CADENZA IN SOLO-ORCHESTRAL CONCERTO AT THE INTERSECTION OF SCHOLARLY VIEWS

Abstract

Statement of the problem. Studying of research literature proves that the scholars express different opinions on typical traits of cadenza. Even though there are occasional coincidences in the meaning, it does not contribute to creation of universally accepted viewpoint on cadenza. Thus, a need arises to systemize views on cadenza and to generalize its semantical field. The purpose of the article is to reveal the nature of cadenza in solo-orchestral concerto by examination of modern scholarly views on this phenomenon. This problem caused the choice of such methods of research as axiological, statistic and comparative ones. Results and discussion. Even though cadenza is one of distinctive attributes of solo-orchestral concerto, there are some types, in which cadenza either does not become an important factor of compositionallydramaturgical process or is simply absent. In dominantly-solo type of concerto, marked by accentuation of virtuoso solo side, typical features of cadenza almost dissolve in general context of the work influencing the whole communicative process. Conversely, in a “parity concerto” (a term coined by I.Kuznetsov) cadenza becomes a concentrated expression of the very idea of solo performance contrasting to orchestral forces, thus contributing to preserving of genre qualities, which is especially needed in cases when concerto moves towards symphony. Such different types of cadenza’s “behaviour” predetermine the character of its connection to the whole work as it seems to be necessary, but in fact it is not strictly defined. This “self-sufficiency” of cadenza causes instability of its form and content revealed in historical projections and individual artistic conceptions. Thus, there are two types of reasons causing scientific polemics on defining essential and attributive traits of cadenza: objective ones, caused by necessity to adapt, and subjective ones, coming from cadenza’s nature itself. There are different opinions on such seemingly obvious trait of cadenza as improvisatory character. For instance, A. Merkulov believes that cadenza used to be improvised just in front of the audience is a myth, as he studied sheet music (including cadenzas) and documents belonging to the era of concerto’s formation, and these sources indicate that cadenzas were created either by the author of the concerto himself, or by other composers, or by the performer, who had composed the cadenza for the upcoming performance beforehand and memorized it. Furthermore, the scholar discovered collections of cadenzas recommended for the performer, so a latter even had the right of choice. These facts cause the scholars to distinguish between improvisation as a way of spontaneous creation of music and improvisatory nature as a trait of thematic material and a way of its presentation (E. Shlykova). The same applies to other sides of cadenza. The scholars propose to differentiate cadenza in historical perspective between: Baroque cadenza (element of imrovisatory culture), Classicistic (based on sonatasymphonic development) and Romantic, approaching a monological saying (E. Fomenko). On the other hand, throughout its history cadenza retained traits of Baroque, Classicistic and Romantic types, which has been shown by M. Bondarenko on the example of numerous XIX century cadenzas. All abovementioned allowed E. Denisov to regard a cadenza as a mobile part of a concerto, due to its endless metamorphoses. On the premise of numerous viewpoints on cadenza this article proposes a set of parameters by which it is possible to present it as a specific type of integrity: authorship, musical content, compositional logics, way of existence, place and function in the compositionallydramaturgic process. In the future, this complex can serve as a tool of analysis in the study of the phenomenon of cadenza of solo orchestral concerto on specific musical material.