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 https://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.

[m1469]

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.

[m1469]

(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....

[rosana]

Thank you guys for the encouragement. I will certainly keep playing it, but analyzing it is more than I can chew. But, why don't you help? I know I started it, but it does not mean I have to finish it. I will keep following it, if anybody else does. So, true musicians: xvimbi, mayla, etc..., let's go! 

[xvimbi]

Thank you guys for the encouragement. I will certainly keep playing it, but analyzing it is more than I can chew. But, why don't you help? I know I started it, but it does not mean I have to finish it. I will keep following it, if anybody else does. So, true musicians: xvimbi, mayla, etc..., let's go! 

Ha, I'm not a "true musician", not in a long shot (I'm not earning my living with music)

Geez, I completely missed those lengthy posts by Bernhard about the chords and the continuing post. It is now too late to study this, but I will do as soon as I can. I can't ask for guidance and then not honor this tremendous effort. The more reason to stick with this. Let's go on.

...

I couldn't help but reading it after all. My goodness, so many lightbulbs - I don't know where to look.

Doesn't that beat any of those "Who is the most overrated pianist", "What's the fastes recording ever", or "Do negative intervals really exist?" threads?

[Baohui]

"SUS actually stands for “suspended”.  You get it by raising the major third note of a major chord one half step to the fourth."

Bit more: the function of a sus chord is to create some tension. Tension is traditionally followed by resolution as is the case here - the fourth (E) resolves down to the third (D#/Eb).

Now an analysis of the third bar (not including the anacrusis):

The first chord looks like an incomplete F7 but the melody note doesn't make any sense unless it acts as an appogiatura, and it doesn't resolve to a Bb chord as we might expect (it would be the dominant in Bb). If we rearrange the chord over B (and respell the Eb as D#) we get a B7b5 chord. Therefore we haven't moved from the key of Em despite the F natural - it is just a B7 chord which has been altered and so is still functioning as the dominant in Em.



The next chord when rearranged in thirds reads as another B chord, but this time as Bm7b5. This means that we are now either dealing with melodic minor harmony, or that we have modulated. To be sure about which has happeed we'll need to have analysed the piece further (to the next harmonic change), so I'll leave this for now.



Finally, the third chord appears to be a Dm7b5 chord when arranged in thirds. However, this seems to be an odd progression. I'd say that it's actually another Bminor chord, just voiced without the root (do we have conclusive evidence that Chopin wasn't actually a time travelling jazz musician? ). The actual chord would then be a Bm7b5b9 chord! 



The whole progression with chord symbols:

[rosana]

I can't see baohui pictures at all  (there is an X in stead on each one with a space of several lines) and Bernhard's pictures are gone, each replaced by a single dot (period)  . Any reason for that? Thanks

[bernhard]

I can't see baohui pictures at all  (there is an X in stead on each one with a space of several lines) and Bernhard's pictures are gone, each replaced by a single dot (period)  . Any reason for that? Thanks

They are back now .

My guessis that the hosting site for the pictures might have "closed" for a while (as sites often do).

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

PS: Great stuff Bahoui! (I will be back...)

[aerlinndan]

I don't have Finale on my computer here at home over the summer so I can't post pictures. However, I have another way of looking at the fourth bar (I will use Bernhard's numbering system) to supplement Bahoui's ideas.

When I analyze a piece and get to a section that seems really rocky harmonically, I generally tend to skip forward to the next chord that I see that I can analyze easily. If I know where I'm going, I can look for how I got there more easily. Now the first such chord is the E dominant 7th chord that I see in bar 5. E dominant seventh can only be in the key of A. Let's choose A minor because we were before in E minor and this moment does not sound any more "major" than the previous moment in E minor. Therefore, I began to investigate the possibility that some chords leading up to the E7 were in A minor.

And suddenly bar 4 becomes much easier to analyze: in A minor. (Well, easier is a relative term. I've taken a lot of traditional theory and know about the existence of a few more chords than someone that's just starting out.) I mean, the first chord is a French augmented 6th chord in the tonality of A. Basically the function of an augmented 6th chord is to lead to the dominant, which it does on the downbeat of bar 5 with the E7. The chord on beat 3 of bar 4 is dm or iv (or if you want to include the B and restack it in thirds, you get bdfa which is a ii half-diminished chord in a minor). And now we have to deal with the fourth beat...

I think I'm beginning to see why Bernhard says that a traditional Roman numeral analysis is worthless in this piece. There are so many ways you could analyze this chord under the "traditional" rules. You could see it as a iv half-diminished chord borrowed from A harmonic minor. You could see it as a continuation of the iv, calling the G# an anticipation tone.

