Talk:Béla Bartók/Archive 1

Archive 1

The Wooden Prince date

Somebody changed the date of The Wooden Prince from 1917 to 1927. 1917 was the date of the premiere (in Budapest by the Hungarian State Opera), and Kenneth Thompson's Dictionary of 20th Century Composers gives the composition date as 1914-16 - I expect these dates are inscribed on the score, but I don't have a copy so can't check at source. In any case, 1927 is definitely wrong, and I've fixed the article accordingly. --Camembert 18:28, 24 January 2003 (UTC)

Statue of Bartok

A statue of Bartok by Imre Varga, was unveiled on 2nd October 2004 outside South Kensington tube station in London. Present at the event was the composer Peter Frankl, the conductor Sir Charles Mackerras and the politicians David Mellor and Michael Portillo.

Here is a picture of the new statue: http://www.peterwarlock.org/APPEAL.HTM

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.223.152.82 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 2 October 2004

It is very cool that there is a statue of Bartok but I've often wondered why there. Gingermint (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sânnicolau Mare

• Halló! Romanian ortography has changed. Sînnicolau Mare became Sânnicolau Mare. I lived there. To my knowledge, there was / is a memorial house. Regards Gangleri 23:45, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)

Reception

... use of tonality and nontonal methods unique to each piece, which Fred Maus (2004, p.164) compares to the bias towards monosexuality and against bisexuality (see biphobia)

Just because someone wrote a book suggesting that a composer's use of particular techniques implies homophobia doesn't make it true. I don't believe the comment is illuminating or even relevant to an understanding of Bartok's musical style. Not that the rest of the section is much better in that respect, but it does quote a well-known and respected composer and critic.

--Stephen Burnett 08:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

What is wrong with the rest of the section? Hyacinth 13:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

the "identification of the personal exigency with the fundamental musical exigency of the epoch" - you really have to ask? Although the words may give it a superficial resemblance to English prose, it's actually written in that mechanical, distorted dialect into which academics are apt to lapse when they're afraid that what they want to say sounds far too simple to justify the status they have. --Stephen Burnett 12:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

BB deserves better than this. "Reception" substitutes academic backbiting for public poularity. What about Bartok's reception in ordinary concert life? Compare the numbers of Bartok titles with Hindemith and Schoenberg on a consumer-led label like Naxos records.Jedermann 16:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hoo-wee. This is a very thorny area, but here goes. Yes, Babbitt's remarks are in his usual impenetrable style. (I have a degree in musicology and I have a hard time getting most of that twaddle.) I think what he's trying to say is that Bartok always sounds like Bartok (maybe excepting the super-early stuff, I'd add), which is a good thing. But then there are people like Martinu and Walton, who also always sound like themselves but who are in my view generally less-riveting figures...I often have a very hard time being able to tell which piece of theirs is which; even though the thumbprint is always there it's also always being used the same way. In contrast, Bartok's individual pieces generally have their own individual personalities. And then again, is the commercial recording industry really a reliable barometer of public reception beyond a certain point? Don't forget that it took Bartok an awfully long time to work his way in from the fringes to the central position he has held for the past 50 years or so. And there are plenty of his amazing, wonderful, important scores that don't turn up that often. When's the last time you saw the Miraculous Mandarin staged? He got very hostile receptions for many years in the 1920s and 30s. I can't prove it but I think even Stravinsky did a good deal better than Bartok in that period.

In any case, I don't think WP is the place for the ultra-academic mumbo-jumbo that the Babbitt quotation represents. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 16:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I had no idea I was speaking to the living! Yes, I was being provocative mentioning Naxos, but should 'reception' include analysis that you don't find in Stravinsky or Hindemith on WP, while excluding general popularity, and influence (e.g. Ligeti)? Jedermann 11:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This reception section is a rather sorry attempt at what it should be. I don't see why the only evaluation of Bartók's reception should be only be by an esoteric "musicologist". If I had the time, I'd write a much more encompassing section regarding his reception. Either way, I find the current section to be rather... stupid (sorry, I couldn't find a better word for it).

I propose that the "Reception" section be deleted until someone write an actual section about Bartók's reception. As of now it simply describes not only pure criticism, but criticism from only one perspective (Babbitt's). For a decent section that details the reception of Bartók's music, there should be more than one instance of praise and more than one instance of criticism. To me there's something clearly inaccurate about this section when the perspective expressed strongly goes against the general consensus (most figures in music actually regard Bartók's music rather highly). If nobody can provide a reasonable argument in a reasonable amount of time, I'll just delete it.Pianoman314 22:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it can be renamed instead of deleted.--Atavi 14:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I did consider that possibility of renaming it to a "Criticism" seciton however it would still not address the narrow perspective expressed by having one person's criticism. I think that for the time being it would just be best for the article to not include such a primitive section. I think that the article could definitely use a reception section, but not one that is so crude. I'll have the time soon enough to write a decent section, but for now I think it'd probably just be best to delete what little is there.Pianoman314 07:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I generally support the inclusion of as much material as is available. But if you think it's better without this section, I won't argue against it. I look forward to seeing a new such section. It is certainly needed.--Atavi 11:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the section's contents, shifting the focus on Babbitt, so that it is clear that the judgement is his, and not necessarily Bartók's "reception".--Atavi 18:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Babbitt's criticizing Bartok. He notes the challenges in Bartok's approach, but recognizes that Bartok has indeed found a solution for them. Much else in that article is laudatory. I agree with some of the above comments that these comments might not be pertinent to the article. If the consensus is that they are pertinent, they certainly shouldn't be described as a "critique." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.96.130.201 (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Religion?

