# Chopin - Easiest Pieces to Learn



## Charon

Hi, I've been studying piano for about a year or so with some occasional instruction, and I would like to know what you might recommend for first pieces (i.e., easiest to learn) by Chopin. I recognize that there are both technical and artistic challenges, and maybe I would like some insight on that with the recommended pieces. Basically, I would like to know what might be a good starting point before I go out and pick up a bunch of sheet music that I might be years of study away from! 

I've heard that some of the Op.28 preludes and waltzes might be good choices, but I'm not sure which ones.


----------



## mamascarlatti

Even I, talent-challenged adult beginner, managed this posthumous waltz in A minor (sorry, have no more information than this, got it out of this book).


----------



## emiellucifuge

Hi Charon, its been a while.

I can agree with the Aminor Waltz Natalie mentioned. Also theres the Eminor prelude and a nocturne though I forget which one (sorry).


----------



## kv466

Prelude 20 in c-minor is pretty darned simple. One of my all-time favorite etudes is also pretty easy technically but I find it very difficult to express correctly; the op.10 no.6 in e-flat minor...it is so beautiful and simple but complicated in its own strange way. Good luck!


----------



## Lisztian

I'd also recommend his Nocturne Op 55 No. 1. A very beautiful work, but fairly simple technically.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Prelude op. 28 no. 4. One of the first things I ever learnt how to play.


----------



## Sofronitsky

Lisztian said:


> I'd also recommend his Nocturne Op 55 No. 1. A very beautiful work, but fairly simple technically.


I absolutely hate watching Jorge Bolet play the piano... His hands always look crippled.


----------



## Rasa

Sofronitsky said:


> I absolutely hate watching Jorge Bolet play the piano... His hands always look crippled.


I too listen with my eyes


----------



## Romantic Geek

I think this is one of the easiest Nocturnes and it is very beautiful. It may be a little difficult depending on your level right now, but when you're ready for the Nocturnes, this is the first one I'd play.


----------



## Lukecash12

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Prelude op. 28 no. 4. One of the first things I ever learnt how to play.


I swear, maybe it's just me, but everyone seems to play that one too slow. They sound more like Lento than Largo to me.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Lukecash12 said:


> I swear, maybe it's just me, but everyone seems to play that one too slow. They sound more like Lento than Largo to me.


Yeah, I find that recording too slow. I played it a bit faster than that.


----------



## Lukecash12

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Yeah, I find that recording too slow. I played it a bit faster than that.


Would be nice to compare our renditions of it. As regards the OP, I agree that the short pieces such as mazurkas, waltzes, preludes, and nocturnes should be learned first.


----------



## Rasa

It's used in a wonderful talk about Classical music (and in extention, analysis) by Brian Xander in one of the TED lectures. Definitely worth a watch. I like his tempo.


----------



## Il_Penseroso

The first Chopin I played, when I was about 11 years old, was Mazurka in F minor Op.7 No.3. It's my father's favorite Chopin, and I played it for his sake, then continued to learn more Mazurkas. 
I think some Mazurkas are often obscured by many pianists, but if you get into them, you'll learn Chopin's style more than any other genre.


----------



## Lukecash12

Il_Penseroso said:


> The first Chopin I played, when I was about 11 years old, was Mazurka in F minor Op.7 No.3. It's my father's favorite Chopin, and I played it for his sake, then continued to learn more Mazurkas.
> I think some Mazurkas are often obscured by many pianists, but if you get into them, you'll learn Chopin's style more than any other genre.


Agreed. The form was used by his people back home, so I would say that you get a better indication of who Chopin was through them, than by listening to the ballades and other grand concert pieces and thinking that that was the real Chopin. We normally think of a mellodramatic Chopin, the Chopin who ran away with George Sand, when he wrote parlor music and folk music, and he could be witty, charming, and eccentric just like the other beloved composers he befriended.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Lukecash12 said:


> I swear, maybe it's just me, but everyone seems to play that one too slow. They sound more like Lento than Largo to me.


Actually I think Largo is meant to be slower than Lento...


----------



## Il_Penseroso

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Actually I think Largo is meant to be slower than Lento...


See this :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempo#Basic_tempo_markings


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Il_Penseroso said:


> See this :
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempo#Basic_tempo_markings


I edited that page just then.


