Haydn Harmony Question

[(poco) Sforzando]

I think the third chord is more like a ii₆ chord rather than IV.

Agree completely.
- Saul

Well the d minor chord in first inversion means that F is in the bass; and the melody goes F - D [- B - G].  If we consider the harmony as ii₆, then we needn't account for the D in the melody as a non-harmonic tone.

Note also the treatment in each of the succeeding variations. At no point is the C used in the harmony; instead at all times the D, F, and sometimes A are used. Looks like a ii to me.
- Saul

ii would tend to be a more common chord in this context that IV, anyway.

Although I, too, await confirmation from Saul on this matter.

Bien sur.
- Saul

and you can look at it as a true though very brief modulation to the dominant (as you say, the F sharp creates a V-I to the dominant), swiftly followed by a return to the tonic, or you can look at it as just an inflection towards a dominant chord which, after all, retains its clear dominant function throughout. It depends on what sort of scale view of the music you are looking at. From a distance, the change of key here is so innocuous and momentary as to be effectively non-existent; look under a microscope, and, yes, the key has changed.

I think you're making this very commonplace progression much too complicated. Either the key changes or it doesn't. V of V is not enough to effect a modulation to the dominant, no matter how brief; composers in this period frequently used V of V of V to truly pull away from the tonic (see for example Beethoven Op. 14/2, in G major, where the modulation to D does not occur until the E major chord - in first inversion - at bar 18).
- Saul

Well, in Germany you would say it's a subdominant chord (IV) with an added 6th (leaving out the 5th). Because the I-IV-V progression is so strong that you hear the F as the fundamental note rather than a D.

But the II is in the first inversion. You have to spell the chord by looking at the notes used, whether you're in Germany or not.
- Saul

I have to say that I agree more with the German approach, since I think it makes more sense to interpret harmonies as most often exhibiting the root in the lowest position whenever possibile, and I also think this is how we hear the harmony.  It strikes me as a bit indirect to call the chord a inverted D minor chord as opposed to an F major with a added/passing melodic tone (6th).

Harmonies have to be interpreted according to the notes of the chord used. The notes used here are D and F, which belong to ii, and the F-A-C that would clearly indicate IV is not used here or in any parallel place in this movement, while D-F-A are. The reason to use inversions is to create smoother voice-leading.
- Saul

Not that I am a musical theoretician, but as an historian and Haydn adorer let me point out that writing a harmonic progression where you don't know exactly where you are until it's over with is a Haydn hallmark. IIRC, it was Donald Tovey who wrote something to the effect of "Haydn may very well use a II-V-I progression, but I challenge anyone to predict what his next chord will be from that". So the fact that this is at least a little puzzling for you guys should come as no surprise; from his contemporaries til now this has been true. It is one of the reasons why he is great.

Sorry, but I think we're making something very complicated out of what in this case is very simple.
- Saul, Saul, Saul

[Luke]

I think you're making this very commonplace progression much too complicated. Either the key changes or it doesn't. V of V is not enough to effect a modulation to the dominant, no matter how brief; composers in this period frequently used V of V of V to truly pull away from the tonic (see for example Beethoven Op. 14/2, in G major, where the modulation to D does not occur until the E major chord - in first inversion - at bar 18).

Thanks, Saul! 

Not trying to make it complicated - it is indeed, among the commonest of progressions out there. You talk about 'truly pulling away from the tonic' and that is really what I was talking about too - how those two or three chords [i.e. looking close up] are indeed in G, but in the context of the passage [i.e. looking at more of a distance] are still rooted in C - the music pulls up to G, but without sufficient force to stay there. One can look at this sort of thing from further and further away, of course, and that's when we start to get into Schenker territory.

[zamyrabyrd]

Well, in Germany you would say it's a subdominant chord (IV) with an added 6th (leaving out the 5th). Because the I-IV-V progression is so strong that you hear the F as the fundamental note rather than a D.

For me, II is a softer form of IV, the latter having more of a pull towards a cadence. And I don't hear the F as a fundamental note. I hear the melody first as a descending V7,(so the D is not just an added 6th but an important note in that series) and the F as leading to the G in the bass. At measures 11, 35 and 77, there is not even a C in the parts (in 109 they all fairly outline the d minor chord), so it's just a II6 and not II6/5. I'd say Haydn was pretty consistent in the way he harmonized this theme and variations.

Moreover, the notion to "leave out the 5th" of a chord and define it as such when there are other credible possibilities seems very strange to me. Acoustically the 5th is already the 2nd partial of a tone after the octave. Including the C would have strengthened the case for an F chord but Haydn clearly did not want that.

ZB