Analysis of Chopin's Etude Op. 10 #1 in C

[allchopin]

Could someone supply the tonal progressions used in this piece?  I'm pretty sure I have a lot of them but I'm confused with some.

[richard w]

If you give the bar numbers where you are 'confused' I'll have a look and give you my ideas - that is if someone doesn't beat me to it. This will save me from having to start from scratch! 




Richard.

[allchopin]

Sure, I'll go through what I have/dont have. (% means half diminished)
1: I
2: I
3: IV
4: IV^+%7 ?  ,  II⁷⁵³ ?
5: V (I ignore left hand descent as passing tones, correct?)
6: II⁷⁵³ ?
7: ?
8: V⁷  ,  V⁷⁶³
9: I
10: I
11: IV⁶
12: IV⁶⁵
13: ?
14: V
15: ?
16: I
17: IV^M6₅
18: vii  ,  vii^%7
19: ?
20: vi  ,  vi⁴₂
21: IV⁷
22: ?
23: ?
24: ?
25: VI⁷⁵³
26: ?  ,  II⁷⁵³
27: ?
28: V⁷
29: I⁷
30: I^%4₃
31: IV⁷
32: V⁶ ?
33: ?
34: ?
35: VI (this seems to be rather a modulation to A major, is this a good assumption?)
36: VI
37: V⁷
38: ?  ,  V⁷
39: I^M7
40: ?  ,  IV^M7
41: vii^%7
42: iii⁷  ,  vi⁷
43: ii⁷  ,  V⁷
44: I^M7  ,  IV^M7
45: vii^%7
46: VII⁷
47: III
48: ?  ,  V⁴₃
49: I
50: I
51: IV
52: ?
53: V (again, passing tones in octaves)
54: II⁷
55: ?
56: V⁷  ,  V⁷⁵³
57: I
58: I
59: IV⁶
60: IV^%6₅ (confusion about this measure)
61: ?
62: V
63: II⁶₅ ?
64: IV⁷
65: III
66: III
67: ii⁷
68: V⁷
69: I
70: I^o7?
71: ?
72: ?
73: V^o7
74: ?
75: ?
76: V⁷
77: I
78: I
79: whew!

Thanks for any help. 

[gyzzzmo]

HI everybody,

Maybe a stupid question, i'm asking it anyway:

For a fast perfomance you have to do a certain wrist movement (i heard).
What kind of wrist movement is it? Do you have to turn your hand(wrist)  to the direction of the notes, or just or only turn over your hand (and not pointing).

Thanks, Gyzzzmo

[richard w]

Ok, I've made a start. It's my lunch hour, so there's more to come yet, but.....

I notice you have worked out all your chords as if the piece remains in C major throughout, whereas it seems to me that Chopin modulates left, right and centre. A piece can easily start in C major, modulate to G major and back again. If you analyse it as if it were only in C major you have the problem of trying to explain the F sharp - which is not part of C major. This piece is fairly diatonic, for a romantic work, but consider a piece which starts in C major and goes through a range of keys, including say B major or G-flat minor, or E major? The chances are the chords are very simple primary triads, but the C major analysis would look as if the composer had devised a completely new harmonic language - kind of, anyway.

That said, your bar 4 question marks can be answered by realising that Chopin has moved to G major. You should find the chord to be a 63 chord V7 (V65) with a 9-8 suspension (er would that be V75 ?) that resolves on the 4th beat. I will carry on thus

Bar 5 - G major - I root position (treat other notes as passing)
Bar 6 - G major - V 7 root position
Bar 7 - back to C major - V 7 root position with two suspensions - flat9-8 and 4-3 (there might be a better way to express this - I'll check with Walter Piston when I get home)
Bar 8 - resolution of the above suspensions. 4th beat with augmented 5

And so on.

Bar 7 is a most interesting chord, and I can see why it caused confusion. It might help to listen to the music (play through) and try to work out what primary triad is actually 'functioning', and in what key. Then work out an explanation for the notes which aren't part of the basic triad. If you play through bar 7 now, you should be able to hear that it was chord 5 all along, just camouflaged with those suspensions.

That is how I would analyse it, anyway. I hope that helps.


Richard.





PS If you find out what the wrist movements are, tell me. I still can't play this piece!

