BÉLA BARTÓK'S PIANO QUINTET - CiteSeerX

BÉLA BARTÓK’S PIANO QUINTET

Item type text; Electronic Dissertation

Authors Garreffa, Andrea

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to thismaterial is made possible by the University Libraries,University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproductionor presentation (such as public display or performance) ofprotected items is prohibited except with permission of theauthor.

Downloaded 17-May-2016 08:03:03

Link to item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/195851

http://hdl.handle.net/10150/195851

BELA BARTOK’S PIANO QUINTET

by

Andrea Garreffa

Copyright c© Andrea Garreffa 2010

A Document Submitted to the Faculty of the

SCHOOL OF MUSIC

In Partial Fulfillment of the RequirementsFor the Degree of

DOCTOR OF MUSICAL ARTS

In the Graduate College

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

2 0 1 0

2

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE

As members of the Document Committee, we certify that we have read the doc-ument prepared by Andrea Garreffa entitled Bela Bartok’s Piano Quintet and rec-ommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the document requirement for the Degree ofDoctor of Musical Arts

Date: 6/7/2010Paula Fan

Date: 6/7/2010Tannis Gibson

Date: 6/7/2010Lisa Zdechlik

Final approval and acceptance of this document is contingent upon candidate’ssubmission of the final copies of the document to the Graduate College.

I hearby certify that I have read this document prepared under my direction andrecommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the document requirement.

Date: 6/7/2010Director: Paula Fan

3

STATEMENT BY AUTHOR

This document has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for anadvanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the UniversityLibrary to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.

Brief quotations from this document are allowable without special permission,provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permissionfor extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in partmay be granted by the copyright holder.

SIGNED: Andrea Garreffa

4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I would like to thank my parents for their constant love and support.Without them my life would have not been full of wonderful experiences, music andjoy.

I am also thankful to my husband Orhan Beker who gave me his love,encouragement and friendship from the moment we met.

I could not have wished for a better advisor than Dr. Paula Fan. Herinvaluable advice in music and life in general will accompany me forever. She is notonly an outstanding pianist and musician but also a terrific teacher and mentor. Itruly thank her for pushing me beyond what I thought I could do. This allowed meto grow as a pianist and a person. Her positive attitude and contagious laugh madeevery bump in the road almost disappear.

I would also like to extend my appreciation to Dr. Lisa Zdechlik, whom I hadthe privilege to work for and learn from. Her love of music and teaching is inspiring.I will always remember our conversations and how much I learned from her duringmy days at the University. I was very fortunate to have her in my committee and tohave been exposed to her wonderful insight and knowledge.

My gratitude also goes to Prof. Tannis Gibson. While during my days at theUniversity I gained from her wide musical knowledge and enjoyed her beautifulperformances; I believe that I benefited most from her expertise during mydissertation writing process. Prof. Gibson’s invaluable advice helped me immensely.

My special thanks to Lyneen Elmore for her kindness and warmth to thestudents. She guided my path from my first day on campus until the very end withpositive attitude and a smile.

Last, but not least, I would like to acknowledge the generous contribution ofLaszlo Sigrai, Director of Printed Music, Universal Music Publishing, Editio MusicaBudapest, for allowing me to include excerpts from the piece.

To all who contributed to made my doctorate degree such a rich andwonderful experience: my deepest thanks.

5

DEDICATION

To my wonderful family for all their support and love

6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

LIST OF MUSICAL EXAMPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

CHAPTER 2 BRIEF BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE COMPOSER . 152.1 Life in Hungary at the Turn of the Twentieth Century . . . . . . . . 152.2 Musical Trends at the Turn of the Twentieth Century . . . . . . . . . 182.3 Life, Education and Musical Influences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192.4 Chamber and Piano Works from Bartok’s early Period . . . . . . . . 29

CHAPTER 3 BRIEF HISTORY OF THE PIANO QUINTET GENRE . . . 343.1 First Examples of the Genre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343.2 The Place of the Piano Quintet at the Turn of the Twentieth Century 393.3 Historical Background of Bela Bartok’s Piano Quintet (1904) . . . . . 43

CHAPTER 4 STYLISTIC INFLUENCES ON BARTOK’S PIANO QUINTET 514.1 Brahms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4.1.1 Technical Brahms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 544.1.2 Serene Brahms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574.1.3 Rhythm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 604.1.4 Quintet writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

4.2 Liszt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 644.2.1 Virtuoso passages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 664.2.2 Concerto-like writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 694.2.3 Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

4.3 Dohnanyi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 724.3.1 Folk elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 744.3.2 Form and movement placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 764.3.3 Writing Style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 784.3.4 Rhythm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 794.3.5 Fugue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

4.4 Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued

7

4.4.1 Dvorak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824.4.2 French composers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

4.5 Bartok’s other works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914.6 Hungarian folk music . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS OF THE THIRD MOVEMENT OF THE QUINTET 99

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

APPENDIX A PERMISSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

APPENDIX B TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

8

LIST OF FIGURES

3.1 Review of the premiere from Pester Lloyd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

9

LIST OF MUSICAL EXAMPLES

4.1 Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 1-7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 534.2 Brahms, Piano Quintet, Op. 34, mm. 1-4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 544.3 Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 46-49. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 544.4 Brahms, Violin Sonata in d minor, op. 108, mov. I, mm. 30-33. . . . 554.5 Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 219-221. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 554.6 Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 222-223. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 564.7 Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 245-249. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 564.8 Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 251-253. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574.9 Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 1032-1035. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584.10 Brahms, Piano Concerto in B ♭ Major, op. 83, mov. I, mm. 87-96. . . 584.11 Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 479-486. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 594.12 Brahms, Violin Sonata in A Major, op. 100, mov. I, mm. 16-29. . . . 604.13 Bartok, Piano Quintet, m. 1063. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 614.14 Brahms, Piano Concerto in B ♭ Major, op. 83, mov. I, mm. 203-204. . 614.15 Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 262-267. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624.16 Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 262-267. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 634.17 Bartok, Piano Quintet, m. 1065. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 664.18 Liszt, Vallee d’Obermann, Annees de Pelerinage I: Premiere Annee

(1852 version), mm. 165-166. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 664.19 Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 22-23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 674.20 Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 993-996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 684.21 Liszt, Hungarian Fantasy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 684.22 Bartok, Piano Quintet, m. 1038. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 704.23 Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 1084-1089. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 754.24 Dohnanyi, Piano Quintet in c minor, op. 1, mov. IV, mm. 1-4. . . . . 794.25 Dohnanyi, Piano Quintet in c minor, op. 1, mov. IV, mm. 80-84. . . . 814.26 Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 1337-1344. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814.27 Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 139-142. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824.28 Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 1230-1236. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824.29 Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 143-144. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834.30 Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 147-148. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834.31 Dvorak, Piano Quintet, mov. II, mm. 1-15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844.32 Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 1307-1318. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 854.33 Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 188-193. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864.34 Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 1049-1050. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864.35 Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 1020-1022. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874.36 Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 1030-1031. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

LIST OF MUSICAL EXAMPLES – Continued

10

4.37 Franck, Symphonic Variations for Piano and Orchestra, mm. 5-8. . . 884.38 Franck, Piano Quintet in f minor, mov. I, mm. 124-133. . . . . . . . . 894.39 Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 770-780. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904.40 Franck, Piano Quintet in f minor, mov. I, mm. 90-97. . . . . . . . . . 904.41 Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 1080-1089. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924.42 Bartok, Piano Quintet, m. 1003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934.43 Bartok, Rhapsody, op.1, m. 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934.44 Bartok, Rhapsody, op. 1, mm. 25-26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944.45 Bartok, Piano Pieces: “Fantasy II,” mm. 14-19. . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

5.1 Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 961-963. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015.2 Bartok, Piano Quintet, m. 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015.3 Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 967-969. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025.4 Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 972-974. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035.5 Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 975-979. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065.6 Bartok, Piano Quintet, m. 990. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075.7 Bartok, Piano Quintet, m. 994. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085.8 Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 983-986. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1095.9 Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 1030-1031. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

11

LIST OF TABLES

B.1 First movement Andante, formal structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119B.2 Second movement Vivace (Scherzando), formal structure . . . . . . . 120B.3 Second movement Vivace (Scherzando), formal structure - continued . 121B.4 Third movement Adagio, formal structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122B.5 Fourth movement Poco a poco piu vivace, formal structure . . . . . . 123

12

ABSTRACT

The rarely performed Piano Quintet in C major (1904) by Bela Bartok is a

major work in the chamber music genre although its individuality and significance

seem to have gone unnoticed in the scholarly literature. The piece represents the

composer’s early attempts to break from the traditional compositional standards of his

contemporaries as well as his early attempts to include folk elements in his works. This

document presents a detailed history of the piece and the circumstances surrounding

its composition as well as a brief history of the genre of the piano quintet. The author

focuses on the musical influences that Bartok acquired during his musical education

and how they influenced the Piano Quintet in addition to the folk origins so intrinsic

to the Hungarian language and culture that also appear in the piece. A detailed

analysis of the slow movement is included due to the extraordinary way in which it

simultaneously looks backwards and markedly forward.

13

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Among Bartok’s early works, the Piano Quintet is unique in its anticipation of

the folk influences that will later become the landmark of Bartok’s writing, but also

clearly shows the romantic influences of Liszt and Brahms in an important genre of

chamber music to which Bartok did not return. According to The New Grove

Dictionary of Music and Musicians, the Piano Quintet, together with the

symphonic poem Kossuth and the Scherzo (no. 4) of the Four Piano Pieces, are the

first compositions with distinguishing Bartokian features.1

In terms of form and tonal structure the piece follows the established practice

of the composers of the Romantic period (tables illustrating this may be found in

Appendix B). However, it contains some unusual features which foreshadow

techniques employed in Bartok’s mature style. These features not only make the

piece more interesting, but also place it as a transitional link between the romantic

piano quintets and the 20th century works of the same genre.

The writer’s intent is to demonstrate the musical value of the piece and its

historical significance in the development of the composer’s language. The melodic

and harmonic aspects of the Quintet appear to be unique when compared to those

1Sadie, Stanley, ed., The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, vol. II (London:Macmillan, 1980), 206.

14

of Bartok’s contemporaries. Bela Bartok’s Piano Quintet emerges as an intriguing

product of two centuries, as it shows a young composer influenced by Liszt and

Brahms. It reveals an innovator making his first attempts at finding a new voice

while foreshadowing elements which are characteristic of his later, mature style.

15

CHAPTER 2

BRIEF BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE COMPOSER

2.1 Life in Hungary at the Turn of the Twentieth Century

Towards the end of the 19th century Budapest’s artistic and social life

resembled that of Vienna. At that point Vienna was one of the most important and

influential cities in Europe; Viennese trends, ideas and artistic innovations were

promptly adopted by cities throughout the continent. Hungary was no exception, in

spite of a divided society, which made for complicated and interesting combinations

when it came to the arts. These divisions were not only along class lines within

society, but also between ethnic groups residing in the Hungarian territory. The

country is situated in the Carpathian Basin, a region that was the site of many

battles due to its geopolitical location, and was under control of the Ottoman

Empire for more than 150 years. According to Stevens: “The folk poetry of the

Magyars incorporated Turkish motifs, and their folk music apparently became

impregnated with characteristics of Turkish music.”1

According to Judit Frigyesi, towards the end of the 19th century there was a

feeling permeating the country of the “Hungarian’s natural right to supremacy

1Halsey Stevens, The Life and Music of Bela Bartok. rev. ed. (New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1967), Preface ix.

16

among the surrounding nations.”2 Moreover, artists at the turn of the century were

concerned with identity. Hungary’s diversity presented complicated issues however;

each individual had his own ethnic heritage that, when taken together with the

myriad dimensions of educational and social circles, made it not only a diverse

society but also a complex one. Frigyesi states: “Among the artists of the emerging

modernist circles, it is difficult to find two with similar background and education.”3

Bela Bartok, as did many artists, came from a mixed background. His Hungarian

father was a director of an agricultural school offering his son the legacy of the

traditional Hungarian middle class and its culture and values. His mother, of

German origin, was a public school teacher who transmitted to her son the values of

education, perseverance and hard work.

Some of the issues that began to be the main focus of artists were identity,

morality and the struggle between these values and the social pyramid within a

complex society such as Hungary’s. Some works of this period depict this search for

the meaning and purpose of human life. One early example of this is the novel

Budapest written by Tamas Kobor in 1901 that deals with the acceptance of one’s

own identity.

The movement that was probably the most influential among certain of the

young Hungarian composers was the nationalist movement that was sweeping

European cities and permeating diverse forms of art. Bartok was particularly

2Judit Frigyesi, Bela Bartok and Turn-of-the-Century Budapest (Berkeley, CA: University ofCalifornia Press, 1998), 54.

3Ibid., 47.

17

influenced by it and this is probably one of the primary catalysts for his collection

of folk tunes.

While the idea of “L’art pour l’art” was spreading among the artistic

community, Hungary remained untouched by it. The self-imposed isolation of the

artist was not absorbed by Hungarian artists. On the contrary, artists there realized

that the best means of reaching the public to expose them to their views was

through their art. Therefore artists at the time decided to remain part of the

community and most of them, as a result, were inclined to align themselves with the

ideals of the political left wing.4 Frigyesi states:

When at the turn of the century artists intrigued by the problem ofmodern life and society were trying to create space for themselves withinsociety, they confronted the semi-feudal tradition. Their very existenceforced them to oppose it and look for allies within the context of themovement of social radicalism.5

Frigyesi also writes that most members of the merging radical movement “...

wanted to integrate their moral and political convictions into their aesthetics and

expected the public to recognize and respond to such a message embedded in art.”6

Two important works expressed modern artistic ideals in Hungary. One is the New

Poems (1906) by Endre Ady which integrates concepts of modernism and high art.

The other is Bartok’s and Kodaly’s collected arrangements of Hungarian Folksongs

(1906) which represents the union of folk music and high art.

4Frigyesi, 70.5Ibid.6Ibid.

18

2.2 Musical Trends at the Turn of the Twentieth Century

The turn of the 20th century is one of the most interesting times in music

history, characterized by an unforeseen evolution of harmonic language as well as

innovative exploration of compositional techniques and formal structures. When

examining the evolution of musical and harmonic language, before this time, the

innovations and changes seem to be more gradual and slow paced.

Towards the end of the 19th century however, composers began breaking away

from the classical norms of tonality. This natural process started with Richard

Wagner and his innovative chords and sonorities such as the so-called Tristan chord,

a half-diminished 7thchord, which is non-functional within the tonality of the section

where the chord appears. This chord not only opened a new world of harmony and

tonal color, but also had an important meaning in the plot of the opera Tristan und

Isolde. Wagner was also the first composer to use chromaticism not only as passing

tones or embellishments, but as a means of slowly departing from the tonal center in

order to modulate more freely to unrelated or distant keys. This process, which

eventually culminated in Arnold Schoenberg’s Twelve Tone System and the

so-called Emancipation of the Dissonance, included many composers that

contributed to the process, among them Richard Strauss.

