Pitch Organisation in Scriabin's 10th Sonata

DOI: 10.1111/musa.
12039
VASILIS KALLIS
PITCH ORGANISATION IN SCRIABIN’S TENTH SONATA
Examining Scriabin’s works from Op. 58 (the first work in which functional
tonality is abandoned) to Op. 69, analysts have related his diverse harmonic
structures to a handful of ‘normative’ sets: the acoustic, the octatonic1,2, the
‘acoustic-octatonic’ (hereafter referred to as a-o) and occasionally the whole-
tone collections.1 The Tenth Sonata, Op. 70 (1913), adds new pitch structures
to the post-tonal palette: the hexatonic scale (set class 6–20) and its well-known
nine-note superset, the ‘hyper-hexatonic scale’ (9–12; Ex. 1). These are inte-
grated into Scriabin’s compositional methods in intriguing ways; and while the
present study examines pitch organisation in the Tenth Sonata, it also indicates
a new approach to Scriabin’s subsequent works.
Scriabin scholarship has made substantial efforts to uncover the composi-
tional principles in his late music. This analytical discourse (which focuses as
much on pitch material as its organisation) takes advantage of several recent
advances in music theory. Anthony Pople (1989) and James Baker (1986) use a
set-theoretic approach, Pople further appealing to semiotic theory to conceptu-
alise pitch organisation in Op. 67 No. 1. More recently, neo-Riemannian theory
uses transformational operations to model Scriabin’s shifts of referential
material; switches between T6-related ‘mystic’ chords offer a paradigm for
Clifton Callender’s extended examination of voice-leading proximity (1998);
‘mystic’ chord transformations enter Richard Cohn’s purview because they are
capable of forming a ‘Generalised Weitzmann Region’ (2012); and Fred
Lerdahl’s (2001) reading of Op. 67 No. 1 also flows along the transformational
stream, yet even though the transformational potential between the octatonic
(8–28), ‘mystic’ (6–34) and whole-tone (6–35) scales is recognised, he models
the music as shifts between various transpositions of the ‘Mysterium scale’, the
fusion of the octatonic and the ‘mystic’. Kenneth Smith (2010a) also applies
transformational theory, although his approach is informed by psychoanalytic
theory in music, his analysis of pitch structure being based on hierarchically
codified ‘drives’.
A number of studies identify ‘cross-scalar interaction’ as an essential feature of
Scriabin’s late works. Of these, most identify the octatonic and/or the acoustic
scales (and specific subsets) as primary scale material in Scriabin’s post-tonal
vocabulary. Wai-Ling Cheong (1993), George Perle (1984), Jay Reise (1983),
Vasilis Kallis (2008) and Manfred Kelkel (1978) agree upon the preponderance
Music Analysis, 34/i (2015) 3

© 2015 The Author.
Music Analysis © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK
and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
4 VASILIS KALLIS
Ex. 1 Scriabin’s sources of pitch material
of the octatonic scale and its pitch universe in Scriabin’s post-tonal music.
Cheong, Kallis and Kelkel add to this the acoustic scale, illuminating its dialogic
relationship with the octatonic. Moreover, scholars also refer to the whole-tone
scale; Reise (1983) puts it on a par with the octatonic, while Kallis and Pople
emphasise its complementary role in the composer’s post-tonal repertory.
Despite – or perhaps because of – its finely grained substance, the Tenth
Sonata has not drawn as much analytical attention as other works written after
1909. Smith’s canvas combines minor third– and major third–based lattices
which parse tonic, subdominant and dominant functions; his method is a sym-
biosis of Ernő Lendvai’s minor third–based axis system and Lerdahl’s tonal pitch
space. The major-third spaces discharge the various ‘drive’ functions. While
Smith’s approach presupposes the a priori diatonic potential, Baker exploits
set-theoretic neutrality to make contextual assumptions about pitch structure.
Nonetheless, Baker’s approach does not reflect Scriabin’s nuances of pitch
centricity, and, while he acknowledges the presence of the hexatonic scale, he
does not realise its full potential. The present article is more akin in scope to
Baker and Smith than to other studies; it takes a different approach in method-
ology, which is suggested by the music. My analysis shows that I find common
ground with scholars who prioritise cross-scalar interaction, but current analyti-
cal models – Callender’s transformational theory, Cohn’s hexatonic theory and
Fortean set theory – cannot be ends in themselves;2 because Scriabin’s music
occupies an interstitial space between the tonal and the atonal, a single inter-
pretative model cannot adequately reflect the intricate realities of the score. My
approach involves inductive reasoning and is responsive to contextual data,
applying theoretical paradigms only when the music itself allows them produc-
tively to model its syntactic processes.
Principles of Pitch Organisation

The work’s six thematic sections are laid out in the introduction and exposition
and are labelled A–F in Ex. 2. Two additional motives, which have global
significance, appear in the introduction: w1 and w2. The pitch material of these
is woven into the melodic and harmonic fabric of the sonata design, and the
analytical observations made here provide the basis for a reading of the entire
© 2015 The Author. Music Analysis, 34/i (2015)

Music Analysis © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
PITCH ORGANISATION IN SCRIABIN’S TENTH SONATA 5
Ex. 2 Primary thematic sections and universal motives w1 and w2

(a) Section A, bars 5–8
(b) Section B, bars 9–12
score.3 Although there is no consensus about Scriabin’s methods of pitch organi-

sation,4 several studies have correlated specific scales with tertiary harmonies
that operate in low registers. These equate harmonic ‘roots’ to the first degree
( 1̂) of a locally referential scale. Table 1 pinpoints the ‘roots’ of each excerpt
Music Analysis, 34/i (2015) © 2015 The Author.

6 VASILIS KALLIS
Ex. 2 Continued
(c) Section C, bars 39–42. In examples 2c, 2d and 2f (and other examples
below), several harmonic structures are marked with an asterisk. These are
incomplete sonorities which, for analytical expedience and wherever context
permits (when the absent pitches are explicitly stated in preceding or subsequent
inversions), are designated as complete by adding the root, the third, the fifth, or
any combination of these accordingly. The harmonic designation in the exam-
ples is cross-referential with Table 4
(d) Section D, bars 58–61
featured in Ex. 2, mapping them onto the scales that putatively function as local
referents. With the exception of bars 5–6, 72 and 89, each chord displays a
perfect fifth (or fourth) in the bass.5 While two pitches alone might not provide
a distinct harmonic quality, a third sustained pitch, in either the low or the
middle register, affords a clearer perspective. In Exs 2c, 2d, 2e and 2g, conven-
tional triads are clearly formed. In Ex. 2f the left-hand triad carries an additional
seventh, but Exs 2a and 2b are harder to analyse.6 Bars 5 and 6 in Ex. 2a carry
a G augmented triad and an E diminished triad with an added C. Both chords

Ex. 2 Continued
(e) Section E, bars 71–74
(f) Section F, bars 86–89
are soon assimilated into a harmonic structure founded on the A major triad.
Ex. 2b features a chromatic line above the sustained fourths, but this again
settles on an A harmonic core. Positing these low constructs as tertiary struc-
tures, we can discern roots of the locally active tertiary harmonies (Table 1).

8 VASILIS KALLIS
Ex. 2 Continued
(g) Universal motives w1 and w2
Asserting that ‘the first [scale] degree of an octatonic referent is often invoked as
the “root” of a low-register triadic structure’, Cheong establishes a deterministic
relationship between local harmony (low-register triads) and associated scale.
She identifies the octatonic scale and the ‘mystic’ chord (a subset of the acoustic
scale) as important structures in several post–Op. 58 works, and the application
of her approach to the harmonies of Ex. 2 yields quite remarkable results.7 With
the sole exception of the downbeat D in the middle layer of bar 88 ( 4̂ in section
F above), none of these six sections features the perfect fourth above a given
pitch centre, making all the scalar structures in question subsets of an eleven-
note ordered superset that consistently precludes the fourth scale degree.8 In
Ex. 2 all structures feature three fixed scale degrees (hereafter referred to as SDs)
– 1̂, 4̂ and 5̂ – and four variable SDs – 2ˆ 2ˆ , 3ˆ 3ˆ , 6ˆ 6ˆ and 7ˆ 7ˆ . We might be
tempted once more to entertain a short-lived idea from Perle (1984), namely
that Scriabin’s post-tonal style approximates serialism, because of the presence
of such sections as B and F, which articulate ten of the twelve pitches of the
aggregate. However, neither contextual evidence nor Scriabin’s acknowledged
compositional practice supports this.
The added variable SDs form conventional structures:
• triads, including triads with ninths;

• seventh chords, including seventh chords with ninths, raised elevenths and
thirteenths;
• sixth chords; and
• chords with altered fifths.
The variable SDs mostly form chromatic pairs in which one note substitutes
for the other, with only one permitted at any given moment. If, taking a cue
from Cheong, we identify ‘root’ with SD 1̂ and allow variable SDs to orientate
us towards a particular referential scale, we can propose the following: Section
A draws from acoustic, octatonic or acoustic-octatonic; Sections B–F

Table 1 Low-register structures in association with referential scales
Section Configuration Pitches Low-register Fixed scale Variable scale Relationship to source scales
structure degrees degrees
A 5, R E, A (not appearing A 1ˆ, 4ˆ , 5ˆ 2ˆ , 2ˆ , 3ˆ , 3ˆ , 7ˆ A a-o subsets

from the onset of
the section)
Music Analysis, 34/i (2015)

B 5, R E, A A 1ˆ, 5ˆ 3ˆ , 6ˆ , 6ˆ , 7ˆ , 7ˆ A a-o/h-h subsets
C 5, R C, F • A, D F, d 1ˆ, 5ˆ 3ˆ , 3ˆ , 6ˆ , 6ˆ , 7ˆ , 7ˆ F a-o/h-h subsets, D a-o/h-h

PITCH ORGANISATION
subsets
IN
D 5, R • R, 5 B, E • A, E E, A 1ˆ, 5ˆ 2ˆ , 2ˆ , 3ˆ , 6ˆ , 6ˆ , 7ˆ , 7ˆ E a-o/h-h subsets, A a-o/h-h

subsets
E R, 5 • 5, 3, R • 3, A, E • G, E, C • A, C, E, 1ˆ, 4ˆ , 5ˆ 2ˆ , 3ˆ , 7ˆ A h-h subset, C h-h subset,

R • 5, 3, R • 5, G, E • G, E, C • C, E E a-o subset, C a-o/h-h
R • R, 5 1ˆ, 4ˆ , 5ˆ 3ˆ , 6ˆ , 7ˆ , 7ˆ subsets, E a-o subset
B, E • E, B
F 5, R • 5, R E, A • G, C • E, A • A, C, A, a, ao 1ˆ, 4ˆ , 5ˆ 2ˆ , 2ˆ , 3ˆ , 3ˆ , 6ˆ , 6ˆ A a-o subsets, C a-o subsets,

D (E), A A a-o/h-h subsets
SCRIABIN’S TENTH SONATA
w1 R, 5 A, E A 1ˆ, 4ˆ , 5ˆ 3ˆ , 7ˆ , 7ˆ A a-o/h-h subsets
w2 5, R C, F F 1ˆ, 5ˆ 2ˆ , 3ˆ , 7ˆ F h-h
9