[allchopin]

Thanks Rich,
Yes, I never planned on analysing the piece as constant modulations (a minor detail overlooked  ), which must be why I have many major second scale degrees and such!

In measure 4 you say that the notes comprising the first three beats (F#, A, C, E) form a V⁷ of G maj, but wouldn't this be a vii^%7?  How did you know that this is actually a V⁶₅ suspension (where the E becomes a D)?

I don't quite understand the suspensions of measure 7 (and as far as how to write them).  The given notes are G, C, F, Ab, and D.  How did you know that the chord was a V root position when the B is not yet existent as well as ignoring non-chord tones?  For instance, I probably would've chosen to ignore the G and call it a ii^%6₅!  I guess you need measure 8 to really know this?...

I'd also like some clarification on measure 60 on the third and fourth beats.  This is a diminished chord (Ab, C, Eb, F#) so is it named according to the letter names of the notes (as in F# being the bass, but an inversion)?  Because on the piano, the notes are, obviously, equally spaced in a diminshed chord making it impossible to tell what scale degree it is and which inversion - as it inverts it just becomes a root position in a new scale degree!

One final question, not regarding theory: In my recordings of Louis Lortie and Alfred Cortot, they play the initial left hand attack in measure 1, then in measure 2, strike another C an octave higher, as in the refrain in measures 49-50.  This is not in my edition, so I'm curious about the legitimacy of this extra note (actually they do it again later).

[anda]

For a fast perfomance you have to do a certain wrist movement (i heard).
What kind of wrist movement is it? Do you have to turn your hand(wrist)  to the direction of the notes, or just or only turn over your hand (and not pointing).

you don't "have to" anything!

the wrist movement you're talking about (i think): i found (both by practicing as well as by teaching) that, especially for arpeggios, i can use my wrist to get my fingers on the keys they have to play by moving it (the wrist) roundly. i move the wrist in shape of the lower half of a circle (if the arpeggio is played by finger #1 - #5) or as the upper half of the circle (for arpeggios played by fingers #5 - #1).

especially for chopin op. 10 #1, combining this wrist move with a ample linear right-left move of the arm should help you get to tempo.

(hope you can understand my poor english...  )

[richard w]

Thanks Rich,
Yes, I never planned on analysing the piece as constant modulations (a minor detail overlooked  ), which must be why I have many major second scale degrees and such!

Now, I should confess that I now realise modulation is not always the correct way to describe chromatic notes. Since my last post I have reconsidered my position slightly.

In measure 4 you say that the notes comprising the first three beats (F#, A, C, E) form a V7 of G maj, but wouldn't this be a vii%7?  How did you know that this is actually a V65 suspension (where the E becomes a D)?

I now think that bar 4 is better expressed as a secondary dominant, in this case V of V. In C major, chord V of V is D, F# and A. This, I think is the source of the F#, rather than a modulation, as I don't think the tonality of C major is lost. Therefore the chord progression would look like this:


Bar 1 - I
Bar 2 - I
Bar 3 - IV
Bar 4 - V6 of V
Bar 5 - V
Bar 6 - V of V
Bar 7 - V974
Bar 8 - V7
Bar 9 - I

The question now is how much to worry about the E in bar 4. I think it would be perfectly acceptable to consider it as an accented passing note, but if you think it is harmonically significant then you could consider the chord as being a dominant ninth in first inversion. This chord would contain five notes, but in four-part writing it is the convention to miss out the root when this chord is used in any of its inversions - that could partly explain why there is no D. You are also right to point out that this chord is the same as VII7 of V, but to my mind this creates too many problems. I'd suggest keeping things simple.

As for the suspension, I'm now less inclined to think that this is the correct way to describe this chord, for several reasons, but to give one, suspensions should be prepared in the preceding chord, and this hasn't happened here.

I don't quite understand the suspensions of measure 7 (and as far as how to write them).  The given notes are G, C, F, Ab, and D.  How did you know that the chord was a V root position when the B is not yet existent as well as ignoring non-chord tones?  For instance, I probably would've chosen to ignore the G and call it a ii%65!  I guess you need measure 8 to really know this?...

I've decided that there is only one suspension here, a 4-3. The chord is otherwise a dominant minor ninth, with the notes G, B (suspended as a C), D, F and A flat.

