Actions

Dissidence, Neo-Avant-Garde, Doublespeak. In The Context Of The New Budapest Music Studio In The 1970s

From Unearthing The Music

This essay, by Anna Dalos, explores the activity of the New Music Studio in Budapest, Hungary in the context of political opposition and the neo-avant-garde movement of the time. The members of the New Music Studio – S. Jeney, L. Sáry, L. Vidovszky – worked with the experimental techniques of the neo-avant-garde, although in their official statements they resorted to ambiguity, to maintain the studio's position in musical life.


Introduction

In her short monograph on the Hungarian composer Zoltán Jeney (1943) Tünde Szitha summed up the political views of the members of the New Budapest Music Studio in the János Kádár era and their attitude to power in no more than a footnote: “It shows the contradictory nature of the intellectual life of that time that the work of the New Music Studio was backed by an artistic ensemble maintained by a political organization, although none of its members preserved their membership in the Communist Youth Organization (KISZ) upon completion of their studies. Personally, they all identified themselves with the views of the democratic opposition; consequently, their regular audience consisted for the greater part of progressively thinking intellectuals. They repeatedly found protection against political and professional attacks owing to the fact that they were active within the framework of an institution established by the Communist Youth Organization (KISZ)”1.

In the work written conjointly with Zoltán Jeney in 2012, which discusses the repertoire of the New Music Studio between 1970 and 1990, Tünde Szitha stated that “the New Music Studio was active on the periphery of the official musical life”2. On the other hand, András Wilheim stressed the independence of the New Music Studio from the official musical life: “At the same time, the formation of the New Music Studio meant no less than the independence of some career-starting composers and musicians from the established institutions and customs of the Hungarian musical life”3.

In my paper I try to investigate, first and foremost, how the New Music Studio reacted in the seventies, the “most heroic” period of progressive art, as László Beke put it4, to the democratic opposition and to “progressive intellectuals”, the category included, I suppose, in Tünde Szitha’s concept of not only members of the democratic opposition, but Hungarian experimental artists, that were representatives of the neo-avant-garde movements as well. Besides, I wish to elucidate the changes of the peripherally defined position of this group of artists that are the characteristic features of the presence and embeddedness of the New Music Studio into the musical life.

The place of the New Music Studio in the democratic opposition

Documents on the identification of the members of the New Music Studio with the views of the democratic opposition are bewilderingly scarce. It is known that in 1979 Zoltán Jeney signed an open letter to János Kádár and a statement of protest addressed to Pál Losonczi condemning – in the aftermath of the Charter 77 memorandum – the imprisonment of Václav Havel and his companions5. The 1977 statement of solidarity had been signed for all the musicians by the pianist Zoltán Kocsis alone6; the 1979 letter was also signed by the musicologist János Malina7, and in the protest statement they were joined by composer Attila Bozay, the pianist György Ferenczy, the musicologist András Pernye and the elderly composer, former communist Endre Székely as well8. According to his own recollection, Jeney supported the 1979 signature action against his will9. This fact is, however, unmentioned in Ervin Csizmadia’s monograph on the history of the Hungarian democratic opposition and in the related volume of documents.

The absence of musicians in the documents of the democratic opposition is conspicuous indeed. This phenomenon may have at least two reasons. It is obvious that professional musicians did not participate in the work of the democratic opposition directed for the greater part by philosophers, economists, and sociologists. What I feel is more important, however, is that the historical treatment of the period so far – whether by literary, film and art historians – left music out of consideration. In 2005 a volume dealing with art in the Kádár era was published under the title “Művészet és hatalom” (Art and power). It omitted serious music altogether; the genre of music was represented by popular music alone10. Similarly, Sándor Révész’s monograph on the cultural ideologist and leader of Hungarian cultural life, György Aczél, which appeared in 1997, discussed the politician’s influence on literary life, theatre, film and fine arts at great length but precluded music from the sphere of culture as if there had existed no Aczélian music policy in that period at all11. It is a refreshing change and attributable to the personal interest of the art historian László Beke alone that his volume of essays and studies on 20th-century Hungarian avantgarde movements, “A második nyilvánosság” (“The secondary public sphere”) at least mentions the activity of the New Music Studio12.

László Sáry. Photo by Gáspár Stekovics

According to Ervin Csizmadia’s reconstruction, the democratic opposition developed similarly to the communal structures as the New Music Studio. E. Csizmadia’s monograph describes how the opposition youth gathered in literary and debating societies as well as scientific students’ associations and formed groups there in the sixties. It implies that they established their circles of friends and intellectual communities under similar institutional frames as the composition circle at the Academy of Music was13, in which Zoltán Jeney, László Sáry (1940) and László Vidovszky (1944) participated and where Jeney was president for four years14. These students’ associations became the members’ chosen communities after 1968. It went together with establishing a common behavioral culture – an alternative lifestyle15 – much similar to the case of the members of the New Music Studio. According to E. Csizmadia’s interpretation the reason why a certain part of the representatives of this generation could not be integrated into the power structure was that they proved unwilling to be integrated. From 1973 to 1976 they consciously chose marginalization driven by group defiance and an inclination to resistance16.