© 2015 The Author.
10 VASILIS KALLIS
Ex. 3 Schematic interaction between Scriabin’s privileged scales in Opp. 58–69,

acoustic-octatonic
and motive w1 draw additionally from the hyper-hexatonic; motive w2,

by contrast, draws exclusively from the hyper-hexatonic. The process of
correlating root with SD 1̂ engenders uniform pitch material, ordering and
SDs. For the most part, this all chimes with procedures in Scriabin’s earlier
post-tonal music (see Pople 1989, Cheong 1993, Perle 1984, Reise 1983 and
Kallis 2008).
Primary Pitch Material

In consideration of the above, two consistent principles of pitch organisation
emerge: (1) all encountered collections are ordered, and (2) each is organised
around an explicit pitch centre which yields SDs. Analysts have recorded dia-
logue between the acoustic, octatonic1,2 and whole-tone collections in Opp.
58–69,9 and I have proposed that parsimonious voice leading frequently implies
variable SDs (Kallis 2008). The interaction between acoustic and octatonic1,2
scales is regulated by 2ˆ 2ˆ (Ex. 3), whereas the acoustic/whole-tone interaction
appears less restrictive (the whole-tone scale connects efficiently with all twelve
acoustic scales).10 The Tenth Sonata stages a dialectic between the nine-note
composite acoustic-octatonic1,2 scale (9–10) and the hyper-hexatonic (9–12)
(Ex. 4).11 This is regulated by the melodic interaction between two chromatic
dyads formed from the variable sixth and seventh SDs: 7̂ with 6̂ in the hyper-
hexatonic scale, and 7̂ with 6̂ in the acoustic-octatonic scale (see Ex. 4).
The hyper-hexatonic scale (hereafter referred to as h-h) unites two T3-related
hexatonic scales. Although in the Tenth Sonata h-h appears as a true gestalt, its
particular generative procedure is significant to pitch syntax, and because of the
prominent role of the hexatonic scale in these processes, it will be considered
along with its nine-note superset.12 Like the octatonic scale, the hexatonic comes
in two orderings, both alternating semitones with minor thirds; one begins with

Ex. 4 Tenth Sonata: primary pitch material and method of pitch organization. The
arrows above the sixth and seventh scale degrees designate the pitches that play an
essential role in the dialectic between a-o and h-h
the semitone, the other with the minor third. Hexatonic1,3, whose 1̂ harmonic
root excludes conventional root-position chords other than the augmented triad
[0, 4, 8], is rare in Scriabin. But hexatonic3,1 yields a vast array of harmonic
structures with 1̂ roots, including the major triad [0, 4, 7], minor triad [0, 3, 7],
major seventh [0, 4, 7, 11] and minor-major seventh [0, 3, 7, 11]. Owing to an
intense symmetry, by which the hexatonic scale maps onto itself at T4, there are
only four distinct hexatonic sets, which Cohn terms the Eastern (C, E, F, G, A
and B), Southern (D, F, F, A, A and C), Western (D, F, G, A, B and C )
and Northern (E, G, G, B, C and D) systems.13 Adjacent systems in Cohn’s
geographic arrangement are T3 related, together forming h-h, while opposite
systems form chromatic complements. The successive interval array of h–h (the
pattern repeats after three pitches rather than two) dictates three distinct
orderings: h-h2,1,1, h-h1,1,2 and h-h1,2,1. Scriabin chooses the h-h2,1,1 exclusively,
which has two important implications: (1) h-h2,1,1 facilitates interaction with
a-o,14 and (2) with a 1̂ root, the h-h2,1,1 model grounds an array of harmonic
structures unmatched in both versatility and number; it thus contains maximum
harmonic potential.
Unlike the h-h, the a-o is not transpositionally invariant, yet the full
octatonic (8–28) collection it contains allows Scriabin to exploit its aspects of
symmetry.15

12 VASILIS KALLIS
Fig. 1 Tenth Sonata: schematic representation of the interaction between the hyper-
hexatonic2,1,1 and acoustic-octatonic scales via P1-related sets. The figure refers
solely to the interaction between the acoustic-octatonic and the hyper-hexatonic
scales and is specific to pitch substitution, since this mode of interaction is so overly
privileged in the context
11–1
ˆ 2)
(occasional emphasis of 2/ ˆ
Hyper-hexatonic universe Acoustic-octatonic universe Common subsets
minor triad, major 7 (4–19) 7̂ 7̂ minor 7 (4–26) major triad (3–11)

major seventh (4–20) 7̂ 7̂ dominant 7 (4–27) major triad (3–11)
augmented triad, 5 (4–19) 6̂ 6̂ sixth (4–26) major triad (3–11)
major seventh, 11 (5–20) 7̂ 7̂ dominant 7, 11 (5–28) 4–Z29
Interactive Process
In addition to the variable 6ˆ 7ˆ SDs that allow a-o to interact with h-h, two
additional chromatic dyads are in play: 2ˆ 2ˆ , which facilitates the interaction of
octatonic and acoustic scales (a residue from earlier post-tonal works), and 3ˆ 3ˆ ,
which is common to both nine-note scales and thus non-interactive. Each
chromatic cell has a unique function and structural significance, but because the
dyads 6ˆ 6ˆ and 7ˆ 7ˆ create the work’s play of identities between the two
nine-note sets, I refer to 7̂ and 6̂ , and to 7̂ and 6̂ , as the h-h and a-o indicators.
The remaining dyads promote melodic and harmonic interest but remain sub-
ordinate to the interactive variables.
To address scalar interaction at the Tenth Sonata’s surface properly, we
should take note of three contextual factors:
1. The surface emphasises two distinct ways in which scales interact: First,
adjacent structures that share roots invoke ‘voice-leading parsimony’
between intersecting sets via pitch substitution, emphasising P1 relations.16
In the Tenth Sonata, the non-common pitches can be arranged as expres-
sions of the same SD, forming the dyads that control the interactions
between the pitch universes described above (Fig. 1). Because they share
only seven pitches, the a-o and the h-h scales are not P1 related or even
maximally intersecting sets; however, Scriabin’s transformational routines
involve specific subsets which share sufficient pitches to facilitate parsimo-
nious voice leading.17 This process is based on syntactic economy: pitches
that interfere with the interactive process are not featured at the musical
surface. More often than not, the left hand articulates the minimum
number of pitches necessary to establish a harmonic framework, above
which Scriabin creates the interaction among the work’s primary source
scales. It is also possible to apply pitch substitution to maximally intersect-
ing sets of different cardinality, as can be seen from the content of bars 74

and 86 in Ex. 2. Secondly, adjacent pitch structures from different uni-

verses are being juxtaposed without any conduit between them. In such
cases the two adjacent harmonic structures are built on different roots; see,

for example, the harmonic succession: E9 11 → CΔ7 11 at bars 73–74
(Ex. 2e).
2. Of the three fixed SDs ( 1̂, 4̂ and 5̂ ), 1̂ is almost always present, while 4̂
and 5̂ appear less frequently. Ever present as an SD, 3̂ or 3̂ forms a
mode-determining, non-interactive, variable SD.
3. During a-o/ h-h2,1,1 interaction, the union of the two scales (an eleven-note
set, 11–1) forms the chromatic gamut from every given pitch centre. It
should be stressed that this is an ordered scale, whose 1̂ is shared with its two
nine-note subsets. Nevertheless, it has no particular value as a scale per se.
We may hear passages of chromatic writing without necessarily noticing clearly

expressed members of the variable SDs. Bars 9–10, for example, might simply
underpin an A triad or dominant seventh in which the fourth (E–A) is chromati-
cally filled. But this would reduce the underlying harmonic structure to a mere
triad – an overly simplistic interpretation that contradicts the pervasive complex-
ities of Scriabin’s rich harmonies. What appears as a voice-leading ambiguity in
this specific passage might also be interpreted as a product of the overlapping
pitch-organisational processes which characterise the early years of post-tonal
music. Scriabin’s late music is not devoid of what Jim Samson calls ‘enriching ...
ambiguities’ (1988, p. 355). Bars 88–89 at section F display more ambiguous
pitch elaborations. Is the chord that interacts with the A major with flattened sixth
(bar 88) a mere augmented triad on A? Or can we include the fifth (E) in the chord
as well? But E clearly replaces F. So do we hear a move from A augmented to A
major? Or is the E an anticipation of the next chord – an assumption that would
also imply a similar view of the D in the subsequent chord? To discount these
moments as anomalies misses the creative subtlety of the process; they make more
sense as reflections of hybridity, where vestigial elements of tonal processes – more
precisely, voice-leading gestures – coexist creatively with the principles of a newly
defined system. In a tonal environment, the chromatic trichord at bars 88–89, for
example, would comprise both harmonic and non-harmonic notes, as Baker
demonstrates in his reading of bar 3 of Scriabin’s Op. 32 No. 2 (1980, pp. 8–9).18
But in the Tenth Sonata, trichords such as D, E and E, while implicated in
diatonic (pre–Op. 58) voice-leading gestures, form SDs that can be heard as part
of the sustained harmonies. The complicated intersections between the melodic
and harmonic parameters makes such moments problematic, and my model of
hybridity offers an attractive interpretative framework.
Although the evidence presented invites relatively reliable assumptions about
the pitch content of the extracts in Ex. 2 (that they carry various subsets of the
a-o and/or the h-h scales), the complexities of scalar relations strain our analyti-
cal determinations of operative scales. For example, bar 39 articulates an F
major triad and the dyads 6ˆ 6ˆ and 7ˆ 7ˆ , amounting to nothing more than F

14 VASILIS KALLIS
Table 2 Bars 88–89: membership of chords within Scriabin’s common scales
A9(13) A augmented (5) A minor → A minor9(5)

→ A major A diminished
Acoustic-octatonic Yes No Yes Yes*

Acoustic Yes* No No No
Octatonic No No Yes* No
Hyper-hexatonic2,1,1 No Yes Yes Yes
Hexatonic3,1 No Yes* No No
hexatonic and F acoustic or octatonic (Ex. 2c). Conversely, the F ( 4̂ ) in CΔ7

(11) at bar 74 (Ex. 2e) fixes the status of the (C) h-h, precluding the hexatonic.
My interpretation is stretched by more elaborate harmonic progressions such as
those in bars 88–89. Table 2 lists the memberships of the implicated harmonies.
If we consider the smallest supersets to be the strongest local scale configurations
(positioned across the asterisks in Table 2), we can extrapolate the succession:
acoustic → hexatonic → octatonic → a-o. It is doubtful, however, that this is
analytically meaningful in practice (see bar 88, for example). To be sure, the
elaborate pitch successions, especially the variable SDs, are relatively transpar-
ent, isolating specific a-o and h-h subsets. However, even at these moments,
when the cross-scalar interaction involves the a-o and h-h, the two nine-note
entities act as referential scales under the auspices of which certain convention-
alised subset scales might enter the picture. This approach is redundant when
interaction is confined to the acoustic and the octatonic scales (i.e. bars 86–87 in
Ex. 2f); the two scales here are the sole referential entities.
Harmonic Structures
Before exploring the harmonic realms of each of the two nine-note scales, some
general observations should be made. Both a-o and h-h2,1,1 house conventional-
ised harmonic structures. One might find major or minor triads on 1̂ and 3̂ of
the a-o, and 1̂ and 5̂ of the h-h, ‘dominant sevenths’ on 2̂ and 6̂ of the a-o and
major sevenths on 5̂ and 6̂ of the h-h. But despite these rich harmonic pos-
sibilities, Scriabin builds on a single SD: 1̂. Bars 73–74 have the harmonic

succession E9 11 → CΔ7 11 → C7 11 13 (see again Ex. 2e), but neither a-o nor h-h
accommodates this individually. Because of the correlation between local chord
and active scale, these chords are better explained as harmonic structures built

on 1̂ of the scales that govern the extract: E9 11 on 1̂ of E a-o; CΔ7 11 on 1̂ of C h-h;

and C7 11 13 on 1̂ of C a-o. Throughout the Sonata, each harmonic structure is
rooted on 1̂ of an associated gamut.
Scriabin’s harmonic structures form a group of pitch constructs with a cardi-
nal range of between 4 and 7, which establish the play of identities.19 More
specifically, his tertian harmonies include at least one of the two interactive
chromatic dyads, 7ˆ 7ˆ and 6ˆ 6ˆ . For a-o, chord types (Ex. 5a) are restricted to:

