Bartok Op 18 Etudes

[404jipjip]

Dude HOW in The world can anyone play this! man this is amazing. but now i have low self esteam because im still learning how to play CHopsticks! :/ but using two hands...

[4qetzal4]

I want to play this

[astonmusic]

Love it x

[doovud]

Zoltan Kocsis is better and faster in live.

[ceskwy]

hi allarmunumralla, this midi realisation is really very interesting !

thanks for the upload !

may I ask you to send me the midi file ?

it would be hugely helpful for some analysis work I'm carrying on on Bartok..

[fabianidhesona]

you can tell how much Ligeti was influenced by this work. sometimes sounds like Ligeti piano pieces.

[releasethefrogs]

bartok isn't realy atonal... his writing is based on structured intervals. I'd say it more non-tonal, like it doesn't have a definite key. If you want atonal check out schoenberg. I find bartok far more melodic. This is deeply beautiful if you seek the melody.

[LoSignorino]

Holy crap!....u mean bartok never played them...but just wrote them?....crazy

[allarmunumralla]

@KhagarBalugrak I know this guy who hates rap music. Imagine that! A middle aged white guy who hates rap music. Go figure.

[RYANtheBassMan]

@KhagarBalugrak You obviously have not examined anything by Bartók other than these études. It's sad that you can make that assumption knowing nothing.

[KhagarBalugrak]

@RYANtheBassMan, you assume I know nothing while knowing nothing about me. I've listened to plenty of Bartok besides this piece. I have, in fact, played a couple of pieces by Bartok as well. And almost all Bartok sickens me when I listen to it. It's just hideously ugly, far too dissonant to be capable of saying something beautiful.

If you think this piece is beautiful, your mind has been warped by all your teachers, who have taught you to think about music in a way devoid of wholeness.

[RYANtheBassMan]

@KhagarBalugrak Well, if you wanted to show that, why don't you write a comment that is actually meaningful? Thinking all music has to be beautiful is such an old way of thinking. Besides, these are études. They aren't all about sounding pretty; they're also about developing technique. An étude like this is more musically challenging than others that are more 'whole' because they make a player work much harder to make music out of them. You can say my mind is warped, but I say yours is a fossil.

[PSNDemonwing]

@RYANtheBassMan good response. All in all. Only geniuses can make music sound beautiful and be musically challenging. I dnt respect this composer

[KhagarBalugrak]

@RYANtheBassMan, yes, etudes need to develop technique. However, if you look at the Chopin etudes, it's clear that it is indeed very possible to create technically challenging etudes that are nevertheless beautiful.

The problem, as I see it, is an obsession with forward motion displayed by Bartok and other atonal composers. When it's all about surprises and forward motion, and has no equanimity or vertical harmony, the music is torn apart and disintegrates, just like it does in this piece.

[PSNDemonwing]

@KhagarBalugrak your correct:]. Bartok cant make music beautiful and challenging at the same time. Hes not one of the greats

[KhagarBalugrak]

@PSNDemonwing, thank you...indeed, it's almost impossible to make music beautiful and yet have it go somewhere, just like it's hard to write music that follows the rules of counterpoint, which are vertical in nature, while making the contrapunctal lines into melodies in and of themselves, all while making the voicing and rhythm all spectacular as well.

Atonal music like this is anti-music. Music must have beauty, not only excitement, and composers today have forgotten this completely.

[PSNDemonwing]

@KhagarBalugrak i agree. there are only a few that could compose such great music or compose music thats extremely hard and still make it sound glorius. Bartok couldnt do neither

[mahler151]

@KhagarBalugrak

Sounds to me like you're the one whose mind has been warped if you can't appreciate this.

[KhagarBalugrak]

@mahler151, sadly, no, this kind of music has been proven, in scientific experiments, to be destructive to living things. Listen at your own risk.

[mahler151]

@KhagarBalugrak

I'm sure any "experiments" that were carried out were completely 100% unbiased too, right? This music is not even that extreme. I'd hate to think of what would happen to you should you listen to Ligeti, Penderecki or Cage.

[KhagarBalugrak]

@mahler151, they were carried out by curious scientists, not musicians like me who have made up their mind about all of this. And as a matter of fact, while I don't like much Ligeti, I have heard a few pieces by him I really like, and I have certainly heard some of Cage - particularly his minimalism - which I admire, since some of Cage is actually very tonal. But this piece sure isn't.

[AfroDeezeeYak]

@KhagarBalugrak This piece is VERY tonal. 

[AfroDeezeeYak]

@KhagarBalugrak As is all of Bartok's output

[GentleGinjeet]

@KhagarBalugrak "this kind of music has been proven, in scientific experiments, to be destructive to living things. Listen at your own risk." Those experiments involved plants. You might fancy avoiding such music and vegetate, but don't blame us for liking thought-provoking material (strictly primate stuff).

[EthanBackToLifeMETAL]

the sheet music looks so daunting! you know its tough when the composer himself cant pull it off!!

[KatharsisWorks]

very interesting, reminds me of extreme metal 

[30inventionman]

Theman himself.

[30inventionman]

Is a prelude to something disturbing for sure in Rr he

[30inventionman]

Five***** Hurrah! An interesting man. Though his music

[lovesGenet]

this shit is so hard if u dont know how to do them.all 3 are dif. they sound like crazy world. More time wasted ar t a fooking piano.

