copyright 2014, jeremy nowak

Development of middle-period style in the preludes of Alexander Scriabin

by:

Jeremy C. Nowak, B.M.

A Thesis

In

Music

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

of Texas Tech University in

Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements for

the Degree of

Master of Music

in Music Theory

Approved

David Forrest

Chair of Committee

Matthew Santa

Peter Martens

Mark Sheridan

Dean of the Graduate School

May, 2014

Texas Tech University, Jeremy Nowak, 2014

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................. iii

I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................1

Literature Review...................................................................................4

Background Information ........................................................................6

Obscuring a Sense of Tonic ...................................................................9

II. STRONG VS.WEAK CADENCES ...................................................11

Conservative: Prelude Op.11, No.7 .......................................................11

Moderate: Prelude Op.37, No.1 .............................................................12

Progressive: Prelude Op.37, No.4 .........................................................14

III. USE OF NON-CHORD TONES ......................................................17




IV. FUNCTIONAL HARMONY ............................................................29



V. INCREASED USE OF THE NEAPOLITAN ...................................37

Moderate: Prelude Op.39, No.3 ............................................................. 38


VI. DELAYED OR UNCLEAR RESOLUTION TO THE TONIC ....43



Progressive: Prelude Op.48, No.1 ......................................................... 48

VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................51

BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................54


iii

ABSTRACT

Over a period of roughly 20 years, Alexander Scriabin’s musical language

evolved from a late-Romantic idiom largely indebted to Chopin to a highly chromatic and

atonal language derived from his signature Mystic Chord. Scholars commonly observe

three distinct style periods in his career with the first stylistic break occurring in 1903 and

the second in 1910. The evolution of his style is somewhat difficult to trace linearly

however, and for several reasons. First, the date of composition does not always reflect

the opus order. Second, the date of composition does not always represent a linear

evolution of style. Finally opus order, at least in the case of his piano preludes, does not

accurately represent a clear evolution of style. Focusing exclusively on his pre-1910

preludes, this paper will trace the development of Scriabin’s style from his early to

middle period. This sequence will be based on five criteria: weak vs. clear cadences, use

of non-chord tones, presence of functional harmony, use of the Neapolitan and delayed or

unclear resolution to the tonic


1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Over the course of a composer’s career it is understood that their compositional

style will evolve and change several times. Tastes of the day change, composers mature

and as a result their style must adapt. Progress can never happen if things never change

and this is especially true for composers. For every composer that vehemently clings to

the given rules of the day there is always that composer that is willing to bend or break

the rules for the sake of his or her art. In most cases this evolution is not instantaneous

and is instead gradually developed over a period of several years, as is true for Alexander

Scriabin. Like many composers his career can be divided into early, middle and late

periods and trace an evolution spanning roughly 20 years1. His late period is commonly

said to have begun with his Opus 59, in the year 19102. Some scholars have placed the

divide at Opus 60 with the composition of his symphonic work “Prometheus” but Opus

59 clearly marks a break with tonality3. Despite where the divide occurs, it is almost

unanimously agreed that the year 1910 marks the beginning of Scriabin’s late period.

This period, although his most famous, was actually his shortest period and lasted only 5

years before his death in 1915. The middle period is seen to begin in the year 1903 at

Opus 30 with the composition of the fourth piano sonata 4. This was a highly productive

year for Scriabin as Opuses 30-42 were all written during this time. In total this list

includes one piano sonata, 19 preludes and eight etudes. If atonality is the ultimate

destination in his career, then it would seem logical to assume that the two proceeding

1 Bauer, p.176, Salley pp.1-2

2 Salley, p.2, Baker (1980)pp.1,18 (1986) vii

Other authors who have commented on Scriabin's style periods are Martin Cooper, Manfred Kelkel and Jim Samson. 3 Baker, (1980) page 1

4 Baker (1986) vii, Bowers, 1: p.330


2

periods follow a clear and linear path to reach this destination; this however is not the

case. Three issues arise when attempting to trace the development of Scriabin’s style

from his early to middle period. First, the date of composition does not always reflect the

opus order. Second, the date of composition does not always represent a linear evolution

of style. Finally opus order, at least in the case of the preludes, does not accurately

represent a clear evolution of style. Author Alfred Swan states “In studying his works

opus by opus it is well-nigh impossible to tell at what particular juncture one has passed

the boundaries of definite key relationship. Scriabin himself could not have been

conscious of any break or cleavage in his output.”5

Several authors have described how traces of Scriabin’s middle period style can

be found in his early period. Hugh Macdonald writes “that each work is a link in a chain,

or a brick in a wall… early works are fulfilled and perfected by what came after.”6 On

Scriabin’s early period Marion Bauer writes “..in this imitative period, a striking

personality was emerging in which many of the characteristics of the later Scriabin were

in evidence”7. Of the third piano sonata (1898) Scriabin biographer Leonid Sabaneev

writes that this is“where the real Scriabin shows his face…clear, powerful and all his

own. Everything that had been embryonic, those individual flashes that had seen light in

previous etudes and preludes…were incarnated by it.” 8

In this paper I will be looking more in-depth at the “individual flashes” to which

Sabaneev refers in order to better demonstrate similarities between Scriabin’s early and

middle periods. Therefore, this paper will trace the development of Scriabin’s style from

his early to middle period based on the following criteria:

5 Swan, p.67

6 Macdonald p.7

7 Bauer, p.176

8 Bowers, 1: p.253


3

Weak vs. clear cadences

Use of non-chord tones

Presence of functional harmony

Increased use of the Neapolitan

Delayed or Unclear Resolution to the Tonic

Focusing exclusively on the preludes composed pre-1910 this paper will

demonstrate a conservative, moderate and progressive example of each of the criterion. It

should be noted that the terms conservative, moderate and progressive relate specifically

to Scriabin’s middle period (1903-1909). By demonstrating the use of these criteria this

paper will also argue the following claim: tendencies that largely define his middle period

style begin to appear in the latter half of what scholars commonly define as his early

period. This argument will be presented by focusing exclusively on his preludes, as they

represent a large portion of his musical output and through these piano miniatures the

evolution of his style can be traced at a more microscopic level.


4

Literature Review

In the last decade or so, the amount of literature on the early portion of Scriabin’s

career has grown considerably. Before this time much of the focus was on Scriabin’s late

period works. Of the preexisting literature on Scriabin’s early style, a small portion has

been dedicated specifically to Opus 11. In 2002 Seong-Ae Lim published a thesis titled

“The influence of Chopin in Piano music on the twenty-four preludes for Piano, Opus 11

of Alexander Scriabin”. This paper compares many textures, figurations, harmonies and

pianistic style of Chopin with the Opus 11 preludes. In 2006 Hwa-Young Lee published a

doctoral dissertation entitled “Tradition and Innovation in the Twenty-Four Preludes,

Opus 11 of Alexander Scriabin” and analyzes the form, figurations and harmonic content

as well as makes several comparisons to Chopin. In 2007 Keith Salley’s dissertation

entitled “Scriabin the Progressive: Elements of Modernism in the Early Works of

Alexander Scriabin” focuses largely on harmony and motive and applies set theory and

Schenkerian theory to the early works. Other authors have attempted to apply

Schenkerian theory to Scriabin’s early and middle periods including Martin Kutnowski’s

2004 thesis entitled “Harmony, voice leading, and phrase rhythm in three early piano

preludes by Scriabin : a Schenkerian perspective” and Brian Hoffman’s 2008 thesis Tonal

Mirages: a multifaceted view of tonality in the early transitional pieces of Alexander

Scriabin” which analyzes two middle period preludes.

Other authors attempt to show a level of continuity over his career. In 2008

Natalya Sukhina published the dissertation “Alexander Scriabin (1871-1915): Piano

Miniature as Chronicle of his creative evolution; Complexity of interpretive approach and

its implications” in an attempt to show stylistic evolution over the course of his entire

career. Also in 2008 Soonbok Kee attempted to show stylistic continuity from Scriabin’s


5

middle to late period with her dissertation “Elements of Continuity in Alexander

Scriabin's Musical Language: An Analysis of Selected Piano Preludes.”

