德语空间音乐学中巴洛克时代人物的来源

IF 0.1 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Iskusstvovedenie Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.21638/spbu15.2023.103
Anastasiya А. Maltseva
{"title":"德语空间音乐学中巴洛克时代人物的来源","authors":"Anastasiya А. Maltseva","doi":"10.21638/spbu15.2023.103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is hardly possible to immediately give an exact answer to the question: what is the exact number of authors of musical-theoretical treatises containing catalogs of musical-rhetorical figures. But very often the “recognized” number (with a fairly stable set of theoretical sources) is considered to be fifteen authors. How did scholars of the German language space gradually discover catalogs of musical figures in treatises and include them in scientific circulation? Is it possible to consider the “recognized” list of works of fifteen Baroque authors exhaustive? Why is he firmly entrenched in musicology? Which of the musicologists wanted to expand the range of treatises and on what grounds? This article is devoted to finding answers to these questions. As a result of the analysis of dictionary and scientific articles, books and dissertations by such authors as C. J. A. Hoffmann (1830), C. Kossmaly (1846), H. Gehrmann (1891), А. Schering (1908), K. Ziebler (1933), H. Brandes (1935), H. H. Unger (1941), A. Schmitz (1955), H. H. Eggebrecht (1957), D. Bartel (1985, 1997), W. Braun (1994), H. Krones (1997), J. Klassen (2001) and others, the following conclusion was made: the researchers did not have a common opinion in the selection of sources and their belonging to the discourse about Figurenlehren. The heterogeneity of figure catalogs, the presence of Manieren, diminution and late Renaissance rules of counterpoint in them are the main reasons for the potential openness of the list of treatises involved in the doctrine of figures. To explain the reasons for the formation of the “recognized” list of authors (largely due to the English edition of D. Bartel’s book) and a certain inertia of musicology in different countries in the issue of Figurenlehren sources in the current century, the article uses the research of scientists — representatives of American, Bulgarian, English, Israeli, Italian, Mexican, Polish, Russian musicology.","PeriodicalId":40378,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Iskusstvovedenie","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sources of Figurenlehren of the Baroque Era in Musicology of the German Language Space\",\"authors\":\"Anastasiya А. Maltseva\",\"doi\":\"10.21638/spbu15.2023.103\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"It is hardly possible to immediately give an exact answer to the question: what is the exact number of authors of musical-theoretical treatises containing catalogs of musical-rhetorical figures. But very often the “recognized” number (with a fairly stable set of theoretical sources) is considered to be fifteen authors. How did scholars of the German language space gradually discover catalogs of musical figures in treatises and include them in scientific circulation? Is it possible to consider the “recognized” list of works of fifteen Baroque authors exhaustive? Why is he firmly entrenched in musicology? Which of the musicologists wanted to expand the range of treatises and on what grounds? This article is devoted to finding answers to these questions. As a result of the analysis of dictionary and scientific articles, books and dissertations by such authors as C. J. A. Hoffmann (1830), C. Kossmaly (1846), H. Gehrmann (1891), А. Schering (1908), K. Ziebler (1933), H. Brandes (1935), H. H. Unger (1941), A. Schmitz (1955), H. H. Eggebrecht (1957), D. Bartel (1985, 1997), W. Braun (1994), H. Krones (1997), J. Klassen (2001) and others, the following conclusion was made: the researchers did not have a common opinion in the selection of sources and their belonging to the discourse about Figurenlehren. The heterogeneity of figure catalogs, the presence of Manieren, diminution and late Renaissance rules of counterpoint in them are the main reasons for the potential openness of the list of treatises involved in the doctrine of figures. To explain the reasons for the formation of the “recognized” list of authors (largely due to the English edition of D. Bartel’s book) and a certain inertia of musicology in different countries in the issue of Figurenlehren sources in the current century, the article uses the research of scientists — representatives of American, Bulgarian, English, Israeli, Italian, Mexican, Polish, Russian musicology.