|
COPYRIGHT 1998 University of Nebraska Press
I
Several recent studies have drawn attention to the importance of Neapolitan relations in Brahms's instrumental works. James Webster's seminal article on Schubert and Brahms refers to the "essential role" of Neapolitan relationships.(1) Among the Brahms sonata forms that Webster analyzes, the first movement of the F-Minor Piano Quintet places greatest emphasis on Neapolitan and Neapolitan-related chords. Christopher Wintle goes a step further and traces a "Neapolitan complex" (or N-complex) in movements from the E-Minor Cello Sonata and the A-Major Piano Quartet.(2) He explores Schubert's influence on Brahms's Neapolitan procedures and provides insight into the historical relationship suggested by Tovey and elaborated by Webster. More recently, Margaret Notley has described an "inverse" Neapolitan layout in the Adagio of the F-major Cello Sonata.(3) Her main thesis -- that the movement is a revised version of a discarded movement from the E-Minor Cello Sonata -- throws light on the central role the Neapolitan plays throughout the multimovement cycle.
A common feature of these studies is their tendency to associate Neapolitan relations with the works of Brahms's first maturity. There is at least a suggestion that the composer turned away from the N-complex in later phases of his career.(4) Even Notley speculates that the prominence of the Neapolitan throughout the F-Major Sonata of 1887 is a consequence of relationships that Brahms probably composed into the Adagio when it was part of the E-Minor Sonata of 1866. Musical evidence supports the view that the N-complex was an important resource for Brahms during the 1860s. Not enough attention has been paid, however, to the composer's interest in the schema in later years. Though Brahms was perhaps never again to focus on the N-complex as intensely as in the early works, it continued to exert its influence in such diverse masterpieces as the C-Minor String Quartet, the Violin Concerto (mvt. 2), the Fourth Symphony, and the D-Minor Violin Sonata (mvt. 3, inverse). Indeed, he saves his most thoroughgoing essay in Neapolitan relations for his penultimate instrumental work, the F-Minor Clarinet Sonata, op. 120, no.1.
The first movement of the sonata provides an opportunity both to explore further Brahms's preoccupation with the N-complex and to revise the view that, "save for [the F-major Cello Sonata] and possibly [the second movement of the Fourth Symphony], Brahms indeed abandons this schema after 1870."(5) Before we turn to op.120, it is first necessary to outline some basic characteristics of the N-complex. Ex. 7.1 reproduces Wintle's representation of Neapolitan relationships.(6) Central to the schema is the role of [natural]VI, which links the tonic and Neapolitan keys via the familiar [V.sup.7]/German-sixth equivalence. [natural]VI can also function as Neapolitan in the dominant key. Wintle uses this relationship to expand the N-complex to two additional levels. The equivalence of [natural]VI and [natural]II/V becomes a means to pivot between the tonic and dominant regions (ex. 7.1, system 2), and emphasis on [natural]II/V replicates, in the dominant, the original set of Neapolitan relations (ex. 7.1, system 3).
The representation of constituents as chords in ex. 7.1 is a matter of convenience. In a musical context, the network usually resonates in the motivic as well as the harmonic dimension. There is a tendency in analyses of N-complex works to focus on key relations and melodic semitone figures. Webster and Wintle both treat large-scale tonal relationships as expanded chord progressions and relate key schemes to foreground motives. This strategy reflects the influence of Schenker, as does their use of voice-leading graphs. Webster's and Wintle's approach, however, partly diverges from Schenker's, without a reformulation of theoretical premises. Their methodology sometimes leads to imprecise analytic results, which in turn cause them to overlook distinctions among works they see as closely related.
An example will help to define some of the issues. Wintle quotes, with approval, Webster's assertion that "when the first part of the second group appears in [b flat]VI or [b flat]vi, the subsequent move to the dominant mimics a move from the Neapolitan ([b flat]II) to a major tonic."(7) This is the progression notated on system 2 of Wintle's schema. The observation is sound as a description of interval relationships among key centers. Indeed, a sonata form can articulate the parallelism, if some or all of the submediant material is recapitulated in the Neapolitan. Ex. 7.2 shows Webster's representation of this tonal plan in the Piano Quintet; ex. 7.3 shows Wintle's graph of the similar situation in the E-Minor Cello Sonata. Keys, however, are relational networks, not sounding entities; though it is appropriate to speak of chords moving to chords, the metaphor does not work as well for keys.(8) Part of the problem stems from Webster's and Wintle's tendency to equate key areas and tonics; they underestimate the potential for a tonicization to prolong a chord other than its local tonic. They are also too quick to assign tonicized chords middleground status. Even if successive key areas do prolong their own tonics, the chords might not form a structural harmonic progression. As ex. 7.4 shows, a large-scale IV intervenes between VI and V in the Piano Quintet. Similarly, a structural dominant in m.208 forms the bridge back to the tonic, following the Neapolitan recapitulation of the second theme. In neither case does a half-step root progression connect either VI to V or [b flat]II to I.(9)
Webster's and Wintle's desire for direct VI-V and [b flat]II-I connections reflects their association of Neapolitan relations with melodic semitone motion. One justification for this view is the prominence that foreground Neapolitan progressions frequently place on the [b flat]2-1 melodic half step. Another is the root relation between the tonic and Neapolitan chords; the latter is a somewhat more abstract rationale in that it depends on a liberal application of inversion theory.(10) A focus on semitone motion as the basis for Neapolitan relationships often leads Webster and Wintle to bypass transitional dominants as potential structural harmonies. An advantage of this approach is that it allows them to relate Neapolitan progressions to foreground motives, usually 5-6-5 neighbor figures; Wintle's graph of the Cello Sonata is especially clear in highlighting the influence of motivic considerations on his choice of structural harmonies. But the Neapolitan does not normally form a direct harmonic connection with its tonic; it characteristically functions as a dominant preparation. This pre-dominant function provides a source for an additional N-complex relationship: the potential for VI to function as a Neapolitan in terms of middleground harmonic progression, rather than simply in terms of interval relationships among keys. Schenker's willingness to grant structural status to transitional dominants responds to the potential for the C tonicization, in m.34 of the Cello Sonata, to be heard retrospectively as a large-scale preparation for the F# dominant. Ex. 7.5 shows this alternate interpretation.(11) A more stringent application of Schenkerian techniques leads to an important distinction: the tonicization of VI in the sonata functions as a Neapolitan within the motion to V, while the D[b flat] material in the Piano Quintet does not.
A reformulation of Neapolitan relations need not deny the relationships Webster and Wintle assert. It is important, nevertheless, to differentiate motivically derived key schemes and structural harmonic progressions. The connection between the 5-6-5 motive and the VI-V key succession in the Cello Sonata and the Piano Quintet resides in a different mental space from that of a middleground harmonic progression: it is associative rather than prolongational. The distinction is important not because one type of relationship is more legitimate; rather, it is a matter of clarity in analytic discourse.(12) One of my goals will be to work with the N-complex from a perspective that is more self-conscious about analytic methodology. The Clarinet Sonata's intricate web of Neapolitan and sonata-form procedures demands a flexible analytic response. Recognizing the value of both key-scheme and voice leading descriptions of form, my approach will explore the diverse interaction of these dimensions with thematic design and motivic process. N-complex relations can seep into all these structural parameters. The degree of saturation is important for comparison with other N-complex works. Although Brahms adopts a historically resonant mode of organization in the Clarinet Sonata, he avoids epigonism through a characteristic intensification of the traditional compositional strategy. The complex interaction of structural parameters results in perhaps his most intensely multidimensional exploration of the Neapolitan complex.
II
Example 7.6 reproduces the opening fifty-three measures of the F-Minor Clarinet Sonata. Even a cursory glance shows the centrality of N-complex constituents: VI and [b flat]II appear within the main theme (mm.6, 8, 10, 19-20, 24), and VI is tonicized in m.38. The modulation to VI itself engages the N-complex through its use of [b flat]II as a pivot in m.33. The submediant and Neapolitan are introduced in mm.6 and 8 via 56 motions within the tonic and subdominant, respectively. These half-step motions connect the VI and [b flat]II chords with two important motives in the quasi-introductory flourish of mm.1-4: the 5-6-5 neighbor in mm.1-3 and the 3-[b flat]2-1 passing motion that straddles the caesura in mm.4-5. Throughout the sonata, these motives and the 5-6 motion play a crucial role in articulating N-complex relationships. Their persistence reflects the depth of Brahms's conception of tonal structure -- yet another instance of his celebrated proclivity for the near "total organization" of pitch relations.(13)
We shall return to issues of motivic process later. At this point, it is appropriate first to comment on the relationship of thematic design, key succession, and voice leading across the exposition. Like many of Brahms's sonata forms, the F-Minor Clarinet Sonata articulates three keys in its exposition; in addition to the tonic and VI, it culminates in an extensive passage in the minor dominant (mm.53-89). Discussions of three-key expositions from a traditional formal perspective usually note the ambivalence that often characterizes the second key. The tendency, nevertheless, is to treat the first nontonic area as the beginning of the second group.(14) An interpretation of the D[b flat] arrival along these lines is supported by the transitional character of mm.33-37 and the entrance of a lyrical "second theme" at m.38.
An analysis that regards the thematic entrance as the initiation of the second group responds to important aspects of Brahms's exposition. It also helps to relate the movement to stylistic trends in nineteenth-century approaches to sonata form. The three-key layout, the lyricism of the middle-key material, and the brevity of the modulatory transition are obvious Schubertian features. The move specifically to the submediant recalls not only Schubert but also Beethoven in some of his most famous sonata forms.(15) The integration of Schubertian innovations with a more Beethovenian terseness is evidence that Brahms still drew inspiration in his later years from the approach of his first maturity. Schubert's continued influence is also felt in the ambivalence of the lyrical material. Though it is possible to identify m.38 as the beginning of the second group, not all strands of the D[b flat] passage work to create a decisive articulation. One source of continuity is the motivic derivation of the material: the passage begins with a transposed version of the original head motive in the bass, and the top voice answers with the A[b flat]-G[b flat]-F fragment at its original pitch level. The clarinet joins the process in mm.43-45 with...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