The article doesn't mention Bartok's religion - what did he believe in? --Palnatoke 08:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently he was raised Roman Catholic, became an atheist and Nietzscheian, and later became a Unitarian ([1]). Hyacinth 13:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

ANCESTRY

BB´s ancestry is wrongly described. Mother was not ethnical german. She was of mixed origin German, magyar and slavic. See her family names in hungarian version: Polereczki (magyarized slovak or polish) Fegyveres (magyar). Most hungarians now and then also have german and slavic forefathers. It is a part of magyar ethnicity actually.She was ca 1/2 german, but all her ancestors born in Kingdom of Hungary, as far one knows. László of Vazulvonal, Stockholm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.188.64 (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Octatonic scale

Where should the paragraph on Bartok's use of the octatonic scale go? Here or at the octatonic scale article (as with Riff)?

• In his Bagatelles, Improvisations, Fourth Quartet, Cantata Profana, and Improvisations the octatonic is used with the diatonic, whole tone, and other "abstract pitch formations" (Antokoletz 1984) all "entwined...in a very complex mixture. Bartók does use the octatonic collection exclusively in his "Diminished Fifth" (no.101, vol. 4, Mikrokosmos) and "Harvest Song" (no.33 of the Forty-Four Duos for two violins) and "in each piece, changes of motive and phrase correspond to changes from one of the three octatonic scales to another, and one can easily select a single central and referential form of 8-28 in the context of each complete piece." However, even his larger pieces also feature "sections that are intelligable as 'octatonic music'" (Wilson 1992, p.26-27)

Hyacinth 14:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

#Music

The whole section Music is remarkably jargon-full (and also remarkably full of typots and unidiomatic English. "analysed as"? ???). I'd suggest a complete overhaul, even perhaps a removal to a subsection to do so if needed, if the section is needed in its present form at all. Schissel-nonLop! 21:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Date overlinking

Please do not link ("wikify"--gawd, how I hate that in-group jargon!) years in this article. It is completely useless and unnecessary. Nobody clicks on, say, 1918 to see "gosh, I wonder what else happened that year?". (Statistically speaking.) They just litter up the article, and are a case of overlinking.

In case you're wondering, the reason month and day dates (like June 18) are linked is so that users can set date display preferences and see dates displayed in their regional format (such as "18 June" in the UK). --ILike2BeAnonymous 21:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

True, but date linking is now deprecated and should no longer be done, according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style (WP:MOS). Another template-based solution for automatic regional formatting may be in the works, but is not yet available. —Quicksilver^{T @} 23:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I just changed it so the page "Bartok" goes straight to "Bela Bartok", but I ran into a problem: at the top of the Bartok page I have a line for disambiguation, but I just realised that this will appear not just for people who searched for "Bartok" but also for people who searched for "Bela Bartok", and those people don't need disambiguation at all.

Is there a standard Wikipedia way of dealing with this? I, and others, strongly feel that "Bartok" should go straight to the Bela Bartok page.

Ckerr 16:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Romanian Folk Dances

While exploring the classical composers I have found notes of more than 2 Romanian Folk Dances, that are mentioned in the list of works section (there seem to be 6). I'm not an expert and I won't edit the page, but if someone else could elaborate this subject would be appreciated. http://www.classiccat.net/bartok_b/56.htm

He definitely composed 6 Romanian Folk Dances. They work as a whole piece together, I play them myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.41.119 (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

portrait

Where did that nice photo of Mr. Bartók go? He was such an elegant gentleman, we should have a good picture of him. :)K. Lásztocska 02:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Media Section

I have opted to delete the Media section of the article because the media listed there are no longer available. --Joseph Montalbo 17:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Works list

Should the works list be broken out into its own page? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 19:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

A comment from the article which really belongs here:Henry^Flower 17:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

However, Babbitt praised Bartók for the "identification of the personal exigency with the fundamental musical exigency of the epoch". umm, what on Earth does that mean? Can't we find some better quotes? - K. Lastochka

Cataloguing

I've added a brief note on the fiendishly complicated cataloguing; unfortunately all I had to go on were some liner notes, so I'm sure there's more to be said (I think Mr Somfai's written a whole book on it, if someone's feeling keen!). Henry^Flower 17:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Family

This article could be improved by the inclusion of information (dates, names, etc.) about Bartok's parents, his divorce, second marriage, birth of 2nd son. Also this article calls his first son both Bela Bartok III and Bela Bartok Jr., which is it? --Design 19:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Biography

For the general reader I would recommend Kenneth Chalmer's book listed in the Further Reading section. It is relatively recent and written for the educated layman who does not have a background in music theory or composition. I've drawn my edits from the book. --Phyllis1753 (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In this case, you should cite Chalmers at the appropriate place in the text, and move the biblio entry from "Further reading" to the "Bibliography".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I find Chalmers' book to be full of inaccuracies and unreliable. I do not recommend it. Gingermint (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I added Agatha Fassett's personal account of her friendship with Bartok to the Further Reading section. It documents a lot: two of his residences in NYC (the first in Queens, the other in the Riverdale section of the Bronx), as well as his visit to her home in Vermont. That home was in a town near Montpelier, wwhich if I remember correctly was named Riverton, and appears to the place now named West Berlin. Memorably, a visit to a quarry near Barre - the same quarry at which the stones for the Vietnam memorial on the Washington Mall were prepared after the stones were shipped from South Africa - had an air raid warning while he visited. The experience provoked him to cut short his stay in Vermont and return to NYC to continue his work. Fassett was formerly a piano student of his. Perhaps information from the book itself can be added to the article: I don't think my including it from memory of many years ago is a good idea.24.210.152.37 (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Topography: rights names of regions of folk music research

