Classical Club August 2006: Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra
Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:51 pm
To begin, here is Bartok's own succinct description of the Concerto for Orchestra: "The general mood of the work represents, apart from the jesting second movement, a gradual transition from the sternness of the first movement and the lugubrious death song of the third to the life assertion of the last one."
Bartok continues: "The title of this symphony-like orchestral work is explained by its tendency to treat single instruments or instrument groups in a 'concertante' or soloistic manner. The 'virtuoso' treatment appears, for instance, in the fugato sections of the development of the first movement (brass) or in the 'perpetuum mobile'-like passage of the principal theme in the last movement (strings) and, especially, in the second movement in which pairs of instruments consecutively appear with brilliant passages." So, almost every section of the orchestra gets to shine, as opposed to the usually dense, uniform sound of a "regular" symphony. That's not to imply the Concerto for Orchestra is in any way "wimpy." Bartok's concerto is a mighty work in its own right. I think it's one of the 20th Century's greatest classical compositions.
The following synopsis is taken from Wikipedia, with some editing by me. I'd give the author credit if I knew who wrote it, but anonymity is Wikipedia's game. Anyway, it's the best short summary of the Concerto I've come across:
The Concerto for Orchestra features all kinds of compositional techniques blended into one, and it is arguably one of the most brilliantly orchestrated pieces of music ever written. There are five movements:
1) Introduzione: a slow and mysterious introduction gives way to an allegro (briskly played) with numerous fugal passages. This movement is in sonata allegro form. (This Wikipedia article sums up fugues nicely, and this one explains sonata form more or less painlessly.)
2) Giuoco delle coppie (Game of the pairs): this movement prominently features the side drum which taps out a rhythm at the beginning and end of the movement. In between, pairs of wind instruments play short passages.
3) Elegia: a slow movement, typical of Bartók's so-called "night music".
4) Intermezzo interrotto (Interrupted intermezzo): a flowing melody with changing time signatures is interrupted by a banal theme, treated quite ironically, which is in part a parody of the march from Dmitri Shostakovich's "Leningrad" Symphony (No. 7). The banal theme is itself interrupted by "dismissing" glissandi on the trombones and "laughing" woodwinds. (This very technical Wikipedia article gets into the nuts-and-bolts of time signatures. If you have the patience and willpower to read it, by all means go for it! It's fairly instructive, but I stopped halfway through, as my brain was turning to jelly...)
5) Finale: marked presto, in which a whirling perpetuum mobile main theme competes with fugato fireworks and folky tunes. This is also written in sonata allegro form. (Perpetuum mobile (Latin), moto perpetuo (Italian), mouvement perpétuel (French), literally meaning "perpetual motion", are terms applied to pieces of music, or parts of pieces, characterised by a continuous steady stream of notes, usually at a rapid tempo.)
All right, that was the nitty-gritty "objective" part of the dissection. Now for some subjective rambling:
First of all, Bartok's music helped to "liberate" me from the stodgy notion that the 20th century was devoid of "good" classical music. I'd say Bartok was the first "modern" composer I really came to appreciate: his music oriented me towards the 20th century and I locked onto its other great composers - Ligeti, Berg, Shostakovich, and others. Classical music in the 20th century was not only good, it was some of the most awesome music I had ever heard, period.
Like the Concerto for Orchestra. Such an ordinary title hides some pretty extraordinary music. I've said elsewhere that I felt this music "captured" the Twentieth Century, both the good and the bad. When I listen to this music, I "hear" the angst and restlessness of modern life, but also its vigor and forward-looking spirit. Austere but humane, brooding but gentle, this music is a kaleidoscope of moods...but the modern voice is inescapable. You could not mistake this for a typical 19th-century romantic "concerto."
I also see the Concerto for Orchestra as a summing up of Bartok's own life and career, from struggle to final success. In 1940, the political situation in Hungary had led Bartok and his wife to emigrate to America. However, Bartok's music was hardly played in the U.S. The couple was nearly destitute, and then in 1943, Bartok found out he had leukaemia. But the Bartoks' Hungarian friends rallied around them. In particular, violinist Joseph Szigeti and conductor Fritz Reiner in secret persuaded Serge Koussevitsky, then conductor of the Boston Symphony Orchestra, to commission a large work from Bartok. Despite his ill health, Bartok was inspired by the commission and rapidly wrote the Concerto in a burst of creativity. He completed it in October '43. Koussevitsky premiered the Concerto in December, and it was a huge hit with audiences. Koussevitsky said that Bartok had written the greatest orchestral work in 25 years. Bartok was able to attend later performances, and was rewarded with standing ovations. So it's nice to know that Bartok at least got to taste some success in America before leukaemia claimed him (he died in Sept '45). So, the Concerto for Orchestra represents a triumph of the spirit over mortal flesh.
