# I honestly don't know why people like Chopin!



## Wolfgangus the Great (Jan 4, 2022)

I hear people calling Chopin 'tHe PiAnO pOeT' as if no composer ever could write anything poetic. Chopin is corny, not poetic. I find his C# minor nocturne to be self-pity, lacking any intellectual depth, not poetic. I find the keyboard works of J.S Bach, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven, C.P.E Bach, Liszt, Schumann, Brahms, and Haydn to be way more emotional as well as being rich in intellectual depth.

If you analyze Chopin's piano pieces, you'll notice 7 things:

1. He wasn't a very good melodist, nor is he good at developing motifs. There is no development. They basically jackhammer the same cheap melody throughout the entire piece. Just listen to the F Minor nocturne and you'll know what I'm talking about, and this isn't a rare example. This is what Chopin's output basically is. I hear people calling Chopin one of the best melodists leaving out Mozart, but I'd say, he isn't even good and melody writing. If he was good, he wouldn't have trouble developing the melody in the F Minor Nocturne, instead of jackhammering it over and over again. His music is basically really boring background salon music.

2. Chopin was a miniaturist. He couldn't write large-scale works. When he did, the result was disastrous. Just look at the E Minor concerto. It's just the piano hogging the majority of the composition! There is no actual interplay. He couldn't balance the orchestra and the solo parts, like Schumann, Mozart, and many others could do. Worst of all, the structure was incoherent, and unbalanced. The themes were never thoroughly developed. There is just too much athematic material. He could only rely on the ternary form because he was a hack! The sonata form was far too complex for Chopin to handle. Sonata form in away is just a more elaborated and sophisticated version of the ternary form. ABA form is basically only has two contrasting tunes. Sonata form has two contrasting themes in the exposition, and in the middle section you actually have to develop the themes heard previously. This is why Chopin mostly wrote music in these forms. He couldn't do developments.

3. He was a one-trick pony. He couldn't write for ensembles. His orchestration was horrendous!! His orchestration was horrifically unbalanced!

4. He didn't have a good understanding of texture. He was a composer for one right hand. He only used ostinatos in the left hand and came up with an uninteresting melody with no development, to hog the entire piece.

5. There is no interplay within the voices. Just listen to Chopin and compare his music to the keyboard works of J.S Bach, Buxtehude, Handel, Haydn, J.C Bach, C.P.E Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart, Liszt, or literally to any great composer. Chopin's music is basically new age music fitting for sad Asian dramas with a plethora of corny sentimentalism. The problem here isn't necessarily lack of counterpoint (it partially is), but it's the static bassline which never moves. Mozart's music on the other hand is wild and imaginative, never letting up until the resolution. There are just so many character changes in just a single minute of Mozart's music that the entirety of Chopin's oeuvre.

6. He never improved as an artist. His entire output is basically ripping off Mozart, Beethoven, and Field. He basically just hid behind their shadows and never came up with any ideas of his own. He never had his own style. He never experimented. His music is never special.

7. He was an incompetent contrapuntist. His counterpoint is absolutely laughable!

His music frankly has no substance. Just look at my playlist and you'll know what I mean.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpBPcOvehC0lTKnoBd6bmoxBayZynR00R

Again, if you object to any of this, then tell me! Let me know! Why do people like Chopin so much??


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

Oh boy, I'm not gonna burn my fingers on this one.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Me neither, the idea alone. :angel:


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Me neither. As a pianist, I see his piano music differently to the OP.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I think you're one of those people who are not happy about the "Chopin fanbase", (as Chu42 described in another thread). Chu42: "they get sucked into the Romantic machine until they can't stand anything not idiomatic to Chopin. The most common ideas you will see floating around Chopin echo-chambers is that Mozart is the most overrated composer".
But don't let it cloud your judgement of the artist and his music.


----------



## Wolfgangus the Great (Jan 4, 2022)

hammeredklavier said:


> I think you're one of those people who are not happy about the "Chopin fanbase", (as Chu42 described in another thread). Chu42: "they get sucked into the Romantic machine until they can't stand anything not idiomatic to Chopin. The most common ideas you will see floating around Chopin echo-chambers is that Mozart is the most overrated composer".
> But don't let it cloud your judgement of the artist and his music.


I genuinely think his music has no merits. And you really didn't give any arguments.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Wolfgangus the Great said:


> Chopin's music is basically new age music fitting for sad Asian dramas with a plethora of corny sentimentalism.


Chopins music never made me interested. Maybe because he was a virtuoso, but I care more for composition. I don't know much about his music, because I never cared, but it seems like he always wrote short sentimental piano pieces. A lot of keys sing out but it seems superficial to me. I think I miss depth like in pop music.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I'm amazed - most of your thread openers are one liners


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Far too much of your post holds out your idiosyncratic personal taste as objective fact. It isn't.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Chopin wrote 7 multi movement large scale works; admittedly, almost nobody cares for the 1st piano sonata and the earlyish (pretty good) trio is on the fringe of repertoire but the other three sonatas and the two concerti are repertoire staples. I think the concerti are flawed (too long, boring instrumentation, although there are the nice bassoon soli in the e minor and the col legno effect in the f minor) but they are saved by great melodies and atmosphere. They don't even try to be "symphonic" like Beethoven, despite their length and except for Schumann and later Brahms' I don't find the standard romantic concerti obviously superior; Liszt are formally more daring but melodically not very attractive, Mendelssohn's are good but a bit slight and facile and so on.
The two mature piano sonatas and the cello sonata are masterpieces, they have some odd features but obviously they "work" extremely well, otherwise they would not be so popular. 

He also wrote a bunch of middle-large scale "free" pieces that are not just ABA' such as the ballades, polonaise fantaisie, fantaise f minor. And of course there is nothing wrong with ABA' or similar superficially simple forms; it all depends what one does with it.

Extremely popular classical music that has been a repertoire staple for >150 years must have qualities that make this stable high esteem among audiences and musicians possible. Flaws, if any, have to be rather subtle or be mostly irrelevant to what listeners (and/or players) actually care about, otherwise this would not work. Chopin as described above would have gone the way of Moscheles, Thalberg, Herz and all the other pianist-composers of the 19th century that are mostly forgotten now.
Obviously, many listeners find Chopin's music melodically very attractive, great in evoking romantic atmosphere, dazzling in its virtuosity (but not as over the top as Liszt), not too complex or confusing to follow along but not too simple either.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I have heard this view before - but I like enough of Chopin to dismiss it. I can't think of a single big name composer that I think is unjustly famous today. Many minor names which have a niche interest which may baffle me - but not a composer of Chopin's stature.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Too lazy to argue, but Chopin was the greatest master of harmony in the 19th century

https://culture.pl/en/article/chopin-different-shades-of-genius


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Did he write any symphonies? That is where my main interest would be. For Piano I have more than I can listen to with Beethoven and Rachmaninoff.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

I've never cared for Chopin. I try from time to time, I do find pieces here and there that I enjoy, but more often he just puts me to sleep.

