Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1
9
Chapter 3: The Interaction between Soviet modal theory and Schenkerian theory
134
The leap from ^1 to ^5 in the subject, would normally warrant a tonal answer.
However, Shostakovich composes a real answer instead. The real answer does not pose
harmonic problems because the subject and answer statements do not elide. This allows
for the subject to conclude on tonic and the answer to begin by highlighting the fifth G-D.
Example 3.12 shows that due to the real answer, the subject and answer can be graphed
consistently to highlight the descending third progression (^5-^4-^3). The graph also shows
that in spite of the modal ambiguity contained in the subject-answer statement, and the
decision to compose a real answer rather than a tonal answer, this passage functions in
the same way as those discussed in Chapter 1. The first countersubject creates a series of
parallel thirds with the answer, followed by a second series of thirds shown in the link
material. The result is two elided third progressions, D-C-B and B-A-G, which allow for
a quick return to tonic for the third voice entry. In fact, the subject, answer, and link
combine to form a complete octave descent from G
4
down to G
3
. Although the
progression does not provide us with a tonicization of C, we find a prolongation of G in
the upper voice, accompanied by a chordal skip from C to E in the bass line, which
supports reading mm. 119 as a prolongation of C. This speaks to the prominent linear
nature of Shostakovichs compositional language. The intermediary harmonies may not
always be clear or conventional, but the starting and ending points of his phrases suggest
a clear tonal framework.
As Example 3.13 illustrates, staying strictly within the confines of the C-major
diatonic scale has some tonal advantages. Shostakovich appears to explore some very
peculiar and distant regionsparticularly in m. 48 where the subject enters in B-Locrian
Chapter 3: The Interaction between Soviet modal theory and Schenkerian theory
135
and strongly emphasizes the diminished fifth between ^1 and ^5. At moments when it
seems that it would take several steps to smoothly transition back to C major,
Shostakovich resolves a given sonority rather abruptly, suggesting that the foreign
key/modal area was only somewhat of an illusion.
Example 3.12: Shostakovich, C-major fugue, op. 87, mm. 119, sketch
The entry in B-Locrian, shown in Example 3.13, serves as an excellent example
of this. The subject appears in the bass voice in mm. 4855. This subject entry is the most
unusual in the fugue. The subject begins with a leap of a fifth from ^1 to ^5, and because
Shostakovich is staying strictly within the diatonic realm, this particular entry outlines a
diminished fifth (BF) rather than a perfect fifth. The diminished fifth is all the more
striking due to its registral placement. If it appeared in one of the other voices,
Shostakovich could potentially re-harmonize the subject with an added bass line. Instead,
Shostakovich chose to emphasize the tritone leap, rather than downplay it, by placing it in
Chapter 3: The Interaction between Soviet modal theory and Schenkerian theory
136
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
3
.
1
3
:
S
h
o
s
t
a
k
o
v
i
c
h
,
F
u
g
u
e
i
n
C
m
a
j
o
r
,
o
p
.
8
7
,
m
m
.
4
8
5
7
137
the lowest register of the composition. The repeated tritone motion in the bass line is very
atypical of a traditional tonal composition. The tritone is ultimately resolved, however.
Up to this point, the episodic material is somewhat uniform, and we therefore
expect the episode in m. 55 to produce the same pattern. For comparison, examine the
link material shown in Example 3.11. The link in Example 3.11 highlights a descending
third-progression in the bass that spans three measures. In mm. 5557, then, one might
expect a similar third-progression to be outlined (D-C-B). However, when the bass voice
lands on C in m. 56, it does not continue further, but rather stops on C and then ascends
by step to E. The abbreviated episode serves two purposes. First, the tritone BF initiated
in m. 48, is finally resolved to C-E in mm. 5657. While the passage is not entirely
conventional from a tonal perspective, Shostakovich is clearly sensitive to the need for
tritone resolution. Second, the descending third (G-F-E) in the link material, discussed in
Example 3.11, is clearly understood as leading back to C. An exact copy of the link
material in mm. 55ff. would outline a different third (D-C-B), and it is clear that
Shostakovich intends to remain in C. Example 3.13 illustrates that, although
unconventional, Shostakovich does manipulate the diatonic material in a way that it
continues to emphasize C.
The tritone resolution discussed in Example 3.13 helps to prolong C major, but
does not mark a cadential arrival in C. Dolzhansky and Mazel also noted the lack of
cadential gestures provided in this fugue. Dolzhansky mentions that there are no cadences
between the subject entries and episodes, and Mazel points out that there is, in fact, only
one cadential gesture within the fugue. This occurs in m. 79, when the dominant pedal
Chapter 3: The Interaction between Soviet modal theory and Schenkerian theory
138
point returns to tonic. Dolzhansky and Mazel make this observation in passing, yet it is
one of the most important observations regarding the tonal nature of the fugue as a whole.
Since the fugue only contains one legitimate tonal cadence, the Babrechung can only
consist of I-V-I. Further, the fact that the fugue does contain a Babrechung allows for
structural closure in the Urlinie, ^2-^1, as well.
Example 3.14 provides two potential middleground structures for the C-major
fugue. Example 3.14a presents a ^5-line reading and Example 3.14b provides a ^3-line
reading. Emphasis on G in the Exposition suggests that the fundamental line might, in
fact, initiate with ^5. Since the fugue clearly exhibits only a single bass arpeggiation, a ^5-
line reading would have to allow for the unsupported stretch between ^5 and ^3. While
not a strict requirement, it would be preferable to have a double bass arpeggiation to
support the structure.
49
Instead, Example 3.14b provides an alternative reading where the
fundamental line initiates with ^3. This reading of the work exhibits many more
parallelisms, and is more consistent with the harmonic structure as well. Third-
progressions are now apparent at multiple structural levels: a descending third-
progression appears in the fugues subject at the foreground; two internal third
progressions appear in Example 3.14bthe first leads to E in m. 58, and the second leads
to D in m. 74; and, of course, the background structure itself projects a third progression
49
For a brief explanation of the issues surround the unsupported stretch, see Carl Schachter, A
Commentary on Schenkers Free Composition, Journal of Music Theory 25/1 (Spring, 1981): 11542,
Reprinted in Unfoldings: Essays in Schenkerian Theory and Analysis, ed. Joseph N. Straus, 184208 (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1999).
Chapter 3: The Interaction between Soviet modal theory and Schenkerian theory
139
as well. The final subject entry, not shown in the graph, also concludes on ^3, providing
stronger support for the line leading to ^3 rather than prolonging ^5.
Example 3.14: Potential middleground structures for C-major fugue, op. 87
a)
b)
A sketch of the entire fugue is provided in Example 3.15. Example 3.15a more
clearly demonstrates the prolongational aspect of the exposition material that was
discussed above. For instance, the entire exposition shows two octave descents from G to
G in the upper voice, accompanied by an outline of the tonic triad (I-V-iii) in the bass
line. The progression moves beyond the G-octave in m. 55, resolving
Chapter 3: The Interaction between Soviet modal theory and Schenkerian theory
140
Chapter 3: Interaction between Soviet modal theory and Schenkerian theory
141
the upper part of the tritone, B-F, to E (^3). Example 3.13 discussed how the progression
in m. 55 helps to prolong C major, and Example 3.15a illustrates how this passage
functions at a deeper structural level as well.
Conclusion
Dolzhanskys 1947 article makes a significant contribution to the literature on
modein terms of both the theory and its application to works by Shostakovich. The
modal element in Shostakovichs music is unmistakable, and cannot go unmentioned
when analyzing his music. However, the theories discussed in this chapteralong with
those discussed by Ellon Carpenterfall short of connecting local observations of modal
features with the global aspects of a works tonal structure. I proposed a Schenkerian
reading of Shostakovichs C-major fugue to illustrate that, along with the modal quality
exhibited at the foreground in his diatonic subject entries, Shostakovich also successfully
prolonged C major throughout the entire work. This analysis highlights the linear nature
of his writing. The surface harmonies may not be entirely conventional, but close
inspection of his voice leading shows a clear connection between the beginnings and
endings of small passages below the musical surface. In this way, Shostakovich was able
to prolong C major without defined cadential points. At a deeper level, the fugue exhibits
normative structural features: a bass arpeggiation (I-V-I) and a complete linear descent
from ^3 to ^1. A Schenkerian approach helps to magnify this important feature of his work,
and can also be used to complement the modal theories discussed above. It will not,
Chapter 3: Interaction between Soviet Modal Theory and Schenkerian Theory
142
therefore, completely replace the modal approach, but instead will highlight how these
localized elements fit into the large-scale structure.
The analysis provided in this chapter serves as preliminary support for my claim
that a Schenkerian approach to Shostakovichs compositions can lead to useful insights.
It also demonstrates that the procedure outlined in Chapter 2 can be applied to all fugal
textures that exhibit tonal propertiesnot exclusively conventional tonal works.
Furthermore, the C-major fugue demonstrated the successful application of my proposed
alternative paradigm from Chapter 1 (Example 1.16c), and uncovers similar
prolongational properties within fugal expositions by both Bach and Shostakovich.
There is still one area that is left unexamined. Matthew Brown explains how
Schenkerian theory can accommodate surface modal features and chromaticism via the
processes of mixture and tonicization. However, the C-major fugue did not contain a
single chromatic pitch, and my claim for a Schenkerian approach to Shostakovichs
music has yet to be proved in this regard. The remaining two case studies in Chapter 4
provide the opportunity to discuss the chromatic elements in Shostakovichs
compositional style.
143
Chapter 4
Case Study: An Examination of Harmony
and Voice-Leading within two fugues by Shostakovich
This chapter presents analyses of two additional fugues from Shostakovichs 24
Preludes and Fugues, op. 87. As discussed in Chapter 3, the modal-tonal nature of
Shostakovichs compositionsa significant and characteristic aspect of his
compositional styledoes not preclude a Schenkerian approach. The modal approaches
by Dolzhansky, Mazel, et al., provide theoretical justification for surface chromaticism in
Shostakovichs music, but they do not provide a means for explaining how these features
align with the tonal structure. In his article, Shostakovich and Structural Hearing,
David Fanning focuses on the increasing demand for more in-depth studies of
Shostakovichs music. Quoting Valery Gergiev, Fanning aims to find more music in this
music.