Ex. 5 Tenth Sonata: abstract representation of harmonic structures
1. 7̂ but not 6̂ : minor seventh and dominant seventh (with or without the
ninth and/or raised eleventh);
2. 6̂ but not 7̂ : major or minor sixth (with or without the ninth and/or raised
eleventh);
3. use of 7̂ and 6̂ : dominant thirteenth (complete or incomplete); and
4. major/minor triad with added ninth and/or raised eleventh.
For h-h2,1,1, chord types (Ex. 5b) are restricted to:
1. 7̂ but not 6̂ : major seventh/minor-major seventh (with or without ninth

and/or raised eleventh);
2. 6̂ but not 7̂ : augmented triad with added ninth and/or raised eleventh;
and
3. 7̂ and 6̂ : major seventh with raised fifth (with or without the ninth and
raised eleventh).
In summary, the Tenth Sonata privileges: from the h-h scale2,1,1, major, minor or
augmented triads, including the major seventh and optionally two extensions
(ninth and/or raised eleventh); from the a-o scale, major or minor triads with

16 VASILIS KALLIS
Table 3 Tenth Sonata: contextually defined harmonic structures representative of

the acoustic-octatonic and hyper-hexatonic universes in the introduction and expo-
sition (in correspondence with Ex. 2)
Acoustic-octatonic Hyper-hexatonic
Diminished triad (3–10)* Major triad (3–11)

Major triad (3–11) Minor triad (3–11)
Minor triad (3–11) Augmented triad (3–12)*
Major triad with 9 (4–18)* Augmented triad with perfect fifth (4–19)*
Major triad with 9 (4–22)* Minor triad with major 7 (4–19)*
Minor seventh (4–26)* Major seventh with 5 (4–19)*
Sixth (4–26)* Major seventh (4–20)*
Dominant seventh (4–27)* Major seventh with 11 (5–20)*
Minor ninth with 5 (5–26)* Major seventh with 5 and 5 (5–21)*
Dominant seventh with 11 (5–28)* Major ninth (5–27)*
Dominant seventh with 9 (5–31)
Dominant ninth (5–34)*
Dominant seventh with 11, 13 (6–Z23)
Major triad with 9, 11, 13 (6–33)
Dominant ninth with 11 (6–34)*
Dominant seventh with 9, 11, 13 (7–31)
added ninth and/or raised eleventh, minor or major sixth chords that may
include ninths and/or raised elevenths, the minor seventh chord (with the same
extensions) and dominant-type harmonies (with extensions).
Additional formations containing unconventional combinations may arise
through dense contrapuntal activity. These include the augmented triad with a
(perfect) fifth in the bass at bars 39, 41, 88, 92 and 96; the E diminished triad at
bar 6, which is obscured by C; or dominant-type chords, which include the
lowered thirteenth (i.e. bar 96). Through these formations, Scriabin brings the
h-h and a-o scales into dialogue. Reviewing the introduction and exposition
(Table 3; see again Ex. 2), it appears that, while most sets are subsets of both
scales (marked with an asterisk), they convey a single contextually prompted
identity. In set-theoretic terms, 4–20 belongs to both a-o and h-h; but in Scriabin’s
ordered structures the major seventh chord is exclusive to h-h, being impossible to
construct on 1̂ in a-o. By the same token, another seven structures in the
right-hand column of Table 3, though subsets of the a-o, are registered as
emblematic features of the h-h. But the a-o presents a rather different case. Of the
ten structures which are also subsets of the h-h, eight are found on 1̂: the
diminished triad, the major triad with added ninth, the minor seventh, the
dominant seventh, the minor ninth with lowered fifth, the dominant seventh with
raised eleventh, the dominant ninth and the dominant ninth with raised eleventh.
As far as the major triad with added ninth is concerned, its consistent pairing with
the major triad with 9̂ fixes it in a-o. Regarding the other seven structures, in late
nineteenth- and early twentieth-century pitch-centric repertories that make heavy

use of non-diatonic scales, the diminished triad and chords that include the lower
seventh above their root are generally considered tokens of octatonic and acoustic
activity. Scriabin’s works between Op. 58 and Op. 69 exemplify this.
As scales, both a-o and h-h violate Dmitri Tymoczko’s ‘no consecutive semi-
tone’ (NCS) principle.20 Chromatic [0, 1, 2] trichords are nested by a-o on 1̂, 2̂
and 2̂ , the h-h on 2̂ , 4̂ and 7̂ . However, Scriabin avoids reference to subsets
that include the [0, 1, 2] trichord. More specifically, the expressions of [0, 1, 2]
are never ‘harmonic tones’ in a single harmony:
1. In [0, 1, 2] on 1̂ and 2̂ : 2̂ and 2̂ conform to the ‘either/or’ principle, featur-
ing lowered ninth and ninth in dominant-type harmonic formations.21
2. In [0, 1, 2] on 2̂ : 3̂ and 3̂ conform to the ‘either/or’ principle and determine
the minor and major quality of the chords.
3. In [0, 1, 2] on 7̂ : 7̂ and 7̂ conform to the ‘either/or’ principle, featuring as
lower seventh and seventh in the dominant seventh and major seventh
chords (with or without extensions) respectively (note that 7̂ is not exclu-
sive to the a-o scale, which it represents during the interaction process; this
will be discussed further below).
4. [0, 1, 2] on 4̂ presents a special case because its three elements constitute
distinct SDs in the h-h. Theoretically, all three can be included as ‘harmonic
tones’ in a single sonority, but Scriabin avoids verticalising more than two
(and these are registrally separated).
This may answer the question of the maximum size of harmonic structures. With
the NCS constraint, Scriabin operates near the theoretical limits. In the context of
the Tenth Sonata, the a-o and h-h scales actually share four pitches (a subset in
line with the NCS constraint).22 Thus the plausible number of ‘harmonic tones’
available without violating the NCS constraint is seven: that is, four shared pitches
plus one member from each of the chromatic dyads: 3ˆ 3ˆ , 6ˆ 6ˆ and 7ˆ 7ˆ . This
approach is maintained even without the mediating variable SDs.
Pitch Material and Thematic Structure

The Tenth Sonata is cast in a sonata form whose realisation is carried through
the dialogue between large thematic units. There are six distinct thematic sec-
tions, two in the introduction and four in the exposition. Each has its own
characteristic melodic design, reiterating and elaborating the six ‘universal’
motives: Baker’s motives x, y, z1 and z2 from section A, and motives w1 and w2,
which first appear at bars 32–38 (Ex. 6).23 Tables 4a–4e (adapted from Baker)
set structure in relation to pitch material and ‘tonal’ and transpositional opera-
tions.24 Column 3 shows active scales, indicating in italics the pitches that
represent the variable SDs. These latter can clarify ambiguous situations
such as the ten-note aggregate at bars 21–22, which does not stand for an
actual scale but stages the interaction between the a-o and h-h scales on A

18 VASILIS KALLIS
Ex. 6 Tenth Sonata: motives
via the variable 6̂ and 7̂ . The implied harmonic structures are designated
ordered subsets in column 6 of Table 4a and column 7 of Tables 4b–4e,
mapping to their associated scales. Table 4 also designates variable SDs (column
7 in Table 4a, column 8 in Tables 4b–4e), but only those that interact with their
counterparts. The tables cross-reference the examples below. But how do we
conceptualise the pitch content of 378 bars replete with interlaced scales? Con-
textual evidence suggests the following guidelines, with the analyst’s intuition
filling in the gaps:25
1. acknowledge tertian structures at low registers;

2. consider intra-opus data;
3. consider other contextual cues that may corroborate or override the above;
4. if other data is insufficient, consider the order that excludes the fourth SD;
and
5. if other data is insufficient, consider the order that complies with the
proposed interactive scheme.
Sections A and B of the introduction establish the pitch material and method
of pitch organisation from the outset. All the distinct structures of section A are
subsumed into one or another a-o subset on A (the pitch centre governing the
introduction): bars 1–4 into 7–28 and their repetition (bars 5–8) into 8–12
(Ex. 7; see again Table 4a). Remarkably, bars 1–2 (and consequently bars 5–6)
directly juxtapose the augmented (3–12) and diminished (3–10) triads, whose
quality is associated with h-h2,1,1 and the a-o. There is also the hyper-

Table 4a Sections A and B, based on Baker, The Music of Alexander Scriabin, ex. 118, pp. 203–5. (To make the interaction
between the implicated scales and scalar structures readily apparent, Table 4 does not include non-scalar tones. Pitches in
parentheses are not actually present in the score at the given moment but, provided they are articulated in adjacent inversions,
are considered for analytical purposes.)
Segment Bars Pitch content Pitch centre Tn interval Subsets Chromatic

(pitch centres) dyads

A1a 1–2 Ac/Oct: (A)–B–B–D–E–G (A) 0 +, o, 4–19 2ˆ 2ˆ
A1b 3–4 Ac/Oct: A–B–B–C–D–E–G A 0 M(9), M(9), 7(11) 2ˆ 2ˆ
A2a 5–6 Ac/Oct: (A)–B–B–C–D–E–G (A) 0 +, o, 4–19 2ˆ 2ˆ
A2b 7–8 Ac/Oct: A–B–B–C–D–E–G A 0 M(9), M(9), 9(11) 2ˆ 2ˆ
PITCH ORGANISATION
B1a 9–10 A-o/h-h: A–C–E–E–F–G–G A 0 6ˆ 6ˆ , 7ˆ 7ˆ

