Talk:Études (Chopin)

Original research (pasted from original discussion at Talk:Chopin etudes)
This article is a direct copy and paste from http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/3495/etudes.html. I attempted to nominate it for speedy delete, but User:Hex90 removed the tag. The editor claims that he is the author of the website. I then referred him to the WP:NOR policy on this very talk page, but that seems to have been deleted. Any information about the Chopin etudes should be a part of the Frédéric Chopin article where it can be watched by those actively editing that article. This article should either be a redirect or speedy deleted as copyvio/original research. Wikipedia is not a Geocities mirror. -- User:Malber (talk • contribs) 16:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have created an article Études (Chopin) (I'm trying to follow the naming convention for classical works, please fix if it's wrong). Kisch 11:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A-ha. I've redirected it to the new article, which is clearly the one we should have. Not everything from Hex's geocities site constitutes OR: many of the technical musical terms would be readily verifiable by reference to the score. However, the more descriptive parts clearly do. I also think this subject deserves an independent article, as the work is a relatively major one in the classical piano canon and we could, in principle, have aperfect article about the etudes. The Land 11:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the Geocities stuff is factual and could be incorporated in a modified fashion - I presume I'd need Hex's permission to start doing this though. Kisch 12:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine, but it should be paraphrased, not copy-and-pasted. A more reputable source should be cited than a geocities site. If the scores are going to be used as source, there should be examples. This shouldn't be too much of a problem as the pieces are in the public domain. Just please no scans of piano books which would be copyvios. -- User:Malber (talk • contribs) 13:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually the GC page has at the bottom:

Source: Frank Cooper, Program Notes for the Garrick Ohlsson, Piano recital: Wednesday, March 20, 1996 at 8:00pm at the Ford Centre For The Performing Arts 1995/1996 season.

Looks like we'd be best off not using that, and doing it from the score. My efforts so far are sadly rather prosaic compared to Mr Cooper's fine words, but at least verifiable. Kisch 14:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Founs?
What does 'founs' mean? Kisch 12:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that it's meant to say "known"? enochlau (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought - in which case I'm going to have to be a complete git and remove this edit, because the only new information it contains is unverifiable (see last section of this page), if this rather odd word means what we think it does. The next paragraph already said that they were the first etudes to become part of the concert repertoire, so saying it here adds nothing. I don't understand what's meant by 'including melodic and harmonic structure' (as dull as they are, Czerny's studies have a 'melodic and harmonic structure', just not a very good one), and I don't want to even get started on what constitutes a 'musical circle' in Wikiland. Sorry, Hex. Kisch 02:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW Hex, can you enlighten us as to how much of your GC page is your own work, and how much is copied from the programme notes you cite as a source?

Minor quibbles about relative fame
Thanks for the contributions, but I'd question

a) that the etudes are the best known of Chopin's works - apart from the Revolutionary, I'd say there are many waltzes, mazurkas, polonaises etc that would be equally well known to the man on the proverbial Clapham omnibus

b) I don't think Op.10 No.3 is very well known at all - I grew up through the 'classical system' and never heard or played a note of it until about a year ago. The quote is good, though, if a source can be found.

I think the only Etude deserving of any kind of superlative wrt fame is the 'Revolutionary', and possibly the 'Black Key'. Kisch 01:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Those statements should be left out entirely, because they are completely subjective. What we DO need is comprehensive history so that these pages do not get marked as "Un-encyclopedic," which I think they are at the moment.    ✗    Zen.   ➚ 06:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio?
I googled some random phrases from the most recent contributions, and found them at this link:

http://www.pianosociety.com/bak/index.php?id=111

The link is dead, but from the little snippets on the google page it appears to be the source of the new stuff.

In any case, I'm not sure a guide on how to play the etudes is encyclopedaic Kisch 15:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, taking the silence as tacit approval :-)..

I've reverted - even if not copyvio, the additions were irredeemably POV - I don't think it's wikipedia's business to be telling people how much sustain pedal to use in the Revolutionary Etude, or how to slow-practice it.

