CC BY
31
musical system which is first of all perceived as tradi- and proportionality, alteration of even and odd num-tion. However, the general principles of symmetry bers underlie both of them.
References:
1. Matyakubov Otanazar. Maqomat. - Tashkent. - 2004.
2. Matyakubov O., Boltayev R., Aminov X. Khorezmian tanbur notation. - Tashkent. - 2010.
3. Angelika Yung. Der Shashamakam aus Buchara. Beitrage zum Verstandnis der klassischen Musik Mittelasiens. - Berlin. - 2010.
4. Холопов Ю., Кириллина Л., Кюрегян Т., Лыжова Г., Поспелова Р., Ценова В. Музыкально-теоретические системы. - Москва, - 2006.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20534/EJA-16-3-24-32
Glivinsky Valery Victorovich, Independent Researcher, Senior Doctor of Musicology, New York, USA E-mail: val@glivinski.com Fedoseyev Ivan Sergeyevich, St. Petersburg Conservatory, Senior Doctor of Musicology, Department of Foreign Music
E-mail: ifedoseev@inbox.ru
The Creative Archetypes of the Classic Composers' Schools
Abstract: The article identifies three creative archetypes represented in the Viennese and St. Petersburg classic composers' schools: inventive (Haydn, Stravinsky), harmonic (Mozart, Prokofiev), and conflictive (Beethoven, Shostakovich). The procedural-dynamic creative method of the Viennese Classics is compared to the object-descriptive creative method of the St. Petersburg Classics. The characteristics of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Stravinsky, Prokofiev and Shostakovich reveal their individually specific archetypal features.
Keywords: Viennese, St. Petersburg classic composers' schools, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, inventive, harmonic, conflictive, archetype.
An analysis of the historical process by which the idea of the St. Petersburg classic school is only European music has developed, aimed at identify- just beginning to come into scholarly use. In our ing the main trends and rules of that process, re- article The St. Petersburg Classic School: myth or requires a significant degree of abstraction from in- ality? we defined the combined creative legacy of dividual facts. This departure from the specific is Stravinsky, Prokofiev and Shostakovich as a spe-compensated for by the ability to expose epochal cial stage in the development of the St. Petersburg phenomena that are similar in meaning (and some- school of composition, marked by unmistakable times also in form) which have played a key role in features of classicity [3, 15] We listed the follow-the history of music. Classic schools of composi- ing fundamental properties of the 20th century St. tion, without a doubt, are one such phenomenon. Petersburg classic school:
While the concept of the Viennese classic school - Its primary ties to the Silver Age of Russian art
has become axiomatic in the music history field, as the last decade of 19th century and first two or three
decades of the 20th century, and with the mythological complex surrounding the city of St. Petersburg;
- Its russkost', or fundamental Russian-ness, arising from the perception of reality as a multipolar, multilayered, multicultural continuum with constantly changing properties;
- Its inherent phenomenon of acquired beauty, in which a virtuosic command of the art form serves as a reliable foundation for superior artistic mastery. [3, 17-18].
Even a quick comparison between the Viennese and St. Petersburg schools reveals several obvious parallels. Both schools took shape in the biggest cities of their times, European cultural centers. Both Vienna and St. Petersburg were capitals of authoritarian state systems: the Habsburgs' Aus-tro-Hungarian Empire and the Romanovs' Russian Empire, to which the Soviet Union served as legal successor. It is also curious to note that each of these state entities was a multiethnic conglomerate. Both schools were represented by composers who exemplified three archetypes of creative individuality, which we define as inventive (Haydn, Stravinsky), harmonic (Mozart, Prokofiev), and conflictive (Beethoven, Shostakovich). The sequence in which the carriers of these archetypes came on the historical scene is remarkably consistent, as well: first the inventive Haydn and Stravinsky, then the harmonic Mozart and Prokofiev, and following them, the conflictive Beethoven and Shostakovich. Even lifespans are comparable within these schools, with representatives of the inventive archetype living the longest (Haydn lived 77 years, and Stravinsky 89), and relatively short lives for the harmonic archetypes (Mozart died at age 35 and Prokofiev at 62), with the conflictive archetypes in the middle (Beethoven lived to be 57 and Shostakovich to be 69).
