THE CULTURALLY ECLECTIC AS PERSONAL VISION: MARIN GOLEMINOV’S VIOLA CONCERTO (C.1953). BEING AN HISTORICAL AND THEORETICAL ANALYSIS (INCLUDING TECHNICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL STUDIES FOR PERFORMERS AND EDUCATORS, WITH NINE NEWLY-COMPOSED TECHNICAL STUDIES DERIVED FROM THE GOLEMINOV VIOLA CONCERTO).

Doctoral Project

A Doctoral Musical Arts Project in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of a Doctor of Musical Arts in the College of Fine Arts at the University of Kentucky

By Lubitza Braikova

Lexington, Kentucky
Director: Joseph Baber, Professor of Composition 2017

Doctoral Project Abstract

Abstract:

This monograph presents a study of the M. Goleminov Concerto for Viola and Orchestra №1 (Концерт за Bиола и Oркестър номер 1 Марин Големинов, р.1908– п.2000). Historical, stylistic, theoretical, and performance analyses will be addressed. The present document contains an examination of the idiosyncratic concepts and stylistic components present in the concerto, including strategic and substantive eclecticism, artistic syncretism, and a kind of multi-cultural Nationalism. Also included here are new compositions, etudes by Lubitza Braikova derived from salient episode fragments of Goleminov’s work. These address pedagogical, theoretic, and technical concerns directly relevant to the concerto’s interpretive-performative opportunities. Intended largely for advanced technical study, they should serve both professional musicians and advanced students.

The purpose of this document is to provide new scholarship as well as to further international research on Marin Goleminov and his works. It should also uniquely bring significant aspects of this Concerto to the global audience they deserve.

This project presents important senses of Marin Goleminov and of historical-political aspects variously relevant to this mature work. Bulgarian National music traditions will be addressed and the richness of Goleminov’s Viola Concerto will be demonstrated through analysis. Advanced performance pedagogy will be presented in nine technical studies.

Acknowledgements:

This monograph is the result of many queries and realizations encountered in my study of the viola and a number of issues intimately related to its rich application in art music. I was inspired with and by a deep love of music, by my parents Paulina and Jordan Braikov. Professors at the University of Kentucky School of Music, who shared valuable insights and sophisticated perspectives on music, music-making, performing, composing, and teaching — and under whose tutelage I worked extensively — are Prof. Joseph Baber, Dr. Wendy Yates, Dr. Schuyler Robinson, Dr. Michael Baker, Dr. Sean Burns, Dr. David Sogin, Prof.s Margaret and Benjamin Karp, Prof. Daniel Mason, and Prof. John Nardolillo. I would also like to express my appreciation to friends and colleagues for their support and, often, insightful influence during my initial study and, then, the research and writing process.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………iii

Part I.

List of Tables …………………………………………………………………….vi

List of Figures……………………………………………………………………vii

Chapter One: Introduction………………………………………………………9

Chapter Two: Biographical notes on the composer Marin Goleminov and musical life in Bulgaria, in the first half of the Twentieth Century…………………………………………………………………………..11

Thesis…………………………………………………………………………….13

Research Problem ……………………………………………………………….14

Significance of the Research……………………………………………………15

Short List of Historical Documents, Data and Review of Current Literature (secondary sources) …………………………………………………………….16

Methodology……………………………………………………………………….

Chapter Three: Viola Concerto: Formal Analysis………………………………

Chapter Four: Viola Concerto: Technical studies…………………………………

Summary……………………………………………………………………………

Chapter Five: Conclusions

Problems and limits in this research plan, Data Analysis and a Wish List………………………………………………………………………………

Findings, Implications and Prospects for Additional Research….239

Appendices:
Appendix A:……………………………………………………………………….

Appendix B:………………………………………………………………………

Appendix C:………………………………………………………………………

Appendix D:………………………………………………………………………

Appendix E:………………………………………………………………………

Appendix F:………………………………………………………………………

Part II.

Programs and Program Notes from Recital Repertoire

a.Recital 1 …………………………………………………………………………

b. Recital 2 ………………………………………………………………………..

c.Recital 3………………………………………………………………….. …….

d. Recital 4 ………………………………………………………………………..

e.Recital 5 …………………………………………………………………………

f. Recital 6………………………………………………………………………….

g. Recital 7…………………………………………………………………………..

h. Recital 8…………………………………………………………………………..

i. Recital 9 …………………………………………………………………………..

j. Recital 10………………………………………………………………………….

k. Recital 11…………………………………………………………………………

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………….

Vita…………………………………………………………………………………..

Chapter 1:

Introduction

Part I.

The Concerto for Viola composed by Marin Goleminov instantiates a particular syncretism; Western European and Bulgarian aspects are uniquely amalgamated. Effortlessly blending established classical forms with the musical heritage of the Balkans, Goleminov created eclectic and, often, powerfully meaningful art. This document includes nine newly composed studies for solo viola on tone/intonation/tuning, phrasing, bowing variations/strokes, positions/finger patterns, shifting, double stopping/chords, harmonics, portamento and vibrato. They supplement the analysis of the concerto and expand on concepts found therein. These analytic etudes are intended as a training regimen uniquely preparing for the concerto’s, and the instrument’s demands. Studies here present varied levels of difficulty, for the left and right hands, and isolate different techniques.

To perform this work with the necessary command and personal voice, one may expand senses of context. She might actively contemplate phenomena of different direction and scale that have impacted the composer’s constructive sense of possibility — that is, the vision of “this instrument’s singing of these conceptions.” Goleminov’s Viola Concerto exhibits significant complexity in advanced textures, techniques, and imaginations; this complexity suggests the micro-dimension of its overarching, intersecting contexts — those of emotive-personal and social-historical import. Of course, the latter also give the interpreter-performer unique opportunity for technical-expressive development. Actively isolating, analyzing, and perfecting the work’s structural manifestations, the empathic imagination might register productive environs — in their different scales and proximity — to allow fresh, if specifically-responsive, realizations.

These technical exercises have been designed to improve various aspects of performance relevant to this work and variously related interpretations. Both fundamental and advanced techniques may be improved through the careful and steady usage of these studies. In different ways, these address right and left hand measures, accompaniment coordination/collaboration, hermeneutical address, as well as relative objective and subjective functions of pertinent tone, pulse, and phrase phenomena. A structural overview of these technical settings — along with some commentary on major thematic elements — are provided to address issues of style, expression, aesthetic conceptualization and challenges for the resourceful and constructive considering of both poetic and pedagogic purpose, as directly applicable to this work.

Methodology

The majority of relevant information here is drawn from such sources as lesser known encyclopedias, publishers, first editions, manuscripts, and other scholarly works. Data collection is facilitated through the University of Kentucky Libraries, Centers for Research Libraries (CRL), the National library of Bulgaria, Bibliotheque Nationale de France, Library of Congress, Interlibrary Loan, IIMP, Jstor, Rilm, Proquest Dissertations and Theses, as well as Music Index online.

