Phrase Structure in Prokofiev's Piano Sonatas

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality o f this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
ProQuest Information and Learning

300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
R e p ro d u c e d with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PHRASE STRUCTURE IN PROKOFIEV’S PIANO SONATAS
Courtenay Lucille Harter, Ph.D.
University of Connecticut, 2003
Many twentieth-century composers combine traditional approaches to phrase
structure with more contemporary approaches to tonality. The piano sonatas of Sergei
Prokofiev are models of such synthesis because they are organized within traditional
formal designs and clear tonal structures, despite their twentieth-century harmonic
vocabulary. Therefore, by studying these works it is possible to proceed naturally and
seamlessly from an understanding of common-practice styles and formal techniques to
the exploration of more recent music.
The challenges presented by twentieth-century music include non-traditional
compositional and stylistic techniques and idiosyncratic harmonic practices that vary
from one composer to another, much of which has been explored in the scholarly
literature. What is lacking in earlier studies of this repertoire, however, is a focus on
Courtenay Lucille Harter—University of Connecticut, 2003
compositional commonalities among different works based on strategic modeling of basic
formal units used in earlier periods of music history.
This study reflects on phrase structure as discussed in Classical-period treatises as
well as in modem treatises by William Rothstein and William Caplin, and places these
descriptions within a discussion of the neoclassic aesthetic. The reconciliation of
Classical phrase structures with Prokofiev’s language produces a methodology for
examining other aspects of Prokofiev’s compositional process. The resultant analytic
approach is relevant as well to other music of this period that relies on tonal centers and
the principles of sonata form, such as selected movements by Maurice Ravel, Igor
Stravinsky, and Paul Hindemith.
Courtenay Lucille Harter
B.F.A., Carnegie Mellon University, 1990
M.Mus., Northwestern University, 1992
A Dissertation
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
at the
University of Connecticut
2003
UMI Number: 3080917
Copyright 2003 by
Harter, Courtenay Lucille
All rights reserved.
UMI
UMI Microform 3080917
Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
R e p ro d u c e d with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Copyright by
Courtenay Lucille Harter
2003
APPROVAL PAGE
Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation
Presented by
Courtenay Lucille Harter, B.F.A., M.Mus.
Major A dvisor__
Richard Bass
Associate Advisor
Avo Somer
Associate Advisor
Alaih Frogley
University of Connecticut
2003
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To my family, friends and colleagues: thank you for traveling with me as I
pursed this degree; your faith in me is a continuous inspiration.
To my professors at Carnegie Mellon University, Northwestern University and
the University of Connecticut: thank you for providing me with the tools for a career in
higher education; I look forward to developing these skills as I pursue the ultimate goal
of musician.
Special recognition to Richard Bass, Avo Somer, and Alain Frogley: thank you
for your commitment to me and to the completion of this document; your long-distance
encouragement provided me with the much-needed incentive.
Excerpts from the following work are reprinted by permission of Faber Music
Ltd, London: Stravinsky, PIANO SONATA IN F-SHARP MINOR, © 1973.
Excerpts from the following work are reprinted by permission of European
American Music Distributors LLC, sole US and Canadian agent for Schott Musik
International: Hindemith PIANO SONATA NO. 2, © 1936 Schott Musik International,
© renewed, All Rights Reserved.
Excerpts from Prokofiev’s Piano Sonatas and Ravel’s Sonatine are reproduced
from Dover Publications.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPROVAL PA G E..................................................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................vii
INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................1
Chapter Summaries.......................................................................................................3
CHAPTER ONE: NEOCLASSICISM AND PROKOFIEV................................................ 6
History and Development of Neoclassicism...............................................................9
Prokofiev's Influences and His “Classical Line”...................................................... 14
Phrase Structure as an Element of the Neoclassic Aesthetic.................................. 18
CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL STUDIES OF PHRASE STRUCTURE..................24
Early Theories of Phrase Structure............................................................................26
Comparison of Modem Phrase-Structure Paradigms.............................................. 33
Comparison of Analytic Approaches....................................................................... 39
Adaptation of Theories for Prokofiev's Piano Sonatas............................................44
iv
CHAPTER THREE: PHRASE CONSTRUCTION AND
GROUPING IN PROKOFIEV’S PIANO SONATAS................ 46
Prokofiev’s Cadential Formulas................................................................................47
Classical Phrase Structures and Modifications
Sentence Structures..............................................................................................67
Periodic Structures...............................................................................................94
Small Ternary Structures................................................................................... 131
Unique Formal Structures........................................................................................145
CHAPTER FOUR: PHRASE STRUCTURE IN

NEOCLASSICAL WORKS BY OTHER COMPOSERS.......... 160
Ravel: Sonatine, First Movement.......................................................................... 161
Stravinsky: Sonata in F-sharp Minor, First Movement.......................................169
Hindemith: Sonata No. 2, First Movement........................................................... 184
Summary.................................................................................................................. 194
CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................195
APPENDIX 1: GLOSSARY OF TERMINOLOGY........................................................201
APPENDIX 2: INDEX OF MUSICAL EXAMPLES..................................................... 204
BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................................207
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Cadences found in Prokofiev's Piano Sonatas
Table 2: Organization of Formal U nits.........................
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Examples are by Prokofiev unless otherwise noted.
Example 1 Sonata No. 4, III, mm. 1-17....................................................................... 21
Example 2 Sonata No. 1, mm. 90 -9 3 ,..........................................................................49
Example 3 Sonata No. 4 ,1, mm. 196-197...................................................................51
Example 4 Sonata No. 8 ,1, mm. 6 -9 .......................................................................... 52
Example 5 Sonata No. 3, mm. 230-232...................................................................... 53
Example 6 Sonata No. 6 ,1, mm. 1-4...........................................................................55
Example 7 Sonata No. 4,1, mm. 9 -1 2 ........................................................................ 56
Example 8 Sonata No. 1, mm. 11-14.............................................................................57
Example 9 Sonata No. 7 ,1, mm. 110-119..................................................................... 58
Example 10 Sonata No. 3, mm. 24-27 ........................................................................... 59
Example 11 Sonata No. 8, III, mm. 1-4..........................................................................60
Example 12 Sonata No. 4 ,1, mm. 112-124.................................................................... 62
Example 13 Sonata No. 6 ,1, mm. 81-87.........................................................................64
Example 14 Sonata No. 2 ,1, mm. 1-8............................................................................ 65
Example 15 Sonata No. 1, mm. 58-74.......................................................................70-71
Example 16 Sonata No. 1, mm. 74-93.......................................................................73-75
Example 17 Sonata No. 9 ,1, mm. 1-10.....................................................................77-78
Example 18 Sonata No. 6, IV, mm. 1-9.....................................................................79-80
vii
Example 19 Sonata No. 6, IV, mm. 1-28..................................................................81-83
Example 20 Sonata No. 1, mm. 26-41...................................................................... 84-86
Example 21 Sonata No. 7, II, mm. 1-8........................................................................... 87
Example 22 Sonata No. 2 ,1, mm. 32-64................................................................... 89-91
Example 23 Sonata No. 4, III, mm. 43-65................................................................ 92-93
Example 24 Sonata No. 9, IV, mm. 1-8.......................................................................... 97
Example 25 Sonata No. 8, III, mm. 1-8.......................................................................... 99
Example 26 Sonata No. 8, 1, mm. 1-9................................................................... 101-102
Example 27 Sonata No. 2 ,1, mm. 64-85................................................................ 104-105
Example 28 Sonata No. 2 ,1, mm. 1-31................................................................. 107-108
Example 29 Sonata No. 5 , 1, mm. 1-20................................................................. 110-111
Example 30 Sonata No. 1, mm. 5-25......................................................................113-115
Example 31 Sonata No. 6 ,1, mm. 40-59................................................................ 116-117
Example 32 Sonata No. 6, III, mm. 45-55....................................................................119
Example 33 Sonata No. 9, III, mm. 28-46............................................................ 121-123
Example 34 Sonata No. 4, III, mm. 2-17...............................................................125-126
Example 35 Sonata No. 9, III, mm. 1-8................................................................. 127-128
Example 36 Sonata No. 9, IV, mm. 26-39.............................................................129-130
Example 37 Sonata No. 2, II, mm. 1-26................................................................. 133-135
Example 38 Sonata No. 8 ,1, mm. 1-34.................................................................. 137-140
Example 39 Sonata No. 6 ,1, mm. 1-23.................................................................. 142-144
viii
R e p ro d u c e d with perm ission of th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Example 40 Sonata No. 6, II, mm. 1-20....................................................................... 147
Example 41 Sonata No. 5, II, mm. 1-20....................................................................... 149
Example 42 Sonata No. 7, III, mm. 1-19............................................................. 151-152
Example 43 Sonata No. 9, II, mm. 51 -6 7 ..............................................................154-155
Example 44 Sonata No. 8, II, mm. 1-8.................................................................. 157-158
Example 45 Ravel, Sonatine, I, mm. 1-13...........................................................163-164
Example 46 Ravel, Sonatine, I, mm. 13-19......................................................... 165-166
Example 47 Ravel, Sonatine, I, mm. 20-26................................................................. 167
Example 48 Ravel, Sonatine, I, mm. 79-84................................................................. 168
Example 49 Stravinsky, Sonata in F-sharp Minor, I, mm. 1-22......................... 172-174
Example 50 Stravinsky, Sonata in F-sharp Minor, I, mm. 33-89....................... 177-183
Example 51 Hindemith, Sonata No. 2 ,1, mm. 1-26............................................187-189
Example 52 Hindemith, Sonata No. 2 , 1, mm. 41-63........................................... 191-193
ix
INTRODUCTION
The widely-held view that twentieth-century music represents an almost
complete break with earlier styles is reflected by college-level curricula in music theory
and analysis. Typically twentieth-century compositional techniques are introduced
only after a detailed study of common-practice tonal procedures, as though no stylistic,
historical, or procedural connections exist between the two repertoires. There are,
however, analytical topics that can be used to bridge this divide. One of the most
accessible of these is phrase structure, the study of which also serves as a means of
articulating the formal functions of larger groupings, such as the exposition of a sonata-
form movement.
Many twentieth-century composers combine traditional approaches to phrase
structure with more contemporary approaches to tonality; by studying these works,
analytical concepts learned in connection with earlier music can be more easily
transferred to twentieth-century repertoire. The piano sonatas of Sergei Prokofiev
(1891-1953) are models of such transitional works because they are organized within
traditional formal designs and clear tonal structures, despite their twentieth-century
harmonic vocabulary; thus, they provide an opportunity to proceed naturally and
seamlessly from the study of common-practice styles to the exploration of more recent
music. This dissertation examines Prokofiev’s piano sonatas through the application of
2
Classical phrase-structure terminology and paradigms in order to illustrate the
continuity between common-practice and twentieth-century approaches to tonality, and
to explain the role of phrase structure as a common stylistic feature of Neoclassicism.
3
Chapter Summaries
Chapter One, “Neoclassicism and Prokofiev,” presents phrase structure as
incorporating elements of the neoclassic aesthetic. The first part of the chapter includes
an examination of the history and development of Neoclassicism, the difficulties that
surround attempts to define the term, and some of the characteristics that can be used to
incorporate a composition within the aesthetic category of Neoclassicism. As
Prokofiev identified a “classical line” associated with his creative style, this chapter
investigates the applicability of a classically-based perspective for the analysis of
Prokofiev's piano sonatas, in particular with regard to phrase structure. Chapter One
concludes with a general discussion of phrase structure as an element of Neoclassicism,
which is not extensively discussed elsewhere in the scholarly literature.
Chapter Two, “Theoretical Studies of Phrase Structure,” explores the treatment
of phrase structure in tonal music generally, both in compositional treatises dating back
to the eighteenth century, theoretical treatises of the twentieth century, and textbooks
presently in common use. The discussion addresses ideas common to all texts and
identifies the differences in their treatment of specific issues. This chapter includes a
comparison of two modem, paradigmatic approaches to phrase structure that form the
basis of the analytic model for this study. Also included is a survey of how phrase
structure is treated in other studies of Prokofiev's music. The final section of the
4
chapter outlines the specific methodologies and terms from these works that will be
applied or adapted to the study of Prokofiev's music.
Chapter Three, “Phrase Constructions and Grouping in Prokofiev's Piano
Sonatas,” the most extensive portion of the dissertation, deals specifically with the
analysis of Prokofiev's piano sonatas. This chapter uses the terminology explored in
Chapter Two, while presenting new definitions that apply to this repertoire. To begin,
cadential formulas are identified in order to assign specific functions to individual
phrases. The remainder of the chapter identifies specific phrase constructions that are
integral to Prokofiev's personal compositional style. Examples progress in sections
from simple or extended phrase groups to more complex and unique groupings. The
analyses also address issues of phrase manipulations and harmonic innovations.
Typically examples are taken from the expositions of sonata-form movements where
phrase constructions have a tendency to be more structured. These classically-based
formulas can also illuminate Prokofiev’s unique formal designs as illustrated in the
final section.
Chapter Four, “Phrase Construction and Grouping in Other Neoclassic
Compositions,” utilizes the methodology developed in Chapter Three as an illustration
of the potential for further analytical applications. These brief analyses focus on
selected works by three twentieth-century composers: Maurice Ravel (1875-1937),
Igor Stravinsky (1882-1971), and Paul Hindemith (1895-1963). A comparison between
Prokofiev's approach and modification of classical formulas to those of his
5
contemporaries reinforces this study of phrase structure as seen through the neoclassic
ideal. The “Conclusion” summarizes the most important findings in this study.
CHAPTER ONE: NEOCLASSICISM AND PROKOFIEV
As Joseph Straus states, “twentieth-century composers cannot escape their
past—it presses in on them in too many ways.”1 Through the study of past traditions,
composers either embraced or rejected musical elements of their past—aspects of style,
approaches to structure, and so on. Like many composers of his time, Prokofiev
combined new and old techniques in numerous ways. While he was known for
innovation, the underlying structures of his music are clearly linked to the idioms of
earlier generations. These ties to the past are outlined in Prokofiev’s memoirs.2 While
his piano sonatas were composed over the course of his career, Prokofiev’s approach to
structure in these nine works closely parallels formal principles associated with
compositions from the common-practice era.
“When twentieth-century composers use triads, the central sonority of
traditional tonal music, they are responding to a widely shared musical element, not to
some specific work or individual composer. Similarly, when they write in sonata form,
they are responding to an icon of a previous style, not to a single predecessor.”3 As
Prokofiev assimilated ideals from earlier musical styles, he embraced formal
1Joseph N. Straus, Remaking the Past: Musical Modernism and the Influence o f the Tonal Tradition
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), 185.
Sergei Prokofiev, Prokofiev by Prokofiev: A Composer's Memoir, ed. David H. Appel, trans. Guy
Daniels (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1979); Sergei Prokofiev, Soviet Diary, 1927
and Other Writings, ed. Christopher Palmer, trans. Oleg Prokofiev (Boston: Northeastern University
Press, 1992).
3 Straus, Remaking the Past, 18.
R e p ro d u c e d with perm ission of th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
7
procedures that were also used in defining structure in tonal music. Incorporating general
strategies from common-practice formal analysis therefore presents a logical starting
point for an examination of his works. Prokofiev’s style, however, was not merely a
copy but rather an evolution of common-practice traditions; consequently, when we
discuss Prokofiev’s adaptation of common-practice formal procedures in his own works,
the modification of certain established definitions is necessary in order to accommodate
the new context within which he incorporates those procedures.
Composers strive to find their own identifiable musical language, and Prokofiev is
no exception. He describes his innovations in terms of a “modem line,”4 a turn of phrase
covering mainly harmonic language. This modem line can incorporate Prokofiev’s so-
called “wrong notes,” which cannot be articulated in a tonal paradigm.5 Prokofiev uses
typical tonal progressions with embellishments to provide a tonal harmonic basis for his
phrase constructions; therefore, most of the terms used in formal analysis of the Classical
repertoire are applicable to Prokofiev’s piano sonatas as well. It is necessary to broaden
some definitions of those terms only to account for his individual style traits, most of
which are related to the ways he articulates the beginning or ending of a phrase
4 Prokofiev’s “classical line,” discussed later in this chapter, is one o f the five lines he used to
discuss his musical categories before leaving the conservatory. Prokofiev first mentioned these five lines
in an autobiographical sketch of 1941 (Israel V. Nestyev, Prokofiev, trans. Florence Jonas (Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press), 68-75).
5 The term “wrong notes” is consistently used in reference to Prokofiev’s music; its first usage is
attributed to Patricia Ashley, “Prokofiev’s Piano Music: Line, Chord, Key” (Ph.D. diss., University of
Rochester, 1963), 12. Suzanne Moisson-Franckhauser argues that the “wrong notes” in Prokofiev’s
music are surface elements (see Neil Mintum, The Music o f Sergei Prokofiev (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1997), 5-6 for a summary o f Moisson-Franckhauser, Sergei Prokofiev et les courants
esthetiques de son temps, 1891-1953 (Paris: Publications orientalistes de France, 1974).) Nestyev uses
terms such as seasoned (479), sticking grace notes (480), “sound that is stuck” specifically refers to
Prokofiev’s use of the tritone (481). See also note 23.
8
segment. Otherwise, the incorporation and reinterpretation of past elements makes it
worthwhile to consider Prokofiev’s compositions within the context of a neoclassic
aesthetic.
9
History and Development of Neoclassicism
Neoclassicism as a general artistic movement has been defined as “a revival of
classical aesthetics and forms in art, music, and literature.”6 In musical terms,
Neoclassicism is commonly defined as an aesthetic development that took place between
the First and Second World Wars, typically exemplified by the works of Stravinsky.
Generic definitions of this style represented in most sources usually include a recurrence,
akin to these following examples:
• a return to principles of objectivity and control;
• a return to formal principles illustrated by the sonata, suite, symphony, or
other traditional genres;
• a return to strict compositional procedures, such as canon or fugue.7
Amid such generalities, the interpretative predicament becomes apparent: how to
avoid extensive use of a term that can be appropriate for so many different twentieth-
century compositions. Moreover, these concepts do not embrace the essence of the issues
surrounding neoclassic music, nor do they explain the meaning or origin of the term
itself.
6 William Morris, ed.. The American Heritage Dictionary o f the English Language (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1979). While the dictionary defmition includes literature, Scott Messing
asserts that Neoclassicism has never found a home in literary criticism (Scott Messing, Neoclassicism in
Music: From the Genesis o f the Concept through the Schoenberg/Stravinsky Polemic (Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Research Press, 1988), xiv.).
7 Elliott Antokoletz, Twentieth-Century Music (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1992), 243.
10
In order to interpret what is “neo” (new), a useful examination begins with the
root word. The general meaning of the term “classic” refers to acknowledged standards
of excellence; parallel concepts include characteristic, model, typical, exemplary, and
representative. “The aim of classicism, in all media, has been to construct an ideal vision
and version o f human experience that should inspire and instruct by its nobility,
authority, rationality and truth (of which beauty may be considered a visible
manifestation), and to provide convincing models for imitation.”8 This definition easily
fits a musical model as well. Its name suggests an intentional affinity with the Classical
period, but it also implies a broader scope of influence. Compositions regarded as
neoclassic may utilize techniques from any of the style periods of the common-practice
era—Baroque, Classical, Romantic. And even with these concise parameters, a
definition for Neoclassicism remains ambiguous.
The first half of the twentieth century experienced the rise and fall of many
schools of compositional thought, defined in today’s textbooks as “isms.”9 As an
aesthetic movement, Neoclassicism was particularly receptive to both innovation and
tradition, reacting against elements of Romanticism, Impressionism, and Expressionism.
Two o f the most important musical characteristics of the neoclassic ideal were the
incorporation and the reinterpretation of elements from earlier periods. Understanding
Neoclassicism has been elusive partly because works generally considered to represent
8 Michael Grennhalgh, “Classicism,” in The Dictionary o f Art, ed. Jane Turner, vol. 7 (New York:
Grove’s Dictionaries Inc., 1996), 380.
9 Roger Shattuck, The Banquet Years: The Origins o f the Avant-Garde in France • 1883 to World
War I, rev. ed. (Toronto: Random House, 1959; reprint, New York: Vintage Books, 1968), 4.
11
this artistic movement have been described with a variety of terms applicable to almost
every twentieth-century composition.
Despite the large number of composers and works cited as having neoclassic
characteristics, very few writers have attempted to discuss how a single composer’s
compositions exemplify the neoclassic style; instead, they simply refer to specific works
or periods in a composer’s oeuvre.10 Arnold Whittall alerts us that “.. .the dangers of
unproductive over-simplification are probably greater [for Neoclassicism] than for any
other style or period.. Similar warnings exist due to the conflict between a
“frustrating lack of clarity in meaning of neoclassicism and its general use in studies of
twentieth-century music.”12 Scott Messing remarks that the term Neoclassicism in music
is problematic for two major reasons.13 First, almost every major composer of the first
three decades of the twentieth century could be associated with the term.14 Second,
Messing is concerned with the use of a term whose definition does not lead to any
meaningful application. These two situations create difficulties when discussing a
particular composition as representative of the movement.
10 While Stravinsky is the composer most often cited for his neoclassic compositions, these works
represent only a portion o f his oeuvre. Typically a specific composition o r group of compositions are
used to illustrate elements o f the neoclassic aesthetic: Maurice Ravel’s Le Tombeau de Couperin
(1914-1917), Erik Satie’s Sonatine bureaucratique (1917), and Sergei Prokofiev’s Classical Symphony
(1917) are three often cited examples.
11 Arnold Whittall, “Neo-classicism,” in The New Grove Dictionary o f M usic and Musicians, ed.
Stanley Sadie, 2d ed., vol. 17 (London: Macmillan Publishers Limited, 2001), 754.
12 M essing, Neoclassicism in Music, xiii.
13 Ibid.
14The list o f composers often mentioned in various texts that discuss Neoclassicism includes Bartdk,
Casella, Copland, Debussy, Falla, Frangaix, Hindemith, Ibert, d ’lndy, Les Six (Auric, Durey, Honegger,
Milhaud, Poulenc, Tailleferre), Piston, Prokofiev, Ravel, Roussel, Satie, Schoenberg, Shostakovich,
Stravinsky; the list could include other names as well.
12
The range of attributes associated with Neoclassicism is indeed broad; descriptive
terms and characteristics encountered in representative texts include, but are not limited
to, the following: absolute music (versus illustrative), abstract (versus metaphysical),
architectural (versus sentimental), balance (from classical ideals), brevity, clarity, concise
(versus prolix), coolness, direct (versus vague), economy, efficiency, free of pretenses,
light in touch, neo-tonal, objective (versus subjective), order, parody, proportion (from
classical ideals), pure (versus symbolic), simple, static, straight forward.15 The number of
composers and the variety of characteristics related to this movement are responsible for
the ambiguity of its definition.
Neoclassicism provided a systematic reaction to social and artistic innovations
from the turn of the twentieth century through the Second World War. These new
compositions incorporated traditional elements as a way of coming to terms with their
musical heritage, “not out of compositional laziness and lack of imagination, and not
because those elements fit so seamlessly into their post-tonal musical syntax, but
15This collection alphabetizes the characteristics and eliminates duplicate terms from the following
sources: Elliott Antokoletz, Twentieth-Century Music, William Austin, Music in the 20th Century:
From Debussy through Stravinsky (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1966; Martin Cooper
ed., New Oxford History o f Music: The M odem Age, 1890-1960 (London: Oxford University Press,
1974); Robert Gauldin, Harmonic Practice in Tonal Music (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.,
1997); Stefan Kostka, Materials and Techniques o f Twentieth-Century Music, 2d ed. (Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1999); Scott Messing, Neoclassicism in Music, Robert P. Morgan, Twentieth-
Century Music: A History o f Musical Style in M odem Europe and America (New York: W.W. Norton
& Company, Inc., 1991); Eric Salzman, Twentieth-Century Music: An Introduction, 3d ed. (Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1991); Jim Samson ed., The Late Romantic Era: From the mid-19th
Century to World War I (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1991); Roger Shattuck, The Banquet
Years; Bryan Simms, Music o f the 20th Century: Style and Structure, 2d ed. (New York: Schirmer
Books, 1996); Nicolas Slonimsky, Music Since 1900,3d ed. (New York: Coleman-Ross Company, Inc.,
1949); Joseph Straus, Remaking the Past', Glenn Watkins, Soundings: Music in the Twentieth Century
(New York: Schirmer Books, 1988); Arnold Whittall, “Neo-classicism," in The New Grove Dictionary
o f Music and Musicians.
R e p ro d u c e d with perm ission of the copyright owner. Furth er reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
precisely as a way to grapple with their musical heritage. They invoke the past in order
to reinterpret it.”16 And while Prokofiev’s compositions are not typically included in
post-tonal circles, his knowledge of compositional history is unmistakable in his genres
and formal designs.
16Straus, Remaking the Past, 1.
14
Prokofiev’s Musical History and His “Classical Line”
Traditions in Russian musical culture draw from many European and Asian
countries. Scholars and biographers have attempted to classify influences of Prokofiev’s
compositional style; the resulting list is quite long, as it is for many early twentieth-
century composers. Claude Samuel asks, “How can one pin the badge of nationalism on a
composer studying orchestration with Berlioz and Wagner, construction with Beethoven,
and philosophy with Schumann?”17
Prokofiev’s musical studies introduced him to the Western influences of the
eighteenth-century Viennese school, German composers and Italian opera composers of
the nineteenth century, the orchestration studies of Berlioz, and, of course, Russian
influences. The native influences include the “Russian Five” (especially Rimsky-
Korsakov, one of Prokofiev’s instructors at the St. Petersburg Conservatory),
Tchaikovsky, and the more contemporary influences of Scriabin, Liadov, and Glazunov,
to name a few. As Prokofiev’s travels took him away from Russia, Stravinsky provided
influence, despite their tenuous personal relationship.18 A “Russian musician achieves a
balance between strictly national elements, made up in general of borrowings from
folklore and the choice of subject, and an aesthetic derived from the great Masters of the
West.”19 A critic of Musical America offered the following: “Take one Schoenberg, two
17 Claude Samuel, Prokofiev, trans. Miriam John. (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1960; rep rin t, London:
Marion Boyars, 2000), 13 (page citations are to the reprint edition).
18Daniel Jaff6, Sergey Prokofiev (London: Phaidon Press Limited, 1998), 120.
19 Samuel, 13.
15
Omsteins, a little Satie, mix with some Medtner, add a drop of Schumann, then a shade of
Scriabin and Stravinsky, and you will have a cocktail resembling the music of
Prokofiev.”20
Israel Nestyev, one of the first biographers of Prokofiev, hypothesizes that while
Prokofiev incorporates many traditions from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, he
also incorporates some compositional devices of his contemporaries: Prokofiev
“...often juxtaposes the simplest and most traditional classical patterns with the sharpest,
most angular ones.”21 Nestyev sees the influence of earlier generations through
Prokofiev’s use of tonality, as suggested with cadential structures in his compositions.
“Even when he used the most dissonant harmonies for purposes of description or
contrast, they were almost always conceived as purely functional and inevitably gave
way to clear and accepted harmonies.”22
A classical-based analysis of Prokofiev’s compositions is directly related to the
“five lines” he identified in his creative style.23 He traces his “classical line” to early
childhood and the Beethoven sonatas his mother played. “This line takes sometimes a
neo-classical form (sonatas, concertos), sometimes imitates the eighteenth century
(gavottes, the “Classical” symphony, partly the Sinfonietta).”24 Yet Prokofiev’s
innovative harmonic language developed early, partly in response to the critiques of
20 Samuel, 73.
21 Nestyev, 475.
22 Nestyev, 467.
23 T he “five lines” as identified by Prokofiev include classical, modem, toccata, lyrical, and
grotesque (Sergei Prokofiev, Soviet Diary, 1927, and Other Writings, ed. Christopher Palmer, trans, Oleg
Prokofiev (Boston, Northeastern Unviersity Press), 248-249).
24 Prokofiev, Soviet Diary, 248-249.
16
friends. During a visit to Moscow in November of 1902, Prokofiev played the four-hand
arrangement of his new symphony for Taneyev, who reacted with “ ‘Bravo! Bravo! But
the harmonic treatment is a bit simple. Mostly just. . . heh, h e h . . . I, IV, and V
progressions.’ This stung Prokofiev into harmonic experimentation, which was
something of a mixed blessing.”25 Throughout his studies, there are continuous
references to Prokofiev’s fascination for odd tonal combinations:
One work they [Prokofiev and Myaskovsky] played several times was Max
Reger’s Serenade. When Reger had conducted this in St. Petersburg, in
December 1906, Prokofiev was intrigued by the way in which the work
“juxtaposed distant tonalities with such ease that one would think they were the
tonic and dominant.” He later developed this trait in his own writing.26
While Prokofiev was striving to create new harmonic possibilities, he consciously
used standard formal procedures and developed a special affinity for sonata form. In a
1918 interview, he called it "the most flexible musical form."27 This formal design is a
favorite of Prokofiev’s; ten of twenty-six movements in his collection of piano sonatas
use this configuration.
Prokofiev composed his nine piano sonatas throughout his career. The first four
sonatas belong to his early Russian period (ca. 1907-1917), Sonata No. 5 was written in
Paris (the first version, 1923), and, after a sixteen-year hiatus, the final four sonatas were
composed after Prokofiev returned to his homeland. The title "sonata" itself implies the
use of thematic arrangements associated with common-practice forms such as sonata,
25 Jaffe, 14.
26 Ibid., 22.
27 Nestyev, 484.
17
rondo, binary, and ternary forms in multi-movement combinations.28 “The sonata form
epitomizes common-practice tonality, and, to the twentieth-century mind, seems laden
with the tremendous weight and prestige of that repertoire.”29
This study of Prokofiev applies characteristics of Neoclassicism specifically to the
concept of phrase structure; it also embraces Prokofiev’s use of sonata form and all its
attendant formal implications. Prokofiev balances his adherence to the traditions of
phrase structure with the unique elements of his compositional language, such as “wrong
notes.”
The fact that Prokofiev acknowledges these large-scale formal designs as the
basis of his compositions allows the smaller structures, such as the phrase, to be analyzed
with similar, classically-driven terminology. Prokofiev’s adaptations of these
constructions, and his enduring commitment to tonality, suggest a close relationship
between these works and characteristics associated with the early twentieth-century
movement of Neoclassicism. It is the neoclassic elements—reliance on tonal
progressions and use of traditional forms—which lend themselves to the successful
adaptation of conventional formal analysis in the close study of Prokofiev’s works.
“ Two exceptions arc his Sonata No. 1, which is a single movement from what was to be a multi
movement composition, and his Sonata No. 3, which is a one-movement cyclic form.
18
Phrase Structure as an Element of the Neoclassic Aesthetic
A number of elements associated with the neoclassic aesthetic are relevant for
phrase structure analysis: balance, clarity, proportion, and tonality. In particular, balance
and clarity are achieved through the repetition of material. Proportion applies to the use
of an equal number of measures in adjacent or combined phrases. The concept of tonality
as a neoclassic element relates to harmonic progression and harmonic rhythm in the
common-practice style.
For Edward Cone, formal analysis begins with the question of how, not where, a
unit of music begins and ends. His emphasis is rhythmic. “[Musical form] is not, as
conventional analysis would have it, thematic, nor, pace Schenker, harmonic. Both of
these aspects are important, but rhythm is basic.”30 His concept of rhythmic analysis
contributes to balance and clarity and can be easily identified within phrase constructions.
Cone also refers to the “tyranny of the four-measure phrase;” this unit of length is
identifiable in most texts and treatises on formal designs since dance music became a
viable instrumental genre.31 According to Charles Rosen, by 1820 the four-bar phrase
was the fundamental structure for musical material.32 This basic unit creates
periodicity—balance in relation to proportion. While periodic phrasing is an integral part
30 Edward T. Cone, Musical Form and Musical Performance (New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, Inc., 1968), 74-75.
31 See Chapter Two o f this study for a review of some o f the major treatises from the Classical
period as well as treatments o f this topic in more modem texts and treatises.
32 Charles Rosen, The Romantic Generation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995),
261.
19
of many works, composers of the Classical period avoided its monotony by various
means: internal expansion, avoidance of cadence or an unexpected resolution (deceptive
motion), and repetition or sequencing of motives, to name a few.
Clarity, as an element of Neoclassicism, can be created not only through balance
and proportion of phrase lengths, but also through repetition and the relationships
between phrases. Immediate repetition of a motive creates clarity at a smaller level.
Using phrases with repetition schemes sets up hierarchical relationships and provides the
listener with something familiar; at this point, the composer could incorporate new
elements in another parameter simultaneously. The neoclassic ideal of balance also
exists in the larger formal procedures of ternary, rondo, and sonata form. Typically in
these forms, balance is found at the phrase level as well. Similar to the Baroque tradition
of using a single, pliable form, new ideas can be melded into a recognizable mold.
Tonality in Neoclassicism incorporates the idea of a tonic note and its relationship
to other pitches and harmonies. Neoclassic tonal characteristics include familiar
harmonic progressions from Classical tonal practice, especially those that are identified
with cadential formulas. These ideals clarify the relationships between phrases and
create expectations for resolution. These progressions and cadential formulas are
essential to create a phrase, in the Classical sense of the term, and to articulate the
rhythmic aspects of a phrase that Cone declares are the ultimate ruler.
The four neoclassic elements outlined above—balance, clarity, proportion, and
tonality—can illuminate the phrase structure of some early twentieth-century
compositions. To open the third movement of Prokofiev’s Sonata No. 4 , note the
20
rhythmic aspect of the phrase lengths (see Example 1): after a one-measure anacrusis,
there are two eight-measure phrases where the tonic is introduced and then returns to end
each group. Motives are grouped in even numbers: measures 2-3 are repeated and
sequenced in measures 6-7 and 8-9; measures 10-11 are sequenced in 12-13; a single
measure motive is repeated four times, beginning with the anacrusis to measure 14
through measure 17. The C major tonality is expressed largely through the prevalence of
the pitch-class C (see the circled notes)—on the downbeat of measure 2, and in the bass
of measures 3-5, 8,13 and 17. This tonic is also emphasized by the use of the dominant,
pitch-class G, at important structural points in each phrase (see the notes enclosed in
boxes).
21
...
T ^ f yl
•ffT g-JTTIJTTl j t t i j ? n l
© © © ©
I*#-
=. ----- 'H ' )

■
--- |S—-T-.
V - == ** K :3T -= t--
*
J
-* f m
u a J * e r •*»
Example 1
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 4, III, mm. 1-17
(Illustration of neodassic elements: balance, clarity, proportion, and tonality)
22
In his conclusion, Straus makes the following statement:
Allusions to traditional tonal music permeate the music of this century. Some are
overt, in the form of direct quotations or references, while others are concealed
beneath the surface. They penetrate all levels of structure. Their treatment ranges
from delicate changes of orchestration and transformation of single sonorities to
the reinterpretation of entire forms and piece-spanning motions. They are too
numerous, too pervasive, too characteristic of twentieth-century music to be
explained away as anomalies. They cannot be ignored. They demand systematic
explanation.33
Straus’s interpretation supports the study of phrase structure as a neoclassic element in
general, and specifically in the works of Prokofiev. Straus continues:
At the same time, we must not make the mistake of assuming that the presence of
these allusions requires us to engage the entire apparatus of tonal theory. To do
so would result in analytical and critical blunders.34
In response to the above comment, new categories will be created and old categories will
be amended in this study to incorporate Prokofiev’s personal style into the accepted
terminology associated with the formal procedures of phrase-structure analysis. The
hypothesis for a traditional approach to phrase structure in Prokofiev’s music is supported
by Samuel’s statement that “ ...when considering the composer’s melodic invention the
name of one classical composer comes to mind, that of Joseph Haydn, for the themes of
these two composers and their spontaneous flow do, if one keeps a sense of proportion,
show a certain likeness.”35

34 Ibid.
35 Samuel, 54-55. This statement occurs in reference to his ballet, Chout, composed in the early
!920s, rather than as a response to Prokofiev’s Classical Symphony, where the composer himself noted a
kinship to the style of Haydn’s techniques and clarity of form.
23
As Prokofiev identifies a “classical line” for the outer form of his compositions,
internal formal designs tend to fall into categories associated with classical formal
construction. The present study embraces Prokofiev’s unique idiosyncrasies, or surface
elements, and incorporates them within the body of terminology traditionally applied to
the examination of phrase structure in common-practice music. In the spirit of
Neoclassicism, a first step is to consider the origins of Prokofiev’s Classical
influences—specifically, how composition students of the late eighteenth century learned
to construct phrases. This training can be viewed through various eighteenth-century
compositional treatises. A comparison of these early paradigms with more modem
theoretical treatises will yield the basic terminology for this study. A combination of
these theories and strategies will be adapted to account for Prokofiev’s personal
innovations and will shed light on his compositional style.
CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL STUDIES OF PHRASE STRUCTURE
The study of what we now call phrase structure dates back to the eighteenth
century. Earlier theorists did not deal with matters of melody and phrase structure;
instead, they emphasized species counterpoint, thoroughbass techniques, and the
emerging theories of harmony. In the new galant style of the eighteenth century,
however, the use of clearly articulated melodic phrases and periods became
increasingly prominent. Only three theoretical treatises of the era dedicated substantial
attention to melodic structure and phrase articulations and described the relationship
between melodic and harmonic structures and musical form: Johann Mattheson’s Der
volkommene Capellmeister (1739), Joseph Riepel’s Anfangsgrunde zur musicalischen
Setzkunst (1752-1768), and Heinrich Christoph Koch’s Versuch einer Anleitung zur
Composition (1782-1793).“ These treatises serve as important points of departure for
the present study because they represent the first observations of phrase construction as
part of the compositional process from a pedagogical standpoint.
The development of the Classical theories continues through the twentieth
century. Modem treatises on musical form relevant to the present study are William
Rothstein’s Phrase Rhythm in Tonal Music and William Caplin’s Classical Form, both
36 Johann Mattheson, Der vollkommene Capellmeister (Hamburg. Facs. Kassel: BaLrenreiter, 1954);
Joseph Riepel, Anfangsgrunde zur musicalischen Setzkunst: De rhythmopoei'a, oder von der
Tactordnung, vol. 1 (Regensburg and Vienna: Emerich Felix Bader (Ausburg: Johann Jacob Lotter),
1752); Heinrich Christoph Koch, Versuch einer Anleitung zur Composition, 3 vols. (Rudolstadt and
Leipzig, Facs. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1969).
24
25
of which offer a methodology for deciphering elements of phrase structure.37 Rothstein
adopts a Schenkerian approach and clarifies the function of large-scale rhythmic
processes; he explores the evolution of phrase rhythm in eighteenth- and nineteenth-
century music through analyses of compositions by Haydn, Mendelssohn, Chopin and
Wagner. Caplin’s study, based on the Formenlehre tradition of Arnold Schoenberg and
Erwin Ratz, defines formal functions at multiple levels and shows how their interaction
creates a variety of designs in the compositions of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven.
Rothstein’s and Caplin’s perspectives will be supplemented by concepts presented in the
texts of Wallace Berry and Douglass Green.38
37 W illiam Rothstein, Phrase Rhythm in Tonal Music (New York: Schirmer Books, 1989); William
E. Caplin, Classical Form: A Theory o f Formal Functions fo r the Instrumental Music o f Haydn, Mozart,
and Beethoven (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).
38 W allace Berry, Form in Music, 2d ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966);
Douglass M . Green, Form in Tonal Music: An Introduction to Analysis, 2d ed. (New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and W inston, 1979).
26
Early Theories of Phrase Structure
In Der vollkommene Capellmeister, Johann Mattheson (1681-1764) avoided the
traditional compositional strategies of species counterpoint, thoroughbass techniques, and
the theory of harmony in order to focus on melody; no one before him had written about
this as an essential feature of musical composition.39 While Mattheson’s statement,
“melody... is... the origin of true and simple harmony,” may still find its detractors today,
modem treatises discuss melodic design as an important aspect of analysis.40 Melody is
used to identify phrase beginnings, phrase functions, and relationships among phrases in
close proximity to each other. These terms are also used in modem studies of phrase
structure. Mattheson claimed that melody can exist without harmony but the reverse is
not true: Harmony would be only “idle noise” and should derive its rules from melody.41
This assertion contradicts Jean-Philippe Rameau’s 1722 work, Traite de I’harmonie,42
Part Two of Mattheson’s treatise is the focus of his melodic study. The qualities
he describes and the terminology in his discussions are familiar due to their similarities
with neoclassic compositional strategies. In Chapter Five, Mattheson describes melodies
as having four main qualities: facility, clarity, flow, and charm. For each quality he lists
39 Ernst Harriss, Johann Mattheson’s “Der vollkommene Capellmeister": A Revised Translation

with Critical Commentary (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1981), 300. Joel Lester also concurs with
M attheson’s announcement that he was “the first theorist and composer to acknowledge melody as
occupying a central role in the musical styles of the 1720s and 1730s” (Joel Lester, Compositional
Theory in the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), 161).
40 Harriss, 301,56.
41 Ibid., 302,J11.
42 Jean-Philippe Rameau, T raiti de I’harmonie. Translation and notes by Philip Gossett. (New
York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971). Mattheson mentioned the three traditions o f counterpoint,
thoroughbass, and harmony in his writings, the fundamentals behind Rameau’s Traiti.
27
a number of rules and then details each through the use of musical examples. Facility
incorporates a familiar fragment, while clarity comprises melodic simplicity, the use of
only one specific passion and the use of proportion in the melody’s design. Flow is
achieved through with rhythmic uniformity with no interruptions; Mattheson equates
elements of melodic rhythm with poetic feet in his Chapter Six. Charm refers to contour,
the use of small steps instead of large leaps; charm also emphasizes variety in contour
and the desirability of some, but not too much, repetition.
More overt comparisons of musical language with linguistic terminology are in
Mattheson’s Chapter Nine, “On the Sections and Caesuras of Musical Rhetoric.” A
sampling of his terminology follows:
-5 -
Every idea, be it verbal or written, consists then in certain w ord-phrases, or
periods; but every such phrase also consists in smaller caesuras up to the close
with a period. A whole structure or paragraph is developed from such phrases,
and from various of these paragraphs a main part or a chapter is finally developed.
That very briefly is the stepwise outline or climax of all that which can really be
spoken, written, sung, or played.
6 - -
In melody, as in musical speech, we usually employ only one paragraph at a time,

a whole stru c tu re and section, which commonly forms the bounds of an aria,
and, as stated, must consist of and join together at least two different smaller
sentences or short statements. Though occasionally there is an exception in
pedagogy, if clarity requires it.43
Later in Chapter Nine, Mattheson defines a period: “a brief statement which
includes a complete idea or an entire verbal concept.”44 This description is still analogous
43 Harriss, 381 (boldface type in Harriss).

44 Ibid., 382,59.
28
to today’s definitions given in various theoretical textbooks.45 His use of the term
“caesura” implies breaking down larger portions of music. Mattheson creates these
musical divisions by equating various punctuation marks from speech: “question and
exclamation marks, as the period.”46 Mattheson also models his cadential terminology on
punctuation; he suggests using punctuation in a text to determine the cadences. These
early terms are still used in modem treatises, though their definitions have been modified
through time.
The discussion of examples illustrates the role played by rhythmic and motivic
activity in creating successful musical continuity, two aspects of musical structure that
had been ignored by many earlier writers.47 Mattheson’s emphasis on melodic structure,
phrasing, and cadential articulations influence later theorists. The work of Joseph Riepel
(1709-1782) emphasizes both the pitch structure (“Tonordnung”) and the rhythmic
structure (“Tactordnung”) of a melody.48 One difference from Mattheson’s approach is
that readers of the Anfangsgrunde zur Musicalischen Setzkunst needed a background in
45 The following two examples both imply a complete structure: “Phrases are often combined to
form a larger structural unit called a period. A period typically consists of two phrases in an antecedent-
consequent (or question-answer) relationship, that relationship being established by means o f a stronger
cadence at the end of the second phrase.” (Stefan Kostka and Dorothy Payne, Tonal Harmony with an
Introduction to Twentieth-Century Music 4th ed., rev. (Boston: McGraw Hill, 2000), 166); “The period
consists of a series o f phrases which, aside from the question of resemblance in design, are related by
virtue o f harmonic organization or tonal structure.” (Green, 55.)
46 Harriss, 383,316.
47 Joel Lester, Compositional Theory in the Eighteenth Century, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1992), 166.
48 Nola Jane Reed, “The Theories of Joseph Riepel as Expressed in His Anfangsgrunde zur
Musicalischen Setzkunst (1752-1768),” (Ph.D. diss., University of Rochester, 1983), iv.
R e p ro d u c e d with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
29
harmony to understand Riepel’s discourse where the bass line was considered to have a
more supportive role.49
Riepel classified phrases by length and cadential orientation, in a fashion similar
to present-day pedagogy. Phrase transformation takes place by any number of means:
repetition, interpolation, extending figuration over harmony, and restatement of cadence.
However, all elaborations can be traced back to the basic phrase. These elaboration
techniques are visible in many modem compositions, such as Prokofiev’s piano sonatas,
where there are identifiable cadential procedures. Riepel’s hierarchical compositional
strategies begin with the basics of melody and proceed to more elaborated melodic
constructions.50
Riepel advocates that the most important aspect of a good composition is its
formal clarity and coherence.51 His rules are flexible, however, and they should always
be subject to the arbiter of good taste and judgement. Clarity promotes balance and
symmetry, and Riepel claims the superiority of phrases with either four or eight
measures.52 Riepel notes two types of phrase classifications: tonic CGrundabsatz”)—
phrase with cadence on the tonic; and modulatory (“Anderungsabsatz”)—phrase with
49 Qualified by both Reed (x) and Lester (261).

50 Lester’s places the various musical examples in one diagram, arranged vertically for comparison,
similar to Schenkerian reductions.
51 Reed, 18.
52 See the discussion o f Cone’s “tyranny of the four-measure phrase” and the ensuing remarks from
Rosen in Chapter One of this study, p. 18 ff.
R e p ro d u c e d with perm ission of the copyright owner. F urther reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
cadence on the dominant. These two phrase types are either conclusive or inconclusive
depending on the outer voices at the cadence.33
While topics of melody, harmony, and counterpoint were addressed in many
sources by various theorists, such as Mattheson, Heinichen, Rameau, and Marpurg,
. .any acknowledgement or definition of an interrelationship among these areas,
especially in connection with musical form, was only implied. With the appearance of
Riepel’s Elements o f Musical Composition, this situation changed; here, musical form
became the focus which placed all else into perspective.”54 Riepel’s theories were
absorbed by his contemporaries, especially by Koch, who treats melody, phrasing and
larger musical constructions more comprehensively and systematically, and applies the
concepts to a later repertoire.55
In his Versuch einer Anleitung zur Composition, Heinrich Christoph Koch
(1749-1816) did not merely devise theories about composition; he also produced a
handbook on how to compose. “He has abstracted rules from contemporary composers’
works and presents them as possible treatments of the form, not as models to be followed.
Familiar as he is with current practice, Koch realizes that the options are innumerable and
that flexibility is the only firm rule.”56 This is still the ideal for analysis, especially when
53 Reed, 8. Riepel’s phrase classifications are similar to phrase functions given by Caplin in his text,
Classical Form.
54 Reed, 20.
55 Lester, 273.
56 Nancy Kovaleff Baker, Introductory Essay on Composition: The Mechanical Rules o f Melody,
Sections 3 and 4 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), xx.
31
comparing those considered to be neoclassic composers, and holds true for Prokofiev as
well.
According to Koch, there are two points that may distinguish a section of music:
its ending and its length. Koch defines endings, or cadences, as the formal punctuation
that completes a musical period conclusively. In his discussion, a cadence has: 1) the
note of preparation, which falls on the strong part of the measure; 2) the cadential note,
which falls on the weak part of the measure; 3) the closing tone or the caesura note,
which falls on the strong part of the measure. Another ending, a caesura, while not a
cadence, provides an inconclusive end to a phrase: “That place where a resting point is
shown in the melody, that is, the place where one section of the melody can be separated
from the following one, is called a caesura (cutting).”57
Similar to Mattheson, Koch uses linguistic terms to define melodic constructions.
For example, he defines some specific constructions: a period is defined as a complete
thought ending with a strong punctuation; a phrase is part of a period, specifically, either
an inconclusive phrase or the closing phrase. Koch’s presentation, however, is different
from his contemporaries in that his emphasis is continually focused on actual music.
This procedure is standard in today’s modem treatises, such as those by Rothstein and
Caplin. Koch’s theories and terminology were incorporated by many nineteenth-century
theorists, including Anton Reicha (1770-1836), Gottfried Weber (1779-1839), Adolph B.
Marx (1795-1866), Mathis Lussy (182-1910), and Hugo Riemann (1849-1919); these
57 Baker, 19, §93.
32
theorists were “all influenced, either directly or indirectly, by Koch’s ideas and
incorporated them into their own theories.”58 Leonard Ratner, a twentieth-century
theorist, was the first to recognize the significance of the Versuch and discussed it in his
dissertation and various articles.59
Koch’s observations of Classical repertoire helped to establish the expectations
that are also associated with music composed since this period. Twentieth-century
composers became familiar with eighteenth-century procedures and were trained to
compose with similar constructs. Inherited notions of melody and phrasing served as the
building blocks of musical compositions well into the twentieth century; these ideas are
inherent in works associated with the neoclassic aesthetic.
58 Ibid., xxii.
59 Ibid.
33
Comparison of Modern Phrase-Structure Paradigms
Whereas Classical treatises established a pedagogical approach for the teaching of
composition, modem authors who discuss phrase structure are concerned principally with
formal analysis, such as the texts of Wallace Berry and Douglass Green and the more
recent treatises of Rothstein and Caplin. Their terminology provides the basis for the
description of Prokofiev’s compositional techniques, or of any composer showing an
affinity with common-practice formal designs. Berry’s, Green’s, and Rothstein’s books
are used to varying degrees in the study of formal analysis. Caplin’s treatise has not had
a direct impact in the classroom due to its recent publication, but it has already been
reviewed as “one of the most important books on musical form to appear in the twentieth
century.”60
The aforementioned four authors differ in their presentation of musical analysis,
specifically in their ordering of material and in their definitions of “form.” Berry’s
definition is simply stated as “the sum of those qualities in a piece of music that bind
together its parts and animate the whole,” while Green describes form as having two
aspects: design (which includes melody, rhythm, cadences, timbre, texture and tempo)
and tonal structure (the harmonic organization of a piece).61 Rothstein’s description of
form describes a phenomenon of phrase structure and phrase rhythm; Caplin also sets up
60 Warren Darcy, review of Classical Form: A Theory o f Formal Functions fo r the Instrumental
Music o f Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven, by William E. Caplin Music Theory Spectrum 22/1 (Spring,
2000): 122.
61 Beiry, Form in Music, xiii; Green, 3-4.
34
his definition by referencing smaller sections: . .form concerns itself with how the
various parts of a composition are arranged and ordered.. and “more technically, form
of a musical work can be described minimally as a hierarchical arrangement of discrete,
perceptually significant time spans....” 62 To some degree, all four of these definitions
describe hierarchical relationships between the parts and the whole of a musical work.
The four authors differ in how they each discuss phrase structure in relation to the
overall formal design of a composition. Each author describes the term “phrase” before
proceeding to detailed analyses. Berry defines a phrase from the standpoint of tonal
hierarchies, offering a formula (melody + harmony = form) to highlight his approach.
For Green, a phrase is the basic unit of music, which must have a degree of completeness
with a corresponding point of repose. Rothstein’s and Caplin’s treatises both begin with
the assumption that something is known about the anatomy of a phrase, and therefore
introduce the larger structures before dividing them into smaller parts. For Rothstein, a
musical phrase must have coherence of melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic factors.
Caplin’s phrase is a combination of tonality and harmonic motion in conjunction with
melodic content.
The focus of Rothstein’s text is the analysis of works by eighteenth- and
nineteenth-century composers, but his preliminary theoretical definitions are applicable to
a wide range of music. He begins by explaining that the term “phrase” has no
satisfactory definition:
62 Rothstein, 102; Caplin, 9.
35
Take the word phrase, for example. Every musician thinks he knows what a
phrase is, and certainly every musician must know if music is to be made at all.
But ask a musician to define phrase, and you will probably get a blank stare.
Then, if you are lucky, you will hear an awkward, abstract explanation using such
words as energy, tension, motion, expectation, release, arrival, and fulfillment,
perhaps accompanied by metaphors derived from visual perception.63
Early in his text, Rothstein states that “phrase structure refers to the coherence of musical
passages on the basis of their total musical content—melodic, harmonic and rhythmic,”
however, most of his emphasis is on the harmonic structure: “I f there is no tonal motion,
there is no phrase.’,64 Many of Rothstein’s terms for and techniques of analysis are
derived from the Classical treatises, especially Koch.
Rothstein sets up terminology that describes various phrase relationships and
functions with specific terms. A hierarchy is evident in both meter and phrase
specifically in reference to tonal music. Phrase rhythm is Rothstein’s term that
incorporates both phrase structure, the coherence of musical passages on the basis of their
total musical content, and hypermeter, the combination of measures on a metrical basis.65
The tonal aspect of the music is fundamental to his descriptions: “A phrase should be
understood as, among other things, a directed motion in time from one tonal entity to
another; these entities may be harmonies, melodic tones (in any voice or voices), or some
combination of the two.”66 Phrase rhythm is therefore set up as a simultaneity between
the concepts of tonal motion and the phrase as a rhythmic a unit (hypermeter).67
63 Rothstein, 3 (Rothstein’s italics).