Haydn, as a representative of the inventive archetype in the Viennese classic school, is remembered in the history of European music for his role as the father of motivic development, the symphony and quartet genres. It was in Haydn's music that the revelation of the motif in the theme, capable of forming the foundation for intensive elaboration in the development section of the form (primarily the sonata), made a revolutionary contribution to the evolution of musi-
cal thinking as such. Thanks to this motivic technique, the development section of the sonata form, in terms of duration, dramatic significance, and structure of the whole, came to be just as important as the exposition section. For its part, the recapitulation ceased being a literal repetition of the exposition and was transformed into a zone where the original musical imagery was enriched with new features. The ascending three-stage musical development in Haydn's works became, in its way, the musical equivalent of the individualistic, activist mentality of European man of the Enlightenment Period. Conceiving of the world not as a given, but rather as the foundation for humankind's transformative activities, helped lead to a state of affairs in which, starting from Haydn, musical development took on a spirally ascending, procedurally dynamic character, achieving a new (symphonic) quality. It was precisely this type of development, which found its most consequential embodiment in the works of the Austro-Germanic composers, that became the benchmark for artistic expression in European music in the second half of the 18th century through the early 20th century.
Mozart, as the personification of the harmonic archetype of the Viennese classic school, enhanced Haydn's discoveries with new aspects. Beauty, as a genuinely perceived and experienced quality of Mozart's music, is based on the balance and equal weight given to all elements in his musical imagery. Using the procedural-dynamic method, Mozart focuses attention not on its progressiveness, but on both its intermediate and final results. The development sections of his sonata allegri, which are more condensed than the expositions and recapitulations, have their roots in partial replacement of the motivic development with interval transformations inside a relatively prolonged theme (at both its beginning and its end; see the development sections of the first parts of Mozart's Symphony No. 25 in G minor and Symphony No. 40 in G minor). The dualistic (question-and-answer) nature of many of Mozart's original thematic ideas stems from a marked contrast between the elements that comprise them.
The conflictive nature of Beethoven's creative archetype, its heroic character based in dotted rhythms and fourth intervallic domination, laid the
groundwork for the structural expansion and functional equivalence of the three major sections of the sonata form, and for the general intensification of the process of its dynamic explication. In some cases, for example in the first part of his Symphony No. 3 in E-flat major, the development section turns out to be the most structurally elaborated, eventful and enriched section of sonata form, including new thematic material. Musical development in Beethoven, marked by high intensity and almost plot-like concreteness, becomes the fundamental feature ofhis musical-imagery thinking, penetrating even to the level of the initial exposition of the main thematic ideas.
The individual interpretation of dynamic procedurally in Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven led to their varying approaches to such a basic means of artistic expression as contrast. Haydn's inexhaustible creative imagination in motivic development, his ability to endow motif transformations with almost verbal concreteness, is based on the principle of a derived contrast that forms through the gradual accumulation of otherness. Mozart, on the other hand, prefers the instantaneous contrast and comparison of images, in which he reveals the profound theatricality of his creative thinking. For Beethoven, contrast becomes a systemic element, influencing all components of his musical language. It is for this reason that the musical development process, in Beethoven, takes on the unique property of a clearly audible progressiveness, based on the step-by-step discovery of the potential for imagery hidden in the original thematic impulse.
The procedural-dynamic method of development in the music of the members of the Viennese classic school is one of the most striking examples of how, in the realm of artistic consciousness, forms of the philosophical comprehension of the world that were similar in meaning had been anticipated. The sonata form, for the Viennese Classics, and their characteristic procedural-dynamic type of thinking, were early, anticipatory equivalents of Hegel's philosophical dialectic, at the basis of which were three laws:
- directed development (the negation of negation);
- unity and the struggle between contradictions;
- the transition from quantitative to qualitative changes.
