Candidate Number: 1064704

Musical Analysis and Criticism

Title: An analytical essay on Joseph Mayseder’s String
Quartet No. 2 in G minor, final movement

Word Count: 2,427

Final Honour School Examination in Music
Candidate Number: 1064704 Musical Analysis and Criticism

Introduction

Joseph Mayseder (1789-1853) was a Viennese virtuoso violinist and composer active in the

late classical/early romantic period. While there is little scholarly attention given to his works,

Anne M. Hyland argues that his string quartets demonstrate a ‘striking originality’ towards the

interaction of tonality and structure.1 Examining Mayseder’s String Quartet No. 2 in G minor

(1811), Hyland suggests that the final movement leans towards a three-part exposition,

accompanied by three discrete keys. This analysis begins by assessing the merits and

shortcomings of her approach using sonata theoretical text as codified by James Hepokoski

and Warren Darcy.2

However, after examining an alternative interpretation of the exposition, I will argue

that Mayseder’s work is a battle against fate. The exposition sets out what I call a structure of

expectation as the “fake” secondary theme is fulfilled by the “proper” secondary theme.

Nonetheless, the failure of the secondary-theme zone to produce a satisfactory essential

expositional closure subverts the structure of promise that the exposition should lay out.

Instead, it presents what I call a structure of fate. The implications of this “failed” exposition

affect the rest of the sonata. In the recapitulation, the lack of a satisfactory essential structural

closure denies the structure of accomplishment, and instead the melodic and tonal content of

the primary theme prevails over the secondary theme. Overall, fate wins as the global tonic

of G minor triumphs over the sonata.

1
Anne M. Hyland, Schubert’s string quartets: the teleology of lyric form (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2013), 85
2
James Hepokoski and Warren Darcy, Elements of sonata theory: norms, types and deformations in the late
eighteenth-century sonata (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2006)

1
Candidate Number: 1064704 Musical Analysis and Criticism

The table below (table 1) summarises the author’s structural interpretation of the

whole movement viewed from the perspective of a type 3 sonata.

Macro-structure Micro-structure Tonal area Bars

Exposition Primary-theme zone (P) i (Gm) 1-14

Transition (TR) i 15-66

Medial Caesura (MC) ♭V (Db) 67-68

Secondary-theme zone (S) ♭V 69-101

Essential Expositional Closure iv (Cm) 101-1021

(EEC)

Development Pre-core iv 102-115

Core iv 116-183

Retransition (RT) V/i 184-195

Recapitulation P i 196-209

TR i 210-221

MC V/I 222-225

S I (G) 226 – 265

Essential Structural Closure i 265-2661

(ESC)
Coda (outside sonata space) i 266-294

Table 1 - Type 3 sonata form analysis

Exposition

The primary-theme zone begins with a strong evocation of the Sturm und Drang. The minor

key, allegro molto tempo, tonic-dominant harmony, and syncopation create a restless and

agitated first theme. There are a number of different motivic ideas presented: motif a, the

unison staccato quavers with auxiliary notes (figure 1); motif b, the syncopated arpeggio figure

2
Candidate Number: 1064704 Musical Analysis and Criticism

in the first violin (figure 2); motif c, the binding notes in the viola (figure 3), and motif d, the

minim arpeggios in the bass (figure 4). Examining the structure of P, it clearly resembles a

sentence-like form. Bars 1-4 present the basic idea in the tonic, while bars 5-8 repeat it in the

dominant. This idea is continued for another four bars in the dominant (bars 9-12) before

fragmentation and harmonic acceleration lead to a iib7 – V – i cadence in the tonic (bars 13-

15). The combination of clearly defined motivic ideas and a sentence-like structure create an

assertive primary theme despite its piano dynamic marking. It also sets up an expectation that

this theme will be developed later on in the movement due to its abundance of motivic

material.

Figure 1 - motif a, violin I, bar 1 Figure 2 – motif b, violin I, bars 3-51

Figure 3 - motif c, viola, bars 3-4 Figure 4 – motif d, cello, bars 3-51

The perfect authentic cadence (PAC) into bar 15 marks the onset of the Transition. The

tonic-dominant harmony and use of motif a and motif d in the cello demonstrate affinities

with P. However, the forte marking and more virtuosic writing for the first violin has

“unleashed” P from its quiet opening now taking full effect as an energy-gaining section. An

ascending 5-6 sequence of root position to first inversion chords (bars 23-34) develops motif

3
Candidate Number: 1064704 Musical Analysis and Criticism

x (figure 5), before the quartet presents a melodic new idea (bars 33-36), repeats it (bars 37-

41), fragments it (bars 41-48) and finally lands on a half-cadence at bar 49 (figure 6).

