Magyar Zene Music Quarterly

 

 

 

 

Magyar Zene

Hungarian Language Music Quarterly

 

Vol. 55 , No. 4 - November 2017

 

 

Contents

 

Articles

 

TIM CARTER

 
Túl a drámán: Monteverdi, Marino és a hatodik madrigálkötet (1614)
– 1. rész
365
Beyond Drama: Monteverdi, Marino, and the Sixth Book of Madrigals (1614)
Part one (Abstract)
392
LÁSZLÓ VIKÁRIUS  
„Zefiro torna”
Petrarca és a petrarkizmus Monteverdi két kompozíciójában
393
‘Zefiro torna’
Petrarch and Petrarchismo in Monteverdi’s Two Madrigals (Abstract)
410
RUTH TATLOW  
Hogyan használja (ki) napjaink zenetudománya a Fibonacci- számokat és az aranymetszést? 412
The Use and Abuse of Fibonacci Numbers and the Golden Section in Musicology Today
(Abstract)
431
MÁRTA PAPP  
Az „ormótlan orosz torzó”, avagy létezik- e autentikus verziója Borogyin Igor hercegének? 432
‘Great Unwieldy Russian Torso’, or is There an Authentic Version of Borodin’s Prince Igor? (Abstract) 441
VERONIKA KUSZ  
„…Ti olyan egyszerű, egészséges lények vagytok. Te is, Ernő is…”
Kodály, Emma, Dohnányi
442
‘…You Both are Such Plain, Healthy Souls: You and Ernst…’
Kodály, Emma, Dohnányi (Abstract)
453
ZSOMBOR NÉMETH  
Mester és „törvénytelen tanítványa”
Kodály Zoltán és Farkas Ferenc
454
Master and his ‘Illegitimate Pupil’
Zoltán Kodály and Ferenc Farkas (Abstract)
474
Contents (Abstracts) of Volume XV., 2017 478

 

 

The whole issue (pdf)

 

 

 

ABSTRACTS

 

 

TIM CARTER

Beyond Drama: Monteverdi, Marino, and the Sixth Book of Madrigals (1614)

 

Monteverdi’s Il sesto libro de madrigali a cinque voci (1614) is often viewed as an outlier in his secular output. His Fourth and Fifth Books (1603, 1605) were firmly embroiled in the controversy with Artusi over the seconda pratica, while his Seventh (1619) sees him shifting style in favor of the new trends that were starting to dominate music in early seventeenth- century Italy: the Sixth Book falls between the cracks. But it also suffers – in modern eyes, at least – for the fact that it reflects the composer’s first encounters with the poetry of Giambattista Marino, marking what many see as the start of a fundamental reorientation, if not downward spiral, in his secular vocal music. The problems are exposed by one of the Marino settings in the Sixth Book, ‘Batto, qui pianse Ergasto: ecco la riva’, in which an unnamed speaker tells Batto how Ergasto has been abandoned by Clori. The text has often been misunderstood. Uncovering the sources for the story – and the literary identities of Batto, Ergasto, and Clori – forces a new reading of the poetry and more particularly of Monteverdi’s music. It also answers some profound questions in terms of how best to address issues of narration and representation, and of diegesis and mimesis, in this complex repertory.

 

Tim Carter is the author of books on opera and musical theater ranging from Claudio Monteverdi in the early seventeenth century through Mozart in the later eighteenth to American musicals of the 1930s and ’40s, including, most recently, Understanding Italian Opera (Oxford University Press, 2015), and Rodgers and Hammerstein’s ‘Carousel’ (OUP, 2017). He also edited the musical play Johnny Johnson (1936) by Kurt Weill and North Carolina playwright, Paul Green, for The Kurt Weill Edition (2012). Prior to moving to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 2001, he taught in the United Kingdom at the Universities of Leicester and Lancaster, and at Royal Holloway, University of London. He has also held fellowships at the Harvard Center for Italian Renaissance Studies in Florence, the Newberry Library in Chicago, and the National Humanities Center. In 2013 he won a unique double award from the American Musicological Society recognizing his research on Monteverdi and on Weill. In 2017, he was named an honorary member of both the Society for Seventeenth- Century Music and the United Kingdom’s Royal Musical Association.

