So far we have seen how Schenker used the concepts of mixture and tonicization to explain modal inflections in functional monot- onal pieces from the Common-Practice Period. But what about exotic inflections? How did he explain their appearance in Common- Practice composition? As mentioned earlier, it seems that Schenker conceived of exotic inflections in much the same way that he treated modal inflections. This suggests that they, too, can be explained by mixtures and tonicizations. Once again, Schenker provided his most suggestive account of the matter in Kontrapunkt I:
Think, for example, of Haydn’s and Beethoven’s Schottische Lieder, Schu- bert’s unique Divertissement à l’hongroise, the Hungarian Dances by Brahms, the Slavonic Dances by Dvorák and the Norwegian Dances by Grieg, as well as Scheherazade by Rimsky-Korsakov, among others. The point in all these cases was not to loosen our system in order to incorporate a foreign one, but, on the contrary, to use our major and minor systems to express the foreign element, which does justice in a certain sense to a primeval state of music but needs to be adjusted in some way to suit the needs of a more advanced art.45
Unfortunately, Schenker did not support his assertion with exten- sive analyses of these pieces; of the works listed above, he offered only a brief sketch of mm. 1–15 of Schubert’s Divertissement à l’hon- groise, Op. 54, in Der freie Satz (Fig. 89.2).
But elsewhere Schenker left us with more concrete clues about how we might derive specific exotic effects. For example, in a brief discussion of Chopin’s “Black-Key” Etude in G, Op. 10, no. 5, he gave a hint at how he might explain the work’s apparently penta- tonic surface (see figure 4.7, Chopin, Etude, Op. 10, no. 5). Having taken exception to Leichentritt’s scalar explanation, Schenker
claimed that the melody derives from orthodox tonal transforma- tions:
The right-hand figuration is no ‘jolly tune,’ still less has it anything to do with a ‘pentatonic scale.’ The omission of C and F from the figuration is explicable solely in terms of the association of the third progression B–A–G with the neighbour-tone motive D–E–D, i.e., the association of Figure 4.7. Chopin, Etude, Op. 10, no. 5. From Schenker, The Masterwork in
two perfectly good diatonic motives; as soon as the other voices contribute the C and F to these, the major diatonic mode [Dur-Diatonie] is secured.46
The third progression and neighbor-tone motive are marked on the score in figure 4.7.
Taking the last example a bit further, we can begin to see how Schenkerian theory might explain intrusions of whole-tone mate- rial. The notion that whole-tone material can be explained within the tonal system is not, of course, without precedent. On the con- trary, writers such as Schoenberg and Tovey have suggested that they often stem from altered dominant harmonies.47
But from a Schenkerian perspective, such phenomena can be explained with much greater precision. Consider, for a moment, mm. 30–37 from Debussy’s Prélude à “L’Après-midi d’un faune.”48
This passage divides into two parts: the first contains a diminution of the famous flute theme set against the whole-tone collection B–C–D–F–G–A, whereas the second contains another statement against the other whole-tone collection C–D–E–F–G–A. Meanwhile, figure 4.8 (Graph of Debussy, Prélude à “L’Après-midi d’un faune,” mm. 30–39) suggests that these harmonies arise from a complex prolon- gation of a dominant Stufe.49
The upper line is created by a motion from an inner voice: F in m. 30 ascends by step through G, A, B, and C, to C in m. 37. The inner parts mirror this succession: the viola part moves up from B through C (mm. 31–33) to D and E
(mm. 34–36); the second violin part moves up from F through G (mm. 31–33), G and A (mm. 34–36); and the cello, bass, and bas- soon parts move up from C through D and D (mm. 31–33) to E, F and F (mm. 34–36). The final sonority in m. 36 (F–A–E–C) functions as an altered secondary dominant (V7/5
of V) that resolves onto V9
of E in m. 37.
If we become more adventurous still, we can use Schenkerian theory to explain even more radical pieces, such as the opening of Stravinsky’s Petrouchka. This famous passage has been analyzed from many standpoints. One of the most influential is summarized here in figure 4.9 (Van den Toorn’s analysis of the opening of Stravinsky’s Petrouchka). Although he concedes that the first Tableau does not contain any blocks of explicit octatonic material, van den Toorn insists that “ ‘the chromatic’ (non-diatonic) pitch elements and intervals . . . may be heard and interpreted as refer- entially octatonic, as prompting a form of diatonic-octatonic interpenetration.”50
In particular, he regards the notes in the pas- sage (see figure 4.9a) as an interaction between a D or Dorian scale transposed onto E (top line of figure 4.9b) and an octatonic scale beginning on E (bottom line of figure 4.9c). Van den Toorn appar- ently invokes both scales because the D scale on E lacks the crucial F and the octatonic scale has an extra B and A. According to him, this diatonic-octatonic interaction is “a matter of conse- quence” because it anticipates “the (more) fully committed Col- lection III framework of ‘The Petrouchka Chord’ in the second tableau.”51
Instead of treating this material as a by-product of interacting diatonic and octatonic systems, it can be regarded as a Schenkerian transformation of a D triad. Here, the upper line descends by step D–C–B–A and the lower parts move by neighbor progressions— A–G–A and D–E–D. Notice how Stravinsky avoids parallel fifths for the final tonic by suspending the B to create a 6–5 succession. Within this pattern, the C serves to tonicize D and the B arises as a mixture, thereby averting a diminished supertonic Stufe, and cre- ating the all-important motivic tetrachord. What makes this alter- native reading so interesting is that it is not so different from the one we gave for Brahms’s song “Vergangen ist mir Glück und Heil” in figure 4.6. In fact, the two explanations are similar because the
pitch content of both passages is exactly the same, even though the two pieces sound quite different stylistically. This point is all the more ironic if we recall the two progressions given in figures 4.1c and 4.1d: not only do these two progressions have exactly the same pitch- class content, but these pitches belong to the same octatonic scale, D–E–F–G–A–B–B–C–D. Whether or not we regard these passages as genuinely octatonic is a matter for debate, but the two examples should certainly erode our blind faith in ‘The Myth of Scales.’