Harmony in Chopin PDF

Harmony in Chopin
Chopin’s oeuvre holds a secure place in the repertoire, beloved by

audiences, performers, and aesthetes. In Harmony in Chopin, David
Damschroder offers a new way to examine and understand Chopin’s
compositional style, integrating Schenkerian structural analyses
with an innovative perspective on harmony and further developing
ideas and methods put forward in his earlier books Thinking About
Harmony, Harmony in Schubert, and Harmony in Haydn and Mozart.
Reinvigorating and enhancing some of the central components of
analytical practice, this study explores notions such as assertion,
chordal evolution (surge), collision, dominant emulation, unfurling,
and wobble through analyses of all forty-three mazurkas Chopin
published during his lifetime. Damschroder also integrates analyses
of eight major works by Chopin with detailed commentary on the
contrasting perspectives of other prominent Chopin analysts. This
provocative and richly detailed book will help transform readers’ own
analytical approaches.
david damschroder is Professor of Music Theory at the University

of Minnesota. His current research focuses on harmony in tonal
music, a project that began with a careful examination of historical
analytical practices and was the basis for his book Thinking About
Harmony: Historical Perspectives on Analysis (Cambridge, 2008). The
project continues with focused studies on selected repertoires:
Harmony in Schubert (Cambridge, 2010), Harmony in Haydn and
Mozart (Cambridge, 2012), and the present book. He has written
textbooks on music fundamentals and on ear-training and sight-
singing and his articles and reviews have appeared in numerous
journals. In addition, he is working on a textbook, Tonal Analysis:
A Schenkerian Perspective (forthcoming). As a complement to his
scholarly work, he occasionally performs on fortepiano and modern
piano.
Harmony in Chopin
david damschroder
The University of Minnesota
University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom
Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge.

It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of
education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence.
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107108578
© David Damschroder 2015
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception
and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without the written
permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 2015
Printed in the United Kingdom by TJ International Ltd, Padstow Cornwall
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data
Damschroder, David, author.
Harmony in Chopin / David Damschroder, the University of Minnesota.
pages ; cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-107-10857-8
1. Chopin, Frédéric, 1810–1849 – Criticism and interpretation.
2. Harmony. I. Title.
ML410.C54D25 2015
786.2092–dc23
2014046686
ISBN 978-1-107-10857-8 Hardback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of
URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication,
and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain,
accurate or appropriate.
Contents
Preface [page vii]
part i methodological orientation:

the mazurkas [1]
1 The architecture of a tonic pillar: twenty-seven regular tonic

pillars from the mazurkas [3]
2 Between the tonic pillars: tonal trajectories in twenty-seven
mazurkas [42]
3 Irregular pillars in the mazurkas: alternatives to the perfect
authentic cadence [91]
part ii masterpieces [143]

4 Étude in C Minor (op. 10, no. 12) in response to Graham H.
Phipps [145]
5 Nocturne in C♯ Minor (op. 27, no. 1) in response to Felix
Salzer [157]
6 Preludes in E Major and E Minor (op. 28, nos. 9 and 4) in
response to Fred Lerdahl [166]
7 Prelude in G Minor (op. 28, no. 22) in response to Alison
Hood [187]
8 Prelude in C♯ Minor (op. 45) in response to Jean-Jacques
Eigeldinger and to Charles J. Smith [198]
9 Ballade in F Minor (op. 52) in response to Edward Laufer [213]
10 Barcarolle in F♯ Major (op. 60) in response to John Rink [233]
Notes [253]
List of references to music examples [285]
Select bibliography [286]
Index of Chopin’s works [297]
Index of names and concepts [298]
Preface
Given my intention to explore harmony from Haydn through Debussy in

depth, the decision to devote a volume to Chopin needs no special
justification. Despite the narrow range of his compositional activities,
Chopin’s oeuvre holds a secure place in the nineteenth-century
repertoire, both beloved by audiences and admired by aesthetes. So,
having recently published Harmony in Schubert and Harmony in Haydn
and Mozart, I take a respite from Vienna (where I assume Beethoven and
Brahms will wait patiently), following Chopin westward to Paris. My
decades-long fascination with his mazurkas here reaches its culmination
in the presentation of probing yet concise analyses of all forty-three
mazurkas that Chopin published during his lifetime. (While at work on
this project I also performed these compositions in fortepiano recitals
and taught them in a graduate seminar.) Readers are invited to join me
in exploring these wonderful creations over the course of this volume’s
first three chapters. (As was the case in my seminar, a semester’s study of
Schenkerian analysis should be regarded as a prerequisite.) The remainder
of my offering (chapters 4 through 10) continues a practice I pursued in
Schubert and Haydn/Mozart (note my abbreviations for those volumes): a
focus on masterpieces by Chopin that have been addressed in print or
online by at least one other analyst, so that the reader may juxtapose my
interpretations with alternative viewpoints and, with my guidance, explore
the differences. Though I provide numerous detailed Schenkerian graphs
(crucial for creating hierarchy-sensitive harmonic analyses), the Roman
numerals and other symbols below the music notation will be the principal
focus of my attention.
This study is intended for anyone who both especially enjoys listening to
or performing Chopin’s music and concurrently possesses an interest and
facility in the analysis of tonal music. Though one might suppose that such
attributes would describe all musicians, clearly some are more inclined
towards nineteenth-century repertoire and to analytical undertakings than
are others. As both teacher and author, I endeavor to offer analyses that are
both insightful and vibrantly presented, hoping that any initial resistance
might eventually melt. That said, the rigorous pursuit of analysis requires
viii Preface
dedication. This is not a book that can be digested quickly. Especially,

chapters 1 through 3 should be read at a leisurely pace, ideally with time for
repeated listening to each mazurka and (by those who are able) for making
each work come alive at the keyboard.
Authors of studies in which harmony is a peripheral concern might
reasonably elect to adopt the conventions for harmonic analysis that most
readers already know and practice. My study of Chopin, on the other hand,
is part of a broader harmony project that eventually will encompass
the “long” nineteenth century: this is the fourth of a planned six volumes
for the period up to 1850 (including Thinking About Harmony: Historical
Perspectives on Analysis [abbreviated as TAH], the two analytical
monographs mentioned above, and forthcoming studies on Beethoven
and on Mendelssohn and Schumann), to be followed by another six
volumes for developments after mid-century (TAH II plus monographs
on Verdi, Brahms, Liszt and Wagner, Mahler, and Debussy). Consequently
I have taken decisive steps to creatively transform the practice of scale-step
(Roman numeral) harmonic analysis, integrating elements from historical
harmony treatises, from Schenker’s writings, and from my own thoughts
on such matters. Knowing that some readers will be encountering my
perspective for the first time in this volume, in the initial chapters I offer
especially detailed commentary that should assist in coming to terms with
how my system differs from the current conventional practice. Readers
already familiar with my analytical work are welcome to pursue the book’s
chapters in any order.
Concurrent with the creation of Harmony in Chopin I have been
developing the textbook Tonal Analysis: A Schenkerian Perspective (to be
published by W. W. Norton). Its existence might impact Chopin readers in
three ways: anyone whose understanding of basic Schenkerian principles is
shaky will have another convenient resource for remedying the situation;
I occasionally reference that work in my discussion of specific concepts or
to call attention to a particular passage by Chopin that I analyze there; and
because of this pedagogical preoccupation my Schenkerian graphs within
Chopin have become more disciplined and consistent in their notational
deployments.
At the heart of my perspective is the notion that imaginative thinking
should play a vital role in analysis, since the notes in the score often do
not fully convey a work’s structure. Consequently a major impediment
to understanding will emerge if a rigid, literalist stance regarding
what may come into play prevails when analyzing a composition. This
dichotomy vividly struck me as I was viewing a painting depicting Christ
Preface ix
in the Garden of Gethsemane, recently attributed to Adriaen Isenbrant,

at the art museum in Strasbourg. In a small area above a hedge or wall off
to the left, one can make out some illumination. What could it be?
Isenbrant has painted it at a slant, as if the source of the illumination
were moving towards the right at a swift pace. Without adding something
to what is literally presented in the painting, this passage must remain a
mystery. For those who know the story, however, the illumination is
central to the painting’s meaning: it comes, of course, from torches
(hidden behind the hedge) carried by men, led by Judas, intent upon
arresting Christ. Likewise, elements of a musical story may be hinted at
though not explicitly stated in a composition. There is much about how
music works that will remain a mystery if one is unwilling or unable to
imaginatively extend beyond the printed score when analyzing music. By
gaining a clear understanding of a composer’s practice when all requisite
notes are present one becomes well equipped to make sense of more
elusive passages.
My close engagement with selected contributions by numerous other
analysts gives my harmony project a unique panoramic perspective
regarding tonal analysis in the current era. These commentaries (set
off by shading in chapters 4 through 10) should not be regarded as
neutral reviews such as one might find in a journal, but instead as
documentation regarding how other ways of analyzing music appear
from my distinctive vantage point. Consequently readers may engage
with my perspective through an inviting mix of opportunities to assess
my own analyses and to encounter my reactions to various alternative
viewpoints (and eventually, in other publications, the reactions of others
to my viewpoints). Because so many perspectives will be assessed over
the course of my project, I have established some ground rules. First,
though some analysts have been very prolific, I will devote only one
chapter to each within my set of books about music before 1850. (Where
warranted a second turn may be granted during the post-1850 phase of
the project.) Second, only analysts whose outcomes significantly contrast
mine (even if we share similar methodologies) will be the focus of a
chapter. Third, I must hold a neutral relationship with another analyst in
order to write candidly about his or her work: friends, mentors, and
former students consequently are excluded. As a result, some authors
one might expect to find in a monograph on Chopin are not featured in
individual chapters. For example, one of the leading Chopin authorities
of our time has published admirable analyses of profound insight; and,
I occasionally share quarters with him at music theory conferences.
x Preface
Thus for reasons two and three, no chapter herein focuses on his work
(though I do quote him on occasion in the endnotes to reinforce my
points or to acknowledge alternative interpretations).
I appreciate the feedback on drafts of this work that I have received from
various quarters. I also acknowledge the support of an Imagine Fund award
from the University of Minnesota. As in the earlier volumes of my project,
Peter Smucker has provided expert setting of the music examples. All
analyses are based on the scores as printed in the recent National Edition
(Cracow). In a few instances other editions and their editorial
commentaries are drawn into the discussion. I am grateful to the New
York Public Library, Astor, Lenox, and Tilden Foundations, for allowing
me to purchase on microfilm and to make reference to the Oster
Collection: Papers of Heinrich Schenker.
Conventions regarding note relations, chords, keys,

and Roman numerals
Pitch simultaneities (such as C-E-G) are indicated using hyphens (-), while
pitch successions (such as C–E–G) are indicated using dashes (–).
Direction may be indicated in melodic succession: ascending as C<E<G,
descending as G>E>C. A black arrow may be used to indicate a
descending-fifth relationship that is or emulates a V(7)–I succession,
whereas an outline arrow may be used to indicate a succession from a
chord of the augmented-sixth type: for example, C➔F–D➔G➔C; C–A♭–
D G➔C.
Keys and chords are distinguished as follows: C Major (with a capital M)
is the key of C Major; C major (with a small m) is a C major chord.
Unless another analyst’s methodology is being discussed, Roman
numerals are presented in capital letters regardless of a chord’s quality,
modified by one or more accidentals if the chord is altered. Thus C Major:
I II V I and not I ii V I; and A Minor: I II V♯ I♯ (closing on a major tonic),
not i ii° V I. An accidental to the left of the numeral corresponds to the
chord’s root; one to the right corresponds to its third. If the chordal fifth,
seventh, or ninth is altered, the analytical symbol will incorporate the
corresponding Arabic numeral, as in C Minor: II5♯♮ . (Arrow notation –
here II➔ – offers an attractive, though less precise, alternative to the
complete analytical symbol.) The bullet symbol (•) indicates an absent
root. For example, B-D-F in C Major will be analyzed as V•7 (or, with less
precision, as V➔).
Preface xi
Likewise a progression of chordal roots generally is presented in capital

letters (C–D–G–C), though on occasions when quality is a factor in the
discussion a capital letter may refer to major quality, a small letter to minor
quality, and a small letter followed by a degree circle (°) to diminished
quality: for example, C–a–F–d–b°–G–e–C.
A bracket is used to connect the analytical notation for two musical
events that normally would follow one another but that in the context
under discussion occur at the same moment: for example, C |F♯ B| E when
an F♯-A♯-C♯ chord sounds with, rather than before, root B in a descending
circle of fifths.
Parentheses around a pitch in an analytical example indicate that it is not
actually present in the score, though it is understood. Parentheses around
analytical notation may refer to the expansion of a deeper-level harmony
(for example, when I is expanded by I IV V I) or to the harmonic assertion
of a voice-leading phenomenon (for example, when the 6 phase of a I5–6, as
in C-E-G to C-E-A, asserts the harmonic role of VI). Open parentheses
designate a voice-leading transition between two harmonies. For example,
I ( ) IV indicates that the chords between I and IV (perhaps a circular,
parallel, or sequential progression) do not themselves participate in
the harmonic progression, but instead serve to connect the harmonies
I and IV.
When a score’s chordal spellings do not coincide with the structurally
appropriate spellings (for example, the substitution of easier-to-read F♯-A-
C♯ for cumbersome G♭-B♭♭-D♭), I generally will use the structurally
appropriate spellings in my examples and commentaries, often placing
the enharmonic spellings within square brackets to assist readers in
locating the pitches in question within the score.
I pay very close attention to hierarchies among pitches and chords. To
alert readers to various hierarchical relationships I often will underline
some pitch names to indicate their hierarchical prominence. For example,
C<E D>B C above bass C–G–C conveys the relationship between two
unfolded strands: a more prominent outer strand E>D>C, and a
subordinate inner strand C>B<C.
Because diverse musical contexts are analyzed using graphs, it is difficult
to pin down precise guidelines for how their notation should be crafted and
read. Many styles of “Schenkerian” notation have appeared since the
publication of Schenker’s Free Composition (hereafter abbreviated as FC),
which itself does not present a single normative style. I regard the creation
of a reductive graph as an art, endeavoring to use notation that is as clear
and informative as possible. In general, open noteheads in my graphs
xii Preface
represent deeper structural or harmonic events than filled-in noteheads,

while notes at the endpoints of beams or slurs are deeper than internal
notes. Notes connected to a beam by a stem are more integral to the
structure than those that are not. Especially in the early chapters I offer
abundant commentary, which will give readers the opportunity to develop
facility in interpreting my notation. Occasional annotations using
abbreviations indicate functions of individual pitches or formal events,
as follows:
ant. anticipation
CP chromatic passing note
CV chromatic variant
HC half cadence
IAC imperfect authentic cadence
IN incomplete neighboring note
N neighboring note
P passing note
PAC perfect authentic cadence
prg. progression
susp. suspension
W wobble
Of course, the graphs often will incorporate Roman-numeral harmonic
analyses, and in this regard I sometimes depart from Schenker’s practice.
Because it is innovative, I document my Roman-numeral usage very
carefully as the chapters unfold.
Because measure numbers are a pervasive feature in my close analyses,
I have developed an abbreviated style of reference, in the form measurebeat.
For example, the symbol 23 indicates the third beat of measure 2. Generally
the word “measure” will not precede the number. I regard measures in
2
2
and 68 as containing two beats. A measure designation such as 14/16
means that a given chord is prolonged from measure 14 through measure
16, with contrasting content occurring between statements of the chord,
whereas the designation 14–16 indicates a continuous prolongation of a
single chord without significant internal contrast. The symbol 15|16
indicates measure 16 along with its upbeat.
part i
Methodological orientation:
the mazurkas
1 The architecture of a tonic pillar: twenty-seven
regular tonic pillars from the mazurkas
Chopin’s mazurkas are admired especially for their harmonic creativity.

As Jim Samson suggests, “Chopin reserved for the mazurkas some of his
most astonishing harmonic adventures, at times almost to the point of
iconoclasm.”1 Our substantial investment of time and energy in these
works over three chapters should offer the dividend of a striking and
vivid perspective regarding Chopin’s harmonic practice over the course
of his career as a composer.
All of the forty-three mazurkas that Chopin published during his
lifetime contain at least one regular tonic pillar, which is built from a
phrase or group of phrases that concludes with a PAC in the mazurka’s
tonic key. Though usually the tonic chord will occur at or near the
beginning of a tonic pillar, a delayed initial tonic is a viable alternative,
as long as I is established eventually and the progression then leads
through V back to I for the cadence. The initial tonic might exception-
ally occur during an introduction or only in the listener’s imagination
(as will be explained in due course), in which cases the tonic pillar
may be already engaged in the progression to the local dominant at its
outset.
The twenty-seven mazurkas that we explore in chapters 1 and 2 are
distinguished from the sixteen that are deferred until chapter 3 by the fact
that all of their tonic pillars (between two and four will occur within one
mazurka) are regular. An irregular pillar will cadence on the tonic without
a concurrent descent to ^1 (IAC) or on the dominant (HC) or the mediant,
or it will be presented in a key other than the tonic. In all such cases a pillar
later in the mazurka will conclude with a PAC in the tonic key and thus will
be regular.
Chapter 1 offers a detailed assessment of how twenty-seven regular tonic
pillars are constructed. Five broad categories are proposed to account
for Chopin’s range of structures: uninterrupted third-progressions,
uninterrupted fifth-progressions, interrupted third-progressions, inter-
rupted fifth-progressions, and exceptional cases. How these pillars fit
within the architecture of their respective mazurkas will be explored in
chapter 2.
4 Harmony in Chopin
Uninterrupted third-progressions
As is common in tonal music of this era, the projection of the tonic key in
one of Chopin’s mazurkas often is accomplished through the stepwise filling-
in of the tonic triad’s lower third – for example, E>D>C in C Major –
supported by a harmonic progression that proceeds from I through V back
to I. Though the ten tonic pillars explored in this section all convey these
structural features, they nevertheless offer a considerable variety in terms of
how these foundational chords are embellished and connected. Though II or
IV often serves as an intermediary between I and V, in some cases Chopin
proceeds directly from I to V or pursues a sequential trajectory rather than
relying on one of those harmonic resources.
Opus 6/2
The Mazurka in C♯ Minor’s eight-measure introduction projects a B♯<D♯
melodic third, covered by a static G♯. Invigorated by dissonant F♯ at 92 (as
the A1 section gets underway), these elements yield to the tonic’s E>C♯
third, covered by G♯. The stemmed notes above the bass in 1.1 reveal the
first-species foundation of A1’s linear strands: thirds EC ♯ and DB ♯♯ converge
upon the cadence’s unison C♯. An element from fourth species – C♯’s delay
in descending to B♯ – is here supported harmonically by II➔, enhancing
the foundational I V♯ I progression. (Whereas the full inventory of an
evolved harmony’s chromatic elements and added dissonances generally
will be displayed beside its Roman numeral below the graph, a shorthand
notation such as the solid arrow, which indicates that the harmony has
taken on dominant-emulating characteristics, often will appear in the
textual commentary. In this case Chopin has replaced C♯ Minor’s diatonic
supertonic, D♯-F♯-A, with a much more dynamic, dominant-targeting
alternative, D♯-FÜ-A♯-C♯. Whereas some analysts would elect to interpret
this chord as diatonic in the context of the chord of its resolution –V7 of
V♯ – it is interpreted here as a chromatic chord within C♯ Minor, with
Roman II indicating that the second scale degree serves as the root.) The
melody’s downward shift during V♯, restoring the register of the introduc-
tion, adds vitality to the presentation and motivates further registral
fluctuation as the mazurka continues. The essence of the tonic pillar’s
structure is not compromised by the presentation of its third-progression
spread over a tenth or by the sounding of inner-strand pitches G♯ and E
above the melodic descent’s C♯ goal. (Chopin emphasizes the C♯ by notat-
ing G♯ as a grace note and introducing E on beat two.) Because the
The architecture of a tonic pillar 5
Example 1.1 Analysis of Mazurka in C♯ Minor (op. 6/2), mm. 1–16.
mazurka continues beyond the tonic pillar, the third-progression (spread

over a tenth) is interpreted as motion to the interior of the texture,
consequently extending ^3, which serves as the Kopfton (literally “head
tone”), the pitch from which the mazurka’s deep structural descent – the
ultimate tonic-confirming event – will emanate. Successors to 3^ at both the
middleground and background levels emerge later (in measures 17 and
42), as we shall see in chapter 2.
Opus 6/5 [a.k.a. opus 7/5]

The first-species framework that Chopin deploys during the tonic pillar of
his Mazurka in C Major is identical to the one we noted in opus 6/2.
Stemmed notes in 1.2 reveal the interaction between E>D>C above and
C>B<C below. A C–G–C bass arpeggiation supports those lines. In this
case the upper strand’s E invokes a fourth-species delay at 71–2 and a
G>F>E descant in measures 7 and 8 hovers above the principal line, similar
to G♯>F♯>E in measures 14 through 16 of opus 6/2 [1.1].2 That contra-
puntal structure likewise prevails at the foreground level to project the
pillar’s opening tonic harmony. (The Kopfton imagined at the outset is
stated during the second local E>D>C descent, which extends from 53
through 63.) The repetition of the pillar, beginning in measure 9, both
rescinds the upper-octave hoist of goal C (compare measures 8 and 12) and
segues into the B section by destabilizing the goal tonic via a 5–6 shift (G to
A in measure 12).3 As numerous later examples will confirm, the tonic’s
fifth often will shift to its sixth as a means of segueing between the tonic and
the supertonic, which in this case is realized as II➔ (D-F♯-A-C in measure
13, to be discussed in chapter 2).
6 Harmony in Chopin
Example 1.2 Analysis of Mazurka in C Major (op. 6/5), mm. 1–8.
My assertion that the introduction conveys a tonic root and Kopfton ^3

(displayed within parentheses in 1.2) may be disconcerting. (Such bold
assertions are a hallmark of imaginative analytical thinking, which con-
trasts a literalist perspective.4) Because an E (during 81) precedes the
upper-strand D in the repetition beginning at 91, I retrospectively import
that context to what precedes 51. In this case the initial tonic is unconven-
tionally presented in 64 position. Interpreting the solo G of measures 1
through 4 as a tonic harmony depends upon a careful assessment of the
broader context. A comparison with another mazurka – opus 30/3 –
reveals how Chopin will sometimes lead from a lone fifth scale degree
into a robust tonic chord during an introduction. In opus 6/5 that evolu-
tion is elided. My proposed C and E project what I understand Chopin to
have imagined as the opening chordal structure, represented meagerly by
pitch G.5
Opus 7/1
The high spirits that Chopin conveys in his Mazurka in B♭ Major result in
part from the persistent refusal of the melody to be confined by the line that
traverses the pillar’s middleground ^3 > ^2> ^1 structural descent (depicted
in 1.3). An upper third coordinates with each of these elements, and even
greater heights are attained as well. For example, the F of 23, already a third
above the structural D, is embellished by neighbor G in measure 3, during a
5 6 5
3 4 3
expansion of the tonic. (The 64 is unfurled, with E♭ sounding in the
bass. An unfurling is defined as a chordal reconfiguration involving the
substitution of a different bass note for the one that characteristically
would occur.) This G is embellished by upper-third B♭ before F returns.
Example 1.3 Analysis of Mazurka in B♭ Major (op. 7/1), mm. 1–12.
Also, whereas an E♭ neighbor to Kopfton D sounds as a grace note at 51

before upper third G emerges, the corresponding spot in measure 9, during
a varied repetition of the latter part of the phrase, attains greater heights by
dispensing with the E♭. The persistent upward striving impacts even the
close of the ^3 > ^2> ^1 descent: B♭ sounds an octave higher than expected in
measure 8 (though not in measure 12).
A collision occurs when two successive syntactic entities are juxtaposed
during the same moment in time, as in measure 6. Whereas the left hand
persists in projecting the initial tonic, the E♮ that joins with B♭ and D in
the right hand projects II➔ (here with omitted root: E♮-(G)-B♭-D is inter-
preted as a dominant-emulating evolution of the diatonic supertonic, C-
E♭-G). The collision is conveyed in the harmonic analysis by placing a
bracket above Roman numerals I and II. Whereas II➔ in opus 6/2 [1.1] is
spelled as D♯-FÜ-A♯-C♯, in opus 7/1 the octave of the supertonic root C is
displaced by ninth D, resulting in a chord spelled as E♮-(G)-B♭-D. (In the
full inventory of chordal elements beside Roman numeral II in the graph, a
bullet (•) indicates that the root has been omitted.) Chopin here takes
advantage of the fact that B♭ and D are members of both the I and the II➔
harmonies in B♭ Major.
Opus 24/2
The Mazurka in C Major’s introduction provides the venue for the initial
sounding of the tonic harmony. By the time A1 commences at 51, the
progression has already proceeded to the tonic’s 6-phase chord within a
local expansion of I-space [1.4]. Some imaginative thinking is called for in
8 Harmony in Chopin
measure 5, since the upper E within an E<G<C<E arpeggiation to the

Kopfton is elided to make way for the subdominant’s F. (Note the par-
entheses in 1.4. The score presents the E<F voice leading an octave lower.)
The local IV V7 I progression that extends the initial tonic through 63 is
deployed again immediately thereafter to provide similar support for the
tonic’s 6-phase chord, which is secured at 83.
Chopin divides the tonic pillar’s broad harmonic progression into two
segments, each repeated. The initiating I5–6 transpires during the introduc-
tion and the first half of A1 (wherein the written-out repeat during measures
9 through 12 does not recapture the tonic’s initial 5-phase chord), whereas
the continuation II V7 I transpires during the second half of A1. Observe in
1.4 how G and B at the downbeat of measure 13 function as accented passing
notes that delay the full flowering of II, rather than asserting the arrival of V.6
Opus 24/3
An unfolded G<D♭ diminished fifth during measure 1 energizes the open-
ing of the Mazurka in A♭ Major, which announces the tonic through the
melodic unfolding of its signature A♭<C third from 03 through 21 [1.5].
(Though the A♭ sounds without chordal support, it nevertheless represents
the tonic: G is neighbor to A♭, not the reverse.) Upper third E♭, which
corresponds to similar thirds preceding or following the arrival of ^3 in
most of the mazurkas we have explored thus far, soon emerges. By the end
of measure 4 the tonic surges towards IV. (I often use the word surge – both
noun and verb – to denote a dominant-emulating transformation. Here I is
Example 1.5 Analysis of Mazurka in A♭ Major (op. 24/3), mm. 0|1–12.
transformed into I➔ through the raising of its fifth to E♮ and the addition
of G as seventh.) The continuation from IV to V seems more melodically
focused in the tenor register (D♭>C>B♭) than in the soprano. In fact,
the soprano D♭>C over the bar line between measures 7 and 8 makes the
perception of a PAC at that point doubtful.7 A modified traversal of the
phrase’s second half (extending what might have been a normative eight-
measure phrase to twelve measures) brings the D♭-to-B♭ third into
somewhat better focus (though note that D♭ appears within parentheses
in 1.5 since it does not sound in the upper register in either traversal),
with a more decisive landing on A♭ in measure 12. (Compare with 1.3,
measure 12.)
Opus 24/4
The extraordinary opening of the Mazurka in B♭ Minor involves the
concurrent chromatic filling-in of two intervals from the F-A♮-C embel-
lishing chord that precedes the initial tonic. Whereas the path from F to A♮
is traversed in the lower strand – five pitches in all – a chromatic descent
from F to C in the upper strand encompasses six pitches, and so when A♮
arrives in measure 5 the upper strand has descended only as far as D♭, a half
step shy of goal C. Chopin ingeniously employs this distinctive sonority
(one that recurs often in his compositions) as a substitute for the intended
one by treating downward-tending D♭ as an anticipation of the following
tonic’s third, Kopfton D♭. Consequently the descending fourth’s goal C is
elided, as conveyed by the parentheses around the C notehead in 1.6.
Similar elisions and anticipations recur during the tonic pillar’s subsequent
progression to V.
10 Harmony in Chopin
Example 1.6 Analysis of Mazurka in B♭ Minor (op. 24/4), mm. 0|1–12.
The mediant, a common element in minor-key progressions, here lives

up to its name by serving as the mediator between the tonic and the
dominant harmonies (measures 6 through 10). Segments of the descending
circle of fifths, pursuing an upward trajectory, provide the locomotion. The
soprano follows this upward course as well, maintaining the interval of a
tenth with the bass at the tonic, mediant, and dominant nodal points. Such
voice leading places the normative stepwise descent from the Kopfton in
jeopardy. The arrow at measure 11 in 1.6 reveals Chopin’s solution to the
dilemma. Though A♮ (a transformation of diatonic A♭ into the leading
tone) is introduced above the register of Kopfton D♭, eventually it is
transferred downward an octave, and a C emerges above it to link the
Kopfton D♭ of measure 6 and the PAC’s B♭ of measure 12. (Though a C
sounds at 113 in the accompaniment, its melodic statement is delayed until
121, at which point it takes on the role of a suspension.) Despite the bold
path that connects the I and V♮ harmonies, first-species lines (here
B♭ > C >B♭
D♭ > A♮ >B♭
) over a bass arpeggiation (B♭–F–B♭), already noted in several
other mazurkas, serve as the structural foundation.
Opus 30/2
Initially the Mazurka in F♯ Minor’s opening sixteen measures might seem
to represent the tonic pillar for a “Mazurka in B Minor.”8 Yet the absence of
a PAC should raise eyebrows among astute listeners. Noting that these
measures do not recur later in the mazurka (and thus do not conform to
the behavior of a tonic pillar), that the mazurka concludes in F♯ Minor
(despite the score’s two-sharp key signature), and that the normative
Example 1.7 Analysis of Mazurka in F♯ Minor (op. 30/2), mm. 0|1–32.
cadential and universal repetition characteristics of a tonic pillar are

fulfilled instead by the material of measures 16|17 through 32, one may
reasonably interpret the opening sixteen measures as an introduction on F♯
Minor’s subdominant [1.7]. Though two mazurkas (opus 30/4 [3.4] and
opus 56/1 [1.9]) commence with the supertonic, in those cases the tonic is
achieved in the context of the initial musical idea. Opus 30/2 is unique in
the extent to which the tonic’s arrival is delayed. One might legitimately
propose that Chopin has here gone too far – that the clash between the
composition’s retrospectively wayward opening in B Minor and eventual
settling down in F♯ Minor is something that cannot be fully reconciled by
the listener.9 Nevertheless, 1.7 makes as strong a case as I can muster for
tonal coherence.
The melodic unfoldings during the introduction’s sequentially propelled
progression contain a few holes. Two traversals of the succeeding upper
and interior strands, which proceed in parallel thirds (with parentheses
marking the absent pitches), occur during the opening sixteen measures:
D (C♯) D (C♯) B (A) G♮ F♯
B A♯ , B A G♮ F♯ E D
Note that the initial opening is not pursued beyond measure 2 (a fresh
start is offered in measure 3) and that the concluding melodic F♯ is delayed
until after the written-out repeat (at 163). That F♯ goal serves as the
starting point for an ascent to the Kopfton, achieved at 182 by means of
the reaching-over technique.10
The A1 prolongation of F♯ Minor coordinates ascending bass motion
from the tonic through the mediant to the dominant with a rising melody,
so that the normative descending second from Kopfton A to G♯ is
presented as an ascending seventh. (Compare with the similar tonic pillar

in opus 24/4 [1.6], where the lower register is retained.) Despite that
anomaly, the line continues “downward” to F♯, so that a PAC is achieved
within the phrase. The pillar’s repetition commences with an interesting
variant on the IV of measure 16: D-G♯-B♯-F♯ at 243 is an evolved IV6
(= II ). (That is, diatonic IV – B-D-F♯ – here is expanded through the
incorporation of its sixth, G♯. With the assertion of G♯ as the chord’s root,
diatonic G♯-B-D-F♯ further evolves through the raising of chordal third B
to B♯. Since this chord correlates not to a “dominant seventh” sonority,
which would be conveyed via the symbol II➔, but instead to what is often
called an “augmented sixth” chord – here the “French” version – I deploy
an outline arrow to the right of the Roman numeral: II . All chords
designated by arrows are surging: through added dissonance and/or
chromaticism they target the chord with root a perfect fifth lower, here
G♯ C♯.)
Opus 30/3
Many features of the Mazurka in D♭ Major’s tonic pillar, displayed in 1.8,
correspond to structural elements from mazurkas we have explored
above. The tonic harmony initiated by the fifth scale degree during an
introduction relates to 1.2. The transfer of Kopfton ^3 to a higher register
corresponds to 1.4. The embellishment of all three pitches of a third-
progression by upper thirds recalls both 1.3 and 1.5. Its first-species
foundation (F>E♭>D♭ against D♭>C<D♭ over bass arpeggiation D♭–A♭–
D♭) was similarly noted in relation to 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.6. What most
distinguishes this tonic pillar is the infusion of elements from the parallel
Example 1.8 Analysis of Mazurka in D♭ Major (op. 30/3), mm. 1–24.

minor key. At several points Chopin backtracks, presenting a passage a

second time – or even a third and fourth time (measures 12, 14, 15,
and 16) – alternating major- and minor-key pitch collections. (The
minor-key accidentals are displayed within parentheses in 1.8.) During
A1 the pillar’s concluding tonic is built with minor third F♭, which is
retained for the G♭ chord of the circular progression that initiates the
B section. Looking ahead, we note that Chopin allows the tonic’s F♭ to
shift back to F♮ at the end of the A2 tonic pillar to conclude the mazurka
(measure 95).
Opus 56/1
Though the Mazurka in B Major’s tonic pillar will establish the key of B
Major, the B major chord of measure 2 is not asserted as that tonic.11 It
instead is an internal element within a connection between antipodal C♯
minor and G major chords, achieved via an obstinate circular progression
that emphasizes descending whole steps, as shown in 1.9. Chopin here taps
one of tonal music’s most astonishing properties: the antipode – the chord
that seems to be the furthest possible tonal distance from an initiating
chord – may in fact map back onto that initiating chord.12 One type of
chordal evolution is denoted using a solid arrow (➔). For example, the
C♯-E-G♯ at this mazurka’s outset could have evolved into C♯-E♯-G♯-B or
E♯-G♯-B-D♮ to invigorate the succession to the F♯ dominant of measures
12 and 13. Another common evolution, especially prevalent with the II
Example 1.9 Analysis of Mazurka in B Major (op. 56/1), mm. 1–22.

harmony, involves the lowering of the chordal fifth (or retaining that fifth
in a minor-key context).13 An outline arrow ( ) is used to denote such
evolutions, which here might result in a chord spelled as C♯-E♯-G♮-B or
E♯-G♮-B-D♮.14 Though the relationship is masked when a nickname such
as “German augmented sixth” (which I eschew) is employed, observe that
C♯ (a pitch that often will be omitted) serves as the root for a chord that
incorporates the antipodal triad of pitches G♮, B, and D♮! Consequently
Chopin’s seemingly wayward journey further and further from the initial
C♯ chord in fact leads to pitches that, once E♯ emerges at 121, intensify the
natural tendency of the C♯ supertonic to proceed to dominant F♯. As 1.9
reveals, this potent II expansion delays V until measures 12 and 13. The
prolongation of V via a 64 embellishing chord in measure 14 puts off the
tonic arrival until measure 16.
As the supertonic’s minor ninth, the pitch D♮ possesses a tendency to
resolve downwards to the dominant’s fifth, C♯. In this case that resolu-
tion will be preceded by a 64 embellishment (here presented uncharac-
teristically in a weak metrical position, at 123) that reverts to the major
mode’s D♯. Consequently Chopin respells D♮ as CÜ at 122, facilitating its
upward continuation. Though the dominant’s seventh, E, sounds at 131,
the voice leading should be understood as D♯>C♯, with E reaching over
that strand, as shown in 1.9. Though no C♯ sounds in the upper register
at measure 1, I imagine the broad chromatic filling-in of a C♯-to-E third
(as slurred in 1.9) as a melodic trajectory within the opening thirteen
measures. A reciprocal D♯-to-B third is pursued during the remainder of
the pillar.
Whereas an ascent in thirds connecting I and V, with the outer voices
moving in parallel tenths, is a key feature of 1.6, a similar trajectory in
the downward direction connects I and IV in 1.9.15 The melody’s
subservience to the bass descent in thirds results in an empty space in
the upper register during IV. I propose that, as was also the case in
measures 5 through 11 of opus 24/3, the melody’s trajectory is more fully
worked out in the interior of the texture, here as a connection of Kopfton
D♯’s incomplete upper neighbor E through passing note D♯ to the
dominant’s fifth, C♯ (at which point the action returns to the upper
register). One way to support the E>D♯>C♯ span in a IV–V context is to
utilize IV’s upper-fifth chord as consonant support for IV’s passing
seventh, D♯.16 This reading wins out against the hypothesis that the
tonic is restored at 183, especially since Chopin’s modified repetition of
the concluding measures retains the IV but dispenses with the upper-
fifth chord.
Opus 56/2
A Polish folk spirit is especially pervasive in the Mazurka in C Major, with
a GC drone sounding throughout the tonic pillar. The four-measure intro-
duction’s G serves as the starting point for an ascending arpeggiation to
Kopfton E [1.10]. Though a higher G sounds immediately thereafter, it
replicates that in the tenor register, to which the A that follows G at 53
immediately transfers. (That line then continues upwards through B to C.)
Consequently the F♯ and D during 61 serve as neighbors to the C and E of 51.
(I admit that this reading may seem wayward. Yet compare with Chopin’s
variant in measures 53 and 54, where F♯’s role as neighbor between two Es is
more overtly stated.) Chromatic F♯ is a wobbly note (or wobble) – a note
that temporarily takes on a chromatic inflection that eventually will be
revoked – that soon reverts to diatonic F♮. The G initiates an upper-octave
replication of the initiating G<C<E arpeggiation, reaching C at 71 (one beat
after its arrival by step in the interior register) and eventually (via a reaching-
over above D) E at 133. Thus the pillar may be divided into two regions: that in
which an octave connection between the lower and upper presentations of the
Kopfton transpires (as conveyed by the dotted slur in 1.10), supported by a
prolonged tonic and local embellishing chords; and that during which a third-
progression descending from the Kopfton leads to a PAC at 201.17 In my view
the altered context justifies the analytical interpretation of the chord at 192–3 as
an asserted dominant, with the D of the E>D>C descent that it supports
taking precedence over the maintenance of E (thereby contrasting the empha-
sis upon E’s arrival an octave higher in measure 13, confirmed by the reitera-
tion of E in the lower register at 161).

Uninterrupted fifth-progressions
The four mazurkas in this section project the tonic harmony by means of
an uninterrupted fifth-progression descending from the tonic triad’s
fifth to its root. Several contrasting means of supporting ^4 and ^3 are
deployed, distinguished principally by whether ^3 sounds as a stable
element in a tonic context or instead as an unstable element in a domi-
nant context. (One could propose other options not encountered in this
section as well.)
Opus 7/4
The determination that ^5, rather than ^3, serves as a composition’s Kopfton
can be a difficult call, especially given that another potential reading – the
embellishment of Kopfton ^3 with an upper third – occurs frequently. How
the tonic pillar fits within the mazurka’s broader context sometimes provides
useful data. For example, the chord at 363 in the Mazurka in A♭ Major, which
I propose would be spelled correctly as G-B♭-D♭-F♭, features the dominant’s
minor ninth F♭ [E♮] poised towards resolution to the tonic’s fifth, E♭, for the
final statement of the tonic pillar.18 Note also that at 71 (during the initial
phrase’s written-out repeat) D♭’s arrival from above is emphasized through
the resolution of a suspended E♭ (the grace note). Consequently I propose
that the preferred reading should be a fifth-progression from E♭, rather than
a third-progression from C with upper neighbor D♭.
Though challenging to comprehension, occasionally in music one
initiative begins before a prior one concludes: here the bass descent
from tonic root A♭ to subdominant third F gets underway before the
soprano arpeggiation of the tonic – E♭<A♭<C<E♭ – concludes. (A diag-
onal line in 1.11 connects the open-notehead pitches A♭ and E♭ to
emphasize their structural alliance. As an experiment at the piano,
delay the left-hand G and B♭ at 23 by half a beat to sense the second-
species origin of Chopin’s conception.) It is reassuring to hear the high A♭
at 31: just as an upper third often embellishes Kopfton ^3, an upper fourth
often embellishes Kopfton ^5.
With the bass taking the lead, the downward trajectory in both outer
voices coordinates with the harmonic progression from I through IV
(inverted) to V, culminating in a PAC on I.19 Though the most rudimen-
tary support for 3^ would be within IV-space (as in the second-species
D[4 C4 B[
model D[ j
5 E[
), the unaccented passing note C often is shifted to the
following strong metrical position, thereby becoming an accented passing

D[4 C4B[
note j
D[5 E[
. From this perspective it would be absurd to label the
chord at 32–3 as I, as once was common and still persists in some quarters.
Opus 33/1
Once Kopfton D♯ is established in measures 3 and 4 of the Mazurka in G♯
Minor, three pitches – A♯, C♯, and E – create a rich embellishing chord that
at first extends Kopfton ^5 (highlighting a D♯<E>D♯ neighboring motive
that plays an important role at various points during the work, including
the melody’s first three pitches) and then supports the descent through ^4 to
^
3 [1.12]. As usual, the dominant supports ^2 before the PAC on ^1. The
D♯-to-G♯ descent is shadowed a third lower by B>A♯>G♯>FÜ<G♯.
Chopin sets up a wondrous opportunity through the means by which he
establishes the initiation point (pitch B) for that interior strand. Instead of
rising swiftly to Kopfton ^5,20 he emphasizes the B at 12 by pursuing a
descending third-progression to the tonic pitch. This emphasis on ^3, with a
fleshed-out descent, presages the closing segment of the phrase (measures 7
and 8). Such a coincidence of content offers a delicious opportunity: a two-
measure overlap, wherein measures 7 and 8 might be regarded as the end of
the phrase or the initiation of its repetition – or both!21 The measure-number
grid that annotates 1.12, in which the numbers 6, 7, and 8 occur twice, reveals
how this works. The hairpin symbol to the right of the number 9 signals a
truncation of the I-space expansion the second time. Through these means the
tonic pillar’s footprint extends for twelve – rather than sixteen – measures.
Example 1.12 Analysis of Mazurka in G♯ Minor (op. 33/1), mm. 0|1–12.
As has been the case in several other mazurkas, the structure of the
opening depends upon imaginative thinking. (Note the parenthetical bass
G♯ at the outset in 1.12.) Since the D♯ at 03 corresponds to that at 63, where
bass G♯ supports a tonic chord, I do not think I have misrepresented
Chopin by proposing a tonic context for the initial lone D♯. However, I
have held my imagination in check during 12. Do these pitches assert
themselves as II➔?22 Or is this an instance (similar to that discussed
above in the context of opus 7/4, 23) of passing motion getting underway
just as an emerging chordal structure takes shape (chromatic CÜ against the
tonic’s G♯ and B)? I have left some empty space below the staff (at measures
1 and 7) in 1.12 for readers more persuaded by the supertonic interpreta-
tion than I am to jot in a II numeral.
Opus 41/1 [a.k.a. opus 41/2]

Parentheses in 1.13a surround an imagined initiating chord for the
Mazurka in E Minor – a stable E minor tonic (related to that at 43,
established before the varied second traversal of the phrase) to serve as
an unheard predecessor of the mazurka’s already surging first chord.
Granted, analysts who would label the pitches E-G♯-B-D as V7/IV are
not in a position to appreciate the subtlety of Chopin’s writing here and
might propose that the mazurka initially conveys the key of A Minor or
celebrate Chopin as a master of tonal ambiguity.23 From my more imagi-
native perspective I counter such claims: having so often heard a diatonic
tonic chord evolve into a surging, IV-seeking entity, I am not alarmed that
the tonic’s foundational consonant state is here elided. (Just as II often
Example 1.13 Mazurka in E Minor (op. 41/1) (a) Analysis of mm. 1–4; (b) Analysis of
mm. 1–8.
(a)
(b)
evolves into II➔ in its approach to V, so also I evolves into I➔ in its

approach to IV.) As analyst I reconstitute that unsounded initiating chord
within parentheses in 1.13a, and in 1.13b I show how, during the varied
repetition of the phrase, a diatonic tonic chord in fact precedes the surge.
The subdominant of measure 2 supports ^4 within a local descent from ^5
to ^
1. The leap to F♯ at 31 likely will generate concerns regarding ^3. I propose
that the subdominant’s A extends into V-space (where it sounds an octave
lower), during which the descent through G to F♯ transpires. This is a hard
call, especially since the melody of measure 3 resembles that of measure 1.
A viable alternative would be to propose an imagined G at the end of
measure 2 (thus IV8–(7)), so that the G at 33 functions as a neighbor to an
already established ^2.24
In the phrase repetition Chopin extends IV by means of a shift to its 6
phase (a common occurrence between IV and V♯) in measure 7, here
deploying chromatic F-natural, attained through descent from 8 rather
than the more common ascent from 5. (The pitch F♮ functions as a wobbly
note, which one would expect to be revoked through the reinstatement of
F♯ as the dominant’s diatonic fifth.) Alas, that initiative consumes two

beats of the phrase’s third measure, which in the earlier phrase was devoted
exclusively to the dominant. During the one beat remaining before the
tonic arrival on the downbeat of measure 8, Chopin elects not to sound
the dominant root or to convey the conventional melodic descent to scale
degree 2, elements of the structure that were presented straightforwardly
during measure 3. Whereas literalist analysts likely would endeavor to
make whatever sense they could of Chopin’s curious third beat, my
imaginative interpretation takes two crucial factors into account: first,
we have heard a dominant harmony in the corresponding location during
the initial statement of the phrase, where the melodic G in fact descends
to F♯; and second, the unfolded thirds A to F♮ followed by E to G would
lead one to expect an unfolded D♯–F♯ third next. Though I anticipate
considerable resistance from some readers, my graph asserts a dominant
function at the end of measure 7 despite the absence of that Stufe’s root,
third, and fifth.25
Opus 41/4 [a.k.a. opus 41/1]

Rising motion in all voices connects the tonic and the dominant in the first
seventeen measures of the Mazurka in C♯ Minor, in a manner that places
the upper-register arrival of Kopfton G♯ against dominant root G♯, rather
than the initial tonic C♯. (A diagonal line in 1.14 connects root C♯ and
Kopfton G♯.) Embellishing chords, rather than a functional harmonic
progression, support the intervening melody: D♮-F♯-A26 and F♯-A-C♯
within the realm of the tonic (measures 1 through 8); FÜ-A♯-C♯-(E) within
the realm of the mediant (measures 9 through 16); C♯-E♯-G♯ within the
realm of the dominant (measures 17 through 19). When ^5 serves as
the Kopfton, as here, the fifth-progression descending to the tonic root
over the course of the tonic pillar may be supported by a double I–V♯–I
arpeggiation, as noted by the prong at the bottom of bass C♯’s stem in 1.14,
measure 20. (That symbol denotes the concurrent end of the first arpeggia-
tion and beginning of the second.)
Though the mazurka will end desolately in C♯ Minor, a significant part
of the pillar’s structure (measures 17 through 24) shifts decisively towards
C♯ Major. During the second I–V♯–I arpeggiation, which supports
♯^
3>^ 2>^1, the tonic’s 6-phase chord (C♯-E♯-A♯, unfurled) comes between
the tonic and the supertonic, presented as II➔ at 223. In conjunction
with this II➔, a melodic excursion extends upwards – from E♯
through FÜ to G♯ – substituting for the melody’s conventional descent to
Example 1.14 Analysis of Mazurka in C♯ Minor (op. 41/4), mm. 1–32.
D♯, which sounds belatedly at the cadential downbeat (as a suspended

ninth whose imagined D♯ preparation is displayed within parentheses in
1.14). (During the A2 statement of the tonic pillar – at measure 103, near
the final cadence before the coda – the D♯ is straightforwardly presented
during V 7♯ .) The segment of the pillar devoted to the descending fifth-
progression is reprised, with variants, during measures 25 through 32.
Interrupted third-progressions
Repetition occurs in many musical contexts, most obviously when a repeat

sign instructs the performer to play a passage a second time. A more
sophisticated deployment of repetition involves two related phrases in
which the first fails to fully close while the second does in fact achieve
closure. The term interruption and some related notation within graphs
are deployed when in one phrase (the antecedent) the melodic descent
proceeds from 3^ or from ^5 to ^2 (supported by V), and in the next (the
consequent) a new try is inaugurated, this time achieving ^1 (supported
by I). All of this section’s tonic pillars, from works with Kopfton ^3, are
constructed in this manner, thereby offering a more complex inner orga-
nization than prevails in the pillars we have explored already. Analysts
display interruption using either of two distinct styles of graph notation.
Though in this book I conform to the preference that developed during my
extensive study of this topic while writing Tonal Analysis: A Schenkerian
Perspective, I trust that readers who are accustomed to the other method,
which maintains a greater visual distinction between the antecedent and
consequent parts of a graph through separate beaming and separate
Roman-numeral analyses, will be able to adapt to the method on display

here for the duration of this study. Also note that analysts do not all concur
with regard to how similar the two halves must be to one another for the
notion of interruption to be viable. I am willing to allow a significant
amount of variation between the two halves, so long as the deeper structure
conforms to the principles of interruption.
Opus 6/4
The four-measure theme that transpires during the Mazurka in E♭
Minor’s tonic pillar is divided into two halves that are equal in length
but not in structural content. (The entire theme is then repeated, with a
few subtle alterations.) This inequality results from one of tonal music’s
most prevalent and effective structural devices: the juxtaposition of
similar phrases that cadence on the dominant and on the tonic, melodi-
cally realized through an interruption of the structural descent after ^2.
The mazurka’s Kopfton is ^3 (to be justified presently). The ^3–^2 of the
antecedent does not continue directly to ^1, but reaches that goal only
after a reiteration of ^3–^2 and its harmonic support. The two-beat domi-
nant at 22–3 is replaced by a dominant-to-tonic succession during mea-
sure 4. The analytical notation for interruption that I employ (here at the
middleground level, since it is internal to the A1 section within an A1 B A2
ternary form) is displayed in 1.15.27 Note that the V♮ in measure 2 serves
as the principal dominant, after which the reiteration portion of the
consequent phrase does not move the structure along at all: only the
final tonic root and the melodic ^1 that it supports hook up with the earlier
Example 1.15 Analysis of Mazurka in E♭ Minor (op. 6/4), mm. 0|1–4.

components of the structural framework. Working in three dimensions

would be ideal: one could place the second ^3 and ^2 behind the first ones,
showing effectively how the final ^1 serves as the goal both for the broad
descent from ^3 over the course of four measures and for the more local
descent in measures 3 and 4. (Imagine putting some hinges into the
middle beams so that one could physically move the second half of the
graph behind the first half, aligning G♭ and F in the two phrases and
allowing the E♭ to stick out at the right edge.)
In that all three pitches of the tonic triad initiate melodic strands during
the mazurka’s opening two beats, one may wonder which one serves as the
Kopfton. Does the B♭ win out because it sounds first? Or does the E♭ because
it is the highest? Following each strand through to its goal, one may be
surprised to learn that neither of those lines is maintained in its initial
register over the long haul. Though one hears B♭ proceeding to A♭ (at 21),
the continuation to G♭ in measure 4 occurs only in the tenor register. And
though an E♭>D♭>C♭>B♭ fourth transpires during the antecedent phrase, in
the consequent phrase that line is more fully realized in the tenor register,
though the concluding B♭ is absent and will be imagined during 43. Only the
strand that proceeds from G♭ is maintained in register over the course of all
four measures; and only that strand attains ^1, by which point it in fact is the
highest-sounding strand, which is how it is displayed in 1.15. (An incom-
plete neighbor occurs between 3^ and ^2, as often is the case when IV serves as
the intermediary between I and V♮.)
Opus 17/3
The Mazurka in A♭ Major’s sixteen-measure tonic pillar derives its binary
shape from the interruption that occurs after the first phrase’s cadential
dominant. Chopin’s prolongation of this dominant correlates motivically
with the preceding tonic prolongations: whereas C>B♭>A♭ is heard repeat-
edly during I-space (measures 1 through 6), B♭>A♭>G is projected during
V-space (measures 7 and 8) [1.16]. Another set of thirds plays an equally
important motivic role: just as E♭ emerges above Kopfton C in measure 2,
D♭ follows B♭ and C precedes A♭ during the pillar’s final two measures.
(Compare with 1.3.)
Whereas in the context of an interruption the PAC of the second
phrase will contrast the dominant close of the first, the two phrases
may display other variances as well. Chopin offers a delectable sample
in this mazurka. What are we to make of the pitch collection that sounds
during 63? From a literalist perspective A♭-C♭-E♭-F might be regarded as
a chromatic variant of the tonic’s 6-phase chord, here proceeding directly

to the dominant. Yet during the consequent phrase one tiny shift makes a
clarifying difference: Chopin lowers E♭ to D♮ (at 143), unleashing the
chord’s vibrant II➔ potentiality. In 1.16 that interpretation is parenthe-
tically supplied in the earlier presentation as well. Just as we can discern
Michelangelo’s intentions even in his unfinished sculptures, so also a
chordal function may be perceived even when incompletely realized. I
have chiseled away at the E♭ to reveal the D♮ that it conceals, using
parentheses to acknowledge my participation.28 The phrase’s harmonic
“defect,” like its failure to achieve a PAC on ^1, is rectified during the
second phrase.
Opus 33/2 [a.k.a. opus 33/3]

A composition’s underlying structure and the presentation of that struc-
ture by a composer may not exactly match. Consequently pairs of par-
entheses are encountered frequently in graphs to indicate pitches that the
analyst proposes an alert listener will imagine. In Chopin’s Mazurka in
C Major, even the Kopfton E (= ^3) is an imagined note [1.17]. There is
evidence of its influence: the E>D suspension/resolution pair in measure
7 depends on the conventional preparation by an E during the preceding
I5–6, and the mazurka’s B section twice ascends to the imagined Kopfton’s
wobbly displacement, E♭ (measures 20 and 28). The descending parallel
sixths in the soprano and alto registers during measures 0 through 6
logically would begin with GE . Since no such E sounds, I have reconstituted
Example 1.17 Analysis of Mazurka in C Major (op. 33/2), mm. 0|1–16.
the structure that I propose grounds Chopin’s mazurka. I admire – rather

than condemn – Chopin’s free presentation.
The antecedent phrase’s harmonic path conforms precisely to the
normative convention for the supertonic’s use: the tonic first shifts to
its 6 phase (here surging as VI➔, in measure 6), which leads effectively to
the supertonic (also surging: II➔) followed by the dominant. For the
consequent phrase, Chopin foregoes the tonic 6-phase chord to facilitate
an earlier dominant arrival, leaving time for the tonic in the phrase’s
concluding measure. Not only is the surging VI➔ absent; II’s surge is
retracted as well (so that the subtler diatonic II7 serves as herald of the
dominant).
Opus 33/3 [a.k.a. opus 33/2]

Whereas Kopfton ^3 is an imagined pitch in the Mazurka in C Major [1.17],
^
2 is imagined in my analysis of the Mazurka in D Major [1.18]. Fortunately
the redundancy of descent within an interruption structure means that a
second opportunity for the sounding of ^2 exists. In this case measure 6
achieves what measure 4 neglects. As usual, the altered agenda of the
consequent phrase results in revisions of the harmonic progression, geared
towards achieving an earlier dominant arrival to make room for the
cadential tonic. Here Chopin elects to dispense with his three-measure
prolongation of I-space, leaving only the initial one-measure arpeggiation.
This drastic cut permits an elective addition preceding the dominant
arrival: namely the supertonic, which occupies measure 6.
Example 1.18 Analysis of Mazurka in D Major (op. 33/3), mm. 0|1–8.
Interrupted fifth-progressions
Interruption is as useful in developing structures emanating from Kopfton

^
5 as from Kopfton ^3. The examples explored in this section demonstrate
some strategies for supporting the descent from ^5 that did not emerge
among the non-interrupted 5^ lines explored above.
Opus 7/2
The tonic pillar’s two phrases in the Mazurka in A Minor offer related yet
contrasting harmonizations of the structural line descending from Kopfton
^
5. During the antecedent phrase the span from ^5 to ^3 transpires during an
expansion of I-space, followed by II➔, which, with 64 embellishment, serves
as the initial support for ^2 before the HC dominant arrives [1.19]. During
the consequent phrase a shift to I6 coincides with the arrival of ^3. In a
minor key I6 is innately suited for a dominant-emulating role, which may
be enhanced through the addition of a minor seventh, propelling a surge
(as VI➔) towards ♭II. Since Chopin realizes that potentiality here, the two
phrases offer a strong contrast at this juncture: ^2 supported by II➔ versus
^ supported by ♭II. (Compare 73 and 141 in 1.19.) Though ♭II is not
♭2
innately inclined towards V♯, listeners have accustomed themselves to the
♭II–V♯ succession, which composers have promoted as a means of pre-
venting their compositions from leading into the abyss. An extension
beyond the diatonic pitch collection is held in check: B♭➔E♭ occurs rarely
in A Minor, whereas the antipodal B♭-to-E continuation has become the
Example 1.19 Analysis of Mazurka in A Minor (op. 7/2), mm. 0|1–16.
norm. (Here Chopin forgoes presenting ♭II in its first inversion, a common
means of softening the effect of the antipodal root connection.) The
melody’s B♭ wobble temporarily displaces diatonic B♮, which duly emerges
during the dominant that follows – though not in the soprano register,
where parentheses denote its imaginative presence within a descending
fifth-progression in 1.19.
Opus 17/2
During the Mazurka in E Minor’s tonic pillar, Chopin devotes equal time
to the establishment of the initial I-space, with Kopfton ^5, and to the fifth-
progression that leads ultimately to a PAC. Both of the pillar’s phrases are
twelve measures in length. Over the first six measures a dotted slur in 1.20
connects Kopfton B in its middle and upper registers. Both outer voices
pursue arpeggiations of the tonic pitches: E<G<B<E in the bass, and
B<E<G<B in the soprano. Mediant G (measure 4) is achieved in the bass
via a circular progression (E–A–D–G) during which Kopfton B is embel-
lished by its upper neighbor, C. A reminiscence of that embellishment
occurs in the context of the upper B’s arrival in measure 6, where C again
serves as a neighbor.
Once the upper-register B is secure, the descent towards E commences.
The B>A>G segment of that fifth occurs over a tonic pedal from 63 through
83, embellished by A♯. (Compare with F♯ in 1.10, measure 6.) Chopin
provocatively transfers G to an even higher register in measure 10. That act
turns out to be of only local significance. Though residual high notes
Example 1.20 Analysis of Mazurka in E Minor (op. 17/2), mm. 0|1–24.
persist through measure 12, the structural ^2 should be imagined in the

conventional soprano register beginning at 111, as shown by the parenthe-
tical F♯ in 1.20.29 (The E and D♯ that follow in that register depend upon
the imagined precedent of F♯. Note that the F♯ sounds belatedly during 113
and 121. No parentheses are required during the consequent phrase, since
F♯ sounds during 231.)
The consequent phrase, displayed in somewhat abbreviated form in
1.20, presents the six-measure opening tonic expansion once again, fol-
lowed by a full fifth-progression to the PAC. The II➔ that supported ^2
before the dominant’s arrival during the antecedent phrase is suppressed:
the earlier II➔V♯ HC gives way to a V➔I PAC. Though most of the
phrase’s content corresponds to what was presented earlier, Chopin offers
a particularly delicious innovation between 231 and 241. Observe how,
above F♯ (= ^2), some residual upper-note activity based on chromatic
lower neighbors and their resolutions emerges:
A♯<B A♮<B♭ G♯<A
The underlined notes reiterate the chromatic line of measures 6 through 8
(and 18 through 20). There the B and A were components of the middle-
ground structural descent; here they represent an interior strand hoisted to
a position above the structural F♯. As the arrow in 1.20 indicates, dissonant
A’s resolution pitch G sounds in the restored interior register, below the
cadential ^1.
Opus 17/4
As a preface to our exploration of the tonic pillar in the Mazurka in A
Minor, a review of 1.11 is warranted. Observe how Chopin’s melody there
accomplishes the upward transfer of Kopfton E♭ by means of arpeggiation.
It is especially notable that the bass has already begun its descending
trajectory from the tonic root A♭ before the upper E♭ is secured. Yet once
that happens the soprano joins the bass in pursuing a downward trajectory.
E[4D[4C
Three consecutive sixths – G 4F 4E[
– occur within a broad I IV V I
progression.
For the Mazurka in A Minor I depart from standard analytical notation to
show the essence of Chopin’s writing in an overtly contrapuntal manner. In
1.21a the essential content of 1.11 is maintained, transposed into A Minor.
The representation of soprano C in its foundational role as an unaccented
passing note reveals the motivation – avoidance of parallel fifths – that would
Example 1.21 Mazurka in A Minor (op. 17/4) (a) Contrapuntal model for the tonic
pillar; (b) Analysis of mm. 1–20.
(a)
(b)
cause a composer such as Chopin to shift its presentation to the following

accented beat. Several types of expansion are applied concurrently in the
transformation of 1.21a into 1.21b. First, by leading the initiating soprano
pitch E to its upper neighbor F, a series of 7–6 suspensions graces the
descent. Second, a chromatic link connects the G-B-E passing chord and
the F-A-D subdominant.30 Third, the dominant is expanded via a BG ♯ GB ♯
voice exchange.
The measure numbers annotating 1.21b assert that this model serves as
the foundation for Chopin’s tonic pillar. Notably the Kopfton is omitted at
the outset. The mazurka’s first sonority – an A-B-D-F embellishing chord
that resolves into I6 (at 42 and 61) rather than I5 – syntactically follows the
imagined moment of the initiating tonic.31 As in 1.11, an ascending
transfer achieved via arpeggiation occurs in the opening measures, but in
this instance that transferred pitch is not the Kopfton (^5), but instead its
upper neighbor: F (presented during the introduction) through A (53) and
C (61) to F (72). Throughout the melodic descent various substitutions
occur: F♯ for E at 91, F for D♯/E♭ at 101, E for C at 111, and C for A at 121.
The last two of these substitutions do not occur during the consequent
phrase: the first because a C (an octave higher) actually sounds at 191
(justifying the omission of parentheses around that pitch in 1.21b); the
second because the passing note is omitted when measures 11 and 12 are
condensed for presentation in measure 19. (Chopin’s abbreviation of the
dominant makes room for the consequent phrase’s cadential tonic.)
Opus 63/2
The two halves of the tonic pillar in Chopin’s Mazurka in F Minor pursue
contrasting harmonic trajectories [1.22]. Though both begin with a motion
from a prolonged C➔ embellishing chord to the F Minor tonic, during the
antecedent phrase a sequential progression connecting the tonic and the
mediant supports the descent from ^5 through an imagined ^4 (above which a
prolonged F serves as a substitute) to ^3, while ^2 is delayed via a ♭^2 wobble,
supported by ♭II. (Compare with 1.19, measures 14 and 15.) During the
consequent phrase, in contrast, the initial minor tonic is elided, with I➔ in
its place (measure 12). Consequently the progression proceeds to IV, which
supports ^4. (Because the surging tonic targets IV, measure 13 is aptly
7
interpreted as IV56
5 rather than as an inverted II .) Each pitch in the
consequent phrase’s fifth-progression is treated to embellishment by an
upper fourth or third, extending the practice we first encountered in 1.3.32
Example 1.22 Analysis of Mazurka in F Minor (op. 63/2), mm. 1–16.
Some exceptional tonic pillars
The five tonic pillars explored during the chapter’s final section distinguish
themselves from those considered already either through their internal
ternary form or through an initial statement that seems to lack forward
momentum, a state of affairs that is corrected during a later phase of the
pillar. Ultimately each proceeds to a PAC in the tonic key, justifying their
inclusion within this chapter.
Opus 6/1
The two phrases that constitute the Mazurka in F♯ Minor’s tonic pillar do
not conform to the interruption-generated antecedent/consequent struc-
ture of the two-phrase pillars we have explored above. In fact, the first
phrase amounts to a false start: once tonic F♯ Minor and Kopfton ^3 are
established (employing reaching-over during the initial ascent), the bass
and soprano both lead upwards a third [1.23]. So far, so good! In most
cases the bass would continue upwards from the mediant to an inverted II
or ♭II or to IV, followed by V♯. (Compare with the first phrase in 1.22.)
Here, however, the phrase unexpectedly loses its harmonic propulsion.
Astonishingly, we waft gradually downwards through tonal space for four
measures, maintaining outer-voice tenths while guided by the circle of
fifths:
A D♯ G♯ C♯ F♯ B E A D G♯ C♯
The C♯ chord upon which the descent lands is, of course, the same C♯
chord as that which occurred in measure 1.33 In this manner Chopin gives
himself a second chance to make something of his promising opening.
The inverted subdominant to which that progression leads in the second
phrase is made distinctive through a wobbly fifth, F♮, that eventually
reverts to F♯.34 As expected, V♯ follows.35 Yet one aspect of the structure
near the cadence is highly unconventional. Soprano B in measures 13
through 15 is an incomplete upper neighbor to Kopfton A (= ^3). (Both A
and B are embellished by an upper third: A<C♯ D>B.) Generally the
descent to ^2 from such a neighbor – either via a leap or filled in by a
passing note – will sound during V♯, facilitating a ^2 >^1 melodic close to
form the PAC. (Compare with the normative contexts for an incomplete
upper neighbor displayed in 1.9 and 1.15.) In this case, exceptionally, B
extends into the domain of the goal tonic. As 1.23 reveals, a daring non-
alignment of the soprano and bass elements of the structure occurs, with a
belated G♯ (during 161), which “belongs” with the dominant chord of 153,
serving as the third-progression’s ^2.36
Without opus 42B