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40378,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Iskusstvovedenie\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Iskusstvovedenie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu15.2023.103\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Iskusstvovedenie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu15.2023.103","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

几乎不可能立即给出这个问题的确切答案:包含音乐修辞人物目录的音乐理论论文的作者的确切数量是多少?但通常“公认的”数字(有相当稳定的理论来源)被认为是15位作者。德语语言领域的学者是如何逐渐发现论文中的音乐人物目录并将其纳入科学流通的?有可能认为“公认的”十五位巴洛克作家的作品列表是详尽的吗?为什么他对音乐学有坚定的信念?哪位音乐学家想要扩大论文的范围?基于什么理由?本文致力于寻找这些问题的答案。通过对C. J. a . Hoffmann(1830)、C. Kossmaly(1846)、H. Gehrmann(1891)等作者的词典和科学文章、书籍和论文的分析,А。Schering(1908)、K. Ziebler(1933)、H. Brandes(1935)、H. H. Unger(1941)、a . Schmitz(1955)、H. H. Eggebrecht(1957)、D. Bartel(1985、1997)、W. Braun(1994)、H. Krones(1997)、J. Klassen(2001)等人得出以下结论:研究者在关于Figurenlehren的话语来源选择和归属问题上没有统一的意见。人物目录的异质性,曼尼莲的存在,减少和文艺复兴后期对位规则是人物学说中论文列表潜在开放性的主要原因。为了解释“公认的”作者名单的形成原因(主要是由于D. Bartel的书的英文版)以及本世纪不同国家在Figurenlehren来源问题上的音乐学的一定惯性,文章使用了科学家的研究-美国,保加利亚,英国,以色列,意大利,墨西哥,波兰,俄罗斯音乐学的代表。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Sources of Figurenlehren of the Baroque Era in Musicology of the German Language Space
It is hardly possible to immediately give an exact answer to the question: what is the exact number of authors of musical-theoretical treatises containing catalogs of musical-rhetorical figures. But very often the “recognized” number (with a fairly stable set of theoretical sources) is considered to be fifteen authors. How did scholars of the German language space gradually discover catalogs of musical figures in treatises and include them in scientific circulation? Is it possible to consider the “recognized” list of works of fifteen Baroque authors exhaustive? Why is he firmly entrenched in musicology? Which of the musicologists wanted to expand the range of treatises and on what grounds? This article is devoted to finding answers to these questions. As a result of the analysis of dictionary and scientific articles, books and dissertations by such authors as C. J. A. Hoffmann (1830), C. Kossmaly (1846), H. Gehrmann (1891), А. Schering (1908), K. Ziebler (1933), H. Brandes (1935), H. H. Unger (1941), A. Schmitz (1955), H. H. Eggebrecht (1957), D. Bartel (1985, 1997), W. Braun (1994), H. Krones (1997), J. Klassen (2001) and others, the following conclusion was made: the researchers did not have a common opinion in the selection of sources and their belonging to the discourse about Figurenlehren. The heterogeneity of figure catalogs, the presence of Manieren, diminution and late Renaissance rules of counterpoint in them are the main reasons for the potential openness of the list of treatises involved in the doctrine of figures. To explain the reasons for the formation of the “recognized” list of authors (largely due to the English edition of D. Bartel’s book) and a certain inertia of musicology in different countries in the issue of Figurenlehren sources in the current century, the article uses the research of scientists — representatives of American, Bulgarian, English, Israeli, Italian, Mexican, Polish, Russian musicology.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
50.00%
发文量
9
期刊最新文献
Sources of Figurenlehren of the Baroque Era in Musicology of the German Language Space Reproduction Technology. From Replica to Brand The Pragmatics of Romanticism. Edmund Burke as Art Theorist The Pavan in English Music of the 16th–17th Centuries Tapestry Art in Buryatia: Experience and Perspectives
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1