Chopin

[zamyrabyrd]

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.

I read somewhere that Chopin himself played the Op.26 Ab Sonata by Beethoven but was not particularly fond of his late Sonatas. I happen to be working on the Polonaise-Fantasie and after a lifetime of studying most of his works, case in point, the Ballades and the Scherzi, there is not the molecular development of material as with Beethoven and Brahms or even the thematic sort as in Liszt.
There is much harmonic movement via applied dominants that after a certain point become ambiguous seen already in the first page of the Polonaise-Fantasie. What key are we in after this happens 2 or 3 times?
The same goes for the 1st Ballade, in which the 1st theme appears in different keys (like the 2nd theme of the Fantasie) rather than developed but is used to move to different key areas. When the 2nd appearance of the 2nd theme arrives which key-wise is unclear since if it supposed to be in E major, starts right away with the applied dominant of A, an E7. The juxtaposition of keys is an important consideration when grappling with the structure. This is totally un-Brahms. One might raise a case for the Neapolitan, favored by Chopin, that he may have appreciated in the Appassionata Sonata by Beethoven. Conventional sonata form Chopin was able to do in his Sonatas and Concertos with real developments.

[(poco) Sforzando]

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...

For sure. It's less a melody than a wild figuration flung over three and a half octaves. But I wonder if it's fanciful (and this never occurred to me before, or has been noted anywhere else I know - which of course means nothing) to hear that scherzo as a response to the first movement of Beethoven's op. 90. The same wild energy, the suspended dissonances, the extreme dynamics, and that brutally hammered minor ninth chord near the end (compare measures 52-53 in the Beethoven) - even the widely stretched, painfully awkward left-hand Alberti basses in B's bars 54-57 seem like Chopin to me. Feels like an example of Bloom's apophrades, the "return of the dead," where the precursor's work wants to be heard in terms of his successor's.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I read somewhere that Chopin himself played the Op.26 Ab Sonata by Beethoven but was not particularly fond of his late Sonatas. I happen to be working on the Polonaise-Fantasie and after a lifetime of studying most of his works, case in point, the Ballades and the Scherzi, there is not the molecular development of material as with Beethoven and Brahms or even the thematic sort as in Liszt.
There is much harmonic movement via applied dominants that after a certain point become ambiguous seen already in the first page of the Polonaise-Fantasie. What key are we in after this happens 2 or 3 times?
The same goes for the 1st Ballade, in which the 1st theme appears in different keys (like the 2nd theme of the Fantasie) rather than developed but is used to move to different key areas. When the 2nd appearance of the 2nd theme arrives which key-wise is unclear since if it supposed to be in E major, starts right away with the applied dominant of A, an E7. The juxtaposition of keys is an important consideration when grappling with the structure. This is totally un-Brahms. One might raise a case for the Neapolitan, favored by Chopin, that he may have appreciated in the Appassionata Sonata by Beethoven. Conventional sonata form Chopin was able to do in his Sonatas and Concertos with real developments.

I would definitely agree that development per se is not a primary element in Chopin's vocabulary. His tendency in bringing back themes is to transform them texturally (I'm thinking right now of the 4th Ballade, as in that wonderful episode in Db with the left hand in triplet scales). When I spoke of the C minor etude, I was thinking too of texture, which seems to derive from Beethoven's sturm-und-drang, combined with the elaborate arpeggios up and down the keyboard that are purely Chopin's. Harold Bloom's argument about the anxiety of influence, which is a Freudian reading of literature in which influence does not just mean "X kind of sounds like Y," is more a sense of competition between the younger creator and his precursor, and thus "X didn't much like Y" does not preclude X being in competition with Y.

[zamyrabyrd]

I would definitely agree that development per se is not a primary element in Chopin's vocabulary. His tendency in bringing back themes is to transform them texturally (I'm thinking right now of the 4th Ballade, as in that wonderful episode in Db with the left hand in triplet scales). When I spoke of the C minor etude, I was thinking too of texture, which seems to derive from Beethoven's sturm-und-drang, combined with the elaborate arpeggios up and down the keyboard that are purely Chopin's. Harold Bloom's argument about the anxiety of influence, which is a Freudian reading of literature in which influence does not just mean "X kind of sounds like Y," is more a sense of competition between the younger creator and his precursor, and thus "X didn't much like Y" does not preclude X being in competition with Y.

I don't know about Beethoven being that significant to Chopin psychologically as there was many other influences such as composers of Bel Canto. He showed a strong individuality from his early adolescence in his first Polonaises. Your comparison of the 1st Scherzo and Beethoven's Op. 90, yes, you do have a point there.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I don't know about Beethoven being that significant to Chopin psychologically as there was many other influences such as composers of Bel Canto.

Yes, the slow movement of sonata 3 could be an aria by Bellini. But composers absorb multiple influences, too. Bach was also very important to Chopin.

[North Star]

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.

And to think that the music, the mazurkas in particular, are somehow shallow and lacking in harmonic depth in particular because someone can think of them as 'salon music' baffles the mind.

