Scriabins Harmonic Language Manifestatio PDF

SCRIABIN’S HARMONIC LANGUAGE: MANIFESTATIONS OF SYMMETRY IN
OPUS 52 AND A TRANSCRIPTION FOR CHAMBER ORCHESTRA
by
Suzanna Pavlovsky
Bachelor of Music in Orchestral Conducting

Tel-Aviv University, 1994
Master of Music in Orchestral Conducting

Michigan State University, 1998
Master of Arts in Music Theory

Eastman School of Music, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Musical Arts in Orchestral Conducting in the
School of Music
University of South Carolina
2010
Donald Portnoy, Major Professor
Daniel Jenkins, Document Adviser
Andrew Gowan, Committee Member
Samuel Douglas, Committee Member
Jennifer Ottervik, Committee Member
James Buggy, Dean of the Graduate School

© Copyright by Suzanna Pavlovsky, 2010
All Rights Reserved.
ii
DEDICATION
This document is the result of long-term labor and commitment to the subject
matter. I would like to dedicate this manuscript to my husband, Dimitry. Without his
constant and continuous support, financial, moral, and emotional, it would never have
come into existence in its final shape and form. Additionally, my son also deserves a
special apology for many hours that I did not spend with him while working on this
demanding, but at the same time rewarding, project.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Of the many people to whom I am indebted for their assistance and understanding
during preparation of this document a few individuals deserve special thanks. One of
these is Daniel Harrison, a former music theory professor from the Eastman School of
Music, who originally sparked my interest in Scriabin in general and his harmonic
language in particular. Harrison’s personal interest and passion for this subject had a
great impact on my desire to explore Scriabin’s harmonic system in detail and to
investigate its application into his music. Further appreciation goes to J. Daniel Jenkins,
assistant professor of music theory at the University of South Carolina, who shared with
me his time and knowledge while supervising my work on this document. To a professor
at the University of South Carolina, Samuel Douglas, for supervising the transcription of
Scriabin’s Op. 52 for string orchestra and sharing with me inside tips and tricks for
writing for string instruments. Additionally, I would like to thank the dedicated crew of
musicologist/theorist Peter Hoyt, pianist Marina Lomazov, and composer John Fitz
Rogers, all of whom shared their expertise with me while discussing numerous aspects of
Scriabin’s music and ways to interpret it from the historian’s, performer’s, and
composer’s point of view. I must express deep gratitude to Jennifer Ottervik, the head of
the USC School of Music Library, who guided me throughout the process of writing this
document. Finally, I am grateful to my dear friend David Schroeder who spent hours
helping me with the notation of the transcription.
iv
ABSTRACT
This book is dedicated to the Russian composer Alexander Scriabin and his
unique harmonic language. Notion of symmetry and its numerous manifestations will be
the primary focus and lenses through which Scriabin’s harmonic language will be
explored in greater detail. The piano cycle Trois Morceaux, Opus 52 has been chosen as
an exemplary work for the analysis. Finally, transcription of the Trois Morceaux, Opus
52 for chamber orchestra will conclude this work.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION..….............................................................................................................iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.....................................................................................….......iv
ABSTRACT..............................................................................................................….......v
LIST OF EXAMPLES.......................................................................................................vii
CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................1

Justification............................................................................................................2
Literature Review..................................................................................................3
Design, Procedures, and Limitations of This Study..............................................6
CHAPTER TWO. DIFFERENT THEORIES OF SYMMETRY.......................................8

Ernő Lendvai’s Model of the Axis System……………………………………...8
Boleslav Yavorsky’s Double-Mode System……………………………………14
Varvara Dernova’s Analytical System: The Function of the Tritone…………..17
CHAPTER THREE. ANALYSIS OF TROIS MORCEAUX, OPUS 52............................29

Symmetry as a General Phenomenon and Foundation of Scriabin’s
Compositional Design.........................................................................................29
Trois Morceaux, Op. 52, no. 1.............................................................................33
Cadences as the Tonal Focal Points of Scriabin’s Compositional Design..........38
Some Thoughts on Melodic-motivic Gestures in Op. 52, no. 3..........................64
CHAPTER FOUR. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR FURTHER STUDY...................................................................................66
CHAPTER FIVE. A TRANSCRIPTION OF TROIS MORCEAUX, OP. 52 FOR

CHAMBER ORCHESTRA................................................................................69
BIBLIOGRAPHY.......………………………………………………………………...…99
vi
LIST OF EXAMPLES
2.1 Elaboration of primary triads on ^1, ^4, and ^5 by their relative triads..............10
2.2 Entire complex of T, SD, and D including their four representatives,
outlined in C major..............................................................................................11
2.3 From Lendvai, The Workshop of Bartók and Kodály, 276..................................12
2.4 From Lendvai, The Workshop of Bartók and Kodály, 288..................................14
2.5 Examples 2.5a and b from McQuere, “The Theories of Boleslav
Yavorsky,” in Russian Theoretical Thought in Music, 114................................16
2.6 A combination of the two incomplete Dominant seventh chords a tritone
apart, resulting in D7b5.......................................................................................18
2.7 Enharmonic equivalence of D7b5 and D4/3b5 in two keys a tritone apart.........18
2.8 Figure 2 from Dernova, The Harmony of Scriabin, 21.......................................19
2.9 Figures 3 and 4 from Dernova, The Harmony of Scriabin, 22............................19
2.11 Figures 6a and 6b from Dernova, The Harmony of Scriabin, 23........................20
2.13 Figure 8 from Dernova, The Harmony of Scriabin, 23-24..................................22
2.14 Figures 9 and 10 from Dernova, The Harmony of Scriabin, 25..........................23
2.15 Different combinations of chords and chord members of the two Dominants....24
2.16 Figures 85a, b, and c from Dernova, The Harmony of Scriabin, 98,
transposed to C-F# major tritone related tonic complex.....................................25
2.17 Figure 84 from Dernova, The Harmony of Scriabin, 97.....................................26
3.1 Different aspects of Scriabin’s musical language based on the principle
of symmetry.........................................................................................................30
3.2 Overall tonal design of Op. 52............................................................................31
3.3 Shared common tones in the three pieces of Op. 52...........................................32
3.4 Overall bass line of the entire Op. 52, no. 1........................................................37
3.5 Bass motion of the Second Theme (mm. 16-25 and 39-49)................................38
3.6 Foreground of the voice-leading in mm. 24-25 in Op. 52, no. 1.........................40
3.7 Final cadence in mm. 48-49 in Op. 52, no.1.......................................................42
3.8 Voice-leading in the final cadence (mm. 48-49) in Op. 52, no. 1.......................42
3.9 Formal structure of Op. 52, no. 2........................................................................45
3.10 Overall functional layout in the key of Db Major...............................................46
3.11 Root motion in the bass by minor thirds in Op. 52, no. 2...................................47
3.12 Contrapuntal voice-leading motion in mm. 1-24................................................48
3.13 Enharmonic equivalence of Ab9b5 – D9b5........................................................48
3.14 Contrapuntal motion of the auxiliary cadence in mm. 23-24..............................51
3.15 Overall bass motion of the “Big Enharmonic Sequence” through

both A and B sections........................................................................................52
3.16 Functional design of Op. 52, no. 2......................................................................52
3.17 Whole-tone pentachord collection derived from D7b5#5 of Db major..............53
3.18 D7#5 in G major versus D9#5 in Db major........................................................53
vii
3.19 Compression of the two Dominants a tritone apart resulting in a
whole-tone scale..................................................................................................56
3.20 Reduced version of the middle ground of Op. 52, no. 3.....................................57
3.21 Three main functions on ^1, ^4, and ^5 and their chordal root
representatives a tritone apart..............................................................................58
3.22 Overall functional cycle in the middle section of Op. 52, no. 3…......................58
3.23 Enharmonicism of the two Dominants a tritone apart, F#9add6
and C9b5#5, resulting in the whole-tone scale when combined.........................60
3.24 “Phrygian” half cadence in mm. 3-4……………………………………….......61
3.25 Mm. 3-4 and mm. 9-11 of Op. 52, no. 3........................................................62-63
viii
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Skryabin combined contradictions. A fantastic with a

mystical twist, a megalomaniac who now spoke with
complete conviction of his own divines and then, on the
other hand, a rationalist seeking in music scheme,
geometry, harmoniousness that was mathematical. . . .
Skryabin swept over the Russian musical world as some
meteor or comet, foreign in its essence yet logically
determined by the whole course of preceding history.1
Russian composer Alexander Scriabin is one of the most fascinating figures

among composers of so-called post-Romanticism. His music sprouts from his mystical-
philosophical views and, as a result, is enigmatic in its various components, especially in
its harmonic language. The music attracts many theorists around the world who try to
unravel Scriabin’s genius.
Scriabin is a particularly remarkable figure. Fluent in the techniques of Romantic
composition, he developed bold new approaches to the tonal organization of his works.
Although Scriabin’s music still retains a sense of tonality, it often deviates from common
practice tonality in various ways, especially in its harmonic language. Significantly, this
language often reflects the composer’s philosophical and mystical views, apparent even
from the titles of his works: Symphony no. 3, Le Divin Poème, Op. 43, Le Poème de
l’extase, Op. 54, and Prométhée-Le poeme du feu, Op. 60. Such views prompted him to
search for new ways of musical expression. The result is a mysteriously complicated and
intense harmonic web of unusual or non-traditional harmonies and harmonic
progressions. This extraordinary complexity has been posing a challenge to the
international music theoretical scholarly community for many years.
1. Leonid Sabaneev, Modern Russian Composers (New York: International Publishers, 1927), 40.
2
Justification
Scriabin’s harmonic system is a unique phenomenon not only in Russian music at
the beginning of the twentieth century, but also in the history of Western European
music. His harmonies amazed contemporaries with their unusual and remarkable sound.
It is not surprising, therefore, that his name commonly appears on lists of twentieth-
century contemporary composers whose musical language was different from their
predecessors of the nineteenth century. Lists often include the music of Schoenberg,
Debussy, early Stravinsky, later Prokofiev, and commonly start with Alexander Scriabin.
It is my belief that Scriabin and his music are misunderstood in the West. There
seem to be two reasons for this misunderstanding. First, because Scriabin’s music often
sounds “non-tonal,” contemporary theorists try to explain it by applying modern
analytical techniques that were designed for completely different repertoires. These
methods, however, are not convincing. Not only do they often produce unmusical results,
but also they lack appropriate historical perspective. For example, even though set theory
can account for the local events on the surface level, it fails to explain compositional
tonal organization within a broader context.2 Second, attempts to combine inherently
different theories can also produce unsatisfactory results because these theories may be
based on contradictory assumptions. Schenkerian analysis and set theory, for example,
presume quite different notions of chord structure.3
Literature Review
Various theories on Scriabin’s harmonic language have been introduced by
scholars of Scriabin’s music. Not all of them, however, are convincing. Some are more
local and descriptive, trying to explain different chord structures based on different
phenomena. Theoretical and analytical approaches of this type include explanations of
Scriabin’s sonorities based on the higher members of the overtone series (Sabaneev),
dominant-like derivations (Dernova), quartal sonorities (Samson), or even chordal and
2. See, for example, Allen Forte, The Structure of Atonal Music (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale
University Press, 1973), 28.
3. See, for example, James M. Baker, “Schenkerian Analysis and Post-tonal Music,” in Aspects of
Schenkerian Theory, ed. David W. Beach (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1983), 153-86.
3
melodic derivations from various exotic and synthetic scales (Roberts).4 Other
descriptions are more global and provide more of the general overall harmonic-melodic
organization of Scriabin’s compositions in their entirety. These analyses include works
of Polish musicologist Sofia Lissa, whose analysis of Scriabin’s music is based on
serialism.5 An American theorist, George Perle, among others, continued this approach.6
There is also a vast body of literature on Scriabin’s music based on octatonic,
whole-tone scales, or other types of modes of limited transposition (Callender).7 But it is
my belief, that, although present on the surface level, these scalar formations are the
outcome of the higher tonal organizational principles, and furthermore, they play a
secondary and subsidiary role in Scriabin’s overall tonal design.
The American theorist James Baker made another analytical attempt by
combining two different theories, pitch-class set theory and Schenkerian analysis, in
order to create plausible explanations of Scriabin’s compositions. However, the
application of different theories that were not designed for this type of music, especially
in their combination, is a misleading way to understand the musical intentions of a
composer. In fact, such an approach fails to be convincing because these two theories,
inherently different in nature, are unable to give a true comprehensive analysis. It is my
belief that the chosen type(s) of analysis should be also rooted in and based upon the
historical contemporary background of the composer, taking into consideration the
composer’s surrounding cultural environment as well as contemporary compositional
theory and practice.
4. Leonid Sabaneev, “Ultrochromaticheskaia Polemika,” Muzikal’nii Sovremennik, nom. 2 (1916)

[Леонид Сабанеев, “Ультрохроматическая Полемика,” Музыкальный Современник, ном. 2 (1916) =
Leonid Sabaneev, “Ultrochromatic Polemics,” Musical Contemporary, no. 2 (1916)]; Varvara Dernova,
Garmonia Scriabina (Leningrad: Muzika, 1968), 21 [Βарвара Depнова, Γармония Скрябина
(Ленинград: Музыка, 1968), 21 = Varvara Dernova, The Harmony of Scriabin (Leningrad: Music, 1968),
21]; Jim Samson, Music in Transition: A Study of Tonal Expansion and Atonality, 1900-1920 (London:
Dent, 1977); Peter Deanne Roberts, Modernism in Russian Piano Music, Vols. 1 and 2 (Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1993).
5. Zofia Lissa, “Geschichtliche Vorform der Zwolftontechnik,” Acta Musicologica 7 (January

