Chopin piano concerto?

[thesuineg]

I really don't like them.
He is a genius for piano and shouldn't have attempted orchestra writing.
Other pieces I really dislike are some of the preludes..thought I guess I just don't understand them.
But gosh his concerto's are just soo uncharacteristic its unbelievable. Someone wanna change my opinion...?

[cmg]

I really don't like them.
He is a genius for piano and shouldn't have attempted orchestra writing.
Other pieces I really dislike are some of the preludes..thought I guess I just don't understand them.
But gosh his concerto's are just soo uncharacteristic its unbelievable. Someone wanna change my opinion...?

Your opinions are your own.  I wouldn't dream of changing them.  But, to fully appreciate Chopin's concerti it would help you -- particularly -- to have some familiarity with early 19th-century concerti, Hummel, for example, who wrote some fine works.  Listen, then compare them to Chopin's concerti.  You'll easily hear Chopin's spectacular achievement in these works (and his indebtedness to those who went before him).  "Uncharacteristic"?  Lord.  No comment.  As for disliking some of the preludes, well, some of them aren't begging to be loved.  And every single one of them is a masterpiece.  You really don't grasp Chopin if you dismiss the concerti and have trouble liking the preludes.   

[tdawe]

How can anyone think that Chopin's piano concertos are 'uncharacteristic'? They are archetypal of his style... The E minor has basically everything! Virtuosic passagework, frequent chromaticism, bel canto rubato, cantabile melodies, unorthodox (at its time) tonal plan... how much more Chopin can it get? The F minor also explores those polish rhythms that are key in many works (eg. Mazurkas, Polonaise)

To say he should not have attempted orchestra writing is simply an arrogant dismissal. Surely there is no great interaction between the orchestra and the soloist as in Beethoven or Rachmaninoff, but the orchestra surely 'sets the scene' for the soloist, foregrounding it.

[cey444]

Good lord, definitely definitely not. Every time I listen to a Chopin piano concerto I wish that he had written a collection of Symphonies! They are not uncharacteristic, in fact they are very characteristic.

With regards to the preludes, they are little sparkly gems in the whole collection of Chopin's piano works. Small, but complete and absolutely perfect. They are very useful material to teach students about expression and more advanced touch. They form a stepping stone to the more advanced works but they can be listened to and enjoyed completely on their own terms. You may not love some of the preludes, but I didn't think it possible to dislike anything by Chopin!

Please ... listen to these works again. Chopin will not disappoint!

[chopin2015]

Hahaha, what do you like, then?

[thesuineg]

Saint-saens 2nd
uh...
rach 2nd, i haven't paid much attention to the 3rd im afraid if i liked it I'd try to learn it(oh god)
i love tchaikovskies 1st, haven't paid attention to 2nd no one plays that one right?
k414 mozart
k491 mozart
and im lazy with spelling
and I can't dislike my own piano concerto though it certainly can't compare with chopin's

yah im more of a mozart/rach guy but im completely in love with brahms.

[redrobin62]

It's funny how many times the name Chopin is mentioned within the annals and context of classical music. He died young, but his influence is so profoundly wide-ranging that his name is as common as, say, the moon or water. Many, many composers write preludes, etudes, mazurkas, polonaises, nocturnes, etc. but how many achieve Chopin's popularity or tunefulness? Almost every time you hear a new piece of music, one is surely tempted to say, "Hmm, I can detect Chopin's influence here and there" or "Hmm, this piece is Chopinesque." I'm listening to Tellefsen as we speak. He was one of Chopin's students and it shows. You can almost say his music could be unearthed Chopin works without opus. Chopin's legacy and continuing influence is profound, from the new recordings of his work every day to the concerts of his music or the competitions held in his name. If he'd written one or two hits like, say, Borodin, Kabalevsky or Ippolitov-Ivanov, he'd simply remain as a footnote in history. As it is, his name is often mentioned in the same breath as Beethoven, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Bach, Brahms and Wagner. Monumental, indeed.

[stoudemirestat]

As for disliking some of the preludes, well, some of them aren't begging to be loved.  And every single one of them is a masterpiece. 

This is where I feel Chopin love gets excessive. Every prelude a masterpiece? They're all nice, sure. But some of them are fairly trivial. As a whole the collection is a masterpiece, but no more so than, say, either of the first two years from Liszt's Années de pèlerinage, any of the late Brahms' collections, some of Schumann's early collections, etc. I don't think every work in any of these collections is a masterpiece, but as a whole i'd call them masterworks.

[stoudemirestat]

As it is, his name is often mentioned in the same breath as Beethoven, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Bach, Brahms and Wagner. Monumental, indeed.

I think Chopin is overrated. A truly great composer, sure, one of, if not the greatest for the piano...but I don't think he deserves to be mentioned along with Bach, Brahms, Wagner, Schubert, Mozart Beethoven, etc. I would put him firmly aside Schumann, Liszt, Debussy, Bruckner, Berlioz, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Strauss, Dvorak, etc. Do I think he deserves to be placed above any of them? Hardly!

[the89thkey]

It's ridiculous to say that Chopin wasn't a great composer. He is among the top five or ten names.
However, I agree that the concertos are not his best works and that pieces like the B flat minor sonata and 4th Ballade are a lot better.

[stoudemirestat]

It's ridiculous to say that Chopin wasn't a great composer.

No one said he wasn't. He's a very great composer. But overall I think he ought to be somewhere between 10 and 25.

1. Bach.
2. Beethoven.
3. Mozart.
4. Schubert.
5. Brahms.
6. Wagner.
7. Haydn.
8. Mahler.
9. Handel.
10. Stravinsky.
11. Tchaikovsky.
12. Verdi.
13. Schumann.
14. Liszt.
15. Berlioz.
16. Richard Strauss.
17. Chopin.
18. Debussy.
19. Bartók.
20. Dvorak.
21. Mendelssohn.
22. Ravel.
23. Bruckner.
24. Rachmaninoff.
25. Sibelius.

Or something like that.

[the89thkey]

Move Rach from 24 to 1, and Bach up to say 15th...
I won't reform the whole list, it would take me a while...we are in disagreement sir

[j_menz]

Move Rach from 24 to 1, and Bach up to say 15th...
I won't reform the whole list, it would take me a while...we are in disagreement sir

Rachmaninoff_forever has a doppelganger? 

[outin]

It would be interesting to know how people define the greatness of composers...is there a scientific formula? 

[j_menz]

It would be interesting to know how people define the greatness of composers...is there a scientific formula? 

G = Y / (N * X)

G = Greatness
Y = Money earnt by their music (total in 2001 real USD)
N = Number of notes in all their compositions
X = Years since their birth

[ajspiano]

G = Y / (N * X)

G = (Y / (N * X)) / B

B - degrees of separation from bach.

[the89thkey]

G=Y/(N * X * B) /R

don't even make me define what R is

[j_menz]

G = (Y / (N * X)) / B

B - degrees of separation from bach.

That makes Bach himself infinitely great. Even I think that might be going a teeny bit (ONLY a teeny bit) too far.

[ajspiano]

That makes Bach himself infinitely great.

think of it as "bach's greatness cannot be calculated"

..in much the same way as every other composer

[the89thkey]

Tell me why Bach was greater than Rachmaninov. Send me a private message with a paragraph of explanation. I would be interested in debating this. I will reply promptly.

[perprocrastinate]

think of it as "bach's greatness cannot be calculated"

..in much the same way as every other composer

I've always wondered who your favorite composer is. Let me guess, you don't have one?

[the89thkey]

Who are you asking exactly?

[stoudemirestat]

Move Rach from 24 to 1, and Bach up to say 15th...
I won't reform the whole list, it would take me a while...we are in disagreement sir

I was trying to be as objective as possible. Seeing as Bach is generally considered to be the greatest composer ever by professional musicians and composers, and Rachmaninoff a great composer who isn't quite up there with the truly elite (most i've seen, not on a piano forum, put him at about 30-40), combined with my own idea on how these things can be skewed/prejudiced, this is what I came up with. I think it's a pretty good list that could do with some minor, unimportant (it isn't really important anyway, I know it's all, more or less, my opinion) changes.

[perprocrastinate]

Who are you asking exactly?

The purpose of citing a quote is to respond to the quoter.

[the89thkey]

@

The purpose of citing a quote is to respond to the quoter.

I didn't ask you to be rude.

Bach is generally considered to be the greatest composer ever by professional musicians and composers, and Rachmaninoff a great composer who isn't quite up there with the truly elite (most i've seen, not on a piano forum, put him at about 30-40)

Are you kidding me? I would like a message from you as well. Why exactly do you rate Bach so high and Rach so low?

[ajspiano]

Tell me why Bach was greater than Rachmaninov. Send me a private message with a paragraph of explanation. I would be interested in debating this. I will reply promptly.

My heart isnt really in this since I don't really think bach is better..

But lets just say bach was as brilliant as rachmaninoff, but without the influence of bach, and everyone that came after him..

[the89thkey]

Why do you think Bach was just as brilliant? What about his music is it? I would really like to have a debate by way of private message with anyone that cares to participate.

[j_menz]

Tell me why Bach was greater than Rachmaninov. Send me a private message with a paragraph of explanation. I would be interested in debating this. I will reply promptly.

I don't argue privately.

Bach had a greater influence on the development of music than did your hero and encapsulated all that had gone before more perfectly.  I like Rachmaninoff, but he is really one of history's sideshows.

[the89thkey]

I will have the argument in the forum, no problem.

I am not talking about influence here. I am talking about the qualities of their music alone. Why was Bach's MUSIC better than Rachmaninov's?

[ajspiano]

I've always wondered who your favorite composer is. Let me guess, you don't have one?

no not really..

though when I was a teenager I was exceeeeedingly fond of the collaborative efforts of John Frusciante, Michael Balzary, Anthony Kiedis and Chad Smith..  and a the same but subsituting John and Chad for Hillel Slovak and Jack Irons..

[andreslr6]

no not really..

though when I was a teenager I was exceeeeedingly fond of the collaborative efforts of John Frusciante, Michael Balzary, Anthony Kiedis and Chad Smith..  and a the same but subsituting John and Chad for Hillel Slovak and Jack Irons..

I will miss John Frusciante

[j_menz]

I am talking about the qualities of their music alone.

I suspect you are talking about no more than which you prefer, and that is not a subject for argument.

[the89thkey]

You are putting words into my mouth.

[the89thkey]

I suspect you are talking about no more than which you prefer, and that is not a subject for argument.

I am asking for evidence of Bach's superiority. Nothing more and nothing less...until I start my argument in response to this.

[the89thkey]

I am asking for evidence of Bach's superiority.

And only musical superiority is meant here, not in terms of influence. Rachmaninov couldn't help being born two centuries later.

[ajspiano]

And only musical superiority is meant here, not in terms of influence. Rachmaninov couldn't help being born two centuries later.

Bach's use of notes and stuff is better than Rachmaninoff's.

[the89thkey]

"use of notes and stuff"? Doesn't sound like such a convincing argument to me. Explain please.

[andreslr6]

And only musical superiority is meant here, not in terms of influence. Rachmaninov couldn't help being born two centuries later.

How about Bach's music is so superior that thanks to his keyboard music we use the thumb! thank Bach for that. No Bach= no thumb.

[ajspiano]

"use of notes and stuff"? Doesn't sound like such a convincing argument to me

It was meant to highlight that there is no argument, not that bach is actually better..  You'll have to take it up with J_menz who actually does prefer bach.. though I don't think he'll bite somehow..

How about Bach's music is so superior that thanks to his keyboard music we use the thumb! thank Bach for that. No Bach= no thumb.

To be honest I think someone would've come up with that over a 250 year period.

[the89thkey]

How about Bach's music is so superior that thanks to his keyboard music we use the thumb! thank Bach for that. No Bach= no thumb.

I asked you not to talk about influence or developments that were a consequence of Bach's work. I asked for a statement and argument centered around Bach's actual music. Not his influence. His MUSIC.

[the89thkey]

To be honest I think someone would've come up with that over a 250 year period.

Exactly. The period between Bach and Rachmaninov (more like 200 years considering the birth dates of 1685 and 1873)

[ajspiano]

Exactly. The period between Bach and Rachmaninov (more like 200 years considering the birth dates of 1685 and 1873)

I was considering bach's death to the present day., so ah.. 262 years..  not that it really changes much as far as the point.

But I also think that has pretty much nothing to do with whether or not rach beats bach or vice versa. Its a totally subjective waste of time debate.

[the89thkey]

But I also think that has pretty much nothing to do with whether or not rach beats bach or vice versa. Its a totally subjective waste of time debate.

I disagree. It is an opportunity to express our viewpoints.

[andreslr6]

I disagree. It is an opportunity to express our viewpoints.

I'm sorry, but my viewpoint is that your viewpoint is BS... There is no "greatest" composer, only great composerS, in plural... the fact that you prefer X over Y doesn't make X any better nor Y any worse. It's impossible. As simple as that. You don't like Bach as much as Rach? that's great! good! excellent! but that doesn't make Rach better than Bach in anyway, not here, not in China, not in Mars, only inside your head. You'll have your reasons, and those are YOUR reasons, not the laws of the Universe and Mankind.

[the89thkey]

I suggest you rethink your post as there are moderators on this site. Personal attacks are never permitted. Logical debate about piano music is. Please do not insult us any more by posting on this forum unless there is something to contribute. I am here because I am passionate about music, and you are ruining my experience.

[the89thkey]

By the way, I think I'm going to go off to bed now as it's approaching 2 AM. Will continue tomorrow. See you all

[andreslr6]

I suggest you rethink your post as there are moderators on this site. Personal attacks are never permitted. Logical debate about piano music is. Please do not insult us any more by posting on this forum unless there is something to contribute. I am here because I am passionate about music, and you are ruining my experience.

lol, that's not an insult. I didn't even direct it to you!

[thesuineg]

1. Bach (have you watched Glenn Gould talk about the Art of fugue?)
2. Beethoven (doesn't require explanation)
3. Mozart (underrated obviously)
4. Brahms (personal preference)
5. Shostakovich (personal preference)
6. Rachmaninoff
15 or so.... Chopin

sorry

thought i too love the ballades and sonatas

[the89thkey]

My favorites personally are, in no particular order:
Rachmaninov
Beethoven
Liszt
Chopin
Mendelssohn

I like some lesser known composers such as Franck and Faure. Don't care too much for Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Ravel and so forth.

[outin]

I just created my own extremely scientific formula:

G=(a/2+100b+50c)/(d+e)

a= pieces in my iTunes
b= sheet music books on my shelf
c= pieces I have started to play
c= annoyance factor (1-10)
d= boredom factor (1-10)

Results of a not so randomly selected groups of composers:

Scarlatti G=(209,5+700+250)/(1*1)=1159,5
Chopin G=(514,5+200+200)/(1*1)=914,5
Franck G=(29+300+250)/(1*1)=579
Scriabin G=(137+300+0)/(1*1)=437
Hummel G=(51,5+200+100)/(1*1)=351,5
Shostakovich G=(7,5+100+100)/(1*1)=207,5
Mendelssohn G=(68+100+0)/(1*2)=84
Bach G=(40+200+150)/(1*5)=78
Schumann G=(26,5+200+50)/(1*7)=39,5
Beethoven G=(79+0+0)/(2*6)=6,583
Tchaikovsky G=(17+0+50)/(2*9)=3,722
Mozart G=(6+0+50)/(10*5)=1,12

Problem solved!