Question for Bernhard on piece analysis

[rosana]

Bernhard:

For the last couple of weeks I have come across the forum and have been reading several posts and have really enjoyed reading yours. I think it is admirable that you spend the time to respond to all the questions iin detail, on top of all the work you do as a teacher.  I have recently gone back to playing the piano after a long hiatus. I have never had good teaching on music theory. But I would like to remedy that. I think that your approach, analyzing the piece to be played makes a lot of sense. I am not sure how to do it, though. I was wondering if you could either direct me to a previous post about an example of analysis of a piece or if one is not available, could you do an analysis on Chopin's Prelude in E minor (no 4,  I think) op 28, as an example (or maybe just a portion of it)? Thank you so very much.

[xvimbi]

Oh dang, I would have something to say, but the post is not addressed to me

Just kidding. There are a few threads on this particular piece, the most recent one is http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,10259.0.html

However, there is no formal analysis yet on this forum (AFAIK). So, why don't we do this together? That should be fun, and we'll all learn a lot more than having the answer dished out by someone. Let's see how many things we can discover.

To be honest, I have not really been able to make sense of all those chords, so I'd be very much interested in a complete analysis myself, but I am always afraid of over-interpreting the score, i.e. reading an elaborate chord sequence, where the composer simply put something in there that sounded good without much consideration for formality.

Anyway, how about simply starting with the form of the piece, the chord names, and everything else that comes to mind? Perhaps, Bernhard could guide us along with specific questions.

[Mayla]

oooo oooo, me too, me too.... I also want to play this game please 

[Ludwig]

  nor addressed to me either, but i'll say a few things ..I remember doing a Schenkerian analysis and the whole thing is like I leading to a V then I...hehe nice and simple... If you want to do traditional analysis to help you with how to play the piece more effectively by studying it, then do what xvimbi suggested and figure out the chordal progressions and formal structure first. I suggest to look at these things too, phrase marks and articulation, climaxes within the piece, "corners" and cadence points, harmonic shape, inversions and positions of LH chords...

[rosana]

I am sorry  , I did not really mean to exclude anybody else from responding. I do appreciate the responses of everybody that did. I am new to the forum (actually any forum) and my manners are still not up to snuff.

I did not necessarily want only that particular piece, if that one is too complicated for analysis. It is only because I am playing that one now. I have never done an analysis, aside from time and key signatures, so I would like to have an example of how to do it, in any piece at all.  On the other hand, if anybody would like to try the Prelude, I would love that too. Thanks.

[nomis]

The Prelude shouldn't be too complex to analyse. I'll start off by looking at the melody.

Alot of the melody is absolutely boring. It goes up a 2nd, then down a 2nd, it goes up a 2nd, then down a 2nd, etc. So you really need to emphasise the melody whenever you see quavers, which is where all the larger intervals are. Chopin frequently listened to the opera, and loved the bel canto style, so he often mimics the voice reaching to a high note through large intervals, like in bar 16 (A to G). The leap of a 7th and the use of a turn is typical imitation of the bel canto style, a highly stylised way of singing.

If you don't understand any of the terminology I have used, feel free to ask.

[bernhard]

Bernhard:

For the last couple of weeks I have come across the forum and have been reading several posts and have really enjoyed reading yours. I think it is admirable that you spend the time to respond to all the questions iin detail, on top of all the work you do as a teacher.  I have recently gone back to playing the piano after a long hiatus. I have never had good teaching on music theory. But I would like to remedy that. I think that your approach, analyzing the piece to be played makes a lot of sense. I am not sure how to do it, though. I was wondering if you could either direct me to a previous post about an example of analysis of a piece or if one is not available, could you do an analysis on Chopin's Prelude in E minor (no 4,  I think) op 28, as an example (or maybe just a portion of it)? Thank you so very much.

On the subject  of analysis, keep in mind the following:

1.   There is no standard set of procedures, that is a good-for-all step by step protocol. Different kinds of analysis highlight different aspects of a piece. Some pieces are more amenable to certain kinds of analysis than others. Examples of different types of analysis are: Roman numeral analysis, Schenkerian analysis, Semiotic analysis, motif analysis, etc. Moreover, musical analysis is not at all a scientific procedure, which means that two different musicologists may analyse the same piece of music and come up with two very different analysis of it.

