REPORTS – Provide a 2-page single-space report on the reading/listening, in point form.

Head your report with a complete, correct citation for the reading (Chicago Manual preferred).

Page 1: summary - a summary of the reading, with main points and relevant detail. Define
important terms. Outline analytical points, with specific references to the score (mm. nos.).
I will be looking for a clear representation of the reading’s argument, main points, and supporting
detail, rather than a superficial blow-by-blow account. Please use quotations only where
appropriate (e.g. definitions, a case of particularly incisive wording, etc.) See Canvas for a
rubric.

Page 2a: performance – What strikes you in each performer’s approach? What musical “points”
does the performer make? What performance issues does the reading raise? How do these relate
to the recorded performances? Provide specific references by performer name.

Page 2b: respond - what have you learned from this reading/listening? How might it apply in
your own performance? What questions does it raise for you, and how specifically could you
explore them further?

Page 2c: Do you have any critiques? Other responses?

 Zach Howarth
9-10-2024
Schacter, Carl. “Chopin’s Prelude in D Major, Opus 28, No. 5: Analysis and Performance.”
Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy 8 (1994): 27–45.

● The Prelude’s most glaring oddity is its 37-bar slur. Pauline Viardot, by way of Camille
Saint-Saens, indicated that large slurs in Chopin’s music specifically indicate spianato, or
smoothly/level.
● The form of the Prelude is nearly a copy of itself; mm. 1-16 are almost the same as mm.
17-32 with slight variation (mm. 5-8 and mm. 21-24 are an example.) Mm. 33-36 are a pedal
and mm. 37-39 are a I-V-I, which Schachter considers a coda.
● Additionally, the Prelude’s subdivisions generally split into four-bar groupings. As Schachter
notes in Figure 1 in the article, a specific sequence forms twice—”x-a-a-b”.
● The bassline also repeats in the “cloned” sections, creating an “A-D-E-F#” sequence to align
with the “x-a-a-b” form. The only significant shift occurs in mm. 13 and 29. The F# present
in both measures is first in the tonal area of F#M (III#) and DM (I). Creates a stepwise
motion in the bass—D-E-F#. Perhaps this implies the ending of the Prelude?
● First four measures are unstable. There are very few strong downbeats and the harmonic
content is super dissonant with the moving B-Bb-A-Bb-B melody over V.
● Primary sections of the “flow” of the Prelude are at m. 5 and m. 21. (V-I release with rhythm
and harmony)
● “x” from the form is considered “introductory” material and the actual piece begins at m.
5/”a”. It is also recycled at the end in the coda section. “A” is expository, increasing in
instability. (See mm. 9-12) “B” is the conclusion in both phrases, with cadence.
● In Ex. 2, Schachter reads the overarching harmonic progressions as I-III#-V-I and I-I6-V-I
respectively (mm. 1-20 and 21-39) M. 21 could be elided in some way?
● The V in mm. 17-20 ultimately pivots from a I to a I in different sections of the Prelude.
Another dominant in this Prelude, from the very beginning (mm. 1-4) is immediate and leads
into the harmonic sections of the piece without actually contributing to it. Schachter calls the
two dominants upbeats “inside” and “outside” the structure.
● Ex. 3 shows ascending 5ths (D-A-E-B-F#, at mm. 5-7-9-11-13)
● Rhythmic emphasis in the D-E-F# (marking four-bar groups)
● 5-6-5 in bass leads to 5-dim7-5 unfolds with D-E and E-F#—chromatic inflection appears.
● Top voice is contoured specifically—comes to RH D in m.5 from 1-4, resolving C# and
extended upbeat. Mm. 17-28 has same structure; harmonic shift at m. 29—I6 instead of
III#—has melodic change too. Line sinks back down to D.
● High F# in m. 37 is delayed for the entire Prelude (creating frustrations around mm. 29-32
and 33-36.)
● First four bars contain elements of rhythmic and chromatic complexity.
○ 16th notes are divided into 3+20+1=24 and 2+20+2=24. Prominent notes fall on second note
of each four-note group
○ A-Bb-B-Bb-A line helps generate momentum to the F# in m.37
● Schachter’s reason for the Chopin long slur being important comes from not relying on
articulation and instead relying on dynamics and “stressing” of notes.
● Performance-wise, the large slur and crescendos/decrescendos create a performance doubt in
terms of pacing a short prelude. Additionally, on that point, such a short piece demands both
intense focus and intent on how to differentiate the “cloned” sections in the 30-39s. Being
able to bring out the chromatic A-Bb-B-Bb-A line while there are multiple other 16th-note
voicings sounds incredibly difficult as well. All of the performers managed to bring it out,
but some performers did better than others.

