Chopin Piano Concertos

[Peter]

Originally posted by Sorrano:
Try orchestrating Beethoven's sonatas. I think you will find it a bit difficult as they are not that conducive to the orchestral medium.

I seem to recall this was done rather unsuccessfully with Op.106.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[atserriotserri]

Originally posted by Haffner:
.... Much of it is very symphonic and in a way, like the early piano music of Brahms, is written against and not for the piano.

I'm listening Gould playing the piano sonatas 24 & 29, and reading the booklet (very extensive notes) and he says exactly what you say about the hammerklavier (op. 29): "it is the longest, most inconsiderate, and probably least rewarding piece that Beethoven wrote for the piano....
I decided, for instance, that since the piece is hopelessly unpianistic -not just because it's horrendously difficult (and what's worse, to the untutoured ear doesn't sound that hard) but because it's written with little or no concern for the sympathies and antipathies which exist between various regions of the keyboard- I would attempt an orchestral approach and minimize all of the piano-speciality gestures which, annoyingly and perversely in view of Beethoven's essentially anti-instrument bias, still get in the way of the music so much of the time.
And there are a lot of them to minimize.... many occassions when arabesques of almost Chopinesque delicacy (the second theme of its first movement is one instance) are placed in unrewarding registers (high ones mainly) and separated from their accompaniemental voices by at least one octave too much.
Most of these problems occur in the first and third movements, the second is short and taut enough to breeze by unnoticed, and the fugue-finale, for all its mathematical tomfoolery and its grimly vigorous attempts to break the neo-Haendelian sound-barrier is both fascinating and fun"... etc.

Sadly, I'm no piano player, I'm an avid listener, but Beethoven's piano music has a different "taste" to me than Chopin's music, because, under my point of view they had different interests in composing, Beethoven seem more interested in the structural complexity, development of its themes. Chopin's music is, under my point of view, more immediate, piano-focused and showing an undoubted lesser interest in orchestration than in piano playing intrincacy, rythm... (what a friend of mine I'm introducing in classical music describes as: "chopin is... wow.. clinckclinckclinck, but beethoven... ah!, beethoven is clinckclonckwhamclinck).
Finally, as someone pointed: Beethoven 32 sonatas - CHopin 3, Beethoven 5 piano concertos - Chopin 2. Anyway, both are compatible, I love both deeply.

[Haffner]

Originally posted by atserriotserri:
I'm listening Gould playing the piano sonatas 24 & 29, and reading the booklet (very extensive notes) and he says exactly what you say about the hammerklavier (op. 29): "it is the longest, most inconsiderate, and probably least rewarding piece that Beethoven wrote for the piano....
I decided, for instance, that since the piece is hopelessly unpianistic -not just because it's horrendously difficult (and what's worse, to the untutoured ear doesn't sound that hard) but because it's written with little or no concern for the sympathies and antipathies which exist between various regions of the keyboard- I would attempt an orchestral approach and minimize all of the piano-speciality gestures which, annoyingly and perversely in view of Beethoven's essentially anti-instrument bias, still get in the way of the music so much of the time.
And there are a lot of them to minimize.... many occassions when arabesques of almost Chopinesque delicacy (the second theme of its first movement is one instance) are placed in unrewarding registers (high ones mainly) and separated from their accompaniemental voices by at least one octave too much.
Most of these problems occur in the first and third movements, the second is short and taut enough to breeze by unnoticed, and the fugue-finale, for all its mathematical tomfoolery and its grimly vigorous attempts to break the neo-Haendelian sound-barrier is both fascinating and fun"... etc.

Sadly, I'm no piano player, I'm an avid listener, but Beethoven's piano music has a different "taste" to me than Chopin's music, because, under my point of view they had different interests in composing, Beethoven seem more interested in the structural complexity, development of its themes. Chopin's music is, under my point of view, more immediate, piano-focused and showing an undoubted lesser interest in orchestration than in piano playing intrincacy, rythm... (what a friend of mine I'm introducing in classical music describes as: "chopin is... wow.. clinckclinckclinck, but beethoven... ah!, beethoven is clinckclonckwhamclinck).
Finally, as someone pointed: Beethoven 32 sonatas - CHopin 3, Beethoven 5 piano concertos - Chopin 2. Anyway, both are compatible, I love both deeply.

Gould, I admire the man greatly and as a performer of Bach, he is second to none, but to call the fugue finale "Mathematical tomfoolery" is one of his many foolish claims. He once called Chopin a "bad composer", and I don't think that claim can really be justified in any way, using any means.

I have always been a great admirer of subtle form and quiet musical development. Composers who blatantly fragment motives in the middle of a Sonata-Allegro form are taking the easy way out and I think it unfair that just because Chopin does not do this, but rather develops musical motives whilst whispering rather than roaring, his music is called immediate and without structure. To all who hold this opinion and to all who unjustly group Chopin along with the flamboyant, virtuosic likes of Liszt, Mendelssohn, and Brahms, please listen to the late Mazurkas, the Polonaise-Fantasie, and, above all else, the Ballade No.4 in F minor, his greatest work and what I deem to be the greatest work in existence. Do not listen to it for the sake of my argument, goodness no, but for yourselves, you are missing out I assure you.


Originally posted by Peter:
but if you do as you say and compare like for like, his 3 sonatas with Beethoven's 32, where's the contest?

Originally posted by atserriotserri:
Finally, as someone pointed: Beethoven 32 sonatas - CHopin 3, Beethoven 5 piano concertos - Chopin 2. Anyway, both are compatible, I love both deeply.

How does one respond to this? Firstly, Chopin did not like the Sonata (too formal and restrictive, No.2 and No.3 reflect this as both are incredibly unconventional) or the Concerto (wasn't the best orchestrater and he knew it). Secondly, whereas Beethoven wrote in existing forms (Sonata, Variation) and strived to expand or change them (doing so with great success), Chopin wrote in both existing forms - changing the Etude, Nocturne, Prelude and Impromptu more than anyone before him - and entirely new ones, such as the Ballade (he wrote four, and in my opinion, his finest works), Mazurka and Polonaise (though the latter two existed as folk genres, they had never really been composed as art music, though I know that Mozart wrote a Rondo in the style of a Polonaise). Thirdly, Beethoven lived much longer than Chopin, the former died at the age of 57 while the latter passed just weeks before his 40th birthday. Finally, Chopin was incredibly impaired by his seemingly constant illness and it often prevented him from composing for months at a time because he was so weak. In the last four or five years of his life, he could hardly play at all, and all his compositions came from his own improvisations.

I could go on, but this subject is very subjective. I've played and studied much of Beethoven and Chopin's piano music, and I still believe that Beethoven wrote music which could be played on the piano while Chopin wrote music for the piano.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Haffner:
Gould, I admire the man greatly and as a performer of Bach, he is second to none, but to call the fugue finale "Mathematical tomfoolery" is one of his many foolish claims. He once called Chopin a "bad composer", and I don't think that claim can really be justified in any way, using any means.

I have always been a great admirer of subtle form and quiet musical development. Composers who blatantly fragment motives in the middle of a Sonata-Allegro form are taking the easy way out and I think it unfair that just because Chopin does not do this, but rather develops musical motives whilst whispering rather than roaring, his music is called immediate and without structure. To all who hold this opinion and to all who unjustly group Chopin along with the flamboyant, virtuosic likes of Liszt, Mendelssohn, and Brahms, please listen to the late Mazurkas, the Polonaise-Fantasie, and, above all else, the Ballade No.4 in F minor, his greatest work and what I deem to be the greatest work in existence. Do not listen to it for the sake of my argument, goodness no, but for yourselves, you are missing out I assure you.


Originally posted by Peter:
but if you do as you say and compare like for like, his 3 sonatas with Beethoven's 32, where's the contest?

Originally posted by atserriotserri:
Finally, as someone pointed: Beethoven 32 sonatas - CHopin 3, Beethoven 5 piano concertos - Chopin 2. Anyway, both are compatible, I love both deeply.

How does one respond to this? Firstly, Chopin did not like the Sonata (too formal and restrictive, No.2 and No.3 reflect this as both are incredibly unconventional) or the Concerto (wasn't the best orchestrater and he knew it). Secondly, whereas Beethoven wrote in existing forms (Sonata, Variation) and strived to expand or change them (doing so with great success), Chopin wrote in both existing forms - changing the Etude, Nocturne, Prelude and Impromptu more than anyone before him - and entirely new ones, such as the Ballade (he wrote four, and in my opinion, his finest works), Mazurka and Polonaise (though the latter two existed as folk genres, they had never really been composed as art music, though I know that Mozart wrote a Rondo in the style of a Polonaise). Thirdly, Beethoven lived much longer than Chopin, the former died at the age of 57 while the latter passed just weeks before his 40th birthday. Finally, Chopin was incredibly impaired by his seemingly constant illness and it often prevented him from composing for months at a time because he was so weak. In the last four or five years of his life, he could hardly play at all, and all his compositions came from his own improvisations.

I could go on, but this subject is very subjective. I've played and studied much of Beethoven and Chopin's piano music, and I still believe that Beethoven wrote music which could be played on the piano while Chopin wrote music for the piano.

Firstly I don't rate Gould as highly as you do - his Bach playing is all too much the same, staccato! Chopin's 4th Ballade is a marvellous piece, but you can't expect us here to agree it is superior to say Beethoven's C# minor quartet, the Missa Solemnis or the 9th symphony.

Your point about Chopin's health is negated by the fact that Beethoven hardly enjoyed the best of health and he had the added complication of deafness and tinitis. This however I think is a side issue and of no relevance to the points we are discussing.

I don't understand your point about Chopin writing for the piano, whilst Beethoven (who just happens to be one of the greatest pianists ever and wrote 32 of the greatest works for piano) apparently has no understanding of the instrument.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[atserriotserri]

Originally posted by Haffner:
Gould, I admire the man greatly and as a performer of Bach, he is second to none, but to call the fugue finale "Mathematical tomfoolery" is one of his many foolish claims. He once called Chopin a "bad composer", and I don't think that claim can really be justified in any way, using any means.
.......

I could go on, but this subject is very subjective. I've played and studied much of Beethoven and Chopin's piano music, and I still believe that Beethoven wrote music which could be played on the piano while Chopin wrote music for the piano.

Provided that we both admire, respect (and I guess profusely listen) Chopin and Beethoven (or vice versa) I think it’s very enjoying conversation and I’d like to go further:
1. Regarding Gould’s foolish claims:
I agree with you but I am perhaps more condescending with Gould than you; I think he was very passionate and his passion took him to demagogy, that’s why if one reads about him might well see how during his life he corrected what years ago he said. Paradigmatic is his self-criticism on his first recording of Goldberg Variations the last days of life. He made public he felt obliged to record them again to feel satisfied. Also he criticised profusely Beethoven, and as he became older (and perhaps wiser or more moderate) he criticised some Beethoven’s work, but he played and recorded more Beethoven than Bach as years passed (as it’s reflected in the liner notes of the well tempered clavier cds of the glenn gould edition, sony classical; a very interesting study perhaps worth a topic). As you say, claiming that Chopin was a bad composer has no base.

2. Flamboyant, virtuous…
I’m sorry but honestly, I can’t see no criticising in applying those adjectives to many of Chopin’s pieces, there is no bad point on it! I’m Spanish and I like English language, and as a lawyer is part of my job be fluent in English, so I can’t see the negative point on Merriam Webster definition of flamboyant: “as marked by or given to strikingly elaborate or colorful display or behaviour”. Same applies to virtuous, don’t see the negative point.
Sadly I haven’t deepened in the music of Liszt, Mendelssohn or Brahms (I prefer thinking that I haven’t yet ), so I must apologize if immediateness is understood as lacking of structure but I don’t share that meaning. Don’t know your opinion about Paganini, but he caused a deep impression to Chopin, and he is one of those considered flamboyant and virtuoso and Paganini was the first composer I had all his works (ok, he wasn’t that prolific, not a great achievement). Behind (or besides) his speed-of-light passages are emotive largos, brilliant operistic orchestrations, amazing “twists and turns”… Just one thing about Liszt: Chopin said to his friend Stephen Heller that he’d like to steal Liszt’s way of playing his own preludes because he transported him beyond his own conceptions. Once again I can’t see the negative point of virtuosism.
Chopin deserves credit for many many things, certainly for his exploration of new way to express his feelings through a piano, but also for his ability to grab listener’s attention from the first couple of notes; he had that something special, that’s what I mean by immediate. Beethoven does not provoke that feeling always, not at least to me, but my admiration for LVB is out of doubt.
Regarding the polonaise no. 4, I haven’t listened to it (I’m looking forward to purchasing Chopin Piano works: Rubinstein is out of budget and I’m doubting between Ashkenazy –Decca- and Idil Biret –Naxos-, what do you think? I love ashk and critics on biret are very good), I’ve listened to concert no. 1, some waltzes & grand waltzes, etudes op. 10, nocturnes, ballads op. 23, 38, 47 & 52 (all four brilliant by the way) and the Grand Polonaise preceded by an andante spianato op. 22 which stole my heart the day I first listened to it. All these works are first choices when deciding which cd to play.

3. Number of sonatas, etc…
Of course Beethoven lived 18 years more (+-) than Chopin, but I think there are similarities between both of them for his attempts and success in expanding the boundaries of the existing forms they composed. There lays one of the differences between both and under my point of view make them so compatible. Chopin concentrated on the piano, and as you underline, he wasn’t an orchestrator and he knew that, Beethoven was a brilliant orchestrator, and one may perceive that on his style of composing, the fact he composed for different instruments, formations, forms…
Certainly Chopin was severely ill, what added to his tormented split with George Sand and his perfectionism (as far as I know his compositions came from improvisations, that afterwards he transcribed, refined, added new ideas… and the effort of going back to remember exactly what he played provoked him nervous breakdowns) made the effort of composing almost impossible.

100% true, this subject is very subjective. And splendid definition: “Beethoven wrote music which could be played on the piano while Chopin wrote music for the piano”. That makes them complementary for me.

[Rod]

Originally posted by atserriotserri:
“Beethoven wrote music which could be played on the piano while Chopin wrote music for the piano”. That makes them complementary for me.

Well from my perspective it depends what kind of piano you are talking about!

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[atserriotserri]

Originally posted by Rod:
Well from my perspective it depends what kind of piano you are talking about!

It's early in the morning and I'm at work (with Paganini to push me), so excuse me if I may seem stupid, but... huh?????

[Sorrano]

While Chopin's music is seen as being 'more pianistic" than others I think the main point with his use of that medium is an aural free form with the irregular rhythms. It gives the impression of improvisational writing and has a "natural" feel to the flow of the music. Because of this, the music becomes a more personal expression and is more suitable for piano or for small ensembles.

[Rod]

Originally posted by atserriotserri:
It's early in the morning and I'm at work (with Paganini to push me), so excuse me if I may seem stupid, but... huh?????

I refer the gentleman to the authentic instrument mp3 page at the main site.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Haffner]

O.K., if the discussion is going to continue, I am going to attempt to respond to all of your points.

Originally posted by Peter:
Firstly I don't rate Gould as highly as you do - his Bach playing is all too much the same, staccato! Chopin's 4th Ballade is a marvellous piece, but you can't expect us here to agree it is superior to say Beethoven's C# minor quartet, the Missa Solemnis or the 9th symphony.

Such a cruel, cruel statement! I mean of course the one pertaining to Gould. If we are going to discuss his interpretations of Bach, we must first realize that essentially all of the pianists before him viewed the keyboard music of Bach as straightforward fugato boredom. Gould showed the world both how expressive the intricate polyphony of Bach can be, and how imaginative, varied and (yes, I am going to use this term) pianistic the music is. If you think all Gould did was play staccato then I strongly suggest you listen to the autumnal divinity of his 1981 re-recording of the Goldberg variations; as I have stated else where in this forum, they will alter greatly your perception of both Gould and J. S. Bach. Also, Gould’s ability to handle and successfully express polyphonic music is second to none, staccato or no staccato (and as history tells us, eighth notes were normally played staccato in the Baroque, in fact, all notes opposing legato notes were to be played staccato, to provide contrast).

But returning to Chopin, I expect no one to admit anything. Everyone is entitled to believe what they wish and I am not arguing that Chopin's music is "better" than Beethoven's because different things speak to different people. I am simply trying to say that within the Ballade No. 4 (which speaks to ME like nothing else), Chopin makes use of the resources of the piano more effectively than Beethoven ever did and it is a much greater leap forward in terms of piano writing than Beethoven's style was a leap from Mozart's style; I don't expect anyone to say they like the Ballade No. 4 more than the 9th Symphony but in my opinion, it is not entirely ridiculous. Often (as Chopin masterfully showed us in the 24 preludes, Op. 28) more can be said in 30 seconds than can be said in 75 minutes.

Originally posted by Peter:
Your point about Chopin's health is negated by the fact that Beethoven hardly enjoyed the best of health and he had the added complication of deafness and tinitis. This however I think is a side issue and of no relevance to the points we are discussing.

But you yourself said that Beethoven's deafness did not hinder his musical composition. And I do not think this irrelevant because you brought into question the quantity of their output and Chopin's health greatly hindered his composition, whereas Beethoven's did also, but not to such a severe extent. In fact I think his deafness and isolation because of it served as somewhat of a muse. But I do believe that it did affect his piano writing because in his latter days, he could not play (well) and how can one truly expand the capabilities of the instrument (as drastically as Chopin did) without experimentation. I understand fully that composition can be done in one's head, but Chopin used the piano to compose and whoever composes for the instrument without using it is a fool, I care not what anyone says on this subject.

Originally posted by Peter:
I don't understand your point about Chopin writing for the piano, whilst Beethoven (who just happens to be one of the greatest pianists ever and wrote 32 of the greatest works for piano) apparently has no understanding of the instrument.

What I meant was that Chopin's compositions seem entirely conceived for the piano. All of his compositions contain a piano, every single one, and his creativity is specifically and uniquely tied to the piano. Beethoven (who I believe had an excellent understanding of the piano, you misquote me) wrote works which work on piano (in some cases - like the C minor Op. 13, probably the most pianistic of them all, - they work extremely well) but do not appear to be specifically designed for the piano. In the case of the Op. 13, much of it (epically the Grave, slow introduction) stems from Beethoven's improvisations and that is why it works very well. It makes effective use of octaves, arpeggio, crossed hands, and in the switch to E-flat (in the exposition, C minor in the recapitulation) where the hands move apart, building to a forte which is punctuated by an accented chord, we witness brilliant piano writing, in my opinion the best Beethoven ever achieved. But as he went on, he became less concerned with the medium of the piano and more concerned with the music. We see passages with two voices only and sections with chords in both hands and then, Beethoven's anti-pianism culminates in the finale of the Op. 106 sonata with a fugue not meant to be played on the piano.

If we look at the Op. 111 in particular, the beginning is interesting enough (and bear in mind I am speaking pianistically) but beginning at bar 6, we have a long series of repeated chords. What is pianistic about this? The second movement begins almost in the style of a Bach four-part chorale, again, how is this in any way pianistic? Harold C. Schonberg, an excellent music historian says in his book The Great Pianists: From Mozart to Present (which raises some interesting questions about modern interpretations of how to play Beethoven and also features a very interesting look at Gould, very enjoyable) that with Beethoven, the idea is always more important than the execution. That is what I am trying to say. Yes Beethoven broke strings and fought to strengthen the instrument and expand its range but was this because the piano could not meet his pianistic needs, or his musical needs? No one has yet to suggest anything that makes Beethoven's piano music pianisticly revolutionary. It is musically revolutionary, no one denies that, but, aside from some glorious passages like the one I mentioned in the Op. 13, how is it different than the piano music of Mozart which I feel is on the whole more pianistic?

[Haffner]

My apologies for splitting this post into two posts:

Originally posted by atserriotserri:
Provided that we both admire, respect (and I guess profusely listen) Chopin and Beethoven (or vice versa) I think it’s very enjoying conversation and I’d like to go further:
1. Regarding Gould’s foolish claims:
I agree with you but I am perhaps more condescending with Gould than you; I think he was very passionate and his passion took him to demagogy, that’s why if one reads about him might well see how during his life he corrected what years ago he said. Paradigmatic is his self-criticism on his first recording of Goldberg Variations the last days of life. He made public he felt obliged to record them again to feel satisfied. Also he criticised profusely Beethoven, and as he became older (and perhaps wiser or more moderate) he criticised some Beethoven’s work, but he played and recorded more Beethoven than Bach as years passed (as it’s reflected in the liner notes of the well tempered clavier cds of the glenn gould edition, sony classical; a very interesting study perhaps worth a topic). As you say, claiming that Chopin was a bad composer has no base.

Yes, the second recording of the Goldbergs is absolutely astounding and I think it the greatest piano recording in history (quite the claim I know, but I stand by it). My basic opinion regarding Gould is that his musical interests were very narrow in that he was only interested in polyphonic music. He once said that his interests end with The Art of Fugue (J.S. Bach's final work) and begin again with Tristan and Isolde (Wagner's second last musical drama) and I think that this is a reasonable statement; if one is not passionate about a certain composer that is fine, what irritates me is that in his younger days Gould did not seem to respect the great composers he was not passionate about.

Originally posted by atserriotserri:
2. Flamboyant, virtuous…
I’m sorry but honestly, I can’t see no criticising in applying those adjectives to many of Chopin’s pieces, there is no bad point on it! I’m Spanish and I like English language, and as a lawyer is part of my job be fluent in English, so I can’t see the negative point on Merriam Webster definition of flamboyant: “as marked by or given to strikingly elaborate or colorful display or behaviour”. Same applies to virtuous, don’t see the negative point.
Sadly I haven’t deepened in the music of Liszt, Mendelssohn or Brahms (I prefer thinking that I haven’t yet ), so I must apologize if immediateness is understood as lacking of structure but I don’t share that meaning. Don’t know your opinion about Paganini, but he caused a deep impression to Chopin, and he is one of those considered flamboyant and virtuoso and Paganini was the first composer I had all his works (ok, he wasn’t that prolific, not a great achievement). Behind (or besides) his speed-of-light passages are emotive largos, brilliant operistic orchestrations, amazing “twists and turns”…

There is nothing wrong with virtuosity or flamboyance when it has feeling behind it. Often in the works of Liszt, there is much virtuosity and it all amounts to nothing. To the untrained, it sounds very entertaining, but the musically educated can quickly see that it is pointless, technical display. This is where the music of Chopin is unique. Though Liszt produced some wonderful works (I'm not even going to comment on Mendelssohn or Brahms because they introduced nothing very different from Beethoven's innovations) which are adventurous, harmonically revolutionary and melodically rich (check out the Sonata in B minor or some of the Tone Poems for Orchestra, these are his greatest compositions), he sometimes resorts to meaningless virtuosity. When Chopin uses virtuosity, it is always for expressive purposes and it never comes across as cheap technical display as some (certainly not all) of Liszt's music does.

I have a CD of the Violin Concertos No. 1 and 2 of Paganini and yes it is flamboyant. In terms of musical importance, Paganini represents the beginning of the explosively expressive romantic era which made virtuosity a must in the concerto. For me, I enjoy these works, but I am a great fan of subtle musical expression. This is why my favourite composers are Chopin, Mozart, Debussy and Bartok, who employ very different compositional method then a Paganini.

But just as Chopin was a pianist, Paganini was a violinist. His importance is in the way he changed violin technique. This is why Chopin admired him because in fact, Chopin detested the actual music of all of his contemporaries. He, and Liszt, wanted to change the piano the way Paganini changed the violin. Chopin's only musical idols were Mozart and Bach and this is why to me he is so special; he hated romanticism so he created a unique musical expression which is entirely romantic.

Originally posted by atserriotserri:
Just one thing about Liszt: Chopin said to his friend Stephen Heller that he’d like to steal Liszt’s way of playing his own preludes because he transported him beyond his own conceptions.

I have heard this too, but I believe Chopin said he would like to steal the way Liszt played his Etudes, not his preludes. Liszt had the greatest technique in the world, and of course this would give one the ability to play etudes very well.

Originally posted by atserriotserri:
Once again I can’t see the negative point of virtuosism.
Chopin deserves credit for many many things, certainly for his exploration of new way to express his feelings through a piano, but also for his ability to grab listener’s attention from the first couple of notes; he had that something special, that’s what I mean by immediate. Beethoven does not provoke that feeling always, not at least to me, but my admiration for LVB is out of doubt.

I completely agree. But I thought you meant, as most people mean, that Chopin does not develop his musical ideas, which really frustrates me. He both expressed himself immediately and gradually. If you want immediate, check out the Op. 28 Preludes, some only seconds long. They are really miraculous in the way they can so effortlessly express genuine human emotion.

Originally posted by atserriotserri:
Regarding the polonaise no. 4, I haven’t listened to it (I’m looking forward to purchasing Chopin Piano works: Rubinstein is out of budget and I’m doubting between Ashkenazy –Decca- and Idil Biret –Naxos-, what do you think? I love ashk and critics on biret are very good), I’ve listened to concert no. 1, some waltzes & grand waltzes, etudes op. 10, nocturnes, ballads op. 23, 38, 47 & 52 (all four brilliant by the way) and the Grand Polonaise preceded by an andante spianato op. 22 which stole my heart the day I first listened to it. All these works are first choices when deciding which cd to play.

Sorry, I said the Ballade No. 4 which you say you have already heard. It is really wonderful, isn't it? The Polonaise I was referring to was Chopin's last, the Polonaise-Fantasie in A flat Major, Op. 61 which I would say is on par with the 4th ballade.

In terms of Chopin CD sets, I have several. I have the Ashkenazy on Decca and though there are moments I do not like (I have read a lot about Chopin's method, so I am quite picky) all in all he understands Chopin better than any other pianist. Stay away from Vladamir Horowitz, he is over-rated when it comes to Chopin. And sorry, I haven't heard of that other set you speak of, but Naxos is usually really reliable.

Originally posted by atserriotserri:
3. Number of sonatas, etc…
Of course Beethoven lived 18 years more (+-) than Chopin, but I think there are similarities between both of them for his attempts and success in expanding the boundaries of the existing forms they composed. There lays one of the differences between both and under my point of view make them so compatible. Chopin concentrated on the piano, and as you underline, he wasn’t an orchestrator and he knew that, Beethoven was a brilliant orchestrator, and one may perceive that on his style of composing, the fact he composed for different instruments, formations, forms…

That is certainly a good point. Both did in their piano music what each new best. Beethoven's is more orchestral while Chopin's is more pianistic. Both bring something interesting to the mix; but is Chopin's piano music more valuable as piano music because it is entirely conceived for the piano? I say yes.

Originally posted by atserriotserri:
Certainly Chopin was severely ill, what added to his tormented split with George Sand and his perfectionism (as far as I know his compositions came from improvisations, that afterwards he transcribed, refined, added new ideas… and the effort of going back to remember exactly what he played provoked him nervous breakdowns) made the effort of composing almost impossible.

100% true, this subject is very subjective. And splendid definition: “Beethoven wrote music which could be played on the piano while Chopin wrote music for the piano”. That makes them complementary for me.

I agree, depending on my mood and depending on what I am looking for, different composers will satisfy me but I don't know if I'd go as far as complementary. It is difficult to be a pianist and be very learned in music because your standards become drastically higher. I wish I didn't think this way, but often listening to the solo piano music of Beethoven, I am left thinking; "This certainly isn't Chopin"

Originally posted by Sorrano:
While Chopin's music is seen as being 'more pianistic" than others I think the main point with his use of that medium is an aural free form with the irregular rhythms. It gives the impression of improvisational writing and has a "natural" feel to the flow of the music. Because of this, the music becomes a more personal expression and is more suitable for piano or for small ensembles.

Good point and I agree, but it goes far beyond the rhythm. The ornamentation, the use of pedal and the use of sonority all make Chopin's music pianistic, though the natural rhythm does contribute a great deal

[Amalie]

[QUOTE]Originally quoted by Haffner:

" Chopin used the piano to compose and whoever composes for the instrument 'without' using it is a fool. I care not what anyone says on the subject "

===========


Well now dear Haffner,
Allow me to quote from Beethoven on instructing his pupil the Archduke Rudolph:

"Continue, your Royal Highness, to write down breifly your occasional ideas while at the pianoforte.
It is also necessary to compose 'without' the pianoforte; say often a simple chord melody, with simple harmonies, then figurate according to the rules of counterpoint, and beyond them; This will give Your Royal Highness no headache, but, on the contrary feeling yourself thus in the midst of art, a great pleasure.

- July 1st. 1823, to his pupil Archduke Rudolph.


Are we now to say that Beethoven was a blithering fool, hmmmm?


------------------
~ Unsterbliche Geliebte ~



[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited 09-23-2004).]

[Peter]

[quote]Originally posted by Amalie:

Originally quoted by Haffner:

" Chopin used the piano to compose and whoever composes for the instrument 'without' using it is a fool. I care not what anyone says on the subject "

===========


Well now dear Haffner,
Allow me to quote from Beethoven on instructing his pupil the Archduke Rudolph:

"Continue, your Royal Highness, to write down breifly your occasional ideas while at the pianoforte.
It is also necessary to compose 'without' the pianoforte; say often a simple chord melody, with simple harmonies, then figurate according to the rules of counterpoint, and beyond them; This will give Your Royal Highness no headache, but, on the contrary feeling yourself thus in the midst of art, a great pleasure.

- July 1st. 1823, to his pupil Archduke Rudolph.


Are we now to say that Beethoven was a blithering fool, hmmmm?

Continuing on this theme, Berlioz considered the use of the piano as an aid to composition the 'grave of all originality'. Not that I mean to imply Chopin was unoriginal!

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Peter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Haffner:
If we look at the Op. 111 in particular, the beginning is interesting enough (and bear in mind I am speaking pianistically) but beginning at bar 6, we have a long series of repeated chords. What is pianistic about this?


Only the beginning?!! What about the repeated chords that open Chopin's 2nd Ballade? What about the repeated left hand chords of the E minor prelude - this is no argument!


The second movement begins almost in the style of a Bach four-part chorale, again, how is this in any way pianistic?


Again this is no argument but nit-picking, what about the chorale like passage in Chopin's C minor nocturne?


No one has yet to suggest anything that makes Beethoven's piano music pianisticly revolutionary. It is musically revolutionary, no one denies that, but, aside from some glorious passages like the one I mentioned in the Op. 13, how is it different than the piano music of Mozart which I feel is on the whole more pianistic?

This is simply a misunderstanding of Beethoven - to suggest that his piano music is in no way a technical advance on Mozart (I don't mean musical) is ridiculous. Where in Mozart do you find octave Glissandi, double trills, powerful octave writing such as in the Emperor concerto, pages of trills such as end Op.109? What about the quintuplet accompaniment figurations in the appassionata and 4th piano concerto - are they not a development from the typical Alberti bass figurations? What about Beethoven's approach to the pedal, is that not revolutionary? Where in Mozart do you find the poetic effect of Senza Sordini, playing with sustaining pedal held throughout the entire 1st movement of the Moonlight sonata - an effect entirely possible on an old fortepiano?

------------------
'Man know thyself'



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 09-23-2004).]

[Sorrano]

Something else to keep in mind is that Chopin and Beethoven composes music in completely different styles. When listening to the final sonatas of Beethoven I cannot imagine a more appropriate medium than the piano. They are piano masterpieces. Chopin's writings, too, are piano masterpieces. But they come from completely different worlds and have different purposes as to evoking emotion and feeling. How does one compare an apple to a banana? They are both fruit and they are both good.

Examine Beethoven's other piano music aside from the sonatas. Look at the Diabelli variations, for example. You can't orchestrate that! Some of the works may be difficult to play, but so what? Improved mechanics via practice can solve that.

Personally I am not much of a Chopin fan as far as listening to the music. The last CD set I had of his Nocturnes I stopped listening to because the pianist did not follow the dynamics and tempi very well. But I enjoy playing of his music what I am able and from that viewpoint I enjoy his music.