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.

William Caplin on rising lines

In what seems to be a movement toward monumentalism in music theory, three major books have appeared in the past few years with page totals running over 600 pages: Julian Hook’s Exploring Musical Spaces: A Synthesis of Mathematical Approaches (Oxford, 2023), at 864 pages; Dmitri Tymoczko’s Tonality: An Owner’s Guide (Oxford, 2023), at 672 pages; and William E. Caplin’s Cadence: A Study of Closure in Tonal Music (Oxford, 2024), which comes in at 648 pages with 715 musical examples. 

Cadence finishes a trilogy of exceedingly detailed and careful studies of formal functions in what is still usually called “Classical” music; that is, larger-scale compositions by musicians working mainly in Vienna from roughly 1780 to 1830 and, to be honest, among them really only Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. 

The earlier volumes are Classical Form: A Theory of Formal Functions for the Instrumental Music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven (Oxford, 1998) and Analyzing Classical Form: An Approach for the Classroom (Oxford, 2013), this latter monumental in its own right at 736 pages. 

The first of these books was largely responsible (along with one by Warren Darcy and James Hepokoski) for the revival of scholarly interest in the formalist analysis of formal functions in European music of the 18th and 19th centuries. The second was a pedagogical expansion of same, although for practical use in teaching one might reasonably have hoped (I certainly did) for more concision, not greater length. The new entry focuses on a single aspect, the cadence, and classifies and interprets formal functions on those terms.

Classical Form was certainly a great accomplishment, valuable for teaching (we used it for more than a decade as the primary text in graduate analysis courses; I was even able to teach its rudiments in a graduate harmony review course) and for research (though Hepokoski and Darcy’s focus on sectional processes seemed to capture graduate student interest more than Caplin’s priority to quadratic syntax, 8-bar themes, and a tight/loose binary). 

I used the book’s categories at the theme level for an extended, multi-part study of formal functions in Mozart menuets and to develop a model for the galant theme (Caplin’s antecedent–continuation hybrid), which was foundational to that musical style in the 1750s-1770s. 

Here are some links: Index to my essays, which has a complete list of the essays relating to formal functions: link. The first of the Mozart studies: Part 1: Orchestral Works and Independent Sets. Mozart, J. C. Bach, and the galant theme: Part 3: A Comparison with Johann Christian Bach.

    ————————

The point of interest here is a short section in chapter 5 of Cadence. For reference, the chapter titles and subheadings are on the book's webpage: link to OUP titles; click on the tab “Table of Contents.” Here are the chapter titles only:

CHAPTER 1 IDEAS OF CLOSURE

PART 1 THE CLASSICAL CADENCE

CHAPTER 2 GENERAL CONCEPTS OF THE 

CLASSICAL CADENCE

CHAPTER 3 BASIC CADENCE TYPES: 

MORPHOLOGY AND FUNCTION

CHAPTER 4 CADENTIAL DEVIATIONS

CHAPTER 5 CADENTIAL EXPANSION

PART 2 CADENCE IN OTHER TONAL STYLES

CHAPTER 6 CADENCE IN THE HIGH BAROQUE

CHAPTER 7 CADENCE IN THE GALANT ERA

CHAPTER 8 CADENCE IN THE ROMANTIC ERA

CHAPTER 9 CADENCE IN THE MID TO LATE 

NINETEENTH CENTURY  

As his reviewer, Poundie Burstein, describes Caplin’s method,

[it] is to seek precision in establishing strict formal categories matched by flexibility in analytic application. [He] tends to regard (at least ideally) the categories associated with cadential status as either-or propositions. An advantage of his absolutist attitude is that it allows for remarkable lucidity by establishing sharp definitions. This provides a solid vantage point to discuss specific analytic situations, avoiding the waffling that might result from vaguer definitions. [At the same time,] to help counter the [inevitable] problems that arise from categorical strictness, Caplin's analyses of cadences tend to be impressively flexible. [In some cases, he will provide] either hedged or alternative readings of the phrase endings. 

Here is the section in Chapter 5 on ascending lines: 5.1.2.11. Additional Patterns/Ascending Melodic Pattern (5̂/6̂/7̂/8̂) (p265)

Despite what is often taught in elementary harmony classes, a melodic line that ascends to its goal tonic occurs infrequently in the classical repertory. In the context of an ECP, a straightforward case arises at the end of the main theme group shown in Example 5.46, where the process of attaining the high F (8̂) represents the melodic, dynamic, and textural climax of the section. 

A similar, but more complex case, is seen in the earlier discussed Example 5.2. Like the previous example, this passage also produces the climactic moment of the main theme, though the sudden shift to piano in measure 19 slightly delays the ongoing progressive dynamic. 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.

Both of these are indeed straightforward, but I should note that they are internal to the movement, whereas I decided several years ago to focus only on principal ending cadences. A small matter, perhaps, as either of these could have served as such, with a coda or codetta to follow and finish.

Burstein hedges more than a bit: "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." About the Haydn passage above, he asks "Might its striking nature be better highlighted by labelling it as a non-cadential 'tonic arrival,' thereby helping to distinguish it from more normative authentic cadences?" It's very hard to hear such a thing as mere "tonic arrival" in the context of this strongly defined two-reprise form.

Because of the long notes, Burstein also refers to the ascending line as "struggling," but 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.

JMT series, part 7-1 (note 32)

n32: The form ^5-^6-(reg.)^7-^8.  In the essay linked below (Ascending Cadence Gestures), I wrote about this form:

This device of undercutting the rise from ^6 to ^7 is discussed in my JMT article and seems to be particularly characteristic of the later 18th century. To speculate: the conventions associated with the dominant Italian style (which we know much better nowadays thanks to important research on the partimenti, evidence of methods of instruction) were so strong that Haydn felt an obligation to observe them in some situations, rather than take full advantage of the rising cadence gesture. In any case, the leap downward from a subdominant to the leading tone is very expressive in and of itself. (Survey, p. 64)

In the note, five compositions are mentioned. I have already written about three of them in the essay Ascending Cadence Gestures: A Historical Survey from the 16th to the Early 19th Century: (link).

Haydn, Piano Sonata in E-flat, Hob. XVI/52, II.  Survey, pp. 76-78.
Haydn, Piano Sonata in A-flat, Hob. XVI/43, Menuet. Comment in the note: "the large-scale structure is obscured somewhat by strong emphasis on ^3 in the Trio."  Survey, pp. 74-76.
Haydn, String Quartet, op. 76, no. 2, II. Survey, pp. 78-83.

The other two are Beethoven, String Quartet, op. 74, IV, and Corelli, Trio Sonata, op. 2, no. 8, Preludio. I'll discuss the latter first, because it affords an easy opportunity to sort some of the issues related to register.

Register transfer in the rising line is worth some comment. Examples (a) - (e) apply octave or seventh registral changes to each successive tone of the rising line from ^5. In (a), the very common change of octave over a stable bass; in (b), the figure used by Bach in BWV 924; in (c), the registral variant I reference in note 32; in (d), the highly violinistic broken figures one frequently finds in Baroque music, where it is a 50-50 chance the final ^8 will be in the lower or upper octave; in (d'), a variant that applies the register change to a neighbor note -- this is a major-key version of the figure in the Corelli prelude to be discussed below; (e) is similar to (a), a simple octave embellishment of ^8.

My comment in note 32 is that "Very occasionally register transfer is applied to other tones [than ^6]: in Corelli, Trio Sonata, op. 2, no. 8, Preludio, the variant ^5-^6-^7-(^8-^7)-^8 has a dramatic octave-leap downward applied to the first ^8." As my parentheses suggest, the register change here is applied to a middleground neighbor note, not to an Urlinie tone.

The reading requires a line from ^5, which is certainly as plausible as one from ^3, even if we were to insist on a descending Urlinie form. In the closing cadence, the first violin takes the line steadily up but breaks at the dramatic #4 diminished chord to place its final notes an octave lower -- and below the persistent descent of the second violin. Here is another notation of the ending, emphasizing the parallel 10ths between bass and first violin and positioning the final notes in their "correct" octave. I just placed "correct" in scare quotes but it doesn't really need them -- the correct, simple, and proper voiceleading of all the parts above this harmony clearly demands that the first violin end in the fifth octave (its obligatory register, in other words).

In the next post I will examine the problem of the "descant" voice in Corelli, as presented in a book chapter by William Rothstein.
In the JMT article, note 32, I also mention Beethoven, String Quartet, op. 74, IV. A subsequent post will discuss that.

JMT series, part 4a-1 postscript

Work for yesterday's post about the Scherzo in Beethoven's Second Symphony involved examining the orchestral parts. I found that the upper winds "overshot" ^8 in the final cadence, complicating my reading of a simple rising line (those "extra" notes had been deleted from the piano reduction I relied on during research for the 1987 JMT article).

Having found that, I decided to re-examine some of my analyses of Haydn symphony third movements. Symphony 100 produced some interesting results. Here is the original post: link.

In the original post I noted that the inverted arch shape of the opening melody worked against a rising line, but the orchestration in fact plays on a low-then-high registral pairing throughout that supports the rising line at a higher level.

In the A-section, the flute and the first violins begin in the same octave -- circled below -- but in the re-orchestrated repeat (bars 9-16), the flute plays an octave higher -- circled notes in bars 9-10; see also bars 14-16 in the second system below.

The upper winds rejoin the first violins in the B-section -- boxed notes in bars 17 ff above. This holds till the stop on V in bar 28 -- see boxed notes below.  After that an interesting wedge figure brings out the registral differences as the flute moves chromatically down from D6, then returns to it -- circled notes and line --  while the first violins (and first oboe) rise from D5 before likewise returning to where they started.

The reprise is 8 bars rather than 16 and it combines the orchestrations of the two versions from the A-section: brass and timpani play as in bars 1-8 while the strings and winds play as in bars 9-16, except for the addition of the persistent rising figure (boxed) that motivically connects the ends of the first and second phrases and brings particular clarity to the flute's upper-register scale in the structural cadence.

JMT series, part 5a (notes 29 & 30)

In previous posts for this series I looked at pieces mentioned in my 1987 JMT article, note 28. Here are notes 29 and 30, on Urlinie variants.

n29: ^5-^6-(^8)-^7-^8 model or one of its variants:

Haydn, String Quartet, op. 76, no. 2, II. I have written at length about this piece here: link to post.

Handel, Jephtha, aria “Waft her angels.” Comment in the note: "orchestra in the framing ritornello, not the voice." The voice does participate -- see (d) in the example below -- and rising figures are certainly strong throughout, but in the abstract Schenkerian terms, all these are affect, "text painting," and the like, not structural. Nowadays I'm not so sure "structural" is enough.

The closing cadence in A. The strong ascent at (a) is derived from the opening ritornello, (c), but the closing cadence is a descending formula, at (b).

After the voice finishes, the orchestra doesn't give up on the rising line, managing it twice in just four bars.

Note n30: ^5-^6-(^5)-^7-^8.

Schubert, Drei deutsche Tänze, D973n2. In 1987, I was trying to avoid the primitive Urlinie (^5-^7-^8), but now I think it would work just as well -- mechanically, at least. I prefer the reading that emphasizes ^6 because of the expressive attention given to that note and its supporting harmony.

In tomorrow's post: Winterreise, no. 2, “Die Wetterfahne.”

New essay published: supplement to British Isles essay

I have published a new essay on Texas Scholar Works: English, Scotch, and Irish Dance and Song: Supplement. Link.

Here is the abstract:

A supplement to the essay English, Scotch, and Irish Dance and Song, which is primarily a documentation of rising cadence figures in dances, fiddle tunes, and songs. Gathered here are another 50 examples found in files downloaded on 2 May 2017. These were the coincidental result of a search for more information on Nathaniel Gow, the son of the famous Scottish fiddler Niel Gow.

JMT series, part 4a-2 (simple rising lines)

In note 28 I wrote "Other pieces that use the simplest form of the rising Urlinie include the following (qualifying comments in parentheses)."

Among the pieces named was Haydn, Symphony no. 104, III. It's not quite as simple as I claimed, however—there is a drop from ^6 down to ^7, which also happens in the menuet of Symphony no. 86 (as discussed in my essay Ascending Cadence Gestures: A Historical Survey from the 16th to the Early 19th Century, published on Texas Scholar Works: link). About Symphony 86 I wrote:

This time [in the reprise] B5 drops to C#5-D5 for the cadence. The end result is a "circle" of sorts, from D5 back to itself, but by means of an octave's worth of a scale. This device of undercutting the rise from ^6 to ^7 is discussed in my JMT article and seems to be particularly characteristic of the later 18th century. To speculate: the conventions associated with the dominant Italian style (which we know better nowadays through research on the partimenti, evidence of methods of instruction) were so strong that Haydn felt an obligation to observe them in some situations, rather than take full advantage of the rising cadence gesture. In any case, the leap downward from a subdominant to the leading tone is very expressive in and of itself.

