# I don't get why people bash Mozart when Chopin is so overrated



## hammeredklavier

I've come across some comments in classical communities that say things like "the Classics, especially Mozart, are overrated, whereas the early Romantics should get more attention" etc.. There's also a thread called 'Was Mozart trash or god?' in this forum. And I'm wondering why people have negative things to say about Mozart when there is this grossly overrated guy named Frederic Chopin always being mentioned alongside the giants.

For me, I've never really understood the reason for Chopin's immense popularity in classical music communities. Him, and Bach, Mozart, Beethoven are without doubt like the 4 most popular composers in general. in this video, (



) for example, which lists music of Bach, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, and CHOPIN, has attained over 70 million views. Another video of music by Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and CHOPIN has 10 million views. When seeing videos like these, I always ask myself this question. Does Chopin deserve to have his name ranked and mentioned along the same line as the giants?

If you have listened to enough Chopin you'll realize Chopin lacked variety in composition skills, (except a few moments in Ballade No.4 in F minor etc) some claim that Mozart is formulaic, but the truth is Chopin was far more formulaic than Mozart ever was. In Chopin, his usual methods in building climax are either 
A. One hand playing melody while the other hand plays accompaniment in vamping chords 
B. both hands playing (chords, octaves) in unison
Based on this proposition, I'll explain in the following paragraphs why Chopin is far more overrated than Mozart.

*1. Chopin didn't have good sense for form or structure. He was a miniaturist.*
Polonaise Op.53 in A flat "Heroic" has this, E major - E flat major middle section which goes on for two pages, with left hand continuously banging E - D# - C# - B in vamping ostinato (switching to Eb - D - C - Bb in the E flat section) while right hand plays melody in chords. (



) Polonaise Op.44 in F sharp also has a 2 minute middle section with both hands playing repetitive patterns in unison. (



)

Also listen to the climax of Nocturne Op.48 No.1 in C minor. He again uses the same old technique of both hands playing octaves in unison. (



) In Chopin, like 99% of the time, it's either accompaniment chords or arpeggios. There's not a single section in Chopin's works that resemble the fugue in the recapitulation section of Liszt's Sonata in B minor or Beethoven's Hammerklavier Sonata.

As you can see in these mature works by Chopin he didn't have the capability to move away from writing ostinatos, arpeggios, chordal accompaniment of simple harmony, 
British critic of music David C F Wright said Polonaise Fantasia Op.66 lacks cohesion, and that it is "a dreadful work of stops and starts". Some people may not agree, but to some extent I understand what he meant. Sonata No.2 in B flat minor's movements, especially the movement has no thematic, or motivic unity with the others. it sounds like something he randomly picked up from his set of preludes to include in the sonata.
This is no case for Mozart, as String Quintet in C major K515 1st movement shares the concept of chromatic rise in bassline in development section with the 4th movement. Fantasia in C minor for Piano K475 has thematic unity with the follow-up Piano Sonata in C minor K457. Even individual movements of Requiem have the D - C#-D- E - F, the "DNA" motif of the Requiem. In String Quartet No.19 in C major, "the slow introduction to this 'dissonance' quartet has actually been a kind a mine from which material for the rest of the movements are to be taken." (https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lecture/transcript/print/mozart-quartet-in-c-major-k465-dissonance/)

More than half of Chopin's output is miniatures, Mazurka Op.67 No.3 in C major, Mazurka Op.33 No.2 in D major, there are so many of these half-baked salon works (of "ABA" ternary structure) in his output, you could say Chopin is the Scott Joplin of classical music. Some of his preludes do show a wide range of emotional intensity. But still, ones like Preludes No.4, no.7, no.20 have no real formatic structure, they're way too lackluster to be works you would expect from a great master. I once thought the Sostenuto Waltz in E flat (



) and Waltz in A minor Op. Post (



) were early works, but then I was quite surprised to find they were actually written in his 30s. 
Vast majority of works by Mozart, even Sonatas and Variations have formatic structure. Even the 2 minute keyboard piece, Gigue in G major, K574 contains clever counterpoint. Chopin could never achieve this level of balance and structure, for example. (



)

*2. Chopin's contrapuntal skills were limited and the evidence is clearly shown in his works*
Some of you may be surprised to hear Chopin composed a fugue. He did, some time in his 30s, wrote Fugue in A minor (B.144, published after his death)




but as you see, his one and only attempt at fugal composition failed miserably and ended in disaster, almost sounding like something Mozart would have written before the age of 10. Here are examples of Mozart's fugal writing at age 16 (



) and 17 (



)




whereas, Mozart in his 30s, paid the greatest tribute to Bach of the classical period, with Fantasia in F minor for organ K608, a dazzling show of contrapuntal prowess for writing intricate double fugues and organ playing technique. 
Chopin did not have the capacity to write anything of contrapuntal intensity like Jesu Christe Cum Sanctu Spiritu from Mozart's Mass in C minor K427 or the first movement of Mozart's Symphony No.38 in D major "Prague" or the Magic Flute Overture, or Adagio and Fugue in C minor for String Orchestra. A huge bunch of Mozart's string quartets and concertos (such as the final movements of Piano concertos Nos. 14, 19, 24) with various instruments having their "individual voices", fusing the Classical style of balance and structure with the learned style of counterpoint. 
examples: 











Mozart's "building of tension through use of smaller motifs in chromatic modulation" in the introduction and second movement of String Quartet No.19 in C "dissonance", the first movement and last movement of String Quartet No. 15 in D minor (



), for example, are masterful. This is technique is further utilized to enhance the dynamic nature of 1st (



) and 3rd movements of Piano Concerto No.20 in D minor, a style of which would later be adapted by Beethoven. Schoenberg is said to have admired this particular quality of Mozart. (



) Beethoven told Czerny about Mozart's String Quartet No.18 in A, "now that's the way to write a string quartet.

You can't really say the same about Chopin's salon works, which frankly lack real substance. While it's true Chopin's Mazurka in F minor Op.68 No.4 contains some sections of canon, Barcarolle, Ballade No.4, D flat major Etude from "Trois Nouvelles Etudes" (the right hand 1st 2nd fingers playing "inner voice" in staccatos), some sections of Sonata Op.58 in B minor, Etude Op.10 No.4 in C sharp minor, the polyphony of Nocturne Op.55 No.2 in E flat major do make uses of some counterpoint. But they're skin-deep compared to the work of the contrapuntal masters, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven.

The same old "waltzy chordal accompaniment" ta-da-da!, ta-da-da!, ta-da-da!, ta-da-da! pervades Chopin's 70 Mazurkas and Waltzes, written throughout his life. And I think part of the reason why Chopin stuck to using them so often in his life was probably because it was too much of a pain for him to learn the proper skills to move away from them completely. Even Johann Strauss Jr's Nordseebilder has more advanced counterpoint than Chopin's waltzes.

*3. Chopin was a one-trick pony who couldn't write for ensembles or orchestras.*
I've never really understood the hype for Chopin's concertos. They're like worse versions of Hummel's piano concertos in A minor Op.85 (



) and B minor Op.89 (



), which Chopin clearly modelled his concertos on. Hummel concertos even have better orchestration than Chopin's. Chopin's concertos don't deserve all the immense popularity they enjoy today, while Hummel's being almost forgotten. In fact, Chopin was so bad an orchestrator, Liszt's pupil, Tausig had to fix the orchestration for him, and if you thought the orchestration of the concertos were bad, the orchestration of Grand Polonaise Brillante Op.22 is even worse. So badly written most pianists today perform them solo.

While it's true Chopin did write some works of ingenuity for the piano like the Ballades or Etude Op.25 No.5 in E minor. But I must stress the point, Chopin was able to achieve much of the "pianistic" sonority and whatever range, emotion in his music thanks to the development of piano technology which happened just prior to the Romantic period. What if Mozart had the Romantic piano at his disposal and Chopin didn't?

If you listen to Rondo for piano in A minor K511, you'll realize Mozart would have achieved what Chopin achieved if he had the Romantic era piano, but Chopin, in actual reality never even came close to Mozart's achievements in all other areas of music, even with all the musical advancements pioneered by the giants before him, and all the resources that became available to him thanks to the giants.

Chopin may have written a dozen of great works but he's clearly not in the same league as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven. People must realize if there's one composer among popular classical composers who should criticized for being "overrated" or "getting too much attention for the achievements and skills they had" it should be Chopin, not Mozart.

That being said, I cannot sympathize with anyone who say the Classical period is a low point in the history of music and at the same time admire the early Romantics including Chopin and his feminine, corny, minor-key melodies that sound "melacholic and sweet" to the modern ear (like the typical BGM from those sad Asian dramas, works by new-age pianist-composers like Yiruma) such as Waltz in C sharp minor Op.64 No.2, Waltz Op.69 No.2 in B minor, Nocturne Op.55 No.1 in F minor.

I mean Chopin couldn't even write a proper fugue like seriously


----------



## Phil loves classical

I used to share your view, and still do for most of his popular pieces, and agree the K. 511 basically was the mould for many of Chopin's pieces, and that Chopin did do some catchy, inconsequential music like the Minute Waltz. But he did have serious writing skills, and command of harmony in works like his Ballades, and some others I can't recall off the top of my head, that were innovative for its time.


----------



## Bulldog

I don't get why people bash wonderful composers such as Mozart or Chopin.


----------



## Larkenfield

It's not Chopin's fault if every listener under the sun is unable to appreciate the refined, the sublime, and the exquisite-no composer bats a thousand, not even a Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven. Diamonds are miniatures too, but maybe because they're not the size of a football, they have no intrinsic value either... If you're into math, the top Chopin video has 70,000,000 views, not 10-so you're 60,000,000 short in your counting, despite the sound quality of the upload not being very good and some of the performances being poor... If you ever fall in love with someone of sensitivity, light a candle in the evening and play his exquisite Nocturnes by Claudio Arrau. If you're lucky, you'll have a night to remember and might consider thanking him for the emotional depth and range that he brought to music. Virtually everything he wrote is in the standard repertoire and played after almost 170 years-one of the highest percentages among any of the immortals residing on Mount Olympus. For a study of his genius, there's James Huneker's _Chopin: The Man and His Music_ with insights into everything he wrote and why he was considered the greatest harmonist since Bach... Needless to say, I would never have posted a diatribe even if I didn't care for him. What Schumann said about him was true: "Cannons buried in flowers."


----------



## EdwardBast

Your post was about the fifth most unhinged performance I've seen today! The others I saw live streaming over youtube.  

Seriously: Where did you get this straw-man story about people putting down Mozart in favor of Chopin? Also, you've apparently not heard Chopin's piano sonatas. Long term structure brilliantly executed in the second and third.

Most important, when you write: "Chopin may have written a dozen of great works but he's clearly not in the same league as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven," you are writing something virtually everyone knows and acknowledges. Almost no one thinks he's in the same league as Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. Who do you think you're arguing with?


----------



## SONNET CLV

Bulldog said:


> I don't get why people bash wonderful composers such as Mozart or Chopin.


It's easier to do than to go out and write one's own "terrible" compositions that will still be admired, played, and listened-to centuries after one's death!


