bach preludes chopin's etudes

Two Bach Preludes/Two Chopin Etudes, orToujours travailler Bachce sera votre meilleurmoyen de progresser

Robert W. Wason

Chopins rst acquaintance with the music of Bach dates backto his childhood in Poland and his rst teacher; thus, Bach seemsto have been with him from the beginning. But after his arrival inParis in 1831 at age 21, two years after Mendelssohn had con-ducted the St. Matthew Passion in Berlin but before Bach hadfully recovered from his long period of neglect, Chopin became atruly passionate devotee of Bachs music. These were the yearswhen he wrote the Etudes and Preludesworks, in particular, thatshow a strong in uence of Bach. In 1838, Chopin, in Majorcawith George Sand, wrote to his friend and copyist, Julian Fontana,from a huge deserted Carthusian monastery where in a cell withdoors larger than any carriage-gateway in Paris you may imagineme with my hair unkept, without white gloves and pale as ever.The cell is shaped like a tall cof n, the enormous vaulting coveredwith dust, the window small . . . Close to [my] bed is an oldsquare grubby box which I can scarcely use for writing on, with aleaden candlestick (a great luxury here) and a little candle. Bach,my scrawls [Chopin refers to his Preludes] and someone elses oldpapers . . . Silence . . . you can yell [but] still silence. The nextyear, he wrotethis time from George Sands estate in Nohant,since the Majorcan trip had been largely disastrousthat when Ihave nothing particular to do I am correcting for myself, in theParis edition of Bach, not only the mistakes made by the engraver

but those which are backed by the authority of people who aresupposed to understand Bachnot that I have any pretensions toa deeper understanding, but I am convinced that I sometimes hiton the right answer.1 Much later, Chopins piano students contin-ued to attest to his knowledge, from memory, of much of the Well-Tempered Clavier.2 Thus the alternate title of this article, Chopinsadvice to his pupil Madame Dubois during his last meeting withher in 1848 (a year before his death), is advice that he himselftook very seriously indeed.

For quite some time now, Chopins debt to Bach has been wellknown, particularly with respect to surface resemblances betweenBachs C-major Prelude (wtc I) and Chopins Etude op. 10, no. 1.Early in this century, Hugo Leichtentritt even went so far as toshow how Chopins harmonic scheme could be rendered inBachs guration, and recently, Simon Finlow has demonstratedthe reverse, as seen in Examples 1(a) and (b).3 Allen Forte andStephen Gilbert have shown that the resemblance is more than super cialthat it affects deeper-level musical structure of the

1See Walker 1966, 10. Complete quotations are taken from Syndow 1962,165 and 182.

2Eigeldinger 1986, 61.3Finlow 1992, 70. Example 1(a) cited by Finlow from Leichtentritt 19212,

vol. 2, 845.

104 Music Theory Spectrum

opening sections of both pieces.4 Although the present articletakes issue with details of their analysis, it continues on essen-tially the same tack, showing other structural parallels and draw-ing in additional pieces as well.

Such gural preludes might be characterized as non-narrative: there are no musical characters participating in adrama delineated by rhythmic motives. Instead, the rhythmicsurface is deceptively placid, and the musical teleology deter-mined purely by resources of pitch organizationor harmony.While Chopins Viennese contemporaries were specializing in thedevelopment of the narrative sonata, Chopinonly infrequently aproponent of Sturm und Drangoften favored the more Baroquecompositional method of developing a piece from a single motive,

or affect.5 This is not to deny the in uence on some of his musicof the sonata, and perhaps of its greatest proponent, Beethoven.6

But Chopin always remained partial to the gural texture, whetherhe referred to the resultant piece as an etude, or prelude;moreover, the texture occupied signi cant parts of his largerpieceseven those marked by change of texture and rhythmicmotive. (One thinks of large ABA forms, such as the C -minorFantasie-Impromptu, op. 66a gural etude surrounding anadagio melody.)

Bachs gural prelude has a heritage that stretches back tothe earliest keyboard music, and the texture was a clich well-known to his contemporaries. The Musikalische Handleitung by

4See Forte & Gilbert 1982, 18890.

5See Chapter 4, Baroque Re ections, in Samson 1994, 5880.6See Petty 1999.

