# Mozart or Chopin: Piano Works



## Captainnumber36

I'm comparing Chopin, a man known primarily for his keyboard works to Mozart, a well rounded musician (or a man who excelled at just about everything he did).

For me, I think I actually pick Mozart. He is so clean, pure and concise, it is such a pleasure to listen to. Everyday I'm understanding more and more why Mozart is regarded so highly above the other composers.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I could have made a poll, but that would have deterred from discussion anyways!


----------



## jdec

"Mozart encompasses the entire domain of musical creation, but I've got only the keyboard in my poor head." - Chopin

Both have their own charm.


----------



## Captainnumber36

jdec said:


> "Mozart encompasses the entire domain of musical creation, but I've got only the keyboard in my poor head." - Chopin
> 
> Both have their own charm.


Yes yes, you can love both, of course!


----------



## Captainnumber36

I feel Chopin gets overly complicated at times, and it just hurts my head. I don't find it fluid and elegant (aside from the Nocturnes, generally speaking, which I feel all blur together). Perhaps that is its appeal, however!


----------



## Captainnumber36

I think I'm finding myself appreciating Baroque, Impressionistic and Classical eras best along with Strauss, which I know that opinion will turn heads around here. I love those Waltzes!


----------



## Larkenfield

If I had to choose it would be Mozart. His music works in every setting that I’ve tested it in, from intensive listening, to parties, to background music. He’s the only one, not Bach or Beethoven either because Bach can be too busy and Beethoven too rambunctious or bombastic and spoil the mood, especially when I’m working or studying; they end up becoming a distraction or an interference. I’ve tested countless others in the same way. But Mozart? Never. Ever. That’s why for me he’s the greatest musician who has ever lived and his works are earmarked with genius; if I don’t know who to listen to he’s always the last resort. It’s like he’s always in the creative zone of perfect balance and perfection. Chopin has genius too but he has his dramatic emotional up-and-downs that can sometimes be emotionally distracting or fatiguing. Still, I consider him one of the greatest melodists and harmonists of all time... Incidentally, Gustav Mahler’s final words were, “Mozart!, Mozart!”


----------



## Captainnumber36

Larkenfield said:


> If I had to choose it would be Mozart. His music works in every setting that I've tested it in, from intensive listening, to parties, to background music. He's the only one, not Bach or Beethoven either because Bach can be too busy and Beethoven too rambunctious or sometimes bombastic to spoil the mood, especially when I'm working or studying; they end up becoming a distraction or an interference. But Mozart? Never. Ever. That's why for me he's the greatest musician who's ever lived and his works are earmarked with genius; and if I don't know who to listen to, he's always the last resort. Chopin's a genius to but is far more emotional and has his up-and-down moods that I'm not always in the mood for. Still a great genius.


That's an interesting point. I'll have to put it to the test as well! I just like it when music is glorious and makes good sense and feel the Baroque and Classical eras achieve this the most, for me at least.


----------



## Bulldog

I love the piano music of both composers, but I'd take Chopin first. Actually, I prefer Haydn's solo piano works to Mozart's.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Bulldog said:


> I love the piano music of both composers, but I'd take Chopin first. Actually, I prefer Haydn's solo piano works to Mozart's.


I love Brendel (our favorite) playing Haydn and Mozart Piano Sonatas.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Captainnumber36 said:


> I feel Chopin gets overly complicated at times, and it just hurts my head. I don't find it fluid and elegant (aside from the Nocturnes, generally speaking, which I feel all blur together). Perhaps that is its appeal, however!


From threads like this, I get an impression you're trying to stir up shitstorm everytime. After all you have a history of sarcastically mocking Mozart using Beethoven and Romantic composers. Can you just not do it? We all know they're apples and oranges: there's an aspect of Romanticism unique to Chopin that Mozart did not explore. As well, there's a kind of complexity in Mozart that Chopin did not replicate.


----------



## Captainnumber36

hammeredklavier said:


> From threads like this, I get an impression you're trying to stir up shitstorm everytime. After all you have a history of sarcastically mocking Mozart using Beethoven and Romantic composers. Can you just not do it? We all know they're apples and oranges: there's an aspect of Romanticism unique to Chopin that Mozart did not explore. As well, there's a kind of complexity in Mozart that Chopin did not replicate.


I'm not trying to be a troll or cause trouble, not on purpose at least!


----------



## Captainnumber36

I found it to be an interesting topic. I really do find quite a bit of Chopin to be overly complex, just like Rachmaninoff, and I am entitled to that opinion.

I didn't state it in a rude way.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> I found it to be an interesting topic. I really do find *quite a bit of Chopin to be overly complex*, just like Rachmaninoff, and I am entitled to that opinion.
> 
> I didn't state it in a rude way.


I'm a bit surprised by this statement. Much of Chopin is considered to be pretty direct and not too demanding on the ears.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm a bit surprised by this statement. Much of Chopin is considered to be pretty direct and not too demanding on the ears.


There is something "jumbled" about a lot of it outside of the Waltzes and Nocturnes for me, at least what I've heard.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I think I love every Waltz he wrote, but as I said above, the Nocturnes kind of blur together to my ears and begin to all have a very similar feel to them.


----------



## DBLee

It's a difficult comparison, as Mozart is the epitome of classical, and Chopin is the epitome of romantic solo piano. As an overall composer, I do see Mozart as far superior. But Chopin was very good in his niche. If we are limiting this specifically to *solo* piano works, I would take Chopin. But if we are including piano concertos, I might take Mozart by the slimmest of margins.


----------



## Captainnumber36

DBLee said:


> It's a difficult comparison, as Mozart is the epitome of classical, and Chopin is the epitome of romantic solo piano. As an overall composer, I do see Mozart as far superior. But Chopin was very good in his niche. If we are limiting this specifically to *solo* piano works, I would take Chopin. But if we are including piano concertos, I might take Mozart by the slimmest of margins.


solo piano...........


----------



## Captainnumber36

For a more romantic touch to the piano, I go to Debussy.


----------



## Captainnumber36

It would be tougher for me to pick between Bach and Mozart, and it would probably end in a tie.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Larkenfield said:


> If I had to choose it would be Mozart....He's the only one, not Bach or Beethoven either because Bach can be too busy and Beethoven too rambunctious or bombastic and spoil the mood...


My sentiments exactly.


----------



## Rogerx

Captainnumber36 said:


> Yes yes, you can love both, of course!


I do love both.......of course!


----------



## Lisztian

Chopin, no contest for me.


----------



## Mandryka

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm comparing Chopin, a man known primarily for his keyboard works to Mozart, a well rounded musician (or a man who excelled at just about everything he did).
> 
> For me, I think I actually pick Mozart. He is so clean, pure and concise, it is such a pleasure to listen to. Everyday I'm understanding more and more why Mozart is regarded so highly above the other composers.


You should check out Chopin performance by Stefan Askenase. He was inspired by the idea that Chopin was a Mozartian in spirit.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DBLee said:


> If we are limiting this specifically to *solo* piano works, I would take Chopin. But if we are including piano concertos, I might take Mozart by the slimmest of margins.


If we are limiting specifically to *solo* keyboard, I would say Mozart is still unbeaten by Beethoven or Chopin in terms of quantity and variety. I think it's fair to compare that way cause we don't compare Bach's "piano-only" works with Beethoven's or Chopin's. We always say "Bach's keyboard works" not "Bach's piano works". People often forget Mozart belongs in the 18th century tradition with the Bachs.










I consider K608 as the most ideal fusion of counterpoint with a kind of operatic drama like "der holle rache kocht in meinem herzen".










Prelude from K394 is an underrated work that anticipates stormy piano sonatas of Beethoven. (What I mean by 'underrated' - if you look at general piano students today, all they know about Mozart is his more popular piano sonatas and variations in C major K265, not many of them care to look at how good his Fantasie K475 is, for example.)


----------



## jegreenwood

Larkenfield said:


> If I had to choose it would be Mozart. His music works in every setting that I've tested it in, from intensive listening, to parties, to background music. He's the only one, not Bach or Beethoven either because Bach can be too busy and Beethoven too rambunctious or bombastic and spoil the mood, especially when I'm working or studying; they end up becoming a distraction or an interference. I've tested countless others in the same way. But Mozart? Never. Ever. That's why for me he's the greatest musician who has ever lived and his works are earmarked with genius; if I don't know who to listen to he's always the last resort. It's like he's always in the creative zone of perfect balance and perfection. Chopin has genius too but he has his dramatic emotional up-and-downs that can sometimes be emotionally distracting or fatiguing. Still, I consider him one of the greatest melodists and harmonists of all time... Incidentally, Gustav Mahler's final words were, "Mozart!, Mozart!"


I agree with your assessment of Mozart. (I had a near religious experience listening to the clarinet quintet last night.) However, Cap36 clarified in a later post that he was referring only to solo piano music. In that case, my choice would be Chopin. When I choose a solo piano recording for close listening, I will turn to Chopin more often than to Mozart.


----------



## flamencosketches

For solo piano, I definitely give it to Chopin. He is one of the greatest solo piano composers of all time, alongside Robert Schumann, Ludwig van Beethoven and Claude Debussy. I don't think Mozart stands up to this lineage. However, if we're talking piano concertos, Mozart is definitely far superior. He is the greatest ever in the genre, and in truth the founder of its current tradition. The only composer who might stand up to Mozart here is Brahms. Beethoven wrote some great piano concertos, but still I consider him to be not even close to Mozart's level in this genre. 

I'm not all that interested in Mozart's solo piano works these days, though I acknowledge much of it is great. I much prefer that of his contemporaries Haydn and Beethoven.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

What's the classic saying about Mozart's piano works? "Too simple for children, too complex for adults." I've always found them grossly underrated, though also with an understanding of why they are so. They lack the richness and complexity of Bach's; there's nothing of the cosmic implications of Beethoven's; Schumann, Liszt, Chopin, et al. brought a level of poetry and introspection that Mozart's also lack. What Mozart's piano music is, however, is among the most pure, guileless, charming music ever written. Strip away all the technique, all the competitive desire to impress, to display one's talent and genius, and what you're left with is sparkling melody after sparkling melody. Hours of child-like pleasure that's almost nostalgic in how it's able to rewind the clock to a musical Eden. They're also utterly unique in the world of piano music in their ability to do this, which makes comparisons, for me at least, extremely difficult. 

Chopin is consistently everything Mozart is not (or rarely is). There's the profound poetry, the depth of thought and feeling, the rich exploration of inner and outer worlds, the complex textures and moods and evocations. There's also a much more innovative and original musical language that was influential to Romanticism in general. Chopin is able to take you places with that lone instrument that so few composers are able to take you with the strength of an entire orchestra or chamber ensemble at their disposal. That certainly speaks to a rare talent and genius. 

If I were forced to choose between, the thought of losing Mozart's piano music is tremendously saddening, but the thought of losing Chopin's would be grievous. That said, I also understand why someone attracted to Mozart's piano works could dislike Chopin (and/or Schumann, Beethoven, et al.). You aren't going to find in Romanticism the clarity/purity that Mozart possessed. In some respects, it's almost like learning a new language, but I'd highly recommend taking the time to understand that language as Romantic piano music is some of the most rewarding out there.


----------



## Art Rock

I like the Mozart piano sonatas, but I'd trade them in for the Chopin nocturnes. Throw in all the other works, and it's really no contest for me.


----------



## jegreenwood

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think I love every Waltz he wrote, but as I said above, the Nocturnes kind of blur together to my ears and begin to all have a very similar feel to them.


Have you listened to the Mazurkas?


----------



## flamencosketches

jegreenwood said:


> Have you listened to the Mazurkas?


Or the Préludes, or the Scherzi, or the Ballades, or the Sonatas, or etc etc...?