----------



## DavidA

Bash Chopin? Why? Wrote some wonderful music within a limited range. You can't compare him to Mozart who wrote in just about every medium but what Chopin wrote is splendid


----------



## Guest

I haven't really seen anyone 'bash Mozart' on this forum for a long time. Sure, I've seen some people say that Mozart isn't really their thing, but not to the level that the OP went on to say Chopin is overrated.


----------



## janxharris

DavidA said:


> Bash Chopin? Why? Wrote some wonderful music within a limited range. You can't compare him to Mozart who wrote in just about every medium but what Chopin wrote is splendid


I don't see anything limiting about not covering all the mediums that other composers have. Music consists of organised sound waves and can be arranged in myriad ways.


----------



## PlaySalieri

In TC polls of great composers I think Chopin is usually placed around 10th or so - behind Haydn and Mendelssohn but ahead of Bruckner and Grieg. So while I share you enthusiasm for Mozart I dont quite understand where you are coming from. There are few on this board that would seriously put him anywhere near Mozart - even those who champion his music would not want to expose themselves to ridicule.

His popularity among listeners who are not serious classical listeners is considerable - as many of his works have an immediate melodic appeal and he does compose in such a way that his music is immediately recognizable.

Of the concertos - I enjoy PC 1 much more than PC2 - I understand in fact he composed PC1 later than PC2 The orchestral parts are rudimentary but overall there's an abundance of appealing melodic invention, part 2nd mvt and the 3rd mvt is a dramatic bravura display.

Hummel - there's too much good music by other composers to waste time on Hummel.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> There are few on this board that would seriously put him anywhere near Mozart - even those who champion his music would not want to expose themselves to ridicule.


Do you consider such as worthy of ridicule?


----------



## Forss

"My kingdom is small, yes, but within it, I am truly King." – Chopin


----------



## Guest

Forss said:


> "My kingdom is small, yes, but within it, I am truly King." - Chopin


What an awful thing to say.


----------



## Guest

Well I suppose Mozart just scores over Chopin since he did actually compose some mildly diverting symphonies where Chopin composed none. :devil:

An analogy to the OP's query might be,

"Why do people bash Boston Red Sox when Bubba Watson is so much worse?"


----------



## Jacck

Chopin could compose melodies that speak to me. Mozart's music seemed sterile to me, ie lacking emotional depth. I understand that the reason might be on my side, ie some psychological reason on my part, but so it is. Although I ackowledge, that Mozart's music is more complex and he was the bigger talent of the two, Chopin could write music, that touches me deeper.


----------



## PlaySalieri

MacLeod said:


> Well I suppose Mozart just scores over Chopin since he did actually compose some mildly diverting symphonies where Chopin composed none. :devil:


+ Opera? Chamber music? Masses? etc

Chopin = solo piano, 2 concertos, a ballet.

I imagine that Chopin is nothing to you as you only listen to symphonies.


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> I mean Chopin couldn't even write a proper fugue like seriously.


Perhaps you are unduly elevating the fugue? Having different voices play a theme and it's variations against one another isn't necessarily meritorious.


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> I imagine that Chopin is nothing to you as you only listen to symphonies.


It was a _scherzo_, stomanek!

If I do only listen to symphonies, it's becasue they are the supreme form 

In fact, at the moment, I'm fixated on Fauré's piano works (and he's definitely better than Chopin!)


----------



## Jacck

although I must say, that my initial aversion towards Mozart is almost completely gone and I am really starting to like him and his music can be almost as moving as that of Chopin, especially his adagios




I wonder how much of the aversion towards Mozart was caused by the Mozart kitsch. I have lived in 2 cities, where Mozart is omnipresent - Prague and Vienna, and I visited Salzburg several times for skiing. So I have basically grown up in a culture where Mozart is played on escalators and in subway stations. I even worked in Prague as a student, dressed in a Mozart costume and selling concert tickets to tourists. Not to mention the Mozart balls (Mozartkugel etc). So in my mind, Mozart became associated with horrendous kitsch. Might that be the reason for my initial dislike of him?


----------



## janxharris

Jacck said:


> although I must say, that my initial aversion towards Mozart is almost completely gone and I am really starting to like him and his music can be almost as moving as that of Chopin, especially his adagios
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how much of the aversion towards Mozart was caused by the Mozart kitsch. I have lived in 2 cities, where Mozart is omnipresent - Prague and Vienna, and I visited Salzburg several times for skiing. So I have basically grown up in a culture where Mozart is played on escalators and in subway stations. I even worked in Prague as a student, dressed in a Mozart costume and selling concert tickets to tourists. Not to mention the Mozart balls (Mozartkugel etc). So in my mind, Mozart became associated with horrendous kitsch. Might that be the reason for my initial dislike of him?


Astonishing dissonances in that Mozart, I'd say - it really touches the soul.


----------



## DavidA

janxharris said:


> I don't see anything limiting about not covering all the mediums that other composers have. Music consists of organised sound waves and can be arranged in myriad ways.


Yes but to my ears at any rate the piano does not sound the same as an orchestra. Opera does not sound the same as a piano sonata


----------



## janxharris

DavidA said:


> Yes but to my ears at any rate the piano does not sound the same as an orchestra. Opera does not sound the same as a piano sonata


I agree with you. I'm not clear about what you are saying DavidA.


----------



## DavidA

janxharris said:


> I agree with you. I'm not clear about what you are saying DavidA.


I am stating the obvious. Your post appeared to state that all music was just sound waves and implied it was the same.


----------



## DavidA

I don't think people who appreciate good music ever 'bash' Mozart. He appears to be a composer who everyone can appreciate. He was a colossal genius who wrote music that communicates.


----------



## janxharris

DavidA said:


> I am stating the obvious. Your post appeared to state that all music was just sound waves and implied it was the same.


It is the same in terms of a composition; the colours might be different but we are just talking about sine waves with varying amounts of overtone colouring. You were saying that because Mozart 'wrote in just about every medium' that that meant he was a greater composer. I don't see that.


----------



## janxharris

DavidA said:


> I don't think people who appreciate good music ever 'bash' Mozart. He appears to be a composer who everyone can appreciate. He was a colossal genius who wrote music that communicates.


Mozart has received lots of 'bashing' - as all other composers have.


----------



## JAS

If the OP is concerned about statements made at TC, I would say that there is no need for that. TC is not the real world.


----------



## PlaySalieri

JAS said:


> If the OP is concerned about statements made at TC, I would say that there is no need for that. *TC is not the real world.*


True - its much worse.


----------



## MarkW

I don't bash people who "like" any composer. For me, Chopin is "about" beautiful pianism. I enjoy a Chopin set as part of a piano concert, but never play him at home because a little goes a long way and the "substance" of his work is not kind that floats my boat -- but to each his own. When I can compose or play that well, then I'll judge.


----------



## Texas Chain Saw Mazurka

Well, I might as well start the day angry -- gets me started better than coffee...


----------



## Ras

I love both Mozart and Chopin and I try not to "bash" any composer learning from both delightful and bitter experience: When I "diss" somebody the next thing I know they become favorites… this actually happened for me with Brahms - even Beethoven was one I struggled to appreciate (still haven't gotten into his late piano sonatas and string quartets). 

BTW Mozart was one of Chopin's favorite composers.


----------



## EdwardBast

Oh Jeez people! Now the Mozart worshipers are attacking the poor Chopin enthusiasts. Talk about punching below your weight! Chopin is a wonderful composer and there is nothing wrong with liking him more than Mozart. And you Mozart thugs () should be ashamed of yourselves. It's not like Wolfie really needs defending in this case, is it? You should just sit back, smile to yourselves and be magnanimous instead of getting defensive and nipping at your opponents like a pack of chihuahuas.


----------



## larold

This isn't personal but I don't think anyone that believes Chopin is "overrated," whatever that means other than being pejorative, has much understanding of the piano, piano composition, or the role of the keyboard in classical music. Not mention musical beauty.

Chopin was to the modern piano what Debussy was to the orchestra, taking it places it had never gone before. His music will stand and be heard, played in concert, on the radio and on recordings, for as long as people listen to piano music.

I would never think of such a composer as being overrated. He came in No. 21 in my survey of composers ahead of people like Debussy, Rachmaninoff, Mahler, Bartok, Puccini, Rossini and Saint Saens.


----------



## DavidA

janxharris said:


> It is the same in terms of a composition; the colours might be different but we are just talking about sine waves with varying amounts of overtone colouring. You were saying that because Mozart 'wrote in just about every medium' that that meant he was a greater composer. *I don't see that*.


Sorry you can't see it. I thought that it must be obvious


----------



## Bulldog

stomanek said:


> Hummel - there's too much good music by other composers to waste time on Hummel.


Why just bash Mozart and Chopin on this thread when Hummel is such easy prey. Stomanek might find Hummel a waste of time, but I get much enjoyment from his solo keyboard works, chamber music, concertos and sacred choral works. Personally, I find it odd that someone who loves the music of Mozart would be so dismissive of Hummel's output.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Bulldog said:


> Why just bash Mozart and Chopin on this thread when Hummel is such easy prey. Stomanek might find Hummel a waste of time, but I get much enjoyment from his solo keyboard works, chamber music, concertos and sacred choral works. Personally, I find it odd that someone who loves the music of Mozart would be so dismissive of Hummel's output.


Why do you think someone loving the music of Mozart means they would entertain spending time listening to a minor master like Hummel? If my favourite composer was Boccherini or Clementi you might have a case for your incredulity.


----------



## Jacck

stomanek said:


> Why do you think someone loving the music of Mozart means they would entertain spending time listening to a minor master like Hummel? If my favourite composer was Boccherini or Clementi you might have a case for your incredulity.


Stomanek, you are doing Mozart a disservice. People will then think that all Mozart fans are as narrowminded, intolerant and aggressive as yourself and that might dissuade them from giving Mozart a chance. I like diversity and cannot imagine to listen to just one or two composers exclusively. It would become boring. Hummel composed some great music that is almost as good as Mozart's.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Jacck said:


> Stomanek, you are doing Mozart a disservice. People will then think that all Mozart fans are as narrowminded, intolerant and aggressive as yourself and that might dissuade them from giving Mozart a chance. I like diversity and cannot imagine to listen to just one or two composers exclusively. It would become boring. Hummel composed some great music that is almost as good as Mozart's.


ROFL

I really dont think a narrow minded Mozart maniac like me is going to put people off coming to Mozart

quite the reverse I would have thought as they might be curious enough to know what sublime music turned me from being a rather well balanced and likeable pop fan into such an arrogant intolerant Mozart snob.


----------



## Doctuses

I don't know about Mozart bashing, but I would have to say that I agree about Chopin. Never liked him and don't know if I ever will. But to each his own.


----------



## jdec

Jacck said:


> Stomanek, you are doing Mozart a disservice. People will then think that all Mozart fans are as narrowminded, intolerant and aggressive as yourself and that might dissuade them from giving Mozart a chance. I like diversity and cannot imagine to listen to just one or two composers exclusively. It would become boring.* Hummel composed some great music that is almost as good as Mozart's. *


So it gets almost as performed/recorded as Mozart's too. 

