# Classical Opposition and Contrast in Webern's Concerto for Nine Instruments op 24



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Hi everyone,

I wanted to write a little article on a minimally technical description of Webern's 12-tone instrumental music, specifically focusing on the Concerto for Nine Instruments, op 24. This should be understandable by anyone who can read sheet music, and is for anyone who either likes second Viennese serial music or wants to learn more about it. This article is quite detailed, but I emphasize that anyone who can, say, follow a bit of Charles Rosen's "The Classical Style" would be able to follow this similar level of discourse.

Those who have heard a good handful of this music and still don't like it or find much interest in it probably won't get much out of this discussion. My goal is not to "convert" anyone but to offer greater clarity to those who might like it. I remember being awed and intrigued... and also confused by Webern's sound world the first time I was exposed to his music through TalkClassical. Thus, this is meant to be an accessible introduction to what Webern is doing, and I intend to explain the aural affect and drama of the music rather than to drown in tone rows and set theory. Indeed, most of my discussion will focus on rhythm and texture.

For me, Webern's 12 tone music is highly dramatic, graceful, elegant, and structurally satisfying... in the same way that the first Viennese classicists Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven are. This does not mean that they wrote music using the same harmonies and melodies! It is clear that the harmonies and melodic lines of Webern, full of major 7ths, minor 9ths, and other wide dissonant leaps are very different from the tonic and dominant triads of the classical era.

Nevertheless, a lot of the _structural procedures_ and _dramatic contrasts_ of the classical era carry over to Webern. Classical era music is greatly founded on the forces of opposites, contrasts, symmetry, and asymmetry. And these forces act at small time scales, medium time scales, and large time scales. In the classical era, these oppositions could be between many attributes: tonic vs dominant, motif 1 vs motif 2, texture 1 vs texture 2, square rhythm vs unsquare rhythm, forte vs piano, crescendo or diminuendo vs constant dynamic, ostinato vs non-ostinato, regularity vs irregularity, monophony vs homophony vs polyphony, and stasis vs dynamism. In Webern, except for tonic vs dominant (which is replaced by the oppositions between different tone row forms prime, inversion, retrograde, and retrograde inversion... and the oppositions between different harmonic sets), all of these forces of opposition come into play to drive the music at all time scales. In this sense, Webern is a second-Viennese classicist.

Before diving into Webern, I will give a simple example in first-Viennese classicism of classical oppositions acting at multiple time scales. Take the first theme group and transition of Mozart's C minor piano sonata, shown here.















The first 8 measures, divided into (2+2)+(2+2), are an excellent example of multiple classical oppositions playing against each other. First, there's the obvious opposition of antecedent-consequent in mm.1-4 vs 5-8. Mm. 5-8 are a response of 1-4, and while mm. 4 is an imperfect half cadence, mm. 8 is an imperfect authentic cadence. Second, there's an opposition between octave unison arpeggio at an f dynamic and homophonic chorale at a p dynamic in mm. 1-2 vs 3-4; and 5-6 vs 7-8.

The next 10 measures, divided into (2+2)+(2+2)+2 contain oppositions within themselves, but they are also, as a whole, a contrast to the first 8 measures. These measures 9-18 are heavily ostinate, beginning by pounding on the dominant chord. The bassline is much more melodic and shapely, slowly descending from the dominant to the tonic and back for the first perfect authentic cadence of the piece. The polyphony and chromaticism in the upper voices are denser and harsher. At a dynamic level, fortes become pianos quickly. The individual units mm. 9-12, 13-16, and 17-18 are much more smoothly and gradually related, compared to the sharp contrasts of the first 8 measures. And most of all, the number of measures are not divisible by four. Mm. 9-18 are a lot less stable then the back and forth squareness of mm. 1-8. At the same time, however, the perfect authentic cadence at the end of mm. 18 is a resolution of the imperfect authentic cadence in mm. 8! Sometimes these questions of stability/instability aren't so clear cut: we will get into that when discussing Webern later on.

Measures 19-22, divided into 2+2, mark a return to the initial texture... but this quickly disintegrates into counterpoint with triplets, entering the transition to E flat major. And then mm. 23-35, divided into (2+2)+2+1, and 4+2, return to the ostinato of mm. 9-18, eventually reaching the powerful dominant of E flat to transition into the second theme group. Whereas mm. 9-18 were the first measures not divisible by four, 23-35 are not even divisible by two! So while mm. 1-18 are allied in their establishment of C minor, and 19-35 allied in their establishment of E flat major... mm. 1-8 and 19-22, and mm. 9-18 and 23-35 are also allied through texture and rhythm.

