five

Brahms and the Shifting Barline:

Metric Displacement and
Formal Process in the Trios
with Wind Instruments
Peter H. Smith
R
ecent discussions of the technique called developing variation
and its exemplication in Brahmss music often emphasize the
role of metric irregularities in the composers thematic pro-
cesses. Both Walter Frisch and David Epstein have extended Schoen-
bergs insights by moving beyond metric issues on the phrase level
to consider the impact of Brahmss rhythmic invention on the overall
shape of a piece. The present study explores motivic-metric process via
passages fromtwo Brahms works: the rst movements of the Horn Trio,
op. 40 (1865), and of the Clarinet Trio, op. 114 (1891). These pieces
provide an ideal context in which to build on Frischs and Epsteins
work on rhythmic aspects of developing variation. The trios are prof-
itably approached through a synthesis of their ideas with David Lewins
insights into the relationship of harmony and meter in Brahms as well
as with Harald Krebss and Richard Cohns recent explorations of the
topic of metric dissonance.
1
An earlier version of this essay was read at the annual meeting of the Society for Music Theory
in Phoenix in 1997 and at the annual meeting of Music Theory Midwest in Northeld mn
in 1997. I wish to thank Michael L. Friedmann, Robert P. Morgan, and Margaret Notley for
their critical comments on a preliminary draft.
1. See Walter Frisch, Brahms and the Principle of Developing Variation (Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1984), passim, and The Shifting Bar Line: Metrical Displacement in
Brahms, in Brahms Studies: Analytical and Historical Perspectives, ed. George S. Bozarth (Ox-
{191}
Example 5.1: Horn Trio, 1st mvt., mm. 17.
The rhythmic technique that will be my chief concern is metric
displacement or what Krebs calls type B dissonance.
2
The opening phrase
of the Horn Trio, shown in ex. 5.1, provides a paradigmatic example.
The passage typies the complexity of Brahmss rhythmic invention: the
material is markedbothby signs of metric displacement andby cues that
do indeed signal the notated meter. Though choosing a primary metric
pattern may lead to interpretive insights, it is nevertheless important to
recognize the bivalence of metric cues. With respect to displacement,
the appoggiatura character of the rst eighth note in the phrases basic
ford: Clarendon, 1990), 13963; David Epstein, Beyond Orpheus: Studies in Musical Structure
(Cambridge ma: mit Press, 1979), 16276; David Lewin, On Harmony and Meter in
Brahmss Op. 76, No. 8, Nineteenth-Century Music 4 (1981): 26165; Harald Krebs, Fantasy
Pieces: Metrical Dissonance in the Music of Robert Schumann (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1999), passim, Some Extensions of the Concepts of Metrical Consonance and Dissonance,
Journal of Music Theory 31 (1987): 99120, and Robert Schumanns Metrical Revisions,
Music Theory Spectrum 19 (1997): 3554; and Richard Cohn, The Dramatization of Hyper-
metric Conicts in the Scherzo of Beethovens Ninth Symphony, Nineteenth-Century Music
15 (1992): 188206, and Metric and Hypermetric Dissonance in the Menuetto of Mozarts
Symphony in G Minor, K. 550, Intgral 6 (1992): 133. Also relevant to the topic of metric
displacement is David Lewin, Vocal Meter in Schoenbergs Atonal Music, with a Note on a
Serial Haupstimme, In Theory Only 6 (1982): 1236.
2. Krebs contrasts metric displacement with hemiola-style conicts, which he labels type A
dissonance (Some Extensions, 1035). In Schumanns Metrical Revisions, he puts aside
the type A and type B labels in favor of the descriptive terms grouping and displacement disso-
nance. He borrows these terms from Peter M. Kaminsky, Aspects of Harmony, Rhythm, and
Form in Schumanns Papillons, Carnaval, and Davidsbndlertnze (Ph.D. diss., University
of Rochester, 1989), 27. Lewin and Cohn focus on grouping dissonances in the analytic
essays cited in n. 1 above. They both extend the concept to multiple hypermetric levels.
{192}
brahms and the shifting barline
idea makes the beginning of each motivic repetition sound metrically
strong; the placement of the piano chords enforces the metric shift,
as does the swell that leads to the melodic arrival on F in m. 7. Yet,
if the accompaniment is heard as an echo of or a response to the
violins notated downbeats, then the written meter suddenly becomes
more convincing. In this hearing, the eighth-note pairs lead ahead to
the quarter notes, which receive stress through agogic accent. Nor do
later statements of the material solve the quandary. Rather, as we might
expect inBrahms, ambivalence becomes a source of development. Score
annotations in ex. 5.2 highlight additions to two restatements that
contribute to a heightened perception either of the metric shift, on
the one hand, or of the notated meter, on the other.
3
These excerpts illustrate several concepts of general applicability
to the topic of metric displacement. First, though it is often possible
to argue for a predominant accent pattern, we should be ready to
acknowledge the coexistence of multiple rhythmic impulses. Second,
the reciprocal relationship between performance and metric interpre-
tation should not be underestimated. Nuances of tone, dynamics, and
phrasing can have a decisive impact on the projected accent pattern
of a metrically ambiguous passage. At the same time, a performers
reading of metric cues in the score has a seminal inuence on the entire
complex of physical activity that creates an expressive performance.
The question of whether a performer should articulate the notated
meter in the face of conicting signals, or should allow the signs of
displacement to dominate, remains open. The answer will depend on
the particular musical context as well as on the performers own taste,
style, and interpretation. What is clear is that a discussion of metric dis-
placement implicitly engages performance issues in addition to matters
of structure and aural experience.
Another point that will emerge is that the impact of a metric dis-
placement depends on its position in the larger form and, indeed,
on the formal type itself. Reciprocally, a shifting barline will inuence
both local and large-scale formal relationships. Frisch notes a tendency
3. The metric bivalence of the theme resonates beyond the rst movement. The Adagio
mesto slides the material onto the downbeat of its
6
8
meter and reinterprets it as the second
thematic idea in an A B A' ternary form (m. 19). The new position of the theme in relation
to the notated meter supports the idea of a metric shift for the original version in the rst
movement. The
6
8
reinterpretation nevertheless introduces its own set of conicting metric
signals.
{193}
Example 5.2: Horn Trio, 1st mvt.: a, mm. 6169; b, mm. 13846.
in Brahms for metric shifts to occur both toward the end of sonata-
form exposition and at the overlap that he often fashions between
the development and the recapitulation.
