BOOMERBUSTER

BOOMERBUSTER
OLD CELLO

Friday, July 31, 2020

EARLY DK POST COMMENTING ON BLM AND MANY OTHER THINGS VERY INTERESTING IN RETROSPECT

Thursday, May 17, 2018


How the left has gone wrong

Yesterday I caught up with last week's New Yorker on a plane ride.  The issue contained two fascinating articles on left-wing politics, written from entirely different perspectives.  The first, by Jelani Cobb, discussed a North Carolina minister and civil rights activist named William Barber, who wants to build a multiracial coalition of poor blacks and whites in the South.   The second, by Caleb Crain, reviews a new book by the economist Robert Kuttner, Can Democracy Survive Global Capitalism?  In this piece I will be contrasting Barber's views, as related by Cobb, with Kuttner's, as related by Crain.  The two men are both leftists in the current context and both, it seems to me, are concerned about the same trends and want to see similar changes in our world.  Yet they represent very different traditions.  Kuttner and the earlier thinkers he discusses at length in his book--the early twentieth century economists Karol Polanyi and John Maynard Keynes--are very firmly in the Enlightenment tradition and take a scientific approach to discovering what is wrong and how to fix it.  Barber--a remarkable and admirable man, who has also waged a long struggle with painful and debilitating illness--represents a Christian tradition of activism, leavened with the spirit of the late 1960s and the radicalism of the last years of Dr. Martin Luther King, who died when Barber was only four years old.  Barber's kind of activism and the world view behind it, I would argue, has increasingly dominated the left on campus and among activists over the last half century.  Unfortunately, it has been utterly unable to stop, much less reverse, the economic trends that Kuttner focuses on, which have created a new plutocracy in the United States and much of the rest of the world.

Kuttner's book is evidently about the political impact of free-market global capitalism. He does not seem to aware of Strauss and Howe, sadly, but he has a fine understanding of long-term economic and political trends and he recognizes the parallels between the 1930s and our own time.  There is one huge difference which Crain's review, at least, does not mention.  In the 1930s, the world economy had largely broken down; today it is generally thriving.  In both cases, however, profound economic changes had wreaked havoc among the lower classes of society in various parts of the world, causing significant hardship and anxiety.  And in both cases, many voters reacted by turning to strongmen or, in the 1930s, totalitarian movements.  In a scary reversal, today we have a somewhat anti-democratic strongman in the United States, while western European democracy, while threatened with right wing movements, remains intact. In the 1930s dictators ruled Germany, Italy, and Spain, but Franklin Roosevelt presided over a robust democracy in the United States.


While discussing Kuttner's book, Crain refers to Thomas Piketty, but not to Piketty's most fundamental insight: that the natural tendency of capitalism is to produce inequality, because capital accumulates more rapidly than the economy grows as a whole.  That, we should note, is true regardless of the degree of free trade and globalization at any particular moment.  If globalization increases economic growth overall--and it evidently does--it will increase inequality more rapidly, but capitalism itself, not globalization, causes inequality--unless something is done to reduce it.  That is what happened in the middle decades of the 20th century, as Kuttner obviously understands.


Several things combined to reduce inequality.  First of all, the First World War and the Depression both wiped out a great deal of wealth. The financial crisis of 1929-32 led to very tight regulation of financial markets in the United States, and there were no major panics or banking crises for a full 60 years after the Second World War. The two world wars led to the imposition of extraordinarily high marginal tax rates--91% on the highest incomes in the United States, until 1964.  After the Second World War, western societies compensated their veterans and their families with a whole host of benefits.  The experience of the Depression and the Keynesian revolution in economic thought convinced governments that they could and should take fiscal steps to insure the highest possible employment.  The rights of labor, and unionization, were at an all-time high.  Economic equality increased through the 1960s.