The progression from the tonic to the dominant during the Mazurka in A
Minor’s tonic pillar is expansively realized: Chopin devotes four measures
each to the tonic and to the mediant, content that he repeats before
proceeding through II➔ to V♯, which arrives at 201 [1.24].37 Though he
Example 1.23 Analysis of Mazurka in F♯ Minor (op. 6/1), mm. 0|1–16.
Example 1.24 Analysis of Mazurka in A Minor (without opus 42B), mm. 0|1–32.
could have produced a structure of equivalent dimensions to balance that

opening, Chopin instead limits the tonic pillar to sixteen measures of
content, expanded to thirty-two measures via written-out repeats, corre-
sponding to
|: a1 :|: b a2 :|
Consequently the a2 region must somehow balance what precedes it
structurally, despite its comparatively modest dimensions. Chopin accom-
plishes this by sacrificing the mediant.
The mazurka’s Kopfton is a primordial entity that does not literally
sound in the upper register at the outset. The melodic C>B from 22 through
31 (matching the preceding inner-strand A>G♯) functions as a suspension
and resolution based on the assumption of a prior C preparation.38 An
even bolder claim is required for the mediant expansion that follows:
whereas Chopin provides a location (at 03) for an imaginative insertion
of the tonic root A and Kopfton C, the corresponding location for imagin-
ing the mediant root and its E (in the vicinity of 43) is elided. Fortunately
both C and E are stated in measures 17 and 18 (after the repeat of the first
eight measures), so that both ^3’s successor, ^2 (B), and the descant E>D♯<E
in measures 19 and 20 are well grounded.
The means by which Chopin extends III during measures 17 and 18 is
called into service during measures 21 and 22, transposed down a third, to
reinstate the tonic harmony and Kopfton C, this time with no imaginative
insertions required. Now the supertonic (which here evolves into II )
links I and V♯ directly. Note that the descant, which extended the mediant’s
E in measures 18 through 20, is absent. Compactly, a2 indeed succeeds in
completing the structure that was initiated during a1 and b.
Opus 50/1
The half cadence characteristic of an interruption is not the only means by
which a composer may express a sense of irresolution in music. In the
Mazurka in G Major Chopin composes eight measures without proceeding
beyond the initiating tonic, whose final iteration within the phrase by default
serves as the “cadence.”39 (Beats 2 and 3 of measure 8 play a transitional role
between the tonic pillar’s two phrases.) A structural departure from I-space
emerges only after the fresh start in measure 9 [1.25].
Not only is the first phrase lacking in substantive harmonic activity; it
also leaves unresolved whether B or D will serve as the mazurka’s Kopfton.
The upward arpeggiation D<F♯<A<C at the outset would most
Example 1.25 Analysis of Mazurka in G Major (op. 50/1), mm. 1–16.
normatively be answered by a descending line such as B>G>E>D (as in 71

through 81). Consequently the positioning of E>D an octave higher in
measure 4 seems quirky. Is D the upper third of Kopfton B? Or is Chopin
instead ascending in tiers, as C>B E>D? That question remains unan-
swered until measure 12, where the F♮ and G♯ that emerge against D set
the downward trajectory of a fifth to G in motion. (Though initially G-B-
D-F♮ may seem to convey I➔ surging towards IV, the evolution continues
to G♯-B-D-F♮, a version of I6 that surges as VI➔ towards II.)
A double G–D–G bass arpeggiation supports that fifth-progression.
Chopin projects an inner strand a third below this line: note how the initial
B<D unfolding to the Kopfton is complemented by C>A in measures 13
and 14 (with A reiterated during 151) and by A>F♯ in measures 15 and 16.
This context helps one to understand that the melody’s G at 152 is a
member of the inner strand, above which the outer strand’s third pitch,
B, should be imagined. (The preceding downbeat B, though tempting, is
not the structural B, but instead an accented passing note connecting the
preceding outer C and interior A: CA is an unfolded interval of V7.) Thus,
though the structure is unevenly distributed, with almost all of the content
falling within the second phrase, it eventually begins to resemble what we
have come to expect of a tonic pillar with Kopfton ^5.
Opus 50/2
Whereas the tonic pillar in 1.25 begins with a phrase that goes nowhere
tonally, and that in 1.23 ascends a third, that in the Mazurka in A♭ Major
descends a third [1.26]. Chopin’s timing is at first extraordinarily luxur-
iant: an eight-measure introduction arpeggiates E♭<G<B♭<D♭, preparing
the arrival of the tonic harmony and of Kopfton C (= ^3). Though the
melody sounds both a C and an E♭ during measure 9, here the structural
priority of C is emphasized through the linear descent of C>B♭>A♭ over
four measures. (Compare with the less decisive situation in 1.25.) The
tonic’s progression is then repeated a third lower during the following four
measures. In sum, Chopin has devoted eight measures to a mere I5–6.
Rather than continuing with this languorous trajectory, he chose to start
afresh in the next phrase: the G-E♭-D♭ chord at the end of measure 16
functions in the role of the introduction’s chord, facilitating the restoration
of the initiating tonic harmony in measure 17.
In stark contrast to what has preceded it, the twelve-measure phrase that
follows is among the most densely packed with content to be found in any
tonic pillar from the mazurkas. Considering first its deeper structure, note
Example 1.26 Analysis of Mazurka in A♭ Major (op. 50/2), mm. 1–28.
that tonic A♭ is prolonged from measure 17 through measure 26, during

which an CA ♭ AC ♭ voice exchange occurs in the outer voices. (The parenthe-
tical A♭ in the upper voice [1.26, measure 26] sounds an octave higher in
the score.) A conventional I6 approach to II follows, though the II➔ and its
successor, V7, collide. (That is, the supertonic sounds over the dominant
root during 271–2, as indicated by the bracket placed above the II and V
numerals in 1.26.) Incorporating upper-third play (B♭<D♭ C>A♭) reminis-
cent of that which embellishes the foreground C>B♭>A line of measures 9
through 12, Chopin achieves a PAC in measure 28.
The tonic prolongation of measures 17 through 26 is based on a I III♮ V7
I progression, as displayed in 1.26. Note the wobbly E♮ above bass C and
the presentation of V7 in its 42 position. The connection between the tonic
and the mediant is achieved via a circular progression: A♭ D♭ G C. The first
link in that progression is filled in as A♭>F>D♭.40 At this foreground level
one belatedly discovers how Chopin incorporates the A♭>F span, intro-
duced during the a1 phrase, into a broader structure. With that succession
now condensed into four measures through an elision (A♭>E♭<A♭>F
becomes A♭>E♭<F), the F divides the circular progression’s initial descend-
ing fifth into two thirds.
Opus 63/3
An unusual occurrence in the Mazurka in C♯ Minor should induce some
analytical speculation: whereas the initial tonic pillar employs four phrases,
spread over thirty-two measures, its reprise near the end of the mazurka
occupies only two phrases and sixteen measures (49 through 64), followed
by a partial repeat incorporating variation. Clearly the initial pillar must
contain some dispensable content. The second and third phrases pursue
two common – though optional – features of minor-key compositions: an
upward shift to the mediant during the second phrase, and an interruption
during the third. Neither of those devices is employed in the condensed
reprise of the pillar. However, 1.27 reveals how both devices contribute to
the establishment of a ternary internal form for A1 reminiscent of that in
1.24. Whereas the second phrase’s extension to the mediant could have
linked the initial I and an upward continuation to the dominant (again like
1.24), here Chopin devotes the first part of the third phrase (measures 17
through 22) to re-establishing the C♯ tonic.41
Several features of this mazurka’s structure reprise constructions similar
to those we have noted in other mazurkas. The E<G♯<C♯<E arpeggiation to
Example 1.27 Analysis of Mazurka in C♯ Minor (op. 63/3), mm. 0|1–32.
Kopfton ^3 (with the device of reaching-over assisting in the final third)

resembles similar octaves in 1.4, 1.11, and 1.20, as well as the reaching-over
ascent in 1.23. The chromatic descent G♯>FÜ>F♯>E recalls a similar line in
1.20 (there descending from Kopfton ^5). The circle-of-fifths connection
between I and III resembles that in 1.26. The I II➔ V antecedent most
closely resembles 1.24, which also shares the conversion from II➔ to II
for the final phrase.
The analyses in this chapter provide compelling evidence that, despite
the extraordinary richness and diversity on display in these tonic pillars,
Chopin’s compositional style depends to a large extent upon mixing and
matching a finite range of structural devices, all designed to perform
specific roles within either broad or local traversals of harmonic progres-
sions from the tonic through the dominant back to the tonic, as support for
descending third- or fifth-progressions from the Kopfton to the tonic pitch.
Whereas chapter 1 has focused on the tonic-to-tonic harmonic progres-
sions characteristic of a regular tonic pillar, chapter 2 will place these pillars
within the broader tonic-to-tonic trajectories of complete mazurkas.
2 Between the tonic pillars: tonal trajectories
in twenty-seven mazurkas
In the mazurkas that we explore in this chapter, repetitions of the tonic

pillar alternate with episodes that pursue a wide range of tonal paths,
usually diatonic though occasionally not. The most common trajectories
are the maintenance of the tonic key (perhaps with a shift of mode) or
proceeding to the dominant (perhaps tonicized). Around a third of the
episodes pursue tonal paths, marked by shading in table 2.1, that extend
beyond the tonic or the dominant.
To conserve space the examples in this chapter present the tonic pillars
in an abbreviated form. In each case a more detailed graph may be found in
chapter 1. For the same reason a phrase pair defined by a local interruption
may be abbreviated. Because most of the mazurkas contain multiple
episodes, it was not feasible to arrange the analyses in this chapter accord-
ing to their various tonal trajectories. (The data in table 2.1 facilitates
locating all the episodes that proceed along any given path.) Instead, we
shall proceed by opus number in three groups, distinguished by the total
number of tonic pillars: two, four, and then three. Exploring the four-pillar
mazurkas before those with three pillars is warranted because in some cases
the latter are conceived as abbreviations of the former. Though a coda
generally will be displayed more compactly than will the mazurka’s non-
pillar episode(s), it will be at least minimally acknowledged in the voice-
leading graph when one occurs.
Two-pillar mazurkas
Opus 6/4
The Mazurka in E♭ Minor’s B section repeats the foundational structure
of A1: middleground ^3>^2>^1 over I V♮ I occurs in both contexts, without
a change of mode or key. (Compare 1.15 and 2.1.) Yet contrasting
mechanisms are employed to connect ^3I and ^2V ♮ . In A1 an incomplete
upper neighbor to the Kopfton and a harmonic progression featuring
IV occur, while a local interruption allows two measures of content
Between the tonic pillars 43
Table 2.1
Second Non-Pillar
Opus Key Examples Pillars First Non-Pillar Trajectory Trajectory
6/1 f♯ 1.23, 2.18 3 V♯ prolonged I to V♯
6/2 c♯ 1.1, 2.19 3 V♯ tonicized I to V♯
6/4 e♭ 1.15, 2.1 2 I prolonged ––––
6/5 C 1.2, 2.2 2 I to tonicized V ––––
7/1 B♭ 1.3, 2.20 3 V tonicized I to V
7/2 a 1.19, 2.15 4 I prolonged I♯ prolonged
7/4 A♭ 1.11, 2.21 3 I to V I to V
17/2 e 1.20, 2.3 2 I to V♯ ––––
17/3 A♭ 1.16, 2.16 4 I to V lower third (CV♯2)
tonicized
17/4 a 1.21, 2.22 3 V♯ prolonged I♯ to V♯
24/2 C 1.4, 2.23 3 lower fifth tonicized I to upper third (CV♯1)
24/3 A♭ 1.5, 2.4 2 I to upper third (CV♯1) ––––
24/4 b♭ 1.6, 2.24 3 I to upper third’s V I to upper third’s V
30/2 f♯ 1.7, 2.5 2 I to upper third ––––
30/3 D♭ 1.8, 2.6 2 I to lower third’s V♮ ––––
33/1 g♯ 1.12, 2.7 2 I to upper third ––––
33/2 C 1.17, 2.8 2 I to lower third (CV♯2) ––––
33/3 D 1.18, 2.17 4 V tonicized I to V
41/1 e 1.13, 2.9 2 V♯ tonicized ––––
41/4 c♯ 1.14, 2.10 2 I♯ prolonged ––––
42B a 1.24, 2.11 2 I♯ prolonged ––––
50/1 G 1.25, 2.25 3 progression in tonic key progression in tonic key
50/2 A♭ 1.26, 2.26 3 upper third tonicized lower fifth tonicized
56/1 B 1.9, 2.27 3 I to lower third (CV♯1) I to lower third (CV♯2)
56/2 C 1.10, 2.12 2 lower third tonicized ––––
63/2 f 1.22, 2.13 2 I to V♮ ––––
63/3 c♯ 1.27, 2.14 2 I prolonged ––––
to be spread over four measures. In B a circle of fifths is deployed as the

means of connecting I and V♮. It is paced so as to spread the structural
content over four measures. The confluence of dissonance and local
chromaticism in the second and fourth chords of the circle creates surges
that push towards the succeeding downbeats, thereby emphasizing the
descent in tenths displayed in 2.1. Whereas the bass connects the E♭ and
B♭ roots, an upper line traverses a G♭>D♮ diminished fourth.1 An F,
emerging above that D♮ from a strand that transpires in the tenor register,
helps to shape the third-progression (beamed in 2.1) that spans the four
measures.
Example 2.1 Analysis of Mazurka in E♭ Minor (op. 6/4).
The essence of the mazurka’s form may be represented as | A1 |: B A2 :|,

with an immediate, written-out repetition of each component. Though it
would be more normative for this form to transpire as |: A1 :|: B A2 :|
(a form that often is called rounded binary, though I prefer rounded
ternary or simply ternary, due to the three letters required to depict it),
here the repetition within A1 created by the interruption, followed by the
written-out repetition (measures 5 through 8), followed by a repeat-sign
repetition would lead to stagnation. Consequently Chopin elected to omit
the conventional repeat sign after measure 8.
Opus 6/5 [a.k.a. opus 7/5]

As chapter 2 unfolds we will have opportunities to observe how the non-
pillar regions in Chopin’s mazurkas may either prolong the tonic (perhaps
with a modal shift) or lead to the mediant, subdominant, dominant, or
submediant. The dominant is by far the most common choice. It provides a
context for the maintenance of ^5 or for an interruption of a descent (from ^5
or from ^3) at ^2, as in the Mazurka in C Major [2.2]. The I-space of its A1
section (analyzed in 1.2) concludes with a brief yet significant sounding of
the pitch A (at 123).2 As often is the case, here the 5–6 shift softens the
potentially abrupt connection between I5 and II➔, on the path to V.
In this mazurka the same thematic content (at two pitch levels) is
employed in both the A and B sections. When this happens a background
melodic connection between the two may seem doubtful.3 How can the
Example 2.2 Analysis of Mazurka in C Major (op. 6/5).
pitches C, E, and G relate linearly with their counterparts a fourth lower? I

propose that in this mazurka the tonic’s E and the dominant’s D form a
background 3> ^ ^2 connection, even if that interpretation requires a note
that in its tonic context serves as an “upper third” to the Kopfton to perform
a deep structural role when transposed into the dominant key. The voice
leading works as follows:
G
-----
-----
E> D
-----
-----
-----
C> B
-----
---!
Opus 17/2
The Mazurka in E Minor’s tonic key is established through the fifth-
progression that transpires during the A1 tonic pillar [1.20]. The com-
ponents of the extended B section that follows pursue a range of tonal
goals. At first the tonic is prolonged, with a temporary modal shift to E
Major in measures 31 and 32 [2.3]. Next E Minor’s mediant G-B-D is
tonicized. Chopin extends this mediant through measure 49 using local
embellishing chords infused with chromaticism. Finally an unusual rea-
lization of IV5–6 leads to the section’s tonal goal, V♯, which falls into place
at the last possible moment – at 523, coinciding with the melody’s upbeat
B that inaugurates A2. (Compare with 03.) By this point the background
descent has reached ^2, and thus an interruption occurs. This ^2 (which
Example 2.3 Analysis of Mazurka in E Minor (op. 17/2).
sounds first in the bass and then in the tenor register) is covered by B, the
^ of A2’s initial tonic.
5
The ascending registral shift of Kopfton B during A1 is rescinded as the
lower B is restored during measure 25, at the onset of the B section’s tonic
prolongation, which mirrors A1 in traversing a complete fifth-progression,
now without interruption. Soon thereafter the mediant emerges, unexpect-
edly. Whereas the tonic-prolonging phrase proceeds downwards in the
bass from E to C via a G➔ embellishing chord (measures 24 through 28),
the reprise of this content in measures 32 through 36 proceeds in a
contrasting manner, projecting the root progression G–C–D–G as a toni-
cization of the mediant even though its initial chord is surging towards G’s
subdominant C from the outset. Because the new context for measures 33
and 34 motivates a re-orientation of the local chordal hierarchy, the
eventually rejected connection between E and C (displayed via a slur placed
within parentheses) and the ultimately triumphant G-to-D tonic-to-
dominant motion are juxtaposed in 2.3. The background descent from ^5
through ^4 to 3^ occurs during this mediant tonicization.
The soprano G ð¼ ^3Þ that arrives imaginatively at 373 and literally at 391
does not budge through 491. Neighbors A♭ and A♮ embellish G without
weakening its hold. The mediant is maintained throughout, after which the
span from measure 49 through measure 52 completes the B section’s
structural agenda in an unconventional way – namely, by placing the
Urlinie’s descent from ^3 to ^2 in the bass and the foundational bass’s ascent
from G through A to B in the soprano. This important activity may take
listeners by surprise, since Chopin here converts melodic devices that had
played embellishing roles during the mediant prolongation into the insti-
7
gators of the harmonic motion to IV ♯ . This subdominant’s 6-phase chord
surges as II➔ in the approach to V♯.
Whereas on the one hand Chopin endeavors to make A2 less complex
than A1 by rescinding the local interruption, on the other hand he post-
pones achieving the goal PAC: opportunities for a cadence in measures 64
and 66 are declined, delaying the PAC until measure 68.
Opus 24/3
When a mazurka’s B section leads to the dominant, a background descent
from Kopfton ^5 or ^3 to ^2 often occurs. That option not only provides a high
level of contrast, but also ideally prepares for the tonic’s return during A2
for a post-interruption descent to ^1. Another option occasionally
employed by Chopin is to proceed to the mediant, which offers neither
Example 2.4 Analysis of Mazurka in A♭ Major (op. 24/3).
the level of contrast nor the tonic-targeting characteristic of the dominant

harmony. Because both ^3 and ^5 are components of the mediant, the
Kopfton generally will be prolonged.
The Mazurka in A♭ Major’s A1 and A2 sections open with a melodic
unfolding of the third from A♭ to C [1.5]. That interval also guides the
broad bass trajectory during the B section [2.4]. It appears that Chopin
intends to traverse that span via a descending circle of fifths: A♭ D♭
G C. However, in his execution of that agenda the projection of the initial
A♭>D♭ fifth as two thirds is abandoned after F is attained at 183. Observe
how local upper thirds (reminiscent of the upper thirds that pervade the A1
section) embellish various points along the way. The initial bass A♭ is
preceded by downward motion from a C minor chord. Likewise F emerges
from upper third A♭. In my view the F minor chord at 192 should initially
be perceived as the starting point for another descending third, this time
from F to D♭. But Chopin, recognizing that his strategy might become
tedious if pursued adamantly, elides this passage. (It appears within square
brackets in 2.4.) Instead, a collision occurs: a D♭ indeed does emerge in the
bass – sooner than expected and in coordination with an apposite though
accelerated soprano A♭>G>F – but concurrently the following chord in the
broad circular motion sounds.4 Because this collision does not allow
diatonic D♭ to wobble to D♮, the G chord emerges as G .5
The goal mediant chord at 201 incorporates a wobble (E♮). Consequently
foundational major chords are juxtaposed in the mazurka’s A and B
sections, a feature shared with major-key movements that proceed instead
from I to V. This chord corresponds to what I call the mediant’s Chromatic
Variant ♯1 (CV♯1), with one chromatic pitch.6 Since the preceding passage
led the melodic line some distance downwards from Kopfton C ð¼ ^3Þ,
Chopin quickly reconstitutes that register: a melodic C persists from 203
through 242. This C then hooks up with the C of A2, launched by the A♭<C
unfolding of 243 through 261. (In accordance with the interpretation of the
tonic pillar displayed in 1.5, the A♭ tonic returns at 243. It is here preceded
by local passing note B♭.7) At this point within the mazurka the descending
third-progression of the tonic pillar will be interpreted as background
^
3>2>^ ^1. Local melodic thirds persist during the extension that transpires
during measures 36b through 43. Though a structural close on ^1 is
achieved in measure 36, residual echoes of the Kopfton persist.
Opus 30/2
In the Mazurka in F♯ Minor, the A1 tonic pillar’s initial IV (at 163) was
preceded by the introduction’s prolonged subdominant [1.7]. In contrast,
the A2 pillar (whose initial IV is embellished through the addition of 6-
phase G♯ at 483) is preceded by the III that is attained during the B section
[2.5]. As often is the case, a segment of the circle of fifths (F♯ B E A) serves
as the means by which the tonic and the mediant are connected.
Concurrently the melody within the B section focuses on C♯, which falls
within a downward trajectory connecting A1’s cadential F♯ to A2’s rein-
stated Kopfton A.
Example 2.5 Analysis of Mazurka in F♯ Minor (op. 30/2).

Though this mazurka’s tonic pillar, once it emerges, is in fact regular

(with I V♯ I supporting ^3>^2>^1), its context is idiosyncratic because
competing material (in a key that conforms to Chopin’s misleading key
signature of two sharps) seems at first to be performing the role of tonic
pillar.
Opus 30/3
Chopin confronted options at every turn as he composed each mazurka.
Whereas usually listeners hear only one out of several potential harmonic
trajectories, in the Mazurka in D♭ Major Chopin makes a point of juxta-
posing alternatives. “The road not taken” becomes instead one of two roads
that he takes in succession. Earlier we noted how he alternates between
retaining D♭ Major and moving into D♭ Minor during the tonic pillar. The
accidentals within parentheses in 1.8 convey his “maybe yes, maybe no”
attitude, which persists until the wobbly note F♭ reverts to F♮ in the
mazurka’s final measure. Other sorts of options are juxtaposed during
the B section.
Note in 2.6 the connection between the pillar’s tonic root D♭ and the
dominant root A♭ of measures 58 and 59. (This dominant resolves to I6
rather than to I5, a topic to be addressed later.) Bass G♭ (measure 57), which
supports an inverted II, precedes A♭. Chopin well understood that two very
common strategies for connecting the A1 section’s tonic root and measure
57’s supertonic bass are an ascent via the mediant (D♭<F<G♭) and the
progression I5–6 II (in which the tonic’s 6-phase chord might be dominant-
emulating: VI➔ targeting II). Decisions, decisions! In this case Chopin
surprises us by not deciding: he instead juxtaposes. The descending circle
of fifths at the onset of the B section connects I and VI➔ (measure 32),
which could have continued directly to II (as arrives eventually, in measure
57). Chopin instead halts the harmonic trajectory, backtracking to pursue
the circle of fifths again. This time he proceeds along the circle only as far as
F. After an extended mediant prolongation (in measures 49 through 56,
not shown in the graph), the II harmony finally is attained.
We observed in 2.1 how a tonic prolongation might serve as a B section’s
sole content, and in 2.3 how a tonic prolongation inaugurating a B section
may precede further tonal activity. The structure through measure 60
could have been followed by bass E♭<A♭>D♭ supporting a soprano descent
to D♭ (resulting in a PAC in D♭ Major). In this case, however, Chopin’s
progression instead tonicizes B♭ Minor (perhaps a factor in his decision not
to persist with the B♭ chord of measure 32). An F-to-B♭ fifth-progression
Example 2.6 Analysis of Mazurka in D♭ Major (op. 30/3).
substitutes for the F-to-D♭ third-progression that we might have expected

as a means of prolonging Kopfton F. Thereafter Chopin backtracks once
again. Will he succeed this time in attaining a PAC in D♭? Succinctly the D♭
Major tonic of measure 10 recurs in measure 66, the dominant of measures
58 and 59 recurs in measure 67, and the 6-phase tonic of measure 60 recurs
in measure 68. Note one significant difference: Chopin now fails to achieve
a PAC in B♭ Minor, breaking off after the penultimate chord. Whereas an
interruption on ^2V is a common goal for a B section, here Chopin closes
a third lower – on the ^2V ♮ of B♭ Minor – thereby creating a novel
juxtaposition at the juncture of B and A2. In some especially creative
writing, he slithers downwards chromatically from F (the root of B♭
Minor’s dominant) to D♭ (the root of D♭ Major’s tonic) during measures
70 through 79. The mazurka concludes with a reprise of the tonic pillar,
this time with the cadential tonic shifting from minor to major quality at a
breathtakingly late moment.
Opus 33/1
The melodic B>A♯>G♯ that played a prominent role during the Mazurka in
G♯ Minor’s tonic pillar [1.12] guides the B section on its path from tonic G♯
to an inverted C♯ chord, initiating a circular progression to the diatonic
mediant, B major [2.7]. Complementing the descending fifth-progression
within A1 (D♯ to G♯), that C♯ chord supports the upward arpeggiation of a
sixth (G♯<C♯<E in measures 21 and 22). Consequently an upper neighbor,
E, embellishes the Kopfton in the middleground structure, echoing the
local D♯<E>D♯ neighboring motions within A1 (measures 0–1, 3–4, 5, etc.).
Example 2.7 Analysis of Mazurka in G♯ Minor (op. 33/1).

Often the mediant will serve as an intermediary in a progression from the

tonic to the dominant (as in 2.3 and 2.6).8 In this case it serves as an upper-
third embellishment of the tonic (akin to the structure of 2.4). As was the
case at 03, the lone D♯ at 363 signals the return of I-space.
Opus 33/2 [a.k.a. opus 33/3]

Though the mediant and submediant chords may participate in harmo-
nic progressions, they sometimes instead serve as terminal points within
a contrasting section, contexts that may be interpreted as tonic embel-
lishment. Several of the mazurkas explored above proceed from the
tonic to the mediant and back over the course of A1 B A2. In the
Mazurka in C Major Chopin deploys the submediant, which sounds
(evolved as VI➔) in a harmonic context during the A1 section [1.17].
During the B section that follows, another chromatic variant – A♭-C-
E♭ – is attained and even tonicized [2.8]. In this case the structure
proceeds essentially from C-E-G to C-E♭-A♭ (unfurled as A♭-C-E♭)
and then back to C-E-G: tonic C-E-G is extended via the concurrent
pursuit of an embellishing chromatic neighbor (G<A♭>G) and a wobble
(E♮>E♭<E♮).9
The chordal juxtaposition in measures 16 and 17 is extraordinary. In the
context of the A♭ Major tonicization that is commencing, C-E♮-G (measure
16) is chromatic in the sharp direction, whereas D♭-F♭-A♭-B♭ (measure 17)
is chromatic in the flat direction. Consequently a diatonic E♭<F major
second is converted into an E♮-to-F♭ diminished second! Chopin chooses

that very moment to shift from piano to forte. Also note some interesting
realignments in the melodic structure. From a contrapuntal perspective,
measure 21 might be interpreted as E♭<F>E♭>D♭ over E♭ (third species),
resolving to consonant CA ♭ at the next downbeat. In conjunction with the
insertion of chromatic E♮ and the prolongation of the neighboring F, the
unaccented passing note D♭ shifts to the following downbeat position.
Similarly in measure 23, C>B♭ over cantus pitch E♭ (fourth species) is
embellished by the chromatic lower neighbor B♮ and the upper neighbor
D♭, so that the C suspension’s resolution pitch is delayed until 241, where it
coincides with the tonic root. The foundational structure – without these
local rhythmic shifts – is displayed in 2.8.
Opus 41/1 [a.k.a. opus 41/2]

The descending fifth-progression B>A>G>F♯>E from the Mazurka in E
Minor’s A1 section [1.13] is complemented by an ascending sixth-
progression (D♯<E<F♯<G♯<A♯<B), connecting the dominant’s third and
octave, during the B section that follows [2.9]. Though the dominant often
supports the Urlinie’s descent to ^2, here ^5 is maintained. In fact, inner-
strand D♯ takes a position above Kopfton B and serves as the initiation
point for a descending fifth-progression during the 6 phase of a dominant
prolongation ðV5♯ –———–
6 ♯ –5
Þ in measures 33 through 40.10 That descent brings
the melody close to the B section’s D♯ starting point, which is restored at
411, preceded by a retransitional embellishing chord featuring the dimin-
ished fifth EA ♯ . A renewed ascent to B, achieved at 451 and again covered by
D♯, gives the B section a ternary internal form.
Another third-relationship (not graphed) warrants consideration as
well. At a local level the connection between B and G♯ (the tonicized
major dominant’s 5-phase and unfurled 6-phase chords, as in measures
30 and 33) may be invigorated through an internal D♯ chord (as in
measures 31 and 32), which relates by perfect fifth to G♯. Chopin reaches
D♯-F♯-A♯ early in the B section (measures 23 and 24), but there its potential
to lead to G♯ is not tapped: instead it functions as an upper-third extension
of B-D♯-F♯. Consequently measure 33’s G♯ chord is all the more satisfying,
since it comes about through the realization of something that was at first
denied. When D♯-F♯-A♯ is deployed again as the tonicized dominant’s
upper-third extension in measures 55 and 56, it reveals its versatility by
proceeding neither back to B nor to G♯, but instead to the restored tonic E
of A2. Outer-voice parallel octaves are averted through the presentation of
the surging tonic in 42 position.
Example 2.9 Analysis of Mazurka in E Minor (op. 41/1).
Opus 41/4 [a.k.a. opus 41/1]

Already during the Mazurka in C♯ Minor’s A1 tonic pillar, the hold of the
C♯ tonic’s minor modality wavers [1.14]. Though a conventional juxtapo-
sition of C♯ minor and E major chords transpires during the opening
measures, elements from C♯ Major are incorporated beginning in measure
17, affecting even the pitch content of the pillar-defining fifth-progression
(with E♯ substituting for E♮ during measure 20). Consequently the com-
mon form-defining juxtaposition of parallel keys (A1 in minor followed by
B in major) is here subverted, since the shift to major precedes the formal
division (at measures 32|33). Further confounding expectations, A2’s tonic
pillar incorporates C♯ Major’s E♯ from the outset [2.10]. There is very little
about this mazurka that reflects its foundational C♯ Minor tonality until
the coda, where the minor tonic is restored and the work’s only fifth-
progression utilizing diatonic E♮ is traversed. The mazurka ends in desola-
tion, especially devastating given the presumed conquest of dark forces by
C♯ Major.
During the B section’s opening measures the voice leading projects an
ascent through C♯ Major’s C♯<D♯<E♯ third, with a reinstatement of
Kopfton G♯ during measure 40. The local dominant at measure 39 is
uncharacteristically spelled using B♮, which is retained as the following
dominant-emulating tonic’s minor seventh from the outset.11 That surging
I➔ targets IV (measure 49). Concurrently Chopin undertakes a descend-
ing registral shift, not quite reaching the lower F♯ – the second pitch in the
descending fifth-progression that is traversed during the section – by the
time IV arrives. (Consequently that F♯ is displayed within parentheses in
2.10.) An extension of IV through measure 53 (by means of a 5–6 shift and
a temporary modal borrowing of A♮ from C♯ Minor)12 supports the
melodic descent through E♯ to D♯, the third and fourth pitches of the
descending fifth-progression. That D♯ is restored to the upper register
during the following dominant harmony (assuming that the D♯ at 561
“belongs” in the preceding measure). The cadential C♯ (at 562) occurs in
that register as well.
As the measure numbers that annotate 2.10 indicate, a second traversal
of this progression occurs immediately after that cadence. All goes well
until the cadential moment (651), at which point Chopin substitutes C♯
Minor’s I6 for the expected C♯-E♯-G♯ tonic. This insertion results in a
second approach to the tonic goal, temporarily reminding listeners of the
darker forces of C♯ Minor that underlie the mazurka. The progression
transpires as
Example 2.10 Analysis of Mazurka in C♯ Minor (op. 41/4).
m. 65 69 71 72 73
C♯ Minor: I6 IV5———6♮ V I♯
This progression is especially noteworthy in that the pitches D♮, F♯, and A
(measures 71 and 72) that emerge as IV’s “Neapolitan” 6 phase are retained
as the fifth, seventh, and ninth of the dominant that follows.13 In this case,
exceptionally, wobbly D♮ does not revert to diatonic D♯.
Though some residual elements of C♯ Minor are retained from A1 (the
use of A♮ in measures 73 through 79, as well as the employment of E in
measures 81 through 88 as the divider between C♯ and G♯), the A2 section
completes the background structure essentially in C♯ Major, as mentioned
above. A more bravura close transpires during a repetition (measures 97
through 104).
Chopin places an important element of the mazurka’s tonal plot within
the coda: though it begins in C♯ Major (measure 105), the initial C♯ Minor
tonic is restored at measure 119 and is retained through the end of the
mazurka. Though its fifth-progression is displayed uniformly in the regis-
ter just above Middle C in 2.10, in Chopin’s score its impact is enhanced by
means of a gradual downward registral shift of two octaves: G♯ a twelfth
above Middle C (measure 119), F♯ a fourth above Middle C (measure 127),
and the remaining members of the descent sounding in the octave below
Middle C.
Without opus 42B

The internal harmonic progressions employed within the A and B sections
of the Mazurka in A Minor proceed along similar routes. (Compare 1.24
and 2.11.) Both lead from the initial tonic to the diatonic mediant (A
Minor’s C-E-G during the A sections, A Major’s C♯-E-G♯ during the B
section). Both continue with a root-position II➔ that leads to V(♯), where a
middleground third-progression is interrupted, followed by the post-
interruption attainment of a PAC. The principal form-defining event
within the mazurka is the wobble of the Kopfton from C to C♯ and back
to C, as displayed on the top beam in 2.11. (C♯ is anticipated during A1’s
cadential tonic in measure 32.)
The B section’s shape is ternary: x1 y x2. The binary x1 region’s ante-
cedent half begins with an extension of I-space via a 64 embellishment
(unfurled as D-F♯-A) and an ascending arpeggiation from Kopfton C♯
through E to A, followed by II➔ V, where a local interruption occurs on
^
2 at 403. Though ^3 is restored during the consequent half, the opening
Example 2.11 Analysis of Mazurka in A Minor (without opus 42B).
tonic is displaced by I6, with a restoration of I5 (at 443) only after the 64
embellishment. Concurrently the ascending arpeggiation attains greater
heights, reaching the upper octave of the wobble-modified Kopfton C♯ at
461. Chopin employs arpeggiation to descend from that high C♯ to goal A
in the lower octave during measures 46 through 48. Defying structural
norms, no ^2 supported by V comes between C♯ and A. (I propose that
Chopin projects the sense of a PAC in measure 48 nevertheless.)
The B section’s y region opens with a robust prolongation of A Major’s
mediant (C♯-E-G♯), first stated in measures 49 through 51 along with a
reinstatement of the raised Kopfton C♯. The sequential progression that
emanates from that C♯ chord normally would pursue the following course:
m. 49/51 52 53 54 55
57 58
C♯ B A G♯ F♯ E
C♯ G♯ A E F♯ C♯
In this instance Chopin allows the F♯ chord of measure 55 to evolve into

F♯➔. Consequently a brief and wayward excursion to a targeted B chord
occurs. It appears that Chopin is toying with an alternative means of
proceeding from III to V, via a circular progression: C♯ ( ) F♯➔ B➔ (E).
That alternative route is forsaken as he picks up again with the F♯ chord
and proceeds, as initially expected, to C♯ in measure 58, followed by a
repetition of the F♯ C♯ segment of the sequence, confirming the revised

course. Only then – in measure 61 – does the broader progression continue
with II➔ V. Because the sequence led the melody a significant distance
downwards from the raised Kopfton, that register is temporarily vacant.
(Note the B notehead inserted within parentheses at the top of the II♯ chord
in 2.11.) The following V’s B (middleground ^2) occurs only at the end of a
gradual filling-in of a G♯<B third, completed just as x2 commences. The B
section concludes with the full mapping of the x1 content into the x2 region.
Likewise, the mazurka as a whole concludes with the full mapping of the
content of A1 into the A2 section (minus the C♯ wobble of its closing
measure).
Opus 56/2
The G<C<E arpeggiation that initiates the Mazurka in C Major’s tonic
pillar [1.10] performs the same initiation duty, now transposed into toni-
cized A Minor and filled in by passing notes, at the onset of the B section:
E<F♯<G♯<A<B<C during measures 28 and 29. Though E serves as the
movement’s Kopfton (now a fifth above tonicized root A, rather than a
third above C), it temporarily remains out of the limelight so that C may
serve as the starting point for a descending third-progression (with inter-
ruption) during the B section’s first eight measures [2.12]. As was also the
case during A1, Chopin moves freely between registers: the third-
progression begins in the lower register, yet concludes in the upper regis-
ter. Kopfton E re-emerges during measure 38.14 As we have seen on several
other occasions, a circle of fifths (here with surging chords: A➔ D➔ G➔
7
C) is deployed to connect the tonic and the mediant. A conventional II V ♯ I
cadence supports the latter half of the fifth-progression from E, which is
then repeated in full.
What is the listener to make of the contents of measures 53 through 68?
My proposed interpretation rests upon two crucial facts: (1) the filled-in
ascending sixth of measure 53 relates both to G<C<E in measures 1
through 5 and to E<A<C in measures 28 and 29; and (2) what follows
this passage is the second half of the material that was presented earlier as
A1. Consequently I regard the passage as the onset of A2, wherein Chopin
incorporates a free variant of what occurred in that location during A1.
Whereas my reading of A1 posits a broad ascending arpeggiation to the
high E of 133, during A2 such a lengthy process of attainment for some-
thing that has by now become a prominent feature of the mazurka might
no longer remain engaging to listeners. Perhaps that is why Chopin does
not emphasize the E beyond its initial statement in his reformulated A2.
Concurrently he invigorates another basic idea: the persistent F♯>F♮ that
occurs six times during A1. Normally if one had to choose one of those two
pitches to eliminate, it would be F♯, leaving F as a diatonic neighbor to
Kopfton E. Chopin surprises us by retaining F♯ in place of F♮. (The latter
will have its turn also, in measure 56 and its replicates.) Within this
mazurka Chopin has created contexts for FD (measures 6 and 56), FD♯♯
(measures 37–38), and FD♯ (measure 54) in close proximity. The relation-
ship between F or F♯ and E is a significant factor in my reading of the
work’s structure as emanating from Kopfton ^3.
The new material stalls temporarily in measures 67 and 68. Its melodic
D in the lower register hooks up perfectly with the arrival of upper-
register D at the onset of the continuation borrowed from A1. The
mazurka concludes without a hitch. Its final tonic chord offers yet
another registral juxtaposition.
Opus 63/2
During the Mazurka in F Minor’s tonic pillar, the antecedent phrase’s
melodic descent from Kopfton C through imagined B♭ to A♭ transpired
^ ^3, which
in the context of I proceeding to III [1.22]. The background ^5>4>
occurs early in the B section, is supported in a similar way, though in this
case III arrives before the descent begins [2.13]. The continuation to the
supertonic is not surprising, since II➔ points toward the B section’s
dominant goal, which will arrive after a repetition of what has been
accomplished thus far within B. One pitch during that repetition is
Example 2.13 Analysis of Mazurka in F Minor (op. 63/2).

especially noteworthy: D♮ at 303. Whenever I and III are juxtaposed, the

analyst should consider whether the III assumes a prominent position
along the path to V♮, or whether it instead resides within a broader
prolongation of I. The first of these interpretations is projected in 2.13,
based on how measure 22 is structured: though the tonic pitch F sounds,
it serves there as a passing note connecting III’s E♭ and II♮’s G. (Via
chordal unfurling, F is doubled in the bass.) Chopin’s reconfiguration of
this chord during the repetition (at 303) instead supports the second
interpretation, since with D♮ the chord now represents a chromatic
variant of I6♮ (F-A♭-C-D♮), another common herald of II♮. Though it is
a small point, Chopin’s subtle change reveals the richness of his thought
on harmonic processes.
I developed the notion of peculiar juxtaposition in Schubert (chapter 1)
to account for successive passages that one might think should be analyzed
in equivalent ways due to their corresponding surface constructions but
that, taking the broader context into account, turn out to play contrasting
roles. Chopin’s repeat of I6♮ II♮ (measures 30 through 32) in the more
assertive form ♮VI➔ II♮ (measures 33 and 34) provides a strong incentive
to interpret the next two measures as V➔ I. Yet in 2.13 the potential tonic
chord is displayed instead as a passing 64 within a prolongation of the
dominant harmony. This passage parallels the mazurka’s first three mea-
sures: the tonic arrives in measure 4, not measure 2. Even when the 64 is
unfurled (as in measure 42 and measure 36), F is not asserted as the tonic
root. Chopin goes even further in developing this construction. Whereas in
measure 37 a D♭ is added to the embellishing chord as a neighbor, in
measure 39 that D♭ is absorbed as a chord member, consequently lowering
its resolution by a third, to an A♭ major chord. In the broader context
this A♭ chord serves as an embellishment of the dominant (as conveyed
by the figures and the abbreviations N and W in 2.13). The dominant
function resumes at the onset of the A2 tonic pillar, followed by the
re-emergence of Kopfton C and tonic root F, setting the stage for the
descent to the final PAC.15
Opus 63/3
The ascent from C♯ through D♯ to Kopfton E during the opening measures
of the Mazurka in C♯ Minor’s A1 section provides the kernel that Chopin
creatively expands during the B section [1.27 and 2.14]. An interior E that
sounds inconspicuously at 322, during A1’s PAC, serves as the initiation
point for a stepwise ascending line that traverses a full octave (filling out
that from 03 through 42), leading to the restored upper-register Kopfton ^3

for the A2 section. (Though Chopin employs a D♭ Major key signature in
his score, that of C♯ Minor is retained in 2.14.) At first the tonic is
prolonged (from 343 through 442), taking on first the major third and
later also the minor seventh of I➔. The long-extended E♯ results in a
temporary conversion into C♯ Major. Consequently the subdominant
that resolves I➔ is IV♯. Yet the ascending 5–6 sequence (with surging 6-
phase chords) that leads to IV’s upper-third chord targets C♯ Minor’s A
major (measure 49), rather than C♯ Major’s A♯ minor. The broader
progression continues with IV’s 6-phase chord in its II incarnation (at
493).16 By this point the melodic content of the A2 tonic pillar is commen-
cing, with a harmonization that at first contrasts that of the A1 presenta-
tion. Yet with the V7♯ of measure 50 the correlation is restored. Though the
tonic pillar within A2 is shortened and modified, a suitable PAC is achieved
in measure 64. Those modifications are of special interest, in that they
correlate with highlights of the B section: I➔ recurs in measure 60, IV♯ in
measure 61, and II in measures 61–62. An imitation-enhanced repetition
of most of the modified pillar concludes the mazurka.
Four-pillar mazurkas
Opus 7/2
The four presentations of the tonic pillar (a) within the Mazurka in A
Minor are arranged as follows:
A1 B A2
|: a1 :|: b a2 :| |: a1 :|: b a2 :|
A Minor ————— A Major A Minor —————
Consequently the B section stands out more boldly than do the b regions.
Whereas b resides within an internal rounded ternary form, B is a more
independent entity – what musicians often call a trio. Given how often the
tonic pillar recurs, it is not surprising that its internal binary structure
(the antecedent and consequent phrases shown in 1.19) is truncated during
the a2 statements, where only its consequent half is presented.
The 64 embellishing chord that occurs during the a region’s first measure
influenced how Chopin shaped the b region. Whereas in its initial statement
the chord might be imagined as deriving from concurrent neighboring
motions – E<F>E and (C)<D>C – another common context for a 64 would be
8 – 7 – 6 – 5
3♮ – ♯ – 4 – 3♮
Chopin devotes the entire b region to filling in the space between this device’s
8
3♮
and 7♯ components, deploying a hybrid circle of fifths. Whereas b’s first two
measures present a viable start – from a1’s A through D (realized as F♯-A♭-C-
E♭ = D ) to G, Chopin abandons that progression, backtracking to pursue a
more novel route. From a reinstated D in measure 19 he drops down a third
to B♭➔.17 The continuation of the circle of fifths proceeds along this lower
trajectory, as shown by the letter names that annotate 2.15.18 A corresponding
upper-third shift occurs as the circle draws to a close – in measure 24, where
E-G-B♭-D arrives as if rooted on C, but is departed as if rooted on E. Over
the course of the b region the melody fills in the tonic’s E>A fifth, while the
bass concurrently fills in its A>E fourth. (These expanses are slurred in 2.15.)
The 64 continuation in measure 25 (which corresponds to measure 1) is
unfurled into 53 position to accommodate the inverted A chord of 243.
The B section’s internal ternary form juxtaposes tonic prolongations
during the outer parts (labeled x in 2.15) with a motion to the dominant
(via a conventional I5–6 II➔ V harmonic progression) during the middle
part (labeled y).19 I propose that whereas E (= ^5) serves as the Kopfton for
the mazurka as a whole, the B section’s melodic focus is the third from C♯
to A (with interruption).20
Kopfton ^5 regains prominence with the onset of A2. The background
descent from ^5 to ^1 occurs during that section’s a2 region, bringing the
mazurka to a close [2.15].
Example 2.15 Analysis of Mazurka in A Minor (op. 7/2).
Opus 17/3
During the Mazurka in A♭ Major’s tonic pillar the Kopfton C ð¼ ^3Þ serves as
the starting point for a descending third-progression to the tonic root [1.16].
In the context of the A1 section’s internal a1 b a2 form (in measures 0|1
through 40), that third-progression’s C leads through B♭ during b to the
restored pillar’s endpoint A♭ during a2 [2.16]. (These pitches will constitute
the background descent during the reprise after the mazurka’s B section.)
The b region begins with six measures of strumming on II, focused melodi-
cally on the chromatic filling-in of II’s F>D♭ third, thereby prolonging the
Kopfton’s upper neighbor, D♭. The next two measures feature an evolved
dominant, during which the region’s melodic goal – ^2 (B♭) – is attained.21
The B section (likewise ternary) is in the key of F♭ Major (which Chopin
presents as E Major), a chromatic variant of I6, as noted in 2.16.22
Consequently the Kopfton wobbles from C to C♭. Harmonically there are
no surprises: the x regions proceed from the tonic to the dominant in their
antecedent phrases (where a descending fifth-progression from C♭ is inter-
rupted at G♭ [F♯]),23 and through the dominant to the tonic in their
consequent phrases (where the fifth-progression is completed). The y
region that intervenes proceeds from II➔ to V, supporting a prolonged
C♭ in the upper line, here covered by E♭. The ascending C♭<D♭<E♭ that is
repeated several times during measures 57 through 64 (where it undergoes
an internal upward registral shift, not shown in 2.16) is one of numerous
upward motions from deep structural pitches throughout the mazurka:
compare this C♭<E♭ third (tenth) with C<E♭ in measure 2 and D♭<F in
measure 17. That upward drive also energizes measures 41|42 through
45|46, where the arpeggiated bass from the tonic root to the dominant root
(F♭<A♭<C♭) is mimicked in the soprano as C♭<E♭<G♭, after which C♭ is
restored preceding the descent to F♭. For locomotion, Chopin deploys a
circular progression with one omitted element: F♭ (B♭) E♭ A♭ D♭ G♭ C♭.
Consequently the bald parallel motion on display in 2.16 does not occur in
the musical foreground.
Opus 33/3 [a.k.a. opus 33/2]

The Mazurka in D Major offers an interesting study in contrasts. The outer
A sections (first heard in measures 0|1 through 48) are uncommonly
repetitive and uncomplicated in their harmonic fabric, whereas the interior
B section is strikingly original, displaying chromatic writing that likely
baffled many of Chopin’s contemporaries. Whereas the initial tonic pillar
Example 2.17 Analysis of Mazurka in D Major (op. 33/3).
(a1 within A1) succeeds in establishing D Major via an interrupted third-

progression (F♯>E>D) descending from Kopfton ^3 [1.18], the transfer of
that material to a dominant context for the b region that follows offers no
successor to ^3: the C♯ of its C♯>B>A third-progression relates to the tonic’s
interior D, rather than to F♯. Though some may find my parenthetical E in
measures 17 and 89 of 2.17 dubious, it is consistent with my imaginative
approach to analysis, which tolerates some discrepancies between the
musical surface and a work’s foundational conception. In this case it
even constitutes a “motivic” relationship, since a parenthetical E occurs
in my reading of the tonic pillar as well.
Recall that in 2.16 the relationship between the A♭-C-E♭ tonic (with
Kopfton C) and a chromatic variant of its lower-third chord, F♭-A♭-C♭
(with wobbly note C♭) was at the heart of the move into and out of the B
section. A corresponding shift emerges at the onset of the B section in 2.17:
from tonic D-F♯-A to B♭-D-F♮. Yet in this case the progression moves
beyond the B♭ chord, ultimately to D Major’s dominant, A-C♯-E.
Consequently the soprano F♮ here functions broadly as a chromatic pas-
sing note, rather than as a wobbly note, even if its successor E sounds in the
bass (at 691) rather than in the soprano, where yet another ^2 appears within
parentheses in my graph.
Whereas II’s root E serves as the diatonic second scale degree in both D
Major and D Minor, the diatonic sixth scale degrees are not identical. In D
Major, B serves as ^6, and in the context of I5–6 II the tonic’s 6-phase chord
often evolves into a surging VI➔, targeting II. In a minor key, where B♭
serves as ^6, one might instead encounter VI➔ targeting ♭II, wherein the
supertonic’s lowering “fixes” the augmented fourth interval from diatonic

^
6 up to diatonic ^2 (transferring the imperfect interval to the connection
between ♭II and V). Observe that in this mazurka Chopin in fact proceeds
from B♭-D-F♮ (the I6 from the parallel minor key) to E-G♯-B (II♯). How is
this accomplished?
Though B♭<E is an awkward relationship within diatonic tonality
(modulo 7), it is a favored relationship within chromatic tonal space
(modulo 12), since it represents exactly half the span of an octave. It can
be traversed with ease once the bounds of diatonic tonality are removed:
for example, as 2+2+2 or as 3+3. Chopin pursues the latter course: 10 1 4 in
modulo 12 numerical notation (where C = 0). Because music notation was
designed to accommodate compositions conceived in modulo 7, compo-
sers had to contend with infelicities such as a succession from B♭ to D♭ (the
first +3) followed by one from D♭ [C♯] to E (the second +3).
Turning now to some details not conveyed in 2.17, note that the D
Major tonic’s chromaticized 6-phase chord (B♭-D-F♮) is tonicized during
an eight-measure phrase leading from B♭ to a cadence on its F dominant
(measures 49 through 56). The following phrase, charged with undertaking
the first +3 ascent, first converts to the parallel minor (B♭-D♭-F), thereby
placing goal D♭ within a locally diatonic context. The D♭-F-A♭ chord that
arrives in measure 62 plays no role within D Major. It instead is a
connector (within an obstinate circular progression: 3+3) between two
chords that do function within that broad context.
Chopin deals with the task of enharmonic conversion at 651, where a
dominant-emulating evolved state of the D♭/C♯ chord targets F♯. Yet the
F♯-A-C♯ chord does not take hold. Chopin backtracks, resolving the E♯-
G♯-B♮-D♮ chord repeatedly. Only on the third try does its resolution
endure and function within the broader harmonic progression. That
chord is not F♯ minor, but instead A major (in measure 70). The accom-
plishment of the second +3 is sudden and unexpected, yet alert listeners
would of course be aware of the special properties of the particular evolved
chord that Chopin introduces in measure 65. Whereas C♯-E♯-G♯-B♮ would
have targeted F♯ forthrightly, E♯-G♯-B♮-D♮ offers alternatives. Chopin
demonstrates that its root might be C♯, or that it might be E. By measure
69 we come to understand that E♯-G♯-B♮-D♮ stands for G♯-B♮-D♮-F♮, an
interpretation confirmed when ninth F♮ yields to root E♮. Having achieved
II➔ (thereby completing the 3+3 ascent), the dominant goal is easily
attained in measure 70. The mapping of A1’s structure into the A2 space
rounds out the mazurka, as shown in 2.17. The background arrival on ^1 is
followed by a tonic-focused coda.
Three-pillar mazurkas
Opus 6/1
The pitch C♯, the upper third to Kopfton A (= ^3), is prominently projected
during the Mazurka in F♯ Minor’s a1 tonic pillar [1.23]. When A gives
way to G♯ (supported by V♯) during the A1 section’s b region, C♯ serves as
an upper fourth, repeated forcefully on the downbeat of every second
measure.24 At first this buries G♯, though a forzando G♯ emerges in the
upper register at 202 (still below the highest C♯). The dominant is
prolonged without a tonicizing harmonic progression [2.18]. Instead,
three concurrent descending lines connect chord members during the
region’s eight measures: most prominently, the third from G♯ to E♯
(which serves as the dominant’s counterpart to a1’s A>F♯ third); the
fourth from C♯ to G♯; and the fourth from E♯ to B, in parallel sixths
below. G♯ is restored in the lower register as the terminus of the C♯>G♯
fourth (during 243). The return of the melody’s A during the a2 region
that follows conforms to the structure of an interruption (here at the
middleground level), as shown in 2.18. The goal of the melodic descent,
F♯, arrives at 402.
Because A1 is organized as a rounded ternary form (internal to the
larger form of the movement), the mazurka’s B section comes across as a
trio. Though it offers little variety either tonally or structurally, its playful
(scherzoso) character leads to a considerable contrast nevertheless. The
tonic pillar’s A>G♯>F♯ structural line is reconstituted as B>A>G♯>F♯
during measures 41 through 48, ending in a PAC. (This melody tran-
spires in the textural interior, though the upper line doubles most of its
pitches. Chopin’s accent marks, if observed by the performer, will help
focus the listener’s attention on this line.) What at first appears to be a
written-out repetition of those eight measures leads instead to a ritenuto-
enhanced HC, corresponding to the dominant of the earlier b section
(though now at the background level), supporting background ^2, as
displayed in 2.18.
Though listeners might expect to hear a da capo presentation of A1 –
that is, a repetition of a1 b a2, perhaps omitting the repeats – as a
conventional continuation after the trio, Chopin here abbreviates that
structure, supplying only the tonic pillar. Even with that reduction in
content, the B section’s interrupted ^2 connects with ^1 at the mazurka’s
concluding PAC.
Example 2.18 Analysis of Mazurka in F♯ Minor (op. 6/1).
Opus 6/2
Since ^3 serves as the Kopfton for the Mazurka in C♯ Minor [1.1], as it did
also in opus 6/1, it is not surprising that the young Chopin created virtually
identical foundational structures for the A1 sections of these two works.
(Compare 2.18 and 2.19.) A descending line again prevails during the
internal b region of opus 6/2, this time with more overt harmonic support
than was the case in opus 6/1, as the G♯ Major tonicization displayed in
2.19 suggests. Whereas CÜ, following its surge tendency (➔), might have
led upwards to D♯ for the dominant harmony, followed by an 8–7 descend-
ing motion through C♯ to the melody’s B♯ goal, in this case that D♯ is
elided, permitting a direct connection between CÜ and C♯.25
As in opus 6/1, the B section of opus 6/2 eventually attains background
^
2, supported by V♯. Chopin here calls upon III to mediate between I and
V♯. Embellishment of the 65 43
type (with an unfurling of the 64 chords into 53
position) pervades the mediant presentation. Its repetition is so persistent
that we are relieved to hear an unexpected shift during measure 40. But
what is the entity that Chopin so emphatically presents? As the section
unfolds we come to understand that he has jumped the tracks, so to speak,
by juxtaposing the 64 embellishment of mediant E and the 64 embellishment
of dominant G♯. (Note the temporary wobble of Kopfton E to E♯.) This
dominant continues to the end of the B section, which segues into a reprise
of the material from the introduction. Following the B section’s back-
ground ^2, the third-progression of A2 (where, as in opus 6/1, a statement

of the tonic pillar with written-out repeat substitutes for a full a1 b a2

reprise) achieves closure on ^1.
Opus 7/1
The Mazurka in B♭ Major, whose tonic pillar projects Kopfton 3^ [1.3],
shares an interruption-based middleground structure for its rounded
ternary A1 section with opus 6/1 and opus 6/2, with modest variations in
the detail. (Compare 2.18, 2.19, and 2.20.) An F sounds above both the
D ð¼ ^ 3Þ of the a1 tonic pillar [1.3] and the C ð¼ ^2Þ of the b region, and in
both cases upper neighbor G embellishes this F. A structurally deep inter-
ruption occurs at the close of the B section (again matching opus 6/1 and
opus 6/2), here achieved via a chromatic D>D♭>C descent (completed in
the tenor register), supported by I II➔ V. The restoration of the tonic and
the post-interruption descent to ^1 occur within A2, which abbreviates the
full reprise of the initial A1. Chopin instead inserts repeat signs requesting a
second pass through the B and A2 sections (reminiscent of the once
common, though by Chopin’s day often neglected, repeat of the develop-
ment and recapitulation sections within a likewise ternary sonata-form
movement). That feature is not shared with opus 6/1 or opus 6/2.
Example 2.20 Analysis of Mazurka in B♭ Major (op. 7/1).
Opus 7/4
Though ^5 serves as the Mazurka in A♭ Major’s Kopfton [1.11], the struc-
tural agenda of its A1 section (divided into a1, b, and a2 regions) still
corresponds to those of the three mazurkas with Kopfton ^3 that we have

just explored: namely, a local descent to ^1 (here prolonging ^5 rather than ^3)
during a1, an interruption on ^2 during b (achieved here by means of a
middleground descent through ^4 and ^3), and a descent to ^1 during a2
[2.21]. Since the B and A2 sections lie ahead, that descent is a middle-
ground rather than a background event. Kopfton ^5 is embellished by upper
neighbor F during the B section, followed by the background descent from
^
5 to ^1 during A2.
Though Kopfton E♭ is not literally stated as the b region begins, its
prolongation during A1 makes it available as the starting point for linear
initiatives as the mazurka continues. The E♮<F (in the texture’s interior)
during measure 9 emerges from the Kopfton, while the soprano melody
temporarily presents pitches from an interior strand. The D♮>C of 103–111
continues that line (wherein F serves as an incomplete upper neighbor) in
the first of several descents of a third from Kopfton E♭, here within the tonal
context of the tonicized mediant, C Minor. Though initially one might
suspect that the A♭ chord at 111 represents a restoration of the original A♭
Major tonic, the broader context of measures 9 through 14 projects a I5–6
♭II V♮ I progression in the key of C Minor, wherein A♭-C-E♭ serves as C’s
6-phase chord. Chopin cleverly moves beyond III using the ♭II of its
tonicization as IV within the broader A♭ Major progression connecting I
and V over the course of the entire b region.26 (Compare D♭-F-A♭ at 132
and at 152.) The chromaticism in the tenor register during measures 15 and
16 (C<D♭<D♮<E♭<F♭) extends beyond the dominant root by a half step,
creating a more dissonant variant of V than might be expected at this point.
Its occurrence here attains greater significance in that an identical chord
concludes the B section (at 363).
The B section begins with a tonicization of D♭ Major, which supports
Kopfton E♭’s upper neighbor, F. An interrupted third-progression transpires
over the course of measures 25 through 28 and then is repeated. Though
D♭-F-A♭ could come about as a 64 embellishment of tonic A♭, here what
follows confirms that a harmonic interpretation is appropriate: from the I
that concludes the A1 section, IV leads through its chromaticized 6 phase to
V. As mentioned above, this V’s disposition matches that in 163, due to the
non-resolution of suspension F♭ in measure 36, as shown in 2.21.
Abbreviating the ternary A1, the A2 section focuses entirely on the tonic
pillar. Given its position near the end of the composition, the descending
fifth-progression heard earlier in A1’s a1 and a2 regions now assumes a
background role, so that the A♭ at 403 concludes the Urlinie. The descent is
then repeated in the mazurka’s final four measures.
Opus 17/4
Kopfton ^5 (E), prolonged via a local fifth-progression during the Mazurka
in A Minor’s tonic pillar [1.21b], is the starting point for a middleground
descent commencing during the ensuing b region [2.22]. Note how
Chopin auditions two alternative harmonizations for C (E-A-C in mea-
sures 38 and 42 and D♯-F♯-A-C in measure 40) before proceeding to B.
(Some upper neighbors embellish E-A-C, as shown in 2.22.) Since the
descent is interrupted at ^2, the A1 section’s middleground fifth-progression
is completed during its a2 region.
The B section’s first eight measures conform to the standard disposi-
tion of an antecedent phrase, with a descent from Kopfton E interrupted
at B. Chopin presents this material in the parallel key, A Major. The
second phrase (not graphed) does not so well conform to what we might
expect. No descent to A (= ^1) occurs, and thus the interrupted ^2 of the
antecedent has no successor within the melody. During the repeat of the
two phrases, the situation deteriorates even further. Whereas at least a D
occurs in measure 76 as a token inauguration of descent during the first
“consequent” phrase, in measures 91 and 92 Chopin ascends to F♮. The
motivation for this turn of events can be found in the structure presented
in 1.21b, where an F plays a crucial role in energizing the soprano line.
Here that process is already under way during the latter portion of the B
section and continues through A2 to the background close on ^1 in
measure 108.
This mazurka’s coda is extraordinary. The reading in 2.22 depends upon
two potentially controversial assertions.27 First, I suggest that the II➔
harmony spelled as D♯-F♯-A-C in measure 109 is prolonged through
measure 114 (where Chopin spells D♯ enharmonically as E♭). A parallel
progression of diminished seventh chords (embellished by two antici-
pations, F♮ and B♭) connects those two supertonic statements.28 The
melody’s unfolded D♯>C is complemented by B<D♮ in measure 115 and
A<C in measures 115–116.29 Second, I suggest that the bass A, which
functions as a pedal point, prevents the interior A pitch (doubled)
during measure 115 from descending to G♯, as its role as a suspension
normally would require. The A-B-D-F chord substitutes for G♯-B-D-F
(a highly evolved V➔). A tonic resolution occurs in measure 116. Once
that progression has been repeated and briefly extended, Chopin pro-
ceeds to echo the material of the introduction. Consequently the
mazurka closes with a tonic chord embellished by F, an unresolved
upper neighbor.
Example 2.22 Analysis of Mazurka in A Minor (op. 17/4).
Opus 24/2
The relationship between G-B-D and D-F-A in measure 13 of the Mazurka
in C Major is interpreted in 1.4 as a 64 embellishment (unfurled) leading
into the harmonically asserted supertonic 53 . A similar 64 , now both unfurled
and tonicized, is prolonged throughout the work’s B section of this five-
section (A1 B A2 C A3) mazurka [2.23]. This tonicization offers a sur-
prise. Normally if the pitch F is established as a temporary tonic in C
Major, the diatonic pitch collection of F Major will be employed.
However, in this case the C Major pitches are retained (B♮ instead of
B♭), despite the fact that a I II➔ V I harmonic progression clearly
establishes F as a local tonic. Whereas the B♮ of measure 22 occurs
often as a chromatic pitch in F Major (as the third of II➔), the B♮ in
the melody at the end of measure 27 – projecting V7 as a chord with a
major seventh – is not characteristic of that key. Consequently the mode
of the F tonicization is not major, but instead Lydian.
The B section’s melody acrobatically jumps between two registers during
the F Lydian theme. Upward and downward stems in 2.23 segregate the
two principal strands, both of which descend a third (A>F and C>A). The
melody’s F at the cadence serves as an upper neighbor to the mazurka’s
Kopfton, E.
The C section following A2 offers an alternative to what occurred during
the introduction. Recall from chapter 1 that between the 5 and 6 phases of
the initial tonic harmony, a G-B-D chord occurs [1.4]. That is an idiomatic
choice within tonal practice. An equally viable and more dynamic option is
E➔, which leads to A via a surge. Chopin devotes the entirety of the C
section to a traversal of the path between the tonic C and this surging E
chord, a strategy motivated by the fact that this mazurka’s A sections
commence on I6. An idiosyncratic ascending 5–6 sequence serves as the
means of locomotion. Whereas a diatonic sequence with evolved 6-phase
chords might proceed as
C5————6 D5————6 E5
C A➔ D B➔ E
Chopin here charts a chromatic course, as

C5————6 D♭5———–6 E♭5————6 E5
C A♭➔ D♭ B♭➔ E♭ C♭[B] E
When a linear pattern works in units smaller than the diatonic steps, some
enharmonic conversions will be required, as here – an inevitable
consequence of using notation designed for diatonic modulo 7 tonality to

convey what is essentially a chromatic modulo 12 conception (here with
the cycle targeting D elided).
One detail of Chopin’s writing during the sequence is astonishing. Note
that measures 73–74 and 85–86 are identical in pitch content. Yet one
precedes an E♭ chord and the other an E chord. How can this be? In the
former, Chopin treats the E♭ as an upper neighbor to chord member D♮,
so that
E♭-F-A♭-C♭ stands for D♮-F-A♭ -C♭ ¼ B♭ ➔
targeting the E♭ chord of measure 84. In the latter, Chopin treats A♭ as an

anticipation of the following E chord’s third (alas, occurring at the same
moment as an enharmonic shift), so that
E♭ -F-A♭ -C♭ stands for C♭ -E♭ -G♭♭ -B♭♭
D♯ -F♮ -G♯ -B B-D♯ -F♮ -A ¼ B
targeting the E chord of measure 88.

The A3 section’s restored tonic arrives at 903. The tonic pillar continues
along its normative course from there, supporting the descending third-
progression that at this late point in the mazurka is interpreted as the
background descent to ^1. The coda deploys 64 embellishments freely over
the course of a I IV V I harmonic progression, bringing the mazurka to its
close.
Opus 24/4
In a minor-key composition the mediant often emerges on the path
between the tonic and the dominant (as is the case during this mazurka’s
tonic pillar [1.6]). Yet it may serve instead as a sort of major-key oasis: from
the tonic to its upper-third chord and back again. The Mazurka in B♭
Minor deploys such an oasis twice: during A1’s b region, and again during
the B section. Though Chopin uses contrasting means to attain the mediant
in these two cases, they both conclude with the same strategy for tonic
restoration, designed to accommodate the specific manner in which the
tonic pillar opens.
As often happens in a minor-key context, a segment of the descending
circle of fifths connects I and III at the onset of A1’s b region in conjunction
with a stepwise ascent from Kopfton D♭ to A♭ [2.24]. When ^3 serves as a
movement’s Kopfton, it generally will appear at the bottom of a third- or
Example 2.24 Analysis of Mazurka in B♭ Minor (op. 24/4).
fifth-progression during the tonicization of the mediant key. The harmonic

progression that transpires through measure 28 supports not only the
melodic descending fifth from A♭ to D♭, but also an interior strand that
descends by step from D♭ to F. The mediant oasis continues with a
repetition of the structure (not graphed).30 Yet a surprising turn of events
emerges in measure 35, where the progression’s penultimate chord, V7 in
D♭, loses its will to continue and quickly veers downwards in half steps,
landing on the V7 of the mazurka’s B♭ Minor home key (retaining the
“wrong” note D♭ in place of C, as was also the case during the initial
statement of the tonic pillar [1.4]). Squiggly lines in 2.24, like those in
1.23 and 2.6, indicate the free fall through tonal space.
Chopin’s strategy for accomplishing the B♭-to-D♭ shift during the B
section contrasts the earlier circular strategy, yet it is closely allied to the
D♭-to-B♭ shift that closes both of these contrasts to the tonic pillar. We
noted above that two dominants are juxtaposed at the end of A1’s b region:
➔
D♭ Major: D♭ A♭
B♭ Minor: F➔ B♭
Chopin employs the same principle in reverse during measures 53

through 64:
➔
B♭ Minor: B♭ F
D♭ Major: A♭➔ D♭
In this case there is no free fall (in part because the bass ascends from F to
A♭), but instead a harmonic trajectory is pursued in the context of D♭
Major, noted in 2.24. While attaining the mediant, Chopin also transfers
Kopfton D♭ down an octave.
Above and beyond the contrasting melodic and harmonic frameworks,
two features of the B section’s D♭ tonicization differ from what occurred
during A1’s b region. First, despite the apparent intent to contrast the
minor-mode tonic, D♭ Major soon takes on features of D♭ Minor.
Second, the phrase that establishes D♭ as a local tonic ends in a half cadence
at both measures 76 and 92 (extended). Consequently the dominant
harmony that Chopin calls upon in his strategy to get back to B♭ Minor
is already established as a goal and does not need to be removed from its
context, as was the case with the A♭ dominant in measure 35. Chopin adds
a further element of excitement during this second traversal: his free fall
begins not with the dominant’s fifth (E♭) in the melody, but with its
seventh. The third G♭>F>E♮>E♭ (measures 95 through 97) precedes the
E♭>D♮>D♭ that occurs in A1’s b region.
The mazurka’s background structural descent transpires during A2.