The three years between 1973 and 1976, that is the period of marginalization, coincide with the heroic age of the New Music Studio when the three young composers deliberately broke off from the traditional musical life. While the democratic opposition called for united action and open resistance by signing Charter ‘77 in 197717, the New Music Studio tried to break gradually free from this peripheral position, and with considerable success, as we are going to see. For that matter, Ervin Csizmadia differentiates the dissident intellectuals from the marginal ones when he writes that the former ones “not only accept their marginal role but are willing to assume that role. Dissidents deliberately avoid being part of the system. Dissidence is, as a matter of fact, a joint exodus and presenting an alternative model”18.

While the greater part of the young intelligentsia became incorporated into the hierarchical order of the institutions one way or another, the representatives of the non-conformist minority – according to E. Csizmadia: George Lukács’ pupils, Maoists, neo-avant-garde artists and students of the sociologist István Kemény – created their own subculture, assuming occasionally even an underground creative lifestyle19. This opposition of the regime “follows norms differing from the norms of the official institutional system”20. László Beke points out that the democratic opposition and the neo-avant-garde movement maintained close ties only for some years in the seventies21. This implies that Ervin Csizmadia’s concept of the quadripartite opposition is much rather a scholarly presupposition, a theoretical construction: the neo-avant-garde artistic groups of the seventies deviated from to a once smaller, once greater degree and the same applies to scientific and political movements as well. The extent of the transgression of norms, its interpretation, the acceptance of certain artistic groups in professional-public life, that is what is regarded marginal-peripheral these days and was considered so in those days, can cover an extremely wide range and may depend greatly on who analyses and evaluates the given situation and from which point of view.

The neo-avant-garde movements and the New Music Studio

All this is illustrated spectacularly by the earlier mentioned volume of essays and studies that scrutinizes the art in the Kádár era and the relationship of this art with power. Magdolna Jákfalvi’s essay on theatre history demonstrates, for example, how the dramatic arts of the sixties and their critical reception were based on doublespeak that is on the fact that the real message of a work should be transmitted through its stage representation and not by the concrete words. In this way a sense to be understood by the initiated alone should also come through in addition to the official meaning22. The alternative theatre of the seventies turned, however, against this practice based on the principle that all symbolic interpretations must be rejected; art transmitted its message directly23. The only difference between the representatives of the alternative theatre was whether to side with the direct, straightforward manner of speech, where one should turn his back to politics, as Péter Halász proclaimed it24 – in László Rajk’s formulation it was “the unknown Hungarian avant-garde artist’s cry for help: politics in my works is the lack of politics”25 – or, on the contrary, follow Tamás Fodor’s interpretation that one should produce art that is political in every respect26. For that matter, this attitude may have accounted for the fact that Tamás Fodor became a member of the National Theatrical Company established by political will where he took part in the public affairs of Hungarian acting27.

It will be seen later to what extent, in what manifestations and media of creative utterance the New Music Studio refused doublespeak, and also what presence in the official musical life, and hence engagement in politics, meant to them. For the moment, it seems more important to clarify that the neo-avant-garde art of the seventies developed not only by refusing politics and doublespeak, but by including a basically new interpretation into the discourse on arts as well through unfolding Umberto Eco’s open-work concept and putting experimentation into the centre. László Beke reminds us that conceptualism appeared around 1971–1972 in Hungarian fine arts and set off a smaller movement, not leaving attendant arts untouched either28. It was Beke who proclaimed the basic idea of the new artistic trend according to which a work is nothing else but “the documentation of an idea”29.

Zoltán Jeney in 2017. Photo by Eifert János

It is evident that Zoltán Jeney’s and László Vidovszky’s oeuvre show several examples of this creative approach. The pieces which, in addition to certain instructions present the basic material of the work to be performed alone, follow “the documentation of an idea” principle. See for example Z. Jeney’s “Being time” – and “Heracleitos” series (written between: ÉVSZÁM ), as well as certain movements of the set “A szem mozgásai” (“Movements of the Eye”) (ÉVSZÁM) and L. Vidovszky’s “405” (1972), “Tiszteletkör” (“Honour Lap”, 1975), “Renorand” (1975), “78528” (1978), Solo with Obligate Accompaniment (1979–1982). This is why András Wilheim writes of Z. Jeney’s compositions of the seventies: “the music fixes the scope for action provided by the composer”, that is the “compositional minimum”30.