The present monograph is organized in chapters and appendices as follows:

Chapter 2: Biographical notes on the composer Marin Goleminov and musical life in Bulgaria, in the first half of the Twentieth Century. This section outlines the biographical background of the composer and presents an overview of the musical scene in Bulgaria in the context of the socio-political circumstances amidst the time of the World Wars.

Chapter 3: Viola Concerto: Formal Analysis. A focus on form and structure: Considering the fundamental line, harmony, and texture that constitutes the Goleminov Viola Concerto, №1, 1953.

Chapter 4: Viola Concerto: Technical studies Exercises that support crucial preparation for richer performances of the Goleminov Viola Concerto #1.

Chapter 5: Conclusion

Appendix A: Works by Marin Goleminov featuring the solo viola

Appendix B: Viola Concertos in Bulgaria

Appendix C: Viola Diatonic Gamut, pitch registers and starting positions in the context of C Major/Ionian scale

Appendix D: Viola Chromatic Gamut; Comprehensive Table of all unstopped and stopped pitches on the viola and their respective registers

Appendix E: Comprehensive List of Natural and Artificial Harmonics on Viola

Appendix F: Annotated Catalogue of the Viola Works and Chamber Works with Viola of Joseph Baber

Part II.

This section consists of relevant Recital Programs and Program Notes from the eleven recitals that fulfilled the performance requirement for the degree Doctor of Musical Arts in Viola Performance from the University of Kentucky.

Chapter 2

Biographical Information of the composer Marin Goleminov and musical life in Bulgaria during the first half of the Twentieth Century

The Encyclopedia of Bulgarian Composers established three musical-historical periods following the inauguration of modern Bulgaria, in 1978. According to this division, Bulgarian composers fell into three generations: first generation — prior to World War I, second generation — post-World Wars, and third generation — “contemporary” composers. Marin Goleminov was a part of the second generation of Bulgarian composers, born between 1898 and 1912. Among his contemporary compatriot composers were Pancho Vladigerov (1899–1978), Petko Stainov (1896–1977), Vesselin Stoyanov (1902–1969), Dimitar Nenov (1901–1953), Parashkev Hadzhiev (1912–1992), Lubomir Pipkov (1904–1974), and Philip Koutev (1903–1982). The second generation, constituted by mid- and post-World War composers largely conceived and created a celebrated syncretism among Bulgarian traditional folklore aspects and those of 20th-century musical aesthetics — those prevalent in Western Europe. The first generation of Bulgarian composers initiated the utilization of Western-European genres somewhat well-established and even made quite popular in the 19th century; these approaches were introduced to Bulgarian audiences through this “first generation” of composers. The third generation encompassed “modern” composers thoroughly following the fairly well established systematic-experimental changes of the 1960s-avant-garde — including phenomena of the late modern often referred to as “post-modern.”

Marin Goleminov is one of the more prolific Bulgarian composers of recent generations; his compositional style carries Bulgarian identity and, often, arguably reflects Bulgarian musical syntax, in direct ways. He composed his first two musical works in 1924–1926 — March and Autumn Song, both being for wind orchestra. Studying at the Pancho Vladigerov State Academy of Music from 1927 to 1931, where he pursued violin performance in the class of Todor Torchanov as well as music theory with Professors Dobri Hristov (1875–1941), Nikola Atanassov (1886–1969) and Stoyan Brashovanov (1888–1956), he was also hired as a violinist in the Military Club at the Ministry of Defense, and as a violist in the State Opera Orchestra. Goleminov continued his music education at the Schola Cantorum in Paris from 1931 to 1934, majoring in composition and conducting under Professor Vincent d’Indy (1851–1931) and later with Guy de Lioncourt (1885–1961), Paul Le Flem (1881–1984), and Albert Bertelin (1872–1951). In Paris he audited lectures on French opera by the famous musicologist Andre Pirro (1869–1943) as well as lectures on philosophy and German humanities, by Victor Basch (1863–1944). He attended the composition classes of Paul Ducas (1863–1935) at L’École Normale de Musique in Paris; additionally, he matriculated in music theory, aesthetics, and literature at the Sorbonne. Upon his graduation from the Schola Cantorum in 1934, Goleminov came back to Bulgaria and started to teach music at the Gymnasium. He also joined the Union of Bulgarian Composers’ Contemporary Music Society, founded in 1933. Often performing his compositions written for the primary instruments he played — violin and viola — Goleminov dedicated his first three string quartets to the reputable Avramov Quartet (1935–1938) in which he played the second violin. He was a founder of the Sofia Radio Orchestra as well as its first conductor (1936–38). Goleminov specialized in conducting and composition from 1938–1939, at the Munich Akademie der Tonkunst. There he studied symphonic and opera conducting with Professor Carl Ehrenberg (1878–1962) and Heinrich Knappe, and composition with Professor Josef Haas (1879–1960). From 1943–1945 he became a docent in music theory at the State Academy of Music in Sofia; he was also a music director of the Academic Symphony Orchestra. Beginning in 1946, he became a professor at the Sofia Conservatory where he taught chamber music, orchestration, conducting, and composition. In 1954 he was elected as a Rector of the Music Academy. Awarded the rank of Academician by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, in 1965 — Goleminov was appointed as the Director of the Bulgarian State Opera.

The music of Marin Goleminov encompasses a broad range of stage, vocal, and instrumental works, among which there are three operas Ivaylo, The Icon-Painter Zakhary, Tracian Idols; the dance drama Nestinarka, the musical tale The Golden Bird, the ballet Kaloyan’s Daughter, numerous solo songs and choral works, cantatas Father Paisiy and Resurrection of the Living, as well as the oratorio The Titan, the orchestral ballad: A Ballad for the April Uprising, four symphonies, four symphonic poems, symphonic variations, an overture, Concerto for string quartet and string orchestra, solo concertos for piano, violin, viola, cello, oboe, eight string quartets, two violin sonatas, a cello sonata, three brass quintets and more. Besides his musical compositions, Goleminov wrote four music theory textbooks and over 200 articles and essays that were published in Bulgaria and abroad. This document discusses Goleminov’s blending of Bulgarian Nationalist, French fin-de-siecle styles, and German traditions (including Neo-Classical and Neo- Romantic inflections) as exemplified in his Viola Concerto (1950), with additional parallels to instrumental music for string instruments.

Social and political events of the 20th century, especially those of the second World War, directly influenced Goleminov’s life and art. To give some evidence, I will here offer a brief introduction to the political environment in Bulgaria and Europe, that is, following World War II. Following 500 years of Ottoman rule — and one often characterized as plainly oppressive — the newly established Bulgarian Republic was looking for institutional models in all cultural areas, including in music. Composers from this time period went to study abroad, whether in France, Germany, or beyond. For example, Pancho Vladigerov, Petko Stainov, Parashkev Hadzhiev, and Dimitar Nenov pursued further musical education in Germany; Vesselin Stoyanov did so in Austria, and both Marin Goleminov and Panaiot Pipkov did so in Paris, France. Goleminov additionally studied in Münich.

