Chopin

[vviola]

and counterpoint. What are the best examples of counterpoint in his music?

[pocho]

I'd say his 4th Ballade might be a good example.

[stevebob]

The most prominent examples that come to mind are:

Sonata, Op. 4 (first and second movements)
Etude, Op. 25 No. 7
Nocturne, Op. 55 No. 2
Sonata, Op. 58

[birba]

I find this thread a little far-fetched!

[vviola]

So do I, but this subject has been treated with enthusiasm by some music scholars. I'm wondering, why? Rosen asserted that Chopin was the greatest contrapuntist since Mozart, which doesn't make sense to me. And apparently Op. 50 No. 3 is an example of imitative counterpoint. The arguments scholars make don't convince me, so I'm preparing myself to argue against them if I have to.

[stevebob]

Even if "the greatest contrapuntist since Mozart" is a far-fetched description of Chopin, there's still a significant amount of contrapuntal writing in his compositions.  Some of it is manifest (as in the examples I cited and passages in other pieces), and some is less obvious; a case can certainly be made that the left-hand part of pieces such as the Nocturnes 9/1, 27/2 and 72/1 isn't merely accompaniment but rather an independent melody in its own right.

For some, that might require a leap of the imagination.  In any case, I'm curious about the source of Charles Rosen's assertion and what evidence he provided in support of it.

As an autodidact with no formal education in music, I'm wondering about another aspect of counterpoint as well:  Are pieces for more than one instrument contrapuntal by nature, or is counterpoint defined by simultaneous melodic lines played by one single instrument?  I withheld mention of the Sonata Op. 65 (notably the Largo) because of my uncertainty concerning that detail.

[m]

As an autodidact with no formal education in music

Had no any doubt in that, as every single message with all that whining was showing it explicitly...
What a joke, what a hypocrisy--glad I got it right!!!
But it doesn't matter.
Carry on Gentlemen...

[ahinton]

I've read similarly unconvincing arguments.  I would never say he wasn't an expert at the craft of harmony, but the words "Chopin" and "counterpoint" have never gone together in my head, and in a way it's a shame that they're put together as much as they are, because it detracts from other Romantic Era composers who were masters of counterpoint.  However, if you're actually interested in looking into his counterpoint, typically it's his later output that's considered to be a better indication of it.  The Op. 61 Polonaise, the Barcarolle, the Cello Sonata Op. 65, and particularly the later Mazurkas.  If you actually wanted to bother analyzing something, the Opp. 59/63 Mazurkas would probably be the easiest and most rewarding (or unrewarding, as it may be).

This is all very much to the point. I do believe that the seeds of Chopin the contrapuntist are present from earlier in his work (there's an extraordinary passage from the Scherzo of his Piano Trio, for example, that wouldn't seem especially out of place in a much later work) but that the real development of those skills had largely to wait until his op. tally reached around the half-century mark. By the "Op. 61 Polonaise" you mean the Polonaise-Fantaisie, of course and it's certainly a prime example of the way Chopin was developing his inner-voice manner at the time, as evidenced by the F minor Ballade from a little earlier. It's entirely speculative, of course, but the rise of contrapuntal weapons in Chopin's compositional armoury during his final years (pray forgive the wholly inappropriately militaristic metaphor!) and the Cello Sonata in particular suggest to me that, given another 15-20 years or so, he might well have been contemplating a piano quintet.

As to Chopin the harmonist, the fact that this aspect of his work influenced Liszt, Wagner and Schönberg and drew unstinting praise from Boulez pretty much says it all, I would think...

Best,

Alistair

[john11inc]

I've read similarly unconvincing arguments.  I would never say he wasn't an expert at the craft of harmony, but the words "Chopin" and "counterpoint" have never gone together in my head, and in a way it's a shame that they're put together as much as they are, because it detracts from other Romantic Era composers who were masters of counterpoint.  However, if you're actually interested in looking into his counterpoint, typically it's his later output that's considered to be a better indication of it.  The Op. 61 Polonaise, the Barcarolle, the Cello Sonata Op. 65, and particularly the later Mazurkas.  If you actually wanted to bother analyzing something, the Opp. 59/63 Mazurkas would probably be the easiest and most rewarding (or unrewarding, as it may be).

[stevebob]

Had no any doubt in that, as every single message with all that whining was showing it explicitly...
What a joke, what a hypocrisy--glad I got it right!!!
But it doesn't matter.
Carry on Gentlemen...

The supposition that formal education is the only path to knowledge and expertise is a joke.

The idea that such a big fish would take someone seriously whom he considers so inferior is hypocrisy.

The fact that I make a substantive contribution to this thread but you make an ad hominem attack is both.

[landru]

If Chopin was a master at counterpoint, then Glenn Gould would have played Chopin. Since Gould didn't play Chopin, then Chopin was not a master at counterpoint.
 

[vviola]

In any case, I'm curious about the source of Charles Rosen's assertion and what evidence he provided in support of it.

The book is entitled The Romantic Generation. He says it in the fifth chapter, "Chopin: Counterpoint and the Narrative Forms". Verbatim: Above all, Chopin was the greatest master of counterpoint since Mozart. I recommend familiarizing yourself with the basic principles of harmony and counterpoint first though. Otherwise, I don't think much of Rosen's argument will make sense to you. Walter Piston's two books would be a place to start.

[stevebob]

Thanks!

But it seems that Rosen's argument doesn't make sense even to people who undoubtedly have the requisite familiarity with music theory to understand it fully. 

Is his thesis invalid, then?

[vviola]

No, it doesn't make sense. His "thesis" is only him trying to show that Chopin was a great contrapuntist (in addition, the greatest since Mozart) which he wasn't. One might as well assert that Satie was a great contrapuntist. Some of his points are valid, and some of them are ridiculous.

I'm not sure what he is saying still. He quotes Prelude No. 4 as an example of counterpoint. I think he was drunk altogether when he wrote the chapter. He is basically saying the same thing Samson does; that he, Chopin, was adept at the construction of figuration which generates a harmonic flow while at the same time permitting linear elements to emerge through the pattern. What composer isn't adept at that mode of composition though? It seems like these Chopinologists are redefining counterpoint in order to shower their favourite composer with unnecessary praise. And choosing the absolute worst examples of his small contrapuntal moments. To say "Chopin was the greatest master of counterpoint since Mozart" is to exclude Beethoven. There is plenty of counterpoint in Chopin, granted. Not strict counterpoint, or whatever you want to call it, as in a Bach fugue, but small pieces, like the first two bars of the third mazurka in Op. 50, that are merely rhythmic—amorphous. Even if we refuse to equate counterpoint with strict fugue, counterpoint, by definition, comprises complementary and contrasting textural strands, which are missing completely from the examples Rosen cites.

Anyway, I'm getting too worked up with all of this. I still have a lot more to read.

Knud Jeppesen says: "Anyone wishing to acquire compact, forceful voice-leading naturally does not go to Chopin; just as one does not study Obrecht to attain a refined sensitive use of chromatic harmony!"

[stevebob]

vviola, thanks for taking the time and effort to elaborate further.  I appreciate it greatly.

[m19834]

The supposition that formal education is the only path to knowledge and expertise is a joke.

The idea that such a big fish would take someone seriously whom he considers so inferior is hypocrisy.

The fact that I make a substantive contribution to this thread but you make an ad hominem attack is both.

Based on a priori reasoning alone, just because somebody adds text to a page does not qualify the words as an actual contribution along the path of solving a conceptual equation.  Perhaps Marik's post was actually a highlight of what a particular reader may glean from considering musical and life challenges --including within this thread-- whether you take it as an attack or of any use to you at all or not.

As a side note, I have to say that it's just strange, strange, strange how viewpoints change, change, change (!) ... if one is open to it.   

[john11inc]

Based on a priori reasoning alone, just because somebody adds text to a page does not qualify the words as an actual contribution along the path of solving a conceptual equation.

Based on a priori reasoning, there's no reason to assume one person will be correct more often, or is more likely to be, than another person if your only credential to support this claim is an alleged notion that one person is more knowledgeable in one subject that has nothing to do with another (music being the former, pissing contests being the latter).  Nor can you say that, because Marik might be more educated, he is thus a better source for information on whether being formally educated or self-taught is better.  That's circular logic, dropping the antecedent and a fourth categorical syllogistic error, among other things if we're venturing out of pure analytics (and probably more if we stay within its confines, even, but I'm not going to bother making a table for such trivial fluff).  And on that subject, please don't ever use the phrase "conceptual equation"; it looks ridiculous in this context.  But, someone such as yourself, who would use a term like that, is surely aware of how either direction you could take your "argument" in is incorrect when analyzed under even the most dim and superficial light.  Unless you're just speaking in generalities, and not this, particular situation.  In which case, it's a bit ironic you'd have anything to say on the matter about what is and isn't a contribution to a discussion.

Perhaps Marik's post was actually a highlight of what a particular reader may glean from considering musical and life challenges.

Yes.  Perhaps Marik was being sarcastic when he called the other person a joke and a hypocrite.  Perhaps Marik was actually trying to type Klingon and what he said in Klingon just happens to read as it did in English.  Perhaps Marik spilled some coke on his keyboard and when it fried, all those letters showed up on the screen and it hit enter on its own accord.  All of these options are actually more likely than what you have proposed, with utmost awareness that it is crap, because they're theoretically feasible.  Maybe a one in a gazillion shot, but that's better than the likelihood of your fantasyland scenario.

As a side note, I have to say that it's just strange, strange, strange how viewpoints change, change, change (!) ... if one is open to it.  

I think it's more strange when people would prefer to continue to be blatantly and consciously incorrect, just so they wouldn't have to admit they were wrong at some past, arbitrary point.  How being wrong all of the time strokes one's ego more than only being wrong some of the time is certainly not a trait of a logical person, and certainly not a trait of a person who should ever use the phrases "a priori" or, ugh, "conceptual equation".  Especially if that person's objection to such a transformation is purely emotive, and thus illogical in the first place.

But I'm just speaking in generalities.  

[stevebob]

As a side note ....

As a "side note" to what?  I've never read a thing you've written that wasn't a side note.  For whatever reason, directness eludes you.  Or maybe it's just more fun to be cryptic so everyone will get what a deep thinker you are.  Mystics aren't supposed to be frank. 

[m19834]

My prediction was that, IF stevebob were to respond (I didn't actually expect a full response from John, at least not actually a full quotation response and all) whatever I said would be thrown back to me and that whatever appeared to be my logic and argument and stance would be (attempted to be) used against me.  Classic  , though not quite in the style I had expected.

Admittedly, I still do not quite understand every player here, and I am also not convinced I need to, actually.  What I am learning very clearly is that with somebody like Marik, it actually doesn't matter how he responds to somebody like stevebob.  If Marik gives actual knowledge and actually offers something of the kind of value that stevebob claims to be looking for in this thread, it's not actually taken as such.  There is something peculiar though about whether or not I write in with anything, and that makes me suspicious so far.  Another observation is that, most of the things being talked about and argued really have little to do with the words being used, whether it's me typing or another.  If nothing else (and, why bother with anything else ?), it's at least mildly interesting and perhaps something to consider in life.

Something else that is interesting to me is that I am, in fact, not being mystical or any such thing, and definitely not on purpose.  I am actually not aiming to elicit a particular response of any kind, especially from most of the characters on the game-board here.  No matter what, my own experience can't be erased, and I actually don't and won't argue with many of your points.  In some ways, I of course agree.  What I do know though is that there is a very marked difference between when I started working with Marik and before.  It is more undeniable every day and in some ways, even every practice session.  I am beginning to achieve things that I actually lost hope in, and that started to seem would be impossible or actually out of reach.  

I have actually been in the same room with Marik, hearing him speak to me, taking in what he is amazingly willing to offer.  And, there is just no way to explain in words the work he has done with me and the difference that working with him has made in my life.  There are plenty of people who post on the forum to advertise whatever it is that they feel they have to offer, and sometimes they like to include testimonies from other individuals who have found what they have to offer to be of use to them.  There's no reason I can't testify in my own way, too .  The catch is, I'm not actually trying to convince anybody of anything, but admittedly, rather musing and if anything, hoping that Marik sees how I feel, since it is in fact him who has been the one coaching me out of some grim place in the galaxy, and not either of you.  Not that I believe either of you are incapable of that, it's just it in fact has not been you (unless you're secretly Marik).

In any case, at some point I will gain the courage to post recordings that I feel are the highest representation I can muster of the work that has been taking place in the last year and a half.  Of course there has been a lot of work done before that, too, and much learned from unsuspected sources, but everything within the last year and a half completely eclipses my life before it.  Other than putting my physique to the test, I also have still lots of reading, listening, thinking, other writing and sightreading to be doing.  And, I like my life that way  .

[stevebob]

[...] What I am learning very clearly is that with somebody like Marik, it actually doesn't matter how he responds to somebody like stevebob.  If Marik gives actual knowledge and actually offers something of the kind of value that stevebob claims to be looking for in this thread, it's not actually taken as such....

Epithets like a joke and a hypocrisy did not reflect actual knowledge, and nothing was actually offered "of the kind of value that [I claim] to be looking for in this thread."  Any statement concerning how something would be taken that was never given is purely speculative.

[m19834]

Epithets like a joke and a hypocrisy did not reflect actual knowledge, and nothing was actually offered "of the kind of value that [I claim] to be looking for in this thread."  Any statement concerning how something would be taken that was never offered is purely speculative.

Perhaps if you had been here for awhile (years), you would be able to see larger patterns.  He has contributed greatly to the forum in a number of ways, and judging by the posts seen by a few, it is not appreciated.  In any case, whether he had ever contributed or not, why should he actually bother here in this circumstance ?  Do you mean to tell me that, if he did, you would like to quietly take in what he has to say ?  My last post was more regarding the fact that he has actually tried to have a communication with you before, and it turned into ... this  .

And, again, just because you didn't find his post useful in this thread doesn't mean it wasn't.  My thoughts are nothing personal against you, SteveB, it's just that I have my own experiences, too.  And, just for the record, many experiences beyond my working with Marik.  And, this gives me a particular perspective, just like your experiences are apparently giving you a particular perspective.

In any respect, I need to resign myself again to "silence" as I have a lot of work to do and I would actually much prefer to show up to my next lesson with Marik having gotten as much as I can done of what has been asked of me than I would like to sit here and type these things out on the forum.

[stevebob]

And, again, just because you didn't find his post useful in this thread doesn't mean it wasn't.

It was a self-serving, off-topic and ad hominem attack on me and on everything I've written in this forum, based on a supposition that my lack of formal education in music is somehow hilarious, hypocritical and that "every single message ... was showing it explicitly."  But if it were so explicit, there would be no need to point it out or to congratulate himself because he "got it right!!!! [sic]"

The post in question was manifestly malicious and mean-spirited.  I did find it useful, if only because it so vividly belies the reputation of someone who has made the kinds of lofty contributions here that you claim.  It did not, however, demonstrate knowledge or insight or anything remotely related to the topic of this thread—only personal animus.

[adaubre]

Stevebob,

Are you John11inch?

If not, are you guys good friends or something like that?  It seems that you both have a very similar style of "hiding" behind what looks like a pseudo-intellectual cut-and-paste contribution to the forum.  And you both have a similar way attacking others for no apparent reason.  I certainly don't want to assume there are mental health issues, but I do want to point out that it is unhealthy behavior to be so aggressive with others in this way.  (and certainly, if you are in fact John11inch then I would state that it is definitely unhealthy behavior to create the impression that two people are answering each others comments on threads when it is in fact one person).

I mean, you (and your friend John11inch) have a lot of people fooled here - and good on you for that.  It takes a lot of wikipedia reading to come across as educated and experienced I suppose.   But I think its getting obvious that a) you are "both" very threatened by others who might have something to contribute and b) that most of what you contribute seems not to come from any real world experience or education, but just kind of a quick google online and a cut-and-paste (with I'm sure, some re-writing etc. to "make it your own") or from watching youtube videos etc..  Am I right about this?

Just asking, of course. I certainly have nothing against you being an autodidact, by the way.  There are many intelligent people like you and John11inch with hardly a high school education that can certainly come across on the internet as rather brilliant and can make very interesting contributions (even if somewhat shallow over a period of time).

In the meantime, have you submitted your request along with John11inch for that "supreme contributor" status that you both are hungering for?  I mean, you seemed to think it was a "worthy idea" after all?   Or perhaps you should just have the one username make the request and have the other be supportive of it.  

Anyway, just some thoughts.  

adaubre

[stevebob]

adaubre, I guess it must be satisfying to know you've got it all figured out.  It's interesting how those most convinced of their own infallibility don't seem to contribute much beyond ad hominems.

What a relief that you have "nothing against" my being an autodidact!  Pheeew!

[john11inc]

[Predictable, repetitive drivel.]

adaubre

I don't know who Stevebob is.  I don't care to know who he is.  I don't like him; I vaguely dislike him (more and more as he continues to subvert any thread he touches by allowing this crap to continue), and I particularly dislike this association with him that only you and two other people seem to have conjured up in your little peanut gallery.  What a regular Algonquin round table you geniuses have going, there.

However, I dislike you and Marik quite a bit more, and find K intellectually loathesome, far more-so than Stevebob, whose opinions on music are typically ridiculous (not to say yours aren't; have you managed to find that extra note in the Chopin piece, yet?  Better yet, managed to figure out why it could possibly matter, particularly to such an extent to you?), but does not try to present himself as if he's some sort of savant on music (as Marik does) or philosophy (as K does).  Vague, unfounded assertions of pseudointellectualism (which does not have a hyphen; certainly the smallest bit of irony in your post (and you missed the comma that proceeds it)) would certainly fall under pseudointellectualism themselves; after all, superfluous, vague and unfounded are the cornerstones of such, and seem to the be cornerstone of your fullest abilities to contribute (or, fail to contribute) to anything I've seen you touch.  I also find it pretty ironic that I'm the one being called a pseudointellectual, despite the person you're defending using terms like "a priori" and "conceptual equation" in proximity to one of the weakest arguments they have ever been placed before.

Also, I have to wonder why in the world you would think we are the same person.  Our writing styles are completely different, our opinions are completely different and our personalities are completely different.  Pianostreet, as dramatic as you'd seemingly like to make it, is in fact not a David Lynch movie; you are not being persecuted, much less by someone with split personality disorder.

What is this useless garbage about my thread I started, and subsequently dropped immediately after interest in it died?  How does this correlate to anything?  Also, I'm fairly sure that bringing up tangential, useless threads isn't going to prove to be in your favor; I recall a certain, aforementioned thread (excuse me, two!) about a single note that does not even exist.  I also remember you immediately starting a thread asking the administration to ban me as soon as I revealed indisputably that the note, which you made up in your mind (didn't you mention something about mental heath?), wasn't there.  Which was then deleted because it was idiotic, not to mention the fact that not a single, solitary person came to your support.  Also, are you under the impression that your pitiful attempt at coyness was overlooked in the thread you're bringing up?  I'm so terribly distraught that my forums, groups, youtube channels and blog don't impress you enough.  Surely forwarding my letters of recommendation from Ferneyhough, Pace, Schurig, Finnissy, Violette, Hodges, Boulez et al. wouldn't be enough.  Nor would attending the premiere of my commissioned, 80 minute solo violin piece being played at the Verlag Festival in a couple months, undoubtedly.  Would you prefer to quiz me?  No, you wouldn't.  My knowledge of music is not in question; you are merely incapable of making any argument that is an actual argument.  Your posts consist of nothing but feeble attacks, like a child throwing pebbles.

So, what is your post, in summation?  That I am stupid, but not on the internet.  As I stated, this is not a thriller movie; I am not one person here and another person somewhere else.  Or, are you saying my knowledge of [subject(s) never mentioned] is superficial?  My, how compelling your statements are when they're stripped down!  Of course you can show evidence of this superficiality in my knowledge, correct?  Perhaps you'd like to quiz me?  Really, now.  I'm being quite serious; would you like to quiz me?

No.  You won't.  Because you know you're incapable of even asking a question I couldn't answer.  You know you're wrong, and yet you continue with this stupidity.  Who do you think you look smart to?  Not me, kid.

[adaubre]

John11inch,

I scanned through your post - very defensive and I understand why you would be.  You have a virtual reputation to uphold.  But I assure you, your cut-and-paste method of creating an online "educated personality" does not work.  While many will benefit somewhat from your contributions, they could easily get the same information by doing what you do already each time you "contribute" ie: google it.

But please, continue.  Your rants are incredibly amusing to those who see through them.

So, do you think you'll get that "supreme contributor" status you so wish for in your attempts to enhance your virtual identity?

I understand why such as status under your user name would be important to you.  It would go well with that cut-and-paste youtube page you have going on that has fooled so many into believing your more than just a parrot.

Now ready for your latest defensive rant....

adaubre

[john11inc]

cut-and-paste

cut-and-paste

cut-and-paste

cut-and-paste

I'm sorry; did you say something?

parrot

Or, would you have preferred I sent that from my e-mail at Princeton?

No?

What about my e-mail at Curtis?

Which one would you prefer the poor, uneducated boy to have responded from, hmm?

You know, I haven't had a good reason to bring that up on here, yet.  Thanks.  It really makes you look like the winner, that's for sure!  By the way, could you please proofread your next response, which will be identical to your previous ones?  You were missing nine commas, a hyphen, had two run-ons, two repetitive prepositions, as=a, your=you're and had three, improper clause transitions.  Just saying, I know you're trying to look smart.  Thought I might give you a bit of advice.

Oh, and would you like to attend one of my concerts?  I have a cello sonata that's going to be performed in Birmingham at the BJCC in October, as well, besides the piece getting played at the Stockhausen Festival.  Or do you live in England, by chance?  Ian Pace has been giving one of my pieces some thought recently, and we all know how fast he learns new repertoire.  You probably wouldn't have to wait that long!

[stevebob]

John11inch,

I have the same right to defend myself as you do or anybody else does.  By doing so, I hardly "subvert any thread [I touch] by allowing this crap to continue" except to the same extent that you do or anybody else does.  I recognize that you need to distance yourself from me, but it doesn't help to mischaracterize the situation:  the crap that continues is the glee with which some people here delight in hazing the newcomer, not my response to it.

I'm curious which of my opinions about music are "typically ridiculous"; I'm certainly not ashamed that Chopin is my favorite composer, and I'm really not aware that I've shared many other opinions about repertoire or performances.

[adaubre]

Or do you live in England, by chance?  Ian Pace has been giving one of my pieces some thought recently, and we all know how fast he learns new repertoire.  You probably wouldn't have to wait that long!

Oh dear, name dropping and English correction.  Crashing and burning, I see.  Oh well, John.  Is Ian Pace aware of your behavior on this forum?  Or perhaps Ian already knows about it.  We'll see.  Perhaps Ian is as much a "starship captain" as you are.  I'll ask him and we'll see what he says.

Oh well, John.  Is Ian aware of your suggestions of suicide to members on forums?  

Oh dear.  You are quite the conversation piece, aren't you?

[djealnla]

Deleted

[carlnmtka]

If Chopin was a master at counterpoint, then Glenn Gould would have played Chopin. Since Gould didn't play Chopin, then Chopin was not a master at counterpoint.
 

I suggest the biography "Wondrous Strange: The Life and Art of Glenn Gould," By Kevin Bazzana. He the author notes, Gould was only interested in strict forms of counterpoint, canon and fugue, and (since he was one to only see what he wanted to see and disregarded the rest--from another section), he didn't recognize the (the more sophisticated) counterpoint of Chopin and Schumann.

Listen to Etude Op. 10, No. 5 or the coda in Ballade No. 4 (Cortort). Then, answer me how it is Chopin gets the the linear element to emerge from the layered voicing, if not counterpoint?

[49410enrique]

hmm me thinx me hears a little bit here or there in here...
Chopin Fugue in A minor, Op.posth.P3 No.2