IN
B1b 11–12 A-o/h-h: A–B–B–C–E–F–F–G–G A 0 2ˆ 2ˆ , 6ˆ 6ˆ , 7ˆ 7ˆ

B2a 13–14 A-o/h-h: (D)–E–F–F–G–A–B–B–B–C (D) 0 2ˆ 2ˆ , 3ˆ 3ˆ , 6ˆ 6ˆ
B2b 15–16 A-o/h-h: D–E–F–G–A–B–B–C–D D 6 2ˆ 2ˆ , 6ˆ 6ˆ , 7ˆ 7ˆ
B3b 17–18 A-o/h-h: A– B–B–C–E–F–F–G–G A 6 2ˆ 2ˆ , 6ˆ 6ˆ , 7ˆ 7ˆ
B3b 19–20 A-o/h-h: A–B–B–C–E–F–F–G–G A 0 2ˆ 2ˆ , 6ˆ 6ˆ , 7ˆ 7ˆ
B3c 21–22 A-o/h-h: A–B–C–C–D–E–E–F–G–G A 0 6ˆ 6ˆ , 7ˆ 7ˆ
B3c 23–24 A-o/h-h: A–B–C–C–D–E–E–F–G–G A 0 3ˆ 3ˆ , 6ˆ 6ˆ , 7ˆ 7ˆ
B3cd 25 A-o/h-h: A–B–C–E–F–F–G–G A 0 6ˆ 6ˆ , 7ˆ 7ˆ
B3cd 26 A-o/h-h: A–C–E–F–F–G A 0 6ˆ 6ˆ
B3cd 27–28 A-o: D–D–E–F–A–C D 5

A3a 29–30 Ac/Oct.: (A)–B–B–D–E–G (A) 0 +, o, 4–19 2ˆ 2ˆ
A3b 31–32 Ac/Oct.: A–B–B–C–D–E–G A 0 M(9), M(9), 9(11) 2ˆ 2ˆ
The superscript ‘d’ indicates that the melodic unit is a derivative of the original.
19

© 2015 The Author.
20
Table 4b Section C, based on Baker, The Music of Alexander Scriabin, ex. 118, pp. 203–5. Table 4b introduces an additional
column which displays the transposition route of the section’s primary thematic unit
Segment Bars Pitch content Pitch Tn Tn Subsets Chromatic

centre (pitch (thematic dyads
© 2015 The Author.

centres) unit)
w1 32–36 a-o/h-h: A–C–D–E–G–G A – Δ

7 ( 11) 7 ( 11) 7ˆ 7ˆ
w2 37–38 h-h: F–A–C–E–G F 9
C1a 39 a-o/h-h: F–A–C–D–D–E–E F 0 0 7 Δ 7 , 6th/+(5) 7ˆ 7ˆ , 6ˆ 6ˆ
C1b 40 a-o/h-h: D–F–A–C–C D 8 m7 m Δ 7 7ˆ 7ˆ
C1a 41 a-o/h-h: F–A–C–D–D–E–E F 4 0 7 Δ 7 , 6th/+(5) 7ˆ 7ˆ , 6ˆ 6ˆ

C1bd 42 a-o/h-h: D–F–A–C–C D 8 m7 m Δ 7 7ˆ 7ˆ
C1a 43 a-o/h-h : D–F–A–B–B–B–C D 0 8 7 Δ 7 , 6th/+(5) 7ˆ 7ˆ , 6ˆ 6ˆ
C1a 44 a-o/h-h: A–C–E–F–F–G–G A 8 m7 m Δ 7, m6th/m(13) 7ˆ 7ˆ , 6ˆ 6ˆ
C1bd 45 a-o/h-h: F–A–C–E–E F 8 4 m7 m Δ 7 7ˆ 7ˆ
VASILIS KALLIS
C1bd 46 a-o/h-h: D–F–A–C–C D 8 m7 m Δ 7 7ˆ 7ˆ

C1bd 47 a-o/h-h: F–A–C–E–E F 4 0 m7 m Δ 7 7ˆ 7ˆ
C1bd 48 a-o/h-h: D–F–F–A–C–C D 8 7 Δ7 7ˆ 7ˆ
C1c 49–50 a-o/h-h: D–E–F–G–A–C–C D 0 8 m7 m Δ 7 7ˆ 7ˆ
C2a 51 a-o/h-h: F–A–C–D–D–E–E F 4 4 7 Δ 7 , 6th, + 7ˆ 7ˆ , 6ˆ 6ˆ
C2b 52 a-o/h-h: D–F–A–C–C D 8 Δ
m7 m 7 7ˆ 7ˆ
C2w2d 53–54 a-o/h-h: E–F–F–G–B–D E 3 11 Δ , M9, M(9)
7 2ˆ 2ˆ
C2a 55 a-o/h-h: E–G–B–C–C–D–D E 0 0 7 Δ 7 , 6th/+(5) 7ˆ 7ˆ , 6ˆ 6ˆ
C2b 56 a-o/h-h: C–E–G–B–B C 8 Δ
m7 m 7 7ˆ 7ˆ

Table 4c Section D, based on Baker, The Music of Alexander Scriabin, ex. 118, pp. 203–5. Table 4c introduces an additional

centre (pitch centres) (thematic unit) dyads

Dw2d 57–58 h-h: E–G–B–D E – Δ
7
D1b 59 a-o: E–F–F–G–B E 0 M(9)/M(9) 2ˆ 2ˆ
D1a 59–60 a-o/h-h: E–G–B–B–C–D–D E 0 Δ th Δ
7 7, 6 7 ( 5, 5) 7ˆ 7ˆ , 6ˆ 6ˆ
PITCH ORGANISATION
D1b 60–61 a-o: A–B–B–C–E A 6 M(9)/M(9) 2ˆ 2ˆ

IN
D2a 61–62 a-o/h-h: A–C–E–F–F–G–G A 0 6 7 Δ 7 , 6th Δ 7 ( 5, 5) 7ˆ 7ˆ , 6ˆ 6ˆ

D2b 62–63 a-o: E–F–F–G–B E 6 M(9)/M(9) 2ˆ 2ˆ
D3a 63–64 a-o/h-h: E–G–B–B–C–D–D E 0 6 7 Δ 7 , 6th Δ 7 ( 5, 5) 7ˆ 7ˆ , 6ˆ 6ˆ
D3b 64–65 a-o: A–B–B–C–E A 6 M(9)/M(9) 2ˆ 2ˆ
D4a 65 h-h: A–C–E–G A 0 6 Δ
7
66 a-o: E–F–G–G–A–B–D E 6 7(11), m9(11) 3ˆ 3ˆ
D5a 67 h-h: A–C–E–G A 6 0 Δ
7
68 a-o: E–F–G–G–A–B–D E 6 7(11), m9(11) 3ˆ 3ˆ
d Δ
Dw2 69 h-h: A–C–E–G A 6 0 7
Dw2d 70 h-h: A–C–E–G A 0 0 Δ
21

© 2015 The Author.
22
Table 4d Section E, based on Baker, The Music of Alexander Scriabin, ex. 118, pp. 203–5. Table 4d introduces an additional
© 2015 The Author.

centre (pitch centres) (thematic unit) dyads
E1a 71 h-h: A–C–E–G A – – Δ

7
72 h-h: C–E–G–B D 4 Δ
7
E1b 73 a-o: E–F–G–A–B–D E 3 9(11)
74–75 ao/h-h: C–E–F–G–A–B–B C 8 Δ
7 ( 11) 7 ( 11, 13) 7ˆ 7ˆ

E1c 75 a-o: E–F–G–A–B–C E 3 M(9, 11, 13)
76 a-o: E–G–A–B–D E 0 7(11)
E2a 76 h-h: C–E–G–B C 9 3 Δ
7
76 h-h: E–G–B–D E 4 Δ
7
VASILIS KALLIS
E2b 77 a-o: G–A–B–C–D–F G 3 9(11)

78–79 a-o/h-h: E–G–A–B–C–D–D E 8 Δ
7 ( 11) 7 ( 11, 13) 7ˆ 7ˆ
E2c 79 a-o: E–G–A–B–C–D E 0 7(11, 13)
80 a-o: A–B–C–E–G A 6 7(9)
E3a 80 h-h: C–E–G–B C 3 0 Δ
7
80 h-h: E–G–B–D E 4 Δ
7
E3b 81 a-o: G–A–B–C–D–F G 3 9(11)
82–83 a-o-h-h: E–G–A–B–C–D–D E 8 Δ
7 ( 11) 7 ( 11, 13) 7ˆ 7ˆ

Table 4e Section F, based on Baker, The Music of Alexander Scriabin, ex. 118, pp. 203–5. Table 4e introduces an additional
Seg. Bars Pitch content Pitch Tn Tn Subsets Chromatic

centre (pitch (thematic dyads
centres) unit)
F1a 84 a-o: E–G–B–C–D E – 7 (13)

85 a-o: C–D–E–E–F–G–B C 9 9(11), m7(11) 3ˆ 3ˆ
F1ad 86 a-o: A–B–B–C–D–E–F–G A 9 9(11), 7(9, 11,13) 2ˆ 2ˆ
87 a-o: A–B–C–D–E–G A 0 9(11)
87 a-o: C–D–D–E–G–B C 3 9/7(9) 2ˆ 2ˆ
F1b 88–89 a-o/h-h: A–B–C–C–D–E–F–F–G A 9 9, 6th/+(5), M, m, o, m9(5) 3ˆ 3ˆ , 6ˆ 6ˆ

F2ad 90 a-o/h-h: A–B–C–D–E–F–G A 0 13(11)
911 a-o: (A)–B–B–C–D–G A 0 9(11)/7(9, 11) 2ˆ 2ˆ
912,3 a-o: C–D–D–E–G–B C 3 9/7(9) 2ˆ 2ˆ
F2b 92–93 a-o/h-h: A–B–C–C–D–E–F–F–G A 9 9, 6th/+(5), M, m, o, m9(5) 3ˆ 3ˆ , 6ˆ 6ˆ
PITCH ORGANISATION
F3bd 94 a-o/h-h: A–B–C–C–E–E–F–G A 0 3ˆ 3ˆ

IN
95 a-o/h-h: C–D–E–E–G–G–A–B–B C 3 3ˆ 3ˆ , 7ˆ 7ˆ

d 3ˆ 3ˆ , 7ˆ 7ˆ , 6ˆ 6ˆ
F3b 96–97 a-o/h-h: E–F–G–G–A–B–C–C–D–D E 3
F4ad 98 a-o: E–F–G–A–B–C–D E 0 13(11)
99 a-o/h-h: (E)–F–F–G–A–D E 0 9(11)/7(9, 11) 2ˆ 2ˆ
Eb 100 a-o: G–A–B–C–D–F G 4 9(11)
Δ
101–102 a-o/h-h: E–G–A–B–C–D–D E 8 7 ( 11) 7 ( 11, 13) 7ˆ 7ˆ
F5a 103 a-o: E–G–B–C–D E 0 7(13)
104 a-o: C–D–E–E–F–G–B C 9 9(11), m7(11) 3ˆ 3ˆ
d 2ˆ 2ˆ
F5a 105 a-o: A–B–B–C–D–E–F–G A 9 9(11), 7(9, 11,13)
106 a-o: A–B–C–D–E–G A 0 9(11)
106 a-o: C–D–D–E–G–B C 3 9/7(9) 2ˆ 2ˆ

F5b 107–108 a-o/h-h: A–B–C–C–D–E–F–F–G A 9 9,6th/+(5),M, m, o, m9(5) 3ˆ 3ˆ , 6ˆ 6ˆ
F6ad 109–110 a-o: A–B–B–C–D–E–F–G A 0 13(11)/7(9) 2ˆ 2ˆ
F6bd 111 a-o/h-h: A–B–C–C–D–E–F–G–G A 0 3ˆ 3ˆ , 6ˆ 6ˆ
112 a-o/h-h: C–D–E–G–B–B C 3 mΔ 7 7 3ˆ 3ˆ , 7ˆ 7ˆ
F7bd 113 a-o/h-h: A–B–C–C–D–E–F–G A 9 3ˆ 3ˆ
114 a-o/h-h: C–D–E–G–B–B C 3 3ˆ 3ˆ , 7ˆ 7ˆ
23

© 2015 The Author.
115 a-o/h-h: C–D–F–G–A–A–B C 0 7ˆ 7ˆ
24 VASILIS KALLIS
Ex. 7 Tenth Sonata: section A, bars 1–8, segmentation and pitch structure
hexatonically inclined 4–19: the structure that governs motive x, which unfolds
simultaneously with the two trichords. Although bars 1–2 do not by themselves
suggest A, a full assessment of section A firmly establishes the latter as the
governing pitch centre. Despite the E pedal, it is the A major triad that
underpins bars 3–4 and 7–8.
Section B begins the exploitation of chromaticism through either the projection
of the four chromatic dyads (especially 7ˆ 7ˆ and 6ˆ 6ˆ ) or the linear unfolding of
the variable SDs (Ex. 8 and Table 4a). In fact, the global linear unfolding (there
are two chromatic lines running concurrently throughout) makes B the most
chromatically intense of all the six sections. Contextually, A a-o and A h-h2,1,1 are
brought to the fore at bars 9–12. Not so in bars 13–16, however, which carry the
T6 repetition only of the two upper lines of the initial four-bar unit. By analogy, the
transposed melodic lines emphasise D, while the A–E pedal prioritises A. But, all
factors considered (especially that the oscillatory D and C at bars 15–16 would
read as 4̂ and 3̂ in an A interpretation), D becomes central.

