What's So Great About the Chopin Nocturnes?

[severius]

I admit to coming late to these. I've listened to the Ballades, Scherzi, the Etudes, Polonaises, etc. since childhood, but I've just gotten around to the Nocturnes.

Nobody questions the masterpiece status of them - except, I just don't get them. I can't seem to understand them at all. I don't see the point of most of them. I don't hear any amazing melodic content - unlike so much of other Chopin. I don't even hear any surprising harmonic twists - again, typically found in a lot of other Chopin.

How many of them can you listen to in a sitting? After two or three - I'm done. Can't take another note of them. They seem to be all in the same dreary, deadening mood, filled with a lot of bitterness, and no great tunes.

Where have I gone wrong? What should I be listening to or for? What, for you, makes them great?

[dogperson]

Why should you need to try to like them? You don’t like the nocturnes; no big deal.  Go listen to something else. You don’t even need to like Chopin; there are plenty of other composers. That it what makes each of us unique with plenty of options available for our individual tastes. 

[brogers70]

Maybe you just don't like them, and that's fine. A while back I played the first nocturne in Bb minor followed by Brahms Opus 118 No2. To me the contrast was stark - the Chopin was lovely but the Brahms had so much more emotional depth. Still, I do like the nocturnes, just for the sensual pleasure of the sounds, without looking for anything particularly complex or deep. If you let them, they can put you in a sort of pleasant, dreamy mood, but if they're not your thing, then they're not your thing.

[ahinton]

Maybe you just don't like them, and that's fine. A while back I played the first nocturne in Bb minor followed by Brahms Opus 118 No2. To me the contrast was stark - the Chopin was lovely but the Brahms had so much more emotional depth. Still, I do like the nocturnes, just for the sensual pleasure of the sounds, without looking for anything particularly complex or deep. If you let them, they can put you in a sort of pleasant, dreamy mood, but if they're not your thing, then they're not your thing.

But Chopin's B flat minor Nocturne was a product of his youth whereas Brahms' Op. 118 piano pieces were one of his maturity.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I admit to coming late to these. I've listened to the Ballades, Scherzi, the Etudes, Polonaises, etc. since childhood, but I've just gotten around to the Nocturnes.

Nobody questions the masterpiece status of them - except, I just don't get them. I can't seem to understand them at all. I don't see the point of most of them. I don't hear any amazing melodic content - unlike so much of other Chopin. I don't even hear any surprising harmonic twists - again, typically found in a lot of other Chopin.

How many of them can you listen to in a sitting? After two or three - I'm done. Can't take another note of them. They seem to be all in the same dreary, deadening mood, filled with a lot of bitterness, and no great tunes.

Unlike his cycle of 24 Préludes and even (to a point) his Opp. 10 and 25 Études, the Nocturnes are not really intended to be listened to as a group even though there are of course plenty of recordings of all of them. There are many surprising harmonic twists (not least in the G major Op. 37 No. 2 and the B major Op. 62 No. 1) and melodic felicities throughout them but it's probably best to try one at a time.

Best,

Alistair

[brogers70]

But Chopin's B flat minor Nocturne was a product of his youth whereas Brahms' Op. 118 piano pieces where one of his maturity.

Best,

Alistair

That's true enough. Still, though, you can listen to all the Nocturnes, even the late ones, and if you are looking for the kind of emotional depth you'll find in Brahms you'll be disappointed, I think. On the other hand, if you just enjoy the sensual pleasure of the sounds and the atmosphere, they're great. My point was not to make Chopin look bad by an unfair comparison, but to give the OP a different set of expectations that might help him enjoy the Nocturnes more.

[ahinton]

That's true enough. Still, though, you can listen to all the Nocturnes, even the late ones, and if you are looking for the kind of emotional depth you'll find in Brahms you'll be disappointed, I think. On the other hand, if you just enjoy the sensual pleasure of the sounds and the atmosphere, they're great. My point was not to make Chopin look bad by an unfair comparison, but to give the OP a different set of expectations that might help him enjoy the Nocturnes more.

But why expect the "emotional depth" of Brahms in the Nocturnes of Chopin and, when failing to do so, expressing disappointemtn with this by suggesting that the latter lacks "emotional depth"? The emotional depth in Chopin's Nocturnes is, like all else about them, inevitably quite different to that of Brahms.

Best,

Alistair

[brogers70]

But why expect the "emotional depth" of Brahms in the Nocturnes of Chopin and, when failing to do so, expressing disappointemtn with this by suggesting that the latter lacks "emotional depth"? The emotional depth in Chopin's Nocturnes is, like all else about them, inevitably quite different to that of Brahms.

Best,

Alistair

Right, that's exactly the point ("enjoy the sensual pleasure of the sounds and the atmosphere"). You'll enjoy the Nocturnes more if you don't expect them to be something they are not. I don't believe I expressed any disappointment in the Nocturnes in any of the posts above; I like them a lot.  Indeed the whole point is to help the OP change his expectations so that he can find a way to enjoy the Nocturnes more than he does now. If that's not clear by now, there's nothing I can add to make it clearer.

[ahinton]

Right, that's exactly the point ("enjoy the sensual pleasure of the sounds and the atmosphere"). You'll enjoy the Nocturnes more if you don't expect them to be something they are not. I don't believe I expressed any disappointment in the Nocturnes in any of the posts above; I like them a lot.  Indeed the whole point is to help the OP change his expectations so that he can find a way to enjoy the Nocturnes more than he does now. If that's not clear by now, there's nothing I can add to make it clearer.

No, indeed you did not express disappointment per se with Chopin's Nocturnes - nor did I assume, still less suggest, that you'd done so - but what they "are" and "are not" - or rather what they might and might not be - to listener A won't be the same as they are to listener B; to me, at least, the "the sensual pleasure of the sounds and the atmosphere" to which you refer - and with which I can certanly identify - do not detract from their emotional impact. That's what I meant to say and perhaps expressed with insufficient clarity.

Best,

Alistair

[hkilhamn]

The Nocturnes has been one of the greatest sources of inspiration for me throughout my pianist years. I learned the posthumous E minor C# minor early on and enjoyed the simplicity of the melody over the calm and perfectly balanced accompaniment. They are both early Chopin, only published after his death.

I have a few favourites: F minor Op 55 no 1 with its haunting four chords and gripping middle section. A flat major Op 32 no 2 with its crazy middle section that transforms into a waltz. All three of Op 15 (F major, F# major and G minor) in their brevity, not demanding so much but glimmering on all sides. No 3 as a mazurka. C minor Op 48 no 1, really heavy and epic with drama worthy of a Ballad.

And then for the last year or so I'm even more drawn to the later ones. Op 62 with B major and E major - they are somewhat similar, being late Chopin with many layers and exquisit counterpoint. The B major the melody returns after the weird syncopated middle section - by stating the melody with constans trills Chopin is creating a whole new sound from the piano.

Those being my favourites I have also around 1/3 of them that I find way too repetitive to be of great value, so I stay away from those (Nos. 1, 7, 9, 11).
I do some in-depth analysis of the Nocturnes on my Youtube channel Sonata Secrets, I hope they can be of value if you want to try further with them!

[pacific_pianist]

No, indeed you did not express disappointment per se with Chopin's Nocturnes - nor did I assume, still less suggest, that you'd done so - but what they "are" and "are not" - or rather what they might and might not be - to listener A won't be the same as they are to listener B; to me, at least, the "the sensual pleasure of the sounds and the atmosphere" to which you refer - and with which I can certanly identify - do not detract from their emotional impact. That's what I meant to say and perhaps expressed with insufficient clarity.

Best,

Alistair

It's like saying "I don't like this dinner of salmon and vegetables... because it's NOT a hamburger and fries." Like those are two different things. And just because different composer's call their piece "Nocturne" doesn't mean they're the same kind of piece. "Nocturne" just means any kind of easy going evening music for when people are socializing or winding down into quiet time. Chopin was an aristocratic shmoozer and these pieces were generally written for specific patrons and patronesses. These would be great ways to teach his music to his patrons and patronesses also ... it was a marketing gimmick and genius because it allowed pianists of less ability to say "I can play Chopin!" And it still works to this day! Genius.

Chopin admits he took the Nocturne form and ideas from an Irish composer named John Field. Maybe you should listen to those sometime, they really do have a lot in common with each other.

[coolpianoman]

We are all attracted to different repetoire and maybe the Nocturnes are just not your thing?
Unlike the mazurkas which are often performed in groups a few at one time I am not sure the nocturnes work one after the other - certainly not as well as the etudes do as thye were written together - I think.
 

[Bob]

I'd say nocturnes *are* Chopin.  Big name, established composer... If he picked an area to write in, that becomes a thing.  And usually there's something new and different at that time that they were doing.

[orangesodaking]

I definitely like some of his nocturnes more than others, but Op. 9, No. 1 and Op. 27, No. 2 are to die for in my opinion.

Listen to nocturnes by John Field, Charles-Valentin Alkan, Faure, Samuel Barber, Grieg, etc... They're all fine, but I can't rate their nocturnes above Chopin's.

Just my opinion, of course.

[samdm93]

I think the context behind their composition is important. The nocturnes were never composed to be ground-breaking or big artistic feats, but rather miniatures of lyrical beauty composed purely as parlor music. Such pieces were extensively popular in the 19th century because of the music printing market and the demand for smaller, more accessible pieces for the amateur musician.

The reason they're so popular is that when you take the above into context, Chopin still created works of pure originality and melodic beauty in such a small form (same with his Waltzes). I'd recommend the C minor Nocturne (Op.48 No.1) if you haven't already listened to it. It demonstrates what Chopin achieved so perfectly with his nocturnes.

As others have said, you don't have to force yourself to like the nocturnes. When you ask what you "should be listening to or for", I get the impression you're trying to find some deeper musical meaning to them. You just have to take them at face value for what they are: small introspective character pieces that create a mood/atmosphere. As I said before, I don't think they were composed to be profound artistic accomplishments like, say, the Ballades, but that doesn't mean they aren't genius in their own way.