Though the preceding B section dwarfs the A2 phrase’s eight measures,
Chopin elected not to reprise the entire A1 rounded ternary predecessor as
A2. Instead, after stating the tonic pillar a second time (as was the case
during A1’s a1 region as well) he proceeds immediately to a substantial
coda, where a poignant surprise emerges: at the end of a second pass
through an extended and evolving embellishing chord, the tonic
re-emerges with major third D♮ (at 1282), which is retained through the
end of the mazurka.
Opus 50/1
The D-F♯-A-C chord that precedes I at the opening of the Mazurka in G
Major does not participate in a substantive harmonic progression [1.25].
However, in both the B and C sections of the five-part form, Chopin creates
a vibrant tonic-prolonging harmonic progression that calls upon this
chord (at the onset of the second and third statements of the tonic pillar)
to take on a more assertive harmonic role, as V7 within a I5–6 II(➔) V➔ I
progression [2.25]. The B section proceeds only so far as II➔, pointing to
A2’s initiating V➔ I. During C, V➔ (initially with both ninth and seventh)
is attained and then reiterated once the tonic pillar (A3) begins. In the
former, II surges towards V, whereas in the latter the tonic’s 6-phase chord
surges (as VI➔) towards II.
The deluge of chords during the C section dwarfs the B section’s
modest dimensions. Yet most of those chords are deployed in the context
of two circular progressions that connect hierarchically deeper chords.
Chopin calls upon the versatility of the descending circle of fifths to
pursue both ascending and descending trajectories. Emphasizing every
third chord, he ascends two thirds (G<B♭<D in measures 42 through 46);
emphasizing every second chord, he descends two seconds (D>C>B in
measures 50 through 52). Whereas a local G D➔ G progression would be
an ideal means of prolonging I5, when instead a I5–6 succession is being
pursued (measures 42 through 53), an internal B➔ embellishing chord
often occurs instead of or after a D➔ chord.31 The circular progression in
measures 50 through 52 accomplishes a downward migration of the surge
tendency, from D➔ through C➔ to B➔. The I6 to which B➔ resolves is
asserted as VI➔.32
In its final statement, as A3, the tonic pillar’s fifth-progression serves as
the mazurka’s background descent. A coda projects that fifth again, as
outlined in 2.25.
Example 2.25 Analysis of Mazurka in G Major (op. 50/1).
Opus 50/2
Recall that a C major chord (C minor with a wobbly E♮) crops up during
the Mazurka in A♭ Major’s tonic pillar [1.26, measures 22 through 24].
Later, a C Minor tonicization extends through the B section within the
mazurka’s five-part form [2.26]. Its initial C chord likewise incorporates
E♮, propelling (in conjunction with the seventh, B♭) a surge towards C
Minor’s IV at the outset.33 (The chord’s diatonic C-E♭-G state is elided.) In
fact, since the section ends with a Picardy third, a minor tonic never
sounds. It is sensed through the pitches A♭, B♭, and D♭ that occur during
the phrase interiors. The two phrases (measures 29–32 and 33–36, which
are integrated in 2.26) differ in two principal respects. First, the second
phrase is more overt in its harmonic orientation, with the bass potently
projected as C>F<G<C. Second, they realize the notion of antecedent/
consequent pair in an uncommon way. Here Kopfton C is an octave
above tonicized root C. Chopin elects to traverse a descending sixth-
progression (from C to E♮) over the course of the section, proceeding
only so far as the dominant’s seventh (F) during the antecedent phrase.34
The concluding E♮ resolves that dissonance definitively only during the
consequent phrase (at the end of which the inner-strand D>C is transferred
to the top of the texture).
Another sixth, F<D♭ in measures 60 through 67, inaugurates the mazur-
ka’s C section in the context of the A♭ tonic’s unfurled 64 embellishment,
tonicized as D♭ Major. The section’s deep structure is guided by an inter-
rupted F>E♭>D♭ third-progression whose concluding D♭ serves as the
upper neighbor of the movement’s Kopfton, C. Chopin deploys a familiar
tonal trajectory during the middle part (y) of the section’s three-part form:
from the tonic’s 6-phase chord through II to V7. The II harmony is
enlivened by the pitch C, an anticipation of the following dominant’s
third. (The C results from Chopin’s maintenance of measure 70’s melodic
contour despite the contrasting harmonic trajectory.)
A final statement of the tonic pillar brings the mazurka to a close, with a
background descent to ^1 coordinating with the PAC.
Opus 56/1
The Mazurka in B Major’s tonic pillar is unusual in that it begins with an
extended II to V7 harmonic succession, preceding the tonic arrival at 161
[1.9]. Consequently the tonal design of the B1 and B2 sections must be
compatible with having II as an immediate successor, a situation not
encountered in any of the other mazurkas we have explored. Chopin’s

instinct to use the tonic’s 6-phase chord as the B1 section’s goal (measures
69ff.) reflects the prominence of I5–6 II V7 I progressions in the music he
knew and composed [2.27a]. In this case I6, unfurled as diatonic G♯-B-D♯,
sounds initially in its first chromatic variant, G♯-B♯-D♯, which Chopin
spells enharmonically as A♭-C-E♭. Because a D♯ [E♭] region (a tonicized
expansion of G♯’s upper-fifth embellishing chord that eventually targets G♯
as D♯➔) precedes the G♯ [A♭] chord’s arrival in measure 69, an E♭ Major
key signature is employed. As is often the case in ascending a third from the
tonic (here B to D♯ [E♭]), a segment of the descending circle of fifths is
deployed (B E♯ A♯➔ D♯). Whereas D♯ arrives during the fourth measure
of the B1 material’s first statement (measure 48), it is present from the onset
of the second statement (measure 61). In the first statement a G♯ [A♭]
chord (measure 53) functions as IV within the local tonicization of D♯
Major, whereas at measure 69 it takes on the role of I6 in the connection of
B Major’s I and II. Despite the potential for this prolonged G♯ chord to
surge as VI➔, targeting the C♯ supertonic that begins A2, Chopin here
restores diatonic G♯-B-D♯ at measure 79, just before the continuation to
C♯. Though that event often would signal that B♮ will be absorbed by the C♯
chord as its minor seventh, here that is not literally the case, though one
might easily prolong the B imaginatively through beats 1 and 2 of measure
81, with resolution to A♯ on beat 3.
Chopin’s tonal plan during the B2 section concludes with an astonishing
passage. Recall that the essence of the B1 section was to proceed from D♯➔
to G♯, with time devoted to attaining and then tonicizing the D♯ chord
before its ➔ surge reached full force. At the onset of the B2 section
(measures 102–103), a variant of that trajectory, D♮➔ G♮, occurs swiftly.
Whereas the B1 section’s G♯-B♯-D♯ is the unfurled first chromatic variant
of the B Major tonic’s 6-phase chord, the B2 section’s G♮-B-D♮ is the
second. Due to its immediate arrival, more time is available for a G
Major tonicization. As 2.27a shows, it appears that a fifth-progression
descending from D♮ (a wobble from Kopfton D♯) is in the works. An
antecedent phrase proceeds as far as G Major’s dominant, supporting A♮,
the penultimate note in that fifth-progression. Will the consequent phrase
that begins in measure 119 succeed in attaining a PAC in G Major?
Whereas the B1 section’s G♯ chord leads effectively to the C♯ supertonic
that initiates the tonic pillar, the B2 section’s G♮ chord does not. Might the
pillar begin a half step lower (a “Neapolitan” transformation) during its A3
presentation to accommodate the G major variant of I6? Or might the G
chord somehow be raised by a half step to lead effectively to the diatonic
Example 2.27 Mazurka in B Major (op. 56/1) (a) Analysis of the work; (b) The sequence of measures 181 through 189.
(a)
(b)
supertonic? Chopin chose the latter alternative, which he realizes in a

flamboyant manner. In both phrases a D♮ emerges at the top of the
dominant chord that might lead to the PAC tonic. (In the graph this is
condensed into a single presentation, labeled with measure numbers 112/
132.) Over the course of measures 136 through 142 Chopin deploys
arpeggiated 63 chords (beginning with F♯-A-D♮) to float gently downwards
through tonal space from that dominant to a tonic that happens to be one
half step higher than the expected one. That half-step elevation is the very
correction that will allow the B2 section to proceed effortlessly to the
supertonic that begins the A3 tonic pillar, repeating the trajectory that led
from B1 into A2.35
The coda confirms B Major through two consecutive statements of a
magnificent hybrid circle of fifths (measures 181–189 and 189–197).
Though Chopin incorporates a number of minor deviations, such as
anticipations and suppressed melodic pitches, the normative contour dis-
played in 2.27b guides its course. Whereas the circle might have proceeded
in an alternation of 8 and 5 in the outer voices throughout, its first half
transpires with the bass lowered by a third, so that the 8 5 alternation is
replaced by 10 7 (thereby charged with dissonance).36 Of course, this
lowering from B to G♯ replicates the tonal course of the mazurka’s B1
section. In this case an ascending third restores the normative bass for the
second half of the progression.37 The two boxes below the staff in 2.27b
denote the sites of the lowering and raising by a third.
3 Irregular pillars in the mazurkas: alternatives
to the perfect authentic cadence
The projection of a mazurka’s tonic key is sometimes accomplished via a

tonic pillar that does not conclude in a PAC on the tonic. Closes on the
dominant, on the mediant, or with an IAC on the tonic are viable alter-
natives to a regular tonic pillar. For example, irregular and regular tonic
pillars may serve successively in shaping the A sections of a broad A1 B A2
form. An irregular pillar that concludes in a half cadence may be referred to
as a I–V tonic pillar, while one that leads to the mediant may be referred to
as a I–III tonic pillar. These situations, as well as some more unusual
designs, are explored in this chapter, which brings our exploration of all
the mazurkas that Chopin published during his lifetime to a close.
A tonic pillar concluding with an IAC
Opus 17/1
The Mazurka in B♭ Major’s enigmatic tonic pillar might elicit several
potential structural interpretations. Does the principal line connect ^5 and
^ 3 and ^1, or ^5 and ^1? Is the line traversed in four measures and then
3, ^
repeated, or instead spread over eight measures?1 The prominence of F’s
upper neighbor G in the mazurka’s B section (sounding first in measure 29)
is a factor in choosing F rather than D as the Kopfton. The model for a1
displayed in 3.1a seems to me the most apposite. Kopfton F is prolonged
during I-space, where an embellishing 64 facilitates the local descent of a
third (F>E♭>D). The V that follows supports ^4 and likewise incorporates a
descending third (E♭>D>C), preceding a tonic close on ^3, where, this time,
the motivic third (D>B♭) lacks an internal C. The entire phrase is then
repeated in measures 5 through 8, with modest variants (such as the 4–3
suspension in measure 7).
Chopin alters the tonic pillar in important ways during its a2 presenta-
tion (measures 17 through 24), following the b region. The A♭ that
enlivens I-space from the outset results in a surging approach to the 64
embellishment (here with minor-hued G♭ substituting for G♮) from
Example 3.1 Mazurka in B♭ Major (op. 17/1) (a) Analysis of mm. 0|1–29; (b) Analysis of the work.
(a)
Example 3.1 (cont.)
(b)
above: (elided B♭)>A♭>G♭>F connects the boundaries of I-space during

measures 17 and 18. The presentation of the tonic chord in its second
inversion at 183 allows for a stepwise connection to bass G♭ for the
inverted II75 ♭ (again with a borrowing from the parallel minor key) that
now shares duties with V in supporting ^4.2 In the phrase reiteration that
follows in measures 21 through 24, Chopin further develops the super-
tonic, both through its evolution into II➔ and through the expansion of
the preceding I-space into I5–6, a characteristic means of leading into II.
(Observe that I6 is here asserted as VI➔, pointing dynamically toward the
supertonic.) Note also how measure 24 differs from the similar measures 4,
8, and 20 (all of which sound D on their third beat, supporting my reading
3 within linear descents from ^5 at those points). In that the tonic pillars
of ^
as yet have presented only the upper half of the F>B♭ fifth, measure 24 is the
day of reckoning: will the line achieve its B♭ goal, resulting in a PAC; or will
we have to settle for an IAC as the structural close? Whereas earlier the b
region (to be explored presently) introduced the second scale degree, now
the descent through 2^ to ^1 occurs quickly just as the section (or, during A2,
the entire work) comes to a close.
The b region that comes between a1 and a2 to shape the mazurka’s A1
section deploys II➔ V to succinctly achieve its dominant goal. Though the ^2
that serves as ^3’s successor in the linear descent is presented forzando in the
low and middle registers at 91, its sounding at the top of the texture is delayed
until 151 (at the end of a crescendo). The structural content is presented in
four measures (9 through 12) followed by a varied repetition, thereby
matching the format introduced during the a1 region. Chopin indulges in
a flamboyant flourish during that repetition, with a rapid traversal of a circle
of fifths supporting a stepwise descent through the dominant’s C>F fifth.
The B section is structured as an autonomous trio [3.1b]. The B♭ tonic’s
embellishing 64 chord (first heard in measure 2) is here unfurled and
asserted as the key of E♭ Major. Though the chordal progressions at various
structural levels remain uncommonly simple, the embedding of one inter-
rupted progression within a broader one is sophisticated. Chopin under-
takes excursions above the melody’s fundamental structure. The third from
C to A♭, filled in chromatically between 343 and 363 and between 431 and
433, is especially intriguing. In fact, given that in both contexts the motion
continues downwards (by leap) to F, a reference to measures 15 and 16 may
be discerned, despite the contrasting tonal contexts (fifth to root of domi-
nant F in B♭ Major versus ninth to fifth of dominant B♭ in E♭ Major).
The ^5 that is restored along with the resumption of the B♭ Major tonic
for the onset of A2 again serves as the starting point for a descending
Irregular pillars in the mazurkas 95
fifth-progression. Because the A2 section concludes the work, this time that
descent corresponds to the Urlinie.
The immediate restoration of I after a I–V tonic pillar
Opus 7/3
In a mazurka whose A1 section closes with a PAC in the tonic key, the B
section may initially extend that tonic and then pursue a dominant goal. (As
an example, see 2.3.) That strategy may prevail even if A1 ends in a vibrant
HC. In 3.2, which displays an analysis of Chopin’s Mazurka in F Minor,
observe how the melodic A♭>G that transpires over the course of A1 (with
written-out repeat) is followed by the quick reaching-over of B♭, which
resolves to a restored Kopfton A♭ early in the B section. Consequently the
background tonic extends into measure 28, despite the HC in measures 16
and 24.
The mysterious introduction is grounded on lower-neighbor embel-
lishment of the tonic’s root and third (imagining a G to go along with
C and E♮, as occurs literally in measures 77ff.). The potential assertion of
the introduction’s C-E♮-(G) as V♮ and F-(A♭)-B♮-D♭ as II will be
discussed later, in the context of this material’s recurrence at the juncture
of B and A2.3 The initial tonic pillar that follows is simply constructed: the
tonic is solidly established by means of upper-neighbor embellishment of
its third and fifth in measure 11 (complementing the lower neighbors of
the introduction), followed by a progression through II➔ to V♮.
Example 3.2 Analysis of Mazurka in F Minor (op. 7/3).

The harmonic trajectory that prevails during the B section follows a

conventional course, though with one notable omission. Most of the section
is devoted to the connection of the F tonic’s 5- and 6-phase chords: F-A♭-C
and D♭-F-A♭. One of two intermediary chords often occurs between those
➔
points: either C-E♮-G (as C, an embellishing chord of the preceding F
tonic) or A♭-C-E♭, which likewise possesses a natural dominant-emulating
tendency (as A♭➔, which embellishes the 6-phase D♭-F-A♭, here abetted by
the addition of G♭ at 613). Chopin pursues the latter course, first attaining the
A♭ chord via a segment of the descending circle of fifths (measures 26
through 30) and then tonicizing it until it surges towards D♭. The proposal
of an omission, mentioned above, stems from the fact that I6 often leads to II,
which in turn targets V♮. In a minor key, a very special relationship exists
between I6 and II : the former (D♭-F-A♭ in Chopin’s mazurka) may be a
subset of the latter (D♭-F-A♭-B♮).4 Yet instead of adding B♮ in the vicinity of
measure 73, Chopin allows the three pitches of the unfurled I6 each to
descend a half step in turn, in a direct approach to V♮.5 This memorable
and unusual voice leading heightens the emotional impact that Chopin seeks
to attain also through the pianissimo dynamic indication and the ritenuto,
sotto voce, and smorzando markings. Rewarding those listeners who noted
the II omission, the following dominant prolongation (which reprises the
mysterious introduction) uses the very notes of II – D♭-F-A♭-B♮ – in an
embellishing context. Though V♮’s arrival concludes the B section’s harmo-
nic progression, the embellishing chords that follow uncannily project the
unsounded harmonic predecessor of V♮.
The A2 section is constructed as a regular tonic pillar. Though its first
phrase again ends on V♮, the phrase that follows is no mere repeat of the
preceding one (as are measures 17 through 24). It instead serves as a conven-
tional consequent phrase, concluding in a PAC that supports background ^1.
Ultimately the A1 section’s irregular close is of only local significance.
The circle of fifths that leads out of I-space soon after the onset of the B
section would transpire just the same regardless of what cadence occurs in
measure 24.
Opus 30/1
Several features of the Mazurka in C Minor [3.3] echo those of the Mazurka
in F Minor [3.2]. The A1 sections of both works present a I–V♮ tonic pillar,
employing II➔ to lead to V♮. Likewise, a restoration of the tonic function
occurs at or near the beginning of both B sections, followed by a segment of
the descending circle of fifths that leads to the mediant. In the Mazurka in
Example 3.3 Analysis of Mazurka in C Minor (op. 30/1).
C Minor that restored tonic (at 163) is surging, already targeting the next
chord in the circle of fifths. Both mazurkas tonicize the mediant, and both
reach V♮ by the end of the B section. During A2 suitable revisions convert
what was an irregular pillar during A1 into a regular one.
The chief difference between the two mazurkas’ structures concerns the
manner in which the background V♮ is attained. Whereas the mediant in
the Mazurka in F Minor ultimately leads to the diatonic I6, which could
have proceeded (but does not) to II before V♮, in the Mazurka in C Minor
the mediant is followed by a chromatic variant of I6 at 283. This chord in
fact does lead through II➔ to V♮.6 Yet Chopin’s conception is even richer.
As the two tiers of measure numbers in 3.2 and 3.3 suggest, both mazurkas
make extensive use of repetition. For a few measures of the Mazurka in
C Minor, Chopin eschews that practice and composes distinctive content,
so that the connection between the mediant and dominant in measures 22
through 24 (not graphed) does not match that which occurs between
measures 28 and 30. (Note also that the mediant is expanded – measures
20 through 22 – during the former phrase, while the dominant is extended –
measures 30 through 36 – during the latter.) The former leads from III
through IV to V♮. (The stepwise connection between III and IV is facilitated
by the shift to III’s 6-phase chord at 232.) Because of the persistent repetition
during the A1 and B sections, the two dominant arrivals should be under-
stood as equivalent. Chopin achieves his goal; then he backtracks and
presents another pathway to the same goal. To enhance clarity the graph
integrates those trajectories as much as possible, favoring the latter when
they diverge.
One way or another, the irregular tonic pillar of A1 must be transformed
into a regular one during A2. The latter’s opening phrase reprises the full
content of A1’s I–V♮ progression. What follows starting at 451 – which one
might even resist calling a phrase – attains tonic closure in an unusual way.
Instead of proceeding through the dominant to the expected PAC, it merely
prolongs its initiating tonic. Consequently the local E♭>D>C descent of
measures 46 through 48 serves as a motion to background ^1, the endpoint
of descending lines from ^3 at three distinct structural levels, as indicated by
the multiple beams in 3.3.
Op. 30/4
The chords of the Mazurka in C♯ Minor’s introduction precede not only
the tonic harmony that opens the A1 section, but also, through their
recurrence at the end of the B section, the initial tonic of A2 as well.
Their structural implications will be discussed below in terms of the latter

context, which the introduction replicates only in part. Once the tonic
harmony and Kopfton E emerge in measure 5, a broad tonic expansion
ensues. F♯’s roles as both neighboring note to E and passing note to upper-
third G♯ are on display in 3.4. The ♮II harmony serves as the principal
connector between I and V♯ during the expansion of ^3I . Though the
arrival of the pillar’s cadential dominant is placed at measure 31 in 3.4,
Chopin’s writing in measures 28 through 31 teases listeners: should the
passage be interpreted as repetitions of V➔ I followed by V♯, or instead as
repetitions of V 53 ♯ 64 53 ♯ (with the 64 chords unfurled)?
As in the other mazurkas explored in this segment of the chapter, the
tonic harmony and the Kopfton are restored early in the B section. Initially
the C♯ minor chord is fortified through motion to its upper fifth, G♯
(measures 39ff.). The broad melodic descent E>D♯>C♯ over measures 34
through 65 shifts from representing the third to root of the C♯ tonic chord
to the seventh to fifth of an F♯ chord. Whereas Chopin utilizes the
descending circle of fifths in the B sections displayed in 3.2 and 3.3 to
connect the tonic and the mediant, here the circle extends only to its third
chord: C♯ F♯ B. This B chord is tonicized between measures 66 and 95
(parts of which are displayed in 3.4). Chopin’s tonal plan involves a
conversion from subtonic B to dominant G♯.7 The harmonic analysis in
3.4 displays the B chord as a not yet fully formed dominant: the pitch B is
the wobbly third of the G♯ major dominant, with the arrival of root G♯
delayed until measure 99. The B-D♯-F♯ tonicization is an upper-third
substitution for the rightful G♯-B♯-D♯ dominant tonicization. Chopin
negotiates the transition between B and G♯ by juxtaposing embellishing
chords targeting each: F♯➔ in measures 94 through 96 and D♯➔ in
measures 97 and 98. By the time the G♯ chord arrives, it is too late for
further tonicization. Its minor seventh F♯ is already in place, and so instead
of content extending its role as I in tonicized G♯, it asserts its background
role as V7♯ , announcing the restoration of the C♯ tonic for the A2 section. As
mentioned above, the D♯➔ and G♯➔ chords were first encountered within
the mazurka’s introduction.
The A2 section offers an intriguing reprise of the dominant–subtonic
relationship. Certainly a PAC must be attained at the close of A2. The
dominant at measure 128 is where the precedent harmonic trajectory of A1
concludes. How will Chopin achieve a tonic cadence? His extraordinary
response involves a plan to proceed from the already attained dominant to
its subtonic upper-third chord and then back again. Both of those moves
are accomplished through an inspired yet unconventional construction.
Whereas the subtonic–dominant connection within the B section was

negotiated via a shift of embellishing chords, in these final measures
Chopin instead deploys a linear progression to connect the G♯ and B
chords themselves: a wondrous application of the descending circle of
fifths, filled with altered pitches, added dissonances, and enharmonic
spellings, which transpires as
m. 128 129 130 131 132
|
G♯ C♯ F♯ B E A D♮ G♮ C♮ F♮ B|
In this interpretation, a collision at beat 3 of measure 132 involves two
adjacent chords within the circle – F♮ (which in a familiar evolved state
would be correctly spelled as A-C♭-E♭-G♭) and B (spelled as B-D♯-F♯-A) –
that are enharmonic equivalents of one another. The passage in fact comes
across as a parallel progression of major-minor seventh chords – as a
temporary transfer from diatonic modulo 7 tonal space into the modulo
12 realm, where spans such as this G♯>B may be traversed by unconven-
tional means, in this case through a descent in half steps: 8 (7) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
11 (with C = 0).8 The dominant restoration is likewise inventive. Whereas
B♯-D♯-F♯-A would be a suitable successor of the subtonic chord, projecting
a conventional intensification of the dominant function, in this case lead-
ing tone B♯ is displaced by an anticipation of its resolution: C♯-D♯-F♯-A is
prolonged during measures 133 through 138.9 At the cadence F♯ resolves to
E and A resolves to G♯ above tonic root C♯. The soprano tonic ^1, antici-
pated during the dominant harmony, sounds only in the bass at the
cadence. Consequently the C♯ that concludes the background ^3>^2>^1
melodic descent is displayed within parentheses in 3.4.
Without opus 42A

A prominent feature of the irregular tonic pillar that serves as A1 for the
Mazurka in A Minor is its array of ^3>^2 descents [3.5a]. Most are local
manifestations, within their own four-measure phrases. Some are preceded
by their upper thirds. (The descending third E>D♯>D♮>C beginning in
measure 9 inverts the ascending sixth E<A<B<C in the left hand of
measures 1 and 2.) Others are perched a third higher, in a temporary
tonicization of the mediant, attained via a segment of the descending circle
of fifths in measures 15 through 17 (the same means by which the mediant
is attained in 3.2 and 3.3). The ^2 that arrives at 331 is of a higher order. The
dominant root E that supports it is attained by means of a gradual bass
ascent from the initial tonic A through mediant C, supertonic third D, and
Example 3.5 Mazurka in A Minor (Without opus 42A) (a) Analysis of mm. 1–40; (b) Analysis of the work.
(a)
Example 3.5 (cont.)
(b)
surging D♯. Its arrival at the outset of a four-measure phrase strengthens its
impact. Though the melodic line starting at 332 matches that of the open-
ing measures, the context does not support a tonic assertion.10 (In this case
C-D♯-F♯-A serves as an embellishing chord between two dominant chords,
rather than as an asserted II➔ connecting I and V♯.) Even the “tonic” that
seems to re-emerge at measure 37 might serve foundationally as an unfur-
ling of the dominant’s 64 embellishment (as displayed in 3.5a), here
asserted as I at the foreground level to inaugurate a synoptic repetition of
the pillar’s I-to-V♯ trajectory.
The mazurka’s B section is a binary construction [3.5b]. Both halves
begin with an unhurried attainment of the major tonic (measures 44 and
60), which is then extended via a I IV5–6 V7 I progression. During the x1
half, the progression continues thereafter to the mediant’s first chromatic
variant, of major quality. (Whereas during A1, tonic A-C-E proceeds to
C-E-G, the x1 half of B proceeds from tonic A-C♯-E to C♯-E♯-G♯.) Though
the opening of x2 is modified harmonically to accommodate the continua-
tion after the mediant (as opposed to the dominant, as was the case at the
juncture of A1 and B), the tonic re-emerges as expected in measure 60.
Prolonged through measure 68, the progression then continues with II75 ♯ ,
which supports C♯’s incomplete upper neighbor. Passing motion to
^
2 coordinates with the dominant’s arrival. Given its location at the
divide between B and A2, this dominant functions at the background
level, supporting the Urlinie’s ^2. As is often the case, an interruption of
that line’s descent coincides with the A2 tonic restoration, which here
also re-engages the diatonic Kopfton C♮, rescinding the B section’s C♯
wobble.
The tonic pillar that ensues within A2 is regular: 1^ is attained in the
context of a PAC in measure 110. Numerous ^2^1 reiterations, which
complement the local ^3^2 descents that pervade the initial portion of A2,
extend this close.
Op. 63/1
The eight-measure phrase that opens the Mazurka in B Major proceeds in a
conventional fashion: from I5–6 through II➔ to V [3.6a]. (An unfurled
embellishing 64 chord in measure 3 extends the initial tonic.) The next
phrase is not a consequent ending in a PAC, but instead a repetition of the
progression to the HC, with the melody presented an octave higher.
Consequently the tonic pillar is irregular.
Example 3.6 Mazurka in B Major (op. 63/1) (a) Analysis of the work; (b) Analysis of
mm. 31–61.
(a)
(b)
As in the four mazurkas explored earlier in this section, the tonic is

restored soon after the B section begins. (Like measure 24 in 3.3, the tonic
in measure 21 of this mazurka is surging – as B➔ – upon its return, setting
in motion a descending circle of fifths.) Unlike those four mazurkas, here
the B section broadly extends the tonic. Observe in 3.6a how the harmonic
progression at the onset of B is a variant of that in A1, the most crucial
difference being its close in a PAC in measure 28. Immediately thereafter
the latter part of the phrase is reiterated: from II➔ in measures 29 and 30 to
V7 in measures 31 and 32. Though eventually that dominant will find its
tonic, closing the B section (as shown in 3.6a), an extended episode that
tonicizes F♯ Major intervenes. Before we explore that passage, note how the
fact that the B section prolongs I results in a modest revision in the chordal
content at the onset of A2, where the succeeding root F♯ (compare with
measure 5) occurs already against the Kopfton (measures 69–70).11 In
contrast to the A1 statement of the tonic pillar, this time the pillar’s second
phrase, which is expanded, leads to a PAC.
At its most basic level, the prolongation of the F♯ dominant during the
latter part of the B section does what most tonicizations do: it proceeds
from the tonicized pitch (F♯) to its dominant (C♯) and back [3.6b]. In this
instance the F♯<C♯ fifth is divided into two thirds, with A prominently
articulated several times between measures 34 and 48. An upper-third
extension of this mediant sounds first in measure 39. There is even a
brief competition between upper-third C♯ and upper-fifth E (in measure
41, not graphed). The definitive motion to dominant root C♯ (attained in
measure 57) is accomplished via an ascending 5–6 sequence from the
mediant. Note in 3.6b that both of the unfurled 6-phase chords are surging:
A F♯➔ B G♯➔ C♯. Chopin’s writing in measures 57 through 66 is especially
potent because fifth-relationships at three distinct structural levels are
juxtaposed. First G♯➔ C♯ completes the sequential motion to the F♯
tonicization’s dominant. Then C♯➔ F♯ completes the F♯ tonicization.
Finally, in measure 65 F♯➔ B reinstates the tonic that was previously stated
in measure 28. In this instance a motion from Kopfton F♯ through E to
D♯ coordinates with the motion a third lower through C♯ to B (as shown
in 3.6a).
Other contexts for I–V tonic pillars
Opus 6/3
The establishment of the tonic harmony and of Kopfton ^3 at the outset of
the Mazurka in E Major integrates multiple layers of arpeggiation, with
some filling-in by passing notes. The melodic pitch B is emphasized during
the eight introductory measures not only through its repeated sounding in
the left hand but also through the descending arpeggiation B>G♯>E. (The
initial C♯ neighbor recurs in the upper register at 121.) Further local
arpeggiation transpires to hoist B up an octave during measure 9, followed
by a deeper level of arpeggiation traversing the tonic’s remaining pitches E
in measure 10 and Kopfton G♯ in measure 12 [3.7]. Some playful
Example 3.7 Analysis of Mazurka in E Major (op. 6/3).
embellishing arpeggiation occurs between passing note F♯ and goal G♯ in

measures 11 and 12. The tonic expanse is followed by II➔ V, accomplished
in such a way that the E<F♯<G♯ leading up to the Kopfton is matched by a
reciprocal F♯>E>D♯. (The accented B>B octave during measure 16, corre-
sponding to the B<B of measure 9, completes the reciprocation.) During A1
the content from measure 9 onwards is repeated beginning in measure 21,
resulting in an irregular tonic pillar. Later, during A2, a tonic-cadencing
consequent substitutes for that repetition. That relationship is critical for
determining just how far into the movement the opening tonic pillar
extends. Though the content of measures 33 through 40 brings the har-
monic progression initiated during the pillar to a tonic cadence, those
measures do not reside within the pillar.
As with the other I–V pillars explored in this chapter, the tonic is
restored during the B section before further tonal adventures ensue. Yet
whereas in those other mazurkas the tonic restoration occurred quickly, so
that one sensed the tonic to be an initiating entity within the section, in this
case A1’s middleground ^3>^2 is complemented by a full eight-measure
presentation of ^2>^1. Within that expanse Chopin deploys a double dose
of embellishing chord. Whereas the B-D♯-F♯ dominant may be embel-
lished by two concurrent lower neighbors (A-C♯-F♯), here the unfurled
F♯-A-C♯ chord likewise is embellished by two lower neighbors (E-G♯-C♯,
not graphed). Observe that one of the neighbors does not return to its
starting point: though A in measure 34 could have ascended back to B in
measure 38, it instead is retained as the dominant’s seventh. This phase of the
B section concludes with the tonic, achieving a PAC in measures 39 and 40.
The pitch B, which sounds above Kopfton G♯ in measure 12, recurs in
measure 41. During the ensuing eight measures, which extend the tonic, B
is transferred down an octave, so that the C♯>A third (complementing
G♯<B) that serves as the focus for the remainder of the B section occurs in
the middle register – exactly where it ought to be to facilitate the reinstate-
ment of the initiating B of the A2 section in measure 69. The A Major
tonicization results from an expansion of the following tonic-prolonging
figured-bass formula in E Major:
8 —————7♮ –––––6 –––––5
3 ——————––––––4 –––––3
The 64 chord, which arrives unfurled in measure 50, is tonicized: a descend-
ing third-progression (C♯>B>A) in A Major transpires over the course of
eight measures [3.7]. During a repetition of this passage beginning in
measure 58, Chopin creatively modifies the harmonization so that a fully
chromatic filling-in of a descending seventh connects the tonic root A at

581 and the supertonic root B at 631. The chromatic line takes on the
character of a stupefying feat, enhancing the mazurka’s robust character.
The restoration of the tonic 53 in measure 69 coincides with the onset of a
fresh B<E<G♯ arpeggiation to initiate A2. As mentioned above, this time
suitable revisions are made (beginning in measure 87) so that a PAC is
achieved in the tonic key, resulting in a regular tonic pillar. Because the B
section features the Kopfton’s upper neighbor, A (flagged in 3.7), the third-
progression from 3^ to ^1 (interrupted) during the A2 section serves as the
background descent.
Opus 24/1
A recurring formula for Chopin’s irregular pillar usage may be observed in
the Mazurka in G Minor. The first sixteen and the last sixteen measures of
the composition are equivalent except at their endpoints: II➔ V♯ (= HC)
in the former is replaced by V➔ I (= PAC) in the latter. Chopin’s large-
scale tonal plan takes advantage of the fact that the pitches of V7 occur
during the pillar’s opening measure. Whereas in that context they serve
locally as an embellishment of measure 2’s initiating tonic, the broad tonal
trajectory extending through A1 and B leads to this chord as an asserted
member of a middleground harmonic progression – I5–6 II V7♯ – that
culminates in the restoration of I during the second measure of A2 [3.8].
Chopin offers a liberal sprinkling of colorful chords during the pillar: the
tonic’s embellishing 64 chord – G-C-E♭ – sounds at the beginning of measure 3
but evolves into a more intense F♯-A-C-E♭ over tonic pedal G before the tonic
restoration on the following downbeat. Likewise II➔ sounds as C♯-E♮-G-B♭
over a dominant pedal (from sixteenth-note C♯ during 63 into measure 7).
Eventually the dominant’s root D is joined by third F♯ (at 73), concurrent
with II➔’s root A displacing ninth B♭, thereby creating a potent collision of
II➔ and V♯.
In mazurkas explored earlier in this chapter the initial I–V tonic pillar
has been followed – after variable amounts of delay – by a tonic restoration
before the B section’s agenda continues. Consequently listeners might
expect minor seventh C to emerge soon after the D-F♯-A chord of measure
16, so that D➔ targets a G tonic. Yet in this case Chopin skips the tonic
restoration, instead proceeding to the tonic’s closely allied upper-third
chord. Consequently the addition of dissonance is integrated with an
upward hoist of a minor third during measures 17 through 20, where
F-A-C-E♭ (= F➔) targets B♭-D-F. This B♭ chord persists through the
Example 3.8 Analysis of Mazurka in G Minor (op. 24/1).
cadence of measure 32. (The first ending at that point incorporates a

transition back to the G tonic for a repeat of A1 and the first part of B.)
Relief from the emotionally distraught mood projected during A1 is offered
not only by the shift of mode to major during the B section, but also by the
absence of such features as the melodic augmented seconds of measures 3
and 6|7 and the chordal collision during measure 7. Instead one is treated
to some luscious chromaticism, for example during the descent in parallel
sixths from 223 through 242. (Note how Chopin seamlessly increases the
chromatic density during the repetition of that passage, where not only the
D>C and F>E♭ seconds are filled in, but also the upper line’s concluding
C>B♭ and the F<G below in measure 32a.)
A G-to-B♭ opening bass trajectory in a minor-key composition might
proceed directly to bass C (supporting IV or an inverted II or ♭II) and then to
dominant root D; or a surge (B♭➔) may lead the progression to E♭, the G
tonic’s 6-phase chord. The latter trajectory occurs here, with E♭’s arrival
occurring in measure 34. Two eight-measure phrases (equivalent until their
final measures) prolong the E♭ chord, with the main melodic interest being
the juxtaposition of B♭>G thirds and B♭<G sixths. The delicate succession
from I6 to II occurs during the second phrase’s final measure – 48. The pitch
C♯ (at first spelled enharmonically as D♭) against E♭-G-B♭ is sufficient to
infuse the chord with the sense of rootedness on A, with a II function.12
The ninth B♭ (an incidental dissonance) resolves to A within the chord,
before II proceeds to V7♯ at 491. The upward resolution of C♯ to D is

elided. Instead, the dominant’s seventh C♮ sounds during all of measure 49.
As mentioned above, the mazurka’s second tonic pillar is regular.
Because no interruption occurs during the B section, Kopfton B♭ is still in
force at the onset of the A2 section. An interrupted third-progression leads
through background A at measure 56 to goal G in the final measure.
Opus 50/3
Though by definition a regular tonic pillar is intended to project I-space,
that which Chopin created for the Mazurka in C♯ Minor is disproportio-
nately devoted to the dominant: the G♯-B♯-D♯-F♯ embellishing chord of
the first four measures will be deployed in an abbreviated form later as a
dominant extension (measures 32|33–34), whereas a long internal domi-
nant prolongation (measures 9 through 15) nearly overwhelms the pillar’s
initiating and closing tonics (measures 5 and 16) [3.9a]. The irregular pillar
that occurs within this mazurka (the second of four, in measures 32|33
through 44) results from simply not following through to the conclusion of
the regular pillar, as presented in measures 0|1 through 16. In fact, with
such potent dominants on both edges – as well as an internal dominant
pedal point – one might doubt whether the tonic chord of measure 35
(repeated in measure 39) can overpower the dominant hegemony in that
region. In the fourth pillar, which repeats the content of the second, only
the freshly composed continuation after the dominant of measure 133
(leading to a cadence on the tonic in measure 157) tips the scale decisively
in favor of the tonic. Though the initial a2 pillar reprises (in abbreviated
form) the I II➔ V♯ portion of the preceding a1 pillar, at best it represents a
mere reiteration of the approach to the dominant attained during the b
region (akin to what is displayed in measures 37 through 40 of 3.5a). Its
supposed tonic chord might even be interpreted as an unfurled 64 embel-
lishment of the dominant (expanding upon the content of measure 3, as
graphed in 3.9a).
A no-nonsense fifth-progression from G♯ to C♯ provides the melodic
shape for the mazurka’s opening five measures [3.9a]. Here Chopin’s
contrapuntal proclivity is overtly realized, with a tenor line that imitates
the soprano. Only after goal C♯ is attained at 51 does Kopfton E emerge
(embellished by D♯ and F♯). Early in measure 6 the tonic absorbs the 6-
phase pitch A♯, preceding the arrival of II➔, at which point another fifth-
progression (from D♯ to G♯, whose goal we expect will be achieved at 91)
begins. Though the dominant in fact arrives as expected, Chopin withholds
Example 3.9 Mazurka in C♯ Minor (op. 50/3) (a) Analysis of mm. 0|1–92; (b) Analysis of the work.
(a)
Example 3.9 (cont.)
(b)
the melodic G♯ for several measures, placing an embellishing minor ninth

A at the top of the texture. The resolution to G♯ and restoration an octave
lower (measure 13) occur before the dominant’s D♯ descends to the tonic-
supported C♯, completing a conventional third-progression from the
Kopfton.
A tonal trajectory connecting the tonic and the dominant is an attractive
option during the b region of a ternary A1 section. (Compare with 2.16.) The
fact that the middleground interruption at the end of b will not be resolved
during the upcoming irregular a2 pillar has no effect upon how the b region
transpires. In this instance the tonic is extended through measure 24 via a
sequential connection between two tonic chords. Whereas normally the
sequence employed would proceed with bass C♯>G♯<A>E<F♯>C♯ support-
ing a descending sixth-progression from Kopfton E, in this case the G♯ chord
is internal to a1 and thus resolves to tonic C♯ before the A chord emerges in
measure 17. During the II➔ that follows after the sequence, the melody
gradually builds back upwards to the D♯ (measure 27) that succeeds Kopfton
E at the middleground level and connects with the D♯ of V♯ (measure 32).
As indicated above, a2’s tonal plan demotes the impact of the tonic
restoration, instead favoring dominant prolongation. Consequently the b
region’s ^2 ultimately is left dangling at the end of the a2 region. Chopin’s
re-engagement with the thematic content of a1 here involves contraction:
the essence of measures 0|1 through 9 is stated in measures 32|33 through
37 and is then repeated even more succinctly. The region closes with a
four-measure melodic arpeggiation of the pitches of V♯, segueing into the
B section, which begins in measure 45.
Though the V♯ that concludes the A1 section – unexpectedly lacking a
tonic resolution – is a middleground event and the V♯ that ends the B
section (measures 89–92) is a background event, the uncommon dominant
density at this juncture makes a conventional I-to-V♯ trajectory ill suited
for B. Chopin therefore has elected instead to tonicize a chromatic variant
of the dominant’s upper-third chord. Because dissonant B♯-D♯-F♯ cannot
be tonicized, Chopin allows B♯ to wobble to B♮. That lowering, introduced
in measure 45, is not rescinded until measure 89. Because B Major is in a
sense the “wrong” key, the trajectory that Chopin sets in motion for its
tonicization – a local ternary form divided by an interruption after the ^2V ♯
that arrives at measure 70 [3.9a] – is not fully realized (and thus resonates
with the unresolved ternary interruption during A1). In this case the y
region is extensively developed, with a surging I leading through IV5–6 to
V, while the x2 region that follows proceeds only through its initial pre-
surge I phase.
One foreground detail (not graphed) plays an important role in the

realization of Chopin’s tonal plan for the B section: namely, the incorpora-
tion of the B tonic’s 6-phase chord as a substitute for the dominant during
the repeat of x1 (measures 53 through 60). The basic idea, which extends
into the onset of the y region, is I8–7♮, the conversion of the stable B-major
tonic into a surging chord targeting IV. That tonic is expanded via a local
B>F♯<B bass arpeggiation, into which bass G♯ (an unfurled I6) is inserted.
That very 6-phase event will recur at the same location during x2 (measure
89), where, with G♯ asserted as root and with major third B♯, it assumes the
role of background V♯, thereby bringing the G♯ root’s upper-third expan-
sion to an end.
The chief structural concern during the traversal of A2 is that its a2
region should not conclude on the dominant, as it did during A1, but
instead forge ahead to become a regular tonic pillar. As 3.9b displays, the
potent dominant achieved in measures 129 and 133 is the foundation for
an extended passage whose prolongation eventually leads to a PAC in
measure 157. (The graph shows the principal strand, D♯>C♯, covered by
F♯>E. Concurrent with the background close on ^1, this E opens the tonal
space that will be traversed – as a reprise of the E>D♯>C♯ descent – during
the coda.13)
The magnificent coda deploys the lowered supertonic (measures 165
and 171) as the principal intermediary between the tonic and the domi-
nant [3.9b]. Though usually that chord’s wobble (here D♮) would be
rectified by the dominant’s D♯, in this case a supertonic evolution during
measure 173 results in a D♯-rooted version of II occurring prior to the
onset of V.14 (I have displayed the chord as FÜ-A-C♯-(E) in 3.9b, though
D♯ might be imagined instead of E: both convey the function II .)
Chopin’s means of connecting the tonic and the lowered supertonic
incorporates an obstinate circular progression that I propose resides
outside of conventional modulo 7 tonal space. Instead, once it gets on
track modulo 12 chromatic tonal space subdivides into four equal seg-
ments. Using the numbers from 0 through 11 (with C = 0), the progres-
sion proceeds as
m. 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165
165 166 167 168 169 170 171
melody: 1 1 3 4 6 7 9 10 0 1 3 4 6
bass: 1 6➔ 11 9➔ 2 0➔ 5 3➔ 8 6➔ 11 9➔ 2
The conversion of this lucid and elegant circular progression into modulo 7
music notation inevitably results in some enharmonic inelegance, requiring
a mix of minor third and augmented second intervals. (Though Chopin

chose to notate the bass as B<D♮<F♮<G♯<B, the augmented second could
be moved to any other juncture without injury to the progression,
because what the pianist sees in the score and the rationale for what is
actually occurring are unrelated.) Dominant root G♯ arrives in measure
173, coordinating with a 64 embellishment. The decisive V7–I cadence
occurs in measures 180 and 181.
Contexts for the I–III tonic pillar
Opus 41/2 [a.k.a. opus 41/3]

Though the Mazurka in B Major’s diatonic mediant is D♯-F♯-A♯, that
chord’s first and second chromatic variants – D♯-FÜ-A♯ (spelled by
Chopin as E♭-G-B♭) and D♮-F♯-A♮, both of major quality – emerge at
corresponding locations (measures 17 and 37) within the initial pre-
sentation of A1 and what at first appears to be A1’s exact written-out
repetition [3.10]. The D♯ major chord’s FÜ is a wobble that reverts to F♯
with the arrival of the dominant in measure 20, while the D major chord
comes about as a result of Chopin’s elective shift to B Major’s parallel
minor key (in which D-F♯-A is the diatonic mediant) starting in mea-
sure 35.
The eight-measure phrase that opens the A1 section’s a1 region is con-
ventionally constructed: after a tonic that is extended via neighboring-note
embellishments and an upward registral shift of Kopfton D♯ (at 71), II➔ V
provides an appropriate close. The second phrase begins like the first, but
instead of again proceeding via C♯➔ to F♯, A♯➔ D♯ (spelled by Chopin as
B♭➔ E♭) transpires, concluding a tonic-to-mediant connection propelled
by a descending circle of fifths – B E♯ A♯ D♯. (The E♯ chord, with root
omitted, is realized by adding GÜ, spelled as A♮ during 151, to the tonic’s
B-D♯-F♯. The chord functions as E♯ .) The lavish attention devoted to the
mediant arrival, including a repetition of A♯➔ D♯, extends the phrase
beyond eight measures. Yet Chopin persists in his agenda until the domi-
nant is attained in measure 20, not only closing with a half cadence (more
definitively than in measure 8) but also – an important point for under-
standing what happens later – creating a phrase that divides into groups of
four measures (a hypermetrical organization boldly introduced by the
repetitive measures 1–4 and 9–12). Instead of proceeding directly to the
mazurka’s B section, Chopin begins over again in measure 21. What will
happen this time: a tonic-closing consequent phrase (the most normative
Example 3.10 Analysis of Mazurka in B Major (op. 41/2).
realization of the a1 and a2 form markings in 3.10), resulting in a regular

tonic pillar; an exact repetition, resulting in a I–V irregular tonic pillar; or
something else?
In a sense, listeners never learn the answer, because that phrase’s con-
clusion is preempted by the B section’s unexpected onset in measure 39.
Measure 38 (which corresponds to measure 18) is the tenth of what we
should expect will be a twelve-measure phrase that could conclude over the
next two measures either with a PAC (D♮ F♯ | B) or with another HC (D♮ |
F♯). Chopin diverts the D♮ chord from its apparent role as divider between
tonic B and dominant F♯, which would transpire if the initial a1 region’s
B–D♯–F♯ arpeggiation were again deployed, now in a minor-mode context.
(Note especially how a circle of fifths again links the tonic and the med-
iant.) Surprisingly, the D chord serves instead within a broad sequential
descent in thirds:
B D♮➔ G♮ B➔ E
(marked in 3.10). One may confirm the extraordinary nature of what
ensues in measure 39 by counting four-measure units through the end of
the B section: 39–42, 43–46, 47–50, and 51–54. From what precedes it,
measure 39 should function as an internal element of a four-bar hyper-
measure; yet based upon what follows (and fostered by Chopin’s forte and
accent markings), the listener must undertake a metrical recalibration so
that measure 39 is interpreted as a hypermetric downbeat.
The sequential descent’s goal E chord (at 493) serves as IV within a broad
harmonic progression in B Minor. The dominant and then the tonic bring
that progression and the B section to a close in a PAC, with soprano B
belatedly making good on the intention to complete the descending third-
progression that was interrupted at measure 20.
Because the B section does not close on the dominant, the background
structure is no further along at the onset of A2 than it was during A1. We
should expect that a regular tonic pillar – incorporating background
^
3^2^1 will be presented as the content of A2. Chopin achieves this
through truncation, not proceeding to (or, at this point, beyond) the
mediant that was the final structural event within A1. Consequently there
is no opportunity for a post-interruption descent to complete the back-
ground third-progression, following the ^2 of measure 66. In this context
the D♯ in measure 69 does not correspond to a reinstatement of ^3. Instead,
as 3.10 shows, the B of measure 67 – which was not so emphasized during
A1 – serves as the arrival of background ^1, directly after ^2. The D♯s that
follow may be interpreted as upper-third extensions, echoes of the Kopfton
that persist in multiple registers through the final chord. Brief glimmers of
a minor-mode resurgence (G♮ in measures 72 and 74) do not ignite. The
mazurka concludes as it began, with repeated iterations of an embellished
major tonic chord.
Opus 41/3 [a.k.a. opus 41/4]

The Mazurka in A♭ Major projects a straightforward structure in a daringly
incomplete manner. The listener’s ability – or willingness – to engage in
imaginative musical thinking is tested. If one’s internal ear does not per-
form structure-completing operations to make up for lacunae at both the
end of the B section and the end of the A2 section, the mazurka’s structure
likely will seem defective.
The broad tonal plan supports an Urlinie descending by step from
Kopfton ^5, with an interruption after ^ 2. The ^5>^4>^3 span occurs during
the A1 section, in conjunction with a straightforward I➔ IV5–6 V7 I
harmonic progression [3.11a]. The continuation to ^2 occurs at 522, the
final measure of the B section. Despite the absence of audible harmonic
support, this B♭ and its upper third, D♭, certainly project the dominant
harmony, whose root E♭ and third G have been inserted parenthetically in
3.11a. Under normal circumstances, the remainder of the work (the A2
section) would be devoted to completing the structure interrupted after the
B section’s ^2. All begins well, with a restoration of ^5 along with tonic root
A♭. Yet sooner or later Chopin must confront the fact that the tonic pillar
he deployed during A1 is irregular. He cannot simply reprise A1, since the
descent would not reach ^1, nor would the tonic harmony end the work.
The ^3 and III that conclude A1 effectively precede the emergence of ^2 and
V during the B section. Yet that state of affairs may not likewise conclude
A2. What to do?15
What Chopin does is both elegant and mysterious. Taking advantage of
the fact that both halves of the tonic pillar are repeated during A1, he plays
with fire by again moving from the A♭ tonic to the mediant during the first
statement of the pillar’s second half during A2 (measures 74 through 76,
corresponding to measures 22 through 24). The final phrase begins in
measure 77. Chopin “needs” to replace the circular progression’s G➔ C
of measures 31 and 32 (likewise measures 75 and 76), supporting soprano
D♮ to C, with a harmonically asserted E♭➔ A♭, supporting soprano B♭ to A♭
(= ^
2>^ 1). He proceeds just to the point where that shift would come into
play. Then he simply stops, mid-phrase! Though two measures that might
suitably complete the final eight-measure phrase are offered in 3.11b, they
Example 3.11 Mazurka in A♭ Major (op. 41/3) (a) Analysis of the work;
(b) Hypothetical measures 83 and 84.
(a)
(b)
do not sound within the composition. Chopin’s fermata gives time for the
imaginative generation of such an ending, leading to the Urlinie’s conclud-
ing pitch, ^1. It is as if the diminuendo that has been in progress since
measure 78 succeeds to the extent that the concluding measures of the
composition become inaudible. Consequently Chopin did not write them
down.16
Opus 59/2
The Mazurka in A♭ Major’s background events are all normatively posi-
tioned within the form: A1 begins with ^3I , B ends with ^2V , and A2 ends with ^1I
[3.12a]. Chopin complicates matters by proceeding to the mediant at the
end of A1, resulting in an irregular pillar that will require modification for
presentation during A2. In this case that necessity leads to an astonishingly
inventive alternative ending involving the juxtaposition of two contrasting
means of achieving the supertonic, and with II replacing II➔.
The A1 section’s first phrase is a model of elegant harmonic writing. The
opening tonic is prolonged via an unfurled 64 embellishing chord in measure
Example 3.12 Mazurka in A♭ Major (op. 59/2) (a) Analysis of mm. 1–89; (b) Analysis of mm. 89–101.
(a)
(b)
3. Its 6-phase F emerges in measure 6, perfectly setting up measure 7’s II➔,

which leads to a half cadence on V in measure 8. Were a regular tonic pillar
in the making, the next phrase would conclude with V7 I. Instead Chopin
allows the 6-phase chord of measure 14 (related to that of measure 6) to be
subjected to its own 6-phase extension, thereby lowering the continuation by
a third: instead of the antecedent’s B♭➔ E♭, Chopin leads via G➔ to a
cadence on mediant C. Rather than moving directly to the written-out repeat
of what has occurred thus far, Chopin allows time for the listener to savor the
mediant attainment (measures 17 through 22). One might imagine a local V97
during 223 (meagerly represented by F) as a means of directing the progres-
sion back to the opening tonic. The progression from the tonic to the
mediant is then repeated.
As is also the case after several of Chopin’s irregular I–V tonic pillars
(explored earlier in this chapter), a tonic restoration follows after this
irregular I–III tonic pillar (via II7 V7 I in measures 45 through 52) to
initiate the B section. Yet that is only the first of two alternative con-
tinuations ensuing from the D♭-F-A♭-B♭ chord of measure 45. Since that
chord is reinstated in measure 53, and since the latter scenario turns out
to lead into the further stages of the composition, the tonic-restoring
material is displayed as a parenthetical passage in 3.12a. Beginning in
measure 53, D♭-F-A♭-B♭ serves as an embellishing chord of the mediant,
evolving into D♭-F-G-B♮ before resolution, at which point the mediant’s
third wobbles to E♮. Though the C mediant chord might have taken on
further surge characteristics, targeting I6 (= F minor), the E♭ dominant
emerges instead in measure 68, bringing the B section to a close. The
mediant’s wobbly third (E♮) and the dominant’s minor ninth (F♭) are
juxtaposed during 681–2.
The A2 section’s first phrase reiterates the I5–6 II➔ V progression of its
A1 counterpart. Thus far I6 has not been asserted as VI➔. Since some
revision of content during A2’s second phrase is required in any event (so
that a regular pillar cadencing on I – rather than on III – is achieved),
Chopin elects to go all out, expanding the phrase to thirteen measures. The
first sign of this is his connection of the tonic’s 5- and 6-phase chords via an
ascending 5–6 sequence, proceeding as follows in measures 81 through 84:
A♭5(–6 B♭5–6 C5)–6 D♭5–6 E♭5–6 F
(As often is the case in this context, Chopin here abbreviates the ascent by
omitting the chords within parentheses, made possible by the fact that A♭5
and C6 both are composed using the pitch classes A♭, C, and E♭. Note also
that the 6-phase chords all evolve into surging entities.) Some
rambunctiousness at 841 displaces F’s 5-phase C with the premature arrival

of 6-phase D♮. Yet it turns out that at that moment the sequence is breaking
up, and so the D♮ is understood in retrospect to function as a passing note
connecting the F chord’s elided fifth C and minor seventh E♭ (enharmo-
monically spelled as D♯). The VI➔ at 843 potentially could lead (as do,
without surging, the several I6 chords of earlier phrases) to II➔.
Chopin does not pursue that trajectory. Recall that the A♭ major tonic
chord possesses, in all, four consonant 6-phase chords – the diatonic
version and three chromatic variants. Three of these four chords are
employed within this mazurka: diatonic A♭-C-F (measure 6 and its repli-
cates); the first chromatic variant, A♮-C-F (measure 84, to which E♭ [D♯]
has been added); and the second chromatic variant, A♭-C♭-F♭ (measures
85/88.) Any of these choices may lead effectively to some form of super-
tonic. As explained in the context of the Mazurka in F Minor, op. 7/3 (see
page 96, above), the addition of D♮ to F♭-A♭-C♭ results in II . It turns out
that Chopin makes use of that strategy during this phrase. The abandoned
F➔ chord consequently is displaced by an alternative 6-phase chord a half
step lower, achieved by tapping the potential for F➔ (= F-A♮-C-E♭) to
function as a B chord (= D♯-F-A♮-C, confirmed by the shift of ninth C to
root B♮ during 843). Though Chopin proceeds through the circle of fifths
(F B♮ E♮ from 843 through 851), the E♮ functions as ♭^6 rather than as ♮^5. (In
fact, Chopin spells the chord as F♭-A♭-C♭ just before resolving to II
during 881.) Adding further interest to an already abundantly fertile
region, the F♭ chord is prolonged via a modulo 12 circular progression
that divides the octave into three equal (parts (4 0 8 4, spelled as E♮ C A♭ F♭)
in measures 85 through 88.17 Once that cycle has concluded and the D♮ has
been added to instill the II function, the V7–I cadence occurs without
incident between 882 and 891.
The coda expands upon an idea from measures 1 through 4. In that
earlier context, A♭-D♭-F serves as an embellishing chord of the tonic.
During the coda it is twice asserted as IV (above a tonic pedal point), each
time followed by V7 and I [3.12b]. (The second of the two phrases
contains several borrowings from the parallel minor key, including IV’s
minor third, F♭.) Two sonorities are particularly vivid and unusual. In
measure 91 the chromatic passing note F♭ (which Chopin spelled as E♮)
sounds simultaneously with anticipations G♮ and C (not graphed), creat-
ing a memorable sonority against pedal point A♭. The momentum stalls
during the second phrase as the local fifth-progression descends through
^
3 to ^2. Cadential 64 chords with both minor- and major-key inflections are
auditioned. The descent continues downwards to ^1 for a PAC only on the
third try, during which the minor-key ^3 (C♭, spelled as B♮) is supported by
the dominant’s third G and the chromatic passing note E♭♭ (spelled as D♮)
connects the dominant’s root E♭ (imagined) and seventh D♭.18 The remain-
ing measures of the coda provide echoes of Kopfton ^3 (at 1041, 1081, and
110–111) and restore the embellishing 64 role of A♭-D♭-F (at 1073–1081).19
Opus 59/3
Pillar closure is of special interest in the Mazurka in F♯ Minor. Because the
irregular pillar of the a1 region concludes on the mediant (measure 16),
Chopin restructures the a2 region’s second phrase, with the apparent intent
to achieve a PAC [3.13a]. However, measure 44 does not offer the expected
tonic resolution. Instead, the dominant is extended, embellished by pitches
from F♯ Major. The a2 region’s tonic goal (with melodic F♯ concluding a
middleground fifth-progression descending from Kopfton C♯) merges with
the B section’s initiating F♯ Major tonic (with melodic C♯ reinstating the
mazurka’s Kopfton) in measures 45 and 46. Since neither of the preceding
pillars offers a normative PAC, Chopin has no precedent for building the
mazurka’s final tonic pillar (A2), where he electively inserts an extended
cadenza-like passage between the second phrase’s seventh and eighth
measures (115 and 134). As we shall see, the initiation of the pillar during
A2 likewise departs from a conventional formulation.
The a1 tonic pillar opens with a robust projection of Kopfton C♯ in two
registers: C♯<C♯ is traversed quickly from 03 through 22, followed by a
leisurely stepwise descent to the lower C♯ (site of the first phrase’s HC in
measure 8), which serves as the starting point for a second C♯<C♯ traversal
to inaugurate the second phrase. During measure 6 the tonic 6-phase pitch
D♯ (chromatically altered to match the impending supertonic’s raised fifth)
serves in its traditional capacity linking I and II➔, part of a normative
approach to the HC V♯. In contrast, the equivalent D♯-(F♯)-A-C♯ at 123
represents a B chord within the segment of the circle of fifths that Chopin
here traverses to connect the tonic and the mediant. As 3.13a displays, the
middleground fifth-progression that guides the melody through measure
46 descends through B to A in conjunction with this mediant arrival.
Most of the A1 section’s b region is devoted to reiterations of the
C♯>B>A third (with unfolded upper thirds), presented in the context of a
mediant prolongation. The region’s one new – and vital – structural
element occurs during the final beat of measure 24: the middleground
progression’s ^2 and its dominant support. This event occurs at the precise
moment when one would have expected instead to hear the initial C♯ of a2
Example 3.13 Mazurka in F♯ Minor (op. 59/3) (a) Analysis of the work; (b) Analysis of mm. 64–70; (c) Analysis of mm. 80–134; (d)
Analysis of mm. 115–134.
(a)
Example 3.13 (cont.)
(b)
(c)
(as in 03). In this case the C♯<C♯ octave announcing the post-interruption
C♯ is truncated.
Because the final measures of a1 lead to the mediant, new content is
required to conclude a2, in order to arrive at the expected PAC. Chopin
concurrently extends the region’s second phrase: its fifth and sixth mea-
sures (37 and 38) are repeated and then rewritten (with IV V7♯ replaced by
IV5–6), so that measure 43 counts as the phrase’s seventh measure. The
dominant of that measure “should” resolve to an F♯-A-C♯-F♯ tonic in
measure 44. As mentioned above, Chopin instead extends the dominant,
postponing the tonic attainment until the onset of the B section.
Coinciding with a shift to F♯ Major, the B section’s opening phrase
shares several features with the tonic pillar’s first phrase. In both contexts
the phrase’s third measure presents a 64 embellishment of the tonic. (That 64
is unfurled during the a1 region’s second phrase and during the B section,
and both of those realizations are preceded by a surging F♯-A♯-C♯-E.) Both
phrases likewise achieve their dominant goals via a tonic 6-phase chord (in
measures 6 and 50) leading to II➔.
(d)
The return to tonic F♯ Major that we expect after the B section’s first
phrase and its repetition is magnificently expanded in measures 64
through 70 [3.13b]. Whereas melodically the Kopfton C♯ might have
proceeded directly to the dominant’s seventh B before resolution to A♯,
here an upward melodic excursion through E♯ (at 523, repeated at 643) to
G♯ (at 651, repeated at 751) occurs.20 As with the upward C♯<C♯ motion
at the onset of A1, here also the downward complement, which fills in the
dominant’s G♯>B sixth between measures 65 and 70, is stepwise – in this
case chromatic. Supporting that descent is a chord progression that
begins as a tonicization of the C♯ dominant (I5–6 II➔ V7 I) but that
then continues unabated as a circle of fifths (continuing the tonicizing
progression’s chain of fifths: A♯➔ D♯➔ G♯➔ C♯➔ leading to F♯➔ and
beyond). As always in such a circle, if the initiating chord is to return as
the eighth chord, one of the fifths must be imperfect. Observe that the A♮
chord at 683 lacks a minor seventh and thus does not strongly project the
sense of A➔, targeting D♮. That is where Chopin inserts the corrective
diminished fifth, A♮>D♯.
The juncture of the B and A2 sections (measures 96|97) is the site for a
creative structural variant. In most cases the return of the so-called
“tonic” pillar will project the tonic harmony at or near its outset. In this
case, however, the B section’s closing measures proceed to a dominant
harmony at that location. (See 3.13c, to be discussed below.) Things are
out of kilter here: though one background dominant has occurred during
the B section, guiding the Urlinie’s ^4 to ^3, another dominant generally
would occur to support ^2, which, interrupted, would resolve to ^1 after the
A2 section’s post-interruption downward fifth-progression from a
^ All of these features are displayed in 3.13a, though with one
restored 5.
curious shift: the background dominant is delayed until the first phrase of
A2. What had been a local dominant in measures 8 and 32 now functions
at the background level. To accomplish this, Chopin places the dominant
root C♯ at the bottom of the phrase’s initial chord (which earlier had
served as the tonic), thereby converting it into a 64 embellishment of the
dominant. In this context the G♯➔ chord of measure 103 (matching that
of measure 7) serves as an embellishing chord inserted before the 64 ’s
resolution to 53 ♯ .
Given the highly idiosyncratic start of A2, the preceding B section must
conclude atypically with a chord that will lead effectively to V♯. There is no
better choice than II . Yet Chopin first auditions another trajectory
following the internal tonic of measure 70: he leads to the mediant via a
circle of fifths (F♯ B E♯ A♯ in measures 73–74), reminiscent of measures 9

through 16 (here converted to a major-mode context). As the earlier b
region reminds us, III (here represented by the parallel major key’s major
mediant, A♯-CÜ-E♯) may lead directly to V♯. Yet Chopin instead back-
tracks, repeating the background ^4>^3 (measure 80) and then restoring F♯
Minor (measure 87), followed by an alternative circle of fifths (displayed in
3.13c) that leads not to the mediant, but instead to the supertonic (II ).
This is accomplished in an ingenious way. From tonic F♯, B➔ E➔ A➔ D➔
transpires without a hitch. At that point, Chopin takes advantage of a
wondrous enharmonic equivalence: D-F♯-A-C♮, which we might expect
will lead to a chord rooted on G♮, instead takes on an alternative meaning
as B♯-D-F♯-A, a chord rooted on G♯. Since at one point a half-step shift is
required to keep the circle of fifths on track (as we noted above in the
context of the D♯ chord in measure 69), Chopin astonishingly brings about
that shift by doing nothing! Upon arrival D-F♯-A-C♮ is A➔’s rightful
successor, D➔; upon departure B♯-D-F♯-A serves as G♯ , C♯’s rightful
predecessor.21 (In 3.13c the chord is written twice – juxtaposing its alter-
native spellings – and analyzed first as a chord rooted on D and then as a
chord rooted on G♯.) From II ’s resolution to V♯ (with extended 64
embellishment), the progression continues as described above.
In that measure 115 corresponds to measure 43, listeners should sense
that the moment of closure is close at hand – potentially as early as
measure 116. Chopin delays that resolution until measure 134 by pro-
ceeding through a cadenza-like passage (indicated by open brackets in
3.13a and presented in detail in 3.13d). Initially the C♯ dominant is
tonicized, with an idiosyncratic ascending 5–6 sequence leading from
C♯ to its dominant G♯ (measure 119) and back.22 The melodic connection
of G♯>B in measures 119 through 121 is reminiscent of the same interval
in a similar context in measures 65 through 70. At measure 122 an
internal IAC occurs, consequently postponing the deeper closure (with
background ^1). The harmonic progression that begins thereafter has the
promise of bringing about a PAC due to the melodic G♯ that arrives in
measure 127, but yet another G♯>B sixth transpires, so that the tonic of
measure 131 likewise is not “the” closing tonic. The lowered supertonic
chord that follows finally breaks the spell: as 3.13d shows, the dominant
of measure 133 does succeed in bringing about a PAC.23 A coda follows.
(Its essential features are graphed in 3.13a.) Given that a Picardy third
occurs at the preceding PAC, the coda traverses the major-key fifth-
progression C♯>B>A♯>G♯>F♯.
Example 3.14 Analysis of Mazurka in B Minor (op. 33/4).
(a)
Idiosyncratic tonic pillar contexts
Opus 33/4
The opening tonic pillar in Chopin’s Mazurka in B Minor (measures 0|1
through 24, followed by a written-out repeat) is classified as irregular
because it cadences on the dominant. This is a conventional sort of
irregularity, like several we encountered earlier in this chapter. Chopin
makes a predictable adjustment during the pillar’s final presentation,
where the second phrase concludes with a PAC (measure 200).24 Such a
construction justifies the mazurka’s placement within this chapter, though
not within this section, which is devoted to idiosyncratic pillars. That
categorization results from Chopin’s extraordinary continuation after the
HC of measure 24: the a1 pillar is repeated, but with a remarkable, strange,
and unexpected turn of events at its cadence.
The lowered supertonic (“Neapolitan”) chord arises naturally in a
minor key: a diatonic presentation of I5–6 (here B-D-F♯ to B-D-G)
produces a chord that (especially when enhanced by the addition of the
pitch F♮ to B-(D)-G, as at 171) inherently leads towards ♮II. In accordance
with an unwritten covenant among composers pertaining to the use of
the lowered supertonic, the key’s foundational B<F♯ tonic-to-dominant
relationship will prevail despite the awkwardness of the internal C♮–F♯
(b)
root succession. The dominant root F♯ supports a restored diatonic C♯

(perhaps imagined) after wobbly note C♮. Chopin conforms to that
covenant in measure 24, where the doubled F♯ root represents the
F♯-A♯-C♯ dominant harmony [3.14].
Through 482 it will seem to listeners that a routine repeat of the entire
opening tonic pillar is being presented. Yet the performer will note,
perhaps with some alarm, that the expected goal root F♯ (as in measure
24) is notated as G♭ in measure 48. Chopin indeed fulfills the implications
of that spelling: the line ultimately proceeds as G>G♭>F♮, with G♭ serving
as a chromatic passing note. Whereas II➔ generally proceeds to V (as in
measures 5 and 6), the lowered supertonic’s inherent dominant-emulating
tendency generally will not be tapped by composers, since ♮II➔ leads into
the abyss: it points towards the tonic’s antipode, in this case F♮.
Consequently the meek F♮ at the end of measure 48, which in fact intro-
duces that antipode, is an astonishing event. It causes the b region, which
commences in measure 49, to open in the highly unusual key of ♭I.
Ultimately the mazurka’s tonal course will be corrected: by the end of the
b region the conventional F♯ dominant is attained. Yet a half-step depres-
sion within tonal space prevails from 483 through measure 63. How is this
accomplished? Whereas F♯ is expected in measure 48, F♮ occurs instead (as
explained above); and whereas F♮ is expected after what should initially be
interpreted as a C chord in measure 63, that chord is enharmonically
transformed into an F♯ chord. Observe in 3.14 how ♮II in B Minor is
reinterpreted as II in B♭ Major, leading to V in that key. Given that build-
up, it is not surprising that the b region robustly asserts a B♭ Major tonic. In
fact, a standard progression prevails in that key through measure 63: I is

followed by IV, and IV undergoes a 5–6 shift in which the 6-phase E♭-G-C
sounds in its evolved state E♮-G♭-B♭-D♭ (= II ). Without the visual clues
that Chopin provides in the score, listeners should reasonably expect this
chord to resolve to V in B♭ Major. Yet Chopin (as also most readers of this
book) certainly had learned that this particular variant of II (often referred
to as the “German” augmented sixth) may be enharmonically transformed
into a dominant seventh. It so happens that this C chord’s enharmonic
equivalent is the very F♯➔ chord that would lead the progression back to B
Minor.
Under normal circumstances the mazurka might continue with a2
(concluding the A1 section) followed by B, after which a concluding A2
would offer the final PAC. Yet in this case there are two contrasting a1
models from which the content of a2 might be derived: either the conven-
tional irregular version of measure 0|1 through 24, which ends on V♯, or
instead the key-shifting irregular version of measures 25 through 48, with
its half-step depression. By choosing the latter for a2, Chopin arrives at a
tonal juncture (at the end of measure 88) not well suited to precede a
normative B section (which in this case will begin in the initial tonic’s
parallel key, B Major). Rather than grapple with that juxtaposition, Chopin
takes the unusual step of inserting a full statement of the b region, thereby
putting his tonal house in order before the onset of the B section. Though b
content is employed, Chopin achieves the same tonal goal as if a2 had
instead proceeded as in the initial a1 model. This is the only instance of a
direct succession from a b region to a B section within Chopin’s published
mazurkas: the b designation in 3.14 truly deserves the exclamation point
that annotates it.
The B section opens in measure 105 with two eight-measure phrases,
each proceeding from the tonic to the dominant in the key of B Major. Both
phrases are shaped by the traversal of a descending fourth from Kopfton F♯,
thereby matching the contour of the original a1, though with alternative
harmonic routes between the initial I and goal V. The next sixteen mea-
sures repeat these phrases with modest adjustments and one significant
change: the second phrase concludes without achieving its dominant goal.
The dominant instead serves as the initial chord of the following phrase,
where it supports background ^4, which is followed by ♯^3 at the tonic
resolution. After several repetitions, the passage breaks off at background
^
2, supported by V♯, in measure 151. A written-out cadenza that expands
the dominant (and recalls content from the preceding measures) transpires
during the next seventeen measures.
As mentioned above, the original tonic pillar is constructed in such a

way that a PAC may be attained with minimal modification. Yet Chopin’s
tonal plot thickened during the initial a1’s repetition: due to the extra-
ordinary C♮<F♮ succession in measures 46–48, listeners no longer can have
a clear sense of what the ♮II chord introduced in measure 185 will do: will it
proceed to the F♯ dominant, as in the first a1 pillar; or will it instead proceed
to F♮, as in the modified a1 and the a2 pillars? The chord becomes a show-
stopper: whereas each of the earlier ♮II chords was prolonged for seven
measures, the final one persists for fifteen measures, the latter half of which
comprises no more than a solo line alternating between the chord’s fifth
and root in the midst of a diminuendo. Will G♮>G♭>F♮ again lead away
from the B Minor dominant? No! Aroused afresh, Chopin instead uses C♮,
the other of the two pitches he has been dangling before the listener, as the
initiation point for a similar descent in half steps: C♮>B>A♯ introduces the
B Minor dominant’s leading tone. The V7♯ and I that conclude the mazurka
sound within a single measure (200).
Opus 56/3
Chopin’s Mazurka in C Minor contains one of the most astonishing
constructions in his entire oeuvre. To understand it, imagine a keyboard
mechanism placed on rollers, so that it may move freely to the left or right,
consequently hitting different piano strings and thereby facilitating trans-
positions. Whereas normally such a mechanism would be in the locked
position, imagine a pianist performing a mazurka with it accidentally
unlocked while several earthquake tremors occur, moving the keyboard a
total of seven times to the right, each resulting in either a half-step or a
whole-step shift. Despite these seismic shifts, the performer maintains the
integrity of the tonal plan according to what the fingers are doing instead of
according to the sounds that the strings are emitting.25 It so happens that
these seven seismic shifts add up to twelve half steps, so that, despite the
extraordinary sonic output, the mazurka ends in the key in which it began.
The mazurka’s basic tonal plan incorporates an irregular tonic pillar – I II
V♮ – during its A1 section and prolongational I II V I progressions in the
dominant key during both the A1 and B sections. The chordal roots are
displayed in the context of C Minor at the top of 3.15a, with much of the
content in that line shaded to indicate where seismic shifts ensue, resulting in
alternative sonic output, as displayed below the shaded regions. The A1
section opens with a progression that broadly extends from I to V♮, incor-
porating an evolved tonic 6-phase chord and a minor supertonic [3.15b].
Chopin proceeds with a written-out repeat, during which a seismic shift

raises supertonic D to E♭ in measure 49. Whereas the minor D chord might
have undergone chordal evolution so as to result in a D➔ surge directed
towards dominant G, now instead E♭➔ targets “dominant” A♭, which arrives
in measure 52. Another seismic shift affects a repetition of that passage: F➔
B♭ occurs in measures 53 through 56. This B♭ chord represents C Minor’s
dominant even if by now the seismic activity has moved it three half steps
higher. The tonic pillar concludes with a prolongation of this “dominant,”
engaging a fifth-progression in the melody during measures 56 through 72
(with the normative D>G dominant span raised to F>B♭). Though at first the
chord introduced in measure 57 may seem to be yet another II➔ (a third
seismic shift: E♭➔, F➔, F♯➔), the progression ultimately incorporates that
chord within the B♭ “dominant” prolongation. Consequently the chord
spelled by Chopin as if its root were F♯ functions as a C-rooted chord
(initially II in tonicized B♭ Major, shifting to II➔ during measure 68), as
clarified by the modified spelling in 3.15b.
The key of B♭ Major prevails during most of the B section (from
measure 73 until the renewed seismic activity beginning in measure
134). That choice conveniently allows the composition to retain the
pitch D as ^2: though normally D would be the fifth of dominant G
Minor, here it instead serves as the third of the seismically achieved
“dominant” B♭ Major. The ternary B section opens with an x1 region
(measures 73 through 88) that pursues the tonicizing I II V I harmonic
progression that will be subjected to numerous seismic shifts during the
x2 region. (Note how the B♭ tonic extends through the end of measure 77,
where elements of its embellishing chord – F and C – and its surging third
and minor seventh – D and A♭ – collide.)
The B section continues with a y region that, after adopting the hue of B♭
Minor, leads conventionally via II➔ to the dominant in measure 105
(extended through measure 120). Though a middleground interruption
of the melody on 2^ typically would be resolved by ^1 during the x2 region,
the intended D<E♭>C>B♭ melody that is initiated in measure 121 is jolted
by repeated seismic shifts that move the goal B♭ up a major sixth to G (in
the bass at 1363). Examining the phrase that begins with melodic pitch D at
1291, note how upper-neighbor E♭ is supported by II at 1341. This C-G-E♭
chord might evolve to surging B♭-E♮-D♭ (= II➔) before dominant A♮-F-C
(whose C would be ^2 within the local melodic descent) arrives. Yet at that
very moment a new wave of seismic shifts begins, so that B♭-E♮-D♭ is jolted
upwards to C-F♯-E♭ (thereby being distinguished from the preceding
diatonic II only by the half-step descent of G to F♯). The dominant’s ^2
Example 3.15 Mazurka in C Minor (op. 56/3) (a) Tonal content of mm. 2–136;
(b) Analysis of mm. 0|1–136; (c) Analysis of mm. 137–220.
Onset measure Seismic shift (in half steps) Foundational progression

2 C Minor: C D G ––––––––––––
–––––––––
(= G Major: G A D G)
49 +1 E♭ A♭
53 +2 F B♭ C
134 +2 D G
135 +2 E A
135 +2 F♯ B
136 +2 G♯ C♯
136 +1 G
____
+12 = octave!
thus is represented by D – rather than by C – at the end of measure 134.