One of Strauss’ contributions was the unresolved dissonance. Inspired by the

first performance of Also Sprach Zarathustra in Budapest in 1902, Bartok

19

apparently devoted himself to the study of Strauss’ works.7 Although some scholars

limit discussion of Strauss’ influence on Bartok’s harmonic approach to the

orchestral works, this may have carried over in general.

Another composer whose influence was unavoidable was Gustav Mahler, who

transformed the concept of symphony to a more complex and revolutionary medium

of artistic communication. Mahler also expanded the symphonic concept to include

soloists and a choir, following the example set by Beethoven in his Ninth Symphony.

Claude Debussy, one of the most significant figures of the impressionistic movement

in music, seems to have inspired Bartok with his innovative treatment of color and

quartal harmonies. The significance of Arnold Schoenberg on the music of the 20th

century is also worth mentioning. His new ideas on harmony led to his revolutionary

Twelve Tone System. Although adopted by students, most notably Alban Berg and

Anton Webern, Bartok seems not to have been influenced by this new school.

2.3 Life, Education and Musical Influences

Bela Bartok was born on March 25, 1881 in Nagyszentmiklos (today

Sannicolau Mare, Romania), part of the Hungarian province of Torontal. The young

Bartok grew up in a home where education and music were highly valued and

therefore encouraged at an early age. His father, also Bela Bartok, was the

headmaster of an agricultural school and his mother, Paula Voit, was a teacher.

Both parents were amateur musicians and the young Bartok started piano lessons at

7Stevens, 15.

20

the age of five with his mother. From an early age he was exposed to dance pieces

and by the age of four he was able to play many of them at the piano using only one

finger. This may well have been significant in his later development because it is

likely that many of these dances were of folk origin, providing him with an early

exposure to particular rhythms and intervals. It then seems natural that most of his

first compositions, dating from around 1890, were dance pieces. Stevens states that

Bartok’s mother “could not induce him to count rhythms, which he felt

instinctively.”8

The young Bartok’s personality was characterized by a certain shyness. This

may have been first because he suffered from a certain skin condition called

‘Vierzieger’, which did not permit him to attend school until the age of 6,9 and

second because of his father’s early death in 1888. The years following this family

tragedy required a great deal of travel for the remaining members of the family

(mother, son and daughter Elza) since his mother was forced to seek teaching

positions elsewhere to sustain the family.

By 1894 the family was finally able to settle in Pozsony, a city that at the end

of the 19thcentury, was very cosmopolitan and had a substantial cultural tradition.

This city fulfilled an important function since it allowed the young Bartok to

immerse himself in countless public performances and the opportunity to study with

better teachers. There, he entered the Gymnasium without having to pay tuition

8Stevens, 5.9Jr. Bela Bartok, “Bela Bartok’s Diseases”, Studia Musicologica Academiae Scientiarum Hun-

garicae, Centenario Belae Bartok Sacrum, T. 23, Fasc. 1/4 (1981).

21

and was also able to continue his piano studies with Laszlo Erkel. From him Bartok

acquired a solid foundation of the music of the 18th and 19th centuries. Bartok later

became the organist of the Gymnasium’s chapel, replacing Erno Dohnanyi who had

moved to Budapest for further study.

At the beginning of 1899 Bartok was accepted at both the Vienna

Conservatory and the Budapest Academy of Music. While the first might have been

the preferred choice for many musicians of the time, Bartok decided to follow in

Dohnanyi’s footsteps and entered the institution at Budapest. There, Bartok

studied piano with Istvan Thoman, composition with Hans Koessler and

orchestration with Xaver Szabo. Thoman introduced him to Wagner’s operas.

According to Stevens, “Thoman had already given Bartok a copy of Die Walkure,

and he soon became acquainted with the entire Ring trilogy, Tristan, and Die

Meistersinger.”10 Around this time Bartok also became known as a pianist and in

fact, dedicated more of his efforts to performing than composing. Upon hearing

Strauss’ Also sprach Zarathustra in 1902, Bartok was inspired to compose again

and, although his only substantial work from 1902 was his Four Songs BB24, by

1903 his great symphonic poem Kossuth was completed. It was first performed in

Budapest on January 13, 1904. This piece launched his career both as a pianist and

composer. From this point on Bartok traveled a great deal to his performance

engagements as pianist as well as to performances of his own works. Among the

cities he visited between 1903 and 1906 were Vienna, Berlin and Paris, where he

10Stevens, 12.

22

entered the competition for the Prix Rubinstein in 1905, both as a composer and as

a pianist. It was at this competition Bartok planned to present his Piano Quintet in

C major (1904) as one of his compositions and he was extremely disappointed when

the string players were not able to learn it in time. He presented instead his Violin

Sonata (1903). This competition left a sour taste in his mouth when the first prize

for piano was awarded to Wilhelm Backhaus and in the composition category no

awards were given. In 1906 Bartok toured Spain and Portugal with violinist Ferenc

Vecsey. Soon after he returned to Budapest he replaced Thoman as a piano teacher

on the staff at the Academy of Music, remaining until 1934. Early in the 20th

century Bartok’s genuine interest in peasant music led him to begin research on a

completely indigenous Hungarian style. His first notation of Hungarian peasant

music was in 1904 while listening to the singing of a young woman named Lili Dosa

during a trip to the resort of Gerlice Puszta in northern Hungary.11 At this point

Bartok’s quest for the traditions and origins of the true Magyar music became his

passion.

In March of 1905 Bartok met Zoltan Kodaly in Budapest at the house of

Emma Gruber, who later became Kodaly’s wife. Kodaly had been a composition

student of Koessler as well and was working towards his doctoral dissertation on

Hungarian folksong. The musicians began a lifelong friendship that could be best

described as follows:

11Malcolm Gillies, “Bela Bartok”, Grove Music Online, ed. L. Macy,http://www.grovemusic.com, (accessed 3 March 2007).

23

Kodaly held the ethnological knowledge, which Bartok for all hisenthusiasm then lacked. Bartok had more practical musical skills andphenomenal aural capacities. They soon found themselves teachingcolleagues at the Academy of Music, collaborators in manyethnomusicological projects, and the frankest critics of each other’scompositions.12

The first publication of the collaboration between the colleagues appeared in

December of 1906 under the title of Twenty Hungarian Folksongs. Early that year,

Bartok became interested in the music of the ethnic minorities living in Hungarian

territory. He then began collecting Slovak folk music, and in 1908 expanded his

work to include Romanian, and later on Ruthenian, Serbian and Bulgarian folk

tunes.13 As a result of this work, Bartok became both acquainted with and inspired

by concepts that many western musicians of his day had forgotten or had never even

discovered. Such is the case of the pentatonic scale, modes and unconventional

accompaniment patterns that are part of the ethnic tradition which Bartok was

among the first to record. Bartok started to incorporate these concepts in his own

compositions such as the fourth movement of his Second Suite for orchestra. His 85

piano pieces comprising his work For Children (1908-1910) is another good example.

The renowned publishing company Breitkopf & Hartel hired Bartok to

produce an educational edition of J.S. Bach’s The Well Tempered Clavier.14 This is

significant since Bartok not only would be involved in more projects of this type

later on, but also because it would set the precedent for his later educational works.

12Gillies, Bela Bartok.13Ibid.14Ralph Kirkpatrick, Interpreting Bach’s Well-Tempered Clavier: A Performer’s Discourse of

Method (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984), 20.

24

Such is the case of his Mikrokosmos, a set of six volumes which incorporate most of

the concepts he was trying to revive and include in his music. This work has

become an invaluable tool in piano education.

By 1910 Bartok’s reputation as a composer was growing and more of his works

were being performed. One work worth mentioning from this time is his Allegro

Barbaro, its rhythmic drive making it a favorite of audiences. The influence of

Claude Debussy is also quite apparent in some of his compositions of this time,

most notably in Bartok’s Four Orchestral Pieces op. 12. However, his most

important composition from 1911 is Bluebeard’s Castle. According to a Grove Music

online article: “While this piece may emulate the realism found in Debussy’s Pelleas

et Melisande, it represents a landmark for the Hungarian opera. With this piece

Bartok developed a fluid form of Hungarian declamation of Balazs’s ballad-like text,

based on the inflections of parlato rubato folksong.”15

At this point Bartok had already shown a romantic interest in a young lady

named Marta Ziegler, a student of his at the Academy, who later would become his

wife. Bartok dedicated a number of pieces to her including Bluebeard’s Castle. They

were married towards the end of 1909 but kept their marriage a secret at first. His

son, also named Bela Bartok was born in August 1910.

While teaching at the Academy, Bartok continued his folk-music research

during vacations and other breaks. He traveled throughout Hungary, much of

Romania and in June 1913 he traveled to North Africa. Because of the approach of

15Gillies, Bela Bartok.

25

World War I around this time he also began his musico-ethnographical writings of

his travels to collect material were curtailed. Health problems, which affected him

sporadically throughout his life, excused him from military service. Nonetheless, he

continued to compose with the isolation caused by the war leading him to explore a

different compositional style. Some works from this period contain North African

influences, among them his Second String Quartet op. 17 (1914-17) and his Suite

op. 14 for piano (1916). His most significant composition during wartime was his

one-act ballet The Wooden Prince op. 17. The impossibility of traveling much

during these periods of conflict did have the bright side of allowing Bartok to spend

more time with his wife and son.

By the end of the war in 1918, the political and economic situation in

Hungary was highly unstable. Despite this, Bartok was able to compose and

completed The Miraculous Mandarin in 1919. In the 1920’s Bartok resumed his

concert career and also expanded it to the international level. Post-war Hungary’s

territory was reduced in size. Pozsony, which he had considered home since 1894,

became part of Czechoslovakia in 1918; as a result, every time Bartok wanted to

visit his mother he had to complete formal procedures. Hungary’s smaller size

forced him to expand his horizons, leading him beyond his shrinking homeland and

neighboring countries to cities as varied as London, Paris, Venice and Palermo,

among others, and to America where he performed in Los Angeles, Philadelphia and

Seattle. As a composer, he was not nearly so successful with these early audiences.

26

Although his music of the early 1920’s proved hard for the public to comprehend,

Bartok refused to compromise his compositional beliefs for the sake of popularity.

His two Sonatas for Violin and Piano reflect his commitment to developing his

personal voice. According to Stevens, these pieces:

... are farther from traditional standards of tonality than anything elseBartok wrote: in the serialization of vertical elements, the avoidance ofanything which can indisputably be called a ‘key,’ the completeindependence of the two instruments-which do not even share thematicmaterials-and the plasticity of melody and form, these Sonatas showBartok at a stage close to that of the Viennese expressionisticchromaticists.16

Noteworthy is Bartok’s participation as a composer in the International

Festival of Salzburg in 1922, where his first Violin Sonata was performed in the

programs for the International Society for Contemporary Music. A number of his

most significant works written between 1923 and 1938 were presented under the

auspices of the Society with Bartok performing as a pianist for his as well as other

composers’ works.

Bartok was also experiencing changes in his personal life. Sometime around

1923 a young pianist called Ditta Pasztory joined his class at the Academy. Bartok

and Marta were divorced and in late August 1923, he married his new student

Ditta. During the following year Bartok was preoccupied with his performing

career, his teaching and the writing of articles, with composition taking a back seat.

The following significant works date from 1926: Sonata for Piano, Out of Doors,

16Stevens, 63.

27

Nine Little Pieces and First Piano Concerto. A new percussive style for the piano

appears in his Sonata and Piano Concerto. It is also around this time that he

started composing his Mikrokosmos, the first two volumes dedicated to his second

son, Peter Bartok, born in 1924.

In 1927 Bela Bartok toured the United States while taking a sabbatical from

the Academy of Music. Once back in Budapest in 1928, his next substantial

compositions were his Fourth String Quartet and his two Rhapsodies for Violin. In

subsequent years Bartok wrote several compositions for voice based on folk idioms,

acquired knowledge that was the product of his longstanding research. In the

Cantata Profana (1930) Bartok set his own poetic version of this epic ballad to

music, though finally replacing it with an Hungarian translation of the Romanian

original. Of this work it can be said:

Of all Bartok’s compositions, the Cantata Profana has elicited perhapsthe greatest variety of interpretetions of its overall musical form -impliedfour-movement structure (Ujfalussy), ‘large sonata form’ (Somfai),five-act classical dramatic form (Szabolcsi), to list but three- as well as ofits textual message, with the components ofinitiation-transformation-purification, naturalistic freedom andintegration. Particularly in its aspects of general conflict, the cantatahas been seen as emblematic of Bartok’s response to the rising fascism ofits time.17

In the summer of 1934 Bartok was transfered to the Academy of Sciences,

where he would team up with Kodaly on folk music projects. He was finally able to

devote himself to his life long passion. His attention was now drawn to Turkish


28

music and particularly the comparisons between Turkish’s indigenous peasant music

and that found in Hungary. Between the years of 1934 and 1940 his performance

opportunities abroad became more difficult to come by, particularly in Germany,

where he was not welcomed by the Nazis. He did tour however, in Hungary, Italy

and Switzerland. Among the repertoire performed in these recitals were his Second

Piano Concerto and his Sonata for Two Pianos and Percussion, the latter

commissioned by the International Society for Contemporary Music and premiered

in January 16, 1938 with Bartok and his wife Ditta performing the challenging

piano parts. Also from this period between 1934-40 we find masterpieces such as his

Fifth String Quartet (1934), his Sixth String Quartet (1939), Contrasts (1938), and

Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta (1936).

In 1940 Bartok was offered a teaching position at the Curtis Institute in the

city of Philadelphia in the United States. He declined the invitation since he did not

want to teach composition. Nonetheless, his anguish over Hungary’s support of the

Germans and the Nazi invasion led him to a self imposed exile in the States with his

wife Ditta. In November of that year, Bartok was awarded an honorary doctorate

from Columbia University and held a research appointment there during the year

1941-2.18 During his last years he composed his Concerto for Orchestra (1943), his

Third Piano Concerto (1945) and his Concerto for Viola (1945), which he was not

able to complete. Bela Bartok died of leukemia on 26 September 1945 in New York

at the age of 64. While he was initially buried in Ferncliff Cementery (Hartsdale,


29

NY), his remains were exhumed at the request of both of his sons and interred in his

homeland Hungary, in the city of Budapest, on July 7, 1988.