Figure 5 – motif x, violin I, bar 23 Figure 6 – half cadence, bars 48-49

At this point there are two avenues of differing structural interpretations that bear

worthy investigation. The first possible interpretation is that following the primary-theme

zone and transition, the exposition takes the form of a trimodular block (TMB). This view is

derived from arguing for the presence of two separate medial caesuras as advocated by Anne

M. Hyland.3 Hyland suggests that the medial caesura in bars 49-50 leads to the first secondary

theme “candidate”, while a second medial caesura in bars 67-68 leads to the second secondary

theme candidate. 4 Table 2 summarises this trimodular interpretation of the exposition.

Macro-structure Micro-structure Tonal area Bars

Exposition P i (Gm) 1-14

TR i 15-48

MC V/iii 49-50

Trimodular 1 (TM1) iii (Bbm) 51-57

Trimodular 2 (TM2) → ♭V 58-66

Postmedial caesura (PMC) ♭V (Db) 67-68

3
Anne M. Hyland, Schubert’s string quartets: the teleology of lyric form (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2013), 89
4
Hepokoski and Darcy call this a postmedial caesura (PMC)

4
Candidate Number: 1064704 Musical Analysis and Criticism

Trimodular 3 (TM3) ♭V → iv 69-101

EEC iv 101-1021

Table 2 - Trimodular view of the exposition

Trimodular 1 sets itself up to be the secondary theme. It appears just after two bars of

expanded caesura-fill (CF) and the half-cadence sets up an expectation to resolve to B♭ major.

As the relative major of G minor, modulating to B♭ major would be a normative procedure.

However, this first secondary theme candidate fails. There is no PAC, instead the dominant

resolves to a first inversion chord, and onto B♭ minor not Bb major. B♭ minor bears little

relationship to G minor. The further MC material in bars 53-54 reveals that perhaps bars 49-

50 were not the “true” MC, and that in hindsight TM1 is an unsatisfactory secondary theme.

Instead, trimodular 1 dissolves to trimodular 2 (bars 58-66) acting as a transition to the next

secondary theme candidate.

The second MC (or rather PMC) in bars 67-68 heralds the arrival of trimodular 3. It is

articulated more weakly than the first, perhaps showing that the strong energy had been

“spent” in preparation for TM1. Nonetheless, TM3 appears to be a more satisfactory

secondary-theme candidate. A PAC in bars 663-671 marks a new tonal area, and the theme has

a distinctive cantabile quality that is normative of secondary-theme zones. The lilting dotted

melody and tonic-dominant accompaniment are all evocative of the pastoral style (figure 7).

Moreover, I argue that this theme sets up a “structure of expectation”. TM1 failed to lead to

an EEC, and so TM3 sets up an expectation that it will secure the EEC instead. However, while

perhaps a better candidate than TM1, TM3 still cannot fulfil its structure of expectation. It

begins to break down at bar 91. The melody is replaced with motif x-like material and wanders

harmonically to C minor. Arguably there is an EEC in bars 101-1021 (figure 8). However, it is

wholly unsatisfactory as it secures the “wrong” tonal area. C minor is not the key of the

5
Candidate Number: 1064704 Musical Analysis and Criticism

secondary-zone theme, and by this point the melodic material is so far removed from the

opening of TM3, the listener wonders whether the music has already moved to a new section.

Figure 7 – pastoral style, bars 69-72 Figure 8 – possible EEC, bars 100-1021

Such an unsatisfactory EEC also questions whether the exposition was a Trimodular

block in the first place. Hepokoski and Darcy argue that TM3 must drive towards an EEC.

Furthermore, TM1 lacks almost all marks of a proper secondary theme. It is so “poor” a

secondary theme candidate that it begs the question of whether it was originally meant to be

a candidate. Therefore, although a trimodular interpretation of the exposition bears many

elements of utility, I am more convinced by the view that TM1 and TM2 are instead an

extension of TR and that TM3 is the Secondary-theme zone. This is the second possible

interpretation and is summarised in the original table (table 1).