64 Ibid., 5 and 12-13 (Rothstein’s italics).
“ Ibid., 12-13.
“ Ibid., 16.
67 Ibid., 27.
36
Following the Classical and Romantic theorists, Rothstein describes duple
groupings as the most natural type of construction, as symmetrical arrangements are
inherent in the physiological and psychological reasoning of humans.68 Hypermeters
have a tendency to exist in duple configurations as well. Symmetry is skewed when
phrases are linked together by means of elision or overlap; interpreting one measure
simultaneously as the end of one structure and the beginning of another is an important
concept in the study of phrasing in Classical music.
Rothstein’s discussions of phrase expansion are derived from the treatises of
Koch, Riepel, and Mattheson. Rothstein designates the linguistic terms prefix and suffix
as external expansions, while internal expansions take on many forms; changes to four-
measure constructions create surface anomalies but do not affect the underlying
hypermetrical analyses. Rothstein asserts that hypermeter does not create form:
Musical form is thus a phenomenon of phrase structure and of phrase rhythm.

Not only do phrases and periods group together, they often balance each other
symmetrically; they also move from one tonal landmark to another in an onward
progression, aiming toward a final goal. The principal basis of phrase structure is
tonal motion; thus the basis of musical form, seen from the standpoint of phrase
structure, is also largely tonal.69
Hierarchical ideas put forth in Rothstein’s text are also evident in Caplin’s text on form.
68 Rothstein, 33. Rothstein quotes Heinrich Schenker’s discussion o f these elements. As a young
student once realized, groupings of twos, or duple meters, are easier to assimilate versus groupings of
threes, or triple and compound meters, because humans have two feet, not three.
69 Ibid., 102.
37
Caplin’s treatise presents his theory as “empirical and descriptive, not deductive
and prescriptive;”70he derives principles from his observations of Classical music, just as
the theorists of that period. Caplin defines numerous terms to describe the variety of
relationships between phrase segments and complete phrases, and develops a
comprehensive set of functions to analyze Classical form more precisely than has been
done before. As Warren Darcy states, the differentiation between formal function and
grouping structure is what sets “Caplin’s theory apart from most previous theories of
musical form.”71
The concept of hierarchy in Caplin’s theory asserts itself early: “Form of a
musical work can be described minimally as a hierarchical arrangement of discrete,
perceptually significant time spans; groupings say nothing about their content or their
relationship to other groups.”72 These time spans can be broken down as themes, phrases,
motives, and so on. His theory develops a set of formal processes (repetition,
fragmentation, extension, and expansion) and a set of formal types (sentence, period,
small ternary, etc.) and develops these concepts in association with harmony, tonality,
and cadence.
Caplin describes grouping structure as the variety of discrete time spans organized
hierarchically in a work. These groups are then assigned a functional label that describes
itself in the context of a larger group. “Here, formal functionality arises from harmonic,
70 Caplin, 5, column 2.
71 Darcy, 122.
38
melodic and rhythmic processes that are not necessarily the same as those that create the
work’s grouping structure.”73 Formal functions define the role a group plays in the
organization of a composition. Caplin sets aside Schoenberg’s ideas of Grundgestalt and
“developing variation” and states that the formal function of a group need not be defined
solely by its motivic content.
Caplin uses the Classical format of duple construction in his analyses, beginning
with his definition of a phrase: “minimally, a four-measure unit, often, but not
necessarily, containing two ideas.”74 While he assigns each phrase a particular function
(antecedent, consequent, presentational, continuational, cadential), phrases always
become parts of larger units, such as a sentence or a period. The formal function of each
phrase is defined by its tonality and harmonic motion, as well as by its melodic content.
All concepts are presented in hierarchical formats.
Caplin’s phrase structures contain a conventional set of formal functions that
operate in the structural boundaries of the theme. Themes can themselves acquire formal
functions at a higher level of structure, namely, the exposition section of sonata form
(interthematic functions). These newer treatises encompass the ideals of composition
from the eighteenth century; they can now be applied to more modem repertoires that still
embrace the time-honored traditions. Prokofiev’s piano sonatas are prime examples of a
newer repertoire that warrants this type of analytic discovery.
74 Ibid., 256.
39
Comparison of Analytic Approaches
There are many studies specifically related to Prokofiev’s piano sonatas; formal
elements are typically mentioned in passing or to underline a specific point in the music.
Rarely is there any mention of phrase structure, except as a surface feature. Jonathan
Kramer creates two layers for the analysis of Prokofiev’s compositions: “first a
traditional, common practice, the ‘hypothetical’ version; the second layer, innovation
with ‘wrong notes.’”75 This second layer merely contains surface features; the underlying
formal ideas in Prokofiev’s phrase structure have such strong ties to a classical ideal that
it cannot be ignored. These forms provide the framework for his harmonic vocabulary.
Neil Mintum describes the aspects of Prokofiev’s compositional style through an
expansion of the “five lines” that Prokofiev alluded to in his own writings. Mintum
interprets the classical line as Prokofiev’s use of traditional forms even when he was
composing original and modem pieces. “In identifying a classical line Prokofiev shows
himself fully aware of the traditional ties that his music enjoys in spite of—and
coexisting with—any strains of iconoclasm which are also present.” 76 Prokofiev’s
modem line, according to Mintum, includes harmonic language and new departures in
melody, orchestration, and drama; the grotesque line incorporates the meaning of
“distortion,” which can incorporate the scherzo-like passages that are such a distinctive
feature of Prokofiev’s style.
75 Mintum, The Music o f Sergei Prokofiev, 5.

76 Ibid., 27.
40
After some preliminary analyses, Mintum comes to five significant conclusions
about Prokofiev’s music. The last three of these points deal with set-classes, or non-
triadic pitch collections, employing terminology associated with atonal analysis.77 The
first two conclusions, however, relate to a discussion of Prokofiev’s phrase structure:
1. The surface of Prokofiev’s music differs from the surface of traditionally tonal
music.
2. Triads alone do not constitute the recurring characteristic sonorities of any
given piece.78
In Mintum’s first conclusion, the surface features may include Prokofiev’s “wrong
notes,” as well as his modifications of traditional phrase structures. And while Mintum
suggests that triads do not hold weight in most of Prokofiev’s compositions, there is an
element of tonal focus in the movements of his piano sonatas.
Descriptions of tonality usually refer to a cadence point, but not how the cadence
is achieved. Studies of harmony or pitch-class sets neglect melodic considerations, and
melodic analysis typically neglects a larger framework for their conception—that is, not
how they are put together, as in Koch and other eighteenth-century treatises, or even
twentieth-century treatises (see earlier discussions in this chapter).
77 The use o f atonal theories in the analysis of Prokofiev’s works has been the subject o f some
controversy. See the reviews o f Mintum, The Music o f Sergei Prokofiev, listed in the bibliography, by
Roger Beeson, Anne Marie de Zeeuw, Marie Lehman, and Daniel Zimmerman.
78 Mintum, The Music o f Sergei Prokofiev, 54.
41
One of the first analytical studies of Prokofiev’s music was a dissertation by
Patricia Ashley entitled “Prokofiev’s Piano Music: Line, Chord, Key,” which is often
quoted because of her coining the phrase “wrong notes” in reference to Prokofiev’s
melodic and harmonic innovations.79 While Ashley provides an analysis of the first
movement of Prokofiev’s Eighth Sonata, she excludes a discussion of its formal design
with the assertion that Prokofiev has very few innovations in this area; however, she later
states, “everything in [Prokofiev’s] music was controlled by form, rhythm, and
cadences.”80 Her focus on cadential points has less association with structural
punctuation than with harmonic arrival. In another early study of Prokofiev’s
compositions, David Kinsey states that Prokofiev “did not experiment with form in his
sonatas” and accordingly, there are no innovations identified in Kinsey’s formal
analyses.81 Kinsey invokes terminology associated with phrase structure, but by listing
musical events sequentially, he does not take into account any of Prokofiev’s phrase
constructions that conflict with conventional analytic terminology.
Other studies that refer to Prokofiev’s piano sonatas specifically have some
problematic issues in dealing with phrase structure. Rebecca Martin’s work only touches
on the surface features apparent in each sonata.82 James Mathes identifies structural
points in the sonatas with terminology such as exposition, development, recapitulation,
79 Ashley, 12.
80 Ibid., iii and 11. The rhythm to which she is referring is not that which dictates larger, formal
issues (as in Rothstein, Phrase Rhythm in Tonal Music), but rhythmic gestures at the surface level.
81 David Leslie Kinsey, “The Piano Sonatas of Serge Prokofiev: A Critical Study o f the Elements of
their Style,” (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1959), 238.
82 Rebecca Gena Martin, “The Nine Piano Sonatas of Sergei Prokofiev,” (D.M.A. diss., University of
Kentucky, 1982).
42
first theme, and so on. As his divisions become smaller, Mathes reasons that structural
units are hierarchically ordered, each articulated by some degree of closure. He does not
discuss why or how he reached these conclusions.83
William Nyaho focuses on Prokofiev’s “War Sonatas,” noting that standard
classical forms are used in all four movements of Sonata No. 6. He identifies phrase
lengths for many thematic areas but not the structure, function, or relationship of the
phrases.84 Garnet Ungar discusses conventional phrase lengths in the same sonata, but
the incongruity in this study centers on the author’s often-contradictory application of
atonal set theory simultaneously with common-practice terms such as perfect cadences
and the circle-of-fifths.85
A larger study by Stephen Feiss gives an overview of many elements in
Prokofiev’s piano compositions, focusing on a pedagogical survey of the works.86 While
various subsections of this text would seem to have implications for phrase structure
analysis, Feiss does not address these design features at a local level. His sections on
“melody” deal with structural roles and designations (“A theme,” etc.) instead of
addressing how the melody is constructed. The “rhythm and meter” sections relate to
specific rhythmic patterns as surface features and not as hierarchical or structural points
83 James Robert Mathes, ‘Texture and Musical Structure: An Analysis o f First Movements o f Select
Twentieth-Century Piano Sonatas,” (Ph.D. diss., The Florida State University, 1986).
84 William Henry Chapman Nyaho, “Cyclicism in the W ar Sonatas o f Sergei Prokofiev,” (D.M.A.
diss., The University of Texas at Austin, 1990), 50. An exception to this statement is in the first
movement o f the Sixth Sonata; here Nyaho identifies the ternary structure o f the opening.
85
Garnet William U ngar, “Prokofiev’s Piano Sonata No. 6, Op. 82: A Motivic Analysis and
Performance Practice Study,” (D.M.A. diss., University of Houston, 1996).
84 Stephen C.E. Fiess, The Piano Works o f Serge Prokofiev (Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press,
Inc., 1994).
R e p ro d u c e d with perm ission of the copyright owner. F urther reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
in the scheme of a whole movement. In the “form” sections, Feiss gives a very brief
description of the formal designs for each movement emphasizing the external structures,
such as the form of an entire movement, but not the internal structures, such as phrase
constructions. It is these smaller structures, their designs and their connection, which
highlights Prokofiev’s unique compositional style.
44
Adaptation of Terminology for Prokofiev’s Piano Sonatas
“The enormous variety that confronts us in tonal music should not be an invitation
to disperse with first principles altogether. It should be rather a stimulus, prompting us to
refine our generalizations (and our analyses) in whatever degree necessary to account for
musical phenomena.”87 Once familiar with the basic principles of formal analysis,
Rothstein’s “first principles,” the integration of later repertoire, such as Prokofiev’s piano
sonatas, can occur. An approach that is congruent with Prokofiev’s twentieth-century
ideals necessitates some restructuring of analytic categories to facilitate the application of
established terminology.
To identify the specifics of Prokofiev’s compositional techniques, the following
motivic and tonal elements will provide a foundation for analysis. Motivic identification
is used to identify the beginning of a segment as well as the connections between various
segments; repetition schemes create hierarchical relationships. Tonal elements create and
resolve dissonance, creating a hierarchy of functions; these elements yield cadential
procedures associated with closure. The development of these two ideals is found within
formal constructs of earlier repertoires, and their descriptions illuminate the formal
designs of Prokofiev’s nine piano sonatas.
The analyses in Chapter Three illustrate Prokofiev’s compositional techniques.
Score examples and reductions are often adjoined with bass-line summaries, which show
87 Rothstein, 120.
45
the harmonic structure. A glossary of descriptive terminology adapted for this study is
included in Appendix 1. Along with musical notations, specific symbols highlight phrase
structure elements:88
rr~ i phrase of 4 measures (or 4 downbeats)
j cadence and arrival indicator with a descriptive label

HC
phrase segment (no cadence);
open-ended phrase or phrase segment
a a
| ^ two phrase segments using the same motivic content
> phrase extension
overlapping phrases
two-phrase period
I I
^ ^ anacrusis figure
Diagramming phrase structures illustrates the connection between common-practice and
Prokofiev’s formal designs
88 These analytic symbols have evolved through studies with Dr. Richard Bass, Professor, University
o f Connecticut; Dr. Avo Somer, Professor Emeritus, University of Connecticut; and Dr. John Buccheri,
Professor, Northwestern University.
CHAPTER THREE: PHRASE CONSTRUCTION AND GROUPING
IN PROKOFIEV’S PIANO SONATAS
As discussed in Chapter Two, Prokofiev’s formal designs are fundamentally
classical in conception, but they are articulated through harmonies that reflect a
twentieth-century tonal idiom. The ending of a phrase is expressed by its cadence, and
the harmonic progressions associated with cadences are among Prokofiev’s most
distinctive compositional techniques. The first part of the analytical discussion in the
present chapter is therefore devoted to the identification and illustration of cadential
procedures found in the piano sonatas.
Prokofiev’s reliance on tonic harmony to reinforce closure is an aspect of the
neoclassic aesthetic in these works; formal clarity in general is another. At higher
levels, Prokofiev uses phrase repetition schemes to maintain the intelligibility of his
formal structures. The various phrase constructions, examined later in this chapter, are
arranged from small- to large-scale repetition schemes: the sentence, where repetition
occurs at the motivic level; the period, where repetition occurs at the phrase level; and
the small ternary form, which entails the restatement of larger structures over a longer
time span.
47
Prokofiev’s Cadential Procedures
Two of the essential first steps in describing phrase structure include the
definition of hierarchic relationship between phrases and the description of closure
types—cadential phrases or formulas. Formal units can exhibit varying degrees of
cadential closure, which allows for the possibility of creating thematic organization
based largely on cadential differentiation.89 Various theorists comment on cadences
and help to explain their role within the domain of musical form:
• “Cadence types are the tonal composer’s primary means of articulating
form.”90
• “ ... A kind of musical punctuation, usually both melodic and harmonic,
conveying a sense of close or of interruption in the rhythmic motion of the
musical line.”91
• “Cadential progressions confirm an implied tonality.”92
• “Cadences are the immediate goal of a phrase, the chords that bring it to a
close, a degree of finality expressed in terms of relative strength.”93
89 Caplin, 12.
90 Janet Schmalfeldt, “Cadential Processes: The Evaded Cadence and the ‘One More Tim e’
Technique,” The Journal o f Musicological Research 12, nos. 1-2 (1992): 10.
91 Berry, Form in Music, 8.
92 Caplin, 27.
93 Green, 8.
Cadences are but one element that can illuminate the neoclassic ideal of clarity; as an
articulation point in a formal design, a cadential figure can delineate a phrase length or
emphasize a tonal function. As the unique element in Prokofiev’s phrase structures,
specific cadential procedures will be identified before discussing larger structures.
The conclusive cadence in the common-practice repertoire typically refers to
two types of authentic cadences: the perfect (PAC) and the imperfect (IAC).94 In
Prokofiev’s music, there are some instances of the traditional perfect authentic cadence,
exemplified by root position dominant-to-tonic motion in the bass coupled with
stepwise motion to the tonic in the upper voice. To close the exposition of Sonata
No. 1, the upper voice moves in a traditional stepwise descent (5-2-1) harmonized by an
augmented pre-dominant chord (using l>6), a dominant-seventh chord, and the tonic
triad, respectively (Example 2).
94 Green, 9. Green’s conclusive cadences fall into two categories: those with a leading tone
(authentic and related: V-I, VII-I, III-I) and those without a leading tone (plagal and related: IV-I,
0)VI-1, 0011-1).
49
rit. .
® r f! J , I i.g ; . * . i>§ : -&
f 4 : s' f ! l
Ir-Ei pz-
Ak tv n v7
J
PAC
Example 2
Prokofiev, Sonata No. J, mm. 90-93
(score excerpt)
Since the inversion of harmonies is not as important in Prokofiev’s music as other
relationships, such as harmonic function, the more general category of authentic
cadence (AC) will be used in this study as a simple designation of dominant-to-tonic
resolution. This cadence type will be further qualified based on variants in chord
construction (altered or added notes) and specific voice-leading characteristics.
In addition to using established cadential formulas, Prokofiev creates new
procedures that do not fit neatly into traditional categories, but which can be
incorporated within a modified classical terminology. While non-traditional cadences
do not have established definitions, Green summarizes some cadential practices found
in twentieth-century music:
50
1. addition or substitution of tones in the cadential chords
2. omission of tones in the cadential chords
3. contrivance of new penultimate chord made up of notes that resolve
stepwise into the final tonic95
These cadential practices can be included within the general category of authentic
cadence. The first category, for example, can absorb the “wrong notes” in Prokofiev’s
harmonic vocabulary. Many of these chords are found in cadential extensions at the
end of various movements, as in Example 3, the conclusion of the “Allegro molto
sostenuto” of Sonata No. 4. The additional notes create a disturbance in the authentic
quality of the cadence implied by the dominant to tonic bass motion. While the
dominant harmony typically contains a tritone interval, here between the B-natural and
F-natural, the tritone between G and the added C-sharp creates more tension. The
raised and natural seventh of the chord creates a split-note chord, another disturbance to
the dominant quality.96 The F-sharp, while resolving to G in the right hand, is also
transferred to another voice in the tonic harmony. The disturbance is not truly resolved.
95 Green, 10-11.
96 Kostka, 55. Kostka identifies “split-note” chords as those that contain chromatic added notes,
resulting in two versions of a chord member separated by semitone, i.e., root plus raised root, major and
minor thirds above the root, perfect and diminished fifths, or major and minor sevenths.
c: I V ”
14
JAC
Example 3
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 4 ,1, mm. 196-197
(score excerpt and bass-line summary)
Prokofiev also substitutes notes in the cadential chords; one variation of his
authentic cadence alters the typical bass progression by a half-step displacement of the
dominant. For an authentic cadence in C, for example, the dominant note G could be
replaced by either F-sharp or G-sharp. The symbol subAC will be used to refer to these
situations where a substitution is made for the traditional dominant chord, as in the
second phrase of the first movement of Sonata No. 8 (Example 4). The harmonies in
measure 9 illustrate three harmonic functions. 2 represents a pre-dominant harmony,
even though the notes in the upper voices do not form a conventional chord-type. A
cross relation in this beat (F to F-sharp in the right hand) foreshadows the F-sharp in the
bass. The dominant substitution creates a highly expressive tritone leap in the bass.
52
All other pitches in these two beats resolve to tonic as expected: A and C move to
tonic; C-sharp moves to D; and the E-natural descends to E-flat. The rhythmic
placement of these harmonies increases the tension created through the substitution:
tonic harmony is expected to occur on a strong beat in the measure. At this point in the
composition, the cadence is conclusive locally, but open at a global level (see Examples
26 and 38 following). The progressive nature of the cadence becomes evident when the
penultimate bass note is changed to an F natural at the final cadence of the movement
(see mm. 295-296).
i ImrfW k fr "err
i
subAC
Example 4
Example 5 illustrates Green’s second type of non-traditional cadence. While
both the dominant and tonic chords are missing their respective thirds, the progression
R e p ro d u c e d with perm ission of the copyright owner. Fu rther reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
implied by the bass-line movement clearly indicates an authentic cadence. Using the
tonic, A, as a common-tone through these measures creates quartal/quintal harmony
with the dominant note, E, a different sound from the typical tertian construction; this
harmonic construction is also highlighted with the parallel fifths in the lower voices.
The A in the upper voice of the dominant harmony is precisely where one might expect
the leading tone to appear in the typical progression, pre-dominant, dominant and tonic.
The F-sharp in measure 231 implies the use of melodic minor, creating the expectation
of the leading tone with the ! —1>1 — 1 upper voice-leading formula; without the raised
1, this cadence implies the Dorian mode rather than the common-practice harmonic
minor scale.
§ 3
sf Sf
Example 5
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 3, nun. 230-232
54
A further modification of the authentic cadence is Prokofiev’s use of multiple
half-step resolutions to the tonic harmony without the dominant to tonic motion in the
bass voice, designated here as a leading-tone authentic cadence (ItAC), which tits into
Green’s third category of non-traditional twentieth-century cadences. The first
movement of Sonata No. 6 begins by creating a sense of tonal ambiguity (Example 6).
The opening A major tonic is harmonized with a split third and alternates A with
D-sharp. At the arrival point in the fourth measure, two voices resolve by half step to
the final chord of the phrase, concurrent with an ascending motion of 3 to 1 in the upper
voice (E-natural — A). The tonic in the lowest voice is approached from above by half
step (B-flat — A). The ambiguity of the opening is strengthened by the half-step
resolution of G to F-sharp. The final chord contains two notes of the tonic harmony
(A and C-sharp) together with an added sixth (the F-sharp) that provides another
element of uncertainty, an unstable resolution and an open function.
r~ i
radd 6
A:
jItAC
Example 6
Two other classical cadential formulas are also found in Prokofiev’s music: the
deceptive cadence (DC) and the half cadence (HC). Both are progressive cadences
typically found in the middle of a phrase group, which will eventually end in a closed
cadence. The deceptive cadence in Prokofiev functions in the same manner as in
common-practice tonal music: a dominant harmony that resolves to a tonic substitute,
typically the submediant. In addition to the use of a deceptive cadence, a hemiola in
the harmonic rhythm creates tension in the third phrase of the Fourth Sonata
(Example 7). The second beat in measure 9 begins the hemiola as tonic harmony is
arpeggiated; beats 1 and 3 in measure 10 continue the duple accent pattern while
implying pre-dominant harmony (1) and the early arrival of 5 . The prolonged dominant
56
note, G, is finally harmonized with the leading tone (B-natural) one beat before the
resolution.
ioco rit.,
c: i V VI
DC
Example 7
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 4, 1, mm. 9*12
The half cadence in Prokofiev, like the traditional configuration, also ends on
dominant harmony (Example 8). In the macro-rhythm of this phrase, the dominant
note, C, represents the mid-point in a parallel period where the goal is tonic harmony.
The dominant note is the conclusion of the stepwise ascent, which begins in measure
11; the C is also embellished by half-step descent beginning in measure 13, which
57
highlights the resolution of the augmented sixth interval (D-flat to B-natural) as well as
the diminished fifth (B-natural to F-natural).
f. I i V
Example 8
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 1, mm. 11-14
J
The plagal cadence (PC), while not a common cadence in the Classical period,
is sometimes used by Prokofiev in a structural role.97 According to Green, plagal
cadences can also encompass harmonies other than subdominant or supertonic
harmonies.98 While this cadential procedure does not use 3 , the resolution to tonic
harmony does create a sense of closure. In Example 9, the completion of the first
“Allegro inquieto” section in Sonata No. 7, the tonic pedal point, A, is sustained for
seventeen measures. The antepenultimate harmony in measure 115 hints at both tonic,
97 Caplin states that the subdominant-to-tonic formula is not a true cadence in the same sense as the
other cadences, because it only serves to embellish or prolong tonic harmony (43,45).
98 Green, 9-10.
58
A minor, and its minor dominant. The subdominant harmony appears in second
inversion before the resolution to tonic, suggested only by the grand gesture of an
octave leap down to the tonic supported by its lower octave as well.
meno
a , — .j.
m mosso
Example 9
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 7 ,1, mm. 110*119
As with authentic cadences, plagal cadences may be subjected to certain
variation in Prokofiev’s twentieth-century harmonic idiom. A plagal cadence with
added half-step resolutions (ltPC) can be observed in Sonata No. 3 (Example 10). The
augmented sixth interval formed between the B-flat and G-sharp resolves out by half
step over the 4 to i motion in the bass voice. This convergence creates a bi-functional
harmony: the strong plagal motion implies a subdominant harmony while the
augmented sixth strongly suggests an inversion of an altered dominant harmony. The
resolution creates an overlap with the rhythmic figuration of the following transition
59
section. While the structure of the first thematic group consists of two-measure units,
measure 26 represents an extension, both in terms of length, due to the time signature
change, and in the completion of the musical thought, as it leads into the tonic harmony
in measure 27.
pp
^ tip % fel
m
pp
a; IV +6
J
ltPC
Example 10
ProkoGev, Sonata No. 3, mm. 26-27
Related to the plagal cadence is the arrival on the subdominant, or plagal half
cadence (PHC). While not defined in Classical treatises or contemporary texts, this
term accurately describes an articulation of subdominant harmony at the mid-point of a
phrase group, resembling in this sense the half cadence that ends on the dominant.99 An
example of the plagal half cadence can be found at the opening of the third movement
99 Green, 14. Green defines the half cadence as a way of articulating a phrase that suggests closing
but is not quite conclusive, ending on V, IV o r a “German sixth.”
60
in Sonata No. 8 (Example 11). Measure 4 is a cadential point for three reasons: the
length of the harmony, the reiteration of the opening motive in measure 5 where the
beginning harmony reiterates the subdominant function, and the symmetrical nature of
the eight-measure grouping. This cadence marks the end of the four-measure
antecedent phrase, the mid-point of a period, where the consequent concludes exactly
four measures later with tonic harmony (see Example 25).
&
n iu rfi g frd fT I-ii
J ftCT id -----------
*): ,l» K _h—Vf--- -h— m
-J p Iff n r i t| 77 77 V ”" »1 1—F-
f i - _____
I. r
1 J M
-----------
IV
J
PHC
Example 11
In a larger sense, all cadences are arrivals; however, a cadence completes a
directed tonal motion, whereas phrases in the sonatas of Prokofiev may also simply end
at a point of articulation, requiring some kind of continuation.100 A dominant arrival
100 Caplin, 43. Caplin equates the cadential arrival with a cadence, stating that a cadential arrival
“marks the structural end of a thematic region.”
61
(V) differs from a half cadence in that it does not necessarily mark an ending, but rather
articulates some structural point in the music.101 This articulation can be viewed more
from a rhythmic perspective rather than a type of harmonic progression.102 This kind of
arrival may be found at the beginning of a retransition in a sonata form movement, such
as the first movement of Sonata No. 4 (Example 12). Two events occur simultaneously
in measure 117: the previous phrase arrives at the dominant and an extension begins,
creating an overlap. The cadential effect of the half cadence anticipated in measure 117
is superceded by the prolongational function of the G, creating an elision.
101 Caplin differentiates between a dominant arrival and a half cadence in that the arrival is equated
with a non-cadential ending when the dominant would be too unstable to function as a cadential
goal (79). He also uses the term when a subordinate theme ends on the dominant, anticipating further
materia] leading to a perfect authentic cadence (115).
102Janet Schmalfeldt, “Coming to Terms: Speaking of Phrase, Cadence, and Form,” In Theory Only
13, no. 1-4 (Sept., 1997), 101.
62
£
wm ¥
m
e rfjr.
<
J
l
M j l |
1 j~. bU ^ IS
'} #£ £'
•f
Example 12
(score excerpt)
Another type of arrival in Prokofiev’s piano sonatas is the dissonant arrival. In
his text, Form in Music, Berry states that in twentieth-century music, where there is an
absence of functional harmonic relationships, cadences may be achieved through
various means: by a rhythmic device, such as a pause on a longer note value or an
actual rest, or by a descent in the melodic line, or by an arrival upon a relatively
63
consonant harmony.103 The category of dissonant arrivals (DissA) can encompass
Berry’s first two conditions. These arrivals are similar to dominant arrivals in their
articulation of phrase structure. In Prokofiev’s piano sonatas, dissonant arrivals
typically mark the end of a formal unit and create a strong progressive function in that
there is a need for subsequent resolution. Dissonant arrivals differ from dominant
arrivals in that the harmony has no clear tonal function and typically incorporates
“wrong notes.”
A dissonant arrival closes the exposition in the first movement of Sonata No. 6
(Example 13). A long, descending bass-line beginning in measure 81 slows
rhythmically in measures 85 and 86, implying that a cadence is forthcoming. However,
the harmonic arrival on the longest rhythmic value in the phrase, a dissonant super
tonic seventh chord, has no clear functional identity, although the melodic arrival on A
(in the right hand, measure 87) implies the tonic, albeit strongly clouded by the third
between B and D. This dissonance anticipates the beginning of the development
section that follows.
64
> > ;► p
■m-
=f M -4----------a h ip r i f r £ b>-- - f e
F #
: . N
.1
3=
> S
A I
s
A , S t — m. ----
« r> m ‘
> 4 V u
DissA
Example 13
(score excerpt)
Another dissonant arrival occurs as a prolonged harmonic event in the first
movement of Sonata No. 2 (Example 14). The outer-voice contrary motion beginning
on D minor arrives on a dissonant sonority; while containing two tones of dominant
harmony, A and C-sharp, the inclusion of B and D-sharp creates a whole-tone
tetrachord. The chromatic notes in measure 3 foreshadow this harmony. The
instability of this harmony is further complicated by the twelve-measure prolongation
(mm. 8-19; see Example 28).
65
m t r v
C ffl ' ^ C f
*■•1 4 yfc
At — ?j
a? a
— p -p - p p
3 3 3 3 3
hp J i J J
3 3 3
■- 90 ■—
- -#---
J
DissA
Example 14
The above descriptions of Prokofiev’s cadence types are summarized in
Table 1, along with abbreviations and a brief summary of the harmonies typically
involved in each type. The column “closure type” is important when dealing with more
complex structures and in deciphering the hierarchical arrangement of various phrases
in Prokofiev’s music. Like earlier tonal composers, Prokofiev relies on tonic harmony
to create strong closure of multi-phrase groupings. Embellishments to these
progressions comprise part of Prokofiev’s unique harmonic vocabulary. All cadences
will be further qualified based on variants in chord construction and specific voice-
leading characteristics.
66
T a b l e 1: C a d e n c e s in P r o k o fie v ’s P ia n o S o n a ta s
C adence N am e A b b r e v ia t io n B a s ic H a r m o n ie s C lo su re T y pe
Authentic AC harmonies with leading tone open or closed

