6,270 research outputs found
UMSL Bulletin 2023-2024
The 2023-2024 Bulletin and Course Catalog for the University of Missouri St. Louis.https://irl.umsl.edu/bulletin/1088/thumbnail.jp
LIPIcs, Volume 251, ITCS 2023, Complete Volume
LIPIcs, Volume 251, ITCS 2023, Complete Volum
UMSL Bulletin 2022-2023
The 2022-2023 Bulletin and Course Catalog for the University of Missouri St. Louis.https://irl.umsl.edu/bulletin/1087/thumbnail.jp
ΠΡΠ·ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ° / Musicology (34 I/2023)
ΠΠ±Π΅Π»Π΅ΠΆΠ°Π²Π°ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π° Π²Π΅ΠΊΠ° ΠΎΠ΄ ΠΊΠ°Π΄Π° ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΡΠΎ ΠΠ³ΠΎΡ Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΈ (1882β1971) ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ΅ΠΊΠ»ΠΎ ΡΠ΅ Ρ ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈ ΠΏΠ°Π½Π΄Π΅ΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΊΠΎΠ²ΠΈΠ΄Π°, ΠΏΠ° ΡΠ΅ Π½Π°ΡΡΠ½ΠΎ ΡΠ°Π·ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄ΡΡΠ°ΠΊΠ½ΡΡΠΎ ΡΠΎΠΌ Π³ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΠΎΠΌ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ΄ΡΠΆΠΈΠ»ΠΎ. Π’Π°ΠΊΠΎ ΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΡ ΠΏΡΠΈΠ΄ΡΡΠΆΡΡΠ΅ ΠΈ ΠΠ»Π°Π²Π½Π° ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ° Ρ Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΌ Π±ΡΠΎΡΡ ΠΡΠ·ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ (34), Ρ Π½ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠΌ ΡΡΡΠ΄ΠΈΡΠ° ΠΏΠΎΡΠ²Π΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ
Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ, ΠΊΠΎΡΠ΅ ΠΏΠΎΡΠΈΡΡ ΠΈΠ· ΠΈΠ·Π»Π°Π³Π°ΡΠ° Π½Π° Π‘ΡΡΠ΄ΠΈΡΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ Π΄Π°Π½Ρ ΠΎΡΠ³Π°Π½ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΎΠΌ 2021. Π³ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠ½Π΅ Π½Π° ΠΠ΄ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡ Π·Π° ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΡΠΊΠ΅ ΡΡΡΠ΄ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΠ°ΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π°Π»Π½ΠΎΠ³ ΠΈ ΠΠ°ΠΏΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΡΡΡΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ ΡΠ½ΠΈΠ²Π΅ΡΠ·ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠ° Ρ ΠΡΠΈΠ½ΠΈ. ΠΠ°ΡΡΡΠΏΡΠ΅Π½Π΅ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅ ΠΏΠΎΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΡ ΡΠΈΡΠΎΠΊ ΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΠ°Ρ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ±Π»Π΅ΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΠΊΠ΅ Ρ Π²Π΅Π·ΠΈ ΡΠ° ΡΠ²ΠΈΠΌ ΡΡΠΈΠΌΠ° ΡΠ°Π·Π°ΠΌΠ° ΡΡΠ²Π°ΡΠ°Π»Π°ΡΡΠ²Π° Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ (ΡΡΡΠΊΠ°, Π½Π΅ΠΎΠΊΠ»Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ½Π° ΠΈ ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠ°Π»Π½Π°), ΡΠΊΡΡΡΡΡΡΡΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΈ ΡΠΎΠΌΠ΅ ΠΈ ΠΏΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ° Π΅ΡΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΊΠ΅, ΠΊΠ°ΠΎ ΠΈ ΡΡΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ° ΠΈ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΠΈΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ Π΄Π΅Π»Π°.
Π‘ΡΠ°ΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΡ ΠΠΎΡ
ΠΈΠΎΡ ΠΈΠ·Π½ΠΎΠ²Π° ΠΎΡΠ²Π°ΡΠ° ΠΏΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ Π²Π΅Π·Π΅ Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ Ρ ΡΡΡΠΊΠΈΠΌ ΡΠΎΠ»ΠΊΠ»ΠΎΡΠΎΠΌ, ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΡΡΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΡΡΡΡΠΈ Π΄Π΅Π»Π° ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΎΡΠ° ΠΈΠ· ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΎΠ·Π²Π°Π½ΠΎΠ³ βΡΡΡΠΊΠΎΠ³β ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΎΠ΄Π° Ρ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠ°ΠΌΠ° Π½Π° ΠΈΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ°Ρ ΡΡΡΠΊΠ΅ ΡΠΎΠ»ΠΊΠ»ΠΎΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΠΊΠ΅. ΠΠΎΡ
ΠΈΠΎΡ Π·Π°ΠΊΡΡΡΡΡΠ΅ Π΄Π° ΡΠ΅ Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΈ ΠΏΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠΎ ΠΏΡΡ ΡΠ²ΠΎΡΠΈΡ
ΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΡ
ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΈΠΊΠ° ΠΈΠ· 19. Π²Π΅ΠΊΠ° (ΠΠ»ΠΈΠ½ΠΊΠ° ΠΈ ΠΠ΅ΡΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ°) Ρ ΡΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π±ΠΈ ΡΠΎΠ»ΠΊΠ»ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΈΡ
ΠΈΠ·Π²ΠΎΡΠ° Π·Π° ΡΠ²ΠΎΡΠ΅ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅, Π°Π»ΠΈ, Π·Π° ΡΠ°Π·Π»ΠΈΠΊΡ ΠΎΠ΄ ΡΠΈΡ
, Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΊΠΎΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΠΎ ΡΡΡΠ΄ΠΈΡΠ΅ Π½Π°ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ°Π»Π΅ Ρ ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΌ Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½Ρ; ΡΡΠΎΠ³Π°, Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ ΡΠΏΡΡΡΠΈΠΎ Ρ Π΅ΠΊΡΡΠ΅Π½Π·ΠΈΠ²Π½Ρ ΠΈ Π΄ΡΠ±ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΡ ΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ°Π³Ρ ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡ
ΠΈΠ·Π²ΠΎΡΠ° ΠΎ ΡΡΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΡΠΎΠ»ΠΊΠ»ΠΎΡΡ, Π²Π΅Ρ ΡΠ΅ ΡΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠΎ ΡΠΎΠ³Π° ΠΎΡΠ»Π°ΡΠ°ΠΎ Π½Π° ΠΏΡΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΠ΅Π½Π΅ ΠΈΠ·Π²ΠΎΡΠ΅ ΠΈ ΡΡΡΠ΄ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠ· 19. Π²Π΅ΠΊΠ°. Π§Π»Π°Π½Π°ΠΊ ΠΠ²Π°Π½Π° ΠΡΠ΄ΠΈΡΠ° ΠΎΡΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠ°Π²Π° Π΄Π΅ΠΎ ΡΡΠ²Π°ΡΠ°Π»Π°ΡΡΠ²Π° Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ Ρ ΡΠΎΠΊΡΡΠΎΠΌ Π½Π° ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΠ²Π° Π΄ΡΡ
ΠΎΠ²Π½Π° Π΄Π΅Π»Π° ΠΈΠ· ΠΏΠ΅ΡΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π΅ ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ ΠΏΠΎΠ·Π½Π°Π²Π°ΡΠ° ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΎΠ·ΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΠ°ΠΊΠ° ΠΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅Π½Π°, Π° Ρ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΡΡ ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΎΠ·ΠΎΡΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ΅ΡΠ° Ρ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΡΠ°ΡΠ½ΠΎΡ Π€ΡΠ°Π½ΡΡΡΠΊΠΎΡ. ΠΡΠ΄ΠΈ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°ΡΠ° ΠΏΠΎΡΠ΅Π±Π½Ρ ΠΏΠ°ΠΆΡΡ Π½Π° ΡΠΎ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊΠΎ Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΈ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠ° ΠΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅Π½ΠΎΠ²Ρ ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΡΡ homo faber-a, βΡΠΎΠ²Π΅ΠΊΠ°-ΡΠ²ΠΎΡΡΠ°β. ΠΡΡΠΎΠ²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΠΎ, ΠΎΠ½ Π½Π΅ Π·Π°Π½Π΅ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΡΠ΅ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΎΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎ ΡΡΡΠΊΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ΅ΠΊΠ»ΠΎ, Π·Π°ΠΊΡΡΡΡΡΡΡΠΈ Π΄Π° ΡΡ Π΄Π΅Π»Π° ΠΊΠΎΡΠ° ΡΡ ΠΎΠ²Π΄Π΅ ΡΠ°Π³Π»Π΅Π΄Π°Π²Π°Π½Π° ΡΠ΅Π΄Π½Π°ΠΊΠΎ ΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½Π° Ρ ΡΡΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ΅ΠΊΠ»Ρ Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ ΠΊΠ°ΠΎ ΠΈ Ρ ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΠΌ ΠΈΡΠΊΡΡΡΠ²ΠΈΠΌΠ° Π½Π° ΠΠ°ΠΏΠ°Π΄Ρ. ΠΠ°ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ½Π° ΠΠ΅Π²ΠΈΠ΄Ρ Π΄Π°ΡΠ΅ Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠ³Π»Π΅Π΄ Π½Π° ΠΠΎΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΊΡ ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΠΊΠ΅, Π° Π½Π°ΡΠΎΡΠΈΡΠΎ Π½Π° ΠΏΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ Π΄ΠΎΠΏΡΠΈΠ½ΠΎΡΠ° ΠΡΠ΅ΡΠ° Π‘ΡΠ²ΡΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΌ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄ΡΡ
Π²Π°ΡΡ. ΠΠ΅Π½ΠΎ ΠΈΡΡΡΠ°ΠΆΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΠ΅ ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠ·Π²Π°Π½ ΠΎΡΠ΅ΠΊΠΈΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ
ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠ° Π·Π° ΠΏΠΎΡΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅, ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎ ΠΈΠ·Π²Π°Π½ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ³ ΠΏΠΎΠ³Π»Π°Π²ΡΠ° (ΠΊΠΎΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ Π½Π°ΠΏΠΈΡΠ°ΠΎ Π‘ΡΠ²ΡΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΈ) ΠΈ Π΄ΠΎΠ±ΡΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠ·Π½Π°ΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΊΠ° ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΡΠ°ΠΌΠ° Π‘ΡΠ²ΡΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ ΠΎ ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΡΠΈ ΠΈ Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½Ρ. ΠΠ° ΡΠ°Ρ Π½Π°ΡΠΈΠ½ ΡΠ΅ ΠΠΎΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΊΠ° ΠΈΠ½ΡΡΠΈΠ³Π°Π½ΡΠ½ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ°ΡΠΈ Π½Π°ΡΠΌΠ°ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΡΠ΅ΠΊΠΈΠ²Π°Π½Π° ΠΏΠ»Π°ΡΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ° Π·Π° ΠΏΡΠ΅Π·Π΅Π½ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡΡ ΠΈ Π΄ΠΈΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½Π°ΡΠΈΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ° ΠΏΠΎΠ²Π΅Π·Π°Π½ΠΈΡ
Ρ ΠΎΠ΄ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΌ Π½ΠΈΡΠΈΠΌΠ° βΠ΅Π²ΡΠΎΠ°Π·ΠΈΡΡΡΠ²Π°β, ΡΡΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ Π΅ΠΌΠΈΠ³ΡΠ°Π½ΡΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅Π»Π΅ΠΊΡΡΠ°Π»Π½ΠΎΠ³ ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ ΠΏΠΎΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ°, Ρ ΠΊΠΎΡΠΈΠΌ ΡΠ΅ Π‘ΡΠ²ΡΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΈ Π±ΠΈΠΎ Π±Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°ΠΊ. ΠΡΠΈΡΡΠΎΡ Π€Π»Π°ΠΌ ΡΠΎΠΊΡΡΠΈΡΠ°ΠΎ ΡΠ΅ Π½Π° ΠΊΠ°ΡΠ½ΠΎ ΡΡΠ²Π°ΡΠ°Π»Π°ΡΡΠ²ΠΎ Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ ΠΈ ΡΠ°Π·ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠ°ΠΎ Π³Π° ΠΈΠ· ΠΏΠ΅ΡΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π΅ Π΅ΠΊΡΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ. ΠΠΎΠ½ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ½ΠΎ, ΠΎΠ²Π°Ρ Π°ΡΡΠΎΡ ΡΠ΅ ΠΈΡΡΠ°ΠΊΠ°ΠΎ Π΅ΠΊΡΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ²Π½Π΅, ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ°Π½ΡΠΈΡΠΊΠ΅ ΠΈ ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΡΠ°Π»Π½Π΅ Π΄ΠΈΠΌΠ΅Π½Π·ΠΈΡΠ΅ Ρ ΠΊΠ°ΡΠ½ΠΈΠΌ Π΄Π΅Π»ΠΈΠΌΠ°, ΠΊΠΎΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ Ρ ΡΠΈΠΌΠ° ΠΏΠΎΡΠ°Π²ΡΡΡΡ Ρ Π½Π°ΡΠΎΡΠΈΡΠΎΠΌ ΡΠ°ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠΎΠΌ ΠΈ Π΄Π΅Π»ΠΈΠΌΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ²ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ ΡΠΎΠ±ΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΌ ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½Π°ΠΌΠ° ΠΎΠ²Π΅ ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΠΊΠ΅ ΠΊΠ°ΠΎ Π°ΠΏΡΡΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ½Π΅ ΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΠΈΠ²ΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΠΊΠ΅, Π° ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΎΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠ·Π°Π·ΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΡ ΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΎΡΠΎΠ²Π΅ Π»ΠΈΡΠ½Π΅ ΠΈΠ·ΡΠ°Π²Π΅. Π‘ ΡΠ»Π°Π½ΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΠΠ΄Π²Π°ΡΠ΄Π° ΠΠ΅ΠΌΠ±Π΅Π»Π° ΠΎΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΎ Ρ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ»Π΅ΡΠ°ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΌ Π΄ΠΎΠ±Ρ, Π°Π»ΠΈ ΡΠ΅ ΡΠΎΠΊΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠ΅ΡΠ° Ρ Π΄Π΅Π»Π° Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ ΠΏΠΎ ΡΠ΅Π±ΠΈ Π½Π° ΡΡΠΈΡΠ°Ρ ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ ΡΠ°Π΄Π° Π½Π° ΡΡΠ°Π½ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΠ½Ρ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ»Π΅ΡΠ°ΡΠ½Ρ Π°Π²Π°Π½Π³Π°ΡΠ΄Ρ, ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎ Π½Π° ΠΡΠ΅ΡΠ° ΠΡΠ»Π΅Π·Π°, ΠΠ°Π½Π° ΠΠ°ΡΠ°ΠΊΠ°, ΠΠ½ΡΠΈΡΠ° ΠΡΡΠ΅ΡΠ° ΠΈ ΠΠΈΡΠ΅Π»Π° Π€ΠΈΠ»ΠΈΠΏΠΎΠ°. ΠΠ΅ΠΌΠ±Π΅Π»ΠΎΠ²Π° Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π° ΠΈΠ·Π²Π»Π°ΡΠΈ Π½Π° ΠΏΠΎΠ²ΡΡΠΈΠ½Ρ ΡΡΠΈΡΠ°Ρ ΠΊΠΎΡΠΈ ΡΠ΅ Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΈ ΠΈΠΌΠ°ΠΎ Π½Π° ΠΎΠ²Π΅ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΎΡΠ΅ Π½Π° Π½ΠΈΠ²ΠΎΠΈΠΌΠ° ΡΠΈΡΠΌΠΈΡΠΊΠ΅ ΠΈΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅, ΡΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π±Π΅ Π·Π²ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ, Ρ
Π°ΡΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ°, ΠΈΠ½ΡΡΡΡΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΠ°Π»Π½Π΅ Π±ΠΎΡΠ΅, ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΡΠΊΠ΅ ΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ΅, ΠΊΠ°ΠΎ ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠ° Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΠ½Π΅ ΡΠΎΠ½Π°.
ΠΠΎΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΡΠ° Π΄Π²Π° ΡΠ»Π°Π½ΠΊΠ° ΠΏΡΠΈΠ»Π°Π·Π΅ ΡΠ°Π΄Ρ Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ ΠΈΠ· ΠΏΠ΅ΡΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π΅ Π΅ΡΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΊΠ΅, Ρ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠ°ΠΌΠ° ΠΊΠ° ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΎΠ·ΠΎΡΠΈΡΠΈ ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ ΡΠ°Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΊΠ°, Π₯Π΅Π»ΠΌΡΡΠ° ΠΠ»Π΅ΡΠ½Π΅ΡΠ°. ΠΠ°ΠΊΠΎΠ²ΠΎΡ Π¨ΡΠ°ΡΠ½Ρ
Π°ΡΠ΅Ρ ΡΠ°ΡΠΏΡΠ°Π²ΡΠ° ΠΎ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠ΅ΡΡ ΡΠ΅Π»Π΅ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΈ ΠΏΠ»Π΅ΡΠ° Ρ ΡΡΠ²Π°ΡΠ°Π»Π°ΡΡΠ²Ρ Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³, ΠΎΠ΄Π»Π°Π·Π΅ΡΠΈ ΠΈΠ·Π²Π°Π½ ΠΈΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΡΡΠΊΠΈ Π΄ΠΎΠΊΡΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΎΠ³ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ²Π°ΡΠ° ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΎΡΠ° Π·Π° Π±Π°Π»Π΅ΡΡΠΊΡ ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΠΊΡ. ΠΠ°Π»Π΅ΡΡΠΊΠ° ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΠΊΠ° Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³, ΠΊΠ°ΠΊΠΎ Π¨ΡΠ°ΡΠ½Ρ
Π°ΡΠ΅Ρ ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·ΡΡΠ΅, ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΆΠ΅ ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ βΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½Π΅ Π½Π΅ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π΄Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈβ, ΠΎΠ΄ΡΠΆΠ°Π²Π°ΡΡΡΠΈ ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΎ Π΄ΠΈΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΡ Ρ ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΡ Π½Π° ΡΡΠ±ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΈ ΠΈΠ·ΡΠ°Π·, Π±Π΅Π· ΠΊΠΎΡΠ΅Π³, ΠΏΠ°ΠΊ, ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ Π°ΠΏΡΡΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ½Π°. ΠΠΎΠ½Π°ΡΠ½ΠΎ, ΠΠ°ΡΠΊΠΎΡ Π¦Π΅ΡΠΎΡ Π½ΡΠ΄ΠΈ Π½ΠΎΠ²Ρ ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΡ ΠΠ΄ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π΅ ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠ΅ Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³, ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠ°ΡΡΡΠΈ Π½Π° ΠΠ»Π΅ΡΠ½Π΅ΡΠΎΠ²Ρ ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΎΠ·ΠΎΡΡΠΊΡ Π°Π½ΡΡΠΎΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΡ. ΠΠ½, ΡΡΠΎΠ³Π°, ΠΈΠ·Π°Π·ΠΈΠ²Π° ΠΠ΄ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π΅ ΠΏΠΎΠ³Π»Π΅Π΄Π΅ ΠΊΠΎΡΠΈ Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ ΡΠ²ΡΡΡΠ°Π²Π°ΡΡ Ρ Π½Π΅Ρ
ΡΠΌΠ°Π½Π΅ ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΈΠΌΠΈΡΠΈΠ²Π½Π΅, ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·ΡΡΡΡΠΈ ΡΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠΎ ΡΠΎΠ³Π° Π΄Π° ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΠ²Π° ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΠΊΠ° Π΄ΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΆΠ΅, Ρ ΠΈΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΡΡΠΊΠΈ Π°Π΄Π΅ΠΊΠ²Π°ΡΠ½ΠΈΠΌ ΠΌΠΎΠ΄Π΅ΡΠ½ΠΈΠΌ ΡΠ΅ΡΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΠΌΠ°, ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΡΠΈΡΡΡΠΈΠ²Π½Ρ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ»Π΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΡΡ ΡΡΠ΄ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ ΠΎΡΠ΅Π»ΠΎΡΠ²ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΎΠ³ ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ°.
Π ΡΠ±ΡΠΈΠΊΠ° Varia ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΌ ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠΈΠ»ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠΌ Π½Π΅ΡΡΠΎ ΡΠ°ΠΆΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠ° β Π΄ΠΎΠ½ΠΎΡΠΈ ΡΡΠΈ ΡΡΡΠ΄ΠΈΡΠ΅, Π°Π»ΠΈ ΡΡ ΡΠΈΠΌΠ° ΠΌΠ°ΡΠΊΠΈΡΠ°Π½Π° ΡΠ°Π·Π»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ° ΠΏΠΎΡΠ° ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΈΡΡΡΠ°ΠΆΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΠ°. ΠΠΎΡΠ°Π½Π° Π Π°Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡ ΡΡΡΠ΄ΠΈΠΎΠ·Π½ΠΎ ΡΠ΅ Π±Π°Π²ΠΈΠ»Π° ΠΏΡΠΎΡΡΠ°Π²Π°ΡΠ΅ΠΌ Π΅ΠΊΡΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΈΡ
ΡΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°Π²Π° Ρ Π΄Π΅Π»ΠΈΠΌΠ° Π·Π° Π³Π»Π°Ρ ΡΡΠΏΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΎΡΠ° ΠΡΠ³Π° ΠΠ°ΡΠΊΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡΠ°, Π°Π»ΠΈ ΠΈ ΠΏΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠΌΠ° ΠΈΠ· Π΄ΠΎΠΌΠ΅Π½Π° ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ° ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΎΡΠ° ΠΈ Π²ΠΎΠΊΠ°Π»Π½ΠΎΠ³ ΠΈΠ·Π²ΠΎΡΠ°ΡΠ°. Π¦ΠΈΡ ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄ΡΡ
Π²Π°ΡΠ° Π±ΠΈΠΎ ΡΠ΅ Π΄Π° ΠΏΡΡΠ΅ΠΌ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π΅ ΠΎΠ΄Π°Π±ΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΡ
ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ° Π΄ΠΎΠΏΡΠΈΠ½Π΅ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΡΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠ°Π²Π°ΡΡ ΠΠ°ΡΠΊΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡΠ΅Π²ΠΎΠ³ Π΅ΠΊΠ»Π΅ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ ΡΡΠΈΠ»Π°, ΠΊΠ°ΠΎ ΠΈ Π΄Π° ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΠ½ ΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΈΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ° Ρ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠ½Π°ΡΠΎΠ΄Π½Π΅ ΠΊΡΡΠ³ΠΎΠ²Π΅ ΡΡΠ²Π°ΡΠ°Π»Π°ΡΠ° ΠΊΠΎΡΠΈ ΡΠ΅ Π³Π»Π°ΡΠΎΠΌ Π±Π°Π²Π΅ Π½Π° Π½Π΅ΡΡΠ°Π΄ΠΈΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π°Π»Π½Π΅ Π½Π°ΡΠΈΠ½Π΅. ΠΡΡΡΠ°ΠΆΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΠ΅ ΠΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΠΈΠ½ΠΎΠ² ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°Π²ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΎ ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΌ ΠΏΡΠΈΠ»ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠΈ ΡΠ΅ Π½Π° ΠΊΠΈΠ½Π΅ΡΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠΊΠ΅ Π³Π΅ΡΡΠΎΠ²Π΅, ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎ ΡΠ΅Π»Π΅ΡΠ½Π΅ ΠΏΠΎΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠ·Π²ΠΎΡΠ°ΡΠ° ΡΠΎΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ°Π½ΡΠ°, Π° ΡΠΊΡΡΡΡΡΡΡΠΈ ΡΠΎΠΏΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π° ΠΏΠΈΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΠΊΠ° ΠΈΡΠΊΡΡΡΠ²Π°, ΠΏΠΎΡΠ΅Π±Π½Ρ ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΠ°ΠΆΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ²Π΅ΡΠΈΠ»Π° ΠΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ²Π΅Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΠΌ ΠΊΠ»Π°Π²ΠΈΡΡΠΊΠΈΠΌ ΡΠΎΠ½Π°ΡΠ°ΠΌΠ°. ΠΠ±ΡΠ°ΡΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ ΡΡΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ° ΠΊΠ°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ° ΡΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΏΠΎΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ° ΡΠ΅Π»Π° Π½Π° ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΡΠΊΠΎ Π΄Π΅Π»ΠΎ ΡΠΊΡΡΡΠΈΠ»ΠΎ ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΡΠ²ΡΡ Π½Π° ΡΡΠ²Π°ΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ Π΄Π΅Π»Π°, Π° Ρ Π΄ΡΡΠ³Π΅ ΡΡΡΠ°Π½Π΅ ΠΈ Π½Π° ΡΠ΅Π½Π·Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ ΡΠΎΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ ΠΈΠ·Π²ΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠ°, ΡΡΠΎ ΡΠ΅ ΡΡΠ³Π΅ΡΠΈΡΠ°Π»ΠΎ ΡΠΈΡΠΈ Π·Π°ΠΊΡΡΡΠ°ΠΊ ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ΅Π±Π½ΠΎΡ Π²Π°ΠΆΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΡΠ°Π·ΡΠΌΠ΅Π²Π°ΡΠ° βΠΊΠΈΠ½Π΅ΡΠΈΡΠΊΠ΅ Π΅Π½Π΅ΡΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΠΊΠ΅β. ΠΠΎΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΡΠΈ Ρ ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΌ Π΄Π΅Π»Ρ ΡΠ°ΡΠΎΠΏΠΈΡΠ° ΡΠ΅ ΡΠ»Π°Π½Π°ΠΊ ΠΠΈΠ½Π΅ ΠΠΎΡΠ²ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΡ ΠΠΈΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡ, ΠΏΠΎΡΠ²Π΅ΡΠ΅Π½ ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΡΠΊΠΈΠΌ ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠ°ΠΌΠ° ΠΠ΅ΡΡΠ° ΠΠΈΠ½Π³ΡΠ»ΡΠ°, ΠΊΠ°ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ΅Π±Π½ΠΎ Π²Π°ΠΆΠ½ΠΎΠΌ Π΄Π΅Π»Ρ ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ Π΄ΠΎΠΏΡΠΈΠ½ΠΎΡΠ° ΡΡΠΏΡΠΊΠΎΡ ΠΊΡΠ»ΡΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡ ΠΈΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΡΠΈ ΠΈ ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠΈ. ΠΠ½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡΠ°Π½ΠΈ ΡΡ ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΡΠΎΠ²ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈ Ρ ΡΠ°ΡΠΎΠΏΠΈΡΡ ΠΠΈΡΠ°ΠΎ, ΡΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Π½ΠΎ ΡΠ΅ Π½Π° ΠΠΈΠ½Π³ΡΠ»ΡΠ΅Π² Π½Π°ΡΠΈΠ½ ΠΌΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΡΠ° ΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄ ΡΠ°Π΄Π°, Π° ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠ°ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠΌ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠΌ Ρ ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠ°ΠΌΠ° Π΄ΡΡΠ³ΠΈΡ
Π°ΡΡΠΎΡΠ° Π΄Π°ΡΠ° ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π° Π·Π° ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΠ²ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΈΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ Ρ ΡΡΠΏΡΠΊΠΎΡ ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΡΠΊΠΎΡ ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈΡΠΈ Ρ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΎΠ΄Ρ ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡ Π΄Π²Π°ΡΡ ΡΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΡΠ°ΡΠΎΠ²Π°, ΠΊΠ°Π΄Π° ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΡΠΈ ΡΠ°ΡΠΎΠΏΠΈΡ ΠΈΠ·Π»Π°Π·ΠΈΠΎ.