2.   It is very easy to loose track of why you are analysing the piece in the first place and get caught into ever more complex theoretical edifices that tell you next to nothing. As a parallel, imagine analysing James Joyce’s “Finnegan’s Wake” by counting all the letters and investigating the principles governing their relative distributions in each page. (You may find this preposterous, but some musicologist did just that with the WTC: counted all the notes and how many times each appeared in each prelude & fugue – to what purpose no one knows).

3.   So a very important question is what exactly is the analysis of the piece going to tell you. This will direct not only the kind of analysis as how the analysis itself may proceed. Often different analysis may be necessary to fully answer one’s questions.  Personally I have three overriding interests when analysing a piece of music:

a.   How is it structured as piece of music, or in other words, is there an underlying framework? How the composer did it? (Notice that for my purposes it is irrelevant if the composer actually followed the steps described. The piece may have sprung full and completed from his unconscious. However, if the analysis is successful, one should be able to follow the same plan and come up with a similar piece).
b.   Why does the piece evokes the experience it does on the listener? (For instance, two different pieces may use the same harmonic progression and yet evoke very different experiences on the listener. Why is that so? What is it that the composers did differently?)
c.   How can this analysis help to play the piece? (Answers may range from helping in memorising, to simplifying the piece – as when doing an harmonic reduction).

There are other uses on musical analysis but they are mostly purely theoretical, and I must say that I have little interest in them.

4.   Although analysis is usually done with a score handy, this is really a convenience more than anything else. One should analyse the music, not the score. So it is taken for granted that thorough familiarization (either from playing or from listening to CDs) with the piece is a pre-condition to analysis. If you get a score of a piece you have never heard before, it is unlikely that you will be able to do a useful analysis of it.

Now for the Chopin prelude.

I really liked xvimbi’s idea.

However, there is no formal analysis yet on this forum (AFAIK). So, why don't we do this together? That should be fun, and we'll all learn a lot more than having the answer dished out by someone. Let's see how many things we can discover.

So, how do we start to analyse this piece (Chopin prelude op. 28 no. 4)?

Here are my first 2 questions:

1.   Which tonality is it in (we know it is in E minor since it is on the title, but how do we know it? And what exactly does this means? And once we figure out that it is indeed in E minor and why, how does this knowledge helps us?)

2.   What is its form? That is, are there any obvious patterns of repetition? And again, what is the relevance of this information?

Let us discuss these two large scale questions before moving on to more detailed stuff.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[rosana]

Bernhard, thanks for your input so far. I guess one of my questions is: how much do you have to analyze a piece to play it well? And why? Is just being able to read musical notation enough? Does it help me to know how the chord progression of the piece is?  I did read one of your posts about your approach to music theory, that you analyze the piece to be played by your student or you make the student analyze it, and that was what got me started.

Anyway, to the Prelude with the very little background I have  :

1) that F sharp in the key signature means it could be either G major or E minor. It is E minor because of 2 things I see: the piece ends with an E minor chord and there are a couple of spots where I see the D sharp, although that does not seem to show up for awhile.  How does that knowledge help us? I am not sure. There is the "sad" feeling of the minor sound. The chords in this piece vary so much, that it does not help me memorize, although the repetition and the somewhat chromatic nature of the chords does (at least that it is how it seems to me, without actually knowing too much about chords).

2) Form: I see two types of  repetitions, one is the second portion of the piece repeats some of the 1st with variations. The other is the repetition of the theme (B,B,C,B,C,B, etc.. , but with the variation of the chords of the LH ( I am not sure if this is what you and others mean by formal structure).  What is the relevance of this? I am not sure.

I am sorry I can't do any better, but I hope other people will join in, such as nomis did. I did understand what he said, but I do not think the Prelude is boring at all. It may be repetitive and relatively simple, but I think the use of the variation of the chords of the LH makes it interesting. It is very soulful and sad 

[rosana]

I actually meant to say: Thank you ALL for your contributions. 

[xvimbi]

Yes, I also see two parts (A: mm 1-12 and A': mm 13-25), but I am not sure how to subdivide them.