The three-phase structure of the sonata (exposition - development - recapitulation), its characteristic spirally ascending (negation of the negation) and developmental-dynamic (unity and the struggle between contradictions) process of intonational development, having as its goal the achievement of a new quality (the translation from quantitative changes to qualitative ones), became the musical equivalent of Hegel's dialectical triad: thesis - antithesis - synthesis. An analysis comparing and contrasting the combined creative legacy of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven can itself be presented in the categories of Hegel's dialectic. For instance, projecting the law of unity and the struggle between contradictions onto the individual creative profiles of the Viennese Classics, it is completely possible, with a liberal use of metaphor, to associate Haydn's inventiveness with his music's essential unity, Mozart's harmony with all of the contradictions inherent to his creative world, and Beethoven's conflict with struggle as the element mentally dominating his artistic worldview.
The antithetical nature of the musical thinking, which is intrinsic, to one extent or another, to each of the Viennese Classics, is counterbalanced by the synthetic tendencies that are largely characteristic of each of them. Those tendencies take on the form of classicity. The classicity of the music of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven stems from the specific nature of the relationship between the rationality and emotionality. Even with all the differences in their musical imagery, all three exemplify the ideal balance between reason (ratio) and emotion (sensus), a balance which is naturally possible when the rational principle clearly leads. Curiously, the primacy of ratio essentially differentiates Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven from the Romanticists in 19 th century European music. The emotional prism through which those artists characteristically viewed the world found its concentrated expression in Schumann's widely quoted aphorism, "The mind errs, but the emotions - never". The tendency toward individualization as the natural consequence of domination of the sensus among the Romanticists stands in contrast to the tendency toward typification rooted in the very nature of the ratio, prevailing among the Viennese Classics. In effect, the Viennese triumvirate laid the
foundation, in terms of language, genre, and imagery, for European music in the New Age. It is no coincidence that Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven imprinted the most highly-development instrumental form of their time, the sonata-symphonic cycle, with the four typical features of what M. Aranovsky calls the main incarnations of the human being of their times: active, thinking, playing, and social. The researcher describes Homo agens (Active man), Homo sapiens (Thinking man), Homo ludens (Playing man), Homo communis (Communal man) as the component parts of the humanistic concept of Man, embodied in the sonata-symphonic cycle [1, 14-26].
In the Viennese Classics, the sonata-symphonic method of musical composition organically combines four others: variational, linear-contrapunctal, concerto, and improvisational. The structural and compositional preferences of each of these methods (the sonata and symphony for the sonata-symphonic; the cycle of variations for the variational; the fugue for the linear-contrapunctal; the three-part concert form for the concerto; the prelude for the improvisational) do not prevent them from interacting in hybrid artistic concepts. For instance, in Mozart's Piano Sonata in A major, and in Beethoven's Piano Sonata in A-flat major (Op. 26), the sonata allegro which had been traditional for the first parts of the sonata form gives way to variations. A similar structural and compositional replacement, this time using the prelude, takes place in the first part of Beethoven's Piano Sonata, Op. 27 No. 2 in C-sharp minor. In Beethoven's last five piano sonatas, the practice of the coexistence, exchangeability, and mutual penetration of various methods of musical composition and, correspondingly, the most typical compositional forms and schemes for each of them, reaches its apogee. For instance, the first part of his last Piano Sonata in C Minor, Op. 111, is based on the combination of the sonata-symphonic and linear-contrapunctal types of musical composition, and, accordingly, on the symbiosis of the structural and compositional schemes of the sonata and the fugue. In the second part, Beethoven inserts into the variation method of composition elements of the improvisational, prelude style.
The widely varying hybrid combinations ofdiffer-ent methods of musical composition in Beethoven's
works, symbolizing the culminating point in the development of the procedural-dynamic type of thinking, is extremely indicative. They give witness to the final ripening, in the musical language of the Viennese classic school, of the property of intrinsic conceptually. Intrinsic musical conceptuality, defined by B. Asafyev as symphonism, nevertheless does not have the degree of specificity in imagery and meaning that would allow it to encompass the whole thematic diversity of art. With its unlimited expressive potential to build up the human emotional state, intrinsic conceptuality needs help from the outside when handling such universal ideas of human consciousness as life, death, faith, hope, love, brotherhood among men, and so on. The embodiment of these ideas is carried out in conjunction with text (secular and spiritual poetry, religious ritual texts, and the Bible). An example of this sort of cooperation is the realization of the idea of brotherhood among men in the finale of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, using the text from Schiller's Ode to Joy. This work in general, and its finale in particular, reveals the tendency common to all the Viennese Classics to enlarge the role of non-operatic works with text at the culminating stages of their creative evolution. In late works by Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, universal ideas of human consciousness reside at the foundation of large-scale vocal-symphonic concepts (the oratorio, mass, and requiem). The artistic value of these concepts, largely grounded in their use of canonical texts from the Christian liturgical tradition, transports them to the absolute peaks of the creative pathways of each of the three Viennese Classics.
In the work of the members of the St. Petersburg classic school, the spirally ascending, procedural-dynamic type of thinking of the Viennese Classics, based on their perception of the world as a unitary, organically developing substance, gives way to a polyphonic perception of the universe as the accumulation of realities that exist in parallel and interact with each other. Due to historical circumstance, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven matured as artists and worked within the framework of a single civilizational space defined as European culture. The shaping of the St. Petersburg Classics took place within the multicultural, multi-civilizational society which St. Petersburg undoubt-
edly was in the early 20th century. St. Petersburg's polyphonic, multicultural, and multi-civilizational nature is characterized by not only the well-known oppositions between Westernizers and Slavophiles (the historical and philosophical aspect), and Russian and Eastern (or more broadly, European and Asian, the ethno-civilizational aspect), but also the opposition between rural and urban, or more broadly, the communal-tribal versus the individualistic-capitalistic (the sociological and worldview aspect). It seems to us that the profound differences in the urban and rural ways of life and thought, typical for Russian reality in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, exerted a decisive influence on the artistic formation of the St. Petersburg Classics. Each of these composers proposed his own method of harmonizing those two ways of life and creative thinking. The world of imagery that each of them created was influenced, in one form or another, by the world views, perceptions, and understandings of the Russian peasant community.
In the inventive Stravinsky, his "going to the people" took the form of actual visits to the villages of L'zi, Pechiski and Ustilug. Thanks to these visits, Stravinsky, as a Petersburg intellectual down to his very bone marrow, educated thoroughly in the spirit of the Silver Age, was able to penetrate extremely deeply into the foundation of the communal peasant mentality. It is difficult to believe that Stravinsky's inimitable individuality was influenced at all by such fundamental communal ethical postulates as sobornost' (a typically Russian ideal of spiritual community), collectivism, doctrines of social equality, and the requirement to subordinate individual interests to the interests of community. At the same time, the shapes of the artistic discovery of the world which formed the aesthetic background of the Russian peasant community, and the verbal and musical creativity of people who worked the land, in close contact with the earth and nature in general, were the seams of gold that Stravinsky mined in breaking through to a new artistic dimension. The poetics of the art created by the Russian peasant community served, for the first St. Petersburg Classic, as a foundation for working out a new artistic method which we define, in contrast to the procedural-dynamic method of the Vienna Classics, as the
object-descriptive method of the St. Petersburg classic school.