ΠΡΠΈΠ»ΠΎΠ·ΠΈ Ρ ΡΡΠ±ΡΠΈΡΠΈ ΠΠ°ΡΡΠ½Π° ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠ° ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π΅ΠΌΠΈΠΊΠ° ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ Π½Π° Π½Π΅Π΄Π°Π²Π½ΠΎ ΠΎΠ΄ΡΠΆΠ°Π½ Π½Π°ΡΡΠ½ΠΈ ΡΠΊΡΠΏ ΠΈ Π½Π° Π·Π±ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΈΠΊ Π·Π° ΠΊΠΎΡΠΈ ΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΡΡΠ°Π»Π° Π΄ΡΠΆΠ½Π° ΠΏΠ°ΠΆΡΠ° Π·Π±ΠΎΠ³ ΠΏΡΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠ²Π°ΡΠ° ΡΠΎΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΠΏΠ°Π½Π΄Π΅ΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΊΠΎΠ²ΠΈΠ΄Π°. ΠΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠ° ΠΠ°Π³Π»ΠΎΠ² ΠΏΡΠΈΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ»Π° ΡΠ΅ ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈΡΠΊΠΈ ΠΎΡΠ²ΡΡ Π½Π° ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠ½Π°ΡΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΈ ΡΠΈΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΡΠΌ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ²Π΅ΡΠ΅Π½ ΡΠ°Π½ΠΎΡ Π΄ΠΈΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΊΠΎΡ ΠΈΠ½Π΄ΡΡΡΡΠΈΡΠΈ, Π°ΠΊΡΡΠ΅Π»Π½ΠΎΡ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈ Ρ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΡΡ ΡΡΡΠ΄ΠΈΡΠ° ΠΌΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΡΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈ ΠΈΠ½Π΄ΡΡΡΡΠΈΡΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΠΊΠ΅, ΠΊΠΎΡΠΈ ΡΡ ΠΎΡΠ³Π°Π½ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π»Π΅ Ρ
ΡΠ²Π°ΡΡΠΊΠ΅ ΠΊΠΎΠ»Π΅Π³Π΅, ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠ° ΠΎΠ²Π΅ Π³ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠ½Π΅. ΠΠ²Π°Ρ ΠΏΡΠΈΠ»ΠΎΠ³ Π½Π°ΡΠΎΡΠΈΡΠΎ ΡΠ΅ Π²Π°ΠΆΠ°Π½, Ρ ΠΎΠ±Π·ΠΈΡΠΎΠΌ Π½Π° ΡΠΎ Π΄Π° ΡΠ΅ Π½Π΅ ΠΎΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΡΠ΅ ΡΠΎΠ±ΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π½ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠΊΠΈ Π·Π±ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΈΠΊ ΡΠ°Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π° ΡΠ²ΠΈΡ
ΡΡΠ΅ΡΠ½ΠΈΠΊΠ° ΡΠΈΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΡΠΌΠ°. ΠΠΈ Π·Π±ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΈΠΊ Rethinking Prokofiev, ΠΊΠΎΡΠΈ ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠΎ ΠΠΈΠ»ΠΎΡ ΠΡΠ°Π»ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡ, Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ Π½Π°ΡΡΠ°ΠΎ Π½Π° ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Ρ Π½Π°ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ ΡΠΊΡΠΏΠ°, Π²Π΅Ρ ΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅Π·ΡΠ»ΡΠ°Ρ ΠΎΡΠΈΠ³ΠΈΠ½Π°Π»Π½ΠΈΡ
Π°ΡΡ
ΠΈΠ²ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
, Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠΊΠΈΡ
, ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎ ΠΈΠ·Π²ΠΎΡΠ°ΡΠΊΠΎ-ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΈΡ
ΠΈΡΡΡΠ°ΠΆΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΠ° ΠΎΠΏΡΡΠ° ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΎΡΠ°. Π Π΅Ρ ΡΠ΅ ΠΎ ΠΈΠ·Π΄Π°ΡΡ Π½Π° ΠΊΠΎΡΠ΅ΠΌ ΡΡ Π°Π½Π³Π°ΠΆΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈ Π²ΠΎΠ΄Π΅ΡΠΈ ΡΡΡΡΡΡΠ°ΡΠΈ Ρ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠΈ ΠΎΡΡΠ²Π°ΡΠ΅ΡΠ° ΠΡΠΎΠΊΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π²Π°, ΠΎΠ΄ ΡΡΠ΅Π΄Π½ΠΈΠΊΠ° Π΄ΠΎ Π°ΡΡΠΎΡΠ°, ΡΠ΅ Π·Π°Π²ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡΠ΅ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ΅Π±Π½Ρ ΠΏΠ°ΠΆΡΡ Π½Π°ΡΡΠ½Π΅ ΡΠ°Π²Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ.
Π Π΅Π΄Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠ° ΡΠ°ΡΠΎΠΏΠΈΡΠ° ΠΡΠ·ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ° ΡΡΠ΄Π°ΡΠ½ΠΎ Π·Π°Ρ
Π²Π°ΡΡΡΠ΅ Π½Π° ΡΠ°ΡΠ°Π΄ΡΠΈ Π΄Ρ ΠΠ°ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ½ΠΈ ΠΠ΅Π²ΠΈΠ΄Ρ, Π΄ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΡΡ Π½Π° ΠΠ΄ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡ Π·Π° ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΡΠΊΠ΅ ΡΡΡΠ΄ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΠ°ΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π°Π»Π½ΠΎΠ³ ΠΈ ΠΠ°ΠΏΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΡΡΡΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ ΡΠ½ΠΈΠ²Π΅ΡΠ·ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠ° Ρ ΠΡΠΈΠ½ΠΈ, ΠΊΠΎΡΠ° ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΌ ΠΏΡΠΈΠ»ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΠ·Π΅Π»Π° Π΄ΡΠΆΠ½ΠΎΡΡ Π³ΠΎΡΡΠ΅-ΡΡΠ΅Π΄Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ Π·Π° ΡΡΠ±ΡΠΈΠΊΡ Π’Π΅ΠΌΠ° Π±ΡΠΎΡΠ°. ΠΠ·ΡΠ·Π΅ΡΠ½Ρ Π·Π°Ρ
Π²Π°Π»Π½ΠΎΡΡ ΠΈΠ·ΡΠ°ΠΆΠ°Π²Π°ΠΌΠΎ ΡΠ²ΠΈΠΌ ΠΊΠΎΠ»Π΅Π³Π°ΠΌΠ° ΠΊΠΎΡΠ΅ ΡΡ ΠΏΡΠΈΡ
Π²Π°ΡΠ°Π»Π΅ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ°ΠΎ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½Π·Π΅Π½Π°ΡΠ° ΠΈ Π΄ΠΎΠΏΡΠΈΠ½Π΅Π»Π΅ ΠΊΠ²Π°Π»ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΡ ΠΏΡΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ
ΡΡΡΠ΄ΠΈΡΠ°.The commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of Igor Stravinskyβs death (1882β1971) remained in the shadows of the covid-19 pandemic, which caused the prolonged response of the scientific community in terms of new readings of the composerβs opus. The Main Theme in the new issue of Muzikologija-Musicology (No. 34) makes a contribution to this response with a series of studies dedicated to Stravinsky, originating from presentations at the Study Day organized in 2021 by the Department of Music Studies of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. The topics cover a wide range of issues relating to all three phases of Stravinskyβs creation (the Russian, the Neoclassical and the Serial), including questions of aesthetics, as well as the impact and reception of his work.
Stamatis Zochios revisits the question of Stravinskyβs relationship with Russian folklore, by contextualising the composerβs output of the so-called βRussianβ period with reference to the history of Russian folkloristics. Zochios concludes that Stravinsky followed in the footsteps of his nineteenth-century predecessors (Glinka and the Mighty Five) in drawing on folk sources for his compositions, yet unlike them, he did not make use of studies from his own time; hence, he did not delve into an extensive and in-depth survey of the existing sources of Russian folklore but, instead, relied on established sources and studies from the nineteenth century. Ivan Moodyβs article sheds light on Stravinskyβs output with a focus on his religious works through the perspective of his acquaintance with Jacques Maritainβs philosophy, in the context of the philosophical ferment in Interwar France. Moody pays particular attention to Stravinskyβs interpretation of Maritainβs idea of homo faber, βman the makerβ. At the same time, he does not ignore the composerβs Russian origins, concluding that the works under examination are equally grounded in Stravinskyβs Russian background and his experiences in the West. Katerina Levidou sheds new light on the Poetics of Music, specifically the question of Pierre Souvtchinskyβs contribution. Her examination moves beyond the obvious places to look, namely the fifth chapter (written by Souvtchinsky) and the well-known reference to Souvtchinskyβs ideas on music and time. The Poetics thus emerges as a most unexpected platform for the presentation and dissemination of positions associated with a certain strand of βEurasianismβ, the Russian Γ©migrΓ© intellectual and political movement, with which Souvtchinsky was closely associated.
Christoph Flamm focuses on Stravinskyβs late output and considers it from the perspective of expressiveness. Specifically, he highlights expressive, semantic and self-referential dimensions in the late compositions, which emerge there with particular clarity and partly contradict the usual assessments of this music as abstract and constructivist, but also challenge the composerβs own statements. With Edward Campbellβs article we remain in the post-War era, yet the focus shifts from Stravinskyβs work per se to the impact his output had on the Francophone post-war avant-garde, namely Pierre Boulez, Jean BarraquΓ©, Henri Pousseur and Michel Philippot. Campbellβs analysis brings to the surface the influence Stravinsky had on such composers on the level of rhythmic innovation, and the use of sonorities, harmonies, instrumental colour, musical form as well as pitch polarity.
The last two articles approach Stravinskyβs work from the perspective of aesthetics, with reference specifically to the philosophy of Stravinskyβs contemporary, Helmuth Plessner. Iakovos Steinhauer discusses the meaning of corporeality and dance in Stravinskyβs work, moving beyond Stravinsky's historically-documented interest in ballet music. Stravinskyβs ballet music, as Steinhauer demonstrates, attains a βmediated immediacyβ, thus maintaining a distance from subjective expression, without, however, becoming abstract. Finally, Markos Tsetsos offers a new critique of Adornoβs criticism of Stravinsky with reference to Plessnerβs philosophical anthropology. He, therefore, challenges Adornoβs view that Stravinsky regresses to the inhuman and primitive, demonstrating, instead, that his music affirms, in historically adequate modern terms, the constitutive reflectivity of the human embodied condition.
On this occasion, the Varia section is more concise, to balance out the breadth of the Main Theme. It contains three studies that map out three different fields of musicological research. Bojana RadovanoviΔ has studiously examined the expressive means in the works for the voice of the Serbian composer Jug MarkoviΔ, including the questions from the domain of the relationship between the composer and the vocal performer. By analysing MarkoviΔβs selected works, she aims to illuminate his eclectic style and situate him in the international circles of composers who deal with the voice in non-traditional ways. Marija Dinovβs research presented in this issue deals with kinesthetic gestures, i.e. bodily movements of pianists (including herself) during performances, focusing on the performances of Beethovenβs piano sonatas. The explanation of the influence of physical movements on the musical work includes an overview of the creation of the musical work, and, on the other hand, of the sensations during its performance, which leads to a broader conclusion about the special importance of understanding the βkinetic energy of musicβ. The last article in this section of the journal is Dina VojvodiΔ NikoliΔβs article dedicated to Petar Bingulacβs music criticism, as a particularly important segment of his contribution to Serbian cultural history and musicology. The author analyses Bingulacβs texts published in the journal Misao [Thought] and points to Bingulacβs way of thinking and methods of work, whilst also providing a comparative analysis with the music reviews of other contemporary critics and thus situating Bingulacβs writings within Serbian music criticism from the interwar period, when the journal Misao was published.
