Harmony in Beethoven

www.ebook3000.
com
Harmony in Beethoven
David Damschroder’s ongoing reformulation of harmonic theory

continues with a dynamic exploration of how Beethoven molded
and arranged chords to convey bold conceptions. This book’s
introductory chapters are organized in the manner of a nineteenth-
century Harmonielehre, with individual considerations of the tonal
system’s key features illustrated by easy-to-comprehend block-chord
examples derived from Beethoven’s piano sonatas. In the masterworks
section that follows, Damschroder presents detailed analyses of
movements from the symphonies, piano and violin sonatas, and
string quartets, and compares his outcomes with those of analysts
William E. Caplin, Robert Gauldin, Nicholas Marston, William
J. Mitchell, Frank Samarotto, and Janet Schmalfeldt. Expanding
upon analytical practices from the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries and strongly influenced by Schenkerian principles, this
fresh perspective offers a stark contrast to conventional harmonic
analysis – both in terms of how Roman numerals are deployed and
how musical processes are described in words.
david damschroder is Professor of Music Theory at the University

of Minnesota. His current research focuses on harmony in tonal
music, a project that began with a careful examination of historical
analytical practices, the basis for his Thinking about Harmony:
Historical Perspectives on Analysis (Cambridge, 2008). The project
continues with focused studies on selected repertoires: Harmony in
Schubert (Cambridge, 2010), Harmony in Haydn and Mozart
(Cambridge, 2012), Harmony in Chopin (Cambridge, 2015), and the
present book. He has written textbooks on music fundamentals and
ear-training / sight-singing, and his articles and reviews have appeared
in numerous journals.
www.ebook3000.com
Harmony in Beethoven
david damschroder
The University of Minnesota
University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom
Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge.

It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of
education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence.
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107134584
© David Damschroder 2016
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception
and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without the written
permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 2016
Printed in the United Kingdom by TJ International Ltd. Padstow Cornwall
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-1-107-13458-4 Hardback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of
URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication,
and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain,
accurate or appropriate.
www.ebook3000.com
Contents
Preface [page vii]
part i methodological orientation: harmonielehre

(the piano sonatas) [1]
1 IV as intermediary between I and V [3]

2 II as intermediary between I and V [22]
3 A detailed look at the circle of fifths [39]
4 III on the path from I to V [49]
5 The mediant within the orbit of the tonic [64]
6 Notable linear initiatives [74]
7 Parenthetical passages [92]
part ii masterpieces [103]
8 String Quartet in B♭ Major (op. 18, no. 6), La Malinconia in

response to William J. Mitchell [105]
9 Piano Sonata in D Minor (op. 31, no. 2, “Tempest”), movement 1
in response to William E. Caplin [120]
10 Violin Sonata in A Minor (op. 47, “Kreutzer”), movement 1 in
response to Janet Schmalfeldt [139]
11 Symphony in A Major (op. 92), movement 3 in response to
Robert Gauldin [163]
12 Piano Sonata in E Major (op. 109) in response to Nicholas
Marston [174]
13 String Quartet in A Minor (op. 132), movement 1 in response to
Frank Samarotto [228]
Notes [254]
List of references to music examples [278]
Select bibliography [279]
Index of Beethoven’s works [290]
Index of names and concepts [291]
v
www.ebook3000.com
Preface
Beethoven of course remains a central figure in the musical pantheon –

revered both for his substantial and widely performed body of work and
for his influence on later musical developments. Anyone intrigued by this
book’s title will require no justification for the invitation to join me in a
careful study of his harmonic practice. Because the analysis of tonal music
is both challenging and beset by controversy, I am committed to focusing
on one or two composers at a time in depth – immersing myself in
specific preferences and tendencies conveyed in a finite body of work –
with the hope that I might achieve more compelling analyses (thus
moving the field forward a bit) than would be possible if I were daily
engaged with a centuries-wide span of repertoire. Though the intensity of
this working method led me to divert to Harmony in Chopin immediately
after I had completed Harmony in Haydn and Mozart, that respite from
the Viennese tradition (which I explored also in Harmony in Schubert)
has made me all the more eager and ready to encounter Beethoven in
this way.
Each of my analytical volumes is divided into two segments: a
methodological orientation, and an exploration of masterpieces. The
latter segment is devoted in part to critiques of other analysts’ readings of
the same works. By this point, these segments collectively have developed
into two distinct and substantial bodies of analytical writing: for the
relative newcomer to analysis, the methodological orientations provide a
wide-ranging grounding in how tonal analysis might be pursued, while
for all who have come to appreciate the insights that can be attained by
analyzing complete movements, the sum of my masterpiece essays offers
both an extensive survey of compositional practice preceding and during
the first half of the nineteenth century and a panoramic view (and
assessment) of how, over the past fifty or so years, other analysts have
come to terms with this music. The pre-1850 phase of my project on
harmony in the long nineteenth century will be completed after one
additional volume, Harmony in Mendelssohn and Schumann. Though I
regret the resulting neglect of Berlioz, Rossini, and others, given my
advancing age it will be time to move on: I intend to pursue an equally vii
viii Preface
robust exploration of developments in tonal music after 1850, including

volumes on Verdi, Brahms, Liszt and Wagner, Mahler, and Debussy.
Concurrently I am at work on a more elementary pedagogical project
that begins with Tonal Analysis: A Schenkerian Perspective (to be
published by W. W. Norton). That volume should be consulted first if
the starting point of the Harmony in . . . books proves to be beyond a
reader’s current level. (Though some analysts are making significant
contributions to our understanding of this repertoire without overt
references to Schenker, the genesis of my analytical practice, which
integrates ideas from many historical authors, would be unthinkable
without my first having come to terms with the Schenkerian perspective.)
That said, for the methodological orientation of Harmony in Beethoven I
have elected to work at a pre-Schenkerian level, more basic than in the
other volumes of the series. One of the mainstays of musical life in the first
half of the nineteenth century was the Harmonielehre, a foundational
study of essential harmonic practices, often presented in the context of
fabricated block-chord progressions rather than through analyses of
musical repertoire. (Many such volumes are assayed in my Thinking
About Harmony: Historical Perspectives on Analysis.) Here I offer a
belated contribution to that historical body of work with my own
perspective on these matters. (Given that the history of music theory has
been a focal point throughout my career, it was predictable that I would
sooner or later attempt something along the lines of the various books that
have been so influential in shaping my perspective on harmony.) Though
inevitably much of what I present echoes principles already in print (either
from that era or from more recent times), I believe that my formulation is
unique and worthy of consideration by anyone for whom harmony is a
vital concern. Though I likewise engage with block-chord progressions,
each is derived from a specific passage from a Beethoven piano sonata,
whose scores should be consulted when studying my commentaries. (I take
more liberties in this context than I do in my Schenkerian graphs later in
this volume, especially through the insertion of pitches that one might
imagine but that do not actually sound in the composition. I also have
fabricated rhythmic contexts that suit the block-chord nature of the
enterprise without adhering exactly to Beethoven’s compositions.) To
enhance readability at this elementary level, I dispense with the standard
scholarly procedure of backing up my work with references to a range of
published sources. The focus is exclusively the interaction between my
readers and me (as was the case between nineteenth-century readers and a
Harmonielehre author). I harbor the hope that some future scholars will
www.ebook3000.com
Preface ix
take the initiative to compare my perspective on Beethoven’s sonatas with

passages from the very abundant literature on that topic.
My intent is that the perspective enunciated in my Harmonielehre
could serve as a replacement for or (more realistically) supplement to
what is currently serving as harmony instruction for music of this
period at universities or conservatories, following a thorough grounding
in music fundamentals (including chord construction) and voice leading
(incorporating a detailed study of figured bass). I pursue this method with
my sophomore-level students at the University of Minnesota. In a recent
end-of-term survey I asked the class whether we instead should have
adhered to the conventional harmony instruction presented in our
textbook (which they had followed more exactly in earlier semesters of
the course sequence, under other instructors). Their response was
overwhelmingly against going back to that practice. Though readers who
teach undergraduate courses might not yet be ready to follow my lead in
this regard, perhaps alerting select students to these other ways of thinking
about harmony and encouraging them to explore my Harmonielehre on
their own would be in order. (I currently am at work on a complement to
the Harmonielehre: a Catechism of Ear-Training that I will offer as the
methodological orientation of Harmony in Mendelssohn and Schumann.)
For those who lead graduate seminars, by now my body of work is
sufficiently conspicuous that your more curious students will find it even
if you do not lead them in that direction.
In my own teaching I integrate instruction on how to proceed in analysis
with detailed critiques of how one ought not to proceed. (With modern
technology it is easy to project students’ homework assignments onto a
screen, so that the class may compare a range of readings and assess their
perspicacity.) In that I find this method very effective for coming to terms
with many fine points – both conceptual and notational – in the practice
of analysis, I have developed a means of providing a similar experience
for the readers of my analytical volumes by selecting masterpiece
compositions that have been treated at least once already in the recent
analytical literature. A significant part of my essay on each work is a
detailed critique of that other analysis, set off from the flow of my own
reading through the use of shading. Though this limits the repertoire I may
deal with, I have found the benefits to far outweigh that drawback. Because
these other analyses are very sophisticated, I of course extend beyond the
Harmonielehre level for my analyses in the Masterpieces section of this
volume. Though presented in the context of Schenkerian graphs, the
Roman numerals in the examples conform to the practice introduced
x Preface
in the Harmonielehre section. (That practice also matches the Roman

numeral usage in my forthcoming Tonal Analysis: A Schenkerian
Perspective.)
Given my intense involvement in the analysis of tonal music both as an
author and as a teacher, I have given much thought to the process of
developing skill as an analyst. Some observations regarding how I
undertake this process, intermixed with pointers for aspiring analysts, are
provided in a supplementary essay entitled “Developing analytical insight,”
available as an online resource at www.cambridge.org/9781107134584.
It is no secret that books such as this one generally are read in part or in
whole by numerous individuals before publication. I thank first the
members of my Beethoven seminar at the University of Minnesota for
spending a term working through most of the chapters with me. I also
appreciate the encouragement and advice of the reviewers commissioned
by Cambridge University Press. I thank the University of Minnesota for
supporting my work through an Imagine Fund award, which covered the
cost of setting the music examples and provided the resources to acquire
books and to visit major research libraries. I am grateful to the New York
Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations, for allowing me to
purchase on microfilm and to make references to the Oster Collection:
Papers of Heinrich Schenker. As in the earlier volumes of my project, Peter
Smucker has provided expert setting of the music examples.
Conventions regarding note relations, chords, keys,

and Roman numerals
Pitch simultaneities (such as C-E-G) are indicated using hyphens (-), while
pitch successions (such as C–E–G) are indicated using dashes (–).
Direction may be indicated in melodic succession: ascending as C<E<G,
descending as G>E>C. A black arrow may be used to indicate a
descending-fifth relationship that is or emulates a V(7)–I succession,
whereas an outline arrow may be used to indicate a succession from a
chord of the augmented-sixth type: for example, C➔F–D➔G➔C;
C–A♭–D G➔C.
Keys and chords are distinguished as follows: C Major (with a capital M)
is the key of C Major; C major (with a small m) is a C major chord.
Unless another analyst’s methodology is being discussed, Roman
numerals are presented in capital letters regardless of a chord’s quality,
modified by one or more accidentals if the chord is altered. Thus C Major: I
www.ebook3000.com
Preface xi
II V I and not I ii V I; and A Minor: I II V♯ I♯ (closing on a major tonic), not

i ii° V I. An accidental to the left of the numeral corresponds to the chord’s
root, to the right corresponds to its third. If the chordal fifth, seventh, or
ninth is altered, the analytical symbol will incorporate the corresponding
Arabic numeral, as in C Minor: II5♯♮ . (Arrow notation – here II➔ – offers
an attractive, though less precise, alternative to the complete analytical
symbol.) The bullet symbol (•) indicates an absent root. For example,
B-D-F in C Major will be analyzed as V7• (or, with less precision, as V➔).
Likewise a progression of chordal roots generally is presented in capital
letters (C–D–G–C), though on occasions when quality is a factor in the
discussion a capital letter may refer to major quality, a small letter to minor
quality, and a small letter followed by a degree circle (°) to diminished
quality: for example, C–a–F–d–b°–G–e–C.
A bracket is used to connect the analytical notation for two musical
events that normally would follow one another but that in the context
under discussion occur at the same moment: for example, C |F♯ B | E when
an F♯-A♯-C♯ chord sounds with, rather than before, root B in a descending
circle of fifths.
Parentheses around a pitch in an analytical example indicate that it is not
actually present in the score, though it is understood. Parentheses around
analytical notation may refer to the expansion of a deeper-level harmony
(for example, when I is expanded by I IV V I) or to the harmonic assertion
of a voice-leading phenomenon (for example, when the 6 phase of a I5–6, as
in C-E-G to C-E-A, asserts the harmonic role of VI). Open parentheses
designate a voice-leading transition between two harmonies. For example,
I ( ) IV indicates that the chords between I and IV (perhaps a circular,
parallel, or sequential progression) do not themselves participate in the
harmonic progression, but instead serve to connect the harmonies I
and IV.
When a score’s chordal spellings do not coincide with the structurally
appropriate spellings (for example, the substitution of easier-to-read
F♯-A-C♯ for cumbersome G♭-Bº-D♭), I generally will use the structurally
appropriate spellings in my examples and commentaries, often placing the
enharmonic spellings within square brackets to assist readers in locating
the pitches in question within the score.
I pay very close attention to hierarchies among pitches and chords. To
alert readers to various hierarchical relationships I often will underline
some pitch names to indicate their hierarchical prominence. For example,
C<E D>B C above bass C–G–C conveys the relationship between two
xii Preface
unfolded strands: a more prominent outer strand E>D>C, and a

subordinate inner strand C>B<C.
Because diverse musical contexts are analyzed using graphs, it is difficult
to pin down precise guidelines for how their notation should be crafted and
read. Many styles of “Schenkerian” notation have appeared since the
publication of Schenker’s Free Composition (hereafter abbreviated as FC),
which itself does not present a single normative style. I regard the creation
of a reductive graph as an art, endeavoring to use notation that is as clear
and informative as possible. In general, open noteheads in my graphs
represent deeper structural or harmonic events than filled-in noteheads,
while notes at the endpoints of beams or slurs are deeper than internal
notes. Notes connected to a beam by a stem are more integral to the
structure than those that are not. Occasionally annotations using
abbreviations (those pertaining to form borrowed from James Hepokoski
and Warren Darcy’s Elements of Sonata Theory, Oxford University Press,
2006), indicate functions of individual pitches or formal events, as follows:
ant. anticipation
C closing zone
CP chromatic passing note
CV chromatic variant
EEC essential expositional closure
ESC essential structural closure
HC half cadence
IAC imperfect authentic cadence
IN incomplete neighboring note
MC medial caesura
N neighboring note
P an individual pitch: passing note
P form: primary-theme zone
PAC perfect authentic cadence
prg. progression
S secondary-theme zone
susp. suspension
TR transition
W wobble
Of course, the graphs often will incorporate Roman numeral harmonic
analyses, and in this regard I sometimes depart from Schenker’s practice.
Because it is innovative, I document my Roman numeral usage very
carefully as the chapters unfold.
www.ebook3000.com
Preface xiii
Because measure numbers are a pervasive feature in my close analyses, I

have developed an abbreviated style of reference, in the form measurebeat.
For example, the symbol 23 indicates the third beat of measure 2. Generally
the word “measure” will not precede the number. I regard measures in22 and
6
8
as containing two beats. A measure designation such as 14/16 means that
a given chord is prolonged from measure 14 through measure 16, with
contrasting content occurring between statements of the chord, whereas
the designation 14–16 indicates a continuous prolongation of a single
chord without significant internal contrast. The symbol 15|16 indicates
measure 16 along with its upbeat. When an x appears among the measure
numbers in a music example, it signifies either that the example’s content
at that point does not actually sound but instead is suggested by the
context or that the example displays a hypothetical continuation that the
composer does not in fact pursue.
www.ebook3000.com
part i
Methodological orientation:
Harmonielehre (the piano sonatas)
www.ebook3000.com
1 IV as intermediary between I and V
Hundreds of chords transpire during a typical movement by Beethoven.

How should one make sense of this abundance of sensory information?
We begin to formulate an answer to this question by exploring how the
IV harmony is deployed along the path from I to V. This uneven subdivi-
sion of the I<V trajectory highlights two of tonal music’s most prominent
root successions: the ascending perfect fourth and the ascending major
second. Certain things tend to happen in each of these two contexts,
regardless of where they transpire within a key. (Thus what we say about
I<IV in this chapter will apply also to II<V, major-key VI<II, and other
ascending-fourth/descending-fifth successions.) Because I<IV traverses
the same distance within tonal space as music’s most salient succession,
V<I, it often will take on (usually aided by chromatic alteration) character-
istics of that latter succession’s typical evolution as V8–7, wherein the
diminished fifth between the third and seventh of V7 instigates a potent
forward-driving force that here will be referred to as a surge. Likewise, the
connection between IV and V often conforms to another specific sort of
internal filling-in – here referred to as a 5–6 shift (as in F-A-C to F-A-D) –
that may be encountered in other ascending-second contexts (especially
I<II) as well. That process, applied to IV, may in fact generate a II harmony
that is dependent upon the more foundational IV<V succession and thus
will be displayed analytically in a subordinate layer. (A more foundational
usage of II will be explored in chapter 2.) Such trajectories are susceptible
to variable intensity. For example, a surge from I to IV in C Major may be
conveyed by simply adding a chromatic B♭ to the C-E-G triad. Yet a more
potent surge might be achieved – either thereafter or instead – through the
further evolution to E-G-B♭-D♭, where not only B♭ and D♭ are added, but
also root C is omitted.
This perspective contrasts alternative analytical practices that likely are
already familiar to most readers. (For example, the chord mentioned at the
end of the preceding paragraph often is labeled as vii°7/IV.) The presenta-
tion that transpires over the next seven chapters will introduce a fresh
approach to harmonic analysis, intended as a distinct improvement upon
existing options and thus worthy of being adopted as a replacement. 3
4 Harmony in Beethoven
Realistically, though, the current conventional practice (with variants

especially in the use of all-capital versus capital and small Roman numer-
als) is so entrenched that readers will not be able simply to ignore it. Those
who engage in harmonic analysis will need to be conversant with a range of
analytical protocols, among which the current conventional practice may
over time become less predominant.
Op. 7/I1–17
The model presented in 1.1 corresponds to P, the primary-theme zone within

the exposition of one of Beethoven’s early sonata movements, 7/I1–17. (This
location symbol, deployed throughout chapters 1 through 7, should be read
as opus 7, movement 1, measures 1 through 17.) To better convey the essence
of the passage, this block-chord reduction omits many of the score’s chords.
Note especially the F-A♭-E♭ chord at 52. It connects root-position and first-
inversion arrangements of I’s pitches without itself performing a harmonic
role. Though some analysts might label it as II7, that reading is here rejected,
since it suggests that the pitch F functions as a harmonic root, above which
“dissonant” seventh E♭ should resolve downward by step. Instead, E♭ is
maintained as root as the tonic’s E♭<G and G<B♭ thirds are traversed. (Bass
F is the dissonant note, not the E♭ above it.) Nor does the model fully
document the shifts of soprano and bass from one to another of a prolonged
chord’s members. Likewise the model scales back Beethoven’s robust registral
expansion, so that one might more easily assay the foundational voice lead-
ing. Finally, it omits the redundancy in the vicinity of the cadence, signaled by
the hairpin symbol between measure numbers 12 (where V is introduced)
and 17 (where the resolving I is definitive, unlike the situation in measure 13).
The melody’s G<B♭ third, traversed during measures 13 through 15, is
reminiscent of that in measures 1 through 3, though this time it coordinates
with the onset of V’s 64 embellishment (at 151, reiterating that of 121).
Example 1.1 Analysis of Piano Sonata in E♭ Major (op. 7), mvmt. 1, mm. 1–17.
www.ebook3000.com
IV as intermediary between I and V 5
Analytical observations regarding the harmonic progression are dis-

played below the system in 1.1, where only four Roman numerals are
deployed for these seventeen measures of content. The premise of the
perspective from which this analysis has emerged may be stated simply.
Any harmony (a chord whose fundamental role within the progression is
acknowledged by means of a Roman numeral label corresponding to the
scale degree of its root) may sound successively in multiple states. A
harmony often will be introduced in its diatonic state, without dissonant
accretions. It may project stability initially by serving as the focus of
embellishment, such as neighboring notes, passing notes, or suspensions.
As time passes a prolonged harmony often will evolve into a more dynamic
state. Various alterations – which may include added dissonances, chro-
matic shifts, and pitch omissions – annul any stability attained during the
harmony’s prior prolongation and motivate the succession to the next
harmony.
By far the most common successions between adjacent roots within
Beethoven’s harmonic practice are the ascending perfect fourth or des-
cending perfect fifth (here E♭<A♭ and B♭<E♭) and the ascending major
second or descending minor seventh (here A♭>B♭). The foundational
I–V–I progression upon which most of Beethoven’s harmonic utterances
depend often expands to either I–IV–V–I (explored here) or I–II–V–I
(explored in chapter 2), constructions that deploy nothing but these two
root successions. (Note that the ascending perfect fifth is not among the
most common direct successions of tonal harmony. It typically is segmen-
ted into a fourth plus a second, a second plus a fourth, or a third plus a
third.) The transformation of the E♭ and B♭ chords from their consonant
states into their dynamic, forward-surging dissonant states is achieved
through the addition of a minor seventh above the chordal root: chromatic
D♭ in the case of I, diatonic A♭ in the case of V. (The number 7 is deployed
in the analysis even if, as in measure 10, the chord’s root does not sound
concurrently in the bass.) The diminished fifth or augmented fourth that
results targets essential pitches of the succeeding harmony. In this case an
expansion of the initial tonic runs its course (measures 1 through 9) before
minor seventh D♭ emerges. The sounding of a B♭-D-F-A♭ chord during
measures 7 and 8 is here interpreted as a local embellishment of the tonic,
with three neighboring notes emerging against a prolonged B♭. (Note the
absence of a V7 annotation at that point in 1.1.)
Though the chords of measure 8 (bass D) and the second half of measure
10 (bass G) are similarly constructed, their roles within the progression are
contrasting. Whereas the former is a local embellishment of the tonic, the
latter is the tonic, in an evolved state that brings the acquired stability to
an end and potently targets IV. After a later statement of this theme
Beethoven deploys the same sort of embellishment that here enhances
the initial tonic in the context of IV (G-B♭-D♭-E♭ in measures 205–208
and 208–212), followed by a more potent embellishment of V (A♮-E♭-G♭
against a B♭ pedal point in measures 216 and 218).
A different mechanism often facilitates the connection of roots separated
by an ascending second. Pursuing a strategy perfected by Baroque composers
with their ascending 5–6 sequences, one may initiate the motion upwards to
the next scale degree by maintaining the initial chord’s root and third while
shifting the fifth up a step to a sixth, thereby introducing one of the pitches
from the succeeding harmony. The root and third then follow. In 1.1 this
procedure, which connects IV and V, is integrated with the 64 embellishment
of V, so that the F that emerges at the end of measure 11 (the 6 of IV5–6) does
not persist sonically as V’s root emerges in the bass but instead serves as the
starting point for the downward traversal of that dominant’s F>D third (with
intervening passing note E♭). F is restored in the soprano as that initiative
concludes. (Note the model’s display of soprano A♭>G>F in that vicinity. The
G posited for 121 sounds only in the chordal interior in Beethoven’s score.) In
this context the F of measure 11 serves as an anticipation – that is, as an event
of voice leading rather than as the root of a supertonic harmony.
Consequently the Roman numeral II is not deployed. In other contexts,
further evolution of this chord before the emergence of the dominant will
warrant a more elaborate Roman numeral display, to be explored presently.
Op. 28/I1–39
As we turn to 28/I1–39, take a moment to explore the first phrase (through

measure 10 of the score) on your own before reading further, endeavoring
to discern how the principles introduced above apply in this new context.
Did you notice Beethoven’s daring omission of the tonic’s initial consonant
state? Though one might imagine a D-F♯-A triad above measure 1’s lone
bass D (as proposed in 1.2), the C♮ of measure 2, which generally would
emerge after a consonant D in the same register, nevertheless comes as a
surprise. Yet its role in propelling I towards IV conforms to conventional
tonal syntax. As shorthand notation for this relationship, an arrow – as in
I➔ – may be deployed, especially in textual commentary, as an alternative
to I7♮, to indicate a surge. Several related chords all could convey such a
www.ebook3000.com
Example 1.2 Analysis of Piano Sonata in D Major (op. 28), mvmt. 1, mm. 1–39.
surge: D-F♯-A-C, F♯-A-C, F♯-A-C-E(♭), or D-F♯-A-C-E(♭). All of these

chords are regarded as dominant-emulating: that is, though they do not
actually warrant a V Roman numeral (because the harmony’s root is not ^5
in the prevailing key), their construction and resolutional behavior corre-
spond to a dominant’s.
Did you notice how IV5–6 transpires during measures 3 and 4? Did you
notice how an embellishing chord in measure 9 helps expand the conclud-
ing tonic? (The phrase’s structural dominant occurs in measures 5 and 6,
not in measure 9. After the melody’s initial A, supported by I➔, a descend-
ing G>E>C♯>A arpeggiation supported by IV5–6 and V7 is followed by an
ascending A<D<F♯ arpeggiation supported by I. The E of 91–2 is a passing
note between the D and F♯ of this latter arpeggiation, whereas the C♯ below
is a neighboring note.)
The first phrase’s melody traverses the span between the tonic
harmony’s fifth and third (A>G>F♯), resulting in an IAC in measure 10.
That phrase is then repeated an octave higher. A surging tonic emerges at a
deeper level during measures 21 and 22, coordinating with a restoration of
the melody’s initial A. (Though this A “belongs” in measure 22, it emerges
belatedly at the downbeat of measure 23. It of course has been a presence
since measure 2. Its importance is confirmed through the sounding of an
A in the upper register at 281, prior to the again belated A of 311.)
Full closure is attained through a stepwise descent to the tonic root,
which arrives at 391. The model for this latter phrase on display in 1.2
incorporates a hairpin symbol among the measure numbers to indicate
that the content between measures 26 and 39, during which two attempts at
a PAC fail, has been omitted. The foundational progression (displayed via
the upper row of Roman numerals) is an impeccable harmonic construc-
tion: both the initial tonic and the dominant proceed from their consonant
states to dynamic evolved states (I➔ and V➔), whereas a 5–6 shift tran-
spires during the succession from IV to V. The entire first phrase and its
repetition (twenty measures of music) all transpire before this foundational

succession from I to IV occurs. The IV’s 5- and 6-phase chords here are
connected by a passing chord, at 243. This construction helps explain why
the IV chord initially emerges in its 63 position: three successive 63 chords
sound in measures 23 through 25, proceeding in the bass to IV’s root, G,
whose arrival coincides with the emergence of 6-phase E.
In this case IV6 is transformed by the incorporation of chromatic G♯.
(A reminder to readers who have studied harmony via a contrasting
methodology: here IV6 designates the 6 phase of IV – G-B-E – rather
than the first inversion of IV – B-D-G.) Though the 6-phase pitch E may
serve as no more than an anticipation of the dominant’s fifth, the potential
for G-B-E to come across as a chord rooted on E is great. Certainly if G♯
emerges (as it does at 253), the E has asserted itself as a local root. This
interpretation is noted in a secondary row of analytical notation enclosed
within parentheses beneath the principal analysis. Here II’s seventh, D,
together with G’s transformation into G♯ create the dynamic sense of II➔
targeting V, an intensity not achieved by IV’s 6-phase G-B-E (over a tonic
pedal point) at 43.
Op. 27, no. 2/III1–14
In minor keys, as in major keys, chromatic pitches often are called upon to
guide a harmony towards its successor. Because the initial tonic harmony
in 27.2/III1–14 is of minor quality, chromatic E♯ is an essential component
of its surge towards IV. Observe in the model presented in 1.3 how the
opening tonic is embellished by B♯-D♯-G♯. Instead of restoring the minor
tonic, Beethoven incorporates both major third E♯ and minor seventh B
into that tonic’s post-embellishment reiteration. These pitches generate the
dynamic surge (I➔) that targets IV. (Of course, in minor keys the tonic’s
diatonic seventh is of minor quality, so the chromatic adjustment found
there in major keys is no longer required.) It is common in the context of
an embellishing chord followed by a surge for a melodic line such as
C♯>B♯<C♯>B♮ to contract into C♯>B♯>B♮, wherein the leading tone’s
resolution pitch has been elided. Consequently upward- and downward-
tending pitches sound in direct succession.
In 1.2 we observed how the 6 phase of IV may evolve in such a way as to
surge as II➔, targeting V. In the context of C♯ Minor that chord would be
spelled as D♯-FÜ-A♯-C♯. In 1.3 Beethoven deploys a more potent alterna-
tive. First, recall that the diatonic ^6 in C♯ Minor is A (deployed in measure
www.ebook3000.com
Example 1.3 Analysis of Piano Sonata in C♯ Minor (op. 27, no. 2), mvmt. 3, mm. 1–14.
7’s subdominant), not A♯. It is common especially in C♯ Minor (though

attainable in C♯ Major as well) for II to evolve into D♯-FÜ-A-C♯ as the
succession to the dominant draws near. Some analysts give this chord the
nickname “French” augmented sixth. (The “augmented” designation
corresponds to the prominent dissonant interval formed when the chord
is presented in its second inversion, as often is the case.) In the perspective
advocated here, it will be labeled instead as II7Ü . Because its sound contrasts
that of the surging chords already discussed, the shorthand symbol II
(with outline arrow) may be deployed in an analysis to denote a supersurge.
(When speaking, the symbol II➔ should be pronounced as “surging two,”
whereas the symbol II should be pronounced as “supersurging two,” in
which the “super” prefix acknowledges the greater concentration of dis-
sonance.) Second, consider how a chord with seventh may be intensified
through the addition of its ninth. When that occurs, it is common for the
root to be omitted. Thus D♯-FÜ-A-C♯ may further evolve into FÜ-A-C♯-E.
(In this case IV6 is represented by a chord in which that 6 – here D♯ – is
absent.) Beethoven employs that highly evolved 6-phase chord during
measure 8. The analytical notation under the system in 1.3 acknowledges
the absence of root D♯ by means of a bullet symbol (•) below the Arabic
numerals and accidental beside Roman numeral II. Rather than resorting
to a nickname (such as “German” augmented sixth), the chord is inter-
preted as one of several possible variants of II . In a scale-step approach to
harmonic analysis it is important to indicate each harmonic root’s location
within tonal space, a responsibility that would be abdicated if one were to
employ a symbol such as Ger+6. Also, because multiple evolved states of the
supertonic may occur in succession, a grid of Arabic numerals, accidentals,
and the bullet symbol to the right of Roman II on occasion may be called
upon to document that evolutionary process (as will be demonstrated
later). The juxtaposition of symbols such as ii°, vii°/V, and Ger+6 in other
analytical systems would not even hint at the continuity that exists among
related states of the supertonic.
The phrase’s goal dominant (with raised third), attained at 91, is pro-
longed through measure 14. Most of measures 10 and 12 are devoted to the
dominant’s 64 embellishing chord (G♯-C♯-E, not displayed in 1.3). A more
potent embellishment sounds briefly at the ends of those measures: C♯-(E)-
A-FÜ over a G♯ pedal point. Whereas in measure 8 those pitches helped
constitute the II harmony that targets V♯, here they instead embellish an
already attained dominant. Though some analysts might be inclined to
provide harmonic labels for such embellishing chords, I eschew that
practice. It would be misleading to propose that the C♯ and E above
retained G♯ during 101–3 in any way represent the tonic harmony: C♯ is a
passing note that connects the dominant’s D♯ and B♯; it is not a harmonic
root. Likewise, the analysis of measures 13 and 14 as
V♯ II V♯ II V♯ II V♯ II V♯
betrays a perspective that would be hard to reconcile with the slow pace of
harmonic motion that has prevailed to this point. Beethoven himself
guards against such a reading through his maintenance of the dominant
root G♯ throughout the passage.
Op. 14, no. 2/III204–213
The means by which the initial tonic is embellished in 1.1 recurs in 1.4,
which corresponds to 14.2/III204–213. Yet whereas in the former the tonic
soon thereafter evolves into I➔, targeting IV directly, in the latter a more
gradual approach to IV is pursued. As mentioned above, the same 5–6 shift
that often guides the voice leading in the connection between IV and V
Example 1.4 Analysis of Piano Sonata in G Major (op. 14, no. 2), mvmt. 3,
mm. 204–213.
www.ebook3000.com
may be deployed multiple times to form an ascending 5–6 sequence. In this

instance the 6-phase chords take on chromatic inflections so that the
approaches to the diatonic A, B, and C chords all resemble the embellish-
ment of the initial tonic G.
Once set in motion, such sequential progressions seem to proceed
effortlessly. Generally some rupture in the voice leading is required to
curtail a continuation. That rupture here occurs after measure 206,
where repetitions of the sequence’s final two chords (not shown in 1.4)
serve as a strong boundary marker, and after which the score’s right-hand
figuration takes on a new form while the left-hand chords are interspersed
with rests. In the analysis this significant moment corresponds to the first
Roman numeral deployed since the initial I. Whereas II or III might have
been asserted, in retrospect one understands that those chords instead
reside within the interior of an upward linear trajectory that terminates
at IV. Open parentheses appear in the harmonic analysis to convey the
transitional nature of the sequential passage: no longer I, not yet IV.
Though in some contexts a chord such as B65 at 2062 might serve to
reinstate the initial tonic function (thus creating a I8–7♮ expansion over
measures 204 through 206), in this case the progression of 53 chords on G,
A, B, and C seems to be the guiding principle. (That is, B53 is deemed to be
hierarchically more foundational than B56 ♮ within measure 206.) The dis-
tribution of the sequence’s 5- and 6-phase chords is noted via Arabic
numerals directly below the bass in 1.4. (Each 6-phase chord incorporates
a diminished fifth generated by means of chromaticism. These modest
surges boost the upward trajectory’s propulsion along the way.)
Once IV is attained and embellished, a conventional 5–6 shift (whose
6 phase projects a II➔ surge) leads onwards to V, which resolves to I
in a PAC.
Op. 7/II74–78
The trajectory connecting I and IV from 1.4 is presented again as 1.5a,

retaining the exact pitch content (transposed) but with alterations in
chordal inversion. This model will serve as a useful reference as we explore
Beethoven’s more challenging conception during 7/II74–78, displayed in
1.5b. Note how the latter corresponds to the 1.5a conception, with three
omissions. One might elect to regard this version as a representation of the
former, with the restoration of the initial tonic elided after the D-F-G-B
embellishing chord, and the sequential step on an E chord (inverted) and
Example 1.5 Analysis of Piano Sonata in E♭ Major (op. 7), mvmt. 2, mm. 74–78 (a) A
foundational sequential model based on 1.4; (b) A model displaying a parallel
progression between the I and IV harmonies and then continuing to V; (c) An
alternative view of the passage from I to IV.
its surging predecessor omitted. Yet in this case, given that every chord
6
after the initial I through the arrival of IV is in either 63 or 4 position and that
3
every diatonic pitch within a C<A trajectory takes one turn as bass note, the
passage begins to come across more as a parallel progression in which each
internal chord is equally weighted. (Parallel progressions of 63 chords are
encountered frequently in figured bass treatises. Beethoven would have
been exposed to the notion at an early age.) A synthesis, shown in 1.5c,
further refines that conception. An alternative analytical hypothesis is
proposed there as well: that in this context the chord with bass G just
before the arrival of IV serves as a reinstatement of the tonic function, so
that all of measures 74 through 76 constitute a broad prolongation of the
tonic in its two characteristic states – first consonant and then surging –
prior to the subdominant arrival.
The attainment of IV and the onset of its 5–6 shift coordinate in an
interesting way in measure 77. As has been characteristic within the excerpt,
here also a downbeat suspension – G (not shown in 1.5) – delays the arrival
of the subdominant root F. Yet by the time F sounds, the 5–6 shift is already
under way through the addition of D, while concurrently the subdominant
third A mutates to A♭. Consequently there is no point in time during which
all three members of the diatonic IV harmony sound alone together. The
presence of A♭, combined with the eventual emergence of F♯, results in II
(rather than II➔) targeting V during IV’s evolved 6 phase.
www.ebook3000.com
Example 1.6 Analysis of Piano Sonata in B♭ Major (op. 22), mvmt. 3, mm. 42|43–46.
Op. 22/III42|43–46
The Arabic numerals placed beside Roman numerals within analyses do

not necessarily coincide with conventional figured bass numbers for the
passages being analyzed. For example, the symbol IV 5♮ in 1.5b, measure 77,
conveys that F-A-C is the foundational harmony at that point. In this case
Beethoven has presented the chord in its first inversion. Analysts indeed
may wish to display conventional figured bass numbers (here 63 ) in their
work. If so, such numbers should be placed in a separate row just below the
bass, and not beside the individual Roman numerals. The opposite situa-
tion may prevail as well: in C Major, the symbol IV5–6 indicates a shift from
F-A-C to F-A-D. The latter chord sometimes will be unfurled (reconfi-
gured with a different bass note from the one that characteristically would
occur), so that D or even A may serve as the bass. Such unfurlings of the
chordal content are common, since composers must coordinate their
harmonic initiatives with the melodic trajectories at play in diverse
contexts.
The bass in 22/III42|43–46 notably proceeds via descending thirds over a
span of two octaves, as displayed in 1.6. Observe that the E♭ at 433,
anticipating the E♭ of the following IV, clashes against the prevailing
tonic harmony. The bass outlines first the tonic triad (D>B♭>G) and then
the subdominant triad (G>E♭>C). The 5–6 shift that often occurs as IV
proceeds to V♯ would fit into this context well, since the pitch correspond-
ing to 6 could be positioned a third below the subdominant root (C>A). Yet
in this case Beethoven complicates matters a bit through the chromatic
lowering of A to A♭. Whereas C>A♮>F♯>D would have projected the V 7♯
harmony that is fully in place at the downbeat of measure 45, apparently
Beethoven found the diminished quality of the A-C-E♭ triad ill suited to his
vigorous conception, and so he substituted A♭ for A♮ as its bass. During the
following beat A♮ is restored (in the right hand). I call such a chromatic
mutation of a diatonic pitch – a half-step shift followed by a restoration of

the diatonic state – a wobbly note (or wobble). (Note that two kinds of A are
juxtaposed. This contrasts the notion of chromatic neighboring note, in
which G♯ and A would be juxtaposed.) In this context a subsidiary layer of
analysis indicating ♭II is not warranted. (Compare with the presentation of
IV5–6 in 1.1.) The downbeats of the four consecutive measures convey the
essential I–IV–V♯–I progression.
What is displayed in 1.6 as a 64 chord embellishing the dominant at 452
appears in 53 position in Beethoven’s score. (Given its context, this G-B♭-D
chord should not be interpreted as an asserted tonic.) Block-chord
reductions such as 1.6 often will incorporate tacit alterations intended
to clarify the basic conception that underlies a passage. (Note also that
soprano A at 453 – an important element in the linear melodic trajectory
conveyed in the reduction – is not found in the score.) This should not
be regarded as the analyst taking on the duty of fixing a composer’s
“mistakes,” but instead as the display of a foundational conception that
the composer has enlivened by providing an alternative to the most
obvious realization.
Op. 10, no. 3/II1–9
Every analysis that one undertakes has as its starting point the accumulated
insight attained during all the previous analyses one has completed. The
model on display in 1.7, which corresponds to 10.3/II1–9, shares features
with other models in this chapter: bass D>C♯>C♮ brings to mind C♯>B♯>B♮
from 1.3, while bass G<G♯>A corresponds to the same pitches in 1.2
(now with a more highly evolved internal chord). The excerpt’s chief
Example 1.7 Analysis of Piano Sonata in D Major (op. 10, no. 3), mvmt. 2, mm. 1–9.
www.ebook3000.com
novelty lies in how the initial I and interior IV are prolonged. The progres-
sion of chords in measures 1 through 4 lies at the borderline between
embellishment and local harmonic progression. The pitches C♯, E, G, and
B♭ often are used to embellish a D-F-A tonic – something along the lines of
the second chord of 1.4 (in G Major), though with a higher concentration
of dissonance. However, when such embellishment is distributed over two
chords – first with G and B♭ against D, and then with retained G and B♭
along with C♯ and E – the sense of subdominant followed by dominant
begins to emerge. In 1.7 that local progression is conveyed via Roman
numerals below the principal analysis, which indicates a prolongation of
the tonic during this region. The expected resolution to a diatonic, con-
sonant D-F-A tonic is elided in measure 4, making way for the more
dynamic I➔ state that propels the progression onward to IV. The reconfi-
guration of that chord (with bass F♯) at the end of measure 4 allows IV to be
introduced in its root position at 51, contrasting the first-inversion pre-
sentation in 1.3. (Some analysts might interpret the B♭-D-G chord in the
middle of measure 4 in Beethoven’s score as the onset of IV. Reasons to
regard it instead as a passing chord within I➔ include the dynamic mark-
ing that leads to the root-position G chord and the metrical positioning.
Essentially, F♯<G<A and C♮>B♭>A passing motions coordinate, with an F♯
substituting for bass A.)
The chord of measure 6 might reasonably generate contrasting inter-
pretations among analysts. The reading presented in 1.7 proposes that C♯
is an embellishing pitch, serving as a chromatic lower neighbor to D at the
onset of IV’s 6 phase. (That is, G-B♭-D-E, with retained fifth as well as the
added sixth, is presented with a C♯ neighbor instead of D.) This embel-
lished IV6 is followed by a more highly evolved state, surging G♯-B♮-D-F
(with root E omitted). The five-tiered analytical symbol for this chord in
1.7 generally will be replaced by the symbol II➔ in prose writing. (Note
that placing accidentals after Arabic numerals results in a more efficient
presentation than the opposite: the symbols 5♭–♮ here convey that B♭
proceeds to B♮, whereas if one instead started with ♭5, one would need to
proceed to write ♮5 after the dash, redundantly rewriting the 5.) Though
the arrow notation lacks the precision of the numbers and accidentals
(since, for example, E-G♯-B-D also would be labeled as II➔), one should
assume that prose writing would be accompanied by a music example in
which the detailed symbol is present. In measure 8 a conventional 64
embellishment precedes the arrival of the dominant’s fifth and raised
third, which, along with dissonant seventh G, lead the phrase onward to
a PAC on I.
Example 1.8 Analysis of Piano Sonata in A♭ Major (op. 110), mvmt. 1, mm. 5–12.
Op. 110/I5–12
In most respects the strategy that Beethoven deploys to establish the tonic
in a late sonata, 110/I5–12, corresponds to what we encountered in an early
sonata, as shown in 1.1. Whereas an embellishing chord with the leading
tone in the bass there targets a restored tonic in root position in measure 9
(diminished fifth DA ♭ resolving inward), now the embellishing chord
resolves with the fourth scale degree in the bass, resulting in a restored
tonic in first inversion in measure 8 (augmented fourth DG ♭ resolving out-
ward). (Consult the model provided in 1.8.) And whereas the tonic’s surge
results from minor seventh D♭’s emergence at the top of the texture in the
early sonata, now the surge-inducing minor seventh (G♭) resides in
the bass. Consequently IV is introduced in its 63 position. In comparing
the examples, one notes also that in both cases IV is expanded by a 5–6 shift
and that the phrase concludes with V (with 64 embellishment) leading to a
PAC on I.
The shift from IV’s 5 to its 6 phase is more elaborately worked out in the
later excerpt. The outer voices during measure 10 demonstrate how a voice
exchange may be used to good advantage in a prolongational context: the
descending motion from IV’s third F to its root D♭ in the bass is comple-
mented by an ascending D♭-to-F motion in the melody. On its own, that
voice leading would merely prolong IV. Beethoven succeeds in concur-
rently shifting to IV’s 6-phase chord by engaging another strand that
moves in parallel sixths with the bass: D♭>C>B♭. The B♭ helps destabilize
IV, setting the progression on a path towards the dominant. Here the
destabilization is modest. One instead might have chromaticized the
voice exchange by substituting D♮ for D♭ in the bass at the end of measure
10. In this instance Beethoven’s restraint is purposeful: soon thereafter
(measure 17), B♭, F, and A♭ sound along with D♮ to create a surging
supertonic.
www.ebook3000.com
Example 1.9 Analysis of Piano Sonata in C Minor (op. 13), mvmt. 1, mm. 89–100.
Op. 13/I89–100
The expansion of a progression’s initial tonic via a harmonically conceived

local progression of chords, introduced in the context of 1.2, flourishes in
13/I89–100 as well. This phrase resides within a tonicization of E♭ Major, the
mediant in the movement’s C Minor tonality. Consequently the upper row
of harmonic analysis in 1.9 displays merely
C Minor: III–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
to indicate how this phrase fits within the movement’s broader tonal
scheme.
Though the deployment of only seven Roman numerals in the context of
E♭ Major for the sixteen chords of 1.9 reflects the analytical assumption of
affiliations among related chords (so that, for example, F-A♮-C-E♭ in the
latter half of measure 95 concludes a harmonic initiative inaugurated by
F-A♭-C at the onset of measure 94), even seven harmonies within a phrase
often will bond in such a way as to convey a more foundational progres-
sion. The analyst should ponder how the chords relate hierarchically. For
example, does the I of measure 89 extend through measure 98? Or, does the
IV of measure 93 extend through measure 99? Or, does the V of measure 96
extend through measure 100? Those three conceptions cannot all prevail
concurrently. In this case Beethoven’s writing clearly projects the first
alternative, through the wedge shape of the outer-voice lines moving
inexorably outwards – E♭<E♭ in the soprano against E♭>G in the bass
over the course of measures 89 through 98 – thereby connecting tonic
chords in root position and first inversion. Consequently the second row of
Roman numerals displays
♭–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
I5
for this passage, below which a hierarchically subordinate I–IV–V–I ana-

lysis appears. (The 5♭ annotation here merely confirms the diatonic state of
the chord’s fifth, which will be raised later as a means of inducing a surge.)
A comparison of how IV5–6 is realized in 1.8 and in 1.9 reveals con-
trasting internal passing chords. Whereas that in the earlier example is
diatonic – a neutral outcome of concurrent voice-leading initiatives – in
the latter example a chromatic filling-in of the 5–6 second (E♭<E♮<F during
measures 93 and 94) results in an internal passing chord that dynamically
targets (as C➔) the 6-phase chord. That 6-phase chord in turn surges (as
II➔) in its approach to V.
Following this vigorous establishment of the tonic, a B♮ (an augmented fifth
above root E♭) in the latter half of measure 98 ignites a surge (I➔) targeting the
subdominant. The arrival of IV, the second of only three harmonies in the
basic progression, coincides with the crescendo’s attainment of forte.
The following V7 emerges directly after IV, with no intervening IV6 or V53 .
Op. 106/II0|1–7
The scherzo character of 106/II0|1–7 is enhanced by the lively embellishing

chords that grace the downbeats of measures 1 through 3. The model in
1.10 shows how, once the B♭-D-F tonic is embellished by A-C-F, a descent
in thirds commences, with both the G and the E♭ chords similarly embel-
lished: G-B♭-D by F♯-A-D and E♭-G-B♭ by D-F-B♭. Note in particular that
though the notes of the tonic harmony sound over the bar line between
www.ebook3000.com
measures 2 and 3, they do not there assert a tonic function. That point
warrants emphasis, in that the passage from 33 to 61 could be interpreted as
a slower-paced reiteration of the preceding embellishing-chord initiative
integrated with an GE♭EG♭ voice exchange, resulting in IV’s presentation
ultimately in first inversion. The upper row of harmonic analysis in 1.10
shows how such a subdominant may be projected. The crux of the matter is
whether the D-F-B♭ chord of 42–3 plays the same role as the D-F-B♭ chord
of 31; or whether it instead restores (in inversion) the B♭-D-F tonic of 03,
resulting in a broad DB♭BD♭ voice exchange over four measures. The lower
row of harmonic analysis in 1.10 shows how the passage may be inter-
preted as a five-measure expansion of the tonic, concluding in a surge
preceding the onset of IV at 61. Beethoven has here created a riddle. Likely
some listeners will hear the passage decisively one way, some decisively the
other way, and yet others will not want to rule out either interpretation.
The presentation in 1.10 leans towards the first interpretation, particularly
through its placement of the second D-F-B♭ chord in a rhythmic context
matching the first. Yet by including the neutral word “or” between the
two rows of Roman numerals it acknowledges the viability of both
interpretations.
Regardless of how one interprets what precedes it, certainly IV holds
sway at the downbeat of measure 6. The linear connection between IV’s 5-
and 6-phase chords is similar to that in 1.8, measure 10. It was mentioned
that Beethoven there refrained from allowing the 6-phase chord to evolve
into a surge. In 1.10 such a surge in fact does emerge. Though the chro-
matic D♭ hints that perhaps the surge will emerge as E♮-G-B♭-D♭, the D♭
descends to C in coordination with E♮’s arrival. Even so, E♮-G-B♭-C
projects a dynamic II➔ that targets the phrase’s goal dominant.
Op. 111/I18|19–35
During 111/I18|19–35 an antecedent phrase beginning at the upbeat to

measure 19 proceeds from the tonic to the dominant, whose arrival
coordinates with the onset of sforzando markings in measure 26, followed
by a consequent phrase beginning in measure 29 that proceeds to a PAC on
the tonic during the second half of measure 35 (forgiving the belated arrival
of the tonic root in the bass). Because most of the consequent phrase
reiterates content already projected during the antecedent, the harmonic
analysis displays that reiteration at a subordinate level, displaying the
phrase as a projection of the tonic goal that follows the antecedent’s
dominant (the penultimate element of the broad progression spanning the

two phrases). In both phrases IV serves as the principal intermediary – in
measures 26 and 33. The minor tonic introduced via ascending arpeggia-
tion (G<C<E♭) in measures 19 and 20 evolves to a surge state during
measure 25, through the incorporation of minor seventh B♭ and the
chromatic shift of E♭ to E♮. The linear process leading to the surge’s
attainment resembles that displayed in 1.5c, though now starting on a
chord in 53 position. Beethoven emphasizes the arrival of IV (as opposed to
continuing the linear pattern onwards to V♮) by subtly changing the
sixteenth-note figuration during measure 26, emphasizing IV’s A♭>F
third (filled in by passing note G). The F♯ during 262 is the only sign of
IV’s shift to its 6 phase. Because the latter chord is incomplete we cannot
determine for sure whether II➔ or II is intended – a point upon which
Beethoven elaborates during the consequent phrase. A soaring dominant
completes the phrase’s harmonic agenda. Measure 29 inaugurates the
second phrase, now in a higher register and without the gradual build-up
of energy that transpired during measures 18|19 through 21.
The consequent phrase’s approach to IV is more succinct. In place of the
stepwise linear pattern connecting the tonic root C and raised third E♮ in
measures 24–25, the tonic quickly shifts to its first inversion over the bar
line between measures 32 and 33, from which E♮ and B♭ swiftly emerge,
resolving to IV at 333. On the other hand, the somewhat indecisive IV5–6
that transpired during the first half of measure 26 is now fleshed out over
six beats, from 333 through 344. The 6-phase chord is presented in three
distinct states: first as D-F-A♭-C (diatonic II7), then as F♯-A♭-C-E♭ (II ),
and finally as F♯-A♮-C-E♭ (II➔). The grid of numbers, accidentals, and the
bullet symbol to the right of Roman numeral II in 1.11 clearly conveys the
Example 1.11 Analysis of Piano Sonata in C Minor (op. 111), mvmt. 1, mm. 18|19–35.
www.ebook3000.com
various evolutionary stages of II. That visual representation strongly con-

trasts the alternative symbols to be found in standard harmony textbooks,
where this passage might be analyzed as
C Minor: ii Ø43 Ger+6 vii°7/v
Which view corresponds better to how one perceives the music: one
harmonic function in three subtly different configurations; or three distinct
functions displayed via wildly different symbols in the context of two
different keys (C Minor and its G dominant)?
2 II as intermediary between I and V
Though II may emerge during the maneuvering between IV and V (as we

saw in chapter 1), it also may serve as the principal intermediary within a
foundational I<V span, in no way dependent upon IV. The division of a
C<G fifth in C Major into a second followed by a fourth (C<D<G) stands
on an equal footing with the fourth-plus-second alternative (C<F<G).
Since, in variable order, the same two intervals (major second, perfect
fourth) transpire between adjacent roots, the same sorts of elaborations
will be found in both contexts: I<II (like IV<V) is susceptible to a 5–6 shift;
II<V (like I<IV) is susceptible to a surge.
Yet these two seemingly equivalent trajectories do often reveal some
contrasting characteristics. The II harmony exhibits a richer range of poten-
tialities within tonal practice than does IV, mainly because, in the minor
mode, the interval between ^2 and ^6 is a diminished fifth. Consequently I5–6 II
presents challenges (and opportunities) not encountered in diatonic major-
key contexts. The awkward, surge-inhibiting relationship between ^2 and ^6
encourages a range of chromatic adjustments. For example, I6 in C Minor
might mutate from diatonic C-E♭-A♭ to the triply chromatic C♯-E♮-A♮, a
surge that likely would affect the supertonic chord as well (D-F-A♮ rather
than D-F-A♭). Alternatively, diatonic C-E♭-A♭ might be deployed as the
tonic 6-phase chord and be allowed to resolve (as its inherent surge character
would dictate) to D♭-F-A♭, the supertonic’s “Neapolitan” variant. Whereas
in C Major A<D is by far the most common trajectory, in C Minor A♭<D,
A♮<D, and A♭<D♭ all are frequently encountered.
Note also that whereas the span from I to IV often will serve as the venue
for a surge, the contrasting distribution of the diatonic pitch classes in
forming II results in a much more common deployment of a supersurge as
II targets V. (From diatonic D-F-A♭-C in C Minor, a single chromatic
adjustment – F to F♯ – results in a supersurge, whereas an additional
adjustment – A♭ to A♮ – is required to achieve the sunnier simple surge.
This protocol may migrate to a major-key context as well.)
The commentaries on examples from Beethoven’s sonatas below should
help to clarify these and other fascinating – though sometimes complex –
22 constructions.
www.ebook3000.com
II as intermediary between I and V 23
Example 2.1 Analysis of Piano Sonata in A Major (op. 101), mvmt. 2, mm. 54|55–64.
Op. 101/II54|55–64
In 101/II54|55–64 (for which 2.1 may serve as a model), the B section of a

ternary-form movement in F Major begins in the tonicized subdominant
key, B♭ Major. (This IV will be followed by V7 during a retransition, measures
85 through 94, that leads back to the opening F Major tonic for the reprise of
the A section.) The three pitch classes of the B♭ major triad all are embellished
by brief neighboring notes – some upper neighbors, some lower neighbors –
during measures 55 through 57. In the two succeeding measures, neighbors
of greater potency (because they are of longer duration and occur on strong
beats) occur: first E♭ (which sounds above) and C (below) embellish the tonic
third and root, respectively, then twice C above E♭, and finally E♭ above C
again. The role of the various Gs during these latter measures is less clear-cut.
I propose that those of measure 58 do not have a lasting impact, clashing as
they do against whole note F, the tonic’s fifth, in the alto register. Yet in the
next measure the situation is subtly different, both because no prolonged F
sounds and because G is reiterated just after the bar line between measures 59
and 60. Consequently the listener may come to realize that the tonic has
shifted from its 5 phase to its 6 phase. Whereas a major tonic sometimes will
develop into a surge, with I➔ leading to IV, it instead may shift to its 6 phase
(I5–6), thereby promoting a routing to the dominant via II.
The E♮ that joins G and B♭ during measure 60 is an energizing force,
since the diminished fifth BE ♭♮ of II➔ now assumes control of the tonal
trajectory. Though D♭ temporarily adds further dissonant impact, it des-
cends to II’s root, C, over the bar line between measures 60 and 61. With its
members wending their way higher and higher in the midst of the cres-
cendo introduced in measure 60, this II➔ yields to V during measures
63 and 64, with multiple melodic B♭>A and E♮<F resolutions against the
eventual settling of the bass on the dominant root, F.
Example 2.2 Analysis of Piano Sonata in E♭ Major (op. 27, no. 1), mvmt. 3, mm. 1–24.
Op. 27, no. 1/III1–24
Beethoven’s poignant Adagio (27.1/III1–24) is in ternary form, with a motion

from I to V in A♭ Major during A1, a tonicization of V during B, and a return
to the A♭ tonic (concluding in a PAC) during A2. Each section fills eight
measures. Bar lines in 2.2 indicate the sectional divisions. Embellishing
chords (only one of which is shown in 2.2) play such a pervasive role during
A1 that the opening tonic’s prolongation extends for seven measures. Since
the phrase’s dominant goal is most effectively introduced on a downbeat,
Beethoven creatively merges II➔ and V during the first beat of measure 8
(the phrase’s final measure): the upper-staff D♮-A♭-C is a manifestation of
the supertonic (surging and with omitted root), while concurrently bass E♭
instigates the dominant. The simultaneous sounding of two distinct harmo-
nies will be referred to as a collision, denoted in the analysis by a bracket
placed over adjacent analytical symbols.
Recalling from chapter 1 that over time a harmony may evolve from one
state to another, we note that only the consonant state of I occurs during
A1, while only a surging state of II occurs. The V harmony emerges in its
consonant state in measure 8 but eventually shifts (after its tonicization has
run its course) to a dynamic state with the arrival of seventh D♭ during
measure 16 to conclude the B section. These details are displayed in the
principal row of harmonic analysis in 2.2, along with the A2 section’s
resolving I. Maintaining continuity within each structural level is an
important factor in creating a convincing analysis. Though brief, the II➔
harmony at 81 is an integral component of the basic progression. One
would damage the coherence of the analysis if, instead, one initiated the E♭
Major tonicization earlier. Though indeed
A♭ Major: I II➔ V and
E♭ Major: IV V➔ I
www.ebook3000.com
may be constructed from identical pitches, the priority of the principal key,
A♭ Major, supports a reading that displays the attainment of the A1
section’s goal as V, followed by its prolongation through most of the B
section via a tonicization.
Indeed, the notion of tonicization often is quite challenging for listeners,
since the work might proceed quite far before one comes to understand
that a tonicization is in progress. For example, the C minor chord of
measure 12 might have served to divide the fifth between dominant root
E♭ and tonic root A♭ into two thirds (E♭>C>A♭), in which case it would be
interpreted in the context of A♭ Major. Only when it becomes obvious that
E♭’s dominant B♭ lies ahead (for most listeners, probably around the time
of bass A♭ or A♮) is the tonicization of V analytically secure. Consequently
some elements of an analysis fall into place ex post facto, which a tidy
presentation such as 2.2 might encourage one to overlook.
Beethoven’s approach to and continuation from tonicized E♭ Major’s II
(measure 13) is exemplary. The root succession from E♭ to F is facilitated
by a 5–6 shift from E♭-G-B♭ to E♭-G-C (the latter unfurled into 53 position
at 123). The shift is here negotiated via the subtle modification of an
embellishing chord: whereas B♭-D♮-F-A♭ in measures 10 and 11 often
would lead back to I, the B♮ at 121 refuses to descend (as would C♭) to
B♭. Consequently B♮-D-F-A♭ displaces B♭-D-F-A♭, shifting the resolutional
tendency to the 6-phase chord. This I6 then proceeds to II, which after a full
measure’s presentation in its diatonic state takes on surge characteristics
through the raising of its third to A♮ and the addition of its minor seventh
(measure 14). The dominant, whose embellishing 64 ’s resolution coincides
with the emergence of its dynamic seventh, A♭, follows in measure 15,
leading to a cadence in measure 16. As mentioned above, at this point the
consonant E♭ chord (I in tonicized E♭ Major) takes on a minor seventh
(D♭), bringing the tonicization to an end and motivating the harmonic
succession from A♭ Major’s dominant to the tonic that controls the A2
section. Whereas Beethoven deploys the supertonic both for the broad
harmonic progression of the entire Adagio and within the dominant’s
tonicization, the local progression that expands the concluding tonic
instead deploys IV, targeted by I➔ (in measures 22 and 23).
Op. 101/II0|1–8
The key of F Major is established in 101/II0|1–8 by means of a broad

progression from I to V, as shown in 2.3. Though IV is the principal
Example 2.3 Analysis of Piano Sonata in A Major (op. 101), mvmt. 2, mm. 0|1–8.
intermediary between I and a local V during the tonic prolongation that

extends from the opening chord through 72, the progression from that
expanded tonic to the phrase-ending dominant is routed through II➔. The
evolved I6 (= VI➔) that guides the progression towards II arrives at 74.
Because a surging II➔ contains the one pitch that distinguishes the dia-
tonic collections of F Major and C Major, the retention of F as tonal center
at the arrival of V is controversial. (After all, the upper row of analysis in
2.3 could as easily appear as C Major: IV5–6 V I.) Yet if one is in the key of
F Major, then C serves principally as its dominant. If it is tonicized following
its arrival, a second row of analysis, in C Major, might be inaugurated (as
C Major: I . . .) underneath the V numeral. (Compare with 2.2.)
Within the initial tonic prolongation, the D that emerges at the end of
measure 1 serves as a neighbor to the tonic’s fifth (rather than initiating a
5–6 shift that will lead to II). By the end of measure 2 the tonic is surging
towards IV. The C-E-B♭ dominant seventh that emerges at 41 is prolonged
through B♭-E-C-G at 71, with a resolution to an inverted tonic on the
following beat. Over this expanse the outer voices engage in a broad voice
exchange: from AF at the outset through AF in measure 7. Soprano A’s
restoration at the end of measure 7 is followed by a descent to G (under-
stood to cap both the II➔ harmony and the V that follows it) during
measure 8.
The voice leading connecting the tonic’s 5- and 6-phase chords within
measure 7 is closely allied to that which we encountered in the context of
IV5–6 in 1.8. Here again three linear initiatives work in coordination: a
stepwise ascent from the root to the third (F<G<A), a stepwise descent
from the third to the chromaticized root (A>G>F♯), and a stepwise descent
from the octave to the sixth (F>E>D). The F♯ substitution for F♮ at 74 adds
the element of surge to the equation: whereas diatonic I6 would suffice
to motivate the progression’s continuation to II, its transformation into
www.ebook3000.com
VI➔ makes that course more imperative and urgent. The targeted II➔
(with 64 embellishment), which arrives on the following downbeat,
heralds the goal dominant. (Though both the first- and second-ending
arrivals on a C major chord seem to project a conventional HC close, what
transpires through measure 11 adds a surprising twist, resulting ultimately
in a PAC close on the second go-around, supporting the melodic descent
from G to F.)
Op. 14, no. 2/I47|48–63
Someone wise suggested that if one does not at first succeed, one should
try again. Yet it may not be productive to persist with a strategy that
repeatedly fails to achieve the intended result. If things seem not to be
working out, it would be prudent to make some modifications – to try
another tack. We have established that II and IV are equally viable inter-
mediaries between I and V. In 14.2/I47|48–63, Beethoven twice deploys II in
his approach to a cadence, but in both cases that cadence fails to materi-
alize. Instead of persisting with II, on the third attempt he successfully
reaches the tonic goal by instead proceeding through IV.
To convey the subtlety of Beethoven’s writing here, two contrasting
models are presented: 2.4a (which leads through II) and 2.4b (which
leads through IV). In the former, the tonic’s 6-phase chord emerges in
measure 52. As we might expect, the supertonic follows, incorporating
dissonant seventh D from its onset and soon sporting major third G♯ as
well, thereby dynamically projecting II➔. Note one small but impor-
tant point that we shall refer to again later: soprano F♯ at 531 (omitted
from 2.4a) functions as a suspension, here delaying the arrival of II’s
root, E.
Example 2.4 Analysis of Piano Sonata in G Major (op. 14, no. 2), mvmt. 1,
mm. 47|48–63 (a) Conveying the harmonic path through II; (b) Conveying the
harmonic path through IV.
(a) (b)
Though V follows II, no cadence emerges. Consequently Beethoven

“tries again” (measure 54 = measure 52), only to find that the cadence
continues to remain elusive. In measure 56 he takes a decisive step to rectify
the situation. Whereas in both measures 52 and 54 the bass pitch B served
as the 6 of I6 (shown in 2.4a), in measure 56 the B serves instead as a local
passing note connecting A and the surging I’s minor seventh, C♮, in the
bass (the A and C♮ are shown in 2.4b). That modification prevents con-
tinued cadential failure. Heeding I➔’s tendency, IV emerges in measure
57. Again soprano F♯, which now possesses an upward resolutional
tendency due to its interaction with C♮, functions as a suspension, this
time resolving to IV’s root, G, whose belated arrival coincides with the shift
to IV’s 6-phase chord. (The passage is displayed without the suspension in
2.4b.) From this point the progression proceeds without a hitch through V
to I for the long-awaited cadence.
Op. 31, no. 2/II1–17
The period projected in 31.2/II1–17 (to which 2.5 corresponds) comes

across as consisting of two more or less equal halves (antecedent and
consequent phrases), with a modest internal expansion during the latter
resulting in a cadence in measure 17 rather than measure 16. Most of the
structural content is presented in the first phrase. The dominant of mea-
sure 8 is the next-to-last chord in what would be a full traversal of the
period’s guiding I–V–I harmonic progression. The second phrase to a large
extent restates what has already been covered, this time proceeding beyond
the dominant to a cadence on the tonic. Though an exact repetition of the
earlier content indeed was an option, here Beethoven has elected to vary
the progression in significant ways.
Example 2.5 Analysis of Piano Sonata in D Minor (op. 31, no. 2), mvmt. 2, mm. 1–17.
www.ebook3000.com
Whereas the embellishing chord that extends through measures 3 and 4

proceeds (as expected) back to the tonic, followed by a 5–6 shift that
introduces a VI➔ surge (at 63) targeting the supertonic, during measures
9 through 15 that procedure is modified. Instead of quickly resolving to
the tonic, the embellishing chord introduced in measure 11 seems to lose
its will. Several measures transpire with no resolution. Then a magical
moment occurs, with F♯ surprisingly arising in the bass at 143. That event
results in the reintroduction of the tonic not in its 5 phase (as in measure 5),
but instead in its 6 phase. The 6-phase chord surges during the antecedent
phrase (B♮-D-F-A♭ at 63) but not during the consequent (G-B♭-D at 151–2).
Likewise the supertonic that follows I6 is modified for the consequent
phrase. During the antecedent phrase its arrival is embellished by a double
suspension (F>E♭ and B♮<C), and it is extended by means of a voice exchange
during which its seventh emerges (resulting in C-E♭-G-B♭ at 73). Major third
E♮ is slipped in only at the last moment, at the end of measure 7. During the
consequent phrase the chord sounds for only one beat (153), though in a
form that is more potently surging (as E♮-G-B♭-D♭) than was the case in the
first phrase. That chord’s D♭ is a downward-tending ninth whose targeted
resolution pitch, C, is delayed by a D♮ embellishment at the onset of V.
Finally, whereas in measure 8 the dominant 53 (embellished by E♮ and B♭
suspensions) serves as the phrase’s goal, with minor seventh E♭ sounding
only during the lead-in to the second phrase, in measure 16 the dominant
(now with a conventional 64 cadential embellishment) incorporates minor
seventh E♭ as an integral component and resolves to the tonic over the bar
line between measures 16 and 17.
Op. 28/IV79–83
It is not surprising that, since I5–6 is a characteristic means of attaining II, a

descending third often inaugurates a chordal progression’s bass line. That
comes about when the tonic’s 6-phase chord is unfurled into 53 position,
with (in C Major) C-E-G to C-E-A realized as C-E-G to A-C-E. This
initiative takes on a more substantial form when, instead, a composer
elects to invert that descending third into an ascending sixth. An ascending
5–6 sequence may be called into service in such a context. Yet in its
unabridged form, a trajectory such as
C5––––––––6 D5––––––––6 E5––––––––6 F5––––––––6 G5––––––––6 A5

5–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––6
I
might become tedious. (Beethoven pursues this course, with some chro-
matic inflections, in 7/II15–18.) Fortunately there is a less arduous route:
since the complete rendition’s C5 and E6 chords deploy the same pitch
classes, the ascent may be abbreviated to become
I5––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––6
C5 E6 F5––––––––6 G5––––––––6 A5
In 28/IV79–83, Beethoven begins by passing swiftly between the tonic root

position and first inversion (beat 1 of measure 79) in tonicized G Major. In
the broader sequential context, that shift corresponds to G5 and B6. The bass
continues upwards from that higher point, as shown in 2.6. (Beethoven
applies abundant chromaticism as the sequence pursues its course, resulting
in a surge of each 6-phase chord into the succeeding 5-phase chord.) As with
any sequence, there are various points along the way that could have served
as the initiative’s goal. Yet in this case Beethoven passes through both C and
D, with the upward drive terminating instead on E. (Goal I6 at 812, unfurled
into 53 position, coincides with a “5” within the ascending 5–6 sequence. Thus
the Arabic numerals 5 and 6 are juxtaposed at that point in 2.6.) Because the
C major and D major chords play no harmonic role, but instead result from
voice leading internal to the sequential initiative, they are not annotated by
Roman numeral labels in the analysis of 2.6. Once the sequence terminates at
I6, a brief downward linear initiative connects diatonic E-G-B and its evolved
state B-D-G♯ (during 821). Indeed a surge has emerged, with VI➔ targeting
the II of 822. This latter chord surges as well, providing an extra push towards
V, which is attained at 831.
Op. 2, no. 1/III40|41–51
It is characteristic for a sequence such as that displayed in 2.6 to progress

either upwards or downwards in all parts. During 2.1/III40|41–51, for which
www.ebook3000.com
Example 2.7 Analysis of Piano Sonata in F Minor (op. 2, no. 1), mvmt. 3,
mm. 40|41–51.
2.7 may serve as a model, a large chunk of 2.6’s bass recurs (transposed and
with a descending sixth substituting for an ascending third at its onset):
F>A<B♭<B♮<C<C♯<D. Yet in this case Beethoven proceeds downwards in
the upper parts against the chromatically ascending bass. Whereas within
the sequential portion of 2.6 the upper parts span ^5< ^8 and ^1< ^3, in 2.7 they
span ^ 8>^
6 and ^3>^1. Consequently a wedge shape emerges in the score,
targeting the goal of the initiative, I6. As in the earlier example, here also the
chords internal to this voice-leading operation do not assert themselves as
functional harmonies, and thus they are not annotated by Roman numerals
in the analysis. (A prolongation of the initial tonic, for which Roman
numerals are supplied, precedes the wedge passage.)
Without surging, I6 proceeds to II, as expected. This II, which is pro-
longed by means of an embellishing 64 chord (itself embellished by bass F♯
at the end of measure 48), is already surging at its onset. (Because I6 does
not surge in this case, its F is retained as II➔’s seventh.) The dominant goal
is reached at 501. The model includes the measure number 51 because the E
of that measure’s downbeat resolves II’s dissonant seventh, F. (An E
certainly would be imagined by listeners during the preceding measure.)
Op. 54/II9–13
The linear connection that initiates 54/II9–13 proceeds downwards in thirds in

the bass, from tonic root F through D and B♭ to the supertonic root G. (See
2.8.) The endpoint of this sequential pattern is not strongly delineated. In the
right hand, the melody continues the zigzag contour, from B♭ up to D and
down to G over the bar line between measures 10 and 11. In the left hand, the
bass signals the termination of the sequence: a third from G to E does not
transpire. Instead, a BG♭GB♭ voice exchange strengthens the assertion of II.
Example 2.8 Analysis of Piano Sonata in F Major (op. 54), mvmt. 2, mm. 9–13.
That supertonic eventually takes on a surge character, targeting V.

