Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A performing analysis of Bela Bartok's Three Burlesques, Op. 8c Crino, Erika 2006

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_2006-314623.PDF [ 1.07MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0105461.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0105461-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0105461-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0105461-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0105461-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0105461-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0105461-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

A PERFORMING ANALYSIS OFBELA BARTOK’STHREE BURLESQUES, OP.8cbyERIKA CRINOB.Mus., The University of Victoria, 2000M.Mus., The University of British Columbia, 2002A THESIS SUBMITTED iN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFDOCTOR OF MUSICAL ARTSinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Music)THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAOctober 2006© Erika CrinO, 200611ABSTRACTBetween 1908-19 11 Bela Bartok composed over one hundred pieces, considering only the pianosolo repertoire. Bartok was particularly attached to many of these early works: he performedthem throughout his career, he included some of them in his 1929 recording and, twenty yearslater, he also orchestrated five of the piano pieces from this period as the Hungarian Pictures. Atthe time of the composition of the Three Burlesques, Bartok had recently graduated from theBudapest Academy both in piano and composition. A young composer in his twenties, he wasstill very much in search of his own voice. Accordingly, most of these early works are quiteshort, and many are character pieces that explore a single compositional device.An extremely gifted pianist, Bartok was at the time in need for repertoire to performduring his many concert tours, and many of these pieces were in fact born from this need. In theperiod just preceding the composition of the Three Burlesques, Bartok discovered and startedstudying the musical traditions native to the rural areas of his country, later expanding his field ofinterest to include Bulgaria and Slovakia. The influence of folk-songs, evident in all of hismature musical output, is already manifest here.The Three Burlesques, Op.8c, unfortunately not very often performed today, are threeshort descriptive pieces, each experimenting harmonically within a traditional ABA form. Theyare technically demanding and successful in performance, and the second piece of the set,“Slightly Tipsy”, clearly shows the influence of Bartok’s folk-song research.This thesis addresses issues of particular interest to a performer, such as very practicalproblems of balance between the hands, harmonic consequences created by alternative choices invoicing, and problems in the interpretation of melodic material. This thesis explores also somepractical observations that are evoked by the physical act of playing these pieces at the piano andgoes on to connect this commentary on gestural aspects to the programmatic content described byeach title.111TABLE OF CONTENTSAbstract iiTable of contents iiiList of examples ivAcknowledgments vCHAPTER 1: Introductory remarks 1Three Burlesques 4CHAPTER 2: Quarrel 7Harmonic/motivic portrayal of quarrel 9Quarrel between two hands 12Conclusions 15CHAPTER 3: Slightly Tipsy 17Physically tipsy in performance 19Tipsiness in form, melodic structure, harmony and rhythm 23Conclusions 28CHAPTER 4: [Capriccioso] 30Capriccioso 30Capriccioso: its sounds, its structure 35Form 39Conclusions 42CHAPTER 5: The Burlesques as a set, and in their relationship to later works 44Order and unity of the set 44Relations with Bartok’s later piano music 46BIBLIOGRAPHY 49APPENDIX: Recital Programs 52ivLIST OF EXAMPLESThroughout this thesis the symbol “R.n.” stands for “Rehearsal number” and “R.n. 95+4” willindicate four measures after rehearsal number 94.Example 2.1: Barták, “Quarrel”, m. 9-10.Example 2.2: reduction of m. 9-10 of Bartok’s “Quarrel”.Examples 2.3 and 2.4: reduction of m. 9-52 of Bartok’s “Quarrel”.Example 2.5: Bartok, “Quarrel”, mm. 133-144.Example 3.1: Bartok, “Slightly Tipsy”, m. 10.Example 3.2: Bartok, “Slightly Tipsy”, m. 25-28.Example 3.3: Bartok, “Slightly Tipsy”, m. 34.Example 3.4: Bartok, “Slightly Tipsy”, m. 54-55.Example 3.5: reduction of mm. 1 and 42 of the orchestral version of Bartok’s “Slightly Tipsy”,transposed to E minor.Example 4.1: Strauss, Till Eulenspiegel, reduction of mm. 113-116.Example 4.2: Stravinsky, Petrushka, reduction of R.n. 95-95+4 and 96+2.Example 4.3: BartOk, Wooden Prince, reduction of bassoon part between R.n. 142+3-142+4.Example 4.4: Bartok, “Capriccioso”, mm. 34-35 and 79-80.Example 5.1: Bartok, Piano Concerto No. 3, first mvt., R.n. 54-54+1.Example 5.2: Bartok, Piano Concerto No. 1, first mvt., R.n. 12+4-12+5.VACKNOWLEDGMENTSMy infinite gratitude goes to Dr. W. Benjamin, who not only helped and encouraged meimmensely in every stage of this thesis, through many discussions and great wisdom in hiscomments and advice, but who also was extremely influential, throughout my degree, inexpanding my ways of thinking and reading, as well as teaching me how to listen differently tomusic.Many thanks to Robert Silverman who tirelessly taught me, among many other things,never to be satisfied with what comes easy at the piano, but to shape and direct what one has firstcreated in his mind.Special thanks to Mrs. Laurenda Daniells for her generosity and greatly contagiousenthusiasm. Her infinite passion and love for anything alive will continue inspiring everybodywho meets her.And finally, a great thanks goes to Brett, who has shared a long and important journeywith me.CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTORY REMARKSIt is a generally accepted that the year 1926 serves as a landmark in Bela Bartok’s musicaloutput: the beginning of his new, second phase. After the composition of the Dance Suite in1923, a silence, interrupted only by the Dorfszenen of 1924, preceded the creation of the PianoSonata, the Out ofDoors suite, the Nine Little Pieces and the beginning of the Mikrokosmos, allcomposed in 1926. Similar periods of silence that led to intensely creative years occurred at othermoments of his life. One such followed the great disappointment he experienced in 1905 at theRubinstein Competition in Paris, which he had entered both as a performer and a composer (thissecond category with his Lisztian Rhapsody, Op.l, and his piano quintet), and which sawBackhaus and Brugnoli as winners in the two categories. The sense of a complete failure in Paristhrew Bartok into a deep depression which only the acquaintance with Zoltán Kodály thefollowing year could dispel. This friendship opened a new world of interests, experiences, andresearch opportunities for Bartok, who found new inspiration in the peasant music of thecountryside, with its directness of expression, its modal scales and irregular rhythms. Between1908 and 1911 this new outburst of creative activity produced an enormous volume of pianomusic: 14 Bagatelles, Op. 6, Ten Easy Pieces, eighty-five pieces in the set For Children, TwoElegies, Op. 8b, Three Burlesques, Op. 8c, Seven Sketches, Op. 9b, Two Rumanian Dances, Op.8a, Four Dirges, Op. 9a, Deux Images and the Allegro Barbaro.The composition of the Three Burlesques, which are the object of this study, spanned thisentire period. The first Burlesque was composed in 1908, that which became the third, in 1910,and the second, in 1911. The three pieces were published together as a set in 1912 byRózsavolgyi and republished by Boosey & Hawkes in 1950.1 Bartok was particularly attached tothese pieces, performing them throughout his life, either as a set or more often two at a time orindividually.2The second one, “A Little Tipsy”, appears to have been a particular favorite. It isincluded in his 1929 recording for His Master’s Voice and was also transcribed by him fororchestra as the fourth of the Hungarian Pictures in 1931 (his 1944 proposal3of recording thewhole set in New York unfortunately never materialized).Most of the general literature on Bartok’s works for piano almost completely ignores thisearly period, with the exception of a number of studies on the Bagatelles and Allegro Barbaro,preferring rather to focus on later works, mostly those written after the Suite, op.14, of 1916.Even a comprehensive study of Bartok’s piano music from a performer’s perspective, such asBarbara Nissman’s Bartok and the Piano, concentrates only “on the major piano works”, eachchapter including a mere “overview and more general discussion of Bartok’s related minorworks.”4The book limits itself to some brief historical information about the composition of theThree Burlesques followed by some very concise performing suggestions regarding the use of aparticular fingering or the importance of making the melody audible at all times.5 BenjaminSuchoff’s contribution to The Bartok Companion, which focuses specifically on the composer’spiano output between 1908 and 1911, gives a very brief historical introduction to the set beforespending two paragraphs supporting his analysis of the first Burlesque as being based on a CPhrygianiLydian polymode. No further mention of this work is made nor is any analysis given ofAntokoletz, p. 12-13.2 see, for instance, the programs quoted in his letters. Bela Bartok Letters, p. 159 and 186.ibid., p. 339.‘ Nissman, p. xi.ibid., p. 20 1-206.2the other two pieces.6Another comprehensive source on Bartok’s piano music is DavidYeomans’ Bartokfor Piano, in which there is but a single paragraph on each piece composingthe Three Burlesques. Each describes general features of key center and character, and then listssome of the most immediate performing issues, such as tempos and technical difficulties.7Acomprehensive analysis of Bartok’s own recordings, specifically aimed towards the performingaspects of his music, is found in Steven Earl Gray’s DMA dissertation. It makes no mention ofthe second Burlesque, except for including it in the bibliography. A more detailed theoreticalanalysis of the Three Burlesques is found in Edwin von der Null’s work of 1930. Aspects of themusic’s bitonality and bimodality are explored, particularly in the codas of each piece, and a verygeneral overview of form is also presented.8A close study of the Three Burlesques is therefore warranted, with the need forcommentary focusing on aspects of relevance for the performer being especially obvious.Accordingly, this essay deals with issues of primary importance for the pianist, such as possibleresolutions of ambiguities in both the horizontal (formal) and vertical (harmonic) dimensions. Atthe level of the section, this essay will investigate ways of grouping the material within particularsections, while, at a more local level, it will analyze the bases for choosing among differentarticulations and dynamics in contexts where the hands clash harmonically, and very differentcomposite effects may be produced.The general title given to the set immediately implies a connection with a theatrical scenedepicted on stage. The specific titles bring into focus more precise situations and