Chopin Piano Concerto Op.11, second movement

[synthex]

?

[perfect_pitch]

Am I on my own, or am I just getting soft in my old age?

Nope - Chopin was a hell of a composer and I think most people enjoy his music -mainly for his masterful etudes which were just lovely and really posed a pianistic challenge...

Both Chopins Piano Concertos are amazing.

[stevebob]

Both Chopins Piano Concertos are amazing.

They were the first concertos with which I became familiar as a teenager.  I had budget-label LPs of Op. 11 by Gary Graffman and Op. 21 by Charles Rosen, and practically wore them out.  I was already a devotee of Chopin's music, and they were a revelation to me.

I love the Allegro de Concert Op. 46 as well, even though it's not popular and there's a dearth of recordings of it.  My favorite is possibly the transcription for piano and orchestra by Kazimierz Wilkomirski, performed by Michael Ponti and the Berlin Symphony Orchestra.

By the way, Mily Balakirev transcribed the Romanza of Op. 11 for piano solo.  It doesn't have technical enhancements or editorial embellishments, so it's probably at about the same difficulty level as the original:

https://imslp.org/wiki/Piano_Concerto_No.1,_Op.11_%28Chopin,_Frederic%29#II._Romance

[weissenberg2]

I am not crazy about Chopin, but I like many of his compositions, the 1st concerto included. I also like Zimerman's recording of it, I also like Weissenberg's and Perahia's (Perahia's is a little too over-romanticized for me, but I like it).

mainly for his masterful etudes which were just lovely and really posed a pianistic challenge...

Both Chopins Piano Concertos are amazing.

IMHO, his etudes are good but not as good as pieces like the 2nd sonata, polonaise-fantasy, fantasy in F-minor etc.... I also think his 2nd concerto is overrated, it is not bad, just not as good as his best works.

[lontano]

I am not crazy about Chopin, but I like many of his compositions, the 1st concerto included. I also like Zimerman's recording of it, I also like Weissenberg's and Perahia's (Perahia's is a little too over-romanticized for me, but I like it).

IMHO, his etudes are good but not as good as pieces like the 2nd sonata, polonaise-fantasy, fantasy in F-minor etc.... I also think his 2nd concerto is overrated, it is not bad, just not as good as his best works.

I find it a bit odd that you would categorically state that Chopin's Etudes are not as good as the 3 totally different types of works you list. How does one compare any Etude (or selection thereof) to a huge 4-movement sonata, or a unique work like the Polonaise-Fantasy or other works, "etc."? Now I could find a comparison of something like "I don't think his mazurkas are as good as his waltzes" to be a better (comparing a skill at composing in 2 dance forms), yet still a bit odd. And more realistically, comparing Chopin's Etudes to another composer's Etudes might be more appropriate.

Would it seem reasonable to compare Michelangelo's statue of David with the Sistine Chapel? Not to me.

Let it be...

[stevebob]

I find it a bit odd that you would categorically state that Chopin's Etudes are not as good as the 3 totally different types of works you list....

I agree with you, but I take it for granted that critical thinking is often a casualty of casual commentary in public forums (as evidenced by the abundance of discussions/polls about the "best" whatever).  I understand favorites, sure, but far be it from me to opine about which composer, or which of a composer's genres of pieces, or even which individual piece is "better" than another.

FWIW, I didn't agree with an earlier statement that "most people enjoy [Chopin's] music -mainly for his masterful etudes."  Masterful they are, and beloved by pianists everywhere—but I doubt that they're the category of pieces that most people prefer by Chopin or even associate with him.

[lontano]

 I admit, as much as I love a great deal of Chopin (no doubt heard it in the womb, or not long after), the Etudes hold an elevated place that can only be compared with Liszt (as they are quite different, yet from the same period). Chopin, Liszt and Wagner(!) were all born within 2-3 years of each other, and how wonderfully different their music evolved. Schubert, Mendelssohn and many others HAD to fill each others "shoes" (as they were all dying often before age 40).

Yet comparing Chopin's Etudes to Lizst's "Transcendental Etudes", really isn't fair, as Chopin really invented the "Artistic Etude", while almost simultaneously Liszt was creating a remarkably different form of, dare I say, Impressionistic Etudes.

I believe the more generalized Artistic Etude of Chopin influenced composers decades to come, while Listz's  Etudes attempt to stand on their own, as show pieces, and in a separate realm from the style of Chopin. Ergo no blame, no gain...

L.

[weissenberg2]

I find it a bit odd that you would categorically state that Chopin's Etudes are not as good as the 3 totally different types of works you list. How does one compare any Etude (or selection thereof) to a huge 4-movement sonata, or a unique work like the Polonaise-Fantasy or other works, "etc."? Now I could find a comparison of something like "I don't think his mazurkas are as good as his waltzes" to be a better (comparing a skill at composing in 2 dance forms), yet still a bit odd. And more realistically, comparing Chopin's Etudes to another composer's Etudes might be more appropriate.

Would it seem reasonable to compare Michelangelo's statue of David with the Sistine Chapel? Not to me.

Let it be...

I was thinking about that when I was writing the post. I was judging the etudes on there own standards, not on that of a 4 movement sonata.

[gyzzzmo]

I think Chopin's piano concerto's are alot less good than his piano-solo compositions. The concerto's are basicly just piano solo's with abit of simple orchestra background. They lack the musical interaction between piano and orchestra like for example the rachmaninov's.

[synthex]

?

[synthex]

?

[eminemvsrach]

I think Chopin's piano concerto's are alot less good than his piano-solo compositions. The concerto's are basicly just piano solo's with abit of simple orchestra background. They lack the musical interaction between piano and orchestra like for example the rachmaninov's.

But it's very effective Orchestra background in my opinion :]

[gyzzzmo]

But it's very effective Orchestra background in my opinion :]

Or very 'cheap' orchestra background you mean? :p
Reading or hearing Chopin's orchestra compositions always remind me of those silly variations DJ's tend to make of famous themes.
Btw, dont understand me wrong. I like the piano parts alot, theyre very nice. But as a whole it doesnt really deserve the title 'piano concerto'. Maybe they should call it 'piano, with abit of background extra's'. But that doesnt really sound THAT flashy, does it

[stevebob]

But it's very effective Orchestra background in my opinion :]

I reckon the orchestration is everything it was intended to be—and everything it needs to be.

For those who do enjoy Chopin's concertos and appreciate their nature, John Rink's Chopin:  The Piano Concertos (part of the "Cambridge Music Handbooks" series) is an informative and interesting appraisal of the works from a musical and historical perspective.  The Allegro de Concert gets a chapter of its own as well.