Historical Overview of the Teaching of Music Theory Subjects as Part of the School Curriculum in Hungary | Zeneművészeti Kar

Author: Márta S. Szabó

DOI: 10.5434/9789634902263/5

 

 

Abstract

The primary sources for a historical overview of secondary-level musical education in Hungary are publications on school histories, yearbooks, and the work of outstanding teachers. An overview of theoretical subjects is made far more difficult, however, by the fact that both the name and content of these subjects have undergone considerable change over time. It was only in the mid-20^th century when secondary-level musical education became independent from an earlier institutional form, the music school (Zenede in Hungarian), which taught a far wider range of age groups, lasted for 10-11 years, and characterised earlier music education for decades. Music schools, which offered, among others, secondary-level musical training, had existed since the second half of the 19^th century. This paper is part of a more comprehensive methodological work designed to bring to light the historical teaching of music theory in Hungarian musical training with regard to its roots, curricula, handbooks, and teaching practices up to the mid-20^th century, when the system of secondary schools specialising in music education was established.

Keywords: history of music teaching, professional musical training, teaching music theory

 

The Beginnings of Institutional Music Education in the 19^th Century

Music education at the secondary level in Hungary displays unique elements in its content and training structure. Its past constitutes an important segment of Hungarian music education as part of the school curriculum.
Most present-day institutions of secondary music training are successors of music schools which were established in the 19^th century.

From the late 18^th century, the demand for opera and concert life among the bourgeoisie grew stronger, while playing music at home and children’s music education were also considered important. At the time, various musical societies were established with a double purpose: to vitalise concert life in the town and to found and manage music schools. The city of Pozsony (now Bratislava) took the leading role, since the vicinity of the geographically well-placed market town to Vienna allowed for substantial demand for culture and, consequently, music. The multilingual bourgeoisie, including Hungarian noblemen, constituted the paying audience there. Outstanding Austrian and Moravian musicians were often hired as tutors in Pozsony, first as private tutors and later in the framework of musical societies.

Laibach (now Ljubljana) had a similarly lively musical scene, with a municipally managed Philharmonic Society, established in 1794. Some years later, the example was followed in Pest by the First Musical Society (1818-22) and the Musicians’ Society of Pest-Buda, founded in 1836. In the period, music societies were also established in towns other than Pest, including Kolozsvár (now Cluj-Napoca) (1819), Veszprém (1823), Sopron (1829), Miskolc (1832), Arad (1833), Szeged (1835), Debrecen (1841), and Győr (1846).
As the concerts and opera performances of musical societies grew more frequent, the necessity of public music education became clearer. The need for music schools managed at the municipal or state level, which would be available for children of the bourgeoisie, was articulated in several towns. Music education in Vienna and Paris was considered the model to be followed. The instrumental training and composition education at the Conservatoire of Paris, established in 1795, as well as the teaching of solfeggio at the institution, were all featured in the news at the time.

The European model, however, was to be implemented only to ensure the high quality of education. Another important goal of music schools established by Hungarian musical societies was to create training for Hungarian musicians. In particular, there were not enough Hungarian singers, who, due to their education, musical literacy, and Hungarian mother tongue, were the only ones who could achieve the rise of opera life in Hungarian. Consequently, the first music schools were called singing schools, including the Public Singing School, which was founded in 1840 by the above-mentioned Musicians’ Society of Pest-Buda under the directorate of Gábor Mátray[1]. Singing schools began to expand the scope of their education by introducing instrumental training and certain music literacy or theoretical courses. As a result, most institutions responded to the terminology of the time by adopting the name Music School (Zenede in Hungarian). Since their operation was multifaceted, we introduce two of them in detail, namely the Music School of the Musicians’ Society in Pest (after 1867, National Music School) and the Music School of Debrecen, to illustrate the beginnings of music education. In addition, we present the history and characteristics of theoretical subjects through the establishment and operation of these institutions.

 

The Music School of the Musicians’ Society and the National Music School

The Music School of the Musicians’ Society (1840-1867)

When the institution in Pest was established, the long-term goal of initiating a National Conservatory was formulated. It was for this purpose that Franz Liszt gave a concert in January of 1840, which generated sizable revenue. Until the Music School was opened, the interest was used by the Singing School.

In the first decade, the focus was on training a new generation of singers, especially choir singers, who were needed the most in societies’ vocal performances. The school launched its operation with 91 students (50 females and 41 males). In the first year, the school admitted children over 10 years; from the second year on, children between 8 and 15 could apply. The language of instruction was German and Hungarian. The first vocal instructor for girls was Lajos Menner[2], for boys, Mátyás Engeszer[3]. The Italian language was also taught. Admitted students were prescribed to spend at least 6 years at the institutions to obtain a certificate. During the programme, they were required to take part in concerts of the musical society and were allowed to perform in external events only with special permission. The school was maintained from donations and tuition paid by wealthy families’ children (Tari, 2005).

The first public exam concert took place in 1843, with notable conductors asked to direct the concert and preceding rehearsals. In 1844, the requested conductor was Ferenc Erkel, whose compositions were featured in concerts of the singing school regularly. In that year, the number of students reached 159. The constant increase of the student body came to a temporary halt only during the “revolutionary times” in 1848 and 1849. In the meantime, fundraising and the procurement of sheet music and instruments continued successfully, with the hope of establishing the endowment of the desired Conservatory, which would be owned by the nation. During the war of independence, the local representatives of the Vienna government hindered any institution which strengthened Hungarian music and the Hungarian language. In January 1849, the Music School was forced to close for a month. As a result of continued and resourceful diplomatic activity by the leadership of the Musicians’ Society, the school was reopened with a new momentum. In 1850, violin instruction began under the supervision of Dávid Ridley-Kohne[4] and, from 1852, Károly Huber[5]. Clarinet and flute instruction was launched in 1851 by Károly Filip[6] and Antal Pfeifer[7]. Justifiably, the name of the school was changed to Music School of the Musicians’ Society of Pest-Buda (6 January 1851). Then, the number of students was as high as 181, which did not remain unnoticed by the government in Vienna, which had previously considered to close the institution. As a gift from Emperor Franz Joseph I, the first volume of a special edition Bach series arrived, followed by the other volumes.
There were several benefactors. In the 1850s, various Hungarian and European artists performing in Pest, including Franz Liszt, József Joachim, Ede Reményi, Anton Rubinstein, and Clara Wieck, as well as many Hungarian noblemen felt compelled to support the school. Support came in the form of monetary donations or instruments, sheet music, and furniture specified in wills.

Piano, composition, and cello instruction began in 1852. The first piano instructor was Károly Thern[8], who also taught composition at the Music School for the first time. From 1864, male students of the piano programme were required to learn composition. For forty years, Leopold Szuk[9] was cello instructor at the Music School. The most popular instrument was the violin, which is why the two principal instructors were aided by various short-term teachers. Double bass instruction started in 1859, with Károly Trautsch[10], renowned Hungarian artist of the period, as the instructor (Tari, 2005).

In the same year, Gábor Mátray initiated the rhetorical department, introducing a new profession, namely acting at the Music School. From the beginning of the 1860s, student concerts regularly featured student actors, while students of the institutions played on strings in the orchestra which accompanied the plays. The diverse performances, which included both musical compositions and musical plays, were quite popular, resulting in significant revenue. In the papers of Pest (e.g., Sunday Review), there were regular reports about the performances. By the early 1860s, the Music School had become a significant contributor to cultural life in Pest. Graduates were hired by different theatres in Pest or other towns (e.g., Arad, Szeged, Kolozsvár) as singers and orchestra musicians, or became music instructors themselves (among others in Pest, Győr, Debrecen, Jászberény). The best students, including Lipót Auer[11], performed as soloists in Hungary and abroad.