Though the dominant chord of 121 concludes the passage’s foundational
harmonic progression, a sense of closure is lacking because its third (rather
than its root) resides in the soprano. The E>D>C>B♮>C melody of measures
12 and 13 (which completes a stepwise descending fifth that began with G
at 111) leads to that desired goal, extending the phrase for an additional
measure with the support of a local harmonic progression in the tonicized
key of C Major, as shown in 2.8.
Op. 2, no. 3/I13–26
In 2.3/I13–26, Beethoven at first appears to be presenting a confirmation of the

P theme’s PAC (at 131), twice. As shown in 2.9, a deceptively bland I–V–I
progression transpires from measure 13 through the downbeat of measure
17. Importantly, its melodic trajectory bridges two registers: from one CE tenth
up to the next, then down an octave from a high DB tenth before the close on a
C
C
octave at 171. After this cadence the initial CE tenth is reinstated in both
registers. Listeners might expect that the same continuation will be reprised,
especially after DB emerges during 191. Yet once G♯ emerges at 192, all wagers
are off. It now appears that this material is serving as TR, leading beyond the
Example 2.9 Analysis of Piano Sonata in C Major (op. 2, no. 3), mvmt. 1, mm. 13–26.
www.ebook3000.com
stable tonic of the exposition’s P. Soon II➔V (HC, measures 20 and 21)
replaces the earlier V–I (PAC). Building upon the distinctive registral shifts
that he has just established, Beethoven elects to reach II via the descent of a
seventh, one step shy of the earlier passage’s octave. (That is what makes its
blandness deceptive: plainness becomes an asset as Beethoven transforms it
in an unanticipated way.) Though the A-C-(E) chord that sounds immedi-
ately after the G♯ might potentially be interpreted as I6 (leading down a fifth
to II), in this case it is more compelling to interpret that chord as residing
within a sequential descent in thirds: C>A>F>D, as marked in 2.9.
The prolongation of II’s consonant state via a voice exchange during
measure 20 is followed by the emergence of its dynamic surging state,
which targets goal V. Once attained at 211, the dominant is prolonged
through measure 26 via two successive deployments of the voice-leading
initiative shown in 2.9. The 64 chord of measures 22 and 24 (where the
numbers 6 and 4 reflect an imagined bass G throughout the passage) here
does not function as the tonic, even though the tonic’s pitches are
deployed, and even though (in Beethoven’s score) it is itself expanded via
an embellishing chord (B-G-D-F).
Op. 2, no. 2/II58–67
During 2.2/II58–67, the movement’s D Major tonal center is temporarily

displaced by D Minor. (The tonic’s F♯ wobbles to F♮, with a restoration of
F♯ in the first measure following the excerpt.) The harmonic progression
nevertheless goes about its business as usual: 2.10 shows how the tonic
proceeds from its 5 phase to its 6 phase over the course of measures 58
through 61. An embellishing chord interacts with each: first A-C♯-E-G,
which comes between two statements of the initial tonic; and then
Example 2.10 Analysis of Piano Sonata in A Major (op. 2, no. 2), mvmt. 2, mm. 58–67.
F-A-C-E♭, which precedes the diatonic 6-phase chord. (Though the

retained D Major key signature necessitates the use of numerous acciden-
tals in the score and in the block-chord model, B♭ is the appropriate pitch
to generate diatonic I6 in D Minor.)
A profound difference in how harmony develops in major- and minor-
key contexts results from the contrasting positions of ^6: B in D Major,
B♭ in D Minor. Since diatonic ^2 remains E in both contexts, the I5–6 II
succession is easily enlivened by a surging I6 (= VI➔) in major keys, but
not in a diatonic minor context, both because B♭>E is not a perfect fifth
and because the diatonic II’s diminished quality is ill suited to serve as the
target of a surge (though that possibility should not be ruled out entirely).
Is it any wonder, then, that in a minor key the diatonic II often is replaced
by ♭II, whose root is a perfect fifth below that of VI➔ and whose quality is
major?
Beethoven’s strategy in 2.10 is even more intriguing. Especially in a
minor key, the diatonic ^6 (here B♭) may participate in a form of II
(introduced in chapter 1) that contains the interval of a diminished third
or augmented sixth. In D Minor, one of its forms (often called the
“German” augmented sixth) is spelled as G♯-B♭-D-F. In a most convenient
coincidence, the pitches of a minor key’s diatonic I6 are contained within
this evolved II ! Consequently what might otherwise be a very awkward
succession is here achieved by merely adding a G♯ to an already sounding
B♭-D-F (measure 63). From that point the phrase’s goal dominant is easily
attained, as shown in 2.10. (Beethoven’s suppression of B♭ once G♯
emerges prevents the actual perpetration of the parallel fifths on display
at this juncture in the outer voices of 2.10. In such cases, some listeners
might reasonably imagine that B♮ displaces B♭ once G♯ emerges, resulting
in II➔ instead of II .)
Op. 57/I51–65
In a sonata movement in F Minor, A♭ Major often will be tonicized during

the exposition’s S-theme. In 57/I51–65, that key (attained in measure 35)
shifts to A♭ Minor, for reasons that will be explained in the context of 6.5,
below. Within A♭ Minor (or any other minor key) the use of II can prove to
be awkward, because a surge of I6 does not target diatonic II. (In A♭ Minor,
F♭➔ instead targets Bº, the lowered supertonic.) Beethoven ingeniously
draws upon this liability in his thematic construction, as outlined in 2.11.
Even without the addition of a seventh, the major quality of I6 produces a
www.ebook3000.com
Example 2.11 Analysis of Piano Sonata in F Minor (op. 57), mvmt. 1, mm. 51–65.
mild sense of surge: the ear is delighted when A♭-C♭-F♭ proceeds to

Bº-D♭-F♭. The diatonic B♭-D♭-F♭, of diminished quality, seems much less
suited for that moment. Beethoven supplies the supertonic’s third D♭ and
fifth F♭ (shared by both potential realizations of the supertonic function) at
the downbeat of measure 53 while the bass sounds Bº at fortissimo for three
beats. Listeners likely will assume that the “Neapolitan” version of the
supertonic – Bº-D♭-F♭ – has here emerged. But no! At a breathtakingly
late moment, Bº ascends to B♭. Consequently the preceding interpretation
needs to be withdrawn. In retrospect one may discern that Bº serves as an
accented passing note, with diatonic II emerging after all, engaging in a
voice exchange during 534 prior to the sounding of G♮, which initiates the
dominant function. The enterprise is repeated an octave higher beginning
in measure 55, this time persisting through to a close on the tonic. (The two
phrases are integrated in 2.11.)
A dominant harmony with its seventh (= ^4) in the soprano often will
resolve to a tonic with its third (= ^3) in the soprano. Yet sometimes a
descending passing motion within the realm of V will lead to ^2 before V’s
resolution to I, so that the tonic arrival may coincide with the melody’s
closure on ^1. Perhaps the most common context for such an initiative
engages a passing 64 chord as support for ^3, as is the case in 1.6, measure 45.
The A♭ and C♭ during 601–2 of 57/I match that initiative. Yet in this case
those passing notes are complemented by two neighboring notes – D♮ and
F, as shown in 2.11 – so that a potently dissonant chord comes between the
dominant support for ^4 and for ^2. Though this chord is constructed like a
form of II➔, syntactically the dominant has already arrived, and so the
intervening chord is here interpreted as an embellishment of the dominant,
contrasting II➔’s role as intermediary between the tonic and the domi-
nant. The phrase’s goal tonic, supporting ^1, arrives at 611 and is pro-
longed as the tonic root descends to the lower depths of the keyboard
texture.
Op. 31, no. 3/III16|17–38
Beethoven shapes 31.3/III16|17–38, the trio of a minuet movement, as a

(rounded) ternary form, with the opening x1 region leading from I to V
(HC) in E♭ Major, the internal y region prolonging V (with added dis-
sonances), and the concluding x2 region achieving a PAC on I. These
regions are labeled and separated by bar lines in 2.12. The y region is
harmonically static: no more than repetitions of a single dominant chord,
supporting a slow F>D>B♭ melodic arpeggiation over the course of six
measures.
The two phrases that constitute the x1 region both proceed from the
tonic to the dominant, the second more dynamically than the first. (Each
I–V supports a broad ^3> ^2 melodic succession, with the latter ^2 transferred
up an octave and extending through the y region.) During the opening
measures a passing chord connects the tonic root-position and first-
inversion chords, after which a neighboring chord extends the first inver-
sion before the root position is restored. (Beethoven’s careful slurring in
that vicinity should prevent one from interpreting the chord at 191 as an
asserted IV serving as intermediary between I and the phrase-ending V.)
That initiative occupies three of the phrase’s four measures, with a local
dominant arriving on the fourth downbeat (measure 20). (Note in the score
how the relationship of the second chord in measure 20 to V is exactly the
same as that of the first chord in measure 19 to I.)
The second phrase is treacherous for the analyst in two distinct respects.
First, the chords at 211 and 221 are built from the same pitch classes, which
(despite Beethoven’s careful distinction in the chords’ spellings) might
encourage listeners/analysts to link them. Second, at 223 Beethoven aban-
dons the chordal presentation that has prevailed thus far, concluding the
phrase with only a melodic line in four octaves.
The response to the first issue displayed in 2.12 involves the continuity
between the two phrases: whereas the first phrase proceeds E♭<F<G in the
bass, the second’s pitches may be interpreted as a chromatic filling-in of
that line, with a chromatic pitch instead of its diatonic predecessor:
E♭<(F)<F♯<G. The F and a chord that it might support have been
www.ebook3000.com
Example 2.12 Analysis of Piano Sonata in E♭ Major (op. 31, no. 3), mvmt. 3, mm. 16|17–38.
incorporated within 2.12 to show the proposed structure that has been
sketchily realized in Beethoven’s composition.
Regarding the second issue, the score provides some most useful infor-
mation, in that the x2 presentation, which eventually targets a different
goal, is more fully fleshed out during the initial stages of this cryptic
passage. In 2.12 Beethoven’s chords from 363 and 371 have been inserted
at 223 and 231. Consequently the A♮-C-E♭-G♭ chord of 221 is no longer a
lone diminished seventh, but instead the first of two. Parenthetical inser-
tions before that chord convert it into the second of three: the tonic’s
evolved state (as a diminished seventh) is projected as the onset of an
ascending motion to B♮-D-F-A♭, which serves as an embellishing chord of
I6 (comparable to the embellishing chord of I6 in 2.2, 121). Granted, this is a
significant analytical intervention. Yet sometimes the analyst is called upon
to undertake an imaginative reconstruction of a robust structure in an
attempt to contextualize a passage that otherwise would resist rational
explication.
Having gone this far with reconstituted chords, 2.12 displays chordal
formulations for the concluding events of x1 as well. Here Beethoven
sketchily projects the two structurally most significant points between the
trio’s perimeter tonic chords: II➔ and V. Note that the principal row of
Roman numerals in 2.12 conveys a straightforward and familiar progres-
sion, often encountered in a major key. That clarity would be sacrificed if
one instead elected to analyze measures 23 and 24 as II V7 I within the
tonicized key of B♭ Major. As stated above, the pitch F serves as the soprano
for both of the concluding chords and extends into the y region. The
melodic B♭ at the cadence is structurally an interior strand.
During x2, the need to cadence on I causes a quickening of the progres-
sion’s pace: II➔ is squeezed into the final fourth of measure 37’s first beat,
while a 64 -embellished dominant takes hold at 372. (Beethoven’s misspelling
of II➔’s minor ninth G♭ as F♯ is a common occurrence in music when the
ninth’s resolution pitch, here F, is embellished by an upper neighbor: G♭>F
becomes F♯<G♮>F.) Yielding to the non-chordal formulation that con-
cludes x1, Beethoven’s chords become skeletal at the cadence in x2 as
well. Consequently the resolution of the 64 embellishment and the final
tonic have been fleshed out in 2.12.
www.ebook3000.com
3 A detailed look at the circle of fifths
In chapters 1 and 2 we noted how Beethoven integrates various linear

initiatives, such as the ascending 5–6 sequence, within his harmonic
progressions. Before proceeding to harmonic considerations involving
the mediant in chapters 4 and 5, taking a detailed look at how the
descending circle of fifths may be integrated into progressions like those
already explored should prove to be illuminating. As with other linear
initiatives, the most crucial moments within a circle of fifths are the
beginning and end: where within tonal space does the initiative take over
from a harmony-based chordal progression, and where does it terminate?
Because the motivation for movement from chord to chord within a circle
of fifths is different from the motivating forces at work during the harmo-
nic progressions we have explored, Roman numerals will not annotate the
internal chords of a circle of fifths. (Instead, capital letters along with
accidentals often will be deployed to indicate the successive roots within
the circular progression.) Various details of the recommended analytical
practice will be introduced and demonstrated as we explore a range of
excerpts from Beethoven’s piano sonatas below.
Op. 27, no. 2/III21–43
On the one hand, a descending circle of fifths takes advantage of the fact
that the descending perfect fifth is the most natural of all connections
between adjacent chords. As we have seen, descending fifths are pervasive
in harmonic contexts, including I to IV, II to V, V to I, and VI to II. On the
other hand, the arithmetic does not quite work out within longer progres-
sions of fifths: descending a perfect fifth seven times (seven half steps times
seven) results in a shift of forty-nine half steps, whereas the initiating pitch
class recurs after forty-eight half steps. This leaves the composer with a
stark choice: either to veer outside the realm of the controlling key, or to
trim one of the fifths by a half step. Of course, the latter will result by simply
following a diatonic path:
39
Example 3.1 Analysis of Piano Sonata in C♯ Minor (op. 27, no. 2), mvmt. 3, mm.
21–43.
C Major: C F ➔ B E A D G C
C Minor: C F B♭ E♭ A♭ ➔ D G C
That places the momentum-inhibiting imperfect fifth inconveniently early

during a major-key circle. In the minor-key version, the imperfect fifth
impedes the subdivision of these eight chords into four groups of two,
incorporating surges:
C Minor: C➔ F, B♭➔ E♭, A♭ ➔ D G➔ C
A variant of this latter circle (transposed) occurs in 27.2/III21–43. (See 3.1.)

Whereas initially the tonicized G♯ chord – the dominant in the movement’s
C♯ Minor key – is a stable element (the target of several embellishing
chords), it takes on surge characteristics during measure 29, resulting in a
G♯➔C♯ succession. That is followed by F♯➔B. What will happen after E➔?
Clearly the precedent of the previous two chord pairs, as well as the tendency
expressed by the already initiated surge on E, suggest that A♮, rather than G♯
Minor’s diatonic A♯, should follow. Beethoven in fact allows that mutation
to transpire, thereby transferring the circle’s imperfect fifth to the less critical
juncture between A♮ and D♯➔.
Because of Beethoven’s inversional choices for the various chords within
the circle, the restored tonic sounds in its first inversion, with bass B. That is
ideal for an upward continuation through C♯ to the dominant root D♯.
Because the circle both begins and ends on a G♯ chord, it serves to prolong
the tonic in tonicized G♯ Minor, as displayed by the Roman numeral I
followed by a long horizontal line in 3.1. Whereas IV would be a likely
successor after I, in this case IV’s 5-phase C♯-E-G♯ is elided. Likely influenced
by the A♮ chord during the circle of fifths, Beethoven incorporates a wobbly
note within IV’s 6-phase chord: A♮ (rather than diatonic A♯) along with C♯
www.ebook3000.com
A detailed look at the circle of fifths 41
and E. As is typical in such situations, diatonic A♯ is restored during V♯.

Because a PAC fails to materialize at 371 (not shown in 3.1), a backtracking to
IV6♮ transpires. This time, the IV(5)–6♮ dominant preparation of measures 33
through 35 expands to become IV(5)–6♮–6♯, wherein IV’s diatonic 6 phase C♯-
E-A♯ is presented as an evolved state of II➔, CÜ-E♯-G♯-B (grounded upon
absent root A♯), during the second half of measure 41. The progression
concludes with a PAC in measure 43.
Op. 27, no. 1/IV35|36–56
Whereas the tonicized dominant harmony in 3.1 is of minor quality, that

in 3.2, which corresponds to 27.1/IV35|36–56, is major. In a B♭ Major
tonicization that incorporates a circle of fifths the succession of diatonic
roots would extend from B♭ and E♭ through A♮ to D and beyond.
Beethoven here shifts the diminished fifth later by one link: between A♭
and D. This allows the circle to develop a bit more momentum before that
awkward moment arrives – momentum that is aided by a surge on E♭,
targeting A♭. Beethoven achieves the connection between A♭ and D in a
very special way (reminiscent of the connection between I6 and II in 2.10,
above). Note that, in 3.2, the chord of measure 50 includes the pitch A♭,
understood here as holding over from the preceding A♭ chord, though no
A of any sort actually sounds in Beethoven’s composition. Consequently
the awkward succession between roots A♭ and D may be accomplished
with extraordinarily smooth voice leading by simply adding the pitch F♯
to A♭-C-E♭. As a result the circle’s D-rooted chord is presented as D
(= F♯-A♭-C-E♭). The surging (or, in this case, supersurging) character of
the fifth-relationships thus persists, to be continued by G➔ and then C➔.
Example 3.2 Analysis of Piano Sonata in E♭ Major (op. 27, no. 1), mvmt. 4, mm. 35|
36–56.
At F the circle is on the verge of reaching its tonic goal. Instead of

proceeding immediately to that final chord, Beethoven backtracks to
repeat three steps within the circle (displayed within parentheses
among the root designations in 3.2). This holding back facilitates the
soprano line’s continuation in its downward trajectory, so that the tonic
root B♭’s arrival coincides with ^5 rather than ^8. Having prolonged I in
tonicized B♭ Major for nearly twenty measures, a brisk progression
through II and V7 leads to a PAC on I at 561.
Whereas freshly accommodating a circle of fifths’ one imperfect fifth is
an opportunity for a composer’s creative capacities to shine (in the midst of
a procedure that may seem mechanical and predictable), so also setting a
circular progression in motion may extend beyond a rudimentary fulfill-
ment of requirements. The opening chords of 3.2 reveal Beethoven’s
ingenious handling of that moment. First he sets up a conventional
means of embellishing the B♭ tonic chord. Repeatedly an E♭-F-A♮-C
embellishing chord sounds, in each case reverting to a first-inversion
tonic. (That process is shown only once in 3.2.) Then he makes one subtle
alteration: E♭-F-(A♮)-C shifts to E♭-F♯-(A♮)-C in measure 44. Though of
course a diminished seventh chord may play many roles, here E♭ serves as a
held common tone as each of the other chord members resolves upwards
by half step. Consequently E♭-G-B♭-D♭, the second chord in the circle of
fifths, is attained in a most unexpected and creative way.
Op. 22/IV80–95
Though the rondo from which 22/IV80–95 is extracted is in B♭ Major, a shift

to B♭ Minor helps define the boundaries of its second episode (measures
67|68–103). B♭ Minor’s dominant, F minor, is attained in measure 73.
During our excerpt, displayed in 3.3, a prolongation of that dominant
propelled by a circle of fifths precedes the resolution to the B♭ tonic at 931.
To facilitate that resolution, B♭ Minor’s minor dominant takes on surge
characteristics as its prolongation concludes. In that the resolving tonic
supports ^3 (rather than ^1) in the melody, a second dominant soon emerges
(preceded by a ♭II that follows naturally from B♭ Minor’s diatonic I6),
facilitating the attainment of ^1 at 951 for a PAC.
Because the initial F chord’s quality is minor, the circle of fifths is slow to
ignite. Successor B♭ is of minor quality as well, as is its successor, E♭. (None
of these chords – all of which are diatonic in B♭ Minor – surge; each is
prolonged via an embellishing chord, and the prolongations of the latter
www.ebook3000.com
Example 3.3 Analysis of Piano Sonata in B♭ Major (op. 22), mvmt. 4, mm. 80–95.
two are repeated in a contrasting register.) Thereafter the pace of chord

change is more rapid, beginning with the surging A♭ chord. (The circle’s
A♭, G♭, and F chords during measures 90 through 92 sound without their
roots.) There is no seam at the end of the circular passage: the F chord in
measure 92 restores, with surge-generating alterations, the earlier domi-
nant harmony (measure 80), and the descending-fifth momentum persists
beyond the dominant prolongation’s boundary to reach tonic B♭.
Op. 2, no. 2/IV26–40
Both fascinating for listeners and challenging for analysts, the integration
of multiple voice-leading initiatives may result in memorable passages that
display special creativity. Two models corresponding to 2.2/IV26–40 are
presented in 3.4. The first (3.4a) shows the passage’s foundational initia-
tive: the prolongation of A Major’s dominant by means of an embellishing
6
4
chord (unfurled first into 63 and then 53 position). The internal C♯-E-A
chord functions neither as I in A Major nor as IV in E Major, but instead
embellishes E-G♯-B. (Compare with Beethoven’s transformation of this
notion in measure 133, where a D major chord is asserted as IV in the key
of A Major.) Though a D sounds in measure 35, that pitch serves as a local
passing note. The “dominant seventh” D emerges only in measure 40.
Between the 8 and initial 7 of 3.4a, Beethoven undertakes a full traversal
of the circle of fifths, as shown in 3.4b. Though an E major chord is being
prolonged, the succession of roots corresponds to that of the controlling A
Major key (thus root D rather than D♯). The positioning of the imperfect
fifth between D and G♯ allows for a surge to transpire between the second
and third chords (A➔D) and every other two-chord pair thereafter. This is
Example 3.4 Analysis of Piano Sonata in A Major (op. 2, no. 2), mvmt. 4, mm. 26–40
(a) Without internal circle of fifths; (b) With internal circle of fifths.
(a) (b)
a perfect precedent for the incorporation of dissonant D within the circle’s

terminal E chord in measure 35. (Note the regularity of the arrows in the
annotations below 3.4b.) As mentioned above, the C♯-E-A and A-C♯-E
chords that follow do not provide a sense of resolution, but instead
embellish the initial E chord. That is, the bass does not proceed from E
through D to goal C♯, but instead presents the first three pitches of the
fourth E>D>C♯>B, after which C♯ is transferred to the soprano through a
voice exchange for the final C♯>B second, at measures 36–37 and 38–39,
that confirms the eminence of the E major dominant throughout the
passage.
Op. 14, no. 1/I61–90
Often a chord will shift in some way during its prolongation via the circle of
fifths: root-position to first-inversion I in 3.1; first-inversion to root-posi-
tion I in 3.2; diatonic root-position to surging second-inversion V in 3.3;
diatonic first-inversion to surging third-inversion V in 3.4. In 3.5, which
corresponds to 14.1/I61–90, a segment of the circle of fifths connects chords
that correspond to a 5–6 shift. Because two different chords are being
connected, the full circle (eight chords) is not traversed. Whereas in the
examples above we noted Beethoven’s care in dealing with the full circle’s
one imperfect fifth, here he has the freedom to be lax in that regard
(because there is no danger of arriving on a restored tonic that is a half
step low). The obstinate pursuit of perfect fifths – from the tonic chord in E
Major through A, D♮, and G♮ to C♮ – results in a tonic 6-phase chord (E-
G♮-C♮) with two wobbly notes. The “fix” required to maintain E Major has
www.ebook3000.com
Example 3.5 Analysis of Piano Sonata in E Major (op. 14, no. 1), mvmt. 1, mm. 61–90.
been deferred from an internal point within the circle (which would have
resulted in the arrival of diatonic C♯-E-G♯ at 751) to the juncture between
I6♮ ♮ and II➔. Observe how the supertonic restores diatonic C♯. As for the
G♮, Beethoven absorbs it within his surging supertonic, as a chromatic
minor ninth displacing root F♯.
This excerpt corresponds to the development section of a movement in
sonata form. In this case the tonal path proceeds from the tonic (restored as
the development opens, after the exposition’s dominant tonicization)
along a highly chromatic course that nevertheless reaches the expected
goal, V, whose minor seventh emerges just before the onset of the recapi-
tulation’s tonic restoration in measure 91.
Op. 26/III1–30
In a minor key the first four roots in a diatonic circle of fifths commencing
on the tonic are all related by perfect fifth: the diminished fifth is absent
from this region, unlike the less salutary situation in a major key. (Compare
C Minor’s C>F>B♭>E♭ and C Major’s C>F>B>E.) These relationships will
be explored in detail in later chapters that focus on the mediant.
Beethoven’s strategy in 26/III1–30 (to which 3.6 corresponds) extends this
progression in a way that instead calls upon the supertonic, thus warrant-
ing inclusion within this chapter.
In this case the crucial event in Beethoven’s deployment of the circle of
fifths is the substitution of a B minor chord in measure 9 for measure 8’s C♭
major chord. (As will be explained presently, the enharmonic shift is
merely cosmetic. The major-to-minor shift is the important factor.) By
imposing a minor chord at that juncture, Beethoven has facilitated a
Example 3.6 Analysis of Piano Sonata in A♭ Major (op. 26), mvmt. 3, mm. 1–30.
further succession of descending perfect fifths (as if starting afresh in B

Minor and proceeding through B’s diatonic E and A to D). Yet this
persistence of perfect fifths causes the broader progression to veer alar-
mingly away from the diatonic pitch collection of A♭ Minor. Whether the
chord of measure 16 is spelled (when fully constituted by one’s inner ear,
using the resolution of measure 8 as a model) as D-F♯-A or, annulling the
enharmonic shift that occurred over the bar line between measures 8 and 9,
as Eº-G♭-Bº, it is uncommonly remote from the A♭ tonic. In fact, A♭ and D/
Eº form an antipodal relationship – a division of the octave exactly in half
(in conflict with the overtone series’ division of the octave unevenly into a
perfect fifth plus a perfect fourth).
When a circle of fifths proceeds obstinately via perfect fifths for a
sufficient period, the bonds of the prevailing major or minor modal con-
figuration begin to weaken, while the modulo 12 system, with its own
distinctive properties, begins to take hold. In a context in which the twelve
pitch classes are equally weighted (in contrast to the seven favored diatonic
pitch classes of a major or minor key), alternative ways of subdividing the
octave gain ascendancy. Unthinkable as progressions within modulo 7,
+2+2+2+2+2+2 (= +12) or −2−2−2−2−2−2 (= −12) or

+3+3+3+3 (= +12) or −3−3−3−3 (= −12) or
+4+4+4 (= +12) or −4−4−4 (= −12) or
+7+7+7+7+7+7+7+7+7+7+7+7 (= +84 = +7 x 12)
or −7−7−7−7−7−7−7−7−7−7−7−7 (= −84 = −7 x 12)
become viable means of prolonging a chord. Because of the great distance

involved, the last of these generally will be deployed using a mix of +7 and
www.ebook3000.com
−5 (or −7 and +5) to preserve the normative range. These progressions are
least obtrusive in the broader context of a major or minor key when they
are pursued for their full course: one may arrive on a harmony within a
modulo 7 progression, traverse such a circle within modulo 12, and then
(back in modulo 7) proceed to the next harmony. Beethoven’s challenge in
26/III concerns the fact that the circle is incomplete: after six (rather than
twelve) −7 links, we would arrive at −42, which is halfway between the −36
and −48 replicates of the octave. (Beethoven presents some of the −7 links
as +5 to stay within music’s normative range.) In the score these six links
are presented as two groups of three, wherein each −21 is projected as +3:
A♭<C♭ and B♮<D♮. That D♮ chord is then thrust back into the context of A♭
Minor.
Conventional music notation and note names, which were developed to
facilitate the various modulo 7 systems, become misleading within the
characteristic landscape of modulo 12. For example, whereas six consecu-
tive +2 motions result in +12, thereby restoring the initial pitch class,
ascending six major seconds results in an augmented seventh, not an
octave. Likewise neither four minor thirds nor three major thirds nor
twelve perfect fifths lead to an octave replicate of the starting pitch. In
each case enharmonic shifts are required to bring the end point in line with
the starting point. In 3.6, alternative notation is employed below the system
to chart the succession of roots: numbers from 0 (which correlates with
pitch class C) through 11 replace the seven letter names and the various
accidentals that modify them.
So, once the circle runs its course, what is the listener to make of
goal 2 (= D) in measure 16? The D♮-F♮-A♭-C♭ chord that follows
corresponds to a surging state of II, a suitable predecessor of the
phrase’s dominant goal. Consequently it would be appropriate to
regard D♮-F♯-A♮ as an upper-third chord to the supertonic. From A♭
Minor’s diatonic supertonic
B♭ D♭ F♭
a conventional surge may result in

B♭ D♮ F♮ A♭
or (as is the case in this instance)

D♮ F♮ A♭ C♭
This latter chord depends upon root B♭’s impact, despite its absence: for
example, the F♮ owes its presence to the fact that it is a perfect fifth above
B♭, not a minor third above D♮. Yet the D♮ may temporarily hold greater
sway in the absence of the B♭ root, so that
D♮ F♯ A♮
may sound (with D♮ generating perfect fifth A♮ and major third F♯ just as
II’s root B♭ generates F♮ and D♮) even though the wayward F♯ and A♮,
which ultimately function as wobbly notes, will fall in line by “resolving” to
F♮ and A♭ once B♭’s role as root is asserted. In 3.6 the role of D♮(-F♯-A♮) in
relationship to root B♭ is indicated by deploying the Roman numeral II
from its onset, with the array of accidentals to the right of the Arabic
numeral conveying how the appropriate pitches for II➔ only gradually fall
into place.
Though not especially common in Beethoven’s music, upper-third
chords are a viable means of anticipating or prolonging a more basic
chord. For example, a dominant harmony in C Major may be introduced
not only as B-D-F, but also as B-D-F♯, B-D♯-F♯, or even B♭-D-F. (See my
Harmony in Schubert, 1.8.) Likewise the tonic harmony might be repre-
sented by upper-third chord E-G♯-B, as we shall see in chapter 5.
www.ebook3000.com
4 III on the path from I to V
Having explored how either IV or II may serve as the principal intermediary

on the ascending path from I to V in earlier chapters, III now gets its moment
in the limelight. Beethoven deploys the mediant in this role more often in
minor-key than in major-key contexts, thereby highlighting the contrasting
characters of minor I and major III. As we shall see, even in a major-key
context, the mediant of the parallel minor key might transpire (as in G
Major’s mediant emerging as a B♭ major chord, rather than as a B minor
chord). Another category of mediant deployment, in which the mediant
chord helps establish the initial tonic rather than serving as an intermediary
between the tonic and the dominant, will be addressed in chapter 5.
Our exploration will focus especially on the two distinct tonal spans in
which it participates: that between the tonic and the mediant, and that
between the mediant and the dominant. Certain linear procedures (the
circle of fifths between I and III, and an ascending 5–6 sequence between
III and V) will be studied in detail (including instances of surge during
their traversals), while IV’s assertion between III and V will be demon-
strated as well.
Op. 2, no. 1/III0|1–40
In 2.1/III0|1–40 (from which 4.1 is derived) the material used to establish the
tonic is hoisted up a third to perform the same role in the more cheery
context of the mediant. The two common tones shared by the F-A♭-C and
A♭-C-E♭ triads facilitate this juxtaposition, though often a more elaborate
connection will prevail, as we shall see as this chapter unfolds.
The chords that follow the mediant or its tonicization often pursue an
ascending path to the dominant. Perhaps the simplest routing is via a
segment of the ascending 5–6 sequence, which works efficiently to fill in
the third between the mediant and dominant roots (here A♭5–6 B♭5–6 C5). By
deploying one of the mediant’s embellishing chords in measure 15,
Beethoven creates a precedent for the surge of the 6-phase chord that
comes between A♭ and B♭. Whereas a pause in the action transpired after 49
Example 4.1 Analysis of Piano Sonata in F Minor (op. 2, no. 1), mvmt. 3, mm. 0|1–40.
the arrival of III, thereby solidifying that conquest (via a progression in the
tonicized mediant key, not shown in 4.1), so also the attainment of B♭ is
followed by several measures of reinforcement. Consequently one might
apply a IV label at that point in the analysis even though the broad trajectory
is essentially sequential. For the continuation to C, Beethoven both drasti-
cally changes the texture (now a flowing eighth-note line) and shifts down-
wards an octave. The model of 4.1 persists in displaying a normative upward
continuation, despite the composition’s unexpected registral drop. The A♭ at
273 corresponds to the F♭ of 151 and the G♭ of 171. Whereas in those
precedents a normative downward resolution occurs (F♭>E♭, G♭>F), A♭’s
resolution pitch G is omitted. (In 4.1 a robust chord is supplied to denote
the harmony implied by the score’s doubled C in measure 28.)
The harmonic trajectory described thus far transpires during a ternary-
form minuet’s a1 and b regions (I to III during a1, then onward to V♮
during b). The concluding a2 region must work more efficiently than what
has preceded it, for two reasons. First, whereas the span from I to V♮
initially was spread between two regions, now it must be traversed entirely
within a2. Second, whereas V♮ was the goal of the two earlier regions, now
the progression must move beyond V♮ to a PAC resolution on I. Beethoven
responds to this challenge in an unusual way. He begins as if time were
available in abundance, treating the tonic to repeated embellishment. Yet
that activity persists only through measure 33, where yet another embel-
lishing chord of the tonic sounds. Instead of the expected return to the
tonic, however, II➔ surprisingly emerges in measure 34 as an alternative
harmonization for soprano A♭. (That sonority relates to the sequential
element of measure 27, which targeted the earlier dominant.) Due to this
unexpected turn of events, no mediant harmony sounds during a2. Instead,
www.ebook3000.com
III on the path from I to V 51
the phrase ends on time and in an exemplary fashion in measure 36,

followed by four measures of reinforcement.
Op. 31, no. 1/I112–192
The mediant is especially emphasized in the progression from I to V during

31.1/I112–192, which comprises the development section of a movement in
sonata form. The model in 4.2 displays only three foundational Roman
numerals, notable principally for the chord that emerges to fulfill the
mediant function: from the initial tonic in G Major, Beethoven proceeds
not to the diatonic mediant B-D-F♯, but instead to ♭III5♮ (B♭-D-F♮), which
would be diatonic in G Minor. The minor contagion persists through the
onset of the dominant as V♮ (D-F♮-A). The dominant’s major third (F♯) is
secured only after a brief tonicization. Minor seventh C and minor ninth E♭
follow, targeting the return of the G Major tonic for the recapitulation.
The B♭ mediant gains prominence because it serves as the terminal point
of one linear initiative and the initiation point of another. During measure
121 the G tonic chord, already major in quality, incorporates minor seventh
F♮, thereby targeting C. Passing note E♭ in measure 120 hints that the C
chord will be of minor quality, which in fact is the case. Yet soon this C
chord blossoms with a major third and minor seventh, thereby targeting F♮
in measure 130. The same process continues for one more link, reaching B♭
in measure 134. This segment of the circle of fifths is a very common and
effective means of connecting the tonic and the mediant in a minor key.
Example 4.2 Analysis of Piano Sonata in G Major (op. 31, no. 1), mvmt. 1, mm.
112–192.
Here Beethoven willingly accepts the lowered mediant, at which point a

more intense region within the development section commences. The
major third formed by the mediant and dominant roots turns out to be
an ideal distance to cover using another linear device, the ascending 5–6
sequence (which we encountered in this context in 4.1 as well). In that
the 6-phase chords take on surge characteristics, the bass ascends in a
chromatic path, as
B♭ B♮ C C♯ D
over the course of measures 134 through 150, as shown in 4.2. By now fully
ensconced in the usurping G Minor tonal shift, Beethoven leads from the
major B♭ chord through a minor C chord to a minor D chord, whose
transformation into G Major’s D-F♯-A dominant transpires over the
course of measures 150 through 158. (Note that the F♯ of measure 154 is
of only local significance, surging towards IV within a tonicization of D
Minor. The definitive displacement of F♮ by F♯ occurs in measure 158.)
Once attained, G Major’s major dominant is extended by means of potent
embellishing chords that highlight the interval of a diminished third (C♯-
E♭-G-B♭, not shown in 4.2).
Op. 10, no. 2/I144|145–169
Several interrelated compositional decisions coordinate with the deploy-

ment of the mediant as a connector between the tonic and the dominant. In
three ways, 10.2/I144|145–169 (to which 4.3 corresponds) utilizes procedures
encountered earlier in this chapter.
Example 4.3 Analysis of Piano Sonata in F Major (op. 10, no. 2), mvmt. 1, mm. 144|
145–169.
www.ebook3000.com
First, recall that whereas the diatonic major mediant a minor third above
the tonic root is the normative mediant choice in a minor key (as in 4.1), its
emergence also in the context of a major key was demonstrated in 4.2.
Beethoven again leads to that mediant in 4.3. In this case the switch to a
parallel minor context is more overt, with the sounding of the F tonic’s
minor third A♭ at the end of measure 152.
Second, whereas a circle of fifths (as in 4.2) may serve to connect a major
key’s tonic and lowered mediant, in 4.3 that route is truncated: instead of
F>B♭>E♭>A♭, now E♭➔ alone directs the progression towards the mediant.
8
Beethoven arrives at E♭➔ in an ingenious way. The 6 chord of measure 153
4
7
might reasonably be understood as intended to resolve into a 5 chord (C➔)
3
that targets the tonic, recalling that of measures 148–151. Yet instead of
falling into place as C-E♮-G-B♭, the resolving seventh, fifth, and third
instead emerge as the fifth, third, and root of an E♭➔ chord targeting
mediant A♭. The succession from F to A♭ is achieved through the trans-
formation of C➔ into E♭➔.
Third, though not reinforced by voice leading as regular as that encoun-
tered in 4.1 or 4.2, nevertheless the workings of an ascending 5–6 sequence
may be discerned in the connection between ♭III5♭ and V. (In 4.3, added bass
notes F and B♭ in part fill out Beethoven’s texture.) Whereas surges were noted
during the 6-phase chords of this chapter’s first two examples, in 4.3 the 6
phase of B♭ is presented not as surging B♮-D-F-A♭, but instead as supersurging
B♮-D♭-F-(A♭) (= G ). We noted an equivalent sonority’s deployment as an
embellishing chord after the dominant’s attainment in 31.1/I (measures 158
through 161). Here it plays the more crucial role of directly preceding the
dominant arrival, after which a less potent B♮-D-F-G sonority serves as an
embellishing chord during measures 162 through 167 (not shown in 4.3).
Finally, note that whereas a minor seventh and minor ninth complete
the dominant’s fortification in 4.2 before resolution to the recapitulation’s
tonic, in the context of 4.3 that fortification (now a minor seventh and a
major ninth) is postponed until measure 170, at the onset of the next
thematic initiative, during which the F Major tonic is restored.
Op. 14, no. 1/III38|39–83
The movement from which 14.1/III38|39–83 is extracted is a rondo in E

Major. (The one-sharp key signature that Beethoven deploys beginning in
Example 4.4 Analysis of Piano Sonata in E Major (op. 14, no. 1), mvmt. 3, mm. 1–83.
measure 47 is used throughout 4.4, since an E Minor tonicization occurs

during the passage under investigation.) After the rondo’s initial refrain
(A1), the first episode (B, beginning in measures 14|15) tonicizes E Major’s
dominant key, B Major. The re-emergence of the E tonic for the return of
the refrain (A2) is easily achieved by adding minor seventh A to the B-D♯-
F♯ chord (measure 30). Likely choices for the tonal center of the second
episode (labeled C in 4.4) would include the parallel minor and the
(lowered?) mediant keys.
As in 4.3, where Beethoven proceeds from the F Major tonic through a
tinge of F Minor (measure 152) to an E♭➔ embellishing chord targeting
lowered mediant A♭, in 4.4 we find E Major followed by a tinge of E Minor
(measure 39) to D♮➔ targeting lowered mediant G♮. A new thematic initia-
tive coordinates with the emergence of G♮ in measure 47 (the location of
Beethoven’s shift from a four- to a one-sharp key signature), and so the
passage from 382 through 46 likely will come across to most listeners as a
transition. Its wedge-shaped connection between the E and D chords is a
variant of the refrain’s opening measures, now redirected towards a new goal.
All signs point to Beethoven’s choice of G Major as the key for the C episode.
We might expect that Beethoven will traverse a harmonic progression in
the tonicized key of G Major over the course of the C episode (just as I5–6 II
V7 I in E Major’s dominant key, B Major, defines the B episode).
Consequently, at least initially the sequential activity that transpires during
measures 47 through 55 will seem to connect I and (diatonic) III in the key
of G Major. Indeed, Beethoven is deploying the mediant in two distinct
contexts: G Major is the lowered mediant of the rondo’s principal key, E
Major; and the tonicization of G Major incorporates an ascent to G’s
www.ebook3000.com
mediant chord, B minor. We note in passing (for a point that will be made
later) that the ascending 5–6 sequence, which was deployed in 4.1 through
4.3 to connect the mediant and the dominant, here connects G Major’s
tonic and mediant.
What Beethoven does next is breathtaking. The V harmony that one
would expect to follow G Major’s I and III sounds in an inversion in
measures 60 and 61. The chord of measures 62 and 63 is readily accepted,
since such a chord often plays a passing role (as an unfurled D64 ) during a
dominant prolongation. (Compare with D-G-B in 1.6, measure 45.)
Likewise, bass F♯ and soprano A in measures 64 and 65 are the “right”
pitches to continue the D dominant’s prolongation. Yet something is
wrong: after the passing chord the dominant’s root D mutates to D♯ and
seventh C is displaced by B. Looking at 4.4, we note how a prolongational
connection between measures 60 and 64, though initially promising, turns
out not to be viable. (The line after the V numeral in the G Major row goes
awry at that point.) Instead, the B➔ chord of measure 64 reinstates, now
surging, the B chord of measure 55. Just as measures 150 through 158 of 4.2
serve to prolong the dominant, in the process converting its quality from
minor to major, so also do measures 55 through 64 of 4.4. The remainder
of the C episode transpires unexpectedly in the key of E Minor (another of
the potential choices for the tonal center mentioned above), inducing a
reinterpretation of the preceding events. Whereas at first the B minor
chord seemed to function as the mediant within tonicized G Major, as
conveyed in the third row of harmonic analysis in 4.4, ultimately that B
chord functions as the dominant in E Minor, as conveyed in the second
row of analysis. Consequently the ascending 5–6 sequence connects III and
V after all (as it does also in 4.1 through 4.3)! The thematic material that
deceptively projected a G Major tonic in measures 47ff. migrates to E
Minor at measures 66ff.
The episode’s fresh start on E in measure 66 approaches the dominant
from the subdominant (reached via a descent in thirds from the tonic:
E>C>A) rather than from the mediant. Here again Beethoven juxtaposes
two contrasting structures (not fully documented in 4.4, though the dis-
position of the measure numbers provides guidance). At first it appears
that within the span of eight measures (66 through 73) a robust progression
that engages the minor subdominant, its 6-phase chord, and the dominant
will come to rest on the tonic (perhaps still minor, perhaps with a “Picardy
third” breakthrough back to major) for a PAC. The dominant’s seventh
sounds during the second half of measure 72, so that an DA ♯ augmented
fourth yearns for resolution on the tonic’s EGð ♯ Þ . In measure 73 Beethoven
redirects that resolutional energy back to the C chord of measure 70

(internal to the descending-thirds approach to IV) and then slows the
progression to the dominant, filling in the A<B bass with A♯ (supporting
a II➔ evolution of IV6). The phrase concludes not in a PAC, but instead
with a prolonged HC (extending the dominant through 831). Though
without the addition of a seventh, this B chord suitably prepares for the
return of E Major at the onset of A3.
Op. 79/II1–8
In the examples we have explored thus far in this chapter, the mediant
has served as the principal intermediary between the tonic and the
dominant. Though a sequential path connecting III and V will pass
through a chord built on the fourth scale degree (which one might on
occasion even label as IV, as in 4.1), a clear hierarchical organization
emphasizes the division of the fifth from I to V into two thirds. This
characteristic usage justifies the very name of the chord: the mediant
mediates the span from I to V. Yet there are many other instances in
Beethoven’s music where a sequential trajectory is lacking, and so IV
may be asserted more forcefully as a harmony within that ascending
trajectory.
Consider for a moment an especially thorny aspect in harmonic ana-
lysis: when the connection between III and IV is accomplished via a 5–6
shift, the pitches of I re-emerge, perhaps even in the evolved state I➔.
Consequently two subtly different hierarchical arrangements compete
for analytical endorsement. For example, in the key of G Minor (in
which 79/II1–8, to be analyzed presently, is composed), the following
chords are juxtaposed: G minor, B♭ major, G major, C minor. On the
one hand, the G major chord might be interpreted as an evolved state of
B♭’s local 6-phase chord, as in
G Minor: I III5–––––6 IV
(= I♮)
This analytical view gives significant weight to the mediant root and to the
root succession B♭<C. On the other hand, the B♭ chord might be inter-
preted as an upper-third excursion within a prolongation of the tonic
(which in its latter stage surges), as in
www.ebook3000.com
Example 4.5 Analysis of Piano Sonata in G Major (op. 79), mvmt. 2, mm. 1–8.
G Minor: I♭––––––––––♮ IV
(= I III I♮)
From that viewpoint the principal root succession is instead G<C. (Mediant
deployments of this sort will be explored in detail in chapter 5.) Analysts may
find that the manner in which the chords are presented justifies one reading
over the other. Yet certainly there will be occasions when endorsing one
viewpoint instead of the other may seem arbitrary. Such concerns might be
explored in prose commentary accompanying an analysis.
In 79/II1–8, for which 4.5 may serve as a model, Beethoven both empha-
sizes III and deemphasizes III’s 6-phase chord, making the choice between
competing hierarchies somewhat less contentious. Observe how his opening
gambit involves a leisurely expansion of the tonic over three measures: from
root G to a D➔ embellishing chord, followed by a restoration of G. The
mediant is attained via the F➔ embellishing chord of 41–2. (Compare with
the E♭➔ chord in 4.3 and the D➔ chord in 4.4.) In measure 5 Beethoven
commences a mediant expansion resembling that of the tonic during mea-
sures 1 and 2: from B♭ to F➔, which one might presume will lead back to B♭
(just as the earlier D➔ chord led back to G). The last third of 52 instead offers
F-B♮-D (which has been enhanced in 4.5 through the incorporation of G as
bass). Here Beethoven packs a considerable amount of content into a single
measure, and so the G➔ chord, which targets IV, is not fully constituted.
The maintenance of F as bass reflects the importance of the persistent three-
eighth-note bass pattern that has persisted since the opening measure and
also forestalls the parallel fifths with the soprano (noted in 4.5) that would
ensue if G actually sounded after the embellishing chord’s F. (These factors
4
offset the inelegance of having a chord in ð2Þ position resolve with a leap in
the bass.) The interaction among these factors makes the succession from III
to IV come across as the principal harmonic event within these measures.
The intervening I➔ is a local manifestation of voice leading, not a full-

fledged restoration of the initial tonic.
From IV another 5–6 shift leads onward to V♯. The resolution to I at 63
(not shown in 4.5) does not offer a concurrent melodic descent to ^1.
Consequently the mediant is restored and a second traversal of the progres-
sion through IV to V♯ ensues, this time succeeding in attaining a PAC at 83.
Op. 10, no. 2/II0|1–38
By now the connection of a minor tonic and a major mediant via a single
connective chord, as occurs soon after the outset of 10.2/II0|1–38, should be
understood as one of the principal means by which the mediant emerges in
tonal music. Here Beethoven’s bass juxtaposes an embellishing F>E♮<F
emphasis upon the tonic and a connective F<G<A♭ emphasis upon the
mediant. (See 4.6, measures 1 through 6.) Though an F minor chord
sounds immediately after the latter’s attainment, in the broader context it
functions as the 6 phase of the A♭ chord, leading from I to II in tonicized A♭
Major. The cadence on A♭ in measure 8 completes the a1 region of an a1 b
a2 (rounded) ternary form within the ternary movement’s A1 section.
The progression of chords emerging from the mediant of measure 8 is
guided by the workings of an ascending 5–6 sequence. (Anticipations, such
as D♭ at 93, make Beethoven’s score somewhat more complex than the basic
model of 4.6.) Yet the correlation with the passages we encountered after
the emergence of (♭)III in 4.1 through 4.4 is not exact. Notably the 6-phase
chords here do not surge towards their 5-phase successors. In fact,
Beethoven purposefully does not want the 5-phase chords to be
Example 4.6 Analysis of Piano Sonata in F Major (op. 10, no. 2), mvmt. 2, mm. 0|1–38.
www.ebook3000.com
emphasized, because he here transforms what at first will seem like a

conventional sequential progression into a more fluid linear ascent. A
close look at the deployment of A♮ in measures 12 through 14 is instructive:
the ear should resist accepting the D♭-F-A♮ chord at the downbeat of
measure 14 as retaining a 5-phase stability, as a conventional model of
the 5–6 sequence would dictate, but instead should transform its A♮ into a
suspension prepared in measure 12 and resolving (upwards to B♭) later in
measure 14. Consequently the ascending 5–6 sequence has by this point
morphed into an ascending parallel progression of 63 chords with suspen-
sion embellishments. (In place of 5 6 5 6 5 . . ., as in 4.1 through 4.4, 5 6 5 6
5 6 . . . eventually prevails.) This initiative’s goal is IV, as shown in 4.6.
(Note that the bass does not ascend to E♭ in measure 15 as it would if the
linear initiative were to extend beyond IV.) Consequently the same device
that often is used to connect the mediant and the dominant is here
deployed to connect the mediant and the subdominant. The IV-to-V♮
connection that follows is facilitated by a conventional 5–6 shift within
the domain of the subdominant, here incorporating chromaticism so that
the 6-phase chord targets the b region’s V♮ goal in the potent form II .
As was the case in the ternary 4.1 as well, the a2 conclusion of the
movement’s A1 section offers a more succinct progression from I to
V♮ than was the case over the span of a1 and b. Most notably, the internal
III is omitted. The chord of measures 23 and 24 is curious. Whereas
B♭-D♭-G would form a conventional first-inversion II to come between I
and V♮, in this case Beethoven adds E♮ as well. Could it be intended as
wobbly note F♭, lowering the seventh of II7 (= G-B♭-D♭-F)? Or is E♮ a
lower neighbor to such an F seventh (which does not sound during the
chord)? Or does it anticipate the following dominant’s third? We will
never know exactly what Beethoven was thinking. (We do know that he
had the same thought late in his life: an identically spelled chord in a
similar context occurs during 110/II2.) In any event, the analysis in 4.6
proposes a supertonic function (with “wrong” note) rather than positing
that E♮-G-B♭-D♭ serves to initiate the dominant function. After the
cadence is achieved at 261, reiterations of II–V♮–I and of V♮–I extend
the section through measure 38.
Op. 10, no. 3/I66|67–93
Listeners encounter 10.3/I66|67–93 towards the end of an exposition that

begins in D Major and proceeds to a tonicization of A Major, emphasized
Example 4.7 Analysis of Piano Sonata in D Major (op. 10, no. 3), mvmt. 1, mm. 66|67–93.
www.ebook3000.com
by the cadence on A at 531. Whereas the excerpt’s first part proceeds as a

conventional harmonic progression from I through II and V back to I in A
Major (see 4.7, measures 66|67–70), the opening embellishing motion
from measures 66|67 through 68 undergoes a transformation during mea-
sures 70|71 through 72, so that the tonic re-emerges at the end of measure
72 as a surging entity. That surge initiates a circle-of-fifths progression
(resembling that in 4.2) to the lowered mediant chord (C major) of
measure 75.
In a fast-paced delivery, with chords flitting back and forth in multiple
registers, IV♮ emerges at 791, facilitated by the mediant’s surging 6-phase
chord, A-C♯-E-G♮. The spelling of the subdominant using minor third F♮
stems in part from the fact that the mediant goal of the circle of fifths was
that of A Minor, not A Major. Another factor may have influenced
Beethoven’s choice as well: in the connection between the subdominant
and the dominant, he elects to deploy a special version of IV6 that incor-
porates chromatic B♭ rather than diatonic B♮, resulting in a sonority often
referred to as a “Neapolitan sixth” chord. That choice deploys F♮ rather
than F♯. Soon thereafter, these markers of A Minor give way to a restored A
Major focus, with a major dominant harmony (with minor seventh) in
measure 86 followed by a major tonic in measure 87. Given that the latter
possesses neither the soprano nor the bass required for a PAC, the pro-
gression continues for another pass through the dominant and back. A
PAC is achieved at 931.
Op. 10, no. 1/III0|1–58
The chords on display in 4.8 correspond to 10.1/III0|1–58, a large chunk of a

movement in sonata form. They exemplify how, following a minor-key
tonic, the mediant often holds sway during the latter half of an exposition.
In this case TR, instead of leading from the C Minor tonic of P to a medial
caesura on B♭ (which would effectively herald the mediant’s arrival),
proceeds to G, which relates back to the initial tonic. Thus the E♭ major
chord at the downbeat of measure 17 seems especially fresh, throwing off
the torments of the minor tonic of P and its II V♮ continuation during
TR. (Because the chord with bass F♯ in measures 12 through 14 is incom-
plete in Beethoven’s score, the symbol is conjectural, proposing that an
imagined A♭ joins C and E♭ above F♯. Imagining A♮ instead would result in
a ➔ surge.)
Example 4.8 Analysis of Piano Sonata in C Minor (op. 10, no. 1), mvmt. 3, mm. 0|1–58.
www.ebook3000.com
The harmonic progression during S (details of which are shown in 4.8)

cadences at 281 and is followed by several cadential reiterations during the
exposition’s closing zone, C (not documented in 4.8). At the onset of the
brief development section, neighboring embellishment at first reinforces
the E♭ chord. Yet soon E♮ emerges, signaling that the E♭ mediant has
proceeded to its 6 phase, with a local C➔ thrust pushing towards IV,
which arrives at measure 52. Without surging, IV’s 6-phase chord soon
follows (D added to F-A♭-C during 532), configured in such a way that the
dominant arrives with bass B♮, which is retained through the end of the
development. Though one might expect that a dominant of such structural
importance eventually would fall fully into place, in this case the
chord’s initial presentation as B♮-D-F-A♭ is not followed by an A♭>G
descent or the sounding of root G in the bass. Despite this unsettled
state of affairs, the recapitulation’s tonic restoration commences during
measure 57.
5 The mediant within the orbit of the tonic
Whereas the term “mediant” suggests the deployment of a chord rooted on

^
3 along the path between I and V (a usage that was explored in chapter 4),
sometimes the mediant’s pitches instead serve as an extension of or
surrogate for the tonic. Because the tonic and mediant triads share two
pitch classes, the sense of progression away from the tonic often is minimal
when the two chords are juxtaposed. Just as, in C Major, B-D-F may
convey a dominant function (for which the label V7• may be deployed),
so also E-G-B may in some contexts be interpreted as a chord rooted on
C (thus I7• ). In such cases it might be referred to aptly as the tonic’s “upper-
third chord.” Such analytical decisions often are subtle. Attaining a clear
sense of such a chord’s function depends not only upon how it is attained,
but also upon what follows.
The analytical examples in this chapter explore several distinct ways in
which such a mediant chord may be deployed. These samples reveal a more
variable range of compositional strategies than was the case with the
supertonic or subdominant. The shared pitches between the tonic and
mediant make the latter a less assertive challenge to the tonic’s hegemony
than the subdominant (which shares one pitch with the tonic) or the
supertonic (which shares none, but which shares one pitch with the
dominant that likely will follow).
Op. 13/II9–23
Analysts are called upon to assess both local voice leading and the broader
context in which a work’s surface details reside. In 13/II9–23 (to which 5.1a
corresponds), the connection between A♭ and C (the model’s first and fifth
chords) is accomplished via an ascending 5–6 sequence. (The first 6-phase
chord is diatonic, whereas the second has evolved into a surge, anticipated
by the sounding of D♮ rather than D♭ in the second 5-phase chord.) In that
local context, certainly C-E♭-G in measure 21 feels “rooted” on C. Yet since
bass A♭ is restored immediately thereafter, the broader context (summar-
64 ized in 5.1b) places the C chord within the trajectory of the A♭ tonic’s 5–6
www.ebook3000.com
The mediant within the orbit of the tonic 65
Example 5.1 Analysis of Piano Sonata in C Minor (op. 13), mvmt. 2, mm. 9–23
(a) From I through II➔ to V; (b) The initial I from its 5 phase to its 6 phase.
(a) (b)
shift, which in this case is accomplished through an 8–7–6 motion. As the

bullet in the harmonic analysis indicates, root A♭ is absent while G (= 7
above A♭) sounds. Though Beethoven treats the C chord as the goal of a
sequential progression, ultimately it serves as a link between the initial
tonic and its 6-phase transformation. The phrase concludes with a typical
continuation from the supertonic (here II➔ with 64 embellishment) to the
dominant. (The potency of the A♭ tonic and the pervasiveness of the I–V
trajectory in tonal music make the I and V numerals within the analysis
imperative. The B♭➔ chord of measure 22 contains a D♮, foreign to A♭
Major, and it incorporates a 64 embellishment that often is applied to V. Yet
it should not be regarded as a diatonic dominant in E♭ Major, as an analysis
of the excerpt as E♭ Major: IV V I would project.)
Often one must wait until a phrase fully reveals its content before
determining precisely how its individual chords function. Because of the
D♮ substitution for D♭ at 201, Beethoven leaves open the possible inter-
pretation of the first three chords in 5.1a as I5–6 II➔. Could the dominant
goal be imminent, thwarted by a “deceptive” continuation to C instead of
to E♭? Whereas some analysts are inclined to dwell upon such potential-
ities, here musical events are interpreted in accordance with their perceived
(rather than potential) roles within the broader context. The outer-voice
parallel tenths (bass A♭<B♭<C supporting soprano C<D♮<E♭) place the B♭
chord at an internal point within a focused upward trajectory. Perhaps a
performer could succeed in presenting the B♭ chord in a way that would
make the continuation to C seem unexpected. The reading in 5.1 instead
would encourage the performer to lead through B♭, as an internal element
within a chromatic line (A♭<B♭<B♮<C) that fills in the A♭ tonic’s lower
third. Though such thorny issues within the realm of analysis may never be
fully resolved, they encourage practitioners to ponder carefully the impli-
cations of what they do and do not convey with their analytical symbols.
Here the absence of a II♮ numeral at measure 20 is a potent (and perhaps

controversial) analytical statement.
Op. 28/II1–22
The model for 28/II1–22 presented in 5.2 shows how that ternary-form
movement’s A1 section itself conveys ternary organization: an opening a1
region leads from I to V, with II➔ as the principal intermediary; the
internal b region transforms that dominant into major V♯, with the
eventual addition of minor seventh G as well; and the a2 region completes
the broad progression with the tonic (filled out by means of its own I ➔
IV5–6 V♯ I progression).
Before we proceed, take a moment to compare 5.2’s a1 region and 5.1a.
Did you notice how Beethoven’s deployment of the mediant as the tonic’s
upper-third chord is the same in both cases? How bass C>A♭ in measure 21
of 5.1a (and 5.1b) corresponds to F>D in measures 5 and 6 of 5.2?
The principal difference between the two passages reflects the contrast-
ing configurations of whole and half steps within their respective major
and minor keys: whereas what is represented in analytical notation as I8–7
corresponds to a half step in a major key (A♭>G in 5.1), the same notation
corresponds to a whole step in a minor key (D>C in 5.2), thereby offering
an opportunity for a chromatic passing note. Beethoven presents the
8–7–6♮ span in 5.2 (which here again fulfills the role of 5–6 shift) as
D>C♯>C♮>B♮. (Often a minor key’s sixth scale degree will be raised during
a 5–6 shift to prevent the potential of a VI➔ surge towards ♭II: contrast that
www.ebook3000.com
alteration with 3.3, mm. 93–94, where the diatonic sixth scale degree is
retained. Here the 6-phase B♮ prepares the following II➔’s B♮.)
To support measure 4’s C♯, Beethoven opens with a local progression
from the D tonic to dominant A, with a local II as the principal inter-
mediary. As a result the a1 region possesses two candidates for the structu-
rally deep dominant arrival – in measure 4 and in measure 8. The analyst
must evaluate various alternative hierarchical relationships among chords
to determine which one prevails. In this case (as in 5.1a), the restoration of
the tonic root during its 6-phase chord (D at the end of measure 6) helps
one to understand that at a foundational level the initial tonic extends
through measure 6 and that the supertonic of measure 7 is of greater
consequence than is that of measure 3. Though in some methodologies
all Roman numerals appear within a single row, here the perception of
hierarchical relationships among harmonies is represented by their visual
presentation in multiple layers, with the Roman numerals for the most
foundational chords always being shown above any subsidiary layers.
Beethoven prolongs the tonic harmony in an uncommon way at the
onset of a2, which maintains enough thematic continuity with its a1
predecessor to deserve its a2 designation but nevertheless charts an
independent harmonic course. First, a small chunk of the descending
circle of fifths leads from D to C. Though at first the C chord may seem
only a step along the circle-of-fifths path from the D tonic to its mediant
(as if D G➔ C➔ F were being pursued), the C chord ultimately serves as a
local A dominant’s upper-third chord (with diatonic C preceding V➔’s
C♯). Adding greatly to the interest (and probably a motivating factor for
Beethoven’s unusual construction), the B♮<C<C♯<D bass line is the
retrograde of the D>C♯>C♮>B♮ soprano line featured during a1. Note
also how, even though IV (attained via I➔) rather than II➔ is the
principal intermediary between I and V♯ during a2, the 5–6 shift that
transpires during measure 21, combined with chordal evolution, results
in the sounding of II , an even more potent approach to the dominant
than was the II➔ of measure 7.
Op. 31, no. 1/I1–113
Though it is more common in a minor-key context, it is possible for the

exposition of a major-key movement in sonata form to proceed from P in
the tonic key to S in the tonicized mediant key. When that is the case, an
upward course from the mediant to the dominant may transpire during
Example 5.3 Analysis of Piano Sonata in G Major (op. 31, no. 1), mvmt. 1, mm. 1–113.
www.ebook3000.com
the development section. In 31.1/I1–113, however, we find instead the

restoration of the G Major tonic at the onset of the development. (The
tonic chord of measure 112 inaugurates not only the repeat of the exposi-
tion but also, after that repeat, the development section.) Consequently the
exposition’s entire S and C regions serve as a prolonged extension of the
tonic’s upper-third chord: instead of an 8–7–6
•
motion, as in 5.1 and 5.2, 8–7–8
•
is displayed over a broad time span in the model of 5.3. Briefly at the outset,
this upper-third chord sounds in a chromatic variant – B-D♯-F♯ in place of
B-D-F♯ – resulting in a modal parallelism between P and S like that which
occurs with the more typical tonic/dominant juxtaposition within a major-
key exposition. (In 53/I, Beethoven persists with the major mediant: C
Major to E Major.) In this case the mediant’s diatonic D♮ is restored by
measure 74, so that G Major and B Minor serve as the exposition’s
principal key areas. A III numeral appears in 5.3, conveying the section’s
readiness to behave in a typical mediant fashion – a readiness that ulti-
mately is not realized, since the development instead proceeds from the
restored tonic (as we saw in 4.2).
The initial tonic extends from the progression within P into the transi-
tion (TR), which commences at 45|46. Beethoven juxtaposes two slightly
different routes to TR’s medial caesura on F♯: either from G-B-E (unfurled)
or from G-B-E♯. Priority is given to the latter in 5.3 because it seems the
more definitive of the two (as if the former progression were an incomplete
version of the latter) and because it conforms to a standard means of
attaining the mediant – via a segment of the descending circle of fifths.
Here one of the links is a diminished fifth so as to reach the major key’s
diatonic mediant root: G C♯ F♯ B, with S emerging in B Major at 661 after
two measures of caesura-fill.
Once the conversion from B Major to B Minor is accomplished, a
traversal of the descending circle of fifths serves to prolong its tonic, during
measures 78 through 83. (It is interesting to compare the first six links of
this circle with those on display in 3.6, whose notable antipodal relation-
ship is avoided through the D-to-G♯ link in measure 80 of 5.3.) As often
happens, the endpoint of the prolongation surges (I➔), targeting IV at 832.
(Note that from this point the melodic line begins to descend. This serves
as the principal marker of a structurally deep harmonic event, as opposed
to a persistence of the prolongational circular motion.) Beethoven traverses
IV5–6 through a circular connection between the 5- and 6-phase chords, as
E>A>D>G>C♯ (measures 83 through 85), after which V➔ and I conclude
the tonicizing harmonic progression. (Beethoven’s robust presentation is
abridged for the display in 5.3.)
Op. 49, no. 1/I0|1–63
The chords of 5.4a chart the essential harmonic trajectory of the minor-key
exposition and development from 49.1/I0|1–63. The exposition’s TR deploys
a circle of fifths to connect P’s tonic G and S’s tonicized mediant B♭. In
contrast to the major-key situation on display in 5.3, here only perfect fifths
are deployed in the circle: G>C>F>B♭. Observe how the C minor chord is
first expanded via a voice exchange (EC ♭CE ♭ during measures 12 through
14) before a surge emerges, propelling C➔ towards a medial caesura (MC)
on F. Once B♭ Major is attained (with the help of a surge-inducing E♭ at the
onset of S, so that the consonant F chord of the MC is transformed into
F➔), a harmonic progression in the key of B♭ Major (through measure 29)
supports a melody that gradually descends by step from F to B♭. (The
soprano F displayed in 5.4a sounds during measures 17 and 19 but is not
reiterated during measure 21, where bass A♭ induces a surge targeting IV.)
In this case Beethoven treats the B♭ mediant as a surrogate for the G
Minor tonic. A bold reading of this excerpt’s harmonic structure is pro-
posed in 5.4a: that its three principal chords are the initial I (measure 1), IV
(measure 50), and V♯ (measure 54). From chapter 1 we know that such a
progression often will engage a surge in leading from I to IV and a 5–6 shift
in leading from IV to V♯. Here Beethoven deploys the surge not within the
initial tonic chord itself, but instead in the context of its upper-third chord,
B♭ major. As the development opens, the B♭ chord is first extended via a
passing 64 chord (unfurled into 63 position) in measure 36. When the B♭
chord re-emerges in measure 37, it possesses a minor seventh. Already
major in quality, this added dissonance serves to generate a surge, which
leads the progression to an E♭ major chord in measure 38. After a brief
tonicization (not shown in 5.4a), a descending third to C minor transpires
during measures 48 through 50. This descent reverses the ascending-third
motion that occurred during the exposition. Consequently the broad
succession from I to IV is achieved by first proceeding from I to its
upper-third chord (III), then allowing that III to surge, targeting VI, and
finally descending a third from VI to IV, thereby instilling the sense that VI
has served as IV’s upper-third chord. (Note the deployment of a bullet
beside both the I and IV numerals in 5.4a to indicate an omitted root.)
This IV undergoes a 5–6 shift prior to the arrival of the development’s
goal V♯. To understand how Beethoven accomplishes this, let’s assess the
situation in several steps. First, for comparison look at measures 12
through 14, where a C minor chord (serving as an internal link within a
www.ebook3000.com
Example 5.4 Analysis of Piano Sonata in G Minor (op. 49, no. 1), mvmt. 1 (a) Mm. 0|1–63; (b) Mm. 50–53.
(a) (b)
circle of fifths) is prolonged by means of a voice exchange, as noted earlier.

The melody’s E♭>D>C third works in coordination with the bass’s C<D<E♭
third, so that the prolonged chord’s pitch content does not shift until, in
this case, surge characteristics emerge later in measure 14. Next look at the
three-chord model presented as 5.4b, which is similar though not identical
to measures 12 through 14. First, note that a 64 rather than a 63 chord
connects the two chords that participate in the voice exchange. Second,
note that the voice exchange is chromaticized, with C♯ displacing C♮.
Third, note that the pitch A emerges in measure 53. Through these
means, Beethoven has integrated the voice exchange with the emergence
of IV’s 6-phase chord, presented not as diatonic C-E♭-A, but instead as
supersurging A-C♯-E♭-G (deployed in second inversion in the score).
Beethoven goes still further: by presenting the model’s C<E♭ bass third
instead as a C>E♭ sixth, he is able to unfurl the internal passing chord into 53
position (measure 52 of 5.4a) and to precede it by an embellishing chord.
The potent II that results from this initiative targets the development’s
goal V♯, which arrives at 541.
Op. 26/II0|1–67
The opening of 26/II0|1–67 contains an oddity that has a major impact on

the broad harmonic course of the movement. Though one might claim that
the chord progression of 5.5 corresponds reasonably to Beethoven’s work,
one would have to concede that, though the initial tonic chord (represented
by an AC ♭ dyad in the model) is an essential component of the foundational
Example 5.5 Analysis of Piano Sonata in A♭ Major (op. 26), mvmt. 2, mm. 0|1–67.
www.ebook3000.com
structure, its actual presence in sound is doubtful at that point during a

performance of Beethoven’s scherzo. Its right to be presented as the move-
ment’s starting chord stems more from its repeated sounding in the final
four measures of the sonata’s preceding variation movement than from
what one hears in the fraction of a second before the scherzo’s first down-
beat. That downbeat in fact corresponds to the tonic’s 6-phase chord, from
which II➔, V, and then I flow over the course of the movement’s first six
measures. (Whereas often an initial tonic expansion of this sort would
coordinate with a filled-in C>A♭ melodic third, here that third is inverted
to become a filled-in C<A♭ sixth.) Beethoven coordinates the two halves of
this conception in a special manner that may be referred to as a peculiar
juxtaposition (a term I introduced in Harmony in Schubert, pp. 26–31).
Though measures 5 and 6 seem to be replicating the content of measures
1 and 2, now up a fourth, the contrasting contexts of the two passages leads
to disparate interpretations in the harmonic analysis, where the prior
attainment of V in measure 2 (and confirmed through the local progression
of measures 2 through 4) causes beat 3 of measure 5 to be interpreted as a
continuation of that dominant (now in second inversion, with seventh, and
without root).
Beethoven proceeds upwards from the tonic root during the ternary
scherzo’s b region. Listeners expect – and usually receive – some tonal
contrast to offset the tonic focus of the outer a1 and a2 regions. What might
serve as a suitable alternative predecessor for the F minor chord that occurs
on the downbeat of measure 45, initiating a2? In the succession from a tonic
chord on A♭ to a 6-phase chord on F, two embellishing chords are
especially suitable. Either a chord rooted on E♭, which would relate by
fifth backwards to the initial A♭; or a chord rooted on C, which would relate
by fifth forwards to F. In this case Beethoven deploys C➔. The first part of
the b section is devoted to a slow-paced ascending 5–6 sequence that fills in
the span between A♭ and C, whose major quality (shared by all three of the
sequence’s 5-phase chords), along with the eventual incorporation of a
minor seventh, serves ideally in targeting not tonic A♭ but instead its
6-phase F to initiate the a2 region. Consequently a broad harmonic pro-
gression extends from I5 during a1 through the C➔ embellishing chord of
b to I6 at the onset of a2. Whereas often a structurally deep dominant
concludes the middle region of a ternary form, targeting the tonic of a2,
here the b region targets I6. The scherzo’s most potent dominant does not
occur until measures 46 through 49 (and, due to the written-out repeat, 54
through 57 as well), as noted in 5.5. Following the cadence at 581, further
repetitions of this harmonic progression persist through measure 67.
6 Notable linear initiatives
Though we employ the word harmony in a general sense to refer to all

matters pertaining to chordal construction and progression, in a more
specific sense the logic behind how chords follow one another may be
subdivided into two basic classes: the charting of the scale-degree path (for
example, from I through IV to V and back to I) over the course of a phrase
or larger formal unit is here referred to as the harmonic progression,
whereas a wide range of linear chordal procedures (for example, sequences,
circles of fifths, and parallel progressions) may be deployed electively to
connect those more basic harmonic entities. In the latter, a voice-leading
pattern guides the local progression, often placing individual chords in
contexts that would not be encountered during a harmonic progression.
(For example, in a harmonic progression in C Major the chord D-F-B
would be interpreted as V7• and generally would resolve to I in root position
or first inversion, whereas as the fourth chord in an ascending 5–6
sequence starting on tonic C it would lead instead to E-G-B.)
Consequently the application of Roman numerals for the internal chords
of a linear progression would be misleading and is here eschewed: such
progressions connect harmonic entities; their individual chords are not
themselves participants in the harmonic trajectory.
Beethoven was masterful in the creative deployment of linear progres-
sions. Many have been featured in excerpts we have explored in earlier
chapters. This chapter brings together a range of exceptionally creative
applications of linear procedures.
Op. 27, no. 1/II1–41
We turn first to 27.1/II1–41, to which 6.1 corresponds. Through measure

12, all the voice leading proceeds downwards. A range of possible inter-
pretations may emerge in the listener’s mind. For example, during mea-
sures 4 and 5 one might suspect that the B♮-D-G chord is serving as a local
embellishment of the C-E♭-G tonic and that the leading tone’s upward
74 resolutional tendency will be activated, resulting in a restoration of the
www.ebook3000.com
Example 6.1 Analysis of Piano Sonata in E♭ Major (op. 27, no. 1), mvmt. 2, mm. 1–41.
initial tonic. Such hopes fade when B♭ emerges in measure 6. At that point,
given that the tonic is of minor quality, B♮ likely will be reinterpreted as a
connector between diatonic C and B♭. That relationship is then replicated
by A♮ and A♭ in measures 8 through 11. Then, crucially, the chord of
measure 12 breaks the pattern: though G is the expected bass note, a 64
chord – rather than the next 63 chord in a linear descent – emerges. Even
so, multiple interpretations are viable. If this spot is the juncture between
linear and harmonic trajectories, then IV to V♮ (the latter with 64 embellish-
ment) would be a likely interpretation. However, the 64 is not followed by
a 35 ♮ resolution. From what follows in measure 13 (the tonic’s 6-phase
chord), retrospectively the most sensible interpretation of the first twelve
measures would be a broad expansion of the tonic harmony, with the
concurrent linear filling-in of its three interval adjacencies: G>E♭, E♭>C,
and C>G. Though this places the uncommon option of a chord in second
inversion at the endpoint of the tonic expanse, the restoration of the tonic
root C during measure 13 grounds the continuation through D to G,
resulting in the impeccable harmonic progression I5–6♮ II➔ V. (The A♮
of measure 13 facilitates the emergence of a supertonic with diatonic root
D; a diatonic C-E♭-A♭ 6-phase chord would have offered a strong incentive
to proceed instead to ♭II.)
Our excerpt is the minuet of a minuet and trio movement, a ternary
form. The letters a1, b, and a2 in 6.1 convey a (rounded) ternary subdivision
within the minuet as well, in this case with a lack of tonal contrast in the b
region, which concludes on C Minor’s tonic chord in measure 24. Though
closing a middle region on the tonic is unusual, opening one with a
restoration of the tonic is a straightforward and conventional option. In
this case Beethoven achieves that restoration without deploying C Minor’s
leading tone (B♮). Instead the dominant’s diatonic minor third, B♭, is
retained as the restored tonic’s seventh, a factor in the tonic’s evolution
into I➔, targeting IV. The middle region concludes with V➔ (IV’s
successor) followed by I in the context of an IAC.
Now graced by suspensions (A♭ in measures 28–29 and G in measures
32–33), the structure that inaugurates a2 (beginning in measure 25) clearly
replicates that of a1. Yet listeners ought not to become overconfident in
predicting how Beethoven will proceed. Whereas the G-C-E♭ chord of
measure 12 reinstates the initial tonic, a new context for that chord during
measures 34 through 37 places it interior to IV5–6, as shown in 6.1. (Before
the 64 chord, diatonic A♭ and F serve as members of the IV harmony; after
it, chromatic F♯ and A♮ serve as members of IV’s evolved 6-phase chord,
surging as II➔.) Thus the hypothesis of a subdominant function, which
www.ebook3000.com
Notable linear initiatives 77
listeners might have formed in the context of measures 10 and 11 only to

go unfulfilled, is belatedly realized during a2. The dominant function is
delayed until another 64 chord emerges, in measure 38. The a2 region
concludes with a quick fulfillment of II➔’s push towards that dominant
followed by a PAC on the tonic.
Op. 2, no. 2/I46–92
An ascending 5–6 sequence often is energized by surges. The first example

of this technique that we explored – 1.4 – deploys this sort of sequence to
connect I and IV in G Major. Note that all of its 5-phase chords are
diatonic: major or minor in accordance with G Major’s key signature.
The 6-phase chords, on the other hand, all incorporate whatever acciden-
tal(s) are required to induce a dynamic push towards their 5-phase
successors.
The sequential trajectory in 2.2/I46–92 (displayed in 6.2) features a con-
struction that may be interpreted as a “stretched” version of a 5–6 shift,
incorporating an extra half-step rise. Whereas E-G-B (measure 58), which
temporarily imposes a minor modal quality on the E tonicization at the
onset of the exposition’s S region, might conventionally be followed by
E♯-G♯-C♯ targeting F♯, here instead F♯-A-D (incorporating dissonant C♮ to
generate some extra propulsion) targets G♮. This is like climbing the steps
while on an escalator: two means of locomotion work concurrently to bring
about a swifter passage through space. The particulars of Beethoven’s voice
leading involve an enharmonic shift. Whereas the chord of measure 60,
spelled as F♯-A-C♮-D♯, could have served as an embellishing chord
Example 6.2 Analysis of Piano Sonata in A Major (op. 2, no. 2), mvmt. 1, mm. 46–92.
resolving back to the E chord (perhaps in its first inversion), the lowering
of D♯ to D♮ in measure 61 signals that the D♯ in fact has behaved as E♭:
F♯-A-C♮-E♭ serving as D➔. (The juxtaposed arrows between the letters E
and G♮ in 6.2 are intended to convey this shift from the chord’s potential
role as an embellishment of E into a connector between E and G♮.)
Because two rising mechanisms coordinate, what normally would be the
third 5-phase chord within a diatonic ascending 5–6 sequence in E Minor
has already arrived in measure 62. (Given the “stretched” trajectory, E
Minor’s diatonic F♯-A-C, which inconveniently is of diminished quality, is
sidestepped altogether.) Recall that in the diatonic model of an ascending
5–6 sequence the disposition of the third through fifth 5-phase chords
does not match that of the first through third: the minor scale ascends
whole-half followed by whole-whole. Beethoven pays no heed to that fact.
He instead uses G as the starting point for exactly the same sort of
ascending motion as he just deployed to ascend from E to G, thereby
passing through an inverted F♮➔ chord to attain B♭. (Compare with 3.6,
measures 1–16.) Fortunately B♭ remains internal to the sequential initia-
tive: one is not called upon to make sense of it within the broader tonal
context, where it bears an antipodal relationship to the tonicized E. There is
some compensation in the next cycle, where Beethoven does modify the
pattern, thereby ascending a major third from B♭ to D, the diatonic seventh
scale degree in E Minor. This is an astonishing moment. Whereas the
concentration of dissonance in the chords of measures 60 and 64 is
lessened through the lowering of one of the four pitches by a half step, in
the equivalent chord of measure 68 the same lessening of dissonance is
achieved instead by the raising of the other three pitches by a half step,
thereby converting what would have been an A♭➔ D♭ motion (woefully
remote from E Minor) into A➔ D.
From D onwards the ascending motions correspond to those of a
conventional ascending 5–6 sequence (now oriented toward the E Major
goal of measure 84, thus passing through a major 5-phase chord on E and a
minor 5-phase chord on F♯). Beethoven intervenes at the very end of the
sequential initiative. Whereas after F♯ the chord spelled as F♯-A-C♮-D♯
would perpetuate the sequential pattern by being enharmonically reinter-
preted as F♯-A-C♮-E♭, with the E♭ descending a half step to D (thus D➔
targeting E Minor’s mediant G, replicating measures 60 through 62), in this
case Beethoven actually allows D♯ to function as a leading tone, propelling
a resolution to an inverted E Major tonic chord, rather than to a lowered
mediant chord. Once this outcome is achieved, listeners may come to
interpret the entirety as a broad E<E octave connection in the melody
www.ebook3000.com
over the span of measures 58 through 84, coordinating with a shift from
a wobble-induced E Minor to diatonic E Major. The tonicization of
E Major concludes with a II➔ V➔ I progression resulting in a PAC, as
shown in 6.2.
Op. 31, no. 3/I213–235
Incorporating cadential material that sounded at the outset of the move-

ment, 31.3/I213–235 twice presents a progression from I through IV5–6 to V7
and then I – the first time in a straightforward and rather plain rendition,
the second with a remarkable internal expansion that nearly overwhelms
the more conventional material at the edges of the progression.
In 6.3a the analysis of measures 214 and 215 displays what has become a
familiar characteristic in our Beethoven analyses: a 5–6 shift paving the
way between IV and V. In this instance the 6-phase F is merely touched
upon: the chord does not evolve further in a way that would imply that F
takes over from A♭ as root (warranting a II numeral within parentheses
below the Arabic 6).
The similarity between measures 213–214 and 217–218 signals
Beethoven’s intent to state the same musical idea twice. Yet note that
Example 6.3 Analysis of Piano Sonata in E♭ Major (op. 31, no. 3), mvmt. 1 (a) Mm.
213–235; (b) and (c) Mm. 219–230.
(a)
(b)
(c)
whereas IV’s 6-phase chord emerges promptly in measure 215, the 5-phase
chord of measure 218 persists through measure 219. From that point the
continuation of the harmonic progression is put on hold while an ascend-
ing linear progression transpires. Because several of that progression’s
chords are either unusually evolved or absent, two additional models
(6.3b and 6.3c) are offered to convey the logic underlying Beethoven’s
writing. In the first model, the connection between IV5 (an inverted A♭
major chord) and IV6 (an inverted F minor chord) is accomplished by
means of a conventional ascending 5–6 sequence whose 5-phase chords
conform to the key of the initial A♭ chord and whose 6-phase chords all
surge in a predictable and uniform way. Beethoven here rejects such a
bland construction. In the second model, which corresponds to his score,
we observe modifications that fall into four categories. First, three of the
surging 6-phase chords are more highly evolved (measures 223, 227, and
229). Second, two of the 5-phase chords are modally adjusted so as to
permit a fully chromatic ascending line in the bass (measures 226 and 228).
Third, one 5-phase chord absorbs an extra pitch that anticipates a member
of the succeeding 6-phase chord (measure 220). Fourth, one 5-phase and
one 6-phase chord have been elided (between measures 219 and 220 and
between measures 223 and 225).
Once the sequence’s goal is attained, the harmonic progression con-
tinues with a chromatic evolution of the 6-phase chord (as II➔), followed
by the V➔ and I of the PAC. (This passage matches measures 1 through 8,
which are treated to a range of creative modifications over the course of the
movement.) The chord of measures 231 and 232 is noteworthy. Though its
spelling conforms to its role as II➔, its relation to its predecessor in fact
might lead listeners to interpret it as a continuation of the sequential
initiative. (That is, following the surging 6-phase chords B♭➔ in measure
227 and C➔ in measure 229, measure 231 will seem to introduce D➔.)
Only after the resolution to E♭ Major’s dominant (II➔’s target, with 64
embellishment) rather than to sequential D➔’s G target may we confirm
that the chord in fact is correctly spelled as A♮-C-E♭-G♭ rather than as
A♮-C-E♭-F♯.
Op. 7/II1–37
The interaction between the numbers seven and twelve is crucial for
understanding some of Beethoven’s most extraordinary constructions.
On the one hand, in his normative harmonic practice the twelve pitch
www.ebook3000.com
classes are segregated in such a way as to favor seven diatonic elements,

with the other five relegated to a chromatic status. Yet on the other hand,
Beethoven occasionally pursues a course that disregards the prefabricated
hierarchy that comes with being in one key or another. In 7/II1–37, for
which 6.4 serves as a model, an important shift from C Major to C Minor
occurs during measure 24. For a while the chordal content subscribes to
the norms of that mode: A♭ (tonicized beginning in measure 25) and F
(tonicized beginning in measure 30) are of major and minor quality,
respectively, as one would expect during a broad C Minor expanse. Yet
the next point along the way is not a diminished D-F-A♭, but instead
D♭-F-A♭ (measure 33). Though one might regard D♭ as a wobbly note (as
occurs in C Minor’s ♭II), its presence here seems so inevitable that another
explanation is called for.
In fact, D♭ (rather than D♮) fits within a pattern that has nothing to do
with the diatonic pitch collection of C Minor (with which the pattern
coincidentally coincides for a while). An enticing array of chordal relation-
ships unavailable during the normal workings of a major or minor key
emerges in the context of modulo 12. Whereas the shift from seven
diatonic to twelve equally weighted pitch classes is especially useful for
creating chordal successions that divide the octave equally (a notion
introduced in the context of 3.6), in this case Beethoven has established a
pattern represented in numbers (with C = 0) as 0 8 5 1, with chords
alternating in minor and major quality so that each new chord retains
two of the preceding chord’s members. This pattern, spelled in modulo 7,
would transpire as
G
E♭ E♭
C C C
A♭ A♭ A♭
F F
D♭
and may be conveyed in modulo 12 as

7
3 3
0 0 0
8 8 8
5 5
1
m M m M
www.ebook3000.com
That progression would continue with roots 10 6 3 11 8 4 1 . . ., reaching the

initiating minor triad again only at its twenty-fifth chord. Daunting! So,
seeing where his progression would lead after D♭, Beethoven elects to
backtrack to the preceding F chord (measure 36 = measure 30), a point
of intersection between the modulo 12 progression and C Minor’s diatonic
pitch collection, from which dominant G is attained via a conventional 5–6
shift (incorporating a 6-phase evolution into II during measure 36).
The fact that the A♭ tonicization begins with I5–6 II (measures 25
through 271) proves useful to Beethoven for the ascending course he
pursues between D♭ and F later. During measures 33 through 351, it will
seem that D♭ is being tonicized. Only with the double application of the
5–6 shift (D♭5–6 E♭5–6 F5) does it become apparent that instead the local
tonal center is being raised by a third.
Coincidentally, the II chord spelled as A♭-C-E♭-F♯ in C Minor (during
measure 36) is the enharmonic equivalent of the V7 chord in D♭ Major (A♭-C-
E♭-G♭). One almost could be persuaded that the expanse from D♭ at 331 to A♭
at 362 should be interpreted as a progression from I to V7 in D♭ Major, thereby
delaying the point at which the broad C Minor tonality is reasserted. Yet not
quite. The sforzando emphasizing the A♭-C-F chord during 361 makes what
follows later in that measure come across as an evolution from C Minor’s IV,
rather than a 6–5 resolution (F to E♭, at which point G♭ [F♯] is added).
The score’s melodic E♭>D>C during II is a means of prolonging the
♭
E , which is understood to resolve to D with the arrival of the dominant in
measure 37 despite Beethoven’s presentation of that chord with only root
G in four octaves. (In 6.4 the chord is filled out, thereby revealing how root
D’s seventh C and ninth E♭ resolve downwards by step in one’s imagination
if not in actual sound.)
Op. 57/I36–108
In 6.4, the alternation between chords of minor and major quality (inter-
locking in such a way that adjacent chords share two pitch classes) results
in a path whose first four chords do not quite fill an octave (C to D♭). In
57/I36–108, to which 6.5 corresponds, various modal shifts inserted within a
similar descending series of chords results in the achievement of a full-
octave (A♭ to A♭) traversal. As is inevitable when using notation designed
for modulo 7 composition in the context of modulo 12 initiatives that
return to the starting point, some enharmonic respelling is required, a
chore that Beethoven completes near the outset, at measure 66. If he had
Example 6.5 Analysis of Piano Sonata in F Minor (op. 57), mvmt. 1, mm. 36–108.
followed the pattern of 6.4 during 6.5, the following progression of chords
would have resulted:
E♭
C C
A♭ A♭ A♭
F F F
D♭ D♭
B♭
M m M m
(Because the starting chord is of major quality, the goal is a whole step shy
of the octave. The same procedure starting on a minor chord, as in 6.4,
misses the octave by only a half step.) To stretch the progression in a way
that achieves the full octave, Beethoven adds an internal operation –
converting a major chord into a minor chord – three times so that, instead
of just one descent of four half steps (F>D♭ in the model above), all three
descents traverse four half steps, as follows:
E♭ E♭ D♯
C C♭ B♮ B♮ B♮
A♭ A♭ G♯ G♯ G♮ G♮ G♮
E♮ E♮ E♮ E♭ E♭
C C C
A♭
M m enh. M m M m M
(Note that in the third major-to-minor conversion, the major triad is elided.)
The principal chords on display in 6.5 fulfill the initiatives outlined in the
grid above. The second major-to-minor shift is accomplished in the context
of a tonicization of E Major (4 M in modulo 12), which abruptly is terminated
www.ebook3000.com
by the onset of an E minor chord over the bar line between measures 78 and
79. Additionally, embellishing chords are inserted at the junctures between E
and C (4 and 0) and between C and A♭ (0 and 8). The chord of measures 89
and 90 is curious. Though ultimately A♮ functions as a Bº upper neighbor to
the A♭ root, at the onset it may seem that a tonicization of A♭ is being initiated
via a I6 (= VI➔) chord targeting A♭’s supertonic, which never emerges.
Because this operation is being conducted within a modulo 12 context, the
internal E major, E minor, and C minor chords play no role in the move-
ment’s F Minor key or mediant tonicization. Traditional harmonic proce-
dures lead from the exposition’s opening tonic region (not shown in 6.5) to
the mediant. Even before the end of the exposition, the modulo 12 initiative
begins its work, with the C>C♭ shift of the mediant’s third. This process
proceeds along its course through measure 87, at which point A♭’s role in the
broader modulo 7 tonal context is reasserted. The minor seventh that emerges
in measure 105 activates III’s surge potential, targeting VI, which will arrive in
measure 109. The development’s V♮ goal is reached in measure 122.
Op. 90/I79–108
The extraordinary content of 90/I79–108 (for which 6.6 serves as a model)

initiates a development section, following an exposition that has led from
an E Minor tonic to a tonicization of its dominant. The exposition’s final B
minor chord appears at the left edge of 6.6. Given that the next tonal goal is
C major (measure 110), the excerpt engages in a broad connection between
the B minor dominant’s 5- and 6-phase chords (the latter surging towards
C): B-D-F♯ to B-D-F♮-G.
Example 6.6 Analysis of Piano Sonata in E Minor (op. 90), mvmt. 1, mm. 79–108.
A connection between B and G chords could be accomplished efficiently

by means of a descending circle of fifths: B–E–A–D–G. This at first appears
to be what Beethoven intends to do. Note how the F♯-A-B chord at the end
of measure 84 leaves an open slot for the imaginative raising of the chordal
third to D♯. (Since likely not all listeners would make that shift, the D♯
notehead has been placed within parentheses in 6.6.) As expected, this B➔
resolves to an E minor chord in measure 86.
The next few measures are astonishing. The G♯-B-D-F♮ chord of mea-
sure 87 may be interpreted as an evolved state of the preceding E minor
chord, now surging toward A. In fact, an A minor chord tantalizingly
sounds during measures 88 and 89. Yet the sonority of measure 87 recurs
in measure 90 (in a different inversion and in an enharmonic spelling). At
this point listeners should ponder: did the earlier diminished seventh
chord resolve, or did it not? Given what follows, it seems that it did not.
Retrospectively the A minor chord may be interpreted as a passing chord
between the two diminished seventh chords. (Or, one might hear an E➔ A
resolution followed by E➔’s reinstatement for an alternative continuation
that results in A’s abandonment within the broader trajectory.) This
unexpected turn of events gives Beethoven a fresh opportunity. As is well
known, the diminished seventh sonority is susceptible to several enhar-
monic interpretations. With the unexpected emergence of B♭ at 911, the
chordal spelling D-F♮-A♭-C♭ comes into focus. Two successive positions
within an idiosyncratic descending circle of fifths – E and B♭ – are repre-
sented by the same sonority! (Consequently a collision bracket appears
among the letter names and arrows below the bass in 6.6.) The revised
course of the circle of fifths thus becomes B–E–B♭–E♭–A–D–G. The E♭
chord emerges at measure 92.
By imposing two extra chords within the circle, Beethoven accommo-
dates both perfect and diminished fifths between adjacent roots. Yet after
E♭ the circle begins to morph into a descent in thirds. A circle-of-fifths
continuation could be achieved as
B♭
G
E♭ E♭
C
A A
F♯
D D
B
G
www.ebook3000.com
Making the progression more gradual, Beethoven elects to fill in two of

these fifths and fortifies some of the chords with their sevenths, as
B♭ B♭
G G♭ G♭ (G♭)
E♭ E♭ E♭ (E♭) E♭
C C C C
A A A
F♯ F♯ F♮
D D
B
G
Once achieved, G➔ is prolonged for several measures, first with a

gradually descending melody and eventually with a concurrent reciprocal
ascending bass, all filled in by passing chords and passing notes.
Op. 10, no. 3/II65–76
Some passages in Beethoven’s piano sonatas mystify, with two (or more)
possible interpretations of how their chords interact vying for ascendancy.
Such a strategy both displays the composer’s skill and generates a distinc-
tive emotional impact. At some point along such a trajectory, Beethoven
must commit to one or another of the viable courses. That does not mean
that the other interpretation(s) were bogus – merely that their full realiza-
tion did not materialize.
The progression of the first three chords in 10.3/II65–76 (to which 6.7
corresponds) may be interpreted as an instance of a very common musical
device: a tonic chord (D-F-A) shifting to its 6 phase (D-F-B♭, here unfurled
into 53 position), then proceeding to a form of the supertonic. In a minor
key the inconvenient dissonant relationship (here B♭<E) that prevents a
surge between I6 (as VI➔) and diatonic II often is alleviated through a
lowering of the supertonic root by a half step. The G♭-B♭-E♭ chord of
measure 67 consequently may be interpreted as ♭II♭ (with, in this instance,
a lowering of the third as well as the root), as is conveyed in the middle row
of Roman numerals in 6.7.
Continuing with the musical interpretation presented thus far, the con-
tent of measure 68 may be regarded as prolonging ♭II (whose G♭ wobble
now reverts to diatonic G♮, so that a chord of major quality sounds), with
Example 6.7 Analysis of Piano Sonata in D Major (op. 10, no. 3), mvmt. 2, mm. 65–76.
an embellishing chord separating the two supertonic presentations.

Though the shift from 63 to 64 position is uncommon, it does not annul the
chord’s role as herald of the dominant. (This assertion may be confirmed
by auditioning the succession from B♭-E♭-B♭-G to A-E♮-C♯-G at a piano.)
Yet the 64 position may instead generate a contrasting expectation, espe-
cially when preceded by what may be interpreted as an F➔ chord (at the
downbeat of measure 68, corresponding enharmonically to A-C-E♭-G♭).
That F➔ targets B♭-D-F, whose third and fifth are delayed (we may
suspect) by a 64 embellishment. The crux of the matter concerns the
hierarchical relationship between the progression’s second and third
chords: is the B♭-D-F chord a connector between the tonic and the lowered
supertonic, or does G♭-B♭-E♭ instead reside within a tonicization of B♭-D-
F? The lowest row of Roman numerals in 6.7 makes a case for the latter
interpretation, based on the expectation that the B♭-E♭-G chord during
measure 68 “should” resolve to B♭-D-F.
Considering the broader context (through the return of the D Minor
tonic at the end of measure 70), this latter interpretation ultimately pre-
vails. An expansive I5–6–5 neighboring embellishment (displayed in the top
row of Roman numerals in 6.7) is initiated through a brief tonicization of
the B♭ chord (a 53 unfurling of I6) and is then followed by a sequential
progression back to I5: B♭5–6 C5–6 D5, with surging 6-phase chords (G➔
and A➔). Just as the B♭ chord does not follow its 64 embellishment during
682, so also C’s 64 embellishment remains unresolved. (Both resolution
chords have been inserted parenthetically within 6.7.) The final link in
the sequence is the grandest. Whereas C♯-E-G-B♭ fulfills the role of C6
(surging as A➔), it is expanded via an ascending parallel progression
proceeding chromatically until bass E is attained. (A chromatic glide of
www.ebook3000.com
diminished seventh chords hits upon the same four pitch classes on every
fourth chord.) This upward energy extends to the tonic resolution on bass
F (first inversion). Continuing upwards in the bass, non-surging and
surging states of II lead to the V➔ and I that bring the phrase to a close
via a PAC.
Op. 81a/I1–21
Two distinct linear initiatives – one circular progression and one parallel
progression – occur within 81a/I1–21, for which 6.8 may serve as a model.
The excerpt, which corresponds to the introduction within a movement
in sonata form, is guided by two complete traversals of I–V7–I. The first
establishes the tonic key, leading melodically upwards from the G a fifth
above Middle C in measure 1 to the G an octave higher in measure 14.
The second, displayed in 6.8 as a more foundational traversal, supports
that G’s upper neighbor, A♭, which resolves downward by step to ignite
the movement’s exposition on the tonic. The seam between the two
traversals is concealed during 142: instead of resolving the leading tone
D♮ to tonic root E♭, followed by the initiation of the tonic’s surge towards
IV through the addition of minor seventh D♭ (as the model in 6.8 displays
to convey the “proper” procedure for such contexts), Beethoven merges
the tonic resolution and the surge initiation into the same moment in
time by eliding bass E♭, placing emphasis upon that moment through his
use of dynamics both at that point and during the repetition in the next
measure.
Just as the ascending fifth from I to V may be divided by an intermediary
stop on III, so also the descending fifth from I to IV may be divided, here by
the C♭ submediant that normally would occur in E♭ Minor (labeled in E♭
Major as ♭VI5♭). In fact, the minor-mode contagion persists until the major
tonic is restored in measures 14 and 15. Beethoven’s initial compositional
efforts consequently are focused on the connection between E♭ and C♭, and
then on that between C♭ and A♭. As we have seen in various earlier
examples, a connective chord between E♭ and C♭ may relate backwards
to E♭ (B♭) or forwards to C♭ (G♭➔). Beethoven chooses the former, here
achieved in an extraordinary fashion. During measures 1 through 6 the
expected traversal of E♭>B♭ is realized by means of a surrogate relationship
a third lower: C>G. Beethoven proceeds first from E♭ down a third to its
unfurled diatonic 6-phase chord (E♭-G-B♭ to C-E♭-G), attains the dominant
of C Minor rather than that of E♭ Major (as shown in a separate row of
Example 6.8 Analysis of Piano Sonata in E♭ Major (op. 81a), mvmt. 1, mm. 1–21.
www.ebook3000.com
analysis in 6.8), and finally restores the E♭ tonal center by ascending a third
(G-B♭-D to B♭-D-F, to which minor seventh A♭ is added).
Contrasting the elaborate procedure that transpires during the broad
descending fifth’s first third, the second third – C♭ to A♭ – is traversed
swiftly via a segment of the descending circle of fifths, as shown in 6.8.
Though the internal B♭ chord “should” be spelled B♭-D♭-F, Beethoven fills
in the E♭>D♭ major second with D♮. By the time D♭ arrives, further chordal
evolution (diminished fifth F♭, minor seventh A♭) has occurred, leading to
the circle’s E♭ chord, followed by goal A♭. After this attainment of IV♭, a
brief passing chord at the end of measure 11 connects to the dominant,
which is extended via an DF DF voice exchange (stated twice during
measures 12 through 14). As mentioned above, the tonic resolution is
accompanied by – rather than followed by – its surge-inducing minor
seventh D♭ during 142.
Because that D♭ sounds in the bass, the IV targeted by I➔ emerges in its 63
position. (Given the prominence of chords from E♭ Minor up to now,
Beethoven persists in pondering which mode should prevail: the IV of E♭
Minor sounds first, but in a reiteration of the surge resolution E♭ Major’s
C-E♭-A♭ emerges.) The 63 configuration is especially well suited for use
within parallel progressions, since the threat of parallel fifths is minimized.
In this case Beethoven deploys such a progression to serve as a downward
connection between IV and V7. (As the progression reaches its goal in
measure 19, the 63 position is fortified by the addition of a 4, the dominant’s
root: F-A♭-B♭-D in place of F-A♭-D. This results in the dominant’s attain-
ment at the parallel progression’s fifth rather than seventh chord.) Whereas
the model of 6.8 shows the essence of the parallel progression, Beethoven’s
realization is chromaticized, resulting in the curious situation in which the
members of the parallel progression’s first two internal chords do not all
sound at once. For example, in connecting C-E♭-A♭ and B♭-D-G,
Beethoven fills in the major second C>B♭ using a passing note that he
spells as B♮. Since the E♭>D connection above is only a half step, D emerges
against that passing B♮. By the time chord member B♭ sounds in the bass,
Beethoven has already started filling in the D>C major second above
using D♭.
Soon after the dominant shifts to its root position (during measure 20),
the resolution to I occurs and the exposition gets under way.
7 Parenthetical passages
Some events in music do not fit neatly within the flow of harmonies

displayed via Roman numerals in a music analysis. Sometimes the best
way to make sense of a passage is to display it within parentheses – isolated
from its surroundings, which generally will form a coherent structure.
Given Beethoven’s resourcefulness, it would be difficult to list all the
contexts that might induce an analyst to place some of a movement’s
chords within parentheses. In this chapter’s sampling we explore several
representative cases, from which readers may expand as warranted during
their study of other compositions.
Op. 7/IV142|143–166
The fourth and final statement of a rondo movement’s refrain is presented

in 7/IV142|143–166. For the most part this refrain is in the tonic key, E♭
Major, as were its three predecessors. For the time being omitting con-
sideration of what tonal implications the passage inside parentheses (mea-
sures 155 through 160) might have, note how 7.1 projects a local ternary
form in which two outer regions (a1 and a2, both of which progress to a
PAC in E♭ Major) are juxtaposed with an interior region (b, which pro-
longs E♭ Major’s B♭ dominant). In the second of the earlier refrains, the a2
region is omitted. In that case (at measures 62 through 64) Beethoven leads
chromatically from the b region’s dominant root to the submediant root,
which is tonicized during the episode of measures 64 through 88. That
transition thereby introduces listeners to a consequential and boldly stated
B♭<B♮<C in four octaves.
At the corresponding spot in the fourth refrain, B♭ (again in four
octaves) ascends to B♮. Could this be the onset of a transition to yet another
episode? It turns out that no new material (or repeat of an earlier episode)
transpires here. Instead, the content from the onset of a2 in the first and
third refrains is now presented up a half step, in E Major. This shift does
not transpire at the level of the harmonic progression in E♭ Major – that is,
92 the E chord should not be interpreted as an internal component of an
www.ebook3000.com
Example 7.1 Analysis of Piano Sonata in E♭ Major (op. 7), mvmt. 4, mm. 142|143–166.
E♭-to-B♭ (tonic-to-dominant) trajectory. Instead, a force residing outside

the workings of the harmonic progression simply hoists the entire tonal
plane upon which the movement is grounded up a half step. I call an event
of this sort a seismic shift. The I harmony in E Major behaves as if it in fact
were I in E♭ Major, serving as host for the thematic content corresponding
to a2. Though often the remainder of a composition will retain a seismically
attained key, in this instance a reciprocal downward seismic shift occurs in
measure 161, so that tonal order within E♭ Major is restored.
In 7.1 the passage that conflicts with the E♭ Major tonality is displayed as
a parenthetical passage. Whereas on the one hand these measures advance
the section’s formal agenda by proceeding to a2, on the other hand they do
not participate in the otherwise normative E♭ Major progression in the
midst of which they transpire. That thread is picked up again in measure
161. The continuation to the cadence in measure 166 is accomplished as if
nothing out of the ordinary had happened.
Op. 2, no. 2/IV135–149
Beethoven occasionally allows listeners to eavesdrop on his musings about

the future course of his compositions. Certain chords are especially suscep-
tible to variable resolutions – none more so than the diminished seventh
chord. A composition may generate suspense if a composer holds off on
proceeding to one or another resolution after such a chord emerges.
By now readers will understand that the two principal continuations
from the tonic in a major key are to the subdominant and to the
supertonic (the focus of chapters 1 and 2, respectively). In both cases
a modification of the initial tonic often will help direct the progression
in one direction or the other. One case warrants special comment
because it is so extraordinary. In 2.2/IV135–149, the initial tonic A-C♯-
E is followed in measure 140 by a diminished seventh chord that
Beethoven spells as C♯-E-G♮-B♭. (See 7.2, for the time being looking
only at the notes, not the analysis below.) Honoring the tendencies
inherent in that spelling, this diminished seventh chord may be under-
stood to project the harmonic function I➔, extending the initial tonic
and targeting IV. Yet before its resolution Beethoven respells the chord
as C♯-E-G♮-A♯ (measure 145). This spelling corresponds to the other of
the two main ways in which a tonic is often departed: via a 5–6 shift
(A-C♯-E to A-C♯-F♯, whose F♯ is the unsounded root of A♯-C♯-E-G♮),
which usually will proceed to II. (Because this is how the chord
www.ebook3000.com
Parenthetical passages 95
Example 7.2 Analysis of Piano Sonata in A Major (op. 2, no. 2), mvmt. 4,
mm. 135–149.
ultimately does behave, that interpretation is announced as early as

measure 140 in the harmonic analysis that annotates the block chords
of 7.2. Yet keep in mind that at that point listeners will be unable to
state with any certainty where the progression is heading: to IV? to II?
or to somewhere else?)
In the midst of such uncertainty Beethoven intervenes in a most unex-
pected way, by lowering C♯ to C♮ during measure 140. This reflects a third
potential spelling of the preceding diminished seventh chord, as D♭-E-G♮-
B♭. Generally when any one member of a diminished seventh chord is
lowered by a half step, its harmonic function is clarified to a large extent: in
the other two potential resolutions under consideration, C♯-E-G♮-B♭’s
continuation to IV would be fostered by the lowering of B♭ to A, while
C♯-E-G♮-A♯’s continuation to II would be fostered by the lowering of G♮ to
F♯. In this case, after over four measures during which bass C♮ places the
chord on the verge of resolution to an F major chord (A Major’s lowered
submediant), the C♮ is rescinded and the earlier C♯ restored at 1451. Note
that Beethoven converts B♭ to A♯ at the same time. With these signs it
appears (visually) that II will soon emerge, which it in fact does. As 7.2
shows, the remainder of the progression quickly proceeds to a PAC
(measures 147–148).
Because the C♮ chord turns out to be a potential way forward that
ultimately is rescinded, the passage during which it sounds appears within
parentheses in 7.2. The progression outside the parentheses corresponds to
how the diminished seventh chord conveys the I6 function (as F♯➔ target-
ing B). Attempting to forge a cogent analysis that concurrently accommo-
dates all the potentialities generated during these measures would be a
futile undertaking. Consequently the three scenarios discussed above have
been segregated into disparate visual fields: the succession to II is given
priority since that ultimately was Beethoven’s choice. The Roman numeral
analysis below the staff acknowledges only that course. Because the poten-
tial resolution C♮➔ F is potently projected in the score (though not
realized), a parenthetical passage acknowledges its sounding outside the
flow of the foundational progression. This targeting of F, as well as the
potential tonic surge as A➔, are acknowledged with letters and arrows
below the principal analysis.
Op. 14, no. 2/III0|1–41
Assaying the deployment of surges and 5–6 shifts is an important aspect of

harmonic analysis. These devices tend to emerge at specific locations
within tonal space. For example, in a passage that begins in G Major, as
does 14.2/III0|1–41, a motion from G-B-D to E-G-B often will be interpreted
as a 5–6 shift. If G is retained as the tonal center, we might expect that the 6-
phase chord will surge towards II. Yet the events of measures 29 and 30,
which lead to a cadence on B, do not confirm such suppositions. (See the
model presented in 7.3.) Atypically, the E chord is itself subjected to a 5–6
shift, which more characteristically arises on I or on IV. As the progression
proceeds, the E chord’s shift in function – from VI in G Major to IV within
Example 7.3 Analysis of Piano Sonata in G Major (op. 14, no. 2), mvmt. 3, mm. 0|1–41.
www.ebook3000.com
a local tonicization of mediant B Minor – is clarified. (Depending upon

one’s assessment of the hierarchical relationships within measures 23
through 29, one might or might not incorporate the B➔ surge preceding
the E minor chord as the starting point of the B Minor tonicization.)
This stabilization of B Minor is displayed as a parenthetical passage in
7.3. In this case the progression to G Major’s mediant turns out to be a dead
end: there is no path forward from that point. Instead Beethoven restores
the E minor chord during measure 33, providing the opportunity for an
alternative outcome. This time E-G-B indeed fulfills its role as the G tonic’s
6-phase chord, following its typical trajectory by surging towards II.
Without surging, this II leads to the dominant in measure 39, concluding
the B section while tonally preparing for the tonic’s return during A2 in the
measures that follow.
Op. 22/III0|1–24
Whereas 7.3 displays how a chord built on the sixth scale degree may be
used to pivot into a mediant tonicization, at least temporarily neglecting
the more common course of leading to the supertonic, 7.4 (which corre-
sponds to 22/III0|1–24, a ternary minuet) shows how the sixth scale degree
may serve as an internal point along a path descending in thirds (B♭, G,
potentially E♭). In this case that trajectory is strongly emphasized by the
distinctive treatment of the embellishing chords that come between the
third-related chords. The flurry of sixteenth notes in measures 8 and 9
potently projects D➔, targeting the G a third below tonic B♭. A repetition
of that trajectory on a tonal plane a third lower commences with the

sixteenth-note flurry projecting B♭➔ in measures 12 and 13. A continua-
tion to E♭ should seem inevitable. An E♭-G-B♭ chord at that point might be
asserted as IV within the broader harmonic progression, or it might instead
serve as an internal point within a more extended descent in thirds that
continues to C (= II).
Beethoven both promotes such expectations and prevents their full
realization. The interface between principal chords in descending thirds
and surging embellishing chords in this case tantalizingly leaves open the
possibility of a relationship between two non-adjacent G chords:
B♭ D➔ G B♭➔ E♭ G➔ C
may be represented more succinctly by

B♭ D➔ G G➔ C
B♭ Major: I5––––––––––––––––––– 6––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– II
Beethoven’s emphasis upon the B♭➔ chord of measures 12|13–14 indicates a

commitment to the descending-thirds course, but the juxtaposition of that
chord and the G➔ chord that follows amounts to an abrupt change of plans.
The latter chord comes about as if the preceding surge targeting E♭ had never
happened. Instead it offers an alternative surge, evolving from the diatonic G
chord of measure 12. Consequently the B♭➔ chord has been isolated from
the broader progression analytically by being displayed within parentheses
in 7.4. As in 7.3, ultimately the tonic’s 6-phase chord does behave in its most
typical manner, as an intermediary between I and II. In both excerpts an
alternative continuation is first auditioned but ultimately rejected.
Op. 22/II57|58–65
Certain harmonic events are more common in one mode than the other.
Beethoven occasionally shifts back and forth between modes (from major
to minor and then back to major in 22/II57|58–65), thereby gaining access
to a broader range of harmonic choices. Whereas a motion from E♭ Major
to G♭ Major would be unlikely in E♭’s major-mode context, here the shift
from E♭ Major to its parallel minor places G♭ Major within easy reach,
due to its diatonic relationship with E♭ Minor. The D♭➔ embellishing
chord of 611–2 (akin to E♭➔ in 4.3) facilitates the arrival of this mediant,
which is then confirmed by means of a local progression in the key of G♭
Major (I II V . . ., which we expect will cadence on I in G♭). In the model of
www.ebook3000.com
7.5 these events are displayed as a parenthetical passage because

Beethoven does not persist with that course to a cadence and in fact
restores the minor tonic prior to embarking upon an alternative route
towards the dominant. This is accomplished during the D♭-C♭-F-A♭
dominant of 623. With two half-step shifts, it emerges as D♮-B♭-F-A♭
(V7 in E♭ Minor) during 631–2.
In the second approach to the dominant, ♭II5♭ is deployed instead of ♭III5♭.
Though often the lowered supertonic leads directly to V, in this case it is
juxtaposed with an evolved state of ♮II during measure 64. The harmonic
analysis in 7.5 displays this shift of root beside an Arabic 1 to the right of the
Roman numeral II (indicating that the root at first is lowered, and then is
restored to its diatonic state though concurrently omitted, as denoted by the
bullet symbol). Alternatively, one could juxtapose ♭II and ♮II numerals, each
with suitable Arabic numerals and accidentals to the right.
Op. 7/III72–86
Through the notion of the parenthetical passage, Beethoven has at his disposal
a powerful tool for evoking various emotional states. Consider, for example,
the state of frustration: one may be endeavoring repeatedly to achieve some
goal, and yet it remains elusive. Through the deployment of a parenthetical
passage, Beethoven may juxtapose failed attempts to reach a goal and an
attempt that finally works as one had hoped. The achievement of the goal is all
the more rewarding because its attainment was put into question.
In 7/III72–86 (displayed in 7.6), Beethoven sets up a conventional
approach to a cadence. The initial tonic surges as the succession to IV
draws near, and the light texture during 803 permits imagining that IV’s 5-
phase E♭ ascends to 6-phase F. In such a context the bass B♭ that follows
usually would signify the onset of the dominant, even if embellishing
pitches a compound sixth and fourth above root B♭ temporarily delay its
full presentation.
On the one hand, the A♭, D, and F that sound during 813 fulfill the
expectations aroused at the beginning of the measure. On the other hand,
the concurrent shift of the bass to B♮ is devastating for the dominant’s
cadential agenda. In fact, in this context the ear is encouraged to retro-
spectively interpret bass B♭ as the filling-in of an A♭<C third, as is conveyed
by letters below the harmonic analysis in 7.6.
The cadence fails to materialize in both the upper and middle registers
(measures 81 through 84). Only on the third try, in the lower register, does
Beethoven succeed in realizing the cadential potential that listeners would
have noted well before this point. Consequently two different continua-
tions from the same point within a progression are juxtaposed. The first
continuation, which leads twice to a C minor chord, is displayed as a
parenthetical passage in 7.6. That rendering allows readers to connect
the B♭ 64 chords of measures 81 and 85 (just outside the boundaries of the
parentheses), from which the expected resolution in fact transpires during
measures 85 and 86.
Op. 10, no. 1/III100–122
The fact that a minor key’s diatonic ^6 and ^2 do not form a perfect fifth results
in special complications – and special opportunities. In 10.1/III100–122, the
www.ebook3000.com
Example 7.7 Analysis of Piano Sonata in C Minor (op. 10, no. 1), mvmt. 3,
mm. 100–122.
5–6 shift that expands the opening C-E♭-G tonic results in a chord of major
quality – A♭-C-E♭ – whose innate tendency towards wobbly D♭ (instead of
diatonic D♮) is enhanced through the addition of minor seventh G♭ (mea-
sure 102). As 7.7 shows, this surge is fulfilled through the arrival of ♭II in
measure 107. D♭ Major is tonicized through measure 111.
Locally the A♭-C-E♭-G♭ chord introduced in measure 102 behaves in an
exemplary fashion: its GC ♭ diminished fifth resolves to ♭II’s DF ♭ major third.
When A♭-C-E♭-G♭ recurs in measure 112 (during what at first will seem
like a consequent phrase fully within the realm of the D♭ tonicization), its
G♭
C
diminished fifth does not reprise its inward resolution. Instead, it
behaves as if spelled as CF ♯ , which in fact is how Beethoven displays those
pitches beginning in measure 113, prior to their outward resolution to GB ♮ .
In that new guise the chord functions as II . This turn of events highlights
a very special property of chords in minor keys: an evolved form of I6
(A♭-C-E♭-G♭) is the enharmonic equivalent of an evolved form of II
(F♯-A♭-C-E♭). The parentheses in 7.7 convey how two distinct continua-
tions – only the latter of which is fulfilled in the broader trajectory – emerge
from a sonority that at first (in measures 102 through 106) behaves as A♭➔
and then later (in measure 112) behaves as its syntactic successor, D . The
latter dynamically targets V♮ (first as II , then modified to II➔), which in
turn proceeds to the cadential I, extended through measure 122 via
repeated iterations of an embellishing chord over a tonic pedal (displayed
once in 7.7), concurrent with the emergence of a Picardy third (E♮).
www.ebook3000.com
part ii
Masterpieces
www.ebook3000.com
8 String Quartet in B♭ Major (op. 18, no. 6),
La Malinconia
in response to William J. Mitchell
William J. Mitchell calls La Malinconia, which introduces the final move-

ment of Beethoven’s String Quartet in B♭ Major, a “chromatic riddle.”1
Indeed its forty-four measures contain a number of features that call for
special consideration and creativity from the analyst, since conventional
Roman numerals clearly cannot adequately account for their web of
chordal interactions. I hope that readers will find a comparison of
Mitchell’s and my contrasting responses to this riddle illuminating, since it
brings to the fore some of the central issues in the analysis of chromatic
music.2 Our differences stem mainly from our contrasting readings of
hierarchical relationships among chords, for which the score itself does not
always provide the sort of decisive guidance one might long for. My reading
incorporates a range of foreground and middleground harmonic trajectories,
whereas Mitchell’s is more wholeheartedly linear in its conception.
Mitchell studied Schenkerian analysis with Schenker’s pupil Hans Weisse
in Vienna and taught for many years at Columbia University in New York.
My first encounter with his perspective on chromaticism occurred in the
context of a seminar taught by Allen Forte at Yale University in the late
1970s. I was assigned to report on the Tristan Prelude, for which I studied
Mitchell’s celebrated analysis of that work in the first volume of The Music
Forum. In my presentation I juxtaposed a linear analysis derived from his
article and a multi-layered Roman numeral analysis that I created with
inspiration from Schoenberg’s Structural Functions of Harmony. (Then as
now, Roman numerals remain a more central component of my analytical
toolbox than they were in Mitchell’s. In the meantime Schoenberg’s influ-
ence on my harmonic thinking has abated.)
From B♭ Major to B Minor (measures 1 through 22)
Given the extraordinary writing that will ensue as La Malinconia unfolds,

the sweet calm of its opening measures provides a welcome stability, both
tonal and emotional. The initial move away from pure tonic is only
grudgingly realized: it seems initially that the viola would rather persist 105
Example 8.1 Analysis of String Quartet in B♭ Major (op. 18, no. 6), La Malinconia
(a) Mm. 1–11 with hypothetical continuation; (b) Mm. 1–12.
(a) (b)
with the tonic’s third (D) during measure 8 than join the cello in pursuit of
a downward course. Yet the dissonant chord of measure 9, to which those
descending lines lead, still harbors a tonic resonance. Beethoven here
deploys a diminished seventh sonority whose precise role within the
emerging tonal trajectory remains elusive, since either of the most com-
mon continuations from a stable major tonic may be read into its dissonant
sonority: I’s surge to IV corresponds to (B♭)-D-F-A♭-C♭, whereas I’s
6-phase transformation (an evolved state of diatonic B♭-D-G) corresponds
to surging (G)-B♮-D-F-A♭ (thus asserted as G➔). Again the cello takes
charge: the A♭>G half step of measures 9 and 10 decisively focuses the
progression in accord with the latter course. Later in the movement a B♭
G➔ C trajectory indeed will ensue (measures 30 and 31), confirming for
the first eleven measures a potential continuation as proposed in 8.1a, a
structure that, it turns out, is realized only in measures 30 through 32.
The chord at the return to pianissimo in measure 12 is a dumbfounding
turn of events that throws the movement’s tonal course onto an unex-
pected trajectory. As 8.1b proposes, what upon arrival likely would be
interpreted as a G➔ surge targeting C turns out upon departure to have
served as an embellishing chord of B♮-D-F♯. Beethoven emphasizes its
dissonant character by positioning G and E♯ [F], which resolve in the
manner of an augmented sixth, in the exposed cello and first violin lines.
That configuration mandates that the B minor chord be presented first in
its 64 position, with root B delayed at the bottom of the texture until
measures 18–20 (during a surge) and 22 (where the tonicization of
B Minor concludes). Initially the F♯-B♮-D sonority may trigger the hypoth-
esis that an F♯ major triad, here with 64 embellishment, is emerging, as often
happens during an augmented-sixth resolution.3 The potent assertion of B
as root in the ensuing measures counters that reading.
B Minor’s role within a movement in B♭ Major will be addressed later,
when the broader context is brought into consideration. At this point the
tonicization of B Minor – from the inverted chord of measure 12 through
www.ebook3000.com
String Quartet in B♭ Major (op. 18, no. 6) 107
Example 8.2 Analysis of String Quartet in B♭ Major (op. 18, no. 6), La Malinconia,
mm. 12–22.
the root-position chord of measure 22 (thus nearly one-fourth of La

Malinconia’s entire duration) – warrants our attention. It is important to
keep in mind that D♮ sounds within the chords at both edges of that
prolongation. The D♯ (spelled thus in 8.2, measures 14 and 16, despite
Beethoven’s deployment of enharmonically equivalent E♭ until measure
17) that emerges during the progression’s interior is a component (along
with minor seventh A and minor ninth C) of a B Minor tonic’s conven-
tional surge towards IV: I ➔ IV. That the progression’s IV (measure 21)
and concluding I (measure 22) both are of minor quality confirms that
B Minor – not B Major – is the key being tonicized. (This point will be
important for our discussion of measures 22 through 28 later.)
The forte chords of measures 13 and 15 may seem to be working counter
to the first violin’s projection of an F♯<A<C arpeggiation (B♮➔’s fifth,
seventh, and ninth).4 Yet the pre-eminence of B♮➔ is confirmed in the
measures that follow, where a relative calm provides a venue for two
reminiscences of earlier passages: the cello’s C>B♮ echoes A♭>G from
measures 9 and 10, while the first violin’s D♯<F♯<A arpeggiation (measures
18 and 19) brings to mind B♭<D<F (measures 2 and 3) and B♮<D<F
(measures 10 and 11).5 The hierarchical relationship among chords in
what follows is susceptible to varying interpretations (as a comparison
with Mitchell’s analysis will reveal). Here I am guided by Beethoven’s
methodical deployment of his instrumental forces: a drop to two instru-
ments for the completion of the B tonicization, followed by an increase to
three instruments in conjunction with the emergence of C♯ in measure
22 and to four instruments in conjunction with the emergence of D♯/E♭
in measure 24. Consequently I interpret the E♮–G dyad at 211 as internal to
the B tonicization, rather than as the emergence of a successor: IV in
B Minor, not I in E Minor. With some filling-out of the texture, 8.2 conveys
how B Minor is tonicized between measures 12 and 22.
The sonority commonly known as the German augmented sixth may be

deployed in two highly contrasting ways. On the one hand, it may serve
as a potent herald of a chord rooted a fifth lower (most commonly, as
II targeting V). On the other hand, it may serve as a “common-tone”
embellishing chord (as in G-B-D-E♯ to F♯-B-D-F♯). Because a triad may
be embellished in the familiar 64 53 manner, it is possible to juxtapose two
chords interpretable in either (or concurrently both) of these ways. In
my view, that is what Beethoven accomplishes in measures 11 and 12.
Playing that two-chord succession in isolation (acknowledging that the
pitch spelled as F behaves as E♯), there would be no way to tell which
of these deployments is intended. Are two fifth-related roots – C♯
(which generates E♯[F]-G-B♮-D) and F♯, the latter chord undergoing 64
embellishment – juxtaposed? Or is one root (B) prolonged via embel-
lishment? Though Mitchell does not discuss this succession in harmonic
terms (nor would he sanction such a reading),6 I suspect that his ears
were sensitive to how this passage relates to augmented-sixth resolu-
tions that incorporate an embellishing 64 , resulting in his reading of
measure 12 as VI in B♭ Major (with root G♭ [F♯]), acknowledging that
third B♭ [A♯] and fifth D♭ [C♯] are delayed until measure 13 (by which
point further chordal evolution has occurred).7
I propose instead that Beethoven’s deployment of starkly contrasting
dynamic levels within measures 12 through 16 (juxtaposing pianissimo or
piano against forte) guides the ear in correlating the inverted B minor chord
of measure 12 and the inverted, surging B major chords of measures 14 and
16, culminating in the belated arrival of root B at the bottom of the texture
during measure 18. Mitchell’s reading requires two forte pitches within
measure 13 to fulfill essential duties pertaining to the preceding pianissimo
chord. In contrast, slurs in 8.2 suggest that A♯ instead serves as a lower
neighbor to root B (displaced by C following the neighbor to help induce a
B➔ surge) and that C♯ instead serves as a lower neighbor to third D (which
shifts to D♯ following the neighbor, also to propel the B➔ surge).8
Another two-chord succession that one could not decisively interpret
in isolation occurs in measure 20 and the first half of measure 21.
Perhaps it represents V➔ to I in E Minor. Or perhaps it represents I➔
to IV in B Minor. (Or it might represent something else entirely.)
Because I interpret measure 12 as an inverted tonic chord in B Minor,
and because what follows in 212 and 221 makes perfect sense in B
Minor (as V♯ to I), I endorse the latter reading. The account of a B
www.ebook3000.com
Minor tonicization in 8.2 displays no unresolved issues, and it conforms

well to conventional harmonic practice: a long-extended initial tonic
surges en route to IV, which leads through the major dominant back to
the minor tonic. In this reading the second violin’s pianissimo B at the
end of measure 20 represents far more than its meek sound would
indicate: it is the culmination of a nine-measure prolongation, just
before the B➔ surge yields to IV, as such a surge is intended to do.
Mitchell elects the other interpretation for those two chords men-
tioned above: V➔ I in E Minor.9 Here I offer a compromise: just as there
are some celebrated drawings that may be viewed in two contrasting
ways (for example, what may appear to be an ornate vase could instead
be interpreted as two profiles facing one another), the relationship
between B and E might remain unresolved at least through measure
28. As will be explained in the next section, I hear a motion to F at that
point, whereas Mitchell continues on a parallel track a perfect fourth
higher, thus attaining B♭, after which he continues one more step, to C
(which I instead interpret in relation to F). So, let us leave the matter in
this undecided state until we have carefully explored what happens next.
The whole-step ascent from B Minor to F Minor

(measures 22 through 28)
The prominent presentation of B Minor within a movement in B♭ Major is

disconcerting, in keeping with the topic of melancholy. Because common
tone D (the Kopfton) is shared by the two keys, B♮-D-F♯ does not have the
same sort of impact as would the “Neapolitan” lowered supertonic (a major
triad rooted on B♮’s enharmonic equivalent, C♭). Instead an ascending
linear trajectory, which leads ultimately to the dominant, is tentatively
initiated through the juxtaposition of B♭ and B♮. As often happens during
such initiatives, the interior chords (each here tonicized) en route to the
dominant do not conform to B♭ Major’s diatonic pitch collection. Tonal
coherence is entrusted precariously to the endpoint chords: only Roman
numerals I and V are displayed in the harmonic analysis of this region in
8.3.10 The analysis displays a row of Arabic numerals between those points.
What does this signify?
In a major key the seven half steps that separate the tonic and dominant
roots most often are segmented as 5+2 (resulting in I IV V) or as 2+5
Example 8.3 Analysis of String Quartet in B♭ Major (op. 18, no. 6), La Malinconia, mm. 1–44.
www.ebook3000.com
(resulting in I II V). (I will propose below that the latter of these, deployed
in an especially creative way, plays a major role in shaping the trajectory
that leads to La Malinconia’s background dominant later in the move-
ment.) After ascending from B♭ to B♮, six half steps remain – a situation
that offers compositional possibilities not available in the context of those
more traditional trajectories. The number six possesses properties not
shared by the number five: in particular, it is a composite – not a prime –
number, and so a division into 3+3 or 2+2+2 becomes viable.11 Because D
is a common tone shared by the B♭-D-F and B♮-D-F♯ triads, it is reasonable
that Beethoven did not spell the latter as C♭-Eº-G♭. Yet ascending three
major seconds from B♮ does not yield dominant root F, but instead its
enharmonic equivalent, E♯: B♮<C♯<D♯<E♯. Incongruities of chordal
spelling are common when a modulo 12 trajectory (here a segment of the
equal subdivision of the octave into six whole steps) is being pursued using
music notation with a built-in modulo 7 bias (that is, with seven note
names for the twelve pitch classes within an octave, matched in analytical
practice by seven Roman numerals). In 8.3 the chords between I and V are
labeled using modulo 12 Arabic numerals (0 through 11, with C = 0) below
the staff, thereby circumventing the enharmonic seam that would result
from displaying the letter names used in Beethoven’s score (B♭<B♮<C♯<D♯|
E♭<F), which designate each whole step as a major second. (The shift from
D♯ to E♭ occurs in measure 24. The score’s Fx, instead of F♯, above D♯ will
be explained below.) After the initial +1 rise (which coordinates with a
shift from major to minor chordal quality), three consecutive +2 ascents
lead to the dominant root, whose chord must simply shift in reverse – from
minor to major quality (which here coincides with the addition of minor
seventh E♭) – to suitably fulfill the role of B♭ Major’s dominant (as shown in
8.3). The tonic and dominant chords serve as anchors within B♭ Major,
while the internal chords transpire during a temporary shift into modulo
12 tonal space.
Each internal chord within this trajectory is tonicized. Recall how in
our discussion of 8.2 it was emphasized that B Minor was being projected
as a tonicized key during measures 12 through 22 despite the fact that
some of the B chords (during the tonic’s surge state, targeting IV) are
constructed using chromatic D♯. For good reason Beethoven did not
present such an extended tonicization for each of the chords that follow
B (= 11). Instead these latter tonicizations are truncated: as 8.4 shows, each
tonicizing progression begins with the local tonic’s surging state, thereby
eliding the initial diatonic chord. In all cases – C♯-E-G♯ at 241, E♭-G♭-B♭ at
261, and F-A♭-C at 281 – the tonicization concludes with a chord of minor
mm. 20–28.
quality. (That is, each progression proceeds as I➔ IV V♯ I, in which both

the subdominant and the concluding tonic are of minor quality, as was the
case earlier in the B Minor tonicization.)
The principal issue facing anyone who performs, listens to, or analyzes
this passage concerns hierarchical interrelationships. At 202 through 221
and in the (approximate) transposed replicates that occur during the
succeeding measures, one hears a juxtaposition of two fifth-relationships,
each with a chord of major quality (and in the initial B♮ also a minor
seventh) proceeding to a chord of minor quality:
B♮ e F♯ b♮
On their own, the four chords do not decisively project a single candi-
date as the local tonic: either E Minor or B Minor reasonably could be
chosen. Only when the idea is repeated successively in different loca-
tions within tonal space does the unifying force of the pitch identity
between the first and fourth roots become pronounced, in my view to
the extent that it shapes each four-chord progression decisively into
I➔ IV V♯ I
Beethoven’s careful development of the initial surge out of a B minor

chord (discussed above) helps explain the elision of the minor tonic at
the onset of the replicates.12
The brackets within 8.4 coincide with this four-chord progression,
presented successively in four different locations within tonal space
(modulo 12: 11 1 3 5). The brackets in Mitchell’s ex. 5a likewise bind
www.ebook3000.com
four chords, in each case beginning with the second of my four chords.13
My two principal arguments against that segmentation are as follows:
(1) Beethoven’s deployment of the instruments aligns with my
segmentation (as is annotated in 8.4); and
(2) What Mitchell conveys in his example via the abbreviation “etc.”
corresponds to only three additional chords (since what follows at 282
clearly departs from the precedents), thereby placing the sixteen chords
in question into the curious segmentation of 1+4+4+4+3 (compared
with my 4+4+4+4).14
The internal tonic restoration and the ascent to the mediant

(measures 28 through 34)
One full and three truncated traversals of the progression displayed in 8.2
transpire successively on modulo 12 positions 11, 1, 3, and 5 over the
course of measures 12 through 28. The goal chord 5 (now transferred back
into the modulo 7 context of B♭ Major as its dominant, F, as yet awaiting
the shift from minor to major quality) is immediately followed by a
sforzando C-E♮-G embellishing chord (at 282), thereby decisively bringing
the extended linear initiative to a close while concurrently adding emphasis
to the F chord, whose restoration in measures 29 and 30 not only incorpo-
rates B♭ Major’s leading tone A but also adds minor seventh E♭ and minor
ninth G♭. (Unsurprisingly, root F is suppressed upon the addition of ninth
G♭.) These chordal interactions are analyzed in 8.5, where the shift from E♮
to E♭ within the C chord is interpreted as an anticipation of the restored
F chord’s minor seventh: that is, instead of E♮ resolving to F followed by a
mm. 28–30.
descending whole step to E♭ (corresponding to V8–7), not only does E♮

proceed directly to E♭ (thereby eliding the F), but that E♭ sounds prior to
the arrival of the chord within which it performs its principal role.
Though the analysis in 8.5 proposes (qualified by a question mark)
that the movement’s principal key of B♭ Major prevails during this
passage, the tonic restoration during measure 30 is presented as a
chord of minor quality (with third D♭ instead of D♮), perhaps to convey
melancholy. Certainly analysts might reasonably disagree regarding
how to interpret this event, arguing either that the F➔ chord projects
the expectation of a B♭-D♮-F tonic triad as resolution (a notion sup-
ported by the fact that the ultimate state of F’s embellishing chord early
in measure 29 is C-E♭-G-B♭, diatonic in B♭ Major), a resolution that
unexpectedly incorporates a chromatic modification; or, instead, that B♭
Minor’s diatonic dominant F-A♭-C surges (via raised third and added
seventh and ninth) in its attainment of diatonic tonic B♭-D♭-F. My
siding with the first view is based in part upon what follows this
passage: a sequential ascent up to B♭ Major’s mediant, D-F-A, in
measure 32. (In 8.3 this passage is analyzed as an ascending 5–6
sequence in which the 5-phase chords are presented in 63 position.)
The model we explored earlier, presented as 8.1a, shows diatonic
chords built on B♭ Major’s first, second, and third scale degrees, a
trajectory whose initial chords correspond to what transpires during
measures 1 through 11. In the progression’s full and succinct traversal
over the course of measures 30 through 32, the initial tonic is modified
to make the sequence unwavering – obstinate as opposed to diatonic –
on each step: each 5-phase chord is of minor quality, successive
5-phase chords are separated by a whole step, and each 6-phase chord
surges. For reasons that will be explored below, it is important for the
mediant to be a major third above the tonic (B♭ Major’s D, not B♭
Minor’s D♭).
Because I interpret the E minor chord at 211 as functioning within a B

Minor (= modulo 12: 11) tonicization, I do not concur with its structu-
rally deep placement in Mitchell’s exx. 5d–f, 6a–c and 8c–d. And
because I interpret the F minor chord at 281, at the other end of the
passage presented in my 8.4, as a middleground dominant, I do not
concur with its subordination to the C chords that precede and follow it,
as is displayed in Mitchell’s ex. 5d. In the broad perspective of 8.3 and
more locally in 8.5 I propose that this F chord should be understood
www.ebook3000.com
as the internal dominant within a tonic–dominant–tonic progression

spanning measures 1 through 30. Consequently my analysis suggests
that Beethoven is pursuing a more traditional course – one whose
internal workings betray the influence of conventional harmonic
thinking – than is proposed in Mitchell’s analysis.
Beethoven emphasizes the return of the B♭ tonic at 301 by means of its
forte dynamic and the three flamboyant notes of figuration in each
instrument. This treatment is replicated for the C and D chords in the
next two measures, thus to my ears projecting the sense of an ascending
major third (corresponding to three slurs in my 8.3: B♭<D in the first
violin, D♭<F in the cello, and F<A straddling the second violin and
viola).15 As the further discussion in the next section will propose, the
mediant arrival at 321 is extended through 341 using the very same local
progression that was repeatedly called into service during the toniciza-
tions of measures 20 through 28. Mitchell’s ex. 6c displays neither a
tonic restoration nor a tonic-to-mediant ascent. Whereas I rely upon the
foundational model of 8.1a (which resembles progressions found in
treatises of Beethoven’s era) to help me come to terms with the internal
hierarchical distinctions within this passage – even though the 5-phase
chords are presented in 63 unfurlings in Beethoven’s score – Mitchell
conveys no differentiation among the chords: his is a one-dimensional
stream of seven ascending 63 chords (indicated by the annotation
“6–6–6– etc.”) that in his graph both begins before the tonic’s restora-
tion and proceeds beyond its mediant’s arrival.16
The attainment of D Minor’s V and its transformation

into B♭ Major’s V (measures 34–38)
Though using the term mediant for the chord built on scale degree 3
acknowledges its position midway between the tonic and the dominant,
in practice the mediant triad often is closely allied with the initial tonic
triad, with which it shares two pitch classes. (This mediant usage was our
focus in chapter 5, above.) The unfolding symbol connecting tonic root B♭
and mediant D in 8.3 visually reinforces that bond, while the symbols to
the right of Roman numeral I in the first row of harmonic analysis convey
that the mediant triad is built from the tonic’s third (with B♭ Major’s
diatonic D♮ restored), fifth, and seventh. In this context it would be
appropriate to refer to the mediant as the tonic’s upper-third chord. It is

here tonicized by means of the very progression that transpired during
each position along the ascending path from 11 through 5 within the earlier
modulo 12 passage: both diatonic and surging tonic (I ➔) followed by IV,
V♯, and then diatonic I (from 321 through 341).
The next two chords (with roots E and A) play a significant role within
the movement’s broad structure, though likely their importance will be
understood only in retrospect. Especially because of the way Beethoven
ascended in whole steps during measures 12 through 28, the completion of
D Minor: I ➔ IV V♯ I
followed immediately by an E major and an A minor chord likely will

trigger the analytical hypothesis that
E Minor: I➔ IV V♯ I
is being traversed. (Note the parallel with the earlier passage: whereas both
diatonic and surging tonic chords sound at the onset of the B Minor
tonicization, in the succeeding local tonicizations the diatonic state is
suppressed, with the tonic’s surge transpiring from the onset.) Alas, what
ensues after the chord that might be regarded as E Minor’s IV at 351 bears
no relationship to what this hypothesis proposes. The four chords of
measures 35 through 37 instead convey a motion from an A minor chord
through both ♭II and a surging II➔ in tonicized A Minor to E♮-A-C, which
in this context initially should seem to represent a 64 embellishment of A
Minor’s V♯. Taking into account the imminent abandonment of the A
Minor tonicization, in 8.3 the E♮-A-C chord is accepted (in a deviation
from conventional harmonic syntax) as a restoration of the A-C-E♮ chord
from measure 35. An F7 chord emerges on its heels. Via a rarely traveled
route, B♭ Major’s dominant seventh has arrived! In 8.3, a beam connects
open-notehead bass B♭ in measure 1 and open-notehead bass F in measure
38, supporting a structural ^3–^2 descent in the melody.
A double application of upper-third chords helps explain how
Beethoven here attains the dominant. Whereas II➔ often comes between
the tonic and the dominant, in this case the connection between I and V
transpires within an alternative tonal plane a major third higher: the tonic’s
diatonic and the dominant’s chromatically altered (with E♮ in place of E♭)
upper-third chords serve as surrogates for the principal chords, with a D
E♮➔ A progression transpiring where B♭ C➔ F usually would.17 The
juxtaposition of that goal A chord and F7 from measures 35–37 to measure
38 completes the initiative that commenced with the upper-third shift of
www.ebook3000.com
measures 30 through 32. In 8.3 an A>F unfolding symbol in the bass and
symbols to the right of Roman numeral V (in a reciprocal relationship with
the B♭<D connection of measures 30 through 34) convey the transfer from
the upper-third chord to the full-fledged dominant.18
Whereas I interpret the G chord of 331 in the same way that I treat the
corresponding chords at 211, 231, 251, and 271 – that is, as internal to a
local tonicization – Mitchell likewise is consistent in his interpretation
of each passage (though in disagreement with me), consequently
interpreting the G chord of 331 as a significant structural goal, dis-
played in his ex. 6 as the endpoint of an initiative that extends from
measure 21. Our interpretations begin to converge in measure 35,
where what I regard as the dominant’s upper-third chord is labeled
as VII♭7 in Mitchell’s ex. 8 (and as VII without further annotation in
his ex. 7).19 For me the juxtaposition of A-C-E♮ and F-A-C-E♭ in
measures 35 through 38 is a magical moment during which B♭
Major’s dominant seventh chord not only offers its radiant beauty
prior to further intensification in the measures ahead (with the addi-
tion of minor ninth G♭), but also reciprocates through its arrival via
downward-third motion (A to F) the B♭-to-D upward third of mea-
sures 30 through 34. (In 8.3 unfolding symbols in the bass highlight
these two thirds.) Mitchell does not acknowledge the root function of
this F. Instead, he binds the bass A of 351 to that of measure 42: A-C-E♮
to A-C-E♭-G♭.
The prolongation of the goal V (measures 38–44)
With dominant root F’s arrival in measure 38, La Malinconia’s essential

tonal trajectory has concluded: a tonic resolution will occur only at the
outset of the Allegretto quasi Allegro, to which La Malinconia serves as an
introduction. Measures 38 through 44 deploy two separate initiatives that
enrich the listener’s experience of this dominant. The first transpires
during measures 38 through 42. As has occurred at several earlier locations,
an ascending arpeggiation of dominant pitches transpires in the first violin
line, reaching minor ninth G♭ in measure 42. Against that upward motion,
intervals of the F chord are filled in (for the most part chromatically):
F<F♯<G<G♯[A♭]<A in the cello, and A>G>G♭ spread among the

instruments.
The second dominant-prolonging initiative is subtly realized. Some
readers certainly might contest the interpretation proposed here (as
would Mitchell were he still alive). Foundationally any dominant may be
prolonged via a voice-leading initiative represented in figured bass as
8–––7–––6––––5
3–––––––4––––3
I contend that a modified rendition of this pattern transpires during

measures 38 through 44. Note that the seventh (E♭) is present from the
onset, that E♭’s dissonant impact is intensified by minor ninth G♭ in
measure 42, that the 64 chord is presented in its 53 unfurling in measure
43, and that minor-hued D♭ substitutes for D♮. This minor quality harks
back to the B♭ minor chord of measure 30. Whereas in that instance B♭
Major soon is reinstated (through its D♮-F-A upper-third chord), at the
movement’s end the minor quality seems to overtake major (keeping in
mind that the minor mode’s dominant often incorporates the leading tone,
here A♮). That transformation coordinates with the local assertion of the
unfurled 64 chord as a tonic: B♭ Minor’s I II7 V♮ is embedded within the
prolongation of B♭ Major’s V. (See the juxtaposition of two rows of Roman
numerals in 8.3. Compare with 13.4, mm. 45–47.) Especially because of
the sudden drop to piano in conjunction with an unexpectedly compact
voicing, the B♭ minor chord at 431 has an extraordinary sonic impact. La
Malinconia’s broad trajectory from major tonic to major dominant, linked
by the deployment of II➔ in B♭ Major’s upper-third tonal plane, is reiter-
ated in a parallel-minor context in the final measures: from a minor tonic
via the minor mode’s half-diminished II7 to the leading-tone enhanced
dominant.
Comparing Mitchell’s ex. 8d and my 8.3, two contrasting perspectives

regarding the final measures emerge: whereas he connects the B♭ tonic
chords of measures 1 and 43, I connect the F dominant chords of
measures 38 and 44. The concluding dominant is for him a local
appendage to a long-prolonged tonic (with bass F not even warranting
a stem in his exx. 8b–c), whereas for me it is a reiteration of one my La
Malinconia graph’s two open-notehead chords.
Though practitioners of analysis might be frustrated when confront-
ing such irreconcilable outcomes, it is my conviction that readers will
www.ebook3000.com
learn a great deal about individual works and about the analytical
process by comparing multiple readings and exploring how their own
perspectives are affected by contrasting interpretations. In music as
challenging and subtle as this, no one reading will ever be universally
accepted. At most, readers may grant a qualified endorsement to some
notions, keeping open the possibility that their views may change over
time or that another interpretation may emerge, superseding all the
alternatives currently under consideration.
9 Piano Sonata in D Minor (op. 31, no. 2,
“Tempest”), movement 1
in response to William E. Caplin
One of the most interesting developments in the field of tonal analysis