[Jo498]

I think the falsity lies already in the association of "salon". This was a semi-private meeting place of connoisseurs, not just some lady's boudoir or drawing room. Sure, e.g. the scherzi and polonaises are fairly extrovert pieces but overall the association of "intimate" and "for connoisseurs" does not seem so far off for Chopin.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I think the falsity lies already in the association of "salon". This was a semi-private meeting place of connoisseurs, not just some lady's boudoir or drawing room. Sure, e.g. the scherzi and polonaises are fairly extrovert pieces but overall the association of "intimate" and "for connoisseurs" does not seem so far off for Chopin.

The term salon music, however, connotes pieces written for virtuosic display and undemanding sentiment. Chopin certainly wrote some pieces that fall into this category, including some of the mazurkas, but whether played on a concert stage or in an intimate gathering, much of his work is far more complex harmonically, formally, and emotionally. I would not even call the scherzi or the larger polonaises (like the F# minor and the P-Fantasie) "fairly extrovert."

[(poco) Sforzando]

I was listening to those scherzos today (in the rather nice recording by Yundi Li), and what occurred to me about Chopin in comparison to Brahms is the iridescence of Chopin's textures. I wouldn't go so far so say Brahms doesn't care about color - in many ways he does - but you won't hear the same degree of openness in piano writing that you hear in Chopin so often.

[Madiel]

Openness. Yes. Chopin basically asks the player to have Mozartean clarity while hitting 2-3 times as many notes as Mozart would demand.

His larger scale one-movement works are truly marvellous things. The Ballades, the Fantasy, the Polonaise-Fantaisie, also the Barcarolle is another absolutely superb one.

[zamyrabyrd]

I was listening to those scherzos today (in the rather nice recording by Yundi Li), and what occurred to me about Chopin in comparison to Brahms is the iridescence of Chopin's textures. I wouldn't go so far so say Brahms doesn't care about color - in many ways he does - but you won't hear the same degree of openness in piano writing that you hear in Chopin so often.

I was thinking what you wrote about the possible Beethoven - Chopin connection, more than what meets the eye as it were. Beethoven actually was the composer who broke the mold of Minuet with some of his Scherzi wild to the point of Dionysian. Schumann was confused as to Chopin's appellation of "Scherzo" but seen as taken from Beethoven, it all starts to make sense.
The wide leaps in writing are also similar in spirit to the German mentor. Formally, none of the Chopin Scherzi are anywhere near a traditional binary, except there are two clearly delineated sections in all four, closer to rondo if anything. One doesn't expect development in a Scherzo but it is present int 2,3 and 4. Instead of a trio there is an often frenzied coda. Something to think about further...

[Madiel]

The scherzi are mostly ternary, not binary. But then, so is a menuet/trio or scherzo/trio.

[zamyrabyrd]

The scherzi are mostly ternary, not binary. But then, so is a menuet/trio or scherzo/trio.

I was thinking of scherzo without trio. At least the spirit of "trio" doesn't apply here.
The 1st Scherzo has two alternating contrasting themes + coda.
The 2nd's large units are A, B that turns into a development using some material from A, a return of A and a coda. OK that can be considered ternary but it is a far cry from a standard minuet form.
The 3rd has a long A exposition then a B with a bit of development going back to A, B again in a different key and coda.
No. 4 is A with a strongly contrasting B section, back to A and a coda, the most ternary of all four.
The point remains how much Chopin was influenced by Beethoven who not only owned the Menuet/Scherzo but stretched it way out of its original shape. Similarly, Chopin probably took the name from Beethoven and may have tried to best him in a new, Romantic interpretation of "Scherzo".

[Madiel]

I was thinking of scherzo without trio. At least the spirit of "trio" doesn't apply here.

Eh?

You just leave me wondering what you think the "spirit" of a trio is, and how often you think you ever experienced Haydn, Mozart or Beethoven doing a menuet without a trio.

Menuet movements are ternary form. Just because the 'A' and the 'B' bits of the ternary form managed to get separate names doesn't alter that. And beyond that, I think you're overthinking things. I wasn't attempting to suggest that you should be able to find 2 refrains of unequal length in a Chopin scherzo's 'A' section, nor was I suggesting anything about codas (nor does a coda alter the basic form). Music is in some ways mathematical, but it's not mathematics and the great pieces of music break the "rules" as often as they fulfil them because they weren't "rules" in that sense to begin with. None of these composers set out to write perfect textbook examples of previously set-down forms, because most of the analysis we now apply didn't exist at the time. They aimed to write music that hit the emotions, and they used some of these forms because pattern recognition is fundamental to the human experience.

[zamyrabyrd]

Eh?

You just leave me wondering what you think the "spirit" of a trio is, and how often you think you ever experienced Haydn, Mozart or Beethoven doing a menuet without a trio.

Menuet movements are ternary form. Just because the 'A' and the 'B' bits of the ternary form managed to get separate names doesn't alter that. And beyond that, I think you're overthinking things. I wasn't attempting to suggest that you should be able to find 2 refrains of unequal length in a Chopin scherzo's 'A' section, nor was I suggesting anything about codas (nor does a coda alter the basic form). Music is in some ways mathematical, but it's not mathematics and the great pieces of music break the "rules" as often as they fulfil them because they weren't "rules" in that sense to begin with. None of these composers set out to write perfect textbook examples of previously set-down forms, because most of the analysis we now apply didn't exist at the time. They aimed to write music that hit the emotions, and they used some of these forms because pattern recognition is fundamental to the human experience.