1
He suggests a neo-Schenkerian approach as a means for understanding
structural hearing in Shostakovichs symphonies,
2
and argues that Shostakovichs
music is sufficiently grounded in the Bach-to-Brahms tradition to justify the application
1
David Fanning, Shostakovich and structural hearing, in Shostakovich Studies 2, ed. Pauline Fairclough
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 77.
2
David Fanning, Shostakovich and structural hearing, 78. Fanning has provided several Schenkerian
sketches of Shostakovichs music, but uses the approach to explain global processes only. For other
Schenkerian approaches to Shostakovichs music, see Kerri Kotta, Dmitri !ostakovit"i
Tonaalstruktuurist (Ph.D. diss., Estonian Academy of Music, 2004); Kotta, On the voice-leading
structure of the first movement of Shostakovichs Eighth Symphony (Exposition and Development), in A
Composition as a Problem IV/2: proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Music Theory:
Tallinn, April 3-5, 2003, ed. Mart Humal. (Estonia: Printed AS Spin Press, 2004), 4450. In his
dissertation, Kotta provides sketches of some fugues from Shostakovichs op. 87, but focuses only on the
opening expository passages, and does not provide complete analyses of the works.
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
144
of what isat least by more or less common consent in the Westthe most powerful
theoretical tool for explaining such works in music terms.
3
Fanning provides sketches of
movements from Symphonies 5 through 10, and the deep middleground of the Fifth
Symphony is the most detailed of those provided in the article. He acknowledges the lack
of foreground detail, and suggests that a full-fledged foreground analysis of the
symphony may prove to be impossible. Ultimately, his article proposes the seed of an
idea, and then leaves it to other scholars to bring the idea to fruition: analysts, get a
move on.
4
The present study is in agreement with Fannings global point: that a Schenkerian
approach can elucidate important features about Shostakovichs compositional method
that have previously gone unmentioned. Our studies diverge at the local level, however:
while Fanning suggests that foreground analysis may prove impossible, my analyses
presented in Chapters 3 and 4 address both surface and structural features of
Shostakovichs music. Thus, my study finds the middle ground between the localized
modal approach and Fannings global structural approach.
Previous attempts to apply Schenkerian techniques to post-tonal literature have
been heavily criticized. Heinrich Schenker's theory is successful in dealing with the core
repertoire of Germanic masterpieces. These include works by composers such as J.S.
Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, et al., as well as a few non-German composers such as
Scarlatti and Chopin. Schenker was able to codify a set of voice-leading principles and
3
Fanning, Shostakovich and structural hearing, 78.
4
Ibid., 99.
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
145
analytical procedures that work consistently among this group of composers. From these,
he could show in a highly systematic fashion how surface diminutions emerge from an
underlying structural counterpoint. In an effort to extend the success of Schenker's
theory, many theorists attempted to apply his analytical techniques to repertories outside
the music of the group of composers mentioned above. The two biggest issues that arise
with this approach are inaccurate application of Schenker's theory and internal
inconsistency of method.
5
In Schenkerian Analysis and Post-Tonal Music, James Baker suggests that
analysts must question whether there are features of the composition that can be
explained as deformations of the tonal model or not. In other words, they must consider
whether or not the approach is warranted. He concludes by suggesting that if one can
find features in the work that can be explained as extensions or deformations of a tonal
model, then extension and application of Schenker's theory will likely be of use for that
analysis. On the other hand, if no such relationships are present, then it is not likely a
usable analytical tool for that particular composition.
6
While Shostakovich certainly did not adhere strictly to the tonal procedures
employed by his eighteenth- and nineteenth-century predecessors, there are many
familiar tonal relationships that can be found in his music. His works are monotonal, and
especially in the current context of his 24 Preludes and Fugues, can be viewed in terms
5
See, for instance, Ernst Oster, Re: A New Concept of Tonality (?), Journal of Music Theory 4, no. 1
(1960): 8598; Joseph N. Straus, The Problem of Prolongation in Post-Tonal Music. Journal of Music
Theory 31, no. 1 (Spring, 1987): 121; James M. Baker, Schenkerian Analysis and Post-Tonal Music, in
Aspects of Schenkerian Theory, ed. David Beach (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 15386.
6
Baker, 15386.
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
146
of major and minor keys, albeit with a high degree of surface chromaticism. Schenkerian
analysis has proved to be the most rigorous method for examining tonal works.
Schenkers appeal to students to learn harmony and counterpoint as the basis of all tonal
works seems especially appropriate for the current study, given the contrapuntal textures
provided in Shostakovichs op. 87 fugues. If one agrees that Shostakovichs works are
tonal, a Schenkerian approach can show how they are tonal.
Unlike the C-major fugue discussed in Chapter 3, the fugues discussed in this
chapter exhibit a high degree of surface chromaticism. They both present analytical
problems such as issues of dissonance treatment, unusual Stufen successions, extended
mixture harmonies, and problematic Urlinien. In spite of these analytical issues, these
compositions exhibit more tonal than post-tonal attributes, and a Schenkerian approach
will help to explain how they operate at deeper structural levels.
Shostakovich, Fugue in G minor, Op. 87, no. 22
A form chart for Shostakovichs G-minor fugue, Op. 87, no. 22, is provided in
Example 4.1. The fugue exhibits the same textural features as traditional tonal fugues:
the answer statements are at the fifth, the texture alternates between subject entries and
episodic material, and the final entries appear over consecutive pedal tones in the bass.
Shostakovich uses stretto in the G-minor fugue and, in fact, stretto appears in all of the
fugues in op. 87. Example 4.2 provides a chart with the various contrapuntal devices
found within each of his fugues. Stretto is a very typical contrapuntal device used in tonal
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
147
Example 4.1: Form chart for Shostakovichs Fugue in G minor, Op. 87, no. 22
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
148
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
149
fugues, but it is not a strict requirement.
7
The subject entries highlight the underlying
harmonic progression of the fugue: i-III-VI-!iii-i-IV!-ii-i@-i. The harmonic content will be
explored in more detail at both the local and global levels of the structure in the
remainder of this analysis. There are some features of the fugue that do not immediately
connect to traditional idioms. However, at the deepest structural level, the piece clearly
begins and ends in G minor. On analyzing post-tonal works, Adele Katz writes:
[W]e [cannot] solve the problems of linear counterpoint by comparing
Stravinskys medium with Bachs, since the principles underlying their
techniques are totally opposed. To understand the new idiom, we must try
to find out the laws that govern its principles of voice leading and then
contrast these with the contrapuntal principles that demonstrate the tonal
concept.
8
While Katz is speaking about works that have an even more distant connection to
traditional tonal works, her point is still valuable for the purposes of the present
discussion. Rather than contrast the voice-leading principles exhibited in the G-minor
fugue with earlier models, we can compare the ways tonic prolongation is achieved by
both Shostakovich and his predecessors. In other words, a linear approach to
Shostakovichs fugues will elucidate both elements that are unique but also those that are
the same as traditional tonal models. Through this lens, we can learn what this
7
Prout, Fugue, 109. Prout writes that stretto is a valuable ingredient in fugal writing, but it is not a
requirement for every fugue. He explains that approximately half of J.S. Bachs 48 fugues from the Well-
tempered Clavier do not contain stretto.
8
Adele Katz, Challenge to Musical Tradition: A New Concept of Tonality (New York: Da Capo Press,
1972), 295. The passage quoted above is from Katzs chapter on Stravinsky, and the quotation appears
within an introductory discussion of polytonality and atonality.
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
150
composers specific processes are, and how they contribute to his unique compositional
voice.
Example 4.3 reproduces the score for mm. 115. Shostakovich employs a real
answer at the fifth, which follows the traditional model. For instance, compare this with
J.S. Bachs D-minor fugue in Chapter 2, Examples 2.1a and 2.5b.
Example 4.3: Shostakovich, Fugue in G minor, Op. 87, no. 22, mm. 115
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
151
There is one difference between Shostakovichs subject-answer statement and that of J.S.
Bachs: the subject and answer statements elide in Bachs fugues, whereas
Shostakovichs subjects end before the answers begin.
9
The tonal boundaries of the subject are also straightforward as it begins and ends
in tonic. However, the underlying harmonic support for the subject-answer statements is
not so typical. As explained in Chapter 1, William Renwick divides tonal subjects into
three categories depending on their cadence types. Category 1 subjects end on tonic (I
VI), Category 2 subjects modulate to V (IV7/VV), and Category 3 subjects are non-
modulating subjects that end on V (IV).
10
All of Renwicks tonal categories naturally
involve a tonic-dominant relationship. The harmonic analysis shown in Example 4.3
reveals that this subject-answer pair substitutes a plagal progression (I-IV-I) in place of a
dominant progression (I-V-I). This aside, the progression is definable as a non-
modulating subject that ends on tonic, and roughly follows the model of Renwicks
Category 1 subjects. The following passage is quoted from Renwick. With the exception
of the short phrases highlighted in bold print, this accurately describes the G-minor
fugues subject-answer pair as well:
The initial I is expressed by ^1 and/or ^5, possibly linked by ^3. The cadence
leads through one or more notes of V7 or VII7 to a termination on ^1
or ^3, representing the concluding I. The answer, transposing to the fifth,
9
This slight alteration allows for easier manipulation of the answer statements. Shostakovichs C-major
fugue subject, for example, would have required a tonal answer in a traditional format. However, because
the subject and answer statements did not overlap, Shostakovich was able to compose a real answer, while
at the same time avoiding harmonic conflict between the two voices. The subject ended on tonic, and the
answer began in the key of the dominant in the following measure.
10
Renwick, Analyzing Fugue, 25.
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
152
ends correspondingly with ^5 or ^7, resolving as an authentic cadence in
the dominant key.
11
The single, but significant, difference required to describe Shostakovichs subject-answer
pair is the removal of any reference to a functional dominant harmonyeither as
participating within a harmonic progression or as part of an authentic cadence. Instead,
both the prolongational and cadential motions are achieved through plagal relationships
and pedal tones.
There is ample evidence of Hugo Riemanns influence on Russian harmonic
theory: his works were translated into Russian as early as the 1890s;
12
Catoire was the
first Russian theorist to base his work on Riemanns theory, which influenced the
development of Soviet music theory;
13
and Yavorsky borrowed Riemanns functional
categories (TSD). Yavorskys symmetrical arrangement of major and minor in the
theory of modal rhythm is reminiscent of the theory of harmonic dualism to which
Riemann subscribed.
