舒伯特小提琴奏鸣曲的风格现象

Inna Каrachevtseva
{"title":"舒伯特小提琴奏鸣曲的风格现象","authors":"Inna Каrachevtseva","doi":"10.34064/khnum2-16.06","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background. In recent years musicologists revealed an increasing interest in the problem of historical typology of F. Schubert’s composer style. In fact, scholars question possibility to characterize it as romantic, in their turn suggesting another interpretations and characteristics. For instance, M. Brown avoids usage of the term “Romantic” referring to F. Schubert, insisting on him being a part of a Classical tradition. In order to substantiate his viewpoint, the scholar appeals to harmony of the composer, where novelties, according to M. Brown, are not in fact innovations but incredibly skilful incarnation of Classical ideas. More moderate opinion on the discussed problem is stated by Ch. Rosen (2003). While acknowledging “revolutionary” nature of F. Schubert’s harmony, the scholar simultaneously points out a “special status” of the composer in musical art, a status not allowing to apply neither Classical, nor Romantic standards to the works of master. Consequently, as Ch. Rosen says, F. Schubert ended up being “in-between” Classical tradition and Romantic innovations. In his earlier study (1997) abovementioned author uses term “Postclassicism” referring to F. Schubert and other artists of his generation. A collision “F. Schubert – L. van Beethoven” is regarded both by Е.Badura-Skoda (2004) and J. Daverio (2002). The latter one tries to solve it while regarding it through prism of R. Schumann’s observation on this problem. Thus, it is obvious that reception of F. Schubert’s style as typologically ambiguous has a long-lasting history dating back to Romantic era. This intrigue can be found in researches of XX century as well. For example, phenomenon of style of F. Schubert’s chamber works has become a topic of P. Wolfius’ rumination, who defined it as “intermediate” (1974). Mentioned above works of the last third of XX century and beginning of XXI century prove relevance of the problem of historical typology of F. Schubert’s composer style for modern musicology. This calls for its further development through analytical studying of musical material while using historically-typological method of research. In the given aspect, special attention should be drawn to early works by composer, including four Violin sonatas. Objectives. The goal of this paper is to comprehend stylistic phenomenon of these works as a result of mixture of Classical experience gained by F. Schubert and first signs of his oncoming individual view on the essence of music and sound. Methods. In order to achieve this goal, the author of current work uses a periodization of F. Schubert’s chamber legacy, created by H. Gleason and W. Becker (1988) as well as models of “biography scenario”, revealed by N. Savytska (2010). According to the former one, Violin sonatas, written in 1816–1817, don’t belong to the “mature” works; at the same time according to the latter ones, due to F. Schubert’s style evolution being smooth and gradual its starting and finishing points have no radical discrepancies, that would be caused by the change of orientation of composer’s creative method, and as a result, in the early works one can discern some key features of the mature ones. It is relevant, among others, for the sonata genre, where composers first achievements, incidentally, were made in its violin type, preceding highly individual accomplishments of piano sonatas. This situation in the given article is explained as a result of a composer becoming more and more mature as a musician through his life, undoubtedly influenced by special features of this process. Results and discussion. Given that F. Schubert’s Violin sonatas are named differently by performers, publishers and scholars (op. 137 consists of three Sonatas or Sonatinas, op. 162 is also known as “Duo”), it was necessary to conduct a research basing on various sources (Holl, 1973; Vetter, 1953; Deutsch, 1978), in order to ensure righteousness of definition of all the pieces regarded as “sonata”. On