Russian composers of this period tended to follow Skriabin’s example in writing single-movement sonatas but they often lacked his sense of structure. Sonata No. 1 by Mosolov is based loosely on the tonality of C, with frequent challenges from F-sharp. Sonata Op. 12 by Shostakovich, a multimovement work, is similar. These rhapsodic compositions become increasingly improvisational as they proceed; each suffers from the weakness that the ideas it contains are insufficient to sustain so long a work. The sonatas of Feinberg and Anatoly Aleksandrov frequently rely on extended pedal points to give a skeletal structure to lengthy passages which, however pianistically effective, sound like improvisations. Sonata No. 3 by Miaskovsky avoids this problem, but despite the radical sound of much of its harmony, it is formally quite orthodox and owes something to Beethoven’s Op. 13. It is in C minor/major with an “improvisato” introduction, which reappears between the main sections of the work. Miaskovsky’s Sonata No. 2 is another single-movement work of orthodox layout, this time in F-sharp minor, which uses the Dies Irae in its second subject.

Structurally more interesting than any of these is the Sonata Op. 34 by Aleksandr Krein, parts of which have already been discussed in some detail in earlier chapters. Example 12-1 shows the layout of this work. Most of the melodic and rhythmic material throughout, including the introduction, is derived from the traditional melody first heard in bars 17-24.

The listener may, at first hearing, consider that the passage commencing at bar 85 is a second subject, because of the move to B-flat. The passage at bar 133 is also at first problematical, as it is a repeat of the opening bars of the introduction at their original pitch. Greater familiarity with the music, however, suggests the most important feature is the element of symmetry. Structural pointers are (1) the reference chord on B, which returns at bars 45 and 224 and at the center of the Sonata in bars 133-34; and (2) the similarity of material in the sections commencing at bars 64 and 163 and the sustained cadences at the ends of these sections, which mark the termination of major divisions of the work. The 5th relationship between the G in bar 84 and the C at bar 183 is reminiscent of the roots E and A of bars 2 and 16.

The introduction, in both its symmetry (see chapter 8) and its overall 5th structure, anticipates important features of the Sonata as a whole. The exposition and recapitulation are centered on the tritone C-sharp/G, with brief but important references in the bass to B. The middle section is built symmetrically around the central reference chord (bars 133-34) in terms of the number of bars, but asymmetrically in that the sections of the first half are texturally related only among themselves, whereas those in the second half—with the exception of bars 13948—are related to the outer divisions of the work. All these sections are, however, related melodically to the traditional tune which opens the exposition. The central part is characterized by its main centers of pitch, which, with some brief excursions, rise chromatically from B-flat through B to C and the C-sharp of the recapitulation. Bars 184-99 are classified as an independent transition because they are marked off from the middle section by the sustained cadence at bar 183 and are melodically very closely related to the following recapitulation, into which they lead without a break.

Two sonatas which transcend the weaknesses mentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter are the massive Sonata No. 2 of Mosolov, which is in three movements, and the single-movement Sonata No. 10 by Skriabin. Many of the principles discussed in chapter 11 and techniques dealt with earlier are employed in these two major works.

Example 12-2 is an analytical reduction of the first movement of Mosolov’s Sonata No. 2. Open notes without stems denote the main pitch centers, which occur at structurally important places. Open notes with stems indicate the most prominent cadences in support of these pitch centers. Filled notes without stems show pitches of secondary structural significance; when they appear within parentheses they denote antecedents of structural pitches which occur later and to which they are connected by slurs terminating with an arrowhead. Tonal or pitch centers of some local consequence, which either emerge for a moment or seem to be about to emerge, are marked by a single eighth note. A quarter note is used at the end of a significant line or to indicate a tone which has a local connection with another pitch; such quarter notes are always joined to their associated tones by a slur. Beamed eighth notes indicate significant progressions. Square brackets denote an insertion or a subdivision within a larger structural unit.

Line 1 of the chart shows the main pitch centers. These form static relationships, as they have no traditional functional values among themselves. This accurately reflects the aural effect of the music, in which tonal functions are so weakened that there is little sense of drive toward a tonal goal. Line 2, however, shows how the main pitch centers and some of the secondary ones are anticipated by earlier events, often in the previous section of the movement. Each of these antecedents has either a 5th, neighboring-tone, or unison relationship to the consequent. These are not traditional functions, but if the listener is familiar with the style, they connect up audibly with one another and lend continuity and a sense of forward motion.