These conceptualist works in the musical sense of the word are closely connected with Dóra Maurer’s Creativity Exercises carried on in the Balázs Béla Studio (from 1975 to 1977) as well which must have been the direct forerunners of László Sáry’s “Kreatív zenei gyakorlatok” (“Creative Musical Exercises”)31. It is all the more justified to mention Dóra Maurer’s name in this context as the spreading of conceptualism went together with the appearance of interdisciplinarity and intermediality, as László Beke writes32. The oeuvre of Jeney and L. Vidovszky shows several examples of them. Both of them experimented with films in the Béla Balázs Studio: in Z. Jeney’s case it was “Round” (the image of transformation of the original trio material) of 1975 as well as Kalah produced conjointly with Dóra Maurer in 1981. L. Vidovszky produced “Aldrin” in black and white with Gábor Bódy as director of photography in 1976.

For that matter, audiovisual works make up a separate group in L. Vidovszky’s catalogue of works33. Intermediality left such a deep impression on the composers’ career that on the evidence of data on Artpool portal Z. Jeney even delivered a lecture on film in the Ganz Mávag Community Centre on 20 May 1976 based perhaps on the experiences gained in making “Round”34. According to the same portal not only the film but also fine arts were associated with musical experimentation: in February 1979 Katalin Keserű organized an exhibition from the scores of the composers of the New Music Studio with the title “Kottaképek” (“Music layout”)35 in Bercsényi Club. Five years earlier, on 28 June 1974, L. Vidovszky had delivered a lecture in the Young Artists’ Club with the title “John Cage dosszié” (“The John Cage file”) with the contribution of the art historian Éva Körner36.

László Vidovszky. Photo taken from the Editio Musica Budapest website https://www.emb.hu/

The integration of the New Music Studio into musical life

A survey of the chronology of the seventies on the portal Artpool shows how naturally the work of the New Music Studio fitted into the neo-avant-garde movement at the beginning. Writing about the New Music Studio the musicologist-music critic György Kroó characterized the typical features of this new avant-garde fairly precisely: the acceptance of the nonprofessional status and the rejection of cultivation and traditional professionalism. “Their bewildering behaviour suggesting resumption, their deliberately primitive musical material in most cases, and the sporadically emphasized technical dilettantism of their performances reminds us of Satie to some extent”37. Yet the New Music Studio defined itself as a professional ensemble: it had appeared in the Small Hall of the Academy of Music from 1977 onwards and their works were performed within the official program of Music of Our Time on 8 October 1978, of which the chronology of the Artpool portal also bears evidence38. These events raised the group clearly from its semi-marginal position. As a matter of fact, the members of the New Music Studio were in all probability reluctant to live an artist’s underground way of life but wished to take part in the official musical life. What is more, musical life did not marginalize them at all, despite debates about the New Music Studio in which they were reproached with disregarding the professional compromise reached in the sixties by the composers born in the thirties, with the denial of tradition, self-enforcement, and the relativization of the performer’s role.

All this is borne out by the fact that Jeney was the key figure of Mária Feuer’s series of interviews published in the weekly “Élet és Irodalom” (“Life and literature”)39. It was meant to demonstrate the plurality of musical life in the seventies; in the second round of interviews L. Vidovszky also expressed his views40. A still stronger proof is, however, that thanks partly to Pál Szigeti and partly to Péter Pál Tóth the Communist Youth Organization (KISZ) provided a safety net for the New Music Studio – as acknowledged by Z. Jeney as well41 – and that on 15 March 1978 L. Vidovszky was awarded a prize of the Communist Youth Organization42. János Breuer’s “condemning” critique43 (Z. Jeney’s wording), which appeared in the 6 January 1976 issue of the communist party’s daily paper “Népszabadság”, was not a direct political attack against the New Music Studio in the first place. J. Breuer must have regarded the appearance of the Studio as a personal affair: he was evidently unable to accept that the Communist Youth Organization deviated so much from what he meant to be the central course of cultural policy, that its support of the young composers’ norm transgression was “breaking away from the main and progressive route of the new Hungarian music”44.

The Communist Youth Organization (KISZ) supported the new progressive generation – and not only the New Music Studio – indeed, which can be documented by issues of its weekly “Mozgó Világ” (“Moving World”) printed between 1973 and 1980. In 1979 it published an interview with three members of the New Music Studio entitled “Fiatal radikálisok” (“Young Radicals”) as a token of propagating the new generation’s art. It described the group’s work of spreading contemporary music and the rise of a “novelminded” audience receptive to new music – as Z. Jeney formulated it – as a success story45.

