Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Music Analysis.
http://www.jstor.org
SIMON PERRY
1 Introduction
One of the most strikingaspects of Musorgsky'sscores is the frequentuse
It is by no means unusual to encounter
of seeminglystrangeorthography.*
peculiaritiesof pitch spelling in his music which are hard to reconcile
with the more standard concepts of tonal structure.Inevitably,these
peculiaritiesraise questions about theirparticularsignificanceand about
Musorgsky'sintellectualself-awareness.On a broaderplane, Musorgsky's
notationssupplyrichpickingsforthose interestedin the broaderanalytical
The notionthatnotationmighthold a keyto
significanceof orthography.
our perceptionsof Musorgsky'scompositionalabilityon a 'technical'level
is firsthinted at by the apparent ratherthan real alterationsmade by
in his editionsof Musorgsky'sworks.In additionto the
Rimsky-Korsakov
wholesale rewritingof passages, Rimsky-Korsakov
made frequentamendments to pitch spellingwithout any resultantchange to pitch content.'
in tonal thinkingbetweenMusorgsky
Such alterationssignifya difference
and his firsteditor - a predictabledifference,given Rimsky-Korsakov's
increasinglyacademic (read 'German') musical orientationat the time he
editorial
createdthese editions.The criticalvalidityof Rimsky-Korsakov's
interventionis now generallydiscreditedand his versions are seen in
historicalperspectiveas flawed performingeditions (which nevertheless
achieved much in establishinga number of Musorgsky'sworks in the
- the 'mistakes'correctedby
musical canon). This leaves the irregularities
Rimsky-Korsakov of Musorgsky'soriginalscores to be considered for
what theyare: valid,vividimprintsof the composer'stonal thought.While
these imprintsfall into a wide range of categories,the present article
focuses on orthography,
takingas a case studytwo closelyrelatedpieces
fromPicturesat an Exhibition:'Catacombae' and 'Con mortuisin lingua
* This article
originatedin a paper givenat the Universityof Queensland in May 1994. I am indebtedto Professor
Malcolm Gillies forhis commentson earlydraftsofthe article.
MUSIC ANALYSIS
14:2-3,1995
221
? Basil Blackwell Ltd. 1995. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 IJF, UK and
238 Main Street,Cambridge,MA 02142, USA.
SIMON
PERRY
even though
MUSIC ANALYSIS
14:2-3, 1995
MUSORGSKY'S
PITCH
NOTATIONS
draftand the published version of the opening bars of 'Elegy', the fifth
song from the cycle WithoutSun (1874). Pavel Lamm provided both
versionsof this openingin the Soviet completeedition.8Ex. la shows the
earlierversion,whileEx. lb showsthe publishedversion(whichis Lamm's
primarysource) issued by the Bessel publishinghouse duringthe composer's lifetime. The differencebetween the two versions is most
interesting:aside froma few inconsequentialdiscrepanciesthey are the
same as regardspitch content,but the firstone and a halfbars are spelt
One wonderswhat occasioned the change in notation,
entirelydifferently.
as the passage is 'non-functional'and 'colouristic'in nature,providingan
almostimpressionistic
settingof the line (looselytranslated)'The nightlies
in a mistydream'. Given the context,how importantare the details of
voice-leadingand tonal structureas againstoverallimpressionand effect?
This questionis particularly
in thatthe earliersketchseems to
intriguing
be more traditionallyfunctionalthan that finallysettled upon by the
composer.In Ex. 2 - withparts(a) and (b) correspondingto Ex. 1 above these bars are reduced, showingthe simple semitonalmovementdownwards ofthreevoices againstone fixedpitch.What is foundin Ex. 2a could
easily be described, in referenceto C minor, as iv'-V4, while the progression in Ex. 2b is much harder to categorise simply. One looks
backwards to Chopin, while the other anticipates Debussy, and it is
certainlypossible to imagine Musorgskychoosing the latterfor its much
more non-functional
flavour,giventhe contextof the setting.This is not to
suggest that Ex. l a begins in C minor but, rather,that the power of
analyticalcues (or visual clues, if one prefers)were not unappreciatedby
thiscomposer.It is noticeablein Ex. la thatthe C? is used strangely.It has
no obvious functionand suggestsa less successfulattemptto give this
passage a melting,seamless harmonicevolutionthat is not simplyaural,
but visual as well. The versionas publishedis much more successfulin this
regard.
