A Performer's Guide To The Music For Saxophone of Edison Denisov

A Performers Guide to the Music of Edison Denisov:
Understanding the Interpretive Implications of his Musical Language in Sonata for Alto
Saxophone and Piano, Deux Pièces, and Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Cello
A DMA Document submitted to the
Division of Graduate Studies and Research

of the University of Cincinnati
in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF MUSICAL ARTS
In the Performance Studies Division

of the College-Conservatory of Music
13 November 2013
by
Michael VanPelt
M01441617
409 Probasco St. Apt.1
Cincinnati, OH 45220
B.M., University of Cincinnati College Conservatory of Music, 2004
M.M., Bowling Green State University, 2007
____________________________
Advisor—James Bunte
____________________________
Reader—David Berry
____________________________
Reader—Rick VanMatre
Abstract
This document presents analyses and interpretive guides for the Sonata for Alto
Saxophone and Piano, Deux Pièces, and the Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Cello, three
saxophone works by Edison Denisov, exploring formal design and serial techniques. Denisov
occupies an important position in the history of the saxophone. He promoted awareness of
extended techniques and serial language through his Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano, a
landmark work for the instrument. While most saxophonists realize that this work is serial, and
many can even identify the row, by itself this information provides little aid to the interpreter.
This document is intended to help illuminate the essential elements of Denisov’s musical
language, particularly its serial aspects, so that the performer can better understand it and achieve
a more satisfactory and meaningful interpretation of his works.
ii
iii
Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii
Notation........................................................................................................................................... v
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 1 - Biography..................................................................................................................... 2
Chapter 2 - Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano ....................................................................... 11
I. Allegro ................................................................................................................................... 13
II. Lento ..................................................................................................................................... 36
III. Allegro moderato................................................................................................................. 43
Chapter 3 - Deux Pièces ................................................................................................................ 67
I. Largo ...................................................................................................................................... 71
II. Allegro giusto ....................................................................................................................... 76
Chapter 4 - Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Cello........................................................................ 87
I. Allegro Risoluto ..................................................................................................................... 89

II. Tranquillo ........................................................................................................................... 101
III. Moderato ........................................................................................................................... 105
Chapter 5 - Suggestions for the performer .................................................................................. 114
Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano .................................................................................... 119

Deux Pièces ............................................................................................................................. 126
Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Cello ..................................................................................... 127
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 133
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 134
iv
Notation
This paper follows the naming conventions for sets and series outlined in Straus’s
Introduction to Post Tonal Theory, 2nd ed. I will use a “fixed do” approach, in which C is always
0, C# is always 1, etc. Pitches 10 and 11 will henceforth be notated as T and E respectively (so as
not to appear like 1 0 or 1 1). When labeling order positions of a tone row the first tone of the
row will be 1 and the final tone will be 12. Unless otherwise indicated, all pitch names and
numbers are sounding pitches, not written pitches for the saxophone. All of the works discussed
in this proposal are for the alto saxophone, which sounds nine semitones below its written
pitches. In all examples in which tones are labeled with numbers, in transposed portions I will
still label according to sounding pitch.
Terms and Abbreviations
IC – unordered interval class. The shortest distance between two pitch classes, regardless of
octave
Row Class – the complete set of transformed versions of the row. This includes all prime,
retrograde, inverted, and retrograde inverted forms.
v
Introduction
The saxophone has appeared in ensemble serial works since the 1930s, notably
Schoenberg’s Von Heute auf Morgen (1930), Webern’s op.22 Quartet (1932), and Berg’s Lulu
(1937). However, Edison Denisov’s Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano (1970) represents one
of the first important solo serial works for saxophone. Denisov’s music has become part of the
core repertoire of the modern saxophonist, particularly the Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano.
Saxophonists’ wide acceptance of this work helped blaze the trail for later serial saxophone
works, including those by Berio, Babbitt, and numerous others.
While saxophonists know that Denisov’s works are serial, there is little literature devoted
to explaining how this fact is musically meaningful and how it should influence interpretation.
Jonathan Helton’s DM document (and the article he distilled from it) provides a useful starting
point, but his focus was serial saxophone music in general, not Edison Denisov’s compositional
style. This document covers some of the same territory as Joren Cain’s analysis of Denisov’s
saxophone sonatas, but with more focus on the thematic and motivic relationships within and
among Denisov’s works. As I will detail later in this document, a number of other writers have
contributed to the discussion of Denisov’s works, particularly the saxophone and piano sonata,
and I will critique, synthesize, and expand upon their works as appropriate. I will also apply
these ideas to Deux Pièces and the Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Cello. Specifically, I will
present what I believe to be the most detailed analyses to date of the forms of each of these
pieces’ movements, using the motivic and thematic contents to justify my analytic and
interpretive decisions
1
Chapter 1 - Biography
Edison Denisov (1929-1996), who was named after Thomas Edison by his radio physicist
father,1 did not initially set out to become a composer. He began studying music formally at the
Tomsk (Russia) Music School in 1946 while concurrently studying math at the university. As
early as 1948 he contacted Shostakovich, inquiring about the elder composer’s compositions.2 In
1950 Denisov requested career advice, sent Shostakovich his scores, and received the following
response:
Dear Edik, your compositions have astonished me. If you don’t have the elementary
musical education, it is just a wonder how you could be so proficient in your composition
which looks fairly professional to me…Many things in your compositions I liked very
much. I believe that you are endowed with a great gift for composition. And it would be a
great sin to bury your talent…3
Shostakovich provided detailed comments on Denisov’s scores. They corresponded regularly as
Denisov slowly realized that he wished to become a composer. He followed Shostakovich’s
advice and completed his math degree in 1951, but by this point he had begun a serious pursuit
of music, applying to the Moscow Conservatory in 1950.4 He failed in his initial bid for
acceptance but was successful when he reapplied in 1951.5 Shostakovich encouraged Denisov to
study with Vissarion Shebalin who was, according to Shostakovich, the best composition teacher
1
Ivan Spasov, “And the Participants: Edison Denisov – Ivan Spasov,” trans. Denitsa VanPelt, Bulgarska
Muzika, vol.3 (1989): 20.
2
Yuri Kholopov and Valeria Tsenova, Edison Denisov, trans. Romela Kohanovskaya (Chur, Switzerland:
Harwood Academic Publishers, 1995), 167.
3
Ibid., 168.
4
Ibid., 170-174.
5
Peter John Schmelz, “Listening, Memory, and the Thaw: Unofficial Music and Society in the Soviet
Union, 1956-1974” (PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 2002), 149.
2
in the Soviet Union.6 Shebalin had a reputation for flexibility and forward-vision that his
colleagues lacked. He had been removed as director of the conservatory in 1948 under a charge
of “formalism,” though he was restored to the composition faculty in 1951.7 Shebalin exposed
his students to a wide range of traditional and modern compositions, including off-limits works
by Mahler, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, and Hindemith.8 At the
conservatory Denisov became, according to Schmelz, “one of the leading figures of his
generation, second in influence only to Volkonsky.”9 Ultimately, Denisov taught analysis,
counterpoint, and orchestration at the conservatory, though not composition until 1990, after the
fall of the USSR.10
The repressive artistic and political climate during the Soviet years lead to Denisov’s
difficulties with the establishment. An understanding of Denisov’s musical language, particularly
how and why it differs from composers geographically close to him like his Western European
contemporary Boulez, requires an understanding of this political atmosphere. In the words of one
of Denisov’s classmates, Nikolai Karetnikov:
I was able to hear Wagner at age 16 and I should have heard him at 11 or 12. Mahler
should probably have followed at 15, and not at 23, and the Second Viennese School at
6
Kholopov, 171, 175.
7
"Shebalin, Vissarion," The Oxford Dictionary of Music, 2nd ed. rev., Oxford Music Online, Oxford
University Press, accessed August 26, 2013, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/opr/t237/e9368;
Inna Barsova, "Shebalin, Vissarion Yakovlevich," Grove Music Online, Oxford Music Online, Oxford University
Press, accessed August 27, 2013, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/25617.
8
Schmelz (2002), 7.
9
Ibid.
10
Michael Norsworthy and Gerard McBurney, "Denisov, Edison," Grove Music Online, Oxford Music
Online, Oxford University Press, accessed August 26, 2013,
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/53202; Kholopov, 30.
3
18 and not 27. 8-9 years were stolen from the lives of my generation, the most important
for the development of a person, and these losses will never be made good by anyone.11
Denisov operated under the same restrictions as Karetnikov. From 1932 on, each of the artistic
disciplines in the Soviet Union was placed under the control of a union that answered to the
communist party.12 The union was charged with promoting “Socialist Realism” which, with
respect to instrumental music, can be very difficult to define. An extensive discussion of this
rather obtuse term is outside the scope of this document, but in brief Socialist Realism was meant
to be uplifting to the masses.13 The authorities favored pieces on revolutionary subjects in
established, non-controversial musical styles. Anything outside of this vein was denounced as
“formalist,” a charge that indicated “working within the bourgeois category of the autonomous
art work, according to which art had no necessary causal relationship with the economic and
social context in which it was produced.”14 The vagueness and breadth of the term allowed it to
encompass almost anything the party officials deemed undesirable. Virtually all sources agree
that these strictures relaxed during the war years, but in 1948 Andrey Zhdanov cracked down on
so-called “formalists” including Shostakovich and Shebalin.15 Stalin’s death and Khrushchev’s
11
Aleksandr Selitskiy, “Nikolai Karetnikov,” (Rostov-na-Donu: Kniga, 1997), 64 Quoted in Schmelz
(2002), 43.
12
Jonathan Walker, "Socialist Realism," in The Oxford Companion to Music, Oxford Music Online,
Oxford University Press, accessed July 10, 2013,
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/subscriber/article/opr/t114/e6274.
13
Ibid.
14
Jonathan Walker, "Formalism," in The Oxford Companion to Music, Oxford Music Online, Oxford
University Press, accessed July 10, 2013,
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/subscriber/article/opr/t114/e2625.
15
Ibid.; "Shebalin, Vissarion," The Oxford Dictionary of Music, 2nd ed. rev., Oxford Music Online,
Oxford University Press, accessed July 10, 2013,
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/25617.
4
rise led to a “thaw” in the restrictive practices of the communist regime.16 While music inspired
by the Western avant-garde was not encouraged, it was likewise not suppressed harshly in the
way so-called “formalist” music would have been under Stalin. Denisov and his contemporaries
were thus able to operate in two spheres: Denisov had his official job teaching at the
conservatory, for which he drew a salary and was provided an apartment by the union, while he
simultaneously composed pieces that were denied publication and performance.17 The regime
enforced its strictures inconsistently. While Denisov was condemned for his twelve-tone work
The Sun of the Incas, composers with better standing in the party such as Rodion Shchedrin were
permitted to explore twelve-tone techniques.18 Denisov often had to look outside of Russia for
opportunities to premier works, though the government often obstructed his foreign
engagements.19
The Soviet music libraries contained scores and sound recordings of, for their time,
cutting-edge music from the West, but students needed special permission to access them.20 As a
student Denisov resorted to a variety of methods to secure scores, though the unofficial and
semiofficial means of obtaining them limited the scope of his studies. Even composers that to a
Westerner in the 1960s would not have seemed controversial (e.g. Mahler, Richard Strauss,
Debussy, and Prokofiev) were off limits. This limited access to libraries, coupled with scores
smuggled in by foreigners, enabled the young Soviet composers to get only a filtered glimpse of
the world beyond the officially sanctioned music of the USSR. Many of the students worked to
16
Schmelz (2002), xii-xiii.
17
Ibid., xix-xxii.
18
Ibid., xxx.
19
Kholopov, 20-23.
20
Schmelz (2002), 4-5.
5
evade these prohibitions, with varying degrees of success. Denisov and Volkonsky lived in the
same apartment building and they held informal listening sessions of unsanctioned music.21
Denisov procured materials from a roommate (Frenchman Gerard Frémy), Richard Taruskin
passed out recordings secured from the US embassy, and both Volkonsky and Denisov cultivated
relationships with foreigners outside of the country.22 Notably, Denisov corresponded with Luigi
Nono extensively.
Denisov drifted from the more acceptable, traditional methods towards the avant-garde,
particularly after completing his studies at the conservatory. As Schmelz deduces through his
readings of contemporary music journals, the establishment viewed Denisov’s early works more
or less favorably.23 This attitude did not last. His works were essentially banned at home by the
mid 1960s and he was forced to rely on foreign performances for premieres.24 In these years
following his graduation from the conservatory and his appointment as a professor, Denisov
began to explore works forbidden to him during his conservatory education. Denisov referred to
these years as his “second conservatory.”25 If any one event stands out as the spark for this
exploration, it may have been Glenn Gould’s tour of Russia in 1957. In addition to his official
concerts, Gould gave lecture-recitals on the music of the Second Viennese School, including
compositions by Berg, Webern, and Krenek. Denisov was present for Gould’s recital in Moscow,
and given the heretical place of Schoenberg and his disciples in the USSR at the time, it likely
21
Ibid., (2002), 30.
22
Ibid., (2002), 25-30.
23
Schmelz (2002), 149-150.
24
Kholopov, 20-25.
25
Dmitriy Shul’gin, Priznaniye Edisona Denisova po materialam besed (Moscow: Kompozitor, 1998), 22
Quoted in Schmelz (2002), 19.
6
was one of Denisov’s first encounters with a live performance of such music. As Schmelz notes,
a recital with a few verbal program notes could hardly sum up all of the intricacies of Webern,
Berg, Krenek, and Boulez, especially with the impromptu translation of Gould’s explanations
and without scores to study.26 Eventually Denisov procured copies of and studied works of the
Second Viennese School on his own, publishing analyses and expressing admiration for
Webern’s works in particular.27
Denisov’s pieces at times reference “classical” twelve-tone techniques, but his style bears
the markings of his filtered access to materials. Denisov was still working to grasp the rudiments
of the twelve-tone system in the early 1960s with pieces like his piano variations and his violin
sonata while his Western contemporaries had moved well past these basic methods.28 Denisov
and his contemporaries composed pieces in the 1960s that seemed at best behind the West and at
worst copies of territory already covered.29 Due to Denisov’s limited access to materials, the
works of his contemporaries in Moscow have as much bearing on his style as the “classics” of
dodecaphonic music. Cairns and Schmelz both devote significant energy to the analysis of
Andrei Volkonsky’s Musica Stricta, likely the first twelve-tone piece by a Soviet composer. Like
Volkonsky, Denisov experimented with multi-row serialism, for instance in the third movement
of the Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano.
I will discuss three works for saxophone, all of which were dedicated to a specific
performer. Denisov claimed to write vocal works by choice and instrumental works by
26
Schmelz (2002), 53-58.
27
Spasov, 21.
28
Schmelz (2002), 148.
29
Schmelz (2002), 43-46.
7
commission.30 Denisov’s first collaboration with a saxophonist, the legendary performer and
pedagogue Jean-Marie Londeix, resulted in the Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano. This work
has achieved a prominent place in the standard repertoire. Its presence is all but universal on the
repertoire lists of saxophone teachers throughout the world. It receives regular performances at
national and international conferences, and it is a popular choice for master classes at universities
and conferences. Londeix championed the avant-garde and became noteworthy for, among other
things, his use of extended techniques, some of which appear in Denisov’s works for saxophone.
Denisov was not familiar with the capabilities and idiosyncrasies of the saxophone, so Londeix
recorded himself and sent the recording to Denisov.31
A performer needs to understand the musical material, including the ways in which
Denisov employs particular motives and constructs his rows, in order to present an informed
interpretation. Dmitri Shostakovich famously used a musical monogram, DSCH (D-Eb-C-B), in
a number of his works, a motive Denisov appropriates uses throughout the sonata. The most
important form of the row, P2 (D-Eb-C-B-C#-G#-A-Bb-G-F#-E-F), begins with DSCH and its
second hexachord begins with a transposition of this motive. Denisov composed this sonata in
1970, the year after he composed DSCH for clarinet, trombone, cello, and piano. DSCH may be
the first work by a Soviet composer other than Shostakovich to feature this musical monogram.32
DSCH, like the sonata, is a serial work that features its namesake motive in its row. “Denisov’s
work, composed six years before Shostakovich’s passing, illustrates the tenuous relationship
between Shostakovich and the next generation of ‘unofficial’ composers, and thus reflects the
30
Spasov, 21.
31
James Umble, Jean-Marie Londeix: Master of the Modern Saxophone (Cherry Hill, NJ: Roncorp, 2000),
222.
32
Peter J. Schmelz, “What Was ‘Shostakovich,’ and What Came Next?” The Journal of Musicology, Vol.
24, No. 3 (Summer 2007): 310. Accessed July 29, 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/jm.2007.24.3.297
8
tensions between ‘official’ and ‘unofficial,’ public and private…”33 Denisov owed much to
Shostakovich professionally but, as his writings indicate, over the course of his life he moved
from copying Shostakovich’s style to seeing the elder composer’s musical language as
“foreign.”34 In fact Schmelz interprets DSCH as a critique of the elder composer more than
homage, since Denisov quotes in close proximity both Shostakovich and Schoenberg, with
Denisov’s own personal (serial) style eventually prevailing.35 This may or may not be fair, since
Shostakovich experimented with dodecaphony at around this same time that Denisov composed
these works.36 The musical content of the Sonata has little to do with Shostakovich; perhaps it
continues the idea of DSCH, further divorcing Shostakovich’s own monogram from his musical
context. Denisov incorporates the motive into his own musical language in such a way that it
only resembles its genesis in passing. While the motive appears with great frequency in the
Sonata, particularly at important points of punctuation, the melodic and harmonic languages are
Denisov’s own, not Shostakovich’s.
Denisov’s Deux Pièces, dedicated to the first saxophone professor at the Moscow
Conservatory, Lev Mikhailov, receives much less attention than his sonatas, but it shares many
of the sonatas’ key stylistic features. It was composed in 1971, the year after the Sonata for Alto
Saxophone and Piano.
Denisov’s Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Cello was dedicated to and premiered by the
current professor of saxophone at the CNSM in Paris, Claude Delangle, another strong proponent
33
Ibid., 306.
34
Ibid.
35
Ibid., 309-310.
36
Peter J. Schmelz, “Shostakovich’s ‘Twelve-Tone’ Compositions and the Politics and Practice of Soviet
Serialism” in Shostakovich and his World edited by Laurel E. Fay, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
2004), 303-321.
9
of contemporary music and one of the most prominent living saxophonists. Denisov completed
the score in October 1994.37 This work was among Denisov’s last, since he died in 1996
following a protracted period of illness in the 1990s, notably due to an automobile accident and
later cancer.38
Approaching these works can be a tremendous challenge for the performer. Aside from
the significant technical demands, these pieces are easy to dismiss as too esoteric and thus not
worthy of performance. While we might otherwise associate pre-compositional processes with
needlessly intellectual music, Denisov’s rows and derived motives help create a sense of
continuity within and among his movements and works. He also takes a great deal of liberty with
his approach, never allowing any “rules” of twelve-tone music to limit his compositional
freedom. Oddly, Denisov’s approach to serialism resembles the eclectic and flexible approach of
his American contemporaries more than it does the more rigid approach of the European
composers of his day. He uses rows as source material, and members of the row class even
appear frequently at the musical surface of some of his works, but his pieces do not rigidly spit
out a result determined largely by his pre-compositional work.39 If there is such a thing as a
monolithic twelve-tone school, especially as concerns the integral serial works of the Darmstadt
composers, it has little to do with Denisov’s style. The twelve-tone row serves as a resource, and
he exploits it in a variety of motivic, melodic, and harmonic ways.
37
Claude Delangle, The Russian Saxophone, recorded July 1995, BIS Records CD-765, 1995, CD, liner
notes, 5.
38
Norsworthy, "Denisov, Edison."
39
Joseph Straus, Twelve-Tone Music in America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). This
largely mirrors the argument Straus makes regarding American serial composers over the course of Part I in Twelve-
Tone Music in America. Straus uses examples from 37 composers to disprove the idea of an orthodox twelve-tone
style. Schmelz (2002) proves essentially the same thing concerning the Soviet composers of Denisov’s generation,
though it is not his main point.
10
Chapter 2 - Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano
Denisov’s Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano has received far more scholarly attention
than any of his other works for saxophone.1 It is both serial and dodecaphonic: all three
movements feature at least one instance of the twelve-tone row. He prominently features the
twelve-tone aggregate and uses both the ordered row and its subsets as building blocks of
musical ideas. Denisov openly expressed admiration for Webern and published analyses of a
number of his works.2 This work’s pointilistic textures and some of its procedures may evoke
Webern, but Denisov’s works do not resemble those of his Western European contemporaries
that used Webern as a model. Denisov allows harmonic, melodic, and contrapuntal
considerations to dictate changes to the row, for instance when he switches order positions in
otherwise clear statements of members of the row class. Denisov’s formal clarity and use of
familiar procedures, such as sequences, provide clear aural landmarks and make the work
accessible.
An analysis of Denisov’s Sonata may initially suggest an emphasis on serial techniques.