This interview centred on an audience receptive to and understanding new music makes evident that the reason for breaking with the composers born in the thirties must primarily have been the demand for asserting themselves and occupying territories on the Hungarian new musical market, that is the desire to create their own public on the one hand, and stopping the exclusive representation of the genuine avant-garde on the other, and not the fact that the two generations interpreted the concept of avant-garde differently beyond any doubt. It also shows the demand for self-assertion and occupying territories, and in their interviews both Z. Jeney and L. Vidovszky called the attention repeatedly to the Hungarian music critics’ incompetence regarding their music46.

The fact that the New Music Studio became part of the Hungarian music historical canon was due to the communist music sociologist János Maróthy. The canon is namely formed by disputes about the works, not by the works themselves. The Hungarian musical life is by tradition an exceedingly paternalistic one: success is greatly determined by social networks, the activity of well-wishers and ill-wishers influencing the progress of a professional’s career from the background. Although J. Maróthy had lost power over musical policy by then (he had been the most powerful young musical policy maker in the fifties), he was still omnipresent and influential and, what is more, inclined from the extreme left towards the oppositional, alternative movements. From 1977 onwards he regularly reviewed and passed a positive judgment on the concerts of the New Music Studio. In his interview given to Mária Feuer he even defended norm transgression: “It would be advisable to follow the latest music with a more open heart and to acknowledge that one should not judge according to traditional norms. It is undoubtedly true that contact with real life in the latest music upsets orderliness but this upheaval leads to other important experiences”47.

J. Maróthy’s criticism paved the way for the far more competent critics of the New Music Studio’s generation: Katalin Komlós and Tibor Tallián were among the first to change the manner of speaking about the group48while Sándor Kovács called Z. Jeney’s work (KATO NK 300 22nd July 1979, 10:30 Liptó utca) a masterpiece in a periodical that had a relatively large public in 198049. Owing to these long reports discussing naturally not only the composers of the group but the works presented at their concerts as well, the leading music journal “Muzsika” became a forum of crucial importance for the New Music Studio. A household statistic shows that the periodical published less appreciations of the internationally known figure György Kurtág than of their concerts, and that after 1978 even the composers born in the thirties were evidently relegated to the background in the periodical50. The canon-forming discussion on this important medium was no more about them and that meant the loss of a key position in such a confined and narrow space that is the Hungarian musical culture.

In general professional consciousness – and not only in János Breuer’s view – the earlier generation represented unambiguously the “progressive” trend of the new Hungarian music up to 1975. György Kroó, who was a far greater authority than J. Breuer, concluded his work treating thirty years of Hungarian composition with the question whether the young radicals’ road does not lead to isolation and the dissipation of European values and took side of the composers born in the thirties: “[For] the vanguard of Hungarian composition art means a responsible, clear-cut, transmittable, accepted manifestation it has always been in Europe: individual utterance and reference to the common tradition at the same time, that of yesterday and a new one growing inseparably out of it”51. In the interview given to Mária Feuer in 197752 Z. Jeney spoke “of the strongholds of indefinable humanism” manifest in Hungarian composition referring beyond all doubt to G. Kroó’s attitude which was deeply ingrained in general musical consciousness and questioned its justification. The accusation that the art of the New Music Studio lacked humanism in the European sense of the word must have been a basic issue of contemporary common talk. This attitude was represented most powerfully, albeit implicitly, without disclosing names by the composer Zsolt Durkó, the most successful representative of the earlier generation: “The works which convey real experience by running through the wealth of musical intonations were and still are about the fullness of human life in the last quarter of the twentieth century as well”53. In the pieces on the New Music Studio Tibor Tallián, the spokesman of the new generation, welcomed their refusal of “the subjectivism of light reading” and “the illusion of solving the situation easily”54.