Ex. 8 Tenth Sonata: section B, bars 9–16, segmentation and pitch structure
The harmonic structure of bar 28, the last event of section B, comprises the
pitches E, A, F, C and D. Two alternate readings of this bar are possible: either
(1) A minor with added sixth and eleventh or (2) a D ninth in third inversion.
Both, however, are at odds with the work’s broader pitch organisation. Option 1
includes a perfect fourth above the root ( 4̂), and option 2 forms a T5 relationship
with the preceding A-rooted chords (T5 is inconsistent with Scriabin’s trans-
positional processes in the Sonata; see again Table 4). Nevertheless, the T5
relationship notwithstanding, the D ninth chord has a direct bearing on the

26 VASILIS KALLIS
Ex. 9a Section C (C1), bars 39–50: segmentation and pitch structure
harmonic environment of the work. Furthermore, the chord terminates the

grouping structure of bars 17–28. An unfolding descending chromatic line in the
upper voice outweighs the harmonic imperative, rendering the presence of the D
dominant ninth almost inevitable.26
Excepting the interpolation of w2 at bars 53–54 (which announces section C
at bars 37–38), section C exploits the variable 7̂ and 6̂ (Ex. 9 and Table 4b).
The thematic transpositions in section C naturally divide it into two subsections:
C1 (bars 39–50), and C2 (51–56). C1 comprises several statements of the
section’s basic thematic unit (from bars 39–40), which may be further divided
into two one-bar cells (a and b in Table 4b). The sixth column of Table 4b

Ex. 9b Section C (C2), bars 51–56: segmentation and pitch structure
shows the basic thematic unit repeating itself (T0) at bars 41–42, and shows T8
at bars 43–44. This unit then gives way to the continuation phrase at bars 45–50.
The latter maintains the three statements of the basic thematic unit, but cell b of
T8 (bar 50) is modified immediately before the advent of C2. The latter is also
adjusted: it is interrupted, after the first statement of the basic unit, by w2 (bars
53–54), and its continuation at bars 55–56 deviates from the transposition
structure of C1 (Ex. 9b). Section C generates the hexatonic scale via specific
transformations and combinations of triads that constitute the harmonic core of
the articulated four-member chords (Ex. 10). More specifically, C1 carries the
succession F → d → D → a (bars 39–44) and f → d → f → D → d (bars
45–50), combining five of the six triads of Cohn’s Eastern system to yield F
hexatonic3,1. C2 features the succession F → d and E → c. Both progressions –
in which capital letters denote major, lowercase letters minor – involve hexatonic
poles of the Eastern and Northern systems, yielding F hexatonic3,1 in the first
instance and E hexatonic3,1 in the second.27
Section D, the sonata’s transition, unfolds in ways similar to section B,
juxtaposing h-h2,1,1 and a-o structures as well as acoustic and octatonic ones. The
first appearance of the transition’s primary thematic idea (bars 59–61), for

example, features the interaction between EΔ7/E7, E6/EΔ7 5/ 5, and A(9)/A(9).
There is also the juxtaposition of AΔ7 and A7, the two chords that connect the
primary idea with its T6 transposition at bars 61–62 (Ex. 11 and Table 4c). We
observe three operating chromatic dyads: 7ˆ 7ˆ and 6ˆ 6ˆ , and 2ˆ 2ˆ operating
exclusively within the constraints of the a-o scale.
The juxtaposition of h-h2,1,1 and a-o structures characterises section E as well,
though in a new way (Ex. 12 and Table 4d).28 We find the interaction between

28 VASILIS KALLIS
Ex. 10 Section C, bars 39–56: generation of hexatonic scale

the two nine-note scales via pitch substitution (see bar 74 where C7 11 13 (6–Z23)

replaces CΔ7 11 (5–20) by way of 7ˆ 7ˆ ), as well as unmediated juxtaposition. The
two major seventh chords (whose union generates none other than the hexatonic
scale itself) that open each statement of the section’s primary thematic idea at
bars 71, 76 and 80 are replaced every time by a dominant ninth with raised
eleventh; all three chords are built on a different root. Also, the succession

E(9 11 13) → E(7 11) at bars 75–76 involves no implication of the variable SDs.
With the exception of the h-h2,1,1/a-o interaction via the 7ˆ 7ˆ chromatic dyad, all
juxtapositions of distinct structures in section E – with or without a change of
root – are unmediated.
On the other hand, section F emphasises the interaction between a-o’s two
elements. Each statement of a characterises the acoustic and octatonic universes.
We find extended dominant-type and minor harmonies that mediate the acoustic
and octatonic, either via simple juxtaposition or by pitch substitution implicating
the 2ˆ 2ˆ chromatic dyad (Ex. 13 and Table 4e). The dialogue between h-h2,1,1
and a-o (via 7ˆ 7ˆ and 6ˆ 6ˆ ) is limited to fragments of b. The first bar of b further
contains one of the very rare ‘non-harmonic’ pitches – D – at bars 88, 92, 94,
107, 111 and 113 (all the ‘non-harmonic’ pitches are circled in Ex. 13). Some
statements of the segments governed by b (F3bd, F6bd and F7bd) are more
contrapuntally intense where, as in section B, the amalgamation of the variable
SDs complicates harmonic recognition. Thus the corresponding moment in
Table 4 remains blank. Regarding macro-structure, section F’s pitch centres
resonate at higher levels: all harmonic structures of the section are built on pitch
centres whose union yields a familiar octatonic emblem: the diminished triad,
A–C–E.29
Large-Scale Organisation
Pople’s analysis of Op. 67 No. 1 demonstrates that foreground normative sets
can penetrate deeper structural levels.30 My own discussion indicates that this
pertains to the present score. Three aspects to consider are (1) the local pitch
centres within each section, (2) global pitch centres and (3) the transpositional

Ex. 11 Tenth Sonata, section D, bars 59–70: segmentation and pitch structure
operations between exposition and recapitulation (a crucial aspect of

Formenlehre). Fig. 2 plots the pitch centres against the work’s thematic structure.
The introduction (sections A and B) and transition (section D) are governed by
tritone-related pairs: A/D and E/A. Sections C, E and F are governed by more
recognisable structures: the hexatonic pentachord (F–D–A–E–C: set 5–21) in
section C, the octatonic hexachord (A, C–E–C–E–G: 6–Z49) in section E and
4–27 (E–C–A–G) in section F. The 6–Z49 is generated by the combination
of three subsets: 5–16, 5–32 and 4–17. Similarly, the 4–27 of section F comp-
rises 3–10 and the pitches G and E. We thus observe a systematic correlation
between section and pitch content, which continues through the development,

30 VASILIS KALLIS
Ex. 12 Tenth Sonata, section E, bars 71–83: segmentation and pitch structure

Ex. 13 Tenth Sonata, section F, bars 84–93 (sub-sections F1 and F2): segmentation
and pitch structure

32 VASILIS KALLIS
Fig. 2 Chart of pitch centricities

Table 5 Development: structure
Segment Bars T level Tn
A 116–123 F –
B 124–127 F 0
D 128–131 B 4
A 132–139 B 0
B 140–143 B 0
D 144–147 D 4
D 148–151 D → A 0, 6
D 152–153 D 6
A 154–157 A 6
C 158–175 A, E, A, E, C, A, E, 0, 8, 4, 8, 8, 8, 8, 4, 8,
A, E, A, E, G, E 4, 8, 3, 8
176–183 G, D, F, D, F, D 3, 8, 3, 8, 4, 8
A 184–187 B 9
188–191 F 8
B 192–195 A 2
196–199 D 6
200–203 A 6
204–207 C 4
208–211 E 3
E 212–215 E, B, D, B, E 0, 8, 3, 9, 4
216–219 F, D, B 3, 8, 9
220–221 B, F 0, 6
recapitulation and coda (Fig. 2 and Tables 5, 6 and 7). The development opens
with a large-scale unfolding of pitch centres F, B and D (an expansion of the
augmented triad whose very pitches open the work) at bars 116–149. Bars
150–154, now well into the development, resonate A and D as a partial echo of
what, in the introduction, had followed section A. This is an index of structural
thinking. Paralleling the nesting of the augmented triad within A-centred har-
monic structures (which instigates a correlation between this augmented triad
and A centricity) at the opening stages of the work, the macroscopic unfolding
of F, B and D at bars 116–149 recalls by association the A–D tritone and A
centricity. At bars 158–183 Scriabin reintroduces section C, promoting the
middleground articulation of two hexatonic subsets: a pentachord from Cohn’s
Northern system at bars 158–175 (A, E, C, G, E) and a tetrachord from his
Southern system at bars 176–183 (F, D, F, C). In contrast to the exposition,
and in keeping with the feeling of unrest and forward impetus associated with the
development section, two hexatonic collections are juxtaposed that complement
each other in chromatic space. The pitch centres in the remainder of the
development (bars 192ff) take an octatonic turn. Preparatory to this, the pitch
centres B and F (section A, bars 184–191) remind us of the augmented triad
that opened the development. The set which emerges through the compilation of
pitch centres at bars 192–221 is the well-recognised octatonic heptachord 7–31
(A, D, C, E, B, F, F), broken into the 4–Z29 (A, D, C, E) and 5–16 (E, B,