This is what Bartok's music brings to the table: an ascetic, modern sound tempered by the earthy humor and spirit of folk song (especially the Romanian and Hungarian variety). Though Bartok was an influential modernist, he himself remained an outsider -- an "unfettered one" (heh) -- who pursued his own study of ethnic folk music, away from the international movement towards modernism that reached its zenith in the 1950's. Architecture, design, interior decoration, music and art all became quite homogenous in the 50's when you think about it. By the 50's, regional or cultural characteristics tended to be smoothed away or eliminated in favor of an almost monolithic, international aesthetic. Something like Hungarian folk tunes would have been perhaps viewed disdainfully as mere kitsch. Look up Bartok in music reference books and you'll see he's often labelled as someone who never got with the program, never joined ranks with the other "serious" composers of the day. In sports or corporate analogy, Bartok wasn't a "team player." Nevertheless, Bartok did things his way, and anyway, his music still had a progressive spirit.
With Bartok, I get the sense of a very creative but also very disciplined mind at work. There is nothing superfluous about the Concerto, even if it may have been intended as a concert showcase. Every note has meaning, or implies something. Bartok gives us a very clean, sparse sound, in contrast to the thick soup of 19th-century Romantic orchestration. Bartok's music isn't about decadence, but about the consequences of decadence. The drunken orgy is over: time to wake up and get sober. That doesn't mean the Concerto is devoid of celebration -- far from it. The finale is as exhilirating as anything I've heard in classical music, but it's a kind of joy firmly expressed via a tight musical argument. Bartok was keen on formal clarity in his music.
When I said earlier that I "hear" the turmoil of the 20th Century in the Concerto, I really meant the first half of the century:
1st movement - It may be "stern" as Bartok said, but as the music gets into motion, I see in my mind's eye the hustle-and-bustle society and the gears of industry, as the century begins with possibility and the promise of better times for humanity. Progress, my dear, progress...whichever way you choose to define that word.
2nd movement - There is a kind of ironic, self-mocking dance I hear in this section. I see the boosterism and economic frenzy that takes hold of the Western world by the 1910's and 20's. War? Oh, never mind that, my dear. Remember: progress!
3rd movement - Dark music, full of melancholy, regret and haunted visions. The Great Depression. The utopian dream of unlimited prosperity turned into a nightmare of economic failure.
4th movement - Resurgence. The stasis is broken. The music wakes up from darkness and doom. A second World War, of all things, has ended the Depression and brought renewed economic vitality. So it takes war to get things moving again? No wonder there's that mocking tribute to the "Leningrad" symphony. Still, there's no denying the hope and excitement that the War years brought to many people. War sucks, but the men and women who fight them on our behalf must not be forgotten.
5th movement - A coruscating, breathtaking pyrotechnic display. It's the post-war boom! Modernism and popular culture, particularly American culture, comes to dominate the rest of the century. The hustle-and-bustle of a new era begins...
Yes, my own completely arbitrary interpretation of the Concerto for Orchestra. Thanks for reading!
Bartok continues: "The title of this symphony-like orchestral work is explained by its tendency to treat single instruments or instrument groups in a 'concertante' or soloistic manner. The 'virtuoso' treatment appears, for instance, in the fugato sections of the development of the first movement (brass) or in the 'perpetuum mobile'-like passage of the principal theme in the last movement (strings) and, especially, in the second movement in which pairs of instruments consecutively appear with brilliant passages." So, almost every section of the orchestra gets to shine, as opposed to the usually dense, uniform sound of a "regular" symphony. That's not to imply the Concerto for Orchestra is in any way "wimpy." Bartok's concerto is a mighty work in its own right. I think it's one of the 20th Century's greatest classical compositions.
The following synopsis is taken from Wikipedia, with some editing by me. I'd give the author credit if I knew who wrote it, but anonymity is Wikipedia's game. Anyway, it's the best short summary of the Concerto I've come across:
The Concerto for Orchestra features all kinds of compositional techniques blended into one, and it is arguably one of the most brilliantly orchestrated pieces of music ever written. There are five movements:
1) Introduzione: a slow and mysterious introduction gives way to an allegro (briskly played) with numerous fugal passages. This movement is in sonata allegro form. (This Wikipedia article sums up fugues nicely, and this one explains sonata form more or less painlessly.)
2) Giuoco delle coppie (Game of the pairs): this movement prominently features the side drum which taps out a rhythm at the beginning and end of the movement. In between, pairs of wind instruments play short passages.
3) Elegia: a slow movement, typical of Bartók's so-called "night music".
4) Intermezzo interrotto (Interrupted intermezzo): a flowing melody with changing time signatures is interrupted by a banal theme, treated quite ironically, which is in part a parody of the march from Dmitri Shostakovich's "Leningrad" Symphony (No. 7). The banal theme is itself interrupted by "dismissing" glissandi on the trombones and "laughing" woodwinds. (This very technical Wikipedia article gets into the nuts-and-bolts of time signatures. If you have the patience and willpower to read it, by all means go for it! It's fairly instructive, but I stopped halfway through, as my brain was turning to jelly...)
5) Finale: marked presto, in which a whirling perpetuum mobile main theme competes with fugato fireworks and folky tunes. This is also written in sonata allegro form. (Perpetuum mobile (Latin), moto perpetuo (Italian), mouvement perpétuel (French), literally meaning "perpetual motion", are terms applied to pieces of music, or parts of pieces, characterised by a continuous steady stream of notes, usually at a rapid tempo.)