I changed the geographical and topographical terms in the article, deleting errors and generally making the text more precise, as required in an encyclopedia. The Perfect article: is precise and explicit; it is free of vague generalities and half-truths that may arise from an imperfect grasp of the subject

I adjust the following passages which contain geographical names:

1. Eastern European and Middle Eastern folk music
2. Central Europe, the Balkans, and Algeria; he also later collected in Turkey
3. rural Hungary and eastern Europe, [...] central and western Europe

The first line of the article read "Béla Viktor János Bartók ([...]) was a Hungarian composer, pianist and collector of Eastern European and Middle Eastern folk music." I deleted "Eastern European and Middle Eastern" for two reasons:

1. This concerns geographical details to be mentioned later in the article, not in the ‘‘very first‘‘ sentence about Bartók.
2. The terms are vague and not even precise and therefor not suitable for an encyclopedia:
   1. "Eastern Europe" is a vague term. The main areas Bartók collected music from are also often included in the term ‘Central Europe‘ e.g. in the Hungarian Wikipedia. "Folk music of the then Austro-Hungarian Empire" would be better. This covers almost all of his folk music research. Still better would be ‘Carpathian Basin‘, as this is a topographical name, without any political or national connotation and doesn‘t change borders on the map. This excludes Bulgaria, but "Eastern European" ALSO excludes Bulgaria (see the Wiki article).
   2. "Middle eastern" was added at 16:40, 26 November 2005 by Badagnani because „he also collected music in Algeria and Turkey.“ Well:
      1. Algeria is NOT part of the Middle_East.
      2. He was once briefly in Turkey which is the very northern tip of the Middle-East (and originally NOT part of the Middle East, see Wiki article). Thus "Turkish" would be more precise (and thus preferable in wikipedia), but that shows how unimportant it is, definitely not important enough for the first sentence.

So, I think the start of the article is better and stronger now.

Facts:

1. FIELD TRIPS Bartók’s research trips were almost all in the then Kingdom of Hungary (part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, topographical term: Carpathian Basin) This included Hungarian, Slovakian, Romanian, Ukrainian, Serbio-Croatian, German and Bulgarian Music. There is a multitude of extra terms for different ethnic groups and regions he studied ‘‘within‘‘ the Carpathian Basin potentially causing confusion‚ (Tóth, Román, Walachian, Szekler, Csángó, Transylvanian, etc.) (and do you know the difference between slavic, slovakian, slavonian and slovenian?) [ref: Béla Bartók junior page 26 or 56 of Western Music, Grout 1988]. As far as I have read (frankly, quite some), his only field trips outside the Carpathian Basin (and Wallachia and Moldovia) were to Algeria (1913, Biskra region) and Turkey (1936).
2. DESK REASEARCH. Bartók studied other people’s folk music collections from additional areas like Ukraine and Russia..

See for instance: Gillies, M. editor (1993) The Bartók Companion. ISBN 0-931340-74-8 p.26 and pp. 51-63 (chapter ‘The ethnomusicologist’) Stevens, H. (1953) The Life and Music of Béla Bartók ISBN-13: 978-0198163497 p.47 and further.

By the way, I recently joined, and made an article on his set of five piano pieces, Out of Doors

--RobertKennesy (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Bartok's music in the public domain?

Does anyone know? I'd particularly like to know what the case is in the United States (and maybe Canada). On the one hand, I've read about Australian musicians who, as of 2003, were unable to perform his work in Europe and the U.S. On the other hand, this article says that his works entered the public domain in 1995 (maybe only in Australia?) due to the "50 years after creator's death" law, but were put back under copyright in 1998. On the other hand, the Copyright Term Extension Act says that "Unlike copyright extension legislation in the European Union, the Sonny Bono Act did not revive copyrights that had already expired."

So if Bartok's works entered the public domain in the U.S. in 1995 (as they did in Australia), they can't be under copyright now. If they did not, then they'll be under copyright until 2015 unless Disney bribes lobbies congress into extending copyright again. I guess the latter scenario can be the case if they weren't registered in the U.S. until after Bartok's death.

Does anyone know what the situation is? Esn (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but Universal Edition has the copyright to a number of works and listed Bartók among their composers because of whom IMSLP closed down. He was actually the first composer listed. The problem seemed to be that in the US and the EU his copyright isn't over, but in Canada it is.

RobertKennesy (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that answers my question, though. My question is: did Bartok's work EVER slip into the public domain in the U.S. between the years 1995 and 1998? Because if it did, that would mean that according to the law, it is also public domain right now, regardless of what any corporation says. Universal Edition is located in the European Union; the EU's version of the Sonny Bono Act did put all works previously in the public domain back under copyright, so what they are saying is true but does not necessarily apply to the US. It is quite conceivable that Bartok's work is public domain in Canada and the US, but not in Europe. Esn (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Magyar folk music

In the section "Early Musical Career" it says there was a misperception as to what was the real Magyar folk music - can it be clarified a bit? I think saying "most people" is a bit vague, and also I'm not sure if it's saying Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsodies use Gypsy tunes because of a general misperception, or because of Liszt's own misperception. I hope that makes sense. Also are we still using the word Gypsy? Philip Howard (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Liszt's own misperception was part and parcel of a general misperception of Hungarian folk music among Western Europeans (and even many Hungarians, and those peculiar characters like Liszt who were a bit of both.) With regards to the word "Gypsy," I think it's appropriate in this concept because we are referring to a musical style known then and now as "Gypsy music," despite its not being the authentic folk music of the Roma people. K. Lásztocska^talk 01:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Frequency of quoting folk songs verbatim

I changed the outright wrong sentence stating Bartók did not quote folk songs verbatim. He is extremely well know for his many arrangements, for instance his 'For Children' for solo piano.