Each of three repetitions of II➔ V coordinates with another whole-step
seismic shift, so that V within the dominant prolongation, represented by
an F chord during most of the B section, is raised not only to root G, but
also to A♮, B♮, and C♯. Whereas the G♯-B♮-D-F chord at 1362 might initially
be interpreted as yet another whole-step shift (as CÜ-E♯-G♯-B♮, functioning
as II➔ in G♯), the bass instead descends as G♯[A♭]>G, and therefore the
goal I of the dominant-tonicizing progression is achieved. Whereas the
“dominant” C♯ chord of 1361 normally would resolve to F♯, one final
seismic shift – this time the shift of a half step – leads to goal G, completing
the trajectory presented in 3.15a.
The tonic pillar of A1 is doubly irregular: not only does it conclude on
V♮, but that V♮ has shifted seismically upwards a minor third. During A2
we expect that such irregularities will be foresworn and that the tonic pillar
will conclude regularly – with a PAC on tonic C (to which Chopin applies a
Picardy third, E♮, in measure 189). The decisive swerve away from the
precedent of A1 occurs at measure 173. The ensuing progression begins as
if Chopin intends to pursue a conventional harmonic course: I IV5–6♭ V7♮ in
measures 171 through 176. Yet the chord with bass B♮ in measure 176
eventually evolves into the chord with bass C♭ in measure 180. From that
point, the bass moves chromatically downwards to F (at 1871). As 3.15c
shows, an idiosyncratic descending circle of fifths that connects IV’s
5-phase F-A♭-C and chromatic 6-phase F-A♭-D♭ chords propels this line.26
This extended IV yields to V7♮ in measure 188, followed by goal I♮ in
measure 189.
(b)
The coda, which commences in measure 189, contains a double C<G>C

bass arpeggiation, supporting ^5>^ 4>^3♮ and ^3♮ >^2>^1. Each half is
repeated, as is conveyed by the measure numbers annotating 3.15c.
^
Chopin’s treatment of ♭^2 is of special interest. When D♭ occurs below 4,
it at first reverts to D♮ (at 1963) before V♮’s resolution. Yet during the
repetition of that segment the wobbly note does not yield to the diatonic
pitch: D♭ holds out at 2043. However, during the span from ^3♮ to ^1 the D♭
wobble yields to D♮ in both traversals, at 2083 and at 2123.
Opus 59/1
The Mazurka in A Minor is constructed in the most extended of Chopin’s
mazurka forms, with four tonic pillars in all: A1 and A2 sections (both with
a ternary division into a1, b, and a2 regions) surrounding an internal B
section (where the parallel key – A Major – prevails). Chopin defies his own
conventions by presenting the third of the tonic pillars (at the onset of A2)
not in A Minor, but instead in G♯ Minor. As we shall see, he begins
preparations for this unusual event as early as A1’s b region.
The mazurka’s inaugurating tonic pillar opens with a three-measure
prolongation of the tonic’s E-G♯-B-D embellishing chord. (A local 64
embellishment in measure 1, before E sounds at the bottom of the texture,

should not be confused with the arrival of tonic A.) This chord will be
asserted as a relatively deep structural V♯ at the onset of a2 (measures 25–
27), following a b region that proceeds only as far as an evolved IV6. (See
3.16a.) The juxtaposition of surging B➔, E➔, and A➔ chords during
measures 9 and 10 and the weak metrical placement of the A➔ chord
might call into question the deep structural role assigned to that A chord in
3.16a. Yet an elision occurs: instead of a conventional expansion of the
broader I-space (via a local supertonic and dominant) followed by a
transformation of the goal I to surge towards IV, the tonic reinstatement
at 103 is already surging. Perhaps compensating for this fleeting A-chord
restoration, an expanded version of the progression during the b region
extends the equivalent tonic harmony for five measures (17 through 21)
before proceeding to IV♯.
(c)
Example 3.16 Mazurka in A Minor (op. 59/1) (a) Analysis of mm. 1–36; (b) Analysis of mm. 37–130.
(a)
(b)
The Kopfton E is the first pitch heard in the mazurka. Extended via
upper-third G (in conjunction with the local shift to tonic A Minor’s
upper-third chord – C-E-G – in measures 5 through 8), a middleground
descent – E>D>C – over the course of the pillar likewise incorporates an
upper-third embellishment of D (F>D in measure 11) before goal C,
presented as an anticipation at the end of measure 11, sounds. The descent
only as far as ^3 during the initial tonic pillars (a1 and a2) will affect how
Chopin proceeds during the B section (measures 37 through 50) and will be
rectified during A2’s a2 region, to be explored below.
The b region draws upon a1’s establishment of the A Minor tonic and of
Kopfton ^5 to launch its tonal trajectory, which is similar to that which
inaugurates a1: the II➔ of measure 13 replicates much of what occurred in
measure 9, leading to V♯ in measure 14 (as in measure 10). What follows is
unusual, an instance of a seismic shift. Instead of proceeding directly to I➔,
Chopin repeats the II➔ V♯ succession in a transposition down a half step
(measures 15 and 16), consequently achieving tonic A not via its normative
E dominant predecessor, but instead via E♭ – its antipode! This half-step
depression is displayed within a box in 3.16a. While the ear may succeed in
making the broad connection between roots E (measure 14) and A (mea-
sure 17), the passage sets the stage for a more remarkable deviation that will
occur later, at the onset of A2.
Though a b region often will conclude on V♯, here the dominant
function is already built into the initial measures of the tonic pillar, as
mentioned above. Consequently the prolonged I➔ of measures 17 through
21 proceeds only to IV♯ and its evolved 6-phase chord (D♯-F♯-A-C) before
the pillar theme enters in the left hand at 251. The a2 tonic pillar’s
progression is similar to that of a1, with the structural melody again
descending E>D>C. The goal C is transferred down an octave and wobbles
to C♯ for the onset of the B section (in A Major) in measure 37.
Indeed the fact that the linear progressions descend only a third from ^5
during the initial two tonic pillars results in some unfinished business that
Chopin addresses at the onset of the B section, where the major-hued C♯
yields to B and then A in measures 37 through 42 [3.16b]. Only upon that
line’s completion is Kopfton E freshly stated, with a full descent of the E>A
fifth transpiring during measures 42 through 50. The E>D>C♯ component
of that fifth is complemented by ascending motion in the bass, in an A5–6
B5–6 C5♯ sequential trajectory. A C♯➔ chord is, of course, a common
predecessor of the tonic’s 6-phase chord.
The next round of tonic prolongation (measures 49 through 82) is
extraordinary. Note the extended prolongation of the E minor chord first
sounded in measure 56. Chopin explores several possible continuations

before proceeding through F♯➔ to B➔ in measures 71 and 72 (the version
displayed in 3.16b). That B chord “should” lead to dominant E. (Compare
with the B chord of measure 13.) Yet at that point an extended half-step
depression (another seismic shift) begins. Now with augmented fifth,
B-D♯-FÜ leads not as expected to E-G♯-B (to inaugurate the third statement
of the tonic pillar, as in measures 25 and 26), but instead to D♯-FÜ-A♯,
which shares two common tones with the preceding II➔. This D♯ “domi-
nant” sets A2 in motion, resolving to “tonic” G♯ in measure 82. The entire
a1 region maintains this half-step depression. Fortunately Chopin has
already devised a means of re-establishing the rightful tonal center. The
depressed chords of measures 15 and 16 (displayed within a box in 3.16a)
are the same as the last two depressed chords displayed within a box in
3.16b. Chopin simply persists along the course of a1 and b until those
chords emerge (stating them twice so as to maintain the dimensions of the
b region from A1), and then does exactly what he did during the earlier
b region to emerge out of the depression. (Compare measures 16–17 and
94–95.) The remainder of b and the onset of a1 correspond to their
counterparts within A1.
Whereas both the a1 and a2 tonic pillars within A1 traverse the linear
progression of a third descending from Kopfton ^5, during the final pillar
(the a2 of A2), a revision of the harmonization in measure 114 prevents the
occurrence of an unsuitable IAC. (See 3.16b.) The pitch C (background ^3)
is supported by an embellishing chord (D♯-F♯-A-C, which later evolves
into D♯-F♮-A-C) that comes between presentations of the dominant sup-
porting ^4 (at 1133) and 2^ (at measures 123 through 129). The PAC in the
work’s final measure coordinates with the descent from B to A (= ^1) in
conjunction with the tonic’s arrival. Despite the irregularities of cadence
and tonal center that have characterized the earlier statements, a regular
tonic pillar – in A Minor throughout and with a full descent from ^5 to ^1 –
finally prevails.
part ii
Masterpieces
4 Étude in C Minor (op. 10, no. 12)
in response to Graham H. Phipps
Graham H. Phipps, drawing upon precepts of the eminent Austrian

theorists Simon Sechter and Arnold Schoenberg, offers a robust study
of Chopin’s Étude in C Minor in an article from 1983.1 That composition
was selected with good reason: Phipps was keen to explore Schenker’s
extensive and detailed graphs of the work and to reveal ways in which his
own Sechterian/Schoenbergian perspective offers contrasting and, in his
view, superior insights, just as my taking up the work again now offers an
opportunity to assess Phipps’s perspective. I, too, am uncomfortable with
aspects of Schenker’s reading, but so as not to complicate the presenta-
tion or distract from my focus on Phipps’s analysis, my comments
relating to Schenker’s graphs will be relegated to the notes, for the most
part. Phipps contends that Schenker’s theory is “restrictive in a manner
which prevents him from perceiving significant musical relationships”
(p. 544) and that it is at fault by (as Schoenberg contends) “ignoring the
musical facts” (p. 545). He does not attempt to build upon Schenker’s
insights, as I do.
The introduction and the A1 section, part 1

(measures 1–18)
Charged with preparing the C Minor tonic arrival at 91, the introduction
projects two variants of the tonic’s most characteristic embellishing chord:
G-B♮-D-F and its more potent variant, B♮-D-F-A♭. Whereas the A♭>G
appoggiatura of 11 is reiterated con forza at the top of the texture during 51
(embellishing the pitch G, which will emerge as the work’s Kopfton), that
motive is raised a step – to B♭>A♭ – during 73 to assert the chordal ninth,
which reverts to G during 83 as a G>E♭>C arpeggiation of the tonic triad
commences. (Make special note at this point that I underline the pitch
names G and A♭. My contention that the work’s Kopfton is G – rather than
E♭ – likely will be controversial, and so my attentiveness to how G is
deployed throughout will warrant the reader’s attentive consideration.)
Through this means the A1 theme’s G<A♭>G neighboring-note motive is
Example 4.1 Analysis of Étude in C Minor (op. 10/12), mm. 1–18.
adumbrated during the introduction. (See 4.1.) That tonic arpeggiation

also provides the unfolded E♭>C resolution of the introduction’s perva-
sive FB ♮ diminished fifth. (Thus advocates of Kopfton ^3 may also find
supportive evidence in Chopin’s introduction.) This third (ascending
from C to E♭ and filled in by passing note D) likewise is incorporated
within the A1 theme.
The descending triadic arpeggiation leading into 91 is complemented
by the A1 theme’s ascending arpeggiation during measures 10 and 11:
C<E♭<G. (See 4.1.) Though the E♭ is emphasized through metrical place-
ment, dynamics, and an upper-octave doubling, it becomes apparent as
the phrase proceeds that both E♭ and G serve as starting points for
descending fourths: a partially chromatic descent from G to D comple-
mented by a fully chromatic descent from E♭ to B♮. Even if E♭, D, and C
are doubled at the upper octave, a consideration of that strand’s span over
the course of the entire phrase (where C’s successor, B♮, sounds only
below the G strand’s D during measure 18) confirms that it is an interior
structural component. Chopin’s harmonic support for these two strands
is a creative realization of a conventional construction: IV serves as the
principal connector between I and V♮, and the succession from I to IV
invites the emergence of a dominant-emulating tonic, here (E♮)-G-B♭-D♭
at 153–4. Yet before that chord sounds, the tonic is prolonged via a
foreground I II➔ V♮ I progression whose consonant tonic resolution is
elided, replaced by the surging I➔.2
Étude in C Minor (op. 10, no. 12) 147
To inaugurate my critique of Phipps’s analysis, I ask readers to go to a

piano and to play the following chord near Middle C:
G-B♮-D-F-G
Then move three fingers a half step to the right, playing
G-C-E♭-F-A♭
Then play the first chord again. Though the first chord is poised to
resolve to a C-E♭-G tonic chord, and though the second chord in fact
contains the pitches C, E♭, and G, my ear refuses to hear a resolution, as
Phipps proposes (p. 554 and ex. 2, system 1). The introduction features
both arpeggiation and embellishment. Early on we hear how, individu-
ally, A♭ embellishes G while E♭ embellishes D. The last beat of measure 2
integrates those two embellishments with yet another: passing C con-
necting D and B♮. The B♮ leading tone, sounded at the outset, does not
resolve until 91.
Any meaningful analysis of this music must grapple with the hier-
archical relationships among the numerous sixteenth notes. Nothing in
the score states explicitly that C at 23–4 is dependent upon B♮ at 31. Yet I
propose that there, and at 43–4, 71, 73, and 82, the pitch that serves as the
movement’s tonic performs a subservient role: B♮ and D belong to the
prolonged embellishing chord, whereas C does not.
As the introduction progresses the underlying arpeggiated chord
intensifies, evolving from B♮-D-F-G to B♮-D-F-A♭. Consequently the
A♭>G second of 11 (and numerous other statements through 63) is
elevated to B♭>A♭ during 73. Phipps does not make that association.
Instead he proposes that this B♭ serves as a chord member: the dominant
root in a potential shift of the tonal center to E♭ Major (p. 554 and ex. 2,
systems 2 and 3). Whereas I perceive an unwavering presence of B♮
(against which B♭ clashes) from its sounding during 73 to its sounding
during 82, Phipps places the B♭ on a higher plane, with a B♭>A♭>F>D
arpeggiation of V7 in E♭ Major potentially resolving to its tonic during
81. That interpretation requires some curious hierarchical shifts: in a
context in which the first and third sixteenth notes of a beat embellish
the second and fourth, exceptionally the B♭ during 73 and the E♭ during
81 must counter that trend.3
Phipps proposes that the introduction serves as the Schoenbergian
Grundgestalt for the Étude. If that is the case, then it seems to me he has
overlooked an important feature of its shape: the neighboring motion
from G to A♭, then back to G (as displayed in 4.1), conveying an

intensification and then retreat prior to the tonic resolution. That
process is then mapped onto the tonic, with the A♭ at 121 embellishing
Kopfton G.
It is heartening to know that Phipps (in alignment with Sechter’s
view) concurs with my reading of the F♯-A♮-C-E♭ chord’s root as D
(measure 14), though my II➔ label (or II with numbers, accidentals, and
a bullet symbol, as in 4.1) conveys something slightly different from his
“dominant of G” terminology (p. 556). Phipps suggests that the emer-
gence of this chord will come as a surprise: focusing on the right-hand
A♮-C-E♭, he proposes that root F♮ is “expected” in the left hand. I hold a
more neutral perspective on what might happen after a phrase’s initial
tonic, regarding II (in which A♮, C, and E♭ serve as the fifth, seventh, and
ninth) and IV (in which those pitches serve as the third, fifth, and
seventh) as equally viable successors. In this case Chopin employs F♯-
A-C-E♭, initiating an exploration of the chord’s mehrdeutig character.4
Here it leads to G, whereas, reinterpreted as A-C-E♭-G♭ (which Chopin
presents in its F-A-C-E♭ variant), it leads to B♭ in measures 24 and 25,
and, reinterpreted as C-E♭-G♭-B♭♭, to D♭ in measures 64 and 65.
Phipps and I propose opposing hierarchies for the chords of measure
15. Whereas he regards the first-inversion G major chord at 151 as the
onset of a “four-measure resolution” – extending through measure 18 –
of the F♯-A-C-E♭ “dominant” (p. 556), I instead regard all that has
transpired within the phrase thus far as contributing to the establish-
ment of the phrase’s initial I-space, culminating in a potent I➔ at 153–4.
(Phipps and I agree that this chord functions as a tonic, as a comparison
of his ex. 6 and my 4.1 confirms.5 We disagree regarding its hierarchical
depth.) Consequently the IV at measure 16, which supports the ^4 on the
melodic path between ^5 and ^2, resides deeper within the structure in my
reading than in Phipps’s. A consistent descending half-step motive
transpires within many of the phrase’s measures: from the melody’s
signature A♭>G in measure 12 to the bass’s B♮>B♭ and A♮>A♭ (measures
15 and 16) to the melody’s E♮>E♭ and E♭>D (measures 17 and 18).
Though Phipps’s ex. 6 displays most of these seconds, for the most part
he does not propose any hierarchical relationships among them. Had he
done so, the contradiction between the B♮>B♭ pitch hierarchy and the V
(I) analytical hierarchy in measure 15 would have stood out glaringly.
The A1 section, part 2 (measures 19–48)
After a two-measure allowance for the C Minor tonic chord to settle in

(measures 9 and 10), the A1 section proceeds with eight measures – 10|11
through 18 – during which Chopin traverses a conventional I-to-V♮
harmonic progression, supporting the descending melodic fourth from
Kopfton G to D. That content is reprised in a more definitive and much
expanded statement during measures 21 through 41, which are organized
as 8 + 8 + 5 measures. (The five-measure unit dovetails with a reprise of the
introduction material. The tonic re-emerges in measure 49 to inaugurate
A2.) Whereas in the first phrase the bass trajectory from C through B♭ and
A♭ to G coordinates with the harmonic progression I ➔ IV V♮, for the
expanded version Chopin instead pursues a circular progression that
incorporates C, B♭, and A♭ as roots (C F B♭ E♭ A♭ . . . ), thereby providing
an alternative means of support for the stepwise descent from Kopfton
G. The circle’s component chords are delineated in 4.2, in which two
alternative conclusions for the passage are juxtaposed. (These measures
are displayed in graph notation in 4.3, which will be introduced during our
consideration of the A2 section but which may be consulted now.) Chopin
in fact jumps off the circle’s tracks in an unexpected development over the
course of measures 33 through 35. How does he initiate the circular
progression, and why does he elect to abandon it?
The two parts of A1 begin along the same course: measures 10|11
through 13 map onto measures 20|21 through 23. Even the melody’s A♮
at 241 stems from the earlier passage. Yet the upward drive initiated by that
pitch now persists for three measures, in coordination with a crescendo
and even a stretto. Though numerous combinations of pitches sound
during these measures, I propose that they are guided by an evolutionary
Example 4.2 Analysis of Étude in C Minor (op. 10/12), mm. 21–41.

process that may be expressed in symbols as C ➔ : that is, in targeting the

circle’s second chord (F during measure 27), the C minor tonic chord first
becomes dominant-emulating (C-E♮-G-B♭ during 261–2) and then takes on
an augmented-sixth character (E♮-G♭-B♭-(D♭) during 264). The augmented
sixth (which most often occurs in the context of a supertonic), in coordi-
nation with the 64 embellishment of the following major F chord, gives a
strong sense of a B♭ Major tonicization (II V I) to the passage from 264
through 281, though from a broader perspective this trajectory remains
bounded by C Minor’s C tonic and potential G dominant. With that
internal B♭ Major tonicization in mind, the A♮ of measure 24 serves as a
diatonic component of a sequential connection between the C supertonic’s
root position and surging first inversion:
m. 23 24 x 25 26
5– –6 5– –6
C (D ) E♮6 E♭5
(= C ———————————————————)
This sequence is somewhat rambunctious, in that the D5 component is
elided. The addition of the pitch F to C6 fosters the direct link to D6, as
F➔B♭.6 Drawing upon the momentum generated thus far, Chopin extends
further during measure 26, from C to E♮ in the top voice and from E♮ to G♭
in the bass. Root C finally yields to root F at 271.
Chopin begins a shift from notation in flats to notation in sharps during
measure 28. The curiously juxtaposed G♯ and B♭ during 284 should be
regarded as components of a B♭7 chord, targeting the circle’s next component,
E♭ [D♯].7 Chopin complicates matters by employing an unfurled 64 embellish-
ment to precede that E♭ arrival (measures 29 and 30), as displayed in 4.2.8
Consequently the B♭ chord’s dissonant A♭ [G♯] at 284 is suspended for a full
measure before resolution to G♭ [F♯] at 301. Though the similarity in how the
F chord in measure 27 and the E♭ chord in measures 29 and 30 are embel-
lished might have created a parallelism within the circle, the E♭ chord’s minor
quality prevents it from imparting a dominant function. (Thus a potential
tonicization of A♭ Major following that of B♭ Major is declined.) Yet the minor
quality of the E♭ [D♯] chord followed (after some linear connection) by an A♭
[G♯] chord of dominant character (measure 33) constitutes the onset of an
alternative and quite striking tonicization: that of the lowered supertonic
(Neapolitan) key, D♭ Major. The continuation marked as “Alternative 1” in
4.2 realizes that potentiality and proceeds onward to the G goal. However,
Chopin abruptly changes course after the A♭ [G♯] chord.
If left unattended, a descending circle of (perfect) fifths does not chart a
course from the tonic to the dominant. Instead, C would lead through F,
B♭, E♭, A♭, and D♭ to G♭, the tonic’s antipode. Composers are left with two
options (unless they are willing to take the long route – reaching G [A♭♭] at
the circle’s twelfth chord): either they can modify one of the perfect fifths
by a half step (generally at F–B♮, at A♭–D, or at D♭–G); or they can abandon
the circular progression before the dominant arrives. The two alternatives
displayed in 4.2 reveal how these options might be realized. In the first, the
melodic descent overshoots the mark, requiring a corrective shift from D♭
to diatonic D♮ in coordination with a D♭–G diminished fifth in the bass.
This is a common occurrence in music, one that Chopin in fact will call
upon later in the Étude (as the measure numbers 72 and 75 in 4.2 indicate).
Yet he here elects instead to pursue the second of the two options, deploy-
ing two seismic shifts to hoist the A♭➔ [G♯➔] chord targeting D♭ upwards
first to B♭➔ (measure 34) and then to C➔ (measure 35).9 Perhaps a factor
in Chopin’s choice was the desire to realign this part of A1 harmonically
with the I ➔ IV V♮ trajectory of the section’s first part, despite the altered
relationship with the melody’s descent from Kopfton G to D. Or perhaps he
wanted to reserve the Neapolitan chord, which will be featured during A2
(measure 72).10 In any event, the section’s melodic goal ^2, supported by V♮,
is achieved at 411.11
Though both Phipps and I are drawn to the F➔ B♭ succession of

measures 27 and 28, we contextualize it in contrasting ways. Whereas
he singles out the F chord of measure 24 as “the means for movement to
the B♭-major cadence” (p. 558), therefore apparently proposing a four-
measure extension of F➔ (though no further details are provided), I
instead interpret that initial F➔ within the expansion of an evolving
C chord, with the C-to-F succession occurring over the bar line between
measures 26 and 27. (Though he acknowledges a cadence in measure 28,
Phipps calls the F-B♭-D chord at 271–3 a “tonic 64 harmony in B♭ major”
(p. 558), further distinguishing his interpretation of the broad C–F–B♭
circular trajectory from mine.) Equally problematic, in my view, is his
assertion that this B♭ Major cadence marks a sectional close (p. 558),
thereby relegating measures 29 through 40 to the status of a “retransi-
tion” (p. 564). I instead regard root B♭ as internal to a dynamic circular
trajectory whose continuation to E♭ is already under way by the end of
measure 28, with the arrival of B♭’s minor seventh, A♭ [G♯]. (Phipps’s
detailed harmonic reduction of measures 28 through 36 – his ex. 10 –
omits that A♭.)
Phipps’s ex. 10 (p. 560) is rich in information. I commend his inter-

pretation of the hierarchical relationship between the chords of measures
29 and 30, and of measures 31 and 32. (He displays IV I successions in E♭
Minor and in C♯ Minor. Schenker, on the other hand, binds the A♭ chords
of measures 29 and 33, thereby reversing the hierarchy that both Phipps
and I propose.12) Though I go one step further, interpreting Phipps’s
6 ♭ 5
G♯-to-D♯ motion as E♭[D♯]43 ♭
, and though I do not regard this brief
flourish on E as a tonicization, I acknowledge that, within the context of
♭
his perspective, the analysis is exemplary.
That said, the interpretation of measure 29’s content as IV (in E♭
Minor) causes syntactic difficulties, since the preceding B♭ dominant
chord would be leading to an A♭ chord. This infelicitous succession is
spirited away through Phipps’s insertion of a “silent interdominant”
(p. 559), which he labels as I within parentheses in his ex. 10 (between
the V and IV numerals). Though I am a vigorous advocate of imagina-
tive analysis in general, in this context – in which the B♭ dominant’s
seventh, A♭ [G♯], arrives at 284 and is then retained within the following
measure – the tactic’s viability becomes doubtful. (As mentioned above,
Phipps avoids that issue by omitting the A♭ from his example.) I propose
instead a broader, hierarchically differentiated trajectory: from B♭ (the
first chord in Phipps’s example) to E♭ [D♯] (the third chord) and then
onward to A♭ [G♯] (the sixth chord).
Chopin’s writing in measures 33 through 37 has elicited quite differ-
ent responses from Schenker, from Phipps, and from me. Schenker
inserts a parenthetical D♭ chord to resolve the surging A♭➔, and a
parenthetical E♭ chord to resolve B♭➔.13 Phipps, on the other hand,
inserts a parenthetical F chord (presumably surging) between A♭ and B♭
and a parenthetical G chord between B♭ and C in his ex. 10 to justify
Chopin’s “deceptive resolutions of dominant harmony” (p. 559). I
propose a more radical interpretation, in which only the third of these
chords actually resolves: the tendency inherent in the surging A♭➔
chord is simply raised two notches, first to B♭➔ and then to C➔, in
the double application of a seismic shift (a strategy introduced on page
133, above). By this means the progress of the broad progression (C to
A♭➔) in measures 21 through 33 is retracted through the reinstatement
of the tonic chord (now surging), so that IV becomes the principal
intermediary between the perimeter I and V♮ harmonies, as it was also
in measures 9 through 18.
The A2 section and coda (measures 49–84)
The recurrence of the A1 section’s opening part at the onset of A2 helps to

define the form as binary. (See 4.3.) Indeed, Chopin might have proceeded
in a parallel construction until the vicinity of the A2 cadence, where a PAC
would replace A1’s HC. He instead chose to compose fresh material that in
several ways expands upon constructions already set forth. The chord of
measure 14 proves to be a source from which diverse continuations flow. It
was of course no secret during Chopin’s formative years that diminished
seventh chords are susceptible to multiple enharmonic interpretations. In
its spelling as F♯-A-C-E♭ in measure 14, it serves as II➔, leading to V♮ in a
local tonic-prolonging progression (displayed in 4.1). In its spelling as
A-C-E♭-G♭, it would lead to a B♭ chord. Resolving the chord’s ninth G♭
(an incidental dissonance) to F, that is what Chopin accomplishes in
measures 24 and 25, as explained above. At the outset of A2 the II➔
function of measure 14 is reprised in measure 54. That leaves one remain-
ing opportunity for a novel resolution, which Chopin fulfills with aplomb.
Though the chord of measure 64 is spelled like that in measure 54, it targets
♭II, and thus its “correct” spelling would be C-E♭-G♭-B♭♭ (as shown in 4.3).
The downward-resolving B♭♭ displaces the chordal root A♭. Yet the D♭-F-
A♭ resolution that might have occurred as early as 651 is postponed
through a 64 embellishment.14 At this point Chopin taps another of the
structural notions he has been pursuing: the avoidance of a functional ♭II
harmony. The 64 embellishment of ♭II never achieves its expected 53 resolu-
tion. Recall that the seismic shifts during measures 33 through 35 resulted
in the juxtaposition of three chords with the same resolutional tendency in
an ascending trajectory. Only the third of those 65 chords resolves. Now
three chords with the same resolutional tendency are juxtaposed in a
descending trajectory, at the downbeats of measures 65, 67, and 69.15 Only
the third of these 64 chords resolves to the expected 53 : E♭ descends to D at 701,
whereas G descends to F at the end of measure 70. At this point yet another
factor comes into play: having descended a third from the potential ♭II
resolution to subtonic VII, Chopin now engages (as a collision, before the
5
3 has fallen into place) a subtonic-to-dominant shift. (Compare with the
third model in FC, fig. 111a.) The remainder of the progression proceeds
from this dominant in a conventional trajectory, one that includes (finally!)
an uncontested ♭II.16 The cadential tonic at 771 is of major quality. It is
followed by a coda that twice traverses the melodic third C<D<E♮, displacing
the potent C<D<E♭ motive first stated in measure 10.
Example 4.3 Analysis of Étude in C Minor (op. 10/12).
Please return to the piano to explore some diminished-seventh resolu-

tions. Since we know that Chopin liked to compose at the piano, it is not
unreasonable to imagine that the chords you play will echo some that
Chopin struck while auditioning ideas for this work.
First play the tonic triad, C-E♭-G, followed by C-E♭-F♯-A. The tension
thereby created could resolve in a number of ways. This time proceed to
B♮-D-G. Chopin develops that conception in measures 13 through 15
(repeated in measures 53 through 55).
Then play the first two chords again, proceeding now to D-F-B♭. In
this context the F♯ would be spelled appropriately as G♭. Then play these
three chords again, replacing G♭ in the second chord with F♮, thereby
lessening the chord’s dissonant intensity. Chopin develops that concep-
tion in measures 23 through 25.
Now play the first two chords followed by D♭-F-A♭. In this context
the second chord would be spelled appropriately as C-E♭-G♭-B♭♭.
Though B♭♭ is a downward-tending note, a 64 embellishment of the
resolution chord might result in an upward detour to B♭ before the A♭
resolution pitch sounds. (For this reason the chord often will be
spelled using A♮, as Chopin does in measure 64. Note that he post-
pones the G♭ spelling until measure 65.) Play the chords of this
progression: C-E♭-G, C-E♭-G♭-B♭♭, D♭-G♭-B♭, D♭-F-A♭. Chopin’s pre-
sentation of this model in measures 63 through 66 fails to achieve the
D♭-F-A♭ goal. Yet at the end of measure 66 the listener might still have
hope of success. Play the progression again, inserting D♭-E♮-G♮-B♭
between the given third and fourth chords. This usage is referred to
nowadays as a “common-tone diminished seventh” chord, a type of
embellishing chord that was already acknowledged in print early in the
nineteenth century.17 Consequently, among the possible continua-
tions that the listener might expect will occur after measure 66, a D♭
major chord should hold a place. Chopin instead interprets the D♭-E♮-
G♮-B♭ chord as an evolved form of G♭➔ (appropriately spelled as B♭-
D♭-F♭-A♭♭), a transposition of the C-E♭-G♭-B♭♭ chord from measure 64,
thereby beginning a downward trajectory that lands on subtonic B♭ in
measure 69.
Phipps proposes that the chord spelled by Chopin as D♭-E♮-G♮-B♭ in
measure 66 might lead to a root-position F minor chord (pp. 561–562 and
ex. 13). To me that seems unlikely, given that D♭ resides in the bass.18
(A continuation to F would be probable if bass D♭ were to descend to C

against the E♮, G♮, and B♭. But it does not.) Consequently for me the
tension is not between competing potential resolutions to F and to C♭, but
instead between remaining on D♭ (via common-tone resolution) and
descending to C♭.
5 Nocturne in C♯ Minor (op. 27, no. 1)
in response to Felix Salzer
Felix Salzer, a student of Schenker who migrated from Vienna to America

at the outbreak of the Second World War, is remembered both as a central
figure in the florescence of Schenkerian studies in New York City and as the
author of Structural Hearing (1952), which served for several decades (until
Free Composition appeared in 1979) as the principal means through which
Schenker-oriented analysis could be pursued in English.1 With Carl
Schachter, Salzer wrote a textbook on counterpoint; and with William
J. Mitchell, he edited an influential series of volumes called The Music
Forum, devoted in part to analytical essays based on Schenker’s method.
Salzer’s analysis of Chopin’s Nocturne in C♯ Minor (op. 27, no. 1) appeared
in the second Music Forum volume, published in 1970.2 Though Salzer
does not acknowledge an involvement by Schenker himself in the
Nocturne analysis, similarities between sketches in Schenker’s Nachlass3
and Salzer’s published analysis leave little doubt of a direct influence –
either through Salzer’s study of the piece with Schenker during the early
1930s in Vienna or through Salzer’s access to the Schenker Nachlass, which
also made its way from Vienna to New York as a consequence of Hitler’s
aggression.
The A1 section (measures 1–28)
In the manner of an Indian raga the nocturne’s C♯ Minor tonic is evoked

initially through an unwavering left-hand arpeggiation. Though subdued, a
harmonic progression emerges gradually out of the tonic expanse: I ➔ IV5–6♮
V I (measures 3 through 6). The foundational C♯ pedal is maintained even
against B♯ and D♮ (measure 5). Enhancing the languorous mood, voice-
leading activity is minimized between IV6♮ and V , where Chopin takes
advantage of the fact that the former’s pitch collection (F♯, A, D♮) is a subset
of an evolved form of the latter’s (F♯, A, D♮, with added B♯). (See 5.1.)
Chopin’s maintenance of D♮ during the dominant harmony (resulting in
a rather than a ➔ surge) flouts the near-universal practice of resolving the
“Neapolitan” wobbly note (or at least allowing a place for its imaginative
resolution), as Chopin does in measure 21, where the parenthetical D♯

within the local third-progression in 5.1 is justified by the sounding of D♯
within the left-hand arpeggiation. Whereas a tonic-establishing linear pro-
gression descending from the Kopfton usually follows a diatonic course,
descents at several levels within 5.1 proceed as E>D♮>C♯. (The incomplete
neighbor F♯ coming between E and D♮ at 43 is unremarkable, given that
I➔ IV occurs in the context of Kopfton ^3.) Another convention is flouted as
well: whereas in a minor key the mediant often plays a prominent role during
the bass’s traversal of the span from the tonic (at 31) to the dominant (at 94),
its introduction at 71 is immediately rescinded.4 That episode nevertheless
serves Chopin’s compositional agenda in three ways: (1) the diatonic
E>D♯>C♯ descent to the tonic root in the bass normalizes the melody’s
eccentric E>D♮>C♯; (2) the melody’s G♯>F♯>E third echoes the E>D♮>C♯
third and establishes a precedent for the prominent G♯>F♯>E span between
112 and 131; and (3) the mediant’s later emergence in measure 48 is adum-
brated. The tonic pillar’s evocative calmness is enhanced by the cessation of
melodic and harmonic activity in measure 10 (the final measure of the A1
section’s a1 half). Having just heard a V I succession in measures 5 and 6,
listeners will understand that a tonic resolution has been deferred. The
contorted dominant that lingers through measure 10 creates a singular
antecedent effect. Closure is attained only with a2’s PAC in measure 18,
concluding the initial presentation of A1.
The a2 half of A1 (measures 11 through 18) is built from two phrases that
relate to one another as a local antecedent–consequent pair, as graphed in
5.1. (That is, a local interruption occurs in measure 14, within the second
half of the period delineated by the more basic interruption in measure 10.
The dominant of 143–4 is interpreted as possessing an imagined diatonic
D♯.) Note especially Chopin’s persistence in employing the F♯>D♮ third
first stated in measures 4 and 5. The cadence in measure 18 completes the
tonic pillar’s agenda. A written-out repeat of A1 (with variants) commences
in measure 19.
The listener’s sense of the nocturne’s formal shape will shift during
the repeat. Whereas initially it appears that the nocturne opens with a
regular tonic pillar of binary construction (in which Kopfton ^3 is intro-
duced and then extended via a descending third-progression to the tonic
root), the non-completion of its repetition – with the onset of the con-
trasting B section beginning at measure 29 – leads to the revised designa-
tion of the tonic pillar as irregular – that is, without closure on the tonic
(likewise the case in many of the mazurkas that we explored in chapter 3).
The agenda of measures 19 through 28 (including a two-measure extension
Example 5.1 Analysis of Nocturne in C♯ Minor (op. 27/1), mm. 1–28.
at the end), which repeat a1, is not further pursued until measures 84
through 94 (including a two-measure preface and a one-measure internal
expansion), which constitute the A2 section. In the meantime, the initial
tonic and Kopfton ^3 are restored near the onset of the B section, whose
exuberance starkly contrasts the languid repose of the outer A sections.
For me the A1 section’s mesmerizing effect stems in large part from the
persistent traversal of descending third-progressions from Kopfton E.
Comparison with Chopin’s Mazurka in A Minor (op. 7/2), measures 33
through 40, is instructive. Observe how an upward detour from the
tonicized A Major tonic’s third C♯ to incomplete neighbor D precedes a
descending motion through B to A four times within eight measures
(graphed once in 2.15).5 The arpeggiation B>G♯>E transpires during
6 7
the succession from IV ♮ to V ♯ , during which the preceding D neighbor
is transferred to the tenor register for downward resolution in conjunc-
tion with the arrival of I. In the Nocturne in C♯ Minor, a similar upward
detour from Kopfton E to incomplete neighbor F♯ (via chromatic pas-
sing note E♯ during the tonic’s surge, since the mode is minor) is
followed by a D♮>B♯ arpeggiation during the succession from IV6♮ to
a dominant configured as V rather than as V➔. Though the neighbor
F♯ does not sound before the resolution during measures 5–6 or at the
dominant of measures 9–10, it follows the mazurka’s precedent through
transfer to the tenor register for the resolutions of measures 13–14 and
17–18. Salzer does not display a descent from the Kopfton during the
first two of these four statements. Instead he focuses on an ascending
third from E through F♯ to G♯. In his analysis of the third statement (see
his fig. 5), an E>D♮>C♯ descent (against which F♯ resolves to E in the
tenor register) coordinates with an E<F♯<G♯ ascent. Only the conclud-
ing cadence (at measures 17–18) shows a straightforward and uncon-
tested descent from ^3 to ^1.6 Consequently, in my view Salzer has lost
sight of one of the A1 section’s principal unifying threads.
Salzer’s reading of the harmony likewise differs in significant ways
from mine. Three layers of harmonic analysis annotate 5.1. The highest
level shows the basic progression within A1 and its incomplete repeti-
tion, interpreting chords that contain the uncommon pitch D♮ as
dominants. The middle layer focuses on the midpoint interruption
within the initial A1’s a2 component, where again a dominant (now
normatively spelled) is a critical structural element. The bottom layer
shows several foreground progressions, again incorporating dominant
Nocturne in C♯ Minor (op. 27, no. 1) 161
chords containing the pitch D♮. In all, I read dominant functions (at one
structural level or another) at seven locations. Salzer’s application of
Roman numerals in his fig. 5 is inconsistent. They are as well deserved in
measures 1 through 6 (where none are displayed) as in measures 19
through 22 (where they occur). More crucial to my reading of the large-
scale shape of the section, the dominants of measures 9–10 and 26–28
do not enter into his harmonic thinking, whereas for me they serve
(despite their uncommon constitution) as the structurally most signifi-
cant dominants within A1 and its incomplete repetition (the only
dominants in my upper row of Roman numeral analysis). Likewise the
dominant at 143–4 (which emerges in my middle layer of analysis) is
unlabeled in Salzer’s graph.
The B section, part 1 (measures 29–64)
The tempo change and new thematic content at measure 29 coincide with
the onset of the nocturne’s B section, which opens with a much expanded
reiteration of the tonic-to-subdominant succession of measures 3 and 4
[5.2]. The surge propelled there by a EB ♯ augmented fourth now derives its
energy from an BE ♯ diminished fifth (measures 33 and 41). Yet whereas the
A1 section’s motion to IV resides within a harmonic trajectory, the sub-
dominant target of the B section’s initial surge instead resides within a
descending circle of fifths connecting the C♯ Minor tonic and its upper-
third chord (measures 30 through 48). Though the spelling of the chord at
483 might suggest a continuation of the circular progression, with E➔
targeting A, Chopin’s continuation does not support that reading. At that
point Chopin shifts to a key signature in flats, in a mildly deficient means of
conveying the key of D♭ Major (anticipating C♯ Minor’s parallel major, C♯
Major, which prevails beginning in measure 65).7 Alas, the chord of 483
falls in the cracks, with a spelling that mingles elements from C♯ Minor
(E-G♯-B-CÜ) and its enharmonic equivalent D♭ Minor, preceding the
transformation to D♭ Major (F♭-A♭-C♭-D♮). Retaining the C♯ Minor sig-
nature, 5.2 reveals that Chopin here redeploys another feature from the A1
section, though in a contrasting context: whereas D♮-F♯-A in measure 5
absorbs B♯ to become V (leading to I), E-G♯-B in measure 48 absorbs CÜ
to become ♯VI (leading to II♯).8 In fact, a broad chromaticized voice
exchange (EC ♯ CE ♯ ) transpires between measures 30 and 48, dynamically
targeting the supertonic, which in turn targets (as II➔) the dominant.
(Consequently the E major chord of measure 48 – the goal of the circle of
fifths – serves as an interior element within a broad I8–7–6♯ initiative,
wherein the concluding I6♯ is presented in an evolved state: CÜ-E-G♯-B,
derived from absent root A♯, instead of diatonic C♯-E-G♯-A.) Though a
high G♯ [A♭], reminiscent of that in measure 6, emerges during this
progression (as shown in 5.2), it returns to the texture’s interior at measure
52. The plainness of the dominant arrival contrasts its A1 predecessor
(measures 25–26). In both contexts a dominant extension precedes the
next compositional initiative. That of measures 52 through 64 features
ascending motions connecting the dominant’s root and third (G♯<A♯<B♯)
and its fifth and seventh (D♯<DÜ<E♯<F♯), as shown in 5.2.
There are three main reasons why I regard the E of measure 30 as a

reinstatement of the Kopfton (covered by G♯), rather than following
Salzer’s lead by delaying that reinstatement until measure 48. First, EC ♯
resolves the local dissonance of measure 29 (carried over from measure
26). Second, E is reinforced through the EC ♯ CE ♯ voice exchange in
measures 30 through 32. Third, the E<E♯<F♯ inaugural melodic gesture
of A1 recurs here. (Due to the voice exchange, it transpires in the bass
during measures 32 through 34.) Whereas my reading of a descending
circle of fifths corresponds to Salzer’s annotation “asc[ending] 4ths
(desc[ending] 5ths)” in his fig. 5 (p. 293), I find his coordinating
beamed lines (E<F♯<FÜ<G♯ in measures 38 through 46 and G♯>F♯>E
in measures 46 through 48) curious. I instead regard the G♯ as a
neighbor to F♯ (thus F♯<FÜ<G♯>F♯) prior to a G♯ arrival at measure 48,

since F♯ – not G♯ – is a stable member of the circle of fifths’ F♯ and B
chords. (The excursion to G♯ is not displayed in 5.2.)
Salzer offers no interpretation of the chord at 483, which I regard as a
potent chromatic variant of the tonic’s 6-phase chord, surging toward
the supertonic. We likewise have divergent views of the mediant that
precedes it: for Salzer it is the principal connector between the tonic and
the dominant, whereas for me it is an upper-third extension of the tonic,
an intermediary between the tonic’s 5- and 6-phase chords. I regard
II➔, rather than III, as the principal harmonic event between the
perimeter tonic and dominant chords. That chord is not labeled in
Salzer’s Roman numeral analysis.
Though I commend Salzer’s display of the dominant prolongation in
measures 52 through 63, I suggest that the slur labeled “6th (5+1)” in his
fig. 5b (p. 293) should be omitted. The penultimate note of this sixth, D♯
[E♭], reinstates the interrupted D♯ of measures 49 through 52. (See my
D♯-to-D♯ slur in 5.2.) By definition an interruption involves a descend-
ing motion whose completion is delayed. Whereas a foreground DÜ [E♮]
leads from this D♯ to the reinstated and now wobbly Kopfton E♯ [F] of
measure 65 (to be explored below), the D♯ of measure 63, reinstated at
792, ultimately finds its successor in C♯ at 941.
The B section, part 2 (measures 65–83)
Though the interruption at ^2, supported by V♯, is achieved in measure 52, in

this case Chopin builds some redundancy into his structure, electively reiter-
ating the B section’s principal events in the context of the parallel major key,
C♯ Major. Consequently all three viable “three–two” descents are utilized
within this nocturne: ^3> ♮ ^2; ^3>^2, and ♯^
3>^2. Concurrently the subdominant
chord is again featured, becoming a unifying feature despite contextual
differences. Whereas the F♯-A-C♯ chord first stated in measure 4 and
repeated several times during A1 fulfills a normative harmonic function
(as IV) between the tonic and dominant, and the F♯-A-C♯ chord of
measures 34–36 and 42–44 is an internal element within a descending
circle of fifths that connects the tonic and the mediant, the F♯-A♯-C♯
[G♭-B♭-D♭] chord in measures 66 and 70 serves as an unfurled 64 embel-
lishment of the major tonic.
A portion of the circle of fifths recurs as well. Whereas in measures 30

through 48 the minor mode’s diatonic C♯ F♯ B E trajectory is pursued
(with each chord eventually surging toward the next), in the context of C♯
Major (measures 71 and 72) a less common path transpires: C♯ FÜ B♯
[D♭ G C], as shown in 5.3. Though B♯ Major, whose tonicization is
accomplished through repetition of the same foreground progression
that earlier established the C♯ Major tonic, generally would be regarded
as a remote key, it nevertheless holds a special place within C♯, as a
chromaticized variant of the dominant’s upper-third chord (major
B♯-DÜ-FÜ as variant of diminished B♯-D♯-F♯).9 When the pitch A [B♭♭],
which I regard as a substitute for the dominant root G♯, arrives at 791,
DÜ and FÜ reveal themselves to be wobbly notes, for tonal order is restored
through their lowering to D♯ and F♯, respectively. (See 5.3.) The A serves
as the G♯ dominant’s minor ninth (as in measures 25 and 26).10 Its
resolution (as an incidental dissonance) to G♯ first in the upper register
(at 833) and then in the lower register (during the cadenza that follows)
provides a normative dominant context for the B section’s close.
I expressed concerns above regarding how Salzer treats the soprano D♯

[E♭] of measures 63 and 64. That concern likewise pertains to the similar
construction in measure 68. Despite Chopin’s slurring, the tonic pedal
point, and the non-alignment of chord members, I propose that mea-
sure 68 should be read as representing A♭-C-E♭-G♭.
My application of the V numeral (at various structural levels) has been
much freer than Salzer’s (beginning, as noted, with the chord of 53–4).
Likewise here we are at odds: my structural dominant, emanating from its
upper-third chord, takes hold in measure 79, four measures before Salzer
applies the Roman numeral V in his Example 5.
Example 5.4 Analysis of Nocturne in C♯ Minor (op. 27/1).
The A2 section and coda (measures 84–101)
Each of the three graphs presented thus far conveys the basic contour of tonic
to dominant (at one structural level or another), supporting some manifesta-
tion of ^3 to some manifestation of 2.^ The model in 5.4 shows how they
interact and how the Urlinie then continues to its inevitable close on ^1 at 941.
The coda that follows develops the distinctive E♯>C♯>G♯ [F>D♭>A♭] arpeg-
giation of measure 65, now presented (twice) more slowly and filled in
during measures 94 through 98. The subdominant of measure 66 finds its
counterpart in measure 99.
Whereas both Salzer and I place the principal interruption after the
dominant arrival in measure 52, he proposes that the major tonic’s ♯^3 in
measure 65 inaugurates the post-interruption descent to ^1. I instead
regard that ♯^3 as the onset of a parenthetical insertion that reiterates the
descent to ^2, thereby delaying the A2 tonic restoration until measure 84.
In addition, Salzer proposes that ^2’s successor ^1 (C♯) holds sway begin-
ning at measure 84. I instead interpret that moment as the initiation of a
post-interruption third-progression descending from ^3. I accept the con-
torted E>D♮>C♯ line that follows as fulfillment of the descent to back-
ground ^1. (Salzer does not connect those three pitches as a line.) The C♯ in
the lower register at 941 is the moment of cadence. (It is displayed up an
octave in 5.4.)
6 Preludes in E Major and E Minor
(op. 28, nos. 9 and 4)
in response to Fred Lerdahl
Building upon the foundation that he established with Ray Jackendoff in

A Generative Theory of Tonal Music (1983), Fred Lerdahl’s sophisticated
and multi-faceted Tonal Pitch Space (2001) develops and demonstrates
innovative ways of charting key shifts and chord-to-chord progressions
in chromatic music. The essay below, which compares my interpretation
of Chopin’s E Major and E Minor Preludes with his, is a study in contrasts:
his abundant Roman numerals in a range of keys (presented in a grid
formation annotated by squares, circles, and arrows) versus my sparse
rows of numerals with, in these two cases, no diversion from the tonic key
whatsoever.1 This juxtaposition will encourage readers to ponder some of
the major questions confronting any analyst of nineteenth-century music:
Which combinations of notes congeal into chords?

Which chords should be interpreted as harmonic, and which as prolonga-
tional or connective voice leading?
At what point do pitches that are chromatic within the home key begin to
take on diatonic roles in tonicized keys?
If indeed some of a musical structure’s pitches do not sound explicitly in a
composition, how can one guard against being either too unimaginative
(and thus overlooking relationships likely intended by the composer) or
too fantastically imaginative (and thus making unjustified claims)?
For the most part I simply place my perspective beside Lerdahl’s in the
essay that follows. There is a huge gulf between our outcomes. Readers
consequently have a good opportunity to ponder our contrasting analytical
practices and to decide which approach (if either) they might wish to
pursue further. In one respect, though, I have elected to mount a rebuttal.
In that I am uneasy about how Lerdahl has organized these scores’ pitches
into various hierarchical levels (a task that must precede the application
of his innovative techniques for generating keys and Roman numerals),
I reveal for the reader as much of how my analytical thought process
regarding hierarchy operates – and why I consequently am led to reject
many of Lerdahl’s interpretations – as I can convey in words.
Preludes in E Major and E Minor (op. 28) 167
These works have been much studied and commented on already, of

course. Lerdahl draws inspiration especially from Edward Aldwell and Carl
Schachter’s analysis of the E Major Prelude’s second and third phrases.2
With regard to the E Minor Prelude, two essays by Schachter3 and an
article co-authored by Justin London and Ronald Rodman were
consulted.4 The authors of the latter provide, as their fig. 6, a transcription
of Schenker’s unpublished analytical jottings on the E Minor Prelude.5
Unfortunately their transcription is rife with errors and omissions.6
Structural overview of the Prelude in E Major
The Prelude in E Major’s three phrases, each four measures in length,

present the two halves of an A1 A2 binary form with some redundancy:
despite its contrasting internal content, the second phrase repeats – and
more fully conveys in both soprano and bass – the structural framework of
A1. The content of measures 5 through 8 is displayed within square
brackets in 6.1 to indicate that it reiterates the ^3I V^2 background structure
presented already in measures 1 through 4. On the one hand the analysis
conveys details concerning a concrete harmonic progression (dependent
upon a potent dose of hierarchical thinking, to be explored presently),
almost all of whose bass pitches can be located in the score, though some-
times in enharmonically equivalent spellings. On the other hand much
of the open-notehead structural melody is imaginatively constructed in
this analysis: though each pitch relates to an actual note in the score, only
Example 6.1 Analysis of Prelude in E Major (op. 28/9).

the G♯ of measure 8 and the concluding E actually sound in the upper

register during the composition. One of the melody’s main characteristics
throughout is an upward striving from the interior to the top, a process that
succeeds during A1 only on the second try, with the attainment of Kopfton
G♯ [A♭] at 81. Yet that accomplishment is short-lived: in both A1 phrases,
whatever progress in rising above the initial B has been achieved is wiped
out before the cadence.
The Prelude in E Major’s first phrase (measures 1–4)
The first interval of a structurally deep ascending arpeggiation guides the

melody of measures 1 through 3: the tonic’s B<E fourth (filled in) is
traversed in conjunction with a shift from the tonic’s 5-phase E-G♯-B to
6-phase E-G♯-B-C♯ (unfurled and with retained fifth). That upward initia-
tive might have continued (and during the second statement of A1 does
continue) to Kopfton G♯ (= ^3). (A detailed view of the phrase’s structure is
presented in 6.2.) Instead, the melody loses ground after 31, with an E>C♯
third (likewise filled in) leading back to the neighbor of the initial inner-
strand B, which is restored at the phrase’s cadence. (Whereas conceptually
the pitch C♯ “belongs” at the downbeat of measure 4, passing note D♯ from
measure 3 is extended as a suspension against bass C♯ and then F♯, finally
resolving at the end of 42. The resolution phase of a C♯>B suspension
during the remainder of measure 4 likewise occupies only one-fourth of
a beat.) The non-attainment of Kopfton G♯ is a motivating force for the
repeat of A1 (measures 5 through 8), where the elusive G♯ goal in fact is
attained via an alternative route.
Whereas many analysts grant harmonic status to almost all chords
within a composition (for example, I IV II V III VI for the first six chords
in 6.2), the imposition of a greater distinction between the workings of
Example 6.2 Analysis of Prelude in E Major (op. 28/9), mm. 1–4.

harmony (in the sense of Schenker’s Stufen) and of connective voice

leading results in a clarity that rewards the increased difficulty of execution.
(It seems to me that, in that numeral-intensive methodology, chord
labels are applied rather indiscriminately. My practice adds the step – a
challenging one – of carefully pondering a work’s hierarchical associations
to develop a sense of which chords stand out in relief as goals of linear
initiatives or as prolonged entities before Roman numerals are applied.)
Within this phrase an ascending 5–6 sequence is deployed to connect
the tonic’s 5- and unfurled 6-phase chords, with a G♯<A<B<C♯ strand
(in multiple registers in the score, displayed within a single register in 6.2 to
enhance clarity) ascending in tenths below the principal B<C♯<D♯<E fourth
discussed above.7 The goal of this transitional initiative is reached at the
downbeat of measure 3, at which point a prolongational initiative invol-
ving contrary motion commences: a melody that descends as E>D♯>(C♯)
and a reiteration of (G♯)<A<B<C♯ (again in multiple registers) serve
to extend I6 through the downbeat of measure 4. Consequently thirteen
of the phrase’s sixteen beats are devoted to the projection of I5–6.
The concluding II➔ V succession fits snugly within the final three
beats. The HC goal, V, is introduced on the metrically strong third beat
of measure 4.
Lerdahl and I share the conviction that tonal compositions such as

Chopin’s preludes are hierarchically organized. His fig. 3.2 (pp. 92–93),
which he describes as a “reductional analysis,” reveals the outcome of
a vigorous and pervasive assessment of relatedness and structural
depth among the composition’s various chords, conveyed through
the specific pitches displayed at each level, through the sophisticated
tree diagram, and through the liberal application of stems, flags, and
both solid and dotted slurs. Though this process is essential to
Lerdahl’s enterprise, it is not intended as the focus of his analysis: he
acknowledges at the outset that his presentation will “bypass discus-
sion of the derivation” of his “hierarchical description” (p. 89).8 Yet
this abundantly rich figure reveals much about Lerdahl’s hearing of
the piece. Since the numerous additional figures accompanying his
analytical discussion are all grounded upon the decisions reflected in
fig. 3.2, it is important to my enterprise that I carefully assess how
Lerdahl has represented the composition therein. Given that the bulk
of his commentary addresses the second and third phrases (wherein
Chopin’s intense chromaticism occurs and thus where the better
opportunity to show off the advantages of his system resides), I will be

especially dependent upon this figure in comparing Lerdahl’s and my
readings of the first phrase.
A major component of my disagreement with Lerdahl in all three
phrases is his treatment of the dominant. (A different dominant issue
arises in each phrase.) In that the first phrase ends in a half cadence, the
dominant serves as the goal of its harmonic trajectory. Even before
comparing Lerdahl’s reduction with the score, one might be struck by
the singularity of a conception that proposes a dominant arrival already
in the second of four measures, inaugurating a ten-beat prolongation.
(Lerdahl displays the low B bass noteheads of both measures 2 and 3
with downward flagged stems, connects those noteheads using a dotted
slur, and connects the second B and the D♯ of measure 4 using a solid
slur.) In my experience harmonic goals generally are attained some-
where near the end of a phrase, especially one as metrically regular as is
this one.9 Thus my placing of the dominant’s structural arrival point at
43 is a more normative reading, at least from a statistical perspective.
That arrival point is preceded by a surging supertonic (II➔). Chopin
deploys such a goal-directed supertonic only at 42 – not before the B
chord of either measure 2 or measure 3.10
Given Chopin’s famously idiosyncratic use of slurs, I am wary of
making analytical decisions concerning a work’s structural framework
based upon how he has marked up his score.11 Yet the three bass slurs
deployed by Chopin in measures 1 through 3 (A>F♯>B, B>C♯, and
A>B) seem to me to be consistently applied, in that they all span the
interval of a descending seventh (each displayed as an ascending
second in 6.2 to enhance clarity).12 Whereas A>F♯>B might have
been followed by B>G♯>C♯, the acceleration of the sequence’s pacing
during measure 2 results in the omission of a low G♯ during 24: yet
note that G♯ is in fact a chord member at that point. Consequently
I hear the sequential initiative leading through – not to – the B major
chord that Lerdahl interprets as the phrase’s dominant arrival. Only
after the attainment of the tonic 6-phase chord at 31 does the persistent
upward thrust of the three individual strands displayed in 6.2 abate,
with a corresponding shift from the process of 6-phase attainment to
that of 6-phase prolongation, which nevertheless reprises the
G♯<A<B<C♯ fourth stated during the attainment process. The third
of Chopin’s descending-seventh slurs, which once again connects that
fourth’s internal A and B, supports the notion of reprise.
The Prelude in E Major’s second phrase (measures 5–8)
Whereas II➔ is the principal intermediary between the tonic and the
dominant during the first phrase, Chopin explores an alternative means
of filling in the bass E<B fifth during the second phrase.13 As 6.3 reveals, G♯
divides that fifth into two thirds. The G♯ major chord that it supports is
made distinctive through a wobbly third, B♯.14 The mediant occurs with
greater frequency in the context of a minor key, in part due to its ease of
attainment via a diatonic path along the circle of fifths (such as E A D G).
To span the major third from E to G♯ by the same means, one of the circle’s
internal fifths must be imperfect (here E A D♯ G♯), creating an interesting
compositional challenge that a composer of Chopin’s mastery will relish.15
The circle’s initial fifth (E>A) is traversed with its own internal division
into two thirds (displayed as E>C♮>A on three successive downbeats in
6.3).16 So far, so good. Now the treacherous link between A and D♯ must
be negotiated. Chopin here pulls off an ingenious feint. As mentioned above,
one of music’s well-worn paths is to proceed from E and A to D and
then G. Through the end of measure 7, Chopin persists in fostering the
impression that the A chord (which evolves into A➔) will proceed in
that direction. (Because enharmonic reinterpretation is a factor in his
ruse, alternative spellings of the chord at 74 are juxtaposed in 6.3.) Though
C♯-E-G-B♭ corresponds to A➔, ultimately Chopin treats that chord as
FÜ-A♯-C♯-E, an evolved form of D♯➔, the third element in the alternative
trajectory of the circle of fifths. (Because the same four pitch classes represent
both A➔ and D♯➔ between 72 and 74, a collision bracket appears at that
point in 6.3.) Chopin negotiates what might have been an awkward link with
maximal smoothness: the most parsimonious voice leading imaginable is
no voice leading at all! The A➔ chord, which might have resolved to
D♮, instead transmutes into D♯➔, which in due course resolves to the
circle’s final element, G♯. Unhelpfully, Chopin’s spelling of the D♯➔
chord as G-B♭-D♭-F♭ at 74 reflects his upcoming enharmonic presenta-
tion of the G♯ mediant as an A♭ chord. The root trajectory E<A♭<B over
the span of the phrase is nonsense, of course. (I attribute no greater
purport to his spelling than a desire to avoid the double-sharp accidental
for G♯’s leading tone.) It stands for E<G♯<B, as displayed in 6.3. Though
G♯ is the goal of the circle of fifths, it is not the goal of the phrase. In due
course, the upward bass arpeggiation continues to B (still within the
normative four-measure time frame), thereby bringing the second
phrase to the same point within the broad structure as the first.
Example 6.3 Analysis of Prelude in E Major (op. 28/9), mm. 5–8.
The melody’s trajectory during the second phrase at first leads upwards
from B to E, as was the case also in the first phrase. Here E is supported by
the transitional C major chord and by the A major chord of the circle of
fifths, rather than by the tonic’s diatonic 6-phase chord. The continuation
of the upward trajectory during measure 7 inspires renewed hopes of
conquering the Kopfton summit (G♯ = ^3), which in fact is achieved at 81.
Though the G♯ chord is stated initially in 64 position and thus might
be interpreted by some instead as an embellishment of the D♯ chord,
prolonged for two additional beats, I accept it as the onset of the circle of
fifths’ goal G♯ chord.17 Lerdahl concurs, distinguishing between the more
conservative conventions of eighteenth-century practice and “the spirit of
much nineteenth-century . . . usage” (p. 97).
Lerdahl proposes a disparity of dimension among the prelude’s three

phrases: whereas the first two begin on a downbeat, the third phrase
commences with an upbeat (at 84). (See the brackets below the time-
span reduction (TSR) labeled e in Lerdahl’s fig. 3.2.) Consequently the
three phrases contain sixteen, fifteen, and seventeen beats, respec-
tively. I reject that interpretation, proposing in its stead that the
second phrase functions as a variant of the first (maintaining the
tonic opening and HC close), within the most conventional of all
musical forms: the binary antecedent/consequent pair. Here Chopin
twice attains V (at 43–4 and at 84) but goes no further (the antecedent
phrase and its repetition). Then, shifting that V to an earlier point
within the allotted four measures (at 114), he succeeds in achieving the
goal tonic at the final downbeat (the consequent phrase). Either pla-
cing such a crucial dominant as that of 84 within the third phrase
or eliminating it altogether – see fig. 3.2, TSR d, c, and b and PR

(prolongational reduction) a–b – is, in my view, a misrepresentation
of what Chopin is doing here.18
Positing a cadence on the mediant (at 83) is essential to Lerdahl’s
interpretation of the broad structure: the equal subdivision of an
octave into three descending major thirds (E in measure 5, C♮ in
measure 6, G♯ in measure 8, and E in measure 9). This reading is
fleshed out with arrows wending through grids of regional space and
Roman numerals in his figs. 3.4 and 3.7a. Thus we disagree not only
regarding which chord corresponds to the cadence, but also regarding
the A major chord at 71, which I interpret as the goal of a descent in
thirds (E>C♮>A over three measures) within the broader circle of
fifths. Lerdahl instead hears a prolongation of C➔ from 61 through
74, thus harboring hopes of a resolution on an F major chord longer
than I do. (Though in note 16 I acknowledged a potential for such a
continuation after C➔, the emergence of the A chord at 71 decisively
shifts the odds in favor of a circle-of-fifths continuation, which is
confirmed by the succession from D♯➔ to G♯.)
Lerdahl’s proposal of a prolonged C➔ chord was strongly influenced
by an analysis published by Edward Aldwell and Carl Schachter.19 They
interpret the A major triad at 71 as “an emphasized passing chord.”
(They also propose a “cadence in A♭ [G♯]” in measure 8.) Lerdahl has,
with proper acknowledgement, incorporated their reading into his
conception.
Lerdahl’s path through regional space (as displayed in his fig. 3.4)
depends upon enharmonic equivalence (with the shift displayed
between A♭ and G♯). In his view “the journey in the unfolded toroidal
structure begins and arrives on different Es” (p. 94). My alternative
reading instead maps back onto the original E. Viewing a fresh grid
(Lerdahl’s fig. 2.22a, regarding E as tonic), one might proceed from
E through G to C (as does Lerdahl), but then move leftwards to A,
followed by a bold upward shift to D♯ (a boldness that is mitigated by
the collision of those two entities within the same diminished seventh
chord), thereby putting the phrase’s concluding G♯ and B close at hand.
Given that early on in my study I developed multiple concerns
regarding Lerdahl’s hierarchical assessments and reading of the phrase
goal, my perusal of his various charts was pursued dutifully, rather than
with enthusiasm. In some cases I was unable to comprehend the logic
behind the display of certain paths: for example, why does an arrow
connect V and A♭ in fig. 3.7a but instead vii° and A♭ in fig. 3.7b? (I am
not expert enough in his methodology to distinguish between a minute
typographical error and a conceptually meaningful distinction.) And I
was surprised that a circled ^4 was included in fig. 3.13b. Indeed, I
strongly endorse interpreting the A major chord of 71 as an important
structural element. But Lerdahl does not: he describes it as “an inciden-
tal consequence of the voice crossings in bars 6–7” (p. 101). It seems to
me that his representation would more accurately represent his con-
ception if ^4 were omitted, though I suspect that his comment about how
“the diatonic substratum” “shines through” (p. 101) might offer a clue
regarding why he included it.20
The Prelude in E Major’s third phrase (measures 9–12)
The rich harmonic agendas of measures 4 and 8 have implications for the
construction of the third phrase (which serves as a consequent A2 within
the prelude’s binary form), in that now the harmonic activity must extend
beyond the dominant to the tonic for a PAC. A chord of such importance
as a final tonic generally will be introduced on a strong beat, ideally the
concluding measure’s downbeat. Chief among Chopin’s concerns appears
to be deciding whether or not to proceed sequentially to a tonic 6-phase
chord, as occurred during the first statement of A1. To better understand
his options, consider the three sequence segments displayed in 6.4. The
first, a diatonic sequence, corresponds to the opening of the first phrase.
Though such a trajectory could be employed again, a literal repeat of the
first phrase through the prolongation of I6 would not be viable for A2,
because the remaining harmonic content (likely some form of II V I during
the final three beats) could not reasonably be situated in such a way as to
facilitate placement of the cadential tonic in a metrically strong position.
Chopin’s alternative trajectory begins in measures 9 through 103 as an
obstinate sequence, ascending in half steps. As shown in the second
sequence segment displayed in 6.4, the rigorous pursuit of that trajectory
for the same number of chords as occurs during the first phrase’s diatonic
sequence would lead to V rather than to an unfurled I6. That alternative
goal has a significant advantage: it would allow for a downbeat arrival of the
cadential tonic at 121 (assuming a willingness to jettison the more involved
approach to V projected by one or the other version of A1). Yet the

trajectory that Chopin elected to pursue during the third phrase turns
out not to be obstinate, but instead idiosyncratic (also shown in 6.4): it
begins as if it were going to ascend by half steps, but then proceeds more
broadly so that one would expect (if one had never heard the phrase before)
that a chromatic variant of I6 (C♮-E-G♮) will emerge at 114. Observe
how this model harbors several modest surges: E➔ to A, F➔ to B♭, G➔
to . . . Chopin indeed could have allowed the G➔ chord to follow its natural
inclination and resolve to C♮, which might then lead to ♮II5♮ supporting
soprano F♮ and V supporting D♯ during the first two beats of measure 12,
followed by I at 123. Contrary to such expectations the G➔ chord instead
leads to B at 114, thereby reverting unexpectedly – in a musical non
sequitur – to the goal of the hypothetical obstinate sequence that at first
had seemed to be the trajectory that Chopin was pursuing. (See the arrows
in 6.4.) Since the sequence reaches V (a PAC’s conventional penultimate
chord) at the end of the phrase’s third measure, the prime position for a
tonic close on the final measure’s downbeat is available. Consequently
Chopin avoids the down-to-the-wire cadence attainments of both A1
phrases by presenting a robust four-beat tonic in measure 12.
Example 6.4 Sequences related to Prelude in E Major (op. 28/9), mm. 1–3 and 9–11.
Again in the third phrase, Lerdahl’s and my hierarchical perspectives

conflict. For me, the ascending sequence’s alternation of local 5- and
6-phase chords places emphasis on the former, even if the latter
are unfurled into 53 position and occur on downbeats. Consequently
the initiating tonic (which via the shortcut described in note 7 incorpo-
rates both the 5-phase bass E and 6-phase bass G♯) inaugurates a
stepwise upward motion E(G♯)<A<B<C♯ during the diatonic sequence,
E(G♯)<A<B♭[A♯]<B during the obstinate sequence, and ultimately the
latter again during the idiosyncratic sequence. In Lerdahl’s fig. 3.2
(PR c–d), the stems on E, F♮, G♮, and then B obscure the linear approach
to the dominant root. As was the case also in the second phrase,
Lerdahl’s reading relates to one published by Aldwell and Schachter.21
Whereas they propose an ascending motion through a parenthetical
passing (♮II) to ♮III on the way to V, my interpretation of the passage
using their style of Roman numeral usage would appear as follows, with
the boxed area corresponding to the omission that results from the
shortcut, wherein the initial I (E-G♯-B) maps onto the VL (voice lead-
ing) chord after III (G♯-B-E):
I (VL) II (VL) III (VL) IV♮ (VL) (♭V53 ♮♮ ) (VL) V
In my view, the sequence’s final VL chord (B♮-D♮-G♮) “should” lead

to ♮VI5♮ (C♮-E-G♮). The substitution of V results in a retroactive
enharmonic transformation of B♭: roots A<B♭<C♮ into A<A♯<B.
The reading in Lerdahl’s fig. 3.2 (TSR c) juxtaposes 6-phase F♮-(A)-C♮
and 5-phase B-D♯-(F♯) – the third and final chords of 6.4’s idiosyncratic
sequence model – fostering the misleading impression that a harmonic
succession from ♮II5♮ (the Neapolitan) to V underlies the sequential
progression. Given my view that Chopin has diverted the sequence’s
expected course via a non sequitur to achieve the dominant, Lerdahl’s
arrow connecting G and V/E in his fig. 3.8b seems to me too blithe, giving
the impression of normalcy to a succession that is astonishing in its
audacity.22
Structural overview of the Prelude in E Minor
Whereas the Prelude in E Major engages two alternative versions of its

binary form’s A1 section, in the Prelude in E Minor a single A1 suffices.
Kopfton ^5 sounds even before the first chord is struck – with no struggle for
attainment, as in the other prelude. The structural line descends through ^4
at the end of measure 9 to ^2 in measure 10, followed by repetitions that lead
to the eventual incorporation of the truant ^3. The phrase ends in an
interruption.
The normative standards of formal construction that Chopin upheld
would ordain that after an interruption on ^2 during A1, ^5 should be
restored so that a descent to ^1 may ensue during A2. Though that in fact
does occur, Chopin has reconstructed the phrase’s interior to a greater
extent than would have been necessary to fulfill his formal obligations.
As will be explained in greater detail below, a slithering downwards
through tonal space, mostly in half steps, occupies the prelude’s first
eight measures. Tonal coherence is maintained because both the begin-
ning and ending points of the passage project the tonic (a diatonic minor
I followed by I➔). In the process a number of vibrant chords are passed
through, any of which potentially could be asserted to take on a harmonic
role. During A2 Chopin undertakes such a conversion of function for one
of these chords: instead of slithering as far as I➔, which targets IV, he
converts what in measure 6 was no more than a diminished seventh
passing chord into an asserted V➔ harmony, which resolves to a minor I.
(The exact G-B-E-B sonority that began the phrase is restored at the end
of measure 17.) The progression continues without surge from that I to
IV (which now undergoes a conventional 5–6 shift), then onwards
(incorporating some extraordinary local embellishment) through V♯ to
I to complete the phrase.
The Prelude in E Minor’s first phrase (measures 0|1–12)
Just as a 5–6 sequence may be pursued as an obstinate ascent in half steps

