Matt

Bittles
Brahms 4th Critical Thinking


After reading three different perspectives on Brahms fourth symphony it is
no stretch to expect a certain number of diverse opinions when analyzing his work.
Whether it is from the form of the piece, chord structure, motives, variation pairs or
movement direction, there are many aspects to be debated depending on your
viewpoint. Though some writings are hard to dispute because of the use of facts and
given theories, there are some issues when disassembling the movement. It seems
as though the first step would be to attempt to resolve the issue of the type of piece
it is, a chaconne or passacaglia.

In the Walter Frisch excerpt he first determines to entitle the piece a
chaconne with the argument that a chaconne is the term Brahms would have chosen
use. Even this being the case, a chaconne leaves the listener with the idea that the
harmonic structure will remain the same throughout the piece. This indeed is not
the case after the first two statements of the ostinato subject. Thought the first two
statements of the motive are similar in progression, bearing in mind the F#
diminished turns to F# half diminished in measure 10, the second full variation
departs from the previous harmonic progression. This now brings us to the idea of a
passacaglia. This term would give a listener the understanding that the ground bass
was to be repeated throughout the piece. This however, is neither the case.
Nevertheless, Brahms did expand this concept to an ostinato subject rather than
simply a baseline. This model can be seen in Latin music in the difference between
an ostinato and montuno. The ostinato being a baseline repeated while the montuno
adds the idea of harmony being repeated to enhance the baseline. Though the
motive in Brahms fourth movement is not entirely in the bass it is an expansion on
the idea of a passacaglia. Variations 4-10 show a varied used of the motive all in the
baseline but subsequent variations depart from this traditional idea. In the Knapp
reading he simply refers to the motive as the ostinato subject, which is what I will
use.

After reading through Walter Frischs excerpt another notion stood out to me
dealing with the basis of the opening harmony. Frisch presents the idea of the
opening eight bars being either E-minor or A-minor. The reasoning for A-minor
simply being the logical progression from i-V and the French sixth chord depicting
A-minor. Frisch then ends the discussion believing that even though there is
ambiguity, E-minor seems to be the stronger choice. I agree with Frisch based on his
argument and with some additions. The A-minor chord is presented in first
inversion both times, which does not make the chord as sturdy. Also, the F#7 chord
is simply a secondary dominant in E-minor and the F7(b5) a tritone substitution.
Though classical theory suggests that sixth chord tells you the key with little
question, there is another way to look at it from a contemporary standpoint. The
main notes (3rd and 7th) of an F7 are A and Eb. This being said, the main notes of the
traditional V chord are enharmonically equivalent. Even though the bass note
changes the function of the chord remains the same, leading a dominant to tonic.
Raymond Knapp suggests that this cadence gives a Phrygian quality, which is
certainly the case. Frischs analysis also leaves something to be desired in the chord

analysis, such as diminished and dominant description. This being said, here is my
own analysis of the first eight measures:

iv6 iio6 i iv6 V7/V i6 bII7 (b5) I


While continuing the readings it is evident that a main difference is within
the paired variations. Though the main variation groups are unanimous, there are
differences within the less obvious groupings. It is important to attempt to define
what characteristics linked variation pairs will have. To begin, there will be similar
motivic or harmonic similarities. Though no two pairs in this movement are
identical, the continuation or information and expansion is the principle for pairing.
For the amount of this continuation must be is up for debate, but I will leave it as at
least half (4 measure) of the variation should be similar. As a basis, I agree with the
chart of David Osmond-Smith so I will work off of his findings and compare this to
others. For ease of reading I will change his numbering to fit the other readings
starting with the theme and then variation one. I am uncertain of the reason why
Osmond-Smith would entitle the first statement as variation one, because there
cannot be variation without a grounded statement. Nevertheless, I do agree mostly
with Osmond-Smith and appreciate how the chart is broken up into similarities
based on melody and harmony.

Osmond-Smith begins the groupings with the theme and variation 1 being
grouped, which is agreed upon by other scholars. The next pair of groupings would
be 4-5. These are similar in both harmony and melody and are a strong pair when
considered. An interesting point that Osmond-Smith made is that the first two sets
of four variations (theme-3 and 4-7) are similar in concept; the first two being
strongly paired and the subsequent variation being tied by thematic links. Walter
Frisch broke this down another way by claiming that the theme-3 are simply
introduction and the exposition doesnt start until theme 4. I do not concur with this
claim simply because there would be too much vital information being given during
the introduction. Walter Frischs reasoning is because the ostinato subject does not
occur in the bass until variation 4, however as stated above this is a reworked
passacaglia in nature but not by definition. The ostinato subject is not by any means
hidden until variation 4, so with this I agree with Osmond-Smiths point of view.

