Skryabin's Prelude, Op. 67, No.

1: Sets and Structure

Anthony Pople

Music Analysis, Vol. 2, No. 2. (Jul., 1983), pp. 151-173.

Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0262-5245%28198307%292%3A2%3C151%3ASPO6N1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0

Music Analysis is currently published by Blackwell Publishing.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/black.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org
Sun Dec 9 14:38:01 2007
ANTHONY POPLE

SKRYABIN'S PRELUDE, OP. 67, NO. 1: SETS AND

STRUCTURE

Set-structural analysis rests on three fundamental principles: segmentation of

a pitch structure, reductive classification of sets of pitches and making judge-
ments about significance concerning the relationships between the various sets
thus determined. The extent to which these three stages of work can or should
be kept separate is unclear. It is common practice to make use of a ready-made
system of classification, such as Forte's,' and it would be fair to observe that
methodological study has been concentrated largely on the development of
such systems in the decade or so that set-structural work has been part of the
mainstream of analysis.* Many set-systems are feasible and criteria for choice
between them cannot go uninvestigated, but it seems possible that the em-
phasis on research of this kind has had a side-effect on the manner in which
practical work is undertaken by blurring the distinction between the three
stages of analysis outlined above.
The prior choice of a ready-made set-system is often unavoidable in prac-
tice, but it is probable in these circumstances that the decisions taken in
making a segmentation of the pitch-structure will be determined, in part at
least, by the inter-set relationships to which the particular reductive basis of
the chosen set-system lends significance. Forte himself seems to have
advocated this procedure, albeit somewhat cautiously:
As sets are identified and relations are revealed, it is usually not difficult to
make judgements concerning significance. The most effective basis for
these judgements is provided by set-complex relations. . . . These rela-
tions, properly interpreted, will often point out sets of lesser significance
which would be more correctly replaced by a superset or further decom-
posed into component s ~ b s e t s . ~
Whatever its drawbacks, this reflexive method has the considerable merit of
being a practical alternative to the ad hoc procedures of segmentation which
are otherwise current. Imbrication is another coherent technique, but its value
to the analyst seems dubious. In the discussion already cited, Forte makes the
point early on that 'a systematic segmentation procedure such as [imbrication]

@ MUSIC ANALYSIS 2:2, 1983

 ANTHONY POPLE

may often produce units that are of no consequence with respect to

s t r ~ c t u r e . 'If~ the exclusive use of systematic techniques is to be rejected,
some alternative must be found to a free-for-all.
It is reasonable to hope that the process of segmentation might be under-
taken as far as possible in an analytical context which avoids or suppresses
assumptions about what kinds of unit are likely to be regarded, at a later stage,
as significant. The theory of nzveau neutre (neutral level) in Nattiez's Fonde-
ments expresses a similar objective, and demands consideration here.'
However, I do not mean to discuss Nattiez's theory or practice in a semiotic
perspective, for to do so would entail plunging into various controversies
surrounding the concept of the neutral leveL6 Set-structural analysis, at least,
has something immediate to gain from Nattiez's work, in that the paradigma-
tic technique which he developed from Ruwet's distributional method (in
order to facilitate provisional, semiotically neutral investigation of the musical
object) offers a more careful approach to segmentation than has hitherto been
a ~ a i l a b l e .It~ may seem unfortunate to extract such a specific principle of
analysis, or provisional analysis (or even, perhaps, non-analysis) from the
grand concerns of music semiotics, but it is clear that the neutral description,
if it is to satisfy the demands of Nattiez's theory, should precede any
investigation of the poietics or esthesics of the work in question: and it is clear
too-the tripartite model of a general semiotics notwithstanding-that the
nature of the subsequent investigation ought not to be implicit in the nature of
the work undertaken at a projected neutral level; indeed, this is part of its
neutrality.
Another word about imbrication seems appropriate here. Part of Nattiez's
definition of the neutral level is that it includes the rigorous pursuit of
explicitly described paradigmatic techniques:
The neutral level is a level of analysis at which one does not decide a prion
whether the results obtained by an explicit procedure are relevant from the
esthesic or the poietic point of view. What makes this descriptive level
neutral is that the tools used for the segmentation of phenomena . . . are
systematically exploited to their furthest consequences, and are replaced
only when new hypotheses or new difficulties lead to the proposal of new
ones. 8

