Wild, who has supported this project since its beginning as a seminar paper. Our
many discussions about this material have made me a stronger analyst and writer.
I would also like to thank Professors William Caplin and Carmen Sabourin, who
have generously shared their knowledge of tonal music with me over the past two
years. While not directly involved in the preparation of this thesis, they have
profoundly influenced my understanding of music theory, and the many lessons
which I have learned from them are reflected on every page. Prof. René Daley,
my external reader, provided thoughtful and detailed comments which have not
only shaped this final version of the thesis, but will also influence my future
development of this material in other projects.
The graduate student community at McGill has supported me in
innumerable ways, both academically and personally. Extensive conversations
with David Sears, Meghan Goodchild, James Palmer, and Andrew Schartmann
helped to focus my analyses and refine the scope and goals of the thesis. Dana
Gorzelany-Mostak proofread my citations, and, perhaps more importantly, could
always tell when a trip off-campus for a coffee or chocolate break was necessary.
Finally, I would like to thank my husband, Jesse Huguet, for his
unyielding and unconditional support of all my musical and academic endeavors.
vi
Introduction
Brahms Research and Closure
The late piano works of Johannes Brahms (1833-97) are short, lyrical
pieces that embrace a variety of harmonic and formal techniques. Brahms’s
audience for these pieces was not the general Viennese public, but a small group
of musically literate friends who would have been thoroughly familiar with
archetypical tonal and formal devices.1 These brief works, deceptively simple at
first hearing, are in fact complex experiments in which manipulate the educated
listener’s expectations for the behavior of tonal music. Jean-Pierre Armengaud
describes these pieces as unique in the common practice repertoire and as filling a
conceptual void with condensed musical energy.2 Prior to Brahms’s work in the
genre, he suggests, the Intermezzo was merely filler music, meant to be
performed in between acts or movements of a more serious work.3 Brahms, while
preserving the concise form of these pieces, accords to them a new level of
autonomy, as each individual Klavierstück (piano piece) stands alone and
complete, with its own unique form and character, unlinked to any larger genre.
The relatively short lengths of the Intermezzi result in a magnification of the
importance of each structural area, as Brahms often compresses the compositional
devices used in much larger pieces, reducing them to their essence and relying on
1
1 Camilla Cai, “Forms Made Miniature” in The Varieties of Musicology: Essays in Honor of Murray Lefkowitz ed. John Devario and John Ogasapian (Warren, Mich: Harmonie Park Press. 2000), 77. 2 Jean-Pierre Armengaud, “L’intermezzo chez Brahms: la tragédie de la mélodie et la renaissance du son,” Ostinato Rigore 10 (1997): 138.
3 Ibid., 138.
the listener to perceive the importance of each part within the whole. This reliance
on the listener’s ability to understand structural forms is especially apparent when
one examines the ways in which Brahms brings these pieces to closure, using both
semantic and syntactic devices to create complex endings which simultaneously
confirm and deny the listener’s expectation that the piece will come to a complete
and satisfying close.
Many scholars have described the unique combination of cultural context
and musical characteristics which make Brahms’s late music analytically
rewarding. Carl Dahlhaus, for example, suggests that the increased compositional
complexity of the nineteenth century was a direct result of the emphasis placed on
social and technological progress during this historical period.4 Walter Frisch, on
the other hand, focuses on the manifold compositional procedures which Brahms
uses in the sets of Intermezzi, stating that his manipulations of the typical tonal
and formal structures are almost infinite in their variety.5 John Rink sees the late
pieces as particularly emblematic of an opposition between stylistic integrity and
evolution which characterizes Brahms’s compositional output as a whole.6 Indeed,
such a concept can be applied not only to Brahms’s personal development of a
compositional style, but also to his constant study and manipulation of historical
devices and idioms.
2
4 Carl Dahlhaus, Nineteenth Century Music, trans. J. Bradford Robinson (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), 255. 5 Walter Frisch, “Brahms: From Classical to Modern,” in Nineteenth-Century Piano Music, ed. R. Larry Todd (New York: Routledge, 1990), 375. 6 John Rink, “Opposition and Integration in the Piano Music,” in The Cambridge Companion to Brahms, ed. Michael Musgrave (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 79-80.
Much of the previous analytical work on Brahms’s instrumental music
considers the compositional processes of a single piece, thus creating a body of
individual case studies which generally does not examine Brahms’s use of
compositional techniques in multiple pieces.7 While the value of these isolated
analyses cannot be denied - indeed, many of which have profoundly influenced
the analytical project detailed in this thesis - the current study examines the
broader characteristics and tendencies of Brahms’s methods of achieving tonal
closure in his late piano works.
Methodology
This thesis examines Brahms’s manipulation of archetypical common-
practice syntactical structures and semantic techniques to create and problematize
closure. I also document the larger tonal and formal contexts which frame and
contextualize each device. Through this analytical exercise, I demonstrate that a
changing relationship between structural and rhetorical closure creates an
increasingly complex definition of closure in which rhetorical devices can
compensate for the ambiguity or absence of cadential closure.
Chapter One defines the concept of closure, discussing how the theoretical
literature explains the meaning of tonal closure in nineteenth-century music, its
reliance on eighteenth-century precedents, and the idea of ambiguous closure.
Agawu’s definition of tonal closure as a dynamic process serves as the central
3
7 Representative works include “First Case, Brahms: Intermezzo in B-flat, Op. 76, No. 4” by Wallace Berry, “Attacking a Brahms Puzzle” by Edward T. Cone, , and “Three Contradictory Criteria in a Work by Brahms” by Joseph Dubiel. Complete citations for these works may be found in the bibliography at the conclusion of the thesis.
point of reference for the evaluation of other viewpoints and provides the primary
conceptual basis for the analyses in the following chapters.8 This section also
presents theoretical explanations of the many structural and syntactical techniques
that I discuss in the context of the late Brahms piano pieces in Chapters Two,
Three, and Four.
Chapter Two analyzes the syntactic elements of Brahms’s cadential
progressions. As the common-practice cadence functions as a constant point of
reference in Brahms’s music, even when not present in its unmodified Classical
sense, I base my analyses upon William Caplin’s research on the Classical
cadence in order to illuminate the ways in which Brahms adheres to and deviates
from common-practice cadential idioms.9 Topics of discussion in this chapter
include staggered closure, in which the melodic, formal, and harmonic processes
at work do not resolve at the same point in time; the blurring of the distinction
between the melody and the bass line; the interpolation of material between the
penultimate and final elements of a cadential progression; and the elimination of
the cadence altogether.
Chapter Three examines the semantic gestures which affect the listener’s
perception of closure, taking Agawu’s work on semiotic analysis as a starting
point.10 As in the previous section, I analyze these gestures as being essentially
4
8 Kofi Agawu, “Concepts of Closure and Chopin’s Opus 28,” Music Theory Spectrum 9 (1987): 4. 9 William E. Caplin, “The Classical Cadence: Conceptions and Misconceptions,” Journal of the American Musicological Society 57, no. 1 (2004): 51-118. 10Kofi Agawu, Music as Discourse: Semiotic Adventures in Romantic Music. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).
Classical in conception, rising from the rhetorical emphasis which typically
accompanies a Classical cadence. I discuss the plagal emphasis present in the
codas of many of Brahms’s late piano pieces, as well as its importance in post-
cadential idioms. Other techniques analyzed in this chapter include the pedal
point, a harmonically static foil to the forward-driven motion of the Classical
cadence; thematic liquidation; and the rhetorical functions of a coda. I conclude
the chapter with a discussion of the role of statistical parameters such as
dynamics, texture and register in the creation of a distinct approach to closure in
each piece.11
After the separate analyses of both the syntactic and semiotic elements of
closure, the ties between the two are discussed in Chapter Four through detailed
analyses of five Klavierstücke. This chapter explores the idea of closure as a
process, focusing on the various roles that semantic forms of closure can play in
relation to cadences, as well as the ways in which Brahms uses the interactions
between the two to manipulate the listener’s expectations throughout the piece. In
the pieces discussed in this chapter, closure is not created through the presence of
a discrete event or technique, but exists along a continuum influenced by a range
of variables unique to each situation. Conflicts thus arise between the degrees of
closure associated with different musical parameters. I explore how the semantic
functions as a reinforcement of, substitution for, and contradiction to the
syntactic, analyzing the impact of each of these three roles on the overall structure
5
11 The concepts of syntactical and statistical parameters is explored in detail in Leonard B. Meyer’s book Style and Music: Theory, History, and Ideology (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989).
and character of the piece. These analyses demonstrate that Brahms’s marked use
of semantic gestures in the absence of true syntactic closure can reinforce large-
scale tonal planning even in the most ambiguous of his works.
6
Chapter One: Cadence and Closure in the Theoretical Literature
Defining Closure
Numerous theorists have addressed the problematic concept of closure in
tonal music, attempting to define its components, describe its impact on musical
form and structure, and discuss its limitations as a theoretical tool.12 In his article
“Concepts of Closure and Chopin’s Op. 28”, Kofi Agawu states that closure is “a
function of formal principles and/or generic signs . . . the sum total of all the
tendencies to close that occur in the composition, whether or not they are actually
fulfilled.”13 Closure, according to Agawu, is a dynamic process, dependent upon a
synthesis of many dimensions of musical activity in both the syntactic and
semantic domains. Mark Anson-Cartwright clearly delineates between cadential
closure and formal closure, defining closure in three ways, each referring to a
different structural level of music.14 His first and most foreground definition states
that local closure is achieved at the point of structural tonal resolution.15 A broader
view of the piece’s tonal and perceptual processes informs Anson-Cartwright’s
second definition, which asserts that closure is the condition of rest or finality
which occurs near the end of a piece. His final, broadest, definition embraces all
7
12 For the purposes of this study, I define “tonal music” as referring to the common-practice period, beginning with Bach and ending with Brahms. The author acknowledges the inherently problematic nature of this statement, but feels that such a distinction must be made in order to clearly delineate the boundaries of the work at hand.
13 Agawu, “Concepts of Closure,” 4. 14 Mark Anson-Cartwright,“Concepts of Closure in Tonal Music: A Critical Study,” Theory and Practice 32 (2007): 10. 15 Ibid., 2.
of the processes in the piece as inevitably leading towards some form of closure.16
Agawu agrees with this point of view, stating that closure comes about as a result
of the content and the musical processes, whereas the point of ending, an isolated
entity, is the product of the formal ‘container’.17 As such, one cannot consider the
ending of a formal structure alone to be an effective means of bringing a piece to
a close; instead, other parameters such as harmony, voice-leading, texture, and
register must all combine to create a distinct and comprehensible sense of closure.
In his later work, Agawu expands upon this idea, describing the concept of tonal
closure as a sort of ‘playing with signs’, a process by which the interaction of
separate musical elements creates a different, higher level of musical discourse.18
According to Robert Hopkins, closure varies in strength depending on the
structural level at which it occurs, as well as on the number and type of musical
parameters which come together to create a recessive dynamic.19
While it is generally accepted that there are specific musical paradigms
and compositional tools that create a sense of closure, theorists also emphasize
that closure is perceptual, dependent upon the listener’s ability to understand the
stylistic techniques being employed.20 Leonard Meyer’s cognitive studies played a
foundational role in establishing this mode of thought. He wrote that
“completeness and closure in music are only possible because the motions
8
16 Ibid., 3. 17 Agawu, “Concepts of Closure,” 4. 18 Kofi Agawu, Playing With Signs: A Semiotic Interpretation of Classic Music (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), 78. 19 Robert G. Hopkins, Closure and Mahler’s Music: The Role of Secondary Parameters (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990), 13. 20 Ibid., 2.
presented in music are processes between antecedents and consequents.
Completion is only possible where there is shape and pattern.21 In short, Meyer
believes that because the articulations of music in some way reflect the perceptual
patterns of life, humans can understand and interpret musical structures as being
unified and closed entities, writing that “our sense of closure is in part a product
of the general configuration of relaxation and quiescence.”22
As suggested earlier in this section, closure, whether one is considering the
compositional tool which creates its potential or the cognitive processes which
realize it, is dependent upon a sense of temporality. Jonathan Kramer suggests that
“tonal music defines its temporality in at least two ways: by order of succession
and by the conventionalized meanings of gesture.”23 Agawu agrees with this
concept, cautioning against the conflation of the distinct entities of closure and
ending, stating that “each event is part of a larger, dynamic, total structure,”24 and
that closure “cannot be understood with respect to a single moment. The moment
itself is the result of numerous preparatory processes.”25 Agawu also expounds
upon Kramer’s conventionalized meanings of gestures through his beginning-
middle-end paradigm, which suggests that musical characteristics give a passage a
temporal identity independent from its place in the real-time sequence of musical
9
21 Leonard B. Meyer, Emotion and Meaning in Music (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1956), 129. 22 Ibid., 139. 23 Jonathan Kramer, “Beginnings and Endings in Western Art Music,” Canadian University Music Review 3 (1982): 11. 24 Agawu, “Concepts of Closure,” 1. 25 Agawu, Music as Discourse, 57.
events.26 Hopkins presents another aspect of the relationship between closure and
temporality by exploring the contrast between motion and rest in music. He wrote,
“Only a sense of motion can lead to closure, since closure is the arrival at a state
of relative rest, not merely the condition of rest.”27
Further complicating our discussion of closure is the issue of formal and
tonal ambiguity and its effects on the global structure of a piece. Robert Jordan
and Emma Kalafenos suggest that Brahms succeeds in writing pieces which
remain ambiguous throughout, stating that, “The intensity of his manipulation of
ambiguous relationships in this piece [Op. 119/1] results in a structure that cannot
be reduced to a single tonal trajectory.28 They read this Intermezzo as prominently
featuring unresolved tonal ambiguity, and as such, assert that while the piece
comes to a temporal end, it does not possess tonal closure. Edward T. Cone
discusses the prospect of musical ambiguity more cautiously, writing that
“ambiguity must be bounded - not all instances admit of resolution, but the most
successful are delineated by a context of relative directness and clarity.”29 Agawu
expresses an even more restrictive perspective on the possibility of musical
ambiguity, stating that “once context is taken into account, ambiguity dissolves
into clarity.”30 He then suggests that musical ambiguity requires a ‘fork in the
10
26 Agawu, Playing With Signs, 138. 27 Hopkins, Closure and Mahler’s Music, 5. 28 Roland Jordan and Emma Kafalenos, “The Double Trajectory: Ambiguity in Brahms and in Henry James,” 19th-Century Music 13, no. 2 (1989): 142. 29 Edward T. Cone, “Attacking a Brahms Puzzle,” The Musical Times 136, no. 1824 (1995): 72. 30 Kofi Agawu, “Ambiguity in Tonal Music: A Preliminary Study,” in Theory, Analysis, and Meaning in Tonal Music, ed. Anthony Pople (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 86.
road’ scenario, where the two possible paths are equally plausible musically.31
Such situations are quite rare in Classical music due to its clear syntactical rules.32
In the nineteenth century, however, the ongoing breakdown of tonality
created situations which, if not ambiguous in the narrow sense defined by Agawu,
nonetheless called into question the presence of closure at one or more structural
levels of a composition. Agawu suggests that the nineteenth century style
foregrounds this issue, writing that “the rhetoric of nineteenth-century music, in
particular, shows that the strategy by which a composer takes leave of his
audience is of fundamental importance to the work’s total effect.”33 William
Caplin promotes a similar point, suggesting that formal irregularities in the
nineteenth century resulted in a wider variety of compositional and closural
techniques. In Classical Form, he suggests that “although music from earlier and
later periods also exhibits formal functionality in a variety of ways, form in these
periods is considerably less conventional, thus frustrating the establishment of
general principles.”34 Agawu supports this point, describing a breakdown of the
beginning-middle-end paradigm of the Classical period. He writes, “Romanticism
dissolves the props of a semiotic interpretation without ever renouncing their
function . . . [and] remains inextricably linked to the fundaments of Classicism.