The first part of this monograph will provide a theoretical, formal, and stylistic analysis as well as a performance guide to the Viola Concerto. Applicable pedagogical aspects will be discussed, demonstrating the unique challenges of this work, its value for musical study, and the rationale behind composing preparatory exercises. The second part will present the compositions focused on left hand dexterity, viola fingerboard mapping, left hand relaxation, accurate intonation, and effective vibrato — followed by exercises focused on the right hand — rhythmic control and articulation for achieving effectual tone and phrase.

Thesis

Marin Goleminov’s music for viola and string instrumental music has been an intensive and celebrated part of the standard repertoire in Bulgaria since the mid-1930s. Even so, his recognition in greater Europe and in the United States has yet to be soundly established. Throughout much of his career, he enjoyed great national popularity and respect, his work being both highly creative and in demand. This document and its appended etudes are intended largely as a contribution to a remedy.

At the beginning of the 20th Century, the viola was not a frequent focus of Bulgarian composers; relatively speaking, Western European composition was rife with both chamber and solo literature for the instrument. The European rise of the viola dates back to the early 19th century, in compositions such as Harold in Italy by Berlioz, The Grand Viola Sonata by Niccolo Paganini, Henri Vieuxtemps’s two viola sonatas (as well as his Capriccio for solo viola), and his Elegie — Max Bruch’s Romance for viola and orchestra (and his Double concerto for viola and clarinet), Enescu’s Concertpiece, and Richard Strauss’ viola solos in the tone poems Don Quixote and Don Juan — and, then, in the opera Der Rosenkavalier.

Marin Goleminov is one of a handful Bulgarian composers who were not afraid to write for the viola. He developed a unique compositional style fusing elements from Bulgarian, French and German traditions, marked with innovations in harmony, texture, form and significant — and somewhat visionary — orchestrated color. In fact, his works for the viola arguably provide an excellent basis for understanding important aspects of Western European compositional style — that is, during this time period. Additionally, Bulgarian traditional and folk syntax are often on fine display.

At the beginning of the Twentieth century, the musical culture in Bulgaria was predominantly influenced by its folk tradition; works were largely played in secular settings, on traditional Bulgarian folk instruments such as the gaida (goat-skin bagpipe), kaval (end-blown flute), gadulka (somewhat reminiscent of the rebec), the tupan (a large drum carried on the shoulder), tambura (double steel string instrument, played with plectrum, somewhat similar to the mandolin), and the tarambuka (a membranophone with a chalice shaped body). After being freed from five centuries of Turkish oppression in 1878 (the Ottoman Turks occupied Bulgaria since the late fourteenth century), professional music-production grew quickly in Bulgaria. The first Choral Society, Bulgarski Pevcheski Tsurkoven Khor (‘Bulgarian Church Choir’), was founded in Ruse in 1870. In 1901 the first professional union of musicians was set up. The Bulgarian Musical Union (1903–41) organized musical activities and the Bulgarian Choral Union (founded in 1926) organized novice activities, such as of military bands and amateur choirs; both providing funding for the different musical ensembles. The so-called “concert management boards” were helping with recruitment of concert performers from abroad. The Society of Contemporary Music “Association Suvremenna Muzika” operated in the years between 1933 to 1944 and supported projects with new music. The State Academy of Music opened doors in 1904. The Opera Society was founded in 1908, the Sofia National opera, in 1921 and the Bulgarian National Philharmonic Orchestra was founded in 1924; the Academic Symphonic Orchestra was founded in 1928, the Royal Military Orchestra, in 1936 and the Sofia State Philharmonic, in 1946. Bulgarian music had not been disseminated or promulgated abroad until the 20th century. The first Bulgarian composers were popular within Bulgaria: Nikola Atanasov (1886–1969) composed the first Bulgarian Symphony, Georgi Atanasov (1882–1931) and Panayot Pipkov (1871–1942) produced operas, solo, and choral works, most often on folk subjects. Andrey Stoyanov (a graduate of the Vienna Academy of Music) founded the Bulgarian piano school. In the 1920s an important contribution to this school was made by Ivan Torchanov — another graduate of the Vienna Academy of Music, who specialized with L. Godowsky.

After World War I and the September Uprising (1923), a new stage in the development of Bulgarian music began. Composers professionally trained in Germany, France, Austria, and Italy, who had assimilated the European tradition, returned to Bulgaria to found a fresh take on Bulgarian musical tradition. They made it their aim to create a Bulgarian national style, drawing both on contemporary trends and folklore. Composers such as Pancho Vladigerov, Lyubomir Pipkov, Marin Goleminov, Veselin Stoyanov, Dimitar Nenov, Parashkev Khadzhiev, Petko Staynov, and Georgi Dimitrov extended and created the basis of Bulgarian musical tradition in all genres; through their teaching they were a prime influence on the post WWII generation of composers.

After the socialist revolution in 1944, the new social and cultural situation led to changes in the development of Bulgarian musical life. All cultural activities were centralized and acquired a plainly ideological orientation. Socialist realism and the slogan ‘The more among the people, the closer to life!’ became the order of the day. The new state performing institutions were responsible for organizing concerts and popularizing music. Composers and Musicologists, all belonging to the Union of Bulgarian Composers, consolidated the new socialist musical culture and organized festivals of Bulgarian music, as well as musical education and criticism sessions. State opera and operetta companies and symphony orchestras (foremost among them the Simfonichen Orkestar na Balgarskoto Radio i Televiziya [‘Bulgarian Radio and Television Symphony Orchestra’, 1949]) were subsidized by the state; their activities were directly under state control. The Committee of Culture and the Arts presided over the work of musical educational establishments such as the Balgarska Darzhavna Konservatoriya (‘Bulgarian State Conservatory,’ now the National Music Academy ‘Pancho Vladigerov’), and state music schools. Amateur groups received support from trade-union funds, community centers, and the Committee of Culture and the Arts. The state also controlled other activities, such as the production and distribution of records and music scores.

The development of Bulgarian music between 1944 and the beginning of the 1960s was largely determined by the imposition of a new model of national culture. This was, of course, a time of revolutionary change, and of realism. The neo-Romantic pathos found in Bulgarian music of the 1930s and 40s was replaced by an emphasis on folklore, as the expression of a kind of democratic aesthetic; this was the case particularly with genres such as cantatas, oratorios, and other choral works. Most young composers were unable to study abroad and make significant contact with contemporary European trends. Leading representatives of new approaches in Bulgarian music included Konstantin Iliev, Lazar Nikolov, Alexandar Raychev, Simeon Pironkov, Krasimir Kyurkchiyski, Vasil Kazandzhiev, Georgi Tutev, and Ivan Spasov. Many of the most promising among their compositions were performed at the Warsaw Autumn International contemporary music festival.