To commemorate the 25^th anniversary of the institution and the teaching career of the two founding instructors (Mátray and Engeszer), a series of celebrations took place. The most special occasion was the premiere of Liszt’s The Legend of St. Elizabeth on 15 August 1865, conducted by Franz Liszt himself. In the same year, the Conservatory of München was established, which followed the operation and curriculum of the Music School in Pest (Tari, 2005).

 

The Operation and Curriculum of the National Music School (1867-1897)

After the series of anniversary celebrations, the institution took the name National Music School (Nemzeti Zenede). This occurred in 1867, with ministerial approval.
Reports of the celebration mention that the institution, which operated mostly from scarce donation funds, had taught over 6000 students.
As a result of the successful celebrations and the increased prestige of the institution, the request for state funds by the Music School in 1868, after careful deliberation and with special consideration to previous achievements, was approved by Minister József Eötvös, who provided continuous state support for subsequent years. This ended in 1874, however: from this year on, the state budget contained the Music Academy instead of the Music School as the supported musical institution.
The endowment of the Music School was fading, support from the state ceased, while the shareholders and benefactors also diminished, likely because they chose to donate to the Music Academy instead. The two exceptional leaders, president Gábor Prónay and director Gábor Mátray, died in April and June 1875, respectively. With their death, a period of hardships began for the institution, as the number of students declined significantly. After the foundation of the National Theatre School (1865), the rhetorical department, established by Mátray, began to wither and closed after Mátray’s death.

There was a major shift in students’ instrument choices: while the violin was the most popular for a long time, by 1877, the piano had overtaken it. In that year, the demand for piano instruction could be fulfilled with as many as 10 piano instructors.
After Gábor Mátray’s death, Ede Bartay[12], whose legal expertise aided the successful operation of the institution substantially, became the director if the Music School. Although the reduced support after the launch of the Music Academy affected the Music School adversely, state funds did not dry up completely. Despite being actively involved in the establishment of the Music Academy, Ágoston Trefort[13] did not cease to donate to the Music School, either.
Following the drop in student count in the year when the Music Academy was established (225 people in that year), the academic year 1878/1879 saw 464 students enrolled at the Music School. The improvement of the already distinguished curriculum structure is evidenced by Dezső Legánÿ’s account:

“This autumn [1883], the National Music School launched instruction for all wind instruments, marking a transformation into an institution of music education encompassing all instruments. The selection is as comprehensive as at only four higher education institutions of music instruction in Europe: Paris, Brussels, Berlin, and Vienna.” (Legánÿ, 1986, p.185)

In 1885, the Music School offered instruction for the following specialisations: singing, piano, organ, violin, cello, double bass, flute, organ, clarinet, bassoon, horn, and harmony.

Between 1884 and 1902, the instructor for harmony was Henrik Benkő[14], who even published a textbook for internal use in 1886. He was succeeded by Károly Aggházy[15], who followed the German school of harmony as he studied from Bruckner and Volkmann. He then was succeeded by László Toldy, Jr.[16] whose curriculum can be deduced from his book titled Harmony. The volume is a carefully structured, highly detailed, and professionally phrased textbook with an abundance of examples and is the best from the period in terms of practical usability (Toldy, 1910).

Although the student count grew further and even reached 760 in 1887, the rise of the Music Academy meant that the most talented students and instructors turned from the Music School. The Music School realised, however, that mostly German-speaking or unqualified music teachers taught throughout the country, so the novel solution of organising institutionalised teacher training was proposed. This would have meant an expansion of the portfolio at the Music School compared to the Music Academy, which trained artists primarily. A long and hardly successful struggle began: the requests for permission to launch teacher training were all refused by the Ministry of Education.
By contrast, the success of the Music School in the concert life of Budapest remained steady: a highly vibrant concert life was offered to the bourgeoisie of Budapest, which developed an increasing interest in music, through guest artists, alumni, students, and instructors.

At the 50^th anniversary of the Music School, children were still admitted to instrumental instruction at the age of eight. For the most popular specialisations, namely the piano and the violin, the preparatory course was followed by six years of training, completed by a three-year “master course” for the very best. This form of education is equivalent to present-day secondary training. The other specialisations did not offer master courses. In the last decade of the century, another expansion of specialisations was implemented: after many attempts, the training in ecclesiastic music and liturgy was launched (1899), cimbalom specialisation was offered, a choir class was founded (1892), while instruction also began for the trombone (1892), the harp (1899), the tárogató, and the cor anglaise (1902). A separate chamber music specialisation was launched in 1896, under the supervision of Jenő Hubay and, later, Károly Aggházy.

 

The Operation of the National Music School in Its New Building (1897-1927)

In the period, the life of the institution was significantly changed by the relocation into a more worthy environment. Before, the school had operated in multiple buildings; initially in small bourgeois houses and later in multi-storey former school buildings. These rented properties stood in the city centre, District V. In the meantime, plans had been made, benefactors had been sought, and requests had been made whenever a public institution had moved, but to no avail. Finally in 1897, the Music School successfully purchased an elegant two-storey building in the style of Classicism located on Semmelweis street, which could support a large student count (Sz. Farkas, 2005).

At the time, the importance of theoretical subjects as both secondary and primary specialisation was growing. From 1893, music theory became compulsory for younger cohorts, and textbooks were written for that purpose. Composition was taught to a quarter of the students as a secondary specialisation; not because they wanted to be composers but mainly to familiarise themselves with the method of composition and the way of musical construction. From 1910, the subject became mandatory for grades V and above.
The specialisation of composition as first study, which lasted five years, was launched in 1914. This means that the Music School offered an academic training for composing artists. In 1904, separate courses of music theory and music aesthetics were offered to older students, which, after 1910, became mandatory for students who took part in master courses. The 1909 yearbook mentions percussion instruction. It was in the same year when the number of students exceeded 2000.
In 1912, vocal instruction found a new momentum, with the launch of an opera and operetta specialisation, which had a professional curriculum.

Generally, the institution provided meticulous and rigorous education, even for secondary specialisations. Mandatory courses included the piano, choir, music theory, and the history of music. The large choir and orchestra were regular participants of the concerts at the Music School. Instructors taught with self-sacrifice and enthusiasm, especially during the First World War, when the number of instructors approached 80. They instructed over 2500 students for 24-30 hours a week, which is a very high teaching burden. They wore the title of Music School instructor with pride.

Although our topic does not concert teacher training directly, it is still important to mention it to understand subsequent education systems in Hungary. Until 1966, instructors for primary music education institutions were trained at secondary institutions called vocational music schools. The process began in 1890, when the leadership of the Music School requested a licence from the Ministry of Education to be able to offer a certificate for instructors. Until then, no systematic music instructor training had been present in Hungary. The increasing demand for instructors throughout the country had been fulfilled by those who graduated with honours, including the master courses, from the Music School or similar institutions in other towns. From the early 20^th century, the Ministry only allowed instructors with a teacher’s degree to be employed, while also making it more difficult to obtain such a degree at the same time. In 1913, the Ministry denied the right of private institutions to award degrees. Despite numerous requests by the Music School, the right to award teacher’s degrees was never granted to the institution. After the Music Academy, which had been expanding its teacher training operation, received this right in 1918, it gained significant advantage over the Music School (Sz. Farkas, 2005).

Since the Music School experienced financial difficulties at the end of the First World War, the Interior Minister terminated the National Music School Society by taking its assets and institutions into public ownership on 7 January 1920, following the turbulent political period of the Hungarian Soviet Republic (Sz. Farkas, 2005).

