Two Bach Preludes/Two Chopin Etudes, or

Toujours travailler Bachce sera votre meilleur

moyen de progresser
Robert W. Wason
Chopins rst acquaintance with the music of Bach dates back
to his childhood in Poland and his rst teacher; thus, Bach seems
to have been with him from the beginning. But after his arrival in
Paris in 1831 at age 21, two years after Mendelssohn had con-
ducted the St. Matthew Passion in Berlin but before Bach had
fully recovered from his long period of neglect, Chopin became a
truly passionate devotee of Bachs music. These were the years
when he wrote the Etudes and Preludesworks, in particular, that
show a strong inuence of Bach. In 1838, Chopin, in Majorca
with George Sand, wrote to his friend and copyist, Julian Fontana,
from a huge deserted Carthusian monastery where in a cell with
doors larger than any carriage-gateway in Paris you may imagine
me with my hair unkept, without white gloves and pale as ever.
The cell is shaped like a tall cofn, the enormous vaulting covered
with dust, the window small . . . Close to [my] bed is an old
square grubby box which I can scarcely use for writing on, with a
leaden candlestick (a great luxury here) and a little candle. Bach,
my scrawls [Chopin refers to his Preludes] and someone elses old
papers . . . Silence . . . you can yell [but] still silence. The next
year, he wrotethis time from George Sands estate in Nohant,
since the Majorcan trip had been largely disastrousthat when I
have nothing particular to do I am correcting for myself, in the
Paris edition of Bach, not only the mistakes made by the engraver
but those which are backed by the authority of people who are
supposed to understand Bachnot that I have any pretensions to
a deeper understanding, but I am convinced that I sometimes hit
on the right answer.
1
Much later, Chopins piano students contin-
ued to attest to his knowledge, from memory, of much of the Well-
Tempered Clavier.
2
Thus the alternate title of this article, Chopins
advice to his pupil Madame Dubois during his last meeting with
her in 1848 (a year before his death), is advice that he himself
took very seriously indeed.
For quite some time now, Chopins debt to Bach has been well
known, particularly with respect to surface resemblances between
Bachs C-major Prelude (wtc I) and Chopins Etude op. 10, no. 1.
Early in this century, Hugo Leichtentritt even went so far as to
show how Chopins harmonic scheme could be rendered in
Bachs guration, and recently, Simon Finlow has demonstrated
the reverse, as seen in Examples 1(a) and (b).
3
Allen Forte and
Stephen Gilbert have shown that the resemblance is more than
supercialthat it affects deeper-level musical structure of the
1
See Walker 1966, 10. Complete quotations are taken from Syndow 1962,
165 and 182.
2
Eigeldinger 1986, 61.
3
Finlow 1992, 70. Example 1(a) cited by Finlow from Leichtentritt 19212,
vol. 2, 845.
104 Music Theory Spectrum
opening sections of both pieces.
4
Although the present article
takes issue with details of their analysis, it continues on essen-
tially the same tack, showing other structural parallels and draw-
ing in additional pieces as well.
Such gural preludes might be characterized as non-
narrative: there are no musical characters participating in a
drama delineated by rhythmic motives. Instead, the rhythmic
surface is deceptively placid, and the musical teleology deter-
mined purely by resources of pitch organizationor harmony.
While Chopins Viennese contemporaries were specializing in the
development of the narrative sonata, Chopinonly infrequently a
proponent of Sturm und Drangoften favored the more Baroque
compositional method of developing a piece from a single motive,
or affect.
5
This is not to deny the inuence on some of his music
of the sonata, and perhaps of its greatest proponent, Beethoven.
6
But Chopin always remained partial to the gural texture, whether
he referred to the resultant piece as an etude, or prelude;
moreover, the texture occupied signicant parts of his larger
pieceseven those marked by change of texture and rhythmic
motive. (One thinks of large ABA forms, such as the C -minor
Fantasie-Impromptu, op. 66a gural etude surrounding an
adagio melody.)
Bachs gural prelude has a heritage that stretches back to
the earliest keyboard music, and the texture was a clich well-
known to his contemporaries. The Musikalische Handleitung by
4
See Forte & Gilbert 1982, 18890.
5
See Chapter 4, Baroque Reections, in Samson 1994, 5880.
6
See Petty 1999.
Example 1. C-major Preludes, after Finlow 1992
(a) Chopins harmonies with Bachs guration
(b) Bachs harmonies with Chopins guration
Two Bach Preludes/ Two Chopin Etudes 105
Friedrich Erhard Niedtpurportedly Bachs favorite thorough-
bass treatisegives a few humdrum recipes for such composi-
tions.
7
But in the hands of the master, they were to become some-
thing far more interesting: several of Bachs preludes underwent
considerable revision, documented in various sources, and re-
cently, Joel Lester has shown that four of Bachs gural prel-
udes were revised and positioned in the Well-Tempered Clavier
in such a way as to offer us a pedagogy of the genre.
8
Essentially,
the structure of such a prelude, as Lester points out, was described
in a famous passage by C. P. E. Bach:
There are occasions when an accompanist must extemporize before the
beginning of a piece. Because such an improvisation is to be regarded as a
prelude which prepares the listener for the content of the piece that fol-
lows . . . the construction . . . is determined . . . by the nature of the piece
which it prefaces; and the content or affect of this piece becomes the ma-
terial out of which the prelude is fashioned . . . When only little time is
available . . . the performer should not wander into too remote keys . . . At
the start the principal key must prevail for some time so that the listener
will be unmistakably oriented . . . [The keyboardist] fashions his bass out
of the ascending and descending scale of the prescribed key, with a variety
of gured bass signatures . . . A tonic organ point is convenient for estab-
lishing the tonality at the beginning and end. The dominant organ point
can also be introduced effectively before the close.
9
Philipp Emanuel continues by showing a number of sample
bass progressions (with gures), some of which are shown in
Example 2. Variants of such progressions had been studied by
keyboard students well back into the seventeenth century, under
the well-known rubric, rgle de loctave (regola dellOttava).
10
Lester proceeds to show that a descending octave bass progression
is the structural basis of all four Bach preludes, although it
7
Translated as The Musical Guide in Niedt 1988.
8
Lester 1998.
9
Bach [1753] 1949, 431 ff.
10
Christensen 1992. Also see Lester 1992, 724.
Example 2. Octave-line harmonizations and pedal points, excerpted
from C. P. E. Bach 1753 [1949]
106 Music Theory Spectrum
cadence in the dominant and then with a return to the tonic.
12
This
interpretation becomes most compelling when we propose a nor-
mative duration for the descending middleground of E
5
E
4
of two
measures for each tone starting in m. 4. (The half-step motions,
CB, FE, in each of the two tetrachords are held off in the man-
ner of a middleground suspension.)
13
Prior to publishing the analysis of the C-major Prelude,
Schenker presented a less-developed analysis of the C-minor
Prelude from WTC I, which is shown in Example 3.
14
(The thick
brackets underneath the analysis are my additions; they will be
discussed below.) In comparison with the C-major Prelude, the
tonic pedal is the most prominent element of the framein both
soprano and bass. Neighbor-note motion now ultimately forms a
complete neighboring VII
7
chord in m. 3 (although buried in inner
parts), and the tonic returns in m. 4, as it did in the C-major
Prelude. Emerging from the inner voices of the opening, structural
3