1935): 15-21.
6. George Perle, Serial Composition and Atonality, 4th ed. (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1977), 41-43.
7. Clifton Callender, “Voice-leading Parsimony in the Music of Alexander Scriabin,” Journal of
Music Theory 42, no. 2 (Autumn 1998): 219-33.
4
In his overview of what has been done in the analytical music theory field, Roy J.
Guenther lists one more description of Scriabin’s harmonic phenomenon, namely atonal:
It seems to be a catch-all term which takes over when more
traditional analytical terminology is thwarted by Skryabin’s
failure to provide a concluding tonic, frequently between
Op. 51 and Op. 60, and consistently from Op. 61 to Op. 74.
Despite the somewhat widespread use of the term, little in
the way of supporting evidence has been supplied to justify
its validity or to explain how ‘atonal’ music can have both
a pitch and a chord structure as a focal point.8
My understanding of Scriabin’s music is in tandem with Roy J. Guenther’s point

of view. Although Scriabin’s music features atonal properties on the surface level, and
thus alludes to atonal sound in general, there is a greater tonal mechanism that navigates
the entire musical texture and structure of his works. Let us remind ourselves that
Scriabin’s musical aesthetics grew out of solid tonal traditions based on a combination of
both Russian orthodox polyphony, introduced to Scriabin by his counterpoint mentor
Taneev, and functional theory, which was and still is the most prominent theory in
Russia. As Peter Deane Roberts mentions,
Russian composers in general showed little interest in
atonal techniques. . . . Rather than abandon tonality
composers preferred to weaken it in favor of modal
resources, so that instead of dominating structure, tonality
tended to function more on a par with other elements.
Russian music developed in its own way from its own
resources.9
It is fascinating to acknowledge how many different analytical methods and

models have been employed in interpreting Scriabin’s music. To me, this proves that
Scriabin’s genius deserves a closer analytical look keeping in mind national musical
traditions, musical-philosophical theories at the end of the nineteenth century, as well as
the natural personal development of Scriabin’s being as a composer-philosopher,
mysticist, poet, but at the same time a logical rationalist.
8. Roy J. Guenther, “Varvara Dernova’s System of Analysis of the Music of Skryabin,” in Russian
Musical Thought in Music, ed. Gordon D. McQuere (Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Research Press, 1983),
168.
9. Roberts, Modernism in Russian Piano Music, Vol. 1, 121.
5
Who was he, this central Scriabin? A composer, pianist,
poet, mystic, solipsist, and a semi-, neo-, theo-philosopher.
All these disparate talents, facts, dreams, concepts and
fantasies combined in the cauldron of his genius. The brew
was patent music-magic. He was a musical thaumaturge
and mystagogue, and he earned for his name a quota of
immortality.10
Design, Procedures, and Limitations of This Study

Analytical chapters of this document are devoted to Scriabin's harmonic language.
Notion of symmetry and its numerous manifestations will be the primary focus and lenses
through which Scriabin’s harmonic language will be explored in greater detail. The
piano cycle Trois Morceaux, Op. 52 has been chosen as an exemplary work for the
analysis.
Different theories will be introduced to the reader. The concept of symmetry will
be explored in its different dimensions and applied on different levels. I will attempt to
combine two theoretical approaches: functional theory and Schenkerian analysis.
Although they look at musical phenomena from different angles, these theories, both
designed for tonal repertoire by concentrating on and emphasizing different details,
complement each other, thus resulting in a more comprehensive analysis. The analytical
part will be based mostly on Yavorsky’s and Dernova’s methodological approaches. The
main issues that will be addressed in the document are:
1. Chord structures/formations and their classification;
2. Chord progressions formed into sequences and phrases;
3. Cadences as the focal tonal points of arrival;
4. Harmonic-melodic and melodic-motivic techniques creating unity
within a composition.
The final chapter of this document will include a transcription of Trois Morceaux,
Opus 52 for chamber orchestra, providing a different color palette through the tone and
timbre of the stringed instruments. Not only will such an application enrich the repertoire
for a chamber orchestra, but it will also promote these remarkable miniature masterworks
to be performed more frequently.
10. Faubion Bowers, Scriabin: A Biography, 2nd ed. (New York: Dover Publications, 1996), 76.
6
CHAPTER TWO
DIFFERENT THEORIES OF SYMMETRY
Ernő Lendvai’s Model of the Axis System

In his book, The Workshop of Bartók and Kodály, Hungarian theorist Ernő
Lendvai introduced the theory of the axis system. According to him, since symmetry
plays a very important role in the repertoire composed during the late nineteenth and
twentieth centuries, the axis system becomes the core foundation of its tonal organization.
He applies this theory mostly to the music of Bartók and Kodály, but other compositions
of a few different composers from the late nineteenth century are also cited as supporting
examples:
Bartók’s tonal system grew out of classical harmony, it
represents an organic development—and in a certain sense
the completion—of European functional thinking.
According to Bartók, “every art has the right to strike its
roots in a previous age,—it not only has the right to but it
must stem from it.”11
Lendvai’s characterization of Bartók’s compositional tonal organization can be

freely applied to Scriabin’s music. Lendvai gives a list of characteristic features of
Bartók’s system, which share with traditional music the following:12
1. the fifth affinities between the individual functions (the most simple I—
IV, V—I and II—V—I cadences),
2. the kinship between keys of the same key-signature (the relative major
and minor scales),
3. the modal “maggiore—minore” changes, well-known from older music,
4. the traditional third-construction of triads, seventh and ninth chords,
5. the role of the leading notes and “sensitive tones,”
11. Ernő Lendvai, The Workshop of Bartók and Kodaly (Budapest: Editio Musica, 1983), 270.
12. I have omitted some of Lendvai’s points in my list, i.e., (b), (h), and (j), because they do not
apply to Scriabin’s music.
7
6. the common notes connecting adjacent chords,
7. the physical and acoustic laws of music – primarily, the natural
overtone relations,
8. the reverse tension of the dominant and subdominant; in wider sense:
the duality of “authentic” and “plagal” ways of thinking,
9. the interaction between tonal “asymmetrical” and atonal “symmetrical”
elements (a significant impelling force in the development of European
music),13
10. the function of “complementary keys” neutralizing each other, and so
on.14
These important characteristics of conventional tonal music are definitely present
in Scriabin’s works, and, furthermore, they function as the foundation of his harmonic
system. I will rely on these characteristics in my analyses and will attempt to prove that
Scriabin’s music stems from and is built on traditional functional relationships among the
three functions: Tonic, Subdominant, and Dominant.15 In addition, I will provide a
discussion of Scriabin’s own applications of a conventional functional system in greater
detail.
* * *
As we know, I – IV – V – I affinities in European music established a functional

way of thinking about tonal music, resulting in the codification of Tonic, Subdominant,
and Dominant functions. As shown in Example 2.1, further development of classical
13. This issue is beyond the scope of this paper, and thus will not be addressed.
14. Lendvai, The Workshop of Bartók and Kodály, 270.
15. By Tonic, Subdominant, and Dominant functions we understand triads whose roots are located
on ^1, ^4, and ^5 respectively. From this point forward, these three functions will be always spelled with
capital letters.
8
harmony and, subsequently, of functional theory, brought the idea of elaboration and
sometimes substitution of primary triads by their relative secondary triads.16
Example 2.1. Elaboration of primary triads on ^1, ^4,

and ^5 by their relative triads.
F (IV) C (I) G (V)
D (II) A (VI) E (III)
With further development of compositional and theoretical practice in the

nineteenth century, the idea of tonal expansion became a natural further step in the
creation of the major-minor system. Subsequently, parallel relationships (for example, C
major—c minor) also broadened tonal horizons by introducing the relative key of the
“new” tonic (for example, c minor—Eb major). Finally, the relative key of the first
parallel, but in the opposite mode (for example, A major—f# minor) completes the entire
harmonic developmental process. As shown in Example 2.2, the entire complex system,
for example in C major, consists of the three functions: Tonic, Subdominant, and
Dominant, where each function is represented by its four members.17
Example 2.2. Entire complex of T, SD, and D including their

four representatives, outlined in C major.
SD T D
F (IV) C (I) G (V)

b b b
D (II) Ab ( VI) A (VI) Eb ( III) E (III) Bb ( VII)
# b
B (VII) F# ( IV) Db ( II)
16. The Roman numerals in Examples 2.1 and 2.2 indicate the relative relationships between
chord roots only. Therefore, upper-case Roman numerals do not indicate major or minor quality.
9
As Lendvai put it, “A backward glance at the progress of European harmonic
thinking gives evidence to the fact that the birth of this system was a historical
necessity.”18 He calls this system the axis system because “. . . in this system the
opposite poles-counterpoles
counterpoles (C and F#, for example)
example)—are
are more directly attached to each
other than the relative keys of classical harmony.”19 Example 2.3 shows Lendvai’s model
of the axis system, separating the Tonic, Subdominant and Dominant functions—
functions
“axes”—from each other.
Example 2.3. From Lendvai, The Workshop of Bartók and Kodály

Kodály, 276.
Lendvai emphasizes that the understanding of the poles of individual axes “. . .

should not be regarded as diminished seventh chords—but
chords but as the kinship, the functional
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
10
attraction among four different keys, similar to the relative major-minor keys in classical
harmony (i.e., C major—A minor, or C minor—Eb major).”20
Lendvai’s idea of having a “stable” tonic function represented by dissonance,
including a tritone, is an interesting thought in and of itself. However, he was not the
first to introduce this idea. Russian theorist Boleslav Yavorsky can be credited as the one
to come up with the theory of modal rhythm, based on the properties of a tritone,
functioning as either stable or unstable entity, depending on the contextual environment.21
Although the triads built on ^1, ^4, and ^5 are a part of the Tonic, Subdominant,
and Dominant functions respectively, Lendvai emphasizes that
In the axis system, it is not IV and V that most potently
represent the subdominant and dominant functions—but
degrees which divide the circle of fifths into three equal
parts: thus constituting an augmented triad relationship
with the tonic. For example, C – E – A flat—in the sense
of tonic, dominant and subdominant.22
His derivation of these three functions comes from traditional understanding of the
overtone series in general, and from the interval relationships of the first six overtones in
particular, where the intervals of the perfect fifth, major third, and minor seventh are the
most important in creating the entire system.23 Example 2.4 summarizes major points of
Lendvai’s functional derivations.
20. Ibid.
21. This issue is beyond the scope of the current paper. For more information on this topic see
Sergei Protopopov, Elementi Stroeniia Muzikalnoy Rechi, Chast’ 1 i 2 (Moskva: Muzgiz, 1930-1931)
[Сергей Πротопопов, Элеметы Строения Музыкальной Речи, Части 1 и 2 (Москва: Myзгиз, 1930-
31) = Sergei Protopopov, The Elements of the Structure of Musical Speech, Parts 1 and 2 (Moscow: State
Music Publisher, 1930-31)]; Gordon D. McQuere, “The Theories of Boleslav Yavorsky,” in Russian
Theoretical Thought in Music, ed. Gordon D. McQuere (Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Research Press,
1983), 109-164.
23. A more detailed description of Lendvai’s derivation of the three functions can be found in his
book The Workshop of Bartók and Kodály, 288.
11
Example 2.4. From Lendvai, The Workshop of Bartók and Kodály
Kodály, 288.
Such a layout of the tthree

hree functions, when combined, results in the complete
aggregate, ultimately creates a great temptation for the analyst to use it as an attractive
analytical tool. Theoretically speaking, it could (and does) explain the ways numerous
late nineteenth century are operated.24 However, the idea of triads
compositions of the la
located on ^b6 and ^3 along with their tritone related
related triads, rather than on ^4
^ and ^5, and
functioning as the main representatives of Subdominant and Dominant functions
respectively, somehow
ow goes against conventional functional understanding, unless it is
meant for, and thus, specified by
by, composers to be a part of their compositional design.
Boleslav Yavorsky’s Double-Mode

Double System
Generally speaking, the notion of symmetry implies different
differen ways of how
musical material is structured and organized. Its practical applications might include
surface details, tonal plan, or the use of the modes of limited transposition. In his book,
Music Peter Deane Roberts refers to
Modernism in Russian Piano Music, o symmetry as: “(1)… a
uniform arrangement of notes around a central axis, which may be stated or implied;
(2)… a succession of notes which have the same intervallic series in retrograde or
inversion; and (3)… a pattern that repeats in one direction, as do the minor third segments
in the octatonic scale.”25 Each of these statements can be taken as a literal description, or
can be understood as a general procedural tendency of organizing musical material. For
24.. Indeed, Lendvai’s analyses of Bartók and Kodály’s music, based on the axis system apparatus,
are very elegant and convincing.
25. Roberts, Modernism in Russian Piano Music,

