Big youtube "Pianist" bashes the chopin etudes?

[mcdiddy1]

Thank you for your post, and I agree with everyone you said (or typed).

I just had a lesson with him yesterday; my current big project is Beethoven's 4th concerto. Before we began, I mentioned that I wanted to experiment with the opening a little more and that he would surely disagree. I finished the introduction and he asked me to stop, then said "why?" To be honest, I had no real reason other than the fact that I wanted to gauge his reaction. Maybe the peach I had for breakfast had some weird drug in it...who knows. Anyway, I was honest and told him the only logical reason was because I felt the opening, and the entire concerto for that matter, was written in such a way that I was free to manipulate time and space. He felt that was an illogical reason. We discussed it for awhile and ultimately his point was that I should feel free to interpret a piece of music how I please, as long as it is done with conviction and logical reasoning. I forget the term he used (I know, I'm a terrible student), but his job is to be somewhat of a mediator; to challenge me in every possible way as I take this senior year to prepare for graduate school.

Ultimately, I am not pursuing a career as a concert pianist, but a teacher. And through observing, I notice that several teachers take it personally and get angry when a student ignores their advice. The "you think you know better than me?" complex that I hate so much. Thankfully, I find none of that here. School, anyway, these forums are...uh...a different matter. 

I definetly agree with your teacher on that subject. Especially if you are going to be a teacher. When you teach, you would not want your students to "manipulate time and space" because first they music prove they can play in time first.

I think the biggest issues is having good taste to do it. You do not want to become a robot and meteronomic but you do not want to rewrite the music based on personal limitaitons. There is a happy medium between playing with respect to form, structure, and infusing new musical ideas.Beethoven's later period music provides a great deal of flexibility than his earlier writings so there are spots where the music allows more freedom in the rhythm. 

Especially when you are playing  a concerto, you would want to have places where the conductor can follow you and stay with you. If you play how you "feel" during the whole piece, the orchestra will "feel" like killing you! ( I used to play in a orchestra, I know I did). There have been soloist I wanted to tap my foot to help them out because playing with others is a different experience than playing by yourself. It was not that the soloist was having freedom in their playing, but the soloist was having maintain any sense of steady pulse.

I swear I don't have a target mark with Hanon's picture in my studio!

Lol. I do! I have never used Hanon until this year where a student who is having issues being consistent with practice, not pressing into keys, struggles with reading notation, finger dexterity, and hand coordination. Our school sells them so I had to close my eyes and recommend Hanon... . The issue thinking is I wanted something that could be used to aid in all these issues, something they could do quickly in a short amount of time, something that is repetative enough they could do without the music. What do you think about that?

[gerryjay]

I have never used Hanon until this year where a student who is having issues being consistent with practice, not pressing into keys, struggles with reading notation, finger dexterity, and hand coordination. Our school sells them so I had to close my eyes and recommend Hanon... . The issue thinking is I wanted something that could be used to aid in all these issues, something they could do quickly in a short amount of time, something that is repetative enough they could do without the music. What do you think about that?

Dear McDiddy,
let me list that:
1. consistency with practice
2. adequate key pŕessure
3. sight reading
4. finger dexterity
5. hand coordination

Now let me express my opinion about the potential of Hanon in each case:
1. Hanon is the most annoying thing in practice. If your student is away from the piano, Hanon will push his/her even further, perhaps to the point of giving up;
2. In theory, Hanon is a good tool to develop touch; in practice, I never noticed any improvement in that sense with my students. Furthermore, if they practice Hanon in earless mode, the touch (and pressure control) will be ruined for good.
3. Sight reading? Hanon?
4. Well, that is the great promise behind Hanon, and the one that he can actually achieve. Small and focused dosis of Hanon to solve precise problems can work very well. I don't do that anymore, but I must be honest: in terms of dexterity I have achieved interesting results in the past.
5. Although it seems an extension of 4, I never noticed it in my experience. Hanon is all about one kind of coordination (coupling), which you solve after one or two exercises. The rest, in that sense, seems preetty useless to me. Furthermore, as much as any other artificial situation that is pushed beyond its limits, it can backfire fantastically.

Now, trying to not be a jerk (or at least, not only a jerk), some suggestions:
1. students practice only what they love, when they feel they can play it (I mean, an adequate challenge), and only for some time until they focus turns to something else. That said, practice and commitment is about the repertoire itself.
2. if you want a single solution to key pressure issues (other than working it in every lesson, and every piece), I'll suggest non-imitative Bach. His sarabandes can work miracles in that sense, as much as some preludes, or other specific works.
3. Sight reading is about sight reading, preferentially, repertoire that is now considered "easy" to the student. For instance, if s/he is playing now Mozart's 545, the first Mikrokosmos, or Schumann's Album can provide excellent exercises of sight reading.
4. As I said, here Hanon can work, but I find better results with detached passages from the actual repertoire (that is, Hanonizing the hot spots).
5. For coordination, again I would go with Bach, but now his imitative works. Depending on the level of your student, pick inventions, sinfonias, fughettas, fugues from WTC, but don't forget about the gigues, and some preludes (those that resemble a french overture, for instance).

Best regards,
Jay.

[chopinmozartbach]

This man is an absolute lunatic. How, let alone why, would you say you dislike the 27 Chopin Etudes?!!! These pieces are of the absolute highest quality and virtuosity and stand out among the entire piano repertoire. Frederic Chopin's Etudes changed the art of the piano into the new fashion of the romantic era, helping to produce the music we hear today. For Mr.BachScholar, I hope he knows that Chopin took what Bach provided and made it more complex in a different fashion (taking The Art of Fugue, to the Art of the Etude). Etude No.1 in C Major's arpeggios are even based upon Bach's Prelude No.1 in C from The Well-Tempered Clavier. I love the Etudes with a passion and have in my possession numerous recordings and books of the Chopin Etudes. Although I am only beginning to play them (*specifically Etude Op.25 No.9, Op.10 No.2, and Op.25 No.10), I can honestly say that they are the most intriguing and heartfelt pieces I have ever tried to play. Chopin's emotions are on full display in these pieces ranging from the Revolutionary Op.10 No.12 Etude and Op.10 No.3,  to his pure anger in Op.25 No.10 and Op.25 No.11  . A dream for any pianist should be to play all 27 or at least the 24 main Etudes of Chopin (and by the way it's a lot less than trying to learn all 48complex preludes and fugues of the WTC  . Chopin's Etudes are specifically for speed contests!!! Yes, it is at most importance to play them how Chopin meant for them to be played (in order to develop the full intention for the fingers) but, the Etudes where written in order to be STUDIED  upon and taken into the pianists own consideration for interpretation. The Chopin Etudes are also over played for GOOD REASON. They are fundamentals for developing the proper finger structure for his later pieces. After flipping through the ballades, nocturnes and even his preludes, elements from the Etudes occur over and over!!  For BachScholar to deliberately destroy the exquisiteness of Chopin's Etudes by word of mouth is an unimaginably horrid action to the world of music  . He must not truly be a pianist, or else his heart would have instantly fallen in love with the 27 artistic, but heavily structured, Chopin Etudes. 

[bachbrahmsschubert]

Great...now everyone is going to think I have two accounts. 

Best wishes,

[gerryjay]

Interesting the fact that is Bach that connect both of you guys.

[forgottenbooks]

"... I hate to disappoint you, but I dislike the Chopin Etudes. In my opinion they are overplayed and overrated and YouTube is already oversaturated with far too many performances of them. In my opinion the Etudes are Chopin's weakest works as a whole, which are simply made weaker by most pianists' obsession with speed...."

That's all right, he's entitled to an opinion.

[perelea]

sorry for the slight thread necromancy, just had to respond to this.

I'm afraid much of the reason he dislikes them is because he can not play them. Look at his Czerny recordings, they are a joke. 1/3 of the prescribed tempo and still horrible. Not to mention his incredibly terrible Bach recordings.

My hands hurt just from looking at his playing, it's all so forced out. I mean it pierces the eyes with blinding intensity of how tensed and slow his hands are. He simply plays like an amateur that was taught by bad teachers. I can not believe this person teaches the piano.
I don't think his opinion on Chopin etudes has any real value and why he has so many views on youtube is absolutely beyond my understanding.

