Talk:Étude Op. 25, No. 1 (Chopin)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Better score and recording needed!

First, the edition used fails to print the first note of each beat as a principal note, but instead uses "cue" notes (the same as the following 5 notes of each sextuplet). This is in contradiction of every major edition.

Second, can't a better recording be found? I have several "beefs" about this one! It is played on an Erard piano, built in 1851. This is not period-accurate, since the Etude was composed in 1832, and Chopin died in 1849. Chopin's favourite piano was the Pleyel (eventually he would perform on no other). We need a recording which uses a Pleyel...preferably one from about 1832, if we are trying to be "authentic". But why not use a recording played an a modern (and decidedly superior) instrument? The interpretation is about the most questionable of any I've heard. WHY does the pianist play every melody note TWICE, when written ONCE? (This is definitely NOT a case of "bouncing hammers".)

Let's clean up! Prof.rick (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry...composed in 1836, published in 1837. Prof.rick (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And back to the very weak score! WHY is a whole rest present in the bass clef, for a pick-up quarter-note value? Prof.rick (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

I felt a need to clarify several details in this section. Most importantly, this work can hardly be defined in terms of "two themes", but instead, the development of a single theme. I have also tried to clarify elements of the voicings. Prof.rick (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

Chopin would be dismayed, if not irrate, at these "titles" which various editors (and the public) have attached to his works. As a composer myself, I must make one point clear: As soon as you "define" (i.e., add a title), you "confine" (limiting the endless meanings of the music. I am therefore removing this link (out of respect for the composer). Prof.rick (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the link, which states, "was available at...". (If it is no longer available, of what possible value could it be to the reader?) Prof.rick (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite of "Technique"

In this rewrite, I have attempted to describe the nature of the technique required to play this work with artistry and conviction. I hope that those who have achieved this goal would agree with my description. Prof.rick 14:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that your version implies the opposite of what the previous version stated. I'm not a pianist myself, so I can't give an opinion on which version is more correct, but the addition of cited sources to the section would help if anyone were to contest the section's validity. Them From Space 15:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I didn't imply that this is the most difficult of Chopin's Etudes! (Neither is it the easiest!) The previous version of this section implied that the work is not very challenging. Having played and performed most of the Chopin Etudes, this has been my own experience (and that of the majority of pianists who play it, with whom I've spoken). Hope this clarifies the reasons for the rewrite! Prof.rick 15:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Link restored

The external link to the Pritchard performance has been restored. Prof.rick 15:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I see someone has immediately removed the link! It was I who removed it some time ago, because the source was no longer available. Prof.rick 15:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)