Lara Poe

Analytical paper on
Beethovens Waldstein sonata
Chromaticism and Diatonicism in Waldstein
Throughout several decades, theorists have argued over the potential
flexibility or inflexibility of Schenkerian theory, and how effectively it can explain
chromaticism in mid-to-late Romantic music. One theorist, Joseph Smith, attempts to
show that linear analysis and harmonic Roman numeral analysis are both
insufficient when examining highly chromatic music, and that both are necessary in
order to see the complete picture. David Beach, a Schenkerian theorist, disagrees and
claims Smiths graphs are insufficient to support Smiths claims. Finally, a third
theorist, Matthew Brown, provides us with a possible solution. I will examine the
claims of all of these articles and use some of the principles to analyze the first
movement of Beethovens Waldstein sonata.
In his attempt to point out the insufficiencies of both analytical strategies,
Smith first examines both chordal and linear analytical methods. In his words,
I propose to examine (in Part I below) both of these well-known and
established strategies, which are the chordal and linear strategies, in order
to determine the reasons for their individual failures; it turns out that neither
can say much about chromatic music without the cooperation and collusion of
the other. (Smith, 94)
Smith then proceeds to give us an example of how he thinks both linear and
chordal analysis fail individually, in an analysis of the second movement of
Beethovens Waldstein sonata. In the first line, he says, there is a pattern of
augmented 6ths which are present in the chordal analysis. He argues that this pattern
is crucial to understanding how the music unfolds, and shows how it is not

represented in his linear analysis. On the other hand, there is a pattern of parallel
10ths that does not show up in his chordal analysis but does show up in the linear
analysis.
In short, he concludes that chordal analysis is a one level abstraction that
closes off access to both lower and higher levels. (Smith, 99) What he means by this
is that we dont see the levels of hierarchy that Schenkerian and his linear analysis
would show. Chordal analysis fails to show voice-leading relationships and pitch-bypitch connections, as well as where chords come from and where they go to. Also,
there is not a single right way to analyze with roman numerals, and Smith
demonstrates this point by showing three different strategies for analyzing the
Waldstein passage using roman numerals. These different strategies could all work,
and they all show different aspects of the behavior of the harmony. At least, this is
Smiths argument.
Smith also argues that linear analysis is not sufficient to analyze this passage
either. He starts by examining the origins of linear analysis, saying Schenker gave
rise to this contrasting method of analyzing music. In Smiths eyes, linear analysis
has many strengths, and it can show voice leading and layers that are lacking in pure
harmonic analysis. However, it has its weaknesses too, in his eyes. Going back to the
second movement of Waldstein, Smith argues that while Salzer and Beach would
argue that m. 8 is where the true dominant of F comes in, m. 6 is more prominent in
the music and that if a high-level dominant would occur, it would occur here. Smith
marks m. 6 as being pivotal in the passage. He also argues that the linear analysis
doesnt show any intermediate goals in the chromatic portion of the long phrase- the
linear solution of his analysis only shows diatonicism. He argues that linear theory
favors the diatonic over the chromatic, and that chromaticism stems from voice-

leading. I believe this assumption (that anything chromatic comes from voice
leading and diatonicism trumps chromaticism) is mistaken, writes Smith. (Smith,
103) Beach agrees with this principle as well, and goes on to argue why this
assumption is mistaken. He challenges most, if not all, of the ideas in Smiths paper.
Beach begins his article with the following paragraph:
I am writing in response to Charles J. Smiths article, The
Functional Extravagance of Chromatic Chords, which appeared in volume 8
of this journal. I can recall quite vividly hearing an earlier version of this
paper, read by Smith at the conference of the Society for Music Theory in New
Haven (November 1983), but my irritation was soon forgotten or at least
mollified by hearing several other presentations. But seeing this material in
print where one can take time to study the musical examples and absorb the
implications of what is being said without the distraction of seeing old
friends is quite a different matter. If I didnt care so much about the music, I
would just let it go once again. But this time I cannot keep silent. I must
speak out against ideas that would negate decades of progress and return us
to the misconceptions of tonal syntax prevalent at the turn of the century, but
apparently still alive today. (Beach, 173)
In Beachs eyes, it is Smiths analysis, not Schenkerian analysis itself, that is
inadequate. Beach finds Smiths harmonic analysis inadequate, claiming Smith is
reading too much into the analysis- some keys (marked in the analysis) are weakly
represented indeed! With the augmented 6th chords Smith has marked in his analysis
of the first few measures of the second movement of Waldstein, Beach asks the reader
if we are truly hearing them as such. He supposes its not reasonable to expect this,
saying these are possibly implied (in Smiths mind) but unrealized harmonic