e.g., V — I
and vii° — I
Plagal PC harmonies without the open or closed

leading tone
e .g .,I V - I
and ii — I
Half HC ends on dominant open
Plagal Half PHC ends on subdominant open
Deceptive DC change from expected open

resolution
e.g., V —* vi
Dominant Arrival V prolongation o f open

dominant
Dissonant Arrival DissA ends on dissonant harmony; open

prolongation o f
dissonant harmony
..
67
Classical Phrase Structures and Modifications
Sentence Structures
The motivic articulation at the beginning of a phrase provides important clues
for describing the formal function of a phrase and the relationship of its parts.
Beginnings typically state a melodic idea and establish tonic harmony at the outset,
although the means of initiating this opening harmonic foundation differ from one piece
to another. The typical classical statement of a phrase relies on the polar relationship of
the tonic and dominant (either through a I — V — I progression or other means).
Whereas Prokofiev often follows this procedure, he sometimes asserts the tonic through
different means. With an understanding of the special role that motivic articulations
and cadential structures play in this repertoire, classical formal terminology can be
successfully applied to Prokofiev’s piano sonatas.
Arnold Schoenberg first defined the sentence structure (Satz) as “a simple
theme presented rhythmically in the ratio of 1:1:2.”104 Rothstein finds that this structure
is similar to Koch’s compound phrase. “Original with Schoenberg, however, is the
emphasis on the motivic process of the whole, the role of ‘developing variations’
(Schoenberg’s term) in the formation of the melodic utterance.”105
104 Arnold Schoenberg, Fundamentals o f Musical Composition, ed. Gerald Strang and Leonard Stein
(London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1970), 2-24,58-81,152.
105 Rothstein, 26-27.
68
Caplin identifies three functions within the sentence structure: presentational,
continuational and cadential. The first two segments of the sentence— the basic idea
and its repetition—create the presentation function.106 The presentation introduces the
main melodic and rhythmic motive and establishes the tonic through its prolongation or
its alternation with the dominant. The subsequent longer segment of the sentence
structure, which is equal in length to the presentation segment in the ratio, subsumes
both the continuational and cadential functions. A destabilization of the motivic
material by means of fragmentation, harmonic acceleration, faster surface rhythm,
harmonic sequence, or a combination of these processes creates continuation, while a
more conclusive harmonic progression creates the necessary closure, typified by the
cadential function.
An example of Prokofiev’s use of the sentence structure is the second theme of
the exposition in Sonata No. 1 (Examples 15a and 15b). The basic idea (x) is expanded
to a four-measure unit (mm. 58-61). The tonic is established via a melodic idea that
emphasizes the third of each harmony, while the bass ascends a fourth (A-flat to
D-flat). The basic idea is sequenced a step higher in measures 62-65, creating an eight-
measure presentation segment.
The continuation function, beginning in measure 66, states a fragment of the
basic idea twice (2+2) to resemble another sentence structure. The cadential function,
beginning with the pre-dominant harmony in measure 70, moves to tonic in a
106Caplin, 10: “As a result o f repetition, the basic idea has been unequivocally ‘presented’ to the
listener and so we can speak of this music fulfilling presentation function....”
69
traditional manner: an increase in harmonic activity supported by a circle of fifths
(C — F — Bl>— B — At) leads to the cadence (mm. 66-74).
The continuation and cadential functions in this example encompass a total of
nine measures, instead of the eight, which would be typical of a sentence with a four-
measure basic idea (i.e., 4+4+8). In the concluding function, as in the previous parts of
this phrase, the melodic idea begins on the second beat of each measure and reaches its
conclusion at the peak of the ascending line on the downbeat of measure 74.
Meanwhile, the bass line completes the circle-of-fifths progression with the dominant
to tonic motion. An overlap of two phrases occurs here (m. 74) in the bass line, where
the arrival of tonic harmony precedes the beginning of the phrase’s melodic material.
70
= P M -■-*)*
h m N M
ir * _ L J > ' i
-- 1,---
- *--- 1--- — 0—
H r W m ♦ 7 7 -#“■ 7 - L7 A♦ - t7r *r 7 — •f
7 ~1 J T M
-■ J — J
5 A: 3 ‘1 J 1
-----
9 ir----- p----
i“ \>
I
- jN U ------ j. Ji-T J
■LTr T d4§U ---- - I f
i s
1
~ r~
_ L •J L f* ...“® 4*
<•)'■ Lli. \f— -
2
*7f ^ 7 ^ 7
# 2j - a -
_JL 5-, -7~a 7
■I I I ,
■ m * 1 a
i
- ‘-H r----------
.© A
JT J=T
U—^
r liX .
> :
*):,U -"Jp---
J""-"#■:^ a r r ~ ip
\> \ , —
•m-
. *m
Pi-^r
- -r
r —
Example 15a
71
(Jig; I
§ L r T r r
-W * ----- 3 ,--------------1 ----- r, v - y y ^
te r ^
,1. L------- J-------- *r f — mt J r| 7*. m1 if

7 • 7if *1 7 if " -13 i 7 | 7 7.
Example ISa, continued

presentation continuation & cadential
(62 ©
i*L
- J: Al> » - — .
' * * i
S -~ -
* i ’
• ■ r r
j_
I rv ii V I6 vi v 7/ v V I
J
AC
Example 15b
(bass-line summary and phrase diagram)
There are many possibilities for the manipulation of the sentence structure due
to the repetitive nature of the presentation function and the developmental nature of the
continuation function. Expansion of the sentence structure is easily achieved through
extension and repetition. The sentence in Example 15b, for instance, is extended to
create an overlap between the cadence and the beginning of a new idea. An example
that uses repetition to expand the sentential structure is found in Sonata No. 1
(Examples 16a and 16b). The presentation (mm. 74-77) prolongs the tonic and is
followed by an exact repetition in the subsequent four measures (mm. 78-81). The use
of two four-measure segments for the continuation function breaks the sentential ratio
as the progression to the dominant begins. The move away from A-flat major and the
sequential nature of these two segments create continuation. The cadential segment
(mm. 90-93) uses melodic gestures from the continuation to progress to the cadence
through an ascending line, expanding the dominant harmony.
i / i L m S - J r ~ t. = 1
I K
i f L c r l l r " U u C f C X r 'U x r [rsd ! y .
1
p . . r f r —»B = -
•
- ■■
< ■
0- -------------------
=-& —
— -------
.© j M• J"
j.- lI --------- - J . L = =
i= y = |
t t n t s L L r
.a M.
f- ------ m-----
y =
J~ V$ r----------- ■
----------------------
---- j--—
-^JL--\} \ f --
A® "t f * - j.
-------- 1*- ! V r = - ^ ---- ^4 # ---- W 1- f a : ' : —0 0
- t — J b L T 1 L f
s F =
.a .a
- ♦ — f
-<•— :----- :----- —
-O S rfc ir- - — — 3m f= ¥ =
■*-+V- |----------- b i d ;
m * .....
Example 16a
-ifo*-------
F # # = { r. U
H hi
0-
fcl* ■Ih ,
J VXr
-S I
----------------------
I
— 4i r f t -0 5 ^ ' H r ' kLLy
}l i
>
i----------------------- T» — - =
9---------------------- --------- t * = =
ftp- f
ibjc- o
F ^ f !
I H M
- i H r b -------- *— « — * ‘‘I----- * V J h O ~ 1^ T l * Q ~ l r J
- J - W - -------- 2---------- 1 1 —■I f T H n y J J W i J j g g
!- = ^ -
>
!i £
> 1
3 =
4 * * = : .... 3 * ^ 5
Example 16a, continued

Prokofiev, Sonata No. 1, nun. 74*93
75
E*

Prokofiev, Sonata No. 1, nun. 74*93
presentation continuation cadential
I V6/vi I V/HI V/N V I
J
AC
Example 16b
76
The opening of Sonata No. 9 extends the continuation and cadential functions
without a clear division between the two functions (Examples 17a and 17b). The
presentation does more than simply establish tonic; here there is also a harmonic
progression to the subdominant in measure 4. Only repetition of a rhythmic motive is
present while melodic contour is more complementary than sequenced: measures 1-2
lead upward to a repose in measure 2, while measures 3-4 are a descending line,
reaching 6; the bass line prolongs tonic through measure 2, reaching 1 in measure 4,
and then leads in traditional fashion directly to 5 in the bass. The continuation function
features the prolongation of the dominant note for four measures (mm. 6-10). The
cadence itself occurs in measure 9 in the right hand on the downbeat while the bass line
does not conclude until the second beat of measure 10. The G-natural in the bass in
measure 9 also infers the ensuing resolution; however, the final dominant note, beat
three of measure 9, is not harmonized by typical dominant harmony, but a minor
seventh chord.
4i =81 8=
^ = e PP =
r-v ’
j j = . .
iI U jj J i f Mf=i j j j j=j=i
I i r r N
r r if f r r J g i
i r r —I------------- 1---------------------
- - ' r— ^ r~
®
-
i t * g-i K q» f f
^5F
Example 17a
Prokofiev, Sonata No 9 ,1, mm. 1-10
78
presentation continuation/cadential
1
ff
11 V I
J
AC
Example 17b
Prokofiev, Sonata No 9 ,1, mm. 1-10
The opening structures of the refrain in the fourth movement of Sonata No. 6
are sentence-like in their use of repetition (Examples 18a and 18b). Each segment uses
a different melodic motive with repetitions. In the first sentence, motive “x” sounds
three times and establishes the tonic harmony only; without other harmonic events, this
phrase cannot stand on its own. A new motive, “y,” is presented twice in the second
segment, which emphasizes 3 in the bass; with the absence of the leading tone,
however, the harmony implies a minor dominant chord. The overlap in measure 9 is
formed by the increase in harmonic rhythm at the end of the second sentence: the
cadential function in measure 8 uses harmonies from the melodic minor. The dominant
harmony on the weak part of measure 8 creates the need for the tonic resolution in the
following measure. Overall, this pair of segments is asymmetrical in structure (4+5).
79
presentation
x+1
m ^ F- =£ g
a: i
continuation/cadential
© 5
v i
J
AC
Example 18a
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 6, IV, mm. 1-9
(score excerpt, bass-line summary and phrase diagram)
80
© ©
x+x+x+i ^1 y+y+3 T"1 x+x+x+l
a:
AC
Example 18b
This opening sentence structure of the refrain is its most compact version;
restatement elsewhere in the movement involves some degree of transformation.
Expansion of the refrain is based on the continuous repetition of the two opening
motives. Measures 1-28 represent the entire refrain section, where the opening eight
measures are transformed twice (Examples 19a and 19b). The first segment is
transposed exactly in measure 21. The second segment, featuring the “y” motive, is
modified in each appearance: the double iteration in measures 5-6 expands to four
repetitions (mm.13-16) and alters the pitch content of the two staccato eighth notes; the
third instance (mm. 25-27) changes the second half of the measure rhythmically, from
an eighth-plus-two-sixteenth figure to four sixteenths.
The four-measure extension of the continuation segment (mm. 17-20) repeats a
four-sixteenth-note figure that is continually transposed by half steps until the new
tonic, G-sharp, has been reached. Each beginning figure overlaps with the ending of
the previous figure. The final four measures (mm. 25-28) set up the C major tonality
81
for the next section and serve as a link between the refrain and the first episode,
incorporating the four-sixteenth-note figure found in the modified “y” motive.
Example 19a
82
si
un pococres
m
1 , — f f l
F r M F n ^
i •V * - V
^- J - ----- ------------*------
^ —
^ N — w W -
13E .. ■Z "

Prokofiev, Sonata No. 6, IV, nun. 1-28
(score excerpt and bass>line summary)
83
© © © © © © ©
I x+x+x+f*! y+y+3 hx+x+x+l*^ y+y+y+y*^ continuation f t -------->i--- > ----->
X+X+X+l 1 y ’+ y ’ + y ’+ l
J
AC
g»:
Example 19b
Since it is simple to incorporate sequences into the repetition scheme of a
sentence, these structures occur frequently in transition sections and in conjunction with
modulations. An example from Prokofiev’s piano sonatas is in the transition section
from the first theme to the second theme in his Sonata No. 1 (Examples 20a and 20b).
This example is similar to the sentence in Example 15 in that it uses a four-measure
basic idea, as well as the embedded sentential structure in the final eight measures of
the phrase. The sequential progression works well within sentential structures and
provides a smooth method to facilitate a pivot-chord modulation.
Measure 34 begins the continuation function with the fragmentation of the
motive presented in measures 26 and 30. The lack of a cadential function at the end of
this section is unique: there is no true cadence, rather a dominant arrival. In measures
84
34-37, the pre-dominant harmony leads to a four-measure prolongation of the dominant
seventh chord. There is no acceleration of harmonic rhythm in this continuation, but
fragmentation has occurred and repetition of measure 35 continues through measure 41.
The cadential function is non-existent since the final harmony is prolonged for four
measures. This structure also differs from the common-practice paradigm in that it is
an independent unit, contrary to Caplin’s assertion that “a modulating sentence rarely
stands alone as an independent formal unit.”107
© _
p
m £
■ t f - b # i | :7-
mmM
-*): >— — =c r r -r »
...
l ih t
LLI d= B
i -■= ™
i: ^ [D cU -: J = -
.f g ----
p
±r N d ’ u ~ J-
0
m r n r
N m J 1*
Example 20a
107 Caplin, 47.
R e p ro d u c e d with perm ission of the copyright owner. Fu rther reproduction prohibited without permission.
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 1, mm. 26*41
86
presentation continuation
2+ 2+4
f: V iv V/iv
ii
i
"V -
Example 20b
The opening of the second movement of Sonata No. 7 uses a sentence structure
without a cadential function (Examples 21a and 21b). The repetition of the first two
measures highlights the sentential features, due to the parallel motion of the bass and
soprano lines in measures 2 and 4. Tonic harmony is established with the oscillation of
E and B. The continuation segment modulates from E through an octave descent to D.
In measure 9, a transposed repetition of the opening theme begins, although without an
overlap, because there is no cadence in measures 8-9. By connecting to the second
phrase of this movement through another anacrusis figure ( ^ ), the cadential function is
evaded and the sentence structure left open.
87
p h i >
u rT CT r r rr
Gi 4 W ir
9
-r=p=f
-J-eJ J'ljJ ■ n 1'n =
jj— j j t|j
-------------
* 1---- -
rr ' r?
©
i j Ny^hj j w i ^w^hJ----- s — ------ ----- K
j
—•-—_tfj^
"r 7 1 c !r
=i— », r * .
1 tf *
7 *J —----------
J^ i i J ;
==^
Example 21a
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 7, II, mm. 1-8
a »
(a)
2 2 4
I (V) IV HD
Example 21b
88
Various types of repetition expand the sentence structure during the transition
section in the first movement of Sonata No. 2 (Examples 22a and 22b). Prokofiev
works at two different levels here: the global level of this transition is a symmetrical
structure (16+16), however, the internal subdivisions of the two segments produce an
asymmetrical arrangement (4+4+4+4 and 6+6+4). The first sixteen-measure segment
is a descending sequence in whole steps followed by a rapid bass-line descent in
measures 44-48. The second sixteen-measure segment is divisible in terms of its
melodic, but not its harmonic activity. There is an alternation of F and C in the bass for
the first twelve measures; the arrival on the F-major-seventh chord creates a common
tone with the new tonic, E, for the second thematic group. The final four measures
prolong the F-major-seventh harmony with an ascending chromatic line above it,
negating any cadential function. The resolution of the augmented sixth interval, F to
D-sharp, arrives at the tonal center of the second thematic group in the exposition.
■---- rU
A® L .a
J .
J L ± .x . - 0&m 0
IT T 111
S—
rt>r n 1
R-I— — i— —
i rrr
jp
H =— = H =
I—j ■~9--- *---
:= i = «i—= fk= ) = F -i—i—
-J— ... I
s ....* • m ■0-
^ bf 4J03Ja l>pi hp i | kS"
#£==31 ----3E:
f
-T(_+ T
Frr
ft ^=pz*3fiU■Vir
P
-i■#-W—•4- ti=4= — i-
■W 4 * -W-T^-
-jjt*
-n
» ir V 0
^ i>—— -- It.--- — -------
/
V*
P ■KZ
Au ,-- ^ ^br r1krv—=y=j=r—fff-■ . |»f
-—T-—rfrr ffr ■—
*■» 1
Example 22a
.© ftT *
j J iJ J ■ 9
i l l ■ =jp
# = £ =
— ^
—
T * = l __XL■_
~ fc = t J — & ri-j
-0 -
a:
ras * —
#
-f

Prokoflev, Sonata No. 2 , 1, mm. 32-64
91
2+ 2+2 2+ 2+2
pA7*+» c 19 715
;A
7
I
I
Example 22b
Prokofiev, Sonata N o 2 ,1, mm. 32-64
The first episode in the third movement of Sonata No. 4 is loosely based on
sentential constructions through the use of repetition (Examples 23a and 23b). A
hypermetrical reduction (Example 23b) illustrates the repetition scheme present at two
levels: two- and eight-measure subdivisions. The eight-measure group is based on the
repetition of two different motives. The opening motive (x) is based on marking the
first measure with tonic harmony while the second measure functions as embellishing
harmony. The second motive (y) uses longer rhythmic values to obscure the duple
meter. The repetition of the two motives creates a very large presentation section
(8+8).
There are no cadences in this phrase, merely arrivals on the longer durations.
The harmonies at these points, while still being tertian constructions, are embellishing
the tonic chord and do not close the segment. This dissonance requires resolution,
92
which is not achieved in this segment. The final segment, only eight measures in
length, is similar to a continuation function in the sequencing of the opening motive;
this movement facilitates the modulation back to C major for the return of the refrain in
this rondo-form movement.
i V vp w
f m espresstvo
m espress.
m
3
T"— -T " I *
Example 23a
(score excerpt)
TO j
J & j■J &
VP
1*): M i f f ] j-— jp j* ja rs jro p ijm
* ip 1 —
= t^ = F = ^ T - , l ^ - ~ l ~ = d
f= r -y *
Ifr
g 3 ~ fi -■“ - f ----- 1— 1— / -------------
- § 4 ? ---- 7?------- - J " -'J
.... S $ i
■’ * » P i 4 1

(score excerpt)
DissA DissA
j j'tU ' i i„ i i- U n J JhJ-1 | M a . J3.-.

