Janáček as theorist 9780945193036

Citation preview

Janacek as Theorist

STUDIES IN THE MUSIC OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA No. 3

‘WoéBELLe: “Sy ! NS ne , f \\, tf x. — " Yi ‘ Mi 7)Z :/STA ar es P7gOE .* ia of | on.

Nay e" Se Le So, fs Pia, ) Vip = iy fo 4

tPW i. esti " . Ie Sopa | We a I 7 a poowr~®. . ai Ss » Ss ee i7 pe 45 eS ee Wi * tert pee /, hae \ . Cay VW >» 1g, lh, poe. _. wae H\ 7 = Ei y=

"a

Vy LPR ern :

' Dr Pp. | .e _:. Slaw” Oe yune & —-—~ "gv 7¥° 49 Z/- fh

—- Leos Janaé¢éek Caricature from Leos Jandcek: A View of His Life and Works by Adolf Vesely) (Prague , 1924)

aw bd Janacek as Theorist by |

Michael Beckerman ,

} STUDIES IN CZECH MUSIC No. 3

PENDRAGON PRESS Stuyvesant, NY

Other Titles in the Series STUDIES IN CZECH MUSIC , No. 1 Proceedings of the International Conference on Jandcek and Czech Music edited by Michael Beckerman and Glen Bauer (1994) ISBN 978-0-945 193-36-4

. No. 3 The Opera Theater of Count Franz Anton von Sporck in Prague (172435) by Daniel Freeman (1992) ISBN 978-0-945193-17-3

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

| Beckerman, Michael Brim, 1951-

Jandcek as theorist / by Michael Beckerman :

p. cm. -- (Studies in Czech music; no. 3) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-945193-03-6 1. Jandcek , Leo’, 1854—1928--Contributions in music theory 2. Jandcek, Leo’, 1854-1928--Written works. 3, Music--Theory.

I. Title. II. Series : ML410.J18B4 1994

| CIP

781’.092--dc20 94-17279 MN

Copyright 1994 Pendragon Press

Preface | vii Introduction xi CONTENTS — |

1. Janaéek’s Musical Studies . 1 2. Janacek and the Herbartians 15 3. Janatek’s Activity as a Theorist Part 1 (1877-1897) 25 4. Janacek’s Activity as a Theorist Part 2 (1898-1920) 43

5. The Chordal Connection and Chordal Thickening 59 6. Scasovdni and the Relationship Between Rhythm and 81

Harmony |

7. Janaéek’s Theories Evaluated 97

Bibliography : 119

Index 137

Appendix 1: Glossary of Jana¢ek’s Terms 133

, Vv |

To Bernard and Gloria Beckerman

Preface

There are several elements which make Janacek’s theoretical writing somewhat inscrutable. The first of these involves his use of a highly abstract and colorful style (“feuilleton style”) in passages where one

might normally expect a dispassionate analytical approach. Thus Janacek says that harmony is “only an inward embrace,” the connection of chords with roots a second apart sounds “as if smooth stones were

struck together,” and the 6/4 inversion is like “the swallow flying which almost touches the ground...” His theoretical writing is replete with such metaphysical gestures or often lies on the very edge of

coherence. |

Second, we have the influence of Herbartian abstract formalism

on Janacek’s style and vocabulary, particularly that of the Czech philosopher Josef Durdik (see Chapter 2). Not only does Janaéek borrow their pithy proclamations (“Without form it is not possible to compose,” “Harmonic connections have the aesthetic significance of being

forms of balance”) but he also uses their terminology, referring to “forms of disruption,” “full interpenetration of intervals,” and “quantitative” (Casomérny) form. Although this style is most evident in his earlier writing, the tone and vocabulary survive into the Complete Theory of Harmony. Partially related to this is an almost insurmountable problem which concerns Janacek’s tendency, perhaps under Durdik’s influence, to coin ' eos Jandcek, Hudebne teoretické dilo (Musical-Theoretical Works), ed. Zdenék Blazek, Prague: Supraphon, 1969 (vol. 1), 1974 (vol 2); hereafter cited as Blazek 1:2 where, on pages 47-51, before the actual printing of the works themselves, the editor offers a “diction-

ary” translating Jandcek’s theoretical vocabulary into Czech (or sometimes into “Blazekese” which must itself be translated into Czech). In his desire to express the newness of highly characteristic ideas and images, and possibly in an attempt to create a more “Slavic” theoretical vocabulary, Jandcek used words in an unusual sense or made up new ones. This the term “osnova harmonicka” or “harmonic fabric” means “a logical progression of chords within the frame work of a musical whole.” A “smir” or “conciliation” is a term taken from abstract formalism to signify a “chord connection where the second chord is more consonant than the first.” “Prolinanf souzvuku” or “chordal percolation” refers to the “interpenetration of one chord into another and their simultaneous sounding.” And even these “translations” by the leading expert on Janacek’s theoretical works are not al-

ways entirely accurate. | Vil

Vili MICHAEL BECKERMAN Jandéek are translated and underlined. Thus we have conciliation, har-

monic fabric, and percolation. 2. The first appearance of each of Janaéek’s terms is accompanied by a note which gives the original Czech

and an explanation where necessary. 3. Three terms in Jana¢ek’s vocabulary have been retained in the original Czech—one each in the realm of harmony, rhythm, and melody. Although I realize that this

many cause some inconvenience to the reader, each term has such resonance that translation becomes impossible. Thus even though Janaéek himself sometimes translates “séasovani” as “rytmus” or “rhythm”, his actual usage of this term does not always correspond to conventional usage. This is especially true of the derivative “stasovka” which refers to a specific rhythmic unit (“rhythmlet”?) and the adjectival modifier “scéasovaci.” In a similar fashion “napévky mluvy” is often

translated as “speech melodies.” Although the Czech word “napév” does indeed mean “melody,” the diminutive “napevék” has a characteristic flavor, signifying something shorter, a “tune” or “tunelet.” Finally, Janacek’s term “spletna” refers to a postulated “chaotic moment” in

a chord connection where, due to the vibrations in the inner ear, the fading tones of the first chord clash with the tones of the second chord.

This has been translated variously as “twine” or “tangle,” neither of which gives the full sense of the original. 4. In the numerous citations from Janaéek’s works I have made no attempt to clarify; rather I have tried to present Janacek’s style in as pure a form as possible, and to add } commentary where it is necessary for comprehension. 5. I have not found it necessary to include the complete Czech texts of the sections quoted from Janacek’s works. Of course all the references are given in the notes. 6. I have included a dictionary or glossary as an appendix. All of Janacek’s terms which are used in this book can be found there with a full explanation. 7. Several abbreviations have been used, particular-

ly in the notes. The abbreviation will follow, in parentheses, the first

mention of a particular work. ,

Much of the difficulty of this study has taken place, like an iceberg,

under the surface, and involves problems of translation. It would not have been possible to complete this study without the help of Mirek Cejka and Don Sparling of the faculty of the Brno University, Alena Némcova of the Music Information Center in Brno, Radoslav Nenadal

of the English Department of Charles University in Prague, Peter Kussi , of Columbia University, and John Tyrrell of Nottingham University. I am grateful to Jiti Sehnal, Svatava Pribafiova, and Vojtéch Kyas of the Janaéek Archive of the Moravian Museum in Brno for their as-

sistance in many matters, and would like to thank E. A. Lippman,

PREFACE , ix Patricia Carpenter, Peter Kussi, James Baker, WIlliam Harkins, Ernest Sanders, Richard Taruskin and Richard Kuhns for the valuable suggestions they made when this work was originally undertaken as a doctoral dissertation at Columbia University. I would also like to thank the ACLS, Washington University, and Fulbright for their generous assistance at various points in this under-

taking, and would like to specially thank IREX for their support throughout the entire course of my research. Anyone who has been lucky enough to work with IREX is fortunate indeed! I would also like to thank my colleagues at Washington University,

Craig Monson, Dolores Pesce, and Jeffrey Kurtzman for their continued interest and support, and specially thank Lynn Hizer for her assistance in preparing this manuscript. Special thanks to my friend and colleague Hugh MacDonald. -

For guidance at the deepest level I would like to thank my Czech “advisor,” the eminent Jana¢ek scholar Dr. Jiti Vyslouzil, and Jarmil

, Burghauser, a most talented man whose appreciation and support of my work helped to ensure its completion in this form.

I would also like to thank two special friends, and two superb Janacek scholars for their continual and continued support: Dr. John Tyrrell of Nottingham and Dr. Alena Nemcova of the Music Information Center in Brno. Finally, many people are fortunate enough to have fine parents

and fine mentors, yet rarely are they the same people. My father, Ber- | nard Beckerman, was a scholar, director, administrator, man of the theater, and man of ideas. My mother Gloria Beckerman, is Professor Emerita of Adelphi University, a brilliant teacher, writer, and a vibrant

intellect. They both read the original version of this study with the greatest care, and their love, support, and constant good advice were invaluable. It is to Bernard and Gloria Beckerman, then, that I dedicate this work.

| BLANK PAGE

Introduction | In addition to his activities as a composer, Leos’ Janééek was a prolific literary personality whose works include not only letters, feuilletons, criticisms, autobiography, ethnographic and pedagogical studies but also numerous articles dealing with music theory. The scope of these theoretical works reveals not a mere dabbler, but a splendid talent who relentless_ ly pursued theoretical questions for a period of almost fifty years. They are unique documents; stimulating, diverse, exciting, and sometimes bewildering, they reflect Janacéek’s intense involvement with contemporary trends in philosophy, ethnography, physiology, and music theory, and his struggles in these worlds; yet they can hardly be found on a single bookshelf outside the Czech Republic.

In 1968, Zdenék Blazek wrote the following statement in his introduction to the first volume of the Jana¢ek theoretical works: Forty years have elapsed since the death of Leos Janacek. His compositional works live; they are the center of constant attention at home and an ever-greater appreciation abroad. As a theorist, he has nonetheless remained almost unnoticed.!

In the twenty years since that time, Janacéek’s popularity has continued to mushroom, both in Europe and the United States, yet his activities as a theorist are still all but unknown to most non-Czech scholars, and remain completely unavailable to the non-Czech reader. Part of the problem in the dissemination of Janaéek’s works can be traced to the works themselves. Even in the Czech Republic they are considered difficult and unapproachable. Not only are we speaking of language, context, and tone; this difficulty is often combined with dis-

organization, inconsistency, and at times, incoherence, so that the average reader may be inclined to dismiss the theoretical works as muddie, and the entire enterprise as a waste of time. Another problem with Jana¢ek’s work is the relationship between

the role and function of pedagogical theory on the one hand and speculative theory, on the other. Most of Janacek’s theory was written for his students at the Brno Organ School and was thus instructional in 1Z7denék Blazek in Blazek 1, p. 21.

xi

xii MICHAEL BECKERMAN intent. The task of pedagogical theory is to instruct, demonstrate, and clarify. It must be informative and aid the student in acquiring a grasp of basic concepts as a foundation for further study. Janacek’s firm grasp of musical principles, his creative insight, brilliant ear, flights of fancy, and erudition make him a provocative speculative thinker; yet these same qualities caused his value as a pedagogue to be at best uneven. As founder and director of the Brno Organ School, Janaéek had the ideal opportunity to implement his theories, yet the results must be judged a failure and the initial confusion of speculative and pedagogical theory traced to Janacéek himself. Thus there is a legacy of controversy surrounding the theoretical works in the Czech Republic, and especially in Moravia, where some of Janaéek’s pupils still reside. Janaéek has been continually, and sometimes unfairly, criticized for his special terminological system and overall difficulty. Jand¢ek the speculative theorist is now paying the price for his mistakes as a pedagogue, with the result that his theories are often condemned out of hand as useless and worthless, both on their own merits, and in relation to the composer’s own musical compositions,’ and it has even become fashionable to make disparaging remarks about Janaéek’s ability as a theorist. One of the aims of this study is to correct this view by presenting the fundamental ideas of Jana¢cek’s theoretical works to the non-Czech reader in an objective manner in order that they may be fairly evaluated and understood. There are many different ways that this could have been done, and indeed, this study was originally planned as an annotated

translation of the Complete Theory of Harmony (hereafter cited as CTH), yet I felt that although this would be valuable, it would be difficult if not impossible to establish any kind of larger context for the work in order to make the translation worthwhile. Thus this study attempts both to present the works and to provide a context for them as follows: first Janaéek’s musical and non-musical . training will be examined; second, Janaéek’s activity as a theorist will be presented within the context of his life and works; third, several key constructs of Janacek’s theory will be examined in detail; and fourth, the importance of Janaéek’s work will be demonstrated, both in relation to our view of him as a composer, and by itself, as a contribution to the his_tory of music theory, and intellectual history in general. 2The last attempt to use Jandéek’s theoretical works as textbooks was undertaken by the Jandéek student, Osvald Chlubna, in 1921. The results were unsuccessful. ‘Vogel, op. cit., is particularly guilty of this, and since his is the only major study currently

available in English the effect is particularly strong. | :

PREFACE xili There has been a tendency to view Janaéek as a wild and unsystematic student, almost an autodidact, lacking a thorough training in basic musical technique. John Tyrrell, in his article on Janaéek in the new Grove Dictionary‘ speaks about the composer’s “piecemeal training” and asserts that the theoretical works originated, in part, because Janacek needed a “theoretical armor” to defend himself with. It is therefore necessary to establish that Jané¢ek had a superior musical education and was fortunate to be able to study with gifted teachers in Brno, Prague, Leipzig, and Vienna. We have documentary evidence, in the form of comments and letters of recommendation, that his teachers always found Janacéek to be the ideal student, a remarkable combination of diligence and brilliance. If Jana¢ek was ultimately unorthodox, then the blame must rest with the composer himself. A second reason for devoting space to Janaéek’s musical training

is the relationship of these studies to his future development as a theorist. His theoretical studies, particularly those at the Prague Organ School, laid the foundation for his future writings, and Skuherskys innovative theory of harmony and chord connection had a great impact on Janacek’s theoretical constructions.° The final reason for focusing on Janaéek’s musical studies is to begin looking at Jandéek’s creative personality, for there is no student who was more fiery, more obstinate, and more determined than he to receive the training he thought necessary to accomplish his goals. Furthermore, Janacek left tangible, material traces throughout his lifetime. Preserved exercise books, marginalia, notes, crossing-outs, exclamations, and time-markings abound, evidence of his struggles, growth, and progress. This affords us the rare opportunity of following Janaéek’s development as a theorist from the beginning of his studies. Jana¢ek was also—and this is less known—a man of letters, who though quite idiosyncratic in his choice of reading, was nonetheless

knowledgeable in such subjects as music history (in the modern , musicological sense), acoustics, experimental psychology, phonetics, aesthetics, and ethnography. Though there has been a tendency to regard Janacek as a fiery romantic in terms of temperament, the opposite is often true; he could be a compulsive, articulate, and even dry intellectual, concerned with appearances, both physical and intellectual. This side of Janaéek has been neglected by contemporary scholarship, ‘John Tyrrell, “LeoS Janatek.” New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, Vol. 9, pp. 484-85.

‘This will also be discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. |

XIV | | MICHAEL BECKERMAN and for this reason some time will be devoted to the examination of the most prominent aspects of Jana¢ek’s intellectual development. This book proposes a new view of Janaéek’s intellectual and crea- _ tive personality stressing the influence of the neglected philosophical system of Herbartian abstract formalism. In Jan Racek’s introduction to the first volume of the theoretical works the following assertion can be found: “Janaéek learned the basic tenets of formalist aesthetics from Robert Zimmermann, the principal follower of Herbart’s abstract formalism.”¢ The sentence is all alone, by itself, without any explanation of

who Herbart and Zimmermann were. (It also turns out that Racek is wrong—Janacek learned formalist aesthetics from Josef Durdik initially.) The implication seems to be that all Czechs had complete familiarity with the subject of Herbartian abstract formalism, (Which turns out to be untrue.) Herbart’s name turns up again when one examines the work of another figure who influenced Janacek greatly in his later years, Wilhelm Wundt, the father of experimental psychology. In one of the most

, prominent accounts of Wundt’s work we find the statement that Wundt’s ideas were “couched in Herbartian terminology.”’ Yet another philosopher who influenced Janaéek was Josef Durdik, and the search

for material about him led to the “discovery” that “Herbartism,” the

philosophical system of Johann Herbart, had been the official philosophy at the Prague University for over seventy years, dominating contemporary Czech thought.

| Thus, Chapter 2 deals with the impact of Herbartism on the young student.* We have much documentary evidence in the form of letters, articles, marginalia, underlinings, and it is easy to show that the Herbar-

tians made an enormous impression on Janaéek. We know, due to JanaCek’s compulsive habits, which books he read, when he read them, and what his response was. We thus have a unique record of documented

development which shows, beyond any doubt, just how deep the influence of Herbart’s followers was. Jan Racek in Blazek 1, op cit., p. 11. "J. C. Flugel,A Hundred Years of Philosophy, New York: 1964, p. 181.

SAlthough there has never been a systematic attempt to explore the implications of Jana¢ek’s Herbartism, the following are available introductions to the subject; Rudolf Pecman, “Jané¢kuv umélecky ndzor” (Jandtek’s Stance as an Artist), Opus Musicum, 1976 7/8, pp.226-30; “Disjunkce estetickych nazord a skladebného dila u Leose Jandcka” (The Disjunction Between Aesthetic Opinions and Compositional Work in the Output of Leos Janacek), Opus Musicum, 1978, pp. 175-78. The most important initial work on the subject appears in Helfert, Leo Janétek I—V poutech tradice (Leo¥ Jandcek—In the Shackles of Tradition), Brno, 1939. pp. 91-98.

PREFACE XV Janacek’s theoretical works have never been systematically described, discussed, or put into any larger external framework. Thus the simple questions of what, where, and when must be dealt with before the larger questions, which concern the relationship of theory and practice and the overall significance of Jana¢ek’s theory, can be adequately

answered. In Chapters 3 and 4, Janaéek’s theoretical activity is examined, described, and divided into periods in order to provide the basic context for the understanding of his ideas. Yet, even deciding which works to present involves a quandary; for nothing is ordinary and clear-cut when one is involved with the unconventional mind of Leo’ Janaéek. Thus the initial question, that of deter-

mining what works of music theory Jandéek wrote, forces us to determine precisely what we mean by “music theory” as separate from, in Janacek’s case, pedagogy, criticism, musical poeticizing, and ethnography, since they are often intermixed in Janaéek’s writings.® Since there is NO easy answer to such a question, and since indeed, the very question could well be the subject of a major inquiry, this study shall concentrate on the material included in Zdenék BlaZek’s edition of the theoretical

writings as presented in Leo§ Jandéek—Musical Theoretical Works, volumes 1 and 2” Blazek’s edition, published by Supraphon in 1968 and 1975, contains the only available texts of most of Janacek’s theoretical writings. Blazek was one of the acknowledged experts on the theoretical works, and has revealedin __

| the introduction to the above volume, and in other studies," a unique and unrivalled insight into Janaéek’s theory. He has studied all the available material for several decades, both in printed publications and in manuscript. *Jandtéek’s non-theoretical writings are included in a series of published, yet untranslated, and often unavailable volumes. His early activity as a critic in relation to the Brno Opera is published in Leos Jandcek kritikem brnénske opery (Leos Janatek as critic of the Brno Opera), published in Brno in 1935 and edited by LeoS FirkuSny. Janatek’s ethnological writings can be found in Leos Jandéek o lidové pisni a lidové hudbé (Leos Janaééek on Folk Songs and Folk Music), Janétéek Archive, Series II, edited by Jan Racek, and published in Prague in 1955. Janatek’s feuilletons are available in Leo§ Jandéek-fejetony z Lidovych novin (Leos Janétek-Feuilletons from the People’s News), originally published by Jan Racek and Leos FirkuSny in Brno in 1938, then completed and enlarged in Brno in 1958. "Blazek 1:2, op. cit. "The following articles on Janaééek’s music theory have been published by BlaZek: “Jandtkovy pozndémky k nauce o harmonii z r. 1883” (Janééek’s notes to the Theory of Harmony from 1883), Hudebni rozhledy V, Prague 1959, pp. 137 ff; “Spojovacf formy v teorii LeoSe Janétka” (Connecting Forms in the Theory of Leos Jandétek), Journal of the Brno University Faculty of Philosophy on the 70th birthday of Jan Racek, X\V, Brno 1965, pp. 29ff; “Zu einigen Problemen der ersten Harmonielehre Janateks,” ibid., XV, Brno 1966, pp. 7-23.

xvi MICHAEL BECKERMAN , It is fair to say that it would be impossible for a study such as this to be undertaken without Blazek’s edition.

Since Janaéek’s writings cross and overlap all possible borders of genre and type, Chapters 3 and 4 will also comment briefly on those aspects of Jandéek’s literary activity which are not to be the central subject of this study, that is, his ethnographic writings, his criticism, and his

pedagogy; not merely because of the fascinating individuality of Jandcek’s discoveries and pronouncements, but more importantly, because it is impossible to understand the more purely theoretical constructs without them. The presentation of the theoretical works has been divided into

periods corresponding to the working-out of each major theoretical construct reflecting the influence of particular forces on Janaéek’s thinking. The first period (1884-88) shows the influence of FrantiSek Skuhersky, Janaéek’s teacher at the Prague Organ School, and illuminates Jana¢ek’s stance as a dogmatic proponent of Herbartian abstract formalism. The second period (1894-97) is dominated by the physiological considerations stimulated by Hermann von Helmholtz’s Lehre von dem Tonempfindungen, while the third period (1907-12) reflects the impact of Jana¢ek’s ethnographic studies. Janaéek’s last period (1916-20) culminating in the second edition of The Complete Theory of Harmony, is a final synthesis of aesthetics, ethnography, the natural sciences, with a new stimulus, the physiological psychology of Wilhelm Wundt. In addition to following Janaéek’s activities as a theorist, it is es$ential that we focus on those ideas which form the cornerstone of his theoretical approach. Thus Chapters 5 and 6 focus on three of Janaéek’s

most characteristic theoretical ideas: chord connection (connecting | forms),” chord type (chordal thickening), and the rhythmic aspect of harmony (sCasovdni).“ The aim here is to present Jan4éek’s ideas in an

objective manner with both musical examples and quotations from Janacek’s theoretical works, primarily the CTH. It is here that the major problems of this study and of the theoreti- _ cal works themselves emerge, for we shall see a thinker so intent upon reaching into the heart of each question that he is often on the edge of

incoherence. By a combination of straight translation of Janaéek’s spojovact formy; this is a literal translation. B7hust’ovani; Jandtéek took this word from folk music. Mscasovanf, from the coined Czech word, scasovat, or “to put into time.” For a full discussion, see Chapter 6, p. 81 ff.

PREFACE : xvii works and exploratory commentary, we shall try to elucidate the fundamental ideas without losing the flavor of the original. Chapter 5 deals with Janacek’s theory of chord connection, based on the

} notion that there is a moment of overlap in the connection of two chords caused (and Janaéek is not always clear about this) either by the memory or by the actual sympathetic vibrations of the basilar membrance of the inner ear. This instant of overlap, which Janacek referred to as the “chaotic moment” or later the spletna(twine)* is the glue, according to Jandéek, which holds this chord connection together. Not only is Janatek’s chord connection held together by this sonic cement, it is also, in Janacek’s later writings, a reflection of a certain emotional quantity. Janaéek’s theory of chordal affect, derived from his studies of Herbartian philosophy, will also be presented and discussed.

Janaéek also had important ideas about the transformation of the simple chordal entity, which he called the “triadic core.” Thus, Chapter 5 also treats _ Janatéek’s concept of chordal “thickening,” by which a note (or notes) added to a triad acts, according to Janacek, as an “alloy” which transforms the chord in both a theoretical and an expressive dimension.

Janacek always strove for the unity of musical elements, and in a larger sense, one might say that his theoretical works are an attempt to

unify harmony, rhythm and melody. Janacek tried to focus on the melodic aspect of harmony by examining non-harmonic tones which he called “melodic dissonances.” Using his theory of temporal delay, he discussed melodic tones which “thicken” a harmonic entity successively rather than simultaneously. Finally, in addition to the simple thickening of chords by one or two tones, Janacek proposed the concept of full interpenetration of separate chords which he called percolation,'* and saw this as a true sign of harmonic modernity. Janaéek was also vitally concerned with rhythmic phenomena, and several ideas which he formulated during his studies of folk music be-

came the basis for his theories of rhythm, or s¢asovdnt, presented in Chapter 6. Janaéek was fascinated by the effect of stress, accent, and meter on harmonic phenomena, and we shall explore his entirely new method of analysis based on a principle of rhythmic layering, something which allowed him to isolate and examine minute harmonic and rhythmic phenomena. 15The word “twine” was used in the translation of the first edition of Vogel in English. The second edition uses the word “tangle.” I prefer the first. 6prolinanf.

XVili MICHAEL BECKERMAN The last chapter, Chapter 7, is an attempt to evaluate Jandcek’s theories on several levels. First we shall evaluate the theoretical works themselves, apart from any relation to Jandéek’s compositional activity, as theory, in order to show their importance as a statement of speculative theory. In addition, we shall show that the theoretical works have value as an historical document which reflects and highlights many of the trends and approaches so characteristic of late 19th and early 20th century thought. Although it is of critical importance to raise questions concerning the relationship of theory and practice in Janacéek’s work, one can not automatically assume such a connection, at least not on a primary level. Though his theoretical writings and his music share many characteris-

tics, there is no indication that he ever, consciously or unconsciously relied on his theoretical works while composing. Indeed, anyone who has studied the almost obsessive “white heat” which accompanied Janacek’s compositional process, something which is clear from his sketches, jottings, and autographs, knows how impossible it would have been for Janacéek to compose according to a theoretical model, even if he had wanted to. On another level, it may be added that those who are anxious to

see comparisons between Jana¢ek and other contemporary theorists will be disappointed. Aside from his teacher Skuhersky, Janééek’s models, tended to come from non-musical fields. Thus his theoretical

system and overall approach owes far more to thinkers like Josef Durdik, Robert Zimmermann, Hermann von Helmholtz, and Wilhelm Wundt, than it does to any contemporary theorist. Yet [hope to show that the ultimate importance of the theoretical works lies in the manner in which they enable us to illuminate Janacek’s goals as artist, creator and philosopher. Janaéek, far from being an isolated, jagged figure on the historical landscape was, in his mixture of positivism and pantheism, very much a part of his time; in his concern with the relationship and unity of all things he shows himself to be that which we shall call, in the spirit of Janacek’s own terminology, a naturealist.

Thus far in their history, the response to Janaéek’s theoretical works, though limited, has been mixed.” Instead of being seen as a "See especially Bohumil DuSek, “Janétkovy nazory na hudebnf harmonii v letech 18841912” (Jandtek’s Opinions on Harmony in the Years 1884-1912), Hudebni Véda V, Prague 1968, pp. 374-404; and Vogel, op. cit., pp. 160-63. There has also been a battle over Jandaéek’s

terminology which has been attacked by DuSek and Jaroslav Vogel and defended by FrantiSek Rehanek in “K Janaétkové terminologii” (On Janétek’s Terminology), Opus Musicum, 1976/4, p. 108.

