Chopin

[Brian]

Perhaps a spiritual heir to the Chopin scherzos is the two Brahms rhapsodies, Op. 79.

[Ten thumbs]

Another subsequent composer who used the scherzo in his own way was Heller. I can but quote from Bernadette:

   Heller has published four Scherzos. The first (Op. 8 ), dedicated to Robert Schumann, is written with care and purity. It displays tenderness of a high order and affords promise of future greatness, but it has been surpassed by subsequent compositions.
   Op. 24, dedicated to Liszt, is full of freshness, youth and originality. It is evidently a work written in the spring-time of life, when all is sunny and smiling. The Scherzo Fantastique (Op. 57), is of a less serene character. It answers well to its title, and contains some extremely original points. The whole of the first movement exhibits a rare knowledge of rhythm and some ravishing contrasts. The middle part is very weird, and in looking at the work as a whole we cannot but regret that it was not scored for full orchestra, for the capabilities of which it displays most ample and tempting material.
   The fourth Scherzo (Op. 108), is pianoforte music proper. It is lovely work, and may rival the best efforts of Chopin in its own way.

[Jo498]

Very interesting, thanks for the information. I know Heller only by name, but there are some recordings of some of his piano music.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Perhaps a spiritual heir to the Chopin scherzos is the two Brahms rhapsodies, Op. 79.

How so?

[El Chupacabra]

Perhaps a spiritual heir to the Chopin scherzos is the two Brahms rhapsodies, Op. 79.

Perhaps not  ...unless you elaborate your angle.
The first scherzo has some restlessness and the first rhapsody has turbulence, but other than that the rhapsodies are quite extroverted and rich in harmonic and second one's origin is a ballad called "Archibald Douglas"... what is "spirit"? 

[Brian]

How so?

Perhaps not  ...unless you elaborate your angle.
The first scherzo has some restlessness and the first rhapsody has turbulence, but other than that the rhapsodies are quite extroverted and rich in harmonic and second one's origin is a ballad called "Archibald Douglas"... what is "spirit"? 

Well, it's not a formal hypothesis - more of an idle thought - but the emotional turbulence, the virtuosity married to emotional power, the sort of abrupt stark beginnings to the works. (I'm thinking mostly of Chopin's first three scherzos, not the "happy" one.) And particularly in Brahms' first rhapsody Op. 79, the presence of a strongly contrasting B section.

Perhaps the formal underpinnings aren't too similar, but if you heard the Chopin scherzos & Brahms Op. 79 in recital or on disc together, you wouldn't think them strange bedfellows, would you?

El Chupacabra, I'm sure you're not saying that the Chopin works are introverted or harmonically simple...?

[(poco) Sforzando]

Well, it's not a formal hypothesis - more of an idle thought - but the emotional turbulence, the virtuosity married to emotional power, the sort of abrupt stark beginnings to the works. (I'm thinking mostly of Chopin's first three scherzos, not the "happy" one.) And particularly in Brahms' first rhapsody Op. 79, the presence of a strongly contrasting B section.

Perhaps the formal underpinnings aren't too similar, but if you heard the Chopin scherzos & Brahms Op. 79 in recital or on disc together, you wouldn't think them strange bedfellows, would you?

Well, there are a lot of works with strongly contrasting B sections. But the one from 79/1 does have some points in common with the B section to the Chopin B minor scherzo. Even so, Chopin's virtuosity is often of a different order than Brahms's, and his keyboard textures are rather different. Brahms is often strongly chordal in his textures, lacking Chopin's brilliance of sound, while Chopin tends to favor the higher glittering parts of the keyboard and his left-hand parts tend to favor wide arpeggiations that cruelly stretch the player's reach. Perhaps the scale passages in 79/1 remind you of passages in Chopin, but consider also that Brahms's 79/1 ends quietly and the A section is in sonata form, while 79/2 is in sonata form throughout. This is not true of Chopin, who tends not to use the older classical forms. (I do however have a hunch that Wagner, when he wrote the preludes to Meistersinger and possibly even Parsifal, took a few hints in formal construction from Chopin's departures from sonata form in the 3rd ballade.)

