Chopin's worst pianopieces...

[gyzzzmo]

If theres a 'most beautifull' topic, there should also be a 'worst' one

I vote for his pianoconcerts. I gues Chopin was too much of a pianist to compose a good pianoconcert. To my opinion pianoconcerts should be an interaction between piano and orchestra. His creations is more like the orchestra is inferior to the piano, and only to support the pianosolo's now and then...

Your thoughts? :p

[zheer]

 Yes i have sent the moderator a message,they should ban you now from this forum.

[Kassaa]

His concerti are arguably two of his better works, the piano part is brilliantly composed and the orchestra is functional. It's just an other style of a concerto, instead of dueling it's accompanying, that doesn't make it bad.

Fantasie Impromptu is sh*t though.

[lisztisforkids]

If theres a 'most beautifull' topic, there should also be a 'worst' one

I vote for his pianoconcerts. I gues Chopin was too much of a pianist to compose a good pianoconcert. To my opinion pianoconcerts should be an interaction between piano and orchestra. His creations is more like the orchestra is inferior to the piano, and only to support the pianosolo's now and then...

Your thoughts? :p

 I agree with you completley, the orechstra is merely background and support for the piano (which I view is exremely egotistical).

[arensky]

His concerti are arguably two of his better works, the piano part is brilliantly composed and the orchestra is functional. It's just an other style of a concerto, instead of dueling it's accompanying, that doesn't make it bad.

Fantasie Impromptu is sh*t though.

Agree about the concerti disagre about FI; if it wasn't played to death (often very badly) it would be "a neglected masterpiece." Familiarity breeds contempt...

My picks for Freddy's worst would be the Rondo Op.1  , the Sonata Op. 4 (interesting student work but rather bland) and the Allegro de Concert Op. 46(?). Chopin's early works where he mimics the style of Hummel and his contemporaries just aren't that great; we only hear them today (and not very often) because they are signed "Frederic Chopin".  The other piano and orchestra works apart from the concerti (Krakowiak, La ci Darem la Mano Variations, Fantasy on Polish Airs) fall into this category. Then again he was a teenager then...

Chopin's music is consistently excellent; I guess about 90% of his music is in the active piano repertoire. That's a pretty good percentage.

[chopininov]

This thread and the one opposite to it belong in the sub forum "Polls" under Miscellaneous. Why hasn't a mod moved them?

[cygnusdei]

I'd like to hear these 'pianoconcerts'. Are these new discoveries?

[chopininov]

I'd like to hear these 'pianoconcerts'. Are these new discoveries?

Why yes. Just last week they were found under the floorboards in Chopin's Parisian villa.

[hempnall]

Though not strictly piano pieces, Chopin's songs are fairly dull - I've tried on several occaisions to like the CD I have but can't seem to manage it.

[chopininov]

Though not strictly piano pieces, Chopin's songs are fairly dull - I've tried on several occaisions to like the CD I have but can't seem to manage it.

Is it Romantic music in general?--or just Chopin?

[gyzzzmo]

Ah, forgot to mention 'Allegro de concert', thank you Arensky
About the pianoconcerts, i think it would have been better if Mr C. had made pianosolo's of them, some nice Sonata or whatever... That would have been great. But i stick to my opinion, for a pianoconcert, this creation is pretty cheap.
(love to say controversial stuff :p )

For Chopinov: Trying to get your postcount up? :S

[chopinfan_22]

Though not strictly piano pieces, Chopin's songs are fairly dull - I've tried on several occaisions to like the CD I have but can't seem to manage it.

*ahem*

Songs? You've just lost your credibility.



Though a love for Chopin is not synonymous with a love for the piano, it should be. In the study of the instrument, you'll find it hard to escape his works. I can find in every one of his pieces something to admire and appreciate. That is, the ones I've heard. So... all the waltzes, preludes, etudes, nocturnes, mazurkas, ballades, impromptus, and sonatas.

[cygnusdei]

I'm quite fond of the pianosonnets and pianoscherzos.

[rob47]

*ahem*

Songs? You've just lost your credibility.



Though a love for Chopin is not synonymous with a love for the piano, it should be. In the study of the instrument, you'll find it hard to escape his works. I can find in every one of his pieces something to admire and appreciate. That is, the ones I've heard. So... all the waltzes, preludes, etudes, nocturnes, mazurkas, ballades, impromptus, and sonatas.

so if you've never heard the songs, why are you criticizing someone else for disliking them?

I'll just assume you weren't aware Chopin wrote songs, and decided hempnall was referring to Chopin's piano music as vocal music; too bad that, during your swift leap into that towering saddle, you ironically dropped your own credibility in the manure.

/sorry for being internet mean

[chopinfan_22]

So then he was not referring to Chopin's pieces as songs? My mistake.

[soliloquy]

I'd like to hear these 'pianoconcerts'. Are these new discoveries?

Why yes. Just last week they were found under the floorboards in Chopin's Parisian villa.

I'm quite fond of the pianosonnets and pianoscherzos.

He's from the Netherlands, geniuses.  Ever heard the term "Klavierkonzert"?  Translate it.

Anyway, worst Chopin piano piece(s), or at least the most overrated, are IMO the Polonaises, and particularly Scherzo No. 3.

[fiasco]

I don't like his second prelude.  There, I said it.  No second prelude for me, thanks.

[slobone]

I could go a REALLY long time without hearing the Berceuse again. The first time you hear it it's sublime, the second time it's lovely, the third time it's nice, the fourth time it's familiar, the fifth time you're mentally challenging the pianist to do something different with it, the sixth time you realize that's impossible, the seventh time you're glancing at the program to see what's coming up next, the eighth time you're out in the lobby getting a Coke...

[pianowolfi]

*reads through thread, laughs, cries, shakes head and goes practice*

[term]

chopin sucks. Just listened to the heroic polonaise and was about to throw up.
He does have his good moments, but that was it ..

In the study of the instrument, you'll find it hard to escape his works.

in a conservatory or as a professional pianist yes, at home as a hobby or semi professional - no.

Unfortunately, his works - especially his etudes - are overplayed to the extreme. I love some of his etudes for instance, but i just can't hear them any more. Where are the other composers? Why are scriabins works not overplayed? Why not the art of fugue, the wtc? I mean it's obvious that such works are hardly appreciated by the general public, but pianists or people who like classical music do know and like them. For me, composers like chopin, liszt or rachmaninoff (the holy trinity) are not only overplayed, but overrated.

[quantum]

*Has renewed interest in learning the Allegro de Concert*

[counterpoint]

chopin sucks. Just listened to the heroic polonaise and was about to throw up.

The Polonaises are interesting from a pianistic point of view, and as a demonstration, how "orchestral" a piano can sound. That's why they are played so often by concert pianists. But they are not Chopin's greatest musical creations.

Musically most interesting for me are the Scherzi, Ballades, Mazurkas, Nocturnes, Preludes and yes, the Etudes 

The problem I see is, that the most played pieces are not necessarily the most musical worthy pieces. That's not only for Chopin, that's for all composers.

I can't understand, how somebody can compare Chopin with 3rd class composers as Liszt, Rachmaninov etc. 

[prongated]

Anyway, worst Chopin piano piece(s), or at least the most overrated, are IMO the Polonaises, and particularly Scherzo No. 3.

Ahaha the dog bark ain't that bad...try sonata no. 3 ><

For me, composers like chopin, liszt or rachmaninoff (the holy trinity) are not only overplayed, but overrated.

[lohshuhan]

His concerti are arguably two of his better works, the piano part is brilliantly composed and the orchestra is functional. It's just an other style of a concerto, instead of dueling it's accompanying, that doesn't make it bad.

Fantasie Impromptu is sh*t though.

i think most people dislike Fantaisie Impromptu not because it was a bad composition, but because its easily accessible to many college and 1st year conservatory students, and many just play the hell out of it. 

Its so overplayed that its difficult to give a convincing reading of this work because 90% of the piano world knows this piece inside out. 

i was, however much i hated it after learning it, tempted to relearn this piece after hearing Nikita Magaloff's recording of it. 

[lohshuhan]

If theres a 'most beautifull' topic, there should also be a 'worst' one

I vote for his pianoconcerts. I gues Chopin was too much of a pianist to compose a good pianoconcert. To my opinion pianoconcerts should be an interaction between piano and orchestra. His creations is more like the orchestra is inferior to the piano, and only to support the pianosolo's now and then...

Your thoughts? :p

you have a point here.  the opening orchestral tuttis in both concerti give off much promise, but the importance of the orchestra fades significantly once the piano enters. 

The same thing can be said for Andante Spianato and Grand Polonaise Brillante.  This work is now even used in the Chopin Competition without the orchestra part, and the competitior plays a reduction. 

I won't be surprised if one day performers insert a Chopin Piano Concerto for a solo piano recital, and plays a piano reduction to fill in the orchestral tuttis, just like opus 22. 

[gyzzzmo]

And pieces arent bad because theyre overplayed, some pieces are just less good because its too logical or lacks originality or the wrong choises have been made (like the pianoconcertos: Why the hell add the orchestra... its a nice pianosolo and the orcestra hardly adds anything).With 'too logical/lack of originality' i mean like alot of popmusic of these days. After you heard them 1 time, you have no problem whistling the entire song.

[term]

When it comes to romantic music, these three names always appear. They are the most important personalities in 19th century music. And they have most fans (today at least).

[chopinfan_22]

When it comes to romantic music, these three names always appear. They are the most important personalities in 19th century music. And they have most fans (today at least).

And why do you think that is? Because their pieces are important for the repertoire. All three were key composers of that era. Just like Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven would be for classical, and Bach for baroque.

[term]

And why do you think that is? Because their pieces are important for the repertoire. All three were key composers of that era. Just like Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven would be for classical, and Bach for baroque.

That's alright, i've said that myself so i know  . I was just saying that their music is overplayed and there is a lack of variety.

[counterpoint]

They are the most important personalities in 19th century music.

In the year 1900 Rachmaninov was 27 years old. He died in 1943. I would say, he is a composer of the 20th century.

[arensky]

*Has renewed interest in learning the Allegro de Concert*

You could learn the 4th Ballade instead.... 

I seem to recall that this piece is the scraps and leftovers of an unsuccessful attempt at writing a 3rd Piano Concerto; this gives the OP some credence for his argument about the Piano Concerti.

[term]

In the year 1900 Rachmaninov was 27 years old. He died in 1943. I would say, he is a composer of the 20th century.

His music says otherwise, and that is what matters 
The ideas which inspired his music have their root in the 19th century, and so he was a figure of that time, at least in his music, and that's what we're discussing.

[prongated]

His music says otherwise, and that is what matters 
The ideas which inspired his music have their root in the 19th century, and so he was a figure of that time, at least in his music, and that's what we're discussing.

...in the same way that Schnittke is considered to be the last of a long line of master Russian composers beginning with Rimsky-Korsakov? Hmmm...

[frigo]

Chopin was a man, not a machine. A genious, I know, but a man. Inspiration isn't available in the market, yet... And money isn't something you easily get, specially at the time of Chopin's life. And that's why he is so famous: he was a genious in the middle of a general crisis that subsist until today. This crisis is the lack of something good in our world that can make us dream.
Chopin bad pianopieces? Why not? But I don't care about them: since the moment I just know and hear the pianopieces I like (Chopin's marvellous pianopieces...), everything else is just that: everything else. 

[term]

...in the same way that Schnittke is considered to be the last of a long line of master Russian composers beginning with Rimsky-Korsakov? Hmmm...

Who is Schnittke?

Well whatever. Im not a history professor.
It was partly a joke when i said "the holy trinity". If you insist that rachmaninoff was a 20th century composer, so be it. I was trying to make a point, prongated, which you should have understood by now; not to have a semantics or history discussion. 

[pk]

 




Fantasie Impromptu is sh*t though.

[soliloquy]

His music says otherwise, and that is what matters 
The ideas which inspired his music have their root in the 19th century, and so he was a figure of that time, at least in his music, and that's what we're discussing.

The ideas that inspired Prokofiev have their root in the 18th century.  So... he's a classical composer.


MY WORLD HAS BEEN TURNED UPSIDEDOWN!

[prongated]

Who is Schnittke?

well that's for you to find out ^^

If you insist that rachmaninoff was a 20th century composer, so be it.

That's not what I wanted to say - I think there are better ways to group composers...such as perhaps to not group them at all at least this will give music historians more things to write about ^^

[term]

The ideas that inspired Prokofiev have their root in the 18th century.  So... he's a classical composer.

What's this?
Prokofief doesn't sound like 18th century. He didn't even live back then.
Rachmaninoff  himself was a romantic and was considered to be that, which is not really difficult to hear.
Again. That's my opinion about his music, underlying the trinity-joke. Whether that is scientifically correct or not is not really something i care about.
It's one of those jokes you know...either you understand them by first reading or forget it.
@prongated: i was not trying to officially group anybody.

Woah...it's difficult here with humor... 

[counterpoint]

Okay, back to Chopin 

I do not know any bad piece of Chopin, so there can't be a worst one 

[mcgillcomposer]

Woah...it's difficult here with humor... 

I know! Just litter your posts that are intended to be funny with lots of smileys

Observe...

Liszt leaves me listless 

[soliloquy]

What's this?
Prokofief doesn't sound like 18th century. He didn't even live back then.


Woah...it's difficult here with humor... 

Yeah!  I know!  It's even MORE difficult to try to talk down to someone when you don't know what you're yammering on about.  (that's you, btw).  Prokofiev is a Neo-Classical composer; how can you be a member of a piano forum and not know that term?!?  He used the structural techniques of the classical era.  My point was obviously, or apparently not-so-obviously, that while he "got his roots from the 18th century" he is of course not a classical composer.


That's called ironic humor.



It's actually not hard.




For most people.


 

[mcgillcomposer]

That's called ironic humor.

Your ihorny makes me smile 

[soliloquy]

Your ihorny makes me smile 

  8==D~

[term]

What i was vainly looking for in your post was sense, not irony. All i tried to do was to clarify the joke-issue, not the rachmaninoff-issue. I tried to give short reasons why i think he was a 19th century romantic composer and why your analogy was unconvincing. I admit, it now turns out to be a mistake, so i'll stop. Needless to discuss it here, because it's not the right place.

My point was obviously

i got your point, just not why you made it, and what the irony was for.

Okay, back to Chopin

I wanted to post the pdf of his fugue in a minor which i thought is pretty good, but imslp is down unfortunately.
If someone knows another source or has it, let us know. :>

[chopininov]

https://vkgfx.com/scores/chopin/posthumous/opposth-fuga.pdf

[prongated]

i think most people dislike Fantaisie Impromptu not because it was a bad composition, but because its easily accessible to many college and 1st year conservatory students, and many just play the hell out of it. 

...don't know about you, but the majority of live performances I've heard of Fantaisie Impromptu were worse than that played by this four-fingered pianist;

[gyzzzmo]

.......such a simple question, such a discussion about something 'subjective' wich cant really be discussed about :p ....... 

[arensky]

.......such a simple question, such a discussion about something 'subjective' wich cant really be discussed about :p ....... 

Well, how much of it is subjective (or objective)? That is what's diffficult, separating the two without letting one's opinions interfere with objective judgement.

For example; which is better, the Rondo Op.1 or the Fourth Ballade Op.54?

And why?   

[clhiospzitn]

For example; which is better, the Rondo Op.1 or the Fourth Ballade Op.54?

The Fourth Ballade is Op. 52.  The Fourth Scherzo is Op. 54.

Sorry, just had to correct that.