Example 1. C-major Preludes, after Finlow 1992

(a) Chopins harmonies with Bachs guration

(b) Bachs harmonies with Chopins guration

Two Bach Preludes/Two Chopin Etudes 105

Friedrich Erhard Niedtpurportedly Bachs favorite thorough-bass treatisegives a few humdrum recipes for such composi-tions.7 But in the hands of the master, they were to become some-thing far more interesting: several of Bachs preludes underwentconsiderable revision, documented in various sources, and re-cently, Joel Lester has shown that four of Bachs gural prel-udes were revised and positioned in the Well-Tempered Clavierin such a way as to offer us a pedagogy of the genre.8 Essentially,the structure of such a prelude, as Lester points out, was describedin a famous passage by C. P. E. Bach:

There are occasions when an accompanist must extemporize before thebeginning of a piece. Because such an improvisation is to be regarded as aprelude which prepares the listener for the content of the piece that fol-lows . . . the construction . . . is determined . . . by the nature of the piecewhich it prefaces; and the content or affect of this piece becomes the ma-terial out of which the prelude is fashioned . . . When only little time isavailable . . . the performer should not wander into too remote keys . . . Atthe start the principal key must prevail for some time so that the listenerwill be unmistakably oriented . . . [The keyboardist] fashions his bass outof the ascending and descending scale of the prescribed key, with a varietyof gured bass signatures . . . A tonic organ point is convenient for estab-lishing the tonality at the beginning and end. The dominant organ pointcan also be introduced effectively before the close.9

Philipp Emanuel continues by showing a number of samplebass progressions (with gures), some of which are shown inExample 2. Variants of such progressions had been studied bykeyboard students well back into the seventeenth century, underthe well-known rubric, rgle de loctave (regola dellOttava).10

Lester proceeds to show that a descending octave bass progressionis the structural basis of all four Bach preludes, although it

7Translated as The Musical Guide in Niedt 1988.8Lester 1998.9Bach [1753] 1949, 431 ff.10Christensen 1992. Also see Lester 1992, 72 4.

Example 2. Octave-line harmonizations and pedal points, excerptedfrom C. P. E. Bach 1753 [1949]


cadence in the dominant and then with a return to the tonic.12 Thisinterpretation becomes most compelling when we propose a nor-mative duration for the descending middleground of E5E4 of twomeasures for each tone starting in m. 4. (The half-step motions,CB, FE, in each of the two tetrachords are held off in the man-ner of a middleground suspension.)13

Prior to publishing the analysis of the C-major Prelude,Schenker presented a less-developed analysis of the C-minorPrelude from WTC I, which is shown in Example 3.14 (The thickbrackets underneath the analysis are my additions; they will bediscussed below.) In comparison with the C-major Prelude, thetonic pedal is the most prominent element of the framein bothsoprano and bass. Neighbor-note motion now ultimately forms acomplete neighboring VII7 chord in m. 3 (although buried in innerparts), and the tonic returns in m. 4, as it did in the C-majorPrelude. Emerging from the inner voices of the opening, structural3 then appears as E 4, initiating a descent in seventeenths (that is,an octave plus a tenth) with the bass through the rst tetrachord ofthe bass-octave descent. At this point, the bass moves up an octave(so as not to give away the C2 goal yet, presumably), and thus thebass-soprano interval is now reduced to a tenth.15 The dominant-pedal section then enters at m. 21 (with structural 3 retained tooverlap the entrance of the pedal). Background 2 arrives over the

12The replication of this four-measure segment is one reason why Lerdahl &Jackendoff (1983, 261) locate the change [of hypermeter] at m. 8, in conjunc-tion with a combined grouping overlap and metrical deletion. However, post-poning the metrical shift until this point places the two 42 chords (both of whichseem like suspensions) in weak hypermetric measures, which runs counter tothe properties of suspensions.

13Cf. Komar 1971, 119: The cadences at bars 11, 19, and 32 suggest the lo-cation of some of the large-scale downbeats Also see Lerdahl & Jackendoff1983, 262 ff.

14See Schenker [1926] 1996, 48. This analytical graph, published in 1926, isessentially the same as the one Schenker presents at the outset of Schenker1923.

15Schenker spends considerable effort describing Bachs departure, at lettersb) and c), from the pattern established at a).

becomes progressively more embellished in each. On the otherhand, C. P. E. Bachs translator, William Mitchell, takes pains topoint out that Philipp Emanuel never mentions rgle de loctave.Still, although he does not recognize one particular rule, as themore prescriptive and unimaginative theorists did, his many ex-amples amount to an elaboration of the idea.

Lester was very likely made aware of the structure of the C-major Prelude initially by the Dover publication of Schenkersanalysisthe rst such analyses that were generally available inthe late sixties.11 For our purposes, the most important additionover C. P. E. Bachs description is the notion of a structural so-prano that parallels the octave bass-progression in 10ths above;this motion through the C4 to C3 octave then proceeds to the dom-inant pedal, as recommended by Philipp Emanuel, and subse-quently the tonic pedal.

Another feature of the piece described in Schenkers analysis is phrase structure. Lester calls the opening tonic sectioncharacteristic of many Bach pieces, we might addthe frame,and in this piece, it is not a tonic pedal, but a combined neighbor-note motion of soprano and bass: 343 over 171. As is typicalof Bachs phrase formations, the fourth measure of the frame isalso the launching point for the next four-measure segment. Onemight be tempted to propose a four-measure group starting in m.5, with good motivic support, but there are problems in latergroupings. Schenkers interpretation here is persuasive: the articu-lation of the primary melodic tone at the outset of the piece and itsmotion to the upper neighbor and return in m. 4 enable us to hearthe rst four measures as an extension (Dehnung) of the rstmeasure; moreover, the 4-measure segment in mm. 811 and itstransposition in mm. 1619 con rm his reading and clearly articu-late the division of the structural octave progression, rst with a

11Schenker [1932] 1966.