[liszt100]

I am forever grateful for everything you have shown me. But snobbery has no excuse, even if it comes from a PhD from Princeton.

[saulboyjt]

idiotic music.

[ajwiebe]

My apologies for not keeping up with you lightening fast replies. You're quite the performer, indeed.

[painfulsweetness]

this is a nice project

you can see both sound and score

[John11inch]

#! is an intervalic study, #2 is a study in arpeggios and scales and #3 is an etude for LH chromatic passages. Where, exactly, did you get the descriptions you wrote up there?

[ajwiebe]

@John11inch His descriptions are perfectly accurate. You paraphrasing what he's written, then belittling his efforts for whatever reason, contribute amazingly little to what he's brought to the table. Keep the criticism relevant, please.

[John11inch]

Sorry, but your post is so stupid and inaccurate there's literally nothing I can say except that you're an idiot. Although, as an aside, how you explain how "disjunct chromaticism" means the same thing as "tenths"? Also, how a "three part melody", which doesn't even exist (surely he meant "three part harmony") is the same as "arpeggios"? Just retarded.

[ajwiebe]

@John11inch It's absurd that you would need the disjunct chromaticism highlighted. Just because tenths feature prominently in the first etude, it doesn't mean that nothing else does. Otherwise, I'm not quite sure where it is you saw the words "three part melody" in the original description. Of course, you realize this is not the same as "a melody in three octaves." Again, it would be wonderful if you could keep your comments relevant. Perhaps even a little respectful.

[John11inch]

Oh. Excuse me. Please explain how "melody in three octaves" is the same as "arpeggios". And your first "argument" is akin to saying Chopin's Op. 25 No. 6 is an etude in "adjunct chromaticism", both of which are near-nonsensical terms. It's an etude in thirds. Just like Bartok's Op. 18 No. 1 is an etude in tenths. It is *specifically* an etude in tenths. Besides just using common sense, my teacher studied with Sandor, and that was his description, which came straight from Bartok.

[ajwiebe]

@John11inch Lol, I can almost see how red your face has become. Regarding the first etude, you're not recognizing the theme and the intentions of its development. The theme is clearly stated as a chromatic melody, each note of which is executed in a different octave and features a rather popular method of melody for this period and shortly before (see Webern, Berg, et al). Yes, I hear the tenths - we all hear the tenths. Understood.

[ajwiebe]

@John11inch Regarding the second - again, simply because arpeggios are prominent in this study, it doesn't exclude the intentions of other technical practices. I find it rather strange that you can't identify how the theme is often clearly presented in three octaves, complimented by very ornate arpeggios. Yes, there are arpeggios. It would be difficult not to notice that.

Once again please keep this clean and pretension free. It is not anyone's concern who it is you study with.

[John11inch]

Of course it is of concern, because it means my definitions come, through two intermediaries, straight from Bartok. Your assertion that "just because it's there" means that it is an "etude in that" is ludicrous; writing an etude has causation. It isn't that one just writes a piece of music, and if a certain technique arises in the course of writing, it is now an "etude" in that technique. By that "logic", Feux Follets is an etude in 2nds, just because there are 2nds in it. Idiotic.

[ajwiebe]

@John11inch It's unfortunate that you've manipulated every argument I've proposed thus far to cater to your laboriously considered rebuttals. Not only that, but you seemed to have contradicted yourself in your last. I wrote, without confusion, that just because no. 2 features arpeggios, this doesn't intrinsically imply that it is a study of arpeggios. Ad nauseum. I can see what your intentions are with this banter. I'm out. Enjoy. allarmunumralla, I appreciate you posting what you do.

[John11inch]

I haven't manipulated any of your "arguments". I'm sorry that you had to see how stupid they are when they're reduced to a more semiotically coherent form. Now, are you saying the 2nd etude is *not* an etude in arpeggios? Or are you simply saying that it's a possibility that it's not an etude in arpeggios? It doesn't matter, because if any, further arguments require a basis on such ludicrous thinking, they're worthless, as everyone can see. No "manipulation" is necessary.

[ajwiebe]

@John11inch Please respect the difference between semiotics and semantics. The two are not mutually interchangeable. Nor are either of any relevance to the arguments presented thus far.

[John11inch]

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were done replying here. Good job not responding to any arguments, by the way. And the syllogistic reduction of your arguments to a more direct form deals with semiotics, not semantics. Where does your Ph. D. in philosophy come from? Because mine's from Princeton, thank you.

[allarmunumralla]

@John11inch

hi John, I ripped the descriptions from Halsey Stevens's book and google. Let's keep this open; fascinating discussion. I'm still not happy with the B section of etude 2,

[jthameschoir08]

@John11inch I'm sorry, excuse my question but what does your username mean?

[John11inch]

@jthameschoir08

It's meant to be ironic, in comparison to the content of my channel.

[peppersax]

Not only did Bartok have Major skills (did he drop some LSD first)?, but so did the pianist! 5 stars out of 5!!!

[dethrage]

the first looks like a horrible nightmare for a pianist with all that accidentals and time changes... it's just too brutal...

[ibanezxiphos700]

so basically this guy didnt know what melody was?

[WMUdrummer]

This just made me like Bartok alot!!

[TheEarlOfDublin]

woah