jwrlSrmirgfflgi
Example 23b
(hypermetrical reduction and phrase diagram)
94
Period Structures
Period structures, unlike sentence structures, typically contain more than one
phrase and strive toward harmonic closure. Qualifying terms such as parallel or
contrasting, antecedent or consequent, refer to relationships between phrases within a
period structure.108 Whereas eighteenth-century theorists first described period
structures in linguistic terms, twentieth-century theorists employ established musical
terminology in their explanations:
• “The single period.. .is a pair of consecutive phrases, the second ending with
a cadence which is more final and positive than that of the first.”109
• A period is described as a phrase pairing, where the first ending is a weaker
cadence than the second phrase, creating a dependency relationship.110
• “The period consists of a series of phrases which, aside from the question of
resemblances in design, are related by virtue of harmonic organization or
tonal structure.”M1
• “A simple theme consisting of an antecedent phrase and a consequent
phrase.”112
108 These terms are defined in Chapter Two of this study; a complete list of terminology can be found
in Appendix 1.
1,0 Rothstein, 17-18.
111 Green, 55 (Green’s italics).
112 Caplin, 256.
95
While all of these definitions are somewhat vague, Caplin and Rothstein qualify their
descriptions with important details.
Caplin further defines the antecedent and consequent phrases in terms of
smaller segments. The antecedent phrase contains a basic idea and contrasting idea;
this is not to be confused with the presentation function of a sentence, which contains a
repetition of the basic idea. The consequent phrase includes a return of the basic idea
and concludes with a stronger cadence. For Caplin, the antecedent-consequent
relationship refers to a repetition of the initial basic idea; the difference between the
two phrases occurs in the cadential procedures.113 He defines this relationship as a
parallel period: the parallelism occurs through a harmonic, as well as a melodic
dependency.
Rothstein uses the terms fore-phrase and after-phrase for the appearance of two
successive phrases that are not in an antecedent-consequent relationship but still
constitutes a periodic structure.114 For the purposes of this study, the simple periodic
structure has two phrases of equal length; this balance creates symmetry and clarity of
formal design. The parallel period contains a return of the basic idea after the
progressive cadential formula, while a contrasting period will only contain a similarity
in phrase lengths; the cadential relationships between the two contrasting phrases will
resemble those in a parallel period.
113 “If the initial unit ending with a weak cadence is repeated and brought to a fuller cadential
clo se...” Caplin, 12.
1,4 Rothstein, 18.
96
An example of the classic antecedent-consequent relationship between periodic
phrases begins the fourth movement of Prokofiev’s Sonata No. 9 (Examples 24a and
24b). The opening motivic gesture returns to start the second phrase in measure 5, and
the harmonic organization creates an antecedent-consequent relationship, with a
progressive phrase followed by a more conclusive phrase. The dependency of the two
phrases is evident in that the first phrase begins on tonic harmony and ends with a half
cadence. The second phrase reiterates the tonic harmony but concludes with an
authentic cadence. Mode mixture in the first phrase, specifically the lowered sixth
scale degree, sets up the use of the Neapolitan as the pre-dominant before the authentic
cadence. The equal length of both phrases (4+4) creates the symmetrical quality of the
period and helps to establish a close association within the period.
Example 24a
antecedent consequent
basic idea basic idea
Example 24b
(bass-line summary and phrase structure)
98
The opening of the third movement of Prokofiev’s Sonata No. 8 uses an
antecedent-consequent relationship that deviates from earlier common practice only in
its emphasis on the subdominant instead of the dominant harmony (Examples 25a and
25b). The first phrase in the period emphasizes the interval of a fourth with a two-
measure expansion of the tonic through perfect-fourth leaps in the left hand: B-flat to
E-flat to A-flat. The subdominant harmony receives particular emphasis as a result of
the plagal half cadence in measure 4 (see Example 11). In the second phrase,
subdominant harmony is expanded through the use of the lowered second scale degree,
C-flat. The resolution to 3 in the bass builds anticipation for the authentic cadence,
which provides closure following the preceding open-ended cadence. The phrases
therefore complement one another harmonically, and their equal length emphasizes the
symmetrical relationship.
© L L
flV ff - r r r t^ -
.! r 4 L lJ | i
T O W
f >
P'
-------- t --— " F ^ F F F
" T — *-------
-m -----
----------------------\>» ti
Example 25a
Q basic idea_______^ ^contrasting idea basic idea contrasting idea

__f
(
i
i
i
:--------— -------- — — p ----------- * ----------- >» T»«— : —

---[I (g-------
r =
Bfc I IV N V I
J
ltPHC
J
AC
Example 25b
100
As with sentential structures, extension occurs commonly as a modification of
periodic structures. The odd number of measures in the first phrase of Sonata No. 8
results from a one-measure prolongation of the dominant harmony (Examples 26a and
26b). This extension disrupts the hypermeter and symmetry of the periodic structure.
However, both phrases in this period use the same melodic and harmonic gesture,
suggesting a parallel construction.
The movement is in the key of B-flat major and exhibits some harmonic
innovations that become evident in measure 3. Reinterpreting the G-sharp as A-flat
creates a parallelism with the progression in the consequent phrase (m. 8). The C to F
motion in the bass (m. 4) implies a tonicization of the dominant harmony, despite the
fact that the C is actually harmonized as a first-inversion minor chord (vii). The half
cadence in measure 4, which is extended through measure 5, is progressive in nature
and sets up the expectation for a consequent phrase (mm. 6-9).
Leading to the cadence in measure 9, the C in the bass (2) implies pre-dominant
harmony as would typically be found in classical harmonic progressions. Prokofiev
changes the harmony twice over this bass note: a second-inversion F-minor triad and a
third inversion D dominant-seventh chord. The ensuing dominant harmony uses a
raised fifth scale degree in place of the diatonic note, F, and the resolution to tonic
occurs on a weak beat. This rhythmic feature as well as the harmonic approach to tonic
weakens the cadential effect. In the overall scheme of the movement, this period has a
progressive function being the opening of a small ternary structure (see Examples 38a
and 38b). Despite Prokofiev’s “wrong notes” in this period, the opening and closing
101
harmonies, as well as the dominant harmony in measures 4-5, firmly ground this
structure within the B-flat major tonality.
Example 26a
102
© antecedent ext. © consequent

4 4
Bk I tvii V tvii7 Hv I
JHC
J
subAC
Example 26b
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 8 ,1, nun. 1-9
The second thematic group in the first movement of Prokofiev’s Sonata No. 2
creates an asymmetrical periodic structure through the extension of the second phrase
(Examples 27a and 27b). In this period, Prokofiev continues to use the Phrygian scale
as a departure from traditional tonal practice, as evidenced in this passage through the
use of F-naturals. The first phrase is an open structure, ending with a two-measure
prolongation of the F-natural (tl) in the bass, reinterpreted as a major harmony and then
as the seventh of a dominant harmony. The F dominant-seventh sonority in measure 71
also serves as an augmented sixth chord resolving the E Phrygian tonic, which is not to
deny the cadential effect in measures 69-71. This arrival can be understood as a kind of
plagal half cadence: the use of the second scale degree is typically associated with pre
dominant harmony.115 There is an antecedent-consequent relationship suggested in
115 Green suggests that a plagal cadence can incorporate any harmony without the leading tone.
Since his definition of a plagal cadence includes subdominant and supertonic harmonies, the arrival in
measure 70 can be interpreted as a plagal half cadence.
103
the repetition of harmonic and melodic materials at the beginning of the second phrase
(m. 72). However, after reaching the F major harmony in measure 78, Prokofiev
continues the descent prolonging the pre-dominant function until reaching B-natural
( 3 ). Despite the absence of the leading tone in the Phrygian scale, the dominant-to-
tonic motion implies the authentic nature of the cadence and closes the phrase group.
104
a tempo
rit.
Example 27a
Prokoflev, Sonata No. 2 ,1, mm. 64-85
105
ritenuto
a tempo
1
r r f
I I E*
g§
Hv i"

r
(g) © ext.
*1
II (III!) 1
Example 27b
A larger expansion of a period is found at the opening of Prokofiev’s Second
Sonata (Examples 28a and 28b). This structure resembles a parallel periodic
106
construction, but the prolongation of harmonies, dissonant or otherwise (mm. 9-19 and
mm. 28-30), creates an asymmetric pairing. The basic phrase in measures 1-8 is
repeated in measures 20-27, inviting a comparison with the classical antecedent-
consequent relationship. In this basic phrase, a sequenced melody occurs as the bass
line descends stepwise toward its harmonic goal. The antecedent function of the first
phrase is defined by its open cadence: the dissonant arrival substitutes for a stable
harmony, creating the anticipation of closure. The twelve-measure prolongation
(mm. 8-19) further emphasizes the instability of this harmony, a whole-tone tetrachord
(see also Example 14).
The consequent phrase, measures 20-31, reiterates the initial eight-measure unit.
However, in measure 27, the bass line continues to descend for another full measure,
thus disrupting the balance of the basic phrase lengths. The expectation for harmonic
closure is implied by the arrival of dominant harmony in measure 28; at this moment,
the dominant chord provides some stability in relation to the dissonant arrival that
concludes the antecedent phrase. However, ultimate resolution to the tonic is expected
at either a local level or global level. The dominant is extended for four measures, but
the phrase further evades resolution with the retrogression to the subdominant. The use
of diatonic harmonies in the key of D minor creates some degree of hierarchical closure
in the consequent, despite the progressive nature of the dominant and subdominant
within common-practice tonal syntax.
107
44|jX 11
4 ^ = p : WI IfV l j f W H ■ V -r p H
m f cresc.
(M '^ I T /
V t- pPpfp --- f f p l»
/O. M
I V f j r
fe&fu=
~
-
f£ -m
w JJJJ
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ^ 3
-be- ■■■■■!»«» -
M tin
wmp
m
r f f
L
9 :M
m p i w & to
m
rallentando
lunga
Example 28a
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 2 ,1, nun. 1-8 and nun. 20-31
108
antecedent
ext.
d:
DissA
consequent
i
A Ai
Ji i
IV
Exam ple 28b

Prokofiev, Sonata No. 2 , 1, m m . 1-31
(bass-line sum m ary and phrase stru ctu re)
The term “double period” frequently refers to a structure with four phrases and
four cadential procedures. The first and third phrases are similar in both melodic and
cadential content, relating to the basic idea in the period structure, and both end with
non-conclusive cadences. The second and fourth phrases represent the contrasting idea,
and while the cadential procedure in the second phrase has a more progressive function,
the fourth phrase brings the entire structure to a close.116
116Caplin, 267, n. 15. Caplin states that the double period rarely exists in classical themes and
therefore does not use the term. See definitions in Green (63-65) and Berry, Form in Music, (22-23).
109
The opening of Sonata No. 5 is a modified double period construction, with a
total of five phrases instead of four (Examples 29a and 29b). The antecedent is an
eight-measure segment, and has a cadential formula at its mid-point. These first two
phrases also express an antecedent-consequent relationship: balanced in length (4+4),
and with a more open cadence to end the first phrase (here, the half cadence may be
considered to be more conclusive than the deceptive cadence). Because the tonic
harmony is absent from both of these cadences, there is an expectation for continuation
and, ultimately, resolution in a consequent segment. In the larger structure, this
expectation results in the reiteration of melodic and harmonic motives during next two
phrases, with the cadential formula at the end of the third phrase the same as the first.
The expected closure for the entire structure proves elusive: the fourth segment in the
structure (mm. 13-16) merges with transitional material through an extension of another
four-measure segment. Prokofiev emphasizes the subdominant in the final measures as
a means of modulating to the relative minor key; the use of a plagal half cadence
followed by a plagal cadence creates structural close for this phrase group at a local
level.
110
\S t r p -_ -^ _ P = H ----------- = ? :
m = sf= M = = "f r T t O
d d n r n CD
p
?JQ _ .
- if c -n - -*------F' c- c
............... ' f ' f- r -------- J 9 •
#'
ia m m
m §
cresc.
Jff-
w a
4 -i
rfrp Tf k
, ■ -L
'
v
“
l±y=fcE m #
dim.
P mf dim.
® r£ ,
■): cf«r . if t l ^ f i t hi []JJf f
; o X r J 1 TECT J l ^ i>d- ♦ - •
— i'» ..
- r ' Example 29a

----------------------- i _ f c — -
© © © © ->r
©
m £
V v i IV V I V vi IV
E
i J VI a: l iv
3L*_.
iv
DC HC DC
J
PHC
Example 29b
112
A large period structure incorporating sentential segments opens Prokofiev’s
Sonata No. 1 (Examples 30a and 30b). The unusual length results from repetition,
insertion, and extension. The opening of the antecedent (mm. 5-8) consists of two
segments of two measure each: the first ends on the dominant and resolves deceptively
to continue the bass line descent, and the second segment tonicizes the submediant. An
insertion creates the first expansion of the phrase; however, measures 9-10 do not
disrupt the overall idea of the phrase in that the melodic material is based on the
rhythmic motive from the phrase’s opening; these two measures lead to a half cadence
in measure 10. The phrase beginning in measure 11 uses the same melodic motive
heard in measure 5, but the change in bass line leads to another half cadence in
measure 14. The dominant is then prolonged through a one-measure extension before
the opening motive appears for the third time in measure 16.
The repetition of measures 5-8 in measures 16-19 creates a parallel consequent
for this periodic structure. The insertion in the antecedent phrase (mm. 9-10) is also
included in the consequent; here, however, the harmonic progression is changed to a
series of diminished fourth leaps (mm. 20-21). While the final four measures of the
phrase complete the harmonic progression and close the periodic structure with an
authentic cadence, the melody returns to the opening gesture similar to a rounded
ending.
'f f 1
m m j'' i * 13
p TV f# t= y
m
P U—J-
rH f P - p - j -4 ^ — r r J-tg—- # F f f
m —
j
JT 1 p V T P
§ m m m
Example 30a
114
© *
f ¥ f> t ir & = ± 4 0
Ff 4 - r ^ \
1 f= f r f l ' ~ H
2 I p
2 i» k
, n p . r . H ?n - T J Ph^l^r
— J-i= M *
> bi ‘w -
> > >
)' # ====
.© ± ^^ 4
i f # f; j .. J> c n i f I,
y - .r j-1- ■ F
—F"
f marcato
3}
— > f,
■
^
—rrWjH^r . 1 “ ---- 1
^
.
>
c rn t^ - - • ■ ■■ r ^ r ,

115
antecedent
_f
HC
_r
HC
consequent
i decept. VI V i
J
AC
Exam ple 30b

Prokofiev, Sonata No. 1, m m . 5-25
(bass-line sum m ary and p hrase structure)
The second thematic group in the first movement of Sonata No. 6 also exhibits
an expanded double period (Examples 31a and 31b). Each of the main segments
consists of two four-measure phrases: a basic idea and a contrasting idea. The
expansion occurs as a four-measure insertion (mm. 48-51), which is based on the
material of the basic ideas. With the restatement of the first eight measures in measures
52-59, there is an expectation of closure, though with the absence of a closed cadence,
the entire structure remains open.
116
The tonal center of this structure is ambiguous from the outset. The pedal
points create instability under the melody that fluctuates between C major and A minor.
The first segment begins in C major, and arrives at its dominant in measure 43; the
segment concludes with an arrival of a dominant-seventh chord in A minor. With the
use of f), the insertion phrase is rooted within either A major or A minor; the G-sharp
functions as the pedal point and ending with another dominant arrival in measure 51.
The restatement of the opening eight-measure segment does not come to a conclusive
end in measure 59, and a new phrase group begins in measure 60.
0 jp XT
f ly y __ !__
----------------1 Jt " ~l
1Wi ttJ u _ - i n -------- r r tH ?
y S i# * 1* L H —
m f espnss.
-j w =* j
f r i ...
"t r= v — =
L— - a --if—
Example 31a
117
______ p --------,
------- 1------- ------- 1------■■-w------------- ---------------- i
^ t £ f .........
J J - - i d J J
-q :-* j J j = j - J J r r -
IJ TJ TJ
- j * - T------------------- ~
156.
-1 1 ji llj ] j J
in-

antecedent#! insertion antecedent #2
basic idea contrasting ^ (basic ideal basic idea contrasting
Example 31b
118
The use of sentential features within a period structure creates better cohesion,
especially when the overall structure is asymmetrical, as in the third movement of
Sonata No. 6 (Example 32a and 32b). The first phrase (mm. 45-48) features the
repetition of a one-measure basic idea in its presentation. The continuation/cadential
function arrives at a half cadence in measure 48; the tonic to dominant motion in the
bass line implies this arrival despite the fact that the fifth scale-degree supports a first
inversion C-minor harmony. The second phrase (mm. 49-55) is also constructed with a
sentential structure; here the presentation function uses a two-measure basic idea. The
continuation function is truncated, creating asymmetry in the sentential structure. The
cadence occurs a measure early partially attributed to the increase in harmonic rhythm
in the final three measures. The asymmetry of the consequent is also highlighted when
the right-hand melody arrives at its resting point on 3 one measure before the bass
reaches the tonic. While the overall structure is asymmetrical in the phrase lengths, a
parallelism exists due to the rhythmic similarities of the basic ideas in both the
antecedent and consequent.
_ - -
J? J iJ £ h J= d = f l ft —
r^ i-
ft T O
tf - 'f
dim. - T O
r -D
| r r t= fif= H
p- p _ ■ J-= r3 -= P
l V T w
Example 32a
© antecedent_______ consequ ent

1 + 1 + 2 I 2+2+ 3
£ ■ r - "^
At: V I V I
HC
Jf
AC
Example 32b
120
The extended parallel period in the third movement of the Ninth Sonata uses
repetition in a manner similar to a presentation function (Examples 33a and 33b). Both
the antecedent and consequent phrases feature a contrasting segment constructed from
the rhythmic motive of the basic idea. While the antecedent ends with a strong half
cadence in measure 31, the consequent phrase avoids a strong conclusion due to the
deceptive cadence in measure 35; the stepwise bass line leads uses mode mixture to
reach C. This tonic pitch, however, is not accompanied by the rest of the tonic
harmony—an augmented triad results from the bS and $ . The resulting formal design
loses its cohesive structure, which was implied by the earlier motivic repetitions. The
deceptive cadence overlaps with a longer continuation (mm. 35-46). Prokofiev’s
emphasis on the subdominant (F) in this extension of the consequent phrase facilitates a
transition back to the original key of the movement; here, the common tone emphasizes
another submediant relationship, this time in the key of A-flat major.
121
(28)
# -------- r u “
p f .... p
^ = =
= # T = =3 = “ - r s - - - n r - -a r- ,7 ^ j i — [- -[ — -H ;— %»
At—; 7 7 . " 1 1 . 1 1 -m - " - 1
y r i #■. ' p* — p P"* —
■ r
iftr p O n j ~ ~ a .^ » I. ■ ^ 4
§ ? t£ ,, t/j ,Ta , ** ttr *
p. Jf -T3 inf . _jif-
f * *y yw ^ J r * J?i f r v
4=J
L. p .
Exam ple 33a

Prokofiev, Sonata No. 9, III, mm . 28-46
(score excerpt an d bass-line sum m ary)
122

Prokofiev, Sonata No. 9, III, nun. 28-46
123
w >> > I” > > — >> > f c : -----r 'ft nt.

•, ^ ^
pcJ"r ■■ p
i ii i 3 I ^
Exam ple 33a, continued

2 2 2 2 8
t6
V I O IV
At: VI
HC DC
Exam ple 33b

(bass-line sum m ary a n d p hrase stru ctu re)
124
Prokofiev uses both periodic and sentential structures for the rondo refrain in
the third movement of Sonata No. 4 (Examples 34a and 34b). Because these two eight-
measure structures combine to form the refrain, their relationship is similar to a larger,
contrasting period structure, especially with regard to the cadential procedures in the
two segments. The first eight measures (mm. 2-9), an antecedent phrase, can be
divided into two four-measure segments. Harmonically, the tonic prolongation at the
refrain’s opening resembles a presentation function. While the melodic motive is
similar to a basic idea, the second segment leads to an authentic cadence after moving
through the Neapolitan and dominant harmonies. The melodic motive is presented in
sequence in these four measures. In contrast to common-practice procedures, the
authentic cadence occurs in measure 8; measure 9 is an extension of tonic harmony,
with arpeggiations in both the melody and bass. These extensions create a balanced
eight-measure phrase.
The second group of eight measures (mm. 10-17) is structured as a sentence.
Here, a two-measure basic idea is treated sequentially; the final four measures use the
rhythmic and melodic gestures presented at the opening of the refrain. Harmonically,
measures 10-13 prolong the subdominant harmony rather than tonic. The final four
measures repeat the motive from measures 4-5 with increased harmonic activity leading
to the authentic cadence. This authentic cadence in measure 17 is stronger than that
found in measure 8 of the antecedent phrase. The arpeggiation and arrival in measure 8
weakens the overall authentic nature of the antecedent and creates the need for the
consequent phrase to conclude more strongly.
125
©ft *■ — _____
’ 1 jf 1? E h --------------- h = F
rU >T7 = 1 ■j j E >
T f l
J.
-M £—flLJ—e* n -F m -T fT R J m
^ .... := * y = S
4 4 ♦ 4 5ft 4
®c ^ rr -—
3 ^ #=■ f r - J ... f
-J u
l
r
■0-
4r f -
*: < -#■
& --------------------f — ]
ft ift Jft
r
f ----------------- *
i f
r - T
=
r l
^
■
ft
| p - - i
] ^ , . _ ■ ..
T~m
---------------
- f a d
!> £ A A j ft ■- £
► £
ft
ft #- #
- £ £ £
= = =
j t | , --------- — =
Exam ple 34a

P rokofiev, Sonata No. 4, III, m m . 2-17
(score excerpt a n d bass-line sum m ary)
126
period sentence
© basic idea contrasting (5) presentation cadential

2+2 2+2 ■*T
r r
N V I iv V I
J J
AC AC
Example 34b
Caplin defines a number of classical constructions as “hybrids,” combining
functions from both sentence structures and period structures. The opening of the third
movement in Prokofiev’s Sonata No. 9 illustrates one such hybrid type: a presentation
function and a consequent function where there is a redundancy of material within an
excessive tonic prolongation (Examples 35a and 35b).117 This example lacks a strong
cadence to complete the first four-measure segment. Instead, the opening measures are
set apart as a formal unit through the prolongation of the tonic, A-flat, and the
repetition of the melodic motive presented in measure 1. The inner voices move to a
B-flat major harmony at the end of measure 4; this arrival, set above the prolonged
tonic, creates an open phrase and sets up an expectation for closure. Harmonic motion
begins in the second phrase: the Neapolitan harmony (spelled enharmonically as
117
Caplin, 63. Caplin identifies this construction as an uncommon hybrid.
127
A-natural instead of B-double-flat) prepares the dominant and leads to an authentic
cadence. The symmetrical length of the two segments helps to establish their function
as two related phrases.
( m m
lif jg
4 L ■4 ■4-
— p ■
r 9 -------
h & r 'N 1 L_ i i i i - . . 1. n ni
— W J.. J y
{ f\\
|1 •• '
- H : r l r L------------
- J - Vw- . —
|J = 1 =
■ ■ = & =
=Vi f -------------- ,
W -f- 4 1
■4-
¥
Exam ple 35a
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 9, III, m m . 1*8
128
presentation consequent
2Z
AV: I V!/V I N V I
♦ J
AC
Exam ple 35b
P rokofiev, Sonata No. 9, III, m m . 1-8
(bass-line sum m ary and ph rase stru c tu re )
The second thematic group in the fourth movement of Prokofiev’s Sonata No. 9
incorporates another of Caplin’s hybrid structures: a structure that begins as a period,
but ends as a sentence (Examples 36a and 36b).118 Each phrase in this parallel
construction presents a basic idea (mm. 26-27 and mm. 33-34) that arpeggiates the
tonic harmony at the outset. Instead of a contrasting idea, a continuation function
occurs in both phrases (measures 28-32 and 35-39) through the use of fragmentation
and an increase of harmonic rhythm in a whole-tone descent that arrives on F-sharp.
These two phrases are complementary in their similar melodic and harmonic
material; the relationship between the two structures creates a parallel period, though
quite open-ended. The first phrase ends on an F-sharp major-seventh chord that lasts
for one measure, whereas the second phrase concludes on an F-sharp to A-sharp third,
and then reiterates it in the next measure. The rearticulation of this major third provides
118 Caplin, 59-61; Caplin identifies this as Hybrid #1.
129
some incipient stability that is completed when the third member of the F-sharp triad
arrives on the second beat of measure 40.
- T - r ■; ^
•LV, ^ u J
cresc.
/ # f
n=pz , 3 -,
-— Lt J 7 J * |J— — r r r - ^ ’J 1
if 9 V
E xam ple 36a

Prokofiev, Sonata N o. 9, IV, m m . 26-39
130
acccl.
.ml

© antecedent
basic idea continuation

4.5
If
FP7
4
consequent
basic idea continuation
I
. J
Example 36b
131
Small Ternary Structures
In its most basic sense, the term “ternary” can refer to any three-part form.
However, most theorists define it more precisely. According to Berry, it is a formal
design for a complete movement where there is “repetition (return) after digression.”119
Rothstein describes two types of ternary form. The first is an expansion of rounded
binary “in which the tonic recapitulation assumes greater relative proportions and thus
greater relative weight, leading to its identification as a self-contained formal unit. In
this type the first of the three sections is tonally open, ending in some key other than the
tonic. The other type of ternary form is the conventional ABA, in which both outer
sections are tonally closed with perfect cadences in the tonic key.”120 Green further
describes the formal category by using the terms sectional and continuous, which
define harmonic events over the course of the three sections.121
Small ternary is the largest type of phrase grouping. This formal construction is
defined as a closed thematic unit of three-part design (ABA’), in which the middle
section is structurally open and contrasting in melodic content and tonal organization.
Caplin makes the distinction between a theme and a movement of three parts in terms
of size:

120Rothstein, 108.
121 Green, 74 and 84-87.
132
• Small Ternary: “A tripartite theme consisting of an exposition (A),
contrasting middle (B), and recapitulation (A’).”
• Large Ternary: “A tripartite full-movement form consisting of a main
theme, an interior theme, and a return of the main theme.”122
What all these definitions of ternary form have in common are the concepts of
return and closure. Caplin qualifies the sections most specifically: the exposition is a
closed thematic unit, while the contrasting middle is structurally open, using
contrasting content and internal formal organization.123 In the construction of a small
ternary form, other smaller formal designs, such as sentences and periods, are typically
embedded within the structure.
The opening of the second movement of Prokofiev’s Sonata No. 2 is a small
ternary design that defies Caplin’s definition due to the lack of closure in the opening
eight measures (Examples 37a and 37b). The first section (A, mm. 1-8) uses two
sentence structures comprised only of presentation and continuation functions; to
establish the tonic harmony, A minor tonic alternates with its dominant. This
continuation, as well as the motivic repetition, provides cohesion for these first eight
measures despite the fact that the structure is not harmonically closed. The middle
section (B, mm. 9-16) is also progressive. Instead of providing contrast to the first
section with a new tonality, this section utilizes ascending and descending fifth
122C aplin, 257 and 255 respectively.