Partly under the economic pressure of the Vietnam War and partly because of oil shocks, the postwar economic system (including fixed exchange rates) broke own in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Inflation soared and the Keynesians had no remedy. As Kuttner points out, conservatives led by Alan Greenspan and Milton Friedman saw their chance for a counterattack and pushed a return to the free market.  That led, first, to the return of draconian monetary policy to stop inflation, and then to the beginning of a long series of tax cuts under Reagan.  By the 1990s the Democratic Party had jumped onto the free market bandwagon.  Inequality began to increase, and increased still further after the deregulation of financial markets.  The American and European working classes were hurt, not helped, by globalization.  By the 2010s large numbers of them were voting for extreme right wing parties or candidates--including now-President Donald Trump.  And in the United States, the leadership of both parties was firmly allied with the most powerful new economic interests on Wall Street and in the tech sector.  Kuttner argues, essentially, that political authorities will once again have to intervene in the market to halt and reverse these trends.  I shall return later to how this might happen.


Like Martin Luther King,Jr., William Barber finds the roots of his activism in the Bible.  Even irreligious people like myself can recognize the Christian roots of leftist economic thought, and the very important role that Christian activism of various kinds has played in European and US history over the last few centuries.  Cobb's article suggests, moreover, that Barber's Christian approach allows him to move beyond racial categories. Talking to Cobb, Barber says--as I have many times--that the issue of poverty has become so "racialized" that most people don't realize that the majority of poor people in the United States are white.  Barber has established links to what remains of organized labor, and we wants to bring poor white and black voters together.  But there is, to me, a serious falw in his reasoning.


According to Cobb, the Bible was only one of the formative books of Barber's youth.  Another was that very influential tome---now immortalized in Good Will Hunting--A People's History of the United States, by Howard Zinn.  That book argues that every authentic movement for justice and equality in American history came only from the lower classes--and that such movements were consistently betrayed by the upper classes.  It has sold so many copies because it captured the spirit of campus activism in the 1960s.  It implied that the power structure in the United States has always been oppressive and corrupt, and that only activism outside the system has ever been able to bring about any real change.  Those views animated the Black Panthers and the Weathermen and the other revolutionary spin-offs from 1960s campus activism.  More recently they have been very influential among the Occupy Movement and Black Lives Matter.  These views rein on campus, where virtue is found only among oppressed groups.   It is no accident, in my opinion, that none of those movements have yielded any tangible long-term benefits.  They are based on a false understanding of how American politics work.


The great achievements of the mid-century era--including the civil rights acts of 1964 and 1965--came mainly from building broad electoral coalitions and enlisting the whole nation to solve huge problems, including building a whole new infrastructure from the 1930s through the 1960s and fighting the Second World War.  The NAACP successfully fought a long battle on two fronts, legal and political, to end legal segregation.  Its alliances with organized labor, Jewish groups, and mainline Christian churches played a huge role in its legislative victories.  Beginning in 1960 civil disobedience generated pressure for legislative action, but it was only one of many factors responsible for success.  The Progressive and New Deal eras had created a substantial, bipartisan political class genuinely committed to a better life for all Americans, and the civil rights movement could appeal to them.  Those are the very real lessons that most contemporary activists do not understand.


Working in North Carolina--one of the most closely balanced states in the nation, which voted for Obama in 2012 and Trump in 2016--Harris has started a weekly civil disobedience campaign, Moral Mondays, to put pressure on the Republican state legislature.  He is fighting the power of James Arthur Pope, a convenience store magnate who is to North Carolina politics what the Koch brothers are nationwide.  The Democrats managed to regain the governorship of North Carolina in 2016, but the Republican-dominated legislature immediately moved to cut the Governor's power.  The same drama will be played out all around the country this year. Will women's and high school students' marches translate into decisive electoral success? If they do, will that success translate into real legislative progress that will at least halt the trend towards inequality?  These are huge questions.


Few people, I think, could have finished Jelani Cobb's article without feeling great admiration for William Barber.  The tradition he exemplifies reflects the last two years of the life of Martin Luther King, Jr., when King decided that both capitalism and militarism were evils against which he had to struggle.  That decision deprived him of much of his support and influence among white Americans, even as younger black activists challenged his non-violent approach.  Certain evils are definitely inherent in capitalism and militarism, including capitalism's tendency towards economic inequality--but we are stuck with them both, in my opinion, because they have roots in human nature.  Capitalism, we found in the last century, can be tamed and regulated for the benefit of all.  Military power, as I taught for more than twenty years, can be reserved  for rare cases in which its use can effectively meet critical threats and lead to a lasting peace.   No antidote for these evils will be perfect, but history tells me that trying to wipe them off the face of the earth will not work.  Future generations, I hope, will develop new forms of activism based upon reality.  Plenty of historical evidence suggests that such activism can work.