It is evident that in his critique T. Tallián – just like G. Kroó and Z. Durkó – made use of the rhetoric means of doublespeak because “the illusion of solving the situation easily” can be understood in much the same way musically as on the level of everyday politics. Strangely enough, this tendency to doublespeak, which appears in the compositions and interviews of the composers born in the thirties and in critical reflections on works alike, can also be observed in Zoltán Jeney’s statements at the time. While he seems to have consciously striven for realizing the principle of plain talk in his music – “I expect political music to be absolutely topical musically, in asking and answering questions and in its content message alike”55, – the disputes of musical life compelled him to have recourse to the practice of doublespeak. Z. Jeney, of all members of the New Music Studio, was the most eager to participate in musical disputes and to step up publicly against the stand of Z. Durkó, G. Kroó and J. Breuer without making offensive personal remarks. He did it consciously: speaking about discussing politics in and with music he distanced himself from political music in his interview to Mária Feuer but argued emphatically for the imperative of music-related social action56. His statement conveyed the image of a responsible artist who distanced himself from music, engaged in politics directly, without transfer, but was committed to the current problems of society. This image was reinforced by remarks in his statements which tried to shed light on the content elements of his art. Asked in 1975 what he intended to express with his works he answered with the axiom of 20th-century modernism: “music is a means of self fulfillment”57. He added, however, that the music of the New Music Studio was “the child of today’s reality”58 and that in his works he wished “to transform the surrounding world into an acoustically visible reality.” “I would like to make the often unbearable everyday sound of the world aesthetically liveable and hence acceptable”59. Z. Jeney’s self-interpretation uses the concepts of traditional aesthetics: he defines arts as the imprint of reality, which is, as he understands, not without negative connotations (“unbearable”, “everyday”). What he composer tries to shape into something acceptable and enjoyable through embellishment, that is the creation of the work. This is not exactly a neo-avant-garde creed – nor is the figure of the artist who assumes responsibility for his community – but fairly close to the ideal of “European humanism” represented by the composers born in the thirties and as such forms the fostering soil of the neo-conservative-postmodern turn of the eighties. At the same time it documents indisputably the embeddedness of the New Music Studio into the musical life of the seventies, into a confined and narrow musical life, the inner balance of forces of which were changed by the end of the decade by the confident and self-fulfilling appearance of the new generation.

Notes

  1. Szitha T. Zoltán Jeney / Szitha Tünde. – Budapest : Mágus, 2002. – P. 7.
  2. Jeney Z., Szitha T. Az Új Zenei Stúdió hangverseny-repertoárja 1970–1990 között [The concert repertoire of the New Music Studio between 1970 and 1990] / Jeney Zoltán, Szitha Tünde // Magyar Zene. – 2013. – 50/3, August. – P. 303.
  3. Wilheim A. Jeney Zoltán / Wilheim, András. – Budapest : Editio Musica, 1996. – P. 5.
  4. Beke L. Tűrni, tiltani, támogatni. A hetvenes évek avantgárdja [Toleration, prohibition, and support] / Beke László // A második nyilvánosság. XX. századi magyar művészet [The Secondary Public Sphere. 20th-century Hungarian art.] / Hans Knoll (ed.). – Budapest : Enciklopédia kiadó, 2002. – P. 228–247.
  5. Csizmadia E. A magyar demokratikus ellenzék. 1968–1988 : 3 k. – K. 2 : Dokumentumok [The Hungarian democratic opposition 1968–1988 : in 3 vol. – Vol. 2 : Documents] / Csizmadia Ervin. – Budapest : T-Twins Kiadó, 1995. – P. 83., 87.
  6. Op. cit., s. 75.
  7. Op. cit., s. 83.
  8. Op. cit., s. 86–87.
  9. Zoltán Jeney’s interview to the students of the Doctoral School of Musicology of the Liszt Ferenc Academy of Music, 5 December 2012 (sound recording).
  10. See: Tordai Bence. A Kádár-rendszer tömegkultúra-recepciója [The mass culture reception of the Kádár regime] / Tordai Bence // Művészet és hatalom. A Kádár-korszak művészete [Art and power. Art in the Kádár era] / T. Kisantal, A. Menyhért (ed.). – Budapest : József Attila Kör ; L’Harmattan Kiadó, 2005. – P. 141–156; Szőnyei T. Nyilván tartottak. Titkos szolgák a magyar rock körül [Recorded. Secret servants around the Hungarian rock] / Szőnyei Tamás // Op. cit., s. 181–188.
  11. Révész Sándor. Aczél és korunk [Aczél and our time] / Révész Sándor. – Budapest : Sík Kiadó, 1997. – 435 p.
  12. Beke L. Tűrni, tiltani, támogatni. A hetvenes évek avantgárdja [Toleration, prohibition, and support] / Beke László // A második nyilvánosság. XX. századi magyar művészet [The Secondary Public Sphere. 20th-century Hungarian art.] / Hans Knoll (ed.). – Budapest : Enciklopédia kiadó, 2002. – P. 243.
  13. Csizmadia E. A magyar demokratikus ellenzék. 1968–1988 : 3 k. – K. 1 : Monográfia [The Hungarian democratic opposition : in 3 v. – V. 1 : Monograph] / Csizmadia Ervin. – Budapest : T-Twins Kiadó, 1995. – P. 44.
  14. Zoltán Jeney’s data: e-mail to the author of the study (10 March 2013).
  15. Csizmadia E. A magyar demokratikus ellenzék. 1968–1988 : 3 k. – K. 2 : Dokumentumok [The Hungarian democratic opposition 1968–1988 : in 3 vol. – Vol. 2 : Documents] / Csizmadia Ervin. – Budapest : T-Twins Kiadó, 1995. – P. 16, 44–45.
  16. Op. cit., s. 66.
  17. Op. cit.
  18. Op. cit., s. 99.
  19. Op. cit., s. 105.
  20. Op. cit., s. 106.
  21. Beke L. Tűrni, tiltani, támogatni. A hetvenes évek avantgárdja [Toleration, prohibition, and support] / Beke László // A második nyilvánosság. XX. századi magyar művészet [The Secondary Public Sphere. 20th-century Hungarian art.] / Hans Knoll (ed.). – Budapest : Enciklopédia kiadó, 2002. – P. 244.
  22. Jákfalvi M. Kettős beszéd – egyenes értés [Doublespeak – straightforward understanding] / Jákfalvi Magdolna // Művészet és hatalom. A Kádár-korszak művészete [Art and power. Art in the Kádár era] / T. Kisantal, A. Menyhért (ed.). – Budapest : József Attila Kör ; L’Harmattan Kiadó, 2005. – P. 95.
  23. Op. cit., s. 104.
  24. Op. cit., s. 99.
  25. Rajk L. Amikor a folyó belelép, ahelyett, hogy lábjegyzet maradna...” [When the river enters into it instead of remaining a footnote…] / Rajk László // Művészet és hatalom. A Kádár-korszak művészete [Art and power. Art in the Kádár era] / T. Kisantal, A. Menyhért (ed.). – Budapest : József Attila Kör ; L’Harmattan Kiadó, 2005. – P. 82.
  26. Jákfalvi M. Kettős beszéd – egyenes értés [Doublespeak – straightforward understanding] / Jákfalvi Magdolna // Művészet és hatalom. A Kádár-korszak művészete [Art and power. Art in the Kádár era] / T. Kisantal, A. Menyhért (ed.). – Budapest : József Attila Kör ; L’Harmattan Kiadó, 2005. – P. 99.
  27. Op. cit., s. 101.
  28. Beke L. Tűrni, tiltani, támogatni. A hetvenes évek avantgárdja [Toleration, prohibition, and support] / Beke László // A második nyilvánosság. XX. századi magyar művészet [The Secondary Public Sphere. 20th-century Hungarian art.] / Hans Knoll (ed.). – Budapest : Enciklopédia kiadó, 2002. – P. 241.
  29. Op. cit.
  30. Wilheim A. Jeney Zoltán / Wilheim, András. – Budapest : Editio Musica, 1996. – P, 8.
  31. Sáry L. Kreatív zene gyakorlatok [Creative music exercises] / László Sáry. – Pécs : Jelenkor Kiadó, 1999.
