Bartok - Gypsy Music or Hungarian Music

Gypsy Music or Hungarian Music?
Author(s): Béla Bartók

Source: The Musical Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Apr., 1947), pp. 240-257
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/739152 .
Accessed: 02/08/2013 21:46
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Musical
Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 2 Aug 2013 21:46:15 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
GYPSY MUSIC OR HUNGARIAN MUSIC?
By BELA BARTOK
While it is well known that Bela Bartok was one of the leading
folklorists of our time, his work in that field is hardly known outside
a small circle of colleagues. This is a pity, for not only was he the
founder of an original method of research, but he managed to ex-
press himself within the restricted boundaries of a difficult and
exacting discipline in a vivid and personal style. His writings, the
majority of which are in Hungarian, betray an encyclopedic knowl-
edge of the field of folk music, a thorough linguistic-ethnological
background, the infinite patience and conscientiousness of an un-
compromising scholar, and an indignation-at times mildly sarcastic,
at others scathingly denunciatory-towards the many demi-savants
who like to make their home in this intriguing domain. It is from
among Bartok's writings printed in the journal of the Hungarian
Ethnographic Society, Ethnographia (Vol. XLII, No. 2, 1931), that
we have taken this article. Technically an extended book review,
it is nevertheless an essay that holds particular interest for the stu-
dent of music. The old and thoroughly confused question of gypsy
music versus Hungarian music is settled here with a terse simplicity
that we cannot find elsewhere. This is a welcome clarification for
all those who have had to find their way in the innumerable "Hun-
garian" or "gypsy" pieces that stud the musical literature of all
nations from Haydn to Ravel. In the course of his essay, Bartok
takes the field with his musicological musket and fires away with
gusto at a famous publication that is generally considered an authori-
tative and monumental collection of the world's folksong. The spir-
ited battle yields many interesting and illuminating details about
Hungarian peasant songs and the methods employed in their analy-
sis and classification. In order to save the tone of Bartok's original
as much as possible we reproduce the musical examples in his own
handwriting, at the end of the article. Editor
To start without preliminaries, I should like to state that what

people (including Hungarians) call "gypsy music" is not gypsy
music but Hungarian music; it is not old folk music but a fairly
240

Gypsy Music or Hungarian Music? 241
recent type of Hungarian popular art music composed, practically
without exception, by Hungarians of the upper middle class. But
while a Hungarian gentleman may compose music, it is tradition-
ally unbecoming to his social status to perform it "for money"-
only gypsies are supposed to do that.
It is futile to look for logic in the use of language. The living
tongue puts out the most peculiar offshoots, which we simply have
to accept as the consequence of a natural growth, even though they
are illogical. Thus, if we take the phrase "gypsy music" as an ex-
ample of incorrect usage we should long since have acquiesced in
its acceptance were it not for the continued ill effects of this false
terminology. When Franz Liszt's well known book on gypsy music
appeared it created strong indignation at home. But why? Simply
because Liszt dared to affirm in his book that what the Hungarians
call gypsy music is really gypsy music! It seems that Liszt fell an
innocent victim of this loose terminology. He must have reasoned
that since the Hungarians themselves call this music "gypsy" and
not "Hungarian" it cannot conceivably be Hungarian music. A
century later the situation has not changed materially. When Hun-
garian music is mentioned in foreign lands the gypsy is mentioned
in the same breath. Still, the incorrect use of the term "gypsy
music" is the lesser of the evils; the real damage is done by our
official musical representatives and by the rank and file of simple
music lovers who attribute to gypsy music an artistic significance
to which it is not at all entitled. This official belief, extolled and
disseminated both at home and abroad, is echoed by the multitude,
incapable of competent judgment.
In reality the truth is simply this. The music that is nowadays
played "for money" by urban gypsy bands is nothing but popular
art music of recent origin. The role of this popular art music is
to furnish entertainment and to satisfy the musical needs of those
whose artistic sensibilities are of a low order. This phenomenon
is but a variant of the types of music that fulfill the same function
in Western European countries; of the song hits, operetta airs, and
other products of light music as performed by salon orchestras in
restaurants and places of entertainment. That this Hungarian popu-
lar art music, incorrectly called gypsy music, has more value than
the abovementioned foreign trash is perhaps a matter of pride for
us, but when it is held up as something superior to so-called "light
music", when it is represented as being something more than music

