Rummaging Through The Catacombs Clues in Musorgsky's Pitch Notations

Rummaging Through the 'Catacombs': Clues in Musorgsky's Pitch Notations
Author(s): Simon Perry

Source: Music Analysis, Vol. 14, No. 2/3 (Jul. - Oct., 1995), pp. 221-255
Published by: Wiley
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/854014 .
Accessed: 07/04/2014 12:09
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Music Analysis.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 212.183.209.30 on Mon, 7 Apr 2014 12:10:00 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SIMON PERRY
RUMMAGING THROUGH THE 'CATACOMBS':

CLUES IN MUSORGSKY'S PITCH NOTATIONS
1 Introduction
One of the most strikingaspects of Musorgsky'sscores is the frequentuse
It is by no means unusual to encounter
of seeminglystrangeorthography.*
peculiaritiesof pitch spelling in his music which are hard to reconcile
with the more standard concepts of tonal structure.Inevitably,these
peculiaritiesraise questions about theirparticularsignificanceand about
Musorgsky'sintellectualself-awareness.On a broaderplane, Musorgsky's
notationssupplyrichpickingsforthose interestedin the broaderanalytical
The notionthatnotationmighthold a keyto
significanceof orthography.
our perceptionsof Musorgsky'scompositionalabilityon a 'technical'level
is firsthinted at by the apparent ratherthan real alterationsmade by
in his editionsof Musorgsky'sworks.In additionto the
Rimsky-Korsakov
wholesale rewritingof passages, Rimsky-Korsakov
made frequentamendments to pitch spellingwithout any resultantchange to pitch content.'
in tonal thinkingbetweenMusorgsky
Such alterationssignifya difference
and his firsteditor - a predictabledifference,given Rimsky-Korsakov's
increasinglyacademic (read 'German') musical orientationat the time he
editorial
createdthese editions.The criticalvalidityof Rimsky-Korsakov's
interventionis now generallydiscreditedand his versions are seen in
historicalperspectiveas flawed performingeditions (which nevertheless
achieved much in establishinga number of Musorgsky'sworks in the
- the 'mistakes'correctedby
musical canon). This leaves the irregularities
Rimsky-Korsakov of Musorgsky'soriginalscores to be considered for
what theyare: valid,vividimprintsof the composer'stonal thought.While
these imprintsfall into a wide range of categories,the present article
focuses on orthography,
takingas a case studytwo closelyrelatedpieces
fromPicturesat an Exhibition:'Catacombae' and 'Con mortuisin lingua
* This article
originatedin a paper givenat the Universityof Queensland in May 1994. I am indebtedto Professor
Malcolm Gillies forhis commentson earlydraftsofthe article.
MUSIC ANALYSIS
14:2-3,1995
221
? Basil Blackwell Ltd. 1995. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 IJF, UK and
238 Main Street,Cambridge,MA 02142, USA.

SIMON
PERRY
mortua'. This case study is preceded by an exposition of some of the

basic concepts of the analysis to follow, at the same time drawingon
some shorter examples from Pictures.The broader issues of notation
and analysis, which inevitablyarise from such a study, will also be
addressed in some measure, but the articleremainsprimarilyconcerned
withMusorgskyand remarksmade of a more generalnatureare intended
as pointsof departure,not solid assertions.
Analyses based on the notational aspects of scores are still comparativelythin on the ground, but in recent years the work of two
composersin particularhas attractedincreasingattention:thatof Scriabin
and Bart6k.A pioneerin thisarea, as in so manyothers,was George Perle
who, more than ten yearsago, made an orthographicforayinto the music
of Scriabin.2 In so doing he verypreciselyarticulated,in his introduction,
the fundamental precept for analysis based on notation: '...
even though
theydid not giveus analyticalsurveysoftheircompositions,the composers

of an earlierage were constantlymaking explicitand detailed analytical
assertions,in the veryact of writingthe notes down'.3 Substitute'tonal
music in the broadest sense' for 'an earlier age', and one has the first
sentence in a manifesto of orthographicanalysis. Developing and
modifyingPerle's already impressiveargument,Cheong Wai-Ling has
shownextensiveevidencefora highdegreeof selfawarenesson the partof
Scriabinin the notationsemployedin his 'post-tonal'music.4Similarly,an
overwhelmingcase for the existence of analyticallypotent notational
practicesin the music of Bart6k (at least post-1930) has been made by
Malcolm Gillies.5The emergenceof such writingin recentyears suggests
is a viable and
that analysisbased partlyor even whollyon orthography
useful addition to more establishedmethods.While analyses of this kind
somewhatin the individual
differing
are, so far,highlycomposer-specific,
certain
exist
there
generalprincipleswhichadmitthe
methodologiesused,
invoked
that
the
may be employed, with
techniques
possibility
other
of
in
the
composers' music. In an article
modification,
analysis
devoted more to methodologythan to analyticalfindings,Gillies suggests
(withknowledgeof Perle, but not, I believe, of Cheong) that,in addition
to theirvalue in Bart6k's music, such analyticalmethodsmay have valid
music, this being
application in other areas of early twentieth-century
especially so in Russian music.' One could reasonably extend the
chronologicalboundarieshereback into certainareas of the late nineteenth
whereso-called progressivecomposersare concerned.
century,particularly
Despite Musorgsky'sdeath in 1881, it is even reasonableto suggestthata
defactoplace may be foundformuch of his maturemusic - withits tonal
complexitiesand questions - withinthe conceptual ambit of the early
twentiethcentury. (The same may be said of certain other late nineteenthcenturycomposers, notably Liszt in his final years.)7
A beautiful and simple example of Musorgsky's cognisance of the
possibilities of orthography is found in the differencesbetween an early
222
MUSIC ANALYSIS
? Basil Blackwell Ltd. 1995

14:2-3, 1995
MUSORGSKY'S
PITCH
NOTATIONS
draftand the published version of the opening bars of 'Elegy', the fifth
song from the cycle WithoutSun (1874). Pavel Lamm provided both
versionsof this openingin the Soviet completeedition.8Ex. la shows the
earlierversion,whileEx. lb showsthe publishedversion(whichis Lamm's
primarysource) issued by the Bessel publishinghouse duringthe composer's lifetime. The differencebetween the two versions is most
interesting:aside froma few inconsequentialdiscrepanciesthey are the
same as regardspitch content,but the firstone and a halfbars are spelt
One wonderswhat occasioned the change in notation,
entirelydifferently.
as the passage is 'non-functional'and 'colouristic'in nature,providingan
almostimpressionistic
settingof the line (looselytranslated)'The nightlies
in a mistydream'. Given the context,how importantare the details of
voice-leadingand tonal structureas againstoverallimpressionand effect?
This questionis particularly
in thatthe earliersketchseems to
intriguing
be more traditionallyfunctionalthan that finallysettled upon by the
composer.In Ex. 2 - withparts(a) and (b) correspondingto Ex. 1 above these bars are reduced, showingthe simple semitonalmovementdownwards ofthreevoices againstone fixedpitch.What is foundin Ex. 2a could
easily be described, in referenceto C minor, as iv'-V4, while the progression in Ex. 2b is much harder to categorise simply. One looks
backwards to Chopin, while the other anticipates Debussy, and it is
certainlypossible to imagine Musorgskychoosing the latterfor its much
more non-functional
flavour,giventhe contextof the setting.This is not to
suggest that Ex. l a begins in C minor but, rather,that the power of
analyticalcues (or visual clues, if one prefers)were not unappreciatedby
thiscomposer.It is noticeablein Ex. la thatthe C? is used strangely.It has
no obvious functionand suggestsa less successfulattemptto give this
passage a melting,seamless harmonicevolutionthat is not simplyaural,
but visual as well. The versionas publishedis much more successfulin this
regard.
While the composer's final choice indicates a somewhat more nonfunctionalapproach in a local context,it seems to make more sense in
termsof the tonal structureof the entirepiece. The tonal centreis elusive
formuch of the time,but the song ends clearlyenough in F? minor,and
the materialof the bars followingEx. 1 (bs 4-10) points to F#minor as
well. Comparingthe notationsforthese two versions,it is clear thatthose
of the published versionsit much more comfortably
withinan F#minor
complexthan do those ofthe earlierdraft.In the finalversionthereare still
some spellingswhichare unusual in F#minor- the F?, forinstance,which
seems to arise fromthe approach to the E major triad in the thirdbar,
promptingthe enharmonic replacement of the leading note with the
flattened tonic. There is nothing to suggest, however, that the passage

could not have melted with equal ease into an unambiguous F# minor
tonic, given the slightest of alterations in the second bar. The notations in
the draftversion, however, are totally irreconcilable with F#minor. It may
MUSIC ANALYSIS
14:2-3, 1995
223
? Basil BlackwellLtd. 1995

SIMON
PERRY
Ex. 1 'Elegy'(Without
Sun,No.5), bs 1-3
a) earlyMS draft
Rndante
A nr-3
77 7.
Rndante
r-3
Vtu
3 3
- ma -
drem
-1
let noch'
b) firstedition
Rndantinomosso
33
indantino mosso
"
pp
T1
/I .11
/I
i~iTll
L*
ii-/'/i
i I
11,
On" 1-
Ir3
V tu - ma - no
let noch'.
-1 "11n"q.
lie?
i
pip
drem
- 1",,-, ..'-.
I
I
1 'k
kU.! L,
I . if
l~~ilPl
IT1
.I~
]iI
I
II
II
L., .
r
i l
~
i'l~i
"-
- r
U
_Ii,~L-
Ex. 2 ReductionofEx. 1
b)
a)
for
~6ll
MUSIC ANALYSIS14:2-3, 1995
224

MUSORGSKY'S
PITCH
NOTATIONS
be hypothesised,therefore,
thatMusorgskymade a clear calculationto set
the openinglines of Golenishchev-Kutusov'sverse in a way whichalludes
to the key,yet avoids it, ratherthan with an apparentlymore pedestrian
progressionin the 'wrong'key.
2 AnalyticalPerspective:
and TonalStructure
Orthography
The pitch notations found within a particulartonal structurehelp to
its tonal centre(s).The bounds of a tonal structureare articulated
identify
principallythroughthe consistencyof the pitch spellingsemployed,but
also via othermeans such as clear formalboundariesor theindividuality
of
lines within a contrapuntaltexture.Various archetypalstructuresmay
be considered as foundationsfor notational analysis. These are best
characterisedby the number of pitches employed, this number being
differentiated
against the existingseven letternames. Among the more
standard archetypesare chromatic(twelve-note),octatonic (eight-note),
diatonic/modal(seven-note) and whole-tone (six-note) structures.Of
primaryinteresthere is the twelve-notestructure,specificallythat which
has an underlyingseven-note (diatonic) basis. Because it contains the
fullestrepresentation
of pitchspellings,the twelve-notestructureis usually
the most analyticallyinformative,
yieldingclues, via its particularorthoto
the
of
graphy,
hierarchy pitches in a tonal setting.Fig. 1 shows two
possible systemsof spellingfor a chromaticallyenrichedtonal structure
based on Bb.For themoment,onlyFig. 1a willbe considered(althoughthe
rationaleforFig. lb willnot be hard to deduce).
Fig. 1 Standardchromaticstructurescentredon B%
a) maj/min: B% Cb C
D6 D
E6 E? F
b) minor:
ascending: B By
? C
descending: B% Bbb A
Db D? E? E? F G6 G
Ab, GG F FE E, Ebb D
GC Ab A? (Bb)
Ab A (Bb)
C Cb (Bk)
Of the collectionof seven letternames representingtwelvepitches in