The E-sharp in bars 2 and 9 has a tendency toward F-sharp, and when it becomes rhythmically detached from the chord in bar 9, it initiates a move toward F-sharp, which is accentuated when the E-sharp transfers to the bass in bar 14 (Example 10-18). The bass B and D in bars 31-33 have a different significance from the B and D modal lines at the opening because the pitch centers are now opposed by the F and C chords in the right hand at the beginning of bars 32 and 33. The A-flat and E-flat triads on the third and fourth beats of bars 31-33 also have a local function in opposing these pitch centers, but they are distinguished from their context by rhythm, pitch, and accent and look forward to the principal pitches of the second subject.

E-flat is important in the introduction to the second subject (Example 5-19d, bars 40-42) and in the bass progression at bars 44-50 (Example 6-44a). A second-inversion A-flat triad appears periodically in the middle texture throughout bars 43-62 and serves as a stabilizing element among mainly minor, diminished 7th, or augmented 6th formations (Example 6-44b). A pitch center of D-flat seems about to emerge in bars 48-49 and 62-65, and the 5th relationships between these three pitches (E-flat, A-flat, D-flat) are significant and are related to the transpositions at bars 50 and 59.

The treble B and its supporting 7th chord in bar 118 (Example 12-3) initiates a process which eventually leads to a return of the central pitches of B and D in the coda (Example 6-22). This process consists of long descending lines leading to F-sharp and A-sharp in bars 135-37, which in turn point forward to the ending. The harmonic formations at bars 137-38 occur nowhere else in the piece and give additional weight to the structural importance of these bars. The F-sharp of bar 153 is not locally functional, but here a change of texture marks the beginning of the coda; from this point on there is a feeling of motion toward the final B. This last section balances the prolonged V-I cadence at bars 66-88 at the end of the exposition.

In the music reduction, line 3 shows two insertions into the regular sonata structure: the one in bars 111-18 is based on material first heard in the middle section; the one in bars 162-66 is a portion of the first subject introduced into the coda and serves in place of a recapitulation. This line has a number of incidents of local importance not shown in line 2. Bars 25-33, which are a transition between two statements of the first subject, have two tritones—D-sharp/A and F/B (the latter in contrast with the F-sharp/B in the bass in bars 1-8). Only the more significant lines have been indicated in the reduction, and these suggest a bass rising gradually from D in bars 73-88 through E and F to F-sharp in bar 135, interrupted by the tritone A/E-flat at the point where the buildup toward the coda begins. This line is not particularly obvious in the score because of more-random bass patterns which occur in between those shown in the music reduction. It is audible if one has sufficient familiarity with the music.

Although the tonal and pitch centers, the antecedent and consequent relationships, and the voice leading shown in the music reduction contribute toward the cohesion and forward progression of the music, they do not in themselves account entirely for its sense of unity. Music in which the tonal and pitch centers are weakened, as here, depends a good deal on the surface features for its sense of design. The first subject, second subject, the massive cadence of bars 66-88, and the coda each have a distinct texture which is consistently maintained. The thematic material of the middle section (apart from the insertion) is taken almost entirely from the second subject and the following cadence. These (unlike the first subject) are not repeated in the exposition and are not referred to again at the end. Some harmonic progressions are also taken from the passage of bars 17-24 and used later.

Example 12-4 shows the various harmonic and thematic formations used in the central episode (bars 90-152) as they first appear in the Sonata, and the chart below indicates how this material is employed. These textural and thematic patterns are not only surface features of the tonal structure, as is often felt to be the case in Classical music; they also share the responsibility for overall design. Typical of Russian music, there is little development in the Classical sense; instead similar melodic and harmonic formations are constantly thrown together in new combinations.

The bracketed passage at bars 111-18 (Example 12-2) is based on figures taken from the treble of bars 101 and (in diminution) 105, and there is a further brief reference to the same material in bar 125. The chord contained within the tritone A/E-flat in bar 112 (Example 12-3a) is used only in connection with this material. It is also the basis of the figuration in bars 116-18 and gives a special coloring to the passage.

