Carl Wikeley

Analysis of Brahms Second String Quartet, Op. 51. No. 2

Brahms A minor String Quartet is characterised by a subversive tension and unease
which pervades its form, in the extended exposition, the temporal yet tumultuous development
section, and the eventual and uncommitted recapitulation. Brahms achieves this through
intricate treatment of rhythm, texture and harmony, all of which are related to presentation and
exploration of motif. That this, his second string quartet, appears momentarily lyrical, yet its
tension is never resolved is a result of the composers control of a large sonata-form structure.
Any analysis would do well to observe the elements of Brahms lengthy exposition which
contribute to the overall malaise and tension within the movement as a whole. The opening
motif of the quartet, A-F-A, or arguably A-F-E, has been termed the Joachim motto for its
cryptogram-like relation to the phrase
Frei aber einsam, begins on the subdominant of A
minor, and its second half, although harmonizable in a tonic chord, is here in first inversion,
with doubled second and added sharpened fourth undermining the tonic harmony.
Furthermore, the second component of this first subject (b), beginning b.3 sounds over chord ii,
and the only other remnance of tonic harmony in the following passage is either in second
inversion or both in second inversion and the equivalent major key. Further suggestive of a
tension is the qualities of the subject itself, which regularly begins in a syncopated fashion, in b.6
and subsequently in b.10, however the most lucid anxiety in these opening moments is caused
by the nature of the accompaniment. The viola plays arpeggiated triplets, while it is in this part
that the dissonant sharpened fourth (and second in b.3) sounds, which help to create a swaying,
uneasy motion heightened by its juxtaposition with the semiquaver and quaver cells in the first
violin. This contrast poses two-against-three, and the cross-rhythms are intensified by the
syncopated anticipation of the subject in the violins. Brahms will continue this sense of malaise
through allusions to and deft use of the triplet figure in the developmental stage.
Further contributing to a sense of tension in the vast exposition is the lack of distinct
segmentation and lack of resolution within the compartmental elements of the section itself. No
convincing cadence approaches the second subject group at b.46: the exploratory transition from
b.20 seems to reach a breaking-point at b.38, whereby the cell that begins the transitionary
material reoccurs, a group of notes in the first violin whose repetition and sense of appoggiatura
between b.38/3-39/2 highlights an uneasy tension that regularly accompanies these accented
notes. This segment is arguably derived from cell (c), from bb.6-7, with the anticipatory quavers
being of most significance. The unstable dominant harmony reached before the second subject is
further subverted by the plaintive violin link between bb.43-45.
The lack of distinction between passages continues through b.46 into the second subject
group, wherein we may expect a change of accompanimental figure, however the viola returns
with its difficult triplet material, while a regular pulse is only heard softly in the pizzicato cello,
whose wide registral leaps also evoke a lyrical sentimentality. Not contrasting with the first
subject group material, cross-rhythms are again pervasive in the music from b.46, while the
melody, derived from b.9, is of a restless temperament, and its characteristic D# and C# are
ambiguously in the Viennese tradition, or uneasily dissonant. Furthermore, the recycling of