the foreground of observation on F. Schubert’s understanding of the cycle it was possible to reveal composer’s loyalty to rules of his time. Sonata ор. 137 № 1 is composed as a classical three-movement model; subsequent ones, including op. 162, embody four-movement model, and that can be a reason to draw parallels between F. Schubert and L. van Beethoven. Individual steps of the journey of author’s self-identification as a composer are traced. Sonata ор. 137 № 1 is marked by frequent employment of variative development in the principal theme of the first movement, that causes its turning into digressive episode; inclusion of contrasting episode in the middle sections of Andante in Sonatas ор. 137 № 2–3 (that is not prescribed by chosen musical form) foreshadows tonal device, favoured by F. Schubert in his mature works – preference to Subdominant sphere over Dominant in four-movement cycle with tonal and dramaturgical highlighting of pair “lyricism – game” in middle movements (slow ones and Minuets); binarity of tonal centres in expositions and even recapitulations of sonata form being substituted by ternarity, that causes a whole section to be a principal unit of structure etc. Sonata op. 162 acquires significance of climax in F. Schubert’s ascent to self-identity in sonata genre. Its expanded structure, including gigantic development of the Finale, Minuet being substituted by Scherzo, parts of performers being completely equal in every respect allow to regard this work as first “Grand Sonata” in F. Schubert’s legacy. Moreover – experience gained by composer while creating it will be applied in cyclic composition for piano in mature period of creativity. Conclusions. In Conclusions analytical observations are summarized and generalized as well as levels of artistic structure of Violin sonatas, incarnating specifics of F. Schubert’s understanding of music as a composer of his historical time, are revealed.","PeriodicalId":302721,"journal":{"name":"Aspects of Historical Musicology","volume":"155 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stylistic phenomenon of Violin sonatas by Franz Schubert\",\"authors\":\"Inna Каrachevtseva\",\"doi\":\"10.34064/khnum2-16.06\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background. In recent years musicologists revealed an increasing interest in the problem of historical typology of F. Schubert’s composer style. In fact, scholars question possibility to characterize it as romantic, in their turn suggesting another interpretations and characteristics. For instance, M. Brown avoids usage of the term “Romantic” referring to F. Schubert, insisting on him being a part of a Classical tradition. In order to substantiate his viewpoint, the scholar appeals to harmony of the composer, where novelties, according to M. Brown, are not in fact innovations but incredibly skilful incarnation of Classical ideas. More moderate opinion on the discussed problem is stated by Ch. Rosen (2003). While acknowledging “revolutionary” nature of F. Schubert’s harmony, the scholar simultaneously points out a “special status” of the composer in musical art, a status not allowing to apply neither Classical, nor Romantic standards to the works of master. Consequently, as Ch. Rosen says, F. Schubert ended up being “in-between” Classical tradition and Romantic innovations. In his earlier study (1997) abovementioned author uses term “Postclassicism” referring to F. Schubert and other artists of his generation. A collision “F. Schubert – L. van Beethoven” is regarded both by Е.Badura-Skoda (2004) and J. Daverio (2002). The latter one tries to solve it while regarding it through prism of R. Schumann’s observation on this problem. Thus, it is obvious that reception of F. Schubert’s style as typologically ambiguous has a long-lasting history dating back to Romantic era. This intrigue can be found in researches of XX century as well. For example, phenomenon of style of F. Schubert’s chamber works has become a topic of P. Wolfius’ rumination, who defined it as “intermediate” (1974). Mentioned above works of the last third of XX century and beginning of XXI