The New System of Tonal Organization:

A Brief Analysis of Nikolai Roslavets’ First Viola Sonata

Zachary J. Slack

Only recently has Soviet composer Nikolai Roslavets been researched and studied

seriously by musicologists and performance artists alike. The fruition of his musical

genius, unfortunately, matched the pace and timing of the rise of the Soviet Union, and so

much of this prolific composer’s work was either repressed by Soviet leaders or simply

left unpublished. The completion of the First Viola Sonata in 1926 followed Roslavets’

development of a system of tonal organization that had taken approximately a decade to

refine. Roslavets described the system as “new,” however, was insistent that it was

indeed the logical evolution of traditional harmony. Analysis of the first Sonata shows

influences of Skriabin in terms of form and non-traditional harmonies, yet also perfectly

exemplifies Roslavets’ own fully developed system of pitch organization using

synthesized chords of scales.

Musical Development and Early Influences

Born in 1881 to peasant parents, Roslavets studied violin with a Jewish wedding fiddler

and took classes in basic musicianship in Kursk. His studies gained him admission to the

Moscow Conservatory in 1902, where he studied composition for ten years.1 Roslavets’

music was considered “leftist” during his tenure at the Conservatory, and he resented

attempts to force him to master a style that was out of fashion.2 In the only

autobiographical document he created, published in 1924, Roslavets states:

Having at last been freed from the fetters of school, I felt from the very first in
order to speak my own word in music, I must absolutely be finished with all that
baggage I received at school.3

1
In that same article, Roslavets seems to dismiss the early work of Arnold Schoenberg and

Alexander Skriabin, though both undoubtedly influenced his decision to or at least

validated his desire to experiment with pitch organization.4 Oddly enough, in an article

dated one year earlier Roslavets had critiqued Pierrot Lunaire, in an obviously favorable

way.5 This seemingly fickle attitude towards other composers might stem from an

overzealous opinion of his own Новая Система (New System).

The New System of Tonal Organization

The basic concept behind Nikolai Roslavets’ New System is any collection of pitches,

usually between six and nine, can function as the home key, and any number of

transpositions of the set can serve as distant or dominant-function sonorities. These

collections of pitches, called synthetichords, are derived from both the over and

theoretical undertone series, and can produce major, minor, diminished, augmented, and

seventh-chord functioning harmonies, making them more flexible than the “traditional”

tonic triad.6 The reliance on the over and undertone series simultaneously makes

symmetry almost unavoidable. This sense of symmetry often bled into Roslavets’ concept

of form – he often preferred single movement plans, and the Viola Sonata is in a

relatively balanced two-section form.

The first pieces to employ, partially at least, the New System were composed in

1913, before the System was fully matured. These include the First Violin Sonata and

Three Compositions for Voice and Piano.7

2
Viola Sonata, 1926

Within the first five measures of the Sonata, Roslavets’ presents the synthetic chord on

which the piece is based, and then transposes the set up a perfect fourth to create

harmonic departure. If considering the pitches of the original chord, C D E-flat F G and

B-flat, we can assign pitch class numbers to show the transposition more clearly. For

example, the pitches in the first measure translate to 0 2 3 5 7 10, and if we look at

measures 4 and 5, all the pitches in that space create the same set, 0 2 3 5 7 10, above the

starting (or base) pitch.

Example A:

The first synthetichord is almost fully realized in measure one; however, the viola’s F

completes the set in the second measure. This is a common practice of Roslavets; by

creating a dependency between the two players, a larger sense of ensemble playing is

cultivated. In measures four and five, the first appearance of the first transposition of the

3
set, we see that Roslavets alters more than simply the pitch content – the rhythmic values

in the viola are consistently faster, and any sense of a traditional triad is lost.8

In measure eight we encounter an abbreviated, or transformed version of the

melody presented in the viola’s opening phrase. This fragment does not stand alone as a

phrase, but would probably best be described as a large motive that Roslavets brings back

in various situations later in the piece. The motive is played in octaves in the pianist’s

right hand and actually contains the same pitch class set (0 2 3 5 7 10) as the original

synthetichord; however, you only arrive at this set if you arrange the intervals to begin

from the pitch D, which could be argued as the central pitch of the first large section of

the Sonata.9

Example B:

Roslavets was not bound to the original synthetichord, even though he claims entire

pieces can be conceived through transposition of only one sent. In Example C, we see

that the set has changed to 0 2 3 7 8 11 (in reference to the A-flat in the viola), and a new

rhythmic scheme is introduced, setting up the next section, which superimposes the

melody finally realized in Example B on a much busier rhythmic and harmonic

environment. The careful treatments of the rhythms and tempi of the contrasting sections

make the changes in pitch sets or transpositions more clearly audible.

4
Example C:

The material in the next section, marked Allegro vivace, is strikingly different in

character and harmonic language. Here, the aggregate is presented within two measures,

and there is a more predictable use of rhythm, making the chromaticism the main focus.

Example D:

Form

The complete contrast of material at measure 87 suggests a transition of formal sections;

however, Example D brings together several important characteristics of the piece that

will help define the form and clearly shows that the design is not so simple.