One proof of this is that it now states in another paragraph:

Bartók assigned opus numbers to his works three times, the last of these series ending with [...]. He ended this practice because of the difficulty of distinguishing between original works and ethnographic arrangements, and between major and minor works. [Bold added]

In the present List of compositions by Béla Bartók (which mostly contains art music and omitting many folk music arrangements), I found the following pieces quoting folk music verbatim:

1. Romanian Dance Sz. 47a, BB 61
2. Romanian Folk Dances for small orchestra
3. Transylvanian Dances
4. Hungarian Peasant Songs
5. 5 Hungarian Folksongs
6. 4 Old Hungarian folksongs
7. 4 Slovak Folksongs
8. Hungarian Folksongs
9. Slovak Folksongs
10. Székely Songs
11. 2 Romanian Folk Dances
12. 15 Hungarian Peasant Songs
13. For Children Sz. 42, BB 53, [Books 1 & 2]
14. Romanian Folk Dances (1915)
15. Sonatina (1915)
16. Three Rondos on Slovak Folktunes
17. Three Hungarian Folksongs from the Csík District
18. 2 Hungarian Folksongs Sz. 33b, BB 44
19. 4 Slovakian Folksongs Sz. 35b, BB 46
20. 8 Hungarian Folksongs Sz. 64, BB 47
21. 20 Hungarian Folksongs Sz. 92, BB 98
22. Székely Folksong Piros Alma... Sz. 30, BB 34
23. From Gyergyó Sz. 35, BB 45a
24. Hungarian Folksong Sz. 109, BB deest
25. Hungarian Folksongs #1-10 Sz. 33, BB 42
26. Hungarian Folksongs #11-20 Sz. 33a, BB 43

Did I proof my point sufficiently?

--RobertKennesy (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

modernism

I am not a specialist in modernism, but I am sure the great modernists were very interested in music from previous era's (neo-classicm, neo-baroque). Stravinsky, Schoenberg and Bartók all studied music up from medieval up to the then contemporary music. Kundera writes beautifully about this in his 'betrayed legacies'.

So this made me write:

"Bartók was in the first place a modernist, and as such broke with the Romantic tradition. Typically for a modernist, he sought inspiration from new sources: folk music and the music of the classical, baroque and earlier periods."

But feel free to consider this a non-sequitur and leve the text as you changed it. Just remember that Bartók thought revolution in art meant a set back of 'thousands of years', true art only evolves and build on what was doen before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertKennesy (talk • contribs) 09:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Greetings! I was attempting to address this comment by Jerome Kohl. Perhaps you meant "new places" rather than "new sources" -- since they are old, not new, sources. So something like ... "Typically for a modernist, he sought inspiration from new places; in Bartók's case this involved pre-modern traditions such as rural and folk music, as well as some of the musical practices of the Baroque era ..." (By the way, maybe it's early in the morning and I'm a little dense, but where is the Baroque influence, other than in use of things like fugue? or is that it?) Thanks for your work on the article and feel free to change anything! Antandrus (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Antandrus, your edit makes much better sense, and it has a reference, as well. I remain a little wary about equating modernism simply with a break from Romanticism, even though it has become fashionable to do so in music-critical circles. RobertKennesy's new statements here deepen my concern about this (I cannot imagine a plainer antimodernist position than that "true art only evolves and build[s] on what was done before"). Equating anti-Romanticism with modernism can make strange bedfellows—in some cases of neoclassicists with nearly opposite musical agendas (Stravinsky's and Schoenberg's neoclassical phases, for example). Then there are composers like Schoenberg who maintained close stylistic ties with the Romantic tradition, and yet are all but universally labelled "modernists" (never mind "neoclassicists"). To compound the confusion, there are composers with strong neoclassical ties who at the same time firmly declined to break with Romanticism (Samuel Barber, for example, or George Enescu). For this reason, I think it would be a good idea to provide a reference (and this should not be at all difficult) for the claim that "Bartók was in the first place a modernist".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally find the label "modernist" to be more confusing than clarifying. If a modernist is someone who breaks with the Romantic tradition, Schoenberg and Bartok would both, I believe, claim that they weren't. Schoenberg claimed that he created the serial method precisely to allow him to continue the Romantic tradition, not to break with it: his idea was to create a formal framework that would replace the diatonic system, and would allow composers to continue using Romantic forms (see Griffiths, A Concise HIstory of Modern Music). I don't think that Bartok, either, saw himself as breaking with the Romantic tradition; rather, he used the rhythms and tonalities of folk music in the large-scale structures of late Romanticism. As Baron points out (Intimate Music: A History of the Idea of Chamber Music), much of Bartok's music that, to western ears, sounds atonal and arhythmic, sounds surprisingly normal to a Magyar folk fiddler.