Fig. la, two (B and F) are representedonly once (B%and F?), while the
remainingfiveletternames each receive two pitch representations.This
simple example affirmsthe fact that the degrees least likely to be
are the tonic and dominant.Or, to put it another
chromaticallyinflected
7
B
F
and
be
said to be chromaticallyencircledand, therefore,
way,
may
defined as key structuralpitches. While this type of tonally-based
chromaticstructureis a useful startingpoint, in practice it is usually
encounteredin a less than pure form.Frequentlywe are presentedwitha
defectivechromaticstructure- one in which any number of the twelve
MUSIC
ANALYSIS
14:2-3, 1995
225

SIMON
PERRY
pitches is absent, thus makingit harder,as more pitches are missing,to

determinethe tonal centrewith certaintyon the basis of notationalone.
Context is obviously importantin such cases. Additionally,one often
encounters various contaminants and corruptions. These come in
numerousformsand usuallysuggesta weakeningof one or more structural
pitches. (The presence of a Bb forexample,in additionto the A? leading
note in Fig. l a would suggesta weakenedtonic.)
A number of factorscan conspire to produce such inconsistencies.
Certainproblemsof instrumentation
may dictatea changein spelling.The
ostinato figure in the lower stringsbeginning at b.401 of the first
movementof Beethoven'sSeventhSymphonyis a typicalcase in point.As
Yet Beethovenchose
notatedin the cello and bass partsit is: D-C#-B#-C#.
to spell the B#as C in the viola part,the low B#being conceptuallybeyond
the viola's range. Transposinginstrumentsoften'force' the respellingof
certain structures:writingfor the Bb trumpet,for example, in a tonal
structurebased on F#may result in a defaultto an At-based structure
to read and play, G#ratherthan the transpositionally
correct,but difficult
based one. Yet anotherdiscrepancyfrequentlyoccurs as a resultof what
wherea non-centricnote may receivea
Gillies terms'micro-tonicisation','
a
structure
as a resultof an apparentcorruptionof
within
centricity
passing
will become
the structure.(A modifiedconcept of this micro-tonicisation
intothisarticle,as numerousinstancesof it are encountered
clearerfurther
in the examplespresented.)
Inconsistencies arising from such practical factors as the abovementionedmay be grouped togetheras 'pragmatic'types,and they are
withina given context.A second group mightbe
usually self-explanatory
consideredto contain inconsistenciesarisingnot so much frompractical
concerns,but fromthe individualityof tonal thinkingwhich emergedas
composers sought new means of achieving logic in voice leading and
harmonicorganisationin the rapidlychangingtonal world post-common
practice. It is in the specific notational practices developed in these
in a more
endeavoursthatpitchnotationbecomes analyticallyinformative
than self-evidentway. In the case of Musorgsky,one importantarea of
interestlies where spellingsarisingfrompersonal traitsof voice leading
conflictwith more standard archetypes.This may be illustratedby two
briefexamplesfromPicturesat an Exhibition.The firstis found at the end
ofthe sixthpiece, 'Two PolishJews,one rich,one poor', shownin Ex. 3a.
These bars are in B6 minor.This is borne out orthographically
by the
defectivechromaticstructure,shown in Fig. 2, which encirclesthe tonic.
However, the contaminatingFK suggests a weakeningof the secondary
contradictsthe archetypal
centre,the dominantF. The use of F,
E1 and
proposed in Fig. la, which suggeststhat a chromastyleof orthography
ticallyenricheddescentin minorfrom3 to 1 shoulduse raised4 and 3, not
flattened 9 and 4. An instance of the more normal notational route can be
found in Ex. 3b, a fugue subject by Max Reger which has been transposed
226
MUSIC ANALYSIS

14:2-3, 1995
MUSORGSKY'S
PITCH
NOTATIONS
Ex. 3
a) 'Two PolishJews',bs 26-9
126
poco rit. con dolore
ff
3 -/071
b) Reger,Op. 131a, No. 1/II,bs 1-3 (subject,fugueforsolo violin,
transposed)
Allegro
F__
___w
Ii.
v'
up a semitonefromits originalA minorforthe sake of comparison.'0In

fact, Reger's notation conformsto the model found in Fig. l a, while
Musorgsky's,withits own special elegance and consistency,adheresto the
alternativesystemfound in Fig. l b, which is an intuitivevoice-leading
model. In this systemall notes of the scale are approached by what we
mightcall secondaryleading notes: lower ones in ascendingcontextsand
upper ones in descending contexts.This is, in essence, that concept of
micro-tonicisation
referredto earlier.Even the double spellingof pc 2 is
easily accounted forby this model: D? is entirelyappropriateas a lower
neighbourto E?, whileEt, is just as coherentas a passing note betweenE?
and Db. There is nothing startlinglyoriginal in such a voice-leading
practice.Most composersof tonal music employthis kind of orthography
to an extent,but not on certain'sacred' degrees:the perfectfifthis seldom
flattened,and the major sixthis seldom sharpened.Or, puttingit another
way, the leading note is rarelymicro-tonicisedfrombelow, nor is the
subdominantfrom above, for the simple reason that such orthography
stronglycontravenes,by implication,the prevailingtonal centre.Therefore, it is usual to find systemsof orthographyin tonal music which
provide a compromise between fluidityand 'directional coherence' in
voice-leading,on the one hand, and stabilityof tonal structure,on the
227
MUSIC ANALYSIS14:2-3,
1995

SIMON
PERRY
other." The differencebetween Musorgsky'sand Reger's thinkingin the

like melodic passages of Ex. 3 revealsa classic case of linearversusvertical
thinking.Musorgsky'sspellingsuggestsa mindwhichtendednot to regard
structurally
importantscale degreesas inviolable,as would be the case with
one more steeped in orthodoxyand traditionallearning.He maintaineda
mode of tonal thinkingwhich did not place as great an emphasis on the
hegemonyof dominant-tonicrelations,as did more academicallytrained
musicians.12
Fig. 2 'Two PolishJews'

bs 25-9:
B,
CQ C
DDb
D
Ebb
E
F6
(BF)
F GC
one could arguethatthe violationof

Taking thisconcepta littlefurther,
the dominantin Ex. 3a representsa sortof 'mis-tuning',even thoughthe
fundamentalsense of B%as tonic remainsstrong.One mightnot want to
study,but the conceptof
place too greatan emphasison thisbeforefurther
a mis-tuneddominantis deliberatelyinvokedhere withthe commentsof
Jinos Karpiti in regardto Bart6k'smusic verymuch in mind." There is a
of course,betweenBart6kand Musorgsky- and much
worldof difference,
connectionscan be made to coverbeforewatertight
theoreticalterritory
but some commentsshould not go unsaid. Kirpiti introducesthe concept
of mis-tuningvia the well-knowntechniqueof scordatura,
which,he states,
to
was most typicallyused in the nineteenthcentury obtain special effects,
usually ghostlyor macabre ones.'4 The effectof the flattenedfifthmight,
seem appropriatein Musorgsky's'Two Jews',ifonlyon the basis
therefore,
of thepiece's grotesque,caricaturedqualities.We could leave it there,were
it not forthe bars precedingthose ofEx. 3a, wherethe issue is considerably
more complex.These are the bars,shownin Ex. 4a, in whichthe twoJews,
aftersolo appearances,performa duet, so to speak. The presencenow of
seems propheticof some
the flattenedtonic,as well as oftheflattenedfifth,
of the more developed pointsraised by Kirpaiti.His examples of Bart6k's
mis-tuningthe upper tetrachordof the Dorian scale down by a semitone"
come close to our present example fromMusorgsky,only requiringA~,
instead of A6. In fact, one mighteven argue that in Ex. 4a we find the
upper tetrachordof the melodic minor,ratherthan Dorian, mis-tunedsee the bracketsin Ex. 4b, which shows the scalar structureused in these
bars. A furtheraspect of Ex. 4a is its distinctlybitonal characterwith
the respectivetonic
referenceto B%minor and D? minor - significantly,
keysof each Jew's'solo' passage. This is shownin Ex. 4b by the separately
beamed scales. It is worth recalling, in light of this, Kirpiti's comment that
'it is precisely the mis-tuning which creates the impression of bitonality'.'6
This leaves one to explain, of course, the numerous appearances of E in
Musorgsky's 'Two Jews', but I believe there are good reasons for these: in
228
MUSIC ANALYSIS

14:2-3, 1995
PITCH
MUSORGSKY'S
NOTATIONS
Ex. 4 'Two PolishJews'

a) bs 19-21
Andante. Grave
3f
'
J-
J:
Wi 44 %4.
UMIMI A
" MI
Sv
k
'l
'7
----
",
VW
b) bs 19-21, scale forms
Id
ILp
I. "
Bb
-------- Upper
D6
tetrachord
nIllilor
minor, I
Lower tetrachord
"
mostcases theylead relativelyunambiguouslyto the 'true' dominant,and

indeed may serve to show where more straightforward
procedures, as
to
more
radical
are
is
there
the inevitable
ones,
opposed
occurring.Finally,
octatonicimplicationarisingfromthe minorthirdrelationshipB%-Db.The
lowertetrachordsof minorscales a minorthirdaparttemptingly
throwup
an octatonic hexachord
The potential for a fullblown octatonicismis not(B-C-D-EE-F-G,).
quite realisedhere,but Musorgsky'sawareness
of it should not be totallydiscredited.
Having explored an example of a 'descending' orthography(Ex. 3), I
MUSICANALYSIS
14:2-3, 1995
229

