Béla Bartók (1881-1945)

Started by facehugger, April 06, 2007, 02:41:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Scarpia

Just listened to a miraculous, relatively unknown piece by Bartok, "Two Portraits."

There is a fine recording on this release:



It begins with a solo violin and at first develops like chamber music, with individual players from the violin section gradually entering.  Finally the full orchestra gets involved and there are a series of velvety dissonant harmonies, which remind me of the opening of the first string quartet.  This "ideal" portrait is followed by a "distorted" one in which the same basic motifs are used to construct a grotesque sort of waltz.  Wonderful stuff!

Mirror Image

One of my favorite Bartok recordings is this one:



But I'm a sucker for Boulez or Solti in Bartok's orchestral music. Fischer and Dutoit are also quite good Bartok conductors in my opinion.

kentel

#102
I reheard Bartok's 1st string quartet yesterday (after a break of more than 10 years...) and noticed something quite curious : the main theme of the 3rd mvt is the same than a theme from the 1st mvt of Schoenberg's Transfigured Night. Maybe the fact is well-known by the exegetes (of which I am not). I wonder if it is a reminiscence or a quote.

Here are the facts :

Bartok' String Quartet nr.1 (1909); this is the very first theme, which is heard throughout all the mvt afterwards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um17Qo70NIQ

Schoenberg's Transfigured Night (1899), in this video the theme begins at 3'55"; it is heard twice at the viola section. This is the single occurence of this theme in the whole piece.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEhzSLTrceI&feature=related

--Gilles

karlhenning

Quote from: kentel on August 24, 2010, 12:56:21 PM
I reheard Bartok's 1st string quartet yesterday (after a break of more than 10 years...) and noticed something quite curious : the main theme of the 3rd mvt is the same than a theme from the 1st mvt of Schoenberg's Transfigured Night. Maybe the fact is well-known by the exegetes (of which I am not). I wonder if it is a reminiscence or a quote.

Fascinating find, Gilles! (And welcome to GMG, by the way! . . . not sure if I joined in the welcome committee.)

It would be interesting to dig up a performance history of Verklärte Nacht . . . the group that Schoenberg presented it to refused to play it (famously because of a single "uncatalogued dissonance").  Offhand, I don't know how soon he managed to get the work performed (I've got the New Grove's Second Viennese School reprint at home, at least the première info will be there).  My wild guess at present is that in fact Bartók may not have had any occasion to know the Schoenberg Opus 4.

kentel

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 25, 2010, 03:52:29 AM
Fascinating find, Gilles! (And welcome to GMG, by the way! . . . not sure if I joined in the welcome committee.)

It would be interesting to dig up a performance history of Verklärte Nacht . . . the group that Schoenberg presented it to refused to play it (famously because of a single "uncatalogued dissonance").  Offhand, I don't know how soon he managed to get the work performed (I've got the New Grove's Second Viennese School reprint at home, at least the première info will be there).  My wild guess at present is that in fact Bartók may not have had any occasion to know the Schoenberg Opus 4.


Hi Karl

Thank you for your answer ! I didn't think of this detail, but you're right, Bartok might have not heard the Transfigured Night, and it would be interesting to find out...

However, he was a teacher at the Royal Academy of Music in Budapest when he composed the 1st String Quartet. Schoenberg's piece was created in Vienna in 1902. At this time, Austria and Hungary were a single country. Moreover the two cities are geographically and culturally quite close to each other, thus I would bet that Bartok had heard the piece. But I'm looking forward to hear more about it after you've checked the Grove :)

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 25, 2010, 03:52:29 AM
(And welcome to GMG, by the way! . . . not sure if I joined in the welcome committee.)

Actually you did !! :)

--Gilles



just Jeff

The Vegh Quartet recorded the SQs twice.  The 70s stereo recordings get top marks, a Grand Prix Du Disque award winner. 

The Takacs Quartet recorded them twice, once for Hungaroton (considered lackluster), and later for Decca, considered a first rate top performance flawed by excessive reverb in the recording.

German copy of the Vegh's 70s stereo recordings pictured below.  This set is available on CD with a different cover.  Might be the one I like best at the moment.


20th Century Music - Ecrater Storefront:
http://20thcenturymusic.ecrater.com/

Mirror Image

#108
Has anyone heard this recording of Bluebeard's Castle?

