Tír Na HiFi

Tonight I am playing versions of Nocturne No. 20 in C sharp minor.

Chronologically, No. 20 was the second nocturne to be composed but like its predecessor No. 19, it was not published until after Chopin’s death even though it was composed in 1830. This one is also very beautiful and was dedicated to his other sister Ludwika. This nocturne uses themes from the F minor concerto (Op. 21) as it was apparently written soon after the two piano concertos were composed.

Another wonder kid playing No. 20....





....she is only 5 years old so look at how small her hands are and how she manages the broken chords of the left hand!

Over the next day or so I intend to listen to the Opus 9 set of three nocturnes.

Chopin is synonymous with the piano; his compositional work was concentrated on it and he wrote a considerable amount of solo music for the instrument. He would probably be, along with Liszt, the arch-typical Romantic composer/performer. The one work that would probably be most associated with Chopin would be the Nocturne No. 2 (Opus 9 No. 2). It is probably his most famous work and I would say that quite a lot of non Classical Music listeners would recognise it and would associate it with Chopin.

I have been listening to the Opus 9 set of three Nocturnes and I find No. 3, although not remotely as familiar as the other two in the set, to be really interesting. Thematically and from a mood sense it is quite different to the other two and one can hear how chromatically different it is from the others in the set; I find that it really stimulates the ears!

The Opus 15 is another set of three nocturnes, Nos. 4, 5 & 6. These were written between 1830 and 1833.

In relation to No. 1 of the set some have apparently remarked that there seems to be nothing of night time about this particular nocturne. Perhaps its first section is a bit on the lighter side, a pleasant waltz perhaps but it is a beautiful song like melody nonetheless; the second, middle section has great contrast both in dynamics and mood however and soon wakes us from whatever reverie we may be in!


Number 2 of the set is a relatively short one and is particularly lovely but is apparently a technically very challenging piece to play. The second section is very active with its jagged right hand melody and large leaps in the bass. The middle section apparently shows Chopin’s command of pianistic notation. “No composer had thus far been so explicit and original in showing to the pianist, on the page, what was needed”.


The third nocturne of the set has a hymn-like passage at its heart marked religioso. Chopin apparently originally entitled this nocturne "At the cemetery" when he composed it a day after he attended a performance of Hamlet, but, according to Wikipedia, erased the inscription when the piece was to be printed, saying: "No! Let them work it out for themselves”.

For those that may be interested in the technical side of things this particular work is important in that it is somewhat different structurally from all of those that have preceded it. It has no reprise of the opening theme. The concluding section is not only unrelated thematically to the opening one but is also in a different key (F major). The last four bars return to G minor, though the final chord is major. This is a bit disconcerting at first but is a bold move into a new direction.

I have been listening casually to Claudio Arrau and Barenboim over the last week. Will try to get some more serious listening in tonight. I like the idea of splitting them up as Fergus suggested in smaller chronological chunks. Very useful. I might see how the two compare tonight in regards to the first Op. 72.

Claus wrote:I have been listening casually to Claudio Arrau and Barenboim over the last week. Will try to get some more serious listening in tonight. I like the idea of splitting them up as Fergus suggested in smaller chronological chunks. Very useful. I might see how the two compare tonight in regards to the first Op. 72.

I just think that it is an easy way to get a handle on a large body of work. It also helps to chart the progression and hear each stage of the development and progression of the Chopin nocturne over time.

The Nocturnes Opus 27 was composed in 1836. This publication in itself is another important point in the development of the Chopin nocturne in that it marked the transition from triplets of nocturnes to contrasting pairs. The Opp. 9 and 15 above were in sets of three and from here on in they are in sets of two. It should be pointed out for those who may not be aware of it that C sharp and D flat are the same note, both having the same pitch.


The Nocturne in C sharp minor, Op.27, No.1 is a very dark, sombre and even morbid one. The opening makes use of heavy arpeggios on the left hand, down in the lower registers, and alternates between major and minor and this obviously contributes to the sense of the sombre. The turbulent middle section even appears angry to me; that little waltz like interlude is a prime example of that....just listen to the aggression there! The work ends sombrely too and with a sentiment something akin to resignation I feel. I know that Chopin did not want us to read anything into these works but this one was apparently written when Chopin knew that he was sick with tuberculosis so this could well be interpreted therefore as a personal statement. The form (structure) remains the same where the primary theme is introduced, followed by a secondary theme and a repetition of the first with a coda at the end.


Unlike the Nocturne in C-sharp minor, which was made up of conflicting dramas, the Nocturne in D-flat major consists of variations on a single mood on a lovely wistful, singing melody. The D-flat Nocturne does not have a middle section, but contrast is built into the music. It is definitely no less emotional for that. There are basically three sections each using very similar material, repeated in increasingly complex variations. This Nocturne also has a coda. Although very straightforward and simple in form I think it is a very lovely work and it is certainly a much more restful and peaceful work than its turbulent partner, definitely more contemplative. The two certainly contrast well with each other.

I have now reached the half way mark with my traversal of these works. Beautiful as they are, I still prefer to take them in small, bite sized chunks when listening; that is just my thing with solo piano music.


At this juncture I suppose a pause for reflection may well be in order to assess these works. The Nocturnes, though not lacking in drama and virtuosity, are predominantly lyrical, poetical and dreamy works. Most of the Nocturnes are structurally very simple, many in a simple form of two themes and one or two variations thereon and possibly followed by a coda. They are by no means difficult music to listen to. In the past, even though I would not listen to his music a lot, the nocturnes would be the works by Chopin that I would listen to by choice even though I have his piano concertos in my collection. There is something very simple, serene and beautiful about them. They are a very easy listen and probably would be the works that I would recommend for newcomers to Classical music who wanted to explore the world of solo piano music.


I came across a lovely statement on the internet somewhere that resonated with me: “However, like most of Mozart's music, within their simplicity lies a more profound level of deep emotion, expressed so innocently and subtly that it leaves you wondering why you are so affected by such simple music”.

fergus wrote:I have now reached the half way mark with my traversal of these works. Beautiful as they are, I still prefer to take them in small, bite sized chunks when listening; that is just my thing with solo piano music.


At this juncture I suppose a pause for reflection may well be in order to assess these works. The Nocturnes, though not lacking in drama and virtuosity, are predominantly lyrical, poetical and dreamy works. Most of the Nocturnes are structurally very simple, many in a simple form of two themes and one or two variations thereon and possibly followed by a coda. They are by no means difficult music to listen to. In the past, even though I would not listen to his music a lot, the nocturnes would be the works by Chopin that I would listen to by choice even though I have his piano concertos in my collection. There is something very simple, serene and beautiful about them. They are a very easy listen and probably would be the works that I would recommend for newcomers to Classical music who wanted to explore the world of solo piano music.


I came across a lovely statement on the internet somewhere that resonated with me: “However, like most of Mozart's music, within their simplicity lies a more profound level of deep emotion, expressed so innocently and subtly that it leaves you wondering why you are so affected by such simple music”.

Very interesting post Fergus which I may follow up on in the "Cl.Directions" thread at a later date!