Thread: Late Night Thoughts on Listening to Bartók

Posts: 44
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 next

Post by Beagle February 3, 2007 (1 of 44)
[quoted from an earlier post:]

This is about music, and therefore not in my Review. It is a doomed exercise, namely an attempt to convert non-Bartók-listeners into Bartók fans. Why bother? Only because Bartók's genius deserves better from you.

I sincerely DO like Bartók, i.e. I'm not faking an enthusiasm for personal-image sake. Granted, I have abnormal taste in music. But the fate of those poor blighters who are cursed with 'normal taste in music' makes me laugh, cry and run away. Fortunately, most of us on this site have escaped their fate. I have not always listened to Bartók, and I am sorry to say that I can't remember whether I liked it at first-listen, or if it grew. I do remember NOT liking Bach or Mozart (there's still plenty of Mozart I can live without).

What do I hear in Bartók? Firstly, I DON'T hear 'fingernails-on-chalkboard', and you won't either. Nor will you hear randomly generated rows of notes. I DO hear a melodic, singing music, sung in a language which is at once 'older than time' and 'thoroughly modern'. It is neither capital-K Classical nor capital-R Romantic, and yet it has a classic-like structure and a romantic-like lyricism.

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.

Post by Beagle February 3, 2007 (2 of 44)
The following is intended to serve as a preface to my two reviews of
Quartets, 1 & 2
/showreviews/4229
Quartets 5 & 6
Bartok: String Quartets Nos. 5 & 6 - Parkanyi Quartet


BARTÓK THE MAGYAR

Other composers have precursors and followers: Mozart snuggles comfortably between Haydn and Beethoven. Béla Bartók doesn’t fit; he isn’t even Viennese. For such reasons, I have always found him easier to listen to than to talk about. The following words are written as a preface to reviews of his Six String Quartets, and stretch from fact to mere opinion, with a lot of ‘personal impressions’ in between.

Béla Bartók was born in the same year as my grandmother, and is therefore rather close to us in time. But he was born into the finno-ugaric language family, which means that I have more in common with the sanskrit authors of the Rig Veda than I have with Béla, linguistically -- including musical language. In his own words, “The musical language of a ‘national composer’ must be as natural to him as his native tongue”.

It is no surprise that Bartók looked to the west when he began to compose. It was Strauss’ Also Sprach Zarathustra which tipped the young pianist into composing, and Bluebeard’s Castle can be heard as an hommage to Verklärte Nacht by Strauss’ protégé Schönberg. Béla could have continued down that path, perhaps allying himself as a foreign correspondent to the Second Viennese School – but he didn’t. If the more relaxed passages of Berg sound like the more agitated passages of Bartók, it is the latter’s influence on the former.

Like Shostakovich a generation later, Béla had the good fortune to be tossed out into the hinterlands to search for Music of The People. I recently heard an interview with a now-ancient village girl, who sang ‘Laszlo Feher Stole a Horse’ for the young blonde boy from the City more than a century ago. Bartók is a magyar, not in the nationalist-fervor sense that Sibelius is a finn; he simply admitted to himself that he was not a Wiener. Immersion in folk tunes provided a detour around the sentimental and academic music of his day, back to early modal church music. Nor is Bartók’s music folkish (except where it is explicitly labeled as such); it is a personal music, conceived by a thoroughly hungarian mind.

Those who listen to Bartók can only laugh at those who do not, when the non-listeners say his music is ‘atonal’ or ‘tone-rows’ or ‘fingernails down a chalk-board’. It isn’t. It isn’t even difficult: Bartók worked very hard to make his music listenable, involving and memorable. Much of his music was an instant transatlantic success in its day, with the top conductors rushing to perform it; have we grown less receptive over the last 50 years? I suspect so.

So much for what Bartók’s music is NOT. What is it? In general terms, it is romantic-lyrical, i.e. long lines that you could sing (if you are so gifted). It is equally classical, in the sense that large forms are carefully built up from small motifs. The overall structure is often a symmetrical ‘arch’ with a central ‘keystone’ movement flanked by two or more ‘piers’. The arch is a suitable alternative to the old exposition-development-recapitulation of the sonata; Beethoven uses something like it in those late quartets with ‘too many movements’. You must listen long and hard to ‘hear’ the arches; what you hear immediately is what I call The Bartók Interval, a typical distance in tone between two notes. It isn’t a nice third or a nicer fifth; it tends to be a falling fourth or sixth, and thus keeps things in a minor-sounding mode. Bartók’s music is further distinguished by a boldness of technique, whether it’s pitting a tiny celesta against an orchestra or specifying six different kinds of pizzicato for strings. His rhythms are bold without being dance-like… would he be more popular if one could dance to him?

Bartók’s life is a strong argument against a career in music. He was rich in fame, but dragged down by physical poverty just above the gold-paved streets of America. His reputation continues among those who care -- his Six Quartets are always compared favorably with the Last Quartets of Beethoven (but I wouldn’t want to live on the royalties).

Post by Windsurfer February 3, 2007 (3 of 44)
Ahh Beagle!

I have thoughly enjoyed reading these two posts and the reviews.