By merely rearranging the weights attached to the various components of
11
31 Ibid., 89. 32 I define the Classical style, as Caplin does, as consisting of the works of Haydn, Mozart, and early Beethoven. Middle and late period Beethoven, on the other hand, begin to possess many of the manipulations detailed in this thesis as characteristic of Brahms’s late style.
33 Agawu, “Concepts of Closure,” 2. 34 William Caplin, Classical Form: A Theory of Formal Functions for the Music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 3.
Classicism, Romanticism retains its inevitable dialectic with what is only apparent
uniformity.”35 While beginning, middle and end units retain the musical
characteristics which define them as such, the syntactical relationships between
the three categories are blurred or abandoned altogether. This problematizes the
identification of points of closure in nineteenth-century music, often forcing the
analyst to choose between analytical interpretations which privilege the actual
temporal order of the piece and those which lean more heavily upon non-temporal
signs of closure.
Lawrence Kramer, on the other hand, reads the differences in closure
between eighteenth-century and nineteenth-century music as a function of the
different types of expectation created by each style. He suggests that “while
Classical music locates its inevitability in the heightening and satisfying of the
specific expectations that it creates, Romantic music achieves inevitability when
its presentational patterns provide a release from the ambiguity, the continuous
tension, of non-specific expectancy.”36 As such, Kramer explicitly links the
creation and resolution of musical ambiguity to the achievement of a satisfactory
close in nineteenth-century music, as opposed to in the eighteenth century, when
the creation and resolution of harmonic and formal ambiguities was not a
principal compositional strategy.
The barriers to a theory of closure are significant, as such a pursuit is
restricted by considerable stylistic constraints. Many theorists thus discuss the
12
35 Agawu, Playing With Signs, 143. 36 Lawrence Kramer, “The Mirror of Tonality: Transitional Features of Nineteenth-Century Harmony,” 19th-Century Music 4, no. 3 (1981): 196.
concept cautiously, highlighting its limitations. Jonathan Dunsby attacks the very
idea of unity and closure in tonal music, writing that, “The concept of whole
pieces is a crude premise about musical structure - the archetypical Common
Practice piece is inherently sectional.”37 Agawu agrees that the concept of closure
is problematic when discussing nineteenth-century music, suggesting that theory
of incomplete closure might be a more appropriate analytical tool.38 He describes
several situations in Chopin’s Préludes Op. 28 as embodying this concept, stating
that “the legitimacy of global closure is attacked in great style, leaving in its wake
a functionally unstable piece in which closure is almost redundant.”39 If
nineteenth-century composers such as Chopin were indeed systematically
dismantling the concept of closure in such a way, then what is its purpose in
discourse about music? Nicholas Cook suggests that while the concept of closure
might not function as a strategy for listening, it can still play an important role in
musical understanding. He writes, “theories that explain the organization of
Classical and Romantic compositions in terms of large-scale tonal structure may
not correspond in any direct manner to the perception of such music, but they may
still be of value in revealing something of the manner in which composers of the
tonal period conceived their music.”40 By extension, one can hypothesize that
such a study of the compositional techniques used by the late Romantic
13
37 Jonathan Dunsby, “The Multi-Piece in Brahms: Fantasien Op. 116,” in Brahms: Biographical, Documentary, and Analytical Studies, ed. Robert Pascall (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 1. 38 Agawu, Playing With Signs, 68. 39 Agawu, “Concepts of Closure,” 15. 40 Nicholas Cook, “The Perception of Large-Scale Tonal Closure,” Music Perception 5, no. 2 (1987): 204.
composers to both create and evade tonal closure will provide valuable insights
about the gradual disintegration of tonal practice.
Cadential Modes of Closure
Caplin’s discussion of the Classical cadence as the fundamental
articulation of tonal closure serves as a starting point for the following discussion
of cadence and closure in late Brahms. Caplin explicitly supports such an
extension of his work, noting that, “If the concept of closure can be grounded in
the Classical style, it might be possible to extend or refine the notion to later
styles with greater confidence.”41 Any variations from Caplin’s cadential rules
will thus be treated as conscious deviations from Classical practice and as grounds
for an expanded definition of cadential closure in Brahms’s music. While Caplin’s
work provides an encyclopedic range of criteria for the identification of cadences,
three fundamental principles most directly relate to the present study. The first of
these states that an authentic cadence must consist of a root-position dominant
followed by a root-position tonic, with no intermediate harmonies or bass-line
motions between the two.42 A second important point concerns the construction of
half cadences. Caplin writes, “To acquire the requisite stability for an ending
harmony, the half-cadential progression must take the form of a root position
triad. Adding a dissonant seventh - appropriate to the penultimate position in an
authentic cadential progression - would overly destabilize the ultimate dominant
14
41 Caplin, “The Classical Cadence,” 52. 42 Ibid., 54.
of a half-cadential progression.”43 The final major point states that the cadential
form-functional unit is conceptually distinct from prolongational and sequential
materials, and that one thus cannot consider the end of a prolongation or a
sequence to be a cadence.44 Because of the loosening of harmonic and formal
syntax, Brahms’s piano music appears to challenge these conventions. The
specific techniques by which this is realized will be discussed in Chapter Two.
While the status of the cadence as the principal closural device of tonal
phrases is indisputable, the level of structure at which it operates is debatable.
Caplin argues that the cadence is a middleground phenomenon, citing Schenker’s
claim that the Ursatz and the cadence are fundamentally different structures.45
Caplin accepts Schenker’s claim at face value, stating that “there are good reasons
to believe that the forces defining formal functionality on some levels of structure
are essentially different from those defining it at higher levels.”46 Caplin thus
rejects a major idea about cadence and levels of structure; namely, Schoenberg’s
hypothesis that an entire piece can serve as an extended cadence.47
Dunsby, on the other hand, expands upon Schoenberg’s view of cadence
and closure, writing, “Schoenberg’s approach to the subject is . . . that closure,
and the cadential formulae of closure in tonal practice, is satisfying to the extent
that it fulfills a stylistic expectation.”48 This idea marks a return to the idea of
15
43 Caplin, Classical Form, 29. 44 Caplin, “The Classical Cadence,” 71. 45 Ibid., 64. 46 Ibid., 65. 47 Ibid., 60. 48 Jonathan Dunsby, “Schoenberg on Cadence,” Journal of the Arnold Schoenberg Institute 4, no. 1 (1980), 43.
closure as a perceptual phenomenon: because the listener expects a cadence to
occur in certain formal situations, the cadence thus acts as a concrete close
regardless of the inherent inability of such an event to even exist in purely musical
terms. Dunsby acknowledges this paradox, stating that to Schoenberg, “Closure
by cadence resembles a necessity without being one.”49 Some other theorists, in
contrast, completely avoid the problematic nature of cadences and their effects on
musical structure, relying more directly on the real-time surface events of the
piece for determining relative strength of closure. Jonathan Kramer, for example,
asserts that “the final cadence of the piece is of course the strongest, since it must
bring to a close the entire work. Thus closure, like tonality itself, is
hierarchical.”50 Caplin would disagree with this point of view for several reasons,
the first of which is that there are typically not varying degrees of syntactical
strength within a single type (perfect authentic, imperfect authentic, half) of
cadence.51 Additionally, Caplin suggests that cadences do not achieve closure at
the level of the whole piece, but that another mechanism altogether is responsible
for this phenomenon.52
Several modifications to nineteenth-century cadential procedures have
been discussed in the theoretical literature. Agawu describes “Ideal Closure”, the
standard Classical cadence, as not being foregrounded by the Romantic
16
49 Ibid., 43. 50 Kramer, “Beginnings and Endings,” 2.
51 With regard to the imperfect authentic cadence, it is possible that different voice-leadings can create stronger or weaker cadences: a descending melody from scale degree four to scale degree three, for example, creates an IAC which is arguably stronger than an ascending melody from scale degree two to scale degree three. Such a claim, however, is unsupported in the current theoretical literature and thus requires further research.
52 Caplin, “The Classical Cadence,” 54.
composers, who actively sought out alternative, marked methods of attaining
closure.53 He also suggests that expectations continue to play a vital role in
cadential manipulations, stating that “the effect of a promised cadence is in some
ways comparable to that of an actual cadence.”54 Peter H. Smith suggests that the
nineteenth-century cadence as a closural device requires a “flexible interaction
among parameters” which “sustains the value of the traditional procedures.”55
Through manipulation of the harmonic, melodic, and rhythmic content normally
associated with the Classical cadence, composers could thus refresh the tonal
norms without abandoning them completely. Smith also discusses at length
Milton Babbitt’s concept of dimensional counterpoint, which he describes as “the
layering of structural parameters [so that] the individual strands of musical fabric
function quasi-independently to yield multiple interpretive possibilities.”56
Through the use of this technique, Romantic composers could separate the
different musical processes which combine to form a cadence, spreading them
across the musical surface in order to create a blurred cadential effect. Walter
Frisch’s claim that Brahms made use of a new conception of musical space
reflects this idea of dimensional counterpoint, as he suggests that Brahms’s
cadences reflect a breakdown of the division between melody and harmony.57
17
53 Agawu, “Concepts of Closure,” 7. 54 Ibid., 7. 55 Peter H. Smith, Expressive Forms in Brahms’s Instrumental Music (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005), 7. 56 Ibid., 7. 57 Frisch, “Brahms: From Classical to Modern,” 386.
A final factor which must be considered in a discussion of the nineteenth-
century cadence, most particularly in the music of Brahms, is the increasing role
of historicism in intellectual and musical thought. David Lewin elaborates on this
point, stating that Brahms’s citations of historical models “manifest historical
modes of musical thought, and as such contribute to an ongoing process of
dialectic synthesis that lies at the center of his compositional discourse.”58
Likewise, Carl Dahlhaus suggests that Brahms’s reliance on multiple historical
models directly affects the structural features of his pieces. He asserts, “Even in
his lyrical piano pieces, Brahms pursued the idea of blending motivic
counterpoint and developing variation, the legacy respectively of both Bach’s
fugal style and Beethoven’s sonata style, to produce a hybrid cognitive pattern
divorced from existing generic trends.”59
Does the complex web of modifications and allusions to which the
nineteenth-century composers subject the cadence compromise its eighteenth-
century status as a purely syntactical structure? Hopkins argues that this is indeed
the case, writing that “the clear-cut differentiation between syntactic form and
semantic content does not exist in [nineteeth-century] music.”60 He also suggests
that secondary parameters such as dynamics, timbre, and register play an equally
strong role in confirming or denying closure. While it might be an overstatement
to suggest, as Hopkins claims, that there is no difference between syntactical and
18
58 David Lewin, “Brahms, His Past, and Modes of Music Theory,” in Brahms Studies: Analytical and Historical Perspectives, ed. George Bozarth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 13. 59 Dahlhaus, Nineteenth-Century Music, 258-59. 60 Hopkins, Closure and Mahler’s Music, 20.
semantic closure, it is clear that the relationship between the two is blurred, a
phenomenon which will be further discussed in the following section.
Rhetorical Modes of Closure61
In spite of the ambiguous relationship between syntactic and semantic
closure in the nineteenth century, it is nonetheless clear that the latter played an
increasingly important role in the articulation of form, and that any analytical
model developed must account for this shift. Caplin makes this point, stating that
“in the nineteenth century, mid-level closure was attained by a wider variety of
non-cadential means, compared to eighteenth-century music.”62 Agawu agrees,
suggesting that “there is more to tonal life than cadences.”63 He thus urges
analysts to take into account all of the rhetorical, gestural, and phenomenal signs
of closure in a composition, considering them as processes within a whole.64 The
following section will describe research on several specific rhetorical techniques
utilized by late nineteenth-century composers in order to effect closure.
While the beginning-middle-end paradigm played a central part in creating
syntactical relationships in the eighteenth century, its breakdown in Romantic
music created strongly marked rhetorical statements. Agawu describes the fall of
the paradigm as one of the principal stylistic developments of nineteenth-century
music, suggesting that its simultaneous reliance on and rejection of eighteenth-
19
61 By rhetorical modes of closure, I mean any element of music which can serve an affective as opposed to structural/syntactical functions. For example, while the IV chord in a cadential progression serves the syntactical role of a predominant, a post-cadential IV prolongation serves a rhetorical role in that it establishes a sense of closure due to its inherent plagal quality.
62 Caplin, “The Classical Cadence,” 52. 63 Agawu, Music as Discourse, 32. 64 Ibid., 59.
century syntactical laws renders Romantic music “inescapably paradoxical and
profoundly parasitic.”65 Instead of a strict reliance on syntactical order, Agawu
views the music as embodying a broad sense of periodicity, in which a musical
unit possesses the general characteristics of a beginning, a middle, or an end,
without necessarily fulfilling that function in the actual temporal ordering of the
piece.66 L. Poundie Burstein details a specific theoretical occurrence of this
phenomenon in his discussion of the Schenkerian auxiliary cadence, in which a
phrase or formal unit begins with a harmony other than the tonic. He states that
“the omission of the opening root-position tonic gives rise to a feeling of
expectancy by shifting the weight of tonality to the end.”67 By compromising or
altogether eliminating the beginning function in such a way, the composer places
increasing importance on the articulation of closure as a means of resolving the
beginning ambiguity. Joseph Dubiel describes this technique as playing a
particularly important role in Brahms’s music, stating that “to postpone the first
clear presentation of a composition’s tonic is a typical Brahmsian gambit. Troping
on the delay of closure, this maneuver delays an aspect of initiation, reaching its
point of reference only by conclusion.”68 Burstein describes such instances of
harmonic play as creating profound hermeneutic implications, suggesting that
20
65 Agawu, Playing With Signs, 143. 66 Agawu, Music as Discourse, 76. 67 L. Poundie Burstein, “Unraveling Schenker’s Concept of the Auxiliary Cadence,” Music Theory Spectrum 27, no. 2 (2005): 161. 68 Joseph Dubiel, “Three Contradictory Criteria in a Work by Brahms,” in Brahms Studies, ed. David Brodbeck (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994), 81.
“through manipulations of basic elements of the tonal system, auxiliary cadences
give rise to a sense of surprise, unrest, momentum, and ambiguity.”69
Robert Snarrenberg’s application of the Derridean concept of différance to
Brahms’s music offers another perspective on manipulation of the beginning-
middle-end paradigm. He suggests that motivic patterns can become associated
with the three temporal categories and that composers can then create dialectics
between sameness and difference over the course of the temporal space of a piece.
He writes, “Différance both dislocates and repatterns motives in such a way that
motives differenced previously in temporal location and prolongational pattern are
re-formed to reveal that sameness can replace difference.”70 Such play with the
distinction between temporal and formal units calls into question the very validity
of Agawu’s paradigm, suggesting that temporal sectionality can be sacrificed for
the sake of a higher dialectical unity.
