# Best harmonist among the Romantics?



## Felix Mendelssohn (Jan 18, 2019)

Among these Romantic composers, who was the best harmonist? I voted for Chopin though Beethoven and Wagner are amazing as well.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Chopin, for me, by a country mile...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Felix Mendelssohn said:


> Among these Romantic composers, who was the best harmonist? I voted for Chopin though Beethoven and Wagner are amazing as well.


The only thing that one might hesitate over here is the word "best." That word tends to become synonymous with "preferred" in threads like this. Of course there is no arguing with preferences. I myself am particularly fond of the harmonic styles of Schubert, Grieg, Sibelius, and late Rachmaninoff.

But if we take the question to mean something more objective, such as "most complete master of the possibilities of harmony, both structural and expressive," then the obvious answer is Wagner (and we could reasonably omit the qualifier "among the Romantics" as well).

I think it would be awfully hard for anyone who has sat at the piano and worked his way through the scores of _Tristan_ and _Parsifal_ to argue with this. Debussy, Mahler, Strauss, Schoenberg, Berg, Verdi, Puccini, Reger, and (we can safely assume) practically every other composer in Wagner's wake all opened and studied his scores, and when they got sufficiently past feeling amazed and intimidated, they assimilated the most profound harmony lessons anyone could hope to receive.


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2019)

We've recently had "best melodists" and now "best harmonists".

To be honest, I think this kind of dissection of composers' abilities in respect of each main component of music and trying to specify who was "best" at each is not a very useful exercise. 

There could be a tendency for people to shoe-horn their favourite composer into the top position, regardless of the attribute under consideration. One also may wonder whether it makes much sense to ask about particular features of music composition when what really matters in the final analysis is how well the finished product sounds overall. 

It makes more sense to ask who were the best composers, simple as that. Or maybe one could ask who were the best composers of piano music, or chamber music, or operas ....

Ah but that's already been done a few million times. How could I forget?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Partita said:


> There could be a tendency for people to shoe-horn their favourite composer into the top position, regardless of the attribute under consideration.


And that's exactly what I did.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

I'm trying to be impartial and objective but it is impossible and pointless really - there is no definitive answer. Each composer on the list obviously had their aesthetic sensibilities and proclivities and communicated them brilliantly. As a piano player, I have often experienced more harmonic delight with Chopin than any other within that genre, although Schumann has often delighted my ears too (neither are real friends with my fingers though  ).

Wagner's place in history as one apotheosis in harmonic technique is deserved imv and so on balance I'd have to vote for him if it _has_ to be narrowed down to one choice.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Specific examples of harmonic excellence might be fruitful. I voted for Sibelius and will post anon on him - but a doff of the hat to Wagner's Tristan and Isolde - the prelude serves as a fine example (ahead of it's time I'd say - (1865 I think)) with shifting and chromatic harmony perfectly appropriate to the subject matter.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

janxharris said:


> Specific examples of harmonic excellence might be fruitful. I voted for Sibelius and will post anon on him - but a doff of the hat to Wagner's Tristan and Isolde - the prelude serves as a fine example (ahead of it's time I'd say - (1865 I think)) with shifting and chromatic harmony perfectly appropriate to the subject matter.


1865! That is amazing. It predates any of Brahms' symphonies and yet, harmonically speaking, it leaves any of them in the dust. The music world definitely spent about 50 years playing catch up with that one.

I think Woodduck hit the nail on the head here. Not much more to be said.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

flamencosketches said:


> 1865! That is amazing. It predates any of Brahms' symphonies and yet, harmonically speaking, it leaves any of them in the dust. The music world definitely spent about 50 years playing catch up with that one.
> 
> I think Woodduck hit the nail on the head here. Not much more to be said.


Actually composed somewhat earlier but premiered in 65.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I would say Chopin. He has the most varied and morphing harmony. His harmony flows like a poetic river.

Wagner seems to have gotten stuck on diminished and half-diminished chords. This gives his music an old-fashioned melodramatic "diminished" sound, like "The perils of Pauline."


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> I would say Chopin. He has the most varied and morphing harmony. His harmony flows like a poetic river.
> 
> Wagner seems to have gotten stuck on diminished and half-diminished chords. This gives his music an old-fashioned melodramatic "diminished" sound, like "The perils of Pauline."


Well at least RW had something to fall back on if the operas hadn't worked out...was he a good pianist?


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

... was he? I’ve never heard a Wagner piano piece. 

I voted Chopin as well but I think personal bias factors into my decision.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I'd add Bruckner & Scriabin to the list of great romantic harmonists.


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2019)

Quite a lot of people voting for Wagner here. Liszt influenced Wagner greatly, so Liszt.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

............................


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

"Harmonist" isn't a meaningful category for me because harmony can't be abstracted out from melody, voice-leading, counterpoint and rhythm. IMO, it is the least independent parameter of common practice music, which makes this a particularly silly exercise.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Partita said:


> We've recently had "best melodists" and now "best harmonists".
> 
> *To be honest, I think this kind of dissection of composers' abilities in respect of each main component of music and trying to specify who was "best" at each is not a very useful exercise.*
> 
> ...


This ... ! Though I do think that there is some value in a question such as "Who were the most innovative harmonists?" or "Who were the most influential harmonists?". But trying to determine who is "best" is not only impossible but meaningless. I mean... Chopin's harmonies were amazing for Chopin's music, but Sibelius's harmonies clearly served Sibelius's music far better than Chopin's (or anyone else's) would have. Same can be said about Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Wagner, etc... who am I to try to determine the "best" harmonist if harmony plays a different role for each composer?

My username is (semi-)ironic, by the way.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Not even sure Sibelius belongs here - his later work is more characteristic of what followed Romanticism.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

For me  the closing section of Tapiola is totally unique.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

I will say nothing. Guess what I have voted! :lol:


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> "But the fact remains, in his other major works, he chooses not to write proper harmony for large portions of them: they are either left hand simply doubling the right hand in octaves or, constant bassline that goes on and on for pages."


