Fugue in Context A Schenkerian Approach

Fugue in Context: A Schenkerian Approach to
Select Works by J.S. Bach and Dmitri Shostakovich
by
Sarah Rose Marlowe
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Supervised by
Professor William Marvin
Department of Music Theory

Eastman School of Music
University of Rochester
Rochester, New York
2013
ii
Biographical Sketch
Sarah Marlowe was born in North Adams, Massachusetts, on July 4, 1980. She attended
the University of Massachusetts Amherst, graduating with a Bachelor of Music degree in
Piano Performance (2002) and a Master of Music degree in Music Theory and Piano
Accompanying (2006). She began doctoral studies in Music Theory at the Eastman
School of Music, University of Rochester in 2006 and served as a teaching assistant
(2006–2010) and graduate instructor (2010–2012) in the Department of Music Theory.
While in residence, she received the Eastman School of Music’s Teaching Assistant Prize
(2008), and the University of Rochester’s Edward Peck Curtis Award for Excellence in
Teaching by a Graduate Student (2010). She has presented her research at student and
regional conferences, and received the Patricia Carpenter Emerging Scholar Award for
the best student paper delivered at the 2013 meeting of the Music Theory Society of New
York State. She is currently Visiting Instructor of Music Theory at New York University.
She pursued her research in Music Theory under the direction of Professor William
Marvin.
iii
Acknowledgements
The completion of this project would not have been possible without the generous
guidance and support from many people. I am so happy to have the opportunity to thank
them here.
First, I offer my sincere thanks to the members of my dissertation committee. My
advisor, William Marvin, has been a constant source of inspiration and encouragement.
He always challenged me to improve my work and refine my ideas, while also helping
me realize my achievements along the way. He sets an extraordinary example of what it
means to be a scholar and pedagogue, and I am truly grateful that he agreed to supervise
this dissertation. Matthew Brown met with me on numerous occasions early in the
process, helping to shape my project into its current form. Many of our discussions about
fugue and counterpoint have found their way into the present study. My conversations
with Patrick McCreless helped me strengthen and clarify my writing—particularly in the
later chapters of this dissertation. His careful reading of my work is greatly appreciated.
During my senior year at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, I was given
the opportunity to work as a T.A. for aural skills. I am deeply grateful to Gary Karpinski
for that opportunity, and for encouraging me at the initial stages of my studies in music
theory. I also thank Sigrun Heinzelmann, who first exposed me to the work of Heinrich
Schenker.
The music theory faculty at the Eastman School of Music have been
overwhelmingly supportive, and have all contributed to my growth as a teacher and
scholar. I especially thank Jonathan Dunsby, Elizabeth Marvin, and Dave Headlam, for
iv
their advice and encouragement at various stages in the degree process. Panos
Mavromatis, my colleague at New York University, went above and beyond the call of
duty to help me transition into my full-time position while finishing this dissertation. He
has proven to be a wonderful mentor, colleague, and friend. Many of my ideas developed
over conversations with my peers at Eastman as well. I wholeheartedly thank Daphne
Tan, Sebastian Bisciglia, and Carl Heuckendorf for listening to my ideas, asking
challenging questions, and offering suggestions while I was grappling with these
confounding issues.
I am fortunate to have had access to truly exceptional research libraries and staff.
Jim Farrington at the Sibley Music Library offered assistance scanning microfilm, and
Robert Kosovsky, at the New York Public Library, kindly offered his expertise in reading
some of the original Schenker documents contained in the Oster Collection. I also thank
the Interlibrary Loan staff members at both the Sibley Music Library (Eastman School of
Music) and the Bobst Library (New York University), who I kept very busy locating a
vast array of hard-to-find sources.
My family and friends offered endless encouragement and support throughout this
process. In particular, I would like to thank my parents, John and Mary, and my in-laws,
Emilio and Maria, for their patience and assistance through the many years that it took to
reach this point. Finally, I thank my husband, Ariel. There truly are no words profound
enough to express my gratitude for all that he has done, and all that he has sacrificed, to
help me achieve my goal. I could not have done this without him.
v
Abstract
This study examines aspects of harmony and voice leading in select fugues by J.S.
Bach and Dmitri Shostakovich from a Schenkerian perspective. Chapter 1 sets the stage
for the entire study by showing the benefits of applying Schenker’s theory to fugue in
general. Schenker’s work has been applied to fugal compositions less frequently than to
other genres. One contributing factor may be that fugal textures present more complex
problems for the analyst than other works. In particular, issues of counterpoint, harmony,
imitation, and form must be carefully treated in each study. A slight change in the
analysis of these features can drastically affect the reading of a particular fugue. William
Renwick’s studies are the most comprehensive to date, but his subject-answer paradigms
conflict with the Schenkerian view of tonal structure. The second half of Chapter 1
highlights issues surrounding Renwick’s paradigms, and proposes an alternative
paradigm that better agrees with the tonal structure.
After Chapter 1 demonstrates the problematic aspects related to a Schenkerian
approach to fugue, Chapter 2 proposes a procedure that the analyst can rely on at the
initial stages of graphing. I list specific stages in fugal analysis that can be inferred from
Schenker’s published and unpublished sketches of J.S. Bach’s D-minor fugue (WTC I). I
test the process—as well as my proposed alternative paradigm 1 from Chapter 1—
through detailed studies of J.S. Bach’s Fugues in F major (WTC I) and G minor (WTC II).
Chapters 1 and 2 serve dual purposes: first, they are of pedagogical value as they provide
a concrete method for the beginning stages of fugal analysis; and second, Chapters 1 and
2 define the specific method I will use when analyzing fugues by Dmitri Shostakovich.
vi
There are additional factors to consider when applying Schenkerian techniques to
music by Shostakovich. Chapter 3 addresses the modal-tonal nature of his works. Many
Russian scholars have published studies on the modal aspects of Shostakovich’s music—
studies that are not widely discussed in Western music theory. I present a brief summary
of one of the earliest Russian publications on mode in Shostakovich’s music by
Alexander Naumovich Dolzhansky, followed by summaries of two analyses of
Shostakovich’s C-major fugue, op. 87, by Dolzhansky and Lev Mazel. Drawing on work
by Matthew Brown, I explain how the modal and chromatic elements of Shostakovich’s
writing can be subsumed under the processes of mixture and tonicization. I then present
my own analysis of the same fugue as a preliminary demonstration of how a Schenkerian
approach can lead to further insights into Shostakovich’s compositional language.
Finally, Chapter 4 provides analyses of Shostakovich’s Fugues in F major and G
minor, both from op. 87. While the works are not entirely conventional tonal works (as
compared to 18th-century tonal works), my studies show how Shostakovich’s works are
tonal. The aspects of his writing that are non-normative help us gain deeper insight into
how his works are structured. Ultimately, the studies show that we can learn a great deal
about Shostakovich’s music through a Schenkerian approach, and lay the groundwork for
future research.
vii
Contributors and Funding Sources
This work was supervised by a dissertation committee consisting of Professors William
Marvin and Matthew Brown of the Department of Music Theory at the Eastman School
of Music and Professor Patrick McCreless of Yale University. All work for the
dissertation was completed independently by the student. Graduate study was supported
by a Graduate Award from the Eastman School of Music.

viii
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 A Schenkerian Approach to Fugue:

Complex Problems and Conflicting Analytic Paradigms 1
Schenker on “Organicism in Fugue” 2
A Schenkerian Approach to Fugue: Complex Problems for the Analyst 6
The Conflicting Paradigms of Analyzing Fugue 17
Conclusion 46
Chapter 2 Toward a Pedagogy for Graphing Fugue 50
Schenker’s Sketches of J.S. Bach, Fugue in D minor, WTC I 51
J.S. Bach, Fugue in F major, WTC I 69
J.S. Bach, Fugue in G minor, WTC II 81
Conclusion 100
Chapter 3 The Interaction between Soviet Modal Theory

and Schenkerian Theory 103
Dolzhansky’s Modal Theory and Chromaticism in Shostakovich’s Music 108
Diatonic Modes and Shostakovich’s C-major Fugue, op. 87 122
Conclusion 141
Chapter 4 Case Study: An Examination of Harmony and Voice Leading

within two fugues by Shostakovich 143
Shostakovich, Fugue in G minor, Op. 87, no. 22 146
Shostakovich, Fugue in F major, Op. 87, no. 23 172
Conclusion 185
Bibliography 189
ix
List of Examples
Example Title Page
Example 1.1 Schenker’s implied background of J.S. Bach’s

C-minor fugue, WTC I 3
Example 1.2 Busoni’s formal reading of J.S. Bach’s

C-minor fugue, WTC I 4
Example 1.3 J.S. Bach, Invention no. 1 in C major,

(BWV 772), mm. 1–3 8
Example 1.4 J.S. Bach, Fugue in D major, WTC II, mm. 1–7 11
Example 1.5 J.S. Bach, Goldberg Variations (BWV 988)

Theme, mm. 1–8 13
Example 1.6 Renwick’s Subject-Answer Paradigms 20
Example 1.7 Subject Paradigms in WTC I and WTC II 21
Example 1.8 Renwick’s subject-answer paradigm 1 22
Example 1.9 Renwick’s Sketches of J.S. Bach,

Fugue in C major, WTC II 24
Example 1.10 Renwick’s conflicting readings of Bach’s

Fugue in C major, WTC II 25
Example 1.11 Two possible tonal answer readings

for subject ^5-^6-^5-^4-^3 28
Example 1.12 Franck’s revision of Renwick’s subject-answer

Paradigm 29
Example 1.13 Franck’s revised paradigm and Bach’s

C-minor Fugue, WTC I 30
Example 1.14 Schenker’s analysis of Bach’s

C-minor Fugue subject, WTC I 31
x
Example 1.15 Franck’s sketch of J.S. Bach, C-minor Fugue,

WTC I, mm. 1–9 32
Example 1.16 Alternative to Renwick’s paradigm 1, three options 34
Example 1.17 Rothgeb’s analysis of J.S. Bach, Sinfonia No. 8

in F major 36
Example 1.18 Sketch of J.S. Bach, Fugue in C minor, WTC I, mm. 1–9
based on alternative paradigm 1 38
Example 1.19 Sketch of J.S. Bach, Fugue in C major, WTC II

Example 1.20 Renwick’s sketches of J.S. Bach,

C-minor fugue, WTC II 39
Example 1.21 J.S. Bach, C-minor fugue, WTC II

Example 1.22 Alternative paradigm 1 and three-voice fugues:

J.S. Bach, Fugue in F major, WTC I, mm. 1–21 42
Example 1.23 Alternative paradigm 1 and four-voice fugues:

J.S. Bach, Fugue in G minor, WTC II, mm. 1–9 42
Example 1.24 Renwick’s paradigm 2a 43
Example 1.25 Renwick’s sketches of J.S. Bach,

Fugue 8 in Dƒ minor, WTC I 44
Example 1.26 Alternative paradigm 2a 45
Example 1.27 Alternative reading of J.S. Bach,

Fugue in Dƒ minor, WTC I 45
Example 2.1 Schenker’s sketches of J.S. Bach,

Fugue in D minor, WTC I 52
Example 2.2 Oster Collection, File 71/10 53
Example 2.3 Form Chart of J.S. Bach, Fugue in D minor, WTC I 55

xi
Example 2.4 J.S. Bach, D-minor fugue, WTC I, subject and

answer—alternate reading 57
Example 2.5 J.S. Bach, D-minor fugue, WTC I, subject and

answer—preferred reading according to
Schenker’s sketches 57
Example 2.6 J.S. Bach’s D-minor fugue, WTC I,

Subject entries and countersubjects 59
Example 2.7 Sketches of inverted and modified subject

entries, mm. 21–25 60
Example 2.8 Schenker’s sketch of J.S. Bach,

Fugue in D minor, WTC I 62
Example 2.9 Oster Collection File 71/8 Verso 65
Example 2.10 Plausible middleground structures for a

double bass arpeggiation 66
Example 2.11 Step-by-step process for graphing a fugue 68
Example 2.12 Form chart for J.S. Bach, Fugue in F major, WTC I 70
Example 2.13 J.S. Bach, Fugue in F major, WTC I, mm. 1–8 71
Example 2.14 J.S. Bach, Fugue in F major, WTC I, mm. 1–13

alternate reading 72
Example 2.15 J.S. Bach, Fugue in F major, WTC I, mm. 1–13

preferred reading 73
Example 2.16 J.S. Bach, Fugue in F major, WTC I, middle entries 74
Example 2.17 Potential middleground structures for

bass arpeggiation I-vi-ii-V-I 76
Example 2.18 J.S. Bach, Fugue in F major, WTC I, mm. 56–end 77
Example 2.19 J.S. Bach, Fugue in F major, WTC I, mm. 1–21 78
Example 2.20 Sketch of J.S. Bach’s Fugue in F major, WTC I 80

xii
Example 2.21 Form chart for J.S. Bach, Fugue in G minor, WTC II 82
Example 2.22 J.S. Bach, Fugue in G minor, WTC II, mm. 1–9 83
Example 2.23 J.S. Bach, Fugue in G minor, WTC II, mm. 1–9
first alternate reading 84
second alternate reading 85
preferred reading 86
Example 2.26 J.S. Bach, Fugue in G minor, WTC II

implied harmonic rhythm 88

invertible counterpoint 90

subject and countersubject doubled 94

potential middleground structures 98
Example 2.30 Sketch of J.S. Bach’s Fugue in G minor, WTC II 99
Example 3.1 Dolzhansky’s mixed modes 110
Example 3.2 Dolzhansky’s Aeolian double lowered melodic mode 112
Example 3.3 Dolzhansky’s enharmonically related modes with the

Symmetrical Aeolian double lowered melodic mode 113
Example 3.4 Dolzhansky’s melodically opposite modes 114
Example 3.5 Dolzhansky’s harmonically opposite modes 115
Example 3.6 Brown’s figure 1.11 119
Example 3.7 Form Chart of Shostakovich, Fugue in C major, op. 87 124
Example 3.8 Mazel’s description of balanced form in Shostakovich’s

C-major fugue, op. 87 125
xiii
Example 3.9 Mazel’s Example 4, C-major fugue subject 128
Example 3.10 Mazel’s Example 12, pitch content of both

countersubjects 128
Example 3.11 Shostakovich, Fugue in C major, op. 87, mm. 1–19 133
Example 3.12 Shostakovich, C-major, op. 87 mm. 1–19, sketch 135
Example 3.13 Shostakovich, Fugue in C major, op. 87, mm. 48–57 136
Example 3.14 Potential middleground structures for C-major fugue, op. 87 139
Example 3.15 Sketch of Shostakovich, Fugue in C major, op. 87 140
Example 4.1 Form Chart for Shostakovich’s Fugue in

G minor, Op. 87, no. 22 147
Example 4.2 Contrapuntal devices in Shostakovich’s 24 Fugues

from op. 87 148
Example 4.3 Shostakovich, Fugue in G minor, Op. 87, no. 22, mm. 1–15 150
Example 4.4 Schenker’s examples of neighbor tones and neighbor

progressions in Der freie Satz 155
Example 4.5 Sketch of Shostakovich, G-minor fugue, op. 87, mm. 1–15 158
Example 4.6 Motivic development in the episodes 161
Example 4.7 Shostakovich, Fugue in G minor, op. 87,

bass line sketch 163
Example 4.8 Hypothetical middleground structures for the G-minor fugue 165
Example 4.9 Schenker’s Figure 153, no. 3 from Der freie Satz 167
Example 4.10 Laufer’s examples 7 and 8 of Debussy’s Canope 169
Example 4.11 Sketch of Shostakovich, Fugue in G minor, op. 87 171
Example 4.12 Form chart for Shostakovich,

Fugue in F major, op. 87, no. 23 173
xiv
Example 4.13 Shostakovich, F-major fugue, Op. 87, mm. 1–25 175
Example 4.14 Shostakovich, F-major fugue, sketch of mm. 1–24 177
Example 4.15 Shostakovich, F-major fugue, op. 87, invertible

counterpoint between subject and countersubjects 178
Example 4.16 Fugue in F major, op. 87, episodes and invertible

counterpoint 180
Example 4.17 Shostakovich, F-major fugue, op. 87

possible middleground structures 181
Example 4.18 Sketch of Shostakovich, Fugue in F major, op. 87 184

1
Chapter 1
A Schenkerian Approach to Fugue:

Complex Problems and Conflicting Analytic Paradigms
Fugues are difficult to analyze. Their forms are highly individualized, and they
display some of the most complicated contrapuntal possibilities within the tonal canon.
As a result, it is often difficult to uncover their underlying structure. While many
excellent studies have been undertaken, the genre remains underexplored and under-
explained by contemporary music theorists. Historically, fugal analysis consisted
primarily of categorizing various types of fugues, and examining surface harmonic
relationships, formal structure and motivic development.1 It was not until Heinrich
Schenker published his article, “Das Organische der Fuge,” in Das Meisterwerk in der
Musik, Band II, that an alternative approach to fugal analysis was proposed.2 Schenkerian
theory offers a completely original view of the fugal genre—one based on a unified tonal
1
See, for example, Alfred Mann, The Study of Fugue (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1987),
originally printed (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1958); Hugo Riemann, Katechismus
der Fugen-Komposition: Analyse von J.S. Bachs ‘Wohltemperiertem Klavier’ und ‘Kunst der Fuge.’
(Leipzig: Hesse, 1890-4), trans. J.S. Shedlock, Analyses of J.S. Bach’s Wohltemperirtes Clavier (London:
Augener, n.d.); Ebenezer Prout, Fugue (New York: G. Schirmer, 1891) and Fugal Analysis (London,
1892); and André Gedalge, Traité de la Fugue: 1re Partie: De la Fugue d’Ecole (Paris: Enoch et Co.,
1901), trans. and ed. Ferdinand Davis, Treatise on Fugue (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1965).
2
Heinrich Schenker, “Das Organische der Fuge: aufgezeigt an der I. C-Moll-Fuge aus
dem Wohltemperierten Klavier von Joh. Seb. Bach,” in Das Meisterwerk in der Musik: Ein Jahrbuch, Band
II (Munich: Drei Masken Verlag, 1926), 55–95, trans. Kalib Sylvan, “The Organic Aspect of Fugue,” in
“Thirteen Essays from the Three Yearbooks Das Meisterwerk in der Musik by Heinrich Schenker: An
Annotated Translation,” vol. 2 (Ph.D. diss., Northwestern University, 1973), 246–320, also trans. Hedi
Siegel, “The Organic Nature of Fugue as Demonstrated in the C Minor Fugue from Bach’s Well-Tempered
Clavier, Book I,” in The Masterwork in Music: A Yearbook, vol. II (1926), ed. William Drabkin
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 31-54.
Chapter 1: Complex Problems and Conflicting Analytic Paradigms 2
structure rather than isolating and labeling separate sections. While Schenker’s
“Organicism” article offered a rich new way of examining fugal structure, Schenkerian
studies in fugue have been significantly underdeveloped in comparison to other topics in
the Schenkerian literature. The complex nature of fugue as compared to other tonal
textures may be a contributing factor. This chapter will offer a brief summary of
Schenker’s 1926 article, and then discuss some of the central analytical problems that
arise when applying Schenkerian theory to fugal textures. Lastly, the chapter will provide
an in-depth examination of William Renwick’s work, particularly the subject-answer
paradigms from his book, Analyzing Fugue: A Schenkerian Approach.3 Renwick’s work
merits close attention as the most comprehensive application of Schenker’s theory to
fugal analysis thus far. I will show how Renwick’s paradigms—while a useful entry point
into discussion of linear aspects of fugue—conflict with the prolongational aspect of
fugal expositions. I will offer a modified paradigmatic approach that can be applied more
consistently in fugal analysis.
Schenker on “Organicism In Fugue”
Heinrich Schenker’s contemporaries recognized the tonal relationships within
fugal compositions, but they did not yet see that fugues provide a means for
understanding tonal structure in general. In his 1926 article, Schenker provided a
completely new way of viewing fugues, beyond the Formenlehre tradition of labeling a
3
William Renwick, Analyzing Fugue: A Schenkerian Approach (Stuyvesant, New York: Pendragon Press,
1995).
fugue’s various parts and attempting to explain its form in a systematic way.4 To
demonstrate the benefits of his new method for analyzing fugue, Schenker engaged with
previously published analyses of the C-minor fugue from J.S. Bach’s Well-tempered
Clavier (WTC), book I.5 Example 1.1 provides a background sketch of the C-minor
fugue, which is implied by Schenker’s Figures 1 and 11.6
Example 1.1: Schenker’s implied background of J.S. Bach’s C-minor fugue, WTC I
4
Schenker, ([1926] 1996). Schenker’s “Organicism” article is his most significant contribution to fugal
scholarship, but there are earlier references to fugue in his writings. See Heinrich Schenker, J.S. Bach,
Chromatische Phantasie und Fuge: kritische Ansgabe (Vienna: Universal Edition, 1910), revised ed.
Oswald Jonas (Vienna: Universal Edition, 1969), trans. Hedi Siegel, J.S. Bach’s Chromatic Fantasy and
Fugue: Critical Edition with Commentary (New York: Longman Inc., 1984); Schenker, “Brahms:
Variationen und Fuge über ein Thema von Händel, op. 24,” in Tonwille, 8/9 (1925), 3–46, trans. William
Renwick, “Brahms’s Variations and Fugue on a Theme by Handel, Op. 24,” in Der Tonwille:
Pamphlets/Quarterly Publication in Witness of the Immutable Laws of Music, Offered to a New Generation
of Youth, volume II, ed. William Drabkin (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 77–114; Schenker,
Neue Musikalische Theorien und Phantasien, vol 3: Der freie Satz (Vienna: Universal Edition, 1935), ed.
Oswald Jonas (Vienna: Universal Edition, 1956), trans. and ed. Ernst Oster, Free Composition (New York:
Longman, 1979), §322.
5
Adolf Bernhard Marx, Die Lehre von der musikalischen Komposition, praktisch-theoretisch (Leipzig:
Breitkopf & Härtel, 1837–47); Riemann, Katechismus ([1890-94] n.d.); Wilhelm Werker, Studien über die
Symmetrie im Bau der Fugen und die motivische Zusammengehörigkeit der Präludien und Fugen das
‘Wohltemperierten Klaviers’ von Johann Sebastian Bach (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1922); and J.S
Bach, Das wohltemperierte Klavier I, revised and annotated by Ferruccio Busoni (New York: Schirmer,
n.d.).
6
Schenker, “The Organic Nature of Fugue.” The figures appear on pp. 32 and 40 in the 1996 translation. In
the 1926 edition, Fig. 1 appears as an insert between pp. 58 and 59, and Fig. 11 is on p. 73.
Schenker’s primary concern with the aforementioned analyses is reflected in his
critique of Hugo Riemann’s formal analysis. Riemann labels separate sections of the
fugue but does not explain how each section contributes to the work as a whole.7
Example 1.2 reproduces Busoni’s delineation of the form, which is in direct conflict with
the Ursatz shown in Example 1.1. 8
Example 1.2: Busoni’s formal reading of J.S. Bach’s C-minor fugue , WTC I
Schenker sees an unfolding of the tonic triad through the Stufen c–Eß–g. He argues that
Busoni mistakenly places a double barline between mm. 16 and 17, where it interrupts
the progression between Eß major and G minor.9 Thus, a thematic analysis of the fugue—
one that relies predominantly on labeling subject entries—leads to awkward formal
divisions that interrupt the underlying tonal structure. Schenker argues that the tonal
7
Ibid., 43. Riemann’s formal analysis of the C-minor fugue is as follows: Exposition, mm. 1-8; Middle
section mm. 9-21; Closing section, mm. 22-end. He further divides the middle section into three
subsections, which he labels as antecedent-consequent pairs. Schenker writes, “He [Riemann] does not
realize that the overriding unity of these progressions transcends the alternation of so-called episodes and
fugal entries.”
8
Ibid., 43–44.
9
Ibid., 44. “This [Busoni’s reading] is incompatible not only with the arpeggiated fifth that is still part of
the linear progression, but also with the Urlinie, which at this point has just arrived at d2, the ^2, and must
thus continue on to c2.” Schenker suggests that the double bar line would be more appropriate if positioned
between mm. 19 and 20.
structure is the actual unifying element in the composition; motivic development is an
outgrowth of that structure. Schenker writes:
The difference between this study and all of the textbooks on the fugue as
well as all other analyses is readily apparent. The textbooks and analyses
always describe the organization of the fugue in terms of exposition,
restatement, episode, and every other device imaginable: e.g. contrary
motion, retrograde motion, augmentation, diminution, stretto, etc. The
only thing they never mention is the most important of all: the
fundamental hidden relationships that bind the fugue into an organic
whole, into a true work of art.10
In Schenker’s view, the other analyses are not completely incorrect, but his is the only
one that provides an explanation of the fugue as a whole rather than one that merely
identifies the fugue’s separate sections.
Schenkerian analysis provides a method for understanding tonal relationships in a
way that is unmatched by competing theories. It is not without its critics, however. In
Explaining Tonality, Matthew Brown defends Schenkerian theory against some of its
toughest critics.11 Brown asserts that Schenkerian analysis is the best approach for
analyzing a composition:
I am attracted to Schenker’s work because it offers us not only a powerful

model for explaining the tonal system, but also a flexible tool for
analyzing the practices of functional monotonal composition. The benefits
of such an approach seem clear enough; instead of laboriously labeling
each successive harmony with its own Roman numeral, the analyst can
study the contrapuntal behavior of those harmonies, both within the local
10
Ibid., 42.
11
Matthew Brown, Explaining Tonality: Schenkerian Theory and Beyond (Rochester, NY: University of
Rochester Press, 2005), xvff. The main criticisms of Schenker’s theory are that his reasoning is circular and
contradictory, and that his theory is “incapable of adaptation.”
context of an individual phrase and within the global context of the piece
as a whole. Although Schenkerian theory deals primarily with matters of
functional harmony and voice leading, it often leads to important insights
about a work’s motivic, rhythmic, and formal structure. … Furthermore,
since the process of graphing particular pieces often teaches us new ways
to hear music and understand the processes of musical composition,
Schenkerian analysis can be of great help to performers and composers
alike.12
It is precisely these aspects—harmony, voice leading, and motivic, rhythmic and formal
structure—that need continued attention in fugue scholarship. Thus, further application of
Schenkerian analysis to fugal compositions can serve to promote a deeper understanding
of these highly complex works of art.
A Schenkerian Approach to Fugue: Complex Problems for the Analyst
Schenker’s demonstration of tonal structure as the unifying force in fugal writing
was a significant development in the history of fugal theory. However, applying
Schenkerian techniques to fugal textures poses its own set of complex problems, and may
be one reason why comparatively few studies in Schenkerian analysis are devoted to
fugue. Carl Schachter suggests that because fugal writing developed from the same
contrapuntal and harmonic principles as all other tonal forms, fugal analysis should—in
principle—not present any new analytical problems. In practice, however, this is certainly
not the case. Of particular note, according to Schachter, is the fact that fugues present
much denser contrapuntal textures than other tonal genres. Further, the imitative quality
12
Ibid., xiv.
of fugal textures makes it much more challenging to determine the outer-voice
framework.13 William Renwick writes:
Discovering or recognizing the path of the fundamental line in a fugue often