What seems to be missing however is an in-depth study in the continuity that

takes place between Scriabin’s early and middle period. While Salley’s dissertation

acknowledges the many modern elements in Scriabin’s early period, there is no attempt

to link it with the immediately succeeding style period. Sukhina’s dissertation is broader

in scope, it attempts to cover his entire career and includes several more types of piano

pieces that Scriabin composed such as etudes and poemes. Kee’s dissertation covers

elements of continuity between Scriabin’s middle and late periods but avoids his early

period because: “the early compositions are very similar to Chopin’s style based on

conventional musical language and the latter works seem to represent the crux of

Scriabin’s stylistic evolution.” 9

There is little to no literature on the Travel Preludes nor any attempt to suggest a

proper stylistic order for many of these preludes. This paper seeks to fill that void in an

attempt to more accurately convey a sense of stylistic evolution in Scriabin’s works.

9 Kee, p.3


6

Background Information

The set of pieces most commonly associated with Scriabin’s early period are the

Opus 11 preludes. They are bound together as four sets of six preludes with part 1

containing compositions dating back to the late 1880’s when Scriabin was still a student

at the Moscow Conservatory. Together with the Opus 13, 15, 16 and 17 preludes, they

form a collection known as the 47 “Travel Preludes”, a term coined by famous Scriabin

biographer Faubion Bowers. They are named as such because most of the preludes from

the collection were written while Scriabin was traveling in Western Europe as a concert

pianist. In these preludes “we can at once discern points of departure from Chopin and at

the same time nail down traits of the real Scriabin.”10

The Opus 11 set is unique from the

other opuses in the Travel Preludes in the fact that it is the only opus that is specifically

designed to reference Chopin’s Opus 28 preludes. Although some of the preludes

contained within the Opus 11 set were written as early as 1888, the set wasn’t fully

fleshed out and published until 1897.11

Up until their publishing, Scriabin had not thought

of the preludes of Opp.11-17 in terms of sets and thought of them strictly in terms of a

collection of 47 preludes. His publisher at the time, Mitrofan Belaieff, in an attempt to get

more work out of Scriabin had actually requested 48 preludes by April of 1896. As an

extra incentive Belaieff even wagered that Scriabin would not send him 48 preludes by

the given date, a wager which unfortunately Scriabin ultimately lost.12

When the 48th

prelude was finally finished in 1897 and all the preludes were ready for publishing,

Scriabin still was unsure of how to group them and his letters to Belaieff show a great

dependency on his publisher. “I must decide…”, “I don’t know…”, “Tell me…” he

writes.13

For Opus 11 they ultimately decided to follow the grouping found in Chopin’s

10

Swan, p.72 11

Bowers, 1: p.210 12

Bowers, 1: p.210 13

Bowers, 1: p.217


7

Opus 28 preludes by starting on C major and moving clockwise around the circle of fifths

through the sharps before returning through the flats, with the relative minors placed in

between.14

Although never explicitly mentioned as his intention, it appears that Scriabin

hoped to duplicate this key grouping with the rest of the travel preludes as Opus 13

begins the pattern again. The pattern is broken however in Opus 15.

The most interesting aspect about the Travel Preludes is that most of them were

composed around the same time; the fact that Scriabin still could not decide how to group

them at the time of publishing reveals that he had no particular order in mind as he was

composing them. If all 47 of the preludes were written in a similar style it might not have

been so difficult for Scriabin to decide on how to group them. But the fact is that even

within just the 47 Travel Preludes one can begin to see Scriabin’s style evolve and a more

original voice emerge. The Travel Preludes are interesting in that Scriabin was writing in

a late-Romantic idiom while simultaneously experimenting with a new modern style. As

early as Opus 15 one can start to see more and more tonal wandering, the inclusion of

more progressive harmonies as well as the breakdown of a functional harmonic system.

Tendencies that start to develop in the Travel Preludes gradually begin to pervade his

music and eventually define his middle period.

Before delving any further into the analysis portion of the paper, I must establish

some criteria as to what exactly defines a progressive Scriabin piece as opposed to

conservative. The term “conservative” will be concordant with the term “tonal” while

“progressive” will be used to denote music that pushes beyond the boundaries of standard

tonality but doesn’t achieve complete atonality. For the sake of this paper the term

Chopinesque will be used to denote the conservative side of Scriabin, as Chopin’s style

was considered conservative by the late 1800’s. In Chapter 4 of his book Introduction to

14

Bowers, 1: p.217


8

Post-Tonal Theory, Joseph Straus lists six characteristics which define common-practice

tonality, a period of time that he considers from Bach to Brahms; placing Scriabin

approximately at the very end of common-practice tonality.15

The six characteristics that

Straus lists are the ones I will use to determine whether a given piece of music fits into

the conservative or progressive category. Straus’ characteristics are:

1. Key. A particular note is defined as the tonic with the remaining notes defined in

reaction to it.

2. Key relations. Pieces modulate through a succession of keys, with the keynotes

often related by perfect fifth, or by major or minor thirds. Pieces end in the key in which

they began.

3. Diatonic scales. The principal scales are the major and minor scales.

4. Triads. The basic harmonic structure is a major or minor triad. Seventh chords

play a secondary role.

5. Functional harmony. Harmonies generally have the function of a tonic, dominant,

or predominant.

6. Voice leading. The voice leading follows certain traditional norms, including the

avoidance of parallel perfect consonances and the resolution of intervals defined as

dissonant to those defined as consonant.16

Straus goes on to say that “It is perfectly possible, however, for music to only

have only a few or even just one of these attributes without having all of them”.17

The

presence or absence of these characteristics will aid in labeling each specific piece as

conservative or progressive. Tonality was something that Scriabin did not abandon

15

Straus p.130 16

Straus, p.130 17

Straus, p.130


9

altogether until 1910 and in this paper, pieces do not have to be completely atonal to be

considered progressive.

Obscuring a Sense of Tonic

While Scriabin’s early period can be characterized as clearly tonal and his late

period clearly atonal, the music of his middle period will sometimes combine both tonal

and atonal techniques. Therefore, despite the large amount of tonal ambiguity found in

Scriabin’s music from 1903-1909, pieces are never completely atonal. As his style

evolves he gradually tinkers with all facets of tonality and as a result blurs and weakens

the overall sense of tonic. Between 1903 and 1909 the tonality of a piece is usually

confirmed at the final cadence; this is sometimes the only way to tell what key a given

piece is in. Of this period Hugh Macdonald writes that “Scriabin still composes in fixed

keys but the authority of the tonic is noticeably weakened.”18

For instance, tonality is still

present in the prelude from Opus 56, Example 1.1, the last prelude written during his

middle period. The piece clearly ends on an E♭ minor triad and in the last five measures

E♭ is confirmed several times as the tonic. Despite the clear E♭ minor center, however,

the final cadence is still extremely weak and sounds more like an augmented-sixth chord

resolving to V. This is largely because F♭ and D♮ resolve out to the E♭ octave. These

types of cadences can be found as early as Opus 15 and will be discussed later in greater

detail.

18

Macdonald, p.34


10

Example 1.1: Prelude Op.56, No.1- mm.16-26


11

CHAPTER II

STRONG VS.WEAK CADENCES

The first way that Scriabin obscures a sense of tonic is by weakening final

cadences and this is accomplished in several ways. Sometimes ^5-

^1 motion is eliminated

in the bass thus weakening a sense of tonic-dominant relationship; other times Scriabin

will not resolve the dominant directly to the tonic and instead delay the resolution. Some

later cadences are also dictated more by voice-leading than functional harmony. Even

during Scriabin’s middle period, strong cadences can be found to conclude a piece and as

this period progresses and pieces become more tonally ambiguous the final cadence is

often the only way to discern a possible key. While Scriabin never fully abandons the use

of tonal final cadences throughout the first two periods of his career much of the tonic-

dominant relationship is gradually eliminated, thereby weakening common tonal

expectations.

Conservative: Prelude Op.11, No.7

To demonstrate a conservative example of a final cadence, Example 2.1 shows the

last three measures from the seventh prelude of Opus 11. In this example the tonality is

very clear and the tonic is firmly established. In measure 22, not only does the dominant

proceed directly to the tonic but there is also a clear ^5-

^1 motion in the bass and all the

members of the V7 chord are present in the same beat. The

^5-

^1 motion is then repeated

between the last two measures and A major is confirmed in the last measure of the piece.