The key is the same in Symphony no. 104, ^5 is as firmly settled as the tonic pedal note underneath it, and a string of parallel sixths lead the melodic line down to the cadence. Only the sforzando on the last beat of bar 6 suggests anything different: B5 sticks out above, then leaps down to the dominant's C#5 (see the box).


What that sforzando hints at it is the possibility of a rising line from A5, but, as happened in Symphony no. 86, directionality is undermined by curling back to the lower octave instead of rising toward C#6 and D6.

As is well known, Haydn can't seem to leave things alone in a reprise, and the effects can easily be seen even in design features like linear patterns. In the A section, the eight-bar theme is repeated (in different instrumentation). In the reprise, the theme statement makes it through six bars before changes start, the overall result being an extension of the continuation phrase from four bars to eleven, including two bars of grand pause (!), and a clearly profiled stepwise ascent from B4 through C#5 to D5 (see the second system below). The codetta adds a little flourish that gives us C#5-D6 at last.

This condensed version shows just the ^5-^8 progress over the course of the reprise.

JMT series, part 4a-1 (simple rising lines)

Note number 28 is the first in my article "The Ascending Urlinie" (Journal of Music Theory 1987) to contain a list of additional examples. In the article I wrote that motivic foregrounding and layering did not necessarily generate rising background lines. Here is my text for the first example:

n28: The Menuet of Haydn’s Symphony no. 100 is a case in point. In the first period (measures 1-8, which stand for the whole), the initial motion is strongly downward, but the final cadence produces a clear ascent from ^5 to ^8 in the upper-most part.

Thinking of this in Schenkerian terms—as I was in 1987—the rising line is not workable in the theme's first presentation because it doesn't mesh well with the bass, especially in bars 5-6, where one would have to imagine a doubling of bass and soprano, never a good idea. It's much easier to build a line in this way: D5 initiates a fifth-line; to C in bar 4, recapture C in bar 6, B on the last beat of that bar, then A in bar 7, and an implied G in bar 8. The ascending scale in the cadence is boundary play. See this version here:

In the reprise, on the other hand, the chromatic passing tone D# in the bass (from m. 6) is gone, and a string of diatonic figures, all rising, take over the lower parts, directly linking the chromatic scale fragment to the diatonic scale fragment (see the arrows in the figure below). As a result, the rising line from ^5 to ^8 has a clear path and pitch design can be read as well-matched to the important aspects of expression.

The text above comes from my essay Ascending Cadence Gestures: A Historical Survey from the 16th to the Early 19th Century, published on Texas Scholar Works: link.

Subsequent posts will offer more discussion of pieces named in note 28.

Administrative post: updated links to some files

Early next year, Dropbox is changing the public folder to a shared folder. Therefore, I have moved all files that were formerly on Dropbox to Google Drive. Here is an alphabetical list with the new links:

Chopin, Prelude in E Major, op. 28n9: link.

Guide to my blog Hearing Schubert D779n13: link.

Guide to the blog Hearing the Movies: link.

Haydn, Sonata in Ab major, menuet, my graph, page 1: link.

Haydn, Sonata in Ab major, menuet, my graph, page 2: link.

Haydn, Sonata in Ab major, menuet, score: link.

Haydn, Sonata in Eb major, II, my graph, page 1: link.

Haydn, Sonata in Eb major, II, my graph, page 2: link.

Haydn, Sonata in Eb major, II, score, page 1: link.

Haydn, Sonata in Eb major, II, score, page 2: link.

Minor key progressions (table): link.

Neumeyer, handout for 2010 Society of Music Theory presentation: link.

Neumeyer research vita: link.

Schubert dance table: link.

Haydn, part 7b

While pulling out from a PDF file the score of Haydn's String Quartet op76n2, second movement, I noticed for the first time some interesting shapes in the trio of the menuet. In the first strain a pedal tonic eventually allows a frequently repeated ^1 (D5) to rise to ^5 (m. 47) and then an octave higher (A6 in m. 49), where it stays until the cadence while an inner voice moves down from ^3 (m. 49) to ^7 (m. 52 in the second violin; arrow).