century prove relevance of the problem of historical typology of F. Schubert’s composer style for modern musicology. This calls for its further development through analytical studying of musical material while using historically-typological method of research. In the given aspect, special attention should be drawn to early works by composer, including four Violin sonatas. Objectives. The goal of this paper is to comprehend stylistic phenomenon of these works as a result of mixture of Classical experience gained by F. Schubert and first signs of his oncoming individual view on the essence of music and sound. Methods. In order to achieve this goal, the author of current work uses a periodization of F. Schubert’s chamber legacy, created by H. Gleason and W. Becker (1988) as well as models of “biography scenario”, revealed by N. Savytska (2010). According to the former one, Violin sonatas, written in 1816–1817, don’t belong to the “mature” works; at the same time according to the latter ones, due to F. Schubert’s style evolution being smooth and gradual its starting and finishing points have no radical discrepancies, that would be caused by the change of orientation of composer’s creative method, and as a result, in the early works one can discern some key features of the mature ones. It is relevant, among others, for the sonata genre, where composers first achievements, incidentally, were made in its violin type, preceding highly individual accomplishments of piano sonatas. This situation in the given article is explained as a result of a composer becoming more and more mature as a musician through his life, undoubtedly influenced by special features of this process. Results and discussion. Given that F. Schubert’s Violin sonatas are named differently by performers, publishers and scholars (op. 137 consists of three Sonatas or Sonatinas, op. 162 is also known as “Duo”), it was necessary to conduct a research basing on various sources (Holl, 1973; Vetter, 1953; Deutsch, 1978), in order to ensure righteousness of definition of all the pieces regarded as “sonata”. On the foreground of observation on F. Schubert’s understanding of the cycle it was possible to reveal composer’s loyalty to rules of his time. Sonata ор. 137 № 1 is composed as a classical three-movement model; subsequent ones, including op. 162, embody four-movement model, and that can be a reason to draw parallels between F. Schubert and L. van Beethoven. Individual steps of the journey of author’s self-identification as a composer are traced. Sonata ор. 137 № 1 is marked by frequent employment of variative development in the principal theme of the first movement, that causes its turning into digressive episode; inclusion of contrasting episode in the middle sections of Andante in Sonatas ор. 137 № 2–3 (that is not prescribed by chosen musical form) foreshadows tonal device, favoured by F. Schubert in his mature works – preference to Subdominant sphere over Dominant in four-movement cycle with tonal and dramaturgical highlighting of pair “lyricism – game” in middle movements (slow ones and Minuets); binarity of tonal centres in expositions and even recapitulations of sonata form being substituted by ternarity, that causes a whole section to be a principal unit of structure etc. Sonata op. 162 acquires significance of climax in F. Schubert’s ascent to self-identity in sonata genre. Its expanded structure, including gigantic development of the Finale, Minuet being substituted by Scherzo, parts of performers being completely equal in every respect allow to regard this work as first “Grand Sonata” in F. Schubert’s legacy. Moreover – experience gained by composer while creating it will be applied in cyclic composition for piano in mature period of creativity. Conclusions. In Conclusions analytical observations are summarized and generalized as well as levels of artistic structure of Violin sonatas, incarnating specifics of F. Schubert’s understanding of music as a composer of his historical time, are revealed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":302721,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Aspects of Historical Musicology\",\"volume\":\"155 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Aspects of Historical Musicology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34064/khnum2-16.06\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aspects of Historical Musicology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34064/khnum2-16.06","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景。