Overall the tonality of this passage is never in question and the tonic-dominant

relationship is very strong.


12

N6 V7 iv43 i

Example 2.1: Conservative- Cadence, Prelude Opus 11, No.7- mm. 22-24

Moderate: Prelude Op.37, No.1

Compared to the previous example where the dominant chord resolves directly to

the tonic unobstructed, the next example delays that resolution. Example 2.2, taken from

Opus 37, demonstrates how Scriabin can weaken the tonic-dominant relationship by

inserting a harmony between the two chords. This intermediate harmony can be seen as

the product of two accented non-chord tones, E♭ and G♭.

Example 2.2: Moderate- Cadence, Prelude Op.37, No.1- measures 27-31

In the first measure of Example 2.2a the harmonic progression of N6 to V

7 is

clearly setting up a resolution to the tonic. Most of the pitches of the dominant chord do

resolve properly and the root and the third of the tonic triad are present in the next

harmony. The subsequent harmony however is not the tonic chord and is instead a


13

subdominant 43 chord; this chord can be seen as the result of two accented non-chord

tones. The G♭ in the alto voice of the iv 43 chord is the result of an incorrect resolution of

the leading-tone in the dominant chord. It can be seen as an accented passing tone due to

the fact that this voice ultimately resolves down a step to F in measure 30. The E♭ in the

tenor voice of measures 28-29 can be seen as a lower neighbor to the chord tone F as the

E♭ resolves back up to F in measure 30. The non-chord tones in both the bass and alto

voice then converge on the chord tone F, the G♭ from above and the E♭

from below.

Example 3b recomposes the passage as if Scriabin had kept F in the bass as a common

tone between the dominant and tonic and resolved the leading-tone in the alto voice

properly:

Example 2.3: Prelude Op.37, No.1- measures 27-28 recomposed

This recomposed example resolves both voices containing non-chord tones

traditionally revealing the intermediate iv43 chord to be a means of delaying the resolution

to the tonic. With this chord removed the harmonic progression is rather traditional and

the tonic-dominant relationship is strengthened significantly. Scriabin demonstrates that

obscuring the tonic is possible simply by deviating from standard harmonic syntax

practices.

N6 V7 i


14

Progressive: Prelude Op.37, No.4

In the most progressive example, Example 2.4, from the fourth prelude of Opus

37, ^5-

^1 motion is absent from the final cadence and the chord before the final tonic

doesn’t even appear to be the dominant chord. As this analysis will show, this cadence is

founded more on the principles of voice-leading than standard harmonic syntax. There

are two reasons why this cadence proves difficult to describe in traditional terms. First

the four pitches that make up the penultimate sonority, C, F#, A# and E♭, when stacked

do not form a triad. Secondly, the bass motion is deceiving, as it implies a plagal motion

despite the fact that C is not the root of the penultimate chord.

Example 2.4: Progressive- Cadence, Prelude Opus 37, No.4- measures 16-20


15

V+add♭2 I

It is more judicious then to analyze the voice-leading instead of root movement.

The F#, ^7, and A#, #

^2, both resolve up by half-step to G and B respectively while the E♭,

♭^6, resolves down to D; all of these resolutions conform to 19

th-century practices. The C

in the bass forms a tritone against the F# and therefore should resolve to B instead of G.

All of these pitches could correspond to a root of D with an augmented fifth and a minor

ninth; the problem with this analysis however is that D is not present and therefore this

root can only be implied. The only other possibility seems to be that F# is the root of a

vii°7

chord with a raised third, acting as the leading-tone to the B♮ that appears at the end

of the piece. This cadence might be best understood then as a V+add♭2-I with the root

left out of the dominant chord.

Example 2.5: Prelude Opus 37, No.4- measures 19-20 recomposed


16

To illustrate this point the last two measures have been recomposed in Example

2.5. Compared to the original, the only alteration in Example 4b is to the bass voice,

which is moved up a step from C to D. Had Scriabin voiced the final cadence with D in

the bass instead of C, much of the ambiguity would have been eliminated. With the bass

note as D there is a clear sense of root and all the other voices can now be stacked

vertically on top of it to form a recognizable dominant sonority. Although the inclusion

of D in the bass creates a dissonance with the E♭ in the soprano, all the voices in Example

4b resolve according to 19th

century counterpoint practice. Also the D creates a ^5-

^1

motion in the bass and overall the tonic-dominant relationship is strengthened.

In conclusion, this cadence is considered progressive because it defies traditional

labels and overall is one of the most unusual resolutions to appear as a final cadence in all

of Scriabin’s tonal output. In the moderate example from Opus 37 the dominant and tonic

chord are clearly present, despite the fact that the resolution to the tonic was delayed. In

the progressive Opus 39 example only the tonic chord is clear; the dominant chord is

obscured by altered tones, lack of root and an unusual voicing. The principles of voice-

leading take precedence over functional harmony in the last example in contrast to the

first two examples.


17

CHAPTER III

USE OF NON-CHORD TONES

Another way that Scriabin obscures an overall sense of tonic is by gradually

utilizing a greater amount of non-chord tones. Scriabin uses them as upper extensions to

thicken dominant-seventh harmonies and as double neighbor figures around the chord

tone. The identity of a harmony is sometimes difficult to discern; this is because Scriabin

will either use non-chord tones on an accented beat, or will use several non-chord tones

in a row, often by linking two chord tones together by a series a chromatic passing tones.

In his early opuses, the non-chord tones resolve properly and in accordance with

common-practice tonality. By his middle period, however, non-chord tones appear more

frequently, are no longer resolved and become an integral part of the harmony. Alfred

Swan writes that “The passing dissonances in which his earlier works abounded now

cede before fundamental dissonances.” 19

This section will demonstrate the various ways

that non-chord tones are utilized in Scriabin’s music and the how they affect the overall

harmonic content.


The form of the fifth prelude from Opus 15,diagrammed in Example 3.1,is fairly

conservative: an 8-bar A-section is followed by an 8-bar B section with a written out

repeat and closes with a 4-bar cadential extension. The overall harmonic progression is

also rather conservative but is obscured by the extensive use of non-chord tones. In some

cases chord tones will not appear on an accented beat while in other cases simply

discerning the root of a chord becomes difficult. For the most part however, the non-

19

Swan, p.85


18

chord tones found in this piece are largely decorative and don’t affect the harmonic

content.

One of the most prominent features of the A section is the extensive use of

neighbor groups. A neighbor group is present in each of the eight measures that make up

the A section and in six of those measures they are placed in an accented position. As a

result the chord tones are placed in weak metrical positions and are given less emphasis.

This also means that the chord members are constantly out of alignment vertically and in

some cases can be scattered across an entire measure. When they are aligned, however, it

is usually for a short period of time, no longer than two eighth notes. When the neighbor

groups are placed in the left hand, as in measures 3-4 and 5-6, especially in an accented

position, the root of the chord will occasionally appear on an offbeat. By obscuring the

chord root, the identity of a harmony is severely weakened, especially if the chord root is

present for only one eighth note as in measures 3 and 7.

Other non-chord tones of particular note in the A section are two rather interesting

appoggiaturas that are altered versions of the omitted chord member. These

appoggiaturas can be found on the last eighth notes of measures 3 and 7 on the bass

pitches A♮ and D♮. Example 3.1 labels the A♮ in measure 3 as an appoggiatura to the G#

on the downbeat of measure 4. A double neighbor figure around G# is followed by an E♮,

which also functions as an appoggiatura and immediately resolves down by half-step to a

chord tone. The pattern in the left hand of measure 3 is then transposed to G# minor in

measure 4. Scriabin repeats this pattern in measure 7 when the material from measures 1-

4 is transposed up a fourth. In this instance he is spelling a G#7 chord but includes a D♮

in the bass voice which immediately resolves to a C# in measure 8. Overall these

appoggiaturas are unusual additions because they create a diminished fifth above the root

and briefly alter the quality of the dominant-seventh harmony.


