Bandura in the late 1990s and early 2000s compositions by Maryna Denysenko: genre and stylistic context of ideas

If combining bandura with violins is more or less common because they are the instruments with the exact nature of the sound source-the strings-the next timbre complex is much more unique. It also involves bandura; however, in combination with tubular bells. This occurs on bars 14-19, coinciding with the first appearance of the bandura in this piece.

Moreover, it is interesting that the instruments are used in relatively distant registers, which, in theory, should not create a tendency to combine these timbres. Still, this obstacle has been overcome in an inventive way. The musical material of the bells' part is based on two sounds with a second distance-E flat and F. The bandura part initially also contains only two sounds-A flat and B flat at a distance from a note in a medium-high tessitura, combined into repeated motifs. Later, other sounds appear but the sound of B flat remains an organ point. When bells sound, the acoustic side of the sound is generally very significant. The spillover strikes on this instrument cause audible resonances. Several initial sounds of the natural scale that arise from the sound of E flat in the small octave of bells have a B flat, including the second octave, which is a frequent sound in bandura (Example 8).

Hr

Example 8

Thus, the bandura seems to amplify the sound of the overtone that is important for the bells, creating a "sound crown” of sorts. Moreover, the composer specifically singled out this timbre complex because other instruments in these bars fade into the background. However, in terms of pitch, the violins are also included in the acoustic complex with the bells-their parts are based on the sounds of F1 - C2 - F1, which are in the natural sound series of the corresponding sound of the bells (Example 9).

Example 9

This piece generally becomes more dynamic as a result of exciting timbre combinations, a large number of contrasts in the role of instruments in the orchestral texture, its density (e.g., the set of eight parts in bar 23 is abruptly joined by five parts of the first violins in bar 24 with an imitative combina- and variety of its layers (the previously quoted fragment exemplifies this: there is an orchestral background, or bars 20-31, where the double basses have an orchestral pedal). The waves of development are more tangible, and there are also timbre arches. Thus, tempo blocks and a nightingale appear at the beginning and end of the piece, marking them as such. This illustrates the importance of contrasting the cycle's first and second numbers for the composer.

The third movement-"Summer for Water...”- may be considered the lyrical center of the entire cycle. If the role of rhythm was significant in the previous pieces, here the intonation becomes critical. The intonation layer in this piece is based on a gradual movement, which, in principle, makes it similar to the previous ones. The reference to the first part is particularly noticeable because, for example, the bells in bars 2-3 almost entirely (in a moderately colored manner) quote the melodic line that was the basis of"Makoviya...” The descending sectional movement of seconds upward, which appears here repeatedly (for example, in the second violin solo in bars 31-32), also played a significant role in the opening number of the cycle. However, these intonational elements now sound softer. If, in the first movement, the fast pulsation of the beats made them relatively discrete, here it becomes possible to emphasize greater coherence. For example, in bars 1314 (Example 10), most of the instruments duplicate the in- tonationally expressive melody, and only the second violins lead a rhythmically complementary line that only unobtrusively emphasizes the first and last beats of the bars. In addition, they create a harmonic filling, that counterpoints the role of the melodic component.

Example 10 illustrates one of the conductions of the melodic phrase to which the main thematic work in the piece is linked. It accumulates the characteristic of the movement of seconds, thus, both the thematically vivid and the background material have the same intonations, contributing to the work's monolithic nature. This melodic structure is a cross-cutting theme in the piece. At first, it is "concealed”-in the middle of the texture of the first violins (bars 1-2) and moderately obscured by other elements that draw attention to themselves-the solo violin's curly line, the bells' silver counterpoint, etc. However, it is brought to the fore in "all its glory” when in bar 9, this intonational material (transposed) is played with a tertian compression and in a multi-octave duplication of violins and viola. Texturally, this fragment is constructed similarly to the one illustrated in Example 10. Throughout the work, the main melodic structure is carried out in different rhythmic variants (for instance, in the version with triplets-for the first violins in bars 36-37).

In addition to its chant-like beginning and lyrical imagery, the piece also has a powerful sound component, which stems from its title. Therefore, the composer decided to saturate the piece with sounds representing the water element.

Example 10

At first, this is immediately evident from the renewal of the percussion instrumentation-new characteristic instruments are introduced into the score: bells (already mentioned), xylophone, triangle, and rattles. For these instruments with a sonorous sound, this is a "golden age” because they convey the sounds of water drops in a colorful way like no other. This also applies to the flexaton and, of course, the bandura.

The sound elements are included in the number and the introduction of the bells in bar 2 when it is still superimposed on the sound of the chant material. Then the sound line continues with the appearance of ostinato figures on the xylophone in bar 12 and becomes more extensive starting from bar 16 when bandura strumming is added to its trembling sound.

