COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00003 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	. DEVICE XGP    
C00004 00003	.FILL INDENT 6
C00019 ENDMK
C⊗;
. DEVICE XGP    
.spacing 10*5 mills;
.EVERY HEADING(,{PAGE},)
.AREA TEXT LINES 4 TO 40
.FONT 1 "METL"
.font 2 "METLI"
.font 3 "METS"
.font 4 "MUS[HHA,LCS]"
.font 5 "MUZ[HHA,LCS]"
.FONT 6 "BASL35"
.PORTION MAIN;
.PLACE TEXT;
.COMPACT
.PAGE←80
.NEXT PAGE
.<< Put in a footnote. >>
.
.COUNT FOOTNOTE INLINE FROM 1 TO 999 IN PAGE PRINTING ⊂"*****"[1 TO FOOTNOTE]⊃
.<<	(IF THISDEVICE = "XGP" THEN "%51%*" ELSE "[1]");>>
.
.FOOTSEP ← "__________";
.AT "$$" ENTRY "$"
.	⊂
.	NEXT FOOTNOTE;
.	FOOTNOTE!;
.	SEND FOOT
.		⊂
.		BEGIN "NEXT FOOTNOTE"
.		SELECT 1;
.		SINGLE SPACE
.		SPACING 0 MILLS
.		INDENT 0,0,0;
.		(FOOTNOTE! & " ");
ENTRY
.		END "NEXT FOOTNOTE";
.		⊃;
.	⊃;
.
.TURN ON "%↓_↑↓[&]","α"
.FILL INDENT 6
	From the broadest point of view, all the altered notes in 
bars 4-8 and 17-20 may be taken as non-functional elaborations of the
dominant.  (The same is true for bars 21-24, but with a different
tonic.)  In bars 2 and 3 the bass is melodic, so there need be no
question of a %4A%1 chord.
.begin verbatim

Figure 74a
.END
.CENTER
%6⊂⊗⊃L[α%0.0,α%-1.00]:74FA.PLT[HHA,LCS]⊂⊗⊃%1
.SKIP 4
.FILL INDENT 6

	As the variation continues, we are faced with progressions
which do not respond so well to this approach.  The chords of each
dotted half-note seem to acquire much more separate significance.
With this in mind, we might make an alternative (but not necessarily
"better") analysis of the above discussed measures.  Let us consider
that A%4F%1=G%4S%1 in bar 4 and that the G%4N%1 of bars 4, 5, and 7 (and 17, 18,
and 19) is an intermittent pedal point within the d minor chord.  Now
the elaborations are shown as functional under ii (↓_d_↓), concluding
in each case with a C half-cadence.
.BEGIN VERBATIM

Figure 74a
.END
.CENTER
%6⊂⊗⊃L[α%0.0,α%-1.60]:74FB.PLT[HHA,LCS]⊂⊗⊃%1
.SKIP 7
.FILL INDENT 6

	For the sake of simplicity, the first diagram (Figure 74a)
will be used in the complete analysis.