19

c#: V 43/V Fr

+6 i

64 i6 ii7? V

7/V V

7 f#: V

43/V Fr

+6

i 64 i6 ii7? V

7/V V

7 c#: i b: vii°7

V65

i a: vii°7 V

65 i c#: Fr

+6 i

64 V7

i--------------------

ii°43 Fr

+6 V

43/V Fr

+6 i

64 V7

i

-------- Repeat of B section

1

6

11

11

17

23

NG LN App UN App same NCT’S apply to mm.4.-7

NG App NG

PT

NG PT

PT

7-6 sus PT App CPT

App CPT UN

UN

LN CPT PT UN LN App App LN PT

PT PT

LN PT PT

UN UN

A

B

A

Example 3.1: Conservative- NCT’s, Prelude Opus 15, No.5


20

For most of the piece the melody contains the bulk of the non-chord tones and is

commonly found in the top voice of the right hand. The block harmonies are mostly

relegated to the left hand, but on occasion the texture will invert; it is at these points that

the left hand assumes the bulk of the non-chord tones. In the B section of the piece

however, measures 9-24, non-chord tones are no longer limited to simply one hand or the

other and are distributed between both hands; the overall harmonic progression is most

obscured in measures 10-13 and the return of this material in measures 18-21. The

increased use of accented non-chord tones, chromatic passing tones and various non-

chord tones in the block harmonies make it all the more difficult to discern the chord

tones. Excluding the final cadence, the cadential material from measures 14-17 provides

the only instance where the harmonic progression is relatively clear, despite the non-

chord tones.

While the non-chord tones in this prelude are pervasive, they largely serve as

embellishments to the chord tones and are traditional upper and lower neighbors, passing

tones, and appoggiaturas. They are not embedded into the harmonic language in quite the

same way that they are in the later preludes. Further analyses will demonstrate that,as his

style progresses, non-chord tones become even more integral to Scriabin’s harmonic

language.


21


In the fourth prelude from Opus 48, shown in Example 3.2, traditional bass

motion is colored by extensive use of chromatic non-chord tones. Swan writes that

“Augmented chords (especially the French sixth) are scattered with great profuseness,

major and minor triads become rarer and rarer, appearing still at the end of the

composition and of very elaborate cadences, but hardly ever at the start.” 20

Throughout the prelude root movement is fairly clear; most of the harmonies are

in root position and the root of each chord is doubled in the lower register. The opening

bass line outlines the following chords: I, IV, N, V7; however, these harmonies are

saturated with non-chord tones. In this prelude Scriabin tends to favor the upper-

extensions of the 9th

and the 13th

but also utilizes the #11th

on F7 harmonies.

Despite the fact that the overall key of the piece is C major and that the first

harmony of the piece contains C in the bass, this opening sonority doesn’t feel like a

tonic harmony. The B♭ and G# create an augmented dominant seventh chord; this

alteration diverts our ears away from C and destabilizes the opening harmony. In fact, a

large percentage of the harmonies found in this piece are dominant-seventh harmonies

and a very small percentage are simple triads. As a result, every harmony feels like it

needs to resolve to the next. The root movement around the C harmony in measures 3-5

follows a circle-of-fifth progression (D7-G

7-C

7-F

7 ) and makes C feel like a temporary

destination in a cycle of dominant chords rather than the ultimate destination. This

progression of harmonies, along with the technique of tritone substitution, is more akin to

jazz than common-practice; what separates this piece from jazz however is the retention

of several voice-leading practices.

20

Swan, p.85


22

The augmented fifth that is included in the C7 chord in measures 1 and 4 for

instance always resolves up and the seventh of that same chord always resolves down.

Overall chordal sevenths resolve properly roughly half of the time, but with not much

consistency. Also the two augmented-sixths that are found in the B section (measures 9-

17) of the piece both resolve out to the octave. In addition added 13ths often resolve

down to the fifth of the chord as in measures 2 and 4 on the G9 harmony and on the E11

in measure 8 but are sometimes left unresolved as in the D13 in measure 3. The voice-

leading practice that is not retained is the resolution of the leading-tone; throughout the

piece the leading tone does not resolve in the same voice. The only instance where it does

resolve in the same voice is at the authentic cadence at the end of the piece. Out of all the

tendency tones, the leading-tone is ignored the most in this prelude and only about half of

the chordal sevenths conform to standard voice-leading practices.

The first instance of a strictly pure triad doesn’t appear until beat three of measure

8 when the music finally locks in to E major by way of an authentic cadence. Whereas

the A section of the piece is tonally ambiguous, the B section of the piece (measures 9-

16) contains several triads and instances where a tonic can briefly be inferred. After

cadencing in E major in measure 8, the B section of the piece locks in on D♭ major, E♭

major and C minor triads in measures 10, 12 and 14 respectively. What is unusual is that

the F on beat 3 of measure 10 is approached by an augmented sixth, G♭-E, but is

harmonized as a D♭ major triad; measures 11-12 are merely a sequence of the same

material.


23

C9 #5 F7 #11 D♭ G9 Dm/F add6 E♭7 A♭Fr+6 D13 G9

C9 #5 F7 #11 D♭ G9 G7 C7 F Fr+6 B13 E11 E

G♭Ger+6 D♭/F A♭Ger+6 E♭/G

C min D7 G9 G7

E♭7 A♭7 N add6 V13 I

Example 3.2: Moderate- NCT’s, Prelude Opus 48, No.4

(Arrows illustrate proper resolution of chordal sevenths)


24

The harmonies in this prelude are heavily saturated with non-chord tones; the

root movement however is clear due to the fact that many of the harmonies in the piece

are in root position and the root itself is doubled. While it is not entirely difficult to

discern the overall progression of harmonies in this prelude, a sense of tonic is obscured

by the fact that so many harmonies are dominant-seventh in quality or otherwise unstable

in nature. Each harmony sounds like it needs to resolve to the next and the music

therefore never settles on a specific tonal center until the final cadence. While the overall

tonal center is largely ambiguous throughout the piece, the use of non-chord tones does

not affect the underlying harmonic progression. In Example 3.3, this tendency towards

ambiguity is taken even further.


In the first three measures of the third prelude of Opus 39, shown in Example

3.3,the harmonic progression can be thought of as rather conservative (see reduction in

Example 3.4). The problematic aspect of this piece is that non-chord tones pervade the

music to the point that a sense of tonic and even the basic underlying harmonies of the

piece are difficult to determine. Both hands contain a great deal of non-chord tones that

conflict with pitches in the opposite hand. The bulk of the blame for ambiguity must be

placed on the left hand accompaniment however, as it provides much of the harmonic

framework and often conflicts with the melody line in the right hand. Many chord tones

in the left hand are decorated by double neighbor figures that form dissonances with the

right hand and scatter the members of a given harmony, making it almost impossible for

harmonies to line up vertically. In this example I will demonstrate the many ways that

non-chord tones obscure all sense of tonic in this piece.


25

Bmin G/B D/F# B♭7--------------------------------------------------------------------------

E♭7 A♭7------------------------------------------------------------------ D7

G----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CR

CR

CR

Example 3.3:Progressive- NCT’s, Prelude Opus 39, No. 3- measures 1-3.

(NCT’s are circled)


26

Bmin G6 D6 B♭7---------------------- E♭7 A♭7----------------- D7 G

iii I6 V6 V7/♭VI V7/N N7 V7 I

9------------------------8 4-----3 9------------------8 4----3 9---------8

♮

Example 3.4: Op.39 No.3, reduction of measures 1-3

The left hand accompaniment obscures harmonic progression in two ways. First,

the ceaseless quintuplet figure creates a polyrhythm against the triplets in the right hand.

As a result pitches between the hands are rarely ever attacked simultaneously, and the

members of any given sonority are usually spread out over the span of an entire beat.

This disparity makes it very difficult to discern the chord root aurally, as often the root of

a chord will appear as the last pitch in the quintuplet figure. The quick succession of

notes in the left hand also means that even the chord tones appear very briefly and are

given very little time to distinguish themselves from the non-chord tones before the next

chord change. Second, double neighbor figures pervade the left hand accompaniment,

and most of the time these neighbor pitches are not diatonic to the key of G.