PREFACE xix “whole” entity which reflects the thinking of a mind which produced Jenifa, the Glagolitic Mass, and the string quartets, they have often been dismissed without any regard for their larger significance. It is the deter-

mination of this larger significance which is the major concern of this study. My study of the theoretical works began with much excitement be-

cause I hoped, somehow, that the theory would “explain” the music. Such hopes, of course, are misplaced; nothing can explain music. Yet, in its own way, Jana¢cek’s theoretical universe is no less remarkable than his musical one, and it does afford, albeit on an abstract level, a profound

understanding of his creative personality.

, BLANK PAGE |

CHAPTER 1

Janacek’s Musical Studies Leos Jana¢ek came from a family of musicians and teachers.’ His grandfather, Jizi (1778-1848) was a leading figure in the small town of Albrechtice in northern Moravia. Jifi’s biography, written by his son

Vincenc, reveals a man of extraordinary talent as an organizer and musician, with a personality very similar to that of his grandson Leo.’

| The composer’s father, Jitf (1815-66), was a fine musician and teacher as well. Leos therefore grew up in a musical environment and received his early musical training from his father. The family was in dire financial straits so Leos, who had shown signs of musical talent, auditioned for choir schools in both Brno and Kroméiiz in 1865 at the age of eleven.

One might say that the foundations for Janééek’s training as a musician, as well as his ultimate decision to attend school in Brno, were

laid a full generation before he was born, in August of the year 1831. Janacéek’s father, Jizi, was at that time appointed teacher in the north

Moravian town of Neplachovice. Our information about that time ‘comes, once again, from Vincenc’s biography of the composer’s grandfather, the elder Jiti Janacek: .. the little orphan Pavel Kifzkovsky came to him there [to Jandéek’s father]; his mother asked that he be taught music and singing, which he was, and [Janacek’s father] finally got him a scholarship to the Church of the Holy Spirit in Opava, and so laid the basis for his future position as a composer of music [sic] which he later repaid to Jirf’s son, Leos.‘

Pavel Krizkovsky, who became director of the monastery school and choir at the Augustinian Monastery in Old Brno in 1848, was a 1The fullest biographical treatment of Janatek’s early years can be found in Helfert. 2Vincenc Janétek, Zivotopis Jirika Jandéka 1778-1848 (Jitf Janaétek’s Biography) ed. Jiff Schaal and published by the journal Opus Musicum, Brno, 1985. 3Jandtek reports in his memoirs that on the journey to KroméffZ for his audition, his father examined him “on the scale.” “He was satisfied,” Janétek adds. In Leos Jandéek: A View of his Life and Works, ed. Adolf Vesely, Prague: 1924, p. 19 (hereafter cited as Vesely). This would support the view that Janétek had some musical background upon his arrival

in Brno.

4See note 2. This quote appears on p. 59 of that volume.

1

2 MICHAEL BECKERMAN remarkable musician and composer. He was the leading Moravian com-

poser of the pre-Smetana period, and an influential force in the

development of Czech national music in the 19th century. Kyizkovsky took orders in the Augustianian monastery in 1848, and in the same year became choirmaster. He founded a Mannergesangverein shortly thereafter, and had, overall, a dynamic effect on Brno’s cultural life, organizing concerts which introduced works by Michael and Josef Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and Cherubini, among others. Kriz kovsky was an ardent nationalist, and despite his interest in contemporary Ger-

, man music, also presented compositions by Czech composers in the Czech language. Although Kfizkovsky had shown signs of talent as a composer of secular music (his choral compositions were successfully premiered in Prague in 1861 and in Brno in 1863), pressure was success-

fully put on him to cease such activities and devote his energies to the restructuring and organization of church music in Moravia. With only a few exceptions, his output after the 1860s consists of liturgical works. Krizkovsky’s outstanding works are those in the tradition of “folk echoes”;> paraphrases of folk-songs arranged for chorus, which employ such techniques as rondo, or theme and variations. Many of his works are quite simple in style, yet major works, such as St. Cyril and Methodius (1861) and The Drowned Girl (1860) reveal a gift for contrapuntal writ-

ing and a highly individualized sense of harmony. He was particularly sensitive to folk song, finding a harmonic language which complements the modality of folk song rather than destroying it. An example of this

a ee

is the following passage from Zahuéaly hory (1864) which reflects Kriz kovsky’s modal writing. Example 1. A:

a, iigah . ol EE —————— |

*See “‘Ohlas’ jako historicky a umélecky jev” (“‘Echo’ as an Historical and Artistic Phenomenon”), Miroslav Kaduch, Opus Musicum, 1978, #5-6, pp. 168-71.

| JANACEK’S MUSICAL STUDIES 3 Under Krizkovsky’s guidance, the monastery school became the finest institution of its kind in Moravia, and the monastery itself became a cultural center for the provincial capital of Brno.‘ Pupils were admitted between the ages of nine and twelve years and usually remained for a period of at least three years. The school had a true conservatory atmosphere; the boys, known as the “blue boys” because of their characteristic uniforms, were engaged in constant activity between 5 a.m. and 7 p.m. studying piano, singing, quartet and ensemble work, figured bass,

harmony, and counterpoint. All the training was strict and systematic, and Janacek had ample opportunity to develop the skills he had brought with him from his native village of Hukvaldy. (Janaéek supposedly recalled this period in his wind sextet “Youth” of 1924.) _ Perhaps the most important feature of Janaéek’s years at the monastery school was his exposure to the musical mind of Krizkovsky, whose influence

on Janacek must be considered incalculable. Kfizkovsky was an exciting

teacher and choirmaster, with absolute pitch and a very subtle ear; he worked his students with unusual intensity. His strictness was legend, yet he believed that the only way to penetrate deeply into a musical style was by a combination of strict and general criticism; that freedom of imagination was a necessary analytical tool. Janaéek remembered the total concentration of

the students at the school, intent on achieving the greatest degree of perfection and wrote several articles about Krizkovsky? The following citation from one of them reveals the essential aspect of his debt to the elder composer and choirmaster: °The Augustinian Monastery in Old Brno was one of the most significant cultural centers in Moravia in the early to mid-19th century. It may be noted that Gregor Mendel (18221884) did his famous experiments there from 1856 onwards. The choir school was founded in 1648 by Countess Sybella Polyxena of Montana to support a select number of poor children who were to be taught both musical and non-musical subjects. Several of these children, ranging in age from nine to twelve, received free room, board, and medical treatment. By the time Janatek reached the school, in 1865, it had a tremendous reputation. The talent of the students was unquestioned; they frequently performed works in Brno, and were indispensible to any church choir. Jana¢tek remembered the intense musical environment in the following passage from Vesely (p25): “I saw clearly copied scores of Haydn symphonies. I sang a solo with Miss Hrimalova in Beethoven’s second mass. I accompanied Miss z Ehrenberger in concert in the Luzansky Halli—and I was only 11! We sang, we boys, on the Brno Opera stage in the Meyerbeer opera, The Prophet.

7LeoS Jandtek. “Pavel KriZkovsky a jeho tinnost v opravé chramové hudby” (Pavel Kffzkovsky and his Activity in the Reform of Church Music), Ceciliell, 1875, 2 and 4, and

“Pavel KrfZkovského vyznam v lidové hudbé moravské a teské hudbé vubec” (P. KfiZkovsky‘s Significance for Moravian Folk Music and Czech Music in General), Cesky lid XI, 1902, pp. 257-63.

4 MICHAEL BECKERMAN . ,,.he was able to feel the spirit of the pieces [folksongs] he selected, and from this he let his compositions grow. . . he thereby did justice to the , songs, and served Czech music as well.®

Janaéek spent three years in this highly charged, rigorous, yet individual atmosphere (1866-69), and it is difficult to imagine that he could have received a more professional grounding anywhere in Moravia, or even in Bo-

hemia for that matter. Janacek learned the basics of figured bass, counterpoint, and harmony, as well as a variety of practical skills. The line which leads from the monastery school to the Brno Organ School (estab. lished in 1883) and to the Brno Conservatory (established 1919) appears to be one of logical and unbroken development.’

After completing his studies at the monastery school, Janaéek entered the Brno Teacher’s Institute, where he studied a wide variety of subjects in preparation for his career as a teacher. He graduated in 1872 and assumed a two-year position as an unpaid assistant. During this time he also became Krizkovsky’s assistant conductor, amazing his colleagues with great shows — of musical skill.” In 1873, he was elected choirmaster of the workingmen’s choral society, Svatopluk, for which he wrote his earliest choral works, influenced by the compositions of Kfizkovsky. He passed his examinations at

the Teacher’s Institute in 1874 and became a paid assistant. Although Jana¢cek was at this time an extraordinarily talented, well-trained musician,

he still felt the need for additional study to develop his skills further. He therefore elected to take a year’s leave of absence from the Teacher’s Institute in order to undertake a course of study at the Prague Organ School." Pavel Kfizkovsky wrote a letter of recommendation for Janacéek stressing his “complete, systematic musical abilities.””

In October 1874 Janaéek began his studies in Prague. The Organ School had a three-year program at that time; the first year was taught by Frantisek *Leo’ Jandvek, “P.KrfZkovsky‘s Significance etc.,” op. cit., p. 263.

*The Brno Conservatory is now called JAMU which stands for the somewhat unwieldy “The Janétek Academy of the Arts of the Muses.” It is still an attractive and flourishing institution with one of the best music faculties in the country. Karel Hamak, who was at the monastery during Jandé%ek’s tenure there remembers: “Those were Janaétek’s famous preludes. Then, after the mass, singers clustered under the organ loft, listening with excitement to the wonders which Jandatek’s fingers produced.” Jandéek ve vzpominkach a dopisech (Janaéek in Letters and Reminiscences), ed. Bohumir - St&droi, Prague: 1946 (hereafter cited as Stédrort),p. 63. This was the best institution of its kind in the Czech lands, and due to its reformist lean-

2Ssédroii, op. cit., p. 29. ,

nero. in the sphere of Czech music, had close contacts with the Augustinian Monastery in

JANACEK’S MUSICAL STUDIES 5 Blazek, author of a treatise on figured bass, and a noted theorist.¥ It consisted of elementary music theory, harmony, figured bass, liturgical singing, and organ playing. The second year was taught by FrantiSek Zdenék Skuher-

sky and included the study of modulation, counterpoint, and polyphonic forms; while the third year, also taught by Skuhersky, covered instrumentation and form, as well as the study of music history. The second year was the true core of the curriculum and derived much of its significance from the notable qualities of Skuhersky, as did the reputation of the school in general.

Skuhersky had a major impact on Janacek’s thinking. | Skuhersky (1830-92) was an excellent musician, a fine composer, and a

brilliant teacher who directed the Prague Organ School, and lectured at both the Prague Conservatory, and the Czech University. He was the author of one of the first major modern theoretical treatises in the Czech Language, and a thinker of great originality. His teachings are found in the first part of the Theory of Musical Composition: On Cadences and Modulation} and in Theory of Harmony on a Scientific Basis°This title reflects Skuhersky’s vital interest in new harmonic systems and their development. Skuhersky discusses (and takes a critical stance towards) such theorists as Hanslick, Helmholtz, Hauptmann, von Oettingen, Tiersch, and Riemann, revealing great erudition and a complete command of contemporary theoretical issues. For Skuhersky, two considerations are crucial: the simplification of the theory

of harmony, and the importance of recent research in physics and physi-

ology, which he tries to apply to musical practice. }

As a theorist Skuhersky was quite versatile; his teaching of counterpoint was derived from Bach and the classicists, yet his approach to harmony, despite his reformist leanings, was based on the study of the “newest” combinations and possibilities. Much of his harmonic instruction used examples

BJandtek on Blazek: “Franti8ek BlazZek created, in his Theoretico-Practical Theory of Harmony [Frantisek BlaZek, Theoreticko-praktickd nauka o harmonii pro Skolu a dim, Prague:

1866] the basis of modern harmonic music by the systematization of altered chords,” in “Teorie nauk o harmonii,” Janééek’s lectures for the master class, ed. Zdenék Blazek, Opus Musicum, 1981 (hereafter cited as Lectures). 4For a good short article about Skuhersky see the new Grove, vol. 17, p. 375. Also see

Frantisek Rehanek, “FrantiSek Zdének Skuhersky teoretik harmonie” (F.Z.S.

Theoretician of Harmony), Hudebni rozhledy1971, p. 225-30. SFrantisek Skuhersky, Nauka o hudebni komposici: 1. O. zavéru a modulaci, Prague: 1880; and Nauka o harmonii na védeckém zdkladé ve forme nejjednodussi se zvlastnim zFetelem na mohutny rozvoj harmonie v nejnovéjsi dobé (Theory of Harmony on a Scientific Basis In the Simplest Form With Special Regard’ to the Impressive Development of Harmony In the Newest Age {hereafter cited as Skuhersky }), Prague: F. A. Urbdnek, 1885.

| 16The title of this study reflects Skuhersky’s vital interest in new harmonic systems and their development.

6 | MICHAEL BECKERMAN

and |

from Wagner, especially Lohengrin, though he warned students to beware

of Wagner’s “drastic overuse” of the deceptive cadence. The core of Skuhersky’s teaching, as well as its significance, is expressed in the following maxims from his theory of harmony: Every interval and every chord is found on every degree of every scale.

It is possible to move immediately from one key to any other key.”

Skuhersky felt that it was impossible to endeavor to understand recent developments in musical composition on the basis of a diatonic system, that one must consider all twelve tones as a basis for new harmonic systems. This theory was to be of great importance for Janacek. Skuhersky’s originality went even further, for he banished the tertiary building of chords and referred to music formations only by their level of dissonance. This descriptive attitude is an unusual feature of Skuhersky’s theoretical style. The highest degree of dissonance, for example, is four ad-

jacent semitones; one step more, to five semitones and according, to Skuhersky, all musical beauty is lost. The actual degree of dissonance is computed by the number of dissonances present in the chord. For example, the chord c-e-g-b has one dissonance, c-b; while the chord c-e-g-b-d has three, c-b, c-d, and e-d. Thus it follows that five-voice chords lead to “the extreme

border of chord connections,” six-voice chords cease to be important, and seven-voice chords lead to “entire disharmony.” For use in musical composition therefore Skuhersky says that: the most excellent character is that of three and four voice chords; they excel by virtue of their consonant harmony—they are a source of inexhaustibly interesting dissonance.”

Chord connection is seen in terms of interrelationships derived from Helmholtz. Thus chords which contain one or more notes in common are said to be in primary relationship, while chords, both of which are related to another consonant chord, are considered to be in secondary relationship. In keeping with his largely descriptive stance, Skuhersky maintains that adominant chord can be connected to any tonic chord, and that after any tonic chord, any dominant chord may follow; that all dominant chords may be

Ibid. | 8Ibid., p. 93.

MSkuhersky , op. cit., p. 80.

Ibid. p 118.

JANACEK’S MUSICAL STUDIES | 7 connected with all dominant and diminished seventh chords” We shall see that this manner of viewing chord connections made a great impression on the young Leos Janacek.

Another interesting feature of Skuhersky’s theory is conceptual rather than technical: the notion that dissonance does not exist in one or both tones of a particular combination, but rather results from their interrelationship—that both tones are similarly active participants. This reflects some of the philosophical theories of a Herbartian nature which dominated Prague during the years when Skuhersky’s theory evolved, which will be discussed in the following chapter. In his writings music is

compared with language, which being non-mathematical is based on general, rather than scientific principles of direction and declivity. These ideas also left their traces on Jana¢ek’s thinking about music and language. We can see that Skuhersky is a modern and highly original figure; his ideas on twelve-tone chromaticism, evolved in the 1870's, seem particularly prophetic. The Czech quarter-tone composer, Alois Haba, summed up Skuhersky’s position as a theorist by saying that he was the first to ... reveal the harmonic laws of new music and formulate them with scientific clarity. There is nothing in world theoretical writing to compare with Skuhersky in this regard”

: As a teacher, Skuhersky was reputed to be very effective. He was a strict instructor who believed in a thorough training for musicians? yet he also taught in such a manner that the truly talented pupils could develop their individual abilities. Skuhersky thought that constantly following the rules with unswerving strictness would cramp the free choice of the student, and thereby limit his sense of fantasy. In class, according to Helfert, “he did not theorize much and was sometimes so brief in his instructions that less able students could not comprehend the sense of his words.’”™

This was certainly not a foible that had an adverse effect on the young Jandéek. Indeed Skuhersky’s combination of terse strictness with a belief in artistic freedom and integrity was an unusual trait, and proved particularly felicitous for Jana¢ek’s further development. Because of — the high quality of his earlier training, Janacek was allowed to take the 2Ibid., p. 83.

2Alois Haba, “Zakladatel modernf nauky o harmonii” (Founder of New Harmonic Theories), Klit #1, Prague 1930-31, p. 82. 2Skuhersky ’s personal strictness was legendary as well. Janatek tested it in an incident in 1875 by publishing an unfavorable review of Skuhersky ’s conducting of a Gregorian mass. Skuhersky promptly threw him out of school for a short time. 4Viadimir Helfert, LeoX Janaéek L.- - v poutech tradice (Leo’ Jandtek I - In the Shackles of Tradition), Brno, 1939.

8 MICHAEL BECKERMAN first two years of the curriculum in one year. For most of the students, any year by itself was a great challenge due to the requirements of the school; but for the young Janaéek, charged with energy and determination, all was to be taken in his stride. Concerning the progress and nature of Jana¢ek’s studies, Vladimir Helfert® has shown in an examination of Jané¢ek’s workbooks and ex-

ercises how assidously and carefully Janaéek undertook the task of doing two years study in the space of one. Between October 6th and November 1, 1874, he studied cadences. On November 6th he began the study of modulation. In addition to his modulation exercises, we have tables of separate seventh-chord connections in all keys, another indication of the thorough training which was provided at Skuhersky’s school. On December 9th, Jana¢ek began a study of church modes and chorale harmonization which ended with the Christmas holidays. Upon his return to school on January 7th, Janaéek studied counterpoint, imitation (beginning April 4th), and fugue (from May 8th).

Jana¢éek took his examinations on July 22nd and 23rd, 1875, in the : following areas: theory of harmony, chorale, single and double counter-

point, imitation and fugue, organ playing, figured-bass realization, prelude, and modulation without preparation. He received the highest grades of any pupil in the school, first, second, or third year, and was clearly the star pupil in every possible area, receiving an “excellent” in all subjects with the exception of figured bass, which was merely “good.” One field of study which had a great impact on Jandéek’s future development as a theorist was that of modulation. Jandéek’s notebooks reveal the intensity with which he worked on the problem. Not only did he try to incorporate Skuhersky’s theories of modulation into his work, he also endeavored to fulfill the spirit behind the theories. The spirit was embodied in Skuhersky’s maxim that the manner of modulation should be determined not by an abstract conception of rules and formulae, but rather by the aesthetic nature and goal of a particular composition. Thus we find the following passage in Skuhersky’s treatise on modulation stressing the affect of the modulation: Modulation... not progressing above the relation of the first degree may have validity for compositions of a calm nature. Otherwise, in compositions of a stormy, passionate mood ... such mild ingredients will not suffice; it is necessary to reach out to distant progressions, sudden, abrupt, sometimes even harsh.”

3Helfert, op. cit., p. 79. | 6Skuhersky , op. cit., p. 94

JANACEK’S MUSICAL STUDIES 9 Here we have some of Janaéek’s early modulation exercises which show his attempt to master Skuhersky’s ideas concerning abrupt modulation.”’

We see here the enharmonic modulation to C major in measures | four through six: Example 2.

—~f}————}- 4, bi Js _ —hy j—_| _4 —., —-_} _,

{pet wdtt fed iy nd tal te VCE A SE | | KC UA A Phe, Re

eee ee ee ee ee ee eee

i, a eS A

fe ee |

. he Jo) te td SE et JE 0-3 . ae | i= ad The it ua ib |

ii

In this example, the introduction of a Bb in measure 2 leads to a cadence on Ab:

ty pf — Go epee teed Lh |

Example 3. |

218 —— Het et et

Yr ig. &.-* | 40 ESE OT OO OT

Once again, an enharmonic chord in measure 2 leads to a completely foreign cadence in C# minor: Example 4.

4} 7 1 Oo r 7 ‘ ——— a

2?These examples are reproduced in Helfert.

10 MICHAEL BECKERMAN

Example 5. : : | te 2 a Here we have a modulation to the subtonic minor which takes

place with the introduction of a B chord in measure 5: |

ll gd gp oe ee eedle ine ed od ae Fl lod At the conclusion of his studies at the Organ School, Janaéek was certified as a fully equipped musician, a professional organist and com-

poser. Vladimir Helfert, who studied all the material relating to Janacek’s tenure at the Prague Organ School, concluded that: . . the result [of his examinations] and the intensity of his study, as shown by his notebooks and assignments, reveal that the opinion, often held, that Jandcek was an autodidact, is quite false and in direct conflict with historical truth. On the contrary, JandCek exhibited a degree of strict compositional technique in a manner almost unique for his time.”

We may view the twenty-one-year-old Janaéek as a musician of unusual talent, with both professional training and practical experience already behind him. Yet men’s lives are not always determined by who they are at a particular time, but by their goals. Janaéek was still not satisfied with his abilities, and so, although his student years officially ended with the completion of his course at the Organ School, he continued to develop his musical skills for several years afterward in a student role. In June of 1877, for example, Janaéek journeyed to Prague to undertake a month-long course in musical form. Although we do not have much in-

formation about this time, two out of four notebooks remain. An examina- . tion of their contents once again reveals how systematically Jana¢ek *Helfert, op. cit., p. 89.

JANACER’S MUSICAL STUDIES 11 undertook his course of studies, and points to the probability that he was

is nowhere mentioned.”

involved in a course of private study with Skuhersky, even though his name

During the years 1875 to 1879 Janaéek had a great deal of practical experience as conductor of the Brno Beseda, a cultural organization dedicated to the presentation of weekly concerts. He was also serving as an assistant teacher at this time as part of his apprenticeship at the Teacher's Institute. In 1879, he finally became a fully certified teacher

of music and was ready to begin his pedagogical career. Yet even at this point, as a fully certified teacher, successful con- _ ductor, and a leading musician of Brno, Janaéek still felt the need for additional training and study to attain an even higher degree of skill. For this reason, he began exploring the possibility of attending a foreign conservatory. After hearing Anton Rubinstein, Janaéek temporarily entertained the notion of studying with him in Russia, but the plan never came to fruition. In 1879 he decided to study at the Leipzig Conservatory for ©

an indefinite period, and applied for an official leave from the Brno Teachers’ Institute as well as a government stipend. Skuhersky’s letter of recommendation gives an idea of the level that the young Janaéek had reached at the time. According to my firm conviction, Janacek is a man of the highest artis-

tic character; he combines with the greatest harmony all the qualities necessary to achieve efficient, important, and beautiful results, namely: talent, intelligence, diligence, and reason. Jandcek is already fully recognized as an advanced creative and performing artist and a man of wide

knowledge in music literature. His subtle ear, combined with his rich knowledge of music theory and aesthetics is evident in both his conducting and his criticism.”

Janaéek decided to study in Leipzig rather than the closer conservatory in Vienna because the Leipzig Conservatory had, at that time, the greatest reputation in Europe. The conservatory had boasted such names as Mendelssohn, Schumann, Moritz Hauptmann, Niels Gade, and Ferdinand Hiller among its faculty. Janacek arrived in Leipzig at the end of September 1879 with the twin goals of improving his compositional technique and hearing as much music as he could. Most of our information about his activities at this time comes from the innumerable letters which he wrote to his fiancée, Zdenka 2See Helfert, op. cit., pp. 104-06.

From a letter by FrantiSek Skuhersky to the directorate of the Teacher’s Institute. Reprinted in Stédron, op. cit., p. 34.

12 MICHAEL BECKERMAN Schulzova, daughter of the director of the Brno Teacher’s Institute, Emilian Schulz.*! Janééek studied harmony and piano with Oskar Paul, composition and form with Leo Grill. and organ with Wilhelm Rust. The faculty, which included the conductor Karl Reinecke, had an historical bias in favor of classicism and early romanticism, and had adopted a criti-

cal stance towards Liszt and Wagner, a position which agreed with Janaéek’s opinions at this time. At first Janatek preferred Paul to Grill, finding the latter too strait-laced and limiting. He attended Paul’s lectures in music history at the university and found him interesting and stimulating.*> After several months, though, the situation had reversed itself; in his letters to Zdenka, Janacek began complaining that Paul was not strict enough, not sufficiently critical with his students, while Grill became a favorite, as his strict, demanding method of teaching began to have results in Janaéek’s work. Once again we have evidence from the correspondence of Janaéek’s demonic work habits. Aside from his letter-writing and a quick beer in the eve-

ning it was all work, from dawn to dusk. The conditions for practical music-making were fairly dismal and Janaéek, after several months of such a régime, began to denigrate the conditions (“a shed with a wooden parti-

tion. Very dark. At one end an old piano. This is where organ practice is done. All desire to go there vanishes.”)* He also had critical comments to make about his teacher Oskar Paul (Janacek lost all confidence in his ability in counterpoint when Paul failed to discover a mistake Janaéek had pur-

posely made in the composition of a fugue). It is interesting to find that despite Janacek’s antagonism toward Paul, the latter had a high opinion of

his fiery young student:

Jandéek’s life at this time is revealed almost totally in his correspondence. He wrote four times daily; at 8 o’clock before going to school in the morning, at 2 o‘clock after lunch before resuming work, at 5 o’clock in the afternoon, and once again before bedtime. On some days

he wrote as many as six times! There are 124 letters preserved from Jandatek’s sojurn in Leipzig, which deal with virtually every aspect of his stay there. See “Intime Briefe” 1979/80

1985. ,

aus iid und Wien - LeoS Jandtek, ed. Jakob Knaus. Zurich: Leos Janacek, Gesellschaft,

Oskar Paul (1836-98) was a pupil and follower of the theorist Moritz Hauptmann. He _ published Hauptmann’s Lehre der Harmonik in 1868, and published his own Lehrbuch der Harmonik in 1880. He also wrote an important work on Greek music, Die absolute Harmonik der Griechen (1866), and translated Boethius’ De Musica in 1872. Leo Grill (1846-1910). Grill was a classicist who completely ignored neo-Romanticism. “See Chapter 2. Jandtek’s interest in music history is evident everywhere in his theoretical work. There is no composer at this time who is more historically oriented, or better educated in terms of music history. — Vesely, op. cit., p. 41.

