sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham
sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham
intended, among other things, to discourage too accented an attack on the octave leap to the third note: Ex. 2.9 As is shown in Ex. 2.10, UE 1969, 1996 and 2000 dispensed with such phrase marks (following the precedent of UE 1917 and 1918), but they feature in KPU as well as ŠFS and ŠFS, and their potential for indicating an extra level of expressive nuance has led to their retention in the present reconstruction. Word division Ex. 2.10 The division of syllables in the sung text follows the principles and detailed examples set out in Haller 1956 (see BIBLIOGRAPHY). Occasionally, permitted alternatives have been used. For instance, in the case of the word ‘všecko’ [all, everything] the usual division is ‘vše-cko’, but the alternative ‘všec-ko’ (with the c and k separated) seems better to reflect for non-Czech speakers (and particularly anglophone ones) the phonetics of the word: ‘vshetsko’ (with the c pronounced as ts in ‘cats’). 67
Instrumentation In line with Universal Edition house-style, and since they are widely comprehended, Italian instrument names are adopted in the score, except for those instruments (zvonky and lyra) which have a special meaning in Czech (see below). As noted above, the instrumental forces at the Brno National Theatre in 1904 were small and, for the first run of performances, incomplete to varying degrees. 54 Whilst Janáček’s minimum requirements for his next opera, Osud, can in no sense be interpreted as an ideal, 55 the smaller size of the orchestra in Brno in general (compared with that common today even in medium-sized opera houses) has been a factor in retaining Janáček’s original dynamics, rather than adopting any of those added by Kovařovic — often for sound practical reasons — for the much larger theatre and orchestra in Prague. Although strictly requiring an orchestra with triple woodwind, the 1904 score of Jenůfa is for the most part playable by a double woodwind section plus piccolo, with oboe and clarinet doubling on cor anglais and bass clarinet, as undoubtedly happened in early performances. Details of the horn and brass dispositions are given in the notes below. Precise details of woodwind and brass deployment (‘1º’, ‘2º’, ‘a 2’, etc.) are based on a thorough re-examination of both ŠFS and OP. Transposing instruments This edition adopts the widely used convention that transposing woodwind instruments (i.e. cor anglais and clarinets) are given with the appropriate corresponding key signatures: thus, for example, in a passage with a governing key 54 CHAPTER 1, fn. 42, and this chapter, fn. 22. 55 See above, fn. 22. 68
- 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: Ex. 2.7 Articulation and phrasing E
- 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
intended, among other things, to discourage too accented an attack on the octave leap<br />
to the third note:<br />
Ex. 2.9<br />
As is shown in Ex. 2.10, UE 1969, 1996 and 2000 dispensed with such phrase marks<br />
(following the precedent <strong>of</strong> UE 1917 and 1918), but they feature in KPU as well as<br />
ŠFS and ŠFS, and their potential for indicating an extra level <strong>of</strong> expressive nuance has<br />
led to their retention in the present reconstruction.<br />
Word division<br />
Ex. 2.10<br />
<strong>The</strong> division <strong>of</strong> syllables in the sung text follows the principles and detailed examples<br />
set out in Haller 1956 (see BIBLIOGRAPHY). Occasionally, permitted alternatives have<br />
been used. For instance, in the case <strong>of</strong> the word ‘všecko’ [all, everything] the usual<br />
division is ‘vše-cko’, but the alternative ‘všec-ko’ (with the c and k separated) seems<br />
better to reflect for non-Czech speakers (and particularly anglophone ones) the<br />
phonetics <strong>of</strong> the word: ‘vshetsko’ (with the c pronounced as ts in ‘cats’).<br />
67
Change language