Imbrication seems, at first sight, ideally suited to this purpose. It lends itself
easily to systematic exploitation, and the fact that in practical work it often
produces units which have no apparent significance suggests that it excludes a
priori decisions of the kind that the neutral level should avoid. But imbrication
is not, in Nattiez's sense, a paradigmatic technique; it fails to acknowledge
what he calls 'the symbolic character both of perception and of analysis'.9
Moreover, imbrication is dependent on the concept of the pc set for the way it
works. Properly speaking, it can be applied only to a pitch structure that has
to some extent already been reduced according to the priorities of set-
structural analysis. As a consequence of this, imbrication produces sets, not
segments. In some analytical situations, though, this distinction is of no
practical consequence, and in such circumstances something akin to imbri-
cation could be admitted to a repertoire of segmentation techniques which is
neutral with respect to set-structural concepts. For example, imbrication can
be applied to a monophonic line that has no contiguous pc repetition (and no
repetition of any pc within the span of one u n i ~of imbrication) whether the
line has been reduced to a numerical string or is still in music notation; but
even in these circumstances to apply imbrication to a musical score requires
that it should be interpreted as a pc succession. Nattiez has written that the
niveau neutre 'provisionally neutralises the poietic and esthesic dimensions of
[a] piece','0 and, historically, part of the appeal of the reflexive method may
well have been that it could provisionally neutralise many of the more conven-
tionally musical criteria for segmentation, such as phrase, theme and
motive. Set structure, too, should be neutralised as a possible determinant of
segmentation. In line with Fortean thinking, this suggests that segmentation
should be complete before the concept of the pc set is invoked.
The analytical assimilation of semiotic-distributional and pc-set-structural
tendencies suggests two possible courses of action. First, one could retain
semiotic study as the ultimate goal and, recognising that musical concepts of
some kind must inform the neutral level of a Nattiez-type analysis, use
set-structural ideas as a basis for the 'explicit procedures' of paradigmatic
segmentation. This would make good use of the somewhat privileged position
which pc-set theory holds, at present, in being familiar to analysts but not a
part of normal musicianship. Second, one could dispense with the goal of a
semiotic study while retaining the principles of paradigmatic segmentation
and provisional neutralisation. This approach would accept that only certain
concepts can be suspended during practical work, and would also propose that
the 'cleanest' kind of neutrality is brought about by suppressing, at the
segmentation stage, those concepts which are to be used later to make judge-
ments about significance. In other words, a choice has to be made about the
nature of the ultimate investigation, and the initial, provisional stage should
be made neutral specifically with respect to whatever choice may be forseen.
The first approach promises nothing beyond the kind of music semiotics
proposed and demonstrated by Nattiez. It leaves the whole question of the
semiotics of music analysis untouched, while using an aspect of analytical
competence as the basis for the semiotically neutral level of description. This
non-relativistic type of semiotics can lead only to treacherous problems of
methodology. The second, on the other hand, seems to offer something new
for analysis, perhaps because of, rather than in spite of, its retreat from music
semiotics; and it still leaves room for semiotic investigation of the results
obtained (and of the process of analysis itself).

The first of Skryabin's two Preludes, Op. 67 (1912-13), has been regarded
by several generations of critics as the inaugural work of what was to be the
 ANTHONY POPLE

Ex. 1
PRELUDE.
A. SCRIABINE, Op. 67 N V .

Piano I

final stage of the composer's career.12 The original edition (Moscow: Jurgen-
son, n.d.) is reproduced in Ex. 1. Literal repetitions abound, contrasts of
dynamics, articulation and register are minimal, and harmonic concepts (such
as 'accompaniment' and 'harmonic rhythm') must come into play as the
segmentation is made. Such potential obstacles to pc-set analysis are actually
helpful in view of my initial concern to suppress the concepts of pc-set theory.

154 MUSIC ANALYSIS 2:2, 1983

 SKRYABIN'S PRELUDE, 0r.67, NO. T :

On the other hand, these might intrude disguised as something else. When
noting harmonic identities, for example, the possibility that the set rather than
the chord might guide one's judgment is strong, even if such shifting criteria
contribute to 'the most exhaustive inventory possible of all types of configura-
tions conceivably recognisable in a score'.13 But even this objective is tem-
pered by the limited ambitions of set-structural analysis; there is no intention
 ANTHONY POPLE

of reproducing the full richness of a semiotic investigation.

Consider first a segmentation arrived at by giving priority to the configura-
tions found in the melodic line:
P"'
 ANTHONY POPLE

Ex. 4.
P"

*only the re~teratlono f the lower-reulster chord

d ~ s t l n g u ~ s h etsh ~ sfrom bar 6

The many literal repetitions in the piece allow three basic paradigms-
labelled P, Q and R-to be isolated. Other segments-P', Q', etc.-are
judged to be related to these by simple transformations. In all cases of doubt,
the allocation of a segment to one particular type is resolved on the basis of
melodic similarity; segment P" (b. 6) is an example, for there might be good
reason to regard it as more closely related to Q (b.4) than to P or P ' . Its first
note (Db) is the same as that of Q, whereas all versions of P-type segments so
far encountered in the piece start with Ab, and its harmonic support is
identical with that of Q. A syntagmatic view also relates it more closely to Q
than to P: it follows a P' segment (b. 5), as do the two proximal Q segments
(bs 4 and 10). However, all these considerations are subordinated to the strong
melodic similarity b. 6 bears to the segments identified as P' (bs 3 and 5): only
the first note is different. P' itself is related to P by a similarity of melodic
contour (the first notes of each are identical, the last four of P' are a literal
transposition of those of P). It would be fair to observe that 'transposition' is a
set-theoretic concept, but this is because it is such a fundamental aspect of
musicianship that set theory cannot but encompass it. There is no reason to
baulk at the identification of transpositional relationships here (literal trans-
positions of segments are shown in Ex. 2 by the suffix (t)). The interval of
transposition is in any case not noted at this stage.
For the sake of completeness, the relationships of P"', P"",Q', Q", Q
and R' to their respective paradigms may be summarised thus:

P"' to P: literal transposition of melodic line; change of harmonic support

P"" to P' (and thence to P): initial melodic note (Db) omitted
Q' to Q: similar contour of moving part (Db, C, A literally identical);
duration of first sonority extended
Q" to Q: same as P"' to P
Q to Q' (and thence to Q): static sonority with identical top note
R' to R: identical melodic line; change of harmonic support (a special
case of the relationship P"'to P).