123 Ibid., 13.
133
relationships from the opening eight measures as a unifying motive: beginning with D
to G as a 5 to 1 motion, the ascending-fifths progression continues
(G -* D —*A — E —►B).
The recapitulation (A’, mm. 17-26) restates the opening eight measures with
two sentence structures; this time, the second sentence includes a cadential function by
employing pre-dominant harmony, the Neapolitan, to lead to the dominant and creates
an authentic cadence through phrase extension (1+1+3). The recapitulation can also be
viewed as a period in that the first sentence is open and the second closed. The
cadential extension (mm. 25-26) overlaps with the cadence of the final structure and
provides some symmetry as these measures complete a duple-grouping rather than
ending with an odd, five-measure group.
Example 37a
134
subito
.
V
g
Ip
Example 37a continued

135
t----- ^ i * rr i i i 7ji i i =i
h - — 3■
4
-4-• ,3_____
4- 4
__ _
T_ ----------
S>0 p— 1|
u -u r
y- tj -i f ...r
^ J ^ ;h • !>f -~ 7 j) 4■
^ ----
T
A B A*
ext.
pres + cont ^ pres + cont pres + cont _ pres + cont/cad
1+ 1+2 1+ 1+2 1+ 1+2 1+1+3
J
AC
Example 37b
136
The formal construction at the opening of the first movement of Prokofiev’s
Sonata No. 8 is an expansion of the small ternary form (Examples 38a and 38b). The
beginning presents the opening idea (A) as a self-contained structure due to the
dominant to tonic motion within the period structure of the two phrases and its closure
in the tonic key.124 Here, in measure 9, expectation of a larger form and resolution is
established in the small ternary construction. In the larger scheme of the movement’s
exposition, measure 34 represents the end of the first thematic group. These nine
measures are restated in measures 26-34 to close this formal structure.
The contrasting middle (B) has two sections, each characterized by strong
cadential arrivals. The first of these sections (mm. 10-17) is a parallel period with an
irregular middle cadence; the authentic cadence in measure 13 overlaps the beginning
of the second phrase. A similar pairing of phrases exists in measures 18-25 in the key
of the subdominant. The cadential structure of this second section is clearer than the
first in that the new tonic, E-flat, is articulated at the end of each four-measure phrase.
These sixteen measures are atypical of a small ternary form in their tonic beginning as
well as in the strong cadential formulas within the section.
124 See Example 26 for a discussion of this period structure and Example 4 for a discussion o f the
cadence.
137
X Q r -tJ P r
m r r ? Yrfrf
j m m
jrp * r T ^ f i J a. rr r i t t t i
t f mf espressivo
L $ m f p - i J - = H = S
L L .I r —
JT
■ r ^ '
L " = -------- 8 * ^ -
Exam ple 38a

Prokoflev, Sonata No. 8, 1, m m . 1-34
138
i— J —»
3
J U
v r p — I )■itdl _r~j
d~ • Jj y / ■ i p ] JFT I 1
i r V J r— -J IJ J J
mp 3
3
H - ------- J-----
- f i r f fW fW * r
-
- Jr
“ £== r j j *
■ i D ? j
f , ‘ ,
= F =
i i - 4 ^ 1 Jpi
m f ~ V f %rtdf ^ C tcf ai t 1'r ql dim.
f r----r J4------f fJl----- — r | in Id J ^ .rCUJ

-- j LT- b ----- * *-rtij
< ^d rY ¥LL
rr^l rj I
J 3
p---
f *r r
P

139
Exam ple 38a continued

Prokofiev, Sonata No. 8 , 1, m m . 1-34
140
a n te c e d e n t e x t consequent
tvii
HC
subA C
AC AC
V I V I
A C AC
a n te c e d e n t e x t. consequent
B>: tvii l>vii
HC subA C
Exam ple 38b

Prokoflev, Sonata No. 8 , 1, mm . 1-34
(bass-line sum m ary and ph rase diagram )
141
The opening of Sonata No. 6 employs formal elements of both the small ternary
design and a quatrain structure (Examples 39a and 39b). While similar to the small
ternary form in its use of a contrasting section, the repetition of the opening four
measures before the contrast recalls the quatrain formula: statement, repetition,
contrast and return (aaba). The opening four measures are organized as a sentence
structure: motive “a” is presented twice before the acceleration of the opening motive,
which continues to the cadential figure in measure 4. This cadence has an element of
ambiguity due to the added sixth that substitutes for 3 in the tonic function and can
therefore be interpreted as an open cadence in this instance.125 A two-measure cadential
extension lengthens this phrase; the cadential procedure in measure 4 is reiterated in
measure 6. Measure 7, labeled as a prefix (x), functions similarly to an anacrusis: the
ascending sixteenth notes lead to a repetition of the opening four measures.
While not strictly adhering to Caplin’s idea of contrasting middle, measures
12-18 are progressive and developmental. The tension expected in the contrasting
middle section is created through its odd length; the meter change in measure 18 creates
a six-and-one-half measure grouping. The progressive nature of this section is due to a
lack of tonal center, the added sixth and split-third motives. Fragmentation and
repetition of the opening melodic figures are the developmental aspects of this segment.
The middle voice revolves around the added sixth of the two harmonies—A in C major,
and B in D major. Leading into the recapitulation of the opening sentential structure is
125 See Example 4 for further discussion.
142
an iteration of the prefix figure. As new material is presented in measure 24, the
leading-tone authentic cadence creates stronger closer at this point in the formal design.
m ihq 1F w m \W i
,/ g ^ i ™ i i ¥—‘
- J
j
r 4 i -r n -
J C"
B... .. .. rft-
jP T /'j P 3 j
f f lT T O b jq^.J
• #r j is r
..
. *
H- r 4 i ¥' * 4j T■Hr
a -
3 ‘$ '8t_ij- r
-I- a
%j
— - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - t>
, — —
— — —
Exam ple 39a

Prokofiev, Sonata N o. 6 , 1, m m . 1-23
(score excerpt and bass-line sum m ary)
143
©
i
\v r f fe 1
g gg
/ i
Vf ‘tcrnnf ccj » T O f = ,- ' r l
ft
te !f ttf
a i
t f = . . .
V 2
r ti
S I p g i i
TCSjP W f
(§?■)-'
[j j r M
JF
y v
.
PtHriP*icryfftgiHtrrofttf
_____
S fL J£ Se_
I f I f I f * *
§ !

144
A
CD © © ©
a pres + cont/cad cad. ext prefix a pres + cont/cad
->r
a
1+ 1+2 1+ 1+2
N L /r
i ^ = jg
i
P ja d d 6 y^6 T «dd6
J
ItAC
J J
ItAC
B A’
(l2 g) ®
6.5
prefix a pres + cont/cad
“a” and “x” expanded
1+ 1+2
J
ItAC
Exam ple 39b

Prokoflev, Sonata No. 6 , 1, mm . 1-23
(bass-line sum m ary a n d ph rase diagram )
145
Unique Formal Designs
Formal designs that do not conform to Classical formulas, even when allowing
for expansion or deletion of units, typically create repetition schemes to delineate
components. These formulations may occur with or without common-practice tonal
implications. Such unique formal designs did not originate only in the works of
twentieth-century composers, but can be found throughout the tonal repertoire. In the
penultimate chapter of his book, Green outlines five categories that combine standard
and unique design and tonal structures:
1. Standard design; standard tonal structure of different form
2. Standard design; unique tonal structure
3. Unique design; standard tonal structure
4. Unique design; unique tonal structure
5. Unique composite of standard forms126
The first two categories above exist in Prokofiev’s piano sonatas and have been
integrated into the formal designs presented earlier in this chapter. Green’s other
unique formal designs can be described through various analytic techniques that
combine the elements of melody, harmony, and rhythm as organizing factors in their
constructions.
126Green, 306.
146
The opening structure in the second movement of Sonata No. 6 is unique due to
its reliance on agogic accents (Example 40). While a twenty-measure unit could easily
be divided into four-measure groupings, a study of the longer note values in the melody
exhibits a more complex grouping. Invoking a hypermetrical analysis at the half-note
level reveals a pattern: the first, third, and fourth segments articulate the long note
value at the end of the measure, while in the second and fifth groups, this articulation
occurs on the downbeat. The irregular juxtaposition of these two situations is
counterbalanced by extension and anacrusis figures ( ^,), which make the groupings
seem symmetrical.
Harmonically, this phrase group features mostly dominant to tonic relationships
in E major at points of articulation. The first two phrases resemble an antecedent of a
double period structure; in this example, the first phrase simply prolongs tonic before
the second phrase arrives on the dominant, a half cadence. While the third phrase is
similar to the first with its melodic contour, a tonicization of D major, the lowered-
seventh scale degree, is reached in measure 12. Not only is this tonicization
unexpected, but in addition the dominant-to-tonic resolution occurs after the melody
has reached its goal, creating more ambiguity in this segment. These features are
reconciled at the conclusion of the group when the D-sharp replaces D-natural and
assumes the function of a leading tone as part of the altered half cadence in measure 20.
The additional fourth phrase in this structure is a necessary addition in order to
facilitate the return to tonic, creating a five-segment period.
147
Q 11 2 3 4 5 6 1 1 2 3 4 5 6
\-l y W - l - j - -4— 1— 4-—4—i— t~i—tr4-7r-■ JjhN 4-J JI i=F#nl

% I*
T f f ^
J I r WP^PP PPP l r ,*P C t -

H r r r r ’r rr J T j r r i r bJJ ijJr r
kte'ttia
i . / Tff— r —
E:
> >
11 2 3 4 5 6 " 1 1 2
® r - ' 4 I 4 JJ J l l :J J 1\ U .
* Mb tf?'1
^ 8H-- J 1 i r jJ jJ j Ii j j, J eF i ftp
r 1* r r r q*1
*i: V; — - k«-------------
L- ~ ----- = ---- - --- =---------
v ivn
Jf
HC
5
>
6 \ 1 2 3 4 5 6
>
7 1
~ L ¥ < * - [ - - 'I T ~ T — i— 1— 1— 1"1----- \ ~ \ ~ 1— -------- —j -------- j--------------1--------
j w
n = & f lj tL j j i f j j h )J»J4t JJyi M

w ______________________________
"1# Mil iff p»--- ■■
I V6
J
HC
Example 40
(score excerpt and hypermetrical phrase analysis)
148
A unique aspect of formal design in the second movement of Sonata No. 5 is
that the melodic and harmonic events do not coincide in any standard formulas; the
structure uses static harmonies that do not establish a sense of tonality (Example 41).
The phrase group is relatively static harmonically. E major is the harmonic focus for
the grouping, but only due to its duration in comparison to the other harmonic events
and its occurrence in three of the segments. The harmony of next-greatest importance
is the opening G-flat major triad that is reiterated in the four-measure introduction.
Chords are connected by common tones and half-step voice leading, moving from G-
flat major to G-flat augmented to E-flat minor. A respelling of E-flat as D-sharp retains
the common tone in moving to an E major-seventh chord in measure 10. Motion from
B to E in measures 12-13 and 16-17 creates a hint of tonal focus on E within the overall
structure, but even in this progression, stability is weakened when the leading tone
(D-sharp) carries over to become an added major seventh in the E major harmony.
As there is no strong bass movement, phrase lengths are determined by motivic
articulations. The melodic line itself is remarkable in that there are no similarities in
segment lengths: a four-measure introduction sets up the expectation for duple
groupings to follow. The four-measure segment in measures 8-11 uses a sentential
structure; measure 9 is not merely repetition, but rather an elaboration of the basic idea.
Grouping the last two segments connects similar melodic and harmonic material
despite the asymmetry (4+5); the melodic material in measure 12 is presented as a
variation and extended in measure 16.
149
m p 1
i i\ ji. U t j ll- - |[ | - i i
— r —i , ^ jun.
m/
U i ] W- j-j L^-j j
«C ^
Example 41
(score excerpt and phrase diagram)
150
The finale of Sonata No. 7 is a type of perpetual motion in 7 meter, with

8
articulations on each of the seven eighth-note pulses in every measure (Examples 42a
and 42b). Repetitions of a two-measure rhythmic pattern create hypermetrical
symmetry in the beginning of the movement. This symmetry is disturbed somewhat by
the presence of nine two-measure groupings in the opening section. Balance is
regained, however, when the ninth group overlaps the beginning of the next phrase.
The interpretation of overlap in this structure creates a cadence point.
Harmonically, by respelling the left-hand’s recurring C-sharp as D-flat, a split
third relationship is created within B-flat; this is contextually less dissonant than
Prokofiev’s actual spelling: 1, #2, 3,3. Harmonic tension builds for four-measures
with the presence of the leading tone, A-natural, in the soprano (mm. 15-18). The
chord in the right hand presents a dominant function: A, E-flat and G are all pitches
found in the vii*7; each pitch resolves to a member of the tonic harmony via a whole or
half step, yielding an authentic cadence. The motion in the left hand also prepares for
this point of resolution by interpreting the fourth eighth-note in every second measure
as leading to this cadence; these pitches arpeggiate the harmony, C-sharp, E, A,
F-sharp, and B-flat. Example 42b demonstrates the voice-leading motions through
which these notes function as preparation for the reiteration of the tonic harmony. By
using common tones together with half-step resolutions to members of the tonic triad,
Prokofiev in this instance assembles a type of leading-tone authentic cadence.
151
m
= w =
h N
‘i— *------------- ■L_3L _ # j ' 7 f
-!---- J-------------
1 IP 3 1
4* —
v ._3 i ’ •» 1’ 1’
£
t K — «—
—J- = ± 1 —
^ 5 = f - H - f I4J-1 -v W J -
-------- -#--------------
• J. i 1r * V in - Vu- -■ r . .
J 9 ---- J—4 -MM i - t ------- -3 -4 —i . •4 J-
V.___ 1 i|p 1■ j)— 3 f 1' 1■
y i : N fi -------------------------------- ' r -
'fir*
** &f~ViT i r ►J a %
— *
%M ts 1 p ► 5 3 # ^ 4
*1.
y
lb
t> —
a.
2 _ ■ - M M — 4 — • -----------
*fL
i *
•f
JL,i- -f a
j
L r4 1 f
i IP i 1
Hn i ilP h H J
ItAC
Exam ple 42a

Prokofiev, Sonata No. 7, III, mm . 1-19
(score excerpt and p h rase diagram )
152
resolution
m. 19
m. 2 I
m. 4 & 6
. / m .
-------e ----------
m. 8 & 10 ^ —■—
l> o
-44=-------------------
m. 12 & 1 4 ____
-4 4 5 — ---------- ----- fr© ----------
— r 1— **------------ ----- 4 ^ ----------
m. 16 & 18
61* ——
- J 1 \> S — -----P© ----------
J
ItA C
Example 42b
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 7, in , mm. 1-19
(voice leading to leading-tone authentic cadence)
In the second movement of Prokofiev’s Sonata No. 9, the contrasting middle
section uses standard components to create a unique design over static harmonic events
(Examples 43a and 43b). Here, two phrases have a parallel connection due to the
return of melodic material and restatement of tonic harmony in measure 60. While the
opening of the section resembles a sentence structure, the continuous repetition of
rhythmic and melodic motives in every measure is not characteristic of the sentential
153
formula. The two basic phrases are symmetrical due to their length (eight measures),
suggesting a kind of periodic structure. An extension completes the first phrase
through the F-sharp arpeggiation in the bass.
The harmonic functions in these two phrases yield an open structure. The first
phrase has stronger closure because it ends on tonic harmony, despite the deceptive
nature of the cadence. The main bass pitches in measure 56-57 are harmonized with
either E or E-sharp in the soprano, yielding a dominant or augmented dominant
harmony that should resolve to D. The emphasis on 3 in measure 59 creates a
connection to the second phrase and to the return of the tonic. The second phrase
facilitates the modulation back to the key of D mixolydian, ending with a plagal
cadence (PC); this harmonic motion is a preparation for the return in measure 68 of the
movement’s opening motives.
154
P legato cresc.
-U4----------4 ------- ■ IN
I W 1"*■
*——
T l LU ..
- J*=: j J lj
3 mf 3 dim . J ¥
,/ ’ i frfH, Ji & = fc."Int—
hr—
1
.............W”1
----- ‘
A.. ¥
ll f3
= h ----------- ■> h = — 1-1 b11

$= *=
P
cJ_ ji iff-r p
cresc.
J
j
- rjjrrr^r^r =*=£=- f f r f i ^ r ? = f
■ L /J
■)
"1
1
=
c.
p- ■
E xam ple 43a

Prokofiev, Sonata N o. 9, D , m m . 51-67
Example 43a
(antecedent)
Tt ->
© 5 , P -
i
>---------- --------------- I9--- -------------
r
V/UI vi/IU
H (0
J .
DC
II
(consequent)
2------------ --------------- P------------- m----------- ---------------- P r -

--------------------------- «£_------------
VI
Dmixt iv
J
PC
Example 43b
156
The opening eight-measure theme of the second movement in Sonata No. 8
appears to be a complete, self-contained structure due to the use of a homogeneous
dotted-rhythm gesture in each measure (Example 44a). Dividing the structure into two
four-measure groups seems to conform to the concept of symmetrical pairings and the
“tyranny of the four-measure unit.”127 However, there are melodic elements that
contradict such an interpretation. The aggressive skip of a seventh from G-natural to F
in measure 4 is the high point of the phrase; the dotted-quarter note F is also the longest
rhythmic value since the opening pitch, suggesting a climax point in the structure and a
point of rest. However, since the bass line is merely an oscillation between tonic and
dominant for the entire structure, the typical bass motion associated with cadential
points is not present.
This eight-measure group can also be compared to a hybrid construction: an
antecedent function (mm. 1-4) followed by a continuation function (mm. 5-8).
Measures 5-6 are essentially repeated in a sequential fashion in measures 7-8. While
the bass arrives at a D-flat on the downbeat of measure 8, the melody does not resolve
to a member of the tonic triad until the bass skips up to the dominant on beat two. With
the alternation of tonic and dominant in the left hand, the pre-dominant function is in
measure 7, beat two in the right hand: a subdominant triad. This main theme reappears
with the same unique structure in different keys throughout the movement.
Another similarity to the hybrid structure can be seen through a melodic
analysis (Example 44b). The arpeggiation of the tonic triad in measures 1-4 recalls the
127Cone, Musical Form and Musical Performance, 74-75.
157
basic harmonic function of presentation, while the repeated one-measure rhythmic
motive in measures 5-8 represents the fragmentation typical of continuation. In this
continuation, the stepwise motion to A-flat is akin to the motion typically found in the
voice-leading procedures leading to an authentic cadence.
U # -
" M f ---- « ------- 1------
— 0— --------- iif-------- 1-------- ---------- 1*— —
! ^ t> * 1
w w w r r : w
5 ♦
—0
»i: fl>, l----------£
./ [,p 9
I>: v7
2+2
i
1
JTTJj i , n j ii
J L b' li^L l F : R— S t- -
»T[» i>»
—m--------- --------- J>------- s J — ------------ # --------- [ ------------ * ------
J* 1 ff M
\ J 1
■» w w r z V
i : 5 : 0
I—
(IV)
J
ItAC
Exam ple 44a

Prokofiev, Sonata No. 8, II, m m . 1-8
158
^ -------------- - I M ) . ----------.« ------------ ^

V -
8 j «
p— ------------- — * — —
w z: u ■J r z: 4 z:
0 0 0
L— --------------
----------- #-----------------
1
1 - j n n - .. F f r i j n
uc: j a a i -
-------------------- -------------------r-------------- -------------- —

l— 5----- --------------
----
f
w z: w r z: w r z: 0
♦ ♦
' H f y — ....
Exam ple 44b

Prokofiev, Sonata No. 8, II, m m . 1-8
(melodic sum m ary, score excerpt, and bass-line sum m ary)
Unique formal designs have occurred throughout musical history. Many of
these compositions have their own designations, such as genres of fantasia and toccata.
However, compositions of the Classical era typically exhibit a relatively high level of
consistency within standardized formal constructions. An important exception at the
159
phrase level is the use of various kinds of extensions, but these do not change the basic
designation of a structure, be it a sentence or a period.
Prokofiev uses more innovative techniques than composers of the earlier
periods, owing to his place in the continuum of music history. His early twentieth-
century musical environment led him to experiment with additional tonal elements
beyond nineteenth-century chromatic harmony. As Rothstein implies, the application
of analytic terminology to music must be accomplished with intelligence and
flexibility.128 As the foregoing analyses have shown, such flexibility is essential to any
explication of Prokofiev’s compositional procedures, including his approach to phrase
structure.
128 Rothstein, 118.
CHAPTER FOUR: PHRASE CONSTRUCTION AND GROUPINGS IN
OTHER NEOCLASSIC COMPOSITIONS
The analyses in the previous chapter employed modified conventional
terminology to elucidate phrase structure in Prokofiev's piano sonatas through a
vocabulary rooted in descriptions of Classical-period form. These adaptations were
based on the features of Neoclassicism. In general, any composition using repetition as
an element of clarity can make use of this approach to phrase structure. It is principally
the tonal features of early neoclassical works that are more idiosyncratic and that
require a composer-specific approach.
What follows in this chapter is a broader application of the methodology
employed in Chapter Three to three sonata-form expositions by some of Prokofiev’s
contemporaries. The terms and formal paradigms given by Caplin and Rothstein are
generally applicable not only to Prokofiev’s works, but to any twentieth-century
composition that relies on tonal function to achieve closure and that employs time-
honored repetition schemes.
160
161
Ravel: S o n a tin e , First Movement
At the turn of the twentieth-century, the use of the term Neoclassicism was one
way for the French to assert their national identity and break free from German
traditions. In seeking a compelling alternative model, many French composers were
drawn to their pre-Romantic past, emulating earlier figures such as Jean-Philippe
Rameau and Fran§ois Couperin. “The call for a revival of this heritage by polemicists
who reckoned a disparity between its new classicism and German neoclassical
compositions received clamorous support from musicians and found practical
expression in changes of school curricula and in the appearance of editions and
performances of a hitherto scarcely familiar repertoire.”129
In addition to the piano piece Le Tombeau de Couperin (1914-1917), Maurice
Ravel composed many works that refer specifically to earlier genres and composers, for
example, Menuet antique (1895), Pavane pour une infante defunte (1899), Minuet sur
le nom d ’Haydn (1909). All of his works that incorporate classic elements also exhibit
Ravel’s characteristic expansion of the traditional harmonic vocabulary, especially
through extended tertian harmonies, but these harmonies can be categorized to a large
extent through designations based on common-practice terminology. The title of
Ravel’s Sonatine (1903-05) suggests the emulation of a formal design from the past—
the title is similar to the Italian sonatina: a small sonata for piano. Ravel’s use of a
129 Messing, Neoclassicism in Music, 24.
Menuet for the second of his three movements recalls the familiar dance-movement
forms on which Baroque instrumental suites were based; the first and last movements
are similar in design and tempo to the corresponding movements of Classical-period
sonatas.
The first movement of the Sonatine is constructed using the Classical sonata
form; however, the exposition is significantly condensed and, at the same time, tonally
somewhat ambiguous compared to eighteenth-century models. Ravel restates themes
from the exposition in the recapitulation while restoring the opening tonal center. The
development uses motives from the exposition’s themes in fragmentation. The
movement’s exposition is characterized by the use of progressive phrase structures,
further emphasized through the use of modal harmonies and plagal motion.
The opening theme is a single phrase based on the sentence structure model,
elaborated by extension and fragmentation (Examples 45a and 45b). The harmonic
function underlying this structure is a motion from tonic (F-sharp minor) to the
dominant of the relative major. The first five measures represent the presentation
function. The odd number is due to the metric placement of the opening and the
extension of the arrival on G-sharp in measure 3. The continuation function begins
with a repeated two-measure transformation of the opening melody. The second
measure is fragmented and transformed rhythmically over the final three measures of
the phrase. Through the repetitions, the harmonic goal, E7, is firmly established as an
arrival, and provides a progressive function for the entire unit.
163
^ ------e - O - J . . ,------
% -■ P u t t i e r BBBSS =
jP jttft) i»------— | ............. jj i i l r 1- J T 1 ? JT "3 f =
g -■ f f L r L L - ___ _____^ i ^
} r r
--------------- Wlf
- , n ? n ~_r j--_ r
r ^ ¥ | JJf • r -----*""■—5T “
f j g g ^ £ | | =
d f ^ J ? 3'f =
y
r - L - r V r r + c r t f j ' ^ ~ J 3
n s u m
Example 45a
Ravel, Sonatine, I, mm. 1-13
164
R ail.
a T em po
/

Ravel, Sonatine, I, nun. 1-13
fra e m e n ta tio n ._ _
2 ^ > [ “ ........ 3 5T " >
0 ^ "
J p
1*-------- 1" '"Vm
-* -8 \ f -.T r p — p#
1 1 M
^— y
[flj] i v v6 i v V 9/ i v V 7/I I1 V 7 V 1 I V 7/I I1 iv 6
V
Example 45b
Ravel, Sonatine, I, mm. 1-13
165
The unexpected plagal resolution of the dominant at the end of the first phrase
(mm. 12-13) introduces harmonic ambiguity in the next phrase (Examples 46a
and 46b). In this expanded phrase, the nature of the harmonic ambiguity
simultaneously implies both F-sharp and A major tonalities as neither interpretation
introduces a tonic harmony. The second theme, a single expanded phrase, continues
the use of sentential structures to provide a familiar background for the harmonic
events. The expansion of this sentential theme is achieved by a repetition of measure
13; this reiteration creates a simple presentation and emphasizes E, the dominant of A
major, by means of upper and lower neighbors in the bass. The B to E bass motion in
measures 15-16 creates the expectation of cadential closure, but the harmonies create
more uncertainty, and by measure 19, deception. In this entire seven-measure group,
harmonies do not strongly imply the A major tonal center. The ritardando accentuates
the deceptive arrival as well.
/O a T em po
d 0m r f ^ f T
§ .it, -x = :
:= F T ? r
T\If y
ji
' U
^ ~ m
L :
LEI 4 T -r-fit" - - H r f — T A. 0 ------- -M