----------



## Captainnumber36

Eva Yojimbo said:


> What's the classic saying about Mozart's piano works? "Too simple for children, too complex for adults." I've always found them grossly underrated, though also with an understanding of why they are so. They lack the richness and complexity of Bach's; there's nothing of the cosmic implications of Beethoven's; Schumann, Liszt, Chopin, et al. brought a level of poetry and introspection that Mozart's also lack. What Mozart's piano music is, however, is among the most pure, guileless, charming music ever written. Strip away all the technique, all the competitive desire to impress, to display one's talent and genius, and what you're left with is sparkling melody after sparkling melody. Hours of child-like pleasure that's almost nostalgic in how it's able to rewind the clock to a musical Eden. They're also utterly unique in the world of piano music in their ability to do this, which makes comparisons, for me at least, extremely difficult.
> 
> Chopin is consistently everything Mozart is not (or rarely is). There's the profound poetry, the depth of thought and feeling, the rich exploration of inner and outer worlds, the complex textures and moods and evocations. There's also a much more innovative and original musical language that was influential to Romanticism in general. Chopin is able to take you places with that lone instrument that so few composers are able to take you with the strength of an entire orchestra or chamber ensemble at their disposal. That certainly speaks to a rare talent and genius.
> 
> If I were forced to choose between, the thought of losing Mozart's piano music is tremendously saddening, but the thought of losing Chopin's would be grievous. That said, I also understand why someone attracted to Mozart's piano works could dislike Chopin (and/or Schumann, Beethoven, et al.). You aren't going to find in Romanticism the clarity/purity that Mozart possessed. In some respects, it's almost like learning a new language, but I'd highly recommend taking the time to understand that language as Romantic piano music is some of the most rewarding out there.


As always, a very thoughtful reply. Thanks!


----------



## Captainnumber36

jegreenwood said:


> Have you listened to the Mazurkas?


I've heard a little bit of everything and all the waltzes/nocturnes/Ballades/Etudes.


----------



## Mandryka

Captainnumber36 said:


> the Nocturnes kind of blur together to my ears and begin to all have a very similar feel to them.


When Sergio Fiorentino decides to explore the nocturnes as a whole, he set himself the objective of finding a distinct voice for each.


----------



## jegreenwood

Captainnumber36 said:


> I've heard a little bit of everything and all the waltzes/nocturnes/Ballades/Etudes.


I mention the Mazurkas because, like the Waltzes, they derive from a dance form.


----------



## Jacck

Alkan = Liszt = Chopin
All of these 3 are equally great in my mind. Chopin is too sugary for me, but I recognize his greatness. Alkan is very underrated imho. His music is percussion like, but once you get used to his style, he is amazing. And Liszt wrote the best piano sonata ever.


----------



## flamencosketches

Jacck said:


> *And Liszt wrote the best piano sonata ever.*


Damn straight! The only composer to ever give Beethoven a run for his money in terms of the genre of piano sonata, though Schubert came somewhat close at times with his late sonatas.

No comment re: Alkan. Never heard his music, though I'm interested.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Eva Yojimbo said:


> What's the classic saying about Mozart's piano works? "Too simple for children, too complex for adults." I've always found them grossly underrated, though also with an understanding of why they are so. They lack the richness and complexity of Bach's; there's nothing of the cosmic implications of Beethoven's; Schumann, Liszt, Chopin, et al. brought a level of poetry and introspection that Mozart's also lack. What Mozart's piano music is, however, is among the most pure, guileless, charming music ever written. Strip away all the technique, all the competitive desire to impress, to display one's talent and genius, and what you're left with is sparkling melody after sparkling melody. Hours of child-like pleasure that's almost nostalgic in how it's able to rewind the clock to a musical Eden. They're also utterly unique in the world of piano music in their ability to do this, which makes comparisons, for me at least, extremely difficult.
> 
> Chopin is consistently everything Mozart is not (or rarely is). There's the profound poetry, the depth of thought and feeling, the rich exploration of inner and outer worlds, the complex textures and moods and evocations. There's also a much more innovative and original musical language that was influential to Romanticism in general. Chopin is able to take you places with that lone instrument that so few composers are able to take you with the strength of an entire orchestra or chamber ensemble at their disposal. That certainly speaks to a rare talent and genius.


Well it's a matter of personal preference, I feel there's more "intellectual depth" in Mozart's keyboard music than Chopin. Refer to my post #25. And I've mentioned many times already how I feel Chopin doesn't utilize his resources properly:
Best harmonist among the Romantics?


hammeredklavier said:


> _"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
> View attachment 121585


 As pianism or pianistic effect, as demonstrated in his Etudes and Ballades, Chopin is indeed dazzling. But as "music", Chopin doesn't really satisfy me as much as other greats. 
People like to call stuff like Prelude Op.28 No.16 in B flat minor "profound emotion" with Romantic aesthetics in mind, but I see it as just over-reliance on "beastly instincts".














I'm not sure what you mean by "cosmic implications" in Beethoven either. You just sound like one of those Beethoven-loving extremists trying to pass off all those trills and tremolos that go on continuously for 2 minutes at a time in Op.109 and Op.111 or the Hammerklavier fugue as "profound depth untouchable by Mozart and Haydn".


----------



## PlaySalieri

Eva Yojimbo said:


> What's the classic saying about Mozart's piano works? "Too simple for children, too complex for adults." I've always found them grossly underrated, though also with an understanding of why they are so. They lack the richness and complexity of Bach's; there's nothing of the cosmic implications of Beethoven's; Schumann, Liszt, Chopin, et al. brought a level of poetry and introspection that Mozart's also lack. What Mozart's piano music is, however, is among the most pure, guileless, charming music ever written. Strip away all the technique, all the competitive desire to impress, to display one's talent and genius, and what you're left with is sparkling melody after sparkling melody. Hours of child-like pleasure that's almost nostalgic in how it's able to rewind the clock to a musical Eden. They're also utterly unique in the world of piano music in their ability to do this, which makes comparisons, for me at least, extremely difficult.
> 
> Chopin is consistently everything Mozart is not (or rarely is). There's the profound poetry, the depth of thought and feeling, the rich exploration of inner and outer worlds, the complex textures and moods and evocations. There's also a much more innovative and original musical language that was influential to Romanticism in general. Chopin is able to take you places with that lone instrument that so few composers are able to take you with the strength of an entire orchestra or chamber ensemble at their disposal. That certainly speaks to a rare talent and genius.
> 
> If I were forced to choose between, the thought of losing Mozart's piano music is tremendously saddening, but the thought of losing Chopin's would be grievous. That said, I also understand why someone attracted to Mozart's piano works could dislike Chopin (and/or Schumann, Beethoven, et al.). You aren't going to find in Romanticism the clarity/purity that Mozart possessed. In some respects, it's almost like learning a new language, but I'd highly recommend taking the time to understand that language as Romantic piano music is some of the most rewarding out there.


you are usually spot on with comments about Mozart but I think you are missing the mark with your assessment of Mozart here. The minor key piano works? K310? K457 K475 and the adagio k540 not profound?


----------



## hammeredklavier

PlaySalieri said:


> you are usually spot on with comments about Mozart but I think you are missing the mark with your assessment of Mozart here. The minor key piano works? K310? K457 K475 and the adagio k540 not profound?


I'm not sure sure what Eva means by "complex texture" either. 
Should we remind ourselves of the accepted definition of "musical texture":






Now look at these:















> innovative and original musical language







"Extension of Hummel's Bachian Romanticism" would a more appropriate description for Chopin.
https://www.talkclassical.com/62398-best-harmonist-among-romantics-3.html#post1672505


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "cosmic implications" in Beethoven either. *You just sound like one of those Beethoven-loving extremists* trying to pass off all those trills and tremolos that go on continuously for 2 minutes at a time in Op.109 and Op.111 or the Hammerklavier fugue as "profound depth untouchable by Mozart and Haydn".


Considering I rate Mozart higher than Beethoven and, indeed, have become more critical of Beethoven the older I've gotten--he was, for a time, my favorite composer in my youth; now he's far behind Mozart, vying with a few others for the 2-4th spots--your assessment of me is quite far off the mark. Still, I do hear "cosmic implications" in Beethoven's late sonatas, and it has little to do with trills and tremolos.


----------



## Blancrocher

I listen to Chopin's solo piano works much more often. As an aside, it's a perennial irritation to me that my favorite Mozart piano composition, the Schubert-like Adagio in B minor, is so seldom recorded.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

PlaySalieri said:


> you are usually spot on with comments about Mozart but I think you are missing the mark with your assessment of Mozart here. The minor key piano works? K310? K457 K475 and the adagio k540 not profound?


I do love these minor key works that often seem to point towards romanticism, but they are exceptions within his output, even if they may have had the biggest influence on later composers--parts of the K457 sounds like Beethoven's Pathetique, and Schubert's D993/D2e opens like the K475. While many point to these works often to show that Mozart was, in fact, as "deep" and "poetic" as the romantics, I don't think such a thing is necessary or needed. For one, they aren't terribly representative of his solo piano work (again, exceptions) and, two, if anything, the majority of his output in the field is, IMO, more unique, and just as valuable, in the qualities I mentioned in my last post.

On a side-note, I'd also mention that K310 sounds more like a typical Mozart sonata despite being in a minor key. In that, the minor key adds just a touch of color and tension without sounding "romantic" or "profound" in nature.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I do love these minor key works that often seem to point towards romanticism, but they are exceptions within his output, even if they may have had the biggest influence on later composers--parts of the K457 sounds like Beethoven's Pathetique, and Schubert's D993/D2e opens like the K475. While many point to these works often to show that Mozart was, in fact, as "deep" and "poetic" as the romantics, I don't think such a thing is necessary or needed. For one, they aren't terribly representative of his solo piano work (again, exceptions) and, two, if anything, the majority of his output in the field is, IMO, more unique, and just as valuable, in the qualities I mentioned in my last post.
> 
> On a side-note, I'd also mention that K310 sounds more like a typical Mozart sonata despite being in a minor key. In that, the minor key adds just a touch of color and tension without sounding "romantic" or "profound" in nature.


I've been saying that, to fully grasp Mozart, Haydn (and to some extent, Beethoven), we need to move away from the mentality of thinking: "how many works are in minor key". It's pointless cause usually their goal was to start a piece in a simple key and vary emotion over the form by use of different keys. Take for example, the main section of Prelude in C major K394, the introduction and development of Sonata for 4 hands in F major K497 first movement, which I posted earlier (posts #25 and #11). Compared to the Romantic tendency to rely on miniatures in ternary forms, I think the Classical method achieves something more meaningful in the objective sense.










Conversely, I don't just consider a piece good just because it's in a minor key. Chopin's usual over-sentimentality with minor key often feels tiresome to me. If you're a piano player, try playing many of his minor key Waltzes and Mazurkas straight and you'll know what I mean. They're usually in the ternary form, with the same constant rhythm that "don't seem to go anywhere"in my view, such as this Mazurka for example:





I still insist we discuss in terms of entirety of "keyboard works" because again, Mozart belongs in the 18th century and his conception and uses of the keyboard were different from the later eras.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I'd also like to add there's some kind of weird thinking among classical music fans:
For example, when people discuss Mozart's innovations in string quartets, there's always someone who objects: "how can you not talk about Haydn?"
On the other hand, when people talk about the "uniqueness of Chopin's pianistic language" or something, somehow everyone thinks it's ok to completely forget about Field and Hummel. And nobody complains.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

^ I strongly agree that there's too much focus on how much composers used minor keys. I think there's something aesthetically attractive about minor keys to modern ears, which, after more than a turbulent century full of turbulent music, many have been (ear)-conditioned to think that the instability of minor keys and profundity of thought and feeling are inextricably intertwined. What I've found instead is that the fundamentals of sonata form often work much better when pieces begin in major keys, precisely because the development sections (or other movements), which frequently move into minor keys, provide a much stronger contrast. When everything is minor, or everything is turbulent, there's innately less contrast in this respect (meaning any contrasts must be created by other means). While I still love many romantic minor key works (including those by Chopin), it is often a relief to emerge from them into the major key worlds of Mozart and Haydn.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

hammeredklavier said:


> I'd also like to add there's some kind of weird thinking among classical music fans:
> For example, when people discuss Mozart's innovations in string quartets, there's always someone who objects: "how can you not talk about Haydn?"
> On the other hand, when people talk about the "uniqueness of Chopin's pianistic language" or something, somehow everyone thinks it's ok to completely forget about Field and Hummel. And nobody complains.


You see similar things in literature where Milton's innovations are often questioned by those who want to compare him to Shakespeare; while Wordsworth's innovations aren't questioned by people citing Cowper. A big reason for that (in both cases) is that Milton/Mozart had extremely famous predecessors, while Wordsworth and Chopin's immediate predecessors are much less well known today. I've heard some Hummel, which I quite liked, but I must admit it never occurred to me to think of Chopin; perhaps more on the Mozart/Beethoven divide. How would you say his language predicted/predated Chopin?


