B Major Hamony as Dominant orMediant, in Ch,opin's,Opus ilDlf.z

Schenker's Graphs from FreeComp o sition Reconsidered

Howard Cinn'amon

At some point in every undergraduaæ music theory'curriculum itbecomes necessary to select pieces from the repertoire to illustrate the

of chorale-style voice leading, uponcommonly based, and those of free

composition. A freçent first sæp in this direction is the selection of apiece based upot str¿igbÉorward arpeggiations in which the figurationpattern can be easily represented as a series of four- or five-voicechords that manifest basic chorale-style voiçe leading and harmonicprogression. This practice is particularly true in courses focusing on,or incorporating some, elemenB of Schenkerian analytical methods, forwhich the unfolding of harmoniesl is a basic concept. But it can also bea useful first step for approaches using other methodologies as well.

One piece commonly chosen for this purpose is Chopin's Étudein C Major, Opus 10/1. Two factors often contribute to this selection:the structural parallelisms between this piece and J: S; Bach's Preludein C Major from Book I of The Well-Tempered Clavier (an equally

rUnfolding of harmonies is defined as the transformation of harmonies tbatfi¡nction as simultaneities on one lerrel futo Íielodic paüerns (e.g., arpeggiations) on amore foreground level.

Indiana TIæny Revíew Vol. l5l1popular choice to ñ¡lñll this ñrnction)2 and, for those wishing toincorporate schenkerian methodologies, the fact that two of schenker'sos,n voice-lelding graphs of this piece :re readily available in FreeCnmpositíon}- Th" parallelisms with the Bach pielude allow for adisc'ssion of the nature of style in general anr $tistic differencesbetween these pieces iir particular, while the availability of schenkeriangraphs provi{es models th. æ can be used as a gqide (both for thestudent and the teacher) anð allow for relevant references to Schenker'sown writings.

If one is not careful, however, these factors can become negativeelements by unduly influencing both instructor and students in theirinterpretation of these pieces, sometimes leading to an overenphasis onthe similarities between them and./or promoting the acceptance ofSchenker's analyses without the healthy degree of skepticism sonecessaС to the development of the critical analfical skills that are theultimate goal. One factor that mitigaæs against the selection of theChopin éh¡de is the questions prompted by seeming inconsistencies thatappear when Schenker's voice-leading graphs are closely comparedwith the piece and the inæ-rference with the learning process that mayresult. This surdy re+*arnìnes the piece from a p"Ãi"cti"" pro-pæäby some of these questions and offers an alternative view of its tonalstrucû¡re. TVhile this discussion employs Schenkerian methodology andthus will be of direct relevance to those who employ similar .ãiho¿sin their approach, the reconsideration of tonal orientation within themiddle section of the étude will be of interest to all analysts and may .

cause even non-Schenkerians to re-examine their perspective on the

2Serreral Sche¡rkerian analyses ofthis Bach prelude are availablea¡d rcle\¡ant her€:Heinrich Schenker, Five Grqhic Mnsicol Anolysès, ed. Felix Srl'er (Norr York Dover,l9@), 3G37; Aller¡ Forte and Swe¡r E. Gilbert, Intrútdíon n SchenÍ,¿rion Anaþsis(New York \\¡. Vf. Norûor¡, 1982), 18&190 and,2V2; David Nanmeyer and SusanTepping, A Guid¿ m Sùank¿rian Anafrsis (Englewood Ctffs: Preotice Hall, 192), 68-70; and rffilliam Drabkin, "A L€sson in Analysis ftom Heimich Schørker," Mnsr:c,lnoþsis 4 (19&!: 241-258.

3Hein¡ich Schenker, Free @mposition, trans. a¡d ed. by Emst Ostø (New York:I-ongman, 1979), Supplement, Figures 130.,4 and 153,2.

Cinnamon, E Major Hannony as Dominant or Mediant

controlling harmony [.e., key orienøtion) of the middle section of thispiece.