14
The chart in Example 3.8 showed Mazels dualist view of the C-
major fugue as well: he divided the fugue into two sections based on key areas related to
either the dominant sphere or the subdominant sphere. The observed plagal features
within the C-major fugue are not problematic from a Schenkerian perspective. The
11
Ibid.
12
Carpenter, Russian music theory: A Conspectus, 28. Carpenter writes that Ebenezer Prouts theory of
form was widely used as well.
13
Carpenter, The Contributions of Taneev, Catoire, Conus, Garbuzov, Mazel, Tiulin, in Russian
Theoretical Thought in Music, ed. Gordon D. McQuere (Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI Research Press, 1983),
rpt. (Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2009), 273.
14
Gordon D. McQuere, The Theories of Boleslav Yavorsky, in Russian Theoretical Thought in Music,
ed. Gordon D. McQuere (Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI Research Press, 1983), rpt. (Rochester, NY: University
of Rochester Press, 2009), 273.
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
153
subject and answer do present a tonic (Ionian)dominant (Mixolydian) relationship in the
exposition, and the plagal motion beginning in m. 79 appears after the structural close in
m. 79. The G-minor fugue is more problematic in this regard.
For Schenker, plagal relationships cannot simply substitute for tonic-dominant
progressions. However, plagal progressions can function as prolongational progressions
in tonal works. According to Schenker, the plagal cadence (or plagal motion) occupies a
peculiar position between the full close and the half-close. In general, it is considered as a
form of the half-close. I [Schenker] would rather consider it as a peculiar variation of the
full close, with the only difference that the subdominant and the dominant change
places.
15
Both the authentic cadence and plagal cadence function as a full close in the
sense that they end on the tonic harmony. It is the prolongational aspectthe departure
from and return to tonicthat supports Schenkers preference for categorizing the plagal
cadence as a full close rather than a half close. However, it is important to stress that
although Schenker views the plagal cadence as more similar to an authentic cadence than
a half cadence, plagal and authentic motions are not treated equally in his theory.
In Der freie Satz, Schenker emphasizes the prolongational effect of a neighbor-
note progression:
In contrast to the interruption, the neighboring-note formation remains at
the same pitch level and thus reinforces the primary tone. The neighboring
note cannot be supported by the V in the same manner as can the ^2 in the
interruption shown in Figs. 21 and 24. Therefore, it lacks the weight of
15
Schenker, Harmony ([1906] 1954), 224.
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
154
the
^
2
V and stresses rather the effect of delay, particularly in cases where it
is supported only by the IV or VI (Fig. 32, 3 and 4). Where it has its own
cadential bass (Fig. 32,5 and 6), the neighboring note is more organically
established.
16
In other words, plagal motion can be thought of as emerging from the neighbor-note in
the fundamental line. The neighbor note supports a prolongation of the primary tone in
the Urlinie. This neighbor note, which is always an upper neighbor, will most often
embellish ^3 or ^5. Thus, the most common neighbor tones that result are ^4 and ^6. While
other harmonies can provide support for the upper neighborfor instance, ^6 can also be
harmonized by VIthe subdominant is frequently employed in such instances. Because
the upper neighbor is driving the function of the progression, these intermediary
harmonies can be treated as prolongational harmonies just as the neighbor tone is a
prolongational tool in the upper voice. Figure 32 from Der freie Satz is provided as
Example 4.4a to better illustrate this point.
In Figure 32, nos. 12, Schenker illustrates that the neighbor note prolongs the
primary tone in a given linear progression. Figure 32, nos. 34 show the neighbor note
within the context of a ^3-line and a ^5-line, respectively. In both cases, the neighboring
notes (^4 and ^6) are harmonized by either a IV or a VI harmony. In his two-level harmonic
analysis below each passage, it is clear that these neighbor harmonies prolong tonic at a
deeper structural level. However, an authentic cadence is always required for tonal
closure. Schenker writes that the plagal setting in Fig. 32, 3 and 4 is self-contained.
16
Schenker, Free Composition ([1935] 1979), 110.
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
155
Therefore, it is not permissible to read the neighboring-note harmony (IV or VI) together
with the final V as a cadence.
17
At a deeper structural level, Schenker interprets the
opening neighbor progression as representative of tonic, which then proceeds to an
authentic cadence at the conclusion of each passage.
Example 4.4: Schenkers examples of neighbor tones and neighbor progressions in
Der freie Satz
18
a) Fig. 32
b) Fig. 76, no. 5
17
Ibid., 111.
18
Ibid., the examples are taken from the 1979 translation.
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
156
In Example 4.4b, which reproduces Figure 76, no. 5 from Der freie Satz,
Schenker illustrates how these neighboring harmonies can function at an even deeper
structural level as part of the formal design of a composition. The passage provides
Schenkers sketch of Chopin Mazurka op. 17, no. 1.
19
His sketch reveals that the entire
form is ternary, where IV is the structural harmony for the B section. The figure also
shows, however, that the Urlinie does not come to a close (or even descend) until the
return of the A material. For Schenker, the authentic cadence is an essential part of the
structure, whereas the plagal progression is an embellishment of the structure. Thus,
plagal motion can function as prolongational at every structural level except the
background.
Plagal motion is not the opposite of authentic, nor are they equal. In the quote
from Der freie Satz above, Schenker stresses that the neighbor progression lacks the
weight of the ^2 supported by a dominant Stufe.
20
For Schenker, the only true
prolongation exists in the Ursatz. In its most basic form, the Ursatz is a horizontal
arpeggiation of the chord of nature:
21
it consists of a fundamental line in the upper
voice (Urlinie) which descends by stepfrom either ^3, ^5, or ^8to ^1; and a bass
arpeggiation (Babrechung) which ascends, IVI. According to Schenker, it
19
William Marvin, Neighbors, False Neighbors, and Interruptions: Analytic Choices in Generating Outer
Forms (paper presented at the Fifth International Schenker Symposium, Mannes College of Music, New
York City, March 1517, 2013). Marvin notes the middleground parallel fifths in this particular sketch
(between the outer voices in the initial III!V progression) and suggests that in this caseand many
othersthe parallel fifths are avoidable.
20
Schenker, Free Composition ([1935] 1979), 110.
21
Ibid., 1.
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
157
[Babrechung] serves as a constant reminder of the presence of the chord of nature.
22
The ascending fifth motion in the bass from IV is an absolutely essential component for
a complete tonal structure. Schenker also explains how the authentic cadence (VI)
originated in contrapuntal practice. In two-voice counterpoint, one voice descends (^2-^1)
while the other voice ascends (^7-^1). Schenker refers to both ^2 and ^7 as leading tones,
and both are requiredalong with the bass motion ^5-^1for tonal closure in counterpoint
containing three or more voices.
23
Plagal motion was explainable for the dualists as the
counterpart to authentic motion (lower fifth and upper fifth in relation to tonic).
24
However, for Schenker, the lower fifth is extraneous as it does not derive from Nature,
which only consists of rising fifths.
25
It is clear, then, that the plagal motion presented in
Shostakovichs G-minor fugue, while prolongational, cannot present a complete tonal
structure.
The G-minor fugue subject prolongs tonic in a very similar fashion to William
Renwicks Category 1 subjects, although the tonic-dominant progression is replaced with
a plagal progression in order to achieve the prolongation. Example 4.5 provides a sketch
of the same passage shown in Example 4.3. Plagal root motion prolongs tonic and
22
Ibid., 2; see also Schenker, Harmony ([1906] 1954), 26. The chord of nature is explained as a major
triad, which is derived from the overtone series. Schenker explains that the fifth is the limit to which the
human ear can perceive partials, and uses his discussion of the harmonic series to provide justification for
the major triad as the central component in tonal music.
23
Schenker, Free Composition ([1935] 1979), 23.
24
David W. Bernstein, Nineteenth-century harmonic theory: the Austro-German legacy, in The
Cambridge History of Western Music Theory, ed. Thomas Christensen (New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2002), 796.
25
Schenker, Harmony ([1906] 1954), 41.
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
158
dominant within the subject and answer, respectively. The subjects construction helps to
strengthen the prolongational nature of the underlying harmony. The repeated leaps down
to ^1 (in the local key area) create a pedal effect, which in turn creates a neighbor six-four
progression. Example 4.5 shows a repeated tonic pedal in the bass (mm. 35) and
dominant pedal tone in an inner voice (mm. 810). Ultimately, each subject entry will
contain a sustained pitch in its respective key and, while not always in the bass, this
sustained pitch supports the harmonic prolongation as well.
Example 4.5: Foreground sketch of mm. 115
In addition to prolongation at the local level, the sketch reveals a tonic
prolongation until the third entry in m. 15. This highlights the large-scale connection
between the expositional entries that closely resembles Bachs fugues discussed in
Chapters 1 and 2. One accommodation that must be made, however, is the lack of an
authentic cadence with a raised leading tone. Shostakovich provides a clear ^5-^1 motion in
the bass in mm. 1415, yet maintaining the minor dominant promotes a more modal
sound. As noted above, Schenker associates his theory of structural closure with the
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
159
contrapuntal tradition, and therefore requires a raised ^7 for complete tonal closure. In
Examples 2.1b and 2.5b, Bachs answer appears in the minor dominant (v), but then the
chordal third is raised (V) when the progression returns to tonic. There is no
corresponding authentic motion in the G-minor fugue.
Shostakovichs aversion to tonicization is an important feature of his
compositional language. It simultaneously sets his work apart from his 18
th
-century
predecessors and emphasizes the frequently noted modal-tonal nature of his writing.
Closer examination of the answer in Example 4.5 will further illustrate this point. From a
tonal perspective, the real answer in m. 6 behaves as expected and the inclusion of E!
emphasizes the minor dominant (D minor). However, the left-hand counterpoint projects
a descending third-progression BAG, which instead emphasizes G minor and creates a
tonal conflict between the voices.
26
From a purely contrapuntal perspective, the
individual verticalities are entirely consonant (363) and follow the rules for first
species. The subjects leap to ^6 allows for this harmonic ambiguity at the foreground
level. If the subject contained an initial leap between ^1 and ^5, then a tonal answer would
be required in m. 6 because of the continuation of the tonic harmony in the lower voice.
