Jorge Tabarés García

Form, Expectation, and Expression/Spring 2020 – Professor Lynne Rogers

When considering the art song repertoire, or more specifically the German lieder

repertoire, Brahms stands out as one of the greatest masters of music for voice and

piano. I would like to point out two instances in two songs of his Op. 106 Fünf Lieder,

where Brahms plays with our expectations, introducing in the music unexpected

elements. The discussion will center on the songs No.1 Op.106, and No.4 Op.106.

In order to understand how Brahms is playing with our expectations and

deviating from the romantic lieder model, we must first analyze what the pre-

established model is. Two good examples of this are Brahms songs Op.95 No.2 and

Op.95 No.7. In Op.95 No.2 the piano introduces the texture and the accompaniment

figuration which will be kept throughout the piece almost as an ostinato, and then the

voice comes in. The vocal part itself is presented with a compound period, where every

phrase is a sentence. After the compound period the vocal line experiences a

development, and then a motion to a cadence (this bigger structure is in itself a

sentence). Op.92 No.7 has pretty much the same structure: compound period which

moves to a development and then motion to a cadence (outlining a sentence structure).

The only difference is that in this song the piano doubles the voice much more often,

and also, there is a full statement of the theme to end, which we didn’t have in the last

song. All in all, these two songs are very useful to illustrate the romantic lieder model: a

piano that either doubles or accompanies through an ostinato, and a vocal part that is

presented through a compound period, then enters a development, and then moves to a

cadence.

However, in songs Op. 106 No.1 and No.4, Brahms breaks the romantic lieder

model in very interesting ways. In Ständechen No.1 Op.106 Brahms employs a text by

1
Jorge Tabarés García

Franz Kugler. In this particular song, something unexpected happens inside our pre-

established set of conventions. In this song Brahms introduces what appears to be the

theme of the song at the very beginning in the piano. In itself, this event is not that

uncommon, although the function of introducing the theme is usually reserved to the

voice. What is uncommon is what happens next. We expect the voice, when introduced,

to sing the theme that the piano just played. However, in measure 5, the voice comes in

and plays a completely different line from that introduced in the piano. What Brahms

has done is introduce a version of the counterpoint that will accompany the theme in

m.5. In other words, here the contrapuntal line to the theme is introduced before the

actual thematic line, thus inverting the usual order for instance of a fugue, where the

counterpoint comes after the subject has been introduced. To add on to this, in measure

9, at the beginning of the consequent phrase of this parallel period, we are expecting the

voice to sing the theme from m.5 and the piano to play again the contrapuntal line.

However, again Brahms deceives us. The theme is now played on the piano, and the

voice plays the contrapuntal line that the piano has been playing up until this point. This

is uncommon for an antecedent-consequent parallel period structure. We expect the first

half of the consequent phrase to reintroduce the material from the first half of the

antecedent phrase and then move to a cadence in the same voice. Here the consequent

phrase of course does that, but in different instruments, switching theme and

counterpoint around.

A very similar thing happens in song No.4 Op.106. Again, the piano doesn’t

come in at the introduction with an ostinato pattern to be kept or anything like this.

Instead the piano comes in with the theme of the piece. Here the opposite from No.1

happens. In No.1 the counterpoint to the theme is introduced before the actual theme

itself. In No.4 the theme is introduced, and then in measure 5 the counterpoint comes in.

2
Jorge Tabarés García

What is unexpected in No.4 is that the voice doesn’t sing the theme at all in the

exposition of the piece. Instead, after the piano has briefly exposed the thematic line

through mm.1-4, the voice enters in m.5 with a counterpoint to the theme in the piano.

The voice will remain playing an alternate line, contrapuntal to the theme, through the

exposition of the parallel period in song No.4 Op.106, something very uncommon in

this genre.

In conclusion, what Brahms is masterfully altering and playing with is the

relationship between voice and piano. The 19th century model of the art song

presupposes or pre-establishes a piece of music where the voice has the prominent role,

and the piano is a mere accompanist. We thus would expect the piano to double the

voice, play and ostinato, or even occasionally interact with the voice with small

imitations. Brahms in these songs alters the preconceived relationship between voice

and piano by playing with the ideas of theme and counterpoint, or subject and

countersubject.