SCRIABIN

SCRIABIN’S HARMONIC LANGUAGE: MANIFESTATIONS OF SYMMETRY IN

OPUS 52 AND A TRANSCRIPTION FOR CHAMBER ORCHESTRA

by

Suzanna Pavlovsky

Bachelor of Music in Orchestral Conducting

Tel-Aviv University, 1994

Master of Music in Orchestral Conducting

Michigan State University, 1998

Master of Arts in Music Theory

Eastman School of Music, 2005

-------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Doctor of Musical Arts in Orchestral Conducting in the

School of Music

University of South Carolina

2010

Donald Portnoy, Major Professor

Daniel Jenkins, Document Adviser

Andrew Gowan, Committee Member

Samuel Douglas, Committee Member

Jennifer Ottervik, Committee Member

James Buggy, Dean of the Graduate School

ii

© Copyright by Suzanna Pavlovsky, 2010

All Rights Reserved.

iii

DEDICATION

This document is the result of long-term labor and commitment to the subject

matter. I would like to dedicate this manuscript to my husband, Dimitry. Without his

constant and continuous support, financial, moral, and emotional, it would never have

come into existence in its final shape and form. Additionally, my son also deserves a

special apology for many hours that I did not spend with him while working on this

demanding, but at the same time rewarding, project.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Of the many people to whom I am indebted for their assistance and understanding

during preparation of this document a few individuals deserve special thanks. One of

these is Daniel Harrison, a former music theory professor from the Eastman School of

Music, who originally sparked my interest in Scriabin in general and his harmonic

language in particular. Harrison’s personal interest and passion for this subject had a

great impact on my desire to explore Scriabin’s harmonic system in detail and to

investigate its application into his music. Further appreciation goes to J. Daniel Jenkins,

assistant professor of music theory at the University of South Carolina, who shared with

me his time and knowledge while supervising my work on this document. To a professor

at the University of South Carolina, Samuel Douglas, for supervising the transcription of

Scriabin’s Op. 52 for string orchestra and sharing with me inside tips and tricks for

writing for string instruments. Additionally, I would like to thank the dedicated crew of

musicologist/theorist Peter Hoyt, pianist Marina Lomazov, and composer John Fitz

Rogers, all of whom shared their expertise with me while discussing numerous aspects of

Scriabin’s music and ways to interpret it from the historian’s, performer’s, and

composer’s point of view. I must express deep gratitude to Jennifer Ottervik, the head of

the USC School of Music Library, who guided me throughout the process of writing this

document. Finally, I am grateful to my dear friend David Schroeder who spent hours

helping me with the notation of the transcription.

v

ABSTRACT

This book is dedicated to the Russian composer Alexander Scriabin and his

unique harmonic language. Notion of symmetry and its numerous manifestations will be

the primary focus and lenses through which Scriabin’s harmonic language will be

explored in greater detail. The piano cycle Trois Morceaux, Opus 52 has been chosen as

an exemplary work for the analysis. Finally, transcription of the Trois Morceaux, Opus

52 for chamber orchestra will conclude this work.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION..….............................................................................................................iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.....................................................................................….......iv

ABSTRACT..............................................................................................................….......v

LIST OF EXAMPLES.......................................................................................................vii

CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................1

Justification............................................................................................................2

Literature Review..................................................................................................3

Design, Procedures, and Limitations of This Study..............................................6

CHAPTER TWO. DIFFERENT THEORIES OF SYMMETRY.......................................8

Ernő Lendvai’s Model of the Axis System……………………………………...8

Boleslav Yavorsky’s Double-Mode System……………………………………14

Varvara Dernova’s Analytical System: The Function of the Tritone…………..17

CHAPTER THREE. ANALYSIS OF TROIS MORCEAUX, OPUS 52............................29

Symmetry as a General Phenomenon and Foundation of Scriabin’s

Compositional Design.........................................................................................29

Trois Morceaux, Op. 52, no. 1.............................................................................33

Cadences as the Tonal Focal Points of Scriabin’s Compositional Design..........38



Some Thoughts on Melodic-motivic Gestures in Op. 52, no. 3..........................64

CHAPTER FOUR. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR FURTHER STUDY...................................................................................66

CHAPTER FIVE. A TRANSCRIPTION OF TROIS MORCEAUX, OP. 52 FOR

CHAMBER ORCHESTRA................................................................................69

BIBLIOGRAPHY.......………………………………………………………………...…99

vii

LIST OF EXAMPLES

2.1 Elaboration of primary triads on ^1, ^4, and ^5 by their relative triads..............10

2.2 Entire complex of T, SD, and D including their four representatives,

outlined in C major..............................................................................................11

2.3 From Lendvai, The Workshop of Bartók and Kodály, 276..................................12

2.4 From Lendvai, The Workshop of Bartók and Kodály, 288..................................14

2.5 Examples 2.5a and b from McQuere, “The Theories of Boleslav

Yavorsky,” in Russian Theoretical Thought in Music, 114................................16

2.6 A combination of the two incomplete Dominant seventh chords a tritone

apart, resulting in D7b5.......................................................................................18

2.7 Enharmonic equivalence of D7b5 and D4/3b5 in two keys a tritone apart.........18

2.8 Figure 2 from Dernova, The Harmony of Scriabin, 21.......................................19

2.9 Figures 3 and 4 from Dernova, The Harmony of Scriabin, 22............................19


2.11 Figures 6a and 6b from Dernova, The Harmony of Scriabin, 23........................20


2.13 Figure 8 from Dernova, The Harmony of Scriabin, 23-24..................................22

2.14 Figures 9 and 10 from Dernova, The Harmony of Scriabin, 25..........................23

2.15 Different combinations of chords and chord members of the two Dominants....24

2.16 Figures 85a, b, and c from Dernova, The Harmony of Scriabin, 98,

transposed to C-F# major tritone related tonic complex.....................................25

2.17 Figure 84 from Dernova, The Harmony of Scriabin, 97.....................................26



3.1 Different aspects of Scriabin’s musical language based on the principle

of symmetry.........................................................................................................30

3.2 Overall tonal design of Op. 52............................................................................31

3.3 Shared common tones in the three pieces of Op. 52...........................................32

3.4 Overall bass line of the entire Op. 52, no. 1........................................................37

3.5 Bass motion of the Second Theme (mm. 16-25 and 39-49)................................38

3.6 Foreground of the voice-leading in mm. 24-25 in Op. 52, no. 1.........................40

3.7 Final cadence in mm. 48-49 in Op. 52, no.1.......................................................42

3.8 Voice-leading in the final cadence (mm. 48-49) in Op. 52, no. 1.......................42

3.9 Formal structure of Op. 52, no. 2........................................................................45

3.10 Overall functional layout in the key of Db Major...............................................46

3.11 Root motion in the bass by minor thirds in Op. 52, no. 2...................................47

3.12 Contrapuntal voice-leading motion in mm. 1-24................................................48

3.13 Enharmonic equivalence of Ab9b5 – D9b5........................................................48

3.14 Contrapuntal motion of the auxiliary cadence in mm. 23-24..............................51

3.15 Overall bass motion of the “Big Enharmonic Sequence” through

both A and B sections........................................................................................52

3.16 Functional design of Op. 52, no. 2......................................................................52

3.17 Whole-tone pentachord collection derived from D7b5#5 of Db major..............53

3.18 D7#5 in G major versus D9#5 in Db major........................................................53

viii

3.19 Compression of the two Dominants a tritone apart resulting in a

whole-tone scale..................................................................................................56

3.20 Reduced version of the middle ground of Op. 52, no. 3.....................................57

3.21 Three main functions on ^1, ^4, and ^5 and their chordal root

representatives a tritone apart..............................................................................58

3.22 Overall functional cycle in the middle section of Op. 52, no. 3…......................58

3.23 Enharmonicism of the two Dominants a tritone apart, F#9add6

and C9b5#5, resulting in the whole-tone scale when combined.........................60

3.24 “Phrygian” half cadence in mm. 3-4……………………………………….......61

3.25 Mm. 3-4 and mm. 9-11 of Op. 52, no. 3........................................................62-63

2

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Skryabin combined contradictions. A fantastic with a

mystical twist, a megalomaniac who now spoke with

complete conviction of his own divines and then, on the

other hand, a rationalist seeking in music scheme,

geometry, harmoniousness that was mathematical. . . .

Skryabin swept over the Russian musical world as some

meteor or comet, foreign in its essence yet logically

determined by the whole course of preceding history.1

Russian composer Alexander Scriabin is one of the most fascinating figures

among composers of so-called post-Romanticism. His music sprouts from his mystical-

philosophical views and, as a result, is enigmatic in its various components, especially in

its harmonic language. The music attracts many theorists around the world who try to

unravel Scriabin’s genius.

Scriabin is a particularly remarkable figure. Fluent in the techniques of Romantic

composition, he developed bold new approaches to the tonal organization of his works.

Although Scriabin’s music still retains a sense of tonality, it often deviates from common

practice tonality in various ways, especially in its harmonic language. Significantly, this

language often reflects the composer’s philosophical and mystical views, apparent even

from the titles of his works: Symphony no. 3, Le Divin Poème, Op. 43, Le Poème de

l’extase, Op. 54, and Prométhée-Le poeme du feu, Op. 60. Such views prompted him to

search for new ways of musical expression. The result is a mysteriously complicated and

intense harmonic web of unusual or non-traditional harmonies and harmonic

progressions. This extraordinary complexity has been posing a challenge to the

international music theoretical scholarly community for many years.

1. Leonid Sabaneev, Modern Russian Composers (New York: International Publishers, 1927), 40.

3

Justification

Scriabin’s harmonic system is a unique phenomenon not only in Russian music at

the beginning of the twentieth century, but also in the history of Western European

music. His harmonies amazed contemporaries with their unusual and remarkable sound.

It is not surprising, therefore, that his name commonly appears on lists of twentieth-

century contemporary composers whose musical language was different from their

predecessors of the nineteenth century. Lists often include the music of Schoenberg,

Debussy, early Stravinsky, later Prokofiev, and commonly start with Alexander Scriabin.

It is my belief that Scriabin and his music are misunderstood in the West. There

seem to be two reasons for this misunderstanding. First, because Scriabin’s music often

sounds “non-tonal,” contemporary theorists try to explain it by applying modern

analytical techniques that were designed for completely different repertoires. These

methods, however, are not convincing. Not only do they often produce unmusical results,

but also they lack appropriate historical perspective. For example, even though set theory

can account for the local events on the surface level, it fails to explain compositional

tonal organization within a broader context.2 Second, attempts to combine inherently

different theories can also produce unsatisfactory results because these theories may be

based on contradictory assumptions. Schenkerian analysis and set theory, for example,

presume quite different notions of chord structure.3

Literature Review

Various theories on Scriabin’s harmonic language have been introduced by

scholars of Scriabin’s music. Not all of them, however, are convincing. Some are more

local and descriptive, trying to explain different chord structures based on different

phenomena. Theoretical and analytical approaches of this type include explanations of

Scriabin’s sonorities based on the higher members of the overtone series (Sabaneev),

dominant-like derivations (Dernova), quartal sonorities (Samson), or even chordal and

2. See, for example, Allen Forte, The Structure of Atonal Music (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale

University Press, 1973), 28.

3. See, for example, James M. Baker, “Schenkerian Analysis and Post-tonal Music,” in Aspects of

Schenkerian Theory, ed. David W. Beach (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1983), 153-86.

4

melodic derivations from various exotic and synthetic scales (Roberts).4 Other

descriptions are more global and provide more of the general overall harmonic-melodic

organization of Scriabin’s compositions in their entirety. These analyses include works

of Polish musicologist Sofia Lissa, whose analysis of Scriabin’s music is based on

serialism.5 An American theorist, George Perle, among others, continued this approach.6

There is also a vast body of literature on Scriabin’s music based on octatonic,

whole-tone scales, or other types of modes of limited transposition (Callender).7 But it is

my belief, that, although present on the surface level, these scalar formations are the

outcome of the higher tonal organizational principles, and furthermore, they play a

secondary and subsidiary role in Scriabin’s overall tonal design.

The American theorist James Baker made another analytical attempt by

combining two different theories, pitch-class set theory and Schenkerian analysis, in

order to create plausible explanations of Scriabin’s compositions. However, the

application of different theories that were not designed for this type of music, especially

in their combination, is a misleading way to understand the musical intentions of a

composer. In fact, such an approach fails to be convincing because these two theories,

inherently different in nature, are unable to give a true comprehensive analysis. It is my

belief that the chosen type(s) of analysis should be also rooted in and based upon the

historical contemporary background of the composer, taking into consideration the

composer’s surrounding cultural environment as well as contemporary compositional

theory and practice.

4. Leonid Sabaneev, “Ultrochromaticheskaia Polemika,” Muzikal’nii Sovremennik, nom. 2 (1916)

[Леонид Сабанеев, “Ультрохроматическая Полемика,” Музыкальный Современник, ном. 2 (1916) =

Leonid Sabaneev, “Ultrochromatic Polemics,” Musical Contemporary, no. 2 (1916)]; Varvara Dernova,

Garmonia Scriabina (Leningrad: Muzika, 1968), 21 [Βарвара Depнова, Γармония Скрябина

(Ленинград: Музыка, 1968), 21 = Varvara Dernova, The Harmony of Scriabin (Leningrad: Music, 1968),

21]; Jim Samson, Music in Transition: A Study of Tonal Expansion and Atonality, 1900-1920 (London:

Dent, 1977); Peter Deanne Roberts, Modernism in Russian Piano Music, Vols. 1 and 2 (Bloomington:

Indiana University Press, 1993).

