# Anyone ever analyze Bartok's stranger works?



## etkearne

For kicks, I am doing a thorough analysis of Bartok's "Piano Concerto No. I, Mvt. II" and "Piano Sonata Mvt II". They are fascinating and the theory used is very deep and interesting.

Has anyone else evaluated Bartok's "weird-period" works (1925-1936) and have anything to share.


----------



## Ukko

Neither strange nor weird, any of Bartók's music... I have listened carefully.


----------



## KenOC

etkearne said:


> For kicks, I am doing a thorough analysis of Bartok's "Piano Concerto No. I, Mvt. II" and "Piano Sonata Mvt II".


If you would write up your analyses and post them, I'd be interested!


----------



## Kopachris

KenOC said:


> If you would write up your analyses and post them, I'd be interested!


Ditto!

(Ten chars.)


----------



## Vaneyes

Weird = Delicious


----------



## PetrB

I did not know Bartok had 'a weird period.' I do know, structurally, it is clear he had a real deep knowledge and admiration for Beethoven, as in the 2nd piano concerto, 2nd movement having a direct correlation with the 2nd movement of Beethoven's 4th piano concerto, and to Beethoven in general, as in many of the string quartets. (Not surprising, since Bartok was a highly respected Beethoven interpreter and performer.)

He was heavily influenced -- early works -- by the music of Richard Strauss, and indirectly, Wagner (The opening of The Wooden Prince).

You are looking at extended harmony, much arrived at by semi-contrapuntal consequence of synthetic scales, modified 'Magyar' inflected scales, octatonic scales, all mixed, for example, in his Cantata Profana (a great, and if I dare say 'luscious' work.) 

A lot of Bartok's vocabulary of harmonic / melodic 'tricks' are presented clearly and simply in his MicroKosmos,Books I-VI. Not a bad way to get familiar with his particular lexicon.


----------



## millionrainbows

etkearne said:


> For kicks, I am doing a thorough analysis of Bartok's "Piano Concerto No. I, Mvt. II" and "Piano Sonata Mvt II". They are fascinating and the theory used is very deep and interesting.
> 
> Has anyone else evaluated Bartok's "weird-period" works (1925-1936) and have anything to share.


Speaking generally, I see certain concepts as being prevalent throughout Bartok's work in all periods, and these ideas are discussed in the *Elliott Antokoletz* book. I knew about these ideas previously by studying jazz theory, such as Dan Haerle's jazz theory book. Studying jazz theory is a very good idea for any composer, not so they can "sound jazzy" but because jazz improvisors have to "compose on the spot" when soloing, and these types of "general concepts" provide excellent frameworks for intelligent improvisation.

The octatonic idea (8-note diminished scale) is very prevalent, sometimes as a scale, and sometimes as a tetrachord (0,2,3,5) which, if stacked a minor second above, gives the entire scale.

Also, it's fascinating how Bartok extracts diatonic chords from this octatonic scale, although he doesn't use them as functional chords, but for their sound, drawing the ear to them as local "tone cells." For example, the diminished scale C#-D-E-F-G-Ab-Bb-B will yield an E-minor triad (E-G-B), a Bb dominant seventh (Bb-D-F-Ab) and a G dom 7 (G-B-D-F), and additionally, which if sounded together in any combination, create strange effects, and create a "dominant/octatonic" connection.

This inherent symmetry of the diminished scale, and diminished seventh chords derived from it, which repeat every minor third, is a big part of *the "symmetry" idea.* Note also that in the octatonic (diminished) scale that there are plenty of tritone-relations between notes, as well as in every diminished 7th chord extracted from it. And, as Beethoven and Bach knew, if you place a different root below a diminished seventh chord, you get a flat-nine dominant. And if flat-nine dominants are too spicy for you, simply lower any note of a dim 7th chord, and you get a regular dom 7th chord. Jazz players like Pat Martino use this idea.

The octatonic idea is based on the more general principle of "interval multiplication" (see WIK entry) in which intervals are "stacked" to create "interval cycles." These are the major second, minor third, major third (all of which cycle-back "into the octave"), and the fourth (or fifth), which does not. The tritone is self-inverting.