constitutes a major difficulty for the analyst. The very nature of fugal style
includes copious voice-exchanges, voice crossings, register shifts, subsidiary
motions to and from inner voices, and the unique demands which the various
imitative techniques place on the voice leading. Further the through-composed
form of many fugues gives little in the way of definite structural indicators for the
analyst.14
Thus, the high degree of complexity involved with analyzing a fugue from a Schenkerian
perspective poses a critical problem for the analyst. Of the many difficulties that one may
encounter, the most challenging questions surround issues of counterpoint, harmony,
imitation, and form.
Counterpoint
Example 1.3 provides the opening measures of Bach’s C-major Invention, no. 1
(BWV 772). The example is simple, but clearly demonstrates the apparent contrapuntal
violations that can appear at the musical surface. Imitation of the opening sixteenth-note
motive occurs in mm. 1–2: the right hand introduces the motive, followed by the left
hand imitating at the octave in m. 1; the entire pattern is then imitated at the fifth in m. 2.
13
Carl Schachter, “Bach’s Fugue in Bß Major, Well-Tempered Clavier, Book I, No. XXI,” in Unfoldings:
Essays in Schenkerian Theory and Analysis, ed. Joseph N. Straus (New York: Oxford University Press,
1999), 239.
14
Renwick, Analyzing Fugue, 205.
Example 1.3: J.S. Bach, Invention no. 1 in C major (BWV 772), mm. 1–3
Both measures contain apparent illegal dissonance treatment; these are indicated
as a 7th and 4th between the voices. The two-to-one rhythmic proportion reflects a second-
species contrapuntal relationship. The 7ths and 4ths occur on accented parts of the beats
and, from a strict contrapuntal perspective, are clear violations of the essence of second
species—to incorporate dissonance as a passing tone on a weak beat.15 However, the
lines contain compound melodies, and the progression is, in fact, controlled by more than
two voices. Fugal subjects are inherently polyphonic melodies, and this has considerable
implications for analysis. Brown writes that the increase in voices calls for a change in
perspective: ‘consonance vs. dissonance’ in a two-voice texture, changes to ‘chord tone
vs. non-chord tone’ in a texture containing three or more voices.16 In a procedure that he
names ‘The Heinrich Maneuver,’ Brown explains how Schenker extends the rules of
15
David Ledbetter, Bach’s Well-Tempered Clavier: the 48 Preludes and Fugues (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2002), 126–140; and Renwick, Analyzing Fugue (1995), 2–11; Renwick, The Langloz
Manuscript: Fugal Improvisation Through Figured Bass (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 1–8. J.S.
Bach did not promote the species counterpoint approach, and instead favored teaching via the thoroughbass
method. The species approach is discussed above as a way of defining the potential problems that may arise
at the musical surface.
16
Brown, Explaining Tonality, 35.
strict counterpoint to understand contrapuntal textures within a tonal context.17 He writes,
“‘The Heinrich Maneuver’ ties the principles of tonal voice leading to the behavior of
tonal harmonies. This observation reflects Schenker’s general belief that it is impossible
to understand functional tonality adequately from a purely contrapuntal or a purely
harmonic perspective.”18 In further discussion of what he calls ‘The Complementarity
Principle,’ Brown explains that an analysis will be incomplete unless it considers both
counterpoint and tonal harmony.19 The intervallic approach alone is insufficient for
explaining the passage in Example 1.3 because more than two voices are implied by the
polyphonic melodies, and a harmonic view of the example is a necessary step toward
fully explaining the contrapuntal progression.
The Roman numerals provided in Example 1.3 explain how the aforementioned
dissonant pitches function from a harmonic perspective. In m. 1, beat three outlines a
tonic triad, and the left-hand D is understood as a passing tone between two chord tones.
The first half of beat four outlines a viiº6 triad. A harmonic reduction of the passage will
observe this left-hand D as the bass tone, and the F—which creates a fourth against the
right-hand B—is understood as an inner voice. The fourth between the upper two voices
does not pose a contrapuntal problem. Because this is, in fact, a three-voice texture, the F
and B are understood as harmonic tones a third and sixth above the bass, respectively, and
the fact that the upper two voices are a fourth apart is irrelevant within the harmonic
17
Ibid., 42.
18
Ibid., 56.
19
Ibid., 57.
context.20 The pitches on the first half of beat four (D-F-B) are chord tones within the
viiº6 sonority, and the voice leading between beats three and four is governed by
harmonic function: the bass and middle voices are treated as upper neighbors, C-D-C and
E-F-E, respectively; the upper voice contains a lower neighbor, C-B-C. The harmonies in
m. 4 behave similarly. Thus, harmonic analysis is a necessary step in examining
contrapuntal textures—even those that appear to be in two voices—as it can clarify
passages that may appear to violate the laws of strict counterpoint.
Harmony
Harmonic analysis is also more complicated in imitative writing. The number of
voices can vary throughout a fugal composition, and textures range from full chordal
passages to those that are so sparse that harmonies are merely implied. Nowhere is this
more complicated than in the opening of a fugue, which traditionally introduces the
subject in a single voice. Bach’s fugal subjects employ compound melodies, which do
imply harmonic progressions. However, misinterpreting the harmony at the onset of the
fugue can present significant analytical problems later. Frequently, the harmonic support
for the subject is ambiguous until later subject entries appear with harmonic support from
the other voices. The underlying harmonic progression can only be fully understood
through examination of the fugal subject in various contexts.
20
Ibid., 36. Through discussion of Fux’s treatment of textures containing three or more voices, Brown
explains the shift in perspective from intervallic toward harmonic relationships. He calls this ‘The Triadic
Constraint.’
Example 1.4 illustrates multiple layers of harmonic ambiguity. First, because of
the subject’s construction, the subject-answer pair sounds as though G major (IV) and D
major (I) are emphasized. The opening relationship might be interpreted as tonic-
dominant in the key of G major. This is due to the fact that the opening gesture, ^1-^4-^6,
could instead be potentially interpreted as ^5-^1-^3. Tonal melodies more frequently begin
with emphasis on members of the tonic triad, and so the descending perfect fifth from ^1
to ^4, would very likely suggest a ^5-^1 relationship, with the third pitch completing the
triad. In fact, the opening subject-answer entries emphasize plagal motion (IV–I), rather
than the more typical tonic-dominant relationship. The plagal relationship is even more
apparent when the fugue is performed in context immediately following the authentic
cadence in D major at the end of the prelude.
Example 1.4: J.S. Bach, Fugue in D major, WTC II, mm. 1–7
Second, the harmonic ambiguity at the beginning of the line might lead to the
assumption that the subject modulates. Emphasis on the G-major triad at the opening of
the subject could lead to the interpretation of the final pitches as ^2-^1-^7 in G major, rather
than ^5-^4-^3 in D major. Closer examination of the implied harmonic support of the answer
in mm. 3–4, however, shows a tonicization of A major (V). If the answer ends on the
dominant, then the subject must end on tonic. The lines are, therefore, non-modulating
and it becomes clear that while the opening of the subject is harmonically ambiguous, the
subject-answer pair presents a traditional tonic-dominant relationship. This reading is
confirmed by the ending of the third voice entry in m. 6, where the fourth voice enters
early and provides emphatic ^5-^1 motion in D major.
Third, even once the projected keys for the subject and answer are confirmed, it is
not clear whether the beginning of the subject is harmonized by tonic, or whether it
begins with subdominant support. For example, the opening subject could potentially be
harmonized by the following progression in half-note rhythms: I-IV-V-I. The answer,
however, must begin with subdominant support. The answer entries elide with the subject
endings, and D major functions as a pivot between tonic and dominant. This relationship
is clear in the first answer entry in m. 3, and even stronger in m. 6 when the fourth voice
realigns with the other voices. The third entry in m. 5 is not so clear. The leap from A to
D in the alto voice places emphasis on D major, which would suggest that the subject
begins with tonic support. The left-hand B, in combination with the D and G in the upper
voices, suggests that the passage begins in G major (IV). If the latter three entries suggest
subdominant support, should the opening subject entry begin in a consistent fashion?
Whether or not the fugue begins with tonic support is a critical issue for Schenkerian
theory, and so the analyst needs to consider the entire fugal context in order to make the
best decision in this regard. Example 1.4 demonstrates the complex questions that the
analyst must grapple with when trying to determine the harmonic support for fugal
textures.
Imitation
Both Schachter and Renwick have discussed the problem of determining the
outer-voice framework in an imitative texture. Since all voices present entries of the
subject and are treated as independent-but-equal lines, the process for distinguishing the
melody and bass line from the rest of the texture is not immediately clear. In other
textures, the melody and bass line are easily extracted from the texture and the inner
voices complete the harmonic progression. A more normative texture is shown in
Example 1.5.
Example 1.5: J.S. Bach, Goldberg Variations (BWV 988), Theme, mm. 1–8
In a non-imitative texture, it is very clear where the outer-voice framework lies. The
melody is typically treated as the fundamental line (Urlinie), and the bass line represents
the bass arpeggiation (Baßbrechung). In Example 1.4, however, the subject is stated in all
four voices. Should the subject, as the main motivic element in a fugue, always be treated
as the melody? Perhaps the most perplexing moments are when the bass voice contains
the subject entry. In mm. 6 and 7, for example, should the bass voice be treated as
melody or harmony? Or both? Carl Schachter suggests that the tendency to hear the fugue
as a collection of separate subject-countersubject entries rather than a single tonal
structure further exacerbates the problem.21
The partimento-fugue tradition may provide a solution to this problem. William
Renwick explains that thoroughbass became the prominent pedagogical device in the
seventeenth century, and increasing emphasis was placed on thoroughbass as
fundamental to the imitative style.22 In Analyzing Fugue, Renwick shows how basic
linear patterns underlie the surface textures, and he uses these as the basis for his subject-
answer paradigms.23 Michael Callahan suggests that basic patterns can be learned and
then embellished by a keyboard player to improvise the highly intricate imitative textures
associated with fugal writing.24 If fugal improvisation was taught by way of the
thoroughbass method, then it is likely that fugal composition was also conceived with an
21
Schachter, “Bach’s Fugue in Bß Major,” 239.
22
Renwick, The Langloz Manuscript, 1.
23
Renwick, Analyzing Fugue, 11–21.
24
Michael Callahan, “Techniques of Keyboard Improvisation in the German Baroque and Theory
Implications for Today’s Pedagogy” (Ph.D. diss., Eastman School of Music, 2010), 167–223.
underlying harmonic structure in mind. If this is true, then fugal compositions can be
reduced to their underlying harmonic structures just as any other tonal composition would
be. William Renwick suggests this approach in Analyzing Fugue:
The analyses of complete fugues also make clear what is implicit in earlier
chapters, that as perception of structure moves toward the background, the outer
voices increasingly take on the aspect and function of structural upper voice and
bass arpeggiation as conceptualized by Schenker for tonality in general. The
highest sounding part is de facto the ‘melody’ in Schenkerian terms, regardless of
which part may be stating the subject or any other important motive at any given
time. Likewise, the lowest sounding part is the functional bass…Thus, when we
consider the tonal structure and voice-leading of entire fugues and other
contrapuntal pieces, the considerations of imitative counterpoint…in fact recede
in favor of a more traditional Schenkerian focus on the upper voice and bass lines
independent of surface counterpoint.25
Ultimately, while imitative textures create a more complex musical surface, the basic
underpinnings are the same for any tonal work. It may be more labor intensive to uncover
the fundamental structure in a fugue, but fugues do exhibit basic underlying frameworks
just as any other tonal composition would.
Form
Form poses yet another analytic problem with fugue. First and foremost, fugues
are not forms. Rather, they are examples of a genre or a style of composing.26 Because of
this, each fugue is unique and very little can be predicted about the organization of any
25
Renwick, Analyzing Fugue, 204–5.
26
Mann, The Study of Fugue, 5ff.
given fugal composition.27 This, in turn, makes analysis more challenging because the
analyst cannot necessarily rely on other fugues as models for what might occur within the
structure. Fugues can exhibit a number of contrapuntal devices such as stretto, invertible
counterpoint, augmentation and diminution, inversion, and so on. They do not follow a
specific harmonic plan, and they may or may not contain episodic material. The inability
to formulate a general list of expectations leaves the analyst to essentially start from
scratch with every new fugal analysis.
The only generalizations that can be made relate to fugal expositions, and even
those vary greatly in their design. Robert Gauldin writes:
Although [fugues] will usually exhibit some basic characteristics, the way in
which the thematic elements are integrated with different contrapuntal devices,
and the tonal schemes stresses their unique rather than their common
properties…[The analyst] must seek to discover its intrinsic qualities rather than
force it into a pre-determined mold.28
Rather than force the fugue to fit a generic form, the analyst must be willing to let the
individual fugue dictate the best interpretation. This, of course, should be true in any
analytical endeavor.
Although the discussion has highlighted the more problematic aspects of
analyzing fugal textures from a Schenkerian perspective, it also serves as preliminary
evidence that each of these problems can be solved. Carl Schachter suggested that “in
principle the analysis of fugue should present no problems essentially different from
27
Robert Gauldin, A Practical Approach to Eighteenth-Century Counterpoint (Long Grove, Illinois:
Waveland Press, Inc., 1988), 223.
28
Ibid., 233.
those encountered in other types of music.”29 Fugues do not present different problems,
only more complex versions of the same problems we confront with in any analytic
undertaking.
The Conflicting Paradigms of Analyzing Fugue
While the literature devoted to Schenkerian analysis is vast, the number of
publications devoted to Schenkerian analysis of fugue is quite small.30 Chief among this
small number are writings by Heinrich Schenker, Carl Schachter, William Renwick, and
Peter Franck—each providing especially valuable insight into fugal composition from a
29
Schachter, “Bach’s Fugue in Bß Major,” 239.
30
The following citations are arranged in chronological order according to the author’s first publication
date: Heinrich Schenker, J.S. Bach’s Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue ([1910] 1984); Schenker, “Brahms’
Variations and Fugue” ([1925] 2005); Schenker, “The Organic Nature of Fugue” ([1926] 1996); Schenker,
Free Composition (1979); Oswald Jonas, “Zur realen Antwort in der Fuge bei Bach [On the Real Answer
in Fugues by Bach],” in Bericht über den internationalen musikwissenschaftlichen Kongress Kassel
[Proceedings of the International Musicological Congress, Kassel], ed. Georg Reichert and Martin Just
(Kassel, Germany: Bärenreiter, 1963): 364–66; Schachter, “Bach’s Fugue in Bß Major”(1973, 1999); Beth
R. Greenberg, “Bach’s C-Major Fugue (WTC I): A Subjective View,” In Theory Only 2/3-4 (1976): 13–17;
Wallace Berry, “J.S. Bach’s Fugue in Dƒ Minor (WTC I #8): A Naïve Approach to Linear Analysis,” In
Theory Only 2/10 (1977): 4–7; Susan Tepping, “Fugue Process and Tonal Structure in the String Quartets
of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven” (Ph.D. diss., Indiana University, 1987); Tepping, “Sonata and Fugue:
The Finale of Mozart’s String Quartet in G, K. 387,” GAMUT: Journal of the Georgia Association of
Music Theorists 3 (1986): 55–77; William Renwick, “Voice-Leading Patterns in the Fugal Expositions of
J.S. Bach’s Well-Tempered Clavier” (Ph.D. diss., City University of New York, 1987); Renwick,
“Structural Patterns in Fugue Subjects and Fugal Expositions,” Music Theory Spectrum 13/2 (Autumn,
1991): 197–218; Analyzing Fugue (1995); Renwick, “Hidden Fugal Paths: A Schenkerian View of
Handel’s F-Major Fugue (Suite II),” Music Analysis 14/1 (1995): 49–67; Daniel Harrison, “Rhetoric and
Fugue: An Analytical Application,” Music Theory Spectrum 12/1 (1990): 1–42; Peter Barcaba, “Mozarts
Fugenschaffen, dargestellt am Beispiel der Quartett-Fuge KV 546 [Mozart’s Fugal Writing as Exemplified
by the Quartet Fugue, KV 546],” Mozart-Kongreß 2 (1992): 678–85; and Peter Franck, “The Role of
Invertible Counterpoint within Schenkerian Theory” (Ph.D. diss., Eastman School of Music, 2007); Franck,
“‘A Fallacious Concept’: Invertible Counterpoint at the Twelfth within the Ursatz,” Music Theory
Spectrum 32/2 (Fall 2010), 121–44; Franck, “Reaching-Over and Its Interaction with Invertible
Counterpoint at the Tenth,” Theory and Practice 36 (2011), 1–34.
Schenkerian perspective.31 Carl Schachter continues Schenker’s ‘organicism’ discussion
in his analysis of J.S. Bach’s Bß-major fugue. He argues that the traditional method of
teaching students to observe various repeated sections in a fugue is the very opposite
approach that one should take. For the purposes of demonstrating his point, he chooses to
begin his analytical discussion with deeper structural levels before proceeding to
foreground considerations.32 While pedagogical in tone, Schachter’s analysis does little to
show the reader precisely how he arrives at his analysis, admitting that a Schenkerian
approach would prove to be much more challenging for teacher and student alike.33 Peter
Franck analyzes fugues as a means for demonstrating invertible counterpoint as essential
to polyphonic composition. Through his discussion of invertible counterpoint and how it
operates within a composition, Franck ultimately shows how invertible counterpoint
influences the overall organization of a composition, not just local progressions.34
William Renwick offers the most extensive and comprehensive treatment of fugue
from a Schenkerian perspective.35 In Analyzing Fugue: A Schenkerian Approach, he
provides detailed chapters on each aspect of fugal composition—subject and answer,
invertible counterpoint, exposition, sequence and episode, stretto and other devices—and
he closes the study with complete analyses of select works. Robert Gauldin, Charles
31
See citations for Schenker, Schachter, Renwick, and Franck in footnote 30.
32
Schachter, “Bach’s Fugue in Bß major,” 240.
33
Ibid., 259.
34
See Franck references in footnote 30.
35
See especially Renwick, Analyzing Fugue.
Burkhart, and others, offer positive reviews and thoughtful summaries of the merits of
Renwick’s work.36 While he offers many valuable insights, Renwick’s subject-answer
paradigms raise important theoretical issues when one applies them in analysis.
In his chapter on “Subject and Answer,” Renwick groups fugal subjects into three
categories based on their underlying harmonic support. Category 1 subjects end on tonic
(I–V–I), Category 2 consists of modulating subjects that end on the dominant (I–V7/V–
V), and Category 3 represents non-modulating subjects that end on the dominant (I–V).37
Within each category, Renwick provides a list of paradigms based on the linear
progressions that are projected within each subject-answer pair. Example 1.6 reproduces
Renwick’s Figure 2–2, enumerating all the paradigms in each category along with
information regarding the frequency in which each paradigm appears in fugues by J.S.
Bach. Example 1.7 reproduces Renwick’s Figure 2–3, which demonstrates the frequent
usage of particular paradigms in J.S. Bach’s Well-tempered Clavier, books I and II.
Renwick’s subject categories and paradigms provide an important means of
examining and quantifying linear progressions within fugal structure. For instance, it is
striking how frequently paradigm 1 appears in Bach’s fugues—it comprises
approximately 41 percent of all his fugal subjects, and 23 of the 48 fugues in the
36
Robert Gauldin, “Analyzing Fugue: A Schenkerian Approach by William Renwick,” Intégral 9 (1995):
99–115; and Charles Burkhart, “Analyzing Fugue by William Renwick,” Music Analysis 16, no. 2 (Jul.,
1997): 270–81; See also Lionel Pike, “Analyzing Fugue: A Schenkerian Approach by William Renwick,”
Music & Letters 77, no. 1 (Feb., 1996): 116–19; Heather Platt, “Analyzing Fugue: A Schenkerian
Approach by William Renwick,” Notes, Second Series 53, no. 1 (Sep., 1996): 93–94; Carmen Sabourin,
“Analyzing Fugue: A Schenkerian Approach by William Renwick,” Music Theory Spectrum 20, no. 1
(Spring, 1998): 137–40.
37
Example 1.6: Renwick’s Subject-Answer Paradigms38
38
Ibid., 75–76.
Example 1.7: Subject Paradigms in WTC I and WTC II 39
Well-tempered Clavier. Further, Category 1 subjects—those that end on tonic—are the
most prominent subject types employed by Bach. According to Renwick’s tables,
Category 1 subjects comprise 40 of the fugues from the Well-tempered clavier and
approximately 83 percent of Bach’s fugue subjects overall. These observations alone help
to provide a broader understanding of the way Bach’s fugues are constructed, and which
patterns he favored over others.
However, the subject-answer paradigms also have significant analytical
ramifications. First, they promote the very sectionalization of fugue that Heinrich
Schenker argued against in his essay on “Organicism in fugue.” Renwick’s isolation of
the initial subject-answer pair relies on traditional formal analysis, and does not clearly
represent the prolongational features that a Schenkerian approach can provide. Second,
39
Ibid., 77.
Renwick’s foreground sketches of the paradigms are discordant with their treatment at
deeper structural levels. An ideal paradigm should represent both foreground and
middleground features equally well. At deeper structural levels, Renwick is forced to de-
emphasize his paradigms in order to accurately show the broader structural features at
work in the composition. Third, Renwick’s paradigms minimize the similarities between
subjects and tonal answers. Because paradigm 1 appears with the greatest frequency in
Bach’s fugues, and also frequently requires a tonal answer, it will serve nicely as the
basis for discussion for all three analytical issues.
Sectionalization
Renwick’s paradigm 1 is provided in Example 1.8. It is also highlighted with
stems and beams in the sketches in Examples 1.9a and 1.9b. Examples 1.9a and 1.9b
provide evidence of the first problem with Renwick’s paradigms.
Example 1.8: Renwick’s subject-answer paradigm 140
40
Ibid., 26.
The paradigm suggests that the answer projects a descending-second progression (^8 to ^7)
as shown in Example 1.9a. However, Renwick’s sketch in Example 1.9b shows that ^8 is
prolonged until the downbeat of m. 13 and the answer, in fact, participates in a neighbor
progression. The answer plays a supportive role in the fugal exposition, but this is only
implied in Renwick’s sketch. By isolating the opening subject-answer statements in his
paradigms, Renwick de-emphasizes the answer’s prolongational function.
Renwick’s sketches in Examples 1.9b, 1.9c, and 1.9d show that he does observe a
tonic prolongation within this passage. However, these examples appear much later in his
book, and he does not allude to them in his earlier chapter. Early and substantial
emphasis on the subject-answer pair conflicts with the tonal structure, and has the
potential to lead the reader astray. Robert Gauldin and William Renwick have noted that
although fugues do not follow a consistent formal model, some generalizations can be
made about fugal expositions. Gauldin phrases it most succinctly in his review of
Renwick’s book: “Since the initial entries of the exposition represent the most regimented
and predictable section of a fugue, they are ideally suited for the construction of
underlying structural paradigms.”41 Renwick’s idea to use paradigms to describe linear
motion in fugal expositions has significant theoretical and pedagogical value. However, I
propose that the first modification to Renwick’s paradigms must be that they represent
the initial tonic prolongation in the fugal exposition, rather than the initial subject-answer
pair.
41
Gauldin, “Analyzing Fugue by William Renwick,” 104.
Example 1.9: Renwick’s Sketches of J.S. Bach, Fugue in C major, WTC II 42

a) mm. 1–9
b) mm. 1–13
c) Excerpt from Renwick’s foreground sketch, mm. 1–13
d) Renwick’s middleground and background sketch
42
Renwick, Analyzing Fugue. The examples appear on pp. 30, 116, 193, and 194.
Inconsistent treatment between structural levels
The second issue is that Renwick’s paradigms cannot be consistently applied
between various structural levels. In Examples 1.9a and 1.9b, the E in m. 6 prolongs ^8 in
the tonal answer. Examples 1.9c and 1.9d, by contrast, show the same E participating in a
tonic arpeggiation, which leads to the Kopfton (G) in m. 13.43 Example 1.10 provides
these two conflicting readings in a single graph.
Example 1.10: Renwick’s conflicting readings of Bach’s Fugue in C major, WTC II
The lower slurs in the treble staff show the prolongation of ^8 in the same manner as
paradigm 1. The upper slurs show an arpeggiation G-C-E-G, arriving at the Kopfton in m.
13. If the paradigm were maintained through to the middleground level, the E in m. 6
would not be present in the tonic arpeggiation.
An additional issue arises in m. 26, as shown in Example 1.9d. Measure 26
contains a soprano entry of the answer in D minor. The skip of a third from D to F
43
Platt, “Analyzing Fugue: A Schenkerian Approach by William Renwick,” 94. Platt makes this same
observation in her review of Renwick’s book.
highlights the opening of the tonal answer. Since Renwick’s paradigm treats ^3 as
prolongational at the surface, the D, and not the F, would be retained at a deeper
structural level. However, Renwick’s middleground reading shows that the F (^3 in the
local entry) is part of the fundamental line. Analytical inconsistency between structural
levels results from the conflict between Renwick’s paradigms and his view of the tonal
structure.
Charles Burkhart discusses the same sketches shown in Examples 1.9b and 1.9c.
“At first the answer’s e2 is seen as an embellishment of the paradigm, and thus of lower
rank. But in the context of the exposition as a whole this e2 assumes higher structural
rank than the notes of the paradigm.”44 He goes on to say that the tonal structure can
“impinge on the themes and can modify both their meaning and shape. This is eminently
true in the analysis of fugue, wherein subject statements can vary greatly in meaning
from one to the other.”45 Although at certain points in a fugue a theme may be graphed
differently depending on context, it is preferable that the same iteration of a theme should
be graphed consistently between multiple structural levels. Moreover, since Burkhart
mentions—and I agree—that Renwick’s paradigmatic approach could prove beneficial
from a pedagogical standpoint, it is important that the paradigms be as precise as
possible. Ideally, the paradigms will accurately represent multiple structural levels. Thus,
the second modification to Renwick’s paradigm will require more middleground
specificity that also agrees at the foreground.
44
Burkhart, “Analyzing Fugue by William Renwick,” 276.
45
Ibid.
Tonal answers
Finally, Renwick’s tonal answer paradigms do not adequately reflect those
answers’ resemblance to their subjects. The subject in paradigm 1 requires a tonal answer
because it begins on ^5 and does not modulate. According to Renwick, the third-
progression (^5-^4-^3) in the subject is answered with a descending second-progression (^8-
^8-^7) in the answer. However, tonal answers are more similar to than different from their
corresponding subjects. After all, even with slight modification at the beginning of the
entry, tonal answers are still recognizable as alterations of the subject. Renwick’s
paradigms place stronger emphasis on the tonal modification, and do not reflect the
similarities between the subject and answer. The third modification to Renwick’s
paradigms will require stronger emphasis on the semblance between subjects and tonal
answers.
Paradigm 1 is frequently accompanied by an upper neighbor figure: ^5-^6-^5-^4-^3 in
the subject becomes ^1-^3-^2-^1-^7 in the answer.46 Bach’s C-major fugue, shown in Example
1.9, is an example of this embellishment. In cases such as these, Renwick considers the
appearance of ^3 as hierarchically important. He writes:
The initial step, ^5 to ^6, becomes an arpeggiation ^1 to ^3, affirming the tonic
harmony at the point of overlap and simultaneously providing for the tonal
mutation. While the role of such a neighbor is strictly ornamental in the subject, it
assumes structural importance in the answer as the third of the tonic chord and the
initiator of a new linear progression. The resulting answer form replicates the
contour of the subject very effectively.47
46
Gauldin, Renwick, and others point out that this upper-neighbor pattern is quite common.
47
Renwick’s paradigm does not discuss potential voice-leading accommodations for the
addition of the upper-neighbor figure, and his graphs do not reveal a difference in
foreground reading under this condition either. Example 1.11 highlights the two possible
interpretations for this situation. Example 1.11a is consistent with Renwick’s paradigm
1: ^3 prolongs ^1 (or ^8). Alternatively, Example 1.11b treats ^3 as the “initiator of a new
linear progression.” Ultimately, the problem of whether Example 1.11a or 1.11b
represents the tonal answer is a very significant one, and demands a solution.
Example 1.11: Two possible tonal answer readings for subject ^ 5 -^ 6 -^ 5 -^ 4 -^ 3
The tonal answer has not been fully dealt with in the Schenkerian literature.
Renwick suggests that what we understand on the musical surface as a tonal answer is
still in essence a real answer at a deeper structural level, and “the answer can therefore be
thought of structurally as a transposition of the subject to the dominant level, but
conjoined harmonically to the end of the subject.”48 Renwick’s observation is an
important one, yet his paradigm does not represent this relationship and instead favors the
surface modifications in the tonal answer. In his dissertation, Peter Franck points out that
the descending second in Renwick’s paradigm 1 cannot constitute a true linear
48
Ibid., 23.
progression, because Schenker requires that a linear progression span at least the interval
of a third. His revision of Renwick’s paradigm 1, shown in Example 1.12, provides a
more precise illustration of the relationship described by Renwick.49
Example 1.12: Franck’s revision of Renwick’s subject-answer paradigm
This example does not model the same harmonic or temporal relationships between the
subject and answer as shown in Renwick’s paradigm 1. In Renwick’s model, the subject
and answer elide over a tonic harmony, thus requiring modification at the beginning of
the answer. Franck’s revised paradigm repositions the answer so that it occurs after the
subject has ended, thus allowing for a real answer to follow. With this illustration, Franck
appears to describe an entirely different musical event. Example 1.12 is, in fact,
illustrating the subject-answer relationship at a deeper structural level than that shown in
Renwick’s paradigm.
Example 1.13 reproduces Franck’s sketch of the opening subject and answer of
J.S. Bach’s C-minor fugue from book I of the Well-tempered Clavier. Schenker’s original
analysis of this passage, shown in Example 1.14, illustrates that the underlying linear
49
Franck, “The Role of Invertible Counterpoint,” 266.
progression (^5-^4-^3) that provides a structural framework for the fugal subject, and
Renwick uses this example as a basis for his paradigmatic approach to fugal subjects.50
Example 1.13: Franck’s revised paradigm and Bach’s C-minor Fugue, WTC I 51
Franck’s analysis (Example 1.13) highlights the presence of a real answer, but
does not address the tonal aspect of the fugal answer. His analysis shows that each
progression begins with an upper neighbor to ^5. The upper neighbor in the answer (^6 in
the dominant key) is consonant with the overlapping tonic harmony (subdominant in the
new key), and so no tonal adjustment is needed. In fact, where Franck proposes that ^5
appears in the answer, the harmony is already firmly in the new key of the dominant (G
minor) and altogether avoids the precise moment that makes it a tonal answer at the
foreground. Franck acknowledges this and writes that the example “demonstrates the
transpositional relationship between subject and answer, but fails to show the ‘tonal
50
51
Ibid., 267.
alteration’ of the answer occurring at the surface.” He goes on to say that the answer is
“shown here as a real answer at an earlier level of derivation, yet [becomes] a tonal
answer at the surface.”52 Franck purposefully sketches this passage to demonstrate that a
real answer is present at a deeper structural level, but he has not solved the tonal answer
problem itself.
Example 1.14 provides Schenker’s analysis of the same passage. 53 Schenker’s
analysis is similar to Franck’s sketch in Example 1.13, yet closer examination of the
foreground sketch in Example 1.14f reveals an important difference: Schenker’s linear
progression begins on ^5 not ^6.
Example 1.14: Schenker’s analysis of Bach’s C-minor Fugue subject, WTC I
52
Ibid., 96–97.
53
Schenker, “The Organic Nature of Fugue,” ([1926] 1996), 34.
Schenker unfortunately does not supply us with a complete foreground sketch of mm. 1–
5 in his article, but he does briefly discuss the tonal answer:
The old rule of the so-called tonal answer governs this kind of change in
the answer’s opening: it stipulates that the tonic and dominant notes of the
subject become dominant and tonic in the answer. This rule sidesteps the
central issue, the necessity for the tonic triad of the subject to lead to the
dominant triad of the answer. Bogged down in superficially descriptive
verbiage, the rule had to be modified by one exception after another.54
Schenker does imply that there is a deeper structural function for the answer. Renwick
and Franck recognize the problem, but do not provide a fully formed solution. In a later
sketch (shown in Example 1.15), Franck’s linear progression begins on ^5 in the subject,
and then the upper neighbor assumes a more structurally significant role in the answer.55
Example 1.15: Franck’s sketch of J.S. Bach, C-minor Fugue, WTC I, mm. 1–9
54
Ibid., 36.
55
Franck does not provide detailed explanation of the tonal answer in this sketch. He does
articulate that the “end of the subject overlaps with the beginning of the answer” and “so
does the end of the answer with the beginning of the first invertible episode in mm. 5–
7.”56 Franck, therefore, identifies the prolongational nature of the answer, and also
acknowledges the tonal modification of the answer within this graph.
Solution: A Modified Paradigm
Building upon Renwick’s paradigm approach and Franck’s ideas surrounding the
tonal answer problem, I propose an alternative to Renwick’s paradigm 1, which is shown
in Example 1.16. Examination of the 23 fugues in the Well-tempered Clavier that display
this linear progression revealed three general ways that paradigm 1 can appear. First,
Example 1.16a shows subjects that contain an upper-neighbor ^6. In the subject, ^6 can
appear as an upper neighbor to ^5 or it can lead to ^4, depending upon the specific
harmonic support within the fugue. Second, Example 1.16b provides a paradigm for
subjects that do not contain an upper-neighbor embellishment, but that still require a tonal
answer. In both instances, ^3 initiates a new linear progression in the answer, and this
descending third-progression (^3-^2-^1) is completed at the start of the third voice entry in
tonic. Examples 1.16a and 1.16b, therefore, favor the reading shown in Example 1.11b.
The reading in Example 1.16c provides a third option for fugues that contain real
answers.
56
Ibid., 97.
Example 1.16: Alternative to Renwick’s paradigm 1, three options
a) Subjects containing upper neighbor ^6
^6 as upper neighbor to ^5
OR
^6 leads to ^4
b) Subjects that do not contain an upper neighbor ^6, but followed by tonal answer
c) Paradigm 1 subjects followed by real answers (usually contain an initial ascent or arp.)
In these fugues (7 of the 23), the subject’s ^5-^4-^3 progression is typically preceded by an
initial arpeggiation or an initial ascent. Because ^5 does not appear at the onset of the
subject, a tonal answer is no longer necessary. In these situations, the answer still
participates in a large-scale descent from ^5 to ^1 that is completed in the third voice entry.
My alternative paradigm in Example 1.16 highlights the prolongational nature of the
answer within the fugal exposition and provides more middleground specificity; this will
lead to more consistent readings across multiple structural levels. Finally, my paradigm
also clearly illustrates that, in spite of the tonal modifications on the surface, the answer
projects the same linear progression (^5-^4-^3) as the subject and is, in fact, a real answer at
a deeper structural level.
Example 1.17 is taken from John Rothgeb’s article on “Thematic Content” in
David Beach’s collection, Aspects of Schenkerian Theory.57 This example provides
further support for my proposed paradigm. Although Rothgeb focuses his discussion on
the motivic enlargement in mm. 5–6 (shown in level b of his example), he illustrates an
additional and significant relationship in his sketches in levels c and d. The opening
motive in m. 1 and its answer in m. 2 exhibit the same linear relationship as that shown in
Example 1.16a. Rothgeb’s analysis is identical to my proposed paradigm, and his
analysis in levels c and d highlight yet another aspect of motivic development: the
descending-third progression of the opening motive is imitated at multiple structural
levels.
57
John Rothgeb, “Thematic Content: A Schenkerian View,” in Aspects of Schenkerian Theory, ed. David
Beach (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 39–60. The music example is on page 49.
Example 1.17: Rothgeb’s analysis of J.S. Bach, Sinfonia No. 8 in F major

