i

Dear Readers,

Before us is the second issue of the 52nd volume of the musicological review Slovenská hudba. Although it may not be immediately apparent, its central theme is the concept of “interpretation” and its many meanings within the art of music.

This is already suggested by the motto from the French philosopher Paul Ricoeur, one of the most influential twentieth-century thinkers in hermeneutics (the theory of interpretation), as well as phenomenology and the philosophy of language, taken from his book The Symbolism of Evil (La Symbolique du mal, 1960).

Paul Ricoeur argued that a symbol possesses a much deeper meaning than first appears; that it opens a space for reflection; and that the interpretation of a symbol is never fully completed, since every new era and every new reader may discover a new meaning within the same text, whether literary, musical, or otherwise.

A symbol compels us to ask questions and search for deeper significance. Ricoeur also emphasized that interpretation is not arbitrary guessing, but rather a thoughtful dialogue between author, text, and recipient. Understanding emerges gradually through reflection, questioning, and openness to multiple layers of meaning.

His ideas have been applied primarily to the interpretation of literature, the Bible and religious texts, history, and works of art.

Unlike the visual arts or literature, music cannot be imagined without interpretation. Interpretation fulfills the very essence of a musical work—its sounding form. Written notation represents only a relative and potential form of musical existence. In order for a work to become a living artistic artifact, it must be performed.

No matter how precise and detailed musical notation strives to be, it remains only a partial image of the composer’s thoughts. The incompleteness of notation leaves performers room to complete the work through their own artistic realization.

“Although I have endeavored to indicate my intentions as precisely as possible, I do not wish to conceal that much, indeed the most essential things, cannot be transferred to paper and can only be fully realized through the artistic ability and inspired reproduction of both the conductor and the performers.”

The process of interpreting a musical work involves a broad range of activities: deciphering notation and compositional ideas, searching for and understanding layers of meaning, explaining them, and communicating them to the listener.

In his systematic study Contemporary Musicology (1984), Oskár Elschek reflects on the issues of musical-text interpretation and musical performance. He points out that none of the established systems of musicology adequately addresses musical interpretation and that the theoretical dimension of musical transformation remains overshadowed by other musicological disciplines.

Although individual studies have examined interpretation from pedagogical, aesthetic, or physiological perspectives, musicology’s attitude toward musical interpretation—much like its attitude toward composition—remains ambivalent.

Elschek identifies four possible areas of musicological research related to interpretation:

• musical-text interpretation as the deciphering and transnotation of musical texts,
• musical interpretation of the text as its sounding realization,
• memory-based interpretation as a higher form of interpretation not constrained by the visual score,
• the theory of musical interpretation.

The last of these areas remains the least developed to this day.

The articles in this second issue of the 52nd volume of Slovenská hudba contribute to various aspects of musical interpretation. In the continuation of his extensive study on Ernest Zavarský, Juraj Ruttkay provides commentary on the legacy and complete bibliography of the Slovak musicologist, who was also engaged in music criticism and analytical interpretation.

In his essay Interpretation as the Basis of Creativity, Jevgenij Iršai asks a classic question: which came first—the chicken or the egg; interpretation or creation? Drawing upon his own life experience, he offers philosophical insight and a stimulating opportunity for reflection.

Jordana Palovičová’s inaugural lecture, Significant Impulses in the Piano Works of Maria Szymanowska in the Context of Her Time and Their Potential Use in Interpretative and Pedagogical Practice, presents the perspective of a distinguished pianist on the work and interpretation of the little-known Polish pianist and composer Maria Szymanowska, a forerunner of Frédéric Chopin.

The concluding review by Pavol Suchárek highlights the intersections of Slovak musical and intermedial art in Július Fujak’s monograph The Semiosphere of Sounds and Music in Culture. But What is In – Beyond – Above?, the result of the author’s long-term effort to map an independent culture resistant to clear categorization.

Dear Readers, I hope that in this second issue you will find inspiration for reflection and perhaps for your own future publications. I wish you enjoyable reading during the warm summer days.

Alena Čierna