A section that neutrally discusses various approaches to practising them might be OK, if sourced to notable teachers or performers, but this seems copied from an instruction work of some kind. Kisch 22:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, found the source:

http://www.chopinmusic.net/library.php?w=Etudes

This is the second time this article has been spammed with copyvio, and it's not doing a lot for the credibility of wikipedia as a music information resource.

Kisch 18:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistencies... :, - or :-?
Article is inconsistent in headlines, such as..
 * No. 4 in C sharp minor (Technique :- Legato playing and syncopation )
 * No.5 in G flat major (Technique: Arpeggios on the black keys )
 * No.6 in E flat minor (Technique - Legato playing and counterpoint)

Someone wanna decide on a single approach, instead of the 3 we have now? Gromreaper 10:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Stuff to verify
A few assertions need sources, either in the article or here:

This is definitely false! Here's Ashkenazy right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCI2p-KEO_8
 * Ashkenazy refusing to play Op.10 Ho.1 in public (I have a source for Horowitz claiming to be unable to play it)
 * Chopin's original fingering for Op.10 No.2
 * Chopin quote for Op.10 No.3
 * ✅ - from Palmer edition. ALTON   .ıl  06:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

POV
"Although sets of exercises for piano had been common from the end of the 18th century (Czerny was the composer of a great number of the most popular), Chopin's were both far more difficult and far more musically satisfying than any that preceded them" This is obviously POV and opinionated, Czerny's "School of Velocity" are extremely difficult, especially when played in the marked tempo. Barely half of Chopin's Etudes reach such speeds. So dont say that Chopin's etudes were far more difficult, rather word it so that it emphasizes the specific differences from other etudes like compare it to Hanon or Czerny.--Xlegiofalco 02:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've changed it to say that they presented new technical challenges, which should satisfy the NPOV criteria (fix away if it doesn't).

However, I think there's a bit more to difficulty than just slapping on an insane metronome marking. Most of Chopin's etudes are difficult at half the speed or less if you don't appreciate what they are trying to develop. Czerny's, on the other hand, are straightforward until you get to about 60-70% of tempo. There's a very definite quantum leap from Czerny to Chopin that needs to be brought out in a NPOV way. Kisch 23:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Op. 25 No. 5 image
I made this image of the Op. 25 no. 5 etude's opening measures as an example for semitone, but I thought there might be a chance that someone would like to use it here. Just letting you know! - Rainwarrior 18:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I used it. :D z ε n   &#xF8FF;  08:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

How is this structured?
The whole Chopin section to me is ridiculously unorganized. I'm going to try and categorize some things, but I don't understand how this is set up. I'd like to create a page for each and every one of his works, but is that superfulous? The Études, especially, do not have much 'encyclopedic' information (history, performances, etc.) to differentiate themselves from each other, but detailed descriptions like that of Op. 10 No. 12's page is great. And if someone ends up creating all these pages, is it appropriate to make a category template for Chopin, since he doesn't have one already? ✗   Zen.   ➚ 06:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am looking at Beethoven's section, and his entire music repetoire is defined only by Categories, i.e. Category:Piano sonatas by Ludwig van Beethoven. Once enough pages on the individual Études are created I vote this page be deleted in favor of the category navigation. z ε n   &#xF8FF;  22:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Beethoven isn't really a good comparison - his piano works were mostly substantial pieces of several movements, or long sets of variations, and as such merit their own entries. Chopin wrote many short works grouped together in collections, and I think it would be overkill to do a separate entry for every one. This page isn't particularly long, and isn't likely to become so - make separate entries for etudes if there is enough to say about them (eg the Revolutionary), but don't do it just for the sake of it. Kisch 01:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, having looked at the individual entries so far they're pretty high-quality so maybe this thing could work. I wouldn't delete this article altogether though -there's plenty of general information that applies to all of them. Kisch 02:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright then, I take that as confimation to go ahead with the rest of the études? I need help with naming the articles, though; as it stands the names are extremely unwieldy (é, spacing, punctuation, variable capitalization). And as WP:CM says, related works should have related names. So I think the best way to go about this is: Etude No.1 (Chopin), abandoning the é, which is French anyways, I discovered, and continuing up to No.27. z ε n   &#xF8FF;  04:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually Wikipedia likes accents (e.g. Antonín Dvořák, Bohuslav Martinů). I think the é is fine and should not require a special font or anything... after all étude is a french word.  No one calls these pieces "studies".  There usually needs to be an accentless redirect link, though.  DavidRF 00:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think numbering them 1-27 would be counter-intuitive, as they're almost never referred to that way in concert programs, books or CD notes - I think we need the opus numbers.