  32. Beke L. Tűrni, tiltani, támogatni. A hetvenes évek avantgárdja [Toleration, prohibition, and support] / Beke László // A második nyilvánosság. XX. századi magyar művészet [The Secondary Public Sphere. 20th-century Hungarian art.] / Hans Knoll (ed.). – Budapest : Enciklopédia kiadó, 2002. – P. 244.
  33. Szitha T. Vidovszky László / Szitha Tünde. – Budapest : Mágus, 2006. – S. 32; Vidovszky László, Weber Kristóf: Beszélgetések a zenéről [Discussions on music]. Pécs: Jelenkor Kiadó, 1997. – S. 146–148.
  34. Artpool. 1976 http://artpool.hu/kontextus/kronologia/1976.html (last viewed: 1 April 2013).
  35. Artpool. 1979 http://artpool.hu/kontextus/kronologia/1979.html (last viewed: 1 April 2013).
  36. Artpool. 1974 http://artpool.hu/kontextus/kronologia/1974.html (last viewed: 1 April 2013).
  37. Kroó G. A magyar zeneszerzés 30 éve [Thirty years of Hungarian composition] / Kroó György. – Budapest : Zeneműkiadó, 1975. – P. 202.
  38. Artpool. 1978 http://artpool.hu/kontextus/kronologia/1978.html (last viewed: 1 April 2013).
  39. Feuer M. 50 muzsikus műhelyében [In the workshop of fifty musicians] / Mária Feuer. – Budapest : Zeneműkiadó, 1976. – 259 p.
  40. Vidovszky’s interview: “The influence of a work is important” // Feuer M. Pillanatfelvétel. Magyar zeneszerzés 1975–1978 [Snapshot. Hungarian composition 1975–1978] / Mária Feuer. – Budapest : Zeneműkiadó, 1978. – P. 91–95.
  41. Zoltán Jeney’s interview given to students of the Doctoral School of Musicology of the Liszt Ferenc Academy of Music, 5 December 2012 (Sound recording).
  42. Muzsika – 1978. – 21/5, May. – P. 9.
  43. Jeney-interview // Breuer János. Zenei krónika [Music chronicle] / Breuer János // Népszabadság. – 1976. – 6 January.
  44. Op. cit.
  45. Recent edition: Éry-Kovács A. Fiatal radikálisok. Éry-Kovács András beszélgetése Jeney Zoltánnal, Vidovszky Lászlóval és Wilheim Andrással, a KISZ Központi Művészegyüttes Új Zenei Stúdiójának tagjaival [Young radicals. András Éry-Kovács’s interview with members of the New Music Studio of the Central Art Ensemble of the Communist Youth Organization: with Zoltán Jeney, László Vidovszky and András Wilhelm] / Éry-Kovács András // Zenekultúránkról [On our music culture] / Balázs István (ed.). – Budapest : Kossuth Kiadó, 1982. – P. 391–402. Published originally in the October 1978 issue of Mozgó Világ.
  46. Vidovszky’s interview: “The influence of a work is important” // Feuer M. Pillanatfelvétel. Magyar zeneszerzés 1975–1978 [Snapshot. Hungarian composition 1975–1978] / Mária Feuer. – Budapest : Zeneműkiadó, 1978. – P. 94, 111.
  47. Op. cit., s. 72.
  48. Komlós K. Steve Reich Budapesten [Steve Reich in Budapest] / Komlós Katalin // Muzsika. – 1977. – 20/10, October. – P. 14–17; Tallián T. Korunk zenéje 1. [The music of our time 1.] / Tallián Tibor // Muzsika. – 1978. – 21/12, December. – P. 1–15. On the New Music Studio: s. 11–13.
  49. Kovács S. Korunk zenéje ‘80 (1.) [The music of our time ‘80 (1.)] / Kovács Sándor // Muzsika. – 1980. – 22/12, December. – P. 5–11.
  50. The column “Bemutatók krónikája”. The chronicle of premieres] shows it clearly: in 1978, for example, 17 works by the generation of composers born in the thirties (in a broader sense by 14–15 composers) were discussed and 16 premieres of the seven-member New Music Studio. That year only 3 compositions by Kurtág were treated in detail in the newspaper. This proportion is even more remarkable in 1980: that year critiques of 15 works by the composers born in the thirties and 15 works by members of the New Music Studio appeared and only one work by Kurtág was discussed.
  51. Kroó G. A magyar zeneszerzés 30 éve [Thirty years of Hungarian composition] / Kroó György. – Budapest : Zeneműkiadó, 1975. – P. 203.
  52. Vidovszky’s interview: “The influence of a work is important” // Feuer M. Pillanatfelvétel. Magyar zeneszerzés 1975–1978 [Snapshot. Hungarian composition 1975–1978] / Mária Feuer. – Budapest : Zeneműkiadó, 1978. – P. 116.
  53. Op. cit., s. 25.
  54. Tallián T. Korunk zenéje 1. [The music of our time 1.] / Tallián Tibor // Muzsika. – 1978. – 21/12, December. – P. 13.
  55. Vidovszky’s interview: “The influence of a work is important // Feuer M. Pillanatfelvétel. Magyar zeneszerzés 1975–1978 [Snapshot. Hungarian composition 1975–1978] / Mária Feuer. – Budapest : Zeneműkiadó, 1978. – P. 117.
  56. Vidovszky’s interview: “The influence of a work is important // Feuer M. Pillanatfelvétel. Magyar zeneszerzés 1975–1978 [Snapshot. Hungarian composition 1975–1978] / Mária Feuer. – Budapest : Zeneműkiadó, 1978. – P. 117.
  57. Feuer M. 50 muzsikus műhelyében [In the workshop of fifty musicians] / Mária Feuer. – Budapest : Zeneműkiadó, 1976. – P. 32.
  58. Op. cit.
  59. Op. cit., s. 33.