There were certainly composers of the 20th century who considered themselves iconoclasts and breakers of tradition. Stravinsky was one; Debussy was another. Schoenberg and Bartok, I believe, were definitely not. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The two of us, at least, are in agreement on this. I would only add that this attitude is by no means limited to the twentieth century: Philippe de Vitry in the early 14th century, Vicentino in the middle of the 16th, and Monteverdi in the 17th (and likely Beethoven in the 19th) also considered themselves breakers of the traditional molds—even while simultaneously, the cases of Vicentino and Monteverdi, reverting back to (what they believed were) much earlier styles or techniques. In the meantime, I have found a discrepant statement further down in this article that mentions Romanticism as one of Bartók's influences!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to leave it up to you experts to make and change sentences on modernism and Bartók. Actually, mine is gone already. Are you aware that it says "Bartók is an influential modernist and ..." for a long time and no one even asks for a citation?

My statement about Romanticism is aimed at the Concerto for Orchestra and Third Piano concerto which I think sound largely Romantic. But my amateur opinion (or even feeling) will undoubtedly fail against academic truth. By the way, comments on my article on Out of Doors is more than welcome. RobertKennesy (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Mikrokosmos, the 2 sonatas for violin and piano

This effort is a fine work in progress. I do wish that more trumpets might sound whenever the Mikrokosmos are mentioned, here or elsewhere. They were intended as teaching pieces, but starting perhaps with some pieces in Volume IV, the set soars above its stated intent, showcasing Bartok's full throttled inspiration, some of the greatest character pieces of the era. Bartok is at the top of his game, for example, in the Bulgarian rhythm set that ends Volume VI, the rest of which is similarly edgy and gorgeous at the same time.

Both Sandor and Solchany championed these works in their recordings for Angel. But there remains an unfortunate aura of apology when they are programmed in recitals. Fix it, pianists. These are great works that suffer in the same way that the Two and Three Part Inventions of J.S. Bach suffer. Student pieces. What isn't?

I blinked at the comments about the Sonata #1 for Violin and Piano. I agree that both sonatas for violin and piano are extreme explorations of what one might call Bartok's expressionistic character, but both are very disciplined works. What is a melody, and where does it go when it is gone? How does one de-melodize a sequence of notes? All old questions for certified contrapuntalists and critics. Likewise, a subversion of focal points in "tonality" is a kind of common practice in the most advanced European composers immediately after WWI. But there is an implication of loss of control and substance here, at least a risk of misunderstanding.

Instead, let me close with a purple statement. These two works are the summit of Bartok's art. They have no equal. They may be the summit, period, of 20th Century European musical expressionism. Give them also the trumpets that should herald them. They are still not all that well known, extremely difficult to play. But they are the best of what we are.

John Dinwiddie Atonalanota —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.106.176 (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Composer project review

I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This is a nice B-class article. It only needs a few things done to it to merit consideration for an A rating; more for a formal review like GA or FA. My full review is on the comments page; questions and comments should be left here or on my talk page. Magic♪piano 13:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Important indeed

I put back the line "one of the most important composers of the 20th century". Why? Because it is true. Ask anyone who has studied music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoomazooma (talk • contribs) 19:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Referencing style

This article uses Harvard referencing (see Wikipedia:CITE#Parenthetical_referencing). While I haven't used it myself, and it's not the majority case on Wikipedia, it's clear, easy to use, and accepted by Wikipedia policy. (I'm thinking of starting to use it myself just because it's not as big a pain as some of the other ways.) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not the Harvard referencing as such, but that it is implemented by manual insertion of parentheses into the article prose. This makes it more difficult to create spoken versions of articles, makes it more difficult for automated tools to work with references, means that references cannot be semantically separated from the article prose and because of the lack of links makes it more difficult for readers to quickly check the full description of the source. This can readily be resolved by using a markup-based approach to Harvard referencing such as the {{Harv}} template. Unless someone can actually point out why this would not be an improvement, the article should be re-tagged until someone (probably me) gets around to converting it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

References now converted to footnotes. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

References now reverted to the established style, per [[Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_present_citations. See also the recent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Undue_weight_for_first_editor

One drawback of this system seems evident here: there are several reference links in the text with nowhere to go in the list. (At least "Bartók 1994, 1995a, 1995b, 2003, 2007, 2008", "Fisk 1997, 271", "Moreux 1974, 60", "Stevens 1993, 33".) 151.177.57.24 (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the system. The same thing would happen using, for example, SFN formatting, if the editor adding the inline citation failed to put the full source in the reflist. The Bartók items appear to be in the discography, but the seem never to have been entered. Thanks for calling attention to this. I have fixed the errors to the best of my ability, though it looks as if the number of years for compound refs may be limited to six. When I tried to add Bartók 2016, it would not display.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

A Little Better

There seems to be a lot of reliance on a very few sources. Some of these sources would seem to be reliable but are, in my opinion, not. Gingermint (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There are presently thirty-two sources cited. Not all are used with equal frequency, of course, but could you be a little more specific about which ones are, in your opinion, unreliable, and why you believe them to be so? Could you also suggest some better ones?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

correction

Bartok was not pressured to remove the name of Bela Balazs by the Soviet government but by the later right-wing and anti-Semitic Horthy government (Balazs was Jewish). Yet, Bartok resisted to do as the new regime demanded and remained loyal to his friend and collaborator Balazs. Gottesmann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.149.165 (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry chart

I deleted the ancestry chart but it was brought back. I don't see any use for the chart; Bartók's ancestry is not critical to his career, unlike it would be for a person who expects to gain a noble title. Bartók was a pianist and composer. Bartók was not simply a breeding experiment, and even if he was, it would have been considered a physical failure because of his small size and sickly childhood.