242 The Musical Quarterly
of a lower order destined to gratify undeveloped musical tastes,
we must raise our voices in solemn protest. It is possible that in the
"good old days", say a hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago,
the repertory of the urban gypsy bands was of greater worth than
in our time, but unfortunately there are no documents available
that would serve as evidence. But when it comes to their modern
repertory there is no gainsaying that this is music of a low specific
gravity. It is a matter for rejoicing that our light music is provided,
for the most part, by this Hungarian specialty that we call popular
art music, and nothing is farther from our mind than to condemn
gypsy musicians, the purveyors of this mass article. On the con-
trary, we wish them to hold fast to their position against the on-
slaught of the jazz and salon orchestras; we wish that they may
continue to cling to their old repertory with its original coloring
and physiognomy, without the admixture of waltzes, song hits, jazz
elements, and whatnot. On the other hand, we cannot indulge in
the desire, no matter how dear to us-for it will be of no avail-,
that shallow musical taste be changed overnight, that the large
public should turn its back on this popular art music and seek
higher musical spheres, national or foreign. The half-educated
multitude of urban and semi-rural populations wants mass products;
let us be pleased that in music at least they are partial to domestic
factory articles and do not let us indulge in utopian dreams for a
quick improvement since they are unattainable.
It is disconcerting, though, to observe how musical artists and
writers in high positions endeavor to endow this popular music
with the attributes of a serious and superior art. In so doing they
value it-either because of inherently bad taste or bad intentions-
above really serious Hungarian music of a higher order. We refer
to Hungarian peasant music. While it was virtually unknown at
the opening of the 20th century, the time since elapsed should have
been sufficient for students of folklore to familiarize themselves
with the changed concepts of Hungarian music, yet nothing has
been done to foster the knowledge of this remarkable art. Antholo-
gies of "Hungarian" music intended for foreign consumption give
a lamentably distorted notion of our nation's folk music; therefore
it was with considerable interest that we greeted the appearance
of a monumental collection of folk music, assembled and edited by
Dr. Heinrich Moller, a "recognized authority on international folk
song". The fourteen volumes of Das Lied der Volker were pub-

lished by Schott in Mainz in 1929. We hoped that its twelfth vol-
ume, devoted to Hungarian folk music, would at last rectify the
crimes of the past. We hoped this the more because the anthology
was declared to be the result of painstaking scientific selection and
editing and was published by a distinguished and internationally
known firm.
What is it that we should expect from a "scientifically unim-
peachable" collection of Hungarian folksong? It should contain at
least one melody from each characteristic group, noted down, in
its original, untouched form, with all possible care. In doing so the
editor should furnish all sources, explain everything about the
melody in judicious notes, and arrange the sequence in a logical
and comprehensive order. If the publication calls for accompani-
ments they must be in good taste and written in an artistic manner.
We must confess that all our hopes were sadly dashed. The work
is utterly unsatisfactory both from the scholarly and from the artis-
tic point of view. In fact, some of its numbers are so badly con-
trived that it is difficult to imagine that anything in this field could
be worse. The other volumes in the collection are not beyond re-
proach, but the Hungarian volume towers above the others in defi-
ciency and shabbiness. Let us examine the volume, first from the
scholarly point of view.
According to the preface, the editor intended to present speci-
mens of all sorts of folksong, that is, urban folksong (i.e., popular
art song) as well as rural folksong (i.e., peasant song). This point of
view is entirely acceptable since both categories contain interesting
and valuable material. It goes without saying, though, that the very
ratio of the materials selected from the two categories will clearly
indicate their relative importance. Before entering upon the discus-
sion of this point, I should like to state that i) Hungarian peasant
songs, especially those in the narrow sense of the word, can be clearly
distinguished from the popular art song of town and city, even
though the editor denies this fact; 2) the significance and impor-
tance of Hungarian peasant song within the body of Hungarian
folk music is considerably greater than those of popular art song,
not only from the numerical point of view-there are some io,ooo
collected peasant songs as against about 1,500 urban popular songs-
but even more because of its content. The ten thousand peasant
songs are divided into about 2600 groups of variants, whereas the
1500 urban songs do not show variants of any importance. The