(as shown in 6.4), a parallel progression of 63 chords may descend obsti-
nately in half steps.23 The proposed model for Chopin’s extraordinary
progression in the prelude’s first eight measures, shown in 6.5, displays
an expansion from a progression of such 63 chords to the fuller sonority of
diminished seventh chords.24 Slurs are employed to connect each line’s
perimeter pitches: B>G♯, E>B, B>F♮, and G>D. The relationship between
the initiating and concluding chords is of critical importance for the
viability of such a progression. As the harmonic analysis below the system
in 6.5 reveals, these pitches here realize a frequently encountered chordal
evolution: from diatonic E-G-B to surging G♯-B-D-F♮, an ideal means of
Example 6.5 Analysis of Prelude in E Minor (op. 28/4), mm. 0|1–12.
propelling the succession from I to IV.25 Chopin of course understood that

the innards of such a progression might hit upon some pitch combinations
quite foreign to an E Minor tonic context. It is important for my analysis
that these chords’ harmonic potentialities be held in check: we tiptoe
through this field of chords without provoking them into harmonic asser-
tiveness. By pursuing a style of harmonic analysis that imposes a high
standard for the bestowal of a Roman numeral label, we avoid numerous
unwieldy and misleading symbols that would seek to impose harmonic
meaning where, I contend, none was intended.26 Each internal chord has
the potential to take on a harmonic role. (We shall see how Chopin
activates one such potentiality during the A2 section.) But if its context
does not offer evidence that a chord is actually being asserted as a harmony,
then the imposition of a Roman numeral label generally will impede
understanding.27
There was good reason for Chopin to be timid about ^3 during the
structural descent: since ^4’s harmonic support, IV, is presented in first
inversion, bass C descending to dominant root B against G (hypothetically
inserted by revising the melody in the second half of measure 9 to
D>C>A>G) to F♯ would result in parallel fifths. Chopin averts that unplea-
santness twice by leaping from A to F♯. In the final iteration of the cadential
succession he slips a G in (justifying the absence of parentheses around the
open G notehead in 6.5), deftly delayed until the phrase’s final downbeat
(121) to become an accented passing note, thereby staggering the arrival
points of B and F♯.28 Had IV not been inverted, the conventional model
^
5 ^
4 ^3 ^2 ^1
I IV————— V♯ I
(as in FC, fig. 16, ex. 5, model 2) could have been pursued without
impediment.
Again with the Prelude in E Minor, my concerns regarding Lerdahl’s

reading mounted as I studied his TSR and PR analyses (presented in his
fig. 3.19), even before I proceeded to the more innovative aspects of his
practice – the display of the path through regional space and the tree
diagram (figs. 3.20 and 3.21). Though there is much variability in how
Chopin wends his way downwards during measures 1 through 8, there is
nevertheless a subtle consistency: each of the voices engaged in the descent
of parallel 63 chords makes a move before any of the voices takes another
turn. Incorporating both my spellings from 6.5 and Chopin’s sometimes
wayward spellings from the score, the following chart (which should be
read line by line from top to bottom) – noting in particular the horizontal
lines (which in all cases coincide with bar lines within the score) that
indicate the congealing points of the parallel progression’s successive
individuated passing chords – conveys the inner workings of the passage.
m. 1 G B E
m. 2 F♯ A ↓
↓ ↓ E♭[D♯]
m. 3 F♮ ↓ ↓
↓ ↓ D
↓ G♯[A♭] ↓
m. 4 E ↓ ↓
↓ G♮ ↓
↓ ↓ C♯
mm. 5–6 ↓ ↓ C♮[B♯]

↓ F♯ ↓
D♯ ↓ ↓
mm. 7–8 D♮ ↓ ↓
↓ F♮ ↓
↓ ↓ B
If this segmentation holds, as I suggest it does, then it renders much of

Lerdahl’s foreground reduction (TSR f and PR e–f) untenable, since two
of the four chords between the perimeter chords are missing from his
reading, while four chords that represent “uncongealed” states (points
along my chart that are not directly above a horizontal line) are present.
Among the other levels, Lerdahl’s TSR d holds some promise in that the
two perimeter chords (representing the initial minor I and I➔) are
present (at least if one fixes the typographical error in the latter by hoisting
the misplaced natural up a third). The next level (TSR c), where AE is the
sole entity positioned between the initial tonic and the cadential domi-
nant, is less successful, in my view. My reading could be summarized as
follows:
An initial tonic (I)

Some connective chords
A restoration of the tonic, now surging (I➔)
The goal of the surge attained (IV)
The continuation to the dominant (V♯)
This is an oft-told story. Lerdahl’s narrative in TSR c is not a viable

abridgement of that story:
An initial tonic (I)

A connective chord
The dominant (V♯)
Three separate problems emerge here: (1) the connective chord that
Lerdahl displays is among those that I have referred to above as “uncon-
gealed,” and thus hierarchically of very low ranking, lower than several
other chords in its vicinity that are excluded; (2) the connectivity that
Chopin achieves results from a close association among multiple passing
chords (the four-chord interior to the long slurs in my 6.5) all functioning
at the same hierarchical level, from which no individual one should be
singled out for inclusion at a deeper level; and (3) the connectivity that
Chopin pursues between measures 1 and 8 is that between two forms of I,
which Lerdahl commutes into a connectivity between I and V♯.
Paralleling his dependency upon Aldwell and Schachter in the E
Major Prelude analysis, Lerdahl acknowledges a dependency upon an
analysis of the E Minor Prelude published by Justin London and Ronald
Rodman.29 The emphasis upon the AE chord that I have found proble-
matic is in fact a prominent feature of their presentation. It would be
illuminating for readers to detect and come to terms with the many ways
in which my 6.5 contrasts both the left half of Lerdahl’s fig. 3.19 and the
first page of London and Rodman’s ex. 1. Observe especially how my
slur connecting Kopfton B in measure 1 and the G♯ of measure 8 cannot
be made to jive with their prolongation of A from measure 5 through
measure 9.30
Both Lerdahl and the London/Rodman team consider two essays by
Schachter that shed light on the E Minor Prelude.31 Whereas I propose
that Chopin has entered into a fully chromatic tonal space during
measures 1 through 8, with a uniform bass descent in half steps –
G>F♯>F♮>E>D♯>D – Schachter instead proposes some internal hier-
archical differentiation, resulting in a foundational line that descends as
G>F♮>E>D. (Note the stems marking those four noteheads in the graph
published with the 1994 essay.)
Given the extraordinary lack of agreement between Lerdahl’s
and my readings regarding which simultaneities between measures
1 and 8 constitute the essential chord progression, I cannot endorse
his display of the phrase’s pitch-space journey in fig. 3.20 or the tree
diagram conveying a regional prolongational analysis in fig. 3.21.
As Lerdahl himself states (and as I have already quoted in note 8),
“It is sometimes troublesome to determine the grouping structure of
a piece, but once that is in place the rest mostly follows like clock-
work” (p. 7). Indeed, the “clockwork” part of his effort processes
the TSR and PR structures of fig. 3.19 in an exemplary fashion. (His
discussion relates Chopin’s harmonic practice within this prelude to
Wagner’s penchant for being in a key without touching upon its
tonic chord.) Even from a statistical perspective, the dissimilarity of
our conceptions is astonishing: whereas my analysis retains one key
throughout the phrase, Lerdahl proposes a succession of six: jumping
from e to a back to e and then over to G followed by a return of a and
finally back to e; and whereas I convey the phrase’s harmonic pro-
gression using just three Roman numerals, Lerdahl’s grids contain a
total of forty Roman numerals, of which ten are actively engaged via
circles and arrows.
The Prelude in E Minor’s second phrase (measures 12|13–25)
Though the downward contour from the opening of A1 is maintained

during the corresponding measures of A2, the latter realization is some-
what more aggressive. For example, whereas diminished F♯-A-D♯[E♭]
sounds against soprano B in measure 2, the bass rambunctiously
continues onward to F♮ as – rather than after – D♯ falls into place in
measure 14. Then, from 162 through 171 Chopin introduces a significant
jolt (achieved by injecting several leaps, inaugurating a stretto, pumping
up the volume level, and introducing a downbeat dominant root B)
that converts the penultimate chord of the earlier parallel progression
(D♯-F♯-A-B♯[C] in measure 6) into a potent, asserted dominant ninth
(B-D♯-F♯-A-C in measure 17). Consequently the parallel progression
serves now as a connection between two different harmonies, as is
indicated by the open parentheses between I and V♯ in 6.6. That example
also shows how, within the projection of I-space that transpires during
measures 13 through 17, the internal dominant harmony supports the
A of a B>A>G third-progression. (This A undergoes a downward migra-
tion so that the third-progression’s G ends up sounding at the bottom of
the texture, while the tonic root E, expected in the bass, sounds at the top
of the texture. See the arrows in 6.6.)
Even without the fanfare of a surge comparable to that which transpired
during 82, IV emerges as the principal connector between I and V♯ during
A2. (Note how closely the melody that IV supports during 181 relates to
that of 92.) The IV chord’s 6-phase F♯ (at the fourth eighth note of measure
18) serves as the starting point for a descending third to the leading tone
(F♯>E>D♯) whose E gets “stuck” for two measures, making the arrival of D♯
at 202 all the more gratifying. (Compare with the repeated sounding of
resolution pitch D♯ in the corresponding passage of A1 – measures 10
through 12.) Coordinating with that interior strand, the structural A (= ^4)
thrice descends to F♯ (= ^2), again as in the earlier passage. In this case the
truant ^3 never sounds (in contrast to A1, where a belated G is heard at 121),
and thus the structural G (= ^3) is displayed within parentheses in 6.6.
In both phrases the extension of the initial I-space coordinates with the
filling-in of the tonic triad’s upper third (B>G♯ during measures 1 through
8 and B>G during measures 13 through 17). Consequently the filling-in of
the dominant triad’s upper third (F♯>D♯ during measures 18–20 through
24) is especially appealing.32 Yet Chopin goes further. The initial phase of
the dominant prolongation in measures 18 through 20 (like that in
Example 6.6 Analysis of Prelude in E Minor (op. 28/4), mm. 12|13–25.
measures 10 through 12) engages, in the bass, the same B<C>B neighbor-
ing motion that embellishes the melody in the phrases’ opening measures.
Thus C’s recurrence in the bass at 211, supporting the passing note E within
the dominant’s F♯>D♯ third, invokes several layers of association. One of
tonal music’s more poignant embellishing chords, built from four pitches
each a half step distant from one of the major dominant triad’s members,
emerges over the course of measure 21: C-E-G-A♯[B♭]. Though the AC♯
augmented sixth typically would resolve outwards to a BB octave, Chopin
luxuriates in the chord, pursuing in two voices the same sort of descending
chromatic motion as was utilized in three or four voices during both
phrases’ opening measures: C>B>A♯ coordinating with A♯>A♮>G♯>G.
(Brackets in 6.6 mark the locations of the two intervals that are filled in.)
Consequently the augmented-sixth interval sounds as a diminished third
(CA ♯ , spelled by Chopin as CB ♭ , at the bottom of the texture at 231), resolving
to a unison B in coordination with the dominant root’s restoration at 241.
E’s descent to D♯ completes the dominant’s prolongation, which is fol-
lowed by the cadential tonic at the final downbeat.
At the outset I suggested that “Chopin has reconstructed the [second]

phrase’s interior to a greater extent than would have been necessary.” In
assessing how Lerdahl interprets the second phrase in his fig. 3.19, it
appears to me that he has reconstructed the second phrase’s interior to
an even greater extent than has Chopin. Comparing my 6.5 and 6.6,
note that the two phrases are of approximately the same length – twelve
and thirteen measures. The dominant arrives in the tenth measure of the
first phrase, whereas in the second it arrives somewhat abruptly in the
sixth measure, after a curtailed subdominant. Chopin has emphasized
the revving up – the presentation of the initial I-space – in the first
phrase, while focusing more on the leave-taking – the expansion of the
cadential dominant – in the second. Yet in both cases the harmonic
progression proceeds from I through IV to V♯. Even with Chopin’s
alterations in pacing, one can perceive a strong correlation between IV
in measure 9 and in the first half of measure 18, and between V♯ in
measures 10 through 12 and in the second half of measure 18 through
measure 20. Granted, the bass B at 171 is a conspicuous note: low, loud,
and metrically strong. Yet I propose that Chopin has applied those
markers to convert a chord that earlier (measure 6) played no harmonic
role into a functional dominant within a middleground progression that
expands the phrase’s initial I-space, before the continuation to IV and
then V♯. Lerdahl instead hears the onset of the dominant function at 171
as extending for eight full measures, though indeed he proposes that
not all of the dominant’s pitches are in place until the second half of
measure 20. (Note the B–F♯ diagonal line spanning those measures in
his PR c–d.) Consequently the seeming correlation between his regio-
nal prolongational analysis in fig. 3.21b, which displays the noteheads
E, A, B, and E, and my I IV V♯ I harmonic analysis in 6.6 is incidental:
his A and B correspond to measures 14 and 16, respectively, whereas
my IV and V♯ both reside in measure 18. In addition, though I concur
with his placement of the first phrase’s soprano pitch G at the down-
beat of measure 12 in PR c–d, placing the second phrase’s G in
measure 17, thereby neglecting the A of the thrice-stated A>F♯ third
(corresponding to an A that was significant to the analysis in the first
phrase), seems inconsistent. In my imaginative approach to analysis,
A>F♯ may stand for A>G>F♯ whether (measure 12) or not (measure
20) a G actually sounds within the composition at that point. In his
reading a sounding G in the “wrong” location trumps the parallelism
between the two phrases (based on the similarity of context).
Finally, two small points: (1) both phrases begin with an upbeat B<B
(the second time with embellishment), and thus the dividing point
between the brackets in TSR f should be shifted a bit to the left; and
(2) since bass C at 211 serves as a neighbor to dominant root B, not as a

resolution (it supports the melody’s passing note E within the traversal
of the dominant’s DF ♯♯ third), there is no cadence at that point, as is
proposed in TSR d.
Though I do not endorse the London and Rodman graph of the
second phrase (which they in any event have constructed in part only
to knock down, as if their fabrication of a Schenkerian graph for the
work would match the best of what a more committed Schenkerian
analyst might be able to achieve), we concur on one important point: V♯
resolves to I during measure 17.33 (As do I, they display tonic root E
within parentheses, attached to a beam, at that point.) At a broader level,
our graphs both convey the same structural bass arpeggiation E–B–E
over the course of the phrase. I am not so enthusiastic about their
reading of the descent from ^5, especially their placement of background
^
1 within the prolongation of V♯ (at 211).
In his Chopin Studies graph, Schachter proposes a later dominant
arrival – at 191 – with the bass B at 182 serving as a passing note between
A and C.34 Whereas I am drawn by the similarity of content between all
of measure 10 and the second half of measure 18 and by the
B<C>B<C>B bass motion over two-and-a-half or three measures, I
suspect that Chopin’s soprano slur, which extends to the downbeat of
measure 19, and the attainment of a downbeat arrival point for V♯
(matching measure 10) were factors in Schachter’s hearing a prolonga-
tion of IV throughout measure 18.35
It is uncommon to have an E–B–E bass arpeggiation in which both of
the E noteheads appear within parentheses, as displayed in my 6.6
(measures 13 through 17). Yet I would argue that the inverted opening
tonic is the principal reason why Chopin neglects the E in the bass again
at 172. (It resides in the soprano.) The perimeter sonorities of this five-
measure tonic expansion match exactly: G-B-E-B. Whereas in the first
phrase IV is approached via a descending bass (from the imagined E
through D to C, resulting in an inverted IV), in the second phrase the
tonic’s third G leads upwards to IV’s root A (181). Whereas Lerdahl,
London and Rodman, and I all agree that soprano F♯ (= ^2) arrives before
bass C emerges at 211, Schachter instead proceeds in his structural
descent from A to G at that point, in the tenor register. (To his credit,
that reading is consistent with his interpretation of the first phrase,
which has proceeded only so far as a middleground ^4 by the point of
the cadence in measure 12.) He labels the C chord as VI (within

parentheses). If I were to acknowledge a harmonic function for this
embellishing chord, it would instead be II➔.
London and Rodman use words such as “problematic” and even
“unruly” to describe the E Minor Prelude. I demur. To be sure,
Chopin’s subtle, inventive writing calls for an approach toward analysis
that is both imaginative and flexible. In this prelude, at least, his
innovations transpire within a conventional framework.
7 Prelude in G Minor (op. 28, no. 22)
in response to Alison Hood
Just as my Harmony in Schubert appeared around the same time as Suzannah

Clark’s monograph on that composer,1 so also Alison Hood’s book-length
study of Chopin’s music and the present work appear within a year or so of
each other.2 Though I had not seen her volume before mine went to press, I
was able to study an article she published on Chopin’s Prelude in G Minor
(op. 28, no. 22) and later revised for her monograph.3 Since those who keep
abreast of developments in the field of tonal analysis likely will compare our
two books, the juxtaposition of my reading of this prelude with hers here
offers readers an opportunity to explore the considerable contrast in our
methods, our presentations, and our outcomes.
The A1 section (measures 0|1–8)
More so when performing the Prelude in G Minor on a nineteenth-century

fortepiano than on most modern instruments, the left-hand octaves shine
through boldly, projecting the A1 section’s principal melody. The tonic’s
root consequently emerges among the right-hand pitches, rather than at
the bottom of the texture, during 42. (In 7.1, root G is placed within
parentheses in the bass register.) The phrase proceeds from that tonic to
the major dominant, as is typical of an A1 section within an A1 A2 binary
period. (As of measure 8 the listener has no reason to suspect that the
prelude will extend beyond sixteen measures in length.) The goal domi-
nant’s root likewise does not sound in the bass. In fact, root D is postponed
until the start of the A2 section: E♭ descends to D in the right hand during
measure 9, completing a chromatic G>D fourth that transpires at the top of
the texture. That chromatic line causes the subdominant that comes
between I and V♯ to be presented as a major chord (with E♮ rather than
diatonic E♭ at 62 and 72). A concurrent interior line also takes on a
maximally chromatic aspect: D♭ occurs during 61, resulting in a potent
I surge towards IV♮. Though IV8–7 might have directed the Urlinie
downwards from C to B♭, so that A (the antecedent phrase’s goal ^2)
could arrive in conjunction with the onset of V♯, in this case C extends
Example 7.1 Analysis of Prelude in G Minor (op. 28/22), mm. 0|1–8.
into the dominant’s domain, with the descent through B♭ to A occurring

during 82. In the context of a small-scale A1 A2 binary form, the antecedent
phrase’s descent from ^5 to ^2 is interpreted as a background line, inter-
rupted before the final ^1. Consequently 7.1 displays four open noteheads
with upward stems connected to a beam. (Note the upward transfer of
Kopfton D just after it is established. The lower register will be reinstated
later.)
The instability of the pitch B♭ at 82 (in a dominant context) is an important
factor in deciding how to interpret the pitches that precede measure 1.
Rather than displaying A as a passing note between tonic pitches B♭ and G,
7.1 proposes (through what it includes and what it omits) that the listener
(aided by the discerning performer’s shaping of the line) instead should
interpret the initial B♭ as an appoggiatura embellishment of A, followed by
G>F♯ (below E♭>D).4 The resulting F♯-A-C-D chord, which targets the
initial tonic, is prolonged until 42, in the process evolving into the more
dissonant state F♯-A-C-E♭.
I applaud a perception displayed within Hood’s Graph 2G: a stepwise

descent at the top of the lower staff during measures 5 through 8
(D>C>B♭>A). Though I would advise beginning the slur that binds
these notes with the prior D of measure 4 (thereby capturing the not-
yet-evolved tonic support that inaugurates the I-to-V♯ progression), this
line – in the register that both Hood and I acknowledge to be the
melody’s principal domain – should be a primary focus of the listener’s
attention. Its halting on A (one step shy of the key’s tonic pitch) is a
Prelude in G Minor (op. 28, no. 22) 189
prime motivating factor for the impending onset of what one initially
should expect will be a normative eight-measure consequent phrase, the
second half of a parallel period.
What Hood makes of her perception cannot be discerned from her
graphs 2G and 2H, for two reasons: (1) though 2H contains abundant
Roman numerals over most of its substantial length, this passage
curiously appears without a harmonic analysis; and (2) though slurs
within 2G bind elements within the passage together, there is no
visual indication of how these measures connect to what precedes
and follows them. Both quandaries are clarified by looking else-
where – at graph 1E or 1F for a sense of the local harmonic progres-
sion, and at graph 1D for Hood’s interpretation of A as neighbor to
the tonic third.
Hood and I are at opposite poles regarding both the extent and
structural depth of the phrase’s goal dominant chord. For me, it arrives
at 81 and functions as the prelude’s background V♯, supporting the
Urlinie’s pre-interruption ^2 (as shown in 7.1); for her, its emergence
occurs instead at 52, and its foreground role apparently allows a Roman
numeral (V in her style of analysis) to be omitted, even in a graph (1G or
2H) in which dozens of other numerals are included.
To clarify my reading of Chopin’s harmonic conception, for a
moment assume that measure 5 does not exist. The preceding chord
(B♭-D-G) and the following chord (B♮-D♭-F-A♭) are, in my view, the
same harmony, first in its diatonic state and then in a highly evolved
state. Such an evolution of the tonic generally comes about as the
succession to IV (here represented by IV♮ during 62) draws near.
Though in this case that evolution is extreme – I rather than I➔ –
the transfer of root from G to C at 62 nevertheless shines through. Now
reinstating measure 5, we come to understand that the tonic is pro-
longed via a conventional local progression (not fully displayed in 7.1)
whose concluding tonic happens to be highly evolved: I II V♯ I .
The fifth-relationship between II and V♯ transpires with exactly the
same evolution as that between the terminal I and the IV♮ that
follows.5 Taking into account this more developed harmonic concep-
tion, the fact that the phrase fills eight measures within an opus that
includes several preludes of around sixteen measures in length, and a
realization that the next phrase (to be discussed in detail below) begins
exactly as would a consequent phrase within a parallel period, I
propose that the dominant arrival in measure 8 and the ^2 to which
the melody descends conform to the normative closure of A1 within an

A1 A2 binary form.
If the music that one is analyzing seems ambiguous, it is important to
compare the passage in question with other passage(s) within the same
movement that the composer may have fleshed out more fully.6 In this
case the logical comparison is between measures 0 (for which supportive
harmony is absent) and 8. Hood’s and my graphs both convey that the G
and B♭ in the middle of measure 8 do not correspond to a tonic
resolution of the preceding dominant. (Though Hood displays the G
as a passing note between F♯ and A in her graph 2G and I display it as a
neighboring note between two F♯s in 7.1, neither conception projects G
as an asserted tonic root.) Hood reverses that hierarchy in her reading of
measure 0, where A appears as a passing note within a slurred B♭>G
third. (“The first appearance of this figure unmistakably outlines tonic
harmony” (paragraph 17, emphasis added).) She indeed replicates this
tonic in measures 8|9, starting with upbeat bass G.7 Though I am
strongly supportive of imaginative thinking as a component of analysis,
my internal ear prolongs the right-hand notes E♭, A, C, and E♭ through
the rests of measures 8 and 9, with (importantly) the conclusion of a
chromatic descending fourth that began with the high G of measures
(4)|5 achieved with the arrival of D at 92. Bass G at 91 connects the A and
F♯ of that prolonged chord. For me, an imagined tonic chord (unmis-
takably!) does not emerge above that G. Transferring this reading of
measures 8–9 to measures 0–1, B♭, G, and E♭ would be interpreted as
appoggiaturas to members of the opening F♯-A-C-D sonority.
I likewise suggest that no tonic chord occurs in measure 2, where
♭
E sounds throughout and where I imagine C continuing after its
eighth-note sounding as well. The chord is G-B♭-C-E♭, rather than the
tonic Hood proposes. As 7.1 shows, the chord of measure 2 may be
interpreted as a connector between two different inversions of the
embellishing chord that precedes the initial tonic. (In the context of
the consequent phrase that begins in measures 8|9, this embellishing
chord takes on the role of extending the dominant harmony of measure
8.) Chopin later provides strong support for this reading. Near the end
of the prelude the G-B♭-C-E♭ chord is repeated during each measure
from 36 through 38. Then, magnificently, in measure 39 it evolves
further, with a chromatic shift from C to C♯ coinciding with the con-
current sounding of all four pitch classes in one of the prelude’s boldest
chords. This embellishment of the dominant possesses a quality.

Recall my assertion that the chord at 61 serves as I . Comparing
those two chords, one notes their obvious dissimilarity. Consequently,
I cannot endorse the notion that a tonic chord occurs in measure 2. The
tonic’s first sounding occurs in measure 4, supporting Kopfton ^5 in the
melody. A conventional descent from 5^ to ^2 ensues, in coordination
with a harmonic progression from I through IV♮ to V♯.
The A2 section that Chopin might have composed

(measures 8|9–(16))
Not all of a work’s notes are of equal importance. I propose that the
doubled A♭ at the end of measure 15 is an extraordinary note with far-
reaching consequences. That measure’s slur connecting the bass melody’s
E♭, C, and A♮ (also incorporating passing note B♭) and the right-hand
chord that sounds immediately thereafter – which listeners as yet have no
reason to regard as anything other than F♯-C-E♭ – bring to mind the
content of 81: a dominant harmony (successor of the subdominant),
which in the consequent phrase is positioned a tad earlier to make room
for the tonic during the phrase’s final measure (which we suspect will be
measure 16, thereby complementing the eight-measure antecedent). This
is a conventional compositional strategy that Chopin ultimately does not
realize. A hypothetical conclusion to A2 that fulfills the promise of what
precedes the fateful A♭ (resulting in a prelude of sixteen measures) is
displayed in 7.2. Postponing a consideration of that A♭’s consequences
until the next section of this chapter, let’s explore (with the help of 7.3) the
normative eight-measure version of A2 that Chopin might have composed.
Example 7.2 Alternative version of Prelude in G Minor (op. 28/22), measures 15 and 16.
Example 7.3 Analysis of Prelude in G Minor (op. 28/22), mm. 8|9–16 (incorporating 7.2).
The chief difference between the two phrases (prior to the cadence)
concerns how the tonic, once attained, is prolonged. (Compare measures
4–6 and 12–14.) Both versions are highly chromatic, yet they pursue
different strategies, resulting in contrasting evolutions of the tonic (both
of which target IV): first I (B♮-D♭-F-A♭ at 61), then I➔ (B♮-D-F-G at 142).
The cadence supplied in 7.2 borrows material from Chopin’s cadence in
measures 40 and 41, while completing the descending background line left
dangling after ^2 in measures 8 and 9. The ^3 at the downbeat of hypothetical
measure 16 (reminiscent of 82) “belongs” at the end of measure 15, where it
appears in 7.3.
Any notion of a parallel relationship between the phrases of measures 1–

8 and 9–(16) would be difficult to develop in the context of Hood’s
erratic application of Roman numerals: whereas no IV numeral appears
below the subdominant of measures 6 and 7 in any of her graphs, a iv
appears below the minor subdominant of 151 in her graph 2H (though
not in graph 1F or 1G, which also incorporate Roman numerals).
Explanations for how Chopin proceeds from I to IV might indeed
take several courses. Yet before proceeding to that investigation, I
suggest that some revision in the hierarchical relationships among
pitches that Hood displays is in order. Graph 1F shows a bass descent
from E♭ through D♭ to C in measures 13 through 15. To my ears the line
possesses a more uniformly chromatic character, with the final note of
each beat within measures 13 and 14 serving as the principal note, in

coordination with the likewise chromatic soprano, as follows:
B♭ A A♭ G
E♭ > D D > C♯ D♭ > C C > B♮
Two intervals of the tonic triad (whose third shifts from B♭ to B♮ over
the course of the passage) are traversed: B♭ to G, and D to B♮. An
interpretation of the chordal progression would need to accommodate
the following:
g A➔ f G➔
One might regard these chords as the first two cycles of an obstinate
sequence whose next chord, e♭, fails to emerge owing to the interaction
between the g and G➔ chords, resulting in a succession instead to c, as
follows:
G Minor: I( ) I➔ IV
Or, one might regard f as a chromatic upper-third substitution for D in a

tonic-prolonging
7
I II➔ V♯ I➔
tonic expansion. The f enhances the “dominant-emulating” quality of

the G➔ chord by being “pre-dominant emulating,” so that measures 14
and 15 take on the aspect of
IV V7 I
in what some would interpret as a brief tonicization of the C Minor

subdominant. None of these notions coordinate with Hood’s hierarch-
ical interpretation of the bass, from which the Roman numeral analysis
in her graph 2H is derived. After twelve measures of music during which
only one Roman numeral has been applied, suddenly two measures are
annotated by eight numerals (some surrounded by parentheses or single
quotation marks) in the context of three keys. Though these numerals
are correct insofar as they indicate root and quality for a range of
stacked-third chords, they do not succeed in conveying what I regard
to be the measures’ essential feature: the evolution of the meek diatonic
minor tonic (which Hood displays as i within parentheses and as iv64 of V
within single quotes, thereby diminishing its hierarchical importance)
into a surging, iv-targeting I➔ (which she labels as V65 of iv without

discernible connection to the preceding minor tonic). Finally, whereas
my perception of how what has occurred thus far conforms to the
conventions of a parallel period guides my ears to expect that after the
IV of 151, V♯ will follow (in accord with the prior succession from IV♮ to
V♯ during measures 7 and 8), Hood’s analysis is silent concerning
measure 15’s F♯[G♭]-A-C-E♭ chord (exactly the same evolved state as
in measure 8, though in a different inversion). That brings us to the
fateful moment of bass A♭’s arrival (triggering F♯’s enharmonic shift to a
G♭ role, in accord with Chopin’s spelling), which both prevents closure
in measure 16 and directs the progression on a more expansive course,
to be explored below.
Chopin’s expanded A2 section (measures 8|9–41)
Two common continuations from IV are available within Chopin’s tonal

syntax. Perhaps the dominant will follow directly; or perhaps the path to
the dominant will be expanded through a 5–6 shift applied to the sub-
dominant. In G Minor, subdominant C-E♭-G’s 6-phase chord might
emerge as diatonic C-E♭-A; or, a more colorful “Neapolitan” variant
(C-E♭-A♭) might sound instead. Chopin chose this latter alternative (as
displayed in 7.4), going so far as to briefly tonicize A♭ Major. (The initial
statement of the A♭ chord in measures 15 and 16 is already surging as I➔
towards IV within the tonicizing progression in A♭ Major, as is conveyed
by the parentheses around 8 to the right of “A♭ Major: I” in 7.4.)
The two continuations from G Minor’s IV under consideration –
dominant D-F♯-A and lowered supertonic A♭-C-E♭ – are antipodally
related (that is, their roots are separated by a diminished fifth or augmen-
ted fourth). This is an ideal context for the mehrdeutig deployment of a
diminished seventh chord.8 The four pitch classes on the fourth and fifth
eighth notes of measure 15 might have been spelled either as F♯-A-C-E♭ (an
evolved state of G Minor’s V♯ chord, which Chopin could have confirmed
by resolving ninth E♭ to D, as occurs in 7.2) or as C-E♭-G♭-B♭♭ (an evolved
stated of a ♭II chord surging within its own tonicization, which Chopin
does confirm by resolving ninth B♭♭ [A] to A♭ at the end of measure 15 and
by undertaking a chromatically filled-in voice exchange –GA ♭♭ AG♭♭ – over the
bar line between measures 15 and 16). As 7.2 and 7.3 demonstrate, the first
Example 7.4 Analysis of Prelude in G Minor (op. 28/22), mm. 8|9–41
interpretation would lead to a PAC in G Minor at the normative point, the

phrase’s eighth measure. In contrast, 7.4, which corresponds to what
Chopin actually composed, shows how the ♭II alternative results in a longer
route to the PAC. Once a cadence during the phrase’s eighth measure is
decisively rejected, Chopin seems in no hurry to reach his goal: the phrase
expands from the normative eight to an astonishing thirty-three measures
by means of the already mentioned tonicization as well as several internal
repetitions and expansions, acknowledged by 7.4’s grid of measure num-
bers and by a hairpin symbol. The more developed harmonization stems in
part from Chopin’s decision to replace the single-arpeggiation bass (G–D)
of A1 with a double-arpeggiation bass (G–D–G–D–G) during A2.
Whereas the “Neapolitan” version of IV6 proceeds to V7 and then I to
support the span from ^5 through ^4 to ^3 during the opening segment of A2,
the path from ^3 to ^2 proceeds by way of incomplete upper neighbor C,
which is presented in the soprano register during measure 24, supported by
the supertonic harmony. After a repetition of this portion of the structure,
the A (= ^2) is transferred downwards, not to the register in which the
descent to ^2 transpired during A1, but instead (in the middle of measure
34) to the register of the initial sounding of Kopfton D a seventh below
Middle C (in measure 4). From that low A, prolonged through measure 40
via embellishing chords (including the potent C♯-E♭-G-B♭ of measure 39,

mentioned above), the background line’s concluding G emerges by step-
wise descent, supported by the PAC tonic. Doublings of G an octave and
two octaves higher bring closure concurrently in all of the registers in
which portions of the fundamental line have sounded during the prelude.
Hood’s graph 1F contains a remarkable analysis that highlights our

widely divergent views of the work’s harmonic dimension. She deploys
only three analytical symbols to provide the basic harmonic sense of
measures 9 through 22: i N i. (In her work, N stands for Neapolitan; the
latter i is followed by an Arabic 6 to convey that the tonic chord appears
in its first inversion.) Though my 7.4 incorporates equivalent symbols –
I ♭II I – my contextualization of the Neapolitan chord contrasts Hood’s
in important ways. Note first that our difference of opinion regarding
the arrival point of the phrase’s initial tonic chord emerges once more:
Hood places the tonic in measure 9, whereas I place it in measure 12. Yet
we agree that, one way or another, the phrase establishes the G Minor
tonic before the Neapolitan arrives. Though I acknowledge that ♭II is
tonicized, I nevertheless regard it as the asserted 6 phase of a hierarchi-
cally deeper chord – namely, IV, whose attainment is emphasized
through the transformation of the minor tonic into a surging I➔. In
Hood’s Graph 1F this IV chord lacks a label (as is also the case in the
more detailed Graph 1G, though in Graph 2H a iv appears among the
twenty symbols – numerals, N, and +6 – that annotate this fourteen-
measure passage). Likewise, in my view a harmony that is hierarchically
deeper than ♭II precedes the tonic resolution – namely, V 7♯ . (The three
bass noteheads for this passage connected to a beam in 7.4 are G, D,
and G.) Hood displays evidence of some sympathy for that view in her
graph 1B (though, again, no V label appears). I am not in a position to
decide whether the competing hierarchies displayed in 1B and 1F
amount to an assertion that the Neapolitan imposes a shift in the
relationship among these various chords (in accord with the “ambigu-
ity” theme of Hood’s article); or whether, instead, the annotation of the
latter graph with harmonic symbols is in need of repair.
I also note a significant discrepancy between the presence of Roman
numeral i at measures 34–35 in graphs 1A through G and its absence
in graph 2H.9 Again, is this an inadvertent omission; or is Hood
intending to juxtapose two quite different readings of the closing mea-
sures, fostering the notion of ambiguity? (Though neither version
matches what I display in 7.4, graph 2H is far closer to my view.

However, I suspect that Hood would quickly add V and i numerals, to
conform with the other graphs, if the discrepancy were brought to her
attention.)10
Though other issues could be addressed (for example, Hood’s +6
label, in the context of C Minor, for what I interpret as the initial
statement of the ♭II chord at the end of measure 15), by now it is clear
that there is little common ground between our interpretations, despite
our use of similar analytical strategies. Readers may wish to extend the
comparison of our perspectives beyond this single brief prelude, placing
Hood’s recent monograph alongside mine for a double dose of invigor-
ating Chopin study.
8 Prelude in C♯ Minor (op. 45)
in response to Jean-Jacques Eigeldinger and to Charles J. Smith
Jean-Jacques Eigeldinger’s lifelong dedication to Chopin has enriched the

musician’s library with important books, articles, and scores. He edited all
of the preludes (both op. 28 and op. 45) for the recent Peters Urtext edition
and has displayed his musicological acumen in a wide-ranging article on
the Prelude in C♯ Minor, op. 45.1 Though devoted in large part to con-
templations regarding Chopin’s interactions with Delacroix’s views on
painting and his indebtedness to Beethoven, that essay offers a sophisti-
cated analytical study of the prelude as well. (Eigeldinger acknowledges the
contribution of Georges Starobinski in its formulation.) Another note-
worthy analysis of that work, by Charles J. Smith, has appeared in a volume
of essays, intended for students, by a range of luminaries in the field of
analysis, edited by Deborah Stein.2 In that Smith has held a special interest in
both Chopin and in harmonic analysis throughout his career, the opportu-
nity to explore his reading of the prelude here is especially welcome.
The Prelude in C♯ Minor’s introduction (measures 1–5)
The opening measures of the Prelude in C♯ Minor only gradually come

into focus as an establishment of the C♯ tonic, confirmed by the potent
G♯>C♯ bass succession over the bar line between measures 4 and 5,
supporting a PAC in that key. Parallel progressions of 63 chords were
featured often in Baroque thoroughbass treatises.3 Yet once harmonic
thinking began to emerge as a central component of musical speculation,
their analytical treatment turned out to be especially problematic.4 Though
certainly one could concoct a Roman numeral label for each chord within
Chopin’s progression, in my view that exercise would be pointless, since
many of the internal chords do not fulfill the roles that they would in
harmonically asserted contexts. (Though the labels I VII VI V IV III II, for
example, may succeed in indicating where within tonal space the various
chords of a parallel progression reside, they do so at the expense of
syntactic sense. Any harmonic system that can blithely accommodate VII
proceeding to VI, or IV to III, is so watered down as to be of no value.) I
Prelude in C♯ Minor (op. 45) 199
Example 8.1 Prelude in C♯ Minor (op. 45) (a) Analysis of mm. 1–3; (b) Analysis of
mm. 1–5.
(a)
(b)
propose instead that Chopin pursues a focused and nuanced downward

linear initiative for three measures, broken off (at 41) just before the
phrase’s concluding V➔ I cadence, where the logical next chord within
the pattern – E♯-G♯-C♯ (displayed conjecturally in 8.1a) – is replaced by
E♮-G♯-C♯ (which here functions as a cadential 64 whose bass G♯ is tardy),
embellished by a suspension (quarter note A) and retained for half a
measure to help break the momentum of the descending progression.
Chopin’s writing divides the preceding descending seventh (which in
retrospect will be interpreted as a broad connection between I and ♮II)
into three thirds. Note how the A and f♯ chords become nodal points
through the insertion of downbeat neighboring chords, thereby expanding
the domain of each within the stepwise descent from one to three quarter
notes. Consequently the model in 8.1a displays three levels of activity: the
foundational c♯ to D♮ (traversing a descending seventh that projects I to
♮II), the segmentation of that seventh into three thirds (with internal nodal
points at A and f♯), and local passing chords that connect nodal points and
neighboring chords that prolong the two internal nodal points.
In that music analysts for good reason have come to regard the ♮II
(“Neapolitan”) chord as a normal occurrence within minor-key contexts,
some care in assessing how it comes about here is in order. (This assess-
ment will prove to be crucial for our understanding of a later passage
from the prelude.) I propose that Chopin is proceeding in this descending
path not according to diatonic precepts (even if A and f♯ coincide with
diatonic chords within C♯ Minor), but instead in an obstinate manner. As
such, he is not bound by the dictates imposed by the C♯ Minor key
signature, which favors seven specific pitch classes. When thinking out-
side the diatonic realm, the numbers from 0 to 11 (with C = 0) offer a
neutral means of displaying pitch interactions, in a modulo 12 framework
free from the hierarchical differentiations imposed by key-based (mod-
ulo 7) thinking. Chopin’s descending triads thus may be represented as
follows:
8
4 ————— 4
1 ————— 1 ————— 1
9 ————— 9 ————— 9
6 ————— 6
2
m M m M
Note especially that each chord’s third and fifth hold over from the pre-
ceding chord, and that the chordal qualities alternate between minor (m)
and major (M). Once the descending trajectory has run its course (as
determined by the composer), the endpoint is thrust back into the context
of diatonic tonal space, which must somehow make sense of it according to
the conventional relationships within the key. Though in this case the
chord that is thrust back is not diatonic, it happens to coincide with the
common “Neapolitan” variant of the supertonic. The graph displayed in
8.1b thus interprets chromatic D♮ as a frequently encountered and there-
fore unremarkable wobbly note resulting in ♮II, with diatonic pitch D♯
restored (as it almost always is) during the dominant harmony that follows.
Minor-key tonality ultimately prevails: D♮ is subservient to D♯, and the
major dominant is the principal structural event between the perimeter
tonic harmonies, as indicated by the beamed bass notes, C♯–G♯–C♯
(Schenker’s “sacred triangle”). The graph displays one unusual feature:
because the soprano melody’s descending seventh during the parallel
progression places the endpoint chords in contrasting registers, a founda-
tional linear connection emerges between the first chord’s lowest sounding
pitch, E (which I propose serves as the Kopfton), and the ♮II chord’s highest
pitch, D♮, which proceeds via the D♯ wobble correction to tonic C♯,
completing a third-progression. After the cadence, the Kopfton is rein-
forced (indeed, in this unusual context it needs some reinforcement)
through the bass melody’s projection of an apex E in three successive
registers – at the middle and end of measure 5 and the end of measure 6,
and then repeated.
Eigeldinger interprets Chopin’s opening melody not as a descending

seventh followed by cadential gestures, as I do, but instead extends a bit
further, to a descending octave, split into two tetrachords: C♯–G♯ and
F♯–C♯ (p. 246). To support his tetrachord interpretation, he directs
readers to measures 80 and 81, where those tetrachords (plural) alleg-
edly recur (note 29).5 Exploring the latter assertion first will provide
some useful perspective for an assessment of the former.
The G♯-C♯-E-G♯ chord that boldly brings the cadenza to an end at
801 would lead listeners to expect a specific continuation: the domi-
7
nant’s root G♯ will be retained while the three remaining pitches of V ♯
will sooner or later fall into place (or will be imagined to fall into place if
not literally stated). Nothing through measure 82 hints at any progress
in achieving that result. Instead, the dominant’s third (B♯), imagined
fifth (D♯), and seventh (F♯) emerge concurrently at 831. Between mea-
sures 80 and 83 Chopin presents a descending arpeggiation touching
upon all of the cadential 64 chord’s members: G♯>E>C♯>G♯. During this
arpeggiation he incorporates at each nodal point exactly the same sort of
embellishment as was deployed at the two internal nodal points during
the introduction: half-step lower neighbors. The following stages con-
vey my conception of how Chopin constructed this intriguing melody:
G♯ E C♯ G♯
G♯>FÜ<G♯ E>D♯<E C♯>B♯<C♯ G♯<FÜ<G♯
G♯>FÜ<G♯ E>D♯<E B♯<C♯ FÜ<G♯
G♯ C♯ B A >FÜ<G♯ E>D♯<E C♯ FÜ<G♯
B♯<
!
j
Observe how, as the melody takes on its distinctive shape, two pitches
(C♯ and G♯) are elided, one pitch (B♯) is displaced, and one pitch (the
initial G♯) is embellished by an upper-fourth flourish. That flourish
indeed corresponds to Eigeldinger’s upper tetrachord – the only mean-
ingful fourth available within this 64 context. I reject his assertion that an
F♯–C♯ tetrachord occurs as well: no F♯ sounds during the passage, and

the D♯ does not descend to C♯.
The accentuated metrical placement of FÜ and D♯ (both half-step lower
neighbors) in measure 81 corresponds to my reading of the introduction’s
accentuated G♯ at 21 and E♯ at 31 as neighboring embellishments (as
shown in 8.1a). Whereas Eigeldinger proposes two descending fourths –
C♯–G♯ and F♯–C♯ (with some unexplained notes coming between
them) – as the foundational organizing principle of the introduction’s
melody, I propose instead a succession of three interlocking descending
thirds, set off by lower neighbors and presented uniformly as the second
through fourth quarter notes of three consecutive measures:
C♯>B>A A>G♮>F♯ F♯>E>D♮
G♯ E♯
The persistence of third-relationships during the main section of the

prelude further supports this reading.6
Eigeldinger has put his finger on an important point by suggesting that
the introduction wavers between C♯ Minor and A Major (p. 246). He
directs our attention especially to the pitch D♮, which differentiates A
Major’s diatonic pitch collection from that of C♯ Minor. As an experi-
ment, perform the introduction as written until 42, substituting D♮ for D♯
at that point. You will discover that the following B♯ will want to shift to
diatonic B♮ and that the low bass note E (instead of G♯) will sound right.
Letting those notes proceed according to their inclinations, one ends up
cadencing on A at 51. Indeed, the introduction’s nodal c♯, A, f♯, and D♮
chords are all diatonic in A Major, and if Chopin had in fact proceeded as
in our experiment, one likely would regard the initiating c♯ chord as tonic
A’s upper-third chord. The descent would in that case be interpreted as a
filling in of the A>D♮ fifth, corresponding to I ( ) IV. It is only through the
strength of Chopin’s cadence that an analyst may, instead, retrospectively
assign the initiating c♯ chord – despite its brevity and weak metrical
placement – the structural role of initiating tonic. As stated at the outset,
“the opening measures of the Prelude in C♯ Minor only gradually come
into focus as an establishment of the C♯ tonic.”
Smith’s analysis takes the unusual tack of comparing Chopin’s compo-
sition to the narrative trajectory of a thriller movie, proposing that just as
the film audience tries to resolve the various plot entanglements and
figure out who the culprit is, so also auditors of Chopin’s prelude will
ponder it as a puzzle that needs to be resolved. I don’t buy it. As Smith

suggests, sometimes the key to resolution is “hidden in plain sight”
(p. 240). In this case the introduction is that key.7 If one does not suitably
come to terms with its nuances before proceeding to the main body of the
work, the complications that arise likely will be perplexing. I do not think
that Chopin intended to obfuscate what he was doing: the introduction
pursues a straightforward course in a direct and uncluttered presentation.
Nevertheless, Smith (following Eigeldinger’s lead) proceeds to segment
the melody into tetrachords rather than trichords, and consequently his
reading of the passage does not sufficiently correlate with the contour of
the work’s main section (to be explored below) for him to recognize the
latter as a gargantuan variant of the former.
Smith’s annotated score 20.1 (p. 243) contains a curious – and telling –
use of curved arrows. During the first four chords, the initial c♯ is the
target of an arrow that curves leftwards from the fourth chord; whereas
during the fifth through eighth chords the initial A is the target of no
arrow, while the eighth chord’s arrow curves to the right, targeting
the ninth chord. Compare that inconsistent reading with 8.1a, where
the fourth and eighth chords perform equivalent roles as expanders of the
nodal points that immediately precede them. Though Smith yearns for a
D♮ chord in measure 4 (a chord that is crucial to his plot denouement later
in the work), I contend that such a D♮ chord is a conspicuous part of the
prelude’s fabric at the end of measure 3.8 The plot thus may be summar-
ized as follows: after the initial tonic, a descent in thirds through A and f♯
proceeds as far as D♮, which (following the conventions of the
“Neapolitan” chord’s usage) leads to a V➔ I cadence. As we shall see,
the main section of the work at first pursues the same trajectory, reiter-
ating the introduction’s c♯, A, f♯, and D♮ nodal points (measures 6|7
through 18) and thus giving auditors a second chance at comprehending
this essential component of the plot, after which multiple wobbly notes
transform the second through fourth chords, so that ultimately D♯ (II➔)
rather than D♮ (♮II) precedes the main section’s V➔ I cadence in mea-
sures 66 and 67 (which, as we shall see, Smith relegates to the status of a
retransition).
Smith gives considerable weight to chords that he regards as tonicized.
In his fig. 20.5 (p. 248) he shows a triangular relationship among the
introduction’s c♯, A, and tonicized f♯ (to which D is appended off to the
side). An arrow points directly from f♯ back to c♯. My 8.1b accounts for all
of those chords (with a contrasting reading of their hierarchical relation-

ships) and notably includes one that is absent from Smith’s account: the
G♯ dominant, a member of the introduction’s foundational sacred trian-
gle, C♯–G♯–C♯.9
The Prelude in C♯ Minor’s main section (measures 5–67)
During the prelude’s introduction a brief though dense linear passage

connects I (measure 1) and ♮II (measure 3) prior to the V➔ I cadence.
Chopin’s construction of the prelude’s main section pursues a similarly
modest agenda, now astonishingly expanded: between the I of measures 5
through 8 and the II➔ of measure 65, Chopin passes back and forth among
the nodal points established during the introduction, even as they undergo
chromatic mutation. (See 8.2.) The extraordinary size of this connective
passage stems not only from the fact that Chopin now pursues a round-
about course, with multiple ups and downs along the descending-seventh
trajectory, but also from the substitution of multiple-chord progressions
for the individual chords that connect or expand nodal points during the
introduction. For example, a connective b chord comes between the c♯ and
A nodal points during measure 1. In descending from c♯ to A during
measure 7 through measure 13 that b chord indeed recurs (measure 11),
though now it resides within a segment of the descending circle of fifths: c♯
F♯➔ B/b E➔ A. The G♮ connective chord that passes between A and f♯
during the introduction is replaced by a more dynamic C♯➔ during 141.
(Note that its context retains the sense of stepwise descent between
soprano pitches A and F♯, now incorporating diatonic G♯, along with a
lower sixth in the alto register.) Though the D♮ chord emerges directly after
f♯, its prolongation during measures 15 through 18 incorporates vestiges of
the G♯-B-E connective chord of measure 3: the E at the end of measure 15
passes between the melody’s F♯ and D♮, whereas the BG ♮ of measure 17
embellishes AF ♯ . Likely a shorter composition would have resulted if this
D♮ chord (asserted as ♮II) had proceeded to dominant G♯, as was the case
during the introduction. Chopin instead backtracks to f♯ in measure 19 –
creating some distance from the chord that during the introduction resided
at the juncture of the linear initiative and the concluding harmonic initia-
tive. The prolongation of this chord, including a modal shift to F♯ at
measure 31 and a mutation to F♮ at measure 55, is one of the principal
Example 8.2 Analysis of Prelude in C♯ Minor (op. 45), mm. 5–67.
features of the main section, followed by the definitive descent to D♯➔ at

measure 65. (One may trace the progress of the f♯ chord’s evolution in 8.2,
noting especially how f♯, F♯, or F♮ resides at the internal phrase boundaries,
indicated by the bar lines.) One might even regard all the material between
the f♯ of measure 19 and the F♯ of measure 64 as a parenthetical passage.
At first it seems that the prolongation might be of brief duration, since
the new phrase that begins at measures 20|21 inaugurates, starting on f♯,
the same circular progression that earlier led from c♯ to A. Listeners are
poised for a D♮ arrival at 271. Chopin indeed is prepared to confirm that D♮
with a five-measure tonicizing expansion deploying a local I–IV–V–I
harmonic progression (compensating for the absence of even an
embellishing-chord expansion at the D♮ nodal point during the introduc-
tion). This progression does in fact transpire, though down a third, since B♭
unexpectedly displaces the D♮ goal at 271. Its cadence measure (31) offers
yet another surprise: a further drop – now from B♭ to G♭ – occurs. This G♭
is confirmed via a similar five-measure expansion (transposed), which
cadences successfully in measure 35.
It may appear that Chopin has managed to move from a sharp key (F♯
Minor) to a very flat key (G♭ Major). Yet ultimately G♭ will be accepted as
F♯, even if the notation in flats persists for some time in the score. This is a
thorny and controversial issue. In my view, the passage’s obstinate chord
progression should be interpreted outside the realm of diatonic tonality. In
a modulo 12 context (already called into service during our discussion of
the introduction’s obstinate progression), the following grid aptly repre-
sents the “descending in thirds” progression:
1
9 ————— 9
6 ————— 6 5
2 ————— 2 1
10 ————— 10
6
m M M M
In a modulo 12 context an octave may be traversed (here as 6>2>10>6)

with no enharmonic seam. Whereas the introduction’s obstinate pro-
gression alternates between minor and major chords each of which
shares two pitches with its predecessor, here a mid-course shift in the
relationship between adjacent chords results in the juxtaposition of three
major triads (starting with the elided 2-6-9 of measure 27), connected by
only one common tone. Once that modulo 12 progression concludes,
the goal chord is thrust back into the diatonic context. In this case
accommodation is easy: the progression has come full circle, from a
minor to a major chord rooted on F♯. The emergence of the enharmonic
G♭ spelling comes about through the use of modulo 7 notation (wherein
three “major thirds” span an augmented seventh) to convey a modulo 12
conception.
The trajectory proceeds upwards from F♯ at the onset of the next phrase,
which begins at measures 36|37. (This discussion will be presented in terms
of sharps, corresponding to my 8.2, not the flats of Chopin’s score.)
Whereas each of the section’s first two phrases was inaugurated with the
traversal of a descending major third, navigated via a segment of the circle
of fifths (c♯ to A in the first, and f♯ to (D♮) in the second), now an obstinate
ascending 5–6 sequence is set in motion to chug upwards a major third (F♯
to A♯), with D♯➔ (F♯’s chromaticized 6-phase chord) in measure 39
targeting the passing chord G♯ (measure 42) and E♯➔ (G♯’s chromaticized
6-phase chord) in measure 47 targeting goal A♯. Yet A♯ is not one of the
nodal points introduced during the introduction, and so Chopin revises
course mid-sequence by shifting E♯➔ down a half step to E➔ (measure
53), thereby targeting nodal A. Yet, just as the goal chord of measure 27 is
elided and displaced by a chord a major third lower, so also is this A goal
(measure 55) elided and displaced by F♮. Thus we have ended up “in the
cracks” (outside the confines of the initially established nodal points) after
all. This wayward F♮ nevertheless is treated to the same sort of chordal
expansion as was the F♯ arrival of measure 31. We now seem even further
from tonal resolution than was the case at that point.
The section’s final phrase sets things aright and achieves the long-
awaited goal with surprising alacrity. First the usurping F♮ chord is simply
hoisted up a half step to the legitimate nodal F♯ (measure 64), the oddity of
the voice leading (three simultaneous wobbly-note resolutions!) mitigated
by the concurrent sounding of a descending passing note (E) in the bass.
F♯’s major quality (acquired in measure 31) is not relinquished. The
presence of pitch A♯ as third of the F♯ chord leads to the substitution of
II➔ for the introduction’s ♮II as the progression continues downwards its
final third. Of course, either incarnation of the supertonic may serve as the
predecessor of V♯. That dominant (measure 66) in turn targets the tonic
goal (measure 67), bringing to a close the extraordinary twelvefold expan-
sion of an idea that during the introduction transpired in just five
measures.
It is understandable that Chopin elected to present a large chunk of this

sharp-key composition using flats. He has thereby spared performers
(including many amateurs) from having to read numerous frightfully
spelled chords, such as the E♯➔ chord (with suspended ninth) at 491,
whose appropriate spelling would be E♯-B♯-FÜ-GÜ-B♯. Granted, an
enharmonic shift is required at some point in order for the section to
end where it started – in C♯ Minor, rather than D♭ Minor. The logical
spot for that shift within one’s analysis would be during the modulo 12
equal subdivision of the octave (measures 21 through 31): from f♯ to F♯,
rather than f♯ to G♭. In his ex. 2 (p. 247) Eigeldinger instead copies
Chopin’s flat notation at that point. Sharps are restored at measure 51’s
E-A-C♯ chord.
Undertaking a cosmetic (and therefore distracting and potentially
misleading) enharmonic shift while concurrently charting chordal asso-
ciations in an analysis is exceedingly dangerous. Consequently my
analytical diagrams generally do not follow composers when they
employ spellings of convenience. (Theory-savvy readers of technical
analyses should be able to handle a few double-sharps!) Given that
chords related by a third have been a pervasive feature of the entire
composition, it is reasonable that Chopin pursues an ascending-third
trajectory from the stable F♯ chord of measure 37. Yet what should that
initiative’s goal be? Earlier the relationship between A and f♯ was
established. Does the conversion of f♯ into F♯ warrant targeting upper-
third a♯ (or A♯) instead? Or should A be maintained nevertheless?
The ascending 5–6 sequence that Chopin employs could lead to either
goal, depending upon how the 6-phase chords are constructed. F♯

D♯➔ G♯ (an elaboration of F♯5–6 G♯5) is a good start in either case.
But should G♯’s 6-phase chord be E➔ (G♯-B-E, surging towards A) or
instead E♯➔ (GÜ-B♯-E♯, surging towards either a♯ or A♯)? The score
bears witness that Chopin wove indecisiveness on this point into the
fabric of the work: he initially selects the latter trajectory (measure 49)
but soon shifts to the former (measure 54). Thus two potential fifth-
relationships are juxtaposed: E♯➔ A♯ and E➔ A. When goal A is
displaced by F♮, a descending third-relationship is implied: A (ima-
gined) to F♮.
Eigeldinger’s spelling of E♯ as F (his annotation for measures 47
through 63 – during which the cosmetic enharmonic shift from sharps
to flats occurs – reads “F A F”) equates the initiating and closing
elements of this complex and fascinating passage, a reading that not
only betrays an insensitivity to the difference between descending fifth
(ascending fourth: E♯<A♯) and descending third (A>F♮) relationships
but that then proceeds by claiming that the home key of C♯ Minor is
“symmetrically divided into three enharmonic thirds”: c♯, F, and A
(p. 246). Whereas I accept A as one of the work’s main players (what I
have referred to as a nodal point along the c♯>D♮ trajectory, whose D♮
will be replaced by D♯ in measure 65), I reject Eigeldinger’s F: as E♯ it is
an internal element of a sequential progression, and as F at the cadence
it is a temporary usurper of F♯, whose restoration in measure 64 is
accomplished before further progress in the tonal trajectory occurs.
Indeed, the equal subdivision of an octave is featured occasionally in
music of this era: Chopin in fact pursues it in the 6–(2)–10–6 passage of
measures 21 through 31, as I have noted above. But to pick a C♯ here, an
A there, and an F somewhere else and claim that these are the “poles
around which the piece’s harmony is constructed” (p. 246) distorts their
compositional roles within Chopin’s prelude. As the juxtaposition of
8.1b and 8.2 makes clear, the bass C♯–G♯–C♯ sacred triangle plays a
foundational harmonic role both in the introduction and in the main
section, and in both contexts some sort of supertonic (♮II or II➔),
achieved via a descent in thirds, serves as the principal connector
between the tonic and the dominant. As is typical of tonal music in
general, the bulk of Chopin’s creative energy here is devoted to what
comes between the initial I and the cadential V♯. In claiming that the D♮
chord of measures 15 through 18 “is established without any functional
raison d’être” (p. 246), Eigeldinger neglects its potential to continue

immediately to V➔, a scenario that Chopin passes over in favor of a
longer and far more captivating build-up to the supertonic (II➔) in
measure 65.
If the prelude’s main section is in fact a “gargantuan variant” of the
introduction, as I have proposed above, then there is a significant
structural connection between the cadences on tonic c♯ in measures
4–5 and 66–67. (Play them one after the other to hear how they rhyme.)
My reading of the form gives them comparable status: as close of the
introduction and of the main section. The latter is divided into four
parts (indicated by bar lines in 8.2), set off by a rather amorphous halt
on F♯ in measure 19 and dynamic (and equivalently formulated)
cadences on F♯ in measure 35 and on its usurper, F♮, in measure 59.
(Eigeldinger’s ex. 2 likewise presents the expanse from c♯ in measure 5
to c♯ in measure 67 as a single multi-sectional entity, though his internal
bar lines do not in all cases coincide with mine. He annotates the goal c♯
chord with the word “Reprise,” which I take to imply a dovetailing of the
end of the main section with the onset of its modified repetition.) Smith
proposes a contrasting view of the form, which he classifies as rounded
binary (p. 242).10 Though he divides what I call the main section into the
same four parts as I do, my first two parts correspond to his first section,
my third part to his middle section, and my fourth part to his retransi-
tion (p. 241).11 Consequently what follows the cadence of measure 67 is
for him a more vital part of the formal design than it is for me. (In my
view a one-part form has fully run its course by the cadence of measure
67 and will be reprised in an abbreviated version that retains all essential
deep structural features; whereas Smith’s middle section, which
cadences in F Major, requires the material after measure 67 to re-assert
the tonic and to balance the open-ended first section.) As the remainder
of this essay will help clarify, I propose that the prelude is organized as a
set of four distinct passes through the same structural “theme”: the
introduction, the main section, its modified repetition, and the coda.
That view is incompatible with Smith’s interpretation of the passage
leading to the cadence in measures 66–67 (for me the site of the work’s
background Urlinie descent) as a retransition.
Despite our disagreement regarding the prelude’s form, Smith’s fig.
20.3 (which he calls the “Schematic form”) and my 8.2 have much in
common over the course of what I call the main section until the final
part, between F♮ and c♯ (measures 59 through 67), where his represen-

tation goes blank while mine robustly includes three of the section’s
seven open noteheads and two of its four Roman numerals. This is an
intensified replication of our disagreement regarding measure 4, dis-
cussed above. Whereas Smith’s focus emphasizes tonicized keys (going
so far as to omit the structural dominant, which is labeled as V7/c♯ in his
score 20.6), my perspective intermixes chords derived from modulo 12
progressions, chords modified by multiple wobbly notes, and structural
harmonies regardless of whether or not they are reinforced by local
progressions that incorporate their leading tones. I regard tonicization
and structural depth as distinct notions that often do not correlate.12
Given the roster of chords left after his selective purging, it is not
surprising that Smith has appended a listing of two chordal cycles to his
fig. 20.3: B♭–D–F♯ and F–A–C♯. (They are presented in triangular
diagrams in his fig. 20.4 as well.) His commentary explains: “This
C♯–A–F cycle . . . accounts for the overall shape of the prelude’s begin-
ning (C♯ minor to A) and end (F back to C♯ minor); in contrast, the
D–B♭–G♭ cycle is the source for the harmonic motion through the
middle” (p. 247). Whereas the latter corresponds to my 6–2–10–6
cycle (modulo 12) for measures 21 through 31, the former, which
Eigeldinger endorses as well (as we have seen), falls apart for me because
all of the various A(♯) and F(♯) chords above the open parentheses in 8.2
serve as nodal points (with or without wobbly-note mutation) along the
path between the hierarchically deeper I and II➔.13
The modified repetition of the Prelude in C♯ Minor’s main

section (measures 67–84)
After the PAC that is achieved in measure 67, the prelude could proceed
directly to the coda (jumping from 671 to 842) with no injury to the form.
Instead, Chopin electively repeats the structure that has just been pre-
sented, now in a much tidier (though, due to the cadenza, still very
impressive) manner. A repeat of the initial c♯-to-A motion transpires
during measures 67 through 75. (See 8.3.) Then Chopin takes advantage
of a nifty trick of the trade: adding FÜ to A-C♯-E results in II . Thus the
progression avoids entirely the intricate and extended navigation among
mutating nodal points that characterizes the main section’s initial
statement. The written-out cadenza briefly postpones the denouement, in

the process accomplishing a shift from II to II➔ (thus bringing this
progression into a closer alliance with that of the earlier main section,
where II➔ occurs in measure 65).14 From the cadenza’s initiating D♯
chord (which Chopin spells enharmonically using easier-to-read G♮ in
place of FÜ), the second through ninth four-note groupings work down-
wards by half steps. The ninth chord in the series (eight half-steps below
the starting point) incorporates a mutation: presented by Chopin as F♮-B-
D♮-G♯ rather than as F♮-B-C♯-G♯. From that point he works his way back
up again, achieving C♯-G♮-E-B♭ (which represents D♯➔: FÜ-A♯-C♯-E) in
the middle of the thirteenth four-note grouping. That chord returns and is
prolonged at the end of the cadenza, where the correct spelling is
employed. Bass FÜ at the start of the final four-note grouping resolves to
the dominant’s G♯ (three octaves lower) at 801. A three-measure expansion
of the cadential 64 chord (measures 80 through 82) precedes a staid V➔ I
close. Though the rhyme with measures 4–5 and 66–67 is inexact, the effect
is one of increased stability due to the downbeat arrival of soprano ^1. Yet
eighth notes rise again from the depths, initiating a brief coda.
Eigeldinger tacitly confirms the formal redundancy of this section by

giving it hardly any attention in his analysis. The word “Reprise” in his
ex. 2 suffices.15 The annotations in Smith’s score 20.8 demonstrate one
of my principal concerns with conventional harmonic analysis: the use
of widely divergent symbols for essentially the same harmonic function.
The cadenza connects two very similar chords: A-C♯-E-FÜ and FÜ-A♯-
C♯-E, both of which target V♯. My notational practice, either with
Arabic numerals (as displayed in 8.3) or with arrows (II ➔),
emphasizes that a mere wobbly note differentiates those two sonorities.