These melodic shapes in the first strain set up the possibility of a rising cadence gesture in the reprise, and so it happens here, in the most direct example I've seen in the music of Haydn. Everything points to the conclusion that Haydn was just as familiar with the ländler style as were Mozart and Beethoven at around the same time.

Haydn, part 7a

The last* example from Haydn is the slow movement of the string quartet, op. 76n2. This was also mentioned in a footnote to my "Ascending Urlinie" article, twice in fact. In footnote 29, I included it among pieces that use the "^5-^6-(^8)-^7-^8 model or one of its variants"; in footnote 31 it was "the form ^5-^6-(reg.)^7-^8." These refer to different form sections of the piece. Of these two readings, the first is very clear, but the second I no longer agree with. Details below.

*Actually, there is one more: an "extra" example in the Haydn series is the trio in the third movement of this same quartet -- it will be discussed in tomorrow's post.

The design of the movement is ABA with an extended coda. Section B starts in the tonic minor, but is unstable (the tonic minor lasts only a bar before we settle into its own bVI region, which lasts for about half the section's duration). The reprise is complete except that a fairly lengthy coda is initiated by a deceptive cadence on what should have been the final cadential tonic.

The main theme (A) is a closed small form with repeats. Its treatment of a rising background line is quite clear and straightforward: an apparent ^3 (F#) at the beginning is supplanted by ^5, which looked to be a cover tone at first but before long takes over as the principal register. Note the (^8) that supplies a note for the melody over the cadential dominant's 6/4; and ^7-^8 is doubled in the second violin.

A brief B-section offers an unusual turn by ending firmly on F# minor (iii in D major; iii is generally considered the "weakest" of the diatonic triads, a characterization that extends to its tonal region). The explanation is that Haydn thus allows himself a play on the opening motive A-F#—f#: ^3-^1 turns into D: ^5-^3 without benefit of any transitioning harmonic progression. In this case, note that Haydn could easily have included the cadenza perfetta between first violin and viola but instead doubles the third of the final chord. The third was doubled in the opening statement of the theme, too, and we have to assume that there was something about the sound that appealed to him.

In the reprise of the A section, the Urlinie form is altered to another variant that I discuss in the JMT article: ^5-^6-(^5)-^7-^8. Note that the second violin follows this figure note for note (* and box).

In m. 50 is the deceptive cadence I referred to above. What follows from it is a strongly profiled descent to a dramatic diminished seventh chord and a brief cadenza for the first violin (m. 57).

Here are the immediately following measures (58-62), which finally bring the principal cadence. In footnote 31 of the JMT article, I applied ^5-^6-(reg.)^7-^8 to this movement, meaning by it this ending. The treatment of register, however, is more complicated than it was in the Eb sonata or other pieces where ^6 dropped down to ^7. Here ^6 does drop to ^7 (m. 61), but ^7 also drops to ^8 (or ^1). That, combined with the downward figuration in mm. 60-61, seems to me not just to conceal but effectively to erase the rising-line formula here. Reading this as a rising cadence gesture reminds me of those tortured Schenkerian readings that dip down into inner voices or imply this and that in order to come up with an acceptable line. For this kind of event, I prefer the proto-background model—see the next example.

The figure that *does* make musical sense here is the fifth-frame of the violin's repeated figures in mm. 60-62. The upper end (^5) is never effectively abandoned, and the lower end (^1) moves to its lower neighbor only to fit into the cadential V7. The intervallic frame, then, is as shown at the lower right.

Haydn, part 6b

Repeated from the previous post:

In footnote 32 to my "Ascending Urlinie" article, I included the Haydn Piano Sonatas in Eb and Ab—the slow movement of the former (Hob. XVI/52, II), the menuet of the latter (Hob. XVI/43, II)—among pieces that use one of the variants of the rising line: the form ^5-^6-(reg.)^7-^8.

Yesterday I wrote about the Ab menuet; today, the slow movement of the Eb sonata. And again I am making use of my holograph analytical sketch from 1982. See the entire sketch here: page 1 link; page 2 link. Score links: page 1; page 2.