The fact does not remain because it's not a fact to begin with but a misunderstanding in your view of him. I have NEVER heard an unskilled, innept or incorrect harmonic modulation from Chopin. Never. He was as precise in his voice leading as Bach and Mozart. It's only in your imagination, and your understanding of harmony is trapped within the 18th century model. A completely false conclusion about the Pole. He wrote pianistically, idiomatically, and consequently the use of octaves and other devices that you incorrectly deem faults. He wrote pianistically for the instrument and he was arguably the greatest harmonist since Bach, certainly according to one of his biographers James Huneker with whom I happen to agree. (Chopin: The Man and His Music.). You should be learning from the Polish master rather than trying to jam him into the mold of how far Bach and Mozart took harmonic progressions. Such foolishingness of understanding, including the lack of understanding of the entire Romantic era to begin with. He was exquisite, highly advanced and a revolutionary as a harmonist and composer. It was Beethoven who broke the rules of harmony and Chopin criticised him for it. While Chopin did esteem Bach and Mozart, he took harmony into a new era. After all, MUSIC didn't stop at the death of Mozart. Post all the videos you want without understaning the heart and soul of Romanticism or Chopin's harmonic genius. His works are full of exquisite harmonic details that continue to escape your attention and appreciation. You have a vendetta against Chopin because some listeners care for him more than Mozart. I care for them both and have written about them both. It's necessary to see the things you criticize in context and you've shown no interest in doing so.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4939/4939-h/4939-h.htm


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> ..I have NEVER heard an unskilled, innept or incorrect harmonic modulations from Chopin....


Ditto......................it's a daft thread anyway.


----------



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes (Feb 24, 2019)

I think the Romantic period has it in general (which is one of the reasons it's my favorite period), I voted Tchaikovsky.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

........................


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

I support the intention and carrying out of this poll started by "Felix Mendelssohn." Two points:

1. Here's an example where one may consider harmony separately -- musical _style analysis_. Style analysis also considers other factors, e.g. melody, rhythm, timbre, texture, dynamics, form. Seldom does one actually spell out all that is going on in these areas even for a single work -- instead one identifies features significant for one reason or another. Over time one develops -- always tentatively -- a sense of what applies for a group of works, or for a composer generally speaking, both concerning individual factors and factors in combination. All the way along one makes judgements, which become more substantive the more one is able to hear, know, analyze and experience.
2. Best _[in my opinion]_ is implicit in all of the these threads, and stating a preference or giving an opinion are fine with me.


----------



## Littlephrase (Nov 28, 2018)

I voted for Wagner, particularly on the grounds of _Tristan und Isolde_ and _Parsifal_.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

janxharris said:


> Actually composed somewhat earlier but premiered in 65.


Right. The score of _Tristan_ was completed in 1859. Wagner's harmony didn't come out of nowhere, of course. He was well-acquainted with Liszt and Chopin.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Delius should absolutely be in the discussion.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Right. The score of _Tristan_ was completed in 1859. Wagner's harmony didn't come out of nowhere, of course. He was well-acquainted with Liszt and Chopin.


 That's right. It was Franz Liszt who introduced Wagner to Chopin's music.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Right. The score of _Tristan_ was completed in 1859. Wagner's harmony didn't come out of nowhere, of course. He was well-acquainted with Liszt and Chopin.


That's right. Franz Liszt introduced Wagner to Chopin's music. Wagner was very interested in the music of other composers. He listened carefully and he formed his opinions carefully and was quoted as saying: "Mozart's music and Mozart's orchestra are a perfect match. An equally perfect balance exists between Palestrina's choir and Palestrina's counterpoint, and I find a similar correspondence between Chopin's piano and some of his etudes and preludes. I don't care for the lady's Chopin, however. There is too much of the Parisian salon in that; but he has given us many things that are above the salon." So it was Chopin who came first, not Wagner. Wagner was also quoted as saying that "Chopin was a composer for the right hand, which of course wasn't entirely true. If he'd been a little bit more perceptive, he might have said, "But what a right hand!" I find Chopin far more varied and complex than Wagner though Wagner used his sense of harmony in a varied,ingenious and dramatic way in his operas.


----------



## Littlephrase (Nov 28, 2018)

Hmm, I don’t know about that last statement with Chopin being “far more complex” than Wagner. I’m afraid I don’t understand where you’re coming from with that, Larkenfield.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

Dimace said:


> I will say nothing. Guess what I have voted! :lol:


If you voted _contra_ nationality, maybe Berlioz? Except no one has voted for Berlioz so far!

Hard to guess.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Roger Knox said:


> If you voted _contra_ nationality, maybe Berlioz? Except no one has voted for Berlioz so far!
> 
> Hard to guess.


Hoho! No Berlioz! Keep trying, my friend!


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Dimace voted Liszt. And a well informed vote it was.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

.........................


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Here's another moment in Chopin where one of the hands doesn't really do much.
(albeit better than the E flat minor and F minor Preludes which consist of 90%~100% doubling octaves)
Especially from 1:30 to the end, you can virtually play with one hand and not lose any significant portion of the expression.






Are there any moments like this in Mendelssohn's Songs Without Words, for example?
In my view, Mendelssohn often varies harmony more intricately than Chopin in miniature pieces.
I think it's reasonable to consider Chopin as the best melodist. But whether or not he's the best harmonist in terms of given resource is controversial and debatable.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Larkenfield said:


> I find Chopin far more varied and complex than Wagner though Wagner used his sense of harmony in a varied,ingenious and dramatic way in his operas.


"Used his sense of harmony in a varied, ingenious and dramatic way" is presumably meant to be complimentary, but it doesn't describe adequately the modulatory freedom, polyphonic complexity, structural immensity, and dramatic tension that Wagner's "sense of harmony" made possible. There are reasons why it's a Wagner prelude, and not one by Chopin or Liszt, that's pointed to as a turning point in music.


----------



## Schoenberg (Oct 15, 2018)

What is meant by the term "harmonist"?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Weber deserves a mention, he was perhaps the one who really got the ball rolling, but Chopin was the first to add the full harmonic richness into the Romantic era, Wagner was the one who pointed the way forward to the Modern era, so I think a good argument could be made for either of them, and perhaps on the basis of the strength of his counterpoint, Brahms as well.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

My favourite may be Berlioz. He had lots of critics, including Boulez who thought his harmony was just wrong. I suspect they were just not conventional for their time.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> My favourite may be Berlioz. He had lots of critics, including Boulez who thought his harmony was just wrong.


That's pretty funny. Wonder what Berlioz would say about Boulez...


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> My favourite may be Berlioz. He had lots of critics, including Boulez who thought his harmony was just wrong. I suspect they were just not conventional for their time.


_"It is perhaps not surprising that the music of Berlioz, that most atypical of Frenchmen, was held in low regard. While praising his innovative orchestral technique, Ravel often found his harmony clumsy, and once observed that Berlioz was "a genius who couldn't harmonize a waltz correctly.""_
https://books.google.ca/books?id=D3RtDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA123


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

hammeredklavier said:


> _"It is perhaps not surprising that the music of Berlioz, that most atypical of Frenchmen, was held in low regard. While praising his innovative orchestral technique, Ravel often found his harmony clumsy, and once observed that Berlioz was "a genius who couldn't harmonize a waltz correctly.""_
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=D3RtDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA123


I'm no great fan of Berlioz but I welcome any composer breaking these so called rules if the composition requires it.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Well, Chopin it is for now and well-deserved


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

.........................