Example 3. Analysis of Bach, C-Minor Prelude, after Schenker 1926 [1996]


preexisting dominant at m. 28, leading to an arrival on C in m. 34.The harmony at this point avoids resolution both because it is thedominant of IV, and because C3 is not the goal of the bass line; C3is elaborated as an out-of-time improvisational aside, after whichC2 arrives to complete the bass-line descent, and, as in the C-major Prelude, the soprano returns to the obligatory register of theopeningall of this a remarkable structural parallel with the C-major Prelude that goes well beyond the minimal demands of thergle de loctave.

Schenker does not take on the issue of phrase structure in theC-minor Prelude; I have grafted my interpretation onto his analy-sis in Example 3, using thick brackets to denote phrase groups upto m. 24. If we were to suggest a rhythmic norm for the descend-ing octave line, it would seem to be, once again, two measures pertone. Thus, the last measure of the four-measure framethis timea tonic pedalreturns to E , while m. 5 puts that E in place asE 3. (The change of register in m. 5 gives the illusion of a groupstarting at this point.) But if four-measure groups are heard to startin m. 4, two successive ones emerge: mm. 47 and 811. Thesesupport the rst tetrachord of the descent, E , D, C, B . Indeed,the rst eleven measures of each piece parallel one another closelynote the 42 chords in parallel positions. At m. 12, Bach breaksthe pattern ( just as he did in the C-major Prelude), but we are stillable to project two more four-measure groups: mm. 1215 and1619 for A , G, F, E . The rst of these seems convincing, withthe caveat that G is shortchanged to one measure while F getsthree. However, not only does the rst group seem to anticipatethe second, but that group, mm. 1619, includes the end of the de-scent in m. 18, making m. 19 super uous. The bass takes off im-mediately to destroy any sense of stasis or arrival by harmonizingthe goal E with various pre-dominants. These ultimately giveway to the dominant pedal (m. 21), at which point the beginningof a group seems to be in order. Could it be that the arrival of so-prano F3 in m. 15 is not an anticipation of the next group, but itsactual start? The bass line certainly lends support to this interpre-tation: the 42 in m. 15 acts like a 910 bass suspension that resolves

in the following measure, while the soprano F is suspendedagainst the bass as 4 (m. 17) to 3 (m. 18); two measures of pre-dominant follow. Thus, it seems that mm. 1214 are a three-measure (or abbreviated four-measure) group, while mm. 1520are a six-measure group (actually a four-measure group with two-measure extension). The arrival of the dominant pedal brings withit a clear four-measure group, while the subsequent single-voiceelaboration of the dominant starts a four-measure group that over-laps the arrival of structural soprano 2 (m. 28). From here on, thephrase structure is appropriately telescoped to t with the erraticsuccession of tempi, all designed as an out-of-time improvisation.(Phrase groupings at this point become increasingly tentative.)Clearly, the piece is considerably more varied and complicatedthan the C-major Prelude in its phrase structure.

* * * * *

We turn now to some structural parallels with music of Chopin.First, it is important to note that the pedagogical basis of thergle de loctave survived well past the eighteenth century.Thus, while some of the structural parallels noted here may be theresult of Chopins engagement with Bachs keyboard music, somemay be ascribable to the survival of an eighteenth-century keyboard pedagogy, an assertion supported in the following discussion.

The rgle de loctave is closely allied with the discussion ofharmonizing the un gured bass that may be found in such earlyeighteenth-century treatises as those by Saint Lambert, Gasparini,and Heinichen;16 thus, one is tempted to regard it as an early peda-gogical device designed to teach a compositional skill that ulti-mately was more ef ciently handled by Rameaus harmonic the-ory. Yet, in the middle of the century, Joseph Riepel (naive thoughhe certainly was) would report that he knew of no thorough-bass

16See Saint Lambert [1707] 1991, 4599; Gasparini [1708] 1963, 2647;Buelow 1966 (a study of Heinichens treatise Der Generalbass in derComposition [Dresden: 1728]), 20018.


manual in which the device was not mentioned.17 In fact, the de-vice continued to live on in Italian treatises on keyboard improvi-sation, called partimenti.18 Such treatises have a long history oftheir own, but, most suggestive for our topic here, the Italian tradi-tion was taken up by the French in the early nineteenth century,as seen in treatises by Choron/Fiocchi (1804), Ftis (1829), andKalkbrennerthe extraordinarily successful virtuoso pianist withwhom Chopin contemplated study upon his arrival in Paris. Itwould be ideal, of course, if we could document Chopins knowl-edge of Choron/Fiocchi or Ftis, but as of this writing that is notpossible. Chopins theory instruction with Jzef Elsner (Directorof the Warsaw Conservatory) seems to have centered on Germanpedagogical materials, most notably Johann Philip KirnbergersDie Kunst des Reinen Satzes in der Musik.19 This may be read asplacing Chopin in the Bach School, but certainly more obliquelythan Mendelssohn.20 If it is impossible to say whether Chopinstudied French partimenti manuals before arriving in Paris, it atleast seems likely that he would have encountered such pedagogi-cal materials once his teaching career there got underway in the1830s.

