The more famous E minor is where Chopin myths come from, myths about inability to write interesting things for orchestra and stuff. Indeed, first movement has some weaknesess in orchestration and in form.
F minor is free of them and at the same time is as beautiful (or more) as E minor.
The orchestral introduction is well written, without "cut" enterances and changes between themes. Reprises doesn't sound out of place later in the movement. It's very good early romantic orchestral accompaniament to a concerto.
Then the unbeliveably gorgerious slow movement - completely free of sentimentalism, with most sublime poetry instead. I find it even more beautiful than the E minor equivalent. This movement is almost like operatic aria for piano and orchestra.
The last movement begins with more Chopin-like theme than the E minor. The lively dance-like motives appear later.
Overally I simply like it more than E minor, which is great too of course.
My favourite recording is:
But for F minor only - the E minor, I'm not sure, it's not that perfect. But I prefer No. 2 from this recoding over later Zimerman CD with these two concertos.
See my response below. Conceptually, the first movement is pretty standard romantic fare. The second movement is highly imaginative and quite original, and the finale is over-the-top under the right hands. It is a much more demanding piece than the E minor, and therefore requires much more from a pianist and conductor. Until several years ago, there were only a few of Chopin's pieces that I considered great, everything else I had heard was little more than too many notes, or it lacked vitality, if not a pulse. Then I searched out the current and past greats and found some terrific, telling peformances, but also that no artist had a complete grip on Chopin, and other romantic composers. Most romantic pianism requires virtuoso pianists because the composers themselves were virtuosos. It is one reason romantic music is under-rated, few can give the scope of an composer's work its due, no less the 100+ years of romantic composition.
You can find Cortot playing the F minor on Google, via the video tab.
I enjoy them both very much but for the purpose of this poll, I picked #2. Both concerti have been recorded numerous times and just about as often as each other, so at least from the recording companies' perspective, both concerti seem to be practically equally popular.
Total Virtuosity required for advanced Chopin works.
The Concerto in F minor is truly a virtuosic work, which explains in part why Chopin used it to introduce himself to Paris. I consider it the finest piece of music he wrote, and after listening to hundreds of artists, there are only a couple of Chopin works I don't like.
As with many of Chopin's more demanding works, it is not really about the composition as it is the virtuosity of pianist. If there is a great pianist, then he will hopefully have a great orchestra as well.
Chopin's writing for the orchestra comes off as sublime when there is an excellent match between a renown pianist and renown orchestra/conductor. Such perfection can be found in Alfred Cortot's recording with Sir John Barbirolli conducting (1933). Even though the performance is over 75 years old, it is considered by many sources (more seasoned than me) to be the finest performance of the work ever recorded.
The vocalizations and instrumentaton Cortot draws from the instrument is spell-binding and works in perfect color and intensity with the orchestra. The speed, the sensitivity (without sentimentality), and technical scope of the pianism is breath taking. (Seriously, there are parts where you'd think two pianists were playing.)
Criticisms of Chopin
When you talk about Chopin's music you should really hear it played at its best to judge it.
Until I started searching out Chopin peformances more than 10 years ago, there were works by Chopin I thought were horrid. No one plays all of Chopin to perfection, or even most of it very close, but there are great performances of his works out there.
Chopin was a perfectionist, and a highly skilled one. He used all his gifts to create this fabulous work. Cortot does the work great justice.
As for the E minor? The jury is still out--I'm still waiting/looking. If pressed though, I'd give best performance to Zimerman, although I do still like the Pollini.
They're both very pretty in a pianistic sense, but they probably would have been better if they were reworked as solo piano. Orchestration should play an active role in the music, not be background artifice.
I got into the F minor immediately when I heard it as a youngster. The E minor took me longer but I'd choose it every time now - not a value judgment or an attempt at one, just a personal reaction. In terms of quality I don't see how they can be separated.
I like first movement of 1st one very much and second I like too. So I can't vote so far... or maybe I'll vote for the first movement of e minor
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Classical Music Forum
2.6M posts
40.6K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to classical music for musicians and other enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about composers, compositions, arrangements, collections, recordings, techniques, instruments, styles, reviews, classifieds, and more!