# What's the deal with Bartok?



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

There seems to be general agreement that his music is one of the high points of the 20th century. But I've heard most of his orchestral and piano works, and to me it's all one big . It's like somebody speaking Danish to me; it all sounds very interesting and exotic, but I don't understand a word of it. 

Is it supposed to be affecting? Mysterious? Bourgeois? Distant? I can't tell!


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

A lot of it strikes me as being cathartic and even violent. That's not intended to be derogatory--I like to listen to Bartok when I'm not feeling well or I'm in a bad mood.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Well, I can suggest a methodology, but being _clear_ about it is another thing.

First, listen to the mostly non-tinkered-with representations of folk music for piano solo, from the first decade of the 20th C. Second, continue that listening, to the 'remodeling' of folk music from the early/middle of the 2nd decade. Then, be aware that Bartók studied Debussy's music later in the decade.

That regimen may give you a foundation for appreciating Bartók's music - or it may not. I didn't get into his music that way, although I went that route later, and it caused some 'fine adjustments' in my appreciation.

The orchestral music, at least from the time of the Divertimento, is subtly layered. Peeling away those layers with repeated hearings is one of my finer listening pleasures.


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

Bartok's a crazy kid with a big heart.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

The Concerto for Orchestra was one of my breakthrough pieces overcoming my prejudice against 20th century music. I suggest repeated listenings of that piece. If you feel like you are making no progress, come back to it one day and it'll eventually click. This is a true 20th century symphonic masterpiece of the highest order.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Bartok's music I think is kind of an acquired taste. Its kind of sour and tangy - but in a good way. It might not hit your musical tastebuds like the sweet savory melodies of Schubert, but it has a richness all its own. The music I find exquisitely layered and while at times dissonant also very clean, and mathematically precise - like Bach. I would agree that discovering the different things going on within the layers, is one of the joys of Bartok's music. But I would agree its not always 'easy' or 'relaxing' listening. Bartok is quite intense.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

clavichorder said:


> The Concerto for Orchestra was one of my breakthrough pieces overcoming my prejudice against 20th century music. I suggest repeated listenings of that piece. If you feel like you are making no progress, come back to it one day and it'll eventually click. This is a true 20th century symphonic masterpiece of the highest order.


I think it was _the _breakthrough piece for me. My wardrobe to Narnia.

I'm not sure that I understand Bartok either. I just like him.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

Fsharpmajor said:


> A lot of it strikes me as being cathartic and even violent. That's not intended to be derogatory--I like to listen to Bartok when I'm not feeling well or I'm in a bad mood.


Cathartic, yes. I never knew classical music could be so ugly and yet (or thus) so enjoyable. Bartok was way ahead of his time with that rap metal 'tude.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

tdc said:


> Bartok's music I think is kind of an acquired taste. Its kind of sour and tangy...
> [...]


Hah. A strangely apt description. When orange juice just begins to work - is only slightly fizzy - I describe its taste that way. The MSPC in particular strikes me as 'slightly sour and tangy'.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Take a listen to his one act opera, _Bluebeard's Castle_. It's just under an hour long and was his only opera he wrote. That might open up a new avenue if you want to try something different in his oeuvre.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Ravellian said:


> There seems to be general agreement that his music is one of the high points of the 20th century. But I've heard most of his orchestral and piano works, and to me it's all one big . It's like somebody speaking Danish to me; it all sounds very interesting and exotic, but I don't understand a word of it.
> 
> Is it supposed to be affecting? Mysterious? Bourgeois? Distant? I can't tell!


Bartok sounds like a straight shooter to my ears. Eccentric, but never pretentious. It's taken me quite a while to really start hearing the details and continuity in some of these works, and I still have a ways to go. I like it this way. It's music that makes me want to listen for the rest of my days.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Some of his works have a "happy" or optimistic ending. Eg. _Divertimento for Strings_, the piano concertos, the _Violin Concerto #2_ (well, not quite, but kind of), the _Sonata for two pianos & percussion_, the _Music for Strings, Percussion & Celesta_. These works show that he was an optimist, even though a lot of these works are tonally and emotionally ambiguous in between the start and finish. But I think he always returns to tonality or melody at the end, or gives the listener a large chunk of it, so he's not to hard to grasp after a few listens. Indeed, I find him a bit formulaic at times as I've been listening to him music for like 20 or more years. But I still find enough in it to keep coming back...