functions. Beach critiques Smith, saying hes going off looking into possibilities too
far, and hearing things that are not really there.
In examining Smiths voice-leading graphs, Beach remarks that linear
connections and voice leading are not shown, although some elements of voice
leading are marked. He also remarks on Smiths claim relating to dominant chords in
measure 6 of the Waldstein second movement; Beach remarks that according to
Smith, the dominant function chords in that measure are structurally significant, and
Beach claims this is contrary to Schenkerian theory. To him, the seventh chord in
measure 8 is more structural.
As can be seen, the idea of chromaticism presents controversy in relation to
Schenkerian theory. Different scholars present conflicting ideas on whether or not
Schenkerian analysis is effective at tackling the issues in analyzing chromatic music.
However, in Matthew Browns paper on chromaticism in Schenkerian analysis clearly
shows that Schenker was aware of these problems and even in his early works, he
came up with ways of addressing it.
In Browns paper, Brown addresses Schenkers early works, where Schenker
came up with a nearly completely chromatic system for Stufen and chords that
support Stufen. By allowing both major and minor chords to be built on each Stufe
and allowing chromatic alterations of Stufen (up to # 4^ and # 5^ ), Schenker ends
up with a very flexible and useful way of viewing highly chromatic music. This
method, along with other tools like assessing motivic parallelism (the concept of
motives appearing on many levels of music) allows a more complete method of
examining highly chromatic music in a Schenkerian method, than Smiths linear
method or harmonic method could allow.

To demonstrate this method, let us examine the first movement of Beethovens

Waldstein. In this we can use both the ideas of motivic parallelism and Browns
chromatic system. Starting from the first measure, we have the first theme, marked
by a chromatic descent in the bassline starting on a C, along with the motive E-F#-G
above it, which outlines a minor third. This he ties into a descending Ursatz
parallelism in a higher register- D down to G natural, which is the Kopfton ( 5^ in C
major). He repeats the ascending third gesture at measure 5 starting from D, up to F
natural. This goes up to another Ursatz parallelism in the same register as the same
register, although this parallelism stems from C natural down to F natural. Next, we
have a register transfer in the upper register, moving to yet another Ursatz parallelism
moving from F natural down to B natural, and the chromatic bassline goes down to a
G (which is a prolongation of 5^ ). Here we land on a V chord at measure 9, which
then resolves to I and arpeggiates down C minor. Within these first measures, we
have a chromatic descending bassline, Ursatz parallelisms, and a third motive that will
keep recurring throughout this movement.
Next, we have the third motion start up again at measure 14 and Ursatz
parallelisms start up again over a motion from C to B natural in the bass, mirroring
the beginning. However, the repetition changes- the third motion goes up from F to A
next (with F being the next note of the Urlinie, 4^ ) over D going to C in the bass (II
is the supporting harmony of 4^ ). Next, we get 3^ over an Ursatz parallelism in
A minor, going back to E (which is now prolonged). The A at the bottom of the
parallelism goes up to an A sharp, which then goes to B (and that then starts another
parallelism going back to E). This A sharp over a C still in the bass is part of an
augmented sixth chord, and here we can get an example of how Schenkerian analysis
giving insight to both linear voice leading and harmonic progression interacting.

This eventually moves down to a B, which ascends in a scale to A, which in

turn descends to a G#. Here we get the second theme group of the sonata at measure
35, in E major. For a sonata in C major, this is an unusual key area for a second
theme group, and there are several possible explanations for it. If the sonata were in C
minor, the second theme group could easily be in E flat major, which would be III.
Here, E major is III of C major (although III would be E minor, not E major), and this
argument could potentially work with Browns analysis of Schenkers early ideas on
chromaticism. Another, perhaps more Schenkerian way to interpret this passage
would be viewing key area relation as another motivic parallelism. C to E could be
seen as a deep middle-ground or background-level presentation of the third motive
present throughout this whole movement. To further support the motivic parallelism
argument, the second theme is full of motivic parallelisms- the chords move in
parallel thirds and the descending line at top is an Ursatz parallelism. After the
second theme group, the piece moves to the closing theme at measure 50. This theme
is also in E major, and is full of the third motive as well. The closing theme
eventually moves back to C major via A minor, and presents the motive in descending
form as it moves back.
After a cadence on C major in measures 85-86, we move into the development
section. It starts by first moving into F major, and then starting off with the first
theme in F major at measure 90. The bassline descends to D, and then jumps up to
F#. Here, at measure 95, a sequence starts that uses materials from the first theme
(namely the third motive and Ursatz parallelism). This sequence occurs over an
ascending chromatic bassline that climbs up an octave to F. Then, at measure 104,
another descending fifths sequence (saturated with the third motive) starts over a
descending F minor scale (which turns into an Ursatz parallelism in the bass at