Example 4 shows some selected improvisational models basedupon the rgle de loctave taken from Kalkbrenners treatise of1849, Trait dharmonie du pianiste. The textures Kalkbrennerpresents look similar to other virtuoso piano music of the period,as shown in writings by Collet, Finlow, and Samsonall of whomhave dealt with Chopins Etudes in the context of other pianostudies of the period.21 Surely, these authors have been successfulin showing that Chopins piano textures, in some cases, may havebeen inspired or suggested by earlier etudes, but just as surely,most of the surface rhythms, textures, playing techniques, etc., of

Chopins Etudes show an extraordinary originality. Indeed, thepieces in score present a unique visual appearance that has in-spired commentary by Douglas Hofstadter.22 In large measure,this is precisely where the great originality of many of the ChopinEtudes resideson the surface; and there is certainly nothingwrong with that. (There are also pieces that are strikingly originalat deeper levels, such as the Etude op. 25, no. 3, in F major, whichovershoots a presumed thematic repetition on the dominant to pre-sent it at the tritone instead.23) The Etudes dealt with in the presentarticle, however, are clear cases of Chopin troping on traditionalstructural archetypes.

Let us turn now to the C-major Etude, op. 10, no. 1, written in1829 or 30, before Chopins arrival in Paris. One of the most sig-ni cant features in this piece is a regularity of four-measurephrase structure so consistent that it establishes a deeper-levelmetera hypermeter, as Edward T. Cone called it.24 Example 5shows a hypermetric reduction of the piece in the manner of CarlSchachter;25 it articulates a four-measure hypermeter throughout,shown by the 42 meter in which each measure of the original equalsone half note of the transcription. (In order to translate the seventy-nine measures of the Etude into twenty hypermeasures,the transcription assumes that the nal fermata could last a fullextra measure, which seems quite plausible.)

Certainly, the most original feature of the piece is the thematicarpeggiation, which assumes the suppleness of the hand and wristrotation typical of the Chopin style as well as the damper pedal ofthe pianoforte to sustain the cascading arpeggios. At rst, the gu-ration would seem to throw the whole notion of structural registerinto doubt, but on closer inspection it turns out that the arpeggiosare completely consistent registrally, so that the voice leading

17Christensen 1992, 101 ff.18See Christensen 1992, 110.19See Samson 1999.20See Todd 1983.21Collet 1966 and Finlow 1992. Also see Samson 1994, Chapter 4,

Baroque Re ections.

22See gures 92 and 95 (pp. 175 and 179) in Hofstadter 1985.23See Brown, Headlam & Dempster, 1999. Also see Salzer 1973.24Cone 1969.25Schachter 1999 collects the relevant essays, which originally appeared

individually.


Example 4. Excerpts from Kalkbrenner 1849


comes through as shown in the reduction (although the right-hand part is replicated an octave below, and in two successive octaves above the written part throughout the piece). This consis-tency of pattern is absolutely essential in communicating the basicvoice leading behind the surface (and essential to the visual ap-pearance that impressed Hofstadter). The importance of voice-leading detail to Chopin is clear from his obsessive editorial re- nement of it, documented in the best editions. Unfortunately,

such continuous editing is also the source of discrepancies be-tween his original manuscripts and the various contemporaneousprintings, making determination of an authoritative score a controversial matter.

The regularity of phrase structure in op. 10, no 1, is a signi -cant departure from the Bach style, in which overlapping phrasesand elisions are typical and in which continuity and forward mo-tion reign supreme. Indeed, the present analysis maintains that the

Example 4. [continued]


rst sixteen measures of the piece (four hypermeasures in the re-duction) are an interrupted classical period-structure reinterpretedwithin Chopins harmonic language. (If Chopin appropriated aBaroque compositional technique to his own purposes, he ofcourse placed it within a phrase and harmonic idiom in which hehabitually worked.) The rst half-phrase moves to VII7/V andthence to V in the second half-phrase (the whole comprising the rst eight measures); meanwhile, structural 3 moves to 2. But onthe very last quarter of the phrase (end of m. 8), 2 is in ected to 2,becoming thereby a leading tone back to 3, and the consequentphrase picks up on 3 again.

