6 ms·

Étude, Brute? The case for Chopin

48 points by tintinnabula 8y ago

WhompingWindows 8y ago
The headline is not apt, the piece is not really making a strong case "against" Chopin. There is a slight attempt to build up some illusion that Chopin was once not held in high esteem. Well, that is a very weak argument indeed, as he was a child prodigy touring Europe in his teenage years, and then subsequently was very well known to the other famous romantic composers, most of whom thought he was a true genius of melody, finesse, and a master of chromaticism and narrative piano writing. Look no farther than Liszt's storied relationship with Chopin, they played together at salons and gatherings, they played each others works. Similarly, the Schumanns loved Chopin's work. He achieved a very high fee for teaching as well, there were numerous very wealthy Parisians eager to have training with him. Furthermore, there was and is a very, VERY strong tradition of classical pianists playing his works. Consider Debussy's performance of the fourth ballade at his conservatory, when it was stated he performed it as if "without hammers". So, no, there is no case against Chopin's mastery, this headline is click-bait. The linked article is really a pseudo-book review of the recent biography "Fryderyk Chopin: A Life and Times" by Alan Walker.
- stochastic_monk 8y ago
  As a pianist, the suggestion that Chopin or his études are not held in high esteem for both technical and musical merits is simply ludicrous. His technique paved the way for Liszt and Debussy études, and Godowsky expanded their utility. Most technique after him is influenced by him in some way.
  - vertline3 8y ago
    He was painted by Delacroix as well, and he was kind of an important painter. So it means he was likely somewhat esteemed.
  - WhitneyLand 8y ago
    To my thinking the parent comments too easily blur the notions of "is not" held in high esteem", and "was not". In his day it's acknowledged his work was appreciated, the article mentions his patronage. However, imagine present day people in your field who are respected as luminaries. They take time to publicly disparage your work. Despite his supporters, it could have easily been traumatic to him personally and professionally. Could he have been more successful or inspiring to young composers otherwise? In general it's quite a sad theme. I hate to see this same story so recurrent throughout history. In the 21st century we've finally simplified the concept to one word: "haters". Criticism is just as important as praise, but not when it's unbalanced or done unproductively. Why as human beings must we treat each other this way and close our minds to things that are don't fit a mold? The damage to individuals is never fully visible and the cultural price is never fully known.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
odyssey7 8y ago
I usually see this idea of a heroic great artist (compared to artists who presumably don’t have what it takes to merit being mentioned) in discussions around classical music. When people talk about visual art, there is more focus on the quality of the work, and the artist’s distinct voice. Consider an example: a work by Picasso looks like Picasso made it, and that’s what gives it its value. By contrast, derivative works that merely copy another artist’s style are usually not held in high esteem. Chopin’s work scores very well according to quality, and his distinct voice usually makes it obvious that the piece you’re hearing is a Chopin. The visual arts are a lot better at allowing more artists to become established than the classical music world is for composers. This may be a consequence of the properties of the creations. People who want to listen to a concerto will share the experience with many others, and typically won’t be able to buy it all just for themselves. People who want to be involved in the contemporary art world can and often do buy physical works of art for themselves, and it doesn’t matter whether or not the artist could convince a theater of people to pay to sit down together and appreciate it for 30 minutes. If art patrons want to buy physical pieces for themselves, you need a bigger pool of artists to serve them; but if you want to fill opera houses, it’s better to have a few artists that everybody has agreed to like.
- throwaway8879 8y ago
  On a slightly related note, Chopin was also a highly technically proficient pianist, much like Paganini on the violin. There were great many amazing composers back then, but technicians of the instrument were perhaps rarer? In any case, I imagine that the last century has perhaps produced the most technically proficient musicians on possibly every instrument, across all genres. Sometimes I'm blown away by some of the younger players and their flawless technique.
  - Dumblydorr 8y ago
    Not true, most of the composers were brilliant performers as well. Writing and more importantly publishing their compositions gave them extra income on top of lessons and performances. So often Beethoven Mozart or Chopin needed or wanted money, promised compositions to publishers to get it, then were late due to overpromising. Sounds familiar to my overpromising on data analysis then running into snags and getting highly delayed. Anyway, paganini was a virtuoso first and foremost, the closest analogy would be a modern player like Horowitz or argerich, although liszt was similar but composed way more than paganini
yomly 8y ago
I tried reading this - but the website sent me through an endless loop of signing up for the free newsletter to unlock the article (which I tried various times). That said, this line certainly raised an eyebrow for being pretty sensational: >Of the well-known composers of the 19th century, Fryderyk Chopin (as his name is spelled in Polish, his native tongue) is the only one whose complete works continue to be played regularly—indeed, without cease. When was the last time you heard his piano trio performed outside of a music school, for instance...?
- mykowebhn 8y ago
  And what about Chopin's first Piano Sonata? I've only ever heard that once. I think it only gets played...never???
  - vixen99 8y ago
    Very true! I'd forgotten about that. I've yet to hear it!
- mazelife 8y ago
  Yeah, it's hard to take anything in this article seriously when you're one line into it and the premise: "Of the well-known composers of the 19th century, Fryderyk Chopin is the only one whose complete works continue to be played regularly" ...is incorrect. There's not a single composer whose "complete works" get regularly played, and even given Chopin's fairly small catalog (for a major 19th century composer) there are plenty of marginal works that rarely get performed. Considering his long and respected career as a music critic and author, I'm kind of surprised to see Terry Teachout's byline on this.
  - yomly 8y ago
    I mean amongst the list of composers publishing in the 19th Century are Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Liszt, Schumann, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Debussy, Ravel to name a few(!) It's a bit hard to take a critic seriously when they're capable of forgetting facts like this...
RobLach 8y ago
Content marketing piece for a book.
- dang 8y ago
  There's nothing wrong with book reviews.
nononotnot 8y ago
This author perhaps doesn't realize Chopin wrote concertos!
philjohn 8y ago
The great thing about Chopin, as a pianist, is that as you grow in technique you can not only tackle the more complex pieces (Revolutionary Etude, Ballade no. 4 etc), but you can go back to some of the simpler ones and really work on the finer technique and artistic interpretation. There's a good reason Chopin is a solo piano staple.
- cevn 8y ago
  I can't agree more. I've been playing solely Chopin for the better part of 3 years. I started on Preludes, now I stumble through Nocturnes and poke a bit at the Ballades, Etudes, and Scherzos. People really need to learn about Chopin's music. There's juts so much to unpack in each Nocturne, each Ballade, it's truly incredible. I started from very little skill, but by practicing Chopin almost daily I have gotten much better at sight reading and gained a new appreciation of his music.
  - philjohn 8y ago
    Wow - that's great work! My absolute favourite is Nocture op. 9 no. 2, apart from the very ending it's fairly simple to play if you are an intermediate or better pianist, but the difference in just hitting the right notes and actually playing it is night and day, and something that when you come back to the piece you can really gauge your progress with. I had the privilege of playing it at a wedding a few years ago, on a beautiful Ibach concert grand piano, in a centuries old church ... the acoustics were fantastic and it was a very fitting piece.
    - cevn 8y ago
      I love op 9 no 2, yeah it's not too hard although the ending is a little tricky! That sounds like an amazing experience, do you have a video or something? edit: not too hard but I should say I don't feel I'm at the point I can really do it justice emotionally, as you say, haha.
WhitneyLand 8y ago
His most replayed work. I'm sure you've heard it, but many don't know it's Chopin. If you realize that now, it may be a chance for some rewarding Spotify exploration... https://youtube.com/watch?v=9E6b3swbnWg https://youtube.com/watch?v=9E6b3swbnWg
- mezzafour 8y ago
  I hazard a guess that many more know it is Chopin than not. It is so Chopinesque…
  - Wistar 8y ago
    The very essence of Chopin and especially of his tempo rubato.
- MarkLowenstein 8y ago
  Possibly qualifying double for these same statements: https://youtu.be/dw4aGcmircA?t=2120 https://youtu.be/dw4aGcmircA?t=2120
  - mds 8y ago
    I've always wished John Williams would just include this piece straight up in a Star Wars movie. Both to acknowledge the inspiration and just because it would be perfect sad, brooding music as the camera panned across across a smashed rebel base or whatever.
- cevn 8y ago
  Don't skip the rest of his nocturnes either. Especially Op 9 no 1, Op 55 no 1 (I'm practicing that one now), Op 62... You know what, just go listen to all of them.
jancsika 8y ago
> Of the well-known composers of the 19th century, Fryderyk Chopin (as his name is spelled in Polish, his native tongue) is the only one whose complete works continue to be played regularly—indeed, without cease. We must be excluding lesser works and juvenilia since those works by Chopin exist and aren't regularly played today. Ok, let's start hashing... Error: collision detected: Schumann Error: collision detected: Brahms Error: collision detected: Schubert Stopped parsing at line 1.
- vixen99 8y ago
  Correct - that was an exaggeration but the 'regularly played items' comprise something like 90% of the approx 240 compositions. Not the same situation at all with Brahms' (1000), Schubert's (1500) and Schumann's (700+ ) compositions (my bad guesses!) many of which are never heard at all. In some cases, with good reason. I believe Naxos has recorded everything Chopin wrote. I'm curious to know if they've done that with the other three composers mentioned.
- mehwoot 8y ago
  complete works
  - maceurt 8y ago
    Which is an arbitrary metric that could easily confuse a reader. How much a composer is played matters more than the amount of pieces played. Furthermore, Chopin composed a relatively small amount of music compared to others composers, and most of it is composed for solo piano so of course a lot of it is still going to be played.
ggm 8y ago
Ashkenazi complete recordings box set owner: he might have been a bit antisemitic and a bloody mess at the end, but I love my chopin.

48 points by tintinnabula 8y ago

The headline is not apt, the piece is not really making a strong case "against" Chopin. There is a slight attempt to build up some illusion that Chopin was once not held in high esteem. Well, that is a very weak argument indeed, as he was a child prodigy touring Europe in his teenage years, and then subsequently was very well known to the other famous romantic composers, most of whom thought he was a true genius of melody, finesse, and a master of chromaticism and narrative piano writing. Look no farther than Liszt's storied relationship with Chopin, they played together at salons and gatherings, they played each others works. Similarly, the Schumanns loved Chopin's work. He achieved a very high fee for teaching as well, there were numerous very wealthy Parisians eager to have training with him. Furthermore, there was and is a very, VERY strong tradition of classical pianists playing his works. Consider Debussy's performance of the fourth ballade at his conservatory, when it was stated he performed it as if "without hammers". So, no, there is no case against Chopin's mastery, this headline is click-bait. The linked article is really a pseudo-book review of the recent biography "Fryderyk Chopin: A Life and Times" by Alan Walker.

stochastic_monk 8y ago
As a pianist, the suggestion that Chopin or his études are not held in high esteem for both technical and musical merits is simply ludicrous. His technique paved the way for Liszt and Debussy études, and Godowsky expanded their utility. Most technique after him is influenced by him in some way.
- vertline3 8y ago
  He was painted by Delacroix as well, and he was kind of an important painter. So it means he was likely somewhat esteemed.
- WhitneyLand 8y ago
  To my thinking the parent comments too easily blur the notions of "is not" held in high esteem", and "was not". In his day it's acknowledged his work was appreciated, the article mentions his patronage. However, imagine present day people in your field who are respected as luminaries. They take time to publicly disparage your work. Despite his supporters, it could have easily been traumatic to him personally and professionally. Could he have been more successful or inspiring to young composers otherwise? In general it's quite a sad theme. I hate to see this same story so recurrent throughout history. In the 21st century we've finally simplified the concept to one word: "haters". Criticism is just as important as praise, but not when it's unbalanced or done unproductively. Why as human beings must we treat each other this way and close our minds to things that are don't fit a mold? The damage to individuals is never fully visible and the cultural price is never fully known.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

odyssey7 8y ago

I usually see this idea of a heroic great artist (compared to artists who presumably don’t have what it takes to merit being mentioned) in discussions around classical music. When people talk about visual art, there is more focus on the quality of the work, and the artist’s distinct voice. Consider an example: a work by Picasso looks like Picasso made it, and that’s what gives it its value. By contrast, derivative works that merely copy another artist’s style are usually not held in high esteem. Chopin’s work scores very well according to quality, and his distinct voice usually makes it obvious that the piece you’re hearing is a Chopin. The visual arts are a lot better at allowing more artists to become established than the classical music world is for composers. This may be a consequence of the properties of the creations. People who want to listen to a concerto will share the experience with many others, and typically won’t be able to buy it all just for themselves. People who want to be involved in the contemporary art world can and often do buy physical works of art for themselves, and it doesn’t matter whether or not the artist could convince a theater of people to pay to sit down together and appreciate it for 30 minutes. If art patrons want to buy physical pieces for themselves, you need a bigger pool of artists to serve them; but if you want to fill opera houses, it’s better to have a few artists that everybody has agreed to like.

throwaway8879 8y ago
On a slightly related note, Chopin was also a highly technically proficient pianist, much like Paganini on the violin. There were great many amazing composers back then, but technicians of the instrument were perhaps rarer? In any case, I imagine that the last century has perhaps produced the most technically proficient musicians on possibly every instrument, across all genres. Sometimes I'm blown away by some of the younger players and their flawless technique.
- Dumblydorr 8y ago
  Not true, most of the composers were brilliant performers as well. Writing and more importantly publishing their compositions gave them extra income on top of lessons and performances. So often Beethoven Mozart or Chopin needed or wanted money, promised compositions to publishers to get it, then were late due to overpromising. Sounds familiar to my overpromising on data analysis then running into snags and getting highly delayed. Anyway, paganini was a virtuoso first and foremost, the closest analogy would be a modern player like Horowitz or argerich, although liszt was similar but composed way more than paganini

yomly 8y ago

I tried reading this - but the website sent me through an endless loop of signing up for the free newsletter to unlock the article (which I tried various times). That said, this line certainly raised an eyebrow for being pretty sensational: >Of the well-known composers of the 19th century, Fryderyk Chopin (as his name is spelled in Polish, his native tongue) is the only one whose complete works continue to be played regularly—indeed, without cease. When was the last time you heard his piano trio performed outside of a music school, for instance...?

mykowebhn 8y ago
And what about Chopin's first Piano Sonata? I've only ever heard that once. I think it only gets played...never???
- vixen99 8y ago
  Very true! I'd forgotten about that. I've yet to hear it!
mazelife 8y ago
Yeah, it's hard to take anything in this article seriously when you're one line into it and the premise: "Of the well-known composers of the 19th century, Fryderyk Chopin is the only one whose complete works continue to be played regularly" ...is incorrect. There's not a single composer whose "complete works" get regularly played, and even given Chopin's fairly small catalog (for a major 19th century composer) there are plenty of marginal works that rarely get performed. Considering his long and respected career as a music critic and author, I'm kind of surprised to see Terry Teachout's byline on this.
- yomly 8y ago
  I mean amongst the list of composers publishing in the 19th Century are Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Liszt, Schumann, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Debussy, Ravel to name a few(!) It's a bit hard to take a critic seriously when they're capable of forgetting facts like this...

RobLach 8y ago

Content marketing piece for a book.

dang 8y ago
There's nothing wrong with book reviews.

nononotnot 8y ago

This author perhaps doesn't realize Chopin wrote concertos!

philjohn 8y ago

The great thing about Chopin, as a pianist, is that as you grow in technique you can not only tackle the more complex pieces (Revolutionary Etude, Ballade no. 4 etc), but you can go back to some of the simpler ones and really work on the finer technique and artistic interpretation. There's a good reason Chopin is a solo piano staple.

cevn 8y ago
I can't agree more. I've been playing solely Chopin for the better part of 3 years. I started on Preludes, now I stumble through Nocturnes and poke a bit at the Ballades, Etudes, and Scherzos. People really need to learn about Chopin's music. There's juts so much to unpack in each Nocturne, each Ballade, it's truly incredible. I started from very little skill, but by practicing Chopin almost daily I have gotten much better at sight reading and gained a new appreciation of his music.
- philjohn 8y ago
  Wow - that's great work! My absolute favourite is Nocture op. 9 no. 2, apart from the very ending it's fairly simple to play if you are an intermediate or better pianist, but the difference in just hitting the right notes and actually playing it is night and day, and something that when you come back to the piece you can really gauge your progress with. I had the privilege of playing it at a wedding a few years ago, on a beautiful Ibach concert grand piano, in a centuries old church ... the acoustics were fantastic and it was a very fitting piece.
  - cevn 8y ago
    I love op 9 no 2, yeah it's not too hard although the ending is a little tricky! That sounds like an amazing experience, do you have a video or something? edit: not too hard but I should say I don't feel I'm at the point I can really do it justice emotionally, as you say, haha.

WhitneyLand 8y ago

His most replayed work. I'm sure you've heard it, but many don't know it's Chopin. If you realize that now, it may be a chance for some rewarding Spotify exploration... https://youtube.com/watch?v=9E6b3swbnWg https://youtube.com/watch?v=9E6b3swbnWg

mezzafour 8y ago
I hazard a guess that many more know it is Chopin than not. It is so Chopinesque…
- Wistar 8y ago
  The very essence of Chopin and especially of his tempo rubato.
MarkLowenstein 8y ago
Possibly qualifying double for these same statements: https://youtu.be/dw4aGcmircA?t=2120 https://youtu.be/dw4aGcmircA?t=2120
- mds 8y ago
  I've always wished John Williams would just include this piece straight up in a Star Wars movie. Both to acknowledge the inspiration and just because it would be perfect sad, brooding music as the camera panned across across a smashed rebel base or whatever.
cevn 8y ago
Don't skip the rest of his nocturnes either. Especially Op 9 no 1, Op 55 no 1 (I'm practicing that one now), Op 62... You know what, just go listen to all of them.

jancsika 8y ago

> Of the well-known composers of the 19th century, Fryderyk Chopin (as his name is spelled in Polish, his native tongue) is the only one whose complete works continue to be played regularly—indeed, without cease. We must be excluding lesser works and juvenilia since those works by Chopin exist and aren't regularly played today. Ok, let's start hashing... Error: collision detected: Schumann Error: collision detected: Brahms Error: collision detected: Schubert Stopped parsing at line 1.

vixen99 8y ago
Correct - that was an exaggeration but the 'regularly played items' comprise something like 90% of the approx 240 compositions. Not the same situation at all with Brahms' (1000), Schubert's (1500) and Schumann's (700+ ) compositions (my bad guesses!) many of which are never heard at all. In some cases, with good reason. I believe Naxos has recorded everything Chopin wrote. I'm curious to know if they've done that with the other three composers mentioned.
mehwoot 8y ago
complete works
- maceurt 8y ago
  Which is an arbitrary metric that could easily confuse a reader. How much a composer is played matters more than the amount of pieces played. Furthermore, Chopin composed a relatively small amount of music compared to others composers, and most of it is composed for solo piano so of course a lot of it is still going to be played.

ggm 8y ago

Ashkenazi complete recordings box set owner: he might have been a bit antisemitic and a bloody mess at the end, but I love my chopin.