While the composer's final choice indicates a somewhat more nonfunctionalapproach in a local context,it seems to make more sense in
termsof the tonal structureof the entirepiece. The tonal centreis elusive
formuch of the time,but the song ends clearlyenough in F? minor,and
the materialof the bars followingEx. 1 (bs 4-10) points to F#minor as
well. Comparingthe notationsforthese two versions,it is clear thatthose
of the published versionsit much more comfortably
withinan F#minor
complexthan do those ofthe earlierdraft.In the finalversionthereare still
some spellingswhichare unusual in F#minor- the F?, forinstance,which
seems to arise fromthe approach to the E major triad in the thirdbar,
promptingthe enharmonic replacement of the leading note with the
14:2-3, 1995
223
? Basil BlackwellLtd. 1995
SIMON
PERRY
Ex. 1 'Elegy'(Without
Sun,No.5), bs 1-3
a) earlyMS draft
Rndante
A nr-3
77 7.
Rndante
r-3
Vtu
3 3
- ma -
drem
-1
let noch'
b) firstedition
Rndantinomosso
33
indantino mosso
"
pp
T1
/I .11
/I
i~iTll
L*
ii-/'/i
i I
11,
On" 1-
Ir3
V tu - ma - no
let noch'.
-1 "11n"q.
lie?
i
pip
drem
- 1",,-, ..'-.
I
I
1 'k
kU.! L,
I . if
l~~ilPl
IT1
.I~
]iI
I
II
II
L., .
r
i l
~
i'l~i
"-
- r
U
_Ii,~L-
Ex. 2 ReductionofEx. 1
b)
a)
for
~6ll
224
? Basil BlackwellLtd. 1995
MUSORGSKY'S
PITCH
NOTATIONS
be hypothesised,therefore,
thatMusorgskymade a clear calculationto set
the openinglines of Golenishchev-Kutusov'sverse in a way whichalludes
to the key,yet avoids it, ratherthan with an apparentlymore pedestrian
progressionin the 'wrong'key.
2 AnalyticalPerspective:
and TonalStructure
Orthography
The pitch notations found within a particulartonal structurehelp to
its tonal centre(s).The bounds of a tonal structureare articulated
identify
principallythroughthe consistencyof the pitch spellingsemployed,but
also via othermeans such as clear formalboundariesor theindividuality
of
lines within a contrapuntaltexture.Various archetypalstructuresmay
be considered as foundationsfor notational analysis. These are best
characterisedby the number of pitches employed, this number being
differentiated
against the existingseven letternames. Among the more
standard archetypesare chromatic(twelve-note),octatonic (eight-note),
diatonic/modal(seven-note) and whole-tone (six-note) structures.Of
primaryinteresthere is the twelve-notestructure,specificallythat which
has an underlyingseven-note (diatonic) basis. Because it contains the
fullestrepresentation
of pitchspellings,the twelve-notestructureis usually
the most analyticallyinformative,
yieldingclues, via its particularorthoto
the
of
graphy,
hierarchy pitches in a tonal setting.Fig. 1 shows two
possible systemsof spellingfor a chromaticallyenrichedtonal structure
based on Bb.For themoment,onlyFig. 1a willbe considered(althoughthe
rationaleforFig. lb willnot be hard to deduce).