However, I think it suffices to say that the chord on the fourth beat is a passing chord. It serves to smoothly connect the pre-dominant chords to the dominant chord (E7). The first three beats of bar 4 are simply two different chords that can precede an E7 chord. Chopin adds a lot of tension and beauty by delaying the resolution to E7 all the way to the downbeat of the next bar by adding in this strange chord. Seeing the beat 4 chord as a "connector" chord, I would analyze it simply by sayiong that the G# and the D are anticipating the E7 chord and the F and the C are outlining a VI chord, which very commonly precedes V in minor keys. The combination of these creates a unique sonority. While calling it "d half-diminished" does indeed cover all the notes, it doesn't do justice to the function of this chord.

We could go through every single chord doing this type of painstaking analysis. And indeed this is the only type of analysis I've ever really been taught to do. Not that I like it that way. I've analyzed the harmonies of different pieces in my own way plenty of times, and I want to do so with this one, but that would require conceiving of a new type of analytical system. It doesn't have to be complicated - it only needs to explain what's going on.

For this piece, I think an analytical system based on the lowering of half-steps and whole-steps will be the most beneficial, at least up to bar 13. If we look at the left hand as three separate voices, every new chord is somehow "lower" than the previous one and it makes the whole section one big "fall" from Em to B7. How exactly to codify such a system, though, I'm not quite sure.

[xvimbi]

We could go through every single chord doing this type of painstaking analysis. And indeed this is the only type of analysis I've ever really been taught to do. Not that I like it that way. I've analyzed the harmonies of different pieces in my own way plenty of times, and I want to do so with this one, but that would require conceiving of a new type of analytical system. It doesn't have to be complicated - it only needs to explain what's going on.

For this piece, I think an analytical system based on the lowering of half-steps and whole-steps will be the most beneficial, at least up to bar 13. If we look at the left hand as three separate voices, every new chord is somehow "lower" than the previous one and it makes the whole section one big "fall" from Em to B7. How exactly to codify such a system, though, I'm not quite sure.

My sentiments exactly. That's what I meant earlier with "over-analyzing". Perhaps it is time for Bernhard to reveal a better approach.

[amanfang]

What if the chords were not necessarily harmonizing the melody in relation to the key?  And not simply e minor, but any key? 

[ludwig]

The chords in the LH is actually pretty interesting to analyse by movement, all 3 voices move down in chromatics, however they are out of phase with each other, and this is what causes the suspensions, anticipations etc which creates that tension and dissonance, if they were moving down at the same time in parallel it would be too simple and perhaps a dull, so that is why looking at the intervals like I have mentioned and the movement of them is more important imo. I appreciate the Schenkerian in the sense that it says "most fundamental stratum of musical experience is that of directed motion towards an ending-point", in this piece, that is exactly what it is, perhaps in 2 sections, although the first one isn't resolved so we are interested in the B7 to Em like aerlinndan said. Most of the chords are inversions, which means the resolution "sound" is anticipated and built up, with the help of that descending chordal line in the LH. The E minor chord is never in its root position (even in the cadence in bars 12-13, so nothing is resolved properly, that is probably why amanfang suggested that it isn't e minor we're working with, plus the fact that Chopin chose to work with # accidentals sometimes and b accidentals other times, on specific notes. 

There are other types of analysis we could look at too

Psychological(analysing music purely from sounds experienced, rather than the sound itself ("phenomenology-study of essential qualities of the experience...gain an immediate awareness of the experience by stripping away everything that is not essential to it"  - Meter (patterns in music,  and Reti (coding or grouping musical ideas into units)....i know it sounds a bit mechanical, but it is very detailed and interesting to read, because they are concerned with the experience of hearing. These ways of analysing truely breaks music down into its essence and draws out what is important, rather than doing traditional and formal analysis on everything on the page..Just a thought

[bernhard]

My sentiments exactly. That's what I meant earlier with "over-analyzing". Perhaps it is time for Bernhard to reveal a better approach.

He, he, we are only on bar 5 and you already want to give it all up?

No, let us keep plodding along , and finish it, because there are some surprises in store (I don't want to reveal too much at this stage).

Also I think Rosana (who started all this) may benefit from it.

But I can see already many very interesting off-shoots.

For instance, what exactly is the purpose of doing such an analysis (ant the implicit corollary that our aims may decide which type of analysis to do).

Also, Rosana seems to have shied away: "I need to know more before I tackle that sort of work". But my whole point is that one does not need to know more. One learns as one does it (that is the essence of the pragmatic method as opposed to the logical method). So, please do ask questions if there is any step that you do not fully understand.

I have been meaning to post the next few bars, but this is exam week in the UK, so I will be very busy until the weekend, then I will try to post more of the analysis.

By the way, Aerlinndan's thoughts (and Bahoui analysis) have been absolutely spot on. this thread is a most excellent one!

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

What if the chords were not necessarily harmonizing the melody in relation to the key?  And not simply e minor, but any key? 

A most excellent question. We must remember it for later!

(In fact we knwo that nowhere else in his works was Chopin more daring and adventurous than in the preludes!)

