On the Particular Commonalities of Compositional Approach in the Works of the St. Petersburg Classics
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This article presents an analysis of the commonalities of compositional approach in Igor Stravinsky’s Symphony
of Psalms, Sergei Prokofiev’s Alexander Nevsky cantata, and Dmitri Shostakovich’s Symphony No. 7. The features
of the St. Petersburg Classics’ object-oriented creative method are examined by means of conceptual pairing of
morpheme and morph. A description is provided of the morpheme of the event, and its morph of the prayer ritual, in
the first and third movements of the Symphony of Psalms. A comparison is drawn between the morph of the prayer
ritual and the morph of the enemy invasion in “The Battle on the Ice” from Alexander Nevsky and in the invasion
episode from the first movement of Symphony No. 7. In the “Crusaders in Pskov” section of Alexander Nevsky, the
textual realization of the morpheme of the environment has been traced, in the form of the morph of the Teutonic
yoke.
The melodic, rhythmic, and textural resources in the morphic implementation of the morphemes of space,
motion, and dissonance, and the Janus morpheme, are revealed. Common approaches to choral and orchestral
writing are identified, as are similarities in melody and rhythm, which bond together these three masterpieces of
20th-century musical culture.
Keywords: Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Symphony of Psalms, Alexander Nevsky cantata, Symphony No. 7,
morphological analysis, morph and morpheme in music.
Article Details
Copyright
The rights on the results of intellectual activity and equated means of individualization are protected in accordance with Part IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The authorship, author's name, executor’s name, inviolability of the work and result of execution are protected by the rules of Part IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation of the author or executor, regardless of providing legal protection of such results of intellectual activity at the time of their forming.
Copyright laws regulate the civil legal relations for using works of science, literature and art. Such relationships are formed as the result of the author’s writing his or her texts. In this case the author can rightfully claim copyright of the work.
The author has certain rights to reuse the work (see: “Ethical Aspects in Terms of Multifold Publications).
Licenses
All copyrights on the articles belong to their authors. The author transfers the rights on using the article the publisher.
PDF versions of scholarly articles of the journal PMN are published by using the license Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives cc by-nc-nd, allowing loading and distributing works on the assumption of indicating the authorship. The works may not be changed in any way or used for commercial interests.
Criteria for Authorship, Co-authorship
The term “author” refers to all persons (co-authors) who have made a substantial contribution to conducting the research and creation of the manuscript and responsible for its content. The person (author) who has submitted the manuscript to the editorial board shall bear responsibility for the complete list of the group of authors and the changes made to the manuscript in accordance with the results of the peer reviewing and editing.
1. Authorship is based on the following criteria:
1) The author made a substantial contribution to the research activity and development of concept, collected the data, made analysis and interpretation of the data.
2) The author carried out the writing of the text of draft articles and edited it attentively and substantially.
3) The author approved the final version of the article prior to its submission.
4) The author bears responsibility for the integrity of all parts of the manuscript.
2. The authors shall guarantee that the submitted manuscript is the original work.
3. Scholarly reviews for some issue or other should be objective, present material in a wide range and at the same time take into account the views of the author of the review.
4. The authorship of scholarly publications is obligated to reflect accurately the contribution of individuals to the research activity, with specific information about the authors.
5. The authors may not mislead the readers by publishing acknowledgements of gratitude to people who were not actually involved in writing the work. Other persons who made contribution to the work, but are nevertheless not the authors, may be listed in the rubric of “Acknowledgements,” with indications of the type and extent of their activities.
6. Authors are obligated to provide a description of their contribution to the publication.
7. The order of authorship must be a joint resolution of co-authors. The authors should be ready to explain the order of their enumeration and listing.
8. The authors shall be entirely responsible for the correct definition of authorship acting in accordance with the rules adopted in their institution.
9. Investigators must ensure that only those persons who meet the criteria for authorship (that made a significant contribution to the work), shall be considered the authors, and the researchers who do not merit authorship will be excluded from the list of authors.