(especially that pertaining to the Classical period) over the past few decades
has been the dynamic exploration of form, undertaken principally along two
tracks – one led by William E. Caplin, the other by James Hepokoski and
Warren Darcy.1 Both Caplin and Hepokoski were participants in a unique
and exemplary undertaking by the Peeters publishing house in Belgium,
consisting first of a volume of eleven scholarly essays, Beethoven’s Tempest
Sonata: Perspectives of Analysis and Performance, and followed shortly there-
after by a more pedagogically oriented text, Beethoven’s Tempest Sonata (First
Movement): Five Annotated Analyses for Performers and Scholars, both edited
by Pieter Bergé.2 Among the authors involved in this project (as well as several
other recent commentators who will be referenced below via the endnotes), by
far the most attentive to harmonic concerns is Caplin, and thus his contribu-
tions to the Peeters Tempest project (“Beethoven’s Tempest Exposition: A
Springboard for Form-Functional Considerations” on pages 87–125 of the
2009 volume and “Beethoven’s Tempest Sonata (First Movement): Form-
Functional Analysis” on pages III/1–44 of the 2012 volume) will be explored
in detail in this chapter. (The dates of these works are used below in referring
to Caplin’s two distinct publications.) Though L. Poundie Burstein served as
the resident Schenkerian for the Peeters Tempest project, his contributions do
not offer a full-fledged Schenkerian reading of the sonata’s first movement.3
Thus I trust there remains room in the analytical literature for what I offer
below. Because the Peeters authors were asked to discuss the relationship
between analysis and performance, I have incorporated comments along
those lines as well, generated while I was preparing to perform the Tempest
on fortepiano as I was completing this book.
The exposition’s primary-theme zone (P, measures

1 through 21)
The establishment of the movement’s D Minor key over the course of

120 measures 1 through 21 depends, as do many other exposition P regions by
www.ebook3000.com
Piano Sonata in D Minor (op. 31, no. 2, “Tempest”) 121
Beethoven, on an unremarkable foundational structure. The bass projects

an arpeggiation from tonic root D (measures 3 and 4) to A (measures 13
through 20) and back to D (measure 21). The corresponding pitches in the
melody include F, which serves as Kopfton ^3 (measures 3 and 4), and D
(measure 21), with a connective E emerging an octave higher during
measure 11 though quickly displaced by its neighbor, F, which one should
imagine resolving back to E (in the lower register) during the second half of
measure 20. Soprano and bass beams in 9.1 bind and highlight these crucial
structural pitches.
At the outset Beethoven establishes an elaborate ritual for presenting the
opening tonic. Six distinct stages of activity are discernible:
(1) a slow ascending arpeggiation of tonic D’s C♯-E-A embellishing chord

(which during the exposition repeat potently asserts a dominant func-
tion, as will be explained below), spanning nearly three octaves;
(2) an invigoration of that embellishing chord through added dissonance
(G against bass C♯) in conjunction with a launching of the Allegro
tempo;
(3) a downbeat arrival of the D Minor tonic, supporting Kopfton F;
(4) the expansion of that tonic via a DF DF voice exchange;
(5) a repeat of the preceding three stages;
(6) the pursuit of a harmonic trajectory to the dominant, involving a surge
to IV, the expansion of IV via a voice exchange, the supersurge of IV’s
6-phase chord (G-B♭-E represented by E-rooted G♯-B♭-D-(F)), and
finally the arrival of the major dominant, which in this context should
be understood as back-relating.4
As the momentum builds, Beethoven gradually truncates the ensuing

chordal presentations: only stages 1 through 3 are deployed in introducing
F-A-C (with a G♯ lower neighbor inserted in the melody in place of a
descending third from A), and only stages 2 and 3 are deployed in intro-
ducing G-B♭-D.5 The dominant arrival (A-C♯-E) is distinctive in several
ways. Instead of embellishing chord G♯-B♮-D-E at stage 2, the more potent
variant G♯-B♮-D-(F) is employed. This chord emerges at the end of a build-
up lasting several measures, including at first (during 102) an E♭ that might
lead some listeners to suppose that Beethoven is guiding the sequence
along a chromatic path: E♭➔A♭, to be followed by E➔A. (To fully under-
stand what is at stake when E♭ sounds, pianists should, as an experiment,
replace Beethoven’s D at the end of measure 10 with D♭ and improvise an
alternative trajectory to the dominant.) Ultimately that E♭ serves instead as
a chromatic passing note connecting diatonic D and E. In addition, the
dominant’s third and fifth are displaced for over six measures by a caden-
tial 64 , the range is expanded, and the dominant’s seventh, G, is incorpo-
rated before the resolution to tonic D in measure 21. Beethoven’s sforzando
emphases on embellishing B♭ during the prolongation of the cadential 64
should encourage performers to also emphasize the B♭ neighbor (the high
point of a chromatic ascending line) during measure 20, so that listeners
comprehend the motivic relationship. (Beethoven emphasizes B♭ again
beginning in measure 55.)
The structure outlined in 9.1 is sequential (an interpretation borne out
by Beethoven’s chromatic expansion of the sequential principle during the
recapitulation’s P, with a 5-phase chord on F♯ in measure 161). In this case
Beethoven has omitted the problematic second scale degree entirely.
Because diatonic E-G-B♭ is of diminished quality, its deployment as the
goal of the sequence’s preceding surging 6-phase chord would warrant
either the raising of its fifth, as displayed within parentheses in 9.1, or the
lowering of its root, as would be the case if instead D-F-A♭-B♭ to E♭-G-B♭
had been placed within the example’s parentheses. The omission of this
segment of the sequence both guards against the tedium that otherwise
might ensue in pursuing that trajectory and reserves the second scale
degree for a more important role during TR (where B➔ E transpires during
measures 38 through 41). As reconstituted in 9.1, the full sequential
trajectory encompasses the ascending fifth from tonic root D to dominant
root A, proceeding as an alternation of 5- and 6-phase chords, with each
www.ebook3000.com
6-phase chord surging to target the upcoming 5-phase chord. Following

the bass’s lead, the soprano likewise traverses a fifth, from A (the endpoint
of the initial tonic presentation) up to E, which ultimately will serve as the
dominant’s fifth. (Note the E-to-E slur in measures 11 through 20 of 9.1.)
Whereas for most cycles in the sequential ascent a descending third occurs
in the soprano register and a held pitch occurs in the tenor register (as in
A>G>F against A during measures 1 through 3), that protocol is reversed
in the approach to the sequence’s terminal dominant, where an E>D>C♯
third transpires in the tenor register against a held E higher in the texture.
(That E is embellished by neighbor F and is transferred an octave lower to
an imagined E during measure 20.6)
The intriguing chord of measure 11 (G-B♭-C♯-E) is one we have encoun-
tered before – in 1.7, measure 6. Corresponding to the interpretation
offered for that context, here also G-B♭-E should be understood as the
onset of the G minor chord’s diatonic 6 phase (excluding C♯ from con-
sideration as a functional pitch: it instead serves as a lower neighbor to the
chord’s fifth, D, which is restored in the next measure), with the evolution
to an E➔ surge heightened through the substitution of F for E during
measure 12.
I agree wholeheartedly with Caplin’s stand against interpreting mea-

sures 1 through 21 as an introduction, though my reasoning has
more to do with tonal structure and less with thematic character
than his. Tonic root D and Kopfton F emerge during measure 3,
targeted by the preceding GC ♯ diminished fifth. Though ultimately it
appears to me that the arpeggiation during measures 1 and 2 belongs
with the emerging tonic, a formal boundary is discernible during
measure 2, caused not only by the shift of tempo following a fermata
but also – and especially – by hearing the passage a second time
(following the first ending in measures 89a through 92a), in which
context the A major chord should be understood as the final phase
of a dominant prolongation that began in measure 55. (That is, at a
deep level measures 55 through 2 project
D Minor: V♮–––––––––––––––––♯
with the C♯<E third that is unfolded in three octaves during measure 1
complementing the local G>E and F>D thirds of measures 91a–92a.)
The fact that Beethoven incorporates this material within P by deploy-
ing it again before the F major chord of measure 9 signals that measures
1 and 2 possess a dual formal role: from one perspective preceding P –

thus serving as what Caplin calls a “thematic introduction” (2012, p. III/
3) – while also, retrospectively by association with what happens
through measure 9, integrated within P. The quirkiness of this ascend-
ing arpeggiation as the movement’s initial event is offset in part by the
fact that it concludes an extended dominant prolongation, realized only
by actually experiencing such a prolongation in the latter half of the
exposition prior to encountering this material again during the exposi-
tion repeat.
The manner in which Caplin deploys Roman numerals for harmonic
analysis offers many contrasts to the procedures that I espouse. Though
I reconstitute (using parentheses) a somewhat more developed sequence
than he proposes in his annotation above measures 8|9 and 10 (2012, p.
III/4), to me the application of numerals
I (II) III IV V♯
in my 9.1 would impute harmonic assertions where I do not hear them.

For example, I suggest that the E-G-B♮ chord in my model has no
impetus to proceed to V♯ (as a harmonically asserted II would) because
in its context it is an internal component of a mechanism that simply
chugs upwards until a cessation of the momentum is encountered in
conjunction with the dominant’s arrival.
What I refer to above as stages 2 and 3 serve as the essence of each
sequential cycle. I am concerned that an internal cycle (over the bar line
between measures 8 and 9) is designated as the sequential “model” in
Caplin’s analysis. Yet even someone more positively disposed towards
Caplin’s perspective than I am likely would find a few details of his
analysis curious. For example, why are the surges that precede roots D,
F, and A given a harmonic label but that preceding G (at the end of
measure 9) not? And what are we to make of the symbol °7 placed within
parentheses at 111? In my view this chord results from a slowing down
of the forward momentum: whereas in measure 9 the F-A-C chord’s 6-
phase D emerges concurrently with the surging chromatic bass F♯, in the
next sequential cycle, which proceeds from G-B♭-D to A-C♯-E, the 6-
phase pitch E is attained (by means of chromatic D<E♭<E) before the
surging bass G♯ emerges, while the sonority is further enhanced by the
deployment of D’s lower neighbor, C♯. Consequently the diminished
seventh chord at that point is incidental, not structural: it should be
www.ebook3000.com
understood as G-B♭-D-E (G’s 6-phase chord, with retained fifth) in

which chromatic neighbor C♯ temporarily displaces D. The surge is
induced by asserting E as a root (related by fifth to dominant A),
triggering the raising of two diatonic pitches by a half step (G to G♯
and B♭ to B♮). This surge is intensified through the sounding of ninth F
(and the omission of root E) during measure 12.
Finally, I am concerned about the presentation of the harmonic
analysis as a one-dimensional row of numerals. Caplin’s reading con-
veys no distinction between the V of measure 6 and the V of measure
20. In contrast, 9.1 presents the former as part of a foreground
progression that serves to reinforce the initial tonic before the theme’s
principal tonal trajectory to a structurally deep dominant commences.
The latter only is acknowledged in the principal row of analysis below
my graph.
The exposition’s transition (TR, measures 21 through 41)
Only through a careful consideration of chordal hierarchies does the

essence of the exposition’s transition shine through. A progression of
nine distinct chords transpires during measures 21 through 41. Of
these, the second (in measures 25 through 28) serves as a local passing
chord connecting two D minor chords, and the fifth (in measures 33
and 34) likewise connects two surging E chords (the latter with
omitted root). Consequently I regard TR as shaped by the five foun-
dational chords displayed in 9.2a. Yet even here (as is suggested by
the slurs and the contrasting noteheads deployed in creating that
example) further hierarchical associations are at play. The founda-
tional initiative, frequently encountered in transitions by Beethoven
and others, is the supplanting of a stable tonic by a major supertonic,
whose arrival at 411 serves as the MC, dividing the exposition into two
parts.7 Because the movement is in a minor key, the principal con-
nector between I and II5♯♮ is here a chromatically altered chord: whereas
diatonic I6 (D-F-B♭) does not target root E, its chromatic variant D♯-F♯-B♮
does. That chord’s further enhancement through the incorporation of
minor seventh A is displayed in 9.2a, while Beethoven goes one step
further in his score, with ninth C displacing root B. Finally, the melody’s
F>D♯ third is filled in by E, made locally consonant through the support of
an A-C-E passing chord that is itself ushered in by an E➔ embellishing
Example 9.2 Analysis of Piano Sonata in D Minor (op. 31, no. 2), mvmt. 1, mm. 3–42
(a) The foundational chordal progression; (b) Middleground and foreground graphs.
(a) (b)
chord. (While D♯ sounds, the initial F wobbles to F♯ in the chordal interior,

prior to the descent to E.)
Beethoven’s projection of this conception within his score is explored in
9.2b. The persistent upward yearning leads ultimately to the positioning of
^
2 a tenth above Middle C (a register attained once before, in measure 11,
but later rescinded), thereby making registral fluctuation a persistent
feature of the exposition. Note especially that the A minor chord of
measure 37 is subsumed within the voice leading connecting the tonic’s
5- and evolved 6-phase chords. It is in no way affiliated with the arrival of D
Minor’s A-C-E dominant during the S region that follows. The E➔ chord
of measure 41, which might be labeled aptly as II➔, serves as the principal
connector between D Minor’s I and V.
www.ebook3000.com
A performer might shape the content in a way that emphasizes

Beethoven’s extraordinary presentation of ideas in groups of three during
the exposition. The B♭>A at the end of measure 16 is repeated in the two
succeeding measures; arpeggiations starting in measures 21, 25, and 29 work
together to project the D Minor tonic; arpeggiations starting in measures 31,
33, and 35 work together to project E➔; the content of measure 38 is
repeated in the two succeeding measures; the descending arpeggiation
beginning with B♮>G♯ at the end of measure 41 is repeated in the next two
measures; and so on through the remainder of the exposition (and beyond).
In sonata expositions by Beethoven, P and S generally juxtapose not

only contrasting thematic content but also contrasting local keys.
Though mediant F Major would be a likely choice for the key of the
exposition’s S in a movement in D Minor, dominant A Minor, which
Beethoven deploys here, is an equally viable alternative. It is essential to
understand that TR serves as a tonal bridge between those keys.
Countering the zeal to tonicize displayed by many analysts, I propose
that the progression from D through E➔ to A should be interpreted as
D Minor: I II♯ V rather than as
D Minor I
A Minor: V♯ I
The arrival of D Minor’s dominant, which in fact typically will be

tonicized once S gets underway, is one of the exposition’s defining
tonal events. Consequently Caplin’s initiation of such a dominant
tonicization during the middle of TR (with the arrival of A as tonic
posited as occurring in measure 37) seems to me misguided. My analysis
suggests instead that a hierarchical relationship among chords projects a
very common harmonic approach to the dominant within TR: I5–6♮ II♯,
to be followed by V during S.8
Caplin seems reluctant to acknowledge that some chords perform a
connective role between two statements of a more foundational harmo-
nic entity. Whereas the deployment of a V numeral at measure 25
echoes a trend in conventional analytical practice (though not in
mine), I might have hoped that no VI numeral would appear at measure
33. Instead, the E➔ surge that commences in measure 31 is intensified
in measure 35 and resolves only in measure 37. Caplin’s juxtaposition of
V, VI, and VII numerals over the course of these measures again – as in I
III IV V during P – reveals fundamental differences between our
respective notions of harmony.
The exposition’s secondary-theme zone (S, measures

41 through 87)
When ^ 3 serves as a sonata movement’s Kopfton, two middleground

linear progressions often transpire during its exposition. We have seen
how an F>E>D third-progression is traversed during P, establishing the
movement’s D Minor tonic. Given that a shift from ^3 to ^2 transpires
during TR, which in this case targets V, we should expect that during S,
wherein dominant A Minor is tonicized, the fifth E>D>C>B♮>A will
guide the melodic activity. Though certainly it would be common for
an A minor chord to arrive at the onset of S, sometimes that chord is
postponed until this fifth-progression’s third pitch, C. Here the initiat-
87
ing E and D are supported by II ♯ — (extending the harmony of the MC),
as shown in 9.3. This option is not extraordinary. The E chord,
prolonged for fourteen measures (41 through 54), does eventually
resolve to A, introduced in first inversion at 551. (The GD♯ diminished
fifth of measure 49 inverts to a DG ♯ augmented fourth during measure
54, resulting in a CA resolution.9 The fifth-progression’s C is restored to
the upper register at 602.) As will be explained below, S continues even
after the attainment of a PAC at 631.
A closer look at 9.3 reveals that the linear descent from E to A over the
course of measures 41 through 63 incorporates two upper neighboring
notes: the initial E is displaced by ninth F, and the internal C ascends via
chromatic C♯ to incomplete neighbor D in conjunction with a surge from
I➔ to IV, which is prolonged by means of a voice exchange that transfers the
neighbor to the tenor register. Beethoven elects to complete the descent to A
from that point, leading to a PAC at 631. The shift in Beethoven’s notation
from treble to bass clef during measure 62 should not impede one’s hearing a
stepwise descent from the downbeat D (a second above Middle C) to the
succeeding downbeat A, all conforming to the register initially established by
the presentation of Kopfton F a fourth above Middle C during measure 3. Yet
given the prominence of the E (= ^2) a tenth above Middle C starting in
measure 42, this cadence certainly may be regarded as unsatisfying.
Such inadequacy at the cadence is exactly what Beethoven may have
wanted listeners to sense, since he persists with S material that eventually
leads to a far grander cadence at measure 87. (Because what transpires after
631 continues the initiative already in progress and uses some of the same
chords – such as the distinctive D-F-B♭ from measure 55 as B♭-D-F in
measure 64 – the material through measure 87 should be regarded as a
www.ebook3000.com
Example 9.3 Analysis of Piano Sonata in D Minor (op. 31, no. 2), mvmt. 1, mm. 41–87 (first ending) or 41–2 (second ending).
continuation of S rather than as C, a closing zone.) The fifth-progression’s

initial E is reinstated in the alto register during 632 but soon regains the
upper register (at 671), from which point a new descent commences, as
shown in 9.3. Observe how an even higher register is attained by measure
69 and persists through the cadence of measures 85 through 87. One
important point: the A a fifth below the E of 671 does not sound in the
vicinity of the cadence, but emerges only after the first ending’s prolonga-
tion of the A chord (as 8– 7– 6– 5
5––– 4– 3 ♯
), so that the A in that register is postponed
until measure 2. Reading measures 872 through 92a as a descent from ^5 to ^1
in D Minor would prematurely halt the dominant’s prolongation (includ-
ing the important shift of its third from C to C♯).10 The tonic restoration is
at measure 3, not measure 92a.
The harmonic support for this second fifth-progression diverges from
the earlier version in several ways. This time, the A chord is present already
at the outset (not surprising given its sounding at the cadence of 631) and is
in root position. The alteration of its third to C♯ is reminiscent of the surge
in measure 61, suggesting that IV will emerge again. However, III sounds
instead in measure 70, the result of the reinterpretation of G♯-(B♭/B♮?)-D-F
(an embellishing chord of I♯) as A♭-(B♮!)-D-F (an embellishing chord of
III) during measure 68. (Though Beethoven retains the G♯ spelling in the
bass, its descent to G♮ betrays the functional role of A♭.)
There is no rush to a cadence after the dominant arrival at 741. Three
four-measure segments (starting in measures 75, 79, and 83) each focus on
the dominant’s embellishing 64 chord (E-A-C, sometimes unfurled), incor-
porating filled-in voice exchanges between C and A followed by restora-
tions of the dominant 53 ♯ , with a reinstatement of B♮ (= A Minor’s ^2)
sometimes in the soprano and sometimes in the tenor register. (The right-
and left-hand structures trade every two measures in the first two cycles.)
Exactly where (or even whether, from Caplin’s perspective) a cadence
actually occurs is controversial. In my view most of the texture during
measures 85 and 86 repeats what was heard during measure 84, thereby
leading into the dominant’s fifth and raised third twice more, notably
avoiding any suggestion that the broad fifth-progression’s expected goal
pitch A has arrived. One wonders whether A Minor’s tonic root does in fact
emerge in the bass at 851 (as is suggested by Beethoven’s A-to-A slur below
the bass between 851 and 871). If so, a suspension situation prevails for two
measures, with the upper- and inner-voice prolongation of G♯ and B♮
bowing to the bass’s forthright presentation of root A only at 871.11 Yet
given the strength of the four-measure units leading into this passage, I
instead regard the A-C-E chords on the downbeat of measures 85 and 86 as
www.ebook3000.com
5
3
unfurlings of the by now much repeated (and thus in need of variant) 64
chord, with bass A at most serving as an anticipation of the tonic that
arrives (supporting the melodic goal pitch A) at 871. A performer might
convey this well by emphasizing the four-measure groupings. In my score,
I have written in the number 1 at measure 75, the number 2 at measure 79,
and the number 3 at measure 83 as an encouragement to project each
starting point distinctly. Given the potency of that triple thrust, how could
any point other than measure 87 serve as resolution?
Though the only Roman numeral Caplin displays in the score during
measures 41 through 52 is V, his commentary (2012, pp. III/11–12)
twice proposes a tonic function (in A Minor) for measures 45 through
48. (A I numeral in fact occurs there in 2009, p. 101, ex. 4.5.) My
interpretation of these measures in 9.3 not only eschews a tonic reading
of those pitches but also offers a significantly different overall assess-
ment of the voice leading prior to the arrival of the C-E-A tonic in
measure 55. I propose that the E chord’s seventh, D, plays a crucial role
beginning in measure 49 and is treated to a dramatic multiple-octave
descending transfer prior to its resolution. (Caplin instead highlights the
pitch B♮ during this region.) I would advise pianists to circle the
descending cascade of D noteheads, noting that the final one (in mea-
sure 54) is emphasized through its arrival sooner than expected.
In the score, that tonic resolution proceeds from 63 position to 64
position (at 602), followed by a surge that targets IV. Caplin has placed
the second-inversion tonic and the arrival of IV within parentheses in
his analysis, without acknowledging the impact of C♯ during 611.
Caplin’s parentheses might be better deployed around ♭II6 in measures
55 and 57, since that chord performs an embellishing role. I might
suggest, though, that if a ♭II numeral is incorporated, it should be
followed by an acknowledgment of a dominant function for the D-F-
G♯ chord in the measure that follows: I ♭II V➔ I makes sense as a local
harmonic progression; I ♭II I does not. Because the chord of 592 lacks
even that local harmonic role, at that point the ♭II label seems to me
unviable. It is as if Caplin were again labeling adjacent points in a linear
trajectory, where here (using his style of notation) I6 ♭II6 ♮II6 proceeds
not to III6, as one might expect (and as occurs at that spot during the
recapitulation, measure 190), but instead to I64 . I would endeavor instead
to convey a connection between the C-E-A chord of measure 59 and the
E-A-C chord of measure 60: the tonic of 551 is first embellished and then
shifts to a different inversion; it then surges; and finally it yields to an

inverted IV, which likewise shifts to a different inversion (complement-
ing the shift within the tonic prolongation). That scenario is not dis-
cernible in Caplin’s presentation.
I at first assumed that Roman numeral I in measure 68 was a typo-
graphical error, since I was unable to find a rationale for it. Yet at the
same point Caplin proposes the conclusion of a tonic prolongation
extending from measure 63, so I suspect that he indeed intends for the
numeral to be there.12 I would propose instead that bass pitch A is a
passing note connecting the B♭ of B♭-D-F and the A♭ (spelled as G♯) of
A♭-(B♮)-D-F, followed by the lowering of A♭ to root G. Basically, a G➔
chord is preceded by a chromatic variant of its upper-third chord. (The
exact point at which B♭ shifts to B♮ is open to question, since the chord at
the end of measure 68 is incomplete. I imagine B♮ in conjunction with
bass A♭ [G♯].)
Finally, I call attention to the question mark that Caplin places after
Roman numeral I at 751. Just as I disagree with his interpretation of E-
A-C during measures 45 through 48 as a tonic, so also do I question the
deployment of that label for measures 75 through 86. To my ears, the
resolution to the tonic coincides with the completion of the broad fifth-
progression from E (with the arrival of soprano A) at 871. I counter his
“no cadence” annotation at measure 87 (2012: III/19) by proposing that
none of his seven Roman numeral I labels between measures 75 and 86
annotates an actual tonic harmony, a conviction that informs my 9.3.13
The development (measures 93–142)
Just as a structurally deep tonic harmony is reinstated soon after the onset
of the exposition’s repeat, so also the development commences with a tonic
restoration, in measures 93 and 94.14 This chord is distinguished from the
initial tonic in three ways: it is of major quality, the positioning of the root
and third is reversed (DF in measure 3, DF♯ in measures 93 and 94), and it is
presented in the context of a Largo arpeggiation (formerly applied instead
to the chord preceding the tonic). The next chord, in measures 95 and 96, is
susceptible to diverse interpretations. Perhaps the most likely reading, at
first, would be that it intensifies the tendency conveyed by the previous
raising of the tonic’s third to F♯: D-F♯-A evolves into surging F♯-A-C-E♭.
www.ebook3000.com
Or, it might instead function as an evolved state of the major tonic’s 6-

phase chord (D-F♯-B♮ surging as D♯-F♯-A-C). Yet by taking into account
the chord’s broader context a third explanation is compelling: that it serves
as a common-tone embellishment of an F♯ major chord (F♯-GÜ-B♯-D♯
resolving to F♯-A♯-C♯, as shown in 9.4). Given how F♯ chords are juxta-
posed in measures 97–98 and 99–100, that seems a more intuitive inter-
pretation than that II➔ in tonicized F♯ Major (B♯-D♯-F♯-A) is targeting V,
embellished by a 64 whose 53 successor is elided.15 A pianist might seek to
keep the sense of low bass pitch F♯ alive from measure 93 through measure
102 even if it sounds only twice during that expanse.
The fact that the D tonic in measure 93 possesses a major third is a
critical factor in the upward shift to an F♯ chord in measure 97 (rather than
to D Minor’s diatonic mediant, F major, as in measure 9). The A♯ that
initially serves as the F♯ chord’s third is a wobble, soon retracted. Here that
chord serves as an upper-third substitute for the tonic, an event that often
comes between the tonic’s 5- and 6-phase chords (navigated in this case via
an 8–7♯–6♮ motion, as displayed in 9.4).16 The thematic material that
begins on tonic D during the exposition’s TR (measure 21) commences
instead on this F♯ chord as the development Allegro gets under way (mea-
sure 99). It is instructive to compare 9.2 and 9.4, since both in the exposition
and in the development Beethoven proceeds from the tonic’s 5-phase chord
to a chromatic variant of its 6-phase chord en route to the supertonic.
Whereas during measures 3 through 38 the principal intermediary
between D and B♮ is A in measure 37 (fifth-related to the initial D), during

measures 93 through 109 F♯ (fifth-related to the succeeding B) performs
that role. Though initially it appears that this F♯ chord will surge to B (since
its third is introduced as A♯ in measure 97), soon that energy abates (with
the shift to A♮ in measure 99), exposing A♯ as a wobble from the diatonic
state (in the local context of D Major) rather than as an irrevocable surge-
inducing shift.
As one might expect, the F♯-A-C♯ chord (which extends from root
position to first inversion during measures 99 through 108) proceeds by
descending a fifth to the tonic’s 6-phase chord, B♮-D-F♯. Instead of
prolonging the latter chord in the manner of the exposition TR’s corre-
sponding E-chord prolongation beginning in measure 31 (up a third from
one inversion to another), Beethoven pursues a sequential ascent up a third
from B♮-D-F♯ to D-F♮-A (interpreted as an extension of the B chord in 9.4,
with a concurrent reinstatement of diatonic F♮). The surging supertonic
that follows in measure 119 is inverted, with B♮ serving as bass, an ideal
context for the further evolution into a supersurge featuring a GB ♭♯ augmen-
ted sixth in the next measure. The goal dominant, projecting one of the
movement’s background chords (with root A in the bass and ^2 in the
soprano), emerges over the next two measures and is then prolonged
through the end of the development. The pervasive melodic embellishment
of E (E<F>D<E) resembles the exposition’s A<B♭>G♯<A (first stated in
measures 55 through 57).
Caplin’s commentary in his 2009 essay pertains only to the exposition.

Fortunately his contribution to the 2012 volume assays the entire move-
ment. Though he does not present as many options for interpreting the
diminished seventh chord of measures 95 and 96 as I do, his analysis
proposes both that this chord might continue the push towards G
initiated in measure 93 and that it instead might lead to C♯. The
contrasts in our styles of notation and perspectives regarding which
pitch serves as the root of a diminished seventh chord do not prevent the
similarity of our conceptions from shining through. Nevertheless, I am
concerned that his reading does not propose a restoration of the tonic
function at measure 93, an essential component of my observation that
the development replicates the essential harmonic progression of the
exposition (I5–6♮ II➔ V♯). Nor does he explore the potential for the
diminished seventh chord to be interpreted as a common-tone embel-
lishment of the F♯ mediant.
www.ebook3000.com
I suggest that the correction of a typographical error is in order before

we proceed further. Caplin’s symbols below the system at measure 111
in his 2012 analysis include the indication of D Minor (via a small d
followed by a colon) beside a ♭II6 numeral. Beyond doubt the d and
colon should have been placed a bit lower on the page, beside the
applied dominant V6 label. (That would be consistent with how he
deploys such symbols throughout his Classical Form (1998).) The ♭II
numeral should be interpreted in F♯ Minor, in force since measure 95
and indicated at the left edge of the upper row of numerals on the page.
Now comparing his reading with mine, one notes a contrast in our
assessments of the hierarchy among chords: I regard the B♮ chord of
measure 109 as an internal arrival point (reinforced by the reiteration of
bass B♮ in measure 119) – a chromatic variant of the D Minor tonic’s 6-
phase chord – after the extended prolongation of the tonic’s F♯-A-C♯
upper-third chord; whereas Caplin regards the B♮ chord as residing
within a tonicization of F♯ Minor. My emphasis upon the B♮ chord
persists into the succeeding measures, where a sequential B♮5–6 C♮5 C♯6
D5 shapes what to me is an indivisible ascending third, with each 6-
phase chord surging to the succeeding 5-phase chord.17 Caplin proposes
a shift from an F♯ Minor tonal center to a D Minor tonal center
(assuming that our correction, above, restores his intentions) during
the interior of that initiative. Our disagreement regarding hierarchies
comes to a head at measure 117, where for Caplin the D-F-A chord is the
D Minor tonic (in its first sounding since measure 30) and for me it is
the last gasp of the tonic’s 6-phase chord (prolonged since measure 109)
prior to the continuation to II➔. (The notation in 9.4 conveys how the
sounding pitches D, F, and A serve as the third, fifth, and seventh of a
chord rooted on B, rather than as the root, third, and fifth of a chord
rooted on D.) Despite our disparate readings of the harmonic progres-
sion, Caplin and I concur that the dominant arrives at measure 121 and
persists for the remainder of the development.
The recapitulation (measures 143–228)
Just as the Largo arpeggiation of measures 1 and 2 serves as the concluding

phase of a prolonged dominant (realized during the repeat of the exposi-
tion, following after the V attained at measure 55), so also does the Largo
arpeggiation at the onset of the recapitulation (starting in measure 143)

perpetuate the dominant attained during the development (measure 121).
Here Beethoven’s mimicking of recitative style becomes more overt. The
dissonant G that triggers the tonic arrival (a mere eighth note during
measure 2, two tied whole notes during measures 91b–92b prior to the
tonic reinstatement that begins the development) here holds sway from
measure 145 through the downbeat of measure 148, where (unlike the
exposition precedent) the restored Kopfton F is introduced before the shift
to Allegro (after which the G>F resolution is reiterated).18
The recapitulation’s P differs from that of the exposition’s in two
principal ways. A breathtaking alteration transpires at the foundational
level, with some interesting though comparatively modest differences at
the local level. Broadly, one might expect that this movement’s recapitula-
tion P would again traverse the harmonic path from I to V♯ and then back
to I (PAC), followed by a transition that proceeds not to II♯ (as in the
exposition), but through II♯ to V♯ (MC), setting the stage for the return of
the D Minor tonic during S. Beethoven daringly uses the first of these two
V♯ chords as if it were the second, omitting all that conventionally would
occur in between. During measures 148–149 through 1711 Beethoven
pursues a bass trajectory from root D to root A. Immediately after that A
chord sounds, S begins, now transposed to project the tonic harmony in D
Minor (sounding first in measure 185). One observes in 9.5 how during the
recapitulation the melodic trajectories are end-oriented, proceeding to the
D (= ^1) at S’s cadence in measure 193 and replicated in measure 217. The
latter serves as what Hepokoski and Darcy refer to as the movement’s ESC
(essential structural closure).
We noted above how the pitch E♭ during measure 10 initially offers a
tantalizing hint that perhaps the sequential ascent will shift gears and
proceed by half steps rather than by diatonic steps (with an A♭-C-E♭ chord
intervening between G-B♭-D and A-C♯-E).19 That potentiality was passed
over. During the recapitulation Beethoven has a second opportunity to
expand his sequential ascent in this manner, and this time he indeed pursues
that option – though between F-A♭-C and G-B♭-D rather than at the spot
where it seemed imminent during the exposition’s P. In that the manner of
pursuing each sequential step concurrently begins to shift, some of the notes
used to convey the upward trajectory in 9.5 appear within parentheses.20
The recapitulation’s S follows the model of the exposition closely.
After the second cadence is fully realized at 2171, reiterations of the
tonic harmony (with a brief echo of Kopfton ^3 in measure 226) bring
the movement to a close. The melody’s concluding F>D third will be
www.ebook3000.com
reshaped into D<E♭<F for the second movement’s second measure,

outlining the upper third of B♭ Major’s tonic triad. The third move-
ment restores the F>D direction (filled in by passing note E) as well as
the D Minor key.
For the most part Caplin’s harmonic analysis for the recapitulation con-
forms to what was presented earlier. Yet there are a few subtle differences
in Beethoven’s writing that allow us to explore further differences between
Caplin’s and my harmonic perspectives. The first concern emerges in
measure 148. Whereas I contend that the pitch F is sufficient to convey
the sense of a D Minor tonic, Caplin postpones applying a I numeral until
the following downbeat (which I regard as a confirming reiteration). Note
in this regard that he does accept A♭ during measure 158 as sufficient to
convey the sense of an F-minor mediant (the difference here being that the
Allegro that follows offers no confirming reiteration). I am pleased to see
that he has labeled the chord of measure 163 (curiously neglected in
measure 9). This is not to say that I would give that chord a harmonic
label (I do not in 9.1), but instead to suggest that it would be inconsistent
in his system not to. Yet this passage generates another concern regarding
consistency: if the chromatic ascent during measures 158 through 165
warrants the numerals III(♭) ♯III IV (each preceded by an applied chord),
why is the chromatic ascent during measures 189 and 190 not also fully
analyzed? Where is the symbol for G♯-B-E? With regard to the I43 label that
follows, I suggest that the soprano pedal point (D) does not yet reintegrate
with the chord. I would prefer, in Caplin’s system, to see the label III6,
followed by the restoration of the D root only when F♯ sounds in the next
chord (left unanalyzed by Caplin). From my perspective, of course, none
of the internal chords would be labeled. The most essential feature of the
passage, not touched on by Caplin, is the evolution from D-F-A to D-F♯-
A-C, incorporating multiple linear fillings-in: from F to A, from A to C,
and from D to F♯, all below a sustained D. The passage is especially
poignant because two of the internal chords are emphasized both metri-
cally and with sforzando markings. Yet the performer should maintain the
upward thrust within the tonic prolongation through the second quarter
note of measure 191 (coinciding with the onset of a diminuendo), after
which the surging tonic resolves to IV. The bass filling-in of an F<A third
is complemented by the B♭>G third of IV, which also is engaged in a voice
exchange with G<B♭ higher in the texture.
www.ebook3000.com
10 Violin Sonata in A Minor (op. 47, “Kreutzer”),
movement 1
in response to Janet Schmalfeldt
Janet Schmalfeldt and I share similar musical pedigrees. We both attended

a small liberal arts college in the Midwest and then continued our musical
studies with a graduate degree in keyboard performance (hers in piano,
mine in organ). We both then entered Yale’s Ph.D. theory program, with
Allen Forte advising our dissertations. And we both benefitted also from
the Schenkerian expertise of John Rothgeb. Her recent In the Process
of Becoming: Analytic and Philosophical Perspectives on Form in Early
Nineteenth-Century Music is the culmination of a career devoted to the
pursuit of analysis.1 Its fourth chapter is devoted mainly to the first move-
ment of Beethoven’s Violin Sonata in A Minor, opus 47, the topic of this
chapter.
The exposition’s primary-theme zone

(P, measures 1 through 45)
The solo violin states an untroubled theme, squarely in A Major, during the
movement’s first four measures. The plot thickens immediately thereafter,
as the solo piano refuses to echo that trajectory, instead presenting a more
complex harmonic progression (eventually with violin collaboration)
wherein the initiating A major chord (at 51) retrospectively will come
across as a surge of A Minor’s tonic (I➔). Tempo and meter shifts even-
tually join the modal shift. Though several features of the initial violin
presentation are absorbed into the structure that emerges (most notably
the subdominant harmony supporting ^6 transferred from 12 to 153
through 192), clearly a sense of transformation pervades the sonata’s
opening region.
The violin solo, depicted in 10.1, deploys a high A at the outset in place
of an initiating Kopfton E (= ^5). Neighbor F♯ (supported by IV5–6) and its
successor, E (just after the onset of the dominant), offer sufficient sub-
stantiation of the Kopfton for the moment. (The relationship between
Kopfton E and the high A will be worked out more fully – with the latter
clearly dependent upon the former – during measures 30/36 through 42.) 139
Example 10.1 Analysis of Violin Sonata in A Minor (op. 47), mvmt. 1, mm. 1–4.
The phrase’s IAC motivates the continuation that gets under way at 51. We
might expect at first that the piano’s efforts will lead to a PAC in A Major
during measure 8.
Despite what may appear on the page to be an introduction followed by
the onset of P at the tempo and meter shift during measure 18, structurally
the four-measure violin presentation, with its (E)<F♯>E>D>C♯ melodic
trajectory, constitutes the first “half” of an antecedent/consequent struc-
ture for the exposition’s P, whose latter “half” extends unexpectedly from
measure 5 through measure 45. Several factors conspire to produce this
highly lopsided state of affairs, the most noteworthy being Beethoven’s
initial devotion to the Kopfton’s upper neighbor. With F♮ introduced at
161, the harmonic progression runs its course through the tonic of mea-
sures 21 through 23 without a corresponding stepwise descent to ^1 (the
normative goal of a consequent phrase). An abbreviated repetition of the
structure, through measure 32, leads to another failure (see 10.2). Only
after Beethoven abandons the neighbor (or, perhaps better stated, develops
a different role for F in the vicinity of measures 37 and 38) does the descent
to A come about. The earlier five-note (E)<F♯>E>D>C♯ trajectory is
matched by the five-note E>D>C♯>B>A fifth-progression, with the critical
D (supported by the subdominant, with F now sounding in the bass)
emerging near the end of measure 42 and the cadential A at 451. (See 10.3.)
The juxtaposition of the tonic chords from measures 5 and 15 in 10.2 may
be disconcerting. Many listeners certainly will want to place the consequent
I➔IV in measure 5, which seems at first to be a variant of measure 1. Yet
Beethoven transforms that passage into something else altogether (as will be
explained below), so that the I➔IV corresponding to the antecedent is
deferred until measure 15, which incorporates C♯-E-G-B♭, a potent evolu-
tion of A Minor’s surging tonic. After being prolonged via reiteration, that
subdominant does finally proceed to the dominant of measure 20, though
www.ebook3000.com
Violin Sonata in A Minor (op. 47, “Kreutzer”) 141
neither its D nor its F, prominently unfolded in the melody between 152
and 161, is accounted for (and thus a prolonged D and F’s voice-leading
successor E are displayed within parentheses at measure 20 in 10.2). This
imagined dissonant D’s resolution to C ultimately transpires within the
unfolding of the resolving tonic’s CA third, whereas E’s sonic reinstatement is
postponed until the tonic’s upper-third chord emerges during measure 27.
Structurally this is highly unsatisfying: the tonic has been restored following
subdominant and dominant harmonies, but the expected descent to A was
not attempted. The repetition (through measure 36) is equally unsuccessful.
Clearly Beethoven must have some other agenda in mind.
This impasse leads to a fresh approach. Whereas the violin E after the
fermata in measure 36 proceeds to F (matching those at 191 and 281), this
time that F serves as a passing note rather than as a neighboring note. Now
the upper-register AE fourth that I propose as a foundational interval of the
incompletely stated chord of 11 (see 10.1) is unfolded as E<A (filled in
chromatically as E<F<F♯[G♭]<G♮<G♯<A) over the course of measures 36
through 42. The chordal support for this line essentially follows the trajec-
tory of an ascending 5–6 sequence (as is displayed in a foundational way in
10.3, omitting some of Beethoven’s elaborations). The sequential progres-
sion’s fourth element has evolved into surging B♮-D-F-A♭. With that spel-
ling, the expected successor would be C-E-G, comparable to the mediant
chords of measures 9, 27, and 36. Yet here Beethoven takes advantage of the
fact that B♮-D-F-A♭ may be transformed via enharmonic reinterpretation
into B♮-D-F-G♯, thereby targeting C6 (a restoration of A5 in its first inver-
sion) directly. Once that trajectory reaches this restored tonic, the melody
leads from high A back down to Kopfton E, with the long-awaited middle-
ground stepwise descent following. (Note how three of the descent’s five
members are preceded by an upper fourth or third, all highlighted by
Beethoven’s slurring: A>E followed by D, then E>C, D>B, and finally goal
A.2 The same three pitches also coordinate with lower thirds in the violin
line: C with E, A with C, and G♯ with B, all displayed in 10.3.)
Some of the surface details of P are especially interesting. A highly
developed foreground tonic prolongation ensues during measures 5
through 15. Model 1 in 10.4 displays the transformation from A Minor’s
diatonic tonic chord in root position into a surging tonic poised to resolve
to a first-inversion subdominant. Note especially the melodic traversal of
E>C♯ in the soprano. Because of the close resemblance of measure 5 to
measure 1, the A major chord of 51 initially will seem like the onset of a new
phrase in A Major. Yet factors that arise soon thereafter instead support the
assertion of A Minor, wherein the initial A major chord would represent a
locally surging I➔ (following an imagined, elided initial A minor chord).
Just as we noted an ascending chromatic line during the melody of
measures 36 through 42, a descending chromatic filling-in of the model’s
E>C♯ third is accomplished over the course of these earlier measures. That
line and key elements of its harmonic support are displayed in 10.4’s Model
2. Observe how both the initial tonic and the internal dominant are
followed by trajectories to their upper-third chords. Bass G in measure
13 sets the stage for the inverted tonic restoration two measures later. The
supertonic’s surge is a common occurrence in the minor mode, as is the
raising of the dominant’s third.
www.ebook3000.com
Example 10.4 Five models for the analysis of Violin Sonata in A Minor (op. 47), mvmt.
1, mm. 5–16.
Model 3 provides a more detailed view of measures 5 through 9.

Whereas what follows after A–D during measure 1 justifies the harmonic
interpretation I IV, the D minor chord of measure 5 (targeted by a surging
A➔, distinct from the surging A➔ of measure 15) ultimately does not
proceed to E, though Beethoven purposefully provides an E chord during
measure 6 to promote the supposition that the earlier phrase is being
replicated. The first sign that something is amiss emerges at 53, where
IV’s 5–6 shift is neglected. (Note the B that sounds with D at 13.) Ultimately
that E chord serves as an interior connector within a DF DF voice exchange,
at the completion of which the D chord begins to surge, with the incor-
poration of seventh C and major third F♯ during measure 7. Indeed, just as
the initial A chord is surging towards D, eventually that D chord evolves to
surge towards G, and G then surges towards C. All told, a circular progres-
sion leads to C-E-G, the A Minor tonic’s diatonic upper-third chord. Bass
C in measure 9 retrospectively supports the speculative placement of C
within the chords at the outset of Models 1 through 3. As mentioned above,
in this case the initial A Minor tonic is elided to allow its surging evolved
state to sound from the onset – offering a sly continuity with measure 1,
giving no hint of the spectacularly different continuation that is in store.
Whereas the circle of fifths is deployed to move from tonic A up to C, an
ascending 5–6 sequence, shown in 10.4’s Model 4, performs that role during
measures 11 through 13 to lead from dominant E to its upper-third chord,
G-B-D (noting that leading tone G♯ reverts to diatonic G♮ in the process).
Certainly that trajectory could have continued from G-B-D to G♯-B-D-E,
which would target goal A-C-E. Yet in this case (as 10.2 reveals), a down-
ward trajectory (A>G>F>E) in the tenor register makes important use of
the pitch G. The transition between the dominant (as represented by its
upper-third chord during measures 13 through 15) and the tonic (inverted
and in an evolved state later in measure 15) maintains G as a common tone.
A breathtaking compositional construction is revealed in Model 5. First,
note that the last two chords of Model 2 correspond to the first and sixth
chords of Model 5. Between those points Beethoven deploys the latter
sonority initially within a local tonicization of G Major (the first asterisked
chord in Model 5). Thus when G-B♭-E-C♯ sounds during 152 (the second
asterisked chord in Model 5, which transpires after a modal shift to G
Minor), listeners might initially correlate it with the earlier usage. Yet this
time (the third sounding of the sonority) the bonds of the G Major/Minor
tonicization are broken: the chord behaves as I➔ in A Minor rather than as
II➔ in G Minor. The long-drawn-out E>C♯ melodic third of measures 5
through 15 (slurred in Models 1 and 2 and in 10.2) is then matched by a
quick D<F (slurred in Model 5 and in 10.2) as the subdominant emerges.
Schmalfeldt offers a substantial harmonic analysis of what I regard as

the exposition P in her exx. 4.2 through 4.4. Though some elements of a
Schenkerian perspective are inserted into the score excerpts, they do not
together add up to a comprehensive linear analysis.
I applaud the markings that Schmalfeldt applies to measures 1
through 4 in her ex. 4.2: F♯ is displayed as an upper neighbor to what
www.ebook3000.com
might be understood as Kopfton E, which serves as the starting point for

a slurred E>D>C♯ third-progression during measures 2 through 4. The
similar melody of the next five measures sounds in an altered chordal
context, which in my view causes a shift in its hierarchical organization.
Let’s first affirm the continuity that does exist. The four pitches
F♯ E D C♯
during measures 1 through 4 correspond to the pitches

F♮ E D C♮
during measures 5 through 9, wherein a second F♮ at the violin’s re-entry

point during measure 8 reaches over the piano’s D so that the C♮ goal
(projected by the violin) is surmounted by an E during measure 9. From
this perspective Schmalfeldt’s reading of measure 7 is problematic. During
62–3 the pitches E, D, G♯, and E represent the structure’s four principal
strands. The low E proceeds to F♮, the D to C♮ (misprinted as C♯ in
Schmalfeldt’s example), and the G♯ to A. What follows soprano E? It
seems to me there are only two viable options. E could persist as an
imagined pitch into measure 7, functioning as a suspension; or, the
melody’s A<D of 71–2 could be interpreted as an unfolding of an DA fourth
that should be understood to prevail from beat 1 onwards. In either of
these interpretations, the harmony would be iv7 (in first inversion) – not
VI. A broad voice exchange, with bass D<E<F♮ complemented by soprano
F♮>E>D, strongly supports the notion that the internal E7 chord ulti-
mately does not fulfill the role of V7. (We certainly might suppose that it
will upon its arrival, but must adjust our perspective when the broader
context is revealed.) Consequently the hierarchical interactions that justify
Schmalfeldt’s analytical slur from E to C♯ during measures 2 through 4 are
not replicated during measures 5 through 9, where a slur from F♮ to D,
confirmed by the re-emergence of F♮ above D at 82, would be appropriate.
Neighbor F♮’s resolution to E occurs at measures 8|9 – not 5|6, as indicated
by Schmalfeldt’s F>E slur and beamed E.
Though it is awkwardly positioned, I understand the line underneath
measure 4 in ex. 4.2 to convey an extension of the I Roman numeral of
measure 4 into measure 5. Consequently Schmalfeldt’s analysis of mea-
sures 5 through 9 deploys eight Roman numerals in all.3 Whereas my
commentary above conveys my reasons for rejecting the V7 and VI
numerals, the [V65 ]➔ that follows seems to me no more than an evolved
state of the earlier D minor chord. (That is, only one root – D – prevails
between 52 and 73, during which two stages of evolution – the addition
of the chordal seventh and the raising of the chordal third – transpire.)
Perhaps the most problematic aspect of the interpretation is the abrupt
shift into a new key (the mediant, III) in the middle of the trajectory: I
through VI are harmonies of A (Minor?),4 while the succeeding V and I
are harmonies of C Major. Though I eschew Roman numerals during
the interior of circular progressions (see 10.4, Model 3), if I were to use
them I would maintain one key throughout, so that either
A Minor: I IV VII III or
C Major: VI II V I
might be displayed for this passage. Beginning with I and IV from one
key and then shifting to V and I from the other obscures what to me is
the central feature of the passage, its unimpeded (and surge-enhanced)
progression of descending fifths. Schmalfeldt asks us to process F-A-
(C)-D to F♯-A-C-D (in my system a straightforward and predictable
surge) as a conversion from the 6 phase of VI in A Minor to an applied
dominant of the dominant in C Major.
Another abrupt key shift ensues in Schmalfeldt’s analysis soon thereafter,
during the ascending 5–6 sequence of measures 11 through 13. Whereas
two tenths are highlighted in her ex. 4.2 (GE ♯ and AF ♮ ), I suggest that both of
those lines continue upwards another step, to GB ♮ (with the B taken by the
violin only, in conjunction with a shift to the register of the piano). Those
melodic thirds seem to me indivisible, a linear connection between
E-G♯-B-D and upper-third chord G♮-B-D. Yet Schmalfeldt juxtaposes
Roman numerals from A Minor and C Major. Whereas again I would
eschew the use of Roman numerals in this linear context, in my view either
A Minor: V VI VII or
C Major: III IV V
would be superior to the juxtaposition of A Minor’s V and VI and C

Major’s V, as appears in Schmalfeldt’s analysis. Furthermore,
Schmalfeldt’s weighting of the hierarchy in favor of the G chord (note
the HC indication) contrasts my maintenance of E as the principal root
during the region, with the expectation (soon fulfilled) that root E’s
normative successor, A, will emerge (as represented by C♯-E-G-B♭
during 152), even if that E is temporarily represented by a chromatic
variant of its upper-third chord.5
www.ebook3000.com
Whereas I acknowledge that my interpretation of G-B♭-C♯-E during

152 as a surging restoration of the A tonic chord (see 10.2) may be
controversial, I can point to Beethoven’s emphasis of A➔D by means
of repetition (eight times in all, with variants in both inversion and surge
intensity) through measure 18. Schmalfeldt analyzes only the third of
those eight projections of that succession, leaving its initial presentation
unmarked. Thus the relationship between the G minor chord at 151 and
the D minor chord at 161 comes across as [iv]➔ iv, with the interior [V]➔
emerging only later. Though I do not endorse Schmalfeldt’s placing of [iv]
and [V] within the tonal plane of D Minor (iv), the more serious flaw, in
my view, is the positing of a direct succession between the G and D
chords, without an intervening A (at first represented by C♯-E-G-B♭, but
soon thereafter by A-C♯-E-G). Though root A sounds only briefly at the
end of measure 15, it is the culmination of an A prolongation (eventually
elevated to a surge state) that began in measure 5.
The opening violin solo is so distinctive and so boldly projected that,
knowing Beethoven, listeners will expect it to have a pronounced impact
on later developments within the movement. Already in measures 5
through 7 the notion takes on new implications as bass D’s prolongation
overwhelms the potential shift to E, thus creating a problem awaiting
remedy over the course of P. I contend that the E➔A succession corre-
sponding to measures 2 through 4 transpires at measures 20 and 21.
Schmalfeldt does not.6 Because her exx. 4.3 and 4.4 commence at the
upbeat to measure 19, an important element of the subdominant is
chopped off – namely, the violin D of 153. The D<F unfolding that
extends to 192 corresponds to the DF ♯ simultaneity of 12. The most
surprising feature of measure 19 is that the 6-phase B of 13 does not
complete the chordal arpeggiation. (An A sounds instead during 192.)
I propose two interpretations for the next four measures: either as
G♯<A<B unfolding the dominant’s GB ♯ third (corresponding to 21), fol-
lowed by the earlier D’s resolution to C (corresponding to the C♯ of 42); or
(as graphed in 10.2) as G♯ resolving directly to A, with an unfolding of
A<C representing the CA ♯ tonic of measure 4. Schmalfeldt’s use of par-
entheses around V and I in her exx. 4.3 and 4.4 and the broad projection
of iv as ii in the key of III, proceeding to V and I in C Major (as shown in
her ex. 4.3), deny a correspondence with the violin precedent. Her reading
results in what she describes as a “remarkable” absence of a “structural
home-tonic harmony” until the end of P (page 288, note 23).7 I propose
instead that the tonic of measure 4 recurs in measures 21 through 23 (now

in the context of A Minor), and that just as the earlier tonic achieves its
upper third via an A➔ D ➔ G➔ C circular progression, an abbreviated A
G➔ C progression connects the tonic and its upper-third chord during
measures 23 through 27. My reading is further supported by what
happens once Beethoven moves beyond the C chord: Schmalfeldt’s 6
annotation for measure 37 logically would be preceded by a 5 – in my
view, the E of tonic A-C-E. I show in 10.3 how the upper-third chord
supports a passing note (G) that leads to 6-phase F from above (slurred as
A>G>F during measures 5/33 through 37 of the graph).
My display of the sequence in the vicinity of measures 37 through 42
(see 10.3) differs to some extent from Schmalfeldt’s presentation in her
ex. 4.4. First, note that I do not interpret the internal elements of the
sequence as asserted harmonies. The imposition of a label such as ♭II
implies a continuation that I do not believe the passage is designed to
fulfill. Second, I find the chord that arrives at 421 to be a surprise,
whereas Schmalfeldt’s harmonic analysis makes it appear to be the
expected resolution. Just as bass A in measure 37 has a leading-tone
effect, realized through the arrival of B♭-D-F on the following downbeat,
I likewise hear bass B♮ during measure 41 as a leading tone despite
Beethoven’s chordal spelling. I contend that C-E-G is expected, a notion
conveyed via the placement of that chord within parentheses in my
graph, along with the explanation for its absence: elision.
Finally, I suggest that a complement to Schmalfeldt’s slurred E>D>C♯
during measures 3 and 4 would have been welcome in measures 42
through 45 (ex. 4.4), through a slurring or even a beaming of
E>D>C>B>A. (Schmalfeldt does indicate PAC below the goal A.)
The opening violin solo ultimately is transformed in four ways over
the course of P: the mode, the tempo, the meter, and the extent of the
descending trajectory from the Kopfton.
The exposition’s transition, secondary-theme zone,

and closing zone (TR, S, C, measures 45 through 193)
What goes on in a composer’s mind of course remains largely a mystery.

Even someone interviewing Beethoven during his lifetime might not have
received very precise answers, either because the composer had not
www.ebook3000.com
Example 10.5 Alternative theme for Violin Sonata in A Minor (op. 47), mvmt. 1, based
on content from mm. 5–192.
formulated a conscious awareness of various processes that had become

instinctive or because the analytical terminology of that time was not
adequate to convey his thoughts. Through analysis we attempt to recon-
struct some of the relationships that one might propose were factors in
the compositional process – factors that the composer might not have
consciously pondered but that nevertheless may have had an impact.
Two features of this exposition’s S and one feature of its C are so
distinctive that the relationship to earlier material probably is not coin-
cidental. I refer to the emphasis consecutively on B and then E (both
starting points for descending linear progressions) during S (displayed in
10.7, which will be explored below) and to the return of the tonic (with
soprano D>C) at the close of C (likewise displayed in 10.7).8 Observe how
B<E>D>C♯, supported by V8–7 I, is exactly what listeners already have
heard in the solo violin theme, measures 2 through 4. With some trunca-
tion of the dominant prolongation and a chordal evolution of measure 1’s
supertonic to more strongly target the dominant, an alternative minor-key
opening theme might appear as in 10.5. The annotating measure numbers
assert that this theme defines the exposition’s structure.9 Whereas earlier I
proposed that the remainder of P is closely allied to measures 1 through 4, I
now make a bolder assertion: that the exposition from measure 5 onwards
replicates the structure announced in measures 1 through 4.
The A>F♯ third of measure 1 (and incorporated within 10.5) expands to
become A>G>F♯ during measures 66 through 73. (See 10.6.) In both
contexts F♯ serves as a neighbor to Kopfton E, which, as mentioned earlier,
is at times either covered or replaced by A. That descending third transpires
in conjunction with a circular progression of ascending fifths: A is sup-
ported by root A, G by root E, and F♯ by root B. Both internal ascending
fifths proceed within local tonicization contexts: A to E as I ➔ IV5–6 (= II➔)
V in A Minor, and E to B as I IV5–6 (= II➔) V♯ in E Minor. More broadly,
though, the B➔ goal corresponds to II➔ in A Minor, a common choice for
TR’s medial caesura. Though the F♯ neighbor of measure 73 will be under-
stood to resolve to E at the onset of S, the in-register E corresponding to the
model of 10.5 does not occur until measure 148.
The surging supertonic occupies nearly twenty measures, aided by a

local tonicizing progression (I➔ IV♮ V➔ I in B Major during measures
75–77 and 79–81).10 The injection of its minor seventh during measure 90
leads directly to the arrival of dominant E in measure 91, the onset of S. As
also was the case with the juxtaposition of A Major and A Minor tonics
during P, now E Major and E Minor vie for hegemony during the domi-
nant tonicization. Whereas it appears at first that the same major-to-minor
shift occurs (with E Minor prevailing during most of S), the re-emergence
of G♯ at the end of C (measure 190) would support the view that G♮,
implanted in measure 107, is a long-extended wobbly note. After all, an E
major dominant is prolonged in the initial theme (measures 2 and 3) prior
to the resolution to the tonic. In keeping with that earlier context and
acknowledging the ultimate restoration of G♯, the foundational model of
10.5 does not display a G♮ within its dominant prolongation.
Without taking into account the motivic relationship with the B<E
fourth of measure 2, some analysts might attempt to read the B at measure
118 as the structurally deepest soprano pitch of S, ^2 being the conventional
Urlinie member for that location within sonata form. That effort would
neglect the impact of TR’s prominent F♯ (measures 73ff.). Because there is
no viable background ^5> ^4> ^3> ^2 descent within TR, already at the onset of
S the descending fifth-progression from B (displayed in 10.7, measures 118
through 144) should seem distinctly provisional. The higher E that emerges
at measure 148 both fulfills the expectation generated by TR’s neighbor F♯
www.ebook3000.com
(itself derived from measure 1’s F♯) and completes a broad restatement of
measure 2’s B<E fourth. Ultimately that E serves as the starting point for a
descending octave-progression that leads to the cadence of measure 176.
Given the atypical restoration of the tonic that follows, broadly that
cadence point does not play as definitive an EEC role as would such an
arrival point in a more typical exposition. In 10.7 dominant root E is
displayed as the interior element of a tonic-expanding A<E>A bass arpeg-
giation extending from measure 5 through measure 192.
Among the details conveyed in 10.7, note especially how the emergence
of B in measure 118 over the E tonic’s upper-third chord corresponds to
the emergence of E over the A tonic’s upper-third chord in measure 27 (as
displayed in 10.2). Both of 10.7’s broad linear progressions are supported
by a double bass arpeggiation: the first dividing the fifth into two thirds (^5
to ^
3 followed by ^3 to ^1), the second dividing the octave into a fourth plus a
fifth (^8 to ^5 followed by ^5 to ^1).
Schmalfeldt’s ex. 4.5, which corresponds to the transition, omits mea-

sures 53 through 71, creating problems in two respects. First, it seems to
me that the E chord of measure 69 is structurally deeper than some of
the elements that are included. Second, I am not sure what to make of
measure 72. Because an E dominant precedes the omitted passage and
the A chord of measure 72 follows it, I am wondering if Schmalfeldt
intends to convey a sense of resolution from E to A. Perhaps Roman
numerals for measure 72 have been inadvertently omitted. I could
imagine Schmalfeldt proposing an interpretation as i in A Minor pivot-
ing to become iv in E Minor. My reading in 10.6 offers the contrasting
view that there is no direct relationship between the earlier E chord and
this A chord. It also calls into question Schmalfeldt’s description of
the passage as “an ascending-step sequence” (p. 99). In my view, the
principal driving force is the relationship of ascending fifths – A, E, B, as
marked in 10.6 and 10.7 – only a part of which (measures 61 through
66) is helped along by an ascending-step sequence. Beyond those con-
cerns, we here encounter the perennial question of whether the B➔
chord that emerges in measure 73 should be interpreted in the key of the
preceding A tonic or instead in that of the following E dominant.
Leafing through FC, I find frequent deployments of my II♯ or a similar
symbol (keeping in mind that Schenker uses ♯IV in some contexts that I
instead regard as supertonic evolutions), whereas Schmalfeldt’s earlier
onset of a dominant tonicization is not encountered. Related to that
www.ebook3000.com
concern is the separate quandary of whether the E chord at 761 should

be interpreted as IV within a tonicization of II♯ or as I within a
tonicization of minor V.11
Schmalfeldt’s reading of the melody beginning in measure 91 as
“nothing more than a very broad turn” (p. 100, plus an oversize turn
symbol annotating the score of ex. 4.6) is perhaps too blithe. Here
Beethoven is attempting to forge a path from I to V in E Major. After
a three-measure tonic prolongation (supporting the melody’s G♯<A>G♯
complete neighbor) the first melodic and harmonic actions that would
lead to V occur: descent from ^3 to ^2, in coordination with the succession
from I to II7. On the first two tries (concluding in measures 94 and 98)
these trajectories are abandoned, followed by fresh starts. On the third
try, however, the diatonic II7 is transformed into II and succeeds in
proceeding to goal V.
Schmalfeldt does not focus on the fifth-progression of measures 118
through 144 and its harmonic support beyond noting the PAC at
measure 144 in her ex. 4.8. In that Beethoven already has established
the precedent of switching mode and tempo within a theme (namely, P)
earlier in this movement, I am less concerned about the events of
measures 107 through 117 than she is. To me, this all precedes the
main events of S – the descending fifth- and octave-progressions – just
as various adjustments precede P’s descending fifth-progression.
The descending octave-progression displayed in my 10.7 (measures
148 through 176) is conveyed in part in Schmalfeldt’s ex. 4.8. I propose
that Beethoven devotes himself in turn to the two segments of that
descent, repeating the E-to-B fourth before proceeding to the B-to-E
fifth. Though all the pitches of the latter segment are present in her ex.
4.8, Schmalfeldt does not connect the dots. She and I agree that a circle
of fifths transpires between measures 144–148 and measure 152.
Whereas she labels the internal elements of that progression with
Roman numerals, I do not.
The development (measures 193|194 through 343)
In keeping with the progression of measures 1 through 4, the dominant

tonicization during the exposition’s S and C ultimately yields to a restora-
tion of the tonic (measures 192a–193a). Following the convention of
exposition repeat, this tonic proceeds – without surging – to A Minor’s

D-F-A subdominant in measure 19, in conjunction with the melodic E<F
motive, to initiate P’s restatement. The same E<F motive later leads the way
into the development, where an F major chord emerges at 1941 as support
for F. Alert listeners might speculate that bass F is functioning as a link in a
descending-thirds trajectory from A to D, thereby retaining continuity
with the exposition subdominant. We will see later how the D minor
chord of measures 328 through 331 may be understood in that light.
Before that happens, however, root F prevails through measure 274.
The first stage of the F chord’s prolongation is shown in 10.8. Though it
seems at first that an upward linear trajectory is being initiated (F5–6 g
through measure 202), ultimately an idiosyncratic descending circular
path, emphasizing a stepwise descent in the bass, is forged. Observe how
every scale degree within an F>F octave, except for the diminished
chord on G, is approached via a surge (B♭➔E♭, A➔d, etc.). The adjective
“idiosyncratic” acknowledges that the roots of the non-surging chords do
not conform to any one established scale. Yet the latter part of the progres-
sion (c, b♭, A♭, g°, f) is clearly focused within F Minor. Consequently the
shift from F-A-C to F-A♭-C over the course of measures 194 through 225
replicates the conversion from A Major to A Minor within the exposition’s
P. Whereas such a shift might be of only local impact, what follows
beginning in measure 230 suggests that it is a permanent alteration.
Upon the circle’s completion in measure 225 a local harmonic pro-
gression leads via II to V (or to V♮, if one elects to make the definitive
www.ebook3000.com
shift to F Minor by that point). Two further traversals of the circle of

fifths, now squarely within F Minor, follow. At some points incorpor-
ating local surges, the foundational chords and their locations are as
follows:
m. 230 234 238 242 243 244 245 246

246 248 249 250 251 252 253 254
f b♭ E♭ A♭ D♭ g° C f
Just as a shift from circular to harmonic progression occurs in

measure 225, so also the circle’s completion at measure 254 is followed
by a local harmonic progression, displayed on the left side of 10.9.12
Because a variant will occur later, take special note of the connection
between F and D♭ (here corresponding to I5–6, with unfurled 6-phase
chord) via an intervening A♭➔ embellishing chord. The correlation
with the second half of measure 225 would have been closer if the D♭
chord’s A♭<B♭ shift (measure 263) had instead proceeded as A♭<B♭<B♮,
resulting in another II , an especially common successor of diatonic I6
in minor-key contexts. As it stands, the pitch B♭ seems to me to be
functioning as a local passing note rather than as the root of an asserted
IV. (Compare with G<A – rather than G<A<A♯ – in measures 152–153,
as displayed in 10.7.)
The pervasive deployment of descending circles of fifths thus far during
the development relates back to measures 5 through 9 (10.4, Model 3).
Another exposition deployment – the ascending fifths of measures 46
through 73 (10.6) – comes to the fore during measures 270 through 294
(displayed on the right side of 10.9). Nearing the end of the development,
Example 10.10 Analysis of Violin Sonata in A Minor (op. 47), mvmt. 1 (a) Mm. 5–343;
(b) Mm. 5–345.
(a) (b)
the A minor chord to which that circular progression leads (measure 294)
could be put to use in two distinct ways: as the starting point for a surge
(A➔) functioning as a local connector between F and D (10.10a), thereby
mimicking in a different tonal context the F A♭➔ D♭ progression of
measures 254 through 258 (10.9); or as the restoration of the A tonic in
the context of a 5–6–5 embellishing trajectory (10.10b). The question mark
placed below the A chord in 10.9 suggests that something unusual is afoot
at this point. I propose that the two alternatives listed above are both
pursued, in turn. First Beethoven proceeds downwards a third from F to
D (with the intervening A chord taking on surge characteristics beginning
in measure 314), finally fulfilling the motivic correspondence with
measures 192a through 18|19. Yet he does this in such a way as to create
a calamity, since he borrows the thematic and harmonic material from the
exposition P that would make D Minor seem the tonic for the recapitula-
tion P’s onset. (It would have been viable to proceed from this material,
understood as a subdominant initiation of the recapitulation P, through a
TR that lands on dominant E, followed by tonic A at the onset of S. Instead
of pursuing that trajectory, however, Beethoven abandons this aberrant
first attempt at the recapitulation P, substituting one that conveys tonic
A Minor from its onset.) The most important correspondences are as
follows:
m. 19 20 21 27
A Minor: D E➔ A C
m. 324 327 328 334
D Minor: G A➔ D F
www.ebook3000.com
Though this indeed is a dilemma, conveniently the progression has

brought us back to an F chord (the upper third of D), thus offering a
second chance regarding the continuation. Just as F proceeded to A during
measures 270 through 294, now that juxtaposition – in an instant during
measure 343 – brings back A as a surging tonic, akin to the G-B♭-E-C♯
chord in the middle of measure 15 (and refined gradually through measure
17 to a state that closely matches the A➔ chord of measure 343) that
targeted the IV of the exposition P. Because their utilizations are so
different, the A➔ chords of measures 314–327 (into which the G minor
chord of measures 324 through 326 is embedded) and of 3432 need to be
treated separately in the analysis: A➔ might proceed in one way (worked
out in 10.10a), or it might proceed in a different way (worked out in
10.10b). Instead of mentally testing both possibilities and then selecting
one for use in his composition, Beethoven incorporates both, with the first
leading to an impasse – as if to say “scratch that; let’s try another way” in
measure 343.13 Because the A minor chord of measure 294 serves as the
foundational starting point for both surging trajectories, it appears in as
neutral a state as is possible in 10.9. Note especially how that chord’s
soprano E might either embellish (10.10a) or resolve (10.10b) the preced-
ing neighbor F.
Several statements in Schmalfeldt’s assessment of the development seem

to me too bold. For example, she states that “already by m. 200 the pianist
is ready to abandon F major” (p. 103). (Recall that in my view the
tonicization of F will continue for another seventy-four measures.) The
surging F6 chord of measure 200 (F-A-D in the evolved state F♯-A-C-E♭)
targets G, which might serve as II within F Major, or instead as an early
point along an ascending sequential path that prolongs the F Major tonic.
As it turns out, this is a feint: the ultimate direction of the linear trajectory
is downward, with an orderly progression leading unsurprisingly to a
reinstatement of F (now minor in quality) at measure 225 (as shown in
10.8). Schmalfeldt both questions the logic of this progression and fails to
acknowledge the F chord’s reinstatement preceding the brief harmonic
trajectory (I II V) to F’s dominant (p. 103).
Likewise it is not accurate to state that the progression between mea-
sures 258 and 269 is “in D♭” (p. 103). The D♭ chord is prolonged during
only six of those measures, and in my view the broader perspective of
measure 254 through 270 leaves only one choice of key: F Minor.14 (It is
very common for an embellishing chord to come between a tonic’s 5- and

