sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham
sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham
own time signatures and governing key signatures (see below, pp. 61–2; for further details concerning the conventions adopted for the application of key signatures to transposing instruments and to the timpani and harp, see below, pp. 68–9 and 71). As a general rule I have not sought to ‘improve’ obviously difficult passages where this would in effect introduce prematurely a revision made only subsequently in the opera’s performance history. In Ex. 2.3, which shows a particularly awkward passage for the first violins during the Kostelnička’s Act 1 solo, I have restored the original notation rather than opt for Dürr’s much easier divisi solution (also used in UE 1996): Ex. 2.3 Likewise in the following passage from Act 3 Scene 8, for violins (1 and 2 in unison) and violas, the awkward offbeat viola demisemiquavers have been left unaltered (Ex. 2.4a) in preference to the much less tricky 1908 revision (Ex. 2.4b): Ex. 2.4a 59
Ex. 2.4b However much more practicable the revision is, it is inter alia precisely in such changes that the significance of Janáček’s subsequent revisions (in the form of cuts and practical improvements) resides. Thus, whilst making necessary editorial emendations, I have not sought to pre-empt either Janáček’s own changes or the improvements of later editors. Footnotes give details of the more significant variant readings in the sources. Layout For the sake of clarity, the present edition gives just one full-score system per page. However, the system divisions follow as closely as is practicable those of UE 1996 in order to facilitate comparison between versions. Scene numbers Unlike many of Janáček’s later operas, there are no physical changes of scene within each Act of Jenůfa. Instead Janáček, like Preissová, employs the classical convention of new scenes according to the entrance or exit of characters (výstup is in this sense the Czech equivalent of the German Auftritt). Janáček retained Preissová’s numbering, although his omission of some scenes from the play means that, in ŠFS, ŠVS and KPU, there are several ‘double’ scene numbers in Acts 1 and 2. These have 60
- 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: anomalous status there. 50 A furthe
- 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
own time signatures and governing key signatures (see below, pp. 61–2; for further<br />
details concerning the conventions adopted for the application <strong>of</strong> key signatures to<br />
transposing instruments and to the timpani and harp, see below, pp. 68–9 and 71).<br />
As a general rule I have not sought to ‘improve’ obviously difficult passages<br />
where this would in effect introduce prematurely a revision made only subsequently in<br />
the opera’s performance history. In Ex. 2.3, which shows a particularly awkward<br />
passage for the first violins during the Kostelnička’s Act 1 solo, I have restored the<br />
original notation rather than opt for Dürr’s much easier divisi solution (also used in<br />
UE 1996):<br />
Ex. 2.3<br />
Likewise in the following passage from Act 3 Scene 8, for violins (1 and 2 in unison)<br />
and violas, the awkward <strong>of</strong>fbeat viola demisemiquavers have been left unaltered (Ex.<br />
2.4a) in preference to the much less tricky 1908 revision (Ex. 2.4b):<br />
Ex. 2.4a<br />
59
Change language