The two outer movements begin with what could be interpreted as a twelve tone row, and
all movements are at times suggestive of the influences of Webern and Berg. A closer
look reveals that, though the work draws upon all twelve tones for its pitch resources and
exhibits some evidence of 12 tone lines, the ordered row is not the structural basis of the
work and usage is not in accordance with normal dodecaphonic procedures.3
1
Joren Cain, “The Saxophone Sonatas of Edison Denisov: a Study of Continuity,” in The Saxophone
Symposium 24 (1999), 26-40; Denise Dabney, “A Multicultural Approach to Edison Denisov’s Sonata for Alto
Saxophone and Piano” in The Saxophone Symposium 1995; Jonathan Helton, “Edison Denisov’s Sonata for
Saxophone and Piano: An Analysis for the Performer,” in The Saxophone Symposium 25 (2000), 16-38; Yuri
Kholopov and Valeria Tsenova, Edison Denisov, trans. Romela Kohanovskaya (Chur, Switzerland: Harwood
Academic Publishers, 1995); James Umble, Jean-Marie Londeix: Master of the Modern Saxophone (Cherry Hill,
NJ: Roncorp, 2000), 222-225.
2
Kholopov, 14.
3
Dabney, 10.
11
This statement underscores the fallacy that Straus devotes an entire book to debunking.4 Dabney
seems to believe that twelve-tone music must adhere to a system with machine-like consistency,
and that “normal dodecaphonic procedures” exist. Straus’s analyses of twelve-tone literature
demonstrate the remarkable variety of styles that we can call serial or dodecaphonic.5 Alterations
to the row do not disqualify a work as twelve-tone. Furthermore, members of the row class
pervade this particular work from beginning to end, often punctuating the form and lending
thematic and motivic coherence to the piece. As Cairns and Helton’s analyses demonstrate, one
cannot credibly argue that this piece is not serial or is only serial in a superficial way. An
understanding of Denisov’s musical language, particularly the form and his serial procedures,
enables a more informed and authentic performance of this composition.
As discussed in the preceding chapter, despite never formally studying composition with
Shostakovich, Denisov owed him much. Denisov expressed this connection to Shostakovich
musically, for instance by bestowing the title DSCH on his quartet for clarinet, cello, trombone,
and piano in 1969. This work relies on Shostakovich’s famous musical monogram (D-Eb-C-B).
The following year, he composed his saxophone and piano sonata. Like his DSCH quartet, The
Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano uses this musical monogram prominently. The first and
third movements begin with unambiguous, untransposed statements of this famous motive
(sounding D-Eb-C-B, written as B-C-A-G# in the saxophone). Denisov designed the row such
that a second, transposed instance of this motive occurs in order positions 7-10 (sounding A-Bb-
G-F#, written F#-G-E-D#). Helton points out that the row produces common tetrachords via T5,
4
Joseph Straus, Twelve-Tone Music in America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
5
Straus (2009), 1-173.
12
T10I, and T5I.6 While order is not maintained exactly in the inverted forms, this produces the
potential for the DSCH tetrachord to appear in four different row forms. Denisov emphasizes the
DSCH motive at important points of form, creating a sense of resonance between sections and
movements.
It is difficult to determine how Denisov felt about Shostakovich at the time he composed
this sonata and what musical significance the DSCH motive carries. Neither this sonata nor
DSCH sound much like Shostakovich. In DSCH the serial elements eventually win out over the
more tonal ones, leading Schmelz to view it as a critique of Shostakovich.7 If we accept
Schmelz’s interpretation, we could reasonably view Denisov’s sonata as a further, sharper artistic
or personal critique of Shostakovich.
At times Denisov follows strict transformational processes, and others he alters or
segments the row at will. This first movement features sections with clear, unambiguous,
complete row statements as well as sections where the row is segmented and transformed to
varying degrees. Distinguishing these sections helps illuminate the form.
I. Allegro
Denisov uses the P2 form of the row almost as a main theme for the outer movements of
the work, frequently offering the listener altered but comprehensible statements. The saxophone
begins the work by stating nine of the twelve tones of the row, with the piano supplying the
missing three (see Example 2.1).
6
Jonathan Helton, “An Essay on the Performance of Serial Music, with Analyses and Commentary on
Works for Saxophone by Luciano Berio, Edison Denisov and Guy Lacour (DM document, Northwestern University,
1996), 89.
7
Union, 1956-1974” (PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 2002), 309-310.
13
Example 2.1, mm. 1-3
The 12x12 matrix in Figure 2.1 allows us to see the various transformations of the row
(including P, R, I, and RI forms).
Figure 2.1
P R
I 0 1 T 9 E 6 7 8 5 4 2 3
E 0 9 8 T 5 6 7 4 3 1 2
2 3 0 E 1 8 9 T 7 6 4 5
3 4 1 0 2 9 T E 8 7 5 6
1 2 E T 0 7 8 9 6 5 3 4
6 7 4 3 5 0 1 2 E T 8 9
5 6 3 2 4 E 0 1 T 9 7 8
4 5 2 1 3 T E 0 9 8 6 7
7 8 5 4 6 1 2 3 0 E 9 T
8 9 6 5 7 2 3 4 1 0 T E
T E 8 7 9 4 5 6 3 2 0 1
RI 9 T 7 6 8 3 4 5 2 1 E 0
14
In this work more than either of the other two discussed in this document, Denisov extensively
explores the members of the above row class, though P2 remains the most important form
throughout. This speaks to another of the myths Straus attempts to dispel, the myth that all
twelve-tone pieces are expressly non-referential, avoiding the kinds of associations we expect in
tonal music.8 P2 begins with a motive that evokes Shostakovich, referencing a more conservative
musician and connecting to a well-known musical tradition. The continual restatement of this
motive gives it a kind of gravity akin to a key center, one that the composer reinforces by
returning to at important moments in the piece.
While musicians may differ in their analytic approaches to the piece, the fact that there is
such wide consensus regarding the form is a testament to Denisov’s clarity. Denisov’s textural
variety punctuates the form so clearly that one can arrive at a reasonable interpretation of the
form without investigating the dodecaphonic elements, though I believe such analysis can
enhance our understanding of the form and phrase structure. Helton extensively analyzed this
sonata, including the properties of the row. He outlines movement one as follows: Section 1 from
mm. 1-41, Section 2 from mm. 42-99, and a coda from m.100 to the end.9 Dabney, despite her
dismissal of the serial elements of the piece, proposes a very similar formal diagram.10 Dabney
uses the “three note motive” (she fails to recognize the fourth note which completes DSCH) as a
signal for important moments in the form, specifically at mm. 1, 26, 42, and 100.11 Measure 26
8
Straus (2009), 185-186.
9
1996) 91.
10
Dabney describes the movement’s form as A-B-A’ rather than A-B-Coda, but she places the divisions in
the same places as Helton. See pp.10-12 of her article for her analysis of the first movement.
11
Dabney, 10-11.
15
does not begin a main section of the form, but it does begin a significant subsection. While
Dabney’s analysis misses many of the key serial features of the piece, she still points her reader
to the indispensability of this motive.
Understanding the form enables an informed realization of the piece, as I will discuss in
chapter 5. Figure 2.2 shows the form of this movement, which includes two roughly parallel
sections followed by a coda. The musical material and textures of each subsection of B resonate
with the subsections of A.
Figure 2.2
Section: A B Coda
Subsection: a1 a2 b1 b2 c1 c2 d1 d2
mm. 1-16 17-25 26-33 34-41 42-60 61-73 74-84 85-99 100-end
length in measures 16 9 8 8 9 13 11 15 18
A divides nearly evenly, with two subsections separated by the silence of m.25: a (mm. 1-
24) and b (mm. 26-44). Denisov demonstrates many of his compositional tools in the
introductory subsection (mm. 1-16). At the beginning the piano line is largely subservient to the
saxophone line: it plays countermelodies (m.2, m.4) and fills in sustained tones and silences
(m.3, m.7, m.15). Aside from the lines in m.2 and m.4, the piano plays only block chords from
the beginning through m.16. In these measures the saxophone carries the melody, the piano
accompanies.
Denisov fills this subsection with statements of row forms, some of which come to the
fore of the texture, others of which are buried in the background. It is not necessary to associate
every tone with the row to understand the shape of this subsection (though it is certainly possible
to do so). While Denisov often states complete rows in a single voice in other sections of the
16
piece, in this section Denisov prefers to split the row among the voices. This segmentation
frequently involves reordering and repetition of sections of the row (see Example 2.2).
The numbers in this example refer to order positions in the P5 version of the row. In mm. 7-10 he
maintains order through the first six tones. Denisov interrupts the orderly succession of tones in
m.8 with the written C#-G#-A-B in the saxophone (order positions 5, 6, 7, 4, 3 of P5), followed
by the twelfth and eleventh tones of the row (written F and E), finally completing the row in
m.10 with the eighth through tenth tones of the row. This chord that completes the row also
exemplifies another common Denisov device: repetition of tones from the row. Along with the
seventh through tenth tones of the row (0, 1, T, and 9), he includes PCs 4 and 11, which had
already sounded as a dyad four times in the saxophone (mm. 7-8, written C#-G#). These should
not be viewed as errors or violations of any sort of serial law, but rather Denisov creatively
manipulating his source material.
Measure 17 (the beginning of a2) marks the first significant change in texture, a point at
which the piano becomes equal in importance to the saxophone. Here Denisov begins to work
towards the second part of the opening section, b, which begins in m.26. Denisov employs a
three-part imitative device in this measure, beginning with the right hand of the piano, followed
17
by the saxophone, and finally the left hand of the piano, with the voices beginning on the second,
fourth, and sixth 32nd notes of the measure respectively (see Example 2.3).
He only imitates rhythm, since the pitches follow the order of P11. This type of imitation appears
frequently in this movement (mm. 27, 34, 37, 44) and in his other works, particularly Deux
Pièces. Note also how Denisov overlaps statements of P4 and P11 leading into m.17. He segments
P4 into three tetrachords: order positions 1-4 in the piano (m.15), 5-8 in the saxophone (mm. 15-
16), and 9-12 in the piano (m.16). The piano tetrachords appear as harmonies, the saxophone
tetrachord as part of a line. The row provides material for both vertical and horizontal elements
of the music. As mentioned earlier, the first four tones of a row match the four tones that begin
the second hexachord of a row related by T5 (see Figure 2.3).
Figure 2.3
P4: 4 5 2 1 3 T E 0 9 8 6 7
P E: E 0 9 8 T 5 6 7 4 3 1 2
Denisov’s reordering allows him to transition smoothly between two row forms that otherwise
would not flow easily from one to the next. He maintains sufficient intervallic integrity to allow
18
these segments of the row to sound as coherent motives drawn from the row, not just as
abstractions related to it. What follows in mm. 19-24 helps dissolve the initial phrase and propel
us towards b.
Denisov’s contrapuntal material at m.19 abandons complete row statements. The
saxophone and the left hand of the piano state relatively clear row fragments, notably when the
saxophone begins with order positions 5-8 and 10-11 of RI2 and the piano ends with order
positions 5-8 of P5 (see Example 2.4).
Example 2.4, m.19
Even though Denisov chooses to abandon the relative predictability of successive row forms, he
still uses distinct subsets in a way that recalls the source row, though unlike the previous
example from mm. 15-16 these fragments do not complete a twelve-tone aggregate. Like many
of the later sections, as Denisov works towards the end of a section he abandons predictable
procedures in favor of increased tension and greater density of texture.
In m.21 he presents a hexachord in the piano that could be part of a row (perhaps I8), but
he never completes it. It interrupts the building tension by recalling the repeated 32nd note piano
19
gestures from the more stable part of this section (mm. 7, 8, 10, and 12). The row acts somewhat
like a tonal center, and references to it impart a sense of stability while deviations increase the
tension and drama. We could attribute the fragments in mm. 22-24 to various row forms, but
doing so misses the point. Denisov abandons completing the twelve-tone aggregate as he closes
this section. The fragmented pitch content along with the complex, overlapping rhythms in all
three voices complicate the texture and contribute to the perceived chaos. These sections of
dense, complex rhythms sound almost aleatoric because of the ways they obscure the beats with
rhythmic ratios. Denisov experimented with aleatory in the 1960s, notably towards the end of his
twelve-tone work The Sun of the Incas.12 In the context of this movement, this seeming
suspension of the pulse provides contrast to the rapid-fire sections of 16th and 32nd notes,
allowing the clarity of the coming phrase to come as a relief.
P2 returns at the beginning of b1 (m.26). As it will throughout the piece, P2 represents a
return to stable material. The tones match the beginning (octaves changes aside), with only one
change to the order: the Bb in the top voice of the piano, which should be the eighth tone of the
row, sounds before the saxophone’s F#, which should be the seventh tone (see Example 2.5).
12
Schmelz (2002), 416-417.
20
This alteration leaves the row intelligible, providing a return to the main theme of the piece. For
the first time, the DSCH motive appears completely in one voice (m.26 in the saxophone). This
phrase combines the textures from mm. 1 and 17. In m.27 all three parts return to the 32nd note
imitative idea first introduced in m.17. Denisov introduces two additional row forms that
accompany P2: I0 from the end of m.26 until the middle of m.27, and RIT from the middle of
m.27 through the first two pitches in m.29 (see Example 2.6).
These overlapping row forms continue through m.32. P2 serves as a main theme while the other
forms serve as countermelodies. Denisov relies on chains of rows to generate the material in b1.
Following the silence of m.33, b2 begins with the return of the imitative idea from m.17
(a2). Denisov alters the rhythm relative to its initial appearance. Instead of groups of five 32nd
21
notes, each part plays five 32nds, four 32nds, and then six 32nds, with each statement separated by
a 32nd rest. The saxophone breaks from the other two voices at the end of m.34, moving from P7
to I7 (see Example 2.7).
Measures 37-39 proceed through I4 and I2 row forms in much the same way as mm. 34-35,
though this time the contour of the bottom voice is inverted. Measure 40 concludes b (and
section A) with a chaotic sounding, disjunct, jumble of tones much like the aleatoric sounding
conclusion of a2. Denisov compliments the surface chaos of the measure with an odd
transformation of the row. The saxophone, along with the two highest tones of the piano,
completes the twelve-tone aggregate, though not in the expected order. The tones most closely
match R1, but with the following order positions: 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 1, 2, 4, 3, 5, 6 (see
Example 2.8).
22
Example 2.8, m.40
Denisov creates resonance between sections a and b by using similar procedures at the ends of
each of these sections.
The texture and pitch material of the opening phrase of B (c1) resemble the beginning of
the movement, the first of many points of resonance between sections A and B. The first two
measures of each section in particular parallel each other closely. In m.42 the saxophone sounds
P2 with the missing fourth tone again supplied by the piano, though it appears early this time (see
Example 2.9).
23
Denisov also reverses the order of tones seven and eight in m.43. The rhythmic ideas, contours,
articulation patterns, and characters of the lines parallel but slightly displace the ideas of the
opening. Each idea from mm. 42-50 corresponds to an idea from the opening (see Example
2.10).
Example 2.10
24
The ideas are remarkably similar but they do not come in the same order. Measures 44, 45, and
46 correspond to mm. 5, 4, and 7 respectively. Denisov does not literally rewrite every measure
from the opening, since the ideas flow faster in B than they did in A. Measures1-9 and 42-46 run
parallel to each other, with the former encompassing 44 sixteenths and the later 27 sixteenths
(since the meter changes so frequently, counting sixteenths makes more sense than counting
measures). B starts with a reordered diminution of A’s opening. Denisov jumps ahead in m.47,
which instead of corresponding to material in the vicinity of m.9 as expected instead references
the imitative figure from m.17. The piano does not imitate the saxophone this time. Instead the
saxophone echoes the multi voice effect by changing registers drastically (the intervals in
semitones are: -13, +10, -23) in m.48. Denisov’s reuse of recognizable rhythmic and melodic
ideas accentuates the strong sense of connection between A and B.
Cairns, in his analysis of movement III, identifies three methods that Denisov uses to
move from one row form to another: RICH, TR-Chain, and PC-Chain.13 These techniques serve
much the same function as modulation in tonal music. While Cairns confined his analysis to the
final movement, as multi-row techniques were his focus and only the last movement has more
than one row, Denisov employs two of these methods in this section of the first movement. The
first of these, which Cairns call TR-Chain, takes advantage of the presence of IC 1 at both the
beginning and the end of the row. This shared interval allows Denisov to chain together different
transpositions of the row with the final two tones of one row becoming the first two tones of the
next. Helton also observed this phenomenon.14 Denisov uses this technique twice in this section:
moving from P2 to P4 in m.45 (see Example 2.11) and from P7 to P9 in m.53.
13
Zachary A. Cairns, “Multiple-Row Serialism in Three Works by Edison Denisov” (PhD diss., University
of Rochester, 2010), 127-132.
14
Helton (2000),18; Helton (1996), 85.
25
Example 2.11, mm. 42-47
Denisov generates large section of the third movement by chaining rows a whole step apart in
this manner. Between the two shared dyad modulations above, Denisov employs the second of
Cairns’ techniques, PC-Chain, when he moves from P4 to P7 (m.50). The final tone of P4 and the
first of P7 is PC 7, creating a quasi-common tone modulation (see Example 2.12).
Example 2.12, mm.49-51
Denisov flows from one idea to the next in mm. 42-60, creating a long, seamless phrase. The
final transition in this section functions differently than the other two; rather than taking
advantage of commonalities between the joined row forms, Denisov uses a motivic device to
move between P9 and I1. P9 concludes with PCs 1, E, and 0 in m.54. I1 begins with PCs 1 and 0 in
m.55, maintaining the register from the preceding motive (see Example 2.13).
Example 2.13, mm. 53-55
26
Denisov states two versions of a motive, eliminates the second tone on the repetition, and
transforms it into the beginning of the new row form. Again, Denisov transforms the row as
necessary to facilitate the motion he desires instead of allowing a rigid ordering of the tones to
constrain him. Denisov employs these row linking techniques frequently in this and the third
movement. I will discuss the implications for the performer in chapter five.
Measures 51-60 build tension, working towards c1’s conclusion. Throughout this
movement the shifting meter signatures work to disorient the listener, but Denisov intensifies the
effect here. The meter changes every measure for these ten measures, and within many of the
measures Denisov uses slurs and beams to indicate shifting note groupings, freely mixing duples
and triples. The presence of rhythmic ratios in the piano (m.53) and saxophone (m.59) written
against 32nd notes distorts the sense of pulse and foreshadows the frequent disagreements
between the parts in the coming section.
The fluttertongue in m.61, the first extended technique of the Sonata, marks the
beginning of c2. The tension here exceeds that of any previous section thanks to the harsh timbre
in the saxophone, the fortissimo dynamic level, the complex rhythmic relationship between the
instruments, and the dense chords in the piano sustained by the pedal. The increase in textural
density from c1 to c2 parallels the change from a1 to a2, continuing the strong sense of
connection between A and B.
The relationship between the two subsections of c parallels the relationship between a’s
subsections. They both begin by concluding rows that began in their respective preceding
sections. Denisov completes P11 in mm. 17-18 (a2) and I1 in mm. 61-62 (c2). While the textures
change from a1 to a2 and from c1 to c2, in both cases Denisov finishes his musical idea (the
row) in the new section, creating a smooth transition. Like a2, Denisov increases the density of
27
the texture as he moves into c2 by increasing the piano’s rhythmic activity. While a1 and c1
relied on clear, easily identifiable row statements, a2 and c2 explore a variety of methods. In c2
Denisov uses complete row statements (RI2 in the saxophone from mm. 61-64, tones six and
seven exchange positions with each other), adjacent or overlapping fragments of the row (mm.
65 and 66 in the saxophone), rows distributed among voices and reordered (m.65 in the left and
right hands of the piano), and imitation of pitch or rhythmic motives. Like a2, the density,
rhythmic complexity, and the fragmentation of the row increase the tension relative to the
preceding section.
The saxophone plays row transformations in sequence from mm. 74-84 (d1, see Example
2.14).
Example 2.14, mm.74-82 (see next page)
28
29
Denisov again takes advantage of the shared dyad between rows a whole step apart, chaining P4,
P6, P8, and P10 in mm. 74-77 and I5, I3, and I1 in mm. 79-82. This section foreshadows the
beginning of the third movement, which cycles through a complete sequence of whole-step
related prime forms. Here, RI3 bridges the prime and inverted sequences. The move from P10 to
RI3 relies on another row modulation technique, one that also appears in the final movement of
this sonata. Cairns identifies this as the RICH operation (Retrograde Inversion CHain), so named
by theorist David Lewin, which links two rows via two shared tones (see Figure 2.4).15
Figure 2.4
PT: T E 8 7 9 4 5 6 3 2 0 1
RI3: 0 1 E T 7 8 9 4 6 5 2 3
Despite their order differences, note that RI3 and P10 share all of the same dyads, creating a very
strong sense of resonance. If we rotate the first two tones of RI3 to the end (see Figure 2.5) the
relationship becomes more obvious.
Figure 2.5
PT: T E 8 7 9 4 5 6 3 2 0 1
RI3: E T 7 8 9 4 6 5 2 3 0 1
Everything from m.74 through the first two tones of m.82 is one long, seamless gesture. The
trills do not suspend the motion. Note how, with the exception of the P8 to P10 transition, Denisov
changes row forms in the middle of lines. The trills do not punctuate individual gestures; they
maintain the sense of ongoing motion and tension. The piano joins the saxophone with its own
chained rows in mm. 77-78. The first of these chains creates an interesting voice exchange
15
Cairns (2010), 127-128.
30
between the right and left hands of the piano. Note the exchange of dyads between order
positions one and two and eleven and twelve (see Example 2.15).
Example 2.15, m.77
While b1 and d1 superficially sound different, they continue Denisov’s parallel AB
structure. The rows pass in much more rapid durations in d1 than in b1, but the essential motion
remains the same in both sections. P2 passes to P4 in m.29 in the same way that Denisov chains
rows in mm. 74-81. The density of texture, particularly in mm. 77-78 when Denisov stacks
chains of rows and mm. 79-80 where he chains rows in the saxophone and accompanies with
dissonant counterpoint, creates a profound sense of tension, one that dissipates into the imitative
section that follows more than it resolves.
Just as the first three sections of B relate to the first three sections of A, d2 elaborates b2.
The beginning of b2 in m.34 and the second measure of d2 in m.86 appear strikingly similar (see
Example 2.16).
31
Example 2.16
While the piano has fewer tones, the entrances happen at the same time interval in the same order
(though all entrances are one 32nd note earlier in m.86 than in m.37). Measures 37 and 86 are
also strikingly similar. These sections both feature three distinct simultaneous voices which
combine to complete the row (P7 in mm. 34-35, P2 in mm. 85-87). Unlike b2, d2 does not
devolve into seeming chaos at the end. Rather the saxophone fades away following yet another
chain of prime form rows (P10 in mm. 92-93 shares its final tone, PC 1, with P1) followed by the
piano’s ascent to the percussive chords that appear throughout the movement.
The coda begins with the de facto main theme, P2. Despite Denisov’s slight alterations to
the order of the row, it maintains its connection to the beginning of the work, particularly since
in m.100 the saxophone replicates the register and rhythm of the opening measure (see Example
2.17).
32
Example 2.17, mm. 100-102.
The sixteenths jump up to the saxophone line in m.101 via the common tone A (last note in the
piano in m.100, first untied note in the saxophone m.101) and continue the row, albeit with tones
10 and 11 exchanging places. The three line counterpoint places the primary statement of the row
mostly in the saxophone while the piano includes fragments of P2 and P9. The result is a mostly
horizontal P2 spanning mm. 100-103 with a more vertical P2 in mm. 101-102 and a hexachord of
P9 mixed in. In this coda Denisov relies heavily on clearly audible segments of the source row,
rounding out the movement.
From m.103 to its final appearance in m.110, P2 slowly transforms, becoming
increasingly difficult to recognize. In m.103 the first four tones appear in order, accompanied by
P8 in the bottom voice of the piano. While the accompaniment remains stable, P2 becomes
jumbled almost beyond recognition as the right hand of the piano enters (see Example 2.18),
increasing the density of the texture.
33
Example 2.18, mm. 103-105
The twelve-tone aggregate in the saxophone line remains important, as does the DSCH motive
that heads P2, but Denisov changes the order drastically. He guides the listeners’ ears towards P2
by omitting counterpoint at the beginning of the phrase, keeping the texture simple at first and
allowing DSCH to sound clearly. The two rows converge in m.105, as the two final tones in the
saxophone complete P8. The phrase that begins in m.105 again begins with the first four tones of
P2, but split between two voices in such a way that the distinct D-Eb-C motive does not sound
with same clarity as in other iterations. Quickly P2 disintegrates into three tetrachords (see
Example 2.19).
Example 2.19, mm. 106-107
34
The ascending line in the saxophone (mm. 106-109) abandons twelve-tone rows, avoiding PCs
E, 0, and 1, fitting with the coda’s establishment and dissolution of the “tonality” established
around P2 and foreshadowing the much more flexible second movement. The piano line forms
semitone clusters, providing a very dissonant, tense background to the saxophone’s ascent. At
the beginning of m.110 the saxophone makes a final reference to P2, sounding a retrograde
fragment of the first four tones. As discussed earlier, Denisov designed the row such that the first
four tones remain invariant under T5, though moved to order positions seven through ten. In this
case, the R10 version of the row spans mm. 109-113. The final tone in the saxophone, the
sounding A, provides a tone missing from the piano’s twelve-tone aggregate in m.114.
Row fragments appear in the piano, and the twelve-tone aggregate remains important
from mm. 110-115. We can attempt to superimpose an order on these twelve tone areas, but it
becomes more and more of a stretch to do. Fragments of the row appear, but the order does not
conform easily to any particular member of the row class. Counterpoint rules this section rather
than the series.
Denisov uses the presence or absence of the row to signal structure in the piece. P2 has
great motivic significance, and either the entire row or invariant sections of it appear with
regularity at important points of punctuation throughout the piece. The row appears clearly at the
beginning of each major division of the piece: m.1 (A), m.42 (B), and m.100 (coda). Denisov at
times approaches the row strictly, other times he treats it much more loosely. Some of these
alterations serve the counterpoint, others facilitate transitions between rows. The row serves as a
source of motivic material and as a theme, though it changes as the music demands.
This sonata relies on the DSCH motive as much as it does on the presence of complete,
unaltered row forms to maintain coherence. It might be fair to say that this movement is mostly
35
dodecaphonic, as the twelve-tone aggregate is often an important unit. It is sometimes, but not
always, serial. Through these examples we glimpse one of Denisov’s key style characteristics:
his interest in motives overrides strict adherence to a compositional system.
II. Lento
Since Denisov omitted bar lines from this movement, I will refer to locations in the score,
not the saxophone part, unless otherwise specified.
While Denisov strictly states members of the row class throughout the first movement, he
approaches the second movement much more flexibly. Row fragments abound, but he does not
state the row in its entirety until near the end of the movement. The opening phrase (which ends
with the 6:4 written Fs on line 3) contains 15 tones, and PCs 4-6 do not appear at all. Instead of
weaving together complete statements of members of the row class as he does in the outer
movements, he combines fragments of the row in a smooth, linear fashion.
Denisov introduces two new musical elements in the second movement: quarter-tones
and multiphonics, techniques he likely learned from the recording Jean-Marie Londeix gave
him.16 The multiphonics only appear in this movement, while the quarter-tones reemerge near
the coda of the final movement as it ties together the ideas of the entire piece. The quarter tones
serve a linear function; they extend and elaborate melodic ideas. Denisov approaches or resolves
every quarter-tone in the movement via an adjacent tone. If we ignore the quarter-tones, clear
fragments of the row emerge. For example, at the beginning of section a2 Denisov nearly
completes P2 (see Example 2.20 below).
16
Umble, 222.
36
Aside from PC 9 at the beginning of the movement, I do not attach any special
significance to the tones in Denisov’s multiphonics. As Helton notes, the sounding A in the
saxophone that ends the first movement essentially carries forward as the highest tone of the
opening multiphonic in the second movement.17 The other two tones in the first multiphonic, A#
and B, do not seem to have any special function. They may have been chosen simply because of
the limited number of multiphonics that include sounding A and can sound at a particular
dynamic level. I read far less significance into his note choice in saxophone multiphonics, which
are inherently limited, than I would into his choice of tones on a cello multiple stop, a much
more flexible technique. These multiphonics function primarily as sound effects.
Denisov alters his melodic style, deviating from his favored technique of complete row
statements. The written F#-C in the gesture following the opening multiphonic is a tritone (IC 6),
an interval not present in the row. Despite this, Denisov maintains a degree of resonance with the
first movement by referencing P2 near the beginning of each subsection of A. First, the initial
melodic idea, G#-A-F# relates to the B-C-A opening motive of the first movement via T9. A
retrograde of the DSCH motive (B-C-A-G# in the saxophone) is also embedded in the opening
phrase (see Example 2.20).18
17
Helton (1996), 106.
18
Helton (2000) make a similar point in his example 10, but he makes no reference to how Denisov uses
DSCH at important points of the form.
37
Example 2.20
On the second line of the score he changes the order, but it is still DSCH with one elaborating
tone. Section a2 also alludes to P2, as I will discuss below. Despite the embellishments and
alterations in these gestures, Denisov reinforces the importance of this motive. In the first
movement DSCH regularly appears undisguised, punctuating phrases. In the second movement
this motive still pervades the music, but Denisov extends and obscures the statements. The
intervallic content resonates strongly enough with the outer movements to create a sense of
continuity, but the mechanics of playing quarter-tones and the way they visually and aurally
divide the motive can obscure the DSCH’s presence.
Denisov creates a floating, ambiguous atmosphere distant from the driving, energetic
character of the first movement. Driving, percussive 32nds and 16ths at 104 beats per minute
litter the first movement, as opposed to the long durations of the second movement. The slow
tempo (40 beats per minute) and long durations of the second movement create a sense of stasis.
Few gestures begin on the beat, which, along with the very slow tempo, disorients the listener’s
sense of pulse. The first movement was declamatory, the second is amorphous. The piano
38
provides a great deal of the rhythmic drive and harmonic tension in the first movement, while its
absence from the majority of the second movement contributes to the static atmosphere. The lone
saxophone creates a stark musical landscape, one in which Denisov extends small motives over a
substantial span of time. Denisov is able to draw out the very brief DSCH motive over such a
long temporal span that it forms the core of the first half of the movement (see Example 2.21
below). We have already seen how it generates a substantial portion of the first two lines, and
thus the bulk of a1.
This movement has a two part form, and each section consists of two phrases.19 The
forms of the first two movements of this piece are similar, the first movement’s coda aside. In
Example 2.21 we can see both the large-scale form and the way P2 pervades a2.
Example 21 (see next page)
19
Helton (2000), 27.
39
40
A relies heavily on DSCH as source material, though it becomes more distorted and
elaborated towards the end of the section. Denisov creates contrast between a1 and a2. The
gestures of a1, which each begin with a multiphonic, only span a major third and a perfect fourth
respectively. The gestures of a2 cover a perfect fourth, a minor sixth, and finally a major ninth.
Denisov increases the tension and the (limited) forward momentum by stretching the range and
by introducing shorter durations. While the last gesture of a1 pulls back (as indicated by the
angled-in beams), the final gesture of a2 accelerates (as indicated by the angled-out beams). This
interval expansion and composed out acceleration increase the tension as A draws to a close.
The beginning of B halts all of the momentum A built, returning to a mood much like the
beginning of the movement. The three beats of silence and the seven beats of written G# contrast
with the rhythmic acceleration from the end of A. The narrow range of the gestures also harken
back to the beginning of A, though quarter-tones emerge much earlier in B than in A. Much like
in the first movement, the two sections largely parallel each other. In this movement two
significant additions set B apart from A: its tremolo section and the piano’s entrance. The texture
and melodic contour of B very closely resemble A until the entrance of the tremolos.
From the beginning of B until the tremolos, if we ignore the passing and decorating tones,
we are left with two phrases that have the following pitch content: E-0-T-9-8 and E-0-T-9 (see
Example 2.22).
41
Example 2.22
With all of the surface elaboration removed, the parallel between these phrases emerges. Two
rows could serve as sources: P11 (which begins E-0-9-8-T) or RI2 (which begins E-0-T-9). Given
the amorphous nature of this movement, rather than interpreting this as an incomplete row, I
consider it a melodic statement that resonates with the row. It relies on semitones and tones, the
most common and second most common intervals in the row. Time and again Denisov has
demonstrated a willingness to approach this work flexibly, so superimposing a row order on this
section feels like too much of a stretch. The absence of other concurrent or subsequent rows
further emphasizes this point. Without any other rows to interact with, row identity matters less.
While the movement has a static quality and the tempo is quite slow, it has few long
durations. Only two notes in this movement exceed 2 ½ beats, and both signal important
moments in the form. The A and B sections begin with the second longest and longest tones of
the movement, five beats and seven-and-two-thirds beats respectively. Denisov also uses silence
as a punctuating device. Only four rests in this movement exceed two beats. Each new section of
the form follows one of these three-beat rests in the saxophone, though the piano intrudes on the
final such rest, the one separating the two halves of B. Though the devices differ, this concern for
clear formal punctuation creates another point of resonance between the first two movements.
Denisov includes clear markers that stand out visually to the performer and aurally to the
42
audience. These devices substitute effectively for the absent harmonic markers that we would
rely on to delineate form in a tonal piece.
Denisov matches the saxophone’s final tone of the first movement and initial tone of the
second movement.20 Denisov shows the same concern when moving from the second movement
to the third. The final five tones of this movement match five of the six tones of the piano’s
ostinato that begins the third movement (see Example 2.23).
Example 2.23, II. last line and III. m.1
Note how the third movement begins with the same two tones (PCs 0 and 1) that the second ends
with. The trichord T, 9, E also appears in both. The duplicated tones and the attacca marking
clearly indicate Denisov’s desire to connect this movement with the third.
III. Allegro moderato
Zachary Cairns’s analysis details the pitch content of this movement and thoroughly
summarizes the earlier scholarship (Londeix/Umble, Dabney, Cain, Helton),21 though he omits
two studies: Helton’s DM document and Harr’s discussion of jazz elements.22 I will also largely
20
Helton (2000), 30.
21
Cairns (2010), 119-123.
22
Helton’s article in the Saxophone Symposium (2000) is a revision of his DMA document (1996), so the
substance is largely the same.
43
ignore Harr since this study does not focus on jazz. Cairns observes that Helton’s study, the most
thorough to date, fails to recognize the presence of a second row in the movement and, as Cairns
argues, perhaps a third row derived from the other rows. I will not delve into Cairns’ third row
argument deeply, as the derivation of this row does not, in my opinion, influence interpretation
meaningfully. I have included Cairns’ diagram of the form below in Figure 2.6.23 While the bulk
of Cairns’ analysis is excellent, I disagree with him on several points. In order to illustrate these
points I will insert sections of his diagrams with my annotations and corrections throughout this
discussion as necessary. Cairns labels the rows A and B and uses these as prefixes when
identifying transformations (i.e. the main row is AP2). The remainder of this chapter will follow
his labeling system. I will discuss my annotations to his diagram in detail below. Understanding
the composition and interaction of these rows helps explain the layout of the movement and can
lead to a more nuanced interpretation, especially considering that the rows behave similarly to
primary and secondary themes.
Figure 2.6 (see next page)
23
Cairns (2010), 125-126. I have combined the two halves of this into one image, but otherwise this is
Cairns’ unaltered diagram.
44
45
Cairns points out that Denisov constructed these rows very differently.24 As we can see in
Figure 2.7 below, Denisov minimizes common intervals between the rows.
Figure 2.7
Row A (P form) 2 3 0 E 1 8 9 T 7 6 4 5
Unordered Pitch Class Interval 1 3 1 2 5 1 1 3 1 2 1
Row B (P form) 2 6 9 1 5 8 E 4 7 T 3 0
Unordered Pitch Class Intervals 1 2 3 4 5 6

Row A 6 2 2 0 1 0
Row B 0 0 6 3 2 0
Row A features six instances of IC 1, contributing to its smooth, undulating character. It avoids
IC 4 and IC 6 completely. Denisov appears to have designed Row A to avoid tonal harmonic
implications. Row B features six instance of IC 3 and three instances of IC 4, creating the
opportunity for tertian harmony and, consequently, tonal references. In the row we can see
instances of adjacent IC 4 and 3 (major and minor triads), IC 4s (augmented triads), and IC 3s
(diminished triads). Row B avoids semitones and tones completely, intervals that are among the
most common in Row A. Both rows lack a tritone, but as we have seen in the previous
movements, Denisov takes liberties with order, creating missing intervals as needed by
reordering and recombining segments.
Londeix, Helton, Cain, and Cairns all agree that the first section concludes in m.20, and it
is not difficult to see why they agree. The piano begins the movement with a walking-bass-like
ostinato. This ostinato continues unaltered until m.14, where it begins to add new tones and the
rhythm changes, working towards the chords in m.15, the first block chords in the movement. In
24
Cairns (2010), 133.
46
the last two beats of m.17 the left hand joins the right hand in a homorhythmic texture that
persists through m.20. In m.21, which Cairns labels Ostinato 2, the left hand of the piano returns
to the texture of the beginning, but the pitch content changes and the rhythm becomes even more
walking-bass-like. As we have seen repeatedly in the first movement, Denisov often veers
further from recognizable row material and builds complexity at the ends of sections, only to
return to more “stable,” row-based material at the beginning of the next section. Referring again
to Cairns’ diagram, we can see increases in the rate of row change and the prevalence of
incomplete and altered row forms beginning in the second half of m.17.
A close examination of the saxophone line (Example 2.24) reinforces this structural
division.
47
Example 2.24, 25 mm. 1-7
Setting aside the frequent repeated dyads and the switching of the eighth and ninth tones of AP6
in m.8, Denisov exhibits a rigid adherence to pattern unlike many other sections in this work. He
uses the same chaining pattern that he previously used in mm. 74-81 of the first movement,
connecting rows one step apart via their common dyad. Denisov presented this pattern succinctly
in the first movement, minimizing note repetition. Here he elongates the pattern by repeating
section of the row and by initially failing to complete the transition to the next segment. The first
three tones of AP4 appear in m.4 via the extra written B at the end of AP2. The next attempt, in
m.5, makes it much further, adding an additional five tones. The third statement (m.6) initially
ends like the second statement, but Denisov extends the idea through the repeated D-B dyad and
25
The written F in m.5 should be an E.
48
finally completes P4 in m.7, immediately continuing the sequence into P6. Through m.12,
Denisov works through the entire sequence of chained rows: AP2, AP4, AP6, AP8, AP10, AP0,
AP2. The second phrase of section 1 begins when Denisov alters his pattern of chained row
forms. I7 follows the conclusion of AP2. Unlike every other row transition in this section Denisov
places AP2 next to AI7 rather than connecting them via shared tones (see Example 2.25).
Example 2.25, mm. 12-13
These two row forms share two important points of resonance. They end with the same dyad
(written C#-D for P2, written D-C# for AI7) and they both share the DSCH motive (order
positions 7-10 in AI7). Denisov begins his chained sequence anew, this time with inverted forms,
carrying this sequence through the end of the second phrase of this section (m.17), covering AI7,
AI5, AI3, AI1, and a partial AIe. These two sequences by whole step generate the entire first
section of this movement (see Figure 2.8).
49
Figure 2.8 26
The diagram of the first section, which Cairns labels Ostinato 1, contains several errors.
He marks the saxophone entrance in m.2; it does not enter until m.3. The downbeat of m.13
begins with BRI3 before continuing to BP11 at the end of the measure. Also in m.13, he lists AP0
in the left hand of the piano. The order more closely matches the R form of this row. None of
these points meaningfully influence the large scale patterns that generate this section. Note the
contrast between the left hand of the piano, which uses row B until the very end of the section,
and the saxophone, which uses row A until the end of the section. The left hand of the piano
plays a slightly altered A row pattern until m.15, and by m.16 it merges with the right hand of the
piano. Row A dominates the beginning of the section while row B comes to the fore at the end.
The second section of the movement, which Cairns labels Ostinato 2, begins in m.21.
26
Cairns (2010), 125. My annotations appear in red.
50
Figure 2.9 27
Cairns’ made one meaningful mistake: he mislabeled the piano ostinato that begins the section
(see Figure 2.9). This must be a typographical error; he wrote AP6 but the tones are 2, 3, 0, E, 1,
8, 9, the first seven tones of AP2. The left hand of the piano has essentially turned the
saxophone’s melodic line from the opening into its new ostinato. AP2 begins this new section
much as it began this movement and the sections in movement one. The left hand abandons P2
after the first two measures, moving to material only loosely related to the row in m.23. The
subsequent ideas, while not complete rows, show a shift towards the B row. The sixth through
tenth tones come from BI6, while the final beamed pattern of the measure and the first two
beamed patterns of m.24 spell tertian chords (G Mm7, Ab M, and E0 respectively) drawn from an
altered version of BR1 (see Example 2.26).
27
Ibid.
51
This quasi-tonal bass, although grounded in a row, sounds strikingly different than anything we
encountered in the earlier movements. This change in the bass to row B foreshadows a similar
move in the other two voices. The right hand of the piano shifts to B rows in m.32 while the
saxophone moves to B in m.33, returns to A in m.36, and finally in m.37 abandons A for the
remainder of this section. Denisov’s use of the A and B rows helps define the sections. In section
A the saxophone played row A exclusively until its non-row material in mm.19 and 20, while the
right hand of the piano stuck with row B until the last two measures of the section. In section B
all three voices explore row A, row B, and derived material. They settle on row B as the section
concludes.
52
Cairns’ diagram of the form shows that row B is just as important as row A motivically
and structurally.28 Row B appears in every section of the movement. The interplay between these
rows is an essential structural element.
The first section had a stratified texture: melody, counter melody, and a bass line. In the
second section, the voices begin to interact more, eventually leading to their convergence in the
pickup to m.45. While in this section Denisov still strings together row transformations, the
pattern does not follow a rigid, predictable path like the opening did. In the opening the
saxophone stated complete rows, while here two voices often share statements (see Example
2.27).
Example 2.27, mm. 21-24
28
Cairns (2010), 125-126.
53
The piano’s interjections complete the saxophone’s statements by filling in silences and
sustained tones with the remainders of the rows. This interaction pushes the voices to a new level
of equality, creating contrast with the opening section of the movement. Denisov also approaches
the order of the row more flexibly in this section, for example the transition from AI4 to AI0 in
m.23. He repeats the final tetrachord of AI4, leaving the three tones it shares with AI0 in the
saxophone and using the fourth tone to begin a partial statement of AI2 in the piano. These
examples typify the complex interweaving lines that run throughout this section. The saxophone
and the right hand of the piano explore their newfound equality while exercising much more
varied transformations than in the opening section, contributing to the increased feel of
flexibility.
An examination of Cairns’ diagram at m.33 reveals an interesting way in which row
choice, texture, and form intersect. The saxophone’s incomplete statement of AP1 precedes its
first statement of row B (see Example 2.28).
Example 2.28, m.33
The rows feature very different interval content, so the melodic style of the saxophone changes
significantly. Simultaneously, the walking bass in the left hand ceases and the two hands of the
54
piano merge into one voice. At this point of convergence the piano’s two hands also share rows
rather than playing largely independent forms as they had previously. Measure 33 marks the first
point in the movement where all three voices sound material from a single source (row B).
Halfway through m.34 the dense chords give way to contrapuntal lines loosely based on row B.
While three independent, equal voices coexisted frequently in the first movement, the third
movement had been different up to this point. The saxophone melody had been accompanied by
piano countermelody (right hand) and bass (left hand). This newfound equality continues into
m.42. Row B carries us through the climax of this section, with stepwise motives hinting at row
A in the saxophone’s high register (mm. 34, 36, 42-43, and 44).
Helton, Londeix, and Cairns offer slightly different interpretations of the form in this
area. Cairns dismisses the extra division Londeix places at m.43.29 I agree with Cairns; while the
texture and rhythm change at this moment, this phrase only serves as a climax to the material that
preceded it. Denisov frequently diverges from his favored procedure for a section as it
approached its conclusion, enhancing the drama. Cairns places what he calls the “whisper
chorus” at m.45, while Helton calls it a “jazz riff” section and places it at m.45b.30 Given the way
Helton starts the section following at m.53b, I can only assume “b” means the second half of the
measure. I agree with Helton; the jazz section, which serves as an interlude between the second
and third sections of the movement, begins halfway through m.45. The altissimo Bb in the
saxophone, the highest saxophone pitch so far in the piece, with the fortissimo triplet chords in
the piano end too anticlimactically to adequately conclude a section. The gesture at the beginning
of m.45 helps Denisov transition to the poco rubato, but it does not convincingly begin a new
29
Cairns (2010), 127.
30
Helton (1996), 109.
55
idea. This gesture begins on the last eighth of m.44, diminishing any sense of rhythmic
punctuation. Furthermore, Denisov begins a new row at the poco rubato (BI8), leaving the old
row (BI2) incomplete (see Example 2.29).
Example 2.29, m.45
Cairns labels this material as BP3 (first half of m.45) and indeterminate (second half), but the
order at the start of the measure matches BI2 while BI8 appears quite clearly in the piano moving
towards m.46. This initial piano statement begins the “jazz” section and it relies on the frequent
occurrences of ICs 3 and 4 in row B, allowing the piano to approximate tonal harmonic
vocabulary (though not function).
Figure 2.10 31
31
Cairns (2010), 126. I added row B based material to mm. 45-48 of this diagram.
56
The jazz section features two threads that continually interrupt each other: the piano’s
“jazz” chords and the unison statements of row A (see Figure 2.10). The section begins with the
aforementioned row B material. The piano shifts to row A when the saxophone enters in m.46. It
joins the saxophone in unison for each of the row A interjections, which occur in each measure
of the section thereafter. The first statement, while only containing two pitch classes, recalls
AP2, the main theme of the sonata. For this statement the saxophone occupies the same register
for its written B and C as it did both at the beginning of the movement and at the beginning of
the piece. At the end of m.46 the piano resumes from where it left off earlier in the measure,
repeating its last four melodic tones in the right hand, effectively picking up from where it was
interrupted (see Example 2.30).
Example 2.30, m.46
The last two of these tones (Eb and C) become the first two tones of BR2, allowing Denisov to
smoothly transition to this row form. The block chords that follow in m.47 all derive from
incomplete B row forms, but maintain clear subsets (from BI6, BP9, BI6, and BP6 respectively).
Cairns labeled these gestures “non-serial material,” which fails to show the important
57
relationship between row A and row B in this section. The competition between them serves as
the central musical conflict for this section of the movement and the following one.
AP2 again tries to interject, beginning on the tone it last ended on, Eb, and making it
much further, completing ten tones instead of just two before the end of m.47. Measure 48 starts
with a fragmented statement of BIT and two four-tone segments of BP6 in the piano. AP2 returns
on the fifth beat of m.48 with E and F, completing the row. Unsurprisingly, Denisov uses these
tones to begin AP4, which only makes it five tones before the piano returns in m.49. AP4
interrupts at the beginning of m.50 with three more tones and the piano continues with BP4 as if
the unison line never happened. Finally, at the end of m.50, as AP4 concludes the unison line
takes over for good, continuing into AI7 and AP7. The two ideas finally converge at the end of
m.52, as the saxophone completes AP7 accompanied by the piano playing row B based chords.
Denisov likely chose to end with AP7 because its second hexachord begins with the DSCH
motive, which we can see at the beginning of m.53. This section features the most overt
references to jazz in the piece, but the smooth, flowing, atonal line of Row A frequently
interrupts it.
58
Figure 2.11 32
The final main section begins at the a tempo in m.53 (see Figure 2.11). The battle
between rows A and B continues throughout this section both within the saxophone line as well
as among the voices. The saxophone part consists of two ideas: sweeping arpeggios and
narrower, often dotted melodies. The arpeggios, unsurprisingly, all relate to transformations of
row B. None of these arpeggios complete a B row, but they all contain enough ordered tones to
make their origins clear. Take, for instance, the first such gesture in m.54. The gesture descends
and then ascends through the first eight tones of BI7 (see Example 2.31).
32
Cairns (2010), 126. I have made several alterations to Cairns’ diagram. I added the following row forms:
BRI1 and BP2 (m.57), AI3 (mm. 64-65), all of the rows in the saxophone in mm.66-67, BRI7 (m.68), AIe (m.70). I
also deleted his placement of the coda in m.69.
59
Example 2.31, m.54
Denisov does not complete the row in the piano. Here the piano works independently from the
saxophone, unlike the second section of the piece where rows passed between these voices. The
second arpeggiated gesture (m.56) sets up the basic conflict between the rows that governs this
section. This gesture features fragments of the same BI7 row, though at the end it ascends to a
written F# which seems to signal a pivot to BP8. Instead, that F# veers into a dotted figure with a
very different melodic profile, one based on the end of AP2 rather than row B. A look forward
into m.57 reveals that Denisov actually set up a reordered statement of AP9, allowing it to
combine with the beginning of AP4. While row B based material interjects, the large scale
pattern Denisov sets up should be familiar by now: AP4 (mm. 57-58), AP6 (m.58), AP8 (mm. 58-
60), and APT (mm. 60-61). Denisov omits one tone from the end of APT, but given that the
musical context would almost require it to be a written low A, a very impractical note to play
rapidly since it requires the saxophonist to cover the bell, the omission seems justified.
Following another B-based interjection leading into m.62, Denisov switches to an inverted form,
AI7. The last four tones of AI7 lead into a significantly rearranged AR0 (mm. 63-64), which in
turn leads into the next sequence, one that begins with AI3 (last two tones of m.64). Cairns did
not identify this sequence, since he did not label AI3 (mm. 64-65) or AI1 (m.66-67), which
extends through where he labels the coda and undermines his argument. Aside from the first
beat, mm. 62-65 only use row A material, but during this sequence of inverted chords that
60
follows the interjections of B material return. AI3 is interrupted before its final two tones, but AI1
takes three tries (mm. 66-68, one statement in each measure) to finally complete successfully. In
essence the saxophone fuses the prime and then inverted sequences of row A transformations
from the beginning with the row A interruptions of row B from the jazz section. The section
concludes with the poco rubato. As I will discuss shortly, the saxophone part continues the
chaining idea, concluding in mm. 74-75 with an anticipation of the coda.
The piano part from m.53 to the poco rubato in m.69 consists of three ideas:
arpeggiations (like the saxophone’s), block chords, and the return of the walking bass. Unlike the
saxophone, all of the piano’s ideas come from row B. This reflects the texture, which is much
like the beginning with a saxophone solo, right hand countermelody, and left hand bass line.
Arpeggios appear in both hands of the piano, but much more often in the right hand. The pitch
material, row B segments, parallels the saxophone arpeggios. Take, for instance, the arpeggiated
figures in both hands of the piano in m.68. I have omitted repeated tones, allowing the pattern to
emerge (see Example 2.32). The right hand consists of tones two through twelve of BRI7 while
the left hand covers the same portion of BRIE.
Example 2.32, m.68
61
This rhythm, and to a lesser extent the interval content, of this gesture foreshadows the main idea
of the coda: (0369)-based arpeggios.
The two hands of the piano at times complete each other’s rows much like the saxophone
and the right hand of the piano did in the second section. One instance occurs between the left
hand’s walking bass idea at the a tempo in m.53 (BP2) which the right hand of the piano nearly
completes with its four note chord in m.54. The first seven tones of BP2 in the left hand of the
piano become an ostinato, one that appears five times until it changes at the end of m.56. Cairns
observes that the block chords, which appear frequently in both hands of the piano, almost all are
members of set classes (0147) and (0258).33 Cairns’ diagram does not show that many of these
block chords consist of significant ordered sections of B-based rows. The chords in mm. 63-64
consist of tones four through eleven of various BP rows (counting from bottom to top) moving in
parallel motion. While the saxophone part vacillates between the rows, ultimately settling on row
A, the piano, despite the variety of ways in which it expresses it, relies almost exclusively on row
B from m.53 until the poco rubato.
Cairns marks the beginning of the coda at the poco rubato in m.69 “due to the reprise of
material from the first movement.”34 I interpret this differently than Cairns (see Figure 2.12).
33
Cairns (2010), 126.
34
Ibid., 127.
62
Figure 2.12 35
Helton and Londeix mark the coda at m.76, which seems to be the logical location based on the
texture change and the way the score is printed (the coda covers the last page of the saxophone
part). The saxophone part leading up to the poco rubato, row B interjections aside, consist of a
chain of row A forms. The poco rubato likewise consists of Row A material, moving through
ARI6, AP8, and AP10. I believe that rather than a sudden return to A material this is simply a
continuation of the row-chaining process Denisov has been building since the first hint of Row A
in m.56. Certainly the end of m.75, which precedes the coda, with its rallentando, ascent to the
highest saxophone pitch in the sonata, and printed breath mark in all of the parts, is a far more
convincing conclusion to the final pre-coda section of the piece than the sighing gesture in m.69
(see Example 2.33). If we begin the coda at m.76 it also makes sense in terms of interval content.
A glance at Carins’ diagram reveals that the voices converge with simultaneous statements of
(0369) in m.76, which Denisov prepares with the ascending saxophone line that spans from the
8:7 in m.74 to the end of m.75.
35
Ibid., 126. I have moved the start of the coda from m.69 to m.75 and added BP fragments to m.79.
63
Example 2.33, mm. 75-76
This gesture and the forthcoming gestures in all three voices in the coda share an identical
interval pattern: fully diminished seventh chords, which are members of set class (0369),
separated by a major third. Cairns argument fails to satisfy either based on the structural or the
surface musical elements.
The piano part in the poco rubato contributes to the building tension with its dense,
dissonant chords, many of which are members of set class (016). Denisov buries complete and
partial statements of row A in this dense texture. Take, for instance, m.70, where fragments of
AIE are spread among the voices as well as m.72 which similarly distributes AI9. Row B does not
appear at all in the poco rubato, making it the only sizable section of the movement, with the
exception of the first six measures, that avoids it. Denisov’s omission of this row aids him as he
avoids any tonal allusions, creating a high level of tension leading into the coda at m.76. While
many of the sections of this movement overtly or subtly reference jazz, Denisov dispenses with
any hint of jazz harmony here.
The coda features three ideas, two of which appear in the saxophone and two of which
appear in the piano. The saxophone alternates between fully-diminished seventh chords
separated a major third apart and material from row A. The diminished chords serve as the
common ground between the saxophone and piano. The way in which the saxophone line
64
unfolds very closely resembles Denisov’s methods in the third section of this movement. The
non-row A material predominates at first, followed by alternation between row A material and
triadic material. The row A statements, interjections aside, again feature a sequence of whole-
step related row transformations, in this case AI0 (mm. 78-79) and AI10 (mm. 79-80), which
share two common tones (the written G and F# in m.79). The final statement of the saxophone,
while embellished by quarter tones, recycles the final four tones of AIT in the same register as
they appeared in m.80: D-D#-F-E. The final F# is not a part of AIT, but in context it fits a
trichord that appears in two places in the matrix. It most likely it is an allusion to AR5, as it
would create an abortive attempt to reach one final chained row in the sequence. Denisov
reintroduces quarter-tones in mm. 82-83 as the saxophone reaches its climactic written F#. These
quarter tones extend and embellish melodic lines, just as they did in the second movement.
The piano shares (0369) with the saxophone, but unlike the saxophone it introduces row
B material. While complete row B statements seldom happen in the coda, chords which include
two tetrachord subsets of a row appear frequently. For example, we can interpret mm. 79-80 as
nothing more than a series of incomplete row B-based chords. Ultimately it does not matter
whether we label these as incomplete row statements or as chords derived from row B. Either
way, row B clearly serves as the source material for these chords.
The coda introduces a new motive (0369) which Denisov combines with key elements of
the sonata: row A in sequence, row B chords, and the quarter tones from the middle movement.
The coda rounds out the form, concluding the same way as the first movement with an F# in the
saxophone and the same chords in the piano.
Throughout this sonata Denisov treats row A as a main theme, one that he can freely
transform and segment. He frequently completes the twelve-tone aggregate, but when he chooses
65
to treat a segment of the row as a motive he does not allow any prohibitions against pitch
repetition to constrain him. If we think of the two rows in the third movement as two competing
themes, the organization of the piece begins to come into focus. Section 1, mm. 1-20, serves as
an introduction. The main theme (row A) enters, followed by the secondary theme (row B).
Denisov arranges the material such that both themes have adequate space to come to the fore of
the texture. In mm. 7-8 the saxophone rests during the initial appearances of row B material. As
section 1 progresses, the hands of the piano merge, leaving the saxophone by itself stating row
A. At the end of the section Denisov gives us our first taste of non-row material in the
movement. Section 2 (mm. 21-52) has a much more developmental character. While the roles of
the instruments were relatively rigid in section 1, with the saxophone and right hand of the piano
staying with rows A and B respectively, in section 2 the three voices each visit row A and row B,
producing a much wider variety of textures. We also see more of the non-row material Denisov
hinted at in mm. 19 and 20. Following the jazz interlude, section 3 (mm. 53-74) returns many of
the ideas from the beginning, notably the row-chain Denisov so clearly stated at the beginning of
the piece, but with much more flexibility. This section is filled with interrupted statements,
incomplete rows, and non-row material. Still, it completes most of the sequence from the
opening, more than enough to establish a sense of resonance. Finally, the coda recalls the
procedures of the rest of the sonata while introducing new material (0369). This (0369) serves as
a point of mediation between the rows, since the minor third is one of the few intervals common
to both rows and it appears more than once in each.
66
Chapter 3 - Deux Pièces
Deux Pièces, though composed shortly after the Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano,
does not rely on the same row chaining procedures as the Sonata. We should keep in mind
Denisov’s limited access to recordings and scores from the West. While Schoenberg first began
composing serial works in 1920, Andrei Volkonsky’s Musica Stricta, the first Soviet serial work,
was completed in 1956, a mere 14 years before Denisov composed his saxophone and piano
sonata.1 Denisov only began to explore serialism in his own works in 1961.2 Deux Pièces does
not closely follow the procedures of the Sonata of the prior year, and it is likely that Denisov was
still experimenting with his musical language.
Deux Pièces both uses a series and completes the twelve-tone aggregate, but it is not a
twelve-tone serial piece in the same way his saxophone and piano sonata is. In the sonata the
main series appears explicitly in each movement, with chains of row transformations frequently
driving the musical narrative. It even employs a second, concurrent twelve-tone series in the
third movement. While Denisov alters the order of pitches of his series, he leaves no doubt
regarding the primary form of the row (P2). He states it unambiguously at important points of the
form, for instance at the beginnings of the first and third movements. His rows act as themes and
come to the musical foreground frequently. Unlike in the Sonata, Denisov builds ambiguity into
Deux Pièces: he states twelve tones at the beginning of the piece and maintains the order of the
first nine tones throughout various transformations, but the final three tones that complete the
1
O.W. Neighbour. "Schoenberg, Arnold." Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University
Press, accessed July 17, 2013,
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/subscriber/article/grove/music/25024; Schmelz (2002),
xiv.
2
Harwood Academic Publishers, 1995), 42-43.
67
aggregate never appear in a way that establishes a clear order. Since the R and RI forms of the
row would by definition begin with the three tones in question, it seems logical to resolve the
ambiguity by examining one of these forms. Throughout the work Denisov avoids presenting an
R or RI row form clearly.
Elizabeth Shirk explores this work in her thesis, labeling all of the appearances of the
row. She only finds two instances of an R form and one instance of an RI form.3 To make her
case, in all three instances she chooses which repeated tones to ignore. Take, for instance, her
first retrograde row (see Example 3.1).
Example 3.1, p.1, line 3 of the score
I have numbered all of the tones according to her row order. This represents one reasonable
interpretation among many. She ignores the “extra” notes that do not fit her numbering scheme.
The three written As make it all but impossible to determine a definitive order. In the following
measure Denisov presents the next nine tones of the row clearly (see Example 3.2).
Example 3.2, p.2, system 1 of the score
3
Elizabeth Shirk, “Edison Vasil’yevich Denisov: A Biography and Analysis of his Deux Pièces for
Saxophone and Piano” (MM thesis, Bowling Green State University, 1986), 48-49.
68
In the earlier sonata we encountered similarly problematic gestures, but clear statements at other
points in the piece established the order. Shirk’s first retrograde form, beginning on the written B
in the saxophone on system two of p.2 of the score, does not clarify the issue at all, since seven
of the tones occur in a chord and the others do not conform to the row’s order. At first glance her
final retrograde example, beginning on the third system of p.2, offers the most convincing case
for her row order. The 1-2-1-3-4 pattern certainly looks like the beginning of a row that fits her
matrix, but after the first four tones it only vaguely resembles the row form she identifies (see
Example 3.3).
The six tone chord in the middle of the system in particular defies any attempt to apply an order.
Even the first row that Shirk labels, P7 at the beginning of the work, fails to conform strictly to
her interpretation. If we follow her row order, tone 11 comes after tone 12 (see Example 3.4).
69
Denisov frequently plays with order in his rows, but if the order of these tones were truly
significant he would likely have presented them in a clear way at least once in the piece.
Denisov begins both movements of this piece with very clear statements of nine tones of
the row and completes the aggregate with a three tone chord. Denisov often uses a row as a
theme or part of it as a motive. While the twelve-tone aggregate appears frequently, only nine
tones appear in a clearly defined order. Shirk’s twelve-tone row does not appear as a meaningful
musical unit in this piece.
As a matter of convenience, I will use Shirk’s row order for the purpose of constructing a
12x12 matrix (see Figure 3.1). Her order is neither better nor worse than a multitude of other
orderings. Bear in mind that Denisov does not use these final three tones in a way that
consistently reflects this order.
70
Figure 3.1, 12x12 matrix of the row forms
P R
I 0 2 1 3 5 6 4 7 8 9 E T
T 0 E 1 3 4 2 5 6 7 9 8
E 1 0 2 4 5 3 6 7 8 T 9
9 E T 0 2 3 1 4 5 6 8 7
7 9 8 T 0 1 E 2 3 4 6 5
6 8 7 9 E 0 T 1 2 3 5 4
8 T 9 E 1 2 0 3 4 5 7 6
5 7 6 8 T E 9 0 1 2 4 3
4 6 5 7 9 T 8 E 0 1 3 2
3 5 4 6 8 9 7 T E 0 2 1
1 3 2 4 6 7 5 8 9 T 0 E
RI 2 4 3 5 7 8 6 9 T E 1 0
I. Largo
Deux Pièces bears more than a passing resemblance to the Sonata for Alto Saxophone
and Piano. While Deux Pièces is much shorter in duration and only two movements long, its
movements evoke the second movement and the first movement of the Sonata respectively. Deux
Pièces begins much as movement two of the Sonata, with long durations in the unaccompanied
saxophone. The pitch content differs significantly between these two largely analogous
movements: Deux Pièces begins with a clear statement of the row (see Example 3.5) while the
sonata’s second movement begins with fragmented sections of the row that had been stated
explicitly in the first movement.
71
Example 3.5, p.1, saxophone part lines 1-2
Denisov appears to favor clear statements of his source material at the beginnings of pieces.
Even though this movement sounds like the middle movement of the Sonata, it begins like the
first movement of the Sonata. This phrase instead corresponds to the first phrase of the Sonata’s
first movement, where the row appears split between the saxophone and piano.
The quarter-tones appear earlier in Deux Pièces (the fourth tone of the work) than in the
Sonata (not until the second half of the section A), but otherwise function as decorative or
passing tones both works. As in the Sonata, we should ignore these quarter-tones when
attempting to identify row forms and when looking for large scale melodic shapes.
Movements II of the Sonata and I of Deux Pièces evoke the same sense of rhythmic
ambiguity. Both are marked Lento and both are unmeasured. The Sonata movement has a
metronome marking of 40 beats per minute while Deux Pièces bears no metronome marking.
Given the stylistic similarities they share it would be logical to assume that they should be
performed at the same or a similar tempo. The first movement of Deux Pièces has 128.75 beats,
not accounting for the four fermatas and the breath mark on the third system. The marked
duration of the movement is 3’15”. If we divide 128.75 beats by 3.25 minutes we end up with
39.6 beats per minute, essentially the same tempo as the Sonata’s slow movement. Denisov
seems to favor the 5:4 ratio, using it 19 times in the Sonata’s slow movement and 13 times in the
72
first movement of Deux Pièces. The 5:4 ratio occurs more frequently than any other rhythmic
ratio in either of these movements. As we will see later, Denisov also favors this rhythm in the
slow movement of the Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Cello. This ratio and the others he uses all
subvert the listener’s sense of pulse. In both movements Denisov obscures the pulse by rarely
beginning phrases on a beat and by often beginning complex rhythmic ratios with rests or ties
from the previous beat. While the listener may lose the beat, rhythmic accuracy is critical
towards the end of the first movement of Deux Pièces in the più mosso section (p.2, last system
of the score) due to the imitation among the lines.
Unlike in the Sonata’s slow movement, the piano plays a significant role and enters near
the beginning of Deux Pièces. The piano first enters in the slow movement of the Sonata at the
beginning of the final phrase, while in Deux Pièces it enters after the saxophone has sounded a
mere 14 tones. These entrances occur at very different locations in these movements, but the
initial gestures by the piano in these movements closely resemble each other.
Example 3.6
The rhythms, registers, and intervals in these gestures correspond closely (see Example 3.6).
They each consist of two sustained chords preceded by grace notes. The two chords from the
Sonata and the first chord from Deux Pièces each span a minor ninth, as do the first grace note
chords of each movement. The second chord from the Sonata along with both chords and both
73
sets of grace notes from Deux Pièces all feature a tritone between the bottom two tones. The last
Sonata chord and the first Deux Pièces chord in Example 3.6 each have seven semitone between
the top two tones, while all of the other three note chords have five semitone intervals between
the top two tones. While the exact harmonies differ (aside from the identical second chord of the
Sonata and first chord of Deux Pièces), these chords resemble each other visually and aurally.
In the slow movement of the Sonata the piano part consists of a mere seven gestures:
three chords; two brief, rapid, disjunct gestures; and finally two very soft tones. Up to the più
mosso, the piano follows a similar path in Deux Pièces. At the più mosso, the piano sounds two
voices of equal importance to the saxophone line (see Example 3.7), something that never
happens in the corresponding Sonata movement.
Example 3.7
The piano initiates this section in the bottom voice, followed first by the saxophone, and finally
followed by the left hand of the piano. At first the saxophone line precisely inverts the bottom
voice of the piano (octave displacement aside). The second gesture inverts the contour, but the
intervals are off by a semitone. In the final gesture the contour of the two parts match, and the
74
saxophone motive relates to the piano via T5I. Denisov emphasis the relationship between these
two motives through a sort of voice exchange: the piano plays C#-E-F while the saxophone
sounds E-C#-C. For its first three tones, the top voice of the piano imitates the saxophone one
octave higher. It continues to follow the contour of the saxophone line for its second gesture, but
it skips a tone in the saxophone line before continuing its imitation, displacing the alignment of
tones and rhythms. This kind of contrapuntal writing does not occur anywhere in the slow
movement of the Sonata, providing the most significant point of contrast between these
otherwise largely analogous movements. This intricate, contrapuntal style recalls similar
procedures in the outer movements of the Sonata, providing more internal contrast to this
movement than the slow Sonata movement has.
The movement ends with a return to the sparse, undulating texture so familiar both from
earlier in this movement and from in the Sonata. The more involved writing and use of imitation
foreshadow the methods Denisov employs in his much later Sonata for Alto Saxophone and
Cello, demonstrating a clear progression in his style despite the very similar atmospheres of all
three of these slow movements.
The first movement of Deux Pièces unfolds over the course of four phrases: the
beginning to the breath mark on the third system, the pianissimo written A in the saxophone on
the third system to the tremolo on the last system of p.2, the più mosso section, and from Tempo
1 on p.3 to the end. Denisov uses silence to punctuate each of these sections, ending with a
breath mark (end of section 1), a tremolo that fades to pianissimo followed by a rest (section 2),
and a diminuendo on a trill followed by a rest (section 3). Silence also helped divide the sections
of the Sonata’s slow movement. The pitch content also helps punctuate the form. The saxophone
begins sections 1 and 3 with the first nine tones of P7 and I8 respectively. Sections 2 and 4 begin
75
with amorphous, quarter-tone filled rhythmic ratios. While these undulating lines allude to the
row by relying on semitones, tones, and minor thirds, neither neatly fit a row form. Like in the
Sonata, Denisov employs a form with parallel sections.
Shirk interprets the large scale motion of the movement as two voices, one high and one
low, working towards a convergence in the più mosso.4 Denisov at times uses very wide
intervals in section 1 and the più mosso, but there is not enough material in the high register to
constitute a musical line. I propose an alternative explanation: Denisov is using octave
displacement in much the same way as a composer like Webern would. It allows him to create
contrast between sections 1 and 3 (displaced) when compared to sections 2 and 4 (smooth),
reinforcing the parallels between sections.
II. Allegro giusto
The second movement of Deux Pièces corresponds closely to the first movement of the
Sonata. The movement is marked Allegro giusto, is 100 measures long, is in 2/4 time, and the
score indicates it should last 1’55”. If we calculate the tempo (200 beats divided by 1.92
minutes) we find that it matches the 104 beat per minute tempo of the Sonata’s first movement
exactly.
While this movement differs from the preceding one in texture, rhythm, and melody,
Denisov uses the row to maintain continuity between the movements. The first movement
opened with P7 and the second opens with I2 (mm. 1-13), which shares its final four tones (in a
different order) with P7 (see Figure 3.2).
4
Shirk, 24-25.
76
Figure 3.2
P7 7 9 8 T 0 1 E 2 3 4 6 5
I2 2 0 1 E 9 8 T 7 6 5 3 4
In both cases the final three tones, which occur in chords, are members of set class (012).
Example 3.8
Example 3.8 shows that Denisov opens both movements with nine clearly ordered tones of the
row followed by chords that complete the twelve-tone aggregate.
Throughout this movement the rhythmic interplay between the saxophone and the two
voices in the piano (left hand and right hand) provides much of the interest. In most instances,
including the opening thirteen measures, Denisov takes so long to complete the row, largely
thanks to pitch repetition, that listeners will likely not hear the row as a melody. The piano at
first imitates the tones of the saxophone, but in order to complete the row it begins adding its
own tones at m.5 and the row begins to unfold between the two parts (see Example 3.9).
77
The left hand of the piano imitates the saxophone at a delay of three sixteenth notes from the
beginning through m.15. The right hand briefly joins the rhythmic canon in mm.14-16, entering
one measure behind the left hand. After a brief non-imitative figure in the saxophone (from the
written F in m.15 through the end of m.16), the imitation begins again in m.17, though this time
it is I1 rather than I2, the right hand of the piano imitates the saxophone rather than the left, and
the delay is half a beat rather than three-fourths of a beat. Unlike the initial phrase, this I1 version
of the row diverges from straightforward imitation after the first two measures. In m.19 the piano
inverts the contour of the saxophone line it imitates while the bottom voice joins. In m.20 the
order of the voices flips, with the bottom voice taking the lead, followed by the top line of the
piano, and finally the saxophone. Like in the opening rows of both of this piece’s movements, I1
ends in m.20 on a D-Eb-Fb chord in the piano, leaving the order of those final three tones
ambiguous. The rhythmic imitative devices described above form the bulk of this movement.
78
They closely resemble devices from the first movement of the Sonata, specifically the imitative,
repetitive, staccato figures that appear in, among other places, m.17 (see Example 3.10).
Example 3.10, Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano, m.17
Here Denisov draws the imitation out over a longer time span than in example 3.10, covering
more than twelve measures instead of a mere six sixteenth notes, but the procedures resemble
each other closely.
This movement features two main ideas. The imitative, repetitive, staccato lines
described above form the foundation of the movement. Passages in this style typically spell out
the row among the parts. The more melodic second idea interrupts the imitative idea irregularly
throughout the movement (see Example 3.11).
Example 3.11, mm. 23-24
79
These interruptions are too brief to warrant designation as sections of the form. One continuous
idea runs through this movement, with irregular interruptions of an idea that contrasts the
primary one in pitch content, contour, rhythm, and articulation style. These interruptions recall
the interplay of the two rows in the third movement of the saxophone and piano sonata.
The first interruption occurs at m.23, though Denisov prepares it subtly in mm. 20-22. In
terms of texture these measures fit with the main idea of the movement, but we can explain the
source of the pitches in more than one way. The beginning of m.20 continues I1 (see Example
3.12).
Example 3.12, m.20
Tones 10-12 mirror the presentation of the final three tones of this movements first row (I2,
m.13). In one of the possible interpretations tones 10-12 of I1 become tones 1-3 of RI1 (see
Example 3.13).
80
Example 3.13, mm. 20-23
Tone six comes out of order and the B in the piano (m.23) does not seem to fit. If we instead
consider the ascending figure in mm. 26-28 a row in its own right, another possibility emerges
for mm. 20-23 (see Example 3.14).
Example 3.14
As in movement III of the Sonata, I believe Denisov relies on a second row for contrast. The
interrupting ascending figures use a consistent interval pattern, one that differs from the main
row (see Example 3.15).
81
Example 3.15, mm. 26-32
These lines only use half-steps and whole-steps and tones, the two most common intervals in the
row, but the absence of the minor third makes it impossible to assign these statements to the
original row. Up to this point, a few coloristic harmonic tones aside, every pitch came from an
easily identifiable transformation of the row.
Rather than viewing these statements as a new row, Shirk interprets the material in the
interjections (as seen in Example 3.13) as a “four note motif” derived from the last four tones of
the retrograde inversion of the row.5 I disagree with her for two reasons. First, Denisov has
exerted considerable effort to obscure the order of the final three tones of the row, so basing
anything on the order of a retrograde form seems tenuous. Second, and perhaps more
importantly, this “four note motif” develops into a full-fledged row, which sounds repeatedly and
convincingly between m.23 and m.36. Denisov states this row perhaps more convincingly than
the main row of the piece, using it as a coherent melodic gesture over a short span of time. It
features none of the order ambiguity of the main row. Transformations of this second row appear
repeatedly throughout mm.23-37.
5
Shirk, 36.
82
This second row (row B) and the original row (row A) share a great deal in common.
While the first row consists of interval classes 1, 2, and 3 (mostly 1 and 2), the second row only
uses interval classes 1 and 2 (see Figure 3.3).
Figure 3.3
BPE (mm. 26-28) E 0 2 1 3 4 6 5 7 8 T 9