JANACEK’S MUSICAL STUDIES 13 Mr. Leos Janacek participated in my harmony course and studied piano with me; he was a model of diligence. His deep talent in composition, his quick grasp of theoretical basics, his hard work in contrapuntal exercises and the study of fugue have yielded excellent results.*’

Jandéek felt the need at this time to be in contact with a great musical mind, and expressed the desire, in keeping with his classical leanings, to study in Paris with Saint-Saéns. Schulz, his boss and the father of his fiancée, vetoed the plan and insisted that Janécéek return to Brno or to

nearby Vienna. On January 25, 1880, Jan4éek decided to study at the Vienna Conservatory for the second half of his year’s leave. _ The Vienna Conservatory was also an institution with a fine reputation. Janacek was accepted there as a second-year student, and studied piano

with the Czerny student, Josef Dachs (1825-96), and composition with Franz Krenn (1816-91). Janacek did not get on well with Dachs, and soon

stopped studying the piano; by this time he had decided that his true calling } was as a composer. He remained with Krenn until late spring 1880 and finally left Vienna over the unsatisfactory outcome of a composition competition. Yet this was only an excuse, for Jan4éek was not satisfied with the

standards of the school and was looking for a reason to leave. After the strictness of Grill, Krenn’s demands were too lax. In addition, Janatéek was

troubled by certain neo-Romantic leanings of the institution and complained of “Wagnerian storm and bombast’ in the music of his fellow pupils. Also Jana¢éek was no longer a student; he was a professional, with too many of his own ideas, and too much skill to remain in a student role.

When Jandéek left Vienna, sometime between the 2nd and 12th June, 1880, it was as a fully trained, fully competent composer, pianist, theorist, and musician, ready to pursue his career in the world. He had studied at four conservatories, in Brno, Prague, Leipzig, and Vienna, and had been.involved with several exceptional teachers. In Kfizkovsky, he had encountered the best teacher and the most dynamic musical mind in Moravia. In Skuhersky, he had gone a step farther and found perhaps

the best teacher in the Czech lands. His contacts with Grill, Paul, and Krenn were important, and his continual hard work, his ability to exploit all situations, produced obvious, tangible results. In addition, we have

| 7StEdroi, op. cit, p. 29. Founded in 1817. It was associated with the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde in Wien and its famous concerts. *Jandéek spoke about Krenn in his music theory lectures: “He didn’t rely on acoustics, nor did he become involved with deep logic. It [Krenn’s theory text] is a practical textin which he always makes the best choices among the models and thus teaches.” Lectures, op. cit. “From a letter to Zdenka Schulzové, written April 6, 1879.

14 MICHAEL BECKERMAN the written recommendations of three of his teachers attesting to his gifts and behavior, his outstanding technique and depth as a theorist and musician, and his incredible industriousness; there is no mention of in-

adequate training, uneven results, or, anywhere, any indication that Janaéek was anything but a gifted student and theorist. Finally, in two of his teachers, Kfizkovsky and Skuhersky, we find

a similar quality which was crucial in Jana¢ek’s development: both teachers found a balance between strictness and discipline, on the one

| hand, and artistic freedom and musicality on the other. That Janacek had two such teachers would seem to be unusually fortuitous; most stu-

dents never even have one. Thus, the future composer was able to develop his technique, not in a straitjacket, but in an atmosphere of the

utmost, concentrated musicianship. |

: It is obvious that Janacek’s training was more than adequate. He knew what his needs were as a student, and found the energy and means

- to sustain himself while developing his skills. His combination of teachers was fortunate; both were fine pedagogues and excellent musicians, and it is difficult to imagine anywhere in Europe that he could

have found a better combination of theoretical skills and practical experience. Thus any argument that Janacéek’s bewildering and often un-

systematic theoretical approach results from inadequate training is completely false. Janaéek’s difficulty, as we shall see, derives rather from

his attempt to base his theories on a bold synthesis of acoustics, philosophy, modern theory, and most notably, human behavior. Beginning in the mid-1870’s Janaéek left the world of pure theory and em-

aesthetics. |

barked on this broader course with a serious and intense study of

CHAPTER 2

Janacek and the Herbartians: When examining Janaéek’s student activities, it is necessary to remember that until 1881 he was officially studying to be a teacher rather than a concert artist or a composer. As a student at the Brno Teachers’ Institute he came into contact with certain important intellectual trends of his time. In these formative years, during which he perfected his craft as a composer, Janacek became immersed in the philosophical system of Johann Herbart as presented by Herbart’s Czech followers. Janacek’s involvement with Herbartian abstract formalism was so passionate and so total that it becomes impossible to understand his development without first introducing some of the prominent ideas of the movement itself. Of all 19th-century philosophical systems to rise and fall, none had amore spectacular rise or ignominious fall than that of Johann Herbart;

the first chapter of the newest study of Herbart is called, “Up Like the

Rocket, Down Like the Stick.” He was born in 1776 and studied | philosophy at the university in Jena with Fichte. In 1809, at the age of

thirty-three, he assumed the prestigious chair of philosophy at K6nigsberg, a chair once held by Immanuel Kant.> Throughout the 19th century Herbart’s works enjoyed great popularity and were widely dis-

seminated. We find the following passages in the 5,000-word article about Herbart in the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britanica (1910): Among the post-Kantian philosophers, Herbart doubtless ranks next to Hegel in importance, and this without taking into account his very great contributions to the science of education.

and, His criticisms are worth more than his constructions; indeed for exactness and penetration of though he is quite on a level with Hume and Kant. | 'Parts of this chapter have appeared in “Janatek and the Herbartians” in The Musical Quarterly , vol. LXIX, No. 3 (Summer 1983), pp. 388-407. 2Harold B. Dunkel, Herbart and Herbartianism: An Educational Ghost Story, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. Harold Dunkel’s informative and entertaining book deals mainly with the science of education and Herbart’s impact on it. 3Since there is no definitive study of Herbart’s work, or its influence, my information about the philosopher comes from a wide variety of sources including books, encyclopedia articles, and a reading of Herbart’s work.

} 15

16 MICHAEL BECKERMAN and finally, But we are most of all indebted to Herbart for the enormous advance psychology has been able to make thanks to his fruitful treatment of it.*

Shortly after this time Herbart’s influence and stature began their rapid decline. In the latest edition of the Encyclopedia he is left with a mere 120 words in the Micropedia. _ What was the essence of Herbart’s philosophy, and why did it enjoy such

- popularity in the 19th century? Unlike his predecessor Kant, Herbart was an anti-idealist, a post-Humean empiricist, or as he himself often put it, “a Kantian in the year 1828,” implying that he thought his position was that which Kant would have held had he been alive. In his writings philosophy is not seen as a system in itself, but as a method of clarifying concepts in many fields. Thus Herbart created what we might call today a “system of systems.” In his thinking, Herbart finds that the use of logic to examine re-

_ ality reveals a world which seems to be seething with contradictions. To be a thing, an object should be a unity, yet if we endeavor to describe it, we make it a plurality. We know that a rose is a unity, yet we describe it with a multiplicity of attributes: it is soft, it is red, it is fragrant, etc. Since Herbart believed in the unity of all things and the fundamental rule of non-contradiction, it becomes the task of Herbartian metaphysics to resolve these con-

tradictions in things and ideas by “Erganzung” or “enlargement.” This consists of articulating elements into their smallest possible components which are fixed and unchanging entities. It is this reduction and atomism which is the most characteristic feature of Herbartian philosophy, this idea that reality must be understood in terms of the relations of simple entities. ‘Today there is a feeling that Herbart’s impact was far greater than

the quality of his philosophy. Yet it is probably this very lack of a truly distinct intellectual personality, coupled with the comprehensiveness of his system, which led so many thinkers in widely varied fields to expand and “explain” Herbartian doctrines. One can easily see the appeal in this—the system-building had been accomplished, those that followed had merely to rearrange and reinterpret in order to fit their ideas into the greater scheme. For this reason, the legacy of Herbart’s followers resembles nothing so much as groups of guests in a resort hotel who, though they have much in common, come and go for years without ever meeting due to the vastness of the edifice in which they reside. For example, Herbartian psychology, with its doctrines of the unconscious, ap‘Encyclopedia Britanica, 11th edition, vol. 13, p. 336. ‘For a brief yet pithy explanation of Herbart’s theories, see Encyclopedia Britanica, op. cit., pp. 335-37.

JANACEK AND THE HERBARTIANS | 17 perception, and introspection, played a crucial and often misunderstood

role in the development of experimental psychology.* In a totally separate milieu, Herbart’s pedagogy, a combination of his psychology and his ethics, became the basis for a huge pedagogical movement, Her-

bartianism, which swept through the United States at the beginning of the 20th century.’ (This explains, incidentally, the presence of Herbart’s name, carved into the facade of Columbia University’s Teachers College, between the names of Pestalozzi and Froebel.) And in yet another unrelated process, Herbartianism became the dominant philosophy in the Czech lands § where, from 1832 to 1902, it was the official philosophy

of the Prague University. The attempts by a group of Prague aestheticians to elucidate Herbart’s rather incomplete theory of aesthetics produced several schools of thought which were to have a mighty impact on as varied a cast of characters as Hanslick, Mukafovsky, and Janééek. Herbart’s aesthetics is a comparatively undeveloped field in his philosophical system. It deals with value judgments, and its task is to examine the objects of these judgments and ascertain what pleases us or displeases us in them. Because general aesthetic judgments are complex and fallible, Herbart finds, in keeping with his other theories, that the best aesthetics is one which clearly connects complex wholes to the

underlying simple relations and the infallible judgments evoked by them. These simple elements themselves, therefore, relate to the “content” of aesthetics experience, whereas their relations are the “form” of the experience. In 1808, writing in Praktische Aesthetik, Herbart implied a design for a broad science of aesthetics: Aesthetic philosophy...would properly be bound not to define, nor to demonstrate, nor to deduce, nor even to distinguish species of art, or to argue about existing works, but rather to put us in possession of all the simple relations, however many there might be.?

: The task of realizing this philosophical blueprint was taken up by Robert Zimmermann (1824-1898), a leading professor at Prague 6See Wilhelm Wundt and the Making of a Scientific Psychology, ed. R.W. Rieber, Plenum Press, 1980. The assertion is made that anti-German feeling led to the conscious suppres-

sion of Wundt’s Herbartian roots. |

7See Charles de Garmo, Herbart and the Herbartians, New York: Scribners, 1985, and Dunkel, op. cit. 8The term“Czech lands” is used to describe the combination of Moravia and Bohemia, as opposed to Slovakia. *Johann Herbart, Praktische Aesthetik, 1808, in Allgemeine Praktische Philosofie, Werke II, p. 344.

18 | MICHAEL BECKERMAN University.° In 1863 he published Allgemeine Aesthetik als Formwissenschaft," considered the major statement of Herbartian abstract formalism. In this work, the author tried to make a science of aesthetics, beginning with simple forms and proceeding to the more complex. His work reveals Zimmermann as an abstract formalist, a thinker concerned with the establishment of a prion aesthetic categories. The fact that Herbart never was truly explicit about his design of a science of aesthetics made it necessary for his followers to stamp their own personalities on

the discipline. Zimmermann maintained that Herbart had projected aesthetics as an abstract science, while other contemporary thinkers favored a more concrete interpretation of Herbartian evidence. Zimmermann was involved with proofs showing how the interrelationship of parts contributed to a pleasing whole. To give an example, Zimmermann says that one point in space, or even two, cannot make a true aesthetic impression. Yet if we have two systems of points, the interrelationship of the systems will project a pleasurable impression which is related to the joy of measurement. In almost every way, Zimmermann’s thinking is indistinguishable from Herbart’s. A gifted teacher, and a man of magnetic personality and great in-’

fluence, Zimmermann dominated the teaching of aesthetics at the university. (For example, Hanslick’s Vom Musikalisch Schénen [On the Beautiful in Music] was dedicated to him.””) Because his work was written in the international scholarly language of German, he enjoys, even

today, a certain limited reputation, yet it is the consensus of contemporary Czech critics that his younger colleague, Josef Durdik (18371920), made the clearest and most cogent presentation of Herbartian aesthetic formalism. His VSeobecnd estetika (General Aesthetics)" of 1874 is a lively work, written in a clear and intelligible style. Durdik’s training in mathematics and the natural sciences led him to incorporate these elements as a basis for philosophical proofs. Durdik’s Herbartism grows out of developments in the Prague social milieu and reflects Most of my material about Zimmermann, Durdfk, and Hostinsky in relation to Czech culture comes from Mirko Novak’s Ceska Estetika, Prague: 1941, and Josef Kral’s

1865. | pp. 151-53.

Ceskoslovenska filosofie, Prague: Melantrich, 1937. 7 Robert Zimmermann, Allgemeine Aesthetik als Formwissenschaft, Vienna: Braunmuller, “See the article on Hanslick in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, vol. 8,

PNovadk and Kral (see note 10) both agree on this point. , “Josef Durdik, VSeobecndé estetika, Prague: 1875.

JANACEK AND THE HERBARTIANS 19 certain conflicts between Herbartism and Hegelian thought. Hegel found the center of aesthetic problems in ideas, in spiritual content and its significance, not in form; while Herbart maintained that philosophy in general and aesthetics in particular merely involve an elaboration of concepts,

taking sides against that which William James would later call “the metaphysical debauch of German philosophy.” It seems that the growing Czech petit-bourgeois class, with its roots in the recently freed peasantry, probably adopted Herbartism because Herbart’s sober, careful approach reflected its own characteristics and aspirations. Herbartism didn’t lead to the complex world of metaphysical speculation; almost anyone could grasp its basic tenets without difficulty.

Durdik was also involved in the battle for aesthetic values, endeavoring to raise the consciousness of the petit-bourgeois class, com-__. batting what he perceived as its well-meaning yet philistine patriotic tendencies. In this battle Herbart was a constant ally, asserting that true beauty must be distinguished from all concepts in which a subjective factor is involved. Thus Durdik’s science of aesthetics was based on a system of simple relations which were immediately comprehensible. He asserted that beautiful subjects must be “slozeny” or “composite,” and must contain at least two analyzable elements, the relation of which is the source of aesthetic pleasure. The work of art is created by systems of simple relations intertwining and integrating. The “totality of these relations” or the “manner of composition’ is form in the true aesthetic sense. The eye and the ear can determine the harmoniousness of sounds and colors, but only thought can deal with forms. Another Herbartian of considerable importance, and in terms of

his impact on Czech thought, by far the most important of the three, __ was Otakar Hostinsky (1847-1910) whose interpretation of Herbart’s | work clashed with that of Durdik and Zimmermann.” In 1877 Hostinsky published Das Musikalisch-Schénen und das Gesammtwerk vom Standpunkte der Formalen-Aesthetik** which articulated the tenets of a

formalism based on concrete rather than abstract principles. Arguing

that Herbart had been misinterpreted, Hostinsky maintained that aesthetic investigation comes from experience, and that the parts and 5For a discussion of this see Novak, op. cit, pp. 57-58. 16Josef Durdik, op. cit., p. 25. 17Hostinsky is considered the father of modern Czech musicology and a prominent force in philosophy. His followers, such as Zden&k Nejedly, Otakar Zich, and Vladimir Helfert, carried his banner far into the 20th century. ’Otakar Hostinsky , Das Musikalisch-Schéne und das Gesammtwerk vom Standpunkte der Formalen-Aesthetik , Leipzig: 1877.

20 MICHAEL BECKERMAN elements of an aesthetic whole must be compared with the parts and elements of other aesthetic wholes; that aesthetics is not, as Zimmermann and Durdik had claimed, an a priori science. These clashes between abstract and concrete aesthetic formalism also had their impact on the Prague musical world, with Durdik uphold-

ing the “classical” ideals of Dvorak, and Hostinsky championing the cause of Smetana, Wagner, and new music. Considering the polemics and disputes of the time, one might well call the Prague of the 1870s and 1880s a contentious hotbed of Herbartism. It was to this Prague that the twenty-year old Janaéek came in 1874 to further his musical education. It was while he was involved with his studies with Skuhersky, that Janaéek began to read Durdik’s General Aesthetics, as. soon as it appeared in print. It is certain that the philosophy of Durdik was not entirely new to Janatek at this time, since the philosopher had made a great impression on Jandcek’s

home town, the Moravian capital of Brno. During the years before Janacek’s trip to Prague articles by and about Durdik were frequently found ~ in local publications. In addition, one of the most important and avid local

Herbartians was Emilian Schulz, head of the Brno Teachers’ Institute, where Janaéek taught until 1874, and.the composer’s future father-in-law. Durdik’s works occupied a place of honor at the institute, so it is likely that Janaéek’s first stimulus to read the philosopher came from Schulz. It is impossible to overemphasize Janaéek’s diligence and seriousness of purpose at this time. He was undertaking the first two years of conservatory in one year, and while completing his studies with first-rate results, still found

time to undertake a complete, self-taught course in aesthetics. Janatek’s protean mind was in constant search ofnew materials tostrengthen his musical and intellectual foundations, and he threw himself into the study of Dur-

dik’s work with abandon. Janatek was a compulsive note-taker and underliner; in the words of Vladimir Helfert, “his pencil was always poised.” We thus have extensive marginalia, underlinings, and marks of emphasis, in many of the books in Janaéek’s library, and can determine not only when he read a particular work, but his reaction to it as well." See Helfert, p. 97. *Helfert, in “Jandtek—ttenar” (Jandtek—Reader) in O Jandckovi, (About Jandéek), p.

69.“... Janéckova tuZka byla stale pohotové. . .” . 21Jandéek’s personal copies of works by Durdfk, Zimmermann, Helmholtz, Wundt, and many other can be found in the library of the Janacek Archive of the Moravian Museum in Brno.

JANACEK AND THE HERBARTIANS 21 Janacek began reading General Aesthetics on November 3, 1874, and read the first two books until the following spring. From notes and underlinings it is safe to assume that he was reading constantly during this time. For example, at the close of the chapter on rhythm and meter we find the note, “May 6, 1875—repeated.” He read the final four chapters of the second book and the third book beginning on January 24, 1876, and finished it on Monday, November 27, 1876, at 10 p.m.” In 1875, in the midst of reading Durdik, Janééek began to study Zimmermann’s Allgemeine Aesthetik als Formwissenschaft. There are numerous comparitive notations attesting to Janacéek’s careful scrutiny and complete involvement; for example, on page 270, alongside a passage dealing with chromatic fantasy, he writes: “here he differs from Dr. Durdik.” Janacek also made an attempt to translate several pages of this work into Czech, and began to read portions of Zimmermann’s Geschichte der Aesthetik® in order to broaden his background in the history of aesthetics. Janééek became a firm, immediate, and enthusiastic follower of the Herbartian system as presented by Durdik and Zimmermann. ' Among the many passages he underlined in Durdik, the following represent the core Durdik’s philosophy and Janaéek’s comprehension of it: Only that pleasure which is derived from the form of the image is aesthetic. The conditions for the sense of beauty can only be forms. The task of aesthetics is to deduce the conditions of pleasure, that is, form, the components of which stand in definite relation to each other, part to part, and part to whole.”

, Underneath this passage Janacek has written, “part to whole— correct!”* and the Czech word “spravnost” translates as the seldom used and more emphatic nominative—“correctness.” This notion of _ “part to part, part to whole” is an ever present thread woven through the fabric of Jana¢ek’s life and works.

2Fven though I have looked at this material myself, I have used and consulted Helfert’s invaluable work throughout. - ®Robert Zimmermann, Geschichte der Aesthetik als philosophischer Wissenschaft, Vienna: 1858. *Durdkk, op. cit., p. 21. S«eastka k celku—spravnost.”

22 MICHAEL BECKERMAN Janacek found this philosophy appealing for several reasons. Before coming to Prague he had been actively involved in conducting workers’ choruses. Upon his return to Bro he assumed the directorship of the Bro Beseda. Under Janaéek’s leadership Brno Beseda became a focus of Brno musical life with the establishment of a music school, a music periodical and orchestral concerts. Janacek was constantly trying to raise the aesthetic sensibilities of the group, guiding them from liedertafel to Mozart, Dvorak, and his own compositions. What could have been more useful than Durdik’s de-

ploration of patriotic poetry? : When I judge a poem, I can’t judge its value by the good intentions of the poet—despite its sentiments it may be artistically unacceptable, and therefore not really a poem.”

Durdik also stressed social improvement. On page 460 of General Aesthetics he calls for the active participation of human beings in improving their society.’ Janacek has marked the passage with six vertical lines and the word “dulezity’—“important.” The most casual perusal of Janaéek’s biography—his activities as conductor, pedagogue, ethnographer, critic, and “social composer”—reveal just how seriously he took this mandate. Finally, the young composer was looking for a system, an intellectual point of reference, an ideological foundation on which to build. Like many of his contemporaries Janacek was able to take Herbartian ideas and use them for his own purposes. The following chapter, which deals with Jana¢éek’s activity as the theorist, provides ample evidence of this, and the overall position of Herbart’s ideas in relation to Janaéek’s ~ theoretical formulations is discussed in Chapter 5.

Even though Janaéek’s intellectual personality was almost fully } stamped by the time he was in his mid-twenties, the composer continued to study music, music theory, and aesthetics, and became interested in such fields as psychology, acoustics, phonetics, ethnography, Russian literature, and physics. He read almost all contemporary music theorists, and read the most recent works in the other fields. His fascination with

the works of Wilhelm Wundt in 1913, at the age of sixty-nine, is an astonishing example of Janacek’s ability to confront and assimilate new material in a foreign field at an advanced age. *Durdik, op. cit, p. 12. 2Mbid., p. 460.

The discussion of his interest and readings in the work of Wilhelm Wundt will be found in Chapter 4.

JANACEK AND THE HERBARTIANS } 23 It is not necessary to list Janacéek’s reading in extra-musical subjects, since not all the material is germane to. the subject at hand. In-

stead, references will be made to such activities when they are _ appropriate, as in the cases of Janacek’s reading of Helmholtz and Wundt. One example, however, will suffice to show how intensely Janacek pursued and developed intellectual goals. Janédéek continued to think about aesthetic considerations for the rest of his life and his final comments on the subject, made some fifty years later, are tinged with revealing controversy. In 1924, at the age of seventy, Janacek wrote an autobiographical statement in connection with his birthday celebra-

, tion in which he praised the experimental psychology of Wilhelm Wundt at the expense of formalist aesthetics saying: “I reject the sterile hoax of aesthetics”” and in this connection mentioned Durdik and Zimmermann. We might wonder at such an extreme statement by Jana¢éek concerning works which had been so critical to his development. Why did he reject aesthetics, and why did he call it “sterile”? The answer to this is one of the critical subtexts in Janaéek’s development. For we shall see that as Janacek studied the human condition more closely—whether he was observing rhythmic patterns in folksong, the vocal intonations of Smetana’s daughter, or reading the works of the Russian realists—he also became convinced that there must be a firm relationship between |

a musical work and that which he sometimes called the “elemental moods” of human beings. Thus we shall see that the pure, “abstract” systems of simple relations were gradually transformed into entities reflecting human experience. In the ensuing chapters we shall see how Janacek preserved the notion of simple relations in all his theoretical activity, and ultimately how such simple relations came to permeate his musical language. Yet the passage cited above reveals that without ever being fully aware of it

Janééek traversed the path from the abstract formalism of Herbart, Durdik, and Zimmermann, to a kind of transcendent concrete formalism, where every element is imbued with a discrete spiritual quality.

This notion is at the core of Jan4éek’s theoretical and compositional universe.

Yet with Jandéek nothing is ever completely straightforward. In another honorary volume, published several months after the 1924

21 eos Jandéek, in Vesely, op. cit., p. 31.

24 MICHAEL BECKERMAN statement the composer changed “I reject the sterile hoax of aesthetics”

to “the thoughts and considerations of aesthetics do not satisfy me.” Why did Janaééek moderate his view? This can only be explained by the fact that Jandééek, at the age of almost seventy, on November 25, 1923, began, once again, to read Zimmermann’s Geschichte der Aesthetik, and while reading it, softened his position. He finished the work on the 17th of June, 1925, and penciled in at the very end: “Aesthetika— neni jeSté vSechno, co uménf tieba!” “Aesthetics—it does not provide all that is necessary for art!”>' This final rereading and its effect are a fitting epitaph to Jana¢ek’s’s lifelong involvement with intellectual issues in which Herbartian philosophy loomed large; and his constant interest in exploring the relationship between the external world of nature, the

world of human beings, the world of the human mind, and the phenomenon of music.

Teo’ Jandtek, in Max Brod, Leos Jandéek —Zivot a dilo (Leos Jand&ek—Life and Works), Prague: 1924, p. 66; hereafter cited as Brod. 31] eoS Jandtek, in Robert Zimmermann, Geschichte, p. 804.

CHAPTER 3 : Janacek’s Activity as a Theorist, Part 1

(1877-1897) Jandéek’s initial venture into music theory is a preface to his subsequent activity in the field. The study, “Some Clarifications of Melody and Harmony,”! was published in 1877 in the periodical Cecilie.2 The title, as

Helfert has pointed out, is peculiar, since the study is primarily concerned with concepts of rhythm which are discussed on the basis of Janaéek’s readings in aesthetics.’ He discusses the concept of time and divides it into even, and thus metrical, form, or proportional which he describes as: “Rhythm in the ordinary sense.’”* Even though it is not a study of any real importance, it 1s interesting as an embryonic view of Janaéek’s theoretical traits; his attempts to examine all considerations logically, his soaring prose, his involvement with extra-musical proofs, and his terse authoritative pronouncements are all hallmarks of Janacek

the mature theorist. Especially pertinent is his concentration on rhythmic activity, which ultimately leads to his theory of Scasovdani, to be discussed later in this study. In keeping with his formalist pose Janacek opens the study

with the following assertion. |

Weare concerned above all with truth; we guard against all mythologiz-

: ing, poeticizing in discourse, presentation and explanation where the scientific approach, that clear, lucid, and for that reason much colder ra-

tional enumeration, must be present.’ ,

Coincidental with Janaéek’s first published theoretical piece are his first two orchestral works, the Suite and the Idyll. These are related to his mature works by the same slender thread which connects his first theory to more compendious later efforts. (At this time, the twentythree-year-old was under the sway of Dvorakian music.) 1“V¥elijak4 objasnénf melodické a harmonick4,” Celilie IV, #1-3, 1877, pp. 1-2, 19-21. Repsinted in BlaZek 1, pp. 53-57. 2 Cecilie or Caecilie is the oldest Czech music periodical. It was established by Josef Krejci in 1848, and was primarily involved with secular music. _ 3See Chapter 2. 4“Some Clarifications,” Blazek, p. 55.