----------



## Larkenfield

The influence of Field and Hummel has been pointed out over the years on the forum, including by yours truly. They were important figures in Chopin's life. But Chopin took what they did so much farther and he was a superior melodist and harmonist, far more than they were. While Field and Hummel were gifted, Chopin was radiant with genius, including at a very young age. Both his piano concertos, which are still avidly played today, were written by his early 20s, and they have an idiomatic pianistic brilliance that, IMO, the other two composers just didn't have by comparison. The world preferred what _he_ had, not what they had, though some of Chopin's habitual denigrators will do everything they can to put him in a bad light to downgrade him, though virtually everything he wrote is in the standard repertoire - more than virtually anyone else. His works are like brilliant jewels full of all kinds of subtleties and finesse, which some just cannot admit to because they don't really understand him in the first place, nor what the Romantics were trying to do to greatly expand the entire emotional range of music.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I suppose we can include the Piano Concertos, I forgot Chopin had (two?) of those.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Mandryka said:


> You should check out Chopin performance by Stefan Askenase. He was inspired by the idea that Chopin was a Mozartian in spirit.


Very nice indeed!  I do love his Nocturnes.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Captainnumber36 said:


> I suppose we can include the Piano Concertos, I forgot Chopin had (two?) of those.


These days, I'm finding Hummel's melodies more interesting. (I'm serious, not trying to put down Chopin)
Chopin's concertos are not bad, considering the age he wrote them. But I feel there's a little 'perverse', 'decadent' feel to them, compared to Hummel.


----------



## Larkenfield

Hummel's 2nd Piano Concerto has been posted before and is a very fine work indeed. Concertos No. 3 and 5 are also very fine works. So the question is, why have they been virtually forgotten except by those who have an appreciation of the history of the music? Hummel is seen more as a transitional figure between the Classical and Romantic eras, and if his work wasn't so reminiscent of Chopin, though Hummel proceeded him, he would probably be played much more. Nevertheless, it's hard not to be shocked by how much Hummel influenced Chopin, and he certainly deserves to be played more. Both Hummel and Chopin were crazy about Mozart. In fact, Hummel studied with Mozart and there's such a beautiful balance and clarity in his works.



> While in Germany, Hummel published A Complete Theoretical and Practical Course of Instruction on the Art of Playing the Piano Forte (1828), which sold thousands of copies within days of its publication and brought about a new style of fingering and of playing ornaments. Later 19th century pianistic technique was influenced by Hummel, through his instruction of Carl Czerny who later taught Franz Liszt. Czerny had transferred to Hummel after studying three years with Beethoven.
> 
> Hummel's influence can also be seen in the early works of Frédéric Chopin and Robert Schumann, and the shadow of Hummel's Piano Concerto in B minor as well as his Piano Concerto in A minor can be particularly perceived in Chopin's concertos. This is unsurprising, considering that Chopin must have heard Hummel on one of the latter's concert tours to Poland and Russia, and that Chopin kept Hummel's piano concertos in his active repertoire. Harold C. Schonberg, in The Great Pianists, writes "...the openings of the Hummel A minor and Chopin E minor concertos are too close to be coincidental".[6] In relation to Chopin's Preludes, Op. 28, Schonberg says: "It also is hard to escape the notion that Chopin was very familiar with Hummel's now-forgotten Op. 67,[7] composed in 1815 - a set of twenty-four preludes in all major and minor keys, starting with C major".
> 
> His main oeuvre is for the piano, on which instrument he was one of the great virtuosi of his day. He wrote eight piano concertos, a double concerto for violin and piano, ten piano sonatas (of which four are without opus numbers, and one is still unpublished), eight piano trios, a piano quartet, a piano quintet, a wind octet, a cello sonata, two piano septets, a mandolin concerto, a mandolin sonata, a Trumpet Concerto in E major written for the keyed trumpet (usually heard in the more convenient E-flat major), a "Grand Bassoon Concerto" in F, a quartet for clarinet, violin, viola, and cello, four hand piano music, 22 operas and Singspiels, masses, and much more, including a variation on a theme supplied by Anton Diabelli for part 2 of Vaterländische. [unquote]


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> These days, I'm finding Hummel's melodies more interesting. (I'm serious, not trying to put down Chopin)
> Chopin's concertos are not bad, considering the age he wrote them. But I feel there's a little 'perverse', 'decadent' feel to them, compared to Hummel.


A little perversion and decadence are favorable qualities in music. Of course, Hummel didn't offer any of that stuff, his emotional range being rather limited. Hummel's one of my favorite unheralded composers, but his music is much less compelling than Chopin's.


----------



## Captainnumber36

hammeredklavier said:


> These days, I'm finding Hummel's melodies more interesting. (I'm serious, not trying to put down Chopin)
> Chopin's concertos are not bad, considering the age he wrote them. But I feel there's a little 'perverse', 'decadent' feel to them, compared to Hummel.


These sound great!


----------



## howlingfantods

Captainnumber36 said:


> I found it to be an interesting topic. I really do find quite a bit of Chopin to be overly complex, just like Rachmaninoff, and I am entitled to that opinion.
> 
> I didn't state it in a rude way.


Almost like Chopin's music had... too many notes?


----------



## Captainnumber36

howlingfantods said:


> Almost like Chopin's music had... too many notes?


:lol::lol::lol:
You got me there.


----------



## Larkenfield

Too many notes? He could also be the soul of simplicity in numerous Preludes and lightyears beyond Hummel and Field in Chopin's best works no matter how much he had been influenced by them... Chopin was thoroughly modern in his era and his harmonic voicings are still advanced for today... he was a revolutionary... and once he found his stride, it was masterpiece after masterpiece with the same exact care that Bach and Mozart had put into their works-two more of his important influences. I find great heart in his works that make him easy to understand.


----------



## AeolianStrains

Chopin for solo piano, Mozart for everything else. I'm mostly with Larkenfield's analysis, though I think Mozart advanced music just as far along as Chopin did. Field and Hummel are great composers, but Chopin transcends. I feel the same way about Mozart with respect of CPE Bach, Scarlatti, Boccherini, and even Haydn, not to mention his more recent contemporaries like Cherubini, Pleyel, Clementi, and Salieri. All great (and Haydn two steps above the rest, maybe one step above CPE Bach), but Mozart is in a different league.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Larkenfield said:


> Too many notes? He could also be the soul of simplicity in numersous Preludes and lightyears beyond Hummel and Field in Chopin's best works no matter how much he had been influenced by them... Chopin was thoroughly modern in his era and his harmonic voicings are still advanced for today... he was a revolutionary... and once he found his stride, it was masterpiece after masterpiece with the same exact care that Bach and Mozart had put into their works-two more of his important influences. I find great heart in his works that make him easy to understand.


I just fired this up. So far it's sounding promising, thanks for helping show me the light, or dark in this case! 

(BTW, you did realize he was quoting Amadeus and poking fun at me, right?)


----------



## Larkenfield

Unusual recital - Chopin: Introduction and Variations on a German Air ("Der Schweizerbub") for piano in E major, KK. IVa/4, CT. 227 (B. 14)






Fryderyk Chopin :
Wariacje E-dur na temat piesni "Der Schweizerbub" op. posth.
08:50) Wariacje na temat Chopina (Federico Mompou)
25:50) Wariacje i fuga na temat Preludium c-moll Chopina op. 22 (Ferruccio Busoni)
Chopin Preludes



> The story behind this composition, "Der Schweizerbub," is interesting. Chopin, a promising 16-year-old composer/pianist studying in Warsaw, was a friend of the well-to-do Sowinski family, whose matriarch was Katarzyna Sowinska. (Her husband was an important war-hero General.) She became enamored of the German song Der Schweizerbub after hearing a performance of it by renowned soprano Henriette Sontag. Madame Sowinska prevailed upon a reluctant Chopin to write variations on it. Apparently he wanted to dispatch the request as quickly as possibly, since he is said to have written the piece in less than an hour. If this account is true, it bears witness to Chopin's remarkable facility and burgeoning genius, for this is a fine, if minor composition.
> 
> After a slow introduction Chopin presents the theme, which bears a curious resemblance to the famous tune in the Marine hymn "From The Halls of Montezuma." Yet, it is lighter here and, oddly, has an Italianate sort of chipper character which might make it suited to a Rossini comedy. The variations all feature brilliant keyboard writing, with the Scherzando second brimming with color and playfulness, and the ensuing Tranquillamente variation, in contrast, somber and elegant. The last variation quickly transforms into a colorful waltz, whose thematic ties to the Schweizerbub melody are the most distant and, in a sense, the most subtle. This was Chopin's first surviving effort at a variations work, and it must be counted as an overwhelming success. [unquote]
> 
> https://www.allmusic.com/composition/introduction-and-variations-on-a-german-air-der-schweizerbub-for-piano-in-e-major-kk-iva-4-ct-227-b-14-mc0002360326


----------



## Rogerx

Chopin - Rondo a la Krakowiak
Not to be missed Captain.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Rogerx said:


> Chopin - Rondo a la Krakowiak
> Not to be missed Captain.


Very charming!


----------



## Captainnumber36

Larkenfield said:


> Unusual recital - Chopin: Introduction and Variations on a German Air ("Der Schweizerbub") for piano in E major, KK. IVa/4, CT. 227 (B. 14)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fryderyk Chopin :
> Wariacje E-dur na temat piesni "Der Schweizerbub" op. posth.
> 08:50) Wariacje na temat Chopina (Federico Mompou)
> 25:50) Wariacje i fuga na temat Preludium c-moll Chopina op. 22 (Ferruccio Busoni)
> Chopin Preludes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The story behind this composition, "Der Schweizerbub," is interesting. Chopin, a promising 16-year-old composer/pianist studying in Warsaw, was a friend of the well-to-do Sowinski family, whose matriarch was Katarzyna Sowinska. (Her husband was an important war-hero General.) She became enamored of the German song Der Schweizerbub after hearing a performance of it by renowned soprano Henriette Sontag. Madame Sowinska prevailed upon a reluctant Chopin to write variations on it. Apparently he wanted to dispatch the request as quickly as possibly, since he is said to have written the piece in less than an hour. If this account is true, it bears witness to Chopin's remarkable facility and burgeoning genius, for this is a fine, if minor composition.
> 
> After a slow introduction Chopin presents the theme, which bears a curious resemblance to the famous tune in the Marine hymn "From The Halls of Montezuma." Yet, it is lighter here and, oddly, has an Italianate sort of chipper character which might make it suited to a Rossini comedy. The variations all feature brilliant keyboard writing, with the Scherzando second brimming with color and playfulness, and the ensuing Tranquillamente variation, in contrast, somber and elegant. The last variation quickly transforms into a colorful waltz, whose thematic ties to the Schweizerbub melody are the most distant and, in a sense, the most subtle. This was Chopin's first surviving effort at a variations work, and it must be counted as an overwhelming success. [unquote]
> 
> https://www.allmusic.com/composition/introduction-and-variations-on-a-german-air-der-schweizerbub-for-piano-in-e-major-kk-iva-4-ct-227-b-14-mc0002360326
> 
> 
> 
> I listened to and enjoyed the first work. I suppose I need to devote more time to Chopin!
Click to expand...


----------



## howlingfantods

Larkenfield said:


> Too many notes? He could also be the soul of simplicity in numerous Preludes and lightyears beyond Hummel and Field in Chopin's best works no matter how much he had been influenced by them... Chopin was thoroughly modern in his era and his harmonic voicings are still advanced for today... he was a revolutionary... and once he found his stride, it was masterpiece after masterpiece with the same exact care that Bach and Mozart had put into their works-two more of his important influences. I find great heart in his works that make him easy to understand.


My post was a joke, it's a reference to this famous scene in Amadeus--






Chopin is among my favorite composers, you don't need to sell me on him


----------



## KenOC

> *After a slow introduction Chopin presents the theme, which bears a curious resemblance to the famous tune in the Marine hymn "From The Halls of Montezuma." ​*


More on that tune: "It came as quite a surprise to Sousa and Lieutenant Friedlander to learn that the composer of "The Caisson Song" was still very much alive and that the song was less than ten years old. It had been written in March, 1908, by Lieutenant Edmund L. Gruber of the U.S. Army Field Artillery at Camp Stotsenburg, Philippine Islands. The piece was composed in the presence of at least two fellow officers who assisted in writing the lyrics. No doubt Lieutenant Gruber was even more surprised to find that his song, much revised, had skyrocketed to fame. He raised no objections to Sousa's use of the song, which was serving the army's purpose so admirably.... The melody became even more popular when the Hoover Vacuum Cleaner Company adopted it as its sales song."


