Ascending Lines in the 18th century

 This continues the series of posts about a short section in William Caplin's Cadence: A Study of Closure in Tonal Music (2024). Here as a reminder is the basic design of chapter 5, with §5.1.2.11.

Caplin begins the section with "Despite what is often taught in elementary harmony classes, a melodic line that ascends to its goal tonic occurs infrequently in the classical repertory" (265) and ends it with "In both cases, we sense the composer giving special emphasis to the ascending line in a manner that highlights all the more this nonconventional melody." I know of no textbook that does what Caplin claims; perhaps he is referring to the rule about the leading tone ^7 resolving upward to ^8, but two notes are not a line. And as we'll see below it is Haydn's treatment in op.77, no 2, that is "special," not the ascending line in general, even in the 18th century.

In his review of Cadence, Poundie Burstein is a bit more generous, beginning with "[the book] explores at length various standard top-voice paradigms for cadential progressions. One such paradigm that it briefly addresses is the melodic pattern ^5-^6-^7-^8,"--note "standard" and "paradigm"--but then he emphasizes what seems the opposite:

What is particularly striking about the ^5-^6-^7-^8 cadence is that its top voice surges entirely upwards, which tends to militate against the sense of closure expected at a cadence. As Caplin rightly notes, such a cadence is a “nonconventional" one that "occurs infrequently in the classical repertory” (265). In contrast, cadences whose top voice is framed by 5-6-7-8 in the upper voice are far more typical of nineteenth century practice.

This last is certainly true, but the generalizing that Burstein does is more of a problem. According to him, the ascending line in the Haydn quartet example (see below) has an "odd character," a "striking nature" that suggests it might better be called a "non-cadential 'tonic arrival'" rather than a "genuine cadence." Burstein also echoes Caplin's reading of "struggle" in this cadence.

I wrote in my earlier post (link): I hear it quite differently, as the most emphatic, in-your-face ascending ^5-^6-^7-^8 line in the Classical repertoire. It stands out in every respect, you can't miss it, and you know you're done when it's done. That's a cadence.

And to "odd character," "striking nature," and "non-cadential 'tonic arrival'": Consider that the simple descending line must cope with the disruptive ("striking"?) cadential 6/4 that was essential to the Italian style after its introduction into Neapolitan opera in the 1730s. Disruptive enough, in fact, that a few Schenkerians are still arguing about it three centuries later. By contrast, the harmony and voice leading for the rising line, with a pleasant set of parallel sixths or thirds even, are quite smooth.

Here is an example I found recently: Mozart, Divertimento [Trio] for Violin, Viola, and Cello, K. 563 (1788), Menuet 2, Trio 2. No mistaking this for anything other than a Ländler, or we should say the very recognizable Ländler topic within a typical ABA small form in a multi-movement instrumental piece meant for private or salon performance. 

The fact that Mozart includes the upper-register close, with the ascending line based on the focal note F5 as a bonus, shows not only what we would expect of him, a comprehensive, curious, and immediate knowledge of all the music around him, but also the definite possibility that musicians playing in public places like restaurants and taverns occasionally used these cadence figures in performance. The instrumentation, btw, invokes what became known in Vienna as the "Linzer Geiger," a popular type with two violins and bass.

Here is a reduction of the A-section:

Note that Mozart maintains the one-chord-per-bar convention of the Ländler.
-----

My series Ascending Cadence Gestures: New Historical Survey includes the time span 1650-1780 in Part 3 and 1780-1860 in Part 4. Link to a post directing to Part 3 files: link. Link to a post directing to a Part 4 summary: link.