intrinsic value of the peasant songs, whether from the point of view
of esthetics or from that of national significance, is incomparably
superior to the intrinsic value of the popular art song.
The volume in question contains 44 melodies of which 23 (55%)
are urban popular art songs (Nos. 1-3, 5, 20-23, 25-36, 39, 41, 44);
at that, with the exception of four (Nos. 23, 26, 27, 32) these songs
are hardly-if at all-known among the peasants. This better half
of the collection gives a distorted picture of the relative importance
of peasant song and popular art song. The editor (who admits his
inability to distinguish peasant song from popular art song) suc-
ceeded, with the planless mixture of the two categories, in creating
a conglomeration that bewilders the uninitiated reader. The con-
fusion is heightened by the notes, which occasionally state that the
songs are art songs (Nos. 1, 21, 27, 34, 35, 41, 44) but remain silent
about the others. Dr. Moller is at a loss even when within the cate-
gory he considers the principal one, as witness his inability to
choose representative specimens. He seems to be partial to the senti-
mental-tearful type whereas others, much more valuable, are ignored.
Then there are some, such as Nos. 34 and 35, the selection of which
could be justified only by the addition of a subtitle: Demonstration
of how a Hungarian text must not be set.
But let us turn now to the real peasant tunes. As has been estab-
lished by folkloristic research, the peasant tunes are divided into two
large classes: old (A) and new (B). Subdivisions of A consist of
melodies sung to strophies containing lines of 12, 8, 6, 7, 9, io, or
11 syllables. In our volume the octosyllabic subdivision is repre-
sented by the parlando melody of No. 7 and the dance-like tunes
of Nos. lo and 11; the septisyllabic group by Nos. 12 and 13; the
nonasyllabic by No. 38, the decasyllabic by No. 39. Thus some types
are represented in the collection by two songs, while the most im-
portant types, those with twelve and eleven syllables, are missing
altogether. Both are of exceptional importance; the former because
it is a specifically Hungarian phenomenon, while the latter consti-
tutes the source for the whole large division of the newer songs.
The selection of melodies from category B, the newer songs, shows
the same lack of planning. Of its four subspecies two are represented
by two melodies each (Nos. 14 and 18, 8 and 9 respectively), while
the most important subgroup, that which can be designated by the
formula ABBA, is entirely lacking. This is an important group be-
cause it is again a specifically Hungarian type. (If No. 16 were not

completely disfigured, it could have furnished an example.) The
notes are chary with reference to the sources, a fact that is the more
surprising because in the other volumes-e.g., in Vol. 9, Greek,
Albanian, and Romanian folksong-the name of the collector of the
song and the place where it was found is seldom missing. We have
a vague feeling that the editor picked the 44 melodies at random,
presenting them in a helter-skelter order with the result that melo-
dies of a kindred nature are removed from each other. If by follow-
ing this procedure the editor wished to obtain variety he should
have alluded to similarities and variants in his notes. Moreover,
since this purports to be a scholarly edition, at least the principal
types of songs should have been explained. Yet there is barely a
trace of all this; the only remarks concerning the construction of a
song are restricted to Nos. 7, 8, 10-14.
In contradistinction, the editor's notes are liberally sprinkled
with superfluous or erroneous statements. Of No. 1 of the collection
he says: "A song from the 17th century" adding later that "the
melody was composed by Luttenberger". The only drawback to the
story is that Luttenberger lived in the second half of the 19th cen-
tury! Yet the author of these notes did not arrive at his conclusions
by mere chance, no, he quotes documents and the opinions of mod-
ern researchers. I. Harsanyi and J. Gulyas were the authors of the
articles upon which Dr. M6ller based his analysis.1 Surprisingly
enough, a reading of these articles will yield incontrovertible evi-
dence that both text and melody of this "17th-century song" are
makeshift ditties from the 18go's. No. 3 (see Ex. i) carries the
following annotation: "This melody is a typical example of the style
of the old ballads, in the melodies of which, besides the so-called
gypsy scale, the ecclesiastic scales are often found". This sentence
contains as many grave errors as it has words. Both the author of
the words and the composer of the melody are known and the song
originated in the third quarter of the igth century. In fact, it was
first performed in a popular play, The Village Half-Wit, in Pest,
December 3, 1861. Aside from these facts, the melody is not even an
imitation of the old ballad tunes, for among the characteristic pe-
culiarities of the latter are an isometric strophic construction of
four lines, and a tonality mostly pentatonic or Gregorian; no "gypsy"
scale is ever found in them and none of the lines can end on d'. In
comparison, the melody of No. 3, composed by Ignace Jeitteles (died
1 Ethnographia, Budapest, 1916, p. 228, and 1917, p. 266 f.-Ed.