----------



## hammeredklavier

Larkenfield said:


> Hummel's influence can also be seen in the early works of Frédéric Chopin and Robert Schumann, and the shadow of Hummel's Piano Concerto in B minor as well as his Piano Concerto in A minor can be particularly perceived in Chopin's concertos. This is unsurprising, considering that Chopin must have heard Hummel on one of the latter's concert tours to Poland and Russia, and that Chopin kept Hummel's piano concertos in his active repertoire. Harold C. Schonberg, in The Great Pianists, writes "...the openings of the Hummel A minor and Chopin E minor concertos are too close to be coincidental".[6] In relation to Chopin's Preludes, Op. 28, Schonberg says: "It also is hard to escape the notion that Chopin was very familiar with Hummel's now-forgotten Op. 67,[7] composed in 1815 - a set of twenty-four preludes in all major and minor keys, starting with C major".


It's also interesting they actually knew each other in person:
_"The 19th-century composer who owes the most to Hummel, and with whom he enjoyed the warmest relationship, was Chopin. Chopin first met Hummel in Warsaw in 1828, where Hummel, the touring virtuoso, made his usual spectacular impression on the public, and even more so on the young and sensitive Polish musician. Chopin and Hummel kept in close contact throughout their lives and became genuine friends. They took excursions together, such as a trip to the country home of Chopin's beloved Dr. Malfatti in the spring of 1831, and they visited each other as often as possible. One such visit occurred on December 22, 1830, in Vienna, when Hummel came calling with his talented nineyear-old son Carl, who went on to become a noted painter. Chopin was feeling homesick during the Christmas season, since it was the first time he was living away from Warsaw. He was obviously moved by Hummel's visit and by the fact that the young Carl made a drawing of him; he wrote to his parents: "Hummel came to see me yesterday with his son who has done a portrait of me, so life-like that it could not be bettered.… Hummel père is extraordinarily kind." Chopin continued to express, in both words and deeds, his admiration for Hummel. For example, on December 10, 1842, five years after Hummel's death, Chopin would proclaim that Hummel was one of the "masters we all recognize."
"The two great pianists were also in complete agreement on many aspects of playing the keyboard. One was fingering, a matter of great importance to Chopin, who wrote in his own unfinished piano method "everything is a matter of knowing good fingering." Chopin considered Hummel to be the master of this art, writing that one should be able to produce "as many different sounds as there are fingers…. Hummel was the most knowledgeable on the subject.""_
https://www.earlymusicamerica.org/files/EMagSummer07Hummel.pdf


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## hammeredklavier

Robert Levin discussing "The slow movements and the human formula" regarding Mozart sonatas at 4:48


----------



## hammeredklavier

I once wrote that whenever Chopin builds tension, it always falls into one of these three categories:

1. To play both hands together in unison (as in the final movement of Sonata in B flat minor or Polonaise Op.44 in F sharp minor)
2. To play melody in one hand, play chords in the other hand. (as in Polonaise in A flat Op.53)
3. To play Prelude-styled repeating figures (Etude Op.25 No.1 in A flat, Prelude in F sharp minor Op.28 No.8, some sections from Polonaise Fantasy in A flat)

There's not a section in his music where he demonstrates solid understanding of texture beyond these three. It's either adding notes of no melodic value to the bass each time the main theme returns, as in the final movement of Sonata in B minor Op.58 or Fantaisie in F minor Op.49, or random chromatic harmony figures meant for show-off, as in the right hand of Etude Op.25 No.11 in A minor. And I think it's the reason why Wagner called Chopin "a composer for one right hand". Just look how Chopin keeps going on with the same left hand on D flat for 5 minutes from start to finish in Berceuse. Yes, there's Etude Op.10 No.4, Nocturne Op.55 No.2 and certain sections of Ballade No.4, Barcarolle. but again, they're skin-deep compared to the level of texture other great composers demonstrated.

"Complex texture" is something you would say about the first movement of Mozart sonata K533, where there is continuous coexistence of monophonic, harmonic, contrapuntal elements, or the last movement of K310 of where there's actually balance of voice-leading in both hands. Or Prelude and Fugue in C K394, (which follows the tradition of Bachian universe-expansion) or the organ piece Fantasie in F minor K608 where Mozart turns the fugue of the exposition to double fugue in the recapitulation to achieve operatic drama, or the chromatic embellishment on the main theme in the coda of Rondo in A minor K511 - all of which I posted earlier.






In fact, "texture" is the area where I find Chopin especially inadequate compared to other greats. If someone uses expression "complex texture" to put Chopin higher than other greats, I have to assume that person is just trying associate whatever positive attributes they randomly thought off the top of their heads, to make his music look better than it actually is.

A few months ago, TwoSetViolin (a massive fan-based youtube channel run by two Asian guys who study violin to be classical musicians in Australia) uploaded a video wherein they discussed and ranked major classical composers based on their greatness by alphabetical letters, S, A, B, C, D.. In the video, the guys first ranked Chopin at C, and later moved him to B. 
The comment section was completely full of angry comments, "how could you rank Chopin so low?" Eventually, TwoSetViolin had to take down the video. They ranked Paganini at D, but nobody complained about that.

Sorry I just can't take the general Chopin fandom seriously anymore. I'm amazed whenever I talk with those people:
Casual piano players who think the piano is the best instrument and think that Chopin is actually a Wagner-tier composer.
People who just came to know classical music through anime, thinking that Chopin Ballade No.1 in G minor is the best stuff there is, etc.
(I do not mean the kind of knowledgeable Chopin admirers we have here on TC)

I remember reading David C F Wright's essay on Chopin and getting upset a long time ago. I was upset because back then, I did not think this negatively about the general Chopin fandom. Nowadays I understand why Wright wrote the way he did. 
Just look what's going on in the general classical music community. Johann Strauss II is regarded as "not being a serious composer" for writing Wo die Zitronen blühn op. 364. Chopin is regarded as the "Poet of the Piano" for writing Waltz in C sharp minor Op.64 No.2.


----------



## Larkenfield

Sorry, but the above is as shortsighted and petty about Chopin's harmonic and melodic genius as ever, as if everyone has been fooled by him except you and David Wright. Not only a blindspot with Chopin but with most of the other Romantics as well... and evidently there's no cure. Nothing to praise? For all you and Wright know or understand, even Mozart himself might been crazy with admiration for Chopin's sensitivity, refinement, subtlety, boldness, imagination, and a host of other qualities famous and admired the world over that seem to have escaped your notice. Wright's rogues gallery also includes a thorough condemnation of Schubert and Debussy, along with his moral condemnation of them, and neither of you have made any headway in putting one dent in Chopin's well-deserved reputation. He's just as popular now as he's ever been. As great as Mozart was - I rate him tops above all composers - Chopin was a far more gifted melodist and his harmonies were advanced. Piano literature and music in general would be unthinkable without him. Virtually every world-class pianist has played him and will continue to play him.


----------



## Mandryka

Is this true, or are there some counterexamples?



hammeredklavier said:


> . . . whenever Chopin builds tension, it always falls into one of these three categories:
> 
> 1. To play both hands together in unison (as in the final movement of Sonata in B flat minor or Polonaise Op.44 in F sharp minor)
> 2. To play melody in one hand, play chords in the other hand. (as in Polonaise in A flat Op.53)
> 3. To play Prelude-styled repeating figures (Etude Op.25 No.1 in A flat, Prelude in F sharp minor Op.28 No.8, some sections from Polonaise Fantasy in A flat)
> .


If it is true does it follow that



hammeredklavier said:


> "texture" is the area where. . . Chopin _s inadequate _


_?_


----------



## Captainnumber36

Lang Lang's recordings of the Etudes are quite nice.


----------



## flamencosketches

Captainnumber36 said:


> Lang Lang's recordings of the Etudes are quite nice.


I like Pollini in the études. Not a fan of Mr. Lang. There are a few famous and indeed great Chopinists who have not recorded the complete études due to their difficulty, notably Arthur Rubinstein.


----------



## Captainnumber36

flamencosketches said:


> I like Pollini in the études. Not a fan of Mr. Lang. There are a few famous and indeed great Chopinists who have not recorded the complete études due to their difficulty, notably Arthur Rubinstein.


Pollini sounds nice too. I'm listening to Op. 10 by Pollini and listened to Lang Lang's Op. 25.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I still think I prefer the clam and steady balance found in Mozart when compared to the fluctuations found in the Romantics like Chopin.


----------



## jdec

I got confused.

"*Mozart Is My Enemy*

_I represent the Romantics/Impressionists/Emotionally driven music and Mozart is the antithesis of all I stand for musically. 
I have a Mozart bust that I will keep on top of my piano when I perform and that will motivate me to be everything he isn't!

We are enemies forever!_"

- Captainnumber36, Nov/28/2018


----------



## Captainnumber36

jdec said:


> I got confused.
> 
> "*Mozart Is My Enemy*
> 
> _I represent the Romantics/Impressionists/Emotionally driven music and Mozart is the antithesis of all I stand for musically.
> I have a Mozart bust that I will keep on top of my piano when I perform and that will motivate me to be everything he isn't!
> 
> We are enemies forever!_"
> 
> - Captainnumber36, Nov/28/2018


Everytime I've made a pro Mozart thread since then has come back to haunt me.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Here are some of my pro-Mozart threads:
https://www.talkclassical.com/61604-concise-composers.html?highlight=mozart
https://www.talkclassical.com/60288-mozart-so-clever-witty.html?highlight=mozart
https://www.talkclassical.com/59102-mozarts-horn-concertos.html?highlight=mozart


----------



## Dimace

Lisztian said:


> Chopin, no contest for me.


An excellent, straightforward answer. For any doubts, ask A. Rubinstein. Surely he knew better...


----------



## Dimace

Jacck said:


> Alkan = Liszt = Chopin
> All of these 3 are equally great in my mind. Chopin is too sugary for me, but I recognize his greatness. Alkan is very underrated imho. His music is percussion like, but once you get used to his style, he is amazing. And *Liszt wrote the best piano sonata ever.*


*
*

Oh, man! You made my night! I have never thought it, but now you said it, I agree with you!


----------



## Captainnumber36

jdec said:


> I got confused.
> 
> "*Mozart Is My Enemy*
> 
> _I represent the Romantics/Impressionists/Emotionally driven music and Mozart is the antithesis of all I stand for musically.
> I have a Mozart bust that I will keep on top of my piano when I perform and that will motivate me to be everything he isn't!
> 
> We are enemies forever!_"
> 
> - Captainnumber36, Nov/28/2018


I used to think I was for the Romantics, but as I've explored more and more Classical, my tastes are changing.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Captainnumber36 said:


> Here are some of my pro-Mozart threads:
> https://www.talkclassical.com/61604-concise-composers.html?highlight=mozart
> https://www.talkclassical.com/60288-mozart-so-clever-witty.html?highlight=mozart
> https://www.talkclassical.com/59102-mozarts-horn-concertos.html?highlight=mozart


It seems this isn't the first time I've had this thought about the clarity of Mozart!


----------



## jdec

Dimace said:


> An excellent, straightforward answer. For any doubts, ask A. Rubinstein. Surely he knew better...


And don't ask that guy Vladimir Horowitz, he did not know anything... (sarcasm of course)

"_Mozart is the Number 1 for me_. " - Horowitz.


----------



## AeolianStrains

I always liked Rubinstein better than Horowitz anyway.


----------



## Captainnumber36

AeolianStrains said:


> I always liked Rubinstein better than Horowitz anyway.


haha!  :lol:


----------



## hammeredklavier

Eva Yojimbo said:


> There's the profound poetry, the depth of thought and feeling, the rich exploration of inner and outer worlds, the complex textures and moods and evocations. There's also a much more innovative and original musical language that was influential to Romanticism in general. Chopin is able to take you places with that lone instrument that so few composers are able to take you with the strength of an entire orchestra or chamber ensemble at their disposal. That certainly speaks to a rare talent and genius.


It's not Chopin's music that I can't stand, it's people's constant attempt to overrate and mythify it that I find worrisome.