This is just one of Bartok's tricks. Similar ideas were used by Stravinsky; these ideas were "in the air" during the first half of the 20th century.


----------



## etkearne

I am aware of most of the 'tricks' but I still freely admit that it is bizarre sounding. And this is meant as a compliment to Bartok. Weirdness/abstractness is something I really seek in music. Either way, what I consider his "weird" period started with his "Piano Year" of 1926 essentially where he started touring again with "Out of Doors", "Piano Sonata", and "Piano Concerto No. 1". I find them all to contain a certain eeriness that is not really found in many other composers' works, even other modernists. 

I agree with the poster who mentioned the ethnic folk music as a reason for the weirdness. In a Bartok documentary I watched from the 1980s, they interviewed some Hungarian folk people who sung, and you could feel that same creepy factor to it all. It is a sense of alienation but comfort wrapped up into one - something folk people probably knew all about at the turn of the last Century. 

I am working on Movements II of both the Piano Sonata & Piano Concerto No. 1. I will post any results when I am complete, but it is a slow process to tie together the main facets. I have been using both integer notation and traditional chord analysis to work to conclusions which seems to be working so far in finding patterns.


----------



## etkearne

I am really starting to realize why I find it so weird and unusual now after two hard days of analysis of his works mentioned in above posts by myself. Reasons:

1. Privileged patterns - instead if harmonizing a scale and using those chords, he uses a scale, then uses the same chord quality over all of the chorded notes of the scale he uses. Usually, to skirt around some of the issue, he used sus4 chords to help ease the weird factor. Other times they are bare to the wind.

2. Time signature - he changes time signature a lot. I mean, a lot a lot. I always wondered why he would do this if not for a pressing reason. But now I see why as I will describe:

3. Jingles - his music is literally chock full of rhythmically kitsch jingles over which he plays an absolutely ravage and sinister harmonic structure. This just adds to the strange factor exponentially because those little rhythmic jingles are supposed to be happy and light hearted. But in using them to illustrate something extremely dissonant over makes it akin to the familiarity curve.

The Familiarity Zones: In terms of what makes people feel creeped out, it is due to objects or sensory input which closely resembles something very familiar but is just noticeably "off" from reality. The CLOSER you are to being completely "real" while maintaining enough unusual features ends up yielding the weirdest thing.

So say we take "Tonality of the Common Practice Period" as the thing. Bartok's music is certainly not atonal, so it isn't so far from "Tonality of the...." as say Schoenberg would be, someone who's music seems unusual to me, but not disconcerting at times like Bartók. But because Bartók "mimics" "Tonality of ..l" so darned well while having a huge, hard to ignore problem: his harmonic structuring. 

More insight to reveal as I continue. Next time I will post some objective analysis, but I thought someone might enjoy my subjective take on things.


----------



## millionrainbows

etkearne said:


> ...Jingles - his music is literally chock full of rhythmically kitsch jingles over which he plays an absolutely ravage and sinister harmonic structure. This just adds to the strange factor exponentially because those little rhythmic jingles are supposed to be happy and light hearted. But in using them to illustrate something extremely dissonant over makes it akin to the familiarity curve.


I think what you may be hearing as "jingles" are Hungarian folk melodies (usually pentatonic) which Bartok re-harmonizes.

I've noticed in discussing Bartok that people tend to want to separate his "folk" influence from his "modernist" and theoretical tendencies.

I think this is, in essence, an error, because Bartok saw in these folk tunes an "escape" from traditional tonality, not only for their exotic appeal, but also in the way the melodies proceeded without regard for tonal function.

He also saw in these folk tunes connections with later serial techniques such as *symmetry;* such as the pentatonic scale yielding a minor seventh chord (0,3,7,10) which is a symmetrical construct, and the Dorian mode (0,2,3,5,7,9) which is also symmetrical.

Note: it is easier to see these symmetries in terms of "steps" instead of number notation: minor seventh becomes (3-4-3) (C-Eb/Eb-G/G-Bb), and Dorian becomes (2-1-2-2-2-1-2) (D-E/E-F/F-G/G-A/A-B/B-C/C-D).