SIMON
PERRY
wouldliketo consider,iffornothingmorethanthesakeof symmetry,

an
'ascending'one. This is foundin the virtuosiccoda of 'Limoges' (the
whichdepictsthe finalhubbubof the market
seventhpiece of Pictures),
scene (Ex. 5). Whattakesplace hereis a layeredincreasein chromatic
in Fig.3 which
saturationof an initiallydiatonictexture,as illustrated
breaksthepassageintothreegroupsaccording
to theincreasedpresenceof
chromaticpitches.Afterthe purelydiatonictextureof bs 37-8, the
notesin b.39 whichlead semitonally
structure
acquiresseveralchromatic
notes
of
the
to
various
scale.
(The curvedarrowsin Fig.3 indicate
upwards
function
of thesemicro-tonicising
thevoice-leading
pitches.)So farthese
chromaticnotes offerno challengeto the E? major basis whatsoever.
However,in b.40 thereis a problem:theA?whichleads clearlyenoughto
by G?, the highlyvolatile enharmonic
B%,is itself'micro-tonicised'
of
the
subdominant.
At
thesametimetheAbdefinitely
retains
equivalent
role.
itsownstructural
Ex. 5 'Limoges',bs 37-40
meno mosso, sempre capriccioso
accelerando
poco
wattacca
This finalbar may be clarifiedby furtherbreakingits pitch notations

down according to the three lines which constitutethe rising parallel
homophonywithinthe toccata-liketexture.This is shownin Fig. 4, where
and (b) attempts
part (a) alignsthese structuresaccordingto E? centricity,
ofthechainofrisingthirdsbetweenthetwo
to providea clearerreflection
lowervoices. In both Figs. 4a & b it maybe observedthatthevoice-leading
to earlierstillholds true:passingnotes alwaysmicropracticereferred
230
MUSICANALYSIS
14:2-3,1995

MUSORGSKY'S
PITCH
NOTATIONS
Fig. 3 'Limoges'
bs 37-8:
EL
b.39:
Eb
b.40:
El, E?F
AX
B,
FAG
Ab
B% B ,C
F?LG
G?AA
iB,
(E )
C_,D
(E,)
CloD
(E)
tonicise the followingpitch, regardlessof any apparent distortionof the

structure.Accordingto thisvoice-leading'rule', Fig. 4a suggestsa mixture
of modes. The 'lower' line retainsa structureof EL major,withchromatic
interpolationsresolvingin the same manneras in b.39. The middle line,
however,shows an EL Lydian structure:Abis conspicuouslyabsent and G?
points to A? as a structuraldegree. There is some confusionarisingfrom
the absence of the second degree, F, which means that E? does not
technicallyresolve.If the upper and middlelines are consideredas a whole
then the presence of F in the upper part completesthe Lydian structure,
althoughit does not, admittedly,
providean immediateresolutionof E?. It
is also noteworthythat the upper line, considered alone, outlines a
pentatonicscale (based on F or C); an over-laywhichis possiblylinkedto
thepentatonicthemeofthe Promenade."
the situationin thisbar in as much as it
Fig. 4a, however,misrepresents
fails to show the fundamentalstructureof thirdsmaintainedthroughout
the passage. In Fig. 4b a closerreflectionof the score has been attempted
by aligningthe lowerand middlelinesin referenceto the initialmajor third
EV-G.It variesfromthe score onlyin thatMusorgskydid not strictly
retain
Fig. 4 'Limoges', b.40
a) alignedwithreferenceto EL
F
upper:
middle:
Eb Eg?,()
F?lG
G?~#A Bb
CLAD
(E)
lower:
EL E OF
F#,G
Ab A
CD
(E,)
B,
b) verticallyalignedwithreferenceto the score

upper:
GA
BL
F[,G
Ab ABLB
middle:
lower:
EL E?,,F
MUSIC ANALYSIS
C#,D
Eb E?,()
F#,(G)
C#AD (EL)
14:2-3, 1995
231
C Basil BlackwellLtd. 1995

SIMON
PERRY
a seriesofmajorthirds.He pushedcertainnotesin themiddlelineforward

- causingeach lineto progress
by a toneratherthana semitonehereand
there- in orderto underpinthe passagewitha solid E? structure.
(For
to obtaintheinterval
thanG-B?.
G-B%rather
example,B%is pushedforward
to the
Likewisewe findthe minorthirdC-El, insteadof C-En,referring
subdominant
doesmaintaina majorthirdovertheF
triad.)Yet Musorgsky
in a
in the lowerpart,yieldingthe A? alreadyreferred
to, and resulting
middlepart whichlooks distinctly
as thoughit is based on G minor.
and/or
Whichever
wayone takesit, thereis a strongsenseof bimodality
here.
The
of
is
a
versus
bitonality
question bitonality
bimodality highly
in a bitonalpassage,or
ofbimodalimplications
vexedone. The attendance
of an extremely
viceversa,leads to the possibility
complexweb of tonal
- so complexthatin somecasesitmaybe impossible
to unravel.
structure
in
have
had
this
mind
he
wrote:
well
when
Calvocoressi
may
to
tonaland modalschemes
His [Musorgsky's]
maybe impossible
in termsofusualtheory;
butthereis nothing
definesafely
elusive,
orshaky
aboutthem.In fact,thetonalbasisfeelsso firm
ambiguous,
will
of deviceswhichshouldmakeforinstability
thatthediscovery
toanalysts."
comeas a surprise
often
Bearingthisin mind,Ex. 5 showsthat,whileit is possibleto reacha good
of the passage,it is impossibleto be absolutelydefinite
understanding
becauseof thetonal
to thelast detail,precisely
aboutthetonalstructure
to above.Shouldone regardthemiddleline
versusmodalmatrixreferred
of the structure
(as shownin Fig. 4) as based on E? or on G? Thereare
bothways.
arguments
foreitherE? Lydianor G
To a largeextentthe analyticalpreference
bothG minorandEl Lydianareone
minoris academic.Moreimportantly,
aspectof
step'sharper'thanE, major.This is surelythemostfascinating
The
betweenrisingand sharpening.
thispassage:theapparentconnection
on
centred
remains
that
the
in
Ex.
5
shows
while
of
passage
spelling pitches
even
remains
the
structure
C
in
bs
middle
above
intact,
E6 major
37-9,
E6
saturated.As soon as it
chromatically
thoughit becomes increasingly
at thecomlaunchesitselfupward,so to speak,fromtheE6 'springboard'
of b.40, the systembeginsto fragment.
mencement
E6 retainsa centric
role, but the clear sense of a singlemodalityand/ortonalitybecomes
calculated
achievedin thiscoda is,no doubt,a highly
obscured.The effect
one: devices of texture,shape and velocitycombinewith the tonal
rendered
to producea finely
structure
risingtumult.
imageofexponentially
thiseffect
whichplaya partin achieving
maybe
However,thetonalfactors
traced back to the simple voice-leadingpracticereferredto earlier.This
practicegovernsthe structureof this unusual passage and seems to have
world
bimodal/bitonal
led Musorgsky,as ifby default,intothe fragmented,
ofthe finalbar.
232

MUSORGSKY'S
PITCH
NOTATIONS
3 A NotationalAnalysisofTwoPiecesfromPicturesat an Exhibition
'Catacombae' is the eighthpiece of Picturesat an Exhibition.It providesa
fine case study of Musorgsky'sskill in the manipulationand balance of
tonal textures,with his notations showing a highlyactive awareness of
purpose in this regard.Althoughthe piece itselfis small, the problemsit
poses are farfromeasy. There is an enigmaticqualityto be foundin the
open-noted austerityof the piece, in its dramatic dissonances and its
extremedynamiccontrasts,a qualityall the moreheightenedby its sudden
of 'Limoges'. The pictorial
appearance followingthe exuberantvirtuosity
of VictorHartmann and
inspirationfor 'Catacombae' was a self-portrait
another architectinspectingthe Paris Catacombs by lamplight."At its
conclusion 'Catacombae' is linked,attacca,to the next piece, which also
bears a Latin title,'Con mortuisin lingua mortua'. This second piece is
the last of the Promenades,statinga minor-key
variantof the Promenade
themebelow a shimmering,
octavesin theright
descendingseriesof tremolo
hand. (Musorgsky'sinscriptionin the marginof the autographmanuscript
at this point reads, '. . . the dead Hartmann's creative spiritleads me to the
skulls,invokesthem,[and] slowlythe skullsbecome suffusedwithlight'.)20

That a close relationshipis intended between the two pieces seems
certain,and it is for this reason that they are consideredtogetherhere.
Both deal in different
wayswiththe same referential
subject. 'Catacombae'
an
of
the
objective depiction
provides
subject (the picture), while the
more
to
this
composer's
subjectiveresponse
subjectis encounteredin 'Con
mortuis'.2' It is tempting,therefore,to suggestthat the two pieces also
share a close tonal relationship.Indeed, it firstappears that 'Catacombae',
whichends witha discord,is reliantupon 'Con mortuis'to clarifyitstonal
ambiguities.(It should be added, however,that'Con mortuis'possesses its
own tonal questions,whichwillbe examinedshortly.)
The ambiguitiesof both pieces are aurally self-evident,and from a
theoreticalperspectivethe graphicanalysismade by DerrickPuffettserves
as an excellentintroductionto the problems of these pieces by demonstratingtheirdefiance of a monotonal,traditionalSchenkeriananalytical
approach.22Puffetthimselfreadilyadmittedthathe did not findthe results
of his graphicapproach entirelysatisfactory
(althoughhe does point out
that his work is more Salzerian than purelySchenkerian).Most notable
among the variousproblemswhichhe pointed out were the strongfeeling
of both G and D as tonal centres at various points throughout
'Catacombae', and the ambiguityof the finalB major 'tonic' sonorityat
the end of 'Con mortuis'.23 Indeed, the ultimate objective of Puffett's
analysis is revealed when he writes: 'The degree to which Schenker's
methods can be applied to Musorgskyis in fact a precise measure of his
originality'.24
Despite such findings,Puffettfeltconfidentenough to assertthat the

two pieces are closelyrelateddue to the sharingof the FundamentalLine
MUSIC ANALYSIS 14:2-3, 1995
233

