Why nobody writes music like Chopin anymore

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

'Cos he's dead.

Or did someone say that already?

Not 'say', but 'show', a page ago...

[jochanaan]

Not 'say', but 'show', a page ago...

Very poetic!

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Very poetic!

An iambic tetrameter, Sir!

[c#minor]

Am i going to be the one to say it. Because Chopin was the greatest composer for the piano that ever lived. And he's dead.

[greg]

Hey, I did like the Mahler opera that's up there- even if it's his earlier lieder style..... Haven't listened to much else on the site, though.....

[lukeottevanger]

Sforzando, on a composition of mine:  ( 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) )

I have only looked at the score so far and will get to the Mp3 when I return home from work. But my first thought is that you are writing as a 21st-century Chopin (which I intend as a compliment).

which was very nice of him, of course. But which also suggests that the Chopin influence (which I wasn't aware of whilst writing the piece, but which is certainly a general presence in my music) still persists - and importantly, that one doesn't have to ape Chopin's precise style in order to write music which is 'like him' in some deeper sense than that implied in this thread so far.

Not that I am claiming anything profound for my niggardly little piece, of course - actually one of my more bizarre pieces, and one I feel more than a little dubious about. I use Sforzando's reaction to it merely as illustration of my point.

[Josquin des Prez]

one doesn't have to ape Chopin's precise style in order to write music which is 'like him' in some deeper sense than that implied in this thread so far.

Sort of like Faure.

[lukeottevanger]

Good example. There are more, of course.

[jochanaan]

An iambic tetrameter, Sir!

With an internal rhyme, even!

[jochanaan]

Am i going to be the one to say it. Because Chopin was the greatest composer for the piano that ever lived.

That's debatable.

And he's dead.

That isn't.

[lukeottevanger]

under the circumstances that you just described this sort of reaction 99.9% of the time implies nothing of course, you still dont write like Chopin do you, nor would you want to consciously I take it. Ok, you want to write comparatively inspired and fresh stuff like Chopin did in his day but still. You want to stay true. And sometimes things may come up via osmosis in an unconscious manor through youre listening, studying and whatnot, and if turns up regularly, hopefully it's spotted and eliminated. not saying lessons have & can be learned from Chopin & others (the presence you're referring to?), but for the serious ones, nothing worse than having an immediate reaction from a listener & being told you sound like someone else. most great composers learn from the past but eventually develop their own distinct language (or voice) so to speak.

I agree with this, of course, above all the line about wanting 'to stay true' - anyone who's had the misfortune to follow my ramblings on my own composer's thread will know to what extent this question is important to me, and to what lengths I'll go to keep faithful to it and to my own core musical tendencies (which are immensely hard to uncover, but which I think I have sucessfully found a way to in recent months). Even though Chopin is a very important composer for me as a pianist and a musician, he's less so for me as a composer, so it rather surprised me when Sforzando said that I was 'writing like a 21st century Chopin' in that albeit-rather-untypical piece of mine - (although note: he didn't say it sounded like Chopin). My own view is that, if there is Chopin to be found in my piece, it's because it shows a performer's understanding of the piano, uses pianistic gestures that are fairly traditional, is concerned with texture, legato line, cantabile and also the formal interplay of the all above - things that were concerns of Chopin's, I think. And perhaps simply that my piece, in being tonal and relatively humble in demands wasn't typical contemporary fare whilst, in other respects (rhythmic, notational and others too) it is 'of our time'. Maybe this is the kind of thing that was in Sforzando's mind.

But at all events, I think the question hinges on what one means by 'writing like Chopin'. No one writes piano music precisely like Chopin's any more for the same reasons that no one writes piano music like Liszt, Alkan, Rachmaninov or Debussy any more: because, as you imply, personal style belongs to the individual composer and, for all concerned, is best left there. But there is also 'writing like Chopin' in the wider sense - not aping his melodic or harmonic style but approaching the instrument in the same way, approaching questions of the poetics of virtuosity in the same way. As Josquin pointed out, Faure is an example of a composer who does just that. Scriabin is another.

[lukeottevanger]

I agree, of course - I hope I'm not implying that Scriabin and Faure composers analysed Chopin and took from him these things. I think that in reality there's a middle ground - Scriabin was undoubtedly aware of the explicit surface Chopinesque qualities of his earlier music, (IOW - it sounds pretty much like Chopin, though the differences are still plain to those with ears!), but also had the self-awareness to know what in this music was truly 'him' and what was not. Thus he was able to strip down this style, to keep what was 'true' and discard what was not. But what remains, even in late Scriabin, still has qualities that we find in Chopin and in all more sensitive composers of music for the concert grand - textural, technical, formal qualities, and more subtle ones besides which I don't have time to discuss right now.

Interesting to compare Scriabin to another Chopinesque figure - Liadov - in this respect. But no time to do it now! 