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> _"It is perhaps not surprising that the music of Berlioz, that most atypical of Frenchmen, was held in low regard. While praising his innovative orchestral technique, Ravel often found his harmony clumsy, and once observed that Berlioz was "a genius who couldn't harmonize a waltz correctly.""_
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=D3RtDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA123


If Ravel was thinking of the waltz in the _Symphonie Fantastique,_ I can only say that I've always loved its harmonization. Berlioz is quirky, and I think most people now can appreciate his peculiarities.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> That's pretty funny. Wonder what Berlioz would say about Boulez...


:lol: hilarious.

Seriously though, is there an interview where I can hear Boulez talk about Berlioz? I'm curious on his specific points there.


----------



## Littlephrase (Nov 28, 2018)

Thank goodness Berlioz was so incompetent. How would we have got such groundbreaking masterpieces if he was worried about sticking to the rules?


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Reger is worthy of inclusion

Liszt was perhaps the most modern of the group (and of course modern=best) there


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Reger is worthy of inclusion
> 
> Liszt was perhaps the most modern of the group (and of course modern=best) there


Liszt was the most experimental harmonically, but a lot of his experiments are merely eccentric and artistically ephemeral. Reger picked up Liszt-Wagner chromaticism and went nuts with it, but at the expense of simple coherence. Both are fascinating from a Modernist perspective, but neither achieved the consistent inspiration and control of structure that make Wagner the master of what he called "the art of transition."


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> The only thing that one might hesitate over here is the word "best." That word tends to become synonymous with "preferred" in threads like this. Of course there is no arguing with preferences. I myself am particularly fond of the harmonic styles of Schubert, Grieg, Sibelius, and late Rachmaninoff.
> 
> But if we take the question to mean something more objective, such as "most complete master of the possibilities of harmony, both structural and expressive," then the obvious answer is Wagner (and we could reasonably omit the qualifier "among the Romantics" as well).
> 
> I think it would be awfully hard for anyone who has sat at the piano and worked his way through the scores of _Tristan_ and _Parsifal_ to argue with this. Debussy, Mahler, Strauss, Schoenberg, Berg, Verdi, Puccini, Reger, and (we can safely assume) practically every other composer in Wagner's wake all opened and studied his scores, and when they got sufficiently past feeling amazed and intimidated, they assimilated the most profound harmony lessons anyone could hope to receive.


Serious question here: How was Wagner a more complete master of the possibilities of harmony than Liszt?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Liszt was the most experimental harmonically, but a lot of his experiments are merely eccentric and artistically ephemeral...


??? Maybe some, but maybe not all. Here's Liszt's _The Black Gondola_ ("La Lugubre Gondola") from his last years, orchestrated by John Adams.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Razumovskymas said:


> Serious question here: How was Wagner a more complete master of the possibilities of harmony than Liszt?


_To Woodduck: I was too soon/late with my question_ :tiphat:


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I can see how Liszt can be considered among the important names in this category, but Chopin and Wagner were visionaries who had clear direction with their use of harmony. Liszt was experimental, but I don't perceive the same clarity of conception in his work. As was mentioned earlier in the thread harmony itself is connected to other aspects of composition and all things considered I see Liszt as a lesser composer than Chopin, Wagner or Brahms.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

KenOC said:


> ??? Maybe some, but maybe not all. Here's Liszt's _The Black Gondola_ ("La Lugubre Gondola") from his last years, orchestrated by John Adams.


I heard La Lugubre Gondola in its original piano version recently and was impressed. A seriously silly name for a composition, but damn that was awesome. Certainly adventurous harmonically, presaging Richard Strauss and early Schoenberg.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

hammeredklavier said:


> Actually depending on how you look at it, Johann Nepomuk Hummel can be thought to have done it before Chopin.


I admire your enthusiasm and knowledge of music, but I sense that you have a strong bias towards the aesthetic of the Classical era. I think this colors your perception of other music, and prevents you from seeing clearly the strong points of other eras. You seem to think that the Classical aesthetic represents a kind of ideal that all music should essentially strive for and in my view unfairly use it as a measuring stick regarding stylistic traits of other styles.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

The two winners of this poll were a direct influence on another great master of harmony 

"Who is your favourite composer?" he (Scriabin) asked with the condescending smile of the great master who knows the answer. When I answered without hesitation, "Brahms", he banged his fist on the table. "What, what?" he screamed. "How can you like this terrible composer and me at the same time? When I was your age I was a Chopinist, later I became a Wagnerite, but now I can only be a Scriabinist!" And, quite enraged, he took his hat and ran out of the café, leaving me stunned by this scene and with the bill to pay.

- Arthur Rubinstein, My Young Years


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> ??? Maybe some, but maybe not all. Here's Liszt's _The Black Gondola_ ("La Lugubre Gondola") from his last years, orchestrated by John Adams.


Certainly Liszt turned out plenty of good stuff. _La Lugubre Gondola_, originally a piano piece (actually two pieces with the same title), is one of his most evocative, I think. It was inspired by the funeral gondolas which could be seen on the canals of Venice. What's fascinating is that the work was composed in 1882; the following year Wagner died in Venice, and his body was transported over the Grand Canal in one of these gondolas. A premonition?






It's worth comparing the harmonic style of this music with that of Wagner's _Parsifal_, which also premiered in 1882. Here is the "transformation music" and funeral procession from Act 3:






An important and characteristic difference between the two composers which this comparison reveals is Wagner's ability to use the chromatic idiom he and Liszt shared to construct large spans of clear shape and great cumulative weight, in comparison with Liszt's more fragmentary structures. The obsessive bass line in the transformation music suggests strange alien tonalities as it both blends and clashes in driving counterpoint with the agonized motifs that cry out against it, and the antiphonal double chorus in the funeral procession throws an immense melodic bridge across a continuous river of fluctuating, often startling chromatic transformations with an unfaltering sense of purpose that makes even the most shocking progressions seem inevitable and right. In my opinion, no other composer has consistently equaled Wagner's ability to do this, and the fact that he was already doing it in _Tristan und Isolde_ in the 1850s justifies to me his preeminent position as a harmonist.

There's no question that Wagner "stole" harmonic ideas from Liszt (in the sense that all composers "steal" from each other), and the two of them were quite conscious of their musical relationship. Wagner laughingly referred to one of his pilferings in a letter to Liszt, who seems to have been big enough not to have his feelings hurt over being used to serve what he recognized as a great purpose.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Apart from any harmonious skills I think we can agree that Liszt is by far the more generous one. I think he would even be polite if you'd steel a whole piece of him :lol:


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

.................................


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

.................................