SIMON
PERRY
initiatedin 'Catacombae' and completedin 'Con mortuis'.25However, in

addition to Puffett'sown reservations,the Fundamental Descent itself
contains a peculiar inconsistency:the note of D? which represents3, is
but it
actuallyspeltas Cx in the score. This may seem a smallpointat first,
does raise importantquestions. The voice-leading tendency of D is
fromthatof Cx in any tonal context,and it is hardto
completelydifferent
see how, at an immediatelevel, Cx may functionas 3 in B minor. Of
course, if the voice-leading function of Cx is only understood at a
it througha
foregroundlevel, then it mightbe acceptable to reinterpret
different
spellingin the interestsof makinga wider analyticalpoint. The
real question here is whetheror not we can legitimately
understandthis
note in verydifferent
levels.
waysat different
Thus, certainimportantquestionsarise.Is theresome formofbitonality
operatinghere? If the finaltonic sonorityof 'Con mortuis'is ambiguous,
then to what extentcan we legitimately
regardthispiece as a clarification
of the ambiguities found in 'Catacombae'? Can another analytical
approachshed anyfurther
lighton theforcesat workin thesetwo pieces?
'Catacombae'
It is clear that the firsteleven bars of 'Catacombae' forma neat section.
They are separatedfromthe remainingmusic by Musorgsky'sown double
bar-line,and thereis a strongcadential qualityto bs 10-11. The starting
B, and the section comes to rest on
pitch is a verypronounced,fortissimo
the F?-CQfifth,
a
implying simpleunderlyingstructureof i-V, in B minor.
there are also
While there is some validityto this simple interpretation,
it.
B
with
Between
the
and
closing F#-C)
significantproblems
opening
there is much that is tonallyambiguous. With the strongpresence of G
fromb.2, and the ensuing discords in bs 4-8, the tonal centrebecomes
hard to apprehend.Moreover, the pitch notationsemployed (see Fig. 5)
show a peculiar anomaly in the formof the combined presence of the
leadingnote,A#,and the flattenedtonic,B%.
In this defectivechromaticstructure,the presence of B%has important
tonal implications.It is clear thatafterthe introductory
gesturein octaves
of bs 1-3, the music in bs 4-11 consistsof two contrapuntallines heard
againsta staticmajor seventh'pedal', G-F#,whichresolvesto the octave F#
in b.9. As shown in Ex. 6, these two lines togetheraccount forthe entire
collection of pitch spellingsin Fig. 5, but taken individuallytheysuggest
scale forms.The upper line is based on B, while the lower line,
different
althoughmore ambiguous,pointsto G. The basis forthisdistinctionrests
on the clarificationof the respectiveroles of A0 and BL. The former
functionsin the upper line as a leadingnote to B, whilethe B acts, in the
lower line, as the flattenedthirddegree of a G-based scale. In Ex. 6, each
line ends in a half-closein b. 11, but iftheyare extendedby anotherbar, as
234
MUSIC ANALYSIS

14:2-3, 1995
PITCH
MUSORGSKY'S
NOTATIONS
shown afterthe dottedbar-line,thentheymay be understoodto move to

theirrespective'tonic' degrees.What the listenerexperienceshere is not
differentiated
to be describedas bitonality,but it is safe
reallysufficiently
to assertthat,as a resultof the combined scale forms,the passage carries
bitonal implications- a phenomenon which I shall referto as tonal
'bivalence'.
Fig. 5 'Catacombae'
bs 1-11:
F# G
A# B
Bi,
(Fg)
Ex. 6 'Catacombae', B-based and G-based scale forms,bs 4-12

[41
[111
-O
It is no accidentin bs 1-11 that,whilethe centricity

ofB is corruptedby
the presence of Bb, the notes F#,G and D are 'partiallyencircled' and
noticeable
uncorruptedby otherformsof spelling(see Fig. 5). Particularly
is the presenceof the major seventhG-F#- firstencounteredas a vertical
sonorityin b.4 - and the appearanceof a G major seventhchordin various
inversionsthroughoutthe passage, at bs 4, 7 and 10. This further
helps to
establishthe ambiguityin tonal centricity
between G and B (throughits
dominantF#).In additionto thesefactorsis the process in whichG moves
(or resolves) semitonallydownwardsto F#on three separate occasions bs 3-4, 8-9 and 10-11. This G-F#motion is a variantof the motiveG-F
whichis heard at theverybeginningof the work,in the Promenadetheme.
In each of the three instances in bs 1-11 this motive is heard at proloweroctavetranspositions,
gressively
finallyresultingin the clearcadential
movementat the end of the section.It is not surprising,
thatG
therefore,
might be sensed as the strongercentre initially,while yieldingin its
comparativedegreeof 'valence' to B (via F#)at the cadence in b. 11.
The centricity
of G is reaffirmed
afterthe double bar-line,and thereis a
cadence in G minor in bs 21-2. Bs 17-22 introduce the most overtly
melodic featureof the entirepiece, and the G minorcadence rounds off
235

SIMON
PERRY
thisfeatureso neatlythatit is temptingto view the piece as being in three,

ratherthantwo,parts.Despite the evidenceofthe cadence, however,other
factorsobstructthe definitionof a formalboundaryat this point. From
b.12, G is prolongedin the bass (withthe low A in bs 15-22 acting as a
neighbournote), throughthe cadence, untilb.24. The movementof A-G
in bs 22-3 is 'staggered'againstthe cadence in bs 21-2, and the low G,
whichshould supportthe G minorresolutionin b.21, actuallyarrives,'too
harmoniesof bs 23-4. Also significant,
late' as it were,withthe transitory
in lightof the processesof bs 1-11, is the movementin the bass of G to F#
over bs 24-5. It is possible to conclude that some sort of transitiontakes
to be sure exactlywhere,and how,
place around bs 21-5, but it is difficult
it occurs,as the processis much moreseamlessthanat bs 11-12.
Fig. 6 'Catacombae'
a)
bs 12-22:
F# G
bs23-30
b)
bs 12-24:
F# G
bs 25-30:
F# G
A
G#
A
Gi
B% B? C
C# D
F? (F#)
C# D
EB E
E# (F#)
C# D
F? (F#)
A# B
C# D
E# (F#)
E,
An examinationof the pitch notationsused in bs 12-30 provides a

furtherperspectiveforthe understandingof this transition.In Fig. 6 two
somewhat arbitrarygroupingshave been made. Fig. 6a divides the pitch
notations found afterb.12 according to the cadence in bs 21-2, while
Fig. 6b takesthe bass motionG-F#as the principalindicatorof a transition
fromone sectionto another.These two groupingsmake foran interesting
comparison.Fig. 6b is the much neaterreading,chieflybecause it avoids
the presence of both B%and A#withinone structure.The pitch notations
employedin bs 12-24 indicatea scale structurebased on G, whilethose in
bs 25-30 show the structuralimportanceof F#,pointingultimatelyto B,
is the
even thoughB as a tonal centreis neverreached.26 Also significant
eliminationin Fig. 6b of the triple spellingrepresentationof the letter
name E (Eu, E?, E#)foundin (a). In addition,the chromaticencirclement
of D (by C#and E1) pointsto G as the tonal centrein bs 12-24, while the
G-E#encirclementof F#fromb.25 to the end likewiseindicatesB. Fig. 6b
shows a full encirclementof the dominantin both structures.Not only
does (b) justifythe view thatbs 12-30 fall into two sectionsaccordingto
tonal structure,it also lends support to the hypothesisthat the bass
progressionG-F#in bs 24-5 is more indicativeof a transitionin tonal
structurethan the cadence in b.22. The presence of B#in b.25 is easily
236
MUSIC ANALYSIS

14:2-3, 1995
MUSORGSKY'S
PITCH
NOTATIONS
of the C? whichfollows,and is
explained: it providesa micro-tonicisation
not heard again. As was the case in bs 1-11, the use of Bbor A? is centralto
the determinationof tonal structure.In Ex. 7, 'Catacombae' is shown
graphicallywith particularemphasis placed on the role of Bb and A? in
The determiningroles of Bb and A? are
establishinglocal tonal centricity.
supportedby the functionalambiguity(whichlastsat least untilb.25) of G
and F#.Thus, the interactionbetween G & F#and A#& Bb plays upon
relativedegreesof intervallicstabilitywithintonal contexts:the majorthird
is a stable interval,while the diminishedfourthF#-Bbis unstable.
Ft-A#
Likewise,the minorthirdG-Bbis stablewhilethe augmentedsecond G-A#
is unstable.Thus, in relationto A#,G is subsidiaryto F#whilein relationto
Bb,F#is subsidiaryto G.
Ex. 7 'Catacombae', graphicrepresentation
[41
I
TiI
[111
[19]
[25]
n I
[Nei
TI
LE
LN
l
Of furtherinterestin Ex. 7 is the apparent enharmonicconnection

betweenBkand A#in bs 23-5 (markedNB). It underliesperhapsthe most
perplexingand ambiguoustwo bars (23 and 24) of the piece - containing
the 'non-functional'
indication
Ekmajorand C majortriads- and is further
of the transitory
natureof thesebars.27Finally,the line in the upperpartin
bs 19-22 may be taken as a variantof the line in the lefthand in bs 4-8.
This is shown in Ex. 7 by the bracketsmarked 'x'. Bs 19-22, which are
as a further
indicationof the
clearlyin G minor,may be taken,therefore,
G-based natureofthe left-handpartin the openingsection.
'Catacombae', as interpretedthroughpitch notation,thus lies in three
parts.In the firstpartthe tonal texturemay be describedas bivalent,with
referenceto tonal centresof B (minor) and G (Lydian, accordingto the
strictestinterpretation
of voice-leadingpractice). Throughoutthis section
thereis a shiftin the comparativedegree of 'valence', fromG to B, with
neither centre being completely overshadowed. This tonally bivalent
237

SIMON
PERRY
structureis then 'linearised' after the double bar-line where the two
sections are centred on G (minor) and on B (minor) respectively.The
transitionbetweenthesetwo sectionsis almostseamless,but to understand
themas one is impossiblein termsofpitch-notational
In the most
integrity.
in this piece, froma
general terms,the understandingof tonal centricity
pitch-notational
perspective,restswiththe question:B%or A#?
Throughoutthe discussion above it has been assumed (not unreasonably) that a centricF#implies an ultimategoal of B. However, the tonal
centreof B is neverexplicitlyachieved.The piece does not even end witha
clear dominantbut, rather,withviio7/Vover a dominantpedal. As Puffett
B which opens the piece is highly
has pointed out, even the fortissimo
ambiguous,being approached directly(attacca) fromthe E? major/Lydian
environmentof the coda of 'Limoges' (see Ex. 5), and sounds something
like a C." B is feltat most as a 'tonal ghost'throughout'Catacombae' and
it is not (from one analyticalstandpoint)until the conclusion of 'Con
mortuis'thatthisultimatedestinationis reached,in the formof the latter's
final B major sonority.The tonal ambiguitiesheard at the end of 'Con
mortuis',however,cast suspicion on the ultimateprimacyof the tonal
centreof B. Therefore,a close examinationof 'Con mortuis'(particularly
its closingbars) is essentialto a betterunderstandingof 'Catacombae'.
'Con mortuis
in linguamortua'
'Con mortuisin lingua mortua' is the finalappearance of the Promenade.
It opens with a phrase structurewhich is common to the openingsof all
the Promenades,consistingof two pairs of repeatedphrases(of a structure
a-a'-b-b') afterwhichfollowsa coda containingnew material.29The tonal
structureof the openingphrases (bs 1-10) is generallyquite orthodox,and
in B minor.At the same time the tonic does not
seems to lie comfortably
arrivein any clear structuralformthroughoutthese bars, and traitsof
voice-leadinglead to some fairlypredictablecorruptionsdue to microtonicisation.The pitchnotationsforthe first10 bars are givenin Fig. 7, in
which (a) containsthe notationsfromthe firstpair of phrases,while (b)
has thosefromthe second pair. These notationsoffera defectivechromatic
in notationbetweenthe two
structurebased on B, withminordifferences
but
does so in the guise of a
the
saturates
of
texture,
phrases. F#
pairs
dominant. B is partiallyencircled in (a), fully so in (b), and unlike
'Catacombae', there are no corruptingalternativespellingsto be found.
(Throughoutthese two pieces this is perhaps the closest approach to the
archetypalstructureshown in Fig. l a.) Even a cursoryglance at the score
reveals that there is a continuingpresence of the motive G-F#in the
foregroundand, upon closer examination,at a deeper structurallevel as
well. In this context, however,thereis littledoubt that F] is the note of
greater structuralsignificance;G resolvesto F), and this resolution is
238
MUSIC ANALYSIS