The articulation and prolongation of the subdominant tonal area, separate
from any sort of cadential progression, is fundamental to the creation of closure in
nineteenth-century music. Agawu strongly emphasizes the importance of this
harmonic gesture, writing, “The subdominant serves a primary responsibility for
the articulation of closure when harmony is foregrounded.”71 Deborah Stein
suggests that a thorough understanding of the subdominant’s role is essential to
knowledge of Romantic tonal idioms as a whole. She writes, “In the later
21
69 Burstein, “Unraveling Schenker’s Concept,” 183. 70 Robert Snarrenberg, “The Play of ‘Différence’,” In Theory Only 10, no. 3 (1987): 18. 71 Agawu, “Concepts of Closure,” 2.
nineteenth century, the subdominant came to acquire new functions and to assume
more autonomous structural roles, and concurrently with this change in status of
the subdominant came a reassessment of the dominant and even the tonic
functions.”72 She further suggests that plagal harmony can in some cases
substitute for both tonic and dominant functions, thus creating intriguing new
options for tonal closure. This clearly contrasts with Classical harmonic practice,
which, according to Caplin, uses plagal emphasis solely within tonic-
prolongational contexts.73 Caplin does, however, admit to the increased
possibilities for the subdominant in nineteenth-century music, writing, “It is
perhaps possible to speak of the plagal cadence in the nineteenth century, as a
deviation where rhetoric is present despite the absence of a genuine cadential
progression.”74 Margaret Notley applies nineteenth-century dualist modes of
thought to the topic of harmonic function, stating that “the inherent inequality
between authentic [dominant] and plagal [subdominant] harmonies profoundly
affects Romantic harmonic practice.”75 She further suggests that the importance of
subdominant harmonies at large-scale formal boundaries becomes a marked
element in nineteenth-century music.76
Much like the manipulation of the beginning-middle-end paradigm, the
increasing importance of the subdominant affects interpretation of meaning in
22
72 Deborah Stein, “The Expansion of the Subdominant in the Late Nineteenth Century,” Journal of Music Theory 27, no. 2 (1983): 153. 73 Caplin, “The Classical Cadence,” 71. 74 Ibid., 82. 75 Margaret Notley, “Plagal Harmony as Other: Asymmetrical Dualism and Instrumental Music by Brahms,” Journal of Musicology 22, no. 1 (2005): 92. 76 Ibid., 119.
Romantic works. Robert Hatten describes both deceptive (penultimate) and plagal
(postultimate) motion as ways of marking the presence or absence of a harmonic
or a formal boundary, stating that both are marked events which affect
interpretation of the expressive genre of a piece.77 Notley offers a specific
interpretation of the meaning of plagal gestures, stating that they express qualities
of “otherworldliness, distance, timelessness, and alienation,” in clear opposition
to the goal-directed tension and release of the dominant.78
Pedal points play a vital part in the prolongation of tonal areas, providing a
means of prolonging a harmony or key area without necessarily creating cadential
closure. Such pedals, in spite of their clear presentation of a harmony, can be
difficult to interpret, as the static implied harmony of the pedal note often
conflicts with the dynamic harmonic, melodic, or formal processes which occur
above it. Cone suggests that instead of confirming a tonality, pedals actually call
into question the functional role of the bass.79 Ratner, on the other hand, suggests
that pedal points should be interpreted solely based upon the harmonic function
represented by the scale degree being prolonged. He thus interprets tonic pedals
as implying beginning or ending functions and dominant pedals as expressing
functional middles.80 The number and variety of pedal points in Romantic music,
23
77 Robert S. Hatten, “Interpreting Deception in Music,” In Theory Only 12, no. 5-6 (1992):40. 78 Notley, “Plagal Harmony as Other,” 95. 79 Cone, “Attacking a Brahms Puzzle,” 75. 80 Leonard Ratner, Classic Music: Expression, Form, and Style (New York: Schirmer, 1985), 124.
however, calls for a more nuanced theoretical methodology for the analysis of
pedal points and their effects on formal and harmonic closure.
The return of previously stated material as a closural device is discussed
extensively in the theoretical literature. This method of closure relies heavily upon
the listener’s expectation of unity, such that a unified piece will both depart from
and arrive at the same point of rest. According to Agawu, the idea that the end of
the piece should reflect its beginning is central to a discussion of closure.81 While
in tonal music this concept is most typically applied to harmonic closure, stating
that a piece typically ends in the same key in which it began, it can also be applied
to such characteristics as register, melodic units, or formal groups. Agawu further
suggests that repetition of more than one musical parameter creates stronger
closure. He writes, “An important rhetorical device for closure is repetitions in
various dimensions and at various structural levels.”82 Hopkins suggests that such
devices play only a supplementary role in effecting closure, stating that “closure
can be enhanced, but not created, through the principle of return.”83 Meyer,
however, suggests that such repetition, by precluding the introduction of new
materials, participates in the recessive process which marks the end of a piece. He
writes, “On the whole, the slowing down which brings a piece of music to a close
is not a slowing down of the physical tempo, but a slowing down of the rate of the
musical process.”84
24
81 Agawu, “Concepts of Closure,” 3. 82 Agawu, Playing With Signs, 67. 83 Hopkins, Closure and Mahler’s Music, 15. 84 Meyer, Emotion and Meaning in Music, 140.
The primary formal area in which composers utilize the techniques of
subdominant emphasis, pedal point, and repetitions in order to create rhetorical
closure is in the coda. According to Schoenberg, the coda does not play a
harmonic role, as it “could scarcely compensate for failure to establish the tonality
in earlier sections.”85 He instead suggests that the coda, as a structurally
unnecessary unit of music, is merely extra content without formal support. He
writes, perhaps somewhat facetiously, “In fact, it would be difficult to give any
other reason for the addition of a coda other than that the composer wants to say
something more.”86 Caplin describes the coda as embodying a post-structural
‘after the end’ formal functionality, suggesting that such units “include a variety
of compensatory functions, for here the composer can make up for events or
procedures which were not fully treated in the main body of the composition.”87
Agawu focuses on the coda’s perceptual effect on the listener instead of on its
compositional construction. Dwelling on the prevalence of repetition in post-
cadential devices, Agawu approaches the coda as representing the act of
reminiscence, an “invitation to relive the past in compressed form.”88 Perhaps the
most whimsical hermeneutic interpretation of the coda, though, is French
musicologist Mark Delaere’s suggestion that the coda of a work is the musical
25
85 Arnold Schoenberg, Fundamentals of Musical Composition (London: Farber and Farber, 1967), 185. 86 Ibid., 185. 87 Caplin, Classical Form, 179. 88 Agawu, Music as Discourse, 59.
equivalent of the phrase “and they lived happily ever after” at the end of a fairy
tale.89
All of these sources thus interpret the coda as only occurring after the final
cadence of the piece, once the fundamental tonal conflict has been unambiguously
resolved. In Romantic music, however, the presence of strong harmonic closure at
the end of a piece is not guaranteed, and coda-like material is often fused with that
which precedes it. As such, nineteenth-century analysis requires a new
understanding of coda, one which understands it not merely as retroactive
confirmation of a previously achieved syntactical closure, but as a powerful
rhetorical device capable of effecting closure independently of any cadential
requirements. This new understanding of coda will be more fully developed in the
analytical portion of the thesis.
Caplin strongly emphasizes the importance of preserving an impenetrable
barrier between syntactic and semantic modes of closure, implying that only the
former can effectively close a tonal piece. While this sort of analytical rigor lends
itself to analyses of Classical forms, it fails to adequately describe the delicate
balance of syntactic and semantic relationships utilized by Brahms and other
Romantic composers. Dunsby acknowledges this point, writing that when
analyzing nineteenth-century music, “such unconventional criteria as repetition,
symmetry, and registral relationships can be crucial in the construction of an
26
89 Mark Delaere, “Et ils vecurent encore longuement et heureusement: La fonction de la coda dans quelques oeuvres instrumentales de Brahms,” Ostinato Rigore 13 (1999): 75.
appropriate analytical description.”90 Perhaps the most interesting option on the
subject of the relationship between the two types of closure, though, is that of
Hopkins. He writes, “Secondary parameters such as dynamics and duration
became more and more important in shaping musical processes and articulating
musical form . . . it is likely that the use of such parameters was not only an effect
of the attenuation of tonality, but also a cause.”91 If one agrees with this idea that
the encroachment of rhetorical closure into the realm of tonal closure led to the
downfall of the tonal system, then it becomes particularly crucial to substantiate
this claim in the repertoire of Brahms, the last of the Common Practice
composers.
27
90 Jonathan Dunsby, Structural Ambiguity in Brahms: Analytical Approaches to Four Works (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1981), 108. 91 Hopkins, Closure and Mahler’s Music, 1.
Chapter Two: The Cadence in Late Brahms
A discussion of cadence in late Brahms must begin by emphasizing his
reference to the normative common-practice cadential models. Indeed, many of
the Klavierstücke end with such cadences. These pieces, although they may
feature many of the same harmonic and formal ambiguities discussed in the
context of closure in this thesis, articulate these conflicts in ways which do not
directly involve their endings.
One example of completely unproblematic cadential closure occurs at the
conclusion of the Intermezzo Op. 117/3, shown in Example 2-1.
C-sharp minor: V IV^ VI Vs_ (VI II^ ) VX Is f
CX : [II&&& ]V [V& ]V II&x3 Vs %x3 I
Example 2-1Intermezzo Op. 117/3, mm. 98-108
This extended cadential progression features a steady harmonic rhythm of one
chord per measure, articulating a clear cadential progression. The melody, an
28
augmented version of the A section theme, exhibits melodic closure through a
descent from scale degree three to scale degree one. The expressive features, most
notably the piu lento tempo and the diminuendo dynamic markings, contribute to
the recessive quality of the phrase. As such, all of the musical processes at work
in the A1 section come to a close at the same time, and this piece thus represents
an example of Agawu’s concept of ideal closure. The clear harmonic and melodic
closure reflects a general sense of formal symmetry and harmonic simplicity
which is present throughout the A section. Through backgrounding the syntactical
parameters in this manner, Brahms can highlight other musical parameters; in this
case, the Intermezzo serves as an exploration of texture, register, and
counterpoint.
While in the Intermezzo Op. 117/3 the unproblematic mode of closure
reflects a normalization of syntactical processes over the course of the entire
piece, this type of consistency is not always the case in late Brahms. The cadence
which concludes the Intermezzo Op. 118/2 features a standard harmonic
progression and a final (inner-voice) melodic descent. (Ex. 2-2)
A: I VI IV II Vs (IV^ ) V^ _% I
Example 2-2:Intermezzo Op. 118/2, mm. 110-116
29
This cadential regularity, however, belies the unusual harmonic and rhythmic
events which occurred earlier in the piece. The subdominant harmony, which
threatened to overtake the tonic at numerous points in the piece, is not given
special emphasis in the cadential progression, but instead appears as the middle
element of a descending thirds predominant sequence. The cadence not only
restores the proper harmonic weight to the subdominant, but also serves to
regularize the unusual harmonic rhythm of the piece. While the majority of the
phrase continues the established pattern of changing harmony on the third beat of
each measure, the arrival of the dominant on the downbeat of measure 114
corrects this pattern, allowing for a resolution to the tonic on the downbeat of
measure 116. This piece thus exhibits a progression from marked harmonic and
rhythmic events to normative syntactical behavior, in contrast to the consistently
unmarked tendencies of the previous example.
When the final cadence of the piece is the only authentic cadence in the
home key, the structure of the piece as a whole changes, as the burden of
definitively confirming the tonality is pushed back to the conclusion. Such a
situation occurs in the Romanze Op. 118/5, which is comprised of an A section in
F major followed by a B section in D major and then a compressed reprise of the
A section. The A section consists of a double period, a statement and three varied
repetitions of a four-bar phrase. Half cadences in F major articulate the boundaries
at bars four and twelve, and half cadences in D major fulfill the same function at
bars eight and sixteen. After a contrasting middle over a D-major pedal point, the
30
A1 section ends with a standard perfect authentic cadence, the only authentic
cadence in the entire piece. (Ex. 2-3)
F: I E V*__& I V VI I% _^ IV % _^ I^ II CTo& V&
I# @ # *6 &5 I [V& ] IV I
Example 2-3:Romanze, Op. 118/5, mm. 51-57
At this moment, only eighteen measures of the Romanze, though, have been in the
key of F major. While the listener certainly expects for cadential closure to occur
in some capacity, particularly when the regular formal and cadential profile of the
piece is taken into account, one must question whether this completely normative
and unmarked cadence in F major can counteract the perceptual effect created by
thirty-one bars of D major pedal in the B section of the piece. Does this cadence
represent the resolution of an underlying harmonic problem and thereby create a
satisfying structural ending for the piece, or does it bypass the true conflict of the
piece, the problematic relationship between the relatively distantly-related keys of
F major and D major? The discussion of this piece, taking into account the
31
rhetorical features which bring this piece to a satisfying close in spite of its
unusual tonal plan, will continue in Chapter Three.
Melody, Cover Tones, and Cadence
An extremely common feature in these late works is the absence of an
upper-voice descent to scale degree one, thus creating an imperfect authentic
cadence at the end of a piece, when one would normally expect a perfect authentic
cadence. This occurs in the Intermezzo, Op. 116/5 (Ex. 2-4), whose cadence raises
several analytical questions.
E: Z II& V$3 Vs &5 I94 *3
Example 2-4:Intermezzo, Op. 116/5, mm. 35-39
The first problematic characteristic of the cadence is the upper voice descent from
C (scale degree six) to B (scale degree five), which then acts as a cover tone to the
inner voice descent to scale degree one. Also unusual is the harmonic rhythm of
the phrase, which features second-inversion dominant on the weak second beat of
measure thirty-six. This move to a second-dominant calls into question the
validity of the cadential progression, as the cadential dominant thus appears in the
incorrect inversion. This dominant inversion, however, immediately moves to a
cadential 6/4 in measure thirty-seven which resolves to the dominant on the
32
downbeat of measure thirty-eight. The root of the tonic follows suit in the bass
register on the second beat of measure thirty-eight; the upper voices, on the other
hand, resolve to tonic harmony on the downbeat of measure thirty-nine, thus
creating a disjunction between melodic and harmonic resolution. Yet despite
Brahms’s structural manipulations of the cadential unit, it still possesses, in
modified yet immediately recognizable form, all of the features of a Classical
cadence. Whether or not these structures combine to create a perceptually sound
sense of closure, however, is another question altogether.
Issues of melodic closure similarly arise in an analysis of the Capriccio
Op. 76/1. (Ex. 2-5)
F#: V& I
Example 2-5:Capriccio Op. 76/1, mm. 62-65
In this piece, as in the previous example, the upper voice remains on scale degree
five even as the bass moves from the cadential dominant to the tonic, as the
melodic descent to an inner-voice F-sharp retreats into an inner-voice, signaling
that the upper-voice C-sharp is a cover tone. The rhetorical strength of the
forceful octave C-sharps, combined with the sudden shift in register and texture,
minimizes the structural impact of the structural close. Although the piece has
achieved authentic cadential closure, there is no doubt in the listener’s mind that
33
the piece must continue from this point. Over the course of the extensive coda,
which will be more fully discussed in the following chapter, Brahms explores
register and texture through an expansion of the tonic, yet never arrives on scale
degree one on a downbeat in the upper voice. The piece thus concludes with a
strongly emphasized Picardy third in the upper voice, with scale degree one still
relegated to the alto voice.
In a related cadential scenario, the melody features a descent, but it does
so at a different temporal point in the piece than the harmonic resolution, creating
instances of dimensional counterpoint. In the Rhapsodie Op. 79/1 (Ex. 2-6), the
cadential dominant resolves to the lowest B octave on the piano, while the upper
voice rests. In the coda which follows, Brahms introduces elements of modal
mixture and then brings the melody to an ambiguous close in a higher register
than expected in measure 227, continuing to circle scale degree one until the piece
fades away. Although the harmonic element of cadential closure clearly takes
place in the form of root motion in the bass and the melodic element rests on scale
degree one at the end of the piece, the lack of a clear melodic descent nonetheless
renders the exact point of melodic closure ambiguous.
B minor: I [V^ ]IV Z II [VII^ ]V V
(example continues on next page)
34
B: I (no melodic closure)
B: Tonic Pedal
B: Tonic Pedal with Tonicization of IV
B: Tonic Pedal with Tonicization of IV
B: Tonic Pedal with Tonicization of IV and Melodic Liquidation
Example 2-6:Rhapsodie Op. 79/1, mm. 213-233
35
Cadential Interpolations
In a cadential interpolation, material is inserted between the cadential
dominant and its resolution. Similar to the usage of staggered closure discussed in
the previous section, this technique serves to call into question the structural
integrity of the cadence. The examples which follow, however, differ from those
presented before in that the melodic and harmonic elements required to create an
authentic cadence do occur at the same point in the piece. The disjunction in these
examples is not between melody and harmony, but between the dominant and the
tonic harmonic elements.
An interpolation can be as small as a single note, if the note interrupts the
direct root motion in the bass which is required for an authentic cadence to take
place. In the final phrase of the Intermezzo Op. 76/7 (Ex. 2-7), the presence of the
third of tonic, C, between scale degree five and scale degree one in the bass
prevents direct cadential motion from occurring.
A minor: I VII III II^ Vs f V s f I
Example 2-7:Intermezzo Op. 76/7, mm. 39-46
While the presence of such a minor detail may seem inconsequential, it serves to
undermine one of the fundamental principles of Classical cadential closure. The C
36
serves to add a contrapuntal element which calls into question the functional role
of the E which precedes it, as the final three bass notes of the piece now form an
arpeggiation of the tonic triad. This descending thirds arpeggiation blurs the
perceptual divide between the dominant and the tonic. The harmonic ambiguity of
such descending melodic thirds is a recurring theme in Brahms’s music, and a
more extensive discussion of this technique appears in my analysis of the
Intermezzo Op. 119/1 in Chapter Four.92
Contrapuntal Cadences
Contrapuntal motion at cadences, whether viewed as a historical reference
to species counterpoint or simply as a means of refuting the Common-Practice
cadence, is perceptually similar to the cadential interpolation in that both
problematize the articulation of an effective cadential bass line. The Capriccio Op.
116/3 reaches a dominant on the downbeat of measure ninety-seven; instead of
resolving immediately to the tonic, however, the music rests for two beats before
launching into an extended cadential progression which is divorced registrally and
texturally from that which precedes it. (Ex. 2-8, next page)
In the first half of this phrase, a melodic motive consisting of a descending
third followed by two descending seconds is harmonized by predominant
harmony, and the dominant returns on the downbeat of measure 100. Instead of
moving to a tonic to end the piece, though, the bass presents a tonally-adjusted
restatement of the motive presented in the upper voice two measures earlier. (Ex.
37
92 Please see page 73 for the analysis of 119/1.
2-9) The upper-voice melody does not feature a stepwise descent, as is typical for
the end of a piece, but instead presents a stepwise ascent with octave transfers.
G minor: VX Is IVC V
G minor: IV [VII& ]V V [VII;]V VII^ I
Example 2-8:Capriccio Op. 116/3, mm. 93-103
Example 2-9:Capriccio, Op. 116/3, mm. 98 - 102Outer-voice Contrapuntal Reduction
If bar 101 were removed and the A from the predominant chord were held over to
become part of the dominant, as shown in Example 2-10, then both the bass line
and the upper-voice melody would be normalized.
38
Example 2-10Capriccio Op. 116/3, mm. 98 - 102
Recomposition of Cadence
Bar 101 thus serves as a purely motivic and contrapuntal elaboration with no
impact on the structural elements of the cadence, in spite of its unusual surface
characteristics.
Another example of the use of contrapuntal procedures at the final cadence
appears in the Intermezzo Op 116/2. (Ex. 2-11)
A minor: [VII& ] V VI^ _% V interp. I V interp. I
Example 2-11:Intermezzo Op. 116/2, mm. 81-86
After the arrival of the dominant on the downbeat of eighty-three, the cadential
progression is seemingly abandoned with a move upwards to VI on the third beat
of the measure. The next downbeat, however, marks an immediate return to
dominant harmony, which resolve to tonic on the second beat of measure eighty-
four. What makes this excerpt noteworthy is not the harmony, but the marked
39
arrangement of the voices. The descending stepwise melody which serves as the
upper voice in measure eighty-three moves to the bass in measure eighty-four.
The direct root motion which one would expect in a cadential bass, on the other
hand, appears in the upper voice. Brahms thus creates a situation in which the two
voices required for a cadence to occur become interchangeable, reminiscent of
contrapuntal styles of writing in which the functional role of the bass is
minimized by the equality of the voices.
Cadential Resolution to V7/IV
Another cadential device which recalls an earlier compositional style, in
this case the instrumental Baroque style of J.S. Bach, is the resolution of the
cadential dominant to a V7/IV chord instead of to the tonic. This technique, used
frequently by Bach in the Well-Tempered Clavier, shifts the harmonic weight
away from the tonic and to the subdominant, by transforming what should be the
goal harmony of the cadential progression into yet another penultimate chord.
An example of this technique occurs in the Intermezzo Op. 76/3. (Ex.
2-12, following page) After the cadential dominant arrives in bar twenty-six, a
shift from duple meter to triple meter ushers in what appears to be a coda, as
evidenced by a slower tempo, recessive dynamics, and subdominant harmony in
measure twenty-eight. All of the post-cadential features, however, bely the fact
that cadential resolution has not been concretely achieved, due to the resolution of
the dominant to a secondary dominant of IV instead of to the unmodified tonic
triad. In fact, an unambiguous tonic chord does not appear until four bars later at
40
measure thirty, after a subdominant prolongation leads to yet another dominant,
which then resolves as expected to the tonic triad.
A-flat: V*6 &5 ^4 &3 [V& ]IV
A-flat: IV V*6 &5 I^ _%
Example 2-12:Intermezzo Op. 76/3, mm. 25-30
In the Intermezzo Op. 118/4, a highly-emphasized cadential dominant
resolves to the secondary dominant of the subdominant twice, creating a situation
in which the deceptive resolution of the dominant delays closure of the piece for
twenty-five measures in spite of the clearly-achieved root motion in the bass at
measures 111 and 119. (Ex. 2-13, following page) The resolution to V7/IV in this
piece is particularly effective due to its minor tonality, which thus mandates not
only an added seventh but also a chord quality shift in order for this technique to
be utilized.
41
f: V4 V^4 %3 (IV^ ) V*6 &5 ^ % [V& ]IV CTo&
f: [V& ]IV IV Ger+6 V^4 %3 V^4 %3 Vs %3 s f
f: [V& ]IV IV Ger+6 Vs (aban.)
f: I^ I IV IVX %__^ IC
Example 2-13:Intermezzo Op. 118/4, mm. 108-133
When compared to a commonly cited example of this progression in Bach,
the end of the C major prelude in Book One of The Well-Tempered Clavier, the
two endings are harmonically similar, featuring subdominant emphasis after a
cadential dominant before a resolution to tonic. Indeed, one could argue that
42
Brahms’s gesture is even more conclusive than Bach’s, due to the fact that in the
Bach prelude, the upper-voice melody concludes on scale degree three at the point
where the cadential dominant resolves to V7/IV. The final bars of the Prelude thus
play an integral role in the creation of melodic closure as they effect the final
descent to scale degree one. In the Intermezzo, on the other hand, the melodic
descent has been achieved, albeit with considerable registral play, as evidenced by
the frequent presence of the pitch F in the upper voice and the repetitions of the
descent throughout bars 111-128.
Why did Brahms choose to utilize this method of closure for the
Intermezzo? Such an ending, with multiple failed cadential attempts, represents an
inability of the frantic perpetual motion of the piece as a whole to come to a rest.
In addition, it reflects the piece’s modeling of imitative contrapuntal writing, and
thus represents Brahms’s imitation of Bach as a historical model of musical
structure and syntax.
Elimination of Cadential Closure
The most drastic manipulation of cadential procedure in Brahms is the
loosening of the cadential progression and arrival to the point that one can suggest
that Brahms eliminates a final cadence altogether. Such a situation occurs in the
Capriccio Op 76/2, due to the presence of three problematic cadential arrivals.
The final thematic unit, shown in Example 2-14 on the following page, begins
with an exact reprise of a phrase which first appears in measures thirty-eight
through forty-four.
43
B: IV V [VII^ ]V V^4 %3 V^4 %3 I IV
B: V$ # I II^ [Vk] IV V& (B ped) I
B: I V& Ger+6 embellishment of tonic
B: Ger+6 embellishment of tonic [V& ] IVX IVC IX
Example 2-14:Capriccio Op. 76/2, mm. 99-119
While the first iteration of this unit ends with a perfect authentic cadence, its
statement at the end of the piece bypasses a cadential resolution at three different
points. At measure 103 harmonic and rhythmic motion continues uninterrupted,
leaving no possibility of interpreting the dominant-tonic progression at this point
44
as being cadential. A similar moment which occurs in measure 105 is perceptually
even less cadential due to the absence of an upper voice; at this point, it is clear
that the process of melodic fragmentation must continue despite the harmonic
attempts to close the phrase. Perhaps the most convincing point of cadence occurs
in measures 106-108, where a clear cadential progression begins in the bass. Two
features of the music, however, prevent this moment from serving as a point of
syntactical closure. The first is that the tonic pedal begins a bar too early, over the
cadential dominant. In addition, the tonic in bar 108 is separated from the
dominant which precedes it both thematically and registrally, causing it to sound
like a new beginning instead of a goal. In spite of the lack of unambiguous
cadential closure, though, the music in this section displays post-cadential
semiotic gestures throughout. A brief predominant prolongation in measures
105-106, followed by an expansive tonic pedal point, confirms the listener’s sense
that the piece is drawing to a close, in spite of the absence of a cadence.
What features of this piece allow Brahms to evade cadential closure, yet
still unambiguously convey the sense that this Capriccio comes to a satisfying
structural close? Except for its atypical ending, the piece displays a high degree of
harmonic and formal regularity, exhibiting symmetrical phrase divisions, a strong
sense of a harmonic center, and frequent tonal confirmation through the presence
of internal cadences. Indeed, until the conclusion of the piece, all of its structural
elements are completely normative. This regularity, combined with the strength of
the rhetorical devices associated with the final theme, suggest that this piece
45
offers an example of a situation in which unambiguous and stable tonal closure
can be achieved despite considerable weakening of the cadence at the end of a
piece. The following chapter will discuss these rhetorical means of closure and
their relationship to cadence and syntactical closure in more detail.
46
Chapter Three: Rhetorical Closure
Rhetorical devices of closure, unlike the cadential methods discussed in
the previous chapter, are non-syntactical, by which I mean that they are not
governed by functionally harmonic issues. Instead, these devices draw on the
meanings ascribed to them outside of any particular musical context, not on the
meanings created by their relationships with other musical elements. It is difficult
to separate the two types of closure, as evidenced by the frequent mention of the
rhetorical techniques of closure in the discussion of cadence. This chapter will
nonetheless attempt to isolate examples of each device in order to demonstrate
their projection of semantic meaning in both the presence and in the absence of
syntactical closure.
Semantic and Structural Functions of the Coda
The coda in Brahms’s late piano works often provides the formal space for
the exploration of semantic devices of closure after a structural conclusion has
been achieved through a cadence. In such a coda, which follows the rules of
Classical form and harmony, the coda does not create closure, but acts to confirm
it, adding a rhetorical dimension which distinguishes the final cadence of the
piece from the structurally identical internal cadences throughout the piece.
While in Classical form the coda functions purely as an ‘after the end’
confirmation which can only occur after all of the syntactical processes have
closed, this is not always the case in the late piano works. In the Brahmsian
concluding unit, dimensional counterpoint frequently creates situations where one
47
musical process remains open in spite of the closure achieved by the other
parameters. Such structural ambiguities create a contradiction between the various
functions that a unit involved in such a situation can perform. In relation to the
parameter which has closed, it is post-cadential. At the same time, though, it
serves to bring about the closure of the open element. In such cases, semantic
gestures of closure play a particularly important role in determining the listener’s
perception of the unit’s function as bring either pre- or post-cadential, as their
presence or absence can privilege one of these two possible form-functional
readings in spite of the structural ambiguity which is present.
The Rhapsodie Op. 119/4 features a classically ideal coda in which both
the harmony and the melody come to a complete and unambiguous close before
the start of the coda in measure 237. (Ex. 3-1) The extensive and virtuosic coda
which follows features almost all of the semantic gestures which are discussed in
this chapter, including subdominant emphasis, pedal points, and melodic
fragmentations. As such, this piece will serve as an example of these and other
parameters and the role within a normative coda paradigm in the discussion which
follows.
E-flat minor: IV Z II Z VII VIIl I^ II& Vs f
(Example continues on the following page)
48
E-flat: Tonic Pedal
Vs %z3 Z VI pedal [V]V
Vs (IV [V]V) V& I - Tonic Pedal
Tonic Pedal continued I IV
Tonic Pedal [VIIl] V I VI III IV I
Example 3-1:Rhapsodie Op. 119/4, mm. 230-262
49
In the Capriccio Op. 116/7, the presence of rhetorical elements minimizes
the impact of the cadential dominant’s deceptive resolution, creating a strong
sense of closure despite the lack of a true dominant-tonic resolution in all voices.
(Ex. 3-2) The cadential dominant in measures seventy-four and seventy-five,
instead of resolving to a tonic chord, moves to a second inversion VII/V chord.
D minor: IV^ VC IV V^ _% V ^ _ %
D: [VIIo]V V [VIIo]V V [V] IV [VIIo]V [VIIo]IIITonic Pedal
D: Tonic Pedal over Stepwise Seq. VC IV IX
Example 3-2:Capriccio Op. 116/7, mm. 71-92
While the resolution of the dominant to the D pedal which ensues in the bass
gives the sense that harmonic closure has been achieved, the high level of
50
chromaticism and lack of melodic closure over the tonic pedal suggest otherwise.
The music after the problematic moment of closure consists largely of oscillations
between tonicized dominants and subdominants, with equal emphasis on each,
before coming to a close on a Picardy third tonic chord. Harmony is not, however,
the principal musical factor at work in this coda; instead, Brahms uses a dense
texture, fast harmonic rhythm, and extreme registral contrasts to create a formal
unit which minimizes the harmonic and thematic content of the unit in a process
of liquidation. The arrival of melodic closure is rendered irrelevant as a multitude
of parameters (including register, dominant-tonic root motion, and dynamics)
convinces the listener that, in spite of the resolution of the cadential dominant to
its own secondary diminished seventh chord, not by any means a sanctioned
cadential progression in the Classical idiom, closure has nonetheless been
achieved without question.
This example thus suggests that the definition of the coda must be
revisited in order to accurately apply it to Brahms’s late music. Due to the
increasingly complex counterpoint of musical parameters at work in these pieces,
it is often the case that one or more processes continues its path to resolution in
the coda, even as the other musical elements articulate the rhetorical devices
which clearly express an ‘after the end’ function. This trend reflects a greater
integration of the coda into the formal design of the piece as a whole, as it comes
not only to fulfill a rhetorical function, but also to serve as a continuation of the
process of structural closure. Indeed, in the previous example, it is plausible to
51
think of the material after the cadential dominant as not being a coda at all, but as
a cadential interpolation, in which case the final tonic of the piece serves as the
delayed resolution of the cadential dominant sixteen bars earlier. As such, the
rhetorical processes which will now be discussed play an even more fundamental
part in the articulation and identification of the coda, which can no longer be
defined solely by its complete lack of structural progressions.