Bar 16 arguably marks the beginning of a new section, because the composer uses techniques that bring the sound imagery to a new level. In addition to the instruments already described¹, she ingeniously involves a layer of strings in the sound imitation. Four parts of the first violins di- visi quietly play small melodic "patterns” of wavy graphics on pizzicato. Moreover, the rhythm is not written out in them, which gives the composer permission for a specific disordered sound. By this, Denysenko "painted” not only water drops but also its gurgling sounds. Bandura's aleatoric techniques add to the chaotic sound, which actively contributes to "the closeness of the sound picture to the natural sound environment” (Druzhga, 2021, p. 141).

Subsequently, when lyrical, musical material appears, the glittering of the xylophone remains present, enhanced by the "bursts” of the glissando flexaton and the noise of the rattles.

The strings' chanting thematic material at the end also appears on the xylophone-in bars 29-31 and bars 39-41 with duplications in different intervals. The exceptions are the bells that appear only at the beginning and end of the piece, accentuating them.

Thus, the specificity of this number is in the very natural interaction of seemingly opposite imaginative spheres-the spiritual, human one associated with melody and the "neutral” images of the natural environment. While these two spheres seem to exist separately at first, in the end, the themes of the lyrical sphere merge with the part of the instrument that represents nature. This "humanization” of nature adds a romantic touch to the work's imaginative palette.

The fourth movement of the cycle - "Kaniv” - echoes the first one with its rhythmic elasticity, based on the constant movement of the eighths. The set of rhythmic patterns in this number even contains direct borrowings from "Makoviya...”. The most noticeable is a "syncopation” involving pauses (Example 11).

Example 11

However, in other respects, this part is in stark contrast to all the previous ones.

First, the instrumental composition should be mentioned. The violins, which played a key role earlier, almost completely disappeared from the group of strings. Only at the end for three bars do the second violins join in, and from bar 34 to the end, the first violin solo with an aleatoric glissando line sounds. This is probably how the composer decided to introduce the imitation of a mosquito peep because, together with the sul ponti- cello technique, which generally gives a buzzing sound, it sounds very characteristic. Now the primary musical material is entrusted to the low strings, which give the music a heavier sound. The percussion also changes: the delicate melodic instruments of the previous section are replaced by banging tom-toms and a wooden triangle, and at the end, are supplemented by bongos (bars 35-37).

In accordance with the instrumentation, there is a sharp "roll” to the lower register with its darkened colors. While it is natural for cello and double bass, it is not characteristic of bandura. In the opening bars, it dissolves among the cellos, duplicating them. Throughout the piece, the bandura often dissolves in the string sound, coloring the timbre with a sharper plucking attack. Still, sometimes it is audible, for example, in bars 20-21, when it sounds against the background of rhythmic accompaniment by only double basses and a wooden triangle.

The differences in intonation are very noticeable in "Kaniv.” Jumps-by a quart or a sextuple-become rather standard here, making the melodic lines more unrestrained than the "polite” movement of seconds that dominated earlier. The melodic material that may be conventionally labeled as thematic is primarily based on angular jumps. It is played several times in its basic form (by the first cello in bars 14-15) and in variations (by the bandura in bars 20-21).

Overall, this quick piece is shorter than the previous ones, therefore, it seems even in the tone of development. However, it can be divided into two sections according to its "thematic” richness. The first (bars 1-19) focuses more on presenting conditionally thematic material. The second (from bar 20 to the end), starting with a varied initial material, "splits” it-by the end of the number, only its motifs appear. It should be noted that starting from bar 31 (bandura) and bar 31 (all other parts) and until the end, the music becomes increasingly diluted due to discontinuities in rhythmic clarity, the appearance of moderately im- provisational moments in the rhythm and free glissandos in the bandura. The changes in the music of the ending are emphasized by the sounds of "mosquito peep” and the only appearance of bells and xylophone in the work. The latter again parallels with "Makoviya...” because, like the nightingale in the first number there, the xylophone in "Kaniv” links the attacca to the next movement.

The last part, "August the Sickle” is the shortest (only 18 bars), yet very vivid. It is characterized by imagery, not devoid of humor, and has a rather original sound. The performing cast for the final piece is unusual-it is significantly limited. Only two solo violins remained from the pompous group of strings and bows. The only percussion instruments are the xylophone and tempo blocks. Traditionally, this lineup is complemented by the bandura and the nightingale, an invariable attribute of imagery associated with nature. There is a contrast with the previous piece-all the selected instruments have a high register, which gives the sound lightness and transparency.

Denysenko decided to diversify this short piece with trills (for violins), tremolos (for bandura), and a significant amount of glissandos, which appear in all parts simultaneously. Interesting timbre effects are associated with the latter. For example, the glissando in tempo blocks in bars 11, 14, and 16 creates associations with the whistling of a sickle or scythe. Despite its unusual features, as for the final movement, this part creates a specific arch in the cycle.