then appears as E
4
, initiating a descent in seventeenths (that is,
an octave plus a tenth) with the bass through the rst tetrachord of
the bass-octave descent. At this point, the bass moves up an octave
(so as not to give away the C
2
goal yet, presumably), and thus the
bass-soprano interval is now reduced to a tenth.
15
The dominant-
pedal section then enters at m. 21 (with structural 3

retained to
overlap the entrance of the pedal). Background 2

arrives over the

12
The replication of this four-measure segment is one reason why Lerdahl &
Jackendoff (1983, 261) locate the change [of hypermeter] at m. 8, in conjunc-
tion with a combined grouping overlap and metrical deletion. However, post-
poning the metrical shift until this point places the two
4
2
chords (both of which
seem like suspensions) in weak hypermetric measures, which runs counter to
the properties of suspensions.
13
Cf. Komar 1971, 119: The cadences at bars 11, 19, and 32 suggest the lo-
cation of some of the large-scale downbeats Also see Lerdahl & Jackendoff
1983, 262 ff.
14
See Schenker [1926] 1996, 48. This analytical graph, published in 1926, is
essentially the same as the one Schenker presents at the outset of Schenker
1923.
15
Schenker spends considerable effort describing Bachs departure, at letters
b) and c), from the pattern established at a).
becomes progressively more embellished in each. On the other
hand, C. P. E. Bachs translator, William Mitchell, takes pains to
point out that Philipp Emanuel never mentions rgle de loctave.
Still, although he does not recognize one particular rule, as the
more prescriptive and unimaginative theorists did, his many ex-
amples amount to an elaboration of the idea.
Lester was very likely made aware of the structure of the C-
major Prelude initially by the Dover publication of Schenkers
analysisthe rst such analyses that were generally available in
the late sixties.
11
For our purposes, the most important addition
over C. P. E. Bachs description is the notion of a structural so-
prano that parallels the octave bass-progression in 10ths above;
this motion through the C
4
to C
3
octave then proceeds to the dom-
inant pedal, as recommended by Philipp Emanuel, and subse-
quently the tonic pedal.
Another feature of the piece described in Schenkers analysis
is phrase structure. Lester calls the opening tonic section
characteristic of many Bach pieces, we might addthe frame,
and in this piece, it is not a tonic pedal, but a combined neighbor-
note motion of soprano and bass: 3