2.4 Chamber and Piano Works from Bartok’s early Period

Although Bartok’s place in music history rests on the music he produced later

in his life and not on the early transitional works, the works from his early period

are quite unique and noteworthy. His later works, more characteristic of the

so-called Bartokian style, are the result of a developmental process and evolution in

his style. The most representative of his works such as his piano concertos, string

quartets and the Concerto for Orchestra to name a few, have been the focus of

attention for the many scholars who have studied them in great depth. On the other

hand, some of his early works which reveal his initial, youthful style, have not been

fully explored. These works clearly show the influence of Brahms, Liszt and

Dohnanyi to which Bartok was exposed as a young composer.

Among his early chamber works with piano we find:

• The Course of the Danube for violin and piano, dd20b, (1894) (piano part lost)

• Sonata for violin and piano in c minor, dd37, (1895)

• Piano Quintet in C Major, dd46, (1897) (lost)

• Sonata for violin and piano in A major, dd49, (1897) (piano part and secondmovement only sketched)

• Piano Quartet in c minor, dd52, (1898)

• Andante in A major for violin and piano, dd70, (1902)

• Sonata for violin and piano in e minor, dd72, (1903)

30

• Piano Quintet, dd77, (1903-4)

The chamber works which immediately follow the Quintet appear considerably

later and they are all duos. These are:

• Sonata no. 1 for violin and piano, (1921)

• Sonata no. 2 for violin and piano, (1922)

• Rhapsody no. 1 for violin and piano, (1928)

• Rhapsody no. 2 for violin and piano, (1928)

Bartok’s final chamber works with piano are unusual not only because of his

innovative writing and style, but also for the original instrumentation required for

these works. These two famous pieces are:

• Sonata for Two Pianos and Percussion, (1937)

• Contrasts for violin, clarinet and piano, (1938)

Interestingly enough, some of Bela Bartok’s earliest chamber works are either

completely ignored or only briefly mentioned in most of the sources available on the

composer’s life and works. The Andante for Violin and Piano (1902) is one example.

The Piano Quartet in c minor (1898) is mentioned in some sources but not included

in either the important chamber music bibliography of Maurice Hinson: “The Piano

in Chamber Ensemble: An Annotated Guide”19 or in Basil Smallman’s “The Piano

Quartet and Quintet: Style, Structure, and Scoring”.20 Neither the Andante for

19Maurice Hinson, The Piano in Chamber Ensemble: An Annotated Guide (Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press, 1996).

20Basil Smallman, The Piano Quartet and Quintet: Style, Structure, and Scoring (New York:Oxford University Press, 1994).

31

Violin and Piano nor the Piano Quartet are mentioned in Elliot Antokoletz’s “Bela

Bartok’s: A Guide to Research”.21 The first chamber work in this catalogue is the

Piano Quintet in C major (1904). Bartok’s earlier Piano Quintet in C major (1897),

the manuscript of which did not survive, is not mentioned in many sources;

however, it is listed among Bartok’s chamber works in the “Grove Dictionary of

Music and Musicians.”22 According to Gillies in “The Bartok Companion”:

The only proof of the existence of Bartok’s next chamber works is a listof compositions he drew up while living in Pozsony. Several pieces forviolin were listed - including two fantasies (dd40, 41) of 1896 - as well astwo quartets (dd42, 43, both 1896) and a Piano Quintet (dd46, 1897).His following chamber work, the Violin Sonata in A major (dd49) has,however survived.”23

In his book “The Life and Music of Bela Bartok”, Halsey Stevens makes

reference to the first Quintet: “The following year in Budapest he was working on a

quintet, but it is not clear whether this was ever completed; Koessler convinced him

to abandon it because of its inadequacies.”24However, the earlier Sonatas for Violin

and Piano (dd37 and dd49) are not mentioned by Antokoletz or Hinson.

At the time of this writing, Bela Bartok’s Piano Quartet remains unpublished.

Its first performance in 1988 celebrated the name day of the director of the

Gymnasium while Bartok was still a student in Pozsony.25 In this work, as well as

21Elliot Antokoletz, Bela Bartok: A Guide to Research (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.,1988).

22Sadie, Stanley, ed., The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, vol. II (London:Macmillan, 1980), 206.

23Gillies, Malcolm, ed., The Bartok Companion (Portland, OR: Amadeus Press, 1994), 216.24Stevens, 204.25Ibid., 9.

32

his 1895 Violin Sonata, a Brahmsian influence is to be expected; the master had

died only in 1897. It is also interesting that Bartok did not write a piano trio before

writing a piano quartet and a quintet. This may not be unusual; Robert

Schumann’s first three chamber works are piano quartets (1828-9), and his first trio

was written in 1847, after his famous piano quintet in E♭ major (1842). Erno

Dohnanyi’s first chamber work is his piano quintet in c minor (1895); he wrote a

total of two sonatas for violin and piano and two piano quintets. The rest of his

chamber works are mainly for string instruments. Although Bartok was not the

only composer who wrote a piano quartet or quintet as a young composer, the

chamber works which pre-date the first, lost quintet, were not for large ensembles,

but were songs or violin and piano compositions. By the time he wrote his Second

Quintet in 1904 Bartok had more experience in writing for strings and piano,

although his style was yet not fully developed. Also, when compared with some of

his later chamber works, the Quintet seems somewhat immature in conception.

Nonetheless, while Bartok was not pleased with some parts of this Quintet, he did

not destroy it. On the contrary, he took the work with him when he went to the

United States, although he never approved its publication during his lifetime. Like

many of his early works such as the Piano Quintet in C (1897), the Piano Quartet

in c (1898), the Sonata for Violin and Piano in A (1897) with the piano part of the

second movement only sketched, this second Quintet remained in manuscript.

33

Unlike these other works, which Bartok insisted not be performed or published,26

the Quintet was revived periodically, with the composer himself at the piano.

Several early works, also from this period, share thematic material with the

Quintet. The Rhapsody op. 1 and the Second Fantasy from his Piano Pieces (1903)

provided material for the Quintet, as did the Andante for Violin and Piano (1902).

This particular issue will be discussed further in Chapter 4 as part of the section on

other works of Bartok which influence the Piano Quintet.

26Stevens, 204.

34

CHAPTER 3

BRIEF HISTORY OF THE PIANO QUINTET GENRE

3.1 First Examples of the Genre

Generally, when referring to the piano quintet, the first combination that

comes to mind is that of piano and string quartet. While this may be true for most

piano quintets from particularly the Romantic and Late Romantic periods, this was

not the case in the early stages of this genre’s development.

It is presumed that both the piano quartet and quintet developed around the

middle of the 18th century in the wake of the accompanied keyboard sonata.1 By

this time the string quartet was well developed and had become one of the preferred

genres for both composers and performers of the time. By the 1770s the string

quartet had reached a high level of maturity with fine examples by Haydn and

Mozart in which the level of musical intellect arguably surpassed that of works

written for any other chamber combination. In contrast, the earlier forms of piano

quartets and quintets still had many common elements with their predecessors,

namely the accompanied keyboard sonatas or divertimentos. They usually consisted

of only three movements (some string quartets already had four by this time) and

1David Fenton, Piano Quintet, ed. L. Macy (Grove Music Online http://www.grovemusic.com,(Accessed 3 March 2007)).

35

lacked both thematic transfer between parts and equal treatment of the

instruments. According to Smallman:

Works for larger ensembles, with as many as three or four accompanyingstrings, being thus prototypes of the mature piano quartet and quintet,were produced with increasing frequency from 1760s onwards, often bycomposers of distinction, such as the Mannheimers - Filtz, Holzbauer,and Richter; the Viennese - Wagenseil, Vanhal, and Mann; and GuiseppeCambini from Leghorn, whose light and melodious Keyboard quartetsenjoyed much popularity in Paris during the 1770s.2

The customary instrumentation of the early piano quintet was keyboard

(harpsichord or pianoforte), two violins, cello and double bass. However, one of the

earliest quintets incorporating the piano by a major composer specified a distinctive

instrumentation: in 1784 Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart composed his renowned

Quintet in E♭ major KV. 452 for oboe, clarinet, bassoon, horn and piano. In spite of

the fact that Mozart wrote two piano quartets for piano, violin, viola and cello (KV.

478 in g minor in 1785 and KV. 493 in E♭ major in 1786), he never attempted a

quintet for the strings and piano combination. The same is true for Ludwig van

Beethoven who in 1796-7 composed his Quintet in E♭ op. 16 for the same

instrumental combination as Mozart’s. Perhaps Beethoven’s great success with this

piece did not provide him with any motivation to explore the piano and string

quartet combination. The next composer to utilize the combination of piano and

woodwinds was Franz Danzi in his Quintet in d minor op. 41 (1810).

2Basil Smallman, The Piano Quartet and Quintet: Style, Structure, and Scoring (New York:Oxford University Press, 1994), 2.

36

It is not clear why Mozart or Beethoven did not choose to write their quintets

for a piano and strings combination rather than piano and woodwinds. Both

composers mastered the chamber music genre, having written for string quartet,

piano trio and instrumental duo, as well as sonatas for solo piano and piano

concertos. It is important to mention that Beethoven arranged his piano quintet for

a piano quartet for piano and strings. This work op. 16a in E♭ major was written in

1796. Although this version was conceived for piano and strings, it was scored for

piano and string trio, leaving the piano and string quartet unexplored for some

years. That said, the question is an intriguing one, since the reason cannot have

been the lack of knowledge of writing for any of the instruments in a piano quintet.

One reason might have been that both composers liked the timbre of woodwinds

and piano. It is also possible they felt the forte-piano an unnecessary addition to

the popularity of the string quartet genre. The string quartet was considered “the

prima donna” of the chamber ensembles at the time and continued to be favored by

composers of the 19th and 20th centuries.

As mentioned earlier, the most common combination for the piano quintet was

not piano plus string quartet, but instead two violins, cello, and the double bass in

place of the viola. The subsequent step in the evolution on the string quartet

instrumentation was violin, viola with the cello line doubled by the double bass.

Examples include Jan Ladislav Dussek’s Quintet in f minor op. 41 (1799) and

Johann Nepomuk Hummel’s Quintet in E♭ op. 87 (1802).

37

What seems to be the earliest attempt to compose for keyboard and the

standard string quartet dates from the 1770s. The Six Quintets op. 1 by Tommaso

Giordani follow the classical sonata form consisting of three movements; the

instrumentation calls for harpsichord, two violins, viola and cello. This might be

considered the first antecedent of the piano quintet. According to Smallman:

Some four or five years later, there were published in London, as his op.1, Six Quintets by Tommaso Giordani, which have been justifiablyclaimed (by Nicholas Temperley in a recent modern edition of three ofthem) as ‘the first examples of what could later be called the pianoquintet.’3

The first quintets for piano and string quartet appear some two decades later.

Luigi Boccherini wrote two sets of six quintets, 6 Quintetti op. 56 (1797) and 6

Quintetti op. 57 (1799), considered noteworthy for a number of reasons. About

these works Smallman writes:

Avoiding the temptations of the concerto or continuo-accompaniedstyles, the composer maintains an effective balance between the pianoand strings, and, despite an excessive leaning towards short repetitivephrases, achieves with these works a significant landmark in the earlydevelopment of the genre.4

The next substantial work in the history of the piano quintet is a work by

Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia. Composed in the early 1800s, his Piano Quintet

in c minor was written for keyboard, two violins, viola and cello. This piece is

significant in that, like many later quintets, the work has four movements, the

3Smallman, 4.4Ibid., 17.

38

second being a Menuet and Trio. This established an important precedent since

most piano quintets dating from the second half of the 19th century consist of four

movements. Utilizing this architectural model, John Field wrote his Quintet in A♭

major (1815), and soon after, this structure became the standard one when writing

for piano quintet with strings. There exist two notable exceptions: Franz Schubert,

despite the new convention, wrote his celebrated Piano Quintet The Trout in A

major op. 114 for piano, violin, viola, cello and double bass (1819), this

instrumentation inspired by Hummel’s quintet.5 Although Hummel’s work has four

movements, Schubert’s has five. This is significant in the development of the genre

since it sets a precedent of innovation and freedom for later composers.

By the early and mid 1800s the piano quintet was further established as a

genre and composers became more interested in writing piano quintets. The

standard instrumentation of piano, two violins, viola and cello offered composers a

wide range of possibilities of thematic material, transfer and dialogue between the

parts, as well as a richer color scheme and a broader dynamic range. Among these

are Johann Baptist Cramer’s Quintet no 1 op. 60 (1817) and no. 2 op. 69 (1823);

Franz Berwald’s Quintet no. 1 in c minor (1853) and no. 2 in A major (1857) and

Camille Saint-Saens’ Quintet in a minor op. 14 (1855).

Without a doubt, as the piano quintet continued to evolve, the most

important works appear after the 1850s. Smallman singles out Robert Schumann’s

5Smallman, 29.

39

Quintet in E♭ major op. 44 (1843), later to become one of the most significant

works in the chamber music genre, for special mention:

The two Schumann compositions, and particularly the Piano Quintet,are nowadays recognized as the culmination of virtually all previousexplorations of the genres, and at the same time as the foundations onwhich numerous later composers were able to build.6

It is also around this time that the combination of piano and string quartet

became the standard choice for most composers when writing a piano quintet.

Among these works we find Alexander Borodin’s Piano Quintet in c minor (1862),

Johannes Brahms’ Piano Quintet in f minor op. 34 (1865), Cesar Franck’s Piano

Quintet in f minor (1871), and Antonın Dvorak’s Piano Quintet in A major op. 5

(1872). During the last two decades of the 19th century piano quintets were

composed by composers of many diverse origins. Examples include Antonın

Dvorak’s Piano Quintet in A major op. 81 (1887), Erno Dohnanyi’s Piano Quintet

in c minor op. 1 (1895), Vıtezslav Novak’s Piano Quintet in a minor op. 12 (1896),

Enrique Granados’ Quintet in g minor (1898) and Max Reger’s Piano Quintet in c

minor (1897-8). Reger’s second Piano Quintet op. 64, also in c minor, was

composed in 1901-2.

3.2 The Place of the Piano Quintet at the Turn of the Twentieth Century

At the end of the 19th century the piano quintet was well established and

enjoyed a reputation as a distinguished chamber work of a high level of difficulty.

6Smallman, 51.

40

The piano now shared an equal role with the strings. The exchange of material as

well as the use of cyclic ideas among the movements became common compositional

techniques in the genre.

By the early 20th century, the influence of Brahms and Wagner was noticeably

strong in the genre of the piano quintet. While some composers followed the

traditional Viennese school, others departed from the traditional elements of form

and harmonic structure, leading towards the progressive techniques utilized by the

later 20th century composers.

Among the composers who followed the first Viennese school and continued

with a more traditional treatment of the genre we find the following quintets: Anton

Arensky’s Quintet in D major op. 51 (1900), Amy Beach’s Quintet in f♯ minor op.

67 (1909), Erno Dohnanyi’s Piano Quintet no. 2 in e♭ minor op. 26 (1914), Edward

Elgar’s Quintet in a minor op. 84 (1918), Ernst Bloch’s Quintet (1921-23), Bohuslav

Martinu’s Quintette (1933) and Dimitri Shostakovich’s Piano Quintet in g minor

op. 57 (1940).