Kidding aside, Hummel has some nice works and tunes, but no, his music is not almost as good as Mozart's in my view. BTW, I'm a core Mozart fan but also a fan of many many other great composers, including Chopin. You will not ever see me bashing great composers in this forum, I feel fortunate to be able to appreciate all of them.


----------



## Barbebleu

Doctuses said:


> Chopin. Never liked him and don't know if I ever will. But to each his own.


Never met the man but according to his contemporaries he was quite charming!

His Nocturnes and Études are a delight imnsho!!


----------



## isorhythm

"simple harmony," OK.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

I must say, it's quite brave of the OP person to actually admit that they don't get something. That's better than most people, right? :tiphat:

The OP is splendidly descriptive and detailed, better than most. Clearly something they feel strongly about, and for a long time. I'd rather have someone have an opinion rather than nothing.

But my response is: _I don't care that you don't get why people bash Mozart in favor of Chopin._ What I _do _care is if you're willing to become informed on that other side of the perspective. Are you willing to stop saying that you don't "get" stuff, and willing to say "I want to know"? I don't have a reason to pick on the OP maker in particular, it's just a phrase I see thrown around excessively. It would have been better if they said "I want to tell you all what I find lacking in Chopin, and why this matters to me, if you care to hear to my opinion." Even so, I find those threads die really quick. People just don't care about your opinion, because it's not going to change theirs unless they agreed with you already.


----------



## Bulldog

stomanek said:


> Why do you think someone loving the music of Mozart means they would entertain spending time listening to a minor master like Hummel?


Not just entertain the notion of listening to some Hummel but actually doing it because he wrote a lot of fine music. No, it isn't at Mozart's level, but it's damned good.

I love beef, and my favorite by far is beef tenderloin. But I still enjoy eating t-bones, porterhouse, top sirloin and even eye of the round now and then.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Bulldog said:


> Not just entertain the notion of listening to some Hummel but actually doing it because he wrote a lot of fine music. No, it isn't at Mozart's level, but it's damned good.
> 
> I love beef, and my favorite by far is beef tenderloin. But I still enjoy eating t-bones, porterhouse, top sirloin and even eye of the round now and then.


Time and time again I have explored minor master's music on the recommendation of various people - mainly TC members. I have listened to the concertos and sonatas of Clementi, for example - searching for reasons why people are interested in music that is significantly inferior to that best. To this date I have found most of this music pleasant, reasonable - but not good enough to go out of my way and listen particularly when I am short on listening time. I only today came back to K511 after the OP made some comments and had a big moment with the piece after not hearing it for 15 years.

I am afraid I am a flawed character and this sometimes manifests on the forum - hence the dismissive comments etc. I should probably guard my comments a little more, but what the heck, I like expressing my views.

Still - you say that Hummel is damned good - ok - give me your best shot. A Hummel sonata - I'm curious about what you consider to be damned good.


----------



## Jacck

stomanek said:


> ok - give me your best shot. A Hummel sonata - I'm curious about what you consider to be damned good.


I think this is damn good




I would become really bored if I listened to just one composer my whole life.


----------



## Luchesi

Beethoven admired Clementi sonatas. Horowitz devoted a whole album to Clementi, but not to Hummel?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Jacck said:


> I think this is damn good
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would become really bored if I listened to just one composer my whole life.


damn good - maybe - thanks to good ol Ludwig Van.

If I want to listen to Beethoven inspired music I'll just settle for Beethoven.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Luchesi said:


> Beethoven admired Clementi sonatas. Horowitz devoted a whole album to Clementi, but not to Hummel?


One would think therefore, Clementi should receive more credit than he does.


----------



## Larkenfield

Hummel mostly studied with Mozart but was actually a bridge between the classical and romantic periods and ultimately closer to the Romantics. Frederick Chopin modeled his concertos after him and obviously held him in great esteem. This unmistakable influence on Chopin can be heard in Hummel's 2nd Piano Concerto, and that's probably the reason why it's no longer played in the concert halls, because Chopin borrowed from him and raised it to a higher level. Nevertheless, Hummel was capable of being a masterful composer, and in retrospect, I find it almost shocking how much Chopin took from him that even most students of the piano and Chopin are completely unaware. Chopin modeled the best from others, made it his own, greatly added to it with his own originality, and raised it to a much high level with his melodic, harmonic, and narrative genius... If one wants _fugues_ during the highly personal Romantic era, then one is welcome to listen to Brahms or Reger, or go back even farther to Bach.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Larkenfield said:


> Hummel mostly studied with Mozart but was actually a bridge between the classical and romantic periods and ultimately closer to the Romantics. Frederick Chopin modeled his concertos after him and obviously held him in great esteem. This unmistakable influence on Chopin can be heard in Hummel's 2nd Piano Concerto, and that's probably the reason why it's no longer played in the concert halls because Chopin borrowed from him and raised it to a higher level. Nevertheless, Hummel was capable of being a masterful composer, and in retrospect, I find it almost shocking how much Chopin took from him that even most students of the piano and of Chopin are completely unaware of. Chopin modeled the best from others, made it his own, and raised it to a much high level with his melodic, harmonic, and narrative genius. If one wants _fugues_, listen to Bach!


You are right - many touches there that Chopin must have appropriated. Nice to listen to - bit of a hotch potch concerto which is what I expected but better than I thought it would be.


----------



## KenOC

Hummel's piano trios are very high-grade ore.


----------



## PlaySalieri

KenOC said:


> Hummel's piano trios are very high-grade ore.


you dont say - ok - I'll check one out.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Hummel looks a lot like my next door neighbour, who is a 74-year old woman.


----------



## PlaySalieri

KenOC said:


> Hummel's piano trios are very high-grade ore.


Listened to the 1st mvt of the 1st trio - seems to be better than the concerto.


----------



## KenOC

stomanek said:


> you dont say - ok - I'll check one out.


Here's a less pricy set of Hummel trios with good players and good reviews.

https://www.amazon.com/Johann-Nepom...=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1538161888&sr=1-1


----------



## Larkenfield

Glad you liked it. Rather interesting, what!


----------



## millionrainbows

I'm grateful to Chopin for thinking outside the diatonic box. His progressions are very harmonically daring, that's why they call him "the poet of the piano," because his successions of chords are so stream-of consciousness. The first thing I learned on piano was the Preude in E minor, and it is so modern in its use of smooth-voice-leading triads, going down chromatically, obliquely, and it still defies traditional music. He was out there in Poland, isolated from the european academy, so he did what the hell he wanted.


----------



## millionrainbows

Hummell, very witty!


----------



## Ras

...for those who just can't get "hummeled" enough there is 20 CD-box coming out in October:


----------



## Larkenfield

”Hummelmania!” -- the ’middle bowl of porridge’ between Mozart and Chopin. :cheers:


----------



## adrien

Original post reminds me of someone trying to rationalise why their ex shouldn't have dumped them.

It's not rational, it's emotional.

Chopin is considered by a great number of people to be great, for largely emotional reasons. Just need to get over it.


----------



## Couchie

Chopin is arguably the finest piano composer who ever lived. If you don't agree, you don't play piano.


----------



## lextune

Not sure if OP is a troll or not...

...either way...



Couchie said:


> Chopin is arguably the finest piano composer who ever lived. If you don't agree, you don't play piano.


^This.

OP:

You call Chopin a miniaturist as if that should somehow diminish him. This makes no sense.

You say he couldn't write for ensembles or orchestras. This also makes no sense. Even if that is true, then how would that speak to his worth? No one argues that Chopin is defined as a musician from anything other than his works for piano. That would be like saying someone is a terrible poet because they can't paint a landscape.

You accuse him of "simple harmony", which means you either don't know his works, or don't understand harmony. Or what might be even more telling; you don't understand the state of harmony before, and after, Chopin.

I could type out long replies to try to help you understand these things, but I am a lazy man. Instead I will quote you some more industrious men than I...

***

"Chopin has written two wonderful mazurkas which are worth more than forty novels and are more eloquent than the entire century's literature." - Hector Berlioz

"Chopin's chromaticism marks a stage of the greatest importance in the evolution of harmonic language. He was the first composer to seriously undermine the solid system of diatonic tonalism created by the Viennese classical masters." - Gerald Abraham

"Hats off gentlemen, a genius!"
"If the mighty autocrat of the north knew what a dangerous enemy threatened him in Chopin's works in the simple tunes of his mazurkas, he would forbid this music. Chopin's works are canons buried in flowers." - Robert Schumann

"We may be sure that a genius like Mozart, were he born today, would write concertos like Chopin and not like Mozart." - Felix Mendelssohn _(This one seemed particularly apropos to your post since you asked what if Mozart had had Chopin's pianos; I was able to give you Mendelssohn's answer to your question! ...Mendelssohn. I mean, wow. You're welcome) _

"It was Chopin who properly set romantic pianism on its rails and gave it the impetus that shows no signs of deceleration. He did this all by himself, evolving from nowhere the most beautiful and original piano style of the century." - Harold C. Schonberg

"Chopin was a genius of universal appeal. His music conquers the most diverse audiences. When the first notes of Chopin sound through the concert hall there is a happy sigh of recognition. All over the world men and women know his music. They love it. They are moved by it. Yet it is not 'Romantic music' in the Byronic sense. It does not tell stories or paint pictures. It is expressive and personal, but still a pure art. Even in this abstract atomic age, where emotion is not fashionable, Chopin endures. His music is the universal language of human communication. When I play Chopin I know I speak directly to the hearts of people!" - Artur Rubinstein

"His connection with the piano is so complete, it feels almost as if the instrument was created to allow his music to come into the world. I have to work hard to get it right, but the notes fall under the hands so beautifully that playing him is overwhelmingly pleasurable." - Emanuel Ax

Chopin is one of the true universal masters, (just like Mozart). His music has never left the repertoire, and almost every note he wrote is still frequently played today. - Time Itself _(the only true judge of art)._


----------



## Larkenfield

"Houston, we have a problem."

I was curious so I did some digging into the British critic of music David C F Wright, who said that Chopin's Polonaise Fantasia Op.66 "lacks cohesion" and that it is "a dreadful work of stops and starts." Maybe the OP or Mr. Wright would like to point out exactly where the Polonaise Fantasy "lacks cohesion," "stops and starts," and is "dreadful," because either he made that up out of thin air or he may not be an accurate listener by a country mile.

https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/frederick-chopin.pdf

As far as Chopin's Op. 66 is concerned, I hear nothing but decisiveness and a clear intent from the first note to the last in a composition that's entirely organic, flowing, and an expression of contrasting moods: one of turbulence and one of peace and lyrical melodic beauty. I hear no stops and starts. I hear no lack of cohesion. It also happens to be one of Chopin's most famous and recognizable compositions with an ending that floats magically in the air like a band of angels:


----------



## PlaySalieri

lextune said:


> Not sure if OP is a troll or not...
> 
> ...either way...
> 
> ^This.
> 
> OP:
> 
> You call Chopin a miniaturist as if that should somehow diminish him. This makes no sense.
> 
> You say he couldn't write for ensembles or orchestras. This also makes no sense. Even if that is true, then how would that speak to his worth? No one argues that Chopin is defined as a musician from anything other than his works for piano. That would be like saying someone is a terrible poet because they can't paint a landscape.
> 
> You accuse him of "simple harmony", which means you either don't know his works, or don't understand harmony. Or what might be even more telling; you don't understand the state of harmony before, and after, Chopin.
> 
> I could type out long replies to try to help you understand these things, but I am a lazy man. Instead I will quote you some more industrious men than I...
> 
> ***
> 
> "Chopin has written two wonderful mazurkas which are worth more than forty novels and are more eloquent than the entire century's literature." - Hector Berlioz
> 
> "Chopin's chromaticism marks a stage of the greatest importance in the evolution of harmonic language. He was the first composer to seriously undermine the solid system of diatonic tonalism created by the Viennese classical masters." - Gerald Abraham
> 
> "Hats off gentlemen, a genius!"
> "If the mighty autocrat of the north knew what a dangerous enemy threatened him in Chopin's works in the simple tunes of his mazurkas, he would forbid this music. Chopin's works are canons buried in flowers." - Robert Schumann
> 
> "We may be sure that a genius like Mozart, were he born today, would write concertos like Chopin and not like Mozart." - Felix Mendelssohn _(This one seemed particularly apropos to your post since you asked what if Mozart had had Chopin's pianos; I was able to give you Mendelssohn's answer to your question! ...Mendelssohn. I mean, wow. You're welcome) _
> 
> "It was Chopin who properly set romantic pianism on its rails and gave it the impetus that shows no signs of deceleration. He did this all by himself, evolving from nowhere the most beautiful and original piano style of the century." - Harold C. Schonberg
> 
> "Chopin was a genius of universal appeal. His music conquers the most diverse audiences. When the first notes of Chopin sound through the concert hall there is a happy sigh of recognition. All over the world men and women know his music. They love it. They are moved by it. Yet it is not 'Romantic music' in the Byronic sense. It does not tell stories or paint pictures. It is expressive and personal, but still a pure art. Even in this abstract atomic age, where emotion is not fashionable, Chopin endures. His music is the universal language of human communication. When I play Chopin I know I speak directly to the hearts of people!" - Artur Rubinstein
> 
> "His connection with the piano is so complete, it feels almost as if the instrument was created to allow his music to come into the world. I have to work hard to get it right, but the notes fall under the hands so beautifully that playing him is overwhelmingly pleasurable." - Emanuel Ax
> 
> Chopin is one of the true universal masters, (just like Mozart). His music has never left the repertoire, and almost every note he wrote is still frequently played today. - Time Itself _(the only true judge of art)._


Mendelssohn's comment is absurd. All he is saying is he likes Chopin's piano concertos better than Mozart's - all two of them. All I can say is posterity has put Chopin's concertos in their place - below Grieg and Schumann whose concertos are in turn behind Mozart's. If he means that Mozart would have adopted Chopin's brilliant showy style - he wouldn't have been Mozart he would have been anyone of a number of minor romantic masters now virtually unknown.


----------



## janxharris

Larkenfield said:


> "Houston, we have a problem."
> 
> I was curious so I did some digging into the British critic of music David C F Wright, who said that Chopin's Polonaise Fantasia Op.66 "lacks cohesion" and that it is "a dreadful work of stops and starts." Maybe the OP or Mr. Wright would like to point out where the Polonaise Fantasy "lacks cohesion", "stops and starts" and is "dreadful", because either he made that up out of thin air or he's not an accurate listener by a country mile. Needless to say, I would consider this the most emotionally prejudiced and biased, inept Chopin criticism by a Ph.D. I've ever had the misfortune to come across. But it's certainly instructive in how _not_ to go about doing it. While Chopin's anti-Semitism opens him to criticism, Mr. Wright' criticism sounds more like a racial vendetta than an honest artist critique of Chopin's music. And I will take a wild stab at it and imagine that Mr. Wright's other articles on composers highlight the same condemnations and racial bias.
> 
> As far as Chopin's Op. 66, I hear nothing but decisiveness and a clear intent from the first note to the last in a composition that's entirely organic and an expression of contrasting moods: one of turbulence and one of peace and supreme melodic beauty. I hear no stops and starts. I hear no lack of cohesion. It also happens to be one of Chopin's most favorite and recognizable compositions and it was discovered after his death.
> 
> https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/frederick-chopin.pdf


I totally agree with you; it's a magnificent piece imho.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> Mendelssohn's comment is absurd. All he is saying is he likes Chopin's piano concertos better than Mozart's - all two of them. All I can say is posterity has put Chopin's concertos in their place - below Grieg and Schumann whose concertos are in turn behind Mozart's. If he means that Mozart would have adopted Chopin's brilliant showy style - he wouldn't have been Mozart he would have been anyone of a number of minor romantic masters now virtually unknown.


So are you suggesting that Rachmaninov's 2nd Piano Concerto is above Mozart's no. 21 since it is more popular?


----------



## Aloevera

Chopin is a master of melody and piano technique, taking both of them to heights without ever compromising one for the other. I think he is the true face of romanticism, not at all overrated and quite a breath of fresh air in music. His only struggle was combining instrumentation with piano but I don't think anyone who puts him in high regard does not acknowledge this aspect.


----------



## ManuelMozart95

Mozart is for me without a doubt one of the 3 grratest composers of all time along with Bach and Beethoven.
And I think people who says his music lacks emotion haven't listened enough of his music or simply have wrong expectations because they may be used to romantic composers and of course Mozart wasn't.
But for me the first time I listened to The Marriage of Figaro I just couldn't believe that someone could compose such beautiful and touching music, it is one of my favourite operas and one of my favourite works of him. 
If you think his music lacks soul you haven't listened to this Opera and arias like Porgi Amore, Dove Sono, Non so piu, etc. 

I don't agree Chopin is overrated though, I think he is rated just fine. I haven't read many people saying he was the greatest musician of all time but he was surely very talented and a very important figure.
I don't understand why some people bash on Mozart though, I can understand that he may not be one of your favourites, after all it's a matter of taste, but I don't understand how some people think he's overrated or that his music has no soul.


----------



## ManuelMozart95

I must say I don't understand people who say Mozart's music has no soul or feeling. Like we are listening to completely different composers.
I can understand that he may not be your favourite composer, after all it's just a matter of taste, but people who say he's overrated or that his music lacks feelings I just think they haven't listened to much of Mozart.
For example arias like Porgi Amore of The Marriage of Figaro or Ach ich fühls from The Magic Flute are so touching at least for me that I can't understand that some people think his music lacks emotion.

Of course, he's not a romantic, but if you are expecting him to be a romantic composer then the fault is yours because you come to his music expecting a different thing of what he is.


----------



## Guest

:lol: I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't know why anyone wastes time on these two slackers when there's so much Fauré to enjoy. :lol: 

See the thread resurrected from 2010 about his Nocturnes. No 4 is gorgeous...I'm still working on the others.


----------



## trazom

stomanek said:


> Mendelssohn's comment is absurd. All he is saying is he likes Chopin's piano concertos better than Mozart's - all two of them. All I can say is posterity has put Chopin's concertos in their place - below Grieg and Schumann whose concertos are in turn behind Mozart's. If he means that Mozart would have adopted Chopin's brilliant showy style - he wouldn't have been Mozart he would have been anyone of a number of minor romantic masters now virtually unknown.


That quote struck me as odd supposedly coming from Mendelssohn, and knowing about his familiarity with and love of Mozart's music, I thought it sounded crass to the point of almost being comical. Based on a quick search I did, it turns out it was Robert Schumann who actually said that. Can't say I'm that surprised.

Oh, forgot to mention that I don't feel Chopin is overrated.


----------



## Guest

trazom said:


> That quote struck me as odd supposedly coming from Mendelssohn, and knowing about his familiarity with and love of Mozart's music, I thought it sounded crass to the point of almost being comical. Based on a quick search I did, it turns out it was Robert Schumann who actually said that. Can't say I'm that surprised.


It just goes to show that quoting composers is a fruitless exercise. If one wants to support one's opinions about the music, point to the music, not to what someone else said about it.

(and, clearly, not Schumann!)


----------



## janxharris

DavidA said:


> Sorry you can't see it. I thought that it must be obvious


How can it be obvious? Essentially, every piece of music is a particular arrangement; completely different instrumentations are possible.


----------



## janxharris




----------



## DavidA

janxharris said:


> How can it be obvious? Essentially, every piece of music is a particular arrangement; completely different instrumentations are possible.


For goodness sake, as a scientist I can examine music in terms of sine waves but as a music lover there is far more to it than that!


----------



## janxharris

DavidA said:


> For goodness sake, as a scientist I can examine music in terms of sine waves but as a music lover there is far more to it than that!


It does not follow that a composer is better than another composer because they wrote 'in just about every medium'.
No need for any irritation DavidA.


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> So are you suggesting that Rachmaninov's 2nd Piano Concerto is above Mozart's no. 21 since it is more popular?


Is it more popular? Among whom?


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> Is it more popular? Among whom?


I thought that was common knowledge but I could be wrong. Beethoven's 5th pf concerto might be even more popular.


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> I thought that was common knowledge but I could be wrong. Beethoven's 5th pf concerto might be even more popular.


Well I dont know - the Talk Classical 100 best piano concertos compiled in 2014 shows

Mozart - Piano Concerto No. 20

Brahms - Piano Concerto No. 2

Rachmaninoff - Piano Concerto No. 2

Grieg - Piano Concerto

Schumann - Piano Concerto

Beethoven - Piano Concerto No. 5 "Emperor"

Prokofiev - Piano Concerto No. 3

Ravel - Piano Concerto (in G major)

Beethoven - Piano Concerto No. 4

Mozart - Piano Concerto No. 23

Bach - Harpsichord Concerto No. 3 (BWV 1054)

Mozart - Piano Concerto No. 21

Rachmaninoff - Piano Concerto No. 3

Tchaikovsky - Piano Concerto No. 1

Mozart - Piano Concerto No. 27

Beethoven - Piano Concerto No. 3

Prokofiev - Piano Concerto No. 2

Ravel - Piano Concerto for the Left Hand

Brahms - Piano Concerto No. 1

Mozart - Piano Concerto No. 24

So based on that TC members at that time rated Rach pc2 at no 3 and pc 21 lower down so i suppose it is more popular on that measure but less popular than Mozart's K466 pc 20.

NB Chopin's concertos are not in the top 20 at all. PC2 is at no 23 and pc 1 is at 34.


----------



## PlaySalieri

MacLeod said:


> *It just goes to show that quoting composers is a fruitless exercise.* If one wants to support one's opinions about the music, point to the music, not to what someone else said about it.
> 
> (and, clearly, not Schumann!)


