Chopin – Mazurka op. 17 no.

3
Bernardo Miethe

Chopin’s Mazurka op. 17 no. 3 (Fig. 30 in Free Composition) is one of Chopin’s

compositions where he expresses his nationalism by writing out a traditional polish dance in a

classical style. This movement is one of Chopin’s longest Mazurkas ever written by him. It

doesn’t follow traditional harmonic progressions (giving it a peculiar sound). There are no

traditional subdominant (IV) or submediant (VI) chords in the entire work. Most of the

movement is comprised of dominants (and their dominants), tonics, iii or III, and vii°. This

particular one is composed in compound ternary form. My conventional analysis of the work is

as follow:

A (I) B (bVI) A (I)

A-B-A C -D- C A-B-A

Ab: I - ii - I E: I-iii-I - I - I-iii-I Ab: I - ii - I

# 1 - 17 - 25 41 - 57 - 65 1 - 17 - 25

2 periods-seq/pedal-2 periods 2 periods-seq/pedal-2 periods 2 periods-seq/pedal-2 periods

As many composers did in the romantic period, Chopin contrasts tonic by moving to the flat

submediant (bVI). Furthermore, the C sections modulate to iii before going back to tonic. It is

also important to note that both middle sections (B/D) are very repetitive, static, and sequential-

like to contrast to the outer sections (A/C). Moreover, all the outer sections (A/C) are composed

of 2 periods each. The B section remains static on ii and the D section continuously cadences on

I by means of V/V→V→I.

Schenker perceives the middleground of this piece as a simple ^3^2^1 with a b^3,

modally borrowed, that prolongs ^3 through the middle section; making it ^3-b^3-^3-^2-^1. He

also explains how this Mazurka uses neighbor-notes inside a neighbor-note in the foreground
(Figure 1). Neighbor notes are very important in Schenker’s graph because he seems to

understand much of the music generated from neighbor notes.

Figure 1. Neighbor notes in the foreground and middleground.

Schenker, therefore, graphs that the neighbor notes in the foreground are derived from the

larger neighbor note in the middleground. Schenker is not concerned with phrasing, but on the

way in which the foreground is generated from the middleground. He doesn’t mention the

periods; instead, he graphs the many third progressions that appear on the A section (Figure 2)

which are generated by the middleground neighbor note, followed by an arpeggiation and 5th

progressions on the B section (Figure 3) which are also generated by their respective neighbor

note.

Figure 2. 3rd progressions on the A section generated from neighbor notes.

 Figure 3. Arpeggiation and 5th progression on the B section generated from neighbor notes.

A conventional analysis of this piece would be very close to that of Schenker in a way. It

would note the compound ternary form. It would also point out the romantic shift from I to bVI

of the B section. The main differences from a conventional analysis is the phrasing and the way

in which Schenker notates the chords. A conventional analyzis would mention the period phrases

as important compositional techniques. Schenquer, on the other hand, places the harmonic

movement of ^3-^2-^1 and the way in which this is generated at the forefront of his analysis. It is

important to note that Schenker viewed harmonic progression as very simple shifts of tonic

subdominant and dominant chords. He doesn’t bother analyzing pieces the way we do today

(every chord has a clear label), but showing that everything is either I-IV-V-I, with extra notes

added for flavoring. On the other hand, it is important to be aware of a particular passage from

this piece where Schenker labels the first neighbor note on the foreground (m. 17) and that entire

passage as “?.” This is a tricky passage to analyze. On measure 18, there is a chord that has the

notes Bb, F, C, and Eb. It could either be a ii or a V7/ii with a pedal. It being a V would make

more sense since it would tonicize ii making the entire section on ii with a pedal. But why didn’t

Schenker call it a ii? Moreover, under “?” section, Schenker notes that this is simply a neighbor

note harmony. Maybe Schenker labels “?” to the chords on #23 and 24. These chords make sense

on their own but not on the progression they’re in: [V]→V/N→[V]→V/N→vii°7. In my opinion,

Schenker simply views this passage as a neighboring section where everything goes.
 Listening to many different recordings I found an interesting aspect of interpretation. I

found that every pianist fluctuates the tempo immensely almost to the point that it sounds

clumsy, like a person learning to dance or learning to play the piano. This made me wonder if

this was Chopin’s intentions because his only tempo marking is the one at the beginning, Legato

Assai (very legato). It should be of performers attention, especially those trying to stand out, to

record this piece at a much steady tempo. I believe that it would give it a much better dance-like

quality to it, which I believe was Chopin’s intentions when composing his Mazurkas.

Looking at Schenkers graph is important to understand the way in which he thought

about music and his focus on entire movements generated from simple ideas. It is difficult and

yet interesting, though, to wrap one's head on some of his concepts; especially the way in which

he labels all chords as extensions of tonic with extra flavoring. This, on the other hand, gave me

a much different view of conventional tonal harmony and taught me that sometimes we

overcomplicate simple concepts. Therefore, I now have two different ways of looking at

harmonic structures. Schenker’s analysis of it, though, helped me understand better the way in

which he thought about music; which, mixed with a conventional view, can give a piece a much

richer perspective.
 Bibliography

Schenker, Heinrich; Oster, Ernst. Free Composition, Musical Examples. Pendragon Press. New

York: 1979