personalitieswhich, as will be explored, are expressed in this music almost visually. Observing how6 Suchoff, 1993, p. 135-136.Yeomans, p. 63-65.8 von der NUll, p. 23-26.3determinate physical gestures are imposed on the performer and how these both effect andsymbolize the grotesque content implied by the burlesques’ individual titles, will also allow for amore physical analysis of Bartok’s methods of characterization.Three BurlesquesThe Three Burlesques were composed between 1908 and 1911, a period during whichBartok was traveling extensively, giving concerts or collecting folk material. During these tripshe wrote numerous postcards and letters to his family and friends. These letters are uniquelyuseful in shedding light on the strong beliefs of this young man in his twenties, since it was onlylater in life that he begun to write prolifically, in essay form, on music and society. One suchletter, sent to his wife in 1909, is particularly telling of his philosophy at the time, a real credo ofa young artist:I strongly believe and profess that every true art is manifested and created under the influence of“experiences”, those impressions that we absorb into ourselves from the surrounding world. .. Icannot imagine that an artwork could be anything but the manifestation of the infinite enthusiasm,despair, sorrow, vengeful anger, distorting and sarcastic irony of its creator. Before I experiencedit in myself, I did not believe that one’s works could signal - more precisely than one’sautobiography- the important events, the governing passions of his life. is strange that in musicthe basis of motivation has so far been only enthusiasm, love, sorrow, or, at most, despair - that is,only the so-called lofty feelings. It is only in our times that there is place for the painting of thefeeling of vengeance, the grotesque, and the sarcastic.., the music of today... extends with honestyto all real human emotions without excluding any.9quoted in Frigyesi, p. 120.4It is then not surprising that Bartok’s musical output between 1908 and 1911, more than 100pieces for the solo piano, bears titles such as Elegies, Bagatelles, Burlesques, Sketches, Dirges,Images, ... all collections of small pieces, often only one page long, whose extra-musicalassociations, as implied by their titles, allow for manifold “paintings” of a wide range of“experiences from the surrounding world.” A title such as Sketches, for example, evokes theimage of something made of small, private and spontaneous gestures, with some visual overtonesand suggesting the possibility of hidden or obscure details. These traits allow for a series ofpictures of vivid character, some very explicitly personal, such as the first one, “Portrait of a girl”(1908), where his future wife Márta is depicted through little gestures, as if with small brushstrokes.The title Burlesque also evokes small and colorful images, more directly relating inparticular to the feelings of the grotesque and the mood of sarcastic irony that Bartok referred toin his letter to his wife. The title recalls a sharp-edged light-heartiness similar to that of theBagatelles, but also suggests episodes close to the theatrical world of the Commedia dell ‘arte:scenes that portray in some ironic and exaggerated way some common, profoundly human andnot necessarily pleasant life event.Historically, the term burlesque is often associated in its origins with the world ofliterature and theatre as a form analogous to that of the pantomime, where serious and establishedconventions are grotesquely exaggerated and parodied.1°Although the term is found inconnection with keyboard music already in the eighteenth century, for example in J.S.Bach’s10 The New Grove Dictionary ofMusic and Musicians, 2id ed., and Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 2nded., s.v. “burlesque”.5Partita in A minor and in some of Francois Couperin’s ordres,1more recent and probably moredirect influences on Bartok’s choice of title for his op. 8c were Strauss’ Burleske for piano andorchestra (1885-6) and his own Scherzo, op. 2 (1904), also for piano and orchestra, the originaltitle of which was also Burlesque.the fifth movement of Bach’s Partita(BWV 827) bears the indication “burlesca” and the last movement ofCouperin’s 23rd Ordre opens with the marking “Vivement: et dans un gout burlesque”. Incidentally, BartOk was veryfamiliar with both composers: he had just finished preparing an edition of Bach’s Well-Tempered Clavier in 1907and his frequent inclusion in his programs of pieces for the clavecin led to his writing an article in 1912 onperforming music by Rameau, Couperin, Scarlatti and Bach on the piano.6CHAPTER 2: QUARRELThe mood of the grotesque, the rhetoric of sarcasm and negative emotions like vengeful anger,all mentioned in Bartok’ s letter to his future wife, find colorful expression in this set. The factthat the first two pieces bear also a title of their own comes as a useful aid to direct ourimagination. In addition, Bartok’s personal connections with the first Burlesque are made furtherexplicit and more detailed by the fact that, originally, it carried more than one title to choosefrom. The first draft read “please choose one of the titles: “anger because of an interrupted visit”or “rondoletto a capriccio” or “vengeance is sweet” or “play it if you can” or “NovemberAll these were successively removed and the piece acquired the new title “Quarrel” whensubmitted for publication. The discarded titles, as well as the one chosen for publication, areclosely related to the expressive possibilities suggested in Bartok’s letter: lust for revenge, angerand sarcastic irony are all emotions explored and depicted in this first piece. “Quarrel”, finishedon November 27, 1908, is dedicated to Márta Ziegler, a piano student of Bartok at the time, whowas to become his first wife in November of the following year. Whether a quarrel did indeedoccur between the two is not known, but any such testimony is unnecessary as the music portraysan argument almost visually in this first picture. The colorful indications that were added to theoriginal sketches, and later removed when the piece was published, reinforce our imagination indepicting this private event: the sketches carried directions such as “angrily” for the opening,“with weeping voice” for the section between m. 60 and m. 72 and “sorrowfully” for the section12 Suchoff, I993, p. 136.7between m. 88 and m. 103.13The characteristic atmosphere of tension and contrast that occurs in a quarrel is portrayedin several ways in this piece, each operating on different levels. From a superficial point of view,the general aspect of repetitiveness that often occurs in an argument is introduced already at thevery beginning by the incessant and “angry” recurrence of the opening gesture. This thenbecomes a quasi-circular motive in mm. 9-10 (ex.2. 1), its “circular” character given by the factthat its two halves are opposed in contour but similar in sonority. The issues raised by theunresolved qualities of this motive permeate the whole piece, creating dramatic energy and anobsessive character.Example 2.1: m. 9-10 Example 2.2: reduction of m. 9-10‘ 4V r r r r L I I-—, I I I I I VU——— I I I I III I. I I I I Iri I I I I“1-—I,— — II IJI I I I II II IIIIThe very essence of the quarrel can be seen, in fact, as growing out of the contrastsenclosed in nm-i. 9-10. The two halves of the motive, if the two measures are divided vertically,are opposed in contour and, viewed as trichords, involve chromatic displacement (ex. 2.2); at thesame time they are built from the same octatonic scale and share a similar intervallic structure, ofunstable sonority. The second section of this chapter will explore the harmonic and motivic(13 ibid.8implications embedded in these two measures and how they concur in portraying a sense of aquarrel.As will be discussed in detail in the last section of this chapter, the physical aspect ofplaying this piece introduces yet another dimension to the musical expression of this lively scene.A quarrel represented as a confrontation between the hands comes to mind observing that, in theopening measures, the “angry” left hand feels more comfortable than the right hand and that,when the opening gesture is completed in m. 10, this “oppression” of the right hand is enhancedeven further. Therefore, thinking horizontally, the unison of the two hands appears not to be aspiritual one, but rather masks an uneasy relationship of possible repression of one hand (theright) by the other.Harmonic/rnotivic portrayal of quarrelWhen approaching the opening measure, as a performer as well as a listener, it is quitedifficult to settle on how to interpret this initial cloud of sound, especially as it alternates betweenthe hands in the low register, pianissimo and presto. At first, the pitch that stands out the most isprobably the A, as it is slightly accented and is reiterated on the first two beats of each measure.A sense of unresolved harmony arises from the continuation to (D, G), a tritone which can beunderstood as the upper part of an A7 chord. In m. 10, the opening pitches (A, G, DL’) move to (E,BL’, GL’, C), some kind of C7 with a lowered fifth. These two dominant-like harmonies are relatedin sound, by sharing the same octatonic scale and by having similar intervallic makeup(inversionally related 026 chords). M. 10 is therefore not heard as a resolution for m. 9, but ratheras an equally unstable opponent in the quarrel. The two measures bear equal importance in this9opening section, although the accent on the A of m. 9 and the slurring of mm. 9-10 at first createan emphasis on the descending half of this motive. However, as the piece proceeds throughsuccessive phases, equal weight is given to the ascending half. This shift in accent and emphasiscauses one to hear the quarrel, in its overall ascent to m. 39, as sometimes being pulled up fromabove, at other times being pushed up from below. The stages through which the two handsascend to the cadence on B (mm. 43-44) can be sketched by following the lower tritones of eachfigure (ex. 2.3).Examples 2.3 and 2.4: reduction of m. 9-52- -* 02:I,i2.1 2.9 o9The opening tritone (D, G) moves initially down by semitone to the tritone on C in m. 10;the same tritone is then recalled in inversion in m. 21,’ and this time progresses upwards. Here,in mm. 2 1-22, the melodic two-bar motive of mm. 9-10 is inverted, giving predominance to theascending part of the figure. After a quick ascent in thirds, the melodic figure is restored to its‘ M. 21, rather than m. 17 where the tritone is first found in inversion, is structurally more important, since here theoriginal two-bar motive is found complete and in inversion.10original shape (mm. 29-32), while the tritone (Gb, C) returns (in m. 29), moving immediatelydown to (F, C). In m. 32 the accent is given, for the first time, to the middle of the motive, theascending half on (F, C). The overall fundamental motion of tritones by descending chromaticsteps, as shown in ex. 2.4, harmonically portrays a feeling of sliding into an argument, rather thanprogressing towards a resolution.The piece ends unequivocally on C and a cadence on G would traditionally be expected inthe central section and would bring some feeling of approaching