Fig. 1 Standardchromaticstructurescentredon B%
a) maj/min: B% Cb C
D6 D
E6 E? F
b) minor:
ascending: B By
? C
descending: B% Bbb A
Db D? E? E? F G6 G
Ab, GG F FE E, Ebb D
GC Ab A? (Bb)
Ab A (Bb)
C Cb (Bk)
ANALYSIS
14:2-3, 1995
225
? Basil BlackwellLtd. 1995
SIMON
PERRY
MUSIC ANALYSIS
14:2-3, 1995
MUSORGSKY'S
PITCH
NOTATIONS
Ex. 3
a) 'Two PolishJews',bs 26-9
126
ff
3 -/071
b) Reger,Op. 131a, No. 1/II,bs 1-3 (subject,fugueforsolo violin,
transposed)
Allegro
F__
___w
Ii.
v'
227
MUSIC ANALYSIS14:2-3,
1995
SIMON
PERRY
B,
CQ C
DDb
D
Ebb
E
F6
(BF)
F GC
MUSIC ANALYSIS
14:2-3, 1995
PITCH
MUSORGSKY'S
NOTATIONS
3f
'
J-
J:
Wi 44 %4.
UMIMI A
" MI
Sv
k
'l
'7
----
",
VW
Id
ILp
I. "
Bb
-------- Upper
D6
tetrachord
nIllilor
minor, I
Lower tetrachord
"
229
? Basil BlackwellLtd. 1995
SIMON
PERRY
accelerando
poco
wattacca
ofthechainofrisingthirdsbetweenthetwo
to providea clearerreflection
230
MUSICANALYSIS
14:2-3,1995
MUSORGSKY'S
PITCH
NOTATIONS
Fig. 3 'Limoges'
bs 37-8:
EL
b.39:
Eb
b.40:
El, E?F
AX
B,
FAG
Ab
B% B ,C
F?LG
G?AA
iB,
(E )
C_,D
(E,)
CloD
(E)
upper:
middle:
Eb Eg?,()
F?lG
G?~#A Bb
CLAD
(E)
lower:
EL E OF
F#,G
Ab A
CD
(E,)
B,
GA
BL
F[,G
Ab ABLB
middle:
lower:
EL E?,,F
MUSIC ANALYSIS
C#,D
Eb E?,()
F#,(G)
C#AD (EL)
14:2-3, 1995
231
C Basil BlackwellLtd. 1995
SIMON
PERRY
232
? Basil BlackwellLtd. 1995
MUSORGSKY'S
PITCH
NOTATIONS
3 A NotationalAnalysisofTwoPiecesfromPicturesat an Exhibition
'Catacombae' is the eighthpiece of Picturesat an Exhibition.It providesa
fine case study of Musorgsky'sskill in the manipulationand balance of
tonal textures,with his notations showing a highlyactive awareness of
purpose in this regard.Althoughthe piece itselfis small, the problemsit
poses are farfromeasy. There is an enigmaticqualityto be foundin the
open-noted austerityof the piece, in its dramatic dissonances and its
extremedynamiccontrasts,a qualityall the moreheightenedby its sudden
of 'Limoges'. The pictorial
appearance followingthe exuberantvirtuosity
of VictorHartmann and
inspirationfor 'Catacombae' was a self-portrait
another architectinspectingthe Paris Catacombs by lamplight."At its
conclusion 'Catacombae' is linked,attacca,to the next piece, which also
bears a Latin title,'Con mortuisin lingua mortua'. This second piece is
the last of the Promenades,statinga minor-key
variantof the Promenade
themebelow a shimmering,
octavesin theright
descendingseriesof tremolo
hand. (Musorgsky'sinscriptionin the marginof the autographmanuscript
at this point reads, '. . . the dead Hartmann's creative spiritleads me to the
233
? Basil Blackwell Ltd. 1995
SIMON
PERRY
MUSIC ANALYSIS
14:2-3, 1995
PITCH
MUSORGSKY'S
NOTATIONS
F# G
A# B
Bi,
(Fg)
[111
-O
235
? Basil BlackwellLtd. 1995
SIMON
PERRY
F# G
bs23-30
b)
bs 12-24:
F# G
bs 25-30:
F# G
A
G#
A
Gi
B% B? C
C# D
F? (F#)
C# D
EB E
E# (F#)
C# D
F? (F#)
A# B
C# D
E# (F#)
E,
MUSIC ANALYSIS
14:2-3, 1995
MUSORGSKY'S
PITCH
NOTATIONS
of the C? whichfollows,and is
explained: it providesa micro-tonicisation
not heard again. As was the case in bs 1-11, the use of Bbor A? is centralto
the determinationof tonal structure.In Ex. 7, 'Catacombae' is shown
graphicallywith particularemphasis placed on the role of Bb and A? in
The determiningroles of Bb and A? are
establishinglocal tonal centricity.