19gol), is heterometric in its strophic construction (14 - 14 - 16 -
8 syllables in its lines) and its first and second melodic lines end on
d'. Only a person totally unfamiliar with the musical folklore of
Eastern Europe can imagine that ballads sung hereabouts can follow
such a complicated construction.
The editor states that No. 23 of the Hungarian volume and No.
17 the Western Slavic volume are related in their melodies. This
of
alleged relationship is quite doubtful, for while the melodic con-
tours of the first half of both melodies are similar, their rhythm is
entirely different and in their second half they have absolutely
nothing in common. By virtue of this method thousands of melo-
dies of the eastern part of Central Europe should be declared related.
An interesting case is offered in No. 44, the celebrated Rakoczi
march equipped with a text for vocal rendition. "This national mel-
ody was supposed to be the favorite song of Francis Rak6czi II
(1676-1735) ." No rebuttal is needed here, for its melodic line and
its construction clearly betray that the famous march could not have
been composed before the igth century.
Let us now examine the melodies themselves; perhaps they will
offer a more pleasant picture of the editor's work.
In No. 4 (see Ex. 2a) two grave mistakes found their way into
the melody. One consists of an arbitrary repetition of the first line.
Whether this is to be ascribed to the "unknown" collector who
wrote it down or to the editor we do not know. We do know, how-
ever, that this melody exists in three printed, seven phonographed,
and nine manuscript variants, every one of them lacking in the
abovementioned repetition. The other mistake concerns the arrange-
ment of the lines of the text. The correct order calls for the first
line of text to serve for the first two melodic lines by repetition of
the text, the second text-line similarly furnishing the words to the
third and fourth lines of the melody; in a word, the melodic strophe
is of four lines, the textual of two. (See Ex. 2b written down by Z.
Kodaly in Nagyszalonta, October 5, 1916.) All nineteen known vari-
ants agree on this. To this we must add the following. Of the nine-
teen variants two are in a major key, two in a'minor, and the rest
are in the Aeolian. None of them shows an augmented second in its
melodic progressions. In the face of these data the editor says: "This
melody is old, but it already shows the influence of gypsy music in
its descending scale g f e d c# bb." If out of twenty variants only
a solitary one contains an augmented second (the characteristic in-

terval of the so-called gypsy scale) and this solitary variant cannot
be credited to a known source (the editor does not offer any eluci-
dation), while the majority of the other nineteen were collected by
experienced scholars and musicians, some of them with the aid of
recording apparatus, one fails to see how anyone can arrive at defi-
nite conclusions on the basis of a lone orphan of an augmented
second. One should think that any competent scholar would have
regarded this state of affairs with suspicion and as a weighty reason
for omitting this variant from his collection. It is not "gypsy music"
the influence of which makes itself felt in this melody, but western
Slavic music. The peculiarly constrained rhythms of the inner lines
(Slovakian "rhythm narrowing") are particularly characteristic of
Slovak and Moravian songs. In the Hungarian materials there are
only ten groups of variants with a similar construction whereas the
Slovakian-Moravian material numbers sixty-three! In this vast ma-
terial, running into hundreds of melodies, there is not one instance
of such erroneous melody repetition or incorrect text distribution
as Dr. Moller's variant shows, nor can one find any trace of the
augmented second. The editor succeeded in drawing with a sure
hand from the hundreds of songs the most defaced and unauthenti-
cated variant.
No. 6 is quoted after Bartalus (see Ex. 3a).2 One glance at the
music suffices to show Bartalus's ineptitude in committing the song
to paper. He moves heaven and earth to force the free parlando
rhythm of the original into an angular, dance-like 4/4 measure.
Yet the editor is not unaware of much more modern sources that
are available for this melody, and refers to two versions noted down
by Kodaly3 (see Ex. 3b). Why did he not quote one of Kodaly's
correct variants instead of Bartalus's old and forbidding example?
Had he done so he would not only have presented us with a good
version of the tune but would have given us a taste of the embel-
lishments that are so characteristic of our old melodies. For of such
embellishments the whole volume does not contain a trace. After
2Stephen Bartalus, 1821-1899, author of a number of important works on the
history of Hungarian music, was one of the founders of Hungarian musicology. He
was equally important as a folklorist although his generation was not yet equipped
with the scientific method and apparatus we expect of the scholar of the 2oth cen-
tury. In spite of his shortcomings his collections represent the pioneer effort in this
field which Bart6k and Kodaly were to invest with modern scholarship and incom-
parable artistic taste.-Ed.
3 See B. Bart6k and Z. Kodaly, Nepdalok (Folk Songs), Budapest, 1923, No. 113.
-Ed.