Variations 8-9 are a strong pair both motivically and harmonically and are
hard to scrutinize otherwise. The main change between them would be the
diminution of the strings rhythm as accompaniment to the comparable melody.
After this, Osmond-Smith then groups together variations 10-11. Though it seems as
if both of these variations have the same goal to breakdown the motive and start
anew, I dont believe these to be similar enough to be considered linked. There is
little motivic information being continued and the end of variation 11 spirals in a
whole different direction. The baseline is moving around the circle of 4ths and the
upper woodwinds and strings have a descending line leading to the new section of
variation 12. Walter-Frisch agrees with Osmond-Smith by pairing these two
variations as well with the argument that they are transitional variations and
therefore should be grouped together. However, just because the variations have
the same purpose of transitioning does not make them a unified pair. This, along

with Osmond-Smiths skimming over the subject show that their argument is not
solid and should be questioned. When listening to this section there is also a change
in mood and texture between these them, which aurally show the division.

We have now reached the beautiful flute solo in variation 12, which is paired
with variation 13. Osmond-Smith shows on his chart that they are paired
harmonically more than melodiously. There are similar ideas taken from the flute
solo such as the use of stressing notes a half step down from chord tones, but the
real tie is harmonically. Frisch makes a note that from variation 12-15 the winds are
finally present because the strings dominated the first portion of the movement.
While I agree with the idea that the winds are featured through these particular
variations I do not contend with the notion that the strings dominated the first third
of the movement. There was definitely an even balance between the two sections
(wind and strings) and I believe Frisch went to far with his general analysis.

The next pair that is encountered is variation 14-15, which starts of with the
trombone chorale. Knapp makes note of this in his excerpt where he breaks down
how the trombones are used as a pivotal role in establishing the larger shape
imposed on the ostinato format. (pg. 298) The trombones used the ostinato subject
during the opening subjects and do not rejoin until the trombone chorale which
Knapp describes as a nostalgic emergence of the major mode as a parallel to the first
symphony. These variations are linked through this trombone chorale with light
string accompaniment. Variation 15 builds upon this using a similar half note
rhythmic basis in the winds with similar string accompaniment. Osmond-Smith
notes that these variations are similar melodically but not harmonically. For the
trombones, Knapp goes on the state that they do not restate the full motive until
measure 193.

Though variation 16 cannot be linked jointly because it is not subsequent, it
is a variation on the original theme. It is set up in a way to make the listener believe
that variation 16 is the recapitulation, but you find out otherwise quickly. This
variation is similar in harmonic progression to the opening theme, but motivically is
identical. There is also an additional string part, which propels the main theme into
a new direction.

Variation 22-23 is the next encounter of a variation pair. Neither reading
excepts give a detailed reasoning why this is the case. Frisch builds upon the
importance of variation 23 without grouping these variations together. Osmond-
Smith notes that variations 22-23 are tied melodically, which is the case. He also
notes that variations 22-26 are all tied together by an underlying triplet rhythm.
This is an important factor that does not necessarily bring variations as pairs, but
does provide stability and continuity of the movement. It is agreed upon by all the
reading excerpts that the recapitulation takes place at variation 24 after a significant
B pedal in the bass at the end of variation 23. Frisch notes that this is another
instance in which Brahms has subtly announced an important transition.
Osmond-Smith then shows how variations 24, 25, and 26 and tied to
variations 1, 2, and 3. This adds to the feeling of a recapitulation whether the
listener is aware of it or not. It also brings symmetry to the movement and brings a
larger scale view into focus rather than simply eight bar phrases. Added to this, he
links 24-25 together. These variations continue a beat two emphasis with repeated

