What do you think?
Rate this book
Cambridge Music Handbooks
Chopin: The Piano Concertos
Chopin's E minor and F minor Piano Concertos played a vital role in his career as a composer-pianist. This Handbook reevaluates them so that their many outstanding qualities can be fully appreciated. It describes their genesis, Chopin's own performances and his use of them as a teacher. A survey of their critical, editorial and performance histories follows, in preparation for an engaging narrative analysis of the concertos as embodied in sound. The final chapter investigates Chopin's enigmatic "third concerto", the Allegro de concert.
- GenresMusic
152 pages, Paperback
First published November 27, 1997
1 person is currently reading
36 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
February 29, 2012
It's a little frustrating to read this without a musical score in front of you, as the largest section is devoted to a close reading of the two main concertos (Op. 21 and Op. 11).
It's interesting to see how reception of the concertos has changed over the centuries. Everyone agreed Chopin was a delightful performer. Lots of reviewers found his orchestral writing lacking; in other words, these were works where the piano shines, not the orchestra. In the 19th century the concertos were deemed structurally lacking by many. Yet they're incredibly popular among pianists, and listeners. I've listened to both concertos dozens of times, by dozens of different performers, and I have yet to tire of hearing them. I guess anything can seem hackneyed eventually, but Op. 21 and Op. 11 are still sublime to me, which I can't completely say about other popular piano concertos, like the Grieg A minor and the Schumann A minor. Even the Brahms concertos, in a recent listening, seemed staler than the Chopin. Rink re-evaluates Op. 21 and Op. 11 and finds them delightful and profound.
He also treats Chopin's third concerto (I didn't realize there was one), Allegro de concert, Op. 46, "possibly his most difficult piece," containing "hardcore virtuosity." This piece for solo piano was published in 1841 but written earlier; the speculation is that Chopin dragged it out of the cobwebs and published it because he needed the dough, and also that it began as the projected third movement of an orchestrated piano concerto. I'm going to have to track it down on the Youtube.
Rink provides a useful select discography of Op. 11 and Op. 21, and spends a few pages evaluating various performers. Marta Argerich's Op. 11 is one of the best, he finds, although her Op. 21 is "inept." Dinu Lipatti and Maurizio Pollini also rip a good Op. 11. Vladimir Ashkenazy's and Murray Perahia's interpretations get high marks. Fou Ts'ong's is "a sepia performance despairing in tone. His emotional strategy works only occasionally...his participation in the triumphant final chords" of the Rondo sounds "absurd." Adam Harasiewicz's Romance is "cack-handed" (got to look that one up), Garrick Ohlsson's is "saccharine", and Krystian Zimerman (!) and Bella Davidovich play "metallically." However, "[Bella's] reading seems polished...compared with Rosina Lhévinne's, while Emmanuel Ax's labours under a Philadelphia Orchestra particularly elephantine in the Rondo."
It's interesting to see how reception of the concertos has changed over the centuries. Everyone agreed Chopin was a delightful performer. Lots of reviewers found his orchestral writing lacking; in other words, these were works where the piano shines, not the orchestra. In the 19th century the concertos were deemed structurally lacking by many. Yet they're incredibly popular among pianists, and listeners. I've listened to both concertos dozens of times, by dozens of different performers, and I have yet to tire of hearing them. I guess anything can seem hackneyed eventually, but Op. 21 and Op. 11 are still sublime to me, which I can't completely say about other popular piano concertos, like the Grieg A minor and the Schumann A minor. Even the Brahms concertos, in a recent listening, seemed staler than the Chopin. Rink re-evaluates Op. 21 and Op. 11 and finds them delightful and profound.
He also treats Chopin's third concerto (I didn't realize there was one), Allegro de concert, Op. 46, "possibly his most difficult piece," containing "hardcore virtuosity." This piece for solo piano was published in 1841 but written earlier; the speculation is that Chopin dragged it out of the cobwebs and published it because he needed the dough, and also that it began as the projected third movement of an orchestrated piano concerto. I'm going to have to track it down on the Youtube.
Rink provides a useful select discography of Op. 11 and Op. 21, and spends a few pages evaluating various performers. Marta Argerich's Op. 11 is one of the best, he finds, although her Op. 21 is "inept." Dinu Lipatti and Maurizio Pollini also rip a good Op. 11. Vladimir Ashkenazy's and Murray Perahia's interpretations get high marks. Fou Ts'ong's is "a sepia performance despairing in tone. His emotional strategy works only occasionally...his participation in the triumphant final chords" of the Rondo sounds "absurd." Adam Harasiewicz's Romance is "cack-handed" (got to look that one up), Garrick Ohlsson's is "saccharine", and Krystian Zimerman (!) and Bella Davidovich play "metallically." However, "[Bella's] reading seems polished...compared with Rosina Lhévinne's, while Emmanuel Ax's labours under a Philadelphia Orchestra particularly elephantine in the Rondo."
October 13, 2018
Rink is such an observer and so into Chopin’s music. Chopin’s piano concerto is all about virtuosity and very romantic-featured. Theme is not that important, but virtuosity is absolutely elegant. Listened to it over and over again and still bravo!
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews