# Climax



## Guest (Jun 29, 2014)

I'm interested in others' views about the significance of 'climax'* and how composers use it in shaping their music.

What prompts me to ask is that I've been listening to Prokofiev's Symphony No. 6 and the 3rd movement in particular. The specific part of the movement that set me wondering was when the horns re-enter and emphatically sound the main theme (at 39:43 in this version) and then when the whole orchestra plays it at 40:20.

Which is the climax? What role does the anti-climax play? (- if that is what the last section is called).

Thanks.

(*by which I probably mean the emotional resolution. I suspect I'm using the term in a non-technical sense, but purists will forgive me, perhaps, if, in trying to understand music better, I don't get the vocabulary right!)


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

The Prokofiev is an interesting example, because I always feel that the resolution at the end is too heavily weighted to feel like a true end to the musical "conflict" per se. Both of the moments you pointed to are significant, of course, particularly when the full orchestra returns at 40:20, which is the beginning of the recapitulation, and the slow section which follows has the effect of making the brief E-flat major resolution at the end feel more chopped-off than concluded. It is definitely an "anti-climax", in that it fails to make good on the upbeat finale that seems to have been promised.

I don't think there's a technical term for it. Alban Berg, in his Violin Concerto, actually labels "Climax [Hohepunkt] of the Adagio" at one point that I recall (not that it was necessary, because it's obvious).


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Of course, things like "the climax" are resultants of "dramatic structure". In the standard model of dramatic structure, what we in theatre know as Freytag's pyramid









the climax is never the end of the piece. I've always described it as the point where the conflict will find a resolution, one way or another. In drama it's the point where a decision is made, generally by the protagonist, to confront the antagonist, or where the protagonist and antagonist finally clash for the final battle. The climax signals a "high point" in the conflict, but never the ending.

In technical theatre (and I suspect in music, too -- I've heard the term used in music structures) we use the term denouement -- the "falling action" and closing statement. Some think the denouement has to be "less exciting" but that's not necessarily the case at all.

Note the Freytag diagram I include. It's based on Greek tragedy, one of my areas of interest. At the very end of the pyramid (or triangle) is the "_catastrophe_". This is not a climax, but is certainly a great moment of interest and, in Greek tragedy, horror. It's the point where Oedipus claws out his eyes. The climax, on the other hand, was the moment that Oedipus faces the truth of his situation. In the _Oedipus _play and most other Greek tragedies, the _catastrophe_ is more exciting that the climax. Some might term the _catastrophe_ an "anti-climax". Of course, after Oedipus stabs out his eyes, the _catastrophe _or "scene of suffering" as Aristotle terms it in _Poetics_, the play continues on for several more pages, the continuance of the denouement.

Every dramatic situation has its own flow, but the flow generally follows the Freytag formula to some degree. It can be applied to music, and is well worth looking into.

I do recall one famous story that ends at the moment of climax. It's Frank Stockton's "The Lady or the Tiger". If you know the story you'll know what I mean. (A lot of folks who read the story hate the ending. You tend to feel dissatisfied if you end on the climax itself. Stockton got so much hate mail about the ending that he actually wrote a sequel to the story, but that, too, proved to end on the climax, too, and so settled nothing. Both stories are brilliant.)


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

To my ears, the last section, with its reprise of material from the first and second movements, especially the catastrophic dissonance of the latter, undercuts any sense of emotional resolution for the movement (and symphony) as a whole — which I take to be the purpose of it. So, for me, the passages you point out, particularly the recapitulation of the third movement's principal theme, are set up to be knocked down. The finale, with its scherzando principal theme, was, in any case, never a viable counterweight to the trauma of the earlier movements, and the reprise of the earlier material merely confirms this.

Prokofiev often undercut climactic moments in this way. Another great example is found in the first movement of the Fifth Symphony, where the final statement of the principal theme is set in the most grandiose way, with brass, drums, and gongs aroar, only to be undercut by a dark quiet phrase in B-flat minor for the cellos, divisi a 3. The phrase, of course, is the single dark cloud in the theme when it is stated in the exposition and development. The point seems to be that no matter how much the fortunes of the theme seem to be progressing toward triumphal majesty, there is always an irremediable sorrow beneath that cannot be shaken or forgotten. 