The quintets of two young composers, Anton Webern and Bela Bartok, are

prophetic in that both works foreshadow the styles they would achieve later in their

compositional lives. It is interesting that Webern did not include his early Quintet

(1907), a one movement piece using twelve-tone rows, in his own catalogue. It

appears that, as in the case of Bartok’s Quintet, the composer was not very

impressed with his early work. According to Maurice Hinson:

41

Themes include most of the twelve tones; series-like. The harmony ismainly triadic. Piano style is Brahmsian with octave doublings, thickchords, and subtle rhythmic shifts, but a few spots of thin textures andwidely spread skips suggest future Webernesque techniques. A lyricwork that would work well for groups not yet prepared to undertakelater Webern.7

While Bartok’s Piano Quintet in C major (1904) shows the clear influence of

Brahms and the Romantic period, it already reveals characteristics which will be

present in his later works. One feature is the treatment of dissonances: some are

treated following the baroque technique of resolving them as appoggiaturas, others

do not seem to follow any norms within the tonality of the sections, a true

Bartokian harmonic innovation.

Another feature is the freedom from the conventional structure of a piano

quintet in soloistic passages. This is more marked in the slow movement where the

piano is not only used as a harmonic support with some melodic substance, but here

has the same weight and importance as the string quartet performing as a unit. For

instance, in this movement, the thematic transfer between the piano and the strings

is composed in a manner which allows the piano to stand out more than the strings

when they present the same material. This appears to give the piano a more

soloistic role which, in combination with other soloistic and cadenza-like passages in

the movement, make the piano more of a featured instrument than in other piano

quintets.

7Maurice Hinson, The Piano in Chamber Ensemble: An Annotated Guide (Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press, 1996), 485.

42

Pianistically, the piece presents a level of difficulty similar to that of Liszt and

Brahms. However, Bartok introduces rhythmic figurations not common in music of

this genre at that time. For instance, the left hand runs are unusual in the usage of

odd number of notes, varying from 29, 23, 17, 15, and 14 thirty-second notes. These

accompaniments offer a striking contrast to the more classical left hand

accompaniment patterns of triplets or sixteenth notes used by Bartok’s

contemporaries.

In a manner of speaking, Webern’s and Bartok’s quintets seem to straddle the

19th and 20th centuries. Both quintets break away from the established

four-movement piano quintet structure of the time. Webern’s quintet consists of a

single movement, a great innovation for which there is no precedent in the genre.

Bartok’s Quintet follows the four-movement structure, yet all of them are connected,

providing the sensation of a continuous work, also without precedent in this genre.

The piano quintet continued to evolve during the late 20th and early 21st

centuries. Composers stretched the boundaries of this genre by applying formal and

harmonic language used in other genres of the time, such as the usage of twelve-tone

techniques, clusters, octotonic and quartal harmonies, non-traditional key centers,

rhythmical complexity, and innovations in textures and colors of the instruments, to

name but a few. From composers that follow this path, we find works that contain

some interesting features: the Piano Quintet by George Rochberg written in 1975

includes a movement for piano alone, in David Fenton’s words “an extreme rarely

43

seen elsewhere in the repertoire.”8 Alberto Ginastera in his Quinteto (1963) writes

three separate cadenzas: one for viola and violoncello, one for two violins and the

third one for piano solo. Soloistic passages were actually used before, but

Ginastera’s are particularly interesting because of the usage of string effects and

imaginative textures.

The French composers contributed to the genre with the same innovations

they were producing in other genres. For instance Gabriel Faure employed thematic

transformation technique in his second quintet in c minor op. 115 (1921). In his

first quintet in d minor op. 89 (1905), he used the canonic technique in the slow

movement. Darius Milhaud’s Piano Quintet (1951) offers some thematic

fragmentation and juxtapositions of figuration, polytonality, octotonic and quartal

harmonies.9 Another French composer to explore the genre was Vincent d’Indy with

his Quintet in g minor op. 81 (1924). Other composers who wrote piano quintets

include Alfred Schnitke, Joaquin Turina, Charles Ives, Grazyna Bacewicz and

Roberto Caamano among others.

3.3 Historical Background of Bela Bartok’s Piano Quintet (1904)

Bartok’s Piano Quintet in C major was composed between October of 1903

(Berlin) and July of 1904 (Gerlicepuszta).10 At the time of its premiere in Vienna

8Fenton.9Hinson, The Piano in Chamber Ensemble: An Annotated Guide, 478.

10Bela Bartok, Quintetto per 2 violini, viola, violoncello e pianoforte, ed. Denijs Dille (Budapest:Editio Musica Budapest, 1970), 172.

44

on November 21, 190411 in Ehrbar Hall, the composer’s performance of the piece

with the Prill Quartet was well received by audience and critics alike. Bartok

describes the audience’s reception of the piece in one of his letters: “the audience

liked it to the extent of 3 recalls. We twice in the last movement almost

umschmeiss-ed12.”13 Theodor Helm, a critic for Pester Lloyd, reviewed the

performance in the issued dated November 26, 1904.14 The original text is included

in Figure 3.1.15 This review of the premiere was translated into English by Janos

Karpati in his book on Bartok’s chamber music:

The eminent Viennese Prill String Quartet granted us a very interestingperformance of a piano quintet, the latest chamber work by yourtalented compatriot Bela Bartok. The piano part was performed by theyoung composer himself, of course wonderfully. A consuming inner flameseems to burn in these notes, intense, bold, and demonic, which certainlysounded alien to some ‘strictly conservative’ ears. This genuine “Sturmund Drang” work is by a real talent, which however still needsclarification, even so at no point does it repudiate its national origin,indeed, in the sobbing adagio and the jubilating csardas rhythm of thelast movement, it vividly recalls the spirit of some of Liszt’s rhapsodies.16

What is somewhat curious is that in Karpati’s translation of the review is that

the last and most laudatory sentence is omitted: “Overall, the exceptional success

for the dignified Hungarian guest was very flattering.”17

11Paul Griffiths, The Master Musicians: Bartok (London: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1984), 200.12Loose translation: “almost fell apart.”13Janos Karpati, Bartok’s Chamber Music (Stuyvesant, NY: Pendragon Press, 1994), 245.14Dr. Theodor Helm, “Feuilleton - Wiener Musikbrief”, Pester Lloyd , (26 November 1904), 3-4.15The full archival records of this newspaper is available online thru the Osterreichische Nation-

albibliothek at http://www.pesterlloyd.net16Karpati, 245.17Loosely translated from German by Orhan Beker.

45

Figure 3.1: Review of the premiere from Pester Lloyd.

46

The Quintet presents a challenge for the string players because of its difficulty.

For this reason it could not be performed at the Prix Rubinstein Competition in

Paris 1905 as the strings were not able to learn it in time.18 The Quintet received

its first Budapest performance on March 19, 1910 by the Waldbauer-Kerpely

Quartet, which was formed the same month by four young Hungarian musicians.

Probably as a reflection of the nationalistic movement in the Balkans, this group

dedicated themselves to performance of pieces by Kodaly and Bartok. The quartet

first presented an evening dedicated to works by Kodaly on March 17 where they

imparted a manifesto for the new Hungarian music. On March 19, a second

“composer’s evening” was dedicated to music by Bartok, which included the

quintet with the composer himself at the piano.19

According to Dille, Bartok made a number of alterations to the score in 1920

and eliminated various parts. These changes, which appear in the 1970 published

version of the Quintet by Editio Musica Budapest,20 were incorporated into the

third performance of the work by the Waldbauer-Kerpely Quartet with Bartok

again at the piano on January 7, 1921. Of this performance Dille writes:

As Marta Ziegler told the story, the quintet had won a frantic applauseand that had not pleased Bartok. When after the concert, someinconsiderate members of the audience congratulated him by telling himthat they preferred that music to what was written by him subsequently,he flew into such a rage that he flung the score into a corner.21

18Demeny, Janos, ed., Bela Bartok Letters (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1971), 45.19Claude Kenneson, Szekely and Bartok: The Story of a Friendship (Portland, OR: Amadeus

Press, 1994), 19.20Bartok, preface.21Ibid.

47

According to Platthy, after the revisions of 1920, Bartok gave the score to

Imre Waldbauer, the first violinist of the Waldbauer String Quartet, to prevent

further public performances as well as publication.22 Around the same time,

according to Kenneson, the Viennese publisher, Universal-Edition, expressed an

interest in publishing the Quintet:

The composer found that part of the manuscript was missing andbeyond his recall. When this fact was mentioned to Ernst von Dohnanyi,well known for his memory feats, he went to the piano and recreated themissing passages which he had seen sixteen to eighteen years earlier,thus enabling the composer to recapture what was lost.23

After the 1921 performance the Quintet seems to have gone unnoticed for

some time. Dille discovered the Quintet among other previously lost pieces and

published it several years later. A number of measures were missing from the

manuscript and Dille himself completed them with Kodaly’s consent. The piece was

reissued in its final form by Editio Musica Budapest in 1970.24

According to Jeno Platthy’s somewhat contradictory account, for fifty odd

years the piece gathered dust in the Bartok Archives in Budapest, until Waldbauer’s

son drew the attention of the Juilliard String Quartet to it.25 The Quintet was

revived in 1973, receiving performances in New York on April 10, and in

Washington, D.C. on April 12.26 In these performances the Quintet appears to have

22Jeno Platthy, Bartok: A Critical Biography (Santa Claus, IN: Federation of International PoetryAssociations of UNESCO, 1988), 147.

23Kenneson, 20.24Bartok, preface.25Platthy, 147.26Ibid.

48

been a failure with the audience, unlike Bartok’s account of the initial

performances. Platthy in his book Bartok’s Chamber Music cites a harsh review by

Irwing Lowens which appeared in The Evening Star on April 13, 1973:

It would be fibbing, said the critic Irwing Lowens, to consider this workas a masterpiece. “Even in it’s revised form, the work is a poor one,longwinded, undisciplined and overly repetitious. The four bombasticmovements are very thickly and unskillfully scored. The harmonictreatment is thoroughly chromatic, with tzigane touches everywhere aswell as the recognizable ghost of Franz Liszt.”27

Although studies exist that explore the many aspects of Bela Bartok as a

composer and musician, there are no detailed explorations of this early Piano

Quintet in C major. Most of the literature focuses on Bartok’s later period and the

influence of folk elements on his music. David Yeomans in his book Bartok for

Piano offers a detailed and informative guide to Bartok’s piano music, including

dates, publications, timing, levels of difficulty, movements, scales or modes,

commentary and recording information for every work for solo piano. Halsey

Stevens in his book The Life and Music of Bela Bartok focuses on the life of the

composer as well as his music and compositional styles. Although he dedicates a

good portion of the book to the analysis of many of his chamber works, the Piano

Quintet is only mentioned briefly.

Among the vast literature on Bartok’s works, just a few sources offer a

paragraph or two about the Piano Quintet. Janos Karpati in his book Bartok’s

Chamber Music allocates a couple of pages to the Piano Quintet in his chapter

27Platthy, 147.

49

entitled Early Chamber Works. It is a concise but general description of the piece

that gives a positive opinion of it:

The Piano Quintet is important chiefly in that it is the first piece todevelop the national tone, a concept wholly relating to Liszt’s nationalaspirations, and which thus binds the oeuvres of Liszt and Bartok intothe closest continuity.28

Jeno Platthy condemns the highly critical review of the piece by Irwing

Lowens mentioned above:

To say that the composition is unskillfully scored is a slap in the face ofthe Hungarian composer who, at the time of the revision, in 1920, was aprofessor of the Conservatory in Hungary, the highest musical instituteof the nation for more than a dozen of years although without a‘Teacher’s Diploma’.29

Basil Smallman in his book “The Piano Quartet and Quintet: Style, Structure,

and Scoring” acknowledges some merit in Bartok’s Quintet:

The young composer’s inexperience is evident in the rambling structureof the work, the excess of climaxes, and the many unconvincing joinsbetween sections; but the quintet reveals, none the less, powerfulindividuality, with its strongly-etched themes and rich harmonicresource.30

Many sources briefly mention the romanticism found in the Quintet, although

they do not emphasize the significance of the romantic roots found in many

passages in the piece. The overwhelming beauty of the melodies in the Quintet, full

28Karpati, 247.29Platthy, 247.30Smallman, 106.

50

of Hungarian flourishes, is worth examining in detail. Although they may not be

immediately recognizable as Bartokian, the Hungarian rhythms and motives appear

to be more authentic and intrinsic in this piece than those found in Liszt’s music.

Already in the Quintet, we find in Bartok’s music a strong nationalistic feeling that

would seem to predict his seminal studies of Hungarian music which he commenced

shortly after composing the piece.

At the present, there are four recordings of Bela Bartok’s Piano Quintet

available:

• “Bartok: String Quartet No.6/Quintet for String Quartet and Piano”

– Philip de Groote, Chilingirian Quartet

– October 28, 1992

– Label: Chandos

• “Bartok & Schumann: Piano Quintets”

– Rasvan Neculai, Silvestri String Quartet

– January 20, 1998

– Label: Quicksilva Records

• “Bartok: Rhapsodies Nos. 1 & 2; Piano Quintet”

– Jeno Jando, Kodaly String Quartet

– June 27, 1995

– Label: Naxos

• “Bartok: Kossuth, Piano Quintet”

– Csilla Szabo, Tatrai String Quartet

– March 17, 1995 (July 24, 2006)

– Label: Hungaroton

51

CHAPTER 4

STYLISTIC INFLUENCES ON BARTOK’S PIANO QUINTET

Bartok’s Piano Quintet displays stylistic influences ranging from the music of

other composers − from the past as well as his contemporaries − to the Hungarian

folk music he was to explore in depth later in his life. This chapter will discuss in

detail these influences which shaped his style, attempting to isolate the various

aspects.

4.1 Brahms

The influence of Brahms’ music in Bartok’s Piano Quintet is subtle, perhaps

the result of a natural assimilation of the romantic and post romantic writing

Bartok was exposed to during his early years. This was the language with which

European musicians were still very familiar, and Bartok was no exception; not until

he felt the necessity to find his own compositional language did he break away from

the romantic tradition.

When considering chamber music and particularly a piano quintet, it is hard

to imagine that a composer in the early 1900’s would not follow the impulse to

emulate Brahms’ Piano Quintet. Written in 1862, his Quintet in f minor op. 34 is

still considered to be one of the greatest examples of the genre. Bela Bartok’s

52

teachers followed the Germanic tradition, so it is likely that Brahms’ tradition was

still strongly felt in Europe, particularly in the area of chamber music.

