# Was the Tristan chord stolen?



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

To a musicologist, it's no mystery that the first "Tristan" chords appeared long before the premiere of Wagner's opera in 1865. Versions of this chord have appeared in works as varied as Beethoven's 18th piano sonata, Mozart's _Requiem_, and even a song by Franz Liszt. What is certain, however, is that Wagner was the first to emphasize the powerful tension of these chords - and as history has shown, this made all the difference.

Of course, the claim that "Tristan" changed the course of Western music hasn't kept certain musicologists from accusing Wagner of plagiarism or even outright thievery. Proponents have brought forth a number of examples, suggesting that Wagner had adapted the chord as a thematic seed for his own opera simply because he liked the way it sounded. Perhaps, the most convincing example comes from a mazurka by Frederick Chopin, his Opus 68 No. 4.

This article by L. Hofmann-Engl makes an interesting case for the plagiarism theory. What do you think? Could the most famous chord progression in history have been "borrowed", so to speak, from another composer's work?


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Does it matter whether it was or not? 
Many pieces of music have been influenced by earlier pieces and quite a number have 'borrowed' to a significant extent from earlier works


----------



## anmhe (Feb 10, 2015)

Could you give me a little more context? How can the use of a single chord be considered plagiarism?

Do not consider this post antagonism; I'm genuinely interested for you to illustrate your assertion.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

anmhe said:


> Could you give me a little more context? How can the use of a single chord be considered plagiarism?
> 
> Do not consider this post antagonism; I'm genuinely interested for you to illustrate your assertion.


I'm not asserting anything at the moment. I do have an opinion, but I'd like to hear other arguments first. I do agree that whether Wagner "stole" or not, his work still remains one of the greatest ever written and the possibility of plagiarism would not in any way detract from my opinion of this music.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange question. Can a chord - any chord, out of the rich trove of Western harmony - be said to be plagiarized?

I don't know that we can determine who was the first composer to use this chord. Wagner certainly was not, and no knowledgeable scholar would ever claim that he was. What he was the first to do was to use it 1.) as the first chord in a piece of music; 2.) as an unprepared dissonance; and 3.) in a specific context of extreme tonal ambivalence and prolonged irresolution.

The fact that the chord itself can be found in earlier works by other composers, but in different harmonic contexts, doesn't imply plagiarism. Nothing in earlier music prefigures the effect of the opening of _Tristan_, although we may in retrospect hear moments of chromatic harmony in Bach or Haydn (recall the _Creation_ overture) which cause us to say "That sounds like _Tristan_." The fact that we're likely to make that observation is itself a testimony to Wagner's originality in featuring that harmony as he did.

I can very well believe that Wagner knew the mazurka of Chopin cited in Hofmann-Engl's article, and that the flavor of the chord and its highly chromatic harmonic surroundings stuck in his mind. That sort of thing happens to all composers. However, _Tristan_ does not sound like Chopin. Really, that makes all the difference. Hofmann-Engl's essay is interesting but gratuitously tendentious. (He also prefers a harmonic analysis of the opening bars of _Tristan_ which I find flat-out wrong. The first section of the prelude is easily understood as being in a-minor/C-major.)

Now perhaps if the second composer to use a major triad got it directly from the first, there would be grounds for a plagiarism suit!


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

There was no patent for the chord therefore no plagarism (sp?) occurred in my opinion.

The Tristan opera uses it to greater effect than previous incarnations.


----------



## Retired (Feb 15, 2015)

Sort of like asking if Ferrari stole the automobile concept from the Model T. I doubt any legal firm would take the case.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I can very well believe that Wagner knew the mazurka of Chopin cited in Hofmann-Engl's article, and that the flavor of the chord and its highly chromatic harmonic surroundings stuck in his mind. That sort of thing happens to all composers. However, _Tristan_ does not sound like Chopin. Really, that makes all the difference. Hofmann-Engl's essay is interesting but gratuitously tendentious. (He also prefers a harmonic analysis of the opening bars of _Tristan_ which I find flat-out wrong. The first section of the prelude is *easily understood as being in a-minor/C-major*.)
> 
> Now perhaps if the second composer to use a major triad got it directly from the first, there would be grounds for a plagiarism suit!


The triad is hardly as unique in the literature as the Tristan chord...

Anyway, in Romantic music, and any kind of tonal music, a key isn't established or implied unless its dominant or tonic is heard (and the dominant is more important than the tonic for establishing tonality). If I'm not mistaken, there aren't any dominants of C in the first few measures of the Tristan prelude; the music needs to be in A minor or A major, but it isn't likely to be in C.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

It's not so much about the chord itself, but what Wagner does with it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> The triad is hardly as unique in the literature as the Tristan chord...
> 
> Anyway, in Romantic music, and any kind of tonal music, a key isn't established or implied unless its dominant or tonic is heard (and the dominant is more important than the tonic for establishing tonality). If I'm not mistaken, there aren't any dominants of C in the first few measures of the Tristan prelude; the music needs to be in A minor or A major, but it isn't likely to be in C.