The piece not only ends in Em, but also starts out in Em (first inversion Em chord), and the first part ends in a V7 chord (B,D#,A, with the F# omitted), pretty typical. The second part starts and ends on Em, which should firmly establish the tonality as Em.

Bernhard, you are asking for the relevance - geez, as if the analysis in itself wouldn't be difficult enough already 

Em gives the piece a sad mood (deemed fit for Chopin's funeral). Em is also the forth key (C-Am-G-Em) when going around the circle of fifth's in a certain way. Chopin arranged his preludes this way. With respect to the form, I guess, the piece starts out fairly simple at first, but is varied a bit in the second half. Not much of a relevance, as one can't really speak of "development", but nevertheless.

[bernhard]

You are welcome.

I guess one of my questions is: how much do you have to analyze a piece to play it well? And why? Is just being able to read musical notation enough? Does it help me to know how the chord progression of the piece is?  I did read one of your posts about your approach to music theory, that you analyze the piece to be played by your student or you make the student analyze it, and that was what got me started.

The answer to these questions should become clearer as we proceed. So I will defer answering it until we finished the analysis.

1) that F sharp in the key signature means it could be either G major or E minor. It is E minor because of 2 things I see: the piece ends with an E minor chord and there are a couple of spots where I see the D sharp, although that does not seem to show up for awhile.  How does that knowledge help us? I am not sure. There is the "sad" feeling of the minor sound. The chords in this piece vary so much, that it does not help me memorize, although the repetition and the somewhat chromatic nature of the chords does (at least that it is how it seems to me, without actually knowing too much about chords).

Yes, that was most excellent. We know the piece is in E minor because of the key signature, and because it ends in a E minor chord. This is the procedure that will tell you the key a piece is in most cases. Sometimes this rule does not work, and we need other pointers. (Sometimes a piece will not be in any key at all, in the case of atonal music, and therefore this first question becomes absurd). I will leave this as it is, since the rule worked well in the prelude.

Now here is another question: why the last chord (in most cases at least) defines the key?

OK. Now why should this knowledge be important? First because it tells us that the notes used in this piece come from the scale of E minor. So it will be a very good idea to practise the E minor scale in conjunction with this piece. Not only we want to practise the scale as we want to gain a thorough knowledge of the note hierarchy within the scale: E – the most important note (I - tonic), followed by B (V - dominant) and A (IV - subdominant), followed by G (III - mediant), C (VI - submediant) then F# (II - supertonic) and D# (VII - leading note).

Now here is the next task: Go through all of the melodic notes and write above them which degree or the E minor scale they belong to.

At this point we must also ask another important question: Does this piece restricts itself to the notes of the E minor scale? That is does the piece use either “foreign notes” to the scale (chromatic notes), or does it wander through other scales (keys) besides E minor? And how are we going to answer this question?

Finally and still related to this matter of keys, (xvimbi will probably love this) can we name all the chords in this piece? And as we do so, can we figure out which is the key underlying the chord progressions?

Now at this point I will say that this last question (naming all the chords) is not going to take us anywhere. This analysis (Harmonic analysis, or Roman numeral analysis) that can be so useful in other pieces is almost useless in this prelude for reasons that will become clearer later on. But we will do it all the same. First because naming chords and figuring out underlying keys is a basic skill that one must acquire, so we must as well do it. And second because the process of analysing a piece often involves doing things that later turn out not to be useful, but we can only know after we do it.

To help you with this task, use the tables below. I will not say much more at the moment, because we often learn more from making mistakes than by following instructions to the letter.

2) Form: I see two types of  repetitions, one is the second portion of the piece repeats some of the 1st with variations. The other is the repetition of the theme (B,B,C,B,C,B, etc.. , but with the variation of the chords of the LH ( I am not sure if this is what you and others mean by formal structure).  What is the relevance of this? I am not sure.

Yes, very good, you are spot on. First the piece is divided in two similar sections: A1 and A2. From a practical point of view, it means that it would take me twice the time to learn the piece if I did not know this. So identifying patterns of repetition is perhaps the most important aspect of analysis if your sole aim is to learn pieces in the most efficient manner.

As for the motif (CB) repetition, it immediately facilitates memorisation to notice this.