Examples 1.18 and 1.19 provide two alternate readings of the fugues discussed so
far. The sketch in Example 1.18 is in line with Franck’s sketch shown in Example 1.15,
but provides greater emphasis on the harmonic overlap between voice entries.58 Where
the subject begins with a neighbor progression, the answer begins with a chordal skip
between ^1 and ^3. This chordal skip places greater emphasis on ^3 in the answer, and my
proposed paradigm gives higher priority to ^3 in the progression; ^3 descends to ^2 in the
answer, which then initiates a descending third-progression in the key of the dominant.
The progression initiated by ^3 is not completed, however, until the third voice enters in
the tonic key in m. 7. Thus, the local descent to the minor dominant in m. 5 is still
represented at the foreground level, but the answer is simultaneously participating in a
deeper-level prolongation of tonic within the fugal exposition. Example 1.19 provides a
new reading of Bach’s C-major fugue, which serves as an alternative to those by
Renwick shown in Example 1.9. The analysis is consistent with Renwick’s middleground
reading. There is an ascending arpeggiation leading to the Kopfton in m. 13, but my
paradigm provides better agreement with the foreground level as well.
As shown in Example 1.16, the proposed paradigm also applies to fugues that do
not contain the upper-neighbor embellishment. Example 1.20 reproduces Renwick’s
sketches of J.S. Bach’s C-minor fugue from book II of the Well-tempered Clavier. In this
fugue, the subject does not contain an upper-neighbor figure, and so on the musical
surface the answer does not begin with a skip from ^1 to ^3.
58
Franck, “The Role of Invertible Counterpoint,” 99. Franck provides a convincing explanation for the
voice leading in the link between the second and third voice entries. He shows how this material reappears
in invertible counterpoint later in the fugue and explains its role within the overall construction of the fugue.
Example 1.19: Sketch of J.S. Bach, Fugue in C major, WTC II, based on alternative
paradigm 1
Example 1.20: Renwick’s sketches of J.S. Bach, C-minor fugue, WTC II 59

a) mm. 1–3
b) mm. 1–5
59
Renwick, Analyzing Fugue, 28 and 117.
As a result, Renwick’s paradigm 1 appears to be slightly more consistent with the
foreground features of this tonal answer. Renwick’s sketch shown in Example 1.20b
shows prolongation until the third voice entry, but it is not entirely clear how these linear
progressions work to form a complete tonal unit. For instance, his sketch implies a
prolongation of ^8 until m. 5 via a lower neighbor ^7. He does not make clear, however,
how the ^8-^7-^8 motion moves into the inner voice in m. 4, nor is it clear where the
descending ^3-^2-^1 progression comes from in the same measure.
My reading in Example 1.21 illustrates the prolongational nature of the answer
more clearly: although it is not present at the foreground, ^3 still initiates a descending-
third progression in tonal answer, which is completed at the end of the third voice entry.
Example 1.21: J.S. Bach, C-minor fugue, WTC II, based on alternative paradigm 1
I suggest an implied Eß at the beginning of the answer because of the voice-exchange
shown in m. 2. The subject ends on ^3 and then descends to ^2 in the middle register. Due
to the voice exchange, this line continues in the upper voice. Ultimately, the subject-
answer pair projects a descending-fifth progression that finds completion at the arrival of
the tonic harmony in the third voice entry, regardless of whether the upper neighbor is
present in the subject.
As noted above, Renwick’s paradigms are incomplete because they isolate only
the initial subject-answer pair. Expositions are the most predictable sections in fugues,
which otherwise do not follow a specific formal pattern. However, even within
expositions the number and order of voice entries can vary. Because of this, I suggest
considering the initial prolongation of tonic as the complete unit in the paradigms.
Paradigm 1 appears in both three- and four-voice fugues (and one five-voice fugue) in the
Well-tempered Clavier. In each of these fugues, the voice entries alternate subject-
answer-subject (answer). Thus, the tonic prolongation will span the entire exposition for
three-voice fugues; four-voice expositions will either present a tonic prolongation within
the first three entries and move to the dominant, or the tonic prolongation will continue
beyond the fourth entry.
Two additional analyses are provided to test the new paradigm. These are
provided in Examples 1.22 and 1.23. Both fugues demonstrate instances where
Renwick’s paradigm 1 contains the upper-neighbor figure, and will follow the version of
the paradigm shown in Example 1.16a. The F-major fugue in Example 1.22 is a three-
voice fugue, and tonic is prolonged until the end of the third voice entry in m. 13. The G-
minor fugue in Example 1.23 is a four-voice fugue, and tonic is prolonged until the third
voice entry in measure 9. Both fugues will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2.
Example 1.22: Alternative paradigm 1 and three-voice fugues:

J.S. Bach, Fugue in F major, WTC I, mm. 1–21
Example 1.23: Alternative paradigm 1 and four-voice fugues:

J.S. Bach, Fugue in G minor, WTC II, mm. 1–9
Paradigm 2a
This approach can be expanded to other subject-answer paradigms as well.
According to Renwick’s tables in Examples 1.6 and 1.7, Paradigm 2a is the second most
frequently used paradigm in Bach’s fugues. Renwick calculates that the paradigm appears
in approximately 17 percent of Bach’s fugal subjects, and this paradigm appears six times
in the Well-tempered Clavier.60 Paradigm 2a also requires a tonal answer, as shown in
Example 1.24.
Example 1.24: Renwick’s paradigm 2a61
The tonal answer in Paradigm 2a is less problematic as a stand-alone progression
because it outlines the interval of a descending fourth rather than only a descending
second. However, the paradigm still poses similar problems to those shown with
paradigm 1. Example 1.25 reproduces Renwick’s sketches of Bach’s Fugue in Dƒ minor
(WTCI).
60
According to Renwick’s chart in Examples 1.6 and 1.7, Paradigm 5 appears seven times in the Well-
tempered Clavier, but in only eight percent of Bach’s fugues overall.
61
Example 1.25: Renwick’s sketches of J.S. Bach, Fugue 8 in Dƒ minor, WTC I 62
a) mm. 1–6
b) mm. 1–10
Renwick’s sketches of the exposition pose the same problem as the examples
show in Example 1.9: ^3 is treated as a prolongational pitch at the foreground level, and
the sketch highlights the tonal modification in the answer (Example 1.25a); the dotted
slur in Example 1.25b shows that at the middleground, ^3 is prolonged in mm. 4–8 and
participates in an ascending arpeggiation to ^5 in m. 9. The same contradiction between
structural levels that was shown in Example 1.9 is apparent with this analysis as well.
62
Ibid., 42 and 124.
My proposed modification to paradigm 2a is provided in Example 1.26, and
applied to the Dƒ-minor fugue in Example 1.27. Aside from the fact that this paradigm
projects a descending fifth-progression, rather than a descending third-progression, my
alternative paradigm 2a operates in the same way as alternative paradigm 1. The tonal
answer participates in a two-level descent: at the foreground, the answer projects the
same descending fifth-progression as the subject; at a deeper structural level, ^3 is
promoted to a higher structural rank and initiates a descending third-progression that
leads to the third voice entry. The paradigm is tested in a revised sketch of Bach’s Dƒ-
minor fugue in Example 1.27.
Example 1.26: Alternative paradigm 2a
Example 1.27: Alternative reading of J.S. Bach, Fugue in Dƒ minor, WTC I

Again, the similarity between the subject and tonal answer is better illustrated.
Both exhibit a descending-fifth progression. The deeper-level third-progression that
results is the same as that shown in the paradigm 1 examples. This suggests a very
specific and special prolongational function for ^3 in the tonal answer. The analyses
provided above support the argument that the subject and answer cannot be treated as an
isolated segment in fugal analysis because they do not represent a complete tonal unit.
Conclusion
The analyses presented highlight a very significant perceptual difference between
the way we understand fugues in terms of their formal design, and the way we should
view them in terms of their tonal structure. In formal analysis, the subject and answer are
isolated features of the composition. In terms of tonal structure, these seemingly separate
passages function as a single unit. This supports a crucial point that Schenker made in his
1926 essay regarding the way we analyze fugues: localized formal identification of a
fugue’s individual segments obscures the global processes from which the surface is
derived. William Renwick’s paradigms offer a useful way of thinking about linear
progressions projected in fugal writing. However, his subject-answer paradigms are too
reliant on conventional formal models, and this view ultimately conflicts with the tonal
structure of the fugal exposition.

My proposed paradigms offer a way to reconcile Renwick’s subject-answer
paradigms with his view of the deeper-level structure: first, they provide greater emphasis
on the answer’s prolongational function within the fugal exposition. Where Renwick’s
paradigms end at the conclusion of the answer, my modification highlights a complete
tonic prolongation; second, the paradigms enable more consistent treatment between
structural levels; and third, where Renwick’s paradigm highlighted the tonal adjustment
in the answer, my modified paradigms serve to emphasize the surface similarities
projected in both the subject and answer, and also provide further evidence for Peter
Franck’s claim that all answers are real answers below the musical surface. This approach
can be expanded to include all of Renwick’s subject-answer paradigms. Renwick writes
that for Schenker, “the fugue subject embodies the characteristics of unity and
wholeness—the prime requisites which he also ascribed to deeper levels in his ‘organic’
conception of musical structure.” If, according to Renwick, the “subject and answer are
the basis of all contrapuntal procedures in fugue,”63 then reexamining Renwick’s
paradigms can lead to further insights into fugal structure as a whole.
Chapter 1 has set the stage for the entire study by showing the benefits of a
Schenkerian approach to fugue. Schenker’s work has been applied to fugal compositions
less frequently than to other genres, and one contributing factor may be that fugal
textures present more complex problems for the analyst than other works. In particular,
issues of counterpoint, harmony, imitation, and form must be carefully treated in each
study. A slight change in the analysis of these features can drastically affect the reading
63
Ibid., 78.
of a particular fugue. William Renwick’s studies are invaluable for their contribution to
Schenkerian studies on fugue, but his subject-answer paradigms conflict with the
Schenkerian view of tonal structure. The second half of Chapter 1 highlighted issues
surrounding Renwick’s paradigms, and proposed an alternative paradigm that better
agrees with the tonal structure.
Having demonstrated the complexities involved with fugal textures, Chapter 2
will present a step-by-step procedure that the analyst can rely on at the initial stages of
graphing. Drawing on Schenker’s published and unpublished sketches of J.S. Bach’s D-
minor fugue (WTC I), I list specific steps that make the analytic process more explicit. I
will demonstrate the effectiveness of the method in analyses of two fugues by Bach.
Chapters 1 and 2 serve dual purposes: first, they are of pedagogical value as they provide
a concrete method for the beginning stages of fugal analysis; and second, Chapters 1 and
2 define the specific method I will use when analyzing fugues by Dmitri Shostakovich.
Before the process can be applied to Shostakovich’s music, Chapter 3 addresses
the modal-tonal nature of his works. Many Russian scholars have published studies on
the modal aspects of Shostakovich’s music—studies that are not widely discussed in
Western music theory. I will discuss one of the earliest Russian publications on mode in
Shostakovich’s music by Alexander Naumovich Dolzhansky, followed by summaries of
two analyses of Shostakovich’s C-major fugue, op. 87, by Dolzhansky and Lev Mazel.
Drawing on work by Matthew Brown, I explain how the modal and chromatic elements
of Shostakovich’s writing can be subsumed under the processes of mixture and
tonicization.
Finally, Chapter 4 provides complete analyses of the F-major and G-minor fugues
from Shostakovich’s 24 Preludes and Fugues, op. 87. While the works are not entirely
conventional tonal works (as compared to 18th-century tonal works), my study will show
how Shostakovich’s works are tonal. The aspects of his writing that are non-normative
help us gain deeper insight into how his works are structured. Ultimately, the study will
show that we can learn a great deal about Shostakovich’s music through a Schenkerian
approach, and lay the groundwork for future research.

50
Chapter 2
Toward a Pedagogy for Graphing Fugue
Chapter 1 highlighted the uniqueness of Schenker’s theory and the importance of
its application to the study of fugue. Some studies have made considerable strides toward
formalizing the theory in this regard, contributing to a better understanding of fugue in
general.1 What is lacking in these approaches, however, is a proposed method for
graphing a fugue. Each author presents completed analyses, focusing on top-down
presentations, which are centered on a specific theoretical problem or problems.
Unfortunately, it is not clear what the process is at the beginning stages of analysis.
Because fugues ultimately present the same voice-leading problems as all tonal works,
previous authors may have assumed this process to be obvious to their audience. To the
contrary, Chapter 1 explained specific ways in which fugal textures are much more
complex than other tonal genres. Even at the local level, reducing their textures to an
imaginary continuo proves quite challenging. The mere act of establishing the number of
essential voices becomes much more complicated, given the polyphonic nature of so
many fugal subjects.2 In the interest of promoting further Schenkerian studies of fugue, it
is necessary to first present a clear process for approaching fugal analysis from a

1
See especially the work by Heinrich Schenker, Carl Schachter, William Renwick, and Peter Franck cited
in footnote 30 in Chapter 1.
2
This observation was suggested to me by Matthew Brown.
Chapter 2: Toward a Pedagogy for Graphing Fugue 51
Schenkerian perspective. This chapter will establish a specific method for applying
Schenkerian analysis to fugues. The benefits are two-fold: first, this chapter serves as a
helpful starting point for individuals new to studying fugal writing from a Schenkerian
perspective; and second, to successfully compare and contrast Shostakovich’s fugues
with those by J.S. Bach in a consistent manner, it is essential to formalize a specific
approach. Through detailed examination of Heinrich Schenker’s published and
unpublished sketches of J.S. Bach’s D-minor fugue (WTC I), I will codify and isolate the
specific steps required to successfully graph a fugue.3 I will then provide two original
analyses of J.S. Bach’s fugues in F major (WTC I) and G minor (WTC II), as
demonstration of how the method works.
Schenker’s sketches of J.S. Bach, Fugue in D minor, WTC I
Two sketches in Der freie Satz reference the D-minor fugue: 1) Fig. 53, no. 5,
provides a sketch of the fugue’s subject and answer; and 2) Fig. 156, no. 1, provides a
detailed middleground sketch of the entire fugue. These are reproduced as Examples 2.1a
and 2.1b.4 Both figures contain a wealth of analytic information. They also reveal
important clues about appropriate analytical procedures that can be extrapolated to other
fugues.

3
All unpublished materials are from the Oster collection. See Robert Kosovsky, The Oster Collection:
Papers of Heinrich Schenker: A Finding List (New York: New York Public Library, 1990).
4
Schenker, Free Composition ([1935] 1979).The figures are reproduced from the 1979 edition.
Example 2.1: Schenker’s sketches of J.S. Bach, Fugue in D minor, WTC I
a) Fig. 53/5: Sketch of the subject and answer
b) Fig. 156/1: Sketch of the entire fugue
The subject entries are labeled on the graph in Example 2.1b, suggesting that Schenker
likely performed traditional formal analysis at an early stage in the graphing process.
Schenker was well versed in the formal theories of his contemporaries, and theories on
fugue were no exception.5 Marginalia in an unpublished sketch, shown in Example 2.2,
provides a more detailed formal analysis of the exposition, and further evidence of
Schenker’s analytical approach.

5
Ibid., §322. The section on fugue in Free Composition makes explicit reference to Riemann’s
Katechismus der Fugenkomposition ([1890–4] n.d.); Schenker, “The Organic Nature of Fugue,” ([1926]
1996). As discussed in Chapter 1, Schenker references several theories of fugue in his Meisterwerk article.
Example 2.2: Oster Collection File 71/10

He labels the subject (dux) and answer (comes) on the sketch as well. These markings
appear between the third and fourth staves, and the fifth and sixth staves. Examples 2.1
and 2.2 support PROPOSITION 1: Perform a traditional formal analysis of the fugue.6
Because the formal organization of each fugue is unique, traditional formal analysis will
prove beneficial for identifying repeated passages and the fugues’ harmonic organization.
It will also establish whether the fugue utilizes any notable contrapuntal devices.
Example 2.3 provides a complete form chart for the D-minor fugue, which
highlights several important features.7 The form chart reveals two countersubjects, a
series of stretto entries, and several entries where the subject is inverted. The structural
harmonies are shaded in gray and reveal a double bass arpeggiation. This progression will
be important to consider when establishing the fugue’s fundamental line. The chart also
reveals the fugue’s resemblance to a balanced binary structure, where the material first
introduced in the dominant key in mm. 17–21 is then transposed into the tonic key at the
conclusion of the piece. However, revealing the binary nature of the D-minor fugue’s
organization is not the purpose of the formal analysis. Rather, the goal is to identify the
main components of the composition.

6
Other Schenkerian publications begin with a discussion of fugal form in their analyses, although they are
not explicit in their presentation that this is a critical step in the analytical process. Schenker, “The Organic
Nature of Fugue,” ([1926] 1996), 33, includes an “outer form” analysis of the C-minor fugue, WTC I,
exposition; Schachter, “Bach’s Fugue in Bß Major,” ([1973] 1999), 240, contains a complete formal
analysis of the Bß major fugue, WTC I; Renwick, Analyzing Fugue, 199, labels all of the subject entries in
the Bß minor fugue, (WTC II); Franck, “The Role of Invertible Counterpoint,” 91 (and the accompanying
Example 2.10 on p. 262) discusses features of the C-minor fugue (WTC I) that can be illuminated via a
traditional form chart.
7
All form charts are modeled after those in Gauldin, Eighteenth-Century Counterpoint, 1988. The chart
should be read from left-to-right, top-to-bottom; parallel passages are aligned vertically for comparison.
Formal analysis is not an end in itself. Example 2.1a is evidence that Schenker
isolated the opening subject and answer, analyzing them separately from the rest of the
work. The example highlights two important points: first, harmonic rhythm plays a role
in determining the best analysis; and second, the subject must be analyzed prior to
graphing the complete composition. Since fugues consist of copious restatements of the
subject, it is fitting that this should be considered at the beginning stages of analysis.
From this I offer PROPOSITION 2: identify and compare all parallel combinations
early in the analytic process. With this in mind, the purpose for Proposition 1 becomes
more apparent. All parallel combinations must first be identified before they can be
analyzed. This includes the subject and answer, countersubjects if there are any, as well
as any repeated episodic material. While consistency in approach is generally regarded as
essential to any analysis, this is especially true for graphing a fugue.
Examples 2.4 and 2.5 provide foreground and middleground sketches for two
alternative readings of the subject and answer. Example 2.5 is a sketch based on
Schenker’s Fig. 53, no. 5, and 2.4 is an alternative reading of the passage. Both sketches
show an initial ascent from ^1 to ^5 in the opening subject. The sketches differ in the
location of ^2 within this initial ascent. Schenker’s analysis in Example 2.1a included a
rhythmic reduction of the passage, which indicates that he interpreted ^2 as beginning with
the first E in measure 1. The sketch in Example 2.4 offers an alternative reading, where
the harmonic rhythm is reversed and ^2 does not take effect until the second E in the
measure. This single difference in interpretation has a significant impact on how the
harmonic progression unfolds and will thus affect the analysis of the entire work.
Example 2.4: J.S. Bach D-minor fugue ,WTC I, subject and answer—alternate
reading
Example 2.5: J.S. Bach D-minor fugue, WTC I, subject and answer—preferred
reading according to Schenker’s sketches
Both sketches ultimately show a dominant expansion beginning in m. 3, but the
passing harmony is affected by the different readings. In Example 2.4, a B-diminished
harmony is the passing harmony (iiº in the key of A minor). Example 2.5 reveals a more
typical passing six-three harmony, followed by a passing tone over the bass. Schenker’s
reading favors the more conventional harmonic progression, and will thus provide a more
solid framework from which we can base the remainder of the analysis.
There are situations that ultimately override Proposition 2, however. Passages that
would be regarded as the “same” in traditional formal analysis, can potentially receive
different treatment from a Schenkerian standpoint. Examining passages where the
material is different is just as, if not more, important than comparing passages that are
alike. The following two examples will illustrate that changing context can necessitate a
change in the analysis. Close comparison of Examples 2.6a and 2.6b shows that the
subject entries are graphed in a consistent fashion (these appear as ascending fifth-
progressions in the graphs).8 However, the countersubject material is not graphed exactly
the same way each time. For example, compare the second countersubject (CS2) in each
sketch. In mm. 4 and 5, the structural pitches are the first of each sixteenth-note group,
whereas in m. 17, the structural pitches are the second pitch in each group. This is a result
of the changing vertical alignment within the two passages: CS2 is aligned with the
beginning of the subject in m. 17; in m. 4, CS2 was aligned with the latter half of

8
My reading of the D-minor fugue’s exposition differs from that shown in Gregory Proctor and Herbert
Lee Riggins, “Levels and the Reordering of Chapters in Schenker’s ‘Free Composition’,” Music Theory
Spectrum 10 (Spring, 1988): 102–26. Their analysis appears on page 120.
the answer. The changing context requires that this line be interpreted differently in the
latter passage.
The same is true for modified and inverted subject entries. Schenker did not label
these entries in his sketches. While he undoubtedly recognized inversions of the fugal
subject as being related to the original subject, he also recognized that such lines behave
differently and thus must be graphed differently than the original subject. Example 2.7
contains both modified and inverted forms of the original subject.

Example 2.7: Sketches of inverted and modified subject entries, mm. 21–25
The entry in m. 21 begins exactly as the original, but the ending is altered as the harmony
transitions from dominant to tonic. Because of the change in harmonic support, it
therefore can no longer participate in an ascending fifth-progression. There are also two
inverted subject entries beginning in m. 22. Both begin with descending third-
progressions, but what follows is dependent upon context once again. The entry in m. 22
would contain an augmented second between the Cƒ and Bß if it functioned as a single
progression. Instead, the Cƒ continues to an inner voice, and the Bß acts as an upper
neighbor to the A in m. 21. The entry in m. 23 helps re-establish the tonic key by
outlining a descending third-progression in D minor, and then providing bass support for
a cadence in D minor in m. 25. Thus, the subject no longer projects a unified linear
progression when it is inverted. Its changing function requires that it be divided into two
progressions.
Example 2.8 is a reproduction of Schenker’s complete foreground sketch of the
fugue. His handwriting is very difficult to read, but his sketch of mm. 21–25 is
comparatively easy to decipher. The passage illustrates Schenker’s similar concerns
regarding the augmented second in m. 23. His slurs suggest that he also considered the
possibility of the inverted subject being divided between two voices.
In reference to the modified and inverted subject entries in the D-minor fugue,
Schenker wrote:
One can hear this fugue correctly only if one keeps in mind the indicated
relationships that the fundamental line and the bass arpeggiation establish.
Let us compare this with Riemann’s explanation in his Katechismus der
Fugenkomposition. Riemann calls so many events ‘complete and
incomplete forms of the inversion,’ or answers of the subject ‘with various
modifications’ (e.g., in mm. 8–9, 13–15, 17–19, 18–20, 21–23). But in
light of the relationships mentioned above, all of these events have a far
different intention than merely to provide ‘answers’ to the theme. The
various specific goals of the composition have such an obvious
prominence that any existing relationships to the ‘subject’ must become
less conspicuous. In no fugue can such relationships be defined by rule.9

9
Schenker, Free Composition ([1935] 1979), §322.
Example 2.8: Schenker’s sketch of J.S. Bach, Fugue in D minor, WTC I
a) Oster Collection File 71/7 recto

Example 2.8 (continued)
b) Oster Collection File 71/8 recto (continued)

Schenker clearly observed that inverted subject entries do not derive from the same
prototypes as the original. He defends their changing function as a necessary result of the
“various specific goals of the composition.” Examples 2.7 and 2.8 show that there is, in
fact, a profound difference between traditional fugal theory and the concerns of
underlying contrapuntal prototypes and transformations. While the goal is to graph
everything as consistently as possible, there are exceptions to the rule. The quote above
also demonstrates that Schenker considered the fugue’s harmonic structure when
establishing the location of the fundamental line.
Example 2.9 shows various levels of the underlying structure presented in the
fugue’s exposition. Thus, PROPOSITION 3: Consider and test potential middleground
structures that align with the fugue’s underlying harmonic construction.10 This step may
seem like a giant leap from what was suggested in Propositions 1 and 2. To test potential
middleground structures suggests that the analyst produce a complete sketch of the entire
fugue, which proves to be a challenging and complicated undertaking. However, through
satisfying Proposition 1 and 2, the analyst is now familiar enough with the work to begin
thinking about its fundamental structure. Subject entries tend to appear in more tonally
stable passages, and thus suggest the underlying harmonic structure of the fugue. From
this harmonic progression, the analyst can produce a bass line graph, and then posit
plausible fundamental lines that might accompany the bass line. Some readings may
instantly prove problematic, and can thus be eliminated at this stage. In other instances,

10
See Schenker, “The Organic Nature of Fugue” ([1926]1996); Schachter, “Bach’s Fugue in Bß Major”
([1973] 1999).
the ideal option may not be immediately clear. If this is the case, continue to proposition
4 while keeping all plausible options under consideration.
Example 2.9: Oster Collection File 71/8 Verso

Example 2.10 proposes two middleground readings that agree with the D-minor
fugue’s harmonic structure. Example 2.10a provides a ^3-line reading, where ^3 is
prolonged via an upper neighbor at the first dominant arrival in m. 13. However, the
fugue first modulates to the minor dominant, which would not provide harmonic support
for ^4. In addition, the subject presents a very clear Anstieg to ^5 at the onset of the fugue.
It makes more sense that ^5 should be the Kopfton in this case, and therefore Example
2.10b is the preferred reading. Given its simple harmonic progression and the subject’s
construction, one could argue that the middleground structure is easily identifiable in this
fugue, but this is not always so obvious in other fugues. It is crucial that multiple options
be considered at this stage of the process.
Example 2.10: Plausible middleground structures for a double bass arpeggiation
a)
b)
Once the preliminary analysis is complete, the entire fugue can then be sketched.
As is shown in Schenker’s sketches, albeit very difficult to read, foreground analysis is
absolutely essential for graphing a fugue. Because the voices can cross at various points
in the piece, it is necessary to trace the path of each voice from start to finish. This
supports PROPOSITION 4: Perform a complete and detailed foreground analysis of the
fugue. Since fugues generally alternate between subject entries and episodes, the repeated
material—which was highlighted in Proposition 1 and analyzed in Proposition 2—
comprises the majority of the fugue as a whole. In satisfying proposition 2, the analyst
has essentially sketched the entire piece, although in smaller, more manageable segments.
Considerations of essential voice, invertible counterpoint, subject transformation, and so
on, have been carefully considered in great detail in a localized way. What is left then, for
Proposition 4, is for the analyst to reconsider these passages within the global context:
how they align together and how they align with deeper structural levels. Through this
process the analyst can confirm which middleground structure best agrees with the
foreground voice leading. Clearly, this step is still quite demanding, since linking specific
passages together may require some reworking and reexamining of the voice leading.
However, Propositions 1 through 3 provide a concrete and manageable way for
approaching the analysis, and result in a more consistent approach as well.
Example 2.9 also shows that Schenker considered his analysis across multiple
levels. Thus, PROPOSITION 5: complete a multi-level graph to show how the
foreground, middleground, and background levels are related. Propositions 4 and 5 are
essential to accurately confirm which background structure is present in a given fugal

composition. If the various structural levels do not align, then it is very likely that an
alternative Ursatz should be considered.
A brief examination of the proposed method, summarized in Example 2.11, will
quickly reveal that this is essentially the same procedure that one would follow when
analyzing any tonal work.11 However, the issues posed in Chapter 1, and the introduction
to the current chapter, suggest that a more systematic approach will be useful in the fugal
context. I will offer two original analyses in the remainder of this chapter to demonstrate
the effectiveness of this method.
Example 2.11: Step-by-step process for graphing a fugue
PROPOSITION 1: Perform a traditional formal analysis of the fugue.
PROPOSITION 2: Identify and compare all parallel combinations early in the analytic
process.
PROPOSITION 3: Consider and test potential middleground structures that align

with the fugue’s underlying harmonic construction.
PROPOSITION 4: Perform a complete and detailed foreground analysis of the

fugue.
PROPOSITION 5: Complete a multi-level graph to show how the foreground

and background levels are related.

