The present study discusses the activities of the musicologist Józef Reiss (1879-1956) as lecturer in 1912-1927, mainly in Krakow, taking into account inter alia the problems he discussed and information about the performers of musical illustrations to his lectures.
In 1912 Reiss began delivering lectures as part of the Public University Lectures at the Jagiellonian University and the Adam Mickiewicz People’s University; he then worked for the Music Society and its Conservatoire, and somewhat later, during the First World War, for the Institute of Music and the College of Scientific Lectures; later, after Poland regained independence, he collaborated with the E. Bujański Concert Agency and Radio Krakow. He also gave talks and lectures organized by the Social Readery, Oratorian Society, Workers’ Youth Union “Znicz” [Torch], Association of Women Teachers, Professional Musicians’ Union, and by Witold Herget’s National Theater and Concert Agency He delivered scientific lectures or popular-science and non-specialist lectures and talks. They were usually illustrated with musical compositions or excerpts, most often performed by pianists.
Reiss presented his lectures as one-subject series (e.g. Ancient Greek music, The Romantic period in music, Subjectivism in music). He sometimes delivered single lectures, which usually discussed the artistic achievements of one composer (Chopin, Brahms, Tchaikovsky), or relationships between two composers (e.g. Stanisław Moniuszko and Carl Loewe, Ferenc Liszt and Juliusz Zarebski). The tendency to present historical-musical issues as larger wholes was also seen in the way of planning music mornings and evenings (e.g. series of mornings devoted to Wagner’s works).
Reiss usually presented historical-musical subjects from several perspectives: the period in the history of music; a selected nation; a trend or style in music; the kind of music; a music genre; the artistic achievements of one composer; or one musical work. Because of the musical preferences of his audiences Reiss gave slightly preferential treatment to the operatic and song compositions of the 19th century, along with piano achievements. A special position in the subjects discussed by Reiss was devoted to Ludwig van Beethoven. At the same time he also gave lectures on entirely different musical phenomena, e.g. a lecture on jazz illustrated by the playing of a jazz band.
In 1927 Reiss gave lectures and talks on the Polish Radio in Krakow before concerts (e.g. The Struggle for Jazz and Waltz, The Beethoven Ideology, The Outstanding Figures of Russian Music, On the 16th-Century Vocal Art, A Glance at French Music).
The success of many well-executed lecture-cum-concert projects in which Reiss took part as well as the interest aroused by his talks and lecturers is evidenced by the large number and social composition of his audiences. For example, on 13 March 1913, at a music evening with a lecture on Beethoven, Reiss, and the pieces providing musical illustration, was listened to with unabated attention by over 250 people; they were workers for whom the event was organized by the People’s University. More socially diversified audiences listened to Reiss at events organized by the People’s University during World War One: in January 1916 three lectures on impressionism in music attracted many listeners whom the lecture room could hardly seat; at the music mornings with Reiss, organized for example in the “Uciecha” cinema (seating 430), there were also large audiences. It so happened that at a music morning devoted to jazz the room could not accommodate all those interested and the program had to be repeated at a later date.
The data showing attendance at Reiss’s lectures and opinions about them permit a conclusion that the difficult art of talking about music with Reiss as the speaker attained a very high level satisfying the audiences.
