Chopin Music Forum

[Mephisto]

All of us(hopefully) loves Chopin`s etudes. And many of us think they are the best etudes for piano ever made. And I also think that is the general oppinion, because they focus on one technic at the same time as they are wonderfull music.
I have always belived that there was something that separated the Chopin eudes from other etudes and that was that they was the first musical etudes. I have always belived this. If you go to http://www.pianosociety.com/index.php?id=37 you will read that Chopin was the true inventor of the etudes de concert. But is this really true?
Chopin`s etudes opus 10 was written a round 1830. and before that etudes where like Czerny`s etudes. Wich can look like Chopin`s etudes when you look at the sheetmusic but they have nothing to do with music when you play them. They are just technical exercises.
As written before I have always belived that Chopin`s etudes was the first musical etudes, but then I heard about Schumann`s paganini etudes opus 3.(I don`t when they where composed) and it is difficult for me to belive that Schumann`s opus 3 was written after Chopin`s opus 10.

So my question to you is: Was Chopin the first composer who wrote etudes of musical value a.k.a etudes de concerte?

-The Mephisto

[pocorina]

YES HE WAS!!! Do not let anyone tell you anything different.

And it is well documented too...

[Helling]

[Goldberg]

Although I personally agree with you about Czerny's etudes, I think it's interesting that a lot of people think otherwise (I actually just read something in which a person claimed that they were great works, and had they not been given the title "studies" they would be more highly regarded, and performed more often!). I even think there's a huge junior competition in China to see who can play the Czerny etudes the best (ie, the fastest...).

I love the Chopin etudes, and appreciate their relevance to specific techniques, but I like the Liszt etudes even more, for *musical* reasons (me being an enormous fan of Liszt, even more than Chopin, that probably shouldn't be a surprise). Chopin's etudes are caught in between technical exercise status and "concert piece" status, and Liszt etudes are a little too favorable of the latter to truly be called etudes, in my mind (this has been discussed quite a bit, I know).

However, sometimes I feel that people take the musicality in Chopin a little too seriously and underplay the technical value; for example, I recently read a discussion on another board about the speed of the etudes (they questioned whether a certain, seemingly too fast tempo was correct)--the general consensus became "one should play the etudes with regards to their musical natures, rather than trying to speed through them."

My personal, uneducated opinion is that a pianist should *be able to* play the etudes as fast as they are marked (if not faster), just to prove that he has properly learned the *technique* of the pieces because, after all, they ARE etudes. If the pianist can play them at that speed, with good technique, pedalling, etc., then I think they can be played satisfactorily in concert.

[Helling]

In Liszt's case, the paganini etudes are rather clear in the technical purposes (even though the techniques used are still more varied than in Chopin's etudes). The transcendental etudes though could as well be called something other than etudes for all purposes (excepting perhaps feux follets and chasse-neige, where the technical aims are rather clear).

[Mephisto]

What about Liszt`s 12 exercises. Can they be called musical etudes like the Chopin etudes?

-The Mephisto

[Goldberg]

Sort of, but they are neither as musical nor technically significant as Chopin's etudes (they hardly compare).

I'd actually like to learn them, just for the sake of doing so. I'm thinking I'll do them over the summer....there's not really much reason to do so though (but do I really have anything better to do??).

I'm not sure they're exactly fit for presentation at recitals, especially not like Chopin's are (or, better yet, later Liszt etudes). It'd be sort of like playing Czerny studies.

[Mephisto]

In the book I am reading Alan Walker said that it was very importent to learn them before you learn the trenscendental etudes. Do you think so?
Because they are very similiar and also easier than the latter ones.

-The Mephisto

[Goldberg]

I wouldn't know about that, because I haven't learned any of those etudes yet (the exercises or the TEs). I wouldn't think it's necessary, especially if you're doing the popular (3rd) installment of the TEs, because I know of a lot of pianists who play those who probably don't even know what the 12 exercises are (no, I can't back that up, but you get my point).

That they are considerably easier than the TEs also doesn't help very much, in my opinion. I think the PEs, concert etudes, and other non-etude pieces are more valuable technically for training before playing the transcendentals. Just my two cents. Although there is certainly no harm in doing the exercises (like I said I might do them just for "fun"--I may be completely wrong about the difficulty).

[Max]

The PEs are my favourite Liszt Etudes, because as well as being great technical exercises, they're amazin pieces as well.

[Goldberg]

Really? Which ones in particular are your faves? Erik (Helling) and I have had a few discussions about the pieces, and--not that I should speak on his behalf (I imagine you'll reply with something later, Erik)--but as far as I know we agree that the original PEs are more musically valuable as well as technically informative, but also that the PEs in general as music aren't Liszt's finest pieces (well, really it should also be considered Paganini's more so). But it's rather a personal opinion, like most things in music, and I will say that lately, considering I'm playing the 2nd etude, I've listened to them more and have even listened to quite a lot of Paganini's own violin music, and must say that I am growing more fond of the etudes. I just regard the Transcendental Etudes, and to a certain extent the concert etudes, to be of a slightly higher class of music.

But I don't mean to sound "high and mighty" or anything, I just thought it would be an interesting discussion...

Although.....I guess this is a thread about Chopin's etudes (in the Chopin forum too..). I find a more admirable quality of music (from a more intellectual view, I suppose) in Chopin's etudes, but I prefer Liszt's (for playing and listening)! Just kinda shows you what kinda pianist I am I guess...heh...