About Irina Yelcheva’s Contrapuntal Cycle “24 Preludes and Fugues”
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The article is devoted to one of the unduly forgotten musical compositions – Irina Yelcheva’s contrapuntal
cycle, which holds an important position in the historical evolution of the fugue in the musical works of Russian
composers. Attention is accentuated on the special ingenuity of application in it of the principle of variant-type
thematic development that is characteristic for the most various forms and genres of Russian music and possessing
a specifically national sound. Tracing out this tendency in the contrapuntal forms of Russian composers – from its
earliest manifestations in the choral fugues of Dmitri Bortnyansky up to the contrapuntal cycle of Sergei Slonimsky
– the author reserves a special place for Irina Yelcheva’s composition in this historical chain. Observations of the
various means of carrying out the variant transformations on the intonational, rhythmical and structural levels lead
to the conclusion about the inseparability of historical connections connecting Yelcheva’s composition with the
works of representatives of Russian classical music (Dmitri Bortnyansky, Mikhail Glinka and Nikolai Rimsky-
Korsakov), on the one hand, and the fugues of Shostakovich and Slonimsky, on the other hand.
Keywords: Irina Yelcheva, counterpoint, contrapuntal cycle, variant principle, fugue, Russian 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. Bobrovskiy V. P. O dvukh metodakh tematicheskogo razvitiya v simfoniyakh i kvartetakh Shostakovicha [About Two Methods of Thematic Development in Shostakovich’s Symphonies and Quartets] Dmitriy Shostakovich [Dmitry Shostakovich]. Moscow: Sovetskiy kompozitor, 1967, pp. 359–396.
3. Vasiruk I. O vzaimootnoshenii preludii i fugi v polifonicheskom tsikle (na primere “24 preludii I fugi” I. El’chevoy) [About the Interrelations between the Prelude and the Fugue in the Contrapuntal Cycle (on the Example of 24 Preludes and Fugues of Irina Yеlcheva)] Nauka, iskusstvo, obrazovanie v kul’ture III tysyacheletiya: materialy konferentsii [Science, Art, Education in the Culture of the Third Millennium: Materials of the International Conference]. Volgograd, 2003, pp. 342–347.
4. Vyazkova E. V. Printsip neproportsionalnogo ritmicheskogo var’irovaniya v “Iskusstve fugi” Bakha i ego istoricheskie svyazi [The Principle of Disproportionate Rhythmic Variation in “The Art of the Fugue” by Bach and its Historical Links]. Polifonicheskaya muzyka. Voprosy analiza [Contrapuntal Music. Questions of Analysis]. Moscow: Gnessins’ Russian Academy of Music, 1984, pp. 31–51.
5. Grigor’eva G. V. Stilevye problemy russkoy sovetskoy muzyki vtoroy poloviny XX veka [Style Issues of Russian Soviet Music of the Second Half of the 20th Century]. Moscow: Sovetskiy kompozitor, 1989. 208 p.
6. Zaderatskiy V. V. Polifonicheskoe myshlenie I. Stravinskogo [The Polyphonic Thinking of Igor Stravinsky]. Moscow: Muzyka, 1980. 287 p.
7. Krupina L. L. Evolyutsiya fugi [The Evolution of the Fugue]. Moscow: Gnessins’ Russian Academy of Music, 2001. 188 p.
8. Mikhaylenko A. G. Fugirovannye formy v tvorchestve Bortnyanskogo i ikh mesto v istorii polifonii [The Fugue-Related Forms in Bortnyansky’s Musical Output and their Place in the History of Counterpoint] Voprosy musykalnoy formy [Questions of Musical Form]. Issue 4. Moscow: Muzyka, 1985, pp. 3–18.
9. Protopopov V. V. Istoriya polifonii. Vyp. 5: Polifoniya v russkoy muzyke XVII – nachala XVIII veka [The History of Counterpoint. Issue 5: Counterpoint in the Russian Music from the 17th to the Early 20th Century]. Moscow: Muzyka, 1987. 319 p.
10. Simakova N. A. Kontrapunkt strogogo stilya i fuga. Kniga 2: Fuga: eyo logika i poetika [Strict Style Counterpoint and the Fugue. Book 2: The Fugue: its Logic and Poetics]. Moscow: Kompozitor, 2007. 800 p.
11. Tsukkerman V. A. Analis musykalnykh proizvedeniy. Variatsionnaya forma [Analysis of Musical Compositions. The Variation Form]. Moscow: Muzyka, 1987. 239 p.