Janáček vs. Bartók

[Sequentia]

I suppose Bartók receives more adoration among musicologists, but my favourite Janáček works speak to me far more deeply than anything Bartók - a composer whose music I appreciate and at times enjoy a lot - wrote. (Janáček's 2nd String Quartet is easily one of my 5 favourite string quartets.)

What about you?

[DavidW]

Bartok for me.  His string quartets are magnificent. 0:)

[Mirror Image]

Bartok for me right now. He's been a favorite of mine for years, but I've only fairly recently been getting into Janacek more. The more I listen to Janacek, the more I'm liking the music. The Glagolitic Mass, Sinfonietta, and the operas Kata Kabanova and From the House of the Dead have been especially rewarding. I really love both composers' styles, but I still go back to Bartok almost on a regular basis.

[Todd]

I protest: tortilla is no substitute for banana.

[Mirror Image]

The more I think about this, the more I realize how much variety there was in Bartok's music. From the ballets, the SQs, the concerti, the orchestral works, the solo piano music, and the chamber works, Bartok excelled in all of these idioms. Janacek, on the hand, really didn't compose that much music and his most of music is, more or less, associated with vocals. Janacek was an opera composer essentially, especially considering how many he composed and how they're regarded by critics, scholars, and listeners. Bartok never really was that interested in opera, but his Bluebeard's Castle, in my estimate, could stand next to any opera Janacek composed. But to be fair, Janacek was better with the vocals than Bartok, but this doesn't in any way, shape, or form tip the scale in Janacek's favor for me. Bartok's music continues to have an emotional/intellectual hold over me.

[mszczuj]

Bartok of course.

Janacek is good and nice. Bartok is great.

[Wendell_E]

Bartok of course.

Janacek is good and nice. Bartok is great.

Normally, I'd say "Both!", but that comment prompted me to vote for Janáček. 

[mszczuj]

Normally, I'd say "Both!", but that comment prompted me to vote for Janáček.

I just think Bartok is one of two most important (at least most important for me) composers of 20th century - pretending to be in my top ten of music history. I really like Janacek but can't imagine how could he be compared with Bartok.

[mahler10th]

Bartok, his music was sometimes groundbreaking - Janceks' wasn't, though he was a brilliant composer.  Bartok.

[Todd]

Janceks' wasn't

Hang on, there, I'm not so sure that is accurate.  Janacek's operas are written with a keen eye to how Czech is sung and spoken.  Most more academically inclined opinions I've read have pointed that out.  Not all opera composers do this.  Further, his later works were, and remain, unique in their musical language.  I adore both composers and would never dream of saying that either wasn't groundbreaking in some way.

[Lethevich]

Everything about late Janáček is dazzlingly original, but I cannot choose.

[mahler10th]

Hang on, there, I'm not so sure that is accurate.  Janacek's operas are written with a keen eye to how Czech is sung and spoken.  Most more academically inclined opinions I've read have pointed that out.  Not all opera composers do this.  Further, his later works were, and remain, unique in their musical language.  I adore both composers and would never dream of saying that either wasn't groundbreaking in some way.

Ok then.  I will rephrase it, for it is a somewhat flippant and ubsubstantiated remark I made about Janaceks lack of 'groundbreaking' music:  Bartoks music had a greater influence over the future of Classical music in his time than Janaceks did, and that is why I have voted for him.  My apologies to Leoš, for it doesn't mean to say his is any worse.   

[Luke]

Clearly Janacek, about whom it has been rightly said (though I paraphrase because I don't have the exact quotation to hand - it's by the ever-astute Wilfrid Mellers) - he isn't the most important of twentieth century composer but in a sense he makes the others seem irrelevant. Exactly it - Bartok is one of the greats (I'm just planning on embarking on a new listening Bartokathon, in fact), but he doesn't reach the depths of humanity and penetration and honesty which is (expressly and purposely) in every mature note Janacek wrote (and for mature, read, everything from Amarus or Jenufa onwards). He doesn't try to either, so that's not exactly a flaw in his music. But it happens to be something I rate above pretty much everything else in a composer, which is why Janacek, who held these things to be of supreme importance, will always be my compositional Ideal.

I would maintain, btw, that in this sense if not in others, Janacek is one of the most revolutionary composers who ever lived. There are not that many technical inovations in his work (though there are some) but there is a revolutionary new aesthetic which has been very influential, though the influence skipped a couple of generations where Bartok's did not.

