Brahms Symphony No 3 Third movement Harmonic Analysis

Johannes Brahms (1933 - 1897) wrote 4 symphonies. As well as grand opening and closing movements, the inner movements are gems of invention, orchestration and harmony.
Performers: Berlin Philharmonic conducted by Claudio Abbado
Publisher: Deutsche Grammaphon
A new video about western classical music is uploaded every second Friday

[@DavidFick]

To Composernotes: For example, be sure to use the ° symbol for diminished triads and fully-diminished seventh chords (vii°6, vii°7) and the ° symbol with a slash through it that runs SW to NE to denote half-diminished seventh chords (such as ii7 in minor).
In minor, the correct roman numerals for the triads are i, ii°, III, iv, V, VI, and vii° (when it's a chord built on the LEADING TONE), sometimes VII (when it's built on the SUBTONIC).
In measure 7, the subdominant harmony (iv6) needs to written with a lowercase iv, not "IV." Also, the harmony on beat 3 of m. 7 is an incomplete vii°7/V (the F# and C alone are enough to signal that the harmony is effectively F#, A-natural, C, Eb --you might ask, why not a vii° triad? diminished TRIADS do not appear in root-position). This is where you are having some difficulty: this is what's called a secondary leading-tone chord. It's a vii°7, yes, but of G (which is V). So, the correct analysis is vii°7/V. The "seven fully-diminished seven of five" (which is how you would say it) is confirmed in its function as a leading-tone chord by the fact that the vii°7/V actually GOES TO a G chord (V).
In measure 8, you have V on beat 1 (good), i on beat 2 (also correct), but V4/2 / iv on beat 3. What is iv in C minor? It's F minor (which is where the chord resolves to on the downbeat of m. 9). What is V of iv in C minor? If iv is F, then V of F is C. The chord there (C, E-natural, G Bb) should tip you off that it's chromatic (being that the E-natural is not found in C minor --additionally, the Bb, instead of B-natural, provides another clue), and as such must be analyzed as a non-diatonic chord, specifically here as a secondary function: here a SECONDARY DOMINANT. Because Bb (the seventh of the chord) is in the bass, the analysis must reflect the fact that it's in third inversion (thus, V4/2). Because it's not the dominant of C minor, but of another chord in C minor (iv), it must be analyzed as such: V4/2 / iv. Also, note that dominant seventh chords in first inversion almost invariably resolve to the root-position version of whatever chord they're acting as dominant seventh to (e.g., V6/5 / V resolves to V), whereas dominant seventh chords in third inversion almost invariably resolve to the first-inversion version of whatever chord they're acting as dominant seventh to (e.g., V4/2 / iv resolves to iv6).
I hope that helps a little. Email me if you want some more information.

[@SeaDrive300]

Very helpful, thank you! 🙂

[@sdf9255]

Thank you😍😍

[@juwonnnnn]

👍

[@DavidFick]

While I truly appreciate your effort here, I'm curious as to why you seem to avoid the use of secondary functions as an analytic label?

[@composernotes]

Thanks for your comments. There is always more than one way to analyse and account for any harmonic progression. If you have some alternative views to mine, I would be happy to hear them and open up a discussion

[@DavidFick]

Sure. I appreciate your openness. I'll get back to you in the next day or so (I'm extremely busy). Nonetheless, I appreciate your receptive attitude, and I'll respond in kind. Also, I greatly admire your commitment to analyzing the entire A section of this Intermezzo.

[@DavidFick]

No. There is not "always more than one way" to analyze harmonies in progressive common-practice-era tonal music. One MUST account for secondary functions as such. There is no single music theory textbook that would advocate the "system" (I use quotation marks to indicate that there is, in fact, NOTHING systematic or accepted about it) that you've invented here. The very purpose of showing secondary functions is twofold: to indicate their tonicizing function on subsequent chords and to differentiate their chord-quality from what a diatonic label would suggest. I taught music theory at USC's Thornton School for nearly 15 years. As one of the US's top-10 Conservatories, I can assure you that the "system" you've invented here would earn you a grade of D or lower, as it indicates that you've learned nothing about the primacy of secondary dominants/secondary leading-tone chords or the technique by which to encapsulate non-diatonic chord qualities. If you can name ANY analysis text that accords with your view, please give me the name. Otherwise, to avoid embarrassing yourself and misguiding others, I'd recommend either taking your wrong-headed analysis down or re-doing it upon learning the universally-accepted mode of analysis.