measure 107) that then goes to the third motive starting on E in the upper voice and
eventually moves down to a C in the bass at measure 112. Next we get yet another
descending 5ths sequence at based on the closing theme in a higher structural level:
we get the background theme in C major at measure 113, then in F major at measure
116 and finally in B flat major at 120. Here it resolves to E flat minor and we get yet
another (inverted) descending fifths sequence over a chromatic bassline that resolves
to C minor (minor I) at measure 132. Then the voices move stepwise to a diminished
7th chord via the Neapoliton, and from here we get to V over an incomplete Ursatz
parallelism to 2^ in the Ursatz at measure 137. After patterns resulting from Ursatz
parallelisms, scalar figures and third motives, 2^ (D) in the top voice moves down
to G and then to F. Then there is an interruption and the piece moves on to the
recapitulation at measure 155.
The recapitulation starts off as the exposition did, except at measure 169:
where the exposition moved onto the restatement of the first theme in the transition
(measure 12), the recapitulation moves to repeat the arpeggiation in D flat major, the
Neapolitan. Then we get a chromatic passage in flat III at measure 171. This motion
from I to flat III can be explained as either a modal borrowing from C minor or a
higher-level occurrence of the third motive.
After this passage resolves back to I6, the recapitulation continues as normal
(we get 4^

and 3^ at measures 178 and 181, respectively), except it modulates to

A minor instead of E minor. The second theme then occurs in A major at measure
196, which is a minor third below C. One could argue that this key relation, C to A, is
an inversion of the key relation from C to E- its a third down instead of a third up,
and ties into the idea of motivic parallelism in the use of this third motive. In the
second iteration of the second theme, Beethoven moves to a minor, and then uses that

to move back to C major for the closing theme, bringing us a cadence with V7-I in
measures 202-203 (Note: we also get 2^ and 1^ at this juncture). When he is
done with the closing theme at measure 245, the piece moves to V/IV and then to IV,
back to a cadential 6/4. But instead of resolving, he circles back to IV (although
minor this time), and uses that to touch upon flat IV, which brings him back to minor I
through flat VII. This is the start to an extended coda that mostly circles through I, IV
and V (although it touches on II at measure 269). It is full of third motives, sequences
and Ursatz parallelisms. The coda ends with material from the closing theme at 277,
followed by material from the second theme group at measure 283, and concludes
with material from the first theme group at 294, all in C major.
The idea of a 3^ prolongation starting at the transition from the first theme
group, running through the second theme group (but reharmonized), and holding until
the dominant pedal where the Ursatz descends to 2^ is not the only way to interpret
this movement in a Schenkerian way. There is also the possibility of looking at the
exposition all as a prolongation of 5^ , changing to # 5^ at the second theme
group. This # 5^ could be seen as an upper neighbor or a chromatic alteration of a
Stufe. Regardless of whether one chooses to see the second theme group as being a
prolongation of 3^ or 5^ # 5^ , the analysis of this first movement shows how
Schenkerian analysis is certainly a useful tool in examining both harmonic motion and
linear voice leading of chromatic music.

Works cited:
Beach, David. 1987. On Analysis, Beethoven, and Extravagance: A Response to
Charles J. Smith. Music Theory Spectrum 9. [Oxford University Press, Society for
Music Theory]: 17385.
Brown, Matthew. "The Diatonic and the Chromatic in Schenker's "Theory of
Harmonic Relations"" Journal of Music Theory: 1-35.
Smith, Charles J.. 1986. The Functional Extravagance of Chromatic Chords. Music
Theory Spectrum 8. [Oxford University Press, Society for Music Theory]: 94139.