5. Zofia Lissa, “Geschichtliche Vorform der Zwolftontechnik,” Acta Musicologica 7 (January

1935): 15-21.

6. George Perle, Serial Composition and Atonality, 4th ed. (Berkeley: University of California

Press, 1977), 41-43.

7. Clifton Callender, “Voice-leading Parsimony in the Music of Alexander Scriabin,” Journal of

Music Theory 42, no. 2 (Autumn 1998): 219-33.

5

In his overview of what has been done in the analytical music theory field, Roy J.

Guenther lists one more description of Scriabin’s harmonic phenomenon, namely atonal:

It seems to be a catch-all term which takes over when more

traditional analytical terminology is thwarted by Skryabin’s

failure to provide a concluding tonic, frequently between

Op. 51 and Op. 60, and consistently from Op. 61 to Op. 74.

Despite the somewhat widespread use of the term, little in

the way of supporting evidence has been supplied to justify

its validity or to explain how ‘atonal’ music can have both

a pitch and a chord structure as a focal point.8

My understanding of Scriabin’s music is in tandem with Roy J. Guenther’s point

of view. Although Scriabin’s music features atonal properties on the surface level, and

thus alludes to atonal sound in general, there is a greater tonal mechanism that navigates

the entire musical texture and structure of his works. Let us remind ourselves that

Scriabin’s musical aesthetics grew out of solid tonal traditions based on a combination of

both Russian orthodox polyphony, introduced to Scriabin by his counterpoint mentor

Taneev, and functional theory, which was and still is the most prominent theory in

Russia. As Peter Deane Roberts mentions,

Russian composers in general showed little interest in

atonal techniques. . . . Rather than abandon tonality

composers preferred to weaken it in favor of modal

resources, so that instead of dominating structure, tonality

tended to function more on a par with other elements.

Russian music developed in its own way from its own

resources.9

It is fascinating to acknowledge how many different analytical methods and

models have been employed in interpreting Scriabin’s music. To me, this proves that

Scriabin’s genius deserves a closer analytical look keeping in mind national musical

traditions, musical-philosophical theories at the end of the nineteenth century, as well as

the natural personal development of Scriabin’s being as a composer-philosopher,

mysticist, poet, but at the same time a logical rationalist.

8. Roy J. Guenther, “Varvara Dernova’s System of Analysis of the Music of Skryabin,” in Russian

Musical Thought in Music, ed. Gordon D. McQuere (Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Research Press, 1983),

168.

9. Roberts, Modernism in Russian Piano Music, Vol. 1, 121.

6

Who was he, this central Scriabin? A composer, pianist,

poet, mystic, solipsist, and a semi-, neo-, theo-philosopher.

All these disparate talents, facts, dreams, concepts and

fantasies combined in the cauldron of his genius. The brew

was patent music-magic. He was a musical thaumaturge

and mystagogue, and he earned for his name a quota of

immortality.10

Design, Procedures, and Limitations of This Study

Analytical chapters of this document are devoted to Scriabin's harmonic language.

Notion of symmetry and its numerous manifestations will be the primary focus and lenses

through which Scriabin’s harmonic language will be explored in greater detail. The

piano cycle Trois Morceaux, Op. 52 has been chosen as an exemplary work for the

analysis.

Different theories will be introduced to the reader. The concept of symmetry will

be explored in its different dimensions and applied on different levels. I will attempt to

combine two theoretical approaches: functional theory and Schenkerian analysis.

Although they look at musical phenomena from different angles, these theories, both

designed for tonal repertoire by concentrating on and emphasizing different details,

complement each other, thus resulting in a more comprehensive analysis. The analytical

part will be based mostly on Yavorsky’s and Dernova’s methodological approaches. The

main issues that will be addressed in the document are:

1. Chord structures/formations and their classification;

2. Chord progressions formed into sequences and phrases;

3. Cadences as the focal tonal points of arrival;

4. Harmonic-melodic and melodic-motivic techniques creating unity

within a composition.

The final chapter of this document will include a transcription of Trois Morceaux,

Opus 52 for chamber orchestra, providing a different color palette through the tone and

timbre of the stringed instruments. Not only will such an application enrich the repertoire

for a chamber orchestra, but it will also promote these remarkable miniature masterworks

to be performed more frequently.

10. Faubion Bowers, Scriabin: A Biography, 2nd ed. (New York: Dover Publications, 1996), 76.

7

CHAPTER TWO

DIFFERENT THEORIES OF SYMMETRY

Ernő Lendvai’s Model of the Axis System

In his book, The Workshop of Bartók and Kodály, Hungarian theorist Ernő

Lendvai introduced the theory of the axis system. According to him, since symmetry

plays a very important role in the repertoire composed during the late nineteenth and

twentieth centuries, the axis system becomes the core foundation of its tonal organization.

He applies this theory mostly to the music of Bartók and Kodály, but other compositions

of a few different composers from the late nineteenth century are also cited as supporting

examples:

Bartók’s tonal system grew out of classical harmony, it

represents an organic development—and in a certain sense

the completion—of European functional thinking.

According to Bartók, “every art has the right to strike its

roots in a previous age,—it not only has the right to but it

must stem from it.”11

Lendvai’s characterization of Bartók’s compositional tonal organization can be

freely applied to Scriabin’s music. Lendvai gives a list of characteristic features of

Bartók’s system, which share with traditional music the following:12

1. the fifth affinities between the individual functions (the most simple I—

IV, V—I and II—V—I cadences),

2. the kinship between keys of the same key-signature (the relative major

and minor scales),

3. the modal “maggiore—minore” changes, well-known from older music,

4. the traditional third-construction of triads, seventh and ninth chords,

5. the role of the leading notes and “sensitive tones,”

11. Ernő Lendvai, The Workshop of Bartók and Kodaly (Budapest: Editio Musica, 1983), 270.

12. I have omitted some of Lendvai’s points in my list, i.e., (b), (h), and (j), because they do not

apply to Scriabin’s music.

8

6. the common notes connecting adjacent chords,

7. the physical and acoustic laws of music – primarily, the natural

overtone relations,

8. the reverse tension of the dominant and subdominant; in wider sense:

the duality of “authentic” and “plagal” ways of thinking,

9. the interaction between tonal “asymmetrical” and atonal “symmetrical”

elements (a significant impelling force in the development of European

music),13

10. the function of “complementary keys” neutralizing each other, and so

on.14

These important characteristics of conventional tonal music are definitely present

in Scriabin’s works, and, furthermore, they function as the foundation of his harmonic

system. I will rely on these characteristics in my analyses and will attempt to prove that

Scriabin’s music stems from and is built on traditional functional relationships among the

three functions: Tonic, Subdominant, and Dominant.15 In addition, I will provide a

discussion of Scriabin’s own applications of a conventional functional system in greater

detail.

��

�

As we know, I – IV – V – I affinities in European music established a functional

way of thinking about tonal music, resulting in the codification of Tonic, Subdominant,

and Dominant functions. As shown in Example 2.1, further development of classical

13. This issue is beyond the scope of this paper, and thus will not be addressed.

14. Lendvai, The Workshop of Bartók and Kodály, 270.

15. By Tonic, Subdominant, and Dominant functions we understand triads whose roots are located

on ^1, ^4, and ^5 respectively. From this point forward, these three functions will be always spelled with

capital letters.

9

harmony and, subsequently, of functional theory, brought the idea of elaboration and

sometimes substitution of primary triads by their relative secondary triads.16

Example 2.1. Elaboration of primary triads on ^1, ^4,

and ^5 by their relative triads.

F (IV) C (I) G (V)

D (II) A (VI) E (III)

With further development of compositional and theoretical practice in the

nineteenth century, the idea of tonal expansion became a natural further step in the

creation of the major-minor system. Subsequently, parallel relationships (for example, C

major—c minor) also broadened tonal horizons by introducing the relative key of the

“new” tonic (for example, c minor—Eb major). Finally, the relative key of the first

parallel, but in the opposite mode (for example, A major—f# minor) completes the entire

harmonic developmental process. As shown in Example 2.2, the entire complex system,

for example in C major, consists of the three functions: Tonic, Subdominant, and

Dominant, where each function is represented by its four members.17

Example 2.2. Entire complex of T, SD, and D including their

four representatives, outlined in C major.

SD T D

F (IV) C (I) G (V)

D (II) Ab (bVI) A (VI) Eb (

bIII) E (III) Bb (

bVII)

B (VII) F# (#IV) Db (

bII)

16. The Roman numerals in Examples 2.1 and 2.2 indicate the relative relationships between

chord roots only. Therefore, upper-case Roman numerals do not indicate major or minor quality.


As Lendvai pu

thinking gives eviden

necessity.”18 He calls

opposite poles-counter

other than the relative

of the axis system,

“axes”—from each oth

Example 2.3.

Lendvai empha

should not be regarded

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

10

put it, “A backward glance at the progress o

ence to the fact that the birth of this sys

alls this system the axis system because “.

terpoles (C and F#, for example)—are more dir

e keys of classical harmony.”19 Example 2.3 sh

, separating the Tonic, Subdominant and D

other.

3. From Lendvai, The Workshop of Bartók and

hasizes that the understanding of the poles of

ed as diminished seventh chords—but as the k

s of European harmonic

ystem was a historical

. . . in this system the

directly attached to each

shows Lendvai’s model

Dominant functions—

nd Kodály, 276.

of individual axes “. . .

e kinship, the functional

11

attraction among four different keys, similar to the relative major-minor keys in classical

harmony (i.e., C major—A minor, or C minor—Eb major).”20

Lendvai’s idea of having a “stable” tonic function represented by dissonance,

including a tritone, is an interesting thought in and of itself. However, he was not the

first to introduce this idea. Russian theorist Boleslav Yavorsky can be credited as the one

to come up with the theory of modal rhythm, based on the properties of a tritone,

functioning as either stable or unstable entity, depending on the contextual environment.21

Although the triads built on ^1, ^4, and ^5 are a part of the Tonic, Subdominant,

and Dominant functions respectively, Lendvai emphasizes that

In the axis system, it is not IV and V that most potently

represent the subdominant and dominant functions—but

degrees which divide the circle of fifths into three equal

parts: thus constituting an augmented triad relationship

with the tonic. For example, C – E – A flat—in the sense

of tonic, dominant and subdominant.22

His derivation of these three functions comes from traditional understanding of the

overtone series in general, and from the interval relationships of the first six overtones in

particular, where the intervals of the perfect fifth, major third, and minor seventh are the

most important in creating the entire system.23 Example 2.4 summarizes major points of

Lendvai’s functional derivations.

20. Ibid.

21. This issue is beyond the scope of the current paper. For more information on this topic see

Sergei Protopopov, Elementi Stroeniia Muzikalnoy Rechi, Chast’ 1 i 2 (Moskva: Muzgiz, 1930-1931)

[Сергей Πротопопов, Элеметы Строения Музыкальной Речи, Части 1 и 2 (Москва: Myзгиз, 1930-

31) = Sergei Protopopov, The Elements of the Structure of Musical Speech, Parts 1 and 2 (Moscow: State

Music Publisher, 1930-31)]; Gordon D. McQuere, “The Theories of Boleslav Yavorsky,” in Russian

Theoretical Thought in Music, ed. Gordon D. McQuere (Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Research Press,

1983), 109-164.


23. A more detailed description of Lendvai’s derivation of the three functions can be found in his

book The Workshop of Bartók and Kodály, 288.

Example 2.4.

Such a layout

aggregate, ultimately c

analytical tool. Theore

compositions of the la

located on ^b6 and ^3

functioning as the m

respectively, somehow

meant for, and thus, sp

Boleslav Yavorsky’s D

Generally spea

musical material is st

surface details, tonal p

Modernism in Russian

uniform arrangement

(2)… a succession of

inversion; and (3)… a

in the octatonic scale.”

can be understood as a

24. Indeed, Lendv

are very elegant and convin

25. Roberts, Mode

12

From Lendvai, The Workshop of Bartók and

ut of the three functions, when combined, re

y creates a great temptation for the analyst to

oretically speaking, it could (and does) explai

late nineteenth century are operated.24 Howe

3 along with their tritone related triads, rather t

main representatives of Subdominant and

ow goes against conventional functional unde

specified by, composers to be a part of their co

Double-Mode System

eaking, the notion of symmetry implies di

structured and organized. Its practical applic

l plan, or the use of the modes of limited trans

an Piano Music, Peter Deane Roberts refers to

t of notes around a central axis, which may

of notes which have the same intervallic se

a pattern that repeats in one direction, as do the

e.”25 Each of these statements can be taken as a

s a general procedural tendency of organizing

dvai’s analyses of Bartók and Kodály’s music, based on

vincing.

dernism in Russian Piano Music, Vol. 1, 61.

nd Kodály, 288.

results in the complete

to use it as an attractive

lain the ways numerous

wever, the idea of triads

r than on ^4 and ^5, and

nd Dominant functions

derstanding, unless it is

compositional design.

different ways of how

plications might include

nsposition. In his book,

o symmetry as: “(1)… a

ay be stated or implied;

series in retrograde or

the minor third segments

s a literal description, or

g musical material. For

on the axis system apparatus,

13

example, harmonic symmetry can be either an obvious surface feature or it can be

textually obscured and hidden. Sometimes chords, implying traditional tonal functions,

e.g., the French sixth, guide our expectations and suggest a tonic, or, in a broader sense, a

tonal center.

