sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham

More documents

Recommendations

Info

§1.2). TABLE A6.1, which lists all the passages played by the instrument, identifies those added by 1903, as well as Janáček’s later, post-première alterations. With the exception of the nine bars preceding Jano’s entry (Scene 1, bars 295–303), all the indications for the xylophone to be placed ‘na jevišti, ve mlýně’ [onstage, by the mill] are additions by Janáček to ŠFS. TABLE A6.1: Alterations to xylophone in ŠFS before and after première Scene bars pitch date comments i 1–24 cb' original 4s changed to 6s ?1907/8 (4s remain in ŠVS and KPU) 52–54 cb' added by Oct 1903 ‘na jevišti, ve mlýně’; always in ŠVS; 4s changed to 6s by 1907 (ŠVS) 295–303 ab original ‘na jevišti, ve mlýně’; 4s changed to 6s ?1907/8 336–43 bb original 4s changed to 6s ?1907/8 375–6 ab original ‘Solo’; 4s 377–8 ab added by Oct 1903 4s; continuation of previous 2 bars: omitted in error? ii 17–21 cb' added by Oct 1903 4s changed to 6s by 1907 (ŠVS); ŠVS and KPU: ab 54–61 g added by Oct 1903 ‘na jevišti, ve mlýně’; always in ŠVS; 4s changed to 6s ?1907/8 (but NB always 12s in ŠVS) v 500–6 cb' added by Oct 1903 semiquavers (in 2/4) vi 1–5 cb' added by Oct 1903 ‘na jevišti, ve mlýně’; semiquavers (in 3/4); changed to quavers by 1907 (ŠVS) 262–3 cb' added by Oct 1903 ‘solo’, ‘na jevišti, ve mlýně’; quavers (in 6/4) vii 1–25 cb' original quadruplet crotchets in 3/4; changed to 6 quavers by October 1903 160–8 cb' added by Oct 1903 1907: 4 bars added to beginning (= bars 156–9 in present edition) and pitch altered to bb Two of the additions to ŠFS appear always to have been present in ŠVS (i/52– 4; ii/54–61), and thus may either have been oversights, or else reflect aspects of the destroyed autograph score(s). The two bars of abs added at the end of Scene 1, just before the entry of the mill foreman (i/377–8, a continuation of the previous two bars), may likewise simply be the correction of an oversight. Otherwise, those passages originally absent in both ŠFS and ŠVS are indicated above in bold type in the ‘date’ column. Most notable is the fact that three crucial appearances by the instrument 167
seem to be post-copying additions (i.e. originally in neither ŠFS nor ŠVS): the 12 bars bridging the transition between Scenes 5 and 6 (the orchestral postlude to the ‘Každý párek’ ensemble leading to Jenůfa’s recitative, ‘Števo, Števo, já vím’); the two bars preceding Scene 7 (vi/262–3, originally a general pause); and the nine bars at fig. 118 (vii/160–8) when Laca ponders the damage his knife could do to Jenůfa’s cheeks (‘Tenhle křivák by ti je mohl pokazit!’). It is precisely in these three passages that Janáček appears to tap into the tension accumulated by the xylophone’s ‘background’ presence through the course of the Act, and ratchets it up, notch by notch, to arrive at the expressive level of the highly-charged closing pages. And it is here, too, that the xylophone most obviously departs from being merely a musical, quasi-naturalistic representation of the mill (heard, for instance, when Jano runs on from the mill, and again when the mill foreman makes his entrance) to take on a more ominous, fateful hue. That Janáček himself thought of the xylophone chiefly in association with the mill is clear not only from his stage-direction annotations to ŠFS but also from subsequent correspondence and other documents. Although the first production, which was staged with makeshift rather than custom-built sets, is unlikely to have included an actual mill, later stagings in Janáček’s lifetime certainly featured prominent mills and mill-wheels. The fact that the 1904 première was, as it were, on Janáček’s doorstep means that it is relatively less well documented than later ‘away’ productions. Nevertheless, Janáček’s correspondence at the time with Camilla Urválková (see CHAPTER 1) is probably a fair indication that, on the opera’s first airing, he was more occupied with musical concerns and shortcomings than with questions of staging. Subsequent productions in Prague, Vienna and then internationally were in a different class musically, and Janáček was therefore able to 168