● The Arrau performance has a much stronger sense of rubato in the beginning and ends of
phrases (mm.1-14, 13-16, 25-29, etc.) The middle sections are still legato but quick. In fact,
he potentially accelerates mm. 5-11 and slows down on 12. His coda section feels the most
developed in terms of dynamic contrast and temporal breathing.

● The Argerich recording is much more even in terms of temporal shift/rubato. In general, the
legato feeling only accentuates in the last little section at mm. 29-36. The articulation itself
feels like an even mixture of staccato and legato. The last half of the piece feels more legato
and the first half, especially mm. 1-11 feel more pointy and brisk.

● Cortot’s performance brings out the RH a little in the mm. 5-8 and 21-24 lines with a little
pull. There is a significant pause around mm. 33-34. The tempo itself is also at a slower but
still allegro pace. The previous two performers played much quicker in general. Also, the
final three hits are soft and long, whereas the score marks a crescendo and eighth note hits in
forte.

● The Rubenstein feels the most aggressive. The time does not push and pull really at all,
except for a slight pause at m. 16 and m. 28. Additionally, he crescendos super aggressively
and even speeds up/accelerates the final five measures or so. This evokes almost a chaotic
feeling, whereas the other performances feel whimsical. I might describe it as manic versus
crazed (Rubenstein’s being more crazed than the others.)

● Cherkassky feels the softest and most legato, at least in the beginning section. The tempo is a
little slower and every note feels much more connected. His entire dynamic range is at a
much lower level than everyone else’s. His RH in the melody at mm. 5-12 and 21-28 stands
out from the other notes and LH voicings. The final five or six measures decrescendo instead
of crescendo and again lay kind of longer than eighth notes.

