Genre as a classification category in the history of musical science

Категория жанр в современном музыкознании относится к числу базовых, поскольку она непосредственно касается сферы самого функционирования музыки в социуме и разнообразия форм этого функционирования, взаимосвязи внемузыкальных факторов и имманентно музыкальных. Кроме того, сам термин маркирует одно из направлений музыкальной теории.

В музыке и музыкальной науке жанр предстает в виде триады: явление - понятие - термин, и последний является самым устойчивым компонентом. Сам термин (фр. genre - лат. genus - др.-гр. genos) апеллирует к общенаучной категории рода, связанной с процедурой классификации: деление на роды и виды - genus et species. Уже в античной науке эта категория, разрабатывавшаяся прежде всего в логике и риторике, вошла в теорию музыки и применялась в самых разных случаях, далеко не всегда в значении именно «жанр». Собственное понятие жанра и его теория в европейской музыкальной науке в существенной мере вырастали впоследствии из тех разнообразных классификационных построений, которые стремились охватить жанровый «репертуар» музыкальной практики; при этом метод классификации оставался важным инструментом в разработке жанровой проблематики.

В современном музыкознании существуют различные концепции относительно того, что такое жанр, его природа и сущность: жанр рассматривается как категория социологическая, морфологическая, семантическая, аксиологическая, коммуникативная, институциональная и т.д. Но одним из значимых концептов традиционно остается трактовка жанра как классификационной категории.

В статье уделяется внимание трем пунктам этого классификационного направления в рамках исторического периода «рефлективного традиционализма» (по терминологии С.С. Аверинцева): это классификации Боэция, И. де Грохео и М. Преториуса.

Логическая основа операции классифицирования - соразмерное и последовательное деление по общему основанию объема понятия (изучаемого объекта) на подобъемы. Выбор классификаций Боэция, Грохео и Преториуса обусловлен не только авторитетом имен, но и тем, что они, будучи сопоставлены, наглядно демонстрируют три состояния классификационной системы в музыкальной науке, маркируя собой этапы движения от категории genus к категории genre. Опираясь на указанные классификации, можно видеть: в целом, линия, связанная с осознанием и обозначением объекта деления пролегает от общего понятия Musica, где синкретически объединялись мировая гармония и наука, деятельность теоретическая и практическая, - к музыкальному «произведению». Логическое взаимоотношение genus - species начинает проецироваться теперь на соотношение «жанр - опус».

В современной теории музыкальных жанров, параллельно возобновляющимся попыткам классификации, нарастают сомнения в целесообразности самой этой процедуры (В. Виора, К. Дальхауз и др.). Действительно, жанры характеризуются целым рядом разнородных признаков, порой исторически непостоянных; один жанр может быть отнесен сразу к нескольким жанровым группам в зависимости от параметра сравнения и т.д. Все очевиднее, что научное внимание переключается с классификации - на систематику более гибкого характера, которая рассматривает жанровые признаки не как основание дифференциации жанров, но как критерии атрибуции жанровых типов, «объем» которых заранее не известен целиком, а состав жанровых признаков объективно изменчив и является предметом обсуждения.

Таким образом, переход в систематизации жанров от классификации к типологизации следует определить как новую научную парадигму в музыкознании.

В заключение, опираясь на обсуждаемую в статье проблематику, автором предложена своя дефиниция понятия музыкального жанра.

Ключевые слова: теория музыкальных жанров, Боэций. И. де Грохео, М. Преториус, систематизация, классификация, типологизация, научная парадигма

The category of genre in modern musicology is among the basic ones, because it is directly related to the sphere of the very functioning of music in society and the variety of forms of this functioning, the nature of the relationship in this process of extra-musical factors and immanent musical ones. Moreover, the term itself marks one of the directions of musical theory, which has developed due to the importance of understanding this aspect of the existence of music.

In contemporary musicology, there are various concepts regarding what a genre is, as well as its nature and essence. Maybe about 20 approaches can be counted: genre is seen as a sociological, morphological, semantic, axiological, communicative, institutional, etc. category. Such diversity, I think, testifies both to the complexity of the phenomenon itself and the concept of genre, and to the activity of its multidimensional research. Together, all these approaches make up a large-scale complex of issues related to the category of genre in music.

In my opinion, there are three main vectors in the mentioned set of scientific approaches: typological (genre in the logical system of relationship between the general and the particular), ontological (the real functioning of the genre in art, culture, society), gnoseological (genre as a component and form of artistic cognition). The first one is the most traditional, it is connected with the origins of genre theory and the etymology of the term itself. Let's turn to this scientific direction.

Genre in music and music science, strictly speaking, appears as a triad: phenomenon concept term. The latter is the most stable component, while the first two undergo significant changes in history. The theoretical concept depends on both the phenomenon and the term, but the character of this dependence is not identical in different epochs.

According to its genesis the term genre (Fr. genre - Lat. genus - Gr. genos) goes back to the general scientific category of genus associated with one of the main methods of cognition through the allocation of sets and subsets (genus et species) in the subject of study. So, it is associated with the classification procedure. Johannes de Grocheo (Jean de Grouchy), a follower of Aristotle in medieval musical theory, the Parisian Master of Music, wrote: “cognitione magis perfecta, quae in distinguendo et cognoscendo partes consistit [a more perfect knowledge consists in the discernment and cognition of parts]” [16, 49]. Lawrence A. Gushee, in an article reviewing various subdivisions and differentiations in medieval music treatises, notes that even in the 13^th century they remained committed to “predominantly Aristotelian notions of genus and species, natura and materia, essentia and accidentia - not always explicitly expressed” [9, 425]. Thus, the genus of ancient and medieval music theory is a term from the traditional philosophical scientific lexicon that has the deepest roots.

In ancient science, category of genus was developed first of all in logic and rhetoric. It entered in the theory of music precisely as in the science, which in the Middle Ages became one of the seven basic disciplines (artes liberales), branches of philosophy. And it was used in a variety of cases, not always with the meaning of “genre”. Essentially, the own concept of genre and its theory in European music science grew later from those various classification constructions that sought to cover the genre “repertoire” of musical practice; at the same time, the classification method remained an important tool in the development of genre problematics. So, the etymology of this term itself reflects traditional ideas about genre as a classification category.

At the same time, an equally long historical process of the formation of the concept of genre, not necessarily associated with the term genus / genre, was also important. It was based on more or less detailed empirical ideas about existing genres of musical practice, sometimes with attempts at systematization, or purely descriptive character. It is all the more interesting to identify in the history of music science the moments of contact between these two lines of cognition (empirical observations and theoretical classifications), which prepared the emergence of the musical science of genres in the 20^th century.

Let's briefly consider three points of this scientific direction in the historical period of “reflective traditionalism” (according to S. Averintsev's terminology [2, d]): these are the classifications by Boethius, J. de Grocheo and M. Praetorius. The choice of these classifications is due not only to the authority of these names, but also to the fact that in their comparison they clearly demonstrate the three states of the classification system in music science, marking the stages of moving from the category of genus to the category of genre.

Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius (ca. 480-524/6) is “the last Roman,” as he was called, whose works paved the bridge from Late Antiquity to the Middle Ages. He formulated, based on the ideas of ancient thinkers, the interpretation of Musica, which then passed through many centuries. It should be emphasized that Boethius translated and interpreted Aristotle, developed his ideas, as well as in his special work De divisione. In the treatise De institutione musica [4] Boethius proclaimed the division of music into three kinds (musicae genera): mundana, humana, instrumentalis. Then the Boethian triad passes from treatise to treatise: it is postulated by Aurelianus Reomensis [1] and reinterpreted by Regino Prumiensis [15], the “secundum Boetium” is repeated by Hieronymus de Moravia [10] and many others. Ioannes de Grocheo was critical of it, but almost two centuries later Bartolome Ramos de Pareja [14], confirming the triad, enthusiastically discusses the relationship of the three “musics” in terms of mathematical proportions and character of modus, planets and types of people. It should be emphasized that Boethius' musicae genus is entirely a category of logic and has no modern meaning of the concept of “genre”. At the same time, this axiological hierarchy will enter the “genetic memory” of subsequent genre classifications.

In the work De musica [16] Johannes de Grocheo (ca. 1255 - ca. 1320) analyzed the existing classifications of music, including Boethian, and gave his own. He declared his intention to make his own classification in accordance with the usus criterion (Lat. “experience, use”): “secundum quod homines Parisiis ea utuntur et prout ad usum vel convictum civium est necessaria [according to what the people in Paris use and what for the use or life of the citizens is necessary]” [ibid., 47].