The reason why Chopin was so obsessed with the piano is because he couldn't really do much else. He had no discipline to write anything decent involving ensembles. Part of the reason was his skin-deep, shallow capability with texture.
We know the image commonly attributed with Chopin: "the very heart and soul of the piano, the greatest piano music ever written." 
NO. His lack of discipline pervades even his piano music.
Who else besides him would write an entire movement with both hands going in unison from start to finish?
He's clearly not the kind of language inventor, (at least not any more than others are) or piano god people make him out to be. The truth is, he "ripped off" just like everyone else, based his style off the cultural trend of his time. And, he was still lacking in certain aspects: Hummel was a far greater all-rounder than Chopin ever was.

Hummel Fantasy in E flat major Op.18: 



Chopin Ballade in F minor Op.52: 




Moscheles Impromptu Op.89: 



Chopin Fantaisie Impromptu Op.66: 




Hummel Variations Op.57: 



Chopin Ecossaise Op.72 No.3: 




Field Romance in E flat major: 



Chopin Nocturne in E flat major Op.9 No.2: 




Hummel Etude Op.125 No.3: 



Chopin Etude Op.25 No.6: 




I agree with others saying Chopin just could not write anything like Liszt Sonata in B minor, which Liszt wrote just 3 years after Chopin's death. Most of the time Chopin did not have the balls to move outside of the endless series of petty miniatures "A-B-A". If you ask me what comes to mind when I think of Chopin, it's this constant pettiness that fills 80% of his music. Next to his pettiness, I think of his excessive reliance on over-sentimentality:
"Chopin's fugue doesn't sound good unless played with sentimentality." Again, his mind just didn't work like composers of strict discipline. He couldn't do **** without his usual reliance on over-sentimentality.






https://books.google.ca/books?id=OYo7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA34
_"In Schumann's other writings about Chopin that exist from 1836 through 1842, there is a good deal of positive feedback, although one will likely glean that Schumann was disappointed that there was not more significant development or innovation. In fact, he said more than once that Chopin's work was instantly recognizable because it was all so similar. He acknowledged Chopin's original showing as fabulous, and worried that it was too much for him to be more than that. "When he has given you a whole succession of the rarest creations, and you understand him more easily, do you suddenly demand something different? This is like chopping down your pomegranate tree because it produces, year after year, nothing but pomegranates." And furthermore: "We fear he will never achieve a level higher than that he has already reached. . . . With his abilities he could have achieved far more, influencing the progress of our art as a whole."_


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

hammeredklavier said:


> In fact, "texture" is the area where I find Chopin especially inadequate compared to other greats. If someone uses expression "complex texture" to put Chopin higher than other greats, I have to assume that person is just trying associate whatever positive attributes they randomly thought off the top of their heads, to make his music look better than it actually is....
> 
> Sorry I just can't take the general Chopin fandom seriously anymore....


My, my, I guess this forum needs at least one fanatic and one arch nemesis for every composer there is. It's a shame that what otherwise could've been an insightful, enlightening post only leaves a bitter taste in the mouth because of vitriol directed at those who happen to love a composer you do not, only serving to make the reader like the poster less, but Chopin not a jot less. What's more, considering the word "texture" literally refers to qualities that music does not have (tangible feel, visual appearance), it would've been sensible to understand it as a metaphor and likewise "assume," with a smidgen of good will, that perhaps the person meant it differently than how you arbitrarily chose to define it before taking to skewering that strawman.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

hammeredklavier said:


> It's not Chopin's music that I can't stand, it's people's constant attempt to overrate and mythify it that I find worrisome. [/I]


I suggest finding such innocuous things less worrisome. Might I suggest placing that worry where it could be more beneficial to humanity, like, say, the state of US politics?


----------



## Larkenfield

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


----------



## Larkenfield

The BBC: Discovering Chopin: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01lflk7


----------



## hammeredklavier

Eva Yojimbo said:


> considering the word "texture" literally refers to *qualities that music does not have (tangible feel, visual appearance)*,


That's more like "atmosphere" and NOT the same thing as "texture".
Texture in Music: https://makingmusicmag.com/texture-in-music/
Terms That Describe Texture: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/musicappreciation_with_theory/chapter/monophony/
Musical Texture: http://www.epianostudio.com/2008/11/15/musical-texture/
Musical Texture: 



What is Musical Texture?: 



Musical Texture: 



What is Texture? - Music Theory: 



You sound like other people who attempt to alter the accepted definition of "melody" (for example) to justify their argument. Why not claim Chopin has "complex structure" then, if you're so impressed by his music you think you can attribute anything positive to it? Sorry, these all sound like "earth is flat" to me.
Even if you admire Chopin so much, I don't think you should make ridiculous claims such as "complex texture" which will only serve to overrate him even more. And you have no idea how many weird people with nonsensical ideas I have encountered elsewhere who confirmed my belief on Chopin's overratedness.


----------



## Mandryka

Look, hammeredklavier has come up with three aspects of Chopin’s textures in a post made yesterday, and he claims that 

1. The music doesn’t go behind this

and 

2 That’s a weakness

If you think he’s wrong, then either find some examples of contrapuntal music in Chopin which are richer than the three types, or spell out why it’s not a weakness, 

Clue: Rosen thought that Chopin’s later mazurkas were contrapuntally fabulous, I don’t know if he was right, but that may be a good place to start looking.


----------



## Larkenfield

It's not enough. Whatever hammer's academic and dry definition of "texture" is, which is literal and lacks any sense of color, imagination and poetry, Chopin has been held in the greatest of esteem by many of the greatest of composers and pianists in the world:

"Music was his language, the divine tongue through which he expressed a whole realm of sentiments that only the select few can appreciate... The muse of homeland dictates his songs, and the anguished cries of Poland lend to his art a mysterious, indefinable poetry which, for all those who have truly experienced itcannot be compared to anything else... The piano alone was not sufficient to reveal all that lies within him. In short he is a most remarkable individual who commands our highest degree of devotion."

Franz Liszt, "Revue et Gazette Musicale de Paris", May 2, 1841, pp. 245f.

Whatever Schumann had to say about Chopin, he was not the prodigy that Chopin was and they were sometimes competitive with each other because they were exact contemporaries:


----------



## Ras

With a nod towards Mark Twain I conclude from this discussion that *Chopin's music isn't nearly as good as it sounds...*


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

hammeredklavier said:


> That's more like "atmosphere" and NOT the same thing as "texture".


This sounds like you not getting the message. Why don't you try rereading my post and understanding what I'm saying rather than (again!) assuming what I meant and trying to enforce your definitions onto a metaphoric term?


----------



## Ras

Mandryka said:


> Look, hammeredklavier has come up with three aspects of Chopin's textures in a post made yesterday, and he claims that
> 
> 1. The music doesn't go behind this
> 
> and
> 
> 2 That's a weakness
> 
> If you think he's wrong, then either find some examples of contrapuntal music in Chopin which are richer than the three types, or spell out why it's not a weakness,
> 
> Clue: Rosen thought that Chopin's later mazurkas were contrapuntally fabulous, I don't know if he was right, but that may be a good place to start looking.


Why does all music have to be judged by whether it uses advanced fugal techniques or sonata form? It's a narrow point of view.


----------



## Mandryka

Ras said:


> Why does all music have to be judged by whether it uses advanced fugal techniques or sonata form? It's a narrow point of view.


 I'm interested in finding out what it is, judging it is not my game at the moment!


----------



## hammeredklavier

Mandryka said:


> Clue: Rosen thought that Chopin's later mazurkas were contrapuntally fabulous, I don't know if he was right, but that may be a good place to start looking.







Yes, Rosen said Chopin's last Mazurka, Op.68 No.4 has a fabulous canon in it, or something to the effect. But, again "fabulous" only by _Chopin's standards_.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Mandryka said:


> Look, hammeredklavier has come up with *three aspects of Chopin's textures* in a post made yesterday, and he claims that
> 
> 1. The music doesn't go behind this
> 
> and
> 
> 2 That's a weakness
> 
> *If you think he's wrong*, then either find some examples of contrapuntal music in Chopin which are richer than the three types, or spell out why it's not a weakness,
> 
> Clue: Rosen thought that Chopin's later mazurkas were contrapuntally fabulous, I don't know if he was right, but that may be a good place to start looking.


The problem isn't that hammerklavier is wrong in what factual claims he's making about Chopin's music, the problem is in his assuming that's what was meant by an obviously metaphorical term to begin with. See Larkenfield's above post. I'd also mention that the "that's a weakness" judgment is nothing but pure opinion. Don't think his factual statements are justifications for such opinions as they are not and cannot be. I'd say the same thing about Rosen thinking Chopin's later mazurkas were "contrapuntally fabulous." Such a thing can't be "right" or "wrong," as such things are not matters of facts.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Ras said:


> Why does all music have to be judged by whether it uses advanced fugal techniques or sonata form? It's a narrow point of view.


Someone else started judging Mozart with aesthetics of Chopinesque Romanticism first on this thread.


----------



## Mandryka

Eva Yojimbo said:


> The problem isn't that hammerklavier is wrong in what factual claims he's making about Chopin's music, the problem is in his assuming that's what was meant by an obviously metaphorical term to begin with. See Larkenfield's above post. I'd also mention that the "that's a weakness" judgment is nothing but pure opinion. Don't think his factual statements are justifications for such opinions as they are not and cannot be. I'd say the same thing about Rosen thinking Chopin's later mazurkas were "contrapuntally fabulous." Such a thing can't be "right" or "wrong," as such things are not matters of facts.


Well you know if there ain't much counterpoint there, that's to say if the types of counterpoint used are very limited, that sounds like a good reason for saying that, in terms of counterpoint, he wasn't so hot. _Unless_ he uses this limited contrapuntal vocabulary in brilliant ways, that would be an interesting argument.

I went back to some Mazurkas when I read hammeredklavier's post, in fact I listened to Rosen playing them. I'm inclined to agree with hammeredklavier about Chopin's counterpoint, though I'm hardly an expert in the matter and I only listened for a short time and superficially - I was doing the hoover while it was playing.


----------



## Ras

hammeredklavier said:


> Someone else started judging Mozart with aesthetics of Chopinesque Romanticism first on this thread.


Yes, you are right that is the basic problem: judging one musical aesthetic with the values of another. It is necessary to do so when the battle is raging - like when it is time for one -ism to replace the other, but 100 or 200 years later it is mistake. (Which doesn't mean that I value or like all aesthetics equally).


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Mandryka said:


> Well you know if there ain't much counterpoint there, that's to say if the types of counterpoint used are very limited, that sounds like a good reason for saying that, in terms of counterpoint, he wasn't so hot. _Unless_ he uses this limited contrapuntal vocabulary in brilliant ways, that would be an interesting argument.


When it comes to music, or any art for that matter, we can state facts like what counterpoint a composer uses, or how they use it, but to make a judgment like "he wasn't so hot with counterpoint" or "he uses it in brilliant ways" are judgments that rest entirely on our subjective impressions, in what types of counterpoint we like/dislike. Personally, I like counterpoint as a spice rather than a main dish, which is why I tend to prefer the counterpoint of Handel, Mozart, and Haydn to that of JS Bach. You can argue all day long about all the complex qualities that Bach's counterpoint possess, but at the end of the day it boils down to the fact that you (the hypothetical "you," I mean) likes the kind of counterpoint Bach uses while for me it often sounds like dull clockwork, while I hear much more drama in the ways Handel, Mozart, and Haydn selectively use it. Likewise, I really don't care about Chopin's counterpoint as that's not what attracts me to his music even when he does deploy the device, so writing about its "limitation" is, at least for my tastes, missing the point, and it most certainly what I had in mind when I mentioned Chopin's "complex textures."


----------



## Mandryka

Well all truth is interpretation (sorry - I’m reading a lot of Foucault at the moment!)

First let’s state what he does contrapuntally - that’s already to impose a structure, an interpretation, on the work. And then, let’s see whether anyone can present that in a way which makes sense of it, which makes it sound as though the contrapuntal decisions are creative, or are exploring the limits of music or whatever.


----------



## hammeredklavier

And it's not entirely about the sonata form and fugue. Some compositions are just plain dumb (sorry, couldn't find a better term) and are no better than Wagner's American Centennial March, for example. Like the middle sections of Polonaises Op.44 in F sharp minor, Op.53 in A flat major. They're regarded as masterpieces because Chopin wrote them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonaise_in_A-flat_major,_Op._53
_"This composition is one of Chopin's most admired compositions and has long been a favorite of the classical piano repertoire."_
Hence I'm using the expression: _"Chopin's Standards"_






This movie portrayed it so well. Bang all those E major octave ostinatos with one hand, shake hands with another. Classy.