The number has a lively movement, ensured by the almost constant running of the eighths. This also emphasizes the measured passage of time. Such metrical features are inherent primarily in the first number of the cycle, so the arch is triumphant in this respect.

However, the most pronounced is the thematic arch. The musical fabric of the fifth number of the cycle is entirely based on the central thematic formation from "Makoviya.” Initially, this material moderately varied in comparison to the first piece (the first sectional element is expanded) and is played four times by the xylophone. Then, starting from bar 7, it does not appear at all. Its second element with a characteristic repetition of the D flat sound is found in the bandura in bar 8, in the first violin solo with unison-octave duplication by the bandura in bar 10, and again in the octave presentation by the bandura in bars 14-17. It also appears in an abbreviated version by the first solo violin in bar 10 and bar 12 by the second solo violin. In a varied form, the melodic element appears again in the first violin in bars 11-12. Interestingly, almost all of these passages follow the metrical conditions that would dictate this melodic structure if it was to be performed in full, which maintains the sense of ostinato movement. The counterpoint that occurs in the second violin solo in bars 8-12 is related to the ascending sequential movement of seconds characteristic of the first movement. In bars 13-16, solo violins perform the same material ostinato, and the second violin decorates it with glissando. In this number, there is no pitch-fixed intonation that does not come from the first number of the cycle. The concentration and composure of the material even exceed that of the opening movement.

Therefore, the last musical number rounds out the cycle and completes it while retaining its unique features.

The entire cycle August the Sickle "cemented,” as was the play "Winter and Spring.” There are always some connections between the parts of the cycle, which are manifested in the thematic or purely intonational field and the metrical relation. These parameters work both in combinations and in substitution, as, for example, in the fourth movement, when the second intonations seem to cease playing a unifying role but the elastic rhythmicity still makes the number related to the others. In this regard, even the contrast between the pieces, which is intended to be a factor of dynamics, performs a unifying function because it reveals the pattern of the cycle: the extreme numbers (No. 1, 4, 5) have a rhythm as a supporting means of expression; the middle ones (No. 2, 3) rely more on the melodic beginning.

In addition, the plays of the cycle are united by the path that the conventionally thematic material takes. An interesting detail is that the process of "assembling” this melody, which occurs in the first movement, is then realized at the level of the entire cycle. In the middle movements, almost nothing remains of the material-only in the third movement intonations of seconds in the sequential movement hint at it. The melody seemed to be reduced to its original state in the introduction of “Makoviya.” In the concluding part, it was “assembled” and even raised to a higher level, representing an evolution.

It should also be noted that the cycle has a constructive idea permeating it. In the first number, there is an accumulation of various tools. This is accompanied by an increase in bars-37 in the first, 41 in the second, and 45 in the third. Starting from the number “Kaniv,” there is a tendency to radically reduce the orchestral composition and the “dimensions” of the parts. Thus, the fourth number consists of 38 bars, and the last one, as mentioned above, of 18. It can be assumed that this is only a random phenomenon but it may be significant in the context of the harvest theme. Such patterns may be analogous to crops that grow and then are harvested. Then it becomes even more understandable why the composer included August the Sickle in the cycle title.

Summarizing the whole cycle August the Sickle, the characteristic tendency of the modern use of orchestra instruments, including bandura should be pointed out. In addition, Denysenko engages timbre mixtures and various combinations into a single complex of instruments that seem to be very far apart in their constructive and timbre characteristics.

Given the program of this cycle, which has a connection to folklore, Maryna Denysenko does not try to operate with convex features that would refer to the musical language of Ukrainian folklore. This work illustrates a stage of an inevitable evolution of the composer's style, which is noted by O. Berehova: “.from the direct quotation in the early period of her work (for example, the Ukrainian folk song Cherry Blossom <. > The Longest Sutra), author's arrangements of Ukrainian carols and shchedrivkas (Shchedrivka for tuba and piano, Two Christmas Canons for flute, bassoon, and piano, arrangement of the carol Peahen steps for piano, etc.) to more indirect forms of working with folklore material, in particular, such as stylization, the introduction of specific Ukrainian instruments into the score.” This approach of M. Denysenko is likely in line with her theoretical opinion on this issue. Thus, for her, “ethno-code is one of the types of modality that in the mind of the author (composer) evokes certain linguistic and semantic patterns, allusions, psychological and stylistic analogies, and finally, rhetorical figures, the origin of which is deeply rooted in folklore sources, language (poetic and musical) and the core ideas of certain ethnic groups” (Denysenko, 2010, p. 298).