At the turn of the twentieth century, Russian theorist Boleslav Yavorsky

attempted to create a structural-analytical system, based upon symmetrical properties of a

tritone in general as well as upon Scriabin’s music in particular.26 Although he was

fascinated by Scriabin’s music and studied it in great detail, Yavorsky’s ultimate goal

was to design a universal theory that would serve a greater purpose and become a tool for

the analyses of a specific type of music from his so-called “transitional period”:

His body of thought, generally known as ‘the theory of

modal rhythm’ [ladovyi ritm = ладовый ритм] is marked

by unusual originality and scope and by its close

correspondence to the musical practice of nineteenth- and

early twentieth-century Russian composers such as

Skryabin. . . . In attempting to deal with his changing

musical world as well as the music of all other times and

places, Yavorsky sought to replace the entire corpus of

traditional theory with one based on a single principle, the

operation of the tritone.27

While talking about “new modes,” Yavorsky meant “artificial” modes previously

unknown in the theory of modes: augmented, diminished (octatonic), and double-modes.

The discovery of double-modes by Yavorsky is one of the biggest achievements in modal

theory.28

A general concept of instability versus stability is the key to understand

Yavorsky’s system. Since the tritone is the most unstable interval consisting of the two

26. Boleslav Leopoldovich Yavorsky (1877-1942), a student of Taneev at the Moscow

conservatory, organized an informal group for performance and discussions. Several important ideas came

out of these discussions. The concept of “intonation,” the idea of musical speech as distinguished from

verbal speech, inner auditor tuning, and other topics were the focus of these meetings. These discussions

were the starting point for the development of Yavorsky’s theory of modal rhythm.

27. McQuere, “The Theories of Boleslav Yavorsky,” 109.

28. It is beyond the scope of this document to describe Yavorsky’s theory in the detail. For more

information, see Boleslav Yavorsky, The Structure of Musical Speech [Строение музыкальной речи]

(Moscow, 1908); Protopopov, Elementi Stroeniia Muzikalnoy Rechi; McQuere, “The Theories of Boleslav

Yavorsky,” 109-164.

most unstable notes in

these unstable tones o

“Tonic.” He considere

system,” while the co

system.” Example 2.5

Example 2.5b shows a

Examples 2.

In Yavorsky’s

foundation of all musi

tritone and its two stab

Since these systems a

requires resolution. H

symmetrical, and thus,

is no need for a tritone

requiring resolution.

In addition to Y

Dernova, deserves spe

most impressive and e

as a general framewor

14

in the tonal system, ^4 and ^7, it has to be reso

of a tritone “Dominant,” and their resolution

ered a tritone with either one of its possible

combination of two single systems a semi

2.5a shows two tritone resolutions, which cre

a “double system” in its complete, natural and

2.5a and b from McQuere, “The Theories of B

in Russian Theoretical Thought in Music,

’s view, the tritone, although not explicitl

sic. He called his model a “symmetrical syste

table resolutions together formed a part of a m

are asymmetrical in their nature, the unstable

However, one must acknowledge that, if the

us, tonality is eliminated—at least in its traditio

ne to be resolved. Thus, the tritone becomes a s

o Yavorsky, the theory of another Russian Scr

pecial attention. Her method of interpreting S

explanatory. She used a part of Yavorsky’s

ork and the foundation for her analytical meth

solved. Yavorsky called

on into a stable interval,

le resolutions a “single

mitone apart “a double

reate a “single system.”

nd harmonic forms.

Boleslav Yavorsky,”

, 114.

itly stated, is still the

stem” where an unstable

a modal or tonal system.

ble nature of the tritone

he system is completely

tional sense—then, there

a stable entity, no longer

criabin scholar, Varvara

Scriabin’s music is the

’s “double mode” theory

ethod and supported her

15

arguments by numerous examples and analyses from Scriabin’s compositions.29

Although the complete description of Dernova’s method is not the purpose of this paper,

it is necessary to illuminate its fundamental and most important principles.

Varvara Dernova’s Analytical System: The Function of the Tritone

The analytical system proposed by Dernova is based on the arrangement of

various dominant-functioning chords in pairs a tritone apart, where their sum results in

“dominant-type” chord formations. Enharmonic equivalence of different “dominant-

type” chords with the lowered fifth plays a key role in that system. These include D7b5

,

D9b5

and Db9b5

.30 The lowered fifth, in its turn, is used in combination with the perfect

fifth (D5b5

), and/or raised fifth (Db5#5

), resulting in a harmony with split lower and

raised fifths, or with added sixth (Db5add6

). For example, the D7b5

chord results from a

combination of two incomplete Dominant seventh chords a tritone apart, as shown in

Example 2.6.

Example 2.6. A combination of the two incomplete Dominant

seventh chords a tritone apart, resulting in D7b5

.

Note that D7b5

is enharmonically equivalent to D4/3b5

of the key that lies a tritone

away. Such enharmonicism can be used for modulatory purposes, as is demonstrated in

Example 2.7.

29. Again, the complete description of Dernova’s theory is beyond the scope of this document.

For more information, see Dernova, Garmonia Scriabina; Guenther, “Varvara Dernova’s System of

Analysis,” 165-216.

30. From this point forward, letter “D” along with alterations of different chord members implies

Dominant function.

16

Example 2.7. Enharmonic equivalence of D7b5

and D4/3b5

in two keys a tritone apart.

Not only can two Dominants a tritone apart be used for modulation to distant

keys, they also can unite these two keys a tritone apart. Such a complex formation, which

Yavorsky calls the “double-mode,” is the most characteristic feature of Scriabin’s

harmonic system. Dernova calls such a correlation between the two Dominants a “tritone

link,” shown in Example 2.8.

Example 2.8. Figure 2 from Dernova, The Harmony of Scriabin, 21.

D7b5 D7b5

in C in Gb

Within a tritone enharmonicism, D9b5

becomes the D7b5#5

, since the major ninth

in the first chord becomes raised fifth (#5) in the second. In the Db9b5

chord, the minor

ninth in the first chord becomes a perfect fifth (P5) in the second, as shown in Example

2.9.

Example 2.9. Figures 3 and 4 from Dernova, The Harmony of Scriabin, 22.

D1 D2 D1 D2

D9b5

D7b5#5 D

b9b5 D

7/5b5

In fact, there is

As is shown in Examp

Dominant becomes the

of the first Dominant

also shows how other

same way: the root of

and the seventh of the

Example 2.1

Ultimately, bec

complete enharmonic e

related by a tritone (see

with lowered and raise

chords with lowered ni

Example 2.11. Fi

a.

17

is an evident two-way connection of all tone

ple 2.10, within a tritone enharmonicism, the

the major ninth in the second Dominant, and th

t becomes the minor ninth of the second Dom

er members of the Dominant harmonies map

of the first Dominant becomes lowered fifth in

e first Dominant becomes the third of the latter

.10. Figure 5 from Dernova, The Harmony of S

#5 ↔ 9

5 ↔ m9

1 ↔ b5

7 ↔ 3

because of the interconnections within the tr

c equivalence of the two Dominant seventh cho

see Example 2.8). Example 2.11a shows two D

ised fifths (D9b5#5

) and Example 2.11b show

ninth, perfect and lowered fifths Db9/5b5

harm

Figures 6a and 6b from Dernova, The Harmon

b.

nes in both Dominants.

he raised fifth of the first

the diatonic perfect fifth

ominant. Example 2.10

p into each other in the

in the second Dominant,

ter.

f Scriabin, 23.

tritone link, there is a

hords with lowered fifth

o Dominant ninth chords

ows two Dominant ninth

rmonies:

ony of Scriabin, 23.

18

Because D9b5#5

outlines a whole-tone scale, it can be enharmonically

reinterpreted as a Dominant sonority in five other keys, including the one a tritone away.

Thus, a full enharmonic equivalence of the D9b5#5

appears in six keys. Example 2.12

shows such a diagram.31


Dernova stresses that the most important enharmonicism of Scriabin’s Dominants

is the one that creates a “tritone link.” Based on a whole-tone scale, it results in a chain

of six enharmonically equivalent Dominants where each pair makes a “tritone link.”

Dernova calls such a link a “Big Enharmonic Sequence.”32 There are three basic links (or

units) in this type of a sequence. The fourth one is a wrap-around, an actual return of the

first link, but this time, in the Dominant’s reverse order. As shown in Example 2.13, the

enharmonic sequence begins from and finishes on the starting dominant. Such a return to

the starting dominant through these enharmonic steps is characteristic of Scriabin’s style.

31. In her book, Dernova uses German symbols: “es” means flat, “is” means sharp. For example,

“Ges” = Gb; “As” = Ab; “B” = Bb.

32. Dernova, Garmonia Scriabina, 23. There are two other types of enharmonic sequences: the

“Small Enharmonic Sequence” and the “Descending Fifth Sequence,” also explained by Dernova. These

will be addressed later.

Example 2.13.

Dernova empha

is the tritone relationsh

ascending minor sixth

Example 2.13.33 She

transpositions of the D

valuable in Scriabin’s

link two tones apart fro

the fact that, like the s

fifth of the Dominant

moves outward to the

enharmonicism” the sa

As a result, the split f

seventh, somehow reg

33. Because these

34. Dernova, Garm

19

. Figure 8 from Dernova, The Harmony of Sc

phasizes two types of relationships between Do

nship inside the link, and the second is the desc

xth between the two links, shown with the s

e calls the second type “two-tone enharmoni

D9b5#5

are enharmonically equivalent, not a

’s system. After the first, fundamental one, p

from the starting one. Its privilege among othe

e starting tritone link, it is the most closely co

nt. Within tritone enharmonicism, the split f

e interval of a major ninth (b5=1; #5→9), and

same split fifth moves outward to the minor s

it fifth of the D9th

chord, by moving into the

egulates the motion of the enharmonic sequenc

se steps are enharmonically equivalent in the equal-temp

rmonia Scriabina, 24.

Scriabin, 23-24.

Dominants: the first one

escending major third or

square brackets in the

nicism.”34 Although all

t all of them are equally

, priority is given to the

ther links is explained by

connected to the altered

t fifth of the Dominant

nd within the “two-tone

r seventh (b5=7; #5→1).

he major ninth or minor

ence and defines the two

mpered system.

types of enharmonicis

shows both types of en

Example 2.14. F

Such an enharm

can be arranged as

Enharmonic Sequence

notes.

Example 2.15

Dominants in their pro

of two major Domina

placement of the note

(first-second). All note

(Example 2.15b). C

enharmonically equiva

however, trades places

sonority consists of tw

in open position (Exam

20

cisms, tritone and two-tone, as the leading m

enharmonicism, tritone enharonicism and two-

Figures 9 and 10 from Dernova, The Harmony

armonic motion of the Dominants is only pos

s a whole-tone scale, and all Dominants i

ce” are actually a six-fold regrouping/permut

represents different combinations of chord

rogression. The Db9/5b5

, for example, results

inant triads a tritone apart (see Example 2.1

tes (lower-higher), including a typical pairing

otes of the same structural meaning are paired: r

Combined, they create Db9/5b5

(Exampl

valent to itself in the two keys a tritone apart. T

ces: first root–second root, second fifth–first f

two tritones, framing a (compound) perfect fifth

ample 2.15d). This particular spacing is char

motions. Example 2.14

-tone enharmonicism.

ny of Scriabin, 25.

possible because D9b5#5

included in the “Big

utation of the same six

rd members of the two

lts from the combination

15a). It has a typical

ing position and spacing

d: roots, fifths, and thirds

ple 2.15c), which is

. The order of the notes,

t fifth, so that the actual

ifth from outside, spelled

aracteristic and the core

21

of the Db9/5b5

chord. This sonority is characteristic of Scriabin’s harmonic language in

general and holds a special place in its system.

Example 2.15. Different combinations of chords and chord members of the two

Dominants.

A similar idea applies to another altered Dominant harmony, namely the

D9b5add6

, which also plays an important role in Scriabin’s system.35 The added sixth in

combination with the lowered fifth supersedes both the raised fifth and perfect fifth.

Figure 16 displays all the necessary steps in order to achieve the final result—to create a

unique Dominant sonority. Example 2.16a shows a tritone link between the two

incomplete Dominant seventh chords with added sixths. Example 2.16b shows a chord

resulting from the sum of the two Dominants, combined by the following pairing: first

root-second root, first seventh-second seventh, first added sixth-second added sixth.

Example 2.16c shows a chord with no seventh of the first Dominant (or the third of the

second Dominant), since the doubling of the same note does not contribute to the quality

of the chord. In order to avoid a dissonant clash between the added sixths and the chordal

thirds of the opposite Dominants, Scriabin deletes the second major third of the second

Dominant. Such an operation results in a five-note Dominant sonority, where all its tones

depend on the bottom note, the root of the chord, and the dissonant added sixth of the

second Dominant in the top voice clashes with the major third above the root.36

35. Use of the Dominant harmony with added sixth was adopted by Scriabin as a result of

Chopin’s influence. However, although Chopin used a D7 with an added sixth, Scriabin employed a D

9b5add6

chord (or, D13

chord). The use of a lowered fifth is the necessary condition to have a tritone as a necessary

component of the Dominant chord in Scriabin’s system.