Hi there. Historically speaking, a "trio" is more often a commentary on an already musically compact minuet or scherzo. Just because something happens to be a B section, as in an ABA song form or any ternary form for that matter, doesn't mean that all B's wherever they appear fitting that particular mold have the same function. This is the danger of reading too much into the Chopin's appellation of "scherzo" formally. It doesn't function at all like the previous models. 
You can have a look at Hummel's Scherzo in A, a two pager used in the ABRSM 5th grade piano exams. This is all A material, no B at all. I should have been clearer at the outset and used that as an example of a scherzo without a trio. Chopin may well have used Hummel as a starting point rather than Beethoven for going outside the classical form.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Hi there. Historically speaking, a "trio" is more often a commentary on an already musically compact minuet or scherzo. Just because something happens to be a B section, as in an ABA song form or any ternary form for that matter, doesn't mean that all B's wherever they appear fitting that particular mold have the same function. This is the danger of reading too much into the Chopin's appellation of "scherzo" formally. It doesn't function at all like the previous models. 
You can have a look at Hummel's Scherzo in A, a two pager used in the ABRSM 5th grade piano exams. This is all A material, no B at all. I should have been clearer at the outset and used that as an example of a scherzo without a trio. Chopin may well have used Hummel as a starting point rather than Beethoven for going outside the classical form.

I would want to revisit the scores to the Chopin scherzos as well as this Hummel before specifically commenting. But I have no idea what you mean by "Historically speaking, a 'trio' is more often a commentary on an already musically compact minuet or scherzo." How is this true of the trios in the scherzos of Beethoven's 5th or 7th or 9th? or any number of other examples from Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven? You might say that the trio sections of the typical classical minuet or scherzo cannot function independently from the A sections of their respective movements, that the trios are subordinate to the main parts of the movements, but kindly show me one example where the trio can be said to "comment" on the A part.

ETA: Well, I took a look at your Hummel just now, and it's apparently part of a collection of little piano pieces. But surely all the Chopin scherzos are far more elaborate and ambitious for this little Hummel thing to serve as any kind of model, and all seem to have B sections to one degree or other. Again though, I would want to examine the scores of these scherzos a little more thoroughly before saying for sure. 

[zamyrabyrd]

I would want to revisit the scores to the Chopin scherzos as well as this Hummel before specifically commenting. But I have no idea what you mean by "Historically speaking, a 'trio' is more often a commentary on an already musically compact minuet or scherzo." How is this true of the trios in the scherzos of Beethoven's 5th or 7th or 9th? or any number of other examples from Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven? You might say that the trio sections of the typical classical minuet or scherzo cannot function independently from the A sections of their respective movements, that the trios are subordinate to the main parts of the movements, but kindly show me one example where the trio can be said to "comment" on the A part.

I'm talking about interpretation but maybe you don't see it this way. Plenty of Schubert's, Op. 42, as an example.  I would play the trio of Beethoven's Op. 26 as a comment (for want of a better word), but not the B sections of the above mentioned Chopin Scherzi. Just because a section is B and the name of the piece is scherzo doesn't mean the B has the same function of a B in a scherzo/trio.

[Madiel]

Hi there. Historically speaking, a "trio" is more often a commentary on an already musically compact minuet or scherzo.

Nope. Don't agree. Some are, plenty aren't.

Sure, you can find examples where the trio is linked thematically to the minuet. And then I'll go find an example where they're not, and we could play that game for months. After that, we can go through Haydn's symphonies and decide which of them are "monothematic". Then, once we're done with all that, we can come back to Chopin's 3rd scherzo and dissect it and argue about whether it has the same kind of contrast as the first two.

PS I suspect you mean "musically complete", not "musically compact", but that's pretty much a common definition of ternary form: the 'A' is self-contained and the 'B' is not.

[zamyrabyrd]

Nope. Don't agree. Some are, plenty aren't.

Sure, you can find examples where the trio is linked thematically to the minuet. And then I'll go find an example where they're not, and we could play that game for months. After that, we can go through Haydn's symphonies and decide which of them are "monothematic". Then, once we're done with all that, we can come back to Chopin's 3rd scherzo and dissect it and argue about whether it has the same kind of contrast as the first two.

PS I suspect you mean "musically complete", not "musically compact", but that's pretty much a common definition of ternary form: the 'A' is self-contained and the 'B' is not.

OK you don't agree but originally trio was a scaling down of instruments and texture. How this pans out for the last three sonatas of Schubert is also thinning out of texture but also a temporary emotional reprieve. This is how I would play such trios, with the contrast of the main section in mind. I would not treat any of the B sections in the Chopin Scherzi like that since they have different functions.

[Madiel]

...you don't think the central section of the first Scherzo is a temporary emotional reprieve?

Okaaaaaaay then. *backs towards the exit slowly*