So this has a huge pragmatical value.

I am sorry I can't do any better,

I think you did very well.

but I hope other people will join in, such as nomis did.

I hope so too.


Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

Yes, I also see two parts (A: mm 1-12 and A': mm 13-25), but I am not sure how to subdivide them.

Maybe there is no need to subdivide them any further. We will see.

The piece not only ends in Em, but also starts out in Em (first inversion Em chord), and the first part ends in a V7 chord (B,D#,A, with the F# omitted), pretty typical. The second part starts and ends on Em, which should firmly establish the tonality as Em.

Indeed. And we may also note that that very first melodic note (B) is the dominant note in E minor, the second in importance (after the tonic)

Bernhard, you are asking for the relevance - geez, as if the analysis in itself wouldn't be difficult enough already 

This question of relevance is actually important, because as we shall see, it is on relevance that the whole issue of analysis hinges.

Em gives the piece a sad mood (deemed fit for Chopin's funeral). Em is also the forth key (C-Am-G-Em) when going around the circle of fifth's in a certain way. Chopin arranged his preludes this way. With respect to the form, I guess, the piece starts out fairly simple at first, but is varied a bit in the second half. Not much of a relevance, as one can't really speak of "development", but nevertheless.

Yes, excellent. But as I said in the answer above, the relevance here is simply practical. Identifying repetitive patterns in a piece immediately saves time on learning it.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[Ludwig]

Yes its true that analysing all the chords is probably not useful to you, however, try to play the bottom note of the LH with the right hand melody, or even just the bottom notes when the harmony changes (i.e different chords)- B(RH) G(LH), C(RH) G(LH), B(RH) F#(LH),then C & F#, B & F, C & F, B & E, Bb &  E, A E, B E, A E, B D#, similarly throughout the piece, I'm sure you will notice that the intervals and new tonalities will affect the mood and colour (like emotion) of your playing. Also, you can work out dynamics and shaping of the melody through the study of the intervals, for example, a feeling of resolution depicts an ending of something, so shape your phrases to end, or the ongoing tension within the first section may never lead to a resolution, in this case, look at the intervals with the most dessonant sounds and stress them to make them more significant. The chords are mostly not in closed position(notes are equally spaced within the chord), that is, they are in inversions (like a bigger interval between the bottom note and the middle, or the middle and the top), this gives a feeling of non-resolution and a buildup to the end, where you have a big perfect cadence (with an anticipated preparation chord), the cadence is a point of rest and its the first time the tonic (the note of the key, most important, first degree of the scale etc...) is in its root position (closed position)....The piece is not boring indeed, there are nuances you have to bring out with how you intepret these intervals and buildup of tension/phrasing/dynamics, stresses etc...goodluck with it

[asyncopated]

2.   It is very easy to loose track of why you are analysing the piece in the first place and get caught into ever more complex theoretical edifices that tell you next to nothing. As a parallel, imagine analysing James Joyce’s “Finnegan’s Wake” by counting all the letters and investigating the principles governing their relative distributions in each page. (You may find this preposterous, but some musicologist did just that with the WTC: counted all the notes and how many times each appeared in each prelude & fugue – to what purpose no one knows).

  I'm not trying to contradict bernhard, but there is a point to this  -- in case you think that all academics sit on their high pedestals, doing things that are completely useless (actually this is true for many).

"Finnegan's Wake" was an arbitrary choice, perhaps they choose because it is in comprehensible anyway.  One could have chosen the bible or any other book for that matter.  The reason for doing so is to say that the distribution of words/letters follows a certain law --  there are very many words that occur rarely (GRE words for example) and very few words that occur extremely often (articles).  In mathematics is distribution is specified carefully and is called a pareto distribution.  Sure enough this is true for most books and for different languages as well.  Perhaps it is an indication of how the mind words, or likes to handle abstract objects like words.   The distribution seems pretty universal, occurring in everything from the number of rich people to earthquakes.

The reason for doing this for the WTC (i am guessing) is perhaps a statement of the general structure if the piece - how far it deviate form the tonic and how often.  I reckon that the results also follow a Pareto distribution.  The question perhaps is than, can we use this to measure (an an abstract way) beauty?  What happens when we construct a piece that has a uniform distribution (twelve tone pieces for example)?  Are these types of pieces less beautiful, not because of cultural influences, but simply because of how the mind likes to perceive things?