a tonal agreement in the quarrel.Instead, after the first cadence on B (mm. 43-44), there is a slide down to A (mm. 49-50), and acontinuing descent to F#, executed with progressing disagreement between the hands. F# isintroduced melodically by the right hand in mm. 52 and 60, and both times is opposed by aninsistent C chord in the left hand. As the right hand repeats the motive centered on F# in mm. 60-72, the left hand slides down as if from the tonic to the dominant of a C minor scale. Afterreaching G, the left hand eventually joins the F# in m. 73. In the section marked “sorrowfully”(mm. 88-103) the G is again touched by the left hand, but it quickly slides up chromatically to theopening A.The argument resumes in m. 104, in a manner identical to the beginning, but slightlypushed forward by the omission of four bars (corresponding to mm. 17-20). When the tritone (F,C) is again reached, it is now reinterpreted as part of the dominant arpeggiation (mm. 133-142)leading to a big dominant pedal on G (m. 144) (ex. 2.5). An harmonic agreement is reached, asthe two hands independently prolong the dominant pedal, one through a whole-tone, and theother through a chromatic scale, and meet on the C in m. 152.In the coda of the piece, a last glimpse is given in m. 170 to the unresolved harmony of m.119. The descending part of the motive is now, more than just sliding down to an equal andopposed figure, resolving to the accented and prolonged ascending arpeggiation on C in m. 173.Both the harmonic and the motivic disagreements are thus concluded.Example 2.5: mm. 133-144Quarrel between two handsThe fact that a large part of “Quarrel” is played by the hands in unison could suggest, atfirst glance, a representation of agreement. One might be tempted then to search for a sense ofcontrast between sections or motives, but each distinct part of this piece, although sometimesproviding a contrast in mood, seems to grow out of the previous one, anticipated and preparedby, rather than being in opposition to it. When physically approaching the piece, the resentmentunderlying the quarrel can perhaps be sensed in the way that most of the unisone figures are moresuited to one hand than the other. When the hands do differ from each other, in the middle12r 1?r1!) •vn. 33 IrI kI “13 I44sections and in the coda, they seem to express their own individual personality: they are bothcomfortable but quite in opposition in character. Generally, the more “sorrowful” and “weeping”lines belong to the character of the right hand, while the left hand usually plays more stubbornand less pathetic figures.The very first motive, when heard for the first time or analyzed by itself out of context,appears to have the characteristics of a left hand motive: its character being more that of anaccompaniment, with its opening trill and its treatment, at least initially, as an ostinato.15Physically too, it fits well into the left hand, particularly so at the beginning, when it is in such alow register. The trill-like portion of it, which is also the loudest part of the measure, is played bythe strongest fingers and the tritone falls easily under the fingers, with a natural diminuendogiven by the rotation of the hand outwards, while lifting it. The right hand, which seems to beforced here to imitate the left hand, has to be held in a slightly more uncomfortable position,partially because of having to play DL with the thumb, so that the quiet release of the figure has tobe slightly more cautious. This “oppression” of the right hand is even more pronounced when themotive is completed in mm. 9-10: the tritones fall well into the left hand (especially if the thumbplays the G on m. 9.3) and the low semitone, D-C, can be easily controlled. This same passagefeels quite differently for the right hand: the thumb needs to slide over the low D-C semitone,which makes it slightly more difficult to control the sound, and the fingering needs to besomewhat more deliberate in the last three notes of m. 10, when the hand prepares to leap torestart the motive.1615 This motive is somewhat reminiscent of the left hand ostinato in the second movement of BartOk’s Suite, op. 14.16 the fingerings 2-1 can be used, in the right hand, on Db-C a the end of m. 10: this naturally produces the break inthe slur and the accent on the following A.13As the figure rises from the low register, the situation changes and the right handbecomes more comfortable. As an example, mm. 17-2 1 all end with the fingerings 5-4-3 startingon a white key and followed by two black ones. This is more suited to the hand than the parallelsituation at the end of m. 10, and allows to keep the right hand open so that it can easily leapdown with its thumb on the next downbeat. When the two-bar motive is inverted in mm. 21-22, itis now more suited to the right hand than the left (in Gyorgy Sandor’s recording, the left hand ishere even dropped at moments). As the hemiolas that begun in m. 35 rise by step, the left handmoves out of its natural register and has to turn slightly more to enunciate its higher arpeggios.During the whole middle part (mm. 5 1-103), the right hand acquires a more independentcharacter and plays more idiosyncratic figures. The diversity between personalities reaches amaximum in the “sorrowfully” section (mm. 88-103) where the two hands perform what they aremost comfortable doing: a rolled melody in octaves in the right hand (made more easily cantabileby the downwards rolls) accompanied by ascending arpeggios in the left hand. Even in a sectionwhere the hands play mostly the same chords, such as mm. 73-80, the material given to eachreflects, in subtle ways, their distinct nature: the left hand plays the solid chords that the righthand more elegantly arpeggiates throughout.When the hands diverge the next time, on the dominant pedal of m. 144, they are equallycomfortable outlining a common cadence; they start on G and reach, each through its own path,the common C (m. 152). This time they mirror, rather than imitate, each other’s figures, throughcomfortable outwards arpeggios.In the last important cadence of the piece, mm. 175-176, the two hands combine, helpingeach other to reach the common tritone that will resolve to the final two sforzatissimo Cs, one ineach hand’s natural range.14ConclusionsBy reading Bartok’s letters from this period, one perceives a clear vision of a highlysarcastic and yet very resolute young man, full of strong and unbending opinions and with apowerful urge to constantly investigate and analyze various aspects of the human soul.17 It is notsurprising, then, that he would be both familiar with the details characterizing a quarrel, and ableto describe them accurately and ironically in his music.In his sarcastic way, Bartok unfolds here a situation of conflict, such as a quarrel, or anact of revenge or a challenge, all of which were at one point considered as potential titles for thepiece. As has been discussed, through harmonic, motivic and physical means Bartok manages tocreate a sense of an argument that grows, then develops and finally brusquely ends.In the opening section, the repetition of the first motive and its circular shape recall someobsessive aspects commonly generated by a contrast of opinions. The hands produce at first aconfused cloud of sound and, although in unison, present the contrast between one gesture and itsequal opponent both harmonically and physically.The argument proceeds through a sliding voice-leading by step, and reaches a moment ofmaximum separation and contrast in the middle section where each hand tries to express itselfindependently by bringing forth its strengths, one being more sentimental and the other moredetermined. This central section, characterized by shorter motives and more varied emotionalstates, does not lead to an understanding.In the final part, the “motives” of the argument are recalled but, in an attempt to achieve17 See, in particular, the letters written to Stefi Geyer in 1907, just a year before “Quarrel”. Bela Bartok Letters, pp.75-87.15clarification, a new cadence is introduced to prepare C as a central and common tonality. Thehands, in unison, agree and are both comfortable in this cadential passage. Both the harmonic andmotivic arguments are also resolved towards the end. It might be noted, though, that theconcluding motive is that of the beginning, a left hand motive, and on another, more emotionallevel the final C sounds more like an imposition, rather than a peaceful resolution of a contrast.This might suggest, perhaps, that the left hand character was all along stronger than the other andthat they were never really equal partners in the argument, which is then left potentiallyunresolved.16CHAPTER 3: SLIGHTLY TIPSYIt is a well-known fact that our notation records on music paper, more or less inadequately, theidea of the composer; hence the existence of contrivances with which one can record preciselyevery intention and idea of the composer is indeed of great importance. On the other hand, thecomposer himself, when he is the performer of his own composition, does not always perform hiswork in exactly the same way. Why? Because he lives; because perpetual variability is a trait of aliving creature’s character. Therefore, even if one succeeded in perfectly preserving with a perfectprocess the composer’s works according to his own idea at a given moment, it would not beadvisable to listen to these compositions perpetually like that. Because it would cover thecomposition with boredom. Because it is conceivable that the composer himself would haveperformed his compositions better or less well at some other time - but in any case, otherwise.18The second piece of the set was composed in May 1911. During the same year Bartok alsoorchestrated his Two Pictures, op. io and composed both his opera Duke Bluebeard’s Castle,Op. ii, and the popular Allegro Barbaro. His folk music research had begun in 1905 through hisassociation with Kodály and had, by this time, taken over a substantial part of his life. By 1907,Bartok had traveled extensively and his broad collection of folk melodies of Hungarian,Slovakian and Rumanian origin had already led to a joint publication, together with Kodály, oftwenty arrangements of folk songs. At first, the ethnomusicological interests had remainedsomewhat separate from his creative activity. It was not long, though, until these two worldsstarted to overlap and interact, and his ethnomusicological research begun to influence his workas a composer. All the sets of pieces that Bartok composed for piano in 1909 already incorporateIS Bela Bartok Essays, ‘Mechanical Music” (1937), p. 298.17folk music material: Fourteen Bagatelles, Op.6, Ten Easy Pieces and For Children.In 1941, in one of his essays on folk music, Bartok explicitly stated: “. . .in my originalworks they [peasant tunes] have never been used. I do have many transcriptions of folk tunes;they are discernible either by their titles or by some added subtitle or footnote indicating theorigin of the themes. . . If there is no indication of origin, then there have been no folk melodiesused at all. These are my original works”.’9As there is no indication of the origin of the themesin “Slightly Tipsy”, this is an original work, although