In this interpretation, the abnormally lengthy transition goes some way to explain the

unusual modulation to ♭V at bar 67. The TR “overshoots” the relative major (B♭) and instead

ascends to a key another minor third up, D♭ major. The move to D♭ functions as the Neapolitan

of C minor, the key that opens the development. However, by functioning as a Neapolitan

chord, it functions as the “servant” of the development section, which begins with P in the

subdominant. As such, the secondary-theme is revealed as a servant of primary-theme

6
Candidate Number: 1064704 Musical Analysis and Criticism

material. In summary, the TR sets up the fate of the exposition by “overshooting” to the

“wrong” key. This then secures the subdominant return of P-material in the development,

proving the triumph of the primary-theme zone. Although a structure of expectation is given

by the “proper” S, it fails to secure a satisfactory EEC. Instead, S breaks down and dissolves

into the development, therefore replacing a structure of promise with a structure of fate.

Development

The development opens with a statement of P in the subdominant. Its harmonic and structural

form are an exact repeat of the primary-theme zone with an additional counter-melody in the

first violin (bars 102-103). There is an argument that bars 102-115 function as a closing zone.

However, the fact that this P material is succeeded by TR material gives greater weight to the

interpretation that bar 102 marks the onset of a new rotation. These bars act as a “pre-core”

section leading to the proper “core” in bar 116. Here, the first violin develops motif x, while

underneath is heard a new melodic idea, motif b’ (figure 9).

Figure 9 – a comparison of motif b’, cello, bars 116-1202, with motif b, violin I, bars 3-51

Motif b’ based upon the intervallic shape of motif b, however the notes lose their

syncopation and are rhythmically augmented. The entry of the viola in bar 120 playing motif

b’ creates a three-part counterpoint showing Mayseder’s use of the learned style. At bar 127,

the viola plays a melody based upon motif d, while the cello plays a rhythmically diminished

version of motif c. This figuration passes through a number of different keys including

tonicizations of E♭ minor (bar 134), G minor (bar 148) and D minor (bar 156). From here motif

7
Candidate Number: 1064704 Musical Analysis and Criticism

b’ is re-injected with syncopation, before passing through tonicizations of B♭ minor (bar 166),

F minor (bar 174) and C minor (bar 178). Finally, a dominant lock is reached at bar 184. This

acts as the retransition and is based upon material from TM1, or rather, bars 49-57 of the

transition. The transition finishes with an arpeggiaic flourish in the first violin that leads to the

onset of the recapitulation.

While there are many areas of the development that this analysis could expand upon,

it is important to note that the development is only half-rotational. It is based on materials

from only part one of the exposition, P and TR, presented in order. The pre-core was a

statement of P in the subdominant; the core developed motifs b, c, d, and x; and the

retransition was based off bars 49-57 of the TR. The overwhelming dominance of Primary -

theme zone ideas in the development acts as a foreshadowing of the triumph of P material in

the recapitulation. Just as the exposition set out a structure of fate by dissolving into the

development, so does the development begin to fulfil this structure of fate through the

dominance of P material.

Recapitulation

The third and final rotation of this movement begins with a statement of P in the tonic minor

as expected. The Transition is shortened and modified to lead to the “proper” S theme. The

first S candidate set out in TM1 is no longer worthy to be given a place in the recapitulation.

Instead, its role was “reassigned” to that of the retransition heard in bars 184-195. A four-bar

extended caesura-fill (bars 222-225) leads to the secondary-theme zone at bar 226. This is a

blissful moment of harmonic and structural symbiosis – S is heard in the tonic major. In fact,

Hyland notes that Mayseder frequently independently treats thematic and tonal elements at

8
Candidate Number: 1064704 Musical Analysis and Criticism

‘important formal junctions’.5 This time however, it appears that the “corrected” transition has

finally led to S in the “proper” key of the tonic major thus achieving the tonal telos of a minor-

mode sonata.

Nevertheless, fate prevails and S breaks down from bar 249 just as it had done in the

exposition. Bars 253-261 introduce new material and could be interpreted as the “missing”

closing zone that the exposition lacked (figure 10). However, its attempt is too little too late.