It is striking how the opening of Bartok’s Piano Quintet visually mirrors the

opening of Brahms’. While the opening in Bartok’s Quintet uses more polyphonic

writing in comparison to Brahms’ unison one, there is a perceivable similarity in the

parallel motion of the first four notes in both scores (compare examples 4.1 and 4.2).

Even though the opening interval in Brahms’ quintet is a P4th followed by a whole

step and a half step, and in Bartok’s the interval is a M6th followed by a whole step

and a half step, the sentiment that characterizes these openings is very similar. The

introductory quality in both of these openings is quite noteworthy. In Brahms, one

may interpret that the actual movement starts with the sixteenth-note material

following the C major (dominant) chord in m. 4. Similarly, in Bartok’s Piano

Quintet one senses that the movement begins at the downbeat of m. 4, where the

piano joins the strings. It is here that Bartok presents a complete melody and a

clear sense of tonality for the first time.

Brahms’ influences on Bartok’s Piano Quintet are more easily understood

when divided into the following categories: Technical Brahms, Serene Brahms,

Rhythm, and Quintet writing.

53

Example 4.1: Bartok, Piano Quintet, mm. 1-7.

54

Example 4.2: Brahms, Piano Quintet, Op. 34, mm. 1-4.

4.1.1 Technical Brahms

Some passages of the Quintet may have been inspired by more technically

demanding aspects of Brahms’ music, as shown in the passage from mm. 46-49 from

the first movement (example 4.3).


This melodic material seems very similar to a simpler version found in Brahms’

Violin Sonata in d minor op. 108 (example 4.4), where the ascending movement in

sixteenth notes in the piano part is similar yet more complex in Bartok’s music.

55

Example 4.4: Brahms, Violin Sonata in d minor, op. 108, mov. I, mm. 30-33.

Another passage occurs in mm. 219-221 from the first movement (example

4.5).


Here we can appreciate not only the technical demands for the piano, but also the

challenges for the strings. The rhythmic accompaniment of the strings resembles the

melodic line of the piano part in Brahms’ violin sonata in example 4.4, although in

Bartok’s example the difficulty increases from the first measure to the following

56

measures, where the two violins have jumps from broken sixteenth-note octaves on

G to an octave D for violin I and a major third for violin II. This is normally a

challenging passage to play in tune for the strings alone, and becomes more difficult

with the addition of the tempered piano (see example 4.6).


Some transitional episodes in Bartok’s Quintet appear to imitate Brahms’

compositional techniques. Such is the case of the ending of the first movement.

There, coming from a calm melody in the piano part based on the figuration of two

eighth notes followed by a quarter note (see example 4.7), Bartok halves the note

values, changing them to a configuration of two sixteenths and one eighth note

(example 4.8).


57


The motive of two ascending consecutive notes followed by a descending leap

(originated as an ascending 2nd and a descending 3rd) from the beginning of the

motive, is mostly maintained throughout the coda section. Using diminution

technique, Bartok provides the feeling of acceleration that, with the support of the

strings’ constant sixteenth notes, creates an increase in tension. This helps to end

the movement in a grandiose and energetic manner, creating one of the most

Brahmsian passages in the piece.

4.1.2 Serene Brahms

Some examples of a more serene Bartok can be observed in the following

excerpts from the first and third movements (examples 4.7 and 4.9) of the Quintet.

A similar tranquil feeling is achieved by Brahms in his Piano Concerto in B♭ major

op. 83 (example 4.10). It is interesting to point out that the syncopation between

the melody and the right hand accompaniment from Bartok’s Quintet (example 4.7)

resembles that of Brahms’ concerto not only in the piano part but also in the

orchestral reduction (example 4.10).

58


Example 4.10: Brahms, Piano Concerto in B ♭ Major, op. 83, mov. I, mm. 87-96.

59

In Bartok’s excerpt the melodic line in quarter notes played by the right hand

of the piano part is noteworthy. The similarity to the one present in Brahms’

orchestra accompaniment is apparent, although this time it appears in the left hand.

Even though in Brahms’ passage the melodic shape is ascending while in Bartok’s it

is descending, the movement in seconds is common to both.

Another example of the type of serenity achieved by Bartok in emulation of

Brahms is found in the B section of the second movement, Vivace (scherzando) of

Bartok’s Quintet. Brahms’ influence is not only perceived in its character and the

melodic shape presented by the strings, but also by the piano when at the third

beat of m. 484 it responds to the strings in a similar manner as Brahms used in

some of his chamber works (example 4.11).


Notice the similarity with example 4.12 from Brahms’ Violin Sonata no. 2 in A

major op. 100 where the piano also responds to the statement presented by the

violin.

60

Example 4.12: Brahms, Violin Sonata in A Major, op. 100, mov. I, mm. 16-29.

4.1.3 Rhythm

Although rhythmic patterns are bound to be repeated among composers, there

are certain distinctive rhythmic gestures found in Bartok’s Quintet that are also

found in some of Brahms’ works. The writer is not implying in any way that Bartok

was intending to copy or reproduce Brahms’ rhythmic devices. On the contrary,

Bartok’s use of these patterns seems to have been a natural product of his

awareness of Brahms’ piano and chamber works as well as his grounding in the

strong Germanic tradition that Bartok was subjected to as a music student.

One example of figuration that mirrors that of Brahms occurs in m. 1063 in

the slow movement. Although Bartok adds a trill at the end of each motive, the

octave opening and its ascending shape clearly resembles passagework in Brahms’

61

Piano Concerto in B♭ major op. 83 with its arpeggiated fast figuration ending on an

eighth note (see examples 4.13 and 4.14).

Example 4.13: Bartok, Piano Quintet, m. 1063.

Example 4.14: Brahms, Piano Concerto in B ♭ Major, op. 83, mov. I, mm. 203-204.

In Brahms’ concerto this rhythmic motive of an ascending arpeggio is clearly

derived from the opening of the movement where the piano answers the French horn

call with an arpeggiated ascending arch on the tonic chord. A few measures later a

rapid version with its distinctive descending sixteenth and eighth notes is presented,

becoming one of the main motives of the movement. The motive is also developed

by Brahms in a brilliant manner. On the other hand, the similar motive in Bartok’s

Quintet has no immediate precedent in the music and it is only used in this section

of the piece. The similarity between the Brahms’ passage and Bartok’s quintet

62

passage is striking. Another such case has been mentioned earlier in the Serene

Brahms section (see examples 4.7 and 4.10).

An often cited characteristic of Brahms’ music is his use of hemiolas. Bartok

employs this technique in the opening of the second movement of the Quintet,

Vivace (scherzando). The movement is in triple meter although the tied notes across

the barline in both first violin and viola give the listener the impression that the

first three measures are actually three measures of duple time followed by one

measure of triple. The same figuration is repeated many times, giving this

movement an unstable rhythmic feel. Bartok achieved this by using the following

rhythmic pattern as shown in example 4.15.


Meanwhile, the piano is clearly written in 3/4, only playing the first two beats

of every measure. The lower strings reinforce the first two beats of the third bar, as

if insisting that the meter is triple in spite of the duple feeling of the beginning of the

melody (see example 4.16). The uneven meters in Bulgarian and Rumanian music

may have been the inspiration for his peculiar combination of rhythm and meter.

63


4.1.4 Quintet writing

It seems apparent that Bartok and Brahms share an approach to the balance

between strings and piano. In both piano quintets the strings are used as a compact

body and the piano is treated as a different and separate entity. However a sense of

integration is present in both quintets. In contrast, Dvorak’s Piano Quintet contains

constant dialogue between all five instruments, possibly allowing for a stronger sense

of equality and importance of each individual part. However, the piano part in

Bartok’s Quintet stands apart from the strings, taking a more soloistic role.

Although the second and fourth movements are strongly influenced by the Germanic

tradition and could be mistaken as movements written by Brahms based on the

sense of form and overall melody, Bartok’s writing is distinguished by some

64

gypsy-like tunes in the second movement and the use of the csardas theme in the

final movement.

4.2 Liszt

It is hard to imagine a young pianist/composer at the turn of the 20th century

− and particularly a Hungarian composer − not influenced by Franz Liszt. Liszt

was not only a renowned composer and highly influential figure in Europe during his

lifetime, but arguably the best composer that Hungary had ever produced. By the

late 1880’s Liszt had become an imposing role model for any young Hungarian

music student. Liszt became the president of the newly founded Hungarian

Academy of Music in Budapest in 1875, only six years before Bartok was born.1

Janos Karpati mentions Liszt’s influence on Bartok’s early work:

But while the Kossuth [Bartok’s early symphonic poem] is influencedpredominantly by Richard Strauss, as evident from the orchestration, hischamber music with piano so far contains more directly the legacy ofLiszt. No doubt this is the more superficial, brilliant side of Liszt, usedon the surface to solve erroneously the problem of the music’s Hungariancharacter.2

Karpati may be referring here to the scalar passages highly embellished with

fast figurations found in many sections of Bartok’s quintet that directly mirror the

most virtuosic side of Liszt’s music. The word “superficial” here may indicate the

lack of substance that may be observed in most of these sections, which may have

1Don Michael Randel, Harvard Concise Dictionary of Music (Cambridge, MA: The BelknapPress of Harvard University Press, 1995), 277.

2Janos Karpati, Bartok’s Chamber Music (Stuyvesant, NY: Pendragon Press, 1994), 247.

65

provided Bartok with a solution in presenting the folk tunes in his early works while

trying to make them more interesting. It is only after achieving maturity as a

composer that Bartok infused his music with folk elements not only by the use of

melodic material or accented rhythmic patterns but with a complete synthesis of the

folk essence in every aspect of his compositions.

Franz Liszt and Frederic Chopin were the two musical figures of the Romantic

period that revolutionized modern piano technique. In the case of Liszt, he

expanded the frontiers of piano technique and virtuoso writing similar to Niccolo

Paganini and the violin. This virtuoso writing is one aspect that Bartok clearly

attempts to emulate in his Piano Quintet.

A highly accomplished pianist himself, Bartok performed Liszt’s music while

trying to pursue a performance career. According to a recital review of a public

concert at the Academy of Music on 21 October 1901, Bartok performed the Liszt b

minor Sonata with a steely, well-developed technique.3

The influence of Liszt is quite significant in the piano part of the Quintet,

particularly in the following aspects: virtuoso passages, concerto-like writing and

form.

3Halsey Stevens, The Life and Music of Bela Bartok. rev. ed. (New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1967), 15.

66

4.2.1 Virtuoso passages

Virtuoso piano writing appears in the form of rapid accompaniment patterns

as they occur in m. 1065 of the third movement (Adagio) of the Quintet. Compare

example 4.17 from the Quintet with example 4.18 from Liszt’s Vallee d’Obermann.


Example 4.18: Liszt, Vallee d’Obermann, Annees de Pelerinage I: Premiere Annee(1852 version), mm. 165-166.

67

Most of these virtuosic passages are found in the first and third movements of the

Quintet. Another example of this sort of writing is shown in examples 4.19 and 4.20

from Bartok’s Quintet.


Here we can appreciate the rich rhythmic complexity, octave writing and great

dexterity required of both hands. These and many other virtuoso passages

throughout the piece are not only as pianistically demanding as the ones found in

Liszt’s piano music, but also show Bartok’s knowledge of the instrument and its

capabilities. The reasons for including these virtuoso passages in a piano quintet are

not shallow and merely for the purpose of technical display. On the contrary, most

of the time these passages coincide with a dramatic climax or buildup of tension and

sonority, used as a means of underlining the peaks of the major emotional sections

in the piece.

68


The descending and ascending scalar passages in example 4.19 are frequently

found in Liszt’s piano writing. Compare this with example 4.21 from Liszt’s

Hungarian Fantasia for Piano and Orchestra S. 123 (1852).

Example 4.21: Liszt, Hungarian Fantasy

69

Other elements present in the previous examples that point directly to Liszt are the

use of expansive arpeggios in the left hand, simultaneous broad jumps for both

hands, trills and double trills.

4.2.2 Concerto-like writing

The score of Bartok’s Piano Quintet is particularly striking for its soloistic

writing. When examining the scores of other piano quintets written before the

1900’s, the piano parts are noticeably less dense than those of later works, not only

because of the fewer number of notes used, but also in their function of providing a

constant rhythm that supports the strings. Normally these piano parts would

involve eighth and sixteenth notes or triplets. More complex rhythmic figuration

would normally be reserved for the Adagio, as is the case of the slow movement of

Brahms’ Clarinet Trio in a minor op. 114. By contrast, Bartok’s Quintet is unusual

because the piano carries a significant weight in relation to the strings. Not only

does the piano make an important contribution in its role as harmonic support and

accompaniment to the strings’ melodies, a common role for the instrument in

chamber music, but Bartok also introduces the piano in a new, soloistic role in not

just a few, but a considerable number of sections. This is particularly evident in the

first and third movements. Compare example 4.19 and 4.21. Also see example 4.22.

Example 4.19 shows the rapid figuration in the right hand with an unusual grouping

of notes in addition to trills and fast resolutions in both hands and octave trills in

70


the right hand. In example 4.20 one can observe a broad arpeggio in a clear Lisztian

style, also octave leaps and left hand arpeggios.

4.2.3 Form

While the piano quintet had already evolved into the standard four-movement

form by Bartok’s time, he seems to be the first composer to attempt to connect all

four movements. There seems to be no precedent for this within the earlier

repertoire of chamber works with piano, although we do not need to look far for

what may have been his inspiration. Liszt’s Sonata for Piano in b minor (1853) is a

work in which the individual movements are connected. This innovative re-casting

of the sonata form was successful because Liszt used the same thematic materials in

different sections throughout the piece. Maurice Hinson writes:

71

In a single span, Liszt enclosed the musical regions that previouscomposers had confined to separate movements, unifying this massivestructure by concentrating on a small number of characteristic themeswhich are constantly transformed.4

Bartok used a similar technique in his Quintet; the melodic material presented

in the first movement is reintroduced in the slow movement and developed in a

skillful manner. Also a theme from the opening movement appears in the last

movement. According to Gillies, “The main thematic framework for the work is

formed by changing formulations of a supranational melodic core, which also adopt

the Hungarian version based on the (gypsy) minor scale.”5 As a pianist, Bartok

would also have been familiar with Liszt’s Concerto for Piano and Orchestra no. 1 in

E♭ major. This continuous one movement work gives the listener the impression that

it is actually in four movements. Although the different sections are marked with

distinct tempo markings, the piece is intended to be performed uninterrupted. Liszt

achieved a further sense of unity with the use of thematic transformation between

movements, a technique that Bartok was clearly trying to emulate in his Quintet.

Another noteworthy aspect is the unusual number of tempo changes presented

within a movement. This is particularly apparent in the first and third movements

of Bartok’s Quintet. Although normally some tempo changes occur during the

course of a movement, these many tempo fluctuations are actually extraordinary,

not only because of their frequency of occurrence, but because they do not seem to

4Maurice Hinson, Guide to the Pianist’s Repertoire. 3rd. ed. (Bloomington: Indiana UniversityPress, 2000), 490.

