I think it is worth pointing out some of the (most obvious) mathematical elements. 1. The climax of the first movement lies almost exactly at the point specified by the golden ratio (the spot based on the golden ratio based on the measure number would be 443*1/1.618 = 273.79, and the climax (recapitulation of the first theme) lies at the measure 274. There are other key moments in all of the movements which lie on the point specified by the golden ratio. 2. The main ostinato of the introduction of the first movement, as shown in the fourth measure - this centers around C, and the highest point is 3 half steps above, and the lowest is 5 half steps below. Both of these are Fibonacci numbers. This principle applies also to T1 and T2. There are more mathematical devices (the two above are the most obvious ones), and if you are interested in learning more about it, there are tons of articles online, and numerous research papers that analyze the mathematics behind this piece.
It's a rare occasion when I agree with the other dude, but yeah, not a fan of the golden ratio. I mean, if Bartók used it on purpose, that's kinda cool. If not, then that's also kinda cool, but it's just one example in a sea of counterexamples.
@@klop4228Bartok did incorporate golden ratio in his composition, so does Debussy and other 20th century composer as an inspiration for form and structure. Though, I doubt its effectiveness as listeners simply have no referencing point on the precise progress of the music, i.e. no idea how long is left until the piece is over. Moreover, apart from some obvious examples with clear evidence, cases are just overblown by analyst due to confirmation bias.
@@choiyatlam2552 I mean, Bartók and Debussy purposely incorporating the golden ratio is also only evidence that they found it interesting. It says very little about its natural predisposition to appearing in "perfect" art.
TL;DR: @Whatismusic123, I think I have enough arguments in the description, but there must be a good reason why you commented "this is not sonata and not music". Instead of saying that it is obvious, would you please care to explain why this is not a sonata and not music, so that I and others can be appreciative of your opinion? Long version: Hmm...there seems to be somebody who's just commenting that this is nonsense. @Whatismusic123, if you are here, what makes you think that this is nonsense? "It's just not music" is not an option. Sure, let's say that Bartok never used the golden ratio, regardless of countless papers that analyze the usage of it in Bartok (and numerous other composer)'s works. I think I have given enough argument on the structure of this in the description. While the structure of the last movement is a bit vaguer, it is possible to view the other movements in classical forms - the first movement as a sonata form with (0:00) Introduction, (2:46) Exposition, (6:41) Development, (8:38) Recapitulation, (12:12) and coda. The second movement can be seen as a ternary movement, with the middle section at (15:14). While the third movement's form is a bit vaguer, based on the themes, it lies comfortably in a traditional sonata-rondo structure (with a coda). Doesn't that ring the bell? It almost follows the Mozartian classical sonata model entirely! While the tonality is not entirely diatonic, we can see that many areas of this piece is firmly rooted in traditional tonalities. For example, the introduction is in F#, and the first theme is in C. Of course, there are clashes between different tonalities, either at the same time or different (for example, the tritonic relationship between the introduction and first theme). Of course, there are deviations. However, let's think. Does an entire piece have to be based on a single diatonic scale, without any deviations, nor modulation, and not a rhythmic variation? Even pop songs of 2-minute lengths use the principles of modulations, and if we come back to the classical world, there are a lot of unexpected modulations and dissonances in works of composers like Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven. I don't think it is good to comment "this is nonsense" without explaining why. I mean, rather than being angry, I would like to know the reasoning. The same goes to comments like "this is wonderful". I want to know why people like this piece, and I appreciate it when somebody takes time to explain what they liked about the piece/my video. And when somebody comments why they don't like a piece/video, I can gain either opinions or possible improvements. When I see a negative comment, I become perplexed before being angry at the commentor. What aspect of this piece made this commenter react so negatively? I have asked everyone who made a negative comment the same question - "what aspect of this piece made you think that this is bad? I would like to know!" - none of them made a reply, which made me even more confused. Wouldn't there be a better reason than "I just hate it" if you spent time to look at the video and commented on it? Well, I think I have made enough argument both in the description and here, and I wait for your response, @Whatismusic123. If you have time and effort to comment "This is not music" and reply to others' replies to your comments, please take time to explain to others why this is not a sonata nor a music, so that both me and others can appreciate your opinion.
@@sqrti8825 I know what this person does (seen that person a lot in contemporary classical music videos). I kind of intended this as sarcasm (try to answer this if you can), but I think I might have sounded too serious😅
It is music, very complex music. Immagine studying and performing all that, insane effort. People who hear random noise in this just don't have a trained ear and don't understand it's rules. If you listend carefully you'll find that it has regularities, a structure, a style, a melody that has patterns that are typical to a classical melody, it is far from randomly mashing the keyboard like some untrained ear might say. It is just that it's complex because it doesn't follow a simple typical major or minor scale, it' s like music from another planet. It is subjective what different people find enjoyable and also depends on what your soul needs at the moment. Imagine smoking some weed and hearing this when you're high, you'll travel planets where you've never been before. Even without smoking anything I can hear that this music is about something, has worlds in it.
Türk kökenli Macarları Türk piyanistler iyi seslendirebilir. Bu zorlu eseri Eseri Güher & Süher Pekinel den de çok seveceksiniz. 1. Bölüm >> ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_UanGAi6Pew.html . . . . . 2. ve 3. Bölümler >> ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xS8IbYOSfXc.html . . . . . . . . . Turkish pianists can play Hungarians of Turkish origin well. You will love this challenging work by Güher & Süher Pekinel
I have listened to it, and the execution was very good in my opinion! The notes were clearly heard, the percussion sounds were not cloaked by the pianos, and the tempo was appropriate, I think.
@@Signore_S I hope you include Turkish composers as well. I think Ulvi Cemal Erkin - Piano Concerto (4 parts) is the best example to start with >> ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RSI5I2QS_DE.html
(Asked and aswered after a read of the description, but still would like to hear thoughts on this) Do you think as a reciprocation (given Bartok's quotation or inspiration of his Leningrad Symphony to the Concerto for Orchestra) and an hommage to Bartok after he died, Shostakovich, in a similar manner used this piece (the opening of the third movement) as inspiration for the Babi Yar Symphony (the Humours movement in particular (rehearsal marker 51 is the exact section I had in mind))? I'd love to hear thoughts and reactions of this thought...
It's supposed to be a really quiet timpani roll - which I can't hear on my computer either somehow. Perhaps there was an error in the recording (like the sound engineer wiped it out by accident while erasing the noise), or the player played it too quietly so that the mic didn't pick it up?