Mus Vol. 1, 61.
12
example, harmonic symmetry can be either an obvious surface feature or it can be
textually obscured and hidden. Sometimes chords, implying traditional tonal functions,
e.g., the French sixth, guide our expectations and suggest a tonic, or, in a broader sense, a
tonal center.
At the turn of the twentieth century, Russian theorist Boleslav Yavorsky
attempted to create a structural-analytical system, based upon symmetrical properties of a
tritone in general as well as upon Scriabin’s music in particular.26 Although he was
fascinated by Scriabin’s music and studied it in great detail, Yavorsky’s ultimate goal
was to design a universal theory that would serve a greater purpose and become a tool for
the analyses of a specific type of music from his so-called “transitional period”:
His body of thought, generally known as ‘the theory of
modal rhythm’ [ladovyi ritm = ладовый ритм] is marked
by unusual originality and scope and by its close
correspondence to the musical practice of nineteenth- and
early twentieth-century Russian composers such as
Skryabin. . . . In attempting to deal with his changing
musical world as well as the music of all other times and
places, Yavorsky sought to replace the entire corpus of
traditional theory with one based on a single principle, the
operation of the tritone.27
While talking about “new modes,” Yavorsky meant “artificial” modes previously
unknown in the theory of modes: augmented, diminished (octatonic), and double-modes.
The discovery of double-modes by Yavorsky is one of the biggest achievements in modal
theory.28
A general concept of instability versus stability is the key to understand
Yavorsky’s system. Since the tritone is the most unstable interval consisting of the two
26. Boleslav Leopoldovich Yavorsky (1877-1942), a student of Taneev at the Moscow

conservatory, organized an informal group for performance and discussions. Several important ideas came
out of these discussions. The concept of “intonation,” the idea of musical speech as distinguished from
verbal speech, inner auditor tuning, and other topics were the focus of these meetings. These discussions
were the starting point for the development of Yavorsky’s theory of modal rhythm.
27. McQuere, “The Theories of Boleslav Yavorsky,” 109.
28. It is beyond the scope of this document to describe Yavorsky’s theory in the detail. For more
information, see Boleslav Yavorsky, The Structure of Musical Speech [Строение музыкальной речи]
(Moscow, 1908); Protopopov, Elementi Stroeniia Muzikalnoy Rechi; McQuere, “The Theories of Boleslav
Yavorsky,” 109-164.
13
most unstable
le notes in the tonal system, ^4 and ^7,
^7, it has to be resolved. Yavorsky called
these
ese unstable tones of a tritone “Dominant,” and their resolution
solution into
i a stable interval,
“Tonic.”
onic.” He considered a tritone with either one of its possible resolutions a “single
system,” while the combination of two single systems a semitone
mitone apart “a double
system.” Example 2.5a shows two tritone resolutions, which
h create a “single system.”
Example 2.5b shows a “double system” in its complete, natural and harmonic forms.
Examples 2.5a
2.5 and b from McQuere, “The Theories of Boleslav Yavorsky,”
in Russian Theoretical Thought in Music,, 114.
In Yavorsky’s view, the tritone,

tritone, although not explicitly stated, is still the
foundation of all music. He called his model a “symmetrical system” where an unstable
tritone and its two stable resolutions together formed a part of a modal or tonal system.
Since these systems are asymm
asymmetrical
etrical in their nature, the unstable nature of the tritone
requires resolution.. However, one must acknowledge that, if the system is completely
symmetrical, andd thus, tonality
tonalit is eliminated—at least in its traditional sense—then,
sense there
is no need for a tritone
itone to be resolved. Thus, the tritone becomes a stable entity, no longer
requiring resolution.
In addition to Yavorsky, the theory of another Russian Scriabin scholar,
scho Varvara
Dernova, deserves special attention. Her method of interpreting Scriabin’s music
mus is the
most impressive and explanatory. She used a part of Yavorsky’s “double mode” theory
as a general framework and the foundation for her analytical method and supported her
14
arguments by numerous examples and analyses from Scriabin’s compositions.29
Although the complete description of Dernova’s method is not the purpose of this paper,
it is necessary to illuminate its fundamental and most important principles.
Varvara Dernova’s Analytical System: The Function of the Tritone

The analytical system proposed by Dernova is based on the arrangement of
various dominant-functioning chords in pairs a tritone apart, where their sum results in
“dominant-type” chord formations. Enharmonic equivalence of different “dominant-
7b5
type” chords with the lowered fifth plays a key role in that system. These include D ,
9b5 b9b5 30
D and D . The lowered fifth, in its turn, is used in combination with the perfect
5b5 b5#5
fifth (D ), and/or raised fifth (D ), resulting in a harmony with split lower and
b5add6 7b5
raised fifths, or with added sixth (D ). For example, the D chord results from a
combination of two incomplete Dominant seventh chords a tritone apart, as shown in

Example 2.6.
Example 2.6. A combination of the two incomplete Dominant

7b5
seventh chords a tritone apart, resulting in D .
7b5 4/3b5
Note that D is enharmonically equivalent to D of the key that lies a tritone
away. Such enharmonicism can be used for modulatory purposes, as is demonstrated in

Example 2.7.
29. Again, the complete description of Dernova’s theory is beyond the scope of this document.
For more information, see Dernova, Garmonia Scriabina; Guenther, “Varvara Dernova’s System of
Analysis,” 165-216.
30. From this point forward, letter “D” along with alterations of different chord members implies
Dominant function.
15
7b5 4/3b5
Example 2.7. Enharmonic equivalence of D and D in two keys a tritone apart.
Not only can two Dominants a tritone apart be used for modulation to distant
keys, they also can unite these two keys a tritone apart. Such a complex formation, which
Yavorsky calls the “double-mode,” is the most characteristic feature of Scriabin’s
harmonic system. Dernova calls such a correlation between the two Dominants a “tritone
link,” shown in Example 2.8.
Example 2.8. Figure 2 from Dernova, The Harmony of Scriabin, 21.
7b5
D7b5 D
in C in Gb
9b5 7b5#5
Within a tritone enharmonicism, D becomes the D , since the major ninth
b9b5
in the first chord becomes raised fifth (#5) in the second. In the D chord, the minor
ninth in the first chord becomes a perfect fifth (P5) in the second, as shown in Example
2.9.
Example 2.9. Figures 3 and 4 from Dernova, The Harmony of Scriabin, 22.
D1 D2 D1 D2
9b5 7b5#5 b9b5 7/5b5
D D D D
16
In fact, there is an evident two
two-way
way connection of all tones in both
bot Dominants.
As is shown in Example 2.10,
2. within a tritone enharmonicism, the raised fifth of the first
Dominant becomes the major ninth in the sec
second
ond Dominant, and the diatonic perfect fifth
of the first Dominant becomes the minor ninth of the second Dominant
Dominant. Example 2.10
also shows how other members of the Dominant harmonies map into each other in the
same way: the root of the first Dominant becomes
becomes lowered fifth in the second Dominant,
and the seventh of the first Dominant becomes the third of the latter.
Example 2.10.
2.10 Figure 5 from Dernova, The Harmony of Scriabin
Scriabin, 23.
#5 ↔ 9
5 ↔ m9
1 ↔ b5
7↔3
Ultimately, because of the interconnections within the tritone link, there is a

complete enharmonic equivalence of the two Dominant seventh chords with lowered fifth
related by a tritone
tone (see Example 2.8). Example 2.11a shows
ows two Dominant ninth chords
9b5#5
with
th lowered and raised fifths (D ) and Example 2.11b shows two Dominant ninth
b9/5b5
chords with lowered ninth,
nint perfect and lowered fifths D harmonies:
Example 2.11. Figures

Figure 6a and 6b from Dernova, The Harmony of Scriab
Scriabin, 23.
a. b.
17
9b5#5
Because D outlines a whole-tone scale, it can be enharmonically
reinterpreted as a Dominant sonority in five other keys, including the one a tritone away.
9b5#5
Thus, a full enharmonic equivalence of the D appears in six keys. Example 2.12
shows such a diagram.31
Dernova stresses that the most important enharmonicism of Scriabin’s Dominants

is the one that creates a “tritone link.” Based on a whole-tone scale, it results in a chain
of six enharmonically equivalent Dominants where each pair makes a “tritone link.”
Dernova calls such a link a “Big Enharmonic Sequence.”32 There are three basic links (or
units) in this type of a sequence. The fourth one is a wrap-around, an actual return of the
first link, but this time, in the Dominant’s reverse order. As shown in Example 2.13, the
enharmonic sequence begins from and finishes on the starting dominant. Such a return to
the starting dominant through these enharmonic steps is characteristic of Scriabin’s style.
31. In her book, Dernova uses German symbols: “es” means flat, “is” means sharp. For example,
“Ges” = Gb; “As” = Ab; “B” = Bb.
32. Dernova, Garmonia Scriabina, 23. There are two other types of enharmonic sequences: the
“Small Enharmonic Sequence” and the “Descending Fifth Sequence,” also explained by Dernova. These
will be addressed later.
18
Example 2.13.. Figure 8 from Dernova, The Harmony of Scriabin
Scriabin, 23-24.
Dernova emphasizes two types of relationships between Dominants: the first one
is the tritone relationship inside the link, and the second is the descending major third or
ascending minor sixth between the two links, shown with the square brackets in the
Example 2.13.33 She calls the second type “two-tone enharmonicism. 34 Although all
tone enharmonicism.”
9b5#5
transpositions of the D are enharmonically equivalent, not all of them are equally
valuable in Scriabin’s system. After the

he first, fundamental one, priority is given to the
link two tones apart from the starting one. Its privilege among other links is explained by
the fact that, like the starting tritone link, it is the most closely connected to the altered
fifth of the Dominant.
inant. Within tritone enharmonicism, the split fifth of the Dominant
moves outward to the interval of a major ninth (b5=1; #5→9),
9), and within the “two-tone
“two
enharmonicism” the same split fifth mov
moves
es outward to the minor seventh (b5=7; #5→1).
9th
As a result,
esult, the split fifth of the D chord, by moving into the major ninth or minor
seventh, somehow regulates the motion of the enharmonic sequence and defines the two
33.. Because these steps are enharmonically equivalent in the equal

equal-tempered
tempered system.
34. Dernova, Garmonia Scriabina,

Scriabina 24.
19
types of enharmonicisms, tritone and two-tone,
two tone, as the leading motions. Example 2.14
shows both types of enharmonicism, tritone enharonicism and two-
two-tone enharmonicism.
Example 2.14. Figures 9 and 10 from Dernova,

Derno The Harmony of Scriabin,
Scriabin 25.
9b5#5
Such an enharmonic motion of the Dominants
Dominants is only possible because D
can be arranged as a whole-tone

whole tone scale, and all Dominants included in the “Big
Enharmonic Sequence” are actually a six
six-fold
fold regrouping/permutation
regrouping/permutati of the same six
notes.
Example 2.15 represents different combinations of chord members of the two
b9/5b5
Dominants
nts in their progression. The D , for example, results from the combination
of two major Dominant triads a tritone apart (see Example 2.15a

15a). It has a typical
placement of the notes (lower
(lower-higher), including a typical pairing
ing position and spacing
(first-second).
second). All notes of the same structural meaning are paired: roots, fifths, and thirds
b9/5b5
(Example 2.15b).
). Combined, they create D (Example
Example 2.15c), which is
enharmonically equivalent to itself in the two keys a tritone apart. The order of the notes,
however, trades places: first root
root–second root, second fifth–first
first fifth, so that the actual
sonority consists of two triton
tritones, framing a (compound)
nd) perfect fifth from outside, spelled
in open position (Example
Example 2.15d). This particular spacing is characteristic
characterist and the core
20
b9/5b5
of the D chord. This sonority is characteristic of Scriabin’s harmonic language in
general and holds a special place in its system.
Example 2.15. Different combinations of chords and chord members of the two
Dominants.
A similar idea applies to another altered Dominant harmony, namely the

9b5add6
D , which also plays an important role in Scriabin’s system.35 The added sixth in
combination with the lowered fifth supersedes both the raised fifth and perfect fifth.
Figure 16 displays all the necessary steps in order to achieve the final result—to create a
unique Dominant sonority. Example 2.16a shows a tritone link between the two
incomplete Dominant seventh chords with added sixths. Example 2.16b shows a chord
resulting from the sum of the two Dominants, combined by the following pairing: first
root-second root, first seventh-second seventh, first added sixth-second added sixth.
Example 2.16c shows a chord with no seventh of the first Dominant (or the third of the
second Dominant), since the doubling of the same note does not contribute to the quality
of the chord. In order to avoid a dissonant clash between the added sixths and the chordal
thirds of the opposite Dominants, Scriabin deletes the second major third of the second
Dominant. Such an operation results in a five-note Dominant sonority, where all its tones
depend on the bottom note, the root of the chord, and the dissonant added sixth of the
second Dominant in the top voice clashes with the major third above the root.36
35. Use of the Dominant harmony with added sixth was adopted by Scriabin as a result of
Chopin’s influence. However, although Chopin used a D7 with an added sixth, Scriabin employed a D9b5add6
chord (or, D13 chord). The use of a lowered fifth is the necessary condition to have a tritone as a necessary
component of the Dominant chord in Scriabin’s system.
36. This harmonic complex becomes the thematic hallmark in Scriabin’s prelude Op. 59, no. 2,
reinforced by the composer’s indication sauvage, belliqueux, meaning wildly, belligerently. See Dernova,
Garmonia Scriabina, 98.
21
Example 2.16. Figures
igures 85a, b, and c from Dernova, The Harmony of Scriabin,
Scriabin 98,
transposed to C-F#
C F# major tritone related tonic complex.
As a result,
ult, within the tritone enharmonicism of the Dominant chord with added
sixth, the new, unique, “distorted” harmony is born, which is different from all other
altered Dominants and moreover, especially characteristic of late Scriabin.
Chord inversions also play an important role in Scriabin’s unique color of sounds.
As shown in Example 2.17,
2.17, the famous Prometheus chord has such a distinct effect on
the listener, that one would never confuse
confuse it with any other sonority. Seemingly a
“quartal-harmony,”
harmony,” it is based
based on a combination of two dominants a tritone apart with the
added sixth, grouped into pairs with rotated roots.
Example 2.17. Figure 84 from Dernova, The Harmony of Scriabin,