So a toss-up on your question. But since "strange bedfellows" comes from Shakespeare's Tempest, where Trinculo creeps under Caliban's gabardine to escape thunder . . . . (Oh, and BTW, BGR, I took some pains to respond to your questions about Hamlet in the Diner. Mr. Smith saw fit to disagree with me, but he's wrong. )

[El Chupacabra]

I'm sure you're not saying that the Chopin works are introverted or harmonically simple...?

I don't know what to say now.

...think of Chopin's output played in a manner that they are...would you prefer to listen to them in an intimate salon or a concert stage?

...and harmony is :

Brahms is often strongly chordal in his textures,

so, yes, in your context Chopin is harmonically simple(r)...but the precise word is more 'conventional'

[(poco) Sforzando]

I don't know what to say now.

...think of Chopin's output played in a manner that they are...would you prefer to listen to them in an intimate salon or a concert stage?

...and harmony is :so, yes, in your context Chopin is harmonically simple(r)...but the precise word is more 'conventional'

I said or implied nothing about harmony. Chopin's harmonies are often far from simple.

[El Chupacabra]

I said or implied nothing about harmony. Chopin's harmonies are often far from simple.

When you say "chordal" you mean 'harmony'. They are simpler than Brahms and they are a lot more conventional than Brahms's rhapsodies.

[Madiel]

When you say "chordal" you mean 'harmony'.

Er, no. "Chordal" is a description of texture.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Er, no. "Chordal" is a description of texture.

Thank you, orfeo. I know what I meant and I know what I wrote: "Brahms is often strongly chordal in his textures." (Not invariably of course, but see just for a start, the Rhapsody in Eb, op 119/4.) Chopin's harmonies can be quite advanced. (Not invariably of course, but see just for start, the Prelude in A minor; or the 2-bar passage in the F# major Impromptu, op. 36, where he leads back from the D major middle section to the restatement of the theme in F major. It's almost Schoenbergian.)

[El Chupacabra]

Reading your posts here and past , I couldn't find a way to answer without making you feel offended so I will not continue.

[Madiel]

Chopin's harmonies can be quite advanced. (Not invariably of course, but see just for start, the Prelude in A minor; or the 2-bar passage in the F# major Impromptu, op. 36, where he leads back from the D major middle section to the restatement of the theme in F major. It's almost Schoenbergian.)

No argument from me on that point. The essay in the Ashkenazy box set of Chopin that I have points out that, for a composer who has managed to be so popular for his "tunes", Chopin does some astoundingly modern things with his harmonies and massive amounts of chromaticism in places.

Having said that, I'd also say that the scherzi tend to be less a bit less harmonically adventurous than many of his other works (say, the preludes or the mazurkas). They are still utterly amazing. For a man who didn't really like Beethoven, it's pretty remarkable how he took what Beethoven had done to the scherzo and dialled it up to 11.

Personally, I marvel at just how many forms Chopin made his own. He's the first composer that would come to mind for close to half a dozen genres. Partly I think that's because he was so non-Romantic with his titles.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Reading your posts here and past , I couldn't find a way to answer without making you feel offended so I will not continue.

Oh, please. If you have something good to say that would offend me, say it. Nothing like feeling offended at 8:15 on a Sunday morning. (And where are you writing from, Alaska? It must be four hours earlier there.)

[zamyrabyrd]

Anyone following the 17th Chopin Competition? It's over of course and a Korean pianist won. I am just listening to the former prodigy, Ami Kobayashi in the Chopin PC1, that the finalists had to play. She seems to have matured well.
ZB

[zamyrabyrd]

Perhaps the formal underpinnings aren't too similar, but if you heard the Chopin scherzos & Brahms Op. 79 in recital or on disc together, you wouldn't think them strange bedfellows, would you?

I would.

[El Chupacabra]

...at 8:15 on a Sunday morning...It must be four hours earlier there...

Quite irrelevant to me as the "time of the day" concept is different...especially 24 days away from polar twilight.

[(poco) Sforzando]

No argument from me on that point. The essay in the Ashkenazy box set of Chopin that I have points out that, for a composer who has managed to be so popular for his "tunes", Chopin does some astoundingly modern things with his harmonies and massive amounts of chromaticism in places.

