# Chopin's Piano Concerto - Who likes it?



## peeyaj

Do you like *Chopin's Piano Concerto*? I myself cannot like it.. I like my piano concertos, with great orchestral coloring (sort like a balance between the orchestra and the piano, like Mozart's, LvB's 4th and 5th, Grieg's and Rachmaninoff's 2). In Chopin, the orchestration is quite problematic (for me), it seems that as the concerto goes over, the orchestra becomes the background accompaniment. Even though, the piano writing is nice and virtuosic, there's something lacking..

How about you?

_Classical critics usually fall into one of two schools of thought concerning the piece. The first of these says that, given that Chopin was a composer for the piano first and foremost, the orchestral part of this piece acts more as a vehicle for the pianist, with the *individual instrumental parts being uninteresting to perform.* The second suggests that the orchestral backing is carefully and deliberately written to fit in with the sound of the piano, and that the simplicity of arrangement is in deliberate contrast to the complexity of the harmony._

Dour.. I would describe it.


----------



## Art Rock

Which of the two? Anyway, I like them both, but less than e.g. the Mendelssohn concertos.


----------



## peeyaj

Art Rock said:


> Which of the two? Anyway, I like them both, but less than e.g. the Mendelssohn concertos.


All of them ......................


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I like the 2nd one better.


----------



## niv

I like them. 

As far as I'm concerned, there are two main, different, things to look in a work of art. 

1. What is there.
2. What isn't there.

Is chopin orchestation is less than perfect? Mayhaps. I don't know. I don't care so much. So that's for number 2.

About number 1: I think they sound like angels singing


----------



## Andreas

Not me. Przepraszam, Frederyk!


----------



## moody

So he wasn't very good at orchestration ,who cares?


----------



## Itullian

I like them. ...............


----------



## joen_cph

Overall I prefer "no.2". More varied, IMHO.


----------



## hreichgott

By "not good at orchestration" what do people find lacking? That he overuses the strings, or what?

I like both concerti. They are very beautiful. They are conceived in a different mold from those of Mozart or Beethoven. That doesn't make them bad, just different. Chopin's solo piano pieces often begin with one or more themes stated simply, then the themes return in a more elaborate manner. The first concerto is similar: the opening tutti (which goes on for several minutes) states the themes simply, then the piano comes in to elaborate them a bit. When the piano is in, the orchestra accompanies. The orchestra has plenty to say -- the opening tutti isn't the only long speech for the orchestra, there are several -- it just doesn't say it at the same time as the piano.

Who knows if this is what Chopin intended, but I have always associated the orchestral sections with being in public, the accompanied piano sections with being with one or two favorite people, and the unaccompanied piano sections with one's innermost heartfelt thoughts (_innig_ as the Germans say).


----------



## Skilmarilion

They're very enjoyable.

Both works are certainly 'lightly' orchestrated, not a bad thing by any stretch -- Rachmaninov's 3rd is similar in this respect, and it is a masterpiece. Clearly the the soloist is given utmost importance. It should be noted that they are very early works of his.

That they are very expressive yet somewhat classical in style (highlighted by those long orchestral tuttis) make them important in forming a bridge between the classical concerti of Mozart, Beethoven and the Romantic works by Schumann et. al that would follow.


----------



## Vesteralen

I don't think many people would argue that they are his greatest legacy, but given the large number of mostly forgotten piano concerti written during the 19th century (see Hyperion's series), I think the degree of status they enjoy is appropriate and not just due to his reputation.


----------



## Sonata

I think they're both beautiful. I don't really hold to a single standard of what a piano concerto "should be". Piano concertos are probably my single favorite genre of classical music and I like the variety available within the medium. Piano holds the foreground in his works, and that's fine with me.


----------



## stevenski

Why oh why do we hear this same old stuff trotted out re Chopin's orchestration. it is moot if he orchestrated the concerti anyway but if he (or whomever) did they are FULL of:
1.beautiful writing for wind instruments, especially horn and bassoon soli
2.innovatory writing for strings-sul ponticello
3. as some have commented Massive, and massively scored, lengthy Hummelian orchestral tuttis, and intros to development sections in the first movements, that have great power and sweep.
4.the hushed , delicate string minimal accompaniments to some of the piano writing is amazingly effective.Steve


----------



## Ondine

I like both of them. Chopin had a very particular pianistic language far from the trending fashion of his time. The orchestration is a 'Chopin' orchestration; the one needed for his particular approach to piano music which needs a careful listening in order to discover surprising details.


----------



## bharbeke

The first one is top-notch, and the second is pretty good, too. I have no complaints about the orchestration.


----------



## stevenski

At last, some sense is being talked lol


----------



## CypressWillow

I love them both, and think the orchestration is 'Chopinesque' and beautifully suited to its conversation with the piano.


----------



## DavidA

We fall into a trap of thinking what a concerto should be. Chopin's are different. Just try no 1 played live by Argerich at Lugano. Utterly mesmeric!


----------



## Ravndal

They are great! Don't make up excuses for not liking them. It's like when someone tells me they are not fan of baroque music because it's too academic. It's really not. Chopin's concertos is very famous and often performed - for a reason. Perhaps after a couple more listens you will like them as well.


----------



## Turangalîla

They're piano concertos, not a duet for piano and orchestra!


----------



## StevenOBrien

I think people consider his orchestration "bad" because it really feels like he took a top-down approach to it rather than a bottom-up approach (like most of the great composers would). In other words, it feels as if he sketched the orchestral part as a piano part initially, and then transcribed it to full score (Not to say that this is an invalid approach, of course. You _can_ do it right, i.e. Mahler's early symphonies). It feels as if the orchestra is just taken as one homogenous instrument where occasionally some solo parts occur.

To add to this, it also certainly feels to me like the orchestra is treated as more of an accompaniment to the piano part rather than an equal player as in most concertos.

Personally, yes, I think that the orchestral part of both concertos could be more interesting in terms of orchestration, but when you take the music on its own terms, it's more than enough to overshadow it.

I love them, the second especially .


----------



## lostid

Chopin's 2 PC's are my favorites. Kissin is genius playing those. Also love Argerich's play.


----------



## Stargazer

I love them both! Although I'll admit, I sometimes look at them as piano sonatas with orchestral backing. But that doesn't stop them from sounding really good!


----------



## Lord Lance

His Piano Concerti are all that good and I have never liked them, to be frank. His orchestration is boring and bland. The piano parts of the concerti lack anything exciting or interesting.


----------