However, the construction of the subject allows for a continuation of tonic, while
providing consonant support for a minor-dominant answer.
As an alternative to viewing the progression solely in terms of the major-minor
system, one could view mm. 115 as a prolongation of G minor through mixture with G
26
This harmonic ambiguity does not appear in m. 20, where the answer reappears in the fourth voice entry.
As discussed in Chapter 2, priority is given to consistent readings, but context always plays a significant
role in whether or not similar passages can be interpreted in the same way.
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
160
Dorian. The passage in m. 6 seems less contradictory in this regard. The bass continues to
prolong G minor, and the answer provides a modal inflection !^6 instead of the diatonic ^6
in minor. G minor has yet to be tonicized, but it is certainly emphasized in mm. 115.
Aside from the plagal motion and omission of an authentic cadence, the passage exhibits
the prolongational nature of fugal expositions discussed in Chapter 1.
Shostakovich uses relatively straightforward contrapuntal procedures in his
episodic material. Example 4.6 reproduces the link and episodes from the G-minor fugue.
Example 4.6a shows the initial link in mm. 1115, along with a sketch of the passage at
the end of the system. The link introduces two motives, ! and y, which combine to form a
series of ascending parallel thirds. The progression culminates with a cadence in G minor
in m. 15. Motives x and y appear in nearly every episode. Example 4.6b shows how
motives x, y, and z interact to form a series of parallel six-three chords: motives x and y
are inverted at the octave, forming a series of parallel sixths, and motive z creates some
added dissonance with the other two voices.
One must always be careful to treat a composition on its own termsparticularly
twentieth-century compositions that may or may not adhere to conventional procedures.
Shostakovich does not necessarily need to adhere to the strict rules of tonal counterpoint
in his compositions. However, because the majority of the episodes grow out of the
original two-voice motivic pattern introduced in the link, mm. 1115, and because this
pattern is introduced as a series of consonant parallel thirds, it is most consistent within
the context of this fugue to treat the dissonant downbeats in motive z as actual
dissonances. Thus, the downbeats of each measure are interpreted as appoggiaturas, and
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
161
Ex. 4.6: Motivic development in the episodes
the remaining third-progression in motive z forms a voice exchange with motive x. The
voice exchange is highlighted in the score in m. 26 (Example 4.6b). As a result, the
addition of motive z creates a series of parallel six-three harmonies. For examples 4.6c,
4.6d, and 4.6f, the same motives appear and are graphed consistently with the original
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
162
versions. Example 4.6c is the only configuration where motive z appears above motive y,
and parallel fifths result between those two voices. This marks a profound difference
between J.S. Bach and ShostakovichBach would avoid this arrangement altogether
because of the parallel fifths, whereas Shostakovich uses it.
With motive x in the lowest voice, the majority of the passages produce six-three
sonorities. Example 4.6d illustrates the six-four sonorities that appear briefly when
motive z is in the bass voice. In all of these instances, Shostakovich uses only invertible
counterpoint at the octave, primarily six-three sonorities, and he completely avoids the
use of parallel root-position harmonies.
27
Shostakovich was certainly not limited to using
invertible counterpoint at the octave, tenth, and twelfththe three types of invertible
counterpoint that are used most frequently in 18
th
-century counterpointbut the fact that
he chose to maintain consonant triadic relationships suggests a conscious decision to
connect to the traditional style. Clearly, the later episodes beginning with Example 4.6d
are not exclusively constructed using motives x, y, and z, but these motivic ideas appear
consistently enough that they are an obvious organizing feature of the episodic material.
Examples 4.6e and 4.6g do not employ the same patterns as the other episodes in the
fugue. Instead, they generate a series of descending parallel thirds.
The discussion of the subject and answer provided strong support for reading
tonic prolongation at the local level of the structure. Globally, the underlying harmonic
progression is much more chromatic. As demonstrated in Chapter 2, the subject entries
typically outline the underlying progression that helps to uncover the fundamental
27
The chart in Example 4.2 shows that Shostakovich uses invertible counterpoint at the octave in all 24
fugues in op. 87.
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
163
structure. The harmonies displayed in Example 4.1I-III-VI-!iii-i-IV!-ii-i@-ioutline a
highly chromatic progression. Mixture generates some of the surface chromaticism: !iii,
!vi, and IV! arise from simple mixture; ii from double mixture. The ii harmony could
also be explained through the process of tonicization: as vii/ii or ii/vii. However, ii
progresses directly to V, so context suggests that the best means for interpreting this
harmony is through double mixture.
The bass line sketch in Example 4.7 illustrates the underlying harmonic
progression, and open noteheads highlight the prominent ^1-^5-^1 motion in the bass. Tonic
is prolonged from mm. 178 by a series of third progressions, followed by a chromatic
version of the phrase model (IIV!iiVi) in mm. 78120.
Example 4.7: Shostakovich, Fugue in G minor, op. 87, bass line sketch
The example highlights Shostakovichs pairing of both the diatonic versions of III and
VI, and chromatic versions of the same harmonies (!iii and !vi) beginning in m. 63.
Measures 4463 connect the diatonic and chromatic versions of the mediant and
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
164
submediant. This highly chromatic progression requires additional explanation. First, the
bass (E) in m. 44 proceeds to its subdominant (A). The bass then descends by major
thirds, outlining a descending augmented triad (G/AE!C), until it reaches C in m. 60.
The C-major sonority in m. 60 functions as II in the context of the following b-minor
(!iii) passage in m. 63, and therefore functions as a chromatic pivot chord.
Referring back to the form chart in Example 4.1, there is a distinctive change in
the progression at this moment in the fugue. The subject entries in the exposition, as well
as the entries beginning in m. 30, introduce subject-answer pairs that feature tonic-
dominant relationships. The E-major entry in m. 44, however, proceeds to its
subdominant (A major). In Chapter 3, a reverse entry occurred in the C-major fugue at
a significant moment within the form, and a similar procedure is employed in the G-
minor fugue as well. Shostakovich explores the diatonic III and VI areas, and then
reverses direction in order to proceed to the chromatic versions of these harmonies. The
progression continues with G-major key areas until the return to G minor in m. 78. The
remainder of the fugue appears to outline a fairly straightforward progression after that
point. The only exception to this is the way in which Shostakovich resolves II (m. 60)
and ii (m. 104) sonorities. Traditionally, II appears in first inversion to maintain
smoother voice leading and to avoid the tritone leap in the bass. Both of these harmonies
appear in root position in the G-minor fugue. Shostakovich is making use of a fairly
conventional progression in a modern way; he maintains the harmonic function but alters
the effect through mixture and voice leading.
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
165
A serious analytical problem arises when determining the fugues Ursatz. From a
Schenkerian point of view, the problem is specifically related to missing pitches in the
Urlinie. All of the proposed harmonies described in Example 4.7 are actually present in
the fugue except for the structural dominant in m. 114. Instead of a dominant chord, the
pedal tone (^5) is harmonized with a tonic harmony in the upper voices, creating an
unresolved cadential six-four progression. If no dominant harmony arises to accompany ^5
in the bass, then is there a ^2 in the fundamental line? If not, then the Urlinie cannot be
complete. Two hypothetical middleground structures are illustrated in Example 4.8.
Both ^2s are implied in Examples 4.8a and 4.8b to illustrate a hypothetical structural
descent to ^1. However, the strong prolongation of tonic in the three upper voices
ultimately prevents even the suggestion of ^2 at this point in structure. To force an
implied ^2 at this moment in the analysis would fail to represent the true nature of the
work, and we would lose something very special and unique about the G-minor fugue for
the sake of having a more normative graph.
Example 4.8: Hypothetical middleground structures for the G minor fugue
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
166
The lack of a complete Urlinie indicates that the fugues fundamental structure is
incomplete. This does not suggest, however, that either the fugue or the theory have
failed. Rather, the theory has helped to elucidate precisely what is unique about this
composition as compared to traditional tonal models.
The bass motion operates in a fairly straightforward fashion, but the dominant
Stufe suggested by Examples 4.7 and 4.8 is not actually present because ^5 is not
harmonized with a dominant harmony. A similar situation occurs in the Chopin tude,
Op. 10, no. 3, and Example 4.9 reproduces Schenkers sketch of the work.
28
In both
measures 17 and 70, the expected structural dominant Stufe is harmonized as a six-four
sonority. (Schenker marks the first instance in m. 17 with figured bass and an
exclamation mark). This example is quite striking. The six-four sonority resolves rather
weakly to a deceptive cadence, and then the dominant harmony seems to completely
dissipate. The upper line does not descend until after tonic is achieved within the
progression. One could argue that there is no dominant Stufe in this composition, since
dominant is not re-established after the deceptive motion in m. 18. On the other hand, this
example does contain ^2 in the upper line, and it is plausible that the outer voices realign
at an deeper structural level, which is the reading Schenker is suggests in level a of the
sketch. Shostakovichs G-minor fugue, however, never presents a descending upper line.
Instead, in m. 120, the upper line ascends from ^3 to ^5 again. Chopins upper voice
ultimately descends to tonic, and therefore it is plausible to suggest a dominant Stufe as
28
Schenker, Free Composition ([1935] 1979).
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
167
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
168
Schenker did in his sketch; Shostakovichs upper voice does not descend, and a suggested
dominant Stufe is much less convincing in this context.
If the Urlinie does not descend to ^1, and there is no dominant Stufe, then an
alternative option is to have a suspended Urlinie where the Kopfton either partially
descends (e.g. ^5-^4-^3) or does not descend at all (a sustained ^5). Previous studies have
suggested the use of an incomplete or static Urlinie in the Schenkerian literature. On the
topic of applying Schenkerian techniques to post-tonal works, Edward Laufer writes:
Clearly, certain Schenkerian techniques cannot apply, such as interruption,
or a top-voice descent to ^1. But one still hears music linearly, not just as a
series of isolated but somehow conjoined moments. There are registral
connections, main lines, basic sonorities, linear progressions, goal notes,
along with every composers varied and individual compositional
proceduresA linear analysis can reveal an underlying voice-leading
basis, with the motivic aspects placed upon this basic framework.
29
In other words, like Baker, Laufer suggests that post-tonal works that exhibit similar
voice-leading relationships to tonal works can be analyzed using a Schenkerian approach.