all, the editor cannot even offer the excuse of being unfamiliar with
more recent and reliable sources, indeed, he quotes them himself.
Or was it perhaps the glorious augmented second that adorns Bar-
talus's version that persuaded him to pluck weeds instead of flowers?
It is quite evident that the editor clings to this interval with espe-
cial devotion.
One of the most shameful spots of this volume is No. 16. Bar-
talus in writing down this well-known tune heaped mistake upon
mistake, and mixed up the orderly sequence of lines completely.
Explanations pale beside the comparison offered between the two
versions (Ex. 4a, by Bartalus, 4b by Kodaly). The reader can judge
for himself. This tune is known all over the country and exists in
twenty manuscript variants. Every one of these variants follows the
construction as represented in 4b. Had Dr. M6ller taken the slight
trouble of showing this melody to a gypsy band, he could have ob-
tained a correct reading even from them. Such an obviously and
manifestly incorrect specimen has no place in an anthology, even
if we assume that it was sung in this corrupt form to Bartalus.
The twelfth measure (primo) in No. 38 (see Ex. 5a) affects one
like a slap in the face. Whose crime this measure is, we do not
know. Was it Korbay, whose piano accompaniment was used?4 At
any rate, such coarseness could not even be laid at the door of a
gypsy band. One might think it to be a misprint did not the piano
accompaniment faithfully follow the disfigured measure. And lo
and behold, the editor does know the correct version of the melody
and even quotes it. "The melody appears in a similar form in
Szini's5 collection entitled Songs and Melodies of the Hungarian
People, No. 158, and in the concluding section of Liszt's Rhapsody
No. 13. If we compare our version [No. 38], and even Liszt's gypsy-
like variant, with No. 73 in Bart6k's Hungarian Folksong6 the com-
The
parison will hardly favor the peasant variant of the latter."
in
4 Francis
Korbay, 1846-1913, Hungarian singer, composer, and pianist, active
New York and London, where. he died as a respected piano teacher. Although he
was an insignificant composer, whose arrangements display poor taste and an un-
in
familiarity with the problems involved, his piano accompaniments were used
Mbller's volume.-Ed.
5 Charles Szini (died in the 1890's) was a Protestant cantor-teacher. His above-
mentioned book, first published in 1865, second edition 1872, belongs among the most
to
significant folksong collections of the past century. Szini was among the very first
realize the importance of folk melodies in their pristine form, and the critical care
he employed in their collection singles him out from among all early folklorists.-Ed.
6 Bart6k, The Hungarian Folk Song, Budapest, 1924; Berlin, 1925; London, 1931.
-Ed.

small notes in Ex. 5a represent Liszt's variant (in which, inciden-
tally, the questionable twelfth measure as well as the repetition of
the second half of the melody are missing); the large notes in Ex.
5b are Szini's, and the small ones Kodaly's versions. All the reader
has to do is to compare the four variants, but I should like to add
a few words to the inevitable conclusion. Ex. 5b is partly Kodaly's
version-hence absolutely reliable-partly Szini's, a man quite trust-
worthy; the two variants agree in essence. Concerning 5a all data
are lacking. Both Korbay's and Liszt's versions of the closing mea-
sure differ from 5b and even from each other; there is no analogy
for either difference in the other known melodies. It stands to rea-
son that both versions of 5a must be regarded as corrupt and decayed
until we find convincing analogies-not one but ten-that would
support this closing formula.
In No. 44 the editor lands in a gross error when he offers the
Rak6czi march as a "folk song" sung to a text. As we have said be-
fore, the melody of the Rak6czi march was composed-with the aid
of older motives-in the early igth century. Later on this melody
was artificially equipped with a so-called patriotic text so that it
could be "sung". Choral societies and school choirs used to sing it
on solemn occasions but no one would take it up spontaneously for
this is music so typically instrumental that its every measure pro-
tests against the foisting on it of a text.
And now about the piano accompaniments. The great number
of arrangements by Korbay used here-taken from another publica-
tion by the same firm-are quite conspicuous not only because of
their number, but because of their bombastic nature and false pathos
(Nos. 2-5, 17, 24, 25, 28). How encouraging the tempo indications
alone! "Sensa tempo misurato, fantasticamente", "Lento patetico,
quasi narrato", "Allegretto quasi anelante [panting]", etc. The char-
acter of the arrangements corresponds to the superscriptions: chords
that swell to wild tremolos, breathless runs in all directions. Forty
or fifty years ago, when nothing better could be encountered in
this field, when folk music was the object of romantic adulation,
such things would get by, but today they are dated and out of place.
It was no doubt economy that prompted the house of Schott to use
so many versions already owned by the firm. The other conspicuous
feature is the great number of anonymous piano arrangements (Nos.
1, 10, 11-15, 18-21, 23, 26-29, 32-35, 37, 39, 41, 42). It almost seems
as if the good Hungarian people in the back country always sing

