Chopin's mazurkas are apparently easy. Their "heroic eloquence" requires phrasing, rubato, and above all, remarkable expressive intensity. I would start with the waltz op. 69 and preludes no. 4 and 7. Then the 20th. Then the posthumous nocturne. Quite a good program already, right?
C
Carlos
Member
Reply 5 by Carlos
Posts
759
Agreed, I was making it a technical issue... if one were to reason always and only in terms of musical maturity, one would probably need to play Bach after the age of 50...
I should preface this by saying I don't know your level. It seems to me that this is your first approach to Chopin, so I share Pianoexpert's advice.
In fact, Chopin, where he seems technically more "approachable," actually requires a touch and an expressiveness and, ultimately, a "confidence" with the instrument that generally only comes with seasoned technique.
Personally, I consider the expressive difficulties, especially in Chopin, to be much more arduous than the mechanical ones.
The posthumous nocturne in C# minor (beautiful) and the prelude in A major (touching for its grace and simplicity) seem to me the most difficult because (regardless of the final roulades of the nocturne) they run the risk of becoming banal, lamenting and/or sugary pieces (with inevitable frustration for the performer).
I would also start with the waltz op. 69 and the prelude in E minor.
Another piece (in my opinion beautiful and useful for developing touch and expression) could be the waltz in A minor op. 34 no. 2 and, for the nocturnes, op. 9 no. 1 in B-flat minor.
T
ttw
Member
Reply 9 by ttw
Posts
277
nayg wrote:
In your opinion, which is the best one to start with? (if you have other pieces to suggest, feel free)
I would take a look at the works op.28, like no. 4 or no. 7; among others, there are also collections: "My first ....", there is a volume dedicated specifically to Chopin.
If you want (and can) raise the level, some waltzes might work, such as op.69 no.1, no.2 and op.70 no.2
T
ttw
Member
Reply 10 by ttw
Posts
277
ttw wrote:
If you want (and can) raise the titpo
Obviously I meant "tiro"
T
ttw
Member
Reply 11 by ttw
Posts
277
pestatasti wrote:
Exactly the posthumous nocturne in D# minor (beautiful)
(...)
for the nocturnes, op. 9 no. 1 in B-flat minor.
I don't agree regarding the nocturnes; okay, fine, a discussion about maturity, but they are diploma pieces... I mean, why start from the summit?
In your opinion, which is the best one to start with?
I would start with the preludes, or as suggested by someone, from the collection "My First Chopin".
C
Carlos
Member
Reply 13 by Carlos
Posts
759
Frank wrote:
I would start with the preludes, or as suggested by someone, from the collection My First Chopin.
I, modestly reiterate, at the venerable age of 11 played my first three Chopin mazurkas, which I undoubtedly did not have the maturity to interpret (but then again... what maturity does one have to interpret at 11? Perhaps op. 28 no. 4? Well...) You Frank, perhaps you started with the preludes from "My First Chopin", but in my My First Chopin there are also some mazurkas
Returning to Chopin, actually I moved from the preludes and waltzes, like op. 69 no. 2, op. 34 no. 2, op. 70 no. 2, but already more demanding... taking the complete works (I was already "obsessed"/curious) .. and I "missed out" on the Mazurkas
I hated my first one because it gave me selections of pieces and I couldn't choose ... for example when I discovered Clementi's book of sonatinas (there was no internet, eh! Life was convenient ...) I hated Cesi Marciano
C
Carlos
Member
Reply 15 by Carlos
Posts
759
Ah, I didn't have "my first Chopin" either (the book I had at home was my mother's): in 2nd middle school I got the complete Mazurkas in the Paderewski edition, just imagine... I wanted to say that at that age (meaning mine, but I don't know at what age one is referring to in this case, speaking of those who started the discussion) it can only be a question of technical accessibility and certainly not interpretative or musical (and, in any case, among more than fifty mazurkas, there is also some that certainly do not present that "heroic eloquence" mentioned just above).
I also agree with Paolo. Just like Carlos, I also began to get to know Chopin around the age of 11, but with the waltzes; I still remember them well in sequence: the Waltz Op. 69 No. 1, the Waltz Op. 64 No. 2, Op. 34 No. 2, the No. 15 posthumous Op. in E major, and also from the posthumous Op., the No. 14 in E minor. I then ventured into some nocturnes, but I remember quite well that I didn't feel them very much as my own, and that I didn't play them making them mine, but rather emulating the intentions of the master. Regarding the nocturnes, I believe there is a need for greater pianistic maturity, as well as for the mazurkas. I think that in the end, it is a matter of establishing one's intentions. If the intention is to derive personal pleasure, then it is useless to impose these limitations; if, on the other hand, the intention is aimed at performance or any other situation in which one finds oneself in a position to be judged, then perhaps it is a case of starting with something within the pianist's reach. I do not know what the starting points should be in this case; however, for the sake of this statement, I would like to remind you that one can even graduate without ever having known Chopin... Ridiculous
Speaking of Chopin... which pianist do you consider to be his best expression? I am studying the prelude op 28 no 15 and I don't know "whom to entrust myself to" for listening to the piece. With Pollini I should be on safe ground... I accept advice
Speaking of Chopin... which pianist do you consider to be his best expression? I am studying the prelude op 28 no. 15 and I don't know "whom to entrust myself to" for listening to the piece. With Pollini I should be on safe ground... I accept advice
If you want to listen to Chopin, listen to Rubinstein, Horowitz, Pollini, Argerich, Zimmerman. There would be others but in my opinion they are the most representative of Chopin.