That said:

//He wasn't a very good melodist//

He was possibly one of the greatest melodist to have ever composed. You compare Chopin to composers like Bach, Händel and Mozart, and your criticism of Chopin sounds like the criticism I would make but without the self-awareness. The former composers had completely different aims. Chopin created sustained and sweeping _emotional states_ in his music. To oversimplify, one could say of Chopin that the emotional experience defined his musical structure whereas with Bach, Händel or Mozart, the musical structure created/defined the emotional experience. Chopin was the quintessential Romantic. If you don't like that sublimation of form to melody, then you're not going to like Chopin.

//He was a one-trick pony. He couldn't write for ensembles. //

You're a day late and a dollar short. Chopin _himself_ criticized himself for just this reason. He wrote something to the effect that all of his ideas came to him for the piano. But to criticize him for being, arguably, the greatest composer for the piano who ever lived is a peculiar criticism. It's like criticizing a Great Pitcher for being a poor Catcher.

//He was a composer for one right hand.//

Yes, the melody is primarily carried by the right hand, but Chopin's left handed harmonization is arguably the most imaginative and sensitive of any other composer. It's somehow always the perfect complement to the right hand. If you've ever tried to play Chopin, as I have (and not well), the importance of the left hand is equal to the right hand in an almost Bach-like way.

//There is no interplay within the voices.//

Absolutely disagree. I'm listening to this as I write this reponse:






And at the 45:30 mark and 45:45 especially, you'll hear some ravishing interplay. Mozart rarely matches Chopin in this respect. What you're describing can be applied to other lesser Romantics, but not Chopin.

//He never improved as an artist. His entire output is basically ripping off Mozart, Beethoven, and Field. //

It sounds like you're not all that familiar with Chopin? He sounds nothing like Mozart or Beethoven (which is probably why I don't like him) and goes far behond Field. Field does, from time to time, "sound like" Mozart.

//He was an incompetent contrapuntist. His counterpoint is absolutely laughable!//

Again, that's like accusing a Master Sushi chef of making third-rate hamburgers. It doesn't reflect on the Chef but on your choice of restaurants.

//His music frankly has no substance. //

His music is suffused with romantic genius, which is probably why I can't tolerate more than a piece or two. So, keep in mind that this defense of Chopin comes from someone who really doesn't care for Chopin-at all.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

No, Chopin wrote no piece without piano. Mostly solo piano, a bunch of concertante works for piano&orchestra, a piano trio, a few works for cello & piano, incl. a top 10 cello sonata and about a disc worth of songs in Polish.

But I think many pianists and listeners would put Chopin in the all time top 5 piano solo composers; if you like Rachmaninoff's solo piano or concerti, I doubt that you will dislike Chopin although you might still prefer Rachmaninoff (I vastly prefer Chopin).


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Frédéric Chopin was “the greatest master of counterpoint since Mozart” - Charles Rosen


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

> With regard to counterpoint in Chopin's music, you might be interested in the conversation that Chopin had not long before his death with the painter Eugène Delacroix. Delacroix was one of a handful of quite intimate friends of Chopin's. In his diary, he mentions how he had picked up Chopin in a carriage, and they had ridden out beyond the Arc de Triomphe and gone to a café. Chopin then began to speak about music. What makes logic in music, Chopin said, is counterpoint, getting notes to sound against each other. He said the problem with the way they teach nowadays is that they teach the chords before they teach the movement of voices that creates chords. That's the problem, he said, with Berlioz. He applies the chords as a kind of veneer and fills in the gaps the best way he can. Chopin then said that you can get a sense of pure logic in music with fugue and he cited not Bach - though we know that he worshipped Bach - but Mozart. He said, in every one of Mozart's pieces, you feel the counterpoint. The fact that Chopin had this idea about counterpoint as being so foundational in music is, I think, very significant.


Carl Schachter (2016) The Art of Tonal Analysis: Twelve Lessons in Schenkerian Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, p.57.
https://wedgebillmusic.com/?p=6015


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

arpeggio's law #69.

No matter how great a composer is there is someone who thinks he is overrated.

I have seen threads that have ridiculed Bach.

I have seen threads that have ridiculed Mozart.

I have seen threads that have ridiculed Beethoven's _Ninth_.

Now we have Chopin


----------



## John Zito (Sep 11, 2021)

Wolfgangus the Great said:


> I genuinely think his music has no merits.


Really? Generations of great pianists have spent a good portion of their lives learning and performing this music, and audiences continue to want to hear it, and yet you can't come up with a single merit that the music might possess? All of those people have just been wasting their time?


----------



## Wolfgangus the Great (Jan 4, 2022)

> He was possibly one of the greatest melodist to have ever composed. You compare Chopin to composers like Bach, Händel and Mozart, and your criticism of Chopin sounds like the criticism I would make but without the self-awareness. The former composers had completely different aims. Chopin created sustained and sweeping emotional states in his music. To oversimplify, one could say of Chopin that the emotional experience defined his musical structure whereas with Bach, Händel or Mozart, the musical structure created/defined the emotional experience. Chopin was the quintessential Romantic. If you don't like that sublimation of form to melody, then you're not going to like Chopin.


This argument makes absolutely no sense to me.



> Mozart rarely matches Chopin in this respect.


lol

Strange how you deliberately ignored my argument about Chopin's static basslines.


----------



## Wolfgangus the Great (Jan 4, 2022)

John Zito said:


> Really? Generations of great pianists have spent a good portion of their lives learning and performing this music, and audiences continue to want to hear it, and yet you can't come up with a single merit that the music might possess? All of those people have just been wasting their time?


Yeah, pretty much!


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Wolfgangus the Great said:


> I genuinely think his music has no merits.


Ok. Next topic.

......


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

Wolfgangus the Great said:


> I honestly don't know why people like Chopin!


Lurk more. Post less.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

According to the OP, Chopin has absolutely no redeeming value. Trying to respond to it would take precious wasted minutes of my life I could never get back.


----------



## Wolfgangus the Great (Jan 4, 2022)

DaveM said:


> According to the OP, Chopin has absolutely no redeeming value. Trying to respond to it would take precious wasted minutes of my life I could never get back.


Saying that his music has no redeeming value is perhaps taking it too far. I like his G Minor Ballade and a few other works.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Wolfgangus the Great said:


> Saying that his music has no redeeming *value *is perhaps taking it too far. I *like *his G Minor Ballade and a few other works.