6-phase chords – here A♭➔ between F-A♭-C and D♭-F-A♭.15)
Though A Minor’s dominant harmony sounds beginning in measure
300 (see 10.9), I place it on a par with F’s C dominant in measure 226.
Thus at a more foundational level A minor and A major chords are
juxtaposed in both of the graphs displayed in 10.10. Schmalfeldt instead
regards the E chord’s arrival as a significant event of the development – the
attainment of the “home dominant” (p. 103). The two trajectories that I
propose suggest alternatively that the development is engaged in a descent
in thirds (A>F>D, after which an E and then an A might have transpired
during the recapitulation to reinstate the appropriate tonal order (a plan
that Beethoven ultimately did not fulfill), or that the development – like
the exposition – ultimately prolongs the tonic (here via a I5–6–5 trajectory),
whose surge towards D begins in measure 314 but ultimately is not
fulfilled (in a “here is where the recapitulation commences” way) until
the upbeat to measure 344. In that regard, that A-C♯-G-E chord is an
evolved state of the A minor chord attained in measure 294, and thus
continues the tonic prolongation (as I➔). Schmalfeldt instead labels that
chord as [V7]➔ targeting iv in her ex. 4.9. Consequently her recapitulation
has no tonic directly preceding that subdominant.16
The recapitulation and coda (343|344 through 599)
The exposition P’s two accented subdominant chords (in measures 19 and
28) both lead directly to the dominant and then to the tonic, followed by its
upper-third chord. During the recapitulation (which begins on beat 3 of
measure 343), the subdominant of measure 344 continues in that mold but
that of measure 358 both lacks special accentuation and conforms to a
different exposition model: namely, the D chord of measure 5. Just as bass
D there proceeds (after a sounding of chordal third F) through E to F, so
also the E of measure 360 serves as a connector between D and F. (See
10.11.) In this case a circular progression does not ensue (as occurs
through measure 9). Instead IV soon shifts to its 6-phase chord, realized
in a highly evolved form: D-F-A not to D-F-B, but instead to B-rooted
D♯-F-A-C, or II . The dominant and tonic that follow complete P’s
harmonic trajectory, which supports a middleground fifth-progression
descending from the Kopfton.
www.ebook3000.com
On the one hand the recapitulation TR has less to accomplish than does
that of the exposition, since the upcoming S will be presented in the tonic key,
the same as that of P. Though the sequential activity beginning in measure
382 is similar to the passage starting in measure 61, in this case it merely
reaffirms the tonic, in the process moving Kopfton ^5 into the upper register.
On the other hand the recapitulation TR’s MC dominant supports back-
ground ^2, and thus some of the movement’s deepest structural pitches –
components of the Urlinie – transpire during these measures, as shown in
10.11.17 That graph proposes that at a foundational level bass A<B<C sup-
ports soprano E>D>C, even if in its realization Beethoven extends the E into
measure 393, thus denying the succeeding D a concurrent chordal support.18
Whereas during the exposition S the highest notes of descending linear
progressions (B in measure 118 and E in measure 148) warranted special
notice, during the recapitulation these linear progressions, now transposed
into the tonic key of A Minor, are noteworthy especially at their endpoints,
with tonic pitch A in measures 465 and 497 serving as the goal not only of
the local linear progressions but also of the background fifth-progression
(Urlinie). The C material that follows the latter leads into a coda commen-
cing in measure 510.
Two fifth-progressions descending from E, echoing the Urlinie that has
just been completed, transpire during the coda. (See 10.12.) The first is
initiated by a downward cascade in thirds from tonic root A to B♭, which is
www.ebook3000.com
asserted as ♭II. (Recall that A–D [10.1, 10.2, and 10.10b] and A>F>D
[10.10a] have been prominently stated earlier in the movement. Thus the
coda expands upon a procedure that listeners recently have encountered.)
Incorporating some internal repetition, that initiative reaches its PAC
goal in measure 559. A fresh soprano E emerges at the end of measure
574, this time initiating a motivic E<F second (supported by an F major
chord, as at the onset of the development in measure 194). Now that F
chord leads to B♭ – again ♭II – whose D-F-A upper-third chord in measure
579 corresponds to that of measure 527. I propose that the expected
continuation would be the dominant (as was the case in measure 529).19
Consequently I interpret the A-C-E chord of measures 581 and 582 as a
cadential 64 chord with delayed bass arrival: that is, the unfolding of bass
D<F in measures 579 and 580 is matched by A>E in the measures that
follow, with the dominant’s full presence delayed until measure 583.
Though the fifth-progression has reached ^2 by this point, the tonic resolu-
tions beginning in measure 585 refuse to complete the descent to ^1, which
is withheld until the movement’s final chord.
Schmalfeldt’s commentary does not touch on the recapitulation. In her

view, the background descent occurs during the coda (where I propose an
“echo” of that descent). My background 4, ^ ^3, and ^2 reside in measures
392 and 393 (10.11), whereas she places them in measures 554 through
558 (her ex. 4.10). Ex. 4.10 seems to me to be inappropriately cropped at
its outset. I am particularly interested in the soprano pitch D of measures
525 (supported by ♭II) and 529 (supported by V7), not displayed in the
example. I regard that dominant to extend through measure 546, whereas
Schmalfeldt proposes a tonic resolution in measure 535. (Note the stem
attached to a beam in her ex. 4.10.) All this while D serves as a dissonant
seventh awaiting resolution, which of course would be C. Thus the E that
emerges during the dominant prolongation and that initiates the melody
during the tonic resolution (measure 510) is a cover tone. I propose that
Schmalfeldt’s slurred C>B>A third in the bass of measures 510 through
549 (ex. 4.10) should be matched by an equivalent slurred third E>D>C
(with C at a deeper hierarchical level than E or D) above. (This is
conveyed in my 10.12.) Only in that way is the dissonant seventh properly
resolved.
Indeed the chord of measures 581 and 582 looks like a tonic, and out
of context it would sound like a tonic. Yet I contend that its A is a
suspension and its C is an accented passing note, both slated for
downward resolution. Though the chord most often would sound with
E in the bass, “inversions” of the cadential 64 chord certainly are
possible.20 Schmalfeldt instead offers a literalist reading, proposing a
“plagal” iv–i succession (p. 106). This is a matter about which readers
likely will be starkly divided: some will find my reading persuasive and
conclude that Schmalfeldt misrepresents Beethoven’s intentions,
whereas others will regard my reading as bordering on lunacy and
embrace her common-sense approach.
www.ebook3000.com
11 Symphony in A Major (op. 92), movement 3
in response to Robert Gauldin
Robert Gauldin taught for many years at the Eastman School of Music,
where (during the mid-1970s) I enrolled in his course on acoustics. His
extensive writings on tonal music include a hefty harmony textbook,
which I recently surveyed in detail, comparing his interpretations of
various excerpts with my own.1 Though that was a private undertaking
(commissioned by the text’s publisher prior to committing to a new
edition), a portion of his article on Beethoven’s Symphony in A Major
is here assayed publicly.2 Whereas Gauldin offers a succinct and insight-
ful assessment of the entire work, I have elected to focus on its third
movement, thereby offering an opportunity to explore a form in which
Beethoven excelled and that is not covered in any of my other
Masterpieces chapters. My interaction with Gauldin’s reading is comple-
mented by a brief consideration of Schenker’s published and unpublished
graphs of the movement, which I have for the most part placed in the
endnotes.
The A1 section’s a1 region (measures 0|1–60)
The movement comprises F Major and D Major sections (scherzo and

trio), in alternation: A1 B1 A2 B2 A3, followed by a brief though structu-
rally significant coda. Each A section is subdivided into its own local
ternary form: a1 b a2. As we shall see, the repeat signs in measure 24
(omitted by Beethoven during A2 and A3) do not coincide with a juncture
in that latter ternary division, but instead occur just after the initial tonic
expanse – between I5 (measures 0|1 through 14) and I6 (measures 37
through 412). Consequently most of the a1 b a2 structure is repeated intact
after the measure 24 repeat sign, with the F tonic of measures 126ff.
(concluding a2) leading to A➔ D at the repeat beginning in 243, just as
the F tonic of measures 0|1 through 14 (with an earlier onset of A➔)
does.3
The lower and upper dyads of F Major’s tonic triad are juxtaposed
during the movement’s first two measures, thereby emphasizing an A<C 163
Example 11.1 Analysis of Symphony in A Major (op. 92), mvmt. 3, mm. 0|1–60.
unfolding at the top of the texture. (See 11.1.) Though this arpeggiation
initiative continues upwards to F at 31, the shift to piano at that point helps
in focusing the listener’s attention on the preceding A<C third. Soon a
G<B♭ third, supported by the dominant, initiates a stepwise downward
trajectory from C: through the dominant’s seventh, B♭, to the tonic’s third,
A, at 101. The next four measures unravel the voice leading that occurred
over the bar line between measures 9 and 10, juxtaposing the G>F and
B♭>A strands at the edges of the texture. Later, in measure 113 (during a2),
a reinstatement of C follows. In measure 15 Beethoven dispenses with C’s
restoration, skipping ahead to the C♯ that serves ultimately as a chromatic
passing note leading to Kopfton C’s neighbor, D.4 Just as upward arpeggia-
tion to a doubling of the prevailing chordal root (F) follows the C of
measure 2, so also root A (attained via arpeggiation through E) follows
the C♯ of measure 15.
The structural role to be played by the A major chord cannot be deter-
mined with certainty based on the content through measure 24. Often such
a chord would be a participant in the upward bass trajectory from the tonic
to the dominant, with A residing halfway between tonic root F and domi-
nant root C. (In that scenario, which the placement of repeat signs in
measure 24 would tend to support, we might expect the bass to proceed
eventually to B♭ and then to C as the content of an imminent b region.5) In
www.ebook3000.com
Symphony in A Major (op. 92) 165
this case the A➔ chord instead plays a more local role. As mentioned above,
it is a connector between the tonic’s 5-phase F-A-C and 6-phase D-F-A.6
Though the high A attained at 181 suitably caps the straightforward
mediant prolongation preceding the repeat signs, ultimately the ascending
arpeggiation continues to C♯, as is vividly conveyed by the A<C♯ thirds
coursing through the strings during measures 25 through 28. That event
paves the way for the arrival of Kopfton C’s neighbor, D, in the upper
register (as will occur in measure 44). Yet initially that D transpires in the
register of the C’s initial sounding: though the first violin line’s G at 371 is
an augmented fourth below the most recent C♯s (from measure 28
onwards), it is a diminished fifth above the second violin line’s C♯, from
which neighbor D initially emerges.
The remainder of the progression proceeds more or less as one would
expect (as shown in 11.1): I6 leads to II➔; II➔ proceeds to V in coordina-
tion with the return from the neighbor D to C; the dominant’s seventh B♭
begins a downward trajectory at the top of the texture (matching the B♭ of
measure 9); and the tonic supports A for an IAC. Because the scherzo will
be presented three times during the movement, the broad C>B♭>A melodic
trajectory is displayed in 11.1 as a middleground event. During A3 it will
form the first half of the Urlinie descent. Given how ternary forms tend to
be structured, attentive listeners already might expect that this line within
a1 will continue downwards to G (= ^2), supported by V, during the
scherzo’s b region. Beethoven does not disappoint.
Though it contrasts my reading in many respects, I regard Gauldin’s

interpretation of what I refer to as the movement’s a1 region to be
extraordinarily inspired and musical.7 The distinctions between our
readings hinge upon subtle variances in our assessments of individual
moments within the score. My accumulation of decisions leads to one
broad conception for the region, whereas Gauldin’s leads as inexorably
to another.
A critical moment confronts the listener even before the first down-
beat: is the initial F a note of individual merit – the onset of an ascending
octave arpeggiation, F<A<C<F through 31 – or is it instead the lower
element of an AF third, here projected as F<A>F? I espouse the latter,
more hierarchical view, and thus do not perceive an F<F octave. Instead,
the initial F<A is complemented by its inversion, filled-in F>A, during
measures 3 through 5. Beethoven’s strategy here involves dividing the
tonic triad into two dyads, pursued in alternation: lower AF , which leads
downwards to GE at 61; and upper CA , which leads downwards to GB ♭ at 93.

Thus, though both Gauldin and I regard the melodic A at 101 as a
significant arrival point, in his view (and in Schenker’s) it is attained
from below (via an initial ascent, F<G<A), whereas in my view it is
attained from above (C>B♭>A). For this reason and others that will
emerge in the measures ahead, I regard C rather than A as the move-
ment’s Kopfton.
I stated above that the A major chord of measures 15 through 24 (and
beyond) might be a component of a root trajectory that proceeds
upwards to a C dominant; or, instead, that it might have a more local
impact, targeting the tonic’s unfurled 6-phase chord in measure 37. For
now, we may place Gauldin in the former camp, though (as we shall see
later) he does not fully realize that trajectory. This reading requires that
the mediant be interpreted as hierarchically deeper than what I regard as
the tonic’s restoration in measure 53, so that III♯ proceeds in conven-
tional fashion to IV (labeled as arriving at measure 64 in Gauldin’s
graph). If fleshed out a bit beyond Gauldin’s presentation, his reading
could incorporate a 5–6 shift (commonly deployed during the root
trajectory of an ascending second), with the III♯ chord’s unfurled,
surging 6-phase F-A-C-E♭ (measure 57) targeting IV. That interpreta-
tion is subtly different from my proposal that this surging F chord
evolves out of the movement’s initial tonic.
Our contrasting interpretations of the hierarchical relationship
between A-C♯-E (introduced during measure 15) and D-F♯-(A) (intro-
duced by Beethoven during measure 37 and displayed by Gauldin only
as the A♭-C-F of measure 41, neglecting the horn’s D) help explain the
divergence in our readings of the Kopfton. The C♯ introduced during
measure 15 and transferred to the upper register at measure 28 is for me
a voice-leading connector between Kopfton C and its upper neighbor, D.
By omitting the consonant D chord of measures 37 through 40, Gauldin
is free to draw a slur displaying the high C♯ as the onset of a descending
chromatic line to A. My concern here is not that Gauldin has omitted
some chords from Beethoven’s progression – I often do likewise to
enhance clarity in my presentations – but instead that at several points
Gauldin has omitted a chord that I regard as hierarchically deeper than
other chords that are displayed. Whereas he shows five chords between
his measure numbers 25 and 64, I assert the necessity of also coming to
terms with a D major chord (measure 37), a C major chord (measure
www.ebook3000.com
45), and an F major chord (measure 53), all accounted for – with stems
indicating their hierarchical pre-eminence – in 11.1. Consequently I
interpret the content through measure 53 as a rather conventional
harmonic progression, whereas Gauldin’s reduction makes it seem as
if a sequential progression slithers downward chromatically from the A
chord to the F chord.
To my ears the consonant F major tonic chord of measures 53
through 56 brings an initiative extending from measure 1 to a close.
Thus beamed bass F<C>F is a key feature of my 11.1. (Observe how the
foundational content of the first ten measures recurs at a deeper level
during the first fifty-three measures.) I would endorse that reading even
if the stable F resolution chord were elided, with the F➔ chord of
Gauldin’s presentation serving as the only restoration of the tonic at
that point. (I reserve this latter chord’s presentation for my graph of the
entire A section, 11.2, to be explored below.) On the other hand, I agree
with Gauldin that the melodic pitch at that point should be read as A –
his extending from measure 10 via an upper-third excursion, mine the
goal of a descending third from C.
The A1 section’s b and a2 regions (measures 60|61–148)
With the upper half of a descending fifth-progression from Kopfton ^5

traversed during a1, the tonic of measure 53 supports ^3. The ^2 of V will
serve, according to what by Beethoven’s time was a very familiar conven-
tion, as the melodic goal of the section’s b region. Just as the descent from
the initial C accommodates upper neighbor D (measures 37 through 44), so
also an upward initiative from A to incomplete neighbor B♭ coordinates
with the deployment of IV as the tonic’s successor during measures 60
through 84. Dissonant augmented fourth EA ♭ (a component of I➔ starting in
measure 57) is displayed in 11.2 as the means whereby IV’s DB ♭ sixth is
targeted. Though this initiative gives the B♭ of measure 66 greater structural
weight than the equivalent F of measure 3, Beethoven nevertheless proceeds
to traverse a descending third-progression from F (conveyed by the beamed
F>E♭>D third-progression of measures 65 through 73 in 11.2).
The B♭ neighbor could be maintained through the V that emerges in
measure 85, resolving to A either at measure 89 or at measure 98 (depend-
ing on how one interprets the a2 region’s initial tonic presentation).8 Yet
Example 11.2 Analysis of Symphony in A Major (op. 92), mvmt. 3, mm. 2–128.
the formal organization that I think Beethoven is here pursuing would

support a descent to ^2 as the melodic goal of b, after which an interruption
would transpire at the juncture between b and a2. Consequently I am
drawn to the G that emerges in the second violin line of measure 84, in
the oboe and bassoon lines (reaching over F>E) of measure 85, and in the
first violin line of measure 86. In this case the 5–6 shift that often transpires
during the succession from IV to V is accomplished through A’s neighbor
B♭ descending to G above a prolonged B♭-D-F triad.
The particular correlation between structure and form in this scherzo
presents a special challenge during the a2 region. There is no problem
^ ^3, because the ensuing b
whatsoever in a1’s traversal of only the third ^5>4>
^
region will pick up that thread with 2. Yet normally a2 would close in a
PAC, thereby requiring significant modifications from the a1 presentation.
Though Beethoven does pursue a different course during a2 (involving a
reduction in content), he nevertheless does not bring the descending linear
progression from 5^ down to the tonic root F. (See 11.2, noting how the D
neighbor that transpired in the upper register starting in measure 37,
shown in 11.1, now resides in the bass of measures 114 and 116. The
harmonic progression lacks the tonic 6-phase chord between I and II➔ and
thus also the A➔ embellishing chord that was so memorably projected
during a1.) The descent from B♭ to A (^4>^3) sounds five times in all during
www.ebook3000.com
measures 125 through 136, with goal A emphasized in multiple registers

during measures 136|137 through 148. (During a1 this material empha-
sized C♯, wafting between Kopfton C and its neighbor D; at the end of a2 it
emphasizes A, the point to which the broad descent has arrived over the
course of A1.) This non-closure will have implications for how the latter
part of the movement transpires. (For now the “missing” material is
displayed within parentheses at the right edge of 11.2, with the letter x
twice among the measure numbers indicating that these chords do not
sound at this point.)
Though Gauldin’s reading of the scherzo coordinates closely with

Schenker’s published and unpublished analyses (as noted above and
in endnote 7), on one important point his interpretation contrasts
both Schenker’s and mine. Though measure numbers are in short
supply, I think that the F-F-A chord three-fourths of the way through
the first staff of Gauldin’s fig. 5 corresponds to the tonic expanse at the
onset of a2 (measures 88|89 through 98).9 If that in fact is what he
intended, then he reads the IV at the onset of what I regard as the b
region as proceeding directly back to I, in what appears to be a plagal
motion. I instead regard the harmonic trajectory from I through III♯ to
IV (with which I have some reservations, as noted above) to be
proceeding inexorably to V, which duly arrives during measure 85.
Gauldin’s commentary reinforces his IV-to-I reading with the follow-
ing words: “ . . . the return of the theme in the subdominant(!) of B♭
major. Beethoven sets matters right by its immediate restatement in
the tonic of F” (p. 93, italics added). The B♭ chord’s impact ends
around measure 84 (with the emergence of the subdominant’s
6-phase G), while the F chord is reintroduced at 883. Instead of a direct
connection, as he proposes, another harmony intervenes – one that I
regard as among the most foundational of the entire scherzo (as
indicated by root C’s presentation via one of the five bass stems
connected to a broad beam in 11.2).
The disparity between Gauldin’s and my interpretations of the B♮
during measures 114 and 116 is not critical. Given his interpretation of
the Kopfton as ^3, B♮ may serve as a passing note to upper-third C;
whereas given my Kopfton 5, ^ B♮ will serve as a lower neighbor to that C,
substituting for the upper neighbor D of a1, which Beethoven here
deploys in the bass.
The B1 section and retransition (measures 149–236)
A structural “problem” with which Beethoven challenges listeners is his

failure to achieve a PAC during A1. The ^5>4>^3 descent shown in 11.2,
measures 89 through 128, leaves the pitch A available as a focal point
for the trio, thereby revealing its mehrdeutig versatility: not only as the
tonic (^1) of the symphony as a whole, but also as 3^ of the scherzo’s F
Major key and as ^5 of the trio’s D Major key.10 At a foundational level,
this A is maintained throughout the trio (as a member of both the D
tonic and A dominant harmonies) and is then re-integrated into the
scherzo with the violin A of measure 237.11 Yet the situation is even
more intriguing. The closure of A1 will be a moment when the com-
poser (and by extension the work’s informed listeners) must come to
terms with the fact that there is some unfinished business: the desir-
ability (sooner or later) for a ^3>^2>^1 descent to complete the structure
erected over the course of the scherzo. It turns out that this overriding
concern dominates the trio, where – even though the key has shifted – a
^
3>^ 2>^1 descent is traversed.
Though additional content is displayed as well, a large part of 11.3 is
devoted to the B1 section and to the retransition that follows. A very
straightforward ternary form transpires: the projection of D Major’s ^3
(F♯), prolonged via a descending local third-progression, during the x1
region; descent to ^2 (E), supported by V, during the y region; and a post-
interruption descent to ^1 (D) during the x2 region. The dashes connecting
beam segments in the graph are intended to convey the fact that the
F♯>E>D linear progression serves as a lower-third substitute for the
A>G>F third that would complete the line inaugurated in measure 90,
while bass D<A>D likewise represents the F<C>F that might have sup-
ported that descent.
The retransition, which reinstates F♯ at its onset, juxtaposes
surging embellishing chords of D and of F. During measures 233
and 234 we might expect an imminent restoration of the D tonic (as
will occur in measure 327). But the modifications to that embellish-
ing chord through the lowering of C♯ to C♮ and the shift from A
to B♭ serve to reposition the resolutional goal, back to F for the
onset of A2.
www.ebook3000.com
Example 11.3 Analysis of Symphony in A Major (op. 92), mvmt. 3.
Though we subscribe to somewhat different notational conventions for

the display of interruption (a controversial and irresolvable matter12),
Gauldin’s and my conceptions for the trio concur. Gauldin’s treatment
of the retransition might warrant a bit more explanation along with a
graph displaying greater detail: his slur connecting bass D>C♯>C♮ does
not convey C♯’s initial upward resolutional urge, which must be offset in
order to bring the tonal center back to F. I also miss the pitch E, which
creates an augmented fourth against B♭ in measures 235 and 236.
Because E leads to F, the first violin G leads to A (not F), justifying my
A
F
dyad at the left edge of 11.1 (as opposed to F followed by A, a crucial
component of Schenker’s reading of measures 1 through 10 as an initial
ascent from F through G to Kopfton A).
The movement as a whole
The unusual second pass through the trio (beginning in measure 409)
stems from the lack of PAC closure during A2. Since Beethoven did not
take decisive steps to rectify the cadential concern, the movement by now
appears to be proceeding through an infinite loop, back and forth between
F Major and D Major. At first, modifications to the scherzo’s a2 region
might have seemed the most likely way to resolve the issues regarding the
construction of a1 (which, because it descends only to ^3, may not merely be
repeated for a2 as a means of bringing the scherzo – and by extension the
movement – to a close). Yet the exact repetition of the scherzo (minus the
repeat signs) causes that structural aberration within a2 to become even
more entrenched. Fortunately Beethoven had an alternative venue at his
disposal for resolving the dilemma: the coda. Though in most cases a coda
begins after a decisive tonic PAC, in the context of this specific movement
those final measures accommodate the traversal of that necessary content
(displayed as missing at the right edge of 11.2 and as principal elements of
the structure, using open noteheads, at the right edge of 11.3). Even so, the
G (= ^2) does not actually sound at the top of the texture during measure
652. But that lacuna falls well within the conventions for imaginative
thinking in musical perception: the leading tone (here E) often sounds
where ^2 “belongs.”
Beethoven proceeds to this close via a feint: for a few measures beginning
at 645 it appears that yet another traversal through the trio may be in store
www.ebook3000.com
(that is, that the infinite loop has not yet been exited). In this case, however,
the broad 5–6–5 motion that helps define the trio (as noted just below the
system in 11.3) quickly reverts from 6 back to 5, coordinating with the
assertion of dominant root C at 6511 (preceded by passing notes B♭ and B♮,
which fill in an CA third). That moment comes across as a cadential 64 chord,
as a result of which F descends to E (sounding in the soprano of measure
652) and A descends to G (most clearly perceptible in the second violin
line, with an A<B♭<B♮<C unfolded third followed by a G-B♭ simultaneity,
and then an F-A simultaneity, all in the register of the initial sounding of
Kopfton C in measure 2).
I concur with Gauldin’s A>(G)>F third during the coda, though (in
the context of his reading of the movement) I do not understand why
bass C and soprano G are displayed as filled-in rather than as open
noteheads.13 Because our interpretations of the scherzo differ, we also
disagree regarding the relative structural weight of the V chords in
measures 581–584 and 651–652. (The former does not appear in
Gauldin’s reading of the scherzo, which is represented between the
trio and the coda by the words “Da Capo” placed at the appropriate
location in his graph. In contrast, that earlier V is one of only five
Roman numerals at my most basic level of harmonic analysis in 11.3.)
12 Piano Sonata in E Major (op. 109)
in response to Nicholas Marston
No one who keeps abreast of Beethoven scholarship will need an intro-

duction to Nicholas Marston. His devotion to Beethoven, especially the
late piano music, extends back for decades to his dissertation on the
sketches for op. 109, followed by a book that not only provides transcrip-
tions of and commentary on those sketches but also offers numerous
analytical observations, accompanied by Schenkerian graphs.1 This
chapter’s exploration of that composition’s three movements thus
complements an already substantial body of material from Marston,
not to mention studies by Schenker, by my former mentor Allen Forte,
and by others.2
I proceed with some trepidation. First, a mere chapter (albeit a very long
one) can hardly suffice to respond to the manifold issues raised by the
available commentary on this work. I have of necessity been very selective
with regard to the topics I address, focusing mainly on issues that emerged
as I read Marston’s book. (My close relationship with Forte prevents me
from reviewing his work objectively.) Since Marston claims the unpub-
lished Schenker graphs as his subject for a future study, my failure to assess
them here has some justification. (Though the relevant microfilm reels
from the Oster Collection sit within reach of my desk as I write, I studied
that material only after developing my own analytical conception of each
movement. Thus the “Schenkerian” graphs I offer here are not reworkings
of Schenker’s.3) Second, I feel somewhat ill at ease putting my views side
by side those of someone so devoted to Beethoven, particularly in that my
understanding of the sonata and interpretation of the sketches often con-
trast his in substantive ways. By comparison I am an interloper – intending
as I do to move on straightaway to Schumann, Brahms, and Wagner rather
than to extend my commitment to Beethoven. Yet I proceed nevertheless,
with the conviction that even if my Beethovenian interactions are limited
to one book, my perspective might provide a helpful catalyst for current
and emerging Beethoven scholars and thus influence the course of future
study in this arena.
My essay (like Marston’s book) takes a form that unfortunately is
174 relatively rare in Schenker-oriented analytical writings, including my
www.ebook3000.com
Piano Sonata in E Major (op. 109) 175
own: instead of addressing a single movement, I take the entire composi-

tion into my purview, assaying all three movements with equal vigor.
Though this has had an impact on the number of works by Beethoven I
was able to incorporate within this monograph’s Masterpieces section, I
trust that the opportunity to integrate the study of three movements
intended by the composer to constitute a single artistic creation will offset
that disadvantage. Some of my assessments (including choice of Kopfton)
were influenced by how these individual structures correlate. The complex-
ity of the whole gives some hint of why a work such as opus 109 can
continue to fascinate for a lifetime. If my commentary inspires renewed
and enhanced listening to the work and fresh endeavors by those with
sufficient facility to perform it, then it will have served its purpose.
Movement 1 exposition: P and TR (measures 0|1–8)
Adjacent tonic-chord pitches in E Major are separated by either a third

(E|G♯, G♯|B) or by a fourth (B|E). That fact is inconvenient to linear
initiatives within music.4 In 12.1a some subtle realignments have been
incorporated during the opening tonic expanse, countering the literalist
reading of a triadic descent in thirds (E, C♯, A) that otherwise might be
proposed (crossed out in 12.1b).5 This broad projection of the initial tonic
at the onset of P allows for the unhurried introduction of all three triadic
pitches (B>G♯>E) as an arpeggiation in the soprano melody. In contrast,
Example 12.1 Analysis of Piano Sonata in E Major (op. 109), mvmt. 1, mm. 0|1–4
(a) Graph of the theme; (b) Non-alignment of tonic-chord pitches within the theme’s
opening tonic expanse.
(a) (b)
the phrase’s dominant harmony sounds only briefly, and so a complemen-

tary ascending arpeggiation (such as D♯<F♯<A) is not feasible.6 The chord
of 32 presents both D♯ and F♯ in the expected register, though simulta-
neously rather than successively. Because the tonic’s B has been transferred
down an octave (now a step below Middle C), its voice-leading successor –
A – sounds only in that lower register in the score. In 12.1a it is restored to
the higher register, justified by the presence of dissonant A’s resolving G♯
in that register at the cadence.7
Though the phrase that begins at 42 reiterates the onset of P, this time
its deployment inaugurates TR. Here Beethoven achieves an important
compositional goal in a remarkable and elegant manner. Whereas the
context of P’s first six chords imposes hierarchical relationships that
emphasize the initial and concluding tonic chords (in 53 and 63 position,
respectively), now the phrase’s second chord (D♯-D♯-F♯-B), which in its
first statement served as a passing chord despite its sounding on a down-
beat, is asserted as V and provides a context for opposing arpeggiations in
both outer voices. (Had Beethoven not intervened in measure 9, those
arpeggiations would have proceeded as B<D♯<F♯B>F♯>B in the bass, as shown in 12.2.8) It is common for a local
dominant to be attained during TR prior to a hierarchically deeper domi-
nant-key tonicization operative throughout S. (In Hepokoski and Darcy’s
Sonata Theory, the label I:HC MC would be applied at the juncture
between those sections.) Here Beethoven rambunctiously elides the MC
moment (displayed at point x in 12.2), inaugurating S (to be explored
below) through the launching of a highly dissonant B♯-D♯-F♯-A chord
(an evolved state of I6 in B Major) in place of a stable B major chord.
Example 12.2 Analysis of Piano Sonata in E Major (op. 109), mvmt. 1, mm. 0|1–8.
www.ebook3000.com
Marston’s ex. 3.1b is closely aligned with my 12.1. (The upward stem on
its initial B derives from how Beethoven crafted the theme – with B
sounding first – in the sketch transcribed in Marston’s ex. 3.1a. I retain
this B priority even though one hears G♯ first in the final version.)
Though I give somewhat more weight to bass B at 21 (correlating with
the segmentation of a descending sixth into triadic members that
Marston does project via his slurring in the alto register), that is a
minor point. I suspect that many readers will be more comfortable
with Marston’s F♯ at 32 than with my parenthetical A (about which
more will be said later in this essay).
It seems to me that Marston has muddied the waters unnecessarily in
his ex. 3.6 graph. In my view, a BG ♯ third may be unfolded equally
successfully as B>G♯ or as G♯<B.9 Marston argues that Beethoven’s switch
to an ascending order gives structural weight to G♯. (Compare with the
large-scale perspective shown in his ex. 3.26, where B is not attached to
the soprano beam until measure 15.) He likewise proposes that the
“crotchet [quarter-note] stems” that first appear in the sketch transcribed
in his ex. 3.16 are intended to “emphasize” a sequential pattern beginning
with G♯ (p. 64). I instead view Beethoven’s deployment of stems as merely
a means of assuring that both elements of each third or fourth resonate
until the end of the beat, and therefore I assign the initial G♯ to an alto
strand below soprano B (which requires no supplementary stem because
its dotted-eighth value already extends the pitch to the end of the beat).
Taken all together, my various graphs of the first movement in this
chapter offer a rebuttal to Marston’s conjecture that “Beethoven wanted
this movement to be ‘about’ G♯ in some sense” (p. 51).10
Though he does not provide a detailed harmonic analysis for the
passage, it is clear that Marston’s harmonic interpretation of what I call
TR contrasts the reading proposed in 12.2. I acknowledge that I experi-
enced some initial uncertainty regarding my interpretation of measure
5. Which of its two chords is hierarchically deeper? If the first, then a
B
D♯
DB ♯ voice exchange transpires between the downbeats of measures 5
and 6; if the second, then the first chord is a linear connector and the
progression to the dominant incorporates a surge, as I II➔ V. My
endorsement of the first of these readings is based on two factors: (1)
Beethoven’s sketch transcribed in Marston’s ex. 3.13 (line 1) displays
soprano B and D(♯) but not the intervening E, which I take as a clear
indication of his hierarchical thinking; and (2) Beethoven engages the
first two chords (root E to root B, transposed as B to F♯) as a motivic unit

during the development, as we shall see shortly. In either reading, the
dominant has arrived by 61 at the latest, in the context of an E>D♯
melodic motive that is replicated by G♯>F♯ over the bar line between
measures 7 and 8 (thereby giving F♯ hierarchical precedence over G♯).
Successive measures from 6 through what we might assume would
occur in measure 9 project the following roots: B E F♯ (B). In this
context the E chord is internal to a tonicizing B<F♯>(B) bass arpeggia-
tion and thus warrants interpretation as IV in B Major.11 From his ex.
3.26 and from comments in the second complete paragraph on p. 52,
one may discern that Marston instead regards that E chord as a con-
tinuation of the initial tonic: I in E rather than IV in B. In my view, G♯
cannot be “reached” in measure 7 if it serves as a neighbor to the F♯
within a melodic B<D♯<F♯<(B) arpeggiation of V.12
Movement 1 exposition: S (measures 9–15)
Soprano A at 91, which sounds at the onset of S, belongs to a melodic

trajectory that is already in motion. Though conventionally the B at 51
eventually would have been reiterated (shifted upwards by an octave to
introduce the registral position of S’s inaugurating A), Beethoven here
prepares for such a B with an A♯ leading tone at 82 but then elides both the
MC B (displayed parenthetically in 12.2) and a second B to inaugurate S.
Instead he proceeds dramatically from A♯ to A♮ at the peak of a cres-
cendo, concurrently altering both the meter and the texture.13
Consequently two successive high Bs in 12.3a, which shows the structural
context that I propose Beethoven is here transforming, are displayed
within parentheses.14 (Several of the Beethoven sketches transcribed in
Marston’s book clearly display a high B at this point, later rescinded in
actual sound – though in my view not in imagined impact – as
Beethoven’s compositional process proceeded.)
The content of measures 9 through 15 is shaped by two traversals
of more or less the same harmonic progression in tonicized B Major,
^
supporting a descending line that reaches a PAC close (on 1 in B Major)
I
only in the second traversal (at 151). When background 2^ (following
15
^ serves as the melodic foundation for S, one usually encounters a

Kopfton 3)
www.ebook3000.com
Example 12.3 Piano Sonata in E Major (op. 109), mvmt. 1 (a) Analysis of mm. 0|1–15;
(b) Chord progression of mm. 12–13.
(a)
(b)
descending fifth-progression to the tonicized dominant’s root as S’s guid-

ing melodic trajectory. Here, instead, ^5 persists into S (if the parenthetical
Bs of 12.3a are accepted as structural girders even if unsounded).
Consequently the path to closure within S involves the linear progression
of a descending octave. Observe how, in the score, the bass of 91 through
111 unfolds pitches that are displayed in vertical alignment in the graph:
F♯<B♯, C♯>E, E<A♯, B>D♯. This foundation supports a conventional har-
monic trajectory that leads to an inverted B tonic at mid-phrase. (That
progression supports the descending octave’s upper fourth: imagined B
down to F♯.) During this material’s reiteration (from 121 through 141) it
initially appears that Beethoven is endeavoring to create a fully chromatic
span from F♯ down to D♯ in the bass through the substitution of E♯ for E
near the end of measure 12 (thereby enlivening II with a surge). Yet, as
12.3b shows, a D♯ unexpectedly follows directly after E♯, leaving a
whole-step gap. Beethoven mischievously spells the chord using an FÜ

(displayed as G♮ in my model), further complicating matters. My explana-
tion for this curious moment is that bass E is elided, displaced by an
anticipation of the succeeding bass note, D♯. The chord should not be
interpreted as an assertion of D♯➔. Instead, it stands for the F♯➔ domi-
nant of the phrase’s earlier statement (measure 10), though with one note
suppressed (replaced by the premature arrival of its successor) and another
note enharmonically misspelled (FÜ for G♮). I suspect that because this
passage serves as a reiteration of a normatively stated progression,
Beethoven felt he could veer a bit further from the charted course than
would have been advisable otherwise. (As we shall see, his creative fancy
takes an even more daring turn in this passage’s presentation during the
recapitulation.)
Likewise the cadential progression of measure 11 maps onto measure 14
(traversing the first four pitches of the descending octave’s lower fifth, F♯
to B). Whereas the dominant’s arrival at 113 is followed immediately by a
backtracking to S’s initial chord (measure 12 beginning like measure 9,
with an expanded range and enlivened texture), thereby preventing the
attainment of the melody’s goal B, measure 14 presses forward to a PAC
at 151. The melodic line now transpires in the high register. Because so
many notes sound in this vicinity, you might want to circle the octave-
progression’s concluding five notes in your score: downbeat F♯ (measure
14), E at the end of beat 1, D♯ at the onset of beat 2 and again (after an
upper-sixth excursion) the fifth-to-last note of the measure, C♯ the mea-
sure’s second-to-last note, and finally B at the next downbeat (measure 15).
Likewise bass F♯ during 142 (understood to persist structurally for the
remainder of the measure) connects to B in multiple registers during
151–2. Because of the upward registral shift, the very B that was expected
at 91 as the starting point for a descending octave-progression in fact
concludes S’s downward melodic trajectory at 151. The exposition draws
to a close with multiple filled-in B–B octaves, first downwards (B>B>B>B)
and then upwards (B<B<B<B), concluding just as the development version
of P material (now in B Major) emerges. As we shall see, the shift from
descending to ascending octave is not merely a local characteristic of
measure 15, but also a guiding principle for the entire development section.
Marston’s division of the exposition into three parts (p. 46) does not
aptly reflect how Beethoven has shaped S (Marston’s second group). In
his view an idea is first stated (measures 9 through 11) and then repeated
www.ebook3000.com
with variation (measures 12 through 14). Thereafter a separate entity

displayed on an equal footing with the second group transpires: a
single-measure codetta. In my 12.3a measure 15 instead is indivisibly
linked to what precedes it, as the harmonic and melodic goal of S (in
this case corresponding to what Hepokoski and Darcy might label as
the EEC).
The segregation of measure 15 from what precedes it is also apparent
in Marston’s overview of the entire movement in his ex. 3.26. Whereas I
have deployed structurally significant V numerals in measures 5 and (9)
of my harmonic analysis (12.2, 12.3a), Marston does not display V until
measure 15 (with the A♯ that concludes measure 8 connected to the B
of 151).16 I am not proposing anything radical in suggesting that the
dominant key, B Major, is tonicized throughout S. That is what usually
happens in a major-key sonata movement. Though a B-D♯-F♯ chord is
elided at the onset of S, those pitches sound, asserting that function,
during both 103 and 111. Though Marston does not provide a chord-by-
chord harmonic analysis for the passage, he refers to the C♯ chord at 93
as the “submediant harmony” (p. 59), indicative that, for him, the initial
E Major tonic still guides the local chordal progression at that point.
Marston apparently interprets the final thirteen notes of the sketch
transcribed in his ex. 3.1 as intended for the exposition (pp. 47–49). His
ex. 3.2 proposes a tonal context for some of them. I instead regard those
notes as destined for the recapitulation and thus will address them later
in this essay. My conjecture is that Beethoven first wrote down a
structure that maintains E Major throughout (as will occur during the
recapitulation) and then annotated his sketch with a few words to record
his thoughts on an alternative trajectory suitable for the exposition.
Movement 1 development (measures 15|16–48)
The B major dominant harmony that was tonicized and projected via a
(B)>B octave-progression during S persists through the end of the devel-
opment section, with important arrival points at the end of measure 15, at
361, and at 421. At a foundational level the development’s most significant
event is the addition of seventh A to the dominant triad (at 431). The A-B
second at the top of that chord (reiterated at 451 and 471) prepares the
G♯<B third that inaugurates the recapitulation’s P at 482.
Whereas the tonic triad’s upper third (G♯<B) initiates both the exposi-
tion and recapitulation P and TR, the development, which transpires in the
midst of a dominant tonicization, begins with the dominant triad’s upper
third (D♯<F♯ at the end of measure 15, now positioned at the bottom of the
texture). Beethoven deploys a modified form of 42 through 51 (transposed)
for the onset of the development, applied first in the context of the local
tonic chord, B major, and immediately thereafter up a step to B’s super-
tonic, C♯ minor. The correlation with the exposition TR becomes even
more explicit as the progression continues. Note that in measures 4|5
through 8 (and assuming that measure 9 “ought” to offer a B-D♯-F♯-B
resolution) the E-to-B root motion is followed by a local tonicization of B,
with a B–F♯–(B) bass trajectory fleshed out as I IV V (I) in B Major. That
game plan guides the development through 281. First Beethoven projects B
to F♯ (I to V in B Major). Instead of expanding upon the F♯ chord by means
of an F♯–C♯–F♯ trajectory (following the exposition TR template), he
instead immediately moves the initiating succession up a step: C♯ to G♯,
the onset of a tonicization of B Major’s supertonic. For emphasis, this
initial phase of the trajectory is fleshed out in measures 18 through 21 (that
is, another C♯-to-G♯ span transpires, this time expanded to I IV V♯) before
the structure’s second phase commences. Whereas the TR dominant toni-
cization’s B–F♯–B progression deploys IV (measure 7) between I and V,
now, in the context of C♯ Minor’s dominant, the G♯–D♯–G♯ progression
deploys II7 (232 through 242) between I and V♯, though in an unusual way:
the diatonic A♯-C♯-E-G♯ supertonic seventh is here embellished by G♯’s
chromatic lower neighbor, FÜ, and by the time G♯ emerges the chord has
evolved into a surging II➔ (CÜ-E♯-G♯-B).
TR’s F♯ chord (measure 8) does not successfully resolve to a stable B,
though such a chord was expected.17 Likewise the G♯ chord prolonged
between measures 21 and 28 does not resolve to C♯. Though the shift
of wobbly B♯ to B♮ might seem to lower the odds that a C♯ chord will
re-emerge, in fact that event often occurs in such a context, because B♮
(not B♯) would serve as the seventh of the resolving C♯ chord if it
surges, as the supertonic often does. This scenario is displayed in 12.4.
(Note how C♯-E-G♯ is transformed into surging C♯-E♯-G♯-B, as II➔
targeting V.) All of this model’s chords perform a role in Beethoven’s
composition, except for the surging C♯ chord marked by an x in the
measure number row. Beethoven’s excision of that chord makes room
for an alternative means of attaining the F♯ dominant: an ascent in
thirds from G♯ through B and D♯ to F♯ (all diatonic in B Major) over
the course of measures 28 through 33. This deployment is especially
www.ebook3000.com
Example 12.4 Analysis of Piano Sonata in E Major (op. 109), mvmt. 1, mm. 15–36.
appealing because, earlier, the movement’s initial chords seemed to be

guided by that device in the descending direction (E through C♯ to A),
though ultimately (as the annotation to 12.1b indicates) that trajectory
proves to be illusory.
Incorporating the materials just discussed into the broader context of the
entire development, one might be astonished to discover that Beethoven has
mirrored the descending octave-progression of S (shown in 12.3a) with an
ascending octave-progression (shown in 12.5).18 This middleground juxta-
position corresponds to the local descending and ascending scale juxtaposi-
tion within measure 15, at the juncture between the exposition and the
development. Following the I II V I progression of measures 15 through
3 in an upper strand and from ^5 to ^8
36 (which supports the ascent from ^1 to ^
in an interior strand), the tonic surges (by which point the upper strand has
proceeded through ^4 to ^5), targeting the IV at 402 (supporting ^6), which in
turn proceeds to V➔ (^7) and I (^8).19 An A♮ emerges in the chordal interior
only after that cadence (at 431), marking the termination of the B Major
tonicization and pressing forward (in the context of V7 in E Major) to the
tonic restoration at the onset of the recapitulation.
The sketch that Marston transcribes in his ex. 3.17 displays many features
that correlate (if one supplies the accidentals that Beethoven did not take
the time to write in) with the score version of the development. The most
challenging passage occurs in the right half of its final staff, where F(♯)
leads to a fermata-enhanced G(♯), followed (after a bit of flourish) by an
A. Guided by the published score, I propose that at some point the
harmonization of the melodic F♯ would shift from root F♯ to root B, so
that F♯<G♯<A would correspond to the filling-in of a surging B➔ chord’s
fifth to seventh, wherein G♯ may indeed be supported by a passing 64
chord, as Beethoven initially conceived.20 (A corresponding B to B➔
evolution, notably incorporating an F♯<G♯<A interior strand, occurs in
the score between 382 and 401.) If the reading presented thus far is correct,
then the F♯<FÜ at the end of that sketch staff, which also opens the sketch
in Marston’s next example (ex. 3.18), would correspond to the upward
motion from F♯ to B that transpires in the score between 401 and 421
(noting that Beethoven eventually abandoned the FÜ chromatic passing
note but inserted one between G♯ and A♯).21 Interestingly, this F♯<B span
(which breaks off after G♯ in Marston’s ex. 3.18) appears to be harmo-
nized in the sketch in about the same way as the interior-strand F♯<B
span at the onset of the development (as displayed in 12.5). Note espe-
cially that the C♯-E-G♯-G♯ and B♯-D♯-G♯-G♯ chords of the sketch corre-
late closely with the published score’s 162 through 171. Consequently I do
not endorse the proposed harmonic analysis that Marston offers within
brackets in ex. 3.18. Instead, the initial F♯ would be harmonized by a B
major chord (corresponding to that at the end of measure 15), and after
the sketch breaks off two additional chords would be required to complete
the motion: an F♯ chord with soprano A♯ (corresponding to 412) and a B
chord with soprano B (corresponding to 421). From this perspective it
appears that Beethoven later rejected the deployment of II during the
passage (reprising the II usage of 162), proceeding instead to IV (as occurs
at 402), which flows more naturally from the B➔ surge already worked
out in the sketch (during the final staff of ex. 3.17), as noted.
www.ebook3000.com
As I have demonstrated above, these sketches coordinate very closely

with the final version of the development. Most of what is displayed in 12.5
is accounted for. In particular, B Major’s F♯ dominant (measure 33) and its
resolution to a B tonic (measure 36) seem to me to be already inherent in
what Beethoven jotted down on the final staff in ex. 3.17. Consequently I
find the reading that Marston offers in his ex. 3.19 baffling. He argues in the
accompanying commentary that when the sketches were written
Beethoven regarded G♯ as “the main climax of the development” (p. 68).
I propose instead that G♯, though prolonged for several measures, is
internal to a B–F♯–B bass arpeggiation (as shown in 12.5). Root F♯ appears
in Beethoven’s sketch, and a resolving B root is implied by the F♯<G♯<A
line that follows (with a stable B chord evolving into B➔ upon the arrival of
A, just as occurs in Beethoven’s published score).
Whereas Marston proposes (reasonably) that the sketch he tran-
scribes in ex. 3.11a was intended as a retransition at the conclusion of
the development, I will propose below the alternative view that it
pertains instead to the coda.
Movement 1 recapitulation (measures 48|49–65)
As in the exposition, the recapitulation’s P projects (in extreme registers)

the E Major tonic with Kopfton ^5, beginning at 482. The exposition’s S, in
the tonicized dominant key, is transposed into tonic E Major for the
recapitulation (with modest alterations), beginning in measure 58.22
Despite its again unconventional opening, S once more pursues a descend-
ing octave-progression (again assuming the imaginative insertion of a
stable initiating pitch, now E), cadencing on E (= ^1) in measure 65. The
background descent leading from the long-prolonged ^5 to the ^1 of
S transpires during the recapitulation TR, which differs significantly from
the exposition version due to the altered tonal context. This TR material is
explored in 12.6. Whereas the A♯ of 82 was left unresolved, a quicker
upward arpeggiation during 531 through 541 achieves the goal B (providing
further support for B’s imaginative insertion during the exposition analy-
sis). This dominant harmony extends through the end of measure 55,
where the melody’s A (the dominant’s seventh = ^4) begins the background
descent from the Kopfton.23 A conventional resolution to the tonic’s third
(^
3 at 561, with upper-octave doublings) is followed by another A (covered
by C♯), an incomplete upper neighbor to G♯, which intervenes before the
continuation downward to F♯ (= ^2) for the MC. Measures 58 through 65
project the concluding E (= ^1), with a cadence at 651 (after a cadenza-like
passage that ends with a low-register reiteration of the A>G♯>F♯ third
from measures 56 and 57).24 Given the movement’s registral diversity,
Beethoven has fittingly replicated goal E in multiple octaves during mea-
sure 65.
Granted, dealing with Beethoven’s sketches is a puzzle: one cannot

always be sure what passage a sketch corresponds to. Yet there is some-
thing startling about a sketch passage analyzed by Marston in his ex. 3.2:
that analysis corresponds almost note-for-note to my analysis of mea-
sures 54 through 561 in 12.6! Consequently I have proposed, above, that
the latter part of the sketch transcribed in Marston’s ex. 3.1 corresponds
to the recapitulation, not the exposition. And whereas the five sketch
notes in ex. 3.1 that follow ex. 3.2’s concluding G♯ are interpreted by
Marston as the beginning of “a fourth phrase” that “breaks off,” my 12.6
deploys all of those pitches in the continuation beyond 561 to a PAC in E
Major: C♯ for IV, F♯ and D♯ for V, and E for I.25
The graph Marston presents to convey his conception for the entire
movement (ex. 3.26) proposes that a structural tonic does not return at
the onset of the recapitulation. (In his commentary on p. 80, he states:
“the lack of melodic closure at the point of recapitulation also affects the
www.ebook3000.com
bass: the return of the tonic in bar 48 is interpreted as part of a larger

dominant prolongation which extends to the final structural cadence in
bars 85–6.”) Whereas Marston interprets this chord as connecting two
dominant harmonies, I instead regard the development’s V as connect-
ing two tonic harmonies (and thus show a foundational tonic as extend-
ing from measure 0 until measure 53 in 12.6). Marston will find the
“melodic closure” that he seeks not at the beginning of the recapitula-
tion, but at its endpoint: a dramatically low F♯>E over the bar line
between measures 64 and 65, supported (as usual) by a V-to-I harmonic
succession. That passage is not displayed in his graph.
Movement 1 coda (measures 65|66–99)
Whereas the movement’s background structure concludes during the reca-

pitulation, the coda here (as often is the case) offers reinforcement through a
middleground reiteration of that structure. The curious rhythmic shift
during the middle of measure 65 (resulting from the fast quintuplet placed
after sextuplets), which adds emphasis to G♯ (instead of the cadential E),
facilitates a projection of the downward arpeggiation G♯>E>B – that is, a
post-ESC reintroduction of the Kopfton now via a descending sixth rather
than the G♯<B third of measure 0 (and 4 and 48 and 52). Through measure
73 Beethoven remains transfixed by the G♯-to-B third. First he leads down-
wards to G♯, expanding the descending-third motive of measures 0 through
4 into a fourth via the insertion of upper neighbor C♯ (related to the C♯ of
measure 54, from the recapitulation TR), as shown in 12.7.26 Then B is
restored, also through deployment of a fourth, this time ascending (F♯ up to
B). This latter motion attains B despite the fact that A, as the local dominant’s
seventh, would more typically lead downwards to G♯. These multiple sound-
ings of A between B and G♯ (either descending or ascending) offer support to
my proposal that an imaginative A “belongs” in measure 3, as shown
parenthetically in 12.1a and 12.7. The imposition of bass B♯ against a
replication of that A in measure 77 indeed induces a downward continua-
tion, initiating the coda’s descending fifth-progression from B. Then, just as
C♯ neighbors B, neighbor A (preceded by its upper third, C♯) comes between
G♯ and the melodic descent to F♯ (measure 85). (Again compare what
transpires here with the descent during the recapitulation TR: A, covered
by C♯ at 562, comes between G♯ and F♯.)
The G♯ at 781 is harmonized by I6, which in this context usually would

proceed to II. In this case the intervening chord at 782 results from a
collision: its E♯ evolves out of the preceding I6, asserted as VI➔, while
bass A introduces the succeeding II (in first inversion). That II likewise
surges (at 812), targeting V, whose 64 embellishment at 821 undergoes an
unfurling into 63 position (at 841). An embellishing F♯➔ chord is inserted
prior to the full flowering of the dominant during measure 85. The tonic
root is secured at 861, with the melodic fifth-progression’s concluding E
(= ^
1, preceded by its upper third, G♯27) following at 872. For the remaining
measures, Beethoven further projects B and G♯ in various registers, now
sporting the C(♯) and A upper neighbors that embellished them earlier in
the coda. Echoes of Kopfton B sound in multiple registers, anticipating the
B of the second movement’s first measure.
Marston assigns the material transcribed in his ex. 3.11a to the retransi-
tion at the conclusion of the development. That in fact may be what
Beethoven intended. However, I am intrigued by the relationship of these
pitches to components of the coda. Note that B♯<C♯ sounds near the end
of measure 65. Those pitches (an octave lower) begin this sketch. Could
the following C♯<G♯ be a mistake (either by Beethoven or by Marston),
with C♯<E intended (thus coordinating with the final pitches of measure
65)?28 The descending-ascending-descending line that follows bears a
reasonable similarity to content from measures 66 through 85 (coinciding
with my descending-ascending-descending arrows in 12.7). If this read-
ing is correct, then it appears that Beethoven initially intended to close the
movement with a reprise of the P theme (the final sketch notes) rather
than with the P-like material that emerges starting in measure 86.
www.ebook3000.com
Movement 2 exposition: P (measures 1–24)
How might Beethoven begin the second movement of a sonata whose first
movement initially conveys the tonic through a filling-in of the downward
arpeggiation shown in 12.8a (extracted from 12.1)? Our exploration of
the first movement revealed how Beethoven deploys linear trajectories
reciprocally – that is, successively in both downward and upward direc-
tions. Especially because the second movement retains E as the tonic pitch
(now in the minor mode), the ascending arpeggiation shown in 12.8b
offers a particularly attractive option for setting things in motion during
a sonata-form P.29 Again the tonic triad’s upper third is unfolded at the
start (here with G<B replacing the first movement’s G♯<B), followed by a
similar unfolding of the tonic’s remaining adjacent dyads (B<E, E<G), in
the context of I5–6. (See the harmonic analysis in 12.8c.) Because the pace of
the harmonic activity accelerates in measure 3, the apex G’s sounding is
belated – against bass A rather than against the preceding C, where it
“belongs” (and where it is displayed in 12.8c). The B-D♯-F♯ chord attained
in measure 4 is not the phrase’s principal dominant, but instead serves
locally within the initial tonic expanse, resolving to a first-inversion tonic
during measure 6. (This local dominant evolves in measure 5 through the
Example 12.8 Piano Sonata in E Major (op. 109) (a) Mvmt. 1 initial arpeggiation; (b)
Mvmt. 2 initial arpeggiation; (c) Analysis of mvmt. 2, mm. 1–8.
(a) (b)
(c)
introduction of the chordal seventh and ninth. The E at the end of that
measure is an anticipation of the restored tonic’s root, reiterated against
bass G at the onset of measure 6.30)
Measure 6 is the venue not only for the local progression’s tonic resolu-
tion, but also for the transfer of Kopfton B to the upper register, completing
the ascending arpeggiation of an octave. At first it seems as if the ground
gained in the upward direction is being forfeited: from the apex G of 32 the
passing motion to E continues downwards to B (during 62). Yet an
ascending B<B quickly inserted before the next downbeat results in a
conquest of the Kopfton’s upper octave after all. The harmonic progression
of measures 7 and 8 supports a descending fifth-progression from that
dramatically attained B down to E.31 The B at 71 serves as a suspension,
embellished by C before II’s third, A, arrives. Because of that activity, the
passing note G that normally would sound in an unaccented position is
delayed until the second beat, where it clashes against the dominant root
and third. A PAC is achieved at 81.32
Before exploring the content of measures 9 through 24, a look forward
to measures 112 through 119 (the corresponding region within the reca-
pitulation) will prove useful. In that context Beethoven offers a second
statement of the P theme, transferred to the bass (with the end of the first
statement and beginning of the second dovetailing at the downbeat of
measure 112) but otherwise not significantly modified. Though what
commences in measure 9 comes across as distinct from what has preceded
it, our comparison with the recapitulation would lead us to expect that
some clear relationship with the initial statement of P will emerge even-
tually. In fact, measures 9 through 12 persist with the arpeggiation focus
Example 12.9ab Analysis of Piano Sonata in E Major (op. 109), mvmt. 2, mm. 1–24.
(a) (b)
www.ebook3000.com
featured in measures 1 through 3. The link between those initial measures

and the outset of the first movement was demonstrated in 12.8a–b. Now
compare 12.1b (which fleshes out the content of 12.8a) and 12.9a, which
corresponds to measures 9 through 12 of the second movement. We see
how Beethoven has conveyed on the one hand downward and on the other
upward arpeggiations, with passing notes filling in the leaps. Consequently
the A<C<D♯<F♯ arpeggiation of measures 9 through 12 relates in a sophis-
ticated way to the movement’s initial B<E<G (later capped by B).
Beethoven pursues this arpeggiation while initiating an alternative harmo-
nization for the theme’s descending B>E fifth-progression (which first
transpired in measures 6 through 8). The presentation, as proposed in
12.9b, is notable particularly in that an A sounds at 91 in the register of the
initial B (measure 1) but is not replicated an octave higher (as was the B).
Consequently here, as in the analysis of the first movement’s P (12.1a), a
parenthetical A has been inserted into the graph (measures 12 and 20) to
imaginatively realize the full projection of a descending fifth-progression
from Kopfton ^5. (Thus a note that does not actually sound is a shared
link between the two themes!) Due to its position at a later stage within the
descending fifth-progression (to be followed by E rather than by G♯),
the arpeggiation of measures 13 through 16 is displayed with peak F♯, as
presented sonically (rather than again imagining an A). Though Beethoven
sets up 162 as a cadence point, the bass does not fulfill that agenda.
Consequently the entire eight-measure expanse is repeated, pursuant to
the appropriate sounding of bass E at 242.
Marston’s reading of the P theme is presented in his exx. 5.3a, 5.7, 5.8a,
and 6.21. Especially through comparison with the contrasting context of
the recapitulation, I am inclined to hear full closure at measure 8,
followed by a continuation that eventually leads to a reiteration of that
closure. This contrasts Marston’s integration of measures 1 through 24
into a single all-embracing structure (best displayed in his ex. 5.8a). For
Marston the descent to E in measure 8 is subordinate to that in measure
24, a view supported by Beethoven’s early sketch, transcribed in
Marston’s ex. 5.1. Yet that sketch shows no evidence of a cadence
corresponding to that of measure 8. In my view the single broad
trajectory of that sketch was later reformulated, with a potent cadence
inserted in the eighth measure (giving a more normative shape to the
initial phase of P). That cadence is then reinforced by a coequal one in
measure 24.
My reaction to several details from Marston’s ex. 5.7 should help

clarify how it is that two seasoned Schenkerian analysts can disagree
regarding the movement’s Kopfton (to the extent that such a reading
depends on P alone, without an assessment of how that theme fits within
its broader context). For me, the melody of measures 1 through 3
projects dyads: G<B, B<E, and E<G. In Marston’s reading, the B of
measure 1 and the E of measure 2 behave in the manner of anticipations
(despite G<B’s close alliance with the first movement’s initiating
G♯<B).33 Consequently B and E are displayed a measure later in his
graph than in mine, thereby isolating the initial G and making it readily
available for connection to the upper G of 32. Yet if one follows through
on his presumption, then the high G must be assigned to bass A (as
shown in his graph). Does this chord function as IV7? Or is II asserted,
with a G>F♯ embellishment that matches the E>D♯ of the next measure
(and the B>A and G>F♯ of measure 7)? I endorse the latter reading, and
thus propose that the second through fifth soprano noteheads in ex. 5.7
each ought to be moved one position to the left.
Next consider the high B at the end of measure 6. It is followed by a
shift of bass to F♯, which converts the retained B into a suspension. The
4–3 resolution that is expected corresponds to the B>A that shines
through even if an embellishing C intervenes. Marston instead shows
that A emerging from below – the G of measure 3 is slurred to that A,
which would imply that B likewise ascends to C.34
Finally, I question Marston’s presentation of the G. It is clear from ex.
5.7 that the melody deploys two distinct Gs: that of 32 is displayed as
structurally prominent, whereas that of 72 appears to be of only local
significance, coming between a flagged A and beamed F♯. (It lacks
affiliation with either the II7 or V harmony of Marston’s analysis.) Yet
in the less detailed view of the passage in ex. 3.8, these two Gs are
juxtaposed (both attached to the soprano dotted beam), implying a
prolongation from one to the other. I suggest that – whether emanating
from G (Marston’s view) or from B (my view) – the melody’s A
(member of II7) descends to F♯ (member of V♯). The G between that
A and F♯, displayed inappropriately at the onset of a G>F♯>E slur in ex.
5.8, is unrelated to the G of measure 3.
We will never know exactly what harmonization Beethoven intended
for the melodic sketch transcribed in ex. 5.1. Marston’s conjecture in his
ex. 5.3b, conveyed by means of several bass notes within brackets and
www.ebook3000.com
some Roman numerals, certainly is feasible. Yet my ear hears an alter-

native conjecture as more persuasive, and incidentally as in some ways
more consistent with what Beethoven eventually wrote in the final score.
Twice in the latter, the melodic pitches A and F♯ are harmonized by
the supertonic (measures 3 and 7). Thus it seems to me likely that
Beethoven would have placed that same chord into service to support
the A>F♯ third in the first two measures of the sketch’s staff 4 prior to the
onset of V♯. (Marston’s ex. 5.3b displays only bass B, without a Roman
numeral, during this region.) Likewise the A<C<F♯ arpeggiation at the
end of staff 7 (which in my view was conceived in the sketch as pre-
cadential material corresponding to the vicinity of the final score’s
measure 23 but ultimately was deployed also to generate a cadence in
measure 8) correlates perfectly with the diatonic supertonic of the
published score’s 71 (remembering that B there functions as a suspen-
sion). This leads to a more speculative suggestion: that the B♭<E<G<C
arpeggiation of staff 8 (which Marston proposes stands for A♯<E<G<C)
might instead stand for A♯[B♭]<E<G<C♯ (that is, retaining Marston’s
enharmonic spelling and adding an accidental that one could imagine
Beethoven omitted through carelessness). A diatonic supertonic might
be followed by this surge targeting V♯, rather than by Marston’s super-
surge. The continuation from that point is so formulaic that Beethoven
did not bother to write it down in his sketch, though of course V♯
followed by I transpires between 72 and 81 and also during measure 24 in
the final version.35
Movement 2 exposition: TR FS (measures 25–66)
This sonata-form movement’s exposition does not repeat the first move-
ment’s P TR ’ S trajectory (a two-part exposition whose internal division
point, marked by the MC, is denoted here by the apostrophe). Instead, the
exposition’s structure corresponds to what Hepokoski and Darcy classify
as a continuous exposition (P TR FS, where FS stands for Fortspinnung,
German for “spinning-out”).36 Though TR’s harmonic trajectory reaches
II5♯ ♯ in measure 33, there is no subsequent medial caesura on F♯.37 Instead
a broad expansion of that F♯ chord leads directly – without pause – to E
Minor’s dominant in measures 41 and 42. The remainder of the exposition
engages in a tonicization of the B Minor dominant.
Example 12.10 Piano Sonata in E Major (op. 109), mvmt. 2 (a–c) Evolved states of
tonic-to-supertonic connection; (d) Analysis of mm. 1–42.
(a) (b) (c)
(d)
The absence of an MC is not something one could predict at the onset of

