Chopin Nocturne Op. 48 No. 1 in C Minor

[winsto7]

Hey!

I just wanted to get opinions on the Chopin Nocturne Op. 48 No. 1 in C Minor. Is it a piece that you guys suggest I learn?

[nightwindsonata]

It's a beautiful piece, one of my favorite pieces by Chopin. I played it in high school, but never quite mastered it. If you want to play it, by all means go ahead and read through it, but expect that the process of mastering it will be very long and arduous. There are many awkward technical moments in the doppio movimento, and some difficulty in maintaining a legato top line.

[bwl_13]

It really depends. It's more challenging than it looks and is a very heavy piece despite it being relatively short. It's a beautiful and fulfilling work that really tests your artistry and control.

[lelle]

I have no idea of who you are or your capabilities or taste, so how could I possible suggest if you should learn it or not? 

It's a great piece. I played it a few years ago. The recapitulation of the nocturne theme is a bit tricky.

[justapianist]

I just got done learning it. I learned it quite quickly and, to be fair, I was already familiar with the whole voicing concept. But yeah, I definitely suggest learning it. It teaches shaping, voicing and octaves. It is great for learning techniques.   

[jeffkonkol]

I think it's worth working on, even if you aren't ready for it yet. As others have mentioned, it's a great teaching piece. There are wonderful areas for hone voicing, and legato octave techniques in the first half of the piece, and the doppio presents so many challenges, you're likely to keep going back to it, finding new approaches and improvements every time.

[lelle]

I think it's worth working on, even if you aren't ready for it yet. As others have mentioned, it's a great teaching piece. There are wonderful areas for hone voicing, and legato octave techniques in the first half of the piece, and the doppio presents so many challenges, you're likely to keep going back to it, finding new approaches and improvements every time.

What do you find is the most challenging aspect of the doppio movimento?

[jeffkonkol]

For the doppio, voicing is the hardest part. Too much pedal muddles the line, forcing a really legato and quiet left hand.

The polyrhythms tend to bother me too. There are only 7 or so measures of them in there, if that, and they are only 4 over 3, but still.... the tend to want to rush, which is dangerous in a densely packed section like that.

[flyusx]

This is almost universally recognised as one of the top four hardest Chopin Nocturnes, often cited in the №1 or №2 spot.
I would not attempt this until you have studied a Chopin nocturne that is on the hard side musically and technically at a very decent level (you'll always see me commenting about Op55№2 and Op62№1, they're suitable as stepping stones and underplayed). Make sure your rolled chords, octave work and voicing are at a decent level. Only then would I suggest working on it.

[mjames]

This is almost universally recognised as one of the top four hardest Chopin Nocturnes, often cited in the №1 or №2 spot.
I would not attempt this until you have studied a Chopin nocturne that is on the hard side musically and technically at a very decent level (you'll always see me commenting about Op55№2 and Op62№1, they're suitable as stepping stones and underplayed). Make sure your rolled chords, octave work and voicing are at a decent level. Only then would I suggest working on it.

It being the hardest nocturne isnt saying much considering almost all of the nocturnes are easily approachable by pretty much every intermediate pianist.

Op. 48 no.1 is a bit harder than the most sure, but it's not Liszt's sonata or any of Chopin's ballades. Still very much doable especially if you're dedicated as a student. Try it and if it does end up being too hard, let it go and try again in the future. Why deter him from trying at ALL? Makes no sense. There's no need to play op. 62 no1 or whatever, if he wants the op. 48 then he should go ahead and just try it. Plus having played both the pieces you listed, I don't really think they prepare you for the challenges in the doppio movimento, I don't see them as useful "stepping stones."

I honestly dont understand why so many online users love to scare beginners from the instrument.

The best way to prepare for a piece is by...actually playing it, not by working on other pieces.

[flyusx]

Why deter him from trying at ALL? Makes no sense. There's no need to play op. 62 no1 or whatever, if he wants the op. 48 then he should go ahead and just try it.
I honestly dont understand why so many online users love to scare beginners from the instrument.

The best way to prepare for a piece is by...actually playing it, not by working on other pieces.

No information is given on the author's history of piano. What they have learned, what they find too challenging...we have no basework. If you read closely, I'm not saying 'don't play it, don't try it, you're not good enough'. I'm saying it's beneficial to already have played a Nocturne, that the author should be able to play octaves/rolled chords/voicing of notes at a decent level and that it's not an easy work of music. If the original author has these capabilities as 'pretty much every intermediate pianist' would, then there's nothing stopping them.

[jeffkonkol]

I would never recommend anyone play 55 no 2. 

It's gorgeous, but incredibly difficult, and so unlike 48-1, that I don't see the value in this example.

Play 48-1 if you love it, but be prepared to put the piece down and come back to it in a few years if it's demands daunt you.

[lelle]

I have played Op 55 no 2 and it is gorgeous, so I would recommend it! In some senses it's not too difficult, like it's not a virtuoso showpiece with fast notes, but you need good command of counterpoint and to be able to comfortably snake your way around the piano in various weird arpeggio configurations.

But you may be right that it's not really comparable to the style of Op 48 and I don't see how it would help you prepare for Op 48 either.

[flyusx]

Maybe my initial view that #16 isn't the best for 48No1...best probably to rephrase it: 'learn some nocturnes before 48/1."

[jeffkonkol]

I think opus 55 no 2 probably deserves its own thread. 

I guess what it shares with 48-1 is that it breaks tradition with the rest of the nocturnes in terms of technical challenges.

My current teacher, who just recently did a program accompanying the ballet, featuring movement 1 of sonata 2, waterfall etude, winterwind, and 7 or so other Chopin pieces was like... opus 55-2... I avoid that one. 

[lelle]

I think opus 55 no 2 probably deserves its own thread. 

I guess what it shares with 48-1 is that it breaks tradition with the rest of the nocturnes in terms of technical challenges.

My current teacher, who just recently did a program accompanying the ballet, featuring movement 1 of sonata 2, waterfall etude, winterwind, and 7 or so other Chopin pieces was like... opus 55-2... I avoid that one. 

Noo why avoid it? it certainly deserves its own thread! It's criminally underrated and underplayed.

[mjames]

Noo why avoid it? it certainly deserves its own thread! It's criminally underrated and underplayed.

I don't think any of Chopin's nocturnes are criminally underrated and underplayed. Compared to the more popular ones, sure...but in general they're a staple in concert programes. It's a sweet nocturne and brilliantly written, but I can understand why it's not as popular as the other ones:

1. The melodic writing isn't as inspired as his most well known nocturnes. Nocturne op. 9 no. 1, no. 2 Op. 27 no.1, no.2, op.62 no.1, and op. 48 no 1 are supreme in terms of melodic writing.

Yes I know op. 9 no.2 is overplayed to death but it's not Chopin's fault the advent of mass media killed the fantasy of listening to music, especially well known music. In isolation, as in not considering the fact that it's overplayed, the writing is absolutely *** divine. It's a 'perfect' nocturne. The only other nocturne i consider to be as 'perfect' is his op. 27 no.2.

2. Not enough drama in it. The nocturne seems to be an exercise in composition tbh, especially in contrapuntal writing. I feel like the climax (if you can even call it that), is much more geared towards the technical which makes it harder to appreciate. Whereas the other more popular nocturnes are much more primal in the climaxes.

All in all, i love the nocturne but I certainly understand why it's one of the least played ones. And I don't really mind that it is, as the popular ones most definitely most certainly deserve their place amongst the pantheon in Chopin's ouvre.

[nightwindsonata]

Take a look at Op. 32 No. 2--that one is a good introduction to many of the same techniques that are in Op. 48 No. 1 (polyrhythms, voicing chords towards the top, ornamentation, etc.). It's also one of my favorite nocturnes that I haven't played yet.