among Brahms’s earliest compositions are numerous scherzo movements. one of these is the posthumously published scherzo from the F–a–e sonata written with albert dietrich and robert schumann in october 1853 for their friend, violinist Joseph Joachim. Brahms’s three piano sonatas fall within his first five opuses, and each contains a scherzo movement. all of these movements are in the minor mode and have a fiery, turbulent character quite different from most early nineteenth- century scherzo movements—with the significant exception of those from Beethoven’s Fifth and ninth symphonies—but quite typical of the mid-nineteenth- century scherzo. such movements manifest the fascination of romanticism with the darker elements of the human psyche, and the young Brahms was thoroughly immersed in German romanticism, eagerly collecting quotations from Jean Paul, Goethe, novalis, eichendorff, and others.1
despite the similarities among these scherzos, they represent two different narrative archetypes. the scherzos from the piano sonatas begin and end in the minor, and their initial and final expressive states are essentially the same. Their major-mode trios offer repose that stands completely apart from the inexorability of their framing scherzos. the F–a–e scherzo, on the other hand, shifts from minor to major and presents an expressive trajectory that moves from conflict to triumph, from darkness to light. Not coincidentally, the tonic for the scherzo is C—as in Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, where the scherzo-finale pair of movements also progresses from c minor to c major. among Brahms’s scherzo-type movements, seven begin in C minor—more than twice as many as in any other key, accounting for fully one-fifth of his scherzo-type movements. Two of Brahms’s other C-minor scherzos—those from the Piano Quintet, op. 34, and the Piano Quartet, op. 60— are similar in expressive shape to the F–a–e scherzo, and these three scherzos will be treated in the second part of this chapter. although the movements from Opp. 34 and 60 end in blazing C major, I will show how Brahms makes this outcome more dramatically convincing than in the F–a–e scherzo.
As Walter Frisch has noted, Brahms’s earliest works tend to be relatively free from the metric dissonance that is characteristic of his mature style.2 1 See Carl Krebs (ed.), The Brahms Notebooks: The Little Treasure Chest of the Young
Kriesler, trans. Agnes Eisenberger (Hillsdale, NY, 2003 [1909]).
2 Walter Frisch, “the shifting Bar line: metrical displacement in Brahms,” in
this is certainly true of the scherzos from the piano sonatas, especially in opp. 1 and 2. this metric straightforwardness includes hypermetric structure, phrase design, and the metric placement of significant tonal goals. The F–A–E scherzo is striking for its direct engagement with metric dissonance, as well as tonal dissonance. In op. 34, these elements are again present but are coordinated with one another and organized in the service of broader musical structures. this greater control is also evident in op. 60, although the movement is on a smaller scale.
A striking aspect of Brahms’s earliest scherzos (F–A–E, Op. 1, and Op. 2) is their direct engagement with specific works by Brahms’s predecessors. The F–A–E scherzo (and to some extent Op. 34) explicitly references Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, and the scherzos from the first two piano sonatas seem close to particular passages in Beethoven, schubert, and schumann. In his mature pieces, Brahms typically enters into dialogues with tonal and formal conventions rather than with individual works. thus, in addition to close study of musical process within these early scherzos, this chapter will touch on these various intertextual resonances.
Part I: the PIano SonataS, oPP. 1, 2, and 5
the opp. 1 and 2 sonatas had been written by the time Brahms was introduced to robert and clara schumann in the autumn of 1853, although they were not published until after that date. Both were among the works that Brahms played for the schumanns at their initial meeting, and schumann famously hailed them as “veiled symphonies.”3 despite its later opus number, the F-minor sonata was
actually composed a few months before the c-major sonata (except for the slow movement of the C-major Sonata). Both sonatas are four-movement works with the scherzo in its usual third position. In a departure from the most common practice, neither work places the scherzo in the sonata’s prevailing key; in the C-major Sonata, the scherzo is in E minor (with a trio in C major), while in the F-minor Sonata the scherzo is in B minor (with a trio in D major). Within the scherzos, there are also clear departures from the formal and tonal expectations of the continuous rounded binary model—not the subtle play with convention evident in Brahms’s mature works. More characteristic in formal design is the scherzo from Brahms’s op. 5, which was conceived prior to his encounter with the schumanns but was only completed in 1854. The scherzo of Op. 5 is in the sonata’s prevailing key— F minor—but this might be more a reaction to the preceding movement’s directional tonality (a major to d major) than a nod to earlier convention. With its mixture of elements of the waltz and the macabre, the scherzo is one of Brahms’s most powerful. the reposeful trio, in d major, offers hints of the flexibility of phrase rhythm that would soon emerge in Brahms’s music. the discussion of these three
1990), pp. 142–3.