Of several convincing analyses Laufer provides in his article, the analysis that most
closely resembles Shostakovichs G-minor fugue is that of Debussys Canope.
Throughout the article, he discusses the presence of a prime sonoritya referential
sonority that controls the organization of a composition in place of the traditional triad.
For Debussys Canope, the prime sonority is a modified triad (D-minor triad plus the
pitch C). Example 4.10 reproduces Laufers examples 7 and 8. The fundamental line in
29
Edward Laufer, An Approach to Linear Analysis of Some Early Twentieth-Century Compositions, in A
Composition as a Problem IV/2: proceeds of the Fourth International Conference on Music Theory:
Tallinn, 2004, ed. Mart Humal (Estonia: Printed AS Spin Press, 2004), 89.
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
169
his Example 7 does not descend. Example 8 shows a more traditional Schenkerian
structure, but Laufer emphasizes that this reading is not correct because it does not
represent what actually happens in the work. He notes that the E-D neighbor figure is a
repetition of the observed neighbor motion in the work, and is not part of a structural
descent.
30
Example 4.10: Laufers examples 7 and 8 of Debussys Canope
31
30
Ibid., 98.
31
Ibid., 97.
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
170
Although the sketch may seem unusual at first, Laufers analysis is quite
convincing. He reasons that:
if by definition a triadic tonal piece ends on its tonic, by analogy a prime sonority
would likewise appear in some form at the end of a non-triadic tonal work. Thus,
the final bars here(mm. 2630) express a D-minor triad with the neighbor-note
C attachedThe neighbor-note C is not only an harmonic event, but also a
melodic-motivic one. It is important to note that a prime sonority will be
associated with a main motivic feature of the particular piece.
32
Thus, there is no linear descent because Laufer posits that this composition does not
unfold the tonic triad. Instead, the prime sonority is the organizing force behind the work,
and the neighbor motion helps to solidify both the motivic and harmonic organization
throughout. Laufers example is an even more extreme situation than that posed in the G-
minor fugue. The fugue does contain a triad as its prime sonority, and unlike Laufers
analysis of Canope, even exhibits a clear ^1-^5-^1 motion in the bass. Thus, if we accept
Laufers analysis, which ultimately shows a suspended Ursatz that sustains ^1 in the bass
and ^5 in the fundamental line, it is not a stretch to accept a similar structure that is
prolonged by a triad as its prime sonority.
Example 4.11 provides a middleground sketch of the entire fugue, showing a
suspended ^5 in the Urlinie that is prolonged through upper-neighbor motion to both !^6
and ^6, and a static ^1 in the bass.
32
Ibid., 90.
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
171
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
172
The ^6-^5 motion in the upper voice is reminiscent of the local ^6-^5 motion that first
appears in the subject, and the changing inflections of ^6 suggest modal borrowing at
deeper structural levels. Brown asserts that:
It is important to stress that mixture is an independent means of
prolongation, quite distinct from linear progressions or neighbor-note
motions. As Schenker explains, to be considered a true linear progression
a line must traverse at least the interval of a third, while at the deep
middleground, only upper neighbor-note motions around ^5 and ^3 are
possible. Sometimes these prolongations may themselves be chromatic
for example, the succession of 5-6-5 is quite common, with the ^6
supported either by VI, or by IV.
33
The middleground sketch of the fugue in Example 4.11 demonstrates how the mixture
harmonies support upper-neighbor motion ^6 (!^6) to ^5 throughout the entire structure. The
mediant harmonies act as tonic substitutes and provide intermediary support for ^5, while
various versions of VI and IV provide support for ^6 and !^6. The only true problematic
structural element in the fugue is the omission of a dominant harmony to accompany ^5 in
the bass in m. 114. This, in turn, prevents complete structural closure.
Shostakovich, Fugue in F major, Op. 87, no. 23
A form chart of the F-major fugue is provided in Example 4.12. Two pairs of
parallel passagesmm.3251 and mm. 5272, and mm. 7382 and mm. 83101are
vertically aligned in the chart. This fugue contains a tonal answer, which helps to
differentiate between entries within the form.
33
Matthew Brown, The Diatonic and the Chromatic in Schenkers Theory of Harmonic Relations,
Journal of Music Theory 30/1 (Spring, 1986): 19.
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
173
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
174
The subject entries emphasize the following harmonic progression: I-vi-VI-v/iii-III-V@-
!-iv-I. Just as in the G-minor fugue, the chromatic harmonies arise via modal mixture. In
m. 73, there is a single answer statement in E minor, followed by a subject statement in A
major in m. 83. Because the first of these statements is in the form of the answer, it is
plausible to treat the E-minor passage as minor v of A minor, which then appears as A
major through mixture. Thus, A major (III) is the second goal harmony within the fugue
(vi and VI are grouped together). A simplified version of this progression, then, is IVI
III (FD/CA). The majority of the fugue, therefore, outlines a major-third cycle, which
then leads to the dominant in m. 102.
As shown in Example 4.13, the subject begins with a leap from ^5 to ^1. This
warrants a tonal answer, which Shostakovich uses in this fugue. The C-major fugue
discussed in Chapter 3 provides evidence of the fact that Shostakovich does not always
adhere to this traditional model. He provides himself some leeway in this regard because
the subject and answer statements do not elide as they traditionally do in Bachs fugues,
for instance. Because of this, Shostakovich would not necessarily have to maintain the
tonal answer and he could have just as easily harmonized the beginning of the answer
with the dominant harmony. However, his choice of a tonal answer provides a stronger
connection to past practice, and also helps to connect the subject-answer statements more
smoothly. The tonic harmony is thus reinterpreted as subdominant in the answer.
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
175
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
176
Example 4.14 provides a foreground and middleground sketch of mm. 125. The
subject projects the same linear progression (^5-^4-^3) as J.S. Bachs fugues discussed in
Chapters 1 and 2. The subject also contains an upper-neighbor ^6, which becomes ^3 in the
tonal answer. The same paradigm (Example 1.16a) can therefore be used to graph this
subject-answer pair.
34
The third voice enters in m. 19, and tonic returns in m. 24. This is
due to the construction of the subject. Because it begins on ^5, and the third entry appears
in the bass, the C is briefly harmonized by C major (V), which has been prolonged
through the end of the answer to the onset of the third voice entry. J.S. Bach treats the
third entry similarly in the F-major fugue discussed in Chapter 2 (see Examples 2.15,
2.19 and 2.20). This passage serves to illustrate two points: first, Shostakovichs fugal
writing exhibits the same prolongational attributes we expect to find within 18
th
-century
models, particularly in the exposition; and second, my proposed tonal answer paradigm
from Chapter 1 can be successfully applied to 20
th
-century fugues. This suggests a strong
connection between Shostakovichs writing and his 18
th
-century predecessors, and also
provides a preliminary test for the paradigm outside of traditional tonal works.
34
Shostakovichs C-major fugue also exhibits the same linear progression. However, the C-major fugue
contains a real answer and so it follows a different version of my revised paradigm (Example 1.16c)
introduced in Chapter 1.
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
177
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
178
Example 4.15 provides the voice leading for the subject and both countersubjects,
and the subject (s) is highlighted with beams to help differentiate it from the other voices.
The first countersubject (cs1) produces a voice exchange with the subject. The voice
exchange is labeled in Example 4.15c, but for visual clarity has been left out of the
remainder of the examples. The second countersubject (cs2) prolongs the local tonic of
the subject entry. The closing intervals are labeled in each example to highlight the
invertible counterpoint. For instance, Example 4.15a illustrates that the closing interval
between the subject and first countersubject 1 is a tenth.
Example 4.15: Shostakovich, F-major fugue, op. 87, invertible counterpoint between
subject and countersubjects
a) m. 814 b) mm. 1925 c) mm. 3239
d) mm. 3945 e) mm. 5965 f) mm. 8388
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
179
In Examples 4.15c, 4.15d, and 4.15f, countersubject 1 appears below the subject,
producing the interval of a sixth, and indicates invertible counterpoint at the octave. The
voice leading shown is quite simple, but highlights the normative structure underlying
Shostakovichs surface chromaticism. Ultimately, each of these subject entries prolongs
its local tonic by way of a voice exchange between two voices, plus a sustained pitch in
the third voice. By using only invertible counterpoint at the octave, Shostakovich
maintains each lines membership within the triad. For example, countersubject 2 always
prolongs the local tonic or root of the chord, allowing for very straightforward use of the
voices in invertible counterpoint.
Shostakovich uses invertible counterpoint within the episodes as well. Just as in
the G-minor fugue, nearly all of the motivic material in the episodes grows out of the
initial motivic ideas introduced in the link. Example 4.16 provides sketches of the
episodes. The link material in Example 4.16a generates a series of parallel thirds between
motives x and y. Motive z is introduced in the first episode and completes the triad.
Again, Shostakovich primarily concentrates on parallel six-three sonorities. This
contributes to the overall consonant sound of the fugue, in spite of the highly chromatic
harmonic progressions that he uses.
Two potential middleground structures for the F-major fugue are provided in
Example 4.17. In Example 4.17a, the Kopfton ^3 alternates between !^3 and ^3, and the bass
descends via major thirds in mm. 183. A second option is a ^5-line reading, which is
shown in Example 4.17b. This reading is more problematic, however, because of ^4 in the
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
180
Example 4.16: Fugue in F major, op. 87, episodes and invertible counterpoint
a) Link mm. 1419
b) mm. 2532
c) mm. 4551 d) mm. 6573 e) mm. 89102
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
181
Urlinie. There is no potential to harmonize a diatonic ^4 given the harmonic progression
of the fugue. The best option for any possible ^4 is in m. 73, supported by v/III.
Example 4.17: Shostakovich F-major fugue, possible middleground structures
A potential third option to consider for the middleground is a static Ursatz as was
shown in the G-minor fugue. However, unlike the G-minor fugue, the F-major fugue does
contain a harmonized dominant. The dominant harmony does not appear in the expected
location, however. In m. 100, a pedal C in the bass leads to a return of the subject in F
major in m. 102. At this point in the structure, one would expect a clear ^5-^1 motion in the
bass to articulate the return to tonic, and Shostakovich certainly sets up the expectation
for this rhetorical device in m. 102. The subject is in F major, and it does appear in the
expected location. Because the subject begins on ^5, however, C (instead of the expected
F) is emphasized in the bass and creates an unstable six-four sonority. Shostakovichs
decision to place this subject entry in the bass voice, combined with the subjects
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
182
construction, creates harmonic ambiguity where one would traditionally expect harmonic
clarity. If m. 100 were the only option for a structural dominant, then perhaps the
suspended Ursatz would be the best representation for this fugue as well.