Subdominant Harmony and Closure
The role of the subdominant harmony in Classical paradigms is twofold: it
can perform a prolongational function due to its common tone with the tonic
chord, and it also functions as an intermediate harmony in cadential progressions
due to its common tones with both the tonic and the dominant. It primarily
performs a medial harmonic role, and rarely appears as a point of initiation or as a
goal harmony. The subdominant key area likewise serves as support for the
principal tonic - dominant conflict in the Classical sonata, where it appears as a
path to the dominant arrival of a development or as a means of prolonging tonic
and avoiding modulation in the recapitulation. In general, the nineteenth century
saw an expansion of the uses of the subdominant as an autonomous harmonic
unit; in the music of Brahms, however, it largely remains tied to its Classical
formal roles.93 While it often appears with expanded scope through extensive
tonicizations, a dominant in some form is always required, even if it appears
elsewhere in the piece. There is nonetheless an expansion of the meaning of the
52
93 There are, however, rare situations in the Classical repertoire in which the subdominant achieves a similar autonomy, such as Mozart’s piano sonata, K545. The author thanks René Daley for bringing this important point to her attention.
subdominant, if not of its function, and its association with the past, reminiscence,
and otherness is foregrounded even within normative harmonic and formal
situations.94
An unmarked use of the subdominant occurs in the coda of the Rhapsodie
Op. 119/4, in which cadences of limited scope subdivide an extensive tonic
prolongation in measures 241-262. (Ex. 3-1, p. 46) Through neighbor motion to
IV and deceptive motion to bVI, Brahms creates a coda which minimizes
harmonic motion. The harmonies present, due to their common tones with the
tonic, are purely prolongational in nature. In spite of their lack of syntactical
importance, however, these chords provide a wealth of associative meaning. The
historical association of IV with post-cadential idioms, of course, reflects the
inevitable ending of the piece. Furthermore, the progression shifts downwards in
the circle of fifths, establishing a darkening of the harmonic vocabulary and a
move away from the dominant and from goal-directed tonality. Finally, these
chords heighten the perception of the mode shift from major to minor at the end
of the piece due to their use of scale degree b6. The harmonies thus fulfill a mode-
defining function which the dominant is incapable of articulating due to its
identical composition in parallel major and minor keys.95 The subdominant’s
ability to project mode thus makes it an essential component of the Ballade’s
tragic ending.
53
94 Notley, “Plagal Harmony as Other,” 93. 95 Here, of course, I refer to the harmonic form of minor in which the leading tone is raised, thus creating a dominant chord which is identical to that of the parallel major.
Even within its limited role as a predominant chord in a cadential
progression, the subdominant can express its affective meaning. Indeed, Brahms
often emphasizes the subdominant through purely expressive means within the
syntactical and formal boundaries of the Classical style. As the Intermezzo Op.
117/1 approaches its close, the expected cadence is evaded, leading to an
archetypical ‘one more time technique’ cadential extension which begins on the
subdominant. (Ex. 3-3) While the context is typical of tonal music, the espressivo
tempo marking, sudden start of a new phrase, and sforzando dynamic place strong
rhetorical emphasis upon the return of the subdominant. This abrupt shift towards
the plagal, even within a syntactically unexceptional progression, has the effect of
momentarily suspending the forward motion, a particularly fitting gesture for a
lullaby.
E-flat: Tonic Pedal I [VII]V Is VI
Vs &6 5 IV ^ V^4 &6 5 I
Example 3-3Intermezzo Op. 117/1, mm. 49-57
54
Brahms achieves a similar effect in the Capriccio Op. 116/3. (Ex. 2-8, p.
36) As in the previous example, the subdominant achieves importance through
dynamic accentuation and temporal and registral separation from that which
precedes it. In both pieces, despite their vastly different styles, Brahms relies upon
the rhetorical meaning of the subdominant to temporarily delay the inevitable
resolution to the tonic. Agawu describes this technique as being particularly
common in the Romantic piano miniature due to its economy: through the
strategic application of a single chord, the composer clearly delineates the gesture
of closure which is about to take place.96
Plagal harmony not only serves as an affective element in the coda of the
Romanze Op. 118/5, but also serves to confirm the subordinate position of the D
major key area which threatened to overtake the tonic earlier in the piece. (Ex. 2-3
p. 29) After a perfect authentic cadence closes the A1 section on the downbeat of
measure fifty-four, a coda consisting of A-theme fragments over a tonic pedal
gives way to a tonicized subdominant. The third of the subdominant, D, is
prominently featured in the upper voice. When the subdominant resolves to the
tonic, the upper-voice motion from D to C reflects the overall position of the D
major as harmonic support for a mere upper neighbor to scale degree five in F
major. The brief coda thus summarizes the large-scale harmonic plan of the piece,
substituting the plagal harmonic for the distantly-related key of D major.
55
96 Agawu, “Concepts of Closure,” 10.
Unlike the two previous examples, complete cadential closure occurs
before the subdominant emphasis in this piece instead of being prepared and then
evaded. What then, is the purpose of these measures, beyond performing the
summarizing function described in the previous paragraph? As in the Intermezzo
Op. 117/1, a piece which is remarkably similar in character and form, Brahms
uses a plagal emphasis to delay complete closure of all the musical elements of
the piece. In each, however, the subdominant serves a different purpose within the
flow of the piece as a result of its position in relation to the cadential resolution of
the dominant. In the Intermezzo Op. 117/1, the resolution of the dominant to the
subdominant serves to increase the dramatic intensity of the moment by causing
functional harmonic motion to cease, further delaying the moment of cadential
closure. In the Romanze Op 118/5, on the other hand, the subdominant emphasis
in the coda serves to dissipate the energy of the piece through thematic
reminiscence and static tonality.
Several of the cadences problematized in the previous chapter feature
significant tonal motion to the subdominant as a means of articulating closure. A
resolution of the cadential dominant to V7/IV, as featured in the Intermezzo Op.
118/4 (Ex. 2-13, p. 40), leads to an even stronger dramatization of the tonic’s
altered role as the dominant of the subdominant. In such a case, the peripheral role
of the subdominant in the coda is compromised as it becomes a goal in its own
right instead of merely a prolongation of tonic. The subdominant in this case is
56
not only a semantic sign of closure, but a structural inevitability, necessitated by
the transformation of the tonic into a chord which requires further resolution.
In the Capriccio Op 76/2 (Ex. 2-14, p. 42), an enharmonically respelled
augmented sixth chord embellishes the final tonic pedal. Surface reinterpretations
of this chord as a dominant seventh lead to several occurrences of a distantly-
related F major harmony. The augmented sixth chord is then transformed into a
common-tone diminished seventh chord, all supported by a C-natural in the bass
voice. The bass note drops from C to B in bar 116, transforming the diminished
sonority into a secondary dominant of IV to begin the final tonic pedal of the
piece. After statements of both the major and the minor subdominant chords over
the tonic pedal, the phrase concludes on tonic with a Picardy third in the soprano.
In instances such as this piece, the subdominant plays a compensatory role, as it
retains its semantic identity even in situations of dubious or nonexistent cadential
closure.
These examples demonstrate that although Brahms primarily restricts the
use of the subdominant in accordance with the Classical paradigms, its
importance in the articulation of closure increases as the likelihood of strong
cadential closure decreases. Furthermore, due to its strong associations in both
syntactic and semantic realms, it is one of the most efficient and effective
methods of achieving closure, and it appears with varying degrees of syntactical
and rhetorical strength at the conclusion of virtually all of the late piano pieces.
57
Pedal Points and Static Harmony
The pedal point acquires an increased semantic meaning in Brahms’s
Klavierstücke. Unlike in the Classical style, where the pedal point was restricted
to peripheral areas such as after the dominant arrival in the sonata transition and
development and after the final cadence of a theme, the pedal in Brahms acquires
the capacity to define functional harmonic and formal units. While pedals retain
their strong link to post-cadential function, as evidenced by the number of coda
examples thus far which have featured tonic pedals, this section will discuss their
expanded role in the late Brahms piano works and their effects on the tonal
identity and creation of closure in a piece.
In some cases, Brahms applies pedal technique to the penultimate
dominant of the piece, creating huge expansions which delay harmonic closure.
This strategy occurs at the final cadence of the Intermezzo Op. 119/3. (Ex. 3-4)
(example continues on the following page)
58
Example 3-4:Intermezzo Op. 119/3, mm. 49 - 70
The dominant, which is initially reached in bar forty-nine, is prolonged by
neighbor motion and arpeggiation for seven measures, after which a root-position
dominant pedal persists for ten more measures before resolving to a (much
shorter) tonic pedal on the downbeat of measure sixty-six. In this piece, the
function of the pedal is thereby reversed: instead of confirming a structurally
significant harmonic arrival, it delays it. In relation to the rest of the piece, this
dominant expansion serves to compensate for the lack of key-defining dominant-
tonic motion in the first two sections of the ternary, leaving absolutely no doubt as
to the tonal center of the piece as a whole.
59
The Intermezzo Op. 117/2, on the other hand, presents a concluding
dominant pedal which problematizes issues of harmonic and thematic closure
instead of clarifying them. (Ex. 3-5)
B-flat minor: V Dominant Pedal
Dominant Pedal Continues
V I
Example 3-5:Intermezzo, Op 117/2, mm. 70-85
In this modified sonata-form movement, elements typically associated with post-
cadential material, including static harmonies and fragmentation of the theme
over a pedal, occur prematurely during the return of the second theme in the home
key. A dominant pedal in the home key of B-flat minor in measure seventy
60
accompanies a descending chromatic melodic line, leading to the return of the
second theme in bar seventy-three. The stepwise descending melody which begins
this theme, however, resembles a cadential descent from scale degree three to
scale degree one in the home key. As a result of this, the listener expects a
resolution to tonic of B-flat at this point, leading to an iteration of the second
theme in B-flat, either as a functional harmonic theme or as a coda over a tonic
pedal. This theme does occur over a pedal, but it is the ‘wrong’ pedal, as the
dominant remains in the bass throughout the theme, in spite of the numerous
opportunities provided for harmonic resolution. The dominant pedal finally
resolves to tonic in the bass in bar eighty-three, bringing the piece to a harmonic
close. In this case, the dominant pedal and lack of resolution to the tonic thus
contradict the harmonic and melodic content of the theme which is presented
above it, denying its tonal identity and formal function until the resolution takes
place. This unconventional pedal use also serves as a significant manipulation of
the beginning-middle-end paradigm. At the local level, the similarity between the
initiating unit of the second theme and the archetypical cadential melody allows
for the beginning and ending of the theme to potentially be interchangeable,
creating the possibility for disjunction between the inherent musical
characteristics and the temporal locations of the formal units. When analyzing the
large-scale form of the piece, this section of music seemingly fulfills two
functional roles: it serves an essential thematic function within sonata form,
asserting the return of the second theme in B-flat. In terms of the harmonic
61
function, however, it is an extended final dominant, prolonged through the
liquidation of the secondary theme until the tonic is at last achieved in the
concluding bars of the piece.
These two cases thus represent a departure from the typical use of pedals,
refashioning them as pre-cadential instead of as post-cadential units. To an extent,
these pedals present a conceptual schism between the harmonic and formal
elements at hand, as the static quality of the pedal impinges upon the
fundamentally dynamic character of the cadence. Pedal points by their very nature
background functional harmony, creating a disjunction between the complete lack
of motion in the bass and the continuing activity over it. To suggest that such a
static entity can participate in the creation of local cadential closure, the most
fundamental type of tonal motion, marks a significant departure from the typical
divide between prolongation and cadential units.
Thematic Return and Closure
The most common large-scale form in the Klavierstücke is the ternary; in
several pieces, however, a partial return of the B section at the end of the A
section reprise avoids the symmetry typically expected of a ternary form. Such
cases lead to important considerations regarding the creation of tonal and formal
closure in these pieces.
In the Intermezzo Op. 116/6, the return of the second theme provides an
opportunity for the melody to descend to scale degree one after the reprise of the
A theme melody fails to do so. (Ex. 3-6, next page)The A1 section closes with an
62
imperfect authentic cadence in bar fifty-six, and 4/2 motion in the bass then leads
to the return of the B section melody, harmonized by an extended cadential
progression. Due to differences in the melodic contours of the two themes, the B
theme more easily lends itself to the creation of a melodic descent to a perfect
authentic cadence, a characteristic which Brahms exploits in order to bring the
piece to a more definitive point of closure.
E: IC V I IV^ II^ CTo& V&
V&4 3 I
Example 3-6:Intermezzo Op. 116/6, mm. 55-64
In many cases, only a hint of the second theme material is necessary to
give the impression of a thematic return. The Intermezzo Op. 76/6 features two
four-bar codettas which bring back significant motives from the B section, after
both melodic and harmonic closure occur at the end of the A1 section in bar
eighty-two. (Ex. 3-7, next page)
63
A: [V^5 & ] V I$ _# Coda - tonic pedal
A: Coda: tonic pedal
Example 3-7:Intermezzo Op. 76/6, mm. 80-91
The first codetta recalls the descending line which initiates the B section, while
the second brings back the upper-neighbor post-cadential figure which closed the
theme. Both codettas occur over a tonic pedal, thus representing a tonally static
compression of the B section’s overall thematic motion.
Another such return occurs in the Intermezzo Op. 119/2. (Ex. 3-8, next
page) At the end of the A section reprise, a dominant seventh chord resolves to
tonic on the downbeat of measure 100, thus eliding the cadential closure with the
beginning of the coda. While harmonic closure occurs at this point, melodic
closure is evaded due to the presence of scale degree six in the upper voice. This
note represents the principal problematic element of the piece, an added sixth
which appears over practically every tonic harmony, pervading both the major and
the minor sections of the ternary form. After the cadence, Brahms restates
64
fragments of the B theme, itself a rhythmic and modal variation of the A theme,
over a tonic pedal. In the measures which follow, the upper-voice melody
alternates between scale degrees five and six. The melody then rests on scale
degree five in measure 103, allowing an unaltered tonic chord to end the piece.
Brahms thus exploits a return to the idealized, lyrical major-mode version of the
theme to neutralize its ever-present dissonance.
E minor: I [VII$3] V4 &3
E: I^ _ % I% _ ^ I% _ ^ I
Example 3-8:Intermezzo Op. 119/2, mm. 96-104
The Ballade Op. 118/3 does not present any large-scale formal or tonal conflicts
which must be revisited in the coda in order for the piece to come to a close (Ex.
3-9, next page). After the A theme reprise achieves normative cadential closure,
however, Brahms reopens the melody with 5-6 motion in an inner voice,
mimicking the compositional technique which he used to create the common-tone
modulation between the A and B sections of the piece. In measure 114, the B
65
section theme returns in the home key of G minor. Apart from the transposition to
the home key, the harmonic content of the theme is unaltered, as its original
alternation between the tonic and the subdominant render it equally suitable for
both presentational and post-cadential functions. The harmony of this unit thus
supports an interpretation of the cadence in measure 108 as providing closure for
the piece as a whole.
G minor: II& V I - PAC
Tonic Prolongation with 5-6 motion
Return of second theme over tonic pedal
Example 3-9:Ballade Op. 118/3, mm. 105-117
The melody of the B theme reprise ascends stepwise from scale degree one to
scale degree five, remaining there until the end of the piece. While this melodic
event is not in itself problematic, as coda units often reascend to the Kopfton of
66
the piece, the unchanged harmonic and formal context of the B theme return
suggests that the piece might not be over after all. The melodic line, which serves
as an initial ascent in its original context, could easily give way to a full reprise of
the B theme in G minor. Brahms instead cuts off this secondary theme reprise
after only two bars, ending the piece with an arpeggiation of the tonic chord. This
small melodic fragment in measures 114-115 nonetheless serves an important
formal function, as it (admittedly very briefly) allows the listener to consider two
different large-scale formal possibilities, large ternary or sonata without
development.