----------



## etkearne

Yes, rainbows. That is actually what I meant. I should have phrased it more directly. They are simple little motifs that normally would sound soothing and nostalgic (ie: sung by an old nice Hungarian man) but sound very jarring when overlaid with Bartok's harmony.


----------



## millionrainbows

I guess the element of "innocence" juxtaposed with "horror" is what makes them disturbing on first glance.

I'm listening to mov't II of the Sonata (1926), and I can't definitively say what's going on here. I suspect that the "E" which keeps repeating is part of a pentatonic scale: major-G-A-B-D-E or minor-E-G-A-B-D, but not sure. The bass might be derived from the black-note pentatonic. The whole thing seems to be contrasting two opposing scale forms, dissonant to each other...two tonalities...









Mov't III is very animated, and reminds me of Stravinsky. I think Bartok is doing some "Bi-tonal" things in the sonata overall, like Stravinsky does in "Rite," with an ostinato bass-line and a melody over it in a different key.

The "folk tune" connection was in Stravinsky, too, and Mussorgsky.


----------



## etkearne

millionrainbows said:


> I guess the element of "innocence" juxtaposed with "horror" is what makes them disturbing on first glance.
> 
> I'm listening to mov't II of the Sonata (1926), and I can't definitively say what's going on here. I suspect that the "E" which keeps repeating is part of a pentatonic scale: major-G-A-B-D-E or minor-E-G-A-B-D, but not sure. The bass might be derived from the black-note pentatonic. The whole thing seems to be contrasting two opposing scale forms, dissonant to each other...two tonalities...
> 
> View attachment 9999
> 
> 
> Mov't III is very animated, and reminds me of Stravinsky. I think Bartok is doing some "Bi-tonal" things in the sonata overall, like Stravinsky does in "Rite," with an ostinato bass-line and a melody over it in a different key.
> 
> The "folk tune" connection was in Stravinsky, too, and Mussorgsky.


I am about halfway through the Sonata Mvt. II now, and yes, there are strong arguments I can make towards bitonality in it. And I intend on making those arguments once I wrap it up (and of course you guys will get to read it first!!). I am taking longer than usual just to make sure I really do a good job and catch any overarching themes that guide this seemingly discordant work.

As for P.C. I Mvt. II, I am almost done that. It is not as strange in terms of harmonic functions. But the whole "innocent" with the "horrifying" still pertains.


----------



## millionrainbows

The Antokoletz book has a couple of very interesting chapters on Axes of Symmetry. I'm going to have to get the sheet music to the _Bagatelles for piano_ before I can really do an in-depth study, and a recording wouldn't hurt either!


----------



## Ukko

Hey you guys... I'm pretty sure that Adorno would tell you that this is all a waste of time.


----------



## millionrainbows

Hilltroll72 said:


> Hey you guys... I'm pretty sure that Adorno would tell you that this is all a waste of time.


And why is that?

No, I don't consider the study of Bartók to be a waste of time at all.


----------



## etkearne

Perhaps that member is anti-modernist or something? I think that Bartok was one of the more "deep" composers, having multiple, well-crafted and thought-out layers of information to enjoy in his works. You have the basic cells which harmonically are quite odd, but put together, yield a novel harmonic set. And, together, they also reflect such folk and popular "jingles" I spoke of, giving a new level to the work. And so on...


----------



## Vaneyes

Re waste, I'm glad somebody's doing it.


----------



## millionrainbows

Vaneyes said:


> Re waste, I'm glad somebody's doing it.


I think Bartók is under-recorded, too. I mean, how many "complete piano works" are there out there? I want to get a recording of the Bagatelles for piano, and there's really not that many.


----------



## KenOC

Millions, I have this set and it's fine. A bargain too. Haven't listened to it all.

http://www.amazon.com/Bartok-Comple...7&sr=1-1&keywords=bartok+piano+music+complete


----------



## etkearne

millionrainbows said:


> I think Bartók is under-recorded, too. I mean, how many "complete piano works" are there out there? I want to get a recording of the Bagatelles for piano, and there's really not that many.