4
I hope to contribute to an
appreciation of Brahmss rhythmic genius by shifting attention away
from metric displacement as an attribute of formal culmination and
exploring instead characteristics and consequences of the technique
as a premise for formal departure. I will also highlight the reciprocal
relationship between a movements overall form and the character
of its metric processes. These motivations provide a rationale for a
pairing of the two trios. The Clarinet Trio, like the Horn Trio, raises
a metric issue at the outset; the two movements, however, adapt the
technique of metric displacement to different formal types: rondo in
the case of op. 40, sonata form in the case of op. 114. Because we
have already begun to look at the Horn Trio, it will be convenient to
continue with it before moving on to the clarinet work. In addition
4. Frisch discusses both locations for metric displacement in Metrical Displacement in
Brahms.
{194}
brahms and the shifting barline
to relationships between form and meter, the analyses will address the
following topics: the intimate bond that Brahms often forges between
metric displacement and harmonic function; the interaction of metric
shifts with Knpftechnik; and the role that rhythmic dissonance plays in
creating extensive tonal delay. The trios also provide an opportunity
to extend the concept of prolongation into the metric dimension and
to explore the idea of motivic dissonance and resolution in Brahmss
thematic processes. Let us begin with the role of metric displacement
as a constituent of formal articulation in the Horn Trio.
i
Example 5.3 presents a global view of the form. Score excerpts illustrate
thematic relationships and the pattern of metric shifts; roman numerals
indicate the main prolonged harmonies for each section. Before mov-
ing into analytical details, it is necessary to make two preliminary ob-
servations. First, the formal analysis is based on an interpretation of the
opening theme as metrically shifted; the material is labeled [x] or [x']
throughout ex. 5.3. Emphasis on metric displacement is not intended
to deny the internal ambivalence of the material, which is certainly
important to its expressive character. Rather, I simplify, in favor of what
I regard as the predominant accent pattern, in order to facilitate access
to larger issues. Over the course of the analysis, information will accu-
mulate to support the idea of a metric shift, though there will also be a
place in my interpretation for cues that signal the notated barlines. The
second preliminary point relates to issues of formal organization. The
movement is a special type of ve-part rondo in which the two episodes
consist of the same thematic material. (This is why ex. 5.3 presents
an excerpt only from the rst episode.) Brahms uses a similar form on
several other occasions; examples include the second movements of the
F-Major Viola Quintet, op. 88, and the A-Major Violin Sonata, op. 100,
and the third movement of the Second Symphony, op. 73. The Horn
Trio, however, is the only instrumental cycle that begins with this type
of rondo; indeed, Brahmss rst movements are otherwise all in sonata
form. In the second movements from the quintet and the violin sonata,
it is not absolutely clear until the nal cadence whether the tonic of the
refrain or of the episodes is primary.
5
In the Horn Trio, the primacy of
E
b
is never in doubt. Instead, a conict between displaced and notated
5. In the quintet, the tonic of the B section, A, wins out over the C
#
of the A section. In the
violinsonata, it is just the opposite; the F tonic of the Asectionwins out over the Dtonic of the
{195}
peter h. smith
meters creates the high-level dissonance that remains unresolved until
the nal refrain. It is this metric dissonance along with what we will
soon see is an associated harmonic instability that perhaps allows the
rondo to substitute for a sonata form as rst movement.
I will return shortly to the issue of rhythmic dissonance and reso-
lution. First, it is necessary to explore the relationship of meter and
form throughout the body of the rondo; we will then be in a position to
appreciate the climactic impact of the metric reconciliation toward the
endof the movement. Of special interest is the correspondence between
metric change andpatterns of primary andsecondary thematic material
on multiple formal levels. The most obvious example of metric-formal
correspondence is the change from
2
4
in the refrain to
9
8
in the episodes.
Along the lines of the analogy that Lewin makes between tonal and
rhythmic structure, we can speak of
2
4
as a tonic meter,
9
8
as a nontonic
meter, and the change as a modulation.
6
Within the refrain itself, meter
plays a similar role in formal articulation. In terms of harmonic-metric
relations, however, it is important to observe that the motion out of
the tonic key for the episodes corresponds to the more extreme form
of metric modulation. Within the tonic area, a simple displacement of
the two-beat module coordinates with shifts in harmonic function. The
pattern of shifted
2
4
aligned
2
4
shifted
2
4
complements Brahmss reversal
of the standard IVI layout for the small ternary form of the refrain.
The shifted
2
4
of the A section is dissonant against the notated barlines
and requires resolution through alignment, just as the materials domi-
nant prolongation needs to resolve to an opening structural tonic. Both
aspects of resolution converge at the structural downbeat that initiates
the B section at m. 29.
7
With these details in mind, it is possible to
B section. For a discussion of the quintet movement and its possible relationship to Chopins
Ballade, op. 38, see Kevin Korsyn, Directional Tonality and Intertextuality: Brahmss Quintet
op. 88 and Chopins Ballade op. 38, in The Second Practice of Nineteenth-Century Tonality, ed.
WilliamKinderman and Harald Krebs (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1996), 4583.
Margaret Notley analyzes the violin-sonata movement in Brahmss Chamber-Music Summer
of 1886: AStudy of Opera 99, 100, 101, and108 (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1992), 82107.
6. Lewin, On Harmony and Meter. Lewin identies tonic, subdominant, and dominant
meters in the rst part of Brahmss Capriccio, op. 76, no. 8. The situation is more complex
than the metric-harmonic relations in the Horn Trio because the different accent patterns
involve hemiola structures on hypermetric levels.
7. Lewin (Vocal Meter in Schoenbergs Atonal Music, 12 n. 1) notes the dual aspects
of resolution at m. 29. The absence of metric shifts within the B section creates another
{196}
brahms and the shifting barline
rene the concept of a tonic meter:
2
4
is the overall accent pattern for
E
b
as a key; within the E
b
area, Brahms modulates between dominant
(displaced) and tonic (aligned) meters.
Although the analysis has thus far made the correspondence of
dominant prolongation and displaced meter appear straightforward,
extension of the concept of dissonance into the metric dimension
requires clarication. It is also important to explain why the A and
A' sections are governed by the shifted meter despite the presence of
subsections that do in fact articulate the notated barlines. Because the
movement begins in the shifted
2
4
meter, one might question attribution
of dissonant character to the rhythmic dimension. One hint of met-
ric instability is the aforementioned ambivalence of the [x] material.
The internal conict an example of what Krebs calls direct rhythmic
dissonance makes the dominant meter somewhat more analogous
to an opening prolongation of V
7
rather than a straight dominant.
8
Though an initial V
7
may be locally in control, it nevertheless remains
unstable; a dominant without the seventh, on the other hand, might be
mistaken for a tonic. A still better analogy, perhaps, is to a passage that
hovers betweenlight tonicizations of the dominant andreinterpretation
of V as a chord directed toward tonic resolution. At those moments
where the shifted meter seems more convincing, we experience a toni-
cization of the displacement. Hints of the notated meter, on the other
hand, undermine the local stability.