Thank you so much!
Bruce

Post by tream February 3, 2007 (4 of 44)
Beagle said:

The following is intended to serve as a preface to my two reviews of
Quartets, 1 & 2
/showreviews/4229
Quartets 5 & 6
Bartok: String Quartets Nos. 5 & 6 - Parkanyi Quartet


THE MAGYAR

Other composers have precursors and followers: Mozart snuggles comfortably between Haydn and Beethoven. Béla Bartók doesn’t fit; he isn’t even Viennese. For such reasons, I have always found him easier to listen to than to talk about. The following words are written as a preface to reviews of his Six String Quartets, and stretch from fact to mere opinion, with a lot of ‘personal impressions’ in between.

Béla Bartók was born in the same year as my grandmother, and is therefore rather close to us in time. But he was born into the finno-ugaric language family, which means that I have more in common with the sanskrit authors of the Rig Veda than I have with Béla, linguistically -- including musical language. In his own words, “The musical language of a ‘national composer’ must be as natural to him as his native tongue”.

It is no surprise that Bartók looked to the west when he began to compose. It was Strauss’ Also Sprach Zarathustra which tipped the young pianist into composing, and Bluebeard’s Castle can be heard as an hommage to Verklärte Nacht by Strauss’ protégé Schönberg. Béla could have continued down that path, perhaps allying himself as a foreign correspondent to the Second Viennese School – but he didn’t. If the more relaxed passages of Berg sound like the more agitated passages of Bartók, it is the latter’s influence on the former.

Like Shostakovich a generation later, Béla had the good fortune to be tossed out into the hinterlands to search for Music of The People. I recently heard an interview with a now-ancient village girl, who sang ‘Laszlo Feher Stole a Horse’ for the young blonde boy from the City more than a century ago. Bartók is a magyar, not in the nationalist-fervor sense that Sibelius is a finn; he simply admitted to himself that he was not a Wiener. Immersion in folk tunes provided a detour around the sentimental and academic music of his day, back to early modal church music. Nor is Bartók’s music folkish (except where it is explicitly labeled as such); it is a personal music, conceived by a thoroughly hungarian mind.

Those who listen to Bartók can only laugh at those who do not, when the non-listeners say his music is ‘atonal’ or ‘tone-rows’ or ‘fingernails down a chalk-board’. It isn’t. It isn’t even difficult: Bartók worked very hard to make his music listenable, involving and memorable. Much of his music was an instant transatlantic success in its day, with the top conductors rushing to perform it; have we grown less receptive over the last 50 years? I suspect so.

So much for what Bartók’s music is NOT. What is it? In general terms, it is romantic-lyrical, i.e. long lines that you could sing (if you are so gifted). It is equally classical, in the sense that large forms are carefully built up from small motifs. The overall structure is often a symmetrical ‘arch’ with a central ‘keystone’ movement flanked by two or more ‘piers’. The arch is a suitable alternative to the old exposition-development-recapitulation of the sonata; Beethoven uses something like it in those late quartets with ‘too many movements’. You must listen long and hard to ‘hear’ the arches; what you hear immediately is what I call The Bartók Interval, a typical distance in tone between two notes. It isn’t a nice third or a nicer fifth; it tends to be a falling fourth or sixth, and thus keeps things in a minor-sounding mode. Bartók’s music is further distinguished by a boldness of technique, whether it’s pitting a tiny celesta against an orchestra or specifying six different kinds of pizzicato for strings. His rhythms are bold without being dance-like… would he be more popular if one could dance to him?

Bartók’s life is a strong argument against a career in music. He was rich in fame, but dragged down by physical poverty just above the gold-paved streets of America. His reputation continues among those who care -- his Six Quartets are always compared favorably with the Last Quartets of Beethoven (but I wouldn’t want to live on the royalties).

Beagle, thanks for your passionate plea for BARTÓK. I have collected quite a few discs of his music, but I have to admit that I don't play them as often as I should. Maybe I should.

Post by Polly Nomial February 4, 2007 (5 of 44)
Wonderful stuff (both this thread and your reviews) - thank you in every way imaginable (except for helping to empty my bank account a little more!)

Post by Peter February 4, 2007 (6 of 44)
Beagle, many thanks for your thoughtful and illuminating essay and reviews.

Post by Edvin February 4, 2007 (7 of 44)
Beagle said:

, when the non-listeners say his music is ‘atonal’ or ‘tone-rows’ or ‘fingernails down a chalk-board’.

Nice text, but who are the people that say this? I have never read anything to that effect. Bartok is one of the most played and recorded of all 20th-century composers. He is hardly considered difficult or modern today.

Post by ramesh February 4, 2007 (8 of 44)
To a large extent, I agree with Edvin : certainly musicians don't consider him difficult or modern. However, he has a reputation with conservative audiences for being difficult or modern. I've noticed several people who like rock music are keen on Bartok but indifferent to R Strauss except for the latter's glitzy tone poem known as the '2001 A Space Odyssey'.

Post by Edvin February 5, 2007 (9 of 44)
The problem with conservative audiences is that they don´t understand the meaning of the dissonance. But then, they are not the people who decide the status of a composer. But to call Bartok´s music "atonal" is ignorance and nothing else. "Tone-rows"...? Is that the circle of fifths in the Music for strings...perhaps? And what is a tone-row anyway. A row of tones, ie a tune, a melody.

Post by Beagle February 5, 2007 (10 of 44)
Thank you all for the appreciative words, and to Bruce for goading me on. These little essays were hard work; now I want to go back to listening. (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.)

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 next

Closed