Frederick Chopin's Prelude, Op. 28 No. 4 in E Minor
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FREDERICK CHOPIN’S PRELUDE, OP. 28 NO. 4 IN E MINOR: HARMONIC EXPECTATION AND VIOLATION THESIS Presented to the Graduate Council of Texas State University-San Marcos in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of MUSIC by Clifford D. Burden, B.A. San Marcos, TX August 2013 FREDERICK CHOPIN’S PRELUDE, OP. 28 NO. 4 IN E MINOR: HARMONIC EXPECTATION AND VIOLATION Committee Members Approved: Cynthia I. Gonzales, Chair Kevin E. Mooney Sean F. Johnston Approved: J. Michael Willoughby Dean of the Graduate College COPYRIGHT by Clifford Dustin Burden 2013 FAIR USE AND AUTHOR’S PERMISSION STATEMENT Fair Use This work is protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States (Public Law 94-553, section 107). Consistent with fair use as defined in the Copyright Laws, brief quotations from this material are allowed with proper acknowledgment. Use of this material for financial gain without the author’s express written permission is not allowed. Duplication Permission As the copyright holder of this work I, Clifford Dustin Burden, authorize duplication of this work, in whole or in part, for educational or scholarly purposes only. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my strongest appreciation to all who helped me throughout this process. Specifically, I extend gratitude to my thesis advisor, Dr. Cynthia Gonzales. I would not have been able to complete this thesis without her guidance, support, patience, and knowledge. I also thank my committee members, Dr. Kevin Mooney and Dr. Sean Johnston, for their suggestions, encouragement, and patience. This manuscript was submitted on May 8, 2013. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................v TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES CONTINUED ................................................................................. viii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................1 II. EXPECTATIONS AND VIOLATIONS ............................................................8 2.1 Violation Types ......................................................................................8 2.2 Application in Chopin’s Prelude ..........................................................13 2.3 Summary ..............................................................................................25 2.4 Other Interpretations ............................................................................44 III. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................55 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..............................................................................................................57 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Implication of A1 and A2 ....................................................................................9 2. a , I Î - vi - ii Î× - V ı Progression ; b , I - iii - IV - V Progression . ............................10 3. Shared Violation ................................................................................................10 4. Potential Violation .............................................................................................12 5. Unrelated Violation ............................................................................................13 6. Chopin, Prelude in E minor, op. 28 no. 4, m. 1 .................................................14 7. a, SV example; b, PV example; c, UV example .................................................15 8. Chopin, Prelude in E minor, op. 28 no. 4, mm. 1-2 ...........................................15 9. a, Violation in m. 3; b, Implication in m. 3 .......................................................16 10. a, Implication in m. 3; b, Violation in m. 3 .....................................................18 11. a, Implication in m. 4; b, Violation in m. 4 .....................................................19 12. a, Implication in m. 4; b, Violation in m. 4 .....................................................21 13. PV - UV Pattern ................................................................................................22 14. a, PV - UV in m. 2; b, PV - UV in m. 4 ............................................................22 15. a, Implication in m. 5; b, Violation in m. 5 .....................................................23 16. Overview of mm. 1-5 .......................................................................................26 17. a, Implication in m. 6; b, Violation in m. 6 .....................................................28 vii FIGURES CONTINUED 18. Duality in mm. 5-6 ...........................................................................................29 19. a, Implication in m. 7; b, Violation in m. 7 .....................................................30 20. a, Implication in m. 8; b, Violation in m. 8 .....................................................31 21. Overview of mm. 1-7 .......................................................................................33 22. a, Implication in m. 9; b, Violation in m. 9 .....................................................34 23. a, Overview of mm. 1-9; b, Reduction of mm. 1-9 .........................................37 24. a, Summary of mm. 1-9 (2); b, Summary of mm. 1-9 (3) ...............................38 25. a, ii - vii„ Sequence; b, Jazz Sequence .............................................................39 26. Multiple Violation Levels ................................................................................41 27. a, Implication in m. 10; b, Violation in m. 10 .................................................43 28. Schachter’s Analysis ........................................................................................45 29. Schenker’s Analysis .........................................................................................47 30. London’s and Rodman’s Analysis ...................................................................48 31. Parks’s Analysis ...............................................................................................51 32. Tymoczko’s Analysis.......................................................................................52 33. Tymoczko’s Four Sequences ...........................................................................54 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In my thesis I will examine vertical components of Chopin’s Prelude in E minor, op. 28 no. 4, mm. 1-12. My approach explores the musical phenomenon referred to in music theory literature as ambiguity. Ambiguity in music exists “when what we expect does not occur, when our efforts to find specific musical norms are frustrated.”1 Given this description of ambiguity, musical analysis compares a composition to a musical syntax, which in this case is the syntax of tonal music. Syntax generates implications, while knowledge of that syntax—whether intellectual or experiential—generates expectations. When implications and expectations do not match, the result is ambiguity. In order to identify implications, I will reduce passages from the Prelude to show the harmonic configuration. By comparing harmonic reductions to the syntax of tonal music, I will determine (and notate in my analysis) where an implication occurs and if it is violated. This reductive approach is similar to that of Heinrich Schenker’s, but instead of 1Deborah Stein, Engaging Music (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 77. 1 2 representing underlying structures in tonal music, my analysis will represent violations of implications and their role in tonal ambiguity. An analysis of music requires one to choose the appropriate analytical technique for a given work. According to some music scholars, the application of methods used for tonal analysis to atonal or ambiguous music is impractical. For example, Leonard Meyer claimed that “it is pointless to analyze a work by Boulez in terms of techniques developed by Heinrich Schenker for the analysis of tonal music.”2 Eugene Narmour finds fault in roman-numeral analysis all together, claiming that there is a “naïve associationism inherent in the roman-numeral analysis of harmonic function…”3 Also, in Charles J. Smith’s analysis of Beethoven’s Waldstein Sonata in C major, op. 53, he states that the labels of a roman-numeral analysis “address[es] identity rather than behavior or function, not whence it comes or whither it goes.”4 The dissolution of tonality during the 19th and 20th century brought about new analytical methods such as set theory, transformational theory, 12-tone analysis, chromatic theory, and motivic analysis.5 As a result, the exclusive use of roman-numeral 2Leonard Meyer, Explaining Music: Essays and Explorations (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1973), 24. 3Eugene Narmour, Beyond Schenkerism: The Need for Alternatives in Musical Analysis (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1977), 1. 4Charles J. Smith, “The Functional Extravagance of Chromatic Chords,” Music Theory Spectrum vol. 8 (Spring 1986): 99. 5Allen Forte, The Structure of Atonal Music (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1973); Rudolph Reti, Tonality, Atonality, Pantonality: A Study of Some Trends in Twentieth-Century Music (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1978); David Lewin,