36. This harmonic complex becomes the thematic hallmark in Scriabin’s prelude Op. 59, no. 2,

reinforced by the composer’s indication sauvage, belliqueux, meaning wildly, belligerently. See Dernova,

Garmonia Scriabina, 98.

Example 2.16. Fig

transp

As a result, wi

sixth, the new, unique

altered Dominants and

Chord inversion

As shown in Example

the listener, that one

“quartal-harmony,” it i

added sixth, grouped in

Example 2.17

This example a

traditional chords, an

combined dominant ha

22

igures 85a, b, and c from Dernova, The Harmo

nsposed to C-F# major tritone related tonic com

within the tritone enharmonicism of the Domin

ue, “distorted” harmony is born, which is di

nd moreover, especially characteristic of late Sc

ions also play an important role in Scriabin’s u

le 2.17, the famous Prometheus chord has su

ne would never confuse it with any other s

it is based on a combination of two dominants

into pairs with rotated roots.

.17. Figure 84 from Dernova, The Harmony of

e also shows how brilliantly Scriabin “manipu

and that the “quartal-chord” is just a resu

harmonies.

ony of Scriabin, 98,

mplex.

inant chord with added

different from all other

Scriabin.

s unique color of sounds.

such a distinct effect on

r sonority. Seemingly a

ts a tritone apart with the

of Scriabin, 97.

“Prometheus” chord

ipulates” the notes from

sultant outcome of the

23

Along with the “Big Enharmonic Sequence,” another type of the enharmonic

sequence was also developed within the double-mode system. Dernova calls it a “Small

(or “Chain”) Enharmonic Sequence.”37 It is based on a connection between two

overlapping tritones in the middle. It results from a Dominant motion by minor thirds (or

1½ tones) because the tritone itself subdivides into two units of a tone and a half each as

shown in Example 2.18.


As shown in Example 2.19, this type of a sequence has only two links. If the

sequential motion continues, enharmonic equivalence takes place and the first link

repeats itself, but in the reverse order:


Finally, quartal-quintal relationships also play an important role in the double-

mode system: one Dominant sonority “resolves” into another Dominant sonority, the

motion I call “elliptic resolution.” This type of motion takes place when a secondary

Dominant (or, several Dominants) moves into the next chord a tritone away. We can find

an example of such a sequence in the second theme of Op. 52, no. 1.

37. Dernova, Garmonia Scriabina, 52.

24

Needless to say, this description of Scriabin’s system, proposed by Varvara

Dernova, is a valuable source of information as well as a helpful tool for analysts. To

date, it is the only complete fundamental and, to me, the most convincing theoretical

source that describes Scriabin’s system in detail and supports its claims with musical

examples.

Following is the summary of observations Dernova has made about Scriabin’s

harmonic language:

1. Scriabin’s frequent use of the bII, as a chord root, especially near or at

cadences.

2. Evolution of Scriabin’s musical language resulted in a delayed or

weakened Tonic resolution.

3. The nature of the tonic conclusion itself.38

All of the above-mentioned issues will be used as the foundation for the analytical

section of the analysis of Trois Morceaux, Op. 52.


25

CHAPTER THREE

ANALYSIS OF TROIS MORCEAUX, OPUS 52

Symmetry as a General Phenomenon and Foundation of Scriabin’s Compositional Design

As has been mentioned earlier, symmetry plays a vital role in Scriabin’s

compositions. Its influence is apparent from looking at the development of the

composer’s harmonic system, and the choice of certain formal structures. As Roberts

mentions:

A system based on symmetry has many features in

common with one founded on the cycle of 5ths. Pitches

may still be present in a hierarchic order of importance,

which may be changed during the course of a composition.

The use of harmonic and melodic integration, involving

selected intervals as practiced by Skriabin . . . tends toward

symmetry and leads eventually to the formation of

symmetrical scales, whether chromatic, whole-tone, or

octatonic. . . . One new-found freedom offered by

symmetry is the possibility of building a section of music

on one or more intervals which form the basis of the

symmetry in a particular order.39

Example 3.1 summarizes ideas concerning symmetry as a general phenomenon

representing different aspects of fundamental musical entities within a composition such

as form, harmony, and melody in Scriabin’s music:

39. Roberts, Modernism in Russian Piano Music, Vol. 1, 70.

26

Example 3.1. Different aspects of Scriabin’s musical language

based on the principle of symmetry.

Symmetry

Form Harmony Melody

Proportions Tonal organization resulting scales

a. Different tritone resolutions a. V9b5#5

a. Whole-tone scale

b. By M3 b. V9b5add6

b. Acoustic scale (#4, b7)

c. By m3

The first part of this paper has described these phenomena and their static

characteristics. The second part will utilize these observations as the foundation for the

analytical applications in the analysis of Trois Morceaux, Op. 52; the goal is to unravel

their dynamic potential and to explore their employment on the global level.

* * *

Trois Morceaux, Op. 52, written in 1907, represents the middle period of

Scriabin’s output. While still remaining tonal, Scriabin’s music and style underwent

drastic changes during this period, and enharmonic relationships predominate over the

functional relationships, which still define the form. One of the striking features of the

entire cycle of Op. 52 is its overall symmetrical tonal unity achieved by the choice of

keys. Although not very obvious at times, Scriabin defined the keys of these three pieces

with written key signatures at the beginning of each piece, as well as by the occurrence of

explicit cadences in the traditional “tonal” sense. Notice how this cycle is symmetrically

centered around “C” major:

27

Example 3.2. Overall tonal design of Op. 52.

Поэма [Poëme]

Op. 52, no. 1

C major

Загадка [Enigme] Поэма томления [Poëme

Op. 52, no. 2 languide] Op. 52, no. 3

Db Major B major

As shown in Example 3.2, the key of C major with no accidentals serves as the

“center,” the “focal point” from which Scriabin “dives” into two keys, each located a

minor second above and below the “C” center. They both have five accidentals, flats and

sharps, respectively. Interestingly enough, Scriabin keeps the same major mode (color)

throughout the entire cycle.40 Other details also reinforce this symmetrical formal design.

For example, the first and last pieces conclude with major tonic triads, while the middle

piece, Enigme, remains “enigmatic” with no tonic closure, at least in a traditional sense.

Finally, if we look at the presence of white notes in each of the three keys of Op.

52 we notice that both Db major and B major have five enharmonically equivalent notes

with each other, and each of them has two common white notes with C major. Example

3.3 shows these relationships:

40. It would be interesting to explore another area of Scriabin’s music—synesthesia, in Scriabin’s

case, “colored vision.” This information would possibly explain the choice of keys in Scriabin’s

compositions in general, and within this piano cycle, in particular.

Example 3

It is not coinci

four white notes result

its resolution in C majo

As a result, Scr

local structural level o

entire cycle. Both the

note of each opening

with the single note Gb

reinforced by the appea

conclusion of the first

axis of symmetry of th

Another interes

measures of both the f

out of the possible six)

The difference, howev

of C major (in the broa

28

3.3. Shared common tones in the three pieces

cidental, and furthermore, fascinating that the

ults in a symmetrical tetrachord, consisting of t

ajor:

B → C E ← F

Scriabin’s employment of the tritone manifests

l of each piece, but even more importantly, on

he first and the last compositions begin from

g harmonic gesture. In contrast, the middle

Gb, located a tritone away from both Cs. This c

pearance of Gb in the opening of the middle pie

st piece with C major Tonic triad. Thus, C-G

the entire cycle realized on the structural comp

resting detail also deserves special attention. N

e first and last compositions have three commo

ix); moreover, they outline the same dominant

ever, is that the opening chord of the first piec

roader sense), while the opening chord of the l

es of Op. 52.

he combination of these

f the framing tritone and

sts itself not only on the

n the global level of the

the note C as the bass

le piece, Enigme, opens

is contrast is additionally

piece right after the final

Gb (or F#) becomes the

positional level.

Notice that the opening

on notes (C, Bb, and D

nt-like type of harmony.

iece functions as a Tonic

e last piece, on the other

29

hand, functions as the Dominant of F, that is, the key a tritone away from B major, the

key of the third piece.

Finally, although the key structure of the entire cycle suggests tonal symmetry

around C, the program, on the other hand, suggests symmetry around the second

composition, functioning as the focal point and, furthermore, as the climax of the entire

cycle. Notice that the titles of both outer pieces include the same word, Поэма [Poëme],

as either the title itself or as part of the title, while, in contrast, the middle piece, Загадка

[Enigme], stands on its own.

Trois Morceaux, Op. 52, No. 1

The first piece of Trois Morceaux, Op. 52 opens a gallery of Scriabin’s images

“painted” by the artist with rich but at the same time particular sound effects, changes of

different meters in every measure, choices of harmonies, and their progressions within

conventional tonal design.

Although seemingly simple at first sight, the form of the first piece of Op. 52 can

be explained in at least two ways. Its obvious binary structure is also laid out

symmetrically. Such features as a subdivision of the form into two equal sub-sections,

both 25 measures long, concluding with cadences in the traditional tonal sense at the end

of each section, definitely belong to the main characteristics of a typical binary design.

Varvara Dernova, however, proposed another formal reading of this work. In her opinion,

Op. 52, no. 1 is written in a sonata form with no development section. Her argument for

such a reading is based on the presence of the two distinct themes, both based on the

opening motivic gesture, appearing in two different keys in the first section, recurring in

the same order and in one key in the second half.41 Tables 3.1 and 3.2 summarize the

symmetrical layout and overall formal structure of Op. 52, no. 1.

41. Dernova, Garmonia Scriabina, 83. For purposes of convenience the two themes are labeled in

the analysis as the first and the second theme respectively. The opening motive of the composition becomes

the melodic foundation of the following sequence in m. 15 of the first half. Furthermore, because this

motive gains an independent melodic-harmonic status, this part is called the second theme.

30

Table 3.1. Symmetrical layout of Op. 52, no. 1.

First half (measure numbers): Second half (measure numbers):

1-first theme (C major)

2

3

4

5

6

7 (modulating measure)

8

9

10 (2/4)

11 (2/8)

12 (2/16)

13

14

15-2nd

theme (G major)

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25-first theme (C major),

elided

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34 (5/4)

35 (3/16)

36 (3/16)

37

38

39-2nd

theme (C major)

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

Table 3.2. Overall formal design of Op. 52, no. 1.

First theme (mm.1-14 and 25-34) Second theme (mm. 15-24 and 39-49)

Form: period (14 ms.: 8+(elided) 7) Form: period (10 ms.: 6+4)

These two readings work in tandem and, in my opinion, complement rather than

contradict each other. Furthermore, the binary design is enriched by the presence of two

31

distinct themes which confirm the sonata principle and function as the foundation of the

overall compositional tonal design.42

Functionally, the overall structure in Op. 52, no. 1 outlines a closed circle of

three fundamental functions: (T)-SD-D-T.43 Such functional reading of the piece’s overall

layout is also influenced by how the most important milestones appear as the composition

unfolds and specifically, how they are notated. Notice that the only half note values,

which appear in the bass part, are F (in m. 6), G (in m. 13), and C (in mm. 37 and 49),

which outline and emphasize the three major functions: Subdominant, Dominant, and

Tonic. The entire functional progression culminates with the C major triad functioning as

the Tonic of the entire work.

In his book, Harmonic Function in Chromatic Music, Daniel Harrison writes:

Instead of having a tonic determined by functions of pitch

classes, it is created by tonal behaviors within musical

contexts. These behaviors I understand as the rhetorical

devices of Tonic, the coordination of various non-harmonic

musical dimensions to give the impression of key and tonal

center.44

He proposes several rhetorical techniques for finding the Tonic of a composition:

“Technique 1. Tonic function ends a composition.”45

According to this technique, since the final chord of Op. 52, no. 1 is a C major triad, the

Tonic of the entire composition is C major. Such a reading is also reinforced by the

presence of the complete cycle of the three functions mentioned above.

“Technique 2. Tonic begins compositional sections. . . . The most obvious

compositional section is that which begins a piece. Accordingly, one is often willing to

42. In fact, such a type of binary structure strongly alludes to Domenico Scarlatti’s explorations of

binary structures based on transposition of the second (or middle) theme in his esercizi per gravicembali.

Not surprisingly, they are called sonatas, and their formal type is identified as “old sonata form” in the

Russian theoretical literature.

43. The statement of the first Tonic is obscure and, thus, unclear. For that reason, the first Tonic

appears in parentheses as implied rather than obvious function. However, despite different harmonic

interpretations of the opening gesture, the note C, appearing on the second beat of the opening gesture, is

the lowest note in the entire first measure, and moreover, it functions like the fundamental bass.

44. Daniel Harrison, Harmonic Function in Chromatic Music (Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press, 1994), 76.

45. Ibid.

32

ascribe Tonic function to such opening events.”46 It might be problematic to determine

this piece’s Tonicity or even functionality based on the opening in the first measure. One

even might argue that the first measure is in d minor for the following reasons: first, the

passage in the right hand outlines a d minor triad and C# functions as a leading tone

resolving into a Tonic D; and second, according to Hindemith’s theory of root finding in

sonorities with a non-triadic structure, the best interval in the first measure is the perfect

fifth occurring between D and A. Furthermore, the note D functions as the root of the

opening chord.47 On the other hand, the note C is the lowest note in the entire first

measure and hence, it also could be considered as the root of the chord, thus functioning

as a Tonic. Such a reading also can be reinforced by the fact that the next priority after

the perfect fifth in the Hindemithian list has to be given to the perfect fourth, which, in

fact, is also present in the music and results from a combination of the note F above C.