It is possible to present Grocheo's classification visually as a tree schema (see Figure 1). In accordance with the chosen criterion, Grocheo divides surrounding music into three kinds (Lat. genera, membra), two of which are characterized by a number of epithets. The first kind (genus) is musica simplex (simple, like simple artless speech), vulgaris (ordinary, generally accepted) or civilis (music of townspeople). The second kind (genus) is musica composita (complex, in the sense composed according to the laws of science), regularis or canonica (consistent with rules, regulations), mensurata (measured). It would be more accurate to translate the name of the second kind as learned music, then the first one can definitely be designated as unlearned music. And only the third kind (genus) has one name: musica ecclesiastica.

Figure 1

The scheme shows that the most multilevel and consistent division concerns the first branch of music (“unlearned”): vocal and instrumental (Lat. in vocehumana, in instrumentis), each of which is represented by cantus and cantilena (these concepts themselves are generalizing for that time) with subsequent concretization. Differentiating types and kinds of music, Grocheo comments on each of them. But to those, which are genres themselves, the designation genus is not applied in Grocheo's treatise. Moreover, Grocheo cares, first of all, about observing the rules of division in accordance with the laws of logic (genus et species). That is, and for Grocheo, logic itself is still in the foreground in the classification procedure.

Of course, Grocheo's treatise differs significantly from the bulk of the sums and compendiums of the Middle Ages: it combines brilliant erudition with boldness of judgment, originality with strict scientific reflection. The kinds and types of his contemporary music fall into the field of this reflection, it is the first time he gives them with such a detailed description and in his approach to them he is far ahead of his time. But the “technical tool” of his thought is entirely from the arsenal of medieval scholasticism, namely, from the sphere of logic, inherited through Boethius from Antiquity, from Aristotle.

The branched system of music genres is represented by a visual scheme at the beginning of the third volume of Michael Praetorius' encyclopedic work Syntagma musicum (1615). This scheme simultaneously performs the function of the book's table of contents (see Figure 2 [13, 3]). In the book itself, Praetorius characterizes each genre, in some cases he draws attention to the name denoting it, up to discrepancies in the understanding of the name (for example, such as a motet, madrigal).

Figure 2

The Praetorius scheme is of a dichotomous type classification containing from two to five levels of division. Although strictly the principle of dichotomy (not just division into two, but reduction of the whole to mutually exclusive opposites without remainder) is maintained here only in three cases:

1) the general division of all genres into those that cum textu and sine textu (with and without text);

2) the division of vocal genres with a “whole” poetic text (i.e., not compiled, as in the quodlibet) into those that follow the poetic form certis (solid, certain) or incertis (uncertain);

3) the division of dances from the standpoint of their choreographic form according to the same principle - into certorum and incertorum. In other cases, the dichotomy either does not exhaust the divisible (for example, the differentiation of instrumental music into “preludes” and “dances”), or one criterion is not maintained in it. For example, the “entertaining” (jocose) kind of vocal music (cantilenae cum textu) is further differentiated heterogeneously: by the type of text and by function (public use is the same usus that Grocheo had as the main criterion for dividing music as a whole).

Further description of concrete music genres in the chapters of the book reveals a number of contradictions in this classification. For example, a concerto, which is listed in the scheme as a kind of serious (serio) cantilena cum textu, can be an entirely instrumental genre (see about the English consort in Ch. II, §2). A madrigal attributed in the scheme to the music with a jocose text also can have a spiritual text (see about “spiritual madrigals” in Ch. III, §1). Canzoni (a kind of cantilenes with an incertis text), also can be of the type of sonetti, i. e. with a certis text, and also be generally without a text, as fugues and fantasies (Ch. IV, §1), thereby actually merging with praeludia per se. Balletti turns out to be not only a vocal genre with a jocose text (see Figure 2), but also instrumental, in its dance variety for parties and masquerades (see Ch. VI, §2).