References
2. Alfeevskaya G. S. O «Simfonii psalmov» Stravinskogo (k probleme «neoklassitsizma») [About Stravinsky’s Symphony of Psalms (Toward the Problem of “Neoclassicism”)]. I. F. Stravinskiy: stat'i i materialy [I. F. Stravinsky: Articles and Materials]. Comp. by L. S. Dyachkova; Ed. by B. M. Yarustovskiy. Moscow, 1973, pp. 250–276.
3. Val'kova V. B. Muzykal'nyy tematizm – myshlenie – kul'tura: monografiya [Musical Thematicism – Thought – Culture: A Monograph]. Nizhniy Novgorod: Publishing house of Nizhny Novgorod University, 1992. 163 p.
4. Gerver L. L. «Simfoniya psalmov» Stravinskogo kak «Pesn' stepéney» [Stravinsky’s Symphony of Psalms as a “Song of Degrees”]. Nauchnyy Vestnik Moskovskoy konservatorii [Journal of Moscow Conservatory]. 2016. No. 3 (26), pp. 149–159.
5. Glivinskiy V. K voprosu o morfologicheskom analize muzyki Stravinskogo [Towards a Morphological Analysis of Stravinsky’s Music]. Musicus. 2018. No. 1 (53), pp. 25–30.
6. Glivinskiy V. K voprosu o morfologicheskom analize muzyki Stravinskogo [Towards a Morphological Analysis of Stravinsky’s Music]. Musicus. 2018. No. 2 (54), pp. 34–39.
7. Glivinskiy V. Peterburgskiy mif i ego rol' v tvorcheskoy evolyutsii I. F. Stravinskogo [The St. Petersburg Myth and its Role in the Creative Evolution of I. F. Stravinsky]. Muzikoznavchi studії: Zbіrnik naukovykh prats' [Musical Studies: Collected Scholarly Works]. Issue 9. Lutsk, 2012, pp. 6–46.
8. Glivinskiy V. V. Elementy stilistiki barokko v muzykal'nom yazyke I. F. Stravinskogo: dis. ... kand. iskusstvovedeniya [Elements of the Baroque Stylistic in the Musical Language of I. F. Stravinsky: Dissertation for the Degree of Candidate of Arts]. Leningrad, 1989. 201 p.
9. Danilevich L. V. D. Shostakovich [D. Shostakovich]. Moscow: Sovetskiy kompozitor, 1958. 196 p.
10. Krivtsova E. V. Prokofiev i Shostakovich: «Memuarnoe prikosnovenie» [Prokofiev and Shostakovich: A “Memorial Touch”]. Shostakovich – Urtext [Shostakovich – Urtext]. Ed. by M. P. Rakhmanova. Moscow, 2006, pp. 105–124.
11. Manulkina O. B. Stravinskiy. Perekrestki [Stravinsky. Intersections]. Shostakovich v Leningradskoy konservatorii [Shostakovich in the Leningrad Conservatory]. Vol. 3. Project author and comp. by L. G. Kovnatskaya. St. Petersburg, 2013, pp. 359–365.
12. Orlov G. A. Simfonii Shostakovicha [Shostakovich’s Symphonies]. Leningrad: Muzgiz, 1961. 324 p.
13. Prokofiev S., Myaskovskiy N. Perepiska [Correspondence]. Moscow: Sovetskiy kompozitor, 1977. 600 p.
14. Prokofiev o Prokofieve: stat'i, interv'yu [Prokofiev About Prokofiev: Articles and Interviews]. Comp. by V. P. Varunts. Moscow: Sovetskiy kompozitor, 1991. 286 p.
15. Sabinina M. D. Shostakovich – simfonist [D. Shostakovich – The Symphonist]. Moscow: Muzyka, 1976. 477 p.
16. Glivinsky V. & Fedoseyev I. The Creative Archetypes of the Classic Composers’ Schools. European Journal of Arts. 2016. Vol. 3, pp. 24–31.
17. Glivinsky V. & Fedoseyev I. The St. Petersburg Classic School: Myth or Reality? European Journal of Arts. 2016. Vol. 1, pp. 14–20.
18. Kerr M. Prokofiev and His Cymbals. The Musical Times. Oct., 1994. Vol. 135, No. 1820, pp. 608–609.
19. Stravinsky I. & Craft R. Dialogues and A Diary. DOUBLEDAY & COMPANY, INC.: Garden City, New York, 1963. 280 p.