Talk:Béla Bartók

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Biography

For the general reader I would recommend Kenneth Chalmer's book listed in the Further Reading section. It is relatively recent and written for the educated layman who does not have a background in music theory or composition. I've drawn my edits from the book. --Phyllis1753 (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In this case, you should cite Chalmers at the appropriate place in the text, and move the biblio entry from "Further reading" to the "Bibliography".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Wooden Prince date

Somebody changed the date of The Wooden Prince from 1917 to 1927. 1917 was the date of the premiere (in Budapest by the Hungarian State Opera), and Kenneth Thompson's Dictionary of 20th Century Composers gives the composition date as 1914-16 - I expect these dates are inscribed on the score, but I don't have a copy so can't check at source. In any case, 1927 is definitely wrong, and I've fixed the article accordingly. --Camembert

[edit] Statue of Bartok

A statue of Bartok by Imre Varga, was unveiled on 2nd October 2004 outside South Kensington tube station in London. Present at the event was the composer Peter Frankl, the conductor Sir Charles Mackerras and the politicians David Mellor and Michael Portillo.

[edit] picture of statue

Here is a picture of the new statue http://www.peterwarlock.org/APPEAL.HTM

[edit] Sânnicolau Mare

  • Halló! Romanian ortography has changed. Sînnicolau Mare became Sânnicolau Mare. I lived there. To my knowledge, there was / is a memorial house. Regards Gangleri 23:45, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)


[edit] Reception

... use of tonality and nontonal methods unique to each piece, which Fred Maus (2004, p.164) compares to the bias towards monosexuality and against bisexuality (see biphobia)

Just because someone wrote a book suggesting that a composer's use of particular techniques implies homophobia doesn't make it true. I don't believe the comment is illuminating or even relevant to an understanding of Bartok's musical style. Not that the rest of the section is much better in that respect, but it does quote a well-known and respected composer and critic.

--Stephen Burnett 08:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

What is wrong with the rest of the section? Hyacinth 13:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
the "identification of the personal exigency with the fundamental musical exigency of the epoch" - you really have to ask? Although the words may give it a superficial resemblance to English prose, it's actually written in that mechanical, distorted dialect into which academics are apt to lapse when they're afraid that what they want to say sounds far too simple to justify the status they have. --Stephen Burnett 12:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
BB deserves better than this. "Reception" substitutes academic backbiting for public poularity. What about Bartok's reception in ordinary concert life? Compare the numbers of Bartok titles with Hindemith and Schoenberg on a consumer-led label like Naxos records.Jedermann 16:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Hoo-wee. This is a very thorny area, but here goes. Yes, Babbitt's remarks are in his usual impenetrable style. (I have a degree in musicology and I have a hard time getting most of that twaddle.) I think what he's trying to say is that Bartok always sounds like Bartok (maybe excepting the super-early stuff, I'd add), which is a good thing. But then there are people like Martinu and Walton, who also always sound like themselves but who are in my view generally less-riveting figures...I often have a very hard time being able to tell which piece of theirs is which; even though the thumbprint is always there it's also always being used the same way. In contrast, Bartok's individual pieces generally have their own individual personalities. And then again, is the commercial recording industry really a reliable barometer of public reception beyond a certain point? Don't forget that it took Bartok an awfully long time to work his way in from the fringes to the central position he has held for the past 50 years or so. And there are plenty of his amazing, wonderful, important scores that don't turn up that often. When's the last time you saw the Miraculous Mandarin staged? He got very hostile receptions for many years in the 1920s and 30s. I can't prove it but I think even Stravinsky did a good deal better than Bartok in that period.
In any case, I don't think WP is the place for the ultra-academic mumbo-jumbo that the Babbitt quotation represents. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 16:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I had no idea I was speaking to the living! Yes, I was being provocative mentioning Naxos, but should 'reception' include analysis that you don't find in Stravinsky or Hindemith on WP, while excluding general popularity, and influence (e.g. Ligeti)? Jedermann 11:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This reception section is a rather sorry attempt at what it should be. I don't see why the only evaluation of Bartók's reception should be only be by an esoteric "musicologist". If I had the time, I'd write a much more encompassing section regarding his reception. Either way, I find the current section to be rather... stupid (sorry, I couldn't find a better word for it).