, ‘Blazek, p. 53. 25

26 MICHAEL BECKERMAN _ The Hudebnit listy Period (1884-1888) During the period 1877-1884 Janaéek continued his studies in music theory and gained an official teaching certificate. In 1882 he founded and began teaching at the Brno Organ School, for which he also functioned as director. He also directed the Brno Beseda. All this teaching involved an extraordinary amount of work for the young composer, yet he was deeply committed to raising the consciousness of what he perceived as a provincial Brno. To this end he founded a new periodical, Hudebni listy or Musical Pages, which originated in conjunction with the opening of the Brno Provisional Theater.‘

As editor, Janaéek filled an enormous amount of Hudebni listy himself. According to Janaéek’s biographer Vladimir Helfert, “Hudebni listy has great significance as an encyclopedia of Janacek’s critical and theoretical opinions during that period.”’ Indeed, Hudebni listy differs from other Czech periodicals of the time for this very reason. First, the journal was more concerned with questions of music theory and musical aesthetics than it was with any sort of “musical life” itself. Second,

Hudebni listy was distinguished by its scientific pretensions and philosophical unity. Its guiding light was the aesthetic formalism of Durdik and Zimmermann, and Janacek, as editor, did battle with the forces of evil as represented by Smetana, Wagner, and the periodical Dalibor® Third, Hudebni listy was a periodical which offered a wide variety of articles on topics which could be considered musicological in the modern sense of the word. The continual interest in history which Jana¢ek manifested while a student played a large part in shaping his theoretical approaches as well. Thus in Hudebni listy we find an article by Janacek about 17th-century organ tabulature which includes not only transcriptions, but a structural analysis of the music as well (IV,9). There is an article about cantionales (III,9) and an analysis of a Lassus Mass. Finally, we can see signs in Hudebni listy that Janaéek the critic is using his editorial powers to encourage the native Moravian theater in Brno and raise the aesthetic consciousness of his readers.

Janaéek’s teaching activity is also reflected in his literary output. Between 1884 and 1888 Janacek wrote seven articles on theoretical and °This point is especially stressed by Leo’ Firku&ny, op. cit. : "Helfert, op. cit, p. 297.

There were frequent clashes between Hudebnilisty and Dalibor. Dalibor openly supported |

tant periodical. .

Wagner and the music drama, while Hudebni listy held up Dvorak as a paragon and clung tenaciously to the tenets of abstract formalism. Of course, Dalibor was the more impor-

JANACEK’S ACTIVITIES AS A THEORIST (1) 27 pedagogical subjects.’ It is no wonder that Jana¢ek exhibited such concerns at this time, since he was teaching simultaneously at four separate institutions.’ In addition to these theoretical articles, Janacéek wrote a sight-singing manual and several articles on the subject for his own use,

particularly at the organ school whose curriculum he controlled closely.

That Janacek’s theoretical writings were markedly affected by his

fascination with contemporary Czech aesthetics could be deduced without difficulty from one of the opening editorials of Hudebni listy: We stand on the side of Helmholtz, Zimmermann, and Herbart against musical poets who have not received the thorough musical training necesSary to perfectly control the medium ofcomposition and achieve true musical creativity."

Even though his name is not mentioned, the invisible presence of Durdik is evident from Janaéek’s critical style.’2Janaéek adopts Durdik’s pithy pronouncements, his short sentences, his terminology, his intense manner of verbal expression, and even his critical method in concrete musical questions. Even his characteristic traits of making up new terms to describe what he perceived as new phenomena has its roots in Durdik’s style. Janaéek’s critical persona had such a strong tinge of Durdik that it is dis-

tinguishable among hundreds of contemporary writers.* , The first theoretical study of the Hudebni listy group, “Studies in Music Theory”" (hereafter cited as Studies) reflects the influence of Durdik in both style and content. Janaéek begins by developing further his notions of the distinction between rhythm (rhytmus) and measure (takt), which he often uses to refer to meter in the larger sense. Segments of time may be either even or uneven with respect to length. A relationship derives from this comparison which, in the theory of various arts is called shape, form. This form is composed of measures of time: for that reason we call it quantitative form (Casomérny tvar). Ifa clear law controls the shape of quantitative form,7hythm results. By the law of equality of time a special case arises—the measure (takt). Uneven segments, if they are to have aesthetic significance, must be proportional so that they are in9See Appendix I for chronological list of his theoretical works.

| Brno Beseda (1882-89), the Brno Organ School (1882-1919), Olid Brno Gymnasium (1886-1902) and the Male Teacher’s Institute (1873-1904).

NH udebni listy 1, #10, 1884, p. 39. | 12Vladimir Helfert discusses this topic in Helfert, p. 97-99. BOp. cit., p. 99. 14Stati z teorie hudebnf,” Hudebni listy I-III, 1884; Blazek 1, p. 59-83.

28 MICHAEL BECKERMAN Cluded in the concept of rhythm»

Consistent with his critical posture and his Herbartian stance he

praises Durdik at the expense of other theorists: | No other musical concept has called forth such varied and incorrect explanations as the concept of measure. Sometimes the measure is a stand-

ard of time, at other times the possibility of rhythmic segments creates types of measures, at still other times the rhythm of the measure is spoken about; surely in a figurative sense of the word; F. W. Schiitze interchanges measure with rhythm; A. B. Marx acknowledges similar segments as the basis of rhythm, but does not offer a clear definition. Josef Durdik has the correct definition in General Aesthetics; however, none of the latest publiCations use it.

We close by offering a definition of rhythm and measure. Rhythm is a quantitative (cCasomérny) form composed of even segments. “Remember,” says J. Durdik, that “rhythm is composed of empty segments of time”—the content of which we peruse all too rarely. Whoever fails to realize this will never understand the substance of rhythm.

In this article Jana¢ek also presents the first statement ofhis theory of the chord connection. Harmonic connections have the aesthetic significance of being forms of balance."”

This “form of balance” is the fifth of Durdik’s formal aesthetic categories and corresponds to Herbart’s notion of conciliation in art, and revenge in ethics. Because of this demand for balance, every less consonant melodic interval resolves to the nearest, more consonant

one. Janacek continues: |

These relationships originate with the beginning of the second chord and most significantly concern the relationship of all the tones of the first chord to the strongest tone of the second chord (as a rule the fundamental).'®

According to Janaéek, a dissonant interval may be created by the

relationship between any one of the tones in the first chord, and the fundamental tone of the second chord (the fundamental is determined by acoustical properties). This dissonant interval leads to the more consonant interval created by the second chord. The consonant intervals of

SBlazek 1, p. 60 ,

16Blazek 1, p. 61.

Meo’ Janaéek in Blazek 1, op. cit., p. 62.

_ * Ibid.

JANACEK’S ACTIVITIES AS A THEORIST (1) 29 3rd, Sth, and 8ve may remain. Thus, in the following simple example given by Janacek, the most important events in the connection are the relationship of the E and C in the first chord to the G in the second. Example 1.

KO) » VNAoe0 ee ® . Sy

For example, in Janaéek’s system the following intervals are equal to a prime, octave, 5th and major 3rd respectively: 2«C) dokonalé predstavé dvojzvuku,” Hudebni listy Il, Ill, 1885-86; Blazek 1, pp. 75-98. The Czech “dvojzvuk” or “two sound” has no true English equivalent. The term “interval” is not used here since Jana¢ek had the term at his disposal and chose not to use it. The term “dyad” has been used in the last decades, with particular reference to contemporary music. Hopefully, the reader will keep in mind that his connotation is foreign to Janatek’s conception. 37 pene intervalové poméry. “Zpétny” means “back” or backwards. The term antecedent seems to correspond most closely to that which Jané¢ek had in mind. The evidence of Durdfk’s impact can be felt once again in the concern with relations between elements. *The terms regarding the nature of the particular chord connection are as follows: zaéména (change), 7uSeni (disturbance), and smir (conciliation). Durdfk’s ranking of interval con-

sonance is presented in General Aesthetics, p. 232. : 25We shall see, in the discussion in Chapter 4, how this procedure gets Janaéek into trouble in his theory of connecting forms. *Blazek I, p. 79.

JANACEK’S ACTIVITIES AS A THEORIST (1) 31 Example 2.

&

: , Pr : POF

These intervals are of course determined by equal temperament, so Janacek feels that sound must take precedence over notation. We can see how this point of view put him in direct conflict with other theorists, and even occasionally with his own theoretical system.

Dyads is also the first article in which Janacek refers to the psychological effect of the chord connection: The mood flowing from a connection of two dyads is a result of many relations between sounding chords and those fading out which is mediated by the memory.?’

This substantiation of the theory of antecedent-interval relations by reference to psychology lies at the core of Janacek’s lifelong attempt to comprehend the nature of chord connections. The clearest indication of the manner in which Janaéek’s aesthetic orientation affected his view of musical composition can be seen in his

next major article in Hudebni listy, “Bedfich Smetana o formach ~ hudebnich” (“Bedfich Smetana on Musical Form”) written in 1886, two years after Smetana’s death.” In it Janacek uses a letter from Smetana to Adolf Cech, published by the periodical Dalibor earlier that year, as the basis for his attack.” The broadside begins: “We have heard the most

tangled pronouncements concerning musical form.” Janacek quotes the following passage from Smetana’s letter: I am apprehensive about basing the music (to a libretto) on specific traditional forms.*! [am not an enemy of traditional forms in old compositions, but I have never sought to copy them now in order to find beauty 1Blazek 1, p. 81. %Bedy ich Smetana o formach hudebntch,” Hudebni listy III, #1 and 3, 1886; Blazek 1, pp. 99-103. Also see my “Changes Along the Overgrown Path,” forthcoming in the Czechoslovak and Central European Journal, Summer 1992.

_ 2Dalibor VII, #35, pp. 343-344. *Blazek 1, p. 99. 31The Czech “staré formy” translates literally as “old forms.” This has none of the pejorative meaning which such an expression might have in English, meaning rather “historical” or “traditional” forms.

32 MICHAEL BECKERMAN and a complete musical organism. I never copy other composers. I only ad-

mire their greatness and take for myself only that which I perceive as good, , beautiful, and above all, truthful. You have known this about me for a long

time, but others don’t, and believe I have adopted Wagnerism! I have enough trouble with Smetanism...only when the style is genuine.”

Though this passage seems harmless enough on the surface, Janacek the formalist saw red and used the letter as a pretext for attacking Smetana and for advancing his own ideas concerning musical form.

At the root of his argument is the distinction between “formal models” on the one hand, and “pure musical form” on the other. The former involves the use of specific formal molds, such as the sonata, the rondo, or song form, while the latter, far more compelling to Janacek’s way of thinking, concerns the relationship of musical ideas in the widest and most general sense. Furthermore, Janacek claims that Smetana does use the very formal models he has disclaimed, and points to them in such works as Sarka and Hubicka. Janaéek’s ideas on the subject of musical beauty stem directly from his reading of Durdik’s General Aesthetics, published in 1875. The fol-

lowing comparison makes the source quite clear. Here is a passage which Janacek underlined in Durdik’s work: Only that pleasure which is derived from the form of the image is aesthetic. The conditions for the sense of beauty can only be forms.*

| ; Josef Durdik in General Aesthetics

And here is a passage from his article on Smetana: Only forms, i.e. the relationship of musical ideas, are the basis for beauty.4 —

Leos Janacek in “Bedrich Smetana o form4ch hudebnfch”

Janaéek complained that Smetana’s formal sense was confined to the use of formal models, which he finds in his work in abundance, and not with the relationship of purely musical ideas. He states, therefore, that even the large-scale dramatic works, whatever their strengths, are sometimes unsatisfying. He further criticizes Smetana for combining musical and extra-musical ideas, and attacks him for combining “poetic” and “musical” beauty, saying that the study of musical form cannot be based on the interweaving of these two concepts of the beautiful, that

2Blazek 1, p. 100. 3Durdfk, p. 21. 4Blazek 1, p. 100.

JANACEK’S ACTIVITIES AS A THEORIST (1) 33 a preoccupation with “poetic” or extra-musical beauty is bound to distort the nature of pure musical form. Jana¢ek here divides music theory into two parts. One part involves the study of separate musical components such as rhythm, melody, and harmony, each of which has its own formulae and its own history. Included with this part is tonal theory, which Janaéek cites as a fairly new field of study, and all contrapuntal studies. The second part of music theory is the study of musical form (“The theory of musical form is the crown of all music theory”), which involves all the elements of the first part simultaneously. In discussing musical form he shows himself to be

a true Herbartian, distinguishing between components which are elementary, and cannot be further reduced, and composite elements, but he adds an idea of his own which is to permeate his later writings: “Composition depends on the momentary mood of the composer.” Yet these moods must be formally harnessed into a rigorous scheme before they can have the desired effect. His main point of contention with Smetana is on precisely this failing; Smetana allows the program to govern the

form. He concludes the article by saying that “it is clear that Bedfich Smetana did not have very precise ideas about form.”*’

There is no more dramatic indication of Janacek’s aesthetic development than the contrast between this study and his article “Tvurci mys!” (“The Creative Mind”)** written in 1924, a virtual venera-

tion of Smetana. These changes, which lead Janaéek from abstract formalism to a broader more concrete formalism will be fully discussed in the final chapter of this study. In his study of Smetana Jandé¢ek mentions the importance of “tonal

, concepts” as a relatively new field of study. He no doubt had himself in mind since it is certain that his next study, “On the Concept of Key,”® was

written before his article on musical form. The article shows, in addition to an extraordinary command of musical principles, a firm grasp of music history. The article opens with examples and discussion of authentic and plagal cadences in various keys and goes on to provide information on and demonstration of “modern” cadences in the church. Janacek disSIbid., p. 101. *Tbid., p. 102.

*bid., p. 103. 38In Lidovy noviny, roé. XXXII, no. 112, 1924. Also inLeos Jandéek: Fejetony z Lidovych novin. Brno: Krajské nakladatelstvf, 1958, p. 220. 3%Q) predstave toniny,” Hudebnit listy Ill, #4-6, 8, 9, 1886; BlaZek 1, pp. 103-25.

34 MICHAEL BECKERMAN cusses the proper method of setting a “Roman” chorale, the psychological significance of key, and the historical perspective of tonal develop-

ment. The section on history begins in the following manner: Let us distinguish in terms of content chromatic, altered diatonic, diatonic, untempered diatonic and keys derived from melodic relations.”

By the expression “keys derived from melodic relations” he refers to music based on the church modes; untempered diatonic involves music of } the pre-tempered era which is nonetheless based on harmonic rather than melodic principles. As composers in this manner Jana¢ek cites Palestrina and Jacob Handl. He then divides the age of tempered tuning into three

parts: the diatonic period of Bach, the “altered-diatonic” period of Beethoven and Dvorak which reflects a growing harmonic vocabulary and

growing use of altered chords, and the present period of chromaticism, the practitioners of which include Smetana and Wagner. This once again reflects the thinking of Skuhersky, who maintained that it was possible to build a chord on any scale degree, in its normal or altered state. The next article published in Hudebni listy is further evidence that Janacek, despite his responsibilities as teacher and conductor, still managed to keep abreast of the latest developments in music theory. Though certainly not a major study, “On the Scientific Aspect of the Teaching of Harmony’ is interesting for its polemical style and the expression of ideas which are to be part of Janacek’s approach for decades. The article is in answer to a study by Otakar Hostinsky,® and it involves a criticism of Hostinsky’s reliance on natural rather than tempered tuning. “Today’s musicians,” says Janacek, “are all educated in the tempered system’ and therefore any theory of harmony must be based on it. Janacek writes here about his own listening habits and advances the notion that all musicians hear in a similar fashion: The opera Carmen is certainly interesting in a harmonicand tonal sense. [have heard it many times, yet never with the score. am consequently dependent on hearing for the determination of individual tones, as well as chords and their connections, and all other musical impressions which follow. And [confess...that when I hear something, it is as if Iwas reading the “Blazek 1, op. cit., p. 107. ,

is ny oeckost nauk o harmonii,” Hudebni listy I, #1, 1887, pp. 51-52; BlaZek 1, pp. “Otakar Hostinsky, “Nove drahy védecké o harmonii” (On New Paths of the Scientific Codification of Harmony), Dalibor II, 1-2, 1887. “Blazek 1, p. 102.

JANACEK’S ACTIVITIES AS A THEORIST (1) ) 35

I hear the score.“ |

notes. I see the notes, each written for the instrument from which it came.

The next article, “On Triads,”“ must be considered the most ambitious study of the Hudebni listy period, in terms of length, scope and concept. It is Janacek’s first attempt to systematize his thinking about harmony in a major statement. It 1s closely related to some Skuhersky’s ideas. Janacek considers triads as chords combined of equal intervals and thus, at least from a theoretical point of view, divides triads into those which are equal (C-Db-D, C-D-E, C-Eb-Gb, C-E-G#) and those which are relative (C-D-Eb, C-Eb-F C-E-G, C-F#-B). This corresponds closely to Skuhersky’s designation in the 1885 Theory of Harmony.” The

principle is once again based on a twelve-tone, equal-tempered scale ; where chords can be built on any scale degree. Thus Janaéek, along with Skuhersky, is one of the first modern theorists to construct chords based on intervals other than the third. After introducing the basic concept of the triad, he discusses chord in relation to key and divides all chord connections into those which are open (beginning on the first degree), closed (leading to the first degree) and free (not involving the first degree), and gives examples to show how each type of connection functions. He then reintroduces a subject which was no doubt familiar to readers of his earlier articles: the concept of antecedent relations. He retains the terms conciliation and disturbance to describe chord connections, but changes the term which denotes lack of change with respect to consonance or dissonance to uklid (clarification). To these he adds the ambiguous connection, a connection in which the | opposing tendencies are irreconcilable. For example, he calls the connection of chords with roots a 5th apart ambiguous because the conciliatory nature of the 6-5 resolution conflicts with what Janaéek conceives as the disturbing resolution of the 4-3 connection, the interval of a 4th being more consonant to Janacek than the interval of a 3rd.” In “On Triads” Janaéek also offers some highly original thinking on the

subject of polyphony. Janaéek felt that the connection between polyphony and homophony are so close that they are sometimes indistinguishable. On the basis, once again, of aesthetics and Helmholtzian physiology,

Janacek determines that contrast is the most important feature distin-

“Blazek 1, p. 128.

4“Q trojzvuku,” Hudebni listy IV, #1-8, 1887; Blazek 1, pp. 127-79. “Frantisek Skuhersky, Nauka o harmonii, Prague: 1885. ‘’This interesting and problematic feature of Janaééek’s theory of connecting forms will be

discussed in Chapter 5, p. 64. |

36 MICHAEL BECKERMAN guishing polyphony and homophony, and sees polyphony even in single-

voice pieces where the pattern of accents creates contrast, or even in a chordal work which features coloristic contrasts. Janatek uses this vantage point to suggest that there are many types of polyphony which a com-

poser can exploit in order to provide freshness in a contemporary composition.

Though “On Triads” introduced some new material, the bulk of the study was a broadened articulation of the ideas which Janacek had been developing even before the beginning of the Hudebni listy period. “On Triads” systematically illustrates these ideas with a wealth of explanation, and examples from the works of Berlioz, Dvorak, Smetana, Beethoven,

Mozart, Chopin, Gounod, and Mendelssohn. It crowns Janacek’s first theoretical period as perhaps the most important contemporary work by a young Czech theorist. The final theoretical article in Hudebni listy, “A Few Words About Counterpoint,” is just what the title suggests and does | little more than stress the flexible idea of polyphony proposed by Janacéek in “On Triads.” In June 1888 Hudebni listy ceased publication after a series of disagree-

ments between Janacek and the board of the Brno Beseda which published the periodical. Yet it had fulfilled its purpose; it was the first Moravian periodical which offered a truly scientific approach to musical problems, and it introduced to the Czech musical world a gifted young theorist who, though sometimes unorthodox, was dedicated to the study of music theory on a modern scientific basis involving acoustics and psychology. In his early works we see Janacek struggling to use terminology in anew manner, to reflect the freshness and “Czechness” of his approach; such terms as opora for counterpoint show us Janacek the nationalist who must find a Czech term for a given phenomenon, and terms such as ante-

cedent relations, conciliation, disturbance, and clarification reveal a thinker who needs new terms to describe what he perceives as new ideas. We also see, particularly in the article about Smetana, an orthodox, dogmatic proponent of Herbartian aesthetic formalism, whose self-righteous stubbornness often blinded him to newideas. With few modifications, “On Triads” remained the core of Janaéek’s theory of harmony, and the above characteristics were always central to his theoretical personality. It is remarkable to view Janacek’s diligence at this time: in addition to editing and contributing to Hudebni listy, teaching at four separate institutions, founding an institution, conducting several choirs, and even occasionally performing, Janacek also composed his first mature choruses 4&Slovitéko o kontrapunktu,” Hudebni listy IV, #3, 1888, pp. 33-34; BlaZek 1, pp. 181-82.

JANACERK’S ACTIVITIES AS A THEORIST (1) 37 for men’s voices and mixed chorus, and composed and completed his first opera, Sarka.® Each of Janacek’s further theoretical codifications is accompanied or followed by the completion of a major work or works, and each absorbs Janaécek at the time he is working on a pivotal opera. With

each major theoretical codification Jana¢ek provided himself with the

to create.

necessary structure and a kind of basic context which he needed in order

On a Modern Scientific Basis (1894-1897) There was another feature of Durdik’s work which Janacek found fascinating: his proofs involving mathematics and the natural sciences.” Since such an approach was in full accord with Skuhersky’s positivistic

approach to the theory of harmony, and since Skuhersky himself used the proofs of Helmholtz, it is not surprising that Janacek showed great interest in the latter’s treatise Lehre von dem Tonempfindungen, since it was the most important contemporary scientific treatment of musical phenomena." Janacek first read Helmholtz between 1877 and 1879, just after the publication of his first theoretical article in Cecilie, but it did not have a revolutionary impact on his thinking until fifteen years later,

with the publication of his New Current in Music Theory” of 1894 (hereafter cited as New Current). This important essay was published in the Lidové noviny (People’s Newspaper), a publication with which Janacek had a long and fruitful relationship.* New Current was one of Janacek’s first pieces to appear in *Jandétek’s activity at this time is most accurately chronicled in Helfert. The important choral works from this period include the male voice choruses, Vyhruzka, O, Ldsko, Ach, vojna, Krasné o¢i Tvé from 1886, Holubiéka, Louéent, and Zdrlivec from 1888, and the mixed-chorus Kacena divokd of 1885. The first version of Sdérka was completed in 1887. “This is the characteristic of General Aesthetics which distinguishes it most clearly from works by Zimmermann and Herbart. ‘1Hermann von Helmholtz, Die Lehre von dem Tonempfindungen als psychologische Grundlage fur die theorie der Musik, Braunschweig: 1863. 32“Niovy proud v teorii hudebnf,Lidové novinylI, #251-52, 257. >The Lidové noviny was established in 1893 by Dr. Ad. Stransky as a publication closely allied to the nationalist “Young Czech” movement. Jand¢éek himself was passionately in-

volved with the “Young Moravia” movement, which urged a union of Bohemia and | Moravia. In terms of Jandatek’s literary career, the Lidové noviny is of paramount importance. He contributed no less than fifty-eight articles to the publication, most of which were highly-charged, poetic feuilletons on musical subjects. These feuilletons are themselves worthy of a separate study, since they reveal a unique literary stylist and present an important and characteristic view of the composer during his mature years. It forms the introduction to Jandéek’s next major study, where its form is slightly altered. Thus, references will be to Leos Jandéek—Fejetony z Lidovych novin (Feuilletons), ed. Jan Racek and. Leos FirkuSny, Brno: 1958, pp. 197-209.

38 MICHAEL BECKERMAN Lidové noviny; it was the longest piece; and the only one to involve music theory. In “On Triads” Janaéek had postulated that it is the memory which mediated between elements and thus caused the effect of the chord connection. In New Current, however, Janacéek justifies his theory of antecedent relationship by referring to Helmholtz’s assertion that the transverse fibers of the inner ear vibrate sympathetically with musical tones so that

we continue to perceive an entity for a fraction of a second after its frequency has ceased: Helmholtz measures the length of the sounding tone in the form of illusion on pp. 221, 222, the sounding continues for approximately 1/10 of a second at 1/10 of its original strength.”™

Thus, according to Janacek, there is in the connection of two elements (whether they be single tones, intervals, or chords), an “after-

image” of the first element with casts a brief “sonic shadow,” as it were, on the second element. The real sounding tone was called the pocit, or sensation tone by Janacek; the lag of the tones of the first element, the sonic shadow, was called the pacit (or false sensation tone); I shall call it /usion.*> The moment during which the two ele-

ments of the connection were overlapping or interpenetrating Janacek called the chaoticky okamZik or chaotic moment. The type of chord connection was now determined by the events which took place

inside this chaotic moment. By this procedure Janacek felt that his | theory of antecedent relations, before only a matter of speculation, was now based on the firmest possible scientific basis. This theory of the chaotic moment will be discussed more fully later in this book, as it is

one of Janacek’s most important contributions to the theory of harmony, and a wholly characteristic one. In this article he also renounced his previously expressed view concern-

ing the importance of the fundamental in determining the events of a chord connection, and replaced it with what he calls an “emphasized” tone, whose upper overtones amplify the rest of the chord.’ This concept of the emphasized tone is not without problems, since it is not always equal

4Feuilletons, p. 207. , *> Although pocit is an often-used word which refers to sensation, pacit is a very rarely used term. I felt that dusion would be the best English word, even though it does not give quite the same sense of peculiarity conveyed by Janaéek’s term. *6In Czech, zmocnény. >In this formulation he renounces both Rameau and d’Alembert though it is rather doubtful that he ever read them, since there are no records of the volumes in Jana¢ek’s personal library, or the university libraries at that time.

JANACER’S ACTIVITIES AS A THEORIST (1) 39 to the root of the chord. It is the lowest note in major and minor triads, yet it may be the 3rd in various types of 7th chords. Since it would have been impossible for Janaéek to develop his theory of antecedent relations

| on the basis of this problematic emphasized tone, this term does not appear in any of Janacek’s subsequent theoretical periods.

, At the end of New Current Janaéek makes several observations which are to be of crucial importance in his theory of harmony. He argues that the length of time the second chord is held after the passing of the chaotic moment has an impact on the quality of the connection and he thus concludes that: ... any theory of chord connection without a careful consideration of

its rhythmic function is poor and incomplete.” This outlook is at the root of Janaéek’s theory of rhythm, which dominated his harmonic thinking between 1907 and 1910. New Current also serves as the introduction, with some modifications, to the publication On the Composition of Chords and Their Connection of 1897 (hereafter cited as Chords).°° This is Janacek’s first independent theoretical publication and in terms of length, scope, and organization deserves to be known as Janaéek’s first harmony text. It is, (unlike the shorter studies in Hudebni listy), a truly pedagogical publication, attempting to survey all the rules of harmony for student use and explain them on the basis of Janaéek’s connecting forms. Much of what is important in Chords is contained in its introduction, taken from New Current. There are, however, certain features which appear only in Chords. In the 1897 work, a chord connection is divided into three parts or events which Janacek calls “beats.”® In the first beat the first element sounds, in the second, the illusion tones of the first chord meet in the mind with the sensation tones of the second chord. In the third beat the second chord becomes ascendant in the mind. The types of connections are called conciliation, disturbance, amplification (for a connection where the interval remains unchanged), and change (for an interval

which is different, yet unchanged with respect to consonance or dissonance). Using this method of description, Janaéek demonstrates the *Feuilletons, p. 209. 90 skladbé souzvuku a jejich spoju Prague: Franti8ek Urbanek, 1897; BlaZek 1, pp. 183296. ©The Czech word, which has varied meanings, is “doba,” which refers to a period of time, a duration, a beat. Respectively smir, vzruch, zesilent, zaména.