[lukeottevanger]

Exactly. A subject very close to my heart indeed. But my point in this thead being that there is something specific but hard-to-define in Chopin (and not in his predecessors or contemporaries), existing beneath the surface Chopin-isms and remaining pertinent to perfectly individual composers like our examples here, Faure and Scriabin. Thus, in this sense, it is still perfectly possible to 'write like Chopin' without slavishly following his style.

[zamyrabyrd]

... My own view is that, if there is Chopin to be found in my piece, it's because it shows a performer's understanding of the piano, uses pianistic gestures that are fairly traditional, is concerned with texture, legato line, cantabile and also the formal interplay of the all above - things that were concerns of Chopin's, I think...But at all events, I think the question hinges on what one means by 'writing like Chopin'. No one writes piano music precisely like Chopin's any more for the same reasons that no one writes piano music like Liszt, Alkan, Rachmaninov or Debussy any more: because, as you imply, personal style belongs to the individual composer and, for all concerned, is best left there. But there is also 'writing like Chopin' in the wider sense - not aping his melodic or harmonic style but approaching the instrument in the same way, approaching questions of the poetics of virtuosity in the same way.

Debussy, Rachmaninoff, even Gershwin were affected by Chopin's piano writing. Together with the development of the instrument, the 19th century composers really probed the resources of the piano and Chopin was at the top of the list. His figurations were incredibly original even before he reached the age of 20, much more sophisticated than Hummel or John Field. Any piano composer after Chopin inherited his own innovations even if it were anti-Romantic like the music of Prokofiev. But not only in technique, as Chopin was very advanced and even experimental in his harmonies, that included chromaticism, side-stepping modulations and many times avoiding the tonic-dominant axis.

[lukeottevanger]

I think Faure and Scriabin's inner voice is very different than Chopins, and the similarities you described earlier aren't that significant or overbearing to a large extent especially as they were finding their way.

Thing is, I didn't really describe any similarities, only hinted at them. The similarities exist on (at least) two levels.

First there's the obvious external similarities, for example that Faure and Scriabin both wrote large numbers of sets of pieces in forms which Chopin popularised, in styles which at times audibly and visibly owe a great deal to Chopin's, using techniques of figuration which ditto. I tend to agree with you that the more blatant and undigested Chopin-isms are eventually shed by both Faure and Scriabin, and are most important in showing where they come from. However, in both composers it's easy to see specific Chopin influences even in much later and more personal works, and that's because - and this is important, to my mind, with reference to the thread title - what Chopin created was a kind of lingua franca of a certain kind of piano writing, so that whatever one's own personal style, one can't write this kind of music without echoing him to some extent.

The second similarity stems from this, and is a more overarching one which I think is far more important. That is that Chopin is the instigator of the tradition within which they worked - not just that of the virtuoso piano (for which Liszt and Alkan and so on are just as important) but that of the piano as a vehicle for poetry, as sort of ultra-sensitive seismograph with limitless degrees of shading, recording its thoughts in a series of miniatures which are usually quite close to improvisation. It's impossible to imagine Scriabin, not just early Scriabin, without this influence (and Liadov, Rachmaninov and other Russians too); it's also impossible to imagine the piano music of Faure, early or late, without it.

I know, I seem to be circling around this issue - it's not actually one I have passionate feelings about, though I have passionate feelings about these composers, so with each post I seem to be talking from a slightly different angle, but there's an internal consistency there, I promise you!

It just seems clear to me that Chopin represents and initiates something enormous in music - this approach to the piano-as-confidante, I suppose - in the same way as Beethoven represents and initiates the idea of the symphony-as-heroic-struggle. And other composer likewise, in their own ways. Once these composers changed the implications of the language in these ways, those changes became part of the landscape - and so to write piano music which falls within the Chopin tradition is no more shameful or imitative a thing than to write a symphony that reminds one of Beethoven.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

It just seems clear to me that Chopin represents and initiates something enormous in music - this approach to the piano-as-confidante, I suppose - in the same way as Beethoven represents and initiates the idea of the symphony-as-heroic-struggle. And other composer likewise, in their own ways. Once these composers changed the implications of the language in these ways, those changes became part of the landscape - and so to write piano music which falls within the Chopin tradition is no more shameful or imitative a thing than to write a symphony that reminds one of Beethoven.

Beethoven and Schumann use the piano in the same way, in my opinion - turning the piano into a lyrical vehicle for the most intimate thoughts and the highest flights of fancy. (And you could add Liszt too, perhaps.) Mind you, I am only mentioning Chopin's contemporaries.

The point about Chopin is - his music is inimitable, so pure, crystalline and aristocratic it creates its own sub-genre (a thing genius sometimes does).

[Josquin des Prez]

But not only in technique, as Chopin was very advanced and even experimental in his harmonies, that included chromaticism, side-stepping modulations and many times avoiding the tonic-dominant axis.