I'd also like some clarification on measure 60 on the third and fourth beats.  This is a diminished chord (Ab, C, Eb, F#) so is it named according to the letter names of the notes (as in F# being the bass, but an inversion)?  Because on the piano, the notes are, obviously, equally spaced in a diminshed chord making it impossible to tell what scale degree it is and which inversion - as it inverts it just becomes a root position in a new scale degree!

Bar 57 - I
Bar 58 - I
Bar 59 - IV6
Bar 60 -
Bar 61 - V4
Bar 62 - V
Bar 63 - V65 of V

Bar 60 is quite complex, but the whole bar is functioning as V of V. Beats one and two are of a dominant major ninth in second inversion (with D omitted), then on beat three it moves to the dominant minor ninth, and beat four is a German augmented sixth, which is sort of V of V also. I'm not actually sure of the best way to figure this, nor whether figures and numerals offer an adequate way of describing this.

Does that answer any of your questions, or does it create more?



Richard.

[gyzzzmo]

 i move the wrist in shape of the lower half of a circle (if the arpeggio is played by finger #1 - #5) or as the upper half of the circle (for arpeggios played by fingers #5 - #1).

Sorry, i dont know what you mean with the 'upper' or lower half of the circle, do you mean like clockwise?

thanks, gyzzzmo

[anda]

Sorry, i dont know what you mean with the 'upper' or lower half of the circle, do you mean like clockwise?
thanks, gyzzzmo

yes. me and my english... 

did you understand everything else ?? wow...

[gyzzzmo]

Dear anda,

your english skills are dazzling me. Never i've seen somebody writing such as these remarkable and poeticly quality, since shakespeare.

So i'm convinced your able to explain yourself in grace.

Your amazed fan,
Gyzzzmo

[allchopin]

I now think that bar 4 is better expressed as a secondary dominant, in this case V of V.

Is this written V of V in its most proper notation?
I don't think the tonality is lost in bar 4 because I almost find the F# to be a passing tone to get the G in the next measure's left hand.

This chord would contain five notes, but in four-part writing it is the convention to miss out the root when this chord is used in any of its inversions - that could partly explain why there is no D.

This is very interesting.. I've not yet come across these rules but I'll take your word for it  .  But why do you say there is no D?  Beat four contains the much-anticipated D resulting from the questionable suspension. 

I've decided that there is only one suspension here, a 4-3. The chord is otherwise a dominant minor ninth, with the notes G, B (suspended as a C), D, F and A flat.

What about the Ab resolving to the G in m. 7-8?  Is this not a 9-8 sus?  And also, what about beat four of measure 8.. the D raises a half-step.  This isn't even a chord!

Does that answer any of your questions, or does it create more?

I definitely have some questions left for my teacher when I get back, but at least now I will have a good background for a lot of these chords. Thanks

[richard w]

Is this written V of V in its most proper notation?

There are several ways to notate various aspects of harmony, but this is the only one I know for secondary dominants.

This is very interesting.. I've not yet come across these rules but I'll take your word for it  .  But why do you say there is no D?  Beat four contains the much-anticipated D resulting from the questionable suspension.

I said there was no D because there isn't in beats 1-3, but obviously its presence in beat four is significant.

What about the Ab resolving to the G in m. 7-8?  Is this not a 9-8 sus?

I think you are right. To my mind, harmony very often works on many different levels, and can be explained in more than one way. I prefer considering the A flat as a minor ninth. We are firmly in C major and a 9-8 suspension ought to be A natural to G. However, one is quite welcome to choose to flatten a ninth if desired. This is not to say one couldn't have a 9-8 suspension on chord V in C major with an A flat, but I've just opted for what I think fits most comfortably. In any event, the whole point of analysis is to reduce the score down to its fundamental structure. To quibble about an A flat won't get you to your destination - not that I'm accusing you of quibbling.

what about beat four of measure 8.. the D raises a half-step.  This isn't even a chord!

Again, this is only one note, which I disregarded in the analysis on account of it not really being tremendously significant to the overall tonal effect. But beat four of bar 8 can be described quite adequately in terms of harmony as chord V7 with an augmented 5.


I hope I was of some help.



Richard.

[anda]

Dear anda,

your english skills are dazzling me. Never i've seen somebody writing such as these remarkable and poeticly quality, since shakespeare.

So i'm convinced your able to explain yourself in grace.