In this piece there are two ways that cross relation dissonances can occur; the first

is the result of a non-chord tone clashing with a chord tone. Two examples of this type of

cross relation can be found in measure 2, on beats 1 and 4. In both instances a chromatic

double-neighbor figure in the left hand decorates the root of a dominant-seventh chord


27

while the seventh of the chord is present in the right hand. On beat one for example, the

underlying harmony is E♭7. E♭ is in the bass and the seventh, D♭, is present in the alto

voice. D♮ creates a cross relation when Scriabin utilizes it as a lower neighbor tone to E♭.

There are also a few instances where this kind of dissonance occurs in just the right hand,

as in beat 4 of measure 1. The chordal seventh A♭ is present in the alto voice. A♮ appears

in the soprano voice as a lower neighbor to B♭ creating the cross relation. The second

way cross-relation dissonances can occur is between two non-chord tones. This is

exemplified on beat 1 of measure 1 as a result of double neighbor figures; the dissonance

occurs when the lower neighbor of A (G#) is juxtaposed against the upper neighbor of F

(G). This second type of dissonance is perhaps more pronounced than the first because

both members of the cross relation are moving.

Dissonances also occur when accented non-chord tones are prolonged against a

vertical sonority. Most of the time the non-chord tones resolve to the proper chord tone

within the same beat but occasionally they remain unresolved for an extended length of

time before finally resolving. An example of the former can be found on beat 1 of

measure 2 with the A♭ in the soprano voice. The A♭

serves as an accented passing tone in

a line that links the chord tone B♭ at the end of measure 1 to the G chord tone at the end

of beat 1 in measure 2. While at first it appears that Scriabin is creating a dominant-

eleventh chord by adding the A♭, it is only temporary as the A♭ eventually resolves to the

chord tone G. The same can be said about beat 4 of the same measure, where a G in the

soprano is placed against a D dominant-seventh harmony. This is again an accented

passing tone, G, serving as a bridge between two chord tones, A♭ and F#. An example of

the latter can be found on beat 2 of measure 1 with the C in the soprano voice. The C is

prolonged for almost three beats and is left unresolved for such an extended period of


28

time that it appears to be a chord tone. It isn’t until the very end of measure 1 that the C is

finally realized as an upper neighbor, resolving to the chord tone B♭.

Example 3.4 reduces out all of the neighbor groups in the first three measures.

The harmonic progression is revealed to be fairly traditional despite measures 1-2

containing a short circle-of-fifths progression around the Neapolitan. Also revealed in the

reduction is an alternating series of 9-8 and 4-3 suspensions between the outer voices

beginning on beat 2 of measure 1. This pattern of dissonance and resolution is made

unclear in the original by the many other dissonances occurring at the same time and by

the fact that the outer voices creating these suspensions rarely line up vertically.

Overall this prelude seems to have taken the tendencies of the fifth prelude of

Opus 15 to the absolute extreme. Although double neighbor figures are prominent in both

pieces, in the Opus 15 prelude the bulk of the non-chord tones were featured in the

melody line while the accompanying harmonies were left largely unobstructed. In this

Opus 39 prelude however, non-chord tones are present in both the melody and the

accompanying harmonies as well. Without a strong point of harmonic reference in either

hand, many of the elements that contribute to the tonality of the piece are missing.


29

CHAPTER IV

FUNCTIONAL HARMONY

The use of functional harmony is one of the determining factors of Scriabin’s

different style periods and as his career progresses becomes something he utilizes less

and less. In his early opuses, Scriabin follows a rather traditional harmonic syntax and

triads and seventh chords are the fundamental building blocks of his harmonic language.

While triads continue to provide the foundation for his harmonic language through his

middle period, a traditional sense of syntax begins to break down as harmonies become

saturated by non-chord tones. As a result, many of the harmonies begin to lose their

function and a relationship to the overall tonic is weakened. This section will examine the

role that functional harmony plays in Scriabin’s first two style periods.

In terms of functional harmony in a conservative sense, Scriabin’s use of

functional harmony is not that much different from many of the Romantic composers that

predate him. Therefore I feel it unnecessary to demonstrate a specific example of

Scriabin’s use of functional harmony in the most conservative sense as examples can be

found throughout the preludes of Opuses 11 and 13 and also the mazurkas of Opus 3.


30


In Example 4.1, Scriabin’s use of harmony moves beyond a late-Romantic idiom

and the tonality is incredibly obscured. It is obscured to the point where no root position

tonic triads appear until the end of the piece. If indeed the first sonority of the piece is

meant to imply C major, then the only member of the chord to identify it as such is the

root note, harmonized with several non-chord tones. There seem to be too many non-

chord tones to establish C as the root however and the most obvious stacking of these

pitches instead spells a D minor seventh chord. If Scriabin intended for this opening

sonority to imply any sense of overall tonic, it is established extremely weakly. The most

noticeable difference between this prelude and the previous prelude from Opus 17 is that

a lot of non-chord tones aren’t resolved in this Opus 48 prelude. While there is a

noticeable absence of functional harmony and many chords are altered by upper

extensions in the Opus 17 prelude, many of the pitches that created these extensions

gradually resolved to pitches that created more standard triads and seventh chords. In

other words, although it appears that the Opus 17 prelude contains many altered dominant

chords, the fundamental building blocks of that piece are still triads and dominant seventh

chords. In the Opus 48 prelude however, the fundamental harmonies are the altered

chords, particularly stacked in fourths, and the upper extensions do not resolve in the

same manner as his early period. The technique of leaving dissonances unresolved is one

of the defining features of Scriabin’s middle period style and is a contributing factor to

the complete breakdown of tonality in his late period.


31

G: V11#5

I vii°42 I vii°4

2 I

D♭: V11#5 I

C: V7#5 I vii°42 I vii°4

2 I

Example 4.1: Moderate- Functional Harmony, Prelude Op48, No.2


32

In this piece, tonal centers are realized through one particular melodic and

harmonic gesture; it first appears in measure 2 with the E♭ octave in the right hand

resolving down to a D. The D octave along with the other notes in the right hand form a

G major triad and although the inclusion of the E♭s imply the minor mode, the arpeggio

in the left hand also confirms G major. G major is confirmed two more times, once in

beat three of the same measure and also on beat one of measure three. The first instance

of G major could be considered in inversion given the fact that G does not appear in the

bass when the D octave appears in the right hand. The last two instances of G major,

however, are undoubtedly in root position. Given the fact that tonic triads, let alone in

root position, are somewhat rare in the music of Scriabin’s middle period the appearance

of three would usually be enough to establish a tonic but the appropriate dominant chord

is also present to undoubtedly confirm the key.

Despite the addition of several upper extensions and the absence of a leading

tone, enough members are present to analyze the chord on beat 4 of measure 1 as a D

augmented dominant-eleventh chord. Therefore the analysis in Example 4.1 shows an

authentic cadence on the downbeat measure 2. Cadential extensions immediately follow

from beat 2 to beat 3 in the same measure and from beat 4 to beat 1 of measure 3 to

conclude the phrase. The extensions however do not use a dominant chord, instead the

pitches E♭, C, F# and B create a leading-tone chord in 3

rd inversion. This material is also

used in measures 6-7 to conclude the piece.

The melodic and harmonic gesture from measure 2 can also be found in measure

5 and briefly tonicizes D♭ major. If one were to determine a key scheme then in relation

to C major, they would find that Scriabin is then tonicizing only the dominant and

Neapolitan, which is still rather traditional. The manner he goes about doing this

however, is rather unconventional and removed from common-practice.


33


The first prelude from Opus 48 is progressive because functional harmony is

largely eschewed in favor of harmonies related by tritone. Hugh Macdonald states that

“Scriabin’s increasing dependence on the tritone as the basis of his harmony pulls clearly

away from the old functional harmony.”21

Triads still provide the basic harmonic

building blocks but many of the harmonies are thickened with non-chord tones, in effect

weakening their overall function. Also, the first 12 measures of the piece can be seen a

composing out of the relationship between the first two harmonies of the piece, which are

separated by a tritone. Therefore this piece can be very loosely defined as tonal because

the harmonic content is generated by both diatonic and non-diatonic means.