over 1

. As is typical
of Bachs phrase formations, the fourth measure of the frame is
also the launching point for the next four-measure segment. One
might be tempted to propose a four-measure group starting in m.
5, with good motivic support, but there are problems in later
groupings. Schenkers interpretation here is persuasive: the articu-
lation of the primary melodic tone at the outset of the piece and its
motion to the upper neighbor and return in m. 4 enable us to hear
the rst four measures as an extension (Dehnung) of the rst
measure; moreover, the 4-measure segment in mm. 811 and its
transposition in mm. 1619 conrm his reading and clearly articu-
late the division of the structural octave progression, rst with a
11
Schenker [1932] 1966.
Two Bach Preludes/ Two Chopin Etudes 107
Example 3. Analysis of Bach, C-Minor Prelude, after Schenker 1926 [1996]
108 Music Theory Spectrum
preexisting dominant at m. 28, leading to an arrival on C in m. 34.
The harmony at this point avoids resolution both because it is the
dominant of IV, and because C
3
is not the goal of the bass line; C
3
is elaborated as an out-of-time improvisational aside, after which
C
2
arrives to complete the bass-line descent, and, as in the C-
major Prelude, the soprano returns to the obligatory register of the
openingall of this a remarkable structural parallel with the C-
major Prelude that goes well beyond the minimal demands of the
rgle de loctave.
Schenker does not take on the issue of phrase structure in the
C-minor Prelude; I have grafted my interpretation onto his analy-
sis in Example 3, using thick brackets to denote phrase groups up
to m. 24. If we were to suggest a rhythmic norm for the descend-
ing octave line, it would seem to be, once again, two measures per
tone. Thus, the last measure of the four-measure framethis time
a tonic pedalreturns to E , while m. 5 puts that E in place as
E
3
. (The change of register in m. 5 gives the illusion of a group
starting at this point.) But if four-measure groups are heard to start
in m. 4, two successive ones emerge: mm. 47 and 811. These
support the rst tetrachord of the descent, E , D, C, B . Indeed,
the rst eleven measures of each piece parallel one another closely
note the
4
2
chords in parallel positions. At m. 12, Bach breaks
the pattern ( just as he did in the C-major Prelude), but we are still
able to project two more four-measure groups: mm. 1215 and
1619 for A , G, F, E . The rst of these seems convincing, with
the caveat that G is shortchanged to one measure while F gets
three. However, not only does the rst group seem to anticipate
the second, but that group, mm. 1619, includes the end of the de-
scent in m. 18, making m. 19 superuous. The bass takes off im-
mediately to destroy any sense of stasis or arrival by harmonizing
the goal E with various pre-dominants. These ultimately give
way to the dominant pedal (m. 21), at which point the beginning
of a group seems to be in order. Could it be that the arrival of so-
prano F
3
in m. 15 is not an anticipation of the next group, but its
actual start? The bass line certainly lends support to this interpre-
tation: the
4
2
in m. 15 acts like a 910 bass suspension that resolves
in the following measure, while the soprano F is suspended
against the bass as 4 (m. 17) to 3 (m. 18); two measures of pre-
dominant follow. Thus, it seems that mm. 1214 are a three-
measure (or abbreviated four-measure) group, while mm. 1520
are a six-measure group (actually a four-measure group with two-
measure extension). The arrival of the dominant pedal brings with
it a clear four-measure group, while the subsequent single-voice
elaboration of the dominant starts a four-measure group that over-
laps the arrival of structural soprano 2