There really is no good or standardized terminology for discussing musical climaxes, but what I would say about these examples is that in both cases the traditional climactic point, defined as the high point in volume and in the culmination of the overt tendencies of the principal theme, is not the dramatic or emotional high point. I think in these cases the "anti-climax," as you put it, is the essential and hardest hitting moment.

Edit: I was still writing after Sonnet posted his response. The terms from classical drama he introduces might be apt for the points I was making, but I won't attempt to sort that out now.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

With reference to my structural analysis of the movement, I'd like to see how well the dramatic structure of tragedy above applies to the finale of Mahler's Sixth Symphony.

The introduction of Mahler's movement matches up with the "Exposition" of the diagram. We "meet the characters" as he introduces all of the major motifs and sets up the tonal conflict between C minor and A minor. The conflict is certainly already presaged even in the opening pages.

The exposition of Mahler's sonata form aligns with the "Rising Action" as the conflict comes out into the open, and the music moves into D major. Then the development arrives, with its hammer blows turning D major into D minor, and the atmosphere of the introduction returns. This may be compared to the "Complication". The "Climax" arrives when we come out of the slow section and into A major. At this point, one can still believe that the piece is headed for a triumphant resolution.

But the recapitulation is certainly a "Reversal", and everything from this point forward reflects the inevitability of a tragic outcome. The coda with its limping A major/minor chorale is akin to the realization of the protagonist, and the "Catastrophe" is in the final return of the introductory elements, now firmly in A minor. The denouement, the "Moment of Last Suspense", is in that final chorale leading to the fortissimo A minor chord, which quickly dies away.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Of course, the application of Freytag's analysis to music must be fluid. Musical structure operates on its own rules in many instances and cannot be exactly coordinated to a Greek tragedy's structural flow. Though the _larger _points of intro/eposition, rising action/development, resolution/denouement can be equated.

One could argue if the dramatic A theme and the lyrical B theme (in a different key) in a sonata form are akin to protagonist and antagonist in a dramatic form. Sonata form itself seems to mimic the Freytag model, but a symphony (and many of the major classical forms) are more than a single sonata form. For the standard symphony of four movements, one has to consider the form over the various movements and possibly impose Freytag-like structural analysis to each individual movement as well as the overall plan of the work as a whole. No easy business. It is fascinating, though, to realize how many climaxes of major symphonic works seem to occur in the slow movements.

In something like a concerto, one could make an argument that the protagonist and antagonist (the creators of conflict) are the solo instrument and the orchestra in whatever role each will play. This can bring up issues beyond sonata form and overall three movement concerto form.

It's too bad Aristotle couldn't have done for music what he did for poetics. But then it seems that Aristotle and his mentor Plato were not always the most receptive to music. Aristotle does address music as some length in Chapters 5-7 of Book VIII of his_ Politics_, which begins like this:

With respect to music we have already spoken a little in a doubtful manner upon this subject. It will be proper to go over again more particularly what we then said, which may serve as an introduction to what any other person may choose to offer thereon; for it is no easy matter to distinctly point out what power it has, nor on what accounts one should apply it, whether as an amusement and refreshment, as sleep or wine; as these are nothing serious, but pleasing, and the killers of care, as Euripides says; for which reason they class in the same order and use for the same purpose all these, namely, sleep, wine, and music, to which some add dancing; or shall we rather suppose that music tends to be productive of virtue, having a power, as the gymnastic exercises have to form the body in a certain way, to influence the manners so as to accustom its professors to rejoice rightly? or shall we say, that it is of any service in the conduct of life, and an assistant to prudence? for this also is a third property which has been attributed to it. 

I believe many of you who read this Forum would find much of what the philosopher discusses to be of interest. If you are not familiar with _Politics_, here is a link to the chapters referred to: http://faculty.smu.edu/jkazez/mol09/AristotleOnMusic.htm

Does this help us analyze latter centuries classical music? Perhaps not. But Aristotle does point out the complexities of the form, and when considering structural analysis (on a basis similar to what Freytag did for drama) one sees there are many aspects to contend with, among them melody, harmony, and rhythm, any one of which may prove a valid basis for musical conflict and resolution.