Yeah. I agree. The most recent comprehensive Piano Works was made in 2000/2001 that I am aware of (called "Out of Doors" with a green cover - Levinson), so if anyone has anything more recent, more comprehensive, or of better sound quality, I would be happy. The Sonata is my favorite Bartók piece, so it means much to me.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Millions, I have this set and it's fine. A bargain too. Haven't listened to it all.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Bartok-Comple...7&sr=1-1&keywords=bartok+piano+music+complete


Thanks, Ken, I've put that on my wish list.


----------



## etkearne

This analysis has been really hard, but I must say, it is really improving my piano compositions for some reason. I am not quoting anything but it is helping my form significantly.


----------



## Ukko

millionrainbows said:


> And why is that?
> 
> No, I don't consider the study of Bartók to be a waste of time at all.


No way am I going to 'explain' Adorno.


----------



## millionrainbows

Hilltroll72 said:


> No way am I going to 'explain' Adorno.


Oh, I already know all about Adorno, believe me.


----------



## arpeggio

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, I already know all about Adorno, believe me.


I will vouch for 'millions'. He knows all about Adorno.


----------



## Ukko

arpeggio said:


> I will vouch for 'millions'. He knows all about Adorno.


OK, but... now I don't understand his 'why' question. Adorno considered Bartók to be a dead end composer, to, ah, undisciplined to be worth studying.


----------



## arpeggio

Hilltroll72 said:


> OK, but... now I don't understand his 'why' question. Adorno considered Bartók to be a dead end composer, to, ah, undisciplined to be worth studying.


Hilltrol72,

I am not an authority of Adorno. I know who he is but I have never read any of his writings. I do not have the wherewithal to discuss the pros and cons of Adorno's aesthetics.

All I am saying is that I have known Millions for a few years and I know he knows a great deal more about Adorno than I do.

That is all that I can say.


----------



## etkearne

So that answers the Adorno question! I knew it had to be something like that. Everyone can have their opinion, but, honestly, after analyzing (almost all of) the two pieces in question, I think even more highly of Bartok's tonal language, although it is an "in between" type of thing, not hitting tonality nor atonality. Perhaps that is why some people (like Milton Babbitt) don't like him.


----------



## tdc

I think its fine to analyze the works, but I was of the understanding that a lot of the intricacies and complexities of the pieces weren't consciously composed that way by Bartok...but that he was more of an intuitive, visceral type of composer.


----------



## Ukko

tdc said:


> I think its fine to analyze the works, but I was of the understanding that a lot of the intricacies and complexities of the pieces weren't consciously composed that way by Bartok...but that he was more of an intuitive, visceral type of composer.


It may have been Ferenc Fricsay who started the, well, fantasy, that Bartók went to a 'place outside this world' when he composed. The music that resulted was _of_ that world, not this one. His recording with the RIAS SO of the Concerto for Orchestra may support that story; it is like no other I have heard.


----------



## millionrainbows

tdc said:


> I think its fine to analyze the works, but I was of the understanding that a lot of the intricacies and complexities of the pieces weren't consciously composed that way by Bartok...but that he was more of an intuitive, visceral type of composer.


Discussion of ideas such as the Fibbonacci series, symmetry, Golden Mean, pitch-cells, and interval projection seem to threaten the image of Bartók as a "gypsy" composer, wild and free, composing passionate music inspired by folk tunes; but anyone who has ever mastered a creative discipline knows that technical concepts like these are learned to the point of becoming second-nature. _Then _inspiration has a base to work from.

Further, and this does not necessarily pertain to *"tdc",* I've noticed that the idea of Bartók's music having connections with anything vaguely resembling "systematic thought" _(or, God forbid, serialism)_ scares a lot of his admirers into defending him as an "innocent gypsy free spirit," an artist who thrived on inspiration, not analytic ideas.

The fact is, these ideas of symmetry, etc, were already in the air, and Bartók, Stravinsky, Debussy, and others simply used them as part of their tool-kit. These ideas and concepts are not inherently an "impediment to intuition" as some might seem to be implying.

Music is a craft, as well as being inspiration from "other worlds channeling the metaphysical."


