Thread: Late Night Thoughts on Listening to Bartók

Posts: 44
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 next

Post by Windsurfer February 5, 2007 (11 of 44)
Beagle said:
My real motive of course is to flog a few more of these discs and thus encourage Praga and Parkanýi to complete this very promising set.

I fervently hope plans for such are already "in the works". But yes, those of us who are as yet uninitiated will be encouraged by your work to take those first steps toward learning music that repetively yields enormous satisfaction!

Post by Beagle February 5, 2007 (12 of 44)
Edvin said:
who are the people that say this? I have never read anything to that effect.

O doubting Thomas, you live a blessèd existence! My words quote an intelligent, educated, concert-going colleague of mine. Last weekend three of us guys were enjoying ourselves with the women out of the house and the volume therefore cranked up to the level which is satisfactory to those of us who have but one X-chromosome. Towards the tail-end of the evening, JC said 'Oh just play anything you want.'. I had been enjoying Mackerras' Kodály/Bartók Linn disc earlier in the week, so I cued up Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta. 'What is this? I LIKE it,' says JC. 'Brace yourself, JC, you like BARTÓK...'. 'NO! Bartók is all... atonal and tone rows!'.

I spoke with JC about his remarks again this morning, and he added that he actually heard a performance of a Bartók quartet a few years ago:

"There's a quartet, members of the Symphony, who moonlight you might say. They did The Mozart, and they did The Beethoven. Both wonderful stuff the wife and I enjoyed immensely. Then they did The Bartók... Ach! Dreadful stuff! We know one of the violinists, and he asked us afterwards what we thought. We spoke glowingly of the first two pieces, but said we couldn't get into the Bartók. He was shocked, and tried to explain why Bartók was the cat's pyjamas, but it still didn't mean a thing to me." Unquote JC.

I was going to add here that "people who think Bartók is atonal etc, DON'T write books". Then I had a flash of inspiration and opened up my ex libris copies of Bruce Haggin. I wasn't disappointed by this best-selling critic and admirer of Tovey, who is never afraid to call a spade a spade' (or call Sibelius 'sheer drivvel'):

"Nor will you, I think, care for the similar evidence of impoverished or warped emotions in so much of the music of the century -- the fluent aridities, the technically masterful uglinesses and horrors of Hindemith, Bartók, Berg, Schönberg, and their lesser contemporaries." [B.H. Haggin. 1942. Music on Records. Knopff New York, pp. 66-67.]

Post by Ken_P February 5, 2007 (13 of 44)
Beagle said:

"Nor will you, I think, care for the similar evidence of impoverished or warped emotions in so much of the music of the century -- the fluent aridities, the technically masterful uglinesses and horrors of Hindemith, Bartók, Berg, Schönberg, and their lesser contemporaries." [B.H. Haggin. 1942. Music on Records. Knopff New York, pp. 66-67.]

Thankfully, time has given us a much better perspective on music from the first half of the last century. Bartok was still alive in 1942, and had yet to write what would become his most popular and well known work, the Concerto for Orchestra. Certainly no critic or musicologist today would say what Haggin said back then.

About the atonal discussion, remember that it's not a dirty word, just a technical term. Much of Bartok's music is atonal, in the sense that it doesn't conform to conventional tonality. There is a central pitch in many of his works, but not a functional key structure, as you would find in baroque, classic, and romantic works. Most of his sonorities can't be analyzed in the way you would analyze a I6/4 to V7 to I progression, i.e. a perfect authentic cadence in common practice music.

Tone rows are something else entirely, but suffice it to say, Bartok never used one.

Post by Edvin February 5, 2007 (14 of 44)
Sorry, but you do not quote an educated concert-going collegue of yours. You quote an ignorant, conservative prat who hasn´t got a clue when it comes to matters musical. Everyone has opinions. But if you think that Bartok is modern...oh dear.

You don´t have to like Bartok. To be honest, he is not one of my favorites. But this evening I listened to one of my favorite pieces by Monteverdi, Non Havea Febo Ancora, and it is full of really clashing dissonances. And then the Bartok second piano concerto, all I can say is WOW.

Bartok was a great composer and he demanded the utmost of you as a listener. Especially in his quartets. No hiding in colours there.

Still, give me an example where Bartok is atonal.

