MUSICOLOGICA OLOMUCENSIA 11
Universitas Palackiana Olomucensis 2010 Musicologica Olomucensia
Editor-in-chief: Jan Vičar
Editorial Board: Michael Beckerman – New York University, NY, Mikuláš Bek – Masa- ryk University in Brno, Roman Dykast – Academy of Performing Arts, Prague, Jarmila Gabrielová – Charles University, Prague, Lubomír Chalupka – Komenský University in Bratislava, Dieter Torkewitz – Universität für Musik und darstellende Kunst Wien, Jan Vičar – Palacký University in Olomouc
Executive editors of Volume 11 (June 2010): Věra Šímová and Jan Blüml
The publication of this issue was supported by the Reserach Plan “Plurality of Culture and Democracy” (MSM 6198959211) provided by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports.
The scholarly journal Musicologica Olomucensia has been published twice a year (in June and December) since 2010 and follows up on the Palacký University proceedings Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis – Musicologica Olomucensia (founded in 1993) and Kritické edice hudebních památek [Critical Editions of Musical Documents] (founded in 1996).
The present volume was submitted to print on May 4, 2010. Dieser Band wurde am 4. Mai 2010 in Druck gegeben. Předáno do tisku 4. května 2010. [email protected] www.musicologicaolomucensia.upol.cz
ISSN 1212-1193 Reg. no. MK ČR E 19473 Musicologica Olomucensia 11 – June 2010
CONTENTS
Jan BLÜML: Art Rock: Defi nition of the Term with Regard to the Development of Czech Designating Practice ...... 9
Václav HORÁK: Sonata of Jaroslav Ježek in the Context of the Composer’s Work for the Piano ...... 23
Marek KEPRT: Relations between Chords and Functional Sequences in Compositions from Scriabin’s Middle Creative Period...... 43
Václav KRAMÁŘ: Origin and Beginnings of the Protection of Authors of Works of Art ...... 57
Lenka KŘUPKOVÁ: The Metamorphoses of the Czech Reception of the Opera Julietta by Bohuslav Martinů ...69
Martina STRATILKOVÁ: Irreality of a Work of Music in Phenomenological Aesthetics ...... 79
Věra ŠÍMOVÁ: Film Music in Czech Music Periodicals in the 1960s...... 87
Eva VIČAROVÁ: The Paradox of the Culminating Period of Pavel Křížkovský Work ...... 95
Contributors ...... 103
3
Musicologica Olomucensia 11 – June 2010
INHALT
Jan BLÜML: Art-Rock: Begriff sbestimmung mit Berücksichtigung der Entwicklung der tschechischen Bezeichnungspraxis ...... 9
Václav HORÁK: Sonate von Jaroslav Ježek im Kontext der Klavierwerke des Autors ...... 23
Marek KEPRT: Akkordbeziehungen und Funktionsfolgen in den Kompositionen von Skrjabins mittlerer Schaff ensperiode ...... 43
Václav KRAMÁŘ: Das Entstehen und die Anfänge des Urheberschutzes für die Autoren von Kunstwerken ....57
Lenka KŘUPKOVÁ: Die Metamorphosen der tschechischen Rezeption der Oper Julietta von Bohuslav Martinů ...... 69
Martina STRATILKOVÁ: Die Irrealität eines musikalischen Werkes in der phänomenologischen Ästhetik ...... 79
Věra ŠÍMOVÁ: Die Filmmusik in den tschechischen Musikperiodika in den 60er Jahren des 20. Jahrhunderts ...... 87
Eva VIČAROVÁ: Paradox der Gipfelperiode im Schaff enswerk von Pavel Křížkovský ...... 95
Autoren ...... 103
5
Musicologica Olomucensia 11 – June 2010
OBSAH
Jan BLÜML: Art rock: vymezení pojmu s přihlédnutím k vývoji české označovací praxe ...... 9
Václav HORÁK: Sonáta Jaroslava Ježka v kontextu autorova klavírního díla ...... 23
Marek KEPRT: Vztahy mezi akordy a funkční sledy ve skladbách Skrjabinova středního tvůrčího období ...... 43
Václav KRAMÁŘ: Vznik a počátky právní ochrany autorů uměleckých děl ...... 57
Lenka KŘUPKOVÁ: Proměny české recepce opery Julietta Bohuslava Martinů ...... 69
Martina STRATILKOVÁ: Irealita hudebního díla ve fenomenologické estetice ...... 79
Věra ŠÍMOVÁ: Filmová hudba v českých hudebních periodikách v 60. letech 20. století ...... 87
Eva VIČAROVÁ: Paradox vrcholného období tvorby Pavla Křížkovského ...... 95
Autoři ...... 103
7
Musicologica Olomucensia 11 – June 2010
Art Rock: Defi nition of the Term with Regard to the Development of Czech Designating Practice
Jan Blüml
The problem of designating, defi ning and hierarchization of style-genre categories of modern popular music is fairly complex. The situation is made still more complicated especially by the ambiguity of the terms, due to the variety of interpretation of the terms in various historical periods, as well as the diff erent understanding of the terms within a particular phase of history. Although the immense size of modern popular music makes it impossible to register all semantic modifi cations and all terminological deviations, with the passing of time it is relatively possible to describe at least the major semantic variants, as they became fi xed in the wider social consciousness. In the following text I will approach the term “art rock” from the aspect of the prob- lems outlined above. First I will deal with the domestic and foreign development of the term and then with the issues of related terms, synonymous expressions, and alternative terms. Beside the description of an important style-genre category of rock music I will ex- plain the general problems involved in the designating practice in modern popular music. Many terms designating style-genre areas in modern popular music have been coined. Many of them also became extinct. Some stood the test of time by having their meaning changed signifi cantly, others become stable and no longer undergo a major modifi cation of meaning and change in the collective consciousness so that sooner or later they enter the written history of music. However, not even this may guarantee that later a term will reappear, with an altered meaning or in completely new circumstances. The latter pos- sibility also aff ects the term “art rock”. This term appeared fi rst in music journalism in the fi rst half of the 1970s. The at- tribute “art” in art rock was to imply that it was not the mainstream rock, the songs of which do not go beyond the standard three-minute format and only meet the role of en- tertainment, but that it is a kind of music which tries to be an art in the true sense of the word, an art aesthetically comparable with the music of the masters of classical music.
9 To this goal also corresponded the choice of the means of expression and composition, the instrumental virtuosity, etc. In 1976, in a collective volume of papers, The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock & Roll, the fi rst extensive paper on art rock was published. The author was a music publicist and cultural historian, John Rockwell. He understands by the term art rock a wide variety of manifestations of music, their common feature being inspiration by classical music. He also interprets it as integration of means of expression from other styles of modern popular music, for instance jazz or folk. Art rock, Rockwell says, is a distinct trend of the rock of the 1970s. In the beginning there was the Beatles record Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967). The author’s term art rock covers several lines of development of rock music in the 1970s. He calls one of them “eclectic art rock”. Into this category he puts the music of British groups Genesis, King Crimson, Electric Light Orchestra, Queen, Supertramp, Sparks, 10cc, Gentle Giant and Be-Bop Deluxe; the Dutch group Focus, and the American groups Kansas, Styx a Boston. The main representative of the “eclectic art rock”, the author believes, is the work of the British group Roxy Music between 1971 and 1973. The shared means of expression in the music of these groups are, according to Rockwell, the structural and semantic changes within each composition; in particular the change in tempo, degree of loudness, style, general mood, etc. Another area of art rock of the 1970s is seen by Rockwell in the rock avant-garde, which starts for instance with the record Two Virgins by John Lennon and Yoko Ono (1969). He calls Brian Eno and Robert Fripp the major representatives of London rock avant-garde. From New York he mentions John Cale, La Monte Young, Terry Riley and a few more. Another form of art rock is found by Rockwell in the music of the groups which in the seventies developed the acid rock of the psychedelic era covering the second half of the sixties. Here the author writes about music of the group Pink Floyd, especially about their record of 1973, The Dark Side of the Moon. Next he discusses the projects of the group of Frank Zappa, Mothers of Invention. The last area of art rock, discussed by Rockwell in his paper, is the post-psychedelic rock of the West German groups Kraftwerk or Tangerine Dream, which partly developed the music of Karlheinz Stockhausen, György Ligeti, Iannis Xenakis, and other avant-garde composers of postwar art music in Europe.1 The term art rock soon found its way into major encyclopedic publications. One of the fi rst references is found in the third, updated edition of Lillian Roxon’s Rock Encyclopedia (1977). Although it contains several entries on lesser style-genre types, such as the baroque rock, or the later spheres of rock, for instance the new wave, there is no separate entry Art Rock. Maybe the incriminated term was not given an entry because of its semantic ambiguity in those days. A note on art rock is found in the entry King Crimson. Its author points out the beginning of the group – “the art-rock period of 1967–1972”.2
1 John Rockwell, “Art Rock“, in: Jim Miller (ed.), The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock & Roll (New York, 1976), p. 347–352. 2 “King Crimson”, in: Ed Naha and Lillian Roxon (eds.), Lillian Roxon’s Rock Encyclopedia (New York, 1978), col. 291.
10 In Czechoslovakia, the term art rock was used for the fi rst time in 1979 in an article by Jiří Černý, on the music group Yes, headlined Má art-rock budoucnost? Yes [Is There a Future for Art-Rock? Yes]. The way this term was at that time understood is shown by a quotation from that article: “The fact that Sgt. Pepper, the 8th album of the Beatles from 1967, is thought to be the fi rst great model and stimulus for the boldest experiments in pop music, is not always fl attering only. Art-rock, classical rock, orchestral rock – all these are found in encyclopedias, whose authors believe that they guard the true, that is the rebelling face of rock music, expressions implying superiority, pomposity, excessive complications, keeping an eye on being acknowledged by snobs, artifi ciality, non-originality, etc.”3 The negative connotations associated with the term art rock were by no means a Czech privilege only. Music snobbery and artifi ciality hiding under the name art rock was com- mented upon in 1983 by the American author Charles Brown. In his book The Art of Rock and Roll the term art rock was loosely defi ned as rock music with generally higher artistic ambition than the mainstream rock and which in some ways processed classical music from Europe as well as from outside Europe, such as India. In this connection Brown mentions the music of groups Moody Blues, Procol Harum, Kinks, Who, Nice, Emerson, Lake and Palmer, Genesis, King Crimson, Yes, Renaissance and Roxy Music.4 In the fi rst edition of the general encyclopedia of music, The New Grove of Music and Musicians (1980), the entry Art Rock is missing; absent is even a separate treatment of rock as such. The history of rock music is found in a wider entry, Popular Music, where in the description of the development of rock in the seventies is a brief mention of art rock. The author of the entry, Charles Hamm, writes that the groups King Crimson and Tangerine Dream were later representatives of the style which was called art rock.5 A longer text on art rock is found in the book Rock of Ages (1986), by Ken Tucker. He regards art rock, together with hard rock and heavy metal, as a musical opposition to the more chamberlike rock stream of the seventies, called singer-songwriters. He claims that the main features of art rock are higher aesthetic demands and the eff ort to be accepted by the circles of art music. He believes that an important prerequisite of the origin of art rock was the arrival of a generation of musicians educated in classical music, who were familiar with the repertoire of art music and who, like many others, were charmed by the music of the Beatles. As representatives of the art rock style, Tucker enumerates the music groups Emerson, Lake and Palmer, Jethro Tull, Yes, Rush, Uriah Heep and Genesis. A special position in art rock is taken, he believes, by Pink Floyd, whose music was not based on
3 Jiří Černý, “Má art-rock budoucnost? Yes” [Has Art-Rock the Future? Yes], Melodie [Melody], 17 (1979), No. 5, p. 148–149. 4 Charles T. Brown, The Art of Rock and Roll (Englewood Cliff s, N. J., 1983), p. 179–192. 5 Charles Hamm, “Popular Music”, in: Stanley Sadie (ed.), The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, vol. 15 (London, 1980), col. 120.
11 instrumental virtuosity. In connection with art rock, Tucker mentions another group, Led Zeppelin, which combined art rock elements with hard rock and heavy metal.6 In 1986 was also published a revised edition of an older encyclopedia, The Harvard Dictionary of Music, under the title The New Harvard Dictionary of Music, which for the fi rst time contained entries on modern popular music. There is a short entry, Art Rock. Its author, Patrick T. Will, defi ned art rock as a style of rock music, which is distinguished by extensive musical forms and more complex harmonies, untypical for the majority of modern popular music. Will also writes that some art rock groups work with the original material of classical music – as an example he gives the adaptation of the composition by Modest Petrovich Mussorgsky, Pictures from an Exhibition, by the group Emerson, Lake and Palmer –, while other groups used more general composition procedures and principles of classical music. In this connection he mentions the application of the sonata form in the composition Close to the Edge by the group Yes.7 During the seventies, in Czechoslovakia the term art rock was not current enough yet to be given a separate entry in the subject section of the Encyklopedie jazzu a moderní populární hudby [The Encyclopedia of Jazz and Modern Popular Music], fi rst published in 1980 and in updated form in 1983.8 There is no reference to the style-genre type in the wider entry Rock either, whose author was Lubomír Dorůžka. In the nominal sec- tion of the encyclopedia published in 1986 a 1987 and which describes the world scene, the term art rock occurs already in four entries: Avtograf, Genesis, King Crimson and Yes. Vladimír Fejertag, the author of the entry Avtograf, regards art rock as a category equivalent to hard rock style, when he writes: “On the repertoire of the group, art rock and hard rock prevail […]”. Jiří Černý in his article on the group Genesis says: “Like the groups Emerson, Lake and Palmer, King Crimson, Pink Floyd and Yes, Genesis is one of the British groups which grew from the R & R roots to a music now called art rock […]”. Petr Dorůžka when discussing the group King Crimson confi rms the existence of the art rock wave: “[…] developing the European tradition, the group (King Crimson) was the precursor of the art-rock wave (v. Yes, Genesis).” Petr Poledňák, the author of the entry on the group Yes, thinks likewise: “The group Yes was one of the most progressive
6 Ed Ward, Geoff rey Stokes and Ken Tucker, Rock of Ages: The Rolling Stone History of Rock and Roll (New York, 1986), p. 480–486. 7 Patrick T. Will, “Art Rock”, in: Don Michael Randel (ed.), The New Harvard Dictionary of Music (Cambridge, 1986), col. 56. 8 The manuscript of the fi rst volume of the encyclopedia, published in 1980, was fi nished and handed over to the Supraphon publishing house already in the early autumn of 1975. Since the term art rock began to appear in Czech magazines and books only in the second half of the seventies, it is naturally missing in volume I. The text of the revised and enlarged edition of the subject section of the encyclopedia was fi nished prior to 1982 and published in 1983. The absence of the term art rock from the new entries is due to the fact that in those days it was little known in this country, or was found ambiguous. It should also be noted that the extent of the Appendix to the second edition of volume I of the encyclopedia was limited. The authors say in the preface “it had to be confi ned to the barest necessary data and assessments”.
12 achievements of the British art rock […]”.9 In the Czechoslovakia section in the 1990 encyclopedia, the term art rock appears more often. Reference to it is found in the entries Abraxas, Barel-rock, Extempore, Index Y, Modrý Efekt, Michal Pavlíček, Pražský Výběr, Michal Prokop, Synkopy and Oldřich Veselý. The fi rst Czech attempt at a defi nition of the term art rock is found in the encyclope- dic dictionary by Josef Vlček, Rockové směry a styly [Rock Streams and Styles] (1988). The term art rock is explained thus: “Art rock. One of the most ambiguous terms in rock music. By it, it is understood: 1. All streams of rock music with the ambitious goal of cre- ating primarily a work of art and the from it ensuing tendency to put artistic value above commercial value. 2. The stream of multimedial rock, ‘synthetic art’ (e.g. videopop, stage rock, various combinations with ballet, fusion with theatre, etc.). The two meanings are often interconnected. In each period, however, something else is meant by this term. As art rock was called glitter, the music of groups like Yes and Genesis, punk, etc.”10 In his previous large encyclopedia of 1982–1984, the three-volume Rock: 2000, Vlček did not use the term art rock. Many music groups which now would be ranked with art rock, he calls pomp rock. In 1990 was published the fi rst edition of the university textbook Rock Music Styles. The American author Katherine Charlton discusses even lesser streams and styles in the history of rock. One chapter deals with the style-genre type of art rock. Charlton believes that this mainly British phenomenon, art rock, was an outcome of the increased interest in thematic and conceptual albums in the late sixties as well as the result of launching a new radio format, FM, which in those days concentrated on broadcasting longer rock compositions. By art rock the author understands three interlocked types of rock music. The fi rst, simplest form was the rock which used music instruments of a symphonic or- chestra. The outcome of this stream was the work of producers Phil Spector and George Martin in the sixties. In connection with this type of art rock, Charlton mentions the group Moody Blues, one of the fi rst to cooperate with a symphonic orchestra and fairly often using a musical instrument called mellotron. Here the author reminds the readers of the groups Genesis, Procol Harum, Jethro Tull and Electric Light Orchestra. The se- cond category of art rock was the groups, whose members were musicians with classical training, whose compositions in length and complexity approached larger forms of clas- sical music. They included the groups Yes and King Crimson. In this second art rock category were also the groups which developed existing compositions of classical music, such Emerson, Lake and Palmer. The third type of art rock in Charlton’s classifi cation is represented by groups inspired by some streams of art music of the 20th century, in
9 “Avtograf”, “Genesis”,“King Crimson”, in: Antonín Matzner, Ivan Poledňák and Igor Wasserberger (eds.), Encyklopedie jazzu a moderní populární hudby: Část jmenná – světová scéna, A–K [The Encyclo- pedia of Jazz and Modern Popular Music: Nominal Part – World Stage, A–K] (Prague, 1986); “Yes”, in: Antonín Matzner, Ivan Poledňák and Igor Wasserberger (eds.), Encyklopedie jazzu a moderní populární hudby: část jmenná – světová scéna, L–Ž [The Encyclopedia of Jazz and Modern Popular Music: Nominal Part – World Stage, L–Ž] (Prague, 1987). 10 Josef Vlček, Rockové směry a styly (Prague, 1988), p. 10.
13 particular electro-acoustic music and minimalism, such as Pink Floyd; then the compo- sitions by Frank Zappa and his group Mothers of Invention, Laurie Anderson and the West German group Kraftwerk.11 In 1993, art rock was loosely defi ned by the musicologist Allan F. Moore as an artis- tically ambitious area of rock music of the seventies, in the composition of which had a share, musicians with a classical education, such as Rick Wakeman or Kerry Minnear.12 The second edition of the encyclopedia The New Grove of Music and Musicians (2002) already has a separate entry Art Rock. Its author Robert Walser gives three options for the interpretation of the term: 1. Art rock is a style inspired by European classical music, which goes beyond the expression of traditional rock by exceptional instrumental ability or fuses with other styles. This is found in the records Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band of the group Beatles and Days of Future Passed from the group Moody Blues in 1967. The main representatives, however, are the British groups Nice, Emerson, Lake and Palmer, Deep Purple, Yes, Procol Harum, Pink Floyd, Genesis, King Crimson, Jethro Tull and their work in the seventies. From American groups the author mentions Styx, Kansas and Boston. 2. In a wider sense of the word, art rock also means the music of groups and soloists, such as Roxy Music, Brian Eno, Frank Zappa, David Bowie, Velvet Underground, Steely Dan, Rush, and Laurie Anderson. Walser reminds the readers that the common denominator of the work of the two categories of rock groups and musicians is the integration of elements of art music. The distinguishing criterion is primarily the approach to one’s own work; whether it is “serious art” of the groups such as Yes, or the irony and self-irony of musicians such as Frank Zappa. 3. The term art rock can also designate some streams of the heavy metal of the eighties, which to some degree were also infl uenced by classical music.13 In recent years in both Czech and foreign popular literature the term art rock has become increasingly popular in connection with the later and not yet quite profi led style- genre streams of rock music, which belong to indie rock. It is a fairly wide spectrum of various kinds of music inspired by glam rock, new wave, punk, post-punk, and many ot her rock streams.14 From what was said above it follows that the term art rock from the fi rst half of the seventies, when it for the fi rst time appeared in Anglo-American music literature, was used to designate several specifi c areas of rock music. An analysis of the accessible recent literature reveals that now this term in the USA and in Britain most often means: 1. Type of music represented by the recordings of the groups Yes and Genesis especially from the
11 Katherine Charlton, Rock Music Styles: A History (Boston, 1990), p. 217–229. 12 Allan F. Moore, Rock: The Primary Text: Developing a Musicology of Rock (Buckingham, 1993), p. 90–98. 13 Robert Walser, “Art Rock”, in: Stanley Sadie and John Tyrell (eds.), The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, vol. 1 (New York, 2002), col. 93. 14 See for instance “Art Rock”, in: Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia [online], available at www:
14 fi rst half of the seventies; 2. The style-genre type of rock of the seventies, generally known glam rock or glitter rock, with the group Roxy Music and the singer David Bowie as its main representatives. In Czechoslovakia the term art rock mostly occurs in the fi rst sense. In general it holds that in contemporary communication about music the term art rock can function on several interconnected levels of meaning. It can mean: 1. The general creative and aesthetic principle. In this sense art rock may be include: a) the rock which by its own or by borrowed means achieves a higher aesthetic and artistic levels; b) the rock which makes use of specifi c means of expression found in other areas of art, for instance in classical music, fi ne arts, literature, etc.; c) the rock based on instrumental virtuosity and a complex composition and structure. 2. Specifi c style-genre area of rock music. In this sense the term art rock functions mini- mally on two hierarchical levels: a) art rock as a superior category, which includes the relatively wide spectrum of the rock of various historical periods and which to some degree can be understood as an opposition to the rock mainstream; b) art rock is the specifi c style-genre type of the rock of the seventies, represented for example by the groups Yes or Genesis. Communication on art rock as a specifi c style-genre type of rock music is now com- plicated in particular by the fact that in both above meanings it is confused with the term progressive rock, in short prog rock or in the Czech equivalent, progresivní rock [progressive rock]. So it is a term which entered the terminology of popular music in the second half of the sixties. In those days, the English underground radio stations thus called the new streams of psychedelic music, diff erent from the rock mainstream, and thought by listeners as being fairly experimental. At the end of the sixties, the music pub- licist Petr Dorůžka wrote this about the term progressive rock: “it could mean anything: in no case, however, was it a style of music, only a creative approach […]”.15 After 1970 the term was defi ned more closely and became stable. At the time progressive rock was a wider style-genre area, characterized by the crossing of the boundaries of mainstream rock by integrating elements of classical music, modern jazz, and other musical as well as non-musical streams of art. Now the terms art rock and progressive rock are often found synonymous. According to the tradition of this or that communication network they jointly designate a fairly wi- de area of an artistically ambitious rock or, reversely, tend to designate a particular the style-genre type of the seventies. On the conception of art rock and progressive rock as synonyms are based or admit it for example Princeton University’s Wordnet Dictionary, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Guide to the Progressive Rock Genres, Progbibliography.de, The New Harvard Dictionary of Music, and the authors Edward Macan, John Covach, Nors S. Josephson and Bill Martin.16 15 Petr Dorůžka, “Po stopách progresivního rocku” [Following the Footsteps of Progressive Rock], in: Petr Dorůžka (ed.), Hudba na pomezí [Music on the Border] (Prague, 1991), p. 17. 16 “Art Rock”, in: Princeton University’s Wordnet dictionary [online], available at www: 15 The terms art rock and progressive rock are often also interpreted as hierarchically diff erentiated categories. Some authors claim that art rock is a relatively wider, historically not yet closed circle of artistically ambitious rock, part of which is the style-genre type of the seventies, the progressive rock, represented by the groups Yes or Genesis. Other sources give the reverse – progressive rock is a superior category, which in addition to other style-genre types includes art rock. The fi rst option in the interpretation of the term art rock is off ered for example by Brian Robinson in Somebody Is Digging My Bones. The author says that progressive rock is part of a wider category, art rock. As typical examples of art rock outside the category of progressive rock he gives the music of the groups or soloists Captain Beefheart, David Bowie, Brian Eno, Kraftwerk, Mike Oldfi eld, Talking Heads, Tangerine Dream, Vangelis and Frank Zappa.17 The authors of the encyclopedia The New Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll also take art rock as a wider term, which includes both progressive rock and glam rock.18 The same approach is found in the dissertation by Bernward Halbscheff el and a similar interpretation occurs in the entries Art Rock in electronic databases of The Oxford Companion to Music and Grove Music Online.19 The second variety of interpretation of art rock is defended by the musicologist Allan F. Moore. In his book Rock: The Primary Text he says that the category progressive rock is comprised of a number of music styles or substyles, for instance art rock, hard rock and folk rock.20 Katherine Charlton believes that progressive rock is a wider term because besides art rock it includes the style-genre type jazz rock.21 The same interpretation is backed by the generally recognized internet server Prog Archives.com. The term progressive rock there covers a much varied style-genre spectrum of rock: art rock, canterbury scene, crossover prog, eclectic prog, experimental/post metal, heavy prog, indo prog/raga rock, net/genre2.html>; Progbibliography.de [online], available at www: 16 Italian symphonic prog, jazz rock/fusion, kraut rock, neo progressive, post rock/math rock, prog folk, progressive electronic, progressive metal, psychedelic/space rock, RIO/ avant rock, symphonic prog, tech/extreme prog metal, zeuhl, prog related, proto prog.22 In some literature, the two terms, art rock – progressive rock, taken as synonymous, and art rock – progressive rock, seen as hierarchically diff erent categories, are combined in various ways. In the music database All Music, art rock/experimental is a superior category which subsumes the style-genre types prog rock/art rock, kraut rock, noise rock, neo prog, canterbury scene and avant prog.23 In Anglo-American literature a discussion has been going on for a great many years, on various levels, about the relation between the terms art rock and progressive rock and as to which name is more suitable for such style-genre type of the seventies as the music of the groups Yes and Genesis. The surviving problems in terminology are partly due to the diff erences in European and American terminologies in the seventies. In the USA, British art rock groups such as Yes or Genesis were sometimes called progressive rock, whereas by art rock was under- stood the music represented e.g. by the singer David Bowie and the group Roxy Music. This diff erence, however, can by no means be generalized because even in that period diff erent views are found among authors of the same provenance. The American encyclopedia The New Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll (1983) has no entry Art Rock, only the entry Progressive Rock. The term is defi ned as a style of rock music of the seventies in which the principal attributes were the integration of elements of European classical music and instrumental virtuosity. The authors name as principal representatives of progressive rock the British groups Nice, King Crimson, Gentle Giant, Yes, Genesis, Emerson, Lake and Palmer, Van Der Graaf Generator, the Dutch group Focus, and the American group Kansas. The authors admit that this style is often called art rock. They regard this fact as a problem because in their view art rock is often associated with a diff erent rock style, represented for instance by the group Roxy Music, and which otherwise is called glam/glitter rock. They believe that using the term art rock as a synonym to progressive rock can lead to misunderstanding.24 The American authors Ed Ward, Geoff rey Stokes and Ken Tucker take an opposite view. In the book Rock of Ages (1986) they call the concrete style-genre type of the rock of the seventies, represented by groups Emerson, Lake and Palmer, Jethro Tull, Yes and Genesis as art rock. The term progressive rock is referred to as a possible terminological alternative but in the book it is not used.25 22 Progarchives.com [online], [quoted on 3 Sept. 2007], available at www: 17 Another American author, Charles Brown, in his book The Art of Rock and Roll (1983) points out the diff erences between the terms art rock and progressive rock. Both terms, he says, mean almost identical styles, both based on a fusion of rock and European or non-European classical music that too place in the seventies. Brown believes that the dif- ference consists in the fact that progressive rock does not quote from art music.26 Some contemporary authors, for instance the American musicologists John Covach, Edward Macan or the British writer Paul Stump, start from the defi nitions in the generally ac- cepted encyclopedia, The New Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll, and tend to call the particular style-genre type of rock music of the seventies progressive rock. And yet they admit the use of the synonymous term art rock, or the terms classical rock and symphonic rock.27 On the other hand, the American musicologist Katherine Charlton fi nds the term art rock as a suitable name for the style-genre type, and so does her British colleague Allan F. Moore.28 The majority of major Anglo-American encyclopedias of music focus- ing on modern popular music, e.g. the British encyclopedia The Penguin Encyclopedia of Popular Music, The Encyclopedia of Popular Music and the American Lillian Roxon’s Rock Encyclopedia and The Encyclopedia of Pop, Rock and Soul, use both terms at random, with no clear diff erentiation between them; the same approach is found in the major German encyclopedia, Rock-Lexikon.29 From what was said above it follows that the issue of a uniform terminology for the style-genre type of the seventies is a major problem, not only in the Anglo-American sphe- re. In Czech literature a similar problem is encountered; the situation there is, however, less ambiguous. Josef Vlček in the encyclopedia Rockové směry a styly writes about the term progressive rock: “One of the most misleading terms in rock music. Used from the second half of the sixties for more ambitious streams in rock music, in the early seventies it referred to the arriving art rock. The name, however, made the listeners disoriented because it raised this style to a rock avant-garde. For this reason this name in the middle of the eighties began to recede from the press even though to this day the American pro- fessional literature makes use of the term progressive rock for the fi rst phase of art rock, which was in contrast to the fashionable glitter and hard-rock.”30 The issue of the relation between art rock and progressive rock was also studied by Petr Dorůžka. In the volume 26 Charles Brown, The Art of Rock and Roll (Englewood Cliff s, N. J., 1983), p. 180. 