supportedby the functionalambiguity(whichlastsat least untilb.25) of G
and F#.Thus, the interactionbetween G & F#and A#& Bb plays upon
relativedegreesof intervallicstabilitywithintonal contexts:the majorthird
is a stable interval,while the diminishedfourthF#-Bbis unstable.
Ft-A#
Likewise,the minorthirdG-Bbis stablewhilethe augmentedsecond G-A#
is unstable.Thus, in relationto A#,G is subsidiaryto F#whilein relationto
Bb,F#is subsidiaryto G.
Ex. 7 'Catacombae', graphicrepresentation
[41
I
TiI
[111
[19]
[25]
n I
[Nei
TI
LE
LN
l
237
? Basil BlackwellLtd. 1995
SIMON
PERRY
structureis then 'linearised' after the double bar-line where the two
sections are centred on G (minor) and on B (minor) respectively.The
transitionbetweenthesetwo sectionsis almostseamless,but to understand
themas one is impossiblein termsofpitch-notational
In the most
integrity.
in this piece, froma
general terms,the understandingof tonal centricity
pitch-notational
perspective,restswiththe question:B%or A#?
Throughoutthe discussion above it has been assumed (not unreasonably) that a centricF#implies an ultimategoal of B. However, the tonal
centreof B is neverexplicitlyachieved.The piece does not even end witha
clear dominantbut, rather,withviio7/Vover a dominantpedal. As Puffett
B which opens the piece is highly
has pointed out, even the fortissimo
ambiguous,being approached directly(attacca) fromthe E? major/Lydian
environmentof the coda of 'Limoges' (see Ex. 5), and sounds something
like a C." B is feltat most as a 'tonal ghost'throughout'Catacombae' and
it is not (from one analyticalstandpoint)until the conclusion of 'Con
mortuis'thatthisultimatedestinationis reached,in the formof the latter's
final B major sonority.The tonal ambiguitiesheard at the end of 'Con
mortuis',however,cast suspicion on the ultimateprimacyof the tonal
centreof B. Therefore,a close examinationof 'Con mortuis'(particularly
its closingbars) is essentialto a betterunderstandingof 'Catacombae'.
'Con mortuis
in linguamortua'
'Con mortuisin lingua mortua' is the finalappearance of the Promenade.
It opens with a phrase structurewhich is common to the openingsof all
the Promenades,consistingof two pairs of repeatedphrases(of a structure
a-a'-b-b') afterwhichfollowsa coda containingnew material.29The tonal
structureof the openingphrases (bs 1-10) is generallyquite orthodox,and
in B minor.At the same time the tonic does not
seems to lie comfortably
arrivein any clear structuralformthroughoutthese bars, and traitsof
voice-leadinglead to some fairlypredictablecorruptionsdue to microtonicisation.The pitchnotationsforthe first10 bars are givenin Fig. 7, in
which (a) containsthe notationsfromthe firstpair of phrases,while (b)
has thosefromthe second pair. These notationsoffera defectivechromatic
in notationbetweenthe two
structurebased on B, withminordifferences
but
does so in the guise of a
the
saturates
of
texture,
phrases. F#
pairs
dominant. B is partiallyencircled in (a), fully so in (b), and unlike
'Catacombae', there are no corruptingalternativespellingsto be found.