The more I think about this, the more I realize how much variety there was in Bartok's music. From the ballets, the SQs, the concerti, the orchestral works, the solo piano music, and the chamber works, Bartok excelled in all of these idioms. Janacek, on the hand, really didn't compose that much music and his most of music is, more or less, associated with vocals.

Janacek composed in all these genres and apart from his ballets, which are not mature works, all of this music is of the highest quality and easily bears comparison with Bartoks. I'd add an IMO but I don't really think it's a matter of opinion - Janacek's quartets are practically the only SQs of the 20th century which are on a level with Bartok's, but they well and truly are; his orchestral music, including such splendours as Fiddler's Child and Taras Bulba and culminating in the masterpiece which is the Sinfonietta, is equally comparable. Bartok's piano music seems to me an area in which he carried out his experiments on a small scale; Janacek's OTOH, is more like a diary, with the great, searingly confessional triumvirate of works On an Overgrown Path, In the Mists and the Sonata, some of the finest, most appealing piano music of the 20th century. Amongst his other chamber works exist a Violin Sonata which is one of the greats of the genre and a wonderful Wind Sextet which is almost certainly the greatest of its    As for concerti, there are the two concertante piano works which bear comparison in their weirdness with Bartok's, and there is the Violin Concerto which, despite its unusual status in his canon, is possibly the definitive statement of Late Janacek Orchestral Style. And then - though you don't list these genres - there are wonderful choral works (the unsurpassable Glagolitic being by far the finest, though); a raw, sublime song cycle which (despite being written by an old man) is of the most intense, unflinching adolescent eroticism, maturity and youth in perfect balance (Diary of One who Vanished); unaccompanied choral music of the most inventive, exploratory, adventurous and - have to use the word again - searingly emotional sort (some of his finest music of all is in this genre, though not many people know it).

All that before we get to the operas, at least five of which  - House of the Dead, Makropulos, Vixen, Kat'a and Jenufa - are undoubtedly amongst the finest operas ever written. So it seems to me Janacek comes out pretty well in this comparison!

[Karl Henning]

I protest: tortilla is no substitute for banana.

+1

[Mirror Image]

Luke,

As with anything this was merely a subjective poll, clearly you connect more with Janacek and I love his music, but Bartok's music is the reason I even considered giving classical music a more serious examination. I don't think you're being very fair to Bartok though, especially with this comment:

Bartok is one of the greats but he doesn't reach the depths of humanity and penetration and honesty which is (expressly and purposely) in every mature note Janacek wrote (and for mature, read, everything from Amarus or Jenufa onwards).

I don't think this is right or even accurate. Bartok's music is very emotional and it expresses a different kind of human experience. There's some Bartok that might seem cold and detached, but that was the expression he was going for and he shouldn't be discounted for it. Listen to Bluebeard's Castle or Cantata Profana. Is there no depth or honesty there? Yes, I think you should re-examine Bartok's music, because you clearly have the wrong idea about much of it.

[Mirror Image]

Ok then.  I will rephrase it, for it is a somewhat flippant and ubsubstantiated remark I made about Janaceks lack of 'groundbreaking' music:  Bartoks music had a greater influence over the future of Classical music in his time than Janaceks did, and that is why I have voted for him.  My apologies to Leoš, for it doesn't mean to say his is any worse.   

I think a good solid listening to Janacek's late works would definitely make your ears perk up, John. Bartok may have had the greater influence, but this doesn't necessarily mean that Janacek's music isn't important or even of much influence. One listen to Glagolitic Mass (the Tilson Thomas/LSO recording) was all it took for me to become more than just an admirer of Janacek's music. I think Janacek, as Luke pointed out so well, is every bit as great as Bartok. Polls like this never come down to who was more important than the other for me anyway, it comes down to whose music has touched me more. In my estimate, since I've been listening to Bartok longer and there are so many works by Bartok that I think are just incredible, I picked him over Janacek. Bartok's ballets, his only opera, and his concertante works are the reasons I continue to come back to his music and why he has been influential in my own listening.

My Dad is a huge Janacek fan and he likes Bartok, but Janacek made an impression on him that goes way back to his school days (he's 60 years old now), so given this example, it's all a matter of who you connect with the most. But I urge you to listen to Janacek more, John. I think you'll be very surprised by just how original and inventive Janacek's musical language really is.