[werq34ac]

  I WILL COMMENT TOO

Anyway, saying the Etudes are completely without music is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've heard on this forum other than Richard Kastle saying Hungarian Rhapsody no. 2 is the most difficult Liszt piece followed by La Campanella. These etudes are the FIRST pieces that study virtuoso piano technique while at the same time being perform-able in the concert hall. Personally, there are quite a few etudes I dislike, such as 10/5 and 10/11, and I ABSOLUTELY CANNOT STAND 25/9! However, 10/3 Chopin himself said he never could find another melody as beautiful as this etude. 25/11 is a mini-scherzo in itself, and 10/1 and 25/12 in my opinion contain more music than the first movement of the Moonlight Sonata (which I believe BachScholar has taken the time to record). Apart from being concert pieces, the etudes teach pianists so much about piano. They teach us how large the hand can really be if you know how to use them, the ability to bring out certain lines over other even in the same hand, control over quick changes in dynamics (which listening to his Chopin pieces, BachScholar seems to have no mastery over), beautiful tone even in virtuosic passages, and pretty much contains his most virtuosic techniques required for his bigger works such as the concertos, ballades, etc.
To say they are only as good as Czerny excercises is saying all Liszt can do is show-off

I specifically remember my teacher telling me not to play my Chopin etudes like Czerny or Hanon excercises.

[danhuyle]

Chopin Etudes is a contest of speed. Richter holds the record for Etude Op10/4,12. Yundi Li has broken Richter's record at 2:16.

For those who can't play Chopin Etudes fast, it's way too hard and the speed is what drives people away from it.

I like playing Chopin Etudes, the #1 thing that drives me away from this is speed. It's all about how fast you can play. The faster you can play the better you are.

[werq34ac]

I hope to god you are kidding.

While Richter can play fast also, it doesn't sound hectic (okay maybe it does, but Richter is still in control). The difference between playing fast for speed's sake and fast for music's sake is control. No point in speed if you can't manipulate the music at the same time. Any professional performing a Chopin etude slower than as fast as possible is not because they can't. They slow it down in order to bring out musical elements that might not otherwise be heard at faster speeds. At the same time, good pianists sometimes play faster not because they want to break the record for speed, but they want the audience to hear the bigger picture and longer phrases.
In this sense, BachScholar is right, Chopin etudes should not be a race for speed. But his following argument that they are unmusical and not worth teaching is a serious flaw. He should instead play them how he thinks they should be played.
But I do feel every piece has a minimum speed for the piece to truly flow. What this minimum depends with each performer and piece.

[fftransform]

Regarding the original topic, if the inverse is in fact true, then there must exist an argument which can be proven to be reliant on more than mere personal preference which states that the Chopin Etudes are superior to the majority of Chopin's other compositions, i.e. contain attributes that are unilaterally "good" and that are not apparent in his other works.

My conjecture would be that such an argument does not exist, and therefore, given that the person's statement contains no alleged statement as to "fact" or "justified belief," any complaint about his argument is illogical.

[nyiregyhazi]

Regarding the original topic, if the inverse is in fact true, then there must exist an argument which can be proven to be reliant on more than mere personal preference which states that the Chopin Etudes are superior to the majority of Chopin's other compositions, i.e. contain attributes that are unilaterally "good" and that are not apparent in his other works.

Why must such an argument exist? Could you clarify why the inverse cannot be true without the Etudes having to be superior to Chopin's other works? I see no obvious logic behind this at all. The argument was not based on comparative issues.

[fftransform]

Why must such an argument exist? Could you clarify why the inverse cannot be true without the Etudes having to be superior to Chopin's other works? I see no obvious logic behind this at all. The argument was not based on comparative issues.

The argument is entirely based on comparison (not "issues"; be clear.  This is sloppy).  An argument of aesthetic quality is a priori comparative, but if for some awful reason you don't want to accept that which everybody who knows more than you takes to be fundamentally true:

they are overplayed

YouTube is already oversaturated

Etudes are Chopin's weakest works

Czerny's op. 740 etudes are much better

are all comparative statements.  Could you please read things before you try to tell people what they're about?  Thanks.

[richterfan1]

Czerny's op. 740 etudes are much better works of music in my opinion.

    ;Drofl lol lol

[werq34ac]

Wait, he said Czerny etudes are MUCH better pieces of music?
 At this point we can discredit anything he says about Chopin, seeing as he obviously does not understand the music.

[nyiregyhazi]

The argument is entirely based on comparison (not "issues"; be clear.  This is sloppy).  An argument of aesthetic quality is a priori comparative, but if for some awful reason you don't want to accept that which everybody who knows more than you takes to be fundamentally true:

Well, the argument certainly isn't based "entirely" on comparison. Does the statement "I hate to disappoint you, but I dislike the Chopin Etudes" involve any comparison? Certainly not any more than in the sense that for a person to scream in pain is to perform a "comparison" with when they were not feeling pain. "They are overplayed" is not technically a comparison either. Regardless, I hold my hands up to having missed the comparison to the composer's other works in "the Etudes are Chopin's weakest works as a whole".

However, if we're maintaining the strict logical regulations that you clearly wish to abide by, the following does not stand:

"there must exist an argument which can be proven to be reliant on more than mere personal preference which states that the Chopin Etudes are superior to the majority of Chopin's other compositions, i.e. contain attributes that are unilaterally "good" and that are not apparent in his other works."

Logical falsification requires proof of the EXACT inverse- ie. proof that the Etudes are NOT his weakest works. It does not involve proof that the quality lies near the opposite end of the spectrum. Whether they are "superior to the majority of Chopin's other compositions" is beside the point- seeing at it is not the inverse of what he claimed, but rather a specific subset within the wider set of the inverse. His claim could be equally falsified by any "proof" that they are rather average works, by the composer's standards- therefore no such argument need exist.

Above all, while it's hard to objectively "prove" they are not his weakest works, this is only the same sense that it's hard to "prove" that Chopin was a greater composer than either myself or a tramp with a tin whistle. Or that his Etudes are musically superior to a cat running across the keys. It's scarcely more than a technicality to state that we cannot "prove" with full objectivity that the Etudes do not constitute Chopin's weakest work (especially if you take into consideration his first piano sonata).

[fftransform]

Because you're so interested in philosophy, I will include a guided reading curriculum for you, free of charge.  Because whatever it is that you're not understanding is not worth my effort to correct.  So go argue with these books and tell yourself how right you are.

Well, the argument certainly isn't based "entirely" on comparison.

It is.  It is an aesthetic argument.  Suggested reading:
https://www.amazon.com/Aesthetic-Theory-History-Literature/dp/0816618003/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317132909&sr=1-1

Does the statement "I hate to disappoint you, but I dislike the Chopin Etudes" involve any comparison?

Are you immune to semantic intent?  Also, yes.  Suggested reading:
https://www.amazon.com/Procedural-Semantics-Hyperintensional-Logic-Applications/dp/9048188113/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317132874&sr=8-1

Certainly not any more than in the sense that for a person to scream in pain is to perform a "comparison" with when they were not feeling pain.

Not related.  Suggested reading:
https://www.amazon.com/False-Analogies-Friedrich-Max-M%C3%BCller/dp/1146854552/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317133083&sr=1-1

"They are overplayed" is not technically a comparison either.

Then what does "over" mean?  It seems like it has something to do with quantity to me.  Suggested reading:
https://www.amazon.com/Logic-Dummies-Mark-Zegarelli/dp/0471799416/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317133132&sr=1-1

However, if we're maintaining the strict logical regulations that you clearly wish to abide by, the following does not stand:

Do you mean that I abide by?  Suggested reading:
https://www.amazon.com/Ego-Archetype-Edward-Edinger/dp/087773576X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1317133367&sr=8-3

"there must exist an argument which can be proven to be reliant on more than mere personal preference which states that the Chopin Etudes are superior to the majority of Chopin's other compositions, i.e. contain attributes that are unilaterally "good" and that are not apparent in his other works."

Logical falsification requires proof of the EXACT inverse.