11
Stephen Slottow, “Analytic Process in Schenkerian Pedagogy: An Introspective Exercise,” Journal of
Schenkerian Studies 1 (2005): 44–65. Slottow’s recommendations are consonant with my proposed
method.
J.S. Bach, Fugue in F major, WTC I
Example 2.12 provides a form chart of the F-major fugue. One distinguishing
feature of this fugue is that it contains a double exposition. This feature is not unique to
the F-major fugue, but it is not common to all fugal compositions.12 The notable
difference between the exposition and the counter-exposition is the order of voice
entries—the soprano and alto entries are reversed when they appear in the counter-
exposition. Stretto also plays a role in this composition, specifically in the middle entries.
Overall, the form chart helps to elucidate various attributes that combine to make this
fugue unique. The use of stretto with imitation at the octave, the changing order of voices
in the counter-exposition, and the counter-exposition itself, are all features that will be
explored in more detail. Many of these features are intrinsically linked to the work’s
fundamental structure.
Example 2.13 reproduces the subject and answer. The subject contains a
descending third-progression from ^5 to ^3, embellished by an upper-neighbor ^6, and is
followed by a tonal answer. This is the same relationship that was discussed in Chapter 1,
and so the subject and answer can be graphed according to the new paradigm presented in
Example 1.16a.

12
Prout, Fugue, 90. Prout cites only four fugues from the Well-tempered Clavier that contain double
expositions: Book I: Nos. 1 and 11; and Book II: Nos. 2, and 9.
Example 2.12: Form chart for J.S. Bach, Fugue in F major, WTC I
Example 2.13: J.S. Bach, Fugue in F Major, WTC I, mm. 1-8
Examples 2.14 and 2.15 provide two readings of the same passage. The readings
differ in how long ^5 is sustained. Example 2.14 interprets ^5 as prolonged by an upper
neighbor until the downbeat of m. 2. In Example 2.15, ^5 lasts only for the first eighth
note of the composition, and the C in m. 2 is interpreted as a passing tone between ^6
and ^4. Both readings are plausible, but Example 2.15 also highlights a multi-level
parallelism between the third-progressions in the subject and answer. In his widely cited
article, “Either/Or,” Carl Schachter tells us that preference should be given to the reading
that highlights multi-level parallelisms. When all else is equal, this decision will assure
that one has attained the strongest possible analysis of a composition.13 The sketch in
Example 2.15 is the most consistent reading between the subject and answer, and is
therefore the preferred reading for the present analysis.

13
Carl Schachter, “Either/Or,” in Unfoldings: Essays in Schenkerian Theory and Analysis, ed. Joseph N.
Straus (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 121–33. Originally published in Schenker Studies, ed.
Hedi Siegel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 165–79.
Example 2.16 examines the use of stretto in the middle entries. These are not
typical middle entries, however. Imitation at the octave resembles that of a canon at the
unison or the octave, rather than the modern conception of what true “fugal” writing is.14
Example 2.16: J.S. Bach, Fugue in F Major, WTC I, middle entries

14
This distinction was suggested to me by Jonathan Dunsby.
Examples 2.16a and 2.16b represent the middle entries as they appear in the score—
separated by two measures and using imitation at the octave. The order of voices is
reversed in the latter entry (Example 2.16b), and so the intervallic content is inverted at
the octave. Examples 2.16c through 2.16f demonstrate the malformed counterpoint that
would result using imitation at the fifth, regardless of the timing between voice entries.
These examples suggest that stretto entries with imitation at the fifth simply will not work
with the fugue’s subject, and justifies Bach’s use of imitation at the octave rather than the
fifth.15
Example 2.17 offers two potential middleground structures that could emerge
from the fugue’s descending fifth-progression.16 The structures represent either a double
bass arpeggiation (Example 2.17a) or treat the later arrival of ^3 as a consonant passing
tone (Example 2.17b). Example 2.17a proposes a well-formed structure. However, this
structure is not representative of the F-major fugue, as the fugue does not contain
convincing structural support for a passing ^3 in the Urlinie. There are two potential tonic
returns: m. 64 and m. 68. In both cases, tonic is approached by an inversion of the
dominant, and thus weakens its arrival.

15
Stretto entries separated by one and three measures is problematic in this case, even while using imitation
at the octave. The only successful stretto combination for this fugal subject is imitation at the octave, with
entries separated by two measures.
16
Renwick, Analyzing Fugue, 207. Renwick suggests that ^5 will often be the Kopfton because of the nature
of a fugal exposition, which emphasizes both tonic and dominant harmonies. However, he does state that
the fundamental line could also begin on ^3, and cites Carl Schachter’s analysis of the Bß-major fugue from
J.S. Bach’s Well-tempered Clavier, Book I, as a good example of such a case.
Example 2.17: Potential middleground structures for bass arpeggiation I-vi-ii-V-I

a)
b)
Example 2.17b proposes a stronger reading where these so-called tonic returns are
apparent tonics, and are overridden by the pre-dominant function. In m. 68, ^3 is
interpreted as a consonant passing tone over the bass. Furthermore, Example 2.17b
reveals deep-level parallelisms with the foreground graph of the subject. The subject
projects third-progressions at multiple levels (refer back to Example 2.15): the linear
progression itself outlines a third (^5-^4-^3); the passing ^4 in this progression is expanded
with an embellishing third-progression (^6-^5-^4); and a third-progression (^6-^5-^4) appears at
a very local level of m. 1 as well.

Example 2.18 provides additional support for the reading in Example 2.17b. The graphs
show that ^3 in m. 58 functions as a passing tone between ^4 and ^2. The registral transfer to
G5 in the soprano (m. 64) eliminates the tonic harmony in m. 58 as a plausible return
for ^3. Measure 68 also seems a likely choice for the return of ^3, as it coincides with the
final statement of the subject. Instead, it functions as a passing tone between pitches in
the fundamental line. Thus, ^4 is supported by a pre-dominant expansion from mm. 56–71,
and precludes the reading in Example 2.17a as a possible solution.

Example 2.18: J.S. Bach, Fugue in F major, WTC I, mm. 56-end
The previous examples provide convincing support for a ^3-line reading of this
fugue. Close examination of the Exposition will make clear how the Kopfton is
established. Example 2.19 provides a two-level graph of mm. 1–21. Example 2.19b
marks two earlier arrivals of ^3 (m. 4 and m. 13). However, neither is introduced in the
proper register.
Example 2.19: J.S. Bach, Fugue in F major, WTC I, mm. 1-21

One might consider the A (^3) in the tonal answer in m. 5 as the Kopfton as well.
However, the A in m. 5 participates in an arpeggiated ascent that leads to ^5 in m. 17—the
initial subject entry in the counter-exposition. The actual Kopfton does not appear until
m. 21, where the subject descends to ^3 in the upper voice. This interpretation solidifies
two features that were noted in the formal analysis. First, the soprano and alto voices
reverse entries at the beginning of the counter-exposition. It is now clear that this formal
feature is deeply connected to the fundamental line: the exposition participates in a deep-
level arpeggiated ascent leading to the subject entry, in the proper register, in m. 17.
Second, this reading provides a strong argument for the counter-exposition as a
structurally significant element in the F-major fugue. The Kopfton does not emerge in the
exposition, and thus the exposition is still participating in the Anstieg. The counter-
exposition is essential to the structure as it allows for the stable presentation of the
Kopfton. A sketch of the entire fugue is provided in Example 2.20.

J.S. Bach, Fugue in G minor, WTC II
A form chart of the G-minor fugue, WTC II, is provided in Example 2.21. The
subject is supported by a descending fifths progression, and is accompanied by a single
countersubject. The global key areas project an underlying harmonic progression of i-III-
iv-V-i followed by a coda beginning in m. 75. The passages in mm. 45–49, mm. 51–55,
and mm. 59–63 all contain a voice that is doubling the subject at either a third or sixth
away. In mm. 59–63, both the subject and countersubject are doubled. However, the most
distinguishing feature of this fugue is that it is completely saturated with invertible
counterpoint at the octave, tenth, and twelfth. Clearly there is something quite special
about this fugue’s subject and countersubject that allows for such a rich display of
invertible counterpoint.
Example 2.22 reproduces mm. 1–9 of the fugue. The linear descent from ^5 to ^3 is
obvious. However, the ideal voice-leading interpretation of this subject is not
immediately apparent. Examples 2.23, 2.24, and 2.25, provide three potential sketches of
the same passage.

Example 2.23 maintains consistency with the initial entrance beginning on beat 2.
Since the first structural pitch begins on beat 2, the subsequent pitches that appear on beat
2 are given more structural weight. There are several problems with this reading. First,
the downbeats of mm. 2 and 3 are somewhat ignored for the sake of rhythmic
consistency. These downbeats—the Eß in m. 2 and D in m. 3—belong to the same
harmony as the pitches on beat 2 of each respective measure. The downbeats are, in fact,
the true continuation of the linear progression beginning on the D in m. 1, and the
stemmed pitches in this sketch belong to an inner voice. A second problem begins in m.
5, where the countersubject accompanies the answer. As noted in the formal analysis, the
subject and countersubject generate a descending fifths progression. If the answer is
graphed in a parallel manner to the subject, then parallel octaves result between the outer
voices at a deeper structural level. Finally, in this reading, both the subject and answer
complete their respective descents before the completion of the line. This suggests that
the linear progressions projected in the subject and answer are shorter than they appear to
be in the formal analysis, which is not a convincing reading. There is a much stronger
reading for this passage, one that avoids all of these problems.
Example 2.24 is slightly more successful than Example 2.23. Here, the lines do
not descend until completion of the subject-answer statements. The downbeats in mm. 2–
3 are now treated as the structural tones. This reading also highlights the parallel tenths
that occur between the outer voices beginning in m. 6, which reflects the descending
fifths motion more appropriately. There is still a problem with this graph, however. The
foreground graph groups the pitches in mm. 2 and 3 as arpeggiations of two root-position
harmonies, implying one harmony per measure. If this is correct, then the opening subject
of the fugue has a different harmonic rhythm than the remaining subject and answer
entries throughout the composition. As early as m. 5, the answer and countersubject
clearly display a faster harmonic rhythm of two chords per measure. Example 2.26
provides a closer look at the harmony supporting the opening subject.
Example 2.26: J.S. Bach, Fugue in G minor, WTC II, implied harmonic rhythm
a) Harmonic rhythm implied in Example 2.24
b) Correct harmonic rhythm, shown in Example 2.25
Example 2.26a shows the harmonic rhythm that is implied in Example 2.24. The
harmonic succession i–iiº–i, and the parallel root-position sonorities overall, make this is
a faulty reading. The descending-fifths motion that is prominently displayed throughout
the remainder of the fugue is not represented in this reading. The correct harmonic
rhythm is shown next in Example 2.26b. The harmonic rhythm is shown with implied
bass tones and is twice as fast as the original reading suggested. This reading reflects the
descending fifths motion more clearly, and is also completely consistent with the
remaining subject and answer entries throughout the fugue.17 The graph in Example 2.24
is therefore rejected. Example 2.25 provides the correct reading of mm. 1–9. Bach’s fugal
subjects are much more intricate than they may first appear to be. Taking the time to
establish the number of voices and to understand the implied harmonic underpinning of
the opening subject will illuminate the true origins from which the subject is derived.
Formal analysis revealed that a crucial defining feature of the G-minor fugue is its
emphasis on invertible counterpoint at the octave, tenth, and twelfth. Example 2.27
provides reductions of several passages to highlight the various uses of invertible
counterpoint throughout the fugue.18 The subject (or answer) and countersubject are
labeled in each example, and the intervals listed pertain only to the voices that have the
subject and countersubject. Inversion tables are also provided to illustrate the type of
invertible counterpoint employed in each passage.19

17
There are some passages, mm. 51ff. for example, where the harmonic rhythm is reversed and the
harmony changes on beat two of the measure.
18
Franck, “A Fallacious Concept,”128. Franck provides similar examples of the same passage.
19
These inversion tables are the same as those found in numerous sources, historical and contemporary.
Example 2.27: J.S. Bach, Fugue in G minor, WTC II, invertible counterpoint
a) mm. 9–13
subject 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd

countersubject Root Root Root Root
b) mm. 13–17
countersubject Root Root Root Root

answer 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd
6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6
Example 2.27 (continued)
c) mm. 28–32
*parallel octaves not present at musical surface
countersubject 5th 5th 5th 5th

subject 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
d) mm. 36–40
*parallel octaves not present at musical surface
countersubject 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd

answer 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
In the original configuration, shown in Example 2.27a, the countersubject appears
below the subject resulting in parallel tenths between the voices. Examples 2.27b–2.27d
contain inverted forms of Example 2.27a, where the countersubject is above the subject.
Example 2.27b shows that parallel sixths appear between the answer and countersubject
(bass and soprano, respectively). Tenths become sixths under invertible counterpoint at
the octave, which is highlighted in the corresponding inversion chart. In Example 2.27c,
the countersubject is transposed up an octave plus a fifth (twelfth), which then results in
parallel thirds above the subject. In Example 2.27d, the countersubject is an octave plus a
third (tenth) above the answer in the bass, resulting in what looks like parallel octaves in
the reduction. However, these octaves do not actually exist in the foreground. Bach
avoided these parallels through the use of oblique motion, which will be discussed later
in the analysis.
These passages can also be examined from a triadic point of view. Peter Franck
provides detailed discussion of how invertible counterpoint can be viewed as a harmonic
event, rather than merely as a series of intervallic relationships between pairs of voices.20
Regarding invertible counterpoint at the twelfth, for instance, Franck notes that “IC12
engages three pairs of vertical consonances, each member of which is related to its
partner by inversion: 12/1, 10/3, and 8/5.”21 Referring back to Example 2.27a, we see that
the subject contains the third of each structural harmony, while the countersubject

20
Franck, “The Role of Invertible Counterpoint”; Franck, “A Fallacious Concept”; and Eric Wen,
“Drawing Parallels: Thirds and Sixths in Bach’s Fugues in B-flat minor and G minor from Book 2 of The
Well-Tempered Clavier” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Music Theory, New
Orleans, LA, November 1–4, 2012).
21
Franck, “A Fallacious Concept,” 122.
provides the root. Compared with Example 2.27d, the subject still maintains the third of
each chord, but now the countersubject has inverted and produces the fifth of each
harmony. The other two examples behave similarly. Franck notes that each harmonic
tone preserves its identity under invertible counterpoint at the octave.22 Examples 2.27a
and 2.27b show how the triadic roles of both the subject and countersubject remain
invariant when inverted at the octave.
Under invertible counterpoint at the tenth, “roots and fifths invert to thirds, and
thirds invert to either roots or fifths…perfect intervals are now replaced by roots and
fifths, imperfect intervals by the chordal third.”23 This relationship is reflected in
Example 2.27d, where the countersubject inverts from its status as chordal root to
doubling the chordal thirds along with the subject. As noted above, parallel octaves
appear at a deeper structural level, but they are fixed at the foreground level. Invertible
counterpoint at the tenth is the most problematic of the three, as demonstrated in the
inversion chart: chordal thirds become chordal roots under inversion, and vice versa. In
other words, imperfect consonances invert to become perfect consonances, eliminating
parallel motion as an option.24 The compositional solution, whereby invertible
counterpoint at the tenth can be used without creating any contrapuntal errors, is to
incorporate contrary and oblique motion between the voices. Bach uses oblique motion
between the answer and countersubject almost entirely. Both lines highlight triadic

22
23
Ibid., 119.
24
Ibid. Many theorists have discussed this problem, and Franck provides a detailed account of earlier
approaches.
motion via the descending fifths progression, and thus the very structure of the subject
and countersubject enables Bach to freely incorporate all three forms of invertible
counterpoint.
Bach does much more with these subject-countersubject pairs, however. Example
2.28 illustrates three passages where the subject and/or countersubject are doubled.
Example 2.28: J.S. Bach, Fugue in G minor, WTC II, subject and countersubject
doubled
a) mm. 45–49
b) mm. 51–55
c) mm. 59–63
In Example 2.28a, the tenor has the subject; the soprano doubles at the third, and the
subject-countersubject pairing is in its original configuration. In Example 2.28b, the alto
has the subject and the soprano doubles at the sixth (similar to the previous passage, but
inverted at the octave). Finally, in Example 2.28c, all four voices participate in the
invertible counterpoint. The bass and tenor voices double the subject a third apart, and the
alto and soprano voices double the countersubject a third apart. In Example 2.28c, it
appears as though the voices are merely doubling at the octave. However, the fact that the
countersubject is heard above the subject is a clear signal that Bach is utilizing invertible
counterpoint. Upon further examination, one can find all three forms of invertible
counterpoint occurring simultaneously: the tenor and alto voices display invertible
counterpoint at the octave, the bass and alto at the tenth, and the bass and soprano at the
twelfth.
Is this really as complex a phenomenon as it appears to be? According to David
Ledbetter, “counterpoint at the 10th, where one part is doubled at the 3rd, was a traditional
way of gaining four parts from the triple invertible counterpoint of the trio sonata.”25
Thus, while all three types of invertible counterpoint technically result in this passage, it
is likely due to a stylistic feature of doubling the subject and/or countersubject at the third
or tenth. This is possibly due to the very nature of invertible counterpoint at the octave,
tenth, and twelfth. When stacked vertically, the pitches that result form a complete triad
(octave = root; tenth = third; and twelfth = fifth). Since the potential transpositions that

25
Ledbetter, Bach’s Well-tempered Clavier, 302.
result from each form of invertible counterpoint would be consonant with one another, it
is perfectly plausible to use them simultaneously.26
The construction of the fugal subject plays a strong part in why invertible
counterpoint can work so easily in all three forms. Example 2.26b showed that the
harmonic underpinning of the subject is a descending-fifths sequence. The use of
invertible counterpoint at the octave, tenth, and twelfth the results in a triad. Assuming
the voice leading allows for contrary or oblique motion between the voices so as to avoid
unwanted dissonances or parallel motion, the nature of such a progression allows for the
passage to essentially “write itself”. The parallel octaves that appear in the reduction in
Example 2.28d are not present on the musical surface. Brown states that “although
certain aspects of tonal motion are controlled by the outer voice counterpoint, others can
be understood only in terms of the inner voices. When graphing a particular piece, the
analyst should not simply trace the motion of the soprano and bass voices; he or she
should also monitor the behavior of the tenor and alto voices.”27 The passages shown in
Example 2.28 are reduced to this degree in order to clearly illustrate the invertible
counterpoint. However, the true voice leading for these passages cannot be reduced to
this level because of the apparent parallels. A middleground graph of the entire fugue is
included at the end of this chapter (Example 2.30), and it includes the inner voices in
these passages. The inner voices create a series of suspensions and ultimately create the

26
This aspect of invertible counterpoint was suggested to me by Matthew Brown.
27
oblique motion that is necessary for avoiding illegal parallels with invertible
counterpoint, especially invertible counterpoint at the tenth.
Example 2.29 shows four potential middleground structures that could align with
the G-minor fugue’s harmonic progression (i-III-iv-V-I). Examples 2.29a and 2.29b show
potential ^3-line structures. Example 2.29a highlights the strong potential for parallel
octaves to occur between ^3 and ^4 in the Urlinie and the Stufen III and iv. Example 2.29b
provides an alternative that would allow for a ^3-line reading. If the initial ^3 is sustained
through the arrival of iv, it would act as the chordal seventh and then descend to ^2 upon
the dominant arrival. However, there is no seventh present in m. 45 where iv arrives. In
fact, there is a very prominent ^4 in the upper voice. Thus, this reading, while theoretically
well formed, is not possible for the G-minor fugue.
Examples 2.29c and 2.29d provide two possible ^5-line readings for the fugue.
Example 2.29c shows structural closure occurring in m. 75, where the fugal texture
dissipates into a freer section consisting of chordal and imitative passages. This reading
suggests that the remaining music from m. 75 to the end is a coda, as it is labeled on the
form chart. Example 2.29d, on the other hand, considers these final measures as essential
to the fundamental structure, closing only at the final authentic cadence in the last
measure. This reading would require that ^4 be supported by the dominant in measure
67, ^3 arrives in m. 75, and the final ^2-^1 would align with the final cadence. There are two
reasons why Example 2.29c is preferable. First, while implied tones are a possible option,
the soprano line really does not behave in the way that the latter reading in Example
2.29d requires—particularly at the tonic arrival in m. 75 where there is a strong descent
to ^1 in the upper line. Second, Example 2.29c agrees more with the rhetorical reading of
the fugue. Measures 75–end are labeled as “coda” because of the strong cadential arrival,
as well as the striking change in texture.
Example 2.29: J.S. Bach, Fugue in G minor, WTC II, potential middleground
structures
The change in texture in mm. 73–74 contributes to the strong sense of closure in
m. 75, and following materials ultimately serves to prolong tonic. There is one major
difference between the structure suggested in Example 2.29c, and the actual structure
presented in the G-minor fugue, however. In Example 2.29c, the structural ^4 in the
Urlinie coincides with the sub-dominant arrival in m. 45, and ^3 is treated as a passing
seventh leading to the final dominant-tonic closure in mm. 74 and 75. However, the
fundamental line behaves differently in the G-minor fugue beginning in m. 45. The
sketch in Example 2.30 shows how at a later level, ^5 does temporarily descend to ^4 in m.
45 with the emphatic arrival of the subdominant. This ^4 is not part of the Urlinie,
however. Instead, there is a large-scale prolongation of the pre-dominant function. In the
upper voice, ^4 skips to ^6 in m. 51, and this entire passage ultimately supports a neighbor
progression to ^5. At a deeper structural level, then, ^5 is prolonged until the return of the
dominant in m. 67, followed by an abrupt three-measure descent of the Urlinie.
Conclusion
Traditional formal analysis highlights the attributes that make each fugue unique,
but Schenkerian analysis can go one step further and explain how each part functions
within the work as a whole.28 The three analyses support important points suggested by
Heinrich Schenker’s 1926 critique of traditional formal analysis of fugue. First, not all
subject entries function the same way. In the D-minor fugue, for example, inversions of

28
Schenker, “The Organic Nature of Fugue” ([1926] 1996).
the subject participated in two separate progressions, while the original subject consisted
of a single linear ascent from ^1 to ^5. Traditional formal analysis would treat these
passages as the “same” in the sense that they would be labeled as subject inversions.
However, while providing an accurate label for how these lines appear on the musical
surface, traditional formal analysis fails to explain how these lines function within the
fugue as a whole, and how their functions differ from the original form of the subject as
well. Second, formal features can be intrinsically linked to the fundamental structure, and
a Schenkerian approach offers more detailed explanation for such formal features. This
was the case in both the F-major fugue—where the counter-exposition was essential to
the presentation of the Kopfton—and the G-minor fugue—where the drastic change in
texture at the coda also singled the completion of the fundamental line.
Graphing fugue is admittedly a highly complicated undertaking, but it is an area
in Schenkerian scholarship that deserves much more attention. The present study
provides a preliminary guide for how one should approach the task of graphing a fugue,
and I am confident that this approach can be applied to any fugue. (I will test this theory
in Chapters 3 and 4 when I apply the method to fugues by Dmitri Shostakovich). One
potential critique of the method outlined in this chapter is that it focuses too much on
“bottom-up” rather than “top-down” analysis.29 While the initial process seems “bottom-
up” in the detailed discussion of local events between subject entries, the final discussion
of the work can only be brought about through a clear understanding of the work’s
fundamental structure, and how each structural level is derived from the background. The

29
See Brown, Explaining Tonality, 137.
step-by-step method outlined in Example 2.11 serves only as a starting point, and one
will undoubtedly run into specific problems that are unique to each fugue throughout the
analytic process. This is precisely the expected outcome. Because of their complex
nature, fugues can be somewhat intimidating to analyze at first. By providing a clear
method for the beginning stages of graphing a fugue, we can begin to uncover and
appreciate the true essence of each of these exceptional works.

103
Chapter 3
The interaction between Soviet Modal Theory and Schenkerian Theory
The number of publications devoted to analysis of Shostakovich’s music has been
growing in recent years. However, scant attention has been given to those approaches
published by Russian authors.1 Aside from the theory of chant, which began as early as
the fifteenth century, a uniquely Russian approach to music theory is quite new in
comparison to Western music theory. Beginning in the late nineteenth century, Russian
theorists were primarily concerned with practical and pedagogical approaches to music.2
In the first part of the twentieth century, Russian theorists began to focus more on
speculative aspects of theory, such as form and harmony, harmonic systems, and
acoustics.3 Perhaps the two most significant works of this era were by Boleslav
Yavorsky, whose Structure of Musical Speech (1908) explained the origins of mode as a
process based on his theory of “auditory gravity”; and Sergei Taneev, whose Moveable

1
Russian approaches to music theory have received limited attention by Western scholars. For the most
comprehensive presentations of Russian music theories, see Gordon D. McQuere, ed., Russian Theoretical
Thought in Music (Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Research Press, 1983), rpt. (Rochester, NY: University of
Rochester Press, 2009); Ellon D. Carpenter, “The Theory of music in Russia and the Soviet Union, ca.
1650–1950” (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1988); Carpenter, “Russian theorists on modality in
Shostakovich’s music,” in Shostakovich Studies, ed. David Fanning (New York: Cambridge University
Press, 1995), 76–112.
2
Ellon Carpenter, “Russian Music Theory: A Conspectus,” in Russian Theoretical Thought in Music, ed.
Gordon D. McQuere (Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMA Research Press, 1983), rpt. (Rochester, NY: University
of Rochester Press, 2009), 1.
3
Ibid., 33.
Chapter 3: The Interaction between Soviet modal theory and Schenkerian theory 104
Counterpoint in the Strict Style (1909) provided a mathematic approach to the study of
counterpoint.4 After 1932, however, Soviet theory became less innovative in the attempt
to conform to the “Marxist-Leninist” approach, which focused less on theoretical topics
and more on historical and philosophical discussions of music. With a few exceptions,
the majority of authors relied on previously established theories and accepted analytical
techniques rather than attempting to invent their own.5
This trend continued into the next decade, and seriously impacted the progress of
Russian theoretical development. Ellon Carpenter writes:
In other articles published by theorists during this period [1940s], ideological,

literary, and historical aspects take precedence over theoretical ones, thus
continuing and extending the trend of the previous decade. Any distinction
between a theoretical article, that is, one that focuses primarily on some
theoretical topic, either in a general sense or in connection with a specific
composer, and a musicological one, which may discuss theoretical aspects as an
adjunct to the main focus, be it historical, literary, or whatever, becomes blurred
to the point of nonexistence. As a result all articles—with the exception of purely
historical or biographical ones—whether by a theorist or musicologist, take on an
aura of sameness, of indistinguishability…Soviet music theory temporarily ceased
to develop as an independent discipline. The political events of the late 1940s
caused it even to retrogress, thereby losing any vestiges of recognition it had
achieved during the Soviet era.6

4
Carpenter, “Russian Music Theory: A Conspectus,” 37. See Boleslav Leopol’dovich Yavorsky,
Stroyeniye musïkal’noy rechi [The Structure of Musical Speech] (Moscow, 1908); Sergei Ivanovich
Taneev, Podvizhnoi kontrapunkt strogogo pis’ma (Moscow, 1909); trans. G. Ackley Bower as Convertible
Counterpoint in the Strict Style (Boston: Bruce Humphries Publishers, 1962); rpt. (Boston: Branden
Publishing Company, 1980).
5
Carpenter, “Russian Music Theory: A Conspectus,” 52.
6
Carpenter, “The Theory of Music in Russia and the Soviet Union,” 1369–70.

In spite of this trend, David Fanning notes that Russian theorists still produced a great
deal of material during that time. In fact, one area where they were particularly active is
in the theory of mode. Fanning notes that Russian theorists were so active in this area of
music scholarship, that the amount of material is difficult to organize, adding that the
language barrier has severely limited Western access to this material.7
Ellon Carpenter has introduced Western readers to a significant body of Russian
literature devoted exclusively to modal aspects of Shostakovich’s music, both in her
article in Shostakovich Studies, and in her substantial dissertation covering no less than
three centuries of Russian theoretical developments.8 In her article, “Russian theorists on
modality in Shostakovich’s music,” Carpenter provides a thorough explanation of the
evolution of Russian modal theory. The theory originated as it related to folk song, and it
was not until Yavorsky published The Structure of Musical Speech, that mode was treated
as a relevant theoretical topic.9 Carpenter points out key elements of Yavorsky’s theory
that influenced subsequent modal theories: stability (consonance) and instability
(dissonance), the “gravitational tendency” of a dissonant pitch to resolve to a consonant
pitch, and acknowledging the presence of modes other than major and minor, to cite a
few.10 She writes that by the 1940s, mode had become a significant aspect of Soviet

7
Fanning, “Introduction. Talking about eggs: musicology,” in Shostakovich Studies, ed. David Fanning
(New York: Cambridge University Press), 8.
8
See footnote 1.
9
Carpenter, “Russian theorists on modality,” 79.
10
Ibid.

theory.11 The theories are highly complex and, according to Carpenter, developed beyond
the Western understanding of the concept, encompassing both melodic and harmonic
aspects of the music.12
Several theorists focused their studies specifically on modal aspects found in the
music of Dmitri Shostakovich. Although their approaches differ greatly in some respects,
Carpenter notes that these theorists agree that Shostakovich’s modes are “linear and
melodic,” and “diatonically based.”13 Beyond this, however, they tend to disagree on
several topics including the number and derivation of modes, and scalar and functional
aspects. Carpenter groups the theories into three types of approaches to Shostakovich’s
music:
(1) an intervallic, scalar, ‘structural’ unimodal approach, in which all notes of a

given melody are analysed as one mode, usually altered (earliest approach:
Dolzhansky and Mazel); (2) an intervallic, pre-functional but still largely
‘structural’ approach that is either multi-tonal, in which all notes of a given
melody are analysed as one mode with variable tonic functions, the change of
which creates essentially a new mode, either consecutively or simultaneously
(Adam, Skrebkov, Bobrovsky and Burda), or multi-modal, in which melodic
notes are analysed as two simultaneous modes with one tonic (Burda); and (3) a
‘qualitatively functional’ approach in which melodic notes are analysed only
according to modal function, going far beyond the earliest ‘structural’ approach
(most recent: Sereda and Fedosova).14

11
Ibid., 80.Yavorksy’s theory was first developed by Yuriy Tyulin and Boris Asaf’yev.
12
Ibid., 79.
13
Ibid., 90.
14
Ibid.

