For the quartets of Op. 33, generally lighter and more accessible than those of Op. 20 and evidently targeted for a less exclusive market, the quest for an alter-native type of finale led in a new direction—namely, to the currently fashionable rondo, whose characteristic virtues of tunefulness, rhythmic life, and sharply de-fined sectional contrasts underlined its attractiveness as an uplifting conclusion to a multimovement cycle. In keeping with what we can presume to be Haydn’s eye toward popular appeal, this form must have seemed an irresistible choice.8
The plan adopted for Op. 33’s three rondos features a recurrent, cheerful re-frain in binary or rounded binary form; two episodes, offering opportunities for contrast as well as motivic development; and a coda at the end. Apart from their comparable size and formal arrangement, resemblances among them include the choice of a fast duple meter, either 24or68; the similar preference for short motives that lend themselves to repetition as well as variation, permutation, and migra-tion among the parts; and (in Op. 33/2 and 3) a sense of accumulating momentum that enhances the suspense of the forms’ transition passages and helps motivate the special punch lines that adorn the endings. Such family resemblances not-withstanding, each of these finales has a distinctive character, and each displays a somewhat different approach to realizing a rondo’s possibilities. In No. 3, an ut-terly simple, repetitive melodic premise gives rise to a masterpiece of thematic unity, motivic concentration, and diversity of ensemble technique. Almost every melodic gesture stems from the initial two-note figure, which continually under-goes repetition, inversion, and other operations in which all instruments take part.
No. 2 (the “Joke”), justifiably famous for the comical disjunctions of its closing measures, is also rich in playful manipulation of the form’s rhythms of contrast and recurrence. To begin with, the second reprise of the rounded binary refrain
b
*The opening four measures of E2 vary those of E1.
f i g u r e 7 . 3 Op. 33/2/iv
has sufficient breadth to encompass thematic development, a brief inflection to the dominant, and a transition (t in fig. 7.3) to the return, so that the refrain as a whole traverses on a small scale the form’s larger, periodic dispositions of statement, departure, transition, and recurrence. This in itself is not unusual; what is distinc-tive is the way Haydn bestows exaggerated emphasis on the second-reprise transi-tion, positioning it as a tense moment of inhalation before the awaited recurrence of first-reprise material and actually lending it more upbeat energy than the subse-quent, larger-scale connection (T) from the end of the first episode to the refrain.
But why? A reason for this oddity emerges as the form continues to unfold (see fig. 7.3): when the end of the second episode (E2) segues as expected into a transition that will lead to the refrain’s third appearance at measure 141, what we hear is not a replica of the preceding transition to the refrain (i.e., mm. 64–71) but something that sounds more like a variant of the long upbeat passage em-bedded within the refrain’s second reprise (mm. 16–28, 87–99). It leads not to a full statement of the refrain but to the recurrence of a single eight-measure phrase-pair, and the formal ellipsis that results gives rise to a tight and unexpected unity:
the transition in question (mm. 128–40), related, as we have noted, to the tran-sition that unfolds within the second reprise of the refrain, now comes into its own by assuming a higher-level function, joining the second episode to a partial statement of the refrain, and thus mediating between smaller and larger dimen-sions of structure as the rondo heads toward its celebrated conclusion. Paradoxi-cally, the full stop in measure 148 sounds both satisfying (it presents a solid, de-cisive punctuation) and incomplete (we have been cheated out of a large portion of the refrain): a suitably unstable environment for the perplexing adagio of mea-sures 149–52 and the bizarre coda that follows.
The finale of Op. 33/4 (represented in fig. 7.4) differs from either of the other two rondos by calling for a full close rather than an open-ended transition be-tween episode and refrain. (The passage marked T in the sketch is indeed tran-sitional, yet it is neither fluid nor charged with anticipation. Preceded by a full close and capped by nearly a full measure’s rest, it acts as a developmental
inter-f i g u r e 7 . 4 Op. 33/4/iv
lude that puts distance between the first episode and the returning refrain as it negotiates the tonal shift from subdominant to tonic.) The emphasis on separa-tion resembles the usual segmentasepara-tion of variasepara-tion forms, and in fact there are variation techniques in play: the second appearance of the refrain quickens the pace with sixteenth-note diminutions, and its final occurrence transforms some of the theme’s repeated notes and broken-chord figures into wide-leaping gesticu-lations. The adornment of second and third refrains with diminutions and leaps points up the rondo’s susceptibility to variation as an antidote to the monotony of unaltered recurrence—an issue of particular relevance to the quartet, with its predilection for detail and the corresponding tendency to avoid pure repetition.
The scarcity of relatively simple rondo forms subsequent to Op. 33 reflects Haydn’s growing tendency to charge his last movements with elements of un-predictability, rhetorical impact, and structural novelty. Only two later finales, those of Opp. 54/1 and 64/6, resemble the Op. 33 rondos closely enough to be labeled unproblematically as examples of the type. Like the last movements of Op. 33/3 and 4, both are whirlwind finales in 24 time, and both have rounded binary refrains that (as in Op. 33/2) focus attention on a second-reprise transi-tion whose suspenseful qualities prepare the return to first-reprise material (see the sketch of Op. 54/1/iv in fig. 7.5, where the transition in question is marked t). Also similar to both Op. 33/2 and 3 is the suspense of transitional gestures be-tween episode and refrain (those of Op. 54/1/iv are marked T in the sketch).
However, neither of these later rondos retains a comparably simple plan of al-ternation between refrain and episode. In Op. 54/1/iv, for example, the form’s first two segments—initial refrain and first episode—conform to basic rondo ex-pectations; but the second refrain is strangely destabilized by a digression to the mediant, B minor, at the start of its second reprise, followed by a close in the domi-nant of that key, Fminor. In effect, Haydn has joined a statement of the refrain’s first part to a segment that would seem appropriate as the first reprise of a minor-key episode; he thus collapses both functions—refrain and episode—within a single formal unit (labeled R E2). After a brief transition, a fully intact refrain (with varied first reprise) restores order temporarily. But starting with measure 132 (E3), the movement’s course veers once again toward the unpredictable: a low-register musical afterthought, quietly commenting on the preceding phrase, a further span of developmental transition, and a recall of a1that flows directly
f i g u r e 7 . 5 Op. 54/1/iv
into a brilliant coda, complete with scale- and arpeggio figures, final references to the refrain, loud unison punctuations, and a quizzical, high-register ending, sounded pianissimo.