There are 22 P-type segments, 9 Q-type segments and 2 R-type segments in

the piece as a whole.
The distribution of segments is summarised in Ex. 3.

Ex. 3

P + P (3) P' + PI' (3) P"+P (2) P"'+ Q" (2)

P + P t (3) P ' + Q (2) P"-3 P' (1)
P + Q (2) P' + R (1) P"+ P" (1) P r r+ prr (1)
P" + R' (1)

Q+P (1) Q' + P"' (2) Q"+ P (1) Qr"+ end

Q + (2) Q"+ Q' (1)

Q + P"" (1)

R+ Q' (1) R' -3 Q"' (1)

 ANTHONY POPLE

It will be noted that the R-type is always preceded by a P-type and followed by
a Q-type. Q-types are followed by P-types in all cases but one. The succes-
sions associated with P-types are more varied; the ratio of 14 P-to-P succes-
sions to 6 P-to-Q successions is slightly weighted in favour of the Q-types, as
compared with the ratio of 22 P-segments to 9 Q-segments in the score overall.
It is notable, though, that P and P" are the only types of segment that are
directly repeated, and that P is often followed by P' but never preceded by it.
Example 4 tabulates a segmentation which gives priority to harmonic
configurations. In the interests of graphic clarity, and in order to show
precisely what is being taken as 'harmony' here, the melodic line is not shown:

Ex. L

bar nos

2 a P

3-4 a PCti

5- 6 a pcti

7 a P

8 a P
Certain relationships have thus been subsumed into identities between seg-
ments which are melodically different: for example, the a of b.3 is not literally
the same as the a of bs 1 and 2. However, since harmonic identity-again
with transpositions being noted by the suffix (t)-is the overriding criterion
for this segmentation, the melodic differences are regarded as being of secon-
dary importance for the assignment of a segment to a type associated with a
particular paradigm. In any case, the melodic configurations have already
been investigated. The segment-to-segment successions are less diverse here
than in the melodically-weighted segmentation:

Ex. 5.
4 1 4 ) -+ P(14)

0(1) -+ end

Every a-type segment is followed by a P-type, and most of the a-types (12 out
of 14) are preceded by a P. There are other examples of unique succession
relations: both &types are followed by €-types; each E is followed by an T;
and, trivially, the single y is followed by a S.
The structures of these two segmentations are merged in that of Ex. 6.
Here, in the interests of graphic clarity, no music notation is included, nor are
transposition relations shown explicitly; no information is omitted, however,
which is not given in either Ex. 2 or Ex. 4, and in the case of each segment
both the melodic type (Roman letters) and the harmonic type (Greek) are
shown:

MUSIC ANALYSIS 2:2, 1983

 ANTHONY POPLE

Ex. 6 .

bars
-
P
P(=A, B) --Q(=C)*-R(=D,E) - -P --Q ----
a-
2
P 4-y- -7 --8,€-,0-
1 A/a B/P
2 A/a B/P
3 4 At/a B/P C/p
5 A' / a B/P
6 A"/P B/P
7 A/a B/P
8 A/a B/P
9-10 At/a B/P C/p
11-14 A1/a B/P Dl8 El? Cl8,~
15-18 A17 Blrl Cl7 C1/6,~
19-20 A1-q BIT C1-q
21-22 A/a B/P C/p
23-24 A/a B/P C/p
25 A / P B/p
26 A/P B/P
27 A/a B/P
28 A/a B/P
29 A' / a B/P
30 A/P B/P
31 At/a B/P
32 A/P B/P
33-35 A/P B/P D/p E/P 3 0

In order to keep the harmonic types a and P separate, it has been necessary to
split each P-type melodic segment (5 quavers) into an A-type (3 quavers) and a
B-type (2 quavers). Similarly, each R-type has been rewritten as a D-Type
plus an E-type. This, together with the omission of transposition relations,
allows for the removal of the P"'category (bs 15 and 19), which in Ex. 2 was
distinguished from P only by literal transposition of the melodic line and a
change of harmonic support (from types a and P to type T). Similarly, the
relationship of Q to Q has been rationalised. Melodic type Q' (now C':
bs 13-14, 17-18) could have been split to correspond to the two chords 6 and
E, but since the &E succession is so strongly defined (see Ex. 5) this seems
unnecessary. The brackets at the top of Ex. 6 indicate the scope of each of the
melodic and harmonic types previously isolated. It will be noted that, from
this point of view, the table is in two parts (separated by a vertical line); the
scope of a, p and y is coextensive with that of P, Q and R (A, B, C, D and E)
throughout the bulk of the piece, but in the middle (bs 13-20) and at the very
end (b. 35) P and Q are associated with T, 6, E and 0. In neither part of the
table do the boundaries of the harmonic and melodic types coincide: for
example, P is associated with all B-, C- and D-types, but also with some
A-types and one occurence of E.
It is now appropriate to consider these segmentations in terms of pc sets.
This immediately raises the question of what set-system, and specifically what
mechanism of reduction, is to be chosen. The experience of the segmentation
stage offers no help in making this choice, nor should it, if the principles on
which that work was based have been adhered to. It would be possible to
pursue a search through a gamut of set-systems to see which, if any, propose
identities and relationships (between the sets) which seem to correlate well
with the paradigmatic identities and relationships already found (between the
corresponding segments). That this procedure might prove tedious is no
reason for rejecting it. Consider, though, the course of such a search: certain
set-systems exist by convention, others remain to be invented; if the search
were not to be confined to existing systems, it would have to propose new
ones, and thus-if these new systems were not to be proposed simply at
random-would have to determine, in the abstract, suitable mechanisms of
reduction (i.e. returning to the problem of theory the search was intended to
answer);14 if, on the other hand, the search were to be confined to existing
systems, this acceptance of the conventional nature of set-theoretic concepts
would remove the need for more than one system to be considered; in
consequence, the choice of system must be based on the analyst's view of the
conventions of pc set theory.
My choice here of Larry Solomon's system of clas~ification'~ is due largely
to its upwards-compatibility with Forte's. The present popularity of Forte's
system, as well as its historical importance, means that any other system must
be able to stand comparison with it. Solomon's system is, in fact, essentially
the same, except that it treats inversion between sets as a relation rather than
an equivalence. Nevertheless, it acknowledges the importance of the inverse-
relation by building it into the notation of set-names: sets 6-30 and 6-30B, for
example, are inverse-related (both would be listed as 6-30 in Forte's
system).16 Solomon proposes a different scheme of set-relations than Forte,
however. In particular, the set-complex idea-dependent on complement-
relations-is abandoned, with emphasis being placed instead on subset-
relations and pitch-similarity .l 7 Nevertheless, the reader familiar with Forte's
system should have no difficulty with Solomon's.
Example 7 lists the segment types from the paradigmatic study of Ex. 6; the
pitch content of each segment as it first appears in the piece is shown, together
with a list of subsequent transpositions and the Solomon name of the pc set.
Segment types A l p and A"'1P are forms of the same pc set (5-19B); so are
types Blq and C"10 (6-30B); the three segment types BIP, DIP and Clq are all
forms of set 7-31B. Moreover, all the sets listed here are linked by subset-
relations; these are detailed in Ex. 8. All sets other than that of segment C1/S,e
( 1 0 4 ) are subsets of the set 8-27B,18 which corresponds to segment Al-q.
Set 8-27B is itself a subset of 10-4; nevertheless, 10-4 seems to be some-
thing of a rogue. Occurring only twice, it disturbs what is otherwise a rather

MUSIC ANALYSIS 2:2, 1983 163

 ANTHONY POPLE

Ex. 7

segment
name pitch-content transpositions set name

Ex. 8

orderly scheme. During the segmentation stage, a division of this segment

into two, corresponding to the harmonies 6 and E, was mooted and rejected.
Example 9 shows that if Cf/6,e had in fact been split into the segments here
labelled X and Y, these would have been reduced to pc sets 6-Z19 and 7-26B:
Although 6-Z19 is a subset of 8-27B, 7-26B is not. Thus the division of
Cr/8,e, rejected earlier on paradigmatic grounds, would simply have replaced
one rogue set by another. In fact, 7-26B would have disturbed the apparent
orderliness here to a far greater extent than 10-4 does: subset-relations could
not have encompassed all the sets identified, without the postulation of
another set, 9-10 (8-27B U 7-26B), which would not correspond to any
segment. This result does not mean that the paradigmatic segmentation was
'right', although I think it fair to suggest that a segmentation undertaken with
set-concepts in mind would indeed have split C ' / ~ , Ein two, simply because of
its size.
Consider now the syntagmatics of the segment-successions in Ex. 6. Ex. 10
shows these in terms of segment names, Ex. 11 in terms of the corresponding
pc sets (the succession from C / O (6-30) to the end of the piece is not
represented):

Ex. 10.

DIP -+ EIP (1)

DIP -+ Ely (1)

EIP -+ C"/B (1)

Ely -+ Ct/8,e (1)

 ANTHONY POPLE

Ex. 11.
set + set subset + superset superset -+ subset
succession succession

Although subset+superset and superset-+subset successions are inevitably

commonplace, they account for only 28 out of the 56 successions (i.e. 50%).
Most of the successions they fail to account for are those between A- and
B-type segments. It will be recalled that these segments arose, when the
melodically-weighted and harmonically-weighted segmentations were
merged, through the splitting of melodic type P so as to retain the separation
of harmonic types a and P. Ex. 12 shows what would have been the result if
this had not been done. The sets corresponding to P" and P"" are the same
(7-31B) as those of the present BIP, DIP and Clq; the set corresponding to P"'
is 8-27B, associated currently with Al-q; the sets corresponding to P and P',
though, are new:
 Ex.12
melody-welghted segment pltch content s e t name
m

P"' 1 'I I 1 l1.2.h,5,6,8,10.111

 ANTHONY POPLE

The former is the set 9-10 which, it was suggested, might have been part of a
coherent scheme of sets if segment C ' / ~ , Ehad been split. The set of P',
however, would have been a new rogue set, &12B, which, though a subset of
9-10 and a superset of 7-31 (which contains all the 5- and 6-element sets
identified), is no more related to 8-27B than are 6-34 and 6-21 (the sets of A
and A') to the other 6-element sets corresponding to the preferred segmen-
tation. The result of splitting C ' / ~ , Ebut not splitting the P-type segments,
then, would have been no more orderly than the scheme resulting from the
segmentation adopted on paradigmatic grounds, in which the P-segments
were split but C1/S,ewas not. It must be stressed that the justification of the
analytical procedure followed here lies elsewhere, and it remains the case that
the significance of the subset-relations to the syntagmatics of segment-
succession is not clear.

A different perspective is needed to investigate both the segment-to-

segment successions and the larger coherence of the piece. There is perhaps
something to be gained by comparing two kinds of procedure often called
'reduction': on one hand, the reduction of a segmented pitch-structure to pc
sets, as undertaken above, and on the other, the hierarchic layering fun-
damental to post-Schenker analysis. In the latter case, the reduction-
arguably not an apt description - comes about through a distinction between
structural and elaborative elements, which is correlated with the theory of
counterpoint. In set-reduction this distinction is not made explicitly; the
analysis starts with all pitch elements equally weighted, and the structural role
and importance of the sets identified is defined largely statistically. Forte's 'set
complex', and other categories of relationship such as those described by
Lord, Cha.pman and S o l ~ m o n , may
' ~ help to refine judgments based on the
numerical predominance of particular sets (or made in a more ad hoc manner),
but these set-relation still do not distinguish explicitly between structure and
elaboration with respect to individual pitch elements.
Recently, Joseph Straus has proposed 'pattern-completion' as a principle of
atonal voice-leading:
According to this principle, a certain unordered collection or set of notes
(generally a tetrachord) is established as a structural norm for the
composition, pervading the surface of the music (both melodic and harmo-
nic) and governing the tonal motion at all levels of structure. Through
repetition, this normative unit becomes so engrained in the listener's
consciousness that the sounding of one part of the pattern creates an
expectation for the completion of the pattern. In other words, when a
normative unit of n elements has been established, the appearance of any
subset of that unit containing n-1 elements will create an expectation for
the single missing element. Further, this principle is also valid for struc-
turally related tones even if they are widely separated in time."
Unfortunately Straus does not demonstrate the working of this principle in
the context of theories of voice-leading for atonal music,*l and he does not
 A la 8 10 A'la A la

A'la SIP 04 E IY C'16 c

1 - I
A 17 (
B 11 c ,1 I
9-101~1 6-219 c 9-10 7 - 2 6 8 ~ 9 - 1 0 9-101~01
It9] It7r

A la Blp A'p 043 Ala Blp AM 8lp Dip EIp ,C2'1e I

9-10 it3 i 9-10 it0l 9 -10 (to] 6-30Bc9-10

It0 )

