
Étude, Brute? The case for Chopin - tintinnabula
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/etude-brute/
======
odyssey7
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.

~~~
Dumblydorr
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

~~~
zozbot123
> 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.

~~~
ntsplnkv2
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.

------
philjohn
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.

~~~
cevn
I can't agree more.

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.

~~~
philjohn
Wow - that's great work!

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.

~~~
cevn
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.

------
yomly
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...?

~~~
mazelife
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.

~~~
yomly
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...

------
WhitneyLand
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...

[https://youtube.com/watch?v=9E6b3swbnWg](https://youtube.com/watch?v=9E6b3swbnWg)

~~~
MarkLowenstein
Possibly qualifying double for these same statements:
[https://youtu.be/dw4aGcmircA?t=2120](https://youtu.be/dw4aGcmircA?t=2120)

~~~
mds
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.

------
ggm
Ashkenazi complete recordings box set owner: he might have been a bit
antisemitic and a bloody mess at the end, but I love my chopin.

------
WhompingWindows
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.

~~~
stochastic_monk
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.

~~~
WhitneyLand
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.

------
RobLach
Content marketing piece for a book.

~~~
dang
There's nothing wrong with book reviews.

------
jancsika
> 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.

Ok, let's start hashing...

Error: collision detected: Schumann

Error: collision detected: Brahms

Error: collision detected: Schubert

Stopped parsing at line 1.

~~~
mehwoot
_complete works_

~~~
maceurt
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.