The main pitches of the work form seven notes of an octatonic scale (Example 12-5). In addition to the pitches shown in line 1 of Example 12-2, the others are A-flat, which is prominent in the second subject; A, in the extended cadence from bar 66; and F, which is the most important pitch in the middle section—from bars 107-108, where it appears as a tonic, to bar 118 and bars 131-34. The right-hand theme, which introduces the second subject at bars 43-44 and recurs at bars 50 and 59, is also octatonic, with the exception of one note (E-flat) (Example 6-44a). At the end of the chapter this work will be compared with Skriabin’s Sonata No. 10, which is considered next.

In the analytical reduction of Skriabin’s Sonata No. 10 (Example 12-6), open notes again indicate the main pitch centers and filled notes other pitches of importance. On the lower staves, beams, tails, and stems are used to draw attention to motifs and progressions. Filled note heads, not connected to a beam, refer to transpositions of motifs; usually they occur in combination with a letter indicating which motif is being transposed. The top staff shows that the Sonata moves from A-flat to F, with D-flat as a common element associated with both. The first part, as far as the central climax, begins and ends on A-flat, with E-flat (in constant conflict with A) as a central feature. F and D-flat are introduced in the second subject and return in the second recapitulation. The central climax ends on B, and the second commentary is based on B/F. This tritone balances the A-natural opposition to E-flat in the first commentary.¹

The diminishing intervals (marked V, W, X, and Y in the introduction, and the corresponding major and minor 3rds in vertical arrangement, indicated by brackets 1 and 2) which make up the motif A are important in the middle ground throughout the work. The intervals V-Y are the main factors of transposition to which the motifs are subjected. The same intervals also dominate the foreground: in two-note accompaniment figures, as in bars 11, 39, and 124; in melodic formations like those in bars 49-50 and 84-87; and in the whole-tone and chromatic strands which characterize the layered effect of the music in bars such as 11-20. Again these intervals limit the diminishing range of chromatic lines like those in the tenor of the first subject and in bars 88-96.

Motif E (bars 32 and 34, omitting the auxiliary G) and the vertical combination at bracket 4 (bar 7) are both French 6ths, and motif F (bars 37 and 38) is derived from V and W. The combined motifs C and D, which make up bracket 3, form a typical Skriabin chord. C occurs only in the proximity of the material of the first subject, and the tritone between the roots of the two harmonies (marked by a line in the reduction) is a constant feature (the rhythm of C also occurs in the treble of bars 75 and 214).

The stable parts of the structure—the first and second subjects, the recapitulations, and the A-flat section of the central climax—are all dominated by the perfect 4th (or 5th) in the bass. The remaining, unstable parts have frequent reference to the tritone in the bass, a greater range of harmonic roots, and sometimes— as in bar 76 and similar passages—ore-frequent changes of harmony. Elements of symmetry are present: as intervals of transposition (see the discussion of Op. 63 No. 2 in chapter 2), in figure E and the mirrorlike chromatic extensions which introduce and follow it (in bars 73-74 and elsewhere), and in the construction of the larger form (see chapter 8). Certain aspects of the Sonata are characteristically Russian, notably the tritone and semitone relationship between the structural notes A-flat, A, and E-flat; the triadic D-flat, F, and A-flat in the exposition; and the overall variability at the minor 3rd.

There is reason for regarding the introduction as part of the first subject since the two go together throughout the Sonata, but it is distinguished as a subsection by the fact that it contains all the chief thematic material, and, in the coda, it returns last to complete the arch structure referred to in chapter 8.

Example 12-6 shows that the Sonata is structured by sections of stability and instability. The first subject has a slight but unmistakable sound of dominant on A-flat, which persists as far as bar 35. The termination of the descending melodic line on D-flat in bar 27 agrees with this. There is a feeling of resolution at bars 32-35 when the perfect 4th is inverted, placing the root A-flat in the bass.