 

Back to top »

 

 

 

LÁSZLÓ VIKÁRIUS

‘Zefiro torna’
Petrarch and Petrarchismo in Monteverdi’s Two Madrigals

 

Monteverdi’s Sixth Book of Madrigals, published in 1614, opens with a five- voice version of the famous Lamento d’Arianna, originally composed as a solo piece, immediately testifying to a possible transformation from one genre to the other. In the same book one of Monteverdi’s few Petrarch settings (see Table 1), Zefiro torna e ’l bel tempo rimena (Canzoniere, cccx) is also included in a similar five- voice setting as the second piece, which, with its roughly three- part structure and varied repeat of the music of the first half (resulting in a kind of Bar form for the whole piece) is a characteristic representative of the ‘classic’ genre. This poem about the return of spring and the hopeless lover was paraphrased by Ottavio Rinuccini (librettist of Monteverdi’s Arianna) in another sonnet, which even quotes the beginning, Zefiro torna e di soavi odori. With a slightly changed text, Zefiro torna e di soavi accenti, it was first published in the Scherzi musicali of 1632 and then also included in the posthumously published Ninth Book of Madrigals. A comparison of the two poems excellently shows the stylistic manners and mannerisms originating from Petrarch’s influence around 1600. A detailed collation of the two texts shows how significant certain stylistic elements, such as the abundance of contrasts, the relish in colourful adjectives (e da monti e da valli ime e profonde) and even the obviously pointed use of words and phrases related to music (accenti, mormorando, note temprando, raddoppian l’armonia, canto, etc.), differentiate the later poem from its point of departure. (See the comparison of the original text of the two poems in Table 2.) The discussion of the stylistic differences between the texts is followed by a comparative description of the music in the two very different settings, the five- voice a capella form and the later setting using the then modern ciaccona bass pattern with basso continuo and two equal and competing virtuoso voices. The very characteristic differences in both the poems and the settings suggest that the choice of text and the choice of genre were clearly in close correlation with each other, no matter who was responsible for the choices themselves, whether it be the commissioner of the composition, an advisor, or the composer.

 

László Vikárius directs the Bartók Archives of the Institute for Musicology of the Research Centre for the Humanities of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and lectures at the Liszt University of Music in Budapest. He is editor- in- chief of the Béla Bartók Complete Critical Edition and edited with Vera Lampert the first published volume, For Children (early version and revised version). His further publications include Modell és inspiráció Bartók zenei gondolkodásában [Model and inspiration in Bartók’s musical thinking] (1999), a facsimile edition of Bartók’s autograph draft of Duke Bluebeard’s Castle (2006), the Somfai Fs (with Vera Lampert; Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press, 2005), the CD-ROM Bartók and Arab Folk Music (with János Kárpáti and István Pávai; 2006), and exhibition catalogues, Bartók and Kodály: anno 1910 (with Anna Baranyi; 2010), Bartók the Folklorist (2014) and Bartók the Pianist (with Virág Büky; 2017).

Back to top »

 

 

 

RUTH TATLOW

The Use and Abuse of Fibonacci Numbers and the Golden Section in Musicology Today

 

The numbers in the so- called Fibonacci Sequence express Euclid’s division in extreme and mean ratio (DEMR), popularly known as the Golden Section. Since the manuscript describing the sequence, Fibonacci’s Liber abaci, was written in 1202 and since Euclid described DEMR c. 300 BCE, many musicologists have naïvely assumed that composers since 1202 consciously used Fibonacci numbers to express the Golden Section. This is historically misguided for several reasons. For example, although Euclid’s DEMR was widely published and discussed throughout maths history, Fibonacci’s Liber abaci (1202) was not. After a brief transmission in manuscript form, Liber abaci was lost until the mid- eighteenth century and forgotten for a further hundred years until Prince Baldassarre Boncompagni rediscovered it and published it in two volumes in 1857 and 1862. Although there were a few sporadic appearances of a numerical expression for DEMR in the 17th and 18th centuries (unrelated to Fibonacci), real interest in the Golden Section and its aesthetic properties was first awakened in the late 19th century with the golden numberism movement. This paper will examine the historical facts and set out clear principles to guide the analyst.
The English original of this text entitled ‘The Use and Abuse of Fibonacci Numbers and the Golden Section in Musicology Today’ appeared in the Understanding Bach Journal 1 (2006),
https://www.bachnetwork. org/ub1/tatlow.pdf .

 

Ruth Tatlow is an independent scholar, clarinettist, and a widely published author with a research base at Musikverket in Stockholm, Sweden. Her ground- breaking examination of compositional theory and practice can be read in her classic monograph, Bach and the Riddle of the Number Alphabet (Cambridge University Press, 1991) and its sequel Bach’s Numbers: Compositional Proportion and Significance (Cambridge University Press, 2015), awarded Choice ‘Outstanding Academic Title 2016’. She co- founded Bach Network UK in 2004, designed and co- edited twelve volumes of the online open access journal Understanding Bach, and she currently serves as chair of the Bach Network Council. She is a member of the editorial board of the American Bach Society.

Back to top »

 

 

 

MÁRTA PAPP

‘Great Unwieldy Russian Torso’, or is There an Authentic Version of Borodin’s Prince Igor?