● Reading and listening intently to interlocking voices is extremely important and insightful for
my own playing. As a drummer, all four of my limbs are playing frequently, and I have to try
and keep a hierarchy in what voice or voices need to come out more than others. For
beginning drummers, this problem can show in the form of a loud bass drum (when
attempting to “feather”, or lightly play to accompany the acoustic bass.) So, it’s very
interesting to read about and listen to this Prelude because, while it doesn’t appear to have
anything to do with jazz drums, the intricate voicings are very pertinent to the music, and the
ideas of subjective breathtaking and phrasing are something I consider a lot as well.
 Zach Howarth
9-10-2024
Lester, Joel. Bach’s Works for Solo Violin: Style, Structure, Performance. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1999.
● The Adagio as a Prelude to the Fuga:
○ Although this sonata’s Adagio does end with a tonic cadence, it still links up with
the fugue after similar to the Am and CM sonatas. In this context, Baroque-era
fugues are often preceded by preludes (toccata, adagio, etc.)
○ This Gm Adagio specifically functions as a prelude, perhaps even improvisatory
in nature.
● One Type of Bach Prelude
○ This prelude is similar to Bach’s prelude-patterns, such as those found in the
Well-Tempered Clavier. This style of composition imitates an improvisation.
○ The underlying harmonic foundation can be traced back to shorthand ideas like
Bach’s son, Wilhelm Friedemann. He compressed notation down like the CM
prelude into chords. (This is very similar to jazz shorthand/chord changes.)
● The Gm Adagio as a Prelude and Patterns
○ The Adagio has a similar resemblance to the Em Prelude from the WTC in its
ornateness, rhapsodic nature, and descending bass scale. The rhythmic element is
incredibly complex and lends itself to an improvising nature.
● Performance Implications
○ Multiple violinist editors have made versions of this Adagio with emphasizing the
melody in mind. This is a Classical/19th c. notion of texture and melody. By
contrast, the Baroque approach to writing and playing concentrates on building
from the bass.
○ By thinking about this Adagio from the bass, the performer may actually be able
to think of it as an unfolding rhapsodic improvisation over the bass.
● The Rhetorical Shape and Arrangement of Sections
○ The movement should resemble a sonata form, but the Adagio lacks any major
contrast or thematic change. It is simply a rhapsodic movement.
○ Similarly, where a Classical sonata form might have a development to prepare for
a return to the tonic, the Adagio’s “development” and “recapitulation” in mm.
14-15 don’t have any strong sense of thematic arrival or formal processes. The
Adagio is part of a compositional principle—having heightened intensity in this
“form”, this rhapsodic improvisational prelude.
● Performance Considerations
○ Musicians can consider the stops in the Adagio as part of their performance. This
can include how long the extra notes are held around and underneath the melodic
lines.
○ Additionally, the rubato/rhapsodic nature of this Adagio would lead musicians to
consider whether or not they should be metronomically strong or weak/moving,
especially the final two measures. (Sometimes people play the last two measures
longer than other sections of the piece even though they are notated similarly.)
● Itzhak Perlman’s performance of this is overall much slower than other recordings. I
would argue this is due in part to his attention to phrasing and melody; he frequently
makes the stops stand out from the more rhythmically complex lines.
● Yehudi Menuhin’s recording has a slightly more active tempo (though still slow
compared to the latter recordings on this list.) It feels as though he takes less time in his
breaths and pauses compared to Perlman’s performance. While Menhuin is still
expressive, Perlman’s felt more precise and slower, but perhaps more emotional.
● The Heifetz recording is… more aggressive? The stops and melodic lines feel like they
evoke more of a sense of power and command, as opposed to the introspective nature of
the Perlman. That being said, the tempo feels more metronomic as opposed to rubato and
rhapsodic. Perhaps he just doesn’t speed up the ascending lines as much.
● Luca’s Baroque violin brings a much different approach to this sonata. Immediately it
does remind me of Dido’s Lament from Dido and Aeneas (which would have had
Baroque violins as well I suppose.) The tempo feels more springy and quicker compared
to the other more Romantic-feeling performances of Perlman, Menuhin, and Heifetz. The
phrasing feels very… clean?
● Rachel Podger’s performance has little vibrato compared to the other performers and the
ornaments feel very articulated and different (is she improvising these ornaments?) It
feels the most historically accurate along with Luca’s, managing to feel dancelike even
though it is an Adagio.

● I have two main thoughts related to this report and piece. Firstly, the idea of melody
compression being as old as the Baroque Era is fascinating, seeing as it is the foundation
of most jazz charts. Anytime there is a “Dm7-G7-CMaj9” or similar progression, the
chord symbol is serving as a compression. And it is expected that the musician will
improvise the voicing of this chord so as to keep a fresh perspective when playing with
musicians live. It’s interesting that this idea was done hundreds of years ago by Bach’s
son in relation to some of the Preludes.

● Secondarily, as a personal note, this was an exceedingly tough analysis and report for
me… Compared to the Chopin, this felt way out of my depth and I really didn’t know
what to do. I did not feel like I had a good grasp of what to do for the analysis, nor did I
feel like I fully understood the nuances of the Bach book. I am not very experienced or
comfortable with violin works and have no frame of reference for how to analyze the
phrase markings and techniques of the violin. I didn’t really feel content with my analysis
because of this. It was an interesting read and the performances were beautiful, but I’m
not really sure what from this analysis or report I would use to support my own
performances and analyses beyond the recognition of chord symbol/note compression
and reduction being as old as the Baroque Era. I could see making a case for thinking
about improvisation from the bass up, although I do think that happens a lot already in
the jazz world—especially in regards to the interplay between improvising from the bass
foundation and experimenting with the bass not playing the foundational note (inversions,
melodic and rhythmic lines that go against the grain, etc.) I wouldn’t say I felt “lost” on
this, but I was swinging a bit more wildly than I was for the Chopin. Still, an interesting
read.
 Zach Howarth
10/3/2024
Rothstein, William. Phrase Rhythm in Tonal Music. New York: Schirmer Books, 1989.

