Realization of the Mytho-Poetic Spell Universum in the Vocal Cycle of Margarita Kesareva "The Ural Spells"
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This article is dedicated to the study of mytho-poetic thinking
of the Urals area composer Margarita Kesareva. On the
example of one of her vocal cycles the author clarifies the specificity
of a genre of placing spell [zagovor], which is one of
the most important folklore sources for this composer. In her
study the author relies upon the term «musical mytheme» suggested
by Tatiana Kaluzhnikova. The chosen path of analysis
allows detecting the main musical mythemes of this vocal cycle
and their relationship with the symbolic languages of description,
i.e. mythological codes. The study of the work of Margarita
Kesareva in the context of neomythologism allows underlining
uniqueness of her figure among the composers of Yekaterinburg.
Keywords: ethnomusicology, Russian ritual, spell genre, Urals area folklore, musical mytheme, mytho-poetic thinking
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. Blok A. Poeziya zagovorov i zaklinaniy // Blok A. Sobr. soch. V 6 t. T. 5. Proza. — M., 1971.
3. Bobykina I. Vel'o Tormis. — M., 1989.
4. Bol'shaya sovetskaya entsiklopediya. V 30 t. T. 9. — M., 1972.
5. Velikorusskie zaklinaniya. Sbornik L. N. Maykova. — SPb., 1994.
6. Golovacheva A. Kartina mira i model' mira v pragmatike zagovora // Issledovaniya v oblasti balto-slavyanskoy dukhovnoy kul'tury. Zagovor. — M., 1993.
7. Eremina V. Ritual i fol'klor. — L., 1991.
8. Zelenin D. Magicheskaya funktsiya slov i slovesnykh proizvedeniy // XLV Akademiku N. Ya. Marru. — M.; L., 1935.
9. Kaluzhnikova T. «Bud'te, moi slova, krepki, lepki…» // Muzykal'naya zhizn'. — 1989. — № 11. — S. 8–9.
10. Kaluzhnikova T. Otsvet drevney poezii // Sovetskaya muzyka. — 1988. — № 3. — S. 33–36.
11. Kaluzhnikova T., Khaletskaya O. Mifopoeticheskiy universum sochineniy Margarity Kesarevoy // Regional'noe kompozitorskoe tvorchestvo v kontekste sovremennogo muzykoznaniya: mater. nauch.-prakt. konf. V plenuma Chelyabinskogo otdeleniya SK Rossii. — Chelyabinsk, 2005.
12. Kesareva M. Ural'skie bytovye nagovory. — Rukopis'. — Sverdlovsk, 1983.
13. Levi-Stros K. Mifologiki. Syroe i prigotovlennoe. — M.; SPb., 2000.
14. Mikhaylova T. K «grammatike» zagovora (o slovesnoy magii v drevneirlandskoy poeticheskoy traditsii) // Voprosy yazykoznaniya. — 1997. — № 2.
15. Olupe E. Struktura latyshskikh zagovorov. Printsipy i vidy postroeniya // Etnolingvistika teksta. Semiotika malykh form fol'klora. — M., 1988. — Vyp. 1.
16. Petrov V. Zagovory // Iz istorii russkoy sovetskoy fol'kloristiki. — L., 1981.
17. Smirnov Yu. Peredacha, ispolnenie, zapominanie zagovorov na russkom Severe // Etnolingvistika teksta. Semiotika malykh form fol'klora. — M., 1988. — Vyp. 1.
18. Toporov V. N. Zagovory i mify // Mify narodov mira: entsiklopediya. V 2 t. T. 1. — M., 1980.
19. Toporov V. N. Ob indoevropeyskoy zagovornoy traditsii (izbrannye glavy) // Issledovaniya v oblasti balto-slavyanskoy dukhovnoy kul'tury. Zagovor. — M., 1993.
20. Kharitonova V. I. Zhanrovaya differentsiatsiya zagovorno-zaklinatel'noy poezii // Filologicheskie nauki. — 1988. — № 4. — S. 7–12.
21. Chernov I. O strukture russkikh lyubovnykh zagovorov // Trudy po znakovym sistemam. — Tartu, 1965. — Vyp. 181, t. 2.
22. Shaymukhametova L. N. Migriruyushchaya intonatsionnaya formula i semanticheskiy kontekst muzykal'noy temy. — M., 1999.
23. Shindin S. Prostranstvennaya organizatsiya russkogo zagovornogo universuma // Issledovaniya v oblasti balto-slavyanskoy dukhovnoy kul'tury. Zagovor. — M., 1993.