I won't do a complete analysis here, but I'll say enough to explain why I think the prelude is in a-minor/C-major.

The piece begins without a key signature, which could indicate no key at all, a-minor, or C-major. The opening is constructed as three statements of a pair of motifs (the two motifs joined by the "Tristan chord"), each statement occupying four bars; the third statement is followed by an echo an octave higher, then two echoes of the last two notes of that, before we find ourselves unambiguously in C-major. All the way along, dominants of the a-minor/C-major complex act as signposts.

The first four-bar statement begins by outlining a harmony of a-minor, using the successive unison notes a, f and e, and ends on an E7, the dominant of a-minor. The second four-bar statement ends on a G7, the dominant of C-major. The third ends on a B7, the dominant of the dominant of a-minor. After the echo extensions of this statement, that B7 is resolved by the forte entry of the full orchestra, announcing E7 and then resolving deceptively into an F chord (with an appoggiatura in the melody on b), the subdominant of C. The ensuing melody is clearly in C.

The music remains in C-major territory for a while, but Wagner changes the key signature to three sharps, A-major/f#-minor (parallel to a-minor) for 28 bars in the middle of the piece, then back to a-minor/C-major for the rest. The last dozen or so bars constitute a modulation into c-minor (parallel to C-major), the last six bars hovering on the dominant of c-minor in preparation for the c-minor/E-flat major song of the sailor at curtain-rise.

Wagner's choice of key signatures should be taken as "key" to how he conceived the tonal structure of the work. I've seen a number of analyses of the opening bars, some of which I find far-fetched and denials of the obvious. I think the factor that throws people, the factor which is in fact intended to confuse and tantalize the listener, is the top note of the "Tristan chord," which in context is seen to be an appoggiatura to an augmented sixth which is an altered dominant of the dominant, but can only be heard as such in retrospect. The fact that it can't be heard this way at the moment it sounds leads some analysts to want to call it something else, but no other explanation - including the explanation that there is no explanation! - makes sense to me. I do now easily hear it as what it is, but I can only imagine the hearty laugh Wagner emitted when he realized what a fantastic trick he was getting away with.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I won't do a complete analysis here, but I'll say enough to explain why I think the prelude is in a-minor/C-major.
> 
> The piece begins without a key signature, which could indicate no key at all, a-minor, or C-major. The opening is constructed as three statements of a pair of motifs (the two motifs joined by the "Tristan chord"), each statement occupying four bars; the third statement is followed by an echo an octave higher, then two echoes of the last two notes of that, before we find ourselves unambiguously in C-major. All the way along, dominants of the a-minor/C-major complex act as signposts.
> 
> The first four-bar statement begins by outlining a harmony of a-minor, using the successive unison notes a, f and e, and ends on an E7, the dominant of a-minor. The second four-bar statement ends on a G7, the dominant of C-major. The third ends on a B7, the dominant of the dominant of a-minor. After the echo extensions of this statement, that B7 is resolved by the forte entry of the full orchestra, announcing E7 and then resolving deceptively into an F chord (with an appoggiatura in the melody on b), the subdominant of C. *The ensuing melody is clearly in C. *.


Is it? I always hear it as F major, and it actually has a pretty clear cadence on D minor.









You're right that the middle sequential repetition of the initial phrase ends on the dominant of C, but the middle part of a sequence isn't heard as being particularly important, and I don't hear the Prelude as in C at all, until the very end, when it feels like a modulation, rather than an arrival.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

I agree with Woodduck's C major. Soon after the first tutti, the F# in the bass moves up to a G. It goes up another step to A, then back down to the G, emphasizing the importance of this note as the dominant. It's true that we never actually hear a C chord, but at least there are a few moments where we seem to have settled. Soon after that, we reach E major and stay there for a while.

But in retrospect, an attempt to project the opening measures into a single tonality seems absurd to me. They don't give us any clues as to what will come next. These chords are ambiguous and unpredictable, and I doubt if (correct me if I'm wrong) Wagner ever tried to analyze them himself.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Celloman said:


> *I agree with Woodduck's C major. Soon after the first tutti, the F# in the bass moves up to a G. It goes up another step to A, then back down to the G, emphasizing the importance of this note as the dominant. * It's true that we never actually hear a C chord, but at least there are a few moments where we seem to have settled. Soon after that, we reach E major and stay there for a while.
> 
> But in retrospect, an attempt to project the opening measures into a single tonality seems absurd to me. They don't give us any clues as to what will come next. These chords are ambiguous and unpredictable, and I doubt if (correct me if I'm wrong) Wagner ever tried to analyze them himself.


In addition to this, when the melody is next heard, C-major is quite clear for three bars. Just sayin'!

