Chopinlover1 seems to not like me much haha.
Oh. I like Chopin's waltzes.
I don't The only ones I can stand are 34-2, 64-2, 69-2, 70-2The rest are either boring or annoying. But that actually goes for the whole genre I really don't know how anyone could name their favorite op...after all there are so many great ones...It might be possible to name top 100...
I'd argue that up until op. 10 he hadn't really written much worthwhile, the only exceptions coming to mind being Op. 6. Op 10 and 11 were nice, that lasted him a while until Op 20 (b minor scherzo), where he really started picking up.
oh he hates me GO MAZURKAS.
If anyone is still wondering why most of the top PS contributors left this site, this thread here is your reason. The childishness is just simply appalling.
Noah and I have less agreeing views
Hey don't look at me!!
Heaven forbid people actually get somewhat involved about their discussions of Liszt vs Chopin,
I don't care for those either...
I don't really care about that. People can have their versus discussions all they like but..it's just that some people in this thread are acting really obnoxious and immature about it.
at least you like chopin's polonaises? i like 40/2, 44, 53, 61, and the g#
Polonaise op 26/02Polonaise op 44Polonaise op 71/01
Oh yes I do!I could not remember the opuses of my favorites, but thanks to the search function I quickly found them
In general the polonaises are one of my least favorite of Chopin's works, but the first 3 are brilliant. Especially the 1st one. Oh man the lyrical theme in the first one is awesome.
published or composed? because i don't like his early ones. i like the bb minor polonaise when it's played like a nocturne.
62/1, 62/2, 40/1. I really like 62/1.
the Op.62 are nocturnes....
Whatever op 26 I think you know what I mean.
Technically,
Technically, the first (published)is Op. 22.
I believe that Mazeppa gives Liszt a leg up on Chopin, or maybe an immunity to Chopin having a leg up on him.
What on earth? Yes, Mazeppa is a fine etude, but a composer can't "have an immunity to Chopin having a leg up on him" because of one etude. I could say the same thing about Chopin's winterwind or chromatique or thirds.
In order for one musician to be definitively superior to another one, they have to outclass the other in nearly every way. Listen to Mazeppa, and then listen to anything by Chopin, and it should be obvious that Liszt had a certain kind of musical substance Chopin didn't, or didn't really go for. Mazeppa tells a visual story better than anything I heard by Chopin. It's in the buildup and the energy and structure of the song. One qualm I have about a lot of classical music in general, is that it seems to have a slow section thrown in for no reason other than because "yeah after this fast section there needs to be a slow section because uhhh it cant all be fast and then yeah we can end it." Thats what you call convention inhibiting creativity. In many cases I feel like the song would be way more consistent and impactful without a customary Andante / Adiago / Cantabile passage. I kinda feel that way about the slow section in Mazeppa because it does halt the momentum and start being sweet and singing for no reason, but at the same time I really like how the transition accelerates back to the original tempo.
@swagmaster You really can't accurately compare Liszt and Chopin, they were so different in style that it's damn near impossible.That said, if I had to pick one, it would probably be Chopin.About your qualms with slow sections, it actually dates back to the sonata movement structure- Allegro, Adagio, and the final movement can be just about anything, though often it's a rondo.As far as romantic music is concerned, keep in mind improvisation was a huge source of material for many composers. Slower sections also give nice contrast to constant speed and power- it makes the faster sections just that much more powerful.I thought much like you at one point (hate to say this, it's corny as hell and slightly condescending), but I came to love these slow sections; when things are simply fast all the time, it gets boring. I can only listen to Chopin's Revolutionary Etude so many times before it gets boring.Also, Chopin doesn't always go slow Examples of that are basically all the etudes. And some miscellaneous works.
Listen to Mazeppa, and then listen to anything by Chopin, and it should be obvious that Liszt had a certain kind of musical substance Chopin didn't, or didn't really go for. Mazeppa tells a visual story better than anything I heard by Chopin. It's in the buildup and the energy and structure of the song.
What has telling a visual story has to do with musical substance really? I think you calling it a song might be revealing of how you perceive music. Chopin was not a storyteller like some composers, that's true. He did not seem to care for program music at all. But that's one of the reasons that make his music so appealing to me compared to some other romantics. Music works differently on different people, for me it's not about dramatic turns or visual imagenary at all.
also beethoven had something in his sonatas that Chopinzo himself didn't. beethoven made a new type of sonata, while Chopin just twisted the original version. his sonatas were basically Allegro, Scherzo: Allegro, Lento, the Presto, a form that Beethoven commonly used in his early period. Beethoven turned the sonata into something that Liszt couldn't even make.
Shows how much you know about Chopin. Chopin didn't only experiment with the sonata form in his 'sonatas' but in other genres too. The most famous example for this is his ballades, and one that I havent seen as an example anywhere is the 3rd mazurka from the opus 50 set. Many musicologists can argue that through these works (his balladdes), Chopin revolutionized and innovated the form in the same manner that Beethoven did in his time....And what's this about Liszt sonata not being able to make Beethoven style sonatas? lol what? Did Liszt tell you that he tried to compose Beethoven styled sonatas?
I like Chopin's Ballades and agree that they have a really cohesive structure I think is more musically consistent than sonata form. But Beethoven birthed the Romantic Period. ImO I would agree with the statement that Beethoven was a greater innovator. Look at the Grosse Fuge man
What I meant was that Chopin contributed a great deal to the sonata form. Though not in the same manner or style, Beethoven also contributed to the sonata form. I was fighting against the assertion that Beethoven did X thing to an X genre/form that Chopin couldn't contribute to. In this case it was the sonata form..I would have agreed if he had used the symphonies or string quartets..well anything but piano as an example. Cause evidently, that's where Chopin didnt care to venture for. Though thats not really fair because we can't judge a composer for the things he didnt care to..but rather the things he did care for, the things he tried to do, and assess his trials and accomplishments. ...Many other composers paved the road to romanticism in music. Beethoven wasn't the only one, ESPECIALLY when you consider the genres he had little to no influence in (operas..for example).
Chopin is pretty dramatic, IMO. I'm not sure what calling music without words a song might imply other than I'm ignorant / don't care about the distinction / I don't hang around a crowd who discusses music using rigorous terminology. I see how Chopin clearly beats Liszt in many areas , like pure aural aesthetics (generally) and emotional stuff. To be honest I don't listen to enough of either to have a developed/qualified opinion on which one is better. But many of Chopin's pieces that I listened to get boring easily because I'm not really feeling the sentiment.
I see we also feel differently about what's dramatic...For me drama refers to the effects used by composers like Liszt and Beethoven, while Chopin is much more reserved and subtle in emotional content. When played in an overly sentimental way Chopin's music is ruined IMO, because I don't think it's meant to be sentimental at all. That's my perception.
That's true, in general Chopin's music is far more reserved than either Liszt's or Beethoven's, but that method of approach doesn't work for all his works. How approach them depends on the work, and I don't see how you'll be able to pull of a convincing performance of the 1st 2nd or 4th ballade by being 'subtle,' because from what I see those works require the emotional aspects from the performer. Chopin was also pretty much a 'in your face' kind of emotional drama as you can see from looking at his op. 48 no. 1 nocturne, op. 16 rondo, op. 49 fantasie, 1 2nd 3rd scherzi, the ballades and much more...and imo playing them dramatically/overly sentimentally greatly benefits the performance. Play the music not based on your preconceived notions, but on what you see in the music...
My notions actually came from listening to the music...lots of different versions. And they are a bit different to yours...as is my use if the concept subtle. Emotionality and sentimentality mean different things to me and I hear little sentimentality in Chopin...But I must add that my perception of music is very personal and while I don't care about others' really, mine is not necessary any better...except IMO of course
Emotionality and sentimentality are relative IMO. Sentimental = less subtly emotional. Which composer would you consider sentimental relative to Chopin? I think I would consider Chopin sentimental relative to Bach. But they're actually pretty different, so I don't know.
Chopin gave out everything right from his Op.1 (rondo of swag) and Op.2 (variations of swag) Chopin really went hardcore when he reached Op.10, then went on steroids when he reached Op.50-60. i mean, he could beat the hungarian rhadssphys screw autocorrect
Topic: Favorite Opus of Piano Music 