Talk:Leoš Janáček/Archive 2

edited copy 3

"In 1902 he visited St. Petersburgh, Russia together with his wife, as she went to care for their daughter Olga, who was ill."

Have changed. Please check! Haploidavey (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply:Looks good. The meaning is unchanged. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Query: "1920s Janáček completed his opera The Cunning Little Vixen, inspired by a serialized novella (daily comic), published in the newspaper Lidové noviny."

Was this an illustrated novella, or a comic strip? Haploidavey (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply: Yes, it was a novella, not a comic strip. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

have taken out "(daily comic). Haploidavey (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

re: I agree. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Query: "There he met Kamila Urválková, whose love story supplied the theme for his next opera, Osud (Destiny)." Could you tell me a little more? Is this something separate from J's unrequited devotion? Haploidavey (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Yes, it's separate matter - it wasn't Kamila Stösslová, but Kamila Urválková. A brief description of the whole story is here.--Vejvančický (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. A link to the page will help readers like myself: or rather, careless readers like me. Haploidavey (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll need to work on the chronological arrangement of "later works etc",as the dates tend to shuffle forward and back in the final para. Haploidavey (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

re:O. K. I'll try to clarify/expand whatever. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: Following sentence: In 1902 he and his wife visited St. Petersburgh, Russia with their sick daughter, Olga, who was to die the following year. (first para of the section later years...) - Explanation: Janáček travelled to Russia two times in 1902. In April that year he accmpanied Olga to St. Petersburgh, where she studied Russian language, and later, in June/July he travelled to Russia together with his wife to visit ill Olga. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah! the light dawns. Will give my attentions asap. Haploidavey (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Best check new version Haploidavey (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

O.K. I'm back. Note: The last sentence of Janáček's biography is now: ...and was buried at the Central Cemetery in Brno, in a large public funeral, to music from the last scene of his Cunning Little Vixen.

His funeral with the music from Cunning Little Vixen took place in the theatre Na hradbách (today Mahen Theatre). His remains were laid to rest in the field of honor at the Central Cemetery.

• ref: Drlíková, Eva (2004). Leoš Janáček, Život a dílo v datech a obrazech / Chronology of his life and work. Brno: Opus Musicum. p. 119. ISBN 80-903211-1-9. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) (in Czech) (in English)

The rest is good, I'm just a bit afraid, that the bio part is rather a chronology of his compositions... What do you think? --Vejvančický (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You've been busy!... as to the bio, well yes. It might be easier reading if some of the minor (or rather, less milestone) compositions were removed to a chronological list. How about making up the latter anyway? You'd have to tell me which of the works should remain in the bio (apart from those mentioned in the introduction, which of course must stay). Haploidavey (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