Instead, the subject entry in F major in m. 102 is, in fact, followed by its answer
in the key of the dominant. This entry is very important to the fugues overall design. As
mentioned above, Shostakovich chose to compose a tonal answer because of the ^5-^1 leap
at the beginning of the subject. Measure 109 provides the first instance of a real answer
(or a true subject entry in the key of V). The first pitch in the subject is G rather than F,
and the passage is unmistakably in the key of C major at this point. The bass voice uses
motivic ideas from the previous countersubject material, although the countersubjects are
no longer present in their entirety. The section beginning in m. 102 is also striking in that
Shostakovich composes complete subject entries using stretto. The arrival in m. 102 is,
therefore, better interpreted as the beginning of a large-scale cadential six-four
progression: stretto entries in the key of F major over C in the bass are followed by real
answers in stretto in the key of C major over C in the bass. The textural change signifies a
crucial structural moment, but the harmonic ambiguity creates a surprising rhetorical
effect.
There is a lot of emphasis on F in both the bass and melody at the end of the
fugue, but the structural close is not immediately identifiable. The final complete subject
entries appear in the key of B minor beginning in m. 121. They stress F in the bass voice
and initiate the descending third-progression (^5-^4-^3) in the key of B minor. However, the
Fs are still not supported by a tonic harmony. While a slight normalization of the rhythm
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
183
is required, the best location for ^1 in the Urlinie appears in m. 134, and it is repeated
again in m. 136. The bass arrives on I in m. 133, just one measure earlier. The bass
repeats a subject fragment, still in the key of B (major this time), but just enough that it
does not progress to B completely. The result, along with the upper voices, is a plagal
prolongation of tonic. As in the C-major fugue discussed in Chapter 3, plagal motion
does not pose a problem because the fugue has already achieved structural closure. A
middleground sketch of the fugue is provided in Example 4.18. While ^5 maintains a
strong presence in the upper line throughout the fugueeven appearing at the very close
of the fugue with a descent from ^1 to ^5it is better interpreted as a covering tone in this
context. ^5 does not actually descend, but there is a complete linear descent from ^3 to ^1,
which provides structural closure.
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
184
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
185
Conclusion
The present study highlights and addresses several important topics through
examination of harmony and voice leading in fugues by J.S. Bach and Dmitri
Shostakovich.
First, Chapter 1 justifies a Schenkerian approach to fugal analysisSchenkers
view of tonal structure reveals unification in works that are traditionally analyzed by
highlighting their separate sections. While a Schenkerian approach can provide a better
means for viewing fugal structure, the act of applying Schenkers theory to fugal textures
proves to be quite challenging. In particular, issues of counterpoint, harmony, imitation
and form, must be examined much more closely than in other tonal works to ensure that
the analysis is consistent. The second half of Chapter 1 concentrates on William
Renwicks subject-answer paradigms. Renwicks work offers many valuable insights into
fugal structure, but his subject-answer paradigms revert back to conventional formal
models and ultimately conflict with the Schenkerian view of tonal structure. I propose an
alternative to his paradigms 1 and 2a. My modifications better reflect the prolongational
function of the fugal exposition, and they also highlight the similarities (rather than the
differences) between subjects and their tonal answers. His paradigms are valuable as both
pedagogical and research tools, and further studies using his approach could lead to
important observations about tonal fugues in general. Revising all of Renwicks
paradigms in the manner demonstrated in Chapter 1 would be the first step toward future
developments in this area.
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
186
In response to the analytic problems posed in Chapter 1, Chapter 2 provides a
specific method for analyzing fugues. The approach is valuable pedagogically because it
provides a concrete procedure that one can follow at the initial stages of analysis.
Analyses of two fugues by J.S. Bach demonstrate the effectiveness of the method, and
also confirm the accuracy of my proposed paradigm from Chapter 1. The new paradigm
and my analytical method can be applied to twentieth-century works as well, which I
demonstrate through analysis of select fugues by Shostakovich in Chapters 3 and 4. Very
few generalizations can be made about fugues and their formal design. Because there are
so few Schenkerian studies on fugue, there is presently not enough data to know whether
or not certain predictions can be made about fugues and their tonal structures. The next
step in rectifying the problem of too few Schenkerian publications on fugue is to analyze
more fugues. My analytic method offers a starting point.
Chapter 3 discusses the modal-tonal aspect of Shostakovichs music. I give a brief
chronology of Russian music theory history in order to provide some context for the
discussion of Dolzhanskys work, in particular. I summarize the main features of
Dolzhanskys modal theory, and discuss how many chromatic elements can be explained
through the processes of mixture and tonicization. Next, I provide summaries of
Dolzhanskys and Mazels analyses of Shostakovichs C-major fugue, op. 87. To the best
of my knowledge, Dolzhanskys and Mazels analyses of Shostakovichs C-major fugue
have not been translated into English. My summaries make these publications more
accessible to Western readersa secondary benefit of the study. In the final part of
Chapter 3, I present my own Schenkerian analysis of the fugue, and discuss how
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
187
Schenkers view of tonal structure can compensate for the surface analysis prevalent in
the modal approaches. Important topics emerge in Chapter 3 that serve as potential
starting points for future study: first, the vast body of Russian literature on mode is
fascinating and warrants closer study; and second, Dolzhanskys 1947 article revealed the
potential for new harmonies, I and IV, and these harmonies do appear in Shostakovichs
music. Solving the theoretical problem posed by these two harmonies was not the focus
of the current study, although the need for an expanded theory of mixture to account for
these additional chromatic harmonies is clear. This is a crucial topic that demands further
study.
Finally, Chapter 4 presents two case studies to further illustrate the benefits of a
Schenkerian approach to compositions by Dmitri Shostakovich. The analyses
demonstrate a high degree of surface chromaticism, extended mixture harmonies, and
problematic Urlinien. Especially in the case of the G-minor fugue, I showed how the
modal aspect of Shostakovichs music affects the tonal structure at both the foreground
and middleground levels. This fugue proved to be the most problematic of the three as it
did not contain a structural dominant. While there was a clear ^1-^5-^1 bass motion, the
fundamental structure ultimately remained static throughout the fugue. The subjects
construction in the F-major fugue caused ambiguous harmonic progressions, and the C-
major fugue did not contain a single chromatic pitch. However, these fugues did have
clear fundamental structures in spite of their overt or omitted chromatic elements. While
there were slightly unusual features in each of the three fugues presented in Chapters 3
and 4, a Schenkerian approach helps to define precisely what is tonal about
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich
188
Shostakovichs music. The value of applying Schenkers theory to these fugues is that it
highlights both normative and unique traits of Shostakovichs compositional language.
When non-normative structures arise, as in the G-minor fugues static Ursatz, it does not
mean that the work or the theory have failed. Instead, the approach helps to understand
precisely how this composer writes. Further application of Schenkerian techniques to
works by Shostakovich can reveal important details about his works.
189
Bibliography
Agawu, Kofi V. Stravinskys Mass and Stravinsky Analysis. Music Theory Spectrum
11, no. 2 (1989): 13963.
Aster, Samuel Sheah. An Analytical Study of Selected Preludes from Shostakovichs
24 Preludes for Piano, Op. 34. Ed.D. diss., Teachers College, Columbia
University, 1975.
Bach, J.S. Das wohltemperierte Klavier I. Revised and annotated by Ferruccio Busoni.
New York: Schirmer, n.d.
Baker, James M. Schenkerian Analysis and Post-Tonal Music. In Aspects of
Schenkerian Theory, edited by David Beach, 15386. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1983.
. Voice-Leading in Post-Tonal Music: Suggestions for Extending Schenkers
Theory. Music Analysis 9, no. 2 (Jul., 1990): 177200.
Barcaba, Peter. Mozarts Fugenschaffen, dargestellt am Beispiel der Quartett-Fuge KV
546 [Mozarts Fugal Writing as Exemplified by the Quartet Fugue, KV 546].
Mozart-Kongre 2 (1992): 67885.
Bartlett, Rosamund, ed. Shostakovich in Context. New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2000.
Bernstein, David W. Nineteenth-century harmonic theory: the Austro-German legacy.
In The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory, edited by Thomas
Christensen, 778811. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Berry, Wallace. J.S. Bachs Fugue in D Minor (WTC I #8): A Nave Approach to
Linear Analysis. In Theory Only 2, no. 10 (1977): 47.
. Structural Functions in Music. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1987.
Braun, Joachim. The Double Meaning of Jewish Elements in Dimitri Shostakovichs
Music. The Musical Quarterly 71, no. 1 (1985): 6880.
Brown, Malcolm Hamrick, ed. A Shostakovich Casebook. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 2004.
Brown, Matthew. The Diatonic and the Chromatic in Schenkers Theory of Harmonic
Relations. Journal of Music Theory 30, no. 1 (Spring, 1986): 133.
Bibliography
190
. Explaining Tonality: Schenkerian Theory and Beyond. Rochester, NY:
University of Rochester Press, 2005.
. Tonality and Form in Debussys Prlude Laprs-midi dun faune. Music
Theory Spectrum 15, no. 2 (1993): 12743.
Brown, Matthew, Douglas Dempster, and Dave Headlam. The IV (V) Hypothesis:
Testing the Limits of Schenkers Theory of Tonality. Music Theory Spectrum
19, no. 2 (Autumn, 1997): 155183.
Brown, Stephen C. Tracing the Origins of Shostakovichs Musical Motto. Intgral
20 (2006): 69103.
Burke, Richard N. Film, Narrative, and Shostakovichs Last Quartet. The Musical
Quarterly 83, no. 3 (Autumn, 1999): 413429.
Burkhart, Charles. Analyzing Fugue by William Renwick. Music Analysis 16,
no. 2 (Jul., 1997): 270281.
Callahan, Michael. Techniques of Keyboard Improvisation in the German Baroque and
Theory Implications for Todays Pedagogy. Ph.D. diss., Eastman School of
Music, 2010.