I propose that the "Reception" section be deleted until someone write an actual section about Bartók's reception. As of now it simply describes not only pure criticism, but criticism from only one perspective (Babbitt's). For a decent section that details the reception of Bartók's music, there should be more than one instance of praise and more than one instance of criticism. To me there's something clearly inaccurate about this section when the perspective expressed strongly goes against the general consensus (most figures in music actually regard Bartók's music rather highly). If nobody can provide a reasonable argument in a reasonable amount of time, I'll just delete it.Pianoman314 22:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it can be renamed instead of deleted.--Atavi 14:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I did consider that possibility of renaming it to a "Criticism" seciton however it would still not address the narrow perspective expressed by having one person's criticism. I think that for the time being it would just be best for the article to not include such a primitive section. I think that the article could definitely use a reception section, but not one that is so crude. I'll have the time soon enough to write a decent section, but for now I think it'd probably just be best to delete what little is there.Pianoman314 07:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I generally support the inclusion of as much material as is available. But if you think it's better without this section, I won't argue against it. I look forward to seeing a new such section. It is certainly needed.--Atavi 11:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the section's contents, shifting the focus on Babbitt, so that it is clear that the judgement is his, and not necessarily Bartók's "reception".--Atavi 18:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion?

The article doesn't mention Bartok's religion - what did he believe in? --Palnatoke 08:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently he was raised Roman Catholic, became an atheist and Nietzscheian, and later became a Unitarian ([1]). Hyacinth 13:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Octatonic scale

Where should the paragraph on Bartok's use of the octatonic scale go? Here or at the octatonic scale article (as with Riff)?

  • In his Bagatelles, Improvisations, Fourth Quartet, Cantata Profana, and Improvisations the octatonic is used with the diatonic, whole tone, and other "abstract pitch formations" (Antokoletz 1984) all "entwined...in a very complex mixture. Bartók does use the octatonic collection exclusively in his "Diminished Fifth" (no.101, vol. 4, Mikrokosmos) and "Harvest Song" (no.33 of the Forty-Four Duos for two violins) and "in each piece, changes of motive and phrase correspond to changes from one of the three octatonic scales to another, and one can easily select a single central and referential form of 8-28 in the context of each complete piece." However, even his larger pieces also feature "sections that are intelligable as 'octatonic music'" (Wilson 1992, p.26-27)

Hyacinth 14:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] #Music

The whole section Music is remarkably jargon-full (and also remarkably full of typots and unidiomatic English. "analysed as"? ???). I'd suggest a complete overhaul, even perhaps a removal to a subsection to do so if needed, if the section is needed in its present form at all. Schissel-nonLop! 21:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date overlinking

Please do not link ("wikify"--gawd, how I hate that in-group jargon!) years in this article. It is completely useless and unnecessary. Nobody clicks on, say, 1918 to see "gosh, I wonder what else happened that year?". (Statistically speaking.) They just litter up the article, and are a case of overlinking.

In case you're wondering, the reason month and day dates (like June 18) are linked is so that users can set date display preferences and see dates displayed in their regional format (such as "18 June" in the UK). --ILike2BeAnonymous 21:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

I just changed it so the page "Bartok" goes straight to "Bela Bartok", but I ran into a problem: at the top of the Bartok page I have a line for disambiguation, but I just realised that this will appear not just for people who searched for "Bartok" but also for people who searched for "Bela Bartok", and those people don't need disambiguation at all.

Is there a standard Wikipedia way of dealing with this? I, and others, strongly feel that "Bartok" should go straight to the Bela Bartok page.