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> I often sense this strange consensus among some people that Johann Strauss II is nothing but cheap, fluffy laziness whereas Chopin works like Polonaises Op.44, Op.53 with their middle sections are nothing of the sort. This is especially prevalent among piano players I have encountered.
> If Johann Strauss II was in the list of choices in this poll, I suspect people would be like "WTF? Are you kidding me?"
> Maybe I'm biased and not understanding Romanticism properly, OR other people are Chopin-centric in their way of thinking.


Well, despite my love of Strauss waltzes, I would have to be among the WTF group. By selecting carefully, you can find bits of Strauss that are harmonically more interesting than bits of Chopin, but nothing would be proved thereby.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I have rarely been a Strauss II detractor. Brahms' love and high regard for his work made me think again. Strauss ll reflects the brighter side of life and his works can be thoughtful too. They are often beautifully orchestrated, harmonious, and romantic. Glorious. But as a harmonist, I have never considered him at the vanguard or as an innovator of influence during the Romantic era. But what a master in what he did use. I think people sometimes don't like his music because they forget that it's essentially dance music; it wasn't predominant written for the immobile couch potato. So dancing to them can be an entirely different because he's a composer who seems to believe in love. Who can enjoy dance music glued to one spot? though of course sometimes it's possible It's really for those people who have a sense of romance and love movement. But harmonically i've never thought of him as an innovator and he didn't seem to risk a lot with the occasional challenging dissonances. His music is basically comfortable, delightful and safe. His music seems primarily written for pleasure and entertainment.

On the other hand - the Chopin Op. 44 is one of the Pole's greatest Polonaise. It snarls and is full of venom, tension and spite in the beginning. It's Chopin in his more emphatic, virile, and even deadly mood. It begins like a coiled snake ready to strike and it has a battle scene in its middle section which you have never appreciated or understood in context. You've complained about it before because all you hear is a repeated figure in that middle section when there is so much more to it and it was written deliberately to build drama and tension. This Polonaise is a narrative and there's something heroic in it. There's something related to battle and heroism, and that repeated figure is part of that, like troops moving forward and moving into battle. There's no retreat there, there's the marching forward, and one doesn't win a battle by giving up. That repeated figure creates tension and momentum. Chopin is telling a story. It couldn't be more clear and just about everyone on the planet understands that except perhaps one person. The Polonaise is a story that he's telling, perhaps connected with his love of his native country and it has great contrast between some of its dark emotions that snarl and its more peaceful and tender moments. It has drama. It's a fantastic Polonaise with Chopin at the height of his imaginative creative power. But if the listener is a literalist and can't sense the narrative, it won't make sense or be misunderstood.

The Romantic era was more interested in portraying mood and color; it wasn't necessarily about writing a nice 18th-century fugue to be admired for the skill and mastery of the composer. They had a different aim in mind and most people understand that without any kind of the problem, I must say. But it takes imagination and an appreciation of poetry and story.

The same with Op. 53! and it's military qualities. This may come as a surprise to some listeners, but Chopin did have a masculine back bone and he would sometimes put it on display and build up its drama and power with a repeated figure in the left hand. It seems so obvious what he was trying to do, and did, in these two narrative Polonaises with a military battle scene.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Larkenfield said:


> On the other hand - the Chopin Op. 44 is one of the Pole's greatest Polonaise. It snarls and is full of venom, tension and spite in the beginning. It's Chopin in his more emphatic, virile, and even deadly mood. It begins like a coiled snake ready to strike and it has a battle scene in its middle section which you have never appreciated or understood in context. You've complained about it before because all you hear is a repeated figure in that middle section when there is so much more to it and it was written deliberately to build drama and tension. This Polonaise is a narrative and there's something heroic in it. There's something related to battle and heroism, and that repeated figure is part of that, like troops moving forward and moving into battle. There's no retreat there, there's the marching forward, and one doesn't win a battle by giving up. That repeated figure creates tension and momentum. Chopin is telling a story. It couldn't be more clear and just about everyone on the planet understands that except perhaps one person. The Polonaise is a story that he's telling, perhaps connected with his love of his native country and it has great contrast between some of its dark emotions that snarl and its more peaceful and tender moments. It has drama. It's a fantastic Polonaise with Chopin at the height of his imaginative creative power. But if the listener is a literalist and can't sense the narrative, it won't make sense or be misunderstood.


Thanks for that clip! Federova gives a marvelous performance. She really makes the work tell a story, traversing its mood changes brilliantly, and is especially good at emphasizing the harmonic changes in the "militant" section, giving it shape and momentum that should fend off any accusations of monotony. I'm grateful to be reminded of what a superb creation this polonaise is.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

hammeredklavier said:


> ^Doesn't this remind you of Ravel?


Yes, a little bit. I don't deny that Ravel was influenced by Liszt. He was also influenced by Chopin, Schumann, Paganini among others.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

.....................


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't know what to tell you


I'm not sure that Larkenfield stands in need of being told anything.



> please look through the scores of Op.44, Op.53, Op.48 No.1, and reconsider what I've said.


Isn't listening to the music the best way of judging it?



> This is the kind of mindless bangy pomposity Liszt is often criticized for.


If you really think that Chopin's Op. 44 is "mindless banging pomposity," and that it's no more inspired, original and poetic than Liszt's bombastic storm piece, then _I_ don't know what to tell _you._



> Yet strangely somehow in everyone's minds Chopin always retains his image of a "piano poet"


Why "strangely"? When an idea has been in everyone's mind for two centuries there's very likely to be a good reason for it. Do you think Chopin-lovers are just a bunch of flat-earthers?



> I find many piano players I meet biased towards Chopin and maybe this is affecting my judgment of his music to an extent, but I sense certain Chopin-centrism in threads like this.


Chopin's harmony had a strong influence on subsequent composers. He deserves to be recognized in this particular discussion.



> To be fair, majority of Chopin's Etudes, Barcarolle, Ballade Op.52 are masterful in terms of harmony, but not good enough to place in the absolute best.


Best of what? Is there something wrong with them "in terms of harmony"? (Answer: no.)



> These days I'm finding Hummel's 24 Etudes Op.125, (which are strangely Romantic and Bachian at the same time), equally interesting.


Hummel is a fine composer. I like him, but I haven't noticed that his harmonic style is especially remarkable.



> Overall, it seems to me Mendelssohn is the best of the early Romantics (Schubert, Schumann, Chopin, Berlioz), the best all-rounder.


How can we compare Mendelssohn with Berlioz? Is there any reason to, unless we're comparing the latter's "Queen Mab" scherzo from _Romeo et Juliette_ to the former's _Midsummer Night's Dream?_ Berlioz doesn't suffer in that comparison.



> There are no passages like Chopin Preludes Op.28 Nos. 14, 18, 21 in Mendelssohn's Songs Without Words.


