Chopin Piano Concertos

[Peter]

Originally posted by 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.

Yes I agree with your views on this, after all we are really talking about the Classical and Romantic approaches to the piano. Chopin is particularly difficult to interpret because of the rubato which can make nonsense ot it if overdone or incorrectly applied. I admire Chopin tremendously but I think it is wrong to assume that Beethoven couldn't write for the piano and played no part in the development of technique as has been suggested!

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

[Vipercat]

Something I would like to know is, what defines a piece as being "pianistic" or not? If that means simply being more comfortable to play on the piano that doesn't mean it wasn't written FOR the piano, does it??

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Vipercat:
Something I would like to know is, what defines a piece as being "pianistic" or not? If that means simply being more comfortable to play on the piano that doesn't mean it wasn't written FOR the piano, does it??

For one thing, it must be written for the timbre and sonorities of the piano. Textures are important; the piano has to be able to handle it effectively. Beethoven has been critisized for writing thick chords, but when one listens to them played correctly and hears the overtones that resonate it makes sense. This sort of thing is what I am going on about.

[Rod]

Originally posted by Sorrano:

For one thing, it must be written for the timbre and sonorities of the piano. Textures are important; the piano has to be able to handle it effectively. Beethoven has been critisized for writing thick chords, but when one listens to them played correctly and hears the overtones that resonate it makes sense. This sort of thing is what I am going on about.

The chords were written for an instrument that had a lighter more transparent and more colourful than todays. An instrument that you could attack more without losing this transparency - thickness never comes to mind when you hear the music played on the fortepiano. The development of the modern piano mitigates against Beethoven's manner of composition to my mind.

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

[Amalie]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rod:
[B] The chords were written for an instrument that had a lighter more transparent and more colourful than todays. An instrument that you could attack more without losing this transparency - thickness never comes to mind when you hear the music played on the fortepiano. The development of the modern piano mitigates against Beethoven's manner of composition to my mind.
=====

Rod,

These are just some random thoughts, bearing in mind, I am but no means a technical expert in this area, I just simply know what I like.
As I understand it, Beethoven's methods of composition were always ahead of the prevailing piano techonology of the time.
Beethoven was always fanatic for getting his hands on the latest piano technology, which was constantly changing in his his life time. The point surely is, that the tonal and harmonic range of the pianoforte was just to limited and limiting for Beethoven because he was ofcourse a frontiersman, constantly pushing the technology to try to keep up with his phenomenal ideas. Personally I think he would have been ecstatic at the modern steinway with its long warm resonance and singing quality. The pianoforte IMHO has a light talking quality.
Who is to say that Beethoven would not have liked the sound of the modern piano?
Pianoforte's are interesting to listen to, but does it matter what kind of piano, so long as it produces the right sound.
I attended a great performance recently with Brendel performing Beethoven's 3rd, piano concerto. To have heard it on pianoforte would have been interesting, but please, the Steinway that Brendel played on simply blows away the rather mechanical tinny sound one gets from the pianoforte, and that is no criticism of the pianoforre, it is just the way the instrument is. I find it inconceivable to think Beethoven would not have been extremely pleased witnessed his music being played on the magificent modern instrument.
Surely if Beethoven could have heard, he would have said, this instrument is bringing out the true depth and granduer and wieght of his composition.
I have listened to Angela Hewitt perform Bach's English Suites which were written for harpsichord, and played by her on a modern Steinway and they surely sound even more profound and searching and brilliant on the modern instrument.
Personally, I may be wrong, but I think that Beethoven was writing thick heavy notes, and as you say the pianoforte is more suited to the lighter and more animated textures. But that goes to show I think my earlier point that he was disatisfied with the lighter instrument, becuase it just could not express what he wanted it to express.
The more profound question I think is, how on earth could Beethoven, increasingly deaf, how could he imagine the notes that he heard in his head could be translated with any fair degree of verisimilitude via an instrument that could carry that freight and deliver it in the concert hall to his audience in the way that he wanted ??.
This I have not got a clue on!

It would seem to me that Beethoven could not express what he wanted to say on the fortepiano!
------------------
~ Unsterbliche Geliebte ~



[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited 09-29-2004).]

[Rod]

[quote]Originally posted by Amalie:
[b]

Originally posted by Rod:
The chords were written for an instrument that had a lighter more transparent and more colourful than todays. An instrument that you could attack more without losing this transparency - thickness never comes to mind when you hear the music played on the fortepiano. The development of the modern piano mitigates against Beethoven's manner of composition to my mind.
=====

Rod,

These are just some random thoughts, but I am but no means a technical expert in this area, I just simply know what I like.
As I understand it, Beethoven's methods of composition were always ahead of the prevailing piano techonology of the time.
Beethoven was always fanatic for getting his hands on the latest piano technology, which was constantly changing in his his life time. The point surely is, that the tonal and harmonic range of the pianoforte was just to limited and limiting for Beethoven because he was ofcourse a frontiersman, constantly pushing the technology to try to keep up with his phenominal ideas. Personally I think he would have been ecstatic at the modern steinway with its long warm resonance and singing quality. The pianoforte IMHO has a light talking quality.
Who is to say that Beethoven would not have liked the sound of the modern piano?
Pianoforte's are interesting to listen to, but does it matter what kind of piano, so long as it produces the right sound.
I attended a great performance last thursday with Brendel performing Beethoven's 3rd, piano concerto. To have heard it on pianoforte would have been interesting, but please, the Steinway that Brendel played on simply blows away the rather mechanical tinny sound one gets from the pianoforte, and that is no criticism of the pianoforre, it is just the way the instrument is. I find it inconceivable to think Beethoven would not have been extremely pleased witnessed his music being played on the magificent modern instrument.
Surely if Beethoven could have heard, he would have said, this instrument is bringing out the true depth and granduer and wieght of his composition.
I have listened to Angela Hewitt perform Bach's English Suites which were written for harpsichord, and played by her on a modern Steinway and they surely sound even more profound and searching and brilliant on the modern instrument.
Personally, I may be wrong, but I think that Beethoven was writing thick heavy notes, and as you say the pianoforte is more suited to the lighter and more animated textures. But that goes to show I think my earlier point that he was disatisfied with the lighter instrument, becuase it just could not express what he wanted it to express.
The more profound question I think is, how on earth could Beethoven, increasingly deaf, how could he imagine the notes that he heard in his head could be translated with any fair degree of verisimilitude via an instrument that could carry that freight and deliver it in the concert hall to his audience in the way that he wanted ??.
This I have not got a clue on!

It would seem to me that Beethoven could not express what he wanted to say on the fortepiano!

I disagree with your assessment because, with respect, it makes the usual mistake of assuming any deficiencies in the fortepiano Beethoven may or may not have percieved as being resolved by the modern piano. To my mind the only benefit of the modern piano for Beethoven's music is that you might hear it in the back row of the Royal Albert Hall (but I repeat'might'!). I am surprised you did not hear my mp3 of the Largo from the 3rd Concerto played on the fortepiano.

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

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 09-26-2004).]

[Beyond Within]

The topic has drifted a little bit from the original complaint: Chopins weak orcheastration.

This, I think, is an aspect of Chopins compositional ability that no serious classical music listener would even consider placing above Beethovens. I didnt want this to become a all-out comparison! They are vastly different composers, and its impossible to objectively place one above the other: all I can say is, thank god we have both, and I couldnt do without either!

I will say that Chopins music is far more enjoyable when I play it than when I listen to it. The polarity isnt as extreme when it comes to Beethoven.

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Beyond Within:
The topic has drifted a little bit from the original complaint: Chopins weak orcheastration.

This, I think, is an aspect of Chopins compositional ability that no serious classical music listener would even consider placing above Beethovens. I didnt want this to become a all-out comparison! They are vastly different composers, and its impossible to objectively place one above the other: all I can say is, thank god we have both, and I couldnt do without either!

I will say that Chopins music is far more enjoyable when I play it than when I listen to it. The polarity isnt as extreme when it comes to Beethoven.

I think, too, that part of the weak orchestration is more on part of more focus on the piano than the orchestra. The orchestra is hardly more than accompaniment for the piano.

It is interesting to me that you enjoy playing Chopin more than listening to him. For many years I've ignored the recordings of his music (or at least tolerated them) and then one day picked up a book of his Mazurkas and have been enthralled with them ever since. There must be something personal communicated to the performer that is special.

[Beyond Within]

Which is precisely why I find it an absolute necessity to play music, not just listen to it, before any criticism is made. The all important concept of 'nuance', when discussing art, can go completely unnoticed otherwise. 'Classical' music demands a participating listener, something a lot people dont understand and dont respect. But I am glad now, it fortifies our art.

[atserriotserri]

Originally posted by Beyond Within:
The topic has drifted a little bit from the original complaint: Chopins weak orcheastration.

This, I think, is an aspect of Chopins compositional ability that no serious classical music listener would even consider placing above Beethovens. I didnt want this to become a all-out comparison! They are vastly different composers, and its impossible to objectively place one above the other: all I can say is, thank god we have both, and I couldnt do without either!

I will say that Chopins music is far more enjoyable when I play it than when I listen to it. The polarity isnt as extreme when it comes to Beethoven.

That's true, the topic drifted away, but I think it drifted since there is no real argument in the fact that the orchestration is quite weak. As an example, the chopin website (http://www.chopin.pl), that provides rich information, doesn't even mention the concertos.

[atserriotserri]

[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?

George Sand, Oeuvres autobiographiques, ed. Georges Lubin, 2 vols. (Paris, 1978); Vol. 2: Histoire de ma vie, p. 446 (from chopin.pl website) :

His creation was spontaneous, miraculous. He found it without searching for it, without foreseeing it. It came to his piano suddenly, complete, sublime, or it sang in his head during a walk, and he would hasten to hear it again by, tossing it off on his instrument. But then would begin the most heartbreaking labor I have ever witnessed. It was a series of efforts, indecision, and impatience to recapture certain details of the theme he had heard: what had come to him all of a piece, he now over-analyzed in his desire to write it down, and his regret at not finding it again "neat," as he said, would throw him into a kind of despair. He would shut himself up in his room for days at a time, weeping, pacing, breaking his pens, repeating and changing a single measure a hundred times, writing it and effacing it with equal frequency, and beginning again the next day with a meticulous and desperate perseverance. He would spend six weeks on one page, only to end up writing it just as he had traced it in his first outpouring.

Doesn't seem to be a guy fooling around trying to combine some big white keys and some small black keys to spot some tune and then write some stuff. blithering fool...?

[atserriotserri]

Originally posted by Sorrano:

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.

Diabelli Variations have a quite acclaimed orchestrated version (which at last is on my cd since yesterday morning): performed by Uri Caine & Concerto Koln (a period instrument orchestra), published by Winter & Winter.

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by atserriotserri:
Diabelli Variations have a quite acclaimed orchestrated version (which at last is on my cd since yesterday morning): performed by Uri Caine & Concerto Koln (a period instrument orchestra), published by Winter & Winter.

That I would have to listen to, but I cannot believe that such a pianistic work can do full justice to the original in an orchestral version. Compare the Mussorgksy Pictures at an Exhibition. While the Rimsky-Korsakov and other orchestral versions are quite nice they do not do justice to what the piano accomplishes. I prefer the piano.

[Haffner]

Originally posted by Sorrano:
That I would have to listen to, but I cannot believe that such a pianistic work can do full justice to the original in an orchestral version. Compare the Mussorgksy Pictures at an Exhibition. While the Rimsky-Korsakov and other orchestral versions are quite nice they do not do justice to what the piano accomplishes. I prefer the piano.

What? The Ravel Orchestration is far more effective in terms of conveying the colour Mussorgksy tried to convey through the piano, in my opinion anyways. I was about to mention that work, it is a good example of an orchestral piano composition. Espically the last piece, the Gates of Kiev, as orchestral as any work written for orchestra!

As for the other points made since I last posted, the one about using the piano while composing upsets me. I have heard that Berlioz quote before and I have read that Beethoven said "A good composer does not need the piano" and he is right. But Berlioz, I am sure, meant when writting for orchestra and of course one should never use the piano in such a situation. But, I stick by my original statement, no matter how good an ear you have, nothing can compare to actual experimentation on the piano as Chopin and Debussy have shown us.

Well, I do not think Beethoven's piano writting is in any way an advancement from Mozart's because of this reason; if Chopin and Liszt were the next generation of important piano composers (as indeed they were), both of their styles are more closely related to the piano style of Mozart with his elaborate right hand and simple accompaniment. Just take a look at the 3rd movement of his Sonata in F, K. 332, nothing could serve more perfectly as an example of what would become the style of the romantics. As for octaves and such that Beethoven used, I will refer you once again to the Fantasy in C- and the C- Piano Concerto, two works Beethoven admired greatly. Everything Beethoven did on the piano is contained within them, in my opinion, more is contained within them.

Yes, the topic certianly has strayed from it's origin and perhaps for that I am to blame, but I was greatly offended that anyone could even compare Chopin's orchestration to Beethoven's orchestration without making it a fair comparision. Chopin wrote both concertos before the age of 22 and as I have said, he was a pianistic composer as Beethoven was an orchestral composer. Beethoven's piano writting IS dry by comparison (BY COMPARISON) and I cannot believe anyone is even arguing this because to me it seems to be such a blatently obvious fact.

Last week I attended a concert at the Toronto Symphony orchestra (my second so far this season, the first was Beethoven's 7th) featuring the Chopin concerto No. 2 with Emmanual Ax at the piano. It was absolutely horendous and I was offended after he played the first note. Technically speaking he was a wonderful pianist but he did not understand the music. I do not know why it is that the "greater" the pianist the worse they play Chopin but that seems to be the case. They do not adhere to the tempos, they use rubato (Chopin did not, he practiced with a metronome and varied only slightly the right hand, keeping the left hand always constant) and they play far to loudly. Sometimes I wonder deeply why such offenses are allowed to be committed against such great art; to me it is as offensive as murder.

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Haffner:
What? The Ravel Orchestration is far more effective in terms of conveying the colour Mussorgksy tried to convey through the piano, in my opinion anyways. I was about to mention that work, it is a good example of an orchestral piano composition. Espically the last piece, the Gates of Kiev, as orchestral as any work written for orchestra!

My appologies for mixing Rimsky-Korsakov with Ravel on the Pictures. I think that Stowkowski also did an orchestral version of the same work which I like better than Ravel's. But that's my own taste. I still think that the piano communicates the work better than the orchestral version. The orchestral version adds via color and effect something that the piano cannot convey and this does not do Mussourgsky any justice with his work and his ideas. While I do enjoy Ravel's orchestration and Stowkowski's I will go to the piano version when I want to know what Mussourgsky wanted to express, not what Ravel wanted.