(m. 28). From here on, the

phrase structure is appropriately telescoped to t with the erratic
succession of tempi, all designed as an out-of-time improvisation.
(Phrase groupings at this point become increasingly tentative.)
Clearly, the piece is considerably more varied and complicated
than the C-major Prelude in its phrase structure.
* * * * *
We turn now to some structural parallels with music of Chopin.
First, it is important to note that the pedagogical basis of the
rgle de loctave survived well past the eighteenth century.
Thus, while some of the structural parallels noted here may be the
result of Chopins engagement with Bachs keyboard music, some
may be ascribable to the survival of an eighteenth-century
keyboard pedagogy, an assertion supported in the following
discussion.
The rgle de loctave is closely allied with the discussion of
harmonizing the ungured bass that may be found in such early
eighteenth-century treatises as those by Saint Lambert, Gasparini,
and Heinichen;
16
thus, one is tempted to regard it as an early peda-
gogical device designed to teach a compositional skill that ulti-
mately was more efciently handled by Rameaus harmonic the-
ory. Yet, in the middle of the century, Joseph Riepel (naive though
he certainly was) would report that he knew of no thorough-bass
16
See Saint Lambert [1707] 1991, 4599; Gasparini [1708] 1963, 2647;
Buelow 1966 (a study of Heinichens treatise Der Generalbass in der
Composition [Dresden: 1728]), 20018.
Two Bach Preludes/ Two Chopin Etudes 109
manual in which the device was not mentioned.
17
In fact, the de-
vice continued to live on in Italian treatises on keyboard improvi-
sation, called partimenti.
18
Such treatises have a long history of
their own, but, most suggestive for our topic here, the Italian tradi-
tion was taken up by the French in the early nineteenth century,
as seen in treatises by Choron/Fiocchi (1804), Ftis (1829), and
Kalkbrennerthe extraordinarily successful virtuoso pianist with
whom Chopin contemplated study upon his arrival in Paris. It
would be ideal, of course, if we could document Chopins knowl-
edge of Choron/Fiocchi or Ftis, but as of this writing that is not
possible. Chopins theory instruction with Jzef Elsner (Director
of the Warsaw Conservatory) seems to have centered on German
pedagogical materials, most notably Johann Philip Kirnbergers
Die Kunst des Reinen Satzes in der Musik.
19
This may be read as
placing Chopin in the Bach School, but certainly more obliquely
than Mendelssohn.
20
If it is impossible to say whether Chopin
studied French partimenti manuals before arriving in Paris, it at
least seems likely that he would have encountered such pedagogi-
cal materials once his teaching career there got underway in the
1830s.
Example 4 shows some selected improvisational models based
upon the rgle de loctave taken from Kalkbrenners treatise of
1849, Trait dharmonie du pianiste. The textures Kalkbrenner
presents look similar to other virtuoso piano music of the period,
as shown in writings by Collet, Finlow, and Samsonall of whom
have dealt with Chopins Etudes in the context of other piano
studies of the period.
21
Surely, these authors have been successful
in showing that Chopins piano textures, in some cases, may have
been inspired or suggested by earlier etudes, but just as surely,
most of the surface rhythms, textures, playing techniques, etc., of
Chopins Etudes show an extraordinary originality. Indeed, the
pieces in score present a unique visual appearance that has in-
spired commentary by Douglas Hofstadter.
22
In large measure,
this is precisely where the great originality of many of the Chopin
Etudes resideson the surface; and there is certainly nothing
wrong with that. (There are also pieces that are strikingly original
at deeper levels, such as the Etude op. 25, no. 3, in F major, which
overshoots a presumed thematic repetition on the dominant to pre-
sent it at the tritone instead.
23
) The Etudes dealt with in the present
article, however, are clear cases of Chopin troping on traditional
structural archetypes.
Let us turn now to the C-major Etude, op. 10, no. 1, written in
1829 or 30, before Chopins arrival in Paris. One of the most sig-
nicant features in this piece is a regularity of four-measure
phrase structure so consistent that it establishes a deeper-level
metera hypermeter, as Edward T. Cone called it.
24
Example 5
shows a hypermetric reduction of the piece in the manner of Carl
Schachter;
25
it articulates a four-measure hypermeter throughout,
shown by the
4
2
meter in which each measure of the original equals
one half note of the transcription. (In order to translate the
seventy-nine measures of the Etude into twenty hypermeasures,
the transcription assumes that the nal fermata could last a full
extra measure, which seems quite plausible.)
Certainly, the most original feature of the piece is the thematic
arpeggiation, which assumes the suppleness of the hand and wrist
rotation typical of the Chopin style as well as the damper pedal of
the pianoforte to sustain the cascading arpeggios. At rst, the gu-
ration would seem to throw the whole notion of structural register
into doubt, but on closer inspection it turns out that the arpeggios
are completely consistent registrally, so that the voice leading
17
Christensen 1992, 101 ff.
18
See Christensen 1992, 110.
19
See Samson 1999.
20
See Todd 1983.
21
Collet 1966 and Finlow 1992. Also see Samson 1994, Chapter 4,
Baroque Reections.
22
See gures 92 and 95 (pp. 175 and 179) in Hofstadter 1985.
23
See Brown, Headlam & Dempster, 1999. Also see Salzer 1973.
24
Cone 1969.
25
Schachter 1999 collects the relevant essays, which originally appeared
individually.
110 Music Theory Spectrum
Example 4. Excerpts from Kalkbrenner 1849
Two Bach Preludes/ Two Chopin Etudes 111
comes through as shown in the reduction (although the right-
hand part is replicated an octave below, and in two successive
octaves above the written part throughout the piece). This consis-
tency of pattern is absolutely essential in communicating the basic
voice leading behind the surface (and essential to the visual ap-
pearance that impressed Hofstadter). The importance of voice-
leading detail to Chopin is clear from his obsessive editorial re-
nement of it, documented in the best editions. Unfortunately,
such continuous editing is also the source of discrepancies be-
tween his original manuscripts and the various contemporaneous
printings, making determination of an authoritative score a
controversial matter.
The regularity of phrase structure in op. 10, no 1, is a signi-
cant departure from the Bach style, in which overlapping phrases
and elisions are typical and in which continuity and forward mo-
tion reign supreme. Indeed, the present analysis maintains that the
Example 4. [continued]
112 Music Theory Spectrum
rst sixteen measures of the piece (four hypermeasures in the re-
duction) are an interrupted classical period-structure reinterpreted
within Chopins harmonic language. (If Chopin appropriated a
Baroque compositional technique to his own purposes, he of
course placed it within a phrase and harmonic idiom in which he
habitually worked.) The rst half-phrase moves to VII
7
/V and
thence to V in the second half-phrase (the whole comprising the
rst eight measures); meanwhile, structural 3

moves to 2

. But on
the very last quarter of the phrase (end of m. 8), 2

is inected to 2

,
becoming thereby a leading tone back to 3

, and the consequent

phrase picks up on 3

again.
Complete closure at the end of the A section in m. 16 is pre-
vented by overlapping the 2