TR. In the vicinity of measures 25 through 32 what matters is that an E
minor tonic chord is gradually displaced by an F♯ major supertonic.
Though the I–II5♯ ♯ harmonic succession often would support a structural
descent from ^3 to ^2, here (as in the first movement) ^5 extends throughout
the exposition and beyond. In this case the supertonic supports a C♯ that
fills in a broad B<D third (the lower third of the goal dominant harmony).
This relates motivically to the P theme, where the tonic E chord’s GE third is
traversed in both ascending and descending directions between measures 2
and 6 (displayed via a slur and a beam in 12.8c).
Four stages of elaboration for this TR’s structure are juxtaposed in 12.10.
(Note in passing that the melodic idea introduced during measures 25
through 28 and developed in the measures that follow is derived from
measures 3 through 7.) In a minor key an intense chromatic intervention is
required to make the supertonic harmony surge towards V. In this case
diatonic F♯-A-C must shift to F♯-A♯-C♯. That transformation in turn
impacts the tonic’s 5–6 shift: instead of E-G-B followed by E-G-C (which
might proceed gracefully to the lowered supertonic, F♮-A-C), E♯-G♯-C♯
would suitably target the F♯ chord. That foundational trajectory is
www.ebook3000.com
displayed in 12.10a. Two straightforward enhancements are incorporated

within 12.10b: a chordal unfurling (with C♯ positioned in the bass), and the
retention of the 5-phase B alongside the emerging 6-phase C♯. The third
stage (12.10c) is critical to how Beethoven proceeds in his composition:
two distinct applications of the pitch D are successively projected – first as a
passing note between E and C♯, and then as the ninth of a highly evolved
♯VI➔ (E♯-G♯-B-D). The fourth stage (12.10d) corresponds closely to
Beethoven’s composition. Note how the same tendency towards arpeggia-
tion that was observed during P now is applied to the passing chord, so that
(in the graph, at least) the chord sounds successively in 63 , 53 , and 64
positions.38 During measure 32 Beethoven succeeds in creating a context
in which two successive syntactic elements (the fourth and fifth chords
displayed in 12.10d) collide: the right-hand B and D of the score’s 322
could extend the ongoing B-D-F♯ prolongation (locally embellished by
passing note C♯ and neighboring note A♯ at 321) were it not for the
concurrent emergence of a G and E♯ below. This works in the manner of
a double entendre. Exactly what role does bass F♯ at 322 perform? Is it
completing an arpeggiation trajectory, D>B>F♯? (In this interpretation
bass G would serve as a neighbor to F♯.) Or is F♯ a passing note connecting
the G and E♯ of that passing chord’s successor? (Here the conventional G♯
proposed in 12.10a–c is replaced by a more intense G♮, converting a ♯VI➔
surge into a ♯VI supersurge.) Ultimately the latter function prevails (and
thus F♯-B-D is displayed within parentheses in the graph), an interpreta-
tion fostered by the distinctive rhythmic projection of unfolded thirds in
the bass of measures 30 through 32: F♯>D♯, D>B, G>E♯.39
A critical factor in how Beethoven leads from I to ♯VI is his deploy-
ment of the B-D dyad in both the B-D-F♯ passing chord and in its
successor, submediant E♯-G-B-D, resulting in the breathtaking double
entendre at 322. What Beethoven does next is equally astonishing: the
supertonic F♯-A♯-C♯, which targets V as II➔, evolves to such an extent
that the B-D dyad again comes into play. Developing out of the texture
deployed beginning in measure 9, Beethoven first introduces the super-
tonic’s seventh (E above C♯ at 351) and ninth (G above E at 352) before
quickly rescinding those attainments over the course of measure 36.40
Emboldened, Beethoven tries again, proceeding beyond E and G to the
chordal eleventh (B above G at 402) and thirteenth (D above B at 412). Just
after that thirteenth sounds, the bass proceeds from a long-prolonged F♯ to
B. The wavering repetitions of D>C♯ in the melody (together with B>A♯
below) amount to another double entendre: with a prolongation of bass F♯,
D would resolve into the II➔ chord’s fifth, C♯ (and likewise inner-voice B
to its third, A♯). But with the shift of bass to B (the root of goal V), those
relationships reverse: C♯ and A♯ serve as lower neighbors to the emerging
B-D-F♯ dominant’s third and root, respectively. Attained as elements of an
extreme evolution of the surging supertonic, B and D morph into founda-
tional pitches of the dominant.
The remainder of the exposition (devoted to FS in E Minor’s tonicized
dominant key, B Minor) presents a grand traversal of the descending circle
of fifths. Whereas the soprano B<D third displayed in 12.10d is realized as
an ascending tenth in Beethoven’s score (with goal D sounding a sixteenth
above Middle C at 422), a reciprocal descending tenth (D>B) is supported
by the circle of fifths during the dominant-key tonicization that ensues,
though further registral shifting results in the melodic goal B sounding in
upper registers over the course of measures 59 through 66. To best convey
the essence of the passage (with a stepwise descent of a tenth prevailing in
the soprano), a foundational block-chord rendition (normalizing registers
throughout) is offered as 12.11.
As often happens in such a circular progression, the initial chord (here
B minor) is stabilized before the descending fifths take over.41 Whereas
B–C♯–F♯–B normally would be harmonized using an F♯-A♯-C♯ dominant
as its third chord, here leading tone A♯ is suppressed. The A that sounds
instead extends into the succeeding surging B chord as its seventh.42 This
situation corresponds exactly to what was described in reference to 12.4
earlier in this essay: though the B♮ at measure 22 there contrasts the
normative dominant behavior (in the context of the local C♯ Minor
tonicization), it makes sense structurally since it introduces the resolving
C♯ chord’s minor seventh (at the spot marked x).
The circle of fifths is propelled by several surges. As mentioned, the
initial B minor tonic eventually surges, as B➔ targeting E. Next A➔ targets
D. Building upon that momentum, G➔ resolving to C♮ follows. As is well
www.ebook3000.com
known, the circle of fifths must either incorporate one diminished fifth or
instead persist for twelve perfect fifths so as to arrive back at the initial
tonic. Though indeed C♮–F♯–B is a viable conclusion for this circle, keep in
mind that C♮ is a chromatic pitch in B Minor. (Appearances are deceptive
here because Beethoven has retained the E Minor key signature.) The
G➔C♮ succession is provocative because it enters into the terrain of that
longer trajectory, as if F♮➔B♭, E♭➔A♭, D♭➔G♭, and finally C♭ (= B) would
follow. This moment is highlighted through a slowing of the progression’s
pace and the backtracking to repeat the G➔C♮ succession (what sounded
first in measures 49 through 52 recurs in abbreviated form in measures 53
and 54). What ensues instead in measures 55 and 56 is startling. Though
(according to the chordal spellings) it appears that G➔ now illogically
resolves to F♯ (with a 64 embellishment), 12.11 clarifies that, this third time,
the chord is departed as if spelled as E♯-G-B-D – that is, as C♯ . The same
sonority thus represents two successive elements of the circle: G followed
by C♯. (Consequently a collision bracket has been deployed in 12.11.) In
retrospect, the resolution to C♮ turns out to be rescinded (and thus it has
been segregated from the broader flow of the circle in the model).43 The
resolution of C♯ to F♯➔, which in turn leads to goal B, brings the circle to
its expected conclusion. (The circular progression’s final three chords
reiterate the progression of measures 32 through 42, as displayed in
12.10d. Note especially the deployment of the distinctive E♯-G-B-D sonor-
ity in both contexts.44) The melodic trajectory likewise is very interesting.
The F♯ chord is prolonged for three measures (56 through 58) before the
resolution to B occurs. How is the completion of the descending tenth (the
descent from F♯ to B remains) achieved? Beethoven complicates matters
by shifting register upwards twice during that “descent”: F♯<B<D is pro-
jected by the eighth notes of measure 57, followed by E<A♯<C♯ up an
octave in measure 58 and finally D<F♯B third
in the bass, which may be interpreted as an abbreviation of the broader
D>B tenth that has transpired in the melody). One pitch is missing from
this scenario: B Minor’s fourth scale degree, E. It is displayed within
parentheses during measure 56 in 12.11, just as E Major or Minor’s fourth
scale degree, A, is so displayed in 12.1a and 12.9b.45
In my view the exposition FS, which follows TR’s II➔ surge, projects a
dominant tonicization from beginning to end: a B minor chord resides
at the right edge of my 12.10d and at both edges of my 12.11. What if,
instead, the latter example’s internal E minor chord (measure 46) were
interpreted as still perpetuating the movement’s initial tonic, thereby
subverting the tonal purpose of the preceding TR (if it indeed could still
be called a TR in that context)? That seems to be what Marston is
proposing in his interpretation, in ex. 5.11b, of Beethoven’s sketch
transcribed in ex. 5.11a. (Marston pursues this interpretation also
within his graph of the entire movement – his ex. 6.21, in which the
first shift from tonic root E occurs in measure 55.) Looking at the first
measure of Beethoven’s sketch, note three correlations with what later
appeared in the finished composition: (1) the resolution of A♯ to B (an
echo of the A♯<B in both measures 41 and 42, which there coordinates
with the harmonic succession from E Minor’s II➔ to V); (2) the B itself
(which I would correlate with the B minor chord at the end of measure
42, the onset of the B Minor tonicization); and (3) the D♯-B-F♯ surge of
the B minor chord (which I would correlate with the chord of 451). If
those relationships are valid, then Marston has gone far astray in his
presumption that this passage is engaged in “connecting E minor and
B minor, the two tonal centres of the exposition” (p. 109), reinforced
visually by the display of bass E as the starting point for a beam
extending to B in his ex. 5.11b.46 In my view, Marston has too exten-
sively recomposed the voice leading that Beethoven presents in his
sketch: the G of ex. 5.11b’s second chord should be conveyed as an
ascending step from the stable F♯ of the initiating B chord: that is, the
sketch should be interpreted as F♯ (consonant B minor chord) followed
by G>F♯ (surging B major chord) followed by A>G (an E chord, the
second chord in the circle of fifths), rather than merely as A>G. The
stable F♯ (which does not appear in his graph) is inconvenient to
Marston’s projection of the passage as emanating from an E-G-(B)
tonic chord. Given my interpretation of the passage, I do not hear a
correlation between Marston’s bass E>B descending fourth and the
content of the movement’s first four measures, as he proposes in his
commentary on pp. 109 and 110.
Yet another concern emerges as Marston proceeds. Stepping away
temporarily from all the complicating factors within this exposition,
pause for a moment to listen to what Beethoven’s sketch transcribed in
ex. 5.12 conveys so simply:
B E A D G C F♯ B
www.ebook3000.com
Marston, not heeding the progression’s immutable B-to-B trajectory,

picks out its internal G chord (which sounds first in measure 49),
proposing it as the structural successor of measure 1’s (and measure
46’s) E minor tonic. This notion is worked out at multiple levels in his
ex. 5.19. That hierarchical arrangement cannot be reconciled with what
is displayed in my 12.11, which honors the integrity of the circle of fifths
as I propose Beethoven conceived it (taking into account his daring
handling of the link between G and C/C♯).
It is fascinating to compare Beethoven’s bold G–C(♯)–F♯ within the
circle of fifths (measures 49 through 56) to what is juxtaposed in the
sketches shown in Marston’s exx. 5.11a and 5.12: first G–C♯–F♯, then
instead G–C♮–F♯. (Beethoven ends up integrating both!) Ex. 5.12’s final
two measures, which Marston calls “a surprising new twist” (p. 111),
may be no more than a partial working-out of what has already been
presented: either as the start of a written-out repeat or as the use of bit of
extra space at the end of a page to convey in two parts what was sketched
earlier in one part: the E-to-A segment of the circle (corresponding to
measures 46 and 47 of the final score). If Marston’s sharps within
brackets are accepted, then it appears that Beethoven was contemplating
proceeding through the circle with surges on every chord (in this
segment, E evolving into E➔ followed by A➔). The tortuous
A>B♯<C♯ bass in the sketch’s final measure is smoothed out to become
A<B<C♯ during 472. C♯ supports G in both versions, thereby maximiz-
ing the surge’s impact.
Marston’s division point between measures 56 (interpreted as the
end of the second group’s second part) and 57 (the beginning of the
closing group) in his formal synopsis (p. 97) further contrasts the read-
ing I propose in 12.11. I hear continuity within measures 42 through 66
(melodic tenth; complete circle of fifths); Marston hears a juncture at
measure 57, denoting the onset of the exposition’s fourth and final
region.47
Movement 2 development (measures 66–104)
Some complicated matters await our attention in the development. I

propose that we begin by exploring an uncomplicated model and then
build from there. In a minor key it is common for a minor dominant
Example 12.12 A common means of prolonging E Minor’s dominant.
harmony at the onset of the development to be prolonged, with a trans-

formation to major quality before the recapitulation – which restores the
tonic – commences. The model displayed in 12.12 is attractive in this
context both because a refreshing internal shift of pitch content (to B-E-G)
transpires (prepared by a local surge that evolves naturally out of the initial
dominant) and because a dominant-reinforcing descending span from B to
F♯ is traversed. Though the internal E-G dyad may seem to resolve the
preceding dissonant D♯-A diminished fifth, from a broader perspective the
E is a neighbor to the dominant’s third, rather than its resolution. That
said, Beethoven of course was aware that B-E-G alternatively (allowing an
unfurling of the foundational 64 configuration to 53 position) corresponds to
the tonic in E Minor. Consequently this broad dominant expansion may
harbor a more local I-to-V♯ harmonic progression (perhaps further devel-
oped as I5–6 II V♯ or as I ➔ IV V♯). Thus there is an inherent subtlety to
this simple model: one might perceive a sense of tonic at its third chord, yet
that perception is bound into a hierarchical framework that imposes a
dominant priority, so that an internal progression (emanating from I) that
might emerge would be interpreted as at most a reminiscence or confirma-
tion of how the already established dominant was first attained.
Our exploration of how Beethoven elaborates upon this basic model will
not proceed chronologically. For now, take as a given that the connection
between the model’s first and second chords transpires between measure 66
and measure 92. Beethoven’s most audacious writing involves the model’s
third chord. On the one hand E-G-B may project the function of a local E
Minor tonic within the broad B dominant prolongation, as described above.
Yet on the other hand it might instead project a subdominant function
within tonicized B Minor. (In that context the initial I would surge, as I➔,
targeting IV.) The F♯ major chord at measure 96 brings this latter potenti-
ality to fruition (as is conveyed via Roman numerals between the staves at
the left edge of 12.13). Beethoven’s emphasis through repetition (IV to V♯
three times during measures 93 through 104) is reminiscent of the G➔ C
repetitions in the vicinity of measures 49 through 55. As was the case there,
Beethoven again changes course, now at the delicate boundary between the
development and the recapitulation. In a rejection of the root succession
www.ebook3000.com
from E to F♯, Beethoven proceeds ultimately from E to dominant root B

(thus following the 12.12 model after all). Astonishingly, he achieves this
E>B by commandeering the opening measures of the recapitulation P!48
The melodic presentation of E and G is emphasized in all three soundings of
the E minor chord near the end of the development. Rejecting the melodic
succession to F♯ there, the G>E at the onset of the recapitulation P (measure
105) offers a fresh way forward. During the exposition, bass E in measure 1
(corresponding to that of measure 105) is linked to that of measure 8
(corresponding to that of measure 112); now the initial E resides within a
link between bass B in measures 66 and 108, as shown in 12.13. The
recapitulation’s supposed tonic onset has been subordinated to an expan-
sion of the dominant, since Beethoven failed to complete the development’s
full agenda within its prescribed timeframe.49
In the scenario just described, the dominant falls within a middleground
tonic–dominant–tonic progression that extends from the movement’s
outset well into the recapitulation. Kopfton ^5 holds sway through both the
tonic and the dominant to the restored tonic (as was the case also in the first
movement), and thus I – rather than V – prevails at the background level
throughout. Consequently the melodic descent from the model of 12.12
continues downward to middleground goal E. A fifth-progression conclud-
ing on E at 1101 is a prominent feature of 12.13, rather than an interrupted
descent to F♯ (= ^2). If what we encountered during the recapitulation TR
during the first movement is of any predictive value, then we should regard
the background descent to be imminent once the recapitulation P concludes.
Before proceeding to that material, an exploration of how Beethoven leads
from B in measure 66 to B➔ in measure 91 is in order. Complementing the
descending third or tenth (D>B) that is featured in both the melody and
bass of the preceding FS (discussed above), Beethoven now proceeds from B
upwards to D in the bass, this time deploying a segment of the descending
circle of fifths (B E A D) for propulsion. (As my block-chord rendering in
12.14 reveals, two of those chords eventually evolve into surges, targeting
their successors.) This trajectory is camouflaged in Beethoven’s realization:
C displaces B at the onset of the E chord (measure 79), F♮ displaces E at the
onset of the A chord (measure 88), and B displaces A at the onset of the D
chord (measure 91). Though it would be feasible to proceed directly from B’s
upper third, D, to E (measures 91–93), Beethoven’s D♯-F♯-A-C chord at
measure 92 serves as a restoration of B’s impact.50
Marston suggests that the arrival on F♯ in measure 96 (the dominant in

B Minor) is “one of the most extraordinary features of the movement”
(p. 108). It is one of only a few chords from the development displayed
in his principal analytical graph (ex. 6.21). Whereas I interpret this F♯
chord only in the context of B Minor in my 12.13, Marston juxtaposes a
B Minor V numeral (the equivalent of my V♯) and an E Minor II♯
numeral at that spot. Furthermore, he proceeds from the latter (incor-
^ directly to I at the
porating an interruption symbol after the melody’s 2)
onset of the recapitulation. How is such an event possible within
Beethoven’s harmonic syntax?
www.ebook3000.com
Our divergent interpretations of the chordal hierarchy leading up to

that point are telling. His root B at measure 66 (labeled as measure 65 in
the graph) is not attached to the bass beam, though the E of measure 93
is. That notation gives visual precedence to an extended tonic prolonga-
tion (coordinating with the lower row of Roman numerals), which
contrasts my connection of the dominant Bs of measures 66 and 108
(in the midst of which an F♯ major chord repeatedly seeks to lead the
progression on a different course but ultimately is overpowered by an
alternative trajectory). Though I deploy a I label for the E chord of
measure 93, it is displayed at a subordinate level – within parentheses
below the principal V label.
The succession from B➔ to C (rather than to E) in measures 78 and
79 is cited as evidence of Beethoven “using the submediant promi-
nently” within the movement (p. 107). Though Marston’s comment
about “upper neighbor to the dominant” accords with my reading in
12.14 (where the abbreviation N annotates the pitch C, which through
unfurling resides in the bass in Beethoven’s score), his account lacks
the sort of detail that would allow readers to imagine anything along
the lines that I propose. (If C is a neighbor, then what role does the
chord with restored B – at measure 87 – play within the broader
structure?) In my view, the passage results from the creative integra-
tion of two prominent compositional devices: a segment of the des-
cending circle of fifths and the deployment of lower-third substitute
chords.
What normatively would be projected as
B E A D
is realized as
B C into E F♮ into A B whose conversion into D is
thwarted by the restoration of the progression’s initial B (now surging).
Movement 2 recapitulation and coda (measures 105–177)
Though its onset (measures 105ff.) is creatively integrated with the

development’s structure (as described above), the cadential phase of the
Example 12.15 Analysis of Piano Sonata in E Major (op. 109), mvmt. 2 (a) A
5 to ^1 , incorporating ♮II as support for ^4 ; (b) Analysis of the
background descent from ^
recapitulation.
(a) (b)
recapitulation P engages the same middleground B>E fifth-progression

that transpired during the exposition, leaving Kopfton ^5 intact. (As men-
tioned earlier, measures 112 through 1191 repeat the P theme.) In contrast,
the FS material displayed in 12.11, which cadences with a reiteration of
Kopfton ^5 during the exposition, is transposed into the tonic key for
the recapitulation. Thus its presentation there (beginning at measures
143|144) leads inexorably downwards to ^1. I propose that in such a context
one should expect that TR will supply the background ^4, ^3, and ^2 that fill
out the Urlinie. The model of 12.15a not only displays how this might
transpire but also offers a ♮II harmonization for ^4 (corresponding to
measure 128) where IV or an inverted diatonic II often would occur
instead. The exposition TR leads to II♯, which targets the dominant
prolonged during the exposition FS. Because the recapitulation FS instead
projects I, its TR must proceed further – to V♯.
In the context outlined in 12.10d, the exposition TR employs various
chromatic pitches both in the tonic 6-phase chord and in the supertonic
that follows to endow that supertonic with a surge character (as II➔),
targeting the V of the ensuing FS. It appears that Beethoven has modified
the game plan for the recapitulation, since C-E-G (rather than C♯-E♯-G♯’s
evolved state, E♯-G♯-B-D, as in measure 32) emerges in measure 120 and is
prolonged through measure 126. In fact, the sketch that Marston tran-
scribes as his ex. 6.10 shows how, in a parallel situation (labeled “Ende” by
Beethoven, interpreted as the coda by Marston and as the recapitulation
TR onwards by me),51 Beethoven proceeds from I5–6 to diatonic II7:
F(♯)-A-C-E (in 42 position, allowing bass E to proceed directly to the
www.ebook3000.com
dominant’s D♯, matching the final score’s measures 129–130). Yet during
the final composition’s TR this diatonic progression was replaced by an
uncommon juxtaposition of two chromatic alternatives: first F♯-A♯-C♯
(in measure 127, relating to the exposition TR’s trajectory despite the
preceding 6-phase C♮) and F♮-A♮-C♮ (in measure 128).52 Once 6-phase C
sounds, the likelihood that the lowered (“Neapolitan”) supertonic will
follow increases dramatically. I project that turn of events in 12.15b,
regarding the F♯ chord that precedes it (not shown in the graph) as a
seismic shift – an unanticipated jolt, here up a half step from the expected
chord – that in this case soon falls back (down a half step) to F♮-A♮-C♮,
after which the progression continues without a hitch.53 The juxtaposition
of F♯-A♯-C♯ and F♮-A♮-C♮ is not expected to make syntactic sense: the
chords are competing alternatives vying for the same syntactic moment.54
The juxtaposition of 12.15a and b reveals how ^2’s arrival may be
deferred. In the first model G (= ^3) joins E in passing between chord
members of ♮II and of V♯. In the second model, the lower passing motion
(now displayed in the bass) transpires as before, but A (= ^4) extends to
measure 130, at which point it finally yields to passing G and then the
expected F♯ (= ^2). The positioning of D♯ at the bottom of the texture in
measure 130 in turn generates increased activity devoted to root-
attainment, with the dominant’s B postponed until 1321. As also with the
exposition’s II5♯ ♯ , this V♯ does not lead to a medial caesura. Instead its
dissonant arsenal further evolves (repeating – and expanding upon – the
trajectory of the exposition’s II5♯ ♯ ) and finally resolves to I, where the
trajectory of 12.11 takes over, transposed into E Minor. With a structural
close (the ESC) at measure 167, the remaining measures join with measures
25–28 and 66–69 as an injection of a fresh perspective on P at an important
structural moment, here a brief coda. Integrating the bass of measures 158
through 1621 and features from the initial P, the bass now extends down
from the tonic to F♯ (at 1761), with the diatonic F♯-A-(C)-E supertonic
chord offering a soothing antidote to the more colorful supertonic alter-
natives that have been bandied about recently: F♯-A♯-C♯ (measure 127),
F♮-A-C (measure 128), and A♯[B♭]-C-E-G (measure 156).
Marston’s graph of the entire movement (ex. 6.21) omits what I regard
as important harmonic and structural elements, central to my reading of
the recapitulation’s P and TR FS. His E Minor tonic (measure 105)
precedes my tonic restoration (shown at measures 110–112 in 12.13 and
12.14), and the B dominant chord that follows next in his graph occurs
at the onset of the coda (measure 168). I suggest that somehow the
essence of my 12.15b needs to be incorporated between those two
points. (The choice of Kopfton – his ^3 versus my ^5 – is a relatively
minor issue compared to his positioning of the post-interruption domi-
nant within the coda and the lack of closure on ^1.)
Finally, one smaller issue deserves a moment’s attention. Though
Marston’s harmonic analysis inserted into the sketch of ex. 6.15 may
seem to support my view of the recapitulation TR in 12.15b (since a
beamed C♮ extends through most of the passage), I suggest that in the
context of that Beethoven sketch root F♯ is asserted at the fourth
measure (supporting C♯, which first sounds as an anticipation to that
chord, exactly as in the final composition’s measures 126|127), with the
subsequent bass C♮ serving as a mutation of that F♯ chord’s fifth (en
route to the dominant’s B). I propose that the harmony should be
interpreted as I6 II➔ V♯, and not as Marston’s VI VI♯6 V.
Movement 3 Theme (measures 1–16)
The theme for a set of variations transpires at the beginning of the third
movement and is repeated at its conclusion. Restoring the E Major key of
the first movement, it also shares Kopfton ^5 with both preceding move-
ments. Whereas a G(♯)<B third is traversed quickly in those other instances
to introduce the Kopfton (half a beat in the first movement, two beats in the
second movement), now that third is projected in the form of an initial
ascent (G♯<A♯<B) over the course of measures 1 through 8. (Though a
local dominant supports its arrival, this B, as the goal of an initial ascent, is
understood to relate back to the initial sounding of tonic root E and
forward to its restoration during 111–2.) The tonic triad’s BGð]Þ third thus
plays a crucial role at the outset of all three movements.
The representation of this movement’s foundational structure in 12.16
shows this third extending through the theme’s first twelve measures.
As our analysis proceeds we will come to understand that even though a
B-capped tonic chord never actually sounds in the Theme, the BG ♯ third
remains a vital component of its initial tonic projection. The tonic’s
successor in the broad harmonic trajectory is II, which emerges as the
initial support for ^4 at 131. A V7 harmony takes over from II, resolving to I
in coordination with the onward descent to ^3. (The Theme’s background
www.ebook3000.com
structure engages a double bass arpeggiation – two coequal I–V–I progres-

sions, the second transpiring much more quickly than the first.) The
conclusion of the descent (^2>^1) in measures 15 and 16 is camouflaged
by cover tones. (Note in the score that cover tones enhance the preceding A
and G♯ as well. Thus the cadence is accomplished as A followed by C♯, G♯
preceded and then followed by B, F♯ surmounted by A, and finally E
surmounted by G♯.55) Though A and G♯ at the cadence “belong” in the
tenor register (as shown in 12.16), Beethoven softens the cadential effect by
placing them at the top of the texture.56 To me, that evokes a sense of the
infinite enveloping the trajectory of our everyday existence.
The workings of the initial ascent are on display in 12.17. The very
G♯>F♯>E third that is de-emphasized at the theme’s conclusion is the focus
of its first seven measures.57 Twice a local progression from I through
II(➔) to V supports G♯ to F♯. Only on the third try does F♯ proceed to E, in
conjunction with the arrival of I6 (with measure 6’s bass B<D♯ answered by
E>C♯).58 At that point the melody’s initial G♯, sounding now in the tenor
register, inaugurates the ascent through A♯ to B. As usually happens, I6
proceeds to the supertonic, here II , which effectively supports A♯. That
supersurge-empowered A♯’s resolution to B (coordinating with the
dominant arrival) is followed, after the repeat, by a transfer of B to the
soprano register.59
From the insight gained in our exploration of the mediant in chapters 4
and 5, we understand that the second chordal entity of 12.16 could be
realized without root E, as G♯-B-D♯. Further reflection on how the mediant
generally is deployed might lead to the hunch that a circle of fifths would
come into play between tonic root E and this G♯. That trajectory requires a
consideration of chromatic pitches in a major-key context. Whereas in
E Minor the circle would work effortlessly in its diatonic formulation (as
E A D G), in a major key one of the circle’s descending fifths must be of
diminished quality if diatonic G♯ is to be attained. Though E A♯ D♯ G♯
would be possible, Beethoven proceeds via E Major’s diatonic roots (E A
D♯ G♯) during measures 11 and 12, concealing the chromatic shift from the
A chord’s A to the D♯ chord’s A♯ by omitting those pitches in the soprano
of both chords (warranting the use of parentheses for their appearance
within my 12.18).60 (Having earlier in this essay commented on an ima-
gined A parenthetically inserted into a graph – such as those in 12.1a and
12.9b – the parenthetical A and A♯ in 12.18 by now seem very much at
home in the context of this sonata.) With this imaginative addition of
a wobbly A/A♯, we perceive a descending filling-in of the BG ♯ third, com-
plementing its ascending traversal during measures 7 and 8.61 Yet the
www.ebook3000.com
passage is even richer, since the tonic prolongation through measure 11

(graphed in 12.18) likewise incorporates a (diatonic) filling-in of that
interval.
Marston’s reading of the Theme is conveyed in his ex. 4.14. My first and
most pressing concern regarding measures 1 through 8 pertains to the E
that sounds in the melody at 72. Marston finds it unusual “in the context
of this theme” that this E is introduced via the “large” leap of a sixth:
G♯<E (p. 87). Yet that apparent peculiarity stems only from his failure to
perceive the long-range connection that Beethoven has pursued during
the first seven measures. The G♯>F♯ that is stated literally in measures 1
and 3 (so slurred by Marston) and also should be imagined in measure 5
(where F♯ dangles curiously in his graph, the preceding B’s substitution
for G♯, which this time sounds instead in the bass, providing no starting
point for a literalist analyst to descend from62) finds its successor in the
E of 72. In fact, after the unfoldings G♯>E and F♯>B (the latter filled in by
D♯), an unfolding of G♯<E is exactly what one ought to expect “in the
context of this theme.”63
In the context of this G♯<E unfolding, it seems to me likely that
Beethoven intended a concurrent two-beat unfolding of E>C♯ as a
complement. Thus my harmonic interpretation of 71–2 is I6, not I5–6
(translating Marston’s view into my notation). Granted, many musi-
cians believe that if only two notes a third apart sound, they correspond
to the chordal root and third. Such a view was opposed in Beethoven’s
time in the writings of Georg Joseph Vogler.64
As my symbol (I6) suggests, the C♯-E-G♯ chord of 71–2 retains an
affiliation with the tonic. A C♮-E-G♮-A♯ chord comes between that long-
prolonged tonic and the phrase’s dominant goal. Whereas such a
harmonic trajectory might be projected by a bass that transpires as
E>C♯<F♯>B, in this case an inversion of the F♯ chord (and the suppres-
sion of its root) results in a C♯>C♮>B chromatic line. This is a delicate
spot analytically. It would be foolish to suggest that somehow C♮ is not
well suited to serve as bass in this context. After all, it is a component of
the interval incorporated into the chord’s nickname (“German augmen-
ted sixth”). Yet a slur from C♯ to B (with internal C♮) seems to me a
misleading visual image, since the chord with bass C♮ is the third-
ranking element of the phrase’s harmonic progression (after I and V).
The concern is especially acute when, as in Marston’s graph, there is no
accompanying Roman numeral analysis to help convey the prevailing
hierarchical relationships. My response in 12.17 is to show what I regard

as the augmented sixth chord’s root – F♯ – within parentheses, so that a
conventional flagged supertonic and intersecting slurs can be displayed
in the bass. I acknowledge that some readers may find this notation to be
excessive, even invasive.65 Yet a different group of readers might find
Marston’s hands-off response to be inadequate, insufficiently cognizant
of the harmonic principles that guide the melodic trajectories he so
vividly displays.
In note 12 earlier in this essay I propose that Marston’s imagination
“apparently is more vibrant than mine.” In a similar situation in the
Theme’s measures 3 and 4, we disagree regarding the local voice leading.
In my view the melody’s G♯ from measure 3 only descends to F♯.
(Concurrently the bass G♯ ascends through A♯ to B.) The melody’s
A♯B
from measures 1 and 2 may be inverted to become F♯<B in measures
3 and 4.) Marston’s graph displays measure 4’s A♯ as a passing note
connecting G♯ and B. In that my imagination is capable of generating
neither a suspension G♯ nor an anticipation A♯ during the straightfor-
wardly projected B-D♯-F♯ chord of 41, I simply acknowledge that
Marston’s and my imaginative capacities are differently wired. To me
his interpretation seems wrong. Readers may use this passage to test
their own imaginative boundaries (where boundaries indeed are a
positive, essential factor when listening to music if, through study and
experience, they have developed in a way that correlates with the stylistic
norms of an era). Is Marston’s reading something within the realm of
the possible, or do other factors prevent it from emerging as viable?
Marston’s and my interpretations of what transpires after the mid-
point repeat signs diverge principally in our contrasting assessments of
how far measure 8’s dominant harmony extends. We pursue similar
notions, but not in the same contexts. Whereas earlier in the theme the
tonic’s BG ♯ third is projected as an initial ascent – G♯<A♯A>G♯,
wherein A would serve as the dominant’s seventh before the resolution
of the dominant’s dissonant AD ♯ into the tonic’s GE ♯ third.66 In 12.18 I
show such a V-to-I motion transpiring at the middleground level over
www.ebook3000.com
the course of measures 8 through 11, and in 12.16 a similar motion

transpires at the background level over the course of measures 11
through 14. Though my bass Es correspond to stemmed noteheads on
the second system of Marston’s graph (his ex. 4.14), both his broad
B-to-B beam and his B-to-F♯ and F♯-to-B slurs in the bass contradict my
tonic restorations.67
Next, consider how Marston interprets measures 13 and 14. It seems
to me that his graph is internally inconsistent. If, as he proposes, root B in
measure 9 connects to root B in measure 15, then the soprano dotted
beam from A to G♯ in measures 13 and 14 makes no sense. Given the bass
hierarchy, G♯ would not serve as an endpoint but instead as a passing
note, part of an A>G♯>F♯ third. After a two-beat suspension at 151–2, G♯
in fact descends to F♯ at 153 (extending into measure 16 in the expected
register), completing that third and coinciding with a restoration of A
prior to its resolution. Yet given the alternative harmonic reading that I
propose above, I would suggest instead that Marston’s soprano A>G♯
beam in measures 13 and 14 is in fact a correct observation. It is the bass
that needs to be revised. Though there would need to be some adjust-
ment of hierarchical levels (to be more in line with what I show in 12.16),
the resolution of A to G♯ is the main melodic event of measures 13 and
14. This could be shown more clearly through a revision of Marston’s
slurring in measure 14, where downbeat C♯ (which clashes against the
left-hand B) serves as a suspension. The A<C♯ third of measure 13 is
complemented by a B>G♯ third in measure 14.
What was just stated is critical to the interpretation of the final two
measures: thirds are hovering above foundational structural notes.
The principal strand in measures 13 and 14 is A>G♯, even if C♯>B is
prominently presented as well. Given that precedent, Marston’s omission
of F♯ in measure 15 is curious. The G♯ (during 143) that I display
prominently by means of an open notehead in 12.16 also is given
prominence by Marston by means of its appearance at the endpoint of
a beam and the display of its continuation into measure 15. Yet what
happens to that pitch? At 151 it is destabilized, serving as the 6 of a
cadential 64 . Showing that G♯ in a Schenkerian graph requires also show-
ing its resolving F♯, since at that point F♯ is hierarchically deeper than G♯.
This is necessary even if at first the G♯>F♯ resolution is conveyed in the
tenor register. From my perspective the line that includes the A of
measure 13 and the G♯ of measure 14 (both with upper thirds) proceeds
to F♯ (with upper third now concurrent rather than unfolded) and finally
to E (likewise with concurrent upper third). In one of Beethoven’s
sketches (see Marston’s ex. 4.11) an F♯ and an E in fact appear at the
top of the texture (an eleventh and a tenth above Middle C). Even then,
Marston refuses to connect the dots from the preceding A>G♯, instead
interpreting those notes as “a covering progression” above “the true
upper-voice descent” (p. 91). So we are left with the quandary of whether
A>G♯ covers F♯>E, or whether instead F♯>E covers A>G♯. (This issue is
addressed further in the context of the variations, below.)
Finally, just as the soprano pitch B at 51 is a substitution for the
expected G♯, which appears in one of Beethoven’s sketches at that point
(Marston’s Plate 7, discussed on his p. 89), so also soprano pitch E
during 113 substitutes for the expected A (which likewise appears in one
of Beethoven’s sketches, Marston’s 4.4a). Even working without access
to Beethoven’s sketches, as an imaginative analyst I would interpret the
score’s C♯-C♯-E-E chord at 113 as representing C♯-E-A. First consider
the melodic trajectory,
B<C♯ A<B G♯<? FÜ<G♯
Does anything other than A (or perhaps A♯) “belong” at the question
mark? Does the surprising E that sounds instead prevent the imagina-
tive insertion of that A? Second, my experience with Beethoven’s music
suggests that, given the tonic’s restoration during 111–2 and the impend-
ing shift to the mediant, only A or A♯ “belongs” within the following
circular progression
E ? D♯ G♯
With the mystery chord’s C♯ and E already provided in the score, only
A-C♯-E can be intended. Marston’s reading does not acknowledge such
a chord. Consequently his slurring of G♯ in the treble clef and beaming
of B in the bass clef at 121 contrast my interpretation of those pitches in
my 12.18.68
Movement 3 Variation I (measures 17–32)
An initial ascent to the Kopfton (B) makes good sense as a device for a
theme, when listeners are orienting themselves to a new musical entity. Yet
www.ebook3000.com
it may seem redundant deployed in a variation that transpires after that

Kopfton has already been established and used as the starting point for an
Urlinie descent. In Variation I the Kopfton sounds as a beacon at the outset.
In alternation with its replication every two measures, Beethoven inserts
> F]
two foundational pitches from an unfolding of G] E > D]
. Whereas outer
and inner strands alternate (G♯>E followed by F♯>D♯) during the
Theme, the two inner notes sound first (E>D♯, at 173–182), followed by
the outer notes (G♯>F♯, at 193–202) during Variation I.69 This pattern
continues until measure 23, where a structure reminiscent of the second-
movement TR (shown in 12.10) substitutes for the Theme’s initial ascent.
Observe especially how the passing notes D and F♯ from that earlier
movement’s measure 31 recur as D♯ and F♯ at 232 within Variation I,
with even a brief sounding of D♮ following the D♯. The “beacon” B of
earlier downbeats is transferred down an octave to the B of 232, after which
A♯ serves as a neighbor (rather than as a passing note within an initial
ascent), followed by the reaching-over of E (the expected successor of
passing note F♯ in the alto register) so that D♯ sounds in the soprano at
the cadence. (Compare with the D♯ goal in 12.10d.) Yet whereas in the
second movement the passing notes D and F♯ lead to I6♯, which syntacti-
cally comes between I5 and II➔, in Variation I the tonic 6-phase chord is
elided. That is, though one might expect C♯-E-B (representing an unfurling
of I6 with retained fifth)70 during 233, C♯-E-A♯ (representing II➔) sounds
instead. The emergence of root F♯ in the bass solidifies this latter function.
From that point the trajectory proceeds as in the earlier passage: compare
the B-F♯-B-D chord (E Minor’s V) in 12.10d and the B-F♯-B-D♯ chord
(E Major’s V) at 243 in Variation I.
The B>A>G♯ third-progression displayed in 12.18 (through measure
11) finds its counterpart from 251 through 271. Notably, once the E Major
tonic is restored, a shift to a lower register commences in the melody,
helping to emphasize that tonic (a point of contention between Marston’s
and my readings of the Theme). Also observe that the pitch A, imagina-
tively inserted at 113 in 12.18, is stated literally at the corresponding
location in Variation I.
Variation I’s final two measures offer new challenges in terms of melodic
closure. Whereas this passage is presented with little elaboration in the
Theme, now a profusion of notes serves to connect the structurally
prominent pitches. My reading proposes that the G♯ (corresponding to
background ^3) at the end of measure 30 connects to its upper third, B, the
second-to-last note of measure 31, followed by that unfolding’s successor,
A>F♯ (= ^2), which transpires between the end of measure 31 and the end of
measure 32’s beat 2. (Because G♯ is hoisted up an octave at 311, the G♯B.)
Through these means the background descent’s ^2 (F♯) is more prominently
conveyed than in the Theme (where F♯ and upper-third A sound simulta-
neously). Yet countering that increased clarity in the Urlinie’s realization,
the concluding ^1 (E) is absent from the register of the preceding Urlinie
notes. Only cover tone G♯ occupies that register at the cadence. (The
structural descent G♯>F♯>E may be traced fully in the register below
Middle C, as was also the case in the Theme, but here that descent is not
replicated in full in any higher register.)
Because my readings of certain structural moments from earlier in the

work contrast Marston’s, I am struck by two features of the Variation I
sketch (transcribed in Marston’s ex. 9.1) that are not noted in his
commentary. First, it is clear from the sketch that the melodic content
of the final version’s measure 21 initially was to occur also in measures
17 and 19, which in the final score present only abbreviated versions of
measure 21’s arpeggiation. The essence of the opening thus may be
understood as B>G♯>E in all three instances. That arpeggiation corre-
lates directly to my reading of the first movement’s measures 0|1
through 31. (See 12.1.) Marston’s (and Schenker’s) emphasis on that
movement’s initial G♯ counters my sense that G♯<B should come across
as a swift arpeggiation – which might have been notated as two quarter
notes in vertical alignment preceded by the squiggly line used to denote
ascending arpeggiation; or as a flagged G♯ in small notation preceding
quarter note B. This latter notation is exactly what Beethoven employs
(for B<B) in the sketch and at 211. Thus, indirectly, this sketch supports
my reading of the first movement’s Kopfton as ^5.
When I analyzed measures 23 and 24 it seemed to me that the
structure was diverging from that of the Theme and instead following
the alternative plan for connecting the tonic and the dominant worked
out starting in measure 31 of the second movement. I even commented
above on how the D♮ during 232 correlates with the D♮ from that
passage. Since the second movement is in E Minor, one can imagine
my delight in seeing at that point in the Variation I sketch a shift of the
tonic triad’s third to G♮. Consequently the correlation with this passage
from the second movement was at one stage more overt than is percep-
tible in the final version (though my experience demonstrates that the
relationship remains perceptible even without the G♮).
www.ebook3000.com
One small point: assessing the arrangement of materials on the sketch

page, Marston proposes that Beethoven may originally have conceived
of Variation I as a sixteen-measure entity without repeats (p. 218).
Recall that I read the final notes of the ex. 3.1a sketch as pertaining to
the first movement’s recapitulation, suggesting that at some point
Beethoven would have needed to formulate an alternative version for
the tonally open exposition context. Likewise I propose that in the
sketch Marston assays, Beethoven likely originally composed the
theme through its final cadence and subsequently wrote down
the alternative material required for the first ending.
Movement 3 Variation II (measures 33–64)
Reverting to a deployment of an initial ascent to ^5 for Variation II,

Beethoven nevertheless offers a fresh perspective by modifying the harmo-
nic progression that connects I and V. Whereas I5–6 serves ably to prepare
II during the Theme, I➔ (= D♮-F♮-G♯-(B)) replaces the Theme’s I6 at
391. That chord targets the IV of the following beat. The deployment of II
is still feasible, of course, because it may emerge as an evolved, asserted
version of IV6. So, in the natural course of a 5–6 shift connecting stepwise-
related IV and V, this supersurging supertonic again sounds exactly where
it did during the Theme precedent – at 393. Whereas in that earlier
deployment a three-beat prolongation was accomplished by merely mov-
ing the inner voices from one chord member to another, now Beethoven
incorporates a passing note and a neighboring note: E<F♮<G♮ and
A♯>Gx<A♯ (the latter spelled enharmonically as B♭>A<B♭ to enhance
reading ease).
Substituting for a repeat of Variation II’s first eight measures, Beethoven
offers what amounts to a new variation of that passage in measures 41
through 48. In fact, Variation II turns out to be a double variation.
Alternations between the tonic and the dominant (akin to measures 1
and 2 of the Theme) swirl through 471, with the common tone between
those chords – B – holding forth in the bass. The Theme’s initial G♯>E
third now moves stepwise ever higher, rather than down to F♯>D♯. The
prominent sounding of Kopfton B at 431 and 471 suggests that here, as in
Variation I, an initial ascent is being foresworn in favor of a B>A♯<B
neighboring motion. Measures 47 and 48 confirm that hunch, with exactly

the same upper-third D♯ (now presented an octave higher than in
Variation I) emerging at the cadence. The distinctive A♯<E diminished
fifth from 233 in Variation I is replicated at 473 to achieve that outcome,
while the E<F♯<G♮ third of 473 through 482 refers both to the E<F♮<G
third of Variation II’s 393 through 402 and to the excursion up to G♮ prior
to Variation I’s cadence in measure 24. (Because this passing motion
occurs without the coordinating neighboring motion of measure 40,
Beethoven reverts to the structurally correct A♯ spelling – instead of B♭ –
in measures 47 and 48.) Also as in Variation I, the tonic’s 6-phase chord
does not occur. This time, Beethoven juxtaposes two different evolutions of
II: surging (➔) at 473, supersurging ( ) at 481–2.
Given that two distinct variations are intertwined within Variation
II, the content of measure 49 should be understood as a continuation
directly from measure 40. As in the earlier measures, the allegiance to
the Theme’s structure is more clear-cut than in Variation I. One chord,
however, displays Beethoven’s astute assessment of the material that
was spread before his eyes. We noted earlier how the circular path from
the tonic to the mediant in a major key might proceed along one of two
alternative routes, differing in their placement of the requisite dimin-
ished fifth. Up to now, the root succession E A D♯ G♯ has prevailed
during the third and fourth measures past the structure’s midpoint
(corresponding to measures 11 and 12 of the Theme). Perhaps with a
twinkle in his eye, Beethoven pursues the other alternative – E A♯ D♯
G♯ – during measures 51 and 52. In my score I have written “A♯➔!” at
513 to convey my excitement in discovering A♯’s evolved state, CÜ-(E
(♯?))-G♯-B, at that point.71 As in Variation I, Beethoven here presents
background ^2 and its upper-third cover tone consecutively (at 561–2),
now with F♯ registrally emphasized. Also as in Variation I, only the
cover tone’s successor (G♯) sounds in the upper register at the cadence.
Measure 57 should be understood as the immediate successor of
measure 48 within the double variation plan. In the Theme, two distinct
initiatives transpire during the first four measures after the midpoint repeat
signs: a restoration of the E Major tonic followed by a circle-of-fifths
trajectory to the mediant. Beethoven’s progression within measures 57
through 60 offers a creative permutation of those initiatives. All goes well
at first, with the chords labeled 1, 2, and 3 in 12.19b borrowed from the
Theme’s content, shown in 12.19a. But then C♯-F♯-A mutates into C♯-E-A,
chord 6 from the earlier trajectory. The circle of fifths continues in norma-
tive fashion from that point to its goal (chord 8), after which, belatedly, the
www.ebook3000.com
Example 12.19ab Analysis of Piano Sonata in E Major (op. 109), mvmt. 3, comparison
of mm. 8–12 and 48–60.
(a) (b)
tonic chord (labeled as 5, now inverted to correspond more closely to the

mediant) emerges. Recall that in our discussion of 12.16 the mediant chord
of measure 12 was interpreted as a tonic with seventh and absent root. Now,
in Variation II, the relationship between the tonic and the mediant is
potently projected through their juxtaposition within measure 60. Towards
the end of the variation, Beethoven juxtaposes C♯>B and C♮>B neighbors in
7
the bass (in the context of the dominant’s 64 embellishment followed by its 5
3♯
full flowering). These developments stem ultimately from the Theme’s

C♯>C♮>B (measures 7 and 8 bass), B<C♯ (measure 9 melody), and C♯>B
(measure 14 melody). Finally, note that E (= ^1), which was absent at the
cadence in measure 56, is restored in measure 64 (below covering G♯).
Based on what has proved to be of greatest analytical interest within the

variations, my eye is drawn to the passage of the sketch transcribed in
Marston’s ex. 9.14 that corresponds to measures 57 through 60 of the
final version. Whereas my 12.19 proposes that, in the published score,
this passage offers a permutation of the Theme’s chords, at the time of
this sketch’s creation all the chords labeled 1 through 8 in my example
occur in order (with one substitution, to be discussed below). That
progression (from the double bar on the fourth system to the end of
page 237) proceeds as follows:
Chord 1 2 3 4 5 (6) 7 8
B b C♯➔ f♯ B➔ E a♯° D♯➔ g♯ E
Whereas an A major chord (measures 11 and 27) and a surging A♯

chord (measure 51) have served as chord 6, in the final composition the
diminished chord on A♯, which appears in this sketch, is reserved until

measure 83 (in Variation III). Through study of the sketch a potential
reading of the published score that I did not perceive emerges: that the
chords of measure 60 correspond to E, a♯° (with FÜ serving as lower
neighbor to an intended G♯72), D♯➔, g♯, followed by E. For this reading
to be viable, one must regard the progression’s B➔ chord (number 4) to
have been elided. I have not gone so far as to tinker with my 12.19 based
on these perceptions from the sketch. Yet certainly readers may find it
rewarding to compare these two contrasting interpretations of the same
passage, each related in its own way to the Theme’s model.
Movement 3 Variation III (measures 65–96)
Whereas in Variation II Beethoven doubles the density of fresh content by

substituting an alternate variation where each half’s repeat belongs, in the
first half of Variation III he cuts the density in half. By boiling down the
thematic content to its essence (reducing its built-in redundancies and
condensing the voice leading of measures 7 and 8 into a single measure),
four rather than eight measures convey two lines in invertible counterpoint
leading to a cadence. Between measures 65 and 80 the same structure is
presented four times (rather than two). The Theme melody’s downward
G♯>E and D♯>B from measures 1 and 2 (now de-emphasizing F♯) are
initially presented in the bass, counterpointed by those intervals’ inversions
above (from the Theme’s bass). As these lines continue, a blatant unidirec-
tional trajectory (characteristic only of the bass during the Theme) is
pursued in both lines, resulting in an expanding wedge shape. (When
repositioned in the succeeding four measures these lines produce a con-
tracting wedge instead.) An important shift of reference occurs during this
process: soprano A♯ at 681 (which melodically matches bass A♯ at 33)
sounds in a harmonic context that corresponds to the Theme’s measures
7 and 8 – not measures 3 and 4. That is, II➔ at 33 is an intensification of the
II from 13, emerging during a repetition of the content from measures 1
and 2. Both of these supertonics are foreground chords engaged in
supporting the melody’s local descent from ^3 to ^2. The supertonic at 73
through 82 is hierarchically deeper, serving as the intermediary between
I5–6 and V at the phrase level and supporting the melody’s ascent from ^3
through ♯^4 to ^5. Its supersurging character during the Theme initially is
www.ebook3000.com
demoted to surging II➔ during Variation III’s measures 68, 72, and 76
(projected at first via incompletely realized chords – either C♯-E-A♯ or
A♯-E-G♮), with a brief moment of supersurge emerging only at the final
presentation, during measure 80.
Even though what corresponds to the Theme’s measures 9 through 16
has a heavier structural burden (in that all but the first chord of 12.16
transpires there), Beethoven maintains the same sort of interaction
between two voices as in the earlier passage: sixteenth notes below eighth
notes in measures 81 through 84, and then (not as invertible counterpoint)
eighth notes below sixteenth notes in measures 85 through 88. Measures 83
and 84 are especially gratifying for listeners fascinated by how Beethoven
makes use of compositional resources. Thus far in the movement the circle
of fifths connecting the tonic and the mediant has deployed either an A
major chord (sometimes requiring the imaginative insertion of pitch A) or
a surging A♯➔ chord (as in measure 54). Now, in measure 83, he calls upon
yet another option, diminished C♯-E-A♯. Though root A♯ still fulfills its
role as a fifth from both the preceding E and the following D♯, its chord
now is fully assimilated into the key of the goal G♯ minor chord.73 Given
that the Theme’s melody concludes in the lower line during measure 88,
finally an E resides in the soprano at the cadence, though of course now the
“cover” tone G♯ resides in the bass, so the cadence chord is in 63 position.
During the written-out repeat, the relationship between eighth and
sixteenth notes shifts (since invertible counterpoint transpires between
measures 81–88 and 89–96), resulting in a cadence on a root-position
tonic, but with ^3 in the soprano.
I question two distinct assertions made by Marston in his ex. 9.3 and
the related commentary on p. 222. First, that example’s left half attempts
to convey a correlation between the content of measure 68 from
Variation III and measure 4 from the Theme. Yet Marston has con-
veniently omitted the tonic chord of measure 67, instead leaving a
conspicuously blank area at the left edge of the example’s upper system.
Were that chord displayed, the disparity between the two harmonic
contexts would be obvious. On the upper system the C♯-E-A♯ chord
comes between I and V; on the lower system F♯-C♯-E-A♯ helps prolong
an already established V. Consequently these passages are not closely
related.74 Second, the example’s right half attempts to convey a correla-
tion between the content of measure 72 from Variation III and measures
7 and 8 from the Theme. Here my concern is less serious: I agree in
principle with the juxtaposition. I merely question the assertion that the
variation “faithfully reflects” the “augmented sixth” of the Theme. I
would interpret the incomplete chord A♯-E-G as representing A♯-C♯-
E-G – thus II➔, rather than II . The C♮ of 802, which Marston cites in
his footnote 4 as support for his reading, seems to me instead related to
the C♯>C♮ transformation during Variation II (measures 47–48). In
measure 80 an equivalent transformation turns an imagined C♯ into a
sounding C♮.
In studying Beethoven’s various drafts for the material beyond the
midpoint repeat signs in Variation III, my eye was drawn to two spots,
not remarked upon by Marston, that resonate with principal points of my
analytical discourse. First, the emergence of a diminished A♯ chord at the
end of measure 83 is not yet in evidence. (See the third measure of the draft
segment printed on p. 244.) Second, at a final cadence in which soprano E
resides above bass G♯ (the same context as in the final score’s measure 88),
Beethoven at one point took pains to cover the closing ^1 by its upper third.
(See the last measure of the draft segment printed on p. 246.)
Movement 3 Variation IV (measures 96|97–112)
A very important pitch within Variation IV emerges at a most unexpected

location: the B during 962, though preceding the official onset of the
variation by half a beat, corresponds functionally to the “beacon” B of
171, at the onset of Variation I. As was the case there, Beethoven also
forgoes an initial ascent in Variation IV. Instead a descending third-
progression transpires: B with G♯ and E (measure 97) through A with F♯
and D♯ (measure 98) to G♯ with E (measure 99). Taking advantage of the
built-in redundancy of the Theme’s opening six measures, here a registral
expansion fueled by this voice leading continues until B yields to A♯ during
1033. (Bass C♯ offers a hint of I6, with concurrently the tonic’s third lowered
from G♯ to G♮. Soon thereafter, I6 yields to II .) The shift in spelling from
A♯ to enharmonic B♭ and then back to A♯ is motivated by the fact that the
chord’s G♮-A♯ augmented second is melodically filled in both ascending
and descending (visually easier to read when spelled as G♮<A<B♭), in the
context of a voice exchange during 1042. (Compare with the B♭ spelling in
measures 39 and 40.) The D♯ that emerges above A♯’s resolution back to B
(at 243 in Variation I) is matched by the special exposure given to D♮ (a
www.ebook3000.com
Example 12.20 Piano Sonata in E Major (op. 109), mvmt. 3 (a) Circular progressions in
mm. 83–84; (b) Circular progression in mm. 106–108.
(a) (b)
lowering of inner-strand D♯) at the end of measure 104b. (The chromatic

shift relates to the situation at measure 57.)
That D♮ initiates a novel melodic trajectory for the return to I. Whereas a
B>A>G♯ third was traversed during the Theme (measures 9 through 11),
now cover tones a third higher are prominently sounded (D♯>D♮>C♯>B
during measures 104 through 106). This variety is especially welcome here,
since, as was noted, a B>A>G♯ third has already been featured at the onset
of the variation. At this juncture listeners should be very curious about how
Beethoven will present the impending circle of fifths. I hear measure 83’s
A♯ diminished chord being reprised during measure 107, but with one
“wrong” note: a comparison of 12.20a and 12.20b reveals a correlation that
holds only if one interprets FÜ above bass A♯ as an anticipation of the
following D♯ chord’s third. As I do also in 12.3b and in 12.14, I have
crossed out a note in 12.20b to show how Beethoven reformulates a
conventional compositional choice in a remarkable way. Soon after its
arrival (and clearly following the precedent of measure 60) this mediant
reverts to the tonic. Finally, though both the upper-staff F♯ at 1113 and
leading tone D♯ at 1123 “should” resolve to an E a tenth above Middle C,
Beethoven (as before) omits that note.
Since no draft material for this variation survives, Marston does not
provide commentary.
Movement 3 Variation V (measures 113–152)
Ascending thirds similar to those in measures 41 through 44 are deployed

at the onset of Variation V, this time in the context of a local harmonic
progression that leads from I (surging at the end of measure 115) to IV.
This subdominant functions within a local expansion of the tonic that
supports the melody’s pre-initial-ascent G♯ (as shown in 12.21). At the
conclusion of its prolongation that tonic likewise surges (via the raising of
its fifth to B♯ in the bass at 1191, so that IV (in place of the Theme’s II ) is
the principal intermediary between I and V at the phrase level. (Compare
with measure 39.) That harmonic hierarchy impacts the initial ascent:
diatonic G♯<A<B serves as the foundational line, with A♯ in this case
connecting A and B.
The ascent in thirds recurs starting in measure 121, which should come
across initially as a rhythmically invigorated written-out repeat of
Variation V’s opening measures. Yet after a shift to a higher register in
measure 123, that plan begins to run amuck. The ascent becomes unstop-
pable: G♯>E, A>F♯, B>G♯, C♮>A, D♮>B, E! The latter stages of this ascent
coordinate with the deployment of an ascending 5–6 sequence, similar to
the deployment shown in 2.6. From the G♯6 chord (presented surging and
in 43 ♮ position) at the end of measure 125, Beethoven proceeds with A5–6♮,
B5–6♮, and finally C♮5. Along the way, the diatonic pitch collection of E
Minor begins to replace that of E Major, and so the goal chord attained at
1281 is C♮-E♮-G♮, not the Theme’s C♯-E-G♯ (measure 7). On the one hand,
this turn of events will come across as efficient, since the chore of shifting
from C♯ to C♮ in the bass (as in the Theme’s measure 7, presented for
comparison in 12.22a) is thereby removed. Yet on the other hand, that
www.ebook3000.com
Example 12.22a and b Piano Sonata in E Major (op. 109), mvmt. 3, comparison of mm.
1–8 and 121–128.
(a) (b)
altered bass coordinates with the melody’s substitution of G♮ for G♯

(shown in 12.22b). Whereas a minor-key 3^ might shift chromatically to
3 preceding ♯^4 (for example, as G<G♯<A♯ in E Minor), a lowered ^3
♯^
between diatonic ^3 and ♯^4 in a major key is aberrational. A defining feature
of the 12.22a model is that the voice leading from G♯ proceeds simulta-
neously downwards to G♮ (as slurred) and upwards to A♯ (as beamed). That
structure falls apart when those two initiatives are decoupled. Certainly no
one would maintain a G♯ imaginatively (against a sounding G♮) during
1281 for connection to the A♯ that emerges during the second beat. With
some discomfort I display this unusual situation by means of parentheses
breaking up an initial-ascent beam. One could interpret the C major chord
as resulting from a seismic shift transpiring during the latter stage of the 5–
6 shift, after which A♯ bounces back to the normative state – akin to
encountering a pothole while ascending a hill.
The D♮ prolonged throughout measure 129 reminds one of the situation
in measure 57, where Beethoven proceeds to the mediant without a prior
tonic restoration. Likewise no tonic is found during measures 128 through
132, whose representation in 12.23 should be compared with those of the
Theme and of measures 57 through 60 in 12.19. In this case the goal G♯
chord is attained via a bass ascent from the initiating B through C♯ to
surging D♯ (the chord labeled 7 in the 12.19 models), which targets the goal
G♯ chord. The Theme template’s precedent of a tonic return corresponding
to 143 is fulfilled during measure 134, where an unprecedented harmonic
vibrancy is encountered: though the tonic root E sounds at beat 2, by the
time the upper-staff E and G♯ fall into place the bass has shifted to the
tonic’s 6-phase C♯, after which II➔ sounds briefly before the bar line.
The Theme’s structure is pursued from that point to the cadence (measure
136), which (like measure 88) offers an E (= ^1) in the soprano against –
once suspension A resolves – a G♯ in the bass. (A filled-in tonic triad
arpeggiation ensues from that E, introducing the B from which the varied
written-out repeat is launched: bass B at 1291 corresponds to soprano B
at 1371.)
In somewhat simplified form, the written-out repeat commencing in
measure 137 (note the invertible counterpoint, comparing with measure
129) reaches closure in measure 144. Though the cadence has a solidity
lacking in measure 136 (since now tonic root E sounds in the bass),
Beethoven here takes the unusual step of repeating this written-out repeat.
Perhaps he relished the chance to present an unencumbered G♯<A♯<B
ascent (between 1442 and 1451). And likely he intended this odd insertion
as an aural cue, alerting listeners that what was impending would be
something special (in this case the last and, technically, the most challen-
ging variation).
Given my acute interest in the relationship between G♮ and A♯ during

measure 128, I find the sketch transcribed by Marston as his ex. 9.5a
especially fascinating, since there a C major chord (with G♮) proceeds to
a B dominant (with seventh A). There is no visible evidence of a surging
or supersurging supertonic, though I suspect that Beethoven would
have inserted A♯ into the chordal interior during the first two beats of
the second system’s second measure.
Marston’s and my speculations regarding how Beethoven intended to
harmonize the sketch transcribed as ex. 9.5d diverge. Whereas he favors
a mediant tonicization (borrowing that chord from the Theme’s
measure 12 for deployment at this earlier point), with a footnote
acknowledgment that possibly (though “unlikely”) Beethoven might
have proceeded to the dominant (p. 229), I instead regard the melodic
www.ebook3000.com
content at the end of the first system (representing I5–6) as driving

towards I6’s conventional successor, II and then V. In this case that
supertonic would be preceded by a 64 embellishment: F♯-B-D♯ support-
ing the first measure of the example’s lower system, followed by F♯-C♯-E
for the first two pitches of the second measure and finally B-B-D♯ for B.
(In this interpretation FÜ and G♯ serve as passing notes between an
unsounded F♯ and the A♯. If some readers would like more overt
support for the FÜ, try adding E♯-B-CÜ at that point.
Movement 3 Variation VI and repeat of the Theme

(measures 153–203)
The pianistic challenges of Variation VI are not matched by increased

structural complexity. The projection of the Theme’s first eight measures
and their repeat during measures 153 through 168 is closely allied to the
initial statement, now with the concurrent sounding of pedal points in
multiple registers.75
In contrast, the first presentation of the continuation (beginning in
measure 169) abandons part of the Theme template, instead pursuing a
pared-down trajectory. After the initial ascent and coordinating attain-
ment of the dominant, the harmony rests on the dominant until the tonic
restoration at the final cadence. The structural descent is displayed in
12.24, which is designed so as to clearly delineate the two principal
upper strands. Observe how the background line proceeds from ^5 through
^
4 (measure 170), ^3 (measures 171 and 172), and ^2 (measures 173 through
176), to ^1 at the phrase ending. An inner strand that is woven into the
texture covers each of those pitches. It is a sign of Beethoven’s remarkable
control over his compositional resources that, despite the contrasting
harmonization, the unstemmed black noteheads in 12.24 correspond (with

added chromaticism) to the noteheads displayed in the tenor register in the
Theme’s basic model, 12.16.76
In the space earmarked for the repeat of this material (beginning in
measure 177), Beethoven restores the harmonic trajectory of the original
Theme. One chord is forsaken: whereas the A chord of the circle of fifths
between the tonic and the mediant is installed against pedal point B at the
end of measure 179, despite the resulting dissonance, the F♯ supertonic of
the Theme’s measure 13 is not attempted against that pedal point in
measure 181. A dominant harmony (wherein B serves as a chord member)
substitutes. As the cadence approaches, the unfoldings of G♯F♯
again deploy cover tones that we might hope would resolve to G♯>E.
Though we must wait in suspense for several extra measures, in fact the
opening of the unadorned Theme in measures 188 provides exactly that
unfolded third. So the cycles continue without termination. Every back-
ground arrival on ^1 (whether in sound or imagined) is rivaled by a new ^3
that initiates the process all over again. Though F♯>E transpires during
the movement’s closing measure (203), Beethoven has already provided
the G♯ starting point for the cycle’s next iteration. The movement ends, but
it has not concluded.
Marston’s interpretation of measures 169 through 176 is displayed in his

ex. 9.13. Comparison with my 12.24 reveals numerous contrasts in how
we assess the passage. For me, the most significant analytical moment
for coming to terms with issues about which we disagree occurs in
measure 168, unfortunately not shown in Marston’s example. Two
crucial events occur there: (1) the arrival of Kopfton B (= ^5), which
would suggest that the strand emanating from that note will be espe-
cially prominent; and (2) the shift from the dominant’s D♯ to chromatic
passing note D♮ and the simultaneous transfer of that note up an octave.
From the latter point (and recalling that we have encountered and come
to terms with D♮ at this spot already in earlier variations: measures
56–57, 104–105, and 129–130), I suggest that the prominently displayed
D♮ in Marston’s analysis should not be interpreted as the start of any-
thing (just as his beamed melodic span from D♮ to G♯ does not project
anything from a deeper hierarchical level).77 Whereas my reading pro-
poses two discrete strands (white-notehead B>E and black-notehead
E>G♯), both traversing intervals from the work’s foundational tonic
triad, Marston’s linear trajectory swerves back and forth between
www.ebook3000.com
those strands. And whereas my perspective is sensitive to the expecta-

tion that an E (= ^1) will occur at the cadence, though here concealed by
an upper-third G♯, Marston simply concludes on G♯, not acknowled-
ging the E among the thirty-second notes at the end of measure 176.
Despite its brevity, that pitch performs a crucial voice-leading role with
regard to the preceding dominant’s F♯> and D♯< resolutional
expectations.
13 String Quartet in A Minor (op. 132),
movement 1
in response to Frank Samarotto
Though Frank Samarotto’s essay on the first movement from Beethoven’s

Quartet in A Minor (op. 132) appears within a book devoted to sonata
form, an exploration of the work’s harmonic framework from a
Schenkerian perspective is an important component of his discourse.1
He forewarns the reader that some highly unusual composing is under
review, deploying the following words within the first minute of reading:
“problem,” “enigma,” “anomalous,” “paradox,” “uneasy,” “chaotic,”
“idiosyncratic,” “distortion,” “oddly,” “wrong,” and “contradictions.” Not
to mention “quaquaquaqua”!2
The vocabulary in my analysis below does not rise to that level. Instead I
methodically explore the movement from the perspective of a specific
hypothesis: that many of its anomalies stem from Beethoven’s quest to
solve a pesky compositional problem, namely to develop an alternative to
what had become perhaps too extended a span of tonic prolongation
during the recapitulation and coda of a movement in sonata form. In the
first movement of Schubert’s Trout Quintet (D. 667), which I explore in
Harmony in Schubert (chapter 6), the subdominant occurs at the onset of
the recapitulation. Here, by lagging behind in traversing the succession of
key areas typical of a minor-key sonata movement, the minor dominant
occurs at that point.
The introduction (measures 1 through 10)
A brief exploration of neighboring embellishment, preferably undertaken

at a keyboard, should prove useful before we assay the introduction in
earnest. Four distinct though related embellishing chords are displayed
between two E major triads in 13.1a. First play
E X E
Though the pitches of A Minor’s tonic triad are employed for X, in this
context the pitches A and C function as neighbors to the major dominant’s
228 third and fifth. A is not asserted as a harmonic root. Now play
www.ebook3000.com
String Quartet in A Minor (op. 132) 229
Example 13.1 Components for the prolongation of an E major chord.