27 See for instance Edward Macan, Rocking the Classics: English Progressive Rock and the Counterculture (New York, 1997), p. 27; John Covach, “Progressive rock, Close to the Edge, and the Boundaries of Syle”, in: John Covach and Graeme M. Boone (eds.), Understanding Rock: Essays in Musical Analysis (New York, 1997), p. 3. 28 See for instance Katherine Charlton, Rock Music Styles: A History (Boston, 2003), p. 217; Allan F. Moore, Rock: The Primary Text: Developing a Musicology of Rock (Buckingham, 1993), p. 69. 29 Donald Clarke (ed.), The Penguin Encyclopedia of Popular Music (London, 1998); Colin Larkin (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Popular Music (Oxford, 2006); Ed Naha and Lillian Roxon (eds.), Lillian Roxon’s Rock Encyclopedia (New York, 1978); Irwin Stambler (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Pop, Rock and Soul (New York, 1989); Siegfried Schmidt-Joos (ed.), Rock-Lexikon 1/2 (Reinbek bei Hamburg, 2008). 30 Josef Vlček, Rockové směry a styly (Prague, 1988), p. 46. 18 Po stopách progresivního rocku he writes that the term progressive rock originated in the sixties when it meant a creative approach and not a style of music. By creative approach he means primarily the experimenting in rock, as it in those days turned toward the use of elements of classical music and from which in the seventies the music style art rock developed. By this term Dorůžka understands the music of groups Yes, Genesis and a few more.31 Some Czech defi nitions register other criteria when distinguishing between art rock and progressive rock. A brief and somewhat vague defi nition of the two terms is found in the general encyclopedia Universum in the entry Art Rock. The style was de- fi ned there thus: “[art rock] from the beginning of the seventies a stream of rock music, which aimed at expanding the boundaries of the genre. Inspiration by the great forms of European classical music of the 19th century […]. Distinguished by musical compositions with large instrumental passages and dramatic changes of tempo and rhythm.” Next he writes: “Sometimes also the term progressive rock is used, though a far greater inspiration by modern art than by classical music is found in it.”32 While Anglo-American authors are relatively undecided about which term is more suitable for a particular style-genre type of the seventies, the situation in our country, as it was pointed above, is less ambiguous. Czech literature in most cases preferred the term art rock. The interpretation of the term art rock as a cover term for artistically ambitious style-genre types of the rock, such as jazz rock, kraut rock, avant rock, glam rock, etc., is not common here. There is much evidence for the fact that Czech literature on music associates art rock especially with the music of the groups Yes and Genesis and not with the jazz rock of the Mahavishnu Orchestra, glam rock of David Bowie or the kraut rock of the group Tangerine Dream, etc. For instance the music publicists Ondřej Konrád and Vojtěch Lindaur in their article Umělecký (art)rock [Artistic (Art) Rock] write of the mu- sic “compartment” art rock “as it was defi ned in the world by Yes, Pink Floyd, Genesis, King Crimson but also by Frank Zappa.”33 In the university textbook Úvod do problematiky hudby jazzového okruhu [Introduction to the Issues of Music in the Sphere of Jazz] the musicologist Ivan Poledňák writes: “Peak representatives of this stream [art rock] were the groups King Crimson, Genesis, Pink Floyd, Yes.”34 Art rock as a name for a particu- lar style-genre type of the seventies is confi rmed by the musicians themselves who had a share in this kind of work. Oldřich Veselý, a member of the Blue Eff ect group, which is held to be the principal representative of the Czech art rock in the second half of the seventies and which music in this day most approaches the British group Yes, said: “at 31 Petr Dorůžka, “Po stopách progresivního rocku”, in: Petr Dorůžka (ed.), Hudba na pomezí (Prague, 1991), p. 17–28. 32 “Art Rock”, in: Josef Čermák (ed.), Universum: všeobecná encyklopedie, část 1/A–F [Universum: General Encyclopedia, Volume 1/A–F] (Prague, 2002), p. 65. 33 Ondřej Konrád and Vojtěch Lindaur, Život v tahu aneb třicet rocků rocku [Life in Tension or Thirty Years of Rock] (Prague,1990), p. 103. 34 Ivan Poledňák, Úvod do problematiky hudby jazzového okruhu [The Introduction into the Issues of Music of the Jazz Field] (Olomouc, 2000), p. 58. 19 that time this music was unambiguously called art rock”.35 The musicologist Petr Dvorník in his diploma thesis (1981) mentions in connection with Czech art rock the work of the group Blue Eff ect and the groups of the same style, Synkopy and Progres 2.36 If today a Czech listener of rock music was asked what he understands by art rock, most prob- ably the answer would be the music of the group Yes in the seventies. In Czech music literature, the term progressive rock is by far not so frequent as the term art rock, which is so much fi xed here that the authors mention it in general musicological publications such as Slovník české hudební kultury [Encyclopedia of Czech Music Culture] and it is found even in textbooks of music education. References to progressive rock, prog rock or progresivní rock [progressive rock] are found there seldom. If in our country in con- nection with art rock the term progressive rock appears, it would mostly be in a wider, historically unbounded sense, and not in a too specifi c area of music. Although for Czechs the term art rock is primarily linked with the type of rock music of the seventies, represented by groups Yes or Genesis, there are other terms in circula- tion as well. In particular the young generation of rock audiences uses the term art rock for the relatively varied area of indie rock. To a wider understanding of the category art rock is also oriented for instance the server Art rock.cz, which concentrates on a wide spectrum of style-genre types of rock music. In addition to the term progressive rock, art rock may by called by other terms as well. Some of them in a particular phase of the development of rock designated or still designate some partial areas of art rock, these categories may to some degree be taken for the style-genre subtypes of art rock. On the other hand others in some particular ca- ses function as synonymous or alternative terms for art rock. These categories include for example classical rock, baroque rock, symphonic rock, orchestral rock, smart rock, rockaphonic, electronic rock, studio rock, techno rock, fl ash rock, techno-fl ash, pomp rock, literary rock, science fi ction rock, india rock and several more. As this study suggests, rock music is a very wide, richly stratifi ed and from the aspect of the style-genre hierarchy a rather complicated area. The wide spectrum of its layers goes from the most general category rock, through the terms of middle generality such as rock and roll, hard rock, jazz rock and heavy metal, to the terms with a relatively narrow defi nition, for instance west coast rock, southern rock, canterbury scene, Detroid sound, pub rock, raga rock, etc. These terms arise spontaneously during the long development of the music type and are often ambiguous. Their defi ning and hierarchization, which are prerequisites to an objective description of modern popular music in the written history of music, are thus a fairly diffi cult task. As I said in the introduction, due to the vast extent of modern popular music, all se- mantic modifi cations and deviations of particular terms cannot be established but with a due distance of time lag, at least their basic semantic variants can be defi ned as they 35 Czech Television Series Bigbít, part 24. 36 Petr Dvorník, Nové prvky v naší nonartifi ciální hudbě [New Elements in Our Popular Music] (Brno, Faculty of Philosophy of the University of J. E. Purkyně in Brno, Theses, 1981), p. 74–127. 20 became fi xed in the wide social consciousness. And that was the objective of this study focused on the term art rock. Translated by Jaroslav Peprník Art-Rock: Begriff sbestimmung mit Berücksichtigung der Entwicklung der tschechischen Bezeichnungspraxis Zusammenfassung Mit Hilfe einer Analyse der relevanten Literatur und weiterer Informationsquellen wird in dem Text die Entwicklung des Begriff s Art-Rock im angloamerikanischen und im tsche- chischen Kulturkontext seit der Zeit seines Entstehens in der ersten Hälfte der siebziger Jahre des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts bis heute erfasst. In erster Linie wird das Augenmerk auf die Bedeutungswandlungen und Modifi kationen des Begriff s im Laufe von mehreren Jahrzehnten gelegt. Ferner werden hier auch die Möglichkeiten der Verwendung des Ter minus Art-Rock im Rahmen der gegenwärtigen Kommunikation über die Rock-Musik betrachtet. Der Text refl ektiert auch auf eine bedeutende Art und Weise die Problematik von verwandten Begriff en, Synonymen und alternativen, mit dem Terminus Art-Rock ver- bundenen Bezeichnungen, deren Existenz die Kommunikation über die hier besprochene Musikgattung oft schwierig macht. In diesem Sinne wird speziell der Zusammenhang zwischen den Begriff en Art-Rock und Progressiv-Rock betont. Ein wichtiger Bestandteil der Studie stellt auch ein Vergleich des weltweiten, respektive angloamerikanischen Usus in der Bezeichnung der modernen Pop-Musik mit der Entwicklung der tschechischen Praxis in diesem Bereich dar. Art rock: vymezení pojmu s přihlédnutím k vývoji české označovací praxe Shrnutí Prostřednictvím analýzy relevantní literatury a dalších informačních zdrojů text zachy- cuje vývoj pojmu art rock v angloamerickém a českém kulturním kontextu od doby jeho vzniku v první polovině sedmdesátých let dvacátého století do současnosti. Pozornost je věnována v prvé řadě významovým proměnám a modifi kacím pojmu v průběhu ně- kolika desítek let, dále rovněž možnostem používání termínu art rock v rámci současné komunikace o rockové hudbě. Text také významným způsobem refl ektuje problematiku příbuzných pojmů, synonymních výrazů a alternativních označení spjatých s termínem art rock, jejichž existence často znesnadňuje komunikaci o pojednávaném hudebním typu. 21 V tomto smyslu je největší důraz položen na vztah pojmů art rock a progressive rock. Důležitou součástí studie je komparace světového, respektive angloamerického označo- vacího úzu moderní populární hudby s vývojem české označovací praxe. Keywords Modern popular music; rock; art rock; progressive rock; terminology; designating practice; Czech designating practice. 22 Musicologica Olomucensia 11 – June 2010 Sonata of Jaroslav Ježek in the Context of the Composer’s Work for the Piano Václav Horák I. The piano Sonata is one of the major works of Jaroslav Ježek (1906–1942). This com- position in four movements, written in 1939–1941 in his exile in the U.S.A., was the last work he fi nished.1 In the not very numerous studies of the composer,2 or in the synthetic works such as Dějiny české hudební kultury [History of Czech Music Culture], the Sonata is held to be unique, one of the peaks both of his work and the Czech music of the day.3 1 From The Second String Quartet (1940) only the fi rst, sonata movement (Allegretto) has survived. 2 The existing literature on Jaroslav Ježek is mainly historiographical, with elements of the educational or publicistic style. So e.g. the most important monograph written by the lifelong promoter of Ježek’s work, Václav Holzknecht, Jaroslav Ježek a Osvobozené divadlo [Jaroslav Ježek and the Liberated Theater] (Prague, 1957; Prague, 2006) and Jaroslav Ježek (Prague, 1982) present the composer’s biography nearly as a piece of fi ction. Biographical passages alternate with brief descriptions of his compositions but without any systematic musicological analysis and without the context of compos- ing. These monographs, however, in spite of their popular character, are important because of their rich factual material, the work is conceived almost as a “chronicle”, written by a direct participant of the events described in the book. 3 As a climax and from the aspect of composition and aesthetics a unique work the Sonata was also presented by Josef Bek and Oldřich Pukl: “The piano sonata is one of the most valuable works of this kind in Czech modern literature. It contains some elements of style which are new in Ježek: the themes are more compact, the piano sound […] is softened there. In addition to the toccata and the fi gurative toccata stylization, known from earlier works by Ježek, the Sonata features a rich posi- tion of chords which gives better opportunity for more contrasting structures of the movements.” In Robert Smetana (ed.), Dějiny české hudební kultury 1890/1945, Part 2 (1918–1945) (Prague, 1981), p. 266. Similarly Jaroslav Jiránek in his study “Česká klavírní tvorba 1890–1945” [Czech Works for the Piano 1890–1945], the material of which was adopted by the two volumes of the Dějiny české hudební kultury conceives the Sonata as a composition “in which the composer’s originally harsh constructivist style was substantially softened and modifi ed by the obvious need for increased expres- sivity.” In Hudební věda [Musicology], 4 (1967), No. 2, p. 285. 23 The Sonata is the last in the series of Ježek’s piano compositions in the fi eld of art music. They include, in chronological order: Suita pro čtvrttónový klavír [Suite for the quarter- tone piano] (1927), Sonatina (1928), Petite suite (1928), Capriccio (1932),4 Etude (1933), Bagatelles (1933), Rhapsodie [Rhapsody] (1938), Toccata (1939), Grande valse brillante (1939) and Sonata (1941). The Sonata is important by the fact that the composer integrated into the four move- ments of a large, structured work his characteristic approaches noticeable already in his earlier compositions (in particular for the piano): e.g. the compact areas on the basis of a stream of fi gurations stylized as a toccata, the distinctive sharpening of the sound by means of dissonance (e.g. in present as well as in subsequent false-relations, tritones), ninth, eleventh or thirteenth chords produced by accumulating the thirds on the tones of especially the white keys, the melodic and rhythmic ostinato areas, the colourist use of the polarity of black and white keys, etc. In expression (and thus in the composition) of the Sonata, many features appear that crystallized already in the earlier development of the cycle of his sonatas. They are, in particular, the confi gurations of the dramatic, lyrical (or cantabile) and scherzo5 element produced or fi lled by means of the music of the fi rst half of the 20th century. II. The fi rst movement of the Sonata is composed like the traditional cycle of sonatas, in the form of a sonata with the schema exposition (bars 1–52) – development (bars 53–127) – recapitulation (bars 128–164). During the exposition, three basic themes are introduced, which diff er in expression, tempo, dynamics and meter. They can be identifi ed as princi- pal, subordinate and concluding themes and from the characteristic features of the texture, diff erences between the themes can be established (either quick semiquaver passages or chord areas prevail). There areas are separated by fi gurative6 sections of music. Passages forming a variation of elements in the principal theme and a variation of the lyrical subor- dinate theme form the concluding part of the exposition (bars 38–52). In the development motifs are used from the principal and the concluding themes in an identical sequence and identifi able with the exposition. The extended moveable semiquaver passages are thus confronted and at the same time balanced by the (re-) introduction of more complex 4 Ježek performed his Capriccio on 27 October 1932 on the occasion of the opening of the surrealist exhibition Poetry 1932 in the Mánes Hall in Prague. However, he played from memory, the musical notation was not made. See Václav Holzknecht, Jaroslav Ježek a Osvobozené divadlo (Prague, 2006), p. 322. 5 These archetypes of expression in the cycle of sonatas are referred to e.g. by Marta Ottlová. See Marta Ottlová, “Smetana a Dvořák na materiálu prvních vět posledních kvartetů” [Smetana and Dvořák on the Material of the First Movement in the Last Quartets], Hudební věda, 29 (1992), p. 110–117. 6 Figurative passages, however – in harmony with the period paradigm of composition – are not for- med by the simple methods of scale or broken chords. The tone material of the passages draws upon various, usually artifi cially constructed modalities or decomposition of quartal chords with melodic tones, etc. 24 melodic forms. The recapitulation preserves at least partly the extent and structure of the exposition with partial changes within each theme and between one another. The principal theme (bars 1–10) is not a monolithic form without confl icts.7 “In a con- densed form” it contains the elements and procedures typical of other, toccata parts of the composition. The vigorous initial gesture is found already in the dynamic introduc- tory chord of the whole movement, combining the third and (perfect) fourth chord in- tervals with second condensation due to the use of tone from fi ve-three chord C major and the dominant seventh chord G7. Its composition moreover acts as a condensed horizontal. This is continued by the passages of the constructed mode (with the scheme 1–2–2–1–2–2–1)8 and freely sequenced fi gures formed by phase-shifted seventh chords, to which second or third intervals were added. The lyric element is introduced by the half-tone waving melodised fi guration, with a hint of quickly abandoned harmony E mi- nor (bars 4–5). The brief subordinate theme (Andante, bars 11–17) is prepared by the diminishing dy- namics and textural simplifi cation in bar 10. It preserves the uniform, non-confl ict course in a mild tempo with a change in the metro (as well as the bar from 4/4 to 3/8), which creates the opposite pole to the moveable principal theme. Its evolution alternates with the contrasting lyrical area with moveable harmony in middle voices, while the melody pattern is (especially in the beginning) rather secondary, derived. A distinctive feature is produced especially by the vertical heaping of thirds with the arising bitonal procedures while incomplete thirteenth chords with varying chords (unlike the prevailing linearity of the principal theme). The motoric episode separating the subordinate and concluding themes, proceeds in bars 18–25. 7 As Lenka Dohnalová aptly says: “The principal theme appears in such a form that it gives the sonata the dynamics of the performed part, without the necessity of composing this dynamic character.” In Lenka Dohnalová, Konstruktivistická metoda v Ježkově artifi ciální tvorbě [The Constructivist Method in Ježek’s Classical Music] (Prague, Faculty of Philosophy of the Charles University in Prague, Diploma Thesis, 1982), p. 76. 8 Counted according to half-tone distances. 25 4 6 9 15 20 Example 1 The concluding theme (Meno, bars 26–37) introduces a cantabile expression into the fi rst movement.9 9 To this corresponds the supple shaping of the melody arch, elements of periodicity, steps of the major and minor second, perfect fourths and minor thirds with a return to structurally important tones. 26 25 30 34 Example 2 It consists mainly from tones of the pentatonic series. Like the introductory fi guration of the principal theme or the moveable middle voices of the subordinate theme, here at fi rst the second procedures are developed. Already when the left hand starts, the inten- tion is revealed of creating a dissonant confl ict (major ninth), as it is in other places as well. The harmony arises rather “incidentally” as a vertical intersecting of the primarily linear procedures (the persisting ostinato movement of each fi gure in the left hand, with the receding of the outer tones by the interval of a major second). The concluding theme passes into the fi nal part of the exposition (bars 38–52), within which the semiquaver fi gurations are detached (bars 46–52), followed by a variant of bars 3–4 in the principal theme, preparing a transformed subordinate theme with the concluding descent heading for the dynamic culmination of the exposition (bar 52), followed by the beginning of the development (bar 53). From this it follows that evolutionary elements partly appear already in the exposi- tion. The contrast between the principal theme and the two other themes is carried by a greater power than the contrast between exposition and development, comprised of two distinctive parts: the semiquaver passages (bars 53–90) and the area with the concluding theme (bars 90–115) with a transition to the recapitulation, in which the toccata motoric The cantability of the melody, however, does not depend on diatonic techniques (with intervals of major and minor seconds, appearing as an element signifi cant for expression e.g. in the 5th bar in the main theme) but with pentatonic techniques. 27 semiquaver stream of music reappears (bars 116–127).10 The performance is based on contrasts between the motoric elements (variously stylized passages formed mainly by revolving fi gures with an interval jump subsequently fi lled with a gradual progress in a con- trary motion) and the cantability of the varied concluding theme (bars 96–104), which leads to the development of complex blocks of music. In the distribution of the form there is the interesting placing of the melodic climax of the development in its fi rst part (bar 89), while the recapitulation later proceeds from the fi gurative stream of semiqua- vers with a sudden dynamic increase (bar 127). The concluding theme – as a misleading repeat – begins unchanged (bars 105–110) but with a melodiously diff erent fi nal course and the subsequent fi gurative section. The re-exposed beginning of the principal theme opens the recapitulation. As an im- portant element of identifi cation, the accentuated chord from the fi rst bar re-appears. However, this is not a mere recapitulation of the exposition. Unlike in the exposition, the quick passages separating the individual thematic blocks are reduced for the sake of greater compactness (e.g. the re-exposed principal and secondary themes are separated by a single thus conceived bar). With this reduction of the episodes, a more coherent fl ow of music with lyrical areas (variants of the secondary theme) is achieved while the general dynamism diminishes. The second movement (Tempo di polka – Moderato) is composed in a ternary form with the recapitulation of the scheme ABA (bars 1–72, 73–111, 112–183). Part A is com- prised of a “small” ternary form of the scheme amb11 a´ (bars 1–20, 20–28, 29–49, 50–72). The parts are not strictly separate, rather they diff er in texture and in dynamics. From this aspect part b is distinguished by thick chords, which alternate with motoric areas in unison of both hands and with more intensive dynamics. Part B can again be sub- divided into three parts like a “small” ternary form aba´ (bars 73–87, 88–103, 104–111). Part b contrasts with the two neighboring parts especially by its heavy melodic stylization of the polka elements (bars 92–103) like the analogical section in part A (bars 29–32). The outer parts can be characterized vaguely or by not clearly profi led melodic lines with a more distinct share of the melodisated, quasi improvised counterpoint in the left hand. The distribution of the form with the middle part (trio) and a literal return Da capo preserves the typical formal scheme of a dance. The application of a stylized polka in the second scherzo movement can be seen as a sign of “making the expression more distinctly 10 From the aspect of the prevailing texture (realized by linear passages or by lyrical areas based on melody and harmony, that is with the division melody x accompaniment) in the performance also the principle of three parts is applied (bars 53–90, 90–115, 116–127), though of course with the shortened concluding part. 11 Considering the use of some elements of composition (semiquaver passages including intervalic, distinct accompaniment with chords on light times, etc.) from the middle movement in part b it is possible to say that in the ambivalent conception of form, part b already begins from bar 20. 28 Czech”,12 due to the uneasy situation of the composer in his American exile. From the polka Ježek thus could use both the syntactic aspects (consisting in application of various elements of the polka) and the semantic aspects (the use of icons and indexes; moreover, polka is a symbol – of Czech music, the Czech nation).13 The use itself of a stylized polka is an unusual element in a piano sonata. As a symbol of the link with Czech culture it was used by Zdeněk Fibich in his string quartets (A major, 1874) and (more intensively and with a concrete idea) by Bedřich Smetana (E minor “Z mého života” [From My Life], 1876; D minor, 1883). Ježek, however, makes use only of some distinctive idioms (the division of the form in the manner of Da capo, the 2/4 meter; the polka-like accom- paniment with the lightening of light times; typical metro-rhythmic schemes consisting especially in combinations of a quaver and two semi-quavers in quasi-folk freely sequenced parallel thirds, resembling persifl age phrasing, and contrasts in the alternation of stac- cato “secco” articulated areas and legato smoothed though rhythmically sharp melodic phrases). Unlike in the fi rst movement, sharp contrasts between the areas are absent, due also to the gradual introduction of the elements typical of this genre. Especially the harmony, however, is a much individualized, progressive element. See the very fi rst bars: the toccata stylized, staccato descent of two decomposed seventh chords on white keys (major seventh from f, minor seventh from e) is simultaneously confronted with the rising line (in the left hand), comprised of perfect fourths in simultaneous regular confl icts with seconds.14 The “two zones” in melodic harmony in the second bar are expressed by the right hand, stylized as a suggestion (G7–C) of the incomplete cadence on a metrically light time (with rhythmic vigor of the conclusion as one of the possible metro-rhythmic idioms of the genre). The movement of the left hand (modifi ed scale), however, ends in the c tone with a metric shift. (The jump c–g on the turn of bars 2–3 is in the relation to the incomplete cadence in the 2nd bar a retrograde step. At the beginning of the 3rd bar thus very briefl y sounds chord G7.) 12 Quoted after Jaroslav Jiránek in the quoted work Robert Smetana (ed.), Dějiny české hudební kultury 1890/1945, Part 2 (1918–1945) (Prague, 1981), p. 302. As Jiránek says next, the Nazi occupation in this country (in particular in piano composition) brought a simplifi cation of sound and concentra- tion of idea (see e.g. the cycle by Karel Janeček, Tema con variazioni), a return to romantic emotions and pathos (Sonata quasi Fantasia by Boleslav Vomáčka) or the Smetanesque genre stylizations (Tři poetické polky [Three Poetic Polkas] by Karel Boleslav Jirák, directly pointing to a cycle of the same name by Smetana). 13 On the polka intonations see Jiránek’s semantic analysis of the polkas by Smetana in Jaroslav Jiránek, Hudební sémantika a sémiotika [Semantics and Semiotics of Music] (Olomouc, 1995), p. 101–120. 14 When the distance between the two voices is disregarded. The characteristic clash is milder but dissonance is still preserved. 29 5 9 14 Example 3 The distinct polka idiom with the use of a stylized accompaniment with chords on light times (with intervals between bass and soprano) is clearly visible in bars 29–31. Here the extended chords (mostly thirteenth chords) are formed by accumulation of thirds on white keys like in the secondary theme of the fi rst movement. On it are also loosely based the irregularly sequenced semiquaver passages, consisting in the phase shift of seventh chords on white keys (see bars 3–4 in the fi rst movement and bars 34–38 in the second movement15), with an additional half-tone step. “The trio” (B), unlike the outer parts (with gradation in the conclusion), forms from the melodic, dynamic and textural aspect 15 For instance the descending broken seventh chords with the basic form f–a–c–e, a–e–g–h (bars 37–38 in part A) are applied in the 1st movement (for the fi rst time in bar 3). 30 an ascending-descending area. Nor does it bring any new music. From the preceding (see bars 20–28 in part A) is taken over at fi rst the polka-like phrasing in the right hand as well as ligatured quarter note, from which the movement of second intervals starts (bars 78–80, 88–91). A little extended variant of the clearly polka-stylized section form part A (from bars 29–31) forms the climax of the middle section of part B (bars 92–103). The function of the whole with an important idea is given to the third movement (Len- to). From this aspect it represents the central part of the composition. In the Sonata it is a part with a leisurely tempo and with an important idea and a contemplative course. The formal solution freely follows the three-part scheme aba´ (bars 1–16, 17–53, 54–57) with a shortened and altered return, which like an arch frames the form. These parts do not have a clearly identifi able, concrete scheme. One can rather speak of the prin- ciple of passing, when from the introduction (e.g. the chords in the introductory three bars) new forms are crystallized, with a more distinct melody and a more varied style (in particular in section b, bars 23–31), which later return in some varieties. Unlike the preceding two movements, the harmony here is more often based on quartal chords, which, however, are often combined with tertian chords with frequent second clashes (including the false-relations). The third movement – because of its specifi c position in side the cycle – contains no distinct elements of a similar pattern noticeable in the fi rst and second movements (descents of the thirds and quarters, the accumulation of the thirds in a vertical, and areas stylized like a toccata are in the outer parts). The mild tempo is not linked with the lyrical or cantabile element (as e.g. in the concluding theme in the fi rst movement) but with stylization focused on ideas, and on the often texturally compact stylization. The more narrow melodic ambit of each multi-tone units, limited by their range, can be observed already in the fi rst movement (less in the second move- ment with its varying height). Another example of the restriction of the melody bound to a particular interval model can be e.g. the (free) sequential shifts or transpositions of the fi nally stabilized in intervals or freely or in permutation altered tetrachord (e.g. in bars 11–13, part a). The introductory double bar of the third movement characteristically fi lls the melodically paralyzed progress of chords with moveable middle voices and later with ostinato returns to the forms already applied. (Likewise it was at the beginning of the subordinated theme of the fi rst movement, where, however, interior second procedures take place within the chords composed from thirds only.) As a stabilized “ground” those chords function to which at the beginning of each section the action often returns. In bars 1–7 it is for instance the combination of a chord built in fi fths (d–a–e, left hand) and thirds (f–a–e, right hand). 31 5 9 Example 4 The chord c–g–d (for the fi rst time used in the 10th bar), produced again by countering two perfect fi fths, is applied in the manner of the “bourdon” stylization in the irregular triplet vibration in the 17th bar, with which part a culminates. In the next part (b) this chord appears at the beginning of some bars in the role of a stylizing point (centre), some- times even with application of sound characteristics (the procedures referred to above, within the triplet pulse). This chord alternates with the broken fi ve-three chord G major in the fi rst time in the bar (fi rst in bar 22), which with its frequent returns of the shifted motif helps to form an individual existence and distinctive quality (short and actually only introductory “shining” of the area by means of a tonally defi nite hint). 