Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum Just for those totally devoted to Chopin

Another question, if anyone knows the answer. Who had the manuscript of the 1827 E minor nocturne? Is there anywhere I can read about it (if there's anything to be said), or maybe see the autograph?

Kathleen, about 17/4 m. 91: There's nothing wrong with modifying the notes of a chord when you have to, but it's not necessary in this case because there's no need to hold the lower notes in the RH. The pedal is holding everything anyway, and you just arpeggiate the RH part of the chord. Allow your hand to tilt and rotate toward the high F as you move, and let go of the D and the G as you make a nice sweeping gesture up to the F. It sounds and feels great. It's a dramatic moment and a relatively "big" movement and sound is just fine. Allow it to feel easy.

I LOVE 17/4! Possibly because it's one piece I can actually play... no, it's much more than that.

Generally I think extremely well of Willard Palmer's editions, but I haven't seen what he's done with the mazurkas. Sometimes I think "practical performing edition" means that the editor has done whatever the heck he wanted with the pieces, but for the most part it should mean just what it sounds like, a usable edition with questionable issues already worked out for you, as opposed to an urtext. It's nice to have both if you can.

I think we had another discussion of whether Chopin had something against the Fantaisie-Impromptu just a few weeks ago, but I don't think it added anything that hasn't been mentioned in yesterday's posts. Personally I can't imagine thinking that it is a mediocre piece, but I do think that relatively few people play it really well, and so it could get annoying because of that. I don't expect that I'll be one of them! However, it is well worth practicing and I do learn from it. I am making my 3rd or maybe 4th assault on it at the moment, so I totally sympathize with Terez about those etudes.

Maurice Hinson's edition says that the Baroness commissioned the Impromptu, meaning that she bought it, so it couldn't have been republished elsewhere. Jeff, did he actually just give it to her? What a gift that would have been-- and/or what a value she got for her money. You know, if I am in pain, mentally or physically, the middle section of that piece has a wonderful effect in taking the pain away, more than any other music. I think the piano gods were really speaking clearly to Chopin that day.

(Now that I have finished a semi-successful recording of Liszt/Brown's "Grubelei," my hommage to this year's birthday boy, I will concentrate on the Impromptu.)

Elene

I'll go out on a limb here: I think FI is worse than mediocre. I was being kind and taking not care to offend.

But when people say that they can't imagine anyone thinking it's mediocre, I really have to say Get used to it (and I mean that in the friendliest possible way). I'm as Devoted to Chopin as anybody, and I'm not the only one who feels that way about that piece. Others who don't share our devotion may be even less willing to give him a pass on this one!

ETA: even among Devotees, obviously, there's no accounting for how our tastes might overlap ... or diverge.

I feel the need to clarify my last post, basically to ask another question:

How do we express differences of opinion while still being respectful of each other’s opinions and not appearing to belittle them?

I sincerely didn’t mean to step on anybody’s toes, and I apologize if I did -- or if I stepped into something else.

The honest truth is that Elene’s use of the phrase ‘can’t imagine’ put me off a bit -- because, after all, I had just said it!

I don’t think anybody would welcome it if I had said, for example, ‘I can’t imagine thinking FI is not mediocre.’ Yet how is that any different in tone?

The pieces we’re talking about, the adjectives we’re using ... probably aren’t even important. The thing to me is that it feels like a put-down when somebody responds to whatever opinion about whatever piece with ‘I can’t imagine [thinking that].’ And yet ... I still think some pieces are going to arouse sharper feelings, and more controversy, and more differing reactions, than others where there’s more consensus.

Does that make any sense?

Also, FWIW, I should probably give other people here a fair warning about something: As much as Chopin’s music means to me generally (and I couldn’t possibly ever overstate that importance!), I don’t proceed from a position that everything he wrote was great or of equal quality.

I also tend to make a distinction between what people love as our ‘favorite’ something-or-other, and what we honor as excellent in an objective way that can be discussed and analyzed. Obviously, sometimes we love things we can admit are cheesy -- ‘guilty pleasures’, I guess -- and sometimes we really don’t care much for something even though we recognize it to be of a high quality.