To resort to an analogy, the procedural-dynamic method can be likened to an intellectual conversation. Its participants, as they discuss the topic at hand, introduce arguments for and against, find points where their opinions coincide, and reach a final compromise solution. In contrast, the object-descriptive method more resembles the observation of an externally existing object, during the process of which the observer identifies the essential features of that object, and tracks its behavior in the time-space continuum. The artistic realization of the object-descriptive method in the works of the members of the St. Petersburg classic school is characterized by the principle of unity in diversity. The unified artistic-exploratory strategy allows for an individually characteristic choice of objects for observation, and for their specific, original interpretation. That fact in large part defines the general position of the artist with respect to the most important element of the multicultural space of his time: the artistic and esthetic world of the Russian peasant community.
For the inventive Stravinsky, the Russian peasant's communal artistic and esthetic world became the object of many years of concentrated attention. The composer was interested in not just the musical, but also the verbal, ritual forms extant in that world. In all of those forms he found fertile ground to rein-vigorate the language and imagery of 20th century music. At the same time, Stravinsky could not reconcile himself to the way the peasant community's ethical postulates were twisted into the grotesque parody that formed the foundation for the Soviet state morality and mentality in the USSR. We must not forget that Stravinsky, and Prokofiev and Shostakovich as well, were first and foremost sons of St. Petersburg, a unique cultural megapolis in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which gave the world a stellar cast of great artists in practically all areas of creativity. At first due to World War I, and later as the result of various personal and artistic circumstances, Stravinsky left Russia for good. His visit to Moscow and Leningrad in September and October of 1962 marked a final nostalgic reconciliation in the dramatic relationship between the senior St. Peters-
burg Classic and his native city, and with his home country, where he had been anathema for many years (especially 1930-1950).
The harmonic Prokofiev, who was born and spent his childhood in the Ukrainian village of Sontsovka, regularly returned there during the summers up until 1910. Prokofiev's interest in the art of communal peasant culture was never as systematic in nature as Stravinsky's was. His attention to Russian peasant folklore traditions peaked while he was composing his ballet Chout (1915-1916). While working on that composition, the young Prokofiev demonstrated a unique trait: the ability to re-create, in his work, the very essence of the artistic and the esthetic communal peasant view of the world, without resorting to direct melodic quotation or to other forms of ethnographic authenticity. The almost two decades which Prokofiev spent abroad (1918-1936) did not signify, for him, a complete break with his native country. What's more, his ever-more-frequent trips to the Soviet Union in the late 1920s prove that he was gradually reaching an internal compromise in favor of finally returning to the USSR in 1936. If nothing else, the fact the Prokofiev left his Diary, the most intimate part of his literary legacy, secure in a safe in the USA (see the Foreword by Svyatoslav Prokofiev to the Parisian publication of his father's Diaries [5, 11]) is evidence that the second St. Petersburg Classic had made a full evaluation of the particular social realities in the Soviet Union. The postulates of socialist morality, which had absorbed the ethical values of the Russian peasant community, did not seem to very much encumber Prokofiev. Enjoying the status ofa composer widely known in Europe, Prokofiev pragmatically calculated that he would find the most favorable conditions for his work in the USSR. This calculation largely proved justified, as eloquently witnessed by his creative output during his Soviet period (1936-1953). Nevertheless, he could never remain completely above the fray. The government system for managing the arts in the USSR repeatedly interfered in Prokofiev's life and work.