Comparing the scheme of Praetorius with the content of the book itself, as well as with the real work of the composers of that time, it is impossible not to notice how narrow the circle of genres fixed in the scheme is: the sphere of church music is almost completely absent, a number of vocal and instrumental genres of all varieties are far from full. At the same time, the following chapters of the book significantly replenish the list of genres: among them there are ricercar, capriccio, scherzo, partita, stampita, saltarella and some others that are missing from the scheme. In addition, the description of genres given in the book removes, in fact, the logical contradiction in the classification of jocose cantilenes cum textu, which was indicated above. All their varieties grouped according to the principle of approaching to the text (whole or compiled of fragments of different texts, with subsequent subdivision) are the sphere of musical composition; whereas the varieties usus politici and usus economici are all genres of applied, everyday music (urban or rural). semantic musical genre boethius grocheo praetorius

At the same time, it can be noted that if Praetorius invariably adheres to the existing practice regarding genre names, in some cases even cites differences in their spelling and pronunciation, then his designations for classification headings sometimes seem arbitrary. This also applies to the last-mentioned division, and to the differentiation of instrumental music into dance music (chores) and praeludia. The second, in turn, is divided into the following groups: praeludia per se (“by itself”), to which fantasy, fugue, symphony and sonata are attributed, and praeludia ad... (“...to something”): “to a dance, like an intrade” or “to a cantilena, like a toccata” (although the toccata in this era could already be an independent piece). So the praeludia in the Praetorius scheme is actually the whole kind of instrumental non-applied music, in contrast to the kind of dance music. Such a “metonymy” is not fixed by dictionaries and is, apparently, of a private nature.

The term cantilena is also used in different scales: in a narrow sense (as can be seen from the rubric praeludia ad cantilenam), it is at least not a chorex, in a broad sense it is cantilenae habentur as all existing kinds of music (later we will return to the term cantilena).

Thus, the analysis, revealing discrepancies between the classification of genres and their description, clearly diagnoses the gap between the logical and empirical aspects of genre representations. At the same time, there is still an attempt in Praetorius' classification to maintain a balance and combine the speculative principle of division, operating with genre as an abstract kind, and the concrete facts observed in the surrounding musical practice. But it seems that it is possible to talk about the primacy of practice for Praetorius, judging by the ease with which he introduces genres not mentioned in the scheme and compromises the strictness of classification in specific descriptions. For him, the name of the genre is often a guideline, as can be seen from the example of the canzone: in one category, he combines not those opuses that strictly correspond to the kinds “cantilenae with an entertaining whole text” having an unsteady poetic form, but what the musicians themselves call canzones.

In this regard, we also pay attention to the following: if in the medieval tradition the division object was Musica as a whole, then in the Praetorius' treatise it is a variety of cantilenae habentur. This fact already demonstrates the approach to the issue as a composer. But now the terminology itself is of historical and theoretical interest to us. Praetorius is close to Grocheo in the fact that they both, unlike Boethius, mean only musica instrumentalis (that is, really sounding). In this case, however, we emphasize not that their classifications take cosmogonic aspects out of brackets and focus on the music that sounds and is used in life (for the beginning of the 17^th century, this is not an innovation, as for the times of Grocheo), but in what general categories they comprehend this music. In the terminology of Praetorius, it appears in the form of some sum of “existing cantilenas”.

Since the listed music is not only vocal, but also instrumental, both monophonic and polyphonic, this formulation contradicts the etymology of the word cantilena, which in this context can no longer be translated simply as “song” or “chant”. The modern translation as “piece” or “work” is also not suitable, since not all of the listed kinds of music existed then in the form of res facta. The term opus would be more appropriate here in the expansive meaning that Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht attaches to this word [8]. However, we are still not talking about the “opuses” themselves, but about their types.

We will not trace in more detail the conceptual and terminological line associated with the perception and the designation of the object of classification division. It should be noted that it runs from “Music” to a musical “work” that branches off from the general concept of Musica, where world harmony and science, theoretical and practical activities, composing and performing, “doing” and “thing” were syncretically combined. This line itself in connection with the phenomenon and problem of a musical composition is investigated in the works by Z. Lissa [11], C. Dahlhaus [7], H. Eggebrecht [8], etc. We shall emphasize only that in the historical process of the genre concept formation there is an oncoming movement of the logical category of genus and empirical observations of real musical practice, and an important stage is outlined: zone of genre division is narrowing and concretizing, concentrated on the new dominant of musical culture -- opus. The projection of genre notions on the works of the composer's creativity leads to the emergence of a whole complex of problems that have activated scientific reflection. In the future, in the 20^th century, this will lead to the formation of a special genre theory, which in new conditions and under the influence of the new creative practice should engage in a fundamental revision of the problem that in fact gave rise to this theory. This is the problem of the correlation of genre and work.