Complete closure at the end of the A section in m. 16 is pre-vented by overlapping the 21 soprano with the return of the pri-mary melodic tone, 3, above. Two hypermeasures (eight real mea-sures) now occur, which present the full course of the B section ofthe piece: VI to V/VI (E major), labeled B1 in the analysis. Upuntil this point, hypermeasures, each made of four measures, havethemselves grouped duply; however, the rest of the B section(mm. 25 48) groups into 3 + 3 hypermeasures, labeled B2 andB3. This division of B2 and B3 is clear for at least two reasons: rst, the harmonic rhythm slows in mm. 336; and second, mm.2536 are easily read as the prolongation of a single harmony, A7,

Example 5. Hypermetric reduction of Chopin, op. 10, no. 1. =


albeit through an interesting Tristan-like detour to the at-side ofthe circle of fths, and an enharmonic return (B 75 becomes Fr+6

in D minor).26 B3 now picks up in m. 37 with a clear cycle of fths and an acceleration of the harmonic rhythm (to two chordsper real measure) in mm. 434, followed by a deceleration back toone chord per measure in mm. 458, all of this acting as a retran-sition back to A1, which returns in m. 49.

The ubiquitous cycle of fths of the B2 and B3 sections is yetanother trace of Bach and the Baroque, of course; after all, the Asection was essentially a frame, supported by a cadence. But themiddleground line behind all of this is at least as important. JimSamson seems to have had this piece in mind when he writes thatthe sense of harmonic ow in both Bach and Chopin is achievedby maintaining a dissonant tension over extended periods, and bylong-range linear motions which emerge through the guration, cre-ating a strong counterpoint with the melodic bass.27 The primarymelodic tone E5 (to choose the most likely in the three-octave reg-istration) is rst reintroduced from a third above after the rst hy-permeasure of B2; at this point, E5 begins a descent through an oc-tave that nishes with the acceleration of harmonic rhythm in thesecond hypermeasure of B3; the new, lower-register E4 is now pro-longed by neighbor-note motion in the last hypermeasure of B3.This octave descent is accompanied by tenths in the bass, just as itwas in Bach, though the tenths are elaborated by intervening 7ths toform the cycle-of- fths progression. Still, the parallel with Bachand the regl de loctave formula is striking. All of the precedingdiscussion is summarized in the analysis shown in Example 6.

The slowing of harmonic rhythm in mm. 458 allows an ex-tended arpeggiation in mm. 478 that restores the original registerof the primary melodic tone (the return of the obligatory regis-ter?). The return of A1 in m. 49 leads to the expected return ofA2 in m. 57, which in turn seems to lead to B1. This time, how-

ever, the apparent goal of B1, V/VI, is a divider between the over-all V and the returning I that occurs in m. 69, although melodicclosure is anything but clear. Subsequent pedals on I and V in theclosing section continue to ll out the parallel with the Baroqueprelude. Example 7 shows the analysis.

We turn now to the bookend mate of op. 10, no 1: op. 25, no.12, in C minor. By all reports, this piece was composed at least sixyears after op. 10, no 1, although the two pieces seem to be ex-tremely close in all ways, except perhaps chronologically. Manyhave noted the similarity of this Etude to op. 10, no 1, with regardto surface diminution: both hands participate in the arpeggiationthis time around. Samson also notes that again there are echoesof Bachthe Prelude in the same key from Book 1, for instancein the tolling chorale, against which subsidiary materialemerges in exible rhythms.28 The parallels run more deeply thanthat, as we shall see.

A signi cant difference from the Bach worksor from op. 10,no 1, for that matteris the register in which the right-handarpeggiation starts: by starting in the C3C4 octave, the downbeatof each measure announces a tenor melody since the tone willbe sustained by the pedal. Such tenor melodies catered to nineteenth-century aesthetic tastes, the same tastes that preferredGounods revision of Bachs C-major Prelude with its superim-posed melody to the unadorned original. (Incidentally, proof thatthe tenor octave is indeed the primary melodic register occurslater in the piece when the echoing C4C5 octave brie y takes apedal instead of doubling the tune.)

Example 8 shows the hypermetric analysis. In order to makethe distinction between melody and bass in the analysis more eas-ily readable, the tenor melody has been notated up an octavethroughout. Once again, one measure of the original score equalsa half note in the reduction, and once again the piece consists oftwenty hypermeasures, but this time there are eighty-three realmeasures instead of seventy-nine (accounted for by including two26An alternate interpretation is that V7/vi is resolved into the next chord,

and when A major returns as a triadic cadential goal, it is VI .27Samson 1994, 61. 28Samson 1994, 71.


Example 7. Analysis of Chopin, op. 10, no. 1, mm. 49end

Example 6. Analysis of Chopin, op. 10, no 1, mm. 1749

31 hypermeasures). A quick scan through the reduction shows thatthe rhythmic structure of the Etude is more complicated than thatof op. 10, no 1, just as Bachs C-minor Prelude is more compli-cated that his C-major Prelude. While most of the piece falls intofour-beat hypermeasures, the connection between the openingthematic section and the change of mode to C major is a six-beathypermeasure; given the opening hypermetric structure, we mightregard the last two half notes in the 31 hypermeasure as beginninga new four-beat hypermeasure (see the tentative, overlapping 42placed over the top of the example at this point). However, therepetition of this C-major section in A con rms four-beat hyper-

measures starting at m. 15, which remain the norm until an extension to a 31 hypermeasure occurs to bring about the nal cadence of the piece.

