Lucia Švecová

Analysis of the first movement (Allegro) of Brahms’ Piano Quartet in G minor, op. 25
(1861).

The first movement of Brahms’ Piano Quartet in G minor immediately engages the listener

through its drama and theatricality. Composed in 1861, it was part of the group of

compositions that Donald Tovey called Brahms’ ‘first maturity’. This movement in particular

offers a survey of Brahms’ compositional developments from the mid-1850s to the 1860s

(see also George S. Bozarth and Walter Frisch, 2001) – the use of counterpoint as a result of

Brahms’ closer study of Baroque counterpoint in the late 1850s, the instrumentation as part

of his devotion to chamber music in the 1860s, and the use of csárdás rhythms in two

sections (see Fig. 1) as a Hungarian influence, which Brahms was exploring around this time

more extensively in other compositions. The choice of piano quartet as a medium also

signified a continuation in Beethoven’s legacy, even though the piano part here has less of a

solo role than in Beethoven’s op. 16 quartets.

Yet, while these facts provide the general background to the composition, the crux of the

interpretation of this movement lies in its hermeneutic window. Ian D. Bent (2001) explains

hermeneutic windows as ‘anomalies’ in music, or features that deviate from formal

expectations and may be sources of a ‘hidden meaning’. As will become clear in the

discussion of structure, the ‘anomaly’ here can be located in the conflation of the start of

recapitulation by disguising the development as a ‘false’ recapitulation – Lawrence Kramer

(1990) calls this type of hermeneutic windows a ‘structural trope’ because the window

concerns a ‘structural procedure’ which may be interpreted in various ways and functions as

1
an ‘expressive act’. The present interpretation considers this ‘structural trope’ as a tool for

creating a dramatic variation effect, which leads the listener to regard the return of familiar

material as a start of the next rotation, although the material is presented differently and

becomes formally clear only retrospectively. Using the terminology of eighteenth-century

sonata form as formulated by Hepokoski and Darcy, which also provided the basic structural

framework for nineteenth-century composers, this essay will bring the formal structure into

a synthesis with harmonic analysis, in order to demonstrate the articulation of the

expressive content and suggest a semiotic interpretation as an explanation of the

hermeneutic window.

Bar Section Sub-section Key Topical content

1-34 Exposition Primary theme (P) i (g) à III (Bb Fugal, opening with
in b. 11) à i accruing effect
(b. 27)
35-49 Transition (TR) i à II (A in b. Declamatory style
49)
50-129 Multimodular v (d) à II (b. Lied style (50-76),
secondary theme 77) à V (D in cadenza (77-78),
(MMS) b. 79) buffa style (79-92),
choral style (92-100),
csárdás (101-112),
contrapuntal (113-
129)
130-160 Closing section (CS) V Echoes (130-154),
horn calls in the
piano (155-159)
161-179 Development P material i à iv (c in b. Fugal, accruing effect
170)
180-204 MMS material V à II (b. 188) Declamatory style
à ii (a in b.
196)
205-236 Re-transition ii à V (b. 231) Sturm und Drang
237-272 Recapitulation P (from b. 11) I à i (b. 265) Fugal
273-280 TR i à VI (Eb in b. Declamatory style
279)
281-331 MMS VI à i (b. 296) Buffa style (281-295),
choral style (295-

2
 303), barcarolle in
the piano (309-315),
contrapuntal (316-
331)
332-363 CS i Echoes (332-342),
csárdás (343-354)
364-373 Coda i Learned style (363-
368), barcarolle in
the piano (368-373)
Fig. 1: Structural diagram

Structure

Brahms was devoted to the study of early forms and indeed many of his contemporaries

commented on the way he used them in the Romantic context and showed their capacity

for articulating expression. This movement can be classified as what Hepokoski and Darcy

call Type 3 sonata (the standard sonata structure that became established by the end of the

eighteenth century), but upon closer inspection we can also see indications of Type 1 and

Type 2, which were used more predominantly at the start of the eighteenth century. That is,

the tonal and thematic structure create the impression that bar 161 might be the start of

recapitulation, omitting the development, which would signify Type 1 sonata. Even though

the primary theme (P) appears again in the tonic key in bar 237 (as the recapitulation in

Type 3 sonata), this time it is incomplete and therefore the whole section from bar 161

could be interpreted as a recapitulation with a modified thematic structure. On the other

hand, the fact that P starts from its consequent phrase in bar 237 could also suggest a Type

2 sonata, whose recapitulation does not start with the onset of P material. However, in that

case the section from bar 161 would have to be interpreted as a false recapitulation rather

than development (which Type 2 sonata omits), even though this section has clear

developmental features – at first it briefly surveys the P and S material and then modulates

3
through various keys in bars 205-231, in order to get to the dominant in bar 232 and so re-

transition into the tonic. Nevertheless, whilst these individual features make the Type 3

sonata interpretation most likely, the effect of the thematic structure does create the

impression of a recapitulation in bar 161 and the listener may realise only retrospectively

that this was, in fact, a ‘false’ recapitulation. Thus, Brahms takes us through the formal

development of sonata from Type 1 to Type 3 and reveals the true structural intent only in

retrospect.