34 VASILIS KALLIS
Table 6 Recapitulation: structure
Segment Bars T level Tn T relationship

with exposition
Cw2 222–223 F – 0
C 224–235 F, D, F, D, A, F, D, F, D 0, 8, 4, 8, 8, 8, 8, 4, 8 8
Cw2 236–237 D 0
C 238–243 D, A, C, A 0, 8, 3, 8
Dw2d 244–245 B 3 8
D 246–258 B, F, B, F, B, F, B, F 0, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6
E 258–263 F, A, C, A, B 0, 4, 3, 8, 3 8
263–267 A, C, E, B, F 9, 4, 3, 8, 6
267–270 A, C, E, B 3, 4, 3, 8
F 271–276 B, A, F, A, F 0, 9, 9, 3, 9 8
F 277–280 F, A, F 0, 3, 9
F 281–284 F, A, B 0, 3, 3
F 285–286 B 0
E 287–289 E, B 4, 8 8
F 290–293 B, A, F 0, 9, 9
D, F, F) of sections B and E. Once more a correlation emerges between the

B–D–F augmented triad (reiteration of B and F, bars 184–191) and A cen-
tricity (reiteration of A and D, bars 192–203). We should note the return of the
F–B tritone at bars 220–221 – the result of a gradual process underlying the three
statements of section E. Scriabin re-establishes this tritone pair in order to
prepare the recapitulation and, more specifically, the double return of the first
theme (section C) and the primary pitch centricity of F.31
Following the two-bar statement of motive w2 that opens the recapitulation,
bars 224–243 feature a modified T0 repetition of the exposition’s section C (see
again Table 6). For twelve bars the music precisely recapitulates bars 39–50
(section C1) before the interpolation of motive w2 (bars 236–237), now centred
on D, which initiates the subsequent restatement of section C2 (T8) at bars
238–243. All of this pitch activity promotes the middleground articulation of
5–21 (F, D, A, C and A), and until the coda at bar 294, the remainder of the
recapitulation parallels the structure of the three remaining sections of the
exposition – D, E and F – at T8. Within this span, section D articulates pitch
centres B and F, while sections E and F reveal 6–Z49 (F, A, C, A, B, E) and
4–27 (B, A, F, E) respectively.
Remarkably, 6–Z49 (F, A, C, A, B, E) governs the coda as well, but this is
not all (see again Table 7). This final large section confirms F’s priority through
the gradual attrition of other pitch centres. Throughout the first twelve bars
(section B) Scriabin’s pitch centres project the primary ‘tonality’ of F via the
major triad, built on 1̂. Then, within the span of bars 306–349, a progressive
reduction of pitch centres leaves only the two competing primary pitch centres,
F and A (section F, bars 350–359), and finally F alone.

Table 7 Coda: structure
Segment Bars T level Tn
B 294–297 F –
298–301 A 4
302–305 C 3
E 306–307 C 0
308–309 A 8
310–313 B 3
E 314–315 E 4
316–317 B 8
318–321 B 0
E 322–323 E 4
324–325 B 8
E (F) 326–329 B, A, F 0, 9, 9
F 330–331 F 0
332–333 F 0
F 334–335 F 0
336–337 F, A 0, 3
F 338–339 B 3
340–341 B 0
E 342–343 E 4
344–345 B 8
346–349 B, A, F 0, 9, 9
F 350–351 F 0
352–353 F 0
F 354–355 F, A 0, 3
356–359 F, A, F, A, F, A 9, 3, 9, 3, 9, 3
B 360–363 F 9
B 364–367 F 0
368–371 F 0
A 372–378 F 0
In summary, the introduction and exposition feature the nine-note entity A,
D, F, D/C, A, E, C, E, G (9–4), while the recapitulation and coda unfold the
heptachordally related centres of F, D, A, C, A, B, E (7–26).32 Projecting these
sets against the normative scales of the work reveals a conformation with the
union of the a-o and h-h scales built on the work’s primary pitch centre, F:
• union of the a-o and h-h2,1,1 scales on F: F, G, G, A, A, B, C, D /C, D,
E, E;
• the introduction’s and exposition’s pitch centres organised around F: F, G,
A, A, C, D/C, D, E, E (9–4); and
• the recapitulation’s and coda’s pitch centres organised around F: F, A, A,
B, C, D, E (7–26).
The correlation of specific thematic sections with specific scales (i.e. section C
with the hexatonic scale) makes the form transparent. Furthermore, allowing the

36 VASILIS KALLIS
normative scales that saturate the musical surface to govern the deeper structural
levels, within and across thematic sections, produces a special kind of structural
unity. However, in order fully to comprehend Scriabin’s approach to pitch
organisation in Op. 70, we must take account of the work’s unique transposition
structure.
The transpositional operations within each section place consistent emphasis
on T3 and T4 (and their multiples, T6, T9 and T8). Tables 4a–4e illustrate the
almost exclusive use of these transposition intervals both within and between
the sections’ sub-units (the only other transposition intervals are T5 at bars
27–28 and T2 at bars 188–195). These intervals also govern the large-scale
transpositional relationships; sections D, E and F, for example, reappear at T8
in the recapitulation, setting the following in relief (see again Fig. 2). The
tritone pair E/A of section D (exposition) and its T8 form (recapitulation) yield
4–27 (the generated pitch content is ordered around the work’s primary pitch
centre, F).
T8
D: E , A B, F = F, A, B, E
The T8-related 6–Z49s of section E yield h-h2,1,1.

T8
E: A, C, C , E , E , G F, A , A , B, C, E = F, G, A , A , B, C, D , E , E
And the T8-related 4–27s of section F yield the heptachord 7–26.
T8
F:A, C, E , G F, A , B, E = F, G, A , A –B, C, E
We must also consider the transpositional relationships between the two

corresponding appearances of the hexatonic scale in section C. Despite the
minor differences in melodic and harmonic content, the 5–21s of the corre-
sponding C sections in the exposition (bars 39–56) and development (bars
158–175) are T3 related; and as it turns out, the conjoined 5–21s yield the h-h2,1,1
octachord 8–19:
Eastern Northern
T3
F, A, C, D , E A , C, E , E , G = F, G, A , A , C, D , E , E (8–19).
What these processes illustrate is the generative properties of T3 and T4 (and

their multiples) vis-à-vis the a-o and the h-h universes, and the structural role
they assume in the work’s pitch organisation. The T4 and T8 operations can
potentially promote the generation of hexatonic3,1 (section C), h-h scale2,1,1 (i.e.
the T8-related 6–Z49s) and 7–26 (the T8-related 4–27s) (Table 8). They also
yield the three distinct octatonic scales but cannot generate any of them. T3 and

Table 8 T4, T8, T3 and T9: generative operations
Octatonic Hexatonic 4–27 5–21 6–Z49

subsets subsets (section F) (section C) (section E)
T3, T9 octatonic – 8–19 (h-h)

T4, T8 hexatonic 7–26 – h-h
Ex. 14 ‘Preparatory Act’: hexatonic structures in octatonic space
T9, on the other hand, are more efficient (abstractly, at least) in that they can
propagate the octatonic and the h-h scales, as well as provide the four distinct
hexatonic scales (see again Table 8).33
The foregoing analytical model is further justified by the composer’s sketches
for the ‘Preparatory Act’, the unfinished precursor to the grand-scale
Mysterium.34 Several pages of the sketches contain twelve-note chromatic aggre-
gates. Scriabin partitions the chromatic space by various means in these state-
ments. Pages 6, 12, 19(a) and 24 demonstrate the vertical projection of four
major seventh chords related by T3 (Ex. 14).35 This bears a close resemblance to
the relational scheme that organises pitch material in the Tenth Sonata. The
chromatic space is divided symmetrically by interval class 3 to yield the four
octatonic nodal points. On each Scriabin builds a major seventh chord, which,
in essence, projects the hexatonic scale whose first SD is also the chordal root.
This relational scheme provides the four available hexatonic scales by way of the
octatonically inclined diminished seventh outline (the structure emerging from
repeated T3 operations).
Although the discussion of conceptual origin is beyond the limits of the
present study, the rigour with which these processes are composed allows us to
suppose extremely careful planning on the composer’s part regarding the dia-
lectic between pitch material and syntax, especially with respect to T3 and T9
(but also T4 and T8) operations. An abstractly conceived background structure
comprises the T3-related pitch centres – F (the work’s primary ‘key area’) and A
(the ‘key area’ that governs the introduction and a significant stretch of the

38 VASILIS KALLIS
Ex. 15 Tenth Sonata: macroscopic layout of pitch inter-relationships
Fig. 3 Tenth Sonata: formal structure and long-range transposition
development), as well as A (the prevailing ‘key area’ of the secondary theme and
group) – each a representative element of the three tritonal pairs F–B, A–D and
A–E that appear so prominently throughout the score (Ex. 15 and Fig. 3). F–B
and A–D constitute the nodal points of the octatonic scale F, G, A, A, B, C,
D, E (Coll. II), whose hexachordal subset F, A, A, B, D, E (6–30) governs the
deep middleground structure. On the other emphasised tritone pair A–E, also a
member of this octatonic hexachord, Scriabin builds 6–Z49 (from Coll. III) and
4–27 during the articulation of sections E and F in the exposition.36 Sets 6–Z49

and 4–27 travel by T8 in the recapitulation to become subsets of F octatonic1:2 (of

course, they also participate in the generative processes discussed above). On
three of the four octatonic nodal points, F, A and D, Scriabin articulates a
complete or partial statement of a distinct hexatonic scale.37 These groups of
pitch centres, along with every other pitch centre, are ‘composed out’ by the
fruitful interaction of the a-o and h-h2,1,1 scales via the sixth and seventh variable
SDs, in a process which testifies to the composer’s profound sense of structural
coherence.
The present study proceeds from the musical artefact to its theoretical
scheme, which aims to interpret the work’s sophisticated network of pitch
interrelationships. These interrelationships reverberate with Scriabin’s com-
pleted post–Op. 69 works. The pitch structure of Vers la flamme, Op. 72, is
modelled on the systematic interaction of h-h2,1,1 and the a-o scales.38 It should
be borne in mind, however, that this is one of several systems the composer uses.
If we recognise that each of Scriabin’s preferred scales can support a self-
sufficient system capable of independence, yet is also able to function within
these systems to create a sophisticated network of pitch interrelationships that
unifies all, we may come to a deeper understanding of Scriabin’s compositional
approach in his final years.
In the Tenth Sonata Scriabin freed his imagination by enriching his pitch
resources. Notwithstanding this expansion, he remarkably maintained the
‘method’ of his earlier post-tonal works, in which he based pitch organisation
largely on scalar interaction via specific variable SDs. But his expanded pitch
material allowed him to exploit to a much greater extent the syntactical benefits of
harmonic differentiation and modal variety in connection with formal structure.39
At the time he was working at his final completed work, Op. 74, he had five scales
(octatonic, acoustic, whole-tone, a-o and h-h), five distinct modal ‘colours’, and
a healthy array of interactive schemes at his disposal. These interactions, as
revealed in the present analysis, contribute greatly to the individuality of Scriabin’s
late style, not least in comparison with the practice of his contemporaries.
NOTES
I would like to thank Kenneth Smith for his generous assistance in preparing this
paper for publication.
1. ‘Octatonic1,2’ refers to the ordering of tones and semitones within the
octatonic scale.
2. From a certain standpoint, set theory seems inappropriate to a pitch-centric
musical language with scale degrees and scalar roots. On one hand, it has
been conceived as an analytical tool for music based on unordered sets; on
the other, it addresses set properties and set interrelationships in ways
pertinent to scalar interactions at hand. Additionally, set theory allows us to
access a substantial body of literature on Scriabin’s pitch structure.

40 VASILIS KALLIS
3. Despite the pitch elaborations of the primary motivic and thematic material
encountered in the development, recapitulation and coda, the introduction
and exposition provide the pitch material for the whole work.
4. A healthy amount of analytical scholarship on Scriabin addresses the role
of scales in the organisation of pitch. See particularly Kallis (2008), Reise
(1983), Smith (2010a and 2010b), Cheong (1993) and Pople (1989).
5. Bars 5 and 6 have a major third and a minor sixth respectively, while the
two lowest pitches at bars 72 and 89 form a major sixth and a diminished
fifth.
6. Scriabin’s harmonic foundation usually includes some form of a seventh, a
phenomenon so frequent that it becomes significant.
7. See Cheong (1993), pp. 47–69. ‘More specifically, degree I of a “mystic
chord” and that of an octatonic referent [i.e. a locally active scale] are
often invoked as the “root” of the low-register triadic structure mentioned
above ... . Furthermore, if we number the six pcs of the “mystic chord”
with reference to its maximally related octatonic referent ... , it emerges
that the pc invoked as the bass note of this quartally spaced “mystic chord”
is none other than degree I of the octatonic referent on C’ (p. 61). The
term ‘mystic’ chord (also known as the ‘Prometheus’ chord) comes from
Leonid Sabaneiev, who employed it to describe the specific six-note chord
that constitutes the harmonic foundation of Scriabin’s Op. 60; see
Sabaneiev (2005). This chord, along with its numerous variants, remains
an underlying harmonic force throughout the composer’s post–Op. 58
oeuvre.
8. The fourth scale degree appears only eight times in the 114 bars of the
introduction and exposition: six in section F as an appoggiatura (a multi-
plication of a single instance that appears initially at bar 88 – the D in the
tenor) and once in sections B (D in the upper voice of bars 27 and 28) and
F (F, bar 115, lowest voice). The rarity of this phenomenon suggests that
its occasional presence is the exception that proves the rule.
9. See Pople (1989), Cheong (1996) and Kallis (2008).
10. See Callender (1998), Fig. 3, p. 222. Callender discusses the interconnec-
tion between the whole-tone (6–35) and the ‘mystic’ (6–34) scales, but this
interrelationship also occurs between the former and the acoustic scale (a
superset of 6–34).
11. The hyper-hexatonic scale was discovered in Scriabin’s music by Kelkel
(1978), who acknowledged its potential as the governing set of Op. 74 No.
4. Pople’s (1989) reading of the same Prelude brought together for the first
time the hyper-hexatonic and acoustic-octatonic scales.

12. Baker (1986, pp. 202–14) first identified the hexatonic scale in the Tenth
Sonata.
13. Cohn (1996). I employ ‘hexatonic sets’ instead of ‘hexatonic scales’ to refer
to the four hexatonic systems, in order to emphasise their unordered
structures. Each of the four systems potentially nests three distinct
hexatonic3,1 sets: the Northern nests C, E and A, for example. Each of the
four systems is partitioned identically into major and minor triads, which
are arranged in space according to voice-leading distance: adjacent triads
share two common pitches and are interconnected by a single semitonal
inflection; next-adjacent triads share one common pitch, and their inter-
connection requires the semitonal motion of their two remaining pitches;
diametrically opposed triads have no common pitches, so their intercon-
nection requires the displacement of all pitches.
14. The rotation h-h2,1,1 is the only one of the three h-h rotations that can be
matched efficiently with the a-o: h-h1,1,2 [0, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10] does not
contain SDs 5̂ and 7̂; h-h1,2,1 [0, 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11] – like h-h1,1,2 –
contains SD 4̂ .
15. The almost-Tn-Invariant capacity of the scale is acknowledged elsewhere.
In his unfortunately unfinished work on computer-based analyses of ‘tonal-
ities’, Pople (2004) refers to the a-o scale as ‘treated in some ways as
interval-cyclic (ic3)’ (see p. 177).
16. P1-related sets, a distinct category of maximally related sets, contain an
equal number of elements, share a subset one note smaller than their
cardinality and have incompatible pitches (one in each set) that are ±1
semitone apart. Two such sets are interconnected via pitch substitution
whereby the incompatible pitch from the first set moves by ±1 semitone to
its substitute in the second set, and vice versa. For more on the P1 relation,
see Callender (1998). The role of P1 and other relationships in Scriabin’s
systematic approach to parsimonious voice leading is treated in Callender
(1998), and in Kallis (2008), especially with regard to the composer’s
output between Op. 58 and Op. 69.
17. There is also the S1 relation, which applies maximally smooth voice leading
to maximally intersecting sets with ±1 cardinality difference via pitch
‘splitting’ and pitch ‘merging’ (see Callender 1998). Nevertheless, the very
nature of the a-o and the h-h scales precludes these operations. Neither
scale nor any of the scales’ subsets can be subjected to the S relation since
none includes a [0, 2] subset as a scale step whose pcs belong to that scale
alone.
18. Smith (2010b) gives a fully reductive diatonic reading of the same passage.
19. The analytical data indicates a clear preference for tetrachordal,
pentachordal and hexachordal structures. This may be because harmonic

42 VASILIS KALLIS
structures with fewer than four pitches cannot support interactions, while
too many pitches would obscure the clarity of voice leading and, ultimately,
cross-scalar interaction.
20. ‘A set satisfies the NCS constraint only if it does not contain an [012]
trichord as a subset’ (Tymoczko 2004, especially p. 224). The NCS
constraint is purported to be an important feature of the scales that pre-
occupied composers of pitch-centric music during the early post-tonal
period. Composers such as Scriabin, Debussy and Bartók, trained in the
tonal tradition but experimenting with non-tonal devices, employed
familiar harmonic structures and searched for ‘new’ scales that permitted
the exchange of melodic (scalar) segments between themselves and dia-
tonic scales. It is precisely the NCS, along with two additional constraints,
that makes these fruitful possibilities. In fact, Tymoczko goes as far as to
suggest that the NCS constraint ‘might come to have influenced the choice
of scales themselves’ (p. 225). The NCS is applied to scales, but, as
Tymoczko states, it may operate directly on chords as well. In the Tenth
Sonata, it is directly relevant to both scales and chords because of the
identical roots of chords and tonics of associated scales.
21. The ‘either/or’ principle reflects Scriabin’s approach to the articulation of
the two members of the variable SDs. It provides that the two members
cannot be utilised simultaneously in any given harmonic structure.
22. Obviously, in set-theoretic terms they share six pitches, but the shared 3ˆ 3ˆ
and 7ˆ 7ˆ dyads operate under the ‘either/or’ principle; furthermore, their
unconditional presence would violate the NCS constraint de facto.
23. This motivic classification is based on Baker (1986), p. 205 (Ex. 119).
Two of the five motives, w1 and w2, are based on trills, which, from their
introduction via these motives right before section C, play an important
role in the pitch interplay of the musical surface – hence the Tenth Sonata’s
nickname, the ‘Trill Sonata’. It should be noted that, in the present
context, the trill is elevated from the status of surface embellishment and
cadential gesture to that of a rhetorical device with far-reaching implica-
tions in the work’s pitch structure. More often than not, the trills either are
comprised by or include one of the two members of the variable SDs, most
notably 7ˆ 7ˆ in w1 and in the trills that saturate the retransition to the
recapitulation (bars 212–221).
24. Baker (1986), pp. 203–5.
25. It should be acknowledged that determination of pitch centricity in this
style could sometimes be tricky, because the proposed context-specific
analytical criteria might be challenged by aural perceptions. For example,
by way of the privilege assigned to the lowest tone, the E pedal that runs
throughout section A (the introduction) challenges the A pitch centricity
which is established by other criteria.

26. The articulation of the G augmented triad at bar 29 might tempt us to

consider an additional, but only apparently attractive, reading of the D
dominant ninth – that it serves as local dominant to the G-rooted chord.
But why would Scriabin effect a relationship (T5) not pursued elsewhere
(and one that is in fact deliberately suppressed)? Furthermore, if G is a
tonic, it is a fleeting one, quickly subsumed within A centricity.
27. The acknowledgement of F and E as the pitch centres of the two
hexatonic3,1 scales referred to here is an effect of their privileged position in
the harmonic structure of the specific section. An F triad opens both
section C1 and section C2 as well as the former’s sub-sections (the basic
thematic unit, its repetition and the continuation phrase). E is reinforced
by w2 before E major initiates the final transposition of the basic thematic
unit (bars 53–56).
28. Ex. 12 demonstrates that E2 is a T3 transposition of E1 in units a and b;
unit c is altered to avail the advent of E3.
29. We might also notice 4–19 subtly intruding as motive x at bars 90–91,
98–99 and 109–110.
30. ‘The transpositions of 9–10 found in the piece as a whole are, in order:
t = 0, 9, 7, 10, 8, 6, 9, 3, 0. These transposition numbers – representing in
each case a referential pc in the set – themselves form the unordered set
[0, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10], which is a subset (!) of the t0 form of the normative
set. The interpretation thus proposes that the normative set governs its own
transpositions’ (Pople 1983, p. 171).
31. These three statements of section E produce interesting parallels with the
pitch associations encountered. In formal terms, bars 212–221 constitute
the ‘retransition’. Accelerating rhythmic activity, combined with addition
of another textural layer to intensify the chromatic interplay, fulfils the
transitional function. Appropriate to the conventional intensification is
also the exploitation of the 7ˆ 7ˆ chromatic dyad, which regulates the
retransition process. The two expressions of 7̂ conform to consistent order,
7ˆ → 7ˆ , implying continuation; based on acoustical inclination and intra-
opus preparation (section C), the continuously reiterated melodic pair
seeks resolution to 6̂. Nevertheless, resolution is denied until the first note
of the returning ‘first theme’ (section C, the advent of recapitulation,
beginning in bar 222). It is through this ongoing process that Scriabin
effects a formal teleology as an analogue to the tonal-harmonic impetus of
retransitions in diatonic sonatas. (Yet there is not so much a return to as a
return of the primary ‘key area’; there is a sense of distance but not of actual
traversing.) This section consolidates the structural role of, and justification
for elsewhere focusing on, the variable seventh SD.
32. When appraising the pitch centres of the introduction, exposition, reca-
pitulation and coda, one is impressed by the absence of B ( 4̂ of the a-o or

44 VASILIS KALLIS
h-h, or the union of these scales built on F). This is not because Scriabin
is parsimonious; he deploys ten distinct pitches.
33. There is also T6, the remaining multiple of T3, to complete the ic3 cycle,
which, apart from its generative capacity with respect to the octatonic scale,
constitutes an operation that relates the two complementary hexatonic
scales and/or systems in the hyper-hexatonic system (owing to symmetrical
properties, the complementary hexatonic scales are separated by T2, T6
and T10). T6 is also used during the transition (section D). In fact, ic6 is the
only transposition interval employed in the entire section.
34. There may be additional justification in a newspaper announcement (27
June 1910) regarding the Final Mysterium: ‘[T]he newspapers carried an
announcement that the Mysterium will soon be finished and as Prometheus
was built from six tones like the Pleiades, the Mysterium will be hitched to
the constellation of nine’ (Bowers 1970, vol. 2, p. 215). Though the
newspaper clipping makes reference to nine-note entities and not to par-
ticular scales (thus not conclusively proving the point), it is at least an
indication that matches tangible contextual evidence.
35. One also finds either partitions of chromatic space by other intervals (e.g. the
two T6-related major scale hexachords on p. 13), or partitions by ic3 such as
those on pp. 14 and 19(b) that yield the octatonic scale. Scriabin was not
conquering chromatic space merely for the sake of it; he was implementing
specific partitionings in accordance with his primary pitch material.
36. Owing to the symmetrical properties governing the octatonic scale, the
tritonal axis A–E belongs to both Coll. II and Coll. III.
37. Though the evidence for granting priority to D or any other pitch at the
time span of bars 176–183 is insufficient, D is one of the potential pitch
centres of the particular hexatonic set.
38. As mentioned in n. 12, Pople (1989) has also demonstrated the signifi-
cance of the a-o and the h-h scales as governing supersets in Op. 74
No. 4.
39. The Tenth Sonata contains chords based on the minor triad, a structure
not available on the tonic of the acoustic scale and hence absent from
Scriabin’s earlier post-tonal works, which drew on the interaction between
the acoustic and octatonic scales. The minor triad carries an aural quality
capable of significantly enriching the composer’s sound palette. The chro-
nology of the Tenth Sonata cannot provide conclusive evidence as to the
time of the conception of this enrichment: the composer was working on
his last three sonatas at the same time. If, however, Scriabin was gradually
moving towards an expanded array of pitch resources, it would not be
implausible to entertain the idea of stylistic development based on the
expansion of primary pitch material.