Bandura in the creative concepts of Maryna Denysenko

In order to better understand the status of the bandura in the context of M. Denysenko's creative experiments, it is necessary to review the processes that occured in bandura performance in the twentieth century.

Among the varieties of contemporary music performance, bandura creativity is one of the most active and intensively developing spheres. At the beginning of the twentieth century, one could hardly imagine bandura adapted to performing academic music due to its design features and the general mode of performance on this instrument, still closely associated with folk music. The first step towards the academicization of the bandura was the emergence of the practice of translating academic works for this instrument. Iryna Druzhga, who focuses on the modern bandura studies, states that probably the first person who started making such translations (the works of European classics were used for the arrangements) was the famous Hnat Hotkevych (Druzhga, 2021, p. 58). V. Kabachok, Y. Yutsevych, A. Bobyr, M. Helis, Y. Pukhalskyi, S. Bashtan, V. Herasymenko, and other prominent artists continued expanding the performance repertoire of bandura. Their work encouraged the expansion of bandura performance tools and the inclusion of “outside” tools. For example, while in the traditional performance mode, the performer's left and right hands were used, playing, for example, arrangements of Baroque music broke this performance cliche. This critical stage in the development of bandura art became the basis for the transition to a new level.

In the second half of the twentieth century, Ukrainian traditionalist composers started focusing their attention on the timbre and expressive potential of bandura. Independent academic works for this instrument appear. At first, composers and performers tested new means of playing in the classical-romantic key. In this context, the works of M. Dremliuga may be mentioned, in which a combination of folk and professional composer's stylistics with the latter inheriting from the traditions of M. Lysenko (e.g., Duma, suites, sonatas for bandura solo) could be traced. The use of the bandura in the works still has a distinctly national flavor.

Over time, connecting the bandura to the musical processes of contemporary experimental creativity gradually intensified. For example, in the sonata in memory ofK. Myaskov for bandura solo, composed by M. Zubytskyi, several unconventional playing techniques are used, such as various percussion effects and elements of theatrical- ization: foot stomping, vocalization of the bandura player during the game, etc. Such precedents contributed to the process of bandura's expansion beyond the nationally defined area of musical discourse, as exemplified by Yuriy Oliynyk's Concerto No. 6 for two banduras and orchestra, titled Antiphonal, which refers to the traditions of the Venetian multi-choral concert. In this context, the historical determination of bandura specificity in the above-analyzed works by M. Denysenko becomes more understandable.

The national flavor in the play Winter and Spring and the cycle August the Sickle is presented symbolically. Based on the folklore orientation of the program content of the works, the bandura, which, as O. Berehova puts it, "can be considered a Ukrainian cultural image” (Beregova, 2022, p. 97), does not seem accidental. However, the composer's musical language of these works does not give any apparent grounds to suggest the author's following the features of folk-song or folk-instrumental creativity. In practice, the musical material of the bandura is autonomous from its national and stylistic features. The composer approaches it as an ordinary academic instrument equal to others. Hence, bandura functions as a connecting link between music filled with European musical vocabulary and Ukrainian folklore images to which the programmatic titles refer.

The academic nature of the bandura is evidenced, first of all, by the specificity of the texture in both works. While in Winter and Spring, the bandura acts as an equal "interlocutor” of the piano, in the cycle August the Sickle, bandura becomes a part of the orchestra. Subordinated to the orchestral presentation, bandura changes its role according to the composer's musical objectives: from a bright melodic part, sometimes as a solo, and even as a bearer of thematic material (for example, in the first and fifth movements) to the function of harmonic filling, background (for example, in the third movement). The fact that the composer puts the bandura on par with the other instruments of the orchestra emphasizes the fact that, for the most part, the bandura in the cycle is notated on one sheet of music, which, of course, means a narrowing of the texture that can be recorded. The composer hints that there should not be too much of this instrument, that it should not compete with the orchestra but rather be a part of it.

Denysenko is most interested in the original timbre of the bandura. Attention to timbre coloring becomes another critical feature that characterizes the use of the bandura in her works. The technical specificity of the instrument gives initial impetus for such experiments. Thus, in the instrument literature, bandura has no damper device and sounds free until it is entirely attenuated (Khashhevatska, 2008, p. 76). In certain eras, for example, in classical and romantic music, where the variability of chords and their functions should be displayed (especially if the frequency of harmonic pulsation is high), this feature of the bandura can be considered a disadvantage. Still, the works by M. Denysenko, on the contrary, use the opportunity to obtain luxurious sonorities merged from several passages, chords in a row, etc. In the score of Winter and Spring, this is clearly illustrated by the use of free slurs, which are precisely intended to create a precedent for "hanging” on the resulting sonority. In August the Sickle bandura often performs melodic passages and passages of various doublets and chords that produce a colorful resonant sound that the bandura performer can only muffle after a rhythmic stop. The colorfully vivid moment in the second part of the cycle, when the bandura comes into acoustic contact with the tubular bells, which were described in detail previously, exploits this specific feature of the bandura. The same is true in regards to the aleatoric techniques of playing with free movement in the direction indicated by the composer, up or down. The plucking sharp attack of the bandura's sound more than once becomes the basis for its use in all kinds of duplications (such as in the second and fourth movements).