Similarly, the motivic material reveals its importance retrospectively, once we hear its

implications for the later thematic material. Schoenberg’s theory of ‘basic shape’

(Grundgestalt) will be helpful here as a way of highlighting the ‘endless reshaping of the

basic shape’ (Schoenberg, 1950). The first four bars in the piano provide the basic shape of

the whole movement (see Fig. 2), as we can see on the reiteration of its motivic material –

the annotated score shows two motifs that occur in this shape; motif x in bar 1 and motif y

in bar 2 (and repeated in bar 3). The consequent phrase of P is based on y, using its last two

notes in sequence in bars 11 and 12, and then decorating its melodic shape of an overall

descend by a third in bars 13 and 14 (see the annotated score). The piano on the last beat of

bar 27 introduces the semiquaver echoes of x, which then become dominant in the

transition (see the annotated score). The secondary theme may seem contrasting at first,

but it uses the false relation that occurs between x and y (bar 50 in the annotated score)

and its main motif (bars 50-51) reverts the melodic shape of x (Fig. 3).

4
This ‘reshaping’ of the basic shape also happens as a subject/answer dialectic, which Peter

H. Smith (2001) points out in Brahms’ music. The consequent phrase of P, based on

fragmentation of motif y, is a good example of how Brahms reshapes the motivic material in

order to create a contrasting, yet firmly grounded in the same motifs, material. Both P and S

consist of such contrasting yet similar material, which makes them ‘multimodular’ in

Hepokoski and Darcy’s terms – P could be seen as a miniature theme and variation (the

theme consists of motifs x and y in their original form in bars 1-10, then the variation in bars

11-20, and then the theme comes back in bars 21-34), and S consists of four melodic groups

(S1: a lieder melody in bars 50-78; S2: presented in a major key and buffa character in bars

79-92; S3: a choral melody in bars 92-100; S4: and a Hungarian csárdás melody that ends in

a contrapuntal manner in bars 101-129 – see the annotated score for all). Retrospectively,

5
however, we can also see S as an answer to P, as it is demonstrated on the phrase structure

– the four more-or-less regular phrases (4+6)+(6+4)+(6)+(4+4) in P are answered by an

irregular extension of each of the phrase groups in the S melodic groups of

[(4+5)+(4+6)+(6+4)]+[(4+4+5)]+[(4+5)]+[(6+6)+(7+7+3)].

Apart from providing the motivic material for the rest of the movement, the basic shape

according to Schoenberg also contains a fundamental problem, which has repercussions on

the later material. In this case, the problems are two – there is a false relation between F# in

bar 1 and F natural in bar 2, and bar 4 tonicizes the dominant before the tonic has been

firmly established in the first place (Fig. 2). The false relation appears more clearly in the S

motif but also has harmonic implications in the form of chromatic chord progressions, such

as can be seen in the reduction of bars 55-58 (Fig. 4). The early tonicization of the dominant

is then reflected on the ratio of dominant-key areas compared to tonic, whereby the

dominant areas are only 38 bars shorter than tonic areas and are also reinforced by the

frequent presence of the secondary dominant that tonicizes the dominant key. What these

repercussions of the basic-shape problems show is that the true importance of the

harmonic material can be understood, similarly to the formal structure, only retrospectively.

For instance, the use of the supertonic, or secondary dominant, initially seems to important

due to its relation to the dominant, but when the supertonic areas are in the recapitulation

answered by the submediant as the supertonic’s dominant, it becomes clear that the

supertonic had an independent role and was not merely reinforcing the dominant.