So, Mozart's music greatly depends on a stratification of opposition. These oppositions govern everything from the smallest attributes to the entirety of the sonata form movement. Just as there's musical narrative at the small scale, there's musical narrative at the large scale. This is a central feature, perhaps the central feature, of the classical era.

------

Let's now turn to Webern's Concerto for Nine Instruments op 24. This is a work in three movements (fast-slow-fast) for flute, oboe, and clarinet; horn, trumpet, and trombone; violin and viola; and piano. All movements take full advantage of the timbral variety of this ensemble and are full of Klangfarbenmelodie, although the piano generally takes a more central role. The instruments are also generally high-mid in pitch, with only the trombone and piano left hand truly being low: we'll have more on that later. The whole piece is less than 7 minutes, although the affect and feeling, at least for me, was as if the discourse of a 30 minute romantic or early 20th century concerto were stuffed into 7 minutes! The extreme classical oppositions of different attributes present in all three movements provides for this feeling. I will explain some of these oppositions in the first movement. The second and third movement are equally exciting and equally engaged in classical opposition, but their textures are very different from the first movement, and so for reasons of space I will omit discussion of them.

A performance can be found here: 




First, let me explain how Webern treated the tone row in a short digression. While it is never necessary to know the tone row to enjoy a piece and to feel its aural affect at the gut level, it is necessary to know some properties of the tone row in order to understand how the piece was written at a more detailed level. Knowing a few of the _properties_ of the tone row is much more important than knowing the tone row itself. In our case, the tone row is given right at the beginning, in order, in a Klangfarbenmelodie.










The notes themselves aren't important. What is important is the division of the 12 tones into four groups of three notes. All four of these three note groups are, up to inversion, the same chord! As an example, this chord is either one note (B), plus a note a half step _below_ (B flat) and a note a major third _above_ that (D)... or one note (C), plus a note a half step _above_ (C #) and a note a major third _below_ that (A). One can see this distilled down here:










These four trichords are preserved in structure (not the exact notes, but the structure) no matter how one transposes, inverts, or retrogrades the row. And Webern treats this row very strictly: in each row presentation, Webern puts the notes either one by one linearly, or simultaneously, but he never "snakes back" in the tone row. And very often, the orchestration emphasizes these three note linear motifs as distinct entities. Obviously, the first three bars do this, but so do the next two bars when the piano comes in. Measures 1-3 are an antecedent, and measures 4-5 are a consequent.










This is an extreme strictness, almost a kind of minimalism, but this extreme strictness allows for intense textural variety, and therefore classical opposition! This textural variety manifests itself in rhythm, melodic contour, counterpoint, orchestration, dynamics, voicing, and their combination.

Note that although the preponderance of three-note motifs could be compared to a Beethovenian motivic development, the Webern is much more strictly unified in pitch and not tied to any tonic or dominant, and therefore can explore contour, rhythm, dynamics, and texture much more freely. The aural affect is therefore very different.

------

Now that we know the "rules of the game", let's explore the actual textural oppositions in Webern's first movement. I highly recommend downloading the score at IMSLP at this point, because I will be going through the entire movement in some detail. Just as the Mozart piano sonata example contrasted squareness with instability at different time scales, so does the Webern. The large scale structure of the Webern is partially an arch form and partially a sonata form, where the theme groups preserve essential properties but are non-literally recapitulated:

mm. 1-10: theme group A - cadence
mm. 11-23: transition - theme group B - cadence
mm. 24-44: transition - theme group C
mm. 44-49: short recall of theme group A
mm. 50-62: transition - theme group B - cadence
mm. 63-69: theme group A - cadence

One could view this as a sonata form. Exposition mm. 1-23, development mm. 24-44, recapitulation mm. 44-62, and coda mm. 63-69. This outline of form can be found in Kathryn Bailey's book on Webern's 12 tone music.

The first theme group mm. 1-10 is an excellent example of classical phrasing. We have already talked about the antecedent-consequent structure of mm. 1-3 responded to by mm. 4-5. This is manifests itself in three ways: first, measures 1-5 have the rhythm of the three-note motifs changing every time, but they nevertheless form a rhythmic palindrome, with 4-5 the second half and 1-3 the first half. Second, the four trichords in 1-3 are the exact same trichords in 4-5, only the order of the notes within the trichords are different! And third, the exact intervalic contour of the three-note motifs are all the same: a minor ninth descent followed by a major third ascent, and all its possible retrogrades and inversions!