Smith’s conventional analysis instead makes them seem disparate: Ger65
versus vii°7/V. (If one agrees with me that their shared root is D♯, then
the “= A7” in Smith’s annotation will seem curious as well.) Equally
problematic, in my view, is the label i64 for the chord of measures 80
through 82 (Smith’s 81 through 83), though so much ink has been spilt
on that issue over the years that I will hold my peace.
The Prelude in C♯ Minor’s coda (measures 84–91)
Whereas the penultimate left-hand pitch in the cadential measure 67 is G♯,

an accented A emerges at that location in the counterpart measure 84. This
A of course brings to mind the various A major chords that have initiated
progressions away from tonic c♯ in the preceding regions of the prelude
(measures 1, 13, and 75). In those earlier contexts A led either to f♯ (on the
way to D♮ or D♯➔) or directly to D♯ . Now, with the help of the G♮ that
emerges in measure 85, A➔ targets D♮ directly. (See 8.4.) Listeners thus
may admire the range of similar though distinct trajectories that Chopin
juxtaposes in this work. Yet there is something even more delicious to
savor: the chord of measure 85 (spelled A-C♯-E-G♮) is the enharmonic
equivalent of the chord of measure 76 (spelled A-C♯-E-FÜ). Consequently
alert listeners might develop a special interest in finding out how Chopin
will proceed after measure 85: will A➔ lead to ♮II; or will D♯ lead to
V♯? Chopin chooses the ♮II route, thereby restoring the introduction’s
version of the dominant preparation. The PAC that follows brings the
progression to a close, with lingering echoes of Kopfton E in the post-
cadential measures.
9 Ballade in F Minor (op. 52)
in response to Edward Laufer
Edward Laufer’s detailed analysis of Chopin’s Ballade in F Minor appears

in a book devoted to sonata forms.1 Given the venue, Laufer focuses
especially on the work’s form and motivic associations. I am not persuaded
by his formal assessment, which has appeared with some frequency in the
literature devoted to this ballade. I propose that Chopin instead pursues a
creative variant of an A1 A2 binary form, with multiple repetitions of A1,
incorporating variation and internal expansion, accounting for the bulk of
the work, followed by a single A2 statement near the end. (Laufer refers to
the latter as a coda.) Since my focus is on harmony, I will not dwell on
our disagreement regarding the form, but instead will glean as much as I
can about harmonic matters from Laufer’s generous graphs. Though his
examples are dense – to the point of sometimes exceeding what might
reasonably be squeezed onto a page2 – Laufer’s use of Roman numerals is
uncommonly sparse. Consequently I sometimes reconstruct the implied
harmonic progressions through an assessment of the graphs’ pitch content
and of the associations indicated by slurs and beams.
The introduction and the initial statement of A1

(measures 1–22)
The Ballade in F Minor’s A1 section presents a conventional trajectory

from a minor tonic (introduced at 82) to its major dominant (attained at
222).3 This trajectory is presented four times over the course of the ballade
(incorporating progressively more extraordinary elaborations and expan-
sions), after which a tonic-cadencing A2 finally commences at measure 211.
Consequently a cadential dominant and the onset of a fresh tonic
are juxtaposed multiple times: at measures 22–23, 57–58, 151–152, and
202–211. That same juxtaposition is deployed at the juncture of the
introduction and the initial A1: a C major dominant is tonicized from the
opening measure through the fermata chord of 72, thereby coordinating
with what precedes each of the later A-section onsets.
Example 9.1 Analysis of Ballade in F Minor (op. 52), mm. 1–13.
Gradually emerging out of a misty repeated octave G, the introduction’s

tonicized C chord soon surges towards IV, whose 6 phase leads the progres-
sion onwards to V♮ and then I.4 (See 9.1.) The entire progression is repeated
during measures 4 and 5, followed by fragments that extend the introduction
for an additional two measures. The establishment of G (F Minor’s ^2) at the
top of the texture as the introduction begins is critical. Whereas G is
emphasized from the outset during the dominant-focused introduction,
during each statement of A1 or A2 it serves as the successor of Kopfton A♭,
which first emerges (in the same register as the introduction’s G) during 131.
As 9.1 shows, Chopin’s melody juxtaposes a pair of unfolded thirds over the
course of the ballade’s first thirteen measures: G down to leading tone E♮
during the dominant introduction, followed by tonic resolution F up to
Kopfton A♭ during the opening measures of the A1 section. (As often is the
case in minor-key compositions, an upper-third chord – A♭-C-E♭ – plays a
role in the prolongation of the initial F-A♭-C tonic.)
During the initial statement of A1 (measures 7|8 through 22), IV comes
between I-space (which eventually surges, targeting IV) and the cadential
V 7♮ . (See 9.2.) Tonic F’s minor seventh, E♭, sounds in a consonant context
during an excursion to the tonic’s upper-third chord (A♭-C-E♭ in measures
12 through 15). E♭’s ultimately dissonant character is unleashed through
the restoration of tonic root F and the shift from A♭ to A♮ during 161.
(An E♭-G(♭)-B♭-(D♭) embellishing chord separates the A♭ chord from the F
tonic both upon arrival and upon departure.) The upward melodic unfold-
ing from F reaches Kopfton A♭ during the prolongation of the upper-third
chord.
Ballade in F Minor (op. 52) 215
Example 9.2 Analysis of Ballade in F Minor (op. 52), mm. 7|8–22.
Once attained, the subdominant is prolonged via a tonicization of B♭

Minor, supporting a local third-progression from D♭ down to B♭, as is
displayed in 9.2. This tonicization likewise proceeds to an upper-third
chord (again aided by an intervening embellishing chord). The progression
continues with II7 and then V 7♮ within B♭ Minor. Though prolonged for
several measures, the F dominant does eventually resolve to B♭, at which
point B♭’s role as IV within the broader F Minor progression is fulfilled by
the continuation to dominant C. The sketch proposes that what conven-
tionally might occur as a stepwise connection between Kopfton A♭ (during
131 and 141) and its incomplete upper neighbor B♭ (at 162 and 221) here
coordinates with a registral shift, so that the seventh A♭>B♭ (broken up into
three thirds) is traversed instead of the second A♭<B♭. From that B♭ a
downward leap to the HC goal, G (= ^2), is easily accomplished during
measure 22. The structural division over the bar line between measures
22 and 23 (where V7 and I harmonies are juxtaposed) is reinforced by the
slurring, by the rests in the melody, by the fact that the melody does not
descend from G to F, and by the correspondence with the initial A1 onset of
measure 8.5
Whereas the introduction’s C major chord is inaugurated with a

melodic G, its interior third, C<E♮, is thrice stated in the melody
during measures 3 through 6. At the outset of A1 Chopin responds
to that major third in two significant ways: first, in the context of the F
minor tonic harmony, C<E♮ yields to C<F (measure 8); and second,
that fourth remains an interior interval, preceding the arrival of the

summit pitch A♭ (measure 13). The graph presented in Laufer’s
ex. 7.3a does not make these correlations. The tall stem marking the
C of measure 8 as the Kopfton imposes a visual barrier between related
pitches.
At the phrase ending, what I interpret as a structural divide between
measures 22 and 23 does not register as such in Laufer’s graph.
Our differing views stem in part from our contrasting determinations of
the Kopfton: from Laufer’s ^5 (= C), the B♭>G third of measure 22 is
interpreted as an unfolding from an outer to an inner strand, encouraging
a continuation from dissonant B♭ to an A♭ resolution (as is conveyed by
his soprano beam); whereas from my ^3, a succession to ^2 (the conven-
tional point of interruption within an A1 A2 binary form) is attainable,
since B♭ may be interpreted as ^3’s incomplete upper neighbor.6 Laufer
complicates matters further by suggesting that the subdominant is the
goal – that the “quick V” that follows serves “only to reintroduce the I”
(p. 162). Despite the duration of its tonicizing prolongation, IV is
displayed in my 9.2 as an interior element of a conventional tonic-to-
dominant progression, with HC at 222 rather than IAC at 231. If the
dominant here seems a bit slight, keep in mind that Chopin will fortify an
equivalent dominant arrival point later (in measures 195 through 210).
One small point: within the B♭ Minor tonicization, dominant F
major arrives without seventh E♭ at 182. An embellishing chord (over
F pedal) at 202 presents as its third an E♭ that is retained when the
F chord is restored. Laufer shows elements of the embellishing chord
in his ex. 7.3a but does not acknowledge the restoration of the V 7♮ .
Here as elsewhere, a more generous display of Roman numerals
would have been useful. (Note that a I numeral appears neither at
measure 8 nor at measure 23 in Laufer’s graph. Nor is the hierarchical
relationship between the mediant and what I call a surging tonic
clarified in measures 12 through 16. I suspect that Laufer intends
III5–6 IV, which I regard as viable.)
The second statement of A1 (measures 23–57)
Though the section that begins in measure 23 might have served as a

consequent to the A1 antecedent, it turns out to extend no further than
did that initial A1. Since it likewise cadences on the dominant (measure
57), it should be regarded as a varied repetition of A1, incorporating a
bold internal expansion. Note in the score how what occurred during the
upbeat half of measure 8 now is positioned during the downbeat half of
measure 23. This metrical shift persists up to the point where the cadence
would be expected. Instead of extending just one beat beyond measure
36 to attain that cadence (incorporating the C 7♮ chord of 222), Chopin
pauses on the B♭ subdominant, concluding the trajectory to the domi-
nant only after the insertion of over twenty measures of new material.
The subdominant chords of 362 and 571 represent the same moment
within the harmonic trajectory introduced during the initial statement
of A1. Especially since a G♭ chord leads away from the B♭ minor chord
in both measures 31 (as in measure 17) and 38, this region will come
across as a juxtaposition of two contrasting means of extending the
subdominant before it eventually yields to F Minor’s dominant in mea-
sure 57. In all, the subdominant controls all but nine of the section’s
thirty-five measures.
An analysis of these added measures is offered in 9.3. The material falls
into two parts. During the relatively static first part the minor subdomi-
nant is fortified through the transfer of its structural soprano pitch,
B♭, upwards by an octave – to the register of the initial A♭ Kopfton
(measures 13 and 27), to which it relates as an incomplete upper neigh-
bor – and through its evolution into a surging B♭➔ chord – by means of
D♭’s shift to D♮ and the addition of minor seventh A♭. During the
dynamic second part that surge’s energy ignites a spirited circular pro-
gression that traverses all the diatonic roots in the tonicized key of B♭
Minor, as noted in 9.3.
During the B♭ Minor tonicization within the initial A1, a B♭>A♭>G♭>F
fourth was traversed (bound by a slur in 9.2, measures 16 through 18). That

fourth plays a role in both parts of the expansion displayed in 9.3. The shift
from F to G♭ (tentatively touched upon at 371, then decisively embraced
in measure 38) begins an ascending trajectory that reaches B♭ in measure
46. (Note the slur, incorporating an internal downward registral shift,
below the staff in 9.3.) Whereas the G♭ chord might have served as ♭II
(a chromatic variant of IV’s 6-phase chord), offering an alternative route
to the goal C major dominant, instead an A♭-C♭-E♭-(G♭) passing chord
leads back to the B♭ subdominant, which is subsequently embellished by
F-A♮-C-E♭ in measure 49. Then during the circle of fifths the same filled-in
fourth, highlighted by the beam above the staff in measures 50 through
57 of 9.3, reverts to the descending direction. Mapping 571 of 9.3 onto 221
of 9.2, we should not be surprised that the C dominant (supporting 2) ^ that
follows in measure 22 also emerges in measure 57.
Will a fresh start, beginning in measure 58, lead to success in achieving
the longed-for PAC goal in the context of A2? Or will Chopin instead
undertake an even more daring expansion of the A1 structure?
Two issues regarding hierarchical relations surface during a comparison

of my 9.3 and Laufer’s ex. 7–4. First, I hear the soprano G♭ introduced in
measure 38 extending through measure 45, noting that a descending
G♭>E♭ third is answered by an ascending D♮<F third. Laufer instead
hears the F♭ of measure 42 as the successor of G♭ and precursor of the F♮
of measure 46. (Thus F♭ behaves, in his view, as what I call a wobbly
note.) Later, I do not hear the G♭ of 552 extending through measure 56.
(Note Laufer’s G♭>E♭ slur and parenthetical reinstatement of G♭ below
E♭.) Instead, I suggest that G♭ here resolves as a 9♭–8 suspension,
confirmed by Chopin’s alto-register F during 562. (Laufer’s reading of
a G♭ prolongation until the downbeat of measure 57 is presented most
clearly in his ex. 7–4 c.)
The third statement of A1 (measures 58–151)
At a basic level the tonal tale that the A1 section tells is unremarkable: after
its initial stabilization the tonic surges, targeting the subdominant, which,
after a tonicizing expansion, proceeds to the dominant for a half cadence.
In an idiosyncratic organizational plan, Chopin repeats A1 several times,
maintaining approximately the same structural framework for the tonic,
for its surge, and for the dominant arrival, while developing the internal
subdominant prolongation in ever more wondrous ways. During the

first three statements of A1 this burgeoning content is anchored by
straightforward and repeated presentations of the subdominant chord in
a characteristic register (as first stated during 162 and 221). The following
account of how those subdominant expansions transpire during the first
three A1 sections will guide our discussion.
First statement:
162–221 The foundational state of the subdominant tonici-
zation, featuring a third-progression (D♭>C>B♭)
supported by a harmonic progression within the
tonicized key of B♭ Minor [9.2].
Second statement:
311–362 A reprise of the foundational state of the subdomi-
nant tonicization.
362–571 A fresh expansion of the subdominant, featuring a
fourth-progression (B♭>A♭>G♭>F) supported by a
descending circle of fifths within the tonicized key
of B♭ Minor [9.3].
Third statement:
661–992 What begins as a straightforward reprise of the
foundational state of the subdominant tonicization
is transformed into an extended traversal of the
D♭>C>B♭ third-progression, incorporating an inter-
ruption and a shift to B♭ Major [9.4].
992–1452 A fresh expansion during which B♭ Minor is restored,
again traversing a third-progression (D♮>C>B♭), this
time with C supported by a dominant whose prolon-
gation incorporates a segment of an obstinate ascend-
ing circle of thirds (F<A♭<C♭) [9.5].
1452–1511 A reprise of the foundational state of the subdomi-
nant tonicization.
In coordination with greater underlying energy, generated by a steady

stream of sixteenth notes, the foundational harmonic trajectory from the
minor tonic through a surge to the subdominant is reprised during mea-
sures 58 through 66. A bass motion from B♭ through D♭ and E♭ to F again
initiates that subdominant’s tonicization during measures 66 through 68.
(The chord above bass E♭ during 672 evolves into II in tonicized B♭
Minor.) Yet whereas in the previous presentations of A1 an expansion of
B♭’s dominant for seven beats is followed by its resolution to B♭, now the
F dominant extends from 681 through 801. The phrase in fact ends on a half
cadence (with an interruption after C, B♭ Minor’s ^2, as shown in 9.4).
A consequent phrase that achieves the desired PAC (supporting ^1) com-
mences as the tempo is restored in measure 80.
A wondrous parallel progression extends the F major dominant chord of
measure 68. Though its most characteristic surge would be in the form of
V➔ (as appears to be emerging during measure 70), C soon wobbles to C♭,
so that V (A♮-C♭-E♭-G♭) sounds during measure 71. This chord, rooted
on an unsounded F, is enharmonically equivalent to its antipode, C♭➔,
as Chopin acknowledges through the spelling C♭-E♭-G♭-B♭♭ during 712.
Without losing its V function, this chord spelled as C♭➔ is the starting
point for a parallel progression that ascends obstinately in major seconds:
C♭➔ D♭➔ E♭➔ F➔. Thus through the ascent of three whole steps V
maps onto V➔! To close the phrase a cascade of sixteenth notes transports
the melody’s C (= ^2) to the upper region of the keyboard, after which it
eventually descends three octaves to Middle C, above which the initiating
D♮ of the post-interruption phase of this subdominant prolongation will be
introduced in measure 80.
Though the progression of measures 80 through 99 resides squarely in
B♭ Major, and though the thematic content comes across as fresh, never-
theless there are associations with the pre-interruption phase of the
subdominant prolongation. (Both phases of the prolongation are displayed
in 9.4.) Note especially how the melody’s upper thirds in measures 66–67
(D♭<F E♭>C) find their way into a major-key context in measures 84
through 90. The descent from C to B♭ is suppressed at the cadence of
measures 91 and 92, though it may be imagined. An expanded repetition of
the passage (acknowledged by the two tiers of measure numbers in 9.4)
leads definitively to the PAC (supporting C to B♭) in measure 99, in
coordination with a ritardando. Chopin’s local harmonic progressions
juxtapose the two principal means by which the tonic is departed: via
a 5–6 shift that leads to II, and via a surge (I➔) that targets IV. The tonic’s
5- and 6-phase chords are connected via a segment of the descending circle
of fifths (B♭ E♮ A♮ D G) in measures 80 through 83. The simple addition of
the tonic’s minor seventh, generating a surge effect in measures 86 and 87,
serves as the foundation for an impressive expansion during the repetition
in measures 92 through 95, where the endpoints of a long crescendo
symbol coordinate with the tonic’s 8 and 7♭. (The bass ascends by step
from root B♭ to seventh A♭.)
Though the B♭ goal of 992 resembles its predecessors in 221 and 571, both
its major quality and its sounding during the measure’s second beat
contrast those earlier contexts. These “flaws” are sufficient reason for
Chopin to forgo an immediate succession to F Minor’s C dominant to
conclude this A1 presentation. The ensuing further expansion of the
subdominant (which eventually reverts to its initial minor quality) offers
some of the ballade’s most inventive writing.
Third-relationships come to the fore during the phase of the subdomi-
nant prolongation that extends from 992 through 1452. At the outset a
major-mode variant of the passage from measures 36ff. is pursued.
(Compare these passages in 9.3 and 9.5.) Whereas the B♭ minor chord is
followed by G♭ major, now B♭ major is followed by G minor (preceded by
its D♮➔ embellishing chord); and just as A♭ in measure 45 connects G♭ and
➔
the restoration of B♭, so also E A♮ in measures 104 through 107 might
➔
have proceeded to F B♭. Instead, Chopin abandons this trajectory.
(Note the instructions to slow down and diminuendo during measure
♮➔
107.) A second D G ensues, this time inaugurating a progression that
quickly proceeds via II➔ to V, whose minor quality begins the process of
restoring the minor modal character of the tonicized B♭, in accordance
with its diatonic role as IV in F Minor. Of course, this F minor dominant in
the tonicized subdominant key is the same chord that elsewhere functions
as the ballade’s tonic. Chopin goes so far as to prolong it employing the
same strategy as in the tonic prolongation – namely, through an excursion
to its upper-third chord and back. (Compare the A♭ major chords of 121
and the end of 1132.) Whereas during measures 8 through 16 only the
A♭-C-E♭ upper-third chord sounds between the initial F minor tonic and
its surging F major evolution, the projection of the shift from B♭ Minor’s
diatonic dominant (F-A♭-C) to its leading-tone enhanced version (F-A♮-C)
during measures 111 through 138 is mirrored by the juxtaposition of two
variants of the upper-third chord: A♭-C-E♭ and A♮-C♯-E♮. (The ascent of a
half step between A♭ and A♮ is accomplished by means of a 5–6 shift during
measure 128. By resorting to enharmonic spellings, Chopin facilitates the
ascent to A♮ rather than to B♭♭.)
In a context that is rife with third-related chords, the A♮-to-F relation-
ship that restores the F dominant attains a prominence that in more
traditional writing likely would be fulfilled by fifth-related chords. For
example, at the outset Chopin supports the arrival of the tonic in measure
8 by means of a C-to-F fifth-relationship. (See 9.1.) As if to signal the
newfound importance of F’s upper-third chord (even though F here func-
tions as the subdominant’s dominant rather than as the movement’s tonic),
the A Major passage during measures 129 through 136 draws upon the-
matic and harmonic content from that opening C Major region. Chopin
even reprises the fermata usage of measure 7 in measure 134.7
Such third-play is further developed in fascinating ways. For example,
the relationship between the A and F chords, discussed above, is replicated
in the excursion to A’s upper-third chord, C♯ major, in measure 132. Is
Chopin pursuing an equal subdivision of the octave (4 + 4 + 4 = 12)? In this
case no, since C♯ reverts to A, and A eventually yields to F. A similar
scenario emerges during the remainder of the section, where the relation-
ship between A and F is replicated twice: as C to A♭ and then as E♭ to C♭.
(See 9.5.) One wonders once again whether an equal subdivision of the
octave is under way (3 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 12). Again no, since the C♭ chord
resolves directly to the F chord. (The C♭ chord offers a consonant context
for the introduction of the F dominant’s minor seventh, E♭.) Though this
might seem a curious juxtaposition, it corresponds to the Neapolitan-to-
dominant succession, here deployed as embellishment of a dominant that
has already been established. The invigorating succession from C➔ to f
from measures 110 and 111 is here contorted to become C♭ to F.
Whereas the B♭ chord that emerges during measure 145 is now of the
appropriate quality, its metrical positioning matches that of 162 rather than
that of 221. Consequently Chopin reprises the foundational subdominant
prolongation here, thereby attaining the ideal subdominant chord at 1511.
Without further ado, the dominant goal arrives immediately thereafter,
followed by the onset of the fourth (final) statement of A1.
Though many details in Laufer’s exx. 7.5a and 7.5c are commendable,
the display of how two crucial dominant harmonies relate to their
broader contexts seems problematic to me. First, consider the dominant
that I propose extends from 681 through 801. Laufer’s graphs make it
appear that the melodic trajectory from D♭ through C completes its path
with an imagined B♭ during measure 80. (Note that this B♭ is placed
within parentheses in his ex. 7.5c, though not in ex. 7.5a.) I propose
instead that an interruption delays that melodic goal: in my 9.4, C in
measure 68 connects to a B♭ imagined in measure 92 and stated in
measure 99. Laufer’s reading in his ex. 7.5 seems to contradict his own
graphs in ex. 7.6, where, instead of descending to B♭, the beamed C of
measure 68 either connects with upper-third E♭ or is juxtaposed with
the D♮ of measure 81.
Second, whereas I propose that the dominant harmony in measure 91
resolves to the tonic of measure 92 (more definitively stated at the end of
the varied phrase repetition, in measures 98 and 99), Laufer here does not
imagine a B♭ resolution pitch for the melodic line. (Though his reading of
F in measure 87 as the starting point for a linear descent subtly contrasts
my reading of that F as D’s upper third, we both acknowledge the arrival
of C in measure 90.) Consequently what here appears from Laufer’s
notation to be an interruption actually is not one, whereas what in the
vicinity of measure 77 appears not to be an interruption actually is one.
My assertion of an interruption before the onset of the B♭ Major
material that emerges in measure 80 is of special importance given
Laufer’s proposal that a sonata-form “second subject” begins at that
point. (On p. 162 he acknowledges that the key scheme differs from
what one would find in a classical sonata.) That notion would be hard to
reconcile with my interpretation of the B♭ tonicization as residing within
an F<C tonic-to-dominant trajectory, with this subdominant prolongation
of over eighty measures corresponding to the six-measure version of the
initial A1. If one interprets all of measures 66 through 99 as integral to a
single third-progression within B♭ Minor/Major (as is proposed in 9.4),
the potential formal division that Laufer proposes will seem less apt.
Laufer and I offer contrasting interpretations of yet another dominant
harmony in what follows. The subdominant prolongation that I sketch in
9.5 ultimately yields, after further expansion, to the dominant at 1512.
That dominant exactly matches what we have heard at corresponding
locations within the A1 structure earlier, in measures 22 and 57.
In all three cases, a fresh tonic emerges on the following downbeat.

Laufer graphs a structurally deep tonic restoration in the first two
(see his exx. 7.3a and 7.4a), but one does not find in ex. 7.7 any trace of
the corresponding dominant harmony in the third. (In his commen-
tary on p. 166, he describes the chord of 1512 as a “rather insignificant
V.”) His point is that the subdominant, already extensively prolonged,
continues through this region to measure 160. Not only is the domi-
nant so “insignificant” that it is not included in Laufer’s richly detailed
graph, but the tonic chord of measure 152 (for me the starting point
for the fourth statement of A1) is annotated as “not real I” (ex. 7.7a):
“This return must be read . . . as parenthetical” (p. 166).
Concerning measures 99 through 145, the details of Laufer’s ex. 7.7
and my 9.5 diverge on two points. First, I regard the ritenuto marking of
measure 107 as indicative that the harmonic trajectory being pursued
will not be continued. For me, the surging D chord of measure 108 is a
restoration of that introduced in measure 100, offering an opportunity
to pursue an alternative course. Laufer instead integrates the latter
D chord within the context of what directly precedes and follows it.
Second, I regard the F chord that emerges in measure 111 as an
important harmonic arrival point, prolonged until its resolution at
1452. Laufer both refrains from projecting such a prolongation and
visually emphasizes bass A♭ at 1132, further diluting F’s impact.
The fourth statement of A1 (measures 152–210)
As a generator of interesting content, Chopin’s strategy thus far has been

highly effective: by clearly delineating four basic structural elements for
A1 at the outset – a minor tonic, its evolution into a surge targeting the
subdominant, a modest tonicization of the subdominant, and finally a
cadence on the major dominant – listeners are introduced to a paradigm
whose repetitions are laden not only with creative variants in the local
figuration but also with progressively more daring broadenings of the
subdominant tonicization that nevertheless do eventually proceed to the
C major dominant. As a result the ballade will come across (assuming that
an A2 complement to A1 eventually emerges) as an amalgam of a theme
and variations, a simple binary form, and a fantasie. Elements of the last
have given rise to Laufer’s claim of a relationship to sonata form.
The fourth (final) statement of A1 is radical. Amidst animated figuration

in both the right- and left-hand parts, the chord progression from the
minor tonic through its surge to the subdominant proceeds as expected,
while the subdominant’s tonicization leads yet again from I (B♭) to V♮ (F).
Yet this time that V♮ (which arrives in measure 162) does not return to B♭.
(It did so directly during the first two A1 statements and after a local
interruption during the third statement.) Chopin instead abandons this
trajectory in mid-progression!
Perhaps Chopin wishes to convey some frustration with a process
that has generated ever more robust content without achieving the PAC
that would confirm a remolding of A1 into an A2 shape. In any event, he
has elected to shift from one to another of the principal routes through
which the tonic and the dominant are connected in tonal music: seeing that
I ➔ IV resists accommodating his plan (but instead generates longer and
longer subdominant expansions), he switches to I5–6 II. Whereas IV was
tonicized in the earlier passes through A1, now I6 (asserted as VI) is.
Chopin nevertheless achieves some continuity between these passages by
deploying, now in D♭ Major, thematic material that was introduced when
B♭ Minor temporarily shifted to B♭ Major earlier. (Compare measures 84ff.
and 169ff.) This quest for continuity between contrasting paths through
A1’s tonic-to-dominant tonal trajectory does not seem to me to be gener-
ated according to the precepts of sonata form, as Laufer and others have
proposed. Instead, what was at first a modest tonal utterance during the
initial A1 is imbued with ever more wondrous outpourings from Chopin’s
fantasy in the succeeding reiterations of that formal unit.
Though in its local context the F major chord of measures 162 through
168 will come across as V♮ in the tonicized key of IV (B♭ Minor), it
nevertheless is reminiscent of the initial F Minor tonic, with a modal shift
from minor to major. As such, Chopin uses it as a springboard in shifting
to the F Minor tonic’s 6-phase chord, D♭ major, which emerges in
measure 169 and extends through measure 191. Because Kopfton A♭ is
supported by 6-phase D♭ as well as by the initial F Minor tonic, it may
serve as the starting point for descending linear progressions in tonicized
D♭ Major. The first transpires between measures 169 and 177 (as shown
in 9.6). The passage is a model of elegant writing, incorporating both a
surge from I➔ to IV and the traversal of the IV–V succession via a 5–6
shift. Yet the linear progression’s goal D♭ does not sound (and thus it is
imaginatively inserted – within parentheses – in the graph), thereby
providing the impetus for a repetition, one that further develops both
the tonic surge and the 5–6 shift (as is documented in 9.6). During this
repetition the prolongation of the A♭ dominant culminates in the arrival

of its seventh G♭, which triggers the resolution to D♭ major. This time, the
melody’s linear progression traverses a third (A♭ to F). As the broad
progression in F Minor draws to a close, that third is followed by second
G
F
(supported by II ) in measure 194 and then third EG♮ (supported by V♮)
in measure 202. As with the earlier extended prolongations of IV, here
the F Minor tonic’s 6-phase chord (tonicized as D♭ Major) dwarfs both
the evolved supertonic and the dominant that follow to form the cadence.
Chopin provides more heft for the phrase’s ending by inserting parenthe-
tical passages offering somewhat frantic chordal progressions, the first of
which re-targets the cadential 64 (measures 195–196) and the second of
which comes between that 64 and the onset of its resolution (measures
198–200).
Alas, with the arrival of the cadence in measure 202 we find that, even
with a dramatically instigated alternative harmonic path, the dominant
persists as the goal: we have traversed yet another A1 structure, not its A2
complement. If the latter is ever to emerge, it appears that an even more
radical transformation of content will be required. Consequently what
transpires beginning in measure 211 bears distinctive evidence of novelty
from the outset.
In that Laufer and I hold contrasting views regarding the hierarchical

relationship between the B♭ chord of measure 151 and the F chord of
measure 152 (discussed above), it is not surprising that the D♭ Major
tonicization that commences in measure 169 is displayed in different
ways in our respective graphs. For Laufer, it is the subdominant’s upper-
third chord (his ex. 7.7a); for me it is the tonic’s 6-phase chord (9.6).8
Either way, it is prolonged until II emerges in measure 194. I place
greater weight on that potent supertonic surge than does Laufer: in my
view, it supports the melody’s descent from A♭ to G, after which the A♭
of the cadential 64 serves as a neighboring note. (Observe that both F and
G are members of the II chord. G arrives from above, not from below.)
Laufer instead interprets that G as a passing note between F and A♭.
Consequently he prolongs ^3 (A♭) into the domain of the dominant.
Within the D♭ Major tonicization, Laufer again displays a tonic-
cadencing progression as if there were an interruption: I propose that
the A♭>G♭>F>E♭ line beamed in measures 172 through 176 of his exx.
7.8a and 7.8d should continue with an imagined D♭ in measure 177,
corresponding to a cadence on the D♭ tonic. (See 9.6.) That tonic then
surges, leading to the arrival of IV at 1822 (not 1812, as Laufer proposes).

A similar surge of IV’s 6-phase chord (as II➔) heralds the arrival of V at
1842. (Observe how in both cases the surge coordinates with a long
crescendo marking, so that the resolutions occur at moments of peak
intensity, just as a decrescendo begins.) Laufer instead extends the IV5–6
trajectory through measure 189. A key factor in my reading is the
assumption that the embellishing chord B♭-D♭-F-G♮ at 1871 “should”
resolve to C-E♭-A♭ (an inverted dominant). That chord’s E♭ is elided
during 1872. Instead, F is retained as an anticipation of the following
downbeat chord’s F.9
Whereas I regard measure 211 as a new beginning (finally, the onset
of A2!), Laufer places that measure at the end of his fig. 7.8 graphs. He
proposes both that the Urlinie reaches goal ^1 there and that a coda
commences there. (Note that in his fig. 7.9a – but not 7.9b through
7.9d – the goal F appears within parentheses. In his fig. 7.10 the
parentheses recur, and the chord is annotated as follows: “evades strong
close on ^1.”) Given my reading of the ballade’s deep structure thus far as
consisting of four distinct melodic descents from ^3 to ^2, each supported
by the harmonic trajectory from I to V♮, I propose that the A♭ of
2111 serves as the initiation point for a descent that attains the
Urlinie’s goal ^1 at 2231 (to be explored below).
The A2 section (measures 211–239)
The triplet sixteenth notes that pervade the A2 section complete the gradual
enlivenment of rhythmic content that has characterized the ballade.
The A2 section, whose structure unfolds beginning in measure 211 (as
shown in 9.7), is loosely related to its A1 predecessors: the Kopfton ^3 (now
stated at the outset) is supported by the tonic harmony, with a pervasive
deployment of II at diverse structural levels (contrasting the tonicized IV
favored in the initial statements) proceeding to V♮ (with C-F-G to C-E♮-G
in measure 218 echoing the earlier occurrence of that distinctive construc-
tion in measures 201 and 202). Yet certainly a sense of novelty prevails.
Finally we achieve a breakthrough, extending beyond the confines of the
dominant-cadencing A1 to A2’s long-anticipated PAC tonic, presented
fortissimo at 2231, with reiterations at 2251 and 2271 (where the minor
tonic’s third finally is correctly spelled as A♭). Though an impressive
hierarchical nesting of chordal activity is documented in 9.7, that visuali-

zation actually is somewhat simplified from Chopin’s version, since a
chord-dense parenthetical passage, reminiscent of those in the vicinity of
measures 196 through 200, emerges between V 8♮ (at 2184) and V 7♮ (at 2224).
I regard it as a written-out manifestation of something that otherwise
might have been improvised, serving to heighten the already considerable
intensity in the final approach to the cadence.
The chordal progression in measures 215 and 216 may seem baffling.
The middleground C major dominant harmony attained at the end of
measure 214 is here embellished by a chord spelled as F-B♮-D♮-A♭. To get
back to C, Chopin traverses a segment of the modulo 12 division of the
octave into six equal parts, each spanning two half steps. The forzando
markings highlight two successive -2 shifts, shown in 9.7. By this means we
arrive at the diminished seventh chord corresponding to dominant C,
which is fully restored with the resolution of D♭ to C in the bass
(a conversion to a less evolved state of V) during 2161.10 In this construc-
tion, the E♮-D♭-G-B♭ chord at the end of 2151 serves as a local connective
chord (filling in the first whole step) rather than as a resolution.
The prominence of II during the harmonic progressions (at various
levels) that are integrated to form A2’s structure contrasts the tonicized
IV within the various manifestations of A1. As soon as the PAC is achieved
(at 2231) Chopin boldly substitutes IV for II during two quick reiterations
of a tonic-affirming progression. Whereas the minor tonic of 82 eventually
surges (as F-A♮-C-E♭ during 161), the surge in measure 223 (spelled as A♮-
C-E♭-G♭) gets under way breathtakingly soon after the moment of cadence.
Chopin has spelled that juxtaposition not with A♭ to A♮ (as was the case
during the A1 surge), but instead as G♯ to A♮. Whereas some analysts
(including Laufer) would argue that Chopin here elides the minor tonic
entirely (until 2271), intending G♯ as an accented passing note between the
dominant’s G and a major tonic’s A♮, I support the alternative view that,
since Chopin frequently employs quirky spellings, one should not give too
much weight to the curious G♯ here. As a listener (not watching the score),
I acknowledge the expected cadence on the minor tonic and then am jolted
by the surprising and vigorous surge towards IV. In either reading, the IV
(with soprano B♭) that emerges in measure 224 corresponds to that of
measure 22. As such, the melodic third from B♭ down to G should be
expected in coordination with the dominant’s arrival. (Contrasting the
earlier presentations, here IV’s 6-phase chord emerges between IV and
V♮.) Yet in this case E♮<F occurs instead of G>F at the cadence. (Thus the
structural G is placed within parentheses in 9.7.) Chopin responds to that
lacuna by emphasizing a G>F second following the cadence (measure 227).

After several reiterations, a long tonic-affirming cascade descends to the
downbeat of measure 237, followed by a final cadential gesture that rein-
states the I5–6 II approach to the dominant, Chopin’s final word on the
matter.
Though Laufer’s paucity of Roman numerals makes an assessment of

his reading of the work’s harmonic dimension especially challenging,
I question his interpretation of measure 212, based upon the notes
included in his graph (ex. 7.10a). I suggest that I6 (or VI), rather than
I, sounds at the downbeat of that measure. Perhaps Chopin delayed
sounding D♭ in the bass to avoid forming parallel fifths against the
melody’s G<A♭. Yet it clearly holds sway in the alto register. Later in
the measure D♭ yields to G (typical of I5–6 II in a minor-key context).
Laufer instead proposes a 5–6 above D♭.
For the progression of measures 215 and 216, Laufer offers an
insightful alternative interpretation. Given five consecutive diminished
seventh chords descending in half steps, my reading depends upon
Chopin’s forzando marking of the first, third, and fifth of the chords,
reinforcing their already strong metrical positioning. Laufer, in contrast,
is swayed by the pitch continuity between the first and fourth of the
chords, whose pitches he connects using a beam and a tie.
Finally, I acknowledge that Laufer is more indefatigable than I am.
Poised on the verge of the structural close at 2184, Chopin embarks
upon a subsidiary progression that circles back to the dominant
(now with minor seventh) at 2224. In the context of my graph 9.7’s
hierarchical level, that passage does not add significantly to the struc-
ture, and so I have inserted a hairpin symbol to acknowledge that several
measures are not accounted for. Laufer instead forges ahead to incor-
porate the passage within his sketch, in the process (and dubiously, in
my view) resolving the dominant to a tonic in measure 220 and then
proceeding to a fresh dominant.
10 Barcarolle in F♯ Major (op. 60)
in response to John Rink
John Rink’s extraordinary devotion to Chopin has resulted in an impress-

ive series of books and articles, as well as a critical edition of the piano
concertos and contributions to several online Chopin resources. An essay
on the Barcarolle was his first Chopin publication, in 1988.1 Carefully
crafted and richly illustrated with graphs, it both offers a detailed analysis
of the work and assesses the several manuscripts that have survived.
Though my analysis differs from Rink’s in numerous ways (in part because
I propose that the Barcarolle’s Kopfton is ^3, rather than ^5), his reading is
brimming with intriguing ideas.
The introduction and the A1 section (measures 1–16)
The introduction’s initiating C♯-E♯-G♯-B chord, which targets the A1

section’s opening tonic (measure 4), possesses two distinct layers of
dissonance. The audacious D♯ of 12–3 is an incidental dissonance: it
embellishes the leading tone (E♯), which falls into place just before the
onset of the downward chordal cascade that lowers the C♯➔ chord by an
octave via a stepwise parallel progression. In contrast, the chordal seventh
(B) is an essential dissonance: it is still a force to be reckoned with during
32, after the registral shift has been accomplished. It resolves – in register –
to the tonic’s A♯ during 42.2 Concurrently the initial chord’s highest pitch
(G♯), having been transferred down an octave by 32, descends to the tonic’s
F♯, also in the register below Middle C. (These resolutions are displayed via
a slur and an arrow in 10.1.) After the surging C♯➔ chord, the tonic’s
filled-in F♯<A♯ third exudes a calm stability.
The perky C♯ that concludes measure 4 is the first hint of an initiative
that will have a major impact upon the broad sweep of the A1, B, and A2
sections. Whereas the introduction begins boldly in the upper register and
gradually descends, Kopfton A♯ (first stated during 42) is transferred up an
octave in measure 7 and finally resounds in the upper register during A2
(near the end of measure 30, supported by the tonic’s surging 6-phase
Example 10.1 Analysis of Barcarolle in F♯ Major (op. 60), mm. 1–16.
chord). Thus A♯<C♯, A♯<C♯<F♯, and ultimately A♯<C♯<F♯<A♯ are all

stages in a restorative process motivated by the stepwise G♯>G♯ octave of
measures 1 through 3. Observe in 10.1 how the second of those arpeggia-
tions is stretched (via an internal C♯<C♯ registral shift) into a thirteenth
over the course of measures 4 through 6, followed by a descending sixth
that brings the Kopfton to the register of the introduction’s lower G♯.
Immediately thereafter a chromatic filling-in of the A♯<C♯ third occurs.
In fact, between 73 and 93 three tonic-prolonging lines coordinate:
A♯<B<B♯<C♯, F♯<G♯<GÜ<A♯, and F♯>E♮>D♯>C♯.3 Despite continuing
activity above these strands, Kopfton A♯ is not attained in the upper register
during A1, and so a line from the middle-register A♯ of 94 and of 112–3
(the latter supported by the tonic’s 6-phase chord) leads downwards by
step to G♯ (emphasized by a trill) when I6 proceeds – as it often does – to II.
Though II’s evolved state (II➔) targets V, the confluence of the pitches
C♯, E♯, and G♯ at 121 does not represent an asserted dominant, but instead
serves as an unfurled 64 passing chord within a prolongation of II➔.
(The essence of this prolongation is displayed in 10.1.) Note how yearnings
for the upper register continue to affect the musical fabric, here splitting
the “descending” fifth-progression extending from G♯ into G♯>F♯>E♯
(presented in the chordal interior, with F♯ colliding with, rather than
following, the G♯ above) followed by D♯>C♯ in the upper register. Even
the G♯ from which this fifth-progression descends has a moment in the
upper-register limelight, at 141. Chopin extends beyond that G♯, with a
high C♯ (two octaves above the middle-register C♯ where the pitch was
introduced at 121) sounding at 142. Its successor (B♯, which also sounds
Barcarolle in F♯ Major (op. 60) 235
briefly in that high register) is restored to the middle register in 10.1,

preceding the cadence on V. Because the tonic is not attained at its close,
the Barcarolle’s initial tonic pillar may be described (using terminology
introduced in our study of the mazurkas, above) as irregular.
Though Rink’s and my conceptions of the introduction are similar, my

ear does not isolate the initial right-hand B-D♯-G♯ as a sonority inde-
pendent of root C♯ and consequently worthy of a ii63 label, as Rink
proposes (p. 198). The D♯ indeed is wondrously extended for nearly
two beats. Yet its role is identical to that of the eighth-note C♯ of 14 and
all the upward-resolving appoggiaturas that follow during the down-
ward cascade.
The contrast in our assessments of measures 4 through 6 is of far
greater consequence. For me the low register projected during measures
4 and 5 serves as a sort of subterranean germination area from which the
principal melodic notes of the upper registers sprout. (This area is
entered again in measures 35 and 113, corresponding to the onsets of
the C section and of the concluding region of the coda.) The voice
leading from the introduction is precisely etched: the C♯➔ chord’s
dissonant seventh, B, resolves by descending step (as sevenths generally
do) to the tonic’s A♯, while the soprano G♯ is transferred downwards
before descending by step (as a suspension) to F♯. The slurs in Rink’s
ex. 9 propose exactly the opposite voice leading: that B’s resolution –
upwards by step to C♯ (which Rink regards as the Kopfton) – occurs an
octave higher, while G♯ ascends by step to A♯. Indeed C♯ is the first pitch
within A1 to sound in the principal melodic register (at 62), and it recurs
at the cadence (at 151). Yet an “insistent focus” is not sufficient grounds
for the granting of Kopfton status (p. 197, n. 6, where Rink awards A♯
an honorable mention for its “important role as well”). I instead regard
the initial C♯ as residing within an ascending arpeggiation (A♯<C♯<F♯),
one of numerous ascending initiatives that ultimately will succeed in
attaining the capstone A♯ of 304; while C♯ at the cadence is the
concluding pitch of a G♯>C♯ fifth-progression, atypically sounding
above the initiating G♯ as a consequence of further efforts to attain the
high register. Though some of the factors that have affected my
determination that ^3 serves as the Kopfton come later (to be explored
below), even the limited content of measures 1 through 15 seems to
me far more supportive of ^3 than of ^ 5.
Rink’s ex. 4 presents his reading of the region’s harmonic progres-

sion. It may appear that we concur, given that his
I vi V/V V
is an alternative means of conveying my
I5—————6 II♯ V
Yet our conceptions turn out to be quite different. For Rink, this V
resides within a broad linear descent.4 Note the stemmed bass notes D♯,
C♯, B, and A♯ in measures 10 through 20 of Rink’s graph. They
coordinate with the Roman numerals
vi V IV III♯3
According to Rink, this V may be interpreted as an interior step along

that descending path. In my view the F♯ chord at 174, which Rink
displays but does not label, serves as a resumption of the tonic (as will
be explained below with the help of 10.2). In such contexts an internal
cadence on the dominant (which may be referred to as a back-relating
dominant or as a divider) is common. In my view bass G♯ (lacking a
stem in Rink’s graph) is the principal intermediary between F♯ and C♯.5
I further question his placing the G♯ chord’s arrival at 144. I propose
instead that II-space begins three measures earlier. In that context the
pitch C♯ emerges as a neighbor to an already established II➔ chord’s
third, B♯ (as indicated by the N abbreviation in 10.1). Rink displays this
C♯ instead in the soprano. It is the only soprano notehead in the vicinity
that is stemmed, despite the fact that C♯ is a member neither of the vi
nor of the V/V triad.
The B and A2 sections (measures 17–34)
Irregular tonic pillars of the I–V type, such as that which transpires during
the Barcarolle’s A1 section, are found in several of the mazurkas that we
explored in chapter 3. As was noted there, often the tonic will be re-
established at or near the beginning of the B section that follows. (Review
3.2 through 3.8, especially 3.6a, measures 17–23.) The E♮ that emerges at
171 should not be interpreted as a shift to the dominant’s parallel minor,
but instead as an anticipation of the emerging major tonic’s minor seventh:
E♯< F♯>E♮
C♯> F♯
through elision and anticipation becomes

E♯>E♮———
C♯> F♯
The restored tonic (now surging as F♯➔) launches a circular progression

that proceeds through B and E♯ to A♯. The A♯ major goal chord is
prolonged via a descending parallel progression similar to that of the
introduction.6 Whereas a surging A♯ major chord was deployed at the
end of measure 9 to connect the tonic’s 5- and 6-phase chords (in which
context CÜ ascends to D♯), here the A♯-CÜ-E♯ sonority serves as an upper-
third embellishment of the tonic chord (with wobbly note CÜ returning to
C♯ at 241). The upper row of Roman numeral analysis in 10.2 displays its
voice-leading origins.
It stands to reason that the A2 section should draw upon A1’s I5–6 II➔ V
trajectory, though now proceeding beyond V to I for a PAC. Those
expectations are fulfilled, as 10.2 reveals. The upper-register Kopfton A♯
arrives at the culmination of a magnificent sequential ascent, connecting
the tonic’s 5- and surging 6-phase chords (measures 24 through 30). As
often happens, here the traversal of the ascending 5–6 sequence, which in
full would run as
F♯5——————————————————————————————————6
F♯5–6 G♯5–6 A♯5–6 B5–6 C♯5–6 D♯5
is abbreviated to become
|
F♯5 A♯6 | B5–6 C♯5–6 D♯5
(= F♯➔ G♯➔ A♯ )
(Compare this abbreviated sequence with the idiosyncratic sequence dis-

played in 6.4.) Whereas an A♯➔ chord (during 94) connects the tonic 5-
and 6-phase chords during A1, here the sequence culminates in a chord
that mutates to A♯ . The supertonic that follows D♯5 (= I6) is presented
initially in its diatonic form, only gradually developing its characteristic
surge towards the dominant, which here is gloriously stated with sus-
pended ninth and eleventh. The excursion into the upper reaches of
the piano’s range extends even beyond that of measure 14, reaching a D♯
near the end of measure 32. The D♯>E♯ descending seventh that follows
will seem mildly disappointing, in that D♯’s upward yearning is not

fulfilled – yet. (See measures 92 and 93.) That E♯ completes, in register,
the descending third left off after the trilled F♯ of 314: the ascending
F♯<G♯<A♯ so modestly presented in the low register during measure
4 (and replicated boldly in the upper register during measures 25 through
30) is complemented by a G♯>F♯>E♯ third, sounding in the upper register
during measures 31 and 32 (as shown in 10.2).7
The contrast between Rink’s and my interpretations of the B section

hinges upon what we make of the F♯-A♯-(C♯)-E chord at 174.8 For me
that chord represents a restoration of the F♯ tonic (now surging), as
indicated by the F♯-to-F♯ bass and A♯-to-A♯ soprano slurs in 10.2.
Though the chord is of only one beat’s duration, it represents the
culmination of a tonic expansion that has persisted for fourteen
measures. Rink instead regards the latter F♯ as a local event: just as
G♯➔ targeted the C♯ of measure 15, now F♯➔ targets the next step in a
broad descending scale, B.
To help us come to terms with this thorny issue, please turn to
measures 103 and 104, which inaugurate the Barcarolle’s coda. Those
measures contain four two-beat chords, as follows:
F♯ C♯➔ F♯➔ B
I propose that the first three chords constitute a tonic expansion, whose
surging conclusion targets B.9 Despite the proximity of their roots, there
is no direct relationship between the C♯ and B chords. The question is,
how much more emphasis can the C♯ chord be given before the relation-
ship between C♯ and B begins to overpower that between F♯ and F♯?
Looking at the first four chords of 10.2, I maintain that root F♯’s impact
extends through three chords, whereas Rink maintains that the stepwise
relationship between C♯ and B overpowers the potentiality for an F♯
restoration at measure 17.
Upon the arrival of B in measure 18 listeners might reasonably
speculate regarding which of several viable tonal trajectories is being
pursued. Chopin allows a measure for the chord’s impact to sink in
before proceeding to what might be taken as B’s 6-phase chord (B-D♯-
G♯ at 193). Consequently one might suspect that I➔ IV5–6 is inaugurat-
ing a progression that will continue with V and then I. Yet F♯ is
reintroduced under the trilled G♯, behaving as a suspension that resolves
downwards to E♯, so that ultimately F♯➔ B E♯ A♯ charts a circular route

between the tonic and the mediant, as shown in 10.2. (Rink’s commen-
tary on the foreground jumps from measure 16 to measure 20 (p. 204),
as do his foreground graphs (examples 9 and 10). The E♯ chord is not
acknowledged in his middleground graph (example 4), though the 6-
phase pitch G♯ is present.) In that the Barcarolle’s C section will proceed
from F♯ to the tonicization of a different variant of the mediant (A
Major), an F♯-to-A♯ connection during the B section makes good sense.
Perhaps the most common means of achieving the mediant is via a
circular progression, which in the case of ascending a major third will
incorporate one imperfect fifth (here B to E♯).10
Regarding A2, a comparison of Rink’s and my analyses of measures 28
through 31 (within his ex. 4 and my 10.2) reveals significantly contrast-
ing readings of measure 30. First of all, it seems to me that surges are at
work throughout, and thus whereas we both display A♯-to-B and B♯-to-
C♯ resolutions, the omission of CÜ (which resolves to D♯) in his graph
curtails the momentum before the ascending trajectory has reached its
goal. Measure 30 is, in fact, different from the previous measures in
three ways: unlike A♯ and B♯, CÜ arrives after – not at – the downbeat;
CÜ’s chord is of the rather than of the ➔ type; and, whereas the B and
C♯ goal chords (whose arrivals Rink refers to as “cadences” (p. 206)) are
consonant, the D♯ chord is a surging dissonant chord. Yet those differ-
ences serve to make the attainment of goal D♯ all the more potent and
notable. In that IV and V numerals are provided, Rink’s omission of a
label for this VI➔ chord is curious. In my view he both misrepresents
the extent of the upward initiative and loses sight of the close alliance
with the harmonic progression of A1 (where the only connecting chord
between I5 and I6 is a variant of the CÜ surging chord omitted from his
ex. 4: A♯➔ at the end of 94 and A♯ at 302).11
In that I perceive a broad I5–6 expansion over the span of measures 7
through 30, the high A♯ of 304 is presented in 10.2 as a structurally deep
event, an upper-octave replication of the Kopfton, attained at literally
the last possible moment – just before the middleground descent
through G♯ to F♯ that closes A2. Rink’s ex. 4 displays that A♯ as internal
to a slurred B>A♯>G♯ third. Though I cannot make out exactly what
hierarchical relationship Rink intends by placing Roman numerals in
two rows (I think his perspective would be more consistent if he
accepted the first of the two V chords as the arrival of the dominant,
with the stem from bass C♯ attached to the beam at that point), certainly
the absence of a label for the D♯ chord is indicative of the contrast that
our two readings offer. My version highlights I5–6 II➔ V as a shared
component of A1 and A2 (and, as we shall see presently, of A3 as well).
The C and A3 sections (measures 35–103)
The F♯-A♯-C♯ tonic chord’s diatonic upper-third chord A♯-C♯-E♯ was

passed over during the B section, which instead features A♯-CÜ-E♯, the
diatonic chord’s first chromatic variant.12 Prolonged for four measures
(20 through 23), it serves as a voice-leading embellishment of the tonic,
which is restored in measure 24. Unlike A♯➔ or A♯ (both of which occur
in one or the other of the initial tonic pillars, as noted above), this major A♯
chord does not proceed by descending fifth to the chord that follows.
During the Barcarolle’s C section the upper-third chord’s second chro-
matic variant – A♮-C♯-E♮ – not only is attained, but also is tonicized. The
F♯ Minor flavor of the section opening (measures 35 through 38) facilitates
its emergence in measure 39. Its impact persists through measure 70 and
beyond. What will happen after its tonicization has run its course? Will it
again lead back to the initial F♯ tonic, as was the case with A♯-CÜ-E♯? Or
might it instead behave as A♮➔, targeting tonic F♯’s modified 6-phase
chord, D♮-F♯-A♮, which could lead onwards to ♮II5♮ (the “Neapolitan”
chord) and beyond?
Let’s look at the big picture first (with the help of 10.3), filling in some
details later. Earlier, the B section’s A♯ chord coordinated with a rising
Ü
third in both outer voices: from AF ♯♯ to CA ♯ . The resumption of the initial tonic
puts a crimp on the upward motion in the bass, but not in the soprano:
from CÜ the line first undergoes a wobble correction (to C♯) and then
continues upwards through F♯ to a high A♯, completing an octave arpeg-
giation. During the C section a similar upward trajectory is inaugurated by
the initial rising thirds: from AF ♯♮ to CA ♮♯ . Though the stabilization of the latter
third initially is problematic (to be explored below), eventually the pro-
gression of thirds continues: from CA ♮♯ through CE ♮♯ to GE ♮♯ . Though an upward
continuation would have been viable, Chopin chose to assert the E♮ chord
as V in A Major, thereby tonicizing the A♮-C♯-E♮ chord. In so doing, the
high G♯ serves as a leading tone that resolves by step to A♮, and thus an
A♮<A♮ arpeggiated octave is traversed in the soprano of measures 35–39
through 68, corresponding to the A♯<A♯ octave of measures 4–7 through

30. The Barcarolle’s fundamental line thus descends from A♯ (Kopfton ^3)
through A♮ to G♯ (measure 76). Though he might have proceeded directly
from the A♮ upper-third chord to the dominant, Chopin elected to rein-
state the tonic in measure 76 (thus mimicking the treatment of the B
section’s upper-third chord), from which he proceeds via II➔ to V, the
same succession that was employed during the progressions of A1 and
A2.13 That internal tonic reinstatement is accomplished by a shift of an A♮-
targeting E➔ chord to an F♯-targeting C♯➔ chord in measures 72 through
76.14 The C section’s interrupted ^2, supported by background V, proceeds
to ^
1 at the PAC that concludes the first statement of the A3 tonic pillar, as
shown in 10.3.
Now let’s explore some more local details. The sense of a new beginning
proposed for the C section, with its broad A♮<A♮ arpeggiation replicating
(down a half step) the A♯<A♯ arpeggiation of the A1 B A2 regions, is
fostered by its initiating melodic C♯<F♯<G♯<A♮ (the second through fifth
pitches in measure 35), which is closely allied with the second through
sixth pitches of measure 4 (where Kopfton A♯ was first stated, also a third
below Middle C). In the earlier instance, an A♯<C♯<C♯<F♯>C♯>A♯ melodic
trajectory (incorporating an internal registral shift) during measures 4
through 7 reinforces the Kopfton. The same end is achieved by a similar
means in measures 35 through 39. In this case A♮<C♯<F♯ transpires quickly
during 352–3, after which the F♯ Minor tonic chord is twice embellished by
a 64♮ neighboring chord (with passing note C♯ at 354 and 362 connecting
sixth D♮ and fourth B).15 The F♯>C♯ span transpires between 364 and 381,
embellished by upper neighbor G♯ and passing notes E♮ and D♮, followed
by the C♯>A♮ span between 381 and 391, embellished by upper neighbor D♮
and passing note B. The registral shift in this case is postponed until the
end – at 391, where goal A♮ below Middle C is surmounted by an A♮ an
octave higher.
The C♯ in measure 41 begins the C section’s upward melodic trajectory.
In that the CA ♮♯ third is a member of both the F♯ minor tonic triad and its
major upper-third triad, there is some wavering between the two chords.
Recall that the descending circle of fifths (traversed as F♯ B E♯ A♯) was
called into service during measures 17 through 20 to negotiate the span
between the F♯ Major tonic and its upper-third chord. Chopin uses the
same means to instead descend in seconds from upper-third A♮ back to
tonic F♯ in measures 41 through 46 (A♮ D♯ G♯ C♯ F♯). That tonic (at first in
its initial major formulation, but soon with the shift of its third to A♮)
is confirmed by means of a I II V♯ progression, stated twice in measures
46 through 50. Consequently it may appear that, just as the A♯ upper-third

chord of measures 20 through 23 soon dissipates, likewise the A♮
upper-third chord of measures 39 through 41 is not sustained. Yet this
time Chopin offers A♮ a second chance. Just as in measures 72 through 76
E♮➔ and C♯➔ will be juxtaposed to lead from A back to F♯, here F♯’s C♯➔
bows to A’s E♮➔ (measure 50), leading to a repeat of the A Major material
beginning in measure 51, now transferred up an octave. Alas, the same
circle-of-fifths descent that earlier plagued the maintenance of A♮ occurs
again, and by measure 57 the F♯ tonic has reasserted itself. The I II V♯
progression is reprised as well. Chopin then offers A♮ a third chance, with
the C♯➔/E♮➔ juxtaposition of measure 61 leading to A♮-C♯-E♮ yet again.
This time, however, A♮’s fifth (E♮) plays a prominent role in the melodic
line, both definitively contrasting the pitch collection of the F♯-A♮-C♯ tonic
triad and anticipating the E♮ of the CE ♮♯ third within the ascending-thirds
progression. The ascending circle of fifths (now in a chain of four chords
and thereby, like measures 17 through 20, ascending a third) is called into
service again to complete the attainment of that ascending third: A♮ D♯ G♯
C♯ in measures 65 and 66. (The circle’s internal D♯ chord is represented
by FÜ-C♯-E♮.) A continuation to E (via C♯ F♯ B E♮) follows in measures 66
and 67. As mentioned earlier, this E♮ chord’s resolution back to A♮
(thereby terminating the ascending-thirds trajectory) confirms the tonici-
zation of A Major that we now may retrospectively trace back to the C
section’s earlier A major chord (measure 39). The dominant’s G♯>E>D
augmented fourth, which unfolds from 673 to 682, is complemented by the
tonic’s C♯<E<A during 683–4.
As explained above, the tonicized A♮ region ultimately serves as an
upper-third embellishment of the F♯ Minor tonic, which consequently
extends from 351 through 762. The progression to the background
dominant is facilitated by a very brief (though structurally deep) II➔
during 762. Earlier the projection of the F♯ Major tonic chord was
accomplished by means of an A♯<A♯ registral shift and a descending
third-progression from ^3 to the tonic root (A♯>G♯>F♯), as displayed in
10.2. Now this C♯ dominant’s tonicization incorporates both a G♯<G♯
registral shift and a descending fifth-progression from ^2 to the dominant
root (G♯>F♯>E♯>D♯>C♯), as displayed in both 10.3 and (in greater
detail) 10.4a. The tonicizing harmonic progression engages two
interlocking C♯–G♯–C♯ sacred triangles in support of the descending
fifth-progression. The minor quality of the subdominant at 774 (whose
A♮ reflects the A♮ goal of both bass and soprano from measure 68)
Example 10.4 Barcarolle in F♯ Major (op. 60) (a) Analysis of mm. 76–82; (b)
Hypothetical measures 77 and 78.
(a)
(b)
indicates that F♯ Major has not yet gained full tonal control; though
certainly by the time of the C♯7 chord at 833–4 it has.
Occasionally one encounters in Chopin’s music a progression of chords
that resists explication by ordinary means.16 The passage omitted at the
spot marked by a hairpin symbol in 10.4a indeed may well cause perplexity
among analysts. My hypothesis regarding how Chopin conceived this
passage involves a sudden shift from one viable tonal trajectory to another:
a potential I5–6 II V7 I unexpectedly replaced by I➔ IV♮ V7 I. The first four
chords in 10.4b, which presents the alternative progression that I propose
Chopin might have pursued, actually sound in the composition, though
there their roles are camouflaged by easier-to-read spellings. Note that the
example’s second chord is an upper-fifth embellishing chord of the third,

replicating the relationship between the last chord of measure 76 and the
first chord of measure 77, now hoisted up a half step. Those precedents
suggest that the fourth chord in 10.4b “ought” to resolve to an A♯ major
chord, as is shown within square brackets. That chord would be ideal in
such a context, because it serves as I6 (evolved into surging VI➔). As the
example confirms, the harmonic progression to V7 may proceed via VI➔ II
just as easily as through I➔ IV♮ (as displayed in 10.4a). In this context
the CÜ major chord serves as a chromatic variant of A♯ major’s upper-third
chord. (Consequently the Roman numeral VI is introduced below bass CÜ,
with the bullet symbol indicating that root A♯ is absent.) Just when the fully
constituted 6-phase chord is about to be introduced, Chopin diverts the
progression to a surging I➔ (E♯-G♯-B-D♮), resulting in IV♮ rather than II
serving as the principal intermediary between I and V7. Why did Chopin
undertake this unusual tactic? Though we will never know for sure, I find it
intriguing that over the broad span of the C section an upper-third A major
chord plays an important role, though it is rescinded (via the F♯ restoration
in measure 76) before the broad progression continues through supertonic
G♯➔ to dominant C♯. During the dominant prolongation that follows,
tonicized C♯’s lower-third chord is rescinded (again replaced by a restored,
and in this case highly evolved, tonic) even before it has the opportunity to
sound!
The A3 tonic pillar, which commences in measure 84, follows the
general contour of the A2 pillar, and thus it achieves a PAC whose
soprano ^1, magnificently doubled at the upper octave at 931 (compare
with the restrained cadence at 331), serves as the close of the broad
A♯>G♯>F♯ fundamental line that spans the composition to this point.
(See 10.3.)
Whereas the A1 and A2 pillars were presented only once each, A3 is
repeated in a varied form, as shown in 10.5. Note especially how 1014
through 1023 correspond to 914, how 1024 (with the distinctive ninth
and eleventh above the dominant root) corresponds to 921–4, and how
1031 corresponds to 931. In that the attainment of the upper-register A♯
has already been accomplished, the variant traverses the span between
that upper A♯ and an even higher F♯ (previously sounded at the
cadence of 931) during measures 96 through 99, as a substitute for
the A♯<A♯ arpeggiation. (This material is derived from the A Major
region of the C section, measures 62ff.) The II of measure 101 initially
takes on a coloration, though eventually it bows to the ➔ of A1, A2,
and the earlier A3. A coda (to be explored below) follows the cadence
of 1031.
I shall divide my critique of Rink’s analysis of the C and A3 sections into

six parts.
Measures 35 through 39. Rink’s interpretation of how the pitches
within these measures relate with one another is commendable. (See
his fig. 11 and commentary on p. 206.) Though I give more weight to
A♯ and its upper-sixth F♯ and he to the internal C♯, those differences
relate to the broader issue of ^3 versus ^5 as Kopfton. Nevertheless, we
disagree regarding the role these measures play within the Barcarolle.
For me, measure 35 is closely aligned with measure 4: my analysis
interprets both as structural initiation points. Rink shares my view
with respect to measure 4, describing measures 4 through 16 as
“Theme A” in his formal synopsis (his fig. 1). However, in that same
synopsis measures 35 through 39 are described as a “transition,” and
“bars 1–39” are treated as a suitable chunk of the Barcarolle to assess
at one time, both in his commentary (p. 198) and in a middleground
graph (ex. 4). Consequently his series of B themes is set squarely in the
key of A Major, followed by another transition that attains F♯’s
dominant on C♯. My contrasting segmentation projects a broad pro-
gression from F♯ (the measures in question here, which Rink analyzes
as vi in A Major (p. 200)) to C♯ all within the boundaries of what I call
the C section.
Measures 39 through 50 (with a varied repetition in measure 51
through 61). Two broader analytical decisions affect Rink’s and my
interpretations of these measures: whereas my C section begins in F♯
Minor, Rink’s formal unit – Theme B(1) – begins in A Major; and
whereas I regard A♯ as the Kopfton (by this point lowered to A♮), Rink
proposes C♯ for that role. Consequently the AF ♯♮ tenth (seventeenth) dur-
ing measures 47 through 50 resonates for me as a “back to square one”
sounding of the C section’s initiating tonic chord in a way that it would
not to someone committed to A Major and to Kopfton C♯. Whereas I
would not make use of Roman numerals (as Rink does, on p. 201)
during the circular progression descending from A to F♯, I certainly
would employ them (as Rink does not) as F♯ progresses to its dominant
(twice) in measures 47 through 50, wherein a II that juxtaposes B♯
and D♮ as a diminished third, rather than more conventionally as an
augmented sixth, serves as the intermediary between I and V♯. For me
the passage’s principal melodic line is a descent from A♮ to G♯ (3^ to ^2 in

F♯ Minor, a typical HC trait). From this perspective, the C♯ major chord
of 501–2 (and later 611) is the phrase’s goal, while the remainder of that
measure plays a transitional role preparing for the backtracking to a
restatement of the phrase-opening A chord (measure 51) or to a new
trajectory emerging from an A chord (measure 62).
Measures 62 through 70. Rink’s Theme B(2), which transpires during
these measures, resides squarely within the key of A Major. In his view
the theme’s principal melodic event is a repeated traversal of an
E♮>D♮>C♯ third (as shown in his ex. 6). For me, instead, the principal
event is a filled-in ascending arpeggiation from the A Major tonic’s
third, C♯, through E♮ to the A Major dominant’s third, G♯, which
resolves to A♮ (completing a full-octave ascent from the initiating A♮
of measures 35–39) in coordination with the resolution to the tonic
(as shown in 10.3). It seems to me that Rink has missed the essence of
the voice leading between 653 and 673, where a straightforward example
of the reaching-over procedure occurs:
C♯ descends to B♯, above which D♯ reaches over.

D♯ descends to C♯, above which E reaches over.
E descends to D♯, above which F♯ reaches over.
F♯ descends to E, above which G♯ reaches over (concurrent).
Consequently leading tone G♯ sounds in an exposed position at the
top of the texture during 673. The resolution to A♮ comes across as
especially pronounced not only because of its registral placement, but
also because a G♯>D♮ augmented-fourth unfolding (through 682)
resolves to C♯<A♮.
Measures 70|71 through 83. Rink’s and my views are highly contrast-
ing in this region. I propose that an expansive C section, distinguished
from what precedes it by the shift to F♯ Minor, begins in measure 35
and continues until F♯ Minor’s dominant is attained and prolonged in
measures 76 through 83. This dominant goal coincides with the arrival
of background ^2, whose interruption (with restoration of diatonic ^3♯
during the A3 section) is one of music’s principal form-defining devices.
In contrast, Rink regards both the initiating F♯ Minor and the attain-
ment of the tonicized dominant, C♯ Major, to reside within “Transition”
sections (his fig. 1), thereby elevating the importance of the tonicized
A Major mediant. Taking a hint from how Chopin treats the B section’s
A♯ major chord in relation to the F♯ Major tonic context, I regard the

C section’s A Major tonicization to reside within a broader F♯ Minor
expanse, noting especially the symmetrical relationship between mea-
sures 50 and 60 (which juxtapose F♯’s C♯➔ and A’s E➔) and measures
72 through 76 (which juxtapose A’s E➔ and F♯’s C♯➔). Consequently
the F♯ minor chord at 762 is for me a hearkening back to the C section’s
opening measures (35 through 38), conveyed by the broad bass slur
connecting those two F♯s in 10.3. Rink, in contrast, does not permit
the C♯➔ of 761 to resolve: he regards it as the arrival of the structurally
deep dominant, to which the following F♯ minor chord is appended
(example 6).17 Granted, one cannot “prove” that one interpretation
should be preferred over the other. Readers are simply encouraged to
compare these two starkly contrasting views – so stark, in fact, that
neither the soprano pitch G♯ during 763 nor its upper-octave replicate
at 782, projecting the ^2 of the Barcarolle’s background ^3–^2–^1 descent
in my reading, is even present in Rink’s detailed ex. 6 (though the lower
G♯ does appear in his ex. 2 and the higher one in his fig. 12). As one
might expect if G♯ indeed is a structurally deep pitch, a fifth-progression
descends (with internal upward register transfer) from G♯ to the toni-
cized dominant’s root, as displayed in 10.4a. Rink displays the lower
third of this fifth in his fig. 12. The thorny passage explored in 10.4b is
not assessed in Rink’s essay.
Measures 84 through 93. Though I propose that the high F♯ of 931
belongs with the preceding measures (in opposition to Rink’s breaking
off his Theme A′ with measure 92 in his fig. 1), we both interpret this
passage as a potent projection of the restored F♯ Major tonic.18 I regard
this cadence as supporting the descent to the ^1 that concludes the
background line broken off after the C section’s goal ^2. That cadence
is followed by a varied repetition of A3, which solidifies that closure
through a second cadence at 1031. Rink instead postpones that closure
until the second cadence – in my view not a point about which all analysts
will or need to agree. In that Rink and I work from contrasting Kopftons,
our structures are not identical. Yet he and I both project a sense of
closure during this region (or at the downbeat of measure 93, which is
curiously snipped off from this region in Rink’s formal synopsis).
Measures 93 through 103. Because this region borrows thematic
material from the C section’s A Major region, Rink labels it as Theme
B(2)′ in his formal synopsis (his fig. 1), where he again snips off the
cadential tonic chord, placing it within the domain of the coda.

Fortunately his ex. 7 persists through the downbeat of measure 103,
and his commentary addresses “bars 93–103” (p. 203). Though that
example does not provide a detailed harmonic analysis, the bass slur
from imagined F♯ (at 1003) to C♯ (at 1013) projects the sense of tonic
prolongation. (A more detailed graph in his fig. 15 displays that C♯ with
a stem and omits the B♯ that follows.19) I instead regard the chord
supported by D♮ (at the end of 1012) as the onset of the supertonic:
here II (D♮-F♯-A♮-B♯) followed by an incomplete B♯-F♯-A♯ chord
into which one might imaginatively insert either D♮ or D♯, and then
by II➔ (G♯-B♯-D♯-F♯) during 1021–3. Consequently bass C♯ at 1013
serves as a passing note (connecting D♮ and B♯) within the domain of
the supertonic, rather than as a waning moment of I-space.
The coda (measures 103–116)
Upward striving that may traverse as much as a full octave, and downward
linear progressions of a third or a fifth, have been characteristic of the A and
C sections’ contents. The introduction, in contrast, descends an octave by
step, as does the coda, where the notes of an F♯>F♯ octave (with some potent
chromatic mutation) occur between measures 103 and 110. The beginning
and ending portions of that line sound at the top of the texture
(F♯>E♯>E♮>D♯>D♮>. . .>B>A♮>G♮>F♯), whereas during the middle either
the listener will imagine a pitch (C♯ during measure 106) or a pitch sounds
but is covered by other chord members. The harmonic analysis that anno-
tates the presentation of this voice leading in 10.5 reveals a boldly realized
double traversal of the basic I IV V I progression. The initial tonic surges
towards IV, that IV’s 6-phase chord takes on a “Neapolitan” flavor, and the
dominant that follows is attained by simply adding leading tone E♯ to the
Neapolitan’s pitches (resulting in V , and consequently not alleviating the
G♮ wobble). The tonic that resolves that dominant evolves gradually into I➔
during measures 106 through 108, proceeding to a IV♮ whose D♮ extends
into the domain of V➔, where eventually G♯ shifts to G♮, resulting in a
second V approach to the tonic. Indeed, Chopin has reserved some of the
Barcarolle’s most memorable harmonic writing for the coda!
A concluding melody begins in measure 113, notably on the same A♯
that introduced the Kopfton in measure 4. The progression’s initial I-space
supports the ascending arpeggiation A♯<C♯<F♯ (as shown in 10.5).

