sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham
sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham
discrete versions on the one hand and what one might call a ‘painting the Forth Bridge’ scenario on the other, with the text in a near-constant state of flux and remaking. Moreover, as a particularly complex and collaborative genre, opera gives rise to special complications when trying neatly to compartmentalise the compositional process and to assign ‘authority’ to certain readings (let alone reconstruct them with any accuracy), for it is invariably subjected to an unusually wide range of socialising and cultural influences on its realisation in performance. 2 Taking into account these provisos and the relativities which emerge from them, Jenůfa nevertheless still seems to have moved through a number of more or less distinct phases which can be characterised in broader terms, with what appear to be different objectives to the fore at different stages. Throughout this process (albeit at varying levels of intensity) was a series of revisions to the vocal lines which, though not exactly systematic, shows Janáček steadily changing, improving and refining the declamation, gradually attaining a more natural, realistic and often less melodically dependent idiom for the voices (see below, §3.3.5). The possibility of pinpointing the 1904 version and also the significant 1906 revisions with a greater degree of exactness than has been possible until now helps in refining the identification and chronology of other revisions, in particular those made before 1904. What follows is intended as a general overview — rather than an exhaustively detailed account — of the various stages of the revision process. It focuses particularly on those revisions made both shortly before and relatively soon after the 1904 première (autumn 1903, summer 1906, and late 1906/7, the latter resulting in the 1908 KPU vocal score), as well as on certain significant features of the 1904 version itself. It also offers a more generalised summary of subsequent revisions by both Janáček himself and Karel Kovařovic. 2 See Grier 1996, 206. 75
3.1 The Urfassung and the pre-première revisions For present purposes Janáček’s pre-première revisions can be split into two broad categories: notational and substantive. 3 To the former belong numerous changes to time signatures and note values which, whilst altering the notated appearance and even the perception (by the performers who read the notation) of certain passages, leave the sounding substance of the music essentially unaltered. TABLE 3.1 (on the following page) lists the main notational changes made to ŠFS and ŠVS between their initial copying by Josef Štross and 8 October 1903, when Janáček handed over both scores to the Brno National Theatre. Excluded are a number of instances of being changed to (or vice versa), and also the more extensive changes to the closing pages of Act 1 (now difficult to reconstruct with any certainty because of the heavily revised state of ŠFS and ŠVS; but see below and APPENDICES VIII and IX). Many of the metrical changes, including those listed in the following table, were facilitated by Josef Štross having presciently ruled many of the barlines in ŠFS, as well as some of those in ŠVS, in pencil. 3 The distinction made here between ‘notation’ and ‘substance’ is a relative rather than an absolute one. Substance in music is clearly dependent on more factors than pitch alone; and metre, note values, articulation, phrasing and instrumentation equally clearly have a vital role in determining the character and substance of a given work as realised in performance. Here the difference implied is one of degree: most of Janáček’s alterations to metre, for example, result in a notational clarification rather than a marked sonic transformation of any given passage. 76
- 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: development of twentieth-century op
- 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
discrete versions on the one hand and what one might call a ‘painting the Forth<br />
Bridge’ scenario on the other, with the text in a near-constant state <strong>of</strong> flux and<br />
remaking. Moreover, as a particularly complex and collaborative genre, opera gives<br />
rise to special complications when trying neatly to compartmentalise the<br />
compositional process and to assign ‘authority’ to certain readings (let alone<br />
reconstruct them with any accuracy), for it is invariably subjected to an unusually<br />
wide range <strong>of</strong> socialising and cultural influences on its realisation in performance. 2<br />
Taking into account these provisos and the relativities which emerge from<br />
them, Jenůfa nevertheless still seems to have moved through a number <strong>of</strong> more or less<br />
distinct phases which can be characterised in broader terms, with what appear to be<br />
different objectives to the fore at different stages. Throughout this process (albeit at<br />
varying levels <strong>of</strong> intensity) was a series <strong>of</strong> revisions to the vocal lines which, though<br />
not exactly systematic, shows Janáček steadily changing, improving and refining the<br />
declamation, gradually attaining a more natural, realistic and <strong>of</strong>ten less melodically<br />
dependent idiom for the voices (see below, §3.3.5). <strong>The</strong> possibility <strong>of</strong> pinpointing the<br />
1904 version and also the significant 1906 revisions with a greater degree <strong>of</strong> exactness<br />
than has been possible until now helps in refining the identification and chronology <strong>of</strong><br />
other revisions, in particular those made before 1904. What follows is intended as a<br />
general overview — rather than an exhaustively detailed account — <strong>of</strong> the various<br />
stages <strong>of</strong> the revision process. It focuses particularly on those revisions made both<br />
shortly before and relatively soon after the 1904 première (autumn 1903, summer<br />
1906, and late 1906/7, the latter resulting in the 1908 KPU vocal score), as well as on<br />
certain significant features <strong>of</strong> the 1904 version itself. It also <strong>of</strong>fers a more generalised<br />
summary <strong>of</strong> subsequent revisions by both Janáček himself and Karel Kovařovic.<br />
2 See Grier 1996, 206.<br />
75
Change language