In the light of the “genological” tradition we have traced, in the era when genre notions are concentrated on an opus, and the latter is not yet thought of outside of genre coordinates, understanding the logical interaction of genus - species projected now on the “genre - work” relationship. The interpretation of this relationship is increasingly gaining significance not so much as “general and particular,” but as “general and singular,” “typical and individual”. What one see as general and typical is actualized in the scope of the concept of genus and modifies it from the inside, contributing to its rebirth into the concept of a musical genre proper. The noted historical process is also gradually transforming the speculative classification procedure itself.

The problem of genre classification has entered into modern music science as, one can say, the legacy of the old science. It should be added that the theory of musical genres was formed at the beginning of the 20^th century largely under the influence of the literary theory, which on this historic stage passed through a crisis (suffice it to recall the nihilistic statements about the category of genre by Benedetto Croce [5, 35-38]). The new scientific direction of musicology has to comprehend and work out the perceived contradictions and problems. One of them is the problem of classification. It has remained relevant for a long time, and various solutions have been proposed, depending on the choice of the division criterion A brief overview of modern classifications is given in the book by Evgeny V. Nazaikinsky “Style and Genre in Music” [12, 83-92].. However, none of these classifications could fully fulfil their task (this was often noted by the authors themselves): to take into account all the genre diversity of music, as well as consistently and “without a remainder” (the law of logic) to divide into classes, genera, species, etc. according to a single criterion (or even several criteria). For example, Walter Wiora writes about this, reviewing genre classifications in a wide historical field (from Grocheo to Friedrich Blume) [17, 12-13].

Over time, in the theory of musical genres, in parallel with the renewed attempts at classification, there were doubts about the expediency of this procedure itself (see, for example, the works by W. Wiora [17], C. Dahlhaus [6]). The logical basis of the classification operation is a proportionate and consistent division of the volume of the notion (the examined object) into sub-volumes. But genres are characterized by a number of heterogeneous features, the composition of which and the relationship between them is not constant for music of different eras or for different layers of musical culture of the same era. One genre can be assigned to several genre groups at the same time, depending on the comparison parameter, and vice versa. It is becoming increasingly obvious that scientific attention should switch from classification to a more flexible systematics, which would consider genre features not as a basis for genre differentiation, but as criteria for genre types attribution, the “volume” of which is not fully known in advance, and the composition of genre features is objectively variable in the music history and is the subject of discussion. This problem has been pondered by Wiora, Dahlhaus (in already mentioned works), Nazaikinsky [12] and others. In fact, the nature of the genre systematization procedure itself is being modified: classification gives way to typologization, which should be defined as a new scientific paradigm in musicology.

An example of this approach can be found in Yuri Bocharov's book “Genres of Instrumental Music of the Baroque Era” (2016). Preferring systematization over classification, since there is no hierarchical order of criteria in systematization, the author suggests starting with typology. The “volume of division” is outlined: only the Baroque era and only instrumental music. But even this, as the author emphasizes, is “colossal in terms of musical material” [3, 40]. Considering the problem of choosing the criterion of division, Bocharov analyzes five existing options, rejecting them as untenable in relation to the music he studies. Then the author puts forward his typology [ibid., 51], which is based on the division of genres into simple (one-effect) and complex (polyaffect). The effectiveness of this typology is confirmed by the second part of the book: here, according to the typology chosen by the author, extensive information about almost a hundred specific instrumental genres of the Baroque era is systematized.

At the end of the article, I would like to return to the triad marked at its beginning: the genre as a phenomenon-concept-term. Musical genology, as well as literary (let us recall once again the genre nihilism of B. Croce), often problematized the relationship between “phenomenon” and “concept”. However, both genres and creativity itself are the products of human activity, but they are also connected with ideas, opinions about this activity: practice, in one form or another, cannot but pass-through awareness. Especially if we are talking about the stage of functioning of musical creativity as the art Eggebrecht emphasized the importance of theory for the existence of “opus-music”: “Theory is an obligatory and stable prerequisite for the emergence of music as an opus, combining contemplatio and cognatio rei [contemplation and cognition of things], which manifest themselves as praxis and poiesis, which makes the opus, as artificial, belong to the ars” [8, 5]..