----------



## Larkenfield

hammeredklavier said:


> And it's not entirely about the sonata form and fugue. Some compositions are just plain dumb (sorry, I couldn't find a better term) and are no better than Wagner's American Centennial March, for example. Like the middle sections of Polonaises Op.44 in F sharp minor, Op.53 in A flat major. They're regarded as masterpieces because Chopin wrote them.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonaise_in_A-flat_major,_Op._53
> _"This composition is one of Chopin's most admired compositions and has long been a favorite of the classical piano repertoire."_
> Hence I'm using the expression: _"Chopin's Standards"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This movie portrayed it so well. Bang all those E major octave ostinatos with one hand, shakehands with another. Classy.


That polonaise has an obvious military battle at the center, the heart of it, and just about everyone in the world can clearly _hear_ that. The repeated figure in the left hand is used deliberately because it creates tremendous energy and builds momentum. It's like a cavalry charging or defending and the sense of battle couldn't be more vivid. This is beginner's stuff to understand and there are other battle narratives related to courage and heroism that can be found in his works. He often tells a story, including in his Ballades, and you may not have noticed them because it takes imagination rather than a dry, analytical, academic approach that has no feeling in it. If you or anyone wants to understand Chopin, that's one of the first things to notice, and yet how many weeks have gone by where this has been pointed out point but it has escaped your notice because you apparently won't stop and listen? It clutters up the forum. You're blaming your lack of perception on him when the majority of listeners can easily hear the narratives. You should be learning from Chopin rather than condemning him and get off the academic merry-go-round that believes that counterpoint is still at the center of the universe. It used to be but it's no longer true. People want more. It's like music stopped in 1792, though I believe that even Mozart himself would condemn the extreme mischaracterization of this great composer where only pettiness of criticism prevails and the heart and soul, the harmonic and melodic genius behind his works, are ignored. Quite frankly, it sounds like a studied ignorance, not accurate, and then his shortcomings - and all composers have them, including Mozart - are entirely overblown... He's still considered one of the greatest of composers and there are countless contemporary performances of his beautiful, poetic, and striking works... Mozart is sublime but he is not poetic in the narrative sense. He's limited in that way though I'm sure you'll dry to dig out something that makes him the greatest poet and storyteller in the world... Your understanding of "texture" does not apply to the Pole. There is a harmonic richness to his works that renders that criticism null and void. Nor are his works without counterpoint, such as in his sparkling Mazurkas and his Cello Sonata. Now, does everybody feel better that Chopin is being trashed and dragged through the mud because someone is superimposing a petty, false and inappropriate standard over him? Soldiers... He has _soldiers_ in heroic battle in his narrative of Polonaise, Op 53 and the repeated figure in the left hand builds tension and drama. But some, who have no feeling for the composer to begin with, only hear it as a redundant repeated figure that has no meaning.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Mandryka said:


> Well all truth is interpretation (sorry - I'm reading a lot of Foucault at the moment!)


Statements like that are why I'd not recommend reading Focault! (or, at least, not taking him too seriously)



Mandryka said:


> First let's state what he does contrapuntally - that's already to impose a structure, an interpretation, on the work. And then, let's see whether anyone can present that in a way which makes sense of it, which makes it sound as though the contrapuntal decisions are creative, or are exploring the limits of music or whatever.


Well, no, Composers impose structures and thanks to the shared communal means of communication known as "language" we have ways of denoting what those structures are. There may (as with all language) be ambiguities, but let's not resort to the extreme that all such things are interpretations. If we get stuck in the "it's all interpretation" loop then we can't actually interpret anything because interpretations requires facts from which we interpret!

I'd continue to stress that all such decisions are innately "creative." Whether we find that creativity positive or negative is, again, a subjective value judgment; as would whether we value "exploring the limits of music" (whatever exactly that means).


----------



## Mandryka

All I meant by exploring the limits of music was using sounds in new, fresh, ways. The last movement of the second sonata maybe






I don't know that it's right to say that interpretation needs facts. It may need agreement, a set of unquestioned beliefs.


----------



## Mandryka

hammeredklavier said:


> Yes, Rosen said Chopin's last Mazurka, Op.68 No.4 has a fabulous canon in it, or something to the effect. But, again "fabulous" only by _Chopin's standards_.


I don't have the book, but I thought Rosen thought that Chopin had created a new form of counterpoint, where voices undulate around each other in previously unheard ways.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I do love these minor key works that often seem to point towards romanticism, but they are exceptions within his output, even if they may have had the biggest influence on later composers--parts of the K457 sounds like Beethoven's Pathetique, and Schubert's D993/D2e opens like the K475. While many point to these works often to show that Mozart was, in fact, as "deep" and "poetic" as the romantics, I don't think such a thing is necessary or needed. For one, they aren't terribly representative of his solo piano work (again, exceptions) and, two, if anything, the majority of his output in the field is, IMO, more unique, and just as valuable, in the qualities I mentioned in my last post.
> 
> On a side-note, I'd also mention that K310 sounds more like a typical Mozart sonata despite being in a minor key. In that, the minor key adds just a touch of color and tension without sounding "romantic" or "profound" in nature.


OK I agree with what you say - some of my favorite mozart sonatas I listen to for the sheer formal elegance of them. Of course they are never merely elegant - otherwise I wouldn't bother listening to them. I tend to cite the minor key works when romantic music fans say to me - listen to that! And I say - Mozart got there first - listen.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Mandryka said:


> I don't have the book, but I thought Rosen thought that Chopin had created a new form of counterpoint, where voices undulate around each other in previously unheard ways.


I know. I know all the sayings "Chopin's counterpoint is unique and special", "Chopin and Mozart adhere to different aesthetics", you don't need to keep telling me these things. I read Rosen's utterances about counterpoint in Nocturne Op.15 No.1 and Scherzo No.1 also.
I just don't think it's fair in threads like this, other people are allowed to say whatever they want about Mozart, whereas I'm not allowed to say whatever I want about Chopin.
To me, Chopin is the one who wrote nothing but catchy melodies. A clown trying to achieve the depth of the masters. He's no better than _Luigi Boccherini_ or _Carl Stamitz_. Listened to his overblown Preludes Op.28 and new-agey Ballade Op.23 again. They're tiresome and boring now. Yawn. 
I'm also getting sick of general people's attitude trying to pass "Chopin = Romanticism = universal drama, emotional appeal" as objective fact.


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> I just don't think it's fair in threads like this, other people are allowed to say whatever they want about Mozart, whereas I'm not allowed to say whatever I want about Chopin.


But you have said whatever you want about Chopin, and you are increasingly disrespectful and even crude about it.


----------



## millionrainbows

I'm a typical male who is completely out of touch with his emotions. I can't even tell the difference between thoughts and emotions. That's why I choose Mozart. He is so controlled, restrained, and non-committal.


----------



## Mandryka

hammeredklavier said:


> To me, Chopin is the one who wrote nothing but catchy melodies. A clown trying to achieve the depth of the masters. He's no better than _Luigi Boccherini_ or _Carl Stamitz_. Listened to his overblown Preludes Op.28 and new-agey Ballade Op.23 again. They're tiresome and boring now. Yawn.
> I'm also getting sick of general people's attitude trying to pass "Chopin = Romanticism = universal drama, emotional appeal" as objective fact.


Have a listen to this, thinking not of counterpoint but of harmony. Don't you think it's interesting the way stable and unstable passages are juxtaposed?


----------



## tdc

I prefer Mozart's piano works but Chopin is growing on me, that Polonaise fantasy sounds great. Chopin's counterpoint may be different but he had to change rules in order to evolve music. He had a great sense of harmony and created beautiful, influential music and sounds completely like himself, that is the mark of a great composer. Chopin's music sounds about as close to Hummel as Ravel sounds to Liszt.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Mandryka said:


> Have a listen to this, thinking not of counterpoint but of harmony. Don't you think it's interesting the way stable and unstable passages are juxtaposed?


I don't want to keep making a lot of disparaging remarks, I'll keep it simple:
I'm not very fond of this piece either mainly because it points towards the early style of Scriabin, a composer I dislike more than Chopin.


----------



## hammeredklavier

After getting familiar with Bach and Mozart, I can't listen to Romantic piano music the way I used to. For example, I can trade everything Chopin wrote just for this:

It is my opinion Chopin never comes to sublimity of the harmony at 6:15


----------



## Larkenfield

hammeredklavier said:


> After getting familiar with Bach and Mozart, I can't listen to Romantic piano music the way I used to. For example, I can trade everything Chopin wrote just for this:
> 
> It is my opinion Chopin never comes to sublimity of the harmony at 6:15


You'll truly begin to understand both composers when you can listen without resorting to constant inappropriate, apples and oranges comparisons. That's the only way to understand how somebody can appreciate both Mozart and Chopin during one's lifetime. And among great pianists, such as Rubinstein and Horowitz, and many others, they esteem and play both and yet some of you apparently have no appreciation of how they can do that because certain stuck listeners cannot appreciate the uniqueness of each composer. It helps to be free of resentment and bitterness. People are looking for their minds to be opened, not closed from constant carping and condemnation... belittling criticism ("He's a clown") is a gross and demeaning mischaracterization of a composer's talents and intentions. Music is supposed to be uplifting to the soul and spirit. There's more to it than technical analysis. There must be _heart_.


----------



## howlingfantods

It's difficult for me to engage with this type of question, since, to me, these sorts of comparisons always seem about as serious as saying "I prefer steak to lobster." Ok, good for you. 

"How can you even like lobster? It doesn't have any of the umami beefiness of steak! That beefy texture, the savory juiciness of the veins of fat..." I'm not sure that I want my lobster to have those qualities? Why on earth would we want Chopin to be a contrapuntalist?

"My taste is so fine and refined. I love steak, not those lame ocean insects!" Strange point of pride, I think. As it turns out, my wife is allergic to crustaceans. I feel sorry for her that she can't appreciate lobster and crab. I don't care for Mozart's instrumental music, although I do greatly appreciate his operas. But me not liking Mozart's instrumental music isn't a point of pride, it's just something I wish I took as much enjoyment out of as others are apparently able to do. When people suggest particular recordings or pieces, I try them in the hopes that something may click. I don't sit around trying to prove that Mozart sucks. Or that lobster is better than steak.


----------



## Lisztian

hammeredklavier said:


> After getting familiar with Bach and Mozart, I can't listen to Romantic piano music the way I used to. For example, I can trade everything Chopin wrote just for this:
> 
> It is my opinion Chopin never comes to sublimity of the harmony at 6:15


Good for you.

I can trade all of Mozart's solo piano music for Chopin's 4th Ballade.

BTW have you noticed the consistent negative responses you get both here and on reddit? Surely at some point you must realise there is a reason behind them, and strive to figure out what it is/do something about it.


----------



## hammeredklavier

---------------------------------------


----------



## hammeredklavier

-----------------------------------


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Mandryka said:


> I don't know that it's right to say that interpretation needs facts. It may need agreement, a set of unquestioned beliefs.


If interpretation doesn't require facts then what are we interpreting?


----------



## Mandryka

Eva Yojimbo said:


> If interpretation doesn't require facts then what are we interpreting?


I'm sorry, I don't want to just ignore you, but I don't have the time to address the issues properly with you here and now. I think, but I'm not sure, that there's things in common between Quine's and Putnam's ideas, and Foucault, I can't do more than gesture in that direction at the moment.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Mandryka said:


> I'm sorry, I don't want to just ignore you, but I don't have the time to address the issues properly with you here and now.


No problem. (and here's some other filler words)


----------



## Xisten267

I decided to start a poll under the subject of this thread *here*.


----------



## Larkenfield

Definitely Chopin — no, Mozart. Definitely not Mozart — Chopin! On second thought, both! No, neither. Both should be avoided because they're too good! On the other hand, Mozart is way too sentimental — I mean, Chopin. Chopin loved Mozart for never stepping outside the boundaries of good taste. Schumann said, in so many words, that if Mozart was still alive he'd be writing concertos like Chopin... It's impossible to decide because experienced listeners know that no one is ever forced to choose one over the other and each lived in his own time and place and considered immortals except to the curmudgeons, distortionists, and the disgruntleds.