Interval Class 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
The interval class succession results in a palindrome, leading to a high degree of repetition
among the various transformations (see Figure 3.4).
Figure 3.4
P R
I 0 1 3 2 4 5 7 6 8 9 E T
E 0 2 1 3 4 6 5 7 8 T 9
9 T 0 E 1 2 4 3 5 6 8 7
T E 1 0 2 3 5 4 6 7 9 8
8 9 E T 0 1 3 2 4 5 7 6
7 8 T 9 E 0 2 1 3 4 6 5
5 6 8 7 9 T 0 E 1 2 4 3
6 7 9 8 T E 1 0 2 3 5 4
4 5 7 6 8 9 E T 0 1 3 2
3 4 6 5 7 8 T 9 E 0 2 1
1 2 4 3 5 6 8 7 9 T 0 E
RI 2 3 5 4 6 7 9 8 T E 1 0
Take, for instance, P0, RI11, I3 and R4. The tetrachords, while internally reordered, all contain the
same tones. Interestingly, the tetrachords of this row and the tetrachords of the original row
match perfectly (see Figure 3.5).
83
Figure 3.5
Row A P 0 2 1 3 5 6 4 7 8 E 9 T
R 2 3 1 0 E 8 T 9 7 5 6 4
I 3 1 2 0 T 9 E 8 7 6 4 5
RI 1 0 2 3 4 7 5 6 8 T 9 E
Row B P 0 1 3 2 4 5 7 6 8 9 E T
R 2 3 1 0 T E 9 8 6 7 5 4
I 3 2 0 1 E T 8 9 7 6 4 5
RI 1 0 2 3 5 4 6 7 9 8 T E
Given how freely Denisov reorders his rows, we could reasonably interpret these gestures
as derived motives from the main row rather than as a new row entirely, especially considering
the close relationship the rows share. This interpretation ignores the coherent, melodic way in
which Denisov states the interjections. From mm. 20-36 Denisov uses this row five times, three
of which are unambiguous, clearly ordered statements (BPE in mm. 26-28, BRI8 in mm. 31-33,
and BR1 in mm. 33-36). These complete statements explore three of the possible four types of
transformations (P, R, and RI). In context, these sound like coherent musical phrases. These
statements represent the most concise, clear instances of twelve-tone rows in the piece. While the
Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano is filled with clear, easy to hear row statements, until this
moment Deux Pièces tends to avoid them by stretching the row over a lengthy span of time, by
altering the order, or by completing the aggregate ambiguously. He also accentuates the
statements of the second row with dynamics. Denisov only uses crescendos and decrescendos
together in statements of row B.
The avoidance of interval class three, the change in melodic contour, and the much more
rapid pace at which the twelve-tone aggregate completes all contribute to the contrast between
this and the main idea’s repeated tones and rhythmic imitation. Denisov changes both texture and
pitch material to achieve clear punctuation, in this case obviously altering the musical surface
84
and subtly altering the pitch content to achieve an interruption of the main idea. Denisov just as
easily could have stuck to the primary row for the ascending figures in mm. 23, 27-28, and 32,
but he chose to accentuate the difference with a different row. This method echoes his approach
to the third movement of the saxophone and piano sonata, in which the interaction of the two
rows, though more sophisticated and more sharply contrasted than in Deux Pièces, served as a
driving force.
Aside from the pitch content, the interaction among the voices during the first
interruption (beginning in m.23) contrasts with the main musical stream of the movement. From
the beginning of the movement until this interruption the voices worked in tandem, always
relating to one another via rhythmic imitation and a common row form. In the interruption, while
the saxophone takes its own path one exception aside, the piano continues with imitation
between the two hands. The saxophone leads in mm. 25-27, followed by the left hand and then
the right hand. In mm. 29-31 the saxophone does not participate in the imitation, leaving the
right hand of the piano to lead the left hand. The saxophone alternates independence from the
piano with participation in the imitation. Thanks mostly to the piano, the continuous stream of
imitative ideas that began at the beginning of the movement continues unabated.
The aggregate harmonies between the hands are chromatic clusters (5, 6, 7, 8, 9, T, 1 and
4, 5, 6, 7, 8 respectively). The individual chords fit set classes (016) and (012). Many of the
harmonies in the Sonata are (016) based, for instance mm. 81-85 of the third movement. All of
the rows for both of these pieces have consecutive semitone segments, allowing (012) to appear
in both melodic and harmonic contexts.
The noticeably different texture of the interruption disappears abruptly as the imitative
texture reasserts itself in m.37, recalling the atmosphere of the opening of this movement. While
85
the procedures largely parallel the opening of the movement, the statement of the row (this time
AP3), unfolds much more rapidly than at the beginning, largely thanks to the use of (012) based
clusters in the piano as opposed to single tones. The procedure for the remainder of the
movement follows the path outlined thus far: the main imitative idea continues along with row B
based interruptions.
86
Chapter 4 - Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Cello
This sonata was composed for Claude Delangle in 1994 and is dedicated to him.
The two instruments, saxophone and cello, blend well while remaining different to write
for. This sonata is virtuosic and fits in continuity with the saxophone and piano sonata
composed in 1970 and develops its ideas. It features three movements, the second being
the longest and the most developed. It is a long dialogue between the two instruments;
they are dealt with in ways uniform and melodic whereas in the other movements they
are most often superimposed. The second movement often uses quarter-tones; the third,
jazz elements.1
Denisov encourages the performer to draw parallels between the Sonata for Alto Saxophone and
Piano and this work. While these sonatas mirror each other in many ways, Denisov composed
this piece twenty-four years after his initial work for saxophone. At the time of his first sonata
for saxophone he was still publicly referred to as a “young composers (molod'iye kompozitori)”
while this work was among his last.2 Unsurprisingly Denisov’s compositional language changed
over the lengthy span between these works. This chapter will compare and contrast Denisov’s
saxophone sonatas in addition to discussing the form and other salient features of each
movement.
Joren Cain presents a comparative analysis of this and the Sonata for Alto Saxophone and
Piano which examines the similarities between the respective movements of these works,
emphasizing the textural and formal parallels.3 This chapter will likewise highlight similarities
1
Edison Denisov, Sonate pour Saxophone Alto et Violoncelle (Paris: Alphonse Leduc, 1995). This is my
translation of the note de l’auteur.
2
Union, 1956-1974” (PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 2002), 1; This piece was composed in October
1994. Denisov died November 1996. New Grove (Norsworthy) only lists the following works composed in 1994 or
later: Chamber Symphony no.2 (1994), Morning Dream (1995), Choruses for Medea (1995) and Concerto for Flute,
Clarinet, and Orchestra (1996). His Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Cello does not appear, and while it is possible
that there are other omissions, his health was poor and he likely composed few works between 1994 and 1996.
3
Joren Cain, “The Saxophone Sonatas of Edison Denisov: a Study of Continuity,” in The Saxophone
Symposium 24 (1999), 26-40.
87
between the two sonatas, but it will also explore the interesting motivic relationships within and
among the movements of this work.
The large scale layout of this and the Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano bear
significant similarities. The saxophone and piano sonata lasts twelve minutes while the
saxophone and cello sonata lasts thirteen minutes.4 While individual movement timings do not
appear in the score of the saxophone and piano sonata, we can approximate them using a well-
known recording.5 Delangle completes the first movement in 3’26”, the second in 3’33”, and the
third in 4’47”. Denisov’s timings for the movements of the saxophone and cello sonata are
3’30”, 4’45”, and 4’45”. The outer movements are within four seconds and two seconds of each
other respectively, while the middle movement of the saxophone and cello sonata is more than a
minute longer than its corresponding movement in the saxophone and piano sonata. Denisov, in
his program note above, described the second movement as the “longest and most developed.”
While the first movements and third movements of these works correspond closely (in more
ways than just duration), we should expect the inner movements to differ. Denisov’s note offers
guidance to both the performer and the analyst. In the outer movements of this work we should
expect the saxophone and cello to be very independent, while in the middle movement we should
expect greater interdependence.
4
Denisov (1995), 1; Edison Denisov, Sonate pour Saxophone Alto et Piano (Paris: Alphonse Leduc, 1973),
2.
5
Claude Delangle, The Russian Saxophone, recorded July 1995, BIS Records CD-765, 1995, CD. This
seems a credible source, since Delangle commissioned the saxophone and cello sonata and is among the most
prominent saxophonists of his generation. Cain also relied on this recording when comparing timings (Cain, 29).
88
I. Allegro Risoluto
The Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano relied on the DSCH motive for coherence
within and among the movements. While DSCH does not return at the beginning of the Sonata
for Alto Saxophone and Cello, Denisov begins the piece with a motive that mimics its contour
(see Example 4.1).
Example 4.1
According to Kholopov, Denisov frequently employed “paired semitones in varied
combinations” in his later works, a description that fits both this motive and DSCH.6 The
distance between the dyads of these motives differ; DSCH has a minor third between its dyads
while our new motive has a perfect fourth between them. This melodic perfect fourth, which is a
member of interval class five, was the only unique interval from Denisov’s primary row in the
saxophone and piano sonata. Every other interval class that Denisov included in the row
occurred more than once. The contour and interval content of the initial motive resonate with the
earlier sonata without copying it.
6
Harwood Academic Publishers, 1995), 73.
89
The initial gesture of the first movement diverges from the language of the saxophone
and piano sonata. The row for the earlier sonata contained ICs 1, 2, 3, and 5. The first gesture of
this sonata features an augmented chord (two consecutive IC 4s). While IC 4 did appear in the
earlier sonata, its use was limited to altered row statements and sections not based on the row.
Denisov favored relatively clear row statements at important points of the form, thus the major
third did not tend to emerge so boldly at important points in the music in the sections of the
saxophone and piano sonata that relied on row A.
The Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Cello demonstrates much greater flexibility than the
Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano. At times the earlier sonata rigidly worked out processes,
for example its chain of overlapping rows in mm. 74-81 of the first movement or the sequence by
whole step that generates the saxophone line in the first section of movement III. Aside from just
sequential passages, many section of the work relied on readily identifiable twelve-tone row
transformations, for instance the first two pages of the score, where practically every note fit one
form of the row or another. The saxophone and cello sonata does not rely on complete statements
of a twelve-tone row as a unifying device. In fact the twelve-tone aggregate appears rather
infrequently. If Denisov used a twelve-tone row to generate sizable sections of the music, he did
not do so in a readily apparent way. He certainly does not use a row as a main theme the way he
did in the earlier sonata. The first gesture in the piece that looks at all like a twelve-tone row
comes in the saxophone in m.11 (see Example 4.2).
90
Example 4.2, m.11
Interestingly, Denisov embeds DSCH in this initial row along with an altered version of the
piece’s opening motive (T9845 here instead of 9T45). The repeated tones highlight the presence
of DSCH. The opening phrase (mm. 1-8) studiously avoids PC E. Unlike the two preceding
works, in which the twelve-tone aggregate frequently came to the surface in melodic and
harmonic gestures, this work avoids completing the aggregate in its initial, declamatory phrase.
We cannot dismiss this phrase as just an introduction, since Denisov rounds out the form with an
elaborated statement of the opening (starting at m.64). While creating a matrix and picking out
members of the row class provided invaluable information about the Sonata for Alto Saxophone
and Piano and some useful information for Deux Pièces, this approach provides limited value
here. His other two pieces began with clear statements of twelve-tone rows, rows that served as
main themes of their respective pieces. This work asserts its independence from Denisov’s
earlier methods right at the beginning, though the twelve-tone row and DSCH provide allusions
to the Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano.
Kholopov notes that Denisov often provides a row statement at the beginnings of his
pieces, since the row usually serves a thematic function, a practice the preceding two chapters of
this document demonstrate.7 Despite the absence of a clear row at the start of this piece, Denisov
still provides us with an important motive (see example 4.1), one that returns continually at
7
Kholopov, 79.
91
important points in the piece much as DSCH did in the earlier sonata. As with everything else in
this work, Denisov treats his main motive felixibly, often elaborating it and combining it with
DSCH. The dialogue between these motives emerges at important moments throughout all three
movements of this work.
While Denisov’s treatment of pitch and order in this sonata diverge markedly from his
methods in the two earlier pieces, the sonatas resonate in terms of form, length, and style.
Kholopov summarizes the elements of Denisov’s style: “high lyricism,” “lyrical interweaving,”
“shooting, pricking, and sharply rhythmical dots,” “dotting and pointilistic splashes,” “rustles
and smooth threads,” “sonoristic mixtures/clusters,” “sonoristic arrays,” “aleatory,” and use of
“traditional artistic genres.”8 All of these elements appear in each of these works.
Like the other works, understanding the form enables informed interpretation. Cain
divides the first movement as follows: A (mm. 1-18) B (mm. 19-63) A’ (mm. 64-end).9 Cain
believes that the unifying motive is A-Bb and that its presence at the beginning of each of these
sections punctuates the form.10 While this dyad appears at the beginnings of all of the sections he
identifies, it often appears as part of our main motive (9T54). Also, important changes in pitch
material and texture at m.39 and at m.52 deserve discussion. I will label this movement in five
sections, the first of which (mm. 1-18) consists of two phrases: mm. 1-8 and mm. 9-18.
Aside from m.6, in the opening seven measures the saxophone takes the lead, frequently
playing paired semitones. In m.6 the cello loosely imitates the saxophone’s line from m.7,
providing motion against the saxophone’s sustained flutter tongue. With the exception of the
8
Ibid., 50-61.
9
Cain, 30.
10
Ibid.
92
sustained cello tones in m.16, Denisov treats the voices equally in mm.9-18, unlike the opening
where the saxophone dominates. In this phrase the soloistic texture of the opening gives way to
counterpoint. As described earlier (see Example 4.2), Denisov alludes to the Sonata for Alto
Saxophone and Piano in m.11 with a twelve-tone row and the DSCH motive in the saxophone.
The cello nearly completes its own row, missing only PC 5, a tone that starts and ends the
saxophone line. This moment of twelve-toneness stands out, given the relative scarcity of such
statements.
While Denisov does not construct this piece around sequences of rows the way he did
much of the saxophone and piano sonata, and thus row-class members do not pervade the work,
the row from m.11 does provide a degree of coherence to the piece and its salient features
deserve discussion. The unordered IC pattern of the row is a palindrome (4 1 1 3 1 5 1 3 1 1 4).
Like the row from the Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano, the interval pattern that generates
DSCH (1 3 1) appears twice in the row, though in this case the row generates a prime and a
retrograde version of the motive. The interval structure of this row closely resembles that of row
A from the earlier sonata (see Figure 4.1). Both rows have one instance of IC 5, two instances of
IC 3, and six instances of IC 1. The saxophone and cello row replaces the two instances of IC 2
with two IC 4s. While ICs 2 and 6 do not occur in this row, these intervals do appear in the piece.
Denisov freely extracts motives and plays with order, producing these missing intervals in a
number of ways. The fact that this row and row A share eight of their intervals creates a strong
sense of resonance between the pieces.
93
Figure 4.1
Sonata for Alto Saxophone and