Example 9(a) shows an analysis of opening thematic section,labeled A1. It begins with double-neighbor melodic motionaround structural 3, supported by a tonic pedal in the bass (the rst hypermeasure). The parallel with Bachs C-minor Prelude isstriking, as shown in 9(b): one opening motive is the retrogradeor the tonal inversionof the other. It is dif cult to overstress the importance of this motive to the piece: it recurs in the themeof the B section, and becomes especially important in the


Example 8. Hypermetric reduction of Chopin, op. 25, no. 12. =


retransition. The A1 phrase continues to a structural 2, whichmoves to tonic closure on the strong-beat 3 of the second hyper-measure. 2 is embellished by 3 as an incomplete upper neighbor(supported by the dominant over the tonic pedal), a typical deviceof Chopins harmonic language, and one which cannot fail toevoke its parallel-major, enharmonically equivalent cousin, 2, lastseen in the same position in the C-major Etude. But the two col-orations have very different effects: this time, the opening eight-measure phrase clearly closes on the tonic with a structural 321in the tenor register, which continues through an echoing dimin-uted octave-descent in the soprano register, as 1 is picked up tocontinue as 87654.

A2 starts as a restatement of A1, but after the surprising changeto the parallel major in m. 12, the neighbor gure this time embell-

ishes 5 in m. 14, transforming the double-neighbor gure into whatmight be called a cambiata FE A G. This leads directly to theB theme, although this theme clearly evolves from a diminution ofA (in the parallel major) in m. 16 to the downbeat of m. 17, alongwith its embellished extension, again through a 321 descent, inmm. 1820. It is important to add that the extension of the fore-ground arpeggiation gure by yet another octave gives additionalemphasis to the E in m. 15. The B theme is then repeated in Amajor in mm. 2330, although the last two beats of m. 30 head backto C minor via a Fr+6. What follows is a sixteen-measure span thatprolongs the dominant of C minor, stating various transpositionsand combinations of the cambiata variant of the double-neighbor.

Example 10 provides an analysis of mm. 15 46. Once again,we see Jim Samsons long-range linear motions which emerge

Example 9.

(a) Analysis of Chopin, op. 25, no. 12, mm. 19

(b) Analysis of Bach, C-Minor Prelude from WTC I, mm. 15


through the guration. Moreover, this particular long-range mo-tion is a variant of the same descent we have seen in each of theother pieces we have examined: 3 (this time with change of modeto major) initiates a descent to 1 (m. 24), which becomes 3 of A(VI), supporting a continuation of the descent to A (m. 30), andthence to G (m. 31). While G is prolonged throughout mm. 3146,the transposition scheme of the cambiata motive (up diatonicthirds) effectively arpeggiates a V 9 over the course of the retran-sition, the seventh of which resolves strongly to 3 with the returnof A (m. 47). Thus, the B section is hung on the same octave-linethrough 3 that we have seen in each of the other pieces, althoughthis time there is no doubt that the soprano tune is far more im-portant than the bass line, which essentially reduces to the threepedals, I, VI, and V. The Baroque rgle de loctave in the bassgives way in importance to a structural tenor melody in this nineteenth-century work.

* * * * *Needless to say, there are other features of these pieces deserv-

ing of our attention beyond those discussed here. One of these iscertainly the notion of affect: in maintaining that there is a con-nection between Bach and Chopin, the topic seems ultimately in-escapable. The drama of the Ocean Etude, as one sometimeshears op. 25, no. 12, called, certainly calls to mind the traditional

dramatic affect of C minor, not so far from Bachs conception ofthat key. (The piece also calls to mind the Revolutionary Etudethat ends op. 10; Chopin seems to have wanted a dramatic close toboth collections.) Can we say more? Might tuning bear upon theissue here? A recent investigation of the subject claims that tem-peraments prevalent in Chopins time (documented by the pianomakers of the day) were circulating (that is, all keys wereplayable), but not equal (thus, even those of us without absolutepitch would be able to differentiate keys by their individual tun-ing).29 In the case of the F-major Etude, op. 25, no. 3, mentionedearlier, the issue is extraordinarily signi cant: the recapitulationof the tune in C major (V), is overshot, such that a false recapitu-lation in B major occurs instead. This passage is in the low regis-ter of the instrument, and in contrast to the piano dynamic of theopening tune in F, a forte dynamic underscores the appearance inB. It certainly seems relevant to point out that F major would beclose to just in a temperament of the day, while the major thirdBD of B major (likely derived in most temperaments as BE )would be one of the widest available and would beat wildly incomparison to the FA third. But is temperament relevant to the

29Jorgensen 1991 presents an exhaustive study of the topic.