----------



## Il_Penseroso

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I edited that page just then.


Ok, Maybe I'm wrong, but I've always thought of Lento as a general term for slow tempos, not in compare with the other ones ...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Il_Penseroso said:


> Ok, Maybe I'm wrong, but I've always thought of Lento as a general term for slow movements (and tempos), not in compare with the other ones ...


I've seen many different definitions for many different tempo marks. I seem to have adopted the definition that Largo=very slow, and the slowest Italian tempo mark over all. Other definitions say Largo=broadly and sometimes Largo=slow, _Larghetto_=broadly. I've always treated Lento as a bit faster than Largo, but slower than Adagio (a term which I use for metronome marks of around 50-60). Although in my very first symphony written quite a few years ago the metronome mark I put for the second movement is: Grave, crotchet=30. I find that often standard Italian tempo marks can be confusing or misleading, so in my own compositions now I usually just put a metronome mark and if I want to explain something, I explain it in English.


----------



## Lukecash12

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I've seen many different definitions for many different tempo marks. I seem to have adopted the definition that Largo=very slow, and the slowest Italian tempo mark over all. Other definitions say Largo=broadly and sometimes Largo=slow, _Larghetto_=broadly. I've always treated Lento as a bit faster than Largo, but slower than Adagio (a term which I use for metronome marks of around 50-60). Although in my very first symphony written quite a few years ago the metronome mark I put for the second movement is: Grave, crotchet=30. I find that often standard Italian tempo marks can be confusing or misleading, so in my own compositions now I usually just put a metronome mark and if I want to explain something, I explain it in English.


If you were to buy a marked metronome, at least one with the national standard that I'm assuming mine adheres to, you'd see that Largo is slower than Adagio and faster than Lento. That is, unless your metronome marks things the other way around.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Lukecash12 said:


> If you were to buy a marked metronome, at least one with the national standard that I'm assuming mine adheres to, you'd see that Largo is slower than Adagio and faster than Lento. That is, unless your metronome marks things the other way around.


Mine doesn't even have lento on it..... But I've often seen Lento faster than Largo. It's all too confusing.


----------



## Lukecash12

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Mine doesn't even have lento on it..... But I've often seen Lento faster than Largo. It's all too confusing.


Well, they are just words like "slow", "moderate", etc. The standard system helps, but so much music was written before the tempo markings were standardized that we have to guess. It helps to know the composer, know music theory, ascertain the focal points of the piece (specific cadences, motifs, rhythmic devices), and choose your tempo according to that.

Chopin's prelude no 4 in e minor is set on top of a very definite rhythmic device all throughout, and the musical point of the piece seems to be to play with tenuto in the right hand; The melody sweeps around a fair amount, and the drive behind the cadences is the change in key in the left hand that takes place at the start of nearly every measure. To play the piece at a ponderous tempo would make the listener feel dislocated. The cadence shifts suggest that you are being taken somewhere, not listlessly dragged there.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Looking at the Grove entries on lento and largo, it appears they originally meant the same thing, during Rousseau's time. But by Purcell's time, it eventually fit between adagio and andante.

Ultimately, it sounds like they're synonymous with each other.


----------



## Rasa

Lento literally means slow.

Largo means broad, if anything. They're not metronome indications, just character indications.


----------



## Juan

All Chopin is difficult (same goes for Liszt and Brahms, by the way).

That said, the are a couple of preludes, and some mazurkas (not the most popular, though) that can be tackled by a beginner/intermediate piano student (i belong to this category ). All nocturnes are definitely out of reach. They are full of polyrythms (9 vs 8, 16 vs 17, etc.), and the left hand is usually pretty complicate.

Of course, i am just talking about playing the right notes (at a decent tempo). From there, there is still a hard work to do to reach a reasonable interpretation of the piece. Even in very easy pieces (those of Schumann Album for the young, for instance), compare versions of world class pianists and amateurs (from youtube), and you will clearly notice the difference.

Regards


----------



## Lukecash12

Rasa said:


> Lento literally means slow.
> 
> Largo means broad, if anything. They're not metronome indications, just character indications.


Very true. The markings should have a good deal to do with interpretation, imo.


----------

