Talk:List of compositions by Frédéric Chopin by genre

Opus 41

Why do some of the pieces in this work have plural numberings?

I've checked two Chopin works pages ([1], [2]) that use different numberings for the pieces in opus 41.

Could someone explain to me why these are numbered this way? Catfacem3n (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

List format

See this discussion of list formats for discussion of composition lists in general; this list is the one which sparked the debate. It wasn't really in my to do list, but I have access to vi, awk & sed. I removed the date of composition where it is the same as the date of the containing opus, but left them in where each piece's composition date was different (for example, Op. 10). I've removed all the red links on the grounds that links like Mazurka in C are no use. While links like No. 5 in C might be of use in the future I feel life's too short :-). Thanks, Mallocks, for doing the initial detabulation. --RobertG | (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I think this catalogue is something of a frightful mess (although I applaud the noble souls that labored to get it in its current state, regardless). Here are my observations:

At the beginning of the page, it is mentioned that "[b]oth sections of this list use the traditional opus numbers, as well as catalogue numbers from Krystyna Kobylanska (KK), Josef Michal Chominski (A, D, C, P, E), and Maurice J. E. Brown (B)." I think it is fine to use the catalogue numbers from several different Chopin catalogues, but -- if one is to cite to multiple catalogs -- then every piece should have its corresponding numbers from all the catalogues (if a catalogue, for whatever reason, does not assign a number to that piece, then it should be indicated that this is so). The easiest way to do this, then, is to set up a table with a column assigned to each catalogue---I've seen other pages that even allow the Wikipedia user to sort such tables by column, which is a nice feature.

I would undertake to do this myself except (1) I am hardly an expert when it comes to Chopin's catalogue of works, and (2) I'm pretty green at editing Wikipedia beyond mere text (in other words, moving everything to a table as described in the preceding paragraph would take a lot of time that I don't have to commit to this project). It is my hope that somebody with the knowledge and time that I lack can better organize the information on this page, and they'll have my eternal thanks for having done so. Rckent (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

missing waltz?

There seems to be no mention of the waltz in f-sharp minor, also known as the Valse melancolique (KK Anh. Ib/7). Is there some doubt surrounding this work? I know it is peculiar in the baseline given by the left hand which is unusual for a Chopin waltz, but I have not heard much talk about it. Thanks. 70.240.178.41 03:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Mysticfeline

Was in a part of the site that I hadn't looked at, specifically the supplement. Those published works in there have now been added. Mallocks 17:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

op 10-3

I don't know if it's common for the same piece of music to have more than one title, I'm not exactly an expert at all, but op 10-3's title in some places (but not on Wikipedia) is Chanson de L'Adieu, while on here, and some other places, it is titled Tristesse. I knew it as Chanson de L'Adieu my whole life until trying to find it on here. Hmm.EgyptianSushi 02:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

None of those 'names' are titles, incidentally. Tristesse is a name given to that particular étude by the original French publisher. They are usually used to identify the piece to laymen. ALTON .ıl 22:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Format

Why do some links lead to the general music form ("écossaises") and others to Chopin's specific compositions (Études)? Should the former be removed until all lead to pages of Chopin's own works?     ✗  Zen. ^➚ 05:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. The links to form are under the heading of By musical form, and can be seen to be thus introducing each form for those unfamiliar. If individual pieces were being linked to these forms then that would be wrong, as it stands I think it's right. Mallocks 22:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what I mean: all link to the general musical form except études. That particular link in this article is wrong, according to you, because it leads to the composer-specific page (Etudes (Chopin)). It should appear as the extant Waltz section, correct? z ε n  08:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, didn't notice that, my bad, and yes I agree, formatting as the Waltz section is a good solution. Well noticed :) Mallocks 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've made the suggested changes, feel free to tweak it if you don't think it's neat enough. Mallocks 21:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That's wonderful, thanks. z ε n  04:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Details of Compositions by Genre

Hey all, I'm planning on creating a page for each major genre Chopin wrote (Mazurkas, Waltzes, Nocturnes, Etudes). On each page, there will be a list of songs in chart form, with specific details about them.

---

Exg:

Title	Nocturne in G minor
Tempo	lento
Performers	Arthur Rubinstein
Difficulty	moderate
Miscellaneous	A favourite among students

---

If you think this is a good idea, or think the pages would be a waste, I would love to hear criticism/support. I'll also need some help with creating them if we decide to go through with it. Thanks --Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 01:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at Études (Chopin) to see an extant page on what you are talking about. I have to question the importance of these pages, because they seem simply like a stylized version of the categories that already exist. More importantly, as epic a work as Beethoven's sonatas are, they have no central page; rather, they have only a category here. However, I would implore you to get going on making pages for each of his works. Maybe not each prelude, but some major works need pages: Ballade No. 4 in F minor, all of his impromptus, and possibly some of the polonaises. ALTON .ıl 21:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, that table might be very useful placed at the top of the category pages. I am sure it would be very appropriate there. ALTON .ıl 21:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Information from Frédéric Chopin#Works

I just added the information that is listed at Frédéric Chopin#Works to the top of this page. I don't know if this will flow well with everyone, but if it does I have two questions.

