Rummaging Through the Catacombs Clues in Musorgsky's Pitch Notations

Rummaging Through the 'Catacombs': Clues in Musorgsky's Pitch NotationsAuthor(s): Simon PerrySource: Music Analysis, Vol. 14, No. 2/3 (Jul. - Oct., 1995), pp. 221-255Published by: WileyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/854014 .

Accessed: 07/04/2014 12:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Music Analysis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 212.183.209.30 on Mon, 7 Apr 2014 12:10:00 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/stable/854014?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


SIMON PERRY

RUMMAGING THROUGH THE 'CATACOMBS': CLUES IN MUSORGSKY'S PITCH NOTATIONS

1 Introduction

One of the most striking aspects of Musorgsky's scores is the frequent use of seemingly strange orthography.* It is by no means unusual to encounter peculiarities of pitch spelling in his music which are hard to reconcile with the more standard concepts of tonal structure. Inevitably, these peculiarities raise questions about their particular significance and about Musorgsky's intellectual self-awareness. On a broader plane, Musorgsky's notations supply rich pickings for those interested in the broader analytical significance of orthography. The notion that notation might hold a key to our perceptions of Musorgsky's compositional ability on a 'technical' level is first hinted at by the apparent rather than real alterations made by Rimsky-Korsakov in his editions of Musorgsky's works. In addition to the wholesale rewriting of passages, Rimsky-Korsakov made frequent amend- ments to pitch spelling without any resultant change to pitch content.' Such alterations signify a difference in tonal thinking between Musorgsky and his first editor - a predictable difference, given Rimsky-Korsakov's increasingly academic (read 'German') musical orientation at the time he created these editions. The critical validity of Rimsky-Korsakov's editorial intervention is now generally discredited and his versions are seen in historical perspective as flawed performing editions (which nevertheless achieved much in establishing a number of Musorgsky's works in the musical canon). This leaves the irregularities - the 'mistakes' corrected by Rimsky-Korsakov - of Musorgsky's original scores to be considered for what they are: valid, vivid imprints of the composer's tonal thought. While these imprints fall into a wide range of categories, the present article focuses on orthography, taking as a case study two closely related pieces from Pictures at an Exhibition: 'Catacombae' and 'Con mortuis in lingua

* This article originated in a paper given at the University of Queensland in May 1994. I am indebted to Professor Malcolm Gillies for his comments on early drafts of the article.

MUSIC ANALYSIS 14:2-3, 1995 221 ? Basil Blackwell Ltd. 1995. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 IJF, UK and 238 Main Street, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.



SIMON PERRY

mortua'. This case study is preceded by an exposition of some of the basic concepts of the analysis to follow, at the same time drawing on some shorter examples from Pictures. The broader issues of notation and analysis, which inevitably arise from such a study, will also be addressed in some measure, but the article remains primarily concerned with Musorgsky and remarks made of a more general nature are intended as points of departure, not solid assertions.

Analyses based on the notational aspects of scores are still com- paratively thin on the ground, but in recent years the work of two composers in particular has attracted increasing attention: that of Scriabin and Bart6k. A pioneer in this area, as in so many others, was George Perle who, more than ten years ago, made an orthographic foray into the music of Scriabin.2 In so doing he very precisely articulated, in his introduction, the fundamental precept for analysis based on notation: '... even though they did not give us analytical surveys of their compositions, the composers of an earlier age were constantly making explicit and detailed analytical assertions, in the very act of writing the notes down'.3 Substitute 'tonal music in the broadest sense' for 'an earlier age', and one has the first sentence in a manifesto of orthographic analysis. Developing and modifying Perle's already impressive argument, Cheong Wai-Ling has shown extensive evidence for a high degree of self awareness on the part of Scriabin in the notations employed in his 'post-tonal' music.4 Similarly, an overwhelming case for the existence of analytically potent notational practices in the music of Bart6k (at least post-1930) has been made by Malcolm Gillies.5 The emergence of such writing in recent years suggests that analysis based partly or even wholly on orthography is a viable and useful addition to more established methods. While analyses of this kind are, so far, highly composer-specific, differing somewhat in the individual methodologies used, there exist certain general principles which admit the possibility that the techniques invoked may be employed, with modification, in the analysis of other composers' music. In an article devoted more to methodology than to analytical findings, Gillies suggests (with knowledge of Perle, but not, I believe, of Cheong) that, in addition to their value in Bart6k's music, such analytical methods may have valid application in other areas of early twentieth-century music, this being especially so in Russian music.' One could reasonably extend the chronological boundaries here back into certain areas of the late nineteenth century, particularly where so-called progressive composers are concerned. Despite Musorgsky's death in 1881, it is even reasonable to suggest that a de facto place may be found for much of his mature music - with its tonal complexities and questions - within the conceptual ambit of the early twentieth century. (The same may be said of certain other late nineteenth- century composers, notably Liszt in his final years.)7

A beautiful and simple example of Musorgsky's cognisance of the possibilities of orthography is found in the differences between an early

222 MUSIC ANALYSIS 14:2-3, 1995 ? Basil Blackwell Ltd. 1995



MUSORGSKY'S PITCH NOTATIONS

draft and the published version of the opening bars of 'Elegy', the fifth song from the cycle Without Sun (1874). Pavel Lamm provided both versions of this opening in the Soviet complete edition.8 Ex. la shows the earlier version, while Ex. lb shows the published version (which is Lamm's primary source) issued by the Bessel publishing house during the composer's lifetime. The difference between the two versions is most interesting: aside from a few inconsequential discrepancies they are the same as regards pitch content, but the first one and a half bars are spelt entirely differently. One wonders what occasioned the change in notation, as the passage is 'non-functional' and 'colouristic' in nature, providing an almost impressionistic setting of the line (loosely translated) 'The night lies in a misty dream'. Given the context, how important are the details of voice-leading and tonal structure as against overall impression and effect?

This question is particularly intriguing in that the earlier sketch seems to be more traditionally functional than that finally settled upon by the composer. In Ex. 2 - with parts (a) and (b) corresponding to Ex. 1 above - these bars are reduced, showing the simple semitonal movement downwards of three voices against one fixed pitch. What is found in Ex. 2a could easily be described, in reference to C minor, as iv'-V4, while the progression in Ex. 2b is much harder to categorise simply. One looks backwards to Chopin, while the other anticipates Debussy, and it is certainly possible to imagine Musorgsky choosing the latter for its much more non-functional flavour, given the context of the setting. This is not to suggest that Ex. l a begins in C minor but, rather, that the power of analytical cues (or visual clues, if one prefers) were not unappreciated by this composer. It is noticeable in Ex. la that the C? is used strangely. It has no obvious function and suggests a less successful attempt to give this passage a melting, seamless harmonic evolution that is not simply aural, but visual as well. The version as published is much more successful in this regard.

While the composer's final choice indicates a somewhat more non- functional approach in a local context, it seems to make more sense in terms of the tonal structure of the entire piece. The tonal centre is elusive for much of the time, but the song ends clearly enough in F? minor, and the material of the bars following Ex. 1 (bs 4-10) points to F# minor as well. Comparing the notations for these two versions, it is clear that those of the published version sit much more comfortably within an F# minor complex than do those of the earlier draft. In the final version there are still some spellings which are unusual in F# minor - the F?, for instance, which seems to arise from the approach to the E major triad in the third bar, prompting the enharmonic replacement of the leading note with the flattened tonic. There is nothing to suggest, however, that the passage could not have melted with equal ease into an unambiguous F# minor tonic, given the slightest of alterations in the second bar. The notations in the draft version, however, are totally irreconcilable with F# minor. It may

MUSIC ANALYSIS 14:2-3, 1995 223 ? Basil Blackwell Ltd. 1995



SIMON PERRY

Ex. 1 'Elegy' (Without Sun, No.5), bs 1-3

a) early MS draft Rndante

A nr-3 r-3 -1

Rndante 3 3 Vtu - ma - n drem let noch'

A 77 7.

b) first edition

Rndantino mosso Ir3

kU. ! L, 1 ' k

indantino mosso V tu - ma - no drem - let noch'. 3 3 " On" 1- 1 -- 1 "11n"q. pp

lie? ? e /I .11 T1 - 1",,-, ..'-. i l - r /I L* i~iTll I i

. I .I~ I L., . i'l~i U i i I IT1

ii-/'/i 11,

i I I pip I if l~~ilPl ]iI II II r "- ~ _Ii,~L-

Ex. 2 Reduction of Ex. 1

a) b)

~6ll for





be hypothesised, therefore, that Musorgsky made a clear calculation to set the opening lines of Golenishchev-Kutusov's verse in a way which alludes to the key, yet avoids it, rather than with an apparently more pedestrian progression in the 'wrong' key.

2 Analytical Perspective: Orthography and Tonal Structure

The pitch notations found within a particular tonal structure help to identify its tonal centre(s). The bounds of a tonal structure are articulated principally through the consistency of the pitch spellings employed, but also via other means such as clear formal boundaries or the individuality of lines within a contrapuntal texture. Various archetypal structures may be considered as foundations for notational analysis. These are best characterised by the number of pitches employed, this number being differentiated against the existing seven letter names. Among the more standard archetypes are chromatic (twelve-note), octatonic (eight-note), diatonic/modal (seven-note) and whole-tone (six-note) structures. Of primary interest here is the twelve-note structure, specifically that which has an underlying seven-note (diatonic) basis. Because it contains the fullest representation of pitch spellings, the twelve-note structure is usually the most analytically informative, yielding clues, via its particular orthography, to the hierarchy of pitches in a tonal setting. Fig. 1 shows two possible systems of spelling for a chromatically enriched tonal structure based on Bb. For the moment, only Fig. 1 a will be considered (although the rationale for Fig. lb will not be hard to deduce).

Fig. 1 Standard chromatic structures centred on B%

a) maj/min: B% Cb C D6 D E6 E? F G GC Ab A? (Bb)

b) minor: ascending: B ? By C Db D? E? E? F G6 G Ab A (Bb) descending: B% Bbb A Ab, GG F FE E, Ebb D C Cb (Bk)

Of the collection of seven letter names representing twelve pitches in Fig. la, two (B and F) are represented only once (B% and F?), while the remaining five letter names each receive two pitch representations. This simple example affirms the fact that the degrees least likely to be chromatically inflected are the tonic and dominant. Or, to put it another way, B 7 and F may be said to be chromatically encircled and, therefore, defined as key structural pitches. While this type of tonally-based chromatic structure is a useful starting point, in practice it is usually encountered in a less than pure form. Frequently we are presented with a defective chromatic structure - one in which any number of the twelve




SIMON PERRY

pitches is absent, thus making it harder, as more pitches are missing, to determine the tonal centre with certainty on the basis of notation alone. Context is obviously important in such cases. Additionally, one often encounters various contaminants and corruptions. These come in numerous forms and usually suggest a weakening of one or more structural pitches. (The presence of a Bb for example, in addition to the A? leading note in Fig. l a would suggest a weakened tonic.)

A number of factors can conspire to produce such inconsistencies. Certain problems of instrumentation may dictate a change in spelling. The ostinato figure in the lower strings beginning at b.401 of the first movement of Beethoven's Seventh Symphony is a typical case in point. As notated in the cello and bass parts it is: D-C#-B#-C#. Yet Beethoven chose to spell the B# as C in the viola part, the low B# being conceptually beyond the viola's range. Transposing instruments often 'force' the respelling of certain structures: writing for the Bb trumpet, for example, in a tonal structure based on F# may result in a default to an At-based structure rather than the transpositionally correct, but difficult to read and play, G#- based one. Yet another discrepancy frequently occurs as a result of what Gillies terms 'micro-tonicisation',' where a non-centric note may receive a passing centricity within a structure as a result of an apparent corruption of the structure. (A modified concept of this micro-tonicisation will become clearer further into this article, as numerous instances of it are encountered in the examples presented.)

Inconsistencies arising from such practical factors as the above- mentioned may be grouped together as 'pragmatic' types, and they are usually self-explanatory within a given context. A second group might be considered to contain inconsistencies arising not so much from practical concerns, but from the individuality of tonal thinking which emerged as composers sought new means of achieving logic in voice leading and harmonic organisation in the rapidly changing tonal world post-common practice. It is in the specific notational practices developed in these endeavours that pitch notation becomes analytically informative in a more than self-evident way. In the case of Musorgsky, one important area of interest lies where spellings arising from personal traits of voice leading conflict with more standard archetypes. This may be illustrated by two brief examples from Pictures at an Exhibition. The first is found at the end of the sixth piece, 'Two Polish Jews, one rich, one poor', shown in Ex. 3a.

These bars are in B6 minor. This is borne out orthographically by the defective chromatic structure, shown in Fig. 2, which encircles the tonic. However, the contaminating FK suggests a weakening of the secondary centre, the dominant F. The use of F, and E1 contradicts the archetypal style of orthography proposed in Fig. la, which suggests that a chromatically enriched descent in minor from 3 to 1 should use raised 4 and 3, not flattened 9 and 4. An instance of the more normal notational route can be found in Ex. 3b, a fugue subject by Max Reger which has been transposed





Ex. 3

a) 'Two Polish Jews', bs 26-9 poco rit. con dolore 126 f f ]

3 -/071

b) Reger, Op. 131a, No. 1/II, bs 1-3 (subject, fugue for solo violin, transposed)

Allegro

F__ ___w Ii. r I v'

up a semitone from its original A minor for the sake of comparison.'0 In fact, Reger's notation conforms to the model found in Fig. l a, while Musorgsky's, with its own special elegance and consistency, adheres to the alternative system found in Fig. l b, which is an intuitive voice-leading model. In this system all notes of the scale are approached by what we might call secondary leading notes: lower ones in ascending contexts and upper ones in descending contexts. This is, in essence, that concept of micro-tonicisation referred to earlier. Even the double spelling of pc 2 is easily accounted for by this model: D? is entirely appropriate as a lower neighbour to E?, while Et, is just as coherent as a passing note between E? and Db. There is nothing startlingly original in such a voice-leading practice. Most composers of tonal music employ this kind of orthography to an extent, but not on certain 'sacred' degrees: the perfect fifth is seldom flattened, and the major sixth is seldom sharpened. Or, putting it another way, the leading note is rarely micro-tonicised from below, nor is the subdominant from above, for the simple reason that such orthography strongly contravenes, by implication, the prevailing tonal centre. There- fore, it is usual to find systems of orthography in tonal music which provide a compromise between fluidity and 'directional coherence' in voice-leading, on the one hand, and stability of tonal structure, on the




SIMON PERRY

other." The difference between Musorgsky's and Reger's thinking in the like melodic passages of Ex. 3 reveals a classic case of linear versus vertical thinking. Musorgsky's spelling suggests a mind which tended not to regard structurally important scale degrees as inviolable, as would be the case with one more steeped in orthodoxy and traditional learning. He maintained a mode of tonal thinking which did not place as great an emphasis on the hegemony of dominant-tonic relations, as did more academically trained musicians.12

Fig. 2 'Two Polish Jews'

bs 25-9: B, CQ C DDb D E E F GC A (BF) Ebb F6

Taking this concept a little further, one could argue that the violation of the dominant in Ex. 3a represents a sort of 'mis-tuning', even though the fundamental sense of B% as tonic remains strong. One might not want to place too great an emphasis on this before further study, but the concept of a mis-tuned dominant is deliberately invoked here with the comments of Jinos Karpiti in regard to Bart6k's music very much in mind." There is a world of difference, of course, between Bart6k and Musorgsky - and much theoretical territory to cover before watertight connections can be made - but some comments should not go unsaid. Kirpiti introduces the concept of mis-tuning via the well-known technique of scordatura, which, he states, was most typically used in the nineteenth century to obtain special effects, usually ghostly or macabre ones.'4 The effect of the flattened fifth might, therefore, seem appropriate in Musorgsky's 'Two Jews', if only on the basis of the piece's grotesque, caricatured qualities. We could leave it there, were it not for the bars preceding those of Ex. 3a, where the issue is considerably more complex. These are the bars, shown in Ex. 4a, in which the two Jews, after solo appearances, perform a duet, so to speak. The presence now of the flattened tonic, as well as of the flattened fifth, seems prophetic of some of the more developed points raised by Kirpaiti. His examples of Bart6k's mis-tuning the upper tetrachord of the Dorian scale down by a semitone" come close to our present example from Musorgsky, only requiring A~, instead of A6. In fact, one might even argue that in Ex. 4a we find the upper tetrachord of the melodic minor, rather than Dorian, mis-tuned - see the brackets in Ex. 4b, which shows the scalar structure used in these bars. A further aspect of Ex. 4a is its distinctly bitonal character with reference to B% minor and D? minor - significantly, the respective tonic keys of each Jew's 'solo' passage. This is shown in Ex. 4b by the separately beamed scales. It is worth recalling, in light of this, Kirpiti's comment that 'it is precisely the mis-tuning which creates the impression of bitonality'.'6 This leaves one to explain, of course, the numerous appearances of E in Musorgsky's 'Two Jews', but I believe there are good reasons for these: in





Ex. 4 'Two Polish Jews'

a) bs 19-21

Andante. Grave

3f 3

Sv v - ---- , ",

J: J-

' '7

N Wi 44 %4. " MI UM IMI A

k

'l r V VW

b) bs 19-21, scale forms

-------- Upper tetrachord D6 nIllilor

A

I. " I Id I Lp

Bb minor, I Lower tetrachord - "

most cases they lead relatively unambiguously to the 'true' dominant, and indeed may serve to show where more straightforward procedures, as opposed to more radical ones, are occurring. Finally, there is the inevitable octatonic implication arising from the minor third relationship B%-Db. The lower tetrachords of minor scales a minor third apart temptingly throw up an octatonic hexachord

(B-C-D-EE-F-G,). The potential for a full-

blown octatonicism is not quite realised here, but Musorgsky's awareness of it should not be totally discredited.