clearly influenced by the world and “spirit”of folk music in the accents and character of its melodies. In almost every essay that Bartok wroteon the influence of folk music on contemporary art music, he refers to the expression andinterpretation of the folk “spirit”. He admits it is an influence difficult to describe with words,but that the perfect and unaffected characteristics of folk music deeply manifest themselves inmany of his own works and similarly permeate those of Kodály, Debussy, Ravel andStravinsky.20Bartok’s particular fondness for this piece is attested by the fact that he performed itseveral times throughout his life and that it was the only one of the Three Burlesques to beincluded in his recording for His Master’s Voice in 1929. It was also the only one to beorchestrated, this in 1931, as the fourth of the Hungarian Pictures. Both these documents, therecording and the orchestration, offer extremely valuable interpretative suggestions for theperformance of this piece.Compared with the first piece of the set, “Slightly Tipsy” is much less fluid and lesscontinuous in form and texture, with its melodic stumbling, off-beat accents and with well‘“The relation between Contemporary Hungarian Art Music and Folk Music,” in Bela Bartok Essays, pp. 348-349.20 See, for example, ibid.: p. 317, P. 324, P. 341, P. 349.18defined sections of opposed character. As I hope to show, an inebriate quality is portrayed herenot only in strictly musical terms, but is called up in the performer’s body by a sort of concretemetonymy, the conditions of the player’s hand representing those of the drunkard’s body as awhole.Physically tipsy in performanceThe opening texture of this piece consists of two parallel triadic streams, a situation thatat first might seem to suggest harmonic consistency. However, as will be discussed, thisharmonic structure is not consistent even throughout the first few lines and this observation waswhat first suggested a physical analysis for this piece. When performing “Slightly Tipsy”, in fact,one has the impression that its overall shape as well as its minute details are strongly driven bythe physical feeling they produce in the pianist.At first, it might seem that the left hand plays first-inversion (6/3) major triads withroots2’ lying pc interval 4 above the accompanied melody pitch, as is consistently the case untilm. 4.3. But this pattern is soon abandoned as minor triads, with roots pc interval 6 away (m. 4.4,m. 5.3), and augmented triads (m. 6.2) start to appear in the left hand. Ernö Lendvai, in hisdescription of hexatonic collections22explored by Bartok in his compositions, includes the veryfirst beat of this movement among his examples.23But hexatonic structure is even less consistentthan the types of triads in the lower (left hand) stream, since already on the second beat of m. 121 The root concept is invoked here only to identify the triads in question, and not to suggest that they need to beheard as having roots.22 Lendvai calls these collections 1:3 scalar models, thus describing the alternation of semitones and minor thirds.23 Lendvai, p. 372.19there is a {B, D, F} triad in the upper stream, and diminished triads do not fall within thehexatonic system.However, one aspect of the music that seems consciously sought after and consistentthroughout the opening measures is the position and feeling of the left hand. Because of thenecessity of overlapping the two streams, the left hand is forced to play from a higher positionthan usual while the right hand has to remain close to the keyboard and is quite limited in itsfreedom of motion, thus producing in the performer a feeling of restraint. It is awkward for theleft hand to remain properly poised over the three notes of its triad when it needs to leave roomfor two notes of the right hand to sneak underneath its thumb.In the melody of the first four bars, the last beat of each measure is emphasized bothmetrically, being the first quarter-note after a series of eight-notes, and by its dynamic marking.This produces an odd interruption in the rhythm that was established by the three accented weakbeats, evoking a sense of stumbling, as if the ground was suddenly missing underneath one’sfeet.24 The irregular rhythm, therefore, is not only encouraged by the indication molto rubato, butis also provoked in the performer physically.The fast acciaccatura which characterizes the first part of the piece, with the hands in thisawkward position, enhances this sense of stumbling, while the corresponding arpeggios in therecapitulation of the opening melody (m. 42 and ff.) evoke more a feeling of sliding, especiallywhen they alternate direction, which makes it more difficult to keep a steady pulse here.The attempt to keep a sense of balance seems to become more arduous starting with theswaying of m. 10 (see ex. 3.1) (emphasized in the orchestral score by the markings24 BartOk’s own recording strongly emphasizes a sense of stumbling and then falling on the last beat of eachmeasure, by taking some time here to slightly separate the right hand chord from its acciaccatura.20accelerando/rallentando that parallel the molto crescendo/diminuendo of the piano version).Here the left hand thumb remains blocked on G# (spelled also as Ab) for five eighth-notes andthe whole hand has, for the first time, to leave its already uncomfortable position and contract asit approaches the middle of the measure.Example 3.l:m. 107Ift /9 4E!f!mo o or sc. motto di} Ln.J. r “.A sense of tipping over oneself is called forth as the left hand needs to move quickly ontop of the right hand and back under, on the third beat of m. 12. The orchestral version has thebeginning of an accelerando here, not present in the piano score, which leads hastily to the firstbig cadence of m. 16. In the version for piano, a feeling of falling into this cadence is produced intwo stages: one more static, where the sense of balance starts to be seriously challenged, and theother more dynamic. For the first time black keys appear in the right hand in mm. 12-13 and thisevokes in the pianist a feeling comparable to that of someone, slightly tipsy, losing his balanceand needing to bounce off a wall to regain the initial, more balanced, position. The following twodescending measures acquire more a sense of direction steadily descending through a whole-tonescale: the drunk person leaves the position of precarious balance around B and heads for the21cadence. The uncoordinated descent develops first by having the right hand heavily landing onblack keys, while standing on top of the left hand, and then by suddenly inverting the situation inthe following measure. The unaccompanied D# of m. 15 finally falls heavily on the tritonebelow. This feeling of uncontrolled falling into the cadence, accompanied by the plunging of theleft hand into the low register, is followed, as might be expected, by a moment of stasis (mm. 16-17) throughout which the right hand sits inertly on the octave A for a measure and a half, as ifphysically blocked.The descending section between m. 25 and m. 29 opposes a bottom-heavy left hand thatregularly plunges from middle-register chords onto low octaves with a right hand descending incircular gestures. It is interesting to notice how the fall of the right hand seems to reflect anunderlying kinesthetic disorganization: in mm. 25-26 the descending sections of a whole-tonescale between tritones encourage a clock-wise motion of the arm, while, starting in m. 27, thelocal chromatic ascents involve a reversal of this movement (see ex. 3.2).Example 3.2: m. 25-28I iir ;r LJ 1ü\ L I I.).‘h.II I F’...—F II•h II I.t_fJ LV’ r--I V’—I v.;The followingsection sees a confused attempt to find a way back to the opening melody:the left hand transposes the same offbeat chord through all the semitones of a perfect fifth, as if22searching for the right place to play, both in space and time. The helter-skelter quality of thistransition is increased by the awkward slurs and accents in the right hand: the sfmarking, in fact,occurs on the last off-beat of each measure or half-measure and conflicts with the natural instinctof playing the end of a slur softer than the beginning (see ex. 3.3).The last figure of the piece (mm. 54-55) reproduces all the physical characteristics ofsomeone stumbling (on the A in m. 54.4) and crashing with all his weight on the held final fifth(see ex. 3.4).sf I4I;iJj!a•I 7,): 77.j).fI I I I LJ“Al’i i rriiJTipsiness in form, melodic structure, harmony and rhythmFrom a more traditional analytical perspective, which focuses on form, melodic structure,harmony and rhythm, “Slightly Tipsy” also presents irregular and unbalanced choices, consistentwith the programmatic expectations raised by its title.23Example 3.3: m. 34 Example 3.4: m. 54-55• •• pJeo sostenutoAt first, the general form of the piece seems to be a rather common tripartite ABA, with amiddle section of contrasting material starting in m. 16 and a reprise of the opening music in m.42. Upon further analysis, the middle section proves to be made of only three little segments ofwhat sounds like a folk song (mm. 18, 21 and 24) followed by a descending and an ascendingprogression (mm. 25-29 and mm. 30-41): there is no complete theme, only short recollections ofmotives that can mostly be traced back to the opening section (m. 18 is a transposition of m. 12and the descending segments of a whole-tone scale of mm. 25-26 recall similar figures in mm. 5,14, and 15).Tonally, the opening melody is quite undefined and uncertain, leaping up and downthrough symmetric perfect fourths. Almost equal weight is given to the pitches E, B and A andthe harmonization of the melody, in identical parallel chords, does not help to define anyhierarchy among the melodic pitches of the right-hand chords.As the piece proceeds, B seems to be predominant, being the focal pitch for both thehiccup figures of mm. 9 and 11 and the dizzy swaying of mm. 10, 12, and 13. At the end of thefirst A section, though, when the first important cadence occurs in m. 16, the falling tritonelunges onto what sounds like a wrong note, A, which then reappears as a central pitch in the mostimportant moments of the middle section (mm. 18, 22, and 25).25 The two progressions that leadto the reprise of the principal tune (mm. 25-41) completely lose any sense of a key center, as wellas undermining the pulse.When the opening melody is repeated in the closing section, it skips certain figures thatappeared earlier, as will be discussed below in detail, and it proceeds on a new path starting in m.25 The cadence would be expected here to end perhaps on B, the central pitch, still memorable, of the wholeprevious section.2448. Although m. 48 superficially appears to carry on the pattern established by the two previousmeasures, the music here is suddenly distorted: the right hand shifts to a six-flats signature (atritone transposition of the previous white-note collection) and the left hand abandons the triadicpattern for narrower chords full of semitones. Finally, the very last cadence is tonallyunequivocal (mm. 54-5 5), the only such moment in the piece, but even this feels like a surprisingand sudden plunge back to E, and thus home, following the unexpected and