There are no passages like "Largo al factotum" in _Fidelio._

What does your post amount to but another attempt to convince people that they shouldn't think better of Chopin than you do?


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

What is better than the Emin11 chord that opens this?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

..........................................


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

The Berceuse Op.57 is a BS example because the Db pedal is the whole point of a great piece, its a feature, not a bug and its hardly typical of Chopin's work,

Talk about the Ballades and the Polonaise Fantasy


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Bwv 1080 said:


> What is better than the Emin11 chord that opens this?


Sorry to be pedantic but I'd say that's an Emin9 with a passing 'a'.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

I'm curious - of those listed in this poll most listeners opt for Beethoven as their favourite composer (as per him being one of the 'big three') - and yet he, thus far, has received less than 2% of the vote. Either harmony, a fundamental element in music, isn't that important after all or this thread carries no weight.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

janxharris said:


> I'm curious - of those listed in this poll most listeners opt for Beethoven as their favourite composer (as per him being one of the 'big three') - and yet he, thus far, has received less than 2% of the vote. Either harmony, a fundamental element in music, isn't that important after all or this thread carries no weight.


I think you are over looking another option, the fact that Beethoven was composing largely within a Classical framework so he was not using harmony in the same way that Romantic era composers did.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

tdc said:


> I think you are over looking another option, the fact that Beethoven was composing largely within a Classical framework so he was not using harmony in the same way that Romantic era composers did.


What you say is correct but how is it relevant?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

janxharris said:


> What you say is correct but how is it relevant?


Because certain composers from the Romantic era might come to mind first for many when the question of "Best Harmonist among the _Romantics_" is posed to them.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

tdc said:


> Because certain composers from the Romantic era might come to mind first for many when the question of "Best Harmonist among the _Romantics_" is posed to them.


Perhaps it should be asked.

I voted irrespective of the not entirely accurate 'Romantic' (viz. Beethoven and Sibelius).


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> Sure maybe I'm am prejudiced, but when thinking of harmony, usually things that come to mind are sophistication of part-writing, uniqueness in use of dissonance, ease in modulations etc. Although there are sections that make Chopin unique and constitute a "Chopinesque" sound, but I can't really say other major composers aren't unique themselves. And the thing that seems stands out the most to me when comparing with Chopin and other major composers is his part-writing, which isn't as sophisticated as others'. Maybe it's one of the reasons why he usually confined himself to the 'safety zone' of the genre of solo piano. I think.


Whilst part writing and voice leading does have a necessary and decisive impact on harmonic resolution and forward momentum, remember harmony (as in a vertical construct) is not necessarily beholden to such rules when one considers aesthetics and even resolutions. Part writing in its technical ( 4 part even) sense for Chopin was not as vital an element of composition as it was in the classical era, emphasis in his sensibilities lay elsewhere, which included a personal pianism and development of such. I can't agree that his part writing is inferior, it's just different, as it should be.

btw, your online name always makes me smile...hammeredklavier. Is it the booze or the piano action (or both) that you are referring to...


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

According to TC poll - The Greatest Composer, Wagner got 6% of the vote, and yet here his harmony is much 'better' at 38%.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

janxharris said:


> According to TC poll - The Greatest Composer, Wagner got 6% of the vote, and yet here his harmony is much 'better' at 38%.


One thing that probably affects The Greatest Composer poll is the fact that Wagner was (mainly) only opera composer and there are quite many people who really like classical music in general but don't enjoy operas. So if you just don't like opera you aren't probably going to vote for Wagner in The Greatest Composer poll despite the fact that he is the favorite composer of many people. In addition, the best harmonist/melodist/etc. isn't essentially the best composer. It seems to me that the whole concept of "the best composer" often comes down to purely individual preferences.


----------



## Agamenon (Apr 22, 2019)

Wagner, after Tristan und Isolde harmony wasn´t the same.


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

annaw said:


> In addition, the best harmonist/melodist/etc. isn't essentially the best composer. It seems to me that the whole concept of "the best composer" often comes down to purely individual preferences.


Define "best composer" or "best harmonist/melodist/etc"...
How can you even judge someone's harmony or melody writing skills? What if they chose not to write overcomplicated melody/harmony, so musical texture is not heavy at all? Is such composer less talented than the one writing "fat" chords, polyphonic melodies in several voices, complex rhythms and chromatic melodies?
Let's look at the extreme case:
Maximalism = noise. See any of these modernist that produce something close to white/brown noise ("new complexity composers "). Is their music any good for the general listener?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

BabyGiraffe said:


> Define "best composer" or "best harmonist/melodist/etc"...
> How can you even judge someone's harmony or melody writing skills? What if they chose not to write overcomplicated melody/harmony, so musical texture is not heavy at all? Is such composer less talented than the one writing "fat" chords, polyphonic melodies in several voices, complex rhythms and chromatic melodies?
> Let's look at the extreme case:
> Maximalism = noise. See any of these modernist that produce something close to white/brown noise ("new complexity composers "). Is their music any good for the general listener?


That's similar to what I was trying to say with my last sentence  . In that case it would probably be reasonable to define "the best composer" = winner of the poll and same applies to the other categories (although my point would still remain pretty much the same even if we assumed that there theoretically exists "the best composer/harmonist/melodist/etc.") But as I also said myself, all this comes down to personal preferences and that is also the reason why people prefer different composers.


----------



## Agamenon (Apr 22, 2019)

Composers are masters of melody, harmony, rythm, etc. They are judges of themselves and judges of other composers. There are lots and lots of examples that show how many composers admire or criticize other composers.:

Beethoven vs Rossini skills as harmonist./ Stravinsky vs Wagner as melodist/ Debussy vs Beethoven.... !

How they know? Take for example this sentence:

"Mary have a chicken and a apple"

How do you know that my writing skills are uneven?


----------



## Beebert (Jan 3, 2019)

Agamenon said:


> Wagner, after Tristan und Isolde harmony wasn´t the same.


And yet, Chopin did the same thing Wagner did, before Wagner did it. He did so in his late masterpieces for piano, and people havent noticed to what a degree he had already achieved this complexity in his piano music before Wagner did it in his operas.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

annaw said:


> One thing that probably affects The Greatest Composer poll is the fact that Wagner was (mainly) only opera composer and there are quite many people who really like classical music in general but don't enjoy operas. So if you just don't like opera you aren't probably going to vote for Wagner in The Greatest Composer poll despite the fact that he is the favorite composer of many people. In addition, the best harmonist/melodist/etc. isn't essentially the best composer. It seems to me that the whole concept of "the best composer" often comes down to purely individual preferences.