You don't need my confirmation, Zen, but I'd certainly voice my opinion that what you're doing is very worthwhile. I think my ideal scheme for this would be a general article outling the circumstances of composition of the three sets of Etudes, their technical and musical importance, and then a set of links to the individual etudes.

To be honest, I'm just happy that an article I started has blossomed in the way this has :-) Kisch 00:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, well, let's get it started! z ε n   &#xF8FF;  01:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The section seems to have settled down, so we should strive to retain this formula for other composers as well. ALTON  .ıl  06:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Circle of fifths?
"His opus 10 are related by the circle of fifths, in alternating major and minor keys"

I can't see any any circle of fifths pattern (are you thinking of the Preludes?), whereas the reference to demonstrable patterns of relative pairs has been removed - unless someone can clarify what this edit means I'm going to revert it. Kisch 01:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, no response in a fortnight, it's reverted. Kisch 23:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'd question just how many times this article needs to say 'these etudes were the first to be really musical' - it seems to be repeating itself a bit. Kisch 01:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternate Names
In the tables listing the Etudes, almost every etude is listed as having an "Alternate Name". Where are these names from and are they valid? While a few are very well known ("Revolutionary") there are several that I have never seen or heard of, including "Waterfall," "Torrent," "Toccata," "Sunshine," and several others. While this does not mean that they are not valid, could someone specify where these are coming from? Chopin himself was opposed to people naming his pieces in such a manner, the Prelude page says "Chopin was very strongly opposed to program music, but despite his wishes, several lists of names have been proposed by Hans von Bülow, Cortot, and others, some quite fanciful." Should these titles even be here? Sajbmz

They've all been removed. ALTON  .ıl  09:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Move?