to the accompaniment of the piano, and the anonymous accompani-
ment had to be apprehended from the people's fingers as the melo-
dies have been from their lips. Well, as far as the anonymous ar-
rangers are concerned, it is better for them to remain wrapped in
their blissful anonymity. Korbay's pathos is missing in their settings,
but they compensate with awkwardness and numerous grammatical
mistakes. A few examples will suffice. In No. io (Ex. 7) the entire
accompaniment consists of nine chords; of the nine, five are one
and the same: tonic triad in root position. If the arranger'sinventive
powers were so restricted why did he not place under the melody
the simplest possible accompaniment, a pedal point of tonic and
dominant? This would have created a much better effect than the
inept bouncing back on the tonic triad. One wonders how the con-
secutive fifths in the penultimate measure of No. 14 got there (Ex.
8) and why the a-sharp in Ex. 9 was put down as b-flat. Any
mediocre novice in the art of composition would be expected to
avoid such errors.
However, the arrangers known by name are by no means left
behind in this race, as can be seen from one typical instance of
harmonically incorrect setting in Ex. o1. And now we must clean
our own house. The accompaniments to Nos. 7 and 8 are my own
work, dating from 1906, and I must confess that they are not above
reproach. They are perhaps better, technically, than the ones dis-
cussed so far, but from the point of view of art they are so imperfect
that I would never have permitted their resurrection and inclusion
in the anthology had I known about it and had my permission been
asked.
The only absolutely unimpeachable piece in the whole volume
is No. 9, which is the only arrangement by Kodaly. It is a matter for
wonder why the editor did not use more of these. By the time of
the preparation of the anthology there were three volumes of Ko-
dily's folksong settings in print, wonderful melodies in impeccable
arrangements. Did he find them too difficult and complicated, too
"modern"? No, this could not have been the case, for the settings
of the Greek folksongs in Vol. 9 endeavor to be even more modern,
and they are at times more complicated, too. Or was the editor per-
haps frightened away by the absence of the gypsy scale? There is
only one augmented second in all three volumes.
And finally we must take issue with the preface. This is what the
editor has to say: "Liszt, Brahms, Hubay, ChovAn, and others in

their Hungarian rhapsodies and similar works placed too much
emphasis on gypsy music and more recent art songs; the modern
folklorists in their turn show an inclination to deprecate gypsy
music, they do not want to accept gypsy-influenced melodies and
popular art songs as folksong." Later he adds: "According to their
theories 'true' Hungarian folksong is only that which the peasants
sing, and which they shape and formulate themselves according to
certain procedures ... In trying to segregate the so-called peasant
songs from the whole of Hungarian folksong we do not even arrive
at a clear classification, for the notion of peasant song is as relative
from the historical, sociological, and stylistic points of view as the
notion of folksong in general." To this our answer is as follows.
We Hungarian students of musical folklore have, as have our col-
leagues in the kindred branches of learning, weighty reasons for
restricting ourselves to the peasant class for source material. As a
matter of fact, we consider ourselves scientists not unlike the re-
searchers in the natural sciences, for we choose for our subject of
investigation a certain product of nature, peasant music. It should
be known that the cultural products of the peasant class originate
-at least here, in Eastern Europe-in a manner totally different
from those of other classes of society. They can be considered prod-
ucts of nature because their most characteristic trait, the formation
of pregnantly unified styles, can be explained solely by the instinc-
tive faculty of variation in a like manner of large masses living in
a spiritual kinship. This faculty for variation is nothing short of
a natural force. When we speak of peasant music in the more re-
stricted sense of the word, we are thinking precisely of the compo-
nents of these unified styles. And this-a certain unified style-is the
very quality that is missing from Hungarian popular art music; it
is by the lack of this quality that popular art music can be differ-
entiated from peasant music. Even though popular art music and
peasant music have influenced each other, this in itself is no reason
for refusing to distinguish between them. By the same token one
could refuse to distinguish, in the higher realm of art music, be-
tween German and Italian music.
The editor speaks of "gypsy" music quite often; he obviously
applies the term to recent popular art music. It is high time to
discard this confusing terminology. I have already said that the
gypsy musicians are merely the propagators and performers of a