Having said that, I'd also say that the scherzi tend to be less a bit less harmonically adventurous than many of his other works (say, the preludes or the mazurkas). They are still utterly amazing. For a man who didn't really like Beethoven, it's pretty remarkable how he took what Beethoven had done to the scherzo and dialled it up to 11.

Personally, I marvel at just how many forms Chopin made his own. He's the first composer that would come to mind for close to half a dozen genres. Partly I think that's because he was so non-Romantic with his titles.

I tend to think Chopin learned more and was more influenced by Beethoven than he let on. (It's the Harold Bloom "anxiety of influence" thing: the sense of competition with a strong earlier figure, which in some cases manifests itself as dismissal of the precursor's work.) But if the voice of Beethoven isn't speaking through the C minor etude from op. 25 and the first movement of the Bb minor sonata, I don't know what is.

Most of Chopin's small works fall under the heading of the "characteristic piece," similar in concept to those Schumann, Mendelssohn, and Brahms wrote despite their different styles. S and M (like Debussy later) generally title their short piano pieces, M collecting them as "songs without words," while B and C offer more generic and neutral titles. (Brahms likes to use terms like capriccio, intermezzo, rhapsody, while Chopin prefers dance-derived titles like mazurka, polonaise, and waltz.) I think though in terms of form per se, Chopin is most original in his longest independent works, the four ballades, none of which has an identifiable precursor and each of which is quite different in formal method from the others.

[Brian]

Even so, Chopin's virtuosity is often of a different order than Brahms's, and his keyboard textures are rather different. Brahms is often strongly chordal in his textures, lacking Chopin's brilliance of sound, while Chopin tends to favor the higher glittering parts of the keyboard and his left-hand parts tend to favor wide arpeggiations that cruelly stretch the player's reach.

Thank you, orfeo. I know what I meant and I know what I wrote: "Brahms is often strongly chordal in his textures." (Not invariably of course, but see just for a start, the Rhapsody in Eb, op 119/4.) Chopin's harmonies can be quite advanced. (Not invariably of course, but see just for start, the Prelude in A minor; or the 2-bar passage in the F# major Impromptu, op. 36, where he leads back from the D major middle section to the restatement of the theme in F major. It's almost Schoenbergian.)

Thanks - half the time you say things I wanted to say but didn't know how, and half the time you make me race off to listen to a piece with ears out for something new. As far as harmonies in the scherzos go, I'll say the first time I heard No. 1 (which was in college), the first theme made me say "what?!" Imagine telling any of Chopin's predecessors that that was an appropriate melody...

I don't know what to say now.

Sorry! Also I didn't mean to start some weird personal argument.

...think of Chopin's output played in a manner that they are...would you prefer to listen to them in an intimate salon or a concert stage?

Well, that depends on the work. I heard Abdel Rahman El Bacha play Sonata No. 3 in the Orangerie at the Bois de Boulogne, as intimate a space as can be imagined with the piano surrounded by flowers and candles:



But I do think that "Chopin = salon" is a false generalization; he did write all those nocturnes and mazurkas, certainly, but quite a few of his works are as Big and weighty as you'd want to hear on a concert stage.

I think though in terms of form per se, Chopin is most original in his longest independent works, the four ballades, none of which has an identifiable precursor and each of which is quite different in formal method from the others.

And the Fantaisie in F minor - over time there have been plenty of opportunities for me to listen to contemporary fantasies by other composers (not talking about Schubert here! Raff, Ries, Vorisek, those types), and what's striking is how poorly they're usually structured, or how badly they fail to make the episodes of their fantasy cohere into one whole. What Chopin manages here (especially bringing back elements from earlier, at the end) is just incredible.

(Oh, and BTW, BGR, I took some pains to respond to your questions about Hamlet in the Diner. Mr. Smith saw fit to disagree with me, but he's wrong. )

I saw that! Never did reply, because I was reading it on my phone while traveling, and upon returning home forgot I hadn't replied. Will head back over to the Shakespeare discussion soon.