underminingiterations of G and D.Perhaps the most unbalancing feature of this piece is the phrasing of the folk-like melodyin the opening section, up to m. 16. Benjamin Suchoff, in his description of Bartok’sethnomusicological research, recognizes in these first four measures the structure of anHungarian folk song in the new style (originating around the middle of the nineteenth century)and brings as a direct model a melody that was collected by Bartok in 1910, similarly composedof four 7-syllable units in a symmetric ABAB structure, in duple meter and isometric.26As JuditFrigyesi points out, these songs, mostly in tempo giusto, are often based on a basic rhythmicstructure derived from kolomeika-type melodies of Carpatian Ukraine:J JJ J Animportant observation for the present discussion is that upbeats never occur in this kind ofHungarian folk song.28 This might account for the feeling, at the end of m. 4, that new materialstarts too soon, this feeling being especially emphasized by its forceful accented entry, mfMost of this first section is characterized by a general feeling of losing track of what onewas saying and of constantly interrupting oneself trying to set things straight, all this perhaps26 Suchoff, 2001, p. 74. It might be worth noticing, though, that while Suchofrs melody ends clearly on the tonic,Bartok’s sounds open in m. 4.27 Frigyesi, p. 123.28 ibid.,p. 126.25caused by the inebriated state of the singer. The dynamic marking of mfand the accents over thetenuto signs connect the motive in m. 5 with that of m. 7, both including an upbeat. This isespecially evident in the orchestral version, where an accelerando followed by a ritardando inthe two 2/4 measures, mm. 6 and 8, sets these measures apart, like parenthetical afterthoughts,from what seems to be the main melody (mm. 5 and 7). It is important to notice that, althoughthese tempo markings are missing completely in the piano score, they are very clearly present inBartok’s own recording.Supporting this feeling of something being superfluous or not quite in the right place inthis opening section, is the observation that most of the unsettling elements are “normalized” inthe reprise of m. 42. The measures in this closing section are all single units, without upbeats, allof the same length and connected by an homogeneous dynamic level. Surprisingly, though, themeasures that are left out are not the parenthetical figures, but those corresponding to m. 5 andm. 7: mm. 46-47 are equivalent to m. 6 and m. 8 with their upbeats. The addition of the newarpeggio in m. 48 and the cadential m. 49 makes it easy to hear a standard two-groups-of-fourmeasures starting in m. 42. Mm. 50-51 repeat the cadence in different octaves, forming a regulartwo-bar group, while the following three measures strip the (tonally surprising) cadence down toits most bare elements (mm. 52-54).Mm. 10, 12 and 13 also have a dynamic marking that differs from the surroundingmaterial and, like mm. 6 and 8, these measures too have accelerando/rallentando indications inthe orchestral score. This might suggest that they also are slippery insertions. The resemblancebetween the motive of m. 5 and that of mm. 14-15 connects the two and supports also such anhypothesis of intrusive material in the middle.The discussion of one last aspect of imbalance might be useful from a performing point26of view, that of the relationship between the hands in the opening section. Bartok was infamouswith his editors for the precision that he required when printing his music, even using arrows toindicate more precisely where dynamics started and ended.29 The faèt that the indication mp isprinted above the right hand and not between the lines as is more common, leaves no doubt onthe fact that the melody should be brought out clearly. Whether the other notes are just a cloud ofsound or there is a search for a distinctive harmony, on the other hand, is less obvious. The lefthand chords are mostly made of major or minor triads, but the enharmonic spelling of each fifthconsistently avoids a habituated reading by the eye. The observation, furthermore, that in theorchestral version Bartok changed the main triad of each beat into a four-note chord by subposinga new “root” under it, might lead one to think that the sound he had in mind in the piano versionwas just that of the right hand triad supported by the pitch a third below, that found at the bottomof the left hand acciaccatura, while the other two notes of the left hand are there just to blur thesound. To support an impression of the fortuitousness of these two little notes, it might be notedthat in the orchestral score, when they come back in m. 42, they are different from those of m. 1(ex.3.5).Example 3.5: reduction of mm. I and 42 of the orchestral version, transposed to E minor___________I29 Vinton, p. 228.27In the orchestral score, the chords on the downbeats of m. 42 are still connected to theupbeats by sustained basses, but in the piano version the previously blurred chords of the lefthand now acquire the possibility for equal status with the former melody line. The fact thatdescending arpeggios allow for different voices to be brought out might suggest to the pianistinteresting contrapuntal possibilities in the reprise of m. 42 . The right hand melody, althoughstill on top and memorable enough to be picked up by the listener, is rhythmically no longer asstrong, placed mostly on upbeats, nor is it highlighted by different dynamic or articulationmarkings. One could, for example, bring out the left-hand thumb, so that the melody perceivedwould be in four flats, thus preparing the ear for the six flats of m. 48.Conclusions“Slightly Tipsy” is an early example of Bartok’s absorption of the spirit of folk music intohis own artistic world. As it is well known, BartOk had an enormous interest in the variousaspects of peasant culture, which led him to collect pieces of furniture and utensils along withfolk songs during his trips in the country. What he mostly admired was the unaffectedness of thepeasant life. For him “peasant music itself plays the part in composition that natural objects playin painting.. .or again, in order to illustrate this point from the art of writing, popular music is tothe composer what Nature herself is to the writer”.30An unsophisticated quality and a sense ofdirectness pervade this work: most of the piece is strongly melody-driven with little or nocounterpoint, in fact, it can be easily sung unlike the other two pieces of the set. The melody30 Bela Bartok Essays, p. 324.28itself is very simple in its intervals (most of the melodic material is made out of scales and triads,along with the perfect fourths of the opening), rhythm (it uses only quarter- or eighth-notes) andstructure (although the opening section is interspersed by “intrusions”, the melody is mostly builtin two- or four-bar groups).This unaffectedness of expression is also manifested in the directness through which theinebriate state is portrayed, as it has been discussed, both physically and strictly musically.“Slightly Tipsy” is an honest picture, albeit sarcastic, of someone singing on his way to a finalfall, through a path full of false steps, interruptions and unbalanced sways.29CHAPTER 4: [CAPRICCIOSO]The last piece of the set was composed sometime during 1910, a year in which Bartok was givingnumerous concerts and was trying to become better known as a composer. Being in need ofpieces to perform, in this same year he completed most of his other early sets for piano: DeuxImages, op. 10, Seven Sketches, Op. 9, Two Rumanian Dances, Op. 8a, and Four Dirges. Unlikethe other two pieces of the set, this one has no title. The tempo indication at the head of the scoreis “molto vivo, capriccioso” and Suchoffs edition of Bartok’s piano music reproduces this lastadjective, in square brackets to mark the editorial addition, in lieu of a title. The term“Burlesque”, as discussed earlier, evokes images of theatrical scenes that evolve in front of anaudience, like those of a quarrel or of a swaying drunk person. This piece too seems to representa scene, that of a capricious young character, surprisingly inconstant and whimsical, experiencingunexpected and sudden changes of mood and direction. Gestures and expressions are broughtforth here whose meanings, initially obscure, are either explored and partially clarifiedsubsequently, or else keep their ambiguity as the music moves on to other things. Thisinconstancy and absence of lucid development makes Suchoff’s appropriation of”capriccioso”suitable for this piece.CapricciosoOne of the elements that participates in portraying a character of inconstancy in this pieceis the use of a sudden silence, marked by a fermata, as found in mm. 21, 91, 161 and 194. In eachcase, the effect of these is to interrupt the otherwise constant and regular pulse of 3/8. The first30three fermatas all occur after a cartwheel-like ostinato pattern has been established, making thesudden silence even more unexpected. The short fermata at m. 21 is of particular effect in that itdoes not define an important sectional division of the music: instead of introducing a change incharacter, mood, sound, tempo or texture, it serves the purpose of unexpectedly reinvigorating Eas an important melodic pitch, thus making the sudden silence more whimsical.Another element that produces a sense of disruptive fickleness, in a way that is quitedistinctive of this piece, is the insertion of fast one-measure figures that interrupt, through a rapidchange of texture and register, the melodic flow. These are found in mm. 57 and 59, in mm. 94,98 and 100, and constantly interrupting the waltz-like section that starts in m. 114. These suddenintrusions give the impression of a character unable to concentrate on a single (melodic)discourse, whose joking personality surfaces in the most disparate and unexpected moments.The very opening figure, a fast and tonally ambiguous ascending gesture followed by ameasure of rest, evokes in my imagination the entrance on stage of a theatrical figure, suddenlyappearing from behind the curtains, with a character similar to that of Till Eulenspiegel. In fact,Strauss’s tone poem, undoubtedly well known to Bartok,31 shares many musical features withthis piece. As an example, the lightness of ex. 4.1, expressed by the strings through graziososkipping gestures that quickly change direction, resembles Bartok’s scherzando figures in mm.91-92. What follows, in both cases, is a more linear cadential answer (Strauss’ mm. 115-116 andBartok’s m. 93) and a sequential repetition of both figures. Each of the two characters is sketchedby means of short cadential figures and sudden changes of register.