One of the problems with the ancestry chart is that it conveys very little information relative to the same material presented in prose. For instance, the chart does not say that Bartók's has some Serbian blood, but the prose conveys this. The chosen citation style which uses parentheses makes the chart exceedingly ugly and hard to read.

The main problem, though, is that the chart is excess detail which detracts from what makes Bartók important to our reader. It's the kind of information that would be appropriate at the end of a book about him, but not in an encyclopedia article summarizing the main points of his life. Binksternet (talk) 02:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, wholeheartedly. This may come as a bit of a surprise since, up to now, you will have noticed I have been assisting with this section. The reason is that my first impulse was to check the Hungarian Wikipedia, where I found this family tree already in place. Perhaps understandably, standards might well be different in a Hungarian-language context, but it seemed to me advisable to adopt an indulgent posture until and unless someone else also found this material excessive. Now someone has.

The citation style, on the other hand, is the established one for the whole article. Despite my personal preference for it in general, I must also agree that it is inappropriate for use in tables. In print media there are protocols for treating notes in tables differently from references in the text—in fact, it is normal to manage them differently (placed at the bottom of the table in question, amongst other things). Should it eventually be decided that this material is not excessive, I would be keen to learn about Wikipedia formats for notes in tables.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Bartok a US citizen?

A friend mentioned that Bartok became a naturalized citizen of the USA in 1945 and pointed me to this web page: http://uudb.org/articles/belabartok.html (fourth paragraph from bottom in main text). The current Wiki article entry no mention of this. I suspect the web page is not a proper source, but the change in citizenship seems significant. Maybe somebody can find a source and update the Wiki entry? Opus131 (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It took a little doing (the standard biographies are all strangely mute on this subject), but I finally found a source that seems probably reliable. I would be happier with something a little meatier than a biographical dictionary of this sort, but it should suffice for the time being.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

About reverting

There is a discord going on here, about a recent page reversion. Please, take a minute and express your opinions there. Thanks. Carlotm (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all, the place to discuss changes to this article is here, on the article's talk page. Second, I suggest you read the section a little further up this page, where the type of edit you made (and I subsequently reverted) was under discussion about three years ago, and was left unresolved. Third, would you kindly state your reasons for wanting to change the referencing style of this article. Fourth, please explain why you think you are exempt from WP:CITEVAR, and therefore may go ahead and change referencing styles to a format of your personal preference, without first consulting the active editors of this article and obtaining consensus?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

3. The previous reference style (parenthetical referencing) should never be allowed to somebody to use when the material is published on screen, rather then on book pages, the only exceptions being:

• in short pages
• by the first and main content editor, who has the right to choose the style he prefers, his main contribution being about content not format.
• by a subsequent content editor, when adding valuable material to an older page, even in a context of a general style based on template and hyperlinks.

In the last two cases getting precious content, which is the ground good of Wikipedia, is worthwhile the awkwardness of parenthetical referencing and of references in multiple styles. Subsequent gnomes will take care of bringing uniformity and readability, later.

This being my opinion, when I happened to be on Béla Bartók page (I am a lover of modern classical music, and, of course, a gnome, mostly dedicated to topics about format), I saw the ref style change not only as a nice improvement, but more as an imperative duty. So I did it.

4. I must emphasize: it was not about my personal preference. It was one of the possible actions necessary if you have in mind the page readability. As I already stated in the other page, it's not even a real change; it's just the addition of hyperlinks to allow an easier roving between text and endnotes. By moving the mouse on the bracketed number, one gets the same information as before. And in References, the lineup of full documentation is obviously the same. Are there other, more profitable, styles for achieving the same goal? Maybe. Someone else, in the real spirit of Wikipedia, will do the next alteration.

The change was so compelling to me, that I bypassed the consultation process, relying on the allowed room given to the use of common sense and the call for exceptions.

Obviously I was open to the appearance of different opinions and subsequent counteractions, but never to an abrupt reversion without a broader participation.

What I read about this topic on this page and here, convinced me even more of being on the right path. When there isn't an accord on what to do, do nothing is even worse than do something. And anyway, what is the sense of searching for a consensus when one knows already there is no consensus here?

Also, it is difficult for newcomers to achieve a complete knowledge of what happened in the years before. If past discussions reached the minimal result of setting a certain guideline as firm, that is absolutely not overridable, it must be clearly stated in the guideline document. Otherwise it's only the personal opinion of an editor.

To me, and about this specific topic where consensus is absent, to enforce a rigid application of a guideline is so more unpalatable.

Please, allow some liberty on Wikipedia pages. There is so much to do, either in the realm of content as well in that of visual aspect and readability (ultimately Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an academic paper), that reverting an edit should be the ultimate thing to do, mostly reserved to vandalizations, totally wrong contents, constantly incorrect English. Carlotm (talk) 04:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me start by welcoming you to Wikipedia, and apologizing if I have been guilty of biting a newcomer. I have been editing here now for some time, but I have not forgotten what it is like to be a "new kid on the block". It is not only the case (as you yourself observe) that it is difficult to know what has happened in the past, but it may also take some time to become familiar with usual procedures and etiquette. Now that we are consulting on a more collegial level, perhaps we can have a proper dialogue about this. I think you will find that reference formats are a lot more complicated that you may at first have believed. To start with, there are not just two or three variants, but in fact there are hundreds, thanks to the inability of the Wikipedia community to agree on a common style.