The conflictive Shostakovich has a special place in the St. Petersburg classic school due to the fact that, having been born in St. Petersburg, he never in his life made any intentional extended journeys into a com-
munal peasant environment. As a native Petersburg-ian, Shostakovich had an ambivalent reaction to the realities of the social order in the USSR, which was significantly based on the communal peasant mentality. Though he tolerated a great deal from the Soviet political system, he was at the same time treated quite kindly by it. Evidence of this can be found in his six Stalin Prizes (including one at the international level), a Lenin Prize, two RSFSR State Prizes, two Orders of Lenin, the titles of People's Artist of the USSR and Hero of Socialist Labor, and his official recognition as a Classic of Soviet music. As an ingenious artist doeth according to his own internal rules, Shostakovich also reacted, willingly or not, to impulses arising from the outside and stimulating his creative feats. This is what explains the conflict that is constantly palpable in his work, sometimes smoldering, sometimes exploding in blinding flames, all based in waxing and waning contradictions between the internal world of the artist and the reality surrounding him on the outside. This conflict, in the historical perspective, looks like the source of the internal energy that fed his creative process. The conflictive basis of Shostakovich's creative sense of the world was grounded in the specific way in which he used the object-descriptive method of the St. Petersburg classic school. The reconstruction of images of external evil, the depiction of the surrounding world as a fount of gathering danger, the replication of profoundly concentrated and at times tortured human reflection, the ambiguous interpretation of the states of joy, merriment and happiness, all place Shostakovich closer to the Austro-Germanic musical expressionism of the early 20th century. However, this proximity does not in any way diminish the essential difference in their creative positions. In all manifestation ofhis conflictive nature, Shostakovich remains a typically Russian composer, one of the stalwarts of the St. Petersburg classic school, perceiving and reflecting the surrounding world not in a procedural-dynamic, but in an object-descriptive way.
The object-descriptive method of the St. Petersburg Classics finds its natural expression in psychologically enriched tone painting [3, 461], thanks to which the depiction of the chosen object includes not just the characteristics of its spatial, kinetic, and temporal properties, but also the emotional
response that those properties invoke. Therefore, the choice of object plays a definitive role both in the shaping of the artistic profile of the individual work (by all appearances, this circumstance is what M. Aranovksy had in mind when he spoke of the concept of the stylistic model of every single one of Stravinsky's works [1, 10]), and in the works of any particular artist overall. The objective basis of psychologically enriched tone painting for the inventive Stravinsky, the harmonic Prokofiev and the conflictive Shostakovich differs significantly, though not to the exclusion of extremely meaningful correspondences and parallels between them.
Thanks to the dialogic nature of Stravinsky's creative personality (for more details, see: [2, 7-10]), and his surprising ability to absorb new information of different kinds, the range of his musical objects turns out to be much broader than that of the other two St. Petersburg Classics. The Russian fairy-tale world, biblical tales, ancient Greek myths, paintings, poems and literature (both original and folkloric), canonical and non-canonical texts of Judaism, Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism, archaic rituals, festivals, card games, fireworks, the opera, cantata, oratory, and instrumental genres of European music, individual composers' styles, natural phenomena, documentary film reels, architecture -all of these fell within the range of musical objects taken by the senior St. Petersburg Classic. The distinguishing features of Stravinsky's object-descriptive method include the presentation of the depicted object in an original authorial context; an audibly perceptible dialogue with the depicted object, intended to expose its most characteristic features; and the transformation of those features in accordance with the individual authorial notion. Here, the emotional component of the dialogue plays a secondary role, surrendering primacy in a virtuosic game with its (the object's) spatial-temporal, genre-kinetic, and structural-stylistic properties. The chief musical tool for investigating the properties of the object is its variational reproduction in the process of which new remarkable variants, notably not present in its originality, symbolize a gradual appropriation of the object, its entry into the author's artistic world. Considering the unique role of art objects
in Stravinsky's music, his individual, original version of the object-descriptive method may be characterized as the world through the prism of art.