References

  1. Beke L. Tűrni, tiltani, támogatni. A hetvenes évek avantgárdja [Toleration, prohibition, and support] / Beke László // A második nyilvánosság. XX. századi magyar művészet [The Secondary Public Sphere. 20th-century Hungarian art.] / Hans Knoll (ed.). – Budapest : Enciklopédia kiadó, 2002. – P. 228–247.
  2. Breuer J. Zenei krónika [Music chronicle] / Breuer János // Népszabadság. – 1976. – 6 January.
  3. Csizmadia E. A magyar demokratikus ellenzék. 1968–1988 : 3 k. [The Hungarian democratic opposition : in 3 vol.]. – K. 1 : Monográfia. – [Vol. 1 : Monograph]. – Budapest : T-Twins Kiadó, 1995. – 550 p.; K. 2 : Dokumentumok [Vol. 2 : Documents] / Csizmadia Ervin. – Budapest : T-Twins Kiadó, 1995. – 511 p.
  4. Éry-Kovács A. Fiatal radikálisok. Éry-Kovács András beszélgetése Jeney Zoltánnal, Vidovszky Lászlóval és Wilheim Andrással, a KISZ Központi Művészegyüttes Új Zenei Stúdiójának tagjaival [Young radicals. András Éry-Kovács’s interview with members of the New Music Studio of the Central Art Ensemble of the Communist Youth Organization: with Zoltán Jeney, László Vidovszky and András Wilhelm] / Éry-Kovács András // Zenekultúránkról [On our music culture] / Balázs István (ed.). – Budapest : Kossuth Kiadó, 1982. – P. 391–402.
  5. Feuer M. 50 muzsikus műhelyében [In the workshop of fifty musicians] / Mária Feuer. – Budapest : Zeneműkiadó, 1976. – 259 p.
  6. Jákfalvi M. Kettős beszéd – egyenes értés [Doublespeak – straightforward understanding] / Jákfalvi Magdolna // Művészet és hatalom. A Kádár-korszak művészete [Art and power. Art in the Kádár era] / T. Kisantal, A. Menyhért (ed.). – Budapest : József Attila Kör ; L’Harmattan Kiadó, 2005. – P. 94–107.
  7. Jeney Z., Szitha T. Az Új Zenei Stúdió hangverseny-repertoárja 1970–1990 között [The concert repertoire of the New Music Studio between 1970 and 1990] / Jeney Zoltán, Szitha Tünde // Magyar Zene. – 2013. – 50/3, August. – P. 300–348.
  8. Komlós K. Steve Reich Budapesten [Steve Reich in Budapest] / Komlós Katalin // Muzsika. – 1977. – 20/10, October. – P. 14–17.
  9. Kovács S. Korunk zenéje ‘80 (1.). [The music of our time ‘80 (1.)] / Kovács Sándor // Muzsika. – 1980. – 22/12, December. – P. 5–11.
  10. Kroó G. A magyar zeneszerzés 30 éve [Thirty years of Hungarian composition] / Kroó György. – Budapest : Zeneműkiadó, 1975. – 203 p.
  11. Rajk L. Amikor a folyó belelép, ahelyett, hogy lábjegyzet maradna...” [When the river enters into it instead of remaining a footnote…] / Rajk László // Művészet és hatalom. A Kádárkorszak művészete [Art and power. Art in the Kádár era] / T. Kisantal, A. Menyhért (ed.). – Budapest : József Attila Kör ; L’Harmattan Kiadó, 2005. – P. 79–82.
  12. Révész S. Aczél és korunk [Aczél and our time] / Révész Sándor. – Budapest : Sík Kiadó, 1997. – 435 p.
  13. Sáry L. Kreatív zene gyakorlatok [Creative music exercises] / László Sáry. – Pécs : Jelenkor Kiadó, 1999. – 160 p.
  14. Szitha T. Vidovszky László / Szitha Tünde. – Budapest : Mágus, 2006. – 36 p.
  15. Szitha T. Zoltán Jeney / Szitha Tünde. – Budapest : Mágus, 2002. – 32 p.
  16. Szőnyei T. Nyilván tartottak. Titkos szolgák a magyar rock körül [Recorded. Secret servants around the Hungarian rock] / Szőnyei Tamás // Művészet és hatalom. A Kádár-korszak művészete [Art and power. Art in the Kádár era] / T. Kisantal, A. Menyhért (ed.). – Budapest : József Attila Kör ; L’Harmattan Kiadó, 2005. – P. 181–188.
  17. Tallián T. Korunk zenéje 1. [The music of our time 1.] / Tallián Tibor // Muzsika. – 1978. – 21/12, December. – P. 1–15.
  18. Tordai B. A Kádár-rendszer tömegkultúra-recepciója [The mass culture reception of the Kádár regime] / Tordai Bence // Művészet és hatalom. A Kádár-korszak művészete [Art and power. Art in the Kádár era] / T. Kisantal, A. Menyhért (ed.). – Budapest : József Attila Kör ; L’Harmattan Kiadó, 2005. – P. 141–156.
  19. Vidovszky L., Weber K. Beszélgetések a zenéről [Discussions on music] / Vidovszky László, Weber Kristóf. – Pécs : Jelenkor Kiadó, 1997. – 156 p.
  20. Vidovszky’s interview: “The influence of a work is important // Feuer M. Pillanatfelvétel. Magyar zeneszerzés 1975–1978 [Snapshot. Hungarian composition 1975–1978] / Mária Feuer. – Budapest : Zeneműkiadó, 1978.
  21. Wilheim A. Jeney Zoltán / Wilheim, András. – Budapest : Editio Musica, 1996. – 59 p.