Research Problem

Research questions that emerge from this topic are as follows: In what way does the viola concerto of Marin Goleminov represent a fusion of Bulgarian and Western European musical styles? What might any special pedagogical significance of this work be? Why is Goleminov’s Viola concerto important for the development of the Concerto genre, in Bulgaria and the greater international context? Why is it important that Goleminov’s concerto be incorporated into the standard viola repertoire?

The results of this research will support the hypothesis that the Goleminov viola concerto is a non-negligible and fine example of viola literature that, through varied provenance, weaves traditional and innovative aspects. Given an arguable or relative knowledge deficit concerning the featured instrument’s capabilities and a lesser position regarding well-developed solo literature — the present study may perhaps make contribution to relevant remedies.

Significance of the research

The result of this qualitative research will be variously beneficial for instruction in viola performance. When programming this Concerto, players need to be aware of all the details surrounding the piece and their varied relations in order to present an authentically responsive vision of the work. The viola music of Marin Goleminov constitutes an area certainly meriting further research. Findings presented here will expand the perspective of readers and researchers interested in discovering the prolific Bulgarian composer’s (Marin Goleminov) sense of the possible engagements of the viola and music more generally. There seems to be no extant research guide for the available Bulgarian viola repertoire similar to guides available for research in string quartet, concerto, opera, and etc. In available guides, indices do not include Marin Goleminov’s instrumental music. The musical community is in significant need of a Thematic Catalogue, Collected Edition, and Critical Editions related to this fine viola literature.

Short List of Historical Documents, Data and Review of Current Literature (secondary sources)

The following short list briefly reviews articles, books and dissertations germane to the current topic. Most studies of the Goleminov oeuvre come from Bulgarian authors. As customary, the listed secondary sources will provide necessary background and context. Prominent books on the life and works of the composer are as follows: “Marin Goleminov Monography” by Stephan Lazarov (1971); “Marin Goleminov” by Rumiana Apostolova (1988) Venelin Krustev’s “Profiles” (1976), “Marin Goleminov and Bulgarian Musicology” by Polia Paunova (2000); “Music Dramaturgy and Elements of Style in Marin Goleminov’s Stage Work” by Boyanka Arnaudova (2000). The scope of these books relates to the life, career, and music of the composer; primary sources are also included, such as in the case of interviews of and letters from the composer. “Music Theory Heritage”, by Dobri Hristov (1970), is a good source of information regarding traditional Bulgarian musical style, for instance; it surveys traditional modes, traditional Bulgarian rhythms, Bulgarian folk songs, church music, extant theory and other critical notes. The “openness of Marin Goleminov to different international trends” is discussed in Kristina Apova’s article “The chamber music of Marin Goleminov”. There seem not to be extant sources that discuss the “international trends” in Goleminov’s works. This opens a door for more, and deeper, exploration. The Encyclopedia of the Bulgarian Music Culture (1967) contains much about the second generation of Bulgarian composers, Bulgarian folk music, musical instruments, traditional dances, Bulgarian customs, traditions, church music, ballet, choirs, ensembles, and chamber music. It also contains a chronological table of Bulgarian historical, political, literary, art theatre, and musical events. The central idea of the book by Stoyan Petrov “Essays on the history of the Bulgarian Music culture” (1959) is to present the development of Bulgaria music from the year 681 (when Bulgaria arguably became a country) up to the twentieth century.

The most substantial data about the life of Marin Goleminov and as well as a comprehensive list of his works comes from an article in the “Encyclopedia of Bulgarian Music Culture”. The article in the “New Grove Dictionary of Music” offers condensed and largely biographical information. A significantly more extensive entry is provided by Maria Kostakeva in “Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart”. The article there includes not only biographical information but also a complete list of relevant compositions, books and publications, divided into categories: vocal music, instrumental music, and writings on music. The original manuscripts of his compositions are kept in the Bulgarian National Library, where they can be checked out but used only within the library. The annotation about Marin Goleminov in the International Cyclopedia of Music is limited to one paragraph.

There are only two dissertations related to Marin Goleminov’s works. Those are available for access through Proquest Dissertations and Theses: “The songs for voice and piano of Marin Goleminov”, written by Patrick Yacomo, Boston University, 2002 and “Through the prism of the wellspring: from national, to societal, to individual in Marin Goleminov’s string quartets”, written by Diana Jeanne Flesner (PHD San Francisco Conservatory) in 1999. They both deal specifically with nationalist themes in Goleminov’s selected works.

The following books by Goleminov: “Instrumentation” (1947), and “Problems with orchestration” (1953), “On the sources of Bulgarian composition” (1937),“Behind the scenes of the creative process” ( 1970) and “Diaries” ( 1996): have valuable insights on the composer’s treatment of the orchestra, instruments, and compositional techniques.

Chapter 3

Viola Concerto: Formal Analysis

The following chapter focuses on the formal structure, harmony, and texture of the Viola Concerto, №1, 1953 by Marin Goleminov.

The Viola Concerto by Marin Goleminov consists of three contrasting movements: Allegro non troppo, Larghetto and Allegro Assai. The movements flow developmentally from one to another but with breaks, creating a substantial, complex, large and lengthy sonata form. The contrast among the movements applies largely to their individual forms and structures; the three movements are relatively long and elaborate, each having particular structure on its own which could be recognized as a separate smaller piece. The applied form of Concerto corresponds to the typical Classical-Romantic sonata model: the three movements alternate in different tempos, where the first and third movements are in faster tempos and the second is in slow tempo.

The formal charts aim to trace the variety of structural punctuations in each movement — that is — aspects of design in terms of cadences, tempos and tonal structures in terms of harmonic organization.

Movements of the Concerto for Viola, formal charts

Fig. 1a) Movement 1 Allegro non troppo, formal chart

Fig. 1b) Movement 2, Larghetto, formal chart

Fig. 1c) Movement 3 Allegro assai, formal chart

Introduction

The form of the Viola Concerto is largely in classical sonata form; its components will be clarified in the featured analysis. It is arguably of the “Type 5 Sonata,” which is of the most complicated design according to Sonata Theory principles established by James Hepokoski and Warren Darcy. Signature characteristics here are twofold: they are related to the unity of the main, tonal orchestral entrance, largely staying away from definite modulations beyond closely related keys (or, in other words, keeping modulatory transitions — those usually coming after the second theme — away from the realm of the distantly related keys — far-reaching or complex sonorities). Faux or Non-modulatory “harmonic conjugations,” perhaps, can seem typical here; pantonal poly-chords consisting of diminished and half-diminished seventh chords tend to create instability through tritone-axes rotations — among lines and arguably half-deceptive resolutions in the perceived tonic of D [maj./min.] and the closely-related G [maj./min.] (which are used as a stabilizing constituent). Another prominent characteristic of the “Type 5 Sonata” form is the ritornello-type arrangement, between the soloist and the orchestra; dialectic-like antiphony is also a feature. A majority of Goleminov’s musical poetics might be seen as evoking — in this way — the serious existential ambivalences of his life and its greater circumstances.