It's a really interesting post because of the way you run together _value _and _like_.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Wolfgangus the Great said:


> Saying that his music has no redeeming value is perhaps taking it too far. I like his G Minor Ballade and a few other works.


you have just negated your entire first post - well done


----------



## verandai (Dec 10, 2021)

I don't know if this post was just intended as a provocation, or as an actual exchange of information.

I also can't understand why some people love certain types of music, but I don't have to (it's fine for me). Everyone can have their own taste, even if I can't comprehend it.

As for Chopin: I like a big part of his music, but I find it difficult to technically describe why that's the case. I just do! Maybe the probability of liking his music increases when someone is playing piano themselves. I also can't recall a pianist with an antipathy against Chopin.

Even for the E minor concerto: I can confirm that the orchestra part isn't written well, but I still like the music...


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Frédéric Chopin was "the greatest master of counterpoint since Mozart" - Charles Rosen


This seems almost as exaggerated as the other extreme "right handed genius" (i.e. left hand plays boring accompaniment). Chopin's voice leading might be far more sophisticated than the second quip suggests, but he wrote very little "explicitly contrapuntal" passages compared to Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Schumann.
I don't know the first technical thing about counterpoint but from listening I often have the impression that Chopin manages to infuse poetry into accompaniment/subsidiary voices. E.g. the bass line in the great Barcarole or a passage in the slow movement of the b minor sonata where the accompaniment somehow becomes the melody.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

He doesn't float my boat -- seems only to be "about" pretty pianism -- but that doesn't make him bad. Is certainly a Master of passage-work.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Wolfgangus the Great said:


> 5. There is no interplay within the voices. Just listen to Chopin and compare his music to the keyboard works of J.S Bach, Buxtehude, Handel, Haydn, J.C Bach, C.P.E Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart, Liszt, or literally to any great composer. Chopin's music is basically new age music fitting for sad Asian dramas with a plethora of corny sentimentalism. The problem here isn't necessarily lack of counterpoint (it partially is), but it's the static bassline which never moves. Mozart's music on the other hand is wild and imaginative, never letting up until the resolution. There are just so many character changes in just a single minute of Mozart's music that the entirety of Chopin's oeuvre.
> 
> 6. He never improved as an artist. His entire output is basically ripping off Mozart, Beethoven, and Field. He basically just hid behind their shadows and never came up with any ideas of his own. He never had his own style. He never experimented. His music is never special.
> 
> ...


Some people think that his music did evolve, and while not becoming contrapuntal, it started to explore what happens if you have different and equally important voices in different piano registers, and allow them to "dance" round each other. A duet of two hands, as it were. Charles Rosen developed this line of thinking, you can kind of hear it in the way he played. This sort of thing








Wolfgangus the Great said:


> 4. He didn't have a good understanding of texture. He was a composer for one right hand. He only used ostinatos in the left hand and came up with an uninteresting melody with no development, to hog the entire piece.


I wonder what you make of the third sonata, the first movement.






Or the way he works the thematic material in the op 45 prelude


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I have to admit I never had too much love for Chopin. Maybe because I was tortured as a young piano student by having to learn some of the Etudes and other finger busting works (you try the Minute Waltz!). He was the pop star of his day, but too many great pianists have taken it quite seriously so it must have something going for it, no? I had an epiphany about 15 years ago: playing bassoon in an orchestra and on the stand was the Chopin 1st piano concerto. Somewhere in the middle of the 2nd movement I suddenly had the notion that this could be the most beautiful music I've ever heard. It was profoundly moving. (And yes, very poorly orchestrated.) Since then I've picked up some Chopin sets - like the Nocturnes - and there's some beautiful and seriously complex music. It's not lightweight salon music like so much of Raff or Chaminade. I don't collect that much solo piano music, but I have to say that Chopin is awfully good.


----------



## Wolfgangus the Great (Jan 4, 2022)

Kreisler jr said:


> This seems almost as exaggerated as the other extreme "right handed genius" (i.e. left hand plays boring accompaniment). Chopin's voice leading might be far more sophisticated than the second quip suggests, but he wrote very little "explicitly contrapuntal" passages compared to Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Schumann.
> I don't know the first technical thing about counterpoint but from listening I often have the impression that Chopin manages to infuse poetry into accompaniment/subsidiary voices. E.g. the bass line in the great Barcarole or a passage in the slow movement of the b minor sonata where the accompaniment somehow becomes the melody.


I think Chopin's greatest contrapuntal achievement is the development section of Op. 58. Check it out! It's pretty neat!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Too lazy to argue, but Chopin was the greatest master of harmony in the 19th century
> 
> https://culture.pl/en/article/chopin-different-shades-of-genius


When someone goes hyperbolic, someone else is bound to go hyperbolic in opposition.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> When someone goes hyperbolic, someone else is bound to go hyperbolic in opposition.


Did not think I made a controversial or hyperbolic statement


----------



## Wolfgangus the Great (Jan 4, 2022)

PlaySalieri said:


> you have just negated your entire first post - well done


I actually thing my first post is actually pretty stupid right now. I don't have the same opinions right now. Chopin isn't amazing because he just wrote too much salon music instead of his serious works, but his serious works are great!

Ignore everything I said.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Wolfgangus the Great said:


> This argument makes absolutely no sense to me.


Yeah. Okay. But I can't be bothered to put anymore energy into this. Precious minutes of my life and all that...


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Wolfgangus the Great said:


> I actually thing my first post is actually pretty stupid right now. I don't have the same opinions right now. Chopin isn't amazing because he just wrote too much salon music instead of his serious works, but his serious works are great!
> 
> *Ignore everything I said*.


You do realise how this undermines anything you say in the future. You can start a thread - and how do we know you are not going to completely flip your position?

I mean - I am irritating to many - but I am consistently irritating with some of my views - I don't chop and change and flip and flop. You wont find me saying - oh forget everything I said about Clementi or CPE Bach - they are simply the best!


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

What is wrong with changing your mind?

There are several composers I changed my mind about as a result of some the discussions here.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> What is wrong with changing your mind?
> 
> There are several composers I changed my mind about as a result of some the discussions here.


nothing wrong with changing your mind - but to write a 300 word condemnatory essay on why Chopin is talentless and 12 posts later say forget everything I said - seem a bit short of a gradual and rational realisation that one is wrong and more indicative of a certain state of mind. I would expect some posts acknowledging certain errors and some detailed justification for one's change.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

We often hear this criticism about flowery Chopin pieces (because that's what they remember), especially new music fans who have cut their teeth on Mozart or LvB.

If we think about when Chopin started composing, during the time when LvB's later works were difficult to 'understand' he struck me as a sensitive man in a wilderness, making his own way out (as Schubert had half-succeeded). I suspect from what I've read that Chopin thought Beethoven was too extreme, sometimes vulgar and somewhat bombastic. So what could he do?