[Luke]

Luke,

As with anything this was merely a subjective poll, clearly you connect more with Janacek and I love his music, but Bartok's music is the reason I even considered giving classical music a more serious examination. I don't think you're being very fair to Bartok though, especially with this comment:

I don't think this is right or even accurate. Bartok's music is very emotional and it expresses a different kind of human experience. There's some Bartok that might seem cold and detached, but that was the expression he was going for and he shouldn't be discounted for it. Listen to Bluebeard's Castle or Cantata Profana. Is there no depth or honesty there? Yes, I think you should re-examine Bartok's music, because you clearly have the wrong idea about much of it.

My projected Bartokathon isn't a re-examination in the sense that I need to be convinced about anything, or that I think I have the wrong idea. I understand and love Bartok wholeheartedly, and am convinced 100 of his greatness and importance. My statement about Janacek's greater ability to 'penetrate the depths of humanity' wasn't really meant as a subjective statement, butmore an objective one about his stated aims (stated many times). Janacek was first and foremost interested in writing music which precisely expressed the tiniest nuances of what goes on in the human mind and heart. He attempted to turn this in a science, in fact, with his precisely notated and measured speech melodies and his theories derived from Helmholtz and Wundt. Everything Janacek wrote about his music and his beliefs supports this theme passionately, the idea that each note must come through the fires of the heart or it will sound as cold as ice (that's something like a direct quotation)... As you say, Bartok can be highly expressive, but he not always so. That is not a flaw in his music, it is something deliberate. Bartok uses musical systems too, something fascinating and wonderfully effective but inimical to the idea of putting human emotion first. Janacek never uses systems as far as I know. Janacek's music is flawed and idiosyncratic and not always successful, but in the larger scheme of things even these problems are IMO only markers of hs music's honesty, directness and lack of mask. That's what I meant.

[Mirror Image]

My projected Bartokathon isn't a re-examination in the sense that I need to be convinced about anything, or that I think I have the wrong idea. I understand and love Bartok wholeheartedly, and am convinced 100 of his greatness and importance. My statement about Janacek's greater ability to 'penetrate the depths of humanity' wasn't really meant as a subjective statement, butmore an objective one about his stated aims (stated many times). Janacek was first and foremost interested in writing music which precisely expressed the tiniest nuances of what goes on in the human mind and heart. He attempted to turn this in a science, in fact, with his precisely notated and measured speech melodies and his theories derived from Helmholtz and Wundt. Everything Janacek wrote about his music and his beliefs supports this theme passionately, the idea that each note must come through the fires of the heart or it will sound as cold as ice (that's something like a direct quotation)... As you say, Bartok can be highly expressive, but he not always so. That is not a flaw in his music, it is something deliberate. Bartok uses musical systems too, something fascinating and wonderfully effective but inimical to the idea of putting human emotion first. Janacek never uses systems as far as I know. Janacek's music is flawed and idiosyncratic and not always successful, but in the larger scheme of things even these problems are IMO only markers of hs music's honesty, directness and lack of mask. That's what I meant.

In many ways, you could say these two composers are polar opposites of each other, but, again, they were just after different kinds of expression. But there's plenty of fiery, heartfelt passion in Bartok's music. It's simply you just prefer Janacek's music over Bartok's. I'll simply leave it at that. It just sounds like you're using Bartok's own unique sound-world against him by stating your opinion as some kind of believed fact. It's as a listener that we come to our own conclusions about the music. What the composer said or didn't say has no bearing, in the end, on how we preceive the music. You like Janacek more. I like Bartok more. The end. Nobody wins.

[Karl Henning]

What the composer said or didn't say has no bearing, in the end, on the how we [perceive] the music.

I don't think this is right or even accurate. Or, it is only true for the listener who decides to discount what the composer has explicitly said. Which is an interesting approach, but . . . .

[Mirror Image]

I don't think this is right or even accurate. Or, it is only true for the listener who decides to discount what the composer has explicitly said. Which is an interesting approach, but . . . .

I'm not discounting anything Janacek said, I'm merely making the point that we, the listeners, perceive the music in our own way despite what the composer said about their music. Luke said he hears one note after another of heartfelt emotion in Janacek's music and I simply do not. Even what you say about your own music, Karl, you surely can't expect somebody else to really grasp what it is you were trying to express in your music. You may call one of your compositions "playful, child-like," whereas, I could call the very same composition "demonic." It's all so subjective from listener to listener.