soprano with the return of the pri-

mary melodic tone, 3

, above. Two hypermeasures (eight real mea-

sures) now occur, which present the full course of the B section of
the piece: VI to V/VI (E major), labeled B1 in the analysis. Up
until this point, hypermeasures, each made of four measures, have
themselves grouped duply; however, the rest of the B section
(mm. 2548) groups into 3 + 3 hypermeasures, labeled B2 and
B3. This division of B2 and B3 is clear for at least two reasons:
rst, the harmonic rhythm slows in mm. 336; and second, mm.
2536 are easily read as the prolongation of a single harmony, A
7
,
Example 5. Hypermetric reduction of Chopin, op. 10, no. 1. =
Two Bach Preludes/ Two Chopin Etudes 113
albeit through an interesting Tristan-like detour to the at-side of
the circle of fths, and an enharmonic return (B
7
5
becomes Fr
+6
in D minor).
26
B3 now picks up in m. 37 with a clear cycle of
fths and an acceleration of the harmonic rhythm (to two chords
per real measure) in mm. 434, followed by a deceleration back to
one chord per measure in mm. 458, all of this acting as a retran-
sition back to A1, which returns in m. 49.
The ubiquitous cycle of fths of the B2 and B3 sections is yet
another trace of Bach and the Baroque, of course; after all, the A
section was essentially a frame, supported by a cadence. But the
middleground line behind all of this is at least as important. Jim
Samson seems to have had this piece in mind when he writes that
the sense of harmonic ow in both Bach and Chopin is achieved
by maintaining a dissonant tension over extended periods, and by
long-range linear motions which emerge through the guration, cre-
ating a strong counterpoint with the melodic bass.
27
The primary
melodic tone E
5
(to choose the most likely in the three-octave reg-
istration) is rst reintroduced from a third above after the rst hy-
permeasure of B2; at this point, E
5
begins a descent through an oc-
tave that nishes with the acceleration of harmonic rhythm in the
second hypermeasure of B3; the new, lower-register E
4
is now pro-
longed by neighbor-note motion in the last hypermeasure of B3.
This octave descent is accompanied by tenths in the bass, just as it
was in Bach, though the tenths are elaborated by intervening 7ths to
form the cycle-of-fths progression. Still, the parallel with Bach
and the regl de loctave formula is striking. All of the preceding
discussion is summarized in the analysis shown in Example 6.
The slowing of harmonic rhythm in mm. 458 allows an ex-
tended arpeggiation in mm. 478 that restores the original register
of the primary melodic tone (the return of the obligatory regis-
ter?). The return of A1 in m. 49 leads to the expected return of
A2 in m. 57, which in turn seems to lead to B1. This time, how-
ever, the apparent goal of B1, V/VI, is a divider between the over-
all V and the returning I that occurs in m. 69, although melodic
closure is anything but clear. Subsequent pedals on I and V in the
closing section continue to ll out the parallel with the Baroque
prelude. Example 7 shows the analysis.
We turn now to the bookend mate of op. 10, no 1: op. 25, no.
12, in C minor. By all reports, this piece was composed at least six
years after op. 10, no 1, although the two pieces seem to be ex-
tremely close in all ways, except perhaps chronologically. Many
have noted the similarity of this Etude to op. 10, no 1, with regard
to surface diminution: both hands participate in the arpeggiation
this time around. Samson also notes that again there are echoes
of Bachthe Prelude in the same key from Book 1, for instance
in the tolling chorale, against which subsidiary material
emerges in exible rhythms.
28
The parallels run more deeply than
that, as we shall see.
A signicant difference from the Bach worksor from op. 10,
no 1, for that matteris the register in which the right-hand
arpeggiation starts: by starting in the C
3
C
4
octave, the downbeat
of each measure announces a tenor melody since the tone will
be sustained by the pedal. Such tenor melodies catered to
nineteenth-century aesthetic tastes, the same tastes that preferred
Gounods revision of Bachs C-major Prelude with its superim-
posed melody to the unadorned original. (Incidentally, proof that
the tenor octave is indeed the primary melodic register occurs
later in the piece when the echoing C
4
C
5
octave briey takes a
pedal instead of doubling the tune.)
Example 8 shows the hypermetric analysis. In order to make
the distinction between melody and bass in the analysis more eas-
ily readable, the tenor melody has been notated up an octave
throughout. Once again, one measure of the original score equals
a half note in the reduction, and once again the piece consists of
twenty hypermeasures, but this time there are eighty-three real
measures instead of seventy-nine (accounted for by including two
26
An alternate interpretation is that V
7
/vi is resolved into the next chord,
and when A major returns as a triadic cadential goal, it is VI .
27
Samson 1994, 61.
28
Samson 1994, 71.
114 Music Theory Spectrum
Example 7. Analysis of Chopin, op. 10, no. 1, mm. 49end
Example 6. Analysis of Chopin, op. 10, no 1, mm. 1749
3
1
hypermeasures). A quick scan through the reduction shows that
the rhythmic structure of the Etude is more complicated than that
of op. 10, no 1, just as Bachs C-minor Prelude is more compli-
cated that his C-major Prelude. While most of the piece falls into
four-beat hypermeasures, the connection between the opening
thematic section and the change of mode to C major is a six-beat
hypermeasure; given the opening hypermetric structure, we might
regard the last two half notes in the
3
1
hypermeasure as beginning
a new four-beat hypermeasure (see the tentative, overlapping
4
2
placed over the top of the example at this point). However, the
repetition of this C-major section in A conrms four-beat hyper-
measures starting at m. 15, which remain the norm until an
extension to a
3
1
hypermeasure occurs to bring about the nal
cadence of the piece.
Example 9(a) shows an analysis of opening thematic section,
labeled A1. It begins with double-neighbor melodic motion
around structural 3