Your belief that "parenthetical referencing should never be allowed to somebody to use when the material is published on screen, rather then on book pages" is contrary to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Parenthetical referencing, and is therefore just your opinion (contrary to your contention under point 4). It is therefore not specific to this article, and so should be brought up on the Talk page of Wikipedia:Citing sources, with a recommendation to change this policy along the lines you believe to be preferable. I do not agree with you, and neither did Antandrus, when this matter was discussed in 2009 (see further up this page). Perhaps Antandrus has changed his mind in the meantime, and will tell us so now. In that same conversation, Chris Cunningham (not at work) had a less enthusiastic opinion, but was concerned about the lack of machine-readable syntax, rather than the question of parenthetical vs footnote referencing. Only Mlang.Finn seemed to believe that changing parenthetical referencing to footnotes would address this problem. You will see, therefore, that this is not a simple first editor case, but rather a matter of general agreement amongst several editors who have been primarily responsible for this article up to this point in time. You may therefore imagine what it must feel like to have a heretofore-unheard-from editor suddenly jump in and tell us we have been doing everything wrong all along. This really is rather tactless, don't you agree?

Specifically to address your position that "the addition of hyperlinks to allow an easier roving between text and endnotes": this actually involves not one, but two distinct format changes. It assumes first that endnotes are preferable to parenthetical citations (which I dispute), while at the same time stating that hyperlinks facilitate finding things (which I agree with, in principle, though I have some reservations).

In the edit you made, the change to endnote format while simultaneously creating links between the author-date citations and the items in the alphabetical list actually interposes an unnecessary stage: it is first necessary to find the note reference, and then to link to the list of references. Had you left the parenthetical references in place, there would be only a single step, as Chris Cunningham had suggested with the {{Harv}} template.

What I find problematic with the "Harvard" template is that it imposes a bibliographic format inferior to the one in place here (Chicago style). This article in particular has a large number of references that involve editors, translators, and the like, who should not be confused with the authors of the sources cited. Chicago style places these after the item title, or after the citation of the collection in which that article is found. Additionally, the template does not currently have a field for series titles, which are perhaps not essential, but nevertheless helpful in identifying the source. Third, the template distinguishes volume and issue numbers in an idiosyncratic way (boldface for volume number, issue number enclosed in parentheses). This is not, to my knowledge, specified by any of the usual style manuals (APA, MLA, Chicago, Hart's Rules, etc.). I do not object to such practices when part of an established "house style", but Wikipedia does not have such a style, and it makes things very awkward when, for example, there is both a continuous issue number and an issue number within a volume, or when a month or season is associated with the issue number. Until these problems with the template are addressed (and though I have no experience writing such templates, it does not seem like this should be difficult to do), I prefer not to limit bibliographical information useful to human readers in favour of ease of machine reading.

In cases where "consensus is absent", there really is no other option than to "enforce a rigid application of a guideline", however "unpalatable" you may find it. This is the conclusion that has been reached in so many cases in discussions of Wikipedia guidelines and policies.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your conditional kindness. Often words seem more innocuous and gentle when played in our minds than when settled on paper, or epaper. I didn't pay due care, not only to the form with which what was on hand has been articulated but also to the context of it. Whenever we see miniscule grains of sand as big rocks, we should be reminded of our smallness only.

To the point; your brief résumé of all the compelling reasons for enforcing a tight regime, still don't resonates with me, although I can better understand how much others may look at me as at a disruptive agent. Still I think that abrupt reverts of not damaging edits are an intrinsic punishment, that all features of our medium should be taken and used, and, yes, that parenthetical referencing, at least when without hyperlink, should not be allowed (remember anyway the important exceptions I already described). I would even go further. Following Chris Cunningham train of thoughts, the ideal location of all cited source material should be in one place and the text prose the least interrupted with some templated reminders (no ref tags with full source description eider). Of course the use of templates would be as imperative as disliked by many editors, and this, this deadly combination, will let us wait for the Greek calends or for Godot, if you prefer, before something will change. Too bad. In the meantime I am still convinced that a broader importance should be given to the wiki pages visual rendering and functional correctness. For instance, a page with unlinked parenthetical referencing system should never gain GA or FA status, regardless of its content. Carlotm (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

These are your opinions, and you have every right to assert them. However, these are clearly not restricted to the forms used in this particular article and I think you will find, should you choose to challenge the current rules permitting the referencing methods you find intolerable, that there will be considerable opposition. This has certainly been the case in the past, and I have seen no recent indication of any change of collective heart. I will repeat that I agree with at least half of what you are saying. In particular, I feel strongly that each article should have all of its sources listed alphabetically in one place (as this one does), and the inline references should cause the minimum of disruption for the reader. However, the means of achieving the latter is something about which it appears we must agree to disagree.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Date format

Why is the US date format used for a non-US subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.247.154.241 (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The reason is probably this -- the recommendation in the manual of style to use the date format of the English-speaking country the subject of the article is most closely tied to, which in this case would be the US. But there may be other reasons that others watching this page may know. Antandrus (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"Most closely tied to"? Because he lived in the US, for just under five years, before he died? Also ironic to read: "Although he became an American citizen in 1945, shortly before his death (Gagné 2012, 28), Bartók never became fully at home in the USA." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

There's definitely irony there. In general I prefer continental date format for articles on European composers, but I'm guessing that's why the format is how it is. Antandrus (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the Hungarian style is an option here. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, that made me laugh. No, probably isn't! Seriously though if anyone wants to change the article to continental format, e.g. 4 February, I would not object. Antandrus (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the guidelines for this sort of thing also specify that the first-established style should prevail until such time as consensus is established to change it. For what it is worth, I am in favour of changing to DMY format, though I remain open to hearing arguments in favour of keeping the MDY style, if anyone feels strongly about it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I would also go for European format, - did the same thing today for a Romanian singer who later became American. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Have done the deed. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Antandrus (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Béla Bartók/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