References 1. Hegger, M., Fuchs, M., Stark, T., Zeumer, M. Energy Manual : Sustainable Architecture. Basel, Boston, Berlin: Birkhäuser, 2008. 280 p. (English translation of the 1st German edition; translated by G. H. Söffker, P. Thrift and P. Seidel) ISBN: 978-3-7643-8830-0. 2. Edwards, B. Rough guide to sustainability : A design primer. London: RIBA, 2014. pp. 43-47. 3. Cebrat, K. Wskaźnik energii wbudowanej w pieniądz : Drugie spojrzenie na koszty budowy. Rynek instalacyjny. 2014/3. pp. 63-66. (Energy embodied
, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 93–102. 5. Davis, H. The Culture of Building. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006, 400 p. ISBN-13: 978-0195305937 6. Rapoport, A. House form and culture. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1969, 146 p. ISBN-13: 9780133956733 7. Oliver, P. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Vernacular Architecture of the World, Vol. 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997, 833 p. 8. Távora, F., Pimentel, R., Menéres, A., Filgueiras, O. L., Araújo, A., Dias, C. C., Keil do Amaral, F., Lobo, J. H., Malato, J. J., Pereira N. T
Ilze Rukmane-Poča and Linda Leitāne-Šmīdberga
stili Latvijā [tiešsaiste, skatīts 05.02.2015.]. http://e.znet.lv/Arhitekt_stili_Latvija_Text.pdf 6. Sungur, E. ArhiSculpture : Dialogues between Architecture and Sculpture [online]. Dexigner [cited 13.07.2010.]. http://www.dexigner.com/architecture/news-g6570.html 7. Farrelly, L. The fundamentals of architecture. Lausanne: AVA Academia, 2007. 176 p. ISBN 9782940373482. 8. Ķempe, I. Arhiskulptūra [tiešsaiste]. A4d Raksti [skatīts 18.12.2014.]. http://www.a4d.lv/lv/raksti/427 9. Biroju ēka Ķīpsalā, Matrožu
Antra Viļuma and Uģis Bratuškins
R eferences 1. Werner, F., Taverna, R., Hofer, P., Thurig, E., Kaufmann, E. National and global greenhouse gas dynamics of different forest management and wood use scenarios : a model-based assessment. Environmental Science & Policy , Vol. 13, No. 1, 2010, pp. 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2009.10.004 2. Upton, B., Miner, R., Spinney, M., Heath, L. S. The greenhouse gas and energy impacts of using wood instead of alternatives in residential construction in the United States. Biomass and Bioenergy , Vol. 32, No. 1, 2008, pp. 1
. 11. Liuke, A. Ceļojums laikā: manas bibliotēkas ēkas vēsture [tiešsaiste 24.06.2017]. http://biblioteka.valka.lv/wp-content/biblioteka/celojumsSmiltene.pdf 12. Smiltenes–Palsmanes–Aumeisteru–Gaujenes Lauksaimniecības biedrība. Kopdarbība , 1923, 6. oktobris, 627.–628. lpp. 13. LVVA, fund 6343, description 7, case 119. 14. Zušmanis, J. Smiltene: laiki un likteņi . Smiltene: Smiltenes TV, 2004. 217. lpp. 15. Photo from the family archive of Kaspars Nodievs. 16. Vidzemes Šveice 1880–1930. Siguldas Ziņas , 1930, 22. nov. (Nr. 22
Kęstutis Zaleckis, Jurga Vitkuvienė, Indrė Gražulevičiūtė-Vileniškė, Brigita Tranavičiūtė, Huriye Armağan Doğan, Jolita Sinkienė and Tomas Grunskis
.pdf 6. de Alba, M. A Methodological Approach to The Study of Urban Memory: Narratives about Mexico City. Forum: Qualitative Social Research , 2012, Vol. 2, Issue 13, Art. 27. 7. O’Neil, J. A., Gallagher, C. E. Determining What is Important in Terms of The Quality of an Urban Green Network: a Study of Urban Planning in England and Scotland. Planning Practice and Research , 2014, Vol. 2, Issue 29, pp. 202–216, https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2014.896154 8. Stepchenkova, S., Zhan, F. Visual Destination Images of Peru: Comparative Content Analysis of
Alisa Koroļova and Sandra Treija
Hall. P. Design for Social Sustainability : a framework for creating thriving new communities, 2011 [online, cited 25.11.2018]. http://www.social-life.co/media/files/DESIGN_FOR_SOCIAL_SUSTAINABILITY_3.pdf 11. Koroļova, A. Survey and semi-structured interviews 2015. 12. Birmingham Joint Mc and WG Report (2015) [online, cited 10.09.2018]. http://www.urbanallotments.eu/fileadmin/uag/media/Birmingham/report/Brmingham_report_NK_29sep.pdf 13. Unpublished interview materials. 2014. gadā Maģistra darba “Mūsdienu urbānās dārzkopības integrācijas
R eferences 1. Maeda, J. Design education in the post-digital age. Design Management Journal , Vol. 13, Issue 3, 2002, pp. 39–45. 2. Stavric, M., Marina, O. Parametric Modeling for Advanced Architecture. International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Informatics , Vol. 5, Issue 1, 2011, pp. 9–16. 3. Özbaki, Ç., Çağdaş, G., Kilimci, E. Comparing Design Productivity: Analog and Digital Media. Megaron , Vol. 11, Issue 3, 2016, pp. 398–411. doi:10.5505/megaron.2016.69188 4. Grobman, Y. J., Ron, R. Digital Form Finding – Generative