Your amazed fan,
Gyzzzmo

thanks, i'm learning by reading posts

[twelfthroot2]

Replying to a 10 year old thread, does anyone have the complete harmonic progression for Op 10 no 1?

Thanks
TR2

[jonslaughter]

Reply to a 20 year old thread.

I think the best way to understand the progression is not to try to pigeon whole it into a "correct harmonic progression" but to find the progression which makes most sense to you. I think it is wrong to try to analyze this "harmonically" because it is not a typical cpp style harmonic piece and because of the way it is played. The point of harmonic analysis for performance is not to understand some innate harmonic structure but to make it easier to remember and perform. Usually these concepts do coincide because typically most music is conceptualized in typical harmonic idioms.

The point of performing a piece is to perform it, not to "understand it". Again, sometimes these coincide and many times one wants them to coincide because one has trained their mind on the "common idioms". But it would be wrong to analyze an atonal piece using ccp harmony not because it is technically wrong but because it would be counter productive. The music was not composed with such ideas so forcing it into them is going to obscure rather than reveal.

Similarly with some of Chopins work(and other composers or parts of music).  In some sense one has to broaden their understanding of harmony and analysis to include more abstract perspectives not because it is "right or wrong" but because it simplifies(and maybe that makes it right in and of itself). In this vein each person will have different requirements because their perspectives and background is different.

I will demonstrate the way I am thinking about this piece "harmonically".

1. I completely ignore the bass line/left hand. It is irrelevant. First, it is extremely simple. Second, you will be spend most of the time with the right hand. Third, it typically is harmonically independent of the left hand(although it does color the chords in a meaningful way it is either not a chord tone in the right hand or a passing tone).

2. Hence the analysis proceeds only from the right hand.What is important in this etude is the execution of the arpeggios and it is that which pretty much defines this etude(and not the harmony as he could have done many different things). The etude is the arpeggio and how the arpeggios change throughout.

3. For the most part, the entire piece is just a repetition of a typically difficult 4 note arpeggio through octaves. The difficulty in the piece lies in the stretching, the speed, and the strange chords used.

Therefor, the analysis proceeds into clarify the arpeggios in terms of performing them.

For example. The first chord is clearly a Cmaj arpeggio. This likely is all one needs to understand it. One does not need  to be more specific such as the shape of the arpeggio. One can make it more clear by thinking of it as C + GCE or C + Cmaj 2nd  inversion. Very likely if one is attempting this piece they likely already can internalize such figures if they are common enough. This is a relatively common figure(e.g., something that might generally be played with both hands harmonically.

The next arpeggio is an F chord. One can think of this as C + ACF or C + Fmaj 1ist inv. It is as if Chopin is taking some simple basic child's chordal exercise that is suppose to be played in two hands and playing them all in the right. The descending progression is an Am. The F note in the previous arpeggio moves down to E. The 4 bar moves the E down to a D. how you think about this depends on what is easiest for you to understand(e.g., it can be seen as a melodic change or a chordal change)

Next we get a Gmaj arpeggio figured as B + Gmaj. Then descending it is a D7 or if one wants a C + Dmaj first inv.

All this is pretty basic and conforms to cpp type of stuff at this point.

Next we get basically the same arpeggio ascending as the D7 but the F and A are lowered a semitone. This, of course, turns a Dmaj into a Ddim chord and overall a D half dim. Then a G7 without the 3rd is played which turns into an augmented for the last beat. The C arp played in measure one is played again.

At this point things start to diverge.You can analyze these chords several ways depending on how you want to think about it.

Here we have C F C F. It's just a dyad/interval of a P4. One can notate this as C4. Overall it is clear that this is an Fmaj chord due to the A in the bass but we are ignoring the bass. Because I have C4 in my vocabulary use C4 (well, C4 could mean a 2nd inversion major chord if the 4 were a superscript but it wouldn't cause confusion). One could also see it as a F5  inverted or a C + F58. For me C4 is the simplest It doesn't matter if it's really is an F chord over all. I can essentially deduce that quickly because C4 + A = Fmaj. What matters for me is that it is the interval of a P4 off the C and it just repeats.

The next chord is C F# C E descending. what could we call this? Well, we can think of it as C E Gb which I notate as C-.

Then we have a C G C D. This is just a Csus2 chord. It then plays a G chord descending.

