Talk:Romanian Folk Dances

message: The fourth dance - Buciumeana - is described as a 'hornpipe'. I think this is incorrect. Googling around, it can be seen that bucium can mean a horn - a big long alphorn type thing (played by women, no less! See the doumentary about Bartok 'The Miraculous Circumstance' for footage). But Bucium, as rightly pointed out, is also one way of spelling the name of a region of Romania that was once part of Hungary (or the Austro-Hungarian empire). So the title cannot be referring to two meanings simultaneously. If you listen to the piece it is a plaintive melody, which does not suggest 'hornpipe' in any way. Perhaps I'll edit this unless anybody can come up with any valid reason to call it a 'hornpipe'.
:You are probably right. The suffix -ean(a) is used to indicate the place of origin. Nevertheless, the Romanian bucium actually does produce a 'plaintive' sound, afaik. --Disconnect 6 16:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bucium is the name of an important village in the Apuseni Mountains. Incidentally, it is located in a region where the instrument called bucium is used, but buciumeana certainly refers to the place, for which a further evidence is the Hungarian title of the movement: Bucsumi tánc, that is, 'dance from Bucium'. --Oguszt (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

message: It's obviously Poarga, not Poarcă. See the tracklisting of this recording and the definition of 'poarga' in Romanian.
Poarga = dance similar to the Polka. Poarca is indeed a children's game (not dance). Maybe the confusion sprang from the fact that joc means both game and dance in Romanian. --Disconnect 6 (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poarga 

message: My own independent research leads me to believe that the Sz. number for the 1915 "Romanian Folk Dances" is 56, not 68. (Its BB. number would be 68.) I suspect that the person who entered this information was momentarily confused by the varying numbering systems for Bartók's work, since the 1917 "Romanian Folk Dances" for small orchestra has an Sz. number of 68 (and a BB. number of 76). Put simply, the author used the BB. number for the 1915 piece instead of the Sz. number, and then used that (incorrect) Sz. number to find the corresponding BB. number. (This is confirmed by the presence on the list of two "Romantic Folk Dances" compositions with an Sz. number of 68 and BB. number of 76.) I have since corrected the 1915 label. --Rckent (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sz. Number 

message: First, I support the post that argues against 'hornpipe' etc. (Yes, Bartok did encounter that alp-hornish thing called a bucium in his wanderings, but that's a red herring; I agree that it has no relevance to the piece in question.)
There is also a geographic issue to consider. Often we see words to this effect: "The fourth dance is named for Butschum, the district of Torda-Aranyos in Transylvania." Now that region overlaps heavily with Alba county in today's Romania, and inside Alba county there happens to be a town called Bucium. (Bucium lies roughly 100km SW of Turda, which was the capitol of Torda-Aranyos but which is now just a city in Cluj county.) Can we assume then that Bartok was referencing not only Torda-Aranyos county in general but this town called Bucium, specifically? That may seem an innocent train of thought. But Bucium's old Hungarian name was Bucsony, and it turns out that Bucsony was located in the extreme NW corner of different county, called Also-Feher, which is to say it was not QUITE inside the borders of Torda-Aranyos county but just a tad to the south. If one forms a rough mental correspondence of old Torda-Aranyos county to current Alba county, that is probably not 'dangerous' since the two regions overlap substantially. But from there, if one jumps to the conclusion that Bucium in Alba county today must have been part of Torda-Aranyos county back then, then the assumption is simply false. But given the nearness of Bucium (Bucsony) to the Torda-Aranyos border, isn't it still reasonable to assume that Bartok's title 'Buciumeana' MIGHT very well refer to that town? Yes, that would be reasonable "in conversation" let's say, but in a scholarly context? On the one hand, for 99% of users of Wikipedia, this level of detail doesn't matter. But every now and then someone trying to do research could be blind-sided if these geographic nuances lie buried out of sight (or severely frustrated if forced to 'reinvent the wheel' that I've drawn above). Any thoughts on how this should be handled in the wiki itself? JiaBokang (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is still called in Hungarian Bucsony, the evolution - in written, spelling cca. - Buchin - 1595, Butsumi - 1733, Bucsumi - 1750, Bucsum 1808, after Bucsony. The town was definitely never part of Torda-Aranyos County, but Alsó-Fehér County (there are/were a few Bucium as well, but not nearby). I checked the source, it is not quoted properly, it states: "The charming melody comes from the Buscum people from Torda-Aranyos." So it did not state that it would come from the town itself, or the town would have been in Torda-Aranyos. The Hungarian Wikipedia openly links it with the town of Bucsony as it was originating from the village as Bartók heard the song there from a Gypsy violinist. The Romanian Wikipedia similarly claims Torda-Aranyos county falsely as the host of Bucium, i.e.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographic location of Bucium (Bucsony), after which Bartok's 'Buciumeana' is likely named