Scriabin 97.
“Prometheus” chord
This example also shows how brilliantly Scriabin “manipulates” the notes from
traditional chords, and that the “quartal-chord”
“quartal chord” is just a resultant outcome of the
combined dominant harmonies.
22
Along with the “Big Enharmonic Sequence,” another type of the enharmonic
sequence was also developed within the double-mode system. Dernova calls it a “Small
(or “Chain”) Enharmonic Sequence.”37 It is based on a connection between two
overlapping tritones in the middle. It results from a Dominant motion by minor thirds (or
1½ tones) because the tritone itself subdivides into two units of a tone and a half each as
shown in Example 2.18.
As shown in Example 2.19, this type of a sequence has only two links. If the
sequential motion continues, enharmonic equivalence takes place and the first link
repeats itself, but in the reverse order:
Finally, quartal-quintal relationships also play an important role in the double-

mode system: one Dominant sonority “resolves” into another Dominant sonority, the
motion I call “elliptic resolution.” This type of motion takes place when a secondary
Dominant (or, several Dominants) moves into the next chord a tritone away. We can find
an example of such a sequence in the second theme of Op. 52, no. 1.
37. Dernova, Garmonia Scriabina, 52.
23
Needless to say, this description of Scriabin’s system, proposed by Varvara
Dernova, is a valuable source of information as well as a helpful tool for analysts. To
date, it is the only complete fundamental and, to me, the most convincing theoretical
source that describes Scriabin’s system in detail and supports its claims with musical
examples.
Following is the summary of observations Dernova has made about Scriabin’s
harmonic language:
1. Scriabin’s frequent use of the bII, as a chord root, especially near or at
cadences.
2. Evolution of Scriabin’s musical language resulted in a delayed or
weakened Tonic resolution.
3. The nature of the tonic conclusion itself.38
All of the above-mentioned issues will be used as the foundation for the analytical
section of the analysis of Trois Morceaux, Op. 52.
24
CHAPTER THREE
ANALYSIS OF TROIS MORCEAUX, OPUS 52
Symmetry as a General Phenomenon and Foundation of Scriabin’s Compositional Design
As has been mentioned earlier, symmetry plays a vital role in Scriabin’s

compositions. Its influence is apparent from looking at the development of the
composer’s harmonic system, and the choice of certain formal structures. As Roberts
mentions:
A system based on symmetry has many features in
common with one founded on the cycle of 5ths. Pitches
may still be present in a hierarchic order of importance,
which may be changed during the course of a composition.
The use of harmonic and melodic integration, involving
selected intervals as practiced by Skriabin . . . tends toward
symmetry and leads eventually to the formation of
symmetrical scales, whether chromatic, whole-tone, or
octatonic. . . . One new-found freedom offered by
symmetry is the possibility of building a section of music
on one or more intervals which form the basis of the
symmetry in a particular order.39
Example 3.1 summarizes ideas concerning symmetry as a general phenomenon

representing different aspects of fundamental musical entities within a composition such
as form, harmony, and melody in Scriabin’s music:
39. Roberts, Modernism in Russian Piano Music, Vol. 1, 70.
25
Example 3.1. Different aspects of Scriabin’s musical language
based on the principle of symmetry.
Symmetry
Form Harmony Melody
Proportions Tonal organization resulting scales

9b5#5
a. Different tritone resolutions a. V a. Whole-tone scale
9b5add6
b. By M3 b. V b. Acoustic scale (#4, b7)
c. By m3
The first part of this paper has described these phenomena and their static
characteristics. The second part will utilize these observations as the foundation for the
analytical applications in the analysis of Trois Morceaux, Op. 52; the goal is to unravel
their dynamic potential and to explore their employment on the global level.
* * *
Trois Morceaux, Op. 52, written in 1907, represents the middle period of
Scriabin’s output. While still remaining tonal, Scriabin’s music and style underwent
drastic changes during this period, and enharmonic relationships predominate over the
functional relationships, which still define the form. One of the striking features of the
entire cycle of Op. 52 is its overall symmetrical tonal unity achieved by the choice of
keys. Although not very obvious at times, Scriabin defined the keys of these three pieces
with written key signatures at the beginning of each piece, as well as by the occurrence of
explicit cadences in the traditional “tonal” sense. Notice how this cycle is symmetrically
centered around “C” major:
26
Example 3.2. Overall tonal design of Op. 52.
Поэма [Poëme]
Op. 52, no. 1
C major
Загадка [Enigme] Поэма томления [Poëme

Op. 52, no. 2 languide] Op. 52, no. 3
Db Major B major
As shown in Example 3.2, the key of C major with no accidentals serves as the
“center,” the “focal point” from which Scriabin “dives” into two keys, each located a
minor second above and below the “C” center. They both have five accidentals, flats and
sharps, respectively. Interestingly enough, Scriabin keeps the same major mode (color)
throughout the entire cycle.40 Other details also reinforce this symmetrical formal design.
For example, the first and last pieces conclude with major tonic triads, while the middle
piece, Enigme, remains “enigmatic” with no tonic closure, at least in a traditional sense.
Finally, if we look at the presence of white notes in each of the three keys of Op.
52 we notice that both Db major and B major have five enharmonically equivalent notes
with each other, and each of them has two common white notes with C major. Example
3.3 shows these relationships:
40. It would be interesting to explore another area of Scriabin’s music—synesthesia, in Scriabin’s

case, “colored vision.” This information would possibly explain the choice of keys in Scriabin’s
compositions in general, and within this piano cycle, in particular.
27
Example 3.3. Shared common tones in the threee pieces of Op. 52.
It is not coincidental, and furthermore

furthermore, fascinating that the combination of these
four white notes results in a symmetrical tetrachord, consisting of the framing tritone and
its resolution in C major:
B → C E ← F
As a result, Scriabin’s employment of the tritone manifests itself not only on the
local structural level of each piece, but even more importantly, on the global level of the
entire cycle. Both the first and the last compositions begin from the note C as the bass
note of each opening harmonic gesture. In contrast, the middle piece, Enigme, opens
with the single note Gb, located a tritone away from both Cs. This contrast is additionally
reinforced by the appearance of Gb in the opening of the middle piece right after the final
conclusion of the first piece with C major Tonic triad. Thus, C-Gb
C Gb (or F#) becomes the
axis of symmetry of the entire cycle realized on the structural compositional level
level.
Another interesting
teresting detail also deserves special attention. Notice that the opening
measures of both the first and last compositions have three common notes (C, Bb, and D
out of the possible six); moreover, they outline the same dominant-like
dominant type of harmony.
The difference, however, is that the opening chord of the
the first piece functions as a Tonic
of C major (in the broader sense), while the opening chord of the last piece, on the other
28
hand, functions as the Dominant of F, that is, the key a tritone away from B major, the
key of the third piece.
Finally, although the key structure of the entire cycle suggests tonal symmetry
around C, the program, on the other hand, suggests symmetry around the second
composition, functioning as the focal point and, furthermore, as the climax of the entire
cycle. Notice that the titles of both outer pieces include the same word, Поэма [Poëme],
as either the title itself or as part of the title, while, in contrast, the middle piece, Загадка
[Enigme], stands on its own.
Trois Morceaux, Op. 52, No. 1

The first piece of Trois Morceaux, Op. 52 opens a gallery of Scriabin’s images
“painted” by the artist with rich but at the same time particular sound effects, changes of
different meters in every measure, choices of harmonies, and their progressions within
conventional tonal design.
Although seemingly simple at first sight, the form of the first piece of Op. 52 can
be explained in at least two ways. Its obvious binary structure is also laid out
symmetrically. Such features as a subdivision of the form into two equal sub-sections,
both 25 measures long, concluding with cadences in the traditional tonal sense at the end
of each section, definitely belong to the main characteristics of a typical binary design.
Varvara Dernova, however, proposed another formal reading of this work. In her opinion,
Op. 52, no. 1 is written in a sonata form with no development section. Her argument for
such a reading is based on the presence of the two distinct themes, both based on the
opening motivic gesture, appearing in two different keys in the first section, recurring in
the same order and in one key in the second half.41 Tables 3.1 and 3.2 summarize the
symmetrical layout and overall formal structure of Op. 52, no. 1.
41. Dernova, Garmonia Scriabina, 83. For purposes of convenience the two themes are labeled in
the analysis as the first and the second theme respectively. The opening motive of the composition becomes
the melodic foundation of the following sequence in m. 15 of the first half. Furthermore, because this
motive gains an independent melodic-harmonic status, this part is called the second theme.
29
Table 3.1. Symmetrical layout of Op. 52, no. 1.
First half (measure numbers): Second half (measure numbers):
1-first theme (C major) 25-first theme (C major),

elided
2 26
3 27
4 28
5 29
6 30
7 (modulating measure) 31
8 32
9 33
10 (2/4) 34 (5/4)
11 (2/8) 35 (3/16)
12 (2/16) 36 (3/16)
13 37
14 38
15-2nd theme (G major) 39-2nd theme (C major)
16 40
17 41
18 42
19 43
20 44
21 45
22 46
23 47
24 48
25 49
Table 3.2. Overall formal design of Op. 52, no. 1.
First theme (mm.1-14 and 25-34) Second theme (mm. 15-24 and 39-49)
Form: period (14 ms.: 8+(elided) 7) Form: period (10 ms.: 6+4)
These two readings work in tandem and, in my opinion, complement rather than
contradict each other. Furthermore, the binary design is enriched by the presence of two
30
distinct themes which confirm the sonata principle and function as the foundation of the
overall compositional tonal design.42
Functionally, the overall structure in Op. 52, no. 1 outlines a closed circle of
three fundamental functions: (T)-SD-D-T.43 Such functional reading of the piece’s overall
layout is also influenced by how the most important milestones appear as the composition
unfolds and specifically, how they are notated. Notice that the only half note values,
which appear in the bass part, are F (in m. 6), G (in m. 13), and C (in mm. 37 and 49),
which outline and emphasize the three major functions: Subdominant, Dominant, and
Tonic. The entire functional progression culminates with the C major triad functioning as
the Tonic of the entire work.
In his book, Harmonic Function in Chromatic Music, Daniel Harrison writes:
Instead of having a tonic determined by functions of pitch
classes, it is created by tonal behaviors within musical
contexts. These behaviors I understand as the rhetorical
devices of Tonic, the coordination of various non-harmonic
musical dimensions to give the impression of key and tonal
center.44
He proposes several rhetorical techniques for finding the Tonic of a composition:

“Technique 1. Tonic function ends a composition.”45
According to this technique, since the final chord of Op. 52, no. 1 is a C major triad, the
Tonic of the entire composition is C major. Such a reading is also reinforced by the
presence of the complete cycle of the three functions mentioned above.
“Technique 2. Tonic begins compositional sections. . . . The most obvious
compositional section is that which begins a piece. Accordingly, one is often willing to
42. In fact, such a type of binary structure strongly alludes to Domenico Scarlatti’s explorations of
binary structures based on transposition of the second (or middle) theme in his esercizi per gravicembali.
Not surprisingly, they are called sonatas, and their formal type is identified as “old sonata form” in the
Russian theoretical literature.
43. The statement of the first Tonic is obscure and, thus, unclear. For that reason, the first Tonic
appears in parentheses as implied rather than obvious function. However, despite different harmonic
interpretations of the opening gesture, the note C, appearing on the second beat of the opening gesture, is
the lowest note in the entire first measure, and moreover, it functions like the fundamental bass.
44. Daniel Harrison, Harmonic Function in Chromatic Music (Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 1994), 76.
45. Ibid.
31
ascribe Tonic function to such opening events.”46 It might be problematic to determine
this piece’s Tonicity or even functionality based on the opening in the first measure. One
even might argue that the first measure is in d minor for the following reasons: first, the
passage in the right hand outlines a d minor triad and C# functions as a leading tone
resolving into a Tonic D; and second, according to Hindemith’s theory of root finding in
sonorities with a non-triadic structure, the best interval in the first measure is the perfect
fifth occurring between D and A. Furthermore, the note D functions as the root of the
opening chord.47 On the other hand, the note C is the lowest note in the entire first
measure and hence, it also could be considered as the root of the chord, thus functioning
as a Tonic. Such a reading also can be reinforced by the fact that the next priority after
the perfect fifth in the Hindemithian list has to be given to the perfect fourth, which, in
fact, is also present in the music and results from a combination of the note F above C.
Finally, a compromise between both cases also could be considered as one of the equally
possible interpretations: the opening sonority broadly can be seen as a juxtaposition or
combination of the two functions, Tonic and Subdominant, where note C represents
Tonic and the d minor triad represents Subdominant functions.
By putting all the parts of the interpretive “puzzle” together, the earlier
observations lead to the following conclusion: the key of this composition is C major.
One might argue that it might be better not to use the term “major,” but simply to say that
this piece is written in the key of C, but how else one can explain the major triad at the
very end? In addition, the entire piano cycle features key signatures, specified by the
composer himself. The opening piece has no key signature, also strongly implying C
major. Notice that the second theme occurs entirely above G pedal point, sounding in this
context as a stable tonal area of the second theme. Finally, not only does Scriabin imply
the key of C major by the key choice for the second theme, but he also incorporates the
opening motivic gesture of the second theme E5-G#4-(A4-C5), where E5 functions as a
diatonic chordal third of the C major triad as well. Looking back at the functional
46. Ibid.
47. Paul Hindemith, The Craft of Musical Composition, 4th ed., vol. 1, bk.1, trans. Arthur Mendel
(Mainz: Schott, 1942), 97.
32
diagram (T)-SD-D-T, one will associate the key changes in such a way that the entire
piece reaches a triumphant arrival on C major in m. 25:
Example 3.4. Overall bass line of the entire Op. 52, no. 1.
Not only are the first and the second themes based on the same melodic idea
(compare mm. 1-2 with m. 21), but they are also written in a period form. The second
phrase of the first theme is a repetition of the first phrase; however, it is transposed up a
whole step (compare mm. 1-8 and 8-14). The second theme, also based on the same
melodic/motivic idea of the first theme, occurs above a Dominant pedal point (see mm.
15-25). Harmonically, it is based upon ascending fourths–descending fifths sequential
motion in the bass. In addition, notice that the second theme in both its appearances
sounds over a pedal point: Dominant in the first half and Tonic in the second half. Both
appearances are equivalent in length, thus lasting ten measures. Example 3.6 shows the
bass motion in mm. 16-25 and 39-49:
Example 3.5. Bass motion of the Second Theme (mm. 16-25 and 39-49).
SD V V---------------I V/Gb-V V---I

