Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Chopin Nocturne Op. 9 No. 1

I have to learn this for school piano class...Is it just me or is it EXTREMELY repetitive? I mean I think the musical material is beautiful, but I feel like Chopin could've condensed it...

Sorry if this comes out as a sort of rant, but it is just an opinion...what are yours?

Hmm. I've played the complete Chopin nocturnes and op9no1 is extremely repetitive and that's why it's probably higher on my difficult list as a Chopin nocturne certainly not because of the technique but because it's the same all the time. It's difficult to find the right amount of variety and "sameness" so that it's not boring but still distinguishiable. I think because of this repetition, I've avoided playing this nocturne too much. Right now, though, I'm listening to Pollini's version, and I think I'm finding a rekindled love for it. Although it isn't as sweetly melancholic as op62 (my favorite Chopin nocturnes) or as hauntingly passionate as op27 (my second favorites), it has it's own whimsical beauty. I'd say go for the musical challenge and try to wow your teachers with the variety of your touch and tone.

I don't think this Nocturne is anymore repetitive than most of the other Nocturnes. Chopin changes the melody at least slightly when it gets repeated. It never even dawned on me as being repetitive.

The b minor Scherzo would be an example where I think the repetition is much harder to deal with because there are few changes each time it repeats.

I don't know...the middle section just drags on for me

In my opinion it's better to play fast things that are repetitive than slow ones. And besides, the B Minor scherzo is so passionate so I never minded the fact that it has little variation. I find op9no1 a bit passive (even though, don't get me wrong it's still beautiful).

really? i adore the middle. but then again i have a soft spot in my heart for anything and everything in Db

Huh? I never noticed that in the B flat minor... I just really like it!

I don't think it's so repetitive, there are pieces out there that are even more repetitive.
I used to think that the middle section was just way too long (all those octaves, grr!!) but after listening to the nocturne (and practising) endless times, I've grown to really like that middle section. I'm still working on it.

Except the slow Nocturne in question isn't really repetitve in the sense of repeating things exactly in the same way. The b minor Scherzo does repeat entire sections in virtually the same way. The Op. 9 Nocturne changes things the very first time the opening phrase is "repeated".

It's not the opening phrase that I find repetitive. It's
- measures 19-26,
- immediately repeated in measures 27-34, virtually identical and those measures are not Chopin's most inspired writing.
Moreover :
- measures 47-50 is a repeat of
- measures 39-42 which is
- a repeat of measures 31-34 which is
- a repeat of measures 23-26

Those four measures occur four times within 30 measures. That, to me, is overly repetitive.

Regards,

it's not about the notes, it's about how you play them. if you play the repeating themes exactly the same twice, of course its over repetitive and boring, but if its played with the right touch (or variety thereof), therein lies the beauty.

You're right...although I never noticed those measures were repeated.

That is, of course, true. But given that this is not Chopin's most inspired writing and given that half of the measures I mentioned are taken up with four iterations of the same four measures, it's difficult to be varied without appearing excentric. Excentricity doesn't seem appropriate for this Nocturne, but subtlety does. How subtle can you be with such limited material?

Regards,

Interesting. Can't say I've ever seen it spelled this way.

It's just Bruce's subtle way of showing us that he's human.

A bit like the story of Sir Thomas Beecham and the legendary horn player Dennis Brain (who never fluffed a note). Brain finally did fluff a note in rehearsal and Sir Thomas stopped the orchestra, put down his baton, and said: "thank God !!"

So when Bruce finally does make a spelling mistake (after 13000 posts or so ), we can all breathe a sigh of relief likewise.

I'm not entirely sure, however, that his spelling is, in fact, incorrect.

oooo, you mean I might have had a friendly dig at him for no good reason?? I'd be mortified!

Bruce, I grovel.

My Chambers says of excentric

"Same as eccentric in mechanical senses" ...
but in talking about the repetitiveness in the Chopin Nocturne 9-1 ... I don't think we're talking mechanics chaps.

Perhaps we should buy an American dictionary which screws up the English language by calling socks SOX.

PS My word processor draws an ugly red stripe under the
misspelling of excentric.