After several readings, and comparison with other music articles (particularly Shostakovitch), the apparent overload still seems to arise from a proliferation of dates, titles, and stylistic milestones. There is, of course, another way of looking at this; as a relative lack of evidence for his (J's) personal qualities. I get a strong feeling that I want to know more of the person behind all this, and as a non-specialist reader could more easily handle the details if they were carried forward by the subject's humanity. I mean, it's already there; but somehow gets terse to the point of detachment. Stilted, a little. Or is it just me? What d'you think? Haploidavey (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. My approach is encyclopedic, and I'm trying to incorporate substantive informations, not gossip. On the other hand I understand, that Wikipedia is somewhat different, we write it also for a layman, and the articles must be also interesting and readable. It's not easy to find a well-balanced approach. I don't have problems with chronological listing of his compositions in the bio-section, since the included works are really important, but I can feel the gaps and empty places somewhere between them, even though I'm not native English speaker. The style is not perfectly flowing. I'm trying to fill the gaps now (without going into unnecessary detail, of course), please check the changes from your last edit... I've started also expansion of the "Legacy" section. Ask whatever, as always. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Your additional material makes an enormous difference. Much easier to edit now, and much easier reading. Have done some reworking of "Later years", and a bit on style and legacy. I do have a couple of minor queries, but they can wait. Any problems, please do let me know. Haploidavey (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Have copy-edited Musicology as best I can, but best check and leave corrections here if required. Haploidavey (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"During his lifetime, Janáček's music was often underrated by his contemporaries. He was forced to make concessions...". As this is difficult to quantify, I suggest changing to "During his lifetime, Janáček was forced to make concessions..." Haploidavey (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Your corrections are very good, without changing of meaning. How can I made still the same mistakes?? :) It´s great school of English for me. I´ll work on the sections "Style" and "Legacy" during this weekend, and I want to split the section "Criticism" and add the new section "Personality". I´ll have a plenty of time, I think. The sections "Inspiration" and "Folk music research" are complete in my opinion, and I´m almost satisfied also with biography. Have a good day, Haploidavey. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"According to Charles Mackerras, he tried to destroy Janáček during his lifetime." I take it this was an attempt to destroy him professionaly, but could you give a bit more detail? By the way, you really shouldn't apologise for your English. It's comprehensible, expressive and more to the point, indicates quality of thought. It's a pleasure working with you. How often do we find that?? Haploidavey (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he tried to destroy him professionally, it's Mackerras thought again. Nejedlý was a great admirer of Smetana and Wagner, and he was in strong oppose to Janáček. It's already covered in that section... he didn't like unusual and "amateurish" Janáček style - it was very original and some musicologists considered it clumsy (in comparison with romantic operatic style). Janáček was a Moravian weirdo for Nejedlý. My source unfortunately doesn't say more...--Vejvančický (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

btw, I suggest that all the information relating to Mackerras (including the restorations) goes in the final part of this section, to round it off nicely. Haploidavey (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Haploidavey (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

O.K., it's of course possible, but part of his commentary is related to Nejedlý and the rest to Talich... --Vejvančický (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, of course, and have left as was, with only minor prose changes.

Antonin, I've just done a copy-edit of Inspiration, which involved a few phrase and word substitutions to achieve (or so I hope) your intended meaning with as much precision as I can. For example, have replaced extracts with "essences" (sic); but there are more. Hope I've not gone too far - I'm having to make some half-educated guesses. Regards. Haploidavey (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

My notes: In the passage - Talich re-orchestrated Taras Bulba. He also re-orchestrated the Suite from Cunning Little Vixen because according to him, "it was not possible to perform it in the Prague National Theatre unless it was entirely re-orchestrated" - we have three times the word re-orchestrate, which looks awkwardly. Furthermore, I have to explain why it was not possible to perform it with original Janáček's orchestration. Czech musicology (and musicology in general) at the beginning of the 20th century was strongly influenced by Romanticism, in Czech lands particularly by Wagner and Smetana. The performance practice was conservative and it wasn't easy to break through with such a different and new style. Janáček was forced to make concessions, since it was the only chance for him. His works have aged without being heard, and he desperately longed for recognition. He didn't like it, but his operas must have been "romanticised".

(with use of the essay from Můj Janáček by Milan Kundera.) --Vejvančický (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Not one of my better efforts. Ugh! Have changed to reflect what you say... I hope:) Haploidavey (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If the re-orchestration justification applied to both "Bulba" and "Vixen" I'll make the appropriate changes. Slight change also to first line of para, reflecting reluctance to concede to changes. Haploidavey (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Note 2: The earlier version of the sentence in the section "Folklore" was: Even though he didn't intentionally imitate the style of any folklore area with which he was acquainted, it is apparent that the basis of his style is to a large degree influenced by folk music.

The current version is: His work in this area was not intended as stylistically imitative; instead, he submitted his work and style to fundamental folk music influences acquired through deep study. I'm not entirely sure with the meaning of submitted. Janáček was of course influenced by his folk music studies, but he didn't submitted his style to folk music influences. He was formerly considered a "folk composer", however, modern musicology consider him a creator of new and original musical aesthetics. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, will change. In fact, I'll more or less use what you've said here. Haploidavey (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Two queries, both from the Russia section:

• "the evils of Russian society." Yes, you've guessed it. Rather too strong a word, and will likely be very strongly challenged, sooner or later. Any valid alternatives?

