The meaning of Chopin's "Funeral March" sonata?

[j_menz]

they quote Mikuli

They do?  On my reading they actually quote James Huneker's introduction to Mikuli's edition of the sonata. Not Mikuli himself. And that quote is him (Hunecker) quoting Chopin about the 4th movement.  The assertion that contemporary critics found it "lacked cohesion" does not necessarily reference it's structure, and quotes only Schumann in support. I see nothing in that that refers to it's formal structure, only it's musical cohesion.

For clarity, the sonata form I mentioned above is sonata form, as in the structure of a single movement (in this case the first), not the overall structure of the Sonata.

[dima_76557]

They do?  On my reading they actually quote James Huneker's introduction to Mikuli's edition of the sonata. Not Mikuli himself. And that quote is him (Hunecker) quoting Chopin about the 4th movement.  The assertion that contemporary critics found it "lacked cohesion" does not necessarily reference it's structure, and quotes only Schumann in support. I see nothing in that that refers to it's formal structure, only it's musical cohesion.

What "unruly four children" is Schumann talking about then and in what sense? I assumed the "unruly four children" referred to the four movements that do not obey the rules?

[j_menz]

What "unruly four children" is Schumann talking about then and in what sense? I assumed the "unruly four children" referred to the four movements that do not obey the rules?

I had taken it to mean four individuals who did not play well with others. In other words, the lack of an overarching musical (or programmatic) construction. Each of the movements is, of itself, structurally unsurprising. And each is musically coherent. Just that there is nothing, in his view as I read it, that ties them together (other than the binding of the book).

Incidentally, I do not say that he is correct in this, merely that one cannot say that anything he misses is "obvious".

[dima_76557]

Just that there is nothing, in his view as I read it, that ties them together (other than the binding of the book).

If the element that ties everything together is not Chopin's obsession with death, then what does the opening mean to you?
P.S.: For me, it's clearly demons of death knocking at his door with consecutive unrest and hallucinations in agitato.

[j_menz]

If the element that ties everything together is not Chopin's obsession with death, then what does the opening mean to you?
P.S.: For me, it's clearly demons of death knocking at his door with consecutive unrest and hallucinations in agitato.

At the time of it's composition, Chopin had another obsession. Creaking bedsprings, perhaps?

[dima_76557]

At the time of it's composition, Chopin had another obsession. Creaking bedsprings, perhaps?

Yeah, especially of the beds in the Royal Carthusian Monastery, where he later reported himself in one of his letters to have seen ghosts in his cell ("cursed creatures" he calls them, and he was definitely not referring to G. Sand's children), but that was probably just the "colorful workings of a sensitive and brilliant mind".

[j_menz]

Yeah, especially of the beds in the Royal Carthusian Monastery, where he later reported himself in one of his letters to have seen ghosts in his cell ("cursed creatures" he calls them, and he was definitely not referring to G. Sand's children), but that was probably just the "colorful workings of a sensitive and brilliant mind".

It was a former Carthusian monastery, not a current one. They were only there because of the attitude of the locals to unwedded couples, though it certainly sounds like a holiday from hell.  It's slightly early, though.

[dima_76557]

It's slightly early, though.

That doesn't really matter, unless you believe that the memory of such a horrible experience does not leave a mark on a person, and that a composer will start composing about the event immediately after or even during the traumatic event. Even as much later as 1848, he was forced to stop his performance of that particular Sonata because

I saw emerging from the half-open case of my piano those cursed creatures that had appeared to me on a lugubrious night at the Carthusian monastery

Old and linked, conditioned memories maybe?

[j_menz]

Old and linked, conditioned memories maybe?

Or pure coincidence. They hadn't appeared during the sonata before, and there wasn't a conscious link or he wouldn't have played it.

[faulty_damper]

Uh huh... so, after 50+ replies, all I get is a bunch of arguing about stuff other than the original question.  The most common answer is that it doesn't mean anything or it means what it means, blah blah.  These are terrible answers as I still have no understanding of it.  It sounds like some of you think making pretty noises is music.  It's not.  It's fast and loud.  Is this sonata used as a show piece?  It sucks.  Are pianists who play it even award of the meaning or do they play it because it's easy to show off with?  Oooh, listen to that funeral march trio. It's so pretty!  Therefore, the entire sonata must be pretty.  Pretty crappy.

The main theme of the opening movement goes no where, explains nothing.  Then just decides to go on without any developing ideas.  Then quits to present some lame scherzo with a similar idea to the first movement.  what is that all about?  Then the final toccata in parallel octaves... did he really think a toccata in parallel octaves makes for a good closing movement or did he just not have any ideas whatsoever?

He was criticized centuries ago about this sonata.  He's still being criticized now.  F*ck this sonata.  I'm just going to play the funeral march since it's the only thing worth redeeming from this 20 minutes of drivel.

[j_menz]

Uh huh... so, after 50+ replies, all I get is a bunch of arguing about stuff other than the original question. 

To be fair, we were arguing about whether or not your question was answerable and, if so, on what basis.

  I'm just going to play the funeral march since it's the only thing worth redeeming from this 20 minutes of drivel.

LOL. I heartily approve, in this instance.

[awesom_o]

Because you don't understand it it's crappy?

Maybe you just have a crappy understanding of it!

[faulty_damper]

Which is why I asked trying to find an answer.

I'm listening to the version by Rubinstein right now and he takes a much less frenetic pace than so many of today's pianists.  Fast and Furious doesn't make music.  So my previous comment about pianists using this sonata as a showoff piece may have merit.

[awesom_o]

Sorry. You will only find the answer by playing a bad-ass rendition of the piece. As long as you suck at playing it, you will think it sucks. But it doesn't suck. People who can't play it do.

[faulty_damper]

I doubt my feelings toward this piece has anything to do with my abilities to play it.  In fact, I don't even need to be a pianists to like or not like piano music.  By your statement, only pianists who can play piano music well understands music.  That's a ridiculous statement.

[awesom_o]

I doubt my feelings toward this piece has anything to do with my abilities to play it. 

I bet you can't play it very well yet!

If you could play it absolutely stunningly, it means you would have put a lot of work into understanding it!

Instead you just started a bull$hit thread and got a bunch of bullsh1t answers!

That doesn't sound like nearly as much work as a person would need to go through to play the piece truly magnificently!

[faulty_damper]

That's a really pathetic answer.  You tell me that the reason I don't like it is because I don't play it well enough. But if I did, I'd love it.  So according to you, you imply that the physical sensation of playing it well makes up for the lack of musical content.  Yes, then you are one of those pianists whom is not a musician nor can you view music objectively away from the piano. You're probably one of the pianists who thinks loud + fast = chicks gonna dig this!

[mjames]

That's a really pathetic answer.  You tell me that the reason I don't like it is because I don't play it well enough. But if I did, I'd love it.  So according to you, you imply that the physical sensation of playing it well makes up for the lack of musical content.  Yes, then you are one of those pianists whom is not a musician nor can you view music objectively away from the piano. You're probably one of the pianists who thinks loud + fast = chicks gonna dig this!

You're also being ridiculous, you know that right? Talking sh*t about a piece just because you don't like it doesn't necessarily scream out "objectivity!~".

[dima_76557]

Or pure coincidence. They hadn't appeared during the sonata before, and there wasn't a conscious link or he wouldn't have played it.

How do you know? There may have been other, maybe less severe, occurences which he didn't have the courage to report about.

What is a "coincidence" for some may be a spiritual/artistic sign for others. Example:

Apply symmetric inversion to the opening octaves of the piece (the interval is a comparatively ugly descending diminished 7th - Db-E). With symmetric inversion, what you get is an ascending sweet, life-confirming major 6th, a popular interval to open a Belcanto aria about the beauty of life. The "coincidence" is that the sixth happens to be Eb-C, which would open that aria in the key of A flat, Chopin's favorite tonality. Explain that away, but for an artist this *can* be hint that this piece is about the opposite: not about life, but about death.

[dima_76557]

Uh huh... so, after 50+ replies, all I get is a bunch of arguing about stuff other than the original question.

This is not a piece that plays itself. You have to have an approach, an "interpretation" of what the composer meant to bring it alive and prevent it from falling apart into meaningless fragments. If you don't understand what we have been talking about, then it is certainly not a piece for you.

[awesom_o]

That's a really pathetic answer. ......... You're probably one of the pianists who thinks loud + fast = chicks gonna dig this!

Actually, I'm not one of those pianists! 

You need to commit to playing this work to the best of your ability, if you wish to understand it!

Right now, you're just making a big fool out of yourself!

[awesom_o]

Yes, then you are one of those pianists whom is not a musician nor can you view music objectively away from the piano.

Remember, I'm mainly a composer and a cellist. Piano is just my first language!

[faulty_damper]

So you're telling me that Rubinstein plays it meaninglessly, as well as countless others, which is the reason why I don't understand the meaning.  Uh huh.  What a way to insult Rubinstein and bunch of others.  BUT! If I played it better than Rubinstein and countless others, I'd suddenly understand it.  Maybe you need to really think about what you're suggesting here.

[awesom_o]

So you're telling me that Rubinstein plays it meaninglessly, as well as countless others, which is the reason why I don't understand the meaning. 

I didn't say anything about Rubinstein. Where did I mention Rubinstein?

[awesom_o]

Maybe you need to really think about what you're suggesting here.

All that I'm suggesting is that you become a better artist!

[faulty_damper]

You implied that all past performances of the piece were done so in a meaningless manner since they obviously didn't play it well enough that the meaning was evident, even to a pianist.  Then you suggest that the way to overcome the lack of meaning was to play this piece better than any other pianist, dead or alive.  Do you see the consequences of your suggestion?  My previous comments still stand.

[awesom_o]

You implied that all past performances of the piece were done so in a meaningless manner since they obviously didn't play it well enough that the meaning was evident, even to a pianist. 

This was not implied. There have been plenty of fantastic performances of the work. One does not discover everything about  the meaning of a piece from hearing a fantastic performance. All you get is the memory of one artist's conception of the work.

Even if you watch 50+ videos on YouTube of various well-established pianists playing it, and hear it live on ten or twenty different occasions, you will still not understand the meaning of the work. You will just have in your mind a collage of memories from 60-70 different interpretations.

In order to understand the deeper meaning of the work, you need to study the work yourself. Then you will gain a real understanding!

It has nothing to do with whether or not you can play it up to the standards of Michelangeli or Zimerman. If you commit something to the work, and play it to the best of your ability, then you will understand something unique about it. And you won't need to ask such a silly question on a forum! 

[faulty_damper]

You're just digressing.

[awesom_o]

You're just digressing.

Nope. I've explained myself quite thoroughly several times! I'm beginning to suspect you may have more than one faulty damper in that piano of yours!

Play the work well, and you will understand it well! It's as simple as that!

[faulty_damper]

So basically you disagree, and because you disagree, you resort to accusing me of being a bad pianist and/or musician, and then resort to using insults.  I see your faulty logic and raise you on idiocy.

[awesom_o]

How is it faulty logic to draw a connection between having a deep understanding of a work and playing that work well?

There is no way you can be told the meaning of a piece like this! You have to discover it for yourself!

[faulty_damper]

By analogy, I have to direct a film in order to understand a film.
By analogy, I have to sing in La Traviata in order to understand the opera.
By analogy, I have to conduct Beethoven's Ninth in order to understand the symphony.

Do you see how ridiculous your rationale is?

[dima_76557]

@ faulty_damper

If you are really interested in finding out why this sonata by Chopin is one of the greatest creations in Western Classical music in all its structural and harmonic aspects, then I suggest you read this dissertation by Jonathan Isaac Oshry:

Shifting Modes of Reception: Chopin's Piano Sonata in B Flat Minor Opus 35 (.html)
or
Shifting Modes of Reception: Chopin's Piano Sonata in B Flat Minor Opus 35 (.doc)

EDIT: Another work of interest is this:
Norms and Individuation in Chopin's Sonatas by Zofia Helman, translated by Radosław Materka and Maja Trochimczyk.

[faulty_damper]

I thought that dissertation was utter rubbish.  It told me nothing about the meaning of the work, just that Chopin incidentally created a new kind of form that no one understood during his time.  But somehow, more modern ears found it wonderful.  I'm not one of them.  In fact, that paper just makes me hate this sonata even more.  The author was clearly biased as he made numerous disparaging remarks to those whom he implicitly disagreed with.  The paper was not objective in this regard, and due to that lack of objectivity, it really hurts his credibility.

[dima_76557]

I thought that dissertation was utter rubbish.  It told me nothing about the meaning of the work, just that Chopin incidentally created a new kind of form that no one understood during his time.

What kind of "meaning" are you looking for? I already mentioned in my first post that intellectuality alone won't cut it. I also warned that this is not a piece that plays itself; it must be conceived first in order to play it well. I therefore tried very hard to give my view of the emotional/cultural part of the work. With my previous post I virtually did everybody's homework in a musicological sense (Jonathan's disseration gives much, much more than what you concluded from browsing it through). Still not good enough.
P.S.: If you don't like Jonathan's dissertation, then why not have a look at the excellent sources listed at the end of his work to get a deeper understanding?

[awesom_o]

There is absolutely no argument here.

It is a Sonata. The 'meaning' of a Sonata is contained within the work itself. It is not programmatic. It is a musical essay on sonata form. It has no external meaning that is not musical.

[faulty_damper]

What's the musical meaning?  That's what I asked.  The first movement has nothing that is connected.  One theme moves onto another with no idea where it's going.  It's pointless drivel.

[dima_76557]

What's the musical meaning?  That's what I asked.  The first movement has nothing that is connected.  One theme moves onto another with no idea where it's going.  It's pointless drivel.

I gave you the answer to that question with my link to the dissertation. The strictly musicological/compositional cells for further development of the first movement and of the sonata as a whole can be found in the first three notes (the "Grave") and in what Chopin does with them, even if you dismiss my idea of a programmatic/emotional line throughout this sonata. Read the dissertation again from that viewpoint. All relationships in every aspect, even rhythmical ones, are milked out and illustrated with pictures so that you don't have to try very hard yourself.

[awesom_o]

What's the musical meaning?  That's what I asked.  The first movement has nothing that is connected.  One theme moves onto another with no idea where it's going.  It's pointless drivel.

The musical meaning is what is written in the score!

If you are having difficulty interpreting the meaning, don't blame Chopin! He's dead! Blame your own interpretive abilities if you must lay blame on someone!

If Chopin felt as comfortable with Sonata form as, say, Schubert or Mozart did, he would have left us an actual sonata cycle. Instead, his sonatas are all kind of random, musically speaking.

I certainly agree that Chopin's Sonatas are not his strongest compositions. He was most gifted as a miniaturist.

Using language such as 'pointless drivel' to describe such high-quality music says more about you than it says about Chopin.

[dima_76557]

I certainly agree that Chopin's Sonatas are not his strongest compositions. He was most gifted as a miniaturist.

I hope that with time, you will change your mind about that. His weak spot was orchestration, yes, but even in the larger forms, he knew very well what he was doing compositionally (something more akin to Scarlatti's binary form, combined with typical 19th Century elements) and opened new pathways of expression for everybody after him.

[awesom_o]

I hope that with time, you will change your mind about that.

Don't get me wrong...they are exceptional works! I have devoted a great deal of time to studying both the 2nd and 3rd, and I've read the 1st more than a few times.

Nevertheless, if Chopin had been deeply interested in sonata form, he would have explored it to a greater extent.

Sonata form was not his weapon of choice.

[dima_76557]

Nevertheless, if Chopin had been deeply interested in sonata form, he would have explored it to a greater extent.

Sonata form was not his weapon of choice.

The Polish genius renewed the approach to the sonata form, but was gravely misunderstood by the super-conservative critics of his time. I think that's the reason he quit writing more in that form, not because he didn't like it or because he felt he was incapable of doing so.
P.S.: To understand how conservative that society really was, just imagine how Liszt felt when Clara Schumann dismissed his freshly composed B minor Sonata as "merely blind noise" and refused to play it in public.

[faulty_damper]

Sonata form was not his weapon of choice.

Umm... so now you're agreeing with me. 
This was the point of this thread.  It's funny that 200+ years after its inception, modern criticism mirrors the same criticisms then.

[awesom_o]

Umm... so now you're agreeing with me. 

No. You mentioned the words 'pointless drivel'....

I've spent months of my life working on the piece and have performed it publicly many times!

[faulty_damper]

Ah, so you can now explain in full detail just how pointless the drivel is!  Thank you in advance.

[awesom_o]

The detail is in the music itself.... just like the meaning....

It's only pointless if you play it without a sense of musical purpose.

[faulty_damper]

You keep resorting to saying that one must play a work to understand a work.  That's ridiculous as I mentioned before with the previous examples.  I don't need to write Shakespeare in order to understand Romeo and Juliet, nor do I have to compose Beethoven's 5th in order to understand it.  However, in these two examples, they both made it obvious their ideas which make understanding easy.  Not so in the case of the sonata in question.  I've listened to this sonata countless times by numerous performers and the meaning still isn't obvious.  There's nothing unifying the movements which make its meaning readily apparent.

[chicoscalco]

You keep resorting to saying that one must play a work to understand a work.  That's ridiculous as I mentioned before with the previous examples.  I don't need to write Shakespeare in order to understand Romeo and Juliet, nor do I have to compose Beethoven's 5th in order to understand it.  However, in these two examples, they both made it obvious their ideas which make understanding easy.  Not so in the case of the sonata in question.  I've listened to this sonata countless times by numerous performers and the meaning still isn't obvious.  There's nothing unifying the movements which make its meaning readily apparent.

Oh boy... awesome mentioned studying the piece, not writing it! Your comparisons means nothing. To understand Beethoven 5th you don't have to compose it, you have to study it, discover it for yourself. Very different things.

[awesom_o]

You keep resorting to saying that one must play a work to understand a work. 

You keep misunderstanding me on purpose.

In order to understand the work, you have to study the work!

It is evident you haven't studied it, so you don't understand it yet

[kevin69]

Perhaps its an aural version of a Rorschach test: there is no inherent meaning but if you study it you'll project your own meaning onto it. Like Rorschach tests, having no meaning doesn't make something worthless: it can still be a valuable tool for introspection.