In addition, M. Denysenko goes further and "dissects” the bandura by using non-traditional ways of playing it- glissando, playing with a mute, striking the soundboard, etc. The fact that such techniques are used indicates an interest in the timbral range of the bandura and the composer's desire to release its timbre without regard to its traditional sound of folk music.

Thus, the use of bandura in creative ideas demonstrates the process of academicizing this instrument, which is manifested in the use of bandura along with other instruments (piano, strings, percussion), in complexes with them, as well as in the ways of presenting musical material and specific playing techniques that reveal the composer's interest in the uniqueness of the bandura's timbre and its variants.

Conclusions

When analyzing M. Denysenko's works with the bandura, the following stylistic features of the composer's creative method were revealed:

1) The tendency to a programmatic nature. This is expressed in the composer's love for giving programmatic titles to her works.

2) The tendency to realize folklore themes without explicit references to the features of traditional genres of Ukrainian folklore in the musical language.

3) Tendency to pronounced integrity of the composition. It is achieved in different ways-by building the entire texture on a common material (rhythmic, into- national), as well as by introducing arches, elements that "smooth” the transition between parts (texture, timbre "patterns,” etc.).

4) Organization of the musical fabric that reveals the timbre and coloristic features of the instruments (for example, the individuality of the instrumental compositions in both works, drawing attention to the tone by weakening the role of rhythm, etc., standard means of expression in Winter and Spring), as well as their ability to "come into contact” with other instruments (for example, the dialogic nature of the instruments in Winter and Spring or the timbre complex "bandura and bells” in the second part of August the Sickle).

5) The use of decentralized harmonic systems and modality in the principles of the harmonic basis of the works.

6) The regularities of constructing colorful intona- tional material that are still based on the movement of seconds and refer to the overall structure of the piece as bricks to a building.

In the play Winter and Spring, individual features of M. Denysenko's works with the bandura are:

- the exchange of roles between bandura and piano at certain moments of the piece,

- the thoughtfulness of the overall structure with the dominance of improvisation (manifested in the consistent construction of the work according to the principle: “thesis-antithesis-synthesis,” which occurs both at the figurative and purely technological levels).

The cycle August the Sickle is characterized by the following features:

- a cross-cutting constructive idea of splicing in the first three movements (expressed in the accumulation of instruments, an increase in the number of bars) and cutting in the last movements of the cycle (expressed, respectively, in the reduction of instruments and the reduction of the volume of movements), which can be associated with the splicing and harvesting of crops at the harvest according to the program title of the cycle,

- extensive use of purely orchestral means (methods of presentation, construction of texture) to dynamize the unfolding of musical material in time, its staging (for example, in the first part of the cycle, the variability of the orchestral texture becomes a factor in activating movement, contrary to the static of the uniform pitch and intonation structures),

- the significant role of polyphonic techniques (the use of equirhythmic counterpoint, various imitations, and canons involving two or more voices),

- numerous instances of inventive sound imagery (for example, the depiction of the sounds of drops and gurgling water in the third movement with the help of bells, a xylophone, or the layering of aleatoric techniques of bandura playing and pizzicato strings).

The nature of the use of bandura in the works by Maryna Denysenko testifies to the process of the academicization of the instrument. Using the bandura in the play Winter and Spring and the August the Sickle cycle, Denysenko makes the bandura a mediator between the musical material of a non-folklore nature and the folklore themes declared in the programmatic titles of the works. In general, her musical pieces demonstrate high mastery of compositional technique and artistic perfection, corresponding to contemporary music trends. This once again confirms the urgent need to revive and explore her work.

References

1. Andreeva, E. (1990). Udarnyie instrumentyi sovremennogo simfon- icheskogo orkestra: spravochnik. [Percussion instruments of the modern symphony orchestra: handbook]. Kyiv: Muzychna Ukraina [in Russian].

2. Beregova, O. (1999). Postmodernizm v ukrayinskij kamernij muzyci 80-90-x rokiv XX storichchya [Postmodernism in Ukrainian Chamber Music of the 80s and 90s of the Twentieth Century]. Kyiv: NPBU [in Ukrainian].

3. Beregova, O. (2013). Kamerna muzyka ukrayinskyx kom- pozytoriv u konteksti xudozhno-stylovyx procesiv 1990-2000-x rokiv [Chamber Music by Ukrainian Composers in the Context of Artistic and Stylistic Processes of the 1990s and 2000s]. Naukovyj visnyk Nacionalnoyi muzychnoyi akademiyi Ukrayiny imeni P. I. Chajkovskogo, 106, 207-226 [in Ukrainian].