I admit this is true - a fallacy I believe - so I no longer tend to put forward quotations but a surprisingly number of people do it - even Wooduck.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> Well I dont know - the Talk Classical 100 best piano concertos compiled in 2014 shows
> 
> Mozart - Piano Concerto No. 20
> 
> Brahms - Piano Concerto No. 2
> 
> Rachmaninoff - Piano Concerto No. 2
> 
> Grieg - Piano Concerto
> 
> Schumann - Piano Concerto
> 
> Beethoven - Piano Concerto No. 5 "Emperor"
> 
> Prokofiev - Piano Concerto No. 3
> 
> Ravel - Piano Concerto (in G major)
> 
> Beethoven - Piano Concerto No. 4
> 
> Mozart - Piano Concerto No. 23
> 
> Bach - Harpsichord Concerto No. 3 (BWV 1054)
> 
> Mozart - Piano Concerto No. 21
> 
> Rachmaninoff - Piano Concerto No. 3
> 
> Tchaikovsky - Piano Concerto No. 1
> 
> Mozart - Piano Concerto No. 27
> 
> Beethoven - Piano Concerto No. 3
> 
> Prokofiev - Piano Concerto No. 2
> 
> Ravel - Piano Concerto for the Left Hand
> 
> Brahms - Piano Concerto No. 1
> 
> Mozart - Piano Concerto No. 24
> 
> So based on that TC members at that time rated Rach pc2 at no 3 and pc 21 lower down so i suppose it is more popular on that measure but less popular than Mozart's K466 pc 20.
> 
> NB Chopin's concertos are not in the top 20 at all. PC2 is at no 23 and pc 1 is at 34.


And no Liszt either - no. 45. I find that very surprising.


----------



## Triplets

OP bashes Chopin because they don't care for a repeated ostinato. OP seems to like Beethoven but apparently is oblivious to repeated rhythmic figures in the first movement of the Moonlight Sonata, or II of the Seventh Symphony, and on it goes. I wonder what the OP thinks of the grounded theme of the Chaconne of Bachs Second Violin Partita or the great Passacaglia and Fugue for Organ.


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> I admit this is true - a fallacy I believe - so I no longer tend to put forward quotations but a surprisingly number of people do it - even Wooduck.


I think it's valid alongside other evidence. I just don't like it when it's used in the same way as "it's self-evident" (meaning "I don't have to demonstrate any of my reasoning to anyone").


----------



## DavidA

janxharris said:


> It does not follow that a composer is better than another composer because they wrote 'in just about every medium'.
> No need for any irritation DavidA.


Agreed but Mozart wrote some of the greatest ever music in just about every medium!


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> It just goes to show that quoting composers is a fruitless exercise. If one wants to support one's opinions about the music, point to the music, not to what someone else said about it.
> 
> (and, clearly, not Schumann!)


Yes, and I'm wondering why you said what you said about Chopin and Fauré. You're not saying that he's more popular than Chopin?

You're hearing in the later music the fullness in piano writing?, which I would say is suppressed in the more bel canto ideas of Chopin. Of course, Gabriel had many more years to look over the outputs of Schumann and Chopin, on and on.

It is difficult to say which composer's nocturnes are more clever, more powerful in intent, more beautiful? But I say thanks, that people will probably be grateful to you if they take time to explore the Nocturnes, Barcarolles and Impromptus, comparing them to Chopin with this debate in mind. 
As soon as the moving scores became available on YouTube I did this a few years ago. 'Very rewarding.


----------



## Larkenfield

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


----------



## Machiavel

I'm anxious to hear the op composition who will shame Chopin, I'm also anxious to hear him play some overrated Chopin. Op comes up as young in awe of Beethoven so if x compositions are not in line with his expectations, it's therefore bad. The Beethoven syndrome, he was after all the greatest operatist also.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> I've come across some comments in classical communities that say things like "the Classics, especially Mozart, are overrated, whereas the early Romantics should get more attention" etc.. There's also a thread called 'Was Mozart trash or god?' in this forum. And I'm wondering why people have negative things to say about Mozart when there is this grossly overrated guy named Frederic Chopin always being mentioned alongside the giants.
> 
> For me, I've never really understood the reason for Chopin's immense popularity in classical music communities. Him, and Bach, Mozart, Beethoven are without doubt like the 4 most popular composers in general. in this video, (
> 
> 
> 
> ) for example, which lists music of Bach, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, and CHOPIN, has attained over 70 million views. Another video of music by Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and CHOPIN has 10 million views. When seeing videos like these, I always ask myself this question. Does Chopin deserve to have his name ranked and mentioned along the same line as the giants?
> 
> If you have listened to enough Chopin you'll realize Chopin lacked variety in composition skills, (except a few moments in Ballade No.4 in F minor etc) some claim that Mozart is formulaic, but the truth is Chopin was far more formulaic than Mozart ever was. In Chopin, his usual methods in building climax are either
> A. One hand playing melody while the other hand plays accompaniment in vamping chords
> B. both hands playing (chords, octaves) in unison
> Based on this proposition, I'll explain in the following paragraphs why Chopin is far more overrated than Mozart.
> 
> *1. Chopin didn't have good sense for form or structure. He was a miniaturist.*
> Polonaise Op.53 in A flat "Heroic" has this, E major - E flat major middle section which goes on for two pages, with left hand continuously banging E - D# - C# - B in vamping ostinato (switching to Eb - D - C - Bb in the E flat section) while right hand plays melody in chords. (
> 
> 
> 
> ) Polonaise Op.44 in F sharp also has a 2 minute middle section with both hands playing repetitive patterns in unison. (
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> Also listen to the climax of Nocturne Op.48 No.1 in C minor. He again uses the same old technique of both hands playing octaves in unison. (
> 
> 
> 
> ) In Chopin, like 99% of the time, it's either accompaniment chords or arpeggios. There's not a single section in Chopin's works that resemble the fugue in the recapitulation section of Liszt's Sonata in B minor or Beethoven's Hammerklavier Sonata.
> 
> As you can see in these mature works by Chopin he didn't have the capability to move away from writing ostinatos, arpeggios, chordal accompaniment of simple harmony,
> British critic of music David C F Wright said Polonaise Fantasia Op.66 lacks cohesion, and that it is "a dreadful work of stops and starts". Some people may not agree, but to some extent I understand what he meant. Sonata No.2 in B flat minor's movements, especially the movement has no thematic, or motivic unity with the others. it sounds like something he randomly picked up from his set of preludes to include in the sonata.
> This is no case for Mozart, as String Quintet in C major K515 1st movement shares the concept of chromatic rise in bassline in development section with the 4th movement. Fantasia in C minor for Piano K475 has thematic unity with the follow-up Piano Sonata in C minor K457. Even individual movements of Requiem have the D - C#-D- E - F, the "DNA" motif of the Requiem. In String Quartet No.19 in C major, "the slow introduction to this 'dissonance' quartet has actually been a kind a mine from which material for the rest of the movements are to be taken." (https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lecture/transcript/print/mozart-quartet-in-c-major-k465-dissonance/)
> 
> More than half of Chopin's output is miniatures, Mazurka Op.67 No.3 in C major, Mazurka Op.33 No.2 in D major, there are so many of these half-baked salon works (of "ABA" ternary structure) in his output, you could say Chopin is the Scott Joplin of classical music. Some of his preludes do show a wide range of emotional intensity. But still, ones like Preludes No.4, no.7, no.20 have no real formatic structure, they're way too lackluster to be works you would expect from a great master. I once thought the Sostenuto Waltz in E flat (
> 
> 
> 
> ) and Waltz in A minor Op. Post (
> 
> 
> 
> ) were early works, but then I was quite surprised to find they were actually written in his 30s.
> Vast majority of works by Mozart, even Sonatas and Variations have formatic structure. Even the 2 minute keyboard piece, Gigue in G major, K574 contains clever counterpoint. Chopin could never achieve this level of balance and structure, for example. (
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> *2. Chopin's contrapuntal skills were limited and the evidence is clearly shown in his works*
> Some of you may be surprised to hear Chopin composed a fugue. He did, some time in his 30s, wrote Fugue in A minor (B.144, published after his death)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but as you see, his one and only attempt at fugal composition failed miserably and ended in disaster, almost sounding like something Mozart would have written before the age of 10. Here are examples of Mozart's fugal writing at age 16 (
> 
> 
> 
> ) and 17 (
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whereas, Mozart in his 30s, paid the greatest tribute to Bach of the classical period, with Fantasia in F minor for organ K608, a dazzling show of contrapuntal prowess for writing intricate double fugues and organ playing technique.
> Chopin did not have the capacity to write anything of contrapuntal intensity like Jesu Christe Cum Sanctu Spiritu from Mozart's Mass in C minor K427 or the first movement of Mozart's Symphony No.38 in D major "Prague" or the Magic Flute Overture, or Adagio and Fugue in C minor for String Orchestra. A huge bunch of Mozart's string quartets and concertos (such as the final movements of Piano concertos Nos. 14, 19, 24) with various instruments having their "individual voices", fusing the Classical style of balance and structure with the learned style of counterpoint.
> examples:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mozart's "building of tension through use of smaller motifs in chromatic modulation" in the introduction and second movement of String Quartet No.19 in C "dissonance", the first movement and last movement of String Quartet No. 15 in D minor (
> 
> 
> 
> ), for example, are masterful. This is technique is further utilized to enhance the dynamic nature of 1st (
> 
> 
> 
> ) and 3rd movements of Piano Concerto No.20 in D minor, a style of which would later be adapted by Beethoven. Schoenberg is said to have admired this particular quality of Mozart. (
> 
> 
> 
> ) Beethoven told Czerny about Mozart's String Quartet No.18 in A, "now that's the way to write a string quartet.
> 
> You can't really say the same about Chopin's salon works, which frankly lack real substance. While it's true Chopin's Mazurka in F minor Op.68 No.4 contains some sections of canon, Barcarolle, Ballade No.4, D flat major Etude from "Trois Nouvelles Etudes" (the right hand 1st 2nd fingers playing "inner voice" in staccatos), some sections of Sonata Op.58 in B minor, Etude Op.10 No.4 in C sharp minor, the polyphony of Nocturne Op.55 No.2 in E flat major do make uses of some counterpoint. But they're skin-deep compared to the work of the contrapuntal masters, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven.
> 
> The same old "waltzy chordal accompaniment" ta-da-da!, ta-da-da!, ta-da-da!, ta-da-da! pervades Chopin's 70 Mazurkas and Waltzes, written throughout his life. And I think part of the reason why Chopin stuck to using them so often in his life was probably because it was too much of a pain for him to learn the proper skills to move away from them completely. Even Johann Strauss Jr's Nordseebilder has more advanced counterpoint than Chopin's waltzes.
> 
> *3. Chopin was a one-trick pony who couldn't write for ensembles or orchestras.*
> I've never really understood the hype for Chopin's concertos. They're like worse versions of Hummel's piano concertos in A minor Op.85 (
> 
> 
> 
> ) and B minor Op.89 (
> 
> 
> 
> ), which Chopin clearly modelled his concertos on. Hummel concertos even have better orchestration than Chopin's. Chopin's concertos don't deserve all the immense popularity they enjoy today, while Hummel's being almost forgotten. In fact, Chopin was so bad an orchestrator, Liszt's pupil, Tausig had to fix the orchestration for him, and if you thought the orchestration of the concertos were bad, the orchestration of Grand Polonaise Brillante Op.22 is even worse. So badly written most pianists today perform them solo.
> 
> While it's true Chopin did write some works of ingenuity for the piano like the Ballades or Etude Op.25 No.5 in E minor. But I must stress the point, Chopin was able to achieve much of the "pianistic" sonority and whatever range, emotion in his music thanks to the development of piano technology which happened just prior to the Romantic period. What if Mozart had the Romantic piano at his disposal and Chopin didn't?
> 
> If you listen to Rondo for piano in A minor K511, you'll realize Mozart would have achieved what Chopin achieved if he had the Romantic era piano, but Chopin, in actual reality never even came close to Mozart's achievements in all other areas of music, even with all the musical advancements pioneered by the giants before him, and all the resources that became available to him thanks to the giants.
> 
> Chopin may have written a dozen of great works but he's clearly not in the same league as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven. People must realize if there's one composer among popular classical composers who should criticized for being "overrated" or "getting too much attention for the achievements and skills they had" it should be Chopin, not Mozart.
> 
> That being said, I cannot sympathize with anyone who say the Classical period is a low point in the history of music and at the same time admire the early Romantics including Chopin and his feminine, corny, minor-key melodies that sound "melacholic and sweet" to the modern ear (like the typical BGM from those sad Asian dramas, works by new-age pianist-composers like Yiruma) such as Waltz in C sharp minor Op.64 No.2, Waltz Op.69 No.2 in B minor, Nocturne Op.55 No.1 in F minor.
> 
> I mean Chopin couldn't even write a proper fugue like seriously


It was because Freddy was shy and unpresuming. Very little ego for such a musical genius. He was also quite sickly most of his years. He worked and re-worked his compositions to a fault. He didn't have time for monumental fugues, to prove his powers or whatever LvB was about before he reached 40. His concerti were from a young age, when he was introducing himself to the musical world. What would people expect of him?