Chopin has 17.54% for his harmony but only 2% as best composer.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Beebert said:


> And yet, Chopin did the same thing Wagner did, before Wagner did it. He did so in his late masterpieces for piano, and people havent noticed to what a degree he had already achieved this complexity in his piano music before Wagner did it in his operas.


 I believe that's very true. Chopin was years ahead of Wagner, but Wagner caught on. Wagner had his roots more in Beethoven and Weber at the beginning and his piano music shows the evolution of his style that evolved into his operas. A listing of these works can be found at YouTube:






By his late teens, Chopin had essentially found himself stylistically and harmonically, quite evident in his piano concertos and other early works with orchestra, and Wagner had a ways to go. There was about a three-year difference in their ages and Chopin was born first and had a head start in his advanced harmonic development and kept evolving throughout his life. Virtually everything he wrote is full of incredible harmonic details and subtleties. He went where his feelings took him and greatly expanded the emotional and harmonic range of the piano. He was also way ahead of Liszt and Schumann in the beginning. Brahms and Tchaikovsky also knew his works. From his mighty keyboard he did wonders and was considerably influential. Chopin's harmonic roots were fundamentally in Bach and Mozart, Hummel and Field, a few others, and he took what he wanted from them and took it farther. Way farther. Not to mention that he was also a melodic genius.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Beebert said:


> And yet, *Chopin did the same thing Wagner did*, before Wagner did it. He did so in his late masterpieces for piano, and people havent noticed to what a degree *he had already achieved this complexity in his piano music before Wagner did it in his operas.*


This is simply not true. Wagner was indebted to Chopin, but there are quite a few harmonic progressions and usages in Wagner that Chopin did not employ, and Chopin doesn't approach Wagner in structuring lengthy, yet cohesive, spans of chromatic writing. There are long passages in _Parsifal_ of a harmonic complexity and subtlety far beyond anything Chopin imagined. It's also worth remembering that chromatic harmony was not Chopin's invention; it crops up now and again throughout the history of tonal music.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Larkenfield said:


> I believe that's very true. Chopin was years ahead of Wagner, but Wagner caught on. Wagner had his roots more in Beethoven and Weber at the beginning and his piano music shows the evolution of his style that evolved into his operas. A listing of these works can be found at YouTube:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What's the point of citing Wagner's piano music, which is mainly early stuff of no particular importance except to musicologists? It's just not correct to say that it "shows the evolution of his style that evolved into his operas."


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

I'm not really a major fan of Wagner, but there is no doubt he was a giant in terms of harmonic innovation (including inspired instrumentation choices to bring out harmonic color) which is I why I voted for him. I would also have put Liszt in a higher estimation than is usual.

There are a lot of contenders, some are not even in this list.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

janxharris said:


> Chopin has 17.54% for his harmony but only 2% as best composer.





janxharris said:


> According to TC poll - The Greatest Composer, Wagner got 6% of the vote, and yet here his harmony is much 'better' at 38%.


that greatest composer poll isn't restricted to Romantic period composers only.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Larkenfield said:


> I believe that's very true. Chopin was years ahead of Wagner, but Wagner caught on. Wagner had his roots more in Beethoven and Weber at the beginning and his piano music shows the evolution of his style that evolved into his operas.
> There was about a three-year difference in their ages and Chopin was born first and had a head start in his advanced harmonic development and kept evolving throughout his life. Virtually *everything he wrote is full of incredible harmonic details and subtleties. *He went where his feelings took him and greatly expanded the emotional and harmonic range of the piano. He was also way ahead of Liszt and Schumann in the beginning.





Beebert said:


> And yet, Chopin did the same thing Wagner did, before Wagner did it. He did so in his late masterpieces for piano, and people havent noticed to what a degree he had already achieved this complexity in his piano music before Wagner did it in his operas.


Yes, there are some great works like Barcarolle, Ballade No.4 in late Chopin. 
But unfortunately, a lot of late Chopin isn't like them. 
"everything he wrote is full of incredible harmonic details and subtleties. " --- Are you sure about this?
Have you ever thought how unfair it is people ridicule Wagner for his American Centennial March,
but not Chopin for his Heroic Polonaise (1842)?

_"This composition is one of Chopin's most admired compositions and has long been a favorite of the classical piano repertoire."_
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonaise_in_A-flat_major,_Op._53


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

mikeh375 said:


> Part writing in its technical ( 4 part even) sense for Chopin was not as vital an element of composition as it was in the classical era,


This still doesn't change the fact Chopin had smaller set of skills and narrower compositional palette than other greats such as Wagner. It shows in his way of writing.
Let's look up definition of the word 'harmony': "the combination of simultaneously sounded musical notes to produce chords and chord progressions having a pleasing effect." Chopin's left hand isn't totally interesting most of the time, except some masterpieces like Etudes, Barcarolle, Ballade No.4. I wouldn't say he's the most interesting composer in this regard.



mikeh375 said:


> emphasis in his sensibilities lay elsewhere, which included a personal pianism and development of such.


Again, I made an analogy to Ravel's Bolero: just because Bolero is an unique piece of music emphasizing on rhythm, (in a way totally new for its time) it doesn't automatically make it a masterpiece in melody and harmony. I would say just because something is "pianistic" or the composer knew how to write for the instrument as everybody claims,
it doesn't make it also exceptional (in terms of harmony and stuff) as "music". To determine how skillfully written it is as "music", you need to look from a different perspective. As I said you could claim Op.44, Op.53 are very pianistically written. (Like, fit under hands very well and naturally for for pianists and stuff) But are they really that great in terms of harmony, the composer's depth of understanding in "music"?



mikeh375 said:


> I can't agree that his part writing is inferior, *it's just different*, as it should be.


This still validates my point. There are no grounds to call Chopin *the absolute best*. 
If requested to harmonize a chorale, he wouldn't have managed it. He wouldn't been able to manage duties of a Kapellmeister, like Hummel. He wasn't totally complete as a composer of "music". 
To say that "he was unique, that's all" would be enough.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> Yes, there are some great works like Barcarolle, Ballade No.4 in late Chopin.
> But unfortunately, a lot of late Chopin isn't like them.
> "everything he wrote is full of incredible harmonic details and subtleties. " --- Are you sure about this?
> *Have you ever thought how unfair it is people ridicule Wagner for his American Centennial March,
> ...


People here are indeed making some rather extravagant claims for Chopin. But need we go as far as this in debunking them?