D----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------T
SD I V9b5/IV V9#5/bII-I
T-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------T
33
Cadences as the Tonal Focal Points of Scriabin’s Compositional Design
The term “common practice tonality” implies the following conditions: first,
contrapuntal lines have to move by step; second, there must be a difference between
stable and unstable sonorities; and the third, a composition has to have Tonic, defined by
conversion on it from ^5 to ^1 in the bass, and ^7 to ^1 and ^2 to ^1. The focal points for
such conversions are cadences. Cadences are the milestones of any formal design; they
clarify form, tonality, and its layout of the entire composition. There are two cadences
that appear at the end of each section, in mm. 24-25 and 48-49, and both are in C major.
The first cadence is elided. The Tonic (I) of C major, which concludes the first half of the
composition with V-I harmonic motion, at the same time, becomes the starting point of
the second half. The second, conclusive cadence, on the other hand, is more complicated
and can be interpreted in different ways. One is functional, based on functional theory
and second is contrapuntal, based on Schenkerian voice-leading analysis.48
One way to explain a cadence mm. 24-25 is functional. Notice that the Dominant
9b5#5
pedal point on G in m. 24 becomes the bass note of the D harmony, which
discharges into the Tonic C in m. 25 while the chordal seventh and ninth (notes F4 and
A4 in the upper voices), representing a Subdominant function, become suspended over
the bar line and elide into the first theme as the opening notes in the second half. The
idea of functional juxtaposition of Subdominant over Tonic at the cadence seems to be an
interesting compositional device, moreover, requiring further musical development with
the eventual resolution of the notes F4 and A4 into notes E4 and G4 in m. 49. In
addition, when the chromatic motion Eb-D-Db-(C) in the bass reaches its goal in m. 25,
the Tonic C3 gets reinterpreted as the chordal fifth of the Subdominant chord, ultimately
playing a double role in the functional developmental design of the composition.
The same cadence in mm. 24-25 can also be explained contrapuntally by means of
voice-leading. It is a classic example of deviations from the common practice tonality in
the second half of the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth centuries. Although the
48. This does not mean, though, that these are two different ways of the explanations. Although
functional theory is based on sonorities, resolutions of the chords are based on the rules of counterpoint.
Thus, these theories complement each other and, furthermore, result in more comprehensive analysis.
34
rules of counterpoint are present, many of the surface details have to be realigned or
suppressed. For example, the traditional diatonic conversion of a whole step motion from
^2 to ^1 gets filled by means of chromatic motion, becoming ^b2, finally converging to
^1. As this example shows, this is no longer tonality in its strict sense. However, its
major principles stay intact and small changes, like the one just described, do not destroy,
but rather, refine it. Example 3.6 shows such voice-leading.
Example 3.6. Foreground of the voice-leading in mm. 24-25 in Op. 52, no. 1.
V I 8-7
On the other hand, the final cadence at the very end of the piece does not exhibit
9#5
bi-functionality like the cadence at the end of the first half. The D of bII functions as
a Dominant sonority, and resolves into C major Tonic triad, the only consonant harmony
in the entire composition. In fact, the bi-functional effect of the Tonic note, functioning
at the same time a part of Subdominant function in mm. 24-25, has entirely different
meaning this time. The chromatic line in soprano voice Bb-Bbb-Ab-(G) finally resolves
into note G, the chordal fifth of the Tonic triad, moreover emphasizing the only Tonic
function of the final chord with no other possibility for interpretation.
The harmonic progression in the last two measures can be described in traditional
9b5 9#5
terms as V /IV—V /bII (Db)—I. On the one hand, it creates a final cadence of a
special type, definitely coming from and based on a plagal gesture. Such an idea of using
two Dominant dissonant harmonies consecutively and finally resolving unconventionally,
9#5
reaches its triumph in this particular work. On the other, V /bII chord can also be
interpreted as a tritone substitution of a traditional Dominant within the overall functional

circle (T) – SD – D – T.
35
As mentioned earlier, for Scriabin, the Dominants of the keys a tritone apart in the
Double-Mode system have the same functional meaning and are used interchangeably.
9#5
For example, Dominant of the Dominant of the key a tritone apart, D /bII appearing in
m. 48, does not resolve into its “own tonic” Db, but moves directly into the C major triad,
the final Tonic of the entire composition. Notice two tones C and E that remain common
between the two chords throughout the resolution. Two Abs, in their turn, resolve
differently by means of a contrapuntal voice-leading: Ab in the soprano moves by
semitone down to the chordal fifth of the Tonic chord, thus, outlining melodic Phrygian
motion. The second Ab in the bass voice discharges directly to C, the Tonic of the entire
composition. Both the plagal gesture Ab-C (^b6-^1) in the bass and the Phrygian motion
Ab-G (^b6-^5) in the soprano for the last time articulate the importance of the
Subdominant function in the piece. Gb/F#s, in their turn, resolve in two opposite
directions: Gb to E, directly resolving into the chordal third of the Tonic and Gb’s
enharmonically equivalent F# discharging into G (natural).49
Example 3.7. Final cadence in mm. 48-49 in Op. 52, no.1.
However, if the assumption is that Example 3.4 represents the overall tonal design
of the entire composition, then the cadence in mm. 24-25 already functions as the final
tonal conclusion of the entire piece. Since the second half of the piece is mostly based
upon the prolongation of Tonic function in general and the Tonic harmony in particular,
then the final cadence in mm. 48-49 plays a subordinate role and can be interpreted as a
local Plagal cadence prolonging Tonic harmony from m. 25. Example 3.8 shows the
voice leading in measures 48-49.
49. Later, the same type of Plagal cadence will reappear in Scriabin’s Prometheus, Op. 60.
36
Example 3.8. Voice-leading in the final cadence (mm. 48-49) in Op. 52, no. 1.
I------------------------------------------I
There are, however, two details that do not fit the puzzle; first, what happens to
the notes F4 and A4 at the cadence in mm. 24-25, and second, how can we explain that
the consonant tonic triad, the only triad in the entire composition appears only at the very
end of the piece? These details suggest the idea of a delayed tonic resolution. Although
Scriabin’s harmonic language in general is based upon traditional chord resolutions of
fourth-fifth relationships, his harmonic idiom in particular underwent dramatic changes.
Using traditional harmonic paradigms, especially of Tonic-Dominant relationships, his
evolving language involved an apparent need for delaying, weakening, and even omitting
Tonic resolution at the end.
Dernova claims that all Scriabin’s harmonies, especially from his middle and late
periods, have to be thought of as Dominant in their origin. Such an observation based
upon her analytical approach consequences into the logical conclusion. The idea of a
never stated Tonic floating “up in the air” also intertwines with Scriabin’s complicated
philosophical believes and mystical views. For him, creativity was
. . . an unceasing striving for an elusive goal. The tendency
of a dominant chord structure to resolve to its tonic is
perhaps the strongest tension-releasing characteristic of
tonal music. For Skryabin, the best way to express his
feelings and ideas was, ultimately, to compose music that
was constantly ‘dominant’ in sound.50
50. Guenther, “Varvara Dernova’s System of Analysis,” 180.
37
Dernova explicitly says that, “Every such a Dominant implies a Tonic . . .
sounding only in the imagination . . . .”51 Consequently, although not present in the score,
Tonic resolution is always implied.
The fact that Tonic gradually disappears from Scriabin’s scores also implies
partial “emancipation” of Dominant-like chords. One even might argue that such
sonorities change their status from unstable and thus, requiring resolution to functionally
stable and, hence, not needing to be resolved anymore. As Guenther put it, “Having
evolved expressive means for diffusing the resolution tendency of the approach to the
tonic, Skryabin questioned, as it were, the necessity of a pure tonic resolution.”52
Scriabin’s harmonic language evolved from conventional late Romantic style to
his personal and somewhat unique harmonic process based on a double-mode system in
general and the properties of a tritone in particular. The following are the steps that
slowly occurred in the transformation of Scriabin’s harmonic language in relation to the
concept of Tonic resolution:
1. Traditional resolution of Dominant harmony into its Tonic.
2. Delayed Tonic resolution.
3. Resolution of Dominant harmony into Tonics a tritone apart.
4. Bi-functional combination or “functional collage” of D
T
5. Conclusion on the Dominant without its traditional resolution into Tonic.53

The second piece, Загадка [Enigme] from Trois Morceaux, Op. 52 is truly
enigmatic and fascinating. There is no one explanation that could be completely
satisfactory in any analytical area, including form, harmony, functional design, and its
melodic structure. Consider, for example, the formal design of this composition. It can

53. In Enigme Op. 52, no. 2 for the first time, and then in both pieces comprising Op. 59, Poème
and Prelude, Scriabin declined the final conclusion with the Tonic sonorities. However, such a change
occurred only in the piano miniatures. In his large orchestral compositions, such as symphonic poems, the
use of final Tonic was still a necessary part of the compositional strategy.
38
be interpreted as either binary or ternary. Although inherently different, these two formal
types are intertwined in this case in a very crafty way. Example 3.10 represents the
overall formal structure of Op. 52, no. 2.
Example 3.9. Formal structure of Op. 52, no. 2.
A (mm. 1-24) B (mm.23!-46)54 A (mm.47-62)
Tonally closed Tonally open Tonally open/closed?
However, such a formal explanation based on the binary layout with a tonally
open B section is not completely satisfying. Although the B section is dependent
thematically because it is based on the melodic idea from measure 6, it does not resemble
melodic and harmonic digressions that are typical for binary structures. In fact, despite
the fact that the material is developed sequentially and the entire B section lacks tonal
closure, it still stands on its own as a contrasting and independent twenty-four-measure
long middle section, proportionally equivalent to the A section. Consequently, it strongly
alludes to the ternary formal design.
In his middle period, in general, and in this opus, in particular, Scriabin broadened
the horizons of the traditional functional system. The global idea of having two
complementing triads a tritone apart that also function interchangeably, resulted in a
broader and more comprehensive notion of a term “function.” Accordingly, the triad on
the ^1 only no longer represents Tonic function. Rather, Tonic function becomes a
broader category “function-complex,” where each complex is based upon intertwined
relationships of two tritone related centers. This theory echoes Lendvai’s idea of axis of
symmetry. The difference, however, is that the triads on ^1, ^4, and ^5 still remain the
most important in terms of tonal and, thus, functional centers, in comparison with ^b6
and ^3 in Lendvai’s system. Example 3.10 shows such a layout in the key of Db Major,
the key of Op. 52, no. 2:
54. An elided cadence enriched by a delayed appearance of the cadential Tonic in the bass creates
a phrase overlap in mm. 23-24.
39
Example 3.10. Overall functional layout in the key of Db Major.
T
Db-G
SD D
Gb-C Ab-D
As mentioned earlier, one of the most important claims made by Dernova is that
Scriabin’s music is constantly Dominant in its nature and is based on consecutive
Dominant-like sonorities. Since the Tonic function is no longer represented with only
9b5#5
one chord but rather with two a tritone apart, the fundamental D or its slight
alterations or modifications can be traditionally and equally resolved into both Tonics a
tritone apart.
The fact that in his [Scriabin’s] mode the two traditional
resolutions can be considered as a part of the same system
leads to the concept of unifying the dominants from two
different tonalities, thus dissipating, at least theoretically,
the need for tonic resolution.55
Since the Dominant sonorities of the two keys a tritone apart are enharmonically
equivalent, they furthermore can be generalized as one Dominant entity with the ability to
resolve into either of its Tonics. As Guenther put it:
This relates directly to the evidence of Skryabin’s music,
where we at first see a preference for chords of dominant-
like structure and for tritone relation of such chords, then
an occasional experimentation with the tonal resolution of
the chords in this tritone relationship, and, finally, a gradual
movement away from any tonic resolution. After this point,
the music begins to consist only of dominant-like chord
structures, most frequently progressing by tritone root
movement.56
As a result, Dominant resolution into Tonics, which used to be stated explicitly in

Scriabin’s first and middle period compositions, becomes more of the implied
56. Ibid.
40
characteristics of his mature and late periods. Enigme from Op. 52 opens a series of
Scriabin’s tonal compositions that do not have a final Tonic closure.
The opening A section of Enigme (mm. 1-24) is written in a period form, where
the second phrase (mm. 12-24) is only a partial restatement of the first phrase (mm. 1-6)
transposed by a major third. Additionally, the overall harmonic motion of the second
phrase is expanded by means of the “Small Enharmonic Sequence.”57 As shown in
Example 3.11, such a root motion by minor thirds, also called in the literature a third
cycle,58 results from the interlocking tritone links of two complementary whole-tone
scales.
Example 3.11. Root motion in the bass by minor thirds in Op. 52, no. 2.
Another way of looking at the first twenty-four measures is contrapuntal.

Example 3.12 shows the overall voice leading through the first twenty-four measures,
concluding with the conventional V-I cadence in Db major in mm. 22-24.
Example 3.12. Contrapuntal voice-leading motion in mm. 1-24.
V-----------------------------------------------------------------V----------I8-7
57. For detailed explanation of this concept, refer to pp. 21-22 of this document. See also
Dernova, Garmonia Scriabina, 50-51; Guenther, “Varvara Dernova’s System of Analysis,” 184.
58. Such a description only states the foreground events and lacks an explanation of the overall
tonal motion. See Dave Headlam, The Music of Alban Berg (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University
Press, 1996), 200.
41
4/2
The piece opens with an auxiliary cadence (V of Db).59 The opening eight
measures are based upon tritone Tonic complex Db-G-Db introduced by its dominants
9b5 9b5 9b5 9b5
Ab -D -Ab . These two Dominant chords share four common tones out of five
with each other.60 In fact, they are inversions of each other and, consequently, prolong
the same harmony. Example 3.13 shows the enharmonic equivalence of these two
sonorities.
9b5 9b5
Example 3.13. Enharmonic equivalence of Ab –D .
This harmonic complex Ab-D-(Ab) represents a Dominant tritone complex.