----------



## hammeredklavier

-------------------------------------


----------



## hammeredklavier

-------------------------------------------------


----------



## Larkenfield

hammeredklavier said:


> What constitutes "stepping outside the boundaries of good taste" according you? Isn't it just the kind of "convenient logic" people often use to justify the technical weakness of such composers as Schubert? Like how they always say "he's so creative and ground-breaking, we don't care about his constant vamps and padding?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.cmpcp.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PSN2011_Chueke.pdf
> _"Written between May and June 1785, Mozart C minor Fantasy KV 475 is a perfect illustration example of what Brahms had in mind when proclaiming Mozart as "a fellow modernist."Extremely controversial, generating doubts and questions from the very first measure, musical ideas far ahead of their time make the adventure of exploring this piece with performance purposes one of the most exciting... The very first intriguing aspect we encounter is the non-establishment of any specific tonality, due to the absence not only of a key signature but also of a central tonality which
> would justify the allusion to C minor in the title...
> ...Through the Fantasy's musical discourse, *the confirmation of C minor as the main key
> is held until the end of the piece,* justifying the term "musical plot"; the "mystery" will be
> solved only at the end, like in his operas. Unity and coherence mingle with ingenious - almost
> nonchalant - fluency of discourse, building expectation, which apparently will never be
> satisfied; these are the cornerstones of the mystery."_
> 
> http://musicstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Popovic_JIMS_0932106.pdf#page=9
> _"Mozart's Phantasie transcended the historical and stylistic moment in which it was created, thus what Mozart began was finished by Liszt in his piano composition Sonata in B-minor (1852-1853). It is perfectly reasonable that Mozart's Phantasie served as a model to Franz Liszt for a typological definition of his one-movement sonata cycle."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Beethoven made his own copy of K608 and procured a copy of K.594."
> ("Automatic Genius: Mozart and the Mechanical Sublime" by Annette Richards)
> 
> "As Wolfgang Plath has pointed out, the influence of Mozart's Fantasy in F minor, K. 608 was considerable in the nineteenth century. Aside from the editions, manuscripts, and arrangements already mentioned, many public performances can be documented. Beethoven owned the work and made his own arrangement of the fugue. Schubert's F Minor Fantasy for piano four-hands, op. 103 (D. 940, 1828), suggests his reaction to the whole of Mozart's piece, whereas Franz Lachner's Wind Octet in B flat, op. 156 (1859) demonstrates his reception of the Andante"_
> https://www.loc.gov/collections/mol...e-to-archives/allegro-and-andante-in-f-minor/
> 
> As I said there's no basis to claim Schubert, Chopin were more influential or innovative with the keyboard than Mozart.


 Undoubtedly, Mozart was a very wonderful composer, even miraculous.

So was Chopin... for those with imagination.


----------



## hammeredklavier

-----------------------------------------


----------



## Mandryka

Well 511, which I think is exceptionally good, is a lot longer than any mazurka by Chopin.

Here's Claude Lévy Strauss on how his attitude to Chopin changed, in _Tristes Tropiques_, I don't know what he thought of Mozart.



> […] Pendant des semaines, sur ce plateau du Mato Grosso occidental, j'avais été obsédé , non point par ce qui m'environnait et que je ne reverrais jamais, mais par une mélodie rebattue que mon souvenir appauvrissait encore : celle de l'étude numéro 3 opus 10 de Chopin, en quoi il me semblait, par une dérision à l'amertume de laquelle j'étais aussi sensible, que tout ce que j'avais laissé derrière moi se résumait.
> 
> Pourquoi Chopin, vers qui mes goûts ne m'avaient pas particulièrement porté ? Élevé dans le culte wagnérien, j'avais découvert Debussy à une date toute récente, après même que les Noces, entendues à la deuxième ou troisième représentation, m'eurent révélé en Stravinsky un monde qui me paraissait plus réel et plus solide que les savanes du Brésil central, faisant s'effondrer mon univers musical antérieur.
> 
> Mais au moment où je quittai la France, c'était Pelléas qui me fournissait la nourriture spirituelle dont j'avais besoin ; alors, pourquoi Chopin et son œuvre la plus banale s'imposaient-ils à moi dans le désert ?
> 
> Plus occupé de résoudre ce problème que de me consacrer aux observations qui m'eussent justifié, je me disais que le progrès qui consiste à passer de Chopin à Debussy se trouve peut-être amplifié quand il se produit dans l'autre sens. Les délices qui me faisaient préférer Debussy, je les goûtais maintenant dans Chopin, mais sous une forme implicite, incertaine encore, et si discrète que je ne les avais pas perçues au début et que j'étais allé d'emblée vers leur manifestation la plus ostensible. J'accomplissais un double progrès : approfondissant l'œuvre du compositeur le plus ancien, je lui reconnaissais des beautés destinées à rester cachées de qui n'eût pas d'abord connu Debussy. J'aimais Chopin par excès, et non par défaut come fait celui pour qui l'évolution musicale s'est arrêtée à lui. D'autre part, pour favoriser en moi l'apparition de certaines émotions, je n'avais plus besoin de l'excitation complète : le signe, l'allusion, la prémonition de certaines formes suffisaient.
> 
> Lieues après lieues, la même phrase mélodique chantait dans ma mémoire sans que je pusse m'en délivrer. Je lui découvrais sans cesse des charmes nouveaux. Très lâche au début, il me semblait qu'elle entortillait progressivement son fil, comme pour dissimuler l'extrémité qui la terminerait. Cette nouure devenait inextricable, au point qu'on se demandait comment elle pourrait bien se tirer de là ; soudain, une note résolvait tout, et cette échappatoire paraissait plus hardie encore que la démarche compromettante qui l'avait précédée, réclamée et rendue possible ; à l'entendre, les développements antérieurs s'éclairaient d'un sens nouveau : leur recherche n'était plus arbitraire, mais la préparation de cette sortie insoupçonnée. Était-ce donc cela, le voyage ? une exploration des déserts de ma mémoire, plutôt que de ceux qui m'entouraient ?


----------



## Larkenfield

hammeredklavier said:


> I suddenly remembered one comment you posted on that site, "Mozart Rondo in A minor K511 could pass as one of Chopin's Mazurkas" or something like that.
> 
> I died laughing so hard but did not write what I truly felt about the comment, to avoid offending others.
> Did you honestly mean to put one of the most profound fantasies in diatonic containment of chromaticism in classical keyboard literature in the same category with that bunch of mindlessly sentimentality-oriented trivialities that dance around in constant ta-da-da rhythm and ABA ternary form ********. Please tell me you were joking.
> 
> Let's remind ourselves again of Mendelssohn's comment on Chopin Op.17:
> _"A book of Mazurkas and a few other pieces by Chopin are so mannered they are hard to stand."_


That's because some listeners know as little about Mozart as others know about Chopin-virtually nothing or nothing that's absurdly distorted. It should be obvious. Some might be new to both composers or have a superficial or misguided understanding. Who would compare a mazurka with the Fantasy? Any mazurka. That would be a big clue right there because they have nothing in common in mood, structure or feeling. It's a ridiculous comparison on the surface and yet it's taken seriously by some who should know better... The only critics I find worth listening to are the ones who understand both composers, their virtues and shortcomings, rather than reading the world into everything that Mozart did and nothing that anyone else did. Such a predictably drab and distasteful approach can make even the genius of Mozart unappealing and poison the atmosphere. I believe it's dark, negative and contrary to the spirit of this forum. I also believe that it would be contrary to Mozart's positive and constructive nature and to the spirit of all music itself.


----------



## howlingfantods

Mandryka said:


> Well 511, which I think is exceptionally good, is a lot longer than any mazurka by Chopin.
> 
> Here's Claude Lévy Strauss on how his attitude to Chopin changed, in _Tristes Tropiques_, I don't know what he thought of Mozart.


Interesting, thanks for the excerpt. I'm particularly interested in these sorts of reflections since I used to be a Chopin hater myself--I thought it adolescent music for adolescent people back when I was myself an adolescent who thought myself smarter than my peers.

But now comfortably into middle adulthood, I find it's among my favorite music. I find it inexhaustibly rich despite the simplicity of the compositions, and, like Claude L-S, I too sometimes wonder why.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> I suddenly remembered one comment you posted on that site, "Mozart Rondo in A minor K511 could pass as one of Chopin's Mazurkas" or something like that.
> 
> I died laughing so hard reading it but did not write what I truly felt about the comment, just to avoid offending others.


Why do I sense that your inhibitions against offending are about to crumble...



> Did you honestly mean to put one of the most profound fantasies in diatonic containment of chromaticism in classical keyboard literature in the same category with that bunch of mindlessly sentimentality-oriented trivialities that dance around in constant ta-da-da rhythm and ABA ternary form ********. Please tell me you were joking.


I don't think he'll tell you that he was joking. Who would joke about mindless sentimental ternary form ********?



> Let's remind ourselves again of Mendelssohn's comment on Chopin Op.17:
> _"A book of Mazurkas and a few other pieces by Chopin are so mannered they are hard to stand."_


Remind ourselves again? I couldn't even have been reminded the first time, since I've never encountered that remark. And now that I've encountered it, am I more enlightened than before? Perhaps I know a little more about Mendelssohn - he may have used too much starch in his underwear - but I certainly know no more about the music of Chopin.


----------



## isorhythm

hammeredklavier said:


> Most classical music I consider great are ones that strongly invoke feelings of nostalgia for a "bygone golden age".


Is that itself an aspect of greatness, to you?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Mandryka said:


> Here's Claude Lévy Strauss on how his attitude to Chopin changed, in _Tristes Tropiques_,


But Claude Lévy Strauss isn't even an important figure in music. Why should I care what he thinks? Is his opinion any more important than say.. David C F Wright's?

https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/frederick-chopin.pdf
_"The obvious example is the Fantasie-Polonaise Op 61, a simply dreadful work of stops and starts, as stated by many well-known pianists and many other musicians. It reveals his mood swings, lack of form and incoherence and many have opined that it is the work of a sick mind. Liszt hated it. Even its musical grammar is wrong but few people would bother about that. One famous and revered pianist said that every printed copy of this work was the waste of a tree! Another famous pianist said that playing this
work was like having a Do it yourself Caesarean! For about a hundred years critics and musicians, dismissed it but that had the effect of people coming to its rescue and some calling it a masterpiece!
The work begins in 3/4 but the first bar is in 29/4 with a fermata bars 2, 7 and 8 are said to be in 3/4 but are in 20 plus over 4. Bars 10 -20 are still in four flats but full of sharps and a change of key signature is needed. The grammatical errors are legion...one chord is E sharp over C double sharp whereas it is grammatically correct as F natural over D natural. Later, Chopin does change key into E and then B. It is a dreadful piece and is positively loathed by many."_


----------



## Mandryka

hammeredklavier said:


> But Claude Lévy Strauss isn't even an important figure in music. Why should I care what he thinks? Is his opinion any more important than say.. David C F Wright's?


You're right. I just thought what he says about the way Chopin effects him was strange and challenging "pour favoriser en moi l'apparition de certaines émotions, je n'avais plus besoin de l'excitation complète : le signe, l'allusion, la prémonition de certaines formes suffisaient."

He's not at all interested in form and structure. He seems to take music as just a vehicle for creating feelings.

He says that signs and allusions of feelings became enough for him with maturity, and the more demonstrative, obviousness, expressiveness of Debussy became unnecessary.


----------



## howlingfantods

hammeredklavier said:


> But Claude Lévy Strauss isn't even an important figure in music. Why should I care what he thinks? Is his opinion any more important than say.. David C F Wright's?
> 
> https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/frederick-chopin.pdf
> _"The obvious example is the Fantasie-Polonaise Op 61, a simply dreadful work of stops and starts, as stated by many well-known pianists and many other musicians. It reveals his mood swings, lack of form and incoherence and many have opined that it is the work of a sick mind. Liszt hated it. Even its musical grammar is wrong but few people would bother about that. One famous and revered pianist said that every printed copy of this work was the waste of a tree! Another famous pianist said that playing this
> work was like having a Do it yourself Caesarean! For about a hundred years critics and musicians, dismissed it but that had the effect of people coming to its rescue and some calling it a masterpiece!
> The work begins in 3/4 but the first bar is in 29/4 with a fermata bars 2, 7 and 8 are said to be in 3/4 but are in 20 plus over 4. Bars 10 -20 are still in four flats but full of sharps and a change of key signature is needed. The grammatical errors are legion...one chord is E sharp over C double sharp whereas it is grammatically correct as F natural over D natural. Later, Chopin does change key into E and then B. It is a dreadful piece and is positively loathed by many."_


Garbage in, garbage out. I would recommend reading people who are not obvious cranks.