The institution required professional renewal, which was implemented through a more demanding admission exam and the more differentiated education of theoretical subjects. Those who applied to non-introductory programmes of the institution had to pass an exam, which was meant to reverse the declining quality of previous years, brought about by free and unchecked admission. Admission for 8-year-olds into introductory training was without special requirements, but the transition from introductory training to lower years (3 years) required screening to only let those through who possess sufficient knowledge. In a similar way, further transition to higher years (another 3 years) required another exam. For master courses (4 years), the training was divided: future professionals and music enthusiasts, Kenner and Liebhaber[17], could study together at the Music School. In conclusion, in the first half of the 20^th century, the Music School provided musical training at multiple levels in a similar way to today.

In the period, the most important of the (mandatory) theoretical secondary subjects was music dictation/solfeggio, which was taught continuously from the admission. The institution had several goals which are still relevant today: children who learn to play instruments should understand what they are playing, their aural skills should improve, and they should become proficient in musical literacy to enable musical imagination. In addition, the list of the offered courses expanded in the 1920s: besides music theory, the history of music, chamber music, choir, and orchestra, which had been already present, the new additions included sight-reading for pianists and viola for violinists.
The education was divided in the following way: for the solfeggio subject, the introductory year was followed by three lower years. The subjects for general musicianship and music theory were taught in three middle years. The most talented finished the training with two academic years. The curriculum is further explained in subsequent chapters (Yearbook, 1923).

In the period, two influential instructors started their teaching career at the Music School: László Lajtha[18] and Lőrinc Kesztler[19].
Lajtha, who had a European education, possessed professional experience in modern music and music education from Paris and was an active composer, became a prominent instructor of the institution. According to László Fábián, “he incorporated the archetype of the highly cultured polymath and humanist”.
During his studies in France, he explored contemporary French and Russian music as well as Medieval and Renaissance music from Europe, which was almost unknown in Hungary at the time.
Another important source for his composing and teaching career was his close relationship with Hungarian folk music. He followed Bartók’s guidelines in his half-century-long endeavours as an ethnomusicologist and folklorist. In the thirty years as an instructor, he taught 11 subjects, mostly composition and chamber music as well as orchestration, score reading, and music theory. He introduced the instruction of folk music and looked after the choir of the institution. He was a demanding, strict, and influential teacher, who taught many outstanding artists of the Hungarian musical life, including János Ferencsik, Vilmos Tátrai, András Kórodi, and János Starker. He took on the responsibility of director at the Music School in markedly challenging times, namely the years after the Second World War.

Lőrinc Kesztler was one of the teachers who taught successfully for an unusually long time at the Music Academy and its legal successor, the Béla Bartók Secondary Music School. He spent over 50 years there as an instructor, teaching music theory, solfeggio, general musicianship, secondary piano specialisation, and methodology. He enriched the literature and education of wind chamber music through composing arrangements of Classical and Romantic pieces. He took on managerial and secretarial tasks; his records and transcripts provide valuable insight even today.
He published his book on harmony after a few years of teaching, in 1928. It is not a coincidence that it became the standard textbook of music theory for secondary and higher education institutions (and in some cases, remains so today), while also being useful to private students in their individual studies. (The detailed introduction of the textbook can be found in the chapter titled Curricula, Textbooks).

The period between 1921 and 1927 was calm, albeit financially fragile, for the Music School: the faculty were well-educated and stable, the students were talented and selected, but the institution still faced economic difficulties. Nevertheless, the building on Semmelweis street was expanded continuously with further classrooms, and more classrooms were rented in adjacent buildings. With an internal restructuring, a new concert hall was created in 1923, which provided an adequate space for the biweekly student concerts. According to the yearbooks, the Ministry considered the Music School as the second most important state-run musical institution, after the Music Academy.

Unexpectedly, the National Music School Society, which suspended its activity in 1919, was reformed in 1927. It immediately notified the Interior Minister of its intention to get back its assets alongside the management rights to the Music School. The request occurred just parallel to the deleveraging programme of the state, whereby costly state-run institutions were transferred or returned into the management of societies or foundations to cut public spending. Despite protest from the leadership and 60 instructors of the Music School, the ministry approved the request of the reformed Music School Society and ended the status of the school as a public institution. The opponents argued that music enthusiast schools and not professionally managed institutions were the thing of the past in Europe. They also opined that the institution may enjoy professional and financial security only under state management. They highlighted that the decision would benefit the Music Academy as master courses would be discontinued and the Music School would become a low-tier institution. Their opposition, however, was unfruitful: the measure came into force.

 

The Last Period of Operation at the National Music School (1927-1949)

The transfer of management to the Society came into effect in the academic year 1927/28. The old leadership was dismissed, and János Zichy became the president of the Music School. However, since several notable musicians and intellectuals joined the leadership of the Society, it achieved its task and the institution operated without any major interruption.

By contrast, the Great Depression posed sizable difficulties: instructors took on unpaid overtime to support the institution amidst the growing poverty of the 1930s. The uninterrupted and high-quality education could not have happened but for the contribution of new instructors, the majority of whom were graduates of the Music Academy: György Ferenczy (piano), Rezső Kókay (piano), János Ferencsik (conducting), Antal Friss (cello), Gábor Lisznyai Szabó (composition), Ervin Major (history of music and other theoretical subjects), Lajos Montag (double bass), Rezső Roubal (percussions), Lajos Schmidthauer (organ), Ferencné Székelyhidy (singing), Endre Szervánszky (composition), Zoltán Vásárhelyi (choir, violin).

The transfer of management at the Music School in 1927 made apparent the lack of right to award state-accredited degrees, which could be provided only by public institutions. This hindered graduates of the Music School in certain musical professions, mostly music instruction at schools. The resolution of the situation called for further requests, which emphasised that the growing demand for music instructors could not be fulfilled solely by the Music Academy. In addition, the Music School educated instructors successfully in several specialisations in which the Music Academy did not offer teacher training, including specialisations of the cello, double bass, all woodwind and brass instruments, percussions, the organ, and the harp. The minister rejected the request and planned to solve the problem of rare specialisations by launching additional teacher training of said specialisations at the Music Academy.

A subsequent initiative was more successful, however. In 1932, the Music School was granted permission to award certificates of private music education in piano, violin, vocal, and cello specialisations. The legal uncertainty about awarding degrees to teachers by the Music School and the Music Academy was resolved only partially. Similarly, the position of the two institutions in the Hungarian education system also remained unclear. Moreover, some private music schools in Budapest awarded degrees to music teachers after private exams at the Music Academy (Solymosi Tari, 2005).
In 1932, President János Zichy requested the distinction of the Music School from other private music schools with the title “music and vocal secondary school”. The initiative was unsuccessful.

The next major transition for the institution occurred in September 1942, under the directorate of Géza Kresz[20]. The renowned violinist and accomplished instructor attempted reforms in difficult times based on his international experiences. He recognised that music education, which requires intense and time-consuming practice, was increasingly difficult to coordinate with regular secondary education, resulting in the need for a new type of institution. The secondary music school was organised first experimentally, then with ministerial support. As a result, general and music training were unified in the National Music School. One class comprised 15 students, males and females alike. The number of sessions could not exceed 18 a week. General education was provided by visiting teachers, and students took exams in prestigious secondary schools of Budapest. Initially, the first four years had 53 students, all of them with outstanding academic progress. The arrangement fulfilled expectations in subsequent years, as well. The institution became the model for secondary music education in Hungary.

During the Second World War, the number of students dropped in all forms of training, but in 1946, the number of secondary students exceeded 80. Under Géza Kresz’s leadership, many instructors with significant artistic and pedagogical achievements were employed at the Music School, many of whom were former graduates. The list includes: Kálmán Nádasdy (opera), András Kórodi (conducting), István Antal, József Gát, Kornél Zempléni (piano), Dezső Rados, Vilmos Tátrai (violin), László Hara (bassoon), János Onozó (horn), Béla C. Nagy (solfeggio, music theory, folk music), Ferenc Gergely (organ).