Ok.  Let me show you exact opposites: ∃ and ∄​.  Whoops.  You seem to think that the inverse of ∃a is ∃a^-1.  You, also being a mathematician, are more than familiar with group theory, so you can clearly see the ridiculous stupidity of your statement.  Also, you probably shouldn't try to talk about subsets (or do you think that my username refers to Fourier Transforms just because they sound cool?).  You know, because you don't know what the word means (nor do you know what falsification means.  At all.  You're not even close).  Suggested reading:

https://www.amazon.com/Oxford-American-Dictionary-University-Press/dp/0195392884/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317133893&sr=8-1

[nyiregyhazi]

B
Ok.  Let me show you exact opposites: ∃ and ∄​.  Whoops.  You seem to think that the inverse of ∃a is ∃a^-1.  You, also being a mathematician, are more than familiar with group theory, so you can clearly see the ridiculous stupidity of your statement.  Also, you probably shouldn't try to talk about subsets (or do you think that my username refers to Fourier Transforms just because they sound cool?).  You know, because you don't know what the word means (nor do you know what falsification means.  At all.  You're not even close).  Suggested reading:

It's all very well not wanting to be wrong and trying to bring in irrelevant mathematics in a bid confuse the issue. But all we need is simple sets. If it could objectively be proven that the Etudes are very average Chopin, that would conclusively falsify the claim that the Etudes are Chopin's worst music. So your claim that it could only be falsified by proof that they are better than average Chopin involves excessively specific (and logically unwarranted) demands- considering that it would deny that their being average could provide falsification. A statement can be disproved by ANY demonstration that it is untrue- not exclusively by a bizarrely specific possibility among the many others that would equally prove it to be untrue. The absolute nature of accurate logic is is not in question and nothing more ought to need be said. Quite why the mathematics of hypothetical numbers might be called for (within such a simple logical path) I have not the slightest idea. The opposite (of the statement as a whole) is for the studies NOT to be worst of his works. Correct use of logic requires the opposite to be founded upon a second binary set that accounts for all other possibilities. Taking the opposite of the word "worst" alone (and hence accounting for only a specific range of alternate possibility rather than ALL other alternatives) leads to a  path of false logic that contains rational contradictions.


If you feel the above is in question I have little interest in going through your other assertions. However, I'll just add that to dislike or like something is most certainly not comparative. I "dislike" the taste of raw tomatoes. To state that involves no act of comparison. I like them less than foods I like. But the statement does not divulge what I like or even that I necessarily like anything at all. Neither does it compare to things I like even less than tomatoes. I dislike lime pickle vastly more. But the statement contains no comparison to that either. It expresses nothing but absolute dislike. That dislike is an absolute that does not stem out of relation to anything else. It no more implies comparison to anything specific than to for a person to say that they dislike being kneed in the groin implies comparison with something more positive. It expresses nothing more than what it expresses, as an absolute. My judgement is not based on weighing up tomatoes against other foods- and neither do I weigh anything up against my preferences should I try eating one. It's a simple expression of finding the taste to be a negative experience.

Perhaps you are confusing it with phrases such as "I hate"- which expresses an extreme dislike and hence places it some way along a scale of qualitative comparison to other things. But to like or dislike is not comparative. I don't have to compare to anything I either enjoy or despise to dislike a raw tomato. And if we're about to go into the philosophy of whether I could hypothetically "dislike" a tomato, were it the only thing I had ever experienced, then this the point where I lose all interest (although, logically, if you feel the answer is "no" then the disliking the sensation of a knee to the groin would also have to be deemed as an act of comparison- based on analagous use of sets).

[fftransform]

It's all very well not wanting to be wrong and trying to bring in irrelevant mathematics in a bid confuse the issue. But all we need is simple sets.

Logic is mathematics.  First order logic is representing propositions in language as mathematics.  This is what logic is.  To say that mathematics is irrelevant is idiotic.  Group theory is a theory of particular types of sets.  Group theory proves that your definition of a converse proof is incorrect (as would any course on logic for beginners).  These are simple structures.  The existential quantifier ∃ is the most basic symbol in logic.  It means that "there exists."  If you think that this is irrelevant, you know absolutely nothing.  Your understanding is pitiful, your vocabulary is completely random and does not correlate to the words' correct usage in either a logical or mathematical context, and yet you think that you know what  you're talking about.  That is why I say that there is no point in arguing with you.  You think that you understand things, but you do not.  I can prove again and again, as I just previously did, that you are incorrect.   You are literally arguing with basic algebra.  So if you want to argue with the most absolutely basic elements of algebraic structures and logic, you do not need my help.

[nyiregyhazi]

Logic is mathematics.  First order logic is representing propositions in language as mathematics.  This is what logic is.  To say that mathematics is irrelevant is idiotic.  Group theory is a theory of particular types of sets.  Group theory proves that your definition of a converse proof is incorrect (as would any course on logic for beginners).  These are simple structures.  The existential quantifier ∃ is the most basic symbol in logic.  It means that "there exists."  If you think that this is irrelevant, you know absolutely nothing.  Your understanding is pitiful, your vocabulary is completely random and does not correlate to the words' correct usage in either a logical or mathematical context, and yet you think that you know what  you're talking about.  That is why I say that there is no point in arguing with you.  You think that you understand things, but you do not.  I can prove again and again, as I just previously did, that you are incorrect.   You are literally arguing with basic algebra.  So if you want to argue with the most absolutely basic elements of algebraic structures and logic, you do not need my help.

No, logic can exist quite happily outside of mathematics- based solely on cognitive reasoning. Mathematical logic is a specific subset within the wider set of logical reasoning  as a whole. To claim that logic is mathematics is to view a set and its subset as synonomous. It's like suggesting that because pigs are pink, all pink things are pigs. Logic is something that can be represented mathematically- although it can be equally be represented and utilised without the slightest recourse to maths. I am not arguing with basic algebra for the simple reason that I never introduced any. Anyway, I'm not interested in joining you in a slanging contest. The beautiful thing about foundation level logic is that it does not depend on jargon. It's based on absolute truths. Which is why it's so easy to prove that the opposite of being the worst is to be anything other than the worst (assuming correct use is made of binary sets to cover all possibilities, in a situation where it is logically necessary to do so). Goodbye.

[keyboardclass]

Logic is mathematics. 

Agreed.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is, as usual, talking out of their...

[fftransform]

No, logic can exist quite happily outside of mathematics- based solely on cognitive reasoning. Mathematical logic is a specific subset within the wider set of logical reasoning  as a whole. To claim that logic is mathematics is to view a set and its subset as synonomous. It's like suggesting that because pigs are pink, all pink things are pigs. Logic is something that can be represented mathematically- although it can be equally be represented and utilised without the slightest recourse to maths. I am not arguing with basic algebra for the simple reason that I never introduced any. Anyway, I'm not interested in joining you in a slanging contest. The beautiful thing about foundation level logic is that it does not depend on jargon. It's based on absolute truths. Which is why it's so easy to prove that the opposite of being the worst is to be anything other than the worst (assuming correct use is made of binary sets to cover all possibilities, in a situation where it is logically necessary to do so). Goodbye.

There is no such thing as "foundation level logic."  Are you referring to foundationalist epistemology?  It is unrelated.  Or first order logic?  Because that's mathematical.  Or intensional logic?  Also mathematical.  Logic of language?  Mathematical.  This is what I mean when I say that you do not know what you are talking about.  Finally: the function is existence.  There exists and there does not exist.  It does not matter that there may exist an inverse of an argument; of course there does.  This does not mean that it is correct.  There necessarily exists an inverse of any existing argument; the point is that the argument does not exist in the first place.  As I said (you keep using the word "set," so I will show you with very simple set theory, and not group theory, even though the latter is more efficient), you have a set S with cardinality two (there exist two elements: existence and non-existence; cardinality of a set with degree n is n!).  The elements of S are ∃ and ∄; that is to say that the functions are the elements of S.  S = {S|∃, ∄}.  You can apply these functions to some "a" (the argument), but these are not the elements of S.  This "a" is a labor element.  In this case, we have some function f∈S (f is an element of S) s.t. f:S→T where the orbit (location) and commutation (pairing) of the ordered pair of elements in T will determine its value in relation to the function (existence).  We can place any value as a labor element, in this case a or a^-1 (the argument's inverse).  But that is not an element of S.  This is clear if we attempt to map S onto T.  Because we know that S contains two elements ∃ and ∄, we know that its cardinality is two.  However, there are sixty-four distinct permutations if you consider these labor elements to be elements of S:

∃a→∃a, ∃a^-1→∃a^-1
∃a→∃a, ∃a^-1→∃a
∃a→∃a, ∃a^-1→∄a^-1
∃a→∃a, ∃a^-1→∄a
∃a→∄a, ∃a^-1→∃a^-1
∃a→∄a, ∃a^-1→∃a
∃a→∄a, ∃a^-1→∄a^-1
∃a→∄a, ∃a^-1→∄a
∃a→∃a^-1, ∃a^-1→∃a^-1
∃a→∃a^-1, ∃a^-1→∃a
∃a→∃a^-1, ∃a^-1→∄a^-1
∃a→∃a^-1, ∃a^-1→∄a
∃a→∄a^-1, ∃a^-1→∃a^-1
∃a→∄a^-1, ∃a^-1→∃a
∃a→∄a^-1, ∃a^-1→∄a^-1
∃a→∄a^-1, ∃a^-1→∄a
(repeat for permutations on the identity elements (the first elements in each mapping))

This clearly cannot be.  It is impossible.  If you know absolutely anything about sets at all, then you know that the cardinality of that set is two.  Yet here you have sixty-four, which is quite a discrepancy.  This is because you are treating "a" as a function, as well; in fact, you have rendered one of the most basic axioms of set theory to be not wrong, but just totally arbitrary.  What if I wish to include some argument that has a verisimilitudinal value of 0<v<1?  Now I can have infinitely many elements of a set with degree two, if I want.  As a matter of fact, the cardinality of your bizzaro-set could even be 1024; you give no reason as to why I could not take a(∃) but can take ∃(a), if we're treating them both as functions.  

Here's the big problem: you try to present an argument in useful terms, but you don't know how to use those useful terms.  At all.  You have absolutely no idea how ignorant you sound.  It is very frustrating.  Your entire argument is completely wrong; the argument that you should instead make is that there can exist non-comparative aesthetic arguments.  But that's also wrong.  You're wrong either way.  But at least being wrong in the second way wouldn't make you look like such a tool.

[cazico]

fftransform, to be honest I don't understand much of what you're writing (and I'm not referring to the mathematics)...  

if the inverse is in fact true, then there must exist an argument [...] which states that the Chopin Etudes are superior to the majority of Chopin's other compositions

? ? ? ? ?
The original YouTube pianist statement is about a pianist who dislike the Chopin etudes, think they're overplayed and so on, and think they're Chopin's weakest pieces.
If the inverse of THIS is true, then there must NOT necessarily exist an argument which states that Chopin etudes are superior of the majority of Chopin's other compisitions. I don't see the logic here. What "kind of inverse" are you using?
I mean, to falsify his statement by "scientific methods" we need to ask us if the opposite is true, which is really not about the etudes' superiority to the majority of other works of him.
And this has nothing to do with proving, falsifying, Karl Popper, group theory, set theory...
This is about personal opinions. What is your point fftransform?
How can you explain clearly why those of us arguing against this YouTube pianist are illogical (because I think most here in fact will do)??

Even though mathematics is very elegant and very interesting, this is about personal subjective opinions, and we don't gain too much by mathematical boasting.

[...] any complaint about his argument is illogical

This isn't about pure logic but as I said subjective opinions. The YouTube pianist's arguments doesn't convince most of us here on the forum, I'm pretty sure.
And I'm pretty sure that most here think Chopin's etudes are more interesting musically than Czerny's etudes, and by stating the opposite, as the YouTube pianist: "Czerny's op. 740 etudes are much better works of music in my opinion", there is a risk of not being taken serious.

I'll complain about his arguments, and still I don't think it is illogical:

In my opinion the Etudes are Chopin's weakest works as a whole

They aren't Chopin's best works (I think most agree on that), but even if they're his weakest (which I personally don't think) it doesn't mean they're bad.

are simply made weaker by most pianists' obsession with speed

This is about the pianists who play them, not necessarily the etudes themselves.

And, as already mentioned by me and many others:

"Czerny's op. 740 etudes are much better works of music in my opinion.

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

I personal think the Chopin etudes (I'm working with them now, complementing my Bach WTC ++ study), are perfect etudes, because they aren't just technical, but musical masterpieces that easily could be appreciated when played on concerts too.
They cover very many aspects of technical playing, and in addition they're, to be etudes nice to play and sometimes listen to. They combine technical challenges and musical substance and make a complete artistic form.

The argument is entirely based on comparison

I can't understand your definition of comparison.
The normal definition of comparison:
"Comparison is the act of comparing one thing to another, in order to determine similarities and differences, relative size, relative importance."

If you use other obscure definitions, please make that clear.
Because I think perhaps that most of us don't consider these statements as comparisons:
"they are overplayed"
"YouTube is already oversaturated"
"Etudes are Chopin's weakest works" (superlative, not comparative: weaker - weakest)

"Czerny's op. 740 etudes are much better" (better is comparative)
I agree on that one, but the content of this one is pure bullshit.

I don't want to be "quarrelsome" and pedantic, but I don't think nyiregyhazi is as bad as you think when it comes to logic and definitions.
You just have to explain when you use aesthetic theories and so on...

Ok.  Let me show you exact opposites: ∃ and ∄​ [...]you can clearly see the ridiculous stupidity of your statement[...]

I have studied mathematics at the university, included advanced algebra, so I should perhaps be qualified to discuss this, but I think it should be totally unnecessary and irrelevant. But, whenever you use some obscure definitions, please let us know. Because I think you're still taking wrong in your first contribution to this thread:
The opposite of the opinion "Chopin's etudes are his weakest works" is NOT "Chopin Etudes are superior to the majority of Chopin's other compositions".
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you...?
Even a mathematician thinks you're quite hard to logically understand and imprecise.

(In mathematics "opposite" usually means the additive inverse - i.e. b and -b, c and -c. Here we talk about statements, which is another thing (black-white?, good-bad?). The opposite of being the weakest is usually interpreted as being the strongest (not as "not the weakest") as far as I know.)

Of course I understand that you're talking about something quite else, so forget this "additive inverse", but my point is: nyiregyhazi statement isn't ridiculous at all:
I think you're still taking wrong in your first contribution to this thread, and I don't think you need to show your mathematical skills to explain this.


The YouTube pianist's opinions is still controversial, and those of us who believe Chopin's etudes are masterworks of a genius are by no means illogical, we just appreciate good music which isn't only about pure mechanical scales and so on. We love sophisticated music - technical challenges combined with interesting musical substance!

My point: what the YouTube pianist say is IMO bullshit, but I respect his opinions as they are personal and subjective.

[werq34ac]

I didn't read the last like 10 posts since they were really long, but wouldn't the statement "the Chopin etudes are the weakest pieces he wrote" be disproved by another piece Chopin wrote that are weaker than the etudes?

Geometric proof (let's see if I remember how to do this...)
Given: Chopin's entire ouvre
Prove: Chopin's etudes are not the weakest piece he ever wrote.
Let's see.. Military Polonaise straight out sucks. And no one wants to hear Nocturne 9/2 ever again. On the other hand, a good performance of Winter Wind never fails to amaze and 10/3 Chopin himself said that it was perhaps the most beautiful melody he ever composed.
Plus if one even HOPES to play Chopin's larger works like the Scherzi, Ballades, etc. then at least some study of the etudes is necessary since they pretty much contain just about all of the technique required to play Chopin. I mean if you look at Ballade 4, I can name 5 etudes at the top of my head that a pianist would benefit from learning before playing this piece.

[nyiregyhazi]

Of course I understand that you're talking about something quite else, so forget this "additive inverse", but my point is: nyiregyhazi statement isn't ridiculous at all:
I think you're still taking wrong in your first contribution to this thread, and I don't think you need to show your mathematical skills to explain this.

Exactly. The only "opposite" that has logical relevance is the opposite that states that the etudes are NOT the weakest works. The exclusive opposite of logical pertinence is that which fits into the alternative binary set (and mathematical logic demands use of the logically suitable concept of an "opposite" as much as any other chain of logic. An "opposite" has no logical relevance in the claim made unless it is defined as being an alternative binary possibility). The linguistic opposite to the concept of the "worst" has no place in any logical proof. In logic, either it's the worst or it isn't. No other concept of the "opposite" can be accurately used in a logical procedure. Thank God that we don't need jargon for such simple processes! I'm stunned that anyone might feel that employing it might disguise foundation level errors in use of absolute logic. Bringing in irrelevant algebra can no more "prove" erroneous logic, than it can "prove" that 1+1=3.

Had the post initially stated that "opinions are subjective" it could have conveyed every bit as much- and without resort to factual error (or convoluted pseudo-intellectual tautology).

PS. Foundation level logic is exactly what the words say it is.  Fortuitously, the English language caters for more than stock phrases and cliches. Surprisingly enough, it refers to logic at a foundation level- just as an application of the foundation level of logic suggests it to. Sometimes strings of words can function outside of a context in jargon (based on collective reference to their accepted linguistic meanings). Just as logic exists perfectly well outside of the highly specific possibility of mathematical/algebraic representation.

[fftransform]

If the inverse of THIS is true, then there must NOT necessarily exist an argument which states that Chopin etudes are superior of the majority of Chopin's other compisitions. I don't see the logic here. What "kind of inverse" are you using?

The relationship between, "his worst works," and, "majority," seems quite clear.  In fact, I am making your own argument easier for you.  If they are inferior to ALL of his works, then they are most certainly inferior to a majority of his works.

Again, imprecision: there will exist such an argument.  It will just be incorrect.  Any argument exists.  You not seeing the logic isn't surprising, considering your showing thus far.  The "kind of inverse" refers to the (non)existence of a proper, logic-based argument, as opposed to a subjective argument.   The truth-value of such an argument, if it exists, is irrelevant to whether or not it exists.  How can this not be clear?

I mean, to falsify

Immediately: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsificationism

Do not use words that you do not know the definition of.  I have already mentioned the issue with the use of this term; why are you falling prey to the same misuse of it?  And again, the truth-value of such an argument is irrelevant to whether it exists.  So you are wasting time.

his statement by "scientific methods" we need to ask us if the opposite is true, which is really not about the etudes' superiority to the majority of other works of him.

No, we don't.  Again, this has nothing to do with the truth-value of such an argument.  Also, in the future, can you abstain from using bold to denote "majority"?  That's been covered.

And this has nothing to do with proving, falsifying, Karl Popper, group theory, set theory...
This is about personal opinions.

If "proving" and "falsifying" have nothing to do with anything, then please stop harping on about them.  Group Theory and Set Theory are basic tools of logic; to say that they are irrelevant is to say that logic is irrelevant.  How can this possibly be the case when my argument specifically concerns logic?  My argument concerns logic, not "personal opinions."  "Personal opinions" are useless garbage.  The rationale behind an opinion can be strong or weak; "personal opinion" is the refuge of irrational (nay, sub-rational) people.  You've mentioned the scientific method; therefore Karl Popper does have relevance.  According to you; your argument is pointless, though.  Also, mentioning Popper just because I referred to verisimilitude would be like mentioning Aristotle just because I mentioned human anatomy.  Popper's theories are outdated and irrelevant.

What is your point fftransform?

Why are you asking this now, as opposed to asking this first?  My point is obvious: that one cannot objectively argue with the person.  That was 100% crystal-clear.  Subjective arguments are pointless, as they prove nothing.  They are mere sophism, and a weak brand of it.

How can you explain clearly why those of us arguing against this YouTube pianist are illogical (because I think most here in fact will do)??

Because his own argument is illogical.  All arguments that are in the same terms as his, but may be the opposite, will also be illogical.  Therefore there exists no logical argument on such terms, either for or against his opinion.  The corollary is that it's pointless to waste time on such matters, but I haven't even had time to mention that, what with the stupid-brigade misunderstanding everything that I say and then telling me that I'm wrong.

Even though mathematics is very elegant and very interesting, this is about personal subjective opinions, and we don't gain too much by mathematical boasting.

You have fun with your personal, subjective opinions.  They are worthless.  You are only proving my point: that arguments in the form that have been exhibited in this thread (his and the counterarguments) are "personal, subjective opinions," i.e. not logical.  My original statement is that there exists no logical argument to combat his, given the criteria that would be necessary to produce one.  So if you are saying that all that you guys have are "personal, subjective opinions," then you've proven me right.  You are correct: we do not gain much by "mathematical boasting."  Also, I'm glad to learn that you took advanced algebra courses in college.

This isn't about pure logic but as I said subjective opinions.

Then I am correct.  Thank you for your admission.

I'll complain about his arguments, and still I don't think it is illogical:They aren't Chopin's best works (I think most agree on that), but even if they're his weakest (which I personally don't think) it doesn't mean they're bad.

You have to prove that they aren't Chopin's best works, and that even if they're his weakest (or even among his weakest), that they're not necessarily bad.  You can't prove these things.  Therefore whatever argument form that you will use will be based on subjective BS (i.e. not an argument based on logical constructs, in this case truth-functors, which is what would be necessary).

I personal think

That's nice.

I can't understand your definition of comparison.
The normal definition of comparison:
"Comparison is the act of comparing one thing to another, in order to determine similarities and differences, relative size, relative importance."

If you use other obscure definitions, please make that clear.
Because I think perhaps that most of us don't consider these statements as comparisons:
"they are overplayed"
"YouTube is already oversaturated"
"Etudes are Chopin's weakest works" (superlative, not comparative: weaker - weakest)

I made it clear.  Do you need me to direct you to where I spoke, several times, on the issue of aesthetic theory and comparison?  Perhaps the book that I mentioned on the subject?  This is all irrelevant, at this point, because I've already shown you your error(s), but to be thorough, all of the statements given above are comparative statements.  One by one:

a) Easy: if one designates the number of times that a piece should be played to be directly related to the quality of the piece, which is the clear intent, this statement is comparative, as it must have something else by which to compare the quality of the work to.  Quality is comparative.  If you do not believe this, then there is nothing more that I can say.  This is too basic.
b) Easier: if it is oversaturated, then the proportionality of videos on youtube of the Chopin Etudes is disproportionately high.  From proportionality, the comparative aspect obviously follows.
c) Easiest: it cannot be his weakest work if there is not a work that is stronger than it.  It is weaker than such a stronger work.  Weaker and stronger are comparative.

I do not understand how (b) and (c) are not obvious to you.  Maybe (a) is less obvious, but it would be better to ask as opposed to tell.

I have studied mathematics at the university, included advanced algebra, so I should perhaps be qualified to discuss this, but I think it should be totally unnecessary and irrelevant.

I'm not familiar with "the" university.   It is not unnecessary or irrelevant; I have explained why.  If you think that using mathematical constructs is an overly technical way of explaining something, then you are not speaking of logic.  I utilized insanely basic combinatorial set-theoretical constructs; it does not get any simpler than that.

Even a mathematician thinks you're quite hard to logically understand and imprecise.

I am anything but imprecise.  Are you saying that you are a mathematician?  Or are you saying, "even for a mathematician, I think"?  Or that some other mathematician, who is neither you nor me, has read my posts and found them to be difficult to understand?

Thank you for your clarity and precision.

(In mathematics "opposite" usually means the additive inverse - i.e. b and -b, c and -c. Here we talk about statements, which is another thing (black-white?, good-bad?). The opposite of being the weakest is usually interpreted as being the strongest (not as "not the weakest") as far as I know.)

"Opposite" doesn't mean anything in mathematics.  Inverse means something.  And inverse does not "usually" mean anything.  There exist infinitely many groups under Z with the operations of addition or multiplication.  In rings, an inverse would refer to addition and multiplication.  An inverse merely refers to the element s.t. (a^-1)a=a(a^-1)=e.  I cannot think of a branch of mathematics in which an inverse would "usually" mean the additive inverse.

I think you're still taking wrong in your first contribution to this thread, and I don't think you need to show your mathematical skills to explain this.

If I explain something in words and somebody tells me that I'm wrong, then I will explain it in numbers.  They are then free to argue with those as much as they like.  But it is stupid and pointless of them.

The YouTube pianist's opinions is still controversial, and those of us who believe Chopin's etudes are masterworks of a genius are by no means illogical, we just appreciate good music which isn't only about pure mechanical scales and so on. We love sophisticated music - technical challenges combined with interesting musical substance!

You haven't been around long if you find stupid statements to still be controversial.  Or maybe you just don't realize how many statements that you come across are stupid.

[nyiregyhazi]

"The relationship between, "his worst works," and, "majority," seems quite clear.  In fact, I am making your own argument easier for you.  If they are inferior to ALL of his works, then they are most certainly inferior to a majority of his works."

What if they were objectively proven as average? That would not disprove that they might be the worst? Yes it would, actually- which falsifies your initial claim. This evident contradiction is why the only "opposite" of logical relevance is that which exists in the alternate binary set (with the two sets accounting for ALL possibilities, between them). Without such obvious standards of basic logic being maintained, everything falls down. I can't believe that you are still repeating it as if the logic stands up- nevermind being quite so patronising and rude to anybody who is bemused by it.

Your argument falls into the same trap as anyone who thinks that because pigs are pink, pink things are pigs. You're taking a subset (for a very specific possibility) and erroneously believing it to be synonomous with the set itself. It is not- hence the rational contradiction that has been exposed in your statement. If all rational possibilities cannot to be covered within two sets, they do not imply anything about all rational possibilities. They simply relate to what they cover. If you want to speak for possibility, the alternate to being "the worst" is not to be the worst. If you favour anything more specific, you do not account for all possibilities in your two sets. The subset of being superior to the majority of Chopin's works is not the same thing as the set of alternate possibilities to the Etudes being the worst work. It is only a part of the set. You seem to think they are the same thing, but they are not.

Writing an essay will not change that. Citing jargon will not change that. The primary test of logic is in the application. As they say "the exception proves the rule" (which when used accurately means that it proves the rule to be false, rather than what most people mean by the phrase). Citations don't save it. The opposite of the argument is not for them to be superior to a majority. Not only does this style of "opposite" fail to function in any accurate logical path, but this also amounts to a subjective leap- ironically made within a failed attempt to objectively prove the matter to be subjective. Next time you want to point out that something is subjective, perhaps you could simply say so without resort to either tautology or portrayal of fallacious statements as (supposedly) objective reasoning.

"My point is obvious: that one cannot objectively argue with the person."

Had you stated it this way (instead of hiding it behind pseudo-intellectualism and erroneous logic) it might indeed have been clear.

"You have fun with your personal, subjective opinions.  They are worthless.  You are only proving my point: that arguments in the form that have been exhibited in this thread (his and the counterarguments) are "personal, subjective opinions," i.e. not logical."

I take it you are familiar with straw-man arguments? At what point did anyone discuss logic or imply that it were their basis for disagreement? Did you suspect this forum would be frequented by Vulcans? Incidentally, the (evidently subjective) opinion that subjective opinions are worthless is a self-negating premise. Assuming that you cannot objectively prove the truth of it, the truth of the premise is dependent upon the premise itself being worthless. This is a paradox that renders the claim itself worthless, no matter what light it should be viewed in.

"You have to prove that they aren't Chopin's best works, and that even if they're his weakest (or even among his weakest), that they're not necessarily bad.  You can't prove these things.  Therefore whatever argument form that you will use will be based on subjective BS (i.e. not an argument based on logical constructs, in this case truth-functors, which is what would be necessary)."

Do you wish to ban debate then? Nobody can objectively prove that Chopin's finest music has any more inherent artistic value than a truck full of dung.Do you spend your whole life berating people, in the event that you should hear a subjective opinion being expressed?

[nyiregyhazi]

Logic is mathematics.  First order logic is representing propositions in language as mathematics.  This is what logic is.  To say that mathematics is irrelevant is idiotic.  Group theory is a theory of particular types of sets.

Again, an instance where you had presumed that a subset and a set are synonomous. Mathematical logic is mathematics. It does not follow that all logic is mathematics. When a person takes a chip from a plate containing many and eats it, mathematics can be used to represent the situation in a manner such as x= n-1 (where x is the number of remaining chips and n is the number of chips they began with).

THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE PERSON IS PERFORMING MATHEMATICS! They are eating a chip! Mathematics CAN be involved to REPRESENT the situation. That does not mean mathematics is involved by default.. Similarly, logic CAN be represented in mathematics. It does not follow that "logic is mathematics"- any more than it follows that "eating chips is mathematics". Can you honestly not differentiate a set from a mere subset within it? To say that this is an important requirement for a person who is interested in logical procedures would be putting it mildly. Accurate rules cannot be founded upon superficial correlations.

Also, in relation to your patronising pedantry about arguments existing, do you recall writing:

"Regarding the original topic, if the inverse is in fact true, then there must exist an argument..."

? So the truth of this hinges whether such an argument has ever been formulated (the key being whether that arguments was made while its accuracy is irrelevant)? If you want to pick people up, why not start with the identical "imprecision" of expression in your own language. He's at fault for referencing your very own phrase? And it's not even true that any argument exists (which if true, would have rendered your entire statement to be the purest and most undiluted tautology imaginable). Arguments that have never been formulated clearly do not exist.

[cazico]

fftransform, my whole point was to argue against the YouTube pianist without being regarded as illogical. So then I had to confront you before the YouTube pianist.

And it seems very clear that you're more interested in logic than in the Chopin etudes, which isn't the case for me.
I prefer discussing Chopin, more than showing off my knowledge in logic, aesthetic theory, mathematics and so on.
Perhaps we could talk mathematics at https://www.mymathforum.com/ ? Chaos theory is my favourite topic. 

Do not use words that you do not know the definition of.

? ?. Sometimes you could be funny, or just nauseating impertinent. I hate arrogance. And I hate rubbish like this. (I'm a researcher and doctorate student - falsification is my "foundation pilar" in researching.)
I'm though humble enough to say sorry if I'm sometimes easy to misunderstand.

"Personal opinions" are useless garbage.

  
So you are on this forum only to discuss "objective issues" and use logic?

Also, mentioning Popper just because I referred to verisimilitude would be like mentioning Aristotle just because I mentioned human anatomy.  Popper's theories are outdated and irrelevant.

It wasn't my intention to critisize you for using Popper here, I just had to reel it off when I used "proving" and "falsification". Sorry for MY "imprecision" there.

My point is obvious: that one cannot objectively argue with the person.

Ahh. An alternative, and much better way, to say it.
I emphasize nyiregyhazi's words: "Had you stated it this way (instead of hiding it behind pseudo-intellectualism and erroneous logic) it might indeed have been clear."

Subjective arguments are pointless, as they prove nothing.

I think that subjective arguments are (sometimes) interesting. Why do we discuss on a forum like this?
I want to listen to other opinions, to get input. New ideas. New perspectives. New viewpoints. The world isn't all about me.

(Otherwise, "proving" is kind of "taboo" in the natural sciences which is my field. In scientific methods proving is replaced by disproving. But as I said, my field is the natural sciences, so my way of thinking is highly influenced from that. And this is totally off-topic, and has nothing to do with neither my posts nor your posts.)

the stupid-brigade misunderstanding everything that I say and then telling me that I'm wrong

Sorry. My purpose was to justify my arguments against the YouTube pianist. Not to be quarrelsome.

You have fun with your personal, subjective opinions.  They are worthless.

Of course worthless when we use pure logic (or mathematics). But I'm much more interested in subjective opinions than set theory and group theory when discussing Chopin. I've plenty of other forums to discuss my beloved topics like chaos theory, quantum mechanics and integrals and so on.
I want to rather focus on the Chopin etudes here.

My original statement is that there exists no logical argument to combat his, given the criteria that would be necessary to produce one.[...] whatever argument form that you will use will be based on subjective BS (i.e. not an argument based on logical constructs, in this case truth-functors, which is what would be necessary).

Perhaps there are a huge misunderstanding underlying it all. As I said, my interest is about the Chopin
etudes rather than using logical constructs, set theory, group theory... But you should know that you aren't faultless and perfect, which is especially true in this debate.

[...]all of the statements given above are comparative statements[...]

You know, my interest is in the natural sciences and of course music (!!), and I admit that I'm not a linguistic genius, but what I learned at school is that we have three degrees of comparisons:
positive - comparative - superlative. (E.g: god - better - best, high - higher - highest).
Therefore I regarded "Etudes are Chopin's weakest works" as the superlative form, not the comparative, and I just presumed that most people think that way, but of course I can be wrong.
When nyiregyhazi mentioned that "the argument [by the YouTube pianist] was not based on comparative issues" I had to agree, because the YouTube pianist didn't use comparative but superlative when saying that the etudes are Chopin's weakest (not weaker) works. That was relevant to the word "majority" used of you. If the YouTube pianist say that the etudes is Chopin's weakest works, we can "disprove" it by saying it is better than only ONE of Chopin's works (not the majority). That was my thought, and I dimly perceive that more than me thought that way.
You see?
So my point was, regarding the "comparative issue", that whenever you use obscure definitions from aesthetic theories or whatever you use, it would be fine if that was explained further.

I'm not familiar with "the" university

Thanks a lot! I've too much luck and success in my life, so I've no problem admitting to everyone that I'm bad, miserable and awful in enligsh. Any corrections of my enligsh is highly appreciated (I'm not kidding)!
Perhaps many of you are from enligsh speaking countries? Because sometimes I feel so stupid and silly when I read the seemingly perfect english from other debaters... Shame on me.

I am anything but imprecise.

I'm not sure. I'm a supporter of being a little bit humble sometimes.

Are you saying that you are a mathematician?  Or are you saying, "even for a mathematician, I think"?  Or that some other mathematician, who is neither you nor me, has read my posts and found them to be difficult to understand?

I'm reffering to me when I wrote "mathematician" (not other mathematicians). Just to make it clear that it has nothing to do with the mathematics that I don't understand. It's your obscure definitions, aesthetic theories, and for me, uniteresting and meaningless logical constructs. It gives me nothing in this debate. And I didn't understand you. Though your last post made SOMEthing more clear.

"Opposite" doesn't mean anything in mathematics.

Mathematicians never use opposite, you're correct.
Though, you wrote:

Let me show you exact opposites: ∃ and ∄​

And then, in an elegant way, you accuse other for being stupid. I just couldn't let it pass.
Perhaps, you're not so precise as you think you are, perhaps "the others" aren't as stupid as you think they are? That was some "parts of my points".
Anyway, usually "opposites" means additive inverse in mathematics, you really can't explain that away.
Inverse is of course a more precise word.

I cannot think of a branch of mathematics in which an inverse would "usually" mean the additive inverse.

Of course you're correct, and all mathematicians know that. I've though never claimed that, so I don't know what your point was here...?
But as I said, forget the additive inverse, I understand that you talk about something quite else, but you're seemingly too interested in showing off you mathematical skills to forget it..? 
I would also love to come with some formulas, but I feel it is not relevant here to argue for the perfectness of Chopin's etudes.

It is not my intention to kick up a shindy/row (correct english?  ) or make conflicts, fftransform.
I just observed a little bit arrogance, and "you're-stupid"-tendencies, and that your showing off with mathematics and logical constructs don't make you better than anyone else. I just feel nyiregyhazi is more rational and logic.

I otherwise refer to nyiregyhazi, who is both better in english than me and able to explain more elegant the weaknesses of fftransform's posts.

[pianoplayjl]

How  the hell are Chopin etudes oerplayed? they are beneficial to every pianist's technique and definitely is a must for wannabe pianists, just as much as Bach WTCs.

[lostinidlewonder]

Chopin etudes are probably amongst his worst pieces for those that are not ready to play them. The same applies for any other piece that any other composer ever wrote. If you are not at the level to play these pieces at an efficient rate they are terrible pieces for you to learn if you want to learn effectively.

ETUDE means a piece is written in such a manner to exercise particular technique with your instrument. It seems illogical to say that the Chopin Etudes are his worst pieces to develop technique because that is what the composer intended when he composed the music! But if you are not ready to play these works they will be quite terrible pieces to learn.

As someone who can play/learn any of Chopin's piano pieces with confidence I find his etudes amongst the most important technical and musical works. Countless respected professional classical pianists will also echo this sentiment, go visit a well known music school/university and none of them will shun the Etudes, in fact you will hear it echoing throughout the hallways!

Anyone who thinks that Chopin's etudes are not good for your technique does not understand Chopin's music or does not have the technical capability to physically appreciate it. All their ideas are guesswork and to me sound like frustration since they cannot appreciate how the Etudes solidifies our technique. They try to use it as a technique acquisition rather than a solidification, thus they get angry since they have no experience to draw from. Of course any piece which presents you with countless instances that you cannot control or must labor on with ineffectively long amounts of time/effort, is useless to learn.

[pianoplayjl]

Yeah, Chopin etudes are a demanding work for those who are not ready. So clearly Bachscholar does not understand some of Chopin's works, does he?

[lostinidlewonder]

Yeah, Chopin etudes are a demanding work for those who are not ready. So clearly Bachscholar does not understand some of Chopin's works, does he?

I use to think Chemistry was the worst subject during high school, but that was only because I didn't get good marks compared to the other subjects!

Perhaps in the information age today we are exposed to more and more recordings and certain pieces can become repetitive thus we can generate a "hate" for these pieces because we hear them so often. However, if that is the only way you enjoy listening to piano music then this is a little sad in my opinion.

I generally can't stand listening to another recording of the 1st mvt of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata but I love playing it myself and listening to others play it live. When you see the music being created in front of you this is a different experience, I think that some are now "technology zombies" and ignore listening to music like it was first intended. "Sterile" is a word that comes to mind. It shouldn't surprise us that some zombies have obscured thoughts on the masterful works of arts by genius composers.

[richterfan1]

LOL! SURELY WE CANNOT DISTURB THE MAESTRO AT WORK WITH OUR COMMENTS![/quote]

HAHAHAHAHA

[pytheamateur]

I thought I would also comment on this issue. 

As far as Youtube pianists are concerned, I would recommend Paul Barton over BachScholar.  I believe Mr Barton's playing is of a different league altogether, even though most of his recordings were made on a Yahama upright as opposed to BachScholar's Steinway.

Paul Barton's tutorials are especially good. 

At least, he had the humility to admit he played a wrong note in one of Chopin's Etudes and would never disable comments on Youtube and then invent some delusional reasons for doing so.

[werq34ac]

I thought I would also comment on this issue. 

As far as Youtube pianists are concerned, I would recommend Paul Barton over BachScholar.  I believe Mr Barton's playing is of a different league altogether, even though most of his recordings were made on a Yahama upright as opposed to BachScholar's Steinway.

Paul Barton's tutorials are especially good. 

At least, he had the humility to admit he played a wrong note in one of Chopin's Etudes and would never disable comments on Youtube and then invent some delusional reasons for doing so.

The fact that he admitted a wrong note makes me doubt his ability. If he admits that he played a wrong note, then it means that he placed importance on missing that note.. The point of the etudes is not to get every single note.

[pytheamateur]

The fact that he admitted a wrong note makes me doubt his ability. If he admits that he played a wrong note, then it means that he placed importance on missing that note.. The point of the etudes is not to get every single note.

As far as I remember it arose in Chop's Etude in C, Op10 1, and it's a case of him misreading a note, rather than missing a note during performance.  In that sense I think it's important as we should always be faithful to what the composer wrote.

If you look at his video, I think you'll agree it's good playing.

[werq34ac]

Ah so that's what you meant. Since it is a tutorial, it is somewhat important not to mislead people with wrong notes. I don't agree with an attempt to tutorialize Chopin but he does a good job nonetheless. Decent playing, can't say much more than that since I'm not hearing him play beginning to end.

[williampiano]

Yes, I have been familiar with BachScholar's videos for quite a while and yes, like many people I think he has a right to his opinion, even though I completely disagree with it. I honestly think the Chopin Etudes are some of the greatest etudes for the piano, but I don't think that every other musician in the world should think so. For example, as much as I think all of Chopin's works are great, I think the preludes are the weakest set of works as a whole, not the etudes. I still like them, but compared to the nocturnes, polonaises, waltzes and even mazurkas, they are by far the least interesting, to me. There are a few that I really like, but other than that, I never thought they were that great.

[mjin1]

I am.. confused, by this topic.

I know that my musical tastes and ideas seem to be different from most people. I just don't understand the view that just because somebody doesn't care for a set of etudes, they 'probably can't play them', or whatever somebody said about players who lack velocity and all this stuff.. seriously?

I honestly hadn't heard but 2 or 3 chopin etudes before I read this topic, so about an hour ago I went and got all of them off of itunes, and listened to them. As a composer myself, they seem like alright character pieces, some of them obviously more interesting than others. But they really do seem like they were written with technique in mind, one thing I disliked in my initial listen was that the defining technique of the piece is repeated so much, that it gets pretty stale to me - but I realize this is most likely the intent, they are technical etudes. Some of them seem pretty nice, but it wasn't something terribly ground breaking to me, and I didn't expect that since I listen to mostly Alkan and Liszt at this point, and also because Chopin's an early romantic composer. I think for the time period, the etudes are enjoyable pieces.. But in my opinion, trying to defend a set of works as something that every pianist should like, or they just don't know what they're talking, is ridiculous to me.

In my opinion some of them are nice pieces, some of them come across as not so exploratory, not really a whole lot of variation, which again, might've been the composers intent, or might've just been Chopin's style sometimes. I don't know. But I'm still confused as to these being some sort of mystical pieces that everyone has to like. I certainly won't be placing a high value in these pieces, probably ever, in my musical career. I may learn one at some point. Either way, I think I'll be alright.

The point of all of this is, I think it's important to be able to state your opinion without having people go into defend the holy grail mode. Like with me, I'm really glad you guys enjoy Chopin's music, I just haven't gotten alot of enjoyment out of it, myself. It's totally fine. Same with me and Mozart people. I cannot STAND listening to anything Mozart related, but I'm not going to go on and debate about Mozart's legitimacy as an artist. He was a great artist, I simply do not care for his works.

And technically speaking also, I find it hard to believe that a set of etudes are must haves for anyone looking to have good technique. If you want to play a piece, play it, and practice it correctly. You'll gain technique from that piece, as long as it's not something too difficult. Even if it is, when practiced at your level, you'll gain technical benefit from it. I do not agree with the notion that xyz pieces must be practiced or your technique will be bad. Sure if you don't practice a technique in a demanding piece then it won't be called to reach a higher level, but is it really that difficult to find demanding pieces of music to play now? Hell, is it really that difficult to just make up some exercises yourself to use for technique building, if all else seems to fail? I just disagree with the idea that these etudes absolutely must be learned or your technique won't reach a higher level. It's a myth, in my opinion.

Anyways. I also don't mean to directly defend the youtube guy. If he was acting like a jackass at one point, then he's just that.

[mcdiddy1]

I am.. confused, by this topic.

I know that my musical tastes and ideas seem to be different from most people. I just don't understand the view that just because somebody doesn't care for a set of etudes, they 'probably can't play them', or whatever somebody said about players who lack velocity and all this stuff.. seriously?

I honestly hadn't heard but 2 or 3 chopin etudes before I read this topic, so about an hour ago I went and got all of them off of itunes, and listened to them. As a composer myself, they seem like alright character pieces, some of them obviously more interesting than others. But they really do seem like they were written with technique in mind, one thing I disliked in my initial listen was that the defining technique of the piece is repeated so much, that it gets pretty stale to me - but I realize this is most likely the intent, they are technical etudes. Some of them seem pretty nice, but it wasn't something terribly ground breaking to me, and I didn't expect that since I listen to mostly Alkan and Liszt at this point, and also because Chopin's an early romantic composer. I think for the time period, the etudes are enjoyable pieces.. But in my opinion, trying to defend a set of works as something that every pianist should like, or they just don't know what they're talking, is ridiculous to me.

In my opinion some of them are nice pieces, some of them come across as not so exploratory, not really a whole lot of variation, which again, might've been the composers intent, or might've just been Chopin's style sometimes. I don't know. But I'm still confused as to these being some sort of mystical pieces that everyone has to like. I certainly won't be placing a high value in these pieces, probably ever, in my musical career. I may learn one at some point. Either way, I think I'll be alright.

The point of all of this is, I think it's important to be able to state your opinion without having people go into defend the holy grail mode. Like with me, I'm really glad you guys enjoy Chopin's music, I just haven't gotten alot of enjoyment out of it, myself. It's totally fine. Same with me and Mozart people. I cannot STAND listening to anything Mozart related, but I'm not going to go on and debate about Mozart's legitimacy as an artist. He was a great artist, I simply do not care for his works.

And technically speaking also, I find it hard to believe that a set of etudes are must haves for anyone looking to have good technique. If you want to play a piece, play it, and practice it correctly. You'll gain technique from that piece, as long as it's not something too difficult. Even if it is, when practiced at your level, you'll gain technical benefit from it. I do not agree with the notion that xyz pieces must be practiced or your technique will be bad. Sure if you don't practice a technique in a demanding piece then it won't be called to reach a higher level, but is it really that difficult to find demanding pieces of music to play now? Hell, is it really that difficult to just make up some exercises yourself to use for technique building, if all else seems to fail? I just disagree with the idea that these etudes absolutely must be learned or your technique won't reach a higher level. It's a myth, in my opinion.

Anyways. I also don't mean to directly defend the youtube guy. If he was acting like a jackass at one point, then he's just that.

I find myself agreeing with your post for the most part. I think it is silly for every pianist to enjoy every composition by great composers. But I do think the etudes are respected for historical impact in particular. Considering Chopin wrote the first set of etudes in his teens and essential elevated etude writing to be so musical and sophisticated that they should like character pieces is pretty remarkable considering what was being produced. Chopin's etude was so musically groundbreaking it inspired Liszt to write his own. If you consider other examples of piano etudes (Czerny etc..) it is no wonder that the etudes are often played on the concert stage and often recorded by concert pianist. I think to a contemporary ear what was historically musically groundbreaking may sound tame and ordinary by our standards.

I think from a technical stand point the etudes are not necessary to have a great technique but they require a pianist to have very good technique to play well. The pieces are a great bench point of technical ability for aspiring pianist. There are few standard sets of pieces that are played by concert pianist and the Chopin etudes is without question one of them. If you want to find a musical piece that is a high level of difficulty, test your musical ability, and is on par with what the best pianist play the Chopin etudes, Beethoven sonatas, and Preludes and Fugues by Bach are the most common ones.

I think what makes Chopin etudes so popular is the historical foundation the etudes have played in piano literature, pedagogy, and teaching. I think that some of the pieces have a universal appeal because of the high level of harmonic and melodic writing and it is a way for pianist to gauge how they compare to the big time pianists. I certainly agree with you their is not particularly magical and will not give you a phenomenal technique. I think learning healthy, efficient body movements while practice a variety of repertoire will produce good technique rather than a set of etudes. I also think everyone is entitled to their own opinion and if they do not like the etudes it does not make them crazy or jealous just with different taste. I think what cannot be denied is how important the etudes are historically to piano technique.

[sevencircles]

"I get many requests to play and teach Chopin's Etudes. I hate to disappoint you, but I dislike the Chopin Etudes. In my opinion they are overplayed and overrated and YouTube is already oversaturated with far too many performances of them. In my opinion the Etudes are Chopin's weakest works as a whole, which are simply made weaker by most pianists' obsession with speed. They have become pretty much speed contests more than anything

I agree, I think Chopinīs works are overrated in general.

Bachīt works are in general much better and more fun to play too.

[mjin1]

I agree with you mcdiddy, I think that's an excellent point. The chopin etudes are incredibly ground breaking historically, and that's an important part about them for me to remember. I'm glad you agree with a few of my points as well.

I just think it's important for the future of classical music and it's community to not get so quarrelsome over musical discussions, and really just be cool with other people's opinions on whatever music they prefer, as long as they themselves are expressing it in a reasonable way.

[werq34ac]

I agree, I think Chopinīs works are overrated in general.

Bachīt works are in general much better and more fun to play too.

That's interesting, I find Bach absolutely awful to play because it can get quite awkward and doesn't exactly fall under the fingers as well as Chopin and Liszt.

And in addition, one cannot get away with bashing one of the greatest piano composers in history without providing solid evidence to support your claim. Chopin is overrated? Perhaps his more popular pieces, however Chopin has written many many underrated works. Whether it's fun to play or not is made up for in the profound emotion and humanity in his music.

[sevencircles]

That's interesting, I find Bach absolutely awful to play because it can get quite awkward and doesn't exactly fall under the fingers as well as Chopin and Liszt.

And in addition, one cannot get away with bashing one of the greatest piano composers in history without providing solid evidence to support your claim. Chopin is overrated? Perhaps his more popular pieces, however Chopin has written many many underrated works. Whether it's fun to play or not is made up for in the profound emotion and humanity in his music.

Bach may be awkward to play but most of his pieces sound really great if you can play them really well.

Chopinīt concertos, nocturnes and most of the etudes (except for the revolutionary and a couple of others) are really overrated I think

The concertos in particular.

Really boring orchestrations.

[werq34ac]

Bach may be awkward to play but most of his pieces sound really great if you can play them really well.

Chopinīt concertos, nocturnes and most of the etudes (except for the revolutionary and a couple of others) are really overrated I think

The concertos in particular.

Really boring orchestrations.

Really boring orchestrations (in your opinion, personally I know nothing about orchestration other than the fact that Ravel was really good at it. The rest just comes from listening), but absolutely fantastic piano writing. Liszt may have been an innovator in piano technique and sound, but Chopin's piano writing remains the some of the absolute best in the entire keyboard repertoire. Concertos etudes and nocturnes? That's the tip of the pile and not necessarily the top of it. His other works deserve much more attention. You say that the etudes are boring apart from the Revolutionary, which I personally think is a bit overrated.

I find it appalling that people dismiss Chopin as an overrated composer based on his overrated works.

[megadodd]

Wait, so he bashes the Chopin etudes for being overplayed on YouTube, but he posts a recording of the Fantasie Impromptu?

Jackass award, anyone?

<3! Nothing against the guy, never liked him really. But that was hillarious.