The interval of the tritone affects many aspects of the music; most importantly,

many chord roots are separated by a tritone. Tritone-related harmonies are most

commonly found in the passages that are tonicizing a specific tonal center. For instance,

the repetition of tritone motion in the bass in measure 3 is the result of the alternation

between a V7 and N

7 harmony in the key of F# major. The phrase however ends on the

N7 harmony and an authentic cadence in F# major never materializes. In addition many

of the harmonies that precede this passage are related by tritone. The graph below

displays the harmonic scheme of the first 12 measures; the chords that are bracketed

together are related by tritone.

21

Macdonald,p.46


34

F7-B7-A♭7-D7-G#7-C#7-G7-F#7-C7-F#7-B

m.1 m.12

TT TT TT TT TT TT

TT

Example 4.2: Harmonic scheme of measures 1-12

Nowhere are tritone related harmonies more prevalent than in the B section of the

piece, measures 4-12. The first half of this section is nothing more than a constant

alternation between the V7 and N7 chord in the key of B major. Unlike the tonicization

of F# major in the A section though, an authentic cadence in B major actually takes place

after an extended dominant pedal in measures 9-11. The realization of B major feels like

the climax since it is one of only two simple triads in the piece. Also, immediately

succeeding the resolution to B major the piece starts over, and the material from

measures 1-3 is repeated.

With B major in mind as the destination, the first 12 measures can then be seen as

a composing out of the first two harmonies of the piece, F7 and B7. Along with the N7

and V7, these two harmonies are two of the most important in the piece as they generate

all the content in measures 1-12.Therefore, the deepest harmonic underpinnings of

measures 1-12 are related by a tritone. In relation to the tonic F# major, B major is

diatonic to the key whereas F7 is distantly-related. It is unusual that Scriabin chose a

distantly-related harmony to constitute one of the primary harmonies of the piece but it is

evidence that in this piece harmonies related by tritone take precedence over diatonic,

functional harmony.


35

F7 B7

F7 B7 A♭7

V7------------------------ N7 V7-------------------- V7#5

V7#5

A♭7 D7 F#:V7/V

D7 F#:V7/V

V7 N7 V7 N7 V7 I

I

V7 N7 V7 N7

B: V7 N7----------------------------- V7 N7-------------

Example 4.3: Progressive- Functional Harmony, Prelude Opus 48, No.1


36

In addition to harmonies being related by tritone, many of the inner voices are

also stacked in tritones. This facilitates smooth voice-leading when chord roots are

related by tritone, for the third and seventh of both chords are enharmonically equivalent

common tones. In measure 1 for instance, E♭/D#-A and G♭-C appear between the tenor

and alto voices. Also, in the B section, Scriabin tends to keep the third and seventh of

both the C7 and F#

7 chords in the same voices as a way to hold common-tones between

chords. While more of a surface-level feature, it is another way that tritones are utilized

in this piece.

In conclusion, I have chosen this piece as the most progressive example of

functional harmony because a great deal of the content is generated by the interval of the

tritone, and not by diatonic, functional harmony. As a result an aural sense of tonic is

almost completely obscured; it is only implied through a small number of chords which

are mostly non-diatonic. The use of so many unrelated harmonies makes it difficult to

hear a key and the only thing keeping this piece from being atonal are the short passages

and final cadence where a tonal center is suggested. Although non-chord tones were

prevalent in Example 4.1, there were still several authentic cadences that suggested a

tonal center. In this last piece however, with the exception of the final cadence, the only

way that a key is suggested is by the repetition of the V7 and N

7 chords. Since their roots

are a tritone away the two harmonies still sound unrelated. Overall the first prelude from

Opus 48 borders on atonality and strongly hints at his late style.


37

CHAPTER V

INCREASED USE OF THE NEAPOLITAN

As Scriabin’s career progressed, he appears to have developed an increasing

fondness for the Neapolitan chord. James Baker states that besides the tonic and

dominant, “The most important harmonic function in Scriabin’s tonal music is ♭II.”22

There are many instances where Scriabin’s use of the Neapolitan exceeds its standard

function as a substitute pre-dominant harmony. These instances range from extended

tonicization to using it as the basis of almost an entire piece. That the implied key of the

Neapolitan is so distantly related from the key of its tonic only aids in diverting one’s ear

from the real tonal center. This section will examine the several ways that Scriabin

utilizes the Neapolitan chord in his preludes.

Scriabin’s conservative use of the Neapolitan is no different than any preceding

Romantic composer. Therefore I feel that it is unnecessary to demonstrate Scriabin’s use

of the Neapolitan in the conservative sense as it is already so prevalent in Romantic

literature predating Scriabin. The most conservative examples however can be found in

the preludes of Opuses 16 and 17 and the mazurkas of Opus 3.

22

Baker (1986) p.1


38

V7/N Fr+6/♭III ♭III6 Fr+6/N N6 V7 I

Chromatic motion towards the

Neapolitan


Example 5.1 is taken from the final cadence of the fourth prelude of Opus 39 and

exemplifies use of the Neapolitan in Scriabin’s moderate style. At the deepest level of

structure, the underlying harmonic progression for this example is V7/N, N

6, V

7, I: a

rather conservative chord progression given that this piece was written in 1903. However,

there is a considerable amount of chromatic content that takes place between V7/N and

the Neapolitan chord itself and it is this content that makes this example unusual. I have

placed the final cadence of this prelude in the moderate camp because a great deal of the

material is governed by voice-leading and less by functional harmony.

Example 5.1: Moderate- Neapolitan, Prelude Opus 39, No.4- measures 13-16


39

One of the most notable features of this example is the use of extreme

chromaticism and the inclusion of several double-flats as descending chromatic lines

occur in several voices simultaneously. The most important of these lines is in the tenor

voice, which takes almost the entire example to reach its destination pitch, the root of the

Neapolitan chord. With the exception of the first measure where it functions as the

seventh of the F♭ chord, this line functions as the root of each harmony for the next five

beats. The bass voice also features a descending chromatic line and starting in the second

measure descends in parallel sixths with the tenor. The interesting aspect about both the

bass and tenor lines is that their descent culminates on the Neapolitan chord. There is a

third line that can be seen to descend for the entire example which starts in the alto voice.

This line does not continue in the alto voice however after measure 13, and is picked up

by an inner voice in measure 14 where it continues to descend until the final chord.

Overall, three separate descending chromatic lines can be seen to be happening

simultaneously and these lines play the biggest role in not only the approach to the

Neapolitan chord but also bridging the gap between the V7/N and the N

6 harmonies.

The use of so many descending chromatic lines creates some interesting

harmonies. In most instances, the double-flats in the tenor voice are present in order to

create an upper leading-tone to the next intended chord root. For example, D♭♭ functions

as the upper leading-tone to C♭ and C♭♭

functions the same way to B♭♭. Present above

both D♭♭ and C♭♭

is the interval of an augmented sixth and in the very next harmony the

pitches containing the augmented-sixth interval resolve out to the octave. Also present

with the augmented sixth are the two pitches that are required above the root to create a

French augmented-sixth chord. What is unusual is that the pitch that the augmented-sixth

interval is built on is not in the bass voice and as a result the augmented-sixth resolution

is buried in the inner voices. The bass voice instead harmonizes at a minor sixth below


40

the tenor and contains the third of the triadic harmonies. The root of the Neapolitan then

is arrived at through the resolution of the augmented sixth in the alto and tenor voices and

the E♭♭ in the bass resolves down a half-step to create the third of the chord. While brief

tonicizations of the Neapolitan were not uncommon in the Romantic era, to approach it in

this fashion is definitely more unorthodox. The harmonies are best understood as a by-

product of the voice-leading that approach the Neapolitan harmony from a half-step

above rather than by traditional means.


The example I have chosen as most progressive comes from the Opus 33

preludes. Macdonald states that this prelude “concentrates more on its Neapolitan chord

D♭ than on its tonic C.”23

While the piece is eventually realized in C major, Scriabin

opens with an extremely distant chord - the German augmented-sixth chord of the

Neapolitan. The voices containing the augmented-sixth interval do not resolve out to an

octave nor does the chord progress to a I64 or V harmony. It instead progresses directly to

the local tonic harmony, D♭ major, which serves as the Neapolitan of the overall tonic C

major. Without the dominant harmony in between the augmented-sixth chord and the D♭

chord, the two harmonies sound unrelated.