The pitch B that emerges during 1144 continues the upward trajectory,
resolving to the A♯ above Middle C in coordination with V7’s resolution to
I. Consequently the melody accomplishes an A♯<A♯ registral shift. Chopin
does not pursue the matter further, to attain a PAC close. Instead of
initiating a descending third-progression, the A♯ fades out after 1151, its
impact as echo of the Barcarolle’s Kopfton fulfilled before the bravura
closing gesture.
Though Rink expresses admiration for Chopin’s “sonorities of extra-

ordinary dissonance in relation to the pedal on F♯′” during measures
103 through 111 (p. 210), he does not offer a harmonic analysis in his ex.
8 or 16, wherein his allegiance to Kopfton C♯ is maintained despite what
I hear instead as a sweeping descending octave (F♯>F♯) filled in by step
and modified by chromaticism. In his reading, C♯ plays a prominent
role during the remaining measures as well (p. 212). I am mesmerized
instead by the A♯ of 1151. Though I have not compiled statistical data,
my experience as an analyst suggests that when such a pitch emerges
after the structural close it usually will serve as an echo of the Kopfton.
Notes
Chapter 1: The architecture of a tonic pillar

1. James Samson, The Music of Chopin (Oxford University Press, 1985), p. 111.
2. This reading proposes that E in the soprano register extends from 63 through 72.
One should ponder whether an E in fact could be imagined during 71 against the
E<F motion an octave lower. Perhaps not, in which case the E of 72 would
instead serve as a passing note between an imagined neighbor F and the D. Yet
9
note the correlation between my proposed G-B-F-(E)-A chord (V7 with 6–5
suspension) and the D-F♯-C-B-E chord at 192, in the tonicized dominant key.
3. The question of where and how to end the mazurka (given Chopin’s curious
Dal segno senza Fine instruction) is complicated by this 5–6 shift. I propose
that measure 12 should conclude the performance – regardless of how many
times the A and B sections sound in alternation – but that in the final
presentation of the A section the pitch A should be rescinded. (The left-hand
chord of measure 12, beat 3, could be replaced by a rest.)
4. For a literalist interpretation of this mazurka, see Nicholas Meeùs’s “Questions
de méthode: La Mazurka op. 7 no. 5 de Chopin,” Analyse musicale 32 (1993),
pp. 58–63. Though its ex. 5 appears to contain a printing error, it is clear that
Meeùs interprets what I call the tonic pillar as a projection of ^
2–^1.
5. Compare also with the opening of the Grande Valse brillante, op. 18, discussed
in my forthcoming Tonal Analysis: A Schenkerian Perspective, chapter 7.
6. The embellishment of C-E-G in measures 1 through 4 and of D-F-A in
measures 13 and 14 are symmetrically related: in one case lower seconds of
the root and third occur, while in the other upper seconds of the third and fifth
occur. In both contexts the embellishing chord is unfurled for presentation in 53
position. Similar embellishment will occur during the mazurka’s coda.
7. Schenker offers a graph of this mazurka’s tonic pillar in FC, fig. 40, ex. 7.
Whereas his reading suggests that Chopin’s motivation for the phrase
expansion has to do with the slow pace of the ascending arpeggiation to the
high C of 102 (which he presents as the arrival of the Kopfton), I propose
instead that the unsatisfactory cadence of measure 8 results in a backtracking
to permit a second cadential attempt. In the context of a IV–V succession, the
C of measures 6 and 10 serves as a passing note between the structurally deeper
pitches D♭ and B♭ (connected by a slur in 1.5). Consequently I do not accept
this C (highlighted through presentation in the upper register) as a statement
254 Notes to pages 10–14
of the Kopfton. (That reading is reiterated in various graphs from the Oster
Collection: Papers of Heinrich Schenker, housed at the New York Public
Library for the Performing Arts at Lincoln Center. See especially file 32, item
22, listed as “in the hand of Schenker’s student Angi Elias with emendations by
Schenker.”) On the other hand, during the A2 section’s traversal of the tonic
pillar the high C at 36b2, which superficially matches that of 102, occurs in a
tonic context and thus aptly serves as an upper third to the background ^ 1. (The
swift C>A♭ of the first ending is expressed in a more leisurely fashion and an
octave higher as C>B>A♭ during the second ending.) In his “Idiosyncrasies of
Phrase Rhythm in Chopin’s Mazurkas,” in The Age of Chopin: Interdisciplinary
Inquiries, ed. H. Goldberg (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2004),
pp. 95–105, Carl Schachter explores this tonic pillar in detail, essentially
agreeing with Schenker’s reading of the high C of measure 10 while
questioning (p. 98) his relative neglect of the C at 21, which conforms in
register to the mazurka’s other structurally deep pitches.
8. It is so labeled in standard editions of the mazurkas, including the National
Edition used in creating this chapter.
9. This mazurka’s juxtaposition of keys is not unique in Chopin’s oeuvre. Other
examples that have been widely discussed include the Scherzo (op. 31), addressed
by William Kinderman in his “Directional Tonality in Chopin,” in Chopin Studies,
ed. J. Samson (Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 59–75 and by Harald Krebs
in his “Tonal and Formal Dualism in Chopin’s Scherzo, Op. 31,” Music Theory
Spectrum 13 (1991), pp. 48–60, and the Ballade (op. 38), addressed by Jonathan
Bellman in his Chopin’s Polish Ballade: Op. 38 as Narrative of National Martyrdom
(Oxford University Press, 2010) and by Kevin Korsyn in his “Directional Tonality
and Intertextuality: Brahms’s Quintet Op. 88 and Chopin’s Ballade Op. 38,” in The
Second Practice of Nineteenth-Century Tonality, ed. W. Kinderman and H. Krebs
(Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1996), pp. 45–83.
10. The notion of “reaching-over” is a common voice-leading principle, an
essential component of the Schenkerian perspective. (See my Tonal Analysis:
A Schenkerian Perspective, chapter 7.)
11. For a contrasting interpretation, see David Kopp’s analysis in his Chromatic
Transformations in Nineteenth-Century Music (Cambridge University Press,
2002), pp. 235–240. I do not concur that the tonic pillar “projects tonal
ambiguity for much of its duration” (p. 236): the juxtaposition of antipodal
C♯ and G♮ chords (a focus of my analysis) is a strong signal of tonic B, with
only its mode (major versus minor) as yet indeterminate.
12. Compare with Haydn/Mozart, 1.5.
13. The mazurka begins in the middle of a harmonic progression. Taking into
account measure 22, which presents an E major chord to lead back to the
opening material (in a written-out repeat), it would be appropriate to regard
the initial II as an asserted IV6. Note especially the 5–6 connection between
tenor-register B at 222 and C♯ during 231 (= 11). For this reason, and by noting
Notes to pages 14–19 255
how bass B at 21–2 is reiterated by bass B during 31, I regard the initial E-G♯
dyad as representing C♯-E-G♯ (with the C♯ arriving half a beat later) rather
than as representing E-G♯-B with C♯ serving as a neighbor to IV’s fifth, B.
14. Once introduced to these notions, my students at the University of Minnesota
began referring to as a “supersurge,” while ➔ remained a “surge” or, more
precisely, a “simple surge.”
15. Note Chopin’s persistence in incorporating an upper third in the vicinity of the
Kopfton ^ 3’s arrival. D♯<F♯<G♯>F♯>D♯ here (measures 16 and 17) corresponds
to D<F<G>F>D in measures 2 through 4 of opus 7/1.
16. Compare with Schubert, 1.23.
17. This division of structural content does not coincide with the pillar’s division
into two halves, each repeated: measures 5 through 8 recur as 9 through 12,
and measures 13 through 20 recur as 21 through 28. Chopin transcends that
surface division by extending the ascending arpeggiation into the second half.
18. Chopin’s misspelling comes about as a result of his substituting easy-to-read
A♮-C♯-E♮ in the preceding harmony for the correct spelling, B♭♭-D♭-F♭. Further
pertinent considerations will emerge in the exploration of this mazurka’s
structure in chapter 2.
19. As 1.11 reveals, the fifth-progression’s E♭, C, and B♭ are all embellished by an
upper fourth or third. Chopin offsets the neglect of D♭ (resulting from its
delayed arrival within the beat) later, during the mazurka’s B section: D♭<F
occurs in both measure 13 and measure 15.
20. As noted above, the embellishment of Kopfton ^ 5 by an upper fourth (here G♯
during 41) is a common occurrence. When D♯ does arrive, that high G♯ serves
as a sort of confirmation.
21. Schenker comments on Chopin’s slur binding measures 7 through 9 (thus
extending through the phrase’s potential PAC moment) in FC, p. 110. In his
Phrase Rhythm in Tonal Music (New York: Schirmer, 1989; reprint edn., Ann
Arbor: Musicalia, 2007), pp. 229–233, William Rothstein offers an extended
discussion of Chopin’s phrasing within this mazurka.
22. If one answers affirmatively, an elision would occur at CÜ’s resolution: instead
of CÜ<D♯>C♯, the shortcut CÜ>C♯ is pursued. (Compare with TAH, 6.20.) In
his “Harmonic Complexity and Form in Chopin’s Mazurkas,” Ostinato rigore:
Revue internationale d’études musicales 15 (2000), pp. 102–103, Joel Lester
labels this chord as vii7/D♯ and describes the passage as “a fleeting instance” of
“motion by dominants around the circle of fifths.”
23. See Edward T. Cone’s “Ambiguity and Reinterpretation in Chopin,” in Chopin
Studies 2, ed. J. Rink and J. Samson (Cambridge University Press, 1994),
pp. 142–143.
24. Though Schenker provides a detailed analysis of this mazurka in FC (his fig. 75), it
is difficult to determine which route he endorses for the fifth-progression between
B and E. Observe that his graph is inconsistent in its placement of the internal G
and F♯ during A1 and A2. In the former (corresponding to measures 1 through 4),
256 Notes to page 20
the placement of G before the arrival of dominant root B would seem to favor an
imaginative insertion, though no parentheses are placed around his G notehead.
In the latter (corresponding to measures 57 through 60), the placement of G above
the dominant root B would seem to correspond to the G of 593. I propose that
his version for A1 endeavors to recompose the passage in accordance with the
second species of counterpoint (wherein G would serve as a passing note above
bass A), subjected to a considerable shift in Chopin’s realization, where that
passing note is delayed until after the dominant root arrives. That is, the
foundational state
A—— Bj
A—G F]
may shift (via the unaccented passing note of
species counterpoint being transformed into the accented passing note of free
composition) to create a “cadential 64 ” context, as j
A G—F]
A B——
; or even further, so
that A lingers to sound against the dominant root, as j

A A–G–F]
A B———
.
25. Compare G, which here neglects to descend to F♯, with D♭ (which neglects to
descend to C) in 1.6, m. 5. Carl Schachter, in “The Prelude in E Minor Op. 28
No. 4: Autograph Sources and Interpretation,” in Chopin Studies 2, ed. J. Rink
and J. Samson (Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 161–182, takes a literalist
approach (as does Schenker in FC, fig. 75). Schachter’s ex. 9.4 (p. 168) displays
the melody pitch E at 73 as an anticipation of that in measure 8. (The intervening
G – a crucial note for me – is omitted from his graph.) He adds a special
annotation above the bass beam: “No V!” Whereas my graph projects an
imagined diatonic ^ 2 within the descending fifth-progression from ^ 5,
Schachter’s descent (like Schenker’s) incorporates the earlier ♮^
2.
An intriguing analysis by Franz Eibner in part concurs with my reading. See
his “Über die Akkorde im Satz Chopins,” in Chopin-Jahrbuch 1970, ed.
F. Zagiba (Vienna: Notring der wissenschaftlichen Verbände Österreichs,
1970), pp. 3–24. The initial chord is analyzed as E Minor’s tonic and is
provided only with the Roman numeral I (once with 7♯ to the right, in his fig.
7 on p. 23). He comments as follows: “Durch den Dominantklang am Beginn
ist nur die IV. Stufe (von T. 2) ‘tonikalisiert’ worden und also muß dieser
Dominantklang in der ganzen Kadenz die I. Stufe der Haupttonart
repräsentieren” (p. 6). His fig. 4 (p. 20) displays both a parenthetical D♯
below G at the end of measure 7 and a parenthetical bass B for the final beat
of that measure, under which he places the Roman numeral V within square
brackets. (His fig. 5 on p. 21 provides additional perspective, including an
indication that the melody’s G at the end of measure 7 serves as an
“Antizipationston.”) He reads the Kopfton as ^ 3, supplied within square
brackets and annotated with the word “Ellipse” in his fig. 6 (p. 22). (The
G is connected to the F♯ of the mazurka’s B section, graphed in his fig. 7 on
p. 23.) Though in disagreement with Schenker’s reading of the Kopfton as ^ 5,
which Eibner addresses in his n. 3 on pp. 18–19, his choice has the advan-
tage of not raising the expectation of a G between A and F♯. I remain
unpersuaded, however, due to the prominence of the initial B, its clear

voice-leading descent to A in measures 2 and 6, and the relationship
between the A section’s BE fifth and the B section’s BD♯ sixth (inverted to D♯ B
),
to be explored in chapter 2.
26. This D♮-F♯-A embellishment of a C♯ chord corresponds to the A♭-C-E♭
embellishment of a G chord in opus 17/2, mm. 39ff. Its exotic flavor inspired
Dmitri Tymoczko to interpret the mazurka’s mode initially as “phrygian.” See
his A Geometry of Music, pp. 312–313.
27. Schenker alternates between two notational practices for interruption in FC.
(See editor Ernst Oster’s note 7 on p. 37 of the example volume.) I have
adopted the one that I prefer. For a more detailed introduction to this
important topic, see my Tonal Analysis: A Schenkerian Perspective, chapter 4.
28. I have placed the D♮ in the bass, in conformity with 143. The parentheses
around the C♭ above this D♮ indicate merely that it is displayed in a higher
register than where it occurs in the score.
29. Whereas Schenker (FC, fig. 106, ex. 2c) proposes a local ascending C♯<D♯<E<F♯
line (split between two registers) during measure 11, I instead interpret the high
D♯ as a passing note between the E of 102 and an imagined C♯ at 113, which
would resolve to B at the HC. The E at 113 resides within an (F♯)>E>D♯ third. It
conforms to the prescription that a seventh should resolve by descending step.
30. The parentheses between I and IV in 1.21b acknowledge the several passing
chords that come between the harmonic progression’s I and IV. A contrasting
interpretation is offered by Joel Lester in his “Harmonic Complexity and
Form,” pp. 113–117, where he proposes that the keys of C, B, and B♭
(misprinted as E♭) are “hinted at,” though “their fundamental progressions
evaporate.” An important component in any analysis is to assess the function
of all dissonant sevenths, since that interval may serve as a chord member
within a 7/5/3 context, or instead as an embellishment within a 7–6 context.
Here Lester proposes the first interpretation, and I the second.
31. Consequently the first sounding of the Kopfton occurs at 81, precisely the same
moment within the structure as its upper-octave occurrence in 1.10. My
conception is subtly different from that proposed by David W. Beach in his
“Chopin’s Mazurka, Op. 17, No. 4,” Theory and Practice 2/3 (1977), pp. 12–16.
Whereas he interprets the E of measure 8 as the Kopfton’s onset, I propose instead
that it should take hold before the series of suspensions begins. Thus I regard the
tonic’s 5 phase to be elided, preceding the mazurka’s first sounding chord.
32. Performers should experiment with contrasting degrees of rubato and
accentuation in the projection of measures 13 through 15. If the third note
of each measure is emphasized, the melody D♭>C>B♮ (followed by B♭>A♮>A♭)
will lead to an IAC. If instead (and as I recommend) the performer leads
downwards to the fifth note of each measure, then the melodic path leads to the
F at 162 (as displayed by the stemmed notes in 1.22) for a PAC.
33. In his A Geometry of Music, pp. 288–290, Dmitri Tymoczko presents within his
fig. 8.5.9 a root progression similar to mine, though flawed in two ways: first, I
propose that it should commence with the A chord of measure 4, not the G♯
chord of measure 5; and second, he omits an analysis for the G♯ chord of 83. (The
latter is not a printer’s error, because his commentary explicitly notes the
exceptional “descending semitone” D to C♯.) Both of these points of contention
relate to my willingness to allow imperfect fifths into my circle. His G♯ . . . D span
contains only perfect fifths, avoiding my preceding A–D♯ and following D–G♯.
Compare with ex. 362 in Felix Salzer’s Structural Hearing: Tonal Coherence in
Music, 2 vols. (New York: Boni, 1952; reprint edn., New York: Dover, 1962).
Though Salzer’s model suitably starts on the A chord, he omits the D♯ chord of
measure 5. In addition, he makes it appear as if a harmonic progression proceeds
from III in measure 4 through V (which would be displayed as V♯ in my notation)
in measure 9 (III and V are connected by an arrow) to I, contrasting my view that
the initial upward trajectory breaks off after III, with a fresh start in measure 9.
34. Though Chopin’s slurring in measures 13 and 14 would support a reading that
maintains the tonic until 151 (with the D-A-F♮-B chords functioning as local
embellishments), his slurs so often counter his mazurkas’ structures that I here am
willing to discount them. One might instead view their presence (in coordination
with the dynamic markings) as helping to emphasize the subdominant statement
on three consecutive downbeats. The progression proceeds beyond IV only on the
third try. In performance the third-beat A chords should seem like a backtracking
to the position of measure 12.
35. The 5–6 shift that often transpires during IV is realized here as (8)–7–6. (The 7
sounds from the outset.) The G♯ that arrives at 152 prevents the descending
parallel fifths that would have occurred had A functioned instead as IV’s
chordal seventh.
36. I suspect that Chopin’s ear was bothered by the prospect of a soprano B>G♯
leap coinciding with the bass D>C♯ step (creating “hidden fifths” in the
exposed outer voices). Consequently he called upon C♯ (related to the C♯s of
133 and 143) as a substitute for G♯ at 153. The unusual situation at the cadence
also in part justifies my rejection of what might seem to many as a clear
instance of Kopfton ^ 5. (This issue will be touched upon again when the
remainder of the mazurka is assessed in chapter 2.)
37. The written-out repeat of the juxtaposed I and III phrases is facilitated by some
transitional chords (during 83) that do not recur during measure 16. They are
not displayed in 1.24.
38. For the written-out repeat of a1, the mediant’s C from 82 corresponds to the
imagined Kopfton, with a C>B>A third-progression extending from that point
through 122.
39. Though I do not regard C-E-G at 73 as a harmonically asserted chord (it is
instead an unfurled 64 embellishment of the tonic), this situation corresponds to
what some analysts call a plagal cadence.
40. In 1.26 I propose that a sequential progression – A♭>E♭<F>C<D♭ – supporting

a stepwise-descending melody is the means of locomotion. That reading
requires an imaginative interpretation of 203. The potent pitch E♮ and
already sounding inner-voice pitch C surmount the persistence of F and A♭
below to assert the sense of a C chord.
41. Though in some contexts the juxtaposition of roots E and C♯ might be
interpreted as III5–6, in this case the melodic thirds (G♯>F♯>E followed by
B>A>G♯ followed by G♯>F♯>E, all displayed in 1.27, measures 5 through 22)
give more the sense of a tonic reinstatement than of a mediant expansion.
Chapter 2: Between the tonic pillars

1. The bass E♭>B♭ fourth is a meaningful interval in the context of E♭ Minor,
whereas the upper strand’s G♭>D♮ fourth is not. The latter span, which
incorporates the conventional modal shift from diatonic D♭ to leading tone
D♮ near the cadence, is justified because it follows – in upper tenths – the
contour set by the bass.
2. Chopin is having some fun in this mazurka by juxtaposing G➔C during the A
section and D➔G during the B section. Could this be interpreted as I➔ IV V➔
I in G Major? The Dal segno senza Fine instruction in fact may be intended to
eradicate the memory of which chord is first established as the tonic. My term
“tonic pillar” reflects the observation that a mazurka’s A section invariably
establishes the tonic key. To argue that this mazurka is in G Major would
require both that the tonic pillar correspond instead to the B section role and
that Chopin’s C Major key signature is bogus. (The least conventional of
Chopin’s mazurkas in this regard is opus 30/2. See 2.5.)
3. The analysis of this mazurka by Nicholas Meeùs in his “Questions de méthode:
La Mazurka op. 7 no. 5 de Chopin,” Analyse musicale 32 (1993), pp. 58–63,
embraces such doubt.
4. The earlier components of the circle of fifths coordinate with descending
filled-in melodic thirds at two distinct structural levels. For example, a
surface E♭>D♭>C third occurs within measure 13, while a broader third
transpires between 132 and 143. (Only the latter is displayed in 2.4.) I
propose that though A♭>G>F in measure 19 will at first seem to be of the
former type, it ultimately performs (speedily) the role of the latter type.
5. The sounding of D♭ (rather than D♮) at 193 creates a motivic connection with
the D♭>C over the bar line between measures 1 and 2, strengthening my
assertion that the unfolded A♭<C third of the opening melody guides the
middle section’s bass.
6. In A♭ Major, the diatonic upper-third chord is C-E♭-G, CV♯1 is C-E♮-G, CV♯2
is C♭-E♭-G♭, and CV♯3 is C♭-E♭♭-G♭. This numbering system for the chromatic
variants, in which the variant number conveniently corresponds to the

number of chromatic pitches, was proposed in Schubert, pp. 56–60.
7. This small point is very important: the I harmony is reinstated at 243, not 261.
(Note that now each of the tonic chord’s pitches is preceded by an upper
second: B♭>A♭ D♭>C F>E♭.) Consequently measure 25 ought not to be
interpreted as background V within a broad I III♮ V7 I progression.
8. In fact, Edward Laufer proposed such a reading for this mazurka in his lecture
“Parenthetical Passages,” delivered at the Mannes College of Music Schenker
Symposium in 1985. Ex. 19 of his handout displays bass open noteheads on G♯
(at 121), B (at 261), C♯ (at 412 or 452), and D♯ (at 433 or 473) before the close on
G♯. (His Roman numeral analysis is I III5−6 IV V I.)
5
9. Though certainly one could deploy the Roman numeral ♭VI ♭ at measure 20 in
2.8 (in keeping with Schenker’s practice in FC), I here instead account for that
sonority by means of symbols to the right of the I numeral: the wobble from E to
E♭ and back (3♮–♭–♮) and the chromatic neighbor A♭ embellishing G (5–6♭–5).
By this means I emphasize that chord’s alliance with the initial tonic and
acknowledge that it does not lead anywhere harmonically.
10. A descending circle of fifths supports this fifth-progression. Observe how the
already surging tonic E➔ that opens the A1 tonic pillar (measure 1) is echoed
by the already surging G♯➔ that initiates the circle of fifths (measure 33).
These chords also share an upper-neighbor embellishment (B<C>B and
D♯<E>D♯). (The relationship between these neighboring motions was more
emphatically projected in the original version of measure 33, where the E occurs
on beat 3 in a rhythmic context exactly matching that of measure 1. The original
and revised versions are juxtaposed in Jeffrey Kallberg’s “The Problem of
Repetition and Return in Chopin’s Mazurkas,” in Chopin Studies, ed. J.
Samson (Cambridge University Press, 1988), p. 14, ex. 6.) Though the
dominant is tonicized during the B section, the cover tone D♯’s upward
tendency as leading tone eventually is fulfilled: the opening of the A2 tonic
pillar’s theme coincides with D♯’s resolution pitch E in measures 57–58.
11. Reinforcing the tonic’s dominant-emulating impact, the preceding dominant is
supertonic-emulating in its minor quality. Compare with Haydn/Mozart, 6.4c.
12. Though of no apparent consequence initially, the tinge of C♯ Minor supplied
by A♮ in measure 53 sets the stage for the surprising turn of events beginning in
measure 65.
13. Compare the addition of B♯ to D♮-F♯-A here (measure 72) and the addition of
E♯ to G♮-B-D♮ in 1.8 (measure 12). That example’s resulting II is a more
characteristic context for this evolved chordal formation than is this mazurka’s
V .
14. Though it may appear that the circular motion proceeds uniformly as B➔ E
A➔ D G➔ C during measures 37 through 42, in my view the prior
establishment of A as the local tonic places the B➔ E A➔ segment within its
domain (extending from minor A to surging A➔), so that the progression
extends beyond the tonic only with the arrival of D in measure 40, coinciding
with the onset of the fifth-progression descending from Kopfton E.
15. In the context of A1, the content of measures 1 through 3 embellishes the initial
tonic. The harmonic progression begins with I, not V♮. At the juncture of B
and A2, the prior establishment of V♮ imbues equivalent content (measures 41
through 43) with an asserted dominant function, extending the B section’s
harmonic goal into the domain of A2, preceding the re-emergence of the tonic.
16. Chopin’s spelling of II as D♯-G♮-A-C♯ at 493 is incorrect, of course. Yet in
this case FÜ’s upward resolution to G♯ is elided, resulting in the direct
succession to the dominant’s seventh, F♯. Consequently the “incorrect” G♮
reflects the line’s atypical downward orientation.
17. Compare with a similar lower-third shift in Schubert’s Piano Sonata in B♭ Major
(D. 960), mvmt. 4, measures 41 through 62, which I address in my “Conspicuous
6-Phase Chords in the Closing Movement of Schubert’s Piano Sonata in B-Flat
Major (D. 960),” in Rethinking Schubert (Oxford University Press, in press).
18. Two examples in Joyce Yip’s “Tonal and Formal Aspects of Selected Mazurkas
of Chopin” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 2010) – numbered 2–4
(p. 188) and 6–1 (p. 263) – are derived from an analysis of this mazurka by
Edward Laufer, presented in a talk entitled “A Different Reading for the Same
Music” that he delivered at Queens College in 1993. (Similar graphs appear in
his handout for the lecture “Parenthetical Passages,” delivered at the Mannes
College of Music Schenker Symposium in 1985.) Whereas he proposes a
connection of the A chords at 213 and 243, I instead regard the former as an
internal element within a circular progression whose endpoints correspond to
the shift from A to A➔. Laufer’s title refers to his intriguing proposal that
whereas the chord of measure 1 embellishes that of measure 2 (thus
establishing the tonic at the outset), the chord of measure 26 may be
regarded as dependent upon that of measure 25 (as its upper fifth), resulting
in a bold D<E<F bass motion over measures 25 through 28. I instead interpret
the chord in measure 25 as the unfurled equivalent of that in measure 1. More
recently, Dmitri Tymoczko has offered an interpretation of this passage in A
Geometry of Music: Harmony and Counterpoint in the Extended Common
Practice (Oxford University Press, 2011, ex. 8.5.9). His succession of root
labels for measures 19 through 24 (which correlates only fleetingly with my
interpretation in 2.15) is as follows: A♭7 B♭2 A2 A♭2 G2 A43 .
19. The relationship between local tonic A Major and a potential D Major
tonicization within this mazurka’s B section is assayed in TAH, pp. 157–160.
20. My focus away from Kopfton E during the B section is one of several potential
readings, each quirky in its own way. (Chopin in fact keeps the E fire alive above
C♯ during measures 35 and 39 – and 51 and 55 – and above B during measures 47
and 48.) For example, one might instead propose a fifth-progression descending
from A1’s well-established Kopfton E through D at 332 to C♯ at 351 (extended by
the C♯ of measures 41 through 47), leading to B (presented an octave lower)

during measure 47 and finally A at 502 (repeated at 522, 542, and 562).
21. The b region’s D♭>C♭>B♭ third is a counterpart to the a1 region’s C<E♭ and a
varied replication of the D♭>C>B♭ in measure 15. In FC, fig. 30a, Schenker
proposes that the D♭ neighbor is prolonged: D♭>C♭>B♭ instead of D♭>C♭>B♭.
22. Though the accented C♭ at 40b3 might be understood merely as an anticipation
of the following downbeat, it instead might be regarded as a last-moment shift
of the A section’s key to A♭ Minor, with which the upcoming F♭ Major relates
as diatonic I6. F♭ has been a prominent feature of the local harmonic fabric
even in A♭ Major, from the downbeat of measure 1 onwards. See Patrick
McCreless’s “The Pitch-Class Motive in Tonal Analysis: Some Historical and
Critical Observations,” Res musica 3 (2011), pp. 59–63, for thoughtful
commentary on Chopin’s deployment of F♭ in this mazurka from both
Schoenbergian and Schenkerian perspectives.
23. During his analysis of this mazurka and commentary on Schenker’s reading in
Phrase Rhythm in Tonal Music (New York: Schirmer, 1989; reprint edn., Ann
Arbor: Musicalia, 2007), p. 220, William Rothstein proposes: “Chopin’s . . .
slurs are an analytical minefield. No composer so frequently slurred against the
phrase structure of his music rather than in support of that structure.” Here the
slur ends not in measure 48, coinciding with the close of the antecedent phrase,
but instead during the following measure, after the first three notes of the
consequent phrase.
24. In some compositions it is challenging to decide whether 3^ or ^ 5 serves as the
Kopfton. Though I regard ^ 3 as the better reading in this case, I acknowledge
that I have received prodding from an anonymous external reviewer to instead
choose ^5. My reading is worked out in 2.18, where A and G♯ play prominent
roles at various stages. Anyone intrigued by this conundrum might wish to
create an alternative analysis based on Kopfton ^ 5 and then to compare the two
interpretations. Which elements of the composition are emphasized when ^ 3 is
^
regarded as the Kopfton, and which are emphasized when 5 is? How might a
performance of the mazurka suitably project one or the other of these
readings?
25. Compare with TAH, 6.19 through 6.21.
26. It is important not to assume a direct correlation between tonicization and
structural depth. Though C Minor is tonicized during the b region’s initial
measures, root C falls within the tonal path from tonic A♭ to dominant E♭
(represented by the inverted dominant harmony of measure 16). Though
neither tonicized nor presented in root position, that dominant is hierarchically
deeper than the preceding mediant. (Note that its imagined root E♭ is the only
element of the b region that is attached to the middleground bass beam in 2.21.)
Consequently I do not concur with the reading of the basic harmonic progression
for the mazurka’s A1 section (measures 1 through 24) as I . . . iii . . . I, as is
proposed by John Rink in his “Tonal Architecture in the Early Music,” in The
Cambridge Companion to Chopin, ed. J. Samson (Cambridge University Press,

1992), pp. 78–97, ex. 8 (p. 90).
27. Felix Salzer offers a reading that calls upon neither of these assertions in his
Structural Hearing: Tonal Coherence in Music, 2 vols. (New York: Boni, 1952;
reprint edn., New York: Dover, 1962), ex. 361.
28. Compare with a similar parallel progression in TAH, 7.14c.
29. Note that the coda’s E>D♯>D>C third was stated several times during the
b section (measures 37–42).
30. Chopin misspells the chord at 283. E♮ stands for F♭, minor ninth of an E♭➔
chord that is derived from that which occurred at 203.
31. This notion is explored in my Tonal Analysis: A Schenkerian Perspective,
section 1.3.
32. Though the chord of 523 is spelled as B-D♯-F♯, the melodic A>G>F♯ third of
measures 48–52 serves to extend A, so that B-D♯-F♯(-A) is understood as B7.
The imagined seventh, A, resolves to VI➔’s third, G♯, at 531.
33. Though the pitches at these two locations correspond, the C chord during the
A1 section proceeds to the dominant, whereas that during the B section is part
of a back-and-forth motion that embellishes the tonic, as is conveyed by the
Arabic numerals just below the bass beam in 2.26.
34. Whereas a conventional cadential 64 in measure 35 embellishes the consequent
phrase’s dominant, the corresponding chord during the antecedent (measure
31) serves as a common-tone diminished seventh. Chopin might have spelled
it more appropriately as A♯-C♯-E♮-G, with the lower three pitches ascending
by minor second to resolution on B♮-D-F-G in measure 32. Concurrently
ninth A♭ displaces the dominant root. All this occurs above a tonic pedal point.
Perhaps Chopin’s spelling in flats was motivated by a desire to avoid a
concurrent C and C♯. (My colleague David Grayson, a pupil of Nadia
Boulanger, related to me her observation that Chopin often misspelled his
chords, but that Schumann did not.) For an exemplary account of Chopin’s
often quirky orthography, see part I, chapter 2, of Maciej Gołąb’s Chromatyka i
tonalnoséc w muzyce Chopina (Cracow: Polskie Wydawnictwo Muzyczne,
1991); as Chopins Harmonik: Chromatik in ihrer Beziehung zur Tonalität,
trans. B. Hirszenberg (Cologne: Bela Verlag, 1995).
35. The means by which the G♯ chord is attained offers insight into why Chopin
lowers B♯ to B♮ during measures 79 and 142. Since the G♯ triad is a half step
“too high” for the G Major context, the B♮ of measure 142 might be perceived
as an effort to attain G♮-B♮-D♮ within the downward cascade of chords. The
triad’s unyielding G♯ and D♯ prevent the achievement of that outcome.
36. Compare with a passage by Schubert in my “Conspicuous 6-Phase Chords,”
exx. 4 and 5.
37. Compare with 2.14, mm. 16 through 24.
Chapter 3: Irregular pillars in the mazurkas

1. Though Schenker’s readings of this mazurka’s tonic pillars harbor several
contradictions, he does not waver from displaying the Kopfton as ^ 5. See FC,
fig. 76, ex. 5; fig. 83, ex. 2; and fig. 119, ex. 11. Unfortunately most of these
interpretations are neither detailed nor adequately annotated by measure
numbers. However, it appears that for the most part he proposes a PAC close
after four measures, though he offers a contrasting reading at measure 20. In
“Parenthetical Passages,” a lecture delivered at the Mannes College of Music
Schenker Symposium in 1985, Edward Laufer presented an analysis in which
measures 3 and 4 project ^ 4>^3, while the equivalent measures 7 and 8 project
^2>^1. For him, what occurs between those pairs of measures consequently
constitutes a parenthetical passage. I instead espouse the view that each of the
three regions within the mazurka’s A1 and A2 sections offers four measures of
content, followed by a four-measure varied repetition. Measure 24 exceptionally
departs from that design, to conclude the tonic pillar with a PAC. Compare this
structure (including how repeat signs are deployed) with that which prevails
during the two-pillar Mazurka in E♭ Minor (opus 6/4), analyzed in 1.15 and 2.1.
2. Though an interpretation of 182 through 192 as IV ♭ — (reinforced by a GE♭♭ EG♭♭
5–6
voice exchange) is tempting, Chopin’s slurring, which matches that of the a1

pillar, binds the 53 and 64 tonic chords within measure 18. Thus I propose that
I-space persists through the end of measure 18, maintaining the model of
measures 2 and 6.
3. Though each measure of the introduction begins with the interval of a perfect
fifth, none of those fifths are structurally significant. Instead Chopin alternates
between CE♮ and neighbors B♮ F
, with both E♮ and B♮ consistently delayed by
suspensions. The tonic harmony emerges in measure 9, not measure 2 or
measure 4.
4. Compare with Chopin’s construction in 1.9. Note how the G♮-B-D♮ chord of
measure 6 there eventually takes on an E♯, thereby projecting root C♯.
5. Though initially the pitch F♭ serves as a wobble within the D♭ chord, in the
broader context it is transformed into the major dominant’s third, E♮. The
diatonic context would be whole step F>E♭. Here the F is lowered and the E♭ is
raised, resulting in the juxtaposition of the enharmonically equivalent pitches
F♭ and E♮.
6. Chopin’s particular approach to the tonic 6-phase chord in this mazurka
resembles that employed by Mozart in the Trio of his Symphony in G Minor
(K. 550), analyzed in Haydn/Mozart, 9.2.
7. I offer a detailed exploration of the subtonic–dominant connection in my
“Schenker, Schubert, and the Subtonic Chord,” in A Music-Theoretical Matrix:
Essays in Honor of Allen Forte (Part II), ed. D. C. Berry, Gamut: Online Journal of
the Music Theory Society of the Mid-Atlantic 3 (2010), pp. 127–166.
8. See also my discussion of this passage in TAH, pp. 70–75, which includes
commentary on Schenker’s reading of the passage (FC, fig. 54, ex. 6).
9. Indeed this turn of events is unusual and thus susceptible to a range of analytical
responses. Michael Klein calls it a “dark subdominant . . . (with an added sixth)”
and interprets this passage as residing within a coda in his “Chopin’s Dreams:
The Mazurka in C♯ Minor, Op. 30, No. 4,” 19th-Century Music 35 (2011–2012),
p. 255. This article (pp. 238–260) offers a range of intriguing ideas that readers
are encouraged to explore as a complement to the harmonic focus of my work.
10. Given the pillar’s broad harmonic trajectory from I to V♯ (supporting ^ 3 to ^
2),
the melodic attempt to reignite the tonic (potently colliding with the dominant
during measure 33) is, in my view, doomed to failure. (The restoration of the
tonic – transformed into I♯ – is deferred until the fourth measure of the B
section.) Consequently I regard the melody’s A at 333 as ultimately bending to
the dominant’s will: instead of igniting a reinstatement of I by means of an
A<B<C third, the A will in this context come across as a passing note within
the third from an imagined G♯ up to B.
11. Observe how in the connection between the tonic’s 5- and 6-phase chords in
measures 1 through 6, an F♯ embellishing chord of the 5-phase B intervenes,
whereas in measure 73 that chord metamorphoses into an embellishing chord
of the 6-phase G♯. In fact, a modest collision occurs: before the soprano E that
belongs with the F♯ bass arrives, that bass has ascended to FÜ (third of an
imagined D♯). The passage is displayed with those events placed in their more
normative order in 3.6a.
♭
12. Though some analysts might contend that Chopin’s E♭7 spelling offers the
prospect of an excursion to A♭ Major, I think instead that he is being genteel.
The augmented sixth is so potent an interval that Chopin at first masks it by
means of a misspelling. In my view there can be little doubt that, as the B
section winds down and the D-F♯-A-C chord that initiates A2 looms on the
7
horizon, Chopin intends II as the link between I6 and V ♯ . In his Mazurka in
G Minor, op. 56/2, his innate gentility bows to the brutal reality of the tonal
situation: G♮-B-D♮ absorbs E♯ (not F♮) in measure 12. (He also shifts notation
from D♮ to CÜ.)
13. Readers are encouraged to compare my reading of the mazurka with an equally
detailed one by Carl Schachter, in his “Counterpoint and Chromaticism in
Chopin’s Mazurka in C♯ Minor, Opus 50, Number 3,” Ostinato rigore: Revue
internationale d’études musicales 15 (2000), pp. 121–134. Though Schachter
acknowledges an earlier “1st extended cadence” targeting the tonic of measure
157, his “structural cadence” (which I read instead as an event of the coda)
extends to measure 181. (See especially his ex. 1 on p. 122.)
14. The restoration of diatonic D♯ as imagined root during the domain of II
warrants placing the natural sign corresponding to D♮ to the right of the
Roman numeral, so that the shift from D♮ to D♯ may be noted. Because D♯
does not sound, it is marked by a bullet symbol. Compare with Haydn/Mozart,

4.15, as well as n. 24 on p. 264 of that volume.
15. The situation is similar to that at the end of the a2 tonic pillar in 3.1a, where an
IAC on ^ 3 is forestalled by the swift insertion of ^
2 and ^
1 during measure 24.
16. The magic of Chopin’s composition would be lost if such measures were actually
performed. Thus the recommendation that the more extended ending published
by editor Jan Ekier along with the score of the Cracow National Edition (2004) be
used “only if the Mazurka is performed separately (and not as part of the cycle)”
(Performance Commentary, p. 6) goes too far, in my view. My hypothetical
ending (3.11b) is supplied for its analytical implications only.
17. The A♭ chord’s fifth, E♭, is elided at 871.
18. Though Chopin’s D♮-G-B♮ spelling during measure 99 facilitates reading ease,
analytically inclined pianists might prefer the structurally appropriate spelling,
E♭♭-G-C♭. The point of Chopin’s dallying is to allow time to ponder whether to
proceed using C♭ or C♮ as ^ 3 during the descending fifth-progression.
Displaying the C♭ “victor” as B♮ at 992 obfuscates the intimate bond with the
C♭ at 952.
19. Charles Burkhart discusses this mazurka in two essays: “Chopin’s ‘Concluding
Expansions,’” in Nineteenth-Century Piano Music: Essays in Performance and
Analysis, ed. D. Witten (New York: Garland, 1997), pp. 95–116, and “The
Phrase Rhythm of Chopin’s A-flat Major Mazurka, Op. 59, No. 2,” in Engaging
Music: Essays in Music Analysis, ed. D. Stein (Oxford University Press, 2005),
pp. 3–12. Despite the fact that we work from similar premises, our readings are
surprisingly different. Note especially that I place more hierarchical weight on
the tonic of measure 52 and the dominant of measure 68 and less weight on the
subdominant of measure 82. Given that the A1 section presents an irregular
pillar, the second phrase of A2 (beginning in measure 77) is duty-bound to
project regularity, despite its considerable expansion. Thus from my
perspective it is important that the I5–6 II➔ V of the pillar’s antecedent
phrase (measures 69–76) be followed by a similar harmonization during the
consequent, where V will resolve to I. For me, the relationship between F-A♭-
C-E♭ at 743 and F-A♮-C-E♭[D♯] at 843 is crucial, and thus the supposed IV at
821 is, in my view, internal to the sequential expansion of I5–6. Whereas
Burkhart proposes the label ♮IV°7 for the chord on D♮ during 881, I suggest
instead that the chord’s root is an unsounded B♭ (with ninth C♭ spelled as B♮
due to the imminent upward diversion to neighbor C). From that perspective
the antecedent phrase’s II➔ is transformed into II during the consequent.
20. Whereas we might expect G♯ to arrive before the harmonic progression that
expands the C♯ dominant commences, that arrival coincides with the
sounding of C♯’s 6-phase chord.
21. Like most other North American music analysts, I was accustomed to labeling
chords such as D-F♯-A-B♯ as a “German augmented sixth.” Though I expressed
reservations about that nomenclature in TAH (pp. 185–190), it was not until I
decisively turned my back on that practice in Schubert and started providing such
chords with an imagined root (here G♯) that their various roles in music were
clarified. In the present context, such an imagined root is essential to an
understanding of how the circle of fifths transpires.
22. Because the span from C♯ to G♯ is a half step shy of four whole steps, one of the
cycles within the sequence must ascend only a half step. Chopin handles this first:
though CÜ-E♯-G♯-B at the end of measure 116 may seem to function as the local
tonic’s 6-phase chord, surging (as A♯➔) towards D♯, Chopin instead treats the CÜ
as an anticipation of D♮, so that the succeeding 5-phase chord has more the
character of a seismic shift up a half step from the starting point. From then
onwards, however, the sequence ascends in whole steps, propelled by surging 6-
phase chords. The pitch B is elided at 1171, where the chromatic passing note B♯
(which along with C♯ connects that elided B and D) occurs on the downbeat.
Observe that the voice-leading technique of reaching-over is employed repeatedly
in the melody.
23. Though the wobble of G♯ to G♮ for the ♮II chord in most cases will revert to the
diatonic state during the dominant that follows, in this case the chordal evolution
within II-space results in the reinstatement of an unsounded G♯ as root for the
B♯-D-F♯-A chord during 1331. See the discussion of a similar event and an
assessment of its analytical representation in note 14 on pages 101–102, above.
24. In some editions of this mazurka the a2 region (which commences in measure
65) incorporates the full statement of a1 and its written-out repetition
(measures 1 through 48), whereas in the recent National Edition (ed. Ekier)
from which I work only the repetition presentation occurs there. Consequently
readers may need to add 24 to the measure numbers indicated in my
commentary from measure 65 onwards.
25. I introduced the concept of a seismic shift in Schubert, p. 173. The notion was
called upon several times in Haydn/Mozart as well.
26. The careful management of chordal inversions so as to result in a circle of fifths
with a chromatic bass line was demonstrated in numerous harmony treatises
from the early nineteenth century. Samples are printed in TAH, 3.7b and 3.11.
Chopin’s progression employs two different sorts of enharmonic reinterpretation
(displayed with both spellings in 3.15c). What arrives as B-rooted B-D♯-F♯-A in
measure 180 departs as F-rooted A-C♭-E♭-G♭, and what arrives as D-rooted F♯-A-
C-E♭ in measure 186 departs as A♭-rooted C-E♭-G♭-B♭♭.
Chapter 4: Étude in C Minor, op. 10, no. 12

1. “A Response to Schenker’s Analysis of Chopin’s Étude, Opus 10, No. 12, using
Schoenberg’s Grundgestalt Concept,” The Musical Quarterly 69 (1983),
pp. 543–569.
2. Though I selected this Étude in order to compare my analytical practice with that
of Phipps, his selection of the Étude was motivated by Schenker’s extensive
treatment of the work in various publications, most comprehensively in his
Fünf Urlinie-Tafeln (Vienna: Universal Edition, 1932), which I have consulted
through the Salzer edition, Five Graphic Music Analyses (New York: Dover, 1969),
pp. 53–61. Looking at the “3. Schicht” graph of measures 1 through 18 on p. 54, I
question Schenker’s dotted slur connecting the E♭s in measures 11 and 17,
essential to his determination that ^ 3 serves as the Kopfton. In my view the latter
E originates as the passing seventh within IV8−7, shifted from its normative
♭
unaccented position to a metrically strong position (though in this case the arrival
of the E♭ is delayed by chromatic E♮). For a more straightforward context, consult
FC, fig. 16, ex. 5, whose second model shows E in its foundational passing context
(derived from the second species of counterpoint). That example’s fourth model
shows how this E may shift to coincide with the arrival of the dominant root. Yet
it remains a passing note. Thus, returning to the Étude’s C Minor context, the
cadential 64 ’s E♭ cannot serve – as Schenker proposes – as a reinstatement of the
Kopfton, since it is hierarchically dependent upon the F and D that it connects. In
addition, I disagree with Schenker’s inclusion of D (rather than D♭) in the interior
strand during measure 15. (These two pitches are displayed without hierarchical
distinction in his foreground graph on p. 57.) From my harmonic perspective,
G-B♭-D♭ plays an important role in the succession from I to IV, serving as a
reinstatement of the tonic in its surging I➔ state (imagining E♮). Consequently
D♮ serves as a link between E♭ and D♭.
3. Because this descending-second motive is so pervasive, I cannot endorse
Schenker’s reading of the first E♭ during 84 as a neighboring note to F. (See
Five Graphic Music Analyses, p. 57.)
4. Regarding Mehrdeutigkeit (multiple meaning), see TAH, 156–161.
5. I applaud Phipps’s use of the Roman numeral I during measure 15 of his ex. 6,
despite the fact that he has placed it within parentheses. I disagree with his use
of that numeral during measure 17.
6. Chopin here makes the most of the fact that the diminished quality of C6
(C-E♭-A♮) results in an inherent uncertainty of intent. Will that chord proceed
to D5, as the sequential pattern dictates? Or will it heed its own internal urge to
resolve the A♮ E♭
augmented fourth? The addition of F to the chord pushes
decisively toward the latter outcome. Fortunately those two outcomes reside
in adjacent positions within the sequence, so the choice of the latter comes
across as an omission of one chord within the sequential ascent. On another
level, measure 24 corresponds to measure 14, where C-E♭-A♮ was complemen-
ted by F♯ to project D➔. If that F♯ is reinterpreted enharmonically as G♭, the
surge would shift to F➔. With F rather than G♭ (a lessening of intensification,
while retaining the function), that chord sounds in measure 24.
7. The sixteenth notes within measure 28 chromatically fill in two intervals from
the B♭➔ chord: (D)>D♭>C>C♭>B♭ and B♭>B♭♭[A♮]>A♭[G♯].
8. Compare with the embellishment of II during the Mazurka in C Major (op. 24,
no. 2), measure 13 [1.4].
9. Bass C [B♯] at 331 comes after two-measure units that emphasize E♭ [D♯] (the
circle’s fourth element) and D♭ [C♯] (a passing chord). Though initially the
attentive listener will regard C as the third of a chord rooted on A♭ (the circle’s
fifth element), the downward trajectory from E♭ through passing D♭ does
ultimately lead to C as root, taking into account the transformation that
transpires during measures 33 through 35. Consequently the structural melodic
line, which has descended from Kopfton G through F to E♭, now detours upwards
through E♮ to incomplete neighbor F in measure 37 (in a trajectory divided
between the soprano and bass) before reaching goal D in conjunction with the
dominant. (See 4.3.)
10. Chopin rejects the D♭-F-A♭ sonority twice during this passage: first, the circle of
fifths is abandoned just as the A♭➔ chord is targeting a D♭ arrival; and second,
the minor IV’s chromatic 6-phase chord, F-A♭-D♭, is auditioned during measure
38 but rejected, with the D♮ of measure 40 successfully leading from IV onwards
to V♮. (Though D♭ is chromatic if F-A♭-C is interpreted as IV in C Minor, the
onset of an F Minor tonicization would instead support C<D♭>C, echoing the
G<A♭>G sounded during A1’s opening tonic presentation.)
11. Though Schenker’s and my conceptions of the A1 section’s second part correlate
to some extent, we disagree on numerous points. Again looking principally at
Five Graphic Music Analyses, note how our interpretations of the path from root
C to root F are similar, even if I make more of the interior E♮-G-B♭-C chord
than he does and interpret the melodic line as emanating from Kopfton G rather
than E♭. I regard his assertion of ^
2’s arrival at measure 27 to be untenable. The
I chord that immediately precedes root F could contain either an imagined C
or an imagined D♭ (displacing C). Either way, the D♮ of measure 27 is a
neighboring note that resolves to the C at that measure’s close. D is a member
neither of the C chord nor of the F chord. How, then, can it be regarded as the
onset of ^2? Looking next at measure 28, Schenker acknowledges the addition of
minor seventh A♭ to the B♭ major chord in his foreground graph (p. 58), yet he
does not follow through on assessing the repercussions of that surge-inducing
act – namely, the succession from B♭➔ to E♭. During measures 29 through 33 he
and I present opposing hierarchies for the chord pairs. From his perspective root
A♭ takes hold at measure 29, whereas in my view the circle of fifths proceeds
normatively to E♭ before the arrival of A♭ (realized by a chord in first inversion)
in measure 33. Though he has moderated the potent seismic shifts that raise
A♭➔ to C➔ in measures 33 through 35 through the extensive use of
parenthetical notes in his foreground graph, we both understand that this
activity is leading the progression towards IV, though I find it curious that the
IV numeral is postponed until measure 40 in his foreground graph – at the point
where IV shifts to its 6 phase.
12. See Schenker’s foreground graph in Five Graphic Music Analyses, p. 58.
13. Five Graphic Music Analyses, p. 58.

14. Though not identical, the structure here closely resembles that of 264 through 274.
15. Diminished seventh chords in measures 66 and 68 soften the stark voice
leading displayed in 4.3. That in measure 66 targets the chord of measure 67
as that in measure 64 targets the chord of measure 65. Because the descent of
the 64 chords is not evenly spaced (a major second from D♭ to C♭, but a minor
second from C♭ to B♭), the chord of measure 68 does not function like those of
measures 64 and 66. Instead it anticipates the upcoming subtonic.
16. Though this ♭II offers fulfillment after the frustrations noted in the vicinity of
measures 33, 38, and 65, Schenker’s graph of the entire movement in FC, fig.
12, erases it, displaying instead a diatonic II with ^2 at measure 72. Readers
mystified by such seeming errors may gain insight into Schenker’s thinking by
comparing the two graphs labeled “1. Schicht” and “2. Schicht” in Five Graphic
Music Analyses, pp. 54–55.
17. See TAH, p. 313, n.14, for samples of creative diminished-seventh usage on
display in August Swoboda’s Harmonielehre (Vienna: Haykul, 1828), tab. V.
The date and place of publication tantalizingly encourage the hypothesis of a
direct encounter with its contents (or even with the author himself) during
Chopin’s two visits to Vienna preceding his migration to Paris. For an account
of Chopin’s documented or presumed exposure to music theory during his
Warsaw years (including notions derived from Albrechtsberger and from
Kirnberger), see the exemplary account in part I, chapter 1, of Maciej
Gołąb’s Chromatyka i tonalnoséc w muzyce Chopina (Cracow: Polskie
Wydawnictwo Muzyczne, 1991); as Chopins Harmonik: Chromatik in ihrer
Beziehung zur Tonalität, trans. B. Hirszenberg (Cologne: Bela Verlag, 1995).
18. Phipps cites a motion to an F minor chord in measures 36–37 to support his
assertion. Note, however, that there the bass is E♮ (sounded at 351), which
targets resolution pitch F (presented in multiple registers during measure 37).
In contrast, the bass D♭ (measures 65 and 66) is disinclined to ascend to F,
though Phipps displays exactly that hypothetical resolution (his ex. 13).
Chapter 5: Nocturne in C♯ Minor (op. 27, no. 1)

1. It was recommended to me in 1976 by my first Schenkerian analysis instructor,
John Rothgeb.
2. The Music Forum was published in New York by Columbia University Press.
Salzer’s article is found on pp. 283 through 297 of volume 2. His analysis is
discussed in Alison Hood’s “Intraopus Connections in Chopin’s Nocturnes, Opus
27,” in The Sources of Chopin’s Style: Inspirations and Contexts, ed. A. Szklener
(Warsaw: Narodowy Instytut Fryderyka Chopina, 2005), pp. 371–385. Hood
incorporates additional commentary from John Rink’s 1989 Cambridge
University dissertation, “The Evolution of Chopin’s ‘Structural Style’ and Its

Relation to Improvisation,” which I have not been able to access.
3. The Oster Collection: Papers of Heinrich Schenker (housed at the New York
Public Library for the Performing Arts at Lincoln Center), file 32, item 51. The
archive includes several intriguing graphs by Ernest Oster of a passage from
the nocturne (file 32, item 46). Oster’s placement of the abbreviation “recap.”
at measure 84 concurs with my reading, in contrast to Salzer’s assertion of a
formal division at measure 65.
4. It would be reasonable to propose that measures 7 and 8 should be read as
III5−6 IV, with the internal III6 asserted locally as I➔. My analysis in 5.1
instead juxtaposes two continuations from the same starting point: from minor
tonic to the mediant between 31 and 71 as a means of expanding the initial tonic,
then a tonic restoration proceeding to a contorted dominant between 73 and 94.
Chopin’s excursion to the mediant extends the first phrase into a fifth measure,
requiring some compensatory compression: the second phrase begins now in the
middle of measure 7, rather than at its outset.
5. In the second and fourth of these statements, C♯ is embellished by an excursion
up to E (as C♯<E or C♯<D<E), corresponding to the Nocturne’s E<F♯<G♯ in
measures 13 and 17.
6. Salzer does not interpret this cadence as the conclusion of the A1 structure, to
be followed by the initiation of a written-out repeat. Instead he refers to the
succeeding measures as “the last phrase of section A” (p. 287).
7. Since composers were cognizant of the challenges that their works imposed
upon amateur performers, they often would substitute a five-flat for a seven-
sharp signature. Chopin’s four-flat signature corresponds to the initial goal,
the A♭ dominant of measure 52, rather than to the D♭ tonic that emerges in
measure 65. (Though my principal analysis retains C♯ as the tonic, a local
tonicization of the dominant, as goal of a II V I progression in G♯ [A♭] Major
from 483 through 523, is feasible.) Consequently it was necessary for Chopin to
manually insert a G♭ accidental numerous times during measures 63 through
80, after which a restoration of the four-sharp signature occurs.
8. Whereas C♯ Minor’s diatonic I6 chord would inherently surge (as A➔)
towards ♮II, here the supertonic’s D♯ root is targeted through the chromatic
shift of the 6-phase chord to A♯ .
9. I display its normative functioning as a connector between the tonic and the
dominant in Schubert, 1.8 (Model 2), while Schenker demonstrates its use in
FC, fig. 111a (second model). Regarding the latter, see my “Schenker, Schubert,
and the Subtonic Chord,” in A Music-Theoretical Matrix: Essays in Honor of
Allen Forte (Part II), ed. D. C. Berry, Gamut: Online Journal of the Music
Theory Society of the Mid-Atlantic 3 (2010), pp. 127–166.
10. Whereas it is well known that a diminished seventh chord may be used to bring
about the tonal shift of a minor third through enharmonic reinterpretation, in
measures 77 through 79 a diminished seventh connects two chords a major third
apart. Initially AÜ-CÜ-E♯-G♯ serves as an embellishment of the preceding B♯

major chord. Yet upon resolution it takes on the character of a common-tone
diminished seventh chord. (Compare with Haydn/Mozart, p. 213.) Chopin
complicates matters by allowing the common tone (G♯) to be displaced by its
chromatic upper neighbor at the moment of resolution (791, where I show a
retained G♯ within parentheses in 5.3). As a result, two diminished seventh
chords sound in succession. (In fact, diminished sevenths persist through the
melodic peak at 811.)
Chapter 6: Preludes in E Major and E Minor

(op. 28, nos. 9 and 4)
1. Lerdahl’s analyses appear in Tonal Pitch Space (Oxford University Press,
2001), pp. 89–109. They had earlier been published, in a somewhat
abbreviated form, as “Pitch-Space Journeys in Two Chopin Preludes,” in
Cognitive Bases of Musical Communication, ed. M. R. Jones and S. Holleran
(Washington DC: American Psychological Association, 1992), pp. 171–191.
2. Though Lerdahl consulted the first edition of Aldwell and Schachter’s
Harmony and Voice Leading, readers will find the same analysis in the
current fourth edition (Boston: Schirmer; Cengage Learning, 2011), pp. 589–
591 and 628–629.
3. “The Prelude in E Minor Op. 28 No. 4: Autograph Sources and Interpretation,” in
Chopin Studies 2, ed. J. Rink and J. Samson (Cambridge University Press, 1994),
pp. 161–182, and “The Triad as Place and Action,” Music Theory Spectrum 17
(1995), pp. 149–169, reprinted in Unfoldings: Essays in Schenkerian Theory and
Analysis, ed. J. N. Straus (Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 161–183. (The
Unfoldings page numbers will be employed in references to the latter.) Readers
may wish to expand their study of the Prelude in E Minor by consulting a lively
critique of Schachter’s analyses by Bengt Edlund, who both conveys a vociferous
anti-Schenkerian stance and offers an alternative analysis in chapter 3 of his
Chopin: The Preludes and Beyond (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2013),
pp. 201–233, which I encountered only after the present book went to press.
4. “Musical Genre and Schenkerian Analysis,” Journal of Music Theory 42 (1998),
pp. 101–124. (Schachter’s graphs from the articles listed in note 3 are reprinted
in London and Rodman’s article.)
5. This sheet is a part of the Oster Collection: Papers of Heinrich Schenker (file
32, item 98), housed at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts at
Lincoln Center.
6. A partial list of errata: missing stems in line 1; a missing slur, Roman numeral,
and words in line 2; a missing accidental, commas, dash, word, and abbreviation
in line 3; the presentation of a line connecting E and D♯ instead as a slur in line 5;
the transcription of fis as bis (and omission of a slur connecting ♭ and fis and
another slur connecting fis and h) and the positioning of the D♮ notehead a

measure too soon in line 6.
7. The complete rendering of a 5–6 sequence to connect the tonic’s 5-phase
(E-G♯-B) and unfurled 6-phase (C♯-E-G♯) chords would involve a total of
eleven chords (E5–6 F♯5–6 G5–6 A5–6 B5–6 C♯5). Chopin here makes use of a
common shortcut, facilitated by the fact that E5 and G♯6 employ the same pitch
classes. Consequently his sequence employs a total of six chords.
8. Lerdahl’s omission of commentary regarding how he went about creating his
fig. 3.2 is curious, given a comment he made earlier while establishing his
system’s theoretical foundations: “It is sometimes troublesome to determine
the grouping structure of a piece, but once that is in place the rest mostly
follows like clockwork” (p. 7). One is left with the impression that the figure
depends to a large extent upon the analysis of the prelude’s second and third
phrases in Aldwell and Schachter’s Harmony and Voice Leading.
9. Lerdahl’s reading is very similar to an unpublished graph by Schenker, now in
the Oster Collection: Papers of Heinrich Schenker (file 32, item 108), housed at
the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts at Lincoln Center. I
suspect that that graph was an inspiration both for Lerdahl and for Aldwell and
Schachter.
10. These comments echo my similar concerns about the analysis of TR sections in
two-part, major-key sonata expositions. In my view, II➔ often will serve as the
goal of TR (at the medial caesura), followed by V at or soon after the onset of S.
An analysis that places the arrival of the structurally deep V before the caesura
II➔ puts the cart before the horse, in my view. (See Haydn/Mozart, pp. 58–67.)
11. Schenker commented on Chopin’s slurring in the Mazurka in G♯ Minor
(op. 33, no. 1) as follows: “Chopin, with his penchant for the melodic,
employs the slur in his own special way. Thus the song of this upper voice,
as if absorbed in itself, seeks to remain an indestructible unity and therefore
basically resists articulation . . .” (FC, p. 110).
12. The score that Lerdahl published as fig. 3.1 deploys slurring that starkly
contrasts that shared by two recent Urtext editions: the National (Cracow,
2000) edited by Jan Ekier and the Peters (London, 2003) edited by Jean-Jacques
Eigeldinger. Neither editor’s critical commentary mentions alternative
slurring from any Chopin source. Lerdahl’s slurring exactly matches that in
the “Student’s Edition” of the Preludes by Alfred Cortot (Paris: Éditions
Salabert, n.d.), though its origin may be earlier.
13. Though I interpret their formal relationship in a different way due to the
contrasting context, the first two phrases of the Mazurka in B Major (op. 41,
no. 2, analyzed in 3.10) behave harmonically approximately as do the first two
phrases of the E Major Prelude.
14. Whereas this B♯ (spelled by Chopin as C♮) raises diatonic B (spelled as C♭ when
restored by Chopin at the end of 83), its enharmonic equivalent C♮ in measure
6 lowers diatonic C♯ (restored at 71). Both are wobbles.
15. Continuing the comparison with the Mazurka in B Major from note 13,
Chopin in that case highlights the peculiarity of the B–E–A♯–D♯ circle of
fifths by instead traversing the parallel minor key’s B–E–A–D during the
varied repetition of the mazurka’s A1 section.
16. The E>A fifth is filled in by step in the bass: E>D♮>C♮>B♭>A. The passing note
B♭ seems at first to attach itself structurally to the C♮ chord (at 63), forming a
C➔ surge towards F♮. Chopin indeed may be playing with listeners’
expectations by projecting the first two chords of a I 3♯ – ♮ ♮II
56♮ 5♮
V progression,
a chromatic variant of the first phrase’s I II➔ V. Yet by the downbeat of
5–6
measure 7 that potentiality loses its viability, and the deeper connection
between E and A becomes paramount.
17. Concerning this thorny issue, see TAH, 7.6 (including the commentary
regarding Progression 3 on p. 175).
18. Continuing the discussion of slurring begun in note 12, the score that Lerdahl
provides as fig. 3.1 contains a bass slur beginning at the B of 84 and extending
through the E of 93. Again, that does not correspond to the recent Urtext
editions, where a single long slur extends from 51 through the final chord.
Though I disagree in some details with Schenker’s unpublished analysis of the
prelude (see note 5 above), his jottings for measures 5 through 8 twice show a
progression from I through III (sic) to V, supporting a structural descent from
^3 to ^
2.
19. Aldwell and Schachter, Harmony and Voice Leading, pp. 628–629.
20. Dmitri Tymoczko offers an alternative analysis of this phrase in his A
Geometry of Music: Harmony and Counterpoint in the Extended Common
Practice (Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 218–219. Our widely divergent
views on harmonic analysis are apparent even in some basic statistics: my
example (6.3) employs three Roman numerals (one chromatically modified)
and four letters indicating roots (two of which coincide with Roman
numerals), all in E Major; his example (6.6.2) employs sixteen Roman
numerals in the keys of E, C, F, d, A♭, and then E again. (My strongest
objections relate to both passing chords, labeled as ii64 , and to the chord with
suspensions labeled as iii within parentheses.) We both read the phrase as
continuing to E Major’s dominant at the end of measure 8, contrasting
Lerdahl’s close on the preceding G♯ [A♭] chord.
21. Aldwell and Schachter, Harmony and Voice Leading, pp. 590–591.
22. Though Lerdahl’s commentary acknowledges the exceptional nature of this
passage – “modulates to a distant place, returning home at the last moment”
and “remarkable for its pitch-space journey” (pp. 89–91) – his fig. 3.8b conveys
neither a veering away from an intended course (in the way that my crossing out a
chord, highlighted within a box, does in 6.4) nor even that there is an intended
course targeting C. In addition, the juxtaposition of G and V/E appears to grant
the G a higher hierarchical status than the structural dominant. Note that the B
dominant chord of 114, because it resides within the tonal sphere of goal E, is
absent from the representations in his figs. 3.5 and 3.6; and though a V appears
and is circled in his fig. 3.8b, it there pales in comparison with the bold
presentation of circled E, a, F, g, and G. My discomfort with this visual
presentation corresponds exactly to a similar sentiment expressed in my
assessment of the early nineteenth-century author Gottfried Weber’s analytical
procedure in TAH (p. 147 and 6.7).
23. A whole step in one voice occurs at the prelude’s outset: B>A in measures 1 and
2. Consequently a parallel progression of diminished – rather than minor –
chords ensues. Given their role in filling in a broader tonic expanse, there is no
one “correct” way to spell the progression’s internal chords. In fact, Chopin
shows no predilection even to spell them using a sixth and a third above the
bass, as I have done in 6.5.
24. Parallel progressions of diminished seventh chords descending in half steps
were sufficiently commonplace by the beginning of the nineteenth century to
be featured in the harmony textbook used at the Conservatoire National de
Musique in Paris: Charles-Simon Catel’s Traité d’harmonie [1802]. See TAH,
3.11b.
25. One might propose an alternative hypothesis in which the surging I➔ is asserted
earlier – at the end of measure 3 (G♯-B-D-F♮, with B locally embellished by
neighbor C) – and then prolonged through the end of measure 8. (This
hypothesis is closely allied with Schenker’s reading, published in London and
Rodman, “Musical Genre,” p. 119.) One could accommodate that view by
spelling the third tenor note in 6.5 as G♯ and adjusting the slurring. However,
I do not hear measure 3 as anything other than an interior element of an
expansive downward glide. Thus I stand by my reading as presented in 6.5.
26. Though a minority opinion during the nineteenth century, this perspective is not
without historical precedent: see TAH, 3.4b and 7.14c. Dmitri Tymoczko’s A
Geometry of Music, fig. 8.5.5 (p. 287), offers the antithesis of my perspective:
seventeen analytical symbols in a total of five keys over the course of the phrase.
27. Two distinct levels of hierarchy are at play here. Several bona fide passing
chords (such as E-G-C♯-A♯[B♭] in measure 4) connect the perimeter tonic
chords of measures 1 and 8; while at the surface level the gradual falling-into-
place of those various passing chords results in a range of incidental
simultaneities that perform a connective role between the individual passing
chords. For example, E-G♯-D-B at the beginning of measure 4 should not be
interpreted as I➔ even though the ultimate goal of the descending parallel
progression is, in fact, a form of I➔. (On this point, I disagree with Schenker’s
analysis in the Oster Collection, cited above.)
28. Note the lovely motivic association between G>F♯ and C>B in measure 12. The
latter occurs twice (corresponding to the B<B octave that began the first phrase
during the upbeat to measure 1), with C embellished by appoggiatura D the
second time. (That is, the D>C>B triplet should be interpreted as a layering of
neighboring embellishments: C embellishes B, whereas D embellishes C. It makes
no sense from a Schenkerian perspective to process the triplet – as London and

Rodman do – as a filled-in unfolding of the third D♮ B
, since D♯ – not D♮ – is a
member of the dominant harmony prolonged since measure 10.) The C>B
neighbor reiterates the bass motion of measures 9 through 12 and is then taken
up by the melody during measure 13, as in measure 1.
29. London and Rodman, “Musical Genre.”
30. Regarding the critical G♯-B-D-F♮ chord at the end of measure 8, Lerdahl’s vii°/a
reading (in his fig. 3.20b) is similar to my surging tonic (I➔) reading. We agree
that it is a chord that potently targets the A minor chord of measure 9. In my
view London and Rodman’s “Schenkerian” reading misses the point: the ♭vii7
label in their ex. 1 (presented instead as “vii7” within quotation marks in their
commentary on p. 102) pertains to the D-F♮-A-C chord of 81, from which they
proceed directly to measure 9’s iv6, omitting consideration of the G♯-B-D-F♮
chord altogether at this level. (They propose a subdominant prolongation from
51 through 92.) In the succeeding paragraph of their commentary they do
mention the I➔ chord, labeling it vii°7/iv. It appears in the foreground layer of
their ex. 1 as a connective chord between ♯vii7 and iv6. Since they were
attempting to construct a Schenkerian analysis of the work, it is curious that
they did not take into account that Schenker employed only one Roman numeral
for all of measures 7 and 8: I♯ below a D-F♮-G♯-B chord. (Though Schenker’s
analysis in the Oster Collection is sketchy, on this point the perspective is clear:
the measure numbers 7–8 sit squarely underneath a I♯3 numeral – not off to the
side, as in the botched London and Rodman transcription.)
31. Schachter, “The Prelude in E Minor,” and Schachter, “The Triad as Place and
Action.”
32. That third is traversed both in an interior strand during measures 18 through
20, as indicated by the slurred noteheads in 6.6, and in the upper register
(where a beam is employed) during measures 18 through 24.
33. London and Rodman, “Musical Genre,” p. 104.
34. Schachter, “The Prelude in E Minor.”
35. Though his Roman numeral analysis does not acknowledge F♯’s presence in
the chord, I think Schachter would agree with me that by this point the IV Stufe
has shifted to what I refer to as its 6 phase, with F♯ serving as the sixth above
root A. (The Arabic 6 at measure 16 of Schachter’s 1994 graph instead
indicates that the iv chord initially sounds in an inverted state.)
Chapter 7: Prelude in G Minor (op. 28, no. 22)

1. Analyzing Schubert (Cambridge University Press, 2011).
2. Interpreting Chopin: Analysis and Performance (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014).
3. “Ambiguity of Tonal Meaning in Chopin’s Prelude Opus 28, No. 22,”
Festschrift for Steve Larson, Music Theory Online 18/3 (September 2012). A
revised version of this article appears on pages 111 through 124 of Interpreting
Chopin.
4. This relationship between B♭ and A is replicated later, in measures 24 and 32
(treble clef). The gesture collides with the dominant’s embellishing chord (B♭-
E♭-G) during 342.
5. In that an evolution of the type occurs most often in the context of II
proceeding to a major dominant, it is opportune that the subdominant to
which I proceeds is of major quality (atypical in a minor-key context).
6. Hood employs the word “ambiguous” or one of its derivatives a total of twenty-six
times within her six-page essay. Indeed, when I was younger I found many
passages in Chopin’s music ambiguous, though I did not extol ambiguity as an
important compositional feature. As I have aged I have found less and less of the
music that I study to be ambiguous. I regard this as a sign that my analytical
acumen has developed (to the point that I now willingly publish my analyses,
something I refrained from doing during that earlier phase of my career).
Certainly some readers (including Hood) might suggest instead that an
undesirable rigidity has invaded my thinking – that I too summarily reject
alternative readings that might hold potential. Though I do not celebrate
ambiguity as Hood does, I appreciate the sincerity of her conviction.
7. Hood’s graphs and her commentary present somewhat different conceptions. Her
paragraph 16 asserts: “The vii°7 at the beginning of measure 8 encourages us to
hear the A as part of a dominant-functioning harmony. Yet, at the same time,
because B♭–A–G sounds as an upbeat (as it did previously) we can also hear it as
prolonging tonic harmony, so the A is heard as a passing tone that resolves to G . . .
it can now be interpreted in two mutually-exclusive ways.” Whereas I am using the
comparatively unambiguous context of measures 8 and 9 to come to terms with
measures 0 and 1, she is imposing her interpretation of measures 0 and 1 upon
measures 8 and 9 even though, as she acknowledges, the chordal accompaniment
does not support it. A review of the graphs from chapters 1 and 3, above, reveals
that thirteen of the forty-three mazurkas explored there do not begin on a tonic
chord. Whereas I suggest that this prelude conforms to that 30 percent option,
Hood is endeavoring to hear the work in terms of the alternative 70 percent option,
despite Chopin’s instructive presentation within measures 8 and 9.
8. Mehrdeutigkeit (multiple meaning) is explored in TAH, pp. 155–161.
9. Compounding my confusion, the score labeled A2 in Hood’s ex. 2 places a I
numeral (why capital?) at the end of measure 33 (note that the bar line between
measures 32 and 33 was inadvertently omitted) rather than where I think it was
intended – below the G at the end of measure 34.
10. Certainly the author of an article whose title begins with the word “Ambiguity”
should be extra careful in proofreading, lest unintended additional instances of
ambiguity divert the reader’s attention, as it has mine. The remarks in this chapter
correspond to the article’s state on October 12, 2012, not to the version later
published in Interpreting Chopin (after Harmony in Chopin went into production).
Chapter 8: Prelude in C♯ Minor (op. 45)