Ckerr 16:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Romanian Folk Dances

While exploring the classical composers I have found notes of more than 2 Romanian Folk Dances, that are mentioned in the list of works section (there seem to be 6). I'm not an expert and I won't edit the page, but if someone else could elaborate this subject would be appreciated. http://www.classiccat.net/bartok_b/56.htm

[edit] portrait

Where did that nice photo of Mr. Bartók go? He was such an elegant gentleman, we should have a good picture of him. :)K. Lásztocska 02:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Media Section

I have opted to delete the Media section of the article because the media listed there are no longer available. --Joseph Montalbo 17:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Works list

Should the works list be broken out into its own page? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 19:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

A comment from the article which really belongs here:HenryFlower 17:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

However, Babbitt praised Bartók for the "identification of the personal exigency with the fundamental musical exigency of the epoch". umm, what on Earth does that mean? Can't we find some better quotes? - K. Lastochka

[edit] Cataloguing

I've added a brief note on the fiendishly complicated cataloguing; unfortunately all I had to go on were some liner notes, so I'm sure there's more to be said (I think Mr Somfai's written a whole book on it, if someone's feeling keen!). HenryFlower 17:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Family

This article could be improved by the inclusion of information (dates, names, etc.) about Bartok's parents, his divorce, second marriage, birth of 2nd son. Also this article calls his first son both Bela Bartok III and Bela Bartok Jr., which is it? --Design 19:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Topography: rights names of regions of folk music research

I changed the geographical and topographical terms in the article, deleting errors and generally making the text more precise, as required in an encyclopedia. The Perfect article: is precise and explicit; it is free of vague generalities and half-truths that may arise from an imperfect grasp of the subject

I adjust the following passages which contain geographical names:

  1. Eastern European and Middle Eastern folk music
  2. Central Europe, the Balkans, and Algeria; he also later collected in Turkey
  3. rural Hungary and eastern Europe, [...] central and western Europe

The first line of the article read "Béla Viktor János Bartók ([...]) was a Hungarian composer, pianist and collector of Eastern European and Middle Eastern folk music." I deleted "Eastern European and Middle Eastern" for two reasons:

  1. This concerns geographical details to be mentioned later in the article, not in the ‘‘very first‘‘ sentence about Bartók.
  2. The terms are vague and not even precise and therefor not suitable for an encyclopedia:
    1. "Eastern Europe" is a vague term. The main areas Bartók collected music from are also often included in the term ‘Central Europe‘ e.g. in the Hungarian Wikipedia. "Folk music of the then Austro-Hungarian Empire" would be better. This covers almost all of his folk music research. Still better would be ‘Carpathian Basin‘, as this is a topographical name, without any political or national connotation and doesn‘t change borders on the map. This excludes Bulgaria, but "Eastern European" ALSO excludes Bulgaria (see the Wiki article).
    2. "Middle eastern" was added at 16:40, 26 November 2005 by Badagnani because „he also collected music in Algeria and Turkey.“ Well:
      1. Algeria is NOT part of the Middle_East.
      2. He was once briefly in Turkey which is the very northern tip of the Middle-East (and originally NOT part of the Middle East, see Wiki article). Thus "Turkish" would be more precise (and thus preferable in wikipedia), but that shows how unimportant it is, definitely not important enough for the first sentence.

So, I think the start of the article is better and stronger now.

Facts:

  1. FIELD TRIPS Bartók’s research trips were almost all in the then Kingdom of Hungary (part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, topographical term: Carpathian Basin) This included Hungarian, Slovakian, Romanian, Ukrainian, Serbio-Croatian, German and Bulgarian Music. There is a multitude of extra terms for different ethnic groups and regions he studied ‘‘within‘‘ the Carpathian Basin potentially causing confusion‚ (Tóth, Román, Walachian, Szekler, Csángó, Transylvanian, etc.) (and do you know the difference between slavic, slovakian, slavonian and slovenian?) [ref: Béla Bartók junior page 26 or 56 of Western Music, Grout 1988]. As far as I have read (frankly, quite some), his only field trips outside the Carpathian Basin (and Wallachia and Moldovia) were to Algeria (1913, Biskra region) and Turkey (1936).
  2. DESK REASEARCH. Bartók studied other people’s folk music collections from additional areas like Ukraine and Russia..

See for instance: Gillies, M. editor (1993) The Bartók Companion. ISBN 0-931340-74-8 p.26 and pp. 51-63 (chapter ‘The ethnomusicologist’) Stevens, H. (1953) The Life and Music of Béla Bartók ISBN-13: 978-0198163497 p.47 and further.

By the way, I recently joined, and made an article on his set of five piano pieces, Out of Doors

--RobertKennesy (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is Bartok's music in the public domain?