1. Is there a way to just reprint the text from Frédéric Chopin#Works to the top of the page rather than a direct copy and paste as templates are done, and if so, should it be done?
2. Should the various links in the title such as ballads link to ballads or List_of_compositions_by_Frédéric_Chopin#Solo_piano where the ballads on the page are?

I don't know if this will be like much. Pages like List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart have a blurb like this, but most others that I have seen do not. Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 02:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Just go through with what you originally intended. The Chopin page has enough information about his style and whatever, and this page should have only a cursory description of the list. As for the second question, I say remove "the" and link to the general form. ALTON .ıl 02:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Catalogue

After a two-minute search I gave up. Sparing my deep research facilities, could someone clarify what the "B" and ""KK" catalogue numbers are? ALTON .ıl 04:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Found. ALTON .ıl 04:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

wow

This page has really been cleaned up. Good job Alton! Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 02:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad you approve! There is still much work to be done for Chopin, as in naming conventions and factual statements in composition articles. Let's aim for Featured List or better yet: Featured Topic! ALTON .ıl 03:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, is that what you mean by "section link"? Just place the Pound sign before a section name and pipe the link. ALTON .ıl 04:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to second those thanks Alton, great work. Also thanks for all the individual composition pages you've been working on; an amazing amount of work by the look of it! Mallocks 18:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Structure

The structure of this page worries me a little. It’s in 3 sections:

A. compositions by musical form

B. unpublished and early compositions, and

C. compositions by opus number.

It seems to me that A and B should be merged into one section. If the sorting key here is “musical form”, it’s a secondary consideration whether the work was published, unpublished; early, late, or middle; or complete or partial. Also, it’s confusing when you read through A but find no mention of the “La ci darem la mano” variations, the Krakowiak, the Grand Fantasy on Polish Airs, the Fantaisie-Impromptu or the Songs, and others. It’s only when you get to the heading “Unpublished and Early Compositions” that you realise the following works all also belong to the foregoing section, because there’s no mention at the start of A of the fact that A does not contain all of Chopin’s works, only those that don’t fall into “unpublished and early compositions”.

I’ve had a go at merging A and B. -- JackofOz 02:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing was recently done in a single edit, by 89.138.22.47. I put a note on the IP's talk, but given that was his only edit, it might be an unlogged user. ALTON .ıl 09:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"Posth." conflict

There is dissent on the correct naming of several works. As shown by this diff, an edit was reverted without discussion. ALTON .ıl —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Before commenting, I would like to here what Lividore has to say. I am currently unsure whether to include posth. for Opp. 66 - 72, but I shall see what others think. Centy – – 09:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite splendidly in the media section at Op. (posth.) 66 both versions are present so it would seem we haven't quite got a standard system worked out. I think the question can be reduced to this: "Does the addition of 'posth.' add any useful information?" If it does, put them in, if not, take them out. Mallocks 10:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if the revert seemed blatant. I just think the addition of "posth." is necessary because otherwise the opus numbers might create a false impression that these are among the last compositions by Chopin, when, in fact, most of those published under opus numbers after his death are works from his very early days as a composer. --Lividore 12:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll go with that, as long as we're consistent throughout. Centy – – 13:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Opus 7 Rondo

At 4:36 GMT (5:36 BST) on 25 October 2007 BBC Radio 3 played a Chopin Rondo in C, Opus 7. The schedule at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/throughthenight/pip/vl9w3/ shows it coming from a CD which further Googling suggests is http://music.balkanatolia.com/c/sl-e/mid-3/p-p/id-29/liudmil-angelov-frederic-chopin.html. There the same mention of Op 7 is repeated. But the list in this article reckons Opus 7 is a group of Mazurkas. Which source has the inconsistent information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Colver (talk • contribs) 14:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Theirs. Op. 7 is a set of Mazurkas. The rondo they are referring to is Op. 73 Rondo. The 3 obviously was forgotten. Centy – reply• contribs – 12:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

Well, this may be obvious, but the fact that one piece is designated as "One more song" here is a bit questionable. Does anyone know the name for this mysterious, anonymous piece? P.S.: I hope I'm not being too petty by listing this as my only reason for the clean-up tag. --~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 02:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Bolero

This edit summary confused me. It sort of suggests the whole piece has been transposed into a different key and that transposed version sometimes gets an airing. I've never heard of it. The Bolero as I know it starts with a C major introduction but the main part of it is in A minor. Along the way it gets into A major, A flat major, and B flat minor, before returning to the A minor reprise; but it ends in A major. In order of accuracy, I'd prefer "C major-A minor", then just "C major", but I don't like "C major-A major" at all because A major plays a relatively minor (joke) in the proceedings. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Concerto No. 3? Erm...