MUSIC ANALYSIS 2:2,1983

 ANTHONY POPLE

draw an obvious parallel between the normative aspect of his 'pattern-

completion' and Leonard Meyer's implication-realization model of musical
p e r ~ e p t i o n .Nevertheless,
~~ the pattern-completion principle itself is an
important one: it admits the idea that a pc set may be heard as i n ~ o m p l e t e , ~ ~
and thus provides an analytical motivation for the identification and discus-
sion of subset-relations. This suggests that a piece of music such as Skryabin's
Op. 67/i might be considered in terms of the normative function, on perhaps
several levels of structure, of one or more large sets (not necessarily tetrachords),
and also in terms of the ways in which these sets are composed-out indi-
vidually (into subsets) and connected to each other (by set-relations dependent
on the notion of the subset).24 One might go further and suggest that a
particular large set could perhaps be considered normative for the whole
structure.25
The proposition that normative goal-sets may be an artefact of reading the
structure of a piece of 'atonal' music like the Skryabin prelude is analogous to
the proposition in Schenkerian theory that norms of a 'tonal' system are
determinants of the structure read into a score from the period of common
practice. Work already done in the field of voice-leading analysis of post-
romantic and early-modern music, however, indicates that while this analogy
may hold, the distinction between counterpoint- and set-based structures is
not easily made. If the distinction I made earlier between 'chord' and 'set',
between 'note' and 'pitch-class', is to be maintained, then the composing-out
of pitch-class sets and the connections between them must be seen in terms of
set-structural relations (based on the normative role of one or more large sets)
whereas the corresponding chords and notes may be seen to be composed-out
and connected in contrapuntal and harmonic terms. The co-existence of
different frames of reference undoubtedly reflects the common view of this
musical style as t r a n ~ i t i o n a l .However,
~~ either or both of these approaches
may be incomplete, which is likely to provoke the interpretation of one
reading as structural, the other referential. For example from the viewpoint of
a coherent set-based reading, features of line, suggesting counterpoint, appear
to be references to another mode of musical understanding.
Example 13 (above) depicts an interpretation of the structure of the piece
in the terms already discussed: on the largest scale, the normative set is taken
as [0, 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 101; this is the set (9-10) formed jointly by segments
A/a and B/P (b. 1). All the larger units identified in the piece may be related
simply to this set, as has already been shown. The overall course of the music
may be charted by the transpositions undergone by 9-10, which are shown for
each segment, measured in semitones upward (mod 12) from the to form listed
above. Throughout most of the piece, on a smaller scale, the set 9-10 is
regarded as being composed-out against the normative background of the
octatonic set [O, 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 101, transposed as necessary; octatonic and
non-octatonic segments are distinguished in Ex. 13 by black and white note-
heads respectively. Only one pc of 9-10 (Ab in the to form) lies outside the
octatonic set 8-28, as shown in a Venn diagram:
 Ex. 14.

Except in bs 13- 14 and 17-1 8-corresponding to the problematic segment

C'/G,E-each statement of this extra pc, at whatever transposition of 9-10,
initiates melodic motion; furthermore, there is a larger melodic line (shown on
an extra stave above the main representation of the score) which traverses an
octave upwards from the initial Ab to the G# of b. 16, the highest note of the
piece. This line, like the small-scale melodic motions, is not structural in
terms of the set-based reading of the piece, but is instead seen as a reference to
contrapuntal musical structure. For the purposes of this reference, the con-
cept of dissonance is held to be recreated by the set-relation between 9-10 and
8-28: pc 8 is dissonant, in this context, with the octatonic set.
As far as the various transpositions of the large-scale normative set 9-10 are
concerned, note that the transpositions indicated in bs 13-14 and 17-18 have
been achieved by splitting the large set 10-4 in two (as discussed previously).
Both resultant subsets are also subsets of transpositions of 9-10. The trans-
positions of 9-10 found in the piece as a whole are, in order: t=O, 9, 7, 10, 8,
6,9, 3, 0. These transposition numbers-representing in each case a referen-
tial pc in the set-themselves form the unordered set [O, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 101,
which is a subset (!) of the to form of the normative set. The interpretation
thus proposes that the normative set governs its own transpositions.
It is no coincidence that this coherent interpretation is dependent on a
number of decisions which at every turn go against those taken in the original
segmentation: the combining of Ala and BIP to produce set 9-10, and the
splitting of C'IG, E to produce the important non-octatonic transposition t8,
were ruled out at the earlier stage; the secondary normative set 8-28 would not
have arisen from any proposed segmentation. Skryabin's expressive marking
in b. 15-dechirant-is uncannily right analytically: my interpretation of
coherence in this piece depends on bringing to it normative ideas which tear
apart the segmentation defined by the paradigmatics of the score. That the
norms express only those pitch relationships to be found in the score drama-
tizes how the act of interpretation is unable to arbitrate between uncertain
meaning and meaningless certainty.
 ANTHONY POPLE