However, one might find it hard to claim whether this opening gesture represents
Dominant or Tonic. On the one hand, although these enharmonically respelled
9b5
Dominants are different inversions of the same Dominant chord (D of Db major and
9b5
D of G major), they sound quite stable and thus could be thought of as “emancipated”
sonorities, which do not require resolution in a strict sense.61 In fact, they could fulfill the
role of Tonic as the stable function in the entire tonal design of this composition. On the
other hand, if the Tonic function is only implied through its Dominant-like chord
representatives, not even stated explicitly in the score, then the analytical conclusion is
the opposite. This claim, however, has no supporting evidence in the music. In fact, the
key signature of five flats and the conventional V-I cadence in Db major in mm. 22-24
prove the opposite. Despite such seeming polar interpretations, the understanding of this
59. The following analysis is based on the assumption that the five-flat key signature, stated at the
very beginning by the composer himself, implies Db major as the key of this composition.
7b5 9b5
60. If we conceive of this Dominant sonority as Dominant , rather than Dominant , then these
two chords are absolutely enharmonically equivalent.
61. For more on the notion of “emancipated” dissonance see Arnold Schoenberg, Style and Idea,
ed. Leonard Stein (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975), 91.
42
“enigmatic” piece lies in intertwining of the two functions, Tonic and Dominant, where
there is no obvious foreground distinction which chord represents what function.
Blurring the boundaries between the two functions is the core compositional idea of this
work.
The Subdominant function, in its turn, is represented only locally in mm. 17-19.
As mentioned earlier, the overall root motion between the four Dominant-quality seventh
chords, C-Eb-Gb-A, results from the two interlocking tritones: C-Gb and Eb-A. Based
on Lendvai’s functional theory, their purpose is to fulfilling Plagal, Subdominant
function in this context. This “Plagal island” becomes the local center, surrounded by the
Dominant-like sonorities of the Dominant function, thus, also resulting in symmetrical
balance of the entire A section.
A more expanded version of mm. 17-19 to mm. 17-24 can also be explained by
means of Scriabin’s partial use of the “Big Enharmonic Sequence” (for detailed
explanation, refer to pp. 21-22 of this document).62 Notice the general motion of the
tritone links: C-Gb (mm. 17 and 19), D-Ab (mm. 20 and 22), enriched and expanded by
the overlapping motion of complementary tritones, thus creating a local “Small
Enharmonic Sequence,” described earlier. This overall harmonic motion progresses
towards Ab—Dominant of Db major, and finally reaches its climax in mm. 22-24 with
the conventional Perfect Authentic Cadence.
The final, broader interpretation of the first 24 measures conceives of this music
as one big auxiliary cadence V-I (in Db major). Globally, overall harmonic motion is
9b5
based upon a prolongation of one D harmony of Db major. Compare, for example,
measures 6 and 22. The Dominant harmonies are, in fact, identical. Furthermore, the
entire harmonic motion between these two sonorities can be conceived as a dissonant
Dominant prolongation,63 discharging conventionally into the Tonic of Db in mm. 23-24.
Example 3.14 shows the general contrapuntal motion of the auxiliary cadence.
62. See also Dernova, Garmonia Scriabina, 49-50; Guenther, “Varvara Dernova’s System of
Analysis,” 184.
63. Robert Morgan, “Dissonant Prolongation: Theoretical and Compositional Precedents,” Journal
of Music Theory 20, no. 1 (Spring 1976): 49-91.
43
Example 3.14. Contrapuntal motion of the auxiliary cadence in mm. 23-24.
The cadence in mm. 22-24 is the only cadence of the entire composition where a
7b5
Db major Tonic appears. Represented by a dissonant seventh chord on Db (Db ), this
dominant-like sonority sounds stable, and thus functions as the Tonic. In addition, the
overall contrapuntal voice leading also supports such a reading (refer to Example 3.12).
The connection between the A and B sections also deserves a closer look and
detailed explanation. The elided cadence in mm. 22-24 smoothly connects A and B
sections. The appearance of the Db major Tonic itself at the cadence, however, is delayed
until measure 24, while the B section starts in m. 23 in the upper voice. The blurring of
the formal boundaries also creates a smooth uninterrupted texture and flowing continuity
within the form. Such a compositional device becomes one of the most common formal
techniques in Scriabin’s compositions of mature and late periods.
The middle section of Op. 52, no. 2 is based upon the melodic idea from m. 6,
transformed rhythmically and metrically in augmentation over three measures each time
it appears. The “Big Enharmonic Sequence” is the foundation of the overall harmonic
progression. Interestingly, the fragmental appearance of the “Big Enharmonic Sequence”
in the A section continues its way through the sectional boundaries and completes its
entire cycle at the end of the middle section. Example 3.15 shows the overall bass
motion of the “Big Enharmonic Sequence” through both A and B sections.
Example 3.15. Overall bass motion of the “Big Enharmonic Sequence”

through both A and B sections.
44
By glancing to the end of the composition, we notice that the chord in m. 57 is
9b5
V of Db major and it is the exact replication of the chord in m. 6. By not resolving
this dissonant sonority in m. 6, Scriabin creates truly “enigmatic” tonal and harmonic
connections by creating the Dominant arch between the beginning and the end with the
Tonic standing in the middle. Such a layout of Tonic being surrounded by its Dominants
seems to be an interesting compositional idea. It creates symmetry where the Tonic
functions not only as the tonal center, but also as the axis of symmetrical overall design
in its broader sense. Thus, the overall functional design of Op. 52, no. 2 can be expressed
as shown in Example 3.16.
Example 3.16. Functional design of Op. 52, no. 2.

D ← T → D
(mm.1-24) (mm. 23-46) (mm. 47-61)
This open-ended structure also works in consonance with the mediating position
this piece carries within the entire cycle. It also smoothly connects functionally with the
following up piece. Notice that the final closing piece opens with the interplay of the two
Dominants a tritone apart, representing a Dominant axis F#-C of B major, the key of this
work.
Depending upon an interpretation and the approach chosen by the analyst, the
final closure in mm. 61-62 can be explained as either tonally closed or tonally open. In
particular, such a choice depends upon how the analyst interprets harmonic sonorities and
harmonic function they serve within a particular musical context. With doublings
omitted, the sonority in m. 61 results in a whole-tone pentachord collection. When
7b5#5
rearranged by thirds, it becomes a conventional D of Db major:
7b5#5
Example 3.17. Whole-tone pentachord collection derived from D of Db major.
45
However, by separating the sonorities in both hands and analyzing them
independently including doublings, the result is even more striking. The conventional
7#5 9#5
sonority in the left hand is D of G major, and the sonority in the right hand is D of
Db major. Moreover, as shown in Example 3.18, both Dominants are variants of the same
Dominant harmony, just respelled enharmonically.
Example 3.18. D7#5 in G major versus D9#5 in Db major.
7#5 9#5
V /G V /Db
Such a Dominant conclusion only alludes to a Tonic resolution, “resembling it

somewhere up in the air.” Not surprisingly, the marking in the score, made by Scriabin
himself, indicates “envolé,” meaning “flying away.” Scriabin even adds an extra measure
at the very end, filled with the rest and fermata sign, emphasizing to the performer the
importance of their presence. Such a creative ending strongly emphasizes the need for
extra time within imaginary interpretation, while at the same time, leaving the conclusion
up to the listener.

Poem Languide [Поэма Томления] concludes Op. 52. It is the shortest movement
of the three in this cycle. However, the wealth of the musical material and the language
Scriabin employs in order to achieve his compositional design are of immense power.
The title itself, The Poem of Languor, suggests a particular state of emotions, a mood, a
“color.” It portrays a static state of mind rather than developmental growth, alluding to
the impressionistic way of capturing one particular emotion. I offer my reading and
understanding of what Scriabin might have had in mind while composing such a
complex, but, at the same time, incredibly logical and coherent piece of art in miniature
form.
A seemingly straightforward reading of the form already reveals the movement’s
complexity. On the one hand, its periodic structure fits well into conventional tonal
46
design: twelve measures, divided into two unequal phrases of 4+8 (mm. 1-4 and 5-12).
The first four measures are clearly punctuated by conventional half cadence, pausing on
9add6
the Dominant harmony, F# chord in B major on the downbeat of m. 4. The second
phrase is expanded by means of a sequence; it gets punctuated by conventional perfect

9add6
authentic cadence V-I, F# to B major triad in mm. 11-12. Additionally, the
expansion of the second phrase into eight measures results from the slowing down of the
harmonic rhythm from two different harmonies per measure in the first four measures of
the first phrase to only one harmony per measure in mm. 5-9. On the other hand,
harmonic and melodic resources employed in this compositional design propose another
formal reading.
Expansion of the second half already suggests development, but of a different
kind—not physical growth, but rather an emotional, expressive, and aroused state of
mind Scriabin tries to capture. Such an idea demands a particular musical means in order
to achieve such a goal. Needless to say, once again Scriabin’s harmonic system does not
fail him and fits well with the images he paints.
As mentioned earlier, the second phase of this periodic structure (mm. 4-12) is
based upon its expansion by means of a 4-cycle sequence. Notice that the use of four
Dominant ninth chords in mm. 4, 5, 6 and 7 is nothing more than a permutation of the
9b5 9b5#5 9b5#5
same pitch classes shared by the three Dominants, C# , A , and F . The
overall bass motion of the three first Dominants (C#-A-F) outlines what Dernova calls
the “Big Enharmonic Sequence” with omitted steps within a tritone link, completed in
full at the end of the third step, C#-(G)—A-(D#)—F-B, concluding this “journey” with
9b5#5 9b5
Tonic-functioning Dominant chords, F and B . There is no need to have a second
Dominant tritone apart in the score. As Dernova put it, “Full major ninth chord with a
9b5#5
split fifth [D ] results from the sum of four Dominants with missing fifths appearing
in order within enharmonic sequence.”64 Thus, when combined, the entire pitch class
collection of four Dominants a tritone apart built on the roots C#, G (implied), A, and Eb
(implied) results in the same pitch classes within the same symmetrical chord: Dominant
47
9b5#5 9b5#5
ninth with raised and lowered fifths (D ). Example 3.19 shows that C# in m. 4,
9b5#5 9b5#5
A in m. 5, and F in m. 6 are the compressed form of the two Dominants a
tritone apart with a missing chordal fifth.
Example 3.19. Compression of the two Dominants a tritone apart

resulting in a whole-tone scale.
Notice that the entire “journey” of the same Dominant-type harmony through its
9add6
different permutations and chord member’s respellings concludes with G chord in
m. 9. When collapsed into a scale pattern, this pitch class collection results in the second
possible type of a whole-tone collection, namely WT1.65 Measure 10 becomes a pivotal
junction and brings back WT0 type Dominant harmonies. One might argue that such
crafted juxtaposition of only two possible Dominant harmonies (the two whole-tone
pitch-class collections) strongly suggests overall rounded binary design, thus alluding to a
reprise form. In addition, the ascending melodic gesture that spans a minor sixth,
enharmonically respelled as an augmented fifth D(nat)5—A#5 in m. 1, returns in m. 9,
thus also creating returning effect.66 Not only does this motive get transposed by a tritone
but also gets doubled by an octave: G#4/5—E5/6.
Finally, if one conceives the form of this work in Schenkerian terms, the result
will be even more stunning and concise. The off-Tonic beginning, based on exposition of
the Dominant-functioning Dominant harmony in its two modifications (or, permutations
9b5#5 9b5
and respellings) a tritone apart, C and F# in mm. 1-2, clearly creates an
65. This semitone relationship between two whole-tone collections does not appear randomly. It
will be explored more when discussing briefly melodic-motivic levels further in this paper. The label WT
follows Joseph N. Straus, Introduction to Post-Tonal Theory, 3rd ed. (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2005),
147.
66. Despite the fact that detailed melodic-motivic analysis of Op. 52 is outside of the scope of this
document, brief observations will be offered at the end of this chapter.
48
“Auxiliary Cadence,” which becomes the foundation for the entire middle and
background ground of the entire piece, thus, initiating an expanded version of D-T
Authentic Cadence, as shown in Example 3.20.
Example 3.20. Reduced version of the middle ground of Op. 52, no. 3.
9 9
V/V-V V ---I (B maj.)
As mentioned earlier, Scriabin’s harmonic language operates within a double

mode system based on two chords a tritone apart. If we conceive of this idea as three
main functions, Tonic, Subdominant, and Dominant, conventionally located on ^1, ^4,
and ^5 respectively, we can clearly see that each of the functions gets represented not by
one, but generally by four triads, or by two seventh, or in this case, ninth chords a tritone
apart, as shown previously in Example 2.2.67
Example 3.21. Three main functions on ^1, ^4, and ^5 and their
chordal root representatives a tritone apart.
SD T D
E B F#
Db G Ab D Eb A
Bb F C
67. Notice the difference between Lendvai’s and my layout of the three main functions, Tonic,
Subdominant, and Dominant and their tritone representatives. My approach is based on the same idea
outlined by Lendvai of combining four chords within one function based on their major-minor key
relationships. Major functions, such as Tonic, Subdominant and Dominant, however, are located
conventionally on ^1, ^4, and ^5 respectively. Let the readers be reminded that Lendvai’s main functions,
Tonic, Subdominant, and Dominant, are located on ^1, ^b6, and ^3 respectively along with their tritone
representatives. For more information, refer to Lendvai, The Workshop of Bartók and Kodály, 271.
49
Not only does Scriabin restrict his harmonic “vocabulary” to only Dominant-type
sonorities, but also he mostly limits his use of two functions, Tonic and Dominant with
their two representatives each.68 The only exception is the middle section where “Big
Enharmonic Sequence” represents an overall functional cycle.
Example 3.22. Overall functional cycle in the middle section of Op. 52, no. 3.
SD — D —T
C# — A — F—B
As the harmonic foundation of this composition, Scriabin for the first time
expands his Dominant palette by using a Dominant ninth chord (with raised, lowered
fifths and/or added sixth) rather than a Dominant seventh chord.69 He sets up languor
mood at the very beginning by introducing two Dominant ninth chords a tritone apart in
9#5 add.6 9b5#5
mm. 1-2: F# and C . As Dernova put it:
Enharmonic equivalence of the two Dominants within a