After the Second World War, most institutions were nationalised, which highlighted the fact that the Society could no longer manage the Music School. The new school type offered the possibility of public management. In 1946, the secondary music school division was transferred into the management of the state under the name State Music Secondary School. Until the dissolution of the Society, the relationship between the secondary school and the Music School was not settled and consequently, conflict-ridden.
In 1948, the Interior Ministry dissolved the Society, combined the National Music School with the Capital Higher Music School, which had operated since 1912, and established the Budapest State Music Conservatory in Autumn 1949. The combined institution was led by Frigyes Sándor. Several teachers were employed by the new school, while others began to teach in the music school network of Budapest or other towns. The conservatory took Béla Bartók’s name and became Secondary Music School, in accordance with the altered structure of the education.

 

The Music School of Debrecen

Musical Life in Debrecen in the Early 19^th Century

The other institution in our study, which represents the musical institutions outside the capital, is the Music School of Debrecen (Debreceni Zenede). Since its foundation and the initial period of its operation occurred under similar circumstances to the Music School in Pest, only certain special characteristics will be discussed, which are particular to Hungary outside the capital or to Debrecen.

When exploring the history of music education in Debrecen, the musical training provided at the Reformed College, which was established in 1538, must be mentioned. From the very beginning, the students’ singing service at the church or funerals was part of the school life. Vocal training was aided by the first textbook of songs (1598) and supported by the establishment of the Cantus (1739). In the mid-19^th century, notable vocal teachers from the Reformed College contributed to the foundation and professional operation of the Music School of Debrecen (Barcza, 1988).

Musical life in Debrecen at the time was lively. In the early 19^th century, the town was inhabited by almost 30,000 people. There was demand for musical plays. The first opera performance took place in 1802 (presumably, the performed opera was one of Karl Dittersdorf’s pieces). However, well-trained singers and instrumental musicians were needed to perform musical pieces (Gupcsó, 1981). The first permanent theatre, which is now called Csokonai Theatre, was inaugurated in 7 October 1865, around the time when the Music School was founded. In bourgeois houses, home music was common, as evidenced by the fact that guild records list piano makers, who also repaired and tuned the instruments, as early as 1807.

Home music was further aided by the sheet music dealership, the music store, which was opened in 1816 and later operated by composer János Lavotta, who was one of the most prominent figures of the Verbunkos genre and who spent his final years in Debrecen. In the 1830s, piano and chamber music pieces by Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven, which were distributed using hand-written copies, were quite popular. Around the same time, there was an operating string quartet in the town, the members of which included military official Lajos Komlóssy, who later became the first director of the Music School of Debrecen.

From the early 1830s, concert life in the town was regular. Besides local music teachers and music enthusiast inhabitants, concerts in Debrecen regularly featured artists from the capital or from abroad as well as Hungarian performers who lived in another country, defying the fact that the town was difficult to travel to. The most distinguished of all was Ede Reményi[21], who performed in Debrecen in May 1861 for the benefit of the Music School, which was being established at the time.

 

The Foundation of the Music School of Debrecen and the First Decades of Its Operation

The Musicians’ Society of Debrecen was formed in March 1841. Besides organising concerts, the founders also planned to establish a music school. The process was hindered by the tense political situation after the failed War of Independence (1849), which even halted the operation of the society for a while.

The foundation of the Music School became executable in 1861. Ferenc Farkas’s initiative and monetary contribution, who was an iron trader and the president of the society, was followed by several guilds, craftsmen, and members of the bourgeoisie. After the necessary preparations, education commenced in November 1862. The location was also a donation: Count Imre Degenfeld made available 6 rooms of his property on the main square at beneficial rental rates.
The regulations of the institution were based on the following principles:

1. The institution should admit both males and females, without regard to religion or denomination[22].
2. The support of the town, the Reformed College, and the church should be secured.
3. “Although art and, consequently, music and singing transcend nationalities; nevertheless, the Hungarian national spirit should be upheld.”
4. “The language of instruction should be Hungarian exclusively” (Drumár, 1913).

The first director, Major Lajos Komlóssy was an amateur musician, who managed the institution firmly and ensured the necessary conditions for its operations until his death in 1883.

In the initial years, there were three specialisations: Antal Emmerth[23] taught the piano, Adolf Cohn taught the violin, and Ignác Gáspár was the vocal instructor.

The curriculum for the so-called general music school was composed and implemented in 1864 by Károly Szotyori Nagy[24]. He was also tasked with the development of the curriculum for the entire school. It was him who set out the requirement of the “singing school” before instrumental training to provide each student with the necessary basic knowledge during the course of a year. Szotyori Nagy highlighted what would become one of the fundamental principles of Kodály’s mid-20^th-century music education concept as early as 1864, namely the importance of singing-based music education before instrumental training to ensure musical literacy.

In the first year of operation, 270 students were admitted into the Music School, 65% of them male. The most popular was the singing specialisation with 60% of students, followed by the piano and the violin with 20% each, although those in vocal training often learned to play instruments at the same time (Music School Yearbook, 1862/63).
Emmerth taught harmony to those who were admitted to higher years, namely 14 male students. Since there were no adequate music theory textbooks available in Hungarian, director Komlóssy translated Simon Sechter’s[25] book into Hungarian and had it published in 1862 (Sechter 1854, 1862). “The untiring director had the ambition that ‘our institution should be the first in the country to teach this theory in Hungarian, and we should be the first to take this winding but tameable path” (Drumár, 1913, p.88).

Komlóssy, who fulfilled his military service besides his position as director, was succeeded after his death by Emil Simonffy[26]. As a 16-year-old advanced student, Simonffy performed Mendelssohn’s violin concerto on the very first public student concert, which took place in January 1863. 20 years later, the talented former student took over the directorial responsibilities.

One of his first achievements was to expand the variety of specialisations and, consequently, the number of instructors. The process followed the counterpart in Budapest in its order and gradual nature. The cello specialisation was launched 1875; the double bass, in 1899. The instruction of wind instruments (both brass and woodwind) began in 1888 and became regular in 1898. The mixed choir and orchestra specialisation operated from 1886 with some breaks, while the rhetorical specialisation and chamber music specialisation were offered continuously from 1894 and 1898, respectively. The education of harmony became regular in 1896, while the more general music theory was taught from 1898, including music dictation and the study of form from 1902. The education of music history began in 1900 (Szatmári, 1975).
At the turn of the century, the faculty grew to 10 full-time and several part-time instructors. From the initial 270, the student count reached its lowest point (115 students) around 1890 and increased thereafter, surpassing 330 in 1911. While initially there were more male applicants at the Music School, the overall female share in the first 50 years was somewhat higher (57%) (Szatmári,1975).

Under Simonffy’s directorate, the Music School of Debrecen became one of the best music education institutions in the country. It was during this time when the first (1895) and second (1913) floors of the building on Vár street which housed the institution were built. It was the first building in the country to be designed specifically for music education. The successor of the institution is still located in the building today. The concert hall has always served the concert life of the town. Simonffy implemented reforms in the curriculum and aligned it with that of the Music Academy in 1898. In the period, education was divided into introductory, intermediate, and master courses, which, in total, lasted 11 years for the piano specialisation, 10 for the violin, and 9 for the cello. The training generally lasted 6 years for other specialisations. Simonffy expanded the library by procuring sheet music and scientific books, which can still be found in the current library.