, supported by a tonic pedal in the bass (the

rst hypermeasure). The parallel with Bachs C-minor Prelude is
striking, as shown in 9(b): one opening motive is the retrograde
or the tonal inversionof the other. It is difcult to overstress
the importance of this motive to the piece: it recurs in the theme
of the B section, and becomes especially important in the
Two Bach Preludes/ Two Chopin Etudes 115
Example 8. Hypermetric reduction of Chopin, op. 25, no. 12. =
116 Music Theory Spectrum
retransition. The A1 phrase continues to a structural 2

, which
moves to tonic closure on the strong-beat 3

of the second hyper-

measure. 2

is embellished by 3

as an incomplete upper neighbor

(supported by the dominant over the tonic pedal), a typical device
of Chopins harmonic language, and one which cannot fail to
evoke its parallel-major, enharmonically equivalent cousin, 2

, last
seen in the same position in the C-major Etude. But the two col-
orations have very different effects: this time, the opening eight-
measure phrase clearly closes on the tonic with a structural 3

in the tenor register, which continues through an echoing dimin-

uted octave-descent in the soprano register, as 1

is picked up to
continue as 8

.
A2 starts as a restatement of A1, but after the surprising change
to the parallel major in m. 12, the neighbor gure this time embell-
ishes 5

in m. 14, transforming the double-neighbor gure into what

might be called a cambiata FE A G. This leads directly to the
B theme, although this theme clearly evolves from a diminution of
A (in the parallel major) in m. 16 to the downbeat of m. 17, along
with its embellished extension, again through a 3

descent, in
mm. 1820. It is important to add that the extension of the fore-
ground arpeggiation gure by yet another octave gives additional
emphasis to the E in m. 15. The B theme is then repeated in A
major in mm. 2330, although the last two beats of m. 30 head back
to C minor via a Fr
+6
. What follows is a sixteen-measure span that
prolongs the dominant of C minor, stating various transpositions
and combinations of the cambiata variant of the double-neighbor.
Example 10 provides an analysis of mm. 1546. Once again,
we see Jim Samsons long-range linear motions which emerge
Example 9.
(a) Analysis of Chopin, op. 25, no. 12, mm. 19
(b) Analysis of Bach, C-Minor Prelude from WTC I, mm. 15
Two Bach Preludes/ Two Chopin Etudes 117
through the guration. Moreover, this particular long-range mo-
tion is a variant of the same descent we have seen in each of the
other pieces we have examined: 3

(this time with change of mode

to major) initiates a descent to 1

(m. 24), which becomes 3

of A
(VI), supporting a continuation of the descent to A (m. 30), and
thence to G (m. 31). While G is prolonged throughout mm. 3146,
the transposition scheme of the cambiata motive (up diatonic
thirds) effectively arpeggiates a V
9
over the course of the retran-
sition, the seventh of which resolves strongly to 3