Indeed, but i wouldn't call Chopin a radical. His genius was too great for that.

I think one of the things i like best about Faure is that he applies many of the same principles of Chopin's piano works in his chamber music,  in a way that Chopin himself couldn't do. I think that's a rather remarkable achievement if you think just how difficult it was for the majority of romantic composers to treat the larger forms in a similar manner as their smaller character piano pieces. Schumann couldn't do it for instance, and his treatment of form is so strict and by the book it sounds almost clumsy. Same goes for a lot of other composers.

[Josquin des Prez]

(And you could add Liszt too, perhaps.)

Can't agree with that. For Liszt, the piano was an end to itself, in a way that no other composer has ever done, not even those who came after him. This doesn't mean he was nothing but an empty virtuoso, a charge which is unfair as it is inaccurate. For Liszt, the piano was an orchestra, and his quest was to exploit it's sonorities to the fullest. This often made his music difficult to play, but it wasn't meant to be, and the proof lies in the fact every time he revised a work he tried his best to soften out some of it's difficulties and asperities, without altering the brilliant quality of his effects.

Of course, this merely means he was just en empty seeker of orchestral and programmatic effects (heh), but that's still better then being a show off i guess, and definitely more valuable.

[lukeottevanger]

Beethoven and Schumann use the piano in the same way, in my opinion - turning the piano into a lyrical vehicle for the most intimate thoughts and the highest flights of fancy. (And you could add Liszt too, perhaps.) Mind you, I am only mentioning Chopin's contemporaries.

I wasn't forgetting either Beethoven or Schumann, nor Liszt. But I think what Chopin does is something different to any of these, something to do with the rootedness of his music in improvisation, and the proximity of the finished music to these improvisations. Generally, the finer the piece, the more evident the improvisation is - the Preludes, Mazurkas and Nocturnes, for instance, being generally accepted as better or at least more typically Chopinesque works than the Rondos, Scherzi or Polonaises, fine though the latter are too. We see in the 'improvisatory' Chopin things we don't see in anyone else of the time - we see perverse and inexplicable inconsistencies in articulation and dynamics from phrase to phrase, for instance; tiny, almost invisible and inaudible things, which would go against the grain for Beethoven or even for someone whose wildness and wackiness is more blatant, like Schumann. In Chopin they are related to this ultra-sensitive seismographic writing I mentioned, and which I think is part of the new approach to piano writing which he created. Compare Chopin to Hummel and Field - his closest stylistic ancestors in some ways, same sort of bel canto melodies over arpeggiated figurations with fioreture thrown in - to see what I mean. The added 'je ne sais quoi' which is so evident in Chopin's music despite the surface stylistic similarities is what Chopin brought to the table, and in this case it's clearly far more important than the minutiae of style. Otherwise we'd all be listening to Field as much as to Chopin. I'm simply applying that argument forwards, saying that this 'je ne sais quoi' in Chopin is so strong that it transcends stylistic differences - once he found it, it became part of a musician's toolkit, to be employed by later composers (Scriabin, Faure) or not (Brahms would be an example, I suppose) as they wished.

None of this to imply that Beethoven and Schumann aren't equally sensitive, of course - but their music reveals it in a different way, and it is this different way which is unprecedented.

The point about Chopin is - his music is inimitable, so pure, crystalline and aristocratic it creates its own sub-genre (a thing genius sometimes does).

True.

[lukeottevanger]

No no no... it's much much more personal than that. Some of his chamber music is so expansive with a breadth that's closer to orchestral stuff, think closer to Brahms. I think it was Aaron Copland who called him the French Brahms or something. Anyway, it's a whole different bag ultimately. To my ears, Faure is a far more rounded composer and soo much greater. And in the piano music, sure you get the choice of forms (nocturnes, barcarolles, preludes, impromptus etc.) and the poetic concentration/clarity that is in clear debt to the earlier generation of Chopin, but also Liszt, but Bach too etc. etc. but beyond this his music has little to do with just that, and it's extremely personal and very fresh & adventurous, with an elusive/enigmatic quality that is quite unlike Chopin, or anyone else. A neglected master.

I agree wholly with this assessment of Faure (except the 'greater than Brahms' bit, though at his best he's near the same level IMO). But I would just say that Chopin has an extremely powerful 'elusive/enigmatic' quality too - that in fact, this elusiveness is not unrelated to the unprecedented 'seismographic' writing I was describing his most lasting contribution as being. Reading your words carefully, I can see that you don't deny this of Chopin - you say that Faure's 'elusive/enigmatic quality' is unlike Chopin's, not that Chopin doesn't have one - but given that you've talked of your lack of sympathy for Chopin in this thread, I feel I ought to point it out. It's possible, I suppose, that Chopin's elusiveness has eluded you, so far!     In which case you're in for a treat when you discover it.