32 19 22 Example 5 The fourth movement is comprised of 298 bars. Its duration is also infl uenced by the fast tempo16 for the greater part of the movement, which proceeds mainly in the duple meter. The formal course is less clear than in the preceding movements, the pattern, how- ever, contains elements of a variation rondo. An important principle of the organization of the macrostructure is the division into three parts (with Coda added), represented by the orientation scheme ABA´K (bars 1–164, 165–190, 191–258, 259–298).17 The pro- portion of bar representation of each part 164:2618:68:40 bars.19 In favor of the modifi ed tripartity speaks the distinct separation of part B from the outer parts. However, it can also be conceived as the extended episode (D) within the variation rondo with scheme 20 abca´c´ b´a´´b´´ Da´´´b´´´c´´ka. In the parts with one mark, the motifs of the parts are modifi ed especially by shapes with elementary melodic distinctions (e.g. repeated 16 Variations in the tempo follow the pattern in the macrostructure: Allegro (part A) – Pesante (part B) – Tempo I–Vivo–Presto–Prestissimo (parts A´K). Already this scheme reveals the composer’s intention to create the fi nal movement with its tempo and dynamics gradually increasing, with a spectacular conclusion of the sonata cycle. 17 Capital letters refer to the compositeness of each part. 18 Included are the “transitional” sections in bars 165–166 and 187–191. 19 Real performance is of course infl uenced by the assumed slowing down of the tempo in part B, which is rich in chords and concentrated on ideas as a single theme, and reversely, the gradually increasing tempo in the conclusion of part A´, continuing in the Coda. 20 Each small part can be also subdivided; for greater clarity, however, the division used in the further text is based on the main distinctive features, as they appear during the course of the movement: Part a – scherzo-decorated fi gure from the fi rst bar, characteristic motif (disintegration of seventh chords) in the fi rst bar of the second movement, the evolutionary stream of fi gurations starting from the repeated tones; part b – repeated tones, the quaver motif, “polka-like” stylized, taken from the second movement, part c – rhythmically sharpened idea proceeding in the double-stops of both hands. 33 tones or semiquaver fi guration, fi lled with the waving half-tone movement). Parts with two marks frame the whole area A with partial elements of the repeat (beginning of the modifi ed part a, adoption of music from the beginning of part b into part b´´). The fi rst part (A) is characterized by the motor stream of prevailing semiquavers, rhythmically combined with quavers or quarters. According to the prevailing content they are divided into section of several bars, innerly connected. Due to the prevailing toccata stylization the boundaries are not strict. Still in the fi rst part three distinct motif complexes with prevailing evolutionary content can be identifi ed, which are later modifi ed to a various degree. (Specifi city or ability to be identifi ed in the course of the movement is based especially in the introductory motifs, distinct in melody or rhythm.) 6 11 16 Example 6 The fi rst of these units (a, bars 1–16) is contrasting in melody, based on the passages of seventh chords on white keys (while the 2nd bar is identical with the 1st bar of the se- cond – scherzo – movement). This ends in a complex motif, with repeated tones at the 34 beginning (bar 3). They appear in the second part as well (b, bars 17–50), to which the subsequent motif is added, the rhythmic pregnancy of which is based on the polka-like accompaniment (bar 20). (This procedure too refers to many sections in the 2nd move- ment, starting with its 21st bar.) The third part (c, bars 51–73) is distinguished by double- stops in either hand, with symmetrical expansion and compression of intervals, which are enlivened e.g. by a modifi cation.21 This approach causes the binding of the melody to a particular rational structure. 50 55 Example 7 A characteristic feature is the restriction to the tones of the lower pentachord from the tone series E major (in the right hand) and F sharp minor (left hand) in a fi ve-fi nger posi- tion. In the next course of part A the motifs of the units referred to above are processed as variants with less sharp, more fl uent transitions. One can also speak of fl uent evolution, divided by melodiously distinct beginnings of initial motifs from each part. The second “great” but much shorter part (B) contrasts with the preceding (and fol- lowing) parts in its slowing down of motion and tempo (Pesante in bars 177–186) and the frequent position of chords or double-stops without the fast motion of semiquavers, typical of the previous part. It is built upon gradating variants of the opening section (bars 167–171). The character of the syncopated rhythmic double-stop link (bar 167), the transformations of which give rise to the following quartal chords, is determined already by the tritone distance between its upper voices (des, g), including the contrast of black and white keys. The sharpness of the sound, portending the character of part B, is emphasized by the current (d–des) as well as the subsequent false-relation (as–a). The fi nal part (A´) is quick, with semiquavers prevailing. From the aspect of motifs, the whole 21 E.g. in bar 52, in the right hand is applied the retrograde motion to the preceding model, while after the return to the initial tone the action is repeated (but starting with a partial lighter time, bar 52) with the omission of two double-stops and a diff erent rhythm. In this way is achieved the eff ect of rearranging the elements, but this is limited by their restricted number and the rhythmically diff er- ent but not quite systematic repetition, the beginning of which, moreover, is hidden and diffi cult to identify by hearing. 35 form is thus framed by it. The motifs, in contrast to part A, are varied, with emphasis on evolutionary mobility, with gradually increasing tempo, which culminates in the Coda. The rapidly changing course is mainly due to numerous changes in movement and internal compositions, often taking turn after tetrachords. The fi guratively stylized melody pattern is close to similar sections in the fi rst movement (step-like or revolving tetrachords with irregular intervals, free sequences or transpositions, etc.). However, unlike in the motoric areas of e.g. the Toccata or the Rhapsody, Ježek does not mechanically alternate tones on white and black keys, divided for both hands. In the considerably movable semiquaver passages, he makes use of numerous octave unisons (often contained constructed closed modes22 with 1½ tone step and major third, 23 see e.g. bars 246–247) as well as of quartal chords with the tritone in the left hand. Among the elements securing cohesion of the (here the four-movement sonata) cycle are the interrelations between motifs or themes, the manner of their existence and the functions within the cycle. Ježek does not achieve the bonds between the movements in the Sonata by consistent monothematic cohesion – e.g. by working with a single opening motif (motifs) or adoption of whole sections or blocks of music from other movements. Only in the 2nd bar in the concluding movement he quoted the opening bar of the second movement. Rather he applies suggestions or he works with a similar material but done diff erently: In the fourth movement, where among other things he evokes elements and procedures from the fi rst two movements with a quick tempo, in bar 3 or bars 17–18 the motif of repeated tones appears. They occur in various places of the exposition as well as in the development in the fi rst movement (in the repeat they were dropped to make speed up the course), in the role of a connection (here they serve as an element of stylization), separating those sections of music that are fairly important in their themes or motifs. In the fourth movement, because of its motifs (and a certain “emancipation”24 of the passage from the signifi cant motif), they form repeated tones, to which are added sym- 22 After the terminology by Jaroslav Volek [konstruované uzavřené mody]. See below. 23 In the prevailing form 1–3–2–1–1–3–1 (with partial symmetry of the augmented second at the beginning and at the end, that is only “one step” separates it from complete symmetry). Jaroslav Volek in his study “Modalita a její formy z hlediska hudební teorie” [Modality and Its Forms from the Aspect of the Theory of Music], in: Jaroslav Volek, Struktura a osobnosti hudby [Structure and Personalities in Music] (Prague, 1988), p. 8–69, puts modes with augmented seconds in group A12 and does not classify them in greater detail. He points out that these modes generally sound “ori- ental” or refer to the Hispanic (M. de Falla) or “Gipsy” origin. The fi rst trichord refers in passim to the Gipsy (major) scale, but the fi nal tetrachord refers to the harmonic minor. 24 Variously styled, independent colorist fi gures are found in compositions of the fi rst half of the 20th century in particular in piano sonatas or concertos. See e.g. Concerto in D fl at major No. 1 by Sergei Prokofi ev (especially the performance of the fi rst movement) or Sinfonietta giocosa by Bohuslav Martinů, where the fi nal movement is formed by the toccata. See Jitka Ludvová, “Sonátová forma v klavírních koncertech Bohuslava Martinů” [The Sonata Form in Piano Concertos of Bohuslav Martinů], Hudební věda, 8 (1971), No. 3, p. 298–317. 36 metrically expanding pianistic fi gures in the left hand (which accompany the concluding theme in the fi rst movement), the initial little motif from which the stream of music rich in intervals develops. Among other adopted elements but with an altered melody is the in melody altered elements is the “polka-like” styled motif with a clear sixth chord core (bars 19–20), which forms one of the constituents of the transition linking parts a and b in the second movement. III. This description of Ježek’s linear melody pattern and other components of music can be applied to the piano compositions written prior to the Sonata. Jiránek25 in this con- nection mentioned the fact that Ježek was obviously infl uenced by the options of piano stylization. His melody pattern in quick parts is based on virtuoso pianistic fi gures, in the composition of which often appear a second direct motion or a more distinctive head (e.g. fourth or fi fth), subsequently fi lled with shorter steps in contrary motion. After the slower area (the third movement of the Sonata, part B of its fi nal movement) rather comes the limitation e.g. by the seventh or ninth outlines (which arises e.g. by a counterposition of two fourths or fi fths in a quartal chord) with free shifts of sequences or with transposi- tions. There also appears the ascending-descending shaping (e.g. in the subordinate theme of Sonatina), symmetrical expansion or compression or returns to identical intervals. In the fi rst movement of the Sonata should be mentioned the melody of the subordinate and concluding theme as a penetration of the lyrical or cantabile element, not found in this form in the previous works of Ježek. In compositions for the solo piano Ježek seldom makes use of polyrhythmic patterns (that would be e.g. the result of the concurrence of two bars metrically diff erent). With Rhythm he emphasizes the relation between the melodic and the accompanying zones. In his compositions ostinato rhythmisized, “secco” accentuated quavers (e.g. “toccata” stylized areas in the Rhapsody or in the fi rst and fourth movements of the Sonata) are frequent, emphasizing the stream of semiquaver passages. Thus it is possible to speak of the principle of the so-called motoric rhythm: While in the past a particular type of rhythm was primarily part of the accompaniment, in the work of the composers of the “modernism in music” of the fi rst half of the 20th century (Sergei Prokofi ev, Béla Bartók, Paul Hindemith, Igor Stravinsky) “it became emancipated as a means semanti- cally strengthening the expression of energy, vitality, the atmosphere of the world fi lled with technology, etc.; the condition here was regularity, ostinato, and precise maintaining of the metric pattern.”26 The occasional perfusion or crossing of rhythmic confi gurations of the 2 : 3 cannot disrupt the beat of the duple meter. Ježek often applies syrrhythmic or homorhythmic stylization. Duple or triple meters are often underlined by the ostinato 25 Jaroslav Jiránek, Česká klavírní tvorba 1890–1945, Hudební věda, 4 (1967), No. 2, p. 283–284. 26 Jaroslav Volek, Jiří Vysloužil and Miroslav Karel Černý, “Rytmus” [Rhythm], in: Jiří Fukač and Jiří Vysloužil (eds.), Slovník české hudební kultury [Encyclopedia of Czech Music Culture] (Prague, 1997), col. 801–805. 37 fi gure in bass (see e.g. the 1st intermezzo or the March from the Petite suite ), above which a more rhythmic action goes on. The marching rhythm, which is a variant of the motoric rhythm, is found in Ježek for instance in the Rhapsody (Tempo di marcia) as well as in the fi rst movement of the Sonata (with metrically fi rm fi gures, based on the alteration of quavers and semiquavers) in the manner of the rhythmization of the drum (repeated tone). Ježek often alternates bar patterns including the meter (e.g. in bars 42–50 of the fourth movement of the Sonata the bars often change in the pattern: 2/4, 3/4, 2/4, 4/4, 2/4; also distinctly in the Etude, with alteration 6/8, 5/8, 4/8 and 3/8 bars), which reduces the stereotypic character of the passages in the octave unisono (Sonata), or which creates a type of melodic-rhythmic movement (Etude). To brighten up the motoric stream, Ježek often resorts to syncopation. E.g. in the part Oh, girls!.. from the Petite suite the metri- cally irregular left hand disturbs the duple meter (in 2/4). In the third movement of the Sonata the unequal length of the phrases corresponds to the frequent alteration of time. Another element signifi cant for expression is the dotted rhythm, often used together with dissonant chords (e.g. the March from the Petite suite). In several cases the metro-rhythmic course (including the typical fi gures or procedures) is based on an inspiration by a genre (e.g. march, charleston, polka, minuet, nocturne). In the analysis of Ježek’s Sonata, as well as of other piano compositions, it is possible to point out the character of the vertical component. The many dissonant clashes (with half tones or whole tones, triton steps, etc.)27 often occur already at the beginning of the action of the motifs due to the concurrence of two layers (in one of which for instance a double- stop or chord may be represented) with autonomous continuing motion. So for instance in the concluding theme of the fi rst movement of the Sonata, in parallel with the melodic voice in the right hand (bar 26) tone B sound in the left hand (and at the same time cis2 in the right hand), from which the ostinato, “pendulum-like” symmetrical procedures of pianistic fi gures are developed (the combination of lower tones and double-stops gives rise to quartal chords) with sound dramaturgy, applying the polarity of white (left hand) and black keys (right hand).28 This motif element betraying the composer’s intention, passes to the fourth movement of the Sonata (already in bar 3). Similar dissonant elements can be seen in the composition of the chords, too. Ježek works with tertian and quartal chords29 including their combinations (the free movement of the Sonata), alterations, thickening 27 Including greater distances than the octave. The dissonant clash farther away from the two voices, however, is usually not thought to be too sharp. 28 Sound dramaturgy of alternating tones on white and black keys is usually applied not only simul- taneously in combinatory chords (see the March from Ježek’s Petite suite , bar 7) but also used for diff erentiation of two sections (see e.g. bars 158–161 against 162–163 in the fourth movement of the Sonata), even in the “more” or “less” expository (bars 29–31 against 32–38 in the second movement of the Sonata). 29 In the Sonata third chords prevail in the “polka” movement (thus they refer top the genre source), fourth chords in the “toccata“ fi nal movement (with quick, by piano texture infl uenced alteration of fourth-fourth or fi fth-fi fth stylization in the left hand). The relation to fourth and third chords is approximately well-balanced in the whole composition. 38 of seconds and expanded intervals.30 Often the extended chords appear, which arose by a rational accumulation of thirds (see the many areas of the Sonatina, 2nd movement of the Sonata, etc.). Typically, Ježek makes no use of the fi ve-three chord in a “perfect” form in the vertical cross section. Also the passages of the decomposed fi ve-three chords or seventh chords are complicated by clashes with the left hand (e.g. bars 11–14, 65–69 in the fourth movements in the Sonata). Ježek does not work on the basis of tonality with hierarchical relations, confi rmed e.g. by cadences, modulations to the return of the tonal area, and the like. He only exception- ally resorts to the forming power of tonal (functional) relations. Moreover, they rather appear in suggestions and modifi cations. So e.g. in the recapitulation of the fi rst movement of the Sonata (starting with bar 139) is strikingly often found a connection of two chords with elements of the dominant seventh chord G7 and the fi ve-three chord C major.31 In many places Ježek applied the principle of tone centrality [tónová centralita]. This term was introduced into Czech theory of music by Alois Hába.32 According to him, at each level it is possible to create all kinds of harmony so that all its tones relate, on principle, to one central tone or tones.33 Hába thus fundamentally diff erentiates himself from Schoenberg’s dodecaphony. (The principle of tone centrality was fi rst applied in his Symfonická fantazie pro klavír a orchestr, op. 8 [Symphonic Fantasy for piano and orchestra] of 1921). Jiří Vysloužil34 points out that the conception of tone centrality ap pears in the work of many composers in the interwar modernism – e.g. Béla Bartók, Sergei Prokofi ev, Paul Hindemith, Erwin Schulhoff ,35 etc. The same applies for Ježek: The feeling of the tone center originates in one tone, double touch or chord, often repeated 30 The “agreeable stimulation” of the tritone and the “uniform, merging eff ect”, evolved by the chord with a triton element is pointed out by Karel Janeček in his book Základy moderní harmonie [Es- sentials of Modern Harmony] (Prague, 1965), p. 50 ff . 31 The fi rst chord contains parts of the dominant seventh chord (G7), when tone g is part of the melody. Chromatic elements – tones cis, gis – are next developed into tones d, a. The soprano voice in this sinks to tone e, which can be identifi ed as the third of fi fth chord C major (with seconds added), which in the “pure” form appears in the left hand. Tone a, which appears at the same time and refers to chord A minor, is the outcome of quarter parallelism arising in chords of the analyzed section continuously between the inner voice. At the same time, however, an interpretation is possible of the chord in the right hand as fourth-second styled fourth chord. 32 See Alois Hába, Nová nauka o harmonii diatonické, chromatické, čtvrttónové, třetinotónové, šestinotónové a dvanáctinotónové soustavy [The New Discipline of Harmony in Diatonic, Four-tone, Six-tone and Twelve-tone Systems] (Jinočany, 2000). 33 See Jiří Vysloužil, “Tónová centralita” [Tone Centrality], in: Jiří Fukač and Jiří Vysloužil (eds.), Slovník české hudební kultury (Prague, 1997), col. 942. 34 Ibid. 35 Markéta Kodedová in her diploma thesis Atonální klavírní cykly Ervína Schulhoff a [Atonal Piano Cycles of Erwin Schulhoff ] (Olomouc, Faculty of Philosophy of the Palacký University in Olomouc, 2002) fi nds tone centrality (p. 58–59) even in many parts of the “atonal” cycles by Schulhoff (Zehn Klavierstücke, Elf Inventionen, Musik für Klavier in vier Teilen). They are e.g. a delay on a single tone or chord, most often in bass (that is like in Ježek), structurally important tone in the melody, etc. The 39 (e.g. like a delay), especially in bass. E.g. in the 1st intermezzo in the Petite suite the move- ment of fi fth intervals mostly develops from tone cis. In the outer sections of the second (free) movement of the Sonatina this role is played by the ostinato returning double-stop e–h (bars 1–3, 27–28, 42–45). In the outer sections of the Toccata the advance to tone c functions as a frame for the whole form. In the Sonata, tone c can be pointed out as well. It appears as a part of the combination chord containing the fi ve-three chord in C major in the upper part at the beginning of the fi rst movement. On the other hand, the melody of the secondary theme temporarily stops at chord G 8/7 (bars 14–15) and in the concluding theme tones appear from the A major and E major fi fth chords. Tone c then appears as the basic tone of the passage descent (bars 18–23) and is further used even in variants of the principal theme. Five-three chord C major is part of the combina- tory chord, which concludes the movement. Tone c also terminates the outer parts of the second movement (stylized polka) and forms the central tone of the melody voice in the outer parts of the middle part. In the third movement one can point to the centrality of the combined chord d–a–e + f–a–e (part A), with which is connected the occurrence of tone e at the beginning of some phrases. With tone c, the opening motif (a) in the fourth movements begins, which in a modifi ed form appear at the beginning of the Coda. This tone is moreover already in the 3rd bar repeated (like in bars 32–34 76–85, 90 etc.). Also, with it the whole composition ends. IV. By his tending toward a matter-of-fact, unsentimental expression, Jaroslav Ježek join- ed the stream of European modernism, represented for instance by Béla Bartók, Paul Hindemith, Igor Stravinsky, as well as now lesser known Ernest Toch. Like these and other composers (in this country e.g. Erwin Schulhoff , Karel Reiner, Gideon Klein,36 and during his career as a composer also Pavel Bořkovec), Ježek achieved this without the support of tonal harmony, nor did he accept Schoenbergian dodecaphony. The existence of tone centers shows his inclination to the centric hierarchy [centrická hierarchie]. Among his most characteristic compositions are his works for the piano, a sphere particular close to him as a pianist. Each idea in his music tells of his link with this instrument. In contrast to the piano compositions of e.g. Erwin Schulhoff and Bohuslav Martinů, Ježek’s style of composition is not distinguished by such variety of melody, harmony or texture. He is a little “one-sided” composer, often bound to a particular “construction” pattern, e.g. in the frequent density of chords, symmetrical suppression or augmentation of intervals, ac- cumulation of thirds in a vertical, and the like. (See e.g. the contrasts of tonal and modal areas in the piano concertos of Bohuslav Martinů, the acoustic ingenuity connected with the expansion of techniques in composition and expression in Erwin Schulhoff , or the synthesis of various stylistic stimuli in both of them.) Among the piano compositions by principle of tone centrality is then one of the elements of integration in the form (like e.g. motivic integration). 36 The composers prominent in works for the piano. 40 Ježek one can trace an increasing tendency to ward unity and seriousness of the music, which culminates in the last work he fi nished, the piano Sonata, in which he incorporated also lyrical or cantabile areas. The diff erent solution of composition in Ježek’s days (re- turn to the pre-Classicist models, rational structuring, interlinking of the “new” and the “traditional”, eff ort at a new type of expression) was brought about by the many problems caused by the breakup or weakening of traditional syntactic bonds (texture) connected with the functioning of tonality. Ježek’s work is also a response of a kind, in line with the eff orts of composers in the fi rst half of the 20th century. Translated by Jaroslav Peprník Sonate von Jaroslav Ježek im Kontext der Klavierwerke des Autors Zusammenfassung Den Inhalt dieses Artikels bildet eine Analyse der Sonate für Klavier, eines Werkes auf dem Höhepunkt des Schaff ens von Jaroslav Ježek (1906–1942), die zwischen den Jahren 1939 und 1941 in der Zeit des Exils des Autors in Amerika entstanden ist. In den bisheri- gen Erwähnungen in der Fachliteratur wird dieses Werk nicht nur im Rahmen des bishe- rigen Œuvres des Autors, sondern auch in Bezug auf die tschechische Musik der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts als einzigartig bezeichnet. Die Bedeutung der Sonate besteht vor allem darin, dass der Autor die Kompositionsvorgänge in ein viersätziges Ganzes inte- grierte, wie man es schon aus seinen vorherigen, insbesondere für Klavier komponierten Werken kannte. Es handelt sich zum Beispiel um die Bildung von Kompaktfl ächen auf der Basis eines in „Toccato“ stilisierten Stroms von Figurationen, eine charakteristische rational-konstruktive Schichtung von Akkorden (zum Beispiel nach Tertien-Intervallen und gleichzeitig auf Tönen von weißen Tasten), die Kombination vom Zusammenklang des Tertien- und Quarten- Aufbaus, melodisch-rhythmische ostinate Flächen usw. Der Charakter der Sonate wird auch von kantablen oder lyrischen Flächen mitgestaltet, was unter anderem auch mit der Unterscheidung einzelner thematischer Ganzen in dem ersten Satz des Sonatenzyklus zusammenhängt. Ježek arbeitete nicht auf der Basis der tonalen Harmonie, er neigte jedoch auch nicht zu Schönbergs Dodekaphonie. Die Existenz von Tonzentren (im Sinne der Terminologie von Alois Hába) lässt die Tendenz zur zentrischen Hierarchie verspüren. Diese Vorgänge hängen mit zeitgenössischen Bemühungen um eine sachliche, nicht sentimentale musikalische Darlegung zusammen. 41 Sonáta Jaroslava Ježka v kontextu autorova klavírního díla Shrnutí Obsahem této stati je analýza klavírní Sonáty, vrcholného díla Jaroslava Ježka (1906–1942), vzniklého mezi lety 1939–1941 v době skladatelova amerického exilu. Do- savadní zmínky v literatuře pokládají toto dílo za jedinečné nejen v oblasti skladatelovy dosavadní tvorby, ale i české hudby první poloviny 20. století. Jeho význam spočívá zejména v tom, že autor do čtyřvětého celku integroval kompoziční postupy, pozorované již v jeho předcházejících, zejména klavírních skladbách. Je to např. vytváření kompakt- ních ploch na bázi „toccatově“ stylizovaného proudu fi gurací, charakteristické racionál- ně konstrukční vrstvení akordů (např. po terciových intervalech a zároveň na tónech bílých kláves), horizontální i vertikální kombinace souzvuků terciové a kvartové stavby, melodicko rytmicky ostinátní plochy apod. Charakter Sonáty vytvářejí také kantabilní či lyrické plochy, což souvisí mimo jiné s odlišením jednotlivých tematických celků v první větě sonátového cyklu. Ježek nepracoval na bázi tonální harmonie, nepřiklonil se však ani k schönbergovské dodekafonii. Existence tónových center (ve smyslu terminologie Aloise Háby) prozrazuje inklinaci k centrické hierarchii. Tyto postupy souvisí s dobovým úsilím o věcný, nesentimentální hudební projev. Keywords Jaroslav Ježek (1906–1942); piano works; piano Sonata; music analysis. 42 Musicologica Olomucensia 11 – June 2010 Akkordbeziehungen und Funktionsfolgen in den Kompositionen von Skrjabins mittlerer Schaff ensperiode Marek Keprt In der mittleren Schaff ensperiode von Alexander Nikolajevitsch Skrjabin (1872–1915), welche durch die Jahre 1903–1910 und die Kompositionen der Opera 30–58 eingegrenzt ist, kommt es zur radikalen Entwicklung der Kompositionssprache des Komponisten im Bereich der Harmonik. Vor allem ändert sich die Struktur der Akkorde an sich,1 aber auch die Präferenz von bestimmten Akkordverbindungen und Funktionsfolgen. Die Verbindung von Akkorden im Tritonusabstand – die Folge phrygische Funktion – Dominante Die typischste Harmoniefolge, die Skrjabin in den Kompositionen seiner mittleren Schaff ensperiode verwendet, ist die Verbindung von zwei Akkorden im Tritonusabstand. Dieser Tritonusabstand ist für die Verbindung der phrygischen Funktion und der Dominante charakteristisch. Die phrygische Funktion wurde dabei in der Praxis lange Zeit nur in der Gestalt der ersten Umkehrung, also des neapolitanischen Sextakkords, verwendet. Eine bedeutendere Verwendung des Grundakkords in Verbindung mit der Dominante fi nden wir vor allem in den Werken Chopins, so zum Beispiel in der Phantasie f moll Op. 49, im Nocturne Op. 55 Nr. 1, oder in den Préludes Op. 28 Nr. 20 und Op. 45. In Skrjabins früher Schaff ensperiode befi ndet sich die phrygische Funktion in Form des Grundakkords eigentlich äußerst selten. In der mittleren Schaff ensperiode kommt jedoch die phrygische Funktion immer häufi ger vor. Ihre Anwendung ist vorerst traditions- gemäß – also als Teil der Kadenz in den Kompositionsschlüssen. Skrjabin verwendet dabei sowohl den phrygischen Kvintakkord, als auch den phrygischen (also neapolitanischen) 1 Diese Problematik behandelte ich in der Studie „Akkordstrukturen in den Kompositionen von Skrjabins mittlerer Schaff ensperiode“, in: Věra Šímová und Jan Vičar (Hrsg.), Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis. Musicologica Olomucensia X (Olomouc 2009), S. 59–78. 