with the return

of A (m. 47). Thus, the B section is hung on the same octave-line
through 3

that we have seen in each of the other pieces, although

this time there is no doubt that the soprano tune is far more im-
portant than the bass line, which essentially reduces to the three
pedals, I, VI, and V. The Baroque rgle de loctave in the bass
gives way in importance to a structural tenor melody in this
nineteenth-century work.
* * * * *
Needless to say, there are other features of these pieces deserv-
ing of our attention beyond those discussed here. One of these is
certainly the notion of affect: in maintaining that there is a con-
nection between Bach and Chopin, the topic seems ultimately in-
escapable. The drama of the Ocean Etude, as one sometimes
hears op. 25, no. 12, called, certainly calls to mind the traditional
dramatic affect of C minor, not so far from Bachs conception of
that key. (The piece also calls to mind the Revolutionary Etude
that ends op. 10; Chopin seems to have wanted a dramatic close to
both collections.) Can we say more? Might tuning bear upon the
issue here? A recent investigation of the subject claims that tem-
peraments prevalent in Chopins time (documented by the piano
makers of the day) were circulating (that is, all keys were
playable), but not equal (thus, even those of us without absolute
pitch would be able to differentiate keys by their individual tun-
ing).
29
In the case of the F-major Etude, op. 25, no. 3, mentioned
earlier, the issue is extraordinarily signicant: the recapitulation
of the tune in C major (V), is overshot, such that a false recapitu-
lation in B major occurs instead. This passage is in the low regis-
ter of the instrument, and in contrast to the piano dynamic of the
opening tune in F, a forte dynamic underscores the appearance in
B. It certainly seems relevant to point out that F major would be
close to just in a temperament of the day, while the major third
BD of B major (likely derived in most temperaments as BE )
would be one of the widest available and would beat wildly in
comparison to the FA third. But is temperament relevant to the
29
Jorgensen 1991 presents an exhaustive study of the topic.
Example 10. Analysis of Chopin, op. 25, no. 12, mm. 1547
118 Music Theory Spectrum
present discussion? To cite one possibility, the E-major triad that
often divides C and G in op. 10, no 1, would sound distinctly
more dissonant than the C-major and G-major triads on either
side of it in one of these circulating temperaments (EG would be
wider than CE or GB). Moreover, differently tuned keys might
preserve different affects, and perhaps that is one reason why
Chopins C-major and C-minor Etudes seem to share many affec-
tive qualities with the Bach Preludes in the same key. But that is a
topic to pursue in detail in another article.
It must be admitted that in its structural comparison of works
of Bach and Chopin, the present essay cannot escape the contro-
versial topic of inuence. Purposely, the genre that probably
transmitted that inuence of Bach to Chopin is narrowly dened
here, while, at the same time, the precise source of that inuence,
whether it be the works of Bach or rather mundane pedagogical
works for keyboard, remains unclear. Inuence itself is a much
larger topic in recent Bloom-inuenced studies.
30
Were we to at-
tempt grander statements in this regard, we should certainly have
to factor in the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution and, as a
consequence, the technology that made the beginnings of the
modern piano possible. In an extreme interpretation, it might be
maintained that Chopin simply brought the Bach prelude into that
modern world: the strength of his reading of Bach owes much to
this technology and the new playing techniques that arose as a
consequencesome of which were certainly invented by
Chopin.
31
Seeking to transfer the virtuosity of Paganini to the new
medium, Chopin, Liszt, and a host of lesser lights created a new
musical literature to do so. The industrial technology that gave
rise to the modern piano also ushered in an extraordinarily pro-
ductive period of metal instrument building: the range-extending
winds, the saxophones, and other exotic instruments that later fell
out of favor. Clearly, this was a period in which the past could be
made to weigh lightly on many musicians while a bright future of
new instruments and techniques beckoned.
To be sure, as instrumental forces stabilized (to the extent that
they are still essentially the same today), the distinction between
performer and composer began to crystallize, and both the
Romantic aesthetic and a welling historical consciousness lent
that composer an identity and charge requiring originality.
Certainly the Anxiety of Inuence became greater with later
generations (and greatest in the 20th century) as the weight of
history increased; but when Chopin rst became seriously ac-
quainted with Bachs music, Bach was hardly the mythic gure he
was to become during the course of the nineteenth century.
The present article has also attempted to demonstrate that
Schenkerian analysis can be used as a tool with which to make
some reasonably clear statements regarding the evolution of
style (in a very limited repertoire, to be sure). While the middle-
ground structure shown here might seem to suffer from the same
generic disease that both Meyers archetypes
32
and other Schen-
kerian middleground motives suffer from (that is, there seems
nothing particularly unique or memorableat least from a motivic
point of viewabout an octave scale), it has, nevertheless, some
interesting features. First, the bass progression of this abstract mid-
dleground formation was in fact reied as a concrete pedagogical
aid for at least two-hundred years, enabling us to make a connec-
tion between musical structure and the pedagogy of improvisation.
Second, the structural soprano of this middlegroundthe so-called
octave lineis most unusual in the background of a composi-
tion, and not terribly common in the middleground either.
Certainly, motions through thirds and fths are far more common
(in approximately that order). Further, in all four pieces consid-
ered in the present article, the octave line elaborates the back-
ground tonic area of the piece before the move to the background