Contributions in the section Scientific criticism and polemics refer to the recently held conference and to the collection which has hitherto attracted insufficient attention due to its publication during the covid-19 pandemic. Marija Maglov has prepared a review of the international symposium dedicated to the early recording industry, a current topic in the context of studies of medialisation and industrialisation of music, which was organized by Croatian colleagues in March 2023; this contribution is particularly important considering that the publication of the proceedings of the symposium is not expected. The collection Rethinking Prokofiev, reviewed by MiloΕ‘ BraloviΔ, did not result from a scientific conference either; it is the outcome of original archival, analytical, and performance-interpretive research of Sergei Prokofievβs oeuvre. This collection has gathered together leading experts on Prokofievβs works, from the editors to the authors, and it deserves special attention from the scientific community.
The Editorial Board of the journal Muzikologija-Musicology would like to thank Dr Katerina Levidou, Assistant Professor at the Department of Music Studies of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, who served as Guest Editor of the Main Theme. We are very grateful to all colleagues who accepted the roles of peer reviewers and contributed to the quality of published studies
βMUSICA FATTA SPIRITUALEβ: AQUILINO COPPINI, CLAUDIO MONTEVERDI, AND MADRIGAL CONTRAFACTS IN EARLY SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY MILAN
Between 1607 and 1609, the Milanese professor of rhetoric, Aquilino Coppini (d. 1629), published three volumes of spiritual contrafacts, mostly of madrigals by Claudio Monteverdi (1567β1643). Musicologists have already noted some of the ingenuities of Coppiniβs close readings of Monteverdiβs music, but have treated them as an interesting yet inconsequential footnote. My dissertation offers a necessary reappraisal of Coppiniβs approach to contrafacts both by contextualizing his project within post-Tridentine spiritualities in Milan under its new archbishop, Cardinal Federico Borromeo, and by reading his texts and their musical consequences far more carefully than has hitherto been the case. Informed by archival research and interdisciplinary approaches to music, literature, art, and religious studies, my close reading of these works demonstrates new intertextualities that connect a network of Humanists linked by a highly elaborate form of Milanese syncretism joining the sacred and the secular. Coppiniβs contrafacts place Monteverdiβs music within a Milanese constellation of texts (musical, artistic, and literary) that sought to confront the rapidly changing world of the early seventeenth century. I argue that they provide a first-hand account of how Monteverdiβs madrigals were heard by reading them through the lens of Coppiniβs rhetorical and poetic practices based on his own syncretic sense of religious affectivity. He catered both to secular audiences and to those in religious institutions, not least convents. It also becomes clear that Coppini must reconstruct texts that Monteverdi first deconstructed, which requires attention to musical rhetoric and not just oratory, prompting new analytical readings of the original madrigals themselves. My approach challenges the typical narratives of βCounter Reformationβ contrafacts as didactic instruments of power to create a more nuanced view of works that served not just Coppiniβs personal and professional needs, but also broader communities seeking new ways to perform their spiritual lives.Doctor of Philosoph
Understanding Agreement and Disagreement in Listenersβ Perceived Emotion in Live Music Performance
Emotion perception of music is subjective and time dependent. Most computational music emotion recognition (MER) systems overlook time- and listener-dependent factors by averaging emotion judgments across listeners. In this work, we investigate the influence of music, setting (live vs lab vs online), and individual factors on music emotion perception over time. In an initial study, we explore changes in perceived music emotions among audience members during live classical music performances. Fifteen audience members used a mobile application to annotate time-varying emotion judgments based on the valence-arousal model. Inter-rater reliability analyses indicate that consistency in emotion judgments varies significantly across rehearsal segments, with systematic disagreements in certain segments. In a follow-up study, we examine listeners' reasons for their ratings in segments with high and low agreement. We relate these reasons to acoustic features and individual differences. Twenty-one listeners annotated perceived emotions while watching a recorded video of the live performance. They then reflected on their judgments and provided explanations retrospectively. Disagreements were attributed to listeners attending to different musical features or being uncertain about the expressed emotions. Emotion judgments were significantly associated with personality traits, gender, cultural background, and music preference. Thematic analysis of explanations revealed cognitive processes underlying music emotion perception, highlighting attributes less frequently discussed in MER studies, such as instrumentation, arrangement, musical structure, and multimodal factors related to performer expression. Exploratory models incorporating these semantic features and individual factors were developed to predict perceived music emotion over time. Regression analyses confirmed the significance of listener-informed semantic features as independent variables, with individual factors acting as moderators between loudness, pitch range, and arousal. In our final study, we analyzed the effects of individual differences on music emotion perception among 128 participants with diverse backgrounds. Participants annotated perceived emotions for 51 piano performances of different compositions from the Western canon, spanning various era. Linear mixed effects models revealed significant variations in valence and arousal ratings, as well as the frequency of emotion ratings, with regard to several individual factors: music sophistication, music preferences, personality traits, and mood states. Additionally, participants' ratings of arousal, valence, and emotional agreement were significantly associated to the historical time periods of the examined clips. This research highlights the complexity of music emotion perception, revealing it to be a dynamic, individual and context-dependent process. It paves the way for the development of more individually nuanced, time-based models in music psychology, opening up new avenues for personalised music emotion recognition and recommendation, music emotion-driven generation and therapeutic applications
Builder-Blocker General Position Games
This paper considers a game version of the general position problem in which
a general position set is built through adversarial play. Two players in a
graph, Builder and Blocker, take it in turns to add a vertex to a set, such
that the vertices of this set are always in general position. The goal of
Builder is to create a large general position set, whilst the aim of Blocker is
to frustrate Builder's plans by making the set as small as possible. The game
finishes when no further vertices can be added without creating three-in-a-line
and the number of vertices in this set is the game general position number. We
determine this number for some common graph classes and provide sharp bounds,
in particular for the case of trees. We also discuss the effect of changing the
order of the players
- β¦