21 November 2004
Analysis: Chopin Prelude Op. 28, No. 2
Scott Spiegelberg recently published an analysis of the Chopin Prelude Op. 28 No. 4 and suggested that number 2 was ripe for analysis also. It got my curiosity up, so there goes a few hours of my time ...
This is obviously one of Chopin's [Wikipedia] more dissonant pieces--from the brutish tritones, a listener might think it is a Liszt composition. The difficulty in the analysis was hearing which notes are relevant to the harmony and which are non-harmonic. At a certain point, it becomes more art than science. Where the last chord is indisputably the minor tonic, the role of certain others might be argued. I had a little difficulty with the third phrase, measures 8 through 12, until I actually played it and heard something different from my original analysis. You should always trust your ear.
The left-hand figure, although written as a succession of intervals, should be analysed based on its cross relations. For the first two intervals, we hear the E jump up to the high G and the B jump down to the A# below it. This creates an inner voice with the pattern B-A#-B-G and continues in a similar manner throughout the piece.
.jpg)
The piece is broken up into the following phrases using two key motifs first heard in measures 1-2 (motif A) and measures 3-4 (motif B):
- Measures 1 through 2 (an introductory, harmonic phrase)
- Measures 3 through 7 (A B)
- Measures 8 through 12 (A B)
- Measures 13 through 23 (A B B cadence)
The piece begins with the minor dominant (Emin) in measures 1 through 3 and then tonicizes its relative major (Gmaj) in measures 4 through 7. Measures 8 through 10 are in the parallel major (Amaj). Measures 11 through 14 tonicize the dominant with its diminished vii chords (I've marked diminished chords with a minor 7th as '0' and with a diminished 7th as 'dim'). They resolve to the dominant-tinged minor 64 chord in measure 15. For the un-harmonized melody in measures 17 and 18, I heard an echo of the harmony in measures 5 and 6. Measure 17 is definitely Fmaj, but measure 18's Bbmaj can only be inferred. Motif B is then duplicated and the piece closes with a declarative and simple dominant cadence.
Here is a summary of the harmonic analysis:
- Measures 1 through 3: Emin
- Measures 4 through 7: Gmaj
- Measures 8 through 10: Amaj
- Measures 11 through 14: vii/Emaj
- Measures 15 through 19: Amin64 (with Fmaj-Bbmaj)
- Measures 20 through 23: cadence (Bmin-Emaj-Bmaj-Emaj-Amin)
- Opus 28, Number 2 [MIDI]
- Opus 28, Number 2 [Sheet Music]
Hey, I didn't know you had done this analysis. For some reason Technorati didn't show this link. This is a very good analysis, especially the comments about the motives. I do offer an alternative reading:
Start in E minor rather than A minor. While tonal music traditionally starts and ends in the same key, there are instances of starting off-tonic in Romantic music. This is sometimes called "Auxiliary cadences" in Schenkerian circles, because the first cadence is in an auxiliary or secondary key.
Starting in e minor, the key of the minor dominant, the chords are:
i - III64 - V/III - III
Then the b minor section sounds like the minor dominant of e minor.
m. 9-10 echo m. 4-5, so rather than A major, I would label this section in D major, with the expected cadence at m. 11 avoided with the half-diminished chord. This chord leads us to the final key of a minor as you show, though it shows up as a very weird common-tone half-diminished seventh chord.
Why the implied Neapolitan in measure 18? There are no Bb's anywhere around. Call it instead a iv.
Posted by: Scott Spiegelberg at December 10, 2004 04:24 PMWow. Your analysis is so much clearer than mine. The long-range V - ii - I that I used in measures 1 through 10 are definitely more justified as the key changes you describe (E min - B min).
The mysterious Bb I heard in measure 18 was a parallel to the function of the melodic note in previous phrases. What I had labeled as motif B always ends with the third of the chord in the melody. I had originally tried to hear it as a vi, but it never really worked in my ears.
Thanks for the input.
Posted by: sstrader at December 10, 2004 08:54 PMOkay, I can see the Bb possibility from the previous motives, as if the VI is a V/bII. I think Chopin avoided that both to keep the ambiguous monophony going and to avoid the tritone required to get back to the i64. Or he felt that it would have been too repetitive, especially for such a short piece.
Posted by: Scott Spiegelberg at December 10, 2004 09:53 PMCould the opening be IV of B Harmonic Minor & be ahead of it's time?
Posted by: tillerman at June 18, 2007 03:06 AMThe d naturals in m.13/14 definitely have to be d-sharps...
Posted by: karst de jong at October 8, 2007 07:09 PMLooking at IMSLP here: http://imslp.org/wiki/Preludes_Op.28_(Chopin%2C_Frederic), you're correct. Not sure how that natural got in there. Thanks.
Posted by: sstrader at October 9, 2007 01:11 PMThese are all very interesting analyses but they all somehow fail the most important test of all: can any of us truly hear A minor as the "ruling" tonality until bar 14? And if we can't then is it incumbent upon us to force the preceding progressions into this unheard tonality by, for example, naming the opening harmony the "minor dominant"? I suggest a different reading: this piece begins in one key and ends with another, making this prelude one of the only instances of atonal, or quasi-tonal music in the early-mid 19th century. It is not without cause that this piece failed to be understood by many a great musicians as far as 1883 when the pianist Jan Kleczynski declared that it should never be played because it is "too bizzare".
Posted by: ysilver at June 17, 2008 10:58 AM