[asin]B002C8BQMO[/asin]

It has received mixed reviews on Amazon. I'm not sure about other sites. It seems to me that this opera is so hard to get right. Since there are only two vocalists, the performances have to be in-tune with the other on such an intense level. It definitely requires remarkable virtuosity from both vocalists. The conductor and orchestra also have to be on the same page providing communicative support to the two lead roles. In an opera like this, it would be easy for everything to just fall apart.

Sid

#109
I think that Bartok's best works are his chamber works, as they have a level of complexity not readily found in his other works. I have just finished reading Colin Wilson's book "Chords & Discords" written in the 1960's, and in it he says that the tragedy of Bartok was that his music was too easy to understand. After a few listens to his music, the listener may lose interest, as Bartok's is a very direct style & not as complex as some other composers of the c20th (I'd apply this to his more popular orchestral works). Certainly, my own experience has kind of borne this out. I got to know many of his orchestral works about 20 years ago, and I hardly listen to them now. I have recently acquired the string quartets (played by the ABQ on EMI), and want to devote some time to understanding them more than just the casual one or two listens. I think that these works, as well as his other chamber works (the violin sonatas and especially the solo violin sonata which apparently uses microtones) are closer in complexity to composers like Schoenberg & Carter, and therefore can offer more rewards to me with repeated listening. If chamber includes solo piano, I'd include Mikrokosmos as well. I certainly don't agree with everything that Wilson said about Bartok in his book (he kind of does a psycho-biography of each composer which does get a bit irritating), but I do agree with him on the point he made that all of Bartok's works generally known to the public are a little too easily digestible after a few listens.

The Takacs Quartet is coming to Sydney this year to perform the whole Bartok cycle. I'll try to go, if I can scrape enough money together, or I might just go to one of their two concerts...

Mirror Image

#110
Quote from: Sid on January 18, 2011, 03:59:40 PM
I think that Bartok's best works are his chamber works, as they have a level of complexity not readily found in his other works. I have just finished reading Colin Wilson's book "Chords & Discords" written in the 1960's, and in it he says that the tragedy of Bartok was that his music was too easy to understand. After a few listens to his music, the listener may lose interest, as Bartok's is a very direct style & not as complex as some other composers of the c20th (I'd apply this to his more popular orchestral works). Certainly, my own experience has kind of borne this out. I got to know many of his orchestral works about 20 years ago, and I hardly listen to them now. I have recently acquired the string quartets (played by the ABQ on EMI), and want to devote some time to understanding them more than just the casual one or two listens. I think that these works, as well as his other chamber works (the violin sonatas and especially the solo violin sonata which apparently uses microtones) are closer in complexity to composers like Schoenberg & Carter, and therefore can offer more rewards to me with repeated listening. If chamber includes solo piano, I'd include Mikrokosmos as well. I certainly don't agree with everything that Wilson said about Bartok in his book (he kind of does a psycho-biography of each composer which does get a bit irritating), but I do agree with him on the point he made that all of Bartok's works generally known to the public are a little too easily digestible after a few listens.

The Takacs Quartet is coming to Sydney this year to perform the whole Bartok cycle. I'll try to go, if I can scrape enough money together, or I might just go to one of their two concerts...

Have you heard Bluebeard's Castle, Sid? This is one of the best operas of the 20th Century I have heard so far. It is definitely worthy of the high praise it receives. Have you fully examined, as I have, Bartok's full range as a composer of orchestral music? I know you have a fondness for chamber music, but the chamber works are only a piece of the puzzle. He wrote a lot of great music. Whether something is complex or not, doesn't mean anything to me. The music either moves you or it doesn't.


I say if you're going to dismiss his orchestral works based purely on the fact that they're "not complex enough," then you certainly haven't heard much.