In 1906, Simonffy proposed a council among directors of Music Schools. On 22 May, the meeting took place in Debrecen with the participation of Music School directors from Nagyvárad (now Oradea), Szatmárnémeti (now Satu Mare), Kolozsvár (now Cluj Napoca), Miskolc, and Kecskemét. The discussion included important matters such as the lack of teacher training, the national harmonisation of curricula, professional oversight, the necessity of further professional training, and the proposed raise in the state support of schools. The principle of a three-level music education, which consists of a primary, secondary, and tertiary level, was formulated; however, it was only implemented in 1952 and 1966 in its entirety. The importance of vocal instruction in public education was also discussed, with the conclusion that it should only be taught by qualified teachers. The “elite education” at the Music Academy was criticised, alongside the increasing popularity of Gipsy music, folk-imitating popular music, and operettas. The establishment of symphonic orchestras as well as the larger state support of concert life outside the capital were also discussed. Simonffy composed a detailed memorandum, which was sent to the Ministry (Drumár, 1913, p.175-183).

Although the directors’ insights were supported on professional platforms, no sizable effort was made to implement them. This was mostly due to the underfunded education and the outbreak of the war. However, Simonffy’s advocacy in nationally relevant matters made him the spokesperson of music schools throughout the country. His curricula as well as his internal regulations for the school were considered a model to be followed by his colleagues.
Simonffy recognised that amongst economic uncertainty, the management of the institution by a society was not viable in the long term. Therefore, he proposed the transfer of the Music School into municipal management. The initiative was successful: in 1912, the Music School of Debrecen became a municipal institution. The transfer of management for the National Music School occurred later, in 1920.

Debrecen cherishes the memory Simonffy’s service up to this day. The Music School took his name in 1955 and carried it until the institution was combined with another one (in 2007).

 

The Period of the Municipally Managed Music School

In the years after the First World War, the school had to overcome hardships due to temporary directors and personal clashes. In 1923, the former vice director, Zoltán P. Nagy[27] became the director. He campaigned with a firm executive programme, which ensured an autonomous and democratic school atmosphere, promised the possibility of awarding teaching degrees, and intended to establish the school as the musical centre of the town. Most of his plans were in fact implemented. He established a renewed body of teachers, who taught at the school for decades, with adequate remuneration. However, he fought for the licence to award teaching degrees to no avail, in a similar way to the leadership of the National Music School. It was in the academic year preceding his death when he managed to obtain permission for choir director and cantor training in the framework of the Singing Society. At the same time, the institution also received the right to award Music School students in their fourth year who completed pedagogical, psychological, and methodological courses as well as teaching practice with a teachers’ certificate. After his death in 1932, however, the courses were discontinued.

During the directorate of the successor, lawyer and piano instructor János Baranyi (between 1933 and 1942), the faculty continued and even surpassed its prior performance, making the school into one of the best institutions outside the capital. Baranyi’s reforms strengthened education further: he established “kindergarten” training to provide 5-8-year-olds with proper musical foundations in a playful manner. In addition, he organised successful youth concerts with the participation of Music School instructors. To commemorate the 75^th anniversary of the institution, he organised concerts when the student orchestra, student choir, and instructors performed, among others, pieces by contemporary Hungarian composers (Dohnányi, Kodály). In the 1920s and 1930s, the number of students fluctuated significantly: the number of registered students at the institution amounted to 940 in 1923 but only to 354 in 1938. Piano students were always in the majority, with 50-60% of all students.

In the mid-1930s, the need to improve students’ aural and rhythmic abilities more effectively was formulated. The importance of sight-reading and music dictation was emphasised by the organisation of competitions. Meeting minutes reveal the intention to strengthen the relationship between instrumental training and theoretical education. In the increasingly belligerent environment, the initiatives and ideas, which are still relevant today, could be implemented only in classes by committed and talented instructors.

In the following period, between 1943 and 1950, Lajos Galánffy[28] was the director. He played a significant part in overcoming wartime difficulties and relaunching education after the war. In January 1945, 64 students returned to the school. By 1950, over 500 students attended the institution. The lack of instructors, which had been discussed several times, became pressing: the increasing number of students who wished to take part in music education could only be taught by unqualified and part-time instructors. The director led the female and mixed choirs of the institution, attempted to establish a children’s choir, and led the Town Orchestra. Galánffy, who was Kodály’s student, conducted choir pieces by Kodály, Bartók, Jenő Ádám, and Lajos Bárdos regularly. He made the introductory year compulsory. He and his colleagues employed relative solmisation and other elements of the Kodály–Ádám music pedagogy concept. Further training courses were organised for graduated music teachers. Finally, the breakthrough happened: the Ministry granted the licence to train music teachers without a degree. The composition specialisation and the instruction of woodwind instruments were re-launched, while the institution also began to teach Hungarian folk music. Simultaneously, the intention to transform Music Schools into conservatories was formulated in Budapest and throughout the country (Szeged, Győr, Miskolc). This was also Galánffy’s plan in Debrecen, which was carried out only in 1951, when he was already the director of the newly formed secondary music school in Miskolc.

As with the establishment of the Music Conservatory in Budapest, the transformation was also gradual in Debrecen. The Music School became a conservatory in 1951 but still provided introductory training. The organisational split occurred in 1952, when the first four years were reorganised as (primary) music school training, while secondary and higher education continued in the secondary music school.

 

Curricula, Textbooks

In the following chapter, we attempt to illustrate the scope of education with certain representative curricula and textbooks. Due to reasons of space, it is important that both institutions be represented with curricula and textbooks which were elaborate and in use for a long time. We focus on advanced curricula primarily but also provide a brief overview of the curriculum for elementary classes.
We have selected textbooks which were taught at the institutions by the authors themselves.

 

The Solfeggio and Music Theory Curriculum of the National Music School
(Yearbook, academic year 1923/24)

Solfeggio

The curriculum contains material for four years, of which Grade I is the curriculum for the elementary instrumental year. First, musical notes were taught in treble and bass clef, followed by minor and major seconds in C major key. As for metres, time signatures of 2/4, 4/4, ¾, and 6/8 were included. Later, additional intervals on the C major scale (third, fourth, fifth) were practised through singing and dictation exercises. The curriculum highlights, that vocal exercises should be accompanied by time-beating.
The curriculum for Grade II (instrumental year I) requires the revision of the elementary material and the introduction and practice of other intervals (sixth, seventh, and octave) in C major. Increasingly complicated rhythmic patterns were practised, while tasks of denoting one-part melodic dictation at the difficulty level of vocal exercises were also included. In addition, two-part vocal exercises were introduced.
In Grade III (instrumental year II), the investigation of major scales was extended to the circle of fifths, while accidentals and key signatures were also introduced. New scales and the internal interval structure of various keys were practiced vocally. The harmonic minor scale was also presented.
In Grade IV (instrumental year III), the melodic minor scale and its intervals were introduced. Vocal exercises in various minor keys were prescribed. Altered notes were initiated and practised, while vocal exercises were conducted in three or four voices.

This solfeggio curriculum was rather simplified and concentrated mostly on scales and intervals, which it did quite slowly, however, as the C major scale was only surpassed in the third (second instrumental) year. It is unclear when and in which order rhythmic elements were introduced. Chords were presented later, in the music theory curriculum of secondary education. Fortunately, vocal solfeggio exercises were central throughout primary music education.