I agree that this is useless to a certain extent (in terms of musical value), but does cast light on some questions which are interesting.

al.

P.S. I'm really enjoying your analysis!
   

[asyncopated]

Hi

I'm not sure how to use bernhard's table (if you tell me I will try again), but I do think there is structure in the chord progression, although it is extremely chromatic.  Most if not all of the chords are first inversions (6 3) and so the tonic appears at the top.  So presumably if we look at it this way we have the progression of the top note in the base cleft.

Starting from the tonic decending, we have

E Eb D C# C B A (Bar 12)  the same structure is repeated in the next 4 bars, after which he does something different.  We can try to figure out how the other to notes in the triad are related to this. If I invert and write down the intervals with respect to these notes

E(iii V) {Em} E(II IV) Eb(II+ IV+) Eb(II IV+) D(iii V) {Dm} D(iii IV+) ...

We see also a progression of each of the degrees in the triads.  For the accompanyment, there are two structures to analyse - Each triad in itself, if they are a transition, a main chord of the key, a suspension?  And the second thing is how each of the three degrees in the triad are related to the same three degrees in the next triad.

Am I getting anywhere with this?
 
al.


 

[nomis]

I am sorry I can't do any better, but I hope other people will join in, such as nomis did. I did understand what he said, but I do not think the Prelude is boring at all. It may be repetitive and relatively simple, but I think the use of the variation of the chords of the LH makes it interesting. It is very soulful and sad 

I didn't say that this prelude was boring at all. I said that the melody was boring until the piece reaches various climatic parts (like the interval of a 7th I was talking about). If you want some well-written melodies from Chopin, take a look at his Nocturnes.

[rosana]

Ok, I went through the 1st exercise of writing the melodic notes easily enough (I think). I found 5 notes that do not belong to the E minor scale (B flat, bar 4 (is this bar 4 or 5, you start counting bars on the 1st complete one, correct?); G sharp, bar 8; D natural, bar 12, A sharp bar 16- so far there is a pattern of every 4th bar includes a chromatic note; and D natural again, bar 18). All these seem to me chromatic changes only without going into a new key).

The second, naming the chords, I can't do without help. The first set of cords are (as xvimbi already noted), the 1st inversion of I (I b), but I am alreay stuck in the 2nd. It seem to be II, but what do I do with the top E? and then it seems the E gets diminished , but I do not know how to name it, since I can't name the 2nd set. Help!!! It feels like doing math again....

[bernhard]

Ok, I went through the 1st exercise of writing the melodic notes easily enough (I think). I found 5 notes that do not belong to the E minor scale (B flat, bar 4 (is this bar 4 or 5, you start counting bars on the 1st complete one, correct?); G sharp, bar 8; D natural, bar 12, A sharp bar 16- so far there is a pattern of every 4th bar includes a chromatic note; and D natural again, bar 18). All these seem to me chromatic changes only without going into a new key).

Excellent. Having established that the overall key of this piece is E minor, our first step is to practise the E minor scale (in both melodic and harmonic forms) so that we become thoroughly familiarised with its notes and the hierarchy they occupy in the scale (degrees):



Below I have isolated the melody. For the moment we will consider this score as tentative, as well as the roman numerals indicating the scale degrees. Are the five doubtful notes (enclosed in circles) chromatic notes? Or are they from a different key? And most importantly, does it matter one way or the other?



Let us leave this as it is for the moment being. We have done our preliminary job here. We will come back to it once we finish the harmonic (chord) analysis, and see if the chords throw any light on the subject.

[to be continued…]

[bernhard]

[continued from the previous post]

The second, naming the chords, I can't do without help. The first set of cords are (as xvimbi already noted), the 1st inversion of I (I b), but I am alreay stuck in the 2nd. It seem to be II, but what do I do with the top E? and then it seems the E gets diminished , but I do not know how to name it, since I can't name the 2nd set. Help!!! It feels like doing math again....