The F chord, bar 37, marks the beginning of the second subject, which is distinguished by a new trill figure, a new melodic line (with the chromatic strand now transferred to the treble), and a new harmonic format. The harmony is still relatively stable, with the F and D-flat chords occurring approximately the same number of times (the A chord is heard once as a transition). F, however, has the ascendancy because of its striking appearance for three bars at the beginning (3739). From bar 51 the music moves down chromatically (F/D-flat, E/C, E-flat).

With the arrival at E-flat (bar 57) the Sonata reaches a new structural pitch and an area of the work which is harmonically unstable. The bass formations as far as bar 71 indicate alternating roots E-flat and A. This entire section, until bar 115, is based on the chords of E-flat (21 complete bars) and A (fourteen complete bars). E-flat is heard first and predominates as far as bar 103, after which it drops out. The conflict between E-flat and A, the tritones in the bass, and the greater number of secondary chords (G, C-sharp, A, G, E) all mark this as an unstable area of the Sonata. The term “commentary,” borrowed from Messiaen, seems appropriate for this portion because the material is presented in new combinations and contexts but not developed in the Classical sense (unlike the central episode of the Mosolov Sonata, this is not a “middle” section). At bar 116 the material of the first subject is transposed down a whole tone (F-sharp) and from bar 132 up a whole tone (B-flat). This forms a neighboring-tone approach to A-flat in bar 154 (Skriabin in some respects uses harmonic roots or centers of pitch in a way which is similar to other Russian composers’ use of voice leading).

The section beginning at bar 154 is another stable area. The A-flat harmony appears first at bar 150, but the tritone progression (D/A-flat) is repeated, indicating that the first stable A-flat is in bar 154. Bars 154-57 contain figures from the first subject at their original pitch. From bar 158 material from the second subject (combined with motif A) is transposed up a minor 3rd so that the main pitch continues to be A-flat, in association now with E. From bar 170 the harmonies again move down chromatically, A-flat/E, G/E-flat, G-flat/D (see bars 52-57), until they arrive at the original pitch of the second subject, F/D-flat. Commencing at bar 184 the music of the introduction is transposed up and then down (bar 188) a whole tone (the reverse order from bars 116 and 136), once more forming a neighboring-tone approach to the A-flat in bar 192.

A case could be argued that bars 192-203 are the end of the A-flat recapitulation. However it has been shown in the reduction as a separate section for three reasons: material from the second subject has already been heard at the A-flat transposition, suggesting that the recapitulation is complete; the end of the melodic sequence at bar 177 corresponds to bar 58 and marks the end of the second subject; and the continuous unbroken crescendo and the buildup of the trills from bar 194 create an overwhelming feeling that bars 192-221 are part of a single section, the first part of which is stable and the last part unstable. The perfect 5th in the bass at bar 192 marks the conclusion of the first—mainly A-flat—section of the work. This is the critical stage of the Sonata, in which a decisive move is made away from A-flat, to F. The section from bar 178 to bar 221 forms the central block of the Sonata. Bars 178-91 have something of the character of a transition but they are more than that: the sustained bass notes F (bar 185), C-sharp (bar 189), and A-flat (bar 192) bring into close proximity the three main pitches of the Sonata.

The second recapitulation commences at bar 222, with second-subject material at its original pitch confirming the move from A-flat to F. It could be argued that this is the latter part of the recapitulation, but it makes no practical difference, and the presence of second-subject material from bar 158 argues against it.

The second commentary commences at bar 246 and as far as bar 293 is a replica of the first, transposed down a major 3rd so that its main pitches (B and F) relate directly to the second half of the Sonata. The final section, which extends to bar 359, partakes of the nature of both commentary and coda. The 5th F/C in the bass at bar 294 corresponds to the bass 5th in bar 192 and heralds the completion of the work; it occurs with increasing frequency as the music continues. All the motifs are reviewed in fragmentary form.

A few other cross-references are worth noting. The three rising notes B-flat, C-flat, and C in bars 5-7 anticipate the alto in bar 9 and the A-sharp, B, and C of bar 73. The treble line of bars 84-87 is anticipated by the figure in bars 75-76 (C, A, D-flat), and the treble of bars 49-50 appears to be related to motif G (bar 88) through the form it assumes in bars 94-96 (treble and alto). The tenor line leading up to bar 95 is related to the tenor in the first subject.