CLASSIC DK AND TOCQUEVILLE

Monday, December 5, 2016

NATURE AND CONVENTION RACE LAW AND CUSTOM

'The white, black and Indian races, he wrote, were not only "naturally distinct," but "hostile." He saw the whites as a superior civilization--a judgment validated, it still seems to me, by their supremacy on the continent--while the other two races  had only their "misfortunes" in common.' DK

Tocqueville equated Germans, both ancient, feudal, and modern it seems, as well as all of feudalism itself, as relatively less civilized savagery (The British, and the French, of course, also each privately considered the others species of still uncivilized barbarians really): 

"In all that we call Germanic institutions I am tempted to see nothing but barbaric habits and to regard what we call feudal ideas as the opinions of savages." (AT)

'The white people, he argued, were an aristocracy defined by natural differences.  Given that it had proven so hard to remove the privileges of European aristocrats that were defined only by law, he argued, it seemed impossible that equality could be established among those divided by the color of their skin.  "I plainly see," he wrote, "that in some parts of the country the legal barrier between the two races is tending to come down, but not that of mores.  I see that slavery is in retreat, but the prejudice from which it arose is immovable . . .race prejudice seems stronger in those states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists, and nowhere is it more intolerant than in states where slavery was never known."  Even in the northern states where black citizens theoretically enjoyed equal rights, he reported, they were too afraid to assert them.  Those states that had abolished slavery had done so not to help the black man, but to help the white, both by leaving free labor without the competition of slaves and by eliminating the corrupting influence of owning slaves upon the whites.   Tocqueville wrote at length on how slavery in the South had taught white people to scorn work, and to cultivate the traditional vices of aristocracy.'DK

"Eliminated by law, segregation has largely persisted by custom." DK

This is all a highly complex group of subjects. There are certain themes, and views, that go back to antiquity. 

The discussion has been carried into modern times, usually under various pairs of terms, often involving schools of thought as well as social and natural science disciplinary distinctions, not always consistently comparable with each other: physis nomos, unwritten laws versus written laws, nature convention, nature nurture, realism nominalism, idealism empiricism, instinct law, materialism or physicalism versus either idealism dualism pluralism or monism etc., nature culture, convention (or tradition) law, nature custom, etc.


Cf. Peter Winch, Nature and Convention, Man and Society in Hobbes and Rousseau, Magic and Witchcraft among the Azande, Understanding a Primitive Society, The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy.

A good, perhaps the best, source, re the Greek discussion in antiquity, is certainly W K C Guthrie, Volume three.

1588 ARMADA YEAR THOMAS HOBBES' DIFFICULT BIRTH ANNE CECIL DE VERE SHAKESPEARE'S WIFE DIED 1588

His third surviving legitimate child, Susan, being one year old. Cordelia.

The Great Courses, Hobbes, Dennis Dalton, with whose politics I disagree markedly, but he did a great lecture on Hobbes.

SOWELL CALLS CAPITALISM'S CAPITALISTS MIDDLEMAN MINORITIES PERSECUTED BY THEIR HOST POPULATIONS

Let's unpack some of Sowell's verbiage here. What do you say?

'Middleman minorities are middlemen not only in a purely economic sense but also in social and political senses.  Where a ruling class or race collects money from a large class of poorer people whom they do not wish to deal with directly, middleman minorities may take on the role of collecting rents or feudal dues for landlords, or taxes for government-- all roles virtually guaranteeing unpopularity.' TS

One point to note here, in passing, is that a middleman minority is substituted in these instances for an actual or potential indigenous middleman group which is either nonexistent, competitively or mandatorily unnaturally ousted, or partially or whoely supplanted from a role or position within the middle ranks of the host imperial or host colonial society by the ruling class or race in favor of an alien minority having allegiances of its own either within its own ranks or to a third foreign ruling class or race. 