Carl Wikeley

pitches between the first and second subject groups continues to muddy the distinction between
the section, and allow the tension to run through the exposition unheeded.
Brahms maximises the tension through attempting to halt the fervent progress and
transformation of this second-group material, but failing to bring about resolution and instead
introducing an uneasy coda from b.105, whose material is again derivative of that from the
transition, playing on the idea of the anticipatory and tense nature of the appoggiatura, and
repeating figures so as to appear frenzied and dogmatic. The second subject, traditionally more
lyrical than a measured first (true in its first instance at b. 46), is transformed through constant
reference to the triplet motif, such as at f.78 and furthermore the creeping appearance of the
figure from b.7 of the opening material, at b.79 in the viola, while the triplet motif is heard in
the viola. Subsequently, through bb.86-91, the second subject is heard in an intense, insistent
way in both the two violins and viola, and in the cello, playing the niggling, anxious
semitone-variant of the subject, while the first violin leaps wildly in octaves, leading to a climax
at b.93, wherein the range is of four octaves at its widest. This precedes a sudden
piano
marking,
wherein the music returns to material evocative of the opening, excepting the joachim motto.
This abrupt halt of development is accompanied by an attempt to bring the music back to the
key of C major following the appearance of multiple accidentals through bb.90-94. Brahms
however gives the impression of an unsuccessful, or perhaps uncommitted qualification of the
development and continuation of the second subject material by preventing the music from b.94
from displaying a clear motif or subject excepting its triplet figuration. This heightens the sense
of a sudden halt, and provides the coda material with more frustration and anger, when it
appears at b.105.
Again, Brahms increases the sense of frustration and anxiety by halting the fervent
attempts of the appoggiatura-type passages from b.106-111 to reach some kind of climax,
instead reintroducing passages from the first subject and twice halting the insistence of
repetition in b.106 and b.111 by marking a sudden decrescendo and lengthening of note values.
Perhaps a revealing small-scale model of the techniques Brahms utilises to achieve these
levels of tension in the movement is realised in the development section, from bb.129-164. This
passage is exploratory in terms of tonal areas and also with regards to the treatment of the motif.
However, Brahms development section is unusually brief and typically remains frustrated. The
development of the motif from b.3 of the first subject is characteristic of this passage and
pervades most of the material, being used to created the anticipatory semiquavers at b.134 which
are interpsersedly used for melodic ornamentation and also bass implementation, before Brahms
likens this developed cell to the triplet figure which accompanies it in the opening in the viola
part, repeating much of the material, however moving towards C# minor and all the time
drawing similarities and creating ambiguities between the semiquaver and triplet cells. Brahms
is extremely explorative with his use of motif through b.139-146, as he disguises appearances of
the joachim motto within the context of other development, of the semiquaver and triplet
cells. From bb.139-142 in particular, we can view the minims in the first violin line as marking
out a development of the opening motto, before the move to C# minor is prevented from being
fully realised by the recurrence of the insistent motifs from the transition and coda, at b.148 and
b.150, whose repetition of notes create tension and force the harmony through to F major at

Carl Wikeley

b.152, a key a tritone apart from C#. These two keys both share a similarly close relationship
with A minor, however they are not familiar to each other, creating an internal sense of
juxtaposition and unease within the development section. However this use of harmony,
together with the passage between bb.159-164, characterise the short, unfulfilled and fitful
nature of the development section.
As mentioned, the passage from bb.159-164 can be seen as a crisis point, reached
through a combination of motifs and rising tessitura, before the range of almost four octaves is
again realised, together with the appoggiatura-like repetition heard in the transition and coda
sections. The semitonal insistence in this passage is most distinct and observable here, rather
than in its previous incarnations, thanks to the homophonous texture of the writing, with
identical slurring and dogmatism, before a homophonous crash, both literally and
psychologically occurs at b.162. Here, the tessitura plummets down two octaves in all parts, and
the writing begins imitation at b.161 however it continues to be in both homophony and unison
octaves, sketching out a diminished triad. This material is however not entirely new, and can be
seen to derive from b.13 in the exposition. This sharp descent from the height and climax of
bb.159-60 highlights how Brahms utilises the limitations of his short developmental space to
stifle any resolution or realisation of potential, and introduce the reprise at b.165 where it seems
both premature, and unwanted in the overall structure and tension of the work. In this way, the
developmental space does not function as the working-out of problematic material from the
vast exposition, and instead, this is carried through into the recapitulation, as we can observe in
the material from b.165, wherein the melody returns in the cello, before an extended motif
heard in b.3 is continued through to b.177, at which point the reprise is continued by the solo
violin, whose recollection of the opening material is not accurate, and appears extended and
convoluted.
In the course of the recapitulation, neither the anxiety of the two-against-three tension,
nor the unease of the appoggiatura-like quaver motif is resolve or successfully dissipated, and
this material returns in the lengthy coda, from bb.272-335. This is symptomatic of the malaise
which Brahms constructs within the framework of a tightly-constructed sonata-form
movement, creating an overall and haunting juxtaposition between the extended and weighty
nature of form and the frustratingly unanswered tension which the musical material provokes.