43 Sextakkord. Am häufi gsten verwendet Skrjabin dabei die phrygische Funktion in den Klavierpreludes. Ein typisch „skrjabinsches“ Mittel wird die phrygische Funktion in dem Augenblick, wo sie als Vierklang – als Septakkord in dominantisierter Form – verwendet wird.2 Eine der ersten Verwendungen des phrygischen Septakkords bei Skrjabin befi ndet sich im Prélude Op. 35 Nr. 2: Prélude Op. 35 Nr. 2, Takt 8–18 Den phrygischen Septakkord sehen wir im Takt 9. Außer der Anwendung des phry- gischen Septakkords kommt es zur Sequenz von Akkorden im Tritonusabstand. Die Verbindung P–D (phrygische Funktion–Dominante) in den Takten 9–10 wird nicht in die Tonika B Dur aufgelöst, sondern wird um eine Sekunde höher in der Tonart C Dur sequenziert (Takte 11–12), wobei auch hier keine Tonika erscheint. In den Takten 12–13 kommt es zur Funktionsverwechslung, welche durch die Tatsache bedingt ist, dass der Tritonus mit seiner Umkehrung identisch ist. Die vorangehende phrygische Funktion wird 2 Mit dem Begriff „dominantisierte Form“ ist ein Septakkord gemeint, der klanglich mit dem Do- minantseptakkord in seiner klassischen, alterierten, oder disalterierten Form, also mit großer Terz und kleiner Septim, identisch ist. Die Quint kann dabei als reine, verminderte, oder übermäßige angewandt werden, ebenso wie der Akkord um die große sogenannte Chopinsext erweitert sein kann. 44 nun zur Dominante, die Dominante zur phrygischen Funktion. Im Takt 12 erklingt also eine unaufgelöste Dominante in C, welche gleichzeitig eine phrygische Funktion in der tritonusentfernten Tonart bildet. Wir können daher vom Takt 12 eine Funktionsfortschrei- tung konstatieren, welche auf eine Zieltonika F Dur ausgerichtet ist. Diese erscheint dann tatsächlich im Takt 16. In diesem Falle handelt es sich in den Takten 12 und 13 um eine gekoppelte Zwischendominantfortschreitung (P–D) zur phrygischen Funktion (Takt 14), nach welcher die Dominante und die Aufl ösungstonika folgen. Die Tatsache, dass Funk- tionen im Tritonusabstand miteinander verwechselbar sind, wird zum Vorteil und zum charakteristischen Merkmal von Skrjabins Kompositionen in der zweiten Phase der mitt- leren Schaff ensperiode, also der Kompositionen Op. 44 bis Op. 58. In diesen Werken kommt die Verbindung P–D sehr häufi g vor, wobei es oft zur gegenseitigen Verwechslung kommt (aus der Verbindung P–D wird die Verbindung D–P in tritonusentfernter Tonart). Die phrygischen Funktionen sind schon stark dominantisiert, was die nichtfunktionelle, rein klangliche Qualität dieser Verbindung noch unterstreicht. Als Beispiel einer solchen Verbindung können wir den Anfang der Etüde Op. 56 Nr. 4 anführen: Etüde Op. 56 Nr. 4, Takt 1–9 Bis zum Takt 5 sehen wir in jedem Takt die Verbindung von zwei Akkorden im Trito- nusabstand. Die erste Verbindung kann als Verbindung des dominantisierten phrygischen Septakkords (kleine Septime es, „Chopinsext“ d, „prometheische“ übermäßige Quart h) und des alterierten Dominantseptnonenakkords mit kleiner Sext in der fi ktiven Tonart E gedeutet werden. Die Tonart wird durch die Fortschreitung P–D charakterisiert, wobei die Tonika nicht erklingt. Im nächsten Takt wird diese Folge um eine Terz höher, also in einer fi ktiven Tonart Ges sequenziert. Dieser Vorgang wird im Takt 4 wiederholt. Im Takt 5 kommt es zur gegenseitigen Verwechslung der Funktionen – die vorgehende phrygische Funktion wird zur Dominante, die vorgehende Dominante wird zur phrygischen Funktion. Bei de Akkorde erscheinen funktionell in umgekehrter Folge als Verbindung P–D in der von Ges um den Tritonus entfernten Tonart C. Wirklich kommt es zur Kadenz in C Dur. 45 Im Takt 7 wird im Bass die Tonikaprim bei gleichzeitiger Dauer der vorgehenden Domi- nante antizipiert. Im Takt 8 erscheint kurz der Sextakkord der Tonika (es handelt sich um die zweite Sechzehntelnote der Oberstimme zusammen mit dem klingenden Sextintervall des unteren Systems), danach folgt aber sogleich ihre dominantisierte Mediante und der harmonische Verlauf wendet sich anderswo hin. Die Verbindung des dominantisierten phrygischen Septakkords mit dem Dominantsept- akkord, oder dem Dominantseptnonenakkord mit verschieden alterierter Quint schwächt zusehends die Tonalität und wird de facto zu einer rein klanglichen nichtfunktionellen Qualität, weil in ihr vollends die ursprüngliche subdominantische Funktionalität des phrygischen Akkords verschwindet. Beide Akkorde – sowie der phrygische, als auch der dominantische werden zu ein und demselben Akkord, der sich nur orthographisch durch seine Enharmonik unterscheidet. Der dominantisierte phrygische Septakkord mit reiner Quint (wobei anzumerken ist, dass die reine Quint bei phrygischen Vier- und Fünfklängen in Skrjabins Kompositionen äußerst selten aufzufi nden ist) wird in enharmonischer Verwechslung zum alterierten Quintsextakkord der siebten Stufe. Der dominantisierte phrygische Septakkord mit verminderter Quint (oder übermäßi- ger Quart) ist enharmonisch mit dem alterierten Terzquartakkord der Dominante iden- tisch. Bei Erweiterung desselben phrygischen Akkords auf einen Septnonenakkord deckt sich dieser mit dem disalterierten Terzquartakkord der Dominante. Bei simultaner Einführung der verminderten und übermäßigen Quint statt reiner Quint bei dem dominantisierten phrygischen Septakkord (oder Septnonenakkord) ist dieser mit dem alterierten (beziehungsweise disalterierten) Quartquintakkord der Dominante identisch. Aus der ursprünglich stark funktionell geprägten Verbindung von phrygischer Funktion und Dominante wird nun eine Verbindung von androgin-nichtfunktionellem Charakter. Die Tritonusverbindung von alterierter Subdominante und Tonika Außer der Verbindung P–D, welche in der Entwicklung von Skrjabins harmonischer Sprache von zentraler Bedeutung ist, fi nden wir in den Kompositionen seiner mittleren Schaff ensperiode noch eine Verbindung zweier Akkorde in Tritonusentfernung, die jedoch eher sporadisch erscheint. Es handelt sich um die Verbindung von alterierter Subdomi- nante und Tonika, wo der alterierte Ton die Prim der Subdominante ist, die hochalteriert ist. Der subdominantische alterierte Akkord wird jedoch in den Quintakkord, also den Grundakkord der Tonika geführt, und nicht in den Quartsextakkord (also die zweite Um- kehrung) der Tonika, wie es die Regel der Stimmführung des alterierten Tons fordern würde. Dadurch kommt es zum Tritonussprung im Bass. Dieser Tritonussprung zwischen alterierter Subdominante und Tonika (oder auch Zwischendominante und Bezugstonika) ist die funktionell prägende Verbindung von zwei Kompositionen Skrjabins, und zwar 46 der Etüde Op. 49 Nr. 1 und des Prélude Op. 51 Nr. 2. Die Schlüsse beider Kompositionen sehen folgendermaßen aus: a) Etüde Op. 49 Nr. 2, Takt 30–33 b) Prélude Op. 51 Nr. 2, Takt 26–30 Im Falle der Etüde erscheint die alterierte Subdominante in Form des vermindert- kleinen Septakkords (obwohl hier auch die große Terz a-cis erklingt, cis ist jedoch eine Vorhaltsnote, ebenso wie ces einen Vorhalt zu b im Falle der Tonika darstellt), im Falle des Préludes ist die untere Terz der alterierten Subdominante vermindert (dis-f), wobei die untere Terz der Tonika klein ist, da es sich um die Tonart a-moll handelt. Es ist jedoch hervorzuheben, dass die Benützung von Grundakkorden der alterierten Subdominante in Verbindung mit dem Quintakkord der Tonika eher eine episodische Angelegenheit in Skrjabins Entwicklung darstellt und dieser von der Verbindung weiter nicht Gebrauch nimmt. Akkordische Abfolgen vor der phrygischen Funktion, Zwischendominanten, Medianten und gekopellte zwischendominantische Fortschreitungen. Die phrygische Funktion in Verbindung mit der Dominante erscheint in Skrjabins Kompositionen vorerst in deren Schlüssen, oder Teilschlüssen und Kadenzen. Die Tri- tonusfortschreitung zwischen phrygischer Funktion und Dominante als Ausgangspunkt und Hauptprinzip einer Komposition wird zum ersten Male von Skrjabin in dem Quasi 47 valse Op. 47 angewendet. In den darauff olgenden Kompositionen wird dieser Anfang, wo die Tritonusfortschreitung den Ausgangspunkt bildet, der etliche Male sequenziert wird, sehr oft angewendet (so in den Préludes Op. 48 Nr. 1, Op. 48 Nr. 3, in allen dreien Kom- positionen des Op. 52 und in den Etüden Op. 49 Nr. 1 und Op. 56 Nr. 4). Sehr frequentiert ist der Vorgang, wo der phrygischen Funktion einige Akkorde vorangestellt sind, welche in sie als Bezugstonika münden. Die gängigste Vorgangsweise ist Anwendung von Zwi- schendominanten, wie dies zum Beispiel im Scherzo Op. 46 der Fall ist: Scherzo Op. 46, Takt 1–4 Die Komposition beginnt in F mit zwei zwischendominantischen Akkorden über den Grundtönen as und des, welche in die phrygische Funktion münden (Grundton ges). Danach folgt die Dominante (Grundton c). Statt der Aufl ösung in die Tonika ist die ganze Folge um eine Quint höher in der Tonart C (Haupttonart der Komposition) sequenziert. Skrjabin benützt jedoch eine breite Scala von Akkordfolgen, die in die phrygische Funktion münden, und zwar einerseits verschiedene gekoppelte Zwischendominantfolgen (das heißt zwei Funktionen, welche beide auf eine einzige Bezugstonika orientiert sind), andererseits in der zweiten Phase der mittleren Schaff ensperiode immer häufi ger wer- dende mediantische und zwischenmediantische3 Folgen. Als Beispiel einer gekoppelten Zwischendominantfolge sei der Schluss des Scherzo Op. 46 angeführt: 3 Als Zwischenmediante bezeichne ich einen Akkord, welcher in mediantischem (chromatische Terz- beziehung) Verhältnis zum nächsten Akkord ist, unter Voraussetzung, dass der nächste Akkord keine Tonika darstellt (in dem Fall handelt es sich um eine „klassische“ Mediante). 48 Scherzo Op. 46, Takt 42–57 Ab Takt 42 sehen wir eine Reihe von Zwischendominanten, die in die phrygische Funktion münden (Grundton des im Takt 46). Danach folgt die Dominante (Grundton g im Takt 48) der Haupttonart C. Im Takt 49 kommt es zur uns schon wohlbekannten gegenseitigen Funktionsverwechslung zwischen phrygischer Funktion und Dominante. Die vorgehende Dominante wird nun zur phrygischen Funktion in der Bezugstonika Ges. Nach der phrygischen Funktion folgt im Takt 50 die Dominante in Ges. Da nachher eine weitere Tritonusverbindung P–D folgt, ist die vorherige Abfolge als gekoppelte Zwischen- dominantfolge (P–D) zu deuten. Im Takt 51 sehen wir eine mediantische Verbindung von zwei Akkorden. Diese mediantische Beziehung benutzt Skrjabin oft auf formalen Schnittstellen, wo sie eine trennende und nicht verbindende Funktion hat. In dem Sinne wird sie auch hier verwendet. Eine funktionelle Beziehung zwischen diesen Akkorden ist hier irgendwie überfl üssig, da der erste Akkord des Taktes eine vorhergehende Abfolge beendet und mit dem nächsten Akkord eine neue funktionelle Abfolge beginnt, nämlich eine Zwischendominante, phrygische Funktion, Dominante und Tonika in C. Auf ähnliche Weise gebraucht Skrjabin die mediantische Beziehung zwischen Akkord im Rahmen einer Sequenz. Er benutzt die Terz als Transpositionsintervall (siehe den schon erwähnten Anfang der Etüde Op. 56 Nr. 4). Medianten und Zwischenmedianten als Funktionen im Rahmen eines einzigen zusammenhängenden harmonischen Satzes 49 benutzt jedoch Skrjabin auch zusehends häufi ger. Einen auf dem Grundton der Tonika aufgebauten dominantisierten Akkord setzt Skrjabin oft in mediantische Beziehung zu einem darauff olgenden Akkord. Zwischenmedianten sind oft ein Teil einer Abfolge, wel- che in die phrygische Funktion mündet. Besonders von mediantischen Akkordbeziehun- gen geprägt ist vor allem das Poeme Op. 52 Nr. 1. Rolle der Tonika, Anfänge und Schlüsse der Kompositionen In Skrjabins Kompositionen der mittleren Schaff ensperiode verliert die Tonika immer mehr an Bedeutung. Die Tonart ist nicht durch die Tonika, sondern durch ihr Umkreisen charakterisiert. Am Anfang der Kompositionen erscheint die Tonika äußerst selten. Skrjabins Werke beginnen auf verschiedenen Funktionen. Dennoch bevorzugt er ge- wisse Abfolgen. Dies wären vor allem die Anfänge mit der phrygischen Funktion in Trito- nusverbindung mit der darauff olgenden Dominante (siehe diesbezüglicher Textabschnitt), oder die Tritonusverbindung P–D als gekoppellte Zwischendominantbeziehung, die nicht auf die Tonika, sondern auf einen anderen Akkord (Bezugstonika) orientiert ist. Diese Möglichkeit wird zum Beispiel im Prelude Op. 48 Nr. 1 genützt: Prélude Op. 48 Nr. 1, Takt 1–6 Wir sehen hier die Tritonusabfolge P–D in einer verschwiegenen Bezugstonart E. Die Abfolge wird darauf um eine Terz höher in einer Bezugstonart G sequenziert. Die Domi- nante in G lässt sich jedoch aufgrund seiner Intervallform auch als phrygische Funktion in Cis, oder als Terzquartakkord der dominante in Cis deuten. Es handelt sich um den 50 schon beschriebenen Fall von Identität zweier dominantisierter Akkorde in Tritonusab- stand. Takt 2 lässt sich also funktionell auch als gekoppelte Zwischendominantabfolge (P–D) zu D in der Haupttonart der Komposition,also in Fis deuten. Die Tonika Fis erscheint dann tatsächlich, aber in stark dominantisierter Form, weshalb sie nicht eine tonikale Funktionalität erlangt. Sie wird zu einer weiteren phrygischen Funktion, diesmal in einer verschwiegenen Bezugstonalität F. Ähnliche Anfänge sind vor allem zwischen Op. 44 und Op. 58 sehr häufi g. Ein weiterer sehr frequentierter Anfang von Skrjabins Kompositionen ist derjenige, wo bei dem ersten Akkord der Grundton der Tonikagrundton (meistens im Bass, aber nicht unbedingt) ist. Der Akkord erscheint jedoch in dominantisierter Form, deshalb wird er nicht als Tonika wahrgenommen, da er kein „ruhender“ Akkord, sondern ein Spannungsakkord ist, welcher auf einen auf ihn folgenden Akkord bezogen ist. Meistens steht er zu diesem in Relation von Zwischendominante (auf diese Art und Weise beginnt zum Beispiel das Poeme satanique Op. 36), oder Zwischenmediante (als Beispiel kann das Poeme Op. 44 Nr. 1 angeführt werden). Meist ist dies der Beginn einer Abfolge, welche wiederum in die phrygische Funktion mündet, auf welche die Dominante folgt. Wichtiger als die Tatsache, dass sich die Tonika nicht am Anfang der Komposition befi ndet, ist ihre Handhabung im Verlaufe des Werkes. Auch hier können wir den Rück- gang ihrer Bedeutung konstatieren. Kadenzen enden oft auf der Dominante, nach der aber keine Tonika folgt. Das harmonische Geschehen wendet sich anderswo hin. Trotzdem wird die Tonika im Verlauf der Komposition ab und zu verwendet, ihre Wirkung wird aber auf verschiedene Art und Weise eingeschränkt, und zwar meistens durch die Verwendung von Vorhaltsnoten zur Quint, oder direkt durch das Ersetzen der reinen Quint durch die übermäßige Quart und kleine Sext (meistens durch beide gleichzeitig), oder durch die Antizipation des Grundtons der Tonika im Bass bei der vorangehenden Dominante. Manchmal verwendet Skrjabin auch den klassischen Trugschluss der Dominante (also ihre Aufl ösung in den Quintakkord der sechsten Stufe). Diese Art der Aufl ösung der Dominantspannung wird aber von Skrjabin zusehends seltener verwendet. In der zweiten Phase seiner mittleren Schaff ensperiode nimmt Skrjabin davon kaum mehr Gebrauch. Auch das Verwenden von Bezugstonikas in Form von Dreiklängen wird immer weniger gängig. Das harmonische Geschehen wird von dominantisierten Vier- bis Sechsklängen beherrscht. Der Dreiklang erscheint erst am Schluss der Kompositionen als sozusagen Lösung eines Rätsels. In den Schlüssen der Kompositionen des Jahres 1903 (das heißt in den Opera 30–43) benützt Skrjabin noch traditionelle authentische und plagale Schlüsse. Beide sind ungefähr gleich vertreten. Bei den authentischen Schlüssen wird oft die phry- gische Funktion vorangestellt, zu welcher das vorangehende harmonische Geschehen strebt. Oft ist dabei die phrygische Funktion in den Schlüssen von der Dominante durch eine Pause getrennt, was noch mehr die überraschende harmonische Lösung (Abwen- den des Geschehens in eine andere Richtung) unterstreicht. Als Beispiel eines solchen Schlusses kann das Prélude Op. 35 Nr. 3 dienen: 51 Prélude Op. 35 Nr. 3, Takt 111–126 Bei den plagalen Schlüssen ist ein Novum das Ersetzen der Quint der Tonika durch die Akkordfremden Töne der übermäßigen Quart und der kleinen Sext. Es handelt sich dabei um eine alterierte Subdominante, welche aber am Schluss etlichermale wiederholt wird, bis schließlich das Gefühl eines tonikalen Ruheakkords, und nicht Spannungakkords überwiegt. Der abschließende tonikale Kvintakkord wirkt wie überfl üssig. Als Beispiel sei der Schluss des Poème satanique Op. 36 erwähnt: Poème satanique Op. 36, Takt 225–236 52 Einen ähnlichen Schluss wendet Skrjabin ebenfalls in beiden Poèmes Op. 44 und im Poème fantasque Op. 45 Nr. 2 an. Plagale Schlüsse enden manchmal auch mit dem Tritonusabsprung zwischen alterier- ter Prim der Subdominante und dem Grundton der Tonika im Bass. Ab und zu fi nden wir in den Schlüssen jedoch auch den Sextabsprung zwischen der Mollterz der Subdominante und der Tonikaprim im Bass. Diese Schlüsse werden in den Kompositionen Quasi valse Op. 47, Ironies Op. 56 Nr. 2 und dem Poème Op. 52 Nr. 1 angewendet: Poème Op. 52 Nr. 1, Takt 47–49 Im Falle dieses Beispiels ist der Schluss funktionell ambivalent. Auf den ersten Blick handelt es sich um ein klares Mediantenverhältnis zwischen dem vorletzten und dem letzten Akkord – funktionell ausgedrückt M–T. Der mediantische Akkord erscheint in dominantisierter Form – Grundton as, große Terz c, übermäßige Quint e, kleine Septi- me ges, große None b. In diesem Poeme werden mediantische Verbindungen sehr oft verwendet, weshalb die funktionelle Deutung M–T ohne Probleme akzeptabel ist. Es bietet sich jedoch noch eine andere Deutung an, welche auf breiterem Kontext der skrja- binschen Schlüsse fußt, und zwar auf der frequentierten Verwendung von alterierten Subdominantakkorden vor der Schlusstonika. Aus dieser Sicht wäre der vorletzte Akkord auch als alterierter Quintsextakkord der Subdominante interpretierbar. Der Ton ges wäre dann enharmonisch die alterierte Subdominantprime fi s, der Ton b wäre ein Vorhalt. Die Tatsache, dass die alterierte Subdominantprim fi s „regelwidrig“ nach unten abspringt, wäre im Umfeld der harmonischen Mittel Skrjabins keine Seltenheit. In den Klavierkompositionen der Opera 52, 56, 57 und 58 fi nden wir zum ersten Male auch Schlüsse, die nicht mit dem tonikalen Dreiklang enden. In der Etüde Op. 56 Nr. 4 und in der Komposition Désir Op. 57 Nr. 1 vereinigt der letzte Akkord in sich Töne der Tonika und der Dominante. In der Komposition Nuances Op. 56 Nr. 3 ist als Schlussakkord der Septakkord der Tonika angewandt, und zwar als Septakkord mit großer Septime, und nicht mit der dominantisierten kleinen Septime. Einen sehr originellen Schluss wählte Skrjabin für seine Komposition Enigmé Op. 52 Nr. 2: 53 Enigmé Op. 52 Nr. 2, Takt 52–62 In den Takten 55 bis 57 kommt es zum Wechsel von zwei dominantisierten Akkorden im Tritonusverhältnis auf den Grundtönen as und des, welche gegenseitig in Wechselbe- ziehung phrygische Funktion – Dominante stehen. Sie können also theoretisch entweder in Des, oder G münden. Im Takt 57 bleibt von diesen zwei Akkorden derjenige auf dem Grundton as liegen. Diese Dominante wird jedoch nicht in Des aufgelöst, sondern wird ihrer funktionellen Spannungskraft dadurch beraubt, dass durch die Spaltung der Do- minantquint es auf eses und fes (enharmonisch eis) ein Ganztonkomplex entsteht, wo jeder einzelne Ton als Grundton aufgefasst werden kann. Es könnte also hypothetisch eine Tonika aus sechs verschiedenen Tonarten, nämlich F, G, A, H, Des, Es und ihrer enharmonischen Varianten folgen. Nach diesem Akkord jedoch kommt eine Pause. Und diese Pause übernimmt die Funktion einer Tonika. Der Schluss bleibt also ambivalent. Varvara Dernova erklärt dazu: „Völlig unbegründet sind Meinungen, daß bei Skrjabin anstelle der Tonika die Dominante stehe, die sich so in eine „Skrjabin-Tonika“ verwandle. Dies ist ein weit verbreiteter Irrtum, und man bedarf überzeugender Beweise, um die Tonartfunktionen von Dominante und Tonika in Skrjabins Werk aufzuzeigen. Es sei auch erwähnt, dass im Énigme zwar nur die Dominante erklingt, aber dort ausdrucksvolles Schweigen herrscht, wo man, wie aus einer entfernten Perspektive, in der Phantasie eine Tonika zu vernehmen glaubt.“4 An dieser Stelle sei erwähnt, dass sich Skrjabin unter der Komposition Enigmé ein mysteriöses befl ügeltes Wesen weiblichen Geschlechts vorstellte, welches in sich etwas 4 Varvara Dernova, „Skrjabins Einfl uss auf das musiktheoretische Denken unseres Jahrhunderts“, in: Otto Kolleritsch (Hrsg.), Alexander Skrjabin, Studien zur Wertungsforschung 13, (Graz, 1980), S. 148. 54 „stechendes und windendes“ hat.5 Die harmonisch-melodische Lösung des Schlusses der Komposition hat hier also programmatische Bedeutung. Sie symbolisiert Rätselhaftigkeit, Geheimnis, Verfl üchtung. Relations between Chords and Functional Sequences in Compositions from Scriabin’s Middle Creative Period Summary The study deals with relations between chords and functional successions in composi- tions from the middle creative period of Alexander Nikolayevich Scriabin (1872–1915). The most typical harmonic technique used by Scriabin in this phase of his compositional development is the succession of two chords at the tritone, characteristic in the union of the Phrygian (P) and Dominant (D) functions. Scriabin uses four- to six-note sonori- ties at both the Dominant and Phrygian as well as at other tonal levels. Much used in op. 44–58, the P–D sequence is often segmented and where an exchange of P and D func- tions sometimes take place (the sequence P–D turns into D–P in the key of the tritone). Another tritone technique is the subdominant with the prime altered upwards and the tonic. Among the functional successions which in the harmonic movement precede the P–D sequence, especially the application of extratonal dominants and mediants can be pointed out. The role of the tonic is constantly weakened, both in the course of the composition and in its conclusion. Vztahy mezi akordy a funkční sledy ve skladbách Skrjabinova středního tvůrčího období Shrnutí Studie pojednává o vztazích mezi akordy a o funkčních sledech ve skladbách střední- ho tvůrčího období Alexandra Nikolajeviče Skrjabina (1872–1915). Nejtypičtějším har- monickým postupem, užívaným Skrjabinem v této etapě kompozičního vývoje, je sled dvou akordů v tritónovém poměru. Tento tritónový poměr je charakteristický pro spojení frygické funkce a dominanty. Skrjabin přitom užívá čtyř až šestizvuků jak u dominan- ty, tak i u ostatních akordů včetně frygického. Spoj F–D, hojně využívaný především ve skladbách opusů 44–58, je často sekvencován a někdy dochází k vzájemné výměně funkcí F a D (ze spoje F–D se stává spoj D–F v tónině vzdálené o tritonus). Dalším 5 Leonid Sabanejew: Erinnerungen an Alexander Skrjabin, Musik konkret 14 (Verlag Ernst Kuhn: Berlin 2005) S. 177. 55 tritónovým postupem je postup subdominanty s primou alterovanou vzhůru a tóniky. Mezi funkčními sledy, jež v harmonické větě předcházejí postupu F–D, lze především vyzdvihnout užití mimotonálních dominant a mediant. Úloha tóniky je neustále zeslabo- vána, a to jak v průběhu skladby, tak v jejím závěru. Keywords Alexander Nikolayevich Scriabin (1872–1915); phrygian function; altered chords; har- monic analysis. Schlüsselwörter Alexander Nikolajevitsch Skrjabin (1872–1915); phrygische Funktion; alterierte Akkorde; harmonische Analyse. 56 Musicologica Olomucensia 11 – June 2010 Origin and Beginnings of the Protection of Authors of Works of Art Václav Kramář Law as a system of certain obligatory social norms1 had been evolving in European (Western) culture for a long time, a unifi ed collection of decrees can be found already in the ancient slavery systems and in the Antiquity. This situation, however, is not the same in all branches of the legal system. We are interested in the copyright law, which for a long time was not an independent branch of the legal system although private law in general, with which the copyright law is classifi ed, was already considerably developed.2 The Antiquity was a period of an unprecedented fl owering of culture, including major works of literature, drama, fi ne arts. And yet, surprisingly, they existed and were spread without any chance of legal protection. The problem probably was the character of the work (a work of art) because it is the so-called immaterial (intangible) object.3 Roman 1 In legal theory two main approaches to the term law may be distinguished. Law in the objective sense of the word, in English the “law”, whose defi nition was used above, or law in the subjective sense, in English the “right”, which means the behaviour of legal subjects guaranteed by the legal norm, which mostly corresponds to the legal duty of another legal subject (authorization of one against the duty of another). More about this in e.g. Jaromír Harvánek et al., Teorie práva [Legal Theory] (Plzeň, 2008), p. 20 ff ., or Ota Weinberger, Norma instituce [The Norm of the Institution] (Brno, 1995), p. 3. 2 In the history of the refl exion of legal history, earlier authors believe that the beginnings of the copyright were already known in the Antiquity. See e.g. Adolphe Breulier, Du droit de perpetuité de la propriété intelectuelle (Paris, 1855), Exupère Caillemer, La propriété litteraire à Athènes (Greno- ble, 1868). This cannot be completely ruled out when we accept regarding intellectual property as a material object as the beginnings of the ownership theory; see the text above, and also e.g. Dusan Sidjanski and Stelios Castanos, Droit d’auteur ou copyright (Lausanne, 1954), p. 28 ff . However, these views were not refl ected in the codifi ed system. On this see Ivo Telec, Tvůrčí práva duševního vlastnictví [Creative Rights of Intellectual Property] (Brno, 1994), p. 71 ff . 3 The term immaterial property is of key importance for the whole area of intellectual property, which includes the copyright. It is that part of the property that does not consist of things, i.e. material objects, its form is immaterial but is often expressed in an objectively perceivable form, often on the so-called material substrate. Due to this intellectual character its perception and consumption is independent of the material carrier. This does not lower its quality or quantity. Another essential 57 law, the fi rst signifi cant complex system of legal norms was not particularly interested in it because the main aspect of the thing in general (res) was its material substance. True, even in that period there were immaterial things (res incorporales), but their substance and meanings were a little diff erent. A major Roman lawyer, Gaius, for instance regards the inheritance as immaterial. The author’s immaterial works in the modern sense of the word (e.g. a book) were put on the level of other material things – table, chair, etc.4 Therefore they were subject to the same legal regime – when e.g. an author sold his book (a fi nished copy is meant), a material thing, through a standard contract of purchase, he thus gave up all right to its material (see note 2, from which there followed the im- possibility of further handling and owning it) and automatically also lost the right to its content, that is the imaginary copyright.5 The author’s remuneration was fully replaced by the purchasing price. Unlike the still earlier eras, e.g. the primitive society, the society now already perceived the role of the author or interpreter (the two usually merged), art (music) had no longer only a magic or cultic function, and so the more surprising the position of the creator was. He could only rely on the protection of the owner, when e.g. the book was in his rightful possession, or he could appeal to a general protection as a person whose honour was involved.6 In fact only two kinds of actions were available: feature is its capacity for being perceived and used in several places simultaneously. It is primarily an outcome of intellectual activity, such as a thought, or its direct expression (e.g. a composition). For a more detailed and wider view of immaterial property see e.g. Stanislav Vyparina, “Nehmotný majetek” [Intangible Property], Poradce podnikatelů [Adviser of Businessmen], (1993), No. 12. The area of the rights of intellectual property (further RIP), which means a system of legal norms referring to this immaterial property, can be basically divided (see Ivo Telec, Tvůrčí práva duševního vlastnictví (Brno, 1994), p. 40 ff .) into the creative RIP (e.g. creative rights to industrial property such as patent or model law; and the creative right of property other than industrial – for us are important the copyright and the associated rights, e.g. the rights of performing artists). The second main group consists of commercial (that is non-creative) RIP (again at fi rst commercial rights to industrial property such as the right to the designation of a fi rm, the trade mark, etc.; and second, commercial – noncreative rights to an other than the industrial IP, such right to accoustic recording, to broadcasting on the radio or television, etc.). 4 Jaromír Kincl and Valentin Urfus, Římské právo [Roman Law] (Prague, 1990), p. 114 ff . 5 Both personal rights (in modern conception it includes the right to publication, the copyright, the important right to the inviolability of the work) as well as the property right (now the right to use the work or authorization for its use by another person (e.g. through a licence and another property right). Here one should point out the period overcoming of the legal view that e.g. a manuscript belongs to the owner of the material on which it is written or from which it was made. On this see Štefan Luby, “Vývin ochrany autorskej tvorby v predkapitalistických spoločenských formáciách” [Development of the Copyright in Pre-capitalist Societies], Právnické štúdie [Law Studies], (1962), No. 1, p. 190. 6 Roman law diff erentiated between two basic groups of actions: actiones in rem, with which the right was asserted to a thing when the right was broken. And actiones in personam, directed against par- ticular persons who were to meet an obligation. Action for ownership thus made a person respect a partial right of the plaintiff , personal actions made the plaintiff meet an obligation. On this see Jaromír Kincl, Valentin Urfus and Michal Skřejpek, Římské právo (Prague, 1995), p. 153 ff . 58 actio vindicatoria (action of recovery) and actio negatoria (action to repel a claim), of course when the work was stolen, only then he could defend himself against an unjusti- fi ed use – publication and interference with the work.7 In either case it was an action for protection of ownership; actio negatoria was used against less intensive interference. In actiones in personam, i.e. personal action, the injured could use a rather general action, actio iniuriarum, for protection of human dignity and the civic honour.8 In Rome, against plagiarism the special Lex Fabia de plagiariis could be applied, which covered interference with human liberty (from a moral, and in the long run even a legally theoretical aspect, the plagiarist was seen as a thief).9 These measures mainly applied to literary authors but their chances were restricted in favour of the publishers (the bibliopolae, often associated in collegiae). They often obtained manuscripts free of charge, especially if the author was wealthy because he mainly wanted to achieve glory and social prestige. Somewhat better off were authors of works of music and dramas. These works were received – in the sense of consumption – collectively. Moreover they were made accessible to the wide people, unlike the literary works, of a more exclusive character. Music and song aroused a lot of interest in society and so they were considerably supported by the Greek state and the people in power.10 A positive role was played by the public competi- tions advertised for authors. They were paid for (they ensured property rights) and also provided some personal rights as to the publication and sovereignty of their work (e.g. it was forbidden to change the content of the works staged).11 Interesting in this respect was the position of slaves because many of them were authors of works of art. Roman law did not award them the legal status of a free man, 7 For more see Jaromír Kincl, Valentin Urfus and Michal Skřejpek, ibid., p. 182–187. 8 For more see Jaromír Kincl, Valentin Urfus and Michal Skřejpek, ibid., p. 261 ff . In general it was obligation from delicts (another group was obligations from the so-called quasidelicts), the principal delicts being: furtum (theft), rapina (robbery), unlawful damaging of another person’s property (damnum iniuria datum) and defamation (iniuria), originally involving only attacks against corporal integrity (the so-called real injuries), a more modern conception in the so-called praetorian edicts included verbal aff ronts and attacks against chastity. The interpretations were later expanded to cases when somebody was prevented from performing his rights or from using things originally intended for a general public. 9 In this way writes the Roman poet and epigrammatist Martialis in his work Epigramaton libri (Lipsae, 1925), who thus proceeded against Fidentinus and called him Plagiarus (from this comes plagiarist), which meant “seller of souls”. 10 E.g. Athens with these celebrations demonstrated the degree of their democracy, power and wealth. On this e.g. Eva Stehlíková, Řecké divadlo klasické doby [Greek Theater in the Classical Period] (Prague, 1991), p. 12 ff . It was otherwise in ancient Rome, where the interest was smaller, Greek works were all the time translated or imitated. The selection and evaluation of original Greek works was in the hands of the aediles, who were also in charge of the translation (as curatores ludorum) and paid out the rewards. For greater details see Štefan Luby, “Vývin ochrany autorskej tvorby v pred kapitalistických spoločenských formáciách”, Právnické štúdie, (1962), No. 1, p. 195. 11 If, however, the author sold the work or its manuscript, he lost, like in the case of literature, all rights to it. But he could rework, that is rewrite it and sell it again. 59 did not take them as subjects of law, only as objects, and in all aspects and consequences regarded them as a thing. So the slave had no rights, could not own any property, and the works he produced were automatically owned by his master, who credited himself with their authorship and could disseminate them under his own name.12 The free author had a maecenas,13 for whom he worked and by whom he was paid. This model of “the maecenas support” continued even in feudalism. There was the sovereign, a rich nobleman, or the Church, for whom the work was designed and by whom he was rewarded.14 Initially, there was a cultural decline as compared to the Antiquity. This was due to the breakup of important centers of culture (Greece, Rome). Suddenly there was an absence of original works. Education was in the hands of the clergy and so culture acquired a heavily religious character. In the 13th century the situation began to improve due to the foundation of universities. In music, however, secular work is documented already in the 7th century. It was practised by clergymen.15 Until the appearance of the burger class (that is up to the 18th century), it was primarily not concert music, meant for listening only, but it always had some other function beside the aesthetic – religious, accompaniment to dance or work. In the Middle Ages there was at fi rst no need of original works of music.16 Spiritual music was also based on the monodical tunes of the Gregorian chant, originally an anonymous work. What is important is the gradual assertion of polyphony in folk songs. The “musicus” (composer, poet, adapter or interpreter, often combined in one person) was perceived by the medieval theory of music and by philosophy as a representative of utility music (often he was a vagrant man, with no rights), while higher music could be practised only by students of arts at ecclesiastical schools and universities. Artifi cial composing be- gan to fully develop from the 11th century, partly due to the strolling singers and musicians (here the art of chivalry should be noted), partly owing to the appearance of fi rst great composers, such as Leoninus and Perotinus. The church kept preventing the penetration of these artifi cial (author) compositions or even the mere tunes into spiritual music.17 12 A well-known case is Aesop, the author of fables, who is said to have been born a slave. 13 The name is after Gaius Cilnius Maecenas, who supported many artists, e.g. Horace and Virgil. 14 Karel Knap, Autorské právo [Copyright] (Prague, 1960), p. 73. The musicians tended to gather in the courts of the nobility and worked for the noblemen, their maecenases. They gave them rewards but regarded all works, scores etc. as their own property. At court and among nobility they ranked as a better kind of servants. See Peter Krchňák, Autorskoprávní ochrana umělce a jeho díla v průběhu kulturního vývoje [Copyright Protection of Artists and Their Works in the History of Culture] (Pra- gue, Filozofi cká fakulta Univerzity Karlovy, Theses, 2004), p. 29. 15 They composed e.g. folk religious hymns in national languages, which helped to promote Christian principles. For more on this see Peter Krchňák, ibid., p. 16 ff ., or Aron Jakovlevič Gurevič, Kategorie středověké kultury [Categories of Medieval Culture] (Prague, 1978), p. 145 ff . 16 Until the high Middle Ages a great role was played by improvisation, through which certain models were established which later gradually developed into various types of music. These variants mostly were spread aurally. For more see Peter Krchňák, ibid., p. 14 ff . 17 This is what Pope John XXII said at the beginning of the 14th century in order to save the Gregorian chant. Similar issues were dealt with more than two centuries later at the Council of Trent. 60 Original secular music, however, develops further, in particular in the form of madrigals and operas.18 The second substantial aspect, beside the occurrence of original works, is the development of the notation system, that is the means of expression with which it was possible to register “uniquely” the compositions and then multiply them.19 A certain shift in development (even in the direction to copyright or at least similar types of right) was the arrival of guilds, associations of tradesmen and craftsmen, corpo- rations of medieval burghers, which with their regulations and measures could protect their members.20 Thus after the invention of book printing, the publishers (originally the printers) associated themselves, which provided the basis for the publishing right, which historically preceded the copyright law.21 Another important tool was the institute of the privileges,22 arbitrarily awarded by the sovereign. Exceptionally some authors could benefi t from it but the privilege did not recognize the general right to authorship, ensuing from 18 Opera became popular especially from the baroque period, when it served as a theatre for anybody who could pay. With it a new social layer originated, the impresarios, theatre composers, stage designers, dancers, soloists. 19 Early and imprecise neumas gave way to the more accurate system of mensural notation. More on this more e.g. in Richard Rybarič, Vývoj európského notopisu [Development of the European Note System in Music] (Bratislava, 1982) and Willi Apel, Die Notation der polyphonen Musik 900–1600 (Wiesbaden, 1989). 20 They are found in the Czech lands from the 14th century, see e.g. Emil Lhota, Řemeslná bratrstva a cechy, jejich původ, rozkvět a úpadek [Crafts and Guilds, Their Origin, Flourishing and Decline] (Volyně, 1896). Also musicians were associated in guilds, from which they obtained division of la- bour and support (e.g. in Vienna the Brotherhood of St Nicholas was founded in 1588). For artis tic work, in addition to the guilds there were workshops, with the master and his apprentices. On this Peter Krchňák, Autorskoprávní ochrana umělce a jeho díla v průběhu kulturního vývoje (Prague, Filo- zofi cká fakulta Univerzity Karlovy, Theses, 2004), p. 23. Gradually there came to be diff erentiated the concepts which in the Middle Ages were equal – the craftsman (later a pejorative work for an artist of poor quality) and the master. The guilds survived until the early 18th century, they were fi nally abolished on 20 December 1859. For more details see Aron Jakovlevič Gurevič, Kategorie středověké kultury (Prague, 1978), p. 160 ff . 21 Ivo Telec, Tvůrčí práva duševního vlastnictví (Brno, 1994), p. 72. For the sake of interest, let me note the fi rst publishing privilege granted to Giovanni di Spiro on 18 Sept. 1469 by the Senate of the Vene- tian Republic. For greater detail on the situation in the Czech lands see e.g. Karel Kadlec, “Počátky práva autorského” [Beginnings of the Copyright], Časopis Musea království Českého [Journal of the Museum of the Kingdom of Bohemia], (1893), p. 569 ff . The oldest known privilege of this kind in music was granted by Bishop Heinrich von Bamberg; after Oscar von Wächter, Das Verlagsrecht (Stuttgart, 1857). Among the fi rst privileges were, again in Venice, Jakub Ungar (1513) and Marc de ľAcquila (1505). 22 It was either a general privilege, the right of giving a general monopoly to a particular publisher in a particular area for a particular period or it was a special privilege for the publication of an author. For greater detail see Štefan Luby, “Vývin ochrany autorskej tvorby v predkapitalistických spoločenských formáciách”, Právnické štúdie, (1962), No. 1, p. 210 ff . Publishing rights were further restricted by the regulations of state or church censorship. In Austria, state censorship of press was abolished by a patent issued by Emperor Joseph II, on 11 June 1781. 61 the freedom of creative mental activity, and the right to exploit the results, although it could be in his favour; a copyright could be granted only as a single measure, a favour given by the sovereign to a particular author.23 The objective of the privileges was to protect the publisher rather than the author from a dishonest competition, especially unauthorized reprints. Here it should be noted, however, that the opinion about the un authorized reprint changed considerably in the course of time. For instance in the Renaissance, in the interest of the widest possible spreading of the work, it was even of- fi cially supported.24 Only with the passage of time, clauses were added to the privileges, involving the consent of the author with the edition of a particular work.25 Still, in copyright and dishonest activity the long prevailing view was that the author’s talent should serve everybody (and for higher glory of God) and so it was common to quote from another work (which on the contrary was regarded as an honour) and even partial intervention in other works was allowed.26 From this it logically follows that to the 23 Karel Knap, Autorské právo (Prague, 1960), p. 12. 24 Defence of unauthorized reprint persisted until the 19th century. A noted Austrian publisher, Trattner, even published a work in defence of unauthorized reprints. See Johann Thomas Trattner, Der gerech- tfertiger Nachdrucker (Wien, 1774). The fi rst norms forbidding it, however, appeared already in the 16th century, inspired by Roman legal provisions, the very fi rst was the ruling by the Council of Basle in 1531. Next came e.g. the Printing Statue of Nuremberg of 1550, the Saxony Mandate of 1686 involving even non-privileged works, in England the act issued by Queen Anne in 1709, Act for Encouragement of Learning, etc. Austria-Hungary was among the last. The decree of the Court Offi ce of 11 February 1775 forbade unauthorized reprint only of books published in Austria. This was confi rmed by decrees of 1794, 1795 and 1810. Moreover, it again covered only the rights of publishers whereas copyright was given only indirect protection. As late as 1811 the publishing contract was adapted in §§ 1164 an. General Civil Code. These measures together with the subsequent bilateral treaty of Austria and Sardinia of 22 May 1840 formed the basis for the codifi cation proper of the copyright by the patent of 19 Oct. 1846. For more detail see Štefan Luby, “Vývin ochrany autorskej tvorby v predkapitalistických spoločenských formáciách”, Právnické štúdie (1962), No. 1, p. 214, note No. 89 and p. 237 ff . 25 The natural-legal theory and the ownership interpretation of the copyright were to blame for this (see further in the text). The fi rst men to point it out were John Locke and Denis Diderot; the latter in the writing Lettre sur le commerce de librairie (Paris, 1861). But still the privileges continued to be issued for a greater profi t of the publishers. There was, however, another variant, namely that the author himself obtained the privilege for the publication of his work. He could choose the publisher. But because until the 16th century there was no unifi ed evidence, several publishers were entitled to publish a particular work. For this see Štefan Luby, ibid., p. 215 ff . and 220 and Ivo Telec, Tvůrčí práva duševního vlastnictví (Brno, 1994), p. 73. 26 E.g. Nicola Machiavelli in his writing Discorsi sopra la prima Deca di Tito Livio assessed plagiarism only according to whether a new artistically valuable work was derived from it. Another example is the opera at the turn of the 17th and 18th century, on this see e.g. Dominique Fernandez, Porporino aneb Tajnosti neapolské [Porporino or the Secrets of Naples] (Prague, 1999), p. 172 and 281. Com- posers commonly made use of the works of their predecessors (music and libretto) because the staging of a completely new work was too great a commercial risk. So it was nothing else but a period show business, by which this practice continued to be justifi ed. Another factor was the great role of the prima donnas and their often scandalous conduct described in press. 62 authors (with some exceptions) for a long time no privileges were granted to guarantee their protection or a minimal profi t.27 The situation with the paying the author’s fee was not simple either because in the historical development this activity did not correspond to the period morale. It was cus- tomary for the author to obtain copies of his work from his publisher and sometimes even free copies of another author.28 Authors and composers were thus obliged to get money by other means. “Dedication” was a personal dedication of a work, for which the author usually expected a sponsoring gift. The issue of the author’s remuneration became relevant as late as in the middle of the 16th century (in works of music at the beginning of the 18th century),29 but it was often merely a symbolic sum or a non-pecuniary gift. When the composer sold the score, his profi t was greater but he lost the rights to the work.30 A certain legal breakthrough came with the decree issued by the French Royal Council on 15 September 1786, which for the fi rst time guaranteed the author’s right to a fee as well as the right to give permission to publish a work of music and perform it in public.31 A substantial breakthrough came with the application of the natural-legal theory of authorship, which tried to defi ne the author’s rights (fi rst attempts are found already in the 16th century) by means of the personal-legal conception of the theory of ownership and thus of everything that was created (including intellectual property).32 In the fi rst place, the idea of the privilege became absurd, the idea of an act of the arbitrary decision of the sovereign, as a basis for someone’s right. Besides, if it was a monopoly position, it was against the principle of freedom, which was the principal issue for the supporters of the natural-legal theory.33 So the fi rst eff ort was to make the privilege, if at all, meet the role of at the most a secondary source of the right. From the 17th century in England and the 27 When this happened, it was mostly up to the level of the expenses and only when the work had any social value. Privileges were acquired rarely at fi rst and they mostly included the right to spreading by the publisher chosen by the author, but there are also beginnings of other rights such as the right to the designation, integrity, or after the Roman model the right to protection against unlawful publication of a still unpublished work (that is against plagiarism). 28 On this Karel Kadlec, “Počátky práva autorského”, Časopis Musea království Českého (1893), p. 355. Here is mentioned J. A. Komenský (Comenius), who sent his writings to noted people and himself collected payment. Kadlec regards this behaviour as undignifi ed begging, to which Komenský was driven by circumstances. 29 See Štefan Luby, “Vývin ochrany autorskej tvorby v predkapitalistických spoločenských formáciách”, Právnické štúdie (1962), No. 1, p. 231. 30 Olga Pitelová, Vývoj a ochrana autorských práv v oblasti kultury [Development and Protection of Copyright in the Sphere of Culture] (Brno, Právnická fakulta Masarykovy univerzity, Theses, 2007), p. 20. 31 After France it was Landrecht in Prussia, the Austrian General Cuivi Code and in the USA a law of 1831. For detail see Štefan Luby, “Vývin ochrany autorskej tvorby za kapitalizmu” [Development of the Copyright under Capitalism], Právnické štúdie (1966), No. 1, p. 22. 32 Ivo Telec, Tvůrčí práva duševního vlastnictví (Brno, 1994), p. 73 ff . 33 Augustin-Charles Renouard, Traité des droits d’auteur I–II, vol. 1 (Paris, 1838), p. 111 ff . 63 18th century in France, according to the legal theory, the privilege could not be held even for a secondary source.34 The author’s work continued to be identifi ed with its material substrate,35 fi nally it was separated from it but continued to be regarded as a common thing. Only with the passing of time the teachings of Immanuel Kant36 and Johann Gott- lieb Fichte37came to the forefront. Their theory of a really personal conception prevailed over the theory of ownership at the expense of the so-called intellectual property. It tried to explain the substance of the copyright as an ownership right sui generis, which is bound to the immaterial substance of the work. According to some critics, however, the authors should be granted some right even after the alienation of their works – e.g. the right to ownership, which in those days was by no means common.38 The conceptions of Kant 34 This is shown by the new laws and decrees – in England already in 1709 (see note 24), where this act by Queen Anne can be regarded as the oldest copyright law sui generis. Next came France with its decrees of 1723 (the result of the struggle between the publishers and authors, in which the pub- lishers won) and 1777 (there the authors were awarded the right to publish and sell their works). A similar statement came from Landrecht in Prussia in 1791. See Štefan Luby, “Vývin ochrany autorskej tvorby za kapitalizmu”, Právnické štúdie (1966), No. 1, p. 7 ff . 35 By this the marketability of the thing was secured for the author. The commercial element was emphasized. But the theory did not count enough with cases when a work existed in several copies, which enabled an unfair competition between holders of the copies. See Štefan Luby, ibid., p. 12. 36 In the work Metaphysichen Anfangsgrűnde der Rechtslehre (Königsberg, 1797) he required a strict dif- ferentiation between a work as such and a mere material substrate. For him the work is not a piece of goods but a manifestation of the author’s personality and the freedom towards the public, a product of creative ability. Thus it cannot become an object of trade, no one has the right of ownership to it – not even the author. But he is allowed to use it – it is his inalienable personal right of as well as the exclusive right to decide when and how he will publish his work (if he wants to). Kant believes that the publisher mediates the author’s thoughts to the public. He defi ned his position by the right to use of an obligatory character. Kant’s ideas were developed by other authors of personal-legal theories. 37 His work “Beweis der Unrechtsmässigkeit des Bűchernachdrucks”, Berlinische Monatsschrift, 21 (1791). He also distinguished the two levels, like Kant, but saw the copyright as an ownership law. The material substrate is an alienable thing, the intellectual content belongs to the author only up to the moment of its publication. He explicitly speaks of the form of the work, which is a manner of the expression of the thoughts and nobody can own it, it is the inalienable right of the author. This mostly formal theory by Fichte was not without faults – when someone “merely” imitated the author or did not keep the exact form of the work, this was not regarded as breaking the right. Fichte was developed by the authors of the conception of intellectual property. Among those who contributed to this concep- tion were the philosophers Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, the book Philosophie des Rechts (Berlin, 1821), in which he speaks of the inalienability of the material in contrast to the work, and Arthur Schopenhauer, the book Sämtliche Werke I. (Leipzig, 1873). The object of the copyright is the work as an immaterial object and so it is necessary to speak of a specifi c intellectual property. 38 The supporters of the theory of ownership law sui generis are e.g. Karl Ernst Schmid, Büchernach- druck (Jena, 1823) and Wilhelm Traugott Krug, Kritische Bemerkungen über Schriftstellerei, Buch- handel und Nachdruck (Leipzig, 1824). From the critics let us mention Johann Stephan Pütter, Der Büchernach-druck nach ächten Grundsätzen des Rechts (Göttingen, 1774). Quoted after Štefan Luby, “Vývin ochrany autorskej tvorby za kapitalizmu”, Právnické štúdie (1966), No. 1, p. 13 and 15. 64 and Fichte were fi nally developed by Otto Girke39 into the monistic theory (personal and property rights are inseparable) and at the same time a personal theory (transferability only of the right of further use of the work, which obliged the authors most).40 At the end of the 18th century the privilege system was gradually replaced by the fi rst state legislation.41 In conclusion, let me illustrate the general situation of the social status of the authors in this period on the example of a world-famous composer, one of the principal representa- tives of classicism in music. The interest of the publishers in works of music was much smaller than in works of literature. Their reproduction was costlier and the sales much lower. Things slightly improved only when music arrived in the bourgeois society and home performances of music as well as concerts became popular. Many authors, however, either published their works at their own expense (e.g. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart42), or used a maecenas or an employer. Ludwig van Beethoven had several maecenases in notable aristocratic families.43 Their names were often mentioned in the works. For a long time he also published his music (e.g. in the Viennese fi rm Artia & Company) in subscription, which was a sort of contract between the publishing house and the author, in which the latter pledged to fi nd several subscribers to a certain number of copies. It was a common practice for beginning or not very well-known authors.44 Another insti- tution used by Beethoven was the dedication. His Third Symphony, Eroica, even has 39 Deutsches Privatrecht I. (Leipzig, 1895). 40 As a contrast to this monism, at the end of the 19th century dualistic theories were developed (they distinguished personal and property rights but only the latter were regarded as alienable and tem- porarily limited). 41 See note no. 34. Further it is the decree of the French Constitutional Assembly in 1791 and 1793 about the protection of IP bound to a drama or a work of music. The direct initiators were the authors organized in the Society of Authors (headed by Beaumarchais). Among the other decrees there is the Saxon mandate of December 1773, the Dutch act of November 1796, which suddenly abolished the whole system of privileges, and the same was done by the Civil Code in Baden in 1809. Attempts at a German all-imperial adaptation of these legal relations were successful only in 1837, and that was due to the conservative governments in Austria and Würtembersg. They were overtaken even by the Csarist Russia, which cancelled the privileges in 1828. For more details see Štefan Luby, “Vývin ochrany autorskej tvorby za kapitalizmu”, Právnické štúdie (1966), No. 1, p. 18–22 and 26 ff . 42 Štefan Luby, “Vývin ochrany autorskej tvorby za kapitalizmu”, Právnické štúdie (1966), No. 1, p. 21. 43 One of them was Prince Karel Lichnovský, who from 1800 paid an annual pension of 600 guldens. Among other maecenases was František Josef Lobkowicz, who bought for Beethoven some of his compositions, e.g. Eroica, which had its premiere in the Lobkowicz Palace in Vienna. Lobkowicz also organized subscription concerts for him (it was a form of subscription to concerts, like today). The Kinsky family also paid Beethoven a life annuity (the original amount of 4,000 guldens during the great infl ation in Austria was cut in 1811 to one fi fth and was paid out irregularly). Beethoven even started court proceedings about it, which fi nally, in 1815, were decided in favour of the plaintiff . For greater details see Jan Racek, Beethoven a české země [Beethoven and the Czech Lands] (Prague, 1964), p. 15–31. 44 Olga Pitelová, Vývoj a ochrana autorských práv v oblasti kultury (Brno, Právnická fakulta Masarykovy Univerzity, Theses, 2007), p. 24, an interview with Professor PhDr. Miloš Štědron, CSc. 65 a double dedication. The original dedication to Napoleon Bonaparte was cancelled by Beethoven when Napoleon crowned himself Emperor of France, on 2 December 1804, thus betraying Beethoven’s idea of democracy. Next he dedicated the work to his own maecenas, Prince Lobkowicz. For the sake of completeness let me add that protection of dramatists in this period of early conceptions of the copyright was falling behind45 (many dramatists often were simultaneously directors of various theatres), and that the situation was a little diff erent in fi ne arts because these artists had a better real as well as legal position.46 In these main theses we attempted an outline of the historical development of what was known about copyright and how important the author’s work was. This survey started with the fi rst ancient legal systems and deliberately fi nished before the development (and a more exact identifi cation) of the fi rst independent codifi cations of the copyright. This is approximately the turn of the 18th and 19th century and raises the issue of intellectual property from the level of merely partial ideas, alternative and not always eff ective solu- tions, to the sphere of an adequate and binding legal system. The following period (start- ing approximately in the 19th century) brought numerous changes in the technology of reproduction of music. The 20th century added the no less revolutionary opportunities in music, law was codifi ed on national and international levels. That period has its specifi c features and both its complexity and size deserve a separate study. We can see that in history the profession of artists was relatively invidious from this respect. We should realize that in law the specifi city of art was for a long time ignored. Artists simply could not invoke their rights, works of art were regarded as material ob- jects and were handled in that way. Only later this idea gave way to the new conception of intellectual property. The one area in which the idea of a work of art dominated, was literature. This set (with some exceptions) general boundaries, from which the rest of arts did not deviate very much. I believe that I succeeded in turning attention to the most essential aspects leading to the origin of adequate legislation in this fi eld. Translated by Jaroslav Peprník 45 In some cases some rulings did harm to the authors. E.g. when a play did not bring a particular mini- mum of profi t, or was a complete failure, it became a “free work” (domaine public) and the author had no right to a fee, even when later the work “took on” and was successfully performed. On this see Karel Kadlec, “Počátky práva autorského”, Časopis Musea království Českého (1893), p. 131 ff . 46 More on this in Štefan Luby, “Vývin ochrany autorskej tvorby v predkapitalistických spoločenských formáciách”, Právnické štúdie (1962), No. 1, p. 233 ff . Here should be remembered a peculiarity, the institute of collective copyright awarded from the 16th century to various brotherhoods and associations of fi ne artists. In France by a decree of 1676 and in England by a decree of 1735 these organizations of artists even enforced the exclusivity of their right to reproduction and propagation of their works. This protection, however, never covered works of architecture. 66 Das Entstehen und die Anfänge des Urheberschutzes für die Autoren von Kunstwerken Zusammenfassung Bei unserer Suche nach den Wurzeln des Urheberrechtes selbst müssen wir nicht in eine allzu weite Vergangenheit zurückgehen. Etwas anderes ist es aber, wenn wir ver suchen, die ersten Bemühungen um eine rechtliche Auff assung des urheberischen Schaff enswerkes, einzelner Produkte und der Stellung der Autoren nachzuvollziehen. Dazu lassen wir uns bis in den Zeitraum des antiken Griechenlands und Roms zurück- führen, wobei aber deren Rechtssysteme nicht in der Lage waren, den Begriff des im- materiellen Eigentums zu erfassen. Die Urheberwerke wurden deswegen als bewegliche materielle Gegenstände behandelt. Über die entsprechenden Rechte verfügte also derje- nige, der die Sache in Besitz hat, mit dem Verkauf der Sache verzichtete der Autor auf jedwede Rechte. Sollte das Werk entwendet werden, gab es zum Schutz der Rechte nur allgemeine Sachklagen. Zum Ehrenschutz konnte dann der Beschädigte eine Privatklage gegen die Person, die das Werk unberechtigterweise nutzte, veröff entlichte oder darin eingriff , einreichen. Die plagiatorische Aneignung eines Werkes, was man als Diebstahl ansah, wurde in Rom mit Hilfe der Lex Fabia verfolgt. Autoren von musikalischen und dramatischen Werken beteiligten sich an öff entlichen Wettbewerben, die ihnen ein gewis- ses Maß an Urheberschutz für ihre Werke gewährleistete. Zu den häufi ger vorkommenden Erscheinungsformen gehörte das Mäzenatentum. Das Mittelalter setzte einige Trends, wie zum Beispiel die Tätigkeit von Mäzenen, fort, wobei diese Rolle von der Kirche, den Adeligen oder den Herrschern übernommen wurde. Am Anfang mangelte es an ursprünglichen Urheberwerken, lange Zeit unter- stützte man sogar die Herstellung von Plagiaten. Auch die Stellung der Kirche und ihre Bemühungen um die geistige Reinheit der Musik spielten hier ihre Rolle. Es entstanden so- genannte Zünfte, Berufs- und Standesvereine zum Schutz der Interessen ihrer Mitglieder. Darüber hinaus wurden von einem Herrscher Privilegien als einmalige Berechtigungen zu einer gewissen Tätigkeit verliehen, durch welche die Autoren meistens zu Gunsten von Herausgebern benachteiligt wurden. Mit der Zeit verbesserte sich die Situation durch ver- schiedene Eigentumstheorien für das urheberrechtliche Schaff en der Künstler und später auch durch eine personalrechtliche Verfassung der Anhänger des natürlichen Rechts. Der Autor tritt in den Vordergrund, sein Werk wird als sein geistiges Eigentum betrach- tet. Derartige Theorien, die unter anderem von Kant und Fichte angedeutet wurden, trugen zu den ersten Kodifi kationen des Urheberrechtes im 18. Jahrhundert (England, Frankreich) bei. Es ist zu erwähnen, dass man noch lange versuchte, die Auszahlung der Urhebertantiemen zu umgehen, und die Vergütung zum Beispiel durch freie Exemplare, Dedikationen und Subskriptionsverträge mit den Herausgebern zu ersetzen. 67 Vznik a počátky právní ochrany autorů uměleckých děl Shrnutí Chceme-li se dopátrat kořenů samotného autorského práva, nemusíme chodit daleko do minulosti. Něco jiného však znamená pokusit se vysledovat první snahy o právní ucho pení autorské tvorby, výtvorů a postavení jejich tvůrců. To nás vede až do období antického Řecka a Říma, jejichž právní systém však nedokáže vystihnout pojem nehmot- ného vlastnictví a nakládá s autorskými výtvory jako s běžnou hmotnou věcí. Práva k ní má ten, kdo věc drží, prodejem se autor zříká všech práv. K ochraně slouží obecné věcné žaloby, pokud je dílo zcizeno, k ochraně cti pak může poškozený použít osobní žalobu proti tomu, kdo dílo neoprávněně užívá, zveřejní či do něj zasahuje. Plagiátorství, brané za krádež, stíhá v Římě Lex Fabia. Autoři hudebních a dramatických děl využívají veřejné soutěže, zaručující jim jistou ochranu výtvorů, hojně se též pěstuje mecenášství. Středověk v některých trendech pokračuje, např. v mecenášství, jehož role se ujímá církev, šlechtici či panovník. Zpočátku chybí původní autorská tvorba, plagiátorství je dlouho dokonce podporováno. Svou roli hraje i postavení církve a její snahy o duchovní čistotu hudby. Vznikají tzv. cechy, profesní a stavovská sdružení, dbající na zájmy svých členů. Vedle toho panovník uděluje privilegia, jednorázová oprávnění k určité činnosti, většinou diskriminující autory ve prospěch nakladatelů, časem se situace zlepšuje rozlič- nými vlastnickými teoriemi autorské tvorby a posléze osobněprávními pojetími stoupenců přirozeného práva. Do popředí se dostává autor, dílo je jeho duševním vlastnictvím. Tyto teorie nastíněné mj. Kantem a Fichtem pomáhají k prvním kodifi kacím autorského práva v 18. století (Anglie, Francie). Rovněž autorská odměna je dlouho nahrazována a obcházena př. výtisky děl zdarma, dedikacemi, subskripčními smlouvami s nakladateli. Keywords Work of art; music copyright; law. 68 Musicologica Olomucensia 11 – June 2010 Die Metamorphosen der tschechischen Rezeption der Oper Julietta von Bohuslav Martinů Lenka Křupková Die Oper Julietta von Bohuslav Martinů ist nach den Worten von Miloš Šafránek, wie er es im Jahre 1963 aus Anlass der erst zweiten tschechischen Inszenierung von ausdrückte, als das größte Opernwerk nach Janáček einzuschätzen. Ein solcher Enthusiasmus dieses Freundes und Biographen des Komponisten ist zu sehen vor dem Hintergrund der vielver- sprechenden Situation der sechziger Jahre, in der sich das Werk von Martinů nach etwa zehn Jahren einer gewaltigen „Verstummung“ mit Erfolg seinen Weg in das Bewusstsein der tschechischen Musikkultur zu bahnen begann. Dieser Prozess der Renaissance des Komponisten erlebte seinen ersten Höhepunkt im Jahre 1966 anlässlich der Veranstaltung des internationalen Festivals in Brno, wozu auch die Einstudierung von Julietta an dem hiesigen Theater gehörte. Auch wenn heutzutage die Zeitabstände zwischen den einzel- nen Inszenierungen der Oper Julietta bei weitem nicht mit der ein Viertel Jahrhundert währenden Pause zwischen der Urauff ührung und der zweiten Auff ührung der Oper im Nationaltheater in Prag vergleichbar sind, kann man feststellen, dass Julietta nicht den Rang eines häufi g aufgeführten Repertoire-Stücks der tschechischen Operntheater erreich- te. Dessen ungeachtet kann man Šafráneks Wertschätzung dieser Oper, auch unabhängig von seiner persönlichen Voreingenommenheit, zustimmen. Bei der Suche nach weiteren Beispielen in der nächsten Entwicklung der tschechischen Operndramatik fi ndet man kein Werk, das hinsichtlich der Breite und Intensität der Diskussionen diesem gleich kommt und dessen jede einzelne neue Einstudierung so viel Aufmerksamkeit auf sich gezogen hat. Mit der Rezeption dieser Oper war es aber nicht einmal in Prag im Jahre 1938 oder gerade in den sechziger Jahren des vergangenen Jahrhunderts einfach. Das versuche ich auch in meinem Beitrag über die kritischen Refl exionen, wie sie in zeitgenössischen musikalischen oder kulturellen Periodiken oder Tageszeitungen erschienen, zu zeigen. Die Urauff ührung von Julietta im Jahre 1938 wurde von der Prager kulturellen Öff ent- lichkeit mit großer Spannung erwartet. Der Grund dafür bestand unter anderem auch in dem ungewöhnlich großen Zeitaufwand, mit dem sich deren Inszenatoren, der Dirigent 69 Václav Talich, der Regisseur Jindřich Honzl und der Bühnenbildner František Muzika, deren Einstudierung widmeten. Auch die persönliche Beteiligung des Opern-Chefs des Nationaltheaters Talich an den Vorbereitungen einer Opern-Neuigkeit war keineswegs üblich. Martinů wurde diese Ehre wahrscheinlich deshalb zuteil, weil er die Fähigkeiten Talichs als Dirigent sowie die Qualitäten des Nationaltheater-Ensembles immer wieder rühmte, was aus seiner Korrespondenz mit Talich hervorgeht. Ungeachtet dessen erwäh- nen die Rezensenten, dass die Besucherzahl bei der Premiere nicht hoch und auch die Resonanz nicht besonders stürmisch war. Auch die Autoren von positiven Beurteilungen der Oper konstatieren, dass die Oper, die über die üblichen Opernkonventionen hinaus- geht, „in sich eine Gefahr birgt, nämlich die, dass sie nur von einem ziemlich begrenzten Publikumskreis in vollem Umfange verstanden werden kann“.1 Die Verfasser der Referate widmeten ihre Aufmerksamkeit mehreren gemeinsamen Bereichen. Auch sechs Jahre nach der ersten Auff ührung des Theaterstückes von Neveux im Prager Ständetheater ließen die Fragen der dichterischen Vorlage sowie des surrealistischen Sujets und dessen Libretto-Bearbeitung niemanden kalt. Auch die Art und Weise von Martinůs Vertonung des Schauspiels mit Hilfe von Kompositionsmitteln und Mitteln der musikalischen Dra- maturgie, sowie die Versuche, die Oper einem bestimmten Stil zuzuordnen und mögliche äußere Einfl üsse zu identifi zieren, wurden thematisiert. In einigen Rezensionen ist eine ausführliche Analyse der Inszenierung, ihrer musikalischen Einstudierung, der Regie und der Szene zu fi nden. Aus den Rezensionen ist die Zugehörigkeit ihrer Verfasser zu ausge- prägten Meinungsgruppen der damaligen tschechischen musikalischen Kultur ersichtlich. Eine vollkommen positive Aufnahme der Oper fi ndet sich besonders bei dem Kom po- nisten František Bartoš, einem Mitglied der musikalischen, auf dem Boden des gleichna- migen Vereines für bildende Kunst tätigen, Gruppierung Mánes. Als ein unmittelbares Vorbild dienten dabei die Gruppe Les Six und nicht zuletzt Bohuslav Martinů. Julietta stellt, nach Ansicht von Bartoš, aber auch in einem allgemeinen Sinne, mit ihrer ausge- prägten Orientierung auf die französische zeitgenössische Musik der Musiker um Mánes, „einen neuen Wert, entstanden durch die positiven Einfl üsse von zwei Kulturen“, dar.2 Bartoš neigt dazu, in Julietta vor allem Igor Stravinski zu hören und hebt mit viel Aner- kennung hervor, dass sich Martinů bei der Vertonung des Schauspiels von Neveux nicht dem Impressionismus untergeordnet hat, „obgleich der Stoff von Julietta geradewegs zur nebeligen, dem französischen Impressionismus eigenen, Stimmung verführte“.3 Bartoš schätzte klare melodische Linien und den deutlichen Rhythmus der musikalischen Kom- po nente der Oper, da er der Meinung war, dass dadurch „dem Schauspiel ein fester Aufbau rahmen gegeben wird, der verhindert, dass alles in unbestimmte, nebelig unbe- schränkte Anhäufungen zerfl ießt“.4 Martinů wählte also zur Vertonung des surrealisti- schen Dramas solche Mittel, die von den Rezensenten üblicherweise als traditionelle 1 fbš, „Bohuslav Martinů: Julietta (Snář)“ [Julietta (Das Traumbuch)], Národní politika, 18. 3. 1938. 2 Ebd. 3 Ebd. 4 fb, „Z hudebního života“ [Von dem musikalischen Leben], Tempo 17 (1938), S. 119. 70 bezeichnet werden. Diese Art der Hinwendung zur Tradition wurde aber seitens eines Rezensenten der Zeitschrift Rytmus kritisiert (es ist mir nicht gelungen, das Namenskürzel, mit dem er seinen Artikel unterzeichnet, zu entschlüsseln), der in den entsprechenden Jahren als Berichterstatter des Vereines für die zeitgenössische Musik Přítomnost tätig war.5 Auch wenn die Beziehung des Vereines Přítomnost zu der französischen zeitgenös- sischen Musik, ähnlich wie es bei der Musikgruppierung Mánes der Fall war, sehr positiv war, wobei im Jahre 1937 die Přítomnost sogar Interpretierungskurse der zeitgenössischen französischen Musik veranstaltete, spitzte sich nach Alois Hábas Ankunft die Orientierung auf die Avantgarde in der Gruppe zu. Der Rezensent erklärte sich mit dem ersten Akt, dessen harmonische Stileinheit nur von kleinen diatonischen Flächen gestört war, ein- verstanden. Demgegenüber sollte die „harmonische Plastizität (des zweiten Aktes) manch- mal fast peinlich bis auf ein Minimum eingeschränkt“ sein.6 Die Betonung der Lyrik in diesem Akt durch traditionsnahe Mittel behagt dem Rezensentem off ensichtlich nicht, „die harmonische Struktur seiner vorwiegend homofonen Musik ist viel primitiver als zum Beispiel beim Roussel. […] Eine billige Romantik (Waldhorne ‚in die Ferne sich verlierend‘) […] untermalt die Umrisse dieses unseligen Aktes“.7 In dem Abschlussakt fand der Autor polytonale Bildungen, auf Grund deren er diesen mit fast der gleichen Zustimmung wie den ersten Akt aufgenommen hat. Ihre größte Aufmerksamkeit widme- ten die Rezensenten dem Problem der Lebensfähigkeit des surrealistischen Sujets in der Oper. Es scheint, dass sie mit dem Gedicht von Neveux nicht viel anzufangen wussten, dass es ihnen somit ähnlich wie dem Prager Publikum im Jahre 1932 eigentlich nicht ganz gut gefallen hat. Ein Rezensent der Zeitung Lidové noviny fragte mit Verwunderung, warum Martinů in der Zeit des Untergangs des Surrealismus sein Interesse gerade auf dieses Werk gerichtet habe. Neben der Tatsache, dass diese Richtung schon gewisserma- ßen thematisch entfernt zu sein schien, „birgt die Umwandlung einer insoweit im ma- teriellen und vergänglichen Erscheinung, wie es ein Traum ist, die Gefahr in sich, dass die Traumrealität in die Realität der geistigen Verirrung umschlagen könnte […]“.8 Ein Rezensent der Zeitschrift Rytmus fand den Text von Neveux unzureichend gründlich und mit sehr wenig Fantasie verarbeitet. „Der Kern der Handlung – die Sehnsucht nach einer Frau […] wäre ihm zu statisch begründet und sei deswegen zum Nachteil der Traum- haftigkeit irdisch und realistisch geworden.“9 Antonín Šilhan sah in Národní listy das Prob lem schon in der szenischen Realisierung des surrealistischen Theatertextes: „Mit der Berührung mit der Bühnenrealität […] verschwinden die Grenzen zwischen der Wir- klichkeit und dem Traum. […] Die szenische Realisierung des Surrealismus stellt bis jetzt 5 H.W.S., „Surrealistické Hoff mannovy povídky“ [Surrealistische Hoff manns Erzählungen], Rytmus III, S. 82–83. 6 Ebd. 7 Ebd. 8 B. V., „Julietta od B. Martinů. Premiéra v Národním divadle” [Julietta von B. Martinů. Erstauff üh- rung im Nationaltheater], Lidové noviny, 18. 3. 1938. 9 H.W.S., „Surrealistické Hoff mannovy povídky“, Rytmus III, S. 82–83. 71 ein nicht erreichbares Ziel dar.“10 Die Musik zertrümmert die Poesie des Traums noch weiter und deutlicher – „und versachlicht damit diesen vagen Lyrismus der Seele“.11 Nach František Bartoš hilft die Vertonung dem musikalischen Werk in dem Sinne, als sie „die zarte Stimmung dieses Spieles hervorheben und betonen“ kann. Ein Nachteil ist dann in der Tatsache zu sehen, „dass man dem Zuschauer damit ein näheres Verständnis des Sinnes und der Substanz der Musik nicht erleichtert“. Auch das Fehlen von szenisch bearbeiteten und sich entwickelnden Handlungssträngen sei off ensichtlich. Sofern die Rezensenten zu dem Eindruck kamen, dass Martinů in seiner Oper, abgesehen von allen erwähnten Tatsachen, ein komplexes Ganze geschaff en hat, suchten sie nach Gründen einer solchen inneren Kohärenz des Werkes: „Gerade die Musik räumt diesem Spiel, in dem die Menschen zusammenhanglos und unlogisch in TrauM–Trance handeln, eine innere Kohärenz und Logik ein“, meint František Bartoš. Er sieht ein verbindendes mu- sikalisches Mittel in der kennzeichnenden, identische Momente des Spieles vereinigenden, Musik und nicht in kennzeichnenden Motiven.12 Er sieht ein verbindendes musikalisches Mittel nicht in den Leitmotiven, sondern in einer Leitmusik, die identische Momente des Spieles vereinigt. Ungeachtet der oben zitierten Aussagen gefi el den Kritikern der zweite Akt am besten, und zwar da, wo „das Orchester in süßen Harmonien und gedämpften Farben eingehend zu erzählen beginnt […], wo die Musik die Traumillusion am reich- lichsten unterstützt“.13 Der dritte Akt wirkte gewissermaßen überfl üssig, zum Schluss des 2. Aktes „klang die Musik in Julietta aus. Der letzte Akt wirkt wie eine naturalistische Szene. […] Hier hat die Musik keinen Raum mehr“.14 In den Rezensionen, die auf den Seiten der Zeitschrift Smetana erschienen, wurde Julietta mit größtem Missverstehen aufgenommen. Artuš Rektorys setzte als Leiter die- ser Zeitschrift (in den Jahren 1936–1938) die Linie der Zeitung fort, die schon in den vorherigen Jahren von Zdeněk Nejedlý verfolgt wurde. Bohuslav Martinů, ein Schüler von Josef Suk, also eines Schülers von Antonín Dvořák, wurde von Nejedlý im Kontext der tschechischen musikalischen Kultur als ein Mitglied des sogenannten Dvořáks-Lagers angesehen. Dem gegenüber etablierten sich Persönlichkeiten, die sich im Umkreis der Zeitschrift Smetana versammelten und seit einigen Jahrzehnten ideologisch fest geprägt waren. Das Hauptmotiv für die Rezension des Redakteurs Smetana und des Ästhetikers Josef Bartoš war ein grundsätzlicher Mangel an Verständnis gegenüber dem zeitgenössi- schen französischen Musiktheater. Als Schüler von Romain Rolland oder Henry Bergson akzeptierte er vor allem nicht die Konzeption des antipsychologischen Dramas oder das Fehlen der Einfühlung in dem französischen Neoklassizismus: „Das Theater bedeutet für Martinů keine Parallele zur Realität. […] Die gesamte Einfühlung möchte man da aus 10 Antonín Šilhan, „Mezi snem a skutečností“ [Zwischen dem Traum und der Wirklichkeit], Národní listy, 18. 3. 1938. 11 Ebd. 12 fb, „Z hudebního života“, Tempo 17 (1938), S. 119. 13 Antonín Šilhan, „Mezi snem a skutečností“, Národní listy, 18. 3. 1938. 14 Ebd. 72 dem Wahrnehmungsvorgang ausschließen, die Funktion der Opernzuhörer reduzieren oder […] sie wenigstens auf das Unterhaltungs-Zuschauen lenken, was aus der Beteiligung an dem Spiel selbst folgt.“15 Auch wenn man nicht behaupten kann, dass Josef Bartoš zu den linksorientierten Persönlichkeiten der Kunst in der Tschechoslowakei vor dem Krieg gehört habe, so geht aus seinen Texten trotzdem seine Überzeugung über die Gültigkeit der volks nahen Kunst hervor. Die derartig „zu raffi nierte“ Julietta ist eigentlich nur eine bloße „künstlich konstruierte, vor allem auf die künstlerische Form orientierte, Geschichte“, „eine abstrakte Konstruktion“, die „direkt volksfeindlich fabuliert ist und nur einen ziem- lich kleinen Kreis von Theater-Zuschauern direkt anspricht“.16 Bartoš wirft Martinů zum Teil vor, dass er freiwillig auf das Leben in seinem eigenen Land verzichtete, und dass er seine Auswahl der Kultursujets des von ihm gewählten Landes mit der Absicht treff e, eine Wirkung nach draußen zu erzielen. Bartoš gefällt die Vertonung von Martinů nicht, er fi ndet seine Musik zu robust gegenüber dem Sujet von Neveux, er stellt sogar die Invention des Komponisten in Frage und fi ndet in der Musik von Martinů eine Abhängigkeit vor al- lem von Stravinski, aber auch von Janáček. Er lehnte die Oper im Großen und Ganzen mit der folgenden scharfen Aussage ab: „Ich hatte mittlerweile Angst, dass das Genre, in dem Martinů diesmal komponierte, das befürchtete ‚Genre Ennuyeux‘ war, da ich mich selbst wahnsinnig gelangweilt habe.“17 Der zweite Artikel, der in der Zeitschrift Smetana in der folgenden Nummer erschien, wurde von dem Theaterregisseur, später auch Filmregisseur und Autor von Filmszenarien, Henryk Bloch, verfasst. „Das musikalisch-dramatische Gebilde, repräsentiert durch Julietta, verdient eine Ablehnung“,18 schrieb Bloch. Er sieht in diesem Typus des Musiktheaters vor allem eine Nicht-Wagnersche Konzeption, die Wagners „Gesamtkunstwerk“ ablehnt und die szenische und musikalische Komponente voneinander trennt. Nach Bloch aber muss die Basis der Oper in der Übereinstimmung der Szene mit der Musik bestehen. Er fuhr fort, dass Martinů also „den Text von Neveux nur vertonte, diesen nur singen und vom Orchester begleiten ließ, wobei das alles zwar eff ektvoll wirkt, aber es fehlt die Fähigkeit, die erforderliche Struktur des Bühnenwerks mitzugestalten“.19 Der Regisseur Honzl konnte nach Bloch keine besondere Invention für die Bühnenauff ührung des vom Komponisten vergewaltigten Textes von Neveux nachwei- sen. Er hält die Szene von Muzika für wenig gelungen und war weder mit der Rolle von Julietta, noch mit der von Michel, der seiner Meinung nach „als die zweite Hauptrolle viel einfacher, da ziemlich passiv ist“, einverstanden.20 Anlässlich der zweiten Auff ührung der Julietta im Prager Nationaltheater im Jahre 1963 konstatierte der Leiter der Redaktion der kritischen und szenischen Rubrik der 15 Josef Bartoš, „Operní problém Bohuslava Martinů“ [Bohuslav Martinůs Opernproblem], Smetana II, S. 93–95. 16 Ebd. 17 Ebd. 18 Henryk Bloch, „Julietta jako jevištní záležitost“ [Julietta als die Bühnensache], Smetana II, S. 112–113. 19 Ebd. 20 Ebd. 73 Zeitschrift Hudební rozhledy Vilém Pospíšil auf den Seiten dieses Periodikum, dass bis jetzt in der Literatur über die Musik der Julietta nur sehr wenig ausgesagt worden war. Er legte deswegen an Stelle einer Rezension zu der neuen Inszenierung seine eigene Analyse der Oper vor. Es ging aber nicht um eine ausführliche Analyse, der Autor refl ektiert viel- mehr über Martinůs Prinzipien der musikalischen Tektonik, die in dieser Oper gelten. An Hand von mehreren Beispielen verweist Pospíšil auf eine ziemlich klassische Ordnung, die hier herrscht. Und weiter: „Es geht um eine klar tonale, überwältigende und durchsichtig instrumentierte Musik.“21 Er behauptet, dass mit dem Prisma der heutigen musikali- schen Entwicklung die Musik von Julietta nicht so „kontinuierlich“ zu sein scheint. „Die Gleichmäßigkeit, eine tatsächliche Ordnung im motivischen sowie rhythmischen Bereich, sind in Julietta zu deutlich.“22 Pospíšil operiert oft im positiven Sinne mit dem Terminus Realismus, er spricht von dem Realismus des musikalischen Ausdrucks, der zwar auf den ersten Blick der surrealistischen Vorlage nicht entspricht. Allerdings spricht gerade die Tatsache, dass die „phantastische Prägung des Sujets seitens Martinůs nicht durch eine ähnliche ‚phantastische Art‘ der Musik zum Ausdruck gebracht wird“,23 Pospíšils Meinung nach dafür, dass „Julietta ein großes musikalisch-dramatisches Werk ist“.24 Diese Neuauff ührung von Julietta rief aber heftige Reaktionen hervor, insbesondere was die Inszenierung betriff t. In Divadelní noviny erschienen innerhalb einer Nummer gleich zwei Rezensionen. Die erste Rezension von Jaromír Průša stellte eine heftige Kon- frontation mit einer neuen, in der aktuellen Einstudierung eingenommenen, Auff assung der Julietta, dar. Auch wenn Průša höchstwahrscheinlich in vielerlei Hinsicht nicht Recht hatte und Kašlíks Regie allgemein als sehr hochrangig bewertet wurde, wobei wir auch seine einige Jahre später entstandene Realisierung von Julietta für das Fernsehen kennen, verdient Průšas Rezensionen insbesondere deswegen große Anerkennung, da er in seiner Zeit einen sehr mutigen Angriff gegen die geltende Ideologie vortrug: „Es ist ohne Zweifel so, dass in der Ära des Naturalismus, des aufgeblähten Realismus, in der Ära, in welcher dem Kunstwerk ‚gesellschaftliche‘ Auslegungen linear schematisch unterstellt werden, die Entwicklungslinie in unserem progressiven künstlerischen Schaff en unterbrochen wurde.“25 Julietta wird von ihm als ein außerordentliches Werk hervorgehoben, welches es verdiene, auf Weltbühnen einen Durchbruch zu schaff en. Er war aber davon überzeugt, dass die neue Einstudierung des Dirigenten Krombholc, des Regisseurs Kašlík und des Bühnenbildners Svoboda einem solchen Durchbruch nicht zuträglich sei, sondern diesen eher beeinträchtigen könne. Der Redakteur der Zeitung Divadelní noviny Jiří Bajer kommentierte in einem weite- ren Artikel die Rezension von Průša und versuchte, deren konfrontative Stoßrichtung zu 21 Vilém Pospíšil, „Opera-sen“ [Oper-Traum], Hudební rozhledy XVI (1963), S. 443–446. 22 Ebd. 23 Ebd. 24 Ebd. 25 Jaromír Průša, „Co je a co není nové” [Was ist und was ist nicht neue], Divadelní noviny 7, 15. 5. 1963, S. 6–7. 74 mildern. Er stimmt mit Průša darin überein, dass in einigen Momenten das Bühnenbild und die darstellerische Umsetzung allgemein nicht ganz in Ordnung seien, allerdings verteidigt er die Regie-Umsetzung sowie die Leistungen der Sänger. Diese Diskussion über die zweite tschechische Einstudierung von Julietta ging allerdings weiter. Vladimír Šefl äußerte auf den Seiten der Zeitschrift Hudební rozhledy seine scharfe Missbilligung ge- genüber der Meinung von Jaromír Průša. Er war vor allem davon überzeugt, dass Kašlíks Realisierung von Julietta einfach hervorragend war. Er warf der Redaktion der Zeitung Divadelní noviny vor, dass sie der Meinung von Průša nicht deutlicher widersprochen habe. Selbst Jiří Bajer tut es auf eine äußerst ideologische Art und Weise: „Die sozialistische Gesellschaft stellt (an Kritiker sowie Künstler) besonders hohe Ansprüche: Kritiker sowie Künstler müssen zueinander solche Beziehungen herstellen, dass es ihnen möglich ist, sich wie Menschen gleichen Sinnes an einen Tisch zu setzen und sich die Sachen – auch die unangenehmen! – von Angesicht zu Angesicht zu sagen […]. So, wie es sich hier darstellt, stellen wir uns die Gestaltung der Beziehungen zwischen dem sozialistischen Künstler und dem sozialistischen Kritiker nicht vor.“26 Im Jahre 1966 kam es in Brno erst zur dritten Auff ührung von Julietta, was für ein so großes Werk ziemlich wenig war, wie auch die Rezensenten mit Bedauern feststellten. Auch in diesem Fall hat man die neue Einstudierung mit den vorherigen verglichen, wo- bei die aus Brno aus dem Vergleich als die schlechteste hervorging. Die Auff assung des Stückes von Brno war nach Einschätzung der Kritiker von „der Substanz des Werkes […] viel weiter entfernt als die Prager Vorstellung“.27 Die Rezensenten berichteten über eine „von Seiten der Regie nicht ausreichende Gestaltung des Poetismus in der Oper von B. Mar tinů“.28 Sie erklärten sich mit der Konzeption des Regisseurs Oskar Linhart nicht einverstanden. Dieser Regisseur hat die Oper nach seinen Aussagen in eine andere, der Romantik nähere und gleichzeitig im Stil konventionelle Stilebene verschoben,29 in der auf der Bühne „ein normaler“ Traum mit einer immer anwesenden schlafenden Gestalt von Michel dargestellt wurde. „Man ist hier also einer wichtigen Forderung des Autors, und zwar der, dass sich die Handlung auf der Grenzlinie zwischen Fiktion und Realität abspielen soll, nicht nachgekommen.“30 Die Premiere der Julietta fand zum Abschluss des ersten Jahres des internationalen Musikfestivals in Brno statt, das vollständig auf das Werk von B. Martinů ausgerichtet war und zum Höhepunkt einer neuen Welle des Interesses für den Komponisten seit dem Ende der fünfziger Jahre führte. Das regte die tschechischen Musikwissenschaftler dazu an, die Julietta auf irgendeine Art und Weise neu zu benennen und einzuordnen. Im Rahmen dieser eher allgemeinen Überlegungen kam es auch zu der 26 Vladimír Šefl , „Co je a není nové čili Julietta” [Was ist und was ist nicht neue oder Julietta], Hudební rozhledy XVI (1963), S. 556. 27 Vilém Pospíšil, „Julietta potřetí“[Julietta zum dritten Mal], Hudební rozhledy XIX (1966), S. 620–621. 28 Eva Hermannová, „Ruch kolem Bohuslava Martinů“ [Das Treiben um Bohuslav Martinů], Divadelní noviny X, 30. 11. 1966, S. 4. 29 Ebd. 30 Ebd. 75 eigentlichen Diskussion über das Bühnenwerk von Martinů und zwar während des musik- wissenschaftlichen Kolloquiums, welches im Rahmen des Festivals in Brno veranstaltet wurde, und auch in einem nachfolgenden Seminar. Der Musikwissenschaftler Jiří Fukač sieht demnach in Julietta eine Oper „die zwischen einer lyrischen Tragödie und einer Buff a schwankt“.31 Ein großes Verdienst von Bohuslav Martinů besteht seiner Meinung nach darin, dass er für die Oper gerade dieses Sujet gewählt hat „und auf diese Art und Weise das moderne musikalische Schaff en mit dem Gedankenstrom des Surrealismus und des modernen Psychologismus verbunden hat“.32 Fukač allerdings sprach der Musik die Kennzeichen der unmittelbaren Modernität ab, indem er konstatierte, „dass hier aus rein musikalischer Sicht nicht allzu viel Neues und Ungewöhnliches zu fi nden ist“.33 Die Repräsentanten der tschechischen musikalischen Wissenschaft stellten im Jahre 1966 fest, dass man über Martinů noch zu wenig weiß, um sein Werk abschließend in die Entwicklung der Musik des 20. Jahrhunderts einordnen zu können. In der ersten Hälfte der 60er Jahre wurden die Bühnenwerke von Bohuslav Martinů auf den tsche- chischen Bühnen ziemlich oft aufgeführt, in jedem Jahr fanden drei bis vier Premieren statt. Unabhängig davon beklagten die zeitgenössischen Kritiker die Situation, in der Martinů in tschechischen Theatern noch nicht etabliert war. Eine solche Häufi gkeit von Auff ührungen von Martinůs Bühnenwerken in Tschechien ist in der jetzigen Zeit natür- lich nicht einmal im Jubiläumsjahr des Komponisten festzustellen. Im Jahre 1938 wurde Julietta in Prag nur in sechs Auff ührungen gezeigt und nach zeitgenössischen Zeugnissen waren die Vorstellungen nicht besonders gut besucht. Von der Tatsache, dass sich die Situation für die Oper Julietta nicht besonders deutlich verändert hat, zeugt die vorjährige Einstudierung der Oper in Brno. Ähnlich wie in den dreißiger Jahren des 20. Jahrhunderts haben sich mit Julietta von den bedeutendsten Fachleuten im Bereich der tschechischen Theaterkunst beschäftigt. Auch wenn von der vorjährigen Julietta die exzellente Regie von Jiří Nekvasil und die Szene von Daniel Dvořák wahrscheinlich in die Geschichte des tschechischen Opernlebens und der Opern-Inszenierungen eingehen werden, wurde die Oper insgesamt nur fünfmal aufgeführt. Das Janáček-Theater in Brno war dabei nie voll besetzt. 31 Jiří Fukač, „Julietta – tečka za festivalem” [Julietta – Festivalsschlusspunkt], Rovnost, 11. 10. 1966. 32 Ebd. 33 Ebd. 76 The Metamorphoses of the Czech Reception of the Opera Julietta by Bohuslav Martinů Summary The paper brings an insight into the Czech reception history of the opera Julietta by Bohuslav Martinů focusing on the period 1938–1966. Its premier took place in Prague in 1938, other performances followed in Prague in 1963 and Brno in 1966. The gap of 25 years in between was due to the Nazi and communist regimes hostility to the work of Martinů. The author scrutinizes the responses of music criticism to the three stagings of the opera. At the end of the 1930s, the distribution of attitudes to the piece followed primarily the essential divisions among the various modernist groupings in the Czech musical life of the period, especially composer societies like Přítomnost and Mánes. In 1960s, the value judgements were heavily informed by the socialist ideology, the internal “musical” standpoints played a secondary role. Proměny české recepce opery Julietta Bohuslava Martinů Shrnutí Studie představuje sondu do české recepce opery Julietta Bohuslava Martinů v období mezi léty 1938–1966. Premiéra této opery se uskutečnila v Praze roku 1938, následuje uvedení v Praze v roce 1963 a Brně v roce 1966. V tomto čtvrtstoletí trvajícím mezi- dobí dochází k umlčení hudby Bohuslava Martinů, nejprve ze strany okupující německé moci, později v důsledku nepřátelských postojů komunistických kulturních představitelů. Autorka studie zkoumá kritické refl exe na tři inscenace tohoto operního díla. Na konci třicátých let se postoje recenzentů od sebe lišily především podle příslušnosti k názorové orientaci na soudobou hudbu, jež byly v tehdejší české hudební kultuře reprezentované především dvěma skladatelskými seskupeními – Přítomností či Hudební skupinou Mánesa. V šedesátých letech jsou soudy na tuto operu silně ovlivněné socialistickou kulturní ide- ologií a vlastní „hudební“ hlediska hrála sekundární roli. Keywords Bohuslav Martinů (1890–1959); Julietta; reception. Schlüsselwörter Bohuslav Martinů (1890–1959); Julietta; Rezeption. 77 Musicologica Olomucensia 11 – June 2010 Irreality of a Work of Music in Phenomenological Aesthetics Martina Stratilková In the thoughts on the character of music the idea of musical immateriality has gained some tradition, when sound for us is something which is not ascribed to an object because sounds used by music are independent of the material source. Thus the meaning carried by music, although it cannot be named, does not consist in the “property of this violin”. That would bring us to the violin, which, however, was made in order to produce that sound. The sound thus breaks the umbilical cord with its originator and travels to my organ of hearing. Naturally, I cannot touch and see the sound because it is an object ac- cessible to the hearing only. But how is determined what I can hear? What kind of thing it is when I even do not know where it is? A music sound cannot be seized although it is linked with matter. Its way to a sensual impression is now relatively well proved in phy- siology. But that is not the whole problem. European culture arrived at a specifi c music form, a work of music, in which, independently of it, its “performance” is common. What is heard at a concert is not identical with the work, which means that the work requires from the listener a certain fi nishing of the sounds, a sort of abstraction of the work which is constantly valid, in spite of the plurality of its performances. Already in the beginnings of phenomenology, which developed after the publication of Husserl’s Logical Investiga- tions, interest in the conception of the work of music can be registered. It fi rst appeared in a fairly widely and generally conceived study, Der ästhetische Gegenstand,1 written in 1908 by Husserl’s pupil Waldemar Conrad (1878–1915), who formulated there the principles of the phenomenological approach to an aesthetic object and who dealt with each art form. He takes music for an ideal object which we as “das ‘gemeinte’ Kunstwerk”2 want to defi ne in its substantial properties, “wenn wir also diesen idealen Gengenstand, ‘die Symphonie’, uns ‘näher’ bringen und auf Grund von adäquater 1 Waldemar Conrad, “Der ästhetische Gegenstand”, Zeitschrift für Ästhetik und allgemeine Kunstwis- senschaft, 3 (1908), p. 71–118. 2 Ibid., p. 78. 79 Anschauung Wesenseigenschaften von ihm mit Evidenz aussagen”.3 Conrad thus contrasts an individual, concrete thing with a real existence and an ideal object. Since, however, he speaks of the proximity toward the work, of the aesthetic experience – acts which for instance a symphony “deutlicher und deutlicher vor Augen führten”4 and thus become a basis for aesthetic evaluation, it is obvious that Conrad counts with the presence of the work in the form of its performance as it is perceived in a particular moment. Only in the perception of an aesthetic object it is possible to speak of focusing on the essential features of the work. Not all features of an aesthetic object of course form a work of art. Some are irrelevant and can vary in diff erent performances. Conrad includes them in the “sphere of irrelevance”. The movement on their boundary is then seen in terms of a greater or smaller perfection of the performance, even though he does not specify the consequences for the work or its aesthetic seizing. Next he thinks about there being vari- ous typical extents for a work of non-relevant deviations, depending on the type of music, so that it is possible to think of such borders of irrelevance that would characterize for instance a music genre whereas within it greater generality and thus also a wider range of irrelevance is involved. In this Conrad literally “prescribes” the desirable perception, which also “weist sich doch wieder auf jene fundamentale Eigenart des ästhetischen Ge- genstandes hin, ‘Aufgabe’ zu sein, einen vorgeschriebenen ‘Standpunkt’, vorgeschriebene ‘Auff assungen’ zu besitzen”.5 Perhaps the orientation toward the natural thing is of the same quality because the thing enables the changeability of the positions, whereas in an aesthetic subject one position must be “fi xed”. Here Conrad probably has not in mind the phenomenon of adumbration, i.e. gradual appearing of the object of exterior spatial perception, but he means within this frame an already valid limited frame in the system of perceived references required by the thing. Consequently, the phenomenon itself of course disappears, which also follows from the immaterial, ideal character of the work of music. The ideal character of a work of music was also presumed by the founder of pheno- menology himself, Edmund Husserl (1859–1938), whose later writings contains a few remarks on works of art and on cultural and spiritual products. He regards each of them as irreal objects because they have no identity based on their spatiotemporal dating. Then for real being one could regard “all that which, in real things in the broader sense, is, ac- cording to its sense, essentially individualized by its spatiotemporal position; but we call irreal every determination which, indeed, is founded with regard to its spatiotemporal appearance in a specifi cally real thing, but which can appear in diff erent realities as identical – not merely as similar”.6 Husserl’s defi nition is thus fundamentally based on the polarity of performance and the work itself, because there exists the possibility (and necessity) of passing with the intended signifi cance, here and now, to the identity, which does not consist merely of the properties of the music as it sounds and which simultaneously cannot be perceived 3 Ibid., p. 77. 4 Ibid., p. 77. 5 Ibid., p. 98. 6 Edmund Husserl, Experience and Judgement (Evanston, 1973), p. 265–266. 80 with such a degree of abstraction from the fundamental features, which would enable a replacement by another object (as for instance using any cup when I want to drink). Thus in physical things we look for similarities which usually show their identical, more general properties. But what appears as an individual performance must be absolutely identical. Thus against what “in things is embodied as such”,7 is put the spiritual form of ideal objectivities in the world, which of course also “in its way has an objective existence but only by means of these two-layer repetitions, fi nally those that embody sensually”.8 The ideal objectivity is thus objectivized in a thing that can be seized by senses, “is certainly ‘embodied’ in the real world, but it is not individualized by this embodiment”.9 Husserl, however, distinguishes free and bound idealities. Free idealities are “omnispatial and omnitemporal”.10 Bound idealities are bound to the real world, are linked with history or place, etc. Husserl believes that in the end every ideality must have a certain anchoring in the real world if for no other reason than that it was revealed, discovered somewhere at some time. Husserl’s description has an enormous disadvantage because it relates to a great many realities which are mostly called the cultural and spiritual world, where language, science, and art are found, each being much diff erent. But it is possible to ap pre ciate that Husserl expressed his standpoint to music in a clear way, so that it can be deduced that his thoughts involve music when he directly speaks of it: “this etching, the etched picture itself, is seen in each print and in each it is given in the same way as an identical ideality. On the other hand an etching exists in the real world only in the form of a print. Similarly we will speak of Kreutzer’s sonata in contrast to its random reproductions. Although it consists of tones, it is an ideal unity and its tones are no less this unity… So like the whole, its part is also something ideal, which becomes the real hic et nunc only through the real singularization.”11 In his relation to music, Husserl keeps a heavy polarity of the ideal and the real. The aspect of aesthetic perception with many of its consequences for an analysis of a work of music was introduced by Roman Ingarden (1893–1970).12 Ingarden’s views of a work of music can be used as a symbol of his departure from Husserl’s philosophy due to the increasing role of the transcendental subjectivity in his work. In a discussion with Conrad Ingarden refuses to accept a work of music as an ideal object. The reason is that a work of music has a historical point of origin that can be established in the mind (in intentional acts) and so it does not exist outside the space and time of the real world although at the moment of its origin it will cross its historical dating and will be 7 Edmund Husserl, Krize evropských věd a transcendentální fenomenologie [Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology] (Prague, 1996), p. 387. 8 Ibid., p. 387–388. 9 Edmund Husserl, Experience and Judgement (Evanston, 1973), p. 266. 10 Ibid., p. 267. 11 Edmund Husserl, Formální a transcendentální logika [Formal and Transcendental Logics] (Prague, 2007), p. 39. 12 Roman Ingarden, The Work of Music and the Problem of its Identity (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1986). 81 manifested merely as an object intended through its performance but diff erent from the performance. Thus it stands behind the multitude of its performances and Ingarden de- fi nes in what way it happens. The work is an invariant, of course not a completely defi ned structure, with a quasi-temporal character. It is thus a system of temporal relations, which, however, does not enter the real time, unlike the performances which make the work concrete. While Conrad in connection with the identity of the work spoke of the sphere of irrelevance, Ingarden spoke of places of indeterminacy. It belongs to the work which is defi ned by its schematic ontic base, the score, though of course not defi ned completely. The advance over Conrad is in particular the historically variable identity of the work, which is due not merely to the lack of options provided by the musical recording but is also a factor in adapting the work to variable historical norms, giving it a chance of life. Each performance makes possible a reconstruction of the work and the experiencing of this concretized work proceeds as experiencing the constituted aesthetic object, which has a particular form. Historically variable norms determine the similarly variable form of the ideal aesthetic object, which represents the aesthetically most valuable fi lling of places of indeterminacy. So while Conrad thinks of the maximum approximation of a particular aesthetic object to the substance of the work, Ingarden puts above this goal the historical variability of the ideal, which of course on principle he acknowledges. Ingarden insists on the non-ideality of a work of music but it is obvious that the work of music in his conception is irreal. He says that it is “purely intentional”, that is there is no intentional seizing of the real object but the constituting of the object through a real object. Further it is clear that the performance of a work of music is also an intentional object, or in the words of Husserl, “the real song itself is … the intentional object of the hearing”.13 The consequences of the manner of the existence of the work in relation to its performance, conceived by Ingarden, and in contrast to it by Husserl or Conrad, are thus almost iden- tical, although the terminology of the aesthetic object is naturally more suitable for the description of the work as it is given in experience, which is a standpoint showing greater sensitivity toward the artistic sphere, rich in experience. Moreover, many passages devoted by Ingarden to the description of the performance of a work of music can be regarded as a description of the work itself, as it was demonstrated by Ellen Jacobs14 who claims that Ingarden’s interesting analysis can be better applied to the performance. Both are intentional objects (works, aesthetic objects). A distinct division between the performance as a real object and the work as an ideal object was done by Alfred Schütz (1899–1959). The relation between the score (but also the performance of the work) and the work of music is for instance similar to a lecture and a scientifi c theory, the real objects of which represent “indispensable means for com- 13 Edmund Husserl, Analyses Concerning Passive and Active Synthesis, Lectures on Transcendental Logic (Dordrecht, 2001), p. 453. 14 Ellen Jacobs, Toward an Ontology of Musical Works of Art (Saint Louis, 1977), p. 159. 82 municating the musical or scientifi c thought”.15 The work itself, however, does not exist independently from these means of communication, and like Igarden, Schütz points out the possibility of seizing the work in an inner hearing, independently from its perform- ance or from the score (when for instance the composer keeps a work in his mind already before it was written). The further account by Schütz of course can face a similar objec- tion as Ingarden’s interpretation because in it we fail to see any distinguishing between the validity of the work and its performance, implicitly he works with the aesthetic object bound to a particular work. In addition to the determination of the status of a work of music, Schütz thinks about its specifi c constitution: “the specifi c existence of the ideal object, ‘work of music’, is its extension in time; the specifi c constitution is a polythetic one”,16 which is a diff erent formulation of what Ingarden calls an object lasting in time (the Husserlian temporal object). His thoughts of course can be of interest for the phe- nomenological perception of music (rather than of the work of music). Great consequences for the experiencing of a work of music, as of an invariantly in- tended structure standing above its performances, as well as for the experience of one self are produced by the theory of art by Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980), outlined in one of his early works, L’imaginaire.17 Some of its conclusions are developed in his other philo- sophical writings. Sartre ascribes to art the character of imaginative consciousness. He is interested in it primarily in order to clarify the relationship between the being of the world and the being of consciousness, in the hope of contributing to general ontology. By this he moves away from the issue of art but on the other hand he off ers a view which explains the intoxicating mystery of the entrance into a contact with a work of art. Sartre assumes that perceiving and imagining consciousnesses are two diff erent states, mutually excluded, and “the images thus can be described only by an act of the second order, when the look turns away from the object and focuses on the manner in which the object is given”,18 is a refl ection of the object. What appears in perception and in imagination, although based on the same object, is in a diff erent relation to consciousness: “In the fi rst case consciousness ‘meets’ a chair, in the second it does not.”19 If I perceive the object, I have it in front of me, when I imagine it, I have to make it present, bring it into my consciousness because the object itself is otherwise absent from consciousness. Perception of course is packed with a wealth of perceptive aspects by which a thing is presented, as it was de- scribed by Husserl in his theory of adumbration, and therefore it is constituted gradually only, on principle it is infi nite. The imagination that is not awoken by what for me is an external object, is produced by an inner reason and cannot add anything to the object 15 Alfred Schütz, “Fragments on the phenomenology of music”, Music and Man, 2 (1976), p. 5–71, here p. 28. The text was written probably in 1948. 16 Ibid., p. 29. 17 Jean-Paul Sartre, L’Imaginaire (Paris, 1940). 18 “Imaginace a imaginárno. Intencionální struktura obrazu”, Estetika, 6 (1969), p. 135–146, here p. 135. This article is a translation of parts from the fi rst and the last charter of Sartre’s L’Imaginaire. 19 Ibid., p. 136. 83 (“an irreal object is distinguished by essential poverty”20). Objects escape from the bonds of obligatory constitution because “they are viewed from several sides simultaneously.”21 Sartre adds that objects present to imagination a particular position, which, however, is a random one and dissolves, or “it compresses each position of the elements of the object into an invariable form”.22 This postulation of the so-called immanent perception (with intention focused on one’s own experience) for the whole sphere of art is very audacious, for instance it does not explicitly assume such an aesthetic object, which, in the words of Ingarden, is a concretization of the work (a particular aesthetic object). In a similar way Husserl contrasted the work and the real object. In Sartre, aesthetically experienced and valuable is the work in itself, the irreal objective whole, not its representation or its anima- tion: “Beauty is a value which can only be related to the imaginary and which is linked with the negation of the world in its essential structure.”23 “The artist wanted to create a set of real tones which would produce the manifestation of this irreality”.24 This shows the existentialist conclusion at which Sartre arrived, namely that man is endowed with freedom of consciousness, which in the end alienates him from the world.25 Imaginative acts are of course merely a training for this movement: “Since imagination is a negation of the world from a particular aspect, the imaginative image can only appear against the background of the world and in unity with this world.”26 Moreover, persisting in the imaginary consciousness can bring the desirable transformation in experiencing oneself and the world: “In imagination even a total ’poverty of things’ can satisfy the feeling. The feeling will neither be surprised or disappointed by them, nor guided by them.”27 We have discussed the conceptions of the character of a work of music which come from philosophers-phenomenologists. Husserl typically gives only a sketchy description of a work of music through general categories, into the description of which many realities can be substituted. Schütz thinks in a similar way but he defi nes the polythetic manner of the constitution of a work of music, which enables him to set it into the context of other arts, comparable to the work of music, and a fundamental description of its specifi city may be attempted. Greatest similarity is to be found in Conrad and Ingarden, in whom the development of thinking Husserl – Conrad – Ingarden can be traced.28 It could be 20 Ibid., p. 140. 21 Ibid., p. 138. 22 Ibid., p. 139. 23 Ibid., p. 145. 24 Ibid., p. 144. 25 In order to be able to posit the world, we have to be able to leave it (e.g. in acts of imagination), by which we of course negate the world: “so that consciousness can realize imagination it must with its substance escape from the world”. (Ibid., p. 142) 26 Ibid., p. 143. 27 Ibid., p. 141. 28 Husserl’s notes on works of music at that time were still unpublished. Conrad, however, as Husserl’s pupil, could have known or derived them, due to their general character. 84 supported by the real (briefl y indicated) dialogue of Ingarden with an older study by Con- rad. In Sartre it is possible to think of a link between his hypothesis of the unadumbrated presentation of a work of music and Conrad’s emphasis put on the requirement of a fi xed standpoint when an aesthetic object is perceived. Sartre’s thesis, however, appears to be hardly acceptable especially for visual art, which always served as a basis for Husserl in his explanation of the phenomenon of adumbration in perception, which Sartre thus drastically denies (in particular with respect to visual art). Still Sartre really searches for the experienced sense of art and that is a real phenomenological deed. Translated by Jaroslav Peprník Die Irrealität eines musikalischen Werkes in der phänomenologischen Ästhetik Zusammenfassung Die Nicht-Existenz eines musikalischen Werkes in Form eines realen Gegenstandes basiert auf traditionellen ästhetischen Überlegungen, welche die Welt der Töne als etwas Entmaterialisiertes ansehen. Das hängt insbesondere damit zusammen, dass die in der Musik hervorgebrachten Töne, im Gegensatz zu anderen Sachen, nicht primär in ihrer räumlichen Lokalisierung zu erfassen sind, sondern dass sie als etwas, was sich in dem uns umgebenden Raum befi ndet, wahrzunehmen sind. Die Irrealität des musikalischen Werkes wird allerdings von der phänomenologischen Ästhetik fast mit derselben Gültig- keit für alle Arten der Kunst erklärt und stützt sich auf die Beziehung eines permanenten Wesens des Werkes zu seinen verschiedenen Vergegenwärtigungen in der Situation der Rezeption, resp. auf einen besonderen, dem Werk immanenten Charakter seiner Bot- schaft. Im Gegensatz zu Husserl, welcher die Musik für einen idealen, unter verschiedenen Umständen identisch erscheinenden, Gegenstand hielt, betonten Conrad und Ingarden, bei denen eine Meinungskontinuität zu verfolgen ist, eine fehlende endgültige Bestimmt- heit des musikalischen Werkes, welcher erst Ingarden eine grundsätzliche Rolle für die Bestimmung der historischen Identität des Werkes und seiner Off enheit für Veränderun- gen im Bereich der Rezeption zuerkannte. Deren Standpunkt konzentriert sich auf das Verhältnis des Werkes zu einem ästhetischen Objekt, wobei Schütz die Problematik des Charakters des musikalischen ästhetischen Gegenstandes außer Acht lässt und sich mit seinem Inhalt und mit dem spezifi schen Charakter des musikalischen Werkes als eines idealen Gegenstandes unter idealer Gegenständlichkeit als solchen auseinandersetzt. Conrad und Sartre stellen sich die Frage nach dem spezifi schen Charakter der Rezeption des musikalischen Werkes: Conrads Betonung der Suche nach einem festen Standpunkt für die Wahrnehmung des Werkes und Sartres Auff assung des Kunstwerkes als eines Ge- genstandes der Imagination bieten die Idee, dass das Wahrnehmen des Kunstwerkes in einem Modus des immanenten, an den eigentlichen Akt der Werkbeziehung orientierten 85 Wahrnehmens, vor sich geht. Nur für Ingarden ist das musikalische Werk nicht ein idealer Gegenstand, sondern er sieht darin einen rein intentionalen Gegenstand, wobei er den Aspekt der Genesis des Gegenstandes (Datierbarkeit seines Entstehens) und nicht den Charakter der Sinnkonstitution, die er im Unterschied zu dem idealen Gegenstand nicht einbezogen hat, berücksichtigt. Irealita hudebního díla ve fenomenologické estetice Shrnutí Neexistence hudebního díla v podobě reálného předmětu se opírá o tradiční estetické úvahy, které tónový svět spatřují jako odhmotnělý. To souvisí zejména s tím, že zvuky, které hudba využívá, neuchopujeme primárně v jejich prostorové lokalizaci, jako jiné věci, nýbrž jako pobývající v prostoru, který nás obklopuje. Ireálnost hudebního díla je ovšem fenomenologickou estetikou vysvětlována s téměř stejnou platností pro všechna umění a opírá se o vztah stálé podstaty díla a jeho různých zpředmětnění v situacích re- cepce, resp. o zvláštní charakter sdělení, nesený dílem. Oproti Husserlovi, který považoval hudbu za ideální předmět zjevující se za různých okolností identicky, zdůrazňují Conrad a Ingarden, mezi kterými lze sledovat názorovou kontinuitu, nedourčenost hudebního díla, které teprve Ingarden přiznává zásadní roli pro určení historické identity díla a jeho otevřenosti pro změny v oblasti recepce. Jejich stanovisko se soustředí na poměr díla k estetickému objektu, zatímco Schütz opomíjí problematiku povahy hudebního este- tického předmětu a zabývá se jeho obsahem a specifi ckou povahou hudebního díla jako ideálního předmětu mezi ideálními předmětnostmi vůbec. Conrad a Sartre si kladou otázku po specifi cké povaze recepce hudebního díla: Conradův důraz na hledání pevného stanoviště při vnímání díla a Sartrovo pojetí uměleckého díla jako předmětu imaginace nabízejí myšlenku, že vnímání uměleckého díla probíhá v modu imanentního vnímání, orientovaného k vlastnímu aktu vztažení k dílu. Pouze Ingarden nepovažuje hudební dílo za ideální předmět, nýbrž za předmět čistě intencionální, přičemž se opírá o aspekt gene- ze předmětu (datovatelnost vzniku) a nikoli o povahu konstituce smyslu, kterou odlišně od ideálního předmětu nepojal. Keywords Ideal object; intentional object; ontic status of a musical work of art; perception of music; immanent perception. 86 Musicologica Olomucensia 11 – June 2010 Film Music in Czech Music Periodicals in the 1960s Věra Šímová Czech fi lm underwent a great development in the 1960s. This decade is often even called “the golden era of the Czech fi lm”. Due to the political and social thaw in Czecho- slovakia, its fi lm production, after years of isolation, gradually could again be confronted with world cinematography. Many more foreign fi lms came to be imported than in the previous or the subsequent decades and their selection was more liberal. Beside the do- mestic fi lmmakers of the older and middle generations, the fresh graduates of Filmová a televizní fakulta Akademie múzických umění v Praze (FAMU) [Film and TV School of Academy of Performing Arts in Prague] asserted themselves (Miloš Forman, Jaromil Jireš, Jan Schmidt, Jiří Menzel, Věra Chytilová, Pavel Juráček, Ivan Passer, Jaroslav Pa- poušek, Antonín Máša, Evald Schorm, Jan Němec, Juraj Herz, Hynek Bočan, etc.),1 the so-called “second generation of FAMU”. From their ranks, the most progressive stream of Czech cinematography of the 1960s was formed, the Česká nová vlna [Czech New Wave]. Films by these directors are among the most precious fruit of the Czechoslovak fi lm production in that decade. In fi lm music the situation was similar. Music began to change on the basis of purely artistic factors. Contacts with music of Western Europe music were re-established, new techniques of composition made themselves felt even in fi lm music. Aleatorics and timbre music, together with the development of recording and reproducing techniques, radically aff ected the conception of sound both in concert music and in fi lm music. The infl uence of socialist realism receded. The young directors who in their fi lms often treated contem- porary themes, understandably invited for cooperation contemporary musicians. Thus the New Music composers began to collaborate with the fi lm – Jan Klusák, Luboš Fišer, Jan Novák, and so did composers of jazz music, such as Karel Velebný and Luděk Hulan. Due to the great popularity of pop music infl uenced by rock, its authors found opportuni- ties for treating contemporary themes in fi lms (Jiří Šlitr, Jiří Malásek, Petr Hapka, Karel 1 See Ludvík Havel, Český fi lm 1945–1998 [Czech Film 1945–1998] (Brno, 1998), p. 9. 87 Svoboda, Ladislav Štaidl).2 This and the way this development in fi lm music was perceived by Czech music specialists in professional journals, is the subject of the following paper. The fi eld thus defi ned is comprised in particular of three periodicals: Hudební věda [Musicology], Opus musicum and Hudební rozhledy [Music Review]. Hudební věda (regu- larly issued since 1964) did not pay any attention to fi lm music in that period. The same holds for the fi rst two volumes of Opus musicum, from 1969 and 1970. Thus in the 1960s the only music journal Hudební rozhledy (issued since 1948) informed in greater detail about the music in Czech, Slovak, and eventually in imported foreign fi lms.3 The authors of the majority of these articles are two Czech musicologists and journalists – Milan Kuna, who in the 1960s published two books on fi lm music (Hudba v krátkém fi lmu [Music in Short Film], Prague, 1960 and Zvuk a hudba ve fi lmu: K analýze zvukové dramaturgie fi lmu [Sound and Music in Film: Analysis of Sound Dramaturgy of Film], Prague, 1969), and Jiří Pilka. The latter began to deal with fi lm music while he was still a student at the Philosophical Faculty, Charles University in Prague, from which he graduated with the M.A. thesis Otázky fi lmové hudby: Filmová hudba Jiřího Srnky [Issues of Film Music: Film Music of Jiří Srnka].4 At the beginning of the sixties he published the popularizing book Tajemství fi lmové hudby [Secrets of Film Music] (Prague, 1960). Pilka was also a member of the Filmový a televizní svaz (FITES) [Film and Television Union] and in 1966–1970 was active in its presidium. Occasional writers on fi lm music in Hudební rozhledy in the 1960s were Jan F. Fischer, Vladimír Bor, Lubomír Dorůžka, Pavel Skála, Vratislav De- jmek, Vladimír Šefl , and a few more. Texts on music published in Hudební rozhledy can be classifi ed in three groups. The most frequent were short reviews or brief analyses of music in one or several fi lms, to the extent of c. 2,500 to 4,500 keystrokes, centralized in the column Film. The second group is comprised of longer studies and papers dealing mainly in a general way with the issues of fi lm music. The third category contains the rest of the articles and the reports, with no uniform theme or form. They mainly refer to various competitions in fi lm music, reports on fi lm festivals, and reviews on books on the theme of fi lm music. We are going to deal with each of the three groups. I. In 1960 a new column was opened in Hudební rozhledy, entitled Film and devoted to fi lm music. Articles on music for fi lms were published already in the previous years but rather occasionally, with no unity in form or content. They were mainly informative, often not focused on the music but on the fi lm as a whole. In 1960–1964, when the column Film appeared, a total of 39 articles were published, dealing with music of 52 fi lms. Of these, 47 were Czech, 4 Slovak and 2 Soviet Russian. Jiří Pilka, the author of the 7 articles 2 Antonín Matzner and Jiří Pilka, Česká fi lmová hudba [Czech Film Music] (Prague, 2002), p. 266. 3 A sort of refl ection of fi lm music was also provided by non-musical periodicals, especially the spe- cialized fi lm journal Film a doba [Film and Times]. 4 Published as Filmová hudba Jiřího Srnky [Film Music of Jiří Srnka] (Prague, 1957). 88 in 1960, discussed, rather briefl y, several fi lms in each article. The 32 reviews by Milan Kuna, the only contributor to the column Film in 1961–1964 (except for one article by Vladimír Bor), are more detailed and focus on music in a single fi lm. From the texts it is not apparent in what way the fi lms were chosen for analysis, whether the writers approached the fi lms systematically or just responded to those they had seen (more or less accidentally) in cinemas. Their selection, however, is, with some exceptions, a fairly representative sample of music in fi lm production of the years 1960–1964, when music to fi lms made in those years, and the names of the composers are taken into account. From the list of the composers of fi lm music found in the book Československé fi lmy 1960–1965 [Czechoslovak Films 1960–1965]5 it is clear that music for most fi lms of 1960–1964 was composed by Zdeněk Liška: there were thirty of them. His music is also appropriately discussed in the column Film (in eight analyses). Music for more than ten fi lms was com posed by the following composers (in brackets is fi rst given the number of the fi lms for which they composed music in this fi ve-year-long period and after the line of fraction follows the number of fi lms, assessed by Pilka and Kuna): Svatopluk Havelka (16/3), Jiří Srnka (15/4), Evžen Illín (15/3), Štěpán Lucký (14/2), Miloš Vacek (12/4) and William Bukový (12/3). In the majority of these composers thus Hudební rozhledy discussed c. 20–30 % of their work for the fi lm. A few more composers, who in this period worked on fewer than ten fi lms, are dealt with in the column Film once or twice only. This group includes e.g. composers from the sphere of New Music, who in the early 1960s began to co-operate with fi lm – Jan Novák, Jan Klusák, and Luboš Fišer. We are told, however, relatively little about music for fi lms of the progressive Česká nová vlna. Kuna commented the fi lms of these directors only twice, each time with a dif- ferent evaluation. They are the fi lm by Věra Chytilová O něčem jiném [On Something Else] (music by Jiří Šlitr) and Křik [Cry] by Jaromil Jireš (music by Jan Klusák), both from 1963. The reviewer believes that the sound dramaturgy of the former fi lm and Šlitr’s fi lm music is not “an equal partner in expression to the visual component” and often remains a mere sound backdrop.6 A quite diff erent impression arises from Klusák’s sound dramaturgy in the fi lm Křik. There he found interesting interlinking of music, dialogue and picture, when each of the components has a specifi c communication for the specta- tor. Kuna speaks of “rare relative independence of music in the fi lm” in that period.7 The principal reason why Kuna did not analyze more fi lms of the Česká nová vlna is that their overwhelming majority were made after the column Film in Hudební rozhledy was discontinued (that is after 1964). The articles, after a sort of “settling” during the year 1960, when the column Film was established, was preserved during its whole duration. It is a column on the outer margin of the page (or two pages) of Hudební rozhledy, which takes up one third of it 5 Šárka Bartošková, Československé fi lmy 1960–1965 [Czechoslovak Films 1960–1965], vol. 2, Fil- mografi e tvůrčích pracovníků [Filmography of Creative Artists] (Prague, 1966), p. 320–331. 6 Milan Kuna, “Film”, Hudební rozhledy, 17 (1964), p. 106. 7 Milan Kuna, “Film”, Hudební rozhledy, 17 (1964), p. 422. 89 and is designated by its own logo. The content depends on the character of the fi lm and in particular on the fi lm music. The narrative of the fi lm is or is not told briefl y and the same holds for various intentions and the name of the fi lm director. The work and names of other associates, such as the script writer, cameraman, etc. are mentioned only if they are in some way connected with the music. Naturally the greatest attention is paid to the fi lm music – and this is done from various aspects. It is specifi ed what role the music fi lls in the fi lm, whether it is merely a backdrop or whether it is an independent component which brings its own message to the audio-viewer of the fi lm, whether it describes the character of the protagonists and of the milieu and period in which the story of the fi lm is set, etc. The reviewer also watches what kind of instruments were used by the composer, what genre he chose, what use he made of silence and various sounds, whether he only used his own music or resorted to pre-composed music.8 There are many varieties of as- sessment of fi lm music and many points of view. A particular analysis sometimes brings the authors to more general thoughts on the quality of Czech fi lm music, the course of the cooperation of fi lm directors and composers. Often they regret the one-sided choice of composers or the very short time available for composing the music. From the ratio of positive and negative assessments of fi lms one can deduce a great objectivity of the reviewers. Although positive assessment prevails, not infrequently they raise objections of various kinds to the fi lm music. We do not fi nd here a “blind” popularity of a particular composer – in most reviews we fi nd a wide spectrum of opinions and criteria. A similar character and extent as in the column Film is found in some articles printed outside this column. They are texts concentrating in a more general way on a particular issue of fi lm music, but with numerous examples from particular fi lms9 or they were written by other authors (Antonín Matzner, Pavel Skála and a few more). They may be a translation of a foreign review of a foreign fi lm or they were published when the column Film was no longer in existence. II. The second group of texts on music is comprised of larger studies and articles. More than half of them deal in a rather general way with the aesthetic-theoretical, technical and administrative issues of Czech fi lm music. Among the most frequent issues are the tendency of development in fi lm music (departure from symphonism, a more frequent use of chamber ensembles, the entry of jazz and popular music in fi lms, the use of sound eff ects – noises, etc.). A separate study by Milan Kuna deals with the use of pre-composed 8 The use of pre-composed music in fi lms in the world became fairly frequent and is found in Czech fi lms as well. In Hudební rozhledy in the column Film was very positively received the work with pre-composed music in the fi lms Noční host [Night Guest] of the director Otakar Vávra (music by Jiří Srnka) and Až přijde kocour [When the Cat Comes] by Vojtěch Jasný (music by Svatopluk Havelka). See Milan Kuna, “Film”, Hudební rozhledy, 14 (1961), p. 877 and Milan Kuna, “Film”, Hudební rozhledy, 16 (1963), p. 862–863. 9 E.g. Milan Kuna, “Otázky formy ve fi lmové hudbě” [Issues of Form in Film Music],, Hudební roz- hledy, 15 (1962), p. 778. 90 music in fi lms and with the typology of fi lm music from the aspect of its cooperation with the image.10 New technical devices for screening a sound fi lm (stereophonic cinema, polyécran, Circorama and laterna magica) are presented in an article by Jiří Pilka, Hudba v náručí techniky [Music Embraced by Technology] of 1960, in which the author deter- mines the specifi city of each variant and deduces the contributions for the musical drama- turgy of the fi lm.11 Next the infl uence of foreign cinematography on the work with music and sound (mainly the eff ect of Italian Neo-realism on the decreasing share of music in fi lms), the new contemporary themes in fi lms and their setting to music are discussed in Hudební rozhledy. It is pointed out that conditions for composers of fi lm music are rather poor (mainly because of the short time available for composing), there is insuf- fi cient cooperation between the fi lm director and the composer in the conception of the sound component of the fi lm from the very beginning,12 the training of fi lm directors is unsatisfactory, and there is a lack of dramatic feeling in (some) composers. The lack of interest on Czech reviewers and musicologists in fi lm music and the need of aesthetical and theoretical studies in this fi eld are also emphasized. Similar topics were mentioned and analyzed from various aspects in a wide discussion on fi lm music, held by Hudební rozhledy and the fi lm section of the Svaz československých divadelních a fi lmových umělců [Union of Czechoslovak Theatre and Film Artists] held in 1962 in the Film Club in Prague. The discussion was attended by fi lm directors, dramaturgists, heads of fi lm groups, composers and critics. The recording of the discussion was reprinted in Hudební rozhledy.13 Among longer studies are those dealing with the issue of operas made into fi lms, the fi lm musical, fi lm musical revue and music fi lm in television.14 A unique contribution is the detailed analysis of musical dramaturgy in the fi lm Accattone (1961) by the Italian director Pier Paolo Pasolini, in 1970 written by Vratislav Dejmek – there was no other study to such extent dealing with music of a foreign, non-Soviet fi lm.15 10 Milan Kuna, “K problémům estetiky fi lmové hudby” [On the Problems of Aesthetics of Film Music], Hudební rozhledy, 14 (1961), p. 946–948. 11 Jiří Pilka, “Hudba v náručí techniky” [Music Embraced by Technology], Hudební rozhledy, 13 (1960), p. 820–821. 12 The composer generally received a cut fi lm and so could not plan the sound dramaturgy while the fi lm was being shot. As an ideal example of cooperation of the director and the composer, the pair Sergei Eisenstein – Sergei Prokofi ev and in this country Jiří Trnka – Jan Trojan are often quoted. 13 “Spolutvůrce fi lmu” [Co-author of the Film], Hudební rozhledy, 15 (1962), p. 280–284. 14 E.g. I. Ryžkin, “Opera a fi lm” [Opera and Film], Hudební rozhledy, 14 (1961), p. 195–196. Milan Kuna, “Dramaturgie fi lmové Rusalky” [Dramaturgy of the Film Version of Rusalka], Hudební ro- zhledy, 16 (1963), p. 447–448. Ivan Poledňák, “Starci na chmelu – fi lmový musical” [Starci na chme- lu (Hop-picking Old Men) – A Film Musical], Hudební rozhledy, 17 (1964), p. 892. Lubomír Dorůžka, “Kdyby tisíc klarinetů” [If One Thousand Clarinets – title of Czech fi lm musical], Hudební rozhledy, 18 (1965), p. 252–253. Jiří Pilka, “Hudební fi lmy naší televize” [Music Films of the Czech Television], Hudební rozhledy, 20 (1967), p. 558–561. 15 Vratislav Dejmek, “Poznámky k hudební dramaturgii fi lmového debutu P. P. Pasoliniho” [Notes on the Music Dramaturgy of the Film Debut of P. P. Pasolini], Hudební rozhledy, 23 (1970), p. 84–86. 91 III. The third, less compact group is comprised of the rest of shorter articles and news items dealing with fi lm music, with various form and content. They mainly inform the readers of various fi lm competitions, fi lm festivals, and book reviews. A separate section is formed of texts on competitions in fi lm music. In 1963, on the initiative of the Filmový symfonický orchestr [Film Symphonic Orchestra], the Česko- slovenský fi lm [Czechoslovak Film], in cooperation with the Svaz československých skla datelů [Union of Czechoslovak Composers], the Český hudební fond [Czech Music Foundation], and the Slovenský hudební fond [Slovak Music Foundation], announced a competition for the best work of music made for the Czechoslovak fi lm in 1963.16 This competition took place every year until 1967, with the aim of a systematic survey of the Czech fi lm music. The competing went on in three to six categories, according to the type of the fi lm.17 The principal criteria were: how music with the artistic level increases the value of the fi lm as a monolithic work, how it meets its dramatic function, how to it captures the character and genre of the fi lm and what is the professional level of the music from the aspect of composition techniques. The competition was proclaimed in Hudební rozhledy, and this journal also brought the results and occasionally more detailed information in the form of articles with a short analysis of the music of the awarded fi lms and the reasons of their success, or they had the form of a recording of the discussion of the members of the jury.18 Among the reviews of literature of music in Hudební rozhledy there was, in the 1960s, an assessment of two works discussing fi lm music. In 1960 it was Jan F. Fischer’s review of the book by Vladimír Bor and Štěpán Lucký, Trojan – fi lmová hudba [Trojan – Film Music] (Prague, 1958), in which the author regards positively the contribution of a short but readable book on a theme often neglected in this country – the fi lm music.19 The book by Zofi a Lissa, Estetyka muzyki fi lmowej [Aesthetics of Film Music] (Cracow, 1964) was presented in Hudební rozhledy in the very year of its publication.20 After introducing the various types of texts on fi lm music, as they were published in Hudební rozhledy in the 1960s, let us turn to the conclusion and say through what sort of development within this decade they passed and compare the situation to several 16 For greater details see Vladimír Šefl , “Film potřebuje hudbu” [The Film Needs Music], Hudební rozhledy, 17 (1964), p. 355–358. 17 During the competitions the categories changed and split but they always covered mainly: feature fi lms, puppet fi lms, animated cartoons, popular scientifi c, documentary and musical fi lms as well as original television inscenation. 18 Vladimír Šefl , “Film potřebuje hudbu”, Hudební rozhledy, 17 (1964), p. 355–358. “Hudba a fi lm” [Music and Film] (recording of a discussion), Hudební rozhledy, 19 (1966), p. 355–358. 19 Jan F. Fischer, “Vladimír Bor – Štěpán Lucký, Trojan – fi lmová hudba (Prague, 1958)” (review) Hudební rozhledy, 13 (1960), p. 172. 20 Anonymous, “O fi lmové hudbě” [On Film Music], Hudební rozhledy, 17 (1964), p. 723. 92 preceding and subsequent years. We shall also confront this state with the development of Czech fi lm music and try to fi nd any correspondence between the two, and establish whether Hudební rozhledy refl ected the development of Czech fi lm music in that decade in a proper way. As it was said above, the column Film with analyses of (mainly Czech) fi lms and its music was in existence in 1960–1964. Articles of a similar kind as in the column but of diff erent form were published irregularly during the whole decade. The majority of longer studies are found in Hudební rozhledy in the fi rst half of the 1960s, reports on competi- tions in the years of its existence, that is in 1963–1968 and, the two reviews of books on music, referred to above, appeared in 1960 and 1964. When the more substantial texts (column Film, studies and reviews) are considered, it must be said that the fi rst half of the sixties produced six times as many articles on music as the second half. This is on average eleven texts per year in the fi rst half and fewer than two articles per year in the second half of the decade. A comparison of the quantity of articles in several preceding and following years reveals that in 1957–1959 and 1971–1973 the situation is very similar to that in the second half of the decade under study. What conclusions may be drawn from this on the development of Czech fi lm music? A great increase in studies and reviews of Czech fi lm music in the fi rst half of the sixties corresponds to its intensive develop- ment and shows the transformation the fi lm went through. The suppression of this trend already at the beginning of the second half is in no correspondence with the situation in fi lm music. This music continued to develop fairly freely until the end of the decade and the middle of the sixties was no major milestone. The suppression of the articles on fi lm music is rather a refl ection of the editorial situation in Hudební rozhledy or of the lack of interest in theoretical and analytical texts and information on fi lm music, regardless of its continuing development. Translated by Jaroslav Peprník Die Filmmusik in den tschechischen Musikperiodika in den 60er Jahren des 20. Jahrhunderts Zusammenfassung In den sechziger Jahren des 20. Jahrhunderts setzte dank einer politisch-gesellschaft- lichen Liberalisierung in der damaligen Tschechoslowakei eine bedeutsame kreative Entwicklung im Film und in der Filmmusik ein. Aufgrund der Wiederherstellung von Kontakten mit der westeuropäischen Musik begann man neben anderem neue Kompo- sitionstechniken zu verwenden; es kam zu Veränderungen innerhalb der Filmmusik als solcher und zu einer funktionell besser entwickelten Verwendung von realistischen Tö- nen und der Stille; darüber hinaus fanden Jazz- und Popmusik Eingang in den Film. 93 Der Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit der Refl exion dieser Entwicklung in den tschechischen Musikperiodika, vor allem in Hudební rozhledy [Musikrundschau]. Die Texte über die Filmmusik sind nach ihrem Umfang, nach ihrem Inhalt und ihrer Form in drei Gruppen eingeteilt. Im Rahmen dieser Einteilung wurden dann deren Entwicklungen verfolgt, wobei diese ausführlicher vorgestellt und aus verschiedenen Blickwinkeln behandelt wurden. Zum Schluss des Beitrags vergleicht die Autorin den Zustand der Musik-Filmkritik mit der Situation in der Filmmusik in einer festgelegten Dekade und in mehreren vorherge- henden und nachfolgenden Jahren. Filmová hudba v českých hudebních periodikách v 60. letech 20. století Shrnutí V 60. letech 20. století došlo díky politicko-společenskému uvolnění v tehdejším Čes- koslovensku k výraznému tvůrčímu rozvoji fi lmu a fi lmové hudby. Díky znovuobnovení kontaktů se západoevropskou hudbou se začali mimo jiné uplatňovat nové kompoziční techniky, docházelo k proměnám vlastní fi lmové hudby, k funkčnějšímu využití reálných zvuků a ticha, průniku jazzové a populární hudby do fi lmu. Příspěvek se zabývá tím, jak tento vývoj refl ektovala česká hudební periodika, především Hudební rozhledy. Texty o fi l- mové hudbě jsou podle rozsahu, obsahu a formy rozčleněny do tří skupin. Poté je v rámci tohoto dělení sledován jejich vývoj, jsou podrobněji představeny a nazírány z různých hledisek. V závěru příspěvku autorka porovnává stav hudebně fi lmové kritiky se situací v české fi lmové hudbě ve vymezené dekádě a několika předchozích a následujících letech. Keywords Film music; Czech fi lm music; Czech music periodicals; 1960s; Hudební rozhledy. 94 Musicologica Olomucensia 11 – June 2010 The Paradox of the Culminating Period of Pavel Křížkovský Work Eva Vičarová In 2010, 190 years will have passed since the birth of a major representative of Mora- vian music culture of the 19th century.1 Father Pavel Křížkovský, whose real fi rst name was Karel, is traditionally regarded by the musical historiographs as the most important representative of choir music before Bedřich Smetana (1824–1884). He is also mentioned in connection with the promotion of the goals and ideals of the Cecilian movement in Moravia (in the Czech Lands called Cyrillism), and, last but not least, his name is linked with Leoš Janáček (1854–1928), who was one of his favourite pupils in the monastic foundation in Brno. The career of this composer, choir master, regenschori, and organizer of music has been suffi ciently treated in literature. There are three monographs on Pavel Křížkovský, by Jindřich Geisler, Karel Eichler and Jan Racek, and innumerable studies and memoirs, which cover his life and work from various aspects.2 Still there are some unknown areas 1 This paper was presented at the 44th International musicological colloquium Brno, October 2009. 2 Monographs: Jindřich Geisler, Pavel Křížkovský (Praha 1886), Karel Eichler, Životopis a skladby P. Křížkovského [P. Křížkovský’s Biography and Compositions] (Brno 1904) and Jan Racek, Pra- meny, literatura a ikonografi e [Sources, Literature and Ikonography] (Velehrad: Olomouc 1946). The most important studies for this paper were: Jan Jeřábek, “Všelicos o Pavlu Křížkovském” [All Sort of Things about Pavel Křížkovský], in: Příloha Našince [Annex to Našinec] k č. 100, 1. 5. 1921, Vladimír Helfert, “Pavel Křížkovský a Bedřich Smetana” [Pavel Křížkovský and Bedřich Smetana], in: Morava. Měsíčník pro život sociální, vědecký a umělecký [Moravia. Monthly Magazine for the Social, Scientifi c and Artistic Life] (Brno 1926), p. 161–174, Ferdinand Tomek, “Vztahy P. Pavla Křížkovského k olomouckému Žerotínu” [Pavel Křížkovský Relationship to Žerotín in Olomouc], in: Věstník pěvecký a hudební [ Journal of Singing and Music] 39, 6 (1935), p. 98 etc. Jan Racek, “Slezská hudba a Pavel Křížkovský v dějinách české hudební kultury” [Silesian Music and Pavel Křížkovský in the History of Czech Music Culture], in: Slezsko, český stát a kultura [Silesia, Czech Lands and Culture] (Opava 1946), Vladimír Gregor, “Neznámá činnost Pavla Křížkovského v Olomouci” [Unknown Aktivity of Pavel Křížkovský in Olomouc], in: Slezský sborník [Silesian Miscellany] 1950, p. 349–353, Jan Racek, Pavel Křížkovský, tvůrce českého sborového slohu [Pavel Křížkovský, Creator of Czech Choir Style] (Opava 1955), Theodora Straková, Pavel Křížkovský, tvůrce 95 in his professional career, in particular from the eleven-year-long Olomouc period, when he reformed the music in the cathedral of the archbishopric. Since this is a subject of my scholarly interest, let me share with you some facts obtained from the study of the personality and the work of Pavel Křížkovský. The music career of Pavel Křížkovský started in the foundation established by the parish church of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary in Opava (1832–1835), where he came from his native village of Holasovice/Kreuzendorf to study the secondary school. This place was closely linked in particular with two Moravian centres: Brno, where in 1848–1885 he held the offi ce of the superior of the Brno convent foundation and choirmaster of the Augustinian church, and the Olomouc cathedral, where in 1872–1883 he conducted music. He was also intensively engaged in non-church music in these two Moravian cities. In the 1850s in the Brno Reduta hall he conducted a series of cantatas, including e.g. the Creation by Joseph Haydn (1852) and Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy’s Antigone (1854), and for fi ve years (1852–1857), with the support of Count Bokůvka, he was active as a vio- linist of the string quartet. The quality of these musicians was praised even by the French virtuoso Henry Vieuxtemps. In Brno he co-founded the Männergesangverein (1848) and after the establishment of the Beseda brněnská (1860) he was elected its fi rst choirmaster. Soon after his arrival in Olomouc in 1872 he initiated the holding of patriotic musical, declamatory and dancing entertainment as part of the public programmes of the Slav Reading Club (in 1870 renamed Česká Beseda). Last but not least, he had a major share in the foundation of the fi rst Czech music society in Olomouc – Žerotín. In the middle of the 19th century he became also widely known as a composer. Although he had composed short church compositions already in Opava and similar works even as a student of theology in Brno, in the second half of the 1840s it was in particular secular choir music which brought Křížkovský to the centre of music in Bohemia and Moravia. Through the professor of theology and collector of folk poetry, František Sušil (1804–1868), he discovered the charm of Moravian folk songs.” You must study our national songs, you must enter the spirit of your nation”, Sušil said when the composer brought to him for as- sessment some of his works.3 At that time Křížkovský began to com pose male choirs a cap- pella for four voices, originally intended for theology students in the seminary. He adopted tunes and texts from Sušil’s collection Moravian National Songs, published in 1835, 1840, 1860. This was “the foundation and starting point for the realism in Moravian music in the middle of the 19th century” as well as “the stylistic basis of Moravian modern music”.4 české kultury z ducha lidového. Katalog brněnské výstavy 1955/1956 [Pavel Křížkovský: The Creator of Czech Folk Culture Spirit. Catalogue of Exhibition in Brno] (Brno 1955/56), Jiří Sehnal, “Chrámová hudba na Moravě od cyrilské reformy do současnosti” [Church Music in Moravia. From Cyrillic Reforms to the Present], Opus musicum 4 (2001), p. 4–18, Stanislav Pecháček, “Pavel Křížkovský”, in: Česká sborová tvorba 1800–1950 [Czech Choral Music], p. 159–167. 3 Karel Eichler, Životopis a skladby P. Křížkovského (Brno 1904), p. 6. 4 Jan Racek. Also Theodora Straková, Pavel Křížkovský, tvůrce české kultury z ducha lidového. Katalog brněnské výstavy 1955/1956 (Brno 1955/56), p. 4. 96 Among Křížkovský’s most successful choir compositions, which he repeatedly revised, are Utonulá [Drowned Maiden], Odvedeného prosba [Recruit’s Appeal], Výprask [Beating], Zatoč se [Turn Around], Zahrada boží [God’s Garden], and Dar za lásku [Gift for Love]. His style of composition was based on the simple four-voice harmonization of the melody in the style of the German quartet for male voices (Liedertafel), the tradition of which continued in Czech music in the work of Alois Jelen (1801–1857), František Škroup (1801–1862), Hynek Vojáček (1825–1916), Arnošt Förchgott Tovačovský (1825–1874) and Josef Leopold Zvonař (1824–1865), but soon developed into an independent form, from which the direct line goes to the modern choirs by Bedřich Smetana, Antonín Dvo řák, as well as Leoš Janáček, Josef Bohuslav Foerster (1859–1951), Otakar Ostrčil (1879–1935) and Vítězslav Novák (1870–1949). In this connection B. Smetana is often quoted, who after listening to Křížkovský’s choir Drowned Maiden in 1862 said: “Only when I heard Křížkovský’s choir, I came to know what Czech music is.”5 J. B. Foerster, too, had words of praise for this choir: “With tears in my eyes I listened to the Drowned Maiden. Every tone touched my heart. From the very beginning up to the end it is the most precious lyric beauty, Mozartesque purity, music capturing each phrase of the poem up to the most delicate vibration, a music of the heart.”6 In his secular work and in organization of music Pavel Křížkovský gradually met the period ideal of a “national composer”. For instance Humoristické listy edited in Prague by Jan Neruda called him in 1878 the forefather of Czech music. Many choral societies in Bohemia and Moravia, whose honorary member he was, proclaimed Křížkovský the founder of Czech music. When he thanked them for this honour he usually added to his signature the phrase “brother Slav”.7 The critical acclaim of Křížkovský in Bohemia and Moravia culminated in the early 1860s. One of the climaxes in his career was the year 1862, when he conducted an 800-people-strong choir during the performance of the Drowned Maiden at the May song festival in Prague and one year later, when at Velehrad he conducted 52 merged choral societies before an audience of 50,000 during the celebration of the 1000th anniversary of the arrival of Saint Cyril and Methodius in Greater Moravia. On this occasion was for the fi rst time performed in churches his pilgrimage hymn Ejhle, oltář Hospodinův září [Behold, the Lord’s Altar Shines] with the text by Jan Soukop. The composer’s important position in the era of the constitution of Czech national music can be demonstrated by the numerous commissions he received in the 1860s and 1870s. For example, there was a public appeal to compose a Czech cantata for the 5 Karel Eichler, Životopis a skladby P. Křížkovského (Brno 1904), p. 34. 6 Theodora Straková, Pavel Křížkovský, tvůrce české kultury z ducha lidového. Katalog brněnské výstavy 1955/1956 (Brno 1955/56), p. 19. 7 It is clear from the collection of 39 letters written by Pavel Křížkovský, prevented in Zemský archiv Opava, pobočka Olomouc, fond Družina literární a umělecká v Olomouci [Provincial Archive in Opava, Olomouc branch, fund Suite literary and artistic in Olomouc] (1850) 1913–1954 (1972), inv. č. [inventary no.] 13, 1850–1884, karton [box] 4. 97 500th anniversary of the death of Charles IV (1878), a celebratory hymn to the Czech nation, and an oratorio about St Procopius. None of these projects was materialized, however. There are several reasons for that, a major reason being the fact that Pavel Kříž kovský fell into disfavour with his clerical superiors. The fi rst incident took place as early as 1863. The success achieved by the composer in the celebrations of the Slav mis- sionaries at Velehrad was probably the “last drop” for the church authorities watching with displeasure his secular and patriotic activities. Archbishop Schaff gotsch next made Křížkovský abandon his public activities in music. This was fatefully refl ected in Křížkovský’s composing. Over the next few years he com- posed only two new choirs, though on a spiritual theme (The Shepherd and the Pilgrims, 1866, God’s Garden, 1867). Then the “Muse of secular music” became silent and Pavel Křížkovský completely turned to church music. He started as choirmaster of the Augustinian church at the convent in Staré Brno in 1848. In the 1850 and 1860s he performed there, with orchestral accompaniment, the spiritual works of Ludwig van Beethoven, Franz Joseph and Michael Haydn, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Luigi Cherubini, Johann Nepomuk Hummel, Robert Führer and Jo- hann Georg Albrechtsberger. He was a successful choirmaster, which is shown by the praise he received, even from papal authority. A special and somewhat unexpected turning point in the music career of Křížkovský was the year 1869. The Augustinian monk joined the ranks of the most radical supporters of European cecilianism and together with Ferdinand Lehner (1837–1914) and Josef Förster (1833–1907) he began to lead the movement which in the Czech lands was known as cyrillism. Within three years he reformed liturgical music in Staré Brno, then in 1872 at the invitation of Cardinal Archbishop Bedřich Fürstenberg he passed to St Wenceslas Cathedral in Olomouc. In the spirit of the stimuli coming mainly from Germany, with the experience gained in Brno, and according to his own inner beliefs, Křížkovský gradually removed all original repertoir from the cathedral choir. He completely abandoned performances of spiritual works by Mozart, Cherubini and Haydn and pushed through into liturgy the Gregorian chant and the works of classical Renaissance polyphony by Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestri- na, Orlando di Lasso, Thomas Luis de Vittoria, Gregorio Allegri and Jacob Handl-Gallus. From contemporary pro-reformist composers in Olomouc, there were performed works by German composers Franz Xaver Witt, Karl Greith, Eduard Stehle and H. Oberhoff er, and their Czech colleagues J. Förster and F. Skuherský. The varied musical instruments used so far were replaced by the organ and the trombones. The scores were obtained from German periodicals Fliegende Blätter and Musica sacra, the Czech Cyril (1874–1878 called Cecilie), and from the German edition Divina Musica. It should be added that Pavel Kříž kovský composed a great deal of music for the Olomouc choir. From the Olomouc Cathedral the reform spread to the archdiocese of Olomouc and all over Moravia.8 8 More about this topic: Eva Vičarová, “Der Wenzelsdom in Olmütz – erzbischöfl iches Gotteshaus und Zentrum der cyrillischen Reform”, in: Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis: Musicologica Olomucensia X (Olomouc 2009), p. 191–218. 98 The complexity of musical and ecclesiastical infl uences is shown by the fact that soon after his arrival in Olomouc, Pavel Křížkovský found himself once more in a controversy with his ecclesiastical superiors, which after several months, in 1873, resulted in his return to Brno. The main cause probably was the unwillingness of the clergy to give up the pomp and glamour of the fi gural music used previously. This can be seen from the opinion of the prelate and scholastic Arthur Königsbrunn, who pleaded with the new Kapellmeister to keep performing the intradas: “But I beg you, dear Father Křížkovský, to preserve at least the intradas. I am so fond of it that if it was possible I would fi re the canons during it.”9 In July 1873, however, Křížkovský returned to the Olomouc Cathedral in order to fi n- ish the work he had started. He described his return as “a return to exile”.10 However, his position became consolidated there – he was appointed the choir director – and within several years he became very fond of Olomouc; in his correspondence he more than once admitted that he had been held there in higher esteem than in Brno. Since Křížkovský in Olomouc did not give up completely his organizing ventures in the secular sphere, the disputes with the church hierarchy continued; this was confi rmed by the administrative director of the Žerotín society, Ferdinand Tomek. As if the Brno history was repeated. At the beginning of 1874, Křížkovský began to head the local Česká Beseda society in order to give programmes of music there. Soon he had to give up this activity. This happened when as the only clergyman at the Cathedral who refused to leave the society after the church regulations were broken during the Advent. Pavel Křížkovský struggled with his superiors all his life. This is also revealed in several of his letters in which he e.g. speaks of “persecution and insults” (1867), “some obstacles”, and “obstinate enemies” (1973).11 Nothing more can be learnt from the correspondence or other sources. Both Křížkovský and his biographers and authors of commemorative articles – among them were Jindřich Geisler, Karel Eichler, but also Josef Jeřábek, etc. – as clergymen probably did not want to reveal any information that might publicly discredit the Church. So their texts contain mainly allusions and general formulations. From historical sources it is further known that Pavel Křížkovský, although described by his contemporaries as well as by the historians as a fairly shy, lonely and exceedingly modest person, had a very progressive spirit and pushed through his opinions systemati- cally, with persistence and even in a stubborn way. For instance, in spite of the continuous pressure from his superiors he never gave up secular music. He could not resist new im- pulses coming in 1880, after the foundation of the Žerotín society. The male choir with professional ambition aroused in him a new appetite for secular music, and this resulted his composing two choirs – Vesna [Spring] and Jest jaro [Spring has come]. Křížkovský began to appear in the public again. He took part in all rehearsals and public perform- ances of the society, which often put his work on its programme. The choir Drowned 9 Jiří Sehnal, “Chrámová hudba na Moravě od cyrilské reformy do současnosti” Opus musicum 4 (2001), p. 7. 10 Karel Eichler, Životopis a skladby P. Křížkovského (Brno 1904), p. 40. 11 Karel Eichler, Životopis a skladby P. Křížkovského (Brno 1904), p. 40. 99 Maiden remained longest in the Žerotín repertoire. This intensive need for participation in public music activities is supported by an often repeated little story, connected with his visit to the recital of the violinist František Ondříček in Olomouc on 1 October 1882. At the subsequent dinner he made the following appeal to the world-renowned violinist: “Ondříček, let me have your violin so that me too can show them something.”12 The paradox is that Křížkovský’s progressive views led in composition, because of the acceptance of the Cyrillian reform, to unequivocal regression. In the 1870s he composed several works in the reformist spirit, such as the Laurentanian Litany, Requiem, Te Deum, and parts of the mass propria, which in those days met with acclaim among the cyrillists, were published, and were adopted by many choirs but with the passage of time fell into oblivion and to this day have remained lifeless. Why was it so? The reason is in his retreat from the music language he adopted in the early 1860s. In an eff ort at making declamation comprehensible and in order to achieve purity in quasi- Renaissance polyphony, the composer’s style returned to Classicism in music. Unlike the secular choirs in which he ingeniously applied the technique of variation, made the content of the text clear, and did not hesitate using bold harmony (chromatics, modula- tion, diminished sevenths-chords), Křížkovský’s church compositions completely resign dissonance, and modulation is allowed only up to the nearest key. The composer arrived at non-scale tones only through second dominants, the secondary sevenths-chords or passing tones. It is possible to ask whether Křížkovský restrained the language of composition unhesi- tatingly and had an inner belief in his church compositions. Some of his contemporaries say that after his acceptance of the reform he completely forgot about his earlier secular compositions or denied his authorship. Could his proverbial self-criticism, his inclina- tion to not believing in himself and underrating himself be the reason why he signed his compositions with a cipher, used a pseudonym, kept the identity of the composer secret, or even burnt his work? Was he subject to some pressure? Or should we believe that he had himself discarded all his pre-reform work? The reverse is true. I dare to say that despite all his eff orts in the fi eld of church music, Pavel Křížkovský cared more for secular music. He composed music for the church out of duty and for practical purposes but secular choir music was the carrier of his ambition as composer. Evidence for this is found in the fact that in the early 1880s he returned to secular choir music and for instance in 1882 published his choir The Shepherd and the Pilgrims at his own cost. The reception of Pavel Křížkovský by listeners supports this hypothesis. After the First World War his church compositions completely disappeared from the repertoire of choirs, though they may be awaiting their renaissance, but choirs with folk motives have been a permanent part of the repertoires to this day, e.g. of the Moravian Teachers’ Choir, 12 Ferdinand Tomek, “Vztahy P. Pavla Křížkovského k olomouckému Žerotínu”, in: Věstník pěvecký a hudební 39, 6 (1935) p. 88–89. 100 Choir Nešvera or the Academic Choir Moravan. Pavel Křížkovský, who called himself a “song-writer” and “average musician”, would defi nitely be pleased by that.13 Paradox der Gipfelperiode im Schaff enswerk von Pavel Křížkovský Zusammenfassung Im Jahre 2010 erinnern wir uns des tschechischen Komponisten Pavel Křížkovský, des Chormeisters, Regenschoris und Musikveranstalters, der vor 190 Jahren geboren wurde. Pater Křížkovský wird in der einheimischen musikalischen Historiografi e traditionell als der bedeutendste Repräsentant des tschechischen Chorschaff enswerkes aus der Zeit vor Smetana angesehen. Man bewundert auch sein begeistertes Engagement bei der Durch- setzung der Ideale der Cecil-Reformbewegung in Mähren und nicht zuletzt wird auch die Beziehung zu seinem Schüler Leoš Janáček oft erwähnt. Die reiche künstlerische Tätigkeit von Pavel Křížkovský erlebte eine ausgiebige Würdi- gung in der Fachliteratur. Dieser Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit dem Widerspruch zwischen der Progressivität der musikalischen Sprache von Křížkovský, die er in profanen Chor- werken in den fünfziger und sechziger Jahren des 19. Jahrhunderts verwendete, und der Regression seiner Kompositionssprache nach seiner Hinwendung zur Cecil-Reform in den siebziger Jahren. Man stellt sich die Frage, ob der Komponist von seinem kirchlichen musikalischen Schaff en innerlich überzeugt war und ob er seine vorherige Kompositions- sprache bedenkenlos in Zaum zu halten pfl egte. Nach der Überprüfung von vielen Erwähnungen und Hinweisen in der Literatur, in den Erinnerungen von Zeitgenossen und auch in der Korrespondenz des Komponisten, kommt die Autorin zu dem Schluss, dass dem Seelsorger Pavel Křížkovský seine profanen Werke und Tätigkeiten mehr bedeuteten. Während er die Musik für die Kirche aus Pfl icht und auf Grund von praktischen Bedürfnissen schrieb, sind die profanen Chorwerke als Träger seiner schöpferischen Ambitionen, komponiert auf der Basis von Volksmotiven, zu betrachten. Die Rezeption der Zuhörer bestätigt diese Dichotomie eindeutig: Křížkovskýs kirchliche Kompositionen sind nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg aus dem Repertoire der Kir- chen -Ensembles verschwunden und möglicherweise warten sie erst auf ihre Renaissance. Im Gegensatz dazu sind die Chorwerke wie Utonulá [Die Ertrunkene], Odvedeného prosba [Rekruten-Bitte] oder Dar za lásku [Geschenk für die Liebe] bis heute Bestandteil des Repertoires von vielen tschechischen Chorkörpern. 13 Karel Eichler, Životopis a skladby P. Křížkovského (Brno 1904), p. 94. 101 Paradox vrcholného období tvorby Pavla Křížkovského Shrnutí V roce 2010 si připomínáme 190 let od narození Pavla Křížkovského, českého skla- datele, sbormistra, regenschoriho a hudebního organizátora. Páter Křížkovský bývá do- mácí hudební historiografi í tradičně považován za nejvýznamnějšího představitele české sborové tvorby předsmetanovské. Vyzdvihována je i jeho zanícená angažovanost v prosa- zování ideálů ceciliánského reformního hnutí na Moravě a v neposlední řadě jsou často připomínány vztahy s jeho žákem, Leošem Janáčkem. Bohatá umělecká činnost Pavla Křížkovského se v literatuře dočkala dostatečného zhodnocení. Tento příspěvek se zabývá rozporem mezi progresivitou Křížkovského hudeb- ního jazyka uplatňovaného ve světské sborové tvorbě padesátých a šedesátých let 19. sto- letí a regresí jeho kompoziční řeči po příklonu k cyrilské reformě v letech sedmdesátých. Klade otázku, jestli skladatel byl o své církevní hudební tvorbě vnitřně přesvědčen a zda krotil svůj předchozí kompoziční jazyk bez rozpaků. Po prozkoumání mnoha zmínek a odkazů v literatuře, ve vzpomínkách vrstevníků i ve skladatelově korespondenci dospívá autorka k závěru, že knězi Pavlu Křížkovskému více záleželo na jeho světské tvorbě a profánní činnosti. Zatímco hudbu pro chrám psal z povinnosti a praktické potřeby, nositeli jeho tvůrčí ambice byly světské sbory zkompo- nované na lidové motivy. Posluchačská recepce tuto dichotomii jednoznačně potvrzuje: Křížkovského církevní skladby vymizely po první světové válce z repertoáru chrámových těles a na svou renesanci možná teprve čekají. Naopak sbory jako Utonulá, Odvedeného prosba či Dar za lásku jsou dodnes součástí repertoáru mnoha českých sborových těles. Keywords Pavel Křížkovský (1820–1885); 19th century music; choir music; Olomouc; St. Wenceslas cathedral; Cecilianism; Cyrillism. 102 Musicologica Olomucensia 11 – June 2010 Contributors Autoren Autoři Jan Blüml (1980) graduated in Musicology at the Philosophical Faculty, Palacký University, Olomouc (Mgr. based on the M.A. thesis Art Rock: A Style-Genre Type and its Czech Variants) and is now a postgraduate student in the same Department. In his dis- sertation thesis he deals with issues of progressive rock in the 1970s in his country and in the world. The principal areas of his professional interest are history, music analysis and general theory connected with Czech and world popular music of the second half of the 20th century. Mgr. Jan Blüml Branišovská 48 370 05 České Budějovice Czech Republic e-mail: [email protected] Václav Horák (1980) studied Musicology at the Philosophical Faculty, Palacký Uni- versity, Olomouc (Mgr., 2007, based on the M.A. thesis Works for the Piano by Jaroslav Ježek: Analysis of Each Composition with Special Reference to the Sonata). He also gradu- ated in the subjects Secondary School Teaching: Music Education – Piano Playing, at the Pedagogical Faculty of Palacký University, Olomouc (Mgr., 2006). He is a gradu- ate in Piano master classes in the Czech Republic and Poland. He is a teacher at the Conservatoire of the Evangelical Academy in Olomouc. In the dissertation he analyzes the work for the piano by Erwin Schulhoff . Mgr. et Mgr. Václav Horák Zikova 16 779 00 Olomouc 103 Czech Republic e-mail: [email protected] Marek Keprt (1974) geboren in Olomouc. 1992–2000 Studium an der Universität für Musik und darstellende Kunst in Wien – Komposition (bei Prof. Ivan Eröd und Prof. Dieter Kaufmann) und Klavier (bei Prof. Alexander Jenner und Prof. Carmen Graf-Adnet). 2000–2008 Doktorandenstudium an dem Lehrstuhl für Musikwissenschaft an der Universität Olomouc (Dissertation über Skrjabin – Betreuer Prof. PhDr. Jan Vičar, CSc.). Aktive Teilnahme an Meisterkursen für Klavier in Wien, Budapest, Luzern, Engelberg (Schweiz). Konzerte als Pianist in Tschechien, Slowakei, Österreich, Schweiz, Niederlanden. Auff ührungen von Kompositionen in Europa und USA. Pädagogische Tätigkeit als Assistent für Musiktheorie an dem Lehrstuhl für Musikwissenschaft and der Palacký-Universität Olomouc und als Hauptfachlehrer für Klavier am Konservatorium in Opava. MgA. Marek Keprt, Ph.D. Jílová 15 779 00 Olomouc Tschechische Republik e-mail: [email protected] Václav Kramář (1980) is a graduate of the Faculty of Law, Masaryk University (2004) and of the Philosophical Faculty, Palacký University, in musicology (2006). In his post- graduate study he specializes in the theory of music and the copyright (dissertation on the theme of the development of copyright, topical problems in the copyright in depend- ence on the changes of the musical paradigm). He also teaches courses on these subjects. He is interested in the issues of popular music. He is the author of c. 100 mainly song compositions and fi lm music, he plays on keyboard instruments (see e.g. the project Off Side Story). He cooperates in music with theatre ensembles. Since September 2007 he has been teaching at the Ecclesiastical Conservatoire in Opava. Mgr. et Mgr. Václav Kramář Tyršovo náměstí 566 537 01 Chrudim Czech Republic e-mail: [email protected] Lenka Křupková (1970) absolvierte das Konservatorium in Ostrava im Fach Kla vier (1990). An der Palacký-Universität studierte sie Journalistik (Bc., 1997) und Musik- 104 wissenschaft (Mgr., 1995). Sie promovierte mit der Diplomarbeit Zur Drama turgie der Oper Die Sache Makropulos von Leoš Janáček und mit der Dissertation Kammermusikalische Schaff ung von Vítězslav Novák. Zur Zeit wirkt sie als Dozentin an dem Lehrstuhl für Musikwissenschaft an der Palacký-Universität. Ihre Forschungsgebiete sind tschechi- sche und europäische Kammermusik, tschechische Musik des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts, deutsche Oper in Olomouc und Musiksoziologie. Sie publizierte mehrere Studien in Fachzeitschriften und gab zwei Bücher (Studien über Leben und Werk von Vítězslav Novák, Vítězslav Novák – Universal Edition Wien. Die Korrespondenz 1910–1935) heraus. Doc. PhDr. Lenka Křupková, Ph.D. Na Tabulovém vrchu 7 779 00 Olomouc Tschechische Republik e-mail: krupko@ff nw.upol.cz Martina Stratilková (1979) studied musicology at the Philosophical Faculty of Palacký University in Olomouc (1997–2003). Her B.A. thesis was focused on Josef Suk’s fi rst string quartet and her M.A. thesis discusses musical aesthetics of Jaroslav Volek. At pre- sent time she is a lecturer at the Department of Musicology in Olomouc, where she is also a postgraduate student. Main topics of her interest are problems of systematic musicology and her doctoral thesis deals with phenomenological philosophy and possibilities of its application to analysis and aesthetics of music. Mgr. Martina Stratilková Žerotínova 433/III 566 01 Vysoké Mýto Czech Republic e-mail: [email protected] Věra Šímová (1982) is a graduate of musicology at the Philosophical Faculty of Pa- lacký University in Olomouc, her M.A. thesis was Chamber Work of Václav Kučera and Contemporary Compositional Techniques (2007). Since 2007 she has been a postgraduate student there. Under foreign scholarship programmes she studied the winter and summer terms of 2007/2008 at the Royal Holloway, University of London. She is interested in music of the second half of the 20th century and her dissertation deals with Czech fi lm music of the 1960s. Mgr. Věra Šímová Řepov 165 293 01 Mladá Boleslav 105 Czech Republic e-mail: [email protected] Eva Vičarová (1973) studied musicology (Mgr., 1996) and journalism (Bc., 1996) at the Philosophical Faculty of Palacký University in Olomouc. During her post-graduate studies (Ph.D., 1999) she spent one term at the Royal Holloway College, University in London (1996), and one term at Vienna University (1997). From 2000 she works as an assistant professor at the Department of Musicology, Philosophical Faculty of Palacký University in Olomouc. She teaches music history and music criticism. In her research, she is focused on military music of 19th and 20th centuries (book Austrian Military Mu- sic of the 19th Century and Olomouc, Olomouc 2002) and history of musical culture in Olomouc. PhDr. Eva Vičarová, Ph.D. Katedra muzikologie Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci Univerzitní 3 771 80 Olomouc Czech Republic e-mail: [email protected] 106 Submissions Musicologica Olomucensia (Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis) welcomes contribu- tions in musical-historical and theoretical studies. All submissions will be peer-reviewed. Essays can be sent electronically to [email protected], or in hard-copy accompanied by the relevant fi le(s) on compact disc to Musicologica Olomucensia, Depart ment of Musicology, Philosophical Faculty, Palacký University, Olomouc, Univer- zitní 3, 771 80 Olomouc, Czech Republic. Essays should conform to the style (notes and bibliography), as defi ned by The Manual of Style found at www.musicologicaolomucensia. upol.cz. The editors can assume no responsibility for the loss of manuscripts. Manuscripts may not be submitted elsewhere simultaneously. Subscription Individual issues of Musicologica Olomucensia (Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis) can be ordered through the publisher’s e-shop at http://www.e-vup.upol.cz. Musicologica Olomucensia 11 – June 2010 (ACTA UNIVERSITATIS PALACKIANAE OLOMUCENSIS FACULTAS PHILOSOPHICA PHILOSOPHICA – AESTHETICA 35 – 2010) Editor-in-chief Jan Vičar Executive editors of Volume 11 Věra Šímová and Jan Blüml Cover Ivana Perůtková Technical editor Anna Petříková Publisher Palacký University, Olomouc Křížkovského 8 771 47 Olomouc Czech Republic www.upol.cz/vup [email protected] www.musicologicaolomucensia.upol.cz