近年来,音乐学家对舒伯特作曲家风格的历史类型学问题表现出越来越大的兴趣。事实上,学者们质疑将其描述为浪漫的可能性,反过来又提出了另一种解释和特征。例如,布朗先生避免使用“浪漫”一词来指代F.舒伯特,坚持认为他是古典传统的一部分。为了证实他的观点,这位学者求助于作曲家的和声,布朗认为,在和声中,新奇的东西实际上并不是创新,而是对古典思想的巧妙体现。Ch. Rosen(2003)对所讨论的问题提出了更为温和的观点。在承认舒伯特的和声具有“革命性”的同时,这位学者同时指出了舒伯特在音乐艺术中的“特殊地位”,这种地位既不能用古典主义标准,也不能用浪漫主义标准来评价大师的作品。因此,正如罗森所说,舒伯特最终处于古典传统和浪漫主义创新的“中间”。在他早期的研究(1997年)中,上述作者使用“后古典主义”一词来指代舒伯特和他这一代的其他艺术家。A collision碰撞;舒伯特- l·凡·贝多芬”被Е。Badura-Skoda(2004)和J. davorio(2002)。后者试图通过舒曼对这个问题的观察来解决这个问题。因此,很明显,接受舒伯特的风格作为类型学上模棱两可的有一个长期的历史,可以追溯到浪漫主义时代。在20世纪的研究中也可以发现这种阴谋。例如,舒伯特室内乐作品的风格现象成为P. Wolfius反思的话题,他将其定义为“中间”(1974)。上述二十世纪后三分之一世纪和二十一世纪初的作品证明了舒伯特作曲家风格的历史类型学问题与现代音乐学的相关性。这就需要运用历史类型学的研究方法,通过对音乐材料的分析研究来进一步发展。在这一方面,要特别注意作曲家的早期作品,包括四首小提琴奏鸣曲。目标。本文的目的是理解这些作品的风格现象,这是舒伯特获得的古典经验和他对音乐和声音本质的个人观点的初步迹象的混合结果。方法。为了实现这一目标,本文作者采用了H. Gleason和W. Becker(1988)对舒伯特室内乐遗产进行的分期分析,以及N. Savytska(2010)提出的“传记情景”模型。根据前者,写于1816-1817年的小提琴奏鸣曲不属于“成熟”作品;同时,从后者来看,由于舒伯特的风格演变是平稳渐进的,其起止点并没有根本的差异,这是作曲家创作方法取向的改变所造成的,因此,在早期作品中可以看出成熟作品的一些关键特征。这与奏鸣曲流派相关,其中作曲家的第一个成就,顺便说一句,是在小提琴类型中取得的,在钢琴奏鸣曲的高度个人成就之前。这篇文章中的这种情况是由于作曲家在他的一生中作为一个音乐家变得越来越成熟的结果,毫无疑问,这一过程的特殊性影响了他。结果和讨论。考虑到舒伯特的小提琴奏鸣曲被演奏家、出版商和学者们不同地命名(op. 137由三首奏鸣曲或奏鸣曲组成,op. 162也被称为“Duo”),有必要根据各种资料进行研究(Holl, 1973;检查者,1953;Deutsch, 1978),以确保所有被视为“奏鸣曲”的作品定义的正确性。在观察舒伯特对循环的理解的前景中,可以看出作曲家对时代规则的忠诚。奏鸣曲ор。137№1由经典的三乐章模型组成;随后的作品,包括op. 162,体现了四乐章模式,这可以成为将F.舒伯特和L.范·贝多芬相提并论的原因。作者的自我认同作为一个作曲家的旅程的个人步骤被追踪。奏鸣曲ор。137№1的特点是在第一乐章的主要主题中经常使用变化的发展,这使得它变成了离题的情节;在奏鸣曲行板的中间部分加入对比片段。137№2-3(这不是由选定的音乐形式规定)预示的音调装置,青睐F。 舒伯特在他的成熟作品中——在四乐章循环中偏爱亚属圈而不是属圈,在中间乐章(慢乐章和小步舞曲)中突出一对“抒情-游戏”的调性和戏剧性;奏鸣曲形式的呈示甚至重唱中音调中心的二元性被三元性所取代,这使得整个部分成为结构的主要单位等。奏鸣曲op. 162在舒伯特奏鸣曲体裁的自我认同上升中获得了高潮的意义。它的结构得到了扩展,包括对压轴曲的巨大发展,小步舞曲被协奏曲取代,各部分表演者在各方面都完全平等,这使得它可以被视为舒伯特遗产中的第一部“大奏鸣曲”。此外,作曲家在创作过程中所获得的经验也将在创作成熟期的钢琴循环创作中加以运用。结论。在结论部分,对小提琴奏鸣曲的分析性观察进行了总结和概括,并揭示了其艺术结构的层次,体现了舒伯特作为他所处历史时代的作曲家对音乐的具体理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Stylistic phenomenon of Violin sonatas by Franz Schubert
Background. In recent years musicologists revealed an increasing interest in the problem of historical typology of F. Schubert’s composer style. In fact, scholars question possibility to characterize it as romantic, in their turn suggesting another interpretations and characteristics. For instance, M. Brown avoids usage of the term “Romantic” referring to F. Schubert, insisting on him being a part of a Classical tradition. In order to substantiate his viewpoint, the scholar appeals to harmony of the composer, where novelties, according to M. Brown, are not in fact innovations but incredibly skilful incarnation of Classical ideas. More moderate opinion on the discussed problem is stated by Ch. Rosen (2003). While acknowledging “revolutionary” nature of F. Schubert’s harmony, the scholar simultaneously points out a “special status” of the composer in musical art, a status not allowing to apply neither Classical, nor Romantic standards to the works of master. Consequently, as Ch. Rosen says, F. Schubert ended up being “in-between” Classical tradition and Romantic innovations. In his earlier study (1997) abovementioned author uses term “Postclassicism” referring to F. Schubert and other artists of his generation. A collision “F. Schubert – L. van Beethoven” is regarded both by Е.Badura-Skoda (2004) and J. Daverio (2002). The latter one tries to solve it while regarding it through prism of R. Schumann’s observation on this problem. Thus, it is obvious that reception of F. Schubert’s style as typologically ambiguous has a long-lasting history dating back to Romantic era. This intrigue can be found in researches of XX century as well. For example, phenomenon of style of F. Schubert’s chamber works has become a topic of P. Wolfius’ rumination, who defined it as “intermediate” (1974). Mentioned above