Example 10. Analysis of Chopin, op. 25, no. 12, mm. 1547


present discussion? To cite one possibility, the E-major triad thatoften divides C and G in op. 10, no 1, would sound distinctlymore dissonant than the C-major and G-major triads on eitherside of it in one of these circulating temperaments (EG would bewider than CE or GB). Moreover, differently tuned keys mightpreserve different affects, and perhaps that is one reason whyChopins C-major and C-minor Etudes seem to share many affec-tive qualities with the Bach Preludes in the same key. But that is atopic to pursue in detail in another article.

It must be admitted that in its structural comparison of worksof Bach and Chopin, the present essay cannot escape the contro-versial topic of in uence. Purposely, the genre that probablytransmitted that in uence of Bach to Chopin is narrowly de nedhere, while, at the same time, the precise source of that in uence,whether it be the works of Bach or rather mundane pedagogicalworks for keyboard, remains unclear. In uence itself is a muchlarger topic in recent Bloom-in uenced studies.30 Were we to at-tempt grander statements in this regard, we should certainly haveto factor in the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution and, as aconsequence, the technology that made the beginnings of themodern piano possible. In an extreme interpretation, it might bemaintained that Chopin simply brought the Bach prelude into thatmodern world: the strength of his reading of Bach owes much tothis technology and the new playing techniques that arose as aconsequencesome of which were certainly invented byChopin.31 Seeking to transfer the virtuosity of Paganini to the newmedium, Chopin, Liszt, and a host of lesser lights created a newmusical literature to do so. The industrial technology that gaverise to the modern piano also ushered in an extraordinarily pro-ductive period of metal instrument building: the range-extendingwinds, the saxophones, and other exotic instruments that later fellout of favor. Clearly, this was a period in which the past could be

made to weigh lightly on many musicians while a bright future ofnew instruments and techniques beckoned.

To be sure, as instrumental forces stabilized (to the extent thatthey are still essentially the same today), the distinction betweenperformer and composer began to crystallize, and both theRomantic aesthetic and a welling historical consciousness lentthat composer an identity and charge requiring originality.Certainly the Anxiety of In uence became greater with latergenerations (and greatest in the 20th century) as the weight of history increased; but when Chopin rst became seriously ac-quainted with Bachs music, Bach was hardly the mythic gure hewas to become during the course of the nineteenth century.

The present article has also attempted to demonstrate thatSchenkerian analysis can be used as a tool with which to makesome reasonably clear statements regarding the evolution ofstyle (in a very limited repertoire, to be sure). While the middle-ground structure shown here might seem to suffer from the samegeneric disease that both Meyers archetypes32 and other Schen-kerian middleground motives suffer from (that is, there seemsnothing particularly unique or memorableat least from a motivicpoint of viewabout an octave scale), it has, nevertheless, someinteresting features. First, the bass progression of this abstract mid-dleground formation was in fact rei ed as a concrete pedagogicalaid for at least two-hundred years, enabling us to make a connec-tion between musical structure and the pedagogy of improvisation.Second, the structural soprano of this middlegroundthe so-calledoctave lineis most unusual in the background of a composi-tion, and not terribly common in the middleground either.Certainly, motions through thirds and fths are far more common(in approximately that order). Further, in all four pieces consid-ered in the present article, the octave line elaborates the back-ground tonic area of the piece before the move to the backgrounddominant, and thence to background tonic return. What at rst

30Korsyn 1991, for example.31The connection between compositional structure and practical matters of

instrumental technique is taken up in Kinzler 1977. 32Meyer 1989.


blush might seem to be generic is really considerably more spe-cial. By looking closely at middleground formations in these twoChopin Etudes, the present essay hopes to have put greater detailinto Jim Samsons perceptive notion of long-range linear motionswhich emerge through the guration, creating a strong counter-point with the melodic bass, and in so doing, to have elucidatedone of Chopins most profound connections to Bach.

LIST OF WORKS CITED

Bach, C. P. E. [1753] 1949. Essay on the True Art of PlayingKeyboard Instruments. Translated by William Mitchell. NewYork: Norton.

Brown, Matthew, Douglas Dempster and Dave Headlam. 1997.The IV/ V Hypothesis: Testing the Limits of SchenkersTheory of Tonality. Music Theory Spectrum 19: 20631.

Buelow, George J. 1966. Thorough-Bass Accompaniment accord-ing to Johann David Heinichen. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

Christensen, Thomas. 1992. The Rgle de lOctave in Thorough-Bass Theory and Practice. Acta Musicologica 64: 91117.

Collet, Robert. 1966. Studies, Preludes and Impromptus. In The Chopin Companion. Edited by Alan Walker. New York:Norton, 11443.

Cone, Edward T. 1969. Musical Form and Musical Performance.New York: Norton.