REFERENCES
Baker, James, 1980: ‘Scriabin’s Implicit Tonality’, Music Theory Spectrum, 2, pp.
1–18.
____, 1986: The Music of Alexander Scriabin (New Haven: Yale University
Press).
Bowers, Faubion, 1970: Scriabin: a Biography of the Russian Composer, 1871–
1915, 2 vols (Tokyo and Palo Alto, CA: Kodansha International).
Callender, Clifton, 1998: ‘Voice-Leading Parsimony in the Music of Alexander
Scriabin’, Journal of Music Theory, 42/ii, pp. 219–33.
Cheong, Wai-Ling, 1993: ‘Orthography in Scriabin’s Late Works’, Music Analy-
sis, 12/i, pp. 47–69.
____, 1996: ‘Scriabin’s Octatonic Sonata’, Journal of the Royal Musical Associa-
tion, 121/ii, pp. 206–28.
Cohn, Richard, 1996: ‘Maximally Smooth Cycles, Hexatonic Systems, and the
Analysis of Late-Romantic Triadic Progressions’, Music Analysis, 15/i, pp.
9–40.
____, 2012: Audacious Euphony: Chromaticism and the Triad’s Second Nature
(Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press).
Kallis, Vasilis, 2008: ‘Principles of Pitch Organization in Scriabin’s
Early Post-tonal Period: the Piano Miniatures’, Music Theory Online,
14/iii.
Kelkel, Manfred, 1978: Alexandre Scriabine: sa vie, l’ésotérisme et le langage musical
dans son oeuvre (Paris: Honoré Champion).
Lerdahl, Fred, 2001: Tonal Pitch Space (Oxford and New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press).
Perle, George, 1984: ‘Scriabin’s Self-Analysis’, Music Analysis, 3/ii, pp.
101–22.
Pople, Anthony, 1983: ‘Skryabin’s Prelude Opus 67, No. 1: Sets and Structure’,
Music Analysis, 2/ii, pp. 151–73.
____, 1989: Skryabin and Stravinsky 1908–1914: Studies in Theory and Analysis
(New York and London: Garland).
____, 2004: ‘Using Complex Set Theory for Tonal Analysis: an Introduction to
the Tonalities Project,’ Music Analysis, 23/ii–iii, pp. 153–94.
Reise, Jay, 1983: ‘Late Scriabin: Some Principles behind the Style’, 19th-Century
Music, 6/iii, pp. 220–31.
Sabaneiev, Leonid, 2005: ‘Scriabin’s “Prometheus” ’, in The Blaue Reiter
Almanac, Wassily Kandinsky and Franz Marc, eds. (Boston: MFA Publica-
tions).
Samson, Jim, 1988: Review of James Baker, The Music of Alexander Scriabin,
Journal of Music Theory, 32/ii, pp. 353–6.
Smith, Kenneth, 2010a: ‘ “A Science of Tonal Love”? Drive and Desire in
Twentieth-Century Harmony: the Erotics of Skryabin’, Music Analysis, 29/i–
iii, pp. 234–63.

46 VASILIS KALLIS
____, 2010b. ‘Skryabin’s Revolving Harmonies, Lacanian Desire, and Riemann-

ian Funktionstheorie’, Twentieth-Century Music, 7/ii, pp. 167–94.
Tymoczko, Dmitri, 2004: ‘Scale Networks and Debussy’, Journal of Music
Theory, 48/ii, pp. 219–94.
NOTE ON CONTRIBUTOR
VASILIS KALLIS earned a master’s degree in music theory from Queens College of
the City University of New York, and a doctorate in music theory and analysis
from the University of Nottingham. He has taught theory, analysis and compo-
sition at the Universities of Nottingham and Macedonia and is currently Asso-
ciate Professor of Music Theory and Analysis at the University of Nicosia. His
research interests focus round the music of Scriabin and Debussy, as well as form
and Formenlehre.
ABSTRACT
In the Tenth Sonata, Op. 70, Scriabin introduces two new scales into his
repository of pitch material, the hexatonic and the hyper-hexatonic. His
approach to the organisation of pitch remains fixed on the interaction between
scales (non-diatonic modes) via specific variable scale degrees. In the Sonata, the
newly introduced hyper-hexatonic scale interacts with the acoustic-octatonic
scale (the union of the two scales – acoustic and octatonic – that dominate the
composer’s oeuvre between Op. 58 and Op. 69). The interaction process is
facilitated by two chromatic pairs formed by two variable scale degrees: 6ˆ 6ˆ
and 7ˆ 7ˆ . At the same time, the enrichment of his pitch material allows Scriabin
on the one hand to invest in the transparency of the formal structure, and on the
other to create an elaborate scheme of larger-scale transpositional operations
within and across the Sonata’s main sections.


Pitch Organisation in Scriabin's 10th Sonata

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

Pitch Organisation in Scriabin's 10th Sonata

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DOI: 10.1111/musa.

PITCH ORGANISATION IN SCRIABIN’S TENTH SONATA

Music Analysis, 34/i (2015) 3

Ex. 1 Scriabin’s sources of pitch material

Principles of Pitch Organisation

© 2015 The Author. Music Analysis, 34/i (2015)

Ex. 2 Primary thematic sections and universal motives w1 and w2

(b) Section B, bars 9–12

score.3 Although there is no consensus about Scriabin’s methods of pitch organi-

Music Analysis, 34/i (2015) © 2015 The Author.

(d) Section D, bars 58–61

© 2015 The Author. Music Analysis, 34/i (2015)

(f) Section F, bars 86–89

Music Analysis, 34/i (2015) © 2015 The Author.

• triads, including triads with ninths;

© 2015 The Author. Music Analysis, 34/i (2015)

A 5, R E, A (not appearing A 1ˆ, 4ˆ , 5ˆ 2ˆ , 2ˆ , 3ˆ , 3ˆ , 7ˆ A a-o subsets

Music Analysis, 34/i (2015)

C 5, R C, F • A, D F, d 1ˆ, 5ˆ 3ˆ , 3ˆ , 6ˆ , 6ˆ , 7ˆ , 7ˆ F a-o/h-h subsets, D a-o/h-h

D 5, R • R, 5 B, E • A, E E, A 1ˆ, 5ˆ 2ˆ , 2ˆ , 3ˆ , 6ˆ , 6ˆ , 7ˆ , 7ˆ E a-o/h-h subsets, A a-o/h-h

E R, 5 • 5, 3, R • 3, A, E • G, E, C • A, C, E, 1ˆ, 4ˆ , 5ˆ 2ˆ , 3ˆ , 7ˆ A h-h subset, C h-h subset,

F 5, R • 5, R E, A • G, C • E, A • A, C, A, a, ao 1ˆ, 4ˆ , 5ˆ 2ˆ , 2ˆ , 3ˆ , 3ˆ , 6ˆ , 6ˆ A a-o subsets, C a-o subsets,

w1 R, 5 A, E A 1ˆ, 4ˆ , 5ˆ 3ˆ , 7ˆ , 7ˆ A a-o/h-h subsets

Music Analysis © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Ex. 3 Schematic interaction between Scriabin’s privileged scales in Opp. 58–69,

and motive w1 draw additionally from the hyper-hexatonic; motive w2,

Primary Pitch Material

© 2015 The Author. Music Analysis, 34/i (2015)

Music Analysis, 34/i (2015) © 2015 The Author.

Hyper-hexatonic universe Acoustic-octatonic universe Common subsets

minor triad, major 7 (4–19) 7̂ 7̂ minor 7 (4–26) major triad (3–11)

© 2015 The Author. Music Analysis, 34/i (2015)

and 86 in Ex. 2. Secondly, adjacent pitch structures from different uni-

We may hear passages of chromatic writing without necessarily noticing clearly

Music Analysis, 34/i (2015) © 2015 The Author.

Table 2 Bars 88–89: membership of chords within Scriabin’s common scales

A9(13) A augmented (5) A minor → A minor9(5)

Acoustic-octatonic Yes No Yes Yes*

hexatonic and F acoustic or octatonic (Ex. 2c). Conversely, the F ( 4̂ ) in CΔ7

© 2015 The Author. Music Analysis, 34/i (2015)

Ex. 5 Tenth Sonata: abstract representation of harmonic structures

For h-h2,1,1, chord types (Ex. 5b) are restricted to:

1. 7̂ but not 6̂ : major seventh/minor-major seventh (with or without ninth

Music Analysis, 34/i (2015) © 2015 The Author.

Table 3 Tenth Sonata: contextually defined harmonic structures representative of

Diminished triad (3–10)* Major triad (3–11)

© 2015 The Author. Music Analysis, 34/i (2015)

Pitch Material and Thematic Structure

Music Analysis, 34/i (2015) © 2015 The Author.

Ex. 6 Tenth Sonata: motives

1. acknowledge tertian structures at low registers;

© 2015 The Author. Music Analysis, 34/i (2015)

Segment Bars Pitch content Pitch centre Tn interval Subsets Chromatic

Music Analysis, 34/i (2015)

B1a 9–10 A-o/h-h: A–C–E–E–F–G–G A 0 6ˆ 6ˆ , 7ˆ 7ˆ

B1b 11–12 A-o/h-h: A–B–B–C–E–F–F–G–G A 0 2ˆ 2ˆ , 6ˆ 6ˆ , 7ˆ 7ˆ

B3cd 27–28 A-o: D–D–E–F–A–C D 5

Music Analysis © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Segment Bars Pitch content Pitch Tn Tn Subsets Chromatic

© 2015 The Author.

w1 32–36 a-o/h-h: A–C–D–E–G–G A – Δ

Music Analysis © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

C1bd 46 a-o/h-h: D–F–A–C–C D 8 m7 m Δ 7 7ˆ 7ˆ