9
Another factor that creates rhythmic tension is the metric shift
parallelism between formal articulation on the level of the refrain and on the level of the
movement as a whole. Middle sections on both the A B A' level and on the refrain-episode-
refrain level are metrically stable and articulate the notated meter. In contrast, both the A
sections and the refrain statements contain internal alternation between metric consonance
and dissonance.
8. Krebs, Some Extensions of the Concepts of Metrical Consonance and Dissonance, 105.
9. For some listeners there may be no internal conict. In the case of a listener who
unambiguously hears the notated meter, the second-beat emphasis never achieves the status
of metric tonicization; it remains a syncopation. On the other hand, a listener who hears an
unchallenged metric displacement will only retrospectively become aware of the off-tonic
status of the rhythmic point of departure. For the performers, however, there will always be
an element of what Krebs calls subliminal dissonance (Some Extensions, 106). The pianist,
e.g., will see the notated meter even as he or she executes an accompanimental pattern that
is oriented around the second beats. The tension that the pianist feels from this dichotomy
will most likely be projected in the performance and thus will contribute to the listeners
perception of direct dissonance.
{197}
Example 5.3: Horn Trio, 1st mvt., formal outline.
{198}
Example 5.3: continued
{199}
Example 5.4: Horn Trio, 1st mvt., mm. 1620.
between the A sections subunits an example of Krebss indirect disso-
nance. The middle or [y] section, which appears in ex. 5.4, repositions
the neighbor motive so that it temporarily corresponds with the no-
tated meter: the melodic leaps, articulation slurs, and dynamic swells
create metric accents on each downbeat. The realignment provides the
strongest clue yet that metric displacement will emerge as a structural
component. It also retrospectively solidies attribution of a metric shift
to the opening phrase by conrming the appoggiatura character of
the neighbor motive. The question of which accent pattern is primary,
however, remains open until the tonic resolution at m. 29. Indeed, until
then, the displacedmeter wouldappear totake precedence: not only is it
the rst tobe heard, but it is alsothe accent patternthat is associatedwith
more stable and expository thematic material. The formal emphasis on
displacement allows us to view mm. 128 as governed by a metric shift.
The articulation of the notated meter by the [y] section is subsidiary to
the displacedmeter that frames it, inthe same way that a tonic resolution
can function as part of a dominant prolongation. Thus, it is only at the
structural downbeat of m. 29 that we fully realize the dissonant status
of the dominant meter. From the vantage point of m. 29, the notated
meter takes priority because it is associated with tonic resolution. A bit
later, I will reconsider the prolongational relationship between tonic
and dominant meters in the context of the entire refrain.
Although the analysis has established the control of the dominant
meter within the A section, the task remains to explore rhythmic rela-
tionships at the return of the material toward the end of the refrain.
Example 5.5 reproduces the A' restatement along with the end of the
{200}
Example 5.5: Horn Trio, 1st mvt., mm. 5176.
{201}
Example 5.6: Horn Trio, 1st mvt., mm. 176, middleground (left).
Example 5.7: Horn Trio, 1st mvt., mm. 185,
alternative middleground (right).
B section. The metric situation is a bit more complex because Brahms
no longer provides a frame surrounding the [y] phrase. The displaced
meter nevertheless remains primary. Brahms cuts the rst [x] statement
and creates a formal overlap. The [y] material functions in two ways:
it begins to signal large-scale return, but it also extends the notated
meter, parallel-minor inections, and triplet eighth-note pattern of the
B section. The parallelism between m. 55 and m. 58 also contributes to
continuity across the formal units. A fuller sense of return emerges at
the entrance of the opening theme withits shift back to displaced meter,
parallel major, and expository thematic material.
10
The association of
metric displacement with resolution of the formal overlap establishes
the dominant meter as the mainaccent patternfor the A' section, similar
to the situation in the opening A statement.
Now that we have an idea of the refrains formal and metric organiza-
tion, we are in a position to interpret its tonal structure. One plausible
middleground appears in ex. 5.6. The graph responds to the sense
of release at the structural downbeat of m. 29. Indeed, it interprets
this articulation as the opening structural tonic for the movement as
a whole. (The graph includes the foreground details of bergreifung in
mm. 2933 to help readers orient their ears around G as Kopfton.) The
refrains formal reversals, however, can be marshaled in support of the
competing interpretation in ex. 5.7. The idea that the A and A' sections
prolong a single V Stufe might seem odd in the light of the structural
10. The focus on the parallel major is short-lived. Note the return of C
b
and G
b
beginning
in m. 66.
{202}
brahms and the shifting barline
downbeat. But there are several factors that make the tonic resolution
less than satisfactory. First, the structural downbeat lacks complete met-
ric stability, as outlined in ex. 5.8. Attention to Brahmss Knpftechnik
reveals that, even at the point of resolution, the weight of emphasis
continues to gravitate toward the second beat. The continuation of the
metric shift in the accompaniment all the way up to the cadence makes
the half notes in the horn sound syncopated. It is true that the entrance
of the same melodic line in the piano at m. 29 begins to articulate the
notated meter. Yet the potential to hear the thematic entrance as an
imitation of a syncopation somewhat obscures its metric identity. The
indecision at m. 29 is heightened by the absence of a downbeat attack
in all other parts, in favor of motion to the second beat.
11
The fact that the B section spends very little time solidifying the res-
olution raises further doubts about its resolving force. As ex. 5.9 shows,
the rst tonal goal of the B material is a half-cadential dominant (m.
37), followed immediately by a modulation to G
b
major. The tonicized
b
III is itself a temporary goal on the way to an arrival back on V. Under
more conventional circumstances, resolution of this dominant would
form a strong prolongational connection back to a big opening tonic.
Instead, Brahms remains on V and reestablishes a connection with the
opening dominant through the return of the A material. This part of
my argument about the predominance of V is similar to the support
that I offered in favor of the shifted meter for the A section. On the
11. This interpretation presumes a conservative listener, i.e., a listener who hangs on to
a previously established metric framework for as long as possible in the face of conicting
signals. A radical or exible listener will be more inclined to adjust immediately to the
articulation of the notated meter at m. 29 or even as far back as the shift to half notes in
the horn. The conservative/radical distinction is Andrew Imbries ( Extra Measures and
Metrical Ambiguity in Beethoven, in Beethoven Studies, ed. Alan Tyson [New York: Norton,
1973], 4566). It is interesting toobserve that the accompaniment continues todeemphasize
downbeats throughout the Bsection. The articulationof the notatedmeter by the melody and
the harmonic rhythm, however, denes the second-beat emphasis as a (light) syncopation
rather than as a metric shift. One way to think of the syncopation, however, is as a motivic
residue of the A sections displaced meter. The relationship becomes more explicit when
Brahms retains the rst two triplet eighths of the B sections accompaniment pattern as part
of the accompaniment in the A' section (see m. 61). The lightness of the structural downbeat
at m. 29 can be set in relief by comparison with the rst big tonic arrival in the Second
Symphony another piece that begins with a long anacrusis passage. In the symphony, the
structural downbeat (m. 44) is articulated by attacks in all voices present. Brahms further
locks in the tonic through a D pedal in the rst part of the ensuing phrase (mm. 4450) and
another VI resolution at the forte arrival that initiates the transition (mm. 5859).
{203}
Example 5.8: Horn Trio, 1st mvt., mm. 2132.
Example 5.9: Horn Trio, 1st mvt., mm. 156, middleground bass.
larger formal level, however, it is not only the notated meter but also
a tonic prolongation that is formally framed. It is true that the tonic
eventually reenters at the end of the A reprise in the passage shown in
ex. 5.10. Yet Brahms adds an extra quarter note to the nal phrase so
that the cadential tonic remains trapped within the dominant meter
(cf. m. 71 with m. 27). The thin texture, senza ritard, and the shift
to D in the bass (m. 75) help sustain the tension of the dominant
{204}
Example 5.10: Horn Trio, 1st mvt., mm. 6576.
prolongation until the entrance of the violin leads ahead to a new
form of dominant emphasis in the episode. Thus, just as we can view
the dominant harmony and shifted meter as predominant within the A
section, so too can we interpret themas the prolonged harmonic-metric
complex for the refrain as a whole.
12
12. Interpretations that hear through strong tonic articulations in favor of alternative
prolongational connections are not without precedent in the Schenkerian literature. This
is the case even on occasions in which the tonic-oriented interpretation would result in
a graph that is both more conventional and more easily defended. One example is Carl
Schachters analysis of the Larghetto movement of Mozarts C-Minor Piano Concerto, K. 491,
in Either/Or, in Schenker Studies, ed. Hedi Siegel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1990), 17375. Another is Schenkers analysis of the rst movement of Beethovens A-Major
PianoSonata, op. 2, no. 2, inFree Composition, trans. anded. Ernst Oster (NewYork: Longman,
1979), g. 1005. Schachter argues for a middleground structure that bypasses the tonic at
the rst return of a rondo refrain in favor of a large-scale VIIV progression between the
{205}
peter h. smith
The search for a satisfactory tonic is an issue that Brahms develops
across the movement. We see this both in the rst return of the refrain
and in the two episodes. As previously mentioned, the quest for metric-
tonal stability creates an issue of large-scale dissonance that allows the
Andante to substitute for sonata form in the rst position of the cycle.
In the refrain, Brahms heightens the dominant emphasis by cutting the
B section, as outlined in ex. 5.3; the only potential structural tonic is
the equivocal I chord at the nal cadence. The cut of the B material
retrospectively supports the idea that dominant prolongation is the
refrains essential harmonic and metric characteristic. The same kind of
tonal instability characterizes the episodes, where the contrasting keys
express themselves via dominant prolongation.
13
In summary, Brahms
has created a highly unusual rondo. His refrain is characterized by
formal reversals that serve to prolong dominant harmony and a dis-
placed meter. His episodes, in turn, function as a kind of variation on
this dominant emphasis. The rst return of the refrain rather than
providing some relief only serves to heighten the instability. It is even
possible to consider a yet more global level of formal reversal: though
the refrain and its rst return function as primary formal sections, they
rst and the second episodes. Schenker relegates the tonicized dominant of a sonata-form
exposition to a lower level than the connection he hears between the tonic of the rst key
area and the
n
III of the development. A study that takes as its main focus these types of
design/structure conicts is Timothy L. Jacksons The Tragic Reversed Recapitulation in
the German Classical Tradition, Journal of Music Theory 40 (1996): 61111.
13. Though a detailed look at the episodes falls beyond the scope of this study, we can at least
take a brief look at the thrice-repeated cadential phrase toward the end of the contrasting
material. The passage, in both G-minor and B
b
-minor versions, stands as an exemplar of
dominant/tonic ambivalence transferred to the episode. In the G-minor version, the D
dominant clearly governs mm. 10916. (The analogous material in the B
b
-minor version
appears in mm. 17885.) The question is, Does this dominant resolve at m. 117, or do we
have a half-cadential arrival followed by a fresh beginning on the tonic? It is certainly possible
to hear a shift to tonic prolongation. But the decrescendo and articulation slur at the end of
the dominant create a slight break before the tonic entrance. The tonic itself enforces the
sense of interruption with a crescendo that leads ahead to the new dominant preparation in
m. 118. In other words, Brahms creates a kind of tonal merry-go-round with each repetition
of the progression: in the approach to the cadences, we expect that the dominant will nally
resolve; but each tonic immediately becomes part of an anacrusis to another arrival back
on V. When Brahms nally breaks out of the circle, he treats 1 as a passing tone within an
extension of the dominant (m. 125). The absence of a nal resolution retrospectively tips the
scales in favor of V as the prolonged harmony for the entire section. Indeed, V/G connects
directly to the V/E
b
(m. 127) that prepares the rst return of the refrain.
{206}
brahms and the shifting barline
emphasize rhythmic dissonance rather than stability. Their framing of
the episodes metric consonance prolongs the dominant meter across
the body of the movement, similar to the situation on the A B A'
and [x][y][x'] levels. The result is an overwhelming sense of open-
endedness within a formal type that we normally think of as sectional.
A heavy burden thus falls on the nal refrain: it not only must bring
about closure but also must resolve tonal-metric dissonance that has
accumulated across the movement. Brahms characteristically stretches
out the process of resolutionandwaits as long as possible tosurrender to
a closing tonic. The denouement is noteworthy for the way in which the
[y] material breaks free from its metric subservience and helps bring
the [x] theme in line with the notated meter. The nal refrain both
corrects the original dissonant prolongation of the A section and puts
to rest the indirect and direct rhythmic conicts between the [x] and
the [y] sections.
The complexity of the resolution process motivates a signicant
recomposition of the refrain. The nal version appears in ex. 5.11;
the rightmost column in ex. 5.3 summarizes the main additions and
changes.
14
The new sequential and developmental passages are where
we see an indirect reversal in the rhythmic relationship between the
[x] and the [y] material: the metric framework of the [y] sequence
carries over into the development of the [x] idea. A second stage of
indirect resolution occurs at the nal statement of the [x] phrase at m.
234; note that both the new accompanimental pattern and the eighth-
note guration in the violin fall in line with the barlines. The long
crescendo and the gradually more animated tempo of the developmental
passage along with the delay in the return of the tonic key prepare
this arrival as the climax of the movement.