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> Yes, and I'm wondering why you said what you said about Chopin and Fauré. You're not saying that he's more popular than Chopin?
> 
> You're hearing in the later music the fullness in piano writing?, which I would say is suppressed in the more bel canto ideas of Chopin. Of course, Gabriel had many more years to look over the outputs of Schumann and Chopin, on and on.
> 
> It is difficult to say which composer's nocturnes are more clever, more powerful in intent, more beautiful? But I say thanks, that people will probably be grateful to you if they take time to explore the Nocturnes, Barcarolles and Impromptus, comparing them to Chopin with this debate in mind.
> As soon as the moving scores became available on YouTube I did this a few years ago. 'Very rewarding.


I've not yet set out to listen to all the main works of either composer. I have one CD of each. But Fauré's gets played more often, because it is more restrained, less "virtuoso", with simpler melodic ideas explored in multiple variations; at least, that's what I hear and what I like.

I'm not saying anything much about Chopin at all. I know he's recognised as a piano great - he just hasn't tickled my ivories yet!


----------



## aleazk

It's a common mistake to think that Chopin is bland at counterpoint just because he didn't write grandiose fugues. Thank god he didn't, since we already had, and have, plenty of that. Instead, what he did with counterpoint was immensely more interesting and original. Basically, he developed a form of counterpoint which was much better suited to the romantic ideal or mode of expression, and also adapted to the new possibilities offered by the 19th century advances in piano making.

That which is usually perceived as a mere accompaniment, is actually a rather tightly constructed counterpoint of different voices. Of course, the voices don't have as much activity as in a baroque fugue, but that's because the desired effect is a different one. And it's actually rather difficult to achieve, one must have a good knowledge of counterpoint (Chopin was absolutely obsessed with Bach). Pay close attention to those supposed mere 'melody and accompaniment' passages and you will notice that almost always, small, hidden and not so hidden, melodies come out from the accompaniment as threads. Also, all of these melodies and voices combine to smoothly direct the global harmonic changes in the piece, which in Chopin are rather intricate and chromatic. Chopin was actually a total master of technique. But it's so incredibly well and subtly done, and fits so well the romantic mode of expression, that one hears the music and just feels a torrent of romantic expression, that flows so naturally as if it were an improvisation. No other romantic composer was ever able to achieve something like that in such a colorful and organic way. Brahms and Schumann can be a bit cerebral and stiff in comparison, for example.

Check the section from 4:37 to 5:19 in this polonaise for a particularly impressive passage of the kind I described above. Look how he achieves two melodies that sound really independent (the upper melody and the one in the left hand); this is thanks to the difference in rhythm, where the left hand seems more free (due to notes of shorter values as well as dotted notes, which contrast with the eightnotes of the right hand), while the upper melody is completely contained in the steady pulse of the accompaniment in the right hand, and yet it sounds like a completely different and independent melody on its own; the harmony also suffers some noticeable changes, smoothly directed by the melody and accompaniment of the right hand; all this is really master knowledge of counterpoint at work, even when the melodies and mood sound simple (in comparison to a baroque fugue) and the whole passage more like a torrent of sentimental inspiration. His music is full of things like that, as well as cross rhythms of many kinds.


----------



## Luchesi

aleazk said:


> It's a common mistake to think that Chopin is bland at counterpoint just because he didn't write grandiose fugues. Thank god he didn't, since we already had, and have, plenty of that. Instead, what he did with counterpoint was immensely more interesting and original. Basically, he developed a form of counterpoint which was much better suited to the romantic ideal or mode of expression, and also adapted to the new possibilities offered by the 19th century advances in piano making.
> 
> That which is usually perceived as a mere accompaniment, is actually a rather tightly constructed counterpoint of different voices. Of course, the voices don't have as much activity as in a baroque fugue, but that's because the desired effect is a different one. And it's actually rather difficult to achieve, one must have a good knowledge of counterpoint (Chopin was absolutely obsessed with Bach). Pay close attention to those supposed mere 'melody and accompaniment' passages and you will notice that almost always, small, hidden and not so hidden, melodies come out from the accompaniment as threads. Also, all of these melodies and voices combine to smoothly direct the global harmonic changes in the piece, which in Chopin are rather intricate and chromatic. Chopin was actually a total master of technique. But it's so incredibly well and subtly done, and fits so well the romantic mode of expression, that one hears the music and just feels a torrent of romantic expression, that flows so naturally as if it were an improvisation. No other romantic composer was ever able to achieve something like that in such a colorful and organic way. Brahms and Schumann can be a bit cerebral and stiff in comparison, for example.
> 
> Check the section from 4:37 to 5:19 in this polonaise for a particularly impressive passage of the kind I described above. Look how he achieves two melodies that sound really independent (the upper melody and the one in the left hand); this is thanks to the difference in rhythm, where the left hand seems more free (due to notes of shorter values as well as dotted notes, which contrast with the eightnotes of the right hand), while the upper melody is completely contained in the steady pulse of the accompaniment in the right hand, and yet it sounds like a completely different and independent melody on its own; the harmony also suffers some noticeable changes, smoothly directed by the melody and accompaniment of the right hand; all this is really master knowledge of counterpoint at work, even when the melodies and mood sound simple (in comparison to a baroque fugue) and the whole passage more like a torrent of sentimental inspiration. His music is full of things like that, as well as cross rhythms of many kinds.


Yes, even in his waltzes he's calling the shots and directing the logical groups of notes in his left hand, in perfect patterns. You don't hear it. Play the left hand alone, in the mazurkas too.


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> I've not yet set out to listen to all the main works of either composer. I have one CD of each. But Fauré's gets played more often, because it is more restrained, less "virtuoso", with simpler melodic ideas explored in multiple variations; at least, that's what I hear and what I like.
> 
> I'm not saying anything much about Chopin at all. I know he's recognised as a piano great - he just hasn't tickled my ivories yet!


Firstly, I envy you. You haven't yet settled upon what you like and what your favorites are. Favorites in flux.

When we're young it's all haphazard, accidental exposures, but often as we get older and approach a composer's output we aren't sufficiently free of negative thoughts. Maybe we've had some negative experiences with Brahms or Vivaldi. It's not their fault. heh It's ours.

Faure had the luxury of being Faure. (I always compartmentalize him with Cesar Franck
because of the sequence in which I was introduced to them). Chopin had no such luck. He had to support himself in the wild way. Young girls as paying students etc.


----------



## Iota

As far as the thread subject is concerned, if you find somebody irritating, it's hard to go looking for their good points, even though there'll almost certainly be some, and I can't imagine it's any different with music. 

I hopped onto both Chopin's and Mozart's buses with great passion at the beginning of my listening life, then after about 15 years or so, found myself tired of listening to them and more or less stopped doing so. A state of affairs that continued for over a decade until, through whatever shift of brain chemistry, I found myself re-engaging with them with even greater appreciation than I'd had before. 
During my disenchantment with them they became largely one dimensional to me, but of course this was a phenomenon of my personal brain chemistry, not an empirical assessment of their qualities, their music had remained as it always had, my perspective had just shifted. 

I'm never always in the mood for any composer though, however much I like them, and for me such fluctuations can for whatever reason, happen over a longer time scale.


----------



## Kieran

Hey, I'm only popping in here and I'm not gonna read the whole thread, but I don't get why anyone would bash Mozart, _at all..._


----------



## PlaySalieri

Luchesi said:


> Firstly, I envy you. *You haven't yet settled upon what you like and what your favorites are. Favorites in flux.*
> 
> When we're young it's all haphazard, accidental exposures, but often as we get older and approach a composer's output we aren't sufficiently free of negative thoughts. Maybe we've had some negative experiences with Brahms or Vivaldi. It's not their fault. heh It's ours.
> 
> Faure had the luxury of being Faure. (I always compartmentalize him with Cesar Franck
> because of the sequence in which I was introduced to them). Chopin had no such luck. He had to support himself in the wild way. Young girls as paying students etc.


Wrong - Beethoven sy 1-9.


----------



## Luchesi

stomanek said:


> Wrong - Beethoven sy 1-9.


Really? Every one?

What about his tenth?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Luchesi said:


> Really? Every one?
> 
> What about his tenth?


not me - Mcleod


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> Firstly, I envy you. You haven't yet settled upon what you like and what your favorites are. Favorites in flux.
> 
> When we're young it's all haphazard, accidental exposures, but often as we get older and approach a composer's output we aren't sufficiently free of negative thoughts. Maybe we've had some negative experiences with Brahms or Vivaldi. It's not their fault. heh It's ours.


Not sure about the "we". And I've certainly got favourites - whatever makes you think I haven't? Debussy, Sibelius, Stravinsky, Bartok, Holst, Shostakovich, Haydn...etc. I'm just allowing for the fact that there's still plenty of time (God willing) for me to settle on others too.



stomanek said:


> Wrong - Beethoven sy 1-9.


You have formed a somewhat narrow opinion of me, my dear fellow, though I suppose I should be flattered that you pay me such attention that you think you know my favourites.


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> Not sure about the "we". And I've certainly got favourites - whatever makes you think I haven't? Debussy, Sibelius, Stravinsky, Bartok, Holst, Shostakovich, Haydn...etc. I'm just allowing for the fact that there's still plenty of time (God willing) for me to settle on others too.


Online exchanges - exhibit A;

You typed - "I've not yet set out to listen to all the main works of either composer. I have one CD of each."

I replied - You haven't yet settled upon what you like and what your favorites are.

You defended yourself - "And I've certainly got favourites - whatever makes you think I haven't?" Holst etc. and you have plenty of time.

I've never heard any Holst. I have piano reductions of The Planets I've never looked at. It's so popular. Why is Holst a favorite of yours?


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> Online exchanges - exhibit A;
> 
> You typed - "I've not yet set out to listen to all the main works of either composer. I have one CD of each."
> 
> I replied - You haven't yet settled upon what you like and what your favorites are.
> 
> You defended yourself - "And I've certainly got favourites - whatever makes you think I haven't?" Holst etc. and you have plenty of time.
> 
> I've never heard any Holst. I have piano reductions of The Planets I've never looked at. It's so popular. Why is Holst a favorite of yours?


I've been listening to The Planets Suite (not continuously) for over 50 years. Why do I like it? Variety, instrumentation, rhythms, some great melodies and atmospheres.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Also the Wagner Tuben in Mars alongside a huge battery of trombones. Blows your socks off.


----------



## Haydn70

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


----------



## Haydn70

eugeneonagain said:


> Also the Wagner Tuben in Mars alongside a huge battery of trombones. Blows your socks off.


Not to get picky...but to get picky:

There is/are no Wagner tuba(s) in any movement of The Planets. The brass used are:

6 Horns in F
4 Trumpets in C
2 Tenor Trombones
1 Bass Trombone
1 Tenor Tuba in Bb
1 Bass Tuba


----------



## PlaySalieri

MacLeod said:


> Not sure about the "we". And I've certainly got favourites - whatever makes you think I haven't? Debussy, Sibelius, Stravinsky, Bartok, Holst, Shostakovich, Haydn...etc. I'm just allowing for the fact that there's still plenty of time (God willing) for me to settle on others too.
> 
> You have formed a somewhat narrow opinion of me, my dear fellow, though I suppose I should be flattered that you pay me such attention that you think you know my favourites.


I didnt say that's all you like.

It's news to me though that you listen to music other than orch, such as the faure you mentioned.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I love both Chopin and Mozart!


----------



## Rogerx

Captainnumber36 said:


> I love both Chopin and Mozart!


Me too and no #


----------



## ldiat

Rogerx said:


> Me too and no #


and me 3 also i love


----------



## Kopachris

Captainnumber36 said:


> I love both Chopin and Mozart!


As do I. What's the OP on about?


----------



## KenOC

Chopin...Schumann liked his music, but admitted he couldn't always tell whether he was playing the right notes or not.


----------



## derin684

KenOC said:


> Chopin...Schumann liked his music, but admitted he couldn't always tell whether he was playing the right notes or not.


I think Schumann was a huge fan. He even dedicated Kreisleriana to him.


----------



## Art Rock

KenOC said:


> Chopin...Schumann liked his music, but admitted he couldn't always tell whether he was playing the right notes or not.


He probably did, but not necessarily in the right order.


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> I didnt say that's all you like.


Nor did I say you did...but you did cite it as my favourite.



stomanek said:


> It's news to me though that you listen to music other than orch, such as the faure you mentioned.


Pay attention to other bulletins. I've been here long enough to argue with other people about other stuff - not just with you about Wolfie!


----------



## Larkenfield

*The Chopin Project:* https://www.chopinproject.com/category/chopin-currency/

_Historical references:_

*Chopin: The Man and His Music by James Huneker*
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4939/4939-h/4939-h.htm

*Life of Chopin by Franz Liszt * 
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4386/4386-h/4386-h.htm

*Frederick Chopin as a Man and Musician by Frederick Niecks *http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4973/4973-h/4973-h.htm

:tiphat: :wave::cheers:


----------



## Luchesi

Larkenfield said:


> *The Chopin Project:* https://www.chopinproject.com/category/chopin-currency/
> 
> _Historical references:_
> 
> *Chopin: The Man and His Music by James Huneker*
> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4939/4939-h/4939-h.htm
> 
> *Life of Chopin by Franz Liszt *
> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4386/4386-h/4386-h.htm
> 
> *Frederick Chopin as a Man and Musician by Frederick Niecks *http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4973/4973-h/4973-h.htm
> 
> :tiphat: :wave::cheers:


Did he live to be 40?

"Recently the date of his birth has been again discussed by Natalie Janotha, the Polish pianist. Chopin was born in Zelazowa-Wola, six miles from Warsaw, March 1, 1809. This place is sometimes spelled Jeliasovaya-Volia. The medallion made for the tomb by Clesinger-the son-in-law of George Sand-and the watch given by the singer Catalan! in 1820 with the inscription "Donne par Madame Catalan! a Frederic Chopin, age de dix ans," have incited a conflict of authorities. Karasowski was informed by Chopin's sister that the correct year of his birth was 1809, and Szulc, Sowinski and Niecks agree with him. Szulc asserts that the memorial in the Holy Cross Church, Warsaw-where Chopin's heart is preserved-bears the date March 2, 1809. Chopin, so Henry T. Finck declares, was twenty-two years of age when he wrote to his teacher Elsner in 1831. Liszt told Niecks in 1878 that Karasowski had published the correct date in his biography. Now let us consider Janotha's arguments. According to her evidence the composer's natal day was February 22, 1810 and his christening occurred April 28 of the same year. The following baptismal certificate, originally in Latin and translated by Finck, is adduced. It is said to be from the church in which Chopin was christened: "I, the above, have performed the ceremony of baptizing in water a boy with the double name Frederic Francois, on the 22d day of February, son of the musicians Nicolai Choppen, a Frenchman, and Justina de Krzyzanowska his legal spouse. God-parents: the musicians Franciscus Grembeki and Donna Anna Skarbekowa, Countess of Zelazowa-Wola." The wrong date was chiselled upon the monument unveiled October 14, 1894, at Chopin's birthplace-erected practically through the efforts of Milia Balakireff the Russian composer. Janotha, whose father founded the Warsaw Conservatory, informed Finck that the later date has also been put on other monuments in Poland."


----------



## johnlewisgrant

An underlying (but unstated) presupposition in so many "aesthetic value" discussions (like this one) is that our likes and dislikes in music can be "objectively true" in some sense. 

OK some statements about music can be "objectively true", viz: a composer's date of birth (approx.); or that such-and-such as piece in a certain key, time signature, etc, etc...

But whether Mozart was "better" or "greater" or "more profound" or "more talented" (etc etc) than Chopin is surely NOT something about which "objective" judgment and evaluation is possible in the same sense. When I was young and, well, "passionate" about these questions, I was convinced that such comparisons DID have the same claim to "objectivity"; that aesthetic judgments, for example comparative judgments like the one this post is about, were, to be blunt, propositional in nature, much like any other statement of fact. 

I just don't believe that any more, as much as I would very much like to believe it! 

Rather, I think what happens in discussions of this sort in any of the arts, is that while we can give reasons, and perfectly rational explanations, if you will, explaining our preferences, our likes and dislikes; we nonetheless invariably, at some level, assume a "general framework" of analysis, which framework is ultimately, at best, inter-subjectively valid, that is, shared by many others. 

That intersubjective agreement doesn't make the framework "objectively true," however. One might say, loosely, that the analytical framework is coherent; that it "makes sense"; that it is in this sense "intersubjectively valid." So, for example, Tovey's analyses of Bach's Well-tempered Clavier, which analysis is a rhetorical masterpiece, requires that we agree from the get-go that ALL the voices of a prelude or fugue must be heard ALL the time, come hell or high water. A kind of necessary but not sufficient condition of an acceptable interpretation of anything Bach ever wrote. Not a bad idea. But is Tovey's claim "objectively true"? Sure, it makes perfect sense, but what if all I want to hear is the top voice of any contrapuntal work? Who's to say I'm wrong?

So these frameworks--although they are essential to seeing, experiencing, appreciating, judging from a specific "perspective"--are nonetheless in no strict sense, "objectively true." Giving reasons for our likes and dislikes is great, but only as in invitation to others to "see" or, in this case, to "hear" a piece in a new way, with fresh ears, as it were. 

And isn't that what music is all about? We don't need "objective truth" in music.


----------



## PlaySalieri

johnlewisgrant said:


> An underlying (but unstated) presupposition in so many "aesthetic value" discussions (like this one) is that our likes and dislikes in music can be "objectively true" in some sense.
> 
> OK some statements about music can be "objectively true", viz: a composer's date of birth (approx.); or that such-and-such as piece in a certain key, time signature, etc, etc...
> 
> But whether Mozart was "better" or "greater" or "more profound" or "more talented" (etc etc) than Chopin is surely NOT something about which "objective" judgment and evaluation is possible in the same sense. When I was young and, well, "passionate" about these questions, I was convinced that such comparisons DID have the same claim to "objectivity"; that aesthetic judgments, for example comparative judgments like the one this post is about, were, to be blunt, propositional in nature, much like any other statement of fact.
> 
> I just don't believe that any more, as much as I would very much like to believe it!
> 
> Rather, I think what happens in discussions of this sort in any of the arts, is that while we can give reasons, and perfectly rational explanations, if you will, explaining our preferences, our likes and dislikes; we nonetheless invariably, at some level, assume a "general framework" of analysis, which framework is ultimately, at best, inter-subjectively valid, that is, shared by many others.
> 
> That intersubjective agreement doesn't make the framework "objectively true," however. One might say, loosely, that the analytical framework is coherent; that it "makes sense"; that it is in this sense "intersubjectively valid." So, for example, Tovey's analyses of Bach's Well-tempered Clavier, which analysis is a rhetorical masterpiece, requires that we agree from the get-go that ALL the voices of a prelude or fugue must be heard ALL the time, come hell or high water. A kind of necessary but not sufficient condition of an acceptable interpretation of anything Bach ever wrote. Not a bad idea. But is Tovey's claim "objectively true"? Sure, it makes perfect sense, but what if all I want to hear is the top voice of any contrapuntal work? Who's to say I'm wrong?
> 
> So these frameworks--although they are essential to seeing, experiencing, appreciating, judging from a specific "perspective"--are nonetheless in no strict sense, "objectively true." Giving reasons for our likes and dislikes is great, but only as in invitation to others to "see" or, in this case, to "hear" a piece in a new way, with fresh ears, as it were.
> 
> And isn't that what music is all about? * We don't need "objective truth" in music.*


As it seems to be unattainable - since anything that is objective must necessarily be demonstrated to be so - it is pretty much irrelevant whether we need it or not.


----------



## Samehada

This is from a few pages ago but this quotation...

"We may be sure that a genius like Mozart, were he born today, would write concertos like Chopin and not like Mozart." - Felix Mendelssohn (or Schumann?)

Wonder if this is a joke by Mendelssohn or Schumann after forgetting to take his pills.

Also nothing against Chopin but I think Schumann is a more fitting representative for the "Face of Romanticism," a label popularly attributed to the former composer.


----------



## Larkenfield

"We may be sure that a genius like Mozart, were he born today, would write concertos like Chopin and not like Mozart." 

I think all Schumann (?) was saying is that if Mozart had lived he wouldn’t have been writing concertos as if the Romantic era had never occurred; his music would have somehow been influenced, perhaps by the greater freedom of personal self-expression of the change. Nor do I think he was saying that Chopin was a better composer than Mozart; he was simply noting the change of direction in music that had taken place since Mozart’s death and seeing them both as great composers. I’ve found it hard to go wrong with either of them.


----------



## johnlewisgrant

stomanek said:


> As it seems to be unattainable - since anything that is objective must necessarily be demonstrated to be so - it is pretty much irrelevant whether we need it or not.


Yup... that's the idea.