14:2-3, 1995
PITCH
NOTATIONS
C# D
E# F# G
G# A
A# (B)
C# D
E# F# G
G# A
A# (B)
MUSORGSKY'S
Fig. 7 'Con mortuis'

bs 1-5:
bs 5-10:
F?
supportedby the encirclingmovementof E#to F#in the upper line, as it

was in bs 25-30 of 'Catacombae'. In fact,at the end of the second phrase
of each pair (in bs 5 and 10) the cadentialprogressionmay be understood
as a French augmentedsixthchordresolvingto the dominantof B minor.
The prevailingB minortonalityis challengedto some extentin the third
phrase (bs 5-10) wherethereis an inflectionof D major,withA?playinga
more structuralrole than in the firstpair of phrases.In the firstpair A? is
merelya chromaticpassingnote betweenA#and G#in the descendingline
in the righthand, but in the thirdphrase it functionsmore as a dominant
to D. Interestingalso is the clear outliningof a D major seventhchord in
in bs 6-7. In factthereis a layeredqualityto the
the righthand tremolo
in
these
bars, with seeminglylittle'functional'relationbetween
harmony
the B minor and D major complexes. This lends a unique colour to the
phrase, and the D major harmonyseems almost to foreshadowthe highly
perfumedD-based chord found in b.11. Also in this thirdphrase is the
apparent anomaly of the F (as well as the expected Eg) in b.5. This is
merelya surfacefeature,pointingto the brieftonicisationof C in b.6,
which is thenunderstoodas the root of a Neapolitan (in second inversion
form) in B minor. Finally, there has still been no ultimate,structural
resolutionto the tonic of B minor. The importantA#in b.7 finds no
obvious or immediateresolutionand the music is left (in relationto B
minorat least) at a halfclose at the end ofb. 10.
Throughoutthis section,the notationsare consistentlyemployedwith
regard to tonal structure(particularlyin relation to the voice-leading
This is to
principleoutlinedearlier)but say nothingthatis not self-evident.
be expected,given the straightforward
natureof the material.It is in the
tonal effects
followingbars of the coda, however,thatthe most interesting
take place, and in whichMusorgsky'spitchnotationscome into theirown
as analyticalevidence(see Ex. 8).
In the total collectionof pitch spellingsforthis coda, which are shown
in Fig. 8, thereare severalinconsistenciesand corruptions,
ifB
particularly
is assumed to be the primarytonal centre.The notes Gx, B#and Cx all
representunusual spellingsfora B minorcontext,and each requiressome
attention.Each note is unstableand impliesresolution- to A#,C#and D#,
respectively.While these implicationsare realised in the cases of Gx and
B#,Cx failsto fulfilits most obvious voice-leadingfunctionand does not
lead to D#. For this reason, Fig. 8 is slightlymisleading.AlthoughD#is
MUSICANALYSIS
14:2-3, 1995
239

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

tranquillo
TI
,L
4L*- D..............
rt. e perdendosi
, " I
I
i
--,.i.
Ai
JL
,n
SIP,
'
ip
ii canto cantabile, ben marcato
Cl
lfI
n e Verden
nosi
M,
I'
T,
C1
C2
Cl":L.CC ....
,,
. . ..
TI
~D, ,
,2
......... ,
fromCx. To
present,it is certainlynot approached,directlyor indirectly,
of Fig. 8, placingthe pitchnotations
clarifythis,Fig. 9 offersa refinement
of bs 11-20 into two groups.This groupingshows the notationsin relation
chromaticchords which both resolveto an F#major
to the two different
triadin these finalbars. These chords are marked 'Cl' and 'C2' respectivelyin Ex. 8.30 Segregatingthe materialof thisten-barcoda in the manner
in this
tonal structures
impliedin Fig. 9 is not intendedto suggestdifferent
case. It has been done to providea closer detail of the voice-leadingin a
purelylocal connectionwiththetwo chordsC1 and C2.
Of the threepitch spellingsdescribedabove, Gx and B#are the most
easilyexplained.There is an almost sequentialnatureto bs 11-18. In the
contextof chordC1, B , formingan augmentedsixthwiththebass note D,
of the F#majortriad.Followingthis,Gx, in the context
resolvesto the fifth
of C2, resolvesto the thirdof the F#major triad. The notes B#and Gx
of the fifthand thirdof the F#major triad,and
create micro-tonicisations
the triad is itselfsubstantiallytonicisedin the process. The resolutionof
240
MUSIC ANALYSIS

14:2-3,1995
MUSORGSKY'S
PITCH
NOTATIONS
bs 11-20:
F#
Gx, A# B
A
BoACx Cx
D
BOC# Cx , ()
(FD)
D E
bs 11-14:
F?
bs 15-20:
F#
GxxA# B
A#
C#
D#
(F#)
(F#)
importanthere because its approach to A#providesthis

Gx is particularly
pitchwithan unusual degree of stability;Gx neutralisesthe potencyof A#

as a leading note. This in turnmust have a weakeningeffecton the tonal
centreof B.
What part, if any, does Cx play in the process described above? A
possible answer is that it leads melodicallyto C, creating,with B , an
encirclingmotion around C#.This contravenes,however,the notational
precedentof chromaticencirclementdisplayedearlier(forexample,in bs
4-5 and 10) involvingthe approachto F#via G and E#.This createssomethingof an impasse: if Cx is to be understoodas leading to C#,then it
should have been speltas a D (as in Puffett'sgraph); thatit is not can only
implyresolutionto D#,and it should thereforeneitherbe understoodto
lead to C#,nor as a satisfactory
substituteforthe thirddegreeof B minor.
While it maybe difficult
to show whatfunctionthe Cx serves,it is possible
to draw
to see more clearlywhatfunctionit does notserve.It is interesting
a comparisonwiththe Gx in thisregard,because it is truethatwere Cx to
the same role as that servedby
lead explicitlyto D#,it would be fulfilling
Gx, but in a B major context.Ultimately,one mayhear thisunusuallyspelt
pitch in a varietyof ways. The significanceof the spellinglies in that it
in hearing.
affordsa clue to moreinformedalternatives
Of further
note is the whole-toneinfluencein the structureof both C1
and C2: the notes of each chord,exceptforthe immediatefifthabove the
bass note, belong to a whole-toneseries.Fig. 10 illustratesthisderivation.
(The lettersin parenthesesare notes of the whole-toneseriesnot actually
presentin the chord; the lower case lettersrepresentthe 'corruptions'a
perfectfifthabove the bass note.) C1 offersthe more completewhole-tone
but both clearlydisplaythe sharpeningeffectof a 'diatonic'
representation,
of
the
whichleads inevitablyto the augmented
six-note
spelling
structure,"3
seventh D-Cx in C1. This is at least a plausible explanation for the
appearance of Cx, even ifit still fails to describe its function. It will also be
noticed that while C1 is drawn fromone whole-tonehexachord,C2 is
drawnfromits complement.This is of some significancein explainingthe
MUSIC ANALYSIS 14:2-3,
241
1995

SIMON
PERRY
Fig. 10 Chords C1 and C2, whole-tonestructure

Cl:
F?
(G#) a
C2:
C#
D#
(E#) f# (Fx)
(A#)
B#
Cx
Gx
(Ax)
progressivenature of the tonicisationof the F#major triad in bs 11-18.

While the resolutionfromC1 to the F#major triadis partiallysatisfactory,
it does not generatethe same feelingof stabilityheard in that fromC2.
The whole-toneseries fromwhich C1 is derivedalreadycontainsF#and
A#,thusthe Fg majortriadprovidesa less completesense ofresolutionthan
it does afterC2. In C2, neitherF#nor A#is encounteredin the particular
whole-toneserieson whichit is based. This, and the factthatthe notes C#,
E#and Gx (which constitutethe dominantof F#withthe fifthraised) are
found in its particularwhole-toneseries,means that the resolutionfrom
C2 (despite the absence of E#in the actual chord) to the F#major chord
sounds more complete. The effectis not easily described, yet it quite
substantiallysupportsincreasinglystrong,non-traditionaltonicisationof
the F#majortriadin the finalbars of 'Con mortuis'.
'Catacombae'and 'Con mortuis':TonalCentresand Scalar Reference
What conclusionsmay be drawn about the ultimatetonal centreof 'Con
mortuis'?It is now clear thatit is impossibleto regardB as an unqualified
to regardF#in this way, forB
tonal centre.Nor is it entirelysatisfactory
obviouslyretains a strongtonal profile,not least in its being the final
harmonyof the piece. Neitherof these solutionsis analyticallyor aurally
entirelysatisfactory.A thirdpossibility- less neat but ultimatelymore
realisticand rewarding- may be put as follows:that the ending of 'Con
mortuis'refersneitherto B nor F#as the principaltonal centre,but that
both B and F#co-existin a tonallybivalentsystem.To regardB and F#in
this mannerrequiresthat we recognisethatboth are definedby different
processes.In the traditionalsense B is more 'acceptable' as a tonal centre,
being definedprincipallyvia the dominantF., whereas F#,while aurally
strong,is establishedin a more unconventionalmanner.This suggeststhat
senses and, indeed, it is fairto say
F#may be understoodin two different
in the finalbars of 'Con
that F0 undergoesa sort of tonal transformation
mortuis'. In 'Catacombae' and the firsthalf of 'Con mortuis', F# is
importantpitch,but its obvious functionis as a
undoubtedlya structurally
dominant,pointingto a tonic whose arrivalis delayed untilthe veryend.
Yet just priorto thistonic ultimatelyarrivingin b. 19 of 'Con mortuis',F#
loses its dominantflavourand assumes such stabilityin bs 10-20 (as a
of
resultof processes describedabove) thatit assumes a unique centricity
MUSICANALYSIS
14:2-3, 1995
242

