Talk:Étude Op. 25, No. 1 (Chopin)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Étude Op. 25, No. 1 (Chopin) is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, cleanup, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that aren't 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.

Contents

[edit] 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)

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

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)

[edit] New interpretation

I have added a link to an alternate interpretation of this Etude, used by permission. Prof.rick (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)