- c -g r — -T-m------- i r
[+ 4 = 4
L j
.... . - . = 5 =
= * = f =
E xam ple 46a
Ravel, Sonatine, I, m m . 13-19
166
© __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s e n te n c e « J > 5 ) re p e a te d
| 1+ 1+ 2 - ^ | c o n t u a t i o n + c a d e n tic d - ” ,
■ .T - ^ g
IE iv * v V iv 6 V V IV V6 iv 6 V IV v6 iv
f
V
|A i| ii‘ in' iii ii6 ffl' iii ii6 DI' V/V “
__J
Exam ple 46b
(bass-line su m m ary a n d p h ra se d iagram )
The third phrase is saturated with motives heard previously (Examples 47a
and 47b). The melodic motion has a transformed fragment from the first theme group
(compare measures 7 and 20), while the rhythmic motive is derived from both thematic
groups (compare measures 2,16 and 20). These motives establish yet another sentence
structure. The phrase avoids arriving at the tonic, A, by arriving on a dominant-ninth
chord in measure 23, creating a progressive function for this phrase. There is an
element of resolution for this phrase as the A major harmony is finally heard in
measure 23; however, here the harmony is used as an anacrusis figure for the cadential
extension in measures 24-27. The use of G-natural rather than the leading tone,
G-sharp, creates more ambiguity as to the tonal center; this allows for F-sharp minor to
exert itself for the repeat of the exposition. This cadential extension is also repeated in
the recapitulation; the phrase ending differs, however, as it leads to the final cadence of
the movement (compare Examples 47a and 47b with Examples 48a and 48b).
167
U n p e u re te n u
--------- ^jres expressif
% J 'T 'J I= ^ ^ = = j
L^
PPP P
'
^ — = - p _ ^ --------- F -------- - ------------ p --------
i ju a •
p - - f *p - f
— t)— 4 ------------- 1------------------------ 1---------- i - r 7-
f
r r • f - - rf -
long
R a lL a T em po
PP
E xam ple 47a

^ p re s e n ta tio n ^ e o n tin u a tio n /c a d e n tia l w c a d e n tia l e x te n s io n ^

i i n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2— ^ ^ r -3- - - - - - - - >
(1 + 1 + 1)
■ytU - s ' ........................................................................................v— ,— =
' - -i * f— * ft ^
[ A !] v i7 V9 I vl
I
__J
V
Exam ple 47b

Ravel, Sonatine, I, mm . 20-26
(bass-line sum m ary a n d phrase diagram )
168
n» ; _|
1 ^
)y—— " ’ - PP
tyijft-j v Ji = 3
■/ n v ^ j = ? h 4k j i * '4
1*-
M W
8T
M m° i —. *— ,i«p/ r ; PH t:
—
3T pi
=t=-#= UMt
iKPi -------- -
......................
-^V ^ -■ i-------------------
J-
I^V r i
Example 48a
Ravel, S o n a t i n e , I, mm. 79-84
(8lJ
(i-i-D
I VS y»dd 9
Example 48b
Ravel, S o n a t i n e , I, mm. 79-84
169
Stravinsky: P ia n o S o n a ta in F -sh a rp M in o r , First Movement
In February of 1923, Boris de Schloezer (1881-1969) used the term
neoclassicisme as a positive reference to Stravinsky, the term now having a positive
distinction versus its disreputable, derogatory history. The familiarity of the word itself
was something Stravinsky saw in light of the great tradition that had come before him,
and he understood that it could possibly secure a place for him in music history.130
Stravinsky’s works after World War I represent not so much a completely new
approach as much as a rethinking of an underlying method that had been firmly
established. Neoclassicism, at this point in history, is defined in terms of specific
musical gestures within a given composition, including tonal polarity, static harmony,
rhythmic juxtaposition, and formal stratification. The basis of Stravinsky’s own work
was founded on a personal reconsideration of the underlying structural principles of
eighteenth-century Classicism, which are then reformulated in his compositions.
Although one cannot turn back time, it was possible for Stravinsky to revitalize certain
basic compositional principles and to apply them in a manner consistent with
contemporary harmonic and rhythmic practices.
130Messing, Neoclassicism in Music, 152.
Stravinsky’s Sonata of 1924, while written in the period described as his
neoclassic exploration, displays more of an affinity with Baroque stylistic features than
with Classical principles of organization; his earlier Sonata in F-sharp Minor
(1903-1904), however, does adopt Classical procedures. Just as with Prokofiev’s Piano
Sonata No. 1, also a student work, this early example of Stravinsky demonstrates the
importance of learning these formal designs, which would later become a part of his
compositional strategy. Stravinsky’s appreciation for formal paradigms is chronicled in
his autobiography.131
The first movement of Stravinsky’s Sonata in F-sharp Minor utilizes sonata
form. The exposition is organized in two thematic groups with contrasting tonal
centers: F-sharp minor and its relative key, A major. The first thematic group uses
many repetition formulas in its overall construction and is punctuated by traditional
cadential formulas (Examples 49a and 49b). The first two measures, though
introductory to the phrase structure, are essential in that they establish the tonic
harmony and the first motive, a dotted rhythm, stepwise rise through a third (xl). This
motive is used to create the basic idea in measures 3-4; its repetition in measures 5-6
131 “About this time [1903] I composed a full-sized sonata for the piano. In this work 1 was
constantly confronted by many difficulties, especially in matters o f form, the mastery of which is usually
acquired only after prolonged study, and my perplexities suggested the idea o f my consulting Rimsky-
Korsakov again.” “Once a week I too my work to him [Rimsky-Korsakov] and he criticized and
corrected it, giving me all the necessary explanations, and at the same time he made me analyze the form
and structure o f classical works.” (Igor Stravinsky, An Autobiography (New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, Inc., 1962), 20-21.)
171
concludes the presentation function with dominant harmony following a stepwise
descent from tonic.
The continuation portion o f this theme is much more complex and extended:
with its motivic repetitions and sequences, its form is similar to a sentence structure as
well. Measures 7-10 divide into two-measure units (1+1) as each segment is composed
of different motives. The sequencing of a single motive through a circle-of-fifths
(mm. 11-15) facilitates the harmonic move to fe, G natural. The fifth motion of the
bass line is also highlighted through the use of the horn-fifth motive (h5) in the second
half of measure 14, which is extended through measure 15. After three iterations, the
horn-fifth motive is used in the melody for the final segment leading to the cadence
(mm. 16-22). Here, the subdominant to dominant motion is strong in the bass line; the
resolution to tonic harmony is evaded twice, finally resolving in measure 22.
|J AUCglU —
------------ A
ff
i}: a* r
Ct• ^ J 3
* * *_
. == -- *-----
■r i
3 fe J = 4 = £ = * = l
IT T • A 1- f H l" I ~F — [ T l" — ^ T *- - t - r - P
■ • ■
__ — *f f
3? J i- ^ ^ V- I. N_ 3 . j5 ■ p*
■ a
4 ): -Hiitt-----
....... i^ =
5 ¥ 4 8 jp c 1 ^ - - 1 n M iS ^ ^ P ^ r F n f |
§ J ■’ t r >» I f 4 - E i/‘ - I CJ
1 * “
f ■1 *r> i-n j ........ f |—
^ J p 131 ]]* 7
k ^ ^ i
P
m jj# = = =
Exam ple 49a

Stravinsky, Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor, I, nun. 1-22
© 1 9 7 3 b y F a b e r M u s ic L td , L o n d o n .
R e p r o d u c e d b y k in d p e r m is s io n o f th e p u b lis h e rs .
173
i r 'r V f l 1 1 —
/
mi* 1 33 - fai t1r \ft* ft* r-- f— > j. f" j -- =
Z±»
:a
5 •
-----

174
xl
introduction
•
^ antecedent
xl__________________
©xl antecedent
■5> vj»| T Is-*!
3 *
i
E i V i
J
HC
J
HC
consequent
T
1+ 1 1+ 1 l +l +l +l i ext
V V
h5 hS h5
m m
IV V iv V iv V i
J
AC
Example 49b
Stravinsky, Piano S o n a t a i n F - s h a r p m i n o r , I, mm. 1-22
The second thematic group is a very large structure, encompassing fifty-seven
measures before reaching a conclusive cadence in A major. Stravinsky utilizes
repetition as a way of exploring far-reaching harmonic events. For clarity, the
asymmetric, but parallel structure will be discussed in two parts. The first section
175
(mm. 33-61) concludes with tonic harmony; however the overlap with the second
section in measure 61 results in a progressive resolution.
The opening of this group suggests the use of a sentential structure with a four-
measure basic idea (Examples 50a and 50b). With the new motive (x2), its two
iterations in measures 33-36 and measures 37-40 function in a manner similar to a
presentation function; a successful establishment of the new tonic, A major, occurs
through the alternation of tonic and dominant harmony. The end of the presentation
develops a smooth connection to the continuation function by using a secondary
dominant (V7/V).
Fragmentation of another motive (y) begins in measure 41, in conjunction with
deceptive motion to the submediant. By measure 45, the expectation for the cadential
function is interrupted: the presentation motive (x2) occurs in a new key (G-sharp
minor) and is followed by liquidation in measures 49-52 ((x2)). The continuation
function returns in measure 53 as a preparation for the cadence. The cadence here is an
AC: Stravinsky uses the augmented sixth resolution to tonic, similar to the ItAC with a
brief iteration of the dominant note on the final eighth note in measure 60.
The second phrase group in this period (Example 50a and 50c) begins with the
same four-measure basic idea (x2: compare mm. 33-36 with mm. 61-64). Instead of an
exact repetition of the four-measure unit, the second two measures are in a different
key; E-flat minor results from the resolution of the E dominant-seventh harmony as an
augmented sixth chord. These two measures repeat in E-flat major, leading to an F
176
dominant-seventh chord; this harmony then resolves as another augmented sixth chord
to return to the key of A major.
Measures 71-76 are an interpolation of material using the motive from the first
theme (x l) in two-measure increments (2+2). The two-measure extension (mm.
75-76) connects the motives from both theme groups while the harmonies progress
from a G minor-seventh chord to a C dominant-seventh chord; as the dominant-seventh
changes to an augmented dominant, the resolution has some similarities to a leading-
tone cadence as it resolves to A, the tonic of the second theme group.
The final segment of this phrase group (mm. 81-85) uses sentence-like
repetitions, incorporating the rising third melodic motive and rhythmic motive from the
opening of the movement (xl). These measures progress through the supertonic
harmony (m. 83) and the Neapolitan to reach the dominant, and a quick resolution to
the tonic follows. The four-measure extension (mm. 85-89) continues to use the first
theme motive (x l) while confirming the tonic harmony before moving to the
development section.
177
©, uaKlf
Example 50a
Stravinsky, Piano Sonata in F-sharp m inor, I, m m . 33-89
© 1 9 7 3 b y F a b e r M u s ic L td , L o n d o n .
R e p r o d u c e d b y k in d p e rm is s io n o f th e p u b lis h e rs .
178
m
r
p r p u i q 3_
tv tti
,f i i 1 J” CU W t Pj *
i- - - 6---'
IT T Y =1=9
■--------------------------
-fiflir-i- - - - - - - - - - - - ir-P-- - - - - - - - - - - - - Jim------------

----------------- t t i i f P ' f r t —
, r M w B J E ® (p S W Q rr
tv a W] m H T rrrfr =fp = = J ------ 2----- --±-
-e- - - - - - - ------ =
J ■
L U _ _ ( 1-- 6--- • e
tm .ll
I
i
«ii
«!!
■pu-j-14
1 r
y .
i— ^ —
—y dJ zHJH H tJ*' Lr f Li f L £ ^
f up f j i i
■ |ja 1.

m U m
s r

180

181
,® d u g , £ {
f
■*— ^ — ;8 | It* , « J - A
4r —- F1—af_l
H = =
—
■m
p*fYr i '
= 8 te.rr = ) > | ■)
.. u
f:ff rnr Ui n

182
presentation
x2
ip
A: I v 7/ v
J
HC
0 (continuation) ©
2+2
v6 VI VII V7/vii
© (x2) 0 (continuation/cadential)
2+2 1+ 1+ 2 +
extension I
i
~
3 1
1i
= ^=
Ger^/I
J
ItAC
Example 50b
Stravinsky, Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor, I, mm. 33-61
183
p re s e n ta tio n ©
© x2 (x 2 )
2+ 2+ 2
P
A: I V7 V V7 tv tv7 V7
._ J J (+6)
HC
©
xl e x te n s io n
1 2 + 2 * . 2"
-
II It ')
: -----
-**■— H --------- ----------------• ------------ -* ■ » # "" *" "
S i i l-v ii V 7A v ii V 7+ A v ii
177;
y
1+ 1+2
e x te n s io n
SO . ^ (x l)
xl £- 4
1 + 1 + 2 I
NS V I
r =: - ..- r
J
AC
Exam ple 50c

Stravinsky, Piano Sonata in F-sharp m inor, I, m m . 61-89
(bass-line sum m ary and phrase stru c tu re)
184
Hindemith: S o n a ta N o . 2, First Movement
Whereas France emerged as the principal center for new musical developments
in the early twentieth century, much as Venice and Vienna had done at earlier points in
music history, neoclassic elements also developed in Germany. While German
romantic music was the primary object of French criticism, creating the derogatory
connotations associated with the early use of the term neoclassicisme, the term Klassik
remained specifically linked to the tradition of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. The use
of this term in association with contemporary compositions not only acknowledged
inspiration from the past; it also referred to a musical style that embraced and
exemplified similar principles. The Neue Klassizitat of the 1920s reflects a common
and especially German theme, relying on Goethe as the cultural underpinning for its
aesthetic conception.132 A composition that was objective, absolute, serene, distilled,
pure and horizontally generated met the stylistic requirements.
Paul Hindemith is generally regarded as one representative of Germany’s
neoclassic movement. In his experimentation with new musical methods during the
1920s, Hindemith developed a number of style characteristics that would become
typical of his later neoclassic works. These characteristics included a tendency towards
reiterated rhythmic patterns (versus expressive rubato), which create pronounced
rhythmic vitality, a highly developed contrapuntal imagination, and the use of formal
132 Messing, Neoclassicism in Music, 70-73.
185
models derived from the Baroque.133 Most composers in Europe at this time felt the
need for greater discipline, and Hindemith’s Neoclassicism was exceptional in that it
led him to extend the chromatic vocabulary of his early works while at the same time
making explicit use of Baroque methods and gestures. From 1923 forward,
Hindemith’s “New Objective” (neue Sachlichkeit) music featured “traditional tonal or
modal harmonies with the careful, dense, motivic development of the late romantics
and Viennese expressionists, as well as the anti-romantic irony, raucous unconcern for
pretty colors, and objective formalism.”134
To organize the first movement of his Second Sonata (1936), Hindemith uses
two themes separated by a transition, as in a typical exposition of a sonata form. The
first thematic group is a parallel construction in terms of repetition of melodic material,
but asymmetric phrases and groupings do not resemble the classic period form
(Examples 51a and 51b). The first phrase consists of three segments. The first six-
measure group is a cohesive unit, similar to an antecedent function due to the
prolongation of tonic as a pedal point and its melodic contour; the high point in the
phrase, G, is reached in the fifth measure, closing with a descent to D, also in the tonic
harmony. A rhythmic and melodic motive is introduced mid-way through this
segment: an eighth-note anacrusis leaps upward to a longer note value (x), which
creates a 3 + 3 division of the unit. The second segment, akin to a continuation
,33Ian Kemp, Paul Hindemith (London, 1970), 244-245.

134David Neumeyer, The Music o f Paul Hindemith (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), 123.
186
function, begins with a sentence-like repetition of two measures that uses the rhythmic
motive from the opening segment (mm. 7-8 and 9-10). A three-measure continuation
arriving on the longest and highest pitch thus far (B in measure 13) ends this segment.
Here (mm. 13-17), the third segment is characterized by the prolongation of the bass,
similar to a cadential extension. The resolution to tonic in measure 17 creates an
overlap of the plagal cadence and the second phrase.
The second phrase begins as the first, similar to the classical consequent phrase,
but is a markedly abbreviated, five-measure segment. The anacrusis motive is
presented in this segment and is liquidated throughout the remainder of the phrase.
Segmentation of this phrase occurs as the motive is reiterated (see mm. 19,22, and 24).
While no formal divisions occur, the descending motion in the bass (mm. 22-26)
arrives at a cadential procedure similar to the first phrase, being a plagal-type as well.
187
Q MSIiig schndl
E xam ple 51a

H indem ith, Sonata No. 2 , 1, m m . 1-26
H in d e m ith P I A N O S O N A T A N O . 2
© 1 9 3 6 S c h o tt M u s ik In te rn a tio n a l
© re n e w e d
A ll R ig h ts R e s e r v e d
U s e d b y p e r m is s io n o f E u ro p e a n A m e ric a n M u s ic D is trib u to r s L L C ,
s o le U S a n d C a n a d ia n a g e n t f o r S c h o tt M u s ik In te r n a tio n a l
189
© ©
■ ^r 2+ 2 + 3
n
HO i
© ©
3 + 2 + 2 + 3
m
UI‘ i
__J J J
ltPC ltPC
Example Sib
Hindemith, Sonata No. 2 ,1, mm. 1-26
Tiie second theme group resembles a small ternary structure with embedded
classical formulas for each segment (Examples 52a and 52b). The first and third
segments of the small ternary form (A) are constructed with an antecedent and a
continuation function (mm. 41-48 and mm. 56-63): each uses two phrases that are
symmetrical (4+4) and contrasting. While these formal units are similar in melodic
material, they do have unique characteristics. In the first phrase (mm. 41-44), there is
no true dominant with the bass line’s use of l>3 and #B: the only diatonic 3 occurs within
the tonic harmony. The second A section uses the same melody with mode mixture,
and a new counterpoint results in different harmonic implications. Both periods end
190
with plagal cadences while the interior phrases are different: measure 44 ends with an
authentic-type motion as opposed to the deceptive cadence in measure 59.
The contrasting section (B) reinterprets the opening four-note motive (m. 41) as
an anacrusis figure, which continues to be modified and sequenced throughout the
eight-measure section. Contrast here is not through a new harmonic center, but within
a prolongation of the tonic, F. Constructed as a sentence, using the 2 + 2 + 4 ratio, the
presentation sequences a contrapuntal formula as well: identical intervallic sonorities
at a new pitch level. The continuation function liquidates the motive presented in
measure 49. The resulting stepwise motion in measures 53-56 concludes with a plagal
cadence and overlaps with the reiteration of A.
191
ImZdtmal)
© -— - —
rft i.J -hi i - t T T PN n r -ti-n JmL-J
m p
-r-V - f —v — — T ---------- — ^ f
J r j -' = r r
# —
r >
: - i f --------------
1 T ^ =
y V
f U r =|
\p 11
fc>. - l j: fcf bf---

— !t 4r —
- ty - > --- ------ ---------- - .r - — ' ...
.. — r
i
©
-V -------^
— h f “* :z_ i---------- ------------

%
"
/
\
i1
I ..
-£J» , — --- —
Example 52a
Hindemith, Sonata No. 2 ,1, mm. 41-63
H in d e m ith P IA N O S O N A T A N O . 2
© 1 9 3 6 S c h o tt M u s ik I n te r n a tio n a l
© re n e w e d
A ll R ig h ts R e s e r v e d
U s e d b y p e r m is s io n o f E u ro p e a n A m e ric a n M u s ic D is trib u to r s L L C ,
s o le U S a n d C a n a d ia n a g e n t fo r S c h o tt M u s ik In te rn a tio n a l
192
f— - =
E xam ple 52a, continued

193
A
period-hybrid
antecedent c o n tin u a tio n
© 6?)
- r s ---------- ]'2 * ~ iszz

y t * *
£
[f[] i IV i tV i »S i HIS
♦
__J J
su b A C ltP C
B
sentence
p re s e n ta tio n continuation/cadential
2 + 2 + 4
VIS Vll
A
period-hybrid
antecedent continuation
© ©
— 1— 4 1 4 1
1
- 4 4 S - 1 9 ----- Mm •
m ------- ^
9 ------
------ # ------ ---------------
I 3 «
= " ^ IV I
*
J !
PC DC P(
Exam ple 52b

(bass-line sum m ary an d phrase stru ctu re)
194
Summary
The challenges of twentieth-century compositions typically inspire a focus on
the new compositional and stylistic techniques as well as the new harmonic language
evoked by each individual composer. What is lacking in studies is a focus on the
compositional similarities as a further development of strategic modeling from earlier
periods in music history.
While the ideals of Neoclassicism provide a framework for any composition
that uses past compositions as inspiration, the Classical model’s objectives of balance,
clarity, and focus on a tonal center ultimately predominate over innovative harmonic
techniques in defining the character of works which adopt them. The use of sonata
form along with a tonal center creates a remarkable consistency of phrase-structural
paradigms in neoclassic compositions. As exemplified by the three analyses in the
present chapter, as well as the investigation of Prokofiev’s piano sonatas in Chapter
Three, this broader view of Neoclassicism helps to illuminate a connection between
composers’ idiosyncratic stylistic elements, especially in the realm of harmony, and
common compositional strategies that help to determine phrase structure.
CONCLUSION
Despite the multitude of analytical terms that contemporary music scholars have
at their disposal, a clear explanation of the term Neoclassicism has remained elusive,
due in part to the overabundance of classifications used to identify specific works
associated with this artistic movement. “Prokofiev is widely admired, but he has not
had the clear and profound impact on subsequent composers that, for example,
Schoenberg has had; he has spawned no clear-cut isms (such as impressionism, or
expressionism, or serialism, or primitivism).”135 Prokofiev is not a clearly self-
proclaimed Neoclassicist either, as he does not mention deliberate borrowing (aside
from his “Classical” Symphony) in the construction of his works. The identification of
his structural paradigms is not without value: phrase structure clarifies Prokofiev’s
compositional techniques that operate within classically conceived formal designs, such
as sonata form, and it also provides a framework for the tonal elements underlying his
expanded vocabulary.
While Neoclassicism continues to be a broad, descriptive term, I would suggest
that the formal elements involved in phrase structure analysis are more consistent
within a diverse group of composers, and even within a single composer’s oeuvre. As
seen in Chapter Three of this study, elements of traditional phrase design are found
throughout Prokofiev’s piano sonatas, spanning his entire compositional career. The
135 M intum, The Music o f Sergei Prokofiev, 207.
195
196
end result produces a methodology for looking at other details in the compositional
process. Phrase structure, employing elements of balance and clarity, is the common
thread among works that may be considered neoclassical—even works by different
composers—and it is perhaps the strongest unifying device for a time period in which
individual composers are distinguished largely according to their harmonic innovations.
Underpinning such innovations is a familiar backdrop of repetition schemes and closing
functions.
Formal design can serve as a point of entry into a new musical work, and this is
indeed the case with Prokofiev’s piano sonatas. Repetition at various levels helps to
establish the relationship between musical units, and like earlier tonal composers,
Prokofiev relies on tonic harmony to create strong closure at the end of multi-phrase
groups. His nine piano sonatas are among those compositions that provide an
opportunity to explore certain aspects of twentieth-century compositions from the
perspective of common-practice procedures.
Classically derived phrase structure as a foundation for the organization of
larger forms also plays a role in early twentieth-century music generally, especially for
those composers and works that exhibit elements of Neoclassicism. Caplin describes
various categories for formal analysis, shown in Table 2, relating to the use of such
elements by Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. “Tight-Knit” refers to structures that are
more self-contained while “Loose Organization” refers to structures that have more
flexibility. The column between these two types of structures (< --------- ^ )
identifies characteristics that are common to both.
197
T able 2: O r g a n iz a t io n o f F o r m a l U n it s 136
T ig h t -K n it ✓ — L o o s e O r g a n iz a t io n
1. tonality begin and end in begin and end in modulates

home key subordinate key
2. cadence perfect authentic half cadence;

cadence
lack o f cadential closure
3. harmony dominant to tonic dominant prolongation

resolution;
sequential progressions
tonic prolongation
chromatic alterations
4. grouping structure symmetrical: asymmetrical:

exponents of 2 exponents o f 3 ,5 , etc.
mixtures of unit size
5. junctional efficiency use of repetitions, extensions,

expansions, interpolations;
bi-functionality of formal
functions
6. motivic uniformity diverse motives;
frequently changing
accompaniment patterns
7a. formal conventionality period; non-conventional design