6
Furthermore, both Schenkerian and neo-Riemannian theories of harmonic analysis may be

helpful in highlighting the retrospective revelation of the harmonic structure. Firstly, S

introduces both dominant minor and dominant major, which can be easily accounted for

through the neo-Riemannian parallel transformation. This transformation subsequently

opens up new harmonic contexts – while the keys related to the dominant major are

diatonically related to the tonic as well, and therefore do not explore new harmonic

grounds, the keys related to the dominant minor may be more distant, such as the E major

in bar 52 (Fig. 5). E major, nonetheless, can be interpreted as a sharpened submediant, and

Schenkerian middle-ground analysis shows that the submediant can be retrospectively seen

as prolonged between its sharpened form and the final Eb major area – the exposition uses

the sharpened submediant seventh chord in striking moments such as bars 75-76, 113-114,

and 120-121; then the development uses the same chord to cadence into the supertonic in

bars 186-204; and S in the recapitulation finally brings a sense of closure to this

prolongation by tonicizing the original flat submediant (see the annotated score for all). The

background analysis, however, shows that there is no strong dominant in the recapitulation

(especially before the start of the coda, the dominant is downplayed on the middle-ground

level by the use of the subdominant minor in bars 358-362), and therefore it can be argued

that Brahms uses the dominant as the secondary key of the movement to articulate the

7
secondary theme, rather than to construct a strong I-V-I bassline. Hence, the harmonic

structure seems to be directed towards a different, expressive purpose instead of adhering

to the formal expectations.

Expressive content

The discussion of both formal and harmonic structure has highlighted the retrospective

understanding of this movement’s construction. This means both that, before the true

intent becomes clear in the recapitulation, all of the material is perceived as radical and

surprising in the moment when it is heard, and it also means that the perception of the

thematic material, which strongly suggests the start of the recapitulation in bar 161, is

foregrounded over all other musical features. The harmonic structure serves to highlight the

thematic material when, in line with formal sonata expectations, it presents the secondary

theme as an opposing pole to the primary theme. Therefore, the structure articulates the

expressive content as consisting of two contrasting characters in the two theme groups. The

contrasting use of topics demonstrates this, but also points out another type of articulation

of the expressive content through the thematic structure – the dramatic variation of the

material. For instance, S itself represents a variation of its opening melody from bars 50-76

8
in bars 79-92, where the buffa character is reinforced by the articulation in the piano and

the melody’s quotation of Cherubino’s aria ‘Voi che sapete’ from Mozart and Da Ponte’s Le

nozze di Figaro (1786) becomes clearer in the major key (Fig. 6). The development as a

whole represents a variation on the P and S material by cutting and altering some of the

original material and presenting a new topic of Sturm und Drang in the retransition. Yet, the

variation is only potent in generating new dramaticism and expression because the basic

shape from the primary theme is inherently expressive – motif x opens with an interval of a

sixth, which had become associated with yearning, and this is followed by a leading note,

which through its semitone could be partly associated with the topic of lament; motif y then

ends on the dominant, which in bar 4 becomes tonicized rather than resolved, and

therefore the lack of resolution can be identified as another expressive feature. Hence, the

processes of foregrounding the thematic material and varying it are fundamental in the

expressive content of this movement.

9
The thematic material and variation are articulated by the rhetoric of the sonata form,

which uses two thematic groups and has a rotational effect. What is often not included in

this rhetoric, however, is the coda. The coda in this movement is quite short and quite

quickly starts dissolving into a quiet dynamic and repetition of the tonic chord, as if the

previous variation of the material has exhausted all dramatic potential. Nelson Wu (2012)

discusses the rhetorical potential of codas, particularly noting Brahms’ typical ‘dissolution’

codas which dissolve the tension that has been built up over the course of the work through

both dynamics and tempo. Yet, he also notes that a frequent feature is a sudden

intensification ‘twist’ after the dissolution – here likewise, the closing section actually

dissolves the tension before the coda, and after this the coda briefly intensifies again (in

bars 363-368) before it finally dissolves. Thus, the dramatic tension of returns and variations

is retained until the last intensification in the coda.

Semiotic interpretation

Although the structural and harmonic analysis has shown how the thematic material is

presented, none of its findings have yet brought an explanation to the hermeneutic window

of the ‘false’ recapitulation. Yet, what this analysis has explained is a retrospective

revelation of the true intent behind the material, and such a retrospective rhetoric lends

itself to a semiotic interpretation. Frank Samarotto (2007) offers an interpretative technique

which he coins as ‘retrospective causality’ – it can be used wherever we encounter a

structural, stylistic, or harmonic surprise that has not been foreshadowed earlier in the

piece because such a surprise usually requires a retrospective reinterpretation of the

material. Once we have the full retrospective view of the piece, we should choose a ‘master

10
signifier’ of our interpretation, which will direct us towards some type of narrative. In this

movement, the real start of the recapitulation on the consequent phrase of P could be

identified as the ‘master signifier’, which highlights the surprise of the ‘false’ recapitulation.

Michael Klein (2009) discusses Samarotto’s theory particularly in the context of musical

irony as an ‘interpretative strategy’, and indeed the real recapitulation seems to present the

‘false’ one retrospectively as ironic. Hence, this semiotic interpretation provides an

explanation of the hermeneutic window in this movement through musical irony.

11