Sid

#111
I have heard Bluebeard's Castle, it's an interesting (if atypical) work of Bartok's. I was talking more about the works practically everybody into classical music knows, such as the Concerto for Orchestra, the Music for Strings, Percussion & Celesta (these I was fortunate enough to see recently, so don't get me wrong, I like them very much), the piano concertos, & Divertimento for Strings. These are not difficult works to understand by any stretch of the imagination (after maybe a handful of considered listenings). I wouldn't necessarily include the 2nd violin concerto, not because it is not as popular, but because it is more complex (Yehudi Menuhin wrote that Bartok told him how he was using the 12 note method in a tonal way, especially in the intricate theme and variations which constitutes the slow middle movement). I wasn't saying complexity is better than simplicity. I was basically suggesting that his more complex works tend to repay repeated listening more. If you are interested in Colin Wilson's opinions (& yes, take them with a fairly large grain of salt), his book Chords & Discords: purely personal opinions on music is on google books, including the 4th chapter, somewhat ominiously titled "The tragedy of Bartok" (it's not too long, but I don't like how he tries to paint a kind of psycho-biographical picture of the composer based on someone else's memoirs, since Wilson never met Bartok). Hope the link below works. The book also includes a chapter on Delius, which you might be more interested in. I'd be interested to read what you think of Wilson's assessment of Bartok, in any case...

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=tUsiMS_iPOIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=colin+wilson+chords+and+discords&hl=en&ei=2VQ2TcunG4rCvQPsvonAAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Mirror Image

Quote from: Sid on January 18, 2011, 06:17:57 PM
I have heard Bluebeard's Castle, it's an interesting (if atypical) work of Bartok's. I was talking more about the works practically everybody into classical music knows, such as the Concerto for Orchestra, the Music for Strings, Percussion & Celesta (these I was fortunate enough to see recently, so don't get me wrong, I like them very much), the piano concertos, & Divertimento for Strings. These are not difficult works to understand by any stretch of the imagination (after maybe a handful of considered listenings). I wouldn't necessarily include the 2nd violin concerto, not because it is not as popular, but because it is more complex (Yehudi Menuhin wrote that Bartok told him how he was using the 12 note method in a tonal way, especially in the intricate theme and variations which constitutes the slow middle movement). I wasn't saying complexity is better than simplicity. I was basically suggesting that his more complex works tend to repay repeated listening more. If you are interested in Colin Wilson's opinions (& yes, take them with a fairly large grain of salt), his book Chords & Discords: purely personal opinions on music is on google books, including the 4th chapter, somewhat ominiously titled "The tragedy of Bartok" (it's not too long, but I don't like how he tries to paint a kind of psycho-biographical picture of the composer based on someone else's memoirs, since Wilson never met Bartok). Hope the link below works. I'd be interested to read what you think of Wilson's assessment of Bartok...

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=tUsiMS_iPOIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=colin+wilson+chords+and+discords&hl=en&ei=2VQ2TcunG4rCvQPsvonAAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false


I have heard Concerto for Orchestra so many times (I'm not even sure how many times I've heard it) and I still don't understand it. It is one of those Bartok works that I'm still trying to wrap my head around. There is something about this work that just doesn't click with me. Music for Strings, Percussion, and Celesta is a pretty accessible work, but I wouldn't say Divertimento is that accessible as it contains a lot of dissonance. The Wooden Prince is accessible. The Miraculous Mandarin is a brutally dissonant work, which I love through and through. His concerti are also not so easy to grasp for an average listener. Two Portraits has been a recent discovery of mine that I overlooked. I'm not sure if you've heard this one or not, but it's a work for violin and orchestra and the first movement alone is a miniature masterpiece I think. I do enjoy the string quartets. These aren't as difficult to grasp as many would have you to believe, but they are certainly jagged, angular, almost completely atonal, but the high level of dissonance shouldn't be new to anyone, especially coming from a heavy diet of 20th Century music. There's a lot of complexity in Bartok's music, but what makes him a major composer, in my view, is the way he was able to mask the more difficult passages with cutthroat rhythms and folkloric lyricism. But I think we would both agree that if somebody wants to get into Bartok then they're going to have to hear his string quartets at some point, because they are some of the best written in the 20th Century, but maybe I'm just being a little biased here. ;)

Mirror Image

Getting back to the topic of Gergiev's recording of Bluebeard's Castle, has anyone heard it? I read many negative reviews about it. Of course, UK-based classical affiliations "loved" it, but I would like to hear from real Bartok fans who have heard this recording and know this opera (and it's recordings) well.

karlhenning

I haven't heard the Gergiev recording.  Here is my review of the recent concert performance in Boston.

Mirror Image

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 20, 2011, 07:36:27 AM
I haven't heard the Gergiev recording.  Here is my review of the recent concert performance in Boston.