works of the last third of XX century and beginning of XXI century prove relevance of the problem of historical typology of F. Schubert’s composer style for modern musicology. This calls for its further development through analytical studying of musical material while using historically-typological method of research. In the given aspect, special attention should be drawn to early works by composer, including four Violin sonatas. Objectives. The goal of this paper is to comprehend stylistic phenomenon of these works as a result of mixture of Classical experience gained by F. Schubert and first signs of his oncoming individual view on the essence of music and sound. Methods. In order to achieve this goal, the author of current work uses a periodization of F. Schubert’s chamber legacy, created by H. Gleason and W. Becker (1988) as well as models of “biography scenario”, revealed by N. Savytska (2010). According to the former one, Violin sonatas, written in 1816–1817, don’t belong to the “mature” works; at the same time according to the latter ones, due to F. Schubert’s style evolution being smooth and gradual its starting and finishing points have no radical discrepancies, that would be caused by the change of orientation of composer’s creative method, and as a result, in the early works one can discern some key features of the mature ones. It is relevant, among others, for the sonata genre, where composers first achievements, incidentally, were made in its violin type, preceding highly individual accomplishments of piano sonatas. This situation in the given article is explained as a result of a composer becoming more and more mature as a musician through his life, undoubtedly influenced by special features of this process. Results and discussion. Given that F. Schubert’s Violin sonatas are named differently by performers, publishers and scholars (op. 137 consists of three Sonatas or Sonatinas, op. 162 is also known as “Duo”), it was necessary to conduct a research basing on various sources (Holl, 1973; Vetter, 1953; Deutsch, 1978), in order to ensure righteousness of definition of all the pieces regarded as “sonata”. On the foreground of observation on F. Schubert’s understanding of the cycle it was possible to reveal composer’s loyalty to rules of his time. Sonata ор. 137 № 1 is composed as a classical three-movement model; subsequent ones, including op. 162, embody four-movement model, and that can be a reason to draw parallels between F. Schubert and L. van Beethoven. Individual steps of the journey of author’s self-identification as a composer are traced. Sonata ор. 137 № 1 is marked by frequent employment of variative development in the principal theme of the first movement, that causes its turning into digressive episode; inclusion of contrasting episode in the middle sections of Andante in Sonatas ор. 137 № 2–3 (that is not prescribed by chosen musical form) foreshadows tonal device, favoured by F. Schubert in his mature works – preference to Subdominant sphere over Dominant in four-movement cycle with tonal and dramaturgical highlighting of pair “lyricism – game” in middle movements (slow ones and Minuets); binarity of tonal centres in expositions and even recapitulations of sonata form being substituted by ternarity, that causes a whole section to be a principal unit of structure etc. Sonata op. 162 acquires significance of climax in F. Schubert’s ascent to self-identity in sonata genre. Its expanded structure, including gigantic development of the Finale, Minuet being substituted by Scherzo, parts of performers being completely equal in every respect allow to regard this work as first “Grand Sonata” in F. Schubert’s legacy. Moreover – experience gained by composer while creating it will be applied in cyclic composition for piano in mature period of creativity. Conclusions. In Conclusions analytical observations are summarized and generalized as well as levels of artistic structure of Violin sonatas, incarnating specifics of F. Schubert’s understanding of music as a composer of his historical time, are revealed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信