If the ruling class or race is also itself foreign, this further complicates a situation where the ruling class or race declines to use its own foreign ethnic or national group or groups to accomplish middleman minority tasks, while bringing in a third minority for the purpose. 

This will tend to create animosities that are triangulated, more or less complicated, and seldom merely bilateral. 

CHINESE LIVES MATTER MOST THERE ARE A WHOLE HELL OF A LOT OF THE BITCHES

HINDU LIVES MATTER MORE THERE ARE A LOT MORE OF THEM

KEILAR ASK IF PELOSI TRUSTS TRUMP NEGOFER DUMBER THAN LERER ASK KAMALA HOW PROFILING FEELS

But, it's not only dumb and dumber, Lerer and Keilar, here.

There's another problem.

Keilar is big, and getting bigger!

Media news writers now want the news casters to appear even dumber and more aggressive than the audience.

In this goal, I think they succeed.

The interviewee then snaps at them, Kamala or Pelosi, which is what they wanted!

IT SURE SENDS A MESSAGE TO ME THERE'S NOTHING LESS IRISH THAN A MUSLIM

Croke Park: Muslims celebrate Eid in the home of Irish sport


The holding of a major Muslim prayer service at an "iconic" Irish sporting venue has sent a message "to the whole world" that Ireland is a welcoming country, an Islamic leader has said.
About 200 Muslims gathered at Dublin's Croke Park stadium on Friday to celebrate the Islamic festival of Eid.
Croke Park is the headquarters of the Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA).
The event was addressed by Shaykh Umar Al-Qadri, the chair of Irish Muslim Peace and Integration Council.

MEDCRAM UPDATE 100 DR SEHEULT ANCESTOR NANTES CATHEDRAL

This was recently torched by a negro Rwandan refugee somehow allowed to guard it.

Here is Dr Seheult, ten years ago, playing Bach on the Nantes Cathedral organ that was destroyed recently. 

The Cathedral had been completed by one of Dr Seheult's ancestors.:

BWV 565, Nantes Cathedral Organ, Roger Seheult, MD.

Dr. Seheult Plays Toccata and Fugue in d minor | https://youtu.be/Uj_E4UQUIIQ

Nantes Cathedral Fire | https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/26/wo...

BERGER BOOKER BITCH

In 1972, winning writer John Berger, known for his Marxist worldview, protested during his acceptance speech against Booker McConnell. He blamed Booker's 130 years of sugar production in the Caribbean for the region's modern poverty.[11][12] Berger donated half of his £5,000 prize to the British Black Panther movement, because it had a socialist and revolutionary perspective in agreement with his own

audience right now tells the whole story of Portugal

EntryPageviews
Portugal
25
United States
1

BRITAIN HAS BEEN THE GOOD TIME HAD BY ALL POSTCOLONIAL PEOPLE OF ANY COLOR

Sowell recounts, really throughout his book, episodes of forced expulsions, pogroms, etc.

Sowell is a globalist of any color. He paints the middleman minorities as the good guys in the long globalization he recounts, and the indigenous people they screwed as the lucky ones.

Mentioned the middleman minority Hindus expelled from East Africa, many of whom did not end up back in India or Pakistan where they should have, but rather in London.

Idi Amin, turns out, when he dossed out "Asians" was mainly dossing out Hindu middleman minorities.

I prefer to think of them as the early Hindu colonialists of places like Africa, just as Sowell recounts episodes of Chinese middleman minorities throuthout Asia, who are also really, why candycoat it, Chinese imperialists colonialists of other regions of Asia and of Africa.

How basketball could revive African economies

MIDDLEMAN MINORITIES ETHICS SOCIOLOGY AND ECONOMICS

See Sowell's very insightful discussion of these in a comparative analysis.

It unfolds, to some extent, as butt ugly dog eat dog battles between various carpetbagger middleman minorities within and among various host nations over various periods of time.

One of his heroes is Fernand Braudel, so you can see how he has a sense for the scope, and the long history, of capitalism long before the Industrial Revolution or the enlightenment.

THE GLOBAL MIGRATION CRISIS WEINER

I am not a liberal developmentalist, but Weiner is something of an expert on migration.