40 _ MICHAEL BECKERMAN full range of chord connection including all triads in root position and inversion; 7th chords, both dominant and diminished; 9th, 11th, and 13th chords, and chords built on altered intervals. By viewing each type of connection (whether root movement of a

2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th) in terms of his connecting forms, * Janacek tries to establish an aesthetic quality for each connection, the effect of which depends on four variables:® 1. the choice of the triad type in the connection, 2. the relationship of the triads in the connection, 3. the choice of connecting forms (the internal life of the connection), and 4. the relation of the connection to key. Thus Janaéek designates the prime connection as “calming,” the 3rd connection as “weary,” the 6th connection conciliatory, the 4th connection even more so, and the 2nd connection, like the 5th connection, is ambiguous. This consideration of the quality of a particular connection is to be even more fully developed in the Complete Theory of Harmony of 1912/19 in what almost amounts to a modern resurrection of the theory of affects.

Another important addition to Chords is the discussion of the simple chord, the subordinate and resultant chords, and that which he calls melodic dissonance® (discussed further in Chapter 5). The simple chord is a harmonic element which remains in our minds long enough to become established as an independent chordal entity. The longer, according to Janaéek, the second chord in a connection is held, that is, the

more it appears to us as a simple chord, the more effective the chord connection.®

The subordinate chord is a chord which contains a non-harmonic tone. As an example, Janacek discusses the suspension, the second beat of which is subordinate to the third, in that we see it as an alteration of another chord. The resultant chord is the entity which results from the linkage of two chords, one of which is subordinate. Janacek’s discussion here is provocative, especially since the concept of the simple chord plays an important role in Jana¢éek’s view of the

development of modern harmony. But the section on chord types is

ing forms. |

“Jandéek’s designation for his theory of chord connection is spojavact formy or connectSBlazek 1, p. 201. “Respectively souzvuk prostny, vztazny, vysiedny. Once again these are new terms used only by Janaéek. Unlike certain of Janatek’s terms which are made up, and actually constitute new linguistic entities, these words are commonly used in the Czech language. SBlazek 1, p. 279.

JANACER’S ACTIVITIES AS A THEORIST (1) 41 often unconvincing and confusing, unfortunate in a work of pedagogical intent. Janacek realized this and reworked this section over a period of years. It was better organized in 1912. With the addition of proofs based on Helmholtz, Janaéek had an effective and provocative system for describing and prescribing chord connections. For all practical purposes, his fundamental approach to music theory, stressing the importance of the chord connection and its rhythmic component, was complete by the end of the century. Yet Janaéek continued to be involved with theoretical questions for the remaining thirty years of his life during which time he further refined his theory of chord

, nomena.

connection, fully formulated his theory based on its rhythmic implications, and explored in great detail the psychological explanation of musical phe- _

In pursuit of his other activities during the period 1894-97, Janaéek

-continued to be deeply involved with ethnographic studies, which he had begun seriously at least by 1889, and he continued to teach at four separate institutions, direct the Brno Organ School, and contribute to a wide variety of publications.® It was also a critical period for Janacek as a composer; he was in the process of completing his first mature opera, Jendfa, ” and he composed the cantata Amarus® in the same year that Chords was

completed. Thus we again see a major theoretical statement by Janaéek | coinciding with a critical period in his compositional growth.

“The best material about Jandtek’s ethnographic studies is found in Jifi VyslouZil’s edition of Jandéek’s writings, op. cit. 6’The opera Jenft fa (its Czech title is Jejf pastorkyné which translates to an ungainly and bizarre Her Foster-Daughter, (hence Jentifa) was begun in 1894 and completed in 1903. The first performance, in Brno, was in 1904. 684marus was written in 1897 and its first performance was in Kromé?f& in 1900.

BLANK PAGE

CHAPTER 4

2? . 9 7 °* , e Janacek’s Activity as a Theorist, Part 2 In the years between the publication of Chords in 1897 and his next theoretical publications in 1907, Janaéek became even more involved with ethnographic studies, collecting and arranging songs, developing his famous “speech-melody” theory (napévky mluvy,') and exploring rhythmic phenomena in folk music. His teaching duties eased some_ what,? and he was able to devote more time to both theory and composi-

tion. In Janacek’s previous activity as a theorist we can see a gradual overlapping of his interests. In the Hudebnit listy period, his activity as | ethnographer, theorist, and pedagogue were kept fairly separate. In the 1894-97 period, particularly in Chords, there is a clear overlap between

the theoretical and the pedagogical. In the 1907-12 period we see several indications that Jana¢ek’s interest in folk music has influenced his theoretical considerations, which culminate in The Complete Theory of Harmony of 1912. The most dramatic indication of this overlapping process can be

found in the study, “Mij nazor o scasovani (rytmu),” “My Opinion About Scéasovani (Rhythm)”> (henceforth cited as My Opinion), published in the periodical Hlidka in 1907.4 Janacek first became involved with the phenomenon he called s¢asovdnt while doing research on Moravian folk song and folk speech patterns. As early as 1901, in the article “On Musical Aspects of Moravian National Songs,” which began 1This theory will be discussed in connection with the 1910 study, “On the Importance of Real Motives” later in this chapter. 2Jandtek ceased his teaching at the Old Brno Gymnasium in 1902, and stopped teaching at the Male Teacher’s Institute in 1904. The notion of “stasovdnf” is one of Janétek’s most interesting, baffling, and compelling constructions. It will be fully discussed in Chapter 6. The term itself grows out of Janatek’s desire to show the difference between his theory of rhythm and all others, at the same time imparting a slavic flavor to his terminology. The term comes from the word “Cas” or “time” and the verb “stasovat” means, literally, to “make into time.” “Stasovanf’ means, once again literally, the “process by which something is made into time.” Perhaps the best term would be “rhythmicizing,” “rhythmizing,” or even something like “entimement,” yet I have chosen to retain the original Czech in this case, because no translation adequately conveys the sense of the word. 4«M4ij ndzor o scasovanf (rytmu),” Hiidka XIV, 1907; Blazek 2, pp. 15-59.

43

44 MICHAEL BECKERMAN with a section entitled “Scéasovdnf in Folk Songs,” Janacek discussed folk song from the standpoint of his own rhythmic typology. My Opinion bridges the gap between folk music, philosophy, and music theory. It begins with a discussion of how rhythmic activity functions in relation to life in general: “If one speaks about the rhythm of tones, it is necessary to perceive how they extend into our very life’ and also “It is easy according to the s€asovdni of tones to illuminate the true inner human being.”” Janaéek then goes on to discuss rhythm from a psychological point of view, advancing the belief that in the rhythmic arrangement of a motive taken from speech,’ there is a close relationship between “‘accent” and “idea”; that stressed places in an utterance are moments of deep spiritual penetration. He also tries to show that rhythmic criteria are the basis for differentiating between homophonic and polyphonic styles, folk-song types, functioning as the critical factor in the determination of formal qualities and compositional mood. Essentially, My Opinion’s greatest significance lies in developing Janaéek’s ideas concerning the importance of rhythm in relation to harmonic events. He discusses the existence of “scasovdct layers” which flow out of a metered section of undivided time called a séasovdct dno, (séasovdci base). The layering corresponds to the levels of note values. Thus in a measure of 3/4 time, the dotted-half-note is the s¢asovdct base,

the first layer is quarter-note motion, and the second layer involves eighth-note motion.® The “quality” of a measure is determined by the base plus two rhythmic layers drawn together by the harmonic com-

ponent. Thus it is the interpenetration of different rhythmic layers which creates a clearly comprehensible whole and gives a “thick mood” to a musical composition. This is another of Janaéek’s pet theories, that interpenetrating rhythmic layers are related to mood, and that mood it-

self is expressible with words like “thickness.” | Janacéek also introduces some peculiar ideas in this article which

appear nowhere else in his writing. Among them is the division of melodies into “single” or “multi-voiced.”” Single melodies are those

bid. :

which have a monophonic origin, that derive, as it were, solely from a 5“Q hudebnf strance nérodnich pfsni moravskych,” Prague: Cesk4 akademie, 1901. The

study served as an introduction to Frantisek Barto’ (1837-1906) monumental study Narodni pisne moravské v nové nasbirané(A New Collection of Moravian National Songs). °Blazek 2, p.1 5. 8In this aspect the theory of séasovdntis very closely linked to the core of Janatek’s theory

, of speech-melodies, or ndpevky mluvy.

*Jandtek’s theory of rhythmic layering will be fully discussed in Chapter 6. Respectively jednohlasost and vicehlasost.

JANACER’S ACTIVITIES AS A THEORIST (2) 45 | melodic conception; whereas multi-voice melodies are related to some form of harmonic support. The difficulty with this interesting notion lies in the determination of a melody’s origin for the purposes of placing it

in one category or the other. This may well explain the disappearance

of this theory. | My Opinion is a purely speculative study, having no pedagogical

intent whatsoever. Yet during this period Janacek was beginning to reconcile his concept of rhythm with his theory of chord connection. This reconciliation is first realized in an unpublished treatise entitled, “Zaklady hudebniho scéasovani” (The Basis of Musical Séasovani, henceforth cited as Basis)" a portion of which was published as “On the _ Practical Aspect of S€asovdni." Blazek was the first to publish the work in its entirety, and has studied several versions of the manuscript, as well

as all the material associated with it. He concludes that the study originated in the first ten years of the 20th century, probably between 1905 and 1910.

Basis is Janacek’s first attempt to expand his ideas about rhythm in a pedagogical format, and is no doubt a preparatory study for the Complete Theory of Harmony. In this “applied” séasovdni, the fundamental element is the sCasovka, a general term for a rhythmic forma-

tion.’ Janacéek discusses the importance of the séasovka from the vantage point of his rhythmic layers. In order to do this he introduces the concepts of the sounding, additive, and consolidating sCasovka™ (see

Chapter 6). The sounding sCasovska is a rhythmic idea in a composition which

is either heard or imagined when reading a score, while the additive s€asovka, as Burghauser puts it, “is a rhythmic structure which originates in our minds through the sounding (or imagining) of at least two tones,

and which through some kind of inertia accompanies the sounding rhythm in the background of our consciousness and distributes it.” The consolidating sCasovka is a more uncertain term, which Janacek never fully explains. From his commentary and examples, though, a consolidating sCasovka seems to be a figure which comes about through a process 17 Aklady hudebnfho séasovanf,” unpublished manuscript. Printed in Blazek 2, pp. 63-86.

27, praktické tAsti o stasovanf,” Dalibor XXX, #20-21, 1980. } 5] have also chosen to retain the Czech s¢asovka which means “a little unit of time.” In his

study “Hudebnf metrika v Janatkove teoretickém dile” (Musical Meter in Jana¢ek’s Theoretical Works) op. cit., Jarmil Burghauser points out a variety of inconsistencies in Jandéek’s terminological system. These will be more fully discussed in Chapter 7.

“Respectively, znéjicé, citdtct and scelovaci. | SBurghauser, op. cit., p. 139-40.

46 MICHAEL BECKERMAN whereby a rhythmic event is prefigured into a concrete rhythmic forma-

tion which may be longer or shorter than the sounding scasovska. Janacek gives numerous examples of this, but the placement of the designation of the various sCasovky is so erratic that it is impossible to arrive at an absolute definition.

In the second section of the study, titled “Vysledné souzvuky a

jejich spoje” (Resultant Chords and Their Connection), Janaéek reintroduces the resultant chord, his term for a series of musical entities containing a “clear” chord as well as a “less clear” part containing a dis-

sonance. The resolution of this dissonance, which Janacek calls “melodic,” is not always considered necessary. This is an important observation since it allows for the conception and realization of new sonic combinations which become, through Janacek’s theory, acceptable harmony.

The tentative and even experimental nature of this study is not only evident from its content and from the fact that Janaéek chose not to publish it. Written on the front page is the following note: “This study comes out of the mists in which I have been.” For anyone familiar with Janaéek’s life and works this comment has a great deal of resonance. In

1912 Janaéek completed a piano cycle titled V mlhdch (In the Mists) which according to most scholars refers to his own professional and psychological difficulties during the previous ten years. Janacéek’s emergence from these “mists” in the following years is a critical aspect of his development and future success. We may thus view his theoretical writings as one aspect of this process. In 1907, the same year as My Opinion, Jandééek published an ar-

ticle entitled, “Modernf harmonické hudba” (“Modern Harmonic Music”),!°a consideration of neo-Romantic and late-Romantic harmony

presented in what we have called Janaéek’s “feuilleton” style.” In a highly poetic mode he describes Mozart as a composer devoted to the “cult of the connection of the tonic triad with the dominant and the dominant with the tonic.”#* In this style the most important element is

the “psychological effect of the fourth connection.” Beethoven, he says, “straddles” the tonic and dominant, and he cites a passage from Op. 10 No. 3 where Beethoven moves from D major to A major by 1»Modernf harmonick4 hudba,” Hlidka XXIV, 1907, pp. 6ff; Blazek 2, pp. 7-13. The choice of vocabulary and frequent use of dialect-related words make this study quite difficult to understand completely.

’Blazek 2, p. 8. | 1 bid.

Tid.

JANACEK'’S ACTIVITIES AS A THEORIST (2) 47 means of a chord spelled C#-E#-G#-B. Wagner is characterized by his “harmonic portfolio of short, firmly connected motives, particularly

striking in the prelude to Tistan and Isolde, which climax in drastic deceptive cadences.”2! Wagner’s predecessors in harmonic thinking are,

according to Jana¢éek, Mozart (especially the C minor Fantasie) and Bach. The article is also concerned with the treatment of the fourth connection, and its importance as the most kinetic connection in music due to the antecedent major seventh. The fourth connection also plays a role

in our perception of the secondary, or “extra-tonal,” dominant, which Janacek sees as a modulation. Because the fourth connection implies a modulation Janacek says that “by use of the fourth connection we shatter outdated models of the harmonic vocabulary.”” The article concludes with the following injunction: “It is necessary for the composers of our time to hear a great deal. They may also contribute theoretical research.”” Such a proclamation is revealing in the insight it shows into the increasing role of the composer-theorist in the music of the 20th century, and will be discussed later. There are, perhaps, arguments against the inclusion of “V4ha realnich motivi” (The Importance of Real Motives)* (henceforth cited as Real Motives) in an edition of the complete theoretical works of Leos Janacek. After all, the article is highly poetic, often almost incoherent, and is involved with ideas more proper to ethnography and metaphysics

_ than with pure theoretical considerations. Yet, it provides an opportunity to discuss, albeit briefly, that half-known and oft mentioned hobby horse of Janacek, his speech-melody or “napévky mluvy” theory, which is essential to any understanding of Janaéek as a theorist, since it forms an important background for all his considerations» The study itself is subtitled “lecture notes”(Crty z prednaSek) and consists, in its published form, of ideas which formed a part of the cur-

riculum of the Brno Organ School. In a series of lecture-recitals, Janacek endeavored to explain the laws concerning the nature of the musical work. His remarks were printed in the concert programs at the

lecture. Thus Real Motives is composed of fragments from several

Ibid. ,

2Ibid., p. 13. |

21 bid.

“7 éha redinich motivi,” Dalibor XXXII, 1909-10, pp. 227ff; Blazek 2, pp. 141-43. 5Jandtek’s theory is called ndpévky mluvy in Czech. The term “népev” means “melody” or “tune”; the diminutive “napévek” refers to a short melody or tune. Once again, I have retained the original Czech words.

48 MICHAEL BECKERMAN presentations which include the “third instructional hour” (Beethoven, Trio op. 70 No. 1), the fourth instructional hour® (Beethoven, op. 1 No. 3), the fifth (Beethoven, op. 70 No. 2), and the sixth (Beethoven, op. 97; Bach, Toccata in D minor; Mendelssohn, op. 65). A discussion of Real Motives must be preceded by a short description of Janaéek’s ideas about ndpévky mluvy.”’ Jandéek’s ethnographic studies, begun in earnest in the late 1880s took him throughout the Moravian countryside and parts of Slovakia. In addition to collecting folk songs, he became fascinated by patterns of human speech, and with the relationship between intonational declivity and emotional affect. Such a formulation is also at the root of Jana¢ek’s

rhythmic thinking. Beginning in 1903 with “The Ndpévky of Our Speech—Particularly Excelling in Their Dramatic Quality,”* he studied the phenomenon systematically.” In 1904, in “Ndpévky of Children’s Speech” he examined the patterns of children’s utterances in speech, songs, and games, and in “This Year and Last’! of 1905 he expressed

the notion, influenced perhaps by Durdik’s theory of temperaments, that the gamut of human emotion, a whole range of mood and tone, was expressed in the intonational patterns of human speech. Janacek says

that: | -

Ndpeévky mluvy are an expression of the whole state of the organism and all phases of spiritual activity which flow from it. They show us the fool and

the wise one, the sleepy and the wakeful, the tired and the nimble; they show us the child and the old one, morning and evening, light and dark-

ness, scorching heat and frost, loneliness and company. The art of a dramatic composition is to make ndpévky which like magic convey the vitality of human beings in certain phases of life.»

These theories are still further developed in the study Real Motives. The concept of real motives involves an almost metaphysical This material is based on Blazek’s introduction, BlaZek 1, and a pamphlet, “Leos Janaéek,” by Jiff VyslouzZil, published in connection with the 1978 Brno International Music Festival.

27For more on this see especially John Tyrrell’s “Jandéek and the Speech-Melody Myth,” The Musical Times, CXI, 1970, 793; and his article “Leos Janatek” in The New Grove Turn of the Century Masters, W. W. Norton (New York/London), 1985, pp. 42-46. 28 N4pévky na&f mluvy, vynikajicf zvl4stnf dramatitnostf,” Casopis mor. mus. II, 1903. 29At this time Jandééek began to compile several notebooks, which were filled with material relating to ndpévky mluvy, notations and observations. A good English introduction to Janaéek’s writing of this type is Jandéek: Leaves From His Life, edited and translated by Vilem and Margaret Tausky. New York: Taplinger, 1982. 3 NApévky détské mluvy,” Cesky lid XII, 1904-05.

311 oni a letos,” Hifdka XXII, p. 206; also in Stédrori, pp. 138-39. | 32918dron, op cit., p. 138.

JANACER’S ACTIVITIES AS A THEORIST (2) 49 process by which actual snippets of human speech or even folk melodies,

are transformed into stylized instrumental or vocal motives which still | retain the vital impression of their origin. Yet in place of any practical

| idea of how this process is to take place, Janacek offers the following: The most essential real motives are ndpevky mluvy, through them the

national element enters into a musical work without impeding the individuality of the composer. Ndpevky mluvy are so expressive that through them we grasp subjects and concepts; we get an immediate lifemood from

| _them. Instrumental motives grow out of a narrow field. They delineate space by time and interval. By tone color and sparse harmonic effect they correspond to mood—they are metaphorical, not realistic. It is necessary to permeate instrumental motives with national spirit.°*°

How is this to be accomplished? We might expect a wholly scientific method from the avid reader of Durdik, Helmholtz, and Wundt: Instrumental motives simply taken from the truest Czech tune. Sometimes only its rhythm becomes the theme. Pluck these petals from a song and use them as the focal point of a composition. Strew them out as the form requires; into the coda, the development, etc.* A bedding consisting of rose petals. Every tone that falls into its aroma exhales its fragrance. We must water instrumental motives with Czechness*—to take them to their source, to the present, to the sphere of Czechness.*

This is the type of writing which has given Jana¢éek a bad name as

an incoherent babbler, and has contributed more than a little to his dubious reputation as a theorist; yet its intent and import are clear. Janacek has postulated a musico-philosophical theorem that simple folk speech and melody, due to their infusion with real-life experience, call forth an inevitable aesthetic judgment based on the mood and quality

of the motive. Further, he maintains that these motives either transformed into, or serving as models for instrumental or vocal motives, are the proper basis for a work of art, which is, according to Janacek, anational work of art.

3Blazek 2, p. 141. .

“This would seem to imply that Jandééek views the folk-song in much the same way as the _ _ napévky mluvy; as a unit which reflects, in some metaphysical way, the nature of the human condition. 35“Ceskost.” It is a word which would be used more often in Czech than would the expression “Czechness” in English. *Blazek 2, p. 141. For the significance of Janéatek’s concept of “Czechness” see my “In Search of Czechness in Music,” 19th Century Music X/1, Summer 1986, pp. 61-73. This is one of the most difficult concepts in the understanding of national music. Also see Zdenek

BlaZek’s “K problemu teskosti Janétkovy hudebnf mluvy,” (The Problem of the Czech- , ness of Janééek’s Musical Language), Opus Musicum xi, 1979, 263.

50 , MICHAEL BECKERMAN Although Janaéek’s concept of ndpévky mluvy does not directly affect the details of his subsequent theoretical activities, the spirit which

motivates him in “The Importance of Real Motives” is a hallmark of Janaéek’s later theoretical work and as such will be discussed later. The Complete Theory of Harmony (1912) | This period of Janacek’s activity culminates in a major work, Uplnd

nauka o harmonii (The Complete Theory of Harmony)’ henceforth CTH 1), published in 1912. Coming as it does a full fifteen years after Chords, it is a summation of Janaéek’s newer thought about harmony, including an elaboration of his theory of séasovani and a more comprehensive view of the theory of chord connection. Yet there is very little that is absolutely new in the work, and we have outlined most of its characteristics and content in our earlier discussion.

The major cosmetic change in the CTH concerns its reorganization for pedagogical purposes. Janaéek divides all his material into

months, each with a certain number of “instructional hours.” The material is divided into two years (sixteen months) of instruction and moves from more primary material to the most involved discussions. The first two months are introductory, beginning with elementary theory and

leading to triadic connections discussed of course on the basis of _ Janaéek’s theory of connecting forms. The chaotic moment in the chord

connection is now described in a different way: The fundamental tone of the second chord does not only sound simul- | taneously with all the tones of its chord, but also with the illusion tones of the previous chord. This is that cement, that strong spletna (twine) which holds both chords; its disentanglement, i.e. the freeing of the second chord from the illusion tones of the first, imparts a sheen of beauty and a particular character to the chord connection.*

The implications of this change will be fully discussed in the next chapter.

| The third and fourth months present inversions and introduce the dominant 7th. The fifth month involves the connection of 7th chords and their inversions, as well as discussing how harmonic style functions

in a composition. Once again the voice of Jandéek the life-long 31Upind nauka o harmonii, Brno: A. Pisa, 1912. This is not printed in full in BlaZek because of the similarities between it and the second edition, which is printed. BlaZek gives passages from the first edition in the notes when there is a significant difference between the material in the two editions. 8Blazek 2, p. 191.

JANACEK’S ACTIVITIES AS A THEORIST (2) 51 pedagogue is heard loud and clear: “We wish to build the individual harmonic expression of a composer. Through the chord connections hitherto introduced, and those to follow, the course of musical affects in the music literature of past centures, the ‘continuous connection,’ the path

of development, is explained and illuminated.” The sixth month is a summary of all four-part chords on all degrees of the scale and the _ seventh month deals with the connection of adjacent 7th chords. Once again, Janacek stresses that the V’- I connection has elements of disturbance because of the presence of the disturbing 4-3 resolution. The eighth month presents 9th, 11th, and 13th chords in Janaéek’s

inimitable style. In 1897, in Chords, Jané¢éek had discussed these sonorities in the conventional sense as a combination of two 7th chords a third apart. Here he dismisses that explanation and introduces his own peculiar reasoning, based on his belief in the overwhelming importance of the triad in harmonic activity. He sees the governing element in all three cases to be the triad, colored by an admixture of the “alloy” of a 9th, 11th, or 13th. Thus the 9th is designed by the figured bass designation “9,” the 11th as 5/4 and the 13th as 7/6. Although conceptually interesting, this method of introducing multi-voice chords is weak because the chords, dominated by the triadic core, lack significant identity. In this section, Jana¢ek also discusses what he terms “the fullness of harmonic life in the spletna” and says that this fullness calls forth all chords on all degrees of the scale, including alterations. The ninth and tenth months contain material on the harmonic and enharmonic content of chords as well as a discourse on non-harmonic

tones. In Chords Jan4éek had mentioned that melodic notes “thickened’! the chordal impression. This term refers to any note added to enrich and color the triadic core. Non-harmonic tones, according to Janaéek, are thickeners which occur before or after a chord, introducing a melodic aspect to harmonic thought and thus he calls themmelodic dissonances. He once again uses the term simple for a chord with a nonharmonic tone which persists long enough in the consciousness for the chord to be considered a self-contained whole.” Another characteristic

term introduced by Janacek is percolation, referring to the moment 9Blazek 2, p. 227. “Ibid., p. 247. 41Janatek uses several words derived from the Czech word zhustit, “to thicken,” to correspond to a series of phenomena involving notes which are added to the triad. Blazek assumes that the term comes from folk music and dialect usage; the word “hustit” means to “harmonize” in dialect. Again, we have an example of Janatek’s search for terms which are not merely designations, but in addition reflect the quality of that which Janatek is trying to describe.

42Prostny. }

32 MICHAEL BECKERMAN during which the two chords in the connection are overlapping.® The second chord in the connection is controlled, according to this theory, by the interpenetration of the first, the resulting melodic dissonance (non-harmonic tone), and its resolution. Jana¢ek believed that full interpenetration of chords in such a manner is the essence of harmonic modernism in a composition. This will be more fully discussed in Chapter 6.

The first and second months of the second school year deal with percolation and with Janaééek’s concept of Typy taktové, (measure types).

The latter involves a phenomenon closely related to Janaéek’s idea of sCasovdni, Through this theory the relationship between tempo and harmonic activity is the determining factor in various metrical arrange-

: ments, and séasovdni becomes a full compositional element. The third and fourth months are involved with measure types as well as studies in modulation, not unlike those Jana¢ek himself undertook while studying with Skuhersky.

The fifth and sixth months present Jana¢ek’s concept of the naporové spoje (impact connection) which involves the séasovdnt of “heterogenous beats within the same layer,” that is, the phenomenon of “polyrhythm” and its influence on harmony. Janééek describes it in terms of aseries of harmonic accelerations and decelerations. The chapter aims to establish the idea that connecting forms have a rhythmic and a harmonic significance. The final month of the work is primarily concerned with compositional problems and ways of thinking about crea-

tion. Janaéek emphasizes, in an injunction not wholly common to harmony texts, that a work of art must always be new; and ends his work

with the maxim: “I don’t speak, cry, or laugh today with yesterday’s napévky mluvy.”* Blazek characterizes the final passage quite beauti- — fully saying that: ...1t constitutes not only a creative creed, but above all a consciousness

that constant development, in all its dynamism brings on its shoulders that secret eternal beauty of all art, its truth and depth.”