Compared to Stravinsky, the object-descriptive method of Prokofiev is based on a direct, joyous, optimistic perception of the world. Thus, Yu. Kholopov defines the most characteristic tendency in Prokofiev's work as "a striving to express the whole fullness of life" [4, 201]. E. Ruch'evskaya believes that "Prokofiev was a holy genius, a merry genius of Russian music" [6, 83]. Alongside fairy tales, archaic rituals, and the instrumental genres ofEuropean music (as in Stravinsky), the Prokofiev often refers to Russian and Western literature, and musically objectifies the forms of intellectual reflection (Sarcasms, Op. 17; Things In Themselves, Op. 45; Pensées, Op. 62). The unique feature of composer's objective world is his interest in the surrounding reality as such (Visions fugitives, Op. 22), and in the mental states of man (Four Pieces for Piano, Op. 4). In Prokofiev, the dialogicity so characteristic of Stravinsky gives way to a monologicity of artistic thinking, intended to organically incorporate all mutually interacting objects into a stylistically homogeneous environment. Prokofiev's most striking revelation of organic monologicity appears in his melodies. With their pitch filling making them a typical product of 20th century musical thinking, Prokofiev's melodies are nevertheless just as plastic, vocally organic, structurally perfect, and uniquely inimitable as the melodies of any other melodic genius (Rachmaninoff, Tchaikovsky, Puccini, Verdi, Chopin, Schubert, and Mozart). At the same time, Prokofiev's psychologically enriched tone painting is at times so reminiscent of portraiture or landscape painting that it reaches the same level of specificity as a genuinely visual impression. Therefore, the artistic goal ofProkofiev's object-descriptive method can be defined aphoristically as the world in all its variety.
Shostakovich's world of objects is divided into two categories: the reality of the external world and the reality of the internal world, which interact in a complex and sometimes conflictive way. Shostakovich, like Stravinsky, is dialogical. But his dialogicity is more mental and philosophical than esthetic and stylistic. It is essentially extremely eclectic. Strictly speaking, we are fully justified in
considering all the St. Petersburg Classics to be eclectic, i. e., combining various stylistic trends. The reason is the very esthetic environment of their St. Petersburg habitat, and its architecture, in which the most diverse styles still coexist today: from Italian baroque to the Stalinesque Empire style of the mid-20th century. In Shostakovich, the selection and combination of various stylistic elements plays a profoundly subordinate role, never transforming into a self-contained artistic task. The foundation of Shostakovich's artistic method is his internal "I," acting as an inherent element of the semantic and stylistic layer that is intrinsic to his works. Through the prism of this layer, everything that happens externally, in the real world of events, is perceived and evaluated. It is precisely this antithetical aspect of his worldview, based on the dilemma of "myself versus the outside world," that explains the lasting ambivalence of his musical imagery. Only polar-opposite images turn out to be unambiguous in their content: the evil existing outside us, most often personified by the genre-specific semantics of the march, and the artistic "I" of the
The last three entries here characterize, we feel, the centerpiece of the internal artistic condition guiding the creative process: estheticism in Stravinsky, rationalism in Prokofiev, and expressionistic individualism in Shostakovich.
Separated in both time and space, the Viennese and St. Petersburg classic schools play a similar role in the process of music history, aimed at creating three benchmark strategies for the artistic assimilation of the world. Accumulating the creative experience of their predecessors, the inventive, harmonic and con-flictive strategies shape a tripartite basis for the further
composer, characterized by a wide range of states, from concentrated and at times tortured reflection up to enraged protest executed with oratorio levels of pathos. Everything located between these two poles is essentially ambivalent. This means that undisturbed calm is darkened with hidden tension, merriment is full of a completely inexplicable sadness, joy is surrounded by disappointment, a joke is shot through with sarcasm, and a triumphant celebration bears the mark of inescapable tragedy. As a result, in the psychologically enriched tone painting of Shostakovich, the emotional component plays a leading role and is always in the foreground. In striving to maximize the specificity of those holding the dialogue in his music, the composer employs the technique of the musical "word," using his own initials DSCH, and citations both from the works of others and his own previous works. In this manner, Shostakovich lays down as the foundation of his object-descriptive method the world through the prism of my own "I." The individual artistic profiles of Stravinsky, Prokofiev, and Shostakovich can be summarized in form of following table 1.
development of compositional creativity. Subsequent generations perceive the experience of the classic schools as an inspiring ideal, and as they strive to become equal to it, their efforts lead to the inevitable expansion ofthe esthetic territory of the musical arts. The classic schools are like the beating of the human heart, each contraction ofwhich pours new blood into the circulatory system of the music world. As it travels the veins, this blood is enriched with new creative experiences, and returns again to the heart for another renewing beat. We do not yet know in whose work the third beat of the musical heart will occur.