(Throughoutthese two pieces this is perhaps the closest approach to the
archetypalstructureshown in Fig. l a.) Even a cursoryglance at the score
reveals that there is a continuingpresence of the motive G-F#in the
foregroundand, upon closer examination,at a deeper structurallevel as
well. In this context, however,thereis littledoubt that F] is the note of
greater structuralsignificance;G resolvesto F), and this resolution is
238
MUSIC ANALYSIS
14:2-3, 1995
PITCH
NOTATIONS
C# D
E# F# G
G# A
A# (B)
C# D
E# F# G
G# A
A# (B)
MUSORGSKY'S
bs 5-10:
F?
239
? Basil BlackwellLtd. 1995
SIMON
PERRY
,L
4L*- D..............
rt. e perdendosi
, " I
I
i
--,.i.
Ai
JL
,n
SIP,
'
ip
Cl
lfI
n e Verden
nosi
M,
I'
T,
C1
C2
Cl":L.CC ....
,,
. . ..
TI
~D, ,
,2
......... ,
fromCx. To
present,it is certainlynot approached,directlyor indirectly,
of Fig. 8, placingthe pitchnotations
clarifythis,Fig. 9 offersa refinement
of bs 11-20 into two groups.This groupingshows the notationsin relation
chromaticchords which both resolveto an F#major
to the two different
triadin these finalbars. These chords are marked 'Cl' and 'C2' respectivelyin Ex. 8.30 Segregatingthe materialof thisten-barcoda in the manner
in this
tonal structures
impliedin Fig. 9 is not intendedto suggestdifferent
case. It has been done to providea closer detail of the voice-leadingin a
purelylocal connectionwiththetwo chordsC1 and C2.
Of the threepitch spellingsdescribedabove, Gx and B#are the most
easilyexplained.There is an almost sequentialnatureto bs 11-18. In the
contextof chordC1, B , formingan augmentedsixthwiththebass note D,
of the F#majortriad.Followingthis,Gx, in the context
resolvesto the fifth
of C2, resolvesto the thirdof the F#major triad. The notes B#and Gx
of the fifthand thirdof the F#major triad,and
create micro-tonicisations
the triad is itselfsubstantiallytonicisedin the process. The resolutionof
240
MUSIC ANALYSIS
14:2-3,1995
MUSORGSKY'S
PITCH
NOTATIONS
bs 11-20:
F#
Gx, A# B
A
BoACx Cx
D
BOC# Cx , ()
(FD)
D E
bs 11-14:
F?
bs 15-20:
F#
GxxA# B
A#
C#
D#
(F#)
(F#)
241
1995
SIMON
PERRY
F?
(G#) a
C2:
C#
D#
(E#) f# (Fx)
(A#)
B#
Cx
Gx
(Ax)
242
? Basil BlackwellLtd. 1995
MUSORGSKY'S
PITCH
NOTATIONS
243
14:2-3, 1995
PERRY
SIMON
BORI S:
A
,i.
Go- spo-di!
WlI1
Ty no kho-chesh'smer-ti
gresh-ni-ka,
Po-
l
I
J
I1f
L-%o
I
I_
!"
1Am
LA* I
WOld
'?
aL
4W-~
IUiII
.
I .,
'
~5-
),!
""
if "
?x"ki2
!Ialb
iI i'
vK4,
--k
PP~5
contexthere: the passage fromBorisconcludes an entireact - the curtain
the tonic. The passage from'Catacombae'
goes down and A6 is definitely
does not resembleit in thisregard,but the comparisonis sufficiently
strong
to providefurtherevidence of a weakeningof the more traditionaltonic,
B minor.34
It should also be noted thatthistypeof cadence has a Phrygianqualityin the case of 'Catacombae' F#Phrygian.This pointsto a furtherfacetof
Musorgsky's work which contributesto the obstructionsto standard
approaches to tonal centricity:the presence of modality, or modal
inflection.Bearing in mind the G-based scale-formdiscussed earlier in
relationto thispassage, it is truethatthe notes and spellingsrequiredfor
F#Phrygianare also those of G Lydian. Of course,we are not dealingwith
244
MUSIC ANALYSIS
14:2-3,1995
MUSORGSKY'S
PITCH
NOTATIONS
14:2-3, 1995
245
? Basil Blackwell Ltd. 1995
SIMON
PERRY
(I.,J~
Sf.
i.