“The word Jandéek uses here is prolinat which means to penetrate into something. The word interpenetration was a possible choice, yet the word percolation has the kinetic quality of the Czech original, and the liquid sense which seems so necessary to Jana¢éek.

SBlazek , “*Blazek 1,2,p.p. 36.327. |

“Blazek 2, p. 303. This term will be further explored in Chapter 6. }

JANACEK’S ACTIVITIES AS A THEORIST (2) 53 Once again we see the publication of a major theoretical tract accompanied by a burst of creative activity. The piano cycle In the Mists” was composed in 1912-13, the tone poem The Fiddlers Child in 1912, the Violin Sonata was begun in 1914 (finished 1921), and the cantata The Eternal Gospel was written in 1914. Janaééek was also working, at this time, on his fifth opera, The Excursions of Mr. Brouéek, completed in 1917.

Janacek’s third period as a theorist ends with one of the major treatises in Czech music theory of the period. The work is not only a summation of all Janacek’s previous theories, but includes as well a broadening and redefinition, a complete reorganization for teaching

purposes, and several new and significant formulations. | Reformulations and Revisions (1916-1920) With a more conventional personality it might be possible to assume that a major formulation, published by its author at the age of fiftyeight, would be the final codification of the material. Yet there remained one more side of Janacek’s approach to receive amplification and substantiation. In 1913, after exploring the physiological, the ethnographic,

and the aesthetic aspects of our relationship to the musical work, Janacek plunged into the world of psychology. Between 1913 and 1915 he consumed the entire three volumes of Wilhelm Wundt’s Grundziige der phystologischen Psychologie,“ one of the most important works in the history of experimental psychology. In 1919 Janaéek republished his CTH in a second edition featuring twenty-five citations of Wundt for documentary purposes.

How is it possible to explain Janacek’s powerful attraction to a thinker such as Wundt, whose field is so different from his own area of expertise? Most of the material available on Wundt stresses his debt to John Stuart Mill and the English associationists, and it is only a reading of Wundt himself which points us in the right direction. In the introduction to the Grundziige we find the following: Finally, I would ask the reader, when he comes upon polemical passages . directed against Herbart, to remember that my criticisms are, at the same time, a proof of the importance which I attach to the psychological works

‘It is possible that Janaétek’s formulation of the conception of spletna was somehow related to the composition of In the Mists, since the composition seems to be based on interpenetrations. “Wilhelm Wundt, Grundziige der physiologischen Psychologie, Leipzig: 1874.

54 MICHAEL BECKERMAN of this philosopher. It is to Herbart, next after Kant, that I am chiefly indebted for the development of my own psychological principles.”

In Herbartian psychology, the mind is conceived of as a unity, but this unity rests not on the simplicity of its substance, but again on the relationship between simple entities. And Wundt, using this model, attempts to analyze mental phenomena in terms of its smallest possible units.*° The analysis of these simple entities is accomplished by introspection, a rigorous and highly disciplined technique for separating con-

scious experience into elementary sensations and feelings. Another central notion involves the principle of voluntarism, which states that it takes a certain amount of time to switch attention from one stimulus to another. Wundt found this time to be one-tenth of a second, precisely the time factor involved in Janaéek’s postulated spletna. It is no wonder that Janacek leaped into Wundt’s world of ideas; they were practically his own. In the forty years which had elapsed since his first theoretical article he had come full circle, finding thoughts which had excited him in 1874 reformulated and reemphasized in 1913 on the basis of empirically verifiable data. His marginalia in Wundt’s work are not so much written in the throes of discovery, but rather in the spirit of greeting a long lost friend. He says: My connection. My theory of harmony. My concept of layering. This is my percolation. I proved this in the introduction to my first book on harmony.”!

This then is what Jana¢éek had been searching for: the latest scien-

tific proof for his theoretical apparatus. In the following passage from , his autobiography, Janacek writes about the impact Wundt had on him, as well as his later attitude to aesthetics: I knew that one does not compose by the science of aesthetics. I view composition as a psychological process. I open wide the book of Wilhelm Wundt. I read Book I from Dec. 12, 1913; I finish it on Feb. 25, 1914. (p. 679) The second book from May 25, 1914. I finish it on Oct. 15, 1914. (p.

726) The third book from Oct. 17, 1914. I finish it on Aug. 25th, 1915 at Bohudanc¢i-L4zné (p. 770). In putting together my study of the psychologi-

“Wundt, op. cit., preface to the first edition. | See Wilhelm Wundt and the Making of a Scientific Psychology,ed. R. W. Rieber. Herbart’s psychology, its impact and nature are discussed in several articles. Most interesting is the idea that Wundt’s theories and his Herbartian extraction were consciously suppressed, ignored, or distorted by his English and American contemporaries. S1Jandétéek used the 1910 edition of Wundt’s work. The cited comments are found in his copy of the work.

JANACER’S ACTIVITIES AS A THEORIST (2) 55 cal process of composition” I even concentrated on myself.°> I get confidence in myself. I get freedom of musical thought. I reject the sterile hoax

of aesthetics (Dr. Robert Zimmermann, Dr. Josef Durdik, Dr. Hugo

, Riemann).™

The first study of Janacek’s to bear the traces of Wundt’s impact

is “O priibéhu duSevni prace skladatelské” (On the Course of the Composer’s Mental Work)* (hereafter cited as Mental Work). This is an

attempt to apply Wundtian laws in order to understand the process of musical creativity. Janacéek attempts to document the activity of a group of students working on an exercise, in this case, the harmonization of a

soprano line, in order to show that the students work faster at the end

of the exercise than at the beginning, following the hypothetical Wundtian order of apperception, assimilation, association, and reproduction. Although Janaéek proves nothing of importance here, Mental Work is a fascinating attempt at a concrete analysis of affect on the basis of modern empirical psychology. The next study of this period is “Myslna psychologicka podstata hudebnich prédstav” (The Intellectual and Psychological Substance of

the Musical Imagination) (hereafter cited as Substance) which exists only in an autograph from 1917. BlaZek reprints the article without any mention of its context, yet from its contents one must surmise that Substance is a preparatory study for the second edition of the CTH. Janaéek here attempts to come to grips with the musical imagination in an empirical manner. He says that stimulation of musical events is either outer, that is, caused by the senses, or inner, not involved with stimulus from the external world. The musical events can be either primary, consisting purely of tones, or secondary, involved with the presentation or feeling of an extramusical source. The study is almost in Janaéek’s “feuilleton” style. In the introduction he states: Tonal, intervallic, and chordal activity always penetrates anew into ~ one’s thoughts; here quickly, here slowly. Sometimes it reaches our consciousness during its course, sometimes at its end, and sometimes all throughout.” This reference is particularly apt in regard to Janaéek’s article on the same subject. Here Jandtek is referring to Wundtian introspection. “Brod, op. cit., p. 66. 5“Q) prabehu duSevni prace skladatelské,” Hlidka XXXIII, #1-3, 1916; BlaZek 2, pp. 14562.

Miysind, psychologick4 podstata hudebnfch pyedstav,” autograph from 1917. Printed in Blazek 2, pp. 163-67. STBlazek 2, p. 163.

56 MICHAEL BECKERMAN Janaéek discusses the importance of perceiving the “color” of a tone and once again avows that “a tone does not become entirely silent in our consciousness when it vanishes from its clearest flow,”** in other

words, it lingers on in the memory. The same is stated in regard to chords: “I am convinced that the parts of a chord are unified by more than acoustical causes.” It is the “affect” of independent chordal tones (both their own, and the tension arising from their interrelationship) which is the determining factor in a connection, once again showing Janaéek’s distance from a purely abstract formalism. The study also involves a reevaluation of the subject of “key” and

key relations. Janaéek discusses the problem in terms of emotional states: “All emotion which depends on the course of perceived tones or chords—whether it involves an outer or a central stimulus—is called tonal—one tone alone creates it.” He closes the study with a discussion of affect and “will” in the events of a musical composition, and advances the notion, found in his earlier works, that it is possible to rank affects, and the unity of affects, during a chord connection. The entire study is characteristic of Jana¢ek’s last theoretical period; it is pervaded by a sense of intellectual intensity, coupled with an almost incan-

descent effort to pull all elements together; the attempt to unify the theoretical world shines through the study like a beam of light. It is here that Janacek leaves the everyday consideration of practical theory and moves into a rhapsody involving him in a search which is as much religious as it is scientific, for he is looking for those elements that hold the musical universe together, a universe which he believes is a true microcosm of the external universe. This will be further discussed in Chapter 7.

, Janacek’s final offering, written at the age of sixty-five, was the second edition of the CTH, published in 1920. The bulk of the changes are related to Janacek’s studies in psychology. BlaZek points out that

Janaéek was so involved with his reading of Wundt that he took Grundziige with him wherever he went, even on vacation.® In it he found proof for his theory of antecedent relations,® he compared his twines to

phenomena associated with the spectrum,“ he used Wundt to substan8Ibid. STbid., p. 164.

Tbid., p. 165. “\Uplna nauka o harmonii, Brno: A. Pisa, 1920; Blazek 2, pp. 169-328. Blazek 1, p. 38. SPRlazek 2, p. 184; Wundt, op. cit., vol. III, p. 45. “Blazek 2, p. 201; Wundt, op. cit., vol. III, p. 132.

JANACEK’S ACTIVITIES AS A THEORIST (2) 57 tiate his theory of scasovani,® his theory of stronger and weaker beats, and to justify his concept of melody as “an order of tones which it is possible to hold together in the consciousness.”® Finally Wundt is used in connection with the concept of thickening and chordal interpenetration,® and is called upon to verify the existence of rhythmic layers. In addition to changes arising from Janacek’s study of Wundt, the second edition, as a whole, is more comprehensive than the first. The discussion of measure types is expanded, and the resultant chord more clearly

discussed. The chapter in the first edition dealing with non-harmonic tones is rewritten, and becomes the introduction to the second book of the second edition. The term percolation now refers not only to the interpenetration of separate chords, but to interpenetrating intervals as well. The chapter on measure types is newly reworked, and Janaéek added eight long sections, each related to some kind of measure type. According to Blazek, who has studied all the manuscripts and notes dealing with the changes between the two editions, Janacek inserted forty-two pieces of paper over crossed-out sections in order to restyle this section.” The publication of Jana¢éek’s final theoretical codification, a last synthesis of ideas derived from traditional music theory, the innovative work of Skuhersky, folk music, aesthetics, psychology, and acoustics, marked the end of a full fifty years during which Janaéek tried to forge a concept which would link melody, harmony, rhythm, and form. It is ironic yet apt that a parallel stylistic catharsis occurred in Janatek’s music after the publication of the second edition of the CTH. The years 1919-1928 saw, in Janaéek’s output, a creative burst almost unique in the history of musical composition, an outpouring which established Jana¢cek’s reputation internationally and at home, and produced almost all the works for which the composer is today known: the four operas, Katya Kabanovad, The Adventures of the Vixen Bystrouska, Makropulos, and From the House of the Dead; four major orchestral works, Sinfonietta, Taras Bulba, the Concertino, and the Capriccio; the two string quartets, and the Glagolitic Mass.” In this last period Jana¢ek’s creative work we see a parallel synthesis of

all his efforts. a

_ §tyle, a musical counterpart to his theoretical works and a summation of

SBlazek 2, p. 183; Wundt, op. cit., vol. III, p. 81. — “Blazek 2, p. 208; Wundt, op. cit., vol. III, p. 88. S'Blazek 2, p. 210; Wundt, op. cit., vol. ITI, p. 225. 8Blazek 2, p. 268; Wundt, op. cit., vol. IIT, p. 545. Blazek 2, p. 320; Wundt, op. cit., vol. ITI, p. 483. "See Blazek’s introduction, Blazek 1, p. 38. See my study “Jandtek’s Last Twelve Years,” Kosmas, 1988, for an outline of his activities during this period.

| BLANK PAGE

CHAPTER 5

The Chord Connection and Chordal Thickening We may now turn to Jana¢ek’s theoretical works and explore certain of his most important ideas in greater detail. Fortunately I have been able to rely on an early evaluation of Janééek’s theoretical works which has

only recently appeared in print for the first time —that of the author himself. In class notes compiled by the conductor Bfetislav Bakala! we have a record of Janaéek’s lectures on the importance of his own harmonic theory.? Despite the fact that Bakala’s text is only marginally in-

telligible (whether or not this is a result of Bakala’s transcription or Janacek’s uneven style we cannot.be sure) it is clear that Janacéek put his finger on the central characteristics of his own theory, the following

topics will be discussed: , 1. Connecting Forms: The Chord and Its Connection 2. Chordal Thickening: The Simple Chord

3. The Resultant Chord 4. Percolation

1BYetislav Bakala (1897-1958) Czech conductor and composer. Bakala studied at the Brno Organ School from 1912-15, and studied with Janatek in 1922 and 1923. He subsequently became one of the foremost interpreters of Janatek’s works.

The material in question has been, for some time, in the hands of Zdenék Blazek, the editor of the complete edition of Janatek’s theoretical works. The passage is taken from “Teorie nauk o harmonii,” notes on Janatek’s lectures on harmony in his master class at the Brno Conservatory as compiled by Bretislav Bakala. Prepared for printing by Zdenték BlaZek, and published in Opus Musicum, 1980: “The new harmonic teaching in Jandéek’s theory consists of 1. the determination of the substance of the connection (the twine and its disentanglement), the classification of chords, the choice of succession in connecting

form. 2. In regard to the temporal value of chords, the substantiation of stronger and weaker beats, the clarification of the half-note, and the building of so-called measure types. The duration of a second, notated by a half-note, is the basis and source of all notation. Heterogeneous measures may be suppressed or elevated. By elevation, the impact connection originated. 3. In modulation which creates the true measure of the double cadence in the conclusive fourth connection. By this we feel the greatest depth of the harmonic base. The succession of emotional events depends on the II-V-I connection. 4. In new con-

ceptions of chords (the theory of harmony must be concerned with all conceptions of chords; up until now it has only been concerned with the simple chord (i.e., clear and con-

scious for an entire period of time). With this perception, Jandtéek has opened up new horizons in contemporary music.”

59

60 MICHAEL BECKERMAN Connecting Forms: The Chord and Its Connection Janaéek gives a charming and perhaps exaggerated view of the genesis of his theory of chord connection.> The scene takes place during his entrance examination at the Prague Organ School in 1874. His examiner asks the first question: Professor Blazek: “How does a dominant seventh chord resolve?”

Silence. |

“The seventh goes down by step, the third up, the fifth goes up, the root falls. He doesn’t even know it!”

, —£)O— . Ce4

The following coursed through my brain:

po

sy_< eo

And the seventh didn’t move by step, the fifth didn’t rise, and the root didn’t fall. From this time I begin to dwell on the mystery of chord connection.4

Dwelling on this mystery of chord connection led Janaéek to the. development of his theory of connecting forms —the core of his theory of harmony, and one of his most important and striking contributions to music theory. Janaéek’s contact with Skuhersky’s original harmonic ideas, his theories of modulation, and his assertion that one could move immediately from one chord to any other chord, further nourished his interest, stirred his imagination, and began to give form to his ideas. By about 1880 he was searching for a theory which would explain these new possibilities and combinations of chord connections. Beginning in 1884 with “Studies in Music Theory,” Janacéek evolved a theory of chord connection, the study of which reveals a consistent attempt to apply musicotheoretical, as well as extra-musical, scientific thinking, in philosophy, psychology, and the natural sciences, in order to bring the theory into

line with both contemporary musical practice, and reality as seen through Janacek’s eyes.

| 3Helfert thinks that this “false” resolution is a product of Janaéek’s studies with Skuhersky (Helfert, p. 80). ‘T eos Jandéek in Vesely, op. cit.

THE CHORD CONNECTION AND CHORDAL THICKENING 61

Janacek based his theory of chord connection on a premise which .he derived from his study of the work of Helmholtz, and understood as a natural phenomenon. He states that: ...a tone sounds from an instrument, but also floats in our mind when it has really faded out... °

The actual sounding tone is called a pocit or sensation tone, while its sonic “ghost,” which goes on sounding for a fragment of a second after the stimulus has ceased, is called a pacit or false sensation tone, which I call the illusion tone. Janaéek says that:

| ... the most certain rhythmic and melodic forms are sensation tones, they build the surest sense of beauty.®

But, Janacek continues, musical phenomena cannot be understood in terms of sensation tones alone: I base the teaching of chords and their connection not only on the sensation but also on the illusion form of the tone... Tones are most firmly connected when the new tone falls into the illusion of the preceding tone... If we designate the illusion fading-out of the previous tone by the note , there will be perceivable spletna (twine) of the preceding with the following tone Example 1.

... the spletna is very short, but also very effective by itself, even in its disentanglement. It is disentangled as soon as the illusion of the preceding tone disappears.’

By using words such as “effective” in describing the activity of his _Spletna, Janacek seems to imply that the physical characteristics of sound provide a kind of sonic cement which effectively links successive musical sounds. He calls this procedure the theory of antecedent-interval relations and notes that the same phenomenon applies to chords as well:

*Leos Janaétek, CTH, BlazZek 2, p. 174. This is an instance of how unclear Jandééek can be

about the substantiation for his theory of connecting form. The ostensible basis is physiological, but here, with the expression “floats in the mind,” Janaétek implies a process more closely related to psychology.

*Op. cit., p. 175. : Nbid., p. 179.

62 MICHAEL BECKERMAN Don’t forget that the chord does not end at the measure line, it’s not over when its notated length expires; it rings by i/lusion even after. .. The illusion sound lasts up to 3/10 of a second; in 1/10 of a second it falls to 1/10 of its original strength.®

If this is so, the connection of chords must reflect it; thus, Janacek outlines the core of his theory of connecting forms on the basis of his theory of antecedent-interval relations: If the union of chords is to be firm, it is not sufficient for only a part of

the chord (voices) to be connected; it is necessary for each voice(s) to have : a relationship (simultaneous sounding) with the basic tone, the fundamental of the second chord. That’s the way it is. The fundamental tone of the second chord sounds not only simultaneously with all the tones ofits chord, but also with the illusion tones of the preceding (chord). This is that cement, that strong spletna which holds both chords together, its disentanglement, i.e., the freeing of the second chord, gives a sheen of beauty and a particular character to the chord connection.°

Thus, Jana¢ek postulates that the ultimate goal of an individual chord connection is the fundamental note of the second chord, and asserts that all members of both chords should be seen in relation to it. Furthermore, Janaéek believes that the identity and the effect of a chord connection are related to the very “sonic cement” which holds it together. | The specifics of this theory can be illustrated with the use of several examples. For instance, in the following simple example: Example 2.

$y ko eS SE ANS’ SEE. AFORE © ~~ NN

~ NA

2 40 VERE Wh, A

The most important relationships (as designated by the dotted lines) exist between the G’s, B and D in the first chord and the low D in the second chord. According to Jandéek’s theory the satisfactory sense of resolution derives not from the block movement of whole chords, but from the individual resolution of each tone.

See Chapter 7, note 2. Leos Janééek, CTH, op. cit., p. 183. |

Ibid., p. 182. The material on which Janaéek based his conclusion can be found in Chapter 6 of Helmholtz’s Lehre von dem Tonempfindungen. It is no longer thought to be valid.

THE CHORD CONNECTION AND CHORDAL THICKENING 63

The particular character of each connection is more specifically | determined according to which connecting form is used. Relying on his studies of aesthetics, Jandéek uses four terms to describe the character of the melodic progression which takes place between two successive

chords in relation to the fundamental of the second: the conciliation represents the movement to an interval which is less dissonant: Example 3a.

———

\. ST : AOD ) ———— 5 he

Piu mosso ( - = 66 : 1

De. $b nat . pg bibs ry | aes Hy i. ibs ° ar. ; aaSRR HgCUa); 8 XS SCO 6 Wd TsAOC 1ae CRE NDKE 04 | GE . A 7 (i2Se Ge = CE CO) ||

; y)i egS Bs ie(etet"¢ eoe ae | tet etd 1p e

D “ah ,beSE wieSN k aSEbeSS sel(be; | bal iePT al || |, +WL CRCOMMU A RRA ACRE (4s SE ee Ae eee6), OeCeCeLee. eee Ce! eee Ly eee ie de le fT tieCeOP. COE

2nd Motive: , (Za scenou) (Hinter der Szene) | | [4 ]Pid mosso (. - 66) : |

4 I rr }

Trb nd A ii ae | ae ee ee Ss Cor att oa a ep aa ss : rT x Les , , > oo —— ere a Sa on ve er Tee et p

Timp. |

a>

JANACEK’S THEORIES EVALUATED | 111

pee

Interpenetration:

yey fh vs

O08 A AS SU UR SR SS SS A A ES 8 A A

————— Pe —— a ee

These factors, of course, involve a middle level of comparison of theory and practice, and though we are still involved with generalities the similarities are tempting, yet ultimately elusive. Unfortunately, it is impossible

for us to climb into Janaéek’s creative mind in order to determine precisely how the relationship functions, whether in some corner of Janacek’s brain there 1s a close relationship between theory and practice, or whether the similarities between the two are merely a result of the pervasiveness of Janatek’s approach no matter what he does. (Schonberg once said, “cut anywhere and the blood is the same.”) In that case, Janaéek’s theoretical

_ works might be seen as yet another “blueprint” of his mental processes, a blueprint in some way identical to any other manifestations produced by his mind, including letters, speech, feuilletons, and travel diaries. Whether this similarity between Herbartian goals and Janaéek’s music is to be taken seriously or not, the theoretical works are useful in helping us to articulate more clearly, by comparison, the central characteristics of Janacek’s approach and interpret them within the context of his concrete aesthetic goals as a composer.

The penultimate step to be taken involves us in what might be called the “nuts and bolts” part of the enterprise. This places us in the most difficult position of all, for we must attempt to explore the concrete and practical relationship between theory and practice. This is an open-ended problem, since it is impossible, even with Janaéek’s help, to prove which came first, the theoretical conception or the musical, and in precisely what manner the relationship functions. Yet, the issues raised, the extent of the material to be covered and the complexity of the ideas, musical, theoretical, and intellectual, make this the most challenging problem of all. Certainly, there is no problem finding musical figures which might correspond to spletny, sCasovky, and 22This is actually a rather tempting hypothesis. Jandétek’s speaking style was apparently very much like his music and writing; abrupt, passionate, and unusual.

112 MICHAEL BECKERMAN ndpévky mluvy. Repeated short motives, short rhythmic cells, and interpenetration of entities are as we have shown a central feature of Janacek’s

style, and it is difficult to know how to interpret the relationship other . than tosay, “Janacek is always Janacek.”* Rather than attempting to make models for tracing all of Janaéek’s constructs from theory to practice and back again, we shall explore, by use of one small model, how an investigation of theoretical specifics might proceed, what methods could be employed, and both the kind of problems and results one might expect from the investigation. Let us look at one of Janaéek’s most famous and characteristic passsages: the opening of his String Quartet #1, based on Tolstoy’s novella, The Kreutzer Sonata. We have very little information about the relation-

ship between the two works; Janaéek also wrote a Trio inspired by the same work which was thought to be lost. The quartet was written in 1923, shortly after the completion of Cunning Little Vixen, and was subtitled, “Inspired by L. N. Tolstoy’s ‘Kreutzer-sonata’.” In a letter to Kamila Stdsslova we have Janaéek’s only other written comment about the work: “I

had in mind the pitiable woman who is maltreated, beaten, and murdered.” Let us now turn to Janaéek’s basic theoretical construct, the spletna, the spark and glue which unites two chords. As we have mentioned, Janaéek treats this as if it were an extraordinary source of power to be harnessed, and asserts that this spletna must correspond to “the light and clarity of our elemental moods, somehow stirred.”* What better way to present the feeling of this woman, in despair, filled with anguish than by artificially reproducing and prolonging the almost instantaneous sound of a spletna, a process about which Janacek talks in his CTH.”’ In this manner, we might see the first measures of the quartet as just such

an artificially produced spletna, complete with its sharp biting dissonance of a major seventh; and we may see the tremolo, vibratory ef2Once, when someone had accused Janatek of encouraging “Janatekism” among his students, Janatek replied, “Je jenom jeden Janaéek a to jsem ja!” (There’s only one Jandéek, and that’s me!). 4 See Paul Wingfield’s, “Janatek’s Lost Kreutzer Sonata.” Journal of the Royal Musical Association, Vol. 122, Part 2, 1987, 229-256. >In a letter to Kamila Stdsslov4, 1924. We also have the testimony of the composer and

violinist, Josef Suk, whose Bohemian Quartet premiered the work in October, 1924, that Janatek intended the composition to be a protest against men’s despotic attitude towards women CTH, Blazek 2, op. cit., p. 226. “7Ibid., p. 183, Janééek talks about artificially reproducing wines at the piano.

|

JANACEK’S THEORIES EVALUATED 113 fect corresponding to the kinetic equivalent of the glue which pastes musical elements together:

Musical Example #6 . : —f ee Pap VIOLINO | i@=—¥=—= Adagio (2) =63]

ome |, | VIOLINO II es Sr

Viola 6

VIOLONCELLo [58 In other words, Janacek may have taken his vision of the spletna and placed it under an aural microscope in order that we may perceive it in the manner in which he understands it. Is this what Janaéek means by having “control” of the spletna? And in the same example, can the F# be considered a melodic entity which remains in the consciousness for a long enough period for the listener to perceive it as part of a larger, harmonic entity?

There are many possibilities for interrelationship and many methodological models which can be made.. Perhaps at this time the most satisfactory one might be suggested by reflecting upon an article by John Stevens in the Proceedings of the Royal Music Association.” Stevens is writing about the monophonic chansons of Adam de la Halle, and becomes involved in a discussion of the relationship between the music and the texts of the chansons: ... In brief, the relationship between words and music in these courtly songs is better called metaphysical than physical—it goes beyond the “musical potential of the poem” into the realm of the Ideal. In plain language, the musician did not set the words of the poem to music, he set its lines, and syllables, which preceded both the melody and the poem. The | pattern had to be realized in two media—the medium of words and the medium of notes—and it did not matter in the least which was realized first.2°

John Stevens, “La Grande Chanson Courtoise: The Chansons of Adam de la Halle,” Proceedings of the RMA, vol. 101, 1974-75, pp. 11-30.