15
The cumulative effect is
crucial because it marks the point at which the opening theme nally
articulates the notated meter without equivocation. Despite the new
14. The tonicization of G
b
at the beginning of the nal refrain recalls the emphasis on
b
III
in the original B section and, more generally, the tendency toward modal mixture for the
refrain as a whole. For a discussion of the role of G
b
as an agent of cyclic unity throughout
the Horn Trio, see my Brahms and Motivic
6
3
Chords, Music Analysis 16 (1997): 175217.
15. The nal statement of the [x] phrase is only the fourth time in the movement that the
dynamic level has reached forte and the only time that the refrain itself has risen above piano,
with the exception of the forte at m. 47. The other forte passages are at mm. 9294 and 1014
of the rst episode. Note also, as part of the crescendo to the climactic [x] statement, the
forte in the horn only at m. 228.
{207}
Example 5.11: Horn Trio, 1st mvt., mm. 200266.
rhythmic stability, however, the [x] phrase continues to prolong the
home dominant. In addition, we have yet to see a direct reversal in the
relationship between the [x] and the [y] material. Brahms saves this
aspect of resolution for the approach to closure. The predominance of
the [y] idea, in the bass of mm. 24655, forces the [x] fragments in the
upper parts to be heard as syncopations. This preparatory passage, as
{208}
Example 5.11: continued
well as the accompanimental patternat m. 256, articulates the structural
close of m. 258 within the notated meter. At last we have the nal
element of resolution: not only has the climactic [x] statement fallen
in with the notated barlines, but its dominant prolongation has also
resolved within a consonant metric framework.
Lest we are too quick with this conclusion, however, it is important
{209}
Example 5.11: continued
to observe a complication in the rhythmic structure of the closing
passage. Though the horn continues to treat the eighth-note gure
as a pickup, Brahms nevertheless recalls the metric shift by sliding the
triplet pattern in the piano over a beat (m. 258). The recall of the
displaced meter raises the issue of motivic dissonance and resolution a
{210}
Example 5.11: continued
generalization of a phenomenon that Epstein observes in the rst
movement of Brahmss Second Symphony.
16
This concept often applies
to motivic ideas whose identity is in part based on a metric problem
or irregularity. In the symphony, motivic dissonance arises through
the disparity between the anacrusic character of the initial neighbor
motive and its function as the initiation point for a tonic prolongation.
17
Example 5.12a illustrates. Brahms liquidates this motivic idiosyncrasy
only at the coda, where he repositions the neighbor so that it falls on
a hypermetric downbeat. Score annotations in ex. 5.12b highlight the
new accented position for the thematic idea. The impact of the motivic
resolution is all the more powerful since it coincides with the structural
downbeat that Brahms has withheld across the recapitulation. In the
16. Epstein, Beyond Orpheus, 16269.
17. Carl Schachter has many insightful things to say about this and other aspects of rhythmic
organizationinthe maintheme of the symphony inThe First Movement of Brahmss Second
Symphony: The Opening Theme and Its Consequences, Music Analysis 2 (1983): 5568.
{211}
Example 5.12: Second Symphony, 1st
mvt.: a, mm. 110; b, mm. 47585.
Horn Trio, the situation is similar. As ex. 5.13 shows, the structural close
corresponds with the sole transposition of the head motive to the tonic
level. Moreover, the fragment is forced to accommodate the notated
meter: emphasis on the second beat throughout the nal measures
functions as syncopation rather than displacement a liquidation of
the original metric dissonance. Here, too, an enormous sense of delay
heightens the effect of the motivic resolution: as I have already noted,
this is the rst time in the movement that Brahms has satisfactorily
resolved the refrains dominant prolongation.
18
18. The nal tonic is still preparedby anenormous sense of delay evenfor those who attribute
greater resolving force to the tonic at m. 29. The difference between their interpretation
and mine is one of degree rather than of kind. Another noteworthy similarity between the
symphony andthe triois the residue of metric conict that remains inthe resolutionpassages.
The misalignment that the symphony coda maintains between the neighbor motive in the
bass and the main-theme fragments in the melody is analogous to the syncopation in the
nal measures of the trio. In both cases, the residue of rhythmic conict justies the idea
of liquidation rather than outright elimination of characteristic features. Other noteworthy
examples of motivic dissonance and resolution are found in the rst movements of the
C-Minor Piano Quartet and the Double Concerto and in the second movement of the G-
Major Viola Quintet. In the quartet, motivic dissonance centers around the metric identity
of the two-beat head motive in the very opening measures. The return of the gure in
the form of the pizzicato E
n
s just prior to the counterstatement (mm. 2830) heightens the
ambivalence. Brahms develops and resolves this characteristic feature at the beginning of the
recapitulation (m. 199) and in the coda (m. 313) as part of an enormous delay in the return
{212}
brahms and the shifting barline
ii
From the example of the Horn Trio, it is clear that the inuence of
metric displacement can penetrate to the deepest levels of form. The
shifting barline achieves a similar fundamental status in the rst move-
ment of the Clarinet Trio. Though the work dates from the opposite
end of Brahmss career and centers around a different set of formal
conventions, it makes use of all the rhythmic strategies at play in op.
40. Brahms adjusts these procedures, however, to satisfy the exigencies
of sonata form. In particular, the rhythmic processes take on a more
developmental character. Example 5.14 quotes the movements second
thematic idea. For convenience, I will refer to this entire phrase as theme
1b and its two subsections as antecedent and consequent units, respectively.
The 1b phrase has a rhythmic character similar to the opening theme
in the Horn Trio. On the one hand, the agogic accents on the rst
and third beats of each measure articulate the notated barlines. The
melodic leap and shift to duple eighth notes at the second half of both
the antecedent and the consequent function similarly. Note also the
change from A to E in the piano bass at m. 16 and the corresponding
articulationprovidedby the arrival of G
#
inthe clarinet. Yet the grouping
pattern of the head motive hints at a displacement, with the fourth and
second beats as strong; the cello entrance in m. 15 likewise contradicts
the notated meter. Because the 1b idea follows a clear articulation of
the barlines by the 1a theme, metric interpretation depends in part on
listening habits. A conservative listener will tend to t the theme into
the notated meter. A radical or exible listener will be more inclined
to give in to the signals of a shift and hear according to one of the
rebarrings in ex. 5.15. (The rebarred versions differ only in how they
reconcile the duple eighth notes with the shifted meter of the head
motive.) The sustained E in mm. 1213 a kind of quasi fermata has
a dual function in relation to these two modes of perception. For
conservatives, it provides a challenge, forcing them to keep time even
of the structural tonic. The second theme of the concerto (m. 26) begins with the same type
of two-beat motive, but Brahms places it in a weak-strong position in relation to the notated
meter. Later in the movement (mm. 16467), Knpftechnik highlights the potential for the
motive to be heard as either strong-weak or weak-strong. The nal (disguised) appearance of
the motive in the coda (m. 420, . and vn. 1) retains the metric bivalence before it dissolves
into the nal cadence. In the viola quintet, motivic dissonance centers around harmonic
rather than metric issues. For an illuminating analysis, see John Daverio, Nineteenth-Century
Music and the German Romantic Ideology (New York: Schirmer, 1993), 14454.