----------



## Ukko

/\ Bartók was certainly a craftsman. That word seems to have a derogatory connotation among some social strata. The inspiration involved in the use of the tools seems evident, but its source is clearly more than Magyar folk music - Kodály's music is quite different. I'm going to go along with Fricsay. Maybe Beethoven's 'place' was just a few universes over.


----------



## etkearne

Bartok was a genius and had an extremely mathematical mind. Even if he didn't know exactly that what he was doing would, years later, be called Musical Set Theory and such, he knew exactly WHY it worked. I mean, musical set theory is actually quite intuitive in my opinion. That is part of the fun of music: even if you analyze something in a different was than the work was composed, you and the composer still reach a similar point of joyous understanding.

I have always thought of Bartók being quite aware of the musical revolution around him and that he didn't want to miss out on the fun. That is why he found things like Polymodal chromaticism where you take two tangentially modes of a scale, match them up and get the chromatic scale. Pretty cool. But just to show that independent people can come up with the same idea...I thought of that idea myslef about a year ago before ever reading about Bartok's discovery of it.

These are ideas ready for the taking for any bright composer (no I am not saying I am as smart as Bartók!) to use in their own way.


----------



## tdc

Though I couldn't find the Bartok quote I had read before that made me think his compositional style was somewhat intuitive, I came across this interesting paragraph while I was looking for it:

_Bartók's achievement and his greatness, however, are determined (according to Mila) by his having gone beyond stylistic borrowing and mere experimentation, *toward an intuition of nature as a "secret nuclear reality," as a mystery to be deciphered.* (68) To adopt a contemporary concept used by linguists, it appears that Bartók approached folksong, which he studied as a natural phenomenon, by viewing it as a point of arrival rather than as a point of departure: a microcosm which he considered a sort of miniature masterpiece. (69)

According to Mila, Bartók's *intuition of nature* as a mystery is manifested by his "continuous need for creation of sound," by his "passionate explorations at the threshold of noise." It is significant, says Mila, that Bartók satisfies this need of invention of sound by means of the instruments which are the most classical and, it would seem, the least congenial--strings and piano. *Bartók's revelation of the laws which govern the life of matter is an unconscious one*, continues Mila, which poets alone can achieve by a contact which is* neither rational nor limited by normal senses. Spiritualization of matter is the real meaning of Bartók's germinal counter-point.* (70) One could add to Mila's view that it is in this sense that the term "Religioso" applies to Bartók's night music. _

http://www.damjanabratuz.ca/essays/bartok/bartok_centenary.htm


----------



## millionrainbows

etkearne said:


> Bartok was a genius and had an extremely mathematical mind. Even if he didn't know exactly that what he was doing would, years later, be called Musical Set Theory and such, he knew exactly WHY it worked. I mean, musical set theory is actually quite intuitive in my opinion. That is part of the fun of music: even if you analyze something in a different was than the work was composed, you and the composer still reach a similar point of joyous understanding.
> 
> I have always thought of Bartók being quite aware of the musical revolution around him and that he didn't want to miss out on the fun. That is why he found things like Polymodal chromaticism where you take two tangentially modes of a scale, match them up and get the chromatic scale. Pretty cool. But just to show that independent people can come up with the same idea...I thought of that idea myslef about a year ago before ever reading about Bartok's discovery of it.
> 
> These are ideas ready for the taking for any bright composer (no I am not saying I am as smart as Bartók!) to use in their own way.


Well, you are obviously very bright, etkearne, and you're right about music theory; it's like crossword puzzles or Sudoku. Bartok was not the only composer to work with folk forms, but he did it in a very thorough, deep, intuitive, and logical way (and musical!).

I didn't really get into math and music theory until I was about 40; it seems like a new part of my brain opened up. I started out being a painter & doing drawings, and was totally intuitive; I didn't even read many books. Then, I started becoming more logical and interested in numbers.

Yes, what you say about "independent people can come up with the same idea" was proved to me when I read about Elliot Carter using "every possible set" and how this connects him to Forte sets, George Perle's "Twelve-Tone Tonality" ideas, Milton Babbitt's all-interval sets...this is what sparked my deeper interest in Bartók as well.

Now I'm reaching a "new plateau" where it all seems to be "clicking into place." Keep studying, reading, ponder the simple things over and over, question everything, keep learning; it is a wonderful thing!