4. Beregova, O. (2022). Estetyka Maryny Denysenko-Sapmaz u kul- turotvorchyx procesax Ukrayiny na mezhi XX-XXI stolit [Aesthetics of Maryna Denysenko-Sapmaz in the Cultural Processes of Ukraine at the Turn of the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries]. The Culturology Ideas, 22, 92-100 [in Ukrainian].

5. Denysenko, M. (2000). Do pytannya pro komunikatyvni (for- motvorchi) vlastyvosti tembrovogo chynnyka [On the question of the timbre factor's communicative (formative) properties]. Ukrayinske muzykoznavstvo, 29, 125-132 [in Ukrainian].

6. Denysenko, M. (2007). Metaforychnist modalnosti u mystec- ztvi: “Frutto di abbacare” [Metaphorical modality in art: “Frutto di abbacare”]. Naukovyj visnyk Nacionalnoyi muzychnoyi akademiyi Ukrayiny imeni P.I. Chajkovskogo, 56, 198-206 [in Ukrainian].

7. Denysenko, M. (2010). Etnogenetychna specyfika tvorchogo myslennya u prostori yevropejskoyi kultury. [Ethnogenetic specificity of creative thinking in the space of European culture]. Ukrayinske muzykoznavstvo, 36, 291-299 [in Ukrainian].

8. Denysenko, Ya. (2007). Denysenko Maryna Gennadiyivna [Maryna Denysenko]. In Dzyuba, I., Zhukovskyj, A., & Zheleznyak, M. (Eds.). Encyklopediya Suchasnoyi Ukrayiny, vol. 7.

9. Druzhga, I. (2021). Suchasna bandurystyka: kompozytorski poshuky ta vykonavski perspektyvy [Modern bandura art: composer searches and performance perspectives.] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kharkiv І. P. Kotlyarevsky National University of Arts, Kharkiv, Ukraine) [in Ukrainian].

10. Frazer, J. G. (1923). Folklor v Vetxom Zavete [Folklore in the Old Testament].

11. Golynska, O. (1999). Mizhnarodnyj muzychnyj festyval “Kyiv Muzyk Fest”: materialy presy, fotodokumenty, programy. 1990-1999 [Kyiv Music Fest International Music Festival: Publications, photo documents, programs. 1990-1999]. Kyiv: Tsentrmuzinform [in Ukrainian].

12. Kaniv: 7 istorychnyx mist ta mistechok (n. d.). [Kaniv: 7 historic cities and towns].

13. Khashhevatska, S. (2008). Instrumentoznavstvo: pidruchnyk dlya VNZIII-IVr. a. [Instrumentation: a textbook for universities of III-IV accreditation level]. Vinnytsia: Nova knyga. [in Ukrainian].

14. Kohoutek, C. (1976). Texnyka kompozycyy v muzyike XX veka [Composition techniques in twentieth-century music]. Moscow: Muzyka [in Russian].

15. Lytvynova, O. (2006). Denysenko Maryna Gennadiyivna [Maryna Denysenko]. In Skrypnyk, G. (Ed.). Ukrayinska muzychna encyklopediya, vol. 1 (p. 595). Kyiv: IMFE NANU. [in Ukrainian].

16. Morshhakova, N. (2016). "Tembrove” myslennya Maryny Denysenko: gra cytat, metafor i styliv u kompozyciyax dlya fagotu. [Marina Denisenko's "Timbre” Thinking: Playing with Quotations, Metaphors, and Styles in Compositions for Bassoon]. Naukovyj visnyk Nacionalnoyi muzychnoyi akademiyi Ukrayiny imeni P.I. Chajkovskogo, 114, 359-379 [in Ukrainian].

17. Morshhakova, N. (2017). Tembralno-vyrazovi mozhlyvosti fagotu j teoretyko-kompozycijni poshuky M.G. Denysenko. [Timbre and Expressive Possibilities of the Bassoon and Theoretical and Compositional Search of M. Denysenko]. Mizhnarodnyj visnyk: kulturologiya, filologiya, muzykoznavstvo, 1(8), 212-218 [in Ukrainian].

18. Mukha, A. (2004). Kompozytory Ukrayiny ta ukrayinskoyi dias- pory: dovidnyk [Composers of Ukraine and the Ukrainian diaspora: A reference book]. Kyiv: Muzychna Ukraina [in Ukrainian].