3 robert schumann, “neue Bahnen,” Neue Zeitschrift für Musik, 39/18 (28 october
scherzos will proceed in order of their composition; all are formative works, but there are considerable advances in compositional technique across them.
Piano Sonata in F Minor, Op. 2
a mere twenty-one measures in Allegro 6/8, the scherzo from the Piano sonata, Op. 2, is Brahms’s most compact (Example 2.1). This concision is easily explained: the scherzo is nothing more than a slightly expanded, fast-tempo version of the sixteen-measure theme from the preceding theme-and-variations movement. the theme of the slow movement is unusual in its tonal openness—it ends on a half cadence—and even the third and final variation preserves this trait. Ending the slow movement on the dominant (and with an attacca to the scherzo indicated) makes the scherzo initially seem like a fourth variation rather than a new movement. even without the prototype of the previous movement’s theme, the derivation of the scherzo from a sixteen-measure model is immediately apparent. the thirteen- measure second reprise expands an eight-measure phrase through a deceptive resolution of the cadential dominant (m. 16), a repetition of the preceding two measures (mm. 17–18), and a further repetition with an authentic cadence and written-out deceleration (mm. 19–21). The units within the expanded phrase are clearly articulated, though the left hand does provide rhythmic continuity between them. example 2.1 gives a taste of Brahms’s language before his interest in metric dissonance and non-congruence between significant metric, tonal, and formal arrivals.4
directly connected to the one-phrase length of the second reprise is the absence of a return of the initial thematic material in the tonic. In other words, unlike the vast majority of scherzos, this one is a binary, rather than rounded binary, form. again, the source of this anomaly is the relationship to the previous movement; themes for theme-and-variations movements are more often in binary rather than rounded binary form. there is thematic return, but of a different sort. the first six measures of the second reprise are an exact transposition of the first six measures of the first reprise into the relative major. Since the first reprise was only eight
4 At the opening of the scherzo, some analysts might find a half-measure displacement
dissonance, created by the pauses after the attack at the middle of each measure and the return to B-minor harmony in the middle of m. 3. I find the displacement dissonance very weak, if present at all. The effect of a short note followed by silence is quite different from a long, sustained note. Further, the staccato e leggiero indication argues against any dynamic emphasis of second beats; the scherzo’s shadowy character is heightened through downplaying second beats. Falling away from the second beats is suggested by the change in melodic direction and the unexpected leap that accompanies them. even if one admits a weak displacement dissonance in mm. 1–4, complete metric consonance is restored in mm. 5–8, and the repeat of the opening harbors even less metric tension. (similarly, the transition after the trio prepares the return of the scherzo in a metrically consonant fashion.)
measures long, this is an exceptional amount to bring back without variation. In fact, the stasis on the Neapolitan harmony during the fifth and sixth measures gets Brahms into a rather tight spot in the second reprise. moving from the neapolitan of d major—that is, an e-major harmony—to a cadence in B minor in the space of two measures (mm. 15–16) results in a hasty enharmonic reinterpretation (which was more convincing in its original slow-tempo version).
after the brevity of the scherzo, the spacious deployment of rounded binary form in the trio is particularly welcome. despite its overall pastoral mode, the trio has some unexpected tonal and metric features. the trio begins and ends with pure D major, a key whose effect is enhanced by consistent placement of in example 2.1 Brahms, Piano sonata, op. 2, III, mm. 1–21
the top voice in all tonic harmonies.5 except for these tonic harmonies, however,
nearly every chord is inflected by mixture, including the cadential chords at most cadences. In addition to the use of mixture, the chord progression in the first reprise is surely one of the strangest ever written in a purportedly pastoral trio (see simplified score in Example 2.2). Its alternation of
and chords, which
minimally conceal the underlying parallel root-position harmonies, is similar to the better-known progression in mm. 21–7 of the first movement of the Piano Quartet in C Minor, Op. 60. Though not published until 1875, the first movement of op. 60 was conceived in 1855—only three years after this scherzo. In op. 60 this slithering progression fits into the foreboding atmosphere, whereas in Op. 2 it seems a bit incongruous. Given the clear allusion to folk instruments in the piano writing in the trio, this series of chords almost comes off as an attempt to cultivate a deliberately unlearned progression. yet this interpretation is undermined by the start of the second reprise, which inverts the chromaticism into rising, hopeful motions that lead to the retransitional dominant and the pompous grandioso rounding, which is a reference to a D-major passage (also marked grandioso) in the second variation of the slow movement. the effect of this ascending sequence and somewhat overwrought climax suggests more an overcoming of adversity than a representation of a rural group of musicians.