MUSORGSKY'S
PITCH
NOTATIONS
its own. The relationshipbetweenB and F#has become, to all intentsand

purposes,'dysfunctional'.
While it is an excitingpossibility,this bivalence of B and F0 raises
tangible objections to the hypothesisenunciated earlier concerningthe
tonal relationshipbetween 'Catacombae' and 'Con mortuis'. How does
'Con mortuis'resolvethe tonal tensionsand ambiguitiesof 'Catacombae'
when 'Con mortuis'is itselfill-defined?An immediateanswer is that it
does not; 'Catacombae' and 'Con mortuis' are linked in subject matter
alone. But the question remains: if referentially
linked, why not tonally
linked? And this is a good question, particularlygiven Musorgsky's
to accept that 'Con
pedigreeas a dramaticcomposer.While it is difficult
mortuis'resolves'Catacombae' in a traditionalsense,thisis not to say that
a different
(perhaps looser) typeof relationshipexistsbetweenthem. For
instance,it could be hypothesisedthatwhilethe finalB major sonorityof
'Con mortuis'may representthe ultimatetonal goal of the processes of
'Catacombae', it is not necessarilyfelt,by the actual time of its arrival,as
the direct outcome of the processes of 'Con mortuis'. Anotherway of
viewingthe relationshipis to thinkof the tonal bivalencebetweenG and B
at the beginningof 'Catacombae' as shifting
to a bivalentsystembased on
and
B.
the
motive
is
found
to shift,at a deep structural
Thus,
F#
G-F#
level,againstthe fixed(but perhapsless clearlyperceived)centreofB. This
is all the more remarkablein that the tonal scheme of the two pieces
reflectsa minorvariantofthe openingmotiveof the Promenadetheme,GF#-B.This suggestshighlyorderedtonalthinkingindeed.32
In the lightof theseideas, some further
aspects of 'Catacombae' should
be considered. It was asserted above that the strongesttonal centres
establishedhere were G and B, while F#was importantonly in that it
ultimatelypointedto B. Now, havingseen thatthereis a strongcase forF#
as a tonal centrein 'Con mortuis',it is necessaryto re-examinethe role
played by F#in 'Catacombae'. Is it possible to regardthe cadence on FOas
a cadence to the tonicratherthan to the dominant?If so thenthe cadence
in b.11 is an unusual one, involvinga tonic which is approached directly
via the Neapolitan chord (in root position). This Neapolitan may be seen
(thoughperhapsnot initiallyheard as such) to begin in b.4, wherethe G
major seventhchord is firstset up. This passage is remarkablysimilarto
the finalbars of Act II fromBoris Godunov,where a descendingseries of
major thirdsis heard against an A6 pedal (see Ex. 9). Here, the tonic is
similarlyapproachedvia theNeapolitan chord.
It is not unreasonableto suggestthata similarprogressionoccurs in bs
10-11 of 'Catacombae'. The chromatictextureis not as completeand the
pedal is an upper ratherthan a lower one, but the evidence fromBoris
provides a degree of supportto the possibilityalready presentedby the
pitchnotations,thatMusorgskymayhave soughtto definethe tonal centre
by means of a descendingchromaticapproach, via the Neapolitan, rather
than the more traditionalV-i definition."There is a massivedifference
in
MUSIC ANALYSIS
243
14:2-3, 1995

PERRY
SIMON
Ex. 9 BorisGodunov,end ofAct II

;
BORI S:
A
,i.
Go- spo-di!
WlI1
Ty no kho-chesh'smer-ti
gresh-ni-ka,
Po-
l
I
J
I1f
L-%o
I
I_
!"
1Am
mi- lui du shu
LA* I
pre- stup-no-go tsa -
ria Bo-ri- sa!
WOld
'?
aL
4W-~
IUiII
.
I .,
'
~5-
),!
""
if "
?x"ki2
!Ialb
iI i'
vK4,
--k
PP~5
contexthere: the passage fromBorisconcludes an entireact - the curtain
the tonic. The passage from'Catacombae'
goes down and A6 is definitely
does not resembleit in thisregard,but the comparisonis sufficiently
strong
to providefurtherevidence of a weakeningof the more traditionaltonic,
B minor.34
It should also be noted thatthistypeof cadence has a Phrygianqualityin the case of 'Catacombae' F#Phrygian.This pointsto a furtherfacetof
Musorgsky's work which contributesto the obstructionsto standard
approaches to tonal centricity:the presence of modality, or modal
inflection.Bearing in mind the G-based scale-formdiscussed earlier in
relationto thispassage, it is truethatthe notes and spellingsrequiredfor
F#Phrygianare also those of G Lydian. Of course,we are not dealingwith
244
MUSIC ANALYSIS

14:2-3,1995
MUSORGSKY'S
PITCH
NOTATIONS
pure formsof the modes; in Musorgskyone must alwaysbe aware of the

presence of contaminatingfactors in modal writing.In the case of
'Catacombae', the Af is acceptable as a corruptinginfluence,simply
alteredPhrygian,but the spellingBbchallenges
yieldinga characteristically
the assumptionof FOPhrygianas much as it does thatofB minor.In other
words,whetherF#is takenas the dominantor as a tonal centrein its own
rightat this point,the pitch notationsof this section stillshow a bivalent
structure.
The presence of modal elements in Musorgsky's writingpoints to
anotherproblemforanalysis:the 'variability'of scale degrees." In assuming 'Catacombae' to be in B minor,and by disregardingmodalitiesother
than the usual major and minor,we also assume thatG and F#represent
the sixthand fifthdegreesof the scale. However,therecan be no absolute
certaintyabout these assumptions;G and FOmightalso be consideredas 2
and i (or even i and 7). This is a furtherinstance of the inevitablyilldefinednature of the relationshipbetweenbitonalityand bimodalitythat
colouredthe findingsabove in relationto the coda of 'Limoges'.
Furtherevidence of this may even be observedin the seeminglyclearcut Promenade theme. Althoughthis pentatonictheme,in its veryfirst,
unaccompanied appearance, suggests Bb as the tonic (as does the key
signature),whenit is immediatelyrepeatedwitha harmonisation(bs 3-4 of
the openingPromenade) it concludeswitha perfectcadence in F major. In
otherwords,in b.4 the motiveG-F is heard,in a purelylocalcontext,
not as
6-5, but as 2-i. This is not to suggestthat the theme is in F major any
more than it is to suggestthatit is unambiguouslyin Bbmajor but, rather,
to pointto a verysimpletonal questionmarkembedded in thispentatonic
theme. Triadic prejudice impels many of us to favour 1--2-3-5-6
pentatonicstructuresover such non-triadicformulationsas 1-2-4-5-6,
but a cursorysurveyof the remainingPromenades shows some treating
this motive variouslyas 6-5 or 2-i. To suggestthat G-FO, as found in
'Catacombae' and 'Con mortuis',is a variantof G-F (which it clearlyis)
must also be to suggest that the variant carries the same ambiguous
potential.This idea may have directrelevanceto the cadence in bs 10-11
of 'Catacombae'. The opening phrase of the Promenade theme contains
exactly eleven crotchetbeats and these, with only a slight degree of
imagination, may be compared loosely to the first eleven bars of
'Catacombae'. This comparisonis shownin Ex. 10. It would be difficult
to
prove thatany connectionhere was intentional,but thereare, nonetheless,
valid structuraland 'gestural'pointsof comparison.It is not unreasonable
to regard the three dramatic octaves which begin 'Catacombae' as a
massiveaugmentation,bothmetricand intervallic,
ofthe threenoteswhich
constitutethe openinggestureofthe Promenadetheme.We find,also, that
both the Promenadethemeand the firstphrase of 'Catacombae' end with
the motivein regular(G-F) and altered (G-F#)form.This allows one to
consider that both phrases begin and end with the same basic material,
MUSIC ANALYSIS
14:2-3, 1995
245

SIMON
PERRY
Ex. 10 Promenadethemeand 'Catacombae', bs 1-11, compared

i- I, fPIto/
(I.,J~
Sf.
i.
"it
i',,:1.
(rr6
pr
"?
."!
--.
O I
r.
"
[ -" 9
I
P iM.ff
t paim. .if'gfV
1
"
..
"'
pnpp
din.
?
i .
which, although substantiallyaltered, is still identifiable.Thus, it is

possible to imaginethat,in playingmassivelyupon the Promenade theme
in the opening of 'Catacombae', Musorgskyhas exploitedand developed
theverysimpletonal ambiguitiesofthe originalidea.
Music
4 TheAnalyticalPotentialofNotationalAnalysisin Musorgsky's
Some of the advantages,and limitations,of an analysisrelyingupon orthographywill by now be apparent.The common expectationsof notational
analysisare thatit is indicativeof detailsof structureonlyat a surfacelevel.
While it is rich and rewardingat this level, it is usually felt that its
essentiallynon-reductivenaturewould renderit at best clumsy (at worst
useless) in producingmeaningfulinsightsat deeper levels. In thisway it is
fromgraphicanalysis(be it of a strictlySchenkerianor
entirelydifferent
more liberal Salzerian kind). One would expect a notational analysis,
different
nature; to point to
therefore,to raise issues of a fundamentally
of voice-leading;and to shed
imprintsof harmonicstyleand individuality
light,in the case of Musorgsky,on those 'tonal and modal schemes' which
'maybe impossibleto definesafelyin termsofusual theory'.36
While theremaybe some truthin this,I believethatthereis evidencein
the analysis above that orthographyis capable of providingmeaningful
insightbeyondforegroundcontexts.The case of the Cx in the finalbars of
'Con mortuis' seems, to me, to be a particularlyclear and powerful
instance of this capability. The Cx is so importanthere because it
representsthe only instance of pc 2 that could be plotted as 3 of a
fundamentaldescent from3 in B minor,the apparent key of the piece.
246
MusIc ANALYSIS