 

Musicianship and Music Theory

In intermediate year I, the curriculum started with the definition of basic terms, including the properties of the musical note, elements of the theory of melody, the definition and meaning of rhythm, metrics, tempo, agogics, and volume, as well as the most important musical phrases. The definition temperament, chromaticism, and enharmony and the theory of triads were introduced.
In intermediate year II, the education of harmony in the narrow sense began. Traditionally, chords in root position and their inversions were taught initially, in accordance with the German practice. The dominant seventh chord was taught next, along with its inversion and how it can be combined. Harmonisation exercises of unfigured bass lines were also included.
In intermediate year III, secondary seventh chords and their inversions were introduced. The definition of alteration, the types of altered chords, deceptive cadence, and harmonic sequence were presented for the first time. Aural exercises and the harmonisation of unfigured bass lines became regular tasks.
In academic year I, previous studies on harmony were revised and expanded further. According to the practice of the period, the new material included harmonic and melodic figuration, various forms of suspensions, and the harmonisation of modulating basses. The curriculum mentions for the first time harmonic analysis and soprano harmonisation as students’ individual tasks.
In academic year II, the theory of modulations and its practical use in individual harmonisations followed. The curriculum mentions the study of musical form for the first time. The building blocks of musical forms, namely the motif, sentence, and period, as well as compound forms such as the song, rondo, and sonata form were introduced. In addition, the form of contrapuntal compositions, the definition of imitation, and the methods of composing canons and fugues were presented. The curriculum emphases musical analysis through the detailed examination of Bach’s inventions and fugues and fifteen(!) sonatas by Beethoven.

The music theory curriculum for the five years reflects precisely the structure of music theory textbooks at the time as well as the educational approach.
The preferred textbook specified in the curriculum is Harmony by Albert Siklós[29], the exercises of which constituted the tasks for students. The textbook, which was also used in music theory education at the Music Academy, described every theoretical question in exceptional detail and with great professionalism and contained a surprisingly large variety of harmony exercises and aural exercises. The illustration of different phenomena was carried out using musical excerpts by Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann, Wagner, and Brahms. The excerpts are analysable and reasonable units of music (Siklós, 1907).

Teaching form and harmony separately was common in the period. Musical forms are introduced (or perhaps summarised) quite late, and in an undetailed way because analysing 15 Beethoven sonatas comprehensively and intelligently is hardly possible during one academic year.
In summary, the curriculum was professional and valuable and provided sufficient theoretical foundation for students’ music education.

 

The Harmony Textbook of the National Music School
Lőrinc Kesztler: Harmony (1928)

Most likely, the book was based on W. A. Rischbieter’s[30] treatise on harmony. The textbook was rather dry and taught classical harmony on a

logical basis, through the mechanical practice of four-voice exercises.

The approach of Rischbieter’s book on harmony was not praised by the young Kodály, either. During his study trip to Berlin in 1906/7, when he was preparing for his career as a teacher, he attended lectures by the newly appointed composition instructor, Paul Juon[31], enthusiastically. In his letter to Bartók, he summarised his experience in Berlin as follows:

“The only Juon has some physiognomy (he is beginning to teach harmony in two voices). That many mechanical Rischbieter exercises make no sense” (Dille, 1970, p.137).

Kesztler’s book resembles Rischbieter’s in structure, with all its advantages and disadvantages.
Kesztler’s textbook is beneficial because it is very thorough in detailing every aspect and voice leading practice of harmonic progressions in classical harmony. In the introduction, it provides clear definitions, which are understandable even to those who begin their theoretical studies with this book. At the same time, it underlines the necessity of constant ear training alongside theoretical knowledge; in other words, the importance of aurally perceiving and comprehending harmonic units and processes.

The structure of the textbook is logical and easy to follow. The theoretical content of each chapter is described in detail with musical notation illustration. All 34 chapters contain several (mostly 15-25) harmonic exercises for practice with Roman numerals, with figured bass notation in the appendix. This is perhaps the most useful part of the book as it includes chord progressions which illustrate the order of harmonies particularly well, providing students with ample opportunity for practice on the piano[32]. In addition, students may also find useful the chapters which ask them to play, analyse, and produce soprano harmonisation using harmonic exercises, constructed for specific study units, or Bach chorale arrangements, followed by the harmonisation of unnumbered bass lines.

The textbook is divided into three sections (books). The first (Diatony) teaches the progression of primary and secondary triads and of their inversions comprehensively. Then, it turns to the dominant seventh chord and its inversions, followed by the progression schemes of secondary sevenths and their inversions. The analysis is carried out in the diatonic framework comprehensively and logically. As a result, the book allocates effort and time to harmonies which are quite uncommon in real music.

Now is the time to mention the faults in the approach of the book. The textbook, published in 1928, reflects the professional and pedagogical views of the period and bears witness of the time.
The largest problem is that student encounters the first altered note and chord as late as the second section (Chromaticism). Since harmony has always been taught to 14-year-old students, both in the Music School practice of the period and today, the section on Chromaticism could only be started after 18 chapters (that is, 2 years of study), which meant that altered chords were introduced very late. This is in strong contrast with the present practice, namely that pianists encounter the exchange dominant note and chord which result in +1 modulation in beginners’ exercises. Therefore, it is inexplicably late to reach this stage at 16, after years of studies in harmony.

Further methodological problems arise from the undifferentiated, “en masse” introduction of altered chords in just two chapters, instead of their gradual presentation by chord families. The textbook considers alteration as the result of decorative chromaticism; a signal which might lead students to believe that altered chords are modifications to be carried out.
The textbook summarises the following types of altered chords in major key briefly, in one page(!): the triad and seventh chord of degree V with augmented fifth, the minor subdominant chords, the exchange dominant triad and seventh chord, and the diminished seventh chord of degree IV. Chords in minor key are discussed somewhat longer, for 3 pages, including the diminished IV⁷, the subdominant chords with an augmented sixth, and the Neapolitan sixth chord. Since the listed chords are among the most important altered chords in functional music, it requires a separate curriculum unit and considerable time to introduce, internalise, and practise them, to understand their harmonic connections, synonyms, modulation possibilities, occurrences throughout the history of music, their formal and dramaturgical significance in certain pieces of music, their continuation in different periods, etc. This is not provided by the textbook, which, until the topic of altered chords, built up the curriculum systematically and gradually. Moreover, the differentiation between major and minor altered chords is not correct pedagogically because their sound and embeddedness into their harmonic environment are usually similar, which would in fact facilitate their parallel presentation.

At this point, another professional and methodological problem becomes exposed, namely the order of instruction for chords; in other words, whether it is advisable to begin instruction with chords in root position and introduce their inversions thereafter. At the very beginning of one’s harmony studies, when the connection of primary triads is taught, it might be; but later, as in the case of the sixth chords of secondary triads (e.g., II⁶, VII⁶), it is not. This is evidenced by historical examination as to when the chords first appeared. The same applies even more to altered chords, in particular to the 18^th-century fixed-structure chords (e.g., the Neapolitan II⁶, members of the chord family with augmented sixths). Kesztler’s respective explanations are actually technical in nature: they start from the diatonic root position of the chords, followed by the given inversion, and end with the alteration which is necessary to achieve the desired sound. However, the chords in question can be taught more easily and successfully by defining their target chord and sound, which is also beneficial because the defining elements of chords are highlighted to students. For example, members of the chord family with augmented sixths should not be taught using the alteration of certain sounds in the diatonic form of a specific seventh chord (II⁷ or IV⁷), which requires 4-5 steps of logic, but through the possibilities of completion and sound provided by the augmented sixth framework which features two inner leading tones of the dominant octave in the key.

The mentioned shortcomings are corrected somewhat in the chapter which discusses modulations extensively, while also providing additional information about altered chords. The chapter (XXVI) contains the most exhaustive collection of practice exercises.
Although students encountered the phenomenon of open position in previous chapters (e.g., XXI), it appears in a separate structural exercise as late as chapter XXVII.

The relationship between live music and the harmonic sketches in closed position intended to help practice is detailed late, in section III of the textbook (Figuration), even though it might be useful to examine the topic at the beginning of one’s music theory studies. This is because, first, students should know and feel the relationship between musical pieces and their harmonic sketches; and, second, students should also be able to perceive (hear and identify) the learned harmonies in figured music. The same reasoning applies to the introduction of harmonic figuration and simple suspensions.