Eigeldinger, Jean-Jacques. 1986. Chopin, Pianist and Teacher, asSeen by his Pupils. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Finlow, Simon. 1992. The Twenty-seven Etudes and Their Ante-cedents. In The Cambridge Chopin Companion. Edited by JimSamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 5077.

Forte, Allen, and Stephen Gilbert. Introduction to SchenkerianAnalysis. New York: Norton, 1982.

Gasparini, Francesco, [1707] 1963. The Practical Harmonist atthe Keyboard. Translated by F. Stillings. New Haven: Yale Uni-versity Press.

Hofstadter, Douglas. R. 1985. Metamagical Themas. New York:Basic Books.

Jorgensen, Owen. 1991. Tuning: Containing The Perfection ofEighteenth-Century Temperament, The Lost Art of Nineteenth-Century Temperament, and The Science of Equal Tempera-ment. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.

Kalkbrenner, Frdric. [1849] 1970. Trait dharmonie du pia-niste. Amsterdam: A. J. Heuwekemeyer.

Kinzler, Hartmuth. 1977. Frdric Chopin: ber den Zusammen-hang von Satztechnik und Klavierspiel. Mnchen: MusikverlagKatzbichler.

Komar, Arthur. 1971. Theory of Suspensions. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Korsyn, Kevin. 1991. Towards a New Poetics of MusicalIn uence. Music Analysis 10: 372.

Leichtentritt, Hugo. 192122. Analyse der Chopinschen Klavier-werke. 2 volumes. Berlin: M. Hesse.

Lerdahl, Fred, and Ray Jackendoff. 1983. A Generative Theory ofTonal Music. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Lester, Joel. 1992. Compositional Theory in the EighteenthCentury. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

. 1998. J.S. Bach Teaches Us How to Compose: FourPattern Preludes from the Well-Tempered Clavier. CollegeMusic Society Symposium 38: 3346.

Meyer, Leonard B. 1989. Style and Music. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.

Niedt, Friderich Erhard. [170017] 1988. The Musical Guide.Translated by Pamela Poulin and Irmgard Taylor. Oxford:Clarendon Press.

Petty, Wayne C. 1999. Chopin and the Ghost of Beethoven.19th-Century Music 22: 28199.

Saint-Lambert, Michel de. [1707] 1991. New Treatise onAccompaniment. Translated by J. S. Powell. Bloomington:Indiana University Press.

Salzer, Felix. 1973. Chopins Etude in F Major, Op. 25, No. 3:the Scope of Tonality. In Music Forum III. Edited by William


Mitchell and Felix Salzer. New York: Columbia UniversityPress, 28190.

Samson, Jim. 1994. The Music of Chopin. Oxford: ClarendonPress.

. 1999. Chopins Musical Education. Chopin Studies 6:2837.

Schachter, Carl. 1999. Unfoldings; Essays in Schenkerian Theoryand Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.

Schenker, Heinrich. 1923. Joh. Seb. Bach: WohltemperiertesKlavier, Band I: Prludium C-Moll. Die Musik 15.9: 64151.

. [1926] 1996. The Organic Nature of Fugue asDemonstrated in the C Minor Fugue from Bachs Well-Tempered Clavier, Book I. In The Masterwork in Music, vol-ume 2. Edited by William Drabkin. Translated by Hedi Siegel.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3154.

. [1932] 1966. Five Graphic Musical Analyses New York:Dover. (Original edition, 1932)

Sydow, B., ed. 1962. Selected Correspondence of FryderykChopin. London: Heinemann.

Todd, R. Larry. 1983. Mendelssohns Musical Education. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

ABSTRACTChopins interest in the music of Bach has long been known, if perhapsunderrated. Of particular importance around the time Chopin arrived inParis (1829), the in uence of Bach is most prominent in his works of thisperiod, especially the Etudes and certain of the Preludes. The present ar-ticle begins by considering the relationship of the baroque gural prel-ude to the larger context of Baroque keyboard and compositional peda-gogy. After demonstrating the structure of an improvised gural preludeas described by C. P. E. Bach, and the embodiment of this structural planin J. S. Bachs preludes, the paper continues by demonstrating another po-tential source from which Chopin may have drawn compositional models:the improvisation manual of the early 19th century, in which the samestructural pattern survives, clothed in early 19th-century pianistic bravura.Thus the structural resemblances to the Baroque prelude that this study nds in Chopins Etudes are hardly anachronistic, although it seems clearthat in the case of Chopin, his study of Bach is the primary source. Thepaper then reveals deep-level structural relationships between Chopins C-Major Etude op. 10, no. 1, and Bachs C-Major Prelude (WTC I), mov-ing on as well to another pairing of Chopins C-minor Etude op. 25, no.12, and Bachs C-minor Prelude from WTC I. The study uses Schenkeriananalysis as a means of making clear statements about the evolution of musical style.

bach preludes chopin's etudes

Documents