From spending around 2 minutes researching this guy on google, it's clear David CF Wright is a crank and a dubious scholar--he also writes like a juvenile. He has a paper on how homosexuality is a "mental problem" that appears on the first page of a google search that was published in 2016 and reads like it was written by a particularly dense teenager.

My advice--don't take this dude at all seriously. I seriously doubt that the PhD he claims is real--maybe purchased or simply nonexistent is my guess.

Although primarily an anthropologist, Levi-Strauss wrote quite a lot about music, and is one of the most important intellectuals of the 20th century.


----------



## Larkenfield

Where's the umph-pah-pah now?


----------



## Bluecrab

howlingfantods said:


> ...David CF Wright...writes like a juvenile.


I wouldn't even give him that much credit-more like a below-average 5th-grader. I read part of an article on his website about Mozart. His writing is appallingly bad... as a former copy editor, I found myself almost reaching for a red pen to begin correcting the myriad typos and grammatical errors. The article is simply atrocious.



howlingfantods said:


> He has a paper on how homosexuality is a "mental problem"...


Why am I not surprised?



howlingfantods said:


> I seriously doubt that the PhD he claims is real--maybe purchased or simply nonexistent is my guess.


There's actually an old thread around here somewhere with some discussion of that very subject. IIRC, he claims to have a "DFA" degree rather than a Ph.D. FWIW, I'm as skeptical as you are that any reputable institution would grant him any kind of post-graduate degree.

AFAIK, there is exactly one member here who affords this crackpot any credibility whatsoever.


----------



## hammeredklavier

--------------------------------------


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> "Chopin is a composer for one right hand" -Richard Wagner
> "Chopin is a sickroom talent" -John Field


And how many dumb, useless remarks have _you_ made about composers you're out of sympathy with?

Hmmm... Shall we count the ones you've made on this forum alone?


----------



## Larkenfield

Apples and Oranges :cheers:


----------



## DavidA

hammeredklavier said:


> But Claude Lévy Strauss isn't even an important figure in music. Why should I care what he thinks? Is his opinion any more important than say.. David C F Wright's?
> 
> https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/frederick-chopin.pdf
> _"The obvious example is the Fantasie-Polonaise Op 61, a simply dreadful work of stops and starts, as stated by many well-known pianists and many other musicians. It reveals his mood swings, lack of form and incoherence and many have opined that it is the work of a sick mind. Liszt hated it. Even its musical grammar is wrong but few people would bother about that. One famous and revered pianist said that every printed copy of this work was the waste of a tree! Another famous pianist said that playing this
> work was like having a Do it yourself Caesarean! For about a hundred years critics and musicians, dismissed it but that had the effect of people coming to its rescue and some calling it a masterpiece!
> The work begins in 3/4 but the first bar is in 29/4 with a fermata bars 2, 7 and 8 are said to be in 3/4 but are in 20 plus over 4. Bars 10 -20 are still in four flats but full of sharps and a change of key signature is needed. The grammatical errors are legion...one chord is E sharp over C double sharp whereas it is grammatically correct as F natural over D natural. Later, Chopin does change key into E and then B. It is a dreadful piece and is positively loathed by many."_


 Frankly I don't count Mr Wright is a very important figure in music either judging by some of his comments! Typical example of someone who can't do it criticising a genius


----------



## Larkenfield

First of all, it's known as the Polonaise-Fantasy in A-flat major, Op. 61... And of course, it's so gawd awful and terrible that virtually every major pianist on the planet has played it...






... including Alfred Cortot, Horowitz, Rubinstein, Richter, Pollini, Argerich, Wang, and countless others. HK might sit down somewhere and contemplate what they know that he doesn't know about this work that remains firmly in the standard repertoire. The phrasing can sound awkward unless one knows how to play it, which evidently Franz Liszt couldn't do. Must every composer, pianist, Tom, Dick, or Harry, who can't hack or understand it, like everything that Chopin did? And of course, the eccentric and unbalanced opinion of David Wright is worth about a plug nickel and a cup of coffee. It's only the fringe minority the grants him any authority at all. If one doesn't like a certain composer, then have the maturity to move on to someone else and quit agitating.


----------



## Phil loves classical

DavidA said:


> Frankly I don't count Mr Wright is a very important figure in music either judging by some of his comments! Typical example of someone who can't do it criticising a genius


The interesting thing is Wright considered Salieri a better composer than Mozart, and Mozart was nowhere in Beethoven's league. Maybe some can use his arguments with quotes against Hammeredklavier, who is prone to using his quotes on Chopin :lol:

For instance on Salieri: "The truth about Salieri and Mozart is that Salieri was a far better composer than Mozart and was an excellent conductor and highly admired teacher. Whenever a
prodigious music position came up and both composers
applied, Salieri won and Mozart and his father, Leopold,
were jealous and criticised Salieri with venomous and
untrue attacks upon both him and his music. In saying
this, we are not speaking against Mozart's music, for,
indeed, some works are of very high quality."

"The facts of the matter are that the Mozarts were arrogant and thought too highly of themselves and
they were inferior to Salieri and so the Mozarts began a campaign of hatred and character assassination
towards Salieri and such arrogance and bad manners have been perpetrated by other unpleasant
composers notably Elgar and Britten."


----------



## hammeredklavier

-------------------------------------------


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> We once talked about this:
> 
> _"I've read through many of David C F Wright's articles and I too have been wondering as to whether he's really serious about his statements regarding Mozart vs Salieri.
> But it's worth noting that the amount of Mozart's works he praises in the Mozart article is great than the amount of Salieri's works he praises in the Salieri article. Also he gives more detailed and thoughtful explanations why he considers Mozart's works great (like Symphony No.34 in C K338). "Much is made of key signatures in the music of classical composers. The triumphant D major for Haydn, the allegedly profound C minor in both Mozart and Beethoven, but there is a case of glorious E flat for Mozart." (https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/mozart.pdf Page 5)
> 
> He occasionally does mention his view on Mozart vs Salieri in articles of other composers, but when he does, he often uses the word "musician" instead of "composer" when says Salieri is superior to Mozart as in the one about Schubert. ("But the fact is that Leopold Mozart disliked Salieri since Salieri was a finer musician and always obtained posts Leopold wanted for his son, and this was simply because Salieri was a far greater musician than either of the Mozarts.") ( https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/schubert.pdf Page 3)
> 
> When discussing examples of great composers he always quotes Mozart as one of the greats along with Beethoven, Haydn, but not Salieri.
> "Schubert could not develop his material as could great composers such as Haydn, Mozart, and especially Beethoven." (Schubert article, Page 1)
> "Take a concert described as a collection of very best in classical music. We have Haydn, Beethoven, Mozart.. so far so good. But then there is included a waltz by Johann Strauss II and a piece by Piazzolla." (https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/i-know-what-i-like.pdf Page 1)
> "A recent BBC concert was announced as a remarkable event containing music by the world's very greatest composers, namely Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and Piazzolla...really?"
> https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/what-makes-a-great-composer.pdf"_
> 
> Anyway, the point I'm making is that I consider Claude Lévy Strauss's opinion on music only as important as David C F Wright's or Albert Einstein's. I don't use Wright as an authority or anything, I still think he has a few good points regarding Schubert and Chopin, but I admit there's a lot of useless things written on the carelessly-written articles.
> Wright never said Mozart was nowhere in Beethoven's league. He did say Beethoven is the greatest composer who ever lived, but called the 6th symphony a "silly tune" and said that Beethoven's late works lack inspiration compared to his earlier works.


Wright did use say Salieri was a far better composer as in the quote i last posted above. That appeared as his thesis, when he first mentioned his opinion on the 2. Needless to say, he hated Britten and Chopin, attacking their character, and saying it shows through in their music, and tried to undermine Mozart saying he lived a city life and is childish, not really having the depth of Beethoven as I recall, but too lazy to go back and post the quote.


----------



## Blancrocher

I think that when someone affirms the superiority of Salieri over Mozart--and blames the former's relatively poor posthumous reputation on a smear campaign by the Mozart family--it's common courtesy to assume that he's trolling.


----------



## DavidA

/I]

Anyway, the point I'm making is that I consider Claude Lévy Strauss's opinion on music only as important as David C F Wright's or Albert Einstein's. I don't use Wright as an authority or anything, I still think he has a few good points regarding Schubert and Chopin, but I admit there's a lot of useless things written on the carelessly-written articles.
Wright never said Mozart was nowhere in Beethoven's league. He did say Beethoven is the greatest composer who ever lived, *but called the 6th symphony a "silly tune" and said that Beethoven's late works lack inspiration compared to his earlier work*s.[/QUOTE]

Just proves how worthless Mr Wright's opinions on music are


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> Wright did use say Salieri was a far better composer as in the quote i last posted above. That appeared as his thesis, when he first mentioned his opinion on the 2. Needless to say, he hated Britten and Chopin, attacking their character, and saying it shows through in their music, and tried to undermine Mozart saying he lived a city life and is childish, not really having the depth of Beethoven as I recall, but too lazy to go back and post the quote.


This is what Wright said:
https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/mozart.pdf
_"Unlike Haydn or Beethoven, Mozart had no sense of nature or the outdoors. There is no Creation or Seasons or a Pastoral. He was a real townie. Neither is there any great subtlety in his music. His music does, however, have the feel of lace handkerchiefs, powdered wigs and urban society."_

But as I explained, Wright uses Mozart far more often than Salieri as an example of "great composers" in the miscellaneous articles. Whereas with Elgar, Chopin, Schubert, he always describes them negatively. I think Wright just likes to exaggerate Salieri's greatness when comparing with Mozart just because he's angry about the way Salieri was portrayed in Amadeus and the way the general classical music community perceives Salieri.


----------



## DavidA

hammeredklavier said:


> This is what Wright said:
> https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/mozart.pdf
> _"Unlike Haydn or Beethoven, Mozart had no sense of nature or the outdoors. There is no Creation or Seasons or a Pastoral. He was a real townie. *Neither is there any great subtlety in his music.* His music does, however, have the feel of lace handkerchiefs, powdered wigs and urban society."_
> 
> But as I explained, Wright uses Mozart far more often than Salieri as an example of "great composers" in the miscellaneous articles. Whereas with Elgar, Chopin, Schubert, he always describes them negatively. I think Wright just likes to bluff and exaggerate Salieri's greatness when comparing with Mozart just because he's angry about the way Salieri was portrayed in Amadeus and the way the general classical community perceives Salieri.


You just can't believe it! Maybe all Wright knows of a Mozart is Amadeus


----------



## Dimace

DavidA said:


> /I]
> 
> Anyway, the point I'm making is that I consider Claude Lévy Strauss's opinion on music only as important as David C F Wright's or Albert Einstein's. I don't use Wright as an authority or anything, I still think he has a few good points regarding Schubert and Chopin, but I admit there's a lot of useless things written on the carelessly-written articles.
> Wright never said Mozart was nowhere in Beethoven's league. He did say Beethoven is the greatest composer who ever lived, *but called the 6th symphony a "silly tune" and said that Beethoven's late works lack inspiration compared to his earlier work*s.


[/QUOTE]Just proves *how worthless* Mr Wright's opinions on music are[/QUOTE]

This is not worthless. It is a declaration of profound insanity.

(too many experts, lately. Too many… I'm starting to be afraid).


----------



## Captainnumber36

After listening to much Chopin lately, I have concluded both are equal and have something different to offer. I'd hate to be without either!


----------



## Jehosafat

In solo piano works, I think that I like Chopin more, but in works with orchestration, Mozart without hesitation.

*In other words: Both*


----------



## Mozartino

Creo que son dos compositores muy distintos, difíciles de comparar. Ambos fueron unos genios, pero compusieron obras tan distintas con instrumentos muy distintos.

[I think they are two very different composers, difficult to compare. Both were geniuses, but they composed such different works with very different instruments.] (Moderator edit)


----------



## Bwv 1080

Mozart was Chopin’s primary influence along with Bellini. Both are operatic composers


----------

