Béla Bartók - String Quartet No. 5, Sz. 102
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 чер 2024
- Béla Bartók - String Quartet No. 5, Sz. 102 (1934)
Performed by the Takács Quartet
Movement One: Allegro - 0:00
Movement Two: Adagio molto - 7:23
Movement Three: Scherzo. Alla bulgarese - 13:26
Movement Four: Andante - 18:43
Movement Five: Finale. Allegro vivace - 23:48
Source of Audio - • Bartók: The String Qua...
Nothing like Bartók to trigger an existential crisis in us composers. How can anything come close to this?
Idk, this quartet bores me a bit
@@Qazwdx111 you need electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS or rTMS), magnetic seizure therapy (MST), and deep brain stimulation (DBS).
@@Qazwdx111 try 12th century music, deadbeat
@@alexanderreikreik weird flex
Best string quartet ever written.
Biggest troll 29:43
LMAOOOOOO😂😂😂
lmao
Lol😂
Where did this theme come from?
the more i listen to this it just gets better
Is this piece difficult to understand? Yes. But is it incredibly rewarding once you do? Absolutely.
Been listening to this piece for 20 years, at least a couple times a year. Never. Gets. Old.
this is a magnificent work I have always loved the scherzo movement it takes my breath away.
Just heard about it from a friend and tought i had sum time to waste at the gym, turns out its a bop for a great pump
I love the part starting at 12:17 😍
Sounds like King Crimson! What a compelling and complex work
Thank you for your work.
_Capolavoro._
tank-you !
Insane!
The most rythmic chord quartet I've heard in my life.
The part at 18:08 is just beautiful
13:26-18:43 Bartók, String Quartet No. 5, 3rd movement, “Scherzo and Trio” [1934]
Nice.
I so love the Scherzo at 13:26!
A Keller 5 by way of contrast would be nice.
These opening bars would read better if triplet notation was used. Thanks for posting
I noticed this immediately, but thought that it WASN'T noted because it's obvious. I expect the manscript was created by someone qualified to set the standards;-)
Given that it's beamed in groups of 6, I suspect that Bartok omitted triplet brackets because he didn't want it to be phrased in groups of 3. I'm not sure why it doesn't have any sextuplet brackets though.
Bartok... Is God... Right?
One of them, for sure.
@@segmentsAndCurves Excuse me... what is 12-TET? :)
@@alamblare9232 12-Tone Equal Temperament, the most popular music tuning system now. You can google and read.
(And my username is satire, I love all music that have either rhythm, tone color, harmony or counterpoint)
Ahh that! heh... I am not familiar with such abbreviations.... 😆 Come on... our temperament is not so baaad... 😜
@@alamblare9232 But there are so many others out there!
stands alone after many decades
13:26 : Scherzo
23:48 : Allegro vivace
29:43 : Allegretto con indiffferenza
Hard to digest this piece. Many great parts but scattered between a decent amount of dense dissonance. I don't regret listening but I hope the next time I listen that it goes faster somehow lol.
The Shostakovich string quartets could be a gateway into the Bartók string quartets. They’re equally as energetic, but not as dissonant and atonal as those of Bartók.
Greatness unveiled
最初の休符が重要なのにカットしてます?残念ながらそう言う演奏だったなら仕方ないですが...
6:20 15:20
4:14
This sounds like Iron Maiden.
Random notes hehe
What
you clazy, big time.
I've got a strong musical ear and have composed in a broad range of genres for 26 years, and I'm pretty sure that sometimes Bartok, for his first drafts, was just having a laugh.
Just throwing ink or something else at the staves, and writing semi-random dots and copying their octaves or similar. Then getting a couple of musicians to play it, ironing out some of the parts most eligible for improvement, and inserting some coherence here and there.
I think he could be excellent, not knocking him, but when you're good in a world of idiots, and you're lucky enough to have got some respect, sometimes you can amuse yourself by just writing any old crap and watching people pretend they know what it means, to seem smart and cultured XD Especially if you're getting paid for it. I mean, how much of this do you actually think he felt? How much do you feel? His 7 Sketches, for example, had meaning. Much of this (not all) just isn't musical.
But if people don't compose at a high level, then who's gonna dare to suggest that. Hence, it's 'genius'...
as a composer myself, i don't think i could disagree more. random this is not, it is carefully crafted perhaps to the point of obsession. if you don't think this is musical, i wonder what your definition of musical is? it must be a rather narrow view. yes, it is possible to write any old crap and watch people be impressed as you say, but this quartet is far from that.
@@joeschacher2786 There are some parts that show structure - on the stave - but many of them are neither beautiful, nor profound, nor structured, harmonious, nor emotionally relatable.
Explain to me, say, 17:00 and after. What is the most emotionally deep part of that? The most profound or relatable?
Music takes far more talent to write than most people realise, but the whole point in the result is that you can Feel it. You do not feel this, because it is largely chaos. In fact, it is noise.
I suspect that he knew this perfectly well. If you were to play one instrumental part of this slowly on a piano, it wouldn't make any sense to you either. Because it's not supposed to.
Good music is something you Feel. Music is not a ponsey, pretentious maths class for spoilt kids in a conservatory. It is for people to listen to and feel. Even if those people have to have a powerful musical ear to do so. It could be Third Stream, French Modernist, Alt Metal/Rock, folk music, or otherwise, but it still relates, note for note, to a mental energy state of some kind. How then does this qualify as music?
This is definitely more experimental and prickly than quartet number 4. I could see an argument for him not "feeling" it, but I think it's obvious that it's carefully crafted. after a few listens, this is not one of my favorites.
@@donmontague4107 all i can say is i wholeheartedly disagree. as for feeling music, first feeling frantic or anxious seems valid, second "feeling" is not a prerequisite for what is music. the 17:00 mark is faaaaar from chaos, i hear lots of material being pulled from various places that may not make much sense in a vacuum but as part of a piece it works just fine.
@@orihoola sure there is an argument, but even "prickly" is a feeling.