5 Brahms’s trio is uncannily similar to that of the minuet movement of schubert’s
Piano sonata in G major, d. 894 (which was one of the three schubert sonatas actually published before 1828). In Schubert’s trio, the melody is almost identical, though it is exquisitely covered by a pedal point on
the trio’s most notable aspect is its triple hypermeter (see annotations on Example 2.2). Pervasive triple hypermeter is infrequent, but Brahms was likely aware of Beethoven’s usages (e.g., scherzo of the ninth symphony, the Bagatelle, Op. 126, No. 6). Brahms’s mature style tends to avoid such a high degree of hypermetric periodicity, and there are some moments in the trio when maintaining the triple hypermeter seems awkward. At the end of the first reprise, there is an extended pause, which is heard both when the repeat is taken and when the music moves to the second reprise.6 there is a similar seam before the thematic rounding
in m. 48, and continuing the notated crescendo throughout mm. 46–8 is challenging. the thematic rounding proceeds in triple hypermeter without any hypermetric reinterpretations.7 the trio is followed by a brief, accelerating transition that leads
directly into a written-out repeat of the scherzo.
The written-out repeat has several alterations: the first reprise is heard both in its original form and in a fortissimo transformation. the transformation consists merely of placing the melody in the left hand and giving the right hand a tremolo figure—a texture favored by Liszt, not Brahms. The second reprise begins in a similar new arrangement, and its tonal content remains the same until after the enharmonic modulation. now Brahms expands the phrase not through deceptive progressions but through a stasis on the cadential dominant. the right-hand tremolo evolves into an unaccompanied trill, which prepares a memory of the trio in B major. after three measures, the recollection shifts to B minor and a swift four- measure return of scherzo material brings the movement to a close. The fleeting return to trio material at the end of the scherzo is an effective way of expanding the unusually short scherzo section, and was a device employed by earlier composers (e.g., Beethoven in his Seventh and Ninth Symphonies).
The scherzo from Op. 2 is not ineffective; in fact, its dramatic, well-defined contrasts and exciting pianistic feats have a direct, though not profound, impact. Such a work, however, does make one wish to temper, at least somewhat, the
6 My hypermetric reinterpretation in m. 31 perhaps merits clarification. Initially, one
might consider m. 32 as a one-measure expansion since it repeats the music of m. 31. In that interpretation, mm. 33–5 would form a three-measure hypermeasure that is expanded by a fourth (almost silent) measure. I much prefer the reading in Example 2.2 because of Brahms’s notated crescendo across mm. 31–3; m. 32 is not an echo-repetition. Instead, the iteration of m. 31 is repeated in m. 32, and then agitatedly repeated in m. 33; mm. 31–3 form a cohesive unit (much like our tendency in spoken language to repeat a word or phrase once slightly louder, and then to repeat it much louder and with variation if still not understood).
7 hypermetric reinterpretation refers to a beat in the hypermeter that functions
simultaneously in two ways; the most common hypermetric reinterpretation is a fourth beat in a hypermeasure that also functions as a downbeat for the next hypermeasure (due to a phrase ending that is also a phrase beginning—an elision). Hypermetric reinterpretation is equivalent to William rothstein’s “metrical reinterpretation” and Fred lerdahl and ray Jackendoff’s “metrical deletion” (Rothstein, Phrase Rhythm in Tonal Music, p. 52; lerdahl and Jackendoff, A Generative Theory, p. 101).
pronouncement in schumann’s “neue Bahnen” that Brahms emerged in 1853 with his compositional mastery fully formed.