The opening motive/phrase consists of a stabilizing diatonic d minor aeolian sonority; it recurs throughout the first movement. The fragmentary presentation of the antecedent establishes a quartal-quintal-major second intervallic net which foregrounds tonal stability and resonance. Then, the fragmentary introduction of the continuation modifies the sonorities of perfect fourths and fifths transforming them into tritones, deceptive cadences and hinted modulations — not transpositions — directing the theme away from the tonal key to create a sense of ambiguity and, arguably, some distortion of stability, that is, before restating the initial, soothing sense of calm.

Two-Part Exposition

This concerto follows the traditional form of the concerto style, incorporating a two-part exposition, which is the twofold statements of the two main themes. The latter are stated first in the orchestra and then repeated by the solo instrument. Here the two expositions are not absolutely identical, though the themes share similar melodic and harmonic material.

The abbreviated exposition starts in the orchestra and endures for forty-four measures beginning in measure fourteen and lasting until measure fifty-seven. The first theme of the exposition is stated from measure fourteen to measure twenty-one; it brings exoticism through intermingled harmonies of Italian, French and German chords as well as repeated hiatuses in the melodic line. Thus the d minor aeolian tonality is transformed into D double harmonic minor scale (also known as the Gypsy minor or Hungarian minor scale, in which the fourth and seventh degree of the minor scale are each raised a step higher). The second theme of the exposition starts in measure twenty-one and lasts until measure thirty-four in the parallel to d minor key, that is, in D major. The orchestral exposition continues with a modulatory set of transitions leading to a Medial Ceasure in the key of F. It then ends with a cadential augmented statement, in the key of D.

The secondary theme zone of the two-part exposition is eight measures long and is laid out as a prototypical hybrid 1 theme.[1]It is constructed as an eight-measure unit divided into two phrases of four measures each. Compositionally, it is more complex than the two main tight-knit theme-types: period and sentence. It is an amalgamation of the components of both. The starting two measures of the viola part in the second exposition are to be performed solo, without orchestral accompaniment. The melodic structure of the initiating four measure antecedent phrase has two contrasting ideas, considered to be basic idea (bi) and contrasting basic idea (cbi). The antecedent of the first theme opens with a courageous D minor chord and unfolds ‘in broad strokes,’ in eight notes with detache-tenutos and staccato eighth-note slurs (with accents in the viola for two measures). Subsequently, the contrasting basic idea, which lasts also two measures, hints toward a perhaps evasive, weak plagal cadence, with an unstable resolution on the fourth weak beat of the fourth bar. This resolution could be dismissed as a structural cadence because of the five-beat suspension in the viola and, then, it leading by connective function to the continuation phrase.

Chapter 4

A viola player interested in performing Goleminov’s Concerto for Viola well might consider that the piece was written by a true virtuoso, on both violin and viola. Goleminov wrote the concerto not having a particular performer in mind. Many of the passages require complete technical mastery of the instrument in order to elicit the evocative auditory array that is intended, both mechanically and poetically. Interpreters of the concerto might also consider the avid interests of the composer, including his somewhat strategic fascination with Bulgarian Orthodox singing and, for instance, its typical sonorities. Several passages throughout the concerto which arguably allude to Orthodox chant, especially those in the solo viola part, must be executed in an elegant way, devoid of excessive vibrato, slides, or other gestures of a more demonstrative or extreme nature. However, Goleminov is a composer who thrives on contrast, so while some passages require a simple, almost prayerful or monastic simplicity of reading and delivery, others may require considerable passion — thought-saturated expression in even lush vibrato and/or tonal intensity.
As customary, careful study of the solo viola line in the context of the full score is required to understand how to best carry out each passage or statement, with its analogically-rich contrastive and transitional aspects. In undertaking this concerto, the performer can enjoy actively understanding Goleminov’s ever-developing aesthetic, including his use of material remotely if importantly related to aspects in Eastern Orthodox chant. His interest in exploring the different auditory qualities possible through a variety of instrumental applications, and his use of traditional forms and structures (which may have been influenced during his education in Paris) are all richly considered in an effective presentation of this work.
As a pedagogical tool also, this artwork provides a genuine and perpetual wealth of both practical and insightful measures. A committed student violist with an opportunity to achieve and add such qualities to her/his own ‘toolbox’ is significantly matured in doing so. Sacred influences found in the work’s root system arguably require unique attention to tone, for instance. A performance of significant personal presence (that is, of both of composer and performer) will finally demand a somewhat contemplative curiosity — as a basis for relevant abilities in producing a sufficient variety of qualities cleanly and with communicative confidence. Perhaps, in most educational contexts, a performer must have reached a level, technically, by applying skills garnered by any number of preliminary studies, such as with Hoffmeister, Stamitz, Campagnoli, and/or applicable equivalents. The greatest challenges of this piece seem to lay in generating stylistically appropriate gestures and textures more so than in mainly-mechanically-conceived technical execution simply. Although difficult, the present work does not represent the quintessence of physical challenge; the latter may have been an impediment, even, to executing the vision Goleminov has arguably embedded in his score.

In the work under study, Goleminov is easily seen as both deeply personal and systematic in his adaptive acknowledging of musical inspirations — those of many kinds and statures.

If we wanted to sketch his influences on one hand we could mention Western European influence in the case of the French Conservatory and, more specifically, someone like Milhaud — or, rather, one of his works. Well-apart from slavish copying, Goleminov can be seen as actively admiring (via simultaneous imitation and contrast) statements that construct the florid beginning of the fairly well-known Milhaud Viola Sonata. Here, I am thinking of Goleminov’s statements in the ___________ section of the _____________ of his work which I here further imitate and contrast, in study ____________.

Here I cite a relationship of what color theorists like J. Albers might call ‘simultaneous contrast’ — simultaneous sharing and contrast among adjacent examples — in order to illustrate how Goleminov acknowledged inspiring aspects as a partial way of ‘finding voice.’ I have tried to conjure a similar scenario in these studies, creating a little compact world of musical conjectures that are finally contemplations of Goleminov’s viola-esque ideas that would perhaps be impossible without his active-constructive vision in the form of similarly imitative contrast with his influences, whether the later be another’s vision or that of a people or that of a broad international circumstance or so-called zeitgeist, or spiritual moment. My own hermeneutical participation in such creative substance might rightly cause anticipation of such studies however humble the latter happen or have to be.

Viola Concerto: Technical studies

Study №1-practical application

Study №2

Study №3

While working on gymnastic preparations that are both explicitly and implicitly related to the composer’s vision, we attempt to cause the interpreter to be a “close reader”, that is to be more invasively engaged with the intervallic story being told. Hopefully, the essential decisions of the composer are registered more deeply, in light of expanded sense of possibility.