In considering the voice.leading graphs inFree Composítíon, oneessential point must be kept in mind. Unlike the graphs in DerTonwílle, Das''Meßtenryelk in der Musík and some of Schenker'sspecifically anal¡ical writings, the voice-leading graphs in FreeComposition are intended as illustrations of specific theoretical pointsmade in the t9&, not compleûe enalyses of the pieces discussed. As aresult they focus on the point being made and include only as muchinformation about the entire piece as is necessary to provide context.In cases where a more detailed analysis,exists elsewhere, it oftenprovides essential information neither includø nor suggested in theillustration in Free Compositíon In cases where no other source exists(like that of this Chopin énrde), wé have nothing to guide ourinærpreøtion of the analysis or our understanding of Schenke¡'s viewof the piece other than the information specifically repiesented in theillustration. While these graphs a¡e almost certainly based oncomprehensive analyses, the only way to arrive at those analyses isthrough extrapolation from the information provided, based upon anunderstanding of the principles employed. This necessarily involves aconsiderable amount of speculation and analyticål input by theinterpreter and can often be a matær of considerable debaæ amongadvocates of Schenker's theories. The discussion can be simplifiedconsiderably when there is more than one voice-leading graph toconsider and compare, as is the case here, but its difñculties can becompounded by apparent inconsistencies between these graphs as well.

The two graphs of Opus 10/1 included in Free Composition,found in Example l, are inænded to illustrate distinct theoreticalconcepts, but they appear, for the most part" to reflect a consistent viewof overall form and harmonic organization in the piece. Schenkerconsiders this piece to be an example of three-part form in which themiddle section is articulaæd by a prolongation of VI (A minor); in fact,the second graph of Example I (his Figure t53,2) is used specificallyas an illustration of a category of three-part form in which a neighbor

4,

Indi

nno

Thco

ry R

evíe

w Vo

l' 15/

l

Exam

ple

l. Sc

henk

er's

voice

-lead

ing

grap

hs o

f Opu

s l0

/l;Fi

gure

s 13

0,4

and

153,

2 fro

m F

ree

Com

posí

tion

go

to ¡l oà- -t

<Cl

,¡t oa t,) 9 .Þ

Ìt F t u) ir

o I ND a c t

¡9ô

.7g _ã

oþÉ l€ ie '! ia lr !r

Cinn

amon

, E

M$o

r Har

nony

ß D

omin

ant

or M

edío

ttt

5

mot

ion

occu

rs in

an

inne

r voi

ce r

athe

r tha

n tt¡

e so

pran

o.4

In hi

sdi

scus

sion

of th

e fir

st g

raph

of E

xam

ple

I (hi

s Fi

gure

130

,4),

sche

nker

elab

orat

es s

omew

hat

on th

e na

ture

of f

orm

, and

the

harm

onic-

cont

rapu

ntal

præ

ess

that

gen

erat

es it

in th

is pi

ece:

Here

is a

noth

er re

mar

kabl

e us

e of

the

divid

er. O

nly

a d

47 u

ras

itA

(W) f

rom

Exam

ple

2. F

orle

and

Gilb

ert's

rep

rese

ntat

ion

of to

nal s

tfucE

re in

Opu

s 10

/l

Alle

n Fo

ræ a

nd S

teve

n E.

Gilb

ert,

in th

e ch

apte

r on

form

in th

eir t

ext

from

an

inte

mrP

tion

theY

sta

te:

The

open

ing

sixte

en m

easu

res

conc

lude

o¡ I

rath

er th

an V

,an

d wi

th J

reas

serti

on o

f sca

le d

egre

e 3

in tt

re m

elod

y'

'1bi

d., 13

3.

5lbi

d., l

13.

Indiana Theory Review Vol. l5llMeasures 1748 continue to prolong â (tto* over VI), andthe inverted dominan^ t at thp end of m. 48 (harmonizing theupper neighbor ûo 3, not 2) is clearly felt as a transitionrather than a point of rest.6

While Schenker considers. the harmonic organization among thesections of this piece to be based o. n a familiar I-VI-I harmonicorganiàtion, he apparently views the prolongation of VI as somewhatunusual in that some of its main elements consist of dominantharmonies that prolong their tonic, but do not resolve to iu what hecalls "fifth dividers" (sometimes also called "back-relatingdominants"). This is, in fact, the speciñc point that the first graph inExample 1 is intended ûo illustrate. Such "fifth dividers" function asoffshoots of a tonic harmony that precedes them, but serve to close offa musical idea rather than resolve to I.7 In Schenker's view, the Emajor harmonies that occur within the prolongation of YI, atm-24 andú. fi, a¡e extensions of tonic (i.e., A minor [or major]) harmonies thatprecede them in m. l7 and m. 25 respectively. For this to be the case,the tonic harmonies must be clearly established as such by othercontextual elements. While these two E major harmonies seem clearlyto be the goal of the harmonic+ontrapuntal motion, the tonic nature ofthe harmonies they are supposed to be prolonging is not nearly as clea¡-

The most serious question involves the harrrony in m- 17, whichSchenker identifies as I of A minor (VI of C major)- While thisharmony does employ A as itò bass and two of the upper voices docontain C and E, its highest voice adds an F to this harmony, resulting

. in a 6/5 chord that begins a sequence which ultimaæly arrives on theE 23-Ure enker'sF shing toin A minor, such a harmony would require the establishment of an A

óForte and Gilbert, Innofuaion to Schenkeriø Attatysis,2V)-2V3.

?For a clear, concise discussion of ''back-relating dominants" see Edwa¡d Aldwelland ca¡l schacht€f, Harmory atdvoiceLcading,?rlded. (New York ÉIarcoutt, Brace,Jovanovich, 1989), 14547.

Cinnamon, E Major Hannony as DomÍnan or Mediant

Example 3. Mm. 15-24; seguence leading from I to V^/I

8 IndíaruTheoryRevíew Vol- l5l1

minor context prior to its appearance. Furthermore, while the sequencethat.follows in mm. 17-24 an be inærpreæd in terms of A minor, itcan be equally well understood in terms of C major.

Example 4.a. Sequence that would lead to Y in m.24b. Modified version as it appears in mm- 1724

mr. 17 Á8

This view is reinforced when one examines the sequence moreclosely. Example 4a shows how its voice leading seems to be-direcæd,not to V of A minor, but to V of C major through a consisænt G5soprano-bass voice-leading pattern that would normally result in a Gmâjor harmony in mm.23-24. Example 4b shows how the sequence is

Cinnarron, E MQor Hanørry as Domhant or Mediant 9

redirected to an E major harmony (madeby the augmented-sixth chord of m. ?2,inner voice from F to D# (a chromaticizedappears in mmr 3-7; see the,first graph in Example 1)- Thæ first realindication of A minor as a tonic, therefore, occurs only with the arrivalon its domiqant in mm. 23-24, six measures after schenker assefts a

circle of dominant-seventh chords, arriving ultimaæly back on an A

Insntnerus) for further clarification. He states:

When A is sounded for the second time in mea'sure

t Free Contpsition, ll3.

l0 Indiaru Tluory Raievv Vol. 15/lWhile it is certainly possible for a harmony to function as a

dominant in the foreground while serving as a structrral I in themiddleground (or even background), this har,mony, like ttrat of m. 17,seeûN to initiate a transitional process rather tban serve as a point ofstructural repose. This process, a circle of dominant-seventh chords,leads first to a brief resting point on the dominant of C major (mm. 2il-28) and then on to an A màjor harmony in mm. 35-36 (the onlyharmony in the passage that does not contain a seventh, making it themost stable harmony within it). The transitional process then continuesfurther, again through a circle of frffùs that is (this. time) mostlydiatonic in A minor, to the V/VI of mm. 4:748. The asîertion that thedominant-seventh harmony of m. 25 be considered strucûrral, while theonly consonant potential tonic in the passage, that in mm. 35-36, isconsidered inerely transitional, seems troubling.

An equally troublesome segment of Schenker's graph is therepresentation of the brief retransition to I in ntm. 4749. Theha¡monies represented in Figure 130,4 of Free Composition (seeExample l), along with the analysis of scale-sæps (Srufeù presentedbelow the graph, indicates that Schenker considers this transition to bebased upon a succession of fifth-related harmonies in which theprolonged VI of mm. 1747tøds first to tr and then to V, which inhrrn continues to I and the beginning of the reprise at m. 49. Themeaning of the parentheses arorlnd the tr chord is unclear. It probablysugge.sts that tr is implied though not explicitly stated (or perhapsomitæd entirely), but no indication is given of any modification,zubstitution, or alteration to the V chord. On the basis of this graph onewould expect to find a root-position V chord in m. 48 that leadsdirectly to I, but no such chord exists in the music. The actualtransition is achieved rather subtly and suddenly through a second-inversion \Z chord that occurs at the last possible moment, on the lastquarter of m. 48.