Post by Beagle February 5, 2007 (15 of 44)
Much of Bartok's music is atonal, in the sense that it doesn't conform to conventional tonality.
Conventional tonality presumably refers to the Major and Minor keys, which are a late development in western music: a reduction of what 'sounds right' from seven modes to two scales. Modern compositions which are not "in the key of..." are referred to as 'atonal'.

Folk-song is typically modal. Bach, Beethoven, Debussy et al. sometimes utilise the old modes (especially dorian, lydian, mixolydian) -- and the Russians are never far from the modal music of the Orthodox Church. To my ears, Bartók's motifs and melodies are grounded in the modal music of the early eastern church, although filtered through hungarian tradition and Bartók's own playfulness.

For an overview of modal scales:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_mode

Post by Beagle February 5, 2007 (16 of 44)
Edvin said:
Sorry, but you do not quote an educated concert-going collegue of yours.

PhD Durham, and I've seen him at the concert hall.

Post by ramesh February 5, 2007 (17 of 44)
It may be that Edvin is referring to 'atonal' in the strict musicological sense, rather than the conventional sense [ ie anything more than Richard Claydermann/ Lord of the Rings soundtrack / Star Spangled Banner / Star Wars theme with some diminished sevenths is effectively atonal. Unless it is a Mozart sonata played by one's-shit-for-brains progeny, in which case everything one's child plays sounds like lovely harmony ].

Hence, here 'atonal' would mean the pure serial/ dodecaphonic style without the notion of any key hierarchy. Most people would consider Webern an 'atonal-serial' composer, but actually, all his strictly serial works could be fitted on one CD.

Does anyone have access to Taruskin's 'Oxford History of Western Music' with his definitions of atonality?

Post by Edvin February 6, 2007 (18 of 44)
Beagle said:

Modern compositions which are not "in the key of..." are referred to as 'atonal'.

Folk-song is typically modal. Bach, Beethoven, Debussy et al. sometimes utilise the old modes (especially dorian, lydian, mixolydian) -- and the Russians are never far from the modal music of the Orthodox Church. To my ears, Bartók's motifs and melodies are grounded in the modal music of the early eastern church, although filtered through hungarian tradition and Bartók's own playfulness.

For an overview of modal scales:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_mode

Modality is not the same as atonality. Far from it.
PhD and still a prat. I´m not surprised.

Post by Edvin February 6, 2007 (19 of 44)
ramesh said:

It may be that Edvin is referring to 'atonal' in the strict musicological sense, rather than the conventional sense [ ie anything more than Richard Claydermann/ Lord of the Rings soundtrack / Star Spangled Banner / Star Wars theme with some diminished sevenths is effectively atonal. Unless it is a Mozart sonata played by one's-shit-for-brains progeny, in which case everything one's child plays sounds like lovely harmony ].

Hence, here 'atonal' would mean the pure serial/ dodecaphonic style without the notion of any key hierarchy. Most people would consider Webern an 'atonal-serial' composer, but actually, all his strictly serial works could be fitted on one CD.

What??? Atonal...lack of tonality. Not the same as free tonal, modal etc.

Post by The Seventh Taylor February 6, 2007 (20 of 44)
Beagle said:

Sometimes I mutter to myself au français, especially around food. Sometimes I mutter to myself auf Deutsch, especially if disgusted by something. I wish I could converse with myself in Hungarian, especially when I feel like drowning myself in Pure Music.

Thanks, Beagle, for the highly enlightening review.

Hungarian is a beautiful language. As for late night thoughts: now and then I mutter something in Hungarian, mostly to my wife, in bed. Oh if only I would comprehend this tongue better!
One of the language books I have used in attempting to achieve this mentioned this wonderful example: take the sentence "I love you", which translates into "szeretlek". In what other language do the article, the verb and the subject i.e. the lover, the loving and the loved one melt together into a single word?

Anyways, as for Bartók: I know too little about musical theory to join the discussion about atonal music. I'll also admit I am still a novice in the world of classical music. But the only piece of him I have on SACD sounds gorgeous to me. Not atonal in any way. No nails on chalk board at all. It's "Romanian Folk Dances, Sz 68" as performed by Iván Fischer and his Budapest Festival Orchestra on a lovely disc that came bundled with my SACD player but is not covered in the SA-CD.net database.

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 next

Closed