The issue brings us to the inclusion of musical excerpts as illustrations in textbooks. As opposed to Rischbieter’s book and, in general, harmony textbooks by 19^th-century German theoreticians (which usually contain no musical excerpts), Kesztler’s textbook, which includes several illustrations from musical pieces, has a commendable approach. Kesztler’s examples, however, are mere quotes, that is, brief (1-2 bars) sections, which only illustrate a specific chord turn. The quoted composers, many of whom were composers of etudes or Romantic artists, are not representative of the masters from the period of classical harmony.
The language of the textbook reflects the usage of the period. The explanations are sometimes too lengthy and, consequently, fail to get to the point.

Kesztler’s textbook, an informative document, is in accordance with the curriculum and usual material of the 1920s, while it also considers the improvement of skills and competencies. The author intended the volume to be used in music schools as well as in private education, assisting the instructor’s work.

The book was clearly useful at the time of its publication (1928). However, now it is dated in its approach and content. There is no reason for it to be used as modern textbooks with a live music focus by György Ligeti, Oszkár Frank, Zsolt Gárdonyi, and István Győrffy are available.

 

Curricula at the Music School of Debrecen
Beginners’ Music Theory Education between 1864 and 1911

As noted previously, it was recognised also in Debrecen that musical literacy and basic musical knowledge must precede instrumental training. To this end, the general music school was established within the Music School of Debrecen and operated between 1864 and 1898. According to the curriculum created by Károly Szotyori Nagy, the general training comprised three weekly sessions for a year. However, it was too dry, theoretical, and tiring for the target group, namely 8-year-olds who wished to enter music education. After the curriculum was reformed in 1898, the introductory course was shortened to four months; in addition, larger groups were created, and the possibility of singing together was utilised more often. The reformed curriculum emphasised that the covered theoretical material should be limited to what is essential for instrumental training.

After the introductory semester, the subject was taught as music theory once a week for two academic years. The curriculum included the following: the names of musical notes, staves, treble clef and bass clef, the second structure of scales, the names of intervals, different types of bars, time signatures, rhythmic patterns, major and minor scales until 6# and 6b key signatures, triads, as well as the dominant⁷ chord and its inversions. The relatively theoretical approach was made more musical at ages 8–11 by the introduction of music dictation in 1906, which included manual musical notation practice, vocal and aural development, the improvement of the sense of rhythm, and the recognition and use of the learned theoretical material in actual musical processes. The subject can be considered as the professional predecessor of solfeggio (Drumár, 1913, p.87-89).

The textbook of choice was Music Theory Handbook by Gyula Brück[33], which, as the subtitle suggests, “prepares for harmony, is practical” and contains “questions and answers, as well as directions for music dictation and regular aural improvement”. The volume is edited carefully and professionally with the principle of graduality. The excerpts serve understanding well, and the language is also clear (Brück, 1899).

 

Harmony and Form Education based on the Curriculum for the Academic Year 1911/1912

In the first academic year of the institution, Antal Emmerth began to teach harmony to those who had received instrumental and theoretical introductory education and were starting their further studies at the Music School of Debrecen. The initiative was discontinued after a year and was relaunched as late as 1897, when Gyula Brück took over theoretical instruction. He taught successfully as he had pedagogical talent and was well qualified. Presumably, he was the author of the curriculum for the academic year 1911/1912, which we present in detail.

The material for intermediate classes was divided into four years (Drumár, 1913, p.90-91).
In year I, the material comprised the progression of triads and their inversions in major and minor keys, based on figured bass notation. The textbook was Rischbieter’s volume on harmony. The chapters to be covered were specified by the curriculum. The 6 designated chapters contain almost 100 tasks with chord progressions in various major and minor keys.
The curriculum was novel in that the study of form was taught parallel to harmony, throughout multiple years. This method of education is still employed today and can be considered revolutionary for its time (see the discussed curriculum of the National Music School from 1923, which prescribed the study of form as a summary in the final academic year). The assigned textbook was Musical Morphology by Gyula Brück.
In intermediate year I, the motif, period, musical sentence, as well as binary and ternary musical forms were introduced and analysed.
In intermediate year II, the material covered dominant⁷ and secondary⁷ chords, their inversions, and deceptive cadences. As practical exercises, an additional 8 chapters from Rischbieter were prescribed. The material on the study of form is extensive and professionally curated. The appearance of the song form in instrumental music was examined and analysed using series of variations. Strophic and through-composed songs as well as different types of dances such as Hungarian national dances, Baroque suite movements, and scherzo were covered.
In intermediate year III, altered chords and simple modulations were introduced. With the known set of chords, close and open harmonisation exercises were carried out. Quite difficult chord progressions were prescribed from 7 Rischbieter chapters. The material in relation to the study of form included and allocated an adequate time to the rondo, sonatina, and sonata forms.
In intermediate year IV, the harmony material covered figuration phenomena (suspension, anticipation, passing and changing notes, pedal point) and more complex modulations. The curriculum also contains harmonisation exercises with respect to chorale melodies and folk songs. The assigned 8 Rischbieter chapters offered ample opportunities for practice. The exercises featured the harmonisation of bass and soprano melodies. By contrast, modulations were practiced as momentary modulations within a chord progression. The last chapter instructed students to harmonise a bass line written in C clef.
The curriculum is also valuable because in the last year, it delves into “counterpoint forms”, imitation, canon and fugue forms. In the material for the study of form, the sonata rondo was analysed, alongside classical genres and forms such as the sonata, overture, oratory, cantata, concerto, and symphony. In addition, dramatic music (musical drama, musical play, opera) and “Hungarian genres” (fantasy, rhapsody) were also covered.
In summary, the harmony part of the curriculum followed the German tradition of the period, with the construction of chord progressions in its focus. The improvement of harmonic hearing and the thematic relationship between the study of harmony and compositions (live music) were not mentioned. By contrast, the part about the study of form was highly useful both in content and didactic division. It allowed students to explore the characteristics of musical forms and genres extensively alongside their instrumental training. By prescribing polyphonic techniques and genres, the curriculum taught actual music theory, including its fields of harmony, form, and counterpoint.

 

Music History Education in the Early 20^th Century

The subject was first taught by János Drumár[34] in 1900. In his study on the history of the Music School, he reasoned for the necessity of introducing music history as a subject (Drumár, 1913, p.113-119). In his argument, he mentioned the deficiencies of the unvaried and instrument-based education at music schools. Furthermore, the subject could be the basis of students’ knowledge and perspective in relation to music history and general art history. The assigned material included works by G. Dufay, P. da Palestrina, O. Lassus, A. and G. Gabrieli, C. Monteverdi, J-B. Lully, and A. Lotti, that is, Renaissance vocal and early Baroque instrumental composers, who were not known in the concert life in the early 20^th century. The comprehensive music history curriculum explored in detail composers and genres which were not otherwise mentioned in music education but constituted essential knowledge for becoming a mature music listener. In the curriculum description, the emphasis was on teaching the process-like nature of music history and improving students’ value perceptions and critical sense. Drumár writes: “Only those can understand the present before whom the past has been revealed.”
After he left Debrecen, the education of music history was discontinued for two years, but subsequent instructors, who followed each other frequently, kept his curriculum.

 

Composition Education

Emil Szabó[35] taught composition at the Music School of Debrecen for over forty years. He was an active composer himself, who mostly composed choir pieces, instrumental pieces, string quartets, and fairy-tale operas. He is still remembered among former students for his wide-ranging knowledge of musical pieces, his musical memory, and his creative way of teaching, which aided the composition process. The composition specialisation was chosen by 5-8 students each year. In teaching them, he employed the method which he experienced from Kodály, his composition teacher (S. Szabó, 2013).