Ok. Let us go bar by bar. Asyncopated could not quite understand my tables  , so as I go along I will explain how to use them. Here is the harmonic analysis for the first three bars.

Here are the first two bars (even though the first bar is an anacrusis and it is usual not to count it, I usually do count it):



As you already found out, this is straightforward enough. On the left hand we have the triad of E minor (inverted). Now if you look at the table of triad genesis, you will see that the E minor triad can be generated from the following scales:

D major – the E minor triad would be generated from degree II.
C major – the E minor triad would be generated from degree III.
G major - the E minor triad would be generated from degree VI.

E minor (harmonic) - the E minor triad would be generated from degree I.
B minor (harmonic) - the E minor triad would be generated from degree IV.

E minor (melodic) - the E minor triad would be generated from degree I.
D minor (melodic) - the E minor triad would be generated from degree II.

Having established earlier on that this prelude is in E minor, it is quite safe to assume that this triad is indeed the tonic triad, originating from the E minor scale. So, the prelude produces both its melody and its accompaniment in the first two bars from the underlying key of E minor.

So far so good. We have identified the chords, and we have identified the underlying key (at least provisionally – all this depends ultimately on context – as we go on, we may find that our initial assessment of underlying key may have been wrong).

Now all hell breaks loose as we face the third bar. There are two chords there. But what are they?

If we consider chords to be stacked thirds, clearly these are incomplete 7th chords. So let us complete them:



Now, considering the thirds that form those chords from bottom to top, we have for the first chord: minor – minor – major. If we look up the table of Seventh genesis, we have a minor 7th dim 5 chord, and since the root is F#, this is a F#m7(-5) chord. Again, referring to the table, we can see that such a chord can be generated from the VII degree of the G major scale, or from the II degree of the E minor (harmonic scale). It could also be generated from the VI degree of the A minor (melodic) scales, or from the VII degree of the G minor (melodic) scale.

Chances are, of course that it was generated from the II degree of the E minor (harmonic) scale. So we can breathe again. We are still in E minor as the underlying key, and the chord, although unusual is perfectly within the diatonic rules of chord formation.

What about the second chord?

Here Chopin introduces an Eb, a note that is completely unrelated to the E minor key. And if we complete the thirds, the result is a 7th chord formed by the following thirds (bottom to top): minor – minor – minor. Going back to the table, we have a diminished 7th chord, the F#dim7. This chord can only be generated by the VII degree of the G minor (harmonic) scale. So, what is going on here? Has Chopin suddenly modulated from E minor (with F# in the key signature) to the relatively distant key of G minor (Bb and Eb on the key signature)?



Is this Eb just a chromatic note added to create dissonance? After all, half a bar ago, in the melodic line he placed a B natural. If this Eb indicated a modulation to G minor, we would have expected the Bs to go flat as well.

But there is another possibility. Eb is, of course, enharmonic with D#. Now, D# is a note in the E minor (both harmonic and melodic) scale. What happens if we change the Eb for D#?

Now we have a completely different (inverted) triad. If we restack the thirds, we get:



And if we look at the thirds from top to bottom we get minor – minor. This is the D# diminished triad. This triad can be generated from the VII degree of E major, from the II degree of C# minor (harmonic), from the VII degree of E minor (harmonic or melodic) and from the VI degree of F# minor (melodic). So, E minor can still be the underlying scale and the awkward intrusion of the G minor key disappears:



Finally there is another possibility. Rather than a D#dim triad, this could be an incomplete 7th chord. Adding a B to it, produces the B seventh chord. Which is of course the dominant seventh chord in the key of E minor:



You may ask at this point, “How am I supposed to know that I should add a B to make up a B7 chord?”. Besides the fact that it makes for a very neat progression, there is a huge hint in the melodic line: The B is right there occupying three quarters of the bar.

We now have the following progression for the first three bars:



Now this is a totally orthodox harmonic progression , without any need to resort to weird chords and faraway progressions. In fact, So compelling is this train of thought, that in the Paderewski edition of the Chopin preludes, the editors (musicologists from the highest echelons of academia) did not hesitate in replacing Chopin’s original Eb for D#:

If one bothers to look at the notes provided at the end of the volume, the editors come clean:

[…]we have changed the Eb of the original notation to D#. The chord in bar 2 is that of the dominant 7th in E minor (B-D#-F#-A, with the E suspended).