notes. In variation 25 however, the strings decrease note duration and exemplify
Brahms technique as a composer. Brahms does a similar technique in the
subsequent pair of variations 27-28. The winds melody is expanded upon using
lower neighbor tones and the strings move from an eighth note based line to
triplets. Both of these variation techniques are used extensively throughout the
movement and here is no different. In the pairing chart of Osmond-Smith, it is
shown that the harmonic structure of both of these variations is similar, both
concluding on E-minor.
The last pairs shown in Osmond-Smith are variations 29-30. These are
similar harmonically but he leaves the line dashed when representing the melodic
similarity. It is evident that the harmony is similar but the melodic information I feel
leaves these pairs unified. The offbeat syncopation in variation 30 continues the
upper woodwinds melody in variation 29. Though the ends of the variations differ
melodically I feel as though they are strongly paired.
After this last pairing Osmond-Smith skims over the remainder of the
movement, briefly touching on the Bb importance. He does note that the theme is
reharmonized at the beginning of the coda, which is notable. But, for the most part
the coda seems like an afterthought in his readings. I did enjoy Frischs writing
about the importance of the Bb and how it redefines the flatted sixth. It does add
character to the piece from a scholarly viewpoint but from an aural standpoint the
issue is negligible. Frischs reason paints a picture of when the melody is stuck on Bb
the remainder of the orchestra corrects the note to A# then leads it to a dominant B.
Knapp mentions this section, but adds his own links to the previous movements.
Brahms technique of making the subject note become the seventh of a dominant
was done in the third movement and earlier in the fourth movement in the
beginning of variation 26. In measure 213, Brahms uses the motive note Bb as the
seventh of a C7 chord. This technique is one that creates tension and forward
movement, propelling the motive onward.
Knapp delves into the coda the deepest with strong concentration on the
motives deconstruction and reconstruction. It is a thought that was not present in
the other readings but does hold true. Knapp illustrates how after the brief hiatus on
the Bb the subject is broken down in a chromatic spiral. Knapp is referring to
measure 261-272 where the harmonic progression is: E-minor, C-major, C7, C#-
major, D-major, D7, Eb-major, Eb7, E-major, E7, F-major. This is a significant
deconstruction of the melody and is aurally stimulating with the amount of
deceptive cadences present. After this section, Knapp illustrates how chromaticism
is used to carry out the conclusion of the movement in measure 299. Following this
is noteworthy ending all heading and confirming the key of E-minor.
For a harmonic analysis, Osmond-Smith is the only one who delves into great
detail. There is a chart similar to the variation pairs but instead represents the key
centers being used. It is an excellent overview of the direction of the symphony and
provides insight into how the movement was constructed. Osmond-Smith makes a
valid point when talking about Brahms diverting away from the natural harmonic
movement: Although all statements are subject to the gravitational pull of the tonic
in their final bars, inventive harmonization may temporarily imply of other keys, of
confuse the ear with rapid tonal shifts. (pg. 164) This statement is very acute and

can be applied to any type of music. Osmond-Smith also breaks up the ways Brahms
grouped the ostinato subject, which adds to this deconstruction of the repetitive
motive. It is without question that Osmond-Smith went the most in depth in
analysis, which is something I would have enjoyed comparing from the other
articles.
Raymond Knapp makes an interesting point about the importance of C in the
earlier movements. He gives pivotal areas where the note and key center of C was of
importance but notions that in the fourth movement it was virtually cancelled out
by A#. While it is true A# does provide a defining factor in the movement, C is still of
great importance. Brahms is continually putting an A-minor chord in first inversion
throughout the piece. This puts the C as a pivotal bass note and helps us even define
the key as E-minor over A-minor for the opening section. Knapp does acknowledge
variation 26 where there is a pedal C with shifting chords above it, but dismisses
this as a gentle emphasis. In fact, Brahms does toy around with C from variation 26-
29, leaving this C with greater importance. Brahms also uses a C7 as the sixth chord
in measure 291 when the ostinato subject is halted on A#. Frisch summarizes the
importance of the flatted sixth, C, make(s) for a splendid summary of the harmonic
tensions that have governed the symphony as a whole. (pg. 140) He then goes on
the state that C major was a powerful counterforce to the traditional sharp-side
dominant. (pg. 140) I believe this to be true as well and am perplexed at Knapps
dismissal of the issue.
It was also stimulating to read Osmond-Smiths view on what the motive
actually consists of. He notions that it is actually two succeeding version of the
theme, the second of which obtains a more final cadence. (pg. 161) This viewpoint
is interesting because it then gives the movement a larger feel when listening. When
looking at Osmond-Smiths analysis it proves that this grouping could be true for the
beginning of the movement but after the development section it would be hard to
follow as such. He does break the entire movement into two groups of 16 variations,
the first of which is divided into four groups of four variations. This would allow this
sixteen bar motive to occur but it is interesting to notice no further mention of it
throughout the Osmond-Smith excerpt. This is not something that is mentioned in
the other excerpts either but it does relate to human instincts to create a larger
nuance, rather than simply eight measures. When listening to the movement with
this in mind it does create a different perspective but still leaves the coda to be put
in focus.
It is expected that all three excerpts address their astonishment with
Brahms capabilities and show respect to the genius of the work. He was able to
coincide both variation and sonata form and make the piece sound organic. It is
almost as if the restrictions of the passacaglia forced Brahms to expand the
capability of the term. During the later part of Knapps excerpt he talks about how
Brahms picked this ostinato subject because it could not elide gracefully with
itself. (pg. 305) This is interesting on many perspectives. It alludes to Brahms
conceptualizing the symphony beforehand and forces him to make certain decisions.
It is without question that he wanted to expand on the passacaglia and in order to
do so; he needed to expand the ostinato subject beyond the baroque past by adding
a chromatic alteration. This form is something that should not be swept under the

rug and it was Brahms reinvented it. There is something to be said from the
perpetual feeling of mankind and its demand for closure (pg. 305), as Knapp said.
This could be a conclusion that was not pre-meditated by Brahms but nevertheless
it does resonate with human instinct and should not be forgotten in the
development of music.