Isn't this stuff fascinating?


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> The Prokofiev is an interesting example, because I always feel that the resolution at the end is too heavily weighted to feel like a true end to the musical "conflict" per se. Both of the moments you pointed to are significant, of course, particularly when the full orchestra returns at 40:20, which is the beginning of the recapitulation, and the slow section which follows has the effect of making the brief E-flat major resolution at the end feel more chopped-off than concluded. It is definitely an "anti-climax", in that it fails to make good on the upbeat finale that seems to have been promised.
> 
> I don't think there's a technical term for it. Alban Berg, in his Violin Concerto, actually labels "Climax [Hohepunkt] of the Adagio" at one point that I recall (not that it was necessary, because it's obvious).





EdwardBast said:


> what I would say about these examples is that in both cases the traditional climactic point, defined as the high point in volume and in the culmination of the overt tendencies of the principal theme, is not the dramatic or emotional high point. I think in these cases the "anti-climax," as you put it, is the essential and hardest hitting moment.


What you say about Prokofiev's 5th is also true of the last movement, similar in that although there are moments of strong optimism as it progresses, it goes careering off into uncontrollable insanity. The listener is left wondering whether there has been any catharsis at all, or whether a new and unsettling conflict has been initiated.



Mahlerian said:


> With reference to my structural analysis of the movement, I'd like to see how well the dramatic structure of tragedy above applies to the finale of Mahler's Sixth Symphony.


You'll have to give me time to listen to the Mahler and the Berg. I'll get back to you!



SONNET CLV said:


> I do recall one famous story that ends at the moment of climax. It's Frank Stockton's "The Lady or the Tiger". If you know the story you'll know what I mean. (A lot of folks who read the story hate the ending. You tend to feel dissatisfied if you end on the climax itself. Stockton got so much hate mail about the ending that he actually wrote a sequel to the story, but that, too, proved to end on the climax, too, and so settled nothing. Both stories are brilliant.)


I didn't know it, but I get the gist.

The problem with the dramatic comparison, useful as it is (and implied by my OP's free misuse of the term 'climax'), is that it seems to narrow the meaning of climax to a specific point of crisis, which doesn't seem to me to be the case in music where the climax is, or can be, the resolution. However, perhaps what we can observe is that later composers played with both crisis and resolution. An easy example in literature is that of _Lord of the Rings_, where the climax - the defeat of the enemies (Sauron and the ring) - is undermined by the discovery that all have been changed by the experience, including the homeland of the heroes and the heroes themselves. In a simple tale, all return to their starting points. In a complex story, there is no such return.

Is this analysis of music through analogy with the structure of the drama applicable to all the great classical pieces (let's set aside opera for now)?


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Sibelius Symphony No. 4 is notorious for its masterful anti-climaxes, in fact, the harmonic tension never fully resolves. The first anticlimax (1:30 end of the cello solo/build up, 2:34 'climax-anticlimax', 2:42 'anticlimax') is already very powerful but the final one is perhaps the most anxious (build up starting at 30:38, 'final statement' 32:15 ). All this because of the tritone, that ever recurring ghost in the history of music. (Not to mention the important role of the Tristan chord here, as well as whole-tone, octatonic and modal coloration)


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

The most obvious and structurally the most successful use of the "climax" would have to go to the cadential point before cadenzas in classical/romantic concerto repertoire. 

One symphony I know quite well which definitely utilises the concept of a climax in an extremely effective way is the crescendo leading up to the reprise of the allegro con fuoco (please correct that marking if I am incorrect, this is all off the top of my head) theme in the recapitulation of Mahler's 7th.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> *The problem with the dramatic comparison, useful as it is (and implied by my OP's free misuse of the term 'climax'), is that it seems to narrow the meaning of climax to a specific point of crisis, which doesn't seem to me to be the case in music where the climax is, or can be, the resolution. *However, perhaps what we can observe is that later composers played with both crisis and resolution. An easy example in literature is that of _Lord of the Rings_, where the climax - the defeat of the enemies (Sauron and the ring) - is undermined by the discovery that all have been changed by the experience, including the homeland of the heroes and the heroes themselves. In a simple tale, all return to their starting points. In a complex story, there is no such return.