2Ibid., p. 27. }

114 MICHAEL BECKERMAN In Stevens’ conception, the, the music and text have no first-order relationship, both are directly related to a higher aesthetic goal. The same second-order relationship exists between Janacek’s theories and practice as that purported to exist between de la Halle’s text and music; a first-order connection with conscious demonstrable cause and effect is impossibloe to prove. We may find séasovky, ndpévky

mluvy, spletny, resultant chords, and impact connections in Janacek’s work, but we may also find them in the works of other composers and, since Janacek felt that he was describing universal, rather than merely personal, musical phenomena, the more we find such corresponding passages in the work of other composers, the more interesting JanaCcek’s

theories may seem. But that is not the true importance of the theoretical works; that lies in relation to Janacek the man, musician and creator, in the revealing manner in which they illuminate his artistic goals. Janaéek’s vital approach to music theory, is not something which

was evident from the very beginning, but rather was the result of a process, of an intellectual and spiritual journey lasting decades. Perhaps one of the most important contributions of the theoretical works is the manner in which they document Janacek’s shift from Zimmermann’s Herbartian abstract formalism, with its points in space and non-referential aesthetics, to a perspective which, as we have noted, imbues each theoretical element with a life spark relating it to human endeavor and

aspiration. |

Thus, the virulent anti-Smetana critic of the 1880’s writes, in 1924, one of the most passionate celebrations of the composer precisely because he feels that Smetana infused his work with a vitality derived from

the study of “everyday life.” The proponent of art for art’s sake gradually transforms himself into one who believes that only by forging a relationship between theory, composition and human activity can the study of music have any real meaning. The abstract “antecedent rela-

tions” are transformed into the spletna with its implications of heightened emotion, while the individual atomic units which comprise the work of art are given a broader, animated significance as they become tied to Janaéek’s study of ndpévky mluvy and scasovky. Finally, we may say that Jandéek’s true achievement as a theorist is the manner in which over decades of study he infused each component See “Tviréi mysl” (The Creative Spirit) Lidovy noviny, roc. XXXII, no. 112, 1924. Also in Leos Janatek: Fejetony z Lidovych novin, Brno: Krajské nakladatelstvf, 1958, p. 220. See especially this comment about Smetana: “his tone clings to the rattle of the oven, harmonizes with the knocking on the door and the grating of the doorpost.”

JANACEK’S THEORIES EVALUATED 115 of his theoretical system with an intensity related to that which he called

the “elemental” or “life” mood, and further, in his constant effort to present theoretical elements as human things, related to real life. A study of theoretical works thus provides invaluable answers to these questions about Janaéek’s identity as a composer. In the CTH, as we have seen, nature images abound; the tonal center, for example, is seen in terms of a sun-filled panorama: ... Light falls on the countryside, you see all perspectives, such a light projects the tonic triad into the harmonic fabric.*!

while the 9 inversion seems to Janaéek: ... like the swallow flying which almost touches the ground, and by that

refreshing, lifts into the heights.

The connection of two chords a second apart sounds to Janaéek “as if two smooth stones were struck together.”

Far from being peculiaritics or misguided metaphors, these descriptive passages give us a central clue to Janatek’s aim and explain. ahy I have chosen to call him a “nature-alist” [to use his own system of coining words.] And to risk a small play on words, we might say that this “nature” has three, or even four, fundamental meanings. First, there is

the nature of the “natural” sciences, and it is clear that for Janaéek, , being based on the very latest empirical data from the natural sciences is a critical factor—the system must rest on reality. Second, we have the “nature” of the “great outdoors,” and the previously cited images are

merely evidence of Janacek’s supposition that relationships between the outer world and the theoretical world abound; that for him, the 4-3 connection does ruffle the V7 - I connection in the same way that “a breeze ruffles the surface of a fish pond,” that things work this way because there is a fundamental unity which pervades all things. The third,

and perhaps most important aspect of “nature” in Janacek’s world is human nature, and his attempts to make his theoretical system reflect human emotion. This is yet another attempt to unite all possible worlds, which is “nature” in the fourth, most obscure sense: the way things work. The juxtaposition between the positivism of the natural sciences

and the quasi-mysticism and pantheism of other trains of Janacek’s 31CTH, Blazek 2, p. 195.

Ibid. p. 91. 3]bid., p. 200. “Tbid., 301.

116 MICHAEL BECKERMAN thought is only one proof of the hypothesis that pantheism and positivism are often closer than we might think. Janacek begins his Navod pro vyuéovani zpévu (Instruction for Singing Lessons) with the following invocation: Starry heavens! Like a huge glittering silver veil the Milky Way winds along the celestial vault. The glow of innumerable little stars coalesces in the shiny sea. Only when the eye becomes accustomed to it, do we distinguish how each star glimmers in the its silver glory. It is the same with the flood of music.*

It might be thought that the model for such an utterance can be found in a peculiarly Czech preoccupation with nature, but it is both more accurate and more interesting to suggest that this kind of writing derives from another source. Perhaps the most positive of positivists was Helmholtz, aman who relentlessly quantified human processes in so many disparate fields. Yet, in a lecture which he delivered on human perception, evidently read by Janaéek, Helmholtz too showed he could be a “nature-alist” suggesting that this kind of positivistic pantheism was pervasive in the intellectual climate of the late 19th and early 20th centuries: And thus from the distant horizon, where the white lines of foam on the

steel blue surface betray the coming trains of wave, down to the sands beneath our feet where the impression of their arcs remain, there is unfolded before our eyes a sublime image of immeasurable power and unceasing variety which as the eye at once recognizes its pervading order, enchains and exalts without confusing the mind.”

Although we have discussed Janacéek as a composer and a theorist, we must ultimately realize that he is also a philosopher, and that he has a point of view which he endeavors to express in one way through theory, and in another way as a composer. This theme, if we attempt to articu-

late it in a third medium, that of prose, stresses the need for a close relationship between man and nature, and implies that through contact

with nature, all four levels of nature, man becomes a finer more knowledgeable creature. Certainly, this is the overall philosophical thrust of Janaéek’s masterpieces, the late operas such as Katya Kabanova, Makropulos, The Cunning Little Vixen, and From the House $1 eos Jandtek. Navod pro vyuéovani zpévu (Instruction for Singing Lessons). Complete Critical Edition, Series H, Vol. 2, p. 000 Kassel: Barenreiter, 1980.

Hermann von Helmholtz, “On the Physiological Causes of Harmony in Music,” in Selected Writings of Hermann von Helmholiz, ed. Russel Kahl, Middletown, Conn.: Wessleyan University Press, 1971.

JANACEK’S THEORIES EVALUATED 117 of the Dead. And this is also the aim of the theoretical works; for Janacek

attempts to do what few theorists have done before or since, to make theory an organic part of the natural world, on all of its levels, reflecting the oscillations, machinations, and beauties of that world.

BLANK PAGE

Bibliography Jandéek’s Writings in Music Theory (Listed Chronologically)

| “VSelijaka objasnéni melodicka a harmonicka.” (Some Clarifications of

: Melody and Harmony) Cecilie IV, No. 1-3 (1877). Reprinted in Blazek 1, 53-57.

“Stati z teorie hudebni.” (Studies in Music Theory) Hudebné listy 1-II, (1884-5). Reprinted in Blazek 1, 59-73. “O dokonalé predstavé dvojzvuku.” (On the Perfect Apprehension of Dyads) Hudebni listy II, UI, (1885-6). Also reprinted in Blazek 1, 75-98.

“Bedrich Smetana o formach hudebnich.” (Bedfich Smetana on Musical Form) Hudebni listy Il, III, No. 1 and 3 (1886). Reprinted in Blazek 1, 99-103.

“O piedstavé toniny.” (On the Concept of Key) Hudebni listy, No. 4-6, 8, 9 (1886). Reprinted in Blazek 1, 103-125.

“O védeckosti Nauk o Harmonii.” (On the Scientific Aspect of the Teaching of Harmony) Hudebni listy TI, No. 1 (1887). Reprinted | in Blazek 1, 127-8.

“O Trojzvuku.” (On Triads) Hudebni listy IV, No. 1-8, (1887). Reprinted in Blazek 1, 127-9. “Slovi¢ko o kontrapunktu.” (A Few Words on Counterpoint) Hudebnt listy IV, No. 3 (1888). Reprinted in BlaZek 1, 181-2. “Novy proud v teorii hudebni.” (New Currents in Music Theory)Lidové novinyII (1894). Also reprinted in Feuilletons O skladbé souzvuku a jejich spoji(On the Composition of Chords and Their Connection) Prague: FrantiSek Urbanek, 1897.

_ “Moderni harmonicka hudba. (Modern Harmonic Music) Hlidka XXIV, (1907). Reprinted in Blazek 2, 15-59.

“Mi j nazor o séasovani” (My Opinion about Séasovdni (Rhythm) Hlidka XIV 1907. Reprinted in Blazek 2, 15-59. “Zaklady hudebniho s€asovani.” (The Basis of Musical S€asovani) Unpublished manuscript. Reprinted in Blazek 2, 63-86. Part of this was published as “Z praktické CAsti o s¢asovani.” ( On the Practical Aspect of SCasovani) Dalibor XXX, No. 20-21 (1908). “Véha realnich motivi.” (On the Importance of Real Motives) Dalibor

(1909-10). Reprinted in Blazek 2, 141-3. | 119

120 MICHAEL BECKERMAN Upind nauka o harmonii. (Complete Theory of Harmony) Brno: A. Pia, 1912.

“O priibéhu duSevni prace skladatelské.” (On the Course of a Composer’s Mental Activity) Hlidka XXXIII, No. 1-3 (1916). Reprinted in Blazek 2, 145-62. “MysIn4, psychologicka podstata hudebnich pyedstav.” (The Intellectual and Psychological Substance of the Musical Imagination) Autograph from 1917. Reprinted in Blazek 2, 163-7. Uplndé nauka o harmonii. (Complete Theory of Harmony) (2nd ed. Brno: A. PiSa, 1920. Reprinted in Blazek 2, 169-328. )

, General Bibliography Acta Janéckiana I, (International Colloquium of Jana¢ek’s Operatic Work. Brno: 1965) Ed. by T. Strakova et al. Brno: Moravské Museum, 1968. Backus, John. The Acoustical Foundations of Music. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1977. Beckerman, Michael. “In Search of Czechness in Music,” 19th Century Music, Vol. X, No. 1, Summer, 1986,

—ssCs “SJannek’s Notation Revisited,” Notes, Vol. 41, No. 2,

| | 1984.

. “Janacek and the Herbartians,” The Musical Quarterly, Vol. LXIX, No. 3, Summer, 1983. . “Janacek’s Last Twelve Years,” in Kosnas, January 1989. . “Leos Janaéek and “The Late Style’ in Music,” The Gerontologist, October, 1990.

Blatny, Josef. “Jana¢ek ucitel a teoretik.” (Jana¢ek, Teacher and Theoretician) Opus Musicum I, (1969/4) 97-100. Blazek, Zdenék. “Janackovy poznamky k nauce o harmonii z r. 1883.” (Janacek’s Notes on the Theory of Harmony from 1883) Musikologie V, (1959), 124-38.

16. |

. “Polyphonie und Rhythmik in Janaceks Musiktheorie.”

Sbornik pract filos. fak. brnénské university XVIII, H4, (1969), 106-

. “Spojovaci formy v teorli LeoSe Janacka.” (Connecting Forms in the Theory of Leos Janacek) Sbornik praci filos fak. brnénske university XIV, (1965), 29-37.

| BIBLIOGRAPHY 121 . “Z prednaSek LeoSe Janacka o séasovani a skladbé.” (From Janacek’s Lectures on S€asovdni and Composition) in Leos

Jandéek - Sbornik stati a studit. Prague: Kniznice Hudebnich Rozhleda, 1959.

."Zu einigen Problemen der ersten Harmonielehre

7-23. |

Janaceks.” Sbornik pract filos. fak. brnénské university XV, (1966),

Boring, Edwin G..A History of Experimental Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957. Bosanquet, Bernard. A History of Aesthetic. London: Allen and Unwin,

1966. |

Brod, Max. “Zakladni character Janacktv.” (Janaéek’s Basic Character Listy Hudebni matice IV, (1924-5), 4ff. . Leo’ Jandéek Zivot a Dilo. (Leos Janacéek, Life and Work) :

, Prague, 1924. Burghauser, Jargmil. “K problematice Janackova zapisu tonovych vysek.” (On the Problems of Jana¢ek’s Notation of Tonal Range)

Opus Musicum, (1978), 149. |

Burjanek, Josef. “Janacek psycholog.” (Janacek the Psychologist) Pro-

gram, No. 12-13, (1948). |

Cernik, Josef. “Teorie Skladebna. Nékolik slov v piflezitosti jubilea Janackova.” (Compositional Theory. Several Words on the Occasion of Jana¢ek’s Birthday) Hudebnt rozhledy I, (1924-5), 57 ff.

. “Zapisky z Janackovych prednaSek v mistrovské skoly skladby.” (Notes from Janaéek’s Lectures in the Master Class in Composition) Hudebni rozhledy XVII, (1964), 826ff.

Cernohorské, Milena. “K problematice vzniku Janaékovy theorie napévki .” (Problems about the Origin of Janacek’s SpeechMelody Theory) Casopis Moravského Musea, XLII, (1957), 165. . LeoS Janacek. Prague: Statni hudebni vyd., 1966. Ceskoslovensky hudebnt slovntk. (Czechoslovak Music Dictionary) 2 vols. Prague: Statni hudebni vyd., 1963. Chlubna, Osvald. “Leos Janaéek - uéitel.,” (Leos Janacek - Teacher) Musikologie II, (1955). . “Theoretické uéen LeoSe Janacka.” (Theoretical Teaching of Leos Janacek) Hudebnt rozhledy I, (1924), 25, 57, 77, 114, 129,

122 | MICHAEL BECKERMAN Chisholm, Eric. The Operas of Leo§ Jandéek. Oxford, New York: Pergamon Press, 1971.

Colloquium: Leos Jandéek et Musica Europaea, Brno 1968 Rudolf Peéman, ed. Brno: International Music Festival, 1970. Colloquium: Music and Word. Colloquia on the History and Theory of Music. Vol. 4. Ed. Rudolf Peéman. Brno: International Music Festival, 1973.

Colloquium: Musica Bohemia et Europaea. Colloquia on the History and Theory of Music. Vol. 5. Ed. Rudolf Peéman. Brno: International Music Festival, 1972 Critchley, Macdonald, and R. A. Henson. Music and the Brain. London: Heinemann, 1977.

Dolezil, Hubert. “Nova teorie o nérodnostnim razu hudby uméle na Moravé.” (New Theory on The National Character of Art Music in Moravia) Hudebni revue III, (1910), 266ff.

Doubravova, Jarmila. “Interpersonalni hypotéza a néktera dila Leos Janacka.” (Interpersonal Hypothesis and Certain Works of Leos

| Janatek) Opus Musicum IV/3, (1972), 69-72. Dunkel, Harold B. Herbart and Education. New York: Random House, 1969.

. Herbart and Herbartianism: An Educational Ghost Story. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.

Durdik, Josef. VSeobecné aesthetika. (General Aesthetics) Prague: 1875.

DuSek, Bohumil. “Jana¢kovy nazory na hudebni harmoniivletech 1884-

1912.” (Janaéek’s Opinions on Musical Harmony in the Years

65-76. ) —

1884-1912) Hudebni Véda V, (1968), 374-404. Elliot, L. L. “Backward and Forward Masking.” Audiology, (1971), 10,

Ewans, Michael. Jandéek’s Tragic Operas. London: Faber and Faber, 1977.

Fancher, Raymond E. Pioneers of Psychology. New York: W. W. Nor-

ton and Co., 1979. |

FirkuSny, Leos, and Jan Kunc. Odkaz LeoSe Jandtka Ceské OpeFe, (Leos

Janaéek’s Contribution to Czech Opera) Brno: Dédictvi Hav-

| li¢kovo, 1939.

Flugel, J. C..4 Hundred Years of Psychology (1833-1933). New York:

Basic Books Inc., 1964, 141-160. ,

BIBLIOGRAPHY 123 Fukaé, Jiri. “The Continuity of Janaéek’s Style and Czech Music.” in

Colloquium Leos Jandéek et Musica Europaea. Brno: Inter-

| national Music Festival, 1968, 57. Gardavsky, Cenék. “Jan4éek a psychologie hudebnf tvorby.” (Jandcek

and the Psychology of Musical Creation) in Leos Jandéek a soudobé hudba. Brno: Knizice hudebnich rozhledt, 1963, 98-104.

Geck, Adelheid. Das Volksliedmaterial Leo§ Jandéeks: Analysen der Strukturen unter Einbeziehung von Jandceks Randbemerkungen und Volkstudien. Regensburg: G. Boose, 1975. Gombrich, E. H. In Search of Cultural History. London: Clarendon Press, 1969. Gsell, Paul Rodin on Art. New York: Horizon Press, 1971.

Gulke, Peter. “Versuch zur Asthetik der Musik Leos Jandceks” in Musik-Konzepte 7: Leos Jandéek. Ed. Heinz-Klaus Metzger and Rainer Riehn. Munich: 1980. Haba, Alois. “Janackova pojeti harmonie.” (Jandéek’s Concept of Harmony) in Leos Jandéek a soudobé hudba. Brno: Kniznice hudebnich rozhledi, 1963, 121. ____—_—-- Zakladatel moderni nauky o harmonii.” (Founder of the New Harmonic Theories) Kii¢, No. 1 (1930-31), 82. Hanak, Mirko. “Z prednaSek LeoSe Janatka. O séasovani a skladbé” (From the Lectures of Leos Janééek on S€asovdént and Composition) in Leos Jandéek. Sbornik stati. (Leos Janaéek. Collected Studies) Prague: Knizice Hudebnich rozhledt V, vol. 5-6, 1959, 137ff. Hauptmann, Moritz. Die Natur der Harmonik und der Metrik. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Hartel, 1853. Helfert, Vladimir. “Janacek ¢tenar.” (Janatek, Reader) Hudebnt rozhledy IV, NO. 4-8, (1929). , Ed... . K stému vyroct narozent Leose Jandécka. (On the 100th Anniversary of the Birth of Leos Janaéek) Prague: Statni nakladetelstvi krasné literatury, hudby a uméni, 1955. .O Jandckovi. Soubor Statt a Clankt. (On Janaééek. Collections of Studies and Articles) Prague: Hudebni matice Umelecké besedy, 1949. . Leo§ Jandéek - Obraz zivotniho a uméleckeho boje. I. V poutech tradice. (Leos Janaéek - A Portrait of His Struggle as Man and Artist. I. In the Shackles of Tradition). Brno: Pazdirek, 1939.

124 MICHAEL BECKERMAN Helmholtz, Hermann von. Die Lehre von dem Tonempfindungen als physiologische Grundlage fiiur die theorie der Musik. Braunschweig, 1863.

. “On the Physiological Causes of Harmony in Music.” in Selected Writings of Hermann von Helmholtz, ed. Russel Kahl. Middletown,.Conn.: Wesleyan University Press, 1971. “Herbart, Johann” in Encyclopedia Britanica, 11th edition. Herbart, Johann. Praktische Aesthetik (1808). In Allgemeine Praktische Philosophie, Werke II. Hollander, Hans. “Der Natur-Impressionismus in Janaé¢éeks Musik.” Schweizerische Musikzeitung 109, No. 2 (1969), 61-64.

. Leos Jandéek; his Life and Work. Trans. by Paul Hamburger. London: J. Calder, 1963. Homer, William Innes. Seurat

and the Science of Painting. Boston: MIT Press, 1964. Hostinsky , Otakar. Das Musikalisch-Schéne und das Gesammtwerk vom Standpiinkte der Formalen-Aesthetik, Leipzig: 1877.

. “Nové drahy védecké nauky o harmonii.” (On the New Path of the Scientific Codification of Harmony) Dalibor 3, No. 12, (1887).

Janatek, Leos. Fejetony z Lidovych novin. (Feuilletons from the People’s News) Brno: Krajske Nakladatelstvi v Brne, 1958. . Feuilletons aus den Lidove noviny. Ausgewahlt, erwietert, mit Beitragen und Anmerkungen versehen von Jan Racek (trans.

Charlotte Mahler). Im Auftrage der Deutschen Akademie der Kunste hrsg. von Leos Spies. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Hartel, 1959. . Hudebné teoretické dilo, (Musical Theoretical Works) 2

vols Ed. Zdenék Blazek. Prague, Bratislava: Supraphon, Vol. I

1968, Vol. IT 1974.

. Hukvaldské Studénky. (Hukvaldy Wells) Brno: Ceskoslovensky Spisovatel, 1954. .Jandckovy Feuilletonyz L. N.. (Janacek’s Feuilletons from

the People’s News) Ed. Jan Racek and Leo§ FirkuSny. Brno: Knih- | tiskarna a nakladatelstvi Pokorny a spol. v Brné, Pekarska, 1938. _L. Jandéek kritikem brnénské opery. (Janacek as Critic of the Brno Opera) Ed. Leos FirkuSny. Brno: 1935. . Leo¥ Jandéek. Prague: Artia, 1952. Bibliographic note by Jaroslav Prochazka and a catalogue of Jana¢ek’s published works.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 125 | . “Loni a letos.” (This Year and Last) Hlidka XXII, (1905), 206. Also in Stédron, 138-9.

: . “Napévky détské mluvy.” (Speech-Tunelets of Children) Cesky lid XW, (1904-5).

. “Napévky nasi mluvy vynikajici zvlastni dramaticnosti.” (The Tunelets of our Speech which Excel in their Dramatic Quality) Casopis Moravskeho Musea Ill, (1903). . “Nauka o s€asovani.” (Studies in S€asovdni) in Sborntk

Vols. 5 and 6. |

statia studii. Prague: Kniznice hudebnich rozhledti V, 1959. .“O hudebni strance narodnich pisni moravskych.” (On the

Musical Aspects of Moravian National Songs). Introduction to Franti$ek Bartos’ monumental study, Narodni pisné moravské v nové nasbirané. (A New Collection of Moravian National Songs) Prague: Ceska akademie, (1901). . Olidové pisnia lidové hudbé. Documenty a studie. (On Folk Songs and Folk Music. Documents and Studies.) Ed. Jifi Vyslouzil.

Prague: Janackiv Archiv, rdda II, (1955), Vol. I. . “Pavel KirizZkovsky a jeho Cinnost v oprave chramové

hudby.” (Pavel Krizkovsky and his Activity in the Reform of Church Music) CecilieII, Nos. 2 and 4, (1875). . “Pavel Kiizkovského vyznam v lidové hudbé moravské a Ceské

hudbé viibec.” (Pavel Krizkovskys Significance for Moravian Folk Music and Czech Music in General) Cesky lid XI, (1902), 257-63.

. “Teorie nauk o harmonii.” (Theory of Harmony) Ed. Zdenék Blazek. Opus Musicum, (1981). Notes on Janacek’s lectures in his master classes compiled by Bretislav Bakala. Jandcktv sborntk. (Janééek Volume) Hudebni rozhledy I, (1924-5), 33-

72. Inaugural volume of Hudebni rozhledy commemorating Janaéek’s seventieth birthday. Janeéek, Karel. “Stavba Jana¢kovych skladeb.” (Structure of Janaéek’s Compositions) in Leos Jandéek a soudobdé hudba. (Leos Janatek and Contemporary Music) Prague: Knizice hudebnich rozhledi, 1963, 150ff.

. “O kompoziénim mySlenf LeoSe Janacka.” (On Leos Janééek’s Compositional Thought) (Hudebnt rozhledy XXIII/7,

(1970), 315-323.

126 | MICHAEL BECKERMAN Josephson, Nors S. “Formale Strukturen in der Musik Leos Janaceks.” Casopsis Moravského Musea LIX, (1974). Kaduch, Miroslav. “’Ohlas’ jako historicky a umélecky jev.” (‘Echo’ as an Historical and Artistic Phenomenon) Opus Musicum, Nos. 5-6, (1978), 168-71. :

Kahl, Russel. Selected Writings of Hermann von Helmholtz. Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press, 1971.

Kneif, Tibor. Die Biihnenwerke von Leos Jandéek. Vienna: Universal Edition, 1974. Kozik, FrantiSek. Po zarostlém chodnitku; sblizent s LeoSem Jandékem.

(On the Overgrown Path; Getting Acquainted with Leos Janaéek).

Kral, Josef. Ceskoslovenské filosofie. (Czechoslovak Philosophy)

Prague: Melantrich, 1937.

Kricka, A. “O Janackové harmonickém mySelni.” ( On Janacek’s Har-

monic Thought) Diss. Charles University, Prague, 1946. Leos Jandéek. Ed. Heinz-Klaus Metzger and Rainer Riehm. Munich: : Musik-Konzepte 7, 1980. Leos Janadéek a soudobé hudba: mezindrodnt hudebnévédecky kongres,

Brno, 1958. (Leos Janacek and Contemporary Music: International Musicological Conference, Brno, 1958) Prague: Kniznice hudebnich rozhledi, 1963. Leos Jandéek - Sbornik statt a studit. (Leos Janaéek - Collected Studies) Prague: Kniznice hudebnich rozhledi: V, 1959, Vols. 5-6. __ “Leos Janacek ve Skole.” (Leos Janatek as Teacher) Opus Musicum VII/7-8, (1976). Report of the Hukvaldy conference. Lowery, H. A Guide to Musical Acoustics. New York: Dover, 1966. Miller, George and Robert Buckhout. Psychology: The Science of Mental Life. New York: Harper and Row, 1973. Muller, Daniel. Leos Jandéek. Paris: Rieder, 1930.

Némcova, Alena. “Brnénska premiera “Jeji Pastorkyné”. (The Brno

Premiere ofJenisfa) Casopis moravského musea LIX, (1974). | Nosek, V., ed. Opery LeosSe Jandéka na brnénske scéné. (The Operas of Leos Janaéek on the Brno Stage) Brno: Statni divadlo, 1958. Novacek, O.“Z teoretickych nazort Jana¢ékovych.” (From the Theoretical Opinions of Janacek) Hudebnt rozhledy IV, Nos. 4-8, (1928).

BIBLIOGRAPHY 127

1941. |

Novak, Mirko. Ceské estetika. Brno: Moravské knihtiskarné polygrafie,

Peéman, Rudolf. “Disjunkce estetickych nazorti: skladebného dila u LeoSe Jana¢ka.” (The Disjunction of Aesthetic Opinions and Compositional Work in the Works of Leos Janaéek) Opus Mustcum, (1978), 175-8. . “Janackty, umélecky nazor.” (Janacek’s Artistic Opinions) Opus Musicum 7/8, (1976), 226-30. Preissova, Gabriella. Jeji Pastorkyna. (Jeniifa) Praha: 1978. Prochazka, Jaroslav. LaSské kofeny Zivota i dila LeoSe Jandéka. (Lachian

Roots of Jana¢ek’s Life and Works) Prague: Hudebni matice umélecké besedy, 1948.

Racek, Janacek. “K historii jana¢kovského badani v Brné: Problemy heuristické a ediéni.” (A propos the History of Janaéek Research in Brno: Heuristic and Editorial Problems) Sbornik pract filos. fak. brnénské university, Rada hudebnévédna, H 7, (1972) 21(7), 100. . Leos Jandéek. Leipzig: Reclam, 1971.