(a) (b)
E Y1 E
In this case the drive towards the E triad’s restoration is stronger, due to the
resolutional tendencies of the diminished fifth and diminished seventh
dissonances. (Y1 might aptly be said to surge, targeting the E triad.) Next
play
E X Y1 E
Here the full flowering of the neighbors is gradual: the second chord’s bass
E might be interpreted as a suspension resolving to D♯.
Now repeat the experiment, this time substituting Y2 and then Y3 for Y1.
Also create a version in which Y3 follows directly after Y2 before the
resolution to E. (Beethoven deploys that juxtaposition during measure 8.)
Finally, create a local surge targeting X by inserting the chord labeled
E➔ in 13.1b between E and X in these progressions. Though X might
be perceived as more stable than E➔, broadly it remains hierarchically
subservient to the perimeter E major triads.3
With this experiment’s associations fresh in your ears, listen to the
introduction’s first eight measures. I propose that they correlate with our
keyboard experiment as follows:
m. 1 E X (with imagined notes)

2 Y2 E (E triad restored; other Y2 notes sound at 31)
3 Y2 E (replication of m. 2, with absent F♮)
4 Y3➔ E (a varied replication, to root-position E triad)
5 E➔ X (second round begins, with surging E➔)
6 E➔ X (replication of m. 5)
7 Y3➔ E (E triad restored)
8 Y2Y3➔ E➔ (replication of m. 7, with Y2 yielding to Y3)
The slur in the cello line of measures 1 and 2 binds two related pitches: a
lone G♯ from the outset and the root of an E-G♯-B triad during 22. The
intervening A and F, upper neighbors of that triad’s third and root, begin to
fill out the pitch collection of A Minor, in which G♯ functions as the leading
tone. (The E triad serves ultimately as the dominant of the A Minor tonic
that emerges at 104, where the introduction’s pervasive leading tone finally
resolves.) The A Minor focus is strengthened in measure 3, where A-C-D♯

confirms the implication of the earlier F-A dyad, resulting (by integrating
the two events) in an F-A-C-D♯ supersurge (B ) targeting the E triad, as
often transpires between the supertonic and dominant in A Minor.
(Because the E dominant is already a presence at the outset, B here
functions as an embellishing chord.4) The repetition in measure 4 sub-
stitutes F♯ for F♮ (thus generating a B➔ surge), a subtle shift that Beethoven
reprises through the juxtaposition of F♮ and F♯ in the second violin line
during 81.
Just as Beethoven’s placement of the pitch A during 12 initially leaves
open the question of function – is A the resolution of or an embellishment
of G♯? – so also A-C-E (in 64 position at 52, in 53 position at 62) might resolve
the dominant implications of the E-G♯-B triad, a tendency that becomes
more potent through the incorporation of D and F to foster the sense of
E➔ at 51. Yet, as 13.2 reveals, D♯ and F♯ soon join A and C, thereby
replicating the state of affairs that prevailed at 41. (Because the progression
of measures 1 through 4 is tentatively presented, as if emerging out of the
void, the analysis in 13.2 focuses on its varied repetition in measures 5
through 8.) The E triad’s restoration during the second half of measure 7
transpires with exactly the same crescendo/decrescendo markings as in
measure 4.
The initial four-note motive is a versatile player in these various inter-
actions. During measures 1 and 2 the principal connection is between its
first and last notes (G♯ and E). Its transposition in the first violin and
transposed inversion (which alternatively might be regarded as a permuta-
tion of the violin’s transposition, reversing the order of the two half steps)
in the viola part during measures 3 and 4 instead sound in a context that
emphasizes its second and fourth notes. The transposed inversion in the
cello during measures 5 and 6 again emphasizes the second and fourth
notes (E and A, components of X), while during measures 7 and 8 the
simultaneous sounding of a transposition and transposed inversion (as in
measures 3 and 4, now with the latter on top) again emphasizes its second
and fourth notes (E and B).
The next E➔ surge initiative, which commences at the end of measure 8,
not only restores the pitch content of 51 and 61, but also transpires in a
context that decisively breaks from the introduction mold: a crescendo to
forte coordinates with a shift of tempo and meter, while the first violin line
arpeggiates the chord’s members in a virtuosic cascade of sixteenth notes.
This time the succession to A-C-E should be understood as A Minor: V➔ I,
in contrast to the earlier successions from the E dominant to its E-A-C
www.ebook3000.com
Example 13.2 Analysis of String Quartet in A Minor (op. 132), mvmt. 1, mm. 1–22.
embellishing chord. The move to the A tonic (in first inversion) at 104
initiates the exposition’s P. The dominant’s ninth (F) targets the tonic’s
fifth (E), which serves as the movement’s Kopfton.
Samarotto and I hold opposing views regarding the role of the quartet’s
second pitch, A. Since the first measure contains very little sonic con-
tent, listeners will be inclined to withhold judgment regarding what they
hear. Fortunately the role of A is clarified over the next few measures,
where it sounds in more robust contexts. I propose that one might
eventually come to understand that in measure 1 it represents an
E-A-C chord (as in 52) and that F and A in measure 2 are members of
a dissonant chord rooted on an unsounded B. Observe how A resolves
downward by step repeatedly (at 22, 32, 72, and 82). The F either resolves
downward by step to E (at 22) or shifts to F♯ and resolves upward by step
to G♯ (at 42, 72, and 82). Whereas the introduction alternates between a
foundational E dominant harmony and hierarchically dependent
embellishing chords, the decisive succession from E➔ to A (where
leading tone G♯ finally resolves) transpires at 104, signaling the onset
of the exposition’s P.
Samarotto instead regards the initial A as the tonic harmony’s root –
not only so marked (by Roman numeral I) in his exx. 1.1 and 1.3, but
also embedded within his essay’s title, “The Divided Tonic . . .,” words
that also annotate the I numeral in 1.3.
I propose that the appropriate segmentation of the first four half notes
should be 1 + 2 + 1: that is, first a representative of the E dominant (the
lone G♯), then two beats of embellishment (A alone, then both F and A,
as tentative projections of two distinct embellishing chords of the E
dominant),5 and finally a restoration of the dominant, now fully fleshed
out. Each of the introduction’s first eight measures contains an E chord:
in measures 1, 5, and 6, Beethoven leads away from E; in measures 2, 3,
4, 7, and 8, he leads back to E. Samarotto instead seeks to establish
continuity among all the Assai sostenuto’s measures, regarding each
“weak” second beat as the holder of the measure’s principal chord.
Consequently he joins G♯ and F from the downbeats of measures 1
and 2 to form a dissonant entity that resolves to the A and E (the divided
tonic) from the second beats in the cello line. Yet note that the G♯ and B
that sound along with E at 22 cannot coexist with the A that appears in
Samarotto’s ex. 1.1a (under the heading “actual”). (I regard measure 2’s
E as the root of V♯ – the goal of B E – whereas Samarotto is inclined to
www.ebook3000.com
regard it as the fifth of I.6) I find his alternative reading in ex. 1.1c (also
under the heading “actual”) more apt: the first and fourth half-note
pitches are connected and the internal I numeral is annotated by a
question mark (fleshed out in the text with the words, “the possibility
of an entirely illusory tonic, one that slips from our grasp no sooner
than we hear it” (p. 6)). Whereas in my view the function of the
introduction is to prepare the tonic arrival of measure 10, Samarotto
yearns for a tonic at the outset, proposing “that tonic is here somehow
conceptually present, struggling to provide a base from which to pro-
ceed, but in a divided form, unfolded into fragments that we must
mentally reassemble” (p. 6).
The exposition’s primary-theme zone (P, measures

10 through 22)
Just as an unfolding of the dominant’s third and root (G♯>E) spans seven
measures during the introduction, the tonic’s corresponding C>A third
guides the bass from 104 through 161 at the onset of P. (These thirds are
highlighted through the use of the Z-shaped unfolding symbol in 13.2.)
Between bass C and A, a local dominant reminiscent of the introduction’s
E-G♯-B plays a connective role. (That dominant is even the target of a B
embellishment during measures 13 and 14, a further link to the
introduction.)
The middleground outer-voice beams in 13.2 tell a familiar story:
whereas the melody descends by step from Kopfton ^5 (E) to ^2 (B) over
the course of measures 10 through 22, the bass pursues a trajectory from
tonic A to dominant E, with IV (bass D) serving as the principal inter-
mediary. The IV Stufe is targeted by a surge as the tonic prolongation
draws to a close, with C♯ emerging at 174 and the first violin’s G at 181
understood as a pitch that “belongs” in the preceding beat. As is common
in a minor key, IV’s 6-phase chord here incorporates a chromatic B♭
wobble – a “Neapolitan” variant. The quadrupled G♯ at 201 represents
the dominant, as did the lone G♯ in measure 1. The first violin’s D during
183–4, from which a downward arpeggiation flows, should be understood
to form a diminished fifth against measure 20’s G♯. The annotations to
the right of the V numeral in 13.2 reveal how the progression passes from
this 7♯ through a 64 chord (unfolded during measures 20 and 21) to a
dominant 5♯ at 221. Beethoven emphasizes the 64 ’s C through the score’s

shifts in dynamics, tempo, and register. Yet just as A in measure 1 or
A-C-E in measures 5 and 6 is subservient to the E-G♯-B dominant triad,
dominant root E (also emphasized during measure 21) likewise controls
all of measures 20 through 22. Then, in a variant of how the tonic
emerged out of the introduction’s dominant expanse to inaugurate P
during measure 10, here the dominant that concludes P (with a flourish
in sixteenth-notes during measure 22 that corresponds to that of mea-
sures 9 and 10) extends through measure 25, after which the tonic (which
resembles P’s tonic from measure 16) announces the onset of a new
initiative: the exposition’s transition (TR), to be discussed in this
chapter’s next section.
One extraordinary detail of Beethoven’s construction might seem
baffling: namely, the succession from G♯ (representing G♯-B-D-E) to a
G♮-A-C♯-E chord during the first half of measure 20. Whereas the intro-
duction has reminded us how E-A-C may embellish an E dominant chord,
the variant in measures 20 and 21 is unsettling. I propose that an A-C-E
unfurling of E-A-C in fact “should have” followed directly after the G♯, but
that this foundational state has been elided. Restored parenthetically in
13.2, we observe how the 64 chord (E-A-C) is expanded through concurrent
melodic initiatives: the filling-in of (A)>E in the bass, the arpeggiation of
E<A<C in the soprano (placed an octave higher in Beethoven’s score), and
an interior strand spanning (C)<E. Whereas at a foundational level an E
dominant is being prolonged via a 64 embellishment, at a local level a
subordinate approach to V♯ (displayed as a parenthetical passage in 13.2)
is being pursued.7 Only when these lines have run their course might
listeners come to understand how the initial chord within the prolonga-
tional strategy has been omitted.8
Disagreements between analysts often result from contrasting hierarch-

ical assessments. Whereas my reading proposes that, given how IV5–6♭
generally proceeds to V♯, and how the lone G♯ at the downbeat of
measure 1 represents V♯, the quadrupled downbeat G♯ of 201 likewise
initiates V♯ (yet another important chord introduced in its first inver-
sion, followed eventually by the emergence of its root in the bass).9 In
Samarotto’s ex. 1.3 that G♯ resides within a downward chromatic
expanse from B♭ to F♮, a reading that extends the function initiated by
IV: first D-F-A, then D-F-B♭, finally (at 204) D♯-F-A.
www.ebook3000.com
Example 13.3 Alternative analysis of String Quartet in A Minor

(op. 132), mvmt. 1, mm. 16–26.
It appears that an important factor in Samarotto’s reading of this

passage was his desire to interpret the high C at 211 as the arrival of
Kopfton ^3. (He correlates this C and the high C in measure 6, which a
caption in his ex. 1.3 describes as “first attempt to reach Kopfton.”) Yet if
I were to accept ^3 as the Kopfton and the harmonic reading Samarotto
proposes for measures 18 through 20, my graph would be strikingly
different from his, as 13.3 shows. In my view the C of measure 21’s 64
chord is unrelated to the initial tonic harmony: it is a passing note
connecting IV’s D and V♯’s B, more stable elements of the structure,
connected via a slur in 13.3.10
The exposition’s transition and secondary-theme zone

(TR and S, measures 23 through 48)
Whereas this movement’s P transpires normatively in the tonic key of A

Minor, beyond that point the harmonic progression does not keep pace
with a minor-key sonata movement’s conventional trajectory: though III
often would be tonicized during the exposition’s S and C and V attained
during the development, in this case Beethoven postpones III until the
development, with V delayed until the recapitulation’s P. Perhaps the
composer is here reacting to – indeed offering an alternative to – what
otherwise is an admittedly long and predictable span of tonic prolongation

during a typical recapitulation plus coda. In any event, his transformation
is not confined to the region where interest might potentially diminish for
the listener; instead, his alternative course has ramifications throughout
most of the movement.
Consequently listeners will need to adjust to the fact that the exposition
TR’s medial caesura, which one might expect will occur on a G major chord,
targeting A Minor’s mediant for tonicization during S, occurs instead on C,
targeting F Major, whose role within the broad tonal scheme will not be
clarified until the foundational progression continues on its trajectory
towards the mediant beginning in measure 76 (within the development).11
For now analytical attention will be directed first to how Beethoven leads
from A Minor to F Major and then to how S projects that tonicized key.
Because the harmonic progression encountered thus far in P closes on
V♯ (as displayed in 13.2), some listeners might expect a second (conse-
quent) phrase to transpire within P, this time cadencing on the A Minor
tonic. Such expectations are strengthened by the close correlation of
measures 23 through 28 to measures 13 through 18, hinting at a parallel
period. Yet seasoned listeners will understand that the onset of TR may be
crafted in such a way as to replicate the opening of P, with only a gradual
veering away from the earlier material’s course. Beethoven pursues that
strategy in this movement. The reprise of A ➔ D from the onset of P
(where it corresponds to the succession from I to IV) does not lead
eventually to E (= V♯), as before, but instead now initiates a circular
progression: A ➔ D G C➔, targeting F Major. (See 13.4, measures
26–34.) A Minor’s AE fifth shifts to F Major’s AF , with A here transferred to
the upper register (beginning in measure 27) so that a middleground
A>G>F third-progression may transpire during S (measures 35 through
48). The melodic goal, F, is the first step in a linear trajectory (ascending
from Kopfton E) whose continuation transpires during the development.
(Though the suppression of that long-awaited F in the soprano register
at 481 must certainly be regarded as quirky, it seems consistent with
Beethoven’s late style and serves as a motivating factor for the ensuing C,
which supplies the suppressed F belatedly at the cadence of 671.)
The musical expanse from measure 35 through measure 48, which
constitutes S, develops out of two familiar devices (emphasized by beam
notation in 13.4): the traversal of a I–V–I bass arpeggiation in tonicized F
Major, providing focus to the harmonic progression; and the melodic
traversal of F Major’s third from A to F. In that II➔ serves as the principal
intermediary between I and V, Beethoven here expands the tonic via a 5–6
www.ebook3000.com
shift over the course of measures 35 through 43. This is accomplished by

diverting the local tonic expansion that initiates S: instead of resolving the
C➔ dominant of measure 39 to F, here C➔ and A➔ (which targets I6) are
juxtaposed (thereby converting C into a back-relating dominant: C).
The dominant that precedes a cadential tonic sometimes is expanded via
an embellishing 64 chord. Thus it is not surprising that after II➔ yields to V
over the bar line between measures 43 and 44, a 64 chord (C-F-A) emerges.
In most cases the restoration of the dominant 53 (perhaps at that point also
introducing the dominant’s seventh) will occur directly thereafter, as
would be the case if the material displayed within parentheses in 13.4
were omitted. Yet here Beethoven reinforces the already attained V by
inserting a subsidiary reiteration of the path from I to V, which has the
effect of a parenthetical passage: though V is already securely in place, its 64
embellishment is treated locally as I, from which a conventional harmonic
progression (here through a tonic surge targeting IV and IV’s expansion
via its surging 6-phase chord) leads to the restoration of V. (As noted
above, a similar expansion of the dominant occurred during P, measures
20 and 21.) Perhaps the most startling feature of S occurs at the very end:
the goal tonic’s soprano pitch, F, so well prepared by the dominant’s
prolongation during measures 44 through 47, is omitted. As mentioned
above, this lacuna is resolved during C. (Later in measure 48 an F an octave
lower, in the second violin line, initiates the C region’s melody, while the
broad third-progression that transpires during C leads, in measure 67, to
goal F in the register expected at 481.)
The portion of Samarotto’s ex. 1.3 that corresponds to the quartet’s

measures 25 through 48 contrasts my reading in 13.4 in many ways.
Most fundamentally, whereas I propose a tonicization of F Major
beginning at measure 35 in conjunction with the onset of S (thereby
inaugurating the second part of the exposition’s two-part structure),
Samarotto regards the passage as a “bridge” (p. 16), with the “second
theme” commencing at the upbeat to measure 49. (His “second theme”
corresponds to my C, to be explored below.) The VI numeral for the F
major chord of measure 35 is placed within square brackets annotated
by the words “as anticipatory tonic” and “conceptual local tonic,” while
as late as measure 39 his Roman numeral analysis persists in the key of A
Minor. (His III♭7 in A Minor is my V7 in tonicized F Major.)
My TR – which is much shorter than his bridge – is guided by what I
have come to regard as one of the most effective of all transitional
www.ebook3000.com
devices: the descending circle of fifths (here A–D–G–C, with the medial
caesura on C preparing S’s inaugural F). Samarotto instead analyzes the
passage using Roman numerals, as I IV5–♭6 III♭7 leading to [VI]. The G
chord – for me a vital link in the circular trajectory – is left unlabeled.
(Though I eschew Roman numerals in such contexts, I would readily
translate another analyst’s I IV VII III into my conceptual framework
and acknowledge the similarity of our conceptions despite surface
differences in notation. In contrast, Samarotto’s succession from IV to
III seems peculiar to me.12)
Samarotto deploys a dotted slur four times over the course of mea-
sures 31 through 47 to link soundings of bass root C (thereby deferring
the definitive shift to F until measure 48). In my view, that reading
contradicts the sorts of associations this music projects as a means of
tonicizing F Major prior to measure 48. One of the most notable features
of Beethoven’s harmonization is the juxtaposition of surging C and A
chords in measures 39 and 40. From my perspective they reflect the 5–6
shift from F ( C’s back-relating target) in measure 35 to D (A➔’s
target) in measure 43. Note how those two points are connected both
by a bass slur in my graph and by F Major: I5––––6 in the harmonic
analysis. In Samarotto’s reading, the D chord appears as an internal link
within a circular restoration of C (measure 44) after a lower-third
excursion to A (measure 40): note how A–D–G–C is marked via diag-
onal lines and how bass A and C are connected by a slur, subsidiary to
the broader C–C dotted slur. Coordinating with that bass projection of
C, the soprano fills in the C7 chord’s diminished fifth B♭>A>G>F>E,
annotated as “motion into inner voice.” I hold the contrasting view that
this B♭ resolves to the A of A➔ at measures 40 through 42.
Samarotto and I both acknowledge an expansion of F Major’s
dominant harmony during measures 44 through 47. Yet internally our
readings differ significantly, especially regarding the role of the pitches
F, A, and C in measures 44 and 45. Whereas I hear a broad prolongation
of the dominant’s 64 embellishment commencing at that point (corre-
sponding to my slurred C>A>F>C in the bass clef over these four
measures), Samarotto slurs through the initial 64 . to the inverted B♭
chord of 461. My broad ^3>^2>^1 in F Major (over the span of measures
35 through 48) is belatedly matched by a brief A>G>F in measure 47 and
48 of his graph. With concerns similar to those I expressed while
discussing 13.3, I find it problematic that ^3 is introduced as the starting
point of a descending third-progression during a prolongation of

F Major’s V, which does not support that ^3 as a chord member. (In
contrast, I label the soprano A that arrives in measure 45 and extends
into measure 47 as a neighbor to G (= ^2).)
The exposition’s closing zone (C, measures 48 through 74)
As is typical, the exposition’s S and C are presented in the same key – here
atypically A Minor’s submediant, F Major. The third-progression
(A>G>F) that was traversed during S (as displayed in 13.4) likewise
transpires during C (as displayed in 13.5, where the omission of some
expansive material is indicated by hairpin symbols among the measure
numbers). The broad progression incorporates two internal tonic chords.
That of measure 53 does not signal closure because it is inverted and
because the consonant inner-voice F that would resolve the preceding
dominant’s leading tone is elided, displaced by dissonant E♭ (hoisted to
the top of the texture). That of measure 57 does not signal closure because
the structural melody has not yet descended to F Major’s ^1. The goal F
major chord, finally attained at 671, is extended by II➔ V successions (in
www.ebook3000.com
half notes, measures 68 and 70 through 72) reminiscent of the introduc-

tion. The exposition’s final chord – F-A-C-E♭ in measure 74 – both
incorporates A at the top of the texture (in reference to measures 35, 48–
50, and 57–58) and introduces a dissonant E♭, which inaugurates the
process of moving beyond the extended tonicization of F Major, eventually
(and very belatedly, given that it usually would emerge at or near the
beginning of S) reaching A Minor’s mediant, C Major, in measure 95.
It was not Samarotto’s intention to offer a detailed analysis of the entire

movement. The score segment corresponding to my 13.5 is not assessed
in detail in his essay. However, his remarks concerning this passage
contain what appears to me to be a contradiction. On the one hand, his
ex. 1.4e proposes that the “second theme” begins in measure 48, an
assessment that is consistent with the comment (on p. 16, footnote 27)
that “closing material” begins in measure 57. In ex. 1.3, Roman numeral
VI (in larger type than that of the other numerals in the vicinity and
placed in a separate row) is positioned below the F major chord of
measure 48. On the other hand, the sketch of the entire movement in his
ex. 1.8 displays the prolongation of a C chord from what I understand to
be measure 33 (no measure number appears above that chord in the
sketch) until the arrival of root F in measure 57, which is provided with
the Roman numeral VI and annotated with the caption “2nd th[eme].”
Neither of these readings coincides with my view that what one might
label as S or “second theme” is under way by the time root F emerges in
measure 35, and that the initiative begun in measure 48 (whether labeled
as C or “second theme”) does not conclude until the downbeat of
measure 67.13 An exposition’s C may be presented in several parts.
Here the melodic A>G>F (eighth-eighth-quarter) of the second violin
line in measure 50 is transformed into a more forthright A>G>F (quar-
ter-quarter-quarter) in the first violin line of measure 57: a new phase of
C, to be sure, but not a separate initiative.
The development (measures 75–120)
As a reason for the unusual interface between this movement’s tonal and
formal trajectories, I speculate that Beethoven is here attempting to curtail
the tonic expanse that typically begins at the onset of the recapitulation,
extending through the end of the movement – an expanse that over his
career may have seemed to become excessive due to his increasing empha-
sis on tonic-confirming codas. In this movement he both delays the return
of the tonic until after the recapitulation’s P and extends a progression that
might normally prevail during the TR that follows (one that usually would
target a tonic restoration at the onset of S) so that it extends not only
through the recapitulation’s S and C, but also deep into the coda.
A special opportunity results from the facts that this movement is in a
minor key and that its Kopfton is ^5: the I, III, V♯, and I that typically
transpire between the exposition’s P and the recapitulation’s P in minor
keys all may support a prolonged ^5. Consequently the structure may be
transformed from
^5 4^ ^3 ^2 ||
5 ^4 ^3 ^2 ) ^1
(^
A Minor: I III V♮–––♯ I
Exposition Development Recapitulation Coda
P TR S
into a trajectory weighted more towards the latter part of the movement, as
^5 ( ) ^ 5 ^5 ^5 ^4 ^3 ^2 ^1
A Minor: I ( ) III V♮–♯ I III V♯ I
Exposition Development Recapitulation Coda
P TR S P TR S
Whereas often a background descent from ^5 to ^2 will transpire over the

course of the exposition and development, interrupted at the onset of the
recapitulation to allow for a reinstatement of ^5 (and I), in this case ^5 is
maintained during that entire expanse, thereby shifting components of the
background descent to late in the movement. The first part of such a
structure is displayed in 13.6a, where the tonicized F Major that transpired
during the exposition’s S and C is interpreted as a divider of the bass fifth
from A down to D, which initiates the most common of all means of
connecting a minor key’s tonic and mediant: the descending circle of fifths,
A–D–G–C. (A more foundational view of the circular progression is
displayed in 13.6b.) In this case an upward excursion from Kopfton E to
G and back transpires during that progression. Consequently the F goal of
the middleground third-progressions displayed in 13.4 and 13.5 serves
broadly as a passing note within the GE third of the emerging mediant.
Beethoven’s G-focused preparation for the C Major arrival in measures
93 through 95 is reminiscent of the movement’s E-focused introduction.
The cello notes of measures 1 and 2 – G♯<A<F>E – are transposed to
www.ebook3000.com
Example 13.6 Analysis of String Quartet in A Minor (op. 132), mvmt. 1, mm. 10–95
(a) Middleground graph; (b) Block-chord reduction.
(a)
(b)
become B♮<C>B♭>A♭<A♭>G in measures 85 through 88. Even measure 8’s

juxtaposition of F♮ and F♯ is matched by A♭<A♮ in measure 91, resulting in
a D➔ (rather than D ) embellishment of the circle’s G➔ chord. Once
attained, C Major serves as the venue for a fresh theme, supported by a
C<G>C bass arpeggiation over the course of measures 93 through 99, as
shown at the left side of 13.7.
For a short while Beethoven is on track in the movement’s tonal trajec-
tory: sometimes the III of an exposition’s S and C will extend into the
development, preceding a succession to V. In this case that V is postponed
until the recapitulation’s P, renewing the discrepancy between the norma-
tive and this movement’s idiosyncratic correlation between formal design
and harmonic trajectory. Following the C mediant of measure 99, another
application of the circle of fifths (C–F♯–B–E, now incorporating a
www.ebook3000.com
diminished fifth because the span from mediant root C to dominant root E
is a major rather than a minor third) pauses on B➔ at the end of measure
102, allowing for a new infusion of material from the introduction, trans-
posed so as to target the recapitulation P’s E Minor key. Coordinating with
the use of E, X, and Y in the assessment of the introduction in the context of
an A tonic, above (in conjunction with 13.1), measures 103 through 119
project the following chordal trajectory in the context of an E tonic:
103 105 107 109 111 113 115 117 119

B(➔) X1 Y2 B ➔ X1 X2 B––––––➔ X1 X2 B–––––––––––––➔
The chief innovation of this passage is the incorporation of two versions of

X: whereas X1 denotes a conventional 64 embellishment of B-D-F♯ (trans-
posing the introduction’s embellishment of the E-G♯-B triad to a new tonal
context), in X2 a ninth is added to the mix, so that all three of the B triad’s
members are embellished by upper neighbors.14
Whereas the A Minor tonic arrival occurred at 104, the equivalent spot
here – 1204 – fails to introduce E Minor, which will be tonicized during the
recapitulation’s P. Consequently the recapitulation begins in the midst of a
surge whose goal E chord emerges only in measure 126.
The annotations in Samarotto’s ex. 1.8 and the commentary on his page
19 confirm that we both regard the same material as constituting the
onset of the development – or, in his case, as “a transition to develop-
ment” followed by development. Our analyses focus on exactly the same
chords between measure 78 and the end of measure 102. Because
measure numbers are supplied sparingly in his ex. 1.8, I here indicate
how I read the locations of his chords: after the F chord labeled as VI
(measure 57), a D chord sounds in measure 78, followed by G in
measure 84 and then C in measure 99. (These chords all appear in my
13.6a, where I show the arrival of the C chord in measures 93 through
95.) Samarotto’s next two chords both sound in measure 102 (as also
displayed in my 13.7). Our hierarchical presentations differ chiefly in
that I label the C chord as III and regard it as the principal intermediary
between the exposition’s I and the eventual emergence of V in measure
126 (during the recapitulation’s P). His reading instead is more affected
by the durational emphasis upon F Major during the latter portion of
the exposition. Note that in his ex. 1.8 a bass slur connects root F
(measure 57) and root E (within square brackets, measure 131, which
I will suggest below should instead be placed in measure 126),
coordinating with a soprano slur from the former’s A to the latter’s G.

Though normally such a soprano slur would indicate that the A is
prolonged through its transformation into a seventh above bass B,
resolving to G against root E at the arrival of V♮ in measure 131, I
doubt Samarotto intends that an A should sound in our inner ear during
the C-E-G chord and its theme during measures 92 through 99. Though
not displayed as such, I suspect he would propose that G, an octave
lower in his graph at the C-E-G chord, serves as a passing note between
A and F♯ (seventh and fifth of the B chord that precedes the E arrival).
That reading would, however, lower the hierarchical ranking of the C
chord, which in my 13.7 is displayed as one of the four principal Stufen
over the span of measures 10 through 135. My reading is supported by
the fact that roots A, C, and then E each emerge out of material like that
first presented during the introduction.
I am not certain whether Samarotto regards the material beginning
in measure 103, which brings back the motive from the introduction,
as a final phase of the development (as his positioning of the word
“recap[itulation]” at measure 131 in his ex. 1.8 would suggest15), or
instead as the onset of the recapitulation (as his placement of the word
“recapitulation” within quotation marks in the caption for his ex. 1.6a,
which displays measures 103 through 119, would seem to indicate).16 I
favor the former: that the dividing line between the introduction and
the exposition’s P corresponds to the dividing line between the devel-
opment (which incorporates materials derived from the introduction)
and the recapitulation’s P.
The recapitulation and coda (measures 120–264)
Listen again to how the introduction leads into the exposition at measure
10. If Beethoven had followed that precedent for the juncture between the
development and the recapitulation, measure 120 would begin with a
surging E dominant harmony, followed by the reinstatement of A
Minor’s tonic. In two ways that construction is not realized. First, the
transfer between chords is here delayed until measure 126, several mea-
sures after the recapitulation has begun. Second, Beethoven has not kept
pace with the conventional minor-key harmonic trajectory: the dominant
that usually would emerge at some point during the development is
www.ebook3000.com
delayed until measure 126. Whereas E➔ A sets the exposition on its course,
as the recapitulation begins we are only just arriving on E (via B➔), and
that E chord is not yet surging (an intensification that is reasonably
postponed until the minor-mode P concludes). E Minor nevertheless
succeeds structurally as P’s venue: whereas P’s incomplete fifth-
progression begins at Kopfton E during the exposition (see 13.2), now
that long-prolonged E concludes a fifth-progression descending from B, ^5
in E Minor (see 13.7, measures 126 through 133, where the E is placed
within parentheses because Beethoven transfers the line’s concluding F♯>E
second to the cello during measures 132|133). That resolution coincides
with the onset of the E chord’s surge. The reinstatement of the A tonic
occurs finally in measures 134 and 135 – at the onset of TR. Whereas the
stability of consonance is the expected state of the tonic when it emerges
during P, in the context of TR a more energetic trajectory is desirable, and
so, instead of A-C-E, Beethoven introduces that tonic (embellished by
appoggiatura B♭ in the cello part) as A-C♯-E-G, already engaged in a
surge to propel the circle of fifths that connects tonic A and mediant C.17
Reaching traditional tonal markers at belated moments persists for the
remainder of the movement: the background ^1 (which in most cases
would emerge before the onset of the coda) does not occur until measure
258, six measures from the movement’s end. Whereas generally the
completion of the movement’s structure would be accomplished by a
progression descending to background ^1 following the interruption after
background 2^ supported by V♯ during the development (as shown in the
first model on page 242, above), here the entire recapitulation is out of
kilter. Instead of progressing through III to V♯ during TR, so that the
tonic may be further reinforced during the recapitulation presentation of
S and C, this TR does not quite reach III, which consequently arrives at
the onset of S (as would be more typical during an exposition – though of
course not this movement’s exposition), as shown at the right edge of
13.7. The background descent from ^5 through ^4 to ^3 occurs during S, as
shown in 13.8. This in turn pushes ^2 (supported by V♯) and ^1 (supported
by I) into the coda. That cadential ^1 is approached locally from its upper
third, in material derived from the exposition’s C (that is, 13.5 transposed
into the key in which it “should” have been presented during the recapi-
tulation: A Major). That content leads to the reinstatement of A Minor
during measure 235. The dominant of measure 242 is poised for the
decisive cadence, which is deferred by Beethoven until a quintupled A
sounds during 2581. Similar tonic chords recur at 2601, 2621, 2631, and
finally 2641.
www.ebook3000.com
What appears from measure 126 onwards in my 13.7 and 13.8 bears
little resemblance to what Samarotto displays as an “overview” from
measure 131 onwards in his ex. 1.8, even taking into account that my
graphs incorporate more details. In order to assess our many points of
disagreement as clearly as possible, the following commentary proceeds
chord-by-chord through all the chords that Samarotto has included in
his graph of the recapitulation and coda (fifteen chords in all). Only four
measure numbers annotate this segment of his graph. Consequently I
must confess that in a few cases I may have misconstrued the correlation
he intends between his graph and the score.
Measure 131 (bass E within brackets). Samarotto and I agree that E
Minor emerges early in the recapitulation. But why display it in measure
131? If Beethoven had merely transposed the content from the exposi-
tion’s outset, tonicized E-G-B’s arrival would have occurred at the end
of measure 120. In this case listeners must wait a bit longer, until
measures 126–127 (corresponding to the exposition’s measures 16–17,
explicitly labeled as the tonic in Samarotto’s ex. 1.3). The E of measure
131 (which Samarotto places within square brackets at the bottom of the
chord) is not a root, but instead a neighboring note within the prolon-
gation of E Minor’s V♯: (B)-D♯-(F♯) at 1301, an A♯-C-E-F♯ “augmented
sixth” embellishing chord, the restoration of the dominant root at 1311
(supporting, as often happens after an augmented sixth sonority, a 64
embellishment of the dominant’s third and fifth), and finally a fully
restored dominant in measure 132. The D♯E unfolding of the A
Minor dominant’s third and root in measures 20 and 21. (Samarotto’s
reading of that passage from the exposition, in his ex. 1.3, laudably
displays a V numeral – with 6 embellishment – in measure 21, prompt-
ing the question of why he did not correspondingly interpret measure
131’s chord as an embellishment of V♯ in tonicized E Minor.)
Measure 132 (bass B). Given the discrepancy in our readings of
measure 131, I do not concur with the display of measure 132 as a
back-relating dominant of E. Yet more critical is Samarotto’s omission
of what follows: this B chord’s resolution to E in measure 133. That
chord is surprising in two ways: it is of major quality; and, owing to the
presence of minor seventh D, it is dynamically surging. Yet from a broad
perspective, E is the root of A Minor’s dominant, and if it initially is
presented diatonically as E-G-B it generally will be transformed to
emulate A Major’s dominant when a resolution to tonic A is impending.

My 13.7’s EE bass arpeggiation and coordinating fifth-progression
from B down to E (over the course of measures 126 through 133) have
no equivalents in Samarotto’s ex. 1.8. Furthermore, that E chord (which
I regard to be misplaced in measure 131 in his reading) is interpreted, at
the background level, as the same E chord that resolves to A over the bar
line between measures 222 and 223. In my view the first of these E
dominants resides within a prolongation of an A Minor tonic, extending
from measure 10 through its surging state in measure 138 (conveyed
in detail over most of 13.7 and in a highly reduced form at the left edge
of 13.8).
Measure 134 (bass B♭). In my view there is no point at which the
pitches B♭, D, and G might be imagined as sounding together to form a
chordal entity. I could easily conceive of measure 134’s B♭ being inter-
preted as a chromatic passing note that “belongs” in measure 133
(resulting in a shift from E➔ to E ). But the dissonant interval between
D and G♯ resolves conceptually all at once: D to C♯ (understood to occur
at 1341, though delayed in sound by one quarter note), and G♯ not to A
(which is elided), but instead to G♮. I suspect that Samarotto was
endeavoring to create a parallel with the chord of measure 141. But in
doing so he has rewritten Beethoven’s harmonization.
Measure 135 (bass A). I suspect that my reading of measure 135 will
be controversial. I do not deny that several fifths occur in succession,
as indicated by diagonal lines in Samarotto’s ex. 1.8: E>A<D>G<C.
Whereas Samarotto interprets that passage as a motion from A
Minor’s V♮ to III (which eventually will proceed back to V♯), I regard
the initial E>A as the final segment of a broad tonic-prolonging
A<C<E>A initiative that transpires from measure 10 through measure
138. (As mentioned above, 13.7 and 13.8 convey this prolongation of A
at two contrasting levels of detail.) In this regard I am swayed by how
minor-key sonata movements tend to go. A tonic usually will control the
recapitulation’s P. Since in this case Beethoven allows the harmonic
progression to lag behind the formal trajectory, I accept the tardy and
surging A chord that emerges beginning in measure 134 as a realization
of that A restoration.18
Measure 140 (bass D); measure 141 (bass A♭); measure 142
(bass G). The first and third of these chords have exact counterparts
in both 13.7 and 13.8. Though I omitted the chord of measure 141 (it
www.ebook3000.com
retains the root D from measure 140 but adds dissonant seventh C and
lowers fifth A to A♭), I do not find its inclusion to be problematic.
Measure 159 (bass C). Measures 146 through 159 correspond to
measures 35 through 48 from the exposition. Samarotto’s analysis of
that earlier passage (in his ex. 1.3) displays a VI numeral in a small
typeface at measure 35, along with the annotations “as anticipatory
tonic” and “= conceptual local tonic,” contrasting a larger VI displayed
without annotation at measure 48. Though we arrive there in different
ways, both Samarotto and I descend to the submediant root, F, in the
melody at measure 48. Why, then, is measure 159’s soprano instead
presented as the corresponding C mediant chord’s third, E? As 13.8
shows, I interpret the melodic E>D>C within this region as a compo-
nent of the background descent from Kopfton E. Samarotto in fact
shows that C (with downward stem, below E) descending to B in the
approach to the upcoming dominant. For me, that is the principal line,
as will be further explored below.
Measure 188 (bass G). This foreground G chord is not found in my
graph. Since it comes after several local progressions from I to V and
then back to I in tonicized C Major, I suspect most listeners would
expect that the V at the end of measure 188 will proceed likewise. Yet
instead of such a resolution, Beethoven shifts abruptly from the tonici-
zation of A Minor’s mediant to the emergence of its major dominant at
measure 189. I am not sure how to read Samarotto’s bass slur from G to
the open-notehead E that follows, in conjunction with the connection
via an unfolding symbol of G♯ to that same E. It appears that there may
be a flaw in the typesetting, since two distinct slurs curiously seem
to converge. Might it instead have been intended that G be slurred to
G♯ – that the perfect fifth of C mutates into the major third of E? That
would remove the questionable slur from the path of the C-to-E slur,
which (despite different though reconcilable moments of departure and
arrival) corresponds to my connection of those two noteheads in 13.8,
measures 146 through 192.
Measure 193? (bass G♯). In that Samarotto’s graph (his ex. 1.8) offers
no measure numbers during a span of over sixty measures, I perhaps
have not found the right spot for the chord displayed with bass G♯.
(There are several bass G♯s in the vicinity. Measure 193 is the only one
that supports soprano F.) My confusion is compounded by the annota-
tion “2nd recap[itulation] of 1st th[eme].”19 In its slow note values and
its prolongation of the dominant (which in my view extends until

measure 223), this passage seems to me more reminiscent of the intro-
duction (with measures 193 and 194 corresponding to measure 1). What
I call P and Samarotto calls the “first theme” is more forward-driving
than is this harmonically static passage. And whereas Samarotto’s read-
ing proposes that the melodic F is shared between the G chord of
measure 188 and the G♯ chord of measure 193 (note the B<F unfolding),
in my 13.8 the F is instead displayed as a local neighbor between
structural Es in the immediately preceding and immediately following
measures.
Measure 196?, or 200?, or 216? (bass E). Though in my view the
E-G♯-B dominant is firmly in place at the end of measure 192 (prior to
the chord just discussed, which I take to reside in measure 193), there
are several replications of that sonority in the measures that follow, as
listed in the caption that heads this paragraph. Whereas Samarotto’s
deployment of open noteheads and beams suggests that this E chord is a
reinstatement of the background dominant attained in measure 131 (a
measure number that I contested above, proposing measure 126 in its
stead), my deployment of open noteheads and beams reveals a much
different conception – namely, that the movement’s first and only
background dominant is unfolded during measures 189 through 192
and then prolonged through measure 222.
Measure 223 (bass A); measure 235 (continuation of bass A);
measure 242 (bass E); measure 260 (bass A). This segment of
Samarotto’s graph is very similar to the right edge of my 13.8. Note
that the diatonic tonic Stufe is restored sooner in my Roman numeral
analysis than in Samarotto’s. I am curious why he places the final tonic
at measure 260, a number that contrasts the 258 that appears both in my
graph and in his ex. 1.7b.
Samarotto’s placing of the word “Coda” at measure 235 raises a
broader issue. Whereas I allow the recapitulation’s TR, S, and C to
proceed directly to the coda (with a correspondence between the
whole-note passage that begins the development, in measures 75ff.,
and the whole-note passage near the beginning of the coda, in measures
193ff.), Samarotto instead inaugurates the coda after what I interpret as
a within-the-coda presentation of C, or Samarotto’s “2nd th[eme].”
(The wobble of tonic A’s third from C to C♯ comes about because this
theme, originally presented in F Major, imposes a temporary shift to
www.ebook3000.com
major modality upon the A triad.) In that light, the C>B>A third that
approaches the Urlinie’s concluding ^
1 from above parallels my reading
of the A>G>F descent within C in 13.5, thus starkly contrasting
Samarotto’s large-scale interruption of the structure two hundred
twenty-two measures into a movement of two hundred and sixty-four
measures. Just as the melody’s parenthetical A at measure 48 in 13.4 is
delayed until the third-progression displayed in 13.5 runs its course
(measure 67), so also the melodic A (background ^1) that might have
occurred in measure 223 is delayed until measure 258 through an
equivalent thematic deployment.
Notes
8 String Quartet in B♭ Major (op. 18, no. 6), La Malinconia

1. See his “Beethoven’s La Malinconia from the String Quartet, Opus 18, No. 6:
Techniques and Structure,” The Music Forum 3 (1973), pp. 269–280. The
“riddle” remark appears on page 276.
2. My decision to assess Mitchell’s analysis of La Malinconia happened to
coincide with a similar impulse by Carl Schachter, whose lecture on that
topic at the Fifth International Schenker Symposium (Mannes College of
Music, March 16, 2013) will appear in print as a chapter of The Art of Tonal
Analysis (Oxford University Press, 2016). Though I retain the handout from
that lecture, I have elected not to respond to Schachter’s reading here, in part
because at this point I do not have access to his textual commentary and in part
because I already have critiqued several of his analyses elsewhere in my
Harmony Project. (See especially Harmony in Haydn and Mozart, chapter 8,
and Harmony in Chopin, chapter 6.) I strongly encourage readers to expand
their exploration of La Malinconia by accessing Schachter’s analysis.
3. Another 64 sonority that induces similar multiple potential interpretations
(embellishment of an E triad versus reinstatement of an A triad) will emerge
during measure 37.
4. Mitchell calls the passage a “crazy quilt” (p. 271). His ex. 3a deploys eight
diagonal lines in two jagged arrays to chart the multiple registral shifts.
5. Whereas A♭>G in the cello line of measures 9 and 10 confirms I’s 6-phase
chord (or what will seem like its 6-phase chord until listeners become aware
that F resolves as if it were spelled instead as E♯), here the C>B♮ half step
solidifies B♮’s surge towards E♮. Thus what I describe above as the diminished
seventh sonority’s “elusive” nature is demonstrated through Beethoven’s
contrasting treatments within a brief time span.
6. “Traditional harmonic analysis, with its endless successions of chords and keys,
will lead us nowhere if we seek in such a procedure an informative affirmation of
the encompassing properties of the tonality of B♭ major-minor” (pp. 269–270).
7. Because no harmonic analysis annotates Mitchell’s ex. 3, readers should flip
back to his ex. 2b, where Roman numerals are provided for the chords
supported by all four of ex. 3’s stemmed bass notes. Observe that VI is not
exactly correct as the symbol for a G♭ [F♯] major chord in B♭ Major (designated
via the symbol B♭+ in Mitchell’s ex. 2b) – ♭VI♭5 would be more precise.
254
www.ebook3000.com
Notes to pages 108–113 255
(Observe how Schenker deploys that symbol in FC, fig. 30a.) The 5–6
relationship that Mitchell proposes for the B♭ major and G♭ major chords in
his ex. 2a contrasts my proposal of a 5–6 relationship for the B♭ major and G
major chords of measures 1–7 and 10–11 in 8.1a. Given that the distinction
between G and G♭ turns out to be a point of contention, Mitchell’s VI numeral
needs to wear its full regalia, cumbersome though it may be.
8. Beethoven spells the chords of measures 14 and 16 using the pitch E♭, shifting
to D♯ only at measure 17. Mitchell retains those spellings in his ex. 3. My 8.2
instead deploys D♯ throughout, suggesting that what becomes clear once C
descends to B in measures 17 and 18 may be applied ex post facto to what builds
up to that moment. This is, of course, a diminished seventh sonority, described
above as “elusive.” Perhaps Beethoven purposefully sought to prevent too
defined a role for the chord for as long as possible, resorting to a deceptive
spelling. (Of course, listeners will have no idea whether the score reads D♯ or
E♭ and may formulate their interpretations entirely according to what they
hear.)
9. Though I here translate Mitchell’s Roman numerals into my style, V and I
numerals indeed appear in his ex. 2b. Despite Mitchell’s renown as a specialist
on issues of chromatic harmony, his Roman numerals here do not
acknowledge deviances from the E Minor (his E-) key signature. Most
Schenkerian analysts would display his II as II♯ and his V as V♯. (In FC
Schenker sometimes does and sometimes does not include such accidentals
in his graphs. Compare, for example, V in fig. 12 and V♯3 in fig. 26a. I do not
think Schenker intends any distinction through these contrasting notations. It
is just that sometimes he worked with greater notational precision than at
other times.)
10. The highly distilled presentation in 8.3 juxtaposes the various tonicized chords
without concurrently displaying the local voice leading, which is fully
represented in 8.4. In its foreground realization, some of the tonicized
chords sound in 63 position and others in 53 position, and in no case do direct
fifths occur. (The first and second violin lines proceed in octaves during
measures 26 and 27.)
11. In the Funeral March from the Piano Sonata in A♭ Major, op. 26, Beethoven
pursues a 3+3 strategy (A♭<C♭<E º = modulo 12: 8 11 2) over the first sixteen
measures and then deals with the remaining half step to attain dominant root
E♭. (See 3.6, above, and FC, fig. 40, ex. 6.) It is interesting to note that
Beethoven enters the domain of modulo 12 to enhance both funereal and
melancholic associations.
12. See Thinking About Harmony, pp. 158 through 160, for commentary on
August Halm’s assessment of a similar progression in his Harmonielehre
(2nd edn., 1925, plate I, ex. 3a). He in fact analyzes his progression as I IV V I.
13. Mitchell designed this example to display “the invertible counterpoint of the
outer parts” (p. 273). His characterization of the passage as “four identical
256 Notes to pages 113–117
statements of the sequential figure” (p. 273) is not quite accurate: the fourth
statement, indicated only by the abbreviation “etc.” in his ex. 5a, veers off in a
different direction after the third of four chords.
14. In his ex. 5c Mitchell dispenses with the “etc.” abbreviation, instead
displaying the final three chords that I propose should reside there –
plus another (C, with both major and minor inflections, from measures
28 and 29). Clearly this C chord does not serve as a logical next chord
among that example’s stemmed bass notes: E♮<E♯<F♯<G<A♭<A♮<B♭< . . .
to C? To my mind this disruption is a compelling reason to conclude the
sequence on the F chord (between B♭ and C), and consequently to
interpret C as dependent upon F. (In ex. 5d Mitchell instead initiates the
C prolongation at 272, even before the F chord arrives.)
15. How the five chords of measures 12 through 16 are presented relates to how
the five chords of 301 through 321 are presented: the figuration is similar
(though heightened in the latter case) and jumping between registers occurs
(more pervasively in the former case), whereas the juxtaposition of loud and
soft is reversed, with the first, third, and fifth chords forte in the latter rather
than piano or pianissimo. In both cases the first and fifth chords are closely
allied: a minor chord and its evolved surge state in the former, a minor chord
and its upper-third chord in the latter.
16. Though I have been accused (in a pre-publication review of my forthcoming
Tonal Analysis: A Schenkerian Perspective) of over-imaginatively inserting
chordal roots into my graphs, here Mitchell and I are at a draw: I
parenthetically insert bass B♭ at 301 in 8.3 to convey the foundational root of
the restored tonic, which Beethoven presents in its first inversion; and Mitchell
parenthetically inserts bass C at 292 to convey the starting point for his series of
seven consecutive chords in which the bass and soprano form a compound
sixth.
17. I explore a similar upper-third tonal plane in my analysis of Schubert’s
“Willkommen und Abschied” (D. 767). See my “Schenker, Schubert, and the
Subtonic Chord” in A Music-Theoretical Matrix: Essays in Honor of Allen Forte
(Part II), ed. D. C. Berry, Gamut: Online Journal of the Music Theory Society of
the Mid-Atlantic 3 (2010), pp. 127–166. The same principle is at work in a
different tonal context in 5.4a, above.
18. A discussion of the dominant’s various upper-third chords is found in
Harmony in Schubert, pp. 8–15.
19. Mitchell does not comment on or acknowledge in his harmonic analysis the
presence of E♮ (in place of diatonic E♭) within the VII chord in measure 35.
(Since I propose – in my prose, though not registered in my graph – that
Beethoven is here initiating a tonicization of A Minor that will be abandoned
before reaching fruition, I regard E♮ as a vital pitch.) The shift from E♮ to E♭ is
acknowledged in 8.3 through the “7♮–♭” placed to the right of Roman
numeral V.
www.ebook3000.com
9 Piano Sonata in D Minor (op. 31, no. 2, “Tempest”),

movement 1
1. Caplin’s principal works are Classical Form: A Theory of Formal Functions for
the Instrumental Music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven (Oxford University
Press, 1998) and Analyzing Classical Form: An Approach for the Classroom
(Oxford University Press, 2013), whereas Hepokoski and Darcy’s is Elements
of Sonata Theory: Norms, Types, and Deformations in the Late-Eighteenth-
Century Sonata (Oxford University Press, 2006). An analysis from the latter
work is the focus of Harmony in Haydn and Mozart, chapter 10.
2. Leuven: Peeters, 2009, and Leuven: Peeters, 2012.
3. “Beethoven’s Tempest Sonata: A Schenkerian Approach,” in Beethoven’s
Tempest Sonata: Perspectives of Analysis and Performance, ed. P. Bergé
(Leuven: Peeters, 2009), pp. 61–85, and “Beethoven’s Tempest Sonata (First
Movement): A Schenkerian Approach,” in Beethoven’s Tempest Sonata (First
Movement): Five Annotated Analyses for Performers and Scholars, ed. P. Bergé
(Leuven: Peeters, 2012), pp. II/1–32.
4. Because voice exchanges expand both I and IV, the F<F♯<G<G♯<A melodic
line displayed in 9.1 migrates from soprano to bass and then back to soprano
in Beethoven’s score. The goal A covers Kopfton F’s local successor, E (at 62).
This situation is very similar to that which ensues during measure 20, where an
unharmonized chromatic filling-in of the span from F up to A coordinates
with the descent from neighbor F to an imagined E in the alto register.
5. Compare with Beethoven’s similar truncation of what is initially a lavish
presentation during the later stages of a sequential ascent in La Malinconia
(chapter 8, above): whereas B♮’s tonicization is highly developed (as displayed
in 8.2), the successive tonicizations of C♯, D♯/E♭, and F each fill only two
measures (as displayed in 8.4).
6. Because this high F is hierarchically dependent upon the soprano E of measure
11, it is not directly related to the Kopfton. Consequently I have concerns
regarding the Schenkerian graphs presented by Janet Schmalfeldt (“Form as
the Process of Becoming: The Beethoven-Hegelian Tradition and the Tempest
Sonata,” in Beethoven Forum 4 (1995), p. 58; rev. edn. in Schmalfeldt, J., In the
Process of Becoming: Analytic and Philosophical Perspectives on Form in Early
Nineteenth-Century Music (Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 38, ex. 2.1) and
by Edward Laufer (“Voice-Leading Procedures in Development Sections,”
Studies in Music from The University of Western Ontario 13 (1991), p. 107,
ex. 23, which displays the theme as presented at the onset of the
recapitulation). To their credit, both analysts attempt to come to terms with
Schenker’s brief remarks on the passage in FC (p. 138). He curiously (at least it
seems so to me) proposes that the bass ascent of a fifth (D to A) coordinates
with a soprano ascent of a sixth (A to F). My 9.1 proposes instead that E (a fifth
above A) is the structural peak of the soprano ascent and serves both as the
starting point for a descending third to C♯ (in the tenor register) and for a
neighboring embellishment (in the soprano). For clarity’s sake, my graph
shows the arrival of surge-inducing G♯ in the bass prior to the sounding of
E’s F neighbor in the soprano, whereas in Beethoven’s score those two distinct
events coincide.
7. It appears that in general I am more inclined to grant MC status to a chord
than are Hepokoski and Darcy. (Compare our contrasting readings of a Haydn
symphony movement in Harmony in Haydn and Mozart, pp. 234–237.) At
least in this case Hepokoski offers (grudgingly) the possibility that the chord at
411 performs an MC role. See his contributions to the Peeters Tempest project:
“Approaching the First Movement of Beethoven’s Tempest Sonata through
Sonata Theory,” in Beethoven’s Tempest Sonata: Perspectives of Analysis and
Performance, ed. P. Bergé (Leuven: Peeters, 2009), pp. 181–212, and
“Beethoven’s Tempest Sonata (First Movement): Sonata Theory Analysis,” in
Beethoven’s Tempest Sonata (First Movement): Five Annotated Analyses for
Performers and Scholars, ed. P. Bergé (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), pp. IV/1–38.
8. Compare with my assessment of a range of TR structures in piano sonatas by
Haydn in Harmony in Haydn and Mozart, pp. 58–67.
9. The integrity of the E>A root succession between II♯ and V is preserved in 9.3
even though the “soprano” D>C sounds at the bottom of the texture, resulting
in a first-inversion introduction of the A minor chord at 551. Some analysts
reasonably might elect to display the definitive arrival of root A at measure 63.
10. Hepokoski proposes that interpretation in his contribution to the Peeters
Tempest project (2009, p. 200).
11. The D♯s during the second half of these measures (and in the preceding
measures that are similarly constructed) serve as local embellishments of E,
which is a member both of the dominant and of its embellishing chord.
Richard Cohn proposes instead that the principal note is D♯. (See his “‘This
music crept by me upon the waters’: Introverted Motives in Beethoven’s
‘Tempest’ Sonata,” in Engaging Music: Essays in Music Analysis, ed. D. Stein
(Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 228, ex. 19.2.)
12. Further confirmation that this is not a typographical error may be found by a
comparison with the equivalent passage during the recapitulation: a I numeral
appears below bass D in measure 198.
13. Caplin elaborates upon his view of the exposition’s cadential moment in
“Beethoven’s ‘Tempest’ Exposition: A Response to Janet Schmalfeldt,” Music
Theory Online 16/2 (2010), paragraphs 19–23.
14. Though he does not apply it in his analysis of part of the Tempest first movement
later in the article (ex. 23), Edward Laufer offers a paradigm (p. 74, fig. ix) in his
“Voice-Leading Procedures in Development Sections,” cited above, in which the
development is inaugurated by means of a reinstatement of the tonic.
15. Since it appears that Beethoven was intending to tantalize listeners with a
range of potential continuation options at the onset of the development before
www.ebook3000.com
decisively pursuing one of them, the exact spelling of the diminished

seventh sonority becomes somewhat arbitrary (as evidenced by the four
enharmonically equivalent options spelled out above). His F♯-A-B♯-D♯
spelling indeed could convey a common-tone embellishment of a minor F♯-
A-C♯ mediant that unexpectedly sounds with a wobbly third (A♯ in place of
A♮), corrected by the A♮ of measure 99. Because the initial mediant
incorporates A♯, I deployed its lower neighbor GÜ (rather than A♮) in my
explanation of that option.
16. Compare with 5.1, above.
17. In my view Burstein uses the term “sequence” too loosely when, in his
contribution to the 2012 Peeters volume (p. II/31), he interprets the entire
expanse from measure 93 through measure 117 (F♯-A-D to D-F-A) as a
sequence. The sequential passage begins with the B chord at measure 109,
thereby emphasizing that chord’s important role in relation to the earlier
D-F♯-A tonic and following (E♮)-G♯-B♮-D-(F) supertonic.
18. The exact correspondence between measures 2|3 and 148|149 would seem to
me to offer no analytical option other than tonic onset as the recapitulation
gets under way. Yet Burstein offers an alternative second hypothesis: that the A
dominant of the preceding Largo extends through measure 171. (See his exx.
3.12a and 3.13 in the 2009 Peeters volume and Appendix 5 on p. II/32 in the
2012 Peeters volume, noting a typographical error in the latter: measure
number 169 in ex. a should instead read 149.) Burstein cites Edward Laufer’s
“Voice-Leading Procedures in Development Sections” (cited above) as the
impetus for his proposal. I explore similar disagreements with Laufer in our
analyses of Chopin’s Fourth Ballade in Harmony in Chopin, chapter 9.
19. In “Aspects of the Recapitulation in Beethoven Piano Sonatas,” The Music
Forum 4 (1976), pp. 232–233, ex. 32a, Roger Kamien goes so far as to place the
6 of a 5–6 shift at the E♭ rather than at the succeeding E♮. There is nothing in
his graph to distinguish hierarchically among the soprano pitches C, D, E♭, E♮,
and F during measures 8 through 12. In my 9.1 the E♭ is omitted (indicating its
hierarchical dependence upon what surrounds it), the E is attached to a beam
(indicating its hierarchical significance), and the F is displayed as a neighbor to
E. Contrasting Kamien’s perspective, Janet Schmalfeldt in In the Process of
Becoming, ex. 2.1, juxtaposes the numbers ♭6 and ♮6 below this passage’s E♭
and E♮. Yet I would recommend that these numbers be deployed more
abstractly than in conventional figured bass. That distinction becomes
critical with the G♯-B♮-D-F chord that follows in measure 12. I interpret that
chord as an evolved state of Schmalfeldt’s ♮6 chord (that is, as a prolongation of
one specific moment within the sequential progression), rather than its
structural successor. Schmalfeldt’s deployment of the figured bass number 7
at that point contrasts my maintenance (in 9.1) of a steady alternation between
5 and 6 from measure 3 through measure 20. Because the F of measures 12 and
13 is not a structural pitch within the underlying sequence, I reject it as an
assertion of the Kopfton, a conception inaugurated by Schenker (as noted

above) that his more orthodox advocates have made certain to incorporate
within their graphs.
20. When such a sequence proceeds by half steps, resorting to enharmonic
equivalents in the music notation becomes imperative (e.g., E<F, E♯<F♯,
F♯<G). Had Beethoven instead been able to convey his conception using
notation designed for modulo 12 composition, a more coherent visual
representation would have prevailed: 4<5, 5<6, 6<7 (where C = 0).
10 Violin Sonata in A Minor (op. 47, “Kreutzer”),

movement 1
1. Oxford University Press, 2011. The chapter on Beethoven’s opus 47 appears on
pp. 87 through 111.
2. In an early sketch of the movement, which Schmalfeldt samples in her ex. 4.1,
Beethoven wrote F>D (measure 4 of the staff labeled as VII in Schmalfeldt’s
example). At that stage of the movement’s evolution the succeeding C and B
were to be imagined below an E cover tone.
3. The passage also deploys Arabic 6 twice to indicate inversion and once in the
context of a 5–6 shift, an inherently confusing protocol – since iv sounds in its
first inversion, but VI does not – that I recommend avoiding in analytical work.
4. There seems to be a shift from A Major to A Minor midway through the
analysis: the I label below measures 1 and 4 makes sense in A Major, but the VI
label below measure 7 (with no indication of a lowering of A Major’s sixth scale
degree from F♯ to F♮, or of its third scale degree from C♯ to C♮) would imply an
A Minor context (where F and C are diatonic), as does the III for the C-E-G
chord of measure 9.
5. I introduce this chromatic variant in Harmony in Schubert, 1.8, Model 3. An
upper-third chord may either precede or follow the more foundational chord.
6. I concur with William Caplin’s interpretation of measures 16 through 21 as IV
V I in A Minor. (I do not concur with his interpretation of what precedes the
IV, in particular the view, which he shares with Schmalfeldt, that the downbeat
of measure 15 is an applied subdominant of the D subdominant proceeding
directly to that D.) See his Classical Form: A Theory of Formal Functions for the
Instrumental Music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven (Oxford University
Press, 1998), pp. 207–208.
7. Lauri Suurpää offers several detailed Schenkerian graphs corresponding to
measures 1 through 45 in his “Non-Tonic Openings in Three Beethoven
Introductions,” in Essays from the Third International Schenker Symposium,
ed. A. Cadwallader (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 2006), pp. 62–65. Like
Schmalfeldt, he refrains from interpreting several A-rooted chords that
sound prior to the cadence of measure 45 as the tonic. Readers may benefit
www.ebook3000.com
by comparing our contrasting readings, focusing especially on the following

issues: (1) is the movement’s initial chord a tonic (I➔), or instead an applied
dominant (V/IV)?; (2) does the C major chord of measure 9 or the B➔ chord
of measure 11 serve as the principal connector between A and E through
measure 11 (comparing Suurpää’s ex. 11 and my 10.4, Model 2)?; and (3) is
the soprano D of measure 42 a reinstatement of bass D from measures 19 and
28 (via voice exchange, as displayed in Suurpää’s ex. 12b), or instead an
internal component of a fifth-progression descending from the E in measure
42 (which reinstates the E of measure 5, as shown in 10.3)?
8. After the long tonicization of E during S and C, the E➔ A of measures 190
through 193a might come across as I➔ IV in E Minor rather than as V➔ I in A
Minor. I propose that Beethoven’s use of fermatas is intended in part to
prevent the former perception. Also, pursuing the notated repeat of the
exposition (too often neglected in performances) will assist in confirming
the tonic status of the A chord (with a strong link between 192a–193a and
21–24) and, in consequence, will put measures 192b–193b on a stronger tonic
footing just prior to the onset of the development.
9. This assertion is reminiscent of my analysis of the “Unfinished” Symphony,
movement 1, in Harmony in Schubert, chapter 7.
10. This local progression resides at the borderline between harmonic and linear
initiatives. Instead of my Roman numerals, one might interpret the passage as
the gradual emergence (in two stages) of B’s A♯-C♯-E-G embellishing chord,
followed by the restoration of the B chord.
11. From her contrasting tonal perspective, Schmalfeldt conveys the same point that
I mention in my note 8 by placing the i and [vii7]➔ numerals within parentheses.
12. There is a potential to hear a tonic resolution (in first inversion) at 2661. I
instead perceive a longer sweep, proceeding through bass A♭ and G ultimately
to tonic root F in measure 270. This situation corresponds to that of the
opening violin solo: does the C♯ at 31 support a first-inversion tonic chord,
or (as I propose in 10.1) does the line proceed downwards within a dominant
prolongation until tonic root A is achieved a measure later?
13. Whereas I interpret the material at the close of the development as a
juxtaposition of two contrasting potential structures, Lauri Suurpää has
endeavored to merge the full content into one broad structural trajectory in
his “Non-Tonic Openings in Three Beethoven Introductions.” Though my
juxtaposition of the measure numbers 314 and 343 (both A➔ chords) in
10.10b is comparable to Suurpää’s A>(E) bass slur over that expanse in his
ex. 13b, I make no attempt to place the content between those points, displayed
separately in 10.10a, into that framework.
14. The measure number stated in Schmalfeldt’s commentary – 269 – seems to me
so strange an assertion that I wonder whether a typographical error may have
marred her intentions. The chord of measure 269 is V♮7 in F Minor.
15. Compare with 2.10 and 7.3, above.
16. I was confused by other elements of ex. 4.9 as well: by the parentheses placed
around the Roman numerals during 327 through 330 and by the analysis of
measures 334 through 343, which I regard as a foreground progression in
tonicized F Major, namely, I5–6 (= VI➔) II V7 I.
17. Though the exposition TR does not pursue the conventional descent to ^ 2
(which typically would prepare the 2^ of S), that of the recapitulation does. The
tonic-key linear progressions of the recapitulation S cadence on ^ 1, ^2’s
background successor and the terminus of the Urlinie emanating from the
long-prolonged Kopfton ^ 5.
18. The inspiration for this reading is FC, fig. 43f, ex. 2: all three elements of
one voice sounding before the counterpointing elements of another voice. I
propose that the same structure could be worked out with upper voice E>D>C
and lower voice A<B<C, with in this case the lower voice sounding before the
upper.
19. Bass D<F in measure 19 proceeds directly to E; bass D<F in measure 579 and
580 proceeds indirectly to E, with the void in that register filled in by an
imagined E in 10.12.
20. Compare with Thinking About Harmony, 2.10. Also compare with my
interpretation of the A-C-E chord at the downbeat of measures 85 and 86 in
the “Tempest” sonata analysis presented in chapter 9, discussed on pages
130–131, above.
11 Symphony in A Major (op. 92), movement 3

1. Harmonic Practice in Tonal Music, 2nd edn. (New York: W. W. Norton), 2004.
2. “Beethoven’s Interrupted Tetrachord and the Seventh Symphony,” Intégral 5
(1991), pp. 77–100.
3. If III♯ at the repeat signs were an important point along the trajectory to V
(goal of the b region), then certainly I would align my formal analysis with the
repeat signs. But since it is not (as will be explained in due course), I align my
interpretation of the a1 region to coincide with the dimensions of the initial
tonic pillar – through measure 60. Schenker apparently does regard the III♯ as
proceeding to the dominant, as evidenced by his broad harmonic analysis
in FC, fig. 37b, as I – III♯3 – V. (Unfortunately no measure numbers are
provided.) The metrical “3 – 8” annotation above the staff at the end of the
example is baffling. If it pertains to the remaining six measures before
the repeat signs, as I think it should, then likely there has been an error in
the setting of the example: the 8 and the V numeral below should not have been
placed in vertical alignment. Instead the V should be further to the right,
indicating the eventual successor III♯3. Yet if that is so, we still do not know
whether Schenker intended the V to pertain to the chord of measures 45–52 or
instead to that of measures 86–88.
www.ebook3000.com
4. Because the preceding C>B♭>A third-progression prolongs the initial C, it is

not necessary for C to be reinstated prior to the chromatic C♯. The pitch C
controls measures 2 through 14, C♯ measures 15 through 372, and D measures
373 through 452.
5. Schenker displays a range of models for such a bass trajectory in FC, fig. 14.
Note that in several examples the mediant is presented with an optional raised
third, as occurs in Beethoven’s composition. (There is also an obvious
relationship with the A Major key of the symphony as a whole.)
Consequently one should not assume that Beethoven’s A major chord
necessarily will proceed to D, as A➔ D. Only the addition of G to A-C♯-E at
371 makes that continuation more or less inevitable.
6. Though initially it seems that the D chord is surging, the broader context has
led me to interpret F♯ as a chromatic passing note within the filling-in of the D
minor triad’s upper third: A>G>F♯>F. (See 11.1.) Concurrent with the arrival
of F, A♭ emerges below, leading chromatically to G.
7. Gauldin acknowledges Schenker’s analysis of measures 0|1 through 24 (FC,
fig. 37b) in a footnote. There are further similarities (apparently coincidental)
with Schenker’s rudimentary analysis of the scherzo in sketches now in the
Oster Collection: Papers of Heinrich Schenker (New York Public Library,
Music Division), file 82, items 22 through 24.
8. This appears to be the view Schenker espouses in the Oster Collection graphs
mentioned in note 7. Though he regards ^ 3 to be the Kopfton, by measure 53 my
descending linear progression from ^ 5 has reached ^3, so our interpretations of
what follows may be compared without impediment.
9. The other candidate F chord would be that of measures 69 through 72, which
in fact does occur immediately after a B♭ chord (a point of contention as my
discussion proceeds), but that seems to me so illogical a reading that I would
not want to attribute it to any competent analyst, let alone someone of
Gauldin’s stature. I suggest that a graph that illustrates seventeen distinct
moments (as does that on the upper staff of Gauldin’s fig. 5) warrants
annotation by more than two measure numbers.
10. Regarding Mehrdeutigkeit, see Thinking About Harmony, pp. 155–161.
11. This fact further supports the relegation of upbeat F (at the end of measure
236) to an “inner-voice” status, strengthening my case against Schenker’s
reading of an initial ascent from F at the onset of the A sections.
12. See my forthcoming Tonal Analysis: A Schenkerian Perspective (New York:
W. W. Norton), chapter 5.
13. Gauldin’s use of open noteheads within the trio is inconsistent with how
they are deployed during the scherzo and coda. Likewise the deployment of
beams appears haphazard to me, particularly in the bass. Though Gauldin
professes that “the reductive diagrams are not voice-leading graphs in the strict
Schenkerian sense” (p. 82), I suggest that a few adjustments would be in order
simply to display the essence of his interpretation as clearly as possible.
12 Piano Sonata in E Major (op. 109)

1. Beethoven’s Piano Sonata in E, Op. 109 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995).
2. H. Schenker, Die letzten fünf Sonaten Beethovens: Kritische Ausgabe mit
Einführung und Erläuterung, 4 vols. (Vienna: Universal Edition, 1913–1920);
A. Forte, The Compositional Matrix (Baldwin, NY: Music Teachers’ National
Association, 1961); A. Forte, and S. E. Gilbert, Introduction to Schenkerian
Analysis (New York: W. W. Norton, 1982), pp. 327–348. Though I am
cognizant of how complex this chapter already is (even though restricted to
Beethoven’s sketches, Beethoven’s published score, my reading, and Marston’s
reading), I alert readers who would like to expand their horizons further to
another rich source of information and commentary regarding the first
movement: Glenn Stanley’s “Voices and Their Rhythms in the First
Movement of Beethoven’s Piano Sonata Op. 109: Some Thoughts on the
Performance and Analysis of a Late-Style Work,” in Beethoven and His
World, ed. S. Burnham and M. P. Steinberg (Princeton University Press,
2000), pp. 88–123. Of course, any of the numerous books on the sonatas (by
Riemann, Rosen, Tovey, etc.) will offer further food for thought.
3. I should emphasize that the graphs (from the year 1922, according to
Marston) found in the Oster Collection: Papers of Heinrich Schenker
(New York Public Library, Music Division) contrast my interpretation in
numerous ways. (Two graphs published in FC – fig. 89, ex. 1, and fig. 90 –
offer a glimpse of these differences. Regarding the latter, see also Edward
Laufer’s review of the Oster Free Composition translation in Music Theory
Spectrum 3 (1981), p. 173 and ex. 27.) Since those unpublished graphs are
not easily accessible to anyone living outside of New York, since Marston
has already expressed his intent (on p. 7, note 11) to assay them, and since
this chapter already fills nearly one-fourth of my monograph, I have
elected not to delve into the issues they raise here.
4. See Gottfried Weber’s exploration of this situation, which I address in
Thinking About Harmony, 3.1e.
5. A similar realignment is displayed in an example published by Beethoven’s
friend Anton Reicha, shown in my Thinking About Harmony, 3.4c.
6. At the end of the development (measures 43 through 48), A>F♯>D♯
arpeggiations precede the recapitulation statement of P.
7. A “missing” note sometimes will be restored in a new context later in a
movement, as A is during this movement’s coda (twice between B and G♯
during measures 66 through 69). That turn of events will be explored in greater
detail later (with the help of 12.7).
8. Though the notion is very simple, it is worth stating in words that the melodic
content of P followed by TR demonstrates how the pitch B may serve as the
starting point for both a descending arpeggiation of the tonic triad and an
ascending arpeggiation of the dominant triad. This special emphasis was a
www.ebook3000.com
factor in my determination that B serves as the movement’s Kopfton.