certain type of popular music. I should like to return to this state-
ment to support my point.
In the folksong, text and music form an indivisible unity.
Gypsy performance destroys this unity because it transforms, with-
out exception, the vocal pieces into purely instrumental ones. This
alone suffices to prove the lack of authenticity in gypsy renderings
of music, even with regard to popular art music. If a person were
compelled to reconstruct our popular art music with the aid of
gypsy bands alone, he would find the task impossible because half of
the material-the texts-is lost in the hands of the gypsies. This cir-
cumstance furnishes indirect proof to substantiate our contention
that the gypsies could not be the authors of popular art songs at-
tributed to them. But indirect proofs are not needed in the face
of the many direct ones. We know that most of our popular art
songs are the work of Hungarians; the few song writers of gypsy
extraction follow this style in every detail. Yet there is real gypsy
music too, songs on gypsy texts, but these are known to and sung
by the non-musician rural gypsies only, the regular gypsy bands
never play them in public. What they do play is the work of Hun-
garian composers, and consequently Hungarian music.
Arrived at this point we must admit that even the much vaunted
performance of the gypsies is lacking in uniform character. The
simple rural gypsy plays in a manner entirely different from his
urban cousin's. To mention a few examples, in the poor Romanian
villages of the Department of Maramaros music-making has passed
from the hands of the native peasant bagpipers into those of the
gypsies. Most of these gypsies fiddle the repertory they inherited
from the pipers in a genuine peasant style, and one would look
here in vain for augmented seconds or distorted rhythms. In the
Department of Bihar the gypsy fiddlers play with the same sim-
plicity as their Romanian peasant colleagues, and the same is true
of the gypsies who live in the villages of the Hungarian backwoods.
The nearer we come to cultural centers the greater the changes in
the music-making of the gypsies. This variety in the art of perform-
ance testifies to the fact that even the character of gypsy playing is
not a matter of race but of environment. Incidentally, those who at
the mere sound of an augmented second think that they are listen-
ing to genuine gypsy music are greatly mistaken. This peculiarity
is not at all a gypsy specialty; in fact it is much more common in
the Balkans and in the East, with the Turks and Arabs, than in

,

Central Europe. It is much more reasonable to assume that the
gypsies themselves acquired the distinctive interval from Oriental
sources during their wanderings.
Gypsy music has a legion of admirers, but they have so far
failed to produce a scholarly work dealing with the subject. It is
high time for them to give us a work in which the gypsies, their
music, and their art of performance are treated with scholarly de-
tachment. The day has come when uninformed and incorrect publi-
cations such as the one under discussion should give way to re-
sponsible and representative scholarship. We, the champions and
exponents of peasant music, have done our stint and discharged our
obligations towards folk music. I should like to invite the champions
of this so-called gypsy music to do likewise.
@
,, ,r . ELN , b T
Ip A21X6 Wr 6 6
-^* ^, ^L^^-^-- ^-^-AIE I v r
^-^.^-.^ <? . ^ *^---^ 0. . ^.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

?- -jv<.
f i-^- o%WI's<J#. ,e.-L<0V %-- -, t, .
-
Andrew Kerekes had no equal in the village,
All the girls cried when the army called him off.
Ahl But no one cried more than his sweetheart
Panna Piros, his sweetheart Panna Piros.
7. Im 0Z! -- -
t
vtpfe-3E^' tl 1r ' I- f
w-
c
)f( I vI',,,.v-|- I I -V, tWi
J14o-9t
tosS-WH otoPs,(, ,,

The village of Szilvas is mourning,
The shepherd lad is dead
The shepherd lad is dead
Only Saturday afternoon
He was still herding his sheep
He was still herding his sheep.
T. A . *
LIZ- r, r I|. r-i_ I-rI.

