# Is Chopin a genius?



## pianomusic1976 (Sep 15, 2016)

Do you think Chopin is a genius? He wrote beautiful pieces but was not a master of form like Mozart.
My fav pieces:


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Yes. He was certainly a genius.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Yes, he was one of the most original composers who ever lived.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Yes, he was a genius who thought outside the box, and was way ahead of many other composers, especially harmonically. You have to listen to piano players to hear this, unfortunately. But that was his main concern. Many of his pieces are in lesser-used keys, not for effect, but because he had a method of fingering which placed the thumb on white keys and the fingers on the raised black keys, mimicking the natural position of the hand. Hold out your hand and notice how the thumb sits lower. Thus, all the odd key signatures, of A-flat, etc.

His harmonic progressions are "stream-of-consciousness" poetry before the term was invented. I suggest listening to him on mushrooms, if possible (DeProfundis excepted).


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, he was a genius who thought outside the box, and was way ahead of many other composers, especially harmonically. You have to listen to piano players to hear this, unfortunately. But that was his main concern. Many of his pieces are in lesser-used keys, not for effect, but because he had a method of fingering which placed the thumb on white keys and the fingers on the raised black keys, mimicking the natural position of the hand. Hold out your hand and notice how the thumb sits lower. Thus, all the odd key signatures, of A-flat, etc.
> 
> His harmonic progressions are "stream-of-consciousness" poetry before the term was invented. I suggest listening to him on mushrooms, if possible (DeProfundis excepted).


Dude, seriously, awesome reply.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

pianomusic1976 said:


> but was not a master of form


Can you spell that out?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The form is organic, totally organic. It is a "chemistry" of harmony.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

pianomusic1976 said:


> pHe wrote beautiful pieces but was not a master of form like Mozart.


https://books.google.com/books?id=e...OjAF#v=onepage&q="invariably at ease"&f=false


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

pianomusic1976 said:


> Do you think Chopin is a genius? He wrote beautiful pieces but was not a master of form like Mozart.
> My fav pieces:


Is Chopin still alive? I'm glad to hear of his rising from the dead - Alive and a genius very good news!

Do you think he is up to doing interviews for TalkClassical or autographs?

Think we'd better get in quick before he dies again..............


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Chopin was a genius. Fact.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> Chopin was a genius. Fact.


I just spoke with him and confirmed it


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> Chopin was a genius. Fact.


Double fact, pure and simple.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Pugg said:


> Double fact, pure and simple.


Have you spoken with him too?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I wouldn't know. I never played the piano, and I don't know how genius is determined, or by whom? But concerning the tactile concepts million mentioned, Ligeti said that Scarlatti, Chopin, Schumann, and Debussy were the composers who "thought pianistically".


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Any of the composers whose names are easily recognized by the masses was a genius. Chopin fits the profile.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Of course he was.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Is Chopin a genius?

Is matzoh unleavened?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

I still think that the important point here is "was", otherwise he would still be composing as opposed to decomposing......


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I still think that the important point here is "was", otherwise he would still be composing as opposed to decomposing......


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I just spoke with him and confirmed it


Good, we knew it all along throughout history.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Nearly 170 years after he died we are discussing him and concert halls from New York to Shanghai are full of performances of his music. Every aspiring concert pianist or amateur hobbyist (well perhaps there are some rule-proving exceptions) will at some point play his music.

All the hallmarks of a run-of-the mill, common-or-garden, mediocre hack!


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Next question, please.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Is Chopin a genius?

Hands down.


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2016)

The word genius is thrown around too much. Chopin was, by most accounts, the greatest composer for the piano... ever. But that genius did not carry over to the rest of the orchestra. His orchestration in the piano concertos seems to be just there to carry the piano. And his few chamber works are pretty good but not amazing. IMO.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Jerome said:


> And his few chamber works are pretty good but not amazing. IMO.


The cello sonata - his only chamber work after the age of 22 - is amazing.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Pugg said:


> Is Chopin a genius?
> 
> Hands down.


My hands down too. Fact.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Is sourdough a bread?


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

Prolly...:devil:


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Jerome said:


> The word genius is thrown around too much. Chopin was, by most accounts, the greatest composer for the piano... ever. But that genius did not carry over to the rest of the orchestra. His orchestration in the piano concertos seems to be just there to carry the piano. And his few chamber works are pretty good but not amazing. IMO.


The fact that Chopin's genius had a more limited scope than that of other great composers doesn't make it, or him, any less deserving of the "genius" accolade IMHO.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Animal the Drummer said:


> The fact that Chopin's genius had a more limited scope than that of other great composers doesn't make it, or him, any less deserving of the "genius" accolade IMHO.


Genius is genius. Some minds were universal genius meaning they excelled in many fields and not just one or two. And that applies to music, equally well.


----------



## lextune (Nov 25, 2016)

Chopin’s influence, pianistically and harmonically, changed the course of all music. “A revolution in the language of music, and with only one instrument", to quote George Sand.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Yes, I consider Chopin a genius. His music has it all: lyrical melodies, sophisticated harmonies, and intricate polyphonic textures.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Of course he was a genius. Liking or not liking his music, as is true for every composer, is a matter of personal taste.


----------



## arnerich (Aug 19, 2016)

pianomusic1976 said:


> Do you think Chopin is a genius? He wrote beautiful pieces but was not a master of form like Mozart.
> My fav pieces:


Yes. For composing primarily for the piano his influence is pretty remarkable.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

After studying various composers' works, Ligeti sited the great masters of keyboard composition as Scarlatti, Chopin, Schumann, and Debussy. He chose these four not only for their melodic invention, but also for the logic of the physical/tactile aspects of performing the music.

*"A Chopinesque melodic twist or accompaniment figure is not just heard, it is also felt as a tactile shape, as a succession of muscular exertions. A well formed piano work produces physical pleasure."*


----------



## MadMusicist (Jan 14, 2017)

A yes-or-no question? Well, YES!

Did a Wikipedia search on the word "genius": 
"A genius is a person who displays exceptional intellectual ability, *creative productivity*, *universality in genres* or *originality*, typically to a degree that is associated with the *achievement of new advances* in a domain of knowledge."

Sounds like Freddie.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

A related question: was Chopin a vegetarian?

Relation? Neither question affects how we enjoy Chopin's music.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

The short answer is: Yes.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

premont said:


> The short answer is: Yes.


Hold up! Let me write that down.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Yes. Not the genius of (say) Mozart but a genius all the same.


----------



## Schumanniac (Dec 11, 2016)

Well, yeah? His artistic creativity and genius has already been described here by people far more knowlegdeable so the facts: He was one of the most famous players of his time with less than 30 public concerts, even having an aversion to it. Hes still the composer with possibly the widest appeal, whether your leaning towards baroque, classical romantic or even contemporary. He gained a fame to rival any but bach/beethoven/mozart and with a single instrument. Tutoring by him was the most desirable position by any pianist of his day.

He was a wizard and a hypnotist. You immediatly KNOW a chopin piece when your fortunate enough to hear it. He was exceptionally brilliant, as an artist and a composer. He may have specialized more narrowly than any of the great composers, but creating an unparalleled mastery of his field, that certainly justifies it.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Yes. Not the genius of (say) Mozart but a genius all the same.


Artur Rubinstein might have disagreed with you and perhaps, would have claimed Chopin was the greater genius.

Unfortunately, it's too late to ask.


----------



## pcnog11 (Nov 14, 2016)

pianomusic1976 said:


> Do you think Chopin is a genius? He wrote beautiful pieces but was not a master of form like Mozart.
> My fav pieces:


Chopin is not only a genius, he is a poet and he is ahead of his time. He cannot be compare to Mozart. They are 2 different breed of composer. Mozart offer diversity, while Chopin offer speciality.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

pcnog11 said:


> Chopin is not only a genius, he is a poet and he is ahead of his time. He cannot be compare to Mozart. They are 2 different breed of composer. Mozart offer diversity, while Chopin offer speciality.


As a side note to the music, I've never seen a 10-year old(is he even 10?) kid make such adult-like facial expressions, like in the linked Nocturne. Not sure he's old enough to have felt what he's trying to express


----------



## Adam Weber (Apr 9, 2015)

What's a fifteen word word for "yes"?


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Artur Rubinstein might have disagreed with you and perhaps, would have claimed Chopin was the greater genius.


And Chopin would surely have disagreed with Artur. 

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quo...y-the-keyboard-frederic-chopin-146-1-0152.jpg

Regarding the OP, short and firm answer is Yes, Chopin was a genius.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

jdec said:


> And Chopin would surely have disagreed with Artur.
> 
> http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quo...y-the-keyboard-frederic-chopin-146-1-0152.jpg
> 
> Regarding the OP, short and firm answer is Yes, Chopin was a genius.


Yeah. I believe many of the great composers suffered from self-doubt. If Tchaikovsky didn't have Mme. von Meck as a sounding board, who knows how his career as a composer would have gone?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

According to some feminists, if his wife did his laundry, he wasn't a genius.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Who cares about Chopin? Just throw me another one of those fabulous pickles!!!


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> Who cares about Chopin? Just throw me another one of those fabulous pickles!!!


I love Rubinstein's recording of Chopin's Pickle in A Major.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

IS his Pickle a genius??


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

As a pianist myself, I must say I love Chopin's music and certainly consider him a genius!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

For anyone doubting Chopin's status as a great composer, listen carefully to the Nocturnes and Mazurkas, come back and let's discuss it.


----------



## lextune (Nov 25, 2016)

Another interesting note is that virtually his entire output is still in the standard repertoire.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

lextune said:


> Another interesting note is that virtually his entire output is still in the standard repertoire.


Yeah. Tough to do for a hack.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

I only wish he composed more orchestral/symphonic works sans piano. Or even symphonic poems as Liszt. Maybe because I've never been a huge fan of piano. Those marvelous melodies released to full orchestral expanse and depth.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

As much as I'm a Beethoven fanboy, I think that Chopin's distaste for most of Beethoven's music, almost unique among his contemporaries, stood him in good stead with regard to his own art. A genius? Little doubt about that.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Look, it's like this. Some of us were destined to be posting geniuses, others, composing geniuses. Chopin was the latter.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

was just listening to his Nocturnes late last night and thinking "what a genius"


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Is Chopin a genius? Is matzoh unleavened?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Bettina said:


> I love Rubinstein's recording of Chopin's Pickle in A Major.


I found this on Amazon for 0.99¢. Delivery $6.99.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

hpowders said:


> I found this on Amazon for 0.99¢. Delivery $6.99.


Maybe you'd better buy the Pickle in A Minor instead.


----------



## Janspe (Nov 10, 2012)

Just for his *Fantasy in F minor, Op. 49* alone Chopin would be an immortal master in my books. The music is just too great...


----------



## Poodle (Aug 7, 2016)

Chopin be good .


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

I have this on on.


----------



## Marinera (May 13, 2016)

KenOC said:


> As much as I'm a Beethoven fanboy, I think that Chopin's distaste for most of Beethoven's music, almost unique among his contemporaries, stood him in good stead with regard to his own art. A genius? Little doubt about that.


I didn't know about Chopin's views on Beethoven's music. Perhaps his dislike was more due to their innately different musical personalities, I doubt that his music was composed as a reactionary response to Beethoven, he just had a different angle on it from the begining.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Marinera said:


> I didn't know about Chopin's views on Beethoven's music. Perhaps his dislike was more due to their innately different musical personalities, I doubt that his music was composed as a reactionary response to Beethoven, he just had a different angle on it from the begining.


Chopin brought music back as a parlor listening experience. Beethoven shunned that sort of thing.

Delicate vs. gruff.


----------



## neofite (Feb 19, 2017)

hpowders said:


> Is Chopin a genius? Is matzoh unleavened?


I don't quite get all this stuff about matzohs and pickles, although I do know that both are unleavened and that I am very fond of both, as well as of [leavened] bagels and Chopin. I have never found his music dense or tiring; indeed, it is true "easy listening" that I want to keep listening to.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

neofite said:


> I don't quite get all this stuff about matzohs and pickles, although I do know that both are unleavened and that I am very fond of both, as well as of [leavened] bagels and Chopin. I have never found his music dense or tiring; indeed, it is true "easy listening" that I want to keep listening to.


Good on you, it's your own right to like what you listening to.


----------



## neofite (Feb 19, 2017)

Pugg said:


> Good on you, it's your own right to like what you listening to.


Sorry Miss/Mrs. Pugg. After puzzling over your reply for a while, I realized that the problem was my poor command of the English language. I was _not_ trying to say that I like conventional "easy listening" music. Actually, I find it shallow, boring and generally irritating. It is definitely not easy for me to listen to. Rather, I find Chopin both very relaxing and easy to listen to -- that is, Chopin is my "easy listening." To me, this is one more aspect of Chopin's genius. (Although I also enjoy Wagner, I find that he takes more conscious effort and is not quite as easy to listen to.)

P.S.: Hope this makes sense now.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

neofite said:


> Sorry Miss/Mrs. Pugg. After puzzling over your reply for a while, I realized that the problem was my poor command of the English language. I was _not_ trying to say that I like conventional "easy listening" music. Actually, I find it shallow, boring and generally irritating. It is definitely not easy for me to listen to. Rather, I find Chopin both very relaxing and easy to listen to -- that is, Chopin is my "easy listening." To me, this is one more aspect of Chopin's genius. (Although I also enjoy Wagner, I find that he takes more conscious effort and is not quite as easy to listen to.)
> 
> P.S.: Hope this makes sense now.


It does, no problem whatsoever, everyone is entitled to his / her opinion.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Chopin is an excellent composer to play when I am having difficulty falling asleep.

Genius manifests itself in different ways to different people.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Not at this instant.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

No, he was not a genius. His music was not technically innovative like Beethoven, Liszt, Rachmaninov, or Prokofiev. Easy listening Totally agree. On some rare occasions he is poetic, especially in Raindrop. But personally I find most of his music superficial, lacking musical substance of those other composers named.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> No, he was not a genius. His music was not technically innovative like Beethoven, Liszt, Rachmaninov, or Prokofiev. Easy listening Totally agree. On some rare occasions he is poetic, especially in Raindrop. But personally I find most of his music superficial, lacking musical substance of those other composers named.


Not a good joke.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Many examples out there that show that Chopin was a genius. This is only one that comes to my mind right now (and there are better examples, many of them much more technically challenging, I'm just not able to look them up now):


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

jdec said:


> Not a good joke.


I'm glad you found it unfunny, as if it was a joke. :lol:


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm glad you found it unfunny, as if it was a joke. :lol:


So it was not a joke? oh my...


----------



## neofite (Feb 19, 2017)

I don't understand the question. Was there ever any doubt that Chopin was a genius?

Yes, if he had just written beautiful and intoxicating solos for another single instrument, such as the violin or clarinet, the question of whether he was a genius or not might make more sense. But the piano is much more complex and has an expressive capability that in some ways comes close to that of an orchestra -- and in some ways perhaps surpasses it. 

Although Chopin's contributions were obviously quite different from those of Beethoven and Wagner, he was still very innovative and has been highly influential. Moreover, his music remains among the most beloved and played of all times, including even today. Such can be said for only a few dozen composers, at most. If this does not qualify as "genius," what does?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I'll attempt here to explain why Chopin is not a genius. First he took his recognizable style mainly from Mozart's Rondo K. 511, and has this pretty, melancholy type of theme in over 50% of his works, and these works are built around these themes, and the progressions become very predictable after you hear a few. The remaining are more virtuosic show pieces as mainly finger training exercises, some without a melody as in a few of the studies, but again nothing beyond a melody to say something more. Compare with Beethoven who uses small technical blocks and some melodies to build much more. He is building toward something more than you are hearing at any given moment, and the work is much greater than the sum of its parts. While with Chopin everything is already on the surface. 

Just sharing from my own experience, I play the piano myself, and naturally deconstruct the music I play in my mind, and found after I originally want to learn a Chopin piece I thought I liked, I end up finding very little in the end, while with Beethoven, though more imposing at first, is much more rewarding.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Phil loves classical said:


> I'll attempt here to explain why Chopin is not a genius. First he took his recognizable style mainly from Mozart's Rondo K. 511, and has this pretty, melancholy type of theme in over 50% of his works, and these works are built around these themes, and the progressions become very predictable after you hear a few. The remaining are more virtuosic show pieces as mainly finger training exercises, some without a melody as in a few of the studies, but again nothing beyond a melody to say something more. Compare with Beethoven who uses small technical blocks and some melodies to build much more. He is building toward something more than you are hearing at any given moment, and the work is much greater than the sum of its parts. While with Chopin everything is already on the surface.
> 
> Just sharing from my own experience, I play the piano myself, and naturally deconstruct the music I play in my mind, and found after I originally want to learn a Chopin piece I thought I liked, I end up finding very little in the end, while with Beethoven, though more imposing at first, is much more rewarding.


Your argument is pretty weak, comparing Chopin with Beethoven. Most composers don't compare with Beethoven's genius. Chopin was not in that league but then who was apart from Bach and Mozart?


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

I don't agree that Chopin "was not in that league". Within an admittedly much narrower field he was fully Beethoven's equal in my view.

The crux of this may lie in Phil's reference to deconstructing the music he plays. I also play the piano, but I find myself not in the least attracted to such a right-brain approach to music and, while I can understand how Beethoven's music may appeal more strongly to the intellect than Chopin's, I emphatically do not agree with the implication that this makes Beethoven the greater composer (or with Phil's summary of Chopin's aesthetic, which is seriously incomplete AFAIC). IMHO music's beauty and subtlety are every bit as valuable and worthy of respect as its more cerebral attributes.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Animal the Drummer said:


> I don't agree that Chopin "was not in that league". Within an admittedly much narrower field he was fully Beethoven's equal in my view.
> 
> The crux of this may lie in Phil's reference to deconstructing the music he plays. I also play the piano, but I find myself not in the least attracted to such a right-brain approach to music and, while I can understand how Beethoven's music may appeal more strongly to the intellect than Chopin's, I emphatically do not agree with the implication that this makes Beethoven the greater composer (or with Phil's summary of Chopin's aesthetic, which is seriously incomplete AFAIC). IMHO music's beauty and subtlety are every bit as valuable and worthy of respect as its more cerebral attributes.


I like your argument, Animal (why pick such a handle?). I fully agree at least a few of Chopin's works have a certain beauty, that transcends beyond technical qualities. In response to David (now there is a real name) if most people took Chopin to be an interesting, but not a genius or great composer, I would definitely agree.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Hi Phil, good post. The handle refers to Animal, the drummer from the Muppet Show (who by the way once sang Gershwin - "A Foggy Day In London Town" - on the show). He's something of a hero of mine and I just liked the thought of him commenting on the kind of music we discuss here!


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

The term 'genius' has to be saved (in my opinion) for a few composers who are out-of-this-world clever, prolific, beautiful, amazing, original. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, obviously. Beyond them, people will always disagree. I think Vivaldi had genius, but I know lots of others would dispute it.

But Chopin definitely had that life-giving *spark*.

Vivat Vivaldi - floreat Chopin.


----------



## neofite (Feb 19, 2017)

Does everybody agree that Chopin was more of a genius than Brahms?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

neofite said:


> Does everybody agree that Chopin was more of a genius than Brahms?


I think Chopin's music sounds as though it is highly improvised and spontaneous, in this sense I can see why it sounds genius to people and I would agree that Chopin was a genius.

Brahms music sounds more constructed, but I think that extra sweat he put into it gives it greater longevity than Chopin's music, and he clearly excelled in more areas of music. So no, I would not agree. Both genius though.


----------



## pcnog11 (Nov 14, 2016)

I am traveling several countries for business in Asia - Hong Kong, India, Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia. Many different airports, not as much classical music. I have been listening to my ipod over the last few days. Try to re-explore some pieces that I did not have time to do it at home. I am listening to Chopin Impromptu in C# minor as I am writing this, wondering if it would sound different in another key instead. Sweet flowing melody, impulsive emotion rushes and highly technical passages. Does anyone know how he wrote this piece? Did he just play the piece without writing it out or he wrote it and then modify to an impromptu? If he just play the piece without writing it out, certainly he is a genius!


----------



## manyene (Feb 7, 2015)

No question: the Eb minor Etude proves it.


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

Just because someone has loads of piano chops doesn't make them a genius. So no.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Who am I to discuss with the great Schumann :tiphat:

When Schumann reviewed Chopin's Op 2 in 1831, a set of variations on an aria from Mozart's Don Giovanni, he exclaimed: "Hats off, gentlemen: a genius!"


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

"Chopin was a genius of universal appeal." - Artur Rubinstein.


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

Additionally, just because you love a given composer, that also does not make him/her a genius. No matter how much you love their music. A quote from P.T. Barnum comes to mind (parenthetical comments mine):

"If you make people think they're thinking (Chopin), they'll love you. If you really make them think (Schoenberg, et. al.), they'll hate you."


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

jdec said:


> "Chopin was a genius of universal appeal." - Artur Rubinstein.


Rubinstein was a very wise man, seldom seen these days.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Omicron9 said:


> Additionally, just because you love a given composer, that also does not make him/her a genius. No matter how much you love their music. A quote from P.T. Barnum comes to mind (parenthetical comments mine):
> 
> "If you make people think they're thinking (Chopin), they'll love you. If you really make them think (Schoenberg, et. al.), they'll hate you."


So how does one distinguish between "thinking that one's thinking" and "really thinking"? Am I _really_ thinking when I listen to Beethoven's late string quartets and piano sonatas? What about when I'm listening to Chopin's 2nd piano sonata? Do I have to perform a deep self-examination to determine the authenticity of my thought afterward?


----------



## Francis Poulenc (Nov 6, 2016)

Chopin was a great piano composer but I don't think he quite reaches the level of Schubert.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Magnum Miserium said:


> https://books.google.com/books?id=e...OjAF#v=onepage&q="invariably at ease"&f=false


Well worth reading.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DiesIraeCX said:


> So how does one distinguish between "thinking that one's thinking" and "really thinking"? Am I _really_ thinking when I listen to Beethoven's late string quartets and piano sonatas?


For me, the late Beethoven works do not require or even ask for "thinking." The have their effect just as any other music, directly and outside the processes of conscious thought.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

No, I don't think Chopin was a genius, much as I would hate not to hear his music.

For me, a genius innovates, produces something insightful and wholly new. Beethoven and Debussy (among others) achieved that but I'm not convinced that Chopin did. His Nocturnes are a good example: a compilation of wonderful music in a format and genre that already existed (thank you, John Field). And he didn't originate the waltz or mazurka forms either. 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not doing down Chopin, whose work I love and rate very highly. I just don't think he can be called a genius.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

Pat Fairlea said:


> No, I don't think Chopin was a genius, much as I would hate not to hear his music.
> 
> For me, a genius innovates, produces something insightful and wholly new. Beethoven and Debussy (among others) achieved that but I'm not convinced that Chopin did. His Nocturnes are a good example: a compilation of wonderful music in a format and genre that already existed (thank you, John Field). And he didn't originate the waltz or mazurka forms either.
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I'm not doing down Chopin, whose work I love and rate very highly. I just don't think he can be called a genius.


What about, say, his Op. 10 Etudes? He wrote these between the ages of 19 and 23, and they expanded the perception of what the instrument was capable of to an enormous degree. What about the fact that his idea that these Etudes should have fantastic musical value was essentially a new one? This is 'insightful and wholly new,' and in hearing much of his other music this feeling of it making 'advances' arises to my perception again and again.

My perception isn't always very good, though. I have, however, heard that along with his countless pianistic innovations, Chopin was an extremely inventive harmonist. Someone with more knowledge than me here can elaborate if this is indeed the case...

...I also don't think a composer has to be a real trail-blazer to be a 'genius.'


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Francis Poulenc said:


> Chopin was a great piano composer but I don't think he quite reaches the level of Schubert.


…but you haven't listened to him on mushrooms, man!


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

About Chopin's working style, his partner, George Sand, would write:

"Chopin is at the piano, quite oblivious of the fact that anyone is listening. He embarks on a sort of casual improvisation, then stops. 'Go on, go on,' exclaims Delacroix, 'That's not the end!' 'It's not even a beginning. Nothing will come … nothing but reflections, shadows, shapes that won't stay fixed. I'm trying to find the right colour, but I can't even get the form …' 'You won't find the one without the other,' says Delacroix, 'and both will come together.' 'What if I find nothing but moonlight?' 'Then you will have found the reflection of a reflection.' The idea seems to please the divine artist. He begins again, without seeming to, so uncertain is the shape. Gradually quiet colours begin to show, corresponding to the suave modulations sounding in our ears. Suddenly the note of blue sings out, and the night is all around us, azure and transparent. Light clouds take on fantastic shapes and fill the sky. They gather about the moon which casts upon them great opalescent discs, and wakes the sleeping colours. We dream of a summer night, and sit there waiting for the song of the nightingale …"

Not a genius? Sheesh. Fantastic composer and a child prodigy too. The greatest harmonist since Bach. James Huneker's famous book on Chopin that explores his genius piece by piece:

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


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

Chopin's Nocturnes are, for me, on par with Beethoven's late string quartets and Bach's Goldberg Variations. He has tapped into some seam of utter beauty and merciless melancholy that I find so uplifting and euphoric. Op 48 No. 13 in C minor and Op, 55 No. 15 in F minor are incredible and I just hit play repeat over and over, so I can feel euphoric. 

I would say Chopin is a genius. I even love his 1st piano sonata which some composers would have given certain parts of their body to have composed even though Chopin distanced himself from it in later life. As the same goes for Mozart and Beethoven, imagine if Chopin had lived until a decade or two longer.


----------



## Steve Mc (Jun 14, 2018)

Chopin was a genius in the sense that he knew exactly what to do the reach the full sonic potential of the piano (this side of Liszt and Bartok). His music must be appreciated with its intent in mind.

Bach, on the other hand, was concerned more about the music itself, detached, at least in part, from the intended instrument.


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

If Chopin was not a genius, then those few who are must be a very narrow and exclusive group of people indeed.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Pat Fairlea said:


> No, I don't think Chopin was a genius, much as I would hate not to hear his music.
> 
> For me, a genius innovates, produces something insightful and wholly new. Beethoven and Debussy (among others) achieved that but I'm not convinced that Chopin did. His Nocturnes are a good example: a compilation of wonderful music in a format and genre that already existed (thank you, John Field). And he didn't originate the waltz or mazurka forms either.
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I'm not doing down Chopin, whose work I love and rate very highly. I just don't think he can be called a genius.


I think you are inventing a meaning for the word!

A pretty standard definition of genius might run "exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability" or "very great and rare natural ability or skill, especially in a particular area such as science or art, or a person who has this". Chopin's music was unique and instantly recognisable as his work. In a few minutes his music can take you to some very rare places in your mind. Chopin certainly makes the grade as a genius.

There is nothing in the word genius that says you have to invent a new form to be one. Indeed, most of the greatest composers did not do that. They just found ways of making various forms carry far more "meaning" than they had previously or even (merely) said new and profound things in them.


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2018)

Chopin a genius? Is this even a question? The definition of "genius" is notoriously problematic, but I can't think of any definition by which Chopin would fail to qualify.


----------



## Chromatose (Jan 18, 2016)

There have only been a handful of genius' since mankind has been around, and non of them were composers. The closest one comes is Bach but alas even J.S.B didn't maker the cut.


----------



## Chromatose (Jan 18, 2016)

"Genius", is one of the most overused words in the language along with "like" & "love".


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Chromatose said:


> There have only been a handful of genius' since mankind has been around, and non of them were composers. The closest one comes is Bach but alas even J.S.B didn't maker the cut.


Yeah, I looked up this Chopin guy to check. No significant patents, no mind-bending insights into the nature of the universe. None of his music even made it onto the top-40 listings. Genius? I think not!


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

Chromatose said:


> There have only been a handful of genius' since mankind has been around, and non of them were composers. The closest one comes is Bach but alas even J.S.B didn't maker the cut.


So says you! By what criterion does Bach or Chopin not make the cut? If you think how many people have been alive in the Western world since say 1600 and then take the most popular composers since then. 20 are greats and geniuses and their ratio to the general population makes their being virtually impossible, like winning the lottery jackpot three times in three weeks. But here they are, Chopin and co. They were so good humanity just stopped trying and best to just play them over and over again. Chopin and co will still be played and adored in 2218. LvB was right when he said there will be thousands of Princes and only one Beethoven.

Oh course I can't avoid subjectivity in this post.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

There have been more than just a “handful” of geniuses. Geniuses can be found in every major field, starting with the acknowledgement of their peers. Chopin abundantly qualifies in his field as a composer but probably not as an anthropologist or a brain surgeon. No one is a genius at everything, so I think it’s important to acknowledge exceptional performance, melodic and harmonic creativity, influence and longevity in music. Virtually everything he wrote is in the standard repertoire, and that can’t be said for every famous composer. He created miracles on the piano that completely transformed its emotional and technical range.


----------



## Prat (Jun 15, 2018)

Yes .


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2018)

As usual, it is an argument about the definition of the word "genius."


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

beetzart said:


> ...LvB was right when he said there will be thousands of Princes and only one Beethoven.


Lobkowitz, Lichnowski, Razumovsky, Archduke Rudolph… Would we ever have heard of any of them if there had been no Beethoven?


----------



## Chromatose (Jan 18, 2016)

Larkenfield said:


> There have been more than just a "handful" of geniuses. Geniuses can be found in every major field, starting with the acknowledgement of their peers. Chopin abundantly qualifies in his field as a composer but probably not as an anthropologist or a brain surgeon. No one is a genius at everything, so I think it's important to acknowledge exceptional performance, melodic and harmonic creativity, influence and longevity in music. Virtually everything he wrote is in the standard repertoire, and that can't be said for every famous composer. He created miracles on the piano that completely transformed its emotional and technical range.


No, this is exactly what I mean. True genius, should be, was at one time only those who had a superhuman ability to bring something forth that mankind had never known. My example would be Isaac Newton's laws of motion, gravity, calculus all the basis for the branch of science physics (which makes are modern day life possible). Now genius seems to mean exceptionally talented in a certain or many fields.

I love composers, music to me is the grandest art form. Having said this when you hold up any composer to a Newton or Edison they fail to meet the standard of what being a genius constitutes.


----------



## st Omer (Sep 23, 2015)

*None*

I remember a guy telling me once that his wife was a genius. She never even graduated from college but she raised 7-8 kids between the ages of 1 and 15, ran a large organization of women at a local church, acted as contractor on their house, had a bookkeeping business, and had other irons in the fire. She had him convinced she was a genius because she was amazing at multi-tasking. I honestly don't know if she was a genius or not. I don't know how you measure it. There are probably a lot of geniuses walking around we know nothing about and a few purported geniuses who aren't. I think genius in music is something you can measure to a degree. I think I can say Chopin was a musical genius with more confidence than I can say a man's multi tasking wife was a genius. I have heard most of Chopin's output and he sounds like a musical genius to me, but what can I say since I get by on my good looks and nothing else.

I would say Newton and Einstein were geniuses of science. Bach and some other composers were geniuses in the field of music. I am sure there are some low achieving lazy fools who have very high IQs but no judgment so maybe they aren't geniuses. Saint Saens in my mind was clearly a genius because he excelled in a number of fields and obviously had a very high intellect. His music falls short of genius because it appears he had too many things that distracted him. He had a very active mind and many interests. He probably could have been a Mozart if he had that type of tunnel vision for music.

I am back to square one. I don't really know what a genius is but I know good looking when I see it and you don't even have to be smart to recognize that.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Yes Chopin was a genius, but I think it would be hard to tell by his popular and overplayed works.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

This is the best idea for a stupid thread yet! Too bad it's not in the Community Forum!


----------



## Prat (Jun 15, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> …but you haven't listened to him on mushrooms, man!


Do you recommend any types of mushroom, maybe from a horse paddock?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." - Arthur Schopenhauer


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> Yes Chopin was a genius, but I think it would be hard to tell by his popular and overplayed works.


I'm glad you changed your mind for good (see posts #74 thru #80).


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Chopin was a genius yes - base on his best piano compositions I would have to see he was.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> I think you are inventing a meaning for the word!
> 
> A pretty standard definition of genius might run "exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability" or "very great and rare natural ability or skill, especially in a particular area such as science or art, or a person who has this". Chopin's music was unique and instantly recognisable as his work. In a few minutes his music can take you to some very rare places in your mind. Chopin certainly makes the grade as a genius.
> 
> There is nothing in the word genius that says you have to invent a new form to be one. Indeed, most of the greatest composers did not do that. They just found ways of making various forms carry far more "meaning" than they had previously or even (merely) said new and profound things in them.


The word "genius" is over-used in everyday speech so I was simply defining the narrower sense in which I would use it and would therefore not apply it to Chopin. You prefer "a pretty standard definition" of the term, though without saying where that definition comes from. If that is your preferred use of "genius", fair enough, we'll just have to agree to differ. But for me, genius has to be innovative.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

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


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Pat Fairlea said:


> The word "genius" is over-used in everyday speech so I was simply defining the narrower sense in which I would use it and would therefore not apply it to Chopin. You prefer "a pretty standard definition" of the term, though without saying where that definition comes from. If that is your preferred use of "genius", fair enough, we'll just have to agree to differ. But for me, genius has to be innovative.


Well, I used definitions from the language we are writing in. 

But I think I also pointed out that the definition you were using was faulty in that few of the greats would qualify under it as geniuses but many lesser composers would easily creep under the bar. Inventing new musical forms seems to be a poor standard for electing when to use the word. But of course I agree that a genius will have innovated - that is a different matter - but Chopin certainly innovated and demonstrated endlessly new possibilities for profound expression in the forms he used. In this he can easily get to join the other greats from musical history.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

All this talk about innovation in Chopin is a bit abstract. Didn’t he do something new when he imbued the mazurka and the nocturne with his brand of counterpoint and harmony? Didn’t he invent piano impressionism with the barcarolle? Wasn’t it Chopin who saw for the first time the potential of the funeral march? Didn’t Chopin pretty well invent the concert piano étude, something which had huge implications for 20th century piano music? Wasn’t Chopin the person who revealed for the first time the potential of the short form in piano music?


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

of course Chopin was a genius. What a dumb question? He is among the TOP30 composers and composed beautiful original music that moves people 150 years after his death.


----------