Having explored an example of a 'descending' orthography (Ex. 3), I




SIMON PERRY

would like to consider, if for nothing more than the sake of symmetry, an 'ascending' one. This is found in the virtuosic coda of 'Limoges' (the seventh piece of Pictures), which depicts the final hubbub of the market scene (Ex. 5). What takes place here is a layered increase in chromatic saturation of an initially diatonic texture, as illustrated in Fig. 3 which breaks the passage into three groups according to the increased presence of chromatic pitches. After the purely diatonic texture of bs 37-8, the structure acquires several chromatic notes in b.39 which lead semitonally upwards to various notes of the scale. (The curved arrows in Fig. 3 indicate the voice-leading function of these micro-tonicising pitches.) So far these chromatic notes offer no challenge to the E? major basis whatsoever. However, in b.40 there is a problem: the A? which leads clearly enough to B%, is itself 'micro-tonicised' by G?, the highly volatile enharmonic equivalent of the subdominant. At the same time the Ab definitely retains its own structural role.

Ex. 5 'Limoges', bs 37-40

meno mosso, sempre capriccioso

poco accelerando

wattacca

This final bar may be clarified by further breaking its pitch notations down according to the three lines which constitute the rising parallel homophony within the toccata-like texture. This is shown in Fig. 4, where part (a) aligns these structures according to E? centricity, and (b) attempts to provide a clearer reflection of the chain of rising thirds between the two lower voices. In both Figs. 4a & b it may be observed that the voice-leading practice referred to earlier still holds true: passing notes always micro-





Fig. 3 'Limoges'

bs 37-8: EL F G AX B, C D (E )

b.39: Eb F FAG Ab B% B ,C C_,D (E,)

b.40: El, E?F F?LG G?AA iB, C CloD (E)

tonicise the following pitch, regardless of any apparent distortion of the structure. According to this voice-leading 'rule', Fig. 4a suggests a mixture of modes. The 'lower' line retains a structure of EL major, with chromatic interpolations resolving in the same manner as in b.39. The middle line, however, shows an EL Lydian structure: Ab is conspicuously absent and G? points to A? as a structural degree. There is some confusion arising from the absence of the second degree, F, which means that E? does not technically resolve. If the upper and middle lines are considered as a whole then the presence of F in the upper part completes the Lydian structure, although it does not, admittedly, provide an immediate resolution of E?. It is also noteworthy that the upper line, considered alone, outlines a pentatonic scale (based on F or C); an over-lay which is possibly linked to the pentatonic theme of the Promenade."

Fig. 4a, however, misrepresents the situation in this bar in as much as it fails to show the fundamental structure of thirds maintained throughout the passage. In Fig. 4b a closer reflection of the score has been attempted by aligning the lower and middle lines in reference to the initial major third EV-G. It varies from the score only in that Musorgsky did not strictly retain

Fig. 4 'Limoges', b.40

a) aligned with reference to EL

upper: F G A C D

middle: Eb Eg?,() F?lG G?~#A Bb C CLAD (E)

lower: EL E OF F#,G Ab A B, C CD (E,)

b) vertically aligned with reference to the score

upper: C D F G A

middle: G GA BL C C#,D Eb E ?,() F#,(G)

lower: EL E?,,F F[,G Ab ABLB C C#AD (EL)

MUSIC ANALYSIS 14:2-3, 1995 231 C Basil Blackwell Ltd. 1995



SIMON PERRY

a series of major thirds. He pushed certain notes in the middle line forward - causing each line to progress by a tone rather than a semitone here and there - in order to underpin the passage with a solid E? structure. (For example, B% is pushed forward to obtain the interval G-B% rather than G-B?. Likewise we find the minor third C-El, instead of C-En, referring to the subdominant triad.) Yet Musorgsky does maintain a major third over the F in the lower part, yielding the A? already referred to, and resulting in a middle part which looks distinctly as though it is based on G minor. Whichever way one takes it, there is a strong sense of bimodality and/or bitonality here. The question of bitonality versus bimodality is a highly vexed one. The attendance of bimodal implications in a bitonal passage, or vice versa, leads to the possibility of an extremely complex web of tonal structure - so complex that in some cases it may be impossible to unravel. Calvocoressi may well have had this in mind when he wrote:

His [Musorgsky's] tonal and modal schemes may be impossible to define safely in terms of usual theory; but there is nothing elusive, ambiguous, or shaky about them. In fact, the tonal basis feels so firm that the discovery of devices which should make for instability will often come as a surprise to analysts."

Bearing this in mind, Ex. 5 shows that, while it is possible to reach a good understanding of the passage, it is impossible to be absolutely definite about the tonal structure to the last detail, precisely because of the tonal versus modal matrix referred to above. Should one regard the middle line of the structure (as shown in Fig. 4) as based on E? or on G? There are arguments both ways.

To a large extent the analytical preference for either E? Lydian or G minor is academic. More importantly, both G minor and El Lydian are one step 'sharper' than E, major. This is surely the most fascinating aspect of this passage: the apparent connection between rising and sharpening. The spelling of pitches in Ex. 5 shows that while the passage remains centred on E6 above middle C in bs 37-9, the E6 major structure remains intact, even though it becomes increasingly chromatically saturated. As soon as it launches itself upward, so to speak, from the E6 'springboard' at the com- mencement of b.40, the system begins to fragment. E6 retains a centric role, but the clear sense of a single modality and/or tonality becomes obscured. The effect achieved in this coda is, no doubt, a highly calculated one: devices of texture, shape and velocity combine with the tonal structure to produce a finely rendered image of exponentially rising tumult. However, the tonal factors which play a part in achieving this effect may be traced back to the simple voice-leading practice referred to earlier. This practice governs the structure of this unusual passage and seems to have led Musorgsky, as if by default, into the fragmented, bimodal/bitonal world of the final bar.





3 A Notational Analysis of Two Pieces from Pictures at an Exhibition

'Catacombae' is the eighth piece of Pictures at an Exhibition. It provides a fine case study of Musorgsky's skill in the manipulation and balance of tonal textures, with his notations showing a highly active awareness of purpose in this regard. Although the piece itself is small, the problems it poses are far from easy. There is an enigmatic quality to be found in the open-noted austerity of the piece, in its dramatic dissonances and its extreme dynamic contrasts, a quality all the more heightened by its sudden appearance following the exuberant virtuosity of 'Limoges'. The pictorial inspiration for 'Catacombae' was a self-portrait of Victor Hartmann and another architect inspecting the Paris Catacombs by lamplight." At its conclusion 'Catacombae' is linked, attacca, to the next piece, which also bears a Latin title, 'Con mortuis in lingua mortua'. This second piece is the last of the Promenades, stating a minor-key variant of the Promenade theme below a shimmering, descending series of tremolo octaves in the right hand. (Musorgsky's inscription in the margin of the autograph manuscript at this point reads, '. . . the dead Hartmann's creative spirit leads me to the skulls, invokes them, [and] slowly the skulls become suffused with light'.)20

That a close relationship is intended between the two pieces seems certain, and it is for this reason that they are considered together here. Both deal in different ways with the same referential subject. 'Catacombae' provides an objective depiction of the subject (the picture), while the composer's more subjective response to this subject is encountered in 'Con mortuis'.2' It is tempting, therefore, to suggest that the two pieces also share a close tonal relationship. Indeed, it first appears that 'Catacombae', which ends with a discord, is reliant upon 'Con mortuis' to clarify its tonal ambiguities. (It should be added, however, that 'Con mortuis' possesses its own tonal questions, which will be examined shortly.)

The ambiguities of both pieces are aurally self-evident, and from a theoretical perspective the graphic analysis made by Derrick Puffett serves as an excellent introduction to the problems of these pieces by demon- strating their defiance of a monotonal, traditional Schenkerian analytical approach.22 Puffett himself readily admitted that he did not find the results of his graphic approach entirely satisfactory (although he does point out that his work is more Salzerian than purely Schenkerian). Most notable among the various problems which he pointed out were the strong feeling of both G and D as tonal centres at various points throughout 'Catacombae', and the ambiguity of the final B major 'tonic' sonority at the end of 'Con mortuis'.23 Indeed, the ultimate objective of Puffett's analysis is revealed when he writes: 'The degree to which Schenker's methods can be applied to Musorgsky is in fact a precise measure of his originality'.24

Despite such findings, Puffett felt confident enough to assert that the two pieces are closely related due to the sharing of the Fundamental Line




SIMON PERRY

initiated in 'Catacombae' and completed in 'Con mortuis'.25 However, in addition to Puffett's own reservations, the Fundamental Descent itself contains a peculiar inconsistency: the note of D? which represents 3, is actually spelt as Cx in the score. This may seem a small point at first, but it does raise important questions. The voice-leading tendency of D is completely different from that of Cx in any tonal context, and it is hardto see how, at an immediate level, Cx may function as 3 in B minor. Of course, if the voice-leading function of Cx is only understood at a foreground level, then it might be acceptable to reinterpret it through a different spelling in the interests of making a wider analytical point. The real question here is whether or not we can legitimately understand this note in very different ways at different levels.

Thus, certain important questions arise. Is there some form of bitonality operating here? If the final tonic sonority of 'Con mortuis' is ambiguous, then to what extent can we legitimately regard this piece as a clarification of the ambiguities found in 'Catacombae'? Can another analytical approach shed any further light on the forces at work in these two pieces?