One might say that it is precisely this appearance of Va/3, with Din its bass, which prompted Schenker's suggesion of a tr chord: tlat,in some way, the Val, represents a merging of II and V in such a wayas to produce smoother voice leading. While such an elision might beconceivable in some circumstances, this explanation represents a view

Cinnamon, E Major Hatmory as Domùunt or Mediøttt 11

of the-piece that seems needlessly conVoluted, especially consideringthe familiarity of the acûral progression and voice leading that occursin mm. 4749. This view does offer some rationale to justiffSchenker's analysis, but his representation simply cannot be akenliærally in light of a more viable alternative.

Example 5. Mm. 47-50, the retransition to I

Example 5 presents mm. 47-50 of tlÍe piece whiÞ Example 6illustrates the foreground Voice leading operating within them. The Va/tseems to be a straightfonvard passing chord. In fact, this entireprogression seems quite familiar. In this context the E major harmony(viewed up to now as V/VI, a dividing dominant) is considered Itr# ofC major (exhibiting secondary mixhrre as III often does)- It functionsas a substitr¡te for f and returns to f/r through a passing chord with noroot position dominant present or needed-e (Noæ that Forte a¡rd Gilbert

Tor a discussion of Itr (and ltrilt) as a substituþ for f and its opention inpassages like this, see Aldwell and Schachær, zLçzll , 218-219, and 361364.

12 IndíanaTheory Review Vol. l5llExample 6. Voice leadingof return to I in mm. 4749, employing Va/,

asaPassingY ., 48 4s

support this view of the renrrn to I through a passing V%, both in theirgraph [Example 2] and in their discussion of the piece ciæd e.arlier.) Ifthis view is accepted, it calls into question Schenker's interpretation notonly of this Eansition, but of tonal strucûrre and tonal hierarchy withinthe entire middle section of the piece. Va/r, after all, represents aperfectly reasonable transition from ltr¡|, to I, but an inærpreation thatviews it as a link between VI and I requires one to consider both the Emajor harmony and ttre Va/, to be voiðe-leading chords, with V of VIreinterpreted as III¡fi only in the foreground as part of tl¡is transition.Employing this E major harmony in such a direct voice-leadingrelationship to I, however, suggests that it might have a moré strucûralrole as IIIif throughout the section. As the earlier discussion indicated,a similar E major harmony was the goal of harmonic+ontrapuntalmotion following the cadence on I in m. 16. Might there be aconnection benveen this firststable harmony of the middle section (mm.23-24') and the last one (mm. 47-48)? Might there be 'some way toconsider the middle section of the piece to be based upon aprolongation of this harmony rather than VI?

Examples 7a-c present a view of voice leading and harmonic

(vÆ=) Iu$(Ð r

Cinnamon, E Major Hannony as Dontittøtt or MedÍant

stn¡cture in the entire piece that incorporates a prolongation of ltr#rather than VI within the middle section; Example Za illustrates rrm.123, the çening section of the piece and the transition to ltr#;Example 7b illustates mrt. ?-049, the end of the tra¡sitional sequenceleading to III#, the middle section of the piece,and the retransition toI; and Example 7c illustraæs mm. 49:77, the closing section of thepiece. Tonal structure between mm. 23 añ47 @xample 7b) can moreclearly (and more consisæntly) be viewed as a prolongation of E major(Itrf) in which.the potential ambiguity of function inherent in thisharmony that allows it to be interpreted as V/YI is exploiæd forexpressive purposes. When viewed in thiq way, IILff is seen to beprolonged, in a very conventional way, witfl a middleground harmonicprogression, I-IV-V-I. Though the E major harmonies are approachedeach time as if they were V of A minor (or major), this is only aforeground element.. After its anival in m. 23, III# proceeds towa¡ds its own fVthrough a normative descending-thirds progression that arrives at IVI(of E) in m. 29 and then proceeds on to fV (m. 3Ð. This IVI ismarked off as a midpoint in this progression through the durationalaccenJ given its own dominant (mm. 27-28), by the emphasis given theresolution of this dominant as a result, and by a change in thesequential pauernthat follows it. The IYI chord is approached througha succession of dominant-seventh harmonies. The circle of dominant-seventh chords continues after m. 29, but ¡vith inærvening passingchords thatproduce half-sæp melodic motions in the bass, anticipatingthe arrival on IV (of þ through a dominant-seventh chord on B b thatis slightly alæred and reinærpreted as a French augmented-sixth chord.