Finally, a compromise between both cases also could be considered as one of the equally

possible interpretations: the opening sonority broadly can be seen as a juxtaposition or

combination of the two functions, Tonic and Subdominant, where note C represents

Tonic and the d minor triad represents Subdominant functions.

By putting all the parts of the interpretive “puzzle” together, the earlier

observations lead to the following conclusion: the key of this composition is C major.

One might argue that it might be better not to use the term “major,” but simply to say that

this piece is written in the key of C, but how else one can explain the major triad at the

very end? In addition, the entire piano cycle features key signatures, specified by the

composer himself. The opening piece has no key signature, also strongly implying C

major. Notice that the second theme occurs entirely above G pedal point, sounding in this

context as a stable tonal area of the second theme. Finally, not only does Scriabin imply

the key of C major by the key choice for the second theme, but he also incorporates the

opening motivic gesture of the second theme E5-G#4-(A4-C5), where E5 functions as a

diatonic chordal third of the C major triad as well. Looking back at the functional

46. Ibid.

47. Paul Hindemith, The Craft of Musical Composition, 4th ed., vol. 1, bk.1, trans. Arthur Mendel

(Mainz: Schott, 1942), 97.

33

diagram (T)-SD-D-T, one will associate the key changes in such a way that the entire

piece reaches a triumphant arrival on C major in m. 25:

Example 3.4. Overall bass line of the entire Op. 52, no. 1.

Not only are the first and the second themes based on the same melodic idea

(compare mm. 1-2 with m. 21), but they are also written in a period form. The second

phrase of the first theme is a repetition of the first phrase; however, it is transposed up a

whole step (compare mm. 1-8 and 8-14). The second theme, also based on the same

melodic/motivic idea of the first theme, occurs above a Dominant pedal point (see mm.

15-25). Harmonically, it is based upon ascending fourths–descending fifths sequential

motion in the bass. In addition, notice that the second theme in both its appearances

sounds over a pedal point: Dominant in the first half and Tonic in the second half. Both

appearances are equivalent in length, thus lasting ten measures. Example 3.6 shows the

bass motion in mm. 16-25 and 39-49:

Example 3.5. Bass motion of the Second Theme (mm. 16-25 and 39-49).

SD V V---------------I V/Gb-V V---I

D----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------T

SD I V9b5/IV V9#5/bII-I

T-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------T

34

Cadences as the Tonal Focal Points of Scriabin’s Compositional Design

The term “common practice tonality” implies the following conditions: first,

contrapuntal lines have to move by step; second, there must be a difference between

stable and unstable sonorities; and the third, a composition has to have Tonic, defined by

conversion on it from ^5 to ^1 in the bass, and ^7 to ^1 and ^2 to ^1. The focal points for

such conversions are cadences. Cadences are the milestones of any formal design; they

clarify form, tonality, and its layout of the entire composition. There are two cadences

that appear at the end of each section, in mm. 24-25 and 48-49, and both are in C major.

The first cadence is elided. The Tonic (I) of C major, which concludes the first half of the

composition with V-I harmonic motion, at the same time, becomes the starting point of

the second half. The second, conclusive cadence, on the other hand, is more complicated

and can be interpreted in different ways. One is functional, based on functional theory

and second is contrapuntal, based on Schenkerian voice-leading analysis.48

One way to explain a cadence mm. 24-25 is functional. Notice that the Dominant

pedal point on G in m. 24 becomes the bass note of the D9b5#5

harmony, which

discharges into the Tonic C in m. 25 while the chordal seventh and ninth (notes F4 and

A4 in the upper voices), representing a Subdominant function, become suspended over

the bar line and elide into the first theme as the opening notes in the second half. The

idea of functional juxtaposition of Subdominant over Tonic at the cadence seems to be an

interesting compositional device, moreover, requiring further musical development with

the eventual resolution of the notes F4 and A4 into notes E4 and G4 in m. 49. In

addition, when the chromatic motion Eb-D-Db-(C) in the bass reaches its goal in m. 25,

the Tonic C3 gets reinterpreted as the chordal fifth of the Subdominant chord, ultimately

playing a double role in the functional developmental design of the composition.

The same cadence in mm. 24-25 can also be explained contrapuntally by means of

voice-leading. It is a classic example of deviations from the common practice tonality in

the second half of the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth centuries. Although the

48. This does not mean, though, that these are two different ways of the explanations. Although

functional theory is based on sonorities, resolutions of the chords are based on the rules of counterpoint.

Thus, these theories complement each other and, furthermore, result in more comprehensive analysis.

35

rules of counterpoint are present, many of the surface details have to be realigned or

suppressed. For example, the traditional diatonic conversion of a whole step motion from

^2 to ^1 gets filled by means of chromatic motion, becoming ^b2, finally converging to

^1. As this example shows, this is no longer tonality in its strict sense. However, its

major principles stay intact and small changes, like the one just described, do not destroy,

but rather, refine it. Example 3.6 shows such voice-leading.

Example 3.6. Foreground of the voice-leading in mm. 24-25 in Op. 52, no. 1.

V I 8-7

On the other hand, the final cadence at the very end of the piece does not exhibit

bi-functionality like the cadence at the end of the first half. The D9#5

of bII functions as

a Dominant sonority, and resolves into C major Tonic triad, the only consonant harmony

in the entire composition. In fact, the bi-functional effect of the Tonic note, functioning

at the same time a part of Subdominant function in mm. 24-25, has entirely different

meaning this time. The chromatic line in soprano voice Bb-Bbb-Ab-(G) finally resolves

into note G, the chordal fifth of the Tonic triad, moreover emphasizing the only Tonic

function of the final chord with no other possibility for interpretation.

The harmonic progression in the last two measures can be described in traditional

terms as V9b5

/IV—V9#5

/bII (Db)—I. On the one hand, it creates a final cadence of a

special type, definitely coming from and based on a plagal gesture. Such an idea of using

two Dominant dissonant harmonies consecutively and finally resolving unconventionally,

reaches its triumph in this particular work. On the other, V9#5

/bII chord can also be

interpreted as a tritone substitution of a traditional Dominant within the overall functional

circle (T) – SD – D – T.

36

As mentioned earlier, for Scriabin, the Dominants of the keys a tritone apart in the

Double-Mode system have the same functional meaning and are used interchangeably.

For example, Dominant of the Dominant of the key a tritone apart, D9#5

/bII appearing in

m. 48, does not resolve into its “own tonic” Db, but moves directly into the C major triad,

the final Tonic of the entire composition. Notice two tones C and E that remain common

between the two chords throughout the resolution. Two Abs, in their turn, resolve

differently by means of a contrapuntal voice-leading: Ab in the soprano moves by

semitone down to the chordal fifth of the Tonic chord, thus, outlining melodic Phrygian

motion. The second Ab in the bass voice discharges directly to C, the Tonic of the entire

composition. Both the plagal gesture Ab-C (^b6-^1) in the bass and the Phrygian motion

Ab-G (^b6-^5) in the soprano for the last time articulate the importance of the

Subdominant function in the piece. Gb/F#s, in their turn, resolve in two opposite

directions: Gb to E, directly resolving into the chordal third of the Tonic and Gb’s

enharmonically equivalent F# discharging into G (natural).49

Example 3.7. Final cadence in mm. 48-49 in Op. 52, no.1.

However, if the assumption is that Example 3.4 represents the overall tonal design

of the entire composition, then the cadence in mm. 24-25 already functions as the final

tonal conclusion of the entire piece. Since the second half of the piece is mostly based

upon the prolongation of Tonic function in general and the Tonic harmony in particular,

then the final cadence in mm. 48-49 plays a subordinate role and can be interpreted as a

local Plagal cadence prolonging Tonic harmony from m. 25. Example 3.8 shows the

voice leading in measures 48-49.

49. Later, the same type of Plagal cadence will reappear in Scriabin’s Prometheus, Op. 60.

37

Example 3.8. Voice-leading in the final cadence (mm. 48-49) in Op. 52, no. 1.

I------------------------------------------I

There are, however, two details that do not fit the puzzle; first, what happens to

the notes F4 and A4 at the cadence in mm. 24-25, and second, how can we explain that

the consonant tonic triad, the only triad in the entire composition appears only at the very

end of the piece? These details suggest the idea of a delayed tonic resolution. Although

Scriabin’s harmonic language in general is based upon traditional chord resolutions of

fourth-fifth relationships, his harmonic idiom in particular underwent dramatic changes.

Using traditional harmonic paradigms, especially of Tonic-Dominant relationships, his

evolving language involved an apparent need for delaying, weakening, and even omitting

Tonic resolution at the end.

Dernova claims that all Scriabin’s harmonies, especially from his middle and late

periods, have to be thought of as Dominant in their origin. Such an observation based

upon her analytical approach consequences into the logical conclusion. The idea of a

never stated Tonic floating “up in the air” also intertwines with Scriabin’s complicated

philosophical believes and mystical views. For him, creativity was

. . . an unceasing striving for an elusive goal. The tendency

of a dominant chord structure to resolve to its tonic is

perhaps the strongest tension-releasing characteristic of

tonal music. For Skryabin, the best way to express his

feelings and ideas was, ultimately, to compose music that

was constantly ‘dominant’ in sound.50

50. Guenther, “Varvara Dernova’s System of Analysis,” 180.

38

Dernova explicitly says that, “Every such a Dominant implies a Tonic . . .

sounding only in the imagination . . . .”51 Consequently, although not present in the score,

Tonic resolution is always implied.

The fact that Tonic gradually disappears from Scriabin’s scores also implies

partial “emancipation” of Dominant-like chords. One even might argue that such

sonorities change their status from unstable and thus, requiring resolution to functionally

stable and, hence, not needing to be resolved anymore. As Guenther put it, “Having

evolved expressive means for diffusing the resolution tendency of the approach to the

tonic, Skryabin questioned, as it were, the necessity of a pure tonic resolution.”52

Scriabin’s harmonic language evolved from conventional late Romantic style to

his personal and somewhat unique harmonic process based on a double-mode system in

general and the properties of a tritone in particular. The following are the steps that

slowly occurred in the transformation of Scriabin’s harmonic language in relation to the

concept of Tonic resolution:

1. Traditional resolution of Dominant harmony into its Tonic.

2. Delayed Tonic resolution.

3. Resolution of Dominant harmony into Tonics a tritone apart.

4. Bi-functional combination or “functional collage” of D

T

5. Conclusion on the Dominant without its traditional resolution into Tonic.53


The second piece, Загадка [Enigme] from Trois Morceaux, Op. 52 is truly

enigmatic and fascinating. There is no one explanation that could be completely

satisfactory in any analytical area, including form, harmony, functional design, and its

melodic structure. Consider, for example, the formal design of this composition. It can



53. In Enigme Op. 52, no. 2 for the first time, and then in both pieces comprising Op. 59, Poème

and Prelude, Scriabin declined the final conclusion with the Tonic sonorities. However, such a change

occurred only in the piano miniatures. In his large orchestral compositions, such as symphonic poems, the

use of final Tonic was still a necessary part of the compositional strategy.

39

be interpreted as either binary or ternary. Although inherently different, these two formal

types are intertwined in this case in a very crafty way. Example 3.10 represents the

overall formal structure of Op. 52, no. 2.

Example 3.9. Formal structure of Op. 52, no. 2.

A (mm. 1-24) B (mm.23!-46)54 A (mm.47-62)

Tonally closed Tonally open Tonally open/closed?

However, such a formal explanation based on the binary layout with a tonally

open B section is not completely satisfying. Although the B section is dependent

thematically because it is based on the melodic idea from measure 6, it does not resemble

melodic and harmonic digressions that are typical for binary structures. In fact, despite

the fact that the material is developed sequentially and the entire B section lacks tonal

closure, it still stands on its own as a contrasting and independent twenty-four-measure

long middle section, proportionally equivalent to the A section. Consequently, it strongly

alludes to the ternary formal design.

In his middle period, in general, and in this opus, in particular, Scriabin broadened

the horizons of the traditional functional system. The global idea of having two

complementing triads a tritone apart that also function interchangeably, resulted in a

broader and more comprehensive notion of a term “function.” Accordingly, the triad on

the ^1 only no longer represents Tonic function. Rather, Tonic function becomes a

broader category “function-complex,” where each complex is based upon intertwined

relationships of two tritone related centers. This theory echoes Lendvai’s idea of axis of

symmetry. The difference, however, is that the triads on ^1, ^4, and ^5 still remain the

most important in terms of tonal and, thus, functional centers, in comparison with ^b6

and ^3 in Lendvai’s system. Example 3.10 shows such a layout in the key of Db Major,

the key of Op. 52, no. 2:

54. An elided cadence enriched by a delayed appearance of the cadential Tonic in the bass creates

a phrase overlap in mm. 23-24.

40

Example 3.10. Overall functional layout in the key of Db Major.

T Db-G

SD D Gb-C Ab-D

As mentioned earlier, one of the most important claims made by Dernova is that

Scriabin’s music is constantly Dominant in its nature and is based on consecutive

Dominant-like sonorities. Since the Tonic function is no longer represented with only

one chord but rather with two a tritone apart, the fundamental D9b5#5

or its slight

alterations or modifications can be traditionally and equally resolved into both Tonics a

tritone apart.