'Catacombae'

It is clear that the first eleven bars of 'Catacombae' form a neat section. They are separated from the remaining music by Musorgsky's own double bar-line, and there is a strong cadential quality to bs 10-11. The starting pitch is a very pronounced, fortissimo B, and the section comes to rest on the F?-CQ fifth, implying a simple underlying structure of i-V, in B minor. While there is some validity to this simple interpretation, there are also significant problems with it. Between the opening B and closing F#-C) there is much that is tonally ambiguous. With the strong presence of G from b.2, and the ensuing discords in bs 4-8, the tonal centre becomes hard to apprehend. Moreover, the pitch notations employed (see Fig. 5) show a peculiar anomaly in the form of the combined presence of the leading note, A#, and the flattened tonic, B%.

In this defective chromatic structure, the presence of B% has important tonal implications. It is clear that after the introductory gesture in octaves of bs 1-3, the music in bs 4-11 consists of two contrapuntal lines heard against a static major seventh 'pedal', G-F#, which resolves to the octave F# in b.9. As shown in Ex. 6, these two lines together account for the entire collection of pitch spellings in Fig. 5, but taken individually they suggest different scale forms. The upper line is based on B, while the lower line, although more ambiguous, points to G. The basis for this distinction rests on the clarification of the respective roles of A0 and BL. The former functions in the upper line as a leading note to B, while the B acts, in the lower line, as the flattened third degree of a G-based scale. In Ex. 6, each line ends in a half-close in b. 11, but if they are extended by another bar, as





shown after the dotted bar-line, then they may be understood to move to their respective 'tonic' degrees. What the listener experiences here is not really sufficiently differentiated to be described as bitonality, but it is safe to assert that, as a result of the combined scale forms, the passage carries bitonal implications - a phenomenon which I shall refer to as tonal 'bivalence'.

Fig. 5 'Catacombae'

bs 1-11: F# G A A# B C C D (Fg) Bi,

Ex. 6 'Catacombae', B-based and G-based scale forms, bs 4-12

[41 [111

- J

- -O

It is no accident in bs 1-11 that, while the centricity of B is corrupted by the presence of Bb, the notes F#, G and D are 'partially encircled' and uncorrupted by other forms of spelling (see Fig. 5). Particularly noticeable is the presence of the major seventh G-F# - first encountered as a vertical sonority in b.4 - and the appearance of a G major seventh chord in various inversions throughout the passage, at bs 4, 7 and 10. This further helps to establish the ambiguity in tonal centricity between G and B (through its dominant F#). In addition to these factors is the process in which G moves (or resolves) semitonally downwards to F# on three separate occasions - bs 3-4, 8-9 and 10-11. This G-F# motion is a variant of the motive G-F which is heard at the very beginning of the work, in the Promenade theme. In each of the three instances in bs 1-11 this motive is heard at progressively lower octave transpositions, finally resulting in the clear cadential movement at the end of the section. It is not surprising, therefore, that G might be sensed as the stronger centre initially, while yielding in its comparative degree of 'valence' to B (via F#) at the cadence in b. 11.

The centricity of G is reaffirmed after the double bar-line, and there is a cadence in G minor in bs 21-2. Bs 17-22 introduce the most overtly melodic feature of the entire piece, and the G minor cadence rounds off




SIMON PERRY

this feature so neatly that it is tempting to view the piece as being in three, rather than two, parts. Despite the evidence of the cadence, however, other factors obstruct the definition of a formal boundary at this point. From b.12, G is prolonged in the bass (with the low A in bs 15-22 acting as a neighbour note), through the cadence, until b.24. The movement of A-G in bs 22-3 is 'staggered' against the cadence in bs 21-2, and the low G, which should support the G minor resolution in b.21, actually arrives, 'too late' as it were, with the transitory harmonies of bs 23-4. Also significant, in light of the processes of bs 1-11, is the movement in the bass of G to F# over bs 24-5. It is possible to conclude that some sort of transition takes place around bs 21-5, but it is difficult to be sure exactly where, and how, it occurs, as the process is much more seamless than at bs 11-12.

Fig. 6 'Catacombae'

a) bs 12-22: F# G A B% B? C C# D E F? (F#)

bs23-30 F G G# A B B B C# D EB E E# (F#) B C b) bs 12-24: F# G A B B C C# D

E, E F? (F#)

bs 25-30: F# G Gi A# B B C# D E E# (F#)

An examination of the pitch notations used in bs 12-30 provides a further perspective for the understanding of this transition. In Fig. 6 two somewhat arbitrary groupings have been made. Fig. 6a divides the pitch notations found after b.12 according to the cadence in bs 21-2, while Fig. 6b takes the bass motion G-F# as the principal indicator of a transition from one section to another. These two groupings make for an interesting comparison. Fig. 6b is the much neater reading, chiefly because it avoids the presence of both B% and A# within one structure. The pitch notations employed in bs 12-24 indicate a scale structure based on G, while those in bs 25-30 show the structural importance of F#, pointing ultimately to B, even though B as a tonal centre is never reached.26 Also significant is the elimination in Fig. 6b of the triple spelling representation of the letter name E (Eu, E?, E#) found in (a). In addition, the chromatic encirclement of D (by C# and E1) points to G as the tonal centre in bs 12-24, while the G-E# encirclement of F# from b.25 to the end likewise indicates B. Fig. 6b shows a full encirclement of the dominant in both structures. Not only does (b) justify the view that bs 12-30 fall into two sections according to tonal structure, it also lends support to the hypothesis that the bass progression G-F# in bs 24-5 is more indicative of a transition in tonal structure than the cadence in b.22. The presence of B# in b.25 is easily





explained: it provides a micro-tonicisation of the C? which follows, and is not heard again. As was the case in bs 1-11, the use of Bb or A? is central to the determination of tonal structure. In Ex. 7, 'Catacombae' is shown graphically with particular emphasis placed on the role of Bb and A? in establishing local tonal centricity. The determining roles of Bb and A? are supported by the functional ambiguity (which lasts at least until b.25) of G and F#. Thus, the interaction between G & F# and A# & Bb plays upon relative degrees of intervallic stability within tonal contexts: the major third Ft-A# is a stable interval, while the diminished fourth F#-Bb is unstable. Likewise, the minor third G-Bb is stable while the augmented second G-A# is unstable. Thus, in relation to A#, G is subsidiary to F# while in relation to Bb, F# is subsidiary to G.

Ex. 7 'Catacombae', graphic representation

[41 [111 [19] [25]

I TiI

n I

TI

[Nei

LE LN l

Of further interest in Ex. 7 is the apparent enharmonic connection between Bk and A# in bs 23-5 (marked NB). It underlies perhaps the most perplexing and ambiguous two bars (23 and 24) of the piece - containing the 'non-functional' Ek major and C major triads - and is further indication of the transitory nature of these bars.27 Finally, the line in the upper part in bs 19-22 may be taken as a variant of the line in the left hand in bs 4-8. This is shown in Ex. 7 by the brackets marked 'x'. Bs 19-22, which are clearly in G minor, may be taken, therefore, as a further indication of the G-based nature of the left-hand part in the opening section.

'Catacombae', as interpreted through pitch notation, thus lies in three parts. In the first part the tonal texture may be described as bivalent, with reference to tonal centres of B (minor) and G (Lydian, according to the strictest interpretation of voice-leading practice). Throughout this section there is a shift in the comparative degree of 'valence', from G to B, with neither centre being completely overshadowed. This tonally bivalent




SIMON PERRY

structure is then 'linearised' after the double bar-line where the two sections are centred on G (minor) and on B (minor) respectively. The transition between these two sections is almost seamless, but to understand them as one is impossible in terms of pitch-notational integrity. In the most general terms, the understanding of tonal centricity in this piece, from a pitch-notational perspective, rests with the question: B% or A#?

Throughout the discussion above it has been assumed (not unreason- ably) that a centric F# implies an ultimate goal of B. However, the tonal centre of B is never explicitly achieved. The piece does not even end with a clear dominant but, rather, with viio7/V over a dominant pedal. As Puffett has pointed out, even the fortissimo B which opens the piece is highly ambiguous, being approached directly (attacca) from the E? major/Lydian environment of the coda of 'Limoges' (see Ex. 5), and sounds something like a C." B is felt at most as a 'tonal ghost' throughout 'Catacombae' and it is not (from one analytical standpoint) until the conclusion of 'Con mortuis' that this ultimate destination is reached, in the form of the latter's final B major sonority. The tonal ambiguities heard at the end of 'Con mortuis', however, cast suspicion on the ultimate primacy of the tonal centre of B. Therefore, a close examination of 'Con mortuis' (particularly its closing bars) is essential to a better understanding of 'Catacombae'.

'Con mortuis in lingua mortua'

'Con mortuis in lingua mortua' is the final appearance of the Promenade. It opens with a phrase structure which is common to the openings of all the Promenades, consisting of two pairs of repeated phrases (of a structure a-a'-b-b') after which follows a coda containing new material.29 The tonal structure of the opening phrases (bs 1-10) is generally quite orthodox, and seems to lie comfortably in B minor. At the same time the tonic does not arrive in any clear structural form throughout these bars, and traits of voice-leading lead to some fairly predictable corruptions due to micro- tonicisation. The pitch notations for the first 10 bars are given in Fig. 7, in which (a) contains the notations from the first pair of phrases, while (b) has those from the second pair. These notations offer a defective chromatic structure based on B, with minor differences in notation between the two pairs of phrases. F# saturates the texture, but does so in the guise of a dominant. B is partially encircled in (a), fully so in (b), and unlike 'Catacombae', there are no corrupting alternative spellings to be found. (Throughout these two pieces this is perhaps the closest approach to the archetypal structure shown in Fig. l a.) Even a cursory glance at the score reveals that there is a continuing presence of the motive G-F# in the foreground and, upon closer examination, at a deeper structural level as well. In this context, however, there is little doubt that F] is the note of greater structural significance; G resolves to F), and this resolution is





Fig. 7 'Con mortuis'

bs 1-5: B C# D E E# F# G G# A A# (B)

bs 5-10: B C C# D E E# F# G G# A A# (B) F? supported by the encircling movement of E# to F# in the upper line, as it was in bs 25-30 of 'Catacombae'. In fact, at the end of the second phrase of each pair (in bs 5 and 10) the cadential progression may be understood as a French augmented sixth chord resolving to the dominant of B minor. The prevailing B minor tonality is challenged to some extent in the third phrase (bs 5-10) where there is an inflection of D major, with A? playing a more structural role than in the first pair of phrases. In the first pair A? is merely a chromatic passing note between A# and G# in the descending line in the right hand, but in the third phrase it functions more as a dominant to D. Interesting also is the clear outlining of a D major seventh chord in the right hand tremolo in bs 6-7. In fact there is a layered quality to the harmony in these bars, with seemingly little 'functional' relation between the B minor and D major complexes. This lends a unique colour to the phrase, and the D major harmony seems almost to foreshadow the highly perfumed D-based chord found in b.11. Also in this third phrase is the apparent anomaly of the F (as well as the expected Eg) in b.5. This is merely a surface feature, pointing to the brief tonicisation of C in b.6, which is then understood as the root of a Neapolitan (in second inversion form) in B minor. Finally, there has still been no ultimate, structural resolution to the tonic of B minor. The important A# in b.7 finds no obvious or immediate resolution and the music is left (in relation to B minor at least) at a half close at the end of b. 10.

Throughout this section, the notations are consistently employed with regard to tonal structure (particularly in relation to the voice-leading principle outlined earlier) but say nothing that is not self-evident. This is to be expected, given the straightforward nature of the material. It is in the following bars of the coda, however, that the most interesting tonal effects take place, and in which Musorgsky's pitch notations come into their own as analytical evidence (see Ex. 8).

In the total collection of pitch spellings for this coda, which are shown in Fig. 8, there are several inconsistencies and corruptions, particularly if B is assumed to be the primary tonal centre. The notes Gx, B# and Cx all represent unusual spellings for a B minor context, and each requires some attention. Each note is unstable and implies resolution - to A#, C# and D#, respectively. While these implications are realised in the cases of Gx and B#, Cx fails to fulfil its most obvious voice-leading function and does not lead to D#. For this reason, Fig. 8 is slightly misleading. Although D# is




SIMON PERRY

Ex. 8 'Con mortuis', bs 11-20

tranquillo

TI 4L*- ,L D..............

rt. e perdendosi

Ai i

, " I

--,.i.

I

SIP, JL n e V ,n e rden nosi

' ip I M, I' I T, i

Cl ii canto cantabile, ben marcato C1 C2

lfI TI . . ..

,, ~D, , ,2 ......... ,

.... Cl":L.CC

present, it is certainly not approached, directly or indirectly, from Cx. To clarify this, Fig. 9 offers a refinement of Fig. 8, placing the pitch notations of bs 11-20 into two groups. This grouping shows the notations in relation to the two different chromatic chords which both resolve to an F# major triad in these final bars. These chords are marked 'Cl' and 'C2' respectively in Ex. 8.30 Segregating the material of this ten-bar coda in the manner implied in Fig. 9 is not intended to suggest different tonal structures in this case. It has been done to provide a closer detail of the voice-leading in a purely local connection with the two chords C1 and C2.

Of the three pitch spellings described above, Gx and B# are the most easily explained. There is an almost sequential nature to bs 11-18. In the context of chord C1, B , forming an augmented sixth with the bass note D, resolves to the fifth of the F# major triad. Following this, Gx, in the context of C2, resolves to the third of the F# major triad. The notes B# and Gx create micro-tonicisations of the fifth and third of the F# major triad, and the triad is itself substantially tonicised in the process. The resolution of






bs 11-20: F# Gx, A# B BoACx Cx D E (FD) A D


bs 11-14: F? A A# BOC# Cx , () E (F#) D

bs 15-20: F# GxxA# B C# D# (F#)

Gx is particularly important here because its approach to A# provides this pitch with an unusual degree of stability; Gx neutralises the potency of A# as a leading note. This in turn must have a weakening effect on the tonal centre of B.

What part, if any, does Cx play in the process described above? A possible answer is that it leads melodically to C, creating, with B , an encircling motion around C#. This contravenes, however, the notational precedent of chromatic encirclement displayed earlier (for example, in bs 4-5 and 10) involving the approach to F# via G and E#. This creates something of an impasse: if Cx is to be understood as leading to C#, then it should have been spelt as a D (as in Puffett's graph); that it is not can only imply resolution to D#, and it should therefore neither be understood to lead to C#, nor as a satisfactory substitute for the third degree of B minor. While it may be difficult to show what function the Cx serves, it is possible to see more clearly what function it does not serve. It is interesting to draw a comparison with the Gx in this regard, because it is true that were Cx to lead explicitly to D#, it would be fulfilling the same role as that served by Gx, but in a B major context. Ultimately, one may hear this unusually spelt pitch in a variety of ways. The significance of the spelling lies in that it affords a clue to more informed alternatives in hearing.

Of further note is the whole-tone influence in the structure of both C1 and C2: the notes of each chord, except for the immediate fifth above the bass note, belong to a whole-tone series. Fig. 10 illustrates this derivation. (The letters in parentheses are notes of the whole-tone series not actually present in the chord; the lower case letters represent the 'corruptions' a perfect fifth above the bass note.) C1 offers the more complete whole-tone representation, but both clearly display the sharpening effect of a 'diatonic' spelling of the six-note structure,"3 which leads inevitably to the augmented seventh D-Cx in C1. This is at least a plausible explanation for the appearance of Cx, even if it still fails to describe its function. It will also be noticed that while C1 is drawn from one whole-tone hexachord, C2 is drawn from its complement. This is of some significance in explaining the




SIMON PERRY

Fig. 10 Chords C1 and C2, whole-tone structure

Cl: D E F? (G#) a (A#) B# Cx

C2: B C# D# (E#) f# (Fx) Gx (Ax)

progressive nature of the tonicisation of the F# major triad in bs 11-18. While the resolution from C1 to the F# major triad is partially satisfactory, it does not generate the same feeling of stability heard in that from C2. The whole-tone series from which C1 is derived already contains F# and A#, thus the Fg major triad provides a less complete sense of resolution than it does after C2. In C2, neither F# nor A# is encountered in the particular whole-tone series on which it is based. This, and the fact that the notes C#, E# and Gx (which constitute the dominant of F# with the fifth raised) are found in its particular whole-tone series, means that the resolution from C2 (despite the absence of E# in the actual chord) to the F# major chord sounds more complete. The effect is not easily described, yet it quite substantially supports increasingly strong, non-traditional tonicisation of the F# major triad in the final bars of 'Con mortuis'.

'Catacombae' and 'Con mortuis': Tonal Centres and Scalar Reference

What conclusions may be drawn about the ultimate tonal centre of 'Con mortuis'? It is now clear that it is impossible to regard B as an unqualified tonal centre. Nor is it entirely satisfactory to regard F# in this way, for B obviously retains a strong tonal profile, not least in its being the final harmony of the piece. Neither of these solutions is analytically or aurally entirely satisfactory. A third possibility - less neat but ultimately more realistic and rewarding - may be put as follows: that the ending of 'Con mortuis' refers neither to B nor F# as the principal tonal centre, but that both B and F# co-exist in a tonally bivalent system. To regard B and F# in this manner requires that we recognise that both are defined by different processes. In the traditional sense B is more 'acceptable' as a tonal centre, being defined principally via the dominant F., whereas F#, while aurally strong, is established in a more unconventional manner. This suggests that F# may be understood in two different senses and, indeed, it is fair to say that F0 undergoes a sort of tonal transformation in the final bars of 'Con mortuis'. In 'Catacombae' and the first half of 'Con mortuis', F# is undoubtedly a structurally important pitch, but its obvious function is as a dominant, pointing to a tonic whose arrival is delayed until the very end. Yet just prior to this tonic ultimately arriving in b. 19 of 'Con mortuis', F# loses its dominant flavour and assumes such stability in bs 10-20 (as a result of processes described above) that it assumes a unique centricity of





its own. The relationship between B and F# has become, to all intents and purposes, 'dysfunctional'.

While it is an exciting possibility, this bivalence of B and F0 raises tangible objections to the hypothesis enunciated earlier concerning the tonal relationship between 'Catacombae' and 'Con mortuis'. How does 'Con mortuis' resolve the tonal tensions and ambiguities of 'Catacombae' when 'Con mortuis' is itself ill-defined? An immediate answer is that it does not; 'Catacombae' and 'Con mortuis' are linked in subject matter alone. But the question remains: if referentially linked, why not tonally linked? And this is a good question, particularly given Musorgsky's pedigree as a dramatic composer. While it is difficult to accept that 'Con mortuis' resolves 'Catacombae' in a traditional sense, this is not to say that a different (perhaps looser) type of relationship exists between them. For instance, it could be hypothesised that while the final B major sonority of 'Con mortuis' may represent the ultimate tonal goal of the processes of 'Catacombae', it is not necessarily felt, by the actual time of its arrival, as the direct outcome of the processes of 'Con mortuis'. Another way of viewing the relationship is to think of the tonal bivalence between G and B at the beginning of 'Catacombae' as shifting to a bivalent system based on F# and B. Thus, the motive G-F# is found to shift, at a deep structural level, against the fixed (but perhaps less clearly perceived) centre of B. This is all the more remarkable in that the tonal scheme of the two pieces reflects a minor variant of the opening motive of the Promenade theme, G- F#-B. This suggests highly ordered tonal thinking indeed.32

In the light of these ideas, some further aspects of 'Catacombae' should be considered. It was asserted above that the strongest tonal centres established here were G and B, while F# was important only in that it ultimately pointed to B. Now, having seen that there is a strong case for F# as a tonal centre in 'Con mortuis', it is necessary to re-examine the role played by F# in 'Catacombae'. Is it possible to regard the cadence on FO as a cadence to the tonic rather than to the dominant? If so then the cadence in b.11 is an unusual one, involving a tonic which is approached directly via the Neapolitan chord (in root position). This Neapolitan may be seen (though perhaps not initially heard as such) to begin in b.4, where the G major seventh chord is first set up. This passage is remarkably similar to the final bars of Act II from Boris Godunov, where a descending series of major thirds is heard against an A6 pedal (see Ex. 9). Here, the tonic is similarly approached via the Neapolitan chord.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that a similar progression occurs in bs 10-11 of 'Catacombae'. The chromatic texture is not as complete and the pedal is an upper rather than a lower one, but the evidence from Boris provides a degree of support to the possibility already presented by the pitch notations, that Musorgsky may have sought to define the tonal centre by means of a descending chromatic approach, via the Neapolitan, rather than the more traditional V-i definition." There is a massive difference in




SIMON PERRY

Ex. 9 Boris Godunov, end of Act II

? ; ,i. - Wl I1

BOR I S: Go- spo-di! Ty no kho-chesh' smer-ti gresh- ni-ka, Po- A

I l

I1f J

L-%o

I_ I

!" 1 Am

mi - lui du shu pre- stup-no-go tsa - ria Bo-ri- sa!

~5-

W Old aL 4W-~ LA * I .,

I - . IUiII '

- '? ),! if " "" !Ialb iI i' I i --k ?x"ki2 vK4,

PP~5

context here: the passage from Boris concludes an entire act - the curtain goes down and A6 is definitely the tonic. The passage from 'Catacombae' does not resemble it in this regard, but the comparison is sufficiently strong to provide further evidence of a weakening of the more traditional tonic, B minor.34

It should also be noted that this type of cadence has a Phrygian quality - in the case of 'Catacombae' F# Phrygian. This points to a further facet of Musorgsky's work which contributes to the obstructions to standard approaches to tonal centricity: the presence of modality, or modal inflection. Bearing in mind the G-based scale-form discussed earlier in relation to this passage, it is true that the notes and spellings required for F# Phrygian are also those of G Lydian. Of course, we are not dealing with





pure forms of the modes; in Musorgsky one must always be aware of the presence of contaminating factors in modal writing. In the case of 'Catacombae', the Af is acceptable as a corrupting influence, simply yielding a characteristically altered Phrygian, but the spelling Bb challenges the assumption of FO Phrygian as much as it does that of B minor. In other words, whether F# is taken as the dominant or as a tonal centre in its own right at this point, the pitch notations of this section still show a bivalent structure.

The presence of modal elements in Musorgsky's writing points to another problem for analysis: the 'variability' of scale degrees." In assuming 'Catacombae' to be in B minor, and by disregarding modalities other than the usual major and minor, we also assume that G and F# represent the sixth and fifth degrees of the scale. However, there can be no absolute certainty about these assumptions; G and FO might also be considered as 2 and i (or even i and 7). This is a further instance of the inevitably ill- defined nature of the relationship between bitonality and bimodality that coloured the findings above in relation to the coda of 'Limoges'.

Further evidence of this may even be observed in the seemingly clear- cut Promenade theme. Although this pentatonic theme, in its very first, unaccompanied appearance, suggests Bb as the tonic (as does the key signature), when it is immediately repeated with a harmonisation (bs 3-4 of the opening Promenade) it concludes with a perfect cadence in F major. In other words, in b.4 the motive G-F is heard, in a purely local context, not as 6-5, but as 2-i. This is not to suggest that the theme is in F major any more than it is to suggest that it is unambiguously in Bb major but, rather, to point to a very simple tonal question mark embedded in this pentatonic theme. Triadic prejudice impels many of us to favour 1--2-3-5-6 pentatonic structures over such non-triadic formulations as 1-2-4-5-6, but a cursory survey of the remaining Promenades shows some treating this motive variously as 6-5 or 2-i. To suggest that G-FO, as found in 'Catacombae' and 'Con mortuis', is a variant of G-F (which it clearly is) must also be to suggest that the variant carries the same ambiguous potential. This idea may have direct relevance to the cadence in bs 10-11 of 'Catacombae'. The opening phrase of the Promenade theme contains exactly eleven crotchet beats and these, with only a slight degree of imagination, may be compared loosely to the first eleven bars of 'Catacombae'. This comparison is shown in Ex. 10. It would be difficult to prove that any connection here was intentional, but there are, nonetheless, valid structural and 'gestural' points of comparison. It is not unreasonable to regard the three dramatic octaves which begin 'Catacombae' as a massive augmentation, both metric and intervallic, of the three notes which constitute the opening gesture of the Promenade theme. We find, also, that both the Promenade theme and the first phrase of 'Catacombae' end with the motive in regular (G-F) and altered (G-F#) form. This allows one to consider that both phrases begin and end with the same basic material,




SIMON PERRY

Ex. 10 Promenade theme and 'Catacombae', bs 1-11, compared

i- I, fPIto/ I --. - i i

Sf.

(I.,J~ I i. i',,:1. - r. [ -" 9 " "' i I O I I

pr t paim. .if'gfV P iM.ff din. pnpp

"it , "? ."! 1 "

.. ? i . L

(rr6

which, although substantially altered, is still identifiable. Thus, it is possible to imagine that, in playing massively upon the Promenade theme in the opening of 'Catacombae', Musorgsky has exploited and developed the very simple tonal ambiguities of the original idea.

4 The Analytical Potential of Notational Analysis in Musorgsky's Music

Some of the advantages, and limitations, of an analysis relying upon orthography will by now be apparent. The common expectations of notational analysis are that it is indicative of details of structure only at a surface level. While it is rich and rewarding at this level, it is usually felt that its essentially non-reductive nature would render it at best clumsy (at worst useless) in producing meaningful insights at deeper levels. In this way it is entirely different from graphic analysis (be it of a strictly Schenkerian or more liberal Salzerian kind). One would expect a notational analysis, therefore, to raise issues of a fundamentally different nature; to point to imprints of harmonic style and individuality of voice-leading; and to shed light, in the case of Musorgsky, on those 'tonal and modal schemes' which 'may be impossible to define safely in terms of usual theory'.36

While there may be some truth in this, I believe that there is evidence in the analysis above that orthography is capable of providing meaningful insight beyond foreground contexts. The case of the Cx in the final bars of 'Con mortuis' seems, to me, to be a particularly clear and powerful instance of this capability. The Cx is so important here because it represents the only instance of pc 2 that could be plotted as 3 of a fundamental descent from 3 in B minor, the apparent key of the piece.

246 MusIc ANALYSIS 14:2-3, 1995 ? Basil Blackwell Ltd. 1995




There seems to be simply no other alternative but for the analyst to resort to the expedient of respelling the pitch, assuming the need for a tonal interpretation of B minor. Being such a crucial pitch to the structure (if it was not crucial it would not need to be respelt) means that its respelling raises an important question: how drastically does this expedient alter our analytical perceptions of the piece, what do Cx and D? in turn represent (or misrepresent) in terms of the hierarchic language of the background structure? I shall not attempt to answer this comprehensively (although my views are probably clear by now), but will put forward a brief hypothesis. Assume that the Cxs in 'Con mortuis' were originally spelt, in the score, as Dts: a graphic analysis of this would entail considerably less orthographic agonising, but the ambiguous tonal effects felt at its conclusion would be no more adequately explained. For a Schenkerian analysis, D would be an essential part of the structure at a fundamental level. However, the notational analysis suggests that the pitch represented by Cx is not, itself, a primary constituent of the tonal structure (nor need it be), but that as spelt it is highly important to the understanding of that structure. I am aware that a contradiction may lurk in this statement but it surely remains worth considering. Another area of the potential for orthography to illuminate background structures in tonal music might well lie in those inner voices that are progressively shed by graphic reduction. As illustration of this I refer the reader back to the discussion of 'Catacombae' where the determination of structure - shown to be dependent on the spelling of pc 10 (A# or Bb) - relied upon an inner line that would probably not have been deemed fundamental in a more orthodox, graphic interpretation.

Not only do these examples show that notation may be pertinent to the understanding of deeper levels of structure, they also obliquely refer to larger issues of notation and analysis, particularly the (sometimes fractious) relationship between the musical language and the analytical one. The examples suggest that while a hierarchic system certainly remains one of the best and easiest ways to see and 'grasp' structure, it does not necessarily guarantee understanding, especially if the hierarchy inadver- tently distorts the picture in the process of clarifying it. The danger of such distortion seems to be particularly apparent in the analysis of music lying on the outer fringes of mainstream tonal practice (as Musorgsky's certainly does), where difficulties, or inconsistencies, would tempt a default on the part of the analyst to grammatical coherence where profounder findings threaten the analytical model itself. Music of this transitional type has always posed problems for analysis - strict, yet at the same time valid, Schenkerian approaches tend to require more orthodox music while set theory is often a contentious method in any music which retains a vestige of tonal ordering, however manifestly complex its chromaticism.37 It seems that, here as nowhere else, an opportunity is presented for viable alternatives to more established methods and that orthography might have something unique to offer. One need go no further than Cheong's




SIMON PERRY

remarkable work on Scriabin to see the emerging truth of this. In the light of these remarks, it is appropriate to consider the potential

role of orthography in an example from Musorgsky which has previously (and not inappropriately) attracted a set-theoretical approach rather than a Schenkerian one. Ex. 11 is from the second act of Boris Godunov, where the deceitful boyar Shuisky first informs the Tsar of the threat of a pretender. It is yet another example of Musorgsky's highly intuitive but at the same time logical orthographic practice. This passage has been singled out by Allen Forte, who pointed to the presence of whole-tone and (partially complete) octatonic scale forms in contrary motion in the orchestral descant and bass line respectively.38 This structure is very clearly represented by the orthography which shows the sharpening and flattening effects of the spelling of each degree of these scale forms with a successive letter name, that is to say 'diatonically'.39 This offers an interesting perspective from which to view the highly systematic (although traditionally non-functional) movement from the initial CG- environment to the enharmonically equivalent F#. These scalar motions 'intersect' at C, marking the tritonal mid-point between CG and F#. Anyone familiar with Boris Godunov will realise that the tritone is of great structural and dramatic significance throughout the opera. Allen Forte has demonstrated this most emphatically in his analysis, where he has raised the issue of tritonal opposition as a dramatic mechanism throughout the work.40 The place at which the importance of the tritone first becomes unmistakably apparent to the listener is at the beginning of the 'Coronation' scene (second scene of the Prologue). Here, the tritone is brought into focus as the basis of differentiation between the two major-minor seventh chords which alternate without interruption for 38 bars (Ex. 12). These two chords constitute what Forte describes variously as 'Source Motive 1' or the 'Coronation Chord'." He observes that the 'Coronation Chord' is derived from an octatonic collection and that the constituent AVt and D'

Ex. 11 Boris Godunov, Act II, rehearsal No. 76

accelerando

J accelerando cres. cf IL, I-, ..... U

248 MUSIC ANALYSIS 14:2-3, 1995 C Basil Blackwell Ltd. 1995




chords contain both 'common' and 'unique' elements, the common being the notes C-F# (or Gb), forming a tritone, the unique being the notes Ab and Eb (in Ab'), and D and A (in D'). This lays the basis for further insight into the deployment of this source motive in the episode from Act II, which is the core subject of Forte's analysis, and for the discussion of octatonic structures throughout Boris Godunov in general.

Ex. 12 Boris Godunov, Prologue, scene 2, bs 1-4

~] b

-----04

Odf s~p----- ~fp5~:~ILI Jp 2=LL

While Forte's observation on variance and invariance between these two chords is appropriate from a set-theoretical viewpoint, it is inaccurate from a notational one, which does not assume that F# and GC are one and the same thing. From a notational perspective, the only invariant between AV, and D' is C. Ex. 13 displays the two chords linearly arranged along a 'diatonically' spelt octatonic scale. It shows not only how F# and GC occur at different ends of the scale, but also that the D' and AtV chords themselves lie towards different sides of this octatonic 'spectrum'. Conceptually, this implies a certain 'distance' between F# and Gt, and while this is somewhat implicit in the juxtaposition of the chords in the Coronation scene, it is quite explicitly spelt out in Ex. 11. Of further note is that while

Ex. 13 Octatonic derivation of 'Coronation Chords'

D7




SIMON PERRY

the two Coronation chords and the bass line of the passage in Ex. 11 are derived from different octatonic collections, the chords are in fact 'nested' in the outer lines of Ex. 11. As illustrated in Ex. 14, alternate elements in the top and bottom lines yield the notes of the two chords, which are grouped neatly to either side of the central C.

Ex. 14 Nesting of 'Coronation Chords' in outer lines of Ex. 11

,A7

AkD7

What is the significance of these different enharmonic representations of the same pitch class - Gj and FO? Possibly it signifies something of the tension produced by tonal elements lingering in Musorgsky's foray into symmetrical structures. If GC and FO are considered to be in no way different, then their relationship to C is one that is perfectly symmetrical within the octave, and one which is most accurately expressed as 0-6, these numbers representing equidistant points on a line which is an octatonic scale. In these terms the relationship C-F? is no different to C-GI. However, as soon as these notes are considered to express different intervallic relationships - the augmented fourth and diminished fifth, along with their tonal meaning - then their symmetry within the octave must be regarded as flawed; the notes C and F?, say, cannot be regarded as 'equidistant' because they will not 'replicate' through higher or lower octave ranges of a single octatonic scale. (For example, the ascending series of augmented fourths yields C-F#-B#-Ex etc.) This implies an unequal relationship between C and GbWF, as is implied by the axial role of C in Exs 11 and 12. Indeed, it seems axiomatic of the transitional nature of the passages cited here that within the apparent symmetry of the octatonic structure lies more than a trace of tonal hierarchy. An interesting comparison may be drawn from this observation in which FO and GC may be seen to form 'upper' and 'lower' tritones in relation to C, just as G? and F? would form the dominant and sub-dominant in traditional tonality.42 This lends support to the line of argument which states that (regardless of intent) composers moving away from tonal common practice were





unavoidably influenced by the tonal inheritance of orthography, that notational practice necessarily governed, to some extent, their transitional explorations.

This article began by stating that Musorgsky's notations were often 'strange'. I hope that by now 'meaningful' is felt be a more appropriate adjective. Beyond that, it would be gratifying to think that orthography is slowly coming into its own as a method which might answer questions about those 'tonal and modal schemes', not only of Musorgsky, but of many composers of the so-called post-tonal or transitional area, the awkward adolescence of atonality. Musorgsky is but one composer who exemplifies the problems faced by those who were moving well and truly beyond common practice. In his case the orthography is essentially intuitive and shows a reliance on crude models of voice-leading in the face of highly complex tonal procedures. It is hard to deduce a 'theory' of orthographic practice for him, and consequently hard to develop a consistent methodology, yet the implications of his notational practice remain demonstrably significant. In stark contrast to Musorgsky is a composer such as Bart6k, whom we know to have been highly methodical in his approach to pitch notation.43 Bart6k had the advantage of hindsight. His notational practice, post-1930, was part of a determined re-invention of tonality in the wake of not only his own atonal endeavours but also a crisis in, and abandonment of, tonality at large. Hence the self-conscious rigour of his approach and the highly individual concept of this 'new tonality'. Musorgsky's concept of tonality, conversely, never underwent such a revolutionary phase. Instead, it developed in the tame nineteenth- century musical backwater that was St. Petersburg, growing out of what minimal training he had received. It is even ironic to think that it might have been due to such unselfconscious experiments as Musorgsky's that the possibilities for self-conscious renewal could afford themselves to someone such as Bart6k, some fifty years later. Between the chronological and methodological extremes of Musorgsky and Bart6k lies Scriabin, who claimed to have a method - a claim posthumously vindicated by analysis - but never himself expounded upon it.44 Orthographically, there remain many gaps between Musorgsky, Scriabin and Bart6k, but one senses that it is now only a matter of time before they are filled in.

NOTES

1. Without wishing to confer great analytical significance on the example, one need go no further than the 39th bar of Boris Godunov, where Musorgsky's GC[ (viola part) becomes Rimsky's F#, to find an initial instance of this type of enharmonic alteration. Moreover, alterations of this kind are not restricted to Rimsky-Korsakov's revisions. The complete edition of Musorgsky's works




SIMON PERRY

prepared by Pavel Lamm (Moscow: State Music Publishers, 1928-34, repr. New York: Kalmus, 1969) contains its own subtle alterations. Robert Oldani has written of Lamm's Boris that 'Throughout the score Lamm supplies key signatures where Musorgsky had written none, thereby making judgements about key'. See 'Editions of Boris Godunov', Musorgsky In Memoriam: 1881- 1981, ed. Malcolm H. Brown (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1982), p.197. This insertion of key signatures also appears in Lamm's edition of Pictures at an Exhibition, and quite likely in other works, although I have not been able to verify this.

2. See George Perle, 'Scriabin's Self-Analyses', Music Analysis, Vol. 3, No. 2 (1984), pp. 101-22.

3. p.101. 4. See Cheong Wai-Ling, 'Orthography in Scriabin's Late Works', Music

Analysis, Vol. 12, No. 1 (1993), pp.47-69. 5. See Malcolm Gillies, Notation and Tonal Structure in Bartdk's Later Works

(New York: Garland, 1989). 6. See Gillies, 'Pitch Notations and Tonality: Bart6k', Models of Musical

Analysis: Early Twentieth-Century Music, ed. Jonathan Dunsby (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), p.44.

7. Interesting to note in this light is the placement of Musorgsky's 'The noisy festival is over' [Okonchen prazdnyi, shumnyi den'] from Without Sun under the classification of 'Modern' in as standard an undergraduate text as Claude Palisca's Norton Anthology of Western Music (2nd edn, Vol. II, pp.714-18). (It is inexplicable, however, that Liszt's Nuages Gris appears in the same collection under the heading 'Romantic', pp.254-5.)

8. Modest Musorgsky, Complete Works, ed. Pavel Lamm (Moscow: State Music Publishers 1928-34, repr. New York: Kalmus, 1969), Vol. 13, p.12. Subse- quent examples from Musorgsky's works are quoted from the following sources: Boris Godunov, ed. David Lloyd-Jones (London: OUP, 1975); Pictures at an Exhibition, ed. Manfred Schandert, (Vienna: Wiener Urtext Edition, 1984).

9. See Gillies, 'Pitch Notations', p.51. 10. Max Reger, Prelude and Fugue, Op. 131a, No. 1, for solo violin, from

Sdmtliche Werke (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Hiirtel, 1957), Vol. 24, p.135. 11. Rimsky-Korsakov provided, in a suitably didactic fashion, a compromise

model along these lines in his harmony text, first published in 1886. See Practical Manual of Harmony, trans. Joseph Achron, 7th edn (New York: Carl Fischer, 1930), pp.77-8.

12. Another of Rimsky's 'apparent' editorial corrections cannot escape mention here. In his edition Ex. 3a is rendered with Ets in lieu of Fs.

13. See Janos Kairpaiti, Bart6k's String Quartets, trans. Fred Macnicol (Budapest: Corvina Press, 1975), pp.137-58.

14. See p.138. 15. See pp.144-6. 16. p.145.





17. However, the Promenade theme is based on a different pentatonic: F-G-B& -C-D.

18. M.-D. Calvocoressi, Modest Mussorgsky: His Life and Works, ed. Gerald Abraham (London: Rockliff, 1956), pp.256-7.

19. See Alfred Frankenstein, 'Victor Hartmann and Modeste Musorgsky', Musical Quarterly, Vol. 25 (1939), p.286.

20. The translation is from Manfred Schandert's Critical Notes to the Wiener Urtext Edition.

21. Of this latter piece Stasov wrote to Rimsky-Korsakov, 'Then, above a tremolo in minor, comes the first Promenade theme; this is the glimmering of little lights in the skulls; here, suddenly, Hartmann's enchanting poetic appeal to Musorgsky rings out....' Stasov to Rimsky-Korsakov, 1 July 1874, quoted in Alexandra Orlova, Musorgsky's Days and Works: A Biography in Documents, ed. and trans. Roy J. Guenther (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1983), p.419.

22. See Derrick Puffett, 'A Graphic Analysis of Musorgsky's "Catacombs"', Music Analysis Vol. 9, No. 1 (1990), pp.67-77.

23. Puffett writes, 'Here F# is prolonged with such insistence that, to my ears at least, the final B major triad sounds inconclusive, more like a subdominant than a tonic' (p.71).

24. p.73. 25. See the second graph, p.70. 26. Impossible to ignore in the second line of Fig. 6b is the complete encirclement

of F#, which suggests the further alternative of F# as tonal centre without ultimate recourse to B. The significance of this possibility will become clearer after the discussion of 'Con mortuis'.

27. These two chords are also remarkable in that 'Limoges', which directly precedes 'Catacombae', is in E6 major while 'The Hut on Hen's Legs', which follows 'Con mortuis', is in C minor, but with numerous outbursts of the tonic major.

28. See p.71. 29. Most of the Promenades are similarly structured, although the first one and

that preceding 'Limoges' are somewhat greater in size and have more of a sense of being independent pieces. 'Con mortuis' does offer one significant departure, however, from all other Promenades in the work: it is the only Promenade to act as a postlude rather than a prelude.

30. These chords are regarded as comprising the entire pitch content of the bar in which they appear with the exception of the A# in bs 15 and 17, which clearly does not belong to C2 but is an anticipation of the A# in the F# major triad of the following bar.

31. Attempts to spell even-noted octave structures (whole-tone or octatonic scales) with a successive letter name for each degree, i.e. 'diatonically', result in sharpening or flattening effects. (For example, whole-tone: C D E F G# A# B# Cx etc., octatonic: C D E6 F GC Ab B, C6 DLb ELetc.) This simple phenomenon is discussed in more detail in reference to the examples from Boris in the final section of the article. Further discussion of the effect and its

MUSIC ANALYSIS 14:2-3, 1995 253 (0 Basil Blackwell Ltd. 1995



SIMON PERRY

analytical significance (or lack of significance) is found in the work of Perle, Gillies and Cheong cited above.

32. Apropos this structural movement of G-F# it is worth mentioning that the next piece, 'The Hut on Hen's Legs', opens with a sudden reversal of the process: F#-G. This is not a unique occurrence; other retrograde motivic relationships may be found. For example: the motive B-G# in 'Tuilleries' is reversed to become G#-B in the following number, 'Bydlo'; within the 'Two Polish Jews', E -Db, a motive embedded in the ornamental texture of the opening (bs 1-8), is reversed and re-spelt DL-FL at the beginning of the third section of that piece (bs 19-25), the enharmonic change not being without significant tonal implications; and, by far the most grandiose of these schemes, the very first three notes of the suite, G-F-BL, are found in retrograde in the bass line, BL-F-G-EL, of the final cadence of the entire work (see 'The Bogatyr Gate', bs 167-74). The most fascinating aspect to these retrograde motivic relationships is the way in which most of them (obviously excepting those found within a single piece) supply a non-programmatic linkage between such programmatically different images.

33. In the example from Boris, of course, the long range structural movement of E[ to A6 which underlies the final pages of Act 11 is also an important factor in the definition of At as tonic.

34. There are numerous other examples of this type of 'Neapolitan cadence' to be found in Musorgsky's music, a notable case being the recurring cadence found in 'Lullaby' [Kolybel'naia], No 1 from the 'Songs and Dances of Death'; see bs 37, 42, 47 and 53-4.

35. M.-D. Calvocoressi invented the term 'variable scale' in order better to explain many of the modal aspects of Musorgsky's music. (See Calvocoressi, Chapters 16-18.)

36. Calvocoressi, p.257. 37. V. Kofi Agawu has several important points in relation to these concerns. See,

for example, 'Schenkerian Notation in Theory and Practice', Music Analysis, Vol. 8, No. 3 (1989), pp.275-301, in particular his fourth and fifth sections (pp.286-94) where he discusses, respectively, the relation between the musical language and the hierarchic notation of graphic analysis (and its status as a metalanguage), and the problems posed by post-tonal music and the irreconcilable positions in relation to such music of set-theory analysis, on the one hand, and Schenkerian analysis, on the other.

38. See Allen Forte, 'Musorgsky as Modernist: The Phantasmic Episode in Boris Godunov', Music Analysis, Vol. 9, No. 1 (1990), pp.10-13. The applicability of set-theory analysis to this type of music is a moot point, but this remains an excellent and useful article, and is indispensable for anyone wishing to embark on a serious study of Boris Godunov.

39. It is not without significance that this 'diatonic' spelling effect is relied upon in part by Perle in his decision procedures for the segmentation of octatonic structures in Scriabin, see pp.102-4.

40. The remarks which follow owe much to the observations made in the early





sections of Forte's article, pp.4-13. 41. Forte uses the singular to describe both chords as a whole. However, in my

own observations I refer to them as the 'Coronation chords', the distinction being necessary for purposes of the notational approach.

42. These factors of notational hierarchy may assume further significance in the light of the semantic connotations of various pitch classes. Forte has noted that certain pitches maintain clear 'referential dramatic functions' within the opera, and has shown how they are set against each other in tritonal relation, thus representing concepts which are, in various ways, dramatically opposed. For example, 'Boris as Tsar' (Al) is set against 'Boris as Murderer' (D), while C and F# are said to refer to the Muscovite People and the Boyars, respectively (see Forte, pp.5-6). These last two referential connotations are interesting in that (in the contexts briefly explored here, at least) the pitch assigned to the People is axial and stable, while that assigned to the Boyars is extreme, and changeable. Of course, one may regard the People as having a certain fickleness, but it is more of a blind, unwitting kind, not corrupt and duplicitous as is that of the Boyars. This, in turn, might suggest that notation (not merely pitch) has a role in some facets of dramatic structure in the work.

43. See Gillies, 'Pitch Notation', pp.43ff. 44. See Perle, p.101.