Carpenter, Ellon D. The Contributions of Taneev, Catoire, Conus, Garbuzov, Mazel,
Tiulin. In Russian Theoretical Thought in Music. Edited by Gordon D. McQuere,
253378. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester, Press, 2009. Originally
published Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI Research Press, 1983.
. Russian Music Theory: A Conspectus. In Russian Theoretical Though in
Music, edited by Gordon D. McQuere, 182. Rochester, NY: University of
Rochester, Press, 2009. Originally published Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI Research
Press, 1983.
. Russian Theorists on Modality in Shostakovichs Music. In Shostakovich
Studies, edited by David Fanning, 76112. New York: Cambridge University
Press, 1995.
. The Theory of music in Russia and the Soviet Union, ca. 16501950. Ph.D.
diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1988.
Child, Peter. Voice-Leading Patterns and Interval Collections in Late Shostakovich:
Symphony No. 15. Music Analysis 12, no. 1 (Mar., 1993): 7188.
Bibliography
191
Darby, Joseph Eugene. Dmitri Shostakovichs Second, Third, and Fourth Symphonies:
Problems of Context, Analysis, and Interpretation. PhD diss., The City
University of New York, 1999.
Dolzhansky, Alexander Naumovich. 24 preliudii i fugi D. Shostakovicha [The 24
preludes and fugues of D. Shostakovich]. Moscow, 1963.
. O ladovoy osnove sochineniy Shostakovicha [About the modal basis of the
compositions of Shostakovich]. Sovetskaia muzyka [Soviet music] 4 (1947):
6574. Reprinted Chert stilya Shostakovicha [Traits of the style of
Shostakovich], 1962, and in Izabrannye stati [Selected articles], 3751. 1973.
. Otnositelno fugi [Relative to the fugue]. Sovetskaia muzyka [Soviet music]
4 (1959): 94102.
Fairclough, Pauline, and David Fanning, eds. The Cambridge Companion to
Shostakovich. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Fairclough, Pauline. A Soviet Credo: Shostakovichs Fourth Symphony. Burlington, VT:
Ashgate, 2006.
Fanning, David. The Breath of the Symphonist: Shostakovich's Tenth. London: Royal
Musical Association, 1988.
, ed. Introduction. Talking about eggs: musicology. In Shostakovich Studies, 1
16. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
. Shostakovich and Structural Hearing. In Shostakovich Studies 2, edited by
Pauline Fairclough, 7799. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
. Shostakovich: The Present-Day Master of the C Major Key. Acta
Musicologica 73, Fasc. 2 (2001): 101140.
. Shostakovich: String Quartet No. 8. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2004.
Fay, Laurel E. Shostakovich: A Life. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Forrest, David. Prolongation in the Choral Music of Benjamin Britten. Music Theory
Spectrum 32, no. 1 (Spring, 2010): 125.
Franck, Peter. A Fallacious Concept: Invertible Counterpoint at the Twelfth within the
Ursatz. Music Theory Spectrum 32, no. 2 (Fall 2010): 121144.
Bibliography
192
. Reaching-Over and Its Interaction with Invertible Counterpoint at the Tenth.
Theory and Practice 36 (2011): 134.
.The Role of Invertible Counterpoint within Schenkerian Theory.
Ph.D. diss., Eastman School of Music, 2007.
Gauldin, Robert. Analyzing Fugue: A Schenkerian Approach by William Renwick.
Intgral vol. 9 (1995): 99115.
. A Practical Approach to Eighteenth-Century Counterpoint. Long
Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc., 1988.
Gedalge, Andr. Trait de la Fugue: 1re Partie: De la Fugue dEcole. Paris: Enoch et
Co., 1901. Trans. and ed. Ferdinand Davis. Treatise on Fugue. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press, 1965.
Graybill, Roger. Formal and Expressive Intensification in Shostakovichs String Quartet
No. 8, Second Movement. In Engaging Music: Essays in Music Analysis, edited
by Deborah Stein, 191201. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Greenberg, Beth R. Bachs C-Major Fugue (WTC I): A Subjective View. In Theory
Only 2/3-4 (1976): 1317.
Harrison, Daniel. Rhetoric and Fugue: An Analytical Application. Music Theory
Spectrum 12, no. 1 (1990): 142.
Henderson, Lyn. Shostakovich and the Passacaglia: Old Grounds or New? The Musical
Times 141, no. 1870 (Spring, 2000): 5360.
Jonas, Oswald. Zur realen Antwort in der Fuge bei Bach [On the Real Answer in
Fugues by Bach]. In Bericht ber den internationalen musikwissenschaftlichen
Kongress Kassel [Proceedings of the International Musicological Congress,
Kassel], edited by Georg Reichert and Martin Just, 36466. Kassel, Germany:
Brenreiter, 1963.
Katz, Adele. Challenge to Musical Tradition: A New Concept of Tonality. New York: Da
Capo Press, 1972. Originally published New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1946.
Kay, Norman. Shostakovichs 15
th
Symphony. Tempo New Series, no. 100 (1972):
3640.
Khalatova, Karina. Polyphonic Innovations in the Piano Music of Dmitri Shostakovich:
Twenty-Four Preludes and Fugues. D.M.A. diss., University of Cincinnati, 2000.
Bibliography
193
Kopp, Karen. Form und Gehalt der Symphonien des Dmitri! Schostakowitsch. Bonn:
Verlag fr Systematische Musikwissenschaft, 1990.
Kosovsky, Robert. The Oster Collection: Papers of Heinrich Schenker: A Finding List.
New York: New York Public Library, 1990.
Kotta, Kerri. Dmitri !ostakovit"i Tonaalstruktuurist. Ph.D. diss., Estonian Academy of
Music, 2004.
. On the Voice-Leading Structure of the First Movement of Shostakovichs
Eighth Symphony (Exposition and Development). In A Composition as a
Problem IV/2: proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Music
Theory: Tallinn, April 35, 2003, edited by Mart Humal, 4450. Estonia: Printed
AS Spin Press, 2004.
Krebs, Harald Manfred. Third Relation and Dominant in Late 18
th
- and Early 19
th
-
Century Music. Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1980.
Kuhn, Judith. Shostakovich in Dialogue: Form, Imagery and Ideas in Quartets 17.
Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2010.
Laufer, Edward. An Approach to Linear Analysis of Some Early Twentieth-Century
Compositions. In A Composition as a Problem IV/2: proceedings of the Fourth
International Conference on Music Theory: Tallinn, April 35, 2003, edited by
Mart Humal, 89134. Estonia: Printed AS Spin Press, 2004.
Lawson, Peter. Shostakovichs Second Symphony. Tempo New Ser., no. 91 (Winter,
1969): 1417.
Lee, Tze Fung Alfred. Tonal Perspectives in the Selected Piano Preludes of
Shostakovich (Op. 34: Nos. 1, 3, 6, 14, and 24): An Analytical Study. M.A.
Thesis, University of North Texas, 1994.
Larson, Steve. The Problem of Prolongation in Tonal Music: Terminology, Perception,
and Expressive Meaning. Journal of Music Theory 41, no. 1 (1997): 10136.
Ledbetter, David. Bachs Well-Tempered Clavier: the 48 Preludes and Fugues. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2002.
Lerdahl, Fred. Atonal Prolongational Structure. Contemporary Music Review 4, no. 1
(1989): 6587.
. Issues in Prolongational Theory: A Response to Larson. Journal of Music
Theory 41, no. 1 (1997): 14155.
Bibliography
194
Mann, Alfred. The Study of Fugue. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1987. Originally
printed New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1958.
Marthy, Jnos. Harmonic Disharmony. Shostakovichs Quintet. Studia Musicologica
Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae T. 19, Fasc. 1/4 (1977): 325348.
Marvin, William. Neighbors, False Neighbors, and Interruptions: Analytic Choices in
Generating Outer Forms. Paper presented at the Fifth International Schenker
Symposium, Mannes College of Music, New York City, March 1517, 2013.
Marx, Adolf Bernhard. Die Lehre von der musikalischen Komposition, praktisch-
theoretisch. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hrtel, 183747.
Mason, Colin. Form in Shostakovichs Quartets. The Musical Times 103, no.
1434 (Aug., 1962): 531533.
Mazel, Lev Abramovich. O fuge C-dur Shostakovicha [About the C-major Fugue of
Shostakovich], Stati po teorii i analizu muzuki [Articles on Music Theory and
Analysis] (Moskva, 1982), 244259.
.Zametki o muzykalnom iazyke Shostakovicha [Notes on
the musical language of Shostakovich]. In Dmitriy Shostakovich, ed. L.V.
Danilevich, D.V. Zhitomirsky and G. Sh. Ordzhonikidze, 30359. Moscow, 1967.
Reprinted in Etyudi o Shostakoviche (Moscow, 1986: 3382).
Mazullo, Mark. Shostakovichs Preludes and Fugues: Contexts, Style, Performance. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2010.
McQuere, Gordon Q., ed. The Theories of Boleslav Yavorsky. In Russian Theoretical
Thought in Music, 109159. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester, Press,
2009. Originally published Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI Research Press, 1983.
Messiaen, Olivier. Technique de mon langage musical. Paris: A. Leduc, 1944. Translated
by John Satterfield, The technique of my musical language. Paris: A. Leduc, 1956.
Mishra, Michael, ed. A Shostakovich Companion. Westport, CT: Praeger
Publishers, 2008.
Morrison, Charles D. Prolongation in the Final Movement of Bartks String Quartet
No. 4. Music Theory Spectrum 13, no. 2 (1991): 17996.
OLoughlin, Niall. Shostakovichs String Quartets. Tempo New Series, no. 87 (Winter,
19681969): 916. An abbreviated description of the string quartets is published
under the same title in The Musical Times 115, no. 1579 (Sep., 1974): 744746.
Bibliography
195
Oster, Ernst. Re: A New Concept of Tonality (?). Journal of Music Theory 4, no. 1
(1960): 8598.
Ottaway, Hugh. Shostakovich Symphonies. London: British Broadcasting Corporation,
1978.
Owen, Harold. Modal and Tonal Counterpoint from Josquin to Stravinsky. New York:
Schirmer Books, 1992.
Parks, Richard S. Eighteenth-Century Counterpoint and Tonal Structure. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1984.
Pearsall, Edward R. Harmonic Progressions and Prolongation in Post-Tonal Music.
