Talk:Preludes (Chopin)

Linked preludes?

A while ago, someone reverted my edit of the preludes somewhat linked the the next (the last links back to the first). It is not obvious that the preludes do that, but it makes sense. Should I add it again? -- A. Wang ^{(talk/contrb.)} 15:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

By all means, if you think it is pertinent and encyclopedic, please add it back. When you say linked, are you are referring to the fact that the preludes are arranged in a circle of fifths?? Oscar 23:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Prelude NO. 15

I'm not one to change anything myself, but Prelude NO. 15 should have something in it's description stating that it's commonly aka. the "raindrop prelude." Even if only because that's what the majority of people commonly refer to it as. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.1.55.114 (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Garbage

This article is an absolute disgrace, consisting of little beyond wildly subjective, often meaningless and ill-informed opinions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.46.171.191 (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Could you please elaborate on that statement? Thanks. --~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 22:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Nealy every major pianist?

Who says that nearly every major pianist has recorded the Chopin preludes and changed it back after I edited it? This is absolute tripe. MANY major pianists have recorded them. MANY have NOT recorded them.

Andrew —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.46.171.191 (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Chronology

Unless there is more recent research, the opus 28 preludes were written between 1835 and 1839, with better dating available only for a few (7 in 1836, 20 (poss.) & 17 in 1837, 1( poss.) and 2, 4, 10, and 21 between Oct. 1838 and Jan. 1839- the rest, sometime between Autumn 1835 and 1838) (Brown, Maurice J. E. (Aug. 1957). "The Chronology of Chopin's Preludes". The Musical Times. 98 (1374): 423–4. doi:10.2307/937215. ISSN 0027-4666. Retrieved 2007-07-18. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)). It's a half-century old article; there certainly might be more recent and specific research. Schissel | Sound the Note! 02:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleting false fact

"The 24th Prelude can be heard in an orchestral arrangement in the Tom and Jerry cartoon The Cat's Concerto..." This is remarkably untrue. The orchestral arrangement is only the background of Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2. The chords in the back are not in D-minor (you can listen for yourself here. Thus, I see no other reason to delete it. --~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 03:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is actually true. Some bars of the prelude (just before the chromatic scale in thirds) can be heard when the title screen is showing, before the cartoon actually startrs (and the Hungarian Rhapsody begins). Double sharp (talk) 08:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Recording

I found a recording on Commons of No. 20, Image:Chopin - Prelude no. 20 op. 28 c minor.ogg, but the performer seems to have taken a few liberties in repeating a section or two. ALTON .ıl 07:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the recording is of a different edition, but most likely, I'm wrong. Do you think it's okay to add it into the article with a small note of the "liberty"? — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 15:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. As long as the performer plays the piece well enough to provide readers with an informative picture of the style of the preludes, we should utilize that recording as best as possible; that is, only if his "liberties" don't distort the piece excessively. --~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 22:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's probably fine to use. I was just bringing it up since MC is working to improve this article, and recordings are probably the most valuable media to have in music articles. Good job, by the way. ALTON .ıl 08:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Gee, thanks (if "MC" refers to me), but I really haven't done much constructive work yet. Good, reliable sources are still needed on which to base the facts of this article. In regards to the recording, I hope that it can be posted soon. --~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 20:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Belated reply to request for comment

I've read the article, discussion and done a little copy-editing. Thanks for a quick education on this topic! I have two main suggestions for those developing this article into the future. I suspect this article may need to guard against two things:

1. "flowery" vocabulary and sentence construction, given that this will exist in sources like music critics and historians; and,
2. descriptive statements presented in a dogmatic way.

To further explain the second point, what I mean is description is a necessary part of this article, and some of that description will inevitably be somewhat subjective. In fact, we need subjective description, because that's how music works. Ideally, this description will come from published critics, and include contrary opinions (like para 3 of lead).

We don't need a "definitive" description, nor a comprehensive tracing of critical debate. We do need a reliable guide to imagining the impact the music has had on people. Diversity of sources and opinions will lead to an outstanding article, that will help readers get into the world of appreciating Chopin.

As has been noted, any free links to sound files are, of course, invaluable. There is no better description of something than the thing itself!

Good luck friends! Introduce us to the best published guides to appreciating Chopin! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

PS More objective and systematic data may help too. List numbers, keys, tempo, length in bars (measures), and published interpretations of the preludes (i.e. famous pianists performances that have been recorded in audio, or documented in print criticism).

Sorry Alastair, it's been long in reply, but thanks muchly for the feedback. Right now, I'm looking for a reliable source on which to base this article, along with good, free-use recordings to use in the article. Thanks again for your help! =)

P.S.: I was previously "MusicalConnoisseur." --^LaPianísta! 19:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Capitals

Is there any difference in meaning between Prelude and prelude? Both are used in the article. Storeye (talk) 06:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried to make some more consistent (general prelude versus specific Prelude). Make other corrections as necessary, or revert and make everything lowercase. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 13:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Program music?

Chopin was opposed to program music, but despite his wishes, several lists of names have been proposed by Hans von Bülow, Cortot, and others.

Not only does this sentence need a citation, but some googling has shown the phrase to be false.