----------



## BurningDesire

Hilltroll72 said:


> OK, but... now I don't understand his 'why' question. Adorno considered Bartók to be a dead end composer, to, ah, undisciplined to be worth studying.


I don't know who Adorno is, but he sounds like an idiot.


----------



## Ukko

BurningDesire said:


> I don't know who Adorno is, but he sounds like an idiot.


I get the impression that Adorno had a goal - the orderly formation of a New School of Music that was to rise from the nearly all-encompassing turmoil of WW2. The New School needed a foundation (or maybe a set of building tools?) that the school could be built upon, so Adorno and his minions analyzed the work of several unconventional pre-war composers. Bartok used whatever tool answered his needs _for the music he was working on_, even if he had to design the tool himself. That isn't a 'toolbox', it's more like an inventor's workbench.

If Bartók's music can't be part of the Great Plan, it's not ''useful' that it be admired or studied by young people who could be _students of_ the New School. The rest follows logically from that premise.

[A cautionary note: I absorbed much of this from a book on the subject by someone 'well disposed' toward Bartók and his music. The 'facts' may be colored by that bias.]


----------



## millionrainbows

Hilltroll72 said:


> I get the impression that Adorno had a goal - the orderly formation of a New School of Music that was to rise from the nearly all-encompassing turmoil of WW2. The New School needed a foundation (or maybe a set of building tools?) that the school could be built upon, so Adorno and his minions analyzed the work of several unconventional pre-war composers. Bartok used whatever tool answered his needs _for the music he was working on_, even if he had to design the tool himself. That isn't a 'toolbox', it's more like an inventor's workbench.
> 
> If Bartók's music can't be part of the Great Plan, it's not ''useful' that it be admired or studied by young people who could be _students of_ the New School. The rest follows logically from that premise.
> 
> [A cautionary note: I absorbed much of this from a book on the subject by someone 'well disposed' toward Bartók and his music. The 'facts' may be colored by that bias.]


I must disagree with this whole premise, and so would Elliott Antkoletz, who wrote the Bartók book I refer to. _All _of the toolbox of ideas that Bartók used are "basic" concepts of modern musical thinking, and foreshadowed serial ideas. I think this was an oversight on Adorno's part, thinking that Bartók was simply harmonizing folk-tunes. It was much deeper than that.

The "new plan" was modeled on an 'equal division of the octave' rather than tonal diatonicism. Bartók was well-aware of this.

Adorno's aversion to folk, popular music and jazz (his comments on jazz border on racism) is probably what blinded him to Bartók.

Just to nail the coffin shut on Adorno, I'll get very specific: these are the 'toolbox' ideas of modernism, also the titles of chapters in Antkoletz' book on Bartók:

•Symmetrical transformations of modes
•Basic principles of symmetrical pitch construction
•Construction, development, and interaction of Intervallic cells
•Tonal centricity based on Axes of symmetry
•Interaction of diatonic, octatonic, and whole-tone formations
•Generation of the Interval cycles

Adorno's rejection of Bartók shows how dated his work has become.

He was freaked out by WWII to the point that he saw mass-media, and popular music in the US (Bing Crosby, etc) as being indicative of the way the "masses" were controlled in Nazi Germany.

He was a freaked-out old kook, although there are some good ideas he came up with. It all depends on how literally you take him.


----------



## obwan

etkearne said:


> For kicks, I am doing a thorough analysis of Bartok's "Piano Concerto No. I, Mvt. II" and "Piano Sonata Mvt II". They are fascinating and the theory used is very deep and interesting.
> 
> Has anyone else evaluated Bartok's "weird-period" works (1925-1936) and have anything to share.


Have fun. If you discover the cure for cancer please let me know. If you discover anything else I don't care. I hate Bartok.


----------



## esharpe

obwan said:


> Have fun. If you discover the cure for cancer please let me know. If you discover anything else I don't care. I hate Bartok.


Your lost not ours.


----------



## oogabooha

obwan said:


> Have fun. If you discover the cure for cancer please let me know. If you discover anything else I don't care. I hate Bartok.









...........


----------