Analyzing this music as "in" certain keys has to be understood as meaning "within certain key areas." Wagner often works "around" a key while spending very little time actually sounding it in a recognizable way. As long as we realize that, I think we can talk sensibly about what key it's in. I too doubt that Wagner bothered to "analyze" his harmony. However, his scores are full of key signatures, and changes thereof, which seem to imply more than convenience for the players. They provide clues, at least.

Now if you want a real tonal nightmare, try _Parsifal_.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

I hear the second passage as even more strongly indicative of F major than the first, but if you disagree, okay, then, how about the parallel passage as A major is established:









Here, once again we have a #4 as an appoggiatura to the major third of a chord, as F major was reached earlier.


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

Was the C Major chord stolen?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> I hear the second passage as even more strongly indicative of F major than the first, but if you disagree, okay, then, how about the parallel passage as A major is established:
> 
> View attachment 66116
> 
> ...


I neither hear nor see F-major where you do. That F chord at bar 18 I hear as transitional between a-minor and C-major, transitional to the C-major melody that begins in the second half of the same bar. The appoggiatura on the F chord is a b-natural, and so is the second note of the succeeding melody that follows. It's the leading tone of that tune. There is no b-flat anywhere, no dominant of F, leading into or out of the F chord, nor any other F-major activity. The C-major tune is accompanied, successively, by chords of the subdominant, dominant of the dominant, tonic, dominant of the dominant, dominant, and tonic before excursions begin and we hear our first b-flat, which however still doesn't take us to F but immediately modulates to a momentary cadence on an A-major chord.

With regard to that later cadence on an A-major chord at the change of key signature, A-major is not fully established at that point. The very next chord is a dominant of E, which is what it resolves to, and it becomes apparent that we've merely moved into an ambiguous tonal area which takes us through some new thematic material, some very unstable harmony, and an intense sequential buildup to the point where we really do reach the promised key of A. Wagner hammers that in for 8 bars and then changes the key signature back for a fortissimo return of the principal tune in C.

Major indicators (and there are others) that this piece is best understood as being in a/C are: 1.) The main key signature (presuming Wagner had a good reason for choosing it); 2.) The first three notes, which outline a-minor; 3.) The first cadence, which is the V7 of a-minor; 4.) The principal and most extended tune, which is heard complete four times, the first two times in C, the third time in E (during the A-major middle section), and finally back in C; and 5.) The choice of A-major for the key of the middle section. Furthermore, the prelude climaxes on the "Tristan chord," utilizing exactly the same notes it used when it was first heard, and resolving identically to the cadence on the V7 of a-minor. What follows is a coda of sorts, recapping motifs sequentially and constantly modulating until it resolves to the V7 of c-minor in preparation for act 1.

Is everybody out there following this? Quiz tomorrow. :lol:

[Edit: Just had to come back and say that I'm (still, after 50 years) completely awed by this piece of music, seeing once again the cunning tonal scheme that holds together such harmonic freedom. It makes perfect sense and defies us to say why, making us believe even as we argue.]


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

I agree that the main tonality of the prelude is A minor, but I do not see or hear C major as an important subsidiary key at all, nor C as a tonal center until the very end where it modulates into C minor.

The "tonic" chord you mention for C major is in fact a second inversion, which functions as a dominant and cannot be heard as a tonic in functional tonality. As I mentioned, the only dominant-tonic cadence in the entire passage in question on D minor, and I hear this as an interrupted cadence in F major. The bass line in fact does establish the key of F major (E-F), and there are no C major triads that are accented by the phrasing as the F major triad is.

Analyzing it in C major nets the following:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> I agree that the main tonality of the prelude is A minor, but I do not see or hear C major as an important subsidiary key at all, nor C as a tonal center until the very end where it modulates into C minor.
> 
> The "tonic" chord you mention for C major is in fact a second inversion, which functions as a dominant and cannot be heard as a tonic in functional tonality. As I mentioned, the only dominant-tonic cadence in the entire passage in question on D minor, and I hear this as an interrupted cadence in F major. The bass line in fact does establish the key of F major (E-F), and there are no C major triads that are accented by the phrasing as the F major triad is.
> 
> ...


I understand. I guess our major difference here is that for me that F-major triad is just a pivot and a gateway into a principal melody in C. If that is set aside, I agree that C-major is not a significant subsidiary key, in that there are no other passages unambiguously in C. But even less time is spent in F (no time at all, to my ear). I'd be perfectly happy just to say that the piece is in a-minor, but C-major does of course share its key signature and related tonal areas. And I just can't not hear the C-majorness of that tune!

At least this debate makes more sense to me than some of the disagreements over the "Tristan chord" itself.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Tristan chord certainly wasn't stolen as Liszt had used it before Wagner. But no chord is copyright and just about every composer has built on the work of others.


----------

