Talk:Preludes (Chopin)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Preludes (Chopin) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Preludes (Chopin) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Classical music: Compositions

	Classical music portal 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
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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).[reply]

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

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

"flowery" vocabulary and sentence construction, given that this will exist in sources like music critics and historians; and,
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)[reply]

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." --^La Pianísta! 19:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Program music?

Chopin was opposed to program music,^{[citation needed]} 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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 and reached a much wider audience than either set of variations, and is a significant side-note in the history of Chopin's composition (and precisely the kind of information that makes Wikipedia the unique source that it is).

That Manilow (in my and many other persons' estimations) 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 transcend 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.

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