tritone link is nothing more than permutation, or, to be
precise, regrouping of the tones of the initial Dominant,
resulting in the change of meaning of chord members
within a consecutive chord structure.
However, such enharmonic change of the Dominants is not

limited to only permutation in Scriabin’s output. … Priority
is given to such a progression in which one Dominant
supplements another or gets supplemented. … Thus, the
sum of the two Dominants within a tritone link represents
complete Dominant seventh chord with lowered fifth.70
68. There is no chord that appears on ^4 or ^#7 (E or A#/Bb) in the entire composition of Op. 52,
no. 3.
69. Notice that D9b5#5 chord is completely symmetrical and, when collapsed into a scale pattern,
results in a whole-tone pitch-class collection.
50
Dernova makes an interesting point: “. . . a missing chordal fifth of the initial
Dominant will appear as a root in the derivative [successive] Dominant after a tritone step
from one Dominant to another.”71 Such an interesting observation helps us to understand
the opening gesture of Op. 52, no. 3. This opening is based upon introduction of two
9b5#5 9add6
Dominant ninth chords a tritone apart, C and F# , going back and forth between
the two as main representatives of the Dominant function. Notice that the pitch class C is
9add6 9b5#5 9add6
missing in F# chord, but it appears as the root of C , thus proving that F#
9b5#5
is the main Dominant and C is its derivative Dominant. Since these two chords are
enharmonically equivalent and share five out of six tones of WT0 whole-tone collection
(D, E, F#, Ab, Bb), together, they complete the entire whole-tone collection, as it is
shown in Example 3.23.
9add6
Example 3.23. Enharmonicism of the two Dominants a tritone apart, F# and
9b5#5
C , resulting in the whole-tone scale when combined.
In fact, this creative opening gesture of two alternating Dominants a tritone apart
is nothing more than one sonority, craftily elaborated through its enharmonic change of
meaning, respelling, and notation.
One particularly interesting feature of this composition is the appearance of
seemingly “foreign tones” that do not belong to the harmonic layout. However, by
exploring melodic and contrapuntal lines on a deeper level, one will be fascinated by
Scriabin’s creativity and ability to project and anticipate harmonic and melodic events
that are about to come. Notice that the harmonic paradigms and contrapuntal motions
that occur in mm. 3 and 9 are almost analogous. Both places also share the same
71. Ibid.
51
compositional design: the appearance of a seemingly “foreign” note a perfect fifth below
the root of the Dominant harmonies.
Nothing, however, is alien in Scriabin’s harmonic and melodic palette. Each
appearance of a note in the score has a meaning and serves a particular purpose. One
might argue that notes G2 in m. 3 and C2 in mm. 9-10 appear in the score in order to
create only a colorful sonic effect. Scriabin for the first time does not write a descending
octave leap from a root of arpeggiated descending Dominant harmonies, but a perfect
fifth below from D3 to G2 first, and only then, an octave leap from G2 to G1 (see left
hand in m. 3). First, by suddenly changing the harmonic profile, the composer
emphasizes change in forthcoming events. Notice that from m. 3, a listener and/or a
performer enters a cadential zone (that will be discussed shortly). Second, pitch-class G
is not a randomly chosen note in the score. Any Dominant seventh or ninth harmony
9add6
includes a tritone, which, theoretically, would have to be resolved. In this case, D
appearing in m. 3 includes a tritone F#-C. By moving these tendency tones with inward
motion, they would need to resolve to G-B or G-Bb (G major or g minor, implied).
Consequently, the presence of a tritone alone, already implies its resolution. Third, G2,
by being ^b6 in B major, resolves by descending semitone motion to ^5 on the downbeat
of m. 4, thus leading to a “Phrygian” half cadence. Not only does the importance of
pitch-class G get demarcated by its appearance three times consecutively, strongly
punctuated on the second and the third beats of m. 3, it also continues to be the lowest
sounding note, the bass for the entire second half of the measure that gracefully descends
by a semitone motion to ^5, the Dominant of B major. Finally, since pitch-class G is a
member of the Subdominant function in B major, it also fulfills its predominant
functional role:
Example 3.24. “Phrygian” half cadence in mm. 3-4.
SD—D
^b6—^5
G — F# (in B major)
Almost the same compositional scheme returns in mm. 9-10. This time, though,
9add6
there is only a leap from G2, the root of G to C2, located a perfect fifth below and it
52
is not followed by a descending octave leap. Notice that the harmonic and motivic ideas
from m. 3 expand from one measure to two measures in mm. 9-10
10 by different means.
First, the insertion of a melodic motive G#5-A5-B5-E6,
G# , doubled by a lower octave, fills
in the initial ascending minor
minor-sixth leap from G#5 to E6,, transposed motivically from m.
3 to D#5-B5. Second, Scriabin inserts an extra bbeat
eat on the downbeat of m. 10. The third
beat of m. 10 is the exact transposition of the third beat from m. 3, transposed this time
by perfect fourth melodically (compare ascending motives in the right hands of mm. 3
and 10) and harmonically.
Despite obvious
us foreground similarities, these two places differ conceptually. The
class G(nat) in m. 3 was discussed earlier.72 This is not the case in mm.
necessity of pitch-class
9-10.
10. The overall harmonic progression towards the final cadence is almost same:
G(nat)2 gets prolonged through measures 9 and 10 and gracefully resolves downwards by
9add6
a semitone into F#2 on the downbeat
dow of m. 11. Functionally, G fulfills Predominant
9add6
function by preparing actual Dominant F# on the downbeat of m. 11 finally
resolving to the
he Tonic triad of B major on the downbeat of m. 12, the
th only triad of the
entire work:
Example 3.25. Mm. 3-4
3 and mm. 9-11
11 of Op. 52, no. 3.
72.. Recall that pitch-class

pitch class G did not belong harmonically to any of its surrounding Dominants.
53
9
Another interesting compositional device employed by Scriabin in this

composition is the use of anticipatory
anticipatory gesture. A note that does not belong to a harmony,
thus initially functioning as a non
non-chord
chord tone, will appear in the musical texture and
anticipate forthcoming harmonic events. Let us return for a moment to mm. 3-4
3 and 10-
11. By comparing harmonic paradigms
paradigms between these two places, one will notice that
despite the fact that they are almost identical on a surface level, they differ in one crucial
aspect. Based on the premise that the anticipatory gesture is one important part for
projecting upcoming harmonic
harmonic events, one will realize the consequence of the voice-
voice
leading. Together with the lowest sounding notes, G2
G in m. 3 and C
C3 in m. 10 and the
upper voices, these two harmonic sonorities result in Augmented
Augmented-sixth chords, to be
precise, French-sixths:
sixths: G-B-C#-E#
G in m. 3 and C-E-F#-A#
A# in m. 10. These chords are
enharmonically equivalent to Dominant seventh chords with lowered fifths: G-B-Db-F
G in
m. 3 and C-E-Gb-Bb
Bb in m. 10. Since any Dominant seventh chord with a lowered fifth is
enharmonically equivalent to another Dominant seventh chord with a lowered fifth a
tritone apart, such harmonic progressions logically fulfill harmonic and functional syntax.
Thus, the French-sixth
sixth chord G-B-Db-F
G F in m. 3 behaves as a tritone substitu
substitute of its
“twin,” enharmonically respelled C#-E#-G-B
B chord, which is a Dominant of the main
Dominant F#-A#-C(#)
C(#)-E
E in B major. The same idea applies to mm. 10-11.
10 French-sixth
C-E-Gb-Bb in m. 10 is in fact an enharmonically respelled Dominant with a lowered
fifth, F#-A#-C-E,
E, in B major.
Both
oth French sixth chords result from contrapuntal melodic
melodic motions in inner
voices: D(nat)-C#
C# in m. 3 and G(nat)-F#
G in m. 10. Observe that both C#3
C# and F#3 appear
as the metrically weak last eighth notes in mm. 3 and 10. To my ear, both notes also
serve as anticipations that become chord tones,
tones, specifically roots, therefore
54
foreshadowing upcoming harmonic events. Such an architectural device creates an
overlapping effect and blurs boundaries between the two sections of the form in mm. 3-4
and, at the same time, creates grammatical punctuation towards the end in mm. 10-11.
Some Thoughts on Melodic-Motivic Gestures in Op. 52, No. 3

Although melodic-motivic analysis of Op. 52 is outside the scope of this
document, I feel it necessary to share some additional thoughts that are directly linked to
Scriabin’s harmonic language. When extended into a three-note melodic gesture in the
inner voice, the motives D(nat)3-C#3-A#3 in mm. 3-4 and G(nat)3-F#3-D#4 in mm. 10-
11 become variants of a main melodic leitmotiv employed by the composer.
Contrapuntal multi-layers get intertwined in such a way that one will find himself
puzzled where exactly one melodic line goes and what and where its next logical
continuation is. As always, Scriabin is very articulate in his writing, especially regarding
stem direction.73 For example, notice the differently notated harmonic paradigms: French-
9add6 add6
sixth (on ^b6) to V (F# ) in mm. 3-4 and French-sixth (on ^b2) to V (F# ) in mm.
10-11. In the first case, the melodic line D3-C#3 is notated with stems down, while the
bass note G3 is notated with a stem up. In m. 10, however, the melodic line G3-F#3 is
notated with stems up, while the bass C3 is notated with a stem down. Such a notational
difference harmonically and melodically in almost identical places should significantly
impact on a performer’s understanding and, as a result, his/her interpretation on the one
hand, and, to enable a theorist to muse about the original intent of a composer, on the
other.
Finally, another interesting detail bears mentioning. One will notice that there are
many semitone-based melodic motives that create a web of short intertwined contrapuntal
lines. Interestingly enough, these motives are comprised of a step-wise melodic motion
that progress between lowered and raised chordal fifths through the typical chordal
perfect fifth, which ironically becomes a non-chord tone in this particular case. Notice,
for example, a descending melodic chromatic motion in the tenor voice in m. 6, where C4
becomes a chromatic passing tone between the two chord members, Db4 and B3.
73. Such clarity of writing inevitably guides a performer to bring out melodic lines that the
composer wants to emphasize through playing.
55
Another instance can be found on the last beat of m. 1 and down beat of m. 2. One of the
inner-voices in the right hand has an ascending chromatic motion F#4-G(nat)4-G#4,
where G(nat)4 functions as a passing non-chord tone between the two types of chordal
fifth, raised and lowered.
56
CHAPTER FOUR
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR FURTHER STUDY
Scriabin’s music embraces the past and the future, formality and freedom. Its
large range of expression – anger, fear, heroism, darkness, mystery, evil, light, fire, flight,
intoxication, languor, love, flight, ecstasy – is the very connective tissue of his life and
thought.
Scriabin was a man ahead of his time, one of music’s real innovators, who left a
magnificent legacy of beauty. Scriabin's scholars believe that, had Scriabin lived beyond
his brief 43 years, he would have preceded the Austrian school of dodecaphony, and
Moscow would have become the center of atonality. There appears to be no end to the
number of composers who have been influenced by Scriabin’s music. The list includes
Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Medtner, Blumenfeld, Messiaen, Szymanowski,
and many others.
The main goal of this document was to investigate one aspect of Scriabin’s
compositions, namely symmetry and how it is manifested by different musical means in
his music. The description of Scriabin’s harmonic system in general and his harmonic
vocabulary in particular served as the necessary foundation for further discussion. The
theories of Russian theorists Boleslav Yavorsky and Varvara Dernova may be new to the
American reader, but clearly can be applied to the analyses of this particular repertoire.
Lendvai’s theory of axis symmetry provides a lens through which to explore his ideas and
apply them to Scriabin’s music. As Lendvai reminds us in his book The Workshop of
Bartok and Kodaly, “An important feature of classical harmony is that tonality goes hand
by hand with asymmetry and atonality goes hand by hand with symmetry.”74
No one will argue against this statement. However, Scriabin’s ingenuity proves
that it is possible to create a harmonic system based upon symmetry buttressed by
conventional tonal principles. His language operates within an expanded major-minor
tonal system, governed by the principles of conventional contrapuntal voice leading. In
order for surface details to be understood and explained, they have to be realigned or
74. See Lendvai, The Workshop of Bartók and Kodály, 293.
57
suppressed. Scriabin’s harmonic language operates not within diatonicism, but
chromaticism based upon refinement of the rules under which diatonic harmonies
operate. For example, conventional cadential converging motion of ^2 to ^1, ^7 to ^1
gets replaced by its chromaticized symmetrical version: ^b2 to ^1, ^7 to ^1. Despite the
fact that Scriabin based his harmonic system upon symmetrical properties of a tritone and
hints towards and alludes to sonic atonal effects, he did not give up tonality or
functionality along with their fundamental principles.
In my analysis I have tried to combine two different approaches: functional and
Schenkerian. While looking at musical phenomena from different perspectives and
focusing on and emphasizing different details, these two particular theories complement
each other and, when combined, result in a more comprehensive analysis.
I was not able to cover all details; there are numerous interesting aspects in
Scriabin’s music that are worthy of careful and detailed investigation. One such aspect is
the idea of continuity in Scriabin’s compositions. The existence of continuous or endless
progressions is the core of many of Scriabin’s works manifested in different ways: use of
the same melodic-harmonic idea throughout a composition, harmonic elision resulting in
the overlap of two consecutive sections of the form, functional identification of a chord
only after the bass’s appearance, delayed Tonic resolutions, off tonic beginnings, partial
statements of a sequence in the beginning of a composition, continued somewhat later in
the piece, etc. Another fascinating area that is also worth thorough investigation is
Scriabin’s “colored vision,” a manifestation of synesthesia.
Finally, there is a vast body of literature on Scriabin’s music based on octatonic,
whole-tone scales, or other types of modes of limited transposition. I contend that
although present on the surface level, these scalar formations are the outcome of the
higher tonal organizational principles, and furthermore, they play a secondary and
subsidiary role in Scriabin’s overall tonal design.
There is definitely more research to be done. One might argue that some of the
explanations found this paper could be approached in a different way or interpreted
differently. Throughout the entire document, I have conveyed that one suggested way is
not the only possibility to interpret these pieces. Moreover, I have shown how numerous
musical features such as passages, sonorities, or even overall formal structures could be
58
interpreted differently, depending on the chosen analytical angle. Such multiple
interpretations only prove how remarkably enigmatic Scriabin’s compositions are in
general, this opus in particular.
59
CHAPTER FIVE
A TRANSCRIPTION OF TROIS MORCEAUX, OP. 52
FOR CHAMBER ORCHESTRA
Scriabin’s music has been fascinating me for many years. As a former Ph.D.
student in music theory, it triggered my interest to unravel what theoretical mechanisms
governed such complex, and at the same time, immensely beautiful music. As a
conductor and an arranger, I found myself intrigued and curious: would it be possible to
recreate the same music but with a different orchestral color, in this particular case with
string instruments? I felt that string players are limited in their ability to learn Scriabin’s
music since, first, there is no repertoire written for string ensembles by Scriabin himself,
and second, there are no arrangements of his music for such orchestras. Thus, the idea to
undertake this project came about.
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baker, James M. The Music of Alexander Scriabin. New Haven: Yale University Press,
1986.
________. “Schenkerian Analysis and Post-tonal Music.” In Aspects of Schenkerian