Reply: You are right. Janáček observed Russian society with a critical eye, not only as a pan-Slavic enthusiast and admirer. The evils of Russian society is probably too strong for Wikipedia, although I think, it's correct and precisely expressed. However, we must be diplomatic :)) --Vejvančický (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• "transforming Dostoyevsky's vision of the world into an exciting collective drama." Could you explain more about this? Best regards. Haploidavey (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC) [my copy corrected]. Haploidavey (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply: Do you know From the House of the Dead? It's an opera with number of characters and with somewhat complicated plot. It's a mosaic of minor segments, which Janáček attempted to unify into a compact and precise whole. There isn't any "main character", and I think that "collective drama" is apt description. It's of course possible to re-formulate that sentence, but it isn't necessary in my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Reply (ad infinitum): No, I've heard it only once, and a long time back. I really have very few Janáček recordings... actually, few of any kind. Really, I shouldn't feel too sorry for myself, as the excellent BBC Radio 3 play J's work a lot more these days. I do get your point about "collective drama", it's just that I've never heard the phrase before; so thank you for the lucid explanation. Like I said, I'm really not an expert, or even anything close to it. Cheers! Haploidavey (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Some more edits done (see history for details). If required, please leave comments here. Regards. Haploidavey (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just one note: Section "Legacy": His path towards "modernism" was solitary, and led to innovations in his later maturity; later than the last great Romantic composers, Puccini and Mahler.

Kundera notes an interesting fact, that Janáček was many years older than composers, considered today "modern" (Stravinsky, Bartók, Hindemith), and that he was even older than last great romantics (of his generation) - Puccini and Mahler. He left the path of Romantic tradition and became and innovator, when he was fifty. I want to point out this fact, and I'm not sure with current meaning of that sentence. The rest of your edits perfectly correspond with my intention, thank you. I'll check the rest more properly later - I was at bar whole night and now I have personal little Battle of Waterloo in my head. :)) --Vejvančický (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just make sure you beat the French... Thanks for the thanks; and you're right not to be sure of that sentence. I'll work on it. :) Haploidavey (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the message on my talk. Your Waterloo comment was excellent! I've worked on Personality - easier to do than any other section - getting to know him, I guess. The last para may need checking. I've gone on instinct with my edit; but feel it has psychological veracity. Have a good day (evening??) :0) Haploidavey (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Still not right. Give it a couple of days to stew. Haploidavey (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

O.K. I'm back.

My change: His path towards the innovative "modernism" of his later years was long and solitary, and he achieved true individuation as a composer around his 50th year. - I've deleted unnecessary part. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Fresh note: ("Personality") Janáček's resignation to the changes forced upon his work almost ended his ambitions as a composer. - He was resigned, since his works were omitted, the disappointment over the changes came later. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The last sentence is correct, I think. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I need to get the chronology absolutely clear for the 2nd Personality para. Just to recap: The radical change of 1916 comes after the period described by J as one of despair - yes? Does the formal divorce happen after his wife finds the letter? In relation to these events, when was the informal divorce? It's great material, btw. I listened for the umpteenth time to Sinfonietta and the G Mass after reading your article. It was like having a brand new pair of ears. Haploidavey (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: Zdenka Janáčková left her husband in 1888-9 for the first time. She came from German speaking family, and Janáček - Czech patriot - had disputes with her parents. She came back very soon, and serious problems with Horvátová in 1916 led to informal divorce in September 1917. Since that time, suffering Zdenka struggled with Janáček's philandering. After she found that letter ... it was really hot for Janáček, he tried to explain that, and he finally succeed. His wife never left him... I'll add absolutely correct informations tomorrow, I don't have all my books now. Btw, I don't like to read someone letters, even though he is almost hundred years dead.. I feel like a snooper. It isn't intended for my eyes... However, we need correct, precise and complete informations - and it's necessary.--Vejvančický (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to: The radical change of 1916 comes after the period described by J as one of despair - yes? Yes, but paradoxically, it brought him some personal problems. --Vejvančický (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