What are the hermeneutic and formal goals of these thematic returns?
Cone interprets such returns with an appeal to the concept of memory, suggesting
that repetition in a musical narrative represents the desire of the musical persona
to dwell upon a prior event.97 An examination of each of the examples discussed
gives credence to the interpretation of them as being idealized memories. In the
Intermezzo Op. 119/2 and in the Ballade Op. 118/3, the B themes function as
cantabile, major-mode points of rest from the agitated, minor-mode A section
themes. Their return in the home key thus represents a disjunct between the ideal
aspect of the B section melody and the present temporal reality of the minor
mode. The return in the Intermezzo Op. 116/6, on the other hand, lends itself to a
different interpretation, as the return of the somber, descending melody of the G-
sharp minor in the context of E major suggests the resolution of the conflict
67
97 Edward T. Cone, “Schubert’s Promissory Note,” 19th-Century Music 5, no. 3 (1982): 240.
originally present in the B section. These reprises also suggest an enticing
structural interpretation, as the return of the second theme in the home key can be
analyzed as a manipulation of sonata form. Through the use of this technique,
Brahms implies the compression of a full Classical sonata into the smaller
temporal space of an Intermezzo through the application of the sonata principle.
Motivic Fragmentation
Also of note are the various musical parameters which aid in the listener’s
perception of closure while remaining completely divorced from the harmonic
and formal requirements of the piece. The fragmentation and liquidation of
thematic units fits into this category, as the breaking down of melodic processes is
able to initiate a perceptual slowing of the rate of musical change both in the
presence and in the absence of cadential closure. In the conclusion of the
Rhapsodie Op. 79/1, for examples, the complex counterpoint and melodic
contours fade away, leaving behind an exploration of the perfect fourth comprised
of the pitches F-sharp and B. (Ex. 2-6, p. 32)
The Capriccio Op. 76/2 demonstrates the effectiveness of this procedure in
a piece which problematizes cadential closure. The melodic liquidation thus
serves to conventionalize the ending in relation to the beginning, creating a
gesture whose fragmentation compensates for the lack of an archetypical melodic
descent. (Ex. 2-14, p. 42) The beginning of the tonic pedal in measure 107 brings
in a fragment of the theme which initiated the final large formal section of the
piece. A one-bar fragment of the continuation follows, followed by a repetition of
68
the theme fragment transposed down an octave. The upper-voice melody is then
further fragmented into half-measure units, and the lack of melodic motion
combined with an increasingly sparse texture suggests that the music gradually
fades away.
Closure and Character
All of the parameters discussed thus far in the chapter can influence the
creation of closure regardless of the character projected by the piece. It is also
important, however, to recognize that a combination of these and other rhetorical
strategies is also responsible for creating an individualized aspect of closure
which reflects the unique character of the piece.
While each piece’s ending differs based upon the complex combination of
syntactical and rhetorical characteristics which creates it, most conclusions can be
assigned to one of two groups based on the character of the closing unit. A
recessive ending, which appears quite frequently in the late piano works, exhibits
a slowing down of both rhetorical and structural processes. Aggressive endings, a
marked element in this repertoire, feature a preservation of or even an increase in
momentum and energy in spite of the slowing of deeper-level structural processes.
The following section will briefly describe several of the parameters which
influence the articulation of recessive and aggressive piece conclusions.
The most apparent of these characteristic, omnipresent to the point that an
example is almost unnecessary, is the use of dynamics to define the ending
character of a piece. Loud dynamics, of course, convey an aggressive conclusion,
69
while soft dynamics contribute to the creation of a recessive ending. A gradual
decrease in dynamic level, along with a simultaneous reduction of texture, is the
defining characteristic of fade-out endings, such as those that occur in the
Rhapsodie Op. 79/1 (Ex. 2-6, p. 32) and in the Intermezzo Op. 119/2. (Ex. 3-8, p.
63) Dynamics possess the greatest degree of rhetorical power when they exhibit a
high degree of contrast. The conclusion of the Rhapsodie Op. 79/2 is marked
through the use of such a dynamic contrast. (Ex. 3-10)
Example 3-10:Rhapsodie Op. 79/2, mm. 116 - 123
The first seven bars of the coda feature a standard fade-out ending, defined by a
decrescendo from the fortissimo dynamic at the cadence, a lack of harmonic
motion, and a slowing of surface rhythmic activity. Just when it seems that the
piece has disappeared completely, though, two chords at a fortissimo dynamic
level, articulating a move from dominant to tonic, break the silence. While many
other parameters participate in this coda and its dramatic shift, most notably
texture and register, it is above all the dynamics which create the element of
70
surprise and allow this ending to suddenly switch from a recessive to an
aggressive mode of closure.
Like dynamics, register exhibits the most powerful tendency to participate
in the creation of closural character when a definite contrast is present, either
within the coda or between the coda and the piece as a whole. The Capriccio Op.
116/3 (Ex. 2-8, p. 36) offers a case in which register plays a role in establishing an
aggressive ending, as a standing on the dominant in the middle of the piano’s
range explodes outwards during the final extended cadential progression.
Recessive endings, on the other hand, tend to remain within the registral range
established earlier in the piece.
As discussed earlier in the chapter, post-cadential units often reascend
melodically after the structural descent provides melodic closure. While this
phenomenon occurs in both regressive and aggressive endings, the final resting
point of the upper voice at the temporal end or the piece exhibits a clear trend as
regards closure and character. Aggressive endings, such as those which conclude
the Ballade Op. 119/4 (Ex. 3-1, p. 46) and the Capriccio Op 116/3 (Ex. 2-8, p. 36)
tend to end on scale degree one, lending an emphatic sense of finality to the work.
An exception to this rule occurs in the Capriccio Op. 76/1, whose Picardy third
upper voice emphasizes the switch from minor to major in the coda. Recessive
endings offer no clear pattern with regard to this parameter. An ending on scale
degree one, often accompanied by a receding of the melodic line into an inner
voice and a cadence of limited scope, further confirms closure. For several
71
reasons though, a composer might choose to end on scale degree three or five.
Such an ending can express affective concepts such as reminiscence or doubt, can
emphasize the concluding mode of the piece, and can create a sense of open-
endedness in spite of the prior cadential closure.
In addition to these elements, many other rhetorical devices can participate
in the creation of a marked aggressive ending, including an increase in surface
harmonic activity and the introduction of virtuosic technical elements. (see Ex.
3-1, p. 46) While none of the features discussed in this section can enter into the
structural dialogue at work in a tonal composition, they are nonetheless central
participants in determining how the listener perceives closure, as the layering of
such parameters to create a recessive or aggressive character of closure is one of
the most apparent yet least analyzed aspects of compositional practice.
The Limits of Rhetorical Analysis
While the cadence and other syntactical means of closure are described at
length by music theory, with sophisticated and widely accepted methodologies in
place for their analysis, the same is not true of the semantic devices discussed in
this chapter. If these rhetorical techniques are central to the creation and
perception of closure in nineteenth-century music, then why are they so rarely
discussed in the theoretical literature? The question of how to analyze these
devices beyond an elementary process of identification and comparison remains
unanswered due to their inherent qualities.
72
The inability of the semantic elements to form hierarchies amongst
themselves precludes the creation of higher-level structures and prevents a
discussion of relationships between individual devices. Relational function does
not exist in the world of rhetoric: while chords can be described in relation to one
another with terms such as tonic and dominant, it is impossible to relate a pedal
point to a subdominant emphasis or a dynamic contrast to a motivic liquidation in
such a consistent and meaningful way. The meanings of the semantic techniques
of closure are not forged through relationships, but are static and predetermined
by compositional practice.
Another feature which problematizes the analysis of rhetorical gestures of
closure is the lack of an ideal solution, a ‘best case scenario’ for rhetorical closure.
In the syntactical realm, ideal closure manifests in the form of the perfect
authentic cadence, a clearly-defined melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic event.
Because of the precise terms which must be met in order for syntactical closure to
take place, the analyst can easily isolate and explain the composer’s manipulation
of ideal cadential closure. Such a standard does not exist for rhetorical closure, a
loosely-knit group of techniques, none of which are absolutely required for the
establishment of closure in a given musical situation.
As a result of the relatively weak framework for the analysis of rhetorical
techniques, they are almost always considered in relation to the syntactical
structure of the music. It is impossible for closure to be denied based upon the
absence of rhetorical parameters, and semantics can never override the structural
73
strength of a cadence. It is when syntactical closure is compromised, though, that
the rhetorical techniques are permitted to more directly influence the status of
closure in a piece, sometimes even replacing the cadence entirely. The following
chapter examines several of the most analytically problematic pieces in the late
Brahms repertoire in their entirety, detailing the ways in which syntactical and
rhetorical parameters can combine to either create or avoid closure.
74
Chapter Four: Analytical Case Studies
The analyses in the preceding chapters have been short and focused,
highlighting Brahms’s use of a single syntactical modification or semantic
technique in order to create closure. For many of the late piano pieces, grounded
as they are in the Classical paradigms, such an approach is sufficient. Several
others, however, do not lend themselves to such an approach, as the layers of
tonal, formal, and melodic processes which effect closure are intertwined
throughout entire pieces, making it impossible to pinpoint a particular moment or
method of closure. The following musical analyses will thus follow the progress
of pertinent musical elements over the course of the pieces, demonstrating that in
each of the pieces being discussed, a complex array of syntactic and semantic
devices creates a form of closure unique to the work, sometimes departing
completely from the Common Practice tonal norms.
Intermezzo in B Minor, Op. 119/1
The Intermezzo in B minor is on the surface a standard ternary form. A
closer examination of the harmonic structure, however, reveals that underneath
the straightforward surface formal characteristics is one of Brahms’s most
harmonically daring pieces. According to Dunsby, “acute harmonic ambiguity
prohibits the definition of a key” in the opening bars of this piece.98 The analytical
reading of this piece which follows will extend Dunsby’s reading of the opening
ambiguity to the piece as a whole, suggesting that a tension between two key
75
98 Dunsby, Structural Ambiguity in Brahms, 91.
remains in effect throughout the Intermezzo. This lack of a definitive tonal center
up to the final bars creates a situation in which an entire piece acts as a study in
the evasion of tonal confirmation and closure.
The opening bars of the Intermezzo (Ex. 4-1) present the fundamental
conflict of the piece, a blurred boundary between B minor and its relative, D
major.
B minor: I bVII III VI II Vs ; B: III VI Tonic Prolongation Bm or DM?B minor: I IV bVII III VI II Vs ; D: I IV Circle of Fifths
B: VI II & V D: II Vs ; I^ f IV HC
F-sharp: V I VII; [VIIh5] V I94 _ *3 PAC
Example 4-1:Intermezzo Op. 119/1, mm. 1-17
76
The theme presents three groups of descending thirds, creating a
functionally unclear beginning with regard to several musical parameters. This
unit is harmonically unclear, as there is not an obvious division of the chains of
thirds into autonomous chords. One possible interpretation, shown in Example
4-1, reads the first two bars as being tonic-prolongational , with I - bVII6 - III
serving as a recomposition of the common I – VII6 – I6 paradigm.
In measures three and four, however, it becomes clear that the bVII6 – III
progression is in fact part of a descending fifths sequence leading to a cadential
dominant in measure four. Taking this detail into account, it is possible to interpret
the descending thirds in the first bar as also being part of this sequence,
interpreting the harmonies present as shown in the second analysis given in
Example 4-1. These two different analyses of the opening bars represent not only
a sign of harmonic ambiguity, but also a marker of formal ambiguity. The first
reading assumes a more normative tonic prolongation, suggesting that the first
two bars represent a beginning function which then merges with a sequential
middle. In the second reading, on the other hand, the tonic chord receives no more
analytical emphasis than the chords which follow, serving merely as the first
harmony of a sequential pattern. This sequential motion, along with the steady
surface and harmonic rhythm of the passage, lends itself to an interpretation of the
unit as being a functional middle in spite of its temporal location at the beginning
of the piece. As such, Brahms manipulates the beginning-middle-end paradigm.
One shared feature of these two readings, however, is that both recognize a
77
potentially problematic half cadence at the end of bar four, in spite of the move to
a third-inversion dominant from the cadential 6/4 and the position of the dominant
as the final element of a harmonic sequence. It is equally plausible, however, to
argue that this cadential arrival is abandoned, or that the dominant resolves
deceptively to III on the downbeat of measure five. The ambiguous existence or
lack of a cadence at the end of a formal unit, like the manipulation of formal
functions, is a theme that recurs throughout the Intermezzo. These opening bars
thus present in condensed form many of the compositional ambiguities which will
determine the direction of the piece as a whole.
The second half of the antecedent, also shown in Example 4-1, features an
extensive tonicization of III, which is particularly striking due to the total absence
of dominant-tonic motion in B minor thus far in the piece. This D major
tonicization more firmly addresses the overall harmonic ambiguity of the piece,
ascribing a character of relative stability to D major and clearly contrasting it with
the tonally ambiguous B minor of the first four bars. In spite of this tonicization,
however, bar eight concludes the antecedent phrase with a half cadence in B
minor. A modified repetition of the opening materials begins the compound
consequent of the A section, and after four bars of minor dominant tonicization in
measures twelve through fifteen, Brahms reintroduces the B minor leading tone in
bar sixteen. (Ex. 4-1) This motion creates strong expectations for a resolution to a
B minor tonic chord in order to close the opening compound period. Instead, the
78
A section ends with an authentic cadence, but in the “wrong” key of F-sharp.99
The B section thus begins in the relative major without having achieved authentic
cadential confirmation of B minor. The music which follows possesses clear
triadic harmonies and complete, functional harmonic progression in D major,
clearly contrasting with the ambiguities of the A section.
The A1 section, which begins in measure forty-seven after a sequential
retransition from D major, does little to clarify the ambiguities presented in the A
section, as sequential techniques, the prevalence of medial formal functions, and
frequent alternations between the major and minor modes obscure the harmonic
and formal goals of the passage to an even greater extent than in its first iteration.
After a slightly modified repetition of the compound antecedent, with all of its
structural components intact, the compound consequent begins in measure fifty-
five, immediately diverging from its path in the A section in order to tonicize IV.
This subdominant emphasis is the first perceptual clue pointing towards the
seemingly imminent closure of the piece. This IV chord, however, does not lead
to a dominant, but is instead cut off by the return of the descending fifths
sequential pattern in measure fifty-eight. At the end of bar sixty, the sequence
reaches what appears to be a cadential dominant in D major. Instead of bringing
the promised cadence to fruition, however, the motion is abruptly cut off by the
return of the harmonically ambiguous descending thirds in measure sixty-one. In a
79
99 This section ends in the ‘incorrect key’ in relation to Brahms’s typical practice of creating strong cadential closure for the A section of a ternary piece. If one considers this section ending in relation to a Baroque binary or even a Classical sonata model, the authentic cadence in the dominant key which closes the A section is considerably more normative.
gesture reflecting the Classical ‘one more time” technique, the descending fifths
sequence returns in measures sixty-two through sixty-four, this time avoiding the
cadential dominant in D major at the end of the unit through a slight rhythmic
modification. Ambiguity is not circumvented through this modification, however,
as the final chord of bar sixty-four can be interpreted as either a predominant II
chord in B minor or as a VII dominant chord in D major. As the recomposition
provided in Example 4-2 demonstrates, the sequential material provides several
situations in which Brahms could have easily cadenced in D, thus completely
transforming the ending of the piece.