sentence;
hybrid
7b. formal conventionality period hybrid sentence
136This table was created from Caplin’s descriptions on pages 84-85.
198
Each category listed and numbered on the left side of Table 1 was applied to the
analytical discussion of phrase structure in Prokofiev’s piano sonatas in Chapter Three
of the present study, and the results may be summarized as follows:
tonality: Because Prokofiev’s piano sonatas are conceived as tonal compositions, the
identification of Classical formal structures in his works is meaningful. He
takes care to begin and end his movements in the same key; his use of the
contrast between the tonic key and other tonal areas creates large-scale tonal
structures similar to those found in compositions of earlier eras.
cadence: Endings and sectional divisions are identified through cadential elements. In
Caplin’s terms, the perfect authentic cadence (PAC) produces the end result in
tight-knit structures, while cadences that require continuation toward the final
goal create loose organization. The terms conclusive and progressive accurately
describe these relationships. Cadences in Prokofiev’s piano sonatas incorporate
his characteristic harmonic innovation; modified definitions of Classical cadence
types yield a more specific, descriptive vocabulary for Prokofiev’s cadential
procedures.
harmony: While related to tonality, this category incorporates Prokofiev’s technique of
“wrong notes,” especially in identifying certain chromatic alterations.
Prokofiev’s phrases still use diatonic tonal harmony at a local level, while some
phrases progress through other harmonies via sequences or modulation.
grouping structure: Duple constructions are the predominant feature in Prokofiev’s
piano sonatas, as in the works of the Classical period. Prokofiev’s structures
avoid the monotony that the persistent use of duple, symmetrical constructions
can create, however. Grouping is essential to Rothstein’s concept of hypermeter.
Where tonal aspects become blurred in Prokofiev’s music, a hypermetrical
analysis can often be used to determine formal boundaries when other methods
are ineffective (such as in the third movement of Sonata No. 7). Hypermetrical
analysis also yields the various hierarchical relationships found in larger
groupings of music, for example, a sentence that serves as the antecedent phrase
of a periodic structure, which in turn becomes the first part of a small ternary
form.
functional efficiency: Repetitions help to clarify formal designs, despite “formal
efficiency.” Expansions and interpolations relate to overall structure and usually
create odd grouping structures, avoiding some of the symmetrical phrasing.
“Functional” also refers to the types of phrases defined by Caplin.
motivic uniformity: Prokofiev uses very thick textures in his piano sonatas, which makes
for some of the most challenging music in the pianist’s repertoire. He uses these
changes in accompanimental patterns in ways similar to those employed by the
Classical masters. Repetition of motives helps to display elements of clarity.
formal conventionality: Caplin’s designations are useful in assigning a formal function to
individual phrase segments, based on melodic motives, harmonic progress (or
lack of progression), together with Rothstein’s rhythmic concepts. Prokofiev’s
phrase structures fit into the three main categories outlined by Caplin: sentence,
period and small ternary. There are some unique forms found in these works, but
they too can be described with modifications of the same terminology.
As seen in Chapter Four, the methodology used in this study may be extended
to the works of other neoclassic composers who rely on tonal centers and the ideals of
sonata form as a compositional strategy. Surface details easily come to the fore within
a stable phrase structure unit or within repetition schemes. Works by other twentieth-
century composers whose approaches to tonality may be quite disparate can be
profitably studied through a similar approach to phrase structure.
To find application for this theoretical model in all portions of Prokofiev’s
piano sonatas is not the singular goal of this study; noting Prokofiev’s departures from
neoclassic characteristics is just as important. Yet the fact that phrase structure as a
neoclassic element can elucidate so much of Prokofiev’s formal procedures suggests
that this is an effective analytical perspective from which to approach this repertoire.
Also, given the multifarious harmonic procedures and practices associated with “tonal”
music of the early twentieth century, phrase structure proves to be a comparatively
consistent and reliable characteristic of the neoclassical style.
APPENDIX 1
The terms included here are defined only according to their applicability to the
works under investigation in this study; other writers have employed some of the same
terms in different ways in discussions of other repertoire.
after-phrase: “The second of two successive phrases that are not in antecedent-
consequent relation but that nonetheless form a period.” (Rothstein’s definition)
antecedent: the first phrase of a periodic structure or other hybrid phrase grouping; this
phrase typically ends with an open cadence and requires a resolution.
asymmetrical: two phrases or phrase segments that contain different number of
measures, or a phrase containing a non-duple grouping of measures.
cadential function: the final phrase segment of a sentence structure, which reaches a
relative point of repose; cadential points may be closed or open.
closed: a phrase or phrase segment that reaches a destination or a point of repose, at a
local or global hierarchical level; also describes the relative strength of cadences.
consequent: the second or final phrase of a periodic structure or other hybrid phrase
grouping; this phrase typically concludes with a closed cadence.
201
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
continuation & continuation function: the second phrase segment in a sentence structure,
following the presentational segment; it may include liquidation or fragmentation
of a motivic idea, acceleration of surface rhythmic activity, rate of harmonic
change, sequential activity, harmonic digression, and so on; it leads to a cadence
point.
double period. a four-phrase grouping where the first and third segments are similar
melodically, and where full cadential closure occurs only at the end of the fourth
segment.
elision: a point at which a new beginning occurs simultaneously with an ending;
typically requires an omission of a cadential element (see also overlap),
fore-phrase: “The first of two successive phrases that are not in antecedent-consequent
relation but that nonetheless form a period.” (Rothstein’s definition)
global level: the structure of a larger segment of music, similar to outer form.
local level: the structure of a small segment of music, similar to inner form.
open: a phrase or phrase segment that requires continuation, either harmonic or melodic,
until closure is reached; this may be at a local or global hierarchical level, and it
also describes the relative strength in comparing cadence types.
overlap: a point when a new phrase beginning occurs simultaneously with an ending of
the preceding phrase (see also elision),
parallel: phrases containing the same or similar opening motivic (melodic) material;
typically used in the description of periodic structures.
period: a grouping of two or more phrases; typically these phrases are related
melodically (in parallel fashion) or harmonically (dominant to tonic resolution).
presentation: the opening phrase segment of a sentence structure; it presents the motive
and harmonic content. Motives are repeated while the progression typically
establishes tonic harmony
quatrain: a four-part structure where the opening returns to end the formal design.
sentence: a structure that incorporates the ratio 1:1:2; motivic saturation typically occurs
in such a grouping; the motive is presented, repeated, and developed; the sentence
reaches a cadential point of some order (see also presentation, continuation,
cadential).
small ternary: a three-part form where the opening material is restated at the end; it
typically includes a return to the opening tonality after some sort of departure
from harmonic stability.
symmetrical: the same number of measures occurring in different phrase segments or the
relationship between two different phrases or phrase segments that have the same
number of measures.
APPENDIX 2
Index of Examples
Hindemith, Sonata No. 2 ,1, mm. 1-26........................................................................187-189
Hindemith, Sonata No. 2 ,1, mm. 41-63.................................................................... 191-193
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 1, mm. 5-25............................................................................. 113-115
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 1, mm. 11-14.................................................................................... 57
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 1, mm. 26-41...............................................................................84-86
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 1, mm. 90-93,..................................................................................49
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 2 ,1, mm. 1-8.................................................................................... 65
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 2 ,1, mm. 1-31.........................................................................107-108
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 2 ,1, mm. 32-64.......................................................................... 89-91
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 2 ,1, mm. 64-85 .......................................................................104-105
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 2, II, mm. 1-26........................................................................133-135
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 3, mm. 230-232................................................................................53
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 3, mm. 24-27.................................................................................... 59
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 4 ,1, mm. 9-12.................................................................................. 56
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 4 ,1, mm. 112-124.............................................................................62
204
205
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 4, III, mm. 1-17................................................................................ 21
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 4, III, mm. 2-17.......................................................................125-126
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 4, III, mm. 43-65 ........................................................................ 92-93
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 5 , 1, mm. 1-20......................................................................... 110-111
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 5, II, mm. 1-20............................................................................... 149
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 6 ,1, mm. 1-4.................................................................................... 55
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 6 ,1, mm. 1-23......................................................................... 142-144
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 6 ,1, mm. 40-59.......................................................................116-117
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 6 ,1, mm. 81-87................................................................................ 64
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 6, II, mm. 1-20................................................................................147
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 6, III, mm. 45-55........................................................................... 119
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 6, IV, mm. 1-9.............................................................................79-80
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 6, IV, mm. 1-28.......................................................................... 81-83
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 7, II, mm. 1-8................................................................................... 87
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 7, III, mm. 1-19.......................................................................151-152
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 8 ,1, mm. 6-9 .................................................................................... 52
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 8 ,1, mm. 1-9........................................................................... 101-102
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 8 ,1, mm. 1-34.........................................................................137-140
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 8, II, mm. 1-8.......................................................................... 157-158
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 8, III, mm. 1-4........................................... 60
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 8, III, mm. 1-8.................................................................................. 99
206
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 9 , 1, mm. 1-10.............................................................................77-78
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 9, n, mm. 51-67......................................................................154-155
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 9, HI, mm. 1-8.........................................................................127-128
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 9, III, mm. 28-46.....................................................................121-123
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 9, IV, mm. 1-8.................................................................................. 97
Prokofiev, Sonata No. 9, IV, mm. 26-39.....................................................................129-130
Ravel, Sonatine, I, mm. 1-13.......................................................................................163-164
Ravel, Sonatine, I, mm. 13-19.....................................................................................165-166
Ravel, Sonatine, I, mm. 20-26.............................................................................................167
Ravel, Sonatine, I, mm. 79-84............................................................................................ 168
Stravinsky, Sonata in F-sharp Minor, I, mm. 1-22.................................................... 172-174
Stravinsky, Sonata in F-sharp Minor, I, mm. 33-89.................................................. 177-183
BIBLIOGRPAHY
Antokoletz, Elliott. “Hybrid modes and interval sets as formal determinants in piano
sonatas of Albrecht, Scriabin, and Prokofiev.” International Journal of
Musicology, 3 (1994): 309-338.
Antokoletz, Elliott. Twentieth-Century Music. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,

1992.
Ashley, Patricia. “Prokofiev’s Piano Music: Line, Chord, Key.” Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Rochester, 1963.
Austin, William. “Prokofiev.” Music in the 20th Century. London: Dent, 1966,
pp. 451-471.
Austin, William. Music in the 20th Century: From Debussy through Stravinsky. New
York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 1966.
Baker, Nancy Kovaleff. Introductory Essay on Composition: The Mechanical Rules o f

Melody, Sections 3 and 4. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983.
Bass, Richard. “Prokofiev’s Technique of Chromatic Displacement,” Music Analysis

7/2(1988): 197-214.
Beach, David. “Phrase Expansion: Three Analytical Studies.” Music Analysis 14/1
(1995): 27-48.
Berry, Wallace. Form in Music. 2ded. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1966.
Berry, Wallace. Structural Functions in Music. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,

Inc., 1976; reprint, New York: Dover Publications, 1987.
Blombach, Ann. “Phrase and Cadence: A Study of Terminology and Definition,”

Journal o f Music Theory Pedagogy 1/2 (1987): 225-251.
Burge, David. Twentieth-Century Piano Music. New York: Schirmer Books, 1990.
Burkholder, J. Peter. “Musical Time and Continuity as a Reflection of the Historical

Situation of Modem Composers.” The Journal o f Musicology 9/4 (1991):
412-429.
207
208
Caplin, William E. Classical Form: A Theory o f Formal Functions for the

Instrumental Music o f Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1998.
Chapman Nyaho, William Henry. “Cyclicism in the War Sonatas of Sergei Prokofiev.”
D.M.A. diss., University o f Texas, 1990.
Cone, Edward T. “The Uses of Convention: Stravinsky and His Models.” Stravinsky:
A N ew Appraisal o f His Work. Edited by Paul Henry Lang. New York: W.W.
Norton & Company, Inc., 1977.
Cone, Edward T. Musical Form and Musical Performance. New York: W.W. Norton
& Company, Inc., 1968.
Cooper, Martin, ed. New Oxford History o f Music: The Modern Age, 1890-1960.
London: Oxford University Press, 1974.
Darcy, Warren. Review of Classical Form: A Theory o f Formal Functions for the
Instrumental Music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven, by William E. Caplin.
Music Theory Spectrum 22/1 (Spring, 2000): 122-125.
de Zeeuw, Anne Marie. Review of The Music o f Prokofiev, by Neil Mintum. Music
Theory Spectrum 22/2 (Fall, 2000): 271-275.
Fiess, Stephen C.E. The Piano Works o f Serge Prokofiev. Metuchen, NJ: The
Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1994.
Flaskerud-Rathmell, Susan Marie. “The Influence of Scriabin on Prokofiev’s Early

Piano Works: Opus 1 through Opus 29.” D.M.A. diss., Arizona State
University, 1990.
Gauldin, Robert. Harmonic Practice in Tonal Music. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, Inc., 1997.
Green, Douglass M. Form in Tonal Music: An Introduction to Analysis. 2d ed. New

York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979.
Greenhalgh, Michael. “Classicism,” in The Dictionary o f Art, Volume 7. Edited by

Jane Turner. New York: Grove’s Dictionaries Inc., New York, 1996,
pp. 380-387.
209
Gutman, David. Prokofiev. London: Omnibus Press, 1990.
Harriss, Ernst. Johann Mattheson’s “Dervollkommene Capellmeister”: A Revised

Translation with Critical Commentary. Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press,
1981.
Hindemith, Paul. Zweite Sonate fur Klavier. Mainz: B. Schott’s Sohne, 1964.
Honour, Hugh. Neo-classicism. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1968.
Hopkins, Robert G. Closure in Mahler’s Music: The Role o f Secondary Parameters.

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990.
Hyde, Martha M. “Neoclassic and Anachronistic Impulses in Twentieth Century

Music.” Music Theory Spectrum 18/2 (1996): 214-220.
Irwin, David. Neoclassicism. London: Phaidon Press Limited, 1997.
Jaffe, Daniel. Sergey Prokofiev. London: Phaidon Press Limited, 1998.
Kaufman, Rebecca Sue. “Expanded Tonality in the Late Chamber Works of Sergei
Prokofiev.” Ph.D. diss., University of Kansas, 1987.
Kemp, Ian. Paul Hindemith. London, 1970.
Kiel, Claudia Margaret. “The Piano Etudes of Prokofiev and Stravinsky: An

Interpretive Analysis for Performers.” D.M.A. diss., University of Miami,
1989.
Kielian-Gilbert, Marianne. “Stravinsky’s Contrasts: Contradiction and Discontinuity

in his Neoclassic Music.” The Journal o f Musicology 91A (1991): 448-480.
Kinsey, David Leslie. “The Piano Sonatas of Serge Prokofiev: A Critical Study of the
Elements of their Style.” Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1959.
Koch, Heinrich Christoph. Versuch einer Anleitung zur Composition. 3 vols.

Rudolstadt and Leipzig. Facs. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1969.
Kostka, Stefan. Materials and Techniques o f Twentieth-Century Music. 2d ed.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1999.
210
Kostka, Stefan and Dorothy Payne. Tonal Harmony with an Introduction to Twentieth-
Century Music. 4th ed., rev. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2000.
Lang, Paul Henry. Musicology and Performance. Edited by Alfred Mann and George
J. Buelow. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997.
Lehman, Mark L. Review of The Music o f Sergei Prokofiev, by Neil Minutm.

American Record Guide 61/4 (July-August, 1998): 300.
Lester, Joel. Compositional Theory in the Eighteenth Century. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press, 1992.
Levy, Janet. “Beginning-ending Ambiguity: Consequences of Performance Choices.”

The Practice o f Performance: Studies in Musical Interpretation. Edited by
John Rink. Cambridge: University of Cambridge, 1995.
Marks, Brian Robert. “Sources of Stylistic Diversity in the Early Piano Sets of Sergei
Prokofiev.” D.M.A. diss., The University of Texas at Austin, 1994.
Martin, Rebecca Gena. “The Nine Piano Sonatas of Sergei Prokofiev.” D.M.A. diss.,
University of Kentucky, 1982.
Mathes, James Robert. “Texture and Musical Structure: An Analysis of First

Movements of Select Twentieth-Century Piano Sonatas.” Ph.D. diss., The
Florida State University, 1986.
Mattheson, Johann. Der vollkommene Capellmeister. Hamburg. Facs. Kassel:

Barenreiter, 1954.
Merrick, Frank. “Prokofiev’s Piano Sonatas, 1-5.” Musical Times 76 (1945): 1-5.
Messing, Scott. “Polemic as History: the Case of Neoclassicism.” The Journal o f

Musicology 9/4 (1991): 481 -497.
Messing, Scott. Neoclassicism in Music: From the Genesis o f the Concept through the
Schoenberg/Stravinsky Polemic. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Research
Press, 1988.
Mintum, Neil Borden. “An Integral Approach to the Music of Sergei Prokofiev Using
Tonal and Set Theoretic Analytical Techniques.” Ph.D. diss., Yale University,
1988.
211
Mintum, Neil. The Music o f Sergei Prokofiev. New Haven: Yale University Press,
1997.
Moisson-Franckhauser, Suzanne. Sergei Prokofiev et les courants esthetiques de son
temps, 1891-1953. Paris: Publications orientalistes de France, 1974.
Morris, William, ed. The American Heritage Dictionary o f the English Language.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1979.
Morgan, Robert P. Twentieth-Century Music: A History o f Musical Style in Modern

Europe and America. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1991.
Nestyev, Israel V. Prokofiev. Translated by Florence Jonas. Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press, 1960.
Neumeyer, David. The Music o f Paul Hindemith. New Haven: Yale University Press,
1986.
Newman, William S. Sonata Since Beethoven. Chapel Hill: The University of North
Carolina Press, 1969.
Nyaho, William Henry Chapman. “Cyclicism in the War Sonatas of Sergei Prokofiev.”
D.M.A. diss., The University of Texas at Austin, 1990.
Orvis, Joan. “Technical and Stylistic features of the Piano Etudes of Stravinsky,
Bartdk, and Prokofiev.” Mus.D. diss., Indiana University, 1974.
Prokofiev, Sergei. Complete Piano Sonatas. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo “Muzyka,” 1967.

Reprint, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1988.
Prokofiev, Sergei. Prokofiev by Prokofiev: A Composer’s Memoir. Translated by Guy

Daniels. Edited by David H. Appel. Garden City, NY: Doubleday &
Company, Inc., 1979.
Prokofiev, Sergei. Soviet Diary, 1927 and Other Writings. Translated by Oleg
Prokofiev. Edited by Christopher Palmer. Boston: Northeastern University
Press, 1992.
Prokofiev, Sergey et al. “Prokofiev’s correspondence with Stravinsky and

Shostakovich,” Slavonic and Western Music: Essays for Gerald Abraham.
Edited by M.H. Brown & R.J. Wiley. Vol. 12, Russian Music Studies. Ann
Arbor: EMI, 1985.
212
Rameau, Jean-Philippe. Traite de Vharmonie. Translation and notes by Philip Gossett.

New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971.
Ravel, Maurice. Piano Masterworks o f Maurice Ravel. New York: Dover

Publications, Inc., 1986.
Reed, Nola Jane. “The Theories of Joseph Riepel as Expressed in His Anfangsgriinde
zur musicalischen Setzkunst (1752-1768).” Ph.D. diss., University of
Rochester, 1983.
Riepel, Joseph. Anfangsgriinde zur musicalischen SetzJcunst: De rhythmopoeia, oder

von der Tactordnung, Volume 1. Regensburg and Vienna: Emerich Felix
Bader (Ausburg: Johann Jacob Lotter), 1752.
Roberts, Peter Deane. Modernism in Russian Piano Music: Skriabin, Prokofiev, and
Their Russian Contemporaries. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993.
Roseberry, Eric. “Prokofiev’s Piano Sonatas.” Music and Musicians 19 (1971): 38-
47.
Rosen, Charles. Sonata Forms. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1980.
Rosen, Charles. The Romantic Generation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press, 1995.
Rothstein, William. Phrase Rhythm in Tonal Music. New York: Schirmer Books,
1989.
Rykwert, Joseph. The First Moderns: The Architects o f the Eighteenth Century.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1980.
Salzman, Eric. Twentieth-Century Music: An Introduction. 3ded. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1988.
Samson, Jim, ed. The Late Romantic Era: From the mid-19th Century to World War I.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1991.
Samuel, Claude. Prokofiev. Translated by Miriam John. Paris: Editions du Seuil,

1960. Reprint, London: Marion Boyars, 2000.
213
Schmalfeldt, Janet. “Cadential Processes: The Evaded Cadence and the ‘One More
Time’ Technique.” The Journal o f Musicological Research 12 no. 1-2 (1992):
1-52.
Schmalfeldt, Janet. “Coming to Terms: Speaking of Phrase, Cadence and Form.” In

Theory Only 13, no. 1-4 (Sept., 1997): 95-115.
Schoenberg, Arnold. Fundamentals o f Musical Composition. Edited by Gerald Strang

and Leonard Stein. London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1970.
Shattuck, Roger. The Banquet Years: The Origins o f the Avant-Garde in France •
1883 to World War I. Toronto: Random House, 1959. Reprint, New York:
Vintage Books, 1968.
Shead, Richard. Music in the 1920s. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1976.
Sicsic, Henri-Paul. “Structural, Dramatic and Stylistic Relationships in Prokofiev’s

Sonatas No. 7 and No. 8.” D.M.A. diss., Rice University, 1993.
Simms, Bryan. Music o f the 20th Century: Style and Structure. 2d ed. New York:
Schirmer Books, 1996.
Slonimsky, Nicolas. Music Since 1900. 3ded. New York: Coleman-Ross Company,
Inc., 1949.
Straus, Joseph N. “The ‘Anxiety of Influence’ in Twentieth-Century Music.” The

Journal o f Musicology 9/4 (1991): 430-447.
Straus, Joseph. Remaking the Past: Musical Modernism and the Influence o f the Tonal
Tradition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990.
Stravinsky, Igor. An Autobiography. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.,
1962.
Stravinsky, Igor. Piano Sonata in F-sharp Minor (1903-1904). London: Faber Music
Ltd., 1974.
Thibodeau, Michael James. “An Analysis of Selected Piano Works by Sergei

Prokofiev Using the Theories of B.L. Yavorsky.” Ph.D. diss., The Florida
State University, 1993.
214
Ungar, Garnet William. “Prokofiev’s Piano Sonata No. 6, Op. 82: A Motivic Analysis
and Performance Practice Study.” D.M.A. diss., University of Houston, 1996.
Vlahcevic, Sonia Klosek. “Thematic-Tonal Organization in the Late Sonatas of Sergei

Prokofiev.” Ph.D. diss., The Catholic University of America, 1975.
Watkins, Glenn. Soundings: Music in the Twentieth Century. New York: Schirmer
Books, 1988.
Whittall, Arnold. “Neo-classicism,” in The New Grove Dictionary o f Music and

Musicians, 2d ed. Vol. 17. Edited by Stanley Sadie. London: Macmillan
Publishers Limited, 2001, pp. 753-755.
Wilton-Ely, John. “Neo-classicism,” in The Dictionary o f Art, Volume 22. Edited by

Jane Turner. New York: Grove’s Dictionaries Inc., 1996, pp. 734-742
Zimmerman, Daniel. Review of The Music o f Prokofiev, by Neil Mintum. Journal o f

Music Theory 42/1 (1998): 153-164.

Phrase Structure in Prokofiev&#39;s Piano Sonatas

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Phrase Structure in Prokofiev&#39;s Piano Sonatas

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality o f this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

ProQuest Information and Learning

Courtenay Lucille Harter, Ph.D.

University of Connecticut, 2003

Many twentieth-century composers combine traditional approaches to phrase

vocabulary. Therefore, by studying these works it is possible to proceed naturally and

seamlessly from an understanding of common-practice styles and formal techniques to

the exploration of more recent music.

The challenges presented by twentieth-century music include non-traditional

literature. What is lacking in earlier studies of this repertoire, however, is a focus on

compositional commonalities among different works based on strategic modeling of basic

formal units used in earlier periods of music history.

This study reflects on phrase structure as discussed in Classical-period treatises as

descriptions within a discussion of the neoclassic aesthetic. The reconciliation of

Classical phrase structures with Prokofiev’s language produces a methodology for

examining other aspects of Prokofiev’s compositional process. The resultant analytic

Stravinsky, and Paul Hindemith.

Courtenay Lucille Harter

B.F.A., Carnegie Mellon University, 1990

M.Mus., Northwestern University, 1992

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of

All rights reserved.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Courtenay Lucille Harter

Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation

PHRASE STRUCTURE IN PROKOFIEV’S PIANO SONATAS

Courtenay Lucille Harter, B.F.A., M.Mus.

To my family, friends and colleagues: thank you for traveling with me as I

pursed this degree; your faith in me is a continuous inspiration.

To my professors at Carnegie Mellon University, Northwestern University and

encouragement provided me with the much-needed incentive.

Ltd, London: Stravinsky, PIANO SONATA IN F-SHARP MINOR, © 1973.

Excerpts from the following work are reprinted by permission of European

International: Hindemith PIANO SONATA NO. 2, © 1936 Schott Musik International,

© renewed, All Rights Reserved.

from Dover Publications.

CHAPTER ONE: NEOCLASSICISM AND PROKOFIEV................................................ 6

History and Development of Neoclassicism...............................................................9

Prokofiev's Influences and His “Classical Line”...................................................... 14

Phrase Structure as an Element of the Neoclassic Aesthetic.................................. 18

CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL STUDIES OF PHRASE STRUCTURE..................24

Early Theories of Phrase Structure............................................................................26

Comparison of Modem Phrase-Structure Paradigms.............................................. 33

Comparison of Analytic Approaches....................................................................... 39

Adaptation of Theories for Prokofiev's Piano Sonatas............................................44

Prokofiev’s Cadential Formulas................................................................................47

Classical Phrase Structures and Modifications

Small Ternary Structures................................................................................... 131

Unique Formal Structures........................................................................................145

CHAPTER FOUR: PHRASE STRUCTURE IN

Ravel: Sonatine, First Movement.......................................................................... 161

Stravinsky: Sonata in F-sharp Minor, First Movement.......................................169

Hindemith: Sonata No. 2, First Movement........................................................... 184

APPENDIX 1: GLOSSARY OF TERMINOLOGY........................................................201

APPENDIX 2: INDEX OF MUSICAL EXAMPLES..................................................... 204

Table 1: Cadences found in Prokofiev's Piano Sonatas

Table 2: Organization of Formal U nits.........................

Examples are by Prokofiev unless otherwise noted.

Example 1 Sonata No. 4, III, mm. 1-17....................................................................... 21

Example 2 Sonata No. 1, mm. 90 -9 3 ,..........................................................................49

Example 3 Sonata No. 4 ,1, mm. 196-197...................................................................51

Phrase Structure in Prokofiev's Piano Sonatas

Phrase Structure in Prokofiev's Piano Sonatas