dominant, and thence to background tonic return. What at rst
30
Korsyn 1991, for example.
31
The connection between compositional structure and practical matters of
instrumental technique is taken up in Kinzler 1977.
32
Meyer 1989.
Two Bach Preludes/ Two Chopin Etudes 119
blush might seem to be generic is really considerably more spe-
cial. By looking closely at middleground formations in these two
Chopin Etudes, the present essay hopes to have put greater detail
into Jim Samsons perceptive notion of long-range linear motions
which emerge through the guration, creating a strong counter-
point with the melodic bass, and in so doing, to have elucidated
one of Chopins most profound connections to Bach.
LIST OF WORKS CITED
Bach, C. P. E. [1753] 1949. Essay on the True Art of Playing
Keyboard Instruments. Translated by William Mitchell. New
York: Norton.
Brown, Matthew, Douglas Dempster and Dave Headlam. 1997.
The IV/ V Hypothesis: Testing the Limits of Schenkers
Theory of Tonality. Music Theory Spectrum 19: 20631.
Buelow, George J. 1966. Thorough-Bass Accompaniment accord-
ing to Johann David Heinichen. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Christensen, Thomas. 1992. The Rgle de lOctave in Thorough-
Bass Theory and Practice. Acta Musicologica 64: 91117.
Collet, Robert. 1966. Studies, Preludes and Impromptus. In
The Chopin Companion. Edited by Alan Walker. New York:
Norton, 11443.
Cone, Edward T. 1969. Musical Form and Musical Performance.
New York: Norton.
Eigeldinger, Jean-Jacques. 1986. Chopin, Pianist and Teacher, as
Seen by his Pupils. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Finlow, Simon. 1992. The Twenty-seven Etudes and Their Ante-
cedents. In The Cambridge Chopin Companion. Edited by Jim
Samson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 5077.
Forte, Allen, and Stephen Gilbert. Introduction to Schenkerian
Analysis. New York: Norton, 1982.
Gasparini, Francesco, [1707] 1963. The Practical Harmonist at
the Keyboard. Translated by F. Stillings. New Haven: Yale Uni-
versity Press.
Hofstadter, Douglas. R. 1985. Metamagical Themas. New York:
Basic Books.
Jorgensen, Owen. 1991. Tuning: Containing The Perfection of
Eighteenth-Century Temperament, The Lost Art of Nineteenth-
Century Temperament, and The Science of Equal Tempera-
ment. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
Kalkbrenner, Frdric. [1849] 1970. Trait dharmonie du pia-
niste. Amsterdam: A. J. Heuwekemeyer.
Kinzler, Hartmuth. 1977. Frdric Chopin: ber den Zusammen-
hang von Satztechnik und Klavierspiel. Mnchen: Musikverlag
Katzbichler.
Komar, Arthur. 1971. Theory of Suspensions. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Korsyn, Kevin. 1991. Towards a New Poetics of Musical
Inuence. Music Analysis 10: 372.
Leichtentritt, Hugo. 192122. Analyse der Chopinschen Klavier-
werke. 2 volumes. Berlin: M. Hesse.
Lerdahl, Fred, and Ray Jackendoff. 1983. A Generative Theory of
Tonal Music. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lester, Joel. 1992. Compositional Theory in the Eighteenth
Century. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
. 1998. J.S. Bach Teaches Us How to Compose: Four
Pattern Preludes from the Well-Tempered Clavier. College
Music Society Symposium 38: 3346.
Meyer, Leonard B. 1989. Style and Music. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Niedt, Friderich Erhard. [170017] 1988. The Musical Guide.
Translated by Pamela Poulin and Irmgard Taylor. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Petty, Wayne C. 1999. Chopin and the Ghost of Beethoven.
19th-Century Music 22: 28199.
Saint-Lambert, Michel de. [1707] 1991. New Treatise on
Accompaniment. Translated by J. S. Powell. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Salzer, Felix. 1973. Chopins Etude in F Major, Op. 25, No. 3:
the Scope of Tonality. In Music Forum III. Edited by William
120 Music Theory Spectrum
Mitchell and Felix Salzer. New York: Columbia University
Press, 28190.
Samson, Jim. 1994. The Music of Chopin. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
. 1999. Chopins Musical Education. Chopin Studies 6:
2837.
Schachter, Carl. 1999. Unfoldings; Essays in Schenkerian Theory
and Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schenker, Heinrich. 1923. Joh. Seb. Bach: Wohltemperiertes
Klavier, Band I: Prludium C-Moll. Die Musik 15.9: 64151.
. [1926] 1996. The Organic Nature of Fugue as
Demonstrated in the C Minor Fugue from Bachs Well-
Tempered Clavier, Book I. In The Masterwork in Music, vol-
ume 2. Edited by William Drabkin. Translated by Hedi Siegel.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3154.
. [1932] 1966. Five Graphic Musical Analyses New York:
Dover. (Original edition, 1932)
Sydow, B., ed. 1962. Selected Correspondence of Fryderyk
Chopin. London: Heinemann.
Todd, R. Larry. 1983. Mendelssohns Musical Education. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
ABSTRACT
Chopins interest in the music of Bach has long been known, if perhaps
underrated. Of particular importance around the time Chopin arrived in
Paris (1829), the inuence of Bach is most prominent in his works of this
period, especially the Etudes and certain of the Preludes. The present ar-
ticle begins by considering the relationship of the baroque gural prel-
ude to the larger context of Baroque keyboard and compositional peda-
gogy. After demonstrating the structure of an improvised gural prelude
as described by C. P. E. Bach, and the embodiment of this structural plan
in J. S. Bachs preludes, the paper continues by demonstrating another po-
tential source from which Chopin may have drawn compositional models:
the improvisation manual of the early 19th century, in which the same
structural pattern survives, clothed in early 19th-century pianistic bravura.
Thus the structural resemblances to the Baroque prelude that this study
nds in Chopins Etudes are hardly anachronistic, although it seems clear
that in the case of Chopin, his study of Bach is the primary source. The
paper then reveals deep-level structural relationships between Chopins
C-Major Etude op. 10, no. 1, and Bachs C-Major Prelude (WTC I), mov-
ing on as well to another pairing of Chopins C-minor Etude op. 25, no.
12, and Bachs C-minor Prelude from WTC I. The study uses Schenkerian
analysis as a means of making clear statements about the evolution of
musical style.