Example 4-2: Intermezzo Op. 119/1, mm. 58 - 60Recomposition of Goal Harmony
This situation, of course, does not occur. Instead, the piece concludes with a final
statement of descending thirds, transforming a motive which has represented both
functional beginnings and middles over the course of the piece into an ending
gesture. This moment is followed by an unambiguous B minor triad, the only
occurrence of such a sonority in a non-sequential situation in the entire piece.
80
Intermezzo in A Minor, Op. 118/1
The Intermezzo in A minor presents a tonally ambiguous opening which
leaves little question as to its resolution by the end. Over the course of the piece,
Brahms utilizes several closural techniques in order to convince the listener that
in spite of the piece’s deceptive beginning, the choice of A minor as the tonal
center is nonetheless valid.
The Intermezzo begins with an expanded sentence, and the presentation
consists of a chain of descending harmonic thirds which can be analyzed with
respect to three possible tonal centers. (Ex. 4-3)
C major: I VI VI IVF major: V& I& _^A minor: I& _^ VI & _^
C: IV& Fr+6 [VII&6 5 ] V97 Z 95 6 I 94 *3
(example continues on the next page)
81
C: I 94 &3 *3 A: III^ V97 I^ [VIIl] V&
Example 4-3: Intermezzo Op. 118/1, mm. 1-12
Edward Cone describes the first moments of the piece as posing a challenge to the
experienced listener.100 He claims, “Even a listener sharp enough to construe the
B-flat of measure one as a passing tone will be influenced by its structure and
hence construe the chord as a dominant substitute.” 101 It is only in the second half
of measure five, once the continuation of the theme has begun, that Brahms
introduces an element which gives precedence to one of the three possible keys.
A French augmented sixth chord in A minor is then introduced, suggesting that a
move to an E dominant chord to cadence in A minor is imminent. (Ex. 4-4)
A minor: VI Fr+6 V^4 &5 I
Example 4-4: Intermezzo Op. 118/1, mm. 5-8
Recomposition of Cadence
82
100 Edward T. Cone, “Three Ways of Reading a Detective Story - Or a Brahms Intermezzo,” in Music: A View from Delft (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 89. 101 Ibid., 89.
However, Brahms immediately thwarts this harmonic impulse, as the D-sharp
sinks to D-natural instead of rising to E, becoming the root of a secondary
dominant of V in C major, which then leads to a cadential progression in C to end
the theme, as shown in Example 4-3.
The middle section, while thematically similar to the opening bars,
immediately avoids tonal ambiguity by clearly articulating the dominant in A
minor followed by the tonic, albeit in inversion. Measures eleven through sixteen
prolong the dominant of A minor, and through a combination of modal mixture
and applied chords, the pitch C-sharp begins to play an increasingly important
role in the musical surface. As a result of this, the C natural which occupied an
essential position in the C major/A minor ambiguity of the A section is minimized,
only appearing in 6/4 chords or as a dissonant seventh in this section. Brahms
even avoids the note in the chromatic bass line ascent, shown in Example 4-5 on
the following page, which concludes the section, enharmonically reinterpreting it
as B-sharp, the leading tone of C-sharp. This ascending sequence leads to an E in
the bass, setting up the listener’s expectation for a cadence in A minor. After a III6
substitute chord for the dominant, however, the basic idea from the A section
abruptly cuts in, the displaced C-natural reclaiming its original position in the
bass. A rewritten continuation then leads to a cadence in A minor, the first
cadential confirmation of this key in the Intermezzo.
83
A minor/major: I [VIIo& ]
A: WX CTo& [V^ ] R CTo& III^ III
Example 4-5:Intermezzo Op. 118/1, mm. 13-22
Is this reprise enough to definitively establish the position of A minor as
the tonal center of the movement? Cone suggests that it is not sufficient,
suggesting that through the reprise, the listener still understands the music as
being in C major, the only key in which a cadence has occurred up to this point.
He asserts, “But then the ensuing A minor must be construed as VI, an odd
cadence for a reprise, but one that might lead to a new development. Instead, a
literal repetition [of the A section cadential formula] now raises the suspicion that
perhaps A minor was the goal all along.”102 In short, Cone sees this cadence not as
creating structural closure for the piece as a whole, but as serving to close a
functional middle. While the A minor cadence closing the A1 section begins to
confirm A minor as the overall tonal center, Cone claims that more is needed in
order to definitively establish its position in the Intermezzo.
84
102 Ibid., 88.
Brahms implicitly acknowledges the still-weak position of A minor
through the composition of an unusually long and complex post-cadential phrase
to close the Intermezzo. Featuring a recessive dynamic due to a decreased
harmonic rhythm when compared to the rest of the piece, the phrase nonetheless
features significant harmonic motion. As such, one can question the function of
this material: is it a coda, merely a confirmation of the cadence which occurred at
the end of the thematic reprise, or does it serve as background-level structural
closure for the piece as a whole? Example 4-6 demonstrates through a reduction
of this phrase that it serves as an expanded cadence in A minor with a plagal
interpolation between the cadential dominant and the tonic.
A: [V]V [VII& ]V V^4 & IVX IVC VII& _^ IX E pedal Plagal Interp. Plagal VII$3
Example 4-6: Intermezzo Op. 118/1, mm. 30-39
A final musical element which resolves over the course of the phrase is the
conflict between the pitches C and C-sharp. Measures thirty-six and thirty-seven
present a final statement of the basic idea, harmonized by a plagal VII 4/3 chord.
In the soprano voice, the C-natural appears on the downbeat, an accent passing
tone fulfilling the same role as the B-flat and G-sharp earlier in the movement, - a
non-chord tone. When the final tonic triad enters with a Picardy third, it becomes
85
clear that the C-natural which began the piece will not be allowed to play even a
subsidiary role in its conclusion.
Intermezzo in B-flat Major, Op. 76/4
The Intermezzo in B-flat offers a case in which large-scale closure is
unquestionably achieved in spite of the complete absence of an authentic cadence
in the home key. While Wallace Berry analyzes the general characteristics of the
piece in some detail in Musical Structure and Performance, the following analysis
will discuss those features which contribute to the perception of closure.103
Berry describes this piece as placing harmony at the foreground, stating
that “certain characteristics are at once evident: evasion of the primary tonic
harmony until the final close, resulting in extreme harmonic mobility through
most of the structure [and] prevalence of the dominant, chiefly in the outer
sections.”104 The overall harmonic motions of the piece emphasize a dominant-
tonic hierarchy at the background level, in spite of a complete lack of this
progression at the foreground level.
The first half of the A section consists almost exclusively of a dominant
prolongation in B-flat major, leading to a modulation to G minor which is
confirmed by a perfect authentic cadence in measure thirteen. This motion thus
creates a large-scale deceptive progression from the key area of V to the key area
of VI. After a contrasting middle in the Neapolitan key of C-flat major, the
appearance of which is similarly delayed due to an extensive dominant
86
103 Wallace Berry, “First Case: Brahms, Intermezzo in B-flat, Op. 76 No. 4,” in Musical Structure and Performance (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 61. 104 Ibid., 61.
prolongation, the dominant-prolongational material of the A section returns in
measure thirty-two. In the following A1 section, the modulation to the key area of
VI does not occur, instead replaced by the long-awaited arrival of the tonic chord
in measure forty-five. The way in which Brahms approaches this arrival, however,
is significantly different from the equivalent moment in the A section, as shown in
Examples 4-7 and 4-8.
B-flat: Z VII^ Z VII^ [VIIo$3]VI J: CTo& I^
G: V I$ _#
Example 4-7: Intermezzo Op. 76/4, mm. 8-15
Unlike in the A section, in which the G-minor tonic chord directly follows its
dominant chord, the root-position B-flat major triad arrives by way of a chromatic
descending bass line, thus precluding the home key area’s only chance at
achieving local-level cadential closure.
87
B-flat: Z VII^ CTo& IVs IVZ s VIIl I^
B-flat: II& CTo& I I IVZ
Example 4-8: Intermezzo Op. 76/4, mm. 40-47
Berry comments at length about the section of the piece which occurs after
the arrival of the tonic chord in measure forty-five, questioning its function in
light of the unusual harmonic events of the Intermezzo as a whole. Is this section
a coda, confirming that the middleground dominant-tonic key area motion is in
fact the fundamental structure of the piece? Or does it function as a essential
thematic reprise, representing an allusion to the sonata principle? Like so many
other passages in the Klavierstücke, this one embodies characteristics of both
ending and after-the-ending functions. This ambiguity can be attributed to
Brahms’s manipulation of dimensional counterpoint: while the harmonic process
of the piece ends in bar forty-five, the thematic process; namely, the return of the
second them of the A section, is still in progress. Berry hears this phrase as
fundamental to the structure of the piece, suggesting that the combination of
88
secondary theme reprise and coda serves as an “essential cadential recession
articulated in predominant elements,” a surface detail which is emphasized in
spite of the deeper-level dominant-tonic progression which has already closed.105
After the thematic reprise, the codetta consists of an upwards arpeggiation of the
subdominant chord which leads immediately to the tonic, a strongly plagal ending
which contrasts with the forward-driven harmonic motion of the piece as a whole.
This Intermezzo perhaps offers the strongest example of closure as a process
which extends over an entire piece, as Brahms completely abandons Common-
Practice local cadential closure, instead allowing all tonal confirmation to occur
solely at the background level of the piece.
Capriccio in C Major, Op. 76/8
In the Capriccio Op. 76/8, strong cadential closure is achieved in a key
that appears only peripherally in the harmonic events of earlier in the piece. The
following analysis explains why this closure is satisfying in spite of the precarious
or even nonexistent status of the key of C major throughout much of the piece.
The Capriccio begins with a G dominant seventh chord as shown in
Example 4-9 (next page), setting up expectations for a resolution to tonic
immediately thereafter. Instead of moving to a C major chord, however, the
dominant resolves to an ambiguous harmonic entity comprised of the pitch classes
C, E-flat, G, A, and F-sharp, occurring over the course of the last two beats of the
first measure.
89
105 Ibid., 71.
C major: V& CTo& [V& ]IV IV [Vk]V
C: [V& ] V 97
Example 4-9:Capriccio Op. 76/8, mm. 1-6
When analyzed with respect to the G dominant seventh chord which precedes it,
the sonority is interpreted as a back-relating applied diminished seventh chord. An
interpretation in light of the following chord, an applied dominant of F, on the
other hand, reads it as a common tone diminished seventh chord. If one looks only
at the left hand arpeggiations, a third interpretation emerges in which the G
dominant chord simply resolves as expected to a C minor chord. This seemingly
facile interpretation is problematized, however, when one takes into account the
upper voice, in which the F-natural, the seventh of the G chord, does not resolve
downwards but instead begins a chromatic ascent. This detail clarifies that the
goal harmony of the opening idea is not C; in fact, it is F, as evidenced by the
conclusion of the chromatic ascent on the pitch A. The four-bar antecedent then
90
concludes with a reinterpreted half cadence in the assumed key of C major. The
harmonic progression of the antecedent, [V] IV [V] V, will come to play an
important part in the articulation of the Capriccio’s overall structure.
The consequent phrase then modulates to the mediant key of E minor
through a reinterpretation of IV (F major) as the Neapolitan. This F major
sonority continues to actively participate in the surface harmonic activity in spite
of its position as a chromatic chord in the new key. After a series of abandoned
cadences in measures twelve through fourteen (Ex. 4-10), the E minor section
fails to achieve cadential closure and instead launches directly into a new thematic
section in the ever-present (but not yet confirmed) key area of F major.
E: II III Z II V^4 aban. VII$3 I^ Z II^
E: V4 aban. VII$3 I^ Z II^
Example 4-10: Capriccio Op. 76/8, mm. 10-15
91
The eight-bar unit which begins the following section seemingly
represents an area of relative harmonic stability, even leading to an unambiguous
cadential progression in measure twenty-two, as shown in Example 4-11. At this
point in the piece, the listener must reconsider the possibility that perhaps F
major, present in various guises throughout the piece, has been the goal tonality
all along. The cadence is then abandoned, however, and the eight-bar unit begins
to repeat sequentially in A-flat major, revealing that the apparently stable F major
theme was nothing more than a developmental core.
F: VII& I^ II& V& A pedal
F: Vs %3 I [VII& ] II V^5 I$ _# [Fr+6 V& ] II V$ _#
Example 4-11: Capriccio Op. 76/8, mm. 16-22
The A-flat major core never reaches a cadential dominant, but instead begins a
modulatory passage, leading the listener to believe that perhaps a second
modulation of the core is imminent. Instead, however, the music returns to the
secondary key of the A section, E minor, leading the listener to question the
92
validity of C major as the tonal center when a cadential progression in E occurs in
measure thirty-three. (Ex. 4-12) In a strong corrective gesture, however, Brahms
deceptively resolves the B dominant chord to a IV6 chord, beginning a chain of
descending harmonic thirds which serves as a retransition to the starting point of
the A1 section.
E: V^5 IV^ V IV^ - no cadence
Example 4-12: Capriccio Op. 76/8, mm. 32-35
The G dominant seventh chord from the beginning of the Capriccio returns on the
downbeat of measure thirty-eight, and what then follows is a massive expansion
of the [V] IV [V] V harmonic progression from the A section in bars thirty-eight
to fifty-one. At this point Brahms achieves the long-awaited cadential progression
in C major, only to abandon the cadence just as in the equivalent E minor material
in the A section, as shown in Example 4-13. (next page)
Unlike in the previous iteration, however, cadential closure is soon
attained. Emphatic statements of a I6 harmony on three consecutive downbeats
confirm the strong cadential function of the unit, and a D-flat major chord, the
Neapolitan of C, recalls the harmonic relationship between E minor and F major
which was crucial to the unfolding of the piece.
93
C major: [VII^ ] IV^ [V^5] V^4 %3 & $2
C: I^ Z VI^ CTo& I^ V& I^ Z II^ enh.
C: V& IExample 4-13:
Capriccio Op. 76/8, mm. 50-58
This use of the Neapolitan performs another essential function in that it prevents
the F major harmony, which has at several point usurped the authority of the
tonic, from playing any role whatsoever in the cadential progression. The
cadential dominant in measure fifty-six prominently features the F-natural seventh
which ascended chromatically in the opening antecedent, and on the downbeat of
measure fifty-seven, this dissonance is finally allowed to resolve. At this point,
94
both the melody and the harmony conclusively support for the first time a tonal
interpretation which has been suspected since the very first bar of the piece.
Trouble immediately emerges, however, with the return of the problematic
B-flat immediately following the cadence. While tonicization of IV and other
means of subdominant emphasis are common in Brahms’s postcadential material,
it is unadvisable to write it off as mere tonic prolongation in this case due to the
strong sense of harmonic instability created by the subdominant from the outset of
the piece. After a brief prolongation of IV, however, its secondary dominant on the
downbeat of measure fifty-nine resolves deceptively to the Neapolitan on the
following downbeat, which then gives way to a final dominant prolongation. A
final articulation of the motion from scale degree four to scale degree three in the
uppermost voice brings the phrase to a close with an imperfect authentic cadence,
once again representing the resolution of the fundamental harmonic conflict of the
Capriccio. A brief closing section consists entirely of tonic chords, and a complete
lack of F major harmony confirms that the role of the subdominant in this piece is
anything but post-cadential.
Intermezzo in E major, Op. 116/4
The final piece which will be discussed in this chapter is the Intermezzo,
Op. 116/4. While this piece has been subjected to considerable analytical scrutiny,
particularly by Dunsby and Cone, its unique harmonic and formal characteristics
lend it to the comparative discussion of closure which concludes the chapter.