‘ in his autobiography of 1921, BartOk describes how is discovery of Strauss’ music in 1902 led him “to throw[himself] into the study of all Strauss’s scores” (Bela Bartok Essays, p. 409).31Example 4.1: Strauss, Till Eulenspiegel, reduction of mm. 113-116{ , ‘- - I I- -(V q I /.) : - -I.1FI I /1111 I— I I I)— -JI ‘ —. I I,-4)•;I:•-— 11 I_% 1-r-,.r-rIn the first section of Bartok’s score a frequent indication is that of ‘leggiero’ and‘leggierissimo’. A lightness of sound recalling the ‘presto leggiero’ of another capricious piece,Mendelssohn’s Rondo Capriccioso, seems to be called forth in staccato passages such as theopening, the ending, and the scherzando section (m. 91).Another characteristic of this piece is that the traditional structuring of melodies in termsof antecedent and consequent is mostly missing here. Instead, most of the melodic material isbuilt out of short triadic cadential gestures that end on a long-held note (e.g., mm. 9-14, mm. 28-35, mm. 3 8-40, mm. 79-80, and mm. 83-84) . This characteristic is shared also by the last ofBartok’s fourteen Bagatelles (composed two years earlier): its opening page’s melodic material ismade of three one-measure long gestures (the first one is an ascending triadic arpeggiation notunlike mm. 5-6 of the Burlesque) that each end on a held note. The analogy might seemincidental, but the two pieces have more than these melodic arpeggios and sustained notes incommon: the Burlesque’s insistent turns, starting in m. 67, have parallels in similar passagesfrom the Bagatelle, mm. 22-26 and mm. 29-34. The Bagatelle is clearly a distorted and grotesquewaltz, portraying the wild dance of Bartok’s “dancing sweetheart”. It is then easy to recognize inthe Burlesque as well, starting in m. 114, the character of an unruly dance over accented32downbeats every two measures.32The dancing sweetheart of the Bagatelles was manifestly StefiGeyer, the violinist with whom Bartok had a relationship at the time. While there is no dedicateefor this last Burlesque, identifying its capricious dancer with Bartok’s wife Márta would providea unifying, if admittedly speculative, connection to the quarrelsome protagonist of the firstBurlesque.33Another character that comes into mind in association with this piece, is that pertaining toyet another burlesque: Petrushka.34The second part of the ballet, which introduces Petrushka inhis cell, opens with the clarinets playing two ascending triads on top of each other, much as inthe opening measure of Bartok’s Burlesque (see ex. 4.2). The same passage continues with therepetition of adescending-second figure, one that resembles the left-hand figures in m. 12-14 ofthe Bartok, where the second is minor. In both works, these are followed by a sudden descendingoutburst in a contrasting dynamic. This is not to imply that there was any actual connectionbetween the creation of these two pieces, but it does suggest overtones of a pantomime-likeatmosphere in this capricious piece.35Example 4.2: Stravinsky, Petrushka, reduction of R.n. 95-95+4 and 96+29 3 $ j..: — — liii? r3 1 —4?I ‘ I—I I I I I-‘132“Ma Mie qui danse” (“my dancing sweetheart”) was composed in May 1908, and it was orchestrated in 1911 asthe second of the Two Portraits op. 5 with a subtitle of “Grotesque portrait”, in contrast with the first “Ideal” portrait.The first Burlesque was dedicated to his wife to be Márta Ziegler, which suggests her as the likely antagonist in thequarrel.The complete title for the ballet is “Petrushka: Burlesque in four scenes”.Stravinsky performed two movements of the ballet to Diaghilev in 1910. According to David Schneider, whoexplored the connections between the two composers, BartOk had no knowledge of any music by Stravinsky otherthan the “Rite of Spring”, “Rossignol” and “Three Japanese Lyrics” until 1920 (Schneider, p. 178).33Example 4.3: Bartok, Wooden Prince, reduction of bassoon part between R.n. 142+3-142+4NwI II.rg 7 /If TIr’ITo sustain this hypothesis one might recall that, not many years later, Bartok was going towrite a ballet as well (1914-16), and that the capricious Princess in The Wooden Prince bears amarked musical resemblance to the character of this Burlesque (compare the music betweenrehearsal numbers 142-143 in the ballet, ex.4.3, with the scherzando section). This piece, in fact,with its very visual gestures (like those of the opening page, as will be discussed in the nextsection), with its lack of a traditional melody (even a distorted or interrupted one, like that of thepreceding Burlesque), and with insistent quasi-mechanical repetitions both in melodic figures(mm. 67-78) and in the accompanying runs, evokes a sense of a pantomime.36If one were toagree with these impressions, then extra levels of distance are added between the music and whatit represents: the listener is not experiencing capriciousness in the abstract, or even capriciousbehavior, but sees someone acting the silent role of a capricious young woman.36 A sense of mechanical artificiality is given here by the difficulty in properly voicing the melodic left hand. From aphysical point of view, the left hand needs to stand quite high in order to leave space for the right hand to play itsruns underneath. The fact that the left hand at the same time needs to reach on top of the right hand to the G, forcesan uncomfortable turn in the wrist of the former. From a rhythmical point of view too, playing triplets in the left handwhile keeping the right hand thirty-seconds regular needs an especially conscious effort.34.:IJ((,- øI 7r’,‘11•- .. -- • ftI•1= — -Capriccioso: its sounds, its structure.polytonality exists only for the eye when one looks at such music, but our mental hearing again[as in the so-called atonality] will select on a key as a fundamental key, and will project the tonesof the other keys in relation to the one selected. The parts in different keys will be interpreted asconsisting of altered tones of the chosen key. I will use a simile: our two eyes cannotsimultaneously perceive two totally different pictures; they have to concentrate their direction onone picture (the slight difference caused by the distance between the eyes is of noconsequence).. .similarly, our hearing cannot perceive two or more different keys with two or moredifferent fundamental tones, as such; it will simplif3i matters by reducing the maze of keys to oneprincipal key...incidentally, much of Stravinsky’s music, and also of my music, looks as if it isbitonal or polytonal.37Without question, the most distinctive and characteristic sound in this piece is thatproduced by the figures similar to those of the opening gesture: light runs of sixteenths orthirtyseconds, full of semitonal dissonances, with a clear ascending or arch-like shape (in oneinstance only, they occur in a U-shape as well). The aural impression is either that of an overallascending motion, such as in m. 1, or that of a stretching associated with an elastic medium, as inm. 62. From a pianistic point of view, these gestures have physical characteristics that can berelated to the domain of mechanics. The ascending sounds are generated through a gesturesimilar to that of pulling up an object, a sort of movement against force of gravity (as in m. 1).38In fact, in order to be able to give the proper dynamic shape to m. 1, one has to drop the handsBartok, “Harvard lectures”, in Bela Bartok Essays, pp. 365-366.38 here the rhythmic subdivision of the gesture, with its 3+2+1 pattern, encourages a hearing of slowing down whilemoving up, in opposition to the parallel figure in m. 175, where the energy is directed towards the Eb chord of m.176.35together on the downbeat and pull them up at the end of the measure, making an arc with thewrists. Other shapes, such as that of m. 62, seem to be governed more by a force of elastic nature.Again, this is encouraged by its dynamic marking: the double wedge of these figures forces theleft hand to “spring” from the low note, bounce off a louder sound with its thumb over the righthand and quickly return to its initial still place. Since these types of figures have very differentand defined shapes and are required mostly to be very soft, it is important to think of them, whilepracticing, as unified physical gestures rather then made of separate elements.To the eye, these gestures look like they have strong harmonic implications, built out offragments of scales and arpeggiated triads, but to the ear they tend to be just clouds of confusedsound. It is interesting and of extreme importance for a performer to try to analyze some of thecharacteristics of these figures and their implications case by case, since their inherently confusedharmonic effects need to be sorted out variously, according to each figure’s shape and itssurroundings.In fact, for both performer and listener, one of the first questions to arise when confrontedwith the first measure of this piece is whether this should appear just a cloud of sound or ratheras having important harmonic implications. The eye sees a clear E minor 6/4 chord in the righthand over a D minor triad in the same inversion.39According to Bartok’s above-cited commenton bitonality, the eye can easily follow these two keys through the first couple of lines of thismusic. Playing the two hands separately, the top line arpeggiates an EL minor triad, cadencing onit in m. 12, while the other hand, through a slightly more varied harmonic path, implies D minorvon der Null’s study of Bartok’s early piano music cites this piece as a clear example of explorations of bitonality(between E and D and later in the piece between C and D), as well as bimodality (between E minor and major), p.24-25.36as its harmonic center. The opening A major run in the left hand can be heard as V of D (or 16/4),alternating with a Neapolitan 6th (made complete by the right hand’s BL’) in mm. 6, 8 and 10. Amore explicit V chord is touched upon in m. 11, and a D chord, although in second inversion, isfound enharmonically disguised in m. 14, giving a weak sense of tonic arrival.The EL’ minor triad starts out at a disadvantage in m. 1 because its notes are so high and sodisconnected relative to those of the D minor triad. In their staccato eighth-note rhythm, theseright-hand triads tend to fade into a secondary, disruptive role rather than establishing anindependently intelligible tonal level. In fact, when the EL’ triad is heard explicitly as such in mm.6, 8 and 10, it confirms the D tonality by acting as a conventional Neapolitan, serving tostrengthen the dominance of the D triad over the EL’ triad in mm. 7 and 9 although, in mm. 3 and5, the move into a middle register had threatened to allow for parity of tonal presence betweenthe two triads. Ironically, then, these overt EL’ triads do not encourage hearing an EL’ level. But,doubly ironically, EL’ does predominate after m. 12, as a melodically accented pitch, and, ofcourse, is destined to win out as the tonal center at the end. The element of caprice is thus atwork in the very tonal substance of this music.One might be tempted to sidestep the issue of tonal conflict or ambiguity by focusing, moresimply, on the lowest and highest pitches in figures like those of m. 1 and passim; and, as amatter of fact, this turns out to be a good strategy when its results are supported by thesurrounding context. Thus, at m. 194, the figure sounds cadential to the EL’ triad atm. 195, and itmakes sense to isolate the low FL’ and high D as an augmented sixth. By a similar token, thefigure in m. 57 is heard as an expansion of the immediately preceding F# major triad (prolongedfrom m. 48), and so, there too, it makes sense to emphasize A# and F#, respectively the lowest37and highest pitches, though both are played here by the left hand. True to the music’s inconstantnature, however, the figure of m. 57, as it gets obsessively repeated beginning in m. 62, quicklyloses its tonal identity, becoming instead a blurry accompaniment to the focal A in the left hand.And when this same figure returns in m. 115, somewhat pulled apart in register and with a voiceadded a third below the left-hand line, context alone dictates that it should be perceived as anexpansion of the immediately preceding B major triad (m. 114). Finally, in m. 147, a figureidentical to that of m. 115 is probably best perceived as standing in a dominant relation to the Cmajor triad of m. 146.In addition to the obvious aspect of tonal conflict, there is to this music a dimension oflarge-scale, horizontal contrast involving an alternation between sharp and flat sides that can beobserved between larger sections. The opening, balancing between EI and D minor, startsunequivocally on flat keys, so that the cadential arrival on F# major in m. 35 is instead perceivedas G. It isn’t until hints of E major appear in mm. 39-40 that the sharps written on the page sincem. 