Over migration has been staring liberals in the face from the beginning of liberalism itself, arising as liberalism did out of toleration and the Reformation.

Sowell, Migrations and Cultures, p 26.

MANCHESTER A HOTBED OF PERMANENT RACIAL UNREST LOCKDOWN

SPEAR PHISHING

Twitter hack: Staff tricked by phone spear-phishing scam

RE 1619 PROJECT WHY NOT READ THE REAL STORY INDIAN DIASPORA IN AFRICA WIKIPEDIA

This was post colonial independence East Africa at work early, forcibly expelling Hindus and Pakis.

Many of these poor indentured bastards had been effectively slaves for life in everything but name. 

The reverse had also been true, Africans indentured for work in India as well as elsewhere in very large numbers.

With forced decolonization many Hindus and Pakis ended up in Britain, Sowell, Migrations and Cultures, p. 24, another cultural racial and civilizational disaster, rather than back in India or Pakistan as they should have and many were.

Thursday, July 30, 2020

ALL WANT A DECENT LIFE FEW CAN GET IT TRUST ME

Belarus opposition rally attracts thousands despite crackdown



Nine point nine tenths of the world population can protest for a decent life, racial equality among them all, justice, things like that.

They can protest their asses off. 

They can protest for decades, and their children can take up the protests where they left off.

Guess what?  Cannot happen.

Not in the West.
Not in the Rest.
Not anywhere.

US LIBERAL HUMAN RIGHTS FOREIGN POLICY HAS PLAYED INTO THE HANDS OF GLOBAL ECONOMIC EQUALIZERS OF COLOR

Black lives matter everywhere now, just as much as one black life in the West.

Just stop for a moment and consider the implications.

CONNERY

Thursday, July 30, 2020


HE MOVED LIKE A CAT, FOR A BIG MAN, MOST UNUSUAL. THE ONLY OTHER ACTOR WHO MOVED LIKE THAT WAS ALBERT FINNEY


I had a friend in college, who moved like this. 

Her clumsinesses were affectations. 

Statewide champion, especially in butterfly. 

She made this horrific swimming stroke look effortless, easy.  But not just that. Incredibly beautiful to watch, a certain level of gracefulness hard to put into words. 

Flounce is not the right word for how she walked. She detested looking too feminine in movement. But not a swagger either. Cat like captures it better. 

Truly incredible to watch. Steffi Graf had some of this quality.  Nastase.  Bruce Lee.

Tarzan had also looked normal in a tuxedo.

RANDALL COLLINS NETWORKS OF CREATIVITY AND CHOPIN SHOWS HOW BRILLIANT COLLINS IS

Thursday, April 16, 2020

CHOPIN'S ANTI-NETWORK CREATIVITY


Sociological research finds creativity is concentrated in networks: the most creative in one generation start their careers by contact with the most creative of the previous generation. This is the pattern world-wide in the history of philosophy, mathematics, and science. The pattern also appears in art and music. But Chopin looks like an exception. Chopin is among the most famous composers of all time. But he has no contact with the stars of the previous generation.

Chopin seemingly comes out of nowhere. His father is a French servant on an estate owned by a Polish aristocrat, who returns to Poland to escape the French Revolution. In Poland, he becomes a tutor in French, the high-status international language, then live-in master at a boarding school for boys, where young Frédéric grows up among upper-class friends. His mother, an educated woman from the aristocrat’s household, teaches him piano at an early age. Chopin is treated as a child prodigy, composing by age 7 and touring Poland in his early teens, regarded as a local Mozart. Chopin fits the pattern of servants of east European aristocracy who became upwardly mobile through music-- from Haydn through Liszt--  when feudal lords sought reflected glory as patrons in the new era of musical fame.

Poland had no famous musicians yet, but desperately wanted one in the era of national struggles after Russia and Prussia partitioned Poland in 1795. Young Chopin (born 1810) was groomed for the part in the 1820s. What Polish nationalists wanted was grand political opera-- the prestigious musical genre of the time-- what Verdi (3 years younger) would supply for Italy with his resounding  operas of the 1850s that became rallying cries for resistance against Austrian domination. Chopin never filled that part, but national hope launched his early reputation as a pianist.  Liszt, one year younger, set the example, touring Europe as a teenager in the 1820s, both as a Hungarian nationalist (although ethnically German) and as the first super-star whose concerts infatuated mass audiences, like the Beatles of the 1960s.