NOTES
1. Allen Forte, The Structure of Atonal Music (New Haven: Yale, 1973).
2. For example, listed chronologically: Eric Regener, 'On Allen Forte's Theory of
Chords', Perspectives of New Music, Vol. 13, No. 1, Fall-Winter 1974, pp.
191-212; Richard Chrisman, 'Describing Structural Aspects of Pitch-Sets Using
Successive-Interval Arrays', Journal of Music Theory, Vol. 21, No. 1, Spring
1977, pp. 1-28; David Lewin, 'A Label-Free Development for 12-Pitch-Class
Systems', Journal of Music Theory, Vol. 21, No. 1, Spring 1977, pp. 2948, and
'Forte's Interval Vector, My Interval Function, and Regener's Common-Note
Function', Journal of Music Theory, Vol. 21, No. 2, Fall 1977, pp. 194-237;
Daniel Starr, 'Sets, Invariance and Partitions', Journal of Music Theory, Vol. 22,
No. 1, Spring 1978, pp. 1 4 2 ; John Clough, 'Aspects of Diatonic Sets', Journal of
Music Theory, Vol. 23, No. 1, Spring 1979, pp. 45-61; Lewin, 'Some New
Constructs Involving Abstract PCSets, and Probabilistic Applications', Perspec-
tives of New Music, Vol. 18, 1979-80, pp. 43344; Robert D. Morris, 'Set
Groups, Complementation, and Mappings Among Pitch-Class Sets', Journal of
Music Theory, Vol. 26, No. 1, Spring 1982, pp. 10144; Larry Solomon, 'The
List of Chords, Their Properties and Use in Analysis', Interface, Vol. 11, No. 2,
1982, pp. 61-107.
3. Forte, op. cit., pp. 91-2.
4. ibid., p. 90.
5. Jean-Jacques Nattiez, Fondernents d'une sbrniologie de la rnusique (Paris: 10118,
1975).
6. See Jonathan Dunsby, 'Music and Semiotics: The Nattiez Phase', The Musical
Quarterly, Vol. 69, No. 1, Winter 1983, pp. 2 7 4 3 .
7. See Nicolas Ruwet, 'Methodes d'analyse en musicologie', in Langage, rnusique,
pobsie (Paris: Seuil, 1972), pp. 100-34.
8. Nattiez, op. cit., p. 54; the translation of the first sentence is my own, that of the
second is from Dunsby, op. cit., p. 31.
9. Nattiez, 'Varese's "Density 21.5": A Study in Semiological Analysis', trans.
Anna Barry, Music Analysis, Vol. 1, No. 3, October 1982, p. 329.
10. ibid., p. 245.
11. See Nattiez, Fondernents, pp. 93-100.
12. See, for example: A. Eaglefield Hull, Scriabin: A Great Russian Tone-Poet (Lon-
don: Trench-Trubner, 1916), p. 291; Hugh Macdonald, Skryabin (London:
OUP, 1978), p. 66.
13. Nattiez, 'Varese's "Density 21.5",' p. 244.
14. In an earlier version of this article I proposed a set-system based on the octatonic
scale, seeing this as a norm to which the pitch-structure of the piece could be
related; I now believe that normative considerations are not appropriate to the
reductive stage of a set-structural analysis except in the ways discussed here.
15. Solomon, op. cit., note 2.
16. Solomon's full table of prime forms (op. cit., pp. 64-70) indicates other aspects of
inversion-relations: where a set is its own inverse (for example, set 2-5) the suffix
*I is added; the suffix < indicates that the ordinal number of a set's complement
is the same as that of the set itself, rather than that of the set's inverse, as is more
usual; complement relations among the hexachords are indicated explicitly, by
appending the ordinal number of the complementary set (for example, set 6-Z19,
 SKRYABIN'S PRELUDE, 0r.67, NO. I

whose complement is 6-Z44B, is listed as &Z19..44B); note that Solomon retains

Forte's Z-relation as part of the set-name.
17. Solomon, op. cit., pp. 72-5.
18. 8-27B is, trivially, a subset of itself; the others are proper subsets.
19. Charles H. Lord, 'Intervallic Similarity Relations in Atonal Set Analysis', Journal
of Music Theoy, Vol. 25, No. 1, Spring 1980, pp. 91-1 11; Alan Chapman, 'Some
Intervallic Aspects of Pitch-Class Set Relations', Journal of Music Theory, Vol. 25,
No. 2, Fall 1981, pp. 275-90; Solomon, op. cit., pp. 72-5.
20. Joseph Straus, 'A Principle of Voice-Leading in Stravinsky', Music Theory Spec-
trum, Vol. 2, 1980, p. 119.
21. See for example: Roy Travis, 'Toward a New Concept of Tonality?', Journal of
Music Theory, Vol. 3, 1959, pp. 257-84; Robert P. Morgan, 'Dissonant Prolonga-
tions: Theoretical and Compositional Precedents', Journal of Music Theory, Vol.
20, No. 1, Spring 1976, pp. 49-91; Craig Ayrey, 'Berg's "Scheideweg":
Analytical Issues in Op. 2/ii', Music Analysis, Vol. 1, No. 2, July 1982, pp.
189-202.
22. See Esther Dunsby, 'Explaining Meyer', this issue ofMusic Analysis, pp. 91-101.
23. Compare the well-known example of Boulez's setting of the word clou to the
twelfth pc of a dodecaphonic series in the third movement of Le marteau sans
maitre.
24. Arnold Whittall made a similar proposal in 'Tonality and the Whole-Tone Scale
in the Music of Debussy', The Music Review, Vol. 36, 1975, pp. 261-71.
25. This would parallel the idea, found in the Skryabin literature from the very first,
that his later works were each in some sense based on a single chord, e.g. the
'Mystic Chord' in Prometheus.
26. Although this duality is by no means regrettable, there is room for a theoretical
concept somewhere between the note and the pitch-class, embodying some kind
of reduction in the light of certain registral aspects of pitch-structure.
http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS
- Page 1 of 4 -

You have printed the following article:

Skryabin's Prelude, Op. 67, No. 1: Sets and Structure
Anthony Pople
Music Analysis, Vol. 2, No. 2. (Jul., 1983), pp. 151-173.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0262-5245%28198307%292%3A2%3C151%3ASPO6N1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0

This article references the following linked citations. If you are trying to access articles from an
off-campus location, you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR. Please
visit your library's website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR.