Study №4

Study №5

Study №6

Study №7

Study №8

Study №9

Chapter 5:

Conclusion

Overview

Both Goleminov’s musical heritage and influence are most significant; this is certainly the case in Bulgaria. He influenced a good number of the most prominent contemporary composers (the so-called third and fourth generation Bulgarian composers) among which are Emil Tabakov and Michail Goleminov, whom he taught at the National Academy of Music in Sofia, and thereby influenced in their art as performers and composers. Given the limited musicological publications that discuss third and fourth generation Bulgarian composers, a list of composers whom Goleminov directly influenced or taught is not complete or entirely available. However, it is clear, given his role in Bulgarian musical society, that his influence was substantial. The following editions of New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians and The Harvard Biographical Dictionary of Music devote somewhat cursory articles to Goleminov. While brief, these materials hail Goleminov as a “founder of national musical expression” and define his style as being harmonically “sophisticated and melodiously rich,” drawing inspiration from the archaic Bulgarian spiritual and folkloristic traditions.

Problems and limits in this research plan, Data Analysis and a Wish List

Relevant limitations in the current study pertain mainly to the relative access one might obtain to Goleminov works, even in his native country. His works were published in Bulgaria only; because of this, the best research on his compositions involves in-depth work in Bulgarian music archives. Relatively little has been published about his viola works and almost nothing on the “western European” influences in his works. When Bulgaria was under communist dictatorship any information about the music from western countries was banned, while influences from those counties were plainly rejected. There are no collected editions, critical editions, thematic catalogues, or any monuments published which deal directly, and in the main, with Marin Goleminov’s works. I will work with first publications preserved in the archives of the National Bulgarian Library.

Findings, Implications and Prospects for Additional Research

The significance of this study is important for the viola repertoire and presents a basis for further study of the viola music written by Bulgarian composers. The entries for solo works compiled in the appendices following this monograph provide the the academic community with a list of the solo viola works by Marin Goleminov, the Viola Concertos by Bulgarian composers and a comprehensive table containing all natural and artificial harmonics possible on the viola. Works can be chosen for analysis of the stylistic trends and performance from this list to increase the knowledge and understanding of compositions for viola by Marin Goleminov and other Bulgarian composers. The analyses in this monograph create potential aids for performance of the concerto along with providing a basis for investigation into comparisons of various works from the Western European viola and chamber music repertoire. This study serves as a point of departure for future studies.

APPENDIX A

WORKS BY MARIN GOLEMINOV FEATURING THE SOLO VIOLA

Song from Woodwind Quintet №1 (1938) for viola and piano

Arranged for viola by Stefan Sugarev

Dance from the dance drama “Nestinarka” (1938)

Arranged for viola and piano by the composer

Prelude (1948) for viola and piano, viola and chamber ensemble

Originally for cello, edited for viola and piano by Stefan Sugarev; arranged for chamber orchestra by the composer

Dance from Five Sketches (1948) for viola and string orchestra

Originally for string quartet, arranged for viola and string orchestra by the composer

Harvest from Five Sketches (1948) for viola and piano

Originally for string quartet, arranged for viola and piano by the composer

Concerto for Viola and Orchestra (1949) First performance: Antonin Hiksa (viola), Symphony Orchestra of Varna, Emil Glavanakov, 10/15/1961

Little Suite (1951) for solo viola

Improvisation, Song, Tongue Twister, Merry Rebeck from Little Suite for Solo Viola (1951); arranged for flute, viola, harp, and harpsichord by V. Andonov, 1984

Children’s Pieces (1955) for 2 violas

(Harvester’s Song, Dance, Song, and Joke)

Three Improvisations (1981) for solo viola

Originally for violin, transcribed for viola V. Andonov

Grotesque (1987) for flute, viola, harp, and piano

Sonata for Violin and Viola (1996)

APPENDIX B

VIOLA CONCERTOS IN BULGARIA

Viola Concerto- Marin Goleminov-1953

Concertino (1955) for viola and piano-Veselin Stoyanov (1902–1969)

Concerto for Viola and Orchestra (1958)-Nayden Gerov (1916–1991)

Concerto for Viola and Orchestra (1960)-Henri Lazarof

Concerto for Viola and Piano (1962)-Lyuben Todorov (1903–1987)

Concertino for Viola and Orchestra (1965)-Georgi Kostov (b. 1941)

Concerto for Viola and Orchestra (1966)-Peter Baberkoff (b. 1929)

Concerto for Viola and Chamber Orchestra (1971)-Artin Poturlian (b. 1943)

Concertino for Flute, Viola, Harp, and Piano (1971) -Yuliya Tzenova (b. 1948)

Poema (1973) for viola and orchestra-Aleksandar Tekeliev (b. 1942)

Concert Variations for Flute, Viola, Harp, and Harpsichord (1974)-Vasil Kazandzhiev (b. 1934)

Two Concert Pieces (1975) for flute, viola, harp, and piano-Jul Levi (b. 1930)

Concerto for Viola and Orchestra (1984)-Todor Stoykov (1932–1993)

Concerto for “Eolina” and String Orchestra (1989)-Krasimir Taskov (b. 1955)

Concerto for Viola and Chamber Orchestra (1993)-Stefan Iliev (b. 1946)

New Sinfonia Concertante (1990) for violin, viola, and orchestra-Mihail Pekov (b. 1941)

Concerto-Fantasia for Viola and String Orchestra (1992)-Ivan Shekov (b. 1942)

Concerto for Violin, Viola, and Orchestra (1994)-Velislav Zaimov (b. 1951)

Concerto for Viola and Orchestra (1998)-Petar Petrov (b. 1961)2

Concerto for Two Violas and Orchestra (1998)-Velislav Zaimov (b. 1951)

Concerto for Viola and Orchestra op. 39 (1965)-Dimitar Sagaev (1915–2003)

The Song of the Enchanting Viola-Dobrinka Tabakova (written for Maxim Rysanov)-2004

Concerto for Viola and Orchestra- Emil Tabakov (2007), premiered by Alexander Zemtsov

APPENDIX C

VIOLA DIATONIC GAMUT, PITCH REGISTERS AND STRING POSITIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF C MAJOR/IONIAN SCALE

(default refers to un-stopped, open string)

APPENDIX D

VIOLA CHROMATIC GAMUT; COMPREHENSIVE TABLE OF ALL UNSTOPPED AND STOPPED PITCHES ON THE VIOLA AND THEIR RESPECTIVE REGISTERS

APPENDIX E

COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL HARMONICS ON VIOLA

APPENDIX F

ANNOTATED CATALOGUES OF THE VIOLA AND CHAMBER WORKS WITH VIOLA OF JOSEPH BABER

Op. 1 Three Duos for Violin and Viola
No. 1 in G Allegro moderato (1949 - first draft)

No. 2 in C minor (March 1955); Waltz (1953); Hornpipe (1951)

No. 3 in G minor: Andante; Allegro; Andante; Allegro Molto
(1953-54 - first draft, sonata da chiesa stuffy for Powell, edited for concerts with Kazu-e Baber in 1967-68)

Op. 8 Serenades

№1 Serenade for String Trio (1954–56) Allegro; Waltz; Romanza; Scherzo; Rondo (revision completed in 2012)
Written for high school string trio that played PTA and school board receptions, Red Cross conferences, etc.