● Rothstein battles with the meaning of the word “phrase.” Roger Sessions called it “the
constant movement toward a goal--the cadence.”
● Peter Westergaard said that a phrase “establishes a set of pitches” and then, through
different steps, “moves to a second set of pitches.”
● He mentions that phrases are coexistent with tonal motion, citing examples like “Blue
Danube” as having static phrases because the harmonic motion is static. The reading then
goes into full detail marking the first section of “Blue Danube” in a hypermetric
reduction, showing how the tonality/harmony shapes the movement.
● After going through definitions and considerations by Schenker (like the phrasing slur),
Rothstein landed on “phrase rhythm”, as it contains both phrase structure and hypermeter.
● Harmony decides phrase structure as much, if not more than melody.
● Sometimes melody and harmony can be out of phase with each other; the hypermeter
moves with the harmonic rhythm and the melody will eventually line back up.
● Another element of phrase structure is subphrases. These can be comprised of melodic
fragments that evoke a “tonal weakness.”
● A variation in the hypermeter structure, especially in phrases that feel “wonky” (such as
Ex. 2.17 in the reading), is called the elongated upbeat--or when the phrase upbeat lasts at
least a measure before a hypermeasure.
● Relating to “phrase linkage”, overlap is a common part of phrase structure and
hypermeter--that is, when the end of one phrase is the start of the next phrase (such as an
elided cadence?)
● The lead-in is an important aspect of hypermeter described by Heinrich Christoph Koch
(in this context) wherein a section contains an overlap and a weaker melodic sentence
that leads to the next phrase structure or part of the phrase.
● Metrical reinterpretation is the metrical structure equivalent of overlap in phrase
structure; it occurs when the last bar of a hypermeasure is elided, or treated as the first bar
of a new hypermeasure. This eliminates one of the measures so the last bar becomes the
first bar, rather than both existing. Metrical reinterpretation seems to always occur when
an overlap occurs. Metrical structure/harmonic structure are linked, but different.
● Rothstein goes further into elongated upbeats to say that, metrically speaking, an
elongated upbeat disrupts the hypermeter by delaying the beginning. When that elongated
upbeat occurs between two hypermeasures, it suspends/separates them.
● A type of successive downbeat that Rothstein mentions is the split downbeat, which he
uses a Schubert sonata to demonstrate. In that sonata (Ex. 2.37), he mentions that the split
is exemplified by both downbeat measures being phrase beginnings. The accompaniment
and melody must be affirmed as downbeat measures by the hypermetrical context.
● Rothstein goes on to mention Hugo Riemann’s work in phrase rhythm and structure,
mentioning that he adapted Koch and Anton Reicha’s ideas into his own. Riemann has
his own version of the Donald Tovey “purple patches”, where passages with distant
harmonies are played/written just before the expected end of a thematic group.
● There is this idea of the “parenthetical insertion”, or the idea of “unessential” melodic
ideas between the segments of a phrase; some ideas exist but don’t interfere with the
melodic ascent/descent of a phrase.
● I enjoy hypermeter to an extent, although I’m always a little frustrated by how
pre-20th-century the examples and studies are. It’s interesting to see the metrical structure
and phrase structure aligning in slightly formulaic music (like a sonata), but I would love
for us to talk about using hypermeter or the considerations of hypermeter/measures in
more complex phrased-tonal composers like Wagner, (Richard) Strauss, Stravinsky, etc.
Or, we could talk about hypermeter and its role in Schoenberg, Webern, Steve Reich,
Philip Glass, Bartok, Ligeti, etc—or even the Lachenmann cello etude. It would be a lot
more guesswork than the tonal pieces Rothstein used. But, as a personal note, while I do
love Schubert and Beethoven and Bach, I would love to see the studies being composers
other than them.