Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Étude, Brute? The case for Chopin

commentarymagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 37 posts

Re: Étude, Brute? The case for Chopin

#11

Post by vertline3 »

stochastic_monk wrote: post #10
WhompingWindows wrote: post #2

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 m…

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.

He was painted by Delacroix as well, and he was kind of an important painter. So it means he was likely somewhat esteemed.

Re: Étude, Brute? The case for Chopin

#12

Post by Dumblydorr »

throwaway8879 wrote: post #7
odyssey7 wrote: post #3

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 wo…

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…

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

Re: Étude, Brute? The case for Chopin

#13

Post by yomly »

mazelife wrote: post #9
yomly wrote: post #4

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…

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…

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...

Re: Étude, Brute? The case for Chopin

#14

Post by 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.

Re: Étude, Brute? The case for Chopin

#15

Post by Dumblydorr »

odyssey7 wrote: post #3

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 wo…

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

Re: Étude, Brute? The case for Chopin

#16

Post by WhitneyLand »

stochastic_monk wrote: post #10
WhompingWindows wrote: post #2

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 m…

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.

Re: Étude, Brute? The case for Chopin

#17

Post by zozbot123 »

odyssey7 wrote: post #3

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 wo…

> 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.

Re: Étude, Brute? The case for Chopin

#19

Post by 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.

Post reply on HN