Measures 6-8 are an extreme contrast to 1-5, similar to the extreme contrast that opened up the Mozart. There's an explosion of sixteenth notes, with no triplets or half notes, later turning into a ritardando. The three-note motivic contour also becomes irregular: there are double ascents and double descents, and major seventh descents followed by minor sixth ascents and various inversions/retrogrades (compare that to the minor ninth descents followed by major third ascents and various inversions/retrogrades in the first five bars). There is also no palindromic content. Measures 9-10 are a cadence in the piano, presenting for the very first time the three-note motifs as two-note chord simultaneities, then three-note chord simultaneities. This closes the theme group A as its own object.

Yes, these extremely minimalist elements governing the three-note motifs: rhythm, contour, timbre, linearity vs simultaneity, and repetition vs non-repetition are the deciding factors of our classical opposition, but because of their extreme freedom a lot can be said musically.

Now for the transition in mm. 11-12 to the second theme group of our sonata form movement. The rhythm and simultaneities become much more irregular, and there's a ritardando. The piano also announces two dramatic and powerful bass notes E flat and G: before this, there were no notes lower than the D above middle C played! Remember what I said earlier about the relatively high pitch of the instrumentation in this piece. And what a shift to bass notes this is: we are not in Kansas anymore!

From measure 13 onwards, the theme group B proper, we have a _very_ different texture. The piano is the central glue: it plays for a while entirely eighth notes, often in two-note simultaneities, and often in the bass register. This provides a powerful and grounded rhythmic pulse that contrasts with the free-floatedness of the theme group A. The piano plays its own tone rows, and the other instruments now play, as a group, three-note motifs from other tone rows. And until mm. 17, there are no triplets nor sixteenth notes: the instruments reinforce the stately rhythm of the piano. However, in contrast to theme group A, the three notes within each motif are not all equal in rhythm. The ostinate percussiveness and deeper, denser, and harsher texture remind me of that contrast in Mozart's C minor piano sonata. The content is of course all different, but the large scale principles are similar.

Mm. 17 up to the cadence at mm. 23 is another extreme contrast! These measures have the purpose of theme group B absorbing the content that was initially in theme group A. Synthesis, stretto climax, and cadence. First, in mm. 17, the instruments go back to playing the equal-rhythm values for their three-note motifs, as well as returning to triplets. There has not yet been a triplet in theme group B. The piano a few measures later goes to triplets, and then goes to three-note simultaneities rather than two-note simultaneities, recalling the cadential measure 11.

There's also a crescendo. Although no crescendo is literally written in the score, mm. 13-23 slowly go from pp to p, then f, then ff with accents. Contrast that to the very different dynamic profile of theme group A, where every phrase ends in a diminuendo before going back to f. Thus, mm. 13-23, the whole second theme group, is simultaneously a crescendo and a synthesis. And this synthesis is of extremely minimalistic, yet extremely powerful basic elements of rhythm, contour, and simultaneity!

From here, we have a short transition of new material in mm. 24-25, making way for theme group C in mm. 26-44. Theme group C can be thought of as a development section. In the first half of this development section mm. 26-34, the piano plays only quarter notes and eighth notes, somewhat similar to theme group B. Above it, the violin and clarinet engage in a very melodious back-and-forth dialogue. Again, novel rhythmic elements are introduced. This is the first time that a non-piano instrument plays more than three notes in a line at once. Also, the rhythm of these extended melodic figures is the most irregular it will ever be in this piece, and there's the first introduction of grace notes. Finally, there is a great density of start/stop with ritardandos and a tempos abound. This section is also the most irregular in dynamic, contributing to its extreme expressiveness.

Mm. 35-44 constitute the second half of the development section. Here, all instruments have a role. The piano now plays angular, jagged grace notes. For the first time, the instruments play two note melodic figures. The extreme changes in dynamic continue, as does the irregularity of the rhythm.

Mm. 45-49 is a short recap of theme group A, ending with a similar cadence in the piano: two three-note simultaneities. Then, mm. 50 has the piano announce the transition to theme group B with similar deep bass notes. Theme group B gets imperfectly recapitulated. Not only are the rhythms and contours more jarring but there is for the first time in the movement an accelerando that complements the crescendo and stretto climax! Exciting stuff.

Finally, mm. 63-69 constitute a coda of theme group A, rounding out the piece. We return to the dust from which we have come. Even then, the piece doesn't literally recapitulate theme group A. In fact, there is a key difference in melodic contour. Whereas the first five measures of the piece all had minor ninth descents followed by major third ascents and various inversions/retrogrades, mm. 63-68 all have major seventh descents followed by minor sixth ascents and various inversions/retrogrades. The movement concludes with a powerful cadence in the last measure: two three-note simultaneities in the piano, and a powerful six note simultaneity in the winds and brass. This last chord is the only time in the whole concerto that a six-note chord sounds together simultaneously.