So all those chords can be seen as just a type of variation or prolongation of the Cmaj chord rather than trying to fit them harmonically in to some "logical progression". It's quite logical as just harmonic alterations of a C chord. What is important is not the "harmony" but the arpeggio. There is nothing wrong, say, with thinking of an Fmaj7 chord as an Am/F if the F only exists in the bass.  You can hear it as an Am on top of an F note. The same idea applies anywhere. Ultimately you can learn to hear the notes in any chord simple you want(even if totally unrelated). It's like learning to see the old woman/young woman simultaneously rather than one or the other. The chord symbols are, in some sense, extraneous. They exist only to help is recall what we are to do as a performer. Usually it helps to try to fit things in common patterns we already know and this is why everyone will have somewhat of a different approach.

E.g., up to this point every arpeggio starts on a low C note except for the Gmaj chord. So if you wanted you could just try to remember the notes that change(just thinking in terms of the 3 upper notes and remembering you are always adding that "low C" before you play it except for that Gmaj chord).

In fact, for the most part, there is a limited number of possible "configurations" one can play in using these patterns in any meaningful way. You will constantly find the same patterns being used but just transposed(e.g., bars 4 and 5 are the same shape/configuration/sonority but starting on A or G).

So you can continue on like this and label the chords the best way you see fit. You are essentially created an ad-hoc system that works for you. You are finding what makes sense to you and using that as that will be the most reasonable for you to use(rather than trying to learn something new). It will be the quickest way to thinking about it. You might have to have several "exceptions". E.g., some chords may not make sense to you so you can try to fit them in to something that does but then make the exception. E.g.,

Take the arpeggio C F Ab G over a G bass. What does this chord look like to you? A G chord? Wheres the B? (or is it Bb?) It's "phrygian"? Is it a C chord? Csus4 with added Ab? For me I call this a G7b9sus4. This chord symbol makes sense to me. It's a little strange with the b9 but it's a phrygian dominant sus4 chord. G7sus4 chords are quite common so this is just the minor form.

But you might want to look at it as a Fmadd9 chord. It's exactly the same.

G7b9sus4 and Fmadd9/G are the same chord. Mentally they may involve different ideas but that is not because they are different but because our perceptions and background on how we learned such things are different.

For the most part the piece actually is not complicated harmonically. It uses some diminished chords, half diminished, majors, 7ths, etc. A few alterations here and there but nothing new.

Unfortunately Chopin didn't leave us any record of how he thought about it and even if he did likely it wouldn't be much use to us mortals. I think all of has experienced the effect of learning something and thinking it was very complicated only to realize that if one thought about it different it was easy.

My guess is that the optimal way to understand the changes is to understand how each arpeggio changes. Basically the differential changes. It's 4 notes, literally, that changes into 4 notes(not octave changes but for the next chord). Usually there is at least 1 common tone, sometimes two. Usually the changes are one step. You can think of it in terms of interval changes. E.g., "This interval expands outward a whole step each(e.g.,  C F G C -> C Eb A C)" or "We move the top note down a half step(such as from the first F to Am change).

Thinking in terms of these differential changes will spare one trying to fit chords to all the changes. A  special notation could be devised where one simply tracks the changes. E.g.,

C -> F -> Am -> G
x x x x -> 0 2 0 1 -> 0 0 0 -1 ->-1 -2 -1 -1 (or 0 here depending on how we handled that change in D).


The main point I'm trying to make is that I think that one will not really benefit from a "standard harmonic analysis" that one typically does in most other music.  Sure, in some ways there are a lot of changes such as the cycle of 5ths and some ii V i's. But just knowing that doesn't help one actually understand the "arpeggio changes" that makes this piece what it is. Chopin was on a different wavelength than those before him. He didn't think like Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven. I think trying to use their styles to understand him is wrong. It's like trying to understand Chinese by hearing it as if it were English. The more one studies Chopin's etudes the more one starts to understand his thinking.

-- I've added a pdf that shows the basic arps involved in the piece. If you practice then in various ways you will see how much easier it is than it looks. Of course you have to expand your mind a little about how things work but it shouldn't be too hard to comprehend what the pdf is saying. The PDF is about 95% of the RH in terms of technique and sound. Once you add the octaves it's about 99%. [excluding any errors in notation]