. Leos Jandééek a soucasnt moravstt skladatelé. (Leos _ Jandé¢éek and Contemporary Moravian Composers) Brno: Knihovna Unie ces. hudebnihu z povolani v Praze. Cis. 35, 1940. . Leo§ Jandéek: Clovék a umélec. (Leos Janaéek: Man and Artist) Brno: Krajské nakladatelstvi, 1963. . “Leos Janacéek o skladebné struktufre klavirnich dél Fry-

deryka Chopina.” (Janacéek on the Compositional Structure of Frederic Chopin’s Piano Works) Sbornik praci filos fak. brnénské ‘university IX, (1960), SEE.

, ed. Leos Jandéek. Obraz zivota a dila. Prameny, literatura, ikonografie a katalog vystavy. (Leos Janacek. Portrait of his Life

and Work. Sources, Bibliography, Iconography and Exhibition Catalogue) Brno: Vybor pro poradani oslav Leose Janacka v Brné, 1948.

, Leos Jandéek v mych vzpominkdch. (Leo§ Janaéek in my Memories Prague: VySehrad, 1975. . Slovanské prvky v tvorbé LeoSe Jandcka. (Slavonic Elements in the Works of Leos Janacéek) Brno: 1952. . “Z duSevni dilny LeoSe Janacka.” (From Janacek’s Spiritual Workshop) Brno: Hudebni archiv zemského musea, 1936.

128 MICHAEL BECKERMAN Radocy, Rudolf E. and David J. Boyle. Psychological Foundations of Musical Behavior. Mlinois: Charles Thomas, 1979. Rehanek, Frantisek. “Franti8ek Zdenék Skuhersky teoretik harmonie.”

(F. Z. Skuhersky, Theoretician of Harmony) Hudebnt rozhledy, (1971), 225-30.

. “Jandéek a funkénost v jeho teorti.” (Janacek and Harmonic Function in his Theories) Casopis Moravskeho Musea LIX, (1974), 97Ef.

. “Janaéeks Beitrag zur Harmonielehre.” in Colloquium Musica Bohemica et Europaea. Ed. Rudolf Peéman. Brno: International Music Festival, 1972, 435-9. .“Janacktw pfrinos pro naukuo harmonii.” (Janaéek’s Contribution to the Theory of Harmony) Opus Musicum T/1, (1970), 9-11.

. “Janéékovo uceni o harmonii.” (Janaéek’s Teaching of

Harmony) Diss., Brno, 1965. |

. “K Janaékové terminologii.” (On Jana¢ek’s Terminology) Opus Musicum, (1976/4), 108-11. . “Ke spojovacim formaém a spojtm v Janackové uceni o har-

monii.” (On Connecting Forms and Connections in Janaéek’s Theories of Harmony) Hudebni véda VI, (1969), 439. Rigden, John S. Physics and the Sound of Music. New York: John Wiley ‘and Sons, 1977. Rieber, R. W., ed. Wilhelm Wundt and the Making of a Scientific Psychology. New York: Plenum Press, 1980. Risinger, Karel. “Problém konsonance a disonance v soudobé hudbé.”

(The Problem of Consonance and Dissonance in Contemporary Music) in Leos Jandéek a soudobd hudba, Prague, 1963.

Roederer, Juan G. Introduction to the Physics and Psychophysics of Music. London/Berlin: Heidelberg Science Library, 1973.

Seda, Jaroslav. Leos Jandéek. Prague: Statni hudebnf vydavatelstvi, 1961.

Shapiro, Meyer. “New Light on Seurat.” Art News, (1958), 22ff. Shirlaw, Matthew. The Theory and Nature of Harmony. Sarasota: Birchard Coar, 1970.

, Sin, O. “Jand¢kova ‘UpIn4 nauka o harmonii’.” (Jandéek’s Complete Theory of Harmony) Listy hudebni matice IV, (1924-5), 24ff.

BIBLIOGRAPHY | | 129 “Skuhersky, Franti$ek” in Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. ed. Stanley Sadie. London: MacMillan , 1980. Vol. 17, 375.

1885. ,

Skuhersky, Frantisek. Nauka o harmonii na védeckém zékladé ve forni nejjednoduSst se zvlaStnim zretelem na mohutny rozvoj harmonie v

nejnovejsi dobé. (Theory of Harmony on a Scientific Basis in the Simplest Form with Special Regard to the Impressive Develop- —

ment of Harmony in the Newest Age) Prague: F. A. Urbanek,

. Nauka o hudebni komposici; LO zdéveru a modulaci. (Theory of Musical Composition; I. On Cadences and Modulations) Prague: 1880.

Slavicky, Jaroslav. Listy dit verné; z milostne korespondence Leose

| Jandcka. (Intimate Letters: From the Romantic Correspondence of Leos Janacek) Prague: Panton, 1966. Slovnik spisovné Cestiny. (Dictionary of Literary Czech) Prague: Academia, 1978. Smetana, Robert. Vypravent o L. Jandékovi. (Stories about L. Janééek. Olomouc: Velehrad, 1948. _ Solc, Milan and Jarmil Burghauser. Leos Jandéek - Souborné kritické vydant - Edi¢ni zasady a smérnice / K notaéni problematice klasiki20.

stoleti. (Leos Janacek - Complete Critical Edition - Editorial Prin- : ciples and Instructions /On the Notational Problems of Twentieth Century Classics) Prague: Supraphon, 1979. Stédroni, Bohumir. Abecednt seznam Jandékovych skladeb a uiprav. (Al-

phabetical List of Janaéek’s Compositions and Arrangements) Prague: Kniznice hudebnich rozhledt, 1959. . Jandéek ve vzpominkach a Dopisech. (Janaéek in letters — and Reminiscences) Prague: Topitova edice, 1946. . Leos Jandcek. Kjeho lidskému a uméleckému profilu. (Leos Janacéek. On his Profile as a Man and Artist) Prague: Panton, 1976.

. “Prizna¢ny motiv u Janacka.” (Characteristic Motives in Jana¢ek) Hudebni rozhledy XXVII, (1974), 438-41. Stevens, John. “La Grande Chanson Courtoise: The Chansons of Adam | de la Halle.” Proceedings of the Royal Music Association, Vol. 101,

(1974-5), 11-30. |

Strébel, Dietmar. Motiv und Figur in den Kompositionen der Jeni:fa Werkgruppe Leos Jandéeks. Untersuchungen zum Prozess der Kom-

130 | | MICHAEL BECKERMAN positorischen Individuation bei Jandcek. Munich: E. Katzbichler, 1975.

Strakova, T., et. al. Pritvodce po archivnich fondech ustavu déjin hudby

Moravského musea v Brné. (A Guide to the Archive Stock of the _ Institute of the History of Music of the Moravian Museum in Brno) Brno: Ustav déjin hudby Moravského musea, 1971, 165-68. Strakova, T., ed. Iconografia Jandékiana - K 120. vyroct narozent Leose Jandéka. (On the 120th Anniversary of the Birth of Leos Janaéek) Brno: Moravské museum, 1975.

Sudek, Josef. Jandéek - Hukvaldy. Prague: Supraphon, 1971. Sychra, Antonin. “K Jana¢kové tematické praci.” (On Janacek’s Thematic Works) Hudebnt rozhledy XXIII/I, (1970), 14-20. Tyrrell, John. “Janééek and the Speech Melody Myth.” Musical Times, Vol. III, No. 1530 (August, 1970), 793-6. . “Janaéek’s Speech-Melody Theory: Claims and Conclusions.” in Music and Word: Colloquium on the History and Theory of Music. ed. Rudolf Peéman. Brno: International Music Festival,

1973. Vol. 4. |

. “Janaéek’s Three Types of Prose-Opera.” in Colloquium:

Leos Jandéek et Musica Europaea. Ed. Rudolf Peéman. Brno: In- | ternational Music Festival, 1970. . “Leos Janaéek.” in Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. ed. Stanley Sadie. London: MacMillan, 1980, Vol. 9, 484-90.

| . Record notes in Kdt’a Kabanovd. Vienna Philharmonic Orch., cond. Sir Charles Mackerras, Decca D51D 2, 1977. . Record notes in Véc Makropulos. Vienna Philharmonic Orch., cond. Sir Charles Mackerras, Decca D144d 2, 1979. ___. Record notes in Z mrtvého domu. (From the House of the

Dead.) Vienna Philharmonic Orch., cond. Sir Charles Mackerras, | Decca D224D 2, 1980.

| . “The Musical Prehistory of Janacek’s Poéatek romdnu (The Beginning of a Romance) and its Importance in Shaping the Composer’s Dramatic Style.” Casopsis moravského musea, Vol. 52,

(1967), 245-268. | ,

Varia, Antonin. “Na obranu Janackovy teorie o narodnim razu uméle hudby ceske.” (In Defence of Janaéek’s Theory about the National Character of Czech Art-Music) Dalibor XXXII, (1910), 269ff.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 131 Vasek, A.D.E. Po stopdch dra Leose Jandcka. (In the Steps of Dr. Leos Janaéek) Brno: Brnénské knizni nakladetelstvi, 1930. Vesely, Adolf. Leos Jandéek: Pohled do Zivota i dila. (A View of his Life and Works) Prague - Brno: F. Borovy, 1924. Vogel, Jaroslav. Leos Jandcek; his Life and Works. First Ed. Trans. Geraldine Thomsen-Muchova. London: P. Hamlyn, 1962. Revised Edition prepared by Karel Janovicky, New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1981.

Vogt, Adolf Max. Art of the Nineteenth Century. New York: Universe Books, 1973. Volek, Jaroslav. Novodobé harmonické systemy z hlediska védecke filosofie. (New Harmonic Systems from the Vantage Point of Scientific Philosophy) Prague: 1961. . “Zivelna Dialektika a jeji klady a nedostatky v teoretickych nazorech LeoSe Jana¢ka.” (Elemental Dialectics and their Posttive and Negative Repercussions in the Theoretical Opinions of Leos Janacek) in Leos Jandéek a soudobé hudba. Prague: 1963, 352.

Vyslouzil, Jiri. “Jana¢ékova tvorba ve svétle jeho hudebné folkloristické

teori.” (Janacek’s Works in Light of his Theories of Musical Folklore) in Leos Jandéek a soudobé hudba. Praha: 1963, 361-80. Wenk, Arthur B. Claude Debussy and the Poets. Berkeley: University of

California Press, 1976. |

Wundt, Wilhelm Max. Grundziige der Physiologischen Psychologie. Leipzig, 1874.

Zimmermann, Robert. Allgemeine Aesthetik als Formwissenschaft. Vienna: Braunmuller, 1865. Zimmermann, Robert. Geschichte der Aesthetik als Philosophischer Wissenschaft. Vienna: 1858.

BLANK PAGE

Appendix: A Glossary of Jandéek’s Terms chaoticky okamzik chaoticmoment _Jan4éek’s earlier term for the moment when two successive notes, intervals, or chords are “inter-

} penetrating” as claimed in his theory of connecting forms.

dno harmonické harmonic base Harmonic center. Tonic.

dno scasovact scasovaci base An undivided time segment determined by a tone, interval, or chord, sounding throughout an entire measure.

dovozovaci conclusive Janacek’s term for a connection with a 7-8 progression.

dvigzvuk dyad For Janacek, a two-part chord, _ Slightly different from the concept of “interval.”

melodické dis- melodic dissonan- Jandacek’s term for non-harmonic

onance ces tones, which he used to draw attention to the melodic aspect of harmony.

nadpevky mluvy speech-tunelets A musical entity deduced from the intonational patterns of

} human speech. Janacek

theorized that the key to the

human spirit Jay in the under-

| Standing of these elements.

ndporovy spoj impact connection Chord connection which takes

, text.

place within a bi-rhythmic con-

osnova harmon- harmonic fabric The relationship of individual

icka chords within the context of a musical whole.

prolinani percolation The interpenetration of separate chords and their simultaneous sounding.

prebirant selection Change in chord position to allow alternative types of connecting forms.

133

134 MICHAEL BECKERMAN realni motivy real motives A motive derived (by some un: defined process) from a napevky mluvy. These were considered the ideal foundation on which to base a musical work.

rozuzleni disentanglement The resolution of the interpenetration or twine between two successive chords, resulting in a new series of intervallic relationships.

scasovaci vrstvy scasovaci layers Rhythmic layers above the scasovaci base, or segment of undivided time.

scasovani The word used by Janacek to

describe musical events in time, especially as related to

psychological phenomena. |

scasovka A short rhythmic entity.

scasovka scelovaci __ consolidating A mixed rhythmic entity which is

scasovka _ the sum total of all the rhythmic activity in a given span of time, used to describe composite rhythmic profile in polyphonic music.

smir conciliation A connection where the second . interval is more consonant than : the original. In Janacek’s system of notation 6-5, and 7-8 are ex-

amples of conciliations. |

souzvuk prostny simple chord A chord which remains in the

| consciousness for a sufficient duration in order for us to perceive it as a single, unified entity.

souzvuk vysledny resultant chord A two-part harmonic entity containing one part with a clear harmonic context, and a less-clear part with non-harmonic tones which Janacek refers to as melodic dissonances —

, tone.

souzvuk vztazny subordinate chord ‘The part of the resultant chord containing the non-harmonic

| GLOSSARY OF JANACEK’S TERMS 135 spletna The moment when two succesSive notes, chords, or inter 33 vals are overlapping or interpenetrating, based or Janacek’s

. understanding of the theories of Helmholtz.

spoj obojetny ambiguous connec- Connection in which the oppos-

tion ing tendencies of conciliation and disruption are irreconcilable.

spojovaci formy connecting forms Janacek’s theory of chord connection, which stresses that the most important relationship in a chord connection exists between all the . notes of the first chord and the fundamental of the second. Connecting forms also involves the notion that these connections can be ranked according to their aesthetic qualities, and that the entire connection is glued together by the twine described by Janacek.

taktové typy measure types Janacek’s term for the analysis of various possible metrical arrange-

, ments in terms of his theories of rhythmic activity.

uklid clarification Connection in which the previous chord is strengthened. Replaced in CTH with the term amplification. In Janacek’s system 5-5 and 8-8 are examples of clarification.

vzruch disturbance A connection where the second

interval is more dissonant than the original interval. In Janacek’s system 5-2 and 8-7 are examples of disturbance.

zdmena change A connection where the resolving interval is unchanged with respect to consonance or dissonance. In Jané¢ek’s system 5-8 and 5-1 are examples of change.

136 MICHAEL BECKERMAN | zesileni amplification A connection in which the intervals remain the same. In

| Janacek’s system 5-5 and 3-3 are examples of amplification.

zhust’ovani thickening The process of adding tones to the triadic core, either successively or Simultaneously.

zpetné intervalové antecedent interval Jan4cek’s theory that the most

pomery relations —simportant events in the connec-

tion of two chords are the relationships between all the tones of the first chord and the fuant events in the connection of

, two chords are the relationships between all the tones of the first chord and the fundamental of

. the second.

Index abstract formalism, 55 Cech, Adolf, 31

acoustics, 22, 57 Cherubini, Luigi, 2 aesthetic formalism, 26 Chiubna, Osvald, xii fn aesthetics, 57 chord connection, 29, 39 d’Alembert, Jean, 38fn chordal “thickening,” xvii, 59, 72f, “altered diatonic” period, 34 73, 77 amplification, 63 chords, simple, subordinate,

animism, 102 resultant, 40 antecedent relationship, theory Of, chromaticism, 34

38, 39, 56, 114 Complete Theory of Harmony, The, antecedent-interval relations, 30, 31, (UpIné nauka o

61, 62, 73 harmonit), vii, xvi, 40, 43, antecedent major seventh, 47 SOff, 55, 56, 84fn, 92, 95, anticipation, 75, 76 104, 106, 112, 115 Archimedes, 104 conciliation, 63 atomism, 107 connecting forms, 39, 40, 52, 59, 62, atomization, 110 63, 66, 69, 70, 71, 73, 75, Augustine Monastery, Old Brno, 93, 97, 98

1,2 Czech terminology, 36 “Czechness,” 36, 102

Bach, Johann Sebastian, 5, 47, 48 Czechoslovak Republic, 106

Bakala, Bretislav, 59 : Bartos, FrantiSek, 81 Dachs, Josef, 13

Beethoven, Ludwig von, 2, 46, 48 Dalibor, a periodical, 26, 31 Blazek, Zdenék, xi, xv, 5, 45, 55, 57, Debussy, Claude, 104, 116

59fn dissonance, free, 75, 76

Bohemian Quartet, 112fn disturbance, 51, 63 | Brno, 2, 3 } Durdik, Josef, vii, xiv, xviii, 19, 20,

Brno Beseda, 11, 27fn, 36 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 30,

Brno Conservatory, 4 32, 48, 49, 55, 70, 81, Brno Organ School, 4, 26, 27fn, 41, 101, 107

: 47, 106 Dvorak, Antonin, 20, 22, 25 Brno Provisional Theater, 26 dyad, 30, 31

Brno15, Teacher’s Institute, 4, 11, 12, 20 “echoes,” folk, 2 Brod, Max, 106 equal temperament, 31 Burghauser, Jarmil, 45, 81, 100 ethnography, 22, 43, 47

Carmen, 34 . feuilleton” style, 46 Cecelie, a periodical, 25, 37 Fibich, Zdenék, 105fn change, 63 FirkuSny, Leos, 26fn chaotic moment, 38, 39 folk music, 57 137

138 MICHAEL BECKERMAN formalism, 32 idealism, 102

formalism, Herbartian abstract, see _ illusion, 38, 61, 62, 65

Herbart illusion tones, 50

Froebel, 17 impact connection, 90, 91, 92, 98, 99,

110, 114 |

Gade, Niels, 11 interpenetration, 109, 110 | Golden Section, 100 introspection, 54 Grill, Leo, 12, 13 James, William, 19

Haba, Alois, 7, 69 Janacek, Jiri (1778-1848) Halle, Adam de la, 113, 114 [grandfather], 1 Handl, Jacob, 34 Janacek, Jiri (1815-66) [father], 1 Hanslick, Edouard, 5,17, 102 Janacek, Leos Vom Musikalisch Schénen, 18 ARTICLES: Hauptmann, Moritz, 11, 12fn “A Few Words About Counter-

Haydn, Joseph, 2 _ point,” 36

Haydn, Michael, 2 “Bedrich Smetana on Musical Hegel, Georg Wilhem Friedrich, 19, Form,” 31, 32 ,

100 Chords, 43, 50, 51, 98

Helfert, Vladimir, 7, 8, 10, 19fn, General Aesthetics, 21, 28, 30, 32,

21fn, 25, 26 37fn

Helmholtz, Hermann von, xvi, xvili, “Importance of Real Motives,

5, 6, 20fn, 23, 35, 38, 41, The,” 47, 48, 50 49, 70, 71, 97, 98, 100, “Modern Harmonic Music,” 46

102, 116 “My Opinion About Scasovani

| Lehre von dem Tonempfindungen, (Rhythm),” 43, 44, 45

xvi, 37 “New Current in Music Theory

Herbart, Johann, xiv, 15, 16 27, 28, 37, 38, 39

37fn, 53, 72, “On Musical Aspects of

18, 114 43, 46

abstract formalism, xiv, xvi, 15, Moravian National Songs,”

aesthetic formalism, 36, 70 “On the Composition of Chords followers of, 15, 24, 33, 102, 106, and Their Connection 39

111 “On the Concept of Key,” 33

pedagogy, 17 “On the Perfect Apprehension of

| “Praktische Aesthetik,” 17, 70 Dyads,” 30 philosophy, xvii, 101 . “On the Practical Aspect of

theories, 7 Scasovani,” 45

Hiller, Ferdinand, 11 “On the Scientific Aspect of the

Hlidka, periodical, 43 Teaching of Harmony,” 34 Hostinsky, Otakar, 18, 19, 34 “On Triads,” 35, 36, 38

Hubicka, 32 “On the Course of the

Hukvaldy, 3 ,

Hudebni listy, 26, 27, 31, 34, 35, 36, Composer’s Mental Work,” 55

39, 43 “Scasovani in the Folk Song,” 81

INDEX 139 “Some Clarifications of Melody Youth, 105

and Harmony,” 25 Janacek,, Vincenc, [uncle], 1

“Studies in Music Theory,” 29,

30, 60 | Kant, Immanuel, 15, 54

““The Creative Mind,” 33 key, psychological significance of, 34 “The Importance of Real Mo- Kovarovic, Karel, 105

~ tives,” 47 Kyizkovsky , Pavel, 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14

VSeobecnd estetika, 18 Krejci, Josef, 25fn “Resultant Chords and Their Krenn, Franz, 13 Connection,” 46

“The Basis of Musical Leipzig Conservatory, 11 scasovani,” 45 Lidové noviny (People’s Newspaper), 37, 38

COMPOSITIONS: Liszt, Franz, 12

Adventures of the Vixen literature, Russian, 22 Bystrouska, The, 57

Amarus, 41 Male Teacher’s Institute, 27fn Ballad of Blanik, 105 Marx, A. B., 28 Capriccio, 57, 105 measure types, 57, 88, 91

57, 105 73, 74, 75, 84

Concertino for Piano and Winds, melodic dissonance, xvii, 40, 51, 52,

Cunning Little Vixen, 105, 112, Mendel, Gregor, 3fn Diary of One who Vanished, 105 Mendelssohn, Felix, 11, 48

Eternal Gospel, The, 53 Mill, John Stuart, 53 | Excursions of Mr. Broucek, The,53 modulation, 8, 9, 10

Fiddler’s Child, The, 53 Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus, 2, 22,

From the House of the Dead, 57, 46, 47

105, 116 Mukarovsky, 17 Glagolitic Mass, 57, 105 Idyll, 25 ndpevky mluvy,

In the Mists, 46, 53 “speech-melody” theory, Jentifa, 41, 105 viii, 43, 47, 48-50, 52, 83, | Katya Kabanovéd, 57, 105, 116 101, 112, 107, 114 Makropulos, 57, 105, 116 Ndrodni pisné moravské v nove

, Nursery Rhymes, 105 nasbirané (Moravian Sarka, 37 Folksongs Newly | Sinfonietta, 57, 105 Collected), (Bartos) 81

String Quartet #1 (“Kreutzer naporové spoje (impact connection),

Sonata”), 105, 112 52

String Quartet #2 (“Intimate Let- —_ nationalism, 102, 106

Suite, 25 :

ters”), 105 Nejedly, Zdenék, 19fn

Taras Bulba, 57, 105 Oettingen, Artur Joachim von, 5

Violin Sonata, 53 Old Brno Gymnasium, 27fn Wandering Madman, The, 105

140 MICHAEL BECKERMAN painter-theorists, Seurat and additive, 45 Pissaro 103, 104 consolidating, 45

Palestrina, 34 sounding, 45, 46 pantheism, 102, 115, 116 Schiilize, F. W., 28

‘Paul, Oskar, 12, 13 Schulz, Emilian, 12, 13, 20

pedagogy, 43, 45, 50 Schulzova, Zdenka, 12 |

percolation, xvii, 51, 57, 59, 72, 77, Schumann, Robert, 11

78, 93, 100, 109 selection, 66, 67 Pestalozzi, 17 sensation tone, 38 ,

phonetics, 22 simple chord, 73, 75, 98

physics, 22 | simple connection, 85

physiological basis of harmony, 38 Skryabin, Alexander, 104

pocit or sensation tone, 61 Skuhersky , FrantiSek Zdenék, xiii,

polyphony, 35-36 : xvi, xviii, 5,6, 7,8,9,11, |

positivism, 37, 102, 116 13, 14, 20, 29, 30, 34, 37, | post-Humean empriricsm, 16 57, 60, 69, 77

Prague Organ School, xiii, 4, 10, 60 Skuhersky, Theory of Harmony, 35

progression, 75, 76, 93 Smetana, Bedrich, 2, 20, 26, 31, 32, psychology, 22, 53, 57, 100, 101, 102 33, 114

Sarka, 32 | Racek, Jan, xiv daughter of, 23 Rameau, Jean-Philippe, 38fn social conscience, 22

real motives, 49 “speech-melody” theory see ndpevky

realism, 102 mluvy, Reinecke, Karl, 12 spletna, (twine) viii, xvii, 50, 51, 54,

resultant chord, 59, 72ff, 74, 98, 99 61, 62, 69, 71, 78, 97, 98,

resultant scasovka, 84, 87, 88 99, 100, 101, 103, 11, | resultant chord, 46, 84, 85, 86, 88, 112, 113, 114, 91, 94, 109, 114 Stésslova, Kamila, 105, 112

rhythmic layer, 87 Stevens, John, 113

Riemann, Hugo, 5, 55 Stransky, Dr. Ad., 37fn

Rubinstein, Anton, 11 Stratification, 108, 110 | Russian realists, 23 | Strauss, Richard, 92, 95 | Rust, Wilhelm, 12 Elektra, analysis of, 92, 93, 95, 108

“Sturm und drang,” Wagnerian, 13 .

Saint-Saéns, Camille, 13 subordinate chord, 74, 75, 78, 85, 93, |

scasovdci, 84, 87, 91, 93 98, 99, 100

séasovdci layers, 44 , Suk, Josef, 112fn , scasovaci dno (scasovaci base), 44, suspension, 75, 76 )

83, 86, 87 Susskind, Charles, 106

scasovani (Rhythm), viii, xvi, xvii, Jandcek and Brod, 106 25, 43, 44, 50, 52, 56, Svatopluk (workman’s choral

81-95 society), 4

scasovka, 45, 91, 92, 93, 101, 107,

111, 114 theosophy, 104

INDEX 141 thickening, 57 Wundt, William, xiv, xvi, xviii, 17fn,

Tiersch, (theorist) 5 20fn, 22, 23, 49, 53, 57,

Tolstoy, Leo, 112 70, 71, 97, 102, 106

Kreuzer Sonata, The; (Tolstoy) 112 Grundziige der physiologischen

tuning systems, 34 _ Psychologie, (Wundt), 53

twine, 56, 109 see also spletna psychology, 70 Typy taktové, (measure types), 52

Tyrrell, John, xiii, 104 “Young Czech” movement, 37fn “Young Moravia” movement, 37fn Vienna Conservatory, 13

Volek, Jaroslav, 99, 100 Zich, Otakar, 19fn

voluntarism, 54 Zimmerman, Robert, xiv, xviii, 17,

Vyslouzil, Jiri, 41fn 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30, Vyslouzil, Jiri, 48fn 37, 55, 70, 101, 107, 114 Allgemeine Aesthetik als Formwis-

Wapner, 6, 12, 20, 26, 47 senschaft, 18, 21

“Sturm und Drang,” 13 Geschichte der Aesthetik, 21, 24 Tristan and Isolde, 47 Wagpnerism, 32

BLANK PAGE