Each of these theoretical approaches seems to fall short in expressing large-scale function
within Shostakovich’s, or any composer’s, works.15 In her conclusion, Carpenter calls for
a more “all-inclusive” approach that embodies Shostakovich’s “modal-tonal” language.16
The present study provides a more “all-inclusive” approach through the application of
Schenkerian techniques to select fugues by Shostakovich. Rather than relying on modal
theory exclusively, I argue that these modal approaches can be considered in conjunction
with Schenker’s theory of tonal structure.
The remainder of this chapter concentrates on three Russian publications that
focus on mode in Shostakovich’s music, and they are grouped according to their
discussion of chromatic and diatonic elements, respectively. The first article, “About the
modal basis of the works of Shostakovich,” by Alexander Naumovich Dolzhansky
(1947), provides interesting observations regarding the high degree of chromaticism that
appears in Shostakovich’s works, and raises important issues of mixture, tonicization, and
the potential need for an expanded theory of mixture to fully account for additional Stufen
that appear in his works.17 Ellon Carpenter discusses this article extensively in both her
article and dissertation.18 I will discuss select topics from Dolzhansky’s article, and
situate his theory within the context of Schenker’s concepts of mixture and tonicization to

15
Ibid, 112.
16
Ibid.
17
Alexander Naumovich Dolzhansky, “O ladovoy osnove sochineniy Shostakovicha” [About the modal
basis of the compositions of Shostakovich], Sovetskaya Muzyka (4/1967), 65–74, rpt. Cherty stilya
Shostakovicha [Traits of the style of Shostakovich] (Moscow, 1962) and Izbranniye stat’i [Selected
articles] (Leningrad, 1973), 37–51.
18
Carpenter, “Russian theorists on modality,” 92–98; Carpenter, “The Theory of Music in Russia and the
Soviet Union,” 1400–1420. Carpenter provides a complete summary of the article in her dissertation.

show how a great deal of these chromatic elements can be understood from a tonal
perspective. The latter two articles, by Dolzhansky and Lev Abramovich Mazel, analyze
the C-major fugue from Shostakovich’s 24 Preludes and Fugues, Op. 87.19 These two
articles present analyses of a purely diatonic work, and provide an interesting contrast to
the chromatic discussion that precedes them. I will summarize Dolzhansky’s and Mazel’s
analyses of the work, and then provide an original analysis that shows how their modal
observations can align with a Schenkerian view of the fugue.
Dolzhansky’s Modal Theory and Chromaticism in Shostakovich’s Music

Dolzhansky, “About the modal basis of the works of Shostakovich” (1947)
Dolzhansky’s work underwent harsh criticism at first, yet he remains an important
figure in the history of Soviet modal theory.20 Carpenter writes that Dolzhansky
‘pioneered’ the study of mode in Shostakovich’s music, and was the first to publish a
theory of modal relationships exhibited in Shostakovich’s compositions.21 In the context
of the Marxist-Leninist movement, Dolzhansky’s article stands out as a study focused

19
Alexander Naumovich Dolzhansky, 24 preliudii i fugi D. Shostakovicha [24 Preludes and Fugues of D.
Shostakovich], Sovetskii Kompozitor (Leningrad, 1963), 5–8; Lev Abramovich Mazel’, “O fuge C-dur
Shostakovicha” [About the C-major Fugue of Shostakovich], Stat’i po teorii i analizu muzuki (Moskva,
1982), 244–259.
20
According to Carpenter, “during the 1940s, Dolzhansky was criticised both directly for his ‘formalist’
views and indirectly, through the harsh comments levelled [sic]at Shostakovich in the late 1940s—‘guilt by
association.’ Thus he published nothing more about Shostakovich’s music until 1956 in the article on the
Seventh Symphony. Today in Russia, though, Dolzhansky is viewed as a founder of the field of theoretical
research on Shostakovich’s music.” Carpenter, “Russian theorists on modality,” 96.
21
Ibid., 92.

purely on theoretical concepts at a time when his contemporaries were de-emphasizing
this approach.22 Although his approach focuses primarily on the scalar aspect of mode,23
Dolzhansky’s theory does help explain important modal aspects of Shostakovich’s music.
In particular, his theory helps to explain melodic characteristics such as Shostakovich’s
use of lowered scale degrees.24
In his article, Dolzhansky identifies specific works by Shostakovich that feature
modal qualities in the melody—both the traditional church modes (Ionian, Dorian,
Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian, and Locrian), and mixed modes.25 Mixed modes
are diatonic modes with chromatically altered scale degrees (or sometimes added scale
degrees). Dolzhansky claims that four such modes, in particular, appear most often in
Shostakovich’s compositions: “lowered Phrygian,” “double lowered Phrygian,” “double
lowered Aeolian,” and “Aeolian double lowered melodic mode”.26 The first three modes,

22
Carpenter, “The Theory of music in Russia and the Soviet Union,” 1370. Carpenter also refers to an
earlier article by Lev Mazel, which was more descriptive than theoretically driven, yet the approach
projects a “certain boldness” that also made it stand apart from other theoretical writings of that time
period. Carpenter notes that Mazel’s article was written in 1944, but not published until 1967. See Lev
Abramovich Mazel’, “Zametki o muzïkal’nom yazïke Shostakovicha” [Notes on the musical language of
Shostakovich], in Dimitriy Shostakovich, ed. L.V. Danilevich, D.V. Zhitomirksy and G. Sh. Ordzhonikidze
(Moscow, 1967), 303–59; rpt. Etyudï o Shostakoviche (Moscow, 1986): 33–82.
23
Carpenter, “Russian theorists on modality,” 102. Carpenter indicates that later theorists— V. Sereda, A.
Tebosyan, and E.P. Fedosova, who are listed in her third category—rejected theories focused exclusively
on scalar properties in favor of a more functional approach.
24
Ibid., 96.
25
Carpenter, “The Theory of Music in Russia and the Soviet Union,” 1401. Carpenter explains how
Dolzhansky groups modes according to either their “stepwise melodic gravitation” (church and folk modes)
or their “chordal harmonic gravitation” (major-minor system), and that the works by Shostakovich that are
discussed by Dolzhansky fall primarily within the first category.

26
Ibid., 1401–1409. The translated names of the modes are consistent with their names as translated by
Ellon Carpenter.

provided in Example 3.1, are derived by lowering scale degrees in the Aeolian and
Phrygian modes—the two minor church modes with the most lowered scale degrees.
The lowered Phrygian mode contains ß^4, and the double lowered modes contain both ß^4
and ß^8. The double lowered Phrygian mode is comprised of two equal tetrachords, [0134],
making it more symmetrical than the major-minor system; it is also quite similar in
construction to the octatonic collection.27
Example 3.1: Dolzhansky’s mixed modes

a) Lowered Phrygian (Phrygian + ß^4)
b) Double lowered Phrygian (Phrygian + ß^4 and ß^8)
c) Double lowered Aeolian (Aeolian + ß^4 and ß^8)

27
Stephen C. Brown, “Tracing the Origins of Shostakovich’s Musical Motto,” Intégral 20 (2006): 74.
Brown briefly discusses Dolzhansky’s mixed modes in the context of his analysis. The double lowered
Phrygian mode actually contains two [0134] tetrachords, which Stephen Brown points out is the same
tetrachord in Shostakovich’s musical motto (DSCH). He suggests that [0134] is a byproduct of modal
lowering.

In addition to new melodic possibilities, the modes also create potential for new
harmonic material. For instance, Dolzhansky shows how the quality and resolution of the
diatonic harmonies are affected by the lowered scale degrees.28 He shows how new
harmonies are generated directly from his new modes, rather than altering the qualities of
the diatonic harmonies in major and minor. For example, the addition of ß^4 allows for a
minor triad to be constructed on ß^2 in the lowered and double lowered Phrygian modes.29
The addition of ß^8 allows for a stable major triad to be constructed on ß^4 and, as
Dolzhansky points out, also suggests the potential for two tonics: ^1 and ß^1.
Stable triads cannot be constructed on ß^1 within the double lowered modes.
However, this is rectified with the fourth mode: “Aeolian double lowered melodic mode.”
Dolzhansky compares this mode to the melodic minor scale and how it is derived—^6 is
raised to remove the augmented second between ß^6 and ƒ^7. He shows how, in a similar
fashion, the Aeolian double lowered melodic mode is altered to correct the augmented
second between ß^4 and ^5. An important difference between this new mode and melodic
minor is that, with melodic minor, the scale degrees are altered in order to “fix” the
augmented second; with the “Aeolian double lowered melodic mode,” scale degrees are
added to resolve the issue.30 The result is a ten-note symmetrical mode (Example 3.2b)

28
Carpenter, “The Theory of music in Russia and the Soviet Union,” 1402–1406. Carpenter provides a
detailed summary in her dissertation. For instance, Dolzhansky observes that the dominant harmony in the
lowered Phrygian mode is a fully diminished sonority, yet he shows how this chord still resolves as a
functional dominant and not as a diminished-seventh chord.
29
Ibid., 1405.
30
If the melodic-minor mode were organized purely in terms of pitch content, it would be a nine-note
mode. However, because of the way in which our tonal system operates, it allows for only one version of ^6

that consists of three overlapping tetrachords, which contain the intervallic content shown
in Example 3.2a. In addition to ß^4 and ß^8, both ß^5 and ∂^5 are included, as well as ∂^8.31
Example 3.2: Dolzhansky’s Aeolian double lowered melodic mode
a) Formula for the “Aeolian double lowered melodic mode”
b) Aeolian double lowered melodic mode
Example 3.2b shows this mode beginning on B. The mode is constructed in such a
way that it can begin on any of the tetrachords (B, Eß, or G) and the same pitches will
result. Example 3.3 illustrates this more clearly. In descending order, the mode is built on
G, B, and Dƒ (Eß). These are the same three pitches, or their enharmonic equivalents, that
begin each tetrachord in Example 3.2b. The dotted lines show enharmonically equivalent

and ^7 to appear ascending and descending. Whether or not the pitches are altered chromatically, they are
treated as versions of the same scale degree in the tonal system. Referring to the Aeolian double lowered
melodic mode as a ten-note mode implies that Dolzhansky may think of these chromatic alterations as
legitimate additional scale degrees. However, because he does not discuss function in his work, it is
impossible to know for certain how he viewed these modes within the context of a composition.
31
The Aeolian double lowered melodic mode is the same collection as Olivier Messiaen’s third mode of
limited transposition. For a complete description of Messiaen’s modes of limited transposition, see Olivier
Messiaen, Technique de mon langage musical (Paris: A. Leduc, 1944); trans. John Satterfield, The
technique of my musical language (Paris: A. Leduc, 1956). This observation was suggested to me by
William Marvin.

pitches within each system. The pitches may be respelled enharmonically, but the same
three tetrachords appear in each mode. The result of this new modal construction is a new
system of enharmonically related keys. Dolzhansky suggests that these keys are
“relative” because they share similar properties to traditional relative major-minor keys—
they contain the same pitch material, but the modal octave is redefined depending upon
which pitch is treated as ^1.
Example 3.3: Dolzhansky’s enharmonically related modes with the symmetrical

Aeolian double lowered melodic mode

The Aeolian double lowered melodic mode offers theoretical justification for
some of the key relationships and harmonic progressions that appear in Shostakovich’s
music. While Dolzhansky does not point this out in his article, his enharmonically related
modes could explain how major-third cycles function within a composition, and how new
types of modulations can potentially occur. Further, with more than one chromatic
version of a scale degree in this mode, a new harmonic vocabulary becomes possible. For

instance, chords built on ^1 can now be major, minor, diminished, and augmented; major,
minor, and augmented triads can be built on ß^8.
After introducing the new modes, Dolzhansky proposes a theory of melodic and
harmonic opposition as the basis for the new key relationships found in Shostakovich’s
music. As Example 3.4 illustrates, melodically opposite modes produce the same
succession of intervals in different directions. Thus, the melodically opposite modes in
the top row starting on the left are: Ionian/Phrygian and Mixolydian/Aeolian. The bottom
row shows that the Lydian and Locrian modes are melodic opposites, and the Dorian
mode is its own opposite.32
Example 3.4: Dolzhansky’s melodically opposite modes

Harmonically opposite modes are slightly more complex. They consist of triads
whose roots are organized in the same manner as the melodically opposite modes, but the
triad qualities are also opposite each other. Opposing chord qualities are defined by
reversing the position of the thirds of the triad. Thus, the major triad, which contains a

32
There is a typo in Dolzhansky’s example (Example 3.4): In the lower left-hand pair, the Gƒ in the
descending Locrian mode should be a Gß.

major third plus minor third, is opposite the minor triad, which has the reverse
construction (minor third plus major third). Dolzhansky’s example (Example 3.5a) of
harmonically opposite modes is somewhat confusing to read at first. I recreate the first
pair in his table (Aeolian/Ionian) in Example 3.5b, to more clearly illustrate his point.
Example 3.5: Dolzhansky’s harmonically opposite modes

a) Dolzhansky’s chart of Harmonically Opposite Modes
b) Revised Aeolian/Ionian pair from Dolzhansky’s table

Example 3.5b beams the triads related to each mode for visual clarity. The
descending triads belong to the C-Aeolian mode and the ascending triads belong to the C-
Ionian mode. Each measure contains a pair of harmonically opposite triads, and their
chord qualities are opposite each other as well. (I use upper and lowercase Roman
numerals to indicate chord quality). Minus the beams, Dolzhansky’s table illustrates the
same relationships between modal pairs. The left-hand column lists the names of the
opposing modes: Aeolian/Ionian, Dorian/Mixolydian, Phrygian/Lydian, and Locrian is its
own opposite. Dolzhansky uses his theory of harmonic opposition to posit new relative
key relationships, and his double lowered modes to suggest new parallel key
relationships.33
Carpenter points out some inconsistencies with Dolzhansky’s theory. First, she
argues that his theory of modal opposites relies on a “system of deliberate pitch
manipulation for which evidence is not forthcoming.”34 Second, she argues that Ionian
(major) and Aeolian (minor) function as relative harmonic tonalities, yet they are not
melodic opposites. She questions why Dolzhansky insists that the altered modes should
have relative tonalities that are exactly their opposite.35 Carpenter’s critique of this aspect
of Dolzhansky’s theory is convincing. The modal quality of Shostakovich’s music is
undeniable, and Dolzhansky’s modal categories suggest a way of explaining the surface

33
Carpenter, “The Theory of music in Russia and the Soviet Union,” 1413–14. Carpenter notes that with
the new theory of harmonic opposition, “relative” keys are a diminished fourth apart. For example, B minor
and Eß major (rather than D major) are considered “relative” under this new system. With the inclusion of
ß^8, Dolzhansky suggests that Bß major could also be “parallel” to B minor.
34
Ibid., 1417.
35
Ibid.

chromaticism in Shostakovich’s music. However, he primarily identifies melodic
excerpts that feature modal characteristics in Shostakovich’s music, and with one
exception, offers no explanation for how the modes function within a global context.36
Ultimately, Dolzhansky provides an elaborate labeling system, but does not
explain how it contributes to our understanding of Shostakovich’s tonal language. His
theory is fascinating, and is briefly summarized here both for context and for those
readers interested in Russian modal theory in general. However, I argue that one can go
beyond the mere labeling of scales and collections and examine more structurally
meaningful aspects of the same compositions. For these reasons, the present study will
not apply all of Dolzhansky’s theory to analyses of Shostakovich’s music. Instead, the
approach is guided by a Schenkerian view of mixture and tonicization, and this is the
approach that will be used in all subsequent analyses in the present study.
Dolzhansky’s modal theory and Schenkerian Theory

In Explaining Tonality, Matthew Brown discusses Schenker’s criticism of analytic
approaches that assume harmony is derived from scales. He calls this “The Myth of
Scales.”37 Ultimately, Brown explains that, “although they provide us with useful
categories for classifying melodic lines, scales and modes are much less effective at

36
Ibid.,1414–16 and 1419. Dolzhansky cites only one full-length movement from Shostakovich’s Second
Piano Sonata in his article. He uses the tonal plan to support his claim for new relative and parallel key
relationships in Shostakovich’s music.
37

explaining how melodic lines behave in functional triadic contexts.”38 He shows how
Schenker viewed scales and modes as deriving from the triad, and not the reverse. All
surface chromaticism can therefore be explained through the processes of mixture and
tonicization.39
Brown shows how Schenker’s theory allows for a great deal of surface
chromaticism through simple, secondary, and double mixture. Example 3.6 reproduces
Brown’s Figure 1.11, which shows how mixture and tonicization can account for
harmonies constructed on nearly every chromatic scale degree. The diagram quadrants in
Example 3.6a illustrate the harmonic possibilities under simple, secondary, and double
mixture. Simple mixture allows harmonic borrowing between parallel major and minor
keys. These are shown in diatonic quadrants a and b. For instance, ßIII appears in the
major mode through simple mixture with the parallel minor mode. Secondary mixture
involves altering the chord qualities for harmonies built on ^2, ^3, ^6, and ^7. These are
shown as vertically related quadrants in the table (a and c; or b and d). Through
secondary mixture, for example, the third of the mediant harmony in major can be raised
to generate a major IIIƒ harmony. Finally, a diagonal move on the chart produces double
mixture, which involves a combination of both simple and secondary mixture (quadrants
a and d, or b and c, on the chart). Double mixture accounts for ßiii in a major key—it is a
combination of both simple mixture (ßIII) and secondary mixture (ßiii), which effect a
change of both chordal root and quality.

38
Ibid,169.
39
Ibid.

Example 3.6: Brown’s figure 1.1140

a) Chromatic harmonies derivable through the process of mixture
b) Chromatic harmonies that arise through the process of tonicization
The second part of Brown’s figure 1.11 (Example 3.6b), shows how various
chromatic harmonies can arise through the process of tonicization. The list of Roman
numerals in the left-hand column represents harmonies as they appear on the musical
surface—these labels identify pitch content, but do not represent harmonic function. In all

40
Ibid., 44.

instances, these harmonies would be understood within the context of a secondary key
area. For instance, a tonic harmony would never be diminished in the tonal system. Any
chord that could abstractly be labeled as “iº” is, in fact, functioning as a leading-tone
chord to ßII, or as a iiº harmony in the key of ßvii, and these functions are provided in the
right-hand column in Example 3.6b. Through his discussion of tonicization, in particular,
Brown emphasizes the distinction between scale theory, which provides a means for
labeling and categorizing pitches, and tonal harmonic theory, which establishes harmonic
function within a specific context. In this regard, Dolzhansky’s theory is more in line
with other scale theories.
I propose that tonicization and mixture can explain chromaticism in
Shostakovich’s music as well. While Dolzhansky, et al., focused on identification of
specific modal features represented in Shostakovich’s melodies, he did not fully address
their use in the context of each work as a whole. These modal inflections appear within
the major-minor context in Shostakovich’s compositions, and can therefore be viewed as
products of mixture and tonicization. It is not the aim of the present study to suggest that
these modal theories are completely irrelevant, but to show how they can be folded into
Schenker’s theory in a way that explains Shostakovich’s melodic-harmonic language at
both the local and global structural levels. However, the addition of two new scale
degrees (ß^4 and ß^8) poses a serious problem within the tonal context.41

41
There are instances where ßIV and ßI appear in Shostakovich’s music. For instance, ßIV appears in the E-
minor prelude, op. 87, m. 31ff.; ßI appears in the A-major prelude, op. 34, m. 7. With the exception of these
two harmonies, which may require the development of an expanded Stufen theory in order to fully account
for their function within Shostakovich’s harmonies language, the majority of Shostakovich’s surface

Brown’s figure 1.11 can account for several situations where these new scale
degrees might appear. As chordal members (not chordal roots), these pitches could
potentially arise within traditional uses of mixture and tonicization. For instance, ß^4 could
appear as the third of a chord built on ß^2—ßii can result from modal mixture, and ßiiº has a
tonicizing function as either viiº/II or iiº/vii. In the same way, ß^1 can appear as the third of
a ßvi harmony (mixture). Through the process of tonicization, ßviº can function as either
viiº/VI or iiº/ ƒiv(ßv); ß^1 can also appear as part of a ivº harmony which functions as viiº/
ƒIV (ßV) or iiº/ßiii.
When ß^4 and ß^8 appear as chordal roots, however, they present a more challenging
theoretical dilemma. For instance, it is possible to spell seven different types of tonic
chord using the pitches in the Aeolian double lowered melodic mode (Example 3.2b): iº,
i, I, I+, and ßi, ßI, and ßI+. Schenkerian theory does not allow more than one tonic, and
several of these new sonorities are not derivable through mixture or tonicization. More
specifically, the triads that do not appear in Brown’s charts are I+, ßi, ßI, and ßI+. The
augmented triad built on diatonic ^1 is least problematic. This harmony appears frequently
in late-nineteenth century music, and typically functions as an altered dominant harmony
(Vƒ5). Thus, the augmented triad (I+) can be placed within the category of tonicization.
The triads built on ß^1 are much more complicated to explain. First, if we accept
Dolzhansky’s theory of modal derivation, then these harmonies cannot necessarily be
considered enharmonic re-spellings of triads built on ^7—they are intentional triads built

chromaticism can be explained through the process of mixture and tonicization without much addition or
modification required.

on ß^1. Tonal theory cannot account for a tonic harmony with an altered root. Regardless
of how chromatic the musical surface is, all tonal works are understood on the basis that
they contain a single tonic, from which the function of all other harmonies is explained.
Thus, if we accept that Shostakovich’s music contains triads built on ß^1, an extension of
the theory of tonicization and mixture is required.
All of Shostakovich’s works in this study, and countless others, begin and end in
the same key. Beginning and ending with the same tonic suggests that Shostakovich’s
works can still be considered monotonal. If this is true, then ßI can be possibly be treated
as subordinate to the original tonic. Although unusual, this chromatic harmony should be
explainable under a hierarchical system.42 These special cases do not arise in the works
presented in the current study, and so the issue will not be discussed further here.
However, ßI and ßIV do appear in Shostakovich’s works, and this is a crucial issue to
examine more closely in future studies.
Diatonic Modes and Shostakovich’s C-major Fugue, op. 87

Modal Observations by Dolzhansky (1963) and Mazel (1982)

The remainder of this chapter will focus on Shostakovich’s C-major fugue, op.
87. This fugue is entirely diatonic, and provides an interesting contrast to the previous
discussion. I will first discuss Dolzhansky’s and Mazel’s analyses of the work, and then

42
None of the works in this study present the particular issue of ßI. A preliminary analysis of
Shostakovich’s A-major prelude, op. 34, is consistent with my suggestion that ßI does not maintain true
“tonic” status, and is an important area for further study.

show how a Schenkerian view can align with their observations and contribute to a
broader understanding of the tonal-modal aspects of the work.
Dolzhansky’s analysis of the C-major fugue is provided in the context of an entire
book devoted to Shostakovich’s 24 Preludes and Fugues, op. 87. He provides brief
descriptive analyses of each of the 24 preludes and fugues, followed by two lengthier
passages on Shostakovich’s fugues and polyphony in general. Mazel’s analysis appears
as a chapter of his book, Articles on Music Theory and Analysis, where a few other
chapters are dedicated to various aspects of Shostakovich’s music, among other topics in
general. The analyses have a lot in common, although Mazel provides more detail than
Dolzhansky does. Both theorists make important and interesting observations about the
fugue.
First, both discuss Shostakovich’s exclusive use of the “white keys” on the piano,
something that they assume to be a rather obvious, but necessary observation. Subject
statements appear on each of the seven scale degrees, minus any chromatic pitches,
which results in the sounding of all seven diatonic modes (Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian,
Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian, and Locrian—they do not appear in this order in the score,
however). Example 3.7 provides my own form chart of the fugue. As with the analyses in
Chapters 2 and 4, the form chart aligns parallel passages vertically. Dolzhansky mentions
that there are twelve statements of the subject, which can be seen more easily via the
form chart. Both theorists view the fugue as a ternary form, where the section beginning
in m. 79 is viewed as a reprise. Each of the three sections contains two pairs of subject
entries: the Exposition entries are in the Ionian and Mixolydian modes; the middle

section’s entries are in Phrygian and Locrian, and Aeolian and Dorian; and the reprise
provides two pairs of stretto entries at the octave in Ionian and Lydian modes. The
intermediary harmonies are provided in quotation marks in the form chart, because they
do not represent true key areas in the traditional sense. While each subject entry
emphasizes a different modal scale degree, none of these key areas are actually tonicized.
Example 3.7: Form Chart of Shostakovich, Fugue in C major, op. 87

Both Dolzhansky and Mazel describe the balanced nature of the fugue as a whole.
Dolzhansky observes that each of the three sections contains two pairs of voices. Mazel
observes an even deeper relationship between the sections: the Exposition contains
alternation between tonic (Ionian) and dominant (Mixolydian), and the “reprise” contains
juxtaposition between tonic (Ionian) and subdominant (Lydian). The middle section
contains two pairs of entries: the first pair belongs to the “dominant sphere”, as the keys
are a third above and below the dominant; likewise, the second pair of voices belongs to
the “subdominant sphere.” Mazel does not illustrate his analysis; my diagram in Example
3.8 illustrates his formal observations more clearly.
Example 3.8: Mazel’s description of balanced form in Shostakovich’s C-major

fugue, Op. 87

Exposition Middle Section Reprise
mm. 1–33 mm. 34–78 mm. 79–end
I V iii vii vi ii IV I
C G e b a d F C
Dominant Sphere Subdominant Sphere
e-G-b d-F-a
The chart shows that a traditional thematic analysis would reveal a tripartite
organization, whereas the subject entries can also be arranged into a two-part form
according to their respective modes. The binary view of dominant and subdominant
spheres helps to explain the seemingly “reversed” entries in m. 58 and 66. Prior to the

entries in mm. 58ff., the subject statements present a “tonic-dominant” ordering. The
Aeolian entry in m. 58 is instead followed by an entry at the fourth (Dorian). Plagal
motion closes the fugue in the final entries as well. It seems that the first half of the fugue
consists of rising fifth motion, and the second half consists of falling fifths.43 This
symmetrical arrangement provides the strong sense of balance that both Dolzhansky and
Mazel observe in their analyses.
Both theorists also describe the careful construction of the fugue’s subject. They
observe that the subject omits ^2 and ^7, and thus creates modal ambiguity. For instance,
the opening subject entries can easily be interpreted as C major (tonic) and G major
(dominant). The initial leap, from ^1 to ^5, followed by a linear descent to ^3, helps to
establish the tonic. However, because the leading tone is absent, it is initially impossible
to differentiate G major from G Mixolydian. The presence of the F∂ in the countersubject,
they argue, supports the reading of the subject in the Ionian mode and the answer in
Mixolydian.
Dolzhansky also comments on the fact that the answer is a real answer, where a
tonal answer would typically be expected within the confines of traditional tonality. The
real answer very quickly defines this collection of fugues as a more modernized treatment
of a traditional genre. The decision to compose a real answer for this particular fugue
seems very deliberate. Many of the other fugues in the collection contain tonal answers,
so clearly Shostakovich is making a conscious decision to break with tradition in more

43
Plagal organization was considered a marker of “Russian-ness” by 19th-century composers and critics.
See Richard Taruskin. "Slavs as Subjects and Citizens," in Music in the Nineteenth Century, volume 3 of
The Oxford History of Western Music (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005): 443–478.

ways than one. A tonal answer would have de-emphasized the modal quality of the
subject entries, which appears to be something that Shostakovich wanted to highlight.44
Mazel draws connections between the fugue subject and the Russian folk
tradition. First, he illustrates how Shostakovich’s G-minor fugue theme has clear origins
in specific folk tunes. The C-major fugue subject is not modeled after a specific folk
melody, but exhibits similar folk-like properties. Mazel provides several excerpts where
Shostakovich uses the same basic melodic structure: leaping between ^1 and ^5, and
embellishing ^5 with its upper neighbor ^6. Next, Mazel provides a motivic analysis of the
C-major fugue subject, shown in Example 3.9. He partitions the 8-measure melody into
four two-measure units: the first two segments, labeled a and a1, are clearly related by
their ascending leaps from the lower ^1 to ^5; segments b and b1 feature descending motion
from the upper limit of the modal octave, ^1 down to ^5.

44
Biographical evidence proves that Shostakovich likely knew three of the major theorists discussed in this
Chapter: Yavorsky, Dolzhansky, and Mazel. Michael Mishra writes that Shostakovich first met Boleslav
Yavorsky in 1925, and continued to correspond with him. See Mishra, Michael, ed. A Shostakovich
Companion, (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2008), 45; and also Laurel E. Fay, Shostakovich: A Life
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 107. Shostakovich may have also known Dolzhansky and
Mazel, as he had overlapping teaching appointments at both the Leningrad Conservatoire and Moscow
Conservatoire, respectively. Dolzhansky taught at the Leningrad Conservatory from 1937 to 1948.
Carpenter, “The Theory of Music in Russia in the Soviet Union,” 1400; Shostakovich joined the staff of
Leningrad Conservatoire in 1937, becoming a professor there in 1939. See the chronology in Pauline
Fairclough and David Fanning, eds. The Cambridge Companion to Shostakovich (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2008), ix–xiv. Lev Mazel earned his doctorate from the Moscow Conservatory in 1941,
and began teaching there almost immediately. See Carpenter, “Russian Music Theory,” 52. In 1944, Mazel
wrote his article “Notes on the musical language of Shostakovich” at the Moscow Conservatory. See
Carpenter, “The Theory of Music in Russia and the Soviet Union,” 1370. Shostakovich relocated and began
teaching at the Moscow Conservatoire in 1943. See Fairclough and Fanning, ed. “chronology,” in The
Cambridge Companion to Shostakovich.

Example 3.9: Mazel’s Example 4, C-major fugue subject
The two countersubjects (Example 3.10) play an important role in defining the
mode, according to Mazel. In fact, they are complementary to the subject to a certain
degree: where the subject omits ^2 and ^7, the two countersubjects provide both of these
scale degrees; and the subject emphasizes leaps to and from ^1 and ^5 only, while the
countersubjects provide emphasis on ^3. By filling in the missing scale degrees, Mazel
points out how the countersubjects help to emphasize the modal nature of the fugue.
Example 3.10: Mazel’s Example 12, pitch content of both countersubjects

Dolzhansky and Mazel highlight some important features of the C-major fugue.
Most of their observations are related to the overall form and the fugue’s subject, and
they make keen observations about the careful balance established throughout the entire
work. They are right to point out the role that this fugue plays as the opening to the entire
collection as well. While they do not elaborate on their opinion that this fugue is the
perfect way to open the collection, there are some observations one could make as to why
or how this fugue does properly set the tone for the rest of op. 87. First, Shostakovich
uses very strict imitation of the fugue’s subject throughout, and maintains a very clear
fugal texture, albeit simpler than those of J.S. Bach. While keeping a close connection to
the fugal tradition, Shostakovich simultaneously puts his own stamp on the genre through
his use of modes and avoidance of any tonicized key areas.
Dolzhansky and Mazel point out the melodic appearance of all seven diatonic
modes in the subject entries, but they also note that the only authentic cadence appears in
m. 79. While demonstrating modal usage in the melodic lines, they are also still viewing
the piece through a tonal lens. The lack of any chromatic tones generates a more modal-
sounding melodic line, but also restricts the harmonic motion solely to the tonic region.
The fugue never modulates to any other key areas, which explains the relative ease in the
way that Shostakovich returns to C major (or sometimes just “C”) throughout the work.
In doing so, he is able to maintain a prolongation of a single key area for nearly the entire
work. Dolzhansky and Mazel do not make this claim explicitly in their analyses, as their
focus was on the modal aspects presented in the C-major fugue. I will discuss these
features as they related to the fugue’s tonal structure in the following section.