fV arrives in m. 35 in the form of an A major harmony: diatonicif considered IV within a prolongation of E major, buç repreSeitingmixûre if considered I in A minor. As noæd earlier, this is the oilyharmony between nn. VI and 46 that does not contain a seventh. It isthereby distinguished from the surrounding harmonies, all of which arerelatively less stable. Earlier it was observed that the apparent stabilityof this harmony was inconsistentwith Schenker's complete omission ofit from his analysis. It is, however, totally consistent with theinterpretation of its function offered here. This fV is then prolonged by

l3

14 IndÍona Tlæory Reviqv Vol. 15/1

another sequential passage based on a circle of fiftbs sequence, thislime employing a 1G7-10 sopranebass voice-leading pattern to descendby step to its third (now minor), which arrives in m. 44. The voice-leading pattern that follows then continues.briefly, as a link to whatwould be tr of A minor, which arrives in m. 45. Tliis harmony isimmediately altered, however, becoming V of E major and leading toa perfect authentic cadence on ltr# in m. 47. The seguence be¡veenmm. 36 and 4 offers the strongest support yet of an interpretation ofthis section in ærms of A minor. It is completely diatonic within thatkey, suggesting the middleground unfolding of a tonicized A minorharmony. This interpretation, however, is eçally compatible with theview taken here, which also considers the A minor harmony to beunfolded, but on a more foreground level and within a conþxt thatinterprets it as fV of E (I[#) rather than I of A.

While the IV chord of m. 35 is major Qn keeping with itsfunction within E major), the use of a sequence that is predominantlydiatonic in A minor achieves two effects. First" it perpetuates thesuggestion of A minor, begun with the approach to III# as VAy'I, tosubstantial expressive effect. Second, it results in a disproportionateemphasis on the anival of V (of Ð when the B diminished chord,approached as tr of A minor, is chromatically alæred to become amajor triad (V of Ð, causing it to stand out from the sequence as astructural harmony that fr¡nctions on a deeper level. This differentiationof the B harmony is further reinforced by a shift of regisær in the bass,which had until m. 44 continued consisæntly downward by sæp fromA to C. This octave shift places the bass of the V chord (m. 4Ð in thesame regisær as that of the fV chord (m. 35), zupporting their voice-leading and harmonic associations. Particular notice should be paid tothe role of the harmonies that Schenker identifies as tonic within themiddle section of the piece. Here, both are considered relativelyforeground elements that function within tra¡sitional passages, aninterpretation that seems more in keeping with their roles as parts ofongoing processes. The apparent 6/5 harmony of m. 17 is seen as theinitial chord in a sequence leading from I Qn C major) to III¡1, whilethe A chord of m. 25 is considered part of a circle of fifths, connectingI (of Ð with its lYI.

Cinnamon, E Major Harrony as Domilnnt or Medíant 15

Example 7a. Voice leading of opening section and transition to III#(mm. l-23)

.ivr.rY

,Itr

16

Indi

ana

Theo

ry R

eviq

v Vo

l. l5

llEx

ampl

e 7b

. Voi

ce le

adin

g of

end

of t

rans

ition,

mid

dle

sect

ion,

and

retu

rn to

I (m

m. 2

G4t

9)

El=

Hu ø-

t

I I I I I tl lr lt I t.

H- î È

\ I I I 't I I , , I

I , tl tl I I I

ä

ìï r\ \ l'

Cinn

amon

, E M

ajor

Han

nony

as

Dom

Ínon

t or

Med

Íaw

Exam

ple

7c, Y

oice

lead

ing

of cl

osin

g se

ctio

n (m

m. 4

9-77

)

17

I I I t I I I I I t I

tl ¡l ¡r' ,l tl{ o o

rl li tt ', 1 t) , .t tl /

H

7t

1

69

3

vrI -e vlr#III (æ vÆI)

t

FIGURE 5! Yotce Leading of Eatlre Plæ Interpr€tfng the Ë1dd1e Sætlon BÉProlongl¡g III'.