14:2-3,1995
MUSORGSKY'S
PITCH
NOTATIONS
There seems to be simplyno otheralternativebut forthe analystto resort

to the expedient of respellingthe pitch, assuming the need for a tonal
of B minor.Being such a crucialpitchto the structure(if it
interpretation
was not crucial it would not need to be respelt)means that its respelling
raises an importantquestion: how drasticallydoes this expedientalterour
analyticalperceptionsof thepiece, whatdo Cx and D? in turnrepresent(or
misrepresent)in terms of the hierarchiclanguage of the background
I shall not attemptto answerthiscomprehensively
structure?
(althoughmy
views are probablyclear by now), but will put forwarda briefhypothesis.
Assume thatthe Cxs in 'Con mortuis'were originallyspelt,in the score,as
Dts: a graphicanalysisof thiswould entail considerablyless orthographic
agonising,but the ambiguous tonal effectsfeltat its conclusionwould be
no more adequatelyexplained.For a Schenkeriananalysis,D would be an
essential part of the structureat a fundamentallevel. However, the
notationalanalysissuggeststhatthe pitchrepresentedby Cx is not, itself,a
primaryconstituentof the tonal structure(nor need it be), but thatas spelt
it is highlyimportantto the understandingof that structure.I am aware
thata contradictionmay lurkin thisstatementbut it surelyremainsworth
considering.Anotherarea of the potentialfor orthographyto illuminate
backgroundstructuresin tonal music mightwell lie in those innervoices
that are progressively
shed by graphicreduction.As illustrationof this I
referthe reader back to the discussionof 'Catacombae' wherethe determinationof structure- shownto be dependenton the spellingofpc 10 (A#
or Bb) - relied upon an inner line that would probably not have been
deemed fundamentalin a more orthodox,graphicinterpretation.
Not onlydo these examplesshow thatnotationmay be pertinentto the
understandingof deeper levels of structure,they also obliquely referto
the (sometimesfractious)
largerissues of notationand analysis,particularly
relationshipbetween the musical language and the analyticalone. The
examples suggestthat while a hierarchicsystemcertainlyremainsone of
the best and easiest ways to see and 'grasp' structure,it does not
necessarilyguarantee understanding,especiallyif the hierarchyinadverit. The dangerof such
tentlydistortsthe picturein the processof clarifying
distortionseems to be particularlyapparentin the analysisof music lying
on the outerfringesof mainstreamtonal practice(as Musorgsky'scertainly
or inconsistencies,would tempta defaulton the
does), where difficulties,
part of the analystto grammaticalcoherencewhere profounderfindings
threatenthe analyticalmodel itself.Music of this transitionaltype has
always posed problems for analysis- strict,yet at the same time valid,
Schenkerianapproaches tend to require more orthodoxmusic while set
theoryis oftena contentiousmethodin any music whichretainsa vestige
of tonal ordering,howevermanifestly
It seems
complexits chromaticism.37
that, here as nowhere else, an opportunityis presentedfor viable alternatives to more established methods and that orthographymight have
something unique to offer. One need go no furtherthan Cheong's
MUSIC ANALYSIS 14:2-3, 1995
247

PERRY
SIMON
remarkableworkon Scriabinto see the emergingtruthofthis.

In the lightof these remarks,it is appropriateto considerthe potential
in an example fromMusorgskywhich has previously
role of orthography
attracteda set-theoretical
(and not inappropriately)
approachratherthan a
Schenkerianone. Ex. 11 is fromthe second act of Boris Godunov,where
the deceitfulboyar Shuisky firstinformsthe Tsar of the threat of a
pretender.It is yet anotherexample of Musorgsky'shighlyintuitivebut at
the same timelogical orthographic
practice.This passage has been singled
out by Allen Forte, who pointed to the presence of whole-tone and
(partially complete) octatonic scale forms in contrarymotion in the
This structureis veryclearly
orchestraldescant and bass line respectively.38
the
which
the
shows
orthography
representedby
sharpeningand flattening
effectsof the spellingof each degreeof these scale formswitha successive
This offersan interestingperlettername, that is to say 'diatonically'.39
to
view
the
from
which
highlysystematic(althoughtraditionally
spective
non-functional)movement from the initial CG-environmentto the
enharmonicallyequivalent F#. These scalar motions 'intersect' at C,
markingthe tritonalmid-pointbetween CG and F#.Anyone familiarwith
Boris Godunov will realise that the tritone is of great structuraland
dramaticsignificancethroughoutthe opera. Allen Forte has demonstrated
this most emphaticallyin his analysis,where he has raised the issue of
tritonaloppositionas a dramaticmechanismthroughoutthe work.40The
place at which the importanceof the tritonefirstbecomes unmistakably
apparent to the listeneris at the beginningof the 'Coronation' scene
(second scene of the Prologue). Here, the tritoneis broughtinto focus as
between the two major-minorseventhchords
the basis of differentiation
which alternatewithout interruptionfor 38 bars (Ex. 12). These two
chords constitutewhat Forte describesvariouslyas 'Source Motive 1' or
the 'Coronation Chord'." He observes that the 'Coronation Chord' is
derivedfroman octatoniccollectionand that the constituentAVtand D'
Ex. 11 BorisGodunov,Act II, rehearsalNo. 76
accelerando
J IL,accelerando
I-,
248
cf
cres.
.....
MUSIC ANALYSIS

14:2-3,1995
MUSORGSKY'S
PITCH
NOTATIONS
chordscontainboth 'common' and 'unique' elements,the common being

the notes C-F#(or Gb), forminga tritone,the unique being the notes Ab
and Eb (in Ab'), and D and A (in D'). This lays the basis forfurther
insight
into the deploymentof this source motive in the episode fromAct II,
which is the core subject of Forte's analysis,and for the discussion of
octatonicstructures
throughoutBorisGodunovin general.
Ex. 12 BorisGodunov,Prologue,scene 2, bs 1-4
-----04
s~p----~fp5~:~ILI
Odf
~]
Jp
2=LL
While Forte's observationon varianceand invariancebetweenthesetwo

chordsis appropriatefroma set-theoretical
viewpoint,it is inaccuratefrom
a notationalone, which does not assume that F#and GC are one and the
same thing.From a notationalperspective,the onlyinvariantbetweenAV,
and D' is C. Ex. 13 displays the two chords linearlyarrangedalong a
'diatonically'spelt octatonicscale. It shows not onlyhow F#and GC occur
at different
ends of the scale, but also that the D' and AtVchords themselveslie towardsdifferent
sides ofthisoctatonic'spectrum'.Conceptually,
this implies a certain 'distance' between F#and Gt, and while this is
somewhat implicitin the juxtapositionof the chords in the Coronation
note is thatwhile
scene, it is quite explicitlyspeltout in Ex. 11. Of further
Ex. 13 Octatonicderivationof 'CoronationChords'
D7
249

SIMON
PERRY
the two Coronationchords and the bass line of the passage in Ex. 11 are
derivedfromdifferent
octatoniccollections,the chordsare in fact'nested'
in the outer lines of Ex. 11. As illustratedin Ex. 14, alternateelementsin
the top and bottom lines yield the notes of the two chords, which are
groupedneatlyto eitherside ofthe centralC.
Ex. 14 Nestingof 'CoronationChords' in outerlines ofEx. 11
,A7
AkD7
of
enharmonicrepresentations
What is the significanceofthesedifferent
the same pitch class - Gj and FO?Possibly it signifiessomethingof the
tension produced by tonal elementslingeringin Musorgsky'sforayinto
symmetricalstructures.If GC and FO are considered to be in no way
then theirrelationshipto C is one that is perfectlysymmetrical
different,
withinthe octave,and one whichis most accuratelyexpressedas 0-6, these
numbersrepresentingequidistantpoints on a line which is an octatonic
scale. In these terms the relationshipC-F? is no differentto C-GI.
However, as soon as these notes are considered to express different
intervallicrelationships- the augmentedfourthand diminishedfifth,
along
withinthe octave must be
withtheirtonal meaning- thentheirsymmetry
regarded as flawed; the notes C and F?, say, cannot be regarded as
'equidistant' because they will not 'replicate' throughhigher or lower
octaverangesof a singleoctatonicscale. (For example,the ascendingseries
of augmented fourthsyields C-F#-B#-Ex
etc.) This implies an unequal
as
is
C
and
between
by the axial role of C in
implied
relationship
GbWF,
Exs 11 and 12. Indeed, it seems axiomaticof the transitionalnatureof the
passages cited here that withinthe apparent symmetryof the octatonic
structurelies more than a trace of tonal hierarchy.An interestingcomparison may be drawn fromthis observationin which FO and GC may be
seen to form'upper' and 'lower' tritonesin relationto C, just as G? and F?
would formthe dominantand sub-dominantin traditionaltonality.42This
lends support to the line of argumentwhich states that (regardlessof
intent) composers moving away from tonal common practice were
250
MUSIC ANALYSIS

14:2-3,1995
MUSORGSKY'S
PITCH
NOTATIONS
unavoidably influenced by the tonal inheritanceof orthography,that

notationalpracticenecessarilygoverned,to some extent,theirtransitional
explorations.
This article began by statingthat Musorgsky'snotations were often
'strange'. I hope that by now 'meaningful'is feltbe a more appropriate
to thinkthat orthography
is
adjective.Beyond that,it would be gratifying
slowly coming into its own as a method which mightanswer questions
about those 'tonal and modal schemes', not only of Musorgsky,but of
many composers of the so-called post-tonal or transitionalarea, the
awkwardadolescence of atonality.Musorgskyis but one composer who
exemplifiesthe problemsfaced by those who were movingwell and truly
beyond common practice. In his case the orthographyis essentially
intuitiveand shows a relianceon crude models of voice-leadingin the face
of highlycomplex tonal procedures. It is hard to deduce a 'theory'of
orthographicpractice for him, and consequently hard to develop a
consistentmethodology,yet the implicationsof his notational practice
remain demonstrablysignificant.In stark contrast to Musorgsky is a
composersuch as Bart6k,whom we know to have been highlymethodical
in his approach to pitchnotation.43
Bart6khad the advantageof hindsight.
His notationalpractice,post-1930, was part of a determinedre-invention
of tonalityin the wake of not only his own atonal endeavoursbut also a
crisisin, and abandonmentof, tonalityat large. Hence the self-conscious
rigour of his approach and the highlyindividual concept of this 'new
tonality'.Musorgsky'sconcept of tonality,conversely,never underwent
such a revolutionary
phase. Instead, it developed in the tame nineteenthcenturymusical backwaterthat was St. Petersburg,growingout of what
minimaltraininghe had received.It is even ironic to thinkthat it might
have been due to such unselfconsciousexperimentsas Musorgsky'sthat
the possibilitiesfor self-consciousrenewal could affordthemselvesto
someone such as Bart6k,some fifty
yearslater.Betweenthe chronological
and methodologicalextremesof Musorgskyand Bart6klies Scriabin,who
claimed to have a method- a claim posthumouslyvindicatedby analysisbut never himselfexpounded upon it.44Orthographically,
there remain
manygaps betweenMusorgsky,Scriabinand Bart6k,but one sensesthatit
is now onlya matteroftimebeforetheyare filledin.
NOTES
1. Withoutwishingto confergreatanalytical
on the example,one
significance
need go no further
thanthe 39th bar ofBorisGodunov,whereMusorgsky'sGC[
(viola part) becomes Rimsky'sF#,to find an initialinstance of this type of
enharmonicalteration.Moreover,alterationsof thiskind are not restrictedto
Rimsky-Korsakov'srevisions.The complete edition of Musorgsky'sworks
MUSIC ANALYSIS
14:2-3, 1995
251

SIMON
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
PERRY
preparedby Pavel Lamm (Moscow: State Music Publishers,1928-34, repr.