Table 1. The individual artistic profiles
Stravinsky Prokofiev Shostakovich
inventiveness harmony conflictiveness
dialogicity monologicity antitheticalism
the world through the prism of art the world in all its variety the world through the prism of my own «I»
estheticism rationalism individualism
References:
1. Aranovsky, M. Symphonic requests. The problem of the symphonic genre in Soviet music, - 1960-1975. Research notes. - Leningrad: Sovetskii kompozitor, - 1979.
2. Glivinsky, V. Late works of I. F. Stravinsky. Research. - Donetsk: Donechchina, - 1995.
3. Glivinsky, V. and I. Fedoseyev. The St. Petersburg Classic School: myth or reality?/in European Journal of Arts, № 1. Vienna: "East West" Association for Advanced Studies and Higher Education GmbH, - 2016.
4. Kholopov, Yu. Notes on modern harmony. Research. - Moscow: Muzyka, - 1974.
5. Prokofiev, S. Dairy - 1907-1933, - Pt. 1: - 1907-1918. - Paris: sprkfv, - 2002.
6. Ruch'evskaya, E. Notes on Prokofiev's Style/in E. A. Ruch'evskaya: Works of Various Years. Collected articles in 2 volumes. - Vol. 1: Articles. Notes. Memoirs/St. Petersburg : Kompozitor Sankt-Peterburg, - 2011.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20534/EJA-16-3-32-37
Karman Elena Vitalyevna, Novosibirsk State Conservatoire named after M. I. Glinka Post-graduate student, Faculty of the Theory and Composition
E-mail: elenakrmn@yandex.ru
Socio-political, geographic and professional contexts of creativity of the authors of the Anglican anthems of the first third of the XVII century
Abstract: the article reveals the peculiarities of social and creative functioning of a large group of English composers of the first third of the XVII century, who worked in the genre of Church vocal music - anthem. The relationships between the position, place of work and genre aspects of their heritage are being established.
Keywords: anthem, Anglican music, composer, cantor, organist.
The peculiarity of creativity of the generation activity and also the traits of character of a person be-
of English church composers of the first third of the XVII century is specified by the socio-political conditions during the rule ofJames I (1603-1625) and then Charles I (1625-1649). On the one hand the son of a catholic woman Mary Stuart - James I, during whose rule a lot of Elizabeth's servants kept their positions, treated rather truly the Catholics, but on the other hand contrary to their expectations he didn't support them and due to this fact he provoked the organization of the frustrated Gunpowder Plot which caused raise of hatred to the papacy and to the Roman Church in general. Having understood that the politically loaded directions in the church started to influence the general development of the country within the time James I considered that the result of the desire of the Puritans to break with the control of the king's power over the church would be its destruction and he made a decision to expatriate the Puritans from the country. The categorical decisions in the church sphere were set off by the weak political power ofJames I, the Parliament's limited
ing sensible to influences of different councilors, as a result having drawn the country into unnecessary wars and had disagreements with the Parliament.
Whereas, initially the contradiction between the Anglican Church and the Puritans during the rule of James I was not democratic, but sacral; it included not only the aspiration of the Puritans to purify the church from the 'papistic' rituals and garments, an absolution ceremony, a custom to have godparents after christening, to knee during a communion ceremony and others, but the requirement to simplify the church chorus polyphony being a music and technical base of anthems and music services.
At the same time James I being the church leader and highly educated person speaking several foreign languages including ancient Greek, a poet, an author of a series of treatises, being in the track of Elizabeth I, encouraged development of philosophy, science and culture. The king continued to support the court image as a centre of the country music culture. During the rule of James I there was a raise of the
