BRAHMS - PIANO PIECES Op 76 - No. 4 INTERMEZZO - ANALYSIS

Excuse the ignorant question, but is it a Schenkerian analysis?

Dilettante wrote:

but is it a Schenkerian analysis?

no no, it is (or should be) a normal harmonic analysis with some simple indications of form.

i tried to reduce the harmony to its functional aspects, filtering out the numerous extraneous notes ...

since there is never enough space in scores to write the analysis ( ) I often rewrite everything in its essential aspects. However, it does not replace the original (which I have indeed attached) but they should be looked at together

It seems very convincing to me, it also helps a lot as a method. Thank you for sharing them with me

It seems a bit long for me to verify everything, do you perhaps have doubts about some specific steps? That way I can do it faster

look, if you feel like it, I'm more interested in a couple of passages from the other thread (op 118 no.1), I'll write them to you over there

Hi! Just one detail, but it might be interesting.

In the passage between m. 4 and m. 5 you write V7 - IV6. According to scale degree theory, this is the correct interpretation. However, following harmonic function theory, it would not be possible to hypothesize a V - IV, because the subdominant can never follow the dominant. How, then, should this passage be interpreted?

I would propose understanding it as a variant of the deceptive cadence V - VI, i.e., D - Tp, meaning "Dominant - tonic parallel". Instead of the tonic's parallel chord (G minor), we have an Eb major chord here. However, it is not a first-inversion triad: it is a chord in root position, with the sixth instead of the fifth (with Eb instead of D). The notation I would propose to analyze this passage is therefore D7 - Tp6.

Quite unusual, without a doubt (but it can also be found in Mozart!).

RedScharlach wrote:

In the transition between m. 4 and m. 5, write V7 - IV6. According to scale degree theory, this is the correct interpretation. Following harmonic function theory instead, it would not be

possible to hypothesize a V - IV, because the subdominant can never follow the dominant. How, then, should this passage be interpreted?

...deceptive cadence?

www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/1921-domanda-tecnica-di-armonia

Aspirante wrote:

...deceptive cadence?

Exactly! However, I was noting that the theory of harmonic functions does not contemplate the D - S succession, and therefore it is necessary to devise an ad hoc interpretation.

I fear I haven't understood ...what would your ad hoc interpretation be? Do you mean another one, different from how Piston marks it... or what?

I am asking because the subject interests me particularly...

It seems like an excellent explanation to me. Summarizing also for a beginner, instead of V | IV6 it remains a common deceptive cadence V | VI (whereby the VI does not have the 5th of the chord, but is replaced by the 6th)

It is consistent because, if I am not mistaken, we are in a period where replacing the 5th with the 6th is not so infrequent; at the same time I wonder: why develop "ad hoc" theories if acoustically that chord is a simple IV6? Is it possible that at some point the V | IV connection is no longer taboo ???!!!!

thanks for the contribution

RedScharlach wrote:

However, I was noting that the theory of harmonic functions does not contemplate the D - S succession, and therefore it is necessary to devise an ad hoc interpretation.

But it's not S in this case...it would be T

As I was explaining, even regarding the third degree... it happens that De la Motte's methodology presents some limitations

www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/1753-il-terzo-grado

Since I was citing De la Motte, I still consider him outdated as a methodology, in the sense that I opt for a more abstract one that allows for the identification of important moments of tonal language:

Tonic (T), Pre-Cadential (PC), Cadential (C), which in turn can go to T or Deceptive (I)

That being said, the III degree has tendentially also been used as C, which is why De la Motte's classification does not include it; in fact, he only sees it in the tonic area, and in reality, for a while now I haven't found relevance in reasoning through subdominant and dominant, because the III, for example, can in turn be dominant (...and De la Motte knows this)

An approach like the one I am proposing works very well even with Jazz music, so I find it more abstract and more "pure".

... and in this case we would be talking about "I".

AleGozzo wrote:

why develop "ad hoc" theories if acoustically that chord is a simple IV6? Is it not the case that at some point the V | IV connection is no longer taboo ???!!!!

You have grasped exactly the point... I will therefore try to delve a little deeper!

For Brahms, in general terms (there might be exceptions, perhaps when he resorts to "modal," folkloric, or archaic writing), the V - IV connection is still taboo. Besides, Brahms was one of the reference composers for Riemann, the musicologist who developed the theory of harmonic functions. The D - S succession lies outside the logic of functional harmony. The substantial difference between scale degree theory and harmonic function theory is that the former allows for the classification of individual chords simply based on the reference key (and therefore in C major, the F-A-C chord will always be IV), whereas the latter attempts to interpret the logic (Riemann spoke specifically of harmonic logic) of the connections between chords; thus, still in C major, the A-C-F chord can be, depending on the context in which it is placed, S3 (subdominant with the third in the bass) or Tp6 (tonic parallel, with the sixth instead of the fifth: this is the case of the passage analyzed).

As you observe, "acoustically" the chord is the same, and in scale degree theory, you classify it as IV6 in any case. However, harmonic function theory invites you not to listen to the chord itself, but in relation to its context.

I also add that the D- Tp6 connection can also be interpreted as a result of voice leading: the G-B-D-G chord resolves to A-C-C-F, with contrary motion between the bass and soprano (this case can also be found in Mozart).

RedScharlach wrote:

Besides, Brahms was one of the reference composers for Riemann, the musicologist who developed the theory of harmonic functions.

Yes, a century ago. Moreover, his theory was revisited in later times... because it presented several gaps.

Frank wrote:

That being said, the III degree has also tended to be used as C, which is why De la Motte's classification does not include it; in fact, he only sees it within the tonic area, and in reality, for a while now I haven't found relevance in reasoning via subdominant and dominant, because the III, for example, can itself be a dominant (...and de la Motte knows this)

You are right... I also cannot quite perceive the III as Tg [Tonic], especially if it is in first inversion. In C major, the G-B-E chord, as it is normally used (for example in Chopin), I would rather classify it as D6, that is, dominant with the sixth instead of the fifth, and therefore as a chord in root position.

Since Riemann is being mentioned, I will take the opportunity to point out this old discussion

www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/632-contraccordo

If anyone would like to add anything ...