(Schenker offers both a contrasting interpretation of P’s harmonic
progression and a different choice of Kopfton in FC, fig. 90.)
9. Compare with Schenker’s consistent upward analytical stem on a EC third’s E
regardless of whether that interval is unfolded as E>C or as C<E in FC, fig. 43b.
10. As mentioned above, ^ 5 is a member of both the tonic and the dominant
harmonies. I will propose over the course of this essay that Beethoven elects
here not to pursue the conventional descent to ^ 2 (preceding an interruption)
followed by a restoration of 5 at the recapitulation, but instead extends ^
^ 5 from
the initial tonic of the exposition P through the dominant of both the
exposition S and the development onward to the tonic restoration of the
recapitulation P.
11. Beethoven truncates this passage during the recapitulation (from 531 to 541),
omitting the E chord entirely.
12. In his explication of the sketches transcribed in his ex. 3.8, Marston proposes
that G♯ (at 72 in the score) “connects with a♯2 two beats later” (p. 53), a view
reinforced by his graph in ex. 3.26. In my view G♯<A♯ is not a viable reading,
because neither an extension of G♯ nor an earlier arrival of A♯ can be imagined
during the F♯-B-D♯-F♯ 64 embellishment of the F♯ major chord (measure 8). (At
least my imagination is unwilling to generate either G♯ or A♯ when F♯, a
perfectly viable successor to G♯, sounds at 81. Marston’s imagination
apparently is more vibrant than mine.)
13. Compare with the situation explored in my Thinking About Harmony, 6.19
and 6.20.
14. As the analysis proceeds, it will become apparent that my reading of the
movement’s background structure does not coincide with the conventional
Schenkerian model, which would lead downwards (from Kopfton ^ 3 or ^
5) to ^
2
somewhere near the onset of S, followed by an interruption and reinstatement
of the Kopfton at the onset of the recapitulation. (Marston’s reading in his
ex. 3.26, which lacks a background structural descent, is more aberrant in this
regard than is mine.) Edward Laufer displays such a normative interpretation
of the movement as fig. xiii (p. 76) in his “Voice-Leading Procedures in
Development Sections,” Studies in Music from The University of Western
Ontario 13 (1991). His conception certainly warrants careful consideration,
though I would have realized it in a somewhat different manner. For example, I
do not hear measure 8 as the onset of the dominant. (It appears that he, like
Marston, regards measure 7 as the terminal point of the initial E Major tonic
expansion.) I instead would introduce F♯ (= ^ 2) at 51, in the same register as P’s
concluding G♯ (= ^ 3 in a descent from ^ 5), and would connect it to the F♯ an
octave higher at 111. Nor do I hear a reinstatement of the B dominant at
measure 33. To some extent in conflict with Beethoven’s sfp markings, the
preceding F♯ chord’s third is embellished by a double neighbor –
A♯G♯<A♯ – followed by passing motion up to its fifth, C♯. That contour
is then repeated once the B dominant is re-established at 361: D♯<E>C♯<D♯

followed by a passing motion up to its fifth, F♯.
15. This amounts to the interruption of a middleground octave-progression at
its penultimate note. In FC Schenker demonstrates the interruption of lines
descending from ^ 3 and from ^ 5, but not from ^
8, which he regards as “impossible”
^
(p. 40). (In this case that 8 is an imagined note.) Likely most Schenkerian analysts
would bypass this conundrum by proceeding as Laufer does (see note 14) to E
Major’s ^ 2 for the exposition S. I instead hear that F♯ as internal to the linear
initiative displayed in 12.3a (descending during S and, as we shall see, ascending
during the development). Rather than bending my hearing to match Schenker’s
pronouncement, I am bending his theory to match my hearing. (In his
discussion of the equivalent passage during the recapitulation, Marston
likewise states that the descent has been “interrupted” (p. 230).)
16. One needs to merge Marston’s ex. 3.11b, which displays Roman numeral V,
and ex. 3.26, which displays measure number 15, to piece together exactly what
his intentions are. I suspect that he hears the V arrival preceding the onset of
the development, as is conveyed in ex. 3.11b, rather than coinciding with its
onset, as ex. 3.26 seems to be implying.
17. Though the chord of 91–2 might be regarded as a highly evolved I in B Major, its
resolution to C♯ supports an interpretation instead as an evolved I6, with G♯ as
its unsounded root. In that B and G♯ are a minor third apart, this diminished
seventh chord might represent either B-rooted D♯-F♯-A-C♮ or G♯-rooted
B♯-D♯-F♯-A. Only through a consideration of the chord’s context might one
interpretation be chosen over another. Or perhaps Beethoven intended it as both:
concurrently resolving the preceding V chord as I➔ and targeting the following
II chord as VI➔, with an enharmonically achieved collision between I5 and I6.
18. Having mentioned in note 8 how the B a seventh above Middle C serves as the
starting point for descending and ascending triadic arpeggiations (B>G♯>E
followed by B<D♯<F♯), I now propose that the B an octave higher serves as the
starting point for descending and ascending octave-progressions, as shown in
12.3a and 12.5. Though it would be a relatively simple matter to modify my
perspective on this movement, à la Laufer, so that a pre-interruption ^ 2 guides
both the exposition S and the development, I find the structures built around ^ 5
(B) to be so conspicuous that I maintain it at the background level from the
movement’s opening chord until the recapitulation TR.
19. Though an A♯<B resolution was thwarted at measures 8|9, Beethoven makes
up for that omission several times as the movement proceeds: at measures
14|15, during measure 15, and most potently of all at measures 41|42.
20. The sketch’s annotation of the number 5 to the right of the crossed-out 64 may
represent no more than a 53 unfurling of that 64 : B-D♯-F♯ through B-E-G♯ (at the
fermata) to B-D♯-F♯-A, with an E sounding at the bottom of the middle chord.
In the published score, Beethoven’s further evolution of this notion results in
the chord’s presentation ultimately in 63 position (at 392).
www.ebook3000.com
21. In his commentary (p. 69), Marston suggests that “no doubt” the F♯<FÜ at the
end of the sketch transcribed in ex. 3.17 was intended to lead to the G♯ that
inaugurates the recapitulation (that is, at 482). I instead regard it as
representing a motion to the G♯ at 402. Though an FÜ could be inserted
between F♯ and G♯ at the top of the texture in measure 40, Beethoven
apparently decided that the passage would be more effective without it.
22. We noted above how Beethoven takes a flight of fancy during the repetition (in
measure 13) of the structure from measure 10, resulting in what appears to be a
D♯ major chord. A different and even more disconcerting alteration occurs
during the repetition in measures 61 and 62, where G♮➔ C♮ transpires.
Fortunately G♯ is reinstated later in measure 62, with the phrase’s midpoint
E major tonic arriving on schedule after all. Though many passages in
Beethoven seem to me less bizarre than some commentators make them out
to be, this passage (wherein through enharmonic reinterpretation Beethoven
taps the potential for the initial diminished seventh chord to represent either
C♯➔ or G♮➔, an antipodal relationship) truly warrants a “bizarre”
designation. From the sketch transcribed in Marston’s ex. 3.9b it appears
that the G♮➔ chord might have been conceived initially as a chromatic 6
phase of dominant B (B-D♯-F♯ to B-D♮-F♮-G♮). Yet in the published score a
potent C♯➔ surge (especially prominent because it reiterates the phrase-
beginning chord of 581) comes between those two related chords. Thus it
might be productive to interpret the passage as a juxtaposition of two
contrasting continuation chords (first the conventional choice, familiar from
the context of measures 11–12, and then a more colorful alternative), each
intended as the immediate successor of the B dominant, with the progression
proceeding onward from the latter.
23. The E of 542 and 551 is leading tone D♯’s upper neighbor, not its resolution.
Though a D♯ does not literally sound during 552, one should be imagined, with
resolution to E finally at 561.
24. Again the abundance of fast notes makes some annotation in your score
advisable, to ensure that the conclusion of the linear progression is
appropriately perceived (in listening) and projected (in performance). Circle
the following notes: B above bass G♯ near the end of measure 62, A the eighth
thirty-second note in measure 63, G♯ the note immediately thereafter, F♯ the
last note of measure 64, and E at the downbeat of measure 65 and in four
higher registers as the measure proceeds (each at the beginning of the next
beam grouping except for the last, which shifts due to the insertion of the
quintuplet).
25. The way C♯ and F♯ are juxtaposed in the sketch would support the hypothesis
that Beethoven was considering IV5–6 V rather than the final score’s IV V64 53
for 562 through 57.
26. During measure 54 the pitches A, C♯, and E sound simultaneously as part of a
voice-leading expansion of V. A IV harmony is not asserted. At the end of
measure 65 these pitches do assert IV, followed by V during measure 66 and I

at 671. (Note that I have proposed an unsounded B root for measures 66 and 68
in 12.7.)
27. The relationship between E and G♯ will be an important parameter in our
exploration of the cadence concluding each of the third movement’s
variations.
28. Certainly a composer may jot things down carelessly during the creative
process. The sketches likely harbor a range of “mistakes.” For example, I
surmise also that F♯, the ninth notehead on the second staff of Marston’s
ex. 3.8a, should instead read D♯ (again a third lower than Marston’s notation
indicates).
29. As was the case also in the first movement, the exposition is not repeated.
30. Perhaps I am amiss in minimizing the use of conventional figured-bass
symbols in my graphs. Here the situation is sufficiently delicate that I have
inserted suitable symbols at measure 5 to guard against the literalist proposal
of an A-C-E subdominant assertion at that point. For example, in A
Companion to Beethoven’s Pianoforte Sonatas: Bar-to-Bar Analysis (London:
Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music, 1931, 1947) (1947 edn.,
p. 262), Donald Francis Tovey offers the following mechanical and
complacent observation: “Eight-bar melody: 1+1+2 tonic to dominant,
answered by similar phrase moving from subdominant to close in tonic.”
31. Whereas the bass of measures 3 and 4 from the first movement proceeds as
G♯>B<E and the equivalent passage during that movement’s recapitulation
(measures 51 and 52) proceeds as G♯>F♯>E, the bass of the second movement’s
P integrates both alternatives: G>F♯E (measures 7 and 8).
32. The emergence of cover tone B above F♯ during 72 is related to the situation at
852 during the first movement.
33. My dyadic reading is supported by the Beethoven sketch transcribed in
Marston’s ex. 6.4, staff 3: G>EG<E – space and rests – E<G . . .
34. Beethoven’s initial jottings for this passage are preserved in the sketch
transcribed in Marston’s ex. 5.6. Notably, a direct connection from B to A
appears to have been his initial conception, prior to his insertion of the
embellishing C.
35. I would go so far as to suggest that the G<A♯[B♭] augmented second left
dangling in the sketch’s final chord is resolved by the F♯<B fourth that sounds
during 72 in the published score. (Though less conspicuously presented, all
four of those pitches likewise are accounted for over the bar line between
measures 23 and 24.)
36. Hepokoski and Darcy, in Elements of Sonata Theory: Norms, Types, and
Deformations in the Late-Eighteenth-Century Sonata (Oxford University
Press, 2006), deploy the same arrow symbol ( ) to convey the transition
between TR and FS that I deploy for a supersurge. Because in my usage that
symbol appears after a pitch name or a Roman numeral and in theirs after the
www.ebook3000.com
abbreviation TR, there should be no confusion regarding our contrasting

intentions.
37. Whereas the first movement’s imagined MC is on E Major’s dominant
harmony, the major supertonic (which of course potently targets the
dominant) is an equally viable alternative. Whereas Hepokoski and Darcy
would analyze the F♯ chord as V in the dominant key, I instead retain the initial
tonic as the tonal center through the dominant arrival – that is, as E Minor: I
II➔ V, rather than as E Minor: I followed by B Minor: V♯ I. (Compare with FC,
fig. 40, ex. 4.)
38. Though it functions differently in this context, the D-F♯-B chord nevertheless
is the immediate successor of the tonic and thus bears a relationship to the
D♯-F♯-B chord of the first movement, measure 5, which also undergoes
expansion via outer-voice arpeggiation (shown in 12.2).
39. The chords to which these thirds belong function at varying structural levels.
D♯-F♯-A-B (measure 30) is an embellishing chord of the E tonic; B-D-F♯
(measure 31) is a connective chord between the tonic 5- and 6-phase chords;
E♯-G-B-D (measure 32) is an assertion of that 6-phase chord as ♯VI .
40. As noted above, the upward arpeggiation within the opening tonic (B<E<G in
measures 1 through 3) initially is rescinded, with the restoration of the initial B
occurring during 62.
41. An example of this sort by Schumann (Sonata in F♯ Minor, op. 11, mvmt. 4,
mm. 120–125) is assayed in my Thinking About Harmony, 3.9 and 3.10.
42. Observe how the Schumann example mentioned in note 41 introduces the A
Major dominant’s major third at the downbeat of measure 121 but then lowers
it by a half step (G♯ to G♮), with G♮ retained for the surging A➔ tonic that
follows.
43. The sketch transcribed by Marston as his ex. 5.21 suggests that at one stage in
the compositional process Beethoven arrived at the G➔ chord poised for
continuation to C but, dallying for several measures (as if in consternation
regarding whether actually to proceed thus), did not actually make that
resolution, choosing instead to lead directly (via the enharmonic
reinterpretation of G➔ as C♯ ) to F♯. (I propose that the A notehead in the
sketch’s fourth measure represents an A♯. Compare with the C♯>A♯>F♯
arpeggiation in the published score’s measure 56.) The interpretation of an
E♯[F♮]-G-B-D chord as rooted on C♯ appears in published analyses from
around Beethoven’s time, including the following examples in my Thinking
About Harmony: 1.6 (C-E-G-A♯ interpreted as the supertonic in E Minor by
Gottfried Weber), 1.11b (G-B-D-E♯ interpreted as a chord rooted on C♯ by
Johann Gottlieb Portmann), and 7.18c (A♭-C-E♭-F♯ interpreted as the
supertonic in C Minor by Philipp J. Engler).
44. The sketch transcribed by Marston as his ex. 6.4 should be consulted as well.
(The passage begins at that example’s measure 48.) First the circular
progression b E a D G c♯° F♯ is traversed (with a brief moment of e
intervening between G and c♯° to mitigate the diminished fifth). Then G is

reinstated, leading now to C in measure 58. A fresh reinstatement of G
functions upon resolution as C♯ , leading to measure 62’s F♯ and the
eventual conclusion of the circle on B.
45. Beethoven has built some redundancy into this passage, with multiple F♯>B
fifths transpiring. Thus after B is attained at 601, F♯ emerges on the following
downbeat, so that what counterpointed the earlier descent in the bass now
shines forth in the melody. An E is again missing between the melody’s F♯ and
D. To my great satisfaction as an “imaginative” analyst, Beethoven actually
wrote in an E at the spot where I would imagine it in one of his sketches. (See
Marston’s ex. 64, measure 69.)
46. I am not sure how Marston would reconcile this view with his graph of
measures 1 through 70 displayed in his ex. 5.14, where bass F♯ at measure 33
connects to B at measure 66. (The graphs in ex. 5.19 show F♯’s arrival not at
measure 33, but instead at measure 56.)
47. Though Hepokoski and Darcy’s Sonata Theory was not yet in existence when
Marston’s book was published, certainly it would be impossible to correlate their
notion of C with his notion of closing group. The EEC by definition occurs before
C. The F♯ major chord of measure 56 is not a viable candidate for that role.
48. The F♯ chord of 1072 (F♯-A-C-E), diatonic in E Minor, completes the process
of neutralizing the F♯-A♯-C♯ chord introduced in measure 96.
49. The deployment of an unconventional harmonic trajectory at the juncture
between the development and the recapitulation is a broad and fascinating
topic. I explore other cases in chapter 13 of this volume and in Harmony in
Schubert, chapter 6. Edward T. Cone assays this passage briefly in his “Analysis
Today,” The Musical Quarterly 46 (1960), p. 175. Whereas we both question
the syntactic viability of an F♯➔ E succession from measure 104 into measure
105, his assessment of the broader tonal trajectory contrasts mine.
50. The two chapters devoted to the mediant earlier in this book (chapters 4 and 5)
will have sensitized readers to the problematic hierarchical interaction
between third-related roots in such situations. Is root B restored? Or does B
emerge as the D chord’s 6 phase, facilitating the stepwise ascent from D to E?
51. The D♯>C>B bass of the sketch’s second system so closely corresponds to
measures 130 through 132 that I take Beethoven’s “Ende” to refer to everything
following the recapitulation P. The sketch breaks off once the E tonic is
achieved (as does my 12.15b) because from that point onwards most of what
was required compositionally amounted to no more than a transposition of the
exposition FS.
52. Note that the E-A-C chord of measure 129 is interpreted as an extension of the
lowered supertonic in 12.15b. With an imagined wobbly F♮, it is related to the
E-F(♯)-A-C chord of Marston’s ex. 6.10 sketch, discussed above.
53. I introduced the notion of seismic composition in Thinking About Harmony,
p. 236. Though at that time I used the term in an ad hoc manner (not even
www.ebook3000.com
including it within Thinking About Harmony’s index), since then I have

incorporated it as standard terminology within my harmonic theory (as the
indexes of my subsequent analytical volumes reveal).
54. Whereas I propose in 12.15 and its commentary that the F major chord
(not the F♯ major chord that precedes it in the score) is the principal
intermediary between I5–6 and V♯, at one stage in the compositional
process (documented by the sketch transcribed as Marston’s ex. 6.15) the
F♯ chord performed that role, without a succeeding F chord. Perhaps when
two viable alternatives for the same syntactic moment are juxtaposed one
cannot always state with certainty which one should be given precedence.
(The very use of the word “should” may convey an analytical bias that
needs sometimes to be tempered.)
55. In that light, the conspicuous high E at the end of measure 11 may be
understood as the initiation point for this notion (as B followed by E,
leading to A followed by C♯, etc.). Consequently, except for passing note D♯
the entire tenor line of 12.16 is projected at the top of the texture in
Beethoven’s composition. Several of the sketches transcribed by Marston
show a descent to E at the cadence. Ex. 4.3, in particular, seems to be
exploring the deployment of upper thirds during the structural descent.
56. It is of course possible to bring out the F♯>E of the final two chords in
performance. I have been able to achieve that result to good effect both on
my fortepiano and on my modern piano.
57. Recall that a G>F♯>E third-progression is featured during the second
movement’s P before Kopfton B emerges in the upper register. Beethoven’s
harmonizations in these two passages likewise are similar. One might even go
so far as to correlate the C>A of 71 in the second movement (supported by II7)
and the A<C♯ of 132–3 in the third movement (supported by II8–7).
58. That is, the tonic harmonies at the downbeats of measures 3 and 5 come across
as reinstatements of the phrase’s initial tonic, rather than as resolutions of the
local dominants that precede them. Only measure 7 moves forward from the
thrice-stated initial two measures. The relationship of this harmonic
progression to the first three chords of Beethoven’s Sonata in E♭ Major
(op. 81a, “Les Adieux”) may offer a clue regarding his affective intentions.
Though my ear connects bass B at 61 and C♯ at 72, there are spots in later
variations where a B<E connection followed by C♯ seems to be intended.
Should those later passages affect one’s interpretation of this spot (resulting
in the linking of bass E at 111 to its earlier sounding at 11), or does B<E>C♯
instead represent a variant of B<C♯? In this case I perhaps need to deploy a
word that rarely appears in my analytical writing: ambiguous.
59. The initial ascent transpires in this upper register in the sketch transcribed by
Marston in his ex. 4.5. That fact should allay concerns regarding the analytical
assignment of high structural value to an event that in the final composition
occurs in a register not often deployed for such crucial structural content in
piano music. (Marston’s perception of an “ascending third-progression

g♯1–a♯1–b1” during measures 1 through 4 (p. 86) is incorrect, in my view, as
will be explained in due course.)
60. The unexpected soprano E at the end of measure 11 in the score serves as a
substitute for the A that would occur were one to continue the melodic pattern
operative since the onset of measure 9. It also guards against the boredom that
might ensue through too extended a prolongation of a single melodic idea.
(After writing the preceding sentences, I noted that an A corresponding to that
which I imagined at 113 appears in the Beethoven sketch transcribed by
Marston as his ex. 4.4a. That sketch aptly demonstrates the boredom that
may ensue when a single melodic idea is overused.)
61. My imaginative A♯ is confirmed by A♯s appearing in two of Beethoven’s
sketches, transcribed by Marston in his ex. 4.9.
62. Marston’s commentary on the sketches confirms that during at least part of the
compositional process Beethoven actually positioned a G♯ in the soprano at 51.
Its eventual omission is made up for in part by the appoggiatura G♯ preceding
F♯ near the end of the measure.
63. As mentioned in note 58, a comparison with the opening chords of “Les
Adieux” is enlightening on this issue. One finds exactly the same intervals on
the upper staff – GE ♭ FB ♭ GE ♭ – producing a broad voice exchange.
64. See my discussion of Mehrdeutigkeit (including a consideration of Vogler) in
Thinking About Harmony, pp. 155–160. Mendelssohn uses such a third
creatively in measure 20 of his Song without Words in D Major (op. 102,
no. 2), presented and discussed in Thinking About Harmony, 1.13.
65. Those words also might be hurled at bass B in measure 14 of 12.16.
66. In the sketch transcribed by Marston as his ex. 4.4a, the letter h (German for
B♮) appears above the material that corresponds to measure 9. Marston
proposes that this shows Beethoven affirming “B [major]” – referring to the
preceding cadence (p. 85, footnote 3). Through comparison with similar
deployments of h in the sketches transcribed in Marston’s exx. 6.20 and 8.8,
I suggest instead that it refers to pitch B, rather than to chord B or key B. In any
event, note that at that stage in the theme’s evolution, an upward-resolving –
and B-tonicizing – A♯ occurs at the point corresponding to 101–2, whereas in
the final score a downward-resolving – and tonic-restoring – A occurs at 102–3.
(The melody’s A>G♯ resolution is embellished by the intervening pitches B
and A.)
67. The presentation of such a detailed graph without Roman numerals does not
accord with Schenker’s normative practice. At a minimum, he would have
displayed V8– at measure 8 and –7 at 153, followed by I in measure 16.
68. Though it may seem that my graph harbors conflicting slurs in the vicinity of
measure 12, the D♯<C♯<B third displays C♯ where it actually emerges in the
score rather than where it would occur based on the norms of second-species
counterpoint. A more severe practice would have FÜ and A♯ falling into place
www.ebook3000.com
against a retained D♯ for a consonant D♯ major chord, followed by the

incorporation of dissonant seventh C♯ in a weaker metrical position.
69. The measure numbers deployed in this analysis run as one continuous series
throughout the movement (as in the 1980 Henle Urtext edition from which I
work), rather than starting at 1 again for each variation (as in some other
editions).
70. That choice would fulfill the same structural role as the various surging or
supersurging alternatives shown in 12.10: E♯-G♯-C♯, C♯-E♯-G♯-B, C♯-E♯-G♯-
B-D, and E♯-G-B-D.
71. The question mark refers to the fact that Beethoven has left indeterminate
whether the chord should be interpreted as A♯➔ or as A♯ . Its role within the
progression is not in question. Only the intensity of its surge is.
72. Such a substitution in fact occurs in measure 107 (displayed in 12.20b), as will
be explained in due course. Compare with measures 23 and 24 of the first
movement, wherein FÜ serves as a lower neighbor to G♯.
73. Within harmonic contexts, a diminished chord often represents a harmony
rooted a third below its stacked-third configuration. Thus B-D-F in C Major
conveys the function of dominant G-B-D-F. Within circular and sequential
progressions, however, a diminished chord often will represent a chord rooted
on the lowest pitch in its stacked-third configuration. Here A♯-C♯-E is rooted on
A♯, not F♯.
74. Further support of my interpretation is found in Beethoven’s draft transcribed
by Marston in his ex. 9.15 (top of page 241), where the melody’s A<A♯<B in the
fourth measure relates to the A<A♯[B♭]<B of Variation II’s measures 39 and 40,
which correspond unequivocally to the Theme’s seventh and eighth measures
(not to its fourth).
75. Whereas Beethoven’s introduction of the II chord in measures 7 and 8
proceeds by first sounding A♯ and only later G♮, in measure 160 G♮ sounds
first. Though this might seem to create a situation like that explored in 12.22b,
I would contend that, instead, this case results from two pitches from the same
chord arriving slightly out of synchronization – that is, A♯’s role as a chord
member commences at the downbeat of measure 160, even if it does not yet
sound at that point. Due to the precedent of 53 -position chords at the
downbeats of measures 126 and 127 and the expected continuation from the
G➔ surge at the end of measure 127, I cannot similarly simply add A♯ to the
C♮-E-G♮ chord at 1281 to make the analytical conundrum at that point
disappear.
76. It also is instructive to compare 12.24 to the passage from the second
movement graphed in 12.9b.
77. Observe how, in measures 168 through 170 of 12.24, the chromatically
filled-in third D♯>D♮>C♯>C♮>B is traversed. A sign that this makes
Schenkerian sense is that the vertical entity that is projected, DB ♯ ,
coordinates with the V harmony that extends through those measures.
The same test will fail with regard to Marston’s D♮. In Beethoven’s writing,
the D♯>B melodic third is internal to a broader sixth, from E down to G♯,
which likewise (as EG ♯ ) passes the test: tonic pitches (measures 167 and 176)
are the origin and terminus points for a melodic traversal of an interval
from the tonic triad.
13 String Quartet in A Minor (op. 132), movement 1

1. “The Divided Tonic in the First Movement of Beethoven’s Op. 132,” in Keys to
the Drama: Nine Perspectives on Sonata Form, ed. G. Sly (Farnham: Ashgate,
2009), pp. 1–26. Additional commentary by Robert S. Hatten and by V. Kofi
Agawu will be folded into the presentation below. Other writings often
mentioned in discussions of this movement include Joseph Kerman’s The
Beethoven Quartets (New York: Knopf, 1967); Daniel K. L. Chua’s The
“Galitzin” Quartets of Beethoven: Opp. 127, 132, 130 (Princeton University
Press, 1995); and Robert Morgan’s “The Concept of Unity and Musical
Analysis,” Music Analysis 22 (2003), pp. 7–50. Benedict Taylor’s focus on the
opening Assai sostenuto material and its recurrences in “The Problem of
the ‘Introduction’ in Beethoven’s Late Quartets,” Ad Parnassum: A Journal
of Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Instrumental Music 3/6 (2005),
pp. 45–64, leads eventually to the suggestion that perhaps the movement “is
ultimately not a sonata” but instead “a possible sonata which is extended out
into a larger strophic design” (p. 63).
2. Robert S. Hatten’s essay on this movement in chapter 12 of his Interpreting
Musical Gestures, Topics, and Tropes (Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
2004) likewise begins with a barrage of potent words: “abrupt,” “disruptions,”
“discontinuity,” “radically,” “underdetermined,” “splintered,” “fragmentary,”
“shattered,” “schizophrenic,” “destabilizes,” “suffering,” “frustration,”
“contradictory,” “fractured.” Some of these words are borrowed from Susan
McClary’s lively assessment of the movement in her Conventional Wisdom:
The Content of Musical Form (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000),
pp. 119–133.
3. As these sample progressions become more sophisticated, they may cross the
line between voice-leading embellishment of the E chord and local harmonic
progressions that tonicize E, for example as E Major: I ➔ IV♮ V➔ I. In this
context chord X would be interpreted as IV in E rather than as I in A.
4. It is productive to hear measures 1–4 and 5–8 as two iterations of essentially
the same progression – departure from the E triad followed by its restoration,
with local replications. From that perspective the presence of the consonant E
triad at 42, before the surging chord at 51, might be mapped onto the silent time
span before measure 1, so that the sounding of G♯ is the first audible indication
of an E dominant already in play before the work begins.
www.ebook3000.com
5. Compare with measure 13, where the initial F and A are eventually joined by C
and D♯. The C and D♯ that “belong” with measure 2’s F and A sound during
measure 3. Consequently, in the spirit of “The Divided Tonic” from
Samarotto’s title, I propose instead a divided supersurging supertonic.
6. In his note 15 (p. 10), Samarotto acknowledges that a reading along the lines
that I propose is possible. I do not perceive any “difficulties . . . for the larger
structure” in my 13.2, as he cautions would occur if one were to pursue that
notion. On the contrary, the dominant’s unfolded bass G♯>E followed by
the tonic’s unfolded C>A over a sixteen-measure span seems to me an
uncommonly persuasive confirmation of this reading.
7. A similar strategy is pursued near the end of the exposition’s S. See 13.4,
mm. 44–47.
8. In that this passage will be a point of contention between Samarotto and me,
readers might wish to compare how Beethoven deploys G♯ at 201 and D♯ (in
the context of an E Minor tonicization) at 1301. Just as third G♯ proceeds to
root E over two consecutive downbeats, so also does D♯ proceed to B. A more
conventional set of chords comes between those consecutive downbeats in that
later passage.
9. In a graph of measures 19 through 22 that I endorse only in part, V. Kofi
Agawu places a V numeral at the downbeat of measure 20. See his Playing with
Signs: A Semiotic Interpretation of Classic Music (Princeton University Press,
1991), p. 122, ex. 6.2b.
10. Whereas the distinction between a complete and an incomplete upper
neighbor often is an important issue for the analyst, in FC Schenker
generally does not provide symbols sufficient for an unambiguous reading of
his conception. For example, he annotates the first two graphs in fig. 76, ex. 1,
as ^3 (n.n. ^
3) ^2 ^
1, with only a broad slur above the noteheads, leaving the
relationship between C Major’s F and E in question. (That is, does the second E
restore the initial E, or does it instead connect F and D?) Then, in fig. 76, ex. 2
(an analysis of Chopin’s Prelude No. 3 in G Major) he writes (starting in
measure 14) ^ 3 (n.n.) ^3^2^1, which appears to convey the sense of complete
neighbor, though I would argue that instead the passage should be interpreted
as containing an incomplete neighbor, as is implied by how Schenker presents
the Roman numeral analysis (in that the second B is interior to the 5–6 shift
that expands IV: C>B>A in place of the more direct G<A).
11. Though the EB ♭ diminished fifth of measures 31 and 33 is instrumental in
directing the exposition towards F Major’s AF third at the onset of S (measure
35), one notes an effort by Beethoven to instill a sense of consonance for the
MC moment during measure 34, with B♮ leading upwards (against the
context’s downward pull of B♭) to C.
12. In my view, even B♭-D♭-F at the end of measure 29 is sufficient to convey the
sense of a G root. Yet G emerges potently in the viola line of the succeeding
measure. The stems and slur in Samarotto’s ex. 1.3 (p. 13) suggest that he
instead interprets this G as a neighbor to F. The persistence of G<A♭<B♭>G

hopping about from instrument to instrument over the course of measures 30
through 33 calls attention to the fact that the GB ♭ third helps shape both the G
and C➔ chords from the circle of fifths. Though Robert S. Hatten likewise does
not accept this G as a member of the chord with bass D♭, his interpretation of
the passage as “a repeated Phrygian half cadence, iv6–V” in F Minor
(Interpreting Musical Gestures, p. 273) has merit. I suspect that he would
explain the G as an added sixth to the B♭-D♭-F triad. I also appreciate
Hatten’s interpretation of measure 40’s A major chord as “a push to D
minor” (contrasting Samarotto’s connection, via a bass slur, of this A chord
to the C chord of measure 44), though his explanation that D “is in turn
displaced by V/F” subtly contradicts the hierarchical relationships among the
F, D, G, and C chords in my 13.4, measures 35 through 44. (I instead would
emphasize how the D chord serves as an intermediary between F Major’s I
and II➔.)
13. Since my voice-leading graphs, which guided me in determining where the
exposition’s formal subdivisions occur, do not match Samarotto’s, it is not
surprising that we offer contrasting interpretations of the exposition’s internal
form. In my reading, middleground A>G>F third-progressions transpire over
the course of both S and C.
14. Whereas I propose above that the first chord of measure 2, which sounds as an
A
F
dyad, should be interpreted imaginatively as a B chord, Beethoven literally
adds A♯ to the CE dyad of measure 105, resulting in F♯ . It is always reassuring
to an analyst with imaginative leanings to find such confirmations by the
composer, here tucked away over one hundred measures later in the
movement.
15. Also in that example, the word “dev[elopment]” is positioned to the right of
the B-D♯-F♯ chord that I understand to represent measure 102.
16. Here the determination of formal boundaries is profoundly influenced by the
harmonic analysis. Whereas I interpret the introduction as a prolongation of A
Minor’s major dominant, and correspondingly measures 103 through 119 as
the prolongation of a surging B chord (targeting the recapitulation’s E Minor,
delayed until measure 126), Samarotto instead hears tonic A within the
introduction, and correspondingly proposes that measures 103 through 119
remain “insistently in E minor” (p. 20).
17. Compare with the surging reinstatements of the tonic in 6.1 (measure 18) and
in 6.8 (measure 14).
18. When in graduate school I briefly held a church organ position for which I
needed to commute from New Haven via train. Alas, one Sunday the train
door malfunctioned at my stop, and so I had to take a taxi from the next
station. Whereas normally I would have had time to get myself organized, on
that morning I flew onto the organ bench and started my prelude. Likewise
here the tardy A chord must forsake the diatonic, consonant prolongation that
www.ebook3000.com
Notes to page 251 277
conventionally would have occurred during P. From the outset it assumes its
active TR role as initiator of the circle of fifths that connects the tonic and the
mediant.
19. Samarotto defines the first theme as what is “usher[ed] in” by the Allegro
(p. 14).
List of references to music examples
1.1 10, 16 8.1 114, 115

1.2 8, 14, 17 8.2 111, 113, 257
1.3 14 8.4 114, 257
1.4 11–12, 15, 77 9.1 138
1.5 13, 20 9.2 133
1.8 18, 19, 26 10.1 161
2.2 26 10.2 152, 161
2.6 30–31, 222 10.4 155
2.10 41, 261 10.6 155
3.1 41, 44 10.7 155
3.2 44 11.1 168
3.3 44 11.2 172
3.4 44 11.3 172–173
3.6 69, 81, 255 12.1 183, 189, 191, 208, 214
4.1 51, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59 12.2 181
4.2 53, 54, 58, 59, 61, 69 12.3 183, 221
4.3 54, 55, 58, 59, 98 12.8 191, 194
4.4 57, 58, 59 12.9 208
5.1 66, 69, 259 12.10 204, 213
5.2 69 12.11 204, 205
5.3 70 12.14 221
5.4 256 12.16 211, 217, 219
6.1 276 12.18 213
6.4 83–84 12.19 223
6.5 34 13.2 236, 247
6.8 276 13.4 118, 240, 242, 253
7.3 97, 98, 261 13.5 242, 247, 253
278
www.ebook3000.com
Select bibliography
Agawu, V. K., Playing with Signs: A Semiotic Interpretation of Classic Music,

Princeton University Press, 1991
Review of R. S. Hatten: Musical Meaning in Beethoven, Current Musicology
60–61 (1996), pp. 147–161
Music as Discourse: Semiotic Adventures in Romantic Music, Oxford University
Press, 2009
Agmon, E., “The First Movement of Beethoven’s Cello Sonata, Op. 69: The
Opening Solo as a Structural and Motivic Source,” The Journal of
Musicology 16 (1998), pp. 394–409
Alegant, B., “A-Major Events,” in Keys to the Drama: Nine Perspectives on Sonata
Form, ed. G. Sly, Farnham: Ashgate, 2009, pp. 199–224
Almén, B., A Theory of Musical Narrative, Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
2008
Amon, R., Lexikon der Harmonielehre, Munich: Doblinger, 2005
Arthurs, D. J., “Irony and Illusion in the Second Movement of Beethoven’s Piano
Sonata, Op. 101,” Journal of Schenkerian Studies 7 (2013), pp. 63–81
Barry, B., “In Beethoven’s Clockshop: Discontinuity in the Opus 18 Quartets,” The
Musical Quarterly 88 (2005), pp. 320–337
Beach, D. W., “Motivic Repetition in Beethoven’s Piano Sonata Op. 110; Part I: The
First Movement,” Intégral 1 (1987), pp. 1–29; “Motivic Repetition in
Beethoven’s Piano Sonata Op. 110; Part II: The Trio of the Second
Movement and the Adagio-Arioso,” Intégral 2 (1988), pp. 75–97
“The Analytic Process: A Practical Demonstration; The Opening Theme from
Beethoven’s Op. 26,” Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy 3 (1989), pp. 25–46
“Phrase Expansion: Three Analytical Studies,” Music Analysis 14 (1995), pp. 27–47
“The Submediant as Third Divider: Its Representation at Different Structural
Levels,” in Music Theory in Concept and Practice, ed. J. M. Baker, D. W. Beach,
and J. W. Bernard, University of Rochester Press, 1997, pp. 309–335
Bergé, P., “Die neapolitanische Themenwendung als formal-harmonisches Muster
in einigen Sonatensätzen von Beethoven und Brahms,” Musiktheorie 19
(2004), pp. 261–268
ed., Musical Form, Forms & Formenlehre: Three Methodological Reflections,
Leuven University Press, 2009
Bishop, D. M., “Chromatic and Diatonic Pitch-Class Motives and Their Influence
on Closural Strategies: Analytical Studies of Three Middle-Period String
279
280 Select bibliography
Quartets of Ludwig van Beethoven,” Ph.D. dissertation, The University of

Texas at Austin, 1999
Black, L. A. S., “Syntactic Irregularities in the Early and Middle Period Works of
Beethoven,” Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1999
Boirio, G., “Schenker versus Schoenberg versus Schenker: The Difficulties of a
Reconciliation,” Journal of the Royal Musical Association 126 (2001),
pp. 250–274
Bonds, M. E., Wordless Rhetoric: Musical Form and the Metaphor of the Oration,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991
Boss, J., “‘Schenkerian-Schoenbergian Analysis’ and Hidden Repetition in the
Opening Movement of Beethoven’s Piano Sonata Op. 10, No. 1,” Music
Theory Online 5/1 (1999)
Boykan, M., The Power of the Moment: Essays on the Western Musical Canon,
Hillsdale, NY: Pendragon Press, 2011
Britton, J. G., “Harmony, Voice Leading, and Motive in Beethoven’s Last Quartet,”
Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Oregon, 2008
Brown, M., Dempster, D., and Headlam, D., “The ♯IV(♭V) Hypothesis: Testing the
Limits of Schenker’s Theory of Tonality,” Music Theory Spectrum 19 (1997),
pp. 155–183
Budday, W., Harmonielehre Wiener Klassik: Theorie – Satztechnik – Werkanalyse,
Stuttgart: Berthold & Schwerdtner, 2002
Burnham, S., “Reading Between the Lines: Hugo Riemann and Beethoven’s
Op. 31 Piano Sonatas,” in The Oxford Handbook of Neo-Riemannian Music
Theories, ed. E. Gollin and A. Rehding, Oxford University Press, 2011,
pp. 440–461
Burstein, L. P., “Surprising Returns: The VII♯ in Beethoven’s Op. 18, No. 3, and Its
Antecedents in Haydn,” Music Analysis 17 (1998), pp. 295–312
“Recomposition and Retransition in Beethoven’s String Quintet, op. 4,” The
Journal of Musicology 23 (2006), pp. 62–96
“Beethoven’s Tempest Sonata: A Schenkerian Approach,” in Beethoven’s
Tempest Sonata: Perspectives of Analysis and Performance, ed. P. Bergé,
Leuven: Peeters, 2009, pp. 61–85
“Beethoven’s Tempest Sonata (First Movement): A Schenkerian Approach,”
in Beethoven’s Tempest Sonata (First Movement): Five Annotated
Analyses for Performers and Scholars, ed. P. Bergé, Leuven: Peeters,
2012, pp. II/1–32
Byros, V., “Foundations of Tonality as Situated Cognition, 1730–1830: An Enquiry
into the Culture and Cognition of Eighteenth-Century Tonality, with
Beethoven’s Eroica Symphony as a Case Study,” Ph.D. dissertation, Yale
University, 2009
“Topics and Harmonic Schemata: A Case from Beethoven,” in The Oxford
Handbook of Topic Theory, ed. D. Mirka, Oxford University Press, 2014,
pp. 381–414
www.ebook3000.com
Select bibliography 281
Caplin, W. E., “Structural Expansion in Beethoven’s Symphonic Forms,” in

Beethoven’s Compositional Process, ed. W. Kinderman, Lincoln: University
of Nebraska Press, 1991, pp. 27–54
Classical Form: A Theory of Formal Functions for the Instrumental Music of
Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven, Oxford University Press, 1998
“Harmonic Variants of the Expanded Cadential Progression,” in A Composition
as a Problem II: Proceedings of the Second Conference on Music Theory,
Tallinn, April 17–18, 1998, ed. M. Humal, Tallinn: Eesti Muusikaakadeemia,
1999, pp. 49–71
“Beethoven’s Tempest Exposition: A Springboard for Form-Functional
Considerations,” in Beethoven’s Tempest Sonata: Perspectives of Analysis
and Performance, ed. P. Bergé, Leuven: Peeters, 2009, pp. 87–125
“Beethoven’s ‘Tempest’ Exposition: A Response to Janet Schmalfeldt,” Music
Theory Online 16/2 (2010)
“Beethoven’s Tempest Sonata (First Movement): Form-Functional Analysis,”
in Beethoven’s Tempest Sonata (First Movement): Five Annotated
Analyses for Performers and Scholars, ed. P. Bergé, Leuven: Peeters, 2012,
pp. III/1–44
Analyzing Classical Form: An Approach for the Classroom, Oxford University
Press, 2013
“Topics and Formal Functions,” in The Oxford Handbook of Topic Theory, ed.
D. Mirka, Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 415–452
Chua, D. K. L., The “Galitzin” Quartets of Beethoven: Opp. 127, 132, 130, Princeton
University Press, 1995
Absolute Music and the Construction of Meaning, Cambridge University Press,
1999
Churgin, B., “Harmonic and Tonal Instability in the Second Key Area of Classic
Sonata Form,” in Convention in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Music:
Essays in Honor of Leonard G. Ratner, ed. W. J. Allanbrook, J. M. Levy, and
W. P. Mahrt, Stuyvesant, NY: Pendragon, 1992, pp. 23–57
Transcendent Mastery: Studies in the Music of Beethoven, Hillsdale, NY:
Pendragon, 2008
Clark, S., “Terzverwandtschaft in der ‘Unvollendeten’ von Schubert und der
‘Waldstein-Sonate’ von Beethoven,” trans. T. Aigner, Schubert durch die
Brille: Internationales Franz Schubert Institut—Mitteilungen 20 (1998),
pp. 123–130
Cohn, R., “‘This music crept by me upon the waters’: Introverted Motives in
Beethoven’s ‘Tempest’ Sonata,” in Engaging Music: Essays in Music Analysis,
ed. D. Stein, Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 226–235
Cone, E. T., “Analysis Today,” The Musical Quarterly 46 (1960), pp. 172–188
“Beethoven’s Experiments in Composition: The Late Bagatelles,” in Music: A
View From Delft. Selected Essays, ed. R. P. Morgan, University of Chicago
Press, 1989, pp. 179–200
Cook, N., “Heinrich Schenker, Polemicist: A Reading of the Ninth Symphony

Monograph,” Music Analysis 14 (1995), pp. 89–105
Dahlhaus, C., Ludwig von Beethoven und seine Zeit, Laaber: Laaber Verlag, 1987; as
Ludwig van Beethoven: Approaches to His Music, trans. M. Whittall, Oxford
Damschroder, D., “Schubert, Chromaticism, and the Ascending 5–6 Sequence,”
Journal of Music Theory 50 (2006), pp. 253–275
Thinking About Harmony: Historical Perspectives on Analysis, Cambridge
Harmony in Schubert, Cambridge University Press, 2010
Review of Beethoven’s Tempest Sonata: Perspectives of Analysis and Performance
(ed. P. Bergé), Music Theory Online 16/2 (June 2010)
“Schenker, Schubert, and the Subtonic Chord,” in A Music-Theoretical Matrix:
Essays in Honor of Allen Forte (Part II), ed. D. C. Berry, Gamut: Online Journal
of the Music Theory Society of the Mid-Atlantic 3 (2010), pp. 127–166
Harmony in Haydn and Mozart, Cambridge University Press, 2012
Harmony in Chopin, Cambridge University Press, 2015
Tonal Analysis: A Schenkerian Perspective, New York: W. W. Norton, forthcoming
Diergarten, F., “‘Ancilla Secundae’: Akkord und Stimmführung in der
Generalbass-Kompositionslehre,” in Musik und ihre Theorien, ed.
F. Diergarten, L. Holtmeier, J. Leigh, and E. Metzner, Dresden: Sandstein
Verlag, 2010, pp. 132–148
Diergarten, F., and Holtmeier, L., “Nicht zu disputieren: Beethoven, der
Generalbass und die Sonate op. 109,” Musiktheorie 26 (2011), pp. 123–146
Dodson, A., “Performance, Grouping and Schenkerian Alternative Readings in
Some Passages from Beethoven’s ‘Lebewohl’ Sonata,” Music Analysis 27
(2008), pp. 107–134
Drabkin, W., “The Agnus Dei of Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis: The Growth of Its
Form,” in Beethoven’s Compositional Process, ed. W. Kinderman, Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press, 1991, pp. 131–159
“Schenker, the Consonant Passing Note, and the First-Movement Theme of
Beethoven’s Sonata Op. 26,” Music Analysis 15 (1996), pp. 149–189
“The Introduction to Beethoven’s ‘Kreutzer’ Sonata: A Historical Perspective,”
in The Beethoven Violin Sonatas: History, Criticism, Performance, ed.
L. Lockwood and M. Kroll, Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois
Press, 2004, pp. 83–109
Dudeque, N., Music Theory and Analysis in the Writings of Arnold Schoenberg
(1874–1951), Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005
Earp, L., “Tovey’s ‘Cloud’ in the First Movement of the Eroica: An Analysis Based
on Sketches for the Development and Coda,” Beethoven Forum 2 (1993),
pp. 55–84
Ellis, M., A Chord in Time: The Evolution of the Augmented Sixth from Monteverdi
to Mahler, Farnham: Ashgate, 2010
www.ebook3000.com
Ellison, P., “The Largo/Allegro from Beethoven’s ‘Tempest’ Sonata, opus 31, no. 2:
Affective Tonality as a Key to Meaning,” The Beethoven Journal 27/1 (2012),
pp. 13–25
The Key to Beethoven: Connecting Tonality and Meaning in His Music, Hillsdale,
NY: Pendragon Press, 2014
Epstein, D., Beyond Orpheus: Studies in Musical Structure, Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 1979
Eybl, M., “Zweckbestimmung und historische Voraussetzungen der Analytik
Heinrich Schenkers,” in Zur Geschichte der Musikalischen Analyse: Bericht
über die Tagung München 1993, ed. G. Gruber, Laaber: Laaber Verlag, 1996,
pp. 145–156
Federhofer, H., “Zur Analyse des zweiten Satzes von L. van Beethovens
Klaviersonate Op. 10, No. 3,” in Festskrift Jens Peter Larsen, ed.
N. Schiørring, H. Glahn, and C. E. Hatting, Copenhagen: Hansen, 1972,
pp. 339–350
Forte, A., The Compositional Matrix, Baldwin, NY: Music Teachers National
Association, 1961
Forte, A., and Gilbert, S. E., Introduction to Schenkerian Analysis, New York:
W. W. Norton, 1982
Gauldin, R., “Beethoven’s Interrupted Tetrachord and the Seventh Symphony,”
Intégral 5 (1991), pp. 77–100
Goldenberg, Y., Prolongation of Seventh Chords in Tonal Music, 2 vols., Lewiston,
NY: Mellen, 2008
Greene, D. B., Temporal Processes in Beethoven’s Music, New York: Gordon and
Breach, 1982
Halm, A., Beethoven, Berlin: Max Hesses Verlag, 1926
Hanninen, D. A., A Theory of Music Analysis: On Segmentation and Associative
Organization, University of Rochester Press, 2012
Hatch, C., “Normality and Disruption in Beethoven’s Bagatelle Op. 119, No. 8,”
in Music Theory and the Exploration of the Past, ed. C. Hatch and
D. W. Bernstein, University of Chicago Press, 1993, pp. 341–355
Hatten, R. S., “An Approach to Ambiguity in the Opening of Beethoven’s String
Quartet, Op. 59, No. 3,” Indiana Theory Review 3/3 (1980), pp. 28–35
Musical Meaning in Beethoven: Markedness, Correlation, and Interpretation,
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994
Interpreting Musical Gestures, Topics, and Tropes: Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert,
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2004
“Plenitude as Fulfillment: The Third Movement of Beethoven’s String Quartet in
B♭, Op. 130,” in The String Quartets of Beethoven, ed. W. Kinderman, Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, 2006, pp. 214–233
Hepokoski, J., “Approaching the First Movement of Beethoven’s Tempest Sonata
through Sonata Theory,” in Beethoven’s Tempest Sonata: Perspectives of
Analysis and Performance, ed. P. Bergé, Leuven: Peeters, 2009, pp. 181–212
“Beethoven’s Tempest Sonata (First Movement): Sonata Theory Analysis,” in

Performers and Scholars, ed. P. Bergé, Leuven: Peeters, 2012, pp. IV/1–38
Hepokoski, J., and Darcy, W., Elements of Sonata Theory: Norms, Types, and
Deformations in the Late-Eighteenth-Century Sonata, Oxford University
Press, 2006
Hyer, B., “Second Immediacies in the Eroica,” in Music Theory in the Age of
Romanticism, ed. I. Bent, Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 77–104
Jones, T., Beethoven: The “Moonlight” and Other Sonatas, Op. 27 and Op. 31,
Cambridge University Press, 1999
Kamien, R., “Chromatic Details in Beethoven’s Piano Sonata in E-flat Major,
Op. 7,” The Music Review 35 (1974), pp. 149–156
“Aspects of the Recapitulation in Beethoven Piano Sonatas,” The Music Forum 4
(1976), pp. 195–235
“Subtle Enharmonic Connections, Modal Mixture, and Tonal Plan in the First
Movement of Beethoven’s Piano Sonata in C Major, Opus 53 (‘Waldstein’),”
in Beethoven Forum 1 (1992), pp. 93–110
“Non-tonic Settings of the Primary Tone in Beethoven Piano Sonatas,” The
Journal of Musicology 16 (1998), pp. 379–393
Keller, H., and Wintle, C., Beethoven’s String Quartets in F minor, Op. 95, and C♯
minor, Op. 131: Two Studies, University of Nottingham Department of Music,
1995
Kerman, J., The Beethoven Quartets, New York: Knopf, 1967
Kinderman, W., “Beethoven’s Compositional Models for the Choral Finale of the
Ninth Symphony,” in Beethoven’s Compositional Process, ed. W. Kinderman,
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1991, pp. 160–188
Klein, M. L., Intertextuality in Western Art Music, Bloomington: Indiana
Kopp, D., Chromatic Transformations in Nineteenth-Century Music, Cambridge
Korsyn, K., “Integration in Works of Beethoven’s Final Period,” Ph.D. dissertation,
Yale University, 1983
Kramer, E., “Lebewohl, Abwesenheit, and Wiedersehn: Cyclic Integration in
Beethoven’s ‘Grand Characteristic Sonata’ in E flat, Op. 81a,” Ad
Parnassum: A Journal of Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Instrumental
Music 10/19 (2012), pp. 129–163
Kreft, E., Harmonische Prozesse im Wandel der Epochen, Frankfurt am Main: Peter
Lang, vol. 1, 1995
Laufer, E., Review of H. Schenker: Free Composition, Music Theory Spectrum 3
(1981), pp. 158–184
“On the Fantasy,” Intégral 2 (1988), pp. 99–133
“Voice-Leading Procedures in Development Sections,” Studies in Music from
The University of Western Ontario 13 (1991), pp. 69–120
www.ebook3000.com
Lerdahl, F., Tonal Pitch Space, Oxford University Press, 2001

Lockwood, L., “‘Eroica’ Perspectives: Strategy and Design in the First Movement,”
in Beethoven Studies 3, ed. A. Tyson, Cambridge University Press, 1982,
pp. 85–105
Marston, N., “Schenker and Forte Reconsidered: Beethoven’s Sketches for the
Piano Sonata in E, Op. 109,” 19th-Century Music 10 (1986–1987), pp. 24–42
“Trifles or a Multi-Trifle? Beethoven’s Bagatelles, Op. 119, Nos. 7–11,” Music
Analysis 5 (1986), pp. 193–206
“Analysing Variations: The Finale of Beethoven’s String Quartet Op. 74,” Music
Analysis 8 (1989), pp. 303–324
Beethoven’s Piano Sonata in E, Op. 109, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.
“Notes to a Heroic Analysis: A Translation of Schenker’s Unpublished Study of
Beethoven’s Piano Variations, Op. 35,” in Nineteenth-Century Piano Music:
Essays in Performance and Analysis, ed. D. Witten, New York: Garland, 1997,
pp. 15–52
“Voicing Beethoven’s Distant Beloved,” in Beethoven and His World, ed.
S. Burnham and M. P. Steinberg, Princeton University Press (2000), pp. 124–147
Heinrich Schenker and Beethoven’s ‘Hammerklavier’ Sonata, Farnham:
Ashgate, 2013
Marx, A. B., Ludwig van Beethoven: Leben und Schaffen, 2 vols., Leipzig: Adolph
Schumann, 1902
McClary, S., Conventional Wisdom: The Content of Musical Form, Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2000
McCreless, P., “The Pitch-Class Motive in Tonal Analysis: Some Historical and
Critical Observations,” Res musica 3 (2011), pp. 52–67
McKee, E., “Alternative Meanings in the First Movement of Beethoven’s String
Quartet in E♭ Major Op. 127: Emergence and Growth from Stagnation and
Decline,” in Beethoven: Studien und Interpretationen, ed. M. Tomaszewski
and M. Chrenkoff, Cracow: Akademia Muzyczna, vol. 1 (2000), pp. 133–161
“E Major and Spirituality in Beethoven’s Instrumental Music,” in Beethoven:
Studien und Interpretationen, ed. M. Tomaszewski and M. Chrenkoff,
Cracow: Akademia Muzyczna, vol. 2 (2003), pp. 125–143
Mitchell, W. J., “Beethoven’s La Malinconia from the String Quartet, Opus 18, No.
6: Techniques and Structure,” The Music Forum 3 (1973), pp. 269–280
Morgan, R. P., “Coda as Culmination: The First Movement of the ‘Eroica’
Symphony,” in Music Theory and the Exploration of the Past, ed. C. Hatch
and D. W. Bernstein, University of Chicago Press, 1993, pp. 357–376
“The Concept of Unity and Musical Analysis,” Music Analysis 22 (2003),
pp. 7–50
Moßburger, H., Ästhetische Harmonielehre: Quellen – Analysen – Aufgaben, 2 vols.,
Wilhelmshaven: Florian Noetzel Verlag, 2012
Moßburger, H., and Weißgerber, L., “Anmerkungen zur Harmonik in der 20.
Diabelli-Variation,” Musiktheorie 14 (1999), pp. 269–274
Oster, E., “The Dramatic Character of the Egmont Overture,” in Aspects of

Schenkerian Theory, ed. D. Beach, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
1983, pp. 209–222
Ratner, L. G., Classic Music: Expression, Form, and Style, New York: Schirmer, 1980
Redmann, B., “Zum (Schein-)Antipodentum von Hugo Riemann und Heinrich
Schenker,” in Zur Geschichte der musikalischen Analyse: Bericht über die
Tagung München 1993, ed. G. Gruber, Laaber: Laaber Verlag, 1996,
pp. 131–144
Rehding, A., “Tonality Between Rule and Repertory; Or, Riemann’s Functions –
Beethoven’s Function,” Music Theory Spectrum 33 (2011), pp. 109–123
Réti, R., Thematic Patterns in Sonatas of Beethoven, ed. D. Cooke, London:
Faber, 1967
Reynolds, C. A., Motives for Allusion: Context and Content in Nineteenth-Century
Music, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003
Riemann, H., L. van Beethovens sämtliche Klavier-Solosonaten: Ästhetische und
formal-technische Analyse mit historischen Notizen, 3 vols., Berlin: Max
Hesses Verlag, 1917–1919
Ronge, J., Beethovens Lehrzeit: Kompositionsstudien bei Joseph Haydn, Johann Georg
Albrechtsberger und Antonio Salieri, Bonn: Verlag Beethoven-Haus, 2011
Rosen, C., The Classical Style: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, New York:
W. W. Norton, 1971
Sonata Forms, New York: W. W. Norton, 1980
Beethoven’s Piano Sonatas: A Short Companion, New Haven, CT: Yale
Rothgeb, J., “Salient Features,” in Music Theory in Concept and Practice, ed.
J. M. Baker, D. W. Beach, and J. W. Bernard, University of Rochester Press,
1997, pp. 181–196
Rothstein, W., Phrase Rhythm in Tonal Music, New York: Schirmer, 1989; reprint
edn., Ann Arbor, MI: Musicalia, 2007
“Beethoven with and without Kunstgepräng’: Metrical Ambiguity
Reconsidered,” Beethoven Forum 4 (1995), pp. 165–193
“Riding the Storm Clouds: Tempo, Rhythm, and Meter in Beethoven’s Tempest
Sonata,” in Beethoven’s Tempest Sonata: Perspectives of Analysis and
Performance, ed. P. Bergé, Leuven: Peeters, 2009, pp. 235–271
“Beethoven’s Tempest Sonata (First Movement): Metrical Analysis,” in
Performers and Scholars, ed. P. Bergé, Leuven: Peeters, 2012, pp. V/1–44
Rumph, S., “Op. 132 and the Search for a Deep Structure,” Beethoven Forum 14/1
(2007), pp. 73–89
“What Beethoven Learned from K. 464,” Eighteenth-Century Music 11 (2014),
pp. 55–77
Salzer, F., Structural Hearing: Tonal Coherence in Music, 2 vols., New York: Boni,
1952; reprint edn., New York: Dover, 1962
www.ebook3000.com
Samarotto, F., “A Theory of Temporal Plasticity in Tonal Music: An Extension of

the Schenkerian Approach to Rhythm with Special Reference to Beethoven’s
Late Music,” Ph.D. dissertation, The City University of New York, 1999
“Multiple Voices and Metrical Dramas in Beethoven’s Goethe-Songs, Op. 83,”
Beethoven Forum 12 (2005), pp. 151–175
“The Divided Tonic in the First Movement of Beethoven’s Op. 132,” in Keys to
the Drama: Nine Perspectives on Sonata Form, ed. G. Sly, Farnham: Ashgate,
2009, pp. 1–26
Schachter, C., “Rhythmic and Linear Analysis, Durational Reduction,” The
Music Forum 5 (1980), pp. 197–232; reprinted in Unfoldings: Essays in
Schenkerian Theory and Analysis, ed. J. N. Straus, Oxford University Press,
1999, pp. 54–78
“Beethoven’s Sketches for the First Movement of Op. 14, No. 1: A Study in
Design,” Journal of Music Theory 26 (1982), pp. 1–21
“Analysis by Key: Another Look at Modulation,” Music Analysis 6 (1987),
pp. 289–318
“Rhythm and Linear Analysis: Aspects of Meter,” The Music Forum 6/1 (1987),
pp. 1–59; reprinted in Unfoldings: Essays in Schenkerian Theory and Analysis,
ed. J. N. Straus, Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 79–117
“Mozart’s Last and Beethoven’s First: Echoes of K. 551 in the First Movement of
Opus 21,” in Mozart Studies, ed. C. Eisen, Oxford University Press, 1991,
pp. 227–251
“The Triad as Place and Action,” Music Theory Spectrum 17 (1995), pp. 149–169;
reprinted in Unfoldings: Essays in Schenkerian Theory and Analysis, ed.
J. N. Straus, Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 161–183
“Che Inganno! The Analysis of Deceptive Cadences,” in Essays from the Third
International Schenker Symposium, ed. A. Cadwallader, Hildesheim: Georg
Olms, 2006, pp. 279–298
Schenker, H., Harmonielehre: Neue musikalische Theorien und Phantasien I,
Stuttgart: Cotta, 1906; as Harmony (abridged), ed. O. Jonas, trans.
E. M. Borgese, University of Chicago Press, 1954
Beethovens neunte Sinfonie: Eine Darstellung des musikalischen Inhaltes, unter
fortlaufender Berücksichtigung auch des Vortrages und der Literatur, Vienna:
Universal, 1912; as Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony: A Portrayal of Its Musical
Content, with Running Commentary on Performance and Literature As Well,
trans. J. Rothgeb, New Haven. CT: Yale University Press, 1992
Die letzten fünf Sonaten Beethovens: Krtitische Ausgabe mit Einführung und
Erläuterung, 4 vols., Vienna: Universal, 1913, 1914, 1915, 1920
Der Tonwille: Flugblätter zum Zeugnis unwandelbarer Gesetze der Tonkunst,
einer neuen Jugend dargebracht, 2 vols., Vienna: A. J. Gutmann, Leipzig:
F. Hofmeister, 1921–1924; as Der Tonwille: Pamphlets in Witness of the
Immutable Laws of Music, Offered to a New Generation of Youth, ed.
W. Drabkin, trans. I. Bent et al., Oxford University Press, 2004–2005
Das Meisterwerk in der Musik: Ein Jahrbuch, 3 vols., Munich: Drei Masken,
1925, 1926, 1930; as The Masterwork in Music, ed. W. Drabkin, trans. I. Bent
et al., 3 vols., Cambridge University Press, 1994–1997
Der freie Satz: Neue musikalische Theorien und Phantasien III, Vienna:
Universal, 1935; rev. edn., ed. O. Jonas, Vienna: Universal, 1956; as Free
Composition, trans. and ed. E. Oster, New York: Longman, 1979; reprint of
trans. edn., Stuyvesant, NY: Pendragon Press, 2001
Schmalfeldt, J. “On the Relation of Analysis to Performance: Beethoven’s
Bagatelles Op. 126, Nos. 2 and 5,” Journal of Music Theory 29 (1985), pp. 1–31
“Cadential Processes: The Evaded Cadence and the ‘One More Time’
Technique,” Journal of Musicological Research 12 (1992), pp. 1–52
“Form as the Process of Becoming: The Beethoven-Hegelian Tradition and the
Tempest Sonata,” in Beethoven Forum 4 (1995), pp. 37–71; rev. edn. in
Schmalfeldt, J., In the Process of Becoming: Analytic and Philosophical
Perspectives on Form in Early Nineteenth-Century Music, Oxford University
Press, 2011, pp. 23–57
“Beethoven’s ‘Bridgetower’ Sonata, Op. 47,” in New Paths: Aspects of Music
Theory and Aesthetics in the Age of Romanticism, Leuven University Press,
2009, pp. 37–67
In the Process of Becoming: Analytic and Philosophical Perspectives on Form in
Early Nineteenth-Century Music, Oxford University Press, 2011
Schoenberg, A., Structural Functions of Harmony, rev. edn., ed. L. Stein, New York:
W. W. Norton, 1954
Schwab-Felisch, O., “Functions of the Unclear: Chromaticism in Beethoven’s
String Quartet in E-flat Major, Op. 74,” Dutch Journal of Music Theory 6
(2001), pp. 188–194
Seidel, W., “Riemann und Beethoven,” in Hugo Riemann (1849–1919):
Musikwissenschaftler mit Universalanspruch, ed. T. Böhme-Mehner and
K. Mehner, Cologne: Böhlau Verlag, 2001, pp. 139–151
Smith, C. J., “The Functional Extravagance of Chromatic Chords,” Music Theory
Spectrum 8 (1986), pp. 94–139; response by D. Beach and reply by C. J. Smith
in Music Theory Spectrum 9 (1987), pp. 173–194
Smith, P. H., “Structural Tonic or Apparent Tonic? Parametric Conflict, Temporal
Perspective, and a Continuum of Articulative Possibilities,” Journal of Music
Theory 39 (1995), pp. 245–283
“Tonal Pairing and Monotonality in Instrumental Forms of Beethoven, Schubert,
Schumann, and Brahms,” Music Theory Spectrum 35 (2013), pp. 77–102
Smyth, D. H., “Beethoven’s Last Bagatelle,” Intégral 13 (1999), pp. 117–142
Song, M. K., “The Evolution of Sonata-Form Design in Ludwig van Beethoven’s
Early Piano Sonatas, WoO 47 to Opus 22,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Texas at Austin, 2009
Spitzer, M., “The Significance of Recapitulation in the Waldstein Sonata,”
www.ebook3000.com
Metaphor and Musical Thought, University of Chicago Press, 2004

Music as Philosophy: Adorno and Beethoven’s Late Style, Bloomington: Indiana
Stanley, G., “Voices and Their Rhythms in the First Movement of Beethoven’s
Piano Sonata Op. 109: Some Thoughts on the Performance and Analysis of
a Late-Style Work,” in Beethoven and His World, ed. S. Burnham and
M. P. Steinberg, Princeton University Press, 2000, pp. 88–123
Suurpää, L., “Non-Tonic Openings in Three Beethoven Introductions,” in Essays
from the Third International Schenker Symposium, ed. A. Cadwallader,
Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 2006, pp. 51–66
“The Undivided Ursatz and the Omission of the Tonic Stufe at the Beginning of
the Recapitulation,” Journal of Schenkerian Studies 1 (2006), pp. 66–91
Taylor, B., “The Problem of the ‘Introduction’ in Beethoven’s Late Quartets,” Ad
Parnassum: A Journal of Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Instrumental
Music 3/6 (2005), pp. 45–64
Tovey, D. F., A Companion to Beethoven’s Pianoforte Sonatas: Bar-to-Bar Analysis,
London: Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music, 1931, 1947; ed.
B. Cooper, 1998
Tusa, M. C., “Beethoven and Opera: The Grave-Digging Duet in Leonore (1805),”
Wen, E., “Beethovens’s Meditation on Death: The Funeral March of the ‘Eroica’
Symphony,” Dutch Journal of Music Theory 10 (2005), pp. 9–25
Wintle, C., “Kontra-Schenker: Largo e mesto from Beethoven’s Op. 10 No. 3,”
Music Analysis 4 (1985), pp. 145–182
Index of Beethoven’s works
Piano Sonata in A Major (op. 2, no. 2), 33–34, Piano Sonata in E♭ Major (op. 7), 4–6, 11–12,
43–44, 77–79, 94–96 80–83, 92–94, 99–100
Piano Sonata in A Major (op. 101), 23, 25–27 Piano Sonata in E♭ Major (op. 27, no. 1),
Piano Sonata in A♭ Major (op. 26, “Funeral 24–25, 41–42, 74–77
March”), 45–48, 72–73, 255 Piano Sonata in E♭ Major (op. 31, no. 3),
Piano Sonata in A♭ Major (op. 110), 16 36–38, 79–80
Piano Sonata in B♭ Major (op. 22), 13–14, Piano Sonata in E♭ Major (op. 81a, “Les
42–43, 97–99 Adieux”), 89–91, 271, 272
Piano Sonata in B♭ Major (op. 106, Piano Sonata in F Major (op. 10, no. 2), 52–53,
“Hammerklavier”), 18–19 58–59
Piano Sonata in C Major (op. 2, no. 3), 32–33 Piano Sonata in F Major (op. 54), 31–32
Piano Sonata in C Minor (op. 10, no. 1), 61–63, Piano Sonata in F Minor (op. 2, no. 1), 30–31,
100–101 49–51
Piano Sonata in C Minor (op. 13, Piano Sonata in F Minor (op. 57,
“Pathétique”), 17–18, 64–66 “Appassionata”), 34–36, 83–85
Piano Sonata in C Minor (op. 111), 19–21 Piano Sonata in G Major (op. 14, no. 2), 10–11,
Piano Sonata in C♯ Minor (op. 27, no. 2, 27–28, 96–97
“Moonlight”), 8–10, 39–41 Piano Sonata in G Major (op. 31, no. 1), 51–52,
Piano Sonata in D Major (op. 10, no. 3), 14–15, 67–69
59–61, 96–97 Piano Sonata in G Major (op. 79), 56–58
Piano Sonata in D Major (op. 28, “Pastorale”), Piano Sonata in G Minor (op. 49, no. 1), 70–72
6–8, 29–30, 66–67
Piano Sonata in D Minor (op. 31, no. 2, String Quartet in A Minor (op. 132), 228–253
“Tempest”), 28–29, 120–138 String Quartet in B♭ Major (op. 18, no. 6),
Piano Sonata in E Major (op. 14, no. 1), 44–45, 105–119, 257
53–56 Symphony in A Major (op. 92), 163–173
Piano Sonata in E Major (op. 109),
174–227 Violin Sonata in A Minor (op. 47, “Kreutzer”),
Piano Sonata in E Minor (op. 90), 85–87 139–162
290
www.ebook3000.com
Index of names and concepts
Agawu, V. K., 275 enharmonic equivalence, 47, 77, 78, 80, 83,
antecedent/consequent, 19–20, 140 86, 94–95, 101, 107, 109, 111, 130, 132,
antipode, 46, 69, 78, 267 142, 180, 193, 220, 254, 255, 259, 260, 266,
applied dominant, 138, 145, 146, 158, 267, 269
260, 261 equal subdivisions of the octave, 46–47, 81, 111
arrow symbols (➔ and ), 6, 9
augmented sixth chords, 9, 34, 106, 108, figured bass, 13
209–210, 220
Gauldin, R., 163–173
back-relating dominant, 89, 122, 238,
239, 249 Halm, A., 255
bullet symbol, 9 Hatten, R. S., 274, 276
Burstein, L. P., 259 Haydn, J., 258
Hepokoski, J., 258
Caplin, W. E., 120–138, 260
Chopin, F., 259, 275 Kamien, R., 259
chromatic variant, 125, 132, 133, 146
circle of fifths, 39–48, 49, 51, 61, 67, 69, 70, Laufer, E., 257, 258, 259, 264, 265, 266
86–87, 89, 91, 144, 146, 148, 149, 152, 153, lower-third chord, 239
154, 155–156, 158, 196–197, 199, 202, 203, lowered supertonic see ♭II
208, 212, 216, 219, 221, 226, 236, 239, 242,
243, 247, 269, 273, 277 Marston, N., 174–227
circle of thirds, 18, 86 Mehrdeutigkeit, 170, 272
Cohn, R., 258 Mendelssohn, F., 272
collision, 24, 86, 188, 195, 197, 266 Mitchell, W. J., 105–119
common-tone diminished seventh chord, 42, modal mixture see parallel keys
133, 134, 259 modulo 7 vs. modulo 12, 46–47, 81–85, 111,
Cone, E. T., 270 112, 113, 114, 116, 255
cover tone, 161, 207, 214, 216, 219, 220, 221, multiple meaning see Mehrdeutigkeit
226, 260, 268
Neapolitan sixth see ♭II
elision, 8, 11, 15, 80, 84, 89, 111, 114,
133, 142, 144, 167, 176, 178, 213, 218, 234, obstinate progression, 114
240, 250
embellishing chord, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, parallel fifths, 34, 57, 91
16, 18–19, 24, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 38, 40, 42, parallel progression, 12, 59, 88, 89, 91
43, 44, 49, 53, 54, 57, 65, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 80, parenthetical passage, 92–101, 234, 238
85, 88, 97, 98, 100, 101, 106, 108, 113, 114, passing chord, 8, 15, 35, 36, 55, 70, 72, 86, 91,
116, 121, 122, 125, 130, 131, 133, 155, 158, 125, 176, 195
168, 170, 180, 181, 188, 197, 217, 225, 230, peculiar juxtapositions, 73
232, 233, 234, 238, 239, 243, 245, 249, 258, pedal point, 6
261, 265, 269 Picardy third, 55, 101
Engler, P. J., 269 Portmann, J. G., 269
291
292 Index of names and concepts
reaching-over, 145, 168 tonicization, 17, 24–25, 34, 38, 41, 51, 54, 55,
registral shift, 33 58, 59, 70, 77, 81, 83, 84, 88, 92, 97, 101,
Reicha, A., 264 106–107, 109, 111–112, 114, 116, 117, 127,
128, 133, 135, 144, 150, 152–153, 157, 179,
Samarotto, F., 228–253 181, 182, 184, 185, 193, 197, 198, 200, 224,
Schachter, C., 254 235, 236, 238, 239, 241, 242, 245, 249, 251,
Schenker, H., 163, 166, 172, 214, 255, 257, 260, 255, 256, 257, 261, 262, 275
262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 275 twelve-note chromatic space see modulo 7 vs.
Schmalfeldt, J., 139–162, 257, 259 modulo 12
Schubert, F., 228, 256, 261
Schumann, R., 269 unfurling, 13, 25, 29, 30, 55, 70, 72, 87, 88, 89,
seismic shift, 94, 205, 223, 270 115, 118, 130, 131, 166, 200, 213
sequence, 6, 11, 29–31, 33, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, upper-third chord, 47–48, 56, 64–73, 116, 117,
58–59, 64–65, 73, 77, 78–79, 80, 88–89, 114, 118, 132, 133, 135, 141, 142, 144, 146, 148,
122–123, 124–125, 134, 135, 136, 142, 144, 152, 157, 158, 161, 167, 256
146, 148, 152, 157, 159, 167, 177, 222, 256,
259, 260, 273 Vogler, G. J., 272
Stanley, G., 264 voice exchange, 16, 19, 26, 29, 31, 33, 35, 44, 70,
supersurge, 9, 12, 20–21, 22, 41, 53, 61, 72, 83, 72, 91, 121, 128, 130, 138, 143, 145, 177, 220,
101, 121, 134, 153, 154, 155, 157, 193, 195, 257, 261
197, 208, 215, 216, 219, 220, 224, 229, 233,
250, 268, 269, 270, 273, 275, 276 Weber, G., 264, 269
surge, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20–21, 22, wobbly note, 14, 33, 40, 44, 59, 79, 81, 87,
23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 38, 40, 101, 126, 133, 134, 150, 182, 208, 233, 243,
41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 259, 270
61, 64, 65, 67, 69, 70, 72, 73, 76, 78, 80, 85, 86,
87, 88, 89, 91, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 106, 107, 5–6 shift (5- and 6-phase chords), 3, 7, 8, 9,
108, 109, 111, 114, 116, 118, 121, 122, 123, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26,
124–125, 126–127, 128, 130, 131, 132, 133, 29, 31, 33, 34, 56, 57, 58, 59, 63, 65, 66–67,
134, 135, 138, 139, 140, 142, 143, 144, 147, 70, 72, 73, 76, 77, 79, 83, 85, 87, 89, 94, 96–97,
149, 150, 152, 154, 156, 157, 158, 163, 166, 98, 100, 106, 114, 121, 122–123, 124, 125,
167, 168, 170, 177, 179, 182, 184, 185, 188, 126, 127, 133, 134, 135, 139, 142, 143, 148,
193, 195, 196–197, 198, 199, 200, 202, 203, 154, 155, 158, 165, 166, 168, 188, 189, 194,
204, 207, 213, 215, 216, 217–219, 220, 222, 195, 204, 205, 209, 215, 220, 223, 225, 233,
223, 224, 229, 230, 232, 236, 238, 239, 240, 236, 238, 239, 254, 255, 259, 260, 267, 269,
245, 247, 249, 250, 258, 261, 263, 267, 269, 270, 275
270, 273, 274, 276 ♭II, 22, 34, 35, 42, 61, 87–88, 99, 101, 109, 116,
Suurpää, L., 260–261 131, 135, 161, 204, 205, 233
www.ebook3000.com

Harmony in Beethoven

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Harmony in Beethoven

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

www.ebook3000.

David Damschroder’s ongoing reformulation of harmonic theory

david damschroder is Professor of Music Theory at the University

Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge.

Preface [page vii]

part i methodological orientation: harmonielehre

1 IV as intermediary between I and V [3]

part ii masterpieces [103]

8 String Quartet in B♭ Major (op. 18, no. 6), La Malinconia in

Beethoven of course remains a central ﬁgure in the musical pantheon –

robust exploration of developments in tonal music after 1850, including

take the initiative to compare my perspective on Beethoven’s sonatas with

in the Harmonielehre section. (That practice also matches the Roman

Conventions regarding note relations, chords, keys,

II V I and not I ii V I; and A Minor: I II V♯ I♯ (closing on a major tonic), not

unfolded strands: a more prominent outer strand E>D>C, and a

Because measure numbers are a pervasive feature in my close analyses, I

Hundreds of chords transpire during a typical movement by Beethoven.

Realistically, though, the current conventional practice (with variants

The model presented in 1.1 corresponds to P, the primary-theme zone within

Analytical observations regarding the harmonic progression are dis-

As we turn to 28/I1–39, take a moment to explore the ﬁrst phrase (through

surge: D-F♯-A-C, F♯-A-C, F♯-A-C-E(♭), or D-F♯-A-C-E(♭). All of these

repetition (twenty measures of music) all transpire before this foundational

Op. 27, no. 2/III1–14

7’s subdominant), not A♯. It is common especially in C♯ Minor (though

Op. 14, no. 2/III204–213

may be deployed multiple times to form an ascending 5–6 sequence. In this

The trajectory connecting I and IV from 1.4 is presented again as 1.5a,

The Arabic numerals placed beside Roman numerals within analyses do

mutation of a diatonic pitch – a half-step shift followed by a restoration of

Op. 10, no. 3/II1–9

The expansion of a progression’s initial tonic via a harmonically conceived

for this passage, below which a hierarchically subordinate I–IV–V–I ana-

The scherzo character of 106/II0|1–7 is enhanced by the lively embellishing

During 111/I18|19–35 an antecedent phrase beginning at the upbeat to

dominant (the penultimate element of the broad progression spanning the

various evolutionary stages of II. That visual representation strongly con-

C Minor: ii Ø43 Ger+6 vii°7/v

Though II may emerge during the maneuvering between IV and V (as we

In 101/II54|55–64 (for which 2.1 may serve as a model), the B section of a

Op. 27, no. 1/III1–24

Beethoven’s poignant Adagio (27.1/III1–24) is in ternary form, with a motion

The key of F Major is established in 101/II0|1–8 by means of a broad

intermediary between I and a local V during the tonic prolongation that

Op. 14, no. 2/I47|48–63

Though V follows II, no cadence emerges. Consequently Beethoven

Op. 31, no. 2/II1–17

The period projected in 31.2/II1–17 (to which 2.5 corresponds) comes

Whereas the embellishing chord that extends through measures 3 and 4

It is not surprising that, since I5–6 is a characteristic means of attaining II, a

C5––––––––6 D5––––––––6 E5––––––––6 F5––––––––6 G5––––––––6 A5

In 28/IV79–83, Beethoven begins by passing swiftly between the tonic root

Op. 2, no. 1/III40|41–51

It is characteristic for a sequence such as that displayed in 2.6 to progress

The linear connection that initiates 54/II9–13 proceeds downwards in thirds in

That supertonic eventually takes on a surge character, targeting V.

Op. 2, no. 3/I13–26

In 2.3/I13–26, Beethoven at ﬁrst appears to be presenting a conﬁrmation of the

Op. 2, no. 2/II58–67

During 2.2/II58–67, the movement’s D Major tonal center is temporarily

F-A-C-E♭, which precedes the diatonic 6-phase chord. (Though the

In a sonata movement in F Minor, A♭ Major often will be tonicized during

mild sense of surge: the ear is delighted when A♭-C♭-F♭ proceeds to