Even lovers of Wagner have to admit that his American commission was a potboiler - not without vigor, charm and ingenuity, but short on tunes for its length, and not the least bit American (he should have ordered some American songs to study). He himself said that the best thing about it was the money he got for it. There is, though, a brief, quiet violin line at 2:40 that sounds uncannily like something from Mahler (though I can't quite place it):






In comparison, Chopin's "Military" Polonaise is a well-shaped piece with great tunes and typically effective piano writing, definitely a more satisfying entity than Wagner's somewhat overinflated march. It isn't Chopin at his most profound, and I think a few of the other polonaises have more depth of expression, but it's effective as what it is, and its popularity is quite understandable.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

hammeredklavier said:


> that greatest composer poll isn't restricted to Romantic period composers only.


Indeed - my initial reference was for Beethoven - a significant incongruence.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> This still doesn't change the fact Chopin had smaller set of skills and narrower compositional palette than other greats such as Wagner. It shows in his way of writing.
> Let's look up definition of the word 'harmony': "the combination of simultaneously sounded musical notes to produce chords and chord progressions having a pleasing effect." Chopin's left hand isn't totally interesting most of the time, except some masterpieces like Etudes, Barcarolle, Ballade No.4. I wouldn't say he's the most interesting composer in this regard


It's clear his palette was limited, all I was suggesting was that he had all he needed for his expression. I don't necessarily equate an individual approach as displaying inferior skill if it does not conform to an earlier or (absurdly), later practice, especially as it is beyond doubt that his work also contains masterpieces, ones that do display awareness of conventions. Your emphasis on the left hand writing seems to me to be more an idiomatic concern, but to me all is in place beautifully for what it is.



hammeredklavier said:


> Again, I made an analogy to Ravel's Bolero: just because Bolero is an unique piece of music emphasizing on rhythm, (in a way totally new for its time) it doesn't automatically make it a masterpiece in melody and harmony. I would say just because something is "pianistic" or the composer knew how to write for the instrument as everybody claims,
> it doesn't make it also exceptional (in terms of harmony and stuff) as "music". To determine how skillfully written it is as "music", you need to look from a different perspective. As I said you could claim Op.44, Op.53 are very pianistically written. (Like, fit under hands very well and naturally for for pianists and stuff) But are they really that great in terms of harmony, the composer's depth of understanding in "music"?


Well of course his music is pianistic, that much any pianist knows (me included) and I agree with you that excellence in one aspect does not imply overall excellence.
I respectfully disagree about your "different perspective" in a particular sense, although I do understand your meaning generally speaking. If the music moves one (and Chopin so often does) then to hell with absurd forum comparisons and procedural appraisals that attempt to compare different approaches that have actually achieved the same outcome - music. The skill and aim is to engage and move the listener, the method is irrelevant (and I say that as a trained composer). The methods the composer uses are precisely what he needs to achieve a work and those methods are subjugated to the composers' aesthetics and his/her place in time. Chopin chooses to write the way he does because it suits his proclivities and in that sense he is not limited. His work is valid and there is no need for comparisons imv.



hammeredklavier said:


> This still validates my point. There are no grounds to call Chopin *the absolute best*.
> If requested to harmonize a chorale, he wouldn't have managed it. He wouldn't been able to manage duties of a Kapellmeister, like Hummel. He wasn't totally complete as a composer of "music".
> To say that "he was unique, that's all" would be enough.


 I personally didn't call him the absolute best (in fact I played this dumb game and voted for Wagner). Kids are being churned out of academies across the world every year, who can competently harmonise a choral. To believe Chopin couldn't harmonise a choral is just too silly. Of course he could have, there might have been some parallel fifths, who knows,...and......who cares, it would have doubtless been beautiful.
Yes, to say he is unique is more than quite enough, most composers would take that.


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

Surprised the famous nocturne 27/2 hasn't been mentioned yet. The harmonies here are unbelievable. No-one could listen to this and not accept that Chopin was one of the greatest harmonists ever.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

One of the most beautiful indeed Gallus


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Gallus said:


> Surprised the famous nocturne 27/2 hasn't been mentioned yet. The harmonies here are unbelievable. No-one could listen to this and not accept that Chopin was one of the greatest harmonists ever.


What a miraculous performance with countless refinements and subtleties by Moravec. Chopin writes with great, sophisticated harmonic freedom that's often melodically highly chromatic, written in 1836 when he was 26. Everyone else sounds like a barbarian after an exquisite composition and performance like this.  I am often reminded of one of the famous Russian Faberge eggs in the consummate refinement of details and harmonic craftsmanship that can be found in Chopin's creations.


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

But of course the Romantic whose harmonic language I enjoy the most is my avatar, inexcusably missing from the poll.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Gallus said:


> Surprised the famous nocturne 27/2 hasn't been mentioned yet. The harmonies here are unbelievable. No-one could listen to this and not accept that Chopin was one of the greatest harmonists ever.







It's the general style of the nocturne form originally founded by John Field, 
I admit Op.27 No.2 is better than Berceuse with that constant vamp on D flat. Chopin did expand on the form and his nocturnes often sound more elaborate melodically, heavily inspired by the bel canto style of Rossini, Bellini Donizetti. Generally his nocturnes are better in quality than Waltzes and Mazurkas (Op.48 No.2, Op.55 No.2, Op.62 No.1 & 2 being the most notable ones) But still, none of them strike me as being structurally masterful or inspired or influential as Wagner's finest masterpieces, and I doubt if Debussy would have admired Chopin that much if Chopin was German, and Field, Hummel were French.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Gallus said:


> Surprised the famous nocturne 27/2 hasn't been mentioned yet. The harmonies here are unbelievable. No-one could listen to this and not accept that Chopin was one of the greatest harmonists ever.


Gosh that is a bit too slow for me. I prefer something closer to the metronome mark. Still it's one of his most beautiful pieces and although slow I do admire the playing for sure.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

....................


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> There are indeed sections in Chopin's work with harmonic detail, but also, ones riddled with muddy, monotonous methods and still are regarded high by those numerous Chopin-favoring piano players and piano fans everywhere. Chopin wrote less music than most other greats, but I can't say the general quality of his output is any better than theirs. Speaking of Chopin's nocturnes, the middle section of Op.48 No.1 strikes me as being somewhat a cheap way to start and end a climax.
> I consider Etude Op.25 No.10 interesting in this regard, with the inner voices within the octaves, and some passages of hands going in different directions. Ironically, Op.48 No.1 strikes me as being a "finger exercise" more than Op.25 No.10.
> 
> View attachment 121608


Chopin is not "riddled with muddy passages." In your dreams maybe. He wrote textures that are often very harp-like and have great harmonic color, vibrancy, mood and atmosphere that usually have escaped your appreciation and notice because you highly prefer the Classicists where everything more objectively and literally spelled out. You're the only one who's ever complained about Chopin being muddy that I've ever heard unless it's that God awful David Wright. Whatever Chopin writes is meticulously worked out with tremendous care and harmonic subtleties and they're deliberate, conscious, often full of magic and romance. The sense of romance. Remember that? Without it life dries up.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> The only thing that one might hesitate over here is the word "best." That word tends to become synonymous with "preferred" in threads like this. Of course there is no arguing with preferences. I myself am particularly fond of the harmonic styles of Schubert, Grieg, Sibelius, and late Rachmaninoff.
> 
> But if we take the question to mean something more objective, such as "most complete master of the possibilities of harmony, both structural and expressive," then the obvious answer is Wagner (and we could reasonably omit the qualifier "among the Romantics" as well).
> 
> I think it would be awfully hard for anyone who has sat at the piano and worked his way through the scores of _Tristan_ and _Parsifal_ to argue with this. Debussy, Mahler, Strauss, Schoenberg, Berg, Verdi, Puccini, Reger, and (we can safely assume) practically every other composer in Wagner's wake all opened and studied his scores, and when they got sufficiently past feeling amazed and intimidated, they assimilated the most profound harmony lessons anyone could hope to receive.