1. “Chopin and ‘La note bleue’: An Interpretation of the Prelude Op. 45,” Music
& Letters 78 (1997), pp. 233–253; as “Chopin et ‘la note bleue’: Une
interprétation du Prélude opus 45,” in Eigeldinger, J.-J., L’univers musical de
Chopin (Paris: Fayard, 2000), pp. 169–188.
2. “‘Rounding Up the Usual Suspects?’: The Enigmatic Narrative of Chopin’s
C-sharp Minor Prelude,” in Engaging Music: Essays in Music Analysis, ed.
D. Stein (Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 236–252.
3. See TAH, 3.2.
4. Ibid., 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5.
5. When working on this article, Eigeldinger regarded the prelude’s cadenza as
occurring in measure 80. Yet in the subsequent Peters edition (2003), which he
edited, the cadenza is counted as a continuation of measure 79. (The latter view
conforms to the National Edition as well.) Consequently I have tacitly lowered
all of the article’s measure numbers higher than 79 by one in my commentary.
6. Eigeldinger hears echoes of his tetrachords (with some chromatic inflection, and
curiously breaking off in the middle of the second one) in the forthcoming main
section’s bass. In note 29 he asks readers to ponder the following series of stepwise-
descending bass pitches: C♯ (51), B (91), A (131), G♮ (171), F♯ (191), and E (231). I
reject the placement of G♮ within this series, in that the G♮ chord resides within the
domain of a hierarchically deeper D♮ chord; and I can make sense of E only as an
internal component of an F♯>E>D♮ third whose goal D♮ is elided at 271 (as will be
explained in due course). I will argue that the C♯-to-D♮ contour of this region
corresponds to the C♯-to-D♮ seventh introduced during the introduction.
7. Readers will find the relationship I propose between the introduction and the
main section of this prelude reminiscent of the correlation I draw between the
introduction and exposition of Schubert’s Symphony in B Minor (“Unfinished”),
movement 1. See Schubert, chapter 7.
8. Smith acknowledges this D♮ chord without assigning it a significant role (p. 251).
In his score 20.1 he places the following symbol underneath measure 4 (not
measure 3): [➔D?].
9. In that editor Deborah Stein introduces Smith’s essay by informing readers that
he “has long been interested in . . . the theories of Heinrich Schenker” (p. 236),
impressionable young readers (the book’s intended audience) might assume that
there is something Schenkerian about Smith’s analysis. That assumption would be
incorrect. Any Schenker-influenced reading would acknowledge the foundational
role of I V♯ I within the introduction, as conveyed in 8.1b.
10. Though the bold type in which the words rounded binary form are printed
prods readers to look up the term in the glossary provided at the end of the
volume in which Smith’s essay appears, the definition found there (p. 331) and
the formal description of the prelude in his essay do not correspond.
11. Smith’s word “retransition” corresponds to the German word “Rückleitung” in

Hugo Leichtentritt’s analysis of the prelude. See his Analyse der Chopin’schen
Klavierwerke, 2 vols. (Berlin: M. Hesse, 1921–1922), vol. 1, pp. 177–179.
12. As I did also in my critique of Lerdahl (note 22 on pp. 274–275), I trace my
discomfort with this visualization back to a similar sentiment expressed in my
assessment of the early nineteenth-century author Gottfried Weber’s
analytical procedure in TAH (p. 147 and 6.7).
13. It is important to keep in mind that the F♮ chord of measures 55 through 63 is a
wobble-infiltrated mutation of F♯, and not a misspelled E♯ chord.
Consequently Smith’s application of the word “mediant” in his n. 16 (p. 241)
is entering dangerous territory, in my view. Likewise, Gunner Rischel’s Roman
numeral III (within the progression III IV II V I) is off the mark. (See his
“Tonal analyse,” Musik & Forskning 14 (1988–1989), p. 127.)
14. The cadenza’s emphasis upon the D♯ nodal point in part compensates for the
brevity of that chord (measure 65) during the initial presentation of the main
section.
15. In the glossary of Engaging Music, the volume in which Smith’s essay appears,
editor Deborah Stein distinguishes two different meanings for the word
“Reprise”: “a repeated section” or “the repetition of opening material later in
the piece” (p. 331). In the context of my one-part form, I use the word in the
former sense; in the context of his idiosyncratic rounded binary form, Smith
uses it in the latter sense. I suspect that Eigeldinger intends the “repeated
section” meaning as well, though the terseness of his commentary leaves that
open to question.
Chapter 9: Ballade in F Minor (op. 52)

1. Laufer’s essay, “On Chopin’s Fourth Ballade,” is published in Keys to the
Drama: Nine Perspectives on Sonata Form, ed. G. Sly (Farnham: Ashgate,
2009), pp. 157–175. Another substantial account of the ballade (from a
contrasting perspective) that readers might wish to pursue concurrently is
Michael Klein’s “Chopin’s Fourth Ballade as Musical Narrative,” Music Theory
Spectrum 26 (2004), pp. 23–55.
2. Before proceeding to publication, Laufer presented his analysis at the Fourth
International Schenker Symposium (Mannes College of Music, New York,
March 17, 2006). The longhand examples were printed on pages that measure
11 by 17 inches. Typeset for publication with no changes in layout, the same
examples were reduced so as to fit onto pages that measure approximately 6 by 9
inches.
3. My reading of the work embraces this conventional flow from the tonic to the
dominant. In his “Chopin’s Modular Forms” in Variations on the Canon:
Essays on Music from Bach to Boulez in Honor of Charles Rosen on His
Eightieth Birthday, ed. R. Curry, D. Gable, and R. L. Marshall (University of

Rochester Press, 2008), pp. 198–199, Robert P. Morgan proposes that the
theme ends instead with “a full cadence in iv” followed by a “brief, half-
measure transition back to V of F minor following the end of the theme.”
That perspective coincides with Laufer’s analysis, to be explored below.
4. In his “Ambiguity and Reinterpretation in Chopin,” Chopin Studies 2, ed.
J. Rink and J. Samson (Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 140–160,
Edward T. Cone savors Chopin’s treatment of the ballade’s initial C chord:
what may at first seem to function as the dominant of an F tonic arriving in
measure 2 (displayed as one of two analytical hypotheses in his ex. 8.1) is
tonicized for several measures, after which it reveals its role as dominant – of
the F tonic that emerges in measure 8. Cone projects the conviction that
Chopin “wished us to hear” the passages as “deliberately ambiguous”
(p. 141). I endorse an alternative perspective on this issue. Whereas for
many analysts a chord such as C-E♮-G-B♭ automatically will be labeled as V7
(either as a dominant or as an “applied” dominant, here V7/IV), I am
comfortable with such a chordal configuration emerging at any point where
a descending-fifth root succession occurs. Chromatic pitches often are
incorporated so as to enhance the forward momentum generated when a
chord surges, without concurrently signaling diatonic pitch content within
any key. Consequently when listening I embrace the energetic initiative of a I➔
or II➔ or VI➔ without concurrently expecting that the chords they target will
function as a tonic at any level. Clearly this is a matter that defies resolution.
Though Cone’s strongly worded conviction – that a “convincing analysis”
“must reveal” such an intention – is reasonable, certainly others may pursue
alternative perspectives with equal justification.
5. Since the cadence will be a major point of contention between Laufer and me, I
mention here that Lauri Suurpää’s analysis in “The Path from Tonic to
Dominant in the Second Movement of Schubert’s String Quintet and in
Chopin’s Fourth Ballade,” Journal of Music Theory 44 (2000), pp. 468–469,
similarly proposes an interruption at V^2 ♮ . Suurpää does not acknowledge
Chopin’s establishment of A♭ as the Kopfton prior to the cadence. Instead he
proposes a novel – and in my view doubtful – structural reading, ascending
from ^1 to ^
2. (The establishment of ^ 3 as the Kopfton in the context of a mediant
chord, as I propose occurs in measure 13, is demonstrated by Schenker in FC,
fig. 38a and fig. 40, ex. 10.) For a reading more in line with Laufer’s, see William
Rothstein’s “Ambiguity in the Themes of Chopin’s First, Second, and Fourth
Ballades,” Intégral 8 (1994), p. 25, where he proposes that “the dominants in
question are not typical half cadences. The large-scale harmonic progression of
each variation – basically I-(III)-IV-V7 – closes into the tonic at the beginning
of the next variation, so that a chain of overlapping progressions results.” My
subtly different reading proposes that a hierarchically deep C, E♮, and G during
the second half of measure 22 collide with a foreground B♭ that serves as a local
voice-leading connection to the following I.
6. Though what ensues in measures 23ff. turns out to be a modified repetition of
A1 rather than A2, listeners might reasonably surmise that the work has
embarked upon the post-interruption half of a binary structure at that point.
7. The flourish of notes following the fermata chord in measure 134 suggests that
Chopin might likewise have intended the fermatas of measure 7 as an
invitation to some improvised embellishment. Nowadays any deviation from
the printed score during a performance attracts inordinate attention, since
many members of the audience have heard numerous live or recorded
performances of the work already. Clearly that state of affairs was not in play
during Chopin’s lifetime. A modern performer might at least privately (and
perhaps even publicly) seek to regain that spontaneity through tasteful
additions to the printed score in contexts such as measure 7.
8. Laufer’s correlation of the D♭ tonicization to the already established B♭
subdominant echoes a reading presented by Carl Schachter in his review of
Jim Samson’s The Music of Chopin, Music Analysis 8 (1989), p. 190. On the
other hand, Laufer and I disagree with Schachter regarding how Chopin leads
onwards from D♭: we interpret the prominent chromatic line A♭<A♮<B♭<B♮ in
measures 191 through 194 as a connection between A♭ and B♮ (note the stems
in Laufer’s ex. 7.8a and 7.8d), in contrast to Schachter’s restoration of IV
(“through a 5–6 motion”) with the arrival of B♭ in measure 193.
9. The F at the downbeat of measure 187 functions as an incidental dissonance – a
dissonance that may resolve without a change of chord. (See TAH, p. 19.) A
descent to E♭ is avoided both at that point and during the chord with bass C
that follows.
10. As often is the case when a modulo 12 procedure is presented in music
notation designed for modulo 7 conceptions, some enharmonic correction is
required. Whereas three of the strands represented in 9.7 display two major
seconds (F>E♭>D♭, B♮>A♮>G, and D♮>C>B♭), the upper strand appears
awkwardly as A♭>G♭>E♮. Using modulo 12 numbers that line would be
represented without enharmonic seam as 8>6>4. One attains the downbeat
embellishing chord within the prevailing F Minor key (modulo 7), enters the
domain of modulo 12 for the -2-2 parallel progression, and then thrusts the
goal chord back into the modulo 7 environment.
Chapter 10: Barcarolle in F♯ Major (op. 60)

1. “The Barcarolle: Auskomponierung and Apotheosis,” in Chopin Studies, ed.
J. Samson (Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 195–219. Readers also
should consult David Kopp’s “On Performing Chopin’s Barcarolle,” Music
Theory Online 20/4 (2014), which appeared after the present book went to
press.
2. The parallel progression’s upper line, which traverses all the diatonic steps
within a G♯>G♯ octave, is highly embellished, particularly with incomplete
upper neighbors following the principal pitches, beginning with the last pitch
in measure 1: F♯<G♯. Two of those upper neighbors are themselves
embellished by an appoggiatura: B<C♯ at 24 becomes B<D♯>C♯ and G♯<A♯ at
32 becomes G♯<B>A♯. Consequently only the interior B during 32 – a step
below Middle C – will be perceived as the chordal seventh. It is in that register
that it resolves to A♯ during measure 3.
3. Though the interior line’s G♯ sounds in the upper register at 91, it may be
imagined over a wider span. An uncommon juxtaposition of B♯ and B♮ occurs
during 92–3. Whereas the upper strand proceeds as B♯<C♯, with an intervening
D♯ appoggiatura, the appoggiatura that intervenes between the inner strand’s
GÜ and A♯ is B♮.
4. It appears to me that Rink’s graph and his textual commentary are not exactly in
sync. In his ex. 4, bass F♯>F♯ (bound by a dotted slur spanning measures 6
through 24) is filled in by stemmed noteheads corresponding to a descending F♯
Major scale, missing only E♯. That notation makes V/V appear subordinate to the
vi and V that surround it, with V serving as an internal point within the broad
stepwise trajectory. (Rink relates that “each pitch in the scale . . . supports a
tonicized harmony with the exception of the penultimate, G♯” (p. 200).) Yet at
an earlier point in his commentary Rink refers to “the resolution from the tonic to
the dominant in bar 15” (p. 198), a notion that I endorse and convey much more
resolutely in my 10.1 than he does in his ex. 4. In particular, that reading would
warrant that V/V (my II♯) be interpreted as hierarchically deeper than vi (I6).
5. Though Rink’s foreground graph of the region (his ex. 9) contains a greater
abundance of bass stems, it nevertheless does not deploy Schenker’s
characteristic S-shaped slur (F♯ via G♯ to C♯), which would decisively clarify
the hierarchical relationship between D♯ and G♯.
6. During the introduction each of the parallel progression’s three principal
strands traverses an octave (fifth>fifth, third>third, and seventh>seventh),
and so a uniform descent ensues. During the prolongation of the tonic’s
upper-third chord during the B section, the three principal strands connect
different elements of the prolonged chord (fifth>root, third>fifth, and
root>third). Consequently the line emanating from E♯ gets off to a slow
start, since it has a shorter distance to cover. The interior strand does not
pursue a maximally linear course, which would be CÜ>(B♯)>A♯>(G♯)>F♯>E♯.
(Chopin omitted the notes enclosed within parentheses.)
7. The proposed broad F♯<G♯<A♯ third (upward-stemmed noteheads in 10.2)
develops out of a reading of measures 28 and 29 that incorporates unfolded
local thirds: F♯>D♯ (fourth and sixth soprano noteheads of measure 28) and
G♯>E♯ (fourth and sixth soprano noteheads of measure 29). The situation is
complicated by the linear activity of the interior strands. Whereas internal

A♯>G♯>F♯ in measure 28 reinforces the F♯>E♮>D♯ above (both connecting
members of the F♯➔ and the following B chords), the D♯ of an E♮>D♯>C♯ third
(seventh to fifth within the F♯➔ chord) collides with the sounding of F♯ during
283, and that third’s C♯ (the note to which D♯ passes) sounds only an octave
lower.
8. Rink lists what I refer to as the B section as a ‘Development’ – single quotes
included – in his formal synopsis of the Barcarolle (his fig. 1).
9. I explore this issue in detail in TAH, pp. 162–165, incorporating analyses of a
passage from Chopin’s Prelude in D♭ Major by Schenker and by Schoenberg
[6.21a–b]. The C♭ in the Prelude’s measure 9 is the equivalent of the E♮ in the
Barcarolle’s measure 17.
10. As suggested above, a comparison with 3.6a, an analysis of the Mazurka in B
Major (op. 63, no. 1) – just three opus numbers after the Barcarolle! – is
encouraged.
11. Rink’s presentation of the A♯➔ chord of 94 in his foreground graph (example
9) is botched: whereas the chord’s A♯, CÜ, and E♯ are all accounted for, the
magic is missing because F♯’s ascent to G♯ is neglected. All the pitches of A♯
in 302 are accounted for in his fig. 11.
12. The chromatic variants of an upper-third chord were introduced in Schubert,
pp. 59–60. For F♯ Major’s upper-third A♯-C♯-E♯, the first chromatic variant is
A♯-CÜ-E♯, the second is A♮-C♯-E♮, and the third is A♮-C♮-E♮.
13. Likely some Schenkerian analysts would instead interpret this passage as III5−6
(with the 6-phase chord unfurled into 53 position) proceeding to II➔. The
correlation with Chopin’s treatment of the B section’s upper-third chord has
influenced my willingness to posit a full-fledged return of I in measure 76. As
with the tonic chord of 174, its duration is breathtakingly brief. Nevertheless, it
represents the completion of broad tonic prolongation, in this case
embellished by an uncommonly potent and extended upper-third chord.
14. As commonly occurs in the shift of a minor third, the diminished-seventh
sonority is called into service. From E-G♯-B-D♮ in measure 72 Chopin
proceeds to G♯-B-D♮-F♮ at the end of measure 75. Resolution to A♮-C♯-E♮
seems imminent. Yet in terms of what follows, this chord behaves as if its
spelling had been E♯-G♯-B-D♮, representing C♯➔. That alternative
interpretation is confirmed by the arrival of root C♯ at 761.
15. This 64 ♮ embellishment stems from DB ♯ at 64.
16. See, for example, the progression explored in 6.4.
17. Though foreground Roman numerals are not provided, it appears that Rink
intends a tonicization of C♯ Major via what I would label as I➔ IV♮ V7 I.
18. Rink’s positioning of a PAC under his measure number 91 in ex. 3 is not borne
out by the content of that measure in Chopin’s score. The cadence is
indisputably at 931, as he proposes in his ex. 7 (contradicting his exx. 1 and 3).
284 Note to page 251
19. Bass D♮>C♯>B♯ during measure 101 coordinates with the tenor register’s
B♯<C♯<(D(♯)) in a chromaticized voice exchange. The absent pitch above B♯
could be imagined either as D♮ (for an exotic version of II ) or as D♯ (for a
version of II➔ whose ninth A♯ will resolve, as an incidental dissonance, to G♯
during measure 102). Rink has included the passing note C♯ in his fig. 15 but
not the B♯ to which it passes. The harmonic progression is complicated by a
collision. The VI➔ chord at the downbeat of measure 101 is expanded by
means of a chromatic filling-in of its seventh-to-fifth span: C♯>B♯>B♮>A♯[B♭].
Chopin inaugurates the succession to II before that third’s traversal is
complete. Consequently between the harmonic entities D♯-FÜ-A♯-C♯ and
D♮-F♯-A♮-B♯ (a normative succession from a surging I6 to an evolved II )
the pitches D♮, G♮, and B♮ happen to sound at the same time. That is a purely
incidental consequence of these colliding voice-leading initiatives, in no sense
asserting a ♮II5♮ (“Neapolitan”) function, which Rink proposes (with his label
♭II6 ) as the harmonic support for background ^ 4 (p. 210).
4
List of references to music examples
1.1 5, 7, 12, 73 1.23 37, 41, 71, 84

1.2 12, 44 1.24 39, 41, 58
1.3 9, 12, 23, 31, 74 1.25 37, 84
1.4 12, 41, 79, 83, 269 1.26 41, 86
1.5 12, 49 1.27 63
1.6 12, 14, 81, 256 2.1 50
1.7 49 2.3 50, 53, 95
1.8 50 2.4 53
1.9 11, 32, 86 2.6 53, 83
1.10 27, 60, 257 2.15 160
1.11 29, 30, 41, 74 2.16 114
1.12 52 2.18 73, 74
1.13 54 2.19 74
1.14 56 3.2 96, 98, 99, 101, 236
1.15 32, 42 3.3 99, 101, 236
1.16 67 3.4 11, 236
1.17 25, 53 3.5 111, 236
1.18 69 3.6 236, 283
1.19 31, 65 3.7 236
1.20 41, 45 3.8 236
1.21 77 3.10 273
1.22 32, 62 6.4 236, 283
Select bibliography
Agawu, V. K., “Concepts of Closure and Chopin’s Opus 28,” Music Theory
Spectrum 9 (1987), pp. 1–17
Anson-Cartwright, M., “Concepts of Closure in Tonal Music: A Critical Study,”
Theory and Practice 32 (2007), pp. 1–17
BaileyShea, M., “Teaching Agency and Narrative Analysis: The Chopin Preludes
in E Minor and E Major,” Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy 25 (2011),
pp. 9–36
Barbag-Drexler, I., “Zur Harmonik Chopins,” Musikerziehung 27 (1973–1974),
pp. 202–207
Bass, R., “Enharmonic Position Finding and the Resolution of Seventh Chords in
Chromatic Music,” Music Theory Spectrum 29 (2007), pp. 73–100
Beach, D. W., “Chopin’s Mazurka, Op. 17, No. 4,” Theory and Practice 2/3 (1977),
pp. 12–16
Bellman, J., Chopin’s Polish Ballade: Op. 38 as Narrative of National Martyrdom,
Oxford University Press, 2010
Berger, K., “The Form of Chopin’s Ballade, Op. 23,” 19th-Century Music 20 (1996–
1997), pp. 46–71
Biamonte, N., “Variations on a Scheme: Bach’s ‘Crucifixus’ and Chopin’s and
Scriabin’s E-Minor Preludes,” Intégral 26 (2012), pp. 47–89
Bronarski, L., Harmonika Chopina, Warsaw: Towarzystwo Wydawnicze Muzyki
Polskiej, 1935
“Le plus ‘chopinesque’ des accords de Chopin,” Schweizerische Musikzeitung 85
(1945), pp. 382–385
Brown, M., “The Diatonic and Chromatic in Schenker’s Theory of Harmonic
Relations,” Journal of Music Theory 30 (1986), pp. 1–33
Brown, M., Dempster, D., and Headlam, D., “The ♯IV(♭V) Hypothesis: Testing the
Limits of Schenker’s Theory of Tonality,” Music Theory Spectrum 19 (1997),
pp. 155–183
Burkhart, C., “The Polyphonic Melodic Line of Chopin’s B-Minor Prelude,”
in Chopin, Preludes, Op. 28, ed. T. Higgins, New York: Norton, 1973,
pp. 80–88
“Chopin’s ‘Concluding Expansions,’” in Nineteenth-Century Piano Music:
Essays in Performance and Analysis, ed. D. Witten, New York: Garland,
1997, pp. 95–116
“The Phrase Rhythm of Chopin’s A-flat Major Mazurka, Op. 59, No. 2,” in
Engaging Music: Essays in Music Analysis, ed. D. Stein, Oxford University
Press, 2005, pp. 3–12
Select bibliography 287
“The Two Curious Moments in Chopin’s E-flat Major Prelude,” in Structure

and Meaning in Tonal Music: Festschrift in Honor of Carl Schachter, ed.
L. P. Burstein and D. Gagné, Hillsdale, NY: Pendragon Press, 2006, pp. 5–18
Burstein, L. P., “Unraveling Schenker’s Concept of the Auxiliary Cadence,” Music
Theory Spectrum 27 (2005), pp. 159–185
Cascelli, A., “Schenker, Chopin’s Berceuse Op. 57 and the Rhetoric of Variations,”
Ad Parnassum: A Journal of Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Instrumental
Music 1/2 (2003), pp. 51–79
“Chopin as Salon Composer: Schenker’s Reception of Chopin,” in Chopin’s
Musical Worlds: The 1840s, ed. A. Szklener, Warsaw: Narodowy Instytut
Fryderyka Chopina, 2007, pp. 83–96
“Chopin’s Music and the Development of Schenker’s Analytical Thought,”
in Essays from the Fourth International Schenker Symposium, vol. 2, ed.
L. P. Burstein, L. Rogers, and K. M. Bottge, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 2013,
pp. 49–70
Chailley, J., “L’importance de Chopin dans l’évolution du langage harmonique,” in
The Book of the First International Musicological Congress Devoted to the
Works of Frédéric Chopin, Warszawa 16th – 22nd February 1960, ed. Z. Lissa,
Warsaw: Polish Scientific Publishers, 1963, pp. 30–43
Chołopow, J. N., “Besonderheiten von Chopins Harmonik im ästhetischen Kontext
der Frühromantik,” in Chopin and His Work in the Context of Culture, ed.
I. Poniatowska, Cracow: Polska Akademia Chopinowska, Narodowy Instytut
Fryderyka Chopina, Musica Iagellonica, 2003, vol. 1, pp. 313–326
“Über die Kompositionsgrundsätze bei Frédéric Chopin: Das Rätsel des
Finales der Sonate b-moll,” trans. M. W. Janssen, Chopin Studies 3
(1990), pp. 265–295
Chomiński, J. M., Preludia, Crakow: Polskie Wydawnictwo Muzyczne, 1950
Cinnamon, H., “New Observations on Voice Leading, Hemiola, and Their Roles in
Tonal and Rhythmic Structures in Chopin’s Prelude in B Minor, Op. 28,
No. 6,” Intégral 6 (1992), pp. 66–106
“E Major Harmony as Dominant or Mediant in Chopin’s Op. 10/1: Schenker’s
Graphs from Free Composition Reconsidered,” Indiana Theory Review 15
(1994), pp. 1–20
Cone, E. T., “Ambiguity and Reinterpretation in Chopin,” in Chopin Studies 2, ed.
J. Rink and J. Samson, Cambridge University Press, 1994, pp. 140–160
Damschroder, D., “Schubert, Chromaticism, and the Ascending 5–6 Sequence,”
Journal of Music Theory 50 (2006), pp. 253–275
Thinking About Harmony: Historical Perspectives on Analysis, Cambridge
University Press, 2008
Harmony in Schubert, Cambridge University Press, 2010
Review of “Beethoven’s Tempest Sonata: Perspectives of Analysis and
Performance” (ed. P. Bergé), Music Theory Online 16/2 (June 2010)
288 Select bibliography
“Schenker, Schubert, and the Subtonic Chord,” in A Music-Theoretical Matrix:

Essays in Honor of Allen Forte (Part II), ed. D. C. Berry, Gamut: Online
Journal of the Music Theory Society of the Mid-Atlantic 3 (2010), pp. 127–166
Harmony in Haydn and Mozart, Cambridge University Press, 2012
“Conspicuous 6-Phase Chords in the Closing Movement of Schubert’s Piano
Sonata in B-Flat Major (D. 960),” in Rethinking Schubert, ed. L. Byrne Bodley
and J. Horton, Oxford University Press, in press
Tonal Analysis: A Schenkerian Perspective, New York: W. W. Norton, forthcoming
Davis, A., “Chopin and the Romantic Sonata: The First Movement of Op. 58,”
Music Theory Spectrum 36 (2014), pp. 270–294
Deliège, C., “Pertinence du mètre musical,” Cahiers du CREM 1 (1986), pp. 7–20
DeLong, K., “Roads Taken and Retaken: Foreground Ambiguity in Chopin’s
Prelude in A-flat, Op. 28, No. 17,” Canadian University Music Review 11
(1991), pp. 34–49
Derfler, B., Single-Voice Transformations: A Model for Parsimonious Voice Leading,
Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010
Dommel-Diény, A., L’analyse harmonique en exemples de J.-S. Bach à Debussy:
Contribution à une recherche de l’interprétation: Chopin, Paris: Éditions
musicales Transatlantiques, 1970
Drabkin, W., “Chopin, Schenker, and ‘Musical Form,’” Ostinato rigore: Revue
internationale d’études musicales 15 (2000), pp. 173–186
Edlund, B., “Chopin’s A Major Prelude: Une pièce résistante,” in Analytical
Perspectives on the Music of Chopin, ed. A. Szklener, Warsaw: Narodowy
Instytut Fryderyka Chopina, 2003, pp. 167–183
Chopin: The Preludes and Beyond, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2013.
Eibner, F., “Chopins kontrapunktisches Denken,” in Chopin-Jahrbuch 1956, ed.
F. Zagiba, Vienna: Amalthea, 1956, pp. 103–122
“Die Stimmführung Chopins in der Darstellung Heinrich Schenkers,” in The
Book of the First International Musicological Congress Devoted to the Works of
Frédéric Chopin, Warszawa 16th – 22nd February 1960, ed. Z. Lissa, Warsaw:
Polish Scientific Publishers, 1963, pp. 145–167
“Über die Akkorde im Satz Chopins,” Chopin-Jahrbuch 1970, ed. F. Zagiba,
Vienna: Notring der wissenschaftlichen Verbände Österreichs, 1970, pp. 3–24
Eigeldinger, J.-J., “Chopin and ‘La note bleue’: An Interpretation of the Prelude Op.
45,” Music & Letters 78 (1997), pp. 233–253
L’univers musical de Chopin, Paris: Fayard, 2000
Eitan, Z., “Associative Convergence and the Structure of Chopin’s ‘Revolutionary’
Étude,” Israel Studies in Musicology 6 (1996), pp. 153–178
Federhofer, H., “Chopins Werk als Demonstrationsobjekt in Lehrbüchern der
Musiktheorie,” Chopin Studies 3 (1990), pp. 207–218
Galand, J., “Form, Genre, and Style in the Eighteenth-Century Rondo,” Music
Gołąb, M. “Über den Tristan-Akkord bei Chopin,” trans. B. Hirszenberg, Chopin

Studies 3 (1990), pp. 246–256
Chromatyka i tonalnoséc w muzyce Chopina. Cracow: Polskie Wydawnictwo
Muzyczne, 1991; as Chopins Harmonik: Chromatik in ihrer Beziehung zur
Tonalität, trans. B. Hirszenberg, Cologne: Bela Verlag, 1995
“Das Problem der Haupttonart in den Werken von Chopin,” trans. B. Hirszenberg,
Chopin Studies 5 (1995), pp. 235–244
Goldberg, H., Music in Chopin’s Warsaw, Oxford University Press, 2008
“Phrase Structure in Chopin’s Early Works in Light of Elsner’s Instruction,”
Indiana Theory Review 28 (2010), pp. 1–13
Gut, S., “Interférences entre le langage et la structure dans la Ballade en sol mineur
opus 23 de Chopin,” Chopin Studies 5 (1995), pp. 64–72
Hatten, R. S., “Performance and Analysis – or Synthesis: Theorizing Gesture,
Topics, and Tropes in Chopin’s F-Minor Ballade,” Indiana Theory Review
28 (2010), pp. 45–66
“Performing Expressive Closure in Structurally Open Contexts: Chopin’s Prelude
in A minor and the Last Two Dances of Schumann’s Davidsbündlertänze,”
Music Theory Online 20.4 (2014)
Helman, Z., “Chopin’s Harmonic Devices in 20th-Century Theoretical Thought,”
trans. E. Tarska, in Studies in Chopin, Warsaw: The Chopin Society, 1973, pp.
49–61
Hood, A., “Intraopus Connections in Chopin’s Nocturnes, Opus 27,” in The Sources of
Chopin’s Style: Inspirations and Contexts, ed. A. Szklener, Warsaw: Narodowy
“Ambiguity of Tonal Meaning in Chopin’s Prelude Opus 28, No. 22,” Festschrift
for Steve Larson, Music Theory Online 18/3 (September 2012)
Interpreting Chopin: Analysis and Performance, Farnham: Ashgate, 2014
Hoyt, R. J., “Harmonic Process, Melodic Process, and Interpretive Aspects of
Chopin’s Prelude in G Minor,” Indiana Theory Review 5/3 (1981–1982),
pp. 22–42
“Chopin’s Prelude in A Minor Revisited: The Issue of Tonality,” In Theory Only
8/6 (1984–1985), pp. 7–16
Hüppe, E., “Wiederholung als Prozeß: Struktur und Multiperspektivik in der
Polonaise-Fantaisie Op. 61,” Musiktheorie 19 (2004), pp. 159–176
Hyer, B., “Chopin and the In-F-Able,” in Musical Transformation and Musical
Intuition: Eleven Essays in Honor of David Lewin, ed. R. Atlas and M. Cherlin,
Roxbury, MA: Ovenbird, 1994, pp. 147–166
Jackson, R., “Concerning Chopin’s ‘Enigmatical’ Finale in the Sonata in B♭ Minor,
Op. 35,” Journal of Musicological Research 31 (2012), pp. 27–48
Kallberg, J., “Compatibility in Chopin’s Multi-Partite Publications,” Journal of
Musicology 2 (1983), pp. 391–417
“Chopin’s Last Style,” Journal of the American Musicological Society 38 (1985),
pp. 264–315; reprinted in Kallberg (1996), pp. 89–134
“The Rhetoric of Genre: Chopin’s Nocturne in G Minor,” 19th-Century Music

11 (1987–1988), pp. 238–261; reprinted in Kallberg (1996), pp. 3–29
“The Problem of Repetition and Return in Chopin’s Mazurkas,” in Chopin
Studies, ed. J. Samson, Cambridge University Press, 1988, pp. 1–23
Chopin at the Boundaries: Sex, History, and Musical Genre, Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1996
Kielian-Gilbert, M., “Motivic Transfer in Chopin’s A Minor Prelude,” In Theory
Only 9/1 (1986), pp. 21–32
“Chopiniana and Music’s Contextual Allusions,” in The Age of Chopin:
Interdisciplinary Inquiries, ed. H. Goldberg, Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 2004, pp. 162–200
Kinderman, W., “Directional Tonality in Chopin,” in Chopin Studies, ed.
J. Samson, Cambridge University Press, 1988, pp. 59–75
Kirsch, W., “Chopins Préludes e-Moll und h-Moll (op. 28): Ein Analyse- und
Interpretationsversuch,” in Studien zur Musikgeschichte: Eine Festschrift für
Ludwig Finscher, ed. A. Laubenthal, Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1995, pp. 572–581
Klein, M. “Chopin’s Fourth Ballade as Musical Narrative,” Music Theory Spectrum
26 (2004), pp. 23–55
Intertextuality in Western Art Music, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005
“Ironic Narrative, Ironic Reading,” Journal of Music Theory 53 (2009), pp. 95–136
“Chopin’s Dreams: The Mazurka in C♯ Minor, Op. 30, No. 4,” 19th-Century
Music 35 (2011–2012), pp. 238–260
Kopp, D., Chromatic Transformations in Nineteenth-Century Music, Cambridge
University Press, 2002
“On Performing Chopin’s Barcarolle,” Music Theory Online 20/4 (2014)
Körber, T. A., “Die ‘24 Etüden’ von Fryderyk Chopin: Versuch einer Erschließung
ihrer Tonalität,” in Fryderyk Chopin: Sein und Werk/Being and Work, ed.
E. Szczurko and T. Guz, Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2010, pp. 203–236
Korsyn, K., “Directional Tonality and Intertextuality: Brahms’s Quintet Op. 88 and
Chopin’s Ballade Op. 38,” in The Second Practice of Nineteenth-Century
Tonality, ed. W. Kinderman and H. Krebs, Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press, 1996, pp. 45–83
Kramer, L., “Romantic Meaning in Chopin’s Prelude in A Minor,” 19th-Century
Music 9 (1985–1986), pp. 145–155
“Chopin’s Rogue Pitches: Artifice, Personification, and the Cult of the Dandy in
Three Later Mazurkas,” 19th-Century Music 35 (2011–2012), pp. 224–237
Krebs, H., “Alternatives to Monotonality in Early Nineteenth-Century Music,”
“Tonal and Formal Dualism in Chopin’s Scherzo, Op. 31,” Music Theory
Spectrum 13 (1991), pp. 48–60
“Metrical Disturbances in Chopin’s ‘Third Ballade,’” in Analytical Perspectives
on the Music of Chopin, ed. A. Szklener, Warsaw: Narodowy Instytut
Fryderyka Chopina, 2003, pp. 139–155
Kresky, J., Tonal Music: Twelve Analytic Studies, Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1977
A Reader’s Guide to the Chopin Preludes, Westport, CN: Greenwood Press,
1994
Laufer, E., “On Chopin’s Fourth Ballade,” in Keys to the Drama: Nine Perspectives
on Sonata Form, ed. G. Sly, Farnham: Ashgate, 2009, pp. 157–175
Lehner, M., “‘So fängt nur Chopin an . . . so schließt nur er’: Initial- und
Finalgestaltung in Chopins Mazurken,” Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für
Musiktheorie 7/3 (2010), pp. 345–360
Leichtentritt, H., Analyse der Chopin’schen Klavierwerke, 2 vols., Berlin: M. Hesse,
1921–1922
Leikin, A., “Chopin’s A-minor Prelude and Its Symbolic Language,” International
Journal of Musicology 6 (1997), pp. 149–162
“Genre Connotations, Thematic Allusions, and Formal Implications in
Chopin’s Nocturne Op. 27 No. 1,” in Chopin and His Work in the Context
of Culture: Studies, 2 vols., ed. I. Poniotowska, Cracow: Polska Akademia
Chopinowska, Narodowy Instytut Fryderyka Chopina, Musica Iagellonica,
2003, vol. 1, pp. 232–242
Lerdahl, F., Tonal Pitch Space, Oxford University Press, 2001
Lester, J., “Harmonic Complexity and Form in Chopin’s Mazurkas,” Ostinato
rigore: Revue internationale d’études musicales 15 (2000), pp. 101–120
London, J., and Rodman, R., “Musical Genre and Schenkerian Analysis,” Journal of
Music Theory 42 (1998), pp. 101–124
McCreless, P., “The Pitch-Class Motive in Tonal Analysis: Some Historical and
Critical Observations,” Res musica 3 (2011), pp. 52–67
McKee, E., Decorum of the Minuet, Delirium of the Waltz: A Study of Dance–Music
Relations in 3/4 Time, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2012
Meeùs, N. “Techniques modales dans l’harmonie des Mazurkas de Chopin,”
Analyse musicale 21 (1990), pp. 102–112
“Questions de méthode: La Mazurka op. 7 no. 5 de Chopin,” Analyse musicale 32
(1993), pp. 58–63
Metzner, E., “Chopins Mazurken,” Musiktheorie 19 (2004), pp. 377–384
Meyer, L. B., Emotion and Meaning in Music, University of Chicago Press, 1957
Miketta, J., Mazurki Chopina, Cracow: Polskie Wydawnictwo Muzyczne, 1949
Morgan, R. P., “Chopin’s Modular Forms,” in Variations on the Canon: Essays on
Music from Bach to Boulez in Honor of Charles Rosen on His Eightieth
Birthday, ed. R. Curry, D. Gable, and R. L. Marshall, University of
Rochester Press, 2008, pp. 185–204
Narmour, E., “Melodic Structuring of Harmonic Dissonance: A Method for
Analysing Chopin’s Contribution to the Development of Harmony,” in
Chopin Studies, ed. J. Samson, Cambridge University Press, 1988, pp. 77–114
Neumeyer, D., “Themes and Lines: On the Question of Hierarchy in the Practice of
Linear Analysis,” Res musica 3 (2011), pp. 9–27
Newcomb, A., “The Polonaise-Fantasy and Issues of Musical Narrative,” in Chopin

Studies 2, ed. J. Rink and J. Samson, Cambridge University Press, 1994,
pp. 84–101
Noland, K. K., “‘Grundgestalt’ and Diatonic/Octatonic Interaction in Chopin’s F
Minor Ballade,” in Chopin’s Musical Worlds: The 1840s, ed. A. Szklener,
Warsaw: Narodowy Instytut Fryderyka Chopina, 2007, pp. 203–246
Nowik, W., “Chopins Mazurka F moll, Op. 68, Nr. 4: ‘Die letzte Inspiration des
Meisters,’” Archiv für Musikwissenschaft 30 (1973), pp. 109–127
“The Work of Frédéric Chopin in the Light of the Theoretical Conceptions of
the First Half of the Nineteenth Century,” in Analytical Perspectives on the
Music of Chopin, ed. A. Szklener, Warsaw: Narodowy Instytut Fryderyka
Chopina, 2003, pp. 227–240
Oster, E., “The Fantaisie-Impromptu: A Tribute to Beethoven,” Musicology 1
(1946–1947), pp. 407–429; reprinted in Aspects of Schenkerian Theory, ed.
D. Beach, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983, pp. 189–207
Parks, R. S., “Voice Leading and Chromatic Harmony in the Music of Chopin,”
Petty, J. V., “Register, Large-Scale Structure, and Piano Sound in Chopin’s Works
of the 1830s,” in Chopin in Paris: The 1830s, ed. A. Szklener, Warsaw:
Narodowy Instytut Fryderyka Chopina, 2006, pp. 145–162
Petty, W. C., “Chopin and the Ghost of Beethoven,” 19th-Century Music 22 (1998–
1999), pp. 281–299
Phipps, G., “A Response to Schenker’s Analysis of Chopin’s Étude, Opus 10, No. 12
Using Schoenberg’s Grundgestalt Concept,” The Musical Quarterly 69 (1983),
pp. 543–569
Quint, J., “Klang in Chopins Prélude op. 28, Nr. 2,” Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für
Musiktheorie 3 (2006), pp. 209–222
“Unendliche Skepsis: Offene Form in Chopins Mazurken,” Zeitschrift der
Gesellschaft für Musiktheorie 7/3 (2010), pp. 255–266
Réti, R., The Thematic Process in Music, New York: Macmillan, 1951
Rink, J., “The Barcarolle: Auskomponierung and Apotheosis,” in Chopin Studies,
ed. J. Samson, Cambridge University Press, 1988, pp. 195–219
“Chopin and Schenker: Improvisation and Musical Structure,” Chopin Studies 3
(1990), pp. 219–231
“Tonal Architecture in the Early Music,” in The Cambridge Companion to
Chopin, ed. J. Samson, Cambridge University Press, 1992, pp. 78–97
“Schenker and Improvisation,” Journal of Music Theory 37 (1993), pp. 1–54
“Authentic Chopin: History, Analysis and Intuition in Performance,” Chopin
Studies 2, ed. J. Rink and J. Samson, Cambridge University Press, 1994,
pp. 214–244
“Chopin’s Ballades and the Dialectic: Analysis in Historical Perspective,” Music
Analysis 13 (1994), pp. 99–115
“‘Structural Momentum’ and Closure in Chopin’s Nocturne Op. 9, No. 2,”

Chopin Studies 5 (1995), pp. 82–104; reprinted in Schenker Studies 2, ed.
C. Schachter and H. Siegel, Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 109–126
“Chopin’s Improvisatory Music: Style, Structure, Aesthetics,” Ostinato rigore:
Revue internationale d’études musicales 15 (2000), pp. 7–17
Rogers, M. R., “Chopin, Prelude in A Minor, Op. 28, No. 2,” 19th-Century Music 4
(1980–1981), pp. 245–250
Rosen, C., “The First Movement of Chopin’s Sonata in B♭ Minor, Op. 35,”
19th-Century Music 14/1 (1990–1991), pp. 60–66
The Romantic Generation, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995
Rothgeb, J., “Chopin’s C-Minor Nocturne, Op. 48, No. 1, First Part: Voice Leading
and Motivic Content,” Theory and Practice 5/2 (1980), pp. 26–31
Rothstein, W., “Phrase Rhythm in Chopin’s Nocturnes and Mazurkas,” in Chopin
Studies, ed. J. Samson, Cambridge University Press, 1988, pp. 115–141
Phrase Rhythm in Tonal Music, New York: Schirmer, 1989; reprint edn., Ann
Arbor: Musicalia, 2007
“Ambiguity in the Themes of Chopin’s First, Second, and Fourth Ballades,”
Intégral 8 (1994), pp. 1–50
“The Form of Chopin’s Polonaise-Fantasy,” in Music Theory in Concept and
Practice, ed. J. M. Baker, D. W. Beach, and J. W. Bernard, University of
Rochester Press, 1997, pp. 337–359
“Chopin and the B-Major Complex: A Study in the Psychology of
Composition,” Ostinato rigore: Revue internationale d’études musicales 15
(2000), pp. 149–172
“Like Falling Off a Log: Rubato in Chopin’s Prelude in A-flat Major (Op. 28, No.
17),” Music Theory Online 11/1 (2005)
“Circular Motion in Chopin’s Late B-Major Nocturne (Op. 62, No. 1),” in Structure
and Meaning in Tonal Music: Festschrift in Honor of Carl Schachter, ed.
L. P. Burstein and D. Gagné, Hillsdale, NY: Pendragon Press, 2006, pp. 19–32
Salzer, F., Structural Hearing: Tonal Coherence in Music, 2 vols., New York: Boni,
1952; reprint edn., New York: Dover, 1962
“Chopin’s Nocturne in C-Sharp Minor, Op. 27, No. 1,” The Music Forum 2
(1970), pp. 283–297
“Chopin’s Étude in F Major, Opus 25, No. 3: The Scope of Tonality,” The Music
Forum 3 (1973), pp. 281–290
Samson, J., The Music of Chopin, Oxford University Press, 1985
“The Composition-Draft of the Polonaise-Fantasy: The Issue of Tonality,” in
Chopin Studies, ed. J. Samson, Cambridge University Press, 1988, pp. 41–58
“Chopin and Genre,” Music Analysis 8 (1989), pp. 213–231
“Chopin’s F Sharp Impromptu: Notes on Genre, Style and Structure,” Chopin
Studies 3 (1990), pp. 297–304
Chopin: The Four Ballades, Cambridge University Press, 1992
“Chopin Reception: Theory, History, Analysis,” in Chopin Studies 2, ed. J. Rink

and J. Samson, Cambridge University Press, 1994, pp. 1–17
“The Second Ballade: Historical and Analytical Perspectives,” Chopin Studies 5
(1995), pp. 73–81
“Chopin’s Alternatives to Monotonality: A Historical Perspective,” in The
Second Practice of Nineteenth-Century Tonality, ed. W. Kinderman and
H. Krebs, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1996, pp. 34–44
“Chopin and the Traditions of Pedagogy,” in New Paths: Aspects of Music Theory
and Aesthetics in the Age of Romanticism, Leuven University Press, 2009,
pp. 115–127
Schachter, C., “Chopin’s Fantasy, Op. 49: The Two-Key Scheme,” in Chopin
Studies, ed. J. Samson, Cambridge University Press, 1988, pp. 221–253;
reprinted in Unfoldings: Essays in Schenkerian Theory and Analysis, ed.
J. N. Straus, Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 260–288
Review of The Music of Chopin by Jim Samson and The Music of Brahms by
Michael Musgrave, Music Analysis 8 (1989), pp. 187–191
“Either/Or,” in Schenker Studies, ed. H. Siegel, Cambridge University Press,
1990, pp. 165–179; reprinted in Unfoldings: Essays in Schenkerian Theory
and Analysis, ed. J. N. Straus, Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 121–133
“Chopin’s Prelude in D Major, Op. 28, No. 5: Analysis and Performance,”
Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy 8 (1994), pp. 27–45
“The Prelude in E Minor Op. 28 No. 4: Autograph Sources and Interpretation,”
in Chopin Studies 2, ed. J. Rink and J. Samson, Cambridge University Press,
1994, pp. 161–182
“Structure as Foreground: ‘Das Drama des Ursatzes,’” in Schenker Studies 2, ed.
C. Schachter and H. Siegel, Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 298–314
“The Triad as Place and Action,” Music Theory Spectrum 17 (1995), pp. 149–169;
reprinted in Unfoldings: Essays in Schenkerian Theory and Analysis, ed. J.
N. Straus, Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 161–183
“Counterpoint and Chromaticism in Chopin’s Mazurka in C♯ Minor, Opus 50,
Number 3,” Ostinato rigore: Revue internationale d’études musicales 15
(2000), pp. 121–134
“Idiosyncrasies of Phrase Rhythm in Chopin’s Mazurkas,” in The Age of Chopin:
Interdisciplinary Inquiries, ed. H. Goldberg, Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 2004, pp. 95–105
“Che Inganno! The Analysis of Deceptive Cadences,” in Essays from the Third
International Schenker Symposium, ed. A. Cadwallader, Hildesheim: Georg
Olms, 2006, pp. 279–298
Schenker, H., Harmonielehre: Neue musikalische Theorien und Phantasien I,
Stuttgart: Cotta, 1906; as Harmony (abridged), ed. O. Jonas, trans. E.
M. Borgese, University of Chicago Press, 1954
Der Tonwille: Flugblätter zum Zeugnis unwandelbarer Gesetze der Tonkunst,
einer neuen Jugend dargebracht, 2 vols., Vienna: A. J. Gutmann, Leipzig:
F. Hofmeister, 1921–1924; as Der Tonwille: Pamphlets in Witness of the

Immutable Laws of Music, Offered to a New Generation of Youth, ed.
W. Drabkin, trans. I. Bent et al., Oxford University Press, 2004–2005
Das Meisterwerk in der Musik: Ein Jahrbuch, 3 vols., Munich: Drei Masken,
1925, 1926, 1930; as The Masterwork in Music, ed. W. Drabkin, trans. I. Bent
et al., 3 vols., Cambridge University Press, 1994–1997
Fünf Urlinie-Tafeln, Vienna: Universal Edition, 1932; as Five Graphic Music
Analyses, ed. H. Weisse, New York: David Mannes Music School, [1933];
reprint edn., ed. F. Salzer, New York: Dover, 1969
Der freie Satz: Neue musikalische Theorien und Phantasien III, Vienna:
Universal, 1935; rev. edn., ed. O. Jonas, Vienna: Universal, 1956; as Free
Composition, trans. and ed. E. Oster, New York: Longman, 1979; reprint of
trans. edn., Stuyvesant, NY: Pendragon Press, 2001
The Oster Collection: Papers of Heinrich Schenker, New York Public Library,
Lincoln Center, New York
Schmalfeldt, J., In the Process of Becoming: Analytic and Philosophical
Perspectives on Form in Early Nineteenth-Century Music, Oxford University
Press, 2011
Smith, C. J., “On Hearing the Chopin Preludes as a Coherent Set: A Survey of Some
Possible Structural Models for Op. 28,” In Theory Only 1/4 (1975–1976),
pp. 5–16
“Towards the Construction of Intersecting Divergent Models for Chopin’s
‘Three Against Two’ Étude,” In Theory Only 1/3 (1975–1976), pp. 19–25
“Registering Distinctions: Octave Non-Equivalence in Chopin’s Butterfly
Etude,” In Theory Only 3/5 (1977–1978), pp. 32–40
“The Functional Extravagance of Chromatic Chords,” Music Theory Spectrum 8
(1986), pp. 94–139; response by D. Beach and reply by C. Smith in Music
“‘Rounding Up the Usual Suspects?’: The Enigmatic Narrative of Chopin’s
C-Sharp Minor Prelude,” in Engaging Music: Essays in Music Analysis, ed.
D. Stein, Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 236–252
Spicer, M. J., “Root Versus Linear Analysis of Chromaticism: A Comparative Study
of Selected Excerpts from the Oeuvres of Chopin,” College Music Symposium
36 (1996), pp. 138–147
Subotnik, R. R., “Romantic Music as Post-Kantian Critique: Classicism,
Romanticism, and the Concept of the Semiotic Universe,” in On Criticizing
Music: Five Philosophical Perspectives, ed. K. Price, Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1981, pp. 74–98
Sutcliffe, W. D., “Chopin’s Counterpoint: The Largo from the Cello Sonata, Opus
65,” The Musical Quarterly 83 (1999), pp. 114–133
Suurpää, L., “The Path from Tonic to Dominant in the Second Movement of
Schubert’s String Quintet and in Chopin’s Fourth Ballade,” Journal of Music
Theory 44 (2000), pp. 451–485
“Non-Congruent Temporal Functions in Chopin’s Nocturne Op. 62, No. 2,”

Dutch Journal of Music Theory: Tijdschrift voor Muziektheorie 16 (2011),
pp. 64–71
Swartz, A., “Folk Dance Elements in Chopin’s Mazurkas,” Journal of Musicological
Research 4 (1982–1983), pp. 417–425
Teboul, J.-C., “Les trois Études écrites pour la Méthode des Méthodes de Moscheles
et Fétis: Approche schenkérienne,” Ostinato rigore: Revue internationale
d’études musicales 15 (2000), pp. 249–263
Tomaszewski, M., “From Studies of the Resonance of Chopin’s Music: The Étude
in A Minor, Op. 25, No. 11 in the Light of Its Critical Interpretations,” trans.
M. A. Harley, Chopin Studies 7 (2000) pp. 94–127
Tuchowski, A., “Scherzo C Sharp Minor: The Problem of Structural Consistency
and Motivic Transformations,” Chopin Studies 5 (1995), pp. 190–197
“Chopin’s Work in the Light of Post-Schenkerian Methods,” in Analytical
Perspectives on the Music of Chopin, ed. A. Szklener, Warsaw: Narodowy
Tymoczko, D., A Geometry of Music: Harmony and Counterpoint in the Extended
Common Practice, Oxford University Press, 2011
Viljoen, N., “The Drone Bass and Its Implications for the Tonal Voice-Leading
Structure in Two Selected Mazurkas by Chopin,” Indiana Theory Review 6
(1982–1983), pp. 17–35
“The Motivic, Structural and Formal Implications of Mixture in Chopin’s
Mazurka Op. 30, No. 3,” South African Journal of Musicology 11 (1991), pp.
143–152
Witkowska-Zaremba, E., “Versification, Syntax and Form in Chopin’s Mazurkas,”
trans. M. Pilatowicz, Polish Music Journal 3 (2000)
Witten, N. D., “The Chopin Ballades: An Analytical Study,” D.M.A. dissertation,
Boston University, 1979
“The Coda Wagging the Dog: Tails and Wedges in the Chopin Ballades,” in
Nineteenth-Century Piano Music: Essays in Performance and Analysis, ed.
D. Witten, New York: Garland, 1997, pp. 117–185
Ya Deau, W. R., “Tonal and Formal Structure in Selected Larger Works of
Chopin,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, 1980
Yih, A., “Connecting Analysis and Performance: Practical Issues for Developing
an Effective Approach; A Case Study,” in Chopin in Paris: The 1830s,
ed. A. Szklener, Warsaw: Narodowy Instytut Fryderyka Chopina, 2006,
pp. 215–236
Yip, J, “Tonal and Formal Aspects of Selected Mazurkas of Chopin,” Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Michigan, 2010
Index of Chopin’s works
Ballades op. 33, no. 2 [a.k.a. op. 33, no. 3] (C Major),

op. 38 (F Major), 254 24–25, 43, 53–54
op. 52 (F Minor), 213–232 op. 33, no. 3 [a.k.a. op. 33, no. 2] (D Major), 25,
43, 67–70
Barcarolle op. 60 (F♯ Major), 233–252 op. 33, no. 4 (B Minor), 130–133
op. 41, no. 1 [a.k.a. op. 41, no. 2] (E Minor),
Étude op. 10, no. 2 (C Minor), 145–156 18–20, 43, 54
op. 41, no. 2 [a.k.a. op. 41, no. 3] (B Major),
116–119, 273, 274
Grande Valse brillante op. 18 (E♭ Major), 253
op. 41, no. 3 [a.k.a. op. 41, no. 4] (A♭ Major),
119–120
Mazurkas
op. 41, no. 4 [a.k.a. op. 41, no. 1] (C♯ Minor),
op. 6, no. 1 (F♯ Minor), 32, 43, 71, 73–74
20–21, 43, 56–58
op. 6, no. 2 (C♯ Minor), 4–5, 7, 43, 73–74
without opus 42A (A Minor), 101–104
op. 6, no. 3 (E Major), 106–109
without opus 42B (A Minor), 32–35, 43,
op. 6, no. 4 (E♭ Minor), 22–23, 42–44, 264
58–60
op. 6, no. 5 [a.k.a. op. 7, no. 5] (C Major),
op. 50, no. 1 (G Major), 35–37, 43, 84
5–6, 43, 44–45
op. 50, no. 2 (A♭ Major), 37–39, 43, 86
op. 7, no. 1 (B♭ Major), 6–7, 43, 74, 255
op. 50, no. 3 (C♯ Minor), 111–116
op. 7, no. 2 (A Minor), 26–27, 43,
op. 56, no. 1 (B Major), 11, 13–14, 43, 86–90
64–65, 160
op. 56, no. 2 (C Major), 15, 43, 60–62, 265
op. 7, no. 3 (F Minor), 95–98, 123
op. 56, no. 3 (C Minor), 133–136
op. 7, no. 4 (A♭ Major), 16–17, 43, 74–75
op. 59, no. 1 (A Minor), 136–142
op. 17, no. 1 (B♭ Major), 91–95
op. 59, no. 2 (A♭ Major), 120–124
op. 17, no. 2 (E Minor), 27–29, 43, 45–47
op. 59, no. 3 (F♯ Minor), 124–129
op. 17, no. 3 (A♭ Major), 23–24, 43, 67
op. 63, no. 1 (B Major), 104–106, 283
op. 17, no. 4 (A Minor), 29–30, 43, 77
op. 63, no. 2 (F Minor), 31, 43, 62–63
op. 24, no. 1 (G Minor), 109–111
op. 63, no. 3 (C♯ Minor), 39–41, 43, 63–64
op. 24, no. 2 (C Major), 7–8, 43, 79–81, 269
op. 24, no. 3 (A♭ Major), 8–9, 14, 43, 47–49
Nocturne op. 27, no. 1 (C♯ Minor), 157–165
op. 24, no. 4 (B♭ Minor), 9–10, 12, 43,
81–84
op. 30, no. 1 (C Minor), 96–98 Preludes
op. 30, no. 2 (F♯ Minor), 10–12, 43, op. 28, no. 4 (E Minor), 166–167, 176–186
49–50, 259 op. 28, no. 9 (E Major), 166–176
♭
op. 30, no. 3 (D Major), 6, 12–13, 43, op. 28, no. 15 (D♭ Major), 283
50–52 op. 28, no. 22 (G Minor), 187–197
op. 30, no. 4 (C♯ Minor), 11, 98–101 op. 45 (C♯ Minor), 198–212
op. 33, no. 1 (G♯ Minor), 17–18, 43,
52–53, 273 Scherzo op. 31 (B♭ Minor), 254
Index of names and concepts
Aldwell, E., 167, 173, 176, 273 Ekier, J., 266, 273
antecedent/consequent, 21, 22–23, 25, 26, 29, elision, 6, 8, 9, 18, 31, 35, 39, 48, 73, 81, 86, 94,
30, 31, 41, 58, 62, 65, 67, 77, 86, 108, 116, 122, 111, 123, 137, 150, 201, 206, 229, 231, 237,
158, 172, 187, 189, 191, 216, 220, 262, 266 255, 257, 261, 266, 267, 278
antipode, 13, 14, 26–27, 131, 141, 151, 194, embellishing chord, 9, 17, 20, 30, 31, 45, 47, 54,
220, 254 63, 73, 75, 79, 81, 84, 88, 95, 96, 99, 101, 104,
applied dominant, 18, 255, 280 108, 109, 111, 116, 120, 122, 123, 124, 126,
arrow symbols (➔ and ), 4, 12, 13–14, 255 128, 129, 134, 136, 142, 145, 150, 153, 163,
augmented sixth chords, 12, 14, 132, 150, 183, 183, 186, 190–191, 196, 199, 205, 211, 214,
212, 248, 265, 266 215, 216, 218, 221, 228, 229, 231, 234, 242,
246, 253, 258, 263, 264, 265, 277
Beach, D., 257 enharmonic equivalence, 14, 67, 70, 77,
Beethoven, L. van, 198 79–81, 88, 101, 110, 115, 116, 123, 124, 129,
Bellman, J., 254 131, 150, 153, 155, 161, 167, 171, 173, 176,
Boulanger, N., 263 183, 205, 206, 207, 208, 211, 212, 220, 223,
bullet symbol, 7 245, 255, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 271, 273,
Burkhart, C., 266 281, 283
equal subdivisions of the octave, 173, 208,
Catel, C.-S., 275 223, 231
chromatic variant, 48, 63, 67, 69–70, 88, 114, essential dissonance, 233
116, 123, 164, 246, 259–260, 283
circle of fifths, 10, 13, 27, 29, 32, 39, 41, 43, 48, Gołąb, M., 263, 270
49, 50, 52, 59–60, 65, 67, 81, 84, 88, 90, 94,
96–98, 99, 101, 105, 116, 118, 119, 123, 124, hidden fifths, 258
128, 129, 135, 149, 150–151, 162–164, 171, Hood, A., 187–197, 270
172, 173, 204, 206, 217–218, 219, 221, 237, hypermeter, 116, 118
240, 242, 244, 248, 258, 259, 260–261, 267,
269, 274 idiosyncratic progression, 79, 175, 176, 237
circle of thirds, 199, 205, 219 incidental dissonance, 153, 233, 281, 284
collision, 7, 39, 48, 101, 109, 110, 134, 153, 171, interruption, 21–23
173, 265, 277, 281, 283, 284
common-tone diminished seventh chord, 155, Jackendoff, R., 166
263, 272
Cone, E. T., 255, 280 Kallberg, J., 260
Cortot, A., 273 Kinderman, W., 254
Klein, M., 265, 279
Delacroix, E., 198 Kopp, D., 254
dominant emulation, 4 Korsyn, K., 254
Krebs, H., 254
Edlund, B., 167
Eibner, F., 256–257 Laufer, E., 213–232, 260, 261, 264
Eigeldinger, J.-J., 198–212, 273 Leichtentritt, H., 279
Index of names and concepts 299
Lerdahl, F., 166–186 268, 269, 270, 271, 273, 274, 275, 276, 278,
Lester, J., 255, 257 280, 283
London, J., 167, 180–181, 185–186, 276 Schoenberg, A., 145, 147, 262, 283
lower-third chord, 69, 246 Schubert, F., 261, 263, 278
lowered supertonic see ♭II Sechter, S., 145, 148
Lydian mode, 79 seismic shift, 133–135, 141, 142, 151, 152, 153,
267, 269
McCreless, P., 262 sequence, 4, 11, 31, 59–60, 64, 79–81, 106, 114,
Mehrdeutigkeit, 148, 194, 268, 277 122–123, 128, 129, 141, 150, 169, 170,
modal mixture see parallel keys 174–175, 176, 193, 206, 207, 208, 237–239,
modulo 7 vs. modulo 12, 70, 81, 101, 115–116, 259, 267, 268, 273
123, 200, 205–206, 207, 281 Smith, C. J., 198–212
Morgan, R. P., 280 species counterpoint, 4, 5, 10, 12, 16, 29,
Mozart, W. A., 264 54, 256
multiple meaning see Mehrdeutigkeit Starobinski, G., 198
Stein, D., 278, 279
Neapolitan sixth see ♭II surge, 8–9
Suurpää, L., 280
Swoboda, A., 270
obstinate progression, 13, 70, 115, 174, 176,
177, 193, 200, 205, 206, 219, 220
Oster, E., 271 tonic pillar, 3, 91, 259
Oster Collection, 254, 271, 272, 273, 276 tonicization, 42, 45, 47, 53, 54, 60, 73, 75,
79, 83, 86, 88, 96, 99, 101, 106, 108,
114, 128, 150, 160, 164, 166, 194, 196, 203,
parallel fifths, 29, 178, 232, 258
205, 210, 213–214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219,
parallel keys, 42, 45, 56, 70, 77, 94, 116, 123,
221, 224, 225, 226, 228–229, 241, 244–245,
132, 136, 161, 163, 274
250, 253, 260, 261, 262–263, 271, 280,
parallel octaves, 13, 54, 67
281, 283
parallel progression, 77, 101, 177, 179, 182,
twelve-note chromatic space see modulo 7 vs.
198–199, 220, 233, 237, 275, 281, 282
modulo 12
parenthetical passage, 122, 165, 205, 228,
Tymoczko, D., 257, 258, 261, 274, 275
231, 264
passing chord, 177, 218, 257, 275
peculiar juxtapositions, 63 unfurling, 6, 53, 54, 58, 63, 79, 99, 104, 106, 111,
Phipps, G. H., 145–156 115, 163, 168, 176
Picardy third, 86, 129, 135 upper-third chord, 53, 54, 81, 99, 106, 109,
114–115, 161, 163, 164, 193, 214,
215, 221, 223, 228, 241, 242–244, 246,
reaching-over, 11, 14, 15, 32, 41, 95,
282, 283
249, 267
registral shift, 4, 29, 47, 49, 83, 116, 168, 215,
218, 233, 234, 242, 244–245, 252 voice exchange, 30, 39, 161, 162, 194–195,
Rink, J., 233–252, 262, 270 264, 284
Rischel, G., 279
Rodman, R., 167, 180–181, 185–186, 276 Wagner, R., 181
Rothstein, W., 255, 262, 280 Weber, G., 275, 279
wobbly note, 15, 19, 24, 27, 31, 32, 39, 48, 50,
Salzer, F., 157–165, 258, 263 53, 58–59, 69, 73, 86, 88, 99, 104, 114, 115,
Samson, J., 3 116, 122, 131, 136, 141, 157, 163, 164, 171,
Schachter, C., 167, 173, 176, 181, 185–186, 254, 200, 203, 207, 212, 218, 220, 237, 241, 251,
256, 265, 273, 276, 281 260, 262, 264, 267, 273, 279
Schenker, H., 145, 152, 167, 169, 185, 200,
253–254, 255–256, 257, 260, 262, 264, 265, Yip, J., 261
300 Index of names and concepts
5–6 shift (5- and 6-phase chords), 5, 7–8, 24, 234, 237, 239, 241, 246, 251, 253, 254, 258,
25, 30, 37, 44, 45, 47, 49, 52, 54, 56, 64, 69, 70, 259, 264, 265, 266, 269, 271, 276, 283
75, 79, 84, 86, 88, 94, 96, 98, 110, 111, 115, ♭II, 26–27, 31, 58, 69–70, 75, 88, 99, 130–131,
122, 124, 126, 132, 133, 135, 141, 163, 168, 133, 150, 151, 153, 157, 176, 194–195, 196,
169, 170, 172, 174, 176, 177, 182, 194, 214, 197, 200–201, 203, 207, 212, 218, 223, 241,
218, 221, 223, 226, 228, 229, 231, 232, 233, 251, 267, 270, 271, 284

Harmony in Chopin PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Harmony in Chopin PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Harmony in Chopin

Chopin’s oeuvre holds a secure place in the repertoire, beloved by

david damschroder is Professor of Music Theory at the University

Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge.

Preface [page vii]

part i methodological orientation:

1 The architecture of a tonic pillar: twenty-seven regular tonic

part ii masterpieces [143]

Given my intention to explore harmony from Haydn through Debussy in

dedication. This is not a book that can be digested quickly. Especially,

in the Garden of Gethsemane, recently attributed to Adriaen Isenbrant,

Conventions regarding note relations, chords, keys,

Likewise a progression of chordal roots generally is presented in capital

represent deeper structural or harmonic events than ﬁlled-in noteheads,

Chopin’s mazurkas are admired especially for their harmonic creativity.

Example 1.1 Analysis of Mazurka in C♯ Minor (op. 6/2), mm. 1–16.

mazurka continues beyond the tonic pillar, the third-progression (spread

Opus 6/5 [a.k.a. opus 7/5]

Example 1.2 Analysis of Mazurka in C Major (op. 6/5), mm. 1–8.

My assertion that the introduction conveys a tonic root and Kopfton ^3

Example 1.3 Analysis of Mazurka in B♭ Major (op. 7/1), mm. 1–12.

Also, whereas an E♭ neighbor to Kopfton D sounds as a grace note at 51

Example 1.4 Analysis of Mazurka in C Major (op. 24/2), mm. 1–20.

measure 5, since the upper E within an E<G<C<E arpeggiation to the

Example 1.5 Analysis of Mazurka in A♭ Major (op. 24/3), mm. 0|1–12.

Example 1.6 Analysis of Mazurka in B♭ Minor (op. 24/4), mm. 0|1–12.

The mediant, a common element in minor-key progressions, here lives

Example 1.7 Analysis of Mazurka in F♯ Minor (op. 30/2), mm. 0|1–32.

cadential and universal repetition characteristics of a tonic pillar are

presented as an ascending seventh. (Compare with the similar tonic pillar

Example 1.8 Analysis of Mazurka in D♭ Major (op. 30/3), mm. 1–24.

minor key. At several points Chopin backtracks, presenting a passage a

Example 1.9 Analysis of Mazurka in B Major (op. 56/1), mm. 1–22.

Example 1.10 Analysis of Mazurka in C Major (op. 56/2), mm. 1–28.

Example 1.11 Analysis of Mazurka in A♭ Major (op. 7/4), mm. 0|1–4.

following strong metrical position, thereby becoming an accented passing

Example 1.12 Analysis of Mazurka in G♯ Minor (op. 33/1), mm. 0|1–12.

Opus 41/1 [a.k.a. opus 41/2]

evolves into II➔ in its approach to V, so also I evolves into I➔ in its

F♯ as the dominant’s diatonic ﬁfth.) Alas, that initiative consumes two

Opus 41/4 [a.k.a. opus 41/1]

Example 1.14 Analysis of Mazurka in C♯ Minor (op. 41/4), mm. 1–32.

D♯, which sounds belatedly at the cadential downbeat (as a suspended

Repetition occurs in many musical contexts, most obviously when a repeat

Roman-numeral analyses, will be able to adapt to the method on display

Example 1.15 Analysis of Mazurka in E♭ Minor (op. 6/4), mm. 0|1–4.

components of the structural framework. Working in three dimensions

Example 1.16 Analysis of Mazurka in A♭ Major (op. 17/3), mm. 0|1–16.

a chromatic variant of the tonic’s 6-phase chord, here proceeding directly

Opus 33/2 [a.k.a. opus 33/3]

Example 1.17 Analysis of Mazurka in C Major (op. 33/2), mm. 0|1–16.

the structure that I propose grounds Chopin’s mazurka. I admire – rather

Opus 33/3 [a.k.a. opus 33/2]

Example 1.18 Analysis of Mazurka in D Major (op. 33/3), mm. 0|1–8.

Interruption is as useful in developing structures emanating from Kopfton

Example 1.19 Analysis of Mazurka in A Minor (op. 7/2), mm. 0|1–16.

persist through measure 12, the structural ^2 should be imagined in the

cause a composer such as Chopin to shift its presentation to the following

Example 1.22 Analysis of Mazurka in F Minor (op. 63/2), mm. 1–16.

Some exceptional tonic pillars

Without opus 42B

could have produced a structure of equivalent dimensions to balance that

normatively be answered by a descending line such as B>G>E>D (as in 71