Sorry for the late reply, Karl, but I have just finished reading your concert review and I'm jealous that you received such a thrilling performance. I did, however, buy the Gergiev recording I mentioned above, so I'll report back once I've heard it.

So far I have three excellent recordings of Bluebeard's Castle:

-Kertesz, Christa Ludwig, Walter Berry, LSO, Decca
-Eotvos, Cornelia Kallisch, Peter Fried, SWR Radio Symphony Orch., Hanssler Classic
-Boulez, Jessye Norman, Laszlo Polgar, CSO, DG

The dark horse of the three that I own so far is the Eotvos. This is unbelievably good performance. Both vocalists, whom were both unknown to me, have the right weight in their voices for their roles. Cornelia Kallisch, in particular, has a beautiful voice. Peter Fried sung a fantastic Bluebeard and, so far, is one of the best ones I've heard since Berry. The orchestral accompaniment from Eotvos and the SWR Orchestra will leave you breathless. Although this performance didn't get a lot of press, for whatever reason, I think it gives the classic Kertesz a run for its money.

Tonight I bought two more recordings of Bluebeard:

-Fischer, Eva Marton, Samuel Ramey, Hungarian State Orch., Sony
-Gergiev, Elena Zhidkova, Willard White, LSO Live

Brahmsian

Does anyone own and can comment on the Bartok Complete Edition on Hungaroton Classic?  Although, at the price, I suspect not many do.  :D  Sure looks nice though.  I would love to hear all the Hungarian peasant songs, all the little bits of Bartok that are less well known.


Daverz

Quote from: Mirror Image on January 19, 2011, 09:06:12 PM
Getting back to the topic of Gergiev's recording of Bluebeard's Castle, has anyone heard it? I read many negative reviews about it. Of course, UK-based classical affiliations "loved" it, but I would like to hear from real Bartok fans who have heard this recording and know this opera (and it's recordings) well.

It got a good review from James North in Fanfare: "to complement my three previous favorites: Eötvös, Kertész, and Fricsay."

I really trust Robert Levine at Classicstoday.com.  He seems a very authoritative opera critc, but that may be because I'm not that experienced with opera.

"But something is amiss; the opera does not have the effect it does when we hear a great performance.
[...]
Newcomers will not notice anything wrong with this performance, but those of us who know and love the opera will stick to Kertesz (Decca) or Fischer (Sony) for its full emotional, as well as musical, impact."

Hey, those are the two recordings I happen to have!  Robert Levine is fucking brilliant!

mjwal

Quote from: Mirror Image on January 18, 2011, 06:36:01 PM
Two Portraits has been a recent discovery of mine that I overlooked. I'm not sure if you've heard this one or not, but it's a work for violin and orchestra and the first movement alone is a miniature masterpiece I think.

The first of the Two portraits Op.5, "Une idéale" is of course the 1st movement of the Violin Concerto #1 (the original Op.5) modified very little, I believe, which Bartók had dedicated to Steffi Geyer but was never performed in his lifetime; he re-used it in the 2 P  to get a hearing, and Szigeti recorded it with Constant Lambert, the performance of choice for me.
The Violin's Obstinacy

It needs to return to this one note,
not a tune and not a key
but the sound of self it must depart from,
a journey lengthily to go
in a vein it knows will cripple it.
...
Peter Porter

RJR

Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on January 12, 2009, 09:27:18 PM
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. "Classically" proportioned works to highlight the entirety of the musical canvas with the piano soloist fully integrated. Quite a change after all that romanticism.

BTW, one aspect of Bartok's art that I don't think has been mentioned yet is his prowess as piano virtuoso. Part of his fame early on rested on his concert tours and his ability to showcase his razzle-dazzle piano technique. But oddly enough, in spite of the fact the piano was close to his heart and he wrote prolifically for it little of his solo piano output has made much of an impact, at least on record. Which is NOT to imply it's not good. But outside the piano sonata and Out of Doors not much seems to have made it into the standard repertoire.   

One reason for this I understand is the fact so much of it is relatively simplistic - not including most of the Mikrokosmos of course as these are teaching pieces. Whatever the case I'd still consider the piano music very worthwhile listening, and then some.
For the piano music give Andras Schiff a go.