In certain respects Mosolov’s and Skriabin’s sonatas differ from each other in the constructional principles that they demonstrate. Mosolov’s may be said to represent a line of development closely associated with the Classical Russian tradition and for that reason has much in common with works of Prokofiev. There is, however, a striking structural similarity in that both sonatas make use of pitch centers related in the form of a triad, a fact which underlines the composers’ common awareness of their Russian background. In his use of structural pitches, Skriabin demonstrates great attention to detail. He is careful to maintain connections between the A-flat and the F areas of the Sonata as well as tensions between them and tensions by means of the tritones. Mosolov is content to move away from his main pitch centers and return to them later, so that the work is more loosely structured. The middle section especially is more rhapsodic than Skriabin’s highly taut construction.

The tonal, or pitch, centers in both works are quite weak, but neither sonata can properly be described as atonal, and any attempt at analyzing either one on the basis of its being atonal is likely to miss the structural point entirely. Mosolov’s tonal centers are weak because of his use of bimodality and his practice of ornamenting the central pitches with neighboring tones and tritones, as well as the sometimes quite complex relationships between different layers of the music. In all these respects Mosolov is close to Prokofiev. In the case of Skriabin the pitch centers are weakened by his use of symmetry, especially the use of symmetrical divisions of the octave as the basis of motivic transposition. In his Sonata there is an interesting tension between the background structure, which makes use of triadic and 5th relationships and employs tritones as a secondary feature, and the middle-ground structure, where symmetry in the handling of the motifs is more prominent. There is also tension between the symmetrical sectional form of the Sonata and the pitch arrangement; it is through-composed, leading from A-flat to F. This subtle friction between different structural elements has been noted earlier in connection with Skriabin’s smaller pieces and evidences the quite extraordinary attention the composer gave to detail in all his late works. This is one way in which he differed from his fellow Russians, whose larger works tend to be loosely structured.

One result of the careful integration of sections in Skriabin’s works is that cadences are often extremely subtle (like those at bars 27 and 33-35 of this Sonata) or are avoided altogether. In this respect too Skriabin is different from Mosolov, whose cadences, like those of Prokofiev, are clear and sometimes quite conventional, even if elaborately ornamented. The huge cadence at the end of the exposition of Mosolov’s Sonata No. 2 is a major portion of the work.

Another feature of Mosolov’s music, which relates it to Prokofiev and the Russian tradition in general, is the use of voice leading for structural purposes. It is illustrated in the long lines leading to the recapitulation of the Sonata. Mosolov’s use of tones or chords which look forward to structural pitches in a later part of the work is related to Prokofiev’s technique of introducing tones of the tonic or dominant chord from the following section into the bass line in the last few preceding bars (Examples 4-25, 4-26, 4-27). Voice leading is much less obvious in Skriabin’s works. If there is a neighboring-tone approach to an important pitch it is more likely to be a matter of root relationships than of voice leading. It has already been observed that Skriabin’s basses are harmonic piers and not significant lines.²

A related matter is the two composers’ structural use of harmony. In the first subject of Mosolov’s Sonata the middle strand in D major is constructed largely from primary triads of that key. In the case of Skriabin a pitch center is determined by the number of times a particular root occurs in a passage. Consequently in the Mosolov Sonata the unstable middle part is marked by a move away from primary triads and 5th relationships, whereas in the Skriabin Sonata the unstable areas are marked by more-rapid changes of harmonic roots and the more-frequent use of tritones between the bass and the note next above, which tends to obscure the identity of the root.

Finally it may be observed that with Mosolov the layering of the texture is sometimes based on bimodality and at other times on the fact that individual voices simply go their own ways and come into agreement at selected points, both techniques being similar to those used by Prokofiev. Skriabin’s texture is also often layered. One criticism of the harmonic model of Skriabin’s music proposed by the Russian analyst Dernova is that it has directed attention to the vertical aspect of his music to the exclusion of other considerations. Skriabin’s more-layered textures in this Sonata are distinguished by being either whole-tone or chromatic.

These two Sonatas represent what may be seen as the two main streams of Russian music in the Modernist period. Chapter 13 considers works in which the composers have been more radical in their adoption of nontonal techniques.