The absence of a PAC establishes these bars as part of the secondary-theme zone Once again,

S wanders from the motivic and harmonic material first presented and fails to produce a

satisfactory essential structural closure. While it could be argued that an ESC is heard in bars

265-2661, it is presented even more tenuous than the EEC. Overall, the exposition’s failure to

secure a structure of promise has resulted in the recapitulations’ failure to secure a structure

of accomplishment. Instead, the structure of fate reaches fulfilment as S dissolves into the

tonic minor coda.

Figure 10 – the “missing” closing zone,, bars 253-261

5
Anne M. Hyland, Schubert’s string quartets: the teleology of lyric form (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2013), 85

9
Candidate Number: 1064704 Musical Analysis and Criticism

Coda

Finally, the coda of this movement sits outside of sonata space and secures the return of the

tonic minor. Despite the efforts of S in the recapitulation to move towards the tonic major,

fate has triumphed. The first violin is heard playing motif x, the cello plays a version of motif

d, and violin two and the viola play motif b. The abundance of material from the primary-

theme zone once again shows its dominance, fulfilling the structure of fate. In bar 2853-2861,

the coda presents its first PAC that proceeds to differing material. Arguably, this takes the

function of the ESC which the secondary-theme zone failed to achieve (figure 11). What should

have been an ESC in the tonic major has been replaced with an “ESC” in the tonic minor.

Overall, fate wins as the global tonic of G minor, supported by the dominance of P material,

triumphs over the sonata.

Figure 11 – PAC functions like an ESC, 285-2862

10
Candidate Number: 1064704 Musical Analysis and Criticism

Conclusion

In conclusion, the final movement of Mayseder’s Quartet in G minor presents a number of

structural deformations. The exposition sets out two secondary theme “candidates”. While

the first candidate failed to lead to an EEC, the second candidate, proving itself to be the true

secondary theme, sets up a structure of expectation as it hopes to secure the EEC instead.

However, this also fails. S breaks down into a Neapolitan “servant” of the development thanks

to the “overshooting” from the Transition into the “wrong” tonal area. The structure of

promise that should have been achieved by the exposition is replaced with a structure of fate.

Meanwhile, the development is half-rotational, favouring material from P and TR. It begins to

fulfil the structure of fate as both P material and a minor tonality dominate the second

rotation. Finally, the structure of fate reaches its complete fulfilment as the secondary zone

fails to achieve a satisfactory ESC. The recapitulation fails to articulate a structure of

accomplishment and instead dissolves into a coda dominated once again by material from P

and TR. The G minor coda is relentless until it reaches its final note. The triumph of both the

tonic minor and dominance of P material demonstrate fate’s victory.

By examining Mayseder’s quartet as a battle against fate, several structural

deformations are brought to light. Deformative procedures are revealed as servants of the

primary theme’s domineering thematic and tonal material. However, as Hyland notes, such

an unusual treatment of tonality and form is not uncommon in Mayseder’s works. Moreover,

the use of three-key expositions, and the exceptional use of the medial caesura are central to

Franz Schubert’s early quartets.6 Though excluded from music’s historical narrative,

6
Anne M. Hyland, Schubert’s string quartets: the teleology of lyric form (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2013), 94

11
Candidate Number: 1064704 Musical Analysis and Criticism

Mayseder’s ‘fluid approach to form’ provides a relevant formal context to engage with

Schubert’s practices.7 This movement, therefore, should be seen as a pivotal step towards

rethinking the tonal design of the classical string quartet.

Bibliography

Caplin, W. (2001). Period. In W. E. Caplin, Classical Form: A Theory of Formal Functions for

the Instrumental Music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven (pp. 49-58). Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Hepokoski, J. A., & Darcy, W. (2011). Elements of sonata theory: norms, types, and

deformations in the late-eighteenth-century sonata. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Hyland, A. M. (2023). Schubert's String Quartets: Historical and Analytical Contexts. In A. M.

Hyland, Schubert's String Quartets: The Teolology of Lyric Form (pp. 65-104).

Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Ratner, L. G. (1980). Topics. In L. G. Ratner, Classical Music: Expression, Form, and Style (pp.

9-29). USA: Schrimer Books.

7
Ibid., 85

12