All right, that was the nitty-gritty "objective" part of the dissection. Now for some subjective rambling:
First of all, Bartok's music helped to "liberate" me from the stodgy notion that the 20th century was devoid of "good" classical music. I'd say Bartok was the first "modern" composer I really came to appreciate: his music oriented me towards the 20th century and I locked onto its other great composers - Ligeti, Berg, Shostakovich, and others. Classical music in the 20th century was not only good, it was some of the most awesome music I had ever heard, period.
Like the Concerto for Orchestra. Such an ordinary title hides some pretty extraordinary music. I've said elsewhere that I felt this music "captured" the Twentieth Century, both the good and the bad. When I listen to this music, I "hear" the angst and restlessness of modern life, but also its vigor and forward-looking spirit. Austere but humane, brooding but gentle, this music is a kaleidoscope of moods...but the modern voice is inescapable. You could not mistake this for a typical 19th-century romantic "concerto."
I also see the Concerto for Orchestra as a summing up of Bartok's own life and career, from struggle to final success. In 1940, the political situation in Hungary had led Bartok and his wife to emigrate to America. However, Bartok's music was hardly played in the U.S. The couple was nearly destitute, and then in 1943, Bartok found out he had leukaemia. But the Bartoks' Hungarian friends rallied around them. In particular, violinist Joseph Szigeti and conductor Fritz Reiner in secret persuaded Serge Koussevitsky, then conductor of the Boston Symphony Orchestra, to commission a large work from Bartok. Despite his ill health, Bartok was inspired by the commission and rapidly wrote the Concerto in a burst of creativity. He completed it in October '43. Koussevitsky premiered the Concerto in December, and it was a huge hit with audiences. Koussevitsky said that Bartok had written the greatest orchestral work in 25 years. Bartok was able to attend later performances, and was rewarded with standing ovations. So it's nice to know that Bartok at least got to taste some success in America before leukaemia claimed him (he died in Sept '45). So, the Concerto for Orchestra represents a triumph of the spirit over mortal flesh.
This is what Bartok's music brings to the table: an ascetic, modern sound tempered by the earthy humor and spirit of folk song (especially the Romanian and Hungarian variety). Though Bartok was an influential modernist, he himself remained an outsider -- an "unfettered one" (heh) -- who pursued his own study of ethnic folk music, away from the international movement towards modernism that reached its zenith in the 1950's. Architecture, design, interior decoration, music and art all became quite homogenous in the 50's when you think about it. By the 50's, regional or cultural characteristics tended to be smoothed away or eliminated in favor of an almost monolithic, international aesthetic. Something like Hungarian folk tunes would have been perhaps viewed disdainfully as mere kitsch. Look up Bartok in music reference books and you'll see he's often labelled as someone who never got with the program, never joined ranks with the other "serious" composers of the day. In sports or corporate analogy, Bartok wasn't a "team player." Nevertheless, Bartok did things his way, and anyway, his music still had a progressive spirit.
With Bartok, I get the sense of a very creative but also very disciplined mind at work. There is nothing superfluous about the Concerto, even if it may have been intended as a concert showcase. Every note has meaning, or implies something. Bartok gives us a very clean, sparse sound, in contrast to the thick soup of 19th-century Romantic orchestration. Bartok's music isn't about decadence, but about the consequences of decadence. The drunken orgy is over: time to wake up and get sober. That doesn't mean the Concerto is devoid of celebration -- far from it. The finale is as exhilirating as anything I've heard in classical music, but it's a kind of joy firmly expressed via a tight musical argument. Bartok was keen on formal clarity in his music.
When I said earlier that I "hear" the turmoil of the 20th Century in the Concerto, I really meant the first half of the century:
1st movement - It may be "stern" as Bartok said, but as the music gets into motion, I see in my mind's eye the hustle-and-bustle society and the gears of industry, as the century begins with possibility and the promise of better times for humanity. Progress, my dear, progress...whichever way you choose to define that word.
2nd movement - There is a kind of ironic, self-mocking dance I hear in this section. I see the boosterism and economic frenzy that takes hold of the Western world by the 1910's and 20's. War? Oh, never mind that, my dear. Remember: progress!
3rd movement - Dark music, full of melancholy, regret and haunted visions. The Great Depression. The utopian dream of unlimited prosperity turned into a nightmare of economic failure.
4th movement - Resurgence. The stasis is broken. The music wakes up from darkness and doom. A second World War, of all things, has ended the Depression and brought renewed economic vitality. So it takes war to get things moving again? No wonder there's that mocking tribute to the "Leningrad" symphony. Still, there's no denying the hope and excitement that the War years brought to many people. War sucks, but the men and women who fight them on our behalf must not be forgotten.
5th movement - A coruscating, breathtaking pyrotechnic display. It's the post-war boom! Modernism and popular culture, particularly American culture, comes to dominate the rest of the century. The hustle-and-bustle of a new era begins...
Yes, my own completely arbitrary interpretation of the Concerto for Orchestra. Thanks for reading!
So, if this concerto does indeed contain all sorts of influences from Hungarian folk music, they are sure way outside of my knowledge.