“This Composition is Written in ‘My Own Style’…” (about Sibelius’ Symphonic Poem “Luonnotar”)
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Contemporary composers and researchers are continuing to listen attentively to 20th century music. Does everything in it belong entirely to the past? What entered the annals of music history, and what up until now generates impulses of innovations? The article is devoted to a lesser-known composition by Sibelius – the symphonic poem for soprano and orchestra “Luonnotar” (1913) set to poems in old Finnish from the First Rune of the “Kalevala” by Elias Lönnrot. For the composer himself it became a landmark composition, written, according to his words, “in his own style.” The reason why “Luonnotar” does not attract such attention to itself on the part of researchers as do the other symphonic poems of the innovative triad of the early 1910s (“The Bard” and “The Oceanides”), apparently, is the result of a language barrier. Although Lönnrot’s “Kalevala” has been translated into all European languages, the achievement of Sibelius’ artistic method calls for its analysis in the original language. The article briefly outlines the contours of contemporary scholarly Sibeliana, in correspondence with which “Luonnotar” has the status of an innovative musical score. The style of this composition is analyzed in the aspect of “root” foundation – the tradition of rune singing. The conclusion is arrived at that in the creation of the individual style the decisive significance for Sibelius was contained in the culture of monody chant with the living traditions of rune singing and its characteristic features (modal, rhythmic, form-generating), which in the early 20th century have been comprehended by Sibelius as the foundation of his style aspired to the future.
Keywords: Sibelius, Lönnrot, “Kalevala,” “Luonnotar,” the runes, rune singing.
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. Khuttu-Khiltunen P. Runopenie Zapadnoy Belomorskoy Karelii v XX veke [Pekka Huttu-Hiltunen. Rune- Singing of Western Karelia Near the White Sea in the 20th Century]. Translated from the Finnish by M. Kempinen. Kuhmo. Sibelius-Akatemia [Kuhmo. The Sibelius Academy]. Juminkeko, 2008, pp. 404–437.
3. Yuzhak K. I. O ladovom i melodicheskom stroenii runicheskikh napevov [On the Modal and Melodic Structure of Runic Melodies]. Russkaya i finskaya muzykal'nye kul'tury. Problemy natsional'noy traditsii i mezhkul'turnykh vzaimodeystviy [Russian and Finnish Musical Cultures. Issues of National Tradition and Intercultural Interactions]. Ed. by V. I. Nilova. Petrozavodsk, 1989, pp. 30–48.
4. Howell T. Jean Sibelius: Progressive or Modernist. Jean Sibeliusʼs Legacy. Research on his 150th Anniversary. Ed. By D. Grimley, T. Howell, V. Murtomäki, T. Virtanen. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 241–255.
5. Murtomäki V. ‟Either/Or?ˮ No: “Both – Andˮ! Current Challenges of the Sibelius Image. Jean Sibeliusʼs Legacy. Research on his 150th Anniversary. Ed. By D. Grimley, T. Howell, V. Murtomäki, T. Virtanen. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 2–24.
6. Sibelius Jean. Jotakin näkökohtia kansanmusiikista ja sen vaikutuksesta säveltaiteeseen. Musiikki. 1980. No. 2. S. 87–105.
7. The Correspondence of Jean Sibelius and Rosa Newmarch, 1906–1939. Edited and translated be Philip Ross Bullock. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2011. 312 p.
8. Tool A. Jean Sibelius and the Modes of Limited Transposition. Jean Sibeliusʼs Legacy. Research on his 150th Anniversary. Ed. By D. Grimley, T. Howell, V. Murtomäki, T. Virtanen. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 273–282.
9. Weidberg R. Sibelius and Shownberg. Jean Sibeliusʼs Legacy. Research on his 150th Anniversary. Ed. By D. Grimley, T. Howell, V. Murtomäki, T. Virtanen. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 221–240.