[bernhard]

The chords in the LH is actually pretty interesting to analyse by movement, all 3 voices move down in chromatics, however they are out of phase with each other, and this is what causes the suspensions, anticipations etc which creates that tension and dissonance, if they were moving down at the same time in parallel it would be too simple and perhaps a dull, so that is why looking at the intervals like I have mentioned and the movement of them is more important imo. I appreciate the Schenkerian in the sense that it says "most fundamental stratum of musical experience is that of directed motion towards an ending-point", in this piece, that is exactly what it is, perhaps in 2 sections, although the first one isn't resolved so we are interested in the B7 to Em like aerlinndan said. Most of the chords are inversions, which means the resolution "sound" is anticipated and built up, with the help of that descending chordal line in the LH. The E minor chord is never in its root position (even in the cadence in bars 12-13, so nothing is resolved properly, that is probably why amanfang suggested that it isn't e minor we're working with, plus the fact that Chopin chose to work with # accidentals sometimes and b accidentals other times, on specific notes. 

There are other types of analysis we could look at too

Psychological(analysing music purely from sounds experienced, rather than the sound itself ("phenomenology-study of essential qualities of the experience...gain an immediate awareness of the experience by stripping away everything that is not essential to it"  - Meter (patterns in music,  and Reti (coding or grouping musical ideas into units)....i know it sounds a bit mechanical, but it is very detailed and interesting to read, because they are concerned with the experience of hearing. These ways of analysing truely breaks music down into its essence and draws out what is important, rather than doing traditional and formal analysis on everything on the page..Just a thought

Yes! very good. Hopefully we will try to do all of these (and a few more). But the point (that I hope is starting to emerge) is that whatever analysis you do, it corresponds to what you want to get out of it in the first place.

This means that there is no such thing as a standard "analysis" as a generally accepted set of steps one invariably follows when looking at a piece of music.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[rosana]

Also I think Rosana (who started all this) may benefit from it.

I am glad I started it, but I sure did not expect that it would be way more than I bargained for. I am happy other people are joining in. And I am following it.

Also, Rosana seems to have shied away: "I need to know more before I tackle that sort of work". But my whole point is that one does not need to know more. One learns as one does it (that is the essence of the pragmatic method as opposed to the logical method). So, please do ask questions if there is any step that you do not fully understand.

I will. I have not studied any harmony so far, only basic music theory, so this for me is difficult. But I will definitely follow along.

[aerlinndan]

Well, let us not linger! It will be tedious to get through the rest of it, but I'd like to see this through because analysis is invaluable for learning any piece.

Last I left off we were at the E7 chord on the downbeat of bar 5 (again, Bernhard's numbering system that counts the upbeat as its own bar.)  Here Chopin changes the E7 to an em7 by changing the G# to a G natural. Now we are back in our original key of e minor. The fourth beat of this bar contains a diminished chord. Given the accidentals we have it spells as a C# dim7 chord which resolves to an am7 chord. I can't make sense of this resolution, because it's neither a common tone diminished seventh chord nor a vii to i resolution. It would not work traditionally but because Chopin has already established the harmonic "climate" of making progress through dropping half-steps and whole-steps, it makes sense to the ear and sounds beautiful.

So we have A minor (iv) at bar 6. Then for the next four beats we have F# half-diminished seventh, seeing the B in the melody as an upper neighbor non-harmonic tone. This chord is iihd7. Beat three of bar 7 is another fully diminished chord that resolves to a D7 chord. Again, this chord does not make sense traditionally and it resolves quite similarly to the diminished seventh chord described in the previous paragraph. The D7 chord "falls" to dm7, just as E7 became em7 previously. This becomes another diminished seventh chord, and guess what? It resolves just like the past two did in that strange, nonanalyzable way, this time to CM7 (VI). This becomes A minor in the second half of bar 10 (iv6). From here to bar 13 the harmony is finally a bit more straightforward. B7sus4 to B7 to Am to B7 to Am to B7 (this is all iv6 and V7), which resolves to Em, starting the second part of the prelude.

I'll leave it there for someone else to continue.

[amanfang]

I hope this thread isn't going to just be forgotten....

[bernhard]

I hope this thread isn't going to just be forgotten....

Fear not. 

(doing the scores takes some time - I haven't had much time lately - exam week finishes this week )

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[amanfang]

For fear that this piece will be buried, I will go back and add my thoughts on the analysis of this piece.  Seeing as attempting to analyze this piece in e minor brings up a bunch of altered chords, I would suggest that the analysis of this piece is mainly an example of chordal mutation.  Meaning - he establishes the key of e minor, and then takes us away from that key by "mutating" the chords, one note at a time.  There are places in the piece where you really can't feel a key center.  So by chromatically altering one note of each chord change slowly, he takes us away from e minor, but then eventually brings us back.