sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham
sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham
In Ex. 3.38, the repetition of the final phrase of text was removed by 1907 (1904 version shown in small notes), before the much later rewriting by Janáček of the following section (fig. 44). Ex. 3.38 In some cases, one type of repetition was exchanged for another. At the Mayor’s entrance in Act 3 Scene 2 (Ex. 3.39; cf. CHAPTER 2, Fig. 2.8), the original threefold sequential repetitions of ‘dej’ and ‘polekala’, both motivically determined by the bassoon-, cello- and bass-led orchestral accompaniment, were replaced in 1908 by a more fractured, less motivically strait-jacketed form of repetition (cf. also III/ii/27–30): Ex. 3.39 127
Although numerous instances of small-scale and phrase repetition were removed or modified by Janáček in these revisions, enough examples nevertheless remained that this highly distinctive feature continued to be a part of his musical style as it matured. (c) Changes to ‘motivic’ vocal lines The 1904 version of Jenůfa contains many examples (including a number of those given above) where the voice line not only matches the orchestral accompaniment but seems dictated by it, rather than by any attempt at an idiomatic — let alone ‘realistic’ — style of vocal writing. In Ex. 3.40 (the beginning of Jenůfa’s Act 2 lament for her baby), Janáček reduced this dependency in the 1908 version both by delaying the voice entry until the second bar and by altering the vocal rhythm: Ex. 3.40 Following the discovery of the baby’s body in Act 3, the Kostelnička’s desperate plea to her stepdaughter as the latter runs off with the shepherd boy Jano and others to find out what has happened, ‘Neodbíhaj, o neodbíhaj!’ [Don’t run away, oh don’t run away!], originally followed the scalic ascent and descent of the 128
- Page 97 and 98: 3.1 The Urfassung and the pre-premi
- Page 99 and 100: seems also to reflect an original c
- Page 101 and 102: could speculate that the change of
- Page 103 and 104: accompaniment evaporates completely
- Page 105 and 106: This radical pre-première revision
- Page 107 and 108: corresponds to the present figs 122
- Page 109 and 110: more specific cuts, the first of tw
- Page 111 and 112: with the same words, but also agree
- Page 113 and 114: and 16b in APPENDIX IV) to Laca’s
- Page 115 and 116: y Laca’s ‘Chci, Jenůfka’ —
- Page 117 and 118: Other extensive cuts made at this s
- Page 119 and 120: Ex. 3.12 3.3.2 Textural alterations
- Page 121 and 122: Ex. 3.13b This revision is similar
- Page 123 and 124: Ex. 3.16 Sinfonietta VI/18 (1926),
- Page 125 and 126: Ex. 3.19 Other instances of motivic
- Page 127 and 128: In 1908 Janáček delays the appear
- Page 129 and 130: Whilst a general trend at this stag
- Page 131 and 132: Ex. 3.25b 3.3.3 Folk passages and t
- Page 133 and 134: Fig. 3.2 BJ III, 900. The use by et
- Page 135 and 136: sketch for the oboe melody of the p
- Page 137 and 138: Ex. 3.27c In his 1907 changes to th
- Page 139 and 140: Janáček added ‘Maestoso con mot
- Page 141 and 142: Jenůfa’s cheek is slashed, but a
- Page 143 and 144: Ex. 3.33a Ex. 3.33b 122
- Page 145 and 146: so that the stress fell on the firs
- Page 147: the controversy surrounding Josef C
- Page 151 and 152: Ex. 3.42a Ex. 3.42b This example al
- Page 153 and 154: ‘vertical’ dimensions: the harm
- Page 155 and 156: most pages of the score; unlike Jan
- Page 157 and 158: establishment of the 1904 score, pu
- Page 159 and 160: London audiences at the time, 54 Bu
- Page 161 and 162: Jenůfa can also be viewed as part
- Page 163 and 164: (particularly in textural terms) cl
- Page 165 and 166: genre might offer in his own quest
- Page 167 and 168: APPENDIX I Programme note from the
- Page 169 and 170: APPENDIX II Letter from Cyril Metod
- Page 171 and 172: On Saturday following your departur
- Page 173 and 174: APPENDIX IV 1906 cuts in ŠVS, ŠFS
- Page 175 and 176: Act/sc/bar No. of bars II/viii/187-
- Page 177 and 178: Reh. fig. ŠFS KPU UE 1917 10 21
- Page 179 and 180: Reh. fig. ŠFS KPU UE 1917 80 57 51
- Page 181 and 182: Reh. fig. ŠFS KPU UE 1917 14 17 14
- Page 183 and 184: Reh. fig. ŠFS KPU UE 1917 86 8 →
- Page 185 and 186: Reh. fig. ŠFS KPU UE 1917 24 20 20
- Page 187 and 188: APPENDIX VI Janáček, Jenůfa and
- Page 189 and 190: seem to be post-copying additions (
- Page 191 and 192: Janáček attempted to pursue the m
- Page 193 and 194: Fig. A6.1 Diagrammatic representati
- Page 195 and 196: to use the four-row instrument well
- Page 197 and 198: conducted a programme of choral and
Although numerous instances <strong>of</strong> small-scale and phrase repetition were removed or<br />
modified by Janáček in these revisions, enough examples nevertheless remained that<br />
this highly distinctive feature continued to be a part <strong>of</strong> his musical style as it matured.<br />
(c) Changes to ‘motivic’ vocal lines<br />
<strong>The</strong> 1904 version <strong>of</strong> Jenůfa contains many examples (including a number <strong>of</strong> those<br />
given above) where the voice line not only matches the orchestral accompaniment but<br />
seems dictated by it, rather than by any attempt at an idiomatic — let alone ‘realistic’<br />
— style <strong>of</strong> vocal writing. In Ex. 3.40 (the beginning <strong>of</strong> Jenůfa’s Act 2 lament for her<br />
baby), Janáček reduced this dependency in the 1908 version both by delaying the<br />
voice entry until the second bar and by altering the vocal rhythm:<br />
Ex. 3.40<br />
Following the discovery <strong>of</strong> the baby’s body in Act 3, the Kostelnička’s<br />
desperate plea to her stepdaughter as the latter runs <strong>of</strong>f with the shepherd boy Jano<br />
and others to find out what has happened, ‘Neodbíhaj, o neodbíhaj!’ [Don’t run<br />
away, oh don’t run away!], originally followed the scalic ascent and descent <strong>of</strong> the<br />
128
Change language