Cello
m.11 row 5 1 2 3 0 E 6 7 T 9 8 4
Sonata for Alto Saxophone and

Piano
Row A (P form) 2 3 0 E 1 8 9 T 7 6 4 5
Unordered Pitch Class Intervals 1 2 3 4 5 6

m.11 row 6 0 2 2 1 0
Row A 6 2 2 0 1 0
If we construct a matrix for this row (see Figure 4.2) we discover that the piece’s initial
motive (9T54) appears in the RIE form of the row, as does a very similar motive (T954) in P3.
Figure 4.2
P R
I 0 8 9 T 7 6 1 2 5 4 3 E
4 0 1 2 E T 5 6 9 8 7 3
3 E 0 1 T 9 4 5 8 7 6 2
2 T E 0 9 8 3 4 7 6 5 1
5 1 2 3 0 E 6 7 T 9 8 4
6 2 3 4 1 0 7 8 E T 9 5
E 7 8 9 6 5 0 1 4 3 2 T
T 6 7 8 5 4 E 0 3 2 1 9
7 3 4 5 2 1 8 9 0 E T 6
8 4 5 6 3 2 9 T 1 0 E 7
9 5 6 7 4 3 T E 2 1 0 8
RI 1 9 T E 8 7 2 3 6 5 4 0
9T54 appears throughout the work, notably at points of punctuation in the form, functioning
much as DSCH did in the earlier sonata. Cain noticed the importance of A-Bb (9T), but he did
94
not recognize that this four note motive appears in both prime and retrograde forms throughout
all three movements of the piece.11
In both the saxophone and cello, section 2 (mm. 19-38) mostly relies on chromatic
motion. The first gesture in the cello demonstrates this idea (see Example 4.3).
Example 4.3
The cello spells out a reordered descending chromatic scale from Bb to Eb. Many of the other
measures in this section also spell out chromatic gestures, likely thanks to the prevalence of the
IC 1 in the row. Interestingly, the cello begins with saxophone’s dyad from the beginning of the
movement (A-Bb) while the saxophone begins with D-Eb, the first dyad of the Sonata for Alto
Saxophone and Piano (see Example 4.3). Denisov enhances this connection when he states
retrogrades of both the main motive and DSCH consecutively in the saxophone line. Throughout
this work 9T54 and DSCH interact with each other (see Example 4.4).
11
Cain, 30.
95
This retrograde version of the opening motive returns as the main idea of both the fourth section
of this movement and the second movement. Denisov also elaborates the main motive and
DSCH with decorative tones. In Example 4.4 note how eliminating the lower neighbor C# in the
cello (second sixteenth note, m.21) creates a reordered statement of DSCH (E023). In the
following measure Denisov does the same thing to the main motive (see Example 4.5).
Example 4.5, m.22
If we treat the saxophone’s G# as an incomplete neighbor and its F as a passing tone it leaves a
reordered version of the main motive. Also note the presence of DSCH split between the voices.
These two motives, often transformed, pervade this work.
96
The saxophone and cello engage flexibly in rhythmic imitation throughout this second
section. Both voices play patterns of straight sixteenth notes with single sixteenth rests
interspersed. The rhythmic imitation begins strictly: the cello leads and the saxophone follows
five sixteenths later in mm. 19-26. The gestures vary in length (11, 13, 11, 12, 8, 10, and 15
sixteenth notes respectively) but the time interval between entrances remains consistent. The
saxophone breaks the pattern in mm. 26-27, following the cello’s six note pattern with a five note
pattern. In mm. 26-29 the saxophone begins its ascent towards the altissimo register. Upon
reaching this top register in m.30 the voices briefly return to their rhythmic canon for two
gestures (11 and 6 sixteenths respectively) before diverging for the remainder of the section.
Denisov abandons his chromatic gestures at the start of section 3 (mm.39-51). While this
section may not at first glance resemble section 1, a careful examination of its elements reveals
its debt to the opening of the piece. Section 3 contains numerous audible row fragments in close
proximity, for instance a hexachord of P0 in m.39 and a hexachord of R11 in m.40. Denisov even
recycles a complete gesture from m.3 in m.40 (see Example 4.6).
97
Example 4.6, m.3 (begins in bass cleff) and m.40 (treble cleff)
The order does not match exactly until the last tetrachord and m.3 has an extra tone (C#). Despite
the alterations, these two measures are remarkably similar. The cello also copies material from
the first section, for instance when the harmonized Eb-C#-D motive from m.4 returns in m.41.
The poco più tranquillo, the fourth section of this movement, foreshadows the second
movement by reducing the tempo, relying heavily on 45T9, and by introducing quarter-tones.
Like Denisov’s earlier works, the quarter-tones extend and elaborate lines. 45T9 begins the
saxophone’s first phrase (m.52) and second phrase (poco a poco più mosso, m.58), as it begins
many ideas in the second movement. This motivic correspondence is only the beginning of the
parallel; if we line up mm. 52-56 of this movement with mm. 44-47 of the second movement the
pitch correspondence is unmistakable. These sections begin with the same motive and,
decorative tones and reordering aside, share the same pitch content (see Example 4.7).
98
Example 4.7, I. mm. 52-54, II. mm. 41-48
Denisov concludes section 4 by borrowing from section 3. Measures 61-62 copy mm. 39-41
precisely in pitch and similarly in rhythm (see Example 4.8).
Example 4.8, mm.39-41, 61-62
99
Denisov redistributes some of the gestures between the saxophone and cello, but he calls our
attention to the similarities by returning the T6732 gesture from m.39 one octave lower in the
same rhythm. He concludes the section by trilling the first two tones of the piece (A-Bb) in the
saxophone in m.63.
Section 5 (mm. 64-77) rounds out the form, returning to and elaborating the ideas of
section 1. The elaborations do nothing to disguise the allusion to the opening of the piece. The
saxophone draws its pitch material for mm. 64-72 from mm. 1-5. In m.66 Denisov begins with a
chromatic gesture that closely matches his vocabulary from section 2 before copying m.3 (see
Example 4.9).
Example 4.9, mm.66-68, 3-4
As in the beginning, Denisov avoids PC E in this example. Throughout this section Denisov
elaborates gestures from the beginning of the piece in this manner. The cello does not copy from
the beginning quite as literally as the saxophone does, but the resemblance remains, for instance
how m.67 adds only one tone (B) to m.4. After copying m.6 in m.69, the cello propels the music
away from its imitation of the opening.
100
Given the pitch similarities between sections 1 and 3, we could diagram the form of the
movement as follows: A B A' C A''. This rounded, rondo-like form resonates with the
palindrome interval pattern of the piece’s first twelve-tone row (m.11).
II. Tranquillo
The slow tempo, rhythmic ratios, odd rhythmic juxtapositions between the parts, and
frequent syncopation contribute to the static atmosphere. This mood resembles the middle
movement of the Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano, but the interaction of two voices is the
critical feature, unlike the earlier sonata’s saxophone monologue. The first movement of the
Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano did not foreshadow the second, while in the penultimate
section of the first movement of this sonata (mm. 52-63) the pitch material, use of quarter-tones,
and rhythmic devices all allude to the coming slow movement. This movement should be taken
at a slower tempo than either of the two previously discussed slow movements. The metronome
marking should be 35 beats per minute (168 beats/4.75 minutes).
The voices interact in the outer movements of this work, but the nature of that interaction
differs in the middle movement. Recall Denisov’s indication that this movement “is a long
dialogue between the two instruments; they are dealt with in ways uniform and melodic whereas
in the other movements they are most often superimposed.”12 The outer movements feature
independent voices while this movement relies heavily on imitation, though Denisov typically
alters rhythms and adds tones freely to the imitative ideas. Take, for instance, the opening four
measures. The saxophone and the cello both draw material loosely from I4 and they follow the
same basic trajectory (see Example 4.10).
12
Denisov (1995).
101
The pitch classes appear above all of the main tones, while I have left elaborating tones
unmarked. The cello takes the lead for the first two measures. Its lengthier elaboration of the
melody allows the saxophone to jump ahead in m.3. Denisov employs a very similar technique in
mm. 18-23, disguising the connection between the lines under elaborating tones and order
alterations (see Example 4.11).
Example 4.11, mm. 17-24
102
Initially it appears as if Denisov will imitate at the fourth because of the rhythmic similarities
between the voices, but ultimately it is the descending motion (T9876) that controls the path of
both voices.
The examples above highlight the importance of the main motive in this movement. 9T54
appears regularly throughout this movement, though most commonly as a retrograde (45T9).
This same retrograde appeared at the beginnings of both phrases in section 4 of the first
movement (m.52 and m.58), the section that alluded to this movement. If we look at the long
range motion the importance of this motive becomes even more apparent. The saxophone’s first
two tones are 9 T, and the first two tones of its second phrase are 5 4. If we view the intervening
material as an elaborative gesture, we see that Denisov starts this movement with the same
gesture that he began the piece with. In the third movement many of the bass line ideas likewise
rely on disguised statements of 45T9.
The correspondence between the opening of this movement and the opening of the piece
is not limited to one motive (see Example 4.12).
103
Example 4.12, I. m.1 and II. mm. 2-6
Omitting repeated tones, the saxophone begins the piece with 9T543126 and this movement with
9T321456. While the order differs, the tones are the same. The cello shares in this resonance
with the beginning, in large measure retracing the same pitches as the saxophone. Superficially
the first and the second movements share little in common, section 4 of the first movement aside,
but the motives which maintain their pitch class identity within and among movements provide a
sense of unity.
Like the first movement, the twelve-tone aggregate seldom appears, though Denisov does
insert a few substantial row segments, for instance in mm. 15-18 where the saxophone states the
first ten tones of P0 (see Example 4.13).
Example 4.13, mm. 15-18
104
This statement fails to complete the aggregate. Again, motivic coherence, the shapes of the
individual lines, and the interaction of the instruments matter more than adherence to any rigid
interpretation of dodecaphony. In this piece the row is even more an abstraction than it is a
tangible sound object, unlike the other two pieces in which their respective rows appeared
regularly.
This movement shares its AB form with the second movement of the Sonata for Alto
Saxophone and Piano. A encompasses mm. 1-40 and B mm. 41-56. A heavily elaborates its
statements of 45T9, at times obscuring them under layers of passing and neighbor motion (much
as P2 was elaborated in section A of the saxophone and piano sonata’s slow movement) while in
B the voices both state this motive explicitly and repeatedly. Both sections end with
multiphonics in the saxophone. Denisov divided the second movement of the earlier sonata
clearly as well, though he used silence and long notes instead of multiphonics.
Denisov builds B around imitative statements headed by 45T9. The saxophone goes first
(m.41), the cello follows (last note of m.42 into m.43), the saxophone takes over again (m.44),
the cello plays it in retrograde (starting with the triplet in m.45), and finally the saxophone takes
up the retrograde (mm. 50-52). The movement fades to a close as the cello sounds a chromatic
gesture (mm. 51-56) and the saxophone quietly plays multiphonics. While the cello is more
active at the end of A than at the end of B, the saxophone multiphonics give both sections a
similar sense of closure.
III. Moderato
Like the third movement of the Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano, this movement
begins with an ostinato bass line. The jazz allusion is even more obvious than in the earlier work,
105
since here he uses a pizzicato string instrument rather than the piano. Denisov added a tone to the
primary row to create the bass line in the earlier sonata. Here, he leaves out a tone from the first
statement. When the saxophone enters in m.2 its first tone fills in the gap (much as the piano
completed DSCH at the beginning of the first movement of his earlier sonata) creating 45T9, our
primary motive in retrograde (see Example 4.14).
Example 4.14, m.2
Just as in movements one and three of his other sonata, Denisov relies on a common motive to
begin the outer movements of this piece.
Denisov incorporates several ideas from the third movement of his saxophone and piano
sonata in this movement. The first movements of both sonatas change meters frequently, while
the third movements do not (this movement has one 11/8 measure, m.28, and stays in 9/8
otherwise, while the earlier sonata’s final movement keeps a constant meter throughout). The
third movements each begin with a mostly stepwise ostinato meant to evoke a walking bass,
though the ostinato lasts much longer before changing in the saxophone and piano sonata (twelve
statements) than in this movement (five statements). After the fifth statement Denisov continues
106
with the pizzicato bass idea through the beginning of m.11, altering the tones for each statement.
Each of these statements begins with a dyad from the main motive (9T54) until the final one,
which comes in one sixteenth early and sounds the retrograde of DSCH (see Example 4.15).
Example 4.15, mm. 10-11
The saxophone’s entrance initially echoes the developmental process of the saxophone melody
from the earlier sonata. In that sonata the saxophone stated AP2 repeatedly, followed by a series
of transposed versions of the row. Here Denisov abandons the repetition after the third statement,
instead extending into an unexpected version of the row (see Example 4.16).
This statement of eleven tones recalls the opening of the first movement (mm. 1-7), where
Denisov avoided completing the twelve-tone aggregate. Many of the statements in the first part
of this movement consist of significant subsets of one row transformation or another, but like in
the other movements of this work complete statements remain uncommon.
The form of this movement resembles the form of the first movement of the saxophone
and piano sonata: A B Coda. While Denisov alludes to the saxophone and piano sonata in the
107
first two movements, the references rise to the surface in this movement. Denisov mixes DSCH
with his 45T9 motive throughout this movement, for instance in m.8 (see Example 4.17).
Example 4.17, m.8
In m.12 and in mm. 19-20 Denisov again places these motives consecutively in the saxophone
line. In m.21, as the section comes to a close, these motives interact differently (see Example
4.18).
Example 4.18, m.21
In the saxophone line, if we treat the C# as a lower neighbor tone and ignore repeated tones, we
are left with 45T9 broken up by DSCH. The cello has three elaborating tones (G#, F#, G), but
otherwise states the same two motives as the saxophone. Also note how the combination of the
108
parts creates both 9T54 and 54T9, resulting in the following series of motives: 320E, 9T45,
320E, 54T9. While Denisov does not restrict himself only to the exploration of these motives,
they occur regularly and in prominent places in the texture. The third movement of the
saxophone and piano sonata revolved around the opposition of two rows that acted as themes.
This movement revolves around two musical ideas, but Denisov more often blends them than
sets them against each other.
The second section of the movement, B (the last four eighth notes of m.22 through m.53),
begins with a new ostinato. Recall that Denisov likewise signaled the second section of the
saxophone and piano sonata’s final movement with a new ostinato. This ostinato only makes it to
its third statement before Denisov alters it (m.24). As in A, the dyads 4 5 and T 9 appear
prominently in the bass line patterns, very often beginning them. The bass line emphasizes the
continued interaction of our two main motives while also referring to the main row from the
earlier sonata (see Example 4.19).
Example 4.19, mm. 27-28
The outer dyads combine to create 45T9, while 4532 matches the interval pattern of the final
tetrachord of the saxophone and piano sonata’s row A (this particular motive comes from RI7).
The mostly stepwise shape of the gestures gives way to something new in m.31 (see
example 4.20).
109
Example 4.20, m.31.
Denisov quotes the coda of the Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano’s third movement, stacking
diminished chords separated by a major third. These tones match the first seven tones of m.81
exactly (see Example 4.21).
Example 4.21, Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano, III., m.81
Denisov completes the second fully diminished seventh chord in the next statement (m.32),
extending the pattern from m.31 in the same way the second figure in m.81 of the saxophone and
piano sonata’s third movement extends further than the first. While initially it sounds like a copy
of the saxophone and piano sonata’s coda, not every arpeggio in this section follows the
aforementioned interval pattern, since Denisov inserts extra major thirds from time to time. Still,
the arpeggios with occasional stepwise interjections (such as near the end of m.33) and quarter
tones evoke the mood and procedures of that coda.
110
Measure 38 transitions towards the melodic and rhythmic style of the beginning of the
movement, a style which returns convincingly at m.39 as the triadic figures abruptly end. Also in
m.39 the cello abandons the pizzicato bass line idea, becoming more melodic and interacting
more with the saxophone. This phrase extends through m.48, after which the energy of the
movement begins to dissipate. The lines begin to work down towards the saxophone’s low
register and the durations become longer as the coda approaches. The cello continues to have a
melodic character, for instance engaging briefly and loosely in imitation with the saxophone in
m.49 (see Example 4.22).
Example 4.22, m.49
The initial gestures in both instruments share a contour and nearly an interval pattern, though the
second interval (D-Ab) in the saxophone is a tritone while the cello has a perfect fourth (F-Bb).
The boxes in Example 4.22 indicate the shared motives, which reorder tones and have different
rhythms.
The coda, which runs from the meno mosso in m.54 until the end, borrows the melodic
profile of the second movement, though only hints at its imitative character. The saxophone
begins with 45T9, just as in the second movement. Through the first two measures of the coda
111
the cello sparsely accompanies the saxophone. In m.56 the cello shifts to a more melodic role,
beginning with the retrograde of DSCH (see Example 4.23).
The saxophone imitates the cello’s retrograde with the inversion of DSCH, while the remainder
of the cello line outlines a chromatic descent, one brief imitation of the saxophone aside (see
Example 4.24). This chromatic line evokes the second section of movement one, though this line
works down while the earlier movement’s line worked up to the top registers of the instruments.
112
The coda of this movement does not resemble the saxophone and piano sonata’s coda at all. That
coda introduced new material, built from the saxophone’s low register to its top natural range
tone, and moved very rapidly. This coda quotes important ideas from the rest of the sonata
including the two most important motives rather than introducing something new, but does not
introduce anything new in terms of pitch content or atmosphere. The texture mimics that of the
slow movement. Unlike the slow movement of the saxophone and piano sonata, which appeared
somewhat abruptly, Denisov prepares it with section 4 of the first movement and recalls it with
the coda of the third movment. Rather than ending stridently and percussively like the other
coda, this coda fades away at the bottom of a descent in both voices. If this work continues the
ideas of the earlier sonata, it certainly ends in a very different place.
113
Chapter 5 - Suggestions for the performer
The preceding analyses highlight the structural materials Denisov relies on in each of
these pieces for saxophone. While the musical surfaces of these pieces can be intimidating,
Denisov’s clarity of form and his reliance on consistent musical material, especially themes and
motives, create entry points for understanding and interpreting his music. In this chapter I will
discuss how an awareness of the form and the musical fabric enables informed phrasing and
dynamic choices. I will also provide some practice strategies for addressing Denisov’s
unorthodox rhythmic language. I do not propose to provide a comprehensive, authoritative
interpretation of these works. Instead I will attempt to provide suggestions based on my analyses
and my readings of others’ analyses that will help a performer arrive at his or her own informed
interpretation of these works.
Dynamics
The performer should take particular care with Denisov’s dynamic indications. He often
indicates a dynamic level and provides crescendos and decrescendos within the range of that
dynamic level, for example the opening of the third movement of the Sonata for Alto Saxophone
and Piano (see Example 2.24). Each of the statements should begin forte and decay, but within
the realm of forte. These fragments reach further with each instance, and a decrescendo to piano
on the first statement leaves the performer with little room to maneuver on the later, longer
statements.
Denisov also indicates shifts in the musical material through more sudden dynamic shifts.
In the coda of the saxophone and piano sonata’s final movement Denisov juxtaposes two
114
contrasting ideas: (0369) and the primary row. In Example 5.1 below, note how the dynamic
indications emphasize the shifts in material.
Example 5.1, Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano, III., mm. 78-79 1
The black boxes indicate gestures based on (0369) while the red boxes indicate gestures based on
row A. Each of the row A statements begins with an accent and includes an espressivo marking,
indicating a bolder playing style. This movement in particular includes many dynamic shifts of
this type, shifts that reflect the sudden changes in Denisov’s vocabulary.
In contrast to this terraced approach to dynamics, consider the crescendo from piano to
forte in mm. 54-55 of the same movement (see Example 5.2).
Example 5.2, Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano, III., mm. 54-55
1
Note the likely error in the score in the I0 statement (m.78). The second tone is a written G natural, while a
written G# would both make this a complete statement of I0 and complete a reordered statement of DSCH (0E23).
115
When Denisov desires a crescendo to a specific dynamic level, he indicates it clearly. He again
uses dynamics to set apart his contrasting ideas, in this case giving row B gestures (see Example
5.2) a much larger dynamic range than row A gestures (see Example 5.3).
Example 5.3, Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano, III., m.57
Rhythm
Perhaps the most intimidating aspect of this piece to the young performer is rhythm. The
constantly shifting meter of the first movement, the rhythmic ratios, and the oddly beamed final
movement all contribute to the difficulty of approaching this work. While Denisov indicates the
tempo at the eighth note for the first movement, it may be best to begin practicing at the
sixteenth note.
The rhythmic ratios that Denisov uses throughout his works contain vocabulary that may
be unfamiliar to a performer accustomed to more traditional repertoire. I suggest clearly marking
the locations of the beats in the score via the following process. Take, for instance, the rhythmic
ratios in Example 5.4 (5:4, a common ratio in all three of the works discussed in this document).
116
Example 5.4, Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano, II., first line
The ratio X:Y should be read as X notes in the place of Y notes, in this case five notes in the
place of four. The first rhythm in Example 5.4 is five sixteenth notes in the place of four (one
beat) while the second is five eighth notes in the place of four (two beats). Five sixteenths in the
place of four can be read as a quintuplet and thus requires no special notation. For the second of
these rhythms, find the least common multiple of the number of beats and the number of notes.
In the case of five notes over two beats, draw two long lines to represent the beats and give each
beat five subdivisions for a total of ten subdivisions (see Figure 5.1). Place a number above every
second subdivision to represent the placement of the notes.
Figure 5.1
1 2 3 4 5
Since the first two notes are quarter notes, the corresponding notes in Figure 5.1 appear in
boldface. Next, transfer the beat markings to the score (see Example 5.5).
117
Example 5.5, Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano, II., first line 2
While the rhythm in Example 5.6 appears different than the rhythm in Example 5.5, the context
of this passage makes it likely the performer will count Example 5.6 at the eighth note. Five
notes must again span two beats.
Example 5.6, Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Cello¸I. m.44
We can approach any of the rhythmic ratios in these works similarly. Take, for instance,
Example 5.7 and Figure 5.2 below, which show how to place seven notes over three beats (three
beats of seven subdivisions each; place a number on every third subdivision).
2
The lines represent the quarter note pulse.
118