Emil Szabó taught the elements of musical form using works by Viennese classical masters, with special emphasis on enriching experiences of analysis, improving the sense of form, and practicing creative formation. The composition techniques of certain periods were defined by the students themselves through analyses. The active knowledge of musical pieces complemented students’ knowledge on the history of music, forms, and genres and improved their taste and aesthetic sense substantially. From the mid-1930s, he organised regular concerts from his former students’ compositions, which were performed by instructors and students of the school.

It was not just those who wanted to become composers who attended Emil Szabó’s classes. They were also popular among students who wished to deepen their knowledge and were interested in the process of composition. The subject provided new experiences for their activities as performers or theorists. Emil Szabó’s academic interests included various fields of the history of forms and genres. He wrote studies about the musical sentence, rondo form, and symphonic poem and summarised his experience as a harmony instructor (Szatmári, 1975).

 

The Form Textbook of the Music School of Debrecen
Gyula Brück: Musical Morphology (Musical Poetry) (1907)

In the foreword, the author mentions that the manuscript had been finished earlier and the publication was necessary for its use as educational material. The work was based on the author’s studies of musical form under H. Riemann, his instructor in Leipzig, but he also tried to harmonise the content of the book to Viktor Herzfeld’s curriculum at the Music Academy. As the author writes: “As far as I know, this is the first book on the study of form which has been published in Hungarian”, thus referring to the fact that previous books had covered only certain sections of the study of form or had been translated into Hungarian from another language.
In the subtitle of the book, he notes that he chose the musical examples “from classical masters’ works and the more prominent pieces of Hungarian music literature”.

The volume consists of two parts and 28 chapters, with an inner structure corresponding to the presented curriculum for the study of form. In part I, the general introduction about art theory and the conceptualisation of art theory definitions are concise, while the presentation of simple forms also covers cadences and the possibilities of asymmetric formation. In discussing ternary forms and series of variations, the book lists examples for strict and free variations and also explores the characteristics of etudes.

The analysis of dance forms, listed above, begins with ballroom or salon dances. The dances which were practiced at the time are ordered by time signature. Italian-Spanish dances (siciliana, tarantella, pavane, salterello, bolero) and Hungarian dances (palotás, verbunkos, hallgató, andalgó, csárdás, körmagyar) are discussed in a separate chapter. The chapter titled Old French, English, and German Dances presents the 12 most important dances from Baroque suites with musical excerpts. The scherzo has a designated chapter. Commendably, song types (strophic and through-composed) and genres (ballad, romance, aria, cavatina, etc.) are taught together with character pieces of instrumental music (ballad, romance, novelette, songs without lyrics, impromptu, etc.).
The last chapter of Part I is designated to the rondo. The Baroque and Viennese rondo as well as numerous typical and individual examples are presented, with different proportions among members.
Part II introduces the sonata form and, separately, major and minor sonatinas. It also discusses the thematic and key-related characteristics of the sonata form. Seven chapters are assigned to the sonata form; at the end, even the unique form and key relationships of Romantic sonata movements are covered. Subsequently, the genres which follow the sonata principle are analysed, with special regard to finales.
Just as the curriculum, the textbook also delves into the most important genres of classical music and dramatic music, such as the opera, operetta, musical play, and ballet. In the final chapter titled Arrangements of Hungarian Folk Music, arrangement methods and genres of 19^th-century songs which imitate folk music are presented.

---

 

References

References of biographies:

• C. Dalhaus, H.s. Heinrich Eggebrecht (1983-85, eds.): Brockhaus-Riemann Zenei lexikon I-III [Musical Encyclopaedia I-III]. (Editor of the Hungarian edition: Boronkay Antal), Zeneműkiadó, Budapest.
• Szabolcsi Bence, Tóth Aladár (1965, eds.): Zenei lexikon I-III [Musical Encyclopaedia I-III]. Zeneműkiadó, Budapest.

References of others:

• Barcza József (1988, ed.): A Debreceni Református Kollégium története. [The History of the Debrecen Reformed College] A Magyarországi Református Egyház Zsinati Irodájának Sajtóosztálya, Budapest.
• Denijs Dille (1970, ed.): Documenta Bartókiana. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
• Drumár János (1913, ed.): A Debreczeni Zenede története 1862-1912. [The History of the Music School of Debrecen 1862-1912] Publisher: Debreceni Zenede
• Fábián László: Lajtha László. (Portré-vázlat.) [László Lajtha. (Portrait sketch)] Az 1969. március 19-én a Fészek Klubban megtartott előadás gépirata. Lajtha-hagyaték. [A transcript of a lecture given at the Nest Club on March 19, 1969. Lajtha’s estate.]
• Gupcsó Ágnes (1981): Zenés színjátszás Debrecenben 1800-1810. [Musical Acting in Debrecen 1800-1810] In: Zenetudományi dolgozatok 1981. Publisher: MTA Zenetudományi Intézete, Budapest. 101-115.
• Legánÿ Dezső (1986): Liszt Ferenc Magyarországon 1874-1886. [Franz Liszt in Hungary 1874-1886] Zeneműkiadó, Budapest.
• S. Szabó Márta (2013): Hans Koessler munkássága és tanári tevékenységének hatása a 20. századi magyar zenére. Doktori disszertáció. [The Life-work of Hans Koessler and the Influence of His Teaching Activity on 20^th century Hungarian Music. PhD Dissertation] Jyväskylä.
• Szatmári Endre (1975): A debreceni zeneoktatás története. [The History of Music Education in Debrecen.] In: Breuer János (1975, ed.): Debrecen zenei élete a századfordulótól napjainkig – Tanulmányok. [The Musical Life of Debrecen from the Turn of the Century to the Present Day – Studies] Publisher: Debrecen Megyei Városi Tanács VB Művelődési osztálya
• Tari Lujza – Iványi-Papp Mónika – Sz. Farkas Márta – Solymosi Tari Emőke – Gulyásné Somogyi Klára (2005): A Nemzeti Zenede. [The National Music School] Liszt Ferenc Zeneművészeti Egyetem Budapesti Tanárképző Intézete, Budapest.
• A Nemzeti Zenedei Alapból állami fennhatóság alatt fenntartott Nemzeti Zenede Évkönyve az 1918-1921. évekből. (1921) [Yearbook of National Music School Academic Years 1918-1921] Ed.: Dr. Haraszti Emil, Nemzeti Zenede, Budapest.
• További kötetek azonos cím alatt, az évszám: 1923/24 [Other volumes under the same title, academic year 1923/24]
• A Debreceni Zenede Évkönyvei. [Yearbooks of the Music School of Debrecen] Publisher: Debreceni Zenede

References of textbooks:

• Brück Gyula (1899): Zeneelméleti kézikönyv. [Music Theory Handbook] Bárd és Wodianer, Budapest; Debreczen Szabad Királyi Város Könyvnyomda Vállalata
• Brück Gyula (1907): Zenei alaktan (Zeneköltészettan) [Musical Morphology (Musical Poetry)]. Wodianer, Budapest.
• Siklós Albert (1907): Összhangzattan. [Harmony] Rozsnyay kiadó, Budapest
• Simon Sechter (1854): Die Grundsätze der musikalischen Komposition. [The Principles of Musical Composition] Breitkopf & Härtel, Leipzig.
• Simon Sechter (1862): A zeneköltészet alapelvei. [The Principles of Musical Poetry] Hungarian translation: Komlóssy Lajos. Debreczeni Zenede.
• Dr. Toldy László Jr. (1910): Összhangzattan (példatárral). [Harmony (with exercises)]. Rényi Károly kiadása, Budapest.