 * Per Naming conventions (pieces of music), no need to clarify the composer. -- ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR (t &bull; c) 13:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Étude Op. 10, No. 1 (Chopin) → Étude Op. 10, No. 1
 * Étude Op. 10, No. 2 (Chopin) → Étude Op. 10, No. 2
 * Étude Op. 10, No. 3 (Chopin) → Étude Op. 10, No. 3
 * Étude Op. 10, No. 4 (Chopin) → Étude Op. 10, No. 4
 * Étude Op. 10, No. 5 (Chopin) → Étude Op. 10, No. 5
 * Étude Op. 10, No. 6 (Chopin) → Étude Op. 10, No. 6
 * Étude Op. 10, No. 7 (Chopin) → Étude Op. 10, No. 7
 * Étude Op. 10, No. 12 (Chopin) → Étude Op. 10, No. 12
 * Étude Op. 25, No. 1 (Chopin) → Étude Op. 25, No. 1
 * Étude Op. 25, No. 5 (Chopin) → Étude Op. 25, No. 5
 * Étude Op. 25, No. 7 (Chopin) → Étude Op. 25, No. 7
 * Étude Op. 25, No. 10 (Chopin) → Étude Op. 25, No. 10
 * Étude Op. 25, No. 11 (Chopin) → Étude Op. 25, No. 11
 * Étude Op. 25, No. 12 (Chopin) → Étude Op. 25, No. 12
 * Oppose I disagree. Especially when its just the name is just "Étude" plus opus number.  See the Haydn, Schubert and Rachmaninoff examples on that page.  I would vote that the composer should be dropped only if the work is descriptive like "Enigma Variations". DavidRF (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per the naming conventions referenced by the nominator, the current titles are correct.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First criteria: "If the name of the piece is unique to that one piece, then the title should be the name of the piece alone. For example, Enigma Variations, War Requiem, Piano Phase." There are no other pieces under the name, "Étude Op. 25, No. 10", for example. The leads should be sufficient in explaining that they were written by Chopin. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 14:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that case should qualify here because the name here is not descriptive, its a catalogue number. See Haydn and Schubert examples on that page.DavidRF (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I will happily agree to a revert, but can Naming conventions (pieces of music) be changed to clear up the confusion? I'm not the only one who has misread this guideline if this is the case. If this is a de facto practice, we might as well make it de jure. Thanks, and sorry for the trouble. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 15:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Second criteria: "If the name of the piece is shared by another piece or pieces, include the composer's surname in parentheses following the name of the piece." "Etude" is a name shared by a non-negligible number of works, and it strains credulity that nobody else has ever written an etude as their 25th work.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I've posted a query to WP:CM here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music with a suggested rule clarification. I'll wait a day to get some more responses and if the current consensus holds, I'll clarify the rule and put the "(Chopin)" back in the article names. DavidRF (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Put it back? Looks to me like it's still there. And I really don't think any clarification is needed here -- the rules as stated seem quite clear.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Check Category:Études_by_Frédéric_Chopin. About half the articles have been moved already.  I also interpreted the rules the same as you did, but evidently a couple of other good faith editors were confused.  Extra clarification never hurts.  I'm just waiting for more replies as a formality.  Cheers. DavidRF (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OIC. I've pinged Fram as to eir reasoning on this.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Moving any moved articles back now. Cheers.  DavidRF (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just my luck, I muck up the move and add an extra comma by mistake. Gonna take a while to sort this out unfortunately.  Please be patient.  Sorry about this. DavidRF (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Tables
I think the tables should be changed so that each etude is listed in the first column, rather than having four columns. This would be easier for the reader to comprehend.  - down  load  |   sign!  03:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Merging the Etudes
So my work with the ballades was pretty fun... and after taking a look at the individual pages for the etudes, I realized that the argument of the person who proposed the merger of the Ballades was applicable to this situation as well. There really is not enough information for each individual etude to justify having separate articles for all twenty-four. I’m thinking merge them 12-12-3, creating a page Études Op. 10 (Chopin) and a page Études Op. 25 (Chopin); Trois Nouvelles Etudes already exists but could use some cleaning up. Thoughts?  In sor ak ♫  talk  22:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Schumann's toast?
(End of the Composition section... RS said 'A la Chopin') The "regina" reference seems to have gone dead, but what on earth is this comment by Schumann? This quote has been there a long time, was originally claimed to be Italian, then this was dropped, someone added an accent to make it French... but surely it is an error anyway, since Chopin is hardly a feminine noun. Who knows whether Schumann said something in French, or German, in any event this is just a generalised indication of acclaim. Can't we just delete it? Imaginatorium (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I found another URL for Smendzianka's paper. Reading that passage, it doesn't become clearer what is meant. I don't think it's a toast, because of the "la". "à la" is used to indicate "in the manner of", but that doesn't make any sense to me, but apparently that's what he meant. I suggest to omit that sentence, unless someone can rephrase it to express what Schumann meant. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Deleted. --   Jack of Oz    [pleasantries]   12:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I think it helps to have more than one person look, so there can be very little question about it now. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The nicknames
It seems quite reasonable to include these, but I think it should be made clearer that they are just later additions. And some sourcing of just how "standard" they are would also help. I will edit the table headings for clarity, and I suggest the nicknames should at least be put in quotes. Some are clearly established; others are varyingly dubious, such as "octave", which is not even grammatical. Of course one says "the study in thirds / sixths / octaves", but this is not really a nickname. Similarly the "cello" for 25-7 might just be some teacher's personal label. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No comments... I propose removing all unsupported nicknames. I mean those which are not sourced, or at least supported by a plausible story. For example, 10-1 is labelled "Waterfall" in the list, but the article on the study does not even mention this. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)