№2 Serenade for Strings (1959)

Op.14 Miscellaneous Music; Incidental Music (Michigan) (1959-62)

№8 Suite for Viola and Harp (1962, revisions in 2013 and 2015)

№9 Sonata for Viola and Piano №1 in C minor (1960-61) Premiere Spring 1961 on MSU contemporary music program

Op.15 Sonatas

№2 Sonata for Viola and Piano №2 in D Major (Spring 1962) Premiered with Baber and Rita Fusek. Middle of Mvt. 3 Rondo is a portrait of Gomer Jones

Op.21 16 Viola Duos (1963, revision completed in 2013)

Op.22 Rhapsody for Viola and Orchestra (1964)

Op.24 Trio for Violin, Viola and Violoncello (1961; 1963; 1964)(1st Mvt. sketched on the road in Europe in the Summer 1962, continued through Spring 1963) Premiere in Spring 1964

Op.25 Trio for Oboe, Viola and Piano (Fall 1965-early 1966, Japan) Premiere in Tulsa, Spring 1966, Published by M.M. Cole, Chicago

Op.26 Concerto №1 for Viola and String Orchestra (1965, sketched in entirety for Tokyo Solisten 1966, edited for performance in 1980s)

Op.28 Concerto №2 for Viola and Orchestra (1967)(written and premiered Spring 1967)

Op.31 Miscellaneous Music (Illinois 1967–1970)

№4 Scherzo for Viola and Piano (written for inclusion in the Sonata Op.14, №7 for the ISMTA Contest Requirement and subsequent performance at the Chicago convention)

№5 Sonata da Chiesa for Viola and Harpsichord (year)

№9 Suite №1 for Viola and Piano (year)

Op. 32 Divertimentos

No. 1 for Viola and Piano (1968) (Frankenstein Divertimento)

Op.35 Works for the Kansas Co-operative Composers Project

№7 Suite №2 for Viola and Piano (1970?, revision completed in 2011?)

PART II.

PROGRAMS AND PROGRAM NOTES OF RECITAL REPERTOIRE

05/03/2009-Viola Recital-Bach, Beethoven, Hindemith-Der Schwanendreher Viola Concerto

J.S. Bach-Sonata for VDG (Viola Da Gamba) and Harpshichord in G Minor, №3, BWV 1029, transcribed for viola

The Sonata for Viola da Gamba and Harpsichord №3 in G Minor, BWV 1029 is the third and last one in the set of Sonatas №1027–1029 (Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis Catalogue) composed in the years of 1717–1723. This particular sonata set was first published in Leipzig in 1860 by Breitkopf und Härtel, after Mendelssohn initiated a significant interest in Bach’s music. This piece is splendidly graceful, intimate, lofty, and expressive; in fact, it demands — from both the viola da gamba (VDG) and the harpsichord — superior technical abilities as somewhat typical of many High Baroque Era (1700–1750) works. These require virtuosity and a unique vigilance of response — that which allows what might otherwise be less dynamic, more mechanical practices and challenges to thrive as compelling Art. :: The authentic instrument for which the Sonata BWV 1029 is intended is the baritone viola da gamba, the so called leg viol, as opposed to the viola da spalla (shoulder cello) or the viola da braccio (arm viola). This instruments is held somewhat as is the contemporary cello — that is, between the knees and without an endpin. The characteristic timbre is sonorous, dark and somewhat quiet, largely due to its design with lower tension stringing, its number of strings (6, other types of da gamba instruments have 5 to 7 strings), and tuning in fourths and thirds on the notes: D2, G2, C3, E3, A3 and D4 (according to the International Music Notation ITN, where the middle C is referenced as C4). In contemporary times, the Sonata BWV 1029 is often performed either on viola or cello, both of which are four-string instruments, tuned in fifths — and with a design most different, as compared to the VDG; typically, these will seem brighter than the VDG’s timbre; additionally, they are played with contemporary Tourte bows, instead of the typical Baroque bow (elongated at the tip and with ‘frog-button’ unit). The bow-hold for baritone viola da gamba is underhand/undergrip, being an anticipation of the bow-technique known as ‘German’ technique for double bass, say. The sonata BWV 1029 is written in the mode of the Baroque sonata da Chiesa (church sonata style), but instead of having four movements- slow-fast-slow-fast, it contains three: a brisk Vivace, a reverent Adagio and a cantabile Allegro. The Baroque Doctrine of Affections (Affektenlehre) applied here establishes the perceived essential affect (not emotional effect) but spiritual operation in each movement: joy-Vivace, admiration-Adagio, and love-Allegro.

Duet for Viola and Cello in Es Dur, Ludwig van Beethoven (1770–1827)

WoO 32,“With Two Eyeglasses Obbligato” (1796–1797)

The Viola and Cello duet in E flat major, Woo 32 (Werk ohne Opuszahl-work without opus number) is a two-movement piece — Allegro and Minuetto. The Minuetto was discovered in 1940. Musicologists placed the two movements together because of the instrumentation, the suggested continuation of a larger musical piece (perhaps a suite or sonata), the key of the piece, and the time these were written — that is, according to Beethoven’s own notebooks. During the 18th century, writings for two string instruments gained popularity. During the 18th century, compositions for two string instruments gained popularity. They became miniature versions of the viol consort music. Their similarity to the consort viol style is related to the pairing of instruments (often the viol consort consists of pairs of the same string instruments), of the instrumental interplay between them, range, tessitura, and voice movement. The first published duo for viola and cello was by Beethoven’s teacher, from his early Viennese years, Johann Georg Albrechtsberger in 1783.

Beethoven, who himself played viola wrote duets for violin and viola, violin and cello as well as viola and cello. Such dsuos have a somewhat pedagogical function, where one of the parts is written in more of a masterly manner while the second is arguably prepared for the advanced amateur, say. In the case of the viola and cello duet, the two voices in the Allegro alternate in imitation-like walking bass and arpeggios, call-and-response fragments, contrasting arco (with a bow) and pizzicato passages, virtuosic parts — in scalar, chordal, and high register fashion — the Minuetto bears lighter character in counterpoint and canonic textures. Beethoven composed the viola and cello duet in order to perform it with his friend, the amateur cellist Baron Nikolaus Zmeskall; the two friends, Zmeskall and Beethoven, were brothers in their ailing (Brüder in Bedrängnis) — both had failing eyesight and needed to wear spectacles in order to read music; Beethoven therefore gave the duet the sobriquet “With Two Eyeglasses Obbligato.”