Anyway, I just want a better understanding of how people express themselves when we don’t like something about the Object of Our Devotion or his music -- whether as a matter of sheer personal taste, or as a question of something we consider less subjective and more easily demonstrated. I guess I’m talking about opinions versus facts -- though even that can be tricky because people have opinions about opinions, and opinions about facts!

I mean -- even in this longest-running-discussion ever -- everybody doesn’t always agree about everything, do they? And, taking for granted that we won’t always agree, is it best just to keep quiet about it?

I’ll stop now! Having stepped in ‘it’, I don’t want to track it around any further than I already have!

Why use the finesse of a bull dozier and then worry about toes being stepped on?

What the ... ?

What's your interest in this matter? Is your 'question' supposed to be constructive? Are you perfect?

I apologized -- not that I'm really convinced it was necessary, as I'm as entitled to my informed opinions about Chopin's music as anybody else here. And I draw the line at self-flagellation, sorry.

All good and reasonable responses (and no need for "due respect," especially since we're way into the realm of interpretation).

So by "generic" I should clarify I mean simply "showing the traits of the genre" in question. The impromptu was relatively new in the mid 1830s; as far as I can recall, besides Schubert and Moscheles, there are also examples by the likes of Vorisek and Tomasek. (Once again I'm too lazy for diacritics!) A kind of central European feel to that group. What at least some of these earlier impromptus seems to share is a way of creating a sense of pianistic lightness of touch, and so (without getting more deeply into this than I currently have time for) that's what I see the Moscheles and Chopin sharing.

It gets tricky to then try to fold "influence" into the mix - how do we decide that a composer goes beyond using a common vocabulary for a genre and decides to appropriate something specific from an earlier composer's piece? (Very similar questions have been raised about Chopin and specific Field nocturnes.) I tend to hear "influence" when there's a more comprehensive set of relationships than what the opening of the Moscheles and the Chopin impromptus show (and more than what people claim to hear as direct influence of Field in various nocturnes.

Musicologists debate quite a bit about such things, so no one should feel shy about expressing her or his opinions. That's what makes interpretation interesting.

On the generic traits of the impromptu, there's a nice article by Jim Samson, the basic elements of which also make their way into his Oxford Chopin life and works.

Jeff Kallberg

Terez: This autograph hasn't been seen since the days of Fontana. There's nothing whatsoever known about it, unfortunately.

Jeff Kallberg

Dr. Kallberg, thank you very much for your thoughtful and informative response.

Nice.


Same as anyone's.
Perhaps I missed the part where someone asked your opinion on Fantaisie-Impromptu; or that this is an exclusive thread.

No

No

Without regard to how others felt about the piece, you trashed it and then proceeded to say you were sorry for stepping on anyone's toes who might think differently about the piece; however, I am not convinced.
My point - perhaps, the damage has been done.

Look, I’m sorry -- again -- if you didn’t get what I was getting at -- ‘respect’. If you want to treat a negative opinion about a piece of music like it had the weight of a personal insult, obviously that wasn’t my intention and it’s not my problem.

You haven’t even posted in this thread since I joined the forum. I’ve had private communication with the regulars, and I don’t care what you think in the least.

And ... at least, I’m capable of self-examination and humor and apology. Feels like you’re using that against me ... and looking for a pot to stir. or an axe to grind What-ever.

ETA: I 'missed the part' where it says that unsolicited opinions are unwelcome here. At least, I care about how to express them in a constructive way.

I'm sorry, I failed to see the constructive way of your comments: "I think FI is worse than mediocre", "(I'm thinking that if 'A rose by any other name', etc., then ... the same for an onion ... or a skunk.)", "superficial charm", "category of music that sounds harder than it is", "inconsequential -- even tho it could be considered a 'major piece' if it were written by a minor composer".

I rescind my "bulldozer" comment.

And so what? Where’s your ‘regard’ for how I feel about the piece?

I don’t believe in ‘sacred cows’, sorry. Neither do musicologists who've said worse things about FI than I ever could. And an informed negative opinion isn’t ‘trashing’ except in the mind of somebody with the agenda to characterize it that way.

I got better things to do. You're on my Ignore list.

I don't know why I bother...I suppose, since I am on the ignore list, I will at least get the last word here.


So this must mean either, you have been influenced by someone's opinion on the FI or you have evolved to a higher plane: because you state -


Perhaps, "back when" you listened instead of analyzing.
Just saying ... but then, if a tree falls in the woods...

Okay, I toggled. I mean, it's just too easy and too tempting to do.

I did 'evolve to a higher plane' but not in any kind of mystical or special way -- just the usual way: Since I was a teenager, I've grown up. Nothing unusual about learning and maturing and having tastes that evolve, I think. And FWIW, as a teenager I also thought the Nocturnes were boring (heresy!) and wouldn't have had any understanding at all of, say, the Polonaise-Fantaisie or the Fourth Ballade or the Cello Sonata. I knew nothing then of Schumann or Brahms, and doubt I could have appreciated them if I did.

So you're right, that 'back when' -- when I was 5 and 'discovered' the Fantaisie-Impromptu -- I listened instead of analyzed. Not knowing how to analyze, I really didn't have much choice! And even 10 years later, I was listening rather than analyzing.

Since then ... I've learned to analyze what I'm listening to. It didn't happen overnight, but rather over decades. I think it's a change for the better -- I wouldn't choose to go back to listening without analyzing.

I don't think any of this is productive, and I hope we can drop this exchange. You don't like how I handled myself here, and I think I was within my right to express myself tho I tried to make amends for any perceived impropriety. If we can agree that those are the basic facts here, can we just agree to disagree about anything/everything else?

It's pointless to go on about it, and the fact remains that I'd like suggestions from Elene et al. about the norms of 'polite disagreement' about music here. Because like it or not, it's gonna come up -- and probably already has done many times before my time here.

Finally, can I apologize to you for offending your sense of decorum? I apologized already more generally, but I'm not even aware that Elene or Terez or anybody else even was offended. I obviously pushed your buttons, though, and I am sincerely sorry ... despite saying before that I didn't care what you think.

I don't like hard feelings or ill will -- and I'll continue to hope that music can be discussed here candidly and passionately without remarks about music being meant, or taken, personally.

Agreed




None here.

I can see that they probably share these genre traits, but that doesn't really address the issue of the obvious other similarities. Can it really be established that those characteristics are a kind of 'shared vocabulary' when no similar examples can be found in Chopin's other Impromptus? Also, there's another bit I should have addressed earlier:


Didn't Chopin have a particular concern about 'copying'? It comes up every now and then in the letters, and it seems that the general music crowd of the time had a concern about copying:


And of course it comes up again later with Kalkbrenner, right off the top of my head.

I can see how unconscious copying might have been a problem for Chopin, since he for the most part did not know other composers' works all that intimately; he likely played them and forgot them, with a few exceptions. He also didn't seem to have the perfect memory of Bach, or Mozart, or even Liszt. And thus all of these things are floating around in his brain, but not so distinctly that he can recognize them when they end up in his compositions (undoubtedly transformed into something far superior than the original, such as seems to be the case with this Impromptu). I haven't looked into the Field nocturnes; I'll have to make the time for that.

PS - I am no longer trying to say that this is necessarily the reason why Chopin didn't publish it; I can believe that he never noticed the similarities, maybe even that he noticed them and just didn't care. But it seems to me that among the unpublished compositions, there are very few that don't fall into the category of the 'weak' or 'imperfect' compositions he was really worried about on his deathbed, and though Cher obviously disagrees, I tend to think this Impromptu is one of those few, which would suggest another reason. The Baroness explanation looks good on the surface, but the idea that Fontana had another manuscript complicates the issue somewhat. Is my impression about Fontana a bad one? Did he really Bowdlerize much?


So I'm guessing that Fontana dated it based on what the Chopin family told him about it? I'm also curious as to the process of gathering these unpublished manuscripts. Did the family gather them, or Fontana? Is there anywhere I can read about this? I found an interesting article in The Age of Chopin (ed. Goldberg) that has several Fontana letters I've never seen before. Is this the sort of thing you have to hunt down in a dusty archive somewhere, or have they been published?

[PS - I read in Samson that Ekier 'argues for a slightly later date', since Fontana was 'notoriously unreliable on such matters' but Samson doesn't say which date that would be. 1828? 1829? The book cited is in Polish, which is a shame; I'd love to read about the 'stylistic grounds' cited in the argument.]

I apologize for all these questions; I know it has to be annoying. No hard feelings if you don't have the time (or if you want to cherry-pick), and thanks a lot for your answers so far.

Cher CCC, I'm fine with you hating the Fantaisie-Impromptu. I did say "personally I can't imagine." I meant that I can't imagine seeing it as mediocre (or worse) myself, because I think it's a truly fine piece and I enjoy it greatly. But obviously you feel that way and it's how your specific brain processes what you are hearing, which is not something anyone should get upset with you about. We can't hear with your ears or experience what you hear.

For the record, I'm not crazy about the scherzi, not that I think they're bad compositions, but they're harder for me to enjoy for some reason. I also have a lack of enthusiasm for the very popular A flat Ballade, though I love the others. My opinion appears to be in the minority there. Anyway, I certainly don't like every single note Our Guy wrote.

At one point our dear departed Sotto Voce was upset, a couple of years ago, that I couldn't stand the Allegro de Concert, a great favorite of his. He seemed to feel personally hurt by that, even though I never in any way criticized him for liking it. I certainly didn't want to hurt his feelings, but I just couldn't like the piece for some reason, no matter how hard I tried. He felt sad that no one was sharing his enthusiasm.

For the past 5 or so years, since Kathleen started this thread (for which I am eternally grateful), our corner of PW has been a bastion of civility in the often-violent jungle of Internet forums. I've been here for about 3 1/2 years myself, and this has been both a source of fascinating information that I couldn't have found otherwise and a place where I've met some of my best friends. I have every interest in keeping this wonderful community going and functioning smoothly and happily.

My best thought as a beginning of ground rules: No personal attacks. Ideas can be attacked, pieces of music said to be trash, etc., but people can't be called idiots or whatever for writing what they write. You can say, "I never did like Chopin's work, I prefer Scriabin, " for example, but you can't say, "You totally suck because you don't like Scriabin."

Does that sound like a start? What do you think?

(I am exhausted right now and could only skim today's very interesting posts, so please forgive me if I am missing something. I'll try to do better tomorrow.)

Elene

I love the first two from beginning to end, but the third and fourth I love with reservations. Maybe I will change my mind one day.


I once read a comment on a performance of this piece, saying that the performer 'made the piece sound better than it really is'. Very strange. (Even odder, in searching for that comment I realized that the same person said the same thing about a performance of the 4th ballade; for a moment I thought I'd remembered it wrong until I looked at the date. Oh well, he's more of a Bach and Schubert kind of guy.) I think I love it the least of the four, but I still think it's a masterpiece.

I'm happy with the 'no personal attack' thing, if anyone happens to care about my opinion.

Thank you so much, Elene, for your advice on playing that chord. I did think of "rolling" it. Pretty difficult but can be done with some practice. I appreciate the time and trouble you took in responding, especially when you are not feeling well. Get better quick!

As always, and though it is a trite idea, I belive we here at the DtC thread have (sooner or later) agreed to disagree. I don't like the word "attack." It just doesn't have a place here, where saner heads prevail. I cringe when I write this, but I don't care for Bach or Mozart all that much. Since music is such a subjective thing, IMO, it has to appeal to one's emotions. It has to move you in some way. And while I know that the two composers I mentioned above are giants, and I know I am confessing my ignorance, their music (with just a few exceptions) just doesn't do anything for me. AND there are several compositions by Chopin that leave me cold.

I believe we are on safe ground when we debate someone's analysis of a certain composition, but we can never argue someone's opinion, on whatever grounds it may be based. When I was younger, eons ago, I thought the FI was excitingly beautiful. But now, at the age of 71 ( ), after I have heard it played a zillion times, it has lost its appeal. There is such a thing as having too much of a good thing. Almost like eating steak everyday for a year.

My best to all,
Kathleen