editing copy 4

Hi Antonin - the article's been looking "stable" for some days. Anything more to add? My "improvements" need improving - a few passages stick out - but I've a few minor queries and will wait until you respond - I guess this page is on your watchlist. Regards! Haploidavey (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Davey, it's almost complete, I think. I don't want to add more and make it more detailed and complicated. I'll be offline this weekend, check my last edits and ask for clarification or expanding. My English is confusing ... specially in the section "Personality", I guess. I'll be back soon. Thank you.Vejvančický (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Heigh ho! The following is clunky and vague in the context of the ensuing para: "and resumed his artistic and organizational activities". I see why it's there, but do you really think it's needed? In the preceding paragraph, there's enough about the continuation of these underlying interests to presume their continuity (after all, dates are given). As it is, this sticks out as abstracted and I believe unnecessarily slows the reading. Can we remove it entirely? Haploidavey (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

re: I agree, we can remove it. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Haploidavey (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Would you consider a re-split of paragraphs 3 and 4 of early life? It would involve transferring the first sentence of 4 to the end of 3; thus, 3 would end with his marriage (an important change) and 4 begins with his longstanding tenure at the organ school - something which I believe was a very important continuity to him. Haploidavey (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

re:I have no objections. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Haploidavey (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Query: "Janáček was somewhat distrustful of his vicinity." Whose vicinity is meant? Please explain! Haploidavey (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

re:Janáček distrust was directed to people around him, specially to the persons, which he didn't know well. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Last section: "Janáček was also an important collector of folk songs in his own right, focusing on concentrated records of Lachian, Moravian Slovakian, Moravian Wallachian and Slovakian songs."

(Queried word is bolded). Haploidavey (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

re:Unnecessary, we can remove it. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. Haploidavey (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: Personality ...and noted that Janáček's characteristically stacatto speech rhythms appeared in some of his operatic characters - Tauský noted an interesting thing in J's own way of speaking. He depicts his speech as "staccato" (Janáček spoke in northern (or Lachian) dialect, with its characteristic "short" pronunciation) , and according to Tauský and Mackerras it is evident, that he used some of his own way of speaking in the diction of his operatic characters.--Vejvančický (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That's just what I intended to say! but I'll make a small change to permit no ambiguity. Haploidavey (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

His unconcealed passion for Stösslová was sincere but verged upon self-destruction. - I want to speak more generally, Janáček's feelings and passions related to women were unconcealed in general, not only to Stösslová, he was sometimes almost "blind", and this brought him a lot of problems, especially with his wife. On the other hand, he was distrustful and reserved to people around him - strange thing, but that's how his contemporaries and collaborators depict him.--Vejvančický (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspected as much. Wonderful music, passionate, complex and difficult man. Thanks for the additional information. I won't need to add much at all, just rephrase what's there. Haploidavey (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just refining what we have. "In 1888 he attended the Prague performance of Tchaikovsky’s music, and met the older composer. Janáček was a great admirer of Tchaikovsky, and particularly appreciated his highly developed musical thought in connection with the use of Russian folk motifs." Was this Tchaikovsky's first personal appearance in Prague - I ask because it seems notable, and if it is, the reading would be improved by swapping the sentence order. Haploidavey (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky visited Prague two times and this was his second stay. He was a good friend and admirer of Antonín Dvořák. I'm not absolutely sure with that fact, and I'm trying to search exact reference and more on his visits. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: Dvořák first met Tchaikovsky in February, 1888, during his first visit of Prague. Tchaikovsky was invited to conduct his compositions. He also negotiated Dvořák's concert tour to Russia, which took place in 1890. Third visit of Prague took place in March, 1892. Unfortunately, my source doesn't mention more about Janáček.--Vejvančický (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

ref: Burghauser, Jarmil (2006). Antonín Dvořák. Prague: Koniasch Latin Press. p. 72. ISBN 80-86791-26-2. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) (in Czech)

That's all useful. Will rearrange sentences as suggested earlier. Haploidavey (talk) 13:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just tried it, but it doesn't read well. Just a suggestion - would it be better to transfer these two sentences into "influences" under Russia?