Piano Sonata in C Major, Op. 1
compared to the scherzo from the F-minor sonata, the one from the c-major sonata is more ambitious and more effective. the scherzo and the trio are each about 100 measures long, and each presents a continuous rounded binary form. Both strongly project four-measure units throughout, but there is a cautious deployment of beat-level grouping dissonance. as in the scherzo from op. 2, there are some not fully convincing events, but in this movement they contribute to larger motivic and tonal structures, specifically a prevalence of scalar figures and a fascination with various melodic and harmonic treatments of .
Given the scherzo’s considerable length, there is much opportunity for thematic development, and Brahms weaves most of the scherzo from its initial four measures (see Example 2.3). In a passing reference to this movement, Harald Krebs notes the emergence of a weak grouping dissonance in m. 3 (a 2 + 2 + 2 grouping of eighth notes) and posits a connection between this subtle grouping dissonance and the shift to 3/4 meter for the trio.8 While this relationship adds somewhat to the overall
unity of the movement, there are other aspects to this grouping dissonance. this grouping dissonance arises from the diminution of the falling third from m. 2 and continues a stepwise descent initiated at the very start of the scherzo. In addition to the sudden and consistent quickening of the surface rhythm from dotted quarters to eighth notes, there is also the slower and uneven pacing of the underlying descent (E)–D–C–B–A–G–F across mm. 1–4. The ascending scalar figure in m. 5 does not have these two components; its stepwise motion occurs directly on the musical surface in eighth notes. The distinction between embellished descents and quick, unadorned ascents is a basic contrast that persists until near the end of the scherzo.
8 Krebs, Fantasy Pieces, p. 220.
The excerpt in Example 2.4 includes the scherzo’s structural close (mm. 84–5) and codetta (mm. 85–100). With the arrival of the background dominant at m. 81, the grouping dissonance implicit in the scherzo’s many descending lines becomes explicit for the first time. The barrenness of mm. 81–4 hardly makes it one of Brahms’s finest passages, but it suggests a budding interest in metric narrative: the scherzo’s hidden tension at last explodes, and it does so when the scherzo’s harmonic tension peaks.
the codetta grapples with the tension between duple and triple grouping of eighth notes, ultimately resolving to the triple grouping consonant with 6/8 meter. This shift back to consonant 6/8 happens abruptly at m. 89, but a beautiful motivic expansion draws the entire codetta together. the codetta returns to the descending line from E that first spanned mm. 1–4. At the opening this descending line ended on F, and throughout the scherzo the endpoints of the line go along with a change in harmony. In the context of the codetta’s tonic prolongation, the line at last completes the octave descent from e to e. In fact, two such descents occur: from m. 85 to the downbeat of m. 87, and in mm. 87–97. this second descent cuts across the sharp change in rhythmic content at m. 89. at m. 89, the line has only reached G; after being prolonged through neighbor motions to a (and a pseudo-neighbor gesture to C in m. 91!), the G progresses to F in mm. 94–6 and ultimately to e in m. 97. Like the tremolos in Op. 2, the strepitoso gesture is Lisztisch bravura, but it also highlights the delayed closing of this last descending line.
the emergence of F as a prominent chromatic agent in the codetta points ahead to the trio’s c major, but it also resonates with some aspects of the scherzo. The scherzo’s first reprise touched on the dominant seventh of C major (mm. 9–11), and C later functions on a deep middleground level (m. 17), as shown in the bass-line sketch in Example 2.5. The most striking engagement with F prior to the codetta, however, occurs at m. 24. the second reprise begins with a sequence by ascending minor third: C (m. 17), E (m. 21), F (m. 25). Each of these arrivals is approached through a local deceptive progression (B–c, d–e, F–F), which means that there is an enharmonic shift in mm. 24–5; when F rises by semitone, the apparent G comes to function as an F that eventually falls by fifth to achieve the return of the home dominant (m. 44); F controls the harmonic landscape for some nineteen measures and is treated as a dominant. the passage has the effect of a “false retransition” as it has a suspenseful bass ostinato but has not yet attained the home dominant. at m. 44, the F resolves to B major, which is only turned from local tonic into home dominant several measures later. this anomalous emphasis on F has consequences in the thematic rounding: at the eighth measure (m. 59), the melody’s F is harmonized not by a dominant chord (B major) but by another F-major chord. this F-major harmony also extends over several measures (and is further highlighted by pianissimo dolcissimo and
poco sostenuto directions and an indication to keep the damper pedal depressed
throughout). In addition, the onset of the F-major harmony occurs in the eighth