35 start to be perceived by the ear as well. The A of m. 61 starts a new melody that shiftsbetween the central pitches of A and A. At first, the A, representing the sharp side, is perceivedas the central pitch, embellished by the little turns of mm. 67-72. However, when the new figureof m. 73 appears, the insistent A starts to become more prominent, to the point that the cadenceon E comes as a no surprise in m. 80.40 The cadence is then immediately repeated as ifcorrecting a wrong step, but this time ends on a sharp harmony: a downward arpeggio perceived40 The stable feeling of the E minor cadence is supported here in several ways: by having the whole triad betweenthe two voices of the left hand with the root in the bass, by having apoco nt. leading into it, and visually, by its ‘flat’spelling.38either as wanting to resolve to an A chord or as a dominant of E.4’ It is worth noticing how thiswhole subsection’s contrasts are represented in nuce in this last cadential measure: the descendingarpeggio of m. 84 contains all the main pitches of the melody since m. 61 (except for the closingEL’), and starts with both main pitches, A and G#, in rapid succession.The scherzando middle section moves abruptly back to the flat side, with a cadence on AL’in m. 101 which is prolonged through arpeggiation until m. 107.42 With a subtle and suddenchange of accent placement to the downbeat in m. 108, the previous runs are transposed andtransformed back to a sharp harmony, opening the wild dance (m. 114: B major, m. 120: Emajor). That the middle section centers on neutral C major (mm. 146-160) is then only a naturalconsequence of this opposition between sharps and flats. C major is colored by a Di harmony,perhaps prophetic of the unequivocal flat ending of the piece.FormThe form of this last piece is yet another ABA structure (mm. 1-90, mm. 91-160, and mm.161-203), one of Bartok’s favorites, but, at the same time, this functions in the service of a moregoal-oriented and cumulative linear shape. The tripartite form starts with a linear texture,leggiero andpp, defined by short melodic gestures (mm. 1-90); it then moves to the muchheavier, louder and more polyphonic dance-like music of mm. 114-160, characterized by itspurposeful harmonic rhythm and overall rhythmic drive, and ends with loud blocks of chordal41 The “sharp” feeling is further encouraged by the subsequent prolongation of A and G#, in mm. 85-90, which are atthe extremes of the runs.42 Ab major is prolonged here by emphasizing dynamically the top note of each “elastic” gesture.39tonic arpeggiations.The form is rather continuous, with different sections mutating and melting into oneanother, even if superficial interruptions, such as abruptly accented notes, sudden rests, andunexpected changes of character might suggest otherwise. One of the main elements concurringin giving a general sense of unity both between and within sections is the above-discussedrunning figure. This not only gives a sense of textural continuity throughout the piece, but alsosmoothes transitions by introducing in earlier parts sounds that distinguish a later subsection. Thefigure of m. 19, for instance, unifies and connects the two moments around the fermata sign of m.22, while nim. 57 and 59 prefigure the background sound of the whole next part. Also, these‘elastic”, fast figures in the first A section reappear in different transpositions well into themiddle section and are fundamental in concluding it. In the last section, the opening ascendingruns are recalled again to bring the piece to a conclusion.Formal unity is achieved here also by relating sections in various subtle ways, which areoften not immediately perceived. For example, the sudden and unexpected sforzatissimo of m. 61suggests at first the beginning of a new and contrasting section, but a close comparison with thepassage starting in m. 22 shows unifying parallels between the two. In both cases, the accentednotes, a tritone from each other, are held through the following five measures over ostinato runsin the background and are then repeated and reinterpreted as beginning of melodic lines. Also,both these melodic lines rely on repetition and end on similar gestures in their cadences (see ex.4.4).40Example 4.4: mm. 34-3 5 and 79-804 rrH1 4 1These structural and textural similarities make it possible to see these two sections as beingconnected, with the second as a continuation or an answer to the first, despite little differencessuch as the fact that the melody in m. 61 is underneath the ostinato figure, while in the firstsection it is on top of it.M. 91 marks the start of the B section, which begins with a fermata sign and ischaracterized by a new scherzando character and a new texture of hopping thirds. But even herethere are cross-sectional links. First, the opening sounds of m. 91 have been previouslyintroduced or prepared. Harmonically, the B half-diminished seventh chord implied in m. 91 isalready present in the descending arpeggios of m. 84, and the high A of m. 91, the beginning ofthe new melodic line, has been prepared and reached through the ascending top notes in theprevious arch-like runs (G in m. 82, G in m. 83, and G# in mm. 85-90). Then, the material ofthe whole middle part is constantly interrupted by runs similar to those of the previous A section:they intrude even well into the waltz-like section, the core of the piece, until they take overcompletely towards the end.M. 161 marks the beginning of the final A section: a coda and at the same time a41recapitulation in terms of harmonic definition. These blocked EL’ major arpeggios sound quitenew, their decisive character strongly contrasting with the more ambiguous variety of precedingpassages. At the same time, the brilliant and weighty arpeggiations of the EL’ major chords bear aclose resemblance, in their register and texture, to the earlier C major chords (mm. 146-154). Nonew material appears in this last section, which brings together particulars that characterized eachearlier part: the short figure at the opening of the piece and the first gesture of the middle section(the B half-diminished chord of m. 91, which reappears unaltered in m. 202).ConclusionsLooking at this piece it appears evident that Bartok was an extremely gifted pianist. In fact,he was raised as a virtuoso in the wake of Lisztian pianism43 and was extremely comfortable withthe traditional resources of the great romantic generation: fast scales, strong differences of colorand dynamics between foreground and background material even when in very close position,fast changes of register, heavy arpeggiated chords, and so on, all of which are foundational to thispiece. But one has the impression here that Bartok, although still bound to this conventionalapproach to the instrument, was more interested in a renewal of musical language, experimentingwith new sounds and new harmonic combinations. Traditional chords are here disguised throughenharmonic respelling so that the eye can not immediately recognize them, as is the case, forexample, for the D major triad in the left hand of m. 14. Even places where one might expecttraditionally clear harmonic definition, such as the beginning and end of a piece, are presented‘ Bartok graduated from the Budapest Academy in the piano class of lstván Thomán, a pupil of Liszt. During hisstudies at the Academy, BartOk performed numerous works by Liszt, among which his B minor Sonata, whichremained part of his standard repertoire during the following years, when touring as a virtuoso pianist.42through an obscuring veil, causing perplexity. In other moments, certain chords and harmoniesappear clearly on the page but one does not hear what is expected. From a performer’s point ofview, there is generally a great discrepancy between what is heard and what is seen on the page.Given the capricious character of this piece, a pianist needs to be fully aware of all thesmall details which mark each moment so as not to obliterate ambiguities implied by them in thismusic. The left hand subdivision of the first gesture, for example, which creates a rhythmicrallentando and, harmonically, a triad a semitone apart from that in the right hand, needs to beclearly defined in the mind of the performer, but at the same time it has to be presented as anascending quick gesture of ambiguous harmonic meaning. Both triadic possibilities need to bethought as having equal weight to keep alive the ambiguity that creates the character of thispiece.Accordingly, it is important not to prepare sudden variations or unexpected figures, such asthe accented E major presence between m. 39-47, or the two accented beginnings of the firstsection (mm. 22 and 61); and to be able to quickly completely change character even where thefigures appear not to have changed much, as in m. 108.Although, as has been shown, most of the sections of this piece are joined either throughthe same or similar sounds and gestures, it is characteristic of a capriccioso nature not to beunified and connected. It is consistent with the depiction of a capricious personality to havemeaningful expressions coming out in relief as surprises, appearing as shifts of mood andpropensity, while being in reality prepared and present in the background all along, where theyare available to be selected and suddenly put into focus.43CHAPTERS: THE BURLESQUES AS A SET, AND IN THEIR RELATIONSHIP TOLATER WORKSOrder and unity of the setIt is only in our times that there is place for the painting of the feeling of vengeance, the grotesque,and the sarcastic...It is curious that, in this excerpt from a letter of 1909, already quoted in the introduction to thisessay, Bartok describes three subjects for musical painting in an order that recalls theirappearances in the Three Burlesques: the vengeful feelings aroused by a quarrel, the grotesquemovements of a tipsy person, and a sarcastic take on a capricious character. Three Burlesqueswas not conceived from the beginning in this format, though, and it is interesting to speculatebriefly on the order chosen for this set, considering in particular two factors: first, that “Quarrel”was originally intended as a companion to “Portrait of a girl”, the first of the Seven Sketches, Op.9b (also