Personally I am quite happy to go along with this. Yes, it makes a lot of sense that we have a progression that goes Em – B7sus4 – B7 (rather than Em – F#m7(-5) – D#dim).

However this does beg the question: This being the case, what possessed Chopin to write Eb instead of D#?

Maybe he did not know enough theory?

Maybe he was trying to point something that could not be properly said by using conventional harmonics?

Have a look at this opinion:

[…] Obviously Chopin wants us to feel only the tonic all through the first four measures. This results from the fact that he studiously avoids writing D sharp, instead of E-flat in measure 2: thus averting even the optical appearance of the V step in E minor; and the broad flow of the I tonic remains uninterrupted.
(Heinrich Schenker – “Harmony” – Chicago University Press)

Although I am sympathetic to this point of view, it fails to truly convince me because at the end of the day, the Eb can be considered “tonic” only in the score (and we have to ignore the flat sign). In terms of sound – which is truly what matters - there is no mistaken that chord for anything but a dominant 7th. A very convincing experiment is simply to go to the piano and play each variant in turn:



So our harmonic analysis so far has brought us to this point (remember, this is all provisional, since what we discover later may require that we change our early opinions):



In any case, it is somewhat ironic that the editors of the much celebrated Paderewski edition let “harmonic analysis” considerations convince them to change Chopin’s original score. By doing that, they gained almost nothing  - they just made it explicit what the harmonic progress was – and they may have lost something quite important that Chopin was trying to tell us – as we will see in due time. Eventually I will argue that the harmonic analysis we are presently undertaking is a dead end – there is a far more useful and revealing way to analyse this prelude. And yet it was precisely the considerations of an harmonic nature that led the editors to the change. There is a cautionary tale here.

Having said that, we do not yet know that harmonic analysis is a dead end. We are still exploring it, and we have just done three bars. One should now have a better idea on how to proceed with the next bars. Try your hand at the next bars now.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[Mayla]

(I can't resist just saying that I am finding this thread very useful and I am quietly tracking along.  I will admit that I have been having trouble analyzing this piece as far as RNA... my pride is a pancake    so I have gone through and found the letter names for all the chords in the LH... heh (I will try it out again with the new additions here from Bernhard) thanks for your help  )

[rosana]

I will work on the next bars of the Prelude this weekend, when I will have more time.  But I could not resist commenting on the change the editors of the Paderewski edition made to Chopin's score. I own only one volume  of that edition,  the Minor Works volume XVIII, where it is written on the first paragraph: "The principal aim of the Editorial Committee has been to establish a text which fully reveals Chopin's thought and corresponds to his intentions as closely as possible. For this reason the present edition has been based primarily on Chopin's autograph manuscripts,  copies approved by him and first editions". And they go and change it!!! How dare they, really!!  I was considering getting other volumes of the Paderewski edition, but after that, I will stick with Urtext (or is there any other recommended? I still don't have Polonaises and Studies).

[rosana]

Ok, I have spent about 15 minutes just looking at that F#m7(-5) that turned into a B7sus4, and I didn't even know what it meant (sus) . But xvimbi, I googled it  and here it is: "SUS actually stands for “suspended”.  You get it by raising the major third note of a major chord one half step to the fourth."   I have never studied harmony and at this point trying to figure out this piece is way, way beyond me. Is there a suggestion for a simpler piece to tackle that way? But  of course keep the thread going for other people that have more advanced knowledge than me. 

[xvimbi]

Is there a suggestion for a simpler piece to tackle that way? But  of course keep the thread going for other people that have more advanced knowledge than me. 

It seems like you are doing just fine Let's go on!

Simpler pieces to analyze are Bach Preludes (those from the 12 Little Preludes or the 6 Little Preludes)

[Ludwig]

I think you should keep going too I must ask though, your intensions in analysing this piece is to help you understand it so that you can play it better? If so, I suggest learning by playing as well as analysing, work at the piano, do the piece in bits, or even just playing the chords and melody with the most tension, and figure out what is the clash/suspension/dissonance...and how it is resolved.... All these things will add to the way you play or intepret the piece....