Compared to the flowery works around him, John Field and other minor guys, he's so much more interesting, even if you don't play the marvelous compositions. If you analyze music, he does everything smoothly and impressively. His harmonies (mazurkas) were well-ahead of his time, because the critics of the time, let's say, took notice.


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

Chopin was one of my favorite when I was in high school. Then I switched my attention to major orchestral and chamber music. I like Chopin's miniatures more than his larger scale pieces.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Bruckner Anton said:


> I like Chopin's miniatures more than his larger scale pieces.


My favorite body of work of his is the Mazurkas, no doubt.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

I rarely listen to solo piano music, so I don't care much for Chopin for that reason. Someday, perhaps thos year, I will make an effort to appreciate Chopin (starting with the two piano sonatas which I liked but have rarely listened to).


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Wolfgangus the Great said:


> I actually thing my first post is actually pretty stupid right now. I don't have the same opinions right now. Chopin isn't amazing because he just wrote too much salon music instead of his serious works, but his serious works are great!
> 
> Ignore everything I said.


You have the right to dislike Chopin. But there are shades of gray between black and white. I have had serious problems with Mahler, but came to understand that I don't have to like everything but find what resonates with my personality. And in the meanwhile, while exploring, asking for advice and points to consider from other people.

I love the Ballades and many other works by Chopin but do not care for much of the "dancing Chopin", because I generally do not like dance aspects in classical and modern art music. "The dance" is the main reason I stay out of the way of new classicism as well. At the same time I realize the problem, if there is a problem, is me disliking the dance, not "the dance" in itself for it needs to exist.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I think the importance of Chopin lies in establishing a "tradition" almost orthogonal to the Viennese/German/Austrian classicism + romantics and in the elevating of "small pieces" like nocturnes and études etc. to the level of "serious works". Debussy, Rachmaninoff and other late romantic/early modern short pieces and cycles are hardly imaginable without Chopin. (This of course does not mean that Chopin is only important as such a pioneer.)
Schumann (and others) did this as well but not quite to the same extent and obviously Schumann or Mendelssohn were far more indebted to their German tradition.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Did not think I made a controversial or hyperbolic statement


I think you did. At least, I wonder how you determine that Chopin was a greater "master" of harmony than Wagner. What does being the greatest master of harmony entail for you?

Chopin was harmonically innovative, as was Schubert. But Chopin's chromaticism and Schubert's abrupt tonal shifts are generally utilized on a small scale on account of the small forms in which these composers worked (yes, some of Schubert's works are long, but that length is largely the result of repetition). It was left to others to explore the large-scale structural possibilities of chromaticism (which in any case Chopin didn't invent), and he never came close to employing chromatic harmony on the scale of Wagner, who inherited much of Chopin through Liszt. If Wagner's wide-ranging harmonic thinking - his ability to take modulatory freedom to extremes while maintaining coherence in carefully judged tonal schemes, while simultaneously narrating dramatic scenes - lacks anything in "mastery," I've managed not to notice it.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I see Chopin and Wagner both as great masters of harmony of the 19th century. I think who one prefers there comes down largely to preference. I think where Wagner surpasses Chopin is in his orchestration and use of timbre. 

When thinking of harmony in the contrapuntal sense, I think Brahms is the stand out composer of the 19th century.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> I think you did. At least, I wonder how you determine that Chopin was a greater "master" of harmony than Wagner. What does being the greatest master of harmony entail for you?
> 
> Chopin was harmonically innovative, as was Schubert. But Chopin's chromaticism and Schubert's abrupt tonal shifts are generally utilized on a small scale on account of the small forms in which these composers worked (yes, some of Schubert's works are long, but that length is largely the result of repetition). It was left to others to explore the large-scale structural possibilities of chromaticism (which in any case Chopin didn't invent), and he never came close to employing chromatic harmony on the scale of Wagner, who inherited much of Chopin through Liszt. If Wagner's wide-ranging harmonic thinking - his ability to take modulatory freedom to extremes while maintaining coherence in carefully judged tonal schemes, while simultaneously narrating dramatic scenes - lacks anything in "mastery," I've managed not to notice it.


It's evident that longer is better or perhaps more difficult than shorter? I assume that popularity of Chopin is only matched by the bleeding chunks of Wagner.

Whether any composer achieves anything meaningful harmonically speaking is very subjective.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I miss Larkenfield these days, who always liked to write paragraphs of "Virtually the entire range of human experience was expressed in the full measure of Chopin's many works, including the heroic, love, death, joy, humor, spirit, war, tenderness, the sarcastic, the intellectual, melancholy, depression, the darker side of life, and yet his critics can't see that because their distorted image of a great composer is only someone like Wagner driving down the highway in his full-size diesel Mercedes." 
(I'm not trying to say this is true or false, but the last bit kind of makes me chuckle, I mean the idea of likening Wagner to someone driving down the highway in his full-size diesel Mercedes. Cute.)


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

tdc said:


> When thinking of harmony in the contrapuntal sense, I think Brahms is the stand out composer of the 19th century.


Yes. I'm genuinely shocked there's something "anticipating" his style in 1773 



 (~3:00)


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Did not think I made a controversial or hyperbolic statement


I am sure that the person who criticized you thinks that Wagner was the greatest "Master of Harmony" of the 19th Century


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Chopin was unique among the Great Composers in that he wrote for a single instrument. While he mastered counterpoint he wasn't interested in dry academic displays. Chopin worked in an age that valued Personal Expression and was self consciously rejecting the 
values of the Classical Period. He and Schumann was much interested in Harmony that any of the Composers of that period. Chopin's influences were Bach, Mozart, and bel canto Opera, and he added his own harmonic spice to this stew. H e wanted to move his listener as an Opera Composer would
Criticizing him for not excelling in forms in which he had zero interest, such as the Symphony, is utterly pointless. It's like criticizing Edgar Allan Poe for not writing like Jane Austen, or criticizing Monet because he didn't paint like Raphael.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> I think the importance of Chopin lies in establishing a "tradition" almost orthogonal to the Viennese/German/Austrian classicism + romantics and in the elevating of "small pieces" like nocturnes and études etc. to the level of "serious works".


Right, but the Czech-Austro-Germans (eg. J.C. Kessler (1800-1872), the dedicatee of Chopin Op.28) were also instrumental in developing the genre of "small pieces" initially. Look at Kessler Op.20 No.9 https://s9.imslp.org/files/imglnks/...-PMLP76944-Kessler-24EtudesDurand.pdf#page=42 and Chopin Op.25 No.1. Also look at Hummel Op.125 No.3 



 and Chopin Op.25 No.6. Mayer's Op.332 was once (wrongly) attributed to Chopin. 
Nocturne sentimentale: 



Chanson sentimentale:


----------



## Wolfgangus the Great (Jan 4, 2022)

PlaySalieri said:


> You do realise how this undermines anything you say in the future. You can start a thread - and how do we know you are not going to completely flip your position?
> 
> I mean - I am irritating to many - but I am consistently irritating with some of my views - I don't chop and change and flip and flop. You wont find me saying - oh forget everything I said about Clementi or CPE Bach - they are simply the best!


I didn't just randomly change my mind. I no longer think Chopin is bad. I still think Op. 55 No. 1 is a very dull work, but he wrote some great stuff too.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

I like Chopin's _Nocturnes_. I happened to first sample two of those _Nocturnes_ on a Liberace album in one the very few recordings the popular pianist made where he didn't augment a classical piece of piano music with syrupy strings or edits (what Liberace called "classical music without the boring parts"). But I became interested enough in these _Nocturnes_ to get a more complete set by Anton Rubinstein, and now I have them complete in a set of Chopin _Nocturnes_ by the wonderful and classy, Claudio Arrau. I also have a set of Chopin piano miniatures, sort of a "greatest hits" of Chopin, by Vladimir Horowitz.

Though I usually place Chopin along side Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, and Grieg; as the high-Romantic composers who are really pretty and sentimental, I sometimes hear a hint of Chopin in some of the French composers who composed on the cusp of the Early Modern era; in Claude Debussy and Erik Satie.

I have read that Chopin had his critics even among well-respected and revered musicians. According to Harold Schonberg's _Lives of the Great Composers_, Serge Prokofiev hated the music of Chopin and refused to play his music at his piano recitals despite the fact that Chopin was loved in Russia. The eccentric and acclaimed Glenn Gould recorded very little Chopin, and though he did record the Beethoven and Mozart _Sonatas_, he generally disliked Mozart as well, and he also said that some early Beethoven was "bad Beethoven". Then again, it's difficult to get a firm grasp on Gould's musical vision because as good he was in the piano music of the "heavies": Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Hindemith, and Schoenberg; he also turned out a very fine recording of Grieg's Romantic and beautiful, _Piano Sonata_, and his recording of Mozart's _Piano Sonatas_ are among the best even if Gould professed not to like it.

I think that Chopin suffers from "Snob Syndrome". Like Tchaikovsky, Chopin is loved by casual listeners of classical music; not people like us who have hundreds or thousands of classical music LPs, CDs, or downloads in their collections; but those who may only have a handful of classical recordings at their disposal. Sometimes these folks are not very musically literate, and they don't care that Chopin was weak in melody, texture, orchestration, or development, as the OP suggests (Although, in terms of development, it should be noted that Chopin did die young, at age 39, so the question of how far he could have developed, musically, is still a matter of dispute). And just because Chopin never composed a magnum opus like Beethoven's _9th_, Berlioz's _Requiem_, or Wagner's _Ring_ doesn't mean he was a bad composer. Some architects build mansions made of solid gold, and others are content to just create little homes that are warm and cozy.

By and by, lots of ordinary folks love to take out something like the Chopin _Nocturnes_ on a rainy Saturday morning as they sip their coffee and look out the window. Others employ Chopin at dinner parties and candle-light dinners. Some just like to relax on a dark night listening on their sound system to Chopin as they struggle to find some beauty in this weary world. The likes of Rubinstein, Horowitz, Arrau, and Liberace, made Chopin a regular part of the concert line-ups. Call it sentimental or low-brow, like Tchaikovsky, Chopin has survived the test of time, is loved by many, and I'm not going to argue with that.


----------



## Highwayman (Jul 16, 2018)

Wolfgangus the Great said:


> I didn't just randomly change my mind.


Wow, you must have contemplated real hard in those 3 hours.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Triplets said:


> I am sure that the person who criticized you thinks that Wagner was the greatest "Master of Harmony" of the 19th Century


Actually, that person is simply averse to awarding prizes for "greatest" this or that. Why not just describe the ways in which mastery manifests itself and leave it at that, without making a competition out of it?

That Chopin and Wagner had vastly different artistic goals, and that Wagner in pursuit of his goals went beyond Chopin in the range and structural use of chromatic harmony, are hardly secrets, but in relation to what came before him Chopin may have been the more innovative. Wagner, while criticizing Chopin as a "composer for the right hand," said "I have become a very different harmonist since I know Liszt and since he plays for me." Liszt certainly played Chopin, and Wagner certainly understood what he was hearing. Liszt's own achievements as a harmonist were considerable, and I see Chopin, Liszt and Wagner as a trinity in the evolution of harmony in the 19th century. No point in pitting the father, son and holy ghost against one another!


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

arpeggio said:


> What is wrong with changing your mind?
> 
> There are several composers I changed my mind about as a result of some the discussions here.


I've certainly given composers and works a serious listen as a result of some recommendations here. Sometimes I find wonderful stuff I'd either never heard of previously, or had preconceived notions about. Sometimes it doesn't.

As for *Chopin*, coming from a pianist's perspective, almost all of his stuff is lovely. I've played many of his works (as well as many works from Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach), and I cannot fathom why you would criticize his music because it's not as contrapuntal, or developmental, as the works of those that went before him. Criticizing his lack of orchestral output is also head-scratching . . . so _what_ if he specialized in works for piano. I could say the same for Mussorgsky. Or Liszt.

As for *melody* . . . Chopin's melodies were top notch; I'd wager that is why his music enjoys continued accolades.

So . . . well, in THAT context, his works do seem to have a modern day equivalent in the discussion of *Stephen* *Sondheim vs. Andrew Lloyd Webber*. While I vastly prefer the complexity and depth of Sondheim's work, I fully understand why Lloyd Webber's stuff is so universally loved: You can HUM it as you leave the theatre. Lloyd Webber's MELODIES are his strong point, and he's written many lovely tunes.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Triplets said:


> Chopin was *unique among the Great Composers in that he wrote for a single instrument.* While he mastered counterpoint he wasn't interested in dry academic displays. Chopin worked in an age that valued Personal Expression and was self consciously rejecting the
> values of the Classical Period. He and Schumann was much interested in Harmony that any of the Composers of that period. Chopin's influences were Bach, Mozart, and bel canto Opera, and he added his own harmonic spice to this stew. H e wanted to move his listener as an Opera Composer would
> Criticizing him for not excelling in forms in which he had zero interest, such as the Symphony, is utterly pointless. It's like criticizing Edgar Allan Poe for not writing like Jane Austen, or criticizing Monet because he didn't paint like Raphael.


I was pleasantly surprised by his Cello Sonata, as a late work. I let it play repeatedly in the car, running errands around town.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Actually, that person is simply averse to awarding prizes for "greatest" this or that. Why not just describe the ways in which mastery manifests itself and leave it at that, without making a competition out of it?
> 
> That Chopin and Wagner had vastly different artistic goals, and that Wagner in pursuit of his goals went beyond Chopin in the range and structural use of chromatic harmony, are hardly secrets, but in relation to what came before him Chopin may have been the more innovative. Wagner, while criticizing Chopin as a "composer for the right hand," said "I have become a very different harmonist since I know Liszt and since he plays for me." Liszt certainly played Chopin, and Wagner certainly understood what he was hearing. Liszt's own achievements as a harmonist were considerable, and I see Chopin, Liszt and Wagner as a trinity in the evolution of harmony in the 19th century. No point in pitting the father, son and holy ghost against one another!


I am not disputing Wagner's gifts, particularly with respect to chromatacism and harmony. I was merely trying to explain your frame of reference to someone else with whom you interacted and left puzzled


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Luchesi said:


> I was pleasantly surprised by his Cello Sonata, as a late work. I let it play repeatedly in the car, running errands around town.


Pleasantly surprised is the operative phrase. We associate Chopin so much with the Piano exclusively that any time writes well for another instrument or the voice it tends to surprise


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

ORigel said:


> I rarely listen to solo piano music, so I don't care much for Chopin for that reason. Someday, perhaps thos year, I will make an effort to appreciate Chopin (starting with the two piano sonatas which I liked but have rarely listened to).


Yeah, that is a large part of my story too.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Triplets said:


> Pleasantly surprised is the operative phrase. We associate Chopin so much with the Piano exclusively that any time writes well for another instrument or the voice it tends to surprise


It might not be accurate, but with all Chopin accomplished with the new piano (with his poor health, probably Cystic Fibrosis) and how perfectionist he was, I expect he didn't have time to explore and then get up to speed on ensemble writing. Pianos were new and exciting.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I think the "narrowness" of Chopin is often a bit exaggerated. My DG box with supposedly complete works has 17 discs, at least about 12 disc are standard repertoire pieces and have been recorded dozens or hundreds of times. Sure, that's not as productive as many other composers, even in the 19th century but neither as small an oeuvre as Webern or some other early modern composers. It's comparable to Bruckner or Mahler. And if one looks at contemporaries like Berlioz, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Liszt one will notice that a lot of their work is fairly obscure and if one picks out the famous and frequently played works, the difference to Chopin will get much smaller. Also, hardly anyone holds it against Bruckner and Mahler to have written mostly symphonies or against Puccini that he wrote mostly operas. Piano solo (+ concerti) is obviously a hugely important genre in Chopin's time (and ours, the most important competition in the classical world is focussed on Chopin).

Beyond the solo piano pieces, the cello sonata is certainly top 10 in this genre and despite their flaws the concerti keep remaining very popular, too.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Luchesi said:


> It might not be accurate, but with all Chopin accomplished with the new piano (with his poor health, probably Cystic Fibrosis) and how perfectionist he was, I expect he didn't have time to explore and then get up to speed on ensemble writing. Pianos were new and exciting.


I really think it was more of a creative choice. He just wasn't interested. He lived a long enough creative life to have acquired proficiency in other genres. At the time that he lived in Paris Symphonic and Chamber Music were also devalued


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Francois Prevost needed only 1 work to be great writer. 

Albert Camus only 1 work to take the Nobel 

Arrigo Boito only 1 opera to take place on the pantheon of italian opera.

With Chopin I can name more than one work, which is enough for him to clame with Liszt the top position in piano Olympus. (nobody has composed all his works to perfection. Beethoven has written ridiculous music pieces to gain some money from the aristocracy / reach people & patrons. Mozart also. And many other composers also, my Master included. To be the greatest is enough one Requiem, one Sonata op.111, one Piano Sonata in Cm...)


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

4:20 - reaches B major chord (V4/2 of E major) from B flat




unforgettable


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> 4:20 - reaches B major chord (V4/2 of E major) from B flat


Can find alot of 'jazz' harmony in Chopin - could call that a tritone sub. Was looking at the first nocturne the other day and noticed a b9 chord.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

Opinions are like what again? And everyone has one.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

I honestly don’t know how or why this thread has generated 70 posts!


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Barbebleu said:


> I honestly don't know how or why this thread has generated 70 posts!


I know.

Music is not a zero sum game, i.e. if someone feels strong positive emotions for one composer's music, e.g. Mozart, and negative feelings about the music of another composer, e.g. Chopin, the millions of people who feel positive emotions about Chopin have no relevance for the first person.

Or at least should have no relevance.

Taste is personal and based on a plethora of variables, inexplicable, but usually specific. There is no explanation for why people like Chopin other than they just do. It does not mean anything vis a vis Mozart or any other composer.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> I know.
> 
> Music is not a zero sum game, i.e. if someone feels strong positive emotions for one composer's music, e.g. Mozart, and negative feelings about the music of another composer, e.g. Chopin, the millions of people who feel positive emotions about Chopin have no relevance for the first person.
> 
> ...


It's all very natural. but we tend to forget what we were like as new CM fans. How we were trying to make our way through all the great pieces. We needed categories that were relevant FOR US and we needed to do a lot of listening and reevaluating. Spending our whole lives in one of the arts forms the big picture that you have. I agree with most of the points you make, but I dislike how it makes me feel.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Barbebleu said:


> I honestly don't know how or why this thread has generated 70 posts!


I do, bashing is becoming more and more a daily thing on the internet, whether it's Chopin or Wagner.
You are a man of the world, you know those things, you don't need me to spell it out. :tiphat:


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Rogerx said:


> I do, bashing is becoming more and more a daily thing on the internet, whether it's Chopin or Wagner.
> You are a man of the world, you know those things, you don't need me to spell it out. :tiphat:


Well Roger, you are assuming firstly that I am a man and secondly I am of this world!:lol:

I was also making a little fun of the title of the thread.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> I know.
> 
> Music is not a zero sum game, i.e. if someone feels strong positive emotions for one composer's music, e.g. Mozart, and negative feelings about the music of another composer, e.g. Chopin, the millions of people who feel positive emotions about Chopin have no relevance for the first person.
> 
> ...


There are reasons both explicable and inexplicable.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

tdc said:


> I see Chopin and Wagner both as great masters of harmony of the 19th century. I think who one prefers there comes down largely to preference. I think where Wagner surpasses Chopin is in his orchestration and use of timbre.
> 
> When thinking of harmony in the contrapuntal sense, I think Brahms is the stand out composer of the 19th century.


Chopin was 19 and 20 when he composed concerti.


----------



## FrankinUsa (Aug 3, 2021)

I don’t get Chopin either. No detailed explanations. I just don’t get get. I have the Rubinstein box. I don’t get it.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

FrankinUsa said:


> I don't get Chopin either. No detailed explanations. I just don't get get. I have the Rubinstein box. I don't get it.


Well I do and I have every note he wrote on disc, never getting tired of it I do not mean the whole day Chopin playing but it comes up frequently.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Wolfgangus the Great said:


> I actually thing my first post is actually pretty stupid right now. I don't have the same opinions right now. Chopin isn't amazing because he just wrote too much salon music instead of his serious works, but his serious works are great!
> 
> Ignore everything I said.





arpeggio said:


> What is wrong with changing your mind?
> 
> There are several composers I changed my mind about as a result of some the discussions here.


There is a difference between one's thoughts/opinions evolving through time which is usually gradual, and going on a tirade that, as far as I can tell, had more animosity towards fans of a composer than the composer himself, and COMPLETELY doing a 180 within minutes.

It would be like a President saying something like,

*President:* _"We are declaring war on this evil empire. We will DESTROY them with full deliberation with quick, decisive, devastating and unrelenting force. A force they never knew ever existed!!! We will not falter from this plan!!"_

*Reporter*: _"Have you even tried to open up communications and negotiations?"_

*President:* _"You're right, I rescind this declaration of war and will try to find a peaceful and amicable resolution to any conflict we may have."_

V


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Captainnumber36 said:


> There are reasons both explicable and inexplicable.


I don't understand this sentence. If you can explain taste, please do.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

FrankinUsa said:


> I don't get Chopin either. No detailed explanations. I just don't get get. I have the Rubinstein box. I don't get it.


I admire Chopin as a composer, but go in and out of being interested in listening to his music.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> I admire Chopin as a composer, but go in and out of being interested in listening to his music.


Time Machine Bucket List:

Chopin concert


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

deleted, I already have one infraction


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Luchesi said:


> deleted, I already have one infraction


Yeah, I think both of us got infracted at the same time, same thread.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Try for starters the Chopin: Krakowiak - Concert Rondo in F, Op. 14. It is out of this world. If I could I would preform it.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

FrankinUsa said:


> I don't get Chopin either. No detailed explanations. I just don't get get. I have the Rubinstein box. I don't get it.


I've always thought music isn't really supposed to be "understood". If there's music you had "appreciated" but no longer "appreciate" as time goes by, can you say you've lost the ability to "understand" it? I don't try to "understand" music; I just "feel" it.



Bwv 1080 said:


> Can find alot of 'jazz' harmony in Chopin - could call that a tritone sub.


To me, this (with its eerie, sinister-feeling atmosphere), sounds as if it depicts a story by E.A. Poe (who was born an year before, and died in the same year as Chopin);
3:52 - the dominant of B major leads to some 4/2 chord built on F (G major? in tonality, arrived by shifting from F sharp)


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

SixFootScowl said:


> Yeah, I think both of us got infracted at the same time, same thread.


Yes, how many more chances do we get before we're just a memory?


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Luchesi said:


> Yes, how many more chances do we get before we're just a memory?


*One way to figure it out.*


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I'm not informed enough to get into technicalities but I'm betting that based on the Ballades alone most of what the OP said can be easily refuted.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

DeepR said:


> I'm not informed enough to get into technicalities but I'm betting that based on the Ballades alone most of what the OP said can be easily refuted.


No need to drag Chopin's music into it.  The OP is nonsensical provocation.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> No need to drag Chopin's music into it.  The OP is nonsensical provocation.


Yeah, i suppose if one does not get a certain composers music, you either leave it alone or ask for help getting into it. But to simply run it down does not seem to have any value.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Agreed. That's why I stay out of the many Mahler threads on here. Why waste my time and potentially spoil others' enjoyment?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> To me, this (with its eerie, sinister-feeling atmosphere), sounds as if it depicts a story by E.A. Poe (who was born an year before, and died in the same year as Chopin);
> 3:52 - the dominant of B major leads to some 4/2 chord built on F (G major? in tonality, arrived by shifting from F sharp)


That chord, or its voicing at least, is indeed strange. It's an inversion of the German augmented 6th chord enharmonically spelled (a chord of the diminished third). It's "actually" E# in the bass. The resolution is odd as well, the I6/4 one expects, already obscured by the long suspended G natural, looks momentarily like V4/3 of iv, but really the last few measures are just linear motions above a dominant pedal with coloring from B minor.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> That chord, or its voicing at least, is indeed strange. It's an inversion of the German augmented 6th chord enharmonically spelled (a chord of the diminished third). It's "actually" E# in the bass. The resolution is odd as well, the I6/4 one expects, already obscured by the long suspended G natural, looks momentarily like V4/3 of iv, but really the last few measures are just linear motions above a dominant pedal with coloring from B minor.


It's such a striking gesture, thanks to hammeredklavier for pointing to it. It sort of cries out for a non-musical explanation: why did he do that? What was he trying to say?


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

Well, you can always send your Chopin records to me.

And to rid the world of every Chopin record, please send me every record you encounter in your immediate area. And all the downloads of every work of his on every online service, after you pay for them of course, please send them to me for proper disposal .......


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Mandryka said:


> It's such a striking gesture, thanks to hammeredklavier for pointing to it. It sort of cries out for a non-musical explanation: why did he do that? What was he trying to say?


To me it sounds like a depiction of 'a murder at night', partly due to its similarities of gesture to 




(although, of course, the nickname "suicide" was not something approved by Chopin)


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> That chord, or its voicing at least, is indeed strange. It's an inversion of the German augmented 6th chord enharmonically spelled (a chord of the diminished third). It's "actually" E# in the bass. The resolution is odd as well, the I6/4 one expects, already obscured by the long suspended G natural, looks momentarily like V4/3 of iv, but really the last few measures are just linear motions above a dominant pedal with coloring from B minor.


I tend to oversimplify these sorts of progressions for ease of my own understanding. To me it's a complex deceptive double cadence - the RH cadences to the bVI (G major), (and, apparently, there is no official name for the V to bVI cadence), while there's a flat 5 (F natural) in the LH, which is nothing more than a passing tone to the actual dominant (F#). The RH ascends, while the LH descends. It's a G/F, and the piece spends the rest of the recitative (it's more a cadenza to me) tensioning to the dominant F#, which it dances around from 5 bars from the end, until it resolves properly in the very last chord. *Tension*.

I'm not saying you're wrong, you're not. It's just that trying wrap my brain around THAT explanation doesn't help.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> It's such a striking gesture, thanks to hammeredklavier for pointing to it. It sort of cries out for a non-musical explanation: why did he do that? What was he trying to say?


"Why?" is always more difficult to answer than what, when it's not completely intractable. I'd say Chopin was trying to create the most unsettled conclusion he could in the major mode while staying within - if only barely within - the acceptable tonal grammar of his time.