19. Rikman, K. (2008). "Panegyryk-2” Mariny Denysenko: k probleme muzykalno-sobyityjnogo analyza [Marina Denisenko's Panegyric 2: On the Problem of Musical Event Analysis]. Naukovyj visnyk Nacionalnoyi muzychnoyi akademiyi Ukrayiny imeni P.I. Chajkovskogo, 73, 226-234 [in Russian].

20. Rikman, K. (2002). K probleme ladoyntonacyonnoj sytu- acyonnosty v "Panegyryke-1” dlya symfonycheskogo orkestra M. Denysenko [On the Problem of the Lado-Intonation Situationality in the Panegyric-1 for Symphony Orchestra by M. Denisenko]. Mystecztvoznavchi aspekty slavistyky: naukovi zapysky kulturologich- nogo seminaru, 2 [in Russian].

21. Rikman, K. (2007). Do pytannya pro muzychnu podijo- vist u suchasnij kompozytorskij tvorchosti [On the Question of Musical Eventuality in Contemporary Composing]. Naukovyj visnyk Nacionalnoyi muzychnoyi akademiyi Ukrayiny imeni P.I. Chajkovskogo, 56, 88-94 [in Ukrainian].

22. Rzhevska, M. (2013). Rysy symfonichnoyi tvorchosti Gennadiya Lyashenka [Features of Hennadii Liashenkos Symphonic Work]. Mystecztvoznavchizapysky, 24, 3-8 [in Ukrainian].

23. Sadovenko, S. (2010). Neofolkloryzm u konteksti muzychnoyi kultury Ukrayiny drugoyi polovyny XX - pochatku XXI stolittya. [Neofolklorism in the Context of the Musical Culture of Ukraine in the Second Half of the Twentieth and Early Twenty-First Centuries]. Kultura i suchasnist: Almanax, 2, 173-177 [in Ukrainian].

24. Stronko, B. (2013). Temporalni aspekty orkestrovky [Temporal aspects of orchestration]. Mystecztvoznavchi zapysky, 24, 46-53 [in Ukrainian].

25. Syuta, B. (n.d.). Ukrayinska muzyka molodshoyigeneraciyi kompozytoriv. [Ukrainian music by the younger generation of composers].

26. Tsenova, V. (Ed.). (2007). Teoryya sovremennoj kompozy- cyy: uch. posobye [The Theory of Modern Composition: Tutorial]. Moscow: Muzyka [in Russian].

27. Tymoshhenko, N. (2018). Fagot v ukrayinskij kamernij muzyci kincya XX - pochatku XXI st.: vykonavski shkoly ta kompozytorska tvorchist [Basson in the Ukrainian chamber music of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries: The schools of performance and compositional creativity] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ukrainian National Tchaikovsky Academy of Music, Kyiv, Ukraine) [in Ukrainian].

28. Kyyanovska, L. & Denysenko, M. (1988, June 5). Pro neyi. Bez znyzhky na feminizaciyu. [About her. No discount for feminization]. Kultura i zhyttya, 4 [in Ukrainian].

29. Zosym, O. (1999, May 28). Vershynu lyubvy [The Apexes of Love].

30. Denysenko, M. (2014, October 14). Dekilka zauvazhen shhodo tvoru Franklina Pire [A few remarks on the work of Franklin Pire]. Retrieved from https://pianoyforte.blogspot.com/2014/10/blog- post.html [in Ukrainian].

31. Denysenko, M. (2021, October 4). Chasu sklyanka...: Retsenziia na knyzhku: Apalkov Oleksandr. Prostaia fylosofyia, yly Kak yzda- vat zhurnal y zachem pysat knyhy: nonfikshen. [Chasu sklyanka...: a book review on: Apalkov, O. Simple philosophy, or How to publish a journal and why to write books] [in Ukrainian].

Література

1. Андреева Е. Ударные инструменты современного симфонического оркестра: справочник. Киев: Музична Україна, 1990. 77 с.

2. Берегова О. Естетика Марини Денисенко-Сапмаз у культуротворчих процесах України на межі ХХ-ХХІ століть // The Culturology Ideas. 2022. №22. С. 92-100.

3. Берегова О. Камерна музика українських композиторів у контексті художньо-стильових процесів 1990-2000-х років // Науковий вісник Національної музичної академії України імені П.І. Чайковського. 2013. Вип. 106. С. 207-226.

4. Берегова О. Постмодернізм в українській камерній музиці 80-90-х років ХХ сторіччя. Київ: НПБУ, 1999. 141 с.

5. Денисенко М. Декілька зауважень щодо твору Франкліна Піре.

6. Денисенко М. До питання про комунікативні (формотворчі) властивості тембрового чинника // Українське музикознавство: наук.-метод. зб. 2000. Вип. 29. С. 125-132.

7. Денисенко М. Етногенетична специфіка творчого мислення у просторі європейської культури // Українське музикознавство: наук.-метод. зб. 2010. Вип. 36. С. 291-299.