I don't understand why the paragraph about Kogosowski's chimera is even present in this article. It's interesting, sure, but seems irrelevant to a list of Chopin's compositions. I love the Allegro de Concert and consider Kazimierz Wilkomirski's version for piano and orchestra very significant. Kogosowski picked three pieces he found complementary and cobbled them into something Chopin never imagined. Why is that significant here at all? Should a paragraph be devoted to Les Sylphides, too?  :-) Steve Bob (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Eight months have passed without follow-up comment, and I've now heard this "arrangement" of the Allegro de Concert for myself. "Concerto No. 3" isn't just a fabricated chimera: the first movement is an augmentation and restructuring of Chopin's music. As Kogosowski's composition and not Chopin's, it's just one of hundreds of paraphrases based on or inspired by Chopin. This isn't the place to list all of them, and an exception shouldn't be made for one. Steve Bob (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I missed this in April. The only reason I inserted it in the first place was because of the incredibly irresponsible title it was given, "Chopin's Piano Concerto No. 3 in A major". This is how it will appear in google searches. People who don't know about its latter-day origin and are not up on their Chopin would wonder why Wikipedia is mentioning only the first 2 of "Chopin's 3 piano concertos". So I thought it was worthy of mention, if only to denounce it as a work by "Chopin". Had it been called "Fantasy on Themes by Chopin" or something similar, there would have been no case for mentining it here. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Split proposal

I think there's a good case for now having this split into 2 separate articles, one sorted by genre, the other by opus/catalogue number. It's become too long and unwieldy as one article. Comments before I take the axe to it? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Belatedly, this is now done. The existing list needed a name tweak, The 2 lists are:

• List of compositions by Frédéric Chopin by musical form
• List of compositions by Frédéric Chopin by opus number. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Different KK numbers?

There seems to be two KK numbering systems out there, eg the 1817 Polonaise in G minor KK IIa/1 also seems to be KK889 (or KK889-890 depending!?). Similarly the polonaises KK IVa/1 (KK1182-1183), KK IVa/2 (KK1184) etc (see The Chopin Project - KK Index). Does anyone know what the story is? Dickdock (talk) 08:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how widely known these higher numbers are. And I wonder why single works are given a range of 5, sometimes 10, KK numbers on that list. I wouldn't be using any of them until they're verified. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Late to the party here, but...I don't have it any more, though I had borrowed the KK book from the library a few weeks ago. My guess is that the weird numbers in the above link correspond to the page numbers in the KK book (I think Op. 4 was assigned later which is why it's out of order). The IIa/1 stuff are the correct numbers. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sonata Op. 4

This was listed as "published posthumously". Not sure why. I fixed it. (It was published upon Chopin's first visit to Vienna, if I recall, with not-great circulation, but it was published by Haslinger for sure in 1839. See the letter to Fontana of 8 August 1839.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terez27 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Haslinger did not publish it, though he did print and engrave it. See the letter to Fontana of 12 September 1841: "Haslinger is an idiot. He wants to print some music – or, at least, to publish it, since he already has printed it – that I let him have for nothing in Vienna twelve years ago". Double sharp (talk) 03:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Minor spike in traffic, early 2014

PSA: this page has seen some mildly off-putting edits in late February / early March. I'll keep an eye on this page, but if somebody else who's faster with the rollback wants to help stand watch, that would be lovely. I'm sure it's nothing to worry about, but all the same ... Danny Sepley (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Nicknames for the Etudes

The nicknames assigned to the etudes are giving me hives. They need to go. Sunshine, seriously? Not only did Chopin never use programmatic names, but scholars don't, musicians don't. Who does? No one serious. For the love of God, please make them go away. 75.34.183.253 (talk) 06:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• These are official nicknames, although deprived of complete nonsense (I don't swear on Wikipedia) in my opinion, these are the common nicknames the common use to these etudes. Kevon kevono (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2016 (PT)

Listing Suggestion

I suggest listing Chopin's compositions this way:

Examples of Chopin Op.9 No.1 and Op.10 No.4

No.	Key	Opus	Published	Composed	Incipit	Sound
1	B♭ minor	Op. 9 No. 1	1833	1830–1832		Florence Robineau
2	C♯ minor	Op. 10 No. 4	1833	1830		Martha Goldstein

Kevon kevono (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2016

Replied on the other page where you posted this. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 05:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of compositions by Frédéric Chopin by genre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070501195936/http://infopuq.uquebec.ca/~uss1010/catal/chopin/chofchominski.html to http://infopuq.uquebec.ca/~uss1010/catal/chopin/chofchominski.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Mazurkas op 33 and 41

I have changed the numbering of the mazurkaz of op 33 and 41. They now agree with the numbering given in the pages linked to (see Mazurkas, Op. 33 (Chopin) and Mazurkas, Op. 41 (Chopin)). They also now agree with the numbering given om imslp.org (here and here), and finally they agree with the sleeve notes of the CD nr. 7 and 8 of "Arthur Rubinstein plays Chopin" (originally RCA Red Seal - reissued by SONY)

Claus chr (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Dear Claus chr,

Thank you very much for applying these corrections; I am amazed the article has been in error since 6 September 2014 and 17 October 2015! I checked against my scores (Chopin Complete Works X Mazurkas / Paderewski et al, 1949 / 15th edition / Instytut Fryderyka Chopina Polskie Wydawnictwo Muzyczne) and your corrections have now repaired the article.

Once again, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you very much for your contributions to our encyclopedia.

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 19:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)