You're right in observing that music "dramatic" structure and literary dramatic structure differ. If anything, Freytag's formula applies to only specific literary models in the first place. Episodic works (which Aristotle in _Poetics _clearly states he finds least effective of poetic forms) generally follow their own pattern, as does, say, a "theme and variations" musical form compared to a "sonata allegro" form.

Ravel's _Bolero _presents a perfect example of a simple episodic musical form, one in which most folks would agree on the "location" of the climax (which, in the case of the _Bolero_, with its sexual analogue, is aptly named). The _Bolero_ is not even a true "theme and variations" form, unless one counts the changes in orchestration as the variation. Where the climax occurs in the Bach _Goldberg Variations _(if there even is one!) or in Rachmaninoff's _Rhapsody On A Theme Of Paganini_ is more a matter of contention, I'm sure. In that latter work, for instance, we all tend to favor the 18th Variation, but is it necessarily a climax? Does the Rachmaninoff even have a climax?

Liszt's Dante Symphony, first movement, provides an example of a work that arguably has no recognizable climax. The wondrousness of that movement's form is the very fact that Liszt avoids any resolution, thus any climax, as the episodes consist of (to use the literary term) "rising action" that stops short of resolution. Liszt utilizes unresolved cadences, one after another to the point of sheer frustration, and then the movement ends. But Liszt is capturing the very essence of Dante's Hell, a place where there is no satisfaction (which is provided by the climax's resultant resolution). As in Frank Stockton's "The Lady or the Tiger", Liszt takes us to one of the doors and opens it, then stops (or rather, then goes onto the next scenario). The marvel of the Dante Symphony is how well Liszt understood Dante and put it into music. If one must find a climax in that work, it must obviously be found in the final movement, that which is representative of Paradise. But I think this is even misguided, since Dante's Hell presumably allows for no way to achieve Paradise and thus eschews any possible resolution.

Again, music forms will require their own argumentative structures. I would be curious to compare Beethoven's Fifth and Tchaikowsky's Sixth, two symphonies which seem similar in their forms up to that final movement. What role in the dramatic structure does that final movement play in the works? It is a climactic role, or a resolving role? As I suggested earlier, the structure of a movement may feature its own form while the structure of the overall several movement work is something all together different.

To return to MacLeod's _Lord of the Rings _example .... In literature we distinguish between dynamic and static characters (and forms). Dynamic forms change the characters. Tragedy is a dynamic form, giving us a "hero" who has undergone some sort of transformation in his being, his character, and ultimately in his actions. The Hamlet at the end of Shakespeare's great play is not the same character we met in the opening Act. Static characters don't change. They work their ways through their plots affecting things around them but never undergoing significant change. James Bond is such a character. There is plenty of action in a Bond book or movie, and certainly a Freytag-like plot structure, but the depth of the character never significantly changes. James Bond is no Hamlet.

Does music allow for such dynamic and static structural forms? Possibly. But I suppose there are many ways to analyze the dramatic expression of musical works. The great masters in music created new forms and revamped old forms for their own uses, just as the literary geniuses (and Shakespeare is a perfect example) create plot formats that often defy or challenge the rather simplistic depiction of Freytag.

There is much here to explore.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I love the climax of Scriabin's Prometheus, which I'll try to explain in my instinctive, non-analytical way.
The climax of this piece is not at the very end, but a bit earlier, just after the (optional) chorus starts singing. The whole piece is like a puzzle, consisting of bits and fragments of various little themes that aren't fully realized. There are also a number of anti-climaxes thoughout, they are like little collapses... but after each time the music quickly picks up the pace and keeps building and building as a whole, with ever increasing intensity. 
Finally, at the climax, one of the most prominent themes is fully realized and everything falls into place. This is what the whole piece was moving towards. And how it works... like a strike of lightning going through the body. And it's not over yet, because after a brief and playful "interlude", there comes an even bigger big bang to complete one of the other themes that was hinted at... and to finish off the piece.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Rachmaninoff Etude Op. 39 No. 5, another great climax. I almost have to close my eyes and "brace for impact", it's so intense.
In this banging, maniacal Horowitz version at 3:21 (you either love or hate his playing here).


----------