Shostakovich, Fugue No. 1 in C major, Op. 87: A Schenkerian Approach
Although they discuss primarily modal features within the C-major fugue,
Dolzhansky and Mazel both refer to the work as in “C major” and refer to “dominant”
and “subdominant” aspects of the harmony. This observation suggests that they view the
work as both modal and tonal, although their analyses do not indicate to what extent they
weigh the former or the latter. Their analyses focus on formal and modal features on the
surface of the music, but they do not show how these features relate overall. Mode and
scale identification emphasize local features, whereas key and tonality are a global
phenomenon.
In his Harmonielehre (1906), Heinrich Schenker supports the use of chromatic
pitches through either tonicization or modal mixture (Mischung). Schenker illustrates the
possible Stufen that can be derived through modal mixture, and explains that mixture can
only occur between “harmonious” keys—what we generally understand to be parallel
major and minor modes. From the perspective of monotonality, he states that, “the
expansive urge of the tone demands the use of both systems [i.e., major and minor] as
well as all of their possible combinations [Mischung].”45 Schenker points out that both
melodic minor and harmonic minor can be derived through the process of mixture. Thus,
the only true minor mode is natural minor. In the same way, he can also support the

45
Heinrich Schenker, Neue Musikalische Theorien und Phantasien, vol. 1: Harmonielehre (Stuttgart: Cotta,
1906), trans. Elisabeth Mann Borgese, ed. Oswald Jonas, Harmony (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1954), 86.

appearance of Mixolydian and Dorian modes as mixtures of major and minor.46 Brown
highlights the significance of this part of Schenker’s theory in Explaining Tonality:
His [Schenker’s] picture of the tonal universe was revolutionary because it

proposes a single system of prototypes, transformations, and
transformational rules, rather than myriad interacting scale-based systems.
Through the concepts of mixture and tonicization, he was able to explain
not only how tonal surfaces can be highly chromatic, but also how they
can contain a wide variety of modal and exotic inflections. Conceptually,
this new system represents a dramatic step forward in theoretical
simplification.47
The idea that there are always only seven Stufen from which everything else is a
derivative, provides a much simpler means for understanding even modal-tonal
compositions.48 Each of the subject entries in the C-major fugue suggests a different
diatonic mode—the subject’s initial leap from ^1 to ^5 outlines the fifth within each entry.
However, the identification of these modes is only a surface feature of the composition.
The lack of a single chromatic pitch in the entire fugue suggests that the piece never
actually modulates, and thus, remains in C major throughout.
The purely diatonic landscape of this fugue is highly unusual and poses its own
set of challenges. The form chart in Example 3.7 shows the harmonic progression: I-iii-
vi-ii-V I. At the local level of a single phrase, this progression would prolong tonic

46
Because the Lydian and Phrygian modes contain a diminished triad on IV and V, respectively, Schenker
finds the use of these modes more problematic than Mixolydian and Dorian.
47
48
In the context of my fugal analyses, this will hold true. However, as stated earlier, the inclusion of both ß^4
and ß^8 suggests that potentially this aspect of Schenker’s theory might need to be expanded to include
additional Stufen.

through descending-fifths root motion, and would be perfectly acceptable at deeper
structural levels as well.
What is so unusual is that none of the intermediary Stufen are tonicized. Two
important questions arise surrounding the purely diatonic nature of this fugue: first, how
does Shostakovich imply Stufen without tonicizing them? And second, how does
Shostakovich prolong tonic for such long spans of music without the aid of intermediary
Stufen? Using a Schenkerian approach, I will address these two questions and show how
C major is maintained in the absence of chromatic harmonies. I will also show how the
fugue is in C major despite the modal nature of the subject entries.
The subject’s construction helps to imply intermediary key areas throughout the
fugue. The opening leap of a fifth from ^1 to ^5 is heard four times in the exposition, and
establishes the key-confirming nature of the opening of the subject entry. As the work
progresses, each of the statements prominently outlines a different perfect fifth (except
for the Locrian entry in m. 48, which outlines a diminished fifth) suggesting transitions to
each of the diatonic modes. None of these are tonicized key areas, and they do not
function as traditional Stufen. Instead, they emphasize different diatonic fifths within the
context of C major. Example 3.11 provides the score for mm. 1–19. Dolzhansky and
Mazel wrote about the ambiguous nature of the fugal subject itself. The fact that it lacks a
leading tone allows for the answer at the fifth to display both modal and tonal properties:
from a tonal perspective, we expect and perceive an answer in dominant key, but the lack
of ^7 allows for us to retrospectively accept the Mixolydian quality as well.

Example 3.11: Shostakovich, Fugue in C major, op. 87, mm. 1–19

The leap from ^1 to ^5 in the subject, would normally warrant a tonal answer.
However, Shostakovich composes a real answer instead. The real answer does not pose
harmonic problems because the subject and answer statements do not elide. This allows
for the subject to conclude on tonic and the answer to begin by highlighting the fifth G-D.
Example 3.12 shows that due to the real answer, the subject and answer can be graphed
consistently to highlight the descending third progression (^5-^4-^3). The graph also shows
that in spite of the modal ambiguity contained in the subject-answer statement, and the
decision to compose a real answer rather than a tonal answer, this passage functions in
the same way as those discussed in Chapter 1. The first countersubject creates a series of
parallel thirds with the answer, followed by a second series of thirds shown in the link
material. The result is two elided third progressions, D-C-B and B-A-G, which allow for
a quick return to tonic for the third voice entry. In fact, the subject, answer, and link
combine to form a complete octave descent from G4 down to G3. Although the
progression does not provide us with a tonicization of C, we find a prolongation of G in
the upper voice, accompanied by a chordal skip from C to E in the bass line, which
supports reading mm. 1–19 as a prolongation of C. This speaks to the prominent linear
nature of Shostakovich’s compositional language. The intermediary harmonies may not
always be clear or conventional, but the starting and ending points of his phrases suggest
a clear tonal framework.
As Example 3.13 illustrates, staying strictly within the confines of the C-major
diatonic scale has some tonal advantages. Shostakovich appears to explore some very
peculiar and distant regions—particularly in m. 48 where the subject enters in B-Locrian

and strongly emphasizes the diminished fifth between ^1 and ^5. At moments when it
seems that it would take several steps to smoothly transition back to C major,
Shostakovich resolves a given sonority rather abruptly, suggesting that the “foreign”
key/modal area was only somewhat of an illusion.
Example 3.12: Shostakovich, C-major fugue, op. 87, mm. 1–19, sketch
The entry in B-Locrian, shown in Example 3.13, serves as an excellent example
of this. The subject appears in the bass voice in mm. 48–55. This subject entry is the most
unusual in the fugue. The subject begins with a leap of a fifth from ^1 to ^5, and because
Shostakovich is staying strictly within the diatonic realm, this particular entry outlines a
diminished fifth (B–F) rather than a perfect fifth. The diminished fifth is all the more
striking due to its registral placement. If it appeared in one of the other voices,
Shostakovich could potentially re-harmonize the subject with an added bass line. Instead,
Shostakovich chose to emphasize the tritone leap, rather than downplay it, by placing it in

Example 3.13: Shostakovich, Fugue in C major, op. 87, mm. 48–57

137
the lowest register of the composition. The repeated tritone motion in the bass line is very
atypical of a traditional tonal composition. The tritone is ultimately resolved, however.
Up to this point, the episodic material is somewhat uniform, and we therefore
expect the episode in m. 55 to produce the same pattern. For comparison, examine the
link material shown in Example 3.11. The link in Example 3.11 highlights a descending
third-progression in the bass that spans three measures. In mm. 55–57, then, one might
expect a similar third-progression to be outlined (D-C-B). However, when the bass voice
lands on C in m. 56, it does not continue further, but rather stops on C and then ascends
by step to E. The abbreviated episode serves two purposes. First, the tritone B–F initiated
in m. 48, is finally resolved to C-E in mm. 56–57. While the passage is not entirely
conventional from a tonal perspective, Shostakovich is clearly sensitive to the need for
tritone resolution. Second, the descending third (G-F-E) in the link material, discussed in
Example 3.11, is clearly understood as leading back to C. An exact copy of the link
material in mm. 55ff. would outline a different third (D-C-B), and it is clear that
Shostakovich intends to remain in C. Example 3.13 illustrates that, although
unconventional, Shostakovich does manipulate the diatonic material in a way that it
continues to emphasize C.
The tritone resolution discussed in Example 3.13 helps to prolong C major, but
does not mark a cadential arrival in C. Dolzhansky and Mazel also noted the lack of
cadential gestures provided in this fugue. Dolzhansky mentions that there are no cadences
between the subject entries and episodes, and Mazel points out that there is, in fact, only
one cadential gesture within the fugue. This occurs in m. 79, when the dominant pedal
point returns to tonic. Dolzhansky and Mazel make this observation in passing, yet it is
one of the most important observations regarding the tonal nature of the fugue as a whole.
Since the fugue only contains one legitimate tonal cadence, the Baßbrechung can only
consist of I-V-I. Further, the fact that the fugue does contain a Baßbrechung allows for
structural closure in the Urlinie, ^2-^1, as well.
Example 3.14 provides two potential middleground structures for the C-major
fugue. Example 3.14a presents a ^5-line reading and Example 3.14b provides a ^3-line
reading. Emphasis on G in the Exposition suggests that the fundamental line might, in
fact, initiate with ^5. Since the fugue clearly exhibits only a single bass arpeggiation, a ^5-
line reading would have to allow for the “unsupported stretch” between ^5 and ^3. While
not a strict requirement, it would be preferable to have a double bass arpeggiation to
support the structure.49 Instead, Example 3.14b provides an alternative reading where the
fundamental line initiates with ^3. This reading of the work exhibits many more
parallelisms, and is more consistent with the harmonic structure as well. Third-
progressions are now apparent at multiple structural levels: a descending third-
progression appears in the fugue’s subject at the foreground; two internal third
progressions appear in Example 3.14b—the first leads to E in m. 58, and the second leads
to D in m. 74; and, of course, the background structure itself projects a third progression

49
For a brief explanation of the issues surround the “unsupported stretch,” see Carl Schachter, “A
Commentary on Schenker’s Free Composition,” Journal of Music Theory 25/1 (Spring, 1981): 115–42,
Reprinted in Unfoldings: Essays in Schenkerian Theory and Analysis, ed. Joseph N. Straus, 184–208 (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1999).

as well. The final subject entry, not shown in the graph, also concludes on ^3, providing
stronger support for the line leading to ^3 rather than prolonging ^5.
Example 3.14: Potential middleground structures for C-major fugue, op. 87
a)
b)
A sketch of the entire fugue is provided in Example 3.15. Example 3.15a more
clearly demonstrates the prolongational aspect of the exposition material that was
discussed above. For instance, the entire exposition shows two octave descents from G to
G in the upper voice, accompanied by an outline of the tonic triad (I-V-iii) in the bass
line. The progression moves beyond the G-octave in m. 55, resolving


Chapter 3: Interaction between Soviet modal theory and Schenkerian theory 141
the upper part of the tritone, B-F, to E (^3). Example 3.13 discussed how the progression
in m. 55 helps to prolong C major, and Example 3.15a illustrates how this passage
functions at a deeper structural level as well.
Conclusion
Dolzhansky’s 1947 article makes a significant contribution to the literature on
mode—in terms of both the theory and its application to works by Shostakovich. The
modal element in Shostakovich’s music is unmistakable, and cannot go unmentioned
when analyzing his music. However, the theories discussed in this chapter—along with
those discussed by Ellon Carpenter—fall short of connecting local observations of modal
features with the global aspects of a work’s tonal structure. I proposed a Schenkerian
reading of Shostakovich’s C-major fugue to illustrate that, along with the modal quality
exhibited at the foreground in his diatonic subject entries, Shostakovich also successfully
prolonged C major throughout the entire work. This analysis highlights the linear nature
of his writing. The surface harmonies may not be entirely conventional, but close
inspection of his voice leading shows a clear connection between the beginnings and
endings of small passages below the musical surface. In this way, Shostakovich was able
to prolong C major without defined cadential points. At a deeper level, the fugue exhibits
normative structural features: a bass arpeggiation (I-V-I) and a complete linear descent
from ^3 to ^1. A Schenkerian approach helps to magnify this important feature of his work,
and can also be used to complement the modal theories discussed above. It will not,
Chapter 3: Interaction between Soviet Modal Theory and Schenkerian Theory 142
therefore, completely replace the modal approach, but instead will highlight how these
localized elements fit into the large-scale structure.
The analysis provided in this chapter serves as preliminary support for my claim
that a Schenkerian approach to Shostakovich’s compositions can lead to useful insights.
It also demonstrates that the procedure outlined in Chapter 2 can be applied to all fugal
textures that exhibit tonal properties—not exclusively conventional tonal works.
Furthermore, the C-major fugue demonstrated the successful application of my proposed
alternative paradigm from Chapter 1 (Example 1.16c), and uncovers similar
prolongational properties within fugal expositions by both Bach and Shostakovich.
There is still one area that is left unexamined. Matthew Brown explains how
Schenkerian theory can accommodate surface modal features and chromaticism via the
processes of mixture and tonicization. However, the C-major fugue did not contain a
single chromatic pitch, and my claim for a Schenkerian approach to Shostakovich’s
music has yet to be proved in this regard. The remaining two case studies in Chapter 4
provide the opportunity to discuss the chromatic elements in Shostakovich’s
compositional style.

143
Chapter 4
Case Study: An Examination of Harmony

and Voice-Leading within two fugues by Shostakovich
This chapter presents analyses of two additional fugues from Shostakovich’s 24
Preludes and Fugues, op. 87. As discussed in Chapter 3, the modal-tonal nature of
Shostakovich’s compositions—a significant and characteristic aspect of his
compositional style—does not preclude a Schenkerian approach. The modal approaches
by Dolzhansky, Mazel, et al., provide theoretical justification for surface chromaticism in
Shostakovich’s music, but they do not provide a means for explaining how these features
align with the tonal structure. In his article, “Shostakovich and Structural Hearing,”
David Fanning focuses on the increasing demand for more in-depth studies of
Shostakovich’s music. Quoting Valery Gergiev, Fanning aims to find “more music in this
music.”1 He suggests a neo-Schenkerian approach as a means for understanding
‘structural hearing’ in Shostakovich’s symphonies,2 and argues that “Shostakovich’s
music is sufficiently grounded in the ‘Bach-to-Brahms’ tradition to justify the application
1
David Fanning, “Shostakovich and structural hearing,” in Shostakovich Studies 2, ed. Pauline Fairclough
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 77.
2
David Fanning, “Shostakovich and structural hearing,” 78. Fanning has provided several Schenkerian
sketches of Shostakovich’s music, but uses the approach to explain global processes only. For other
Schenkerian approaches to Shostakovich’s music, see Kerri Kotta, “Dmitri Šostakovitši
Tonaalstruktuurist” (Ph.D. diss., Estonian Academy of Music, 2004); Kotta, “On the voice-leading
structure of the first movement of Shostakovich’s Eighth Symphony (Exposition and Development),” in A
Composition as a Problem IV/2: proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Music Theory:
Tallinn, April 3-5, 2003, ed. Mart Humal. (Estonia: Printed AS Spin Press, 2004), 44–50. In his
dissertation, Kotta provides sketches of some fugues from Shostakovich’s op. 87, but focuses only on the
opening expository passages, and does not provide complete analyses of the works.
Chapter 4: An Examination of Harmony and Voice leading in Shostakovich 144
of what is—at least by more or less common consent in the West—the most powerful
theoretical tool for explaining such works in music terms.”3 Fanning provides sketches of
movements from Symphonies 5 through 10, and the deep middleground of the Fifth
Symphony is the most detailed of those provided in the article. He acknowledges the lack
of foreground detail, and suggests that a full-fledged foreground analysis of the
symphony may prove to be impossible. Ultimately, his article proposes the seed of an
idea, and then leaves it to other scholars to bring the idea to fruition: “analysts, get a
move on.”4
The present study is in agreement with Fanning’s global point: that a Schenkerian
approach can elucidate important features about Shostakovich’s compositional method
that have previously gone unmentioned. Our studies diverge at the local level, however:
while Fanning suggests that foreground analysis may prove impossible, my analyses
presented in Chapters 3 and 4 address both surface and structural features of
Shostakovich’s music. Thus, my study finds the middle ground between the localized
modal approach and Fanning’s global structural approach.
Previous attempts to apply Schenkerian techniques to post-tonal literature have
been heavily criticized. Heinrich Schenker's theory is successful in dealing with the core
repertoire of Germanic masterpieces. These include works by composers such as J.S.
Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, et al., as well as a few non-German composers such as
Scarlatti and Chopin. Schenker was able to codify a set of voice-leading principles and
3
Fanning, “Shostakovich and structural hearing,” 78.
4
Ibid., 99.
analytical procedures that work consistently among this group of composers. From these,
he could show in a highly systematic fashion how surface diminutions emerge from an
underlying structural counterpoint. In an effort to extend the success of Schenker's
theory, many theorists attempted to apply his analytical techniques to repertories outside
the music of the group of composers mentioned above. The two biggest issues that arise
with this approach are inaccurate application of Schenker's theory and internal
inconsistency of method.5
In “Schenkerian Analysis and Post-Tonal Music,” James Baker suggests that
analysts must question whether there are features of the composition that can be
explained as deformations of the tonal model or not. In other words, they must consider
whether or not the approach is warranted. He concludes by suggesting that if one can
find features in the work that can be explained as extensions or deformations of a tonal
model, then extension and application of Schenker's theory will likely be of use for that
analysis. On the other hand, if no such relationships are present, then it is not likely a
usable analytical tool for that particular composition.6
While Shostakovich certainly did not adhere strictly to the tonal procedures
employed by his eighteenth- and nineteenth-century predecessors, there are many
familiar tonal relationships that can be found in his music. His works are monotonal, and
especially in the current context of his 24 Preludes and Fugues, can be viewed in terms
5
See, for instance, Ernst Oster, “Re: A New Concept of Tonality (?),” Journal of Music Theory 4, no. 1
(1960): 85–98; Joseph N. Straus, “The Problem of Prolongation in Post-Tonal Music.” Journal of Music
Theory 31, no. 1 (Spring, 1987): 1–21; James M. Baker, “Schenkerian Analysis and Post-Tonal Music,” in
Aspects of Schenkerian Theory, ed. David Beach (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 153–86.
6
Baker, 153–86.
of major and minor keys, albeit with a high degree of surface chromaticism. Schenkerian
analysis has proved to be the most rigorous method for examining tonal works.
Schenker’s appeal to students to learn harmony and counterpoint as the basis of all tonal
works seems especially appropriate for the current study, given the contrapuntal textures
provided in Shostakovich’s op. 87 fugues. If one agrees that Shostakovich’s works are
tonal, a Schenkerian approach can show how they are tonal.
Unlike the C-major fugue discussed in Chapter 3, the fugues discussed in this
chapter exhibit a high degree of surface chromaticism. They both present analytical
problems such as issues of dissonance treatment, unusual Stufen successions, extended
mixture harmonies, and problematic Urlinien. In spite of these analytical issues, these
compositions exhibit more tonal than post-tonal attributes, and a Schenkerian approach
will help to explain how they operate at deeper structural levels.
Shostakovich, Fugue in G minor, Op. 87, no. 22
A form chart for Shostakovich’s G-minor fugue, Op. 87, no. 22, is provided in
Example 4.1. The fugue exhibits the same textural features as traditional tonal fugues:
the answer statements are at the fifth, the texture alternates between subject entries and
episodic material, and the final entries appear over consecutive pedal tones in the bass.
Shostakovich uses stretto in the G-minor fugue and, in fact, stretto appears in all of the
fugues in op. 87. Example 4.2 provides a chart with the various contrapuntal devices
found within each of his fugues. Stretto is a very typical contrapuntal device used in tonal
Example 4.1: Form chart for Shostakovich’s Fugue in G minor, Op. 87, no. 22
fugues, but it is not a strict requirement.7 The subject entries highlight the underlying
harmonic progression of the fugue: i-III-VI-∂iii-i-IV∂-ßii-i@-i. The harmonic content will be
explored in more detail at both the local and global levels of the structure in the
remainder of this analysis. There are some features of the fugue that do not immediately
connect to traditional idioms. However, at the deepest structural level, the piece clearly
begins and ends in G minor. On analyzing post-tonal works, Adele Katz writes:
… [W]e [cannot] solve the problems of linear counterpoint by comparing

Stravinsky’s medium with Bach’s, since the principles underlying their
techniques are totally opposed. To understand the new idiom, we must try
to find out the laws that govern its principles of voice leading and then
contrast these with the contrapuntal principles that demonstrate the tonal
concept.8
While Katz is speaking about works that have an even more distant connection to
traditional tonal works, her point is still valuable for the purposes of the present
discussion. Rather than “contrast” the voice-leading principles exhibited in the G-minor
fugue with earlier models, we can “compare” the ways tonic prolongation is achieved by
both Shostakovich and his predecessors. In other words, a linear approach to
Shostakovich’s fugues will elucidate both elements that are unique but also those that are
the same as traditional tonal models. Through this lens, we can learn what this
7
Prout, Fugue, 109. Prout writes that stretto is a “valuable ingredient in fugal writing,” but it is not a
requirement for every fugue. He explains that approximately half of J.S. Bach’s 48 fugues from the Well-
tempered Clavier do not contain stretto.
8
Adele Katz, Challenge to Musical Tradition: A New Concept of Tonality (New York: Da Capo Press,
1972), 295. The passage quoted above is from Katz’s chapter on “Stravinsky,” and the quotation appears
within an introductory discussion of polytonality and atonality.
composer’s specific processes are, and how they contribute to his unique compositional
voice.
Example 4.3 reproduces the score for mm. 1–15. Shostakovich employs a real
answer at the fifth, which follows the traditional model. For instance, compare this with
J.S. Bach’s D-minor fugue in Chapter 2, Examples 2.1a and 2.5b.
Example 4.3: Shostakovich, Fugue in G minor, Op. 87, no. 22, mm. 1–15
There is one difference between Shostakovich’s subject-answer statement and that of J.S.
Bach’s: the subject and answer statements elide in Bach’s fugues, whereas
Shostakovich’s subjects end before the answers begin.9
The tonal boundaries of the subject are also straightforward as it begins and ends
in tonic. However, the underlying harmonic support for the subject-answer statements is
not so typical. As explained in Chapter 1, William Renwick divides tonal subjects into
three categories depending on their cadence types. Category 1 subjects end on tonic (I–
V–I), Category 2 subjects modulate to V (I–V7/V–V), and Category 3 subjects are non-
modulating subjects that end on V (I–V).10 All of Renwick’s tonal categories naturally
involve a tonic-dominant relationship. The harmonic analysis shown in Example 4.3
reveals that this subject-answer pair substitutes a plagal progression (I-IV-I) in place of a
dominant progression (I-V-I). This aside, the progression is definable as a non-
modulating subject that ends on tonic, and roughly follows the model of Renwick’s
Category 1 subjects. The following passage is quoted from Renwick. With the exception
of the short phrases highlighted in bold print, this accurately describes the G-minor
fugue’s subject-answer pair as well:
The initial I is expressed by ^1 and/or ^5, possibly linked by ^3. The cadence
leads through one or more notes of V7 or VII7 to a termination on ^1
or ^3, representing the concluding I. The answer, transposing to the fifth,
9
This slight alteration allows for easier manipulation of the answer statements. Shostakovich’s C-major
fugue subject, for example, would have required a tonal answer in a traditional format. However, because
the subject and answer statements did not overlap, Shostakovich was able to compose a real answer, while
at the same time avoiding harmonic conflict between the two voices. The subject ended on tonic, and the
answer began in the key of the dominant in the following measure.
10
ends correspondingly with ^5 or ^7, resolving as an authentic cadence in

the dominant key.11
The single, but significant, difference required to describe Shostakovich’s subject-answer
pair is the removal of any reference to a functional dominant harmony—either as
participating within a harmonic progression or as part of an authentic cadence. Instead,
both the prolongational and cadential motions are achieved through plagal relationships
and pedal tones.
There is ample evidence of Hugo Riemann’s influence on Russian harmonic
theory: his works were translated into Russian as early as the 1890s;12 Catoire was the
first Russian theorist to base his work on Riemann’s theory, which influenced the
development of Soviet music theory;13 and Yavorsky borrowed Riemann’s functional
categories (T–S–D). Yavorsky’s “symmetrical arrangement of major and minor in the
theory of modal rhythm is reminiscent of the theory of harmonic dualism to which
Riemann subscribed.”14 The chart in Example 3.8 showed Mazel’s dualist view of the C-
major fugue as well: he divided the fugue into two sections based on key areas related to
either the dominant sphere or the subdominant sphere. The observed plagal features
within the C-major fugue are not problematic from a Schenkerian perspective. The
11
Ibid.
12
Carpenter, “Russian music theory: A Conspectus,” 28. Carpenter writes that Ebenezer Prout’s theory of
form was widely used as well.
13
Carpenter, “The Contributions of Taneev, Catoire, Conus, Garbuzov, Mazel, Tiulin,” in Russian
Theoretical Thought in Music, ed. Gordon D. McQuere (Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI Research Press, 1983),
rpt. (Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2009), 273.
14
Gordon D. McQuere, “The Theories of Boleslav Yavorsky,” in Russian Theoretical Thought in Music,
ed. Gordon D. McQuere (Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI Research Press, 1983), rpt. (Rochester, NY: University
of Rochester Press, 2009), 273.
subject and answer do present a tonic (Ionian)–dominant (Mixolydian) relationship in the
exposition, and the plagal motion beginning in m. 79 appears after the structural close in
m. 79. The G-minor fugue is more problematic in this regard.
For Schenker, plagal relationships cannot simply substitute for tonic-dominant
progressions. However, plagal progressions can function as prolongational progressions
in tonal works. According to Schenker, the plagal cadence (or plagal motion) “occupies a
peculiar position between the full close and the half-close. In general, it is considered as a
form of the half-close. I [Schenker] would rather consider it as a peculiar variation of the
full close, with the only difference that the subdominant and the dominant change
places.”15 Both the authentic cadence and plagal cadence function as a “full close” in the
sense that they end on the tonic harmony. It is the prolongational aspect—the departure
from and return to tonic—that supports Schenker’s preference for categorizing the plagal
cadence as a “full close” rather than a “half close.” However, it is important to stress that
although Schenker views the plagal cadence as more similar to an authentic cadence than
a half cadence, plagal and authentic motions are not treated equally in his theory.
In Der freie Satz, Schenker emphasizes the prolongational effect of a neighbor-
note progression:
In contrast to the interruption, the neighboring-note formation remains at

the same pitch level and thus reinforces the primary tone. The neighboring
note cannot be supported by the V in the same manner as can the ^2 in the
interruption shown in Figs. 21 and 24. Therefore, it lacks the weight of
15
Schenker, Harmony ([1906] 1954), 224.
^2
the V and stresses rather the effect of delay, particularly in cases where it
is supported only by the IV or VI (Fig. 32, 3 and 4). Where it has its own
cadential bass (Fig. 32,5 and 6), the neighboring note is more organically
established.16
In other words, plagal motion can be thought of as emerging from the neighbor-note in
the fundamental line. The neighbor note supports a prolongation of the primary tone in
the Urlinie. This neighbor note, which is always an upper neighbor, will most often
embellish ^3 or ^5. Thus, the most common neighbor tones that result are ^4 and ^6. While
other harmonies can provide support for the upper neighbor—for instance, ^6 can also be
harmonized by VI—the subdominant is frequently employed in such instances. Because
the upper neighbor is driving the function of the progression, these intermediary
harmonies can be treated as prolongational harmonies just as the neighbor tone is a
prolongational tool in the upper voice. Figure 32 from Der freie Satz is provided as
Example 4.4a to better illustrate this point.
In Figure 32, nos. 1–2, Schenker illustrates that the neighbor note prolongs the
primary tone in a given linear progression. Figure 32, nos. 3–4 show the neighbor note
within the context of a ^3-line and a ^5-line, respectively. In both cases, the neighboring
notes (^4 and ^6) are harmonized by either a IV or a VI harmony. In his two-level harmonic
analysis below each passage, it is clear that these neighbor harmonies prolong tonic at a
deeper structural level. However, an authentic cadence is always required for tonal
closure. Schenker writes that “the plagal setting in Fig. 32, 3 and 4 is self-contained.
16
Therefore, it is not permissible to read the neighboring-note harmony (IV or VI) together
with the final V as a cadence.”17 At a deeper structural level, Schenker interprets the
opening neighbor progression as representative of tonic, which then proceeds to an
authentic cadence at the conclusion of each passage.
Example 4.4: Schenker’s examples of neighbor tones and neighbor progressions in