23

Macdonald,p.18


41

Gesture A Gesture B

A B

Gr+6/N N Gr+6/N N N6 V7 I

Gr+6/N N Gr+6/N N N6/V V7/V V Gr+6/N N Gr+6/N N N6/IV

V7/IV IV Gr+6/N N Gr+6/N N6 V7 I

A

B A B

(D♭: I V) (G♭: V I)

Example 5.2: Progressive- Neapolitan, Prelude Opus 33, No.3


42

In total there are only two elements that make up this entire prelude, the harmonic

and melodic gesture found in measure one, which will be referred to as Gesture A, and

the cadential gesture, which will be referred to as Gesture B. Gesture A is presented four

times and each time it appears the rhythm is varied slightly. All the cadences in the

prelude follow the same chord progression; N6-V

7-I. They progress through the keys of

C, G, F and back to C and it seems then that each cadence was designed to exploit the

many resolutions that are possible through the use of the D♭ major chord. For if F and G

are both closely-related to C, then so too are their respective Neapolitan chords; the N6

found in the Gesture B seems to be the pivot chord that brings the music from the key of

Gesture A to the key of the cadence. The first cadence for instance tonicizes C, so after

the initial Gesture A, D♭ is reinterpreted as the Neapolitan of C. The second cadence,

from measures 5 to 6, tonicizes G. The A♭ major harmony in measure 5 can be best

understood as both V of the preceding harmony, D♭ major, and the Neapolitan of the

harmony that immediately follows, G major. For the cadence on F from measures 7 to 8,

the D♭ major harmony in measure 7 can be interpreted as V of G♭ major, the Neapolitan

of F.

While the key of D♭ major is never tonicized in the piece, its presence is one of

the main focal points of the piece and it serves as the connection among the three central

keys of C, G and F. Compared to the moderate example, the Neapolitan’s function in this

piece far exceeds its standard function as a substitute pre-dominant harmony. Its presence

in this prelude is deeply embedded in the overall structure of the piece. The duality that is

created between the key of the Neapolitan and the tonic key is another way that Scriabin

creates tonal ambiguity in his music.


43

CHAPTER VI

DELAYED OR UNCLEAR RESOLUTION TO THE TONIC

This section will look at the various ways that Scriabin delays or makes the

resolution to the tonic unclear and the lengths to which he went to withhold or delay its

realization. Tonal ambiguity is created by suggesting a specific tonic that is not fully

realized, inverting the tonic triad, omitting internal cadences, withholding the resolution

to the tonic or never explicitly including the tonic triad in the music at all. Scriabin often

employs several of these means in combination.


The fifth prelude from Opus 15, previously treated in Example 3.1, also

demonstrates Scriabin’s conservative methods for obscuring tonic. Although non-chord

tones are the primary means of obscuring the tonic in the piece, there are still several

other ways that the resolution to the tonic is made unclear. The first way is in the

treatment of cadences; many of the cadences are either evaded or never resolve to the

implied tonic. For instance the first phrase ends on a half cadence in measure 4 and

implies the key of C# minor. The subsequent phrase however does not resolve the V7

chord and instead starts the phrase on the same harmony in the key of F# minor,

prolonging the tension. Measures 5-8 sequence the material from the first four measures

up a fourth and also ends on a half cadence that does not resolve to the tonic. There isn’t

a perfect authentic cadence to confirm C# minor as tonic until measure 16 and even then

the third of the chord is not immediately stated in the melody line. When the phrase ends

in the first half of measure 17, the C# minor triad is still obscured by the addition of an

added seventh above C# in the alto voice. This voice doesn’t resolve to a chord tone until

beat three when it finally lands on a G#; this resolution is brief however as the G#


44

immediately becomes a G♮ in the very next beat. Therefore the only instance of an un-

obscured C# minor triad in root position can be found in the very last measure of the

piece.

The tonic is also obscured by the fact that most tonic triads appear in inversion. In

this piece Scriabin tends to favor the augmented-sixth resolution to the tonic, which

results in the tonic triad being in second inversion, the weakest of all inversions. This is

exemplified in the French augmented-sixth resolution to the I64 chord from measures 1 to

2 and 5 to 6. When root position tonic triads do appear, they not only appear in weak

metrical positions, as in measure 9, but also for short durational values. Other times the

tonic triad is not immediately apparent, despite being in root position, due to accented

non-chord tones, as in measures 16 and 17. Overall, the non-chord tones play a large part

in making the resolution to the tonic unclear, but there are other elements as well that

contribute. Scriabin also evades several cadences and begins the next phrase either on an

unrelated harmony or in one instance the same harmony that ended the last phrase.

Harmonies are largely left intact however and unlike the next example, the non-chord

tones eventually resolve.


45


Examples 6.1 and 6.2, taken from his Opus 17 preludes, serve as the moderate

example of an obscured tonic. In the piece, some non-chord tones are left unresolved

while others prevent harmonies from lining up vertically. Also, cadences are weakened

by an inverted dominant chord or by omitting a crucial chord tone. There are also very

few instances of the tonic triad and when all members of the chord are present vertically

it is extremely brief and does not last longer than the span of one beat.

In the first four measures of the piece there are two instances of the resolution to

the tonic being obscured, the clearest example can be found in measures 4 and 5. On beat

2 of measure 4, the root and seventh of the dominant chord can be found in the bass and

tenor voices, respectively. However, A♭ and G are present in the alto and soprano voices

and suggest an Fm9 chord. The alto and soprano voices eventually resolve to the proper

chords tones; the A♭ is realized as an accented lower neighbor to A♮ and the G in the

soprano voice is an accented appoggiatura. The resolution to the tonic in measure 5 is

equally obscured as only two of the members of the chord present; most notably absent is

the third of the chord, D♮. This is one of the few instances where all of the non-chord

tones do not resolve to a chord tone. Measures 5-7 are identical to measures 1-3 and as a

result the dominant is resolved to what appears to be F7/B♭

and the tonic triad remains

unresolved. With the exception of the final cadence this is the only other instance in the

piece where an authentic cadence in B♭ major is suggested.


46

F 65 B♭

F7 F7/B♭ F65 B♭

UN UN

LN App UN UN

9-8 sus

9-8 sus App.

1

4

V7 I

20

24

Example 6.1: Moderate- Delayed/Unclear Tonic,

Prelude Op.17, No.6- measures 1-7

Example 6.2: Prelude Op.17, No.6- measures, 20-28


47

The dominant chord also resolves to the tonic from measures 1 to 2 and 5 and 6

but the resolution is again weakened by non-chord tones and also the fact that the

dominant chord is in inversion. On beat 2 of measure 1, the root of the dominant-seventh

chord is delayed by an accented upper neighbor tone. The resolution to the tonic is

obscured by two non-chord tones, an accented upper-neighbor tone in the tenor voice and

a 9-8 suspension in the alto voice that eventually resolve to the root and fifth of the tonic

triad. As with much of the piece, the presence of the un-obscured tonic triad is brief

however and lasts only one eighth note. After measure 6 this material doesn’t return until

measures 15 and 16 and the tonic is not resolved until measure 22. Once the piece does

finally cadence in B♭ major however, Scriabin restates it several more times in the last

five measures after delaying its resolution for the entire piece.


48


The most progressive example is again the first prelude from Opus 48,Example

6.3, and it falls under the category of a delayed tonic rather than an unclear resolution to

the tonic. In this prelude Scriabin makes no attempt to resolve to the intended tonic until

the very end of the piece. In fact, there is not even a half cadence to suggest F# major as

the tonal center.

As mentioned in the section on functional harmony, this prelude is largely

governed by the interval of the tritone, and as a result many of the harmonies are related

by a tritone. With the exception of the final phrase, the only time when F# major is

suggested as the tonal center is in measures 2-4. A V7/V chord appears on beat 3 of

measure 2, followed by a V7 chord on the downbeat of measure 3. A succession of

tritones appears in the bass as the harmonic progression alternates between the V7 and the

N7 chord in F# major. The phrase ends on the N

7 chord on the downbeat of measure 4

and F# major is never realized. F# is not suggested as the tonal center again until measure

14 when this harmonic progression returns.