Notes

2
On Allen Forte's Theory of Chords
Eric Regener
Perspectives of New Music, Vol. 13, No. 1. (Autumn - Winter, 1974), pp. 191-212.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-6016%28197423%2F24%2913%3A1%3C191%3AOAFTOC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I

2
Describing Structural Aspects of Pitch-Sets Using Successive-Interval Arrays
Richard Chrisman
Journal of Music Theory, Vol. 21, No. 1. (Spring, 1977), pp. 1-28.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2909%28197721%2921%3A1%3C1%3ADSAOPU%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3

2
A Label-Free Development for 12-Pitch-Class Systems
David Lewin
Journal of Music Theory, Vol. 21, No. 1. (Spring, 1977), pp. 29-48.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2909%28197721%2921%3A1%3C29%3AALDF1S%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A

2
Forte's "Interval Vector, My Interval Function", and Regener's "Common-Note Function"
David Lewin; Forte; Regeber
Journal of Music Theory, Vol. 21, No. 2. (Autumn, 1977), pp. 194-237.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2909%28197723%2921%3A2%3C194%3AF%22VMIF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D

NOTE: The reference numbering from the original has been maintained in this citation list.
http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS
- Page 2 of 4 -

2
Sets, Invariance and Partitions
Daniel Starr
Journal of Music Theory, Vol. 22, No. 1. (Spring, 1978), pp. 1-42.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2909%28197821%2922%3A1%3C1%3ASIAP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F

2
Aspects of Diatonic Sets
John Clough
Journal of Music Theory, Vol. 23, No. 1. (Spring, 1979), pp. 45-61.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2909%28197921%2923%3A1%3C45%3AAODS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0

2
Some New Constructs Involving Abstract PCSets, and Probabilistic Applications
David Lewin
Perspectives of New Music, Vol. 18, No. 1/2. (Autumn, 1979 - Summer, 1980), pp. 433-444.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-6016%28197923%2F198022%2918%3A1%2F2%3C433%3ASNCIAP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y

2
Set Groups, Complementation, and Mappings among Pitch-Class Sets
Robert D. Morris
Journal of Music Theory, Vol. 26, No. 1. (Spring, 1982), pp. 101-144.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2909%28198221%2926%3A1%3C101%3ASGCAMA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O

3
Forte's "Interval Vector, My Interval Function", and Regener's "Common-Note Function"
David Lewin; Forte; Regeber
Journal of Music Theory, Vol. 21, No. 2. (Autumn, 1977), pp. 194-237.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2909%28197723%2921%3A2%3C194%3AF%22VMIF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D

4
Forte's "Interval Vector, My Interval Function", and Regener's "Common-Note Function"
David Lewin; Forte; Regeber
Journal of Music Theory, Vol. 21, No. 2. (Autumn, 1977), pp. 194-237.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2909%28197723%2921%3A2%3C194%3AF%22VMIF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D

NOTE: The reference numbering from the original has been maintained in this citation list.
http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS
- Page 3 of 4 -

6
Music and Semiotics: The Nattiez Phase
Jonathan Dunsby
The Musical Quarterly, Vol. 69, No. 1. (Winter, 1983), pp. 27-43.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0027-4631%28198324%2969%3A1%3C27%3AMASTNP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U

8
Music and Semiotics: The Nattiez Phase
Jonathan Dunsby
The Musical Quarterly, Vol. 69, No. 1. (Winter, 1983), pp. 27-43.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0027-4631%28198324%2969%3A1%3C27%3AMASTNP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U

19
Intervallic Similarity Relations in Atonal Set Analysis
Charles H. Lord
Journal of Music Theory, Vol. 25, No. 1, 25th Anniversary Issue. (Spring, 1981), pp. 91-111.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2909%28198121%2925%3A1%3C91%3AISRIAS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1

19
Some Intervallic Aspects of Pitch-Class Set Relations
Alan Chapman
Journal of Music Theory, Vol. 25, No. 2. (Autumn, 1981), pp. 275-290.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2909%28198123%2925%3A2%3C275%3ASIAOPS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3

20
A Principle of Voice Leading in the Music of Stravinsky
Joseph Straus
Music Theory Spectrum, Vol. 4. (Spring, 1982), pp. 106-124.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0195-6167%28198221%294%3C106%3AAPOVLI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X

21
Towards a New Concept of Tonality?
Roy Travis
Journal of Music Theory, Vol. 3, No. 2. (Nov., 1959), pp. 257-284.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2909%28195911%293%3A2%3C257%3ATANCOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2

NOTE: The reference numbering from the original has been maintained in this citation list.
http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS
- Page 4 of 4 -

21
Dissonant Prolongation: Theoretical and Compositional Precedents
Robert P. Morgan
Journal of Music Theory, Vol. 20, No. 1. (Spring, 1976), pp. 49-91.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2909%28197621%2920%3A1%3C49%3ADPTACP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R

21
Berg's 'Scheideweg': Analytical Issues in Op. 2/ii
Craig Ayrey
Music Analysis, Vol. 1, No. 2. (Jul., 1982), pp. 189-202.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0262-5245%28198207%291%3A2%3C189%3AB%27AIIO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V

NOTE: The reference numbering from the original has been maintained in this citation list.