Der Schwanendreher (1935) Paul Hindemith (1895–1963)

1. Zwischen Berg und Tiefem Tal (Between Mountain and Deep Valley)

2. Nun Laube, Lindlein Laube (Now Shed Your Leaves, Little Linden Tree!)

3. Seid Ihr Nicht der Schwanendreher (Are You Not the Swan Turner?)

Der Schwanendreher (The Swan-turner) is the third viola concerto out of four by the German composer Paul Hindemith (1895–1963), completed on October 13, 1935 in Berlin. His other viola concertos are: Kammermusik №5 Op.36/4 (1927); Konzertmusik Op.48 (1930); Trauermusik (1936). Most of his compositions were scrutinized and banned from performance by the Nazi activists because of his avant-garde style and his direct association to Jewish composers. The time of composition of Der Schwanendreher immediately follows the completion of Hindemith’s opera Mathis der Maler (Matthias the Painter), concerned with the life and works of the Reformation German artist of Christian spiritual paintings, Matthias Grünewald (1470/80–1528). In this opera the composer examines the topic of the artist’s social obligation in spite of abusive governmental power; thus reflecting his own situation under the Nazi’s regime. Der Schwanendreher portrays that similar to operatic sentiment — fear, anxiety, loss, hope, search for light and redemption, but in subtler ways. Hindemith premiered the concerto on 14 November 1935 with the Amsterdam Concertgebouw Orchestra and the Dutch conductor, Willem Mengelberg (1871–1951). The program notes written by Hindemith give light to the story of Der Schwanendreher:

“Ein Minnesänger kommt zu einer glücklichen Versammlung und teilt, was er von fern gebracht hat: Ernste und fröhliche Lieder, ein Tanz zum Schließen. Durch seine Inspiration und sein Können erweitert und verschönert er die Melodien wie ein echter Musiker, experimentiert und improvisiert. Dieses mittelalterliche Bild war die Grundlage für die Komposition. “

“A minstrel comes to a happy gathering and shares what he has brought from afar: Both serious and light-hearted songs, and a concluding dance. By his inspiration and skill he extends and embellishes the melodies like a true musician, experimenting and improvising. This medieval picture was the basis for the composition.”

Here Hindemith revives neoclassical aesthetics by connecting traditional pre-romantic musical forms with new contemporary tonal language. The neoclassicism and extended Romanticism are seen in the aspects of the program concerto, featuring traditional sonata form in the first movement, but with a solo introduction, rather than an orchestral one — sounding quasi-cadential and introductory at the same time. There is a typical classical ABA second movement and a Classical concerto-style third movement featuring a theme with twelve variations. Hindemith also combines Neo-Baroque polyphonic techniques of writing, inspired by J.S. Bach with extended tonalities and familiar Medieval and folk German tunes. The name of the concerto is derived from the name of the Medieval folk tune that is quoted in the last movement Seid ihr nicht der Schwanendreher? (Are You Not the Swan Turner?).

Program Notes

02/07/2010-Viola Recital-Rontgen-Viola Sonata, Vaughan-Williams, Rebecca Clarke

Program Notes

03/08/2010-Chamber music recital- Mozart-K456-Macauley Chamber Music Competition Winners

Program Notes

05/02/2010-Viola Recital- Amram, Vardi, Prokofiev, Lutoslawski

Program Notes

05/07/2010- Chamber Music Recital-Brahms-String Quartet in a minor

Program Notes

12/09/2011-Chamber Music Recital- Beethoven-№15, op. 132 in a minor

Program Notes

03/02/2011- Viola Recital-Vieuxtemps, Penderecki, Bartok Viola Concerto

Program Notes

09/23/2012- Chamber Music Recital-Brahms-piano trio in a minor

Program Notes

10/29/15-Viola Recital-O’Fallon Viola Concerto

Program Notes

02/18/2017-Viola Lecture-Recital-Marin Goleminov Viola Concerto

Program Notes

Viola Recital-Joseph Baber- Sonata №2 for Viola and Piano, op. 1,5, №2; Suite №2 for Viola and Piano- op. 35, №7; Schostakovich Viola Sonata

Program Notes

The musical style of Joseph Baber exhibits influences from aspects in American folk-song, nineteenth-century Romantic symphonic literature, hymns, as well as cinematic and African-American/jazz music. In his academic compositions, techniques emphasizing chromatic and linear work are often foregrounded. At the same time, Baber continues to compose more plainly tonal work derived largely from a lively if well-informed imagination. At points, aspects of both strategies merge as a matter of mature insight; undue, sensational, or “genericizing” late-modernisms are kept at bay. The dark or doubt that might arguably visit some [late] Modern moves on his part are largely relegated to the occasional — perhaps as “in the harmony of part and whole that exist in the work of art, the difference between essence and appearance is, in a certain sense, overcome. This is the basis of perfection of the work of art.”Many of Baber’s works are pleasingly difficult to place squarely in given categories of style. He is not prone to “settle,” furthermore, allowing unresolved or insufficiently personal work to “just go as it is” (even given typical time restraints). When a work is commissioned, Baber edits and re-edits to achieve a quality of conviction often heeded to great effect.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PART I.

Arnaudova, B. Marin Goleminov. 1968.

Енциклопедия български композитори. Sofia: Uniion of the Bulgarian Composers, 2004.

Ivan Hlebarov. “Goleminov, Marin.” Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press, accessed January 6, 2017, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com.ezproxy.uky.edu/subscriber/article/grove/music/11400.

Lazarov, S. Marin Goleminov. 1971.

“Marin Goleminov.” UBC RSS. Accessed January 19, 2017. http://www.ubc-bg.com/en/composer/232.

Nagy, Peter. The World Encyclopedia of Contemporary Theatre. London: Routledge, 2014. 155–65.

Nelson, Lisa, Louis S. Bergonzi, Donna A. Buchanan, Masumi Rostad, and Sever Tipei. Bulgarian Viola Repertoire: A Historical Perspective and Pedagogical Analysis. PhD diss. doi:file:///Users/lubitzabraikova/Downloads/Lisa_Nelson.pdf.

Randel, Don Michael. “Marin Goleminov.” In The Harvard Biographical Dictionary of Music, 320–21. Harvard University Press, 1996.

Ross, Alex. The Rest Is Noise: Listening to the Twentieth Century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007.

Rumiana Apostolova. Marin Goleminov. Sofiia: Muzika, 1988.

Straus, Joseph Nathan. Remaking the Past: Musical Modernism and the Influence of the Tonal Tradition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990.

“100.” 100. Accessed January 04, 2017. http://www.libvar.bg/art/goleminov/.

PART II.

VITA

University of Kentucky D.M.A in Viola Performance, 2018

University of Kentucky-Graduate Certificate in College Teaching and Learning, 2014

University of Alabama, Masters in Music, 2007

State Academy of Music, Sofia, Bulgaria, BA in Viola Performance, 2003

Professional Positions

Lexington Catholic Diocese, Music Director, July 2016– present

University of Kentucky, Graduate Teaching Assistant, 2007–2011

Central Music Academy, Viola Instructor, Lexington KY, 2011–2014

Brevard Music Center, Teaching Assistant, 2008

Private Viola Instructor, 2005 — present

Scholastic and professional honors

Orchestra Scholarship-University of Kentucky, 2015–2017

McCauley Chamber Music Competition-Louisville, 2010

Verdi String Quartet Fellowship-U of K-2007–2011

Elebash Music Scholarship-University of Alabama 2005–2007

2nd place on Provadia Viola Competition, 1996