r
V U
-8c-l!X<rs-7 "L-7 B-y -miI
î^ ftV
4'.e .- I
The Bakony woods are mourning,

The Bakony woods are mourning,
The little cantor is dead,
The little cantor is dead.
r-I r
. eIf l1 rJ "1
|JjpUtjj4
Let me, oh dear mother,

Dear mother Gyulai,
Wed Kata KAdar,
Mother KAdar's pretty daughterI
c. rji c-f ,. - r. fp ,
i-.i~) *-iF
n ~,..~.-G^^ 0,1,
^^*
. ,-^-^î-
,?<<<..^t-'%o
c -
_,- . ^ f .
r 'l.-..F..
iÔFnj,,,_l'
7 G-.. . -- L.
~,2tI c.-rt;_- Y.-t '-:t!"4t-4-

Mother Gyulai, my dear mother,
Do permit me this one thing:
To woo Kata Kadar,
Our serf's pretty daughter!
r. E r
r~,, _ , , -_i . i .~ / . II W =
!T .
?L'di=!
.hr P IS-, IF i u -_-_ VVIE F rE
m'?^,
,L
L_t-t-4
Iwt -, a.
-
er-
't
; ec- vitA .'-,
Down the whole length of the street, the whole length,

Every little doorway sprouts flowers,
Every little doorway has two or three,
Only mine withered away the summer through.
)eot. J4 J: leo
m.
I *-A
Ui.JW
XL P . w-i O .I. ^
-
r -I , ii
1I1- I I II - ~ w IJ i r MO I^t
- r*
I am poor, and was born poor,

But my sweetheart I truly loved,
The envious talked her out of me,
Thus I really became poor.
I , I -, jr I
Ofd , i W, - - -D ut WI 4 - - 'g .
e..
,,,,,r,".l
--~- 4
-,,
I *..44A,,j.&. '
dmoW,7 oe)e,7 J-r..& '- ml--

Come in, my blossom, come in,
I am all alone in here.
Three gypsies play the fiddle,
I am all alone in here. [II? all alone.]
? W
I.b A
a A - _
I'
Ji_'Lr i-- I t-
I
L. "
I
-' 'L I -ir , L'-, IC.J.- --'
Come in, my blossom, come in!

I am all alone in here.
Three gypsies are fiddling,
I am dancing all by myself.
(â) ~^?f
d_I - I .rb -A
- ra I !
_
IIBl.,,.l_- _+ 1.- - -
f,,||ff - I- I'_ Ht-, r
I .' Ir P n _ I A
@ 10
-A cfI l I .-- m
r At
- U e,rW.,-4,
.'~-{ff,,t&:L-4^
,-&u-&. ,--..iL,t -b..
6a and 6b are untranslatable.

0 M I
IAI l-"
'
-
UV~~~~~~~ -[ , ..I


Bartok - Gypsy Music or Hungarian Music

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bartok - Gypsy Music or Hungarian Music

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bartok - Gypsy Music or Hungarian Music

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gypsy Music or Hungarian Music?

Author(s): Béla Bartók

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 2 Aug 2013 21:46:15 PM

To start without preliminaries, I should like to state that what

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 2 Aug 2013 21:46:15 PM

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 2 Aug 2013 21:46:15 PM

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 2 Aug 2013 21:46:15 PM

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 2 Aug 2013 21:46:15 PM

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 2 Aug 2013 21:46:15 PM

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 2 Aug 2013 21:46:15 PM

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 2 Aug 2013 21:46:15 PM

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 2 Aug 2013 21:46:15 PM

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 2 Aug 2013 21:46:15 PM

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 2 Aug 2013 21:46:15 PM

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 2 Aug 2013 21:46:15 PM

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 2 Aug 2013 21:46:15 PM

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 2 Aug 2013 21:46:15 PM

Gypsy Music or Hungarian Music? 253

-^* ^, ^L^^-^-- ^-^-AIE I v r

^-^.^-.^ <? . ^ *^---^ 0. . ^.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 2 Aug 2013 21:46:15 PM

LIZ- r, r I|. r-i_ I-rI.

The Bakony woods are mourning,

Let me, oh dear mother,

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 2 Aug 2013 21:46:15 PM

Down the whole length of the street, the whole length,

I am poor, and was born poor,

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 2 Aug 2013 21:46:15 PM

-' 'L I -ir , L'-, IC.J.- --'

Come in, my blossom, come in!

6a and 6b are untranslatable.

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 2 Aug 2013 21:46:15 PM

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 2 Aug 2013 21:46:15 PM

You might also like