5Gillies, Malcolm, ed., The Bartok Companion (Portland, OR: Amadeus Press, 1994), 223.

72

appear in other piano quintets. Once again Liszt may well have provided a model,

this time in his b minor Sonata where different tempo markings are used throughout

the piece to separate the different sections. Liszt’s Concerto for piano and orchestra

no. 2 in A major offers a wide variety of tempo markings as well, serving to

delineate clear distinctions between the many parts of the piece. Notice that this

concerto is also written in a single continuous movement.

4.3 Dohnanyi

In 1895 Erno Dohnanyi wrote his first piano quintet in c minor. Bartok

attended the concert premiere of the piece and was impressed with it and may well

have been influenced to compose a quintet of his own.6

According to Griffiths:

His next major composition was the Piano Quintet (1903-4), his thirdessay in a medium to which he was drawn no doubt by Dohnanyi’sexample, and also by the fact that the quintet provided apianist-composer with something in which he could show himself offdoubly at chamber recitals. It is an unequivocally late romanticcombination (after Schumann’s invention of the genre in his op. 44, thegreat examples are those of Brahms, Franck, Reger and Faure), andBartok’s is an unequivocally late romantic piece.7

Other scholars also share the opinion that Dohnanyi’s work was an influence

on Bartok. Referring to Dohnanyi, Stevens writes: “...the Piano Quintet, opus 1, in

c minor, by whose Brahmsian flavor Bartok was deeply impressed.”8 Even though

6Basil Smallman, The Piano Quartet and Quintet: Style, Structure, and Scoring (New York:Oxford University Press, 1994), 106.

7Paul Griffiths, The Master Musicians: Bartok (London: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1984), 14.8Stevens, 9.

73

the music of the talented Dohnanyi may have impressed the young Bartok, there is

no certain evidence that it was Dohnanyi’s first Piano Quintet in c minor op. 1 that

served as a model for Bartok’s own work in this genre. Perhaps hearing Dohnanyi’s

quintet gave Bartok the motivation to compose a quintet at such an early stage of

his career. The scores of both quintets at first glance are strikingly different.

Dohnanyi’s quintet is clearly modeled on examples of the German School; the

influence of both Schumann and Brahms is easily recognized. The melodic material

is quite traditional and there are no folk melodies or any other kind of distinctive

“signature” present that would set Dohnanyi apart from any other young talented

composer following the German School.

In the case of Bartok, the legacy of the romantic composers is more subtle

while his writing draws upon the Hungarian folk materials that eventually become

the hallmark of his style. Bartok includes many “gypsy-like” melodies in the

Quintet that become not only the main framework that formally sustains the work,

but also allow the composer to communicate their inherent feeling of freedom. This

is achieved by presenting and transforming these tunes throughout the work without

the impression of following a strict formal scheme. However after analyzing both

scores in detail, there are similarities between them that would explain the reason

Bartok himself admitted having composed his Quintet after hearing Dohnanyi’s.

Nonetheless, it is not clear if these points of similarity occurred naturally after

listening to the premiere of Dohnanyi’s piece or may have been the result of

74

Bartok’s intent to emulate a compatriot he greatly admired. Whatever the case may

be, the similarities fall into the categories of: folk elements, form and movement

placement, writing style, rhythm, and use of the fugue.

4.3.1 Folk elements

When referring to the folk elements in Dohnanyi’s piano quintet Smallman

writes:

Such nationalistic elements as are evident with the first of the Dohnanyiquintets reflect more the cosmopolitan ‘Zigeuner’ style of the periodthan any characteristics of genuinely Hungarian folk origin.9

Dohnanyi’s use of folk-like ideas is in many ways comparable to that of

Brahms, whose use of Hungarian materials was indicative of his genuine interest in

folk melodies of many types. This is evident in Brahms’ large output of folksong

settings and works such as the Hungarian Dances, which make use of certain

popularized elements of the ethnic style. Another example of this occurs in Brahms’

Piano Quartet in g minor op. 25 (1861) which includes a Rondo alla Zingarese as a

final movement. Smallman’s use of the term “cosmopolitan” may well refer to this

romantic practice, not unique to Brahms, of giving an ethnic flavor to a work by

incorporating certain stylistic gestures, usually in the form of rhythmic figuration or

use of modes. Interestingly, both Dohnanyi and Bartok based their final movements

on a Hungarian melody. Dohnanyi’s last movement is, according to Michael

9Smallman, 106.

75

Jameson, based on a Magyar-inspired idea.10 The term “Magyar” refers to the

Hungarian people (ethnic Hungarians) or the Hungarian language. Bartok’s last

movement is based on a csardas11 theme. The csardas together with the verbunkos12

were popular sources of folk melodies. Dohnanyi treats the Magyar ideas in a

similar fashion as Brahms in his quartet, presenting the new melody in the final

movement to give it a gypsy feeling and lively character. In Dohnanyi’s quintet the

Bohemian feeling of the “furiant” (scherzo) also emulates Brahmsian practice rather

than being an attempt to incorporate authentic folk music. In contrast, the csardas

on which Bartok’s final movement is based first appears earlier in the piece, taken

directly from material beginning from the last two sixteenth notes of the third

measure of the opening movement and continuing through the fourth and into the

fifth bars, though in a slower version. Compare examples 4.1 and 4.23.


This shows where Bartok stands on the issue of the use of folk music within a

musical composition. This practice was very controversial at the time; Schoenberg

10Michael Jameson, Notes to Dohnanyi, Piano Quintets/ Serenade for String trio, Hyperion, CDA66786.

11Traditional Hungarian folk dance. Its origins can be traced back to the verbunkos. It startsslow (lassu) and ends in a very fast tempo (friss, literally traslated “fresh”).

12Verbunkos are 18th century Hungarian military recruiting dances. It was performed in fulluniform with swords and spurs and contained a slow (lassu) and quick (friss) section.

76

and the Second Viennese School were clearly against the use of any folk or

preexisting source in a formal, composed work. Bartok himself was highly critical of

the way some composers introduced folk music into their works. According to

Frigyesi: “Like Schoenberg, he condemned the empty display of folk characteristics

at the expense of artistic integrity.”13

One way of avoiding the superficial use of a folk tune is to make it part of the

whole piece, following the concept of “Unity”. Perhaps that is precisely what Bartok

was trying to achieve by introducing and developing the folk tunes in his Quintet.

Instead of novelties they would be part of a whole and “organic” work of art,

another concept discussed at the time. Moreover, Bartok’s Piano Quintet shows not

only his genuine interest in folk music but also his sincere and deep sympathy for

the nationalistic movement, which was very important in Hungary at the time. In

Bartok’s case, his nationalistic feelings were truly and deeply felt and not an impulse

to follow the newest trends. His belief in going back to the roots of Hungarian

culture is reflected in his use of authentic folk elements and melodies in the Quintet,

years before beginning his collection of peasant songs towards the end of 1904.

4.3.2 Form and movement placement

Dohnanyi’s Piano Quintet has four movements with the Scherzo appearing as

the second movement; the same order was chosen by Bartok for his Quintet.

13Judit Frigyesi, Bela Bartok and Turn-of-the-Century Budapest (Berkeley, CA: University ofCalifornia Press, 1998), 23.

77

Although it might not be uncommon for the second (scherzo) and third (slow)

movements to be interchangeable in symphonies and other works following the

sonata form, this practice did not seem popular in piano quintets. Most works in

this genre had the slow movement placed second and the scherzo third. One reason

for switching these two movements might be for reasons of thematic material. In

Bartok’s Quintet this is important since the slow movement begins with the melodic

material from the opening of the piece; the Scherzo therefore provides a nice break

between the two movements.

In Dohnanyi’s quintet the work’s opening theme is re-introduced in the coda

of the final movement, so the reasoning behind the change of order of the middle

two movements is not clear. Upon further consideration, there is one earlier piece

which features a slow third movement followed by a fourth movement based on a

gypsy-like tune. This is Brahms’ Piano Quartet in g minor op. 25 in which the final

movement is a Rondo alla Zingarese. Both Dohnanyi and Bartok followed the same

pattern, whether by design or not. Perhaps all three composers felt a gypsy tune to

be an effective foil to the preceding slow movement. One thing is certain, by

utilizing the contrasting slow-fast design for the last two movements, all three

composers are following the lassu-friss (slow-fast) formula typical of the Hungarian

rhapsody. Although this may not be of significance for either Brahms or Dohnanyi,

it could be in Bartok’s Quintet. The influence of the rhapsodic is very strong in this

work, not only in comparison with his op. 1, but also with Liszt’s rhapsodies.

78

Another aspect that may have influenced Bartok is Dohnanyi’s use of the

cyclic idea. Dohnanyi opens his first movement with the first theme in the tonic key

of c minor. The same material is used at the end of the first movement although

this time in the parallel major. This theme appears once again in the coda of the

final movement again in the key of C major. Bartok’s cyclic use of his opening

theme is more sophisticated and less obvious than Dohnanyi’s and unlike Dohnanyi,

Bartok develops the melodic material instead of presenting it always in the same

manner. Bartok also presents the opening theme at the very end of the final

movement, though unlike Dohnanyi he reintroduces it in a faster tempo than in the

opening and only in the left hand of the piano, joining together with the strings to

create an exciting and energetic close to the piece.

4.3.3 Writing Style

As mentioned earlier, Dohnanyi’s first Piano Quintet is strongly influenced by

the German School, particularly the work of Brahms and Schumann. The occasional

French influences can be detected, but this is actually more noticeable in his second

piano quintet. The piano writing of the first quintet resembles that of Carl Czerny’s

op. 740 etudes, particularly in its arpeggios and broken chord accompaniments

usually within the chord. The use of sixteenth notes, triplets and other common

classical patterns are easily recognized in the piano part. There is a large amount of

doubling of the melodic line in both hands of the piano part, and the piano part

79

sounds more difficult and virtuosic than it actually is. His writing style appears to

be post-romantic with some hints of impressionism, not one that would set him

apart as a composer. That being said, it is even more striking how unique Bartok’s

style was at this particular point and how early he developed a distinct style. His

harmonic language is very unusual for a chamber work of the time and his

accompaniment patterns and treatment of the piano are very innovative.

4.3.4 Rhythm

Of particular interest is the use of the4

5time in the last movement of

Dohnanyi’s quintet, not one of the common meters used for a movement in a

chamber work of the time. This unusual meter gives the movement an unusual

character that is both vivid and refreshing. Dohnanyi also writes accents on the first

and last beats of the measures of the opening theme. This produces an effect that

leaves the listener confused about the meter. See the following example consisting of

the first four bars of the Finale of Dohnanyi’s quintet, shown in example 4.24.

Example 4.24: Dohnanyi, Piano Quintet in c minor, op. 1, mov. IV, mm. 1-4.

80

Perhaps this was what Bartok was trying to achieve in the Scherzo of his

Quintet which sounds as if it is written in a different meter than it actually is. For a

more thorough description of Bartok’s rhythm, see Section 4.1.3 on Brahms.

4.3.5 Fugue

Dohnanyi includes a fugue in the final movement of his quintet. Although

earlier composers had done this in their chamber works with piano, Dohnanyi’s

choice is still likely to have influenced Bartok’s decision to also include a fugue in

his Quintet’s final movement. Normally composers would reserve the fugue for the

ending of the movement, where they would demonstrate their compositional skills,

using the fugue as the buildup towards the climax of the ending. Dohnanyi and

Bartok however both placed their fugues far from the ending of the movement.

Dohnanyi’s final movement is a Rondo. Since he chose to end the movement with

the opening material from the first movement, coming back before the last

statement of the4

5material, the fugue functions as the “C” section of the Rondo.

The fugue introduces new melodic material in the manner of its baroque precursors.

The theme even resembles a Bach fugue in its articulation and melodic range (see

example 4.25).

Bartok’s fugal section is based on a rhythmic and melodic motive characteristic

of both this and others of his early works (see example 4.26). This motive, which is

called the turn motive, will be described in more detail in section 4.5.

81

Example 4.25: Dohnanyi, Piano Quintet in c minor, op. 1, mov. IV, mm. 80-84.

In comparison with Dohnanyi, Bartok’s fugue subject is harmonically more

complex with the melody composed of intervals atypical for the time (see example

4.26).


Bartok did not place his fugue at the end of the movement either. His is written at

the beginning of a slow buildup of tension that eventually leads to the final

statement of the opening theme of the piece. The opening theme is actually brought

back to complete the circle of the formal scheme of the work, bringing it to a

melodic and exhilarating ending.

82

4.4 Others

The works of other composers may have influenced Bartok in the composition

of his Quintet, in particular Dvorak, Debussy and Franck.

4.4.1 Dvorak

A perceptible influence in the melodic material of Bartok’s Piano Quintet is

that of Dvorak, particularly in slow dolce melodies infused with pensive melancholy

reminiscent of the Bohemian’s “dumka” sections (examples 4.27 and 4.28).



83

The violin material in mm. 143 and 144, repeated by the piano in mm. 147 and 148,

also is very similar in character to measures found in Dvorak’s Piano Quintet in A

major (examples 4.29, 4.30 and 4.31).



The final movement of Bartok’s Quintet probably shows the strongest Dvorak

flavor in regard to melodic material. Both composers utilize lively folk elements.

Dvorak is unusual in that he features the viola in a melodic role. This is especially

true in his quintet, in which the viola occupies a more important place than was

typical at the time. Bartok emulates this by giving the viola melodies to introduce.

One example of this occurs starting at m. 15 of the first movement of Bartok’s

Quintet. Another technique used by both composers is to present the first part of a

melody in the viola with another instrument entering with a continuation of the

84

Example 4.31: Dvorak, Piano Quintet, mov. II, mm. 1-15.

85

material. This happens in m. 1308 of Bartok’s last movement when the melodic line

presented by the viola is continued by the first violin in m. 1315 (example 4.32).

Another section where Dvorak’s influence can be heard starts at m. 189 from the

first movement (example 4.33). The influence here may be based on the overall

feeling of the melodic material and the peaceful atmosphere created in this passage.


4.4.2 French composers

A resemblance to Debussy may be seen in the passage in fourths found in

mm. 1049-1050 of the third movement (example 4.34).

86



87

While the association is noticeable, the writer agrees with Paul Griffiths’ impression

that this and other similar passages may be purely coincidental, “...these are

probably fortuitous similarities bound to occur in a work so much of its time.”14

A similarity to Cesar Franck can be detected in the passage starting at

m. 1021 of the slow movement of Bartok’s Quintet. The ppp and dolcissimo

indications provide a contrast to the preceding loud section of the movement.