The fact that in his [Scriabin’s] mode the two traditional

resolutions can be considered as a part of the same system

leads to the concept of unifying the dominants from two

different tonalities, thus dissipating, at least theoretically,

the need for tonic resolution.55

Since the Dominant sonorities of the two keys a tritone apart are enharmonically

equivalent, they furthermore can be generalized as one Dominant entity with the ability to

resolve into either of its Tonics. As Guenther put it:

This relates directly to the evidence of Skryabin’s music,

where we at first see a preference for chords of dominant-

like structure and for tritone relation of such chords, then

an occasional experimentation with the tonal resolution of

the chords in this tritone relationship, and, finally, a gradual

movement away from any tonic resolution. After this point,

the music begins to consist only of dominant-like chord

structures, most frequently progressing by tritone root

movement.56

As a result, Dominant resolution into Tonics, which used to be stated explicitly in

Scriabin’s first and middle period compositions, becomes more of the implied


56. Ibid.

41

characteristics of his mature and late periods. Enigme from Op. 52 opens a series of

Scriabin’s tonal compositions that do not have a final Tonic closure.

The opening A section of Enigme (mm. 1-24) is written in a period form, where

the second phrase (mm. 12-24) is only a partial restatement of the first phrase (mm. 1-6)

transposed by a major third. Additionally, the overall harmonic motion of the second

phrase is expanded by means of the “Small Enharmonic Sequence.”57 As shown in

Example 3.11, such a root motion by minor thirds, also called in the literature a third

cycle,58 results from the interlocking tritone links of two complementary whole-tone

scales.

Example 3.11. Root motion in the bass by minor thirds in Op. 52, no. 2.

Another way of looking at the first twenty-four measures is contrapuntal.

Example 3.12 shows the overall voice leading through the first twenty-four measures,

concluding with the conventional V-I cadence in Db major in mm. 22-24.

Example 3.12. Contrapuntal voice-leading motion in mm. 1-24.

V-----------------------------------------------------------------V----------I8-7

57. For detailed explanation of this concept, refer to pp. 21-22 of this document. See also

Dernova, Garmonia Scriabina, 50-51; Guenther, “Varvara Dernova’s System of Analysis,” 184.

58. Such a description only states the foreground events and lacks an explanation of the overall

tonal motion. See Dave Headlam, The Music of Alban Berg (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University

Press, 1996), 200.

42

The piece opens with an auxiliary cadence (V4/2

of Db).59 The opening eight

measures are based upon tritone Tonic complex Db-G-Db introduced by its dominants

Ab9b5

-D9b5

-Ab9b5

. These two Dominant9b5

chords share four common tones out of five

with each other.60 In fact, they are inversions of each other and, consequently, prolong

the same harmony. Example 3.13 shows the enharmonic equivalence of these two

sonorities.

Example 3.13. Enharmonic equivalence of Ab9b5

– D9b5

.

This harmonic complex Ab-D-(Ab) represents a Dominant tritone complex.

However, one might find it hard to claim whether this opening gesture represents

Dominant or Tonic. On the one hand, although these enharmonically respelled

Dominants are different inversions of the same Dominant chord (D9b5

of Db major and

D9b5

of G major), they sound quite stable and thus could be thought of as “emancipated”

sonorities, which do not require resolution in a strict sense.61 In fact, they could fulfill the

role of Tonic as the stable function in the entire tonal design of this composition. On the

other hand, if the Tonic function is only implied through its Dominant-like chord

representatives, not even stated explicitly in the score, then the analytical conclusion is

the opposite. This claim, however, has no supporting evidence in the music. In fact, the

key signature of five flats and the conventional V-I cadence in Db major in mm. 22-24

prove the opposite. Despite such seeming polar interpretations, the understanding of this

59. The following analysis is based on the assumption that the five-flat key signature, stated at the

very beginning by the composer himself, implies Db major as the key of this composition.

60. If we conceive of this Dominant sonority as Dominant7b5

, rather than Dominant9b5

, then these

two chords are absolutely enharmonically equivalent.

61. For more on the notion of “emancipated” dissonance see Arnold Schoenberg, Style and Idea,

ed. Leonard Stein (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975), 91.

43

“enigmatic” piece lies in intertwining of the two functions, Tonic and Dominant, where

there is no obvious foreground distinction which chord represents what function.

Blurring the boundaries between the two functions is the core compositional idea of this

work.

The Subdominant function, in its turn, is represented only locally in mm. 17-19.

As mentioned earlier, the overall root motion between the four Dominant-quality seventh

chords, C-Eb-Gb-A, results from the two interlocking tritones: C-Gb and Eb-A. Based

on Lendvai’s functional theory, their purpose is to fulfilling Plagal, Subdominant

function in this context. This “Plagal island” becomes the local center, surrounded by the

Dominant-like sonorities of the Dominant function, thus, also resulting in symmetrical

balance of the entire A section.

A more expanded version of mm. 17-19 to mm. 17-24 can also be explained by

means of Scriabin’s partial use of the “Big Enharmonic Sequence” (for detailed

explanation, refer to pp. 21-22 of this document).62 Notice the general motion of the

tritone links: C-Gb (mm. 17 and 19), D-Ab (mm. 20 and 22), enriched and expanded by

the overlapping motion of complementary tritones, thus creating a local “Small

Enharmonic Sequence,” described earlier. This overall harmonic motion progresses

towards Ab—Dominant of Db major, and finally reaches its climax in mm. 22-24 with

the conventional Perfect Authentic Cadence.

The final, broader interpretation of the first 24 measures conceives of this music

as one big auxiliary cadence V-I (in Db major). Globally, overall harmonic motion is

based upon a prolongation of one D9b5

harmony of Db major. Compare, for example,

measures 6 and 22. The Dominant harmonies are, in fact, identical. Furthermore, the

entire harmonic motion between these two sonorities can be conceived as a dissonant

Dominant prolongation,63 discharging conventionally into the Tonic of Db in mm. 23-24.

Example 3.14 shows the general contrapuntal motion of the auxiliary cadence.

62. See also Dernova, Garmonia Scriabina, 49-50; Guenther, “Varvara Dernova’s System of

Analysis,” 184.

63. Robert Morgan, “Dissonant Prolongation: Theoretical and Compositional Precedents,” Journal

of Music Theory 20, no. 1 (Spring 1976): 49-91.

44

Example 3.14. Contrapuntal motion of the auxiliary cadence in mm. 23-24.

The cadence in mm. 22-24 is the only cadence of the entire composition where a

Db major Tonic appears. Represented by a dissonant seventh chord on Db (Db7b5

), this

dominant-like sonority sounds stable, and thus functions as the Tonic. In addition, the

overall contrapuntal voice leading also supports such a reading (refer to Example 3.12).

The connection between the A and B sections also deserves a closer look and

detailed explanation. The elided cadence in mm. 22-24 smoothly connects A and B

sections. The appearance of the Db major Tonic itself at the cadence, however, is delayed

until measure 24, while the B section starts in m. 23 in the upper voice. The blurring of

the formal boundaries also creates a smooth uninterrupted texture and flowing continuity

within the form. Such a compositional device becomes one of the most common formal

techniques in Scriabin’s compositions of mature and late periods.

The middle section of Op. 52, no. 2 is based upon the melodic idea from m. 6,

transformed rhythmically and metrically in augmentation over three measures each time

it appears. The “Big Enharmonic Sequence” is the foundation of the overall harmonic

progression. Interestingly, the fragmental appearance of the “Big Enharmonic Sequence”

in the A section continues its way through the sectional boundaries and completes its

entire cycle at the end of the middle section. Example 3.15 shows the overall bass

motion of the “Big Enharmonic Sequence” through both A and B sections.

Example 3.15. Overall bass motion of the “Big Enharmonic Sequence”

through both A and B sections.

45

By glancing to the end of the composition, we notice that the chord in m. 57 is

V9b5

of Db major and it is the exact replication of the chord in m. 6. By not resolving

this dissonant sonority in m. 6, Scriabin creates truly “enigmatic” tonal and harmonic

connections by creating the Dominant arch between the beginning and the end with the

Tonic standing in the middle. Such a layout of Tonic being surrounded by its Dominants

seems to be an interesting compositional idea. It creates symmetry where the Tonic

functions not only as the tonal center, but also as the axis of symmetrical overall design

in its broader sense. Thus, the overall functional design of Op. 52, no. 2 can be expressed

as shown in Example 3.16.

Example 3.16. Functional design of Op. 52, no. 2.

D ← T → D

(mm.1-24) (mm. 23-46) (mm. 47-61)

This open-ended structure also works in consonance with the mediating position

this piece carries within the entire cycle. It also smoothly connects functionally with the

following up piece. Notice that the final closing piece opens with the interplay of the two

Dominants a tritone apart, representing a Dominant axis F#-C of B major, the key of this

work.

Depending upon an interpretation and the approach chosen by the analyst, the

final closure in mm. 61-62 can be explained as either tonally closed or tonally open. In

particular, such a choice depends upon how the analyst interprets harmonic sonorities and

harmonic function they serve within a particular musical context. With doublings

omitted, the sonority in m. 61 results in a whole-tone pentachord collection. When

rearranged by thirds, it becomes a conventional D7b5#5

of Db major:

Example 3.17. Whole-tone pentachord collection derived from D7b5#5

of Db major.

46

However, by separating the sonorities in both hands and analyzing them

independently including doublings, the result is even more striking. The conventional

sonority in the left hand is D7#5

of G major, and the sonority in the right hand is D9#5

of

Db major. Moreover, as shown in Example 3.18, both Dominants are variants of the same

Dominant harmony, just respelled enharmonically.

Example 3.18. D7#5 in G major versus D9#5 in Db major.

V7#5

/G V9#5

/Db

Such a Dominant conclusion only alludes to a Tonic resolution, “resembling it

somewhere up in the air.” Not surprisingly, the marking in the score, made by Scriabin

himself, indicates “envolé,” meaning “flying away.” Scriabin even adds an extra measure

at the very end, filled with the rest and fermata sign, emphasizing to the performer the

importance of their presence. Such a creative ending strongly emphasizes the need for

extra time within imaginary interpretation, while at the same time, leaving the conclusion

up to the listener.


Poem Languide [Поэма Томления] concludes Op. 52. It is the shortest movement

of the three in this cycle. However, the wealth of the musical material and the language

Scriabin employs in order to achieve his compositional design are of immense power.

The title itself, The Poem of Languor, suggests a particular state of emotions, a mood, a

“color.” It portrays a static state of mind rather than developmental growth, alluding to

the impressionistic way of capturing one particular emotion. I offer my reading and

understanding of what Scriabin might have had in mind while composing such a

complex, but, at the same time, incredibly logical and coherent piece of art in miniature

form.

A seemingly straightforward reading of the form already reveals the movement’s

complexity. On the one hand, its periodic structure fits well into conventional tonal

47

design: twelve measures, divided into two unequal phrases of 4+8 (mm. 1-4 and 5-12).

The first four measures are clearly punctuated by conventional half cadence, pausing on

the Dominant harmony, F#9add6

chord in B major on the downbeat of m. 4. The second

phrase is expanded by means of a sequence; it gets punctuated by conventional perfect

authentic cadence V-I, F#9add6

to B major triad in mm. 11-12. Additionally, the

expansion of the second phrase into eight measures results from the slowing down of the

harmonic rhythm from two different harmonies per measure in the first four measures of

the first phrase to only one harmony per measure in mm. 5-9. On the other hand,

harmonic and melodic resources employed in this compositional design propose another

formal reading.

Expansion of the second half already suggests development, but of a different

kind—not physical growth, but rather an emotional, expressive, and aroused state of

mind Scriabin tries to capture. Such an idea demands a particular musical means in order

to achieve such a goal. Needless to say, once again Scriabin’s harmonic system does not

fail him and fits well with the images he paints.

As mentioned earlier, the second phase of this periodic structure (mm. 4-12) is

based upon its expansion by means of a 4-cycle sequence. Notice that the use of four

Dominant ninth chords in mm. 4, 5, 6 and 7 is nothing more than a permutation of the

same pitch classes shared by the three Dominants, C#9b5

, A9b5#5

, and F9b5#5

. The

overall bass motion of the three first Dominants (C#-A-F) outlines what Dernova calls

the “Big Enharmonic Sequence” with omitted steps within a tritone link, completed in

full at the end of the third step, C#-(G)—A-(D#)—F-B, concluding this “journey” with

Tonic-functioning Dominant chords, F9b5#5

and B9b5

. There is no need to have a second

Dominant tritone apart in the score. As Dernova put it, “Full major ninth chord with a

split fifth [D9b5#5

] results from the sum of four Dominants with missing fifths appearing

in order within enharmonic sequence.”64 Thus, when combined, the entire pitch class

collection of four Dominants a tritone apart built on the roots C#, G (implied), A, and Eb

(implied) results in the same pitch classes within the same symmetrical chord: Dominant


48

ninth with raised and lowered fifths (D9b5#5

). Example 3.19 shows that C#9b5#5

in m. 4,

A9b5#5

in m. 5, and F9b5#5

in m. 6 are the compressed form of the two Dominants a

tritone apart with a missing chordal fifth.

Example 3.19. Compression of the two Dominants a tritone apart

resulting in a whole-tone scale.