Does anyone know? I'd particularly like to know what the case is in the United States (and maybe Canada). On the one hand, I've read about Australian musicians who, as of 2003, were unable to perform his work in Europe and the U.S. On the other hand, this article says that his works entered the public domain in 1995 (maybe only in Australia?) due to the "50 years after creator's death" law, but were put back under copyright in 1998. On the other hand, the Copyright Term Extension Act says that "Unlike copyright extension legislation in the European Union, the Sonny Bono Act did not revive copyrights that had already expired."

So if Bartok's works entered the public domain in the U.S. in 1995 (as they did in Australia), they can't be under copyright now. If they did not, then they'll be under copyright until 2015 unless Disney bribes lobbies congress into extending copyright again. I guess the latter scenario can be the case if they weren't registered in the U.S. until after Bartok's death.

Does anyone know what the situation is? Esn (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but Universal Edition has the copyright to a number of works and listed Bartók among their composers because of whom IMSLP closed down. He was actually the first composer listed. The problem seemed to be that in the US and the EU his copyright isn't over, but in Canada it is.

RobertKennesy (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that answers my question, though. My question is: did Bartok's work EVER slip into the public domain in the U.S. between the years 1995 and 1998? Because if it did, that would mean that according to the law, it is also public domain right now, regardless of what any corporation says. Universal Edition is located in the European Union; the EU's version of the Sonny Bono Act did put all works previously in the public domain back under copyright, so what they are saying is true but does not necessarily apply to the US. It is quite conceivable that Bartok's work is public domain in Canada and the US, but not in Europe. Esn (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Magyar folk music

In the section "Early Musical Career" it says there was a misperception as to what was the real Magyar folk music - can it be clarified a bit? I think saying "most people" is a bit vague, and also I'm not sure if it's saying Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsodies use Gypsy tunes because of a general misperception, or because of Liszt's own misperception. I hope that makes sense. Also are we still using the word Gypsy? Philip Howard (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Liszt's own misperception was part and parcel of a general misperception of Hungarian folk music among Western Europeans (and even many Hungarians, and those peculiar characters like Liszt who were a bit of both.) With regards to the word "Gypsy," I think it's appropriate in this concept because we are referring to a musical style known then and now as "Gypsy music," despite its not being the authentic folk music of the Roma people. K. Lásztocskatalk 01:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Frequency of quoting folk songs verbatim

I changed the outright wrong sentence stating Bartók did not quote folk songs verbatim. He is extremely well know for his many arrangements, for instance his 'For Children' for solo piano.

One proof of this is that it now states in another paragraph:

Bartók assigned opus numbers to his works three times, the last of these series ending with [...]. He ended this practice because of the difficulty of distinguishing between original works and ethnographic arrangements, and between major and minor works. [Bold added]

In the present List of compositions by Béla Bartók (which mostly contains art music and omitting many folk music arrangements), I found the following pieces quoting folk music verbatim:

  1. Romanian Dance Sz. 47a, BB 61
  2. Romanian Folk Dances for small orchestra
  3. Transylvanian Dances
  4. Hungarian Peasant Songs
  5. 5 Hungarian Folksongs
  6. 4 Old Hungarian folksongs
  7. 4 Slovak Folksongs
  8. Hungarian Folksongs
  9. Slovak Folksongs
  10. Székely Songs
  11. 2 Romanian Folk Dances
  12. 15 Hungarian Peasant Songs
  13. For Children Sz. 42, BB 53, [Books 1 & 2]
  14. Romanian Folk Dances (1915)
  15. Sonatina (1915)
  16. Three Rondos on Slovak Folktunes
  17. Three Hungarian Folksongs from the Csík District
  18. 2 Hungarian Folksongs Sz. 33b, BB 44
  19. 4 Slovakian Folksongs Sz. 35b, BB 46
  20. 8 Hungarian Folksongs Sz. 64, BB 47
  21. 20 Hungarian Folksongs Sz. 92, BB 98
  22. Székely Folksong Piros Alma... Sz. 30, BB 34
  23. From Gyergyó Sz. 35, BB 45a
  24. Hungarian Folksong Sz. 109, BB deest
  25. Hungarian Folksongs #1-10 Sz. 33, BB 42
  26. Hungarian Folksongs #11-20 Sz. 33a, BB 43

Did I proof my point sufficiently?