49

V7------------------------ N7 V7-------------------- V7#5

V7#5

F#:V7/V

F#:V7/V

V7 N7 V7 N7 V7 I

I

V7 N7 V7 N7

B: V7 N7----------------------------- V7 N7-------------

Example 6.3: Progressive- Delayed/Unclear Tonic, Prelude Opus 48, No.1


50

Between measures 4 and 14, B major is instead suggested as the tonal center and

in measure 12 is fully realized by an authentic cadence and the first instance of a simple

triad in the piece. B major is suggested in identical fashion to F# major, through the

alternation of its V7 and N

7 chords and then by a dominant pedal in measures 9-11.

Although an internal cadence is present in measure 12 to suggest a tonal center, it is not

the correct tonic. F# is in fact not realized until the very end of the piece.

Overall, the resolution of the tonic in this prelude is delayed by several means.

First, many of the harmonies are not diatonic and therefore it is difficult to suggest the

intended tonic. Second, F# major is only suggested as the tonic once and for a very brief

amount of time. When it is suggested as the tonic it is largely through the V7 and N

7

chord; since their roots are separated by a tritone they also sound unrelated. Finally, this

prelude spends a greater amount of time tonicizing B major than the final tonic and as a

result F# major is not fully realized until the authentic cadence at the end of the piece.

While the tonic in Examples 3.1 and 6.1 were delayed and made unclear by an increasing

amount of non-chord tones, the largely non-diatonic harmonic progressions in the Opus

48 prelude make it difficult for F# major to be realized.


51

CHAPTER VII

CONCLUSION

Example 7.1 was constructed to make visual the suggested order of Scriabin’s

stylistic evolution that has been the subject of this entire paper. While some of the table

proceeds naturally from left to right chronologically with 1903 or 1905 being the ultimate

point of destination, there are still several important points that can be drawn from this

table. First, evolution of style does not necessarily progress in chronological order. In the

case of non-chord tones, a moderate example was taken from not only a higher opus

number, but also from a later year chronologically than the progressive example. Second,

evolution of style does not necessarily progress in order of opuses. In the case of non-

chord tones and the use of Neapolitan, the most progressive example came from a lower

opus than the moderate example. In other cases, particularly cadences and functional

harmony, moderate and progressive examples were both drawn from the same opus.

Third, the most progressive pieces of Scriabin’s middle period are not all necessarily

found in the latter portion of the period. Progressive examples can be found as early as

1903, the year that most scholars consider to be the beginning of his middle period. They

are progressive not only compared to his early-period style but also compared to his

middle-period style. Finally, this table shows that the origins of many of the style

characteristics that define his middle-period style can be traced back into his early period,

as early as 1894/1895. In summary, Scriabin’s middle period style was not developed out

of thin air in 1903 but was developed over a long period of time and is best understood as

a full realization of tendencies that originated in his early period.


52

Conservative Moderate Progressive

1. Cadences Op.11, No.7

(1895)

Op.37, No.1

(1903)

Op.37, No.4

(1903)

2. NCT’s Op.15, No.5

(1895)

Op.48, No.4

(1905)

Op.39, No.3

(1903)

3. Functional Harmony Preludes, Opus 11

(1888-1896)

Op.48, No.2

(1905)

Op.48, No.1

(1905)

4. Neapolitan Preludes, Opus 11

(1888-1896)

Op.39, No.4

(1903)

Op.33, No.3

(1903)

5. Delayed or Unclear

Tonic

Op.15, No.5

(1895)

Op.17, No.6

(1895)

Op.48, No.1

(1905)

Example 7.1- Table of suggested evolution of style

In conclusion, it is my hope that this paper will fill the void that has thus far been

left in the catalog of Scriabin research, primarily, establishing a more natural order of his

stylistic evolution. His stylistic evolution is rather difficult to pin down specifically

because his music was not always published in the same order that it was composed. A

great deal of stylistic inconsistencies can occur within a single opus as a result and in

these instances his evolution as a composer is distorted. In Scriabin’s case, chronological

order and the natural succession of opuses do not in fact accurately demonstrate a natural

progression of style. The most progressive examples used in this paper were not all taken

from the later opuses and in some cases, a progressive example was taken from one of the

earlier opuses. Much of the confusion regarding his early style is attributed to the Travel

Preludes. Within these five opuses of preludes Scriabin was simultaneously sticking with

convention and also thinking beyond the late-Romantic idiom.


53

It is my belief, then, that the preludes from Opus 11, and to a lesser degree Opus

13, truly define the essence of Scriabin’s early style. They contain most or all of the six

characteristics that Straus uses to define common-practice tonality, are late-Romantic in

character, and are closest in style to Chopin. There is a larger disparity of style in the

preludes from Opuses 15-17 and one can already see by these preludes Scriabin begin to

break away from a late-Romantic idiom as these preludes contain less and less of the

characteristics of common-practice tonality. It is possible to see a change in style occur as

early as the Opus 16 preludes, which were written in 1894 and 1895. Opuses 15 and 17

also feature some extremely progressive pieces for the time with Opus 17 featuring the

largest amount of experimentation. Regardless of where one places Scriabin’s first

stylistic break, one can undoubtedly see an evolution of style beginning in the opuses

leading up to 1903.


54

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baker, James. “Scriabin’s Implicit Tonality”. Music Theory Spectrum, Vol. 2 (Spring,

1980), pp. 1-18.

________. The Music of Alexander Scriabin. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.

Bauer, Marion. Twentieth-Century Music: How it Developed, How to Listen to It. New

York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1933.

Bowers, Faubion. Scriabin. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1996.

________. The New Scriabin: Enigma and Answers. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1973.

Callendar, Clifton. “Voice-Leading Parsimony in the Music of Alexander Scriabin”.

Journal of Music Theory, Vol. 42, No. 2, Neo-Riemannian Theory (Autumn,

1998), pp.219-233.

Cooper, Martin. Scriabin and the Russian Renaissance. Studi Musicali 1/2: 327-356,

1972.

Hoffman, Brian. “Tonal Mirages: a multifaceted view of tonality in the early transitional

pieces of Alexander Scriabin”. MM thesis, University of Cincinnati, 2008.

Lee, Hwa-Young. “Tradition and Innovation in the Twenty-Four Preludes, Opus 11 of

Alexander Scriabin.” D.M.A. diss, University of Texas, 2006.

Lim, Seong-Ae. “The Influence of Chopin in Piano Music on the Twenty-Four Preludes

for Piano, Op. 11 of Alexander Scriabin.” D.M.A. diss., Ohio State University,

2002.

Kee, Soonbok. “Elements of Continuity in Alexander Scriabin's Musical Language: An

Analysis of Selected Piano Preludes”. D.M.A. diss.,University of Cincinnati,

2008.

Kelkel, Manfred. Alexandre Scriabin. Paris: Editions Honore Champion, 1978.

Kutnowski, Martin. “Harmony, voice leading, and phrase rhythm in three early piano

preludes by Scriabin : a Schenkerian perspective”. Ph.D diss., University of New

York, 2003.

MacDonald, Hugh. Skryabin. London: Oxford University Press, 1978.

Salley, Keith. “Scriabin the Progressive: Elements of Modernism in the Early Works of

Alexander Scriabin”. Ph.D. diss, University of Oregon, 2007

Samson, Jim. Music in Transition. New York: W.W.Norton & Company Inc., 1977.


55

Schloezer, Boris. Scriabin: Artist and Mystic. Translated by Nicolas Slonimsky.

Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987.

Scriabin, Alexander. The Complete Preludes & Etudes for Pianoforte Solo, ed. K.

N.Igumnov and Y. I. Mil’shteyn. New York: Dover Publications Inc., 1973.

Straus, Joseph N., Introduction to Post-Tonal Theory. 3rd ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,

Inc., 2004.

Sukhina, Nataliya. “Alexander Scriabin (1871-1915): Piano Miniature as Chronicle of his

creative evolution; Complexity of interpretive approach and its implications”.

D.M.A. diss., University of North Texas, 2008.

Sumter-Loosen, Leonore. “The Ninety Piano Preludes of Alexander Scriabin: An

Analysis”. D.M.A. diss., Rhodes University, 1978.

Swan, Alfred Julius. Scriabin. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1970.

copyright 2014, jeremy nowak

Documents