This is an assessment of article Béla Bartók by a member of the Composers project, according to its assessment criteria. This review was done by Magicpiano. If an article is well-cited, the reviewer is assuming that the article reflects reasonably current scholarship, and deficiencies in the historical record that are documented in a particular area will be appropriately scored. If insufficient inline citations are present, the reviewer will assume that deficiencies in that area may be cured, and that area may be scored down. Adherence to overall Wikipedia standards (WP:MOS, WP:WIAGA, WP:WIAFA) are the reviewer's opinion, and are not a substitute for the Wikipedia's processes for awarding Good Article or Featured Article status. Origins/family background/studies Does the article reflect what is known about the composer's background and childhood? If s/he received musical training as a child, who from, is the experience and nature of the early teachers' influences described? ok Early career Does the article indicate when s/he started composing, discuss early style, success/failure? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed? ok Mature career Does the article discuss his/her adult life and composition history? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed? ok List(s) of works Are lists of the composer's works in WP, linked from this article? If there are special catalogs (e.g. Köchel for Mozart, Hoboken for Haydn), are they used? If the composer has written more than 20-30 works, any exhaustive listing should be placed in a separate article. ok Critical appreciation Does the article discuss his/her style, reception by critics and the public (both during his/her life, and over time)? ok Illustrations and sound clips Does the article contain images of its subject, birthplace, gravesite or other memorials, important residences, manuscript pages, museums, etc? Does it contain samples of the composer's work (as composer and/or performer, if appropriate)? (Note that since many 20th-century works are copyrighted, it may not be possible to acquire more than brief fair use samples of those works, but efforts should be made to do so.) If an article is of high enough quality, do its images and media comply with image use policy and non-free content policy? (Adherence to these is needed for Good Article or Featured Article consideration, and is apparently a common reason for nominations being quick-failed.) ok; could use more images References, sources and bibliography Does the article contain a suitable number of references? Does it contain sufficient inline citations? (For an article to pass Good Article nomination, every paragraph possibly excepting those in the lead, and every direct quotation, should have at least one footnote.) If appropriate, does it include Further Reading or Bibliography beyond the cited references? Article has references; some citations. Recommend use of <ref> tags and {{reflist}} for citations. Structure and compliance with WP MOS: Does the article comply with Wikipedia style and layout guidelines, especially WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, WP:LAYOUT, and possibly WP:SIZE? (Article length is not generally significant, although Featured Articles Candidates may be questioned for excessive length.) See summary. Things that may be necessary to pass a Good Article review Work tags need to be addressed Article requires more inline citations (WP:CITE) Article lead needs work (WP:LEAD) Article needs (more) images and/or other media (MOS:IMAGE) Summary This is a reasonably well-written and informative article that gives space to important biographical and musicological details. My relatively minor complaints have more to do with MoS issues than anything else. Bartók's name (as well as his son Péter's) are occasionally spelled without the accent; editors should pay attention to consistency in this. I would also recommend adopting referencing strategies described in WP:FOOT; these improve the readability of the article. The article might also benefit from further images, and the media files could also be distributed throughout the article as a way to break up the text (by placing individual works near references to them). Article is B-class; probably not too far from an A rating. Magic♪piano 13:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 08:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 10:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Disease of Béla Bartók.

Béla Bartok's disease. Article on Béla Bartók's disease - Bulletin of the National Academy of Medicine (France) - 2015 - 199 - 4-5 - Page 717-728 - Meeting of 12 May 2015. Article available on the website of the Academy of Medicine (France). Http://www.académie-médecine.fr/Bulletin/

Google Traduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB19:41E:4200:600A:6088:7E6E:DDA9 (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

That link is invalid. Could you correct it, please?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Béla Bartók. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714181240/http://www.bohemianink.net/?p=1384 to http://www.bohemianink.net/?p=1384
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.hnm.hu/honismeret/folyoirat/2006-2-honismeret1.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.lieder.net/lieder/b/bartok.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927070327/http://www.gallery-diabolus.com/gallery/artist.php?language=english&id=utisz&page=205%2F to http://www.gallery-diabolus.com/gallery/artist.php?language=english&id=utisz&page=205%2F

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing update: Early Musical career (1899 – 1908)

Just adding reference material for this section (1st 3 paragraphs).—Mattydddd (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Expanded "Compositions" Section

In order to align this article with other composer articles, I felt that the "Compositions" section should be renamed to "Music". I felt that the information on Bartok's early style was rather skimpy so I added information under "Early Years" and "New influences" in order to reflect the evolution of his writing from before entering the Liszt Academy up to the completion of his Op. 1.—TrevorWilson236 (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Expanded "Recording" section

We renamed the "Discography" section to "Recordings" (other composer articles seem to prefer this label) and gave background information and added citations.—AmyTHM (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I also contributed to this section.—Twinkletwinkle0920 (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Most music articles prefer "Discography", and the added citations are in a format inconsistent with the parenthetical referencing used throughout this article. Please correct these errors.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Variety of English

A recent edit changing "favour" to "favor" raises the question of the variety of English used in this article. At present, there is a mix, most notably in the variant spellings "centre" and "center". Historically, the first edit to present a distinct style is this one, made by User:Camembert on 3 September 2002, and the variety in question is UK spelling (the word "pressurised"). The question then is, should the Americanisms that have subsequently crept in be changed to British spellings, or is there a good argument against this?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)