Being famous as a performer, however, is not the same as creating a lasting reputation as a composer; and until the mid-1830s Chopin (when he is around 25 ) had not yet composed the works that would join the repertoire of classics. On theoretical grounds this is not surprising, since creating at the forefront usually comes from an early network that launches you from the previous high plateau of techniques. This network came late for Chopin. It is true that in Warsaw, he was accepted as a pupil at age 6 by a grand-pupil (pupil of a pupil) of Johann Sebastian Bach. Thorough training in Bach’s keyboard music was the foundation of Chopin’s style-- it was one ingredient that set him apart from other composers, and throughout his career Chopin would warm up for performances of his own work by playing Bach. But Bach (who died in 1750) had been considered old-fashioned by proponents of new music even in his own lifetime; and it was Chopin’s new blend that would make him one of the most famous of innovators. Where did the other ingredients come from?

Road Map:

Chopin enters the horizontal network of New Music
Beyond the Classic style: Tonic-dominant chord harmonies
Chopin before and after he finds his niche
Chopin’s peak and decline: hustling on the music market
Chopin’s distinctive style: Prelude in E minor
Chopin’s ingredients: Baroque counterpoint plus Bellini arias
Dissonances as plot tension: Prelude in A minor
History of dissonance: Mozart’s quick resolution
Chopin and Mozart, dying young


Chopin enters the horizontal network of  New Music

We see young Chopin’s limitations in his early ventures outside of Poland, two visits to Vienna in 1829 and 1830. Here there is more competition; Hummel’s pupil Thalberg is the reigning virtuoso pianist (he would have a famous piano duel with Lizst in 1835), and there are other musicians in the wake of Schubert and von Weber. Chopin’s earliest music score is a piano settting of Mozart’s famous duet from Don Giovanni, “La ci darem la mano”, but this was from 40 years ago and Vienna publishers seeking new music turn it down. Prospects change when Chopin makes his way to Paris in 1831. By fortunate catastrophe, his old patrons and admirers from Poland had arrived there in exile, after a failed uprising against Russian occupation in 1830; and since they had brought their fortunes in cash, he immediately has a social and economic base of support. Chopin was the darling of the Polish ex-pats in Paris even before he composed his great new works. Yet in the early 1830s Chopin still shared concert stages with other pianists, and he performed other composers’ music as well as his own.

The wealthy international salons were a springboard, at first, because they hosted the networks where Chopin encountered the cutting edge of the musical world: Liszt, Berlioz, Mendelsssohn, Bellini. Chopin formed his distinctive style: not so much by imitating them, but by close acquaintance with the new music then generating popular enthusiasm, while finding his own niche. Liszt was famous for his dramatic modulations and high-speed ripples of sound so dazzling that it was rumoured his hands had six fingers.  Thalberg invented a way of playing the melody with both hands, and accompaniment too, giving the impression he had three hands.

In reaction, Chopin composed pieces to show off his light touch, clear and distinct in every voice. As a teacher, he would admonish his pupils not to practice too many hours; the aim was not to build up muscles for loud crescendos and acrobatic feats on the keyboard, but quiet delicacy. Liszt is the master of the fast and  loud; Chopin becomes the master of the quiet and smooth.

I began by noting that Chopin is an exception to the pattern of creative persons being pupils or followers of the stars of the previous generation. But there is a second dimension of creative networks: a horizontal network of contemporaries all breaking away from the older generation at the same time. In the 1820s and 30s, they were breaking away from Beethoven, whose symphonies and concertos were so dominant that younger musicians thought nothing more could be done along that line. Chopin taps into the horizontal network, indeed is greeted by them as a new recruit to their cause. Liszt is quick to befriend him; Schumann, who has started a musical periodical newspaper to promote the new music, gives him enthusiastic reviews.

But horizontal networks of “young Turks,” a brotherhood of rebels, soon encounters a problem of their own: