The Way that Chopin Played the Piano

[spencervirt]

How would you respond to the statement that Chopin should be played with a feminine touch? People who heard Chopin play at Pleyel stated that he played very quietly, reservedly, and with a gentle touch. I heard someone say once that Chopin should never be played aggressively, despite the urge to burst out into a crescendo.

[dtao12]

Disagree. While it might work for some pieces, I don't see how any universal statement can be made about "Chopin" as if all his pieces called for the same touch or style. Each piece has its own character.

[spencervirt]

I would agree with you completely.

[lelle]

When somebody plays a section clearly marked as fortissimo in the score in a meek mezzo forte dynamic because "Chopin would have played it that way" I think it just comes across as gimmicky and unmusical. You should play Chopin to dazzle and move the audience by your own means, not in a way that shaky historical references indicate that Chopin might have played it, just for the sake of it.

[nyiregyhazi]

How would you respond to the statement that Chopin should be played with a feminine touch? People who heard Chopin play at Pleyel stated that he played very quietly, reservedly, and with a gentle touch. I heard someone say once that Chopin should never be played aggressively, despite the urge to burst out into a crescendo.

Chopin asks for "as loud as possible" ("il forte possible", if I remember rightly?) in op. 25 no. 12

[invictious]

To hell with Chopin's way of playing.

Play it the Liszt way. That is how real men play the piano.

[mcdiddy1]

In my opinion it is important to know about the composers in order to receive morer insight about their playing. However I think we should not to be general about a composers playing and blindly apply it to everything they wrote. It would probably be better to find out information about how they view the specific piece your playing by Chopin not Chopin interpretive style in general.

[ramseytheii]

Actually, a lot of contemporaries recorded their thoughts on how he approached the piano.  Regardless of what he wrote on the page, it seems evident that he did in fact play at a consistently low dynamic.  There's the famous story of Thalberg leaving a Chopin soiree, and making a point at shouting the entire way home:

"I've been listening to piano all evening, and now, for the sake of contrast, I want a little forte."

Chopin himself remarked after playing Beethoven's sonata in A-flat, that he wanted to play in such a way that the audience would have to fill in the dynamics for themselves.

There are a lot more anecdotes along these lines, in such books as "Chopin: Pianist and Teacher" and the Huneker volume.

I think this also adds to another general point, and that is that musical pieces when written down, take on a certain autonomy.  In a way it becomes a ridiculous question to ask about "composer's intentions," a phrase which always turns my stomach.  The piece is its own being, and once it has left the pen of Chopin or whomever, belongs to everyone.  Therefore we do not have to play Chopin's pieces as he played them, or any other composer's pieces as they played them.  The music takes on a life of its own.

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

When somebody plays a section clearly marked as fortissimo in the score in a meek mezzo forte dynamic because "Chopin would have played it that way" I think it just comes across as gimmicky and unmusical. You should play Chopin to dazzle and move the audience by your own means, not in a way that shaky historical references indicate that Chopin might have played it, just for the sake of it.

Do you mean to imply that you think the historical references are false?  I think when they pile up as much as they do in the case of Chopin's own performances, including comments by Liszt, they have to be taken seriously.

What is interesting to me is the underlying assumption that composers must be the best interpreters of their own work.  It simply isn't true.  That's why I always feel nauseous when I hear the phrase "composer's intentions."  Interpreting a piece of music has nothing to do with trying to imagine what someone else was thinking.  Every piece of music is its own living being, completely autonomous, and not reliant on an original source.  Once the pen hits the page, it takes on a life of its own.  That's why we must, and why we almost always do (whether we admit it or not), ignore the way the composers themselves present their music.

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

To hell with Chopin's way of playing.

Play it the Liszt way. That is how real men play the piano.

It's funny that you mention that, because according to a written record, Chopin criticized his students for playing in the Lisztian mode, and even criticized Liszt for his performances of Chopin's works.  Apparently after the demonstration Chopin gave, Liszt saw the light; though according to most historical commentary, Liszt played with a lot more dynamic virility than Chopin ever did - regardless of what Chopin wrote on the page.

What the composer writes on the page and what they actually do in performance rarely have anything to do with each other.  Where are the "composers intentions" there?  We have to take each piece of music as its own being.

Walter Ramsey

[nyiregyhazi]

What the composer writes on the page and what they actually do in performance rarely have anything to do with each other.  Where are the "composers intentions" there?  We have to take each piece of music as its own being.

I agree in a sense. But then what happens with composers like Rachmaninoff- where taking the score as being the full instructions usually results in performances that are heavy-handed and pedantic with virtually no colour? It's equally important to turn to what we know about the composer and how they performed. This is far less convenient than simply taking the score as the beginning and end of all, but it usually results in vastly better musical results. The most interesting performers are generally interesting from a score alone. However, the bulk of average performers could learn a lot from looking further beyond it.

I'm currently playing some Mompou. Most performances I've heard are deadly dull. Listening to the composer revealed that he plays in the old-fashioned romantic style- with hand separations etc. While I'd have likely played it that way anyway, hearing the composer gave me a great deal of insight into what he was looking for. Arguably he doesn't have the control of a truly great pianist and I'm certainly not going to play my accompaniment rather noisily simply because he did. However, I've learned a lot by hearing his performances.
 

[chomikchomik]

Do you mean to imply that you think the historical references are false?  I think when they pile up as much as they do in the case of Chopin's own performances, including comments by Liszt, they have to be taken seriously.

What is interesting to me is the underlying assumption that composers must be the best interpreters of their own work.  It simply isn't true.  That's why I always feel nauseous when I hear the phrase "composer's intentions."  Interpreting a piece of music has nothing to do with trying to imagine what someone else was thinking.  Every piece of music is its own living being, completely autonomous, and not reliant on an original source.  Once the pen hits the page, it takes on a life of its own.  That's why we must, and why we almost always do (whether we admit it or not), ignore the way the composers themselves present their music.

Walter Ramsey

So you will play Bach in romantic way? Becouse you think its nice? Maybe it is, but then its not the same piece anymore. Its very ignorant to think that you can play without any rules. Ofc you play it how you feel it, but there are some rules and its IMPORTANT to know how the composer wanted the piece to be played and THEN think about it.

[mcdiddy1]

So you will play Bach in romantic way? Becouse you think its nice? Maybe it is, but then its not the same piece anymore. Its very ignorant to think that you can play without any rules. Ofc you play it how you feel it, but there are some rules and its IMPORTANT to know how the composer wanted the piece to be played and THEN think about it.

Thats a good point, you would want to have a balance of  Historical accuracy/ style traits, composer intentions, and personal artist interpretation. It comes down to a question of imitation or interpretation. Is our interpretation an imitation of a composer or is are imitation our interpretation. We would want to has some imitation to be faithful to the music but all some room for our personal style of playing and views to come across.

[ramseytheii]

So you will play Bach in romantic way? Becouse you think its nice? Maybe it is, but then its not the same piece anymore. Its very ignorant to think that you can play without any rules. Ofc you play it how you feel it, but there are some rules and its IMPORTANT to know how the composer wanted the piece to be played and THEN think about it.

I don't know what you mean by romantic way!  I would imagine that the way people played "Baroque" music in the "Baroque" times was much freer than we could contemplate, in our prissy, uptight culture where we childishly insisting on taking everything literally.

But reviewing in my mind the recordings of Bach I love, they range from the fantastic and free Edwin Fischer, the very romantic and passionate Landowska, the unique and exuberant Gould, the restrained but volcanic Richter, etc.  They are all so different.

How can any piece have only one possible apparition?  The very notion is ridiculous.  And aspects of style do not have barriers between them.

One example I like to use is the Moonlight sonata.  Andras Schiff, in a lecture broadcast on BBC, showed conclusively using evidence from the score alone that the correct tempo for the first movement is about twice as fast as most pianists have played, and still do, play it.  So does that mean we should all run out and throw away our Schnabel, Paderewski, Friedman, Cortot, etc recordings?  Are they so wrong that they made the piece unrecognizable?

Hardly.  The music is strong enough that it contains poetic truths beyond what is written literally on the page.  Schiff showed that they basically ignored the tempo indications.  But their performances create such a powerful image that we have to admit they are also true.

While it can be helpful at times to know how a composer wanted a piece to be played, it can also be helpful to know how another pianist likes to play it.  But any piece can be understood totally on its own terms, away from whatever thinking caused pen to be pressed to paper.

Walter Ramsey

[lelle]

Do you mean to imply that you think the historical references are false?  I think when they pile up as much as they do in the case of Chopin's own performances, including comments by Liszt, they have to be taken seriously.

Not at all, I just used dynamics as an example because most people know that Chopin played softly. "shaky historical references" might have been a better sentence for his use of rubato. Some claim he played strictly in time, others claim his left hand was strictly in time while his right hand was free in tempo, and others claim he used as much rubato as anyone else. My point was that I, just as you put it, don't think the composers had to be the best interpreters of their own works. If you can find other poetic ideas in the music, or find a way to convey them that might not be readily apparent in the score (ie read between the lines), I think it is just fine, as long as it sounds convincing.
This is one of the reasons I love Alfred Cortot so much.

[destini]

As far as I know, Chopin didn't give the direct instructions about dynamics. I don't think one should pay much attention to how Chopin played himself, but rather to his actual advices. Chopin (as well as Schumann, Reinecke, and Mozart) insisted that it is really important to keep time and, by words of his contemporaries, played with a metronome precision. And that makes more sense than a statement that he should be played "with feminine touch", because it is fundamentals of music and not some absurd speculation.

[nyiregyhazi]

Chopin (as well as Schumann, Reinecke, and Mozart) insisted that it is really important to keep time and, by words of his contemporaries, played with a metronome precision.

Not in the words of Charles Halle. I believe he referred to frequent use of 4 whole beats per bar in Mazurkas.

[keyboardclass]

Not in the words of Charles Halle. I believe he referred to frequent use of 4 whole beats per bar in Mazurkas.

You're confusing pulse with tempo.

[bachbrahmsschubert]

Chopin also suffered from Tuberculosis the last decade of his life, maybe he was too weak to play at a certain dynamic level.

To say "the composer wanted it to sound like this" is ludicrous. The composer is not here to tell us what to do, we go by natural instincts, what is written on the score and historical evidence. Chopin was a volcano of emotion, not a sweet sensitive honey bee or a depressed macabre. To try and emulate him as any of those would be foolish, in my opinion, as we cannot emulate a person through quotes in a book.

I've been dropping this quote a lot lately, but I agree with it: "I believe that the only excuse we have for being musicians and for making music in any fashion is to make it differently, to perform it differently, to establish the music’s difference vis a vis our own difference." -Glenn Gould

Best wishes,

[keyboardclass]

Chopin also suffered from Tuberculosis the last decade of his life, maybe he was too weak to play at a certain dynamic level.

He was ill (sick room talent) most of his life.  There were complaints in reviews after his first concert as a teenager in Vienna that he played too quietly.

[mcdiddy1]

It is a well know fact he preformed very concerts due to the fact of his nervousness and bel canto approach to the piano. He was supposedly better in salons where the audience was more private.

I think it would be silly to think he never ever played fortissimo in his life so we should never play Chopin loudly.

Maybe the composer himself was not the best interpreter of his own music! Most composers do not perform their own work and it would be unwise to put Chopin's limitations as a performer on the interpretation of his music.

[nyiregyhazi]

You're confusing pulse with tempo.

You're confusing Charles Halle (who referred to four beats) with myself.

[nyiregyhazi]

spam

[keyboardclass]

Chopin (as well as Schumann, Reinecke, and Mozart) insisted that it is really important to keep time and, by words of his contemporaries, played with a metronome precision.

Not in the words of Charles Halle. I believe he referred to frequent use of 4 whole beats per bar in Mazurkas.

'Frequent use of 4 whole beats per bar' is still playing in time.  It's just a different pulse.

[nyiregyhazi]

'Frequent use of 4 whole beats per bar' is still playing in time.  It's just a different pulse.

[nyiregyhazi]

'Frequent use of 4 whole beats per bar' is still playing in time.  It's just a different pulse.

Of course it's not "in time". The mazurkas are notated in 3. I doubt very much that Chopin simply took literally one extra beat on beat two and played metronomically on either side- even if it may approximate to what Rosen describes. What kind of ridiculous (misplaced) pedantry would lead to the claim that playing four whole beats in a piece that is notated as having three is actually "in time"?

[keyboardclass]

Of course it's not "in time". The mazurkas are notated in 3.

Are you telling me 4 beats can't be played in the time of 3 and still be in time?   Sheesh.

[nyiregyhazi]

Are you telling me 4 beats can't be played in the time of 3 and still be in time?   Sheesh.

Indeed. If a piece notated in 3 is played in 4, it's not played "in time". There's nothing to say that Chopin established a pulse in 3, but then played other bars the same length but with a sense of 4 subdivisions. It just says there were audibly four beats in a bar. Perhaps if one of your students played a march in 5/4, you would congratulate them for playing "in time"?

Stop making such a pathetic attempt to be pedantic. Pedantry only works when done with accuracy.

[keyboardclass]

Indeed. If a piece notated in 3 is played in 4,

And I'll have to beg to differ.  If a piece notated in three is played in 4 it can still be played perfectly in time.   It's very much what Chopin is about - the pulse is about emphasis - you can play strictly in time but alter that.  And once again you can't resist rude ad hominem remarks.  Who would discuss with you?  Let alone actually read all that garbage.

[nyiregyhazi]

And I'll have to beg to differ.  If a piece notated in three is played in 4 it can still be played perfectly in time.   It's very much what Chopin is about - the pulse is about emphasis - you can play strictly in time but alter that.

So, you're perfectly happy for me to play a march with 5 beats per bar and say that's "perfectly in time"? Chopin did not play his beats in time and that is the only significant issue with regard to the subject. If you want to indulge in inaccurate "corrections" of the fact that playing 3 equally notated beats as four is not playing "in time", then by all means entertain yourself by doing so.

[keyboardclass]

You can stick your ad hominem arguments up your ad hominem....

[pianisten1989]

So you will play Bach in romantic way? Becouse you think its nice? Maybe it is, but then its not the same piece anymore. Its very ignorant to think that you can play without any rules. Ofc you play it how you feel it, but there are some rules and its IMPORTANT to know how the composer wanted the piece to be played and THEN think about it.

So then we never ever play Bach on a piano. It's as simple as that. Chopin must always be played on a Pleyel, Beethoven on a fortepiano from 18th century. Cause that makes a lot of sense. If the composer would have had our instruments, they would ocf not made a single change anywhere...

[keyboardclass]

Chopin must always be played on a Pleyel,

Funny you should say that.  I just bought one!

[pianisten1989]

Funny you should say that.  I just bought one!

Cool! They has to be rather expensive and also "in need of quite much space", eh?

[mcdiddy1]

Yea, why do people feel composers were immortal Gods who walked on water. Have you read why these composers did? Many of the were womanizers, corrupt, and often rotten people. Beethoven would often reproduce the same work and pretend it is a new work. Mozart used foul language, Wagner was and Liszt were womanizers who went from one women to the next. They could barely make up there mind about who they wanted to be with so why would we want to follow their music completely to letter. Beethoven metronome markings are often disgarded as not accurate. I am not saying we should play their music anyway we want to but we should allow some flexibility in their interpretation.

[pianisten1989]

Yea, why do people feel composers were immortal Gods who walked on water. Have you read why these composers did? Many of the were womanizers, corrupt, and often rotten people. Beethoven would often reproduce the same work and pretend it is a new work. Mozart used foul language, Wagner was and Liszt were womanizers who went from one women to the next. They could barely make up there mind about who they wanted to be with so why would we want to follow their music completely to letter. Beethoven metronome markings are often disgarded as not accurate. I am not saying we should play their music anyway we want to but we should allow some flexibility in their interpretation.

What has their foul language to to with anything? Any why is Beethovens metronome markings wrong? "The third movement of Hammarklavier sound like a waltz" Well, it's 3/4 with the accent on the first beat, then 2 lighter. MAYBE IT IS A WALTZ!!

[keyboardclass]

Yea, why do people feel composers were immortal Gods who walked on water.

I think it's called utmost respect (though it should never be blind).

[mcdiddy1]

What has their foul language to to with anything? Any why is Beethovens metronome markings wrong? "The third movement of Hammarklavier sound like a waltz" Well, it's 3/4 with the accent on the first beat, then 2 lighter. MAYBE IT IS A WALTZ!!

The point is there are human and not that different from regular people. There is a common image that composers are saints who never did anything wrong and it is completely false. So they change their mind, their stubborn and maybe not want their music played like it has a strait jacket on. I am talking about meteronome markings for symphony which were commonaly debated on because of the speculation his meteronome was broken.I am not talking about the Hammarklavier sonata...maybe he got it fixed by then. lol The tempo typically choose to perform his music may very much differ from how he actually intended it to go.

I think it's called utmost respect (though it should never be blind).

I have respect for their abilities (definitely not blind because Beethoven wrote some terrible music) and the fact they had drama, faults, and mistakes like everyone eles. I just do not believe in idol worship and following music to letter like so many. Didn't Beethoven often destroy the pianos of his time? He doesn't seem as concerned for musical accuracy as we often play his music. From what I read and hear about he was more emotional intensity side rather than carefully getting each note right. I am sure he missed some notes banging the life out of the piano. Its just funny to see people go up and arms about missing a note in his sonatas when he probably could have cared less.

[keyboardclass]

Couldn't agree more about Beethoven but isn't worth trying to get beyond the man, into his artist's mind?

[pianisten1989]

The point is there are human and not that different from regular people. There is a common image that composers are saints who never did anything wrong and it is completely false. So they change their mind, their stubborn and maybe not want their music played like it has a strait jacket on. I am talking about meteronome markings for symphony which were commonaly debated on because of the speculation his meteronome was broken.I am not talking about the Hammarklavier sonata...maybe he got it fixed by then. lol The tempo typically choose to perform his music may very much differ from how he actually intended it to go.

I have respect for their abilities (definitely not blind because Beethoven wrote some terrible music) and the fact they had drama, faults, and mistakes like everyone eles. I just do not believe in idol worship and following music to letter like so many. Didn't Beethoven often destroy the pianos of his time? He doesn't seem as concerned for musical accuracy as we often play his music. From what I read and hear about he was more emotional intensity side rather than carefully getting each note right. I am sure he missed some notes banging the life out of the piano. Its just funny to see people go up and arms about missing a note in his sonatas when he probably could have cared less.

1. Who says composers never ever made mistakes? I have never heard anyone say that =/
2. Beethoven's sponsor was a metronome company. If his metronome was broken, he would probably switch it. Also, the reason to why his metronome marks are so very fast, is probably because his instrument was many times lighter than ours, so he could play much fast with less difficulty.
I'm probably going to use that argument in the future: "No, this is too fast for me. His metronome must have been broken. It's the only way!"
3. Beethoven was crazy paranoid about people not playing the music in the way he wrote, so the comment about his musical accuracy is nothing but ignorant. If you were talking about missed notes - it was 200 years ago. If we would aim for the same technical abilities, we would never learn anything... Also, they probably could cut their recordings as many times as we can.

[mcdiddy1]

1. Who says composers never ever made mistakes? I have never heard anyone say that =/
2. Beethoven's sponsor was a metronome company. If his metronome was broken, he would probably switch it. Also, the reason to why his metronome marks are so very fast, is probably because his instrument was many times lighter than ours, so he could play much fast with less difficulty.
I'm probably going to use that argument in the future: "No, this is too fast for me. His metronome must have been broken. It's the only way!"
3. Beethoven was crazy paranoid about people not playing the music in the way he wrote, so the comment about his musical accuracy is nothing but ignorant. If you were talking about missed notes - it was 200 years ago. If we would aim for the same technical abilities, we would never learn anything... Also, they probably could cut their recordings as many times as we can.

1. Nobody said it directly but people play his music like they do. There is been many accounts of Beethoven making mistakes in his own compositions which makes it funny to me when people stress out about being perfect at playing his music. I strive for musical accuracy but I admit makes me feel a little better when I make a slip up.

2. Hey, it is not me who said his metronome was broken, just a pretty commonly held rumor. I admit I never heard about his instrument being lighter than ours. But how does an instrument been slightly lighter mean we would suddenly be able to play with extreme speeds. So if a key is hard to press does that mean we cannot play fast on it? I am not sure that holds up but I would be willing to experiment. I think some notes might be lost and it would just be more work for the fingers. I played on a harpsichord and I don't think my speed increadibly increased. TWould make an interesting experiment though. The metronome markings in the 9 th symphony are usually debated upon by scholars . It is usually the metronome marks for slow movements that are often discarded, and often the fast movement are thought of as being to too slow. So its not because of difficulty level scholars feel the markings are too fast. Often they say Beethoven was old, mean-spirited, and did not consult with conductors. It might have to do with the fact he was deaf but hey who knows.

3. So he could make mistakes in his own playing, but cannot tolerate mistakes in others. Thats a little hypocritical. I am just pointing out the hypocrites, I am not saying we should butcher his music. There is a difference between musical accuracy, musical interpretation, and musical adaption. I am not talking about changing the music. What I am talking about is peoples interpretation (guarded and careful= Beethoven???), and people's arrpoach toward musical accuracy like he would be rolling around in his grave. Kind of hard to imagine Beethoven would be getting mad at performers for mistakes that he could not hear. I am perfectly aware what an anal perfectionist about what he wrote, but I am referring to how he played and how people interpret the music.

People should interpret the music to the best of their abilities in my opinion but if you slip and miss a note I doubt Beethoven would be rolling over in his grave considering his way of playing.

[keyboardclass]

I admit I never heard about his instrument being lighter than ours. But how does an instrument been slightly lighter mean we would suddenly be able to play with extreme speeds. So if a key is hard to press does that mean we cannot play fast on it? I am not sure that holds up but I would be willing to experiment.

I have a piano (Broadwood) made in 1800.  Not only are the keys lighter than you could possible imagine, the keys only go down about 7mm (Beethoven preferred the Viennese 5mm key keydip).

[bachbrahmsschubert]

How much energy is spent to depress a key? I don't think it would really make that much of a difference.

Best wishes,

[keyboardclass]

Tere's a big difference - imagine the difference between modern piano and air piano and you've got it.  Also it depends on the touch - you can thump an 1800 piano just as much as a modern Steinway!

[bachbrahmsschubert]

This is true, however I'm thinking more along the lines of composers/pianists of Beethoven's era/caliber being able to adjust to any modern piano, just as I am able to adjust from a grand piano to a harpsichord. And I know this may come as a shock, but I'm no Beethoven!  I'm not sure I understand the "if Beethoven had a heavier piano, his tempo markings wouldn't be so fast" argument. I immediately think of the coda to the 3rd movement of the appassionata. Those chords are absolutely dreadful to get crisp and clean at the tempo Beethoven requires, not to mention the rest of it, but it is definitely possible (I can't do it). I don't believe it would be any "easier" on a lighter piano, though I've never tried it.

Best wishes,

[keyboardclass]

I'll have a go after my breakfast.

[bachbrahmsschubert]

If you break anything, I will not be held accountable. 

[keyboardclass]

I see the trick:  in bar 3 of the Presto keep you RH finger 3 bent and on C (finger 4 plays the E).  You then 'shake' the chords out of your sleeve.  It doesn't really work on my modern instrument, the keydip's too deep (and keys are too heavy).  Easy peasy on my 1800 Broadwood!

[mcdiddy1]

So if one my students want to play a Beethoven Sonata  at impossible all they have to do is buy a 1800 century pianoforte or harpsichord? Which one would be best?  I am not sure the parents would be big fan of the harpsicord...lol

[pianisten1989]

Yes! that was exactly what we said! Good job figuring that out.
...
No, we said: A probable reason to why Beethoven's metronome was so high is because it was easier to play fast at that times instruments