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

tdc said:


> Bartok's music I think is kind of an acquired taste. Its kind of sour and tangy - but in a good way.


Currently, an ensemble I'm playing in is doing Bartok's Piano concerto no.3, and I've had to play a little of it to replace a missing flutist, but I won't really play it in concert I think. All I could sense was it was just barbarism through and through. It could be humorous barbarism, elegant barbarism, but still that at its core. Very sour I have to agree with you. I think it's just his melodies/ideas I don't like, his orchestration is quite like Ravel's for Prokofiev's. Gosh! I wish I was in the group last year when they did Prokofiev's 1st PC.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Currently, an ensemble I'm playing in is doing Bartok's Piano concerto no.3, and I've had to play a little of it to replace a missing flutist, but I won't really play it in concert I think. All I could sense was it was just barbarism through and through. It could be humorous barbarism, elegant barbarism, but still that at its core. Very sour I have to agree with you. I think it's just his melodies/ideas I don't like, his orchestration is quite like Ravel's for Prokofiev's. Gosh! I wish I was in the group last year when they did Prokofiev's 1st PC.


My prediction is you'll end up liking Bartok. When I first started posting here, you weren't even into Prokofiev, it was all Glazunov Glazunov, and maybe a bit of Rimsky Korsakov. 

The fact your ears have now accustomed to the dissonances of Prokofiev, and you are fascinated by guys like Ravel... I think its only a matter of time. Especially since you are playing these pieces.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Speaking of Bartok's 3rd piano concerto, it starts off with such a beautiful and memorable melody. Maybe Huil wasn't hearing this while experiencing such a negative reaction on preliminary exposure?

In my case, I can't seem to enjoy the Prokofiev No. 1 at all. It's like a cup of coffee with too much sugar.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

I really like this description of Bartok.


----------



## fartwriggler (Aug 27, 2011)

I've struggled with Bartok.though I gotta say,along with Shostakovich's string quartets his Concerto for Orchestra is my favourite 20th century work.I think it helps appreciation to try and tune into the folk element that underpins much of his music-It sort of roots it in the earth makes it seem less cerebral and distant.His string quartets often put me in mind of the old country blues guitarists-spiky and raw but delivering a direct and simple emotional truth.Having said all that though I can't say I'm a big fan of his music....


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

starthrower said:


> Speaking of Bartok's 3rd piano concerto, it starts off with such a beautiful and memorable melody. Maybe Huil wasn't hearing this while experiencing such a negative reaction on preliminary exposure?
> 
> In my case, I can't seem to enjoy the Prokofiev No. 1 at all. It's like a cup of coffee with too much sugar.


My reaction wasn't really that negative. I'm indifferent to Bartok for the most part, though some things repulse me. But not that Piano Concerto, and besides, we haven't rehearsed with the pianist yet.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I've put a bit of work into Bartok. The Reiner disk was easy for me, but beyond that it's sometimes been rough going. Right now my favorite Bartok works are the string quartets - maybe my favorite of the 20th century.


----------



## Lipatti (Oct 9, 2010)

Personally, I love Bartok's music. It can be serene and contemplative, but also angry and hysterical. Other times it's just plain creepy. On a more general note, I find it highly captivating, entertaining and above all hypnotic - in a positive sense, of course. My point of entry to his music was the sonata for two pianos and percussion, which was the first of his bigger works that I really liked right from the start.

I should probably mention at this point that I'm half Romanian, and that I've had my fair share of exposure to Romanian folk culture and music throughout my childhood, which maybe helps explain my fondness for his music.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> My reaction wasn't really that negative. I'm indifferent to Bartok for the most part, though some things repulse me. But not that Piano Concerto, and besides, we haven't rehearsed with the pianist yet.


I find that I enjoy the piano concertos more and more over time. They sounded fairly alien and abstract when I first heard them, but now I find the music to be highly engaging and very interesting harmonically and rhythmically speaking.