Bartok calls for the body of string sound to be muted allowing the piano to come

through with a quasi impressionistic sound (see example 4.35). As the strings

simply sustain a chord, the piano emerges, with the soft and delicate sound required

for this passage coming through unobstructed.


14Griffiths, 15.

88

Although the triplet is different than the eighth notes used by Franck, a

similar effect is achieved in the passage starting at m. 135 from his Symphonic

Variations for Piano and Orchestra. The melodic gesture that follows the

aforementioned section in Bartok’s Quintet seems also to share some similarity to

Franck’s work (compare examples 4.36 and 4.37).


Example 4.37: Franck, Symphonic Variations for Piano and Orchestra, mm. 5-8.

According to Smallman, “Franck has the tendency to revolve around a

single-note axis.”15 The example included in Smallman’s explanation is from the

first movement of Franck’s Piano Quintet in f minor (see example 4.38).

In this movement, the second statement of this characteristic melodic line that is

used by Franck in a cyclic manner throughout the work, rotates around e♭.

15Smallman, 101.

89

Example 4.38: Franck, Piano Quintet in f minor, mov. I, mm. 124-133.

Although expanded a little more, the opening statement of the csardas theme in

Bartok’s Quintet can be analyzed in a similar manner (see m. 4 in example 4.1).

Here we can observe the same melodic gesture rotating around e♮. The same

melodic motive is reinforced by the full chords in the left hand of the piano part at

the end of the final movement. In Bartok’s case this melodic material comes back to

crown the movement in a grandiose and resounding manner. In Franck’s case the

theme is brought back at the coda of the final movement but the dynamic marking

is ppp; another statement follows at the Tempo I and starts the ascending build to

the climax at the end of the movement. A similar instance of this rotating idea can

be found starting at m. 770 of the Scherzo in Bartok’s Quintet (example 4.39).

Although the rotating idea does not quite work, as in Franck’s case, the chords

marked pp in the piano part resemble those of the first statement of Franck’s

melodic line in his quintet (compare examples 4.39 and 4.40).

While the cyclic technique is inextricably linked with Franck, Bartok continues

to develop the idea. Worthy of note, from the cyclic point of view, is the slow

introduction to the last movement, actually occurring in the last two measures of

90


Example 4.40: Franck, Piano Quintet in f minor, mov. I, mm. 90-97.

91

the slow movement. Following the exact same gesture from the opening of the piece,

both the Motive a and the csardas theme are presented the same way (compare

examples 4.1 and 4.41). Motive a is the opening melody consisting of an interval of

a Major 6th followed by two consecutive ascending notes (see the first measure in

example 4.1). What is interesting is the way Bartok presents these musical ideas and

develops them later. In the opening of the piece, Motive a appears followed by the

introduction of the first part of the csardas theme. Neither is developed in the first

movement. Motive a is reintroduced and developed in the slow movement, although

the csardas theme is not present. Finally at the end of the slow movement Motive a

is restated again, this time followed by the full statement of the csardas theme.

4.5 Bartok’s other works

Although similar characteristics are sometimes found among compositions

belonging to the same style period of a composer, these similarities generally do not

extend to a specific shared melodic motive. In most cases the similarities would be

related to form, structure of the work, genre, writing style and compositional

techniques, in addition to characteristics in the composer’s writing that usually are

harbingers of different compositional style periods. In Bartok’s case, however, not

only do the works of his early period share both a romantic influence and the

youthful spirit of a novice composer, but some share a particular melodic motive

that appears usually unchanged. Some scholars such as Maurice Hinson refer to the

92


93

Quintet as being reminiscent of Bartok’s Rhapsody op. 1 (1904).16 The relationship

between the pieces is noticeable when comparing certain motives from the Quintet

(example 4.42) to the material from the opening of the Rhapsody (example 4.43).


Example 4.43: Bartok, Rhapsody, op.1, m. 1.

The same motive, expanded in a more grandiose manner, is found in both

pieces (examples 4.17 and 4.44).

In the Piano Quintet it is also found in calm melodies (example 4.28) and also

as the subject of the fugal section in the final movement (example 4.26). According

to Antokoletz, Bartok’s Rhapsody op. 1 was written in November 190417 and the

Piano Quintet between the years 1903-1904.18 Therefore it would appear that the

16Maurice Hinson, The Piano in Chamber Ensemble: An Annotated Guide (Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press, 1996), 464.

17Elliot Antokoletz, Bela Bartok: A Guide to Research (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.,1988), 6.

18Ibid., 22.

94

Example 4.44: Bartok, Rhapsody, op. 1, mm. 25-26.

Quintet influenced the Rhapsody in this particular melodic material. Upon close

examination of the score of Bartok’s Quintet, one notices that the composer dated

the piece after the final measure was written between October 1903 and July 1904,

implying that the Piano Quintet was definitely conceived prior to the Rhapsody.

Bartok’s christening of the Rhapsody as his op. 1 indicates the importance of this

piece to him. According to Kroo:

An opus 1, that is, the first work which a young composer considers to beworthy of preservation, one that he would like to have performed in yearsto come as an example of his individual style and creative trend, mustalways be looked upon as a significant landmark in his development.19

This being the case, the Quintet, together with other early pieces, might be

considered intermediate compositional steps culminating in a work - the Rhapsody

op. 1 - that would incorporate the best elements among them. It is noteworthy that

the first work that Bartok considered worthwhile after his Symphonic Poem Kossuth

(1903) was a rhapsody, a freer form than his earlier works. Apparently the slow-fast

formula based on the lassu-friss Hungarian dances corresponding to the verbunkos

19Gyorgy Kroo, A Guide to Bartok (Budapest, Corvina Press, 1974), 17.

95

was something Bartok felt close to, since he used it for later pieces such as his

Rhapsodies for violin and piano (1928) and Contrasts for violin, clarinet and piano

(1938). Evidently Bartok’s earlier chamber works were not as successful as the

composer intended and one reason may be that he was not yet comfortable writing

in a strict form such as sonata form.

The aforementioned melodic motive has a peculiar rhythmic figuration and is

easily recognizable. This melodic material consists of a dotted note followed by a

triplet. Melodically speaking, the motive consists of a turn around the first dotted

note (see example 4.43).

The significance behind the use of this motive in Bartok’s early works is

unclear, and why this material − similar melodically and rhythmically − is found in

some of these pieces is quite intriguing. There is no clear correlation between these

pieces that would explain the need to share the same motive. This aspect of

Bartok’s works has not been explored by scholars until now.

For ease of discussion, this particular motive will be called the “turn motive”.

It occurs in several passages of Bartok’s Piano Quintet and appears to be of great

importance in both the Rhapsody and the Quintet. Although it has been established

that it was the Quintet which preceded the Rhapsody, the turn motive first appears

in Bartok’s early works. It can be found in the Second Fantasy of his Piano Pieces

(1903) (example 4.45) and even earlier in his Andante for violin and piano (1902).

96

Example 4.45: Bartok, Piano Pieces: “Fantasy II,” mm. 14-19.

There is no obvious relationship between these four works; therefore, when looking

for an explanation of the use of the shared turn motive, we may have to turn to

Hungarian folk music for answers. The motive seems to appear only in his works

from the early 1900s and particularly in the ones with a strong Hungarian flavor.

Interestingly enough, the turn motive is also found in Zoltan Kodaly’s Dances

of Galanta (1933). The piece was commissioned to celebrate the 80th anniversary of

the Budapest Philharmonic. Kodaly spent seven years in Galanta as a child and

was exposed to the many gypsy influences within the region. Galanta is located on

the path used by travelers from Vienna to Budapest. Among those travelers were

not only orchestras but gypsy bands as well, enriching the region with their unique

and interesting music. This seemed to have strongly influenced Kodaly, since as an

adult he chose to incorporate these folk elements into a piece intended to convey an

97

authentic Hungarian style. The correlation between the use of the turn motive in

Bartok’s early works with a strong Hungarian flavor and Kodaly’s piece with its

strong gypsy influence seems to justify the idea that the turn motive has folk roots.

Moreover this turn motive seems to be of particular significance to both composers

who used it to express their deepest feelings for their roots although its significance

is still unexplained.

4.6 Hungarian folk music

That Bartok’s music has a strong folk influence is not surprising. Even in his

early works one clearly notices his deep understanding of the music from his native

country and its surrounding regions. Although this was most likely due to

immersion from his early years, it was not until 1904 when this interest in

traditional music grew to become one of his major passions. That said, in his early

works the folk influences seem more instinctive and spontaneous. After his

collection of the peasant music of Romania, Slovakia and Bulgaria and other

regions, Bartok became more aware of certain aspects of their music and started to

utilize them in his own writing. Some of these techniques include the use of different

modes, rhythms and melodic turns, the use of pentatonic scales, and the

superimposition of two modes or scales.

In his Piano Quintet the folk influences, as in some of his earlier works, are

more subtle. Some of the folk elements present in the piece are the use of the gypsy

98

scale, some rhythmic and melodic turns, arabesque-like ornaments and modal

melodies. The freer approach to form probably also has a folk origin, as well as the

lassu-friss (slow-fast) formula so typical in the rhapsodies. The tempo changes in

the Quintet may also reflect a folk influence. Ordinarily, composers would attempt

to keep their movements within a certain tempo frame, following the traditional

classical conventions of form. In the Quintet, the various tempos are reminiscent of

the many different characters that appear in peasant music, each expressing a

variety of moods and sentiments in song. The work offers a refreshing improvisatory

feeling, surprising the listener with its many themes and sections with their

distinctive characters and colors.

99

CHAPTER 5

ANALYSIS OF THE THIRD MOVEMENT OF THE QUINTET

Generally, the slow movement of a musical composition is reserved by the

composer to express sorrow, anguish and other emotions that are not suited to the

faster tempo markings of the remaining movements. The slower tempo therefore not

only presents additional formal possibilities, but also time to explore richer

rhythmic variations and more difficult and complex accompanimental patterns. In a

slow tempo, interesting or unusual harmonies can be heard more clearly, as well as

the thematic transfer and the development of motives and ideas. Although by 1904

composers had started to depart from the classical conventions of form, sonority and

continuity in many interesting and innovative slow movements, the majority of these

do not appear in the chamber music genre.

When one compares the slow movement in the Piano Quintet (Adagio) to ones

found in piano quintets written by other composers, the difference is even more

striking. This movement is unusual in a number of aspects and also of interest in

the evolution of Bartok’s style. Some of the uncommon elements found in the

movement are its unusual Schumannesque length, its undefined form and the

extraordinary number of sections presenting distinctive styles. From the harmonic

point of view, this movement is probably among the richest written by the

100

composer, and foreshadows gestures which became important landmarks of his

mature style. For these reasons the author felt the need to dedicate a chapter solely

to the analysis of this movement.

The third movement, “Adagio,” is the most opulent of the movements of the

Quintet in its use of harmony and melody. It is written in a poetic manner quite

unusual for Bartok, yet more evocative and intense than the language used in his

Rhapsody op. 1. The lyricism which permeates this movement creates a dream-like

state similar to Dvorak’s op. 81 slow movement (Andante con moto [Dumka]),

although Bartok utilizes a less classical harmonic structure and form.

The opening motive, Motive a, is presented in unison by the strings (example

5.1). Motive a is a four-note motive that is derived from the opening gesture of the

first violin in the first movement (example 5.2). Bartok does not develop this motive

in the first movement, instead reserves its development for the Adagio. Although

the opening interval of a major sixth is transformed to the interval of a diminished

fifth in the Adagio, the original gesture is easily recognized. This interval of a

diminished fifth is altered from the original major sixth to add to the uncertainty

and gloom of the movement’s opening. Starting on f♯ and followed by a tritone, the

motive moves stepwise to an e♮ that is held on a long note under a fermata

(example 5.1). This adds to the uncertainty of what is to come harmonically as well

as melodically, and contributes to the perceived lack of tonality that characterizes

this opening. Bartok sets up this feeling of uncertainty with the ending of the

101

previous movement, the Scherzo, which ends on a sustained F♯ major chord. What

is striking is the length of this chord: a full four measures with the addition of a

fermata. Bartok then notates the opening of the Adagio not with a simple upbeat,

but with a full measure beginning with three bars of silence. Bartok might well have

conceived these three beats of rest as adding to the suspense created by the long

extended F♯M chord at the end of the Scherzo.



Even though the first interval of the motive is a tritone, Bartok derived the

melodic line from the whole tone scale c d e f♯ g♯ a♯ c’. This is clear when Motive a

is restated by the piano following its unison presentation by the strings. The motive

102

is developed utilizing the whole tone scale, bringing to mind a sound more typical of

Bartok’s mature style. The composer repeats the opening motive six times within

the first ten bars in myriad ways that prevent the opening from sounding repetitive.

He accomplishes this by changing the accompanimental figures in the piano part

starting at m. 967 (example 5.3). The strings continue with an expansion of the

motive from mm. 967-969 following the c whole tone scale. The piano

accompaniment includes accidentals foreign to the notes of the scale, mostly

chromatic alterations or appogiaturas. These non chord tones differ only by half

steps to the chord tones of the scale, provide a Hungarian flavor, and help to

emphasize the unusual use of the whole tone scale.


One interesting feature is that after the climax that follows the sixth repeat of

the melody the tension is held on an augmented E♭ chord, which is non functional

within the c whole tone scale. The chord also includes an f♮ which may be analyzed

103

as an added second scale degree of the chord. Besides the element of surprise that

the harmonies of this movement seem to provide, the E♭+ added 2nd chord can be

analyzed in different ways, one being a GMm7 chord with a missing fifth and an

added ♭6 scale degree. Although this may not make much sense at first, it does

when looking forward to what the harmony predicts. The e♭ is important because it

introduces the subsequent scale. At the downbeat of m. 973 (example 5.4) we have

what at first glimpse might be analyzed as a c minor chord. If that is to become the

new tonic, the GM7 added ♭6 scale degree at the last beat of m. 972 would have a

dominant function.


The prior E♭+ chord decreases in volume and slows down to introduce Motive a

once again. However this time the composer surprises the listener by changing the

104

scale on which the motive is based. Bartok replaces the c whole tone scale with the

c “gypsy minor” scale1 c d e♭ f♯ g a♭ b c’. This not only allows the motive to evolve

and open up, but also infuses the melodies that follow with the gypsy flavor which

characterizes both this and the final movement. That said, the G chord that would

fit within the c gypsy scale should have an f♯ as it appears in the scale. The GM7

added ♭6 scale degree has an f♮ not really fitting within the c gypsy scale. This is an

example of an innovative chord used by the composer, in this case with a dominant

function. It is at this section based on the c gypsy scale that the movement appears

to start, the preceding section simply acting as an introduction. At m. 973 Bartok

writes the indication Adagio molto and the first real feeling of tonality in this

movement is heard. This is where the A section begins.