{213}
Example 5.13: Horn Trio, 1st mvt.: a, mm. 12; b, mm. 25466.
more strictly thanusual. For radicals, it opens up possibilities to respond
immediately to signs of a new downbeat wherever they might fall.
Similarities of rhythmic character notwithstanding, the themes from
the two trios differ in at least one crucial respect. In the Horn Trio,
the dominant prolongation of the [x] phrase is unambiguous, irre-
{214}
Example 5.14: Clarinet Trio, 1st mvt., mm. 1217.
Example 5.15: Clarinet Trio, 1st mvt.: 1b theme rebarred.
spective of metric interpretation. In the Clarinet Trio, different metric
perceptions give rise to different interpretations of tonal structure. Part
of the ambivalence of the material arises from the fact that a more
straightforward tonal interpretation supports a metric shift: the tonic
pedal and clarinet E of the antecedent suggest that B in the top voice
functions as a passing tone, as outlined in ex. 5.15. The cues that
articulate the notated meter, on the other hand, lead us to hear B as the
controlling melodic pitch, along the lines of ex. 5.14 above. In other
words, a listener who strives for a correspondence between melody and
bass will face a confusing metric disruption; a listener who favors metric
consistency will face a conict between the structural outer voices.
As in the Horn Trio, it is possible to argue for a predominant accent
pattern despite these dimensional conicts. Here, however, I prefer an
{215}
peter h. smith
interpretation that holds to the notated meter. There are two main fac-
tors that support this view. The rst is the retrospective inuence of the
consequent. The two subunits are clearly parallel. In the consequent,
however, the top-voice pitches that are consonant with the bass all fall
on notated strong beats. This suggests that B can be heard as the main
melodic constituent of the antecedent. The second factor that favors
the notated meter is the possibility to hear a prolongation of B, not as a
conict with the tonic pedal, but as part of a motivically signicant B
DFA source chord. The idea of B as part of an embedded supertonic
is not difcult to accept when the antecedent is heard in relation to the
1a theme. The phrase appears in ex. 5.16. Here, too, the upper voices
articulate the source chord above a tonic pedal, with similar emphasis
on B. The gure marked X in ex. 5.14 and in ex. 5.16 helps solidify
the connection. The chord, however, functions differently in these two
appearances and this is where we see the correspondence of harmony
and meter in the Clarinet Trio. Passages that articulate the notated
barlines feature the source chordas a plagal embellishment of the tonic.
Along with the 1a phrase, another good example of plagal function
occurs inthe returntothe 1a idea inmm. 1821. By contrast, passages of
metric displacement reinterpret the chord as a dominant preparation.
The rst statement of theme 1b hints at both possibilities a tonal
analogue to its rhythmic ambiguity. The contrasting tonal orientation
allows us once again to speak of the aligned and displaced meters as
tonic and dominant, respectively.
19
The metric-harmonic ambivalence of the 1b theme is the nexus for
relationships that extend, not only back to the opening phrase, but also
ahead through the counterstatement and transition into the second
group. The three statements of the 1bmaterial inthe expositionprovide
an appropriate context to trace these relationships. The original has al-
ready beencited inex. 5.14; the expanded counterstatement of the idea
andthe liquidatedversionof the transitionappear inexx. 5.17and5.18,
respectively. Over the course of developing the 1b idea, Brahms gradu-
19. Toward the end of the development (mm. 11820), Brahms uses the source chord to
embellishthe dominant, without a metric shift onthe quarter-note level. Thoughthis passage
wouldseemtocontradict the proposeddichotomy of tonic anddominant meters, it is possible
to hear a metric displacement on the half-note level. A higher-level shift is supported by the
dynamic emphasis on the phrase initiation in the middle of m. 118. In any case, the idea of
tonic and dominant meters does not predict an absolute correspondence of harmony and
meter but rather represents a general tendency of dimensional interaction.
{216}
Example 5.16: Clarinet Trio, 1st mvt., mm. 112.
Example 5.17: Clarinet Trio, 1st mvt., mm. 3337.
ally tips the scales infavor of the displacedbarline andthe pre-dominant
function the two aspects of the theme that originally seemed to be at
odds. In the original version, although the source chord leads to the
dominant, it is embedded within the tonic; in the counterstatement and
transition, it emerges to control its own temporal span. In the process,
the degree of phenomenal emphasis on the fourth and second beats
intensies, up until the point that the notated meter abruptly returns
just prior to the arrival of the second key area. Brahms also manages
to transfer the metric-tonal correspondence to the mediant key as he
prepares for the arrival of the lyrical secondtheme (2a). These aspects
of development contrast sharply with the alternation procedures of
the Horn Trio. The differences in approach demonstrate one of the
{217}
peter h. smith
premises that I laid out at the beginning of this essay: that there is a
reciprocal relationship between a movements form and the character
of its metric processes. In the Horn Trio, the changes in the A section
unfold along the lines of the traditional concept of variation. It is true
that alterations in the melody and/or accompaniment create slightly
different shadings of metric articulation. The material nevertheless
remains constant in its essentials an invariance that is appropriate to
its function as a refrain. (The exception, of course, is the nal refrain,
where the need for resolution of tonal and metric dissonance motivates
a fundamental recomposition.) Brahms thus incorporates a theme-and-
variations component into rondo form, as Haydn and Beethoven often
had done. In the context of sonata form, on the other hand, he submits
his metrically ambivalent material to a process of developing variation
in which characteristic features undergo growth and change.
20
The difference in thematic treatment becomes obvious from a closer
look at the 1b counterstatement in ex. 5.17. The counterstatement
presents a thoroughrecompositionthat responds tohints of bothmetric
shift and source-chord prolongation in the original. Brahms carries
us from a position of equivocation to a more explicit articulation of
rhythmic and tonal function. With respect to metric displacement, the
fortissimo arrival at the entrance of the head motive makes it difcult
even for a conservative listener to sustain the notated meter. Moreover,
there are no longer any triplets in the melody to create agogic accents
on the strong-beat Bs. The bass motion to D
#
at the very beginning
of the consequent likewise enforces the shift. Yet, as is characteristic
of developing variation, a residue of original motive forms remains:
the right hand of the piano retains the triplet-as-pickup idea, and the
cadential
6
4
to
5
3
motion in m. 37 articulates the notated meter.