This is a good idea, Davey. Agree. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Haploidavey (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• In folk-music research, have changed linguistic and regional name endings, trying to avoid repetition of "songs". I note that "Lach" is a dialect, rather than region; you'd best check if I have it right. Regards. Haploidavey (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Lachia is a region with specific dialect. We don't have special article for Lachia region, and I've added redirect to Lach dialects, since I think, that this may be helpful for readers. Both Lachian region and dialects should be merged into one article in my opinion. More informations about Moravian ethnographic regions you can find here --Vejvančický (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Note please I added few sentences to the "Early life" section. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It needed that. Have copy-edited, so please check. I've also been looking at the Czech to English translations of some quoted text. I'm reluctant to do anything to these, but the English would benefit from a little "buff and shine". Minor stuff, but is this allowed? Or even advisable? Haploidavey (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand, feel free to improve my translation. I'll check the original intention and meaning. I should include the originasl Czech text to the footnotes.--Vejvančický (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Before I forget - RobertG made some excellent edits to the page a few days back (I was quite envious), but he queried the term "informal divorce" and replaced it with "separation". I reverted that particular edit, but if you remember, I too was baffled by it. Two bafflements surely = one footnote to be made, preferably with an outside link. Haploidavey (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to find reliable online reference. It was informal divorce, I insist on that. Btw, no need to be envious - we are "bogged down" in it, and fresh and impersonal eyes can sometimes easily reveal things, which we didn't noticed. You understand all of my confusional English, and you have patience - I really appreciate it. Your editing skills are perfect. --Vejvančický (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Bless you. But it was a fine piece of editing. :) Haploidavey (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Re: translations. Only had to transpose one word! The rest is fine. Query on terms: sometimes the text uses motive, and sometimes motif. Better opt for one or the other. I suggest motif as distinctive to music. Haploidavey (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Thanks --Vejvančický (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor correction of my last entry here. Haploidavey (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've caused some confusion with my explaining of Janáček's "divorce", I'll try to explain it more clearly: On 16 July, 1916 Janáček came back from Prague. He quarreled with his wife, blamed her, that she destroyed his life. Following that, she swallowed 20 pills of Veronal and some morphine. Their housekeeper Mářa Stejskalová found her next morning in a coma. She survived the suicidal attempt, because the dose was too small. Janáček demanded divorce. Zdenka managed to persuade his lawyer and prevented scandal with "informal" (or "private") divorce. Janáček took the blame for the whole incident. His later relationship with Stösslová didn't caused another divorce, and Janáček himself tried to maintain marriage, despite his affection for Stösslová.

--Vejvančický (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's clear. Quite a story. A very small re-write, and we won't have to resort to footnotes. Haploidavey (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

copy-edit 5

Query:"From 1905 he was President of the Working Commitee for Czech National Folksong in Moravia and Silesia. This was a branch of the Austrian institute Das Volkslied in Österreich (Folksong in Austria), established in 1902 by the Viennese publishing house Universal Edition."

Is the establishment date (1902) for Das Volkslied in Österreich or Working Commitee for Czech National Folksong in Moravia and Silesia? Would like to reduce sentence length. Haploidavey (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

re: Das Volkslied in Österreich was establihed in 1902. Czech branch of that institute - Working Commitee for Czech National Folksong in Moravia and Silesia - was founded in 1905, with Janáček as a president. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

OK,thanks! Haploidavey (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

copy-edit 6

Have done minor re-arranging and added para breaks to "crtiticism" (feels like giving an old friend a spruce-up!)Haploidavey (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Zdenka's Variations

"His early Thema con variazioni (subtitled Zdenka's variations) is a student work composed to the styles of famous composers."

Who were the composers honoured in each variation? -- JackofOz (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• 2nd variation - Robert Schumann
• 3rd variation - Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
• 4th variation - Franz Liszt
• 5th variation - Johannes Brahms
• 6th variation - Bach-Busoni
• 7th variation is written in the style of the classical period.

Sources:

• CD Janáček’s piano. (Sleeve-note Jan Jiraský, Jiří Zahrádka; piano Jan Jiraský). Praha : Radioservis, 2004. CRO298-2-131.
• Janáček, L. Téma s variacemi. Zdenčiny variace. Praha : Editio Supraphon, 1990.

--Vejvančický (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)