New York: Kalmus, 1969) containsits own subtlealterations.RobertOldani
has writtenof Lamm's Boristhat 'Throughoutthe score Lamm supplies key
signatureswhere Musorgskyhad writtennone, therebymakingjudgements
about key'. See 'Editions of Boris Godunov',Musorgsky
In Memoriam:18811981, ed. Malcolm H. Brown (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1982),
p.197. This insertionof key signaturesalso appears in Lamm's edition of
and quite likelyin otherworks,althoughI have not
Picturesat an Exhibition,
been able to verify
this.
See George Perle, 'Scriabin's Self-Analyses',Music Analysis,Vol. 3, No. 2
(1984), pp. 101-22.
p.101.
See Cheong Wai-Ling, 'Orthographyin Scriabin's Late Works', Music
Analysis,Vol. 12, No. 1 (1993), pp.47-69.
See Malcolm Gillies, Notationand Tonal Structurein Bartdk'sLater Works
(New York: Garland, 1989).
See Gillies, 'Pitch Notations and Tonality: Bart6k', Models of Musical
Music, ed. Jonathan Dunsby (Oxford:
Analysis: Early Twentieth-Century
Blackwell,1993), p.44.
Interestingto note in this lightis the placementof Musorgsky's'The noisy
Sun underthe
festivalis over' [Okonchen
den'] fromWithout
prazdnyi,shumnyi
classificationof 'Modern' in as standard an undergraduatetext as Claude
Music (2nd edn, Vol. II, pp.714-18). (It
Palisca's NortonAnthology
of Western
is inexplicable, however, that Liszt's Nuages Gris appears in the same
collectionundertheheading'Romantic',pp.254-5.)
Modest Musorgsky,CompleteWorks,ed. Pavel Lamm (Moscow: State Music
Publishers1928-34, repr.New York: Kalmus, 1969), Vol. 13, p.12. Subsequent examples from Musorgsky's works are quoted from the following
sources: Boris Godunov, ed. David Lloyd-Jones (London: OUP, 1975);
Picturesat an Exhibition,ed. Manfred Schandert, (Vienna: Wiener Urtext
Edition, 1984).
See Gillies,'PitchNotations',p.51.
Max Reger, Prelude and Fugue, Op. 131a, No. 1, for solo violin, from
SdmtlicheWerke(Wiesbaden: Breitkopf& Hiirtel,1957), Vol. 24, p.135.
Rimsky-Korsakovprovided, in a suitably didactic fashion, a compromise
model along these lines in his harmonytext, firstpublished in 1886. See
PracticalManual ofHarmony,trans.JosephAchron,7th edn (New York: Carl
Fischer,1930), pp.77-8.
Anotherof Rimsky's'apparent' editorialcorrectionscannot escape mention
here. In his editionEx. 3a is renderedwithEts in lieu of Fs.
See JanosKairpaiti,
Bart6k'sStringQuartets,trans.Fred Macnicol (Budapest:
CorvinaPress, 1975), pp.137-58.
See p.138.
See pp.144-6.
p.145.
252
MUSIC ANALYSIS

14:2-3, 1995
MUSORGSKY'S
PITCH
NOTATIONS
17. However, the Promenade theme is based on a differentpentatonic:

F-G-B&-C-D.
18. M.-D. Calvocoressi, Modest Mussorgsky:His Life and Works,ed. Gerald

Abraham(London: Rockliff,1956), pp.256-7.
19. See Alfred Frankenstein, 'Victor Hartmann and Modeste Musorgsky',
Musical Quarterly,
Vol. 25 (1939), p.286.
20. The translationis fromManfred Schandert's Critical Notes to the Wiener
UrtextEdition.
21. Of thislatterpiece Stasov wroteto Rimsky-Korsakov,
'Then, above a tremolo
in minor,comes the firstPromenade theme; this is the glimmeringof little
lightsin the skulls;here, suddenly,Hartmann'senchantingpoetic appeal to
1 July1874, quoted in
Musorgskyringsout....' Stasov to Rimsky-Korsakov,
AlexandraOrlova,Musorgsky's
ed.
Days and Works:A Biographyin Documents,
and trans.RoyJ.Guenther(Ann Arbor:UMI ResearchPress, 1983), p.419.
22. See Derrick Puffett,'A Graphic Analysis of Musorgsky's "Catacombs"',
MusicAnalysisVol. 9, No. 1 (1990), pp.67-77.
23. Puffettwrites,'Here F#is prolongedwithsuch insistencethat,to my ears at
least, the finalB major triad sounds inconclusive,more like a subdominant
thana tonic' (p.71).
24. p.73.
25. See the second graph,p.70.
26. Impossibleto ignorein the second line of Fig. 6b is the completeencirclement
of F#,which suggeststhe furtheralternativeof F#as tonal centre without
ultimaterecourseto B. The significanceof thispossibilitywillbecome clearer
afterthe discussionof 'Con mortuis'.
27. These two chords are also remarkablein that 'Limoges', which directly
precedes 'Catacombae', is in E6 major while 'The Hut on Hen's Legs', which
follows 'Con mortuis',is in C minor,but with numerous outburstsof the
tonicmajor.
28. See p.71.
29. Most of the Promenades are similarlystructured,althoughthe firstone and
that preceding 'Limoges' are somewhatgreaterin size and have more of a
sense of being independentpieces. 'Con mortuis'does offerone significant
departure,however,fromall other Promenades in the work: it is the only
Promenadeto act as a postluderatherthana prelude.
30. These chordsare regardedas comprisingthe entirepitchcontentof the bar in
whichtheyappear withthe exceptionof the A#in bs 15 and 17, whichclearly
does not belong to C2 but is an anticipationofthe A#in the F#majortriadof
thefollowingbar.
31. Attemptsto spell even-noted octave structures(whole-tone or octatonic
scales) witha successivelettername foreach degree,i.e. 'diatonically',result
in sharpeningor flattening
effects.(For example,whole-tone:C D E F G#A#
Cx
octatonic:
C
D
etc.,
E6 F GC AbB, C6 DLbELetc.) This simple pheB#
nomenon is discussed in more detail in referenceto the examplesfromBoris
in the final section of the article. Furtherdiscussion of the effectand its
MUSIC
ANALYSIS
14:2-3, 1995
253
(0Basil BlackwellLtd. 1995

SIMON
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
PERRY
analyticalsignificance(or lack of significance)is found in the workof Perle,

Gillies and Cheong citedabove.
Apropos this structuralmovementof G-F#it is worthmentioningthat the
next piece, 'The Hut on Hen's Legs', opens with a sudden reversalof the
process: F#-G.This is not a unique occurrence; other retrogrademotivic
relationshipsmay be found. For example: the motiveB-G#in 'Tuilleries' is
reversedto become G#-Bin the followingnumber,'Bydlo'; withinthe 'Two
Polish Jews', E -Db, a motive embedded in the ornamentaltextureof the
opening (bs 1-8), is reversedand re-speltDL-FL at the beginningof the third
section of that piece (bs 19-25), the enharmonicchange not being without
significanttonal implications; and, by far the most grandiose of these
schemes, the very firstthree notes of the suite, G-F-BL, are found in
retrogradein the bass line, BL-F-G-EL,of the finalcadence of the entirework
(see 'The BogatyrGate', bs 167-74). The most fascinatingaspect to these
retrogrademotivicrelationshipsis the way in whichmost of them (obviously
exceptingthose found within a single piece) supply a non-programmatic
different
images.
linkagebetweensuch programmatically
In the example fromBoris,of course, the long range structuralmovementof
E[ to A6 whichunderliesthe finalpages of Act 11 is also an importantfactor
in the definitionofAt as tonic.
There are numerousotherexamplesof thistypeof 'Neapolitan cadence' to be
found in Musorgsky'smusic, a notable case being the recurringcadence
found in 'Lullaby' [Kolybel'naia],No 1 from the 'Songs and Dances of
Death'; see bs 37, 42, 47 and 53-4.
M.-D. Calvocoressi invented the term 'variable scale' in order better to
explain many of the modal aspects of Musorgsky'smusic. (See Calvocoressi,
Chapters16-18.)
Calvocoressi,p.257.
V. Kofi Agawu has severalimportantpointsin relationto theseconcerns.See,
forexample, 'SchenkerianNotation in Theory and Practice',Music Analysis,
sections
and fifth
his fourth
Vol. 8, No. 3 (1989), pp.275-301,in particular
the relationbetweenthe musical

(pp.286-94) wherehe discusses,respectively,
language and the hierarchicnotationof graphicanalysis (and its status as a
metalanguage), and the problems posed by post-tonal music and the
irreconcilablepositionsin relationto such music of set-theory
analysis,on the
one hand, and Schenkeriananalysis,on the other.
38. See Allen Forte, 'Musorgskyas Modernist:The PhantasmicEpisode in Boris
Godunov',MusicAnalysis,Vol. 9, No. 1 (1990), pp.10-13. The applicabilityof
set-theory
analysisto this typeof music is a moot point,but this remainsan
excellentand usefularticle,and is indispensableforanyonewishingto embark
on a seriousstudyofBorisGodunov.
39. It is not withoutsignificancethatthis 'diatonic' spellingeffectis reliedupon
in part by Perle in his decision proceduresforthe segmentationof octatonic
in Scriabin,see pp.102-4.
structures
40. The remarkswhich followowe much to the observationsmade in the early
254
MUSIC ANALYSIS

14:2-3, 1995
MUSORGSKY'S
PITCH
NOTATIONS
sectionsof Forte's article,pp.4-13.

41. Forte uses the singularto describeboth chords as a whole. However,in my
own observationsI referto them as the 'Coronation chords', the distinction
being necessaryforpurposesofthenotationalapproach.
42. These factorsof notationalhierarchymay assume furthersignificancein the
lightof the semanticconnotationsof various pitch classes. Forte has noted
that certainpitchesmaintainclear 'referential
dramaticfunctions'withinthe
and
has
shown
how
are
set
opera,
they
againsteach otherin tritonalrelation,
thus representing
which
in
are, variousways,dramaticallyopposed.
concepts
For example,'Boris as Tsar' (Al) is set against'Boris as Murderer'(D), while
C and F# are said to refer to the Muscovite People and the Boyars,
respectively(see Forte, pp.5-6). These last two referentialconnotationsare
interestingin that (in the contextsbrieflyexploredhere, at least) the pitch
assignedto the People is axial and stable,whilethatassignedto the Boyarsis
extreme,and changeable. Of course, one may regardthe People as havinga
certainfickleness,but it is more of a blind, unwittingkind,not corruptand
duplicitousas is thatof the Boyars.This, in turn,mightsuggestthatnotation
(not merelypitch)has a role in some facetsofdramaticstructurein thework.
43. See Gillies,'PitchNotation',pp.43ff.
44. See Perle,p.101.
255


Rummaging Through The Catacombs Clues in Musorgsky's Pitch Notations

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

Rummaging Through The Catacombs Clues in Musorgsky's Pitch Notations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rummaging Through the 'Catacombs': Clues in Musorgsky's Pitch Notations

Author(s): Simon Perry

This content downloaded from 212.183.209.30 on Mon, 7 Apr 2014 12:10:00 PM