"it
i',,:1.
(rr6
pr
"?
."!
--.
O I
r.
"
[ -" 9
I
P iM.ff
t paim. .if'gfV
1
"
..
"'
pnpp
din.
?
i .
246
MusIc ANALYSIS
14:2-3,1995
MUSORGSKY'S
PITCH
NOTATIONS
247
? Basil Blackwell Ltd. 1995
PERRY
SIMON
J IL,accelerando
I-,
248
cf
cres.
.....
MUSIC ANALYSIS
14:2-3,1995
MUSORGSKY'S
PITCH
NOTATIONS
-----04
s~p----~fp5~:~ILI
Odf
~]
Jp
2=LL
D7
249
C Basil BlackwellLtd. 1995
SIMON
PERRY
the two Coronationchords and the bass line of the passage in Ex. 11 are
derivedfromdifferent
octatoniccollections,the chordsare in fact'nested'
in the outer lines of Ex. 11. As illustratedin Ex. 14, alternateelementsin
the top and bottom lines yield the notes of the two chords, which are
groupedneatlyto eitherside ofthe centralC.
Ex. 14 Nestingof 'CoronationChords' in outerlines ofEx. 11
,A7
AkD7
of
enharmonicrepresentations
What is the significanceofthesedifferent
the same pitch class - Gj and FO?Possibly it signifiessomethingof the
tension produced by tonal elementslingeringin Musorgsky'sforayinto
symmetricalstructures.If GC and FO are considered to be in no way
then theirrelationshipto C is one that is perfectlysymmetrical
different,
withinthe octave,and one whichis most accuratelyexpressedas 0-6, these
numbersrepresentingequidistantpoints on a line which is an octatonic
scale. In these terms the relationshipC-F? is no differentto C-GI.
However, as soon as these notes are considered to express different
intervallicrelationships- the augmentedfourthand diminishedfifth,
along
withinthe octave must be
withtheirtonal meaning- thentheirsymmetry
regarded as flawed; the notes C and F?, say, cannot be regarded as
'equidistant' because they will not 'replicate' throughhigher or lower
octaverangesof a singleoctatonicscale. (For example,the ascendingseries
of augmented fourthsyields C-F#-B#-Ex
etc.) This implies an unequal
as
is
C
and
between
by the axial role of C in
implied
relationship
GbWF,
Exs 11 and 12. Indeed, it seems axiomaticof the transitionalnatureof the
passages cited here that withinthe apparent symmetryof the octatonic
structurelies more than a trace of tonal hierarchy.An interestingcomparison may be drawn fromthis observationin which FO and GC may be
seen to form'upper' and 'lower' tritonesin relationto C, just as G? and F?
would formthe dominantand sub-dominantin traditionaltonality.42This
lends support to the line of argumentwhich states that (regardlessof
intent) composers moving away from tonal common practice were
250
MUSIC ANALYSIS
14:2-3,1995
MUSORGSKY'S
PITCH
NOTATIONS
NOTES
1. Withoutwishingto confergreatanalytical
on the example,one
significance
need go no further
thanthe 39th bar ofBorisGodunov,whereMusorgsky'sGC[
(viola part) becomes Rimsky'sF#,to find an initialinstance of this type of
enharmonicalteration.Moreover,alterationsof thiskind are not restrictedto
Rimsky-Korsakov'srevisions.The complete edition of Musorgsky'sworks
MUSIC ANALYSIS
14:2-3, 1995
251
C Basil BlackwellLtd. 1995
SIMON
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
PERRY
252
MUSIC ANALYSIS
14:2-3, 1995
MUSORGSKY'S
PITCH
NOTATIONS
ANALYSIS
14:2-3, 1995
253
SIMON
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
PERRY
sections
and fifth
his fourth
Vol. 8, No. 3 (1989), pp.275-301,in particular
254
MUSIC ANALYSIS
14:2-3, 1995
MUSORGSKY'S
PITCH
NOTATIONS
255
C Basil BlackwellLtd. 1995