IndiaÌu Theory Revíew Vol. l5ll' Itisicontradictswithin theperspective,assertion of a key and the prolongation of its tonic. Bear in mind that

"ïH:chords

taken here acknowledges the implications of A, but seqs them as anexpressive element, employed as a foreground device within aprolongation of III¡Í that treats it as if it were v/Tr. It draws a crucialand often-overlooked distinction be tut æn prolongatíon and ønícíznrion:specifically, that to be prolonged a harmony need not be treated astonic nor even oocur in a context where it could be considered the tonic

eofany

eading within this piecethat Gilbeft's çfxanptã Z¡-Whi ess conventional than I-VI-I, it is no less viable, and this interpretation appears to overcomethe most serious problems pointed out in schenker's analysis. It also' offers several pedagogical advantages, which make this étude evenmore usefirl as a "teaching piece." of course, this inærpretation stillincludes the strucnual similarities with the Bach prelude: the E-F-Eneighbor motion. that the employment ofparallel tenths (in mm. a descending octavetransfer of E in the sop f tonic and dominantpedals as a means¡ of emphasizing the prolonged harmonies that formthe background close of the piece are all strucurral features that these

Cinnamon, E Major Hamony as Domirunt or MediantExample 8. Summary of the tonal structure of the entire oiece

? 15 2J S5a6a? a6 .9 n

YI

- rsee the analyses of the Bach prclude cited above for illustntions of the roles ofthese featr¡res within thatpiece.

two pieces share.r' But this reading also promotes discussion of otherconcepts_not t¡'pically addressed in analyses guided by Schenker'sgraphs ofthis piece.

t9

3(v) r

Indiana Theory Rqíew Vol. l5llthc rrn¡rn !o its tonic are associated with changes in design that call

ñantlon to those strucnral events. In a piece such as thiJ, where arcpCltâd.fl8Uration pattern seerrs to go on indefiniæly, even slightchfn¡cr ln dceign can signal important strucû¡ral events.

Iltio picce also offers a useful example of how foreground¡tructutoE, particularþ towa¡d the end of a piece, can summarize tonal

the piece is an excellent example of this common structurar practice, adiscussion of which might compare the reh¡rn to I in m. 49 with ttrat

of the role of each augmented-sixth chord as an indication of astructural harmony to follou¡ and as a meâns of generating harmonicambiguity by suggesting the next chord as a dominant might bepursued. One could begin by pointing out how both V and III¡Í in thesecond phrase of A' ixth chords,calling them to one's dominant ina yet to be esøblished key. One could then continue to consider howapproaches through augmented-sixth chords affect the perception of Itr¡lin m- 23 and fV (of III#) in m. 35.

Most important of all, however, is the lesson this ¡nalysis canteach us about the analytical pr(rcess itself. A comparison withSchenker's origi r's canpointoutquiæclearly orinstnrctorprefers) the need of every analyst to consider all possibilitieç and weighall ambiguities before arriving at a conclusion. schenker's analysis isso appealing because it coincides with our perception of the implied Aminor tonality on the surface and confirns our suspicions about its rolein the piece- If this alærnative analysis teaches us nothing else, it showsus the value of considering alærnatives for what they can contribute toour overall view of a piece, even if we ultimaæly reject them.

The Place of Schenkerian Analysisfui Undergraduate and

Graduate Curricula

David Gag4é

Introduction

Since Schenker's death some sixty years ago, many principles and waysof thinking that he first introduced have become an integral part ofmusical discourse. Conceps such as prolongation and the notion ofstrucûrral levels are 4ow freguently taught úo music students, andanalytical graphs are commonplace in theory journals.

At the sarne time, the field of Schenkerian analysis has expandedand diversified in the last three decades- Sndies of prè-Baroque andtwentieth*ennrry works have explored strucnre from a Schenkerianperspective in repertoires that Schenker himself did not address.Current resea¡ch is expanding the consideration of rhythm, texûI¡e,orchestration, form, and other compositional featr¡res in relation tostructure.l

tSee for orample Alle¡r Cadwallads, d., Trends in Sdmke¡ian ßeseørclt (NewYork Schirmer, 1990); William Rothstein, Phrase Rþthm inTorcl Music (New York:Schirmer, 1989); Janet Schmalfeldt" "Tomrds a Reconciliation of Schenkerian Conce'pts