Frankly, I would like several opinions on the sentence before I remove it. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 20:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You should remove the phrase if your google results produce accurate sources. I don't think anyone else will have a problem with removing it. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 20:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 20:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ingrid Bergman and Liv Ullmann in Autumn Sonata.jpg

The image Image:Ingrid Bergman and Liv Ullmann in Autumn Sonata.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Ingrid Bergman and Liv Ullmann in Autumn Sonata.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Op. 28, No. 20 - The description

How come it's referred to as the "Funeral March", when that's actually Op. 35, No.2? Unless I am mistaken, it's clearly two different pieces. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 21:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Naming of pieces

On the description and analysis of the pieces from Opus 28, the pieces have been given "titles". Surely this should change as it's disrespectful to Chopin who was against the naming of his pieces other than the original titles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.62.120 (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The epithets provided by Hans von Bülow are not really deserving of such a prominent exposure as we give them here. They are never used anywhere, and 99.99% of chopinophiles would never even have heard of them. They had no sanction from Chopin, either. They really have no more standing than epithets that Joe Bloggs of Kalamazoo might have dreamt up. We already acknowledge that Nos. 15 and 20 are the only ones that have ubiquitous epithets ("Raindrop" and "Chord" respectively), so let’s just leave it at that. I’d like to remove the Bülovian epithets, and also merge "The preludes" and "Description and analysis" into one section, maybe in table format (but I’m not wedded to that idea). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Revisited

I am still of the opinion I outlined above, 13 years ago. (Truth never ages). I believe the footnote gives the game away:

Sets of epithets and nicknames were attached to the pieces after the composer's death by Hans von Bülow and Alfred Cortot, based on the personal impressions of these two pianists.[9] One nickname that has survived is "Raindrop" prelude for No. 15 (and No. 20 is sometimes referred to as the "Chord" prelude).

So, we admit the Bulow and Cortot epithets have not survived. That's no surprise to anyone, since absolutely nobody ever uses them or even refers to them. The only purpose served by having them in our article is to give them some sort of unmerited legitimacy presumably based solely on the fact that their creators were notable musicians. As I said above, if Joe Bloggs of Kalamazoo came up with his own set of epithets, they would have no more claim to inclusion than the Bulow/Cortot ones - but they would have no less claim, either. The only epithets we should mention are those that have entered general discourse, such as Raindrop and Chord (and Minute Waltz, etc). I propose to remove them forthwith. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Prelude in F, A. 1/2

At List of compositions by Frédéric Chopin is mentioned a Prelude in F major, with the catalogue number A. 1/2. Can anyone shed any light on this piece of music? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Error in picture

The picture of the score of Prelude No. 20 has an error. In the upper staff, the first chord in the second measure is shown as G, C, E-flat, G (which would be uncharacteristically discordant for Chopin with the A-flat in the lower staff). The correct chord is E-flat, A-flat, C, E-flat. OndayRW (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 3/2/2010

Prelude No. 20 in C Minor and Barry Manilow

Let me begin by saying that I am a classical pianist and not a die-hard fan of pop music - especially the music of Barry Manilow and the song in question - and thus my argument is not ignorantly fueled by some worship of the pop singer. Regardless, I do feel the fact that Manilow's hit song Could It Be Magic is based on Chopin's Prelude is at least as notable as Busoni's and Rachmaninoff's variations on the Prelude. Manilow's song has almost surely enjoyed far more commercial success (reaching no. 6 on US charts) and a much wider audience than either set of variations, and is a significant side-note in the history of Chopin's composition.

That Manilow (in my and many others' estimation) succeeded in translating Chopin's music into a pop idiom is an astonishingly strong comment on the strength of the Prelude to not only transcend generations, but genres as well. And as we all know, Chopin was very much for the blending of genres (there being nocturnes in his Mazurkas, mazurkas in his Nocturnes, waltzes in his Scherzi, etc.)

While you and I may agree that the names Chopin and Manilow should never be used in the same sentence, we should not reject an interesting historical fact because of musical elitism.

I would also like to add that this is precisely the kind of information that makes Wikipedia the unique information source that it is.

Thank you for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kreckersneed (talk • contribs) 04:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kreckersneed! Please take a look at this section of a revision of the article dated around March 2, 2010. The following edit that I made was a deletion of the section, because I found most of the information given in respective articles on WP, and a lot of it did not seem relevant to the article. Wikipedia is NOT a collection of trivia facts... but I understand your argument. I leave it up to you. If you want to restore it, go ahead. But I just feel that the rest of the information (that's seems trivial in my opinion) will follow. Just my thoughts. Cheers. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 13:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Graphic of Prelude No. 20

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chopin_theme_op_28.png shows an E natural in bar 3 beat 4 in the right hand (carried on from previous accidental in beat 2). Shouldn't this be an E flat as in the recording?

Ronnie268 (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should. This is a notation error. The printed scores at IMSLP and Musopen show the note with a ♭. You could bring it to the uploader's attention (user Stevage's talk page). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Duly noted. This shall be fixed shortly. Insorak ♫ talk 16:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh -- the original contributor used the theme from Rachmaninoff's variations, which do indeed omit the flat. The image caption is misleading. I shall upload a new version that agrees with Chopin's original. Insorak ♫ talk 16:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Link Rot

There are some dead links and poorly cited sources. I don't have the time to fix it myself, but I have made notes of them in the article. If you can find the specific links, and fix dead links, feel free to update and remove my tags. Keep the header up until they are all taken care of and re-verified. Thanks! Drivec (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Schumann's quote

I am a bit surprised by Schumann's quote, since he himself composed several pieces for the piano of comparable length. When looking to the reference [9], I find no serious reference therein. I suggest to suppress this quote, unless it relies on a checkable proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizono (talk • contribs) 15:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Prelude in Db Major ("The most well-known of the twenty-four")

It seems to me that the A Major and C Minor preludes are at least equally famous, if not more so. Kostaki mou (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Preludes (Chopin). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070823025705/http://www.chopinsociety.org/chopin/preludes to http://www.chopinsociety.org/chopin/preludes
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071023081905/http://www.archiwa.gov.pl/memory/sub_chopin/index.php?va_lang=en&fileid=004_1_3 to http://www.archiwa.gov.pl/memory/sub_chopin/index.php?va_lang=en&fileid=004_1_3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)