I usually see this idea of a heroic great artist (compared to artists who presumably don’t have what it takes to merit being mentioned) in discussions around classical music. When people talk about visual art, there is more focus on the quality of the work, and the artist’s distinct voice. Consider an example: a work by Picasso looks like Picasso made it, and that’s what gives it its value. By contrast, derivative works that merely copy another artist’s style are usually not held in high esteem. Chopin’s work scores very well according to quality, and his distinct voice usually makes it obvious that the piece you’re hearing is a Chopin. The visual arts are a lot better at allowing more artists to become established than the classical music world is for composers.
This may be a consequence of the properties of the creations. People who want to listen to a concerto will share the experience with many others, and typically won’t be able to buy it all just for themselves. People who want to be involved in the contemporary art world can and often do buy physical works of art for themselves, and it doesn’t matter whether or not the artist could convince a theater of people to pay to sit down together and appreciate it for 30 minutes. If art patrons want to buy physical pieces for themselves, you need a bigger pool of artists to serve them; but if you want to fill opera houses, it’s better to have a few artists that everybody has agreed to like.
I don't think your thesis is accurate. When it comes to classical composers, its rather easy to tell them apart once you've studied classical music long enough. The issue is the painters are limited to certain materials, and their paintings are originals that decay and age even as new better materials for painting come out. Contrast that with composers, whose originals were not recorded and whose works are generally performed on vastly superior instruments, in far more formal and much larger venues than the composers would ever have used. Chopin for instance very rarely performed in venues larger than a rich person's salon and his instrument was much less powerful, had less sustain, and even more notes are added to the keyboard over time. So, for me, your thesis is not true when these technological and temporal variations are considered
> whose works are generally performed on vastly superior instruments, in far more formal and much larger venues than the composers would ever have used. Chopin for instance very rarely performed in venues larger than a rich person's salon and his instrument was much less powerful, had less sustain, and even more notes are added to the keyboard over time.
Chamber music actually sounds a lot better with historically accurate venues and instruments, albeit the latter is not generally possible. In fact there's a bit of a refocusing on chamber music lately in the "classical" world, now that the quality of recorded media is better and big concert halls have become less important. Performing Chopin's music in a huge, modern-day concert hall means trying to turn it into something quite different than what it actually was when Chopin wrote it.
Venues are fluid for pianists. It's extremely difficult to move a piano vs another instrument, obviously.
I highly doubt Chopin only intended his music for a specific space. Chopin's music translates to large concert halls (with proper concert grands, of course) quite well. Every great pianist will adjust for the room.
Of course this will always be a debate. Some believe Bach's WTC should only be played on keyboards from Bach's era (ignoring the piano.) What a shame that would be to us all.
> I usually see this idea of a heroic great artist (compared to artists who presumably don’t have what it takes to merit being mentioned) in discussions around classical music.
Well, it depends - the idea you talk about is certainly out there, but I think most commenters don't really take it all that seriously. There's a lot of great stuff in classical music that's by unheard-of, "minor" composers, and even some pieces the composer of which is entirely unknown, and we can only make guesses as to their rightful "attribution". As to the focus on the "quality of the work", there is a bit of a hierarchy in classical music where some genres (i.e. "formats" of music) are considered to be inherently more worthwhile than others. In instrumental music, for example, a "concerto" or an "overture" would be a chance for the composer to show off their best work, while a "symphony" would be slightly lower in ambition, and maybe a "suite" would be slightly lower again. So if you're familiar with these designations, you can kinda sorta predict what the composer will be going for, and whether it will be derivative "filler" or not.
> There's a lot of great stuff in classical music that's by unheard-of, "minor" composers, and even some pieces the composer of which is entirely unknown, and we can only make guesses as to their rightful "attribution".
It was careless of me to say that works by Chopin sound like they are obviously by him. Recently, a friend played a piece by him that I was unfamiliar with, without saying who wrote it, and I told him it sounded like an unusual imitation of Chopin. I'd still say that his distinct voice was present in that piece, and that it's there in just about everything he published.
On a slightly related note, Chopin was also a highly technically proficient pianist, much like Paganini on the violin. There were great many amazing composers back then, but technicians of the instrument were perhaps rarer?
In any case, I imagine that the last century has perhaps produced the most technically proficient musicians on possibly every instrument, across all genres. Sometimes I'm blown away by some of the younger players and their flawless technique.
Not true, most of the composers were brilliant performers as well. Writing and more importantly publishing their compositions gave them extra income on top of lessons and performances. So often Beethoven Mozart or Chopin needed or wanted money, promised compositions to publishers to get it, then were late due to overpromising. Sounds familiar to my overpromising on data analysis then running into snags and getting highly delayed.
Anyway, paganini was a virtuoso first and foremost, the closest analogy would be a modern player like Horowitz or argerich, although liszt was similar but composed way more than paganini
The great thing about Chopin, as a pianist, is that as you grow in technique you can not only tackle the more complex pieces (Revolutionary Etude, Ballade no. 4 etc), but you can go back to some of the simpler ones and really work on the finer technique and artistic interpretation.
There's a good reason Chopin is a solo piano staple.
I've been playing solely Chopin for the better part of 3 years. I started on Preludes, now I stumble through Nocturnes and poke a bit at the Ballades, Etudes, and Scherzos.
People really need to learn about Chopin's music. There's juts so much to unpack in each Nocturne, each Ballade, it's truly incredible.
I started from very little skill, but by practicing Chopin almost daily I have gotten much better at sight reading and gained a new appreciation of his music.
My absolute favourite is Nocture op. 9 no. 2, apart from the very ending it's fairly simple to play if you are an intermediate or better pianist, but the difference in just hitting the right notes and actually playing it is night and day, and something that when you come back to the piece you can really gauge your progress with.
I had the privilege of playing it at a wedding a few years ago, on a beautiful Ibach concert grand piano, in a centuries old church ... the acoustics were fantastic and it was a very fitting piece.
I love op 9 no 2, yeah it's not too hard although the ending is a little tricky! That sounds like an amazing experience, do you have a video or something?
edit: not too hard but I should say I don't feel I'm at the point I can really do it justice emotionally, as you say, haha.
I tried reading this - but the website sent me through an endless loop of signing up for the free newsletter to unlock the article (which I tried various times).
That said, this line certainly raised an eyebrow for being pretty sensational:
>Of the well-known composers of the 19th century, Fryderyk Chopin (as his name is spelled in Polish, his native tongue) is the only one whose complete works continue to be played regularly—indeed, without cease.
When was the last time you heard his piano trio performed outside of a music school, for instance...?
Yeah, it's hard to take anything in this article seriously when you're one line into it and the premise:
"Of the well-known composers of the 19th century, Fryderyk Chopin is the only one whose complete works continue to be played regularly"
...is incorrect. There's not a single composer whose "complete works" get regularly played, and even given Chopin's fairly small catalog (for a major 19th century composer) there are plenty of marginal works that rarely get performed. Considering his long and respected career as a music critic and author, I'm kind of surprised to see Terry Teachout's byline on this.
I mean amongst the list of composers publishing in the 19th Century are Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Liszt, Schumann, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Debussy, Ravel to name a few(!)
It's a bit hard to take a critic seriously when they're capable of forgetting facts like this...
His most replayed work. I'm sure you've heard it, but many don't know it's Chopin. If you realize that now, it may be a chance for some rewarding Spotify exploration...
I've always wished John Williams would just include this piece straight up in a Star Wars movie. Both to acknowledge the inspiration and just because it would be perfect sad, brooding music as the camera panned across across a smashed rebel base or whatever.
Don't skip the rest of his nocturnes either. Especially Op 9 no 1, Op 55 no 1 (I'm practicing that one now), Op 62... You know what, just go listen to all of them.
The headline is not apt, the piece is not really making a strong case "against" Chopin. There is a slight attempt to build up some illusion that Chopin was once not held in high esteem. Well, that is a very weak argument indeed, as he was a child prodigy touring Europe in his teenage years, and then subsequently was very well known to the other famous romantic composers, most of whom thought he was a true genius of melody, finesse, and a master of chromaticism and narrative piano writing. Look no farther than Liszt's storied relationship with Chopin, they played together at salons and gatherings, they played each others works. Similarly, the Schumanns loved Chopin's work. He achieved a very high fee for teaching as well, there were numerous very wealthy Parisians eager to have training with him. Furthermore, there was and is a very, VERY strong tradition of classical pianists playing his works. Consider Debussy's performance of the fourth ballade at his conservatory, when it was stated he performed it as if "without hammers". So, no, there is no case against Chopin's mastery, this headline is click-bait.
The linked article is really a pseudo-book review of the recent biography "Fryderyk Chopin: A Life and Times" by Alan Walker.
As a pianist, the suggestion that Chopin or his études are not held in high esteem for both technical and musical merits is simply ludicrous.
His technique paved the way for Liszt and Debussy études, and Godowsky expanded their utility. Most technique after him is influenced by him in some way.
To my thinking the parent comments too easily blur the notions of "is not" held in high esteem", and "was not".
In his day it's acknowledged his work was appreciated, the article mentions his patronage. However, imagine present day people in your field who are respected as luminaries. They take time to publicly disparage your work.
Despite his supporters, it could have easily been traumatic to him personally and professionally. Could he have been more successful or inspiring to young composers otherwise?
In general it's quite a sad theme. I hate to see this same story so recurrent throughout history. In the 21st century we've finally simplified the concept to one word: "haters".
Criticism is just as important as praise, but not when it's unbalanced or done unproductively. Why as human beings must we treat each other this way and close our minds to things that are don't fit a mold?
The damage to individuals is never fully visible and the cultural price is never fully known.
> Of the well-known composers of the 19th century, Fryderyk Chopin (as his name is spelled in Polish, his native tongue) is the only one whose complete works continue to be played regularly—indeed, without cease.
We must be excluding lesser works and juvenilia since those works by Chopin exist and aren't regularly played today.
Correct - that was an exaggeration but the 'regularly played items' comprise something like 90% of the approx 240 compositions. Not the same situation at all with Brahms' (1000), Schubert's (1500) and Schumann's (700+ ) compositions (my bad guesses!) many of which are never heard at all. In some cases, with good reason. I believe Naxos has recorded everything Chopin wrote. I'm curious to know if they've done that with the other three composers mentioned.
Which is an arbitrary metric that could easily confuse a reader. How much a composer is played matters more than the amount of pieces played. Furthermore, Chopin composed a relatively small amount of music compared to others composers, and most of it is composed for solo piano so of course a lot of it is still going to be played.
This may be a consequence of the properties of the creations. People who want to listen to a concerto will share the experience with many others, and typically won’t be able to buy it all just for themselves. People who want to be involved in the contemporary art world can and often do buy physical works of art for themselves, and it doesn’t matter whether or not the artist could convince a theater of people to pay to sit down together and appreciate it for 30 minutes. If art patrons want to buy physical pieces for themselves, you need a bigger pool of artists to serve them; but if you want to fill opera houses, it’s better to have a few artists that everybody has agreed to like.