------

We have shown that the narrative in Webern's Concerto for Nine Instruments is very much in the classical spirit. This classicism, I repeat, is not one of similar harmony and melody. Rather, the similarity to the classical era is in the principle of textural opposition. Contrasts, as well as the lack thereof, of musical attributes form the driving force behind both Webern and the second Viennese school. For Webern in particular, the basic musical elements are very minimalistic, allowing the freedom to do a whole lot in texture, rhythm, dynamic, counterpoint, simultaneity, dialogue, and so on.

Most important of all is a contrast between stasis and dynamism. I'm sure that most of us have the sense that classical music (not just the classical era) differs from other music in its skill and variety in harmony, counterpoint, rhythm, and form. Such skill and variety allows for contrast between stasis and dynamism.

In the Mozart example, we had both square and static passages, as well as free and dynamic passages, and their interplay drove the mid-large scale form of the piece. The same goes for Webern: compare the somewhat square and static theme group A to the dynamic and crescendoing theme group B. And yet note that theme group B had the more regular eighth note rhythms! The squareness of theme group A arose from the uniformity of texture, the clarity of divisions and clarity of relationships between four subsections, and the starting and stopping, whereas theme group B had none of these. In theme group B, the other instruments' dialogue on top of the piano's pounding eighth notes represented an instability, the instability of ostinato. And just as Mozart had to "get out of" his ostinato by driving towards a cadence, so did Webern.

Thus, through classical opposition and dramatic contrast at multiple time scales, Webern's 12 tone music contains a great power similar to that of the first Viennese classicists Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

It's a testament to how great this is that no one wants to follow it!

The Webern - Mozart/Classicism connection is not one I'd made before, but you make it very obvious.

I love this piece - I listened to three different recordings when I got home, inspired by your post - but had always been drawn, at least consciously, mostly to its scintillating instrumental color.

I followed along with the score and had some observations, though I'm too sleepy to say whether they hold up - I may return to them later.

I like your observation about this piece being "as if the discourse of a 30 minute romantic or early 20th century concerto were stuffed into 7 minutes." My experience with Webern has been that if you listen superficially, or unsympathetically, it seems very small - but if you allow yourself to slip "inside" the music it becomes vast.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

isorhythm said:


> It's a testament to how great this is that no one wants to follow it!
> 
> The Webern - Mozart/Classicism connection is not one I'd made before, but you make it very obvious.
> 
> ...


Thanks isorhythm! I am glad that you and the others who have 'liked' the post above enjoyed the discussion.

You are right that the scintillating instrumental color is a big draw in Webern as per the natural course of the Klangfarbenmelodie. And yes, if one slips inside the music it becomes vast. The vast spaciousness can be heard at the onset of the deep piano eighth note ostinato in theme group B that I mentioned in the first movement of op 24. And yet a different kind of spaciousness, a more sparse and delicate rather than vast spaciousness occurs in theme group A.

Vastness is even more deeply felt in the second movement. Pristine and floating, regular yet irregular (in texture), and sparse instrumental dialogue over a constant piano. And yet even this slow movement is ever so subtly cadential and punctuated! Two-note melodic figures, when literally reflected from the piano to another instrument act as a cadence. Note measure 9-10's violin C - G#, and then measure 10-11's piano C - A flat having the exact same pitch level and contour: this "reflection" provides punctuation in what initially appears to be freely shapeshifting and floating music.

But Webern's music is not only spacious, it can also be very fast-paced. The rapid textural changes drawn from minimalistic elements provide a lot of punch and weight, and are the cause for feeling like so much action occurs so quickly. Most of the article above is on how dramatic action quickly occurs through highly minimalistic elements.

The most rapid textural shifts (in rhythm, voicing, and linearity vs simultaneity) occur in the third movement, pretty much every two measures or so. Note how the piano, over the course of the ever so short finale, gradually reveals its role over time as a big, pounding, lumbering, swinging chordal force of pounding three notes at a time. And notice how the density of the rest of the texture follows an arc shape from lean and clear, to dense and irregular, and back.

In Webern, there's a paradoxical tension between slow and fast, static and dynamic, spacious and restricted. Not only do these manifest itself in different movements or different sections, but they manifest together at the same time. Certain musical elements for a given few measures may point to stasis, whereas other musical elements for the same few measures may point to dynamism. Webern is able to skillfully shapeshift through these musical parameters to create form, narrative, and excitement.


----------