Genre is one of the main aspects of the music existence and at the same time the most important category of understanding this existence. Based on this thesis, I will allow myself to propose an updated definition of the musical genre: it is an integral genus-species model (type) of musical activity or musical composition, characterized by historically mobile coordination of common features of content, construction and pragmatics, functioning as a subject of the historical existence of music and as an object of theoretical reflection. Here “theoretical reflection” does not mean only complete teachings, but also theory in a broad sense--the presence of certain ideas about the subject. In the last phrase of this definition, the genre appears in the dialectical unity of the phenomenon and the concept.

The theory of musical genres is young and currently open for further development, primarily due to the versatility and the principled inexhaustibility of the genre phenomenon itself.

References

1. Aurelianus Reomensis. 1975. Musica disciplina. Edited by Lawrence Gushee. Corpus scriptorum de musica 21. [Rome]: American Institute of Musicology.

2. Averintsev, Sergey S. 1981. “Drevnegrecheskaya poetika i mirovaya literatura [Ancient Greek Poetics and World Literature].” In Idem. Poetika drevnegrecheskoy literatury [Poetics of Ancient Greek Literature], 3-14. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russian).

3. Bocharov, Yury S. 2016. Zhanry instrumental'noy muzyki epokhi barokko [Genres of Instrumental Music of the Baroque Era]. Moscow: Moscow Conervatory Publishing. (In Russian).

4. Boethius, Anicius Manlius Severinus. 1847. “De institutione musica. Liber Quintus.” In Boetii, Ennodii Felicis, Trifolii Bresbyteri, Hormisdae Papae, Elpidis uxoris Boetii opera omnia: Boetii tomus prior, caeterorum tomus unicus, 1285-1300. Patrologia Cursus Completus, Series Latina 63, edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. Paris: Venit apud editorem.

5. Croce, Benedetto. 1992. Aesthetic as Science of Expression and General Linguistic. Translated into English by Douglas Ainslie. 2^nd edition. New York: Noonday Press.

6. Dahlhaus, Carl, and Gunter Mayer. 1982. “Zur Theorie der musikalischen Gattungen.” In Systematische Musikwissenschaft, edited by Carl Dahlhaus and Helga de la Motte-Haber, 109-24. Neues Handbuch der Musikwissenschaft 10. Wiesbaden: Laaber.

7. Dahlhaus, Carl. 1969. “Pladoyer fur eine romantische Kategorie. Der Begriff des Kunstwerkes in der neuesten Musik.” Neue Zeitschrift fur Musik 130: 18-22.

8. Eggebrecht, Hans Heinrich. 1975. “Opusmusik.” Schweizerische Musikzeitung 115, no. 1 (Jan.-Feb.): 2-11.

9. Gushee, Lawrence A. 1973. “Questions of Genre in Medieval Treatises on Music.” In Gattungen der Musik in Einzeldarstellungen. Gedenkschrift Leo Schrade in Verbindung mit Freunden, Schulern und weiteren Fachgelehrten, 365-433. Bern and Munchen: Francke.

10. Hieronymus de Moravia. 1935. Tractatus de musica. Edited by Simon M. Cserba. Freiburger Studien zur Musikwissenschaft 2. Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet.

11. Lissa, Zofia. 1968. “Uber das Wesen des Musikwerk.” Die Musikforschung 21, no. 2 (April-June): 157-82.

12. Nazaikinsky, Evgeny V. 2003. Stil' i zhanr v muzyke [Style and Genre in Music]. Moscow: VLADOS, 2003. (In Russian).

13. Praetorius, Michael. 1619. Syntagma musicum, vol. 3: Termini musici <...>. Wittenberg: Johannes Richter.

14. Ramos de Pareja, Bartolome. 1901. Musica Practica. Edited by Johannes Wolf. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel.

15. Regino Prumiensis. 1784. “Epistola de harmonica institutione.” Scriptores ecclesiastici de musica sacrapotissimum, edited by Martin Gerbert, vol. 1, 230-47. St. Blaise: Typis San-Blasianis.

16. Rohloff, Ernst, ed. and trans. 1943. Der Musiktraktat des Johannes de Grocheo. Media latinitas musica 2. Leipzig: Kommissionsverlag Gebruder Reinecke.

17. Wiora, Walter. 1966. “Die historische und die systematische Betrachtung der musikalischen Gattungen.” Deutsches Jahrbuch der Musikwissenschaft, fur 1965, 7-30.

Размещено на Allbest.Ru