# Bach's influence on Chopin



## Aurelian

In addition to Mozart, Chopin's other favorite was Bach. Except for using all the keys in the Preludes, I cannot see any obvious Bach influence in Chopin's music. What am I missing?


----------



## kv466

I'm right there with you! However, as a musician, I know for certain that there are at least a couple of 'favorites' who I play nothing like. Obviously we're not talking composition here, but even between musicians there are nuances and traits that just stick to one without even noticing. So Bach could very well have been Chopin's favorites regardless of the fact that he did nothing to try and emulate him.


----------



## Eschbeg

Chopin's voice leading, especially in his preludes, is surely a result of his study of Bach's counterpoint. The topic was discussed (rather contentiously) in this thread, though the discussion there was pretty doomed from the start owing to the nearly automatic equating of counterpoint with fugues and canons. But when counterpoint is understood in its historically traditional sense--i.e. dissonance treatment--then Chopin's handling of chromaticism by all the traditional methods usually associated with Baroque counterpoint becomes pretty evident.


----------



## JCarmel

Excellent post, Eschbeg...though it looks as if your Avatar is suffering a bit of Dissonance, himself? Something he ate...or sat-on??


----------



## PetrB

There is that general set of misunderstandings about counterpoint:
That it it _always_ be two or more _equal_ independent voices, i.e. all the elements are "in the front row" of your hearing.
That the movement of those voices must always be in contrary motion
... and more simply, that it must sound very much like the procedure Bach used, and then primarily in fugue.

Well, no. as long as it is not too oblique, and the "voicing" stands out as independent enough that it is not entirely "just configured harmony"....
Have a listen to the Fourth Ballade, a riot of counterpoint.

Look at / listen to that famous E minor prelude, which so often gets so wrongly analyzed (a somewhat infamous trap / red herring assignment in undergrad harmony courses. That one has only two functioning chords I; V, I -- all the_parallel chromatic lines are independent horizontals, "side-slipping" through and around that basic I - V - I structure._ This too, is counterpoint, masterly, and not at all sounding like Bach. (students are prone to label dozens of vertical harmonies and label them... sure, they spell chords, but no Functioning chords as per the piece or the key it is in -- that is the trap and lesson. "We do not slap a Roman numeral on a vertical harmony unless it is a functioning chord." LOL. Instead of literally dozens of of Roman numerals, this piece in analysis only gets two chords, three marks on it: I-V-I.)

Chopin's works are littered with counterpoint, or peppered with it in a passage here and there, often enough: and to many listeners, the presence of the counterpoint will never announce itself enough to be noticed... unless you are already prepared that counterpoint can sound and work like this, too -- which it can and does.

The other huge Bach influence on Chopin? -- little or very little / least use of sustain pedal


----------



## aleazk

PetrB said:


> There is that general set of misunderstandings about counterpoint:
> That it it _always_ be two or more _equal_ independent voices, i.e. all the elements are "in the front row" of your hearing.
> That the movement of those voices must always be in contrary motion
> ... and more simply, that it must sound very much like the procedure Bach used, and then primarily in fugue.
> 
> Well, no. as long as it is not too oblique, and the "voicing" stands out as independent enough that it is not entirely "just configured harmony"....
> Have a listen to the Fourth Ballade, a riot of counterpoint.
> 
> Look at / listen to that famous E minor prelude, which so often gets so wrongly analyzed (a somewhat infamous trap / red herring assignment in undergrad harmony courses. That one has only two functioning chords I; V, I -- all the_parallel chromatic lines are independent horizontals, "side-slipping" through and around that basic I - V - I structure._ This too, is counterpoint, masterly, and not at all sounding like Bach. (students are prone to label dozens of vertical harmonies and label them... sure, they spell chords, but no Functioning chords as per the piece or the key it is in -- that is the trap and lesson. "We do not slap a Roman numeral on a vertical harmony unless it is a functioning chord." LOL. Instead of literally dozens of of Roman numerals, this piece in analysis only gets two chords, three marks on it: I-V-I.)
> 
> Chopin's works are littered with counterpoint, or peppered with it in a passage here and there, often enough: and to many listeners, the presence of the counterpoint will never announce itself enough to be noticed... unless you are already prepared that counterpoint can sound and work like this, too -- which it can and does.
> 
> The other huge Bach influence on Chopin? -- little or very little / least use of sustain pedal


And if that's not convincing enough; to Petr's delight, we have this little "Bachian" counterpoint from Chopin anyway :


----------



## Andreas

The root problem, to me, seems to be the use of the term contrapuntal referring to both, technique and style.

Given a sufficiently broad and technical definition of counterpoint, Chopin's Préludes and Bach's Fugues might indeed be equally contrapuntal. But then term becomes pretty much universally applicable and thus meaningless.

I think it regains meaningfullness if one applies it in a stylistic sense. Provided one agreed that Chopin's Préludes and Bach's Fugue differ vastly in style, one could use the term countrapuntal to mark the difference between the two.

Counterpoint as a stylistic term refers to a spectrum ranging, roughly speaking, from the master-and-servant relationship of melody and (figured-bass) accompaniment on the one end and the total equality of voices of Renaissance polyphony on the other. Seen this way, the wide gap between Chopin and Bach becomes tangible.


----------



## PetrB

aleazk said:


> And if that's not convincing enough; to Petr's delight, we have this little "Bachian" counterpoint from Chopin anyway :


Ah,that youthful piece, a rather delightfully loopy fugue, and a near student-like exercise in the style (though by a very talented young composer


----------



## PetrB

Andreas said:


> The root problem, to me, seems to be the use of the term contrapuntal referring to both, technique and style.
> 
> Given a sufficiently broad and technical definition of counterpoint, Chopin's Préludes and Bach's Fugues might indeed be equally contrapuntal. But then term becomes pretty much universally applicable and thus meaningless.
> 
> I think it regains meaningfullness if one applies it in a stylistic sense. Provided one agreed that Chopin's Préludes and Bach's Fugue differ vastly in style, one could use the term countrapuntal to mark the difference between the two.
> 
> Counterpoint as a stylistic term refers to a spectrum ranging, roughly speaking, from the master-and-servant relationship of melody and (figured-bass) accompaniment on the one end and the total equality of voices of Renaissance polyphony on the other. Seen this way, the wide gap between Chopin and Bach becomes tangible.


To me, you've got it in reverse, or rather, from the earliest to the most current applications of technique, that is all "contrapuntal style." A mere sentimental liking more for the older styles which used counterpoint, or a lack of willingness to acknowledge later contrapuntal works as contrapuntal is rather personal, I think, and doesn't come in to play if wishing to inform about _what counterpoint is_, or at the least the personal preference should be declared as personal aside.


----------



## Eschbeg

Andreas said:


> Given a sufficiently broad and technical definition of counterpoint, Chopin's Préludes and Bach's Fugues might indeed be equally contrapuntal. But then term becomes pretty much universally applicable and thus meaningless.


I'm not seeing why the ability to apply a technical term to two composers as varied as Chopin and Bach should make that term meaningless. Both Berlioz and Ligeti treated timbre as a central compositional element; both Gesualdo and Schoenberg were equally unconventional in their use of harmony. In each case, the pairs of composers achieved wildly divergent results. But this does not make timbre and harmony meaningless terms.


----------



## PetrB

Eschbeg said:


> I'm not seeing why the ability to apply a technical term to two composers as varied as Chopin and Bach should make that term meaningless. Both Berlioz and Ligeti treated timbre as a central compositional element; both Gesualdo and Schoenberg were equally unconventional in their use of harmony. In each case, the pairs of composers achieved wildly divergent results. But this does not make timbre and harmony meaningless terms.


Right -- the mistake is to think a technique generates but one style, or an envelope of certain styles. It is "just" a technique, or rather "a procedure" which can be deployed in boundless ways and directions.


----------



## Andreas

Eschbeg said:


> I'm not seeing why the ability to apply a technical term to two composers as varied as Chopin and Bach should make that term meaningless. Both Berlioz and Ligeti treated timbre as a central compositional element; both Gesualdo and Schoenberg were equally unconventional in their use of harmony. In each case, the pairs of composers achieved wildly divergent results. But this does not make timbre and harmony meaningless terms.


But would you use terms like "timbral" or "harmonic" to describe music? Certainly not in a yes/no way. A great poirtion of music is harmonic in that is uses harmony as a technique. But certain pieces are harmonically denser, richer, more varied than others. To say "yes, but they're all harmonic because they use harmony" would hardly serve any meaningful purpose, in my view. Same with counterpoint.


----------



## Andreas

PetrB said:


> Right -- the mistake is to think a technique generates but one style, or an envelope of certain styles. It is "just" a technique, or rather "a procedure" which can be deployed in boundless ways and directions.


But it would seem to me more helpful to use terminology in such a way that it allows one to describe the gradual differences between various styles rather than to trace them all back to their one unifying characteristic.


----------



## Eschbeg

Andreas said:


> Given a sufficiently broad and technical definition of counterpoint, Chopin's Préludes and Bach's Fugues might indeed be equally contrapuntal.





Andreas said:


> But would you use terms like "timbral" or "harmonic" to describe music? Certainly not in a yes/no way. A great poirtion of music is harmonic in that is uses harmony as a technique. But certain pieces are harmonically denser, richer, more varied than others. To say "yes, but they're all harmonic because they use harmony" would hardly serve any meaningful purpose, in my view. Same with counterpoint.


I think a conflation is being made between the following statements:

1. Bach and Chopin both used counterpoint.
2. Bach and Chopin are equally contrapuntal.

Your objection applies primarily to the second statement, it seems to me, which is not a statement anyone to my knowledge has made here or in the other thread I linked to above. As PetrB hinted at, counterpoint, like timbre and harmony, are techniques. Thus the first statement is perfectly fine provided it is followed by some description of how the techniques are used--i.e. that Chopin's counterpoint takes the form of voice leading and the handling of non-chord tones while Bach's counterpoint takes the form of simultaneous independent lines and complexity of texture.

The second statement, by contrast, is just a straw man. I've really only ever heard it stated by people who were arguing against it.


----------



## niv

You both agree on the concepts even if the words used might be different.


----------



## Andreas

Petr, Eschberg, I appreciate your posts. I've thought about it. I can see your point and I think it's valid.


----------



## PetrB

Andreas said:


> But would you use terms like "timbral" or "harmonic" to describe music? Certainly not in a yes/no way. A great poirtion of music is harmonic in that is uses harmony as a technique. But certain pieces are harmonically denser, richer, more varied than others. To say "yes, but they're all harmonic because they use harmony" would hardly serve any meaningful purpose, in my view. Same with counterpoint.


From the inside of the business, those terms are all shop talk, and their application is universal because they are words which convey a distilled principle, not ever meant to intend a style.

From writers, then to the general user, they end up being used as adjectives rather than nouns. Maybe the general listener has begun to associate those terms with particular styles, but that is extremely limited if not actually incorrect.

If you've developed those associations with those terms to the point you are upset when hearing of, say, Bartok as a contrapuntal composer, you can only blame the writers, not the theorists or musicians.

[[If the disturbance over the more catholic application of musical terms to any period(s) is a matter of having merely ruffled a comfort zone in anyone's mind, there will be little if any sympathy  ]]


----------



## PetrB

Andreas said:


> But it would seem to me more helpful to use terminology in such a way that it allows one to describe the gradual differences between various styles rather than to trace them all back to their one unifying characteristic.


It is the variance of usage, or emphasis on one area of usage, which distinguishes one era from another. Maybe you have to think a little bit more carefully, but not really more.

A lot of studies have courses at the beginning which dramatically, in later retrospect, have simplified the truth of the whole story.

An intensely contrapuntal work from the 21st century can be as contrapuntal as Bach, the other means of how it is put together all radically shifted from the harmonic usage of the Baroque era. You can not really keep the technique stuck to define one period, that is equally confusing when you get to another era where the same technique is given as much emphasis.

They're just techniques, not necessarily "styles."


----------