5
 Example E:

Meas. 1 – 53 54 - 86 87 - 130 131 – 180 181 – 217 218 - 232

Tempo Allegro Poco piú Allegro Tempo I Molto Codetta
moderato mosso vivace vivace (vivo)
Main Original New, non- Aggregate Original Aggrigate Original
Synthetichord transposed
Pitches 0 2 3 5 7 10 0 2 3 7 8 11 0 2 3 5 7 10 02357
10
Formal Section Section 1 Section 2

At measure 131 we see that the original material returns and begins a process of

acceleration in terms of sub-section tempi similar to the first 130 measures, but now more

exaggeratedly. The codetta takes the place of the faster section marked poco più mosso in

the first section of the piece making the two sections symmetrical in the sense that they

each contain three sub-sections and move through an evolution, or acceleration of tempo.

Based on strong changes of character and tempi, as well as taking into consideration

balance, I would diagram the form of this movement as thus:

Section 1 Section 2

Meas. 1 – 130 Meas. 131 – 232

Subsections Subsections

Tempo 1  Tempo 2  Tempo 3 Tempo 1  Tempo 4  Tempo 5

In this diagram I have assigned each different tempo a number so as to more clearly show

the evolution of tempo in each section. “Tempo 1” represents the opening and slowest

tempo, “Tempo 5” represents the final and fastest tempo. The formal diagram above

suggests a sort of development of the material; yet, the formal design becomes less clear

when we take into consideration the actual musical material. The material at “Tempo 1”
6
does match the material at its counter-place in section two; however, the subsequent

sections do not line up in terms of material. The material of the pocco più mosso is

generated from the triplet figures seen in Example C, this larger section is alluded to after

the return of the opening material in section two; however, what would serve as a nice

transition to a return of the “Tempo 2” material brings us abruptly to the material of the

allegro vivace, this time marked up a tempo level. The addition of the codetta, see

Example F, balances the second section and adds interest by introducing a new rhythmic

texture in the solo piano line.10

Example F:

Fusion of Tradition and Progress

At the conclusion of the movement there is a cadence in G minor. The cadence is not

traditional in that the penultimate chord contains both G minor and C minor harmonies in

opposite hands in the piano and a G minor chord in the viola. The chord before that is

even more confusing: F, F#, Ab, A, B, C, Eb. This elision of tradition and innovation

exemplifies Roslavets’ belief that his New System of tonal organization was indeed the

evolution of traditional harmony. The Sonata for Viola and Piano shows the composer’s

complete control over many musical, formal, and stylistic elements within the context of

a completely new system of tonal organization.

7
1
Notes
Larry Sitsky, Music of the Repressed Russian Avant-Guard, 1900 – 1929 (Greenwood Press, 1994) pg. 39.
2
Nikolai Roslavets, “Nik. A Roslavets on Himself and His Works Sovremennaia muzyka, I, No. 5 (published in 1924)
translated by Charles McKnight.
3
See article referred to in note two.
4
Skriabin’s own mystic chord functions in a way similar to Roslavets’ synthetichords; the total collection of pitches can be
broken down into a number of simple sonorities. See Peter Deane Roberts’ book, Modernism in Russian Piano Music
(Indiana University Press, 1993) pgs. 10-14, for a discussion about Skriabin’s journey away from traditional tonality.
5
This author’s opinion. See N. Roslavets’ “Pierrot Lunaire by Arnold Schoenberg” K novym beregam, No. 3 (1923).
Translated in McKnight’s dissertation.
6
See Charles McKnight’s dissertation Nikolai Roslavets: Music in Revolution (Cornell University, 1994) pgs. 112 – 164 for
a more detailed description of the New System.
7
McKnight’s dissertation contains analysis of these pieces on pgs. 126 - 133
8
In the first 3 measures, we find embedded G minor triads in the weaker half of the beat. The G minor triad is curious
because it is related by perfect fourth to the D minor triad, which one could argue the melody in the viola is loosely centered
around.
9
There is no evidence to suggest that Roslavets thought about melodies or tunes as being “centered” around a certain pitch,
though the music suggests a strong connection between the pitch D and its dominant function pitches (the melody in
Example B ends on an E as it might in a half candence). This becomes especially interesting at the final candence in G
minor – a tonality related to D by a perfect fourth.
10
Note the return of the original synthetichord (0 2 3 5 7 10) starting in measure 212, this synthetichord is repeated, only
changing in register, seventeen times.

Selected Biography

Foreman, Lewis. In Search of a Soviet Pioneer: Nikolai Roslavets, from “Tempo” Vol. 135. Cambridge
University Press, 1980. 2 p.
Hakobian, Levon. Music of the Soviet Age, 1917 – 1987. Stockhold, Sweeden: Melos Music
Literature, 1998. 493 p.

Hindemith, Paul. The Craft of Musical Composition. New York, Schott, 1942. 223 p.

Maes, Francis. A History of Russian Music. Berkely, California: University of California Press, 2002.
427 p.

McKnight, Charles Monroe. “Nikolai Roslavets: Music and Revolution.” PhD. Dissertation. Cornell
University, 1994. 281 p. [Available from University Microfilms Incorporated. Order No.
9409498].

Roberts, Peter Deane. Modernism in Russian Piano Music: Skriabin, Prokofiev, and Their Russian
Contemporaries. Volume 1. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993. 175 p.

Roslavets, Nikolai. “Nik. A Roslavets on Himself and His Works.” Sovremennaia muzyka, I, No. 5
(published in 1924). [Translated by Charles McKnight.]

Sitsky, Larry. Music of the Repressed Russian Avant-Garde, 1900 – 1929. Westport, Connecticut:
Greewood Press, 1994. 347 p.

Taruskin, Richard. On Russian Music. Berkely, California: University of California Press, 2009. 407 p.