Theory, edited by David W. Beach, 153-86. New Haven and London: Yale
University Press, 1983.
________. “Scriabin’s Implicit Tonality.” Music Theory Spectrum 2, no. 1 (Spring 1980):
1-18.
Bass, Richard. “Half-Diminished Functions and Transformations in Late Romantic

Music.” Music Theory Spectrum 23, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 41-60.
Bowers, Faubion. Scriabin: A Biography. 2nd ed. New York: Dover Publications, 1996.
Brown, Matthew. “The Diatonic and the Chromatic in Schenker’s Theory of Harmonic
Relations.” Journal of Music Theory 30, no. 1 (Spring 1986): 1-33.
Callender, Clifton. “Voice-Leading Parsimony in the Music of Alexander Scriabin.”

Journal of Music Theory 42, no. 2 (Autumn 1998): 219-33.
Cohn, Richard. “Bartok’s Octatonic Strategies: A Motivic Approach.” Journal of the

American Musicological Society 44, no. 2 (Summer 1991): 262-300.
Dernova, Varvara. Garmonia Scriabina. Leningrad: Muzika, 1968 [Depнова, Βарвара.

Γармония Скрябина. Ленинград: Музыка, 1968 = Dernova, Varvara. The
Harmony of Scriabin. Leningrad: Music, 1968].
Forte, Allen. “New Approaches to the Linear Analysis of Music.” Journal of the
American Musicological Society 41, no. 2 (Summer 1988): 315-48.
________. The Structure of Atonal Music. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University
Press, 1973.
Guenther, Roy J. “Varvara Dernova’s System of Analysis of the Music of Skryabin.” In

Russian Musical Thought in Music, edited by Gordon D. McQuere, 165-216. Ann
Arbor, Michigan: UMI Research Press, 1983.
91
Harrison, Daniel. Harmonic Function in Chromatic Music: A Renewed Dualist Theory
and an Account of Its Precedents. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.
Headlam, Dave. The Music of Alban Berg. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University
Press, 1996.
Hindemith, Paul. The Craft of Musical Composition. 4th ed. Vol. 1, bk. 1. Translated by
Arthur Mendel. Mainz: Schott, 1942.
Hull, A. Eaglefield. “Scriabin’s Scientific Derivation of Harmony Versus Empirical

Methods.” Journal of the Royal Musical Association, 43rd Session (1916-1917):
17-28.
Lendvai, Ernő. The Workshop of Bartók and Kodály. Budapest: Editio Musica, 1983.
Lissa, Sofia. “Geschichtliche Vorform der Zwolftontechnik.” Acta Musicologica 7

(January 1935): 15-21.
________. “Russko-Polskie Muzikalnie Sviazi.” V sbornike Shopen i Skriabin, pod

redakziei Igoria Belzi, 293-374. Moskva: N.p., 1963 [Лисса Зофья. “Русско-
Польские Музыкальные Связи.” в сборнике Шопен и Скрябин, 293-374.
Mockвa: H.p., 1963 = Lissa, Sofia. “Russian-Polish Musical Connections.” In
Chopin and Scriabin, edited by Igor Belza, 293-374. Moscow: N.p., 1963].
McQuere, Gordon D. “The Elements of the Structure of Musical Speech by S.V.

Protopopov: A Translation and Commentary.” PhD diss., University of Iowa,
1978.
________. “The Theories of Boleslav Yavorsky.” In Russian Theoretical Thought in

Music, edited by Gordon D. McQuere, 109-63. Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI
Research Press, 1983.
Morgan, Robert P. “Are There Two Tonal Practices in Nineteenth-Century Music?”

Journal of Music Theory 43, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 135-63.
________. “Dissonant Prolongation: Theoretical and Compositional Precedents.” Journal

of Music Theory 20, no. 1 (Spring 1976): 49-91.
________. “Symmetrical Form and Common-Practice Tonality.” Music Theory Spectrum

20, no. 1 (Spring 1998): 1-47.
Perle, George. “Scriabin’s Self-Analyses.” Music Analysis 3, no. 2 (July 1984): 101-22.
________. Serial Composition and Atonality: An Introduction to the Music of

Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern. 4th ed. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1977.
92
Protopopov, Sergei. Elementi Stroeniia Muzikalnoi Rechi. Nom. 1 i 2. Moskva: Muzgiz,
1930-31 [Πротопопов, Сергей. Элеметы Строения Музыкальной Речи. ном.
1 и 2. Moсква: Myзгиз, 1930-31 = Protopopov, Sergei. The Elements of the
Structure of Musical Speech. Vols. 1 and 2. Moscow: Muzgiz, 1930-31].
Rifkin, Deborah. “A Theory of Motives for Prokofiev’s Music.” Music Theory Spectrum
26, no. 2 (Fall 2004): 265-90.
Roberts, Peter Deane. Modernism in Russian Piano Music. Vols. 1 and 2. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1993.
Sabaneeff [Sabaneev], Leonid. “A. N. Scriabin: A Memoir.” Russian Review 25, no. 3
(July 1966): 257-67.
Sabaneev, Leonid. Modern Russian Composers. New York: International Publishers,

1927.
________. “Ultrochromaticheskaia Polemika.” Musicalnii Sovremennik nom. 2 (1916)

[Сабанеев, Леонид. “Ультрохроматическая Полемика.” Музыкальный
Современник ном. 2 (1916) = Sabaneev, Leonid. “Ultrochromatic Polemics.”
Musical Contemporary no. 2 (1916)].
Sabbagh, Peter. The Development of Harmony in Scriabin’s Works. N.p.: Universal

Publishers/uPUBLISH.com, 2003.
Sadie, Stanley, ed. The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. 2nd ed. London:
Macmillan Publishers, 2001. S.v. “Skriabin [Scriabin], Alexandr Nikolaevich,” by
Jonathan Powell.
Samson, Jim. Music in Transition: A Study of Tonal Expansion and Atonality, 1900-1920.
London: Dent, 1977.
Schloezer, Boris de. Scriabin: Artist and Mystic. Los Angeles: University of California
Press, 1987.
Schoenberg, Arnold. Structural Functions of Harmony. Edited by Leonard Stein. New

York: W. W. Norton, 1954.
________. Style and Idea. Edited by Leonard Stein. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1975.
Scriabin, Aleksander. Tri Piesi = Trois Morceaux, Op. 52. Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe
Muzikal’noe Izdatel’stvo, 1932 [Скрябин, Aлександр. Три Пьесы = Trois
Morceaux, Op. 52. Moсква: Государственное Музыкальное издательство,
1932 = Scriabin, Alexander. Three Pieces = Trois Morceaux, Op. 52. Moscow:
State Music Publisher, 1932].
93
Smith, Charles. “The Functional Extravagance of Chromatic Chords.” Music Theory
Spectrum 8, no. 1 (April 1986): 94-139.
Straus, Joseph, N. Introduction to Post-Tonal Theory. 3rd ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall,
2005.
________. “The Problem of Prolongation in Post-Tonal Music.” Journal of Music Theory

31, no. 1 (Spring 1987): 1-21.
Swan, Alfred J. Scriabin. 1923. Reprint, NewYork: Da Capo Press, 1969.
Wildmaier, Sebastian. Skrjabin und Prometheus. Hanke-Verlag, 1986.
Yavorsky, Boleslav. “Osnovnie Elementi Muziki.” Isskusstvo nom. 1 (1923): 185-212

[Яворский, Болеслав. “Основные элементы музыки.” Искусство ном. 1
(1923): 185-212 = Yavorsky, Boleslav. “Basic Elements of Music.” The Art no. 1
(1923): 185-212].
________. Stroenie Muzikalnoi Rechi. Chasti 1-3. Moskva: N.p., 1908 [Яворский,
Болеслав. Строение Mузыкальной Pечи. Части 1-3. Moсква: H.p., 1908 =
Yavorsky, Boleslav. The Structure of Musical Speech. Parts 1-3. Moscow: N.p.,
1908].
94

Scriabins Harmonic Language Manifestatio PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scriabins Harmonic Language Manifestatio PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scriabins Harmonic Language Manifestatio PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCRIABIN’S HARMONIC LANGUAGE: MANIFESTATIONS OF SYMMETRY IN

OPUS 52 AND A TRANSCRIPTION FOR CHAMBER ORCHESTRA

Bachelor of Music in Orchestral Conducting

Master of Music in Orchestral Conducting

Master of Arts in Music Theory

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Doctor of Musical Arts in Orchestral Conducting in the

University of South Carolina

Donald Portnoy, Major Professor

Daniel Jenkins, Document Adviser

Andrew Gowan, Committee Member

Samuel Douglas, Committee Member

Jennifer Ottervik, Committee Member

James Buggy, Dean of the Graduate School

CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................1

CHAPTER TWO. DIFFERENT THEORIES OF SYMMETRY.......................................8

CHAPTER THREE. ANALYSIS OF TROIS MORCEAUX, OPUS 52............................29

CHAPTER FOUR. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CHAPTER FIVE. A TRANSCRIPTION OF TROIS MORCEAUX, OP. 52 FOR

3.15 Overall bass motion of the “Big Enharmonic Sequence” through

Skryabin combined contradictions. A fantastic with a

Russian composer Alexander Scriabin is one of the most fascinating figures

4. Leonid Sabaneev, “Ultrochromaticheskaia Polemika,” Muzikal’nii Sovremennik, nom. 2 (1916)

5. Zofia Lissa, “Geschichtliche Vorform der Zwolftontechnik,” Acta Musicologica 7 (January

My understanding of Scriabin’s music is in tandem with Roy J. Guenther’s point

It is fascinating to acknowledge how many different analytical methods and

9. Roberts, Modernism in Russian Piano Music, Vol. 1, 121.

Design, Procedures, and Limitations of This Study

DIFFERENT THEORIES OF SYMMETRY

Ernő Lendvai’s Model of the Axis System

Lendvai’s characterization of Bartók’s compositional tonal organization can be

As we know, I – IV – V – I affinities in European music established a functional

14. Lendvai, The Workshop of Bartók and Kodály, 270.

Example 2.1. Elaboration of primary triads on ^1, ^4,

F (IV) C (I) G (V)

D (II) A (VI) E (III)

With further development of compositional and theoretical practice in the

Example 2.2. Entire complex of T, SD, and D including their

F (IV) C (I) G (V)

17. Lendvai, The Workshop of Bartók and Kodály, 271.

Example 2.3. From Lendvai, The Workshop of Bartók and Kodály

Lendvai emphasizes that the understanding of the poles of individual axes “. . .

22. Lendvai, The Workshop of Bartók and Kodály, 308.

Such a layout of the tthree

Boleslav Yavorsky’s Double-Mode

25. Roberts, Modernism in Russian Piano Music,

26. Boleslav Leopoldovich Yavorsky (1877-1942), a student of Taneev at the Moscow

27. McQuere, “The Theories of Boleslav Yavorsky,” 109.

in Russian Theoretical Thought in Music,, 114.

In Yavorsky’s view, the tritone,

Varvara Dernova’s Analytical System: The Function of the Tritone

combination of two incomplete Dominant seventh chords a tritone apart, as shown in

Example 2.6. A combination of the two incomplete Dominant

away. Such enharmonicism can be used for modulatory purposes, as is demonstrated in

Example 2.8. Figure 2 from Dernova, The Harmony of Scriabin, 21.

Ultimately, because of the interconnections within the tritone link, there is a

Example 2.11. Figures

shows such a diagram.31

Example 2.12. Figure 7 from Dernova, The Harmony of Scriabin, 23.