It would also be difficult to argue against Sibelius when one considers the unique sound worlds he creates in symphonies 4, 5, 6 and 7 along with Tapiola. Apart from The Tristan prelude I'm not hearing this as much, so far, from Wagner. Sibelius avoids many of the well-worn paths of Romanticism. - usually one can trace some semblance of harmonic borrowing but I rarely find this with his latter works.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

janxharris said:


> It would also be difficult to argue against Sibelius when one considers the unique sound worlds he creates in symphonies 4, 5, 6 and 7 along with Tapiola. Apart from The Tristan prelude I'm not hearing this as much, so far, from Wagner. Sibelius avoids many of the well-worn paths of Romanticism. - usually one can trace some semblance of harmonic borrowing but I rarely find this with his latter works.


What do you mean by "argue against Sibelius"? I don't think anyone would dispute Sibelius's originality. Are you suggesting him as a candidate for the "best harmonist among the Romantics"? To what extent is he a Romantic composer? And is a comparison with Wagner meaningful? What "well-worn paths" did Wagner travel? The "unique sound world " of _Tristan_ was created in the 1850s - it's a whole mind-blowing opera, not just a prelude to the first act - and a great deal happened in music in the half-century between then and Sibelius's 4th symphony, particularly the innovative work of Debussy. _Tapiola_ would not exist without Debussy - and for that matter, Sibelius's 7th symphony (1924) wouldn't exist without _Parsifal_ (1882). I hear Sibelius's originality residing more in his structures, textures and orchestral color than in his harmony regarded in isolation. But then, as has been pointed out here, it's pretty meaningless to look at harmony in isolation.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

While this whole 'greatest' thing is a crock, surprising there is not a single vote for Schumann, who was the equal of anyone on the list


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> What do you mean by "argue against Sibelius"? I don't think anyone would dispute Sibelius's originality. Are you suggesting him as a candidate for the "best harmonist among the Romantics"? To what extent is he a Romantic composer? And is a comparison with Wagner meaningful? What "well-worn paths" did Wagner travel? The "unique sound world " of _Tristan_ was created in the 1850s - it's a whole mind-blowing opera, not just a prelude to the first act - and a great deal happened in music in the half-century between then and Sibelius's 4th symphony, particularly the innovative work of Debussy. _Tapiola_ would not exist without Debussy - and for that matter, Sibelius's 7th symphony (1924) wouldn't exist without _Parsifal_ (1882). I hear Sibelius's originality residing more in his structures, textures and orchestral color than in his harmony regarded in isolation. But then, as has been pointed out here, it's pretty meaningless to look at harmony in isolation.


Sibelius was clearly influenced by Tchaikovsky in his early compositions - but this makes him only partially Romantic of course. Wagner's music has the distinct flavour of Romanticism which is evident harmonically even in Parsifal. I'm not hearing much that is radical in the Transformation music you posted.

Not sure of you point regarding Sibelius's influences.

Since we both have reservations regarding the meaningfulness of this thread then I wonder why you appealed to objectivity? For me, the sound world of Tapiola and the latter symphonies is radical and achieved through his unique harmony which, I would argue, isn't easy to imitate. On the other hand, much of Wagner seems to have readily seeped into Mahler's compositions.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Chopin, though I only love his Nocturnes & Waltzes.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Chopin, though I only love his Nocturnes & Waltzes.


How much of his other works have you heard? You're missing out on a lot of excellent music, my friend. I would start with the 24 Preludes.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

flamencosketches said:


> How much of his other works have you heard? You're missing out on a lot of excellent music, my friend. I would start with the 24 Preludes.


What cycle do you suggest?


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Captainnumber36 said:


> What cycle do you suggest?











This is the one that got me hooked.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

flamencosketches said:


> View attachment 121866
> 
> 
> This is the one that got me hooked.


Thanks, I also love the albums of your username and avatar.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> I believe that's very true. Chopin was years ahead of Wagner, but Wagner caught on. Wagner had his roots more in Beethoven and Weber at the beginning and his piano music shows the evolution of his style that evolved into his operas. A listing of these works can be found at YouTube:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I love this post, it inspires me. I also love the new Buddha avatar, :cheers:!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

flamencosketches said:


> View attachment 121866
> 
> 
> This is the one that got me hooked.


I am listening to it and it is fantastic! What next?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Natalie Schwamova:


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I am listening to it and it is fantastic! What next?


If you like Martha, her recordings of Chopin's Scherzi are also great. In addition to her recordings of the 2nd and 3rd piano sonatas. I especially like the 3rd.

For the Mazurkas, another rich body of works, I really like Idil Biret, as well as Artur Rubinstein for a bit of a more historical recording.

Also, make sure you check out the Ballades, they are phenomenal. My favorite recording of them probably is Samson François.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Bwv 1080 said:


> While this whole 'greatest' thing is a crock, surprising there is not a single vote for Schumann, who was the equal of anyone on the list


I do think Schumann's use of harmony was excellent, though not as influential as Chopin or Wagner. At times I perceive some Chopin influence in Schumann's music, though in many pieces I hear a unique use of harmony that strikes me as quite distinct from any other composer.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I may have to surrender my CM Listener's License, but I have no idea what it means to be a great harmonist.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

MarkW said:


> I may have to surrender my CM Listener's License, but I have no idea what it means to be a great harmonist.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

.................


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Larkenfield said:


> Cheap shots are easy to find, pal.


I'm not sure what's going on here or what you're trying to say. You think Fabulin was actually sarcastically ridiculing Chopin by citing his posthumous A minor Waltz as an example of his harmony? You think it's somehow 'not great' in terms of harmony?


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

DeepR said:


> I'd add Bruckner & Scriabin to the list of great romantic harmonists.


Agree.
I'll add Glazunov and Bax to the mix.


----------