 

In recent decades performances of Prince Igor have seen an increasing demand for a reconstruction of the ‘original’ version. What is the situation regarding Borodin’s opera? Did the composer really complete it in its essentials, as is said to be the case by some Russian experts, or despite its excessive amount of composition is it a fragment of an unfinished work needing completion, namely – in Richard Taruskin’s expressive phrase – a ‘great unwieldy Russian torso’, as most of the music historians dealing with the work in the past and present claim? The composer, who wrote the libretto himself along with the music, gradually altered the scenario he received from Vladimir Stassov to suit his own needs; over the 17 years he worked on it, while composing he changed the order of scenes and acts many times and it would seem Borodin never decided on the final structure of the opera and its dramaturgical layout. While the composer was still alive Rimsky Korsakov took an active part in trying to promote the affair of Prince Igor, and he was only given a free hand after the sudden death of Borodin at the beginning of 1887, at which time he took away the composer’s complete manuscript material and worked on it for a year, adding to it and re- arranging it, at the end of which together with his pupil Glazounov he prepared the complete score. In 1896 Glazounov, at the request of Vladimir Stassov, published an article in which he decribed the chief points where he and Rimsky Korsakov carried out work on Prince Igor. However, it is not clear from what he wrote to what extent things were omitted from Borodin’s original music during the editing process. Pavel Lamm after many years of work prepared for 1947 a critical edition of the complete material of the opera, to which he wrote a scholarly article, but his work remained unpublished. Lamm examined carefully all the autographs of Prince Igor then available for research, but was not able to compile from the 77 sources he had studied a continuous ‘original version’. The authentic Prince Igor stands today in the crossfire of controversy, of experimental attempts to restore the ‘composer’s original version’. These are discussed in detail by the author of this article, along with the many questions they pose.

 

Márta Papp studied musicology from 1969 to 1974 at the Budapest Liszt Academy with Bence Szabolcsi, György Kroó and László Somfai. As a musicologist she is an expert on Russian music and has published books and studies on Modest Musorgsky, 19th century Russian music, the pianist Sviatoslav Richter and contacts between Hungarian and Russian composers and compositions. From 1972 to 2011 she was a producer for the Bartók channel of Hungarian Radio

 

Back to top »

 

 

 

VERONIKA KUSZ

‘…You Both are Such Plain, Healthy Souls: You and Ernst…’
Kodály, Emma, Dohnányi

 

Kodály and Dohnányi first met personally around the early Spring of 1907, but according to Kodály’s private letters, the younger composer was intensely involved with Dohnányi’s compositional style before this date. Presumably it was Emma Gruber, Kodály’s friend and pupil and later his wife, who turned his interest towards Dohnányi as she had been an acquaintance of the pianist- composer for ten years. In those days, Dohnányi had already been an admired musician both in Europe and the United States, and held a professorship at the Berlin Academy of Music. Lady Emma not only knew, but loved and esteemed him very much – in contrast to the young Kodály who unsparingly scourged his older colleague’s works and attitude in general. This study, based on several different published documents by Kodály and partly unknown Dohnányi sources, attempts to summarize Kodály’s early ideas about Dohnányi and to reveal Emma Gruber’s role in his relation to the senior fellow- composer.

 

Veronika Kusz (b. 1980) is a senior research fellow of the Institute for Musicology of the Research Center for the Humanities of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. She studied musicology at the Liszt Academy of Music, and defended her PhD dissertation at the same institute in 2010. She was a Fulbright grantee in 2005–2006 working with Dohnányi’s American legacy. Her monograph on Dohnányi’s late years was published in 2015 and was awarded an Academic Youth Award by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in 2016. She has been a János Bolyai Scholar since 2015. She has published numerous articles in Hungarian periodicals and in foreign journals such as American Music, The American Harp Journal, The Pan, Music Library Association Notes.

 

Back to top »

 

 

 

ZSOMBOR NÉMETH

 

Master and his ‘Illegitimate Pupil’
Zoltán Kodály and Ferenc Farkas

 

The printed copy of his song cycle Fruit basket that Ferenc Farkas gave to Zoltán Kodály bears the following dedication: ‘With respect to Zoltán Kodály from his illegitimate pupil’. Making use of surviving written sources and other memorabilia, the present study attempts to explain the expression ‘illegitimate pupil’, and tries to answer the question why Farkas did not study with Kodály. It considers what relationship developed between the two in spite of this, and what the Kodály reception of Farkas the composer and teacher of composition was.

 

Zsombor Németh studied Musicology at the Franz Liszt Academy of Music between 2008 and 2013, and is currently pursuing a PhD there (theme: Ferenc Farkas’s Rákóczi- related works). Since September 2017 he has a young research fellow at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Research Centre for the Humanities Institute for Musicology’s Bartók Archives. The main focus of his interests is 20th century Hungarian music and music for strings in the 17th and 18th centuries and its reception history. Aside from his work as a scholar, he is active as a music history teacher and musician. He primarily performs on period violins, and is studying for a Historical Violin MA at the Music and Arts University of the City of Vienna.

 

Back to top »