There are actually two features that help establish the sense of tonality in the

A section. The first is the G octave played in the bass line of the piano while the

E♭+ chord sounds over it during the last beat of m. 972. This provides the first

anticipation of a dominant-tonic resolution and the c minor chord at the downbeat

of m. 973 comes as a refreshing tonic resolution, satisfying conventional ears. The

other feature is the use of the f minor chord at the downbeat of m. 977 which

suggests a sense of tonality by the use of two compositional techniques: modulating

to the subdominant key and transposing the material presented in the A section.

The last four statements of Motive a occur in this section and are again presented by

1The Gypsy scale has a similar structure to the harmonic minor scale, with a raised 4th scaledegree, which gives this scale two intervals of augmented seconds. The c gypsy scale (i.e., c d e♭ f♯g a♭ b c’) can be transported to start in any key.

105

the strings and then restated by the piano, although this time with an inversion of

the parts. The last presentation of the motive by the piano is on the f gypsy minor

scale f g a♭ b c d♭ e f’, acting as a subdominant key within the harmonic framework

of the movement. Notice that at mm. 975 and 976 while the second violin and the

viola play a chromatic line the piano emphasizes the c minor chord as a dominant to

the upcoming f minor chord at the downbeat of m. 977 (see example 5.5).

The subsequent noteworthy subsection within the A section begins at m. 984.

In this example not only can we hear a more romantic style of writing, but the

harmonic language fits more easily within conventional classical and romantic

analysis. This is Bartok’s post-romantic language clearly coming through (example

5.8). At m. 990 (see example 5.6) a g minor chord followed by scalar passages

occurs in the first violin while the bass line of the piano actually fits within the g

gypsy minor scale g a b♭ c♯ d e♭ f♯ g’.

Following this, at m. 991, a chromatic sequence begins that includes the

following chords: DM, E♭MM7, e∅7, FMM7, f♯∅7, A♭+ and D♭M. The A♭ chord is

augmented because it fits within the whole tone scale that once again is present at

m. 994 (see example 5.7); this is easier to see when looking at the first violin part as

well as the right hand notes of the piano part that visibly outline this scale.

The first climax of the movement begins with the D♭M chord at the downbeat of

m. 995. Using an enharmonic technique Bartok continues with a C♯MM7 chord

106


107


108


109

starting at m. 997. This chord is significant in the next measures which could also

be considered a transitional passage to the B section beginning at m. 1002.


The B section is introduced by a natural slowing down of the rhythmic

figuration. The left hand accompaniment of the piano starting at the last two beats

of m. 1001 provides a sense of freedom that allows the dream-like melody of the

right hand to shine with its Hungarian flavor and improvisatory character. It also

flows naturally and peacefully over an unusual rhythmic pattern that features a c♯∅

chord. This is the first true calm section in the movement. The right hand melody

is based on the “turn” motive, which adds to the rhapsodic feeling that

characterizes this section (see section 4.5, p. 95). At m. 1006 a CM chord lends

brightness and a feeling of openness to the following measures. Bartok seems to use

either CM or EM to obtain this effect within the movement. The last measures

110

preceding the following section (a transition) consist of chords that are quite

common, though Bartok adds harmonic interest to them by using chromatic passing

tones and appogiaturas. The rhythmic aspect of the piano part helps in making this

section more driven. The chords used (dm, DM, GMMm7, CM, GM7 CM and FM)

precede an e#7 chord. This chord does not resolve as expected, but instead by

stepping down chromatically to an E♭Mm7 chord that functions as the dominant

chord to the A♭M chord, ♭VI, clearly heard at m. 1021.

The transition starting at m. 1021 recalls some characteristics of the

impressionistic style (see section 4.4.2, example 4.35). Notable is the

question-answer technique between the strings and the piano. Bartok makes

m. 1031 noteworthy by highlighting the ♭VI and by ornamenting its preceding chord

with graceful appogiaturas. Harmonically, a g♯∅7 at the last beat of m. 1030 resolvs

into the D♯M chord at the downbeat of m. 1031 (see example 5.9).

This is followed by the b♭∅7 resolving to an E♭M chord, a ♭VI within the tonality of

this section. The next chord is a DMm7, dominant to the GM tonic at m. 1032.

This refreshing GM resolution begins what could be called the C section of the

movement. Although it continues from the preceding section the author believes

this section to be a distinct entity since its character is quite different from the

preceding and subsequent sections. Even though this new section may appear to be

a transitional episode, a true melody emerges creating one of the most peaceful and

beautiful sections of the Quintet. The similarity to Brahms’s style is striking and

111


Bartok enhances it with the use of a more classical harmonic language. There are

two remarkable moments within this section. The first one occurs at m. 1034, when

Bartok follows a GM chord with an E♭M (♭VI) that seems to function as an

appogiatura of the next chord, a DM chord. The other occurs at m. 1038, where

after a big crescendo on a DM chord, Bartok writes a D♭M chord, a ♭V if analyzed

within the G major tonality. It is at this point that the music starts to pick up

speed and emotion. The turn motive appears here in the upper strings to help build

this transitional passage. Although the movement is still far from over, Bartok

skillfully pulls back from the climax leading to a ritardando in pp featuring

diminished chords. These are f♯#7 and c♯#7/G (vii #7 and vii #7 of V) highlighting the

112

dominant G that resolves to the c minor tonic at m. 1047, where Section D of the

movements starts.

The D section is one of the most remarkable in the piece for its character and

influences. The character is cadenza-like, quite free and improvisatory in feeling.

The influence is clearly French and particularly linked to Claude Debussy (see

section 4.4.2, example 4.34). The melodic material is based on the same gypsy

minor scale which is the basis of the first two measures of this section. Starting at

m. 1049 the melodic material of the piano part moves in parallel motion and the

fourths featured in the right hand dominate the harmonic language. The piano is

joined by the strings, also in thirty-second notes, giving this section a special effect

and color. Although similarities to impressionism may be found in this section,

Bartok includes some elements that are solely his own, making this passage more

edgy and modern than its French inspiration. Moreover, towards the end of this

section the increase in both dynamics and force illustrates Bartok’s unique

transformation of the impressionistic origins of the section. The peak of the climax

is the beginning of the next section.

Section E features the rhapsodic-like theme in its major splendor. This section

may feel like the climax of the movement for two reasons, one being that the key

chosen by Bartok is E major, a very bright key that lends an expansive feeling of

opulence to the section. The other reason, probably more significant, is the use of

the rhapsodic theme in a similar manner as in his Rhapsody op. 1. This section is

113

probably one of the shortest in the movement, though it does not appear to be so,

mainly because of the big emotional charge that it carries. An unusual ploy here is

the recurrence of the thematic material from the second part of the B section.

While in the B section this material follows the dream-like melody that highlights

the turn motive, here it follows the turn motive itself within the rhapsodic theme.

This second time around, the material is compressed almost to half the number of

measures even though the transition that follows is expanded to double its original

length. This may be because this transition is the last in the movement and leads to

the final movement in a smooth and natural manner. The chords are not out of the

ordinary though some of their resolutions are not the expected ones. Such is the

case of the c#5

6 chord at the last beat of m. 1073 that resolves into an EMm7 chord.

Another example of this is the d♯∅3

4 chord found at the last beat of m. 1077 that is

followed by a GMm7 chord. This is more striking when the preceding chords are a

d♯#3

4 resolving normally to a EMm7; when the consequent d♯#7 chord is heard, the

resolution to a GMm7 chord is unexpected. It is at this point that the Adagio

returns to the key of C major, highlighting its dominant in order to re-introduce

Motive a in the tonic key. In this manner Bartok skillfully leads the listener to the

Finale where the motive is finally heard in its entirety as the csardas theme of the

last movement.

114

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION

Without passing judgment on its musical worth, Bartok’s Piano Quintet

nonetheless stands on its own within the composer’s oeuvre because of a number of

unusual elements present in the piece. While some of these elements might be found

in other compositions from Bartok’s early period, their presence in the quintet seem

to be more defined and illustrative of what might be an instinctive feel for what is

ultimately a nationalistic style. Among these characteristics are the uncommon

rhythmic patterns, the used of a traditional csardas (folk origin) theme, the folk

lassu-friss (slow-fast) contrast, its unusual structural features and the inclusion of a

distinctive motive common to this and other of his early works. Many of these

features are innovative and unprecedented. At the same time, some of the more

traditional elements in the piece are utilized in unusual ways resulting in a peculiar

combination of old and new. For these reasons Bartok’s Piano Quintet can be

considered as a link between the romantic and the 20th century piano quintets.

The fusion between the romantic and the folk influences that are so

predominant in the work contribute to make this a unique piece not only within the

composer’s repertoire but also compared to other chamber works with piano from

this period.

115

While some of the technical aspects of the piece may not reflect the

outstanding composer Bartok was to become, this piece is valuable since it already

incorporates some of the elements that would later become landmarks of his

compositional style. Some of the melodies present in the quintet show originality

and a level of peasant simplicity found later in some of Mahler’s themes. Although

some may feel that the piece lacks substantial musical weight when compared to

some of the historically favored piano quintets such as Brahms’ and Dvorak’s, the

inclusion of the folk melodies and harmonies makes the quintet extremely valuable

from the ethnomusicological aspect. Moreover, some of the most beautiful and

breathtaking moments in the piece occur when the aforementioned folk elements are

present.

Structurally, the piece features the constant contrast between the slow and the

fast tempi lassu-friss not only between the movements but also in many sections

within movements. This provides a peculiar sense of melodic chains throughout the

piece, a feature not frequent in chamber works. Bartok’s fragmentary presentation

of the csardas theme throughout the work with the full, final version appearing only

in the last movement, is an innovative use of the cyclic idea. Harmonically, the piece

is very complex and seems to go from key center to key center without following the

traditional harmonic patterns of the time. However, Bartok finds a way of unifying

the work by providing the piece with a basic harmonic skeleton, the main key

centers of the work being C- F♯- C, this tritone derived from the opening interval in

116

the piece. When compared to the quintet no. 1 by his fellow countryman Dohnanyi,

who was firmly rooted in the Germanic tradition, one understands the uniqueness

and importance that the Bartok’s Piano Quintet has in the chamber repertoire.

One interesting aspect regarding this piece is the fact that, even though the

quintet was not well received or popular in comparison to other compositions

throughout Bartok’s life, he chose not to destroy the manuscript. Bartok made no

substantial changes to it either. However, the fact that he carried the piece with

him when he emigrated to the United States leads us to believe that he had a deep

connection to this work. He was aware of the compositional issues that did not

make this piece a success, but at the same time, he may have felt that there were

many elements in it that represented him at a deeper level than other compositions

from that period. In this way the work has great significance from both the

historical and musical standpoint.

The identifiable influences and similarities to works of the great romantic

masters, along with the nationalistic characteristics that were to be a hallmark of

his mature works together create a single aesthetic in this musical composition.

Bartok’s Piano Quintet stands as a symbol of a young composer proud of his

Hungarian roots, straddling two worlds in a way that sets him apart from his

contemporaries, foreshadowing the unique voice that changed music.

117

APPENDIX A

PERMISSION

Dear Ms Garreffa-Beker,

It’s great to learn about your dissertation.

Hereby we authorise you to incorporate excerpts of the Piano Quintet in your work.

It would be nice to receive a pdf copy of the dissertation.

Best regards,

SIGRAI Laszlo

kottakiadoi igazgato / Director of Printed Music

UNIVERSAL MUSIC PUBLISHING

EDITIO MUSICA BUDAPEST Zenemukiado Kft. / Ltd.

H-1132 Budapest, Victor Hugo utca 11-15

Tel/Phone: +36 1 2361-104, Mobil/Mobile: +36 20 421 7500, Fax: +36 1 2361-101

E-mail: [email protected] , Internet: http://www.emb.hu

118

APPENDIX B

TABLES

119

Tab

leB.1:First

movem

entAndante,form

alstructure

120

Tab

leB.2:Secon

dmovem

entVivace

(Scherzando),form

alstructure

121

Tab

leB.3:Secon

dmovem

entVivace

(Scherzando),form

alstructure

-continued

122

Tab

leB.4:Thirdmovem

entAdagio,form

alstructure

123

Tab

leB.5:Fou

rthmovem

entPocoapoco

piu

vivace,form

alstructure

124

REFERENCES

Antokoletz, Elliot. Bela Bartok: A Guide to Research New York: GarlandPublishing, Inc., 1988.

Bartok, Bela. Quintetto per 2 violini, viola, violoncello e pianoforte, ed. Dille, DenijsBudapest: Editio Musica Budapest, 1970.

Bela Bartok, Jr.. “Bela Bartok’s Diseases”, Studia Musicologica AcademiaeScientiarum Hungaricae, Centenario Belae Bartok Sacrum, T. 23, Fasc. 1/4(1981).

Demeny, Janos, ed.. Bela Bartok Letters New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1971.

Fenton, David. Piano Quintet, ed. Macy, L. Grove Music Onlinehttp://www.grovemusic.com, (Accessed 3 March 2007).

Frigyesi, Judit. Bela Bartok and Turn-of-the-Century Budapest Berkeley, CA:University of California Press, 1998.

Gillies, Malcolm, ed.. The Bartok Companion Portland, OR: Amadeus Press, 1994.

. “Bela Bartok”, Grove Music Online, ed. L. Macy,http://www.grovemusic.com, (accessed 3 March 2007).

Griffiths, Paul. The Master Musicians: Bartok London: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd.,1984.

Helm, Dr. Theodor. “Feuilleton - Wiener Musikbrief”, Pester Lloyd , (26 November1904).

Hinson, Maurice. The Piano in Chamber Ensemble: An Annotated GuideBloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996.

. Guide to the Pianist’s Repertoire. 3rd. ed. Bloomington: Indiana UniversityPress, 2000.

Karpati, Janos. Bartok’s Chamber Music Stuyvesant, NY: Pendragon Press, 1994.

Kenneson, Claude. Szekely and Bartok: The Story of a Friendship Portland, OR:Amadeus Press, 1994.

Kirkpatrick, Ralph. Interpreting Bach’s Well-Tempered Clavier: A Performer’sDiscourse of Method New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984.

125

Gyorgy Kroo. A Guide to Bartok Budapest, Corvina Press, 1974.

Platthy, Jeno. Bartok: A Critical Biography Santa Claus, IN: Federation ofInternational Poetry Associations of UNESCO, 1988.

Randel, Don Michael. Harvard Concise Dictionary of Music Cambridge, MA: TheBelknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1995.

Sadie, Stanley, ed.. The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, vol. IILondon: Macmillan, 1980.

Smallman, Basil. The Piano Quartet and Quintet: Style, Structure, and ScoringNew York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

Stevens, Halsey. The Life and Music of Bela Bartok. rev. ed. New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1967.

BÉLA BARTÓK'S PIANO QUINTET - CiteSeerX

Documents