Notice that the entire “journey” of the same Dominant-type harmony through its

different permutations and chord member’s respellings concludes with G9add6

chord in

m. 9. When collapsed into a scale pattern, this pitch class collection results in the second

possible type of a whole-tone collection, namely WT1.65 Measure 10 becomes a pivotal

junction and brings back WT0 type Dominant harmonies. One might argue that such

crafted juxtaposition of only two possible Dominant harmonies (the two whole-tone

pitch-class collections) strongly suggests overall rounded binary design, thus alluding to a

reprise form. In addition, the ascending melodic gesture that spans a minor sixth,

enharmonically respelled as an augmented fifth D(nat)5—A#5 in m. 1, returns in m. 9,

thus also creating returning effect.66 Not only does this motive get transposed by a tritone

but also gets doubled by an octave: G#4/5—E5/6.

Finally, if one conceives the form of this work in Schenkerian terms, the result

will be even more stunning and concise. The off-Tonic beginning, based on exposition of

the Dominant-functioning Dominant harmony in its two modifications (or, permutations

and respellings) a tritone apart, C9b5#5

and F#9b5

in mm. 1-2, clearly creates an

65. This semitone relationship between two whole-tone collections does not appear randomly. It

will be explored more when discussing briefly melodic-motivic levels further in this paper. The label WT

follows Joseph N. Straus, Introduction to Post-Tonal Theory, 3rd ed. (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2005),

147.

66. Despite the fact that detailed melodic-motivic analysis of Op. 52 is outside of the scope of this

document, brief observations will be offered at the end of this chapter.

49

“Auxiliary Cadence,” which becomes the foundation for the entire middle and

background ground of the entire piece, thus, initiating an expanded version of D-T

Authentic Cadence, as shown in Example 3.20.

Example 3.20. Reduced version of the middle ground of Op. 52, no. 3.

V/V-V9 V

9---I (B maj.)

As mentioned earlier, Scriabin’s harmonic language operates within a double

mode system based on two chords a tritone apart. If we conceive of this idea as three

main functions, Tonic, Subdominant, and Dominant, conventionally located on ^1, ^4,

and ^5 respectively, we can clearly see that each of the functions gets represented not by

one, but generally by four triads, or by two seventh, or in this case, ninth chords a tritone

apart, as shown previously in Example 2.2.67

Example 3.21. Three main functions on ^1, ^4, and ^5 and their

chordal root representatives a tritone apart.

SD T D

E B F#

Db G Ab D Eb A

Bb F C

67. Notice the difference between Lendvai’s and my layout of the three main functions, Tonic,

Subdominant, and Dominant and their tritone representatives. My approach is based on the same idea

outlined by Lendvai of combining four chords within one function based on their major-minor key

relationships. Major functions, such as Tonic, Subdominant and Dominant, however, are located

conventionally on ^1, ^4, and ^5 respectively. Let the readers be reminded that Lendvai’s main functions,

Tonic, Subdominant, and Dominant, are located on ^1, ^b6, and ^3 respectively along with their tritone

representatives. For more information, refer to Lendvai, The Workshop of Bartók and Kodály, 271.

50

Not only does Scriabin restrict his harmonic “vocabulary” to only Dominant-type

sonorities, but also he mostly limits his use of two functions, Tonic and Dominant with

their two representatives each.68 The only exception is the middle section where “Big

Enharmonic Sequence” represents an overall functional cycle.

Example 3.22. Overall functional cycle in the middle section of Op. 52, no. 3.

SD — D —T

C# — A — F—B

As the harmonic foundation of this composition, Scriabin for the first time

expands his Dominant palette by using a Dominant ninth chord (with raised, lowered

fifths and/or added sixth) rather than a Dominant seventh chord.69 He sets up languor

mood at the very beginning by introducing two Dominant ninth chords a tritone apart in

mm. 1-2: F#9#5 add.6

and C9b5#5

. As Dernova put it:

Enharmonic equivalence of the two Dominants within a

tritone link is nothing more than permutation, or, to be

precise, regrouping of the tones of the initial Dominant,

resulting in the change of meaning of chord members

within a consecutive chord structure.

However, such enharmonic change of the Dominants is not

limited to only permutation in Scriabin’s output. … Priority

is given to such a progression in which one Dominant

supplements another or gets supplemented. … Thus, the

sum of the two Dominants within a tritone link represents

complete Dominant seventh chord with lowered fifth.70

68. There is no chord that appears on ^4 or ^#7 (E or A#/Bb) in the entire composition of Op. 52,

no. 3.

69. Notice that D9b5#5

chord is completely symmetrical and, when collapsed into a scale pattern,

results in a whole-tone pitch-class collection.


51

Dernova makes an interesting point: “. . . a missing chordal fifth of the initial

Dominant will appear as a root in the derivative [successive] Dominant after a tritone step

from one Dominant to another.”71 Such an interesting observation helps us to understand

the opening gesture of Op. 52, no. 3. This opening is based upon introduction of two

Dominant ninth chords a tritone apart, C9b5#5

and F#9add6

, going back and forth between

the two as main representatives of the Dominant function. Notice that the pitch class C is

missing in F#9add6

chord, but it appears as the root of C9b5#5

, thus proving that F#9add6

is the main Dominant and C9b5#5

is its derivative Dominant. Since these two chords are

enharmonically equivalent and share five out of six tones of WT0 whole-tone collection

(D, E, F#, Ab, Bb), together, they complete the entire whole-tone collection, as it is

shown in Example 3.23.

Example 3.23. Enharmonicism of the two Dominants a tritone apart, F#9add6

and

C9b5#5

, resulting in the whole-tone scale when combined.

In fact, this creative opening gesture of two alternating Dominants a tritone apart

is nothing more than one sonority, craftily elaborated through its enharmonic change of

meaning, respelling, and notation.

One particularly interesting feature of this composition is the appearance of

seemingly “foreign tones” that do not belong to the harmonic layout. However, by

exploring melodic and contrapuntal lines on a deeper level, one will be fascinated by

Scriabin’s creativity and ability to project and anticipate harmonic and melodic events

that are about to come. Notice that the harmonic paradigms and contrapuntal motions

that occur in mm. 3 and 9 are almost analogous. Both places also share the same

71. Ibid.

52

compositional design: the appearance of a seemingly “foreign” note a perfect fifth below

the root of the Dominant harmonies.

Nothing, however, is alien in Scriabin’s harmonic and melodic palette. Each

appearance of a note in the score has a meaning and serves a particular purpose. One

might argue that notes G2 in m. 3 and C2 in mm. 9-10 appear in the score in order to

create only a colorful sonic effect. Scriabin for the first time does not write a descending

octave leap from a root of arpeggiated descending Dominant harmonies, but a perfect

fifth below from D3 to G2 first, and only then, an octave leap from G2 to G1 (see left

hand in m. 3). First, by suddenly changing the harmonic profile, the composer

emphasizes change in forthcoming events. Notice that from m. 3, a listener and/or a

performer enters a cadential zone (that will be discussed shortly). Second, pitch-class G

is not a randomly chosen note in the score. Any Dominant seventh or ninth harmony

includes a tritone, which, theoretically, would have to be resolved. In this case, D9add6

appearing in m. 3 includes a tritone F#-C. By moving these tendency tones with inward

motion, they would need to resolve to G-B or G-Bb (G major or g minor, implied).

Consequently, the presence of a tritone alone, already implies its resolution. Third, G2,

by being ^b6 in B major, resolves by descending semitone motion to ^5 on the downbeat

of m. 4, thus leading to a “Phrygian” half cadence. Not only does the importance of

pitch-class G get demarcated by its appearance three times consecutively, strongly

punctuated on the second and the third beats of m. 3, it also continues to be the lowest

sounding note, the bass for the entire second half of the measure that gracefully descends

by a semitone motion to ^5, the Dominant of B major. Finally, since pitch-class G is a

member of the Subdominant function in B major, it also fulfills its predominant

functional role:

Example 3.24. “Phrygian” half cadence in mm. 3-4.

SD—D

^b6—^5

G — F# (in B major)

Almost the same compositional scheme returns in mm. 9-10. This time, though,

there is only a leap from G2, the root of G9add6

to C2, located a perfect fifth below and it

is not followed by a de

from m. 3 expand from

First, the insertion of a

in the initial ascending

3 to D#5-B5. Second,

beat of m. 10 is the ex

by perfect fourth melo

and 10) and harmonica

Despite obviou

necessity of pitch-class

9-10. The overall har

G(nat)2 gets prolonged

a semitone into F#2 on

function by preparing

resolving to the Tonic

entire work:

Exam

72. Recall that pitc

53

descending octave leap. Notice that the harmo

rom one measure to two measures in mm. 9-1

f a melodic motive G#5-A5-B5-E6, doubled b

ng minor-sixth leap from G#5 to E6, transpose

d, Scriabin inserts an extra beat on the downbe

exact transposition of the third beat from m. 3

elodically (compare ascending motives in the

ically.

us foreground similarities, these two places di

ass G(nat) in m. 3 was discussed earlier.72 This

harmonic progression towards the final cade

ed through measures 9 and 10 and gracefully re

on the downbeat of m. 11. Functionally, G9add

ing actual Dominant F#9add6

on the downb

ic triad of B major on the downbeat of m. 12

mple 3.25. Mm. 3-4 and mm. 9-11 of Op. 52,

itch-class G did not belong harmonically to any of its su

3

monic and motivic ideas

10 by different means.

by a lower octave, fills

sed motivically from m.

beat of m. 10. The third

. 3, transposed this time

he right hands of mm. 3

differ conceptually. The

is is not the case in mm.

adence is almost same:

y resolves downwards by

add6 fulfills Predominant

nbeat of m. 11 finally

12, the only triad of the

2, no. 3.

surrounding Dominants.

Another intere

composition is the use

thus initially functioni

anticipate forthcoming

11. By comparing har

despite the fact that the

aspect. Based on the

projecting upcoming h

leading. Together with

upper voices, these tw

precise, French-sixths:


m. 3 and C-E-Gb-Bb i


tritone apart, such harm

Thus, the French-sixth

“twin,” enharmonicall

Dominant F#-A#-C(#)

C-E-Gb-Bb in m. 10

fifth, F#-A#-C-E, in B

Both French s

voices: D(nat)-C# in m

as the metrically weak

serve as anticipation

9

54

eresting compositional device employed b

se of anticipatory gesture. A note that does not

oning as a non-chord tone, will appear in the

ng harmonic events. Let us return for a mome

armonic paradigms between these two places

they are almost identical on a surface level, the

he premise that the anticipatory gesture is o

g harmonic events, one will realize the conse

ith the lowest sounding notes, G2 in m. 3 and

two harmonic sonorities result in Augmente

hs: G-B-C#-E# in m. 3 and C-E-F#-A# in m.

ivalent to Dominant seventh chords with lowere

b in m. 10. Since any Dominant seventh chord

ivalent to another Dominant seventh chord w

armonic progressions logically fulfill harmonic

xth chord G-B-Db-F in m. 3 behaves as a tr

ally respelled C#-E#-G-B chord, which is a D

(#)-E in B major. The same idea applies to mm

0 is in fact an enharmonically respelled Dom

B major.

sixth chords result from contrapuntal melo

m. 3 and G(nat)-F# in m. 10. Observe that bot

eak last eighth notes in mm. 3 and 10. To m

tions that become chord tones, specifica

by Scriabin in this

ot belong to a harmony,

the musical texture and

ent to mm. 3-4 and 10-

ces, one will notice that

they differ in one crucial

one important part for

nsequence of the voice-

nd C3 in m. 10 and the

nted-sixth chords, to be

m. 10. These chords are

ered fifths: G-B-Db-F in

rd with a lowered fifth is

with a lowered fifth a

ic and functional syntax.

tritone substitute of its

a Dominant of the main

mm. 10-11. French-sixth

ominant with a lowered

odic motions in inner

both C#3 and F#3 appear

my ear, both notes also

ically roots, therefore

55

foreshadowing upcoming harmonic events. Such an architectural device creates an

overlapping effect and blurs boundaries between the two sections of the form in mm. 3-4

and, at the same time, creates grammatical punctuation towards the end in mm. 10-11.

Some Thoughts on Melodic-Motivic Gestures in Op. 52, No. 3

Although melodic-motivic analysis of Op. 52 is outside the scope of this

document, I feel it necessary to share some additional thoughts that are directly linked to

Scriabin’s harmonic language. When extended into a three-note melodic gesture in the

inner voice, the motives D(nat)3-C#3-A#3 in mm. 3-4 and G(nat)3-F#3-D#4 in mm. 10-

11 become variants of a main melodic leitmotiv employed by the composer.

Contrapuntal multi-layers get intertwined in such a way that one will find himself

puzzled where exactly one melodic line goes and what and where its next logical

continuation is. As always, Scriabin is very articulate in his writing, especially regarding

stem direction.73 For example, notice the differently notated harmonic paradigms: French-

sixth (on ^b6) to V (F#9add6

) in mm. 3-4 and French-sixth (on ^b2) to V (F#add6

) in mm.

10-11. In the first case, the melodic line D3-C#3 is notated with stems down, while the

bass note G3 is notated with a stem up. In m. 10, however, the melodic line G3-F#3 is

notated with stems up, while the bass C3 is notated with a stem down. Such a notational

difference harmonically and melodically in almost identical places should significantly

impact on a performer’s understanding and, as a result, his/her interpretation on the one

hand, and, to enable a theorist to muse about the original intent of a composer, on the

other.

Finally, another interesting detail bears mentioning. One will notice that there are

many semitone-based melodic motives that create a web of short intertwined contrapuntal

lines. Interestingly enough, these motives are comprised of a step-wise melodic motion

that progress between lowered and raised chordal fifths through the typical chordal

perfect fifth, which ironically becomes a non-chord tone in this particular case. Notice,

for example, a descending melodic chromatic motion in the tenor voice in m. 6, where C4

becomes a chromatic passing tone between the two chord members, Db4 and B3.