Der freie Satz 18
a) Fig. 32
b) Fig. 76, no. 5
17
Ibid., §111.
18
Ibid., the examples are taken from the 1979 translation.
In Example 4.4b, which reproduces Figure 76, no. 5 from Der freie Satz,
Schenker illustrates how these neighboring harmonies can function at an even deeper
structural level as part of the formal design of a composition. The passage provides
Schenker’s sketch of Chopin Mazurka op. 17, no. 1.19 His sketch reveals that the entire
form is ternary, where IV is the structural harmony for the B section. The figure also
shows, however, that the Urlinie does not come to a close (or even descend) until the
return of the A material. For Schenker, the authentic cadence is an essential part of the
structure, whereas the plagal progression is an embellishment of the structure. Thus,
plagal motion can function as prolongational at every structural level except the
background.
Plagal motion is not the opposite of authentic, nor are they equal. In the quote
from Der freie Satz above, Schenker stresses that the neighbor progression “lacks the
weight” of the ^2 supported by a dominant Stufe.”20 For Schenker, the only true
prolongation exists in the Ursatz. In its most basic form, the Ursatz is a “horizontal
arpeggiation” of the “chord of nature”:21 it consists of a fundamental line in the upper
voice (Urlinie) which descends by step—from either ^3, ^5, or ^8—to ^1; and a bass
arpeggiation (Baßbrechung) which ascends, I–V–I. According to Schenker, “it
19
William Marvin, “Neighbors, False Neighbors, and Interruptions: Analytic Choices in Generating Outer
Forms” (paper presented at the Fifth International Schenker Symposium, Mannes College of Music, New
York City, March 15–17, 2013). Marvin notes the middleground parallel fifths in this particular sketch
(between the outer voices in the initial I–II∂–V progression) and suggests that in this case—and many
others—the parallel fifths are avoidable.
20
21
Ibid., §1.
[Baßbrechung] serves as a constant reminder of the presence of the chord of nature.”22
The ascending fifth motion in the bass from I–V is an absolutely essential component for
a complete tonal structure. Schenker also explains how the authentic cadence (V–I)
originated in contrapuntal practice. In two-voice counterpoint, one voice descends (^2-^1)
while the other voice ascends (^7-^1). Schenker refers to both ^2 and ^7 as “leading tones”,
and both are required—along with the bass motion ^5-^1—for tonal closure in counterpoint
containing three or more voices.23 Plagal motion was explainable for the dualists as the
counterpart to authentic motion (lower fifth and upper fifth in relation to tonic).24
However, for Schenker, the lower fifth is “extraneous” as it does not derive from Nature,
which only consists of rising fifths.25 It is clear, then, that the plagal motion presented in
Shostakovich’s G-minor fugue, while prolongational, cannot present a complete tonal
structure.
The G-minor fugue subject prolongs tonic in a very similar fashion to William
Renwick’s Category 1 subjects, although the tonic-dominant progression is replaced with
a plagal progression in order to achieve the prolongation. Example 4.5 provides a sketch
of the same passage shown in Example 4.3. Plagal root motion prolongs tonic and
22
Ibid., §2; see also Schenker, Harmony ([1906] 1954), 26. The “chord of nature” is explained as a major
triad, which is derived from the overtone series. Schenker explains that the fifth is the limit to which the
human ear can perceive partials, and uses his discussion of the harmonic series to provide justification for
the major triad as the central component in tonal music.
23
24
David W. Bernstein, “Nineteenth-century harmonic theory: the Austro-German legacy,” in The
Cambridge History of Western Music Theory, ed. Thomas Christensen (New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2002), 796.
25
Schenker, Harmony ([1906] 1954), 41.
dominant within the subject and answer, respectively. The subject’s construction helps to
strengthen the prolongational nature of the underlying harmony. The repeated leaps down
to ^1 (in the local key area) create a pedal effect, which in turn creates a neighbor six-four
progression. Example 4.5 shows a repeated tonic pedal in the bass (mm. 3–5) and
dominant pedal tone in an inner voice (mm. 8–10). Ultimately, each subject entry will
contain a sustained pitch in its respective key and, while not always in the bass, this
sustained pitch supports the harmonic prolongation as well.
Example 4.5: Foreground sketch of mm. 1–15
In addition to prolongation at the local level, the sketch reveals a tonic
prolongation until the third entry in m. 15. This highlights the large-scale connection
between the expositional entries that closely resembles Bach’s fugues discussed in
Chapters 1 and 2. One accommodation that must be made, however, is the lack of an
authentic cadence with a raised leading tone. Shostakovich provides a clear ^5-^1 motion in
the bass in mm. 14–15, yet maintaining the minor dominant promotes a more modal
sound. As noted above, Schenker associates his theory of structural closure with the
contrapuntal tradition, and therefore requires a raised ^7 for complete tonal closure. In
Examples 2.1b and 2.5b, Bach’s answer appears in the minor dominant (v), but then the
chordal third is raised (Vƒ) when the progression returns to tonic. There is no
corresponding authentic motion in the G-minor fugue.
Shostakovich’s aversion to tonicization is an important feature of his
compositional language. It simultaneously sets his work apart from his 18th-century
predecessors and emphasizes the frequently noted modal-tonal nature of his writing.
Closer examination of the answer in Example 4.5 will further illustrate this point. From a
tonal perspective, the real answer in m. 6 behaves as expected and the inclusion of E∂
emphasizes the minor dominant (D minor). However, the left-hand counterpoint projects
a descending third-progression Bß–A–G, which instead emphasizes G minor and creates a
tonal conflict between the voices.26 From a purely contrapuntal perspective, the
individual verticalities are entirely consonant (3–6–3) and follow the rules for first
species. The subject’s leap to ^6 allows for this harmonic ambiguity at the foreground
level. If the subject contained an initial leap between ^1 and ^5, then a tonal answer would
be required in m. 6 because of the continuation of the tonic harmony in the lower voice.
However, the construction of the subject allows for a continuation of tonic, while
providing consonant support for a minor-dominant answer.
As an alternative to viewing the progression solely in terms of the major-minor
system, one could view mm. 1–15 as a prolongation of G minor through mixture with G
26
This harmonic ambiguity does not appear in m. 20, where the answer reappears in the fourth voice entry.
As discussed in Chapter 2, priority is given to consistent readings, but context always plays a significant
role in whether or not similar passages can be interpreted in the same way.
Dorian. The passage in m. 6 seems less contradictory in this regard. The bass continues to
prolong G minor, and the answer provides a modal inflection ∂^6 instead of the diatonic ß^6
in minor. G minor has yet to be tonicized, but it is certainly emphasized in mm. 1–15.
Aside from the plagal motion and omission of an authentic cadence, the passage exhibits
the prolongational nature of fugal expositions discussed in Chapter 1.
Shostakovich uses relatively straightforward contrapuntal procedures in his
episodic material. Example 4.6 reproduces the link and episodes from the G-minor fugue.
Example 4.6a shows the initial link in mm. 11–15, along with a sketch of the passage at
the end of the system. The link introduces two motives, х and y, which combine to form a
series of ascending parallel thirds. The progression culminates with a cadence in G minor
in m. 15. Motives x and y appear in nearly every episode. Example 4.6b shows how
motives x, y, and z interact to form a series of parallel six-three chords: motives x and y
are inverted at the octave, forming a series of parallel sixths, and motive z creates some
added dissonance with the other two voices.
One must always be careful to treat a composition on its own terms—particularly
twentieth-century compositions that may or may not adhere to conventional procedures.
Shostakovich does not necessarily need to adhere to the strict rules of tonal counterpoint
in his compositions. However, because the majority of the episodes grow out of the
original two-voice motivic pattern introduced in the link, mm. 11–15, and because this
pattern is introduced as a series of consonant parallel thirds, it is most consistent within
the context of this fugue to treat the dissonant downbeats in motive z as actual
dissonances. Thus, the downbeats of each measure are interpreted as appoggiaturas, and
Ex. 4.6: Motivic development in the episodes
the remaining third-progression in motive z forms a voice exchange with motive x. The
voice exchange is highlighted in the score in m. 26 (Example 4.6b). As a result, the
addition of motive z creates a series of parallel six-three harmonies. For examples 4.6c,
4.6d, and 4.6f, the same motives appear and are graphed consistently with the original
versions. Example 4.6c is the only configuration where motive z appears above motive y,
and parallel fifths result between those two voices. This marks a profound difference
between J.S. Bach and Shostakovich—Bach would avoid this arrangement altogether
because of the parallel fifths, whereas Shostakovich uses it.
With motive x in the lowest voice, the majority of the passages produce six-three
sonorities. Example 4.6d illustrates the six-four sonorities that appear briefly when
motive z is in the bass voice. In all of these instances, Shostakovich uses only invertible
counterpoint at the octave, primarily six-three sonorities, and he completely avoids the
use of parallel root-position harmonies. 27 Shostakovich was certainly not limited to using
invertible counterpoint at the octave, tenth, and twelfth—the three types of invertible
counterpoint that are used most frequently in 18th-century counterpoint—but the fact that
he chose to maintain consonant triadic relationships suggests a conscious decision to
connect to the traditional style. Clearly, the later episodes beginning with Example 4.6d
are not exclusively constructed using motives x, y, and z, but these motivic ideas appear
consistently enough that they are an obvious organizing feature of the episodic material.
Examples 4.6e and 4.6g do not employ the same patterns as the other episodes in the
fugue. Instead, they generate a series of descending parallel thirds.
The discussion of the subject and answer provided strong support for reading
tonic prolongation at the local level of the structure. Globally, the underlying harmonic
progression is much more chromatic. As demonstrated in Chapter 2, the subject entries
typically outline the underlying progression that helps to uncover the fundamental
27
The chart in Example 4.2 shows that Shostakovich uses invertible counterpoint at the octave in all 24
fugues in op. 87.
structure. The harmonies displayed in Example 4.1—I-III-VI-∂iii-i-IV∂-ßii-i@-i—outline a
highly chromatic progression. Mixture generates some of the surface chromaticism: ∂iii,
∂vi, and IV∂ arise from simple mixture; ßii from double mixture. The ßii harmony could
also be explained through the process of tonicization: as viiº/ii or iiº/vii. However, ßii
progresses directly to V, so context suggests that the best means for interpreting this
harmony is through double mixture.
The bass line sketch in Example 4.7 illustrates the underlying harmonic
progression, and open noteheads highlight the prominent ^1-^5-^1 motion in the bass. Tonic
is prolonged from mm. 1–78 by a series of third progressions, followed by a chromatic
version of the phrase model (I–IV∂–ßii–V–i) in mm. 78–120.
Example 4.7: Shostakovich, Fugue in G minor, op. 87, bass line sketch
The example highlights Shostakovich’s pairing of both the diatonic versions of III and
VI, and chromatic versions of the same harmonies (∂iii and ∂vi) beginning in m. 63.
Measures 44–63 connect the diatonic and chromatic versions of the mediant and
submediant. This highly chromatic progression requires additional explanation. First, the
bass (Eß) in m. 44 proceeds to its subdominant (Aß). The bass then descends by major
thirds, outlining a descending augmented triad (Gƒ/Aß–E∂–C), until it reaches C in m. 60.
The C-major sonority in m. 60 functions as ßII in the context of the following b-minor
(∂iii) passage in m. 63, and therefore functions as a chromatic pivot chord.
Referring back to the form chart in Example 4.1, there is a distinctive change in
the progression at this moment in the fugue. The subject entries in the exposition, as well
as the entries beginning in m. 30, introduce subject-answer pairs that feature tonic-
dominant relationships. The Eß-major entry in m. 44, however, proceeds to its
subdominant (Aß major). In Chapter 3, a “reverse” entry occurred in the C-major fugue at
a significant moment within the form, and a similar procedure is employed in the G-
minor fugue as well. Shostakovich explores the diatonic III and VI areas, and then
reverses direction in order to proceed to the chromatic versions of these harmonies. The
progression continues with “G-major” key areas until the return to G minor in m. 78. The
remainder of the fugue appears to outline a fairly straightforward progression after that
point. The only exception to this is the way in which Shostakovich resolves ßII (m. 60)
and ßii (m. 104) sonorities. Traditionally, ßII appears in first inversion to maintain
smoother voice leading and to avoid the tritone leap in the bass. Both of these harmonies
appear in root position in the G-minor fugue. Shostakovich is making use of a fairly
conventional progression in a modern way; he maintains the harmonic function but alters
the effect through mixture and voice leading.

A serious analytical problem arises when determining the fugue’s Ursatz. From a
Schenkerian point of view, the problem is specifically related to missing pitches in the
Urlinie. All of the proposed harmonies described in Example 4.7 are actually present in
the fugue except for the structural dominant in m. 114. Instead of a dominant chord, the
pedal tone (^5) is harmonized with a tonic harmony in the upper voices, creating an
unresolved cadential six-four progression. If no dominant harmony arises to accompany ^5
in the bass, then is there a ^2 in the fundamental line? If not, then the Urlinie cannot be
complete. Two hypothetical middleground structures are illustrated in Example 4.8.
Both ^2’s are implied in Examples 4.8a and 4.8b to illustrate a hypothetical structural
descent to ^1. However, the strong prolongation of tonic in the three upper voices
ultimately prevents even the suggestion of ^2 at this point in structure. To force an
implied ^2 at this moment in the analysis would fail to represent the true nature of the
work, and we would lose something very special and unique about the G-minor fugue for
the sake of having a more normative graph.
Example 4.8: Hypothetical middleground structures for the G minor fugue

The lack of a complete Urlinie indicates that the fugue’s fundamental structure is
incomplete. This does not suggest, however, that either the fugue or the theory have
“failed.” Rather, the theory has helped to elucidate precisely what is unique about this
composition as compared to traditional tonal models.
The bass motion operates in a fairly straightforward fashion, but the dominant
Stufe suggested by Examples 4.7 and 4.8 is not actually present because ^5 is not
harmonized with a dominant harmony. A similar situation occurs in the Chopin Étude,
Op. 10, no. 3, and Example 4.9 reproduces Schenker’s sketch of the work. 28 In both
measures 17 and 70, the expected structural dominant Stufe is harmonized as a six-four
sonority. (Schenker marks the first instance in m. 17 with figured bass and an
exclamation mark). This example is quite striking. The six-four sonority resolves rather
weakly to a deceptive cadence, and then the dominant harmony seems to completely
dissipate. The upper line does not descend until after tonic is achieved within the
progression. One could argue that there is no dominant Stufe in this composition, since
dominant is not re-established after the deceptive motion in m. 18. On the other hand, this
example does contain ^2 in the upper line, and it is plausible that the outer voices realign
at an deeper structural level, which is the reading Schenker is suggests in level a of the
sketch. Shostakovich’s G-minor fugue, however, never presents a descending upper line.
Instead, in m. 120, the upper line ascends from ^3 to ^5 again. Chopin’s upper voice
ultimately descends to tonic, and therefore it is plausible to suggest a dominant Stufe as
28
Schenker, Free Composition ([1935] 1979).
Schenker did in his sketch; Shostakovich’s upper voice does not descend, and a suggested
dominant Stufe is much less convincing in this context.
If the Urlinie does not descend to ^1, and there is no dominant Stufe, then an
alternative option is to have a suspended Urlinie where the Kopfton either partially
descends (e.g. ^5-^4-^3) or does not descend at all (a sustained ^5). Previous studies have
suggested the use of an incomplete or static Urlinie in the Schenkerian literature. On the
topic of applying Schenkerian techniques to post-tonal works, Edward Laufer writes:
Clearly, certain Schenkerian techniques cannot apply, such as interruption,

or a top-voice descent to ^1. But one still hears music linearly, not just as a
series of isolated but somehow conjoined moments. There are registral
connections, main lines, basic sonorities, linear progressions, goal notes,
along with every composer’s varied and individual compositional
procedures…A linear analysis can reveal an underlying voice-leading
basis, with the motivic aspects placed upon this basic framework.29
In other words, like Baker, Laufer suggests that post-tonal works that exhibit similar
voice-leading relationships to tonal works can be analyzed using a Schenkerian approach.
Of several convincing analyses Laufer provides in his article, the analysis that most
closely resembles Shostakovich’s G-minor fugue is that of Debussy’s Canope.
Throughout the article, he discusses the presence of a prime sonority—a referential
sonority that controls the organization of a composition in place of the traditional triad.
For Debussy’s Canope, the prime sonority is a modified triad (D-minor triad plus the
pitch C). Example 4.10 reproduces Laufer’s examples 7 and 8. The fundamental line in
29
Edward Laufer, “An Approach to Linear Analysis of Some Early Twentieth-Century Compositions,” in A
Composition as a Problem IV/2: proceeds of the Fourth International Conference on Music Theory:
Tallinn, 2004, ed. Mart Humal (Estonia: Printed AS Spin Press, 2004), 89.
his Example 7 does not descend. Example 8 shows a more traditional Schenkerian
structure, but Laufer emphasizes that this reading is not correct because it does not
represent what actually happens in the work. He notes that the E-D neighbor figure is a
repetition of the observed neighbor motion in the work, and is not part of a structural
descent.”30
Example 4.10: Laufer’s examples 7 and 8 of Debussy’s Canope 31
30
Ibid., 98.
31
Ibid., 97.
Although the sketch may seem unusual at first, Laufer’s analysis is quite
convincing. He reasons that:
if by definition a triadic tonal piece ends on its tonic, by analogy a prime sonority
would likewise appear in some form at the end of a non-triadic tonal work. Thus,
the final bars here…(mm. 26–30) express a D-minor triad with the neighbor-note
C attached…The neighbor-note C is not only an harmonic event, but also a
melodic-motivic one. It is important to note that a prime sonority will be
associated with a main motivic feature of the particular piece.32
Thus, there is no linear descent because Laufer posits that this composition does not
unfold the tonic triad. Instead, the prime sonority is the organizing force behind the work,
and the neighbor motion helps to solidify both the motivic and harmonic organization
throughout. Laufer’s example is an even more extreme situation than that posed in the G-
minor fugue. The fugue does contain a triad as its prime sonority, and unlike Laufer’s
analysis of Canope, even exhibits a clear ^1-^5-^1 motion in the bass. Thus, if we accept
Laufer’s analysis, which ultimately shows a suspended Ursatz that sustains ^1 in the bass
and ^5 in the fundamental line, it is not a stretch to accept a similar structure that is
prolonged by a triad as its prime sonority.
Example 4.11 provides a middleground sketch of the entire fugue, showing a
suspended ^5 in the Urlinie that is prolonged through upper-neighbor motion to both ∂^6
and ß^6, and a static ^1 in the bass.
32
Ibid., 90.
The ^6-^5 motion in the upper voice is reminiscent of the local ^6-^5 motion that first
appears in the subject, and the changing inflections of ^6 suggest modal borrowing at
deeper structural levels. Brown asserts that:
It is important to stress that mixture is an independent means of

prolongation, quite distinct from linear progressions or neighbor-note
motions. As Schenker explains, to be considered a true linear progression
a line must traverse at least the interval of a third, while at the deep
middleground, only upper neighbor-note motions around ^5 and ^3 are
possible. Sometimes these prolongations may themselves be chromatic—
for example, the succession of 5-ß6-5 is quite common, with the ^6
supported either by ßVI, or by IVß.33
The middleground sketch of the fugue in Example 4.11 demonstrates how the mixture
harmonies support upper-neighbor motion ß^6 (∂^6) to ^5 throughout the entire structure. The
mediant harmonies act as tonic substitutes and provide intermediary support for ^5, while
various versions of VI and IV provide support for ß^6 and ∂^6. The only true “problematic”
structural element in the fugue is the omission of a dominant harmony to accompany ^5 in
the bass in m. 114. This, in turn, prevents complete structural closure.
Shostakovich, Fugue in F major, Op. 87, no. 23
A form chart of the F-major fugue is provided in Example 4.12. Two pairs of
parallel passages—mm.32–51 and mm. 52–72, and mm. 73–82 and mm. 83–101—are
vertically aligned in the chart. This fugue contains a tonal answer, which helps to
differentiate between entries within the form.

33
Matthew Brown, “The Diatonic and the Chromatic in Schenker’s ‘Theory of Harmonic Relations’,”
Journal of Music Theory 30/1 (Spring, 1986): 19.
The subject entries emphasize the following harmonic progression: I-vi-ßVI-v/iii-IIIƒ-V@-
!-ivß-I. Just as in the G-minor fugue, the chromatic harmonies arise via modal mixture. In
m. 73, there is a single answer statement in E minor, followed by a subject statement in A
major in m. 83. Because the first of these statements is in the form of the answer, it is
plausible to treat the E-minor passage as minor v of A minor, which then appears as A
major through mixture. Thus, A major (IIIƒ) is the second goal harmony within the fugue
(vi and ßVI are grouped together). A simplified version of this progression, then, is I–ßVI–
IIIƒ (F–Dß/Cƒ–A). The majority of the fugue, therefore, outlines a major-third cycle, which
then leads to the dominant in m. 102.
As shown in Example 4.13, the subject begins with a leap from ^5 to ^1. This
warrants a tonal answer, which Shostakovich uses in this fugue. The C-major fugue
discussed in Chapter 3 provides evidence of the fact that Shostakovich does not always
adhere to this traditional model. He provides himself some leeway in this regard because
the subject and answer statements do not elide as they traditionally do in Bach’s fugues,
for instance. Because of this, Shostakovich would not necessarily have to maintain the
tonal answer and he could have just as easily harmonized the beginning of the answer
with the dominant harmony. However, his choice of a tonal answer provides a stronger
connection to past practice, and also helps to connect the subject-answer statements more
smoothly. The tonic harmony is thus reinterpreted as subdominant in the answer.

Example 4.14 provides a foreground and middleground sketch of mm. 1–25. The
subject projects the same linear progression (^5-^4-^3) as J.S. Bach’s fugues discussed in
Chapters 1 and 2. The subject also contains an upper-neighbor ^6, which becomes ^3 in the
tonal answer. The same paradigm (Example 1.16a) can therefore be used to graph this
subject-answer pair.34 The third voice enters in m. 19, and tonic returns in m. 24. This is
due to the construction of the subject. Because it begins on ^5, and the third entry appears
in the bass, the C is briefly harmonized by C major (V), which has been prolonged
through the end of the answer to the onset of the third voice entry. J.S. Bach treats the
third entry similarly in the F-major fugue discussed in Chapter 2 (see Examples 2.15,
2.19 and 2.20). This passage serves to illustrate two points: first, Shostakovich’s fugal
writing exhibits the same prolongational attributes we expect to find within 18th-century
models, particularly in the exposition; and second, my proposed tonal answer paradigm
from Chapter 1 can be successfully applied to 20th-century fugues. This suggests a strong
connection between Shostakovich’s writing and his 18th-century predecessors, and also
provides a preliminary test for the paradigm outside of traditional tonal works.
34
Shostakovich’s C-major fugue also exhibits the same linear progression. However, the C-major fugue
contains a real answer and so it follows a different version of my revised paradigm (Example 1.16c)
introduced in Chapter 1.
Example 4.15 provides the voice leading for the subject and both countersubjects,
and the subject (s) is highlighted with beams to help differentiate it from the other voices.
The first countersubject (cs1) produces a voice exchange with the subject. The voice
exchange is labeled in Example 4.15c, but for visual clarity has been left out of the
remainder of the examples. The second countersubject (cs2) prolongs the local tonic of
the subject entry. The closing intervals are labeled in each example to highlight the
invertible counterpoint. For instance, Example 4.15a illustrates that the closing interval
between the subject and first countersubject 1 is a tenth.
Example 4.15: Shostakovich, F-major fugue, op. 87, invertible counterpoint between
subject and countersubjects
a) m. 8–14 b) mm. 19–25 c) mm. 32–39
d) mm. 39–45 e) mm. 59–65 f) mm. 83–88

In Examples 4.15c, 4.15d, and 4.15f, countersubject 1 appears below the subject,
producing the interval of a sixth, and indicates invertible counterpoint at the octave. The
voice leading shown is quite simple, but highlights the normative structure underlying
Shostakovich’s surface chromaticism. Ultimately, each of these subject entries prolongs
its local tonic by way of a voice exchange between two voices, plus a sustained pitch in
the third voice. By using only invertible counterpoint at the octave, Shostakovich
maintains each line’s membership within the triad. For example, countersubject 2 always
prolongs the local tonic or root of the chord, allowing for very straightforward use of the
voices in invertible counterpoint.
Shostakovich uses invertible counterpoint within the episodes as well. Just as in
the G-minor fugue, nearly all of the motivic material in the episodes grows out of the
initial motivic ideas introduced in the link. Example 4.16 provides sketches of the
episodes. The link material in Example 4.16a generates a series of parallel thirds between
motives x and y. Motive z is introduced in the first episode and completes the triad.
Again, Shostakovich primarily concentrates on parallel six-three sonorities. This
contributes to the overall consonant sound of the fugue, in spite of the highly chromatic
harmonic progressions that he uses.
Two potential middleground structures for the F-major fugue are provided in
Example 4.17. In Example 4.17a, the Kopfton ^3 alternates between ∂^3 and ß^3, and the bass
descends via major thirds in mm. 1–83. A second option is a ^5-line reading, which is
shown in Example 4.17b. This reading is more problematic, however, because of ^4 in the
Example 4.16: Fugue in F major, op. 87, episodes and invertible counterpoint
a) Link mm. 14–19
b) mm. 25–32
c) mm. 45–51 d) mm. 65–73 e) mm. 89–102

Urlinie. There is no potential to harmonize a diatonic ^4 given the harmonic progression
of the fugue. The best option for any possible ^4 is in m. 73, supported by v/IIIƒ.
Example 4.17: Shostakovich F-major fugue, possible middleground structures
A potential third option to consider for the middleground is a static Ursatz as was
shown in the G-minor fugue. However, unlike the G-minor fugue, the F-major fugue does
contain a harmonized dominant. The dominant harmony does not appear in the expected
location, however. In m. 100, a pedal C in the bass leads to a return of the subject in F
major in m. 102. At this point in the structure, one would expect a clear ^5-^1 motion in the
bass to articulate the return to tonic, and Shostakovich certainly sets up the expectation
for this rhetorical device in m. 102. The subject is in F major, and it does appear in the
expected location. Because the subject begins on ^5, however, C (instead of the expected
F) is emphasized in the bass and creates an unstable six-four sonority. Shostakovich’s
decision to place this subject entry in the bass voice, combined with the subject’s
construction, creates harmonic ambiguity where one would traditionally expect harmonic
clarity. If m. 100 were the only option for a structural dominant, then perhaps the
suspended Ursatz would be the best representation for this fugue as well.
Instead, the subject entry in F major in m. 102 is, in fact, followed by its answer
in the key of the dominant. This entry is very important to the fugue’s overall design. As
mentioned above, Shostakovich chose to compose a tonal answer because of the ^5-^1 leap
at the beginning of the subject. Measure 109 provides the first instance of a real answer
(or a true subject entry in the key of V). The first pitch in the subject is G rather than F,
and the passage is unmistakably in the key of C major at this point. The bass voice uses
motivic ideas from the previous countersubject material, although the countersubjects are
no longer present in their entirety. The section beginning in m. 102 is also striking in that
Shostakovich composes complete subject entries using stretto. The “arrival” in m. 102 is,
therefore, better interpreted as the beginning of a large-scale cadential six-four
progression: stretto entries in the key of F major over C in the bass are followed by “real”
answers in stretto in the key of C major over C in the bass. The textural change signifies a
crucial structural moment, but the harmonic ambiguity creates a surprising rhetorical
effect.
There is a lot of emphasis on F in both the bass and melody at the end of the
fugue, but the structural close is not immediately identifiable. The final complete subject
entries appear in the key of Bß minor beginning in m. 121. They stress F in the bass voice
and initiate the descending third-progression (^5-^4-^3) in the key of Bß minor. However, the
F’s are still not supported by a tonic harmony. While a slight normalization of the rhythm
is required, the best location for ^1 in the Urlinie appears in m. 134, and it is repeated
again in m. 136. The bass arrives on I in m. 133, just one measure earlier. The bass
repeats a subject fragment, still in the key of Bß (major this time), but just enough that it
does not progress to Bß completely. The result, along with the upper voices, is a plagal
prolongation of tonic. As in the C-major fugue discussed in Chapter 3, plagal motion
does not pose a problem because the fugue has already achieved structural closure. A
middleground sketch of the fugue is provided in Example 4.18. While ^5 maintains a
strong presence in the upper line throughout the fugue—even appearing at the very close
of the fugue with a descent from ^1 to ^5—it is better interpreted as a covering tone in this
context. ^5 does not actually descend, but there is a complete linear descent from ^3 to ^1,
which provides structural closure.

Conclusion
The present study highlights and addresses several important topics through
examination of harmony and voice leading in fugues by J.S. Bach and Dmitri
Shostakovich.
First, Chapter 1 justifies a Schenkerian approach to fugal analysis—Schenker’s
view of tonal structure reveals unification in works that are traditionally analyzed by
highlighting their separate sections. While a Schenkerian approach can provide a better
means for viewing fugal structure, the act of applying Schenker’s theory to fugal textures
proves to be quite challenging. In particular, issues of counterpoint, harmony, imitation
and form, must be examined much more closely than in other tonal works to ensure that
the analysis is consistent. The second half of Chapter 1 concentrates on William
Renwick’s subject-answer paradigms. Renwick’s work offers many valuable insights into
fugal structure, but his subject-answer paradigms revert back to conventional formal
models and ultimately conflict with the Schenkerian view of tonal structure. I propose an
alternative to his paradigms 1 and 2a. My modifications better reflect the prolongational
function of the fugal exposition, and they also highlight the similarities (rather than the
differences) between subjects and their tonal answers. His paradigms are valuable as both
pedagogical and research tools, and further studies using his approach could lead to
important observations about tonal fugues in general. Revising all of Renwick’s
paradigms in the manner demonstrated in Chapter 1 would be the first step toward future
developments in this area.

In response to the analytic problems posed in Chapter 1, Chapter 2 provides a
specific method for analyzing fugues. The approach is valuable pedagogically because it
provides a concrete procedure that one can follow at the initial stages of analysis.
Analyses of two fugues by J.S. Bach demonstrate the effectiveness of the method, and
also confirm the accuracy of my proposed paradigm from Chapter 1. The new paradigm
and my analytical method can be applied to twentieth-century works as well, which I
demonstrate through analysis of select fugues by Shostakovich in Chapters 3 and 4. Very
few generalizations can be made about fugues and their formal design. Because there are
so few Schenkerian studies on fugue, there is presently not enough data to know whether
or not certain predictions can be made about fugues and their tonal structures. The next
step in rectifying the problem of too few Schenkerian publications on fugue is to analyze
more fugues. My analytic method offers a starting point.
Chapter 3 discusses the modal-tonal aspect of Shostakovich’s music. I give a brief
chronology of Russian music theory history in order to provide some context for the
discussion of Dolzhansky’s work, in particular. I summarize the main features of
Dolzhansky’s modal theory, and discuss how many chromatic elements can be explained
through the processes of mixture and tonicization. Next, I provide summaries of
Dolzhansky’s and Mazel’s analyses of Shostakovich’s C-major fugue, op. 87. To the best
of my knowledge, Dolzhansky’s and Mazel’s analyses of Shostakovich’s C-major fugue
have not been translated into English. My summaries make these publications more
accessible to Western readers—a secondary benefit of the study. In the final part of
Chapter 3, I present my own Schenkerian analysis of the fugue, and discuss how
Schenker’s view of tonal structure can compensate for the surface analysis prevalent in
the modal approaches. Important topics emerge in Chapter 3 that serve as potential
starting points for future study: first, the vast body of Russian literature on mode is
fascinating and warrants closer study; and second, Dolzhansky’s 1947 article revealed the
potential for new harmonies, ßI and ßIV, and these harmonies do appear in Shostakovich’s
music. Solving the theoretical problem posed by these two harmonies was not the focus
of the current study, although the need for an expanded theory of mixture to account for
these additional chromatic harmonies is clear. This is a crucial topic that demands further
study.
Finally, Chapter 4 presents two case studies to further illustrate the benefits of a
Schenkerian approach to compositions by Dmitri Shostakovich. The analyses
demonstrate a high degree of surface chromaticism, extended mixture harmonies, and
problematic Urlinien. Especially in the case of the G-minor fugue, I showed how the
modal aspect of Shostakovich’s music affects the tonal structure at both the foreground
and middleground levels. This fugue proved to be the most problematic of the three as it
did not contain a structural dominant. While there was a clear ^1-^5-^1 bass motion, the
fundamental structure ultimately remained static throughout the fugue. The subject’s
construction in the F-major fugue caused ambiguous harmonic progressions, and the C-
major fugue did not contain a single chromatic pitch. However, these fugues did have
clear fundamental structures in spite of their overt or omitted chromatic elements. While
there were slightly unusual features in each of the three fugues presented in Chapters 3
and 4, a Schenkerian approach helps to define precisely what is tonal about

Shostakovich’s music. The value of applying Schenker’s theory to these fugues is that it
highlights both normative and unique traits of Shostakovich’s compositional language.
When non-normative structures arise, as in the G-minor fugue’s static Ursatz, it does not
mean that the work or the theory have failed. Instead, the approach helps to understand
precisely how this composer writes. Further application of Schenkerian techniques to
works by Shostakovich can reveal important details about his works.

189
Bibliography
Agawu, Kofi V. “Stravinsky’s Mass and Stravinsky Analysis.” Music Theory Spectrum
11, no. 2 (1989): 139–63.
Aster, Samuel Sheah. “An Analytical Study of Selected Preludes from Shostakovich’s
24 Preludes for Piano, Op. 34.” Ed.D. diss., Teachers College, Columbia
University, 1975.
Bach, J.S. Das wohltemperierte Klavier I. Revised and annotated by Ferruccio Busoni.
New York: Schirmer, n.d.
Baker, James M. “Schenkerian Analysis and Post-Tonal Music.” In Aspects of

Schenkerian Theory, edited by David Beach, 153–86. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1983.
———. “Voice-Leading in Post-Tonal Music: Suggestions for Extending Schenker’s

Theory.” Music Analysis 9, no. 2 (Jul., 1990): 177–200.
Barcaba, Peter. “Mozarts Fugenschaffen, dargestellt am Beispiel der Quartett-Fuge KV

546 [Mozart’s Fugal Writing as Exemplified by the Quartet Fugue, KV 546].”
Mozart-Kongreß 2 (1992): 678–85.
Bartlett, Rosamund, ed. Shostakovich in Context. New York: Cambridge University

Press, 2000.
Bernstein, David W. “Nineteenth-century harmonic theory: the Austro-German legacy.”

In The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory, edited by Thomas
Christensen, 778–811. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Berry, Wallace. “J.S. Bach’s Fugue in Dƒ Minor (WTC I #8): A Naïve Approach to
Linear Analysis.” In Theory Only 2, no. 10 (1977): 4–7.
———. Structural Functions in Music. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1987.
Braun, Joachim. “The Double Meaning of Jewish Elements in Dimitri Shostakovich’s

Music.” The Musical Quarterly 71, no. 1 (1985): 68–80.
Brown, Malcolm Hamrick, ed. A Shostakovich Casebook. Bloomington: Indiana

University Press, 2004.
Brown, Matthew. “The Diatonic and the Chromatic in Schenker’s ‘Theory of Harmonic
Relations’.” Journal of Music Theory 30, no. 1 (Spring, 1986): 1–33.
Bibliography 190
———. Explaining Tonality: Schenkerian Theory and Beyond. Rochester, NY:

University of Rochester Press, 2005.
———. “Tonality and Form in Debussy’s ‘Prélude à ‘L’après-midi d’un faune.’” Music
Theory Spectrum 15, no. 2 (1993): 127–43.
Brown, Matthew, Douglas Dempster, and Dave Headlam. “The ƒIV (ßV) Hypothesis:
Testing the Limits of Schenker’s Theory of Tonality.” Music Theory Spectrum
19, no. 2 (Autumn, 1997): 155–183.
Brown, Stephen C. “Tracing the Origins of Shostakovich’s Musical Motto.” Intégral

20 (2006): 69–103.
Burke, Richard N. “Film, Narrative, and Shostakovich’s Last Quartet.” The Musical
Quarterly 83, no. 3 (Autumn, 1999): 413–429.
Burkhart, Charles. “Analyzing Fugue by William Renwick.” Music Analysis 16,

no. 2 (Jul., 1997): 270–281.
Callahan, Michael. “Techniques of Keyboard Improvisation in the German Baroque and

Theory Implications for Today’s Pedagogy.” Ph.D. diss., Eastman School of
Music, 2010.
Carpenter, Ellon D. “The Contributions of Taneev, Catoire, Conus, Garbuzov, Mazel,

Tiulin.” In Russian Theoretical Thought in Music. Edited by Gordon D. McQuere,
253–378. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester, Press, 2009. Originally
published Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI Research Press, 1983.
———. “Russian Music Theory: A Conspectus.” In Russian Theoretical Though in

Music, edited by Gordon D. McQuere, 1–82. Rochester, NY: University of
Rochester, Press, 2009. Originally published Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI Research
Press, 1983.
———. “Russian Theorists on Modality in Shostakovich’s Music.” In Shostakovich

Studies, edited by David Fanning, 76–112. New York: Cambridge University
Press, 1995.
———. “The Theory of music in Russia and the Soviet Union, ca. 1650–1950.” Ph.D.
diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1988.
Child, Peter. “Voice-Leading Patterns and Interval Collections in Late Shostakovich:

Symphony No. 15.” Music Analysis 12, no. 1 (Mar., 1993): 71–88.
Bibliography 191
Darby, Joseph Eugene. “Dmitri Shostakovich’s Second, Third, and Fourth Symphonies:
Problems of Context, Analysis, and Interpretation.” PhD diss., The City
University of New York, 1999.
Dolzhansky, Alexander Naumovich. 24 preliudii i fugi D. Shostakovicha [The 24

preludes and fugues of D. Shostakovich]. Moscow, 1963.
———. “O ladovoy osnove sochineniy Shostakovicha” [About the modal basis of the
compositions of Shostakovich]. Sovetskaia muzyka [Soviet music] 4 (1947):
65–74. Reprinted Chertï stilya Shostakovicha [Traits of the style of
Shostakovich], 1962, and in Izabrannïye stat’i [Selected articles], 37–51. 1973.
———. “Otnositel’no fugi [Relative to the fugue].” Sovetskaia muzyka [Soviet music]
4 (1959): 94–102.
Fairclough, Pauline, and David Fanning, eds. The Cambridge Companion to

Shostakovich. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Fairclough, Pauline. A Soviet Credo: Shostakovich’s Fourth Symphony. Burlington, VT:

Ashgate, 2006.
Fanning, David. The Breath of the Symphonist: Shostakovich's Tenth. London: Royal
Musical Association, 1988.
———, ed. “Introduction. Talking about eggs: musicology.” In Shostakovich Studies, 1–

16. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
———. “Shostakovich and Structural Hearing.” In Shostakovich Studies 2, edited by

Pauline Fairclough, 77–99. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
———. “Shostakovich: ‘The Present-Day Master of the C Major Key.’” Acta

Musicologica 73, Fasc. 2 (2001): 101–140.
———. Shostakovich: String Quartet No. 8. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2004.
Fay, Laurel E. Shostakovich: A Life. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Forrest, David. “Prolongation in the Choral Music of Benjamin Britten.” Music Theory
Spectrum 32, no. 1 (Spring, 2010): 1–25.
Franck, Peter. “‘A Fallacious Concept’: Invertible Counterpoint at the Twelfth within the
Ursatz.” Music Theory Spectrum 32, no. 2 (Fall 2010): 121–144.
Bibliography 192
———. “Reaching-Over and Its Interaction with Invertible Counterpoint at the Tenth.”
Theory and Practice 36 (2011): 1–34.
———.“The Role of Invertible Counterpoint within Schenkerian Theory.”

Ph.D. diss., Eastman School of Music, 2007.
Gauldin, Robert. “Analyzing Fugue: A Schenkerian Approach by William Renwick.”

Intégral vol. 9 (1995): 99–115.
———. A Practical Approach to Eighteenth-Century Counterpoint. Long

Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc., 1988.
Gedalge, André. Traité de la Fugue: 1re Partie: De la Fugue d’Ecole. Paris: Enoch et
Co., 1901. Trans. and ed. Ferdinand Davis. Treatise on Fugue. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press, 1965.
Graybill, Roger. “Formal and Expressive Intensification in Shostakovich’s String Quartet

No. 8, Second Movement.” In Engaging Music: Essays in Music Analysis, edited
by Deborah Stein, 191–201. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Greenberg, Beth R. “Bach’s C-Major Fugue (WTC I): A Subjective View.” In Theory
Only 2/3-4 (1976): 13–17.
Harrison, Daniel. “Rhetoric and Fugue: An Analytical Application.” Music Theory

Spectrum 12, no. 1 (1990): 1–42.
Henderson, Lyn. “Shostakovich and the Passacaglia: Old Grounds or New?” The Musical
Times 141, no. 1870 (Spring, 2000): 53–60.
Jonas, Oswald. “Zur realen Antwort in der Fuge bei Bach [On the Real Answer in
Fugues by Bach].” In Bericht über den internationalen musikwissenschaftlichen
Kongress Kassel [Proceedings of the International Musicological Congress,
Kassel], edited by Georg Reichert and Martin Just, 364–66. Kassel, Germany:
Bärenreiter, 1963.
Katz, Adele. Challenge to Musical Tradition: A New Concept of Tonality. New York: Da
Capo Press, 1972. Originally published New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1946.
Kay, Norman. “Shostakovich’s 15th Symphony.” Tempo New Series, no. 100 (1972):
36–40.
Khalatova, Karina. “Polyphonic Innovations in the Piano Music of Dmitri Shostakovich:

Twenty-Four Preludes and Fugues.” D.M.A. diss., University of Cincinnati, 2000.
Bibliography 193
Kopp, Karen. Form und Gehalt der Symphonien des Dmitriј Schostakowitsch. Bonn:
Verlag für Systematische Musikwissenschaft, 1990.
Kosovsky, Robert. The Oster Collection: Papers of Heinrich Schenker: A Finding List.
New York: New York Public Library, 1990.
Kotta, Kerri. “Dmitri Šostakovitši Tonaalstruktuurist.” Ph.D. diss., Estonian Academy of

Music, 2004.
———. “On the Voice-Leading Structure of the First Movement of Shostakovich’s

Eighth Symphony (Exposition and Development).” In A Composition as a
Problem IV/2: proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Music
Theory: Tallinn, April 3–5, 2003, edited by Mart Humal, 44–50. Estonia: Printed
AS Spin Press, 2004.
Krebs, Harald Manfred. “Third Relation and Dominant in Late 18th- and Early 19th-
Century Music.” Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1980.
Kuhn, Judith. Shostakovich in Dialogue: Form, Imagery and Ideas in Quartets 1–7.
Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2010.
Laufer, Edward. “An Approach to Linear Analysis of Some Early Twentieth-Century

Compositions.” In A Composition as a Problem IV/2: proceedings of the Fourth
International Conference on Music Theory: Tallinn, April 3–5, 2003, edited by
Mart Humal, 89–134. Estonia: Printed AS Spin Press, 2004.
Lawson, Peter. “Shostakovich’s Second Symphony.” Tempo New Ser., no. 91 (Winter,
1969): 14–17.
Lee, Tze Fung Alfred. “Tonal Perspectives in the Selected Piano Preludes of
Shostakovich (Op. 34: Nos. 1, 3, 6, 14, and 24): An Analytical Study.” M.A.
Thesis, University of North Texas, 1994.
Larson, Steve. “The Problem of Prolongation in ‘Tonal’ Music: Terminology, Perception,

and Expressive Meaning.” Journal of Music Theory 41, no. 1 (1997): 101–36.
Ledbetter, David. Bach’s Well-Tempered Clavier: the 48 Preludes and Fugues. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2002.
Lerdahl, Fred. “Atonal Prolongational Structure.” Contemporary Music Review 4, no. 1

(1989): 65–87.
———. “Issues in Prolongational Theory: A Response to Larson.” Journal of Music

Theory 41, no. 1 (1997): 141–55.
Bibliography 194
Mann, Alfred. The Study of Fugue. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1987. Originally
printed New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1958.
Maróthy, János. “Harmonic Disharmony. Shostakovich’s Quintet.” Studia Musicologica

Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae T. 19, Fasc. 1/4 (1977): 325–348.
Marvin, William. “Neighbors, False Neighbors, and Interruptions: Analytic Choices in

Generating Outer Forms.” Paper presented at the Fifth International Schenker
Symposium, Mannes College of Music, New York City, March 15–17, 2013.
Marx, Adolf Bernhard. Die Lehre von der musikalischen Komposition, praktisch-
theoretisch. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1837–47.
Mason, Colin. “Form in Shostakovich’s Quartets.” The Musical Times 103, no.
1434 (Aug., 1962): 531–533.
Mazel, Lev Abramovich. “O fuge C-dur Shostakovicha” [About the C-major Fugue of
Shostakovich], Stat’i po teorii i analizu muzuki [Articles on Music Theory and
Analysis] (Moskva, 1982), 244–259.
———.“Zametki o muzykal’nom iazyke Shostakovicha [Notes on

the musical language of Shostakovich].” In Dmitriy Shostakovich, ed. L.V.
Danilevich, D.V. Zhitomirsky and G. Sh. Ordzhonikidze, 303–59. Moscow, 1967.
Reprinted in Etyudi o Shostakoviche (Moscow, 1986: 33–82).
Mazullo, Mark. Shostakovich’s Preludes and Fugues: Contexts, Style, Performance. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2010.
McQuere, Gordon Q., ed. “The Theories of Boleslav Yavorsky.” In Russian Theoretical
Thought in Music, 109–159. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester, Press,
2009. Originally published Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI Research Press, 1983.
Messiaen, Olivier. Technique de mon langage musical. Paris: A. Leduc, 1944. Translated
by John Satterfield, The technique of my musical language. Paris: A. Leduc, 1956.
Mishra, Michael, ed. A Shostakovich Companion. Westport, CT: Praeger

Publishers, 2008.
Morrison, Charles D. “Prolongation in the Final Movement of Bartók’s String Quartet

No. 4.” Music Theory Spectrum 13, no. 2 (1991): 179–96.
O’Loughlin, Niall. “Shostakovich’s String Quartets.” Tempo New Series, no. 87 (Winter,
1968–1969): 9–16. An abbreviated description of the string quartets is published
under the same title in The Musical Times 115, no. 1579 (Sep., 1974): 744–746.
Bibliography 195
Oster, Ernst. “Re: A New Concept of Tonality (?).” Journal of Music Theory 4, no. 1
(1960): 85–98.
Ottaway, Hugh. Shostakovich Symphonies. London: British Broadcasting Corporation,

1978.
Owen, Harold. Modal and Tonal Counterpoint from Josquin to Stravinsky. New York:
Schirmer Books, 1992.
Parks, Richard S. Eighteenth-Century Counterpoint and Tonal Structure. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1984.
Pearsall, Edward R. “Harmonic Progressions and Prolongation in Post-Tonal Music.”

Music Analysis 10, no. 3 (1991): 345–55.
Pike, Lionel. “Analyzing Fugue: A Schenkerian Approach by William Renwick.” Music

& Letters 77, no. 1 (Feb., 1996): 116–19.
Platt, Heather. “Analyzing Fugue: A Schenkerian Approach by William Renwick.”

Notes, Second Series 53, no. 1 (Sep., 1996): 93–94.
Proctor, Gregory and Herbert Lee Riggins. “Levels and the Reordering of Chapters in
Schenker’s ‘Free Composition’.” Music Theory Spectrum 10 (Spring, 1988): 102–
26.
Prout, Ebenezer. Fugal Analysis. London, 1892.
———. Fugue. New York: G. Schirmer, 1891.
Reichardt, Sarah. Composing the Modern Subject: Four String Quartets by Dmitri
Shostakovich. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2008.
Renwick, William. Analyzing Fugue: A Schenkerian Approach. Stuyvesant, New York:

Pendragon Press, 1995.
———. “Hidden Fugal Paths: A Schenkerian View of Handel’s F-Major Fugue (Suite
II).” Music Analysis 14, no. 1 (1995): 49–67.
———. The Langloz Manuscript: Fugal Improvisation Through Figured Bass. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2001.
———. “Structural Patterns in Fugue Subjects and Fugal Expositions.” Music Theory
Spectrum 13, no. 2 (Autumn, 1991): 197–218.
Bibliography 196
———. “Voice-Leading Patterns in the Fugal Expositions of J.S. Bach’s Well-Tempered

Clavier.” Ph.D. diss., City University of New York, 1987.
Riemann, Hugo. Katechismus der Fugen-Komposition: Analyse von J.S. Bachs

‘Wohltemperiertem Klavier’ und ‘Kunst der Fuge.’ Leipzig: Hesse, 1890–4. See
also J.S. Shedlock, trans., Analyses of J.S. Bach’s Wohltemperirtes Clavier.
London: Augener, n.d.
Rifkin, Deborah. “A Theory of Motives for Prokofiev’s Music.” Music Theory Spectrum
26, No. 2 (Fall 2004): 265–290.
Roseberry, Eric. Ideology, Style, Content and Thematic Process in the Symphonies, Cello
Concertos and String Quartets of Shostakovich. New York: Garland Publishing,
1989.
Rothgeb, John. “Thematic Content: A Schenkerian View. ” In Aspects of Schenkerian

Theory, edited by David Beach, 39–60. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983.
Rupprecht, Philip Ernst. “Tonal Stratification and Conflict in the Music of Benjamin
Britten.” Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1993.
———. “Tonal Stratification and Uncertainty in Britten’s Music.” Journal of Music

Theory 40, no. 2 (1996): 311–46.
Sabourin, Carmen. “Analyzing Fugue: A Schenkerian Approach by William Renwick.”

Music Theory Spectrum 20, no. 1 (Spring, 1998): 137–40.
Salzer, Felix. Structural Hearing: Tonal Coherence in Music. New York: Dover
Publications, Inc., 1982.
Santa, Matthew. “Studies in Post-Tonal Diatonicism: A Mod7 Perspective.” Ph.D. diss.,

City University of New York, 1999.
Schachter, Carl. “Bach’s Fugue in Bß Major, Well-Tempered Clavier, Book I, No. XXI.”
In Unfoldings: Essays in Schenkerian Theory and Analysis, edited by Joseph N.
Straus, 239–59. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Originally published
in Music Forum 3 (1973): 239–67.
———. “A Commentary on Schenker’s Free Composition.” In Unfoldings: Essays in

Schenkerian Theory and Analysis, edited by Joseph N. Straus, 184–208. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Originally published in Journal of Music
Theory vol. 25, no. 1 (Spring, 1981): 115–42.
Bibliography 197
———. “Either/Or.” In Unfoldings: Essays in Schenkerian Theory and Analysis, edited

by Joseph N. Straus, 121–33. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Originally published in Schenker Studies, ed. Hedi Siegel. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1990, 165–79.
Schenker, Heinrich. “Brahms: Variationen und Fuge über ein Thema von Händel, op.
24.” In Tonwille, 8/9, 1925, 3–46. Translated by William Renwick. “Brahms’
Variations and Fugue on a Theme by Handel, Op. 24.” In Der Tonwille:
Pamphlets/Quarterly Publications in Witness of the Immutable Laws of Music,
Offered to a New Generation of Youth, volume II, edited by William Drabkin, 77–
114. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
———. J.S. Bach, Chromatische Phantasie und Fuge: kritische Ansgabe. Vienna:
Universal Edition, 1910. Revised edition by Oswald Jonas. Vienna: Universal
Edition, 1969. Translated by Hedi Siegel. J.S. Bach’s Chromatic Fantasy and
Fugue: Critical Edition with Commentary. New York: Longman, Inc., 1984.
———. Neue Musikalische Theorien und Phantasien.

Vol. 1: Harmonielehre. Stuttgart: Cotta, 1906. Trans. Elisabeth Mann Borgese,
ed. Oswald Jonas, Harmony. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954.
Vol. 2, Part I: Kontrapunkt: Erster Halbband: Cantus Firmus und Zweistimmiger
Satz. Vienna and Leipzig: Universal Edition, 1910. Trans. John Rothgeb and
Jürgen Thym, ed. John Rothgeb, Counterpoint. Book I. Ann Arbor: Musicalia
Press, 2001.
Part 2: Kontrapunkt, zweiter Teil, zweiter Halbband: Drei- und
Mehrstimmiger Satz, Übergänge zum freien Satz. Vienna and Leipzig:
Universal-Edition A.G., 1922. Trans. John Rothgeb and Jürgen Thym, ed.
John Rothgeb. Counterpoint. Book II. Ann Arbor: Musicalia Press, 2001.
Vol. 3: Der freie Satz. Vienna: Universal Edition, 1935. Ed. Oswald Jonas.
Vienna: Universal Edition, 1956. Trans. and ed. Ernst Oster. Free Composition.
New York: Longman, 1979.
———. “Das Organische der Fuge: aufgezeigt an der I. C-Moll-Fuge aus

dem Wohltemperierten Klavier von Joh. Seb. Bach.” In Das Meisterwerk in der
Musik: Ein Jahrbuch, Band II. Munich: Drei Masken Verlag, 1926, 55–95.
Trans. Kalib Sylvan, “The Organic Aspect of Fugue,” in “Thirteen Essays from
the Three Yearbooks Das Meisterwerk in Der Musik by Heinrich Schenker: An
Annotated Translation.” Vol. 2. Ph.D. diss., Northwestern University, 1973: 246–
320. Trans. Hedi Siegel, “The Organic Nature of Fugue as Demonstrated in the C
Minor Fugue from Bach’s Well-Tempered Clavier, Book I.” In The Masterwork
in Music: A Yearbook, vol. II (1926), ed. William Drabkin, 31-54. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Bibliography 198
Seo, Yun-Jin. “Three Cycles of 24 Preludes and Fugues by Russian Composers: D.

Shostakovich, R. Shchedrin and S. Slonimsky.” D.M.A. diss., The University of
Texas at Austin, 2003.
Slottow, Stephen. “Analytic Process in Schenkerian Pedagogy: An Introspective

Exercise.” Journal of Schenkerian Studies 1 (2005): 44–65.
Smith, Charles J. “The Functional Extravagance of Chromatic Chords.” Music Theory

Spectrum 8 (Spring, 1986): 94–139.
Straus, Joseph N. “The Problem of Prolongation in Post-Tonal Music.” Journal of Music

Theory 31, no. 1 (Spring, 1987): 1–21.
———. “Response to Larson.” Journal of Music Theory 41, no. 1 (1997): 137–39.
Taneev, Sergei Ivanovich. Podvizhnoi kontrapunkt strogogo pis’ma. Moscow, 1909.

Trans. G. Ackley Bower as Convertible Counterpoint in the Strict Style. Boston:
Bruce Humphries Publishers, 1962. Reprinted Boston: Branden Publishing
Company, 1980.
Taruskin, Richard. “Chernomor to Kashchei: Harmonic Sorcery; or, Stravinsky’s

‘Angle.’” Journal of the American Musicological Society 38, no. 1, (Spring,
1985): 72–142.
———. “Slavs as Subjects and Citizens.” In Music in the Nineteenth Century, volume 3
of The Oxford History of Western Music, 443–478. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2005.
———. Stravinsky and the Russian Traditions: A Biography of Works through Mavra.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996.
Tepping, Susan. “Fugue Process and Tonal Structure in the String Quartets of Haydn,
Mozart, and Beethoven.” Ph.D. diss., Indiana University, 1987.
———. “Sonata and Fugue: The Finale of Mozart’s String Quartet in G, K. 387.”
GAMUT: Journal of the Georgia Association of Music Theorists 3 (1986): 55–77.
Travis, Roy. “Toward a New Concept of Tonality?” Journal of Music Theory 3,

no. 2 (Nov., 1959): 257–284.
Väisälä, Olli. “Concepts of Harmony and Prolongation in Schoenberg’s Op. 19/2.” Music
Theory Spectrum 21, no. 2 (1999): 230–59.
Bibliography 199
———. “Prolongation of Harmonies Related to the Harmonic Series in Early Post-Tonal

Music.” Journal of Music Theory 46, Nos. 1–2 (2002): 207–83.
Van Bruyck, Carl. Technische und ästhetische Analysen des wohltemperirten Klaviers.
2nd edition. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1889.
Wagner, Naphtali. “No Crossing Branches? The Overlapping Technique in Schenkerian

Analysis.” Theory and Practice 20 (1995): 149–175.
Walker, Paul M. "Fugue." In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online,

http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/51678
(accessed August 19, 2013).
———. “Fugue in German Theory from Dressler to Mattheson.” Ph.D. diss., State
University of New York at Buffalo, 1987.
Wells, Elizabeth A. “‘The New Woman’: Lady Macbeth and Sexual Politics in the
Stalinist Era.” Cambridge Opera Journal 13, no.2 (Jul., 2001): 163–189.
Wen, Eric. “Drawing Parallels: Thirds and Sixths in Bach’s Fugues in B-flat minor and G
minor from Book 2 of The Well-Tempered Clavier.” Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Society for Music Theory, New Orleans, LA, November 1–
4, 2012.
Werker, Wilhelm. Studien über die Symmetrie im Bau der Fugen und die motivische
Zusammengehörigkeit der Präludien und Fugen das ‘Wohltemperierten Klaviers’
von Johann Sebastian Bach. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1922.
Yavorsky, Boleslav Leopol’dovich. Stroyeniye muzïkal’noy rechi [The Structure of

Musical Speech]. Moscow, 1908.

Fugue in Context A Schenkerian Approach

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

Fugue in Context A Schenkerian Approach

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fugue in Context: A Schenkerian Approach to

Select Works by J.S. Bach and Dmitri Shostakovich

Sarah Rose Marlowe

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree

Professor William Marvin

Department of Music Theory

the University of Massachusetts Amherst, graduating with a Bachelor of Music degree in

School of Music, University of Rochester in 2006 and served as a teaching assistant

(2006–2010) and graduate instructor (2010–2012) in the Department of Music Theory.

First, I offer my sincere thanks to the members of my dissertation committee. My

me realize my achievements along the way. He sets an extraordinary example of what it

with Patrick McCreless helped me strengthen and clarify my writing—particularly in the

During my senior year at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, I was given

overwhelmingly supportive, and have all contributed to my growth as a teacher and

over conversations with my peers at Eastman as well. I wholeheartedly thank Daphne

vast array of hard-to-find sources.

highlights issues surrounding Renwick’s paradigms, and proposes an alternative

paradigm that better agrees with the tonal structure.

After Chapter 1 demonstrates the problematic aspects related to a Schenkerian

test the process—as well as my proposed alternative paradigm 1 from Chapter 1—

There are additional factors to consider when applying Schenkerian techniques to

of one of the earliest Russian publications on mode in Shostakovich’s music by

Alexander Naumovich Dolzhansky, followed by summaries of two analyses of

my own analysis of the same fugue as a preliminary demonstration of how a Schenkerian

approach can lead to further insights into Shostakovich’s compositional language.

Finally, Chapter 4 provides analyses of Shostakovich’s Fugues in F major and G

Contributors and Funding Sources

This work was supervised by a dissertation committee consisting of Professors William

by a Graduate Award from the Eastman School of Music.

Chapter 1 A Schenkerian Approach to Fugue:

Schenker on “Organicism in Fugue” 2

A Schenkerian Approach to Fugue: Complex Problems for the Analyst 6

The Conflicting Paradigms of Analyzing Fugue 17

Chapter 2 Toward a Pedagogy for Graphing Fugue 50

Schenker’s Sketches of J.S. Bach, Fugue in D minor, WTC I 51

J.S. Bach, Fugue in F major, WTC I 69

J.S. Bach, Fugue in G minor, WTC II 81

Chapter 3 The Interaction between Soviet Modal Theory

Dolzhansky’s Modal Theory and Chromaticism in Shostakovich’s Music 108

Diatonic Modes and Shostakovich’s C-major Fugue, op. 87 122

Chapter 4 Case Study: An Examination of Harmony and Voice Leading

Shostakovich, Fugue in G minor, Op. 87, no. 22 146

Shostakovich, Fugue in F major, Op. 87, no. 23 172

Example Title Page

Example 1.1 Schenker’s implied background of J.S. Bach’s

Example 1.2 Busoni’s formal reading of J.S. Bach’s

Example 1.3 J.S. Bach, Invention no. 1 in C major,

Example 1.5 J.S. Bach, Goldberg Variations (BWV 988)

Example 1.6 Renwick’s Subject-Answer Paradigms 20

Example 1.7 Subject Paradigms in WTC I and WTC II 21

Example 1.8 Renwick’s subject-answer paradigm 1 22

Example 1.9 Renwick’s Sketches of J.S. Bach,

Example 1.10 Renwick’s conflicting readings of Bach’s

Example 1.11 Two possible tonal answer readings

Example 1.12 Franck’s revision of Renwick’s subject-answer

Example 1.13 Franck’s revised paradigm and Bach’s

Example 1.14 Schenker’s analysis of Bach’s

Example 1.15 Franck’s sketch of J.S. Bach, C-minor Fugue,

Example 1.16 Alternative to Renwick’s paradigm 1, three options 34

Example 1.17 Rothgeb’s analysis of J.S. Bach, Sinfonia No. 8

Example 1.19 Sketch of J.S. Bach, Fugue in C major, WTC II

Example 1.20 Renwick’s sketches of J.S. Bach,