composed in 1908 and similarly dedicated to his future wife Márta Ziegler); and second,that the central piece of the set, “Slightly Tipsy”, was composed last, in 1911, after“Capriccioso”. The order in which the pieces appear in the set is therefore not determined bytheir chronological composition and must be deliberate.As is well known, Bartok’s love for geometrical organizations and symmetries led to hisfrequent use of the tripartite arch-form, which he often also applied, on a larger scale, to differentmovements of a work. In fact, in most of his three-movement pieces, such as the Sonata for‘ quoted in Frigyesi, p. 120.44piano, the Sonatafor two pianos andpercussion, and the three piano concertos, the outermovements are often related either thematically (as in the second piano concerto) or by having amore extroverted spirit contrasting with a central, more soulful musical core.In the case of the Three Burlesques too, the outer pieces are related in several ways.Superficially, they both share a triple meter, ostinato figures, a quick tempo, and a constantmeasure-length; and both rely on a steady pulse that at times organically slows down or speedsup. On a deeper level, both pieces’ musical content grows out of a cloud of sound, repeatedpp indifferent octaves, that is initially intentionally difficult to decipher. Finally, as discussed inchapter four,45 one might speculate on a common and unifying dedicatee for the two externalpieces: Bartok’s first wife, Márta Ziegler. “Slightly Tipsy” therefore stands out, contrasting withthe two outer pieces on all these points. It is in duple meter; its tempo is quite a bit slower (themetronome markings imply that one quarter-note of the middle piece corresponds approximatelyto one full measure of the other two); tempo rubato, according with its programmatic content, isone of its most characteristic elements; and the piece is built around an extremely intelligible andsingable melody.Despite these contrasting elements between the middle piece and the others, the set isstrongly unified. Its most unifying aspect is signaled by the title, Burlesques, which defines acommon character of both sarcastic and theatrical nature. All three pieces are created with anexperimental harmonic language born out of late-romantic pianism, to depict grotesque situationsand sarcastic attitudes to characters. These are quasi-staged scenes with strong programmaticcontent which, as has been discussed in detail, are reflected on a purely musical level and, for theperformer, in the physical dimension. It might be noted, incidentally, that all Bartok’s stagedsee p. 36.45works were composed in the immediately following years: Bluebeard’s Castle in 1911, TheWooden Prince in 1914-16, and The Miraculous Mandarin in 1919.As has been shown, all three burlesques play with ambiguity, intentionally embedded intheir opening sounds: the two outer movements start on confused gestures of fast-moving sound,and the middle movement, with a tonally uncertain melodic line accompanied in parallel,harmonically conflicting chords. Each, through its individual path, arrives at a decisiveconclusion only at the very end. Ambiguity, of course, is a determining factor in producing adynamic plot, and creating contrast, thus it seems quite fitting to have it as a foundationalcharacteristic for theatrical music.Relations with Bartok’s later piano musicThese three early pieces stand out as being quite different from later and better knownpiano pieces by Bartok in some fundamental ways. When one thinks of Bartok’s piano music,certain characteristic elements come first to mind: a percussive use of the piano, a strongrhythmic drive combined with sudden metrical shifts, humorous passages, and an extensive useof ostinato material.To a certain degree, some of these elements are present in the Three Burlesques, in theservice of programmatic description. Repetitive fast passages, often used to accompany melodiclines in later pieces (to cite only a few examples: the second movement of the Suite, op. 14; thefirst two movements of the Piano Concerto No. 2; and “The Chase”, from Out ofDoors) areevidently preponderant in the first and third pieces of this set. In “Quarrel”, though, the repetitivepassages make up the thematic material instead of being relegated to the background, in support46of a melody, and they serve the function of giving a sense of the circularity of the argument aswell as a physical feeling of antagonism between gestures and harmonies. In “Capriccioso”,repetitive passages also have a descriptive function, used to outline a stubborn and whimsicalcharacter. Unlike later works, metrical shifts and rhythmic complexities are very rare in theseearly pieces: Bartok limited his rhythmic explorations to very traditional hemiolas in the firstpiece, one 5/4 measure in “Slightly Tipsy”, and a single oddly-accented last beat in m. 143 of“Capriccioso”.The percussive use of the piano, expressing itself through the heavy “barbaric” chordsvery common in Bartok’s later pieces, such as the first movement of the Sonatafor Two Pianosand Percussion and the Piano Concertos Nos. 1 and 2, is present here only in one occasion, inmm. 39-4 1 and passim of “Quarrel”. Even in this case, tough, these dissonant repeated chordshave strong programmatic motivations, portraying a climactic moment of disagreement betweenclashing personalities.The humorous character of these pieces, expressed in purely musical terms, serves torepresent conditions that support the ironic implications of their titles. But capricious and ironicelements similar to those of the third burlesque are found in many later works, where aprogrammatic or theatrical intent may be missing. For example, the third theme from the firstmovement of the Piano Concerto, No. 3 (ex. 5.1), also marked scherzando, shares thisburlesque’s lightness of sound and the leaping character of its motives. Sudden changes of moodare, of course, a fundamental feature of Bartok’s style, evident, for example, in the suddenappearance of the second theme in the first movement of the first concerto (ex. 5.2), where theacciaccature are more specifically reminiscent of the middle section of “Slightly Tipsy”.47Example 5.1: BartOk, Piano Concerto No. 3, first mvt., R.n. 54-54+1Example 5.2: BartOk, Piano Concerto No. 1, first mvt., R.n. 12+4-12+59:- jinOn no account would I like to imply programmatic descriptions in Bartok’s later piecesby associating their material with that of the Three Burlesques. Nevertheless, just as looking atearly paintings by Kandinsky permits the inference that his later abstract lines were born asrealistic descriptions of natural objects, studying these early pieces by BartOk provides insightinto how he generated and transformed sounds and rhythms that came to define his better knownstyle.41 I—’fr.1 -gJ) 1E fr ‘if •ei;)) flY1 iTri i;t4J48BIBLIOGRAPHYAntokoletz, Elliott. Bela Bartok: A Guide to Research, second edition. New York GarlandPublishing Inc., 1997.Bartok, Bela. Három Burleszk, Op. 8/c. Budapest: Editio Musica, 1950. (Budapest:ROzsavolgyi, 1912).________Hungarian Pictures. Budapest: Editio Musica, 1970.Bela Bartok Letters, ed. by J. Demény. London: Faber and Faber, 1971.Bela BartOk Essays, B. Suchoff ed., London: Faber and Faber, 1976.Piano Music ofBela BartOk. The Archive Edition, ed. Benjamin Suchoff. NewYork: Dover Publications, 1981.Bartok, Peter. My Father. Homosassa: Bartok Records, 2002.Chalmers, Kenneth. Bela Bartok. London, Phaidon Press Limited, 1995.Dorati, Antál. “Bartókiana (Some Recollections).” Tempo 136 (March 1981): 6-13.Frigyesi, Judit. Bela BartOk and Turn-of-the-Century Budapest. Berkley and Los Angeles:University of California Press, 1998.Garst, Marilyn. “How Bartok performed his own compositions.” Tempo 155, (Dec. 1985):15-21.Gillies, Malcolm, ed. The BartOk Companion. Ed. Malcolm Gillies. London: Faber & Faber,1993.Gray, Steven Earl. Tempo indications in the piano music ofBela BartOk: notation andperformance. DMA Thesis, Stanford University, 1990.Griffiths, Paul. The Master Musician: Bartok. London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1984.49Kroo, Gyorgy. A Guide to Bartok. Budapest: Corvina Press, 1974.Laki, Peter. Bartok and his world. Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1995.Lendvai, Ernö. Bela BartOk: An Analysis ofhis Music. London, Kahn & Averill, 1971._______The Workshop ofBartOkandKodaly. Budapest: Editio Musica, 1983.Moreux, Serge. Bela Bartok. New York: Vienna House, 1974.Morrison, Charles Douglas. Interactions ofconventional and nonconventional tonaldeterminants in the string quartets ofBela BartOk. PhD dissertation, University ofBritish Columbia, 1987.Nissman, Barbara. BartOk and the Piano: A Performer ‘s View. Lanham, Maryland andOxford: The Scarecrow Press Inc., 2002.NUll, Edwin von der. Bela BartOk: Em Beitrag zur Morphologie der neuen Musik. Halle:Mitteldeutsche Verlag A.G., 1930.Schneider, David E., “Bartok and Stravinsky: Respect, Competition, Influence, and theHungarian Reaction to Modernism in the 1 920s.” In Bartok and his World, P.Lakied. Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1995.Stevens, Hasley. The flfe and music ofBela BartOk, revised ed. London: Oxford UniversityPress, 1964.Suchoff, Benjamin. Guide to BartOk’s Mikrokosmos, revised ed. London: Boosey andHawkes, 1971.___“Introduction to Piano Music ofBela BartOk.” The Archive Edition. New York:Dover Publications, 1981.“Fusion of National Styles: Piano Literature, 1908-11.” In The Bartok Companion,Malcolm Gillies ed. London: Faber and Faber, 1993, 124-45.50_______•Bela Bartok: Life and Work. Lanham: Scarecrow Press, 2001.Ujfalussy, JOzsef. Bela Bartok. Budapest: Corvina, 1971.____“1907-8 in Bartóks Entwicklung.” Studia Musicologica Academiae ScientiarumHungaricae (1982): 519-525.Vinton, John. “Hints to the printers from Bartok.” Music and Letters 49/3 (July 1968): 224-230.Yeomans, David. BartOkfor Piano. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988.51THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIASCHOOL OF MUSICRecital HallSunday, April 23, 20065:00 p.m.DOCTORAL RECITAL*ERIKA CRINO’, PianoSonata Op.9O Ludwig van Beethoven(1770-1820)I Mit Lebhaftigkeit und durchaus mit Empfindung und AusdruckII Nicht zu geschwind und sehr singbar vorgetragenSonata Op.lOl Ludwig van Beethoven(1770-1820)I Etwas ledhaft und mit der innigsten EmpfindungII Lebhaft. MarschmaBigIII Langsam und sehnsuchtvollIV Geschwinde, doch nicht so sehr, und mit Entschlossenheit- iNTERMISSION-12 Waizer Op.18, D 145 Franz Schubert(1797-1828)Valses nobles et sentimentales Maurice Ravel(1 875-1937)Waltz from Faust, Concert Paraphrase (Gounod) Franz Liszt(1811-1886)*In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Musical Arts degreewith a major in Piano Performance.52THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIASCHOOL OF MUSICRecital HallWednesday, September 27, 20068:00 p.m.DOCTORAL LECTURERECITAL*ERIKA CRINO’, PianoLecture: A Performer’s analysis of Bela Bartok’s Three Burlesques, op.8/c- INTERMISSION-Quarrel Bela Bartok(188 1-1945)A bit Tipsy[Capricciosol*In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Musical Arts degreewith a major in Piano Performance.53


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items