Dunsby questions the Intermezzo’s claim to autonomy, citing its “lack of
95
wholeness or of excessive implication” and claiming that it serves as a
developmental middle movement for the multi-piece which is Op. 116 as a
whole.106 (177) Lewin likewise questions the structure of the piece, writing,
“What I don't like about the Brahms involves the lateness of the tonic arrival at
measure forty-five, and my feeling that the ten and a half following measures of
tonic prolongation are inadequate . . . to resolve the tension set up by the
enormous and complicated dominant elaboration up to that point.”107
It is one of Cone’s analytical claims, however, which serves as the point of
departure of the current discussion of the Intermezzo. He describes the overall
harmonic shape of the piece as puzzling, writing, “The most likely candidate for a
final cadence occurs in bars sixty-six through sixty-seven [Ex. 4-14, next page],
where the melodic line comes to rest on the tonic, but the requisite dominant
harmony is apparently subverted by the tonic pedal that has persisted since bar
fifty-five.”108 This moment thus questions the conceptual divide between
prolongational and cadential units in Brahms’s music. Is it possible to consider the
structural processes of the piece as coming to a close at this moment in spite of
the tonic pedal over which the melodic motion occurs? One can assert, of course,
that measure sixty-seven contains a true cadential dominant in spite of the non-
sustained pedal which is struck on the downbeat.
96
106 Dunsby, “The Multi-Piece in Brahms,” 171. 107 David Lewin, “Behind the Beyond: A Response to Edward T Cone,” Perspectives of New Music 7, no. 2 (1969): 64.
108 Cone, “Attacking a Brahms Puzzle,” 72.
E major: IVs I V& - E pedal
E: I Example 4-14:
Intermezzo Op. 116/4, mm. 63-71
The rest of the measure does consist, after all, completely of dominant harmony
supporting a cadential descent at the end of a thematic unit. Cone likewise
discusses a moment in the Intermezzo where the opposite problem manifests,
stating, “On the other hand, the last (indeed the only) previous authentic cadence
in E, that of bars fifty-four through fifty-five [Ex. 4-15, next page] supports no
cadential melody.”109
The final section of the Intermezzo thereby presents yet another example
of dimensional counterpoint in late Brahms, as the harmonic process of closure, as
defined by authentic cadential motion, reaches its conclusion twelve measures
before the final melodic descent.
97
109 Ibid., 71.
E: II^ V& I (no melodic rest)
Example 4-15: Intermezzo Op. 116/4, mm. 53-57
This melodic descent (Ex. 4-14, previous page) coincides with the reprise
of the third thematic unit, which began as a dominant prolongation in its first
iteration in measures thirty-seven through forty, shown in Example 4-16. This
repetition nearing the conclusion of the piece suggests that the third thematic
unit’s return also plays a role in the piece’s processes of closure, as this formerly
dominant unit reappears in tonic at this point.
E: Dominant pedal V& I
Example 4-16: Intermezzo Op. 116/4, mm. 37-41
A particularly noteworthy characteristic of this Intermezzo is its pervasive
use of pedal points, as almost half of the piece takes place over a tonic pedal.
While Ratner interprets such tonic pedals as a clear indicator of a beginning or
ending state of rest, such an interpretation is problematized by their recurrence
98
throughout the piece.110 Brahms likewise emphasizes the subdominant harmony in
this piece, particularly in the third thematic unit, a fragment of which appears in
Example 4-17. This phrase consists completely of prolongation of I through
neighbor motion to IV over a tonic pedal; in short, it possesses all of the
characteristics typically expected of a post-cadential unit. Yet this theme cannot
fulfill an after-the-end function, at least not in a foreground harmonic sense,
because cadential closure in E major has not been attained.
E: Tonic Pedal to end of theme IV^4 I IV^4
E: I IV^4
Example 4-17: Intermezzo Op. 116/4, mm. 42-57
While a discussion debating the exact point of cadential closure for the
Intermezzo such as that presented by Cone is certainly relevant to an analysis of
the piece, it is perhaps the premature arrival of rhetorical techniques of closure
which most directly relates to the current discussion of closure as process. Indeed,
99
110 Agawu, Playing With Signs, 3.
the use of predominant and pedal point techniques throughout the piece instead of
only at the end is a major factor in its projection of an ethos of timelessness and
reminiscence. In requisitioning these devices for affective purposes, Brahms strips
them of their specific structural meanings; simultaneously, however, he relies
upon an increasingly powerful tendency of such parameters to evoke a sense of
closure regardless of the absence of a cadence.
Conclusion: Closure as Process
The preceding analyses have demonstrated that Brahms’s manipulations of
tonal norms are complex and diverse experiments in which the numerous
syntactical and semantic facets of closure enter into a multitude of diverse
relationships. It is possible, however, to make some general statements concerning
the compositional tools used to effect structural closure in the pieces discussed.
The first and perhaps most apparent characteristic shared by all five of the
pieces analyzed in this chapter is their reliance upon fundamental tonal
relationships at all structural levels. This conservative use of possibilities such as
relative, parallel, and fifth-related keys ensures that a general sense of tonality is
always perceptible, even when the foreground harmonic progression of a passage
is vague or unusual. Furthermore, even when a distant tonal area provides
middleground support for a thematic section, the event is always mediated by a
more basic tonal relationship at the background level, as evidenced by the
analyses of the Romanze Op. 118/5 and the Intermezzo Op. 76/4.111 Such an
100
111 Please see page 29 for the analysis of Op. 118/5 and page 84 for the analysis of Op. 76/4.
emphasis upon basic diatonic relationships serves to provide a stable point of
reference against which ambiguities and divergences may be measured.
What, then, is the relationship between ambiguity and closure in Brahms’s
late works? A facile response would state that ambiguity must resolve in order for
closure to be established. Yet does the resolution of ambiguity actively work to
create closure, or is it simply a prerequisite for the establishment of tonal closure
by another musical process altogether?
Within each of the pieces described in this chapter, Brahms forges a
unique path from ambiguity to clarity, taking advantage of the astute listener’s
capability to ascertain both normal and deviant tonal behavior. Cone contrasts the
type of tonal ambiguity present in two of the pieces discussed, the Intermezzi Op.
76/4 and 118/1. He writes, “I have only to glance at the Intermezzo Op. 76/4 to
realize that he is perfectly capable of composing a piece that postpones the arrival
of the tonic until the last possible moment, yet never permits the slightest doubt as
to the identity of the tonic,”112 The ambiguity in this piece does not concern its
harmonic center, but the path through which it unfolds, bypassing an initial
statement of the tonic in a manipulation of the beginning-middle-end paradigm.
The fundamental question of this piece is not a matter of identity, but of timing.
Cone contrasts this structure with that of Op. 118/1, stating that the theme of the
latter, while clearly expressing a form-functional beginning, nonetheless presents
a “fundamental uncertainty as to what the tonic is.”113 The Capriccio Op. 76/8
101
112 Cone, “Three Ways of Reading,” 89. 113 Ibid., 89.
presents a similar situation in which the key area is doubtful for the majority of
the piece. The Intermezzo Op. 119/1 presents a clearly delineated struggle
between two keys; unlike the Capriccio, however, there is little harmonic
ambiguity. Instead, two contrasting sections, each unambiguously in one of the
keys, create a situation in which the norms of Classical tonal symmetry are called
into question by the presence of a clearly stronger and more stable secondary key
area. Of the five pieces discussed in this chapter, the Intermezzo Op. 116/4 is
unique in that it does not present a fundamental harmonic conflict, ambiguity, or
delay. Instead, this piece’s conflict centers around the unaligned closure of
different musical parameters. It nonetheless, like the four other pieces, derives its
structure and closure at least in part from the presence and resolution of a conflict.
This goal-directedness, common to all the late piano works, is essential to an
understanding of these pieces as completely tonal entities in spite of the
manipulation and compromising of many of the foundational principles of
tonality.
These examples also demonstrate that a discussion of closure in Brahms’s
music is further complicated by the multitude of structural and rhetorical layers
present, each of which can confirm or deny closure at any given point. In
Classical music, closure at the background level assumes that closure has also
been achieved at the surface structural levels; this is sometimes not the case in
Brahms’s music. The Intermezzo Op. 76/4, for example, articulates a large-scale
dominant - tonic progression without having ever achieved cadential closure in
102
the home key. The Capriccio Op. 76/8, on the other hand, features strong cadential
confirmation at the local conclusion, yet the background structure of the piece
does not support a recognition of C major as the overall tonic of the piece. The
layering of musical parameters to create dimensional counterpoint, as discussed in
the analyses of the Intermezzi Op. 76/4 and Op. 116/4, also plays a role in
spreading out the signs of closure across the temporal span of a piece.
A final feature which the analyses of these pieces problematize is the
identity of rhetorical devices normally associated with closure, particularly the
role of the subdominant and the form-functional definition of the coda as a purely
post-cadential structure. Through an application of these elements for affective as
opposed to structural goals, Brahms divorces them from their functional
meanings, thus creating a dissonance between the temporal and musical
characteristics of a formal unit to which such manipulations are applied.
Throughout this chapter, I have used the phrase ‘closure as process’ to
indicate that one cannot isolate a single structural level, musical parameter, or
point in time at which a piece of music comes to a complete and satisfying close.
On the contrary, many of Brahms’s piano pieces feature structural designs in
which the process of closure, no matter how it manifests itself, has its beginning
at the very opening of the piece.
103
Bibliography
Agawu, Kofi. “Ambiguity in Tonal Music: A Preliminary Study.” In Theory, Analysis and Meaning in Tonal Music, edited by Anthony Pople, 86-107. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
_____. “Concepts of Closure and Chopin’s Opus 28.” Music Theory Spectrum 9 (1987): 1-17.
_____. Music as Discourse: Semiotic Adventures in Romantic Music. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
_____. Playing with Signs: A Semiotic Interpretation of Classic Music. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991.
Anson-Cartwright, Mark. “Concepts of Closure in Tonal Music: A Critical Study.” Theory and Practice 32 (2007): 1-17.
Armengaud, Jean-Pierre. “L’intermezzo chez Brahms: la tragédie de la mélodie et la renaissance du son.” Ostinato Rigore 10 (1997): 137-47.
Barry, Barbara R. “In Search of an Ending: Reframing Mahler's Contexts of Closure.” Journal of Musicological Research 26, no. 1 (2007): 55-68.
Berry, Wallace. “First Case: Brahms, Intermezzo in B-flat, op. 76, no. 4.” In Musical Structure and Performance, 45-82. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.
Burstein, L. Poundie. “Unraveling Schenker's Concept of the Auxiliary Cadence.” Music Theory Spectrum 27, no. 2 (2005): 159–85.
Cai, Camilla. “Forms Made Miniature: Three Intermezzi of Brahms.” In The Varieties of Musicology: Essays in Honor of Murray Lefkowitz., edited by John Devario and John Ogasapian, 135-50. Warren, MI: Harmonie Park Press, 2000.
Caplin, William E. “The Classical Cadence: Conceptions and Misconceptions.” Journal of the American Musicological Society 57, no. 1 (2004): 51-118.
104
_____. Classical Form: A Theory of Formal Functions for the Music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Cone, Edward T. “Attacking a Brahms Puzzle.” Musical Times 136, no. 1824 (1995): 72-77.
_____. “Schubert’s Promissory Note: An Exercise in Musical Hermeneutics.” 19th-Century Music 5 (1982): 233-41.
_____. “Three Ways of Reading a Detective Story - Or a Brahms Intermezzo.” In Music: A View From Delft, 77-93. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.
Cook, Nicholas. “The Perception of Large-Scale Tonal Closure.” Music Perception 5, no. 2 (1987): 197-206.
Dahlhaus, Carl. Between Romanticism and Modernism: Four Studies in the Music of the Later Nineteenth Century. Translated by Mary Whittall. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980.
_____. Nineteenth-Century Music. Translated by J. Bradford Robinson. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989.
Delaere, Mark. “Et ils vecurent encore longuement et heureusement: La fonction de la coda dans quelques oeuvres instrumentales de Brahms.” Ostinato Rigore 13 (1999): 45-66. Dubiel, Joseph. “Three Contradictory Criteria in a Work by Brahms.” In Brahms Studies, edited by David Brodbeck, 81-110. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994.
Dunsby, Jonathan. “The Multi-Piece in Brahms: Fantasien Op. 116.” In Brahms: Biographical, Documentary, and Analytical Studies, edited by Robert Pascall, 167-89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
_____. "Schoenberg on cadence." Journal of the Arnold Schoenberg Institute 4, no. 1 (1980): 41-49.
_____. Structural Ambiguity in Brahms: Analytical Approaches to Four Works. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1981.
105
Frisch, Walter. Brahms and the Principle of the Developing Variation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.
_____. “Brahms: From Classical to Modern.” In Nineteenth-Century Piano Music, edited by R. Larry Todd, 356-94. New York: Routledge, 1990.
Hatten, Robert S. “Interpreting Deception in Music.” In Theory Only 12, no. 5-6 (1992): 31-50.
Hopkins, Robert G. Closure and Mahler's Music: The Role of Secondary Parameters. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990.
Jordan, Roland and Emma Kafalenos. “The Double Trajectory: Ambiguity in Brahms and in Henry James.” 19th-Century Music 13, no. 2 (1989): 129-44.
Kramer, Jonathan D. “Beginnings and Endings in Western Art Music.” Canadian University Music Review 3 (1982): 1-15.
Kramer, Lawrence. “The Mirror of Tonality: Transitional Features of Nineteenth-Century Harmony.” 19th-Century Music 4, no. 3 (1981): 191-208.
Lewin, David. “Behind the Beyond: A Response to Edward T. Cone.” Perspectives of New Music 7, no. 2 (1969): 59-69.
_____. “Brahms, His Past, and Modes of Music Theory.” In Brahms Studies: Analytical and Historical Perspectives, edited by George Bozarth, 13-27. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Mahrt, William Peter. “Brahms and Reminiscence: A Special Use of Classical Conventions.” In Convention in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Music: Essays in Honor of Leonard G. Ratner, edited by Wye J. Allanbrook, Janet M. Levy, and William P. Mahrt, 75-112. Stuyvesant, NY: Pendragon Press, 1992.
Meyer, Leonard B. Emotion and Meaning in Music. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956.
_____. Explaining Music: Essays and Exploration. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973.
106
_____. Style and Music: Theory, History, and Ideology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989.
Notley, Margaret. Lateness and Brahms: Music and Culture in the Twilight of Viennese Liberalism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
_____. “Plagal Harmony as Other: Asymmetrical Dualism and Instrumental Music by Brahms.” Journal of Musicology 22, no. 1 (2005): 90-130.
Ratner, Leonard G. Classic Music: Expression, Form, and Style. New York: Schirmer, 1985.
Rink, John. “Opposition and Integration in the Piano Music.” In The Cambridge Companion to Brahms, edited by Michael Musgrave, 79-97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Rosen, Charles. The Classical Style: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven. New York: Norton, 1971.
Sadie, Stanley, ed. The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. London: Macmillan, 2001: s.v. Brahms, Johannes (by George S. Bozarth and Walter Frisch).
Schoenberg, Arnold. “Brahms the Progressive.” In Style and Idea, edited by Leonard Stein, 398-441. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975.
_____. Fundamentals of Musical Composition. London: Farber and Farber, 1967.
Smith, Peter H. Expressive Forms in Brahms’s Instrumental Music. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005.
Snarrenberg, Robert. “The Play of ‘Différance’.” In Theory Only 10, no. 3 (1987): 1-25.
Stein, Deborah. “The Expansion of the Subdominant in the Late Nineteenth Century.” Journal of Music Theory 27, no. 2 (1983): 153-80.
107