Figure 5.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Example 5.7, Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Cello¸II. m.11
Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano
This work employs various transformations of a twelve-tone row headed by a distinctive
motive, Dmitri Shostakovich’s musical monogram, DSCH. The row and important subsets
(particularly DSCH) serve as themes and motives respectively, punctuating important moments
in the large-scale structure of the piece.
Denisov frequently overlaps row transformations via one or more common tones. At
times he wishes to bring out the shift from one row to the next, at others he disguises the
transformation to create a long, flowing line. Example 5.8 demonstrates an instance of Denisov
punctuating the row with dynamics. Two row forms overlap, sharing a single common tone (the
written E in the second measure of the example). The shared tone is the nadir of the decrescendo,
ending one gesture and beginning the next.
119
Example 5.8, mm.12-14.
Example 5.9 below shows that from the common tone on, the sizes of the ordered pitch intervals
change drastically. While the unordered pitch class intervals remain almost identical (primarily
interval classes 1, 2, and 3, the most common interval classes in the row), the ordered pitch
intervals go from mostly small (aside from the first interval they are +3, +1, +2, -1) to very wide
(-11, +9, +11), a change in the line’s shape which is clearly visible to the performer.
Example 5.9, I. mm.12-14
Denisov punctuates the row transition both with dynamics and interval size. Instead of using the
common tone to smoothly shift from one form to the next, Denisov uses surface musical
elements to mark the change, and the performer’s phrasing should reflect this element. The
120
written E is the key note of the gesture, the goal of the first part of the phrase and the departure
point of the second.
Denisov does not always mark beginnings and endings of row forms this clearly, as some
row forms slide smoothly into others, for instance the chained rows that generate the saxophone
line in mm. 74-81 of the first movement (see Example 2.14) or the lengthy sequence that begins
the third movement (see Example 2.24). In both cases the divisions between transformations of
the row are rhythmically unaccented. While in Example 5.8 we should accentuate the shift from
one row form to the next, in the sequential sections we should create smooth, continuous lines,
avoiding unnecessary breaks.
I. Allegro
This movement is essentially an extended exploration of a single theme, Denisov’s
twelve-tone row (see Example 1.1 and Figure 1.1), and the various methods of linking statements
of this idea. Every important section of the form begins with the P2 version of this row, and in
many of these cases DSCH sounds clearly in one of the voices. Even when it does not, for
instance when Denisov splits the tones of the motive between voices (see m.1, Example 2.9) he
provides enough aural material to make the motive’s presence felt. The rhythms as well as the
dynamic and articulation markings differ for each statement, altering the character of the motive.
Denisov repeatedly starts sections with the same idea, but he tailors the character of the motive
to match its context.
The compositional procedures and thus the texture vary from section to section, and an
awareness of these can help clarify the appropriate balance between the parts. In the opening
section the saxophone carries the row, which largely serves as the main theme throughout the
work. The piano lines provide countermelody (such as m.2) and interrupt the saxophone’s rests
121
(such as m.7). When both voices are present, the saxophone should sit atop the texture. In a2
(mm.17-25) the voices carry equal lines and should match each other dynamically. In b1 (mm.
26-33) the saxophone carries the bulk of the melodic line, the imitation of m.27 aside, while in
b2 (mm. 34-41) the voices again sound equally.
B (beginning in m.42) marks a return to the main idea of the piece and, though the
dynamic level is much lower than the beginning, this relationship should sound clearly. On a
broad level B parallels A in terms of textures and procedures (see Figure 2.2). Throughout c1
(mm. 42-60) Denisov connects row forms in the saxophone line with a fragmented piano
accompaniment. This section should be continuous and soloistic, while c2 reestablishes the
equilibrium among the lines.
In d1 (mm. 74-84) Denisov strings together sequences of row transformations. The
consistent interval pattern should create a continuous stream of sound. The trills, with one
exception (in m.76), do not line up with changes in the row; the performer should not give them
undue emphasis or use them as points of phrase punctuation (see Example 2.14). Instead, they
maintain the tension through the sustained tones. The piano briefly imitates this procedure in
both voices in mm. 77-78, creating an incredibly dense tense texture. The three voices return to a
saxophone led, loosely imitative texture at d2 (mm. 85-99).
The Coda reasserts the declamatory character of the opening, giving particular
prominence to DSCH at the saxophone’s entrance (m.103) by accenting each tone and extending
the duration of the final tone of the motive.
122
II. Lento
The slow movement takes a much more flexible approach to the row. Unlike the frequent
chained rows of the first movement, Denisov elaborates and fragments the row, extending a
rather small amount of musical material over lengthy phrases.
While some silence between movements is necessary, it should not be so long that the
relationship between the final tone of movement I and the first tone of movement II becomes
lost. The multiphonic that begins this movement has a sounding A as its highest tone, matching
the final tone of the preceding movement.3 Likewise the attacca indication at the end of the
movement reflects the tones shared by the end of this movement and the beginning of the next
(see Example 2.23).
The quarter tones serve as elaborating gestures to a loosely row derived melody.
Essentially the thematic material carries forward from the first movement, though the
embellishing quarter-tones and the very slow tempo obscure this relationship. Denisov disguises
the melody and the pulse through the rhythmic ratios and ties, creating extended melodic
gestures. Take, for instance, section a2, which relies entirely on P2 until its final 9:8 gesture (see
Example 2.21). The performer should make every effort to make each phrase as continuous as
possible, as any unnecessary breaks in the sound disrupt the long range motion of the line.
The second part of the movement, B, begins much like the first and the saxophonist
should return to the muted, dark, static quality of the beginning of the movement. This section
never achieves the level of forward motion that A does. The mf swell on the first note of the
section and the Fpp multiphonic aside, the softest dynamic levels persist throughout this section.
3
1996), 106.
123
The saxophonist should mind the balance in the final gesture of the movement, as the piano’s
tones foreshadow the third movement’s first ostinato (see Example 2.23).
III. Allegro Moderato
The addition of a second row creates the essential conflict of this movement: the interplay
between two themes, one atonal and headed by DSCH, the other quasi-triadic (see Figure 2.7 for
a comparison of their respective interval contents). The gestures based on these two rows differ
greatly since they feature such dissimilar interval patterns, making them visually and aurally
distinct.
Throughout this movement Denisov employs three mostly independent voices: the
saxophone, the right hand of the piano, and the left hand of the piano. The relationships among
these voices and the pitch content of each helps shape the phrases and define the form.
The first two pages of the saxophone part (the first section of the movement) consist of an
extended sequence of overlapping row transformations which divides in two: the first part
consists of prime forms of the row transposed by whole-step (m.1 through the first beamed group
of m.13), the second inverted forms of the row transposed by whole-step. The sequences do not
flow from beginning to end uninterrupted, as Denisov frequently repeats segments of a row
before continuing. Denisov begins each of the first four statements in the saxophone at forte,
followed by a decrescendo. Each successive phrase should sound like the idea is restarting,
though it stretches a little further each time. The performer can accentuate this effect by starting
each gesture at the same dynamic and then decaying further with each succeeding statement.
The sixteenth rest between AP2 and AI7 in m.13, where the sequence shifts, is an ideal
place to take a quick breath, creating space between the phrases (see Example 2.25). Since this
entire section springs from a repeated intervallic pattern, it has an inherent sense of continuity,
124
one the performer should acknowledge by avoiding unnecessary musical punctuation. The
material in this section resonates strongly with the first movement, which features gestures of
this type in many places. In particular, his sequence in mm. 74-82 of the first movement (see
Example 2.14) closely matches the opening of this movement (see Example 2.24).
At the beginning the row A material dominates the texture (saxophone and ostinato),
while the right hand of the piano acts as a countermelody, interjecting row B gestures against the
largely row-A-based backdrop. The rows coexist in this way until mm.16-18, where the piano
shifts entirely to row B against the saxophone’s row A. Finally, the two rows dissolve at the end
of this section into material not clearly derived from either row (mm.19-20). Row A maintains its
dominance over the texture until the very end of the first section of the movement.
In the second section of the piece, beginning in m.21, Denisov divides row A statements
between the saxophone and the right hand of the piano (see Example 2.27). These should pass
smoothly between the instruments, especially since Denisov allows space in one voice for the
other to come through the texture. The saxophonist should allow space for the piano to complete
its thoughts (typically during the saxophone’s held tones, such as the written B half note in
m.23), emphasizing the conversational character of this section of the movement. The ensemble
here is balanced, as opposed to the saxophone’s dominance of the texture in the opening. Also in
this section the saxophonist should be aware of the shift to row B at the end of m.33, which leads
to the first section of the movement where all three voices draw from the same source row. This
gradual building of consensus among the voices culminates in the unison gesture that closes the
section (beginning on the last eighth note of m.44).
125
In the quasi-jazz interlude (mm.45-53) the piano sets the tone with its triadic, row-B-
based ideas.4 The row-A-based unison lines should feel like interruptions, particularly since if we
extracted them and played the consecutively they would form another chained sequence (AP2,
AP4, AI7, AP7), one very similar to the opening of the movement. Two contrasting ideas coexist
in this section, continually interrupting each other. Note the appearance of DSCH in m.53 near
the climax of the section. As in the first movement, Denisov gives this motive a place of
prominence at an important point in the form.
The texture of the third section (beginning in m.53) largely mirrors that of the jazz
interlude, though the saxophone shifts between row B ideas (mm.54-55, 56, 61-62, 66, 67) and
row A ideas. The majority of the row A ideas stay within a relatively narrow dynamic range (see
Example 5.3), while the row B ideas have an arched dynamic shape, many of which span piano
to either mezzo forte or forte (see Example 5.2). This dynamic distinction helps differentiate the
competing ideas. Again, the A-based lines complete a chain of row transformations just as in the
jazz interlude and the first section of the movement. They constitute a coherent musical line that
Denisov interrupts.
Denisov distinguishes dynamically between sources in the coda as well. The first mezzo
forte, at m.78, marks the first appearance of row A in the coda. Note also the espressivo at the
end of m.82 at the final return of row A. He brings the piece to a convincing, rounded, close by
copying the end of the first movement at the conclusion of the coda.
Deux Pièces
This work shares much in common with the Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano. Both
pieces treat their rows as main themes and the general atmospheres of these pieces also match
4
For a more comprehensive discussion of the jazz elements, see Harr (2004).
126
closely, though Denisov does not chain together members of the row class the way he did in the
Sonata. Even so, much of the musical vocabulary transfers easily from one piece to the next.
Much of the first movement is interpretively similar to the Sonata’s slow movement,
though the più mosso section features imitation among the saxophone and the two hands of the
piano. The piano, at least briefly, moves beyond its accompanimental role in a way it never did
in the Sonata’s slow movement (see Example 3.7).
The second movement evokes the sound of the sonata’s first movement, but more the
texture of the third in which a continuous idea is interrupted by a contrasting one. The ascending
figures, the most convincing twelve-tone rows in the work, should come out of the texture. While
the majority of the movement remains dynamically static, these interruptions all carry rapidly
changing dynamic indications. These gestures aside, the piano and saxophone share rows
throughout the movement and should balance each other dynamically.
Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Cello
The three movements of this work share corresponding atmospheres with the three
movements of the Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano, though Denisov takes a much less
systematic approach to this later work.
Much like the third movement of the saxophone and piano sonata, this work deals with
two competing musical ideas, though this time they are motives rather than complete twelve-tone
rows. Unlike the earlier sonata, complete twelve-tone rows appear very rarely in this piece,
serving instead as a source of ideas rather than as themes. While the earlier sonata added quarter-
tones and multiphonics in the second movement and a new row in the third movement, the first
movement of this work features a nearly complete musical vocabulary. Quarter tones appear in
127
all three movements of this work, as do the two principle motives. Denisov excludes two things
from the first movement of this work: multiphonics (which appear only in the slow movements
of the sonatas) and glissandi (which appear in all three movements of the earlier sonata, but only
in the third movement of this work).
I. Allegro risoluto
The movement opens with the key motive that pervades the work, 9T54 (written F#, G,
D, C#, see Example 4.1). This motive appears at important moments in the form much as DSCH
did in the saxophone and piano sonata. The performer should maintain the declamatory style of
the opening throughout the first section (mm. 1-18). While Denisov indicates crescendos and
decrescendos, every dynamic marking is either forte or fortissimo. The performers should stay in
the realm of forte throughout this opening.
The second section, mm. 19-38, is a lengthy crescendo and melodic ascent. While the
saxophone largely dominates the texture in the opening section of the movement, here the two
voices engage in imitative statements (as detailed in Chapter 4, notably Examples 4.3, 4.4, and
4.5) and should remain balanced dynamically and timbrally. The saxophone occupies the
altissimo register from mm.34-38, and while this segment is the loudest part of the section, a
thin, transparent timbre enables the voices to blend seamlessly.
The third section, mm. 39-51, returns the declamatory character of the opening. The
piano to forte crescendo in m.40 aside, it resides in the same dynamic space as the opening and
borrows many key motivic elements (see Example 4.6).
Measures 52-63, marked poco più tranquillo, foreshadow the atmosphere of the middle
movement. Rather than beginning with 9T54, the saxophone opens this section with the
retrograde of this motive, 45T9, which appears prominently throughout the slow movement.
128
I view the fifth and final section of the movement as a recapitulation since it borrows
pitch content liberally from the opening of the piece, though with rhythmic alterations. The cello
and the saxophone alternate moving lines, finally overlap in the final three measures, and
converge rhythmically with a quintuplet on the final gesture of the movement.
II. Tranquillo
This middle movement contrasts with the outer movements in many of the same ways
that the slow movement of the Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano did. Unlike the earlier
sonata, in this work mm. 52-63 of the first movement foreshadow the slow movement explicitly.
In both sonatas’ slow movements Denisov stretches musical ideas over a long temporal
span through elaborating gestures, often with the aid of quarter-tones. The motive 45T9, the
retrograde of the opening movement’s initial motive, appears throughout this movement. For
instance, mm. 31-34 outline 45T9, though with numerous decorative tones (see Example 5.10).
Example 5.10, mm. 31-35
The elaborations fill in the gaps between the tones of 45T9 chromatically. All of these
intervening tones serve merely to elaborate the gestures of the main motive, a procedure Denisov
employs liberally throughout this and his other works. In the cello ostinati of the final movement
he frequently copies this method: breaking up statements of the motives with intervening tones.
129
The majority of the phrases in section A of this movement elaborate 45T9 in this manner, while
in B many of the statements become concise and explicit, for instance in mm. 41-44 (see
Example 5.11).
Example 5.11, mm. 41-44
Aside from the lower neighbor Eb in the saxophone (m.44), these statements lack embellishment.
The movement relies heavily on imitation between the voices, though the elaborations
often differ and thus the imitation is not note-for-note (see Example 4.10). This imitative texture
underscores the main distinction between this movement and its corresponding movement in the
earlier sonata: the equality of the voices. The piano remains silent through the bulk of the earlier
work’s slow movement. Even when it enters, its role remains limited. In this movement the
saxophone and cello remain equal throughout. One instrument fills in virtually every silence and
every sustained tone in the other part. It truly is a conversation between equals.
The performers should exercise dynamic restraint throughout this movement. While
Denisov indicates crescendos and decrescendos, all dynamic markings in the movement are
either p or pp. The movement should peak dynamically going into m.26, which is preceded by
the only crescendo marked espressivo.
130
III. Moderato
The opening of this movement pays obvious homage to the saxophone and piano sonata’s
third movement via the walking-bass line in the cello, which echoes the earlier works left hand
ostinati, and the halting statements in the saxophone in m.2 that stretch further with each
repetition. In contrast to the sequential treatment of the row in the earlier work, Denisov quickly
dispenses with any predictable procedures in the saxophone line. He also abandons the initial
cello ostinato after only five statements, unlike the consistent ostinato in the first 14 measures of
the saxophone and piano sonata’s concluding movement.
The 9T54 motive, which appeared so frequently in the preceding two movements,
frequently intersects with DSCH much as the two rows interacted in the earlier sonata. Again,
Denisov operates much less rigidly in this work, but the main motives appear consistently at
important moments in the form (such as the end of section A, see Example 4.18). The Sonata for
Alto Saxophone and Piano relied on a consistent theme (row) to tie its movements together,
while this work relies on motives instead.
Much of this movement echoes the third movement of the earlier sonata, including the
ostinati and the direct quotations in mm. 30-35, but the codas differ sharply in character and
content. Denisov subtly foreshadowed the diminished chord figures before reaching the coda in
that earlier work, but (0369) largely functioned as new thematic material. In this movement
Denisov instead recalls the atmosphere of the second movement while retaining the main
motives. Denisov had indicated in his note de l’auteur that the middle movement was the
“longest and most developed.” Denisov’s foreshadowing of the slow movement in the first
movement (mm. 52-63) and echo of it at the conclusion of the final movement (mm. 54-60)
elevate its significance. The slow movement felt like an aside, a point of contrast in the Sonata
131
for Alto Saxophone and Piano. In this work the slow movement takes on a critical role, serving
as a shared musical thought among all of the movements.
132
Conclusion
To one degree or another, most saxophonists will approach these works as native
speakers of the tonal language. Since Denisov’s musical vocabulary differs so sharply from the
more familiar conventions of tonality, his works can at first appear to be nothing but a jumble of
tones and rhythms. I believe that interpretation of these works requires a certain fluency in
Denisov’s language, a fluency that can only be achieved through study and analysis. Since the
twelve-tone system offers such a rich and vast array of possibilities, no two twelve-tone
composers can be approached in quite the same way. While this opens interesting avenues for the
composer to create a unique voice, it poses serious challenges to the performer. Just as tonal
composers give performers key pieces of information regarding phrasing, particularly through
harmonic function, Denisov’s reliance on recognizable themes and motives provide the keys to
understanding and interpreting his music.
133
Bibliography
Barsova, Inna. "Shebalin, Vissarion Yakovlevich." Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online.
Oxford University Press, accessed August 26, 2013,
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/25617
Bradshaw, Susan. “The Music of Edison Denisov.” Tempo 151 (December 1984): 54. Accessed
March 24, 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/946212
Cain, Joren. “The Saxophone Sonatas of Edison Denisov: A Study of Continuity.” The
Saxophone Symposium 24 (1999): 26-40.
Cairns, Zachary A. “Multiple-row Serialism in Three Works by Edison Denisov.” PhD diss.,
University of Rochester: Eastman School of Music, 2010.
Dabney, Denise. “A Multicultural Approach to Edison Denisov’s Sonata for Alto Saxophone and
Piano: Diverse Analytical Insights.” The Saxophone Symposium (1995): 10-17.
———. The Russian Saxophone. Recorded July 1995. BIS Records CD-765, 1995. CD.
Denisov, Edison. “The Compositional Process.” Tempo 105 (1973): 2-11.
———. Deux Pièces. Paris: Alphonse Leduc, 1978.
———. “New Music and Jazz.” The World of Music 10, no.3 (1968): 35-36.
———. Sonate pour Saxophone Alto et Piano. Paris: Alphonse Leduc, 1973.
———. Sonate pour Saxophone Alto et Violoncelle. Paris: Gérard Billaudot, 1995.
Haar, Ora Paul. “The Influence of Jazz Elements on Edison Denisov’s Sonata for Alto
Saxophone and Piano.” DMA document, University of Texas at Austin, 2004.
Helton, Jonathan. “Edison Denisov’s Sonata for Saxophone and Piano: An Analysis for the
Performer.” The Saxophone Symposium 25 (2000): 16-38.
———. “An Essay on the Performance of Serial Music, with Analyses and Commentary on
Works for Saxophone by Luciano Berio, Edison Denisov and Guy Lacour. DM
document, Northwestern University, 1996.
Kholopov, Yuri and Valeria Tsenova. Edison Denisov. Chur, Switzerland: Harwood, 1995.
Norsworthy, Michael and Gerard McBurney. “Edison Denisov.” Grove Music Online. Accessed
Feb.14, 2013.
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/subscriber/article/grove/music/
53202
134
The Oxford Dictionary of Music, 2nd ed. rev. "Shebalin, Vissarion." Oxford Music Online.
Oxford University Press. Accessed August 26, 2013.
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/opr/t237/e9368
Perconti, John William. “A Description and Comparison of Two Works from the 1970s for the
Alto Saxophone.” MM thesis, Bowling Green State University, 1977.
Schmelz, Peter John. “Listening, Memory, and the Thaw: Unofficial Music and Society in the
Soviet Union, 1956-1974. PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 2002.
———. “What Was ‘Shostakovich,’ and What Came Next?” The Journal of Musicology, Vol.
24, No. 3 (Summer 2007): 297-338. Accessed July 29, 2013.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/jm.2007.24.3.297
———. “Shostakovich’s ‘Twelve-Tone’ Compositions and the Politics and Practice of Soviet
Serialism.” In Shostakovich and his World, edited by Laurel E. Fay, 303-354. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004.
Shirk, Elizabeth A. “Edison Vasil’yevich Denisov: A Biography and Analysis of his Deux Pièces
for Saxophone and Piano.” MM thesis, Bowling Green State University, 1986.
Spasov, Ivan. “And the Participants: Edison Denisov – Ivan Spasov.” Trans. Denitsa VanPelt.
Bulgarska Muzika, vol.3 (1989): 20-23.
Straus, Joseph. Twelve-Tone Music in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Umble, James. Jean-Marie Londeix: Master of the Modern Saxophone. Cherry Hill, NJ:
Roncorp, 2000.
Walker, Jonathan. "Socialist Realism." The Oxford Companion to Music. Oxford Music Online.
Oxford University Press. Accessed July 10, 2013.
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/subscriber/article/opr/t114/e62
74
135

A Performer's Guide To The Music For Saxophone of Edison Denisov

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Performer's Guide To The Music For Saxophone of Edison Denisov

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Performers Guide to the Music of Edison Denisov:

A DMA Document submitted to the

Division of Graduate Studies and Research

in partial fulfillment of the

DOCTOR OF MUSICAL ARTS

In the Performance Studies Division

B.M., University of Cincinnati College Conservatory of Music, 2004

M.M., Bowling Green State University, 2007

occupies an important position in the history of the saxophone. He promoted awareness of

a more satisfactory and meaningful interpretation of his works.

Chapter 2 - Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano ....................................................................... 11

Chapter 3 - Deux Pièces ................................................................................................................ 67

Chapter 4 - Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Cello........................................................................ 87

I. Allegro Risoluto ..................................................................................................................... 89

Chapter 5 - Suggestions for the performer .................................................................................. 114

Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano .................................................................................... 119

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 133

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 134

still label according to sounding pitch.

Terms and Abbreviations

retrograde, inverted, and retrograde inverted forms.

works, including those by Berio, Babbitt, and numerous others.

Shostakovich provided detailed comments on Denisov’s scores. They corresponded regularly as

Denisov slowly realized that he wished to become a composer. He followed Shostakovich’s

by Mahler, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, and Hindemith.8 At the

generation, second in influence only to Volkonsky.”9 Ultimately, Denisov taught analysis,

fall of the USSR.10

difficulties with the establishment. An understanding of Denisov’s musical language, particularly

of Denisov’s classmates, Nikolai Karetnikov:

to be uplifting to the masses.13 The authorities favored pieces on revolutionary subjects in

Webern’s works in particular.27

of the Sonata for Alto Saxophone and Piano.

recorded himself and sent the recording to Denisov.31

interpretation. Dmitri Shostakovich famously used a musical monogram, DSCH (D-Eb-C-B), in

Denisov’s own, not Shostakovich’s.

Saxophone and Piano.

worthy of performance. While we might otherwise associate pre-compositional processes with

he exploits it in a variety of motivic, melodic, and harmonic ways.

An analysis of Denisov’s Sonata may initially suggest an emphasis on serial techniques.

enables a more informed and authentic performance of this composition.

more tonal ones, leading Schmelz to view it as a critique of Shostakovich.7 If we accept

or personal critique of Shostakovich.

At times Denisov follows strict transformational processes, and others he alters or

varying degrees. Distinguishing these sections helps illuminate the form.

missing three (see Example 2.1).

(including P, R, I, and RI forms).

returning to at important moments in the piece.

to the indispensability of this motive.

with the subsections of A.

Example 2.2, mm. 7-10

manipulating his source material.

Example 2.3, mm. 15-18

the second hexachord of a row related by T5 (see Figure 2.3).

Denisov’s contrapuntal material at m.19 abandons complete row statements. The

positions 5-8 of P5 (see Example 2.4).

Example 2.4, m.19

procedures in favor of increased tension and greater density of texture.

allowing the clarity of the coming phrase to come as a relief.

P2 returns at the beginning of b1 (m.26). As it will throughout the piece, P2 represents a

Example 2.6, mm. 26-29

to I7 (see Example 2.7).

Example 2.7, mm. 34-35

each of these sections.