--RobertKennesy (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] modernism

I am not a specialist in modernism, but I am sure the great modernists were very interested in music from previous era's (neo-classicm, neo-baroque). Stravinsky, Schoenberg and Bartók all studied music up from medieval up to the then contemporary music. Kundera writes beautifully about this in his 'betrayed legacies'.

So this made me write:

"Bartók was in the first place a modernist, and as such broke with the Romantic tradition. Typically for a modernist, he sought inspiration from new sources: folk music and the music of the classical, baroque and earlier periods."

But feel free to consider this a non-sequitur and leve the text as you changed it. Just remember that Bartók thought revolution in art meant a set back of 'thousands of years', true art only evolves and build on what was doen before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertKennesy (talk • contribs) 09:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Greetings! I was attempting to address this comment by Jerome Kohl. Perhaps you meant "new places" rather than "new sources" -- since they are old, not new, sources. So something like ... "Typically for a modernist, he sought inspiration from new places; in Bartók's case this involved pre-modern traditions such as rural and folk music, as well as some of the musical practices of the Baroque era ..." (By the way, maybe it's early in the morning and I'm a little dense, but where is the Baroque influence, other than in use of things like fugue? or is that it?) Thanks for your work on the article and feel free to change anything! Antandrus (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Antandrus, your edit makes much better sense, and it has a reference, as well. I remain a little wary about equating modernism simply with a break from Romanticism, even though it has become fashionable to do so in music-critical circles. RobertKennesy's new statements here deepen my concern about this (I cannot imagine a plainer antimodernist position than that "true art only evolves and build[s] on what was done before"). Equating anti-Romanticism with modernism can make strange bedfellows—in some cases of neoclassicists with nearly opposite musical agendas (Stravinsky's and Schoenberg's neoclassical phases, for example). Then there are composers like Schoenberg who maintained close stylistic ties with the Romantic tradition, and yet are all but universally labelled "modernists" (never mind "neoclassicists"). To compound the confusion, there are composers with strong neoclassical ties who at the same time firmly declined to break with Romanticism (Samuel Barber, for example, or George Enescu). For this reason, I think it would be a good idea to provide a reference (and this should not be at all difficult) for the claim that "Bartók was in the first place a modernist".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally find the label "modernist" to be more confusing than clarifying. If a modernist is someone who breaks with the Romantic tradition, Schoenberg and Bartok would both, I believe, claim that they weren't. Schoenberg claimed that he created the serial method precisely to allow him to continue the Romantic tradition, not to break with it: his idea was to create a formal framework that would replace the diatonic system, and would allow composers to continue using Romantic forms (see Griffiths, A Concise HIstory of Modern Music). I don't think that Bartok, either, saw himself as breaking with the Romantic tradition; rather, he used the rhythms and tonalities of folk music in the large-scale structures of late Romanticism. As Baron points out (Intimate Music: A History of the Idea of Chamber Music), much of Bartok's music that, to western ears, sounds atonal and arhythmic, sounds surprisingly normal to a Magyar folk fiddler.

There were certainly composers of the 20th century who considered themselves iconoclasts and breakers of tradition. Stravinsky was one; Debussy was another. Schoenberg and Bartok, I believe, were definitely not. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The two of us, at least, are in agreement on this. I would only add that this attitude is by no means limited to the twentieth century: Philippe de Vitry in the early 14th century, Vicentino in the middle of the 16th, and Monteverdi in the 17th (and likely Beethoven in the 19th) also considered themselves breakers of the traditional molds—even while simultaneously, the cases of Vicentino and Monteverdi, reverting back to (what they believed were) much earlier styles or techniques. In the meantime, I have found a discrepant statement further down in this article that mentions Romanticism as one of Bartók's influences!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I am happy to leave it up to you experts to make and change sentences on modernism and Bartók. Actually, mine is gone already. Are you aware that it says "Bartók is an influential modernist and ..." for a long time and no one even asks for a citation?

My statement about Romanticism is aimed at the Concerto for Orchestra and Third Piano concerto which I think sound largely Romantic. But my amateur opinion (or even feeling) will undoubtedly fail against academic truth. By the way, comments on my article on Out of Doors is more than welcome. RobertKennesy (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)