Music Analysis 10, no. 3 (1991): 34555.
Pike, Lionel. Analyzing Fugue: A Schenkerian Approach by William Renwick. Music
& Letters 77, no. 1 (Feb., 1996): 11619.
Platt, Heather. Analyzing Fugue: A Schenkerian Approach by William Renwick.
Notes, Second Series 53, no. 1 (Sep., 1996): 9394.
Proctor, Gregory and Herbert Lee Riggins. Levels and the Reordering of Chapters in
Schenkers Free Composition. Music Theory Spectrum 10 (Spring, 1988): 102
26.
Prout, Ebenezer. Fugal Analysis. London, 1892.
. Fugue. New York: G. Schirmer, 1891.
Reichardt, Sarah. Composing the Modern Subject: Four String Quartets by Dmitri
Shostakovich. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2008.
Renwick, William. Analyzing Fugue: A Schenkerian Approach. Stuyvesant, New York:
Pendragon Press, 1995.
. Hidden Fugal Paths: A Schenkerian View of Handels F-Major Fugue (Suite
II). Music Analysis 14, no. 1 (1995): 4967.
. The Langloz Manuscript: Fugal Improvisation Through Figured Bass. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2001.
. Structural Patterns in Fugue Subjects and Fugal Expositions. Music Theory
Spectrum 13, no. 2 (Autumn, 1991): 197218.
Bibliography
196
. Voice-Leading Patterns in the Fugal Expositions of J.S. Bachs Well-Tempered
Clavier. Ph.D. diss., City University of New York, 1987.
Riemann, Hugo. Katechismus der Fugen-Komposition: Analyse von J.S. Bachs
Wohltemperiertem Klavier und Kunst der Fuge. Leipzig: Hesse, 18904. See
also J.S. Shedlock, trans., Analyses of J.S. Bachs Wohltemperirtes Clavier.
London: Augener, n.d.
Rifkin, Deborah. A Theory of Motives for Prokofievs Music. Music Theory Spectrum
26, No. 2 (Fall 2004): 265290.
Roseberry, Eric. Ideology, Style, Content and Thematic Process in the Symphonies, Cello
Concertos and String Quartets of Shostakovich. New York: Garland Publishing,
1989.
Rothgeb, John. Thematic Content: A Schenkerian View. In Aspects of Schenkerian
Theory, edited by David Beach, 3960. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983.
Rupprecht, Philip Ernst. Tonal Stratification and Conflict in the Music of Benjamin
Britten. Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1993.
. Tonal Stratification and Uncertainty in Brittens Music. Journal of Music
Theory 40, no. 2 (1996): 31146.
Sabourin, Carmen. Analyzing Fugue: A Schenkerian Approach by William Renwick.
Music Theory Spectrum 20, no. 1 (Spring, 1998): 13740.
Salzer, Felix. Structural Hearing: Tonal Coherence in Music. New York: Dover
Publications, Inc., 1982.
Santa, Matthew. Studies in Post-Tonal Diatonicism: A Mod7 Perspective. Ph.D. diss.,
City University of New York, 1999.
Schachter, Carl. Bachs Fugue in B Major, Well-Tempered Clavier, Book I, No. XXI.
In Unfoldings: Essays in Schenkerian Theory and Analysis, edited by Joseph N.
Straus, 23959. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Originally published
in Music Forum 3 (1973): 23967.
. A Commentary on Schenkers Free Composition. In Unfoldings: Essays in
Schenkerian Theory and Analysis, edited by Joseph N. Straus, 184208. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Originally published in Journal of Music
Theory vol. 25, no. 1 (Spring, 1981): 11542.
Bibliography
197
. Either/Or. In Unfoldings: Essays in Schenkerian Theory and Analysis, edited
by Joseph N. Straus, 12133. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Originally published in Schenker Studies, ed. Hedi Siegel. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1990, 16579.
Schenker, Heinrich. Brahms: Variationen und Fuge ber ein Thema von Hndel, op.
24. In Tonwille, 8/9, 1925, 346. Translated by William Renwick. Brahms
Variations and Fugue on a Theme by Handel, Op. 24. In Der Tonwille:
Pamphlets/Quarterly Publications in Witness of the Immutable Laws of Music,
Offered to a New Generation of Youth, volume II, edited by William Drabkin, 77
114. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
. J.S. Bach, Chromatische Phantasie und Fuge: kritische Ansgabe. Vienna:
Universal Edition, 1910. Revised edition by Oswald Jonas. Vienna: Universal
Edition, 1969. Translated by Hedi Siegel. J.S. Bachs Chromatic Fantasy and
Fugue: Critical Edition with Commentary. New York: Longman, Inc., 1984.
. Neue Musikalische Theorien und Phantasien.
Vol. 1: Harmonielehre. Stuttgart: Cotta, 1906. Trans. Elisabeth Mann Borgese,
ed. Oswald Jonas, Harmony. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954.
Vol. 2, Part I: Kontrapunkt: Erster Halbband: Cantus Firmus und Zweistimmiger
Satz. Vienna and Leipzig: Universal Edition, 1910. Trans. John Rothgeb and
Jrgen Thym, ed. John Rothgeb, Counterpoint. Book I. Ann Arbor: Musicalia
Press, 2001.
Part 2: Kontrapunkt, zweiter Teil, zweiter Halbband: Drei- und
Mehrstimmiger Satz, bergnge zum freien Satz. Vienna and Leipzig:
Universal-Edition A.G., 1922. Trans. John Rothgeb and Jrgen Thym, ed.
John Rothgeb. Counterpoint. Book II. Ann Arbor: Musicalia Press, 2001.
Vol. 3: Der freie Satz. Vienna: Universal Edition, 1935. Ed. Oswald Jonas.
Vienna: Universal Edition, 1956. Trans. and ed. Ernst Oster. Free Composition.
New York: Longman, 1979.
. Das Organische der Fuge: aufgezeigt an der I. C-Moll-Fuge aus
dem Wohltemperierten Klavier von Joh. Seb. Bach. In Das Meisterwerk in der
Musik: Ein Jahrbuch, Band II. Munich: Drei Masken Verlag, 1926, 5595.
Trans. Kalib Sylvan, The Organic Aspect of Fugue, in Thirteen Essays from
the Three Yearbooks Das Meisterwerk in Der Musik by Heinrich Schenker: An
Annotated Translation. Vol. 2. Ph.D. diss., Northwestern University, 1973: 246
320. Trans. Hedi Siegel, The Organic Nature of Fugue as Demonstrated in the C
Minor Fugue from Bachs Well-Tempered Clavier, Book I. In The Masterwork
in Music: A Yearbook, vol. II (1926), ed. William Drabkin, 31-54. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Bibliography
198
Seo, Yun-Jin. Three Cycles of 24 Preludes and Fugues by Russian Composers: D.
Shostakovich, R. Shchedrin and S. Slonimsky. D.M.A. diss., The University of
Texas at Austin, 2003.
Slottow, Stephen. Analytic Process in Schenkerian Pedagogy: An Introspective
Exercise. Journal of Schenkerian Studies 1 (2005): 4465.
Smith, Charles J. The Functional Extravagance of Chromatic Chords. Music Theory
Spectrum 8 (Spring, 1986): 94139.
Straus, Joseph N. The Problem of Prolongation in Post-Tonal Music. Journal of Music
Theory 31, no. 1 (Spring, 1987): 121.
. Response to Larson. Journal of Music Theory 41, no. 1 (1997): 13739.
Taneev, Sergei Ivanovich. Podvizhnoi kontrapunkt strogogo pisma. Moscow, 1909.
Trans. G. Ackley Bower as Convertible Counterpoint in the Strict Style. Boston:
Bruce Humphries Publishers, 1962. Reprinted Boston: Branden Publishing
Company, 1980.
Taruskin, Richard. Chernomor to Kashchei: Harmonic Sorcery; or, Stravinskys
Angle. Journal of the American Musicological Society 38, no. 1, (Spring,
1985): 72142.
. Slavs as Subjects and Citizens. In Music in the Nineteenth Century, volume 3
of The Oxford History of Western Music, 443478. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2005.
. Stravinsky and the Russian Traditions: A Biography of Works through Mavra.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996.
Tepping, Susan. Fugue Process and Tonal Structure in the String Quartets of Haydn,
Mozart, and Beethoven. Ph.D. diss., Indiana University, 1987.
. Sonata and Fugue: The Finale of Mozarts String Quartet in G, K. 387.
GAMUT: Journal of the Georgia Association of Music Theorists 3 (1986): 5577.
Travis, Roy. Toward a New Concept of Tonality? Journal of Music Theory 3,
no. 2 (Nov., 1959): 257284.
Visl, Olli. Concepts of Harmony and Prolongation in Schoenbergs Op. 19/2. Music
Theory Spectrum 21, no. 2 (1999): 23059.
Bibliography
199
. Prolongation of Harmonies Related to the Harmonic Series in Early Post-Tonal
Music. Journal of Music Theory 46, Nos. 12 (2002): 20783.
Van Bruyck, Carl. Technische und sthetische Analysen des wohltemperirten Klaviers.
2
nd
edition. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hrtel, 1889.
Wagner, Naphtali. No Crossing Branches? The Overlapping Technique in Schenkerian
Analysis. Theory and Practice 20 (1995): 149175.
Walker, Paul M. "Fugue." In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online,
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/51678
(accessed August 19, 2013).
. Fugue in German Theory from Dressler to Mattheson. Ph.D. diss., State
University of New York at Buffalo, 1987.
Wells, Elizabeth A. The New Woman: Lady Macbeth and Sexual Politics in the
Stalinist Era. Cambridge Opera Journal 13, no.2 (Jul., 2001): 163189.
Wen, Eric. Drawing Parallels: Thirds and Sixths in Bachs Fugues in B-flat minor and G
minor from Book 2 of The Well-Tempered Clavier. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Society for Music Theory, New Orleans, LA, November 1
4, 2012.
Werker, Wilhelm. Studien ber die Symmetrie im Bau der Fugen und die motivische
Zusammengehrigkeit der Prludien und Fugen das Wohltemperierten Klaviers
von Johann Sebastian Bach. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hrtel, 1922.
Yavorsky, Boleslav Leopoldovich. Stroyeniye muzkalnoy rechi [The Structure of
Musical Speech]. Moscow, 1908.