----------



## Luchesi

I don't think Chopin is overrated (or underrated) and I think he's very attractive to new listeners. We call it early romanticism with bel canto appeal. The gateway drug.

In my experience, neophytes will catch some Mozart and something about it really makes them want to begin to explore what's available. Initially they might think of it as lighter classical. And they can be proud of themselves that they listen to some classical music.

In this adventure they hear some famous Chopin pieces and they're really impressed. Then they love Chopin!

Their appreciation of Mozart hopefully grows and they begin to like some Beethoven pieces. Bach and Brahms seem to be the challenge awaiting them. It's hit or miss.

If they get this far, they'll probably be exposed to Schubert and Schumann, backtrack to Mendelssohn. On into the more difficult worlds of Debussy and the especially difficult but rewarding Mahler.


----------



## Gallus

Chopin is one of the very greatest harmonists in the history of music, up there with Bach (who he studied intensely). Overrated? Ridiculous.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> I don't think Chopin is overrated (or underrated) and I think he's very attractive to new listeners. We call it early romanticism with bel canto appeal. The gateway drug.
> 
> In my experience, neophytes will catch some Mozart and something about it really makes them want to begin to explore what's available. Initially they might think of it as lighter classical. And they can be proud of themselves that they listen to some classical music.
> 
> In this adventure they hear some famous Chopin pieces and they're really impressed. Then they love Chopin!
> 
> Their appreciation of Mozart hopefully grows and they begin to like some Beethoven pieces. Bach and Brahms seem to be the challenge awaiting them. It's hit or miss.
> 
> If they get this far, they'll probably be exposed to Schubert and Schumann, backtrack to Mendelssohn. On into the more difficult worlds of Debussy and the especially difficult but rewarding Mahler.


I admit there's merit in Chopin. As I said I'm just a little frustrated about people (mainly piano players I met) who regard the Romantics highly and don't have respect for Mozart.
One other ridiculous argument they make is "Mozart was a happy man. He almost always wrote in major keys. He wrote for the aristocrats."
They fail to see how Mozart starts out in major but expresses variety of other emotions through change to other major keys and minor keys. Like the middle movements of Piano Concertos Nos. 9, 17, 18, 22, 23, Sinfonia Concertante in E flat K.364, Flute Quartet No.1 etc.

One of them even said, "Am I the only one who thinks Mozart is just wrong, he wrote the Queen of the Night aria in a major key when it's supposed to be written in a minor key to reflect her anxiety better. It doesn't fully reflect human emotion. Major keys don't create pathos in the same level as minor keys do."

One other piano player said they hated how Mozart goes to a major-key in Fantasia in D minor K.397 (which Mozart left unfinished)

"The Romantics wouldn't have done it like this."

I don't get this fetish for minor-keys. It is as if they care more whether music is written in a major key or a minor key than the actual form or structure itself.
When I listened to the introduction of String Quartet in C K465 aka dissonance quartet for the first time, it seemed like Mozart transcended over the cliche of major vs minor. 
At some point I started asking myself, does it really matter whether music starts in major or minor? I regard Beethoven Grosse Fuge highly in this regard. He specifically wrote in a major key to convey feelings of torment.


----------



## Larkenfield

“They fail to see how Mozart starts out in major but expresses variety of other emotions through change to other major keys and minor keys. Like the middle movements of Piano Concertos Nos. 9, 17, 18, 22, 23, Sinfonia Concertante in E flat K.364, Flute Quartet No.1 etc.”

I think this is very true and I’ve written on it myself on the subject of keys: A symphony that starts out in a major key can have an inner movement that’s in a minor key, or there can be a long minor passage within a movement that starts out in a major key. But some listeners think that the key a symphony or concerto starts out with totally defines the entire work, and I’ve rarely found that to be true, though it sometimes can. The second movement of Mendelssohn’s sparkling Italian Symphony is in D minor, and the fourth movement is in A minor! And yet it starts out in A major.


----------



## EdwardBast

hammeredklavier said:


> I admit there's merit in Chopin. As I said I'm just a little frustrated about people (mainly piano players I met) who regard the Romantics highly and don't have respect for Mozart.
> One other ridiculous argument they make is "Mozart was a happy man. He almost always wrote in major keys. He wrote for the aristocrats."
> …
> I don't get this fetish for minor-keys. It is as if they care more whether music is written in a major key or a minor key than the actual form or structure itself.
> When I listened to the introduction of String Quartet in C K465 aka dissonance quartet for the first time, it seemed like Mozart transcended over the cliche of major vs minor.
> At some point I started asking myself, does it really matter whether music starts in major or minor? I regard Beethoven Grosse Fuge highly in this regard. He specifically wrote in a major key to convey feelings of torment.


So, you're saying Romantics and their enthusiasts are fetishists because they like a more or less equal balance between the major and the minor modes, whereas it is normal and right to favor the major mode by about an 8 to 1 proportion as they did for a brief period in the late 18thc and at no other time in the whole history of music? Oh yeah, that makes sense. 

Transcended "the cliche of major vs. minor?" Yeah, and I have transcended the cliche of color by using only white paint in my landscape paintings.

Your definitions of "fetish" and "cliche" must be different from mine.


----------



## Luchesi

EdwardBast said:


> So, you're saying Romantics and their enthusiasts are fetishists because they like a more or less equal balance between the major and the minor modes, whereas it is normal and right to favor the major mode by about an 8 to 1 proportion as they did for a brief period in the late 18thc and at no other time in the whole history of music? Oh yeah, that makes sense.
> 
> Transcended "the cliche of major vs. minor?" Yeah, and I have transcended the cliche of color by using only white paint in my landscape paintings.
> 
> Your definitions of "fetish" and "cliche" must be different from mine.


Someone told me that Bernstein said that in the song 19th Nervous Breakdown by the Rolling Stones they're alluding to the 19th harmonic which gives us the minor third from physics.

As a music person yourself what do you think of that? Where in the harmonic series do you think the minor third came from?


----------



## Luchesi

Gallus said:


> Chopin is one of the very greatest harmonists in the history of music, up there with Bach (who he studied intensely). Overrated? Ridiculous.


The uniquely important aspect of art is that while the great works stay the same, you don't. So the time and effort you invest is truly a lossless investment in your future.


----------



## Woodduck

Luchesi said:


> Someone told me that Bernstein said that in the song 19th Nervous Breakdown by the Rolling Stones they're alluding to the 19th harmonic which gives us the minor third from physics.
> 
> As a music person yourself what do you think of that? *Where in the harmonic series do you think the minor third came from?*


The harmonic series is overrated.


----------



## EdwardBast

Luchesi said:


> Someone told me that Bernstein said that in the song 19th Nervous Breakdown by the Rolling Stones they're alluding to the 19th harmonic which gives us the minor third from physics.
> 
> As a music person yourself what do you think of that? Where in the harmonic series do you think the minor third came from?


The Bernstein anecdote sounds ridiculous. The interval between the 5th and 6th partials and between the 6th and 7th is a minor third. What is the relevance of the question?


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> Someone told me that Bernstein said that in the song 19th Nervous Breakdown by the Rolling Stones they're alluding to the 19th harmonic which gives us the minor third from physics.
> 
> As a music person yourself what do you think of that? Where in the harmonic series do you think the minor third came from?


It sort of works out. The 19th harmonic is a frequency 19 times higher than the fundamental. The 16th harmonic is 4 octaves above the fundamental, so the 19th harmonic is between the 4th and 5th octave. If you compare the 19th harmonic to the 16th harmonic you get a ratio 19/16 = 1.1875. The even tempered minor third is 2 raised to the power 3/12 (since it is 3 semitones above the fundamental). That is a ratio 1.1892. The natural minor third is 6/5 or 1.2000. So the 19th harmonic approximates a minor third relative to the adjacent octave. I can't imagine that has anything to do with the song.


----------



## Luchesi

Baron Scarpia said:


> It sort of works out. The 19th harmonic is a frequency 19 times higher than the fundamental. The 16th harmonic is 4 octaves above the fundamental, so the 19th harmonic is between the 4th and 5th octave. If you compare the 19th harmonic to the 16th harmonic you get a ratio 19/16 = 1.1875. The even tempered minor third is 2 raised to the power 3/12 (since it is 3 semitones above the fundamental). That is a ratio 1.1892. The natural minor third is 6/5 or 1.2000. So the 19th harmonic approximates a minor third relative to the adjacent octave. I can't imagine that has anything to do with the song.


Yes, if you use the C two octaves below middle C as the fundamental, when you multiply its frequency by 19 you get an Eb two above middle C. It's the first (lowest) Eb you'll derive by multiplying by an integer.


----------



## Luchesi

The flat third is the last of all the 12 notes (for human hearing) that can be derived by multiplying the fundamental by integers. This is very interesting to me.

Some musicians say that humans can hear a quintupling of the fundamental, but the sextupling of the fundamental confuses the ear - so that the minor sound yields all the uncertainty, negativity, sadness, and foreboding in Western music. It's obviously not related to that last 19th note.


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> The harmonic series is overrated.


Do you use something else?


----------



## Luchesi

EdwardBast said:


> The Bernstein anecdote sounds ridiculous. The interval between the 5th and 6th partials and between the 6th and 7th is a minor third. What is the relevance of the question?


The intervals to the 9th then to the sharp 11th are both major thirds. And then the interval to the 13th is a minor third again (unless you're using the approximated natural 11th, it's quirky how the arithmetic comes out this way). Does this have any relevance to people when they listen?


----------



## EdwardBast

Luchesi said:


> The intervals to the 9th then to the sharp 11th are both major thirds. And then the interval to the 13th is a minor third again (unless you're using the approximated natural 11th, it's quirky how the arithmetic comes out this way). Does this have any relevance to people when they listen?


My point is why, when citing the overtone series, do you only take interest in the minor third as derived from the fundamental? The minor third is generated quite early in the series as the interval between the 5th and 6th overtones, as well as the 6th and the 7th. That means the interval is quite highly represented among the strongest overtones.


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> My point is why, when citing the overtone series, do you only take interest in the minor third as derived from the fundamental? The minor third is generated quite early in the series as the interval between the 5th and 6th overtones, as well as the 6th and the 7th. That means the interval is quite highly represented among the strongest overtones.


Beyond the harmonic series as a source of musical intervals, the minor third occurs naturally in the cadence of expressive speech, especially as a falling interval expressing sadness, and is produced spontaneously by children in the little taunting songs we're all familiar with ("nyaaah-nyaaah-nya-nyaaah-nyaaah!"). This is a "melodic," as opposed to an acoustic, source of the interval's common presence in world music.

As I said in post #129, the harmonic series is overrated. (But Chopin isn't. )


----------



## Luchesi

EdwardBast said:


> My point is why, when citing the overtone series, do you only take interest in the minor third as derived from the fundamental? The minor third is generated quite early in the series as the interval between the 5th and 6th overtones, as well as the 6th and the 7th. That means the interval is quite highly represented among the strongest overtones.


Is this universe simulated? It's a coincidence that the flat third is so important to human music and it can be generated by multiplying the fundamental by 19, BUT every other tone can be generated before that by smaller factors. The flat third is the last to be generated. It's even after the flat ninth! which is the second to the last.


----------