What was he trying to say? I'll take a stab. Of the whole piece: What dark undercurrents may run beneath a placid surface. Of the striking ending: How much anguish and despair can hide behind the composure of a faint smile(?)



pianozach said:


> I tend to oversimplify these sorts of progressions for ease of my own understanding. To me it's a complex deceptive double cadence - the RH cadences to the bVI (G major), (and, apparently, there is no official name for the V to bVI cadence), while there's a flat 5 (F natural) in the LH, which is nothing more than a passing tone to the actual dominant (F#). The RH ascends, while the LH descends. It's a G/F, and the piece spends the rest of the recitative (it's more a cadenza to me) tensioning to the dominant F#, which it dances around from 5 bars from the end, until it resolves properly in the very last chord. *Tension*.
> 
> I'm not saying you're wrong, you're not. It's just that trying wrap my brain around THAT explanation doesn't help.


That, my friend, is one very complicated oversimplification.  If you'd like a proper oversimplification, one that's actually simpler, the underlying progression is:

Ger+6, V, I …

… only the Ger+6 is in a rare inversion and the dominant pedal under V is elaborated with V7/V and lots of non-harmonic tones drawn from the parallel minor.

One thing I wonder about is why Chopin so obviously misspelled the +6 chord, since clearly it's E#, not F.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> It's such a striking gesture, thanks to hammeredklavier for pointing to it. It sort of cries out for a non-musical explanation: why did he do that? What was he trying to say?


To me, 'someone' dies at the blissful B6 note and then the following is what s/he experiences making the way to heaven, and then everything just slowly fades away into eternal sleep (with someone commenting and giving us finality at the end in the last 3 measures.).


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Seeing all these poetic commentaries on the nocturne made me wonder what the old school romantic Chopinists did with op 32/1. Well, not many of them seem to have recorded it, but one appears to have taken a fancy to it late in his career -- Mieczyslaw Horszowski. And listening to him here a couple of years before he died, it feels to me as though the whole performance is geared to making some sort of sense of that closing gesture. He's clearly no longer a virtuoso pianist, but I think there's a bit of old man's wisdom here


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

I'd say Chopin's appeal lies along four distinct but equally important fronts. For the musicologically inclined, Chopin represents--along with Wagner--arguably the greatest advancements in harmony in 19th century. For pianists Chopin represents some of the greatest technical and artistic challenges, while also being rewarding to learn and fun to play. Artistically, Chopin radically expanded the number of genres to be taken seriously as music, taking what were typically thought of as easy-listening salon miniatures, dances, student pieces, or introductions and finding the latent potential in them for profundity. How many great mazurkas, polonaises, nocturnes, etudes, ballades, or preludes (without something following) were there before Chopin vs after? For listeners, Chopin's appeal is largely in the very ineffable, poetic feelings he evokes, which goes beyond musicological or technical explanations. Contemporaries like Schumann and Liszt recognized it instantly and started spreading the word. 

Did Chopin have his limitations and weaknesses? Yes, as do all composers, and as in all cases it ultimately just comes down to individual preference on how much those weaknesses detract versus how much his strengths attract.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'd say Chopin's appeal lies along four distinct but equally important fronts. For the musicologically inclined, Chopin represents--along with Wagner--arguably the *greatest advancements in harmony* in 19th century. For pianists Chopin represents some of the *greatest technical and artistic challenges*, while also being rewarding to learn and fun to play. Artistically, Chopin *radically expanded the number of genres to be taken seriously* as music, taking what were typically thought of as easy-listening salon miniatures, dances, student pieces, or introductions and finding the latent potential in them for profundity. How many great mazurkas, polonaises, nocturnes, etudes, ballades, or preludes (without something following) were there before Chopin vs after? For listeners, Chopin's appeal is largely in the very ineffable, poetic *feelings he evokes*, which goes beyond musicological or technical explanations. Contemporaries like Schumann and Liszt recognized it instantly and started spreading the word.
> 
> Did Chopin have his limitations and weaknesses? Yes, as do all composers, and as in all cases it ultimately just comes down to individual preference on how much those weaknesses detract versus how much his strengths attract.


1. Greatest advancements in harmony
2. Greatest technical and artistic challenges
3. Expanded the number of genres to be taken seriously
4. Feelings he evokes, which goes beyond musicological or technical explanations.

Good bullet points.

I still have to direct everyone's attention to his exquisite sense of

5. MELODY.

His TUNES are great, even though his excessive use of grace notes and ornamental figures tends to obscure them. Like here, in the first Nocturne; the melody is subjectively gorgeous, complex, and, as you pointed out, gives one "the feels".


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> I've always thought music isn't really supposed to be "understood". If there's music you had "appreciated" but no longer "appreciate" as time goes by, can you say you've lost the ability to "understand" it? I don't try to "understand" music; I just "feel" it.
> 
> To me, this (with its eerie, sinister-feeling atmosphere), sounds as if it depicts a story by E.A. Poe (who was born an year before, and died in the same year as Chopin);
> 3:52 - the dominant of B major leads to some 4/2 chord built on F (G major? in tonality, arrived by shifting from F sharp)


He is using this like a tritone sub in Jazz, rather than an A6 (same basic thing of resolving a dom7 down by half step, except the A6 is a dominant prep, while the tritone sub is a direct sub for the dominant)). The G 4/2 has the same tritone as the dominant in F#, C#7, which makes them substitutes for one another


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

This is possibly the most interesting thing Chopin made


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

I hold a little grudge against critics who say that he was a bad orchestrator in his concerti, from his 19th and 20th year.

What was Haydn creating when he was 19 or 20?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> This is possibly the most interesting thing Chopin made


wiki says
"The sonata, along with Chopin's two other mature sonatas, was performed very sporadically in Poland and other countries in Europe prior to 1900..."

I'd like to hear that other mature sonata.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> I hold a little grudge against critics who say that he was a bad orchestrator in his concerti, from his 19th and 20th year.
> 
> What was Haydn creating when he was 19 or 20?


The oft-repeated premise that Chopin was an awful orchestrator has been proven wrong several times over the years, but keeps getting resurrected. He wasn't a great orchestrator, but he wasn't incompetent at it either. I challenge anyone to point out 'awful' orchestration here:


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> The oft-repeated premise that Chopin was an awful orchestrator has been proven wrong several times over the years, but keeps getting resurrected. He wasn't a great orchestrator, but he wasn't incompetent at it either. I challenge anyone to point out 'awful' orchestration here:


We gotta admit; it was just not a field he was interested in for most of his life.
"Chopin's fellow composers and Prof. Elsner's former students, Ignacy Feliks Dobrzyński (1807-1867) and Tomasz Nidecki (1807-1852), are believed to have helped him orchestrate his piano concertos. This gave an excuse for other musicians to make slight alterations in the score." 
-<Stanislaw Dybowski, Booklet text for "Chopin&Liszt in Warsaw", Deutsche Grammophon>


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

True, but the point remains. The "poor orchestration" stuff is a penny-in-the-slot meme, justification for which is invariably conspicuous by its absence.


----------