8. Денисенко М. Метафоричність модальності у мистецтві: «Frutto di abbacare» // Науковий вісник Національної музичної академії України імені П. І. Чайковського. 2007. №56. С. 198-206.

9. Денисенко М. «Серпень-серп» для бандури, струнних та ударних. Партитура. Біловий рукопис / архів І. Савчука.

10. Денисенко М. «Зима та весна». П'єса для бандури та фортепіано. Партитура. Біловий рукопис / архів І. Савчука.

11. Денисенко Я. Денисенко Марина Геннадіївна. Енциклопедія Сучасної України / ред.: І.М. Дзюба, А.І. Жуковський, М.Г. Железняк та ін. Київ: Інститут енциклопедичних досліджень НАН України, 2007. Т. 7.

12. Дружга І. Сучасна бандуристика: композиторські пошуки та виконавські перспективи: дис. ... канд. мистецтвозн.: 17.00.03 / Харківський національний університет мистецтв імені І. П. Котляревського. Харків, 2021. 215 с.

13. Зосим О. Вершины любви.

14. Інтерв'ю з О. Козаренком. 27.10.2022. Архів Т. Білянської.

15. Канів: 7 історичних міст та містечок.

16. Кияновська Л. Денисенко М., про неї. Без знижки на фемінізацію // Культура і життя. 1988. 5 червня. С. 4.

17. Когоутек Ц. Техника композиции в музыке ХХ века. Москва: Музыка, 1976. 266 с.

18. Литвинова О. Денисенко Марина Геннадіївна. Українська музична енциклопедія / гол. редкол. Г. Скрипник. Київ: ІМФЕ НАНУ 2006. Т. 1. С. 595.

19. Міжнародний музичний фестиваль «Київ Музик Фест»: матеріали преси, фотодокументи, програми 1990-1999. / ред. О. Голинська. Київ: Центрмузінформ, 1999. 272 с.

20. Морщакова Н. Тембрально-виразові можливості фаготу й те- оретико-композиційні пошуки М. Г Денисенко // Міжнародний вісник: культурологія, філологія, музикознавство. 2017. Вип. 1(8). С. 212-218.

21. Морщакова Н. «Темброве» мислення Марини Денисенко: гра цитат, метафор і стилів у композиціях для фаготу // Науковий вісник Національної музичної академії України імені П. І. Чай- ковського. 2016. Вип. 114. С. 359-379.

22. Муха А. Композитори України та української діаспори: довідник. Київ: Музична Україна, 2004. 352 с.

23. Ржевська М. Риси симфонічної творчості Геннадія Ляшенка // Мистецтвознавчі записки: зб. наук. пр. 2013. Вип. 24. С. 3-8.

24. Рикман К. «Панегирик-2» Марины Денисенко: к проблеме музыкально-событийного анализа // Науковий вісник Національної музичної академії України імені П.І. Чайковського. 2008. Вип. 73. С. 226-234.

25. Рікман К. До питання про музичну подійовість у сучасній композиторській творчості // Науковий вісник Національної музичної академії України імені П.І. Чайковського. 2007. Вип. 56. С. 88-94.

26. Рікман К. К проблеме ладоинтонационной ситуационности в «Панегирике-1» для симфонического оркестра М. Денисенко // Мистецтвознавчі аспекти славістики: наукові записки культурологічного семінару. 2002. Вип. 2.

27. Садовенко С. Неофольклоризм у контексті музичної культури України другої половини ХХ - початку ХХІ століття // Культура і сучасність: Альманах. 2010. Вип. 2. С. 173-177.

28. Спогади С. Гоменюк. 29.11.2022. Архів Т. Білянської.

29. Стронько Б. Темпоральні аспекти оркестровки // Мистецтвознавчі записки: зб. наук. пр. 2013. Вип. 24. С. 46-53.

30. Сюта Б. Українська музика молодшої генерації композиторів.

31. Теория современной композиции: уч. пособ. / отв. ред. В. Ценова. Москва: Музыка, 2007. 624 с.

32. Тимощенко Н. Фагот в українській камерній музиці кінця ХХ - початку ХХІ ст.: виконавські школи та композиторська творчість: дис. ... канд. мистецтвознав. / Нац. муз. акад. України ім. П.І. Чайковського. Київ, 2018. 200 с.

33. Фрэзер Дж.Дж. Фольклор в Ветхом Завете.

34. Хащеватська С. Інструментознавство: підручник для ВНЗ ІІІ-IV р. а. Вінниця: Нова книга, 2008. 256 с.

35. Денисенко М. Часу склянка.: Рецензія на книжку: Апальков Олександр. Простая философия, или Как издавать журнал и зачем писать книги: нон-фікшен.

Размещено на Allbest.Ru