73. Such clarity of writing inevitably guides a performer to bring out melodic lines that the

composer wants to emphasize through playing.

56

Another instance can be found on the last beat of m. 1 and down beat of m. 2. One of the

inner-voices in the right hand has an ascending chromatic motion F#4-G(nat)4-G#4,

where G(nat)4 functions as a passing non-chord tone between the two types of chordal

fifth, raised and lowered.

57

CHAPTER FOUR

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR FURTHER STUDY

Scriabin’s music embraces the past and the future, formality and freedom. Its

large range of expression – anger, fear, heroism, darkness, mystery, evil, light, fire, flight,

intoxication, languor, love, flight, ecstasy – is the very connective tissue of his life and

thought.

Scriabin was a man ahead of his time, one of music’s real innovators, who left a

magnificent legacy of beauty. Scriabin's scholars believe that, had Scriabin lived beyond

his brief 43 years, he would have preceded the Austrian school of dodecaphony, and

Moscow would have become the center of atonality. There appears to be no end to the

number of composers who have been influenced by Scriabin’s music. The list includes

Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Medtner, Blumenfeld, Messiaen, Szymanowski,

and many others.

The main goal of this document was to investigate one aspect of Scriabin’s

compositions, namely symmetry and how it is manifested by different musical means in

his music. The description of Scriabin’s harmonic system in general and his harmonic

vocabulary in particular served as the necessary foundation for further discussion. The

theories of Russian theorists Boleslav Yavorsky and Varvara Dernova may be new to the

American reader, but clearly can be applied to the analyses of this particular repertoire.

Lendvai’s theory of axis symmetry provides a lens through which to explore his ideas and

apply them to Scriabin’s music. As Lendvai reminds us in his book The Workshop of

Bartok and Kodaly, “An important feature of classical harmony is that tonality goes hand

by hand with asymmetry and atonality goes hand by hand with symmetry.”74

No one will argue against this statement. However, Scriabin’s ingenuity proves

that it is possible to create a harmonic system based upon symmetry buttressed by

conventional tonal principles. His language operates within an expanded major-minor

tonal system, governed by the principles of conventional contrapuntal voice leading. In

order for surface details to be understood and explained, they have to be realigned or

74. See Lendvai, The Workshop of Bartók and Kodály, 293.

58

suppressed. Scriabin’s harmonic language operates not within diatonicism, but

chromaticism based upon refinement of the rules under which diatonic harmonies

operate. For example, conventional cadential converging motion of ^2 to ^1, ^7 to ^1

gets replaced by its chromaticized symmetrical version: ^b2 to ^1, ^7 to ^1. Despite the

fact that Scriabin based his harmonic system upon symmetrical properties of a tritone and

hints towards and alludes to sonic atonal effects, he did not give up tonality or

functionality along with their fundamental principles.

In my analysis I have tried to combine two different approaches: functional and

Schenkerian. While looking at musical phenomena from different perspectives and

focusing on and emphasizing different details, these two particular theories complement

each other and, when combined, result in a more comprehensive analysis.

I was not able to cover all details; there are numerous interesting aspects in

Scriabin’s music that are worthy of careful and detailed investigation. One such aspect is

the idea of continuity in Scriabin’s compositions. The existence of continuous or endless

progressions is the core of many of Scriabin’s works manifested in different ways: use of

the same melodic-harmonic idea throughout a composition, harmonic elision resulting in

the overlap of two consecutive sections of the form, functional identification of a chord

only after the bass’s appearance, delayed Tonic resolutions, off tonic beginnings, partial

statements of a sequence in the beginning of a composition, continued somewhat later in

the piece, etc. Another fascinating area that is also worth thorough investigation is

Scriabin’s “colored vision,” a manifestation of synesthesia.

Finally, there is a vast body of literature on Scriabin’s music based on octatonic,

whole-tone scales, or other types of modes of limited transposition. I contend that

although present on the surface level, these scalar formations are the outcome of the

higher tonal organizational principles, and furthermore, they play a secondary and

subsidiary role in Scriabin’s overall tonal design.

There is definitely more research to be done. One might argue that some of the

explanations found this paper could be approached in a different way or interpreted

differently. Throughout the entire document, I have conveyed that one suggested way is

not the only possibility to interpret these pieces. Moreover, I have shown how numerous

musical features such as passages, sonorities, or even overall formal structures could be

59

interpreted differently, depending on the chosen analytical angle. Such multiple

interpretations only prove how remarkably enigmatic Scriabin’s compositions are in

general, this opus in particular.

60

CHAPTER FIVE

A TRANSCRIPTION OF TROIS MORCEAUX, OP. 52

FOR CHAMBER ORCHESTRA

Scriabin’s music has been fascinating me for many years. As a former Ph.D.

student in music theory, it triggered my interest to unravel what theoretical mechanisms

governed such complex, and at the same time, immensely beautiful music. As a

conductor and an arranger, I found myself intrigued and curious: would it be possible to

recreate the same music but with a different orchestral color, in this particular case with

string instruments? I felt that string players are limited in their ability to learn Scriabin’s

music since, first, there is no repertoire written for string ensembles by Scriabin himself,

and second, there are no arrangements of his music for such orchestras. Thus, the idea to

undertake this project came about.

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baker, James M. The Music of Alexander Scriabin. New Haven: Yale University Press,

1986.

________. “Schenkerian Analysis and Post-tonal Music.” In Aspects of Schenkerian

Theory, edited by David W. Beach, 153-86. New Haven and London: Yale

University Press, 1983.

________. “Scriabin’s Implicit Tonality.” Music Theory Spectrum 2, no. 1 (Spring 1980):

1-18.

Bass, Richard. “Half-Diminished Functions and Transformations in Late Romantic

Music.” Music Theory Spectrum 23, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 41-60.

Bowers, Faubion. Scriabin: A Biography. 2nd ed. New York: Dover Publications, 1996.

Brown, Matthew. “The Diatonic and the Chromatic in Schenker’s Theory of Harmonic

Relations.” Journal of Music Theory 30, no. 1 (Spring 1986): 1-33.

Callender, Clifton. “Voice-Leading Parsimony in the Music of Alexander Scriabin.”

Journal of Music Theory 42, no. 2 (Autumn 1998): 219-33.

Cohn, Richard. “Bartok’s Octatonic Strategies: A Motivic Approach.” Journal of the

American Musicological Society 44, no. 2 (Summer 1991): 262-300.

Dernova, Varvara. Garmonia Scriabina. Leningrad: Muzika, 1968 [Depнова, Βарвара.

Γармония Скрябина. Ленинград: Музыка, 1968 = Dernova, Varvara. The

Harmony of Scriabin. Leningrad: Music, 1968].

Forte, Allen. “New Approaches to the Linear Analysis of Music.” Journal of the

American Musicological Society 41, no. 2 (Summer 1988): 315-48.

________. The Structure of Atonal Music. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University

Press, 1973.

Guenther, Roy J. “Varvara Dernova’s System of Analysis of the Music of Skryabin.” In

Russian Musical Thought in Music, edited by Gordon D. McQuere, 165-216. Ann

Arbor, Michigan: UMI Research Press, 1983.

92

Harrison, Daniel. Harmonic Function in Chromatic Music: A Renewed Dualist Theory

and an Account of Its Precedents. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.

Headlam, Dave. The Music of Alban Berg. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University

Press, 1996.

Hindemith, Paul. The Craft of Musical Composition. 4th ed. Vol. 1, bk. 1. Translated by

Arthur Mendel. Mainz: Schott, 1942.

Hull, A. Eaglefield. “Scriabin’s Scientific Derivation of Harmony Versus Empirical

Methods.” Journal of the Royal Musical Association, 43rd Session (1916-1917):

17-28.

Lendvai, Ernő. The Workshop of Bartók and Kodály. Budapest: Editio Musica, 1983.

Lissa, Sofia. “Geschichtliche Vorform der Zwolftontechnik.” Acta Musicologica 7

(January 1935): 15-21.

________. “Russko-Polskie Muzikalnie Sviazi.” V sbornike Shopen i Skriabin, pod

redakziei Igoria Belzi, 293-374. Moskva: N.p., 1963 [Лисса Зофья. “Русско-

Польские Музыкальные Связи.” в сборнике Шопен и Скрябин, 293-374.

Mockвa: H.p., 1963 = Lissa, Sofia. “Russian-Polish Musical Connections.” In

Chopin and Scriabin, edited by Igor Belza, 293-374. Moscow: N.p., 1963].

McQuere, Gordon D. “The Elements of the Structure of Musical Speech by S.V.

Protopopov: A Translation and Commentary.” PhD diss., University of Iowa,

1978.

________. “The Theories of Boleslav Yavorsky.” In Russian Theoretical Thought in

Music, edited by Gordon D. McQuere, 109-63. Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI

Research Press, 1983.

Morgan, Robert P. “Are There Two Tonal Practices in Nineteenth-Century Music?”

Journal of Music Theory 43, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 135-63.

________. “Dissonant Prolongation: Theoretical and Compositional Precedents.” Journal

of Music Theory 20, no. 1 (Spring 1976): 49-91.

________. “Symmetrical Form and Common-Practice Tonality.” Music Theory Spectrum

20, no. 1 (Spring 1998): 1-47.

Perle, George. “Scriabin’s Self-Analyses.” Music Analysis 3, no. 2 (July 1984): 101-22.

________. Serial Composition and Atonality: An Introduction to the Music of

Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern. 4th ed. Berkeley: University of California Press,

1977.

93

Protopopov, Sergei. Elementi Stroeniia Muzikalnoi Rechi. Nom. 1 i 2. Moskva: Muzgiz,

1930-31 [Πротопопов, Сергей. Элеметы Строения Музыкальной Речи. ном.

1 и 2. Moсква: Myзгиз, 1930-31 = Protopopov, Sergei. The Elements of the

Structure of Musical Speech. Vols. 1 and 2. Moscow: Muzgiz, 1930-31].

Rifkin, Deborah. “A Theory of Motives for Prokofiev’s Music.” Music Theory Spectrum

26, no. 2 (Fall 2004): 265-90.

Roberts, Peter Deane. Modernism in Russian Piano Music. Vols. 1 and 2. Bloomington:

Indiana University Press, 1993.

Sabaneeff [Sabaneev], Leonid. “A. N. Scriabin: A Memoir.” Russian Review 25, no. 3

(July 1966): 257-67.

Sabaneev, Leonid. Modern Russian Composers. New York: International Publishers,

1927.

________. “Ultrochromaticheskaia Polemika.” Musicalnii Sovremennik nom. 2 (1916)

[Сабанеев, Леонид. “Ультрохроматическая Полемика.” Музыкальный

Современник ном. 2 (1916) = Sabaneev, Leonid. “Ultrochromatic Polemics.”

Musical Contemporary no. 2 (1916)].

Sabbagh, Peter. The Development of Harmony in Scriabin’s Works. N.p.: Universal

Publishers/uPUBLISH.com, 2003. �

Sadie, Stanley, ed. The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. 2nd ed. London:

Macmillan Publishers, 2001. S.v. “Skriabin [Scriabin], Alexandr Nikolaevich,” by

Jonathan Powell.

Samson, Jim. Music in Transition: A Study of Tonal Expansion and Atonality, 1900-1920.

London: Dent, 1977.

Schloezer, Boris de. Scriabin: Artist and Mystic. Los Angeles: University of California

Press, 1987.

Schoenberg, Arnold. Structural Functions of Harmony. Edited by Leonard Stein. New

York: W. W. Norton, 1954.

________. Style and Idea. Edited by Leonard Stein. Berkeley: University of California

Press, 1975.

Scriabin, Aleksander. Tri Piesi = Trois Morceaux, Op. 52. Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe

Muzikal’noe Izdatel’stvo, 1932 [Скрябин, Aлександр. Три Пьесы = Trois

Morceaux, Op. 52. Moсква: Государственное Музыкальное издательство,

1932 = Scriabin, Alexander. Three Pieces = Trois Morceaux, Op. 52. Moscow:

State Music Publisher, 1932].

94

Smith, Charles. “The Functional Extravagance of Chromatic Chords.” Music Theory

Spectrum 8, no. 1 (April 1986): 94-139.

Straus, Joseph, N. Introduction to Post-Tonal Theory. 3rd ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall,

2005.

________. “The Problem of Prolongation in Post-Tonal Music.” Journal of Music Theory

31, no. 1 (Spring 1987): 1-21.

Swan, Alfred J. Scriabin. 1923. Reprint, NewYork: Da Capo Press, 1969.

Wildmaier, Sebastian. Skrjabin und Prometheus. Hanke-Verlag, 1986.

Yavorsky, Boleslav. “Osnovnie Elementi Muziki.” Isskusstvo nom. 1 (1923): 185-212

[Яворский, Болеслав. “Основные элементы музыки.” Искусство ном. 1

(1923): 185-212 = Yavorsky, Boleslav. “Basic Elements of Music.” The Art no. 1

(1923): 185-212].

________. Stroenie Muzikalnoi Rechi. Chasti 1-3. Moskva: N.p., 1908 [Яворский,

Болеслав. Строение Mузыкальной Pечи. Части 1-3. Moсква: H.p., 1908 =

Yavorsky, Boleslav. The Structure of Musical Speech. Parts 1-3. Moscow: N.p.,

1908].

Documents

SCRIABIN