The opening phrase is more easily read from ^3 than from ^5: the end of the initial tonic prolongation is at the 32nd note topped by G#5. I chose ^5 because of its longer-range implications, specifically in the internal reprise within the A section (more on that below). My sketch of the opening, then, consigns ^3 (as G#5) to a convoluted unfolding pair; I marked it "over" for "overlap" because that's the term that my mentor, Allen Forte, used (see his Schenker textbook co-written with Steven Gilbert).

In the elaborated restatement ending the A section, ^5 (B5 in the second measure) is more obviously a cover tone, but it is the sudden sweep up from it to E6 that is the major expressive event. This radical expansion of the upward leaps from the opening bars starts a chain of leaps: B5 to E6 in the fourth measure and G#5 to C#6 in the fifth measure. The line splits at the first of these (see the two ^5s marked in the score and the branching lines in the sketch), the lower one reaching G#5 and the upper one taking C#6 before both lines drop an octave over the dominant, G#5 to F#4 and C#6 to D#5.

Haydn, part 6a

In footnote 32 to my "Ascending Urlinie" article, I included the Haydn Piano Sonatas in Eb and Ab—the slow movement of the former (Hob. XVI/52, II), the menuet of the latter (Hob. XVI/43, II)—among pieces that use one of the variants of the rising line: the form ^5-^6-(reg.)^7-^8. We've seen this version already in the menuets of Symphony no. 86 and no. 104.

In this post, I will use my holograph sketch of this piece; it's probably from 1982 (when I did most of the initial research on rising lines for the sake of a Schenker seminar). I have placed a facsimile in my public folder on Dropbox: link.

The opening is one of those designed to frighten beginning Schenker students, as it offers ^5, ^8, and ^3 as plausible starting points for an Urlinie. Although ^3 is weak, since it is over vi, not I, the move to ^2 in bar 4 has to be encouraging; and you can almost always read chord support backwards to the beginning if you really want to (true here), so that ^3 is understood to be supported by the initial tonic chord rather than the vi that prolongs that I.

In 1982, however, I read the Urlinie from ^5, not at all disturbed by its cover-tone quality, as ^5 very often sounds like that in its prolongations. The ^3 and its interruption, then, are placed in an alto voice. See the condensed version of my sketch below.

In the second strain's altered reprise, one can certainly be forgiven for wondering about ^3 again—note the prominent C6, then the double neighbor figure—but one is obliged to imply/invent the ^2 in the cadence. A line consisting of ^5-^6-(reg) ^7-^8 is more direct and also more musically satisfying.

Haydn, Part 5

Another piece from footnotes to my "Ascending Urlinie" article: Haydn, Symphony no. 104, menuet. This piece is among those I argued use "the simplest form" of the rising background line (fn28). It's not quite that simple, however—the same drop from ^6 down to ^7 that we found in the menuet of Symphony no. 86 in an earlier post. About that one I wrote:

This time [in the reprise] B5 drops to C#5-D5 for the cadence. The end result is a "circle" of sorts, from D5 back to itself, but by means of an octave's worth of a scale. This device of undercutting the rise from ^6 to ^7 is discussed in my JMT article and seems to be particularly characteristic of the later 18th century. To speculate: the conventions associated with the dominant Italian style (which we know better nowadays through research on the partimenti, evidence of methods of instruction) were so strong that Haydn felt an obligation to observe them in some situations, rather than take full advantage of the rising cadence gesture. In any case, the leap downward from a subdominant to the leading tone is very expressive in and of itself.

The key is the same in Symphony no. 104, ^5 is as firmly settled as the tonic pedal note underneath it, and a string of parallel sixths lead the melodic line down to the cadence. Only the sforzando on the last beat of bar 6 suggests anything different: B5 sticks out above, then leaps down to the dominant's C#5 (see the box).

What that sforzando hints at it is the possibility of a rising line from A5, but, as happened in Symphony no. 86, directionality is undermined by curling back to the lower octave instead of rising toward C#6 and D6.

As we have found more than once already, Haydn can't seem to leave things alone in the reprise, and the effects can easily be seen even in design features like linear patterns. In the A section, the eight-bar theme is repeated (in different instrumentation). In the reprise, the theme statement makes it through six bars before changes start, the overall result being an extension of the continuation phrase from four bars to eleven, including two bars of grand pause (!), and a clearly profiled stepwise ascent from B4 through C#5 to D5 (see the second system below). The codetta adds a little flourish that gives us C#5-D6 at last.

This condensed version shows just the ^5-^8 progress over the course of the reprise.