I'm experiencing the same problem with the string quartets which I'm new to, but hopefully I'll start hearing the music over time.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

There seems to be general agreement that his music is one of the high points of the 20th century. But I've heard most of his orchestral and piano works, and to me it's all one big . It's like somebody speaking Danish to me; it all sounds very interesting and exotic, but I don't understand a word of it.

Then the obvious solution is to learn Danish.

Seriously, how many of us came to Wagner (or opera in general), or Renaissance madrigals, or polyphonic chant, or Beethoven's late quartets, etc... without needing to put forth some effort... without needing to learn the musical "language" or "vocabulary" being employed? Certainly there are limitations as to just how much effort we are willing to put forth weighed against the pleasure a given artist, style, genre is likely to afford. That's a decision to be made by each individual. Personally, I clicked with Bartok rather rapidly. It made sense far more rapidly than Schoenberg... and surely it still grabs me more than either Schoenberg or Stravinsky (The _Rite_ excepted).


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> .... Certainly there are limitations as to just how much effort we are willing to put forth weighed against the pleasure a given artist, style, genre is likely to afford. That's a decision to be made by each individual...




This is true. I like Bartok's music, but not all of it. I can handle most of it, like some things more than others, but the SQ's have not gelled with me at all for whatever reason. I don't really care, I'm not going to be a masochist and listen to them anyway, I already enjoy a number of modern day SQ's by other composers, so why bother? I am not a guru of modern music, I don't and can't love everything equally. I just go by what I like, it's as basic as that. I don't care about it being a deficiency, because I don't think this is if I can for eg. fully enjoy and hear the themes going through something like Elliott Carter's _String Quartet #1_, Berg's _String Quartet Op. 3_, Tippet's _String Quartet #3_ (all "atonal" works). Not saying they're better, I just like these heaps more.



> ...
> Personally, I clicked with Bartok rather rapidly. It made sense far more rapidly than Schoenberg...


Me too, 20 years ago with his main orchestral works, but recently I've turned to Bartok's solo piano works in particular and they have fully delivered. As has the _Sonata for Two Pianos and Percussion_ (just last week, actually!). I think _The Miraculous Mandarin Suite_ is like a _Rite of Spring_ rehash, although a very good one, it doesn't give me anything beyond the original by Stravinsky, which I like but rarely listen to now after like 20 years of knowing it. Which brings me to this:



> ...and surely it still grabs me more than either Schoenberg or Stravinsky (The _Rite_ excepted).


I think Bartok still grabs me when I'm in the right mood or frame of mind, and often it's his simpler works. Recently I've been getting into his folk transcriptions for piano and things like the _Rumanian Folk Dances_, which I really like. His neo-classical works like the_ Divertimento for Strings_ always rock my boat, even after like 20 + years.

As for Schoenberg & Stravinsky, I like them more because they're largely newer to me and fresher. A live performance this year of _Pierrot Lunaire_, which Stravinsky called "the solar plexus of c20th music" sealed the deal on Schoenberg for me in many ways. With Stravinsky, I like his neo-classical works the most now, I didn't know them before so they are exciting, but the _Rite of Spring_ is like boring cliche to me now. I'm sick of it, except rarely in a special mood. I must say his finest chamber music - eg. the _Octet for Winds_, etc - was from the neo-classical period, so as I'm largely a fan of chamber, it makes sense why I've turned towards them...


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Sid James said:


> With Stravinsky, I like his neo-classical works the most now, I didn't know them before so they are exciting, but the _Rite of Spring_ is like boring cliche to me now. I'm sick of it, except rarely in a special mood. I must say his finest chamber music - eg. the _Octet for Winds_, etc - was from the neo-classical period, so as I'm largely a fan of chamber, it makes sense why I've turned towards them...


I'm just now discovering some more of the neo-classical works since I got the Sony box a couple of weeks ago. I wasn't expecting to like some of this stuff, but surprisingly I do. I had listened to some of the chamber works previously, but I find that I enjoy the Symphonies as well. The rehearsal recordings are priceless. Stravinsky had a way of diffusing some of the tension with humor while correcting the orchestra players mistakes. OK, sorry for the derailment. Back to Bartok.


----------