In the tonal dimension, we see a similar contrast between the overt
development of some characteristic features and the subcutaneous
retention of others. The new context gives the source chord an un-
equivocal pre-dominant function a tonal analogue to the heightened
20. The distinctionbetweenthe traditional concept of variationandthe notionof developing
variation is implicit in Schoenbergs discussion of variation form in Fundamentals of Musical
Composition, ed. Gerald Strang and Leonard Stein (London: Faber & Faber, 1970), 16769.
Attention to the theme-and-variations component in the Horn Trio should not cause us to
overlook the signs of developing variation on more local levels. Certainly, the [x] phrase
evolves as the free elaboration of a single two-beat idea, and its neighbor motive carries over
as the primary substance for the [y] phrase.
{218}
Example 5.18: Clarinet Trio, 1st mvt., mm. 3847.
emphasis onthe displaced barline. The top voice, however, retains some
ambiguity in the melodic function of 2

. Emphasis on A in the pianos

right hand supports an interpretation of the cellos Bs as passing tones.
The status of A and F
#
as chord tones in the consequent also seems to
argue for a passing function for Bin the antecedent. Yet the articulation
slurs andeighth-note rests disrupt the passing motions andhelp2

retain
some of the character of a structural pitch. Perhaps A and C function as
appoggiaturas within the displaced meter. The prominence of B in the
voice exchange at m. 35 also suggests that the governing harmony for
the antecedent may be a II
6
5
chord rather than IV, with 2

as the main
top-voice constituent.
The process of developing variation is carried a step further in the
transition. Notice, in ex. 5.18, that Brahms completes the gradual
transformation from metric ambivalence to an unequivocal shift: no
cues remain to hint at the notated meter. The addition of sforzandi,
in particular, forces the performers to articulate the beginning of the
head motive as strong. Development in the tonal dimension involves
transformation of the source chord into a pivot to C major, the sec-
ond key of the expositions three-key plan. Roman numerals beneath
the score excerpt indicate the pivot relationship. The transformation
involves a shift in pitch content from the original BDFA version to
the FACE
b
form of the transition. The motivic connection of the
source and pivot chords is enforced by the bass parallelism between the
counterstatement and transition: A: DD
#
E = C: FF
#
G. It is impor-
tant to observe that Brahms maintains the correspondence of shifted
{219}
peter h. smith
meter and pre-dominant function despite the move toward C major.
The perseverance of this relationship, in the face of the modulation, is
another example of the balance between evolution and invariance that
is emblematic of developing variation.
Up to this point, I have focused on how Brahms adapts the kind of
metric-harmonic relationships at work in the Horn Trio to a sonata-style
thematic process. The entrance of the 2a theme engages two other
topics that were introduced in the analysis of op. 40: the interaction
of metric shifts with Brahmss Knpftechnik and the function of metric
displacement as a means of articulation on multiple formal levels. In
the Horn Trio, Brahms uses motivic linkage to create an echo of the
displaced meter across the arrival of the opening structural downbeat
(see ex. 5.8 above). In the Clarinet Trio, Knpftechnik functions in just
the opposite manner: as seen in ex. 5.18, the linking motive of m. 43
anticipates the reemergence of the tonic meter at the arrival of Cmajor.
The fragment articulates the barline via a cadential
6
4
chord and half-
note agogic emphasis. The motivic repetition at the beginning of the
lyrical theme thus clearly falls within the notated barlines.
The realignment at the entrance of the second theme is where metric
shifts begin to function on multiple formal levels. The realignment
mirrors the original harmonic-metric dichotomy between theme 1a
and theme 1b. Example 5.19 presents a schematic representationof two
levels of formal-metric interaction. Withinthe tonic area, the 1bidea sits
between statement and counterstatement of the 1a theme. This creates
a situation in which dominant harmony and meter are subsidiary to the
tonic harmonic-metric complex that frames them. Brahms articulates
a similar framing relationship across the rst and second groups: the
tonal-rhythmic dissonance of the 1b material is again subsidiary, in this
case to the stability of the 1a and C-major themes. Admittedly, the frame
analogy is imperfect because of the overt ways in which the arrival of
C major represents progress in the sonata-form design. (Even within
the rst group, there is an enormous sense of progress that arises
out of the textural and dynamic expansion of the 1a material in the
counterstatement.) Motivic andtonal connections nevertheless support
the idea that the lyrical material constitutes a return to a previous state
of affairs. Example 5.20 identies the main elements of thematic unity
between the 1a and the 2a ideas. With respect to tonal connections,
ex. 5.18 shows that Brahms restores the 1a correspondence of metric
alignment andplagal functionthrougha IIVI expansionof the Ctonic
{220}
brahms and the shifting barline
in mm. 4546. Note also that the mediant harmony in mm. 4748 is
likewise expanded by plagal embellishment. Emphasis on VI within the
lyrical material in several deceptive progressions and in the function
of A as the pivot into E minor creates another harmonic connection
with the 1a theme. Example 5.21 illustrates.
21
The nal two rhythmic strategies that the trios share are the use of
metric displacement to create tonal delay and the resolution of motivic
dissonance as a component of structural closure. The tonal delay in the
Clarinet Trio occurs at the beginning of the recapitulation. Example
5.22a provides a score excerpt that includes the end of the develop-
ment, the return of the rst group (m. 126), and the transition into the
2a theme (mm. 14650). Brahms could have recapitulated the 1a and
1b themes, in their original form, only with great difculty. On the one
hand, the material bothclings too closely to the tonic andarticulates too
many stops and starts to facilitate the forward momentumthat he favors
at the reprise. On the other hand, for all its tonic emphasis, the opening
lacks a decisive point of initiation suitable for a recapitulatory structural
downbeat. Brahms may have considered the possibility of beginning the
recapitulation with the counterstatement of the 1a theme. With some
adjustment, its opening tonic could resolve a retransitional dominant,
and its continuation is animated enough to keep the form in motion.
Instead, he reorders the thematic ideas and begins with the counter-
statement version of the 1b phrase (m. 126). The thematic reordering
21. Continuity between the 1a and the 2a themes relates to a general issue often at work
in three-key expositions the diverse functions that the middle key may have in relation
to the traditional two-part division of the exposition. The arrival of the middle key may
initiate the second group, or the exposition may still be on its way to a more fundamental
articulation at the entrance of the third key. Or there may be a strong degree of ambiguity,
with some evidence supporting one interpretation and other evidence supporting the other.
The rst movement of the F-Minor Clarinet Sonata, op. 120, provides an example of this
ambiguous type and makes for an interesting comparison with the Clarinet Trio. The more
overt thematic and tonal connections between its rst and its middle key areas create a
stronger sense of formal continuity than is the case in the Clarinet Trio. The similarities
of approach nevertheless suggest that Brahms may have been after a similar, though less
strong, effect in the Clarinet Trio. For an analysis that presents the arrival of the third key as
the main formal division in the clarinet-sonata exposition, see Roger C. Graybill, Brahmss
Integration of Traditional and Progressive Tendencies: ALook at Three Sonata Expositions,
Journal of Musicological Research 8 (1988): 14347. I discuss the middle key of op. 120 as part
of an extended formal overlap in Brahms and the Neapolitan Complex:
b
II,
b
VI, and Their
Multiple Functions in the First Movement of the F-Minor Clarinet Sonata, in Brahms Studies,
vol. 2, ed. David Brodbeck (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998), 169208.
{221}
Example 5.19: Clarinet Trio, 1st mvt., mm. 151,
formal-metric interaction.
Example 5.20: Clarinet Trio, 1st mvt.,
thematic unity between 1a and 2a ideas.
has a number of important advantages. First and foremost, it allows
Brahms to exploit metric-tonal dissonance to create one of his favorite
types of formal ambivalence: an articulation that simultaneously evokes
and effaces the tonic. The return of the 1b phrase introduces the coor-
dinated thematic-tonal return that traditional formal theory identies
with the beginning of the recapitulation. Yet the tonic remains trapped
in the dominant meter, similar to the internal tonic articulations in the
Horn Trio. The rhythmic dissonance and the top-voice ambiguities that
go along with it along with the overowing of the agitated texture of
the retransition into the reprise dene the A chord as an apparent
tonic. The graph in ex. 5.22b outlines the continued prolongation
of the dominant across the thematic return. The result is that metric
{222}
Example 5.21: Clarinet Trio, 1st mvt., mm. 5257.
displacement plays anintegral role increating a formal overlap between
the development and the recapitulation.
Another advantage of the thematic reordering is that it affords
Brahms the opportunity to drawthe 1a and 2a ideas into closer relation.
A glance back at ex. 5.20 above reminds us of the function of the GF
E or [y] motive as a link between the themes in the exposition. In the
recapitulation, the [y] fragment becomes a crucial component in the
redirection of the modulation to the submediant. Annotations in ex.
5.22a highlight the motivic reinterpretation. Emphasis on the FE dyad
as the goal of the [y] repetitions connects back to boththe FEneighbor
gures and the [y] statement in the passage prior to the return of the
1b theme (mm. 11821 and 12325; see the brackets in ex. 5.22b). The
connection helps articulate E as the controlling melodic pitch across
the onset of the thematic reprise and thus further supports the idea of a
formal overlap of development and recapitulation. The developmental
character of the 1a return (m. 138) joins continued tonal instability
to extend this overlap up to the entrance of the 2a idea (m. 150).
And, though the lyrical theme provides a stable point of arrival, the
transposition to F further delays tonic rearticulation. A middleground
A chord enters only with material analogous to the third part of the
exposition rst tentatively at m. 169 and then more decisively at the
entrance of the 2b theme at m. 173.
22
22. The double bar between m. 168 and m. 169 supports the idea that the recapitulation
delays the return of the structural tonic until the transposed restatement of the dominant
{223}
Example 5.22: Clarinet Trio, 1st mvt.: a, mm.
11957; b, mm. 11931, middleground
material from the exposition. The double bar appears in the autograph as well as in the
complete-works edition. I thank Margaret Notley for bringing this point to my attention.
{224}
Example 5.22: continued
The 2b structural downbeat clearly resolves the overlaps tonal in-
stability. Brahms, however, saves the ultimate resolution of metric-tonal
conicts for the coda, where we see a liquidation of motivic dissonance
similar to the situation at the close of the Horn Trio. The relevant
passage appears in ex. 5.23. Consider the function of the source chord
{225}
Example 5.22: continued
in these measures. The nal Poco meno Allegro statement of the 1b theme
(m. 212) articulates the motivic harmony within the displaced meter.
But the notated barline reemerges just in time for the supertonic to
resolve to the closing tonic (mm. 21617): once again, plagal func-
tion corresponds with metric alignment. The plagal reinterpretation
is echoed by the repetitions of the cadence in the subsequent tonic
expansion; observe both the transposition of the 1b head motive to the
BC
#
level and the clear articulation of B as a pickup. The 1b idea thus
gives way nally to the metric-tonal consonance that until this point has
{226}
Example 5.23: Clarinet Trio, 1st mvt., mm. 20524.
{227}
Example 5.23: continued
characterized only the 1a material. Closure is achieved not only in the
tonal dimension but in the rhythmic and motivic dimensions as well.
* * *
This type of dimensional interaction seen not only here but through-
out the rst movements of both trios clearly demonstrates the pro-
found inuence of metric displacement on form. Yet my analyses have
only scratchedthe surface of anenormous topic. Afuller understanding
of metric-formal relations in Brahms will require us to move beyond
the narrow focus of two movements to address a variety of rhythmic
strategies in the context of multiple formal types. Consider the issue
of metric-harmonic correspondence, to cite but one area of rhythmic
diversity. In the trios, we have observed an association of dominant
prolongation and displaced meter. In a movement like the nale of
the G-Major Viola Quintet, however, the reverse is the case: the tonic
key area centers around a shifted meter; the notated barline emerges
only at the arrival of the tonicized dominant of the second group. Or
think of the rst movement of the F-Major Cello Sonata. There, metric
displacement also falls within the tonic area, but the shifts are irreg-
ular. Moreover, elimination of the main themes rhythmic dissonance
does not correspond with tonal resolution, as in our other examples.
Rather, liquidation is part of an extreme ambivalence the dream-like
recollection of the theme that articulates an apparent tonic within the
movements recapitulatory overlap.
23
It is also important to recognize
23. For a detailed analysis of this formal overlap, see my Liquidation, Augmentation, and
Brahmss Recapitulatory Overlaps, Nineteenth-Century Music 17 (1994): 24753.
{228}
brahms and the shifting barline
the possibility for only partial coordination between the metric and
the harmonic dimensions. In the rst movement of the B-Major Trio
(revised version), for example, Brahms establishes a metric shift in the
transitionthat thenows across the entrance of the second theme (mm.
6979). A compositional principle that often functions in the service of
formal articulation thus becomes a tool for formal overlap. And these
examples merely touchonaspects of diversity withinBrahmss approach
to type B dissonance. I have not even mentioned the type A hemiola-
style conicts for which Brahms is famous. Nor have I considered
hypermetric levels of rhythmic organization. Finally, both the metric
component of Knpftechnik and the topic of motivic dissonance and
resolution suggest that the last word has yet to be written about Brahms
and the principle of developing variation. No matter where any of these
topics may lead us, their exploration will undoubtedly demonstrate an
enduring truth: that, more than one hundred years following his death,
Brahms remains a composer who both challenges and fascinates.
{229}