Page 1 and 2:
THE 1904 VERSION OF LEOŠ JANÁČEK
Page 3 and 4:
FOR MY FRIENDS, WITHOUT WHOSE NEVER
Page 5 and 6:
APPENDICES 145 APPENDIX I Programme
Page 7 and 8:
Jenůfa. Thanks in part to a certai
Page 9 and 10:
our knowledge of the work’s overa
Page 11 and 12:
Acknowledgements That the project o
Page 13 and 14:
using it. However long this project
Page 15 and 16:
people who have helped me through v
Page 17 and 18:
NOTES Copyright The reconstruction
Page 19 and 20:
UE 1996 Cz./Ger./Eng. full score, e
Page 21 and 22:
1903 version (Urfassung/original ve
Page 23 and 24:
Of Janáček’s nine completed ope
Page 25 and 26:
manuscript sources. There are never
Page 27 and 28:
surviving sketch-leaf (SK) is anyth
Page 29 and 30:
and effort, both physical and emoti
Page 31 and 32:
performed in January 1904. In addit
Page 33 and 34:
most of the critics there were form
Page 35 and 36:
1.5 Later revisions and publication
Page 37 and 38:
Jenůfa for Prague towards the end
Page 39 and 40:
That situation changed, however, wh
Page 41 and 42:
CHAPTER 2: SOURCES AND RECONSTRUCTI
Page 43 and 44:
folio suggests that this brief sket
Page 45 and 46:
ŠFS into line with the Kovařovic
Page 47 and 48:
Fig. 2.2 ŠFS I 203v, detail, rotat
Page 49 and 50:
or other details (erased or otherwi
Page 51 and 52:
Fig. 2.5 ŠVS II 53r (II/vi/126-43)
Page 53 and 54:
list is amended by Janáček, with
Page 55 and 56:
Fig. 2.6 OP violin 1: detail from A
Page 57 and 58:
1904 bn 2 [OP] OPx title page and
Page 59 and 60:
On the facing page (the recto of th
Page 61 and 62:
Fig. 2.9 LB, 55: end of Act 3, show
Page 63 and 64:
issues of practical, pre-revision u
Page 65 and 66:
Jenůfa in 1913, providing a ‘sna
Page 67 and 68:
2.2 Determining the 1904 version fr
Page 69 and 70:
Štědroň 1968b Tyrrell 1996 / Tyr
Page 71 and 72:
two ensembles in Act 1, ‘A vy, mu
Page 73 and 74:
een cut before the première. 46 Th
Page 75 and 76:
and 2 in unison (in the context of
Page 77 and 78:
nature of the changes, which can th
Page 79 and 80:
anomalous status there. 50 A furthe
Page 81 and 82:
Ex. 2.4b However much more practica
Page 83 and 84:
score. Playing standards have impro
Page 85 and 86:
Such instances have been tacitly co
Page 87 and 88:
Ex. 2.7 Articulation and phrasing E
Page 89 and 90:
Instrumentation In line with Univer
Page 91 and 92:
trombone 3 part, and in both ŠFS a
Page 93 and 94:
Act 1. On the basis of all availabl
Page 95 and 96:
development of twentieth-century op
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 and 148: the controversy surrounding Josef C
Page 149 and 150: Although numerous instances of smal
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 183 and 184: Reh. fig. ŠFS KPU UE 1917 86 8 →
Page 187: APPENDIX VI Janáček, Jenůfa and
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
Page 199 and 200: its icy tone will be damped’ sugg
Page 201 and 202: APPENDIX VII Bar counts for the dif
Page 203 and 204: APPENDIX VIIIa ŠVS I 72v-73r: tran
Page 205 and 206: APPENDIX VIIIb ŠVS I 72v-73r: tran
Page 207 and 208: APPENDIX IX ŠFS I 197v-200v: trans
Page 209 and 210: 188
Page 211 and 212: 190
Page 213 and 214: 192
Page 215 and 216: JODA John Tyrrell: Janáček’s op
Page 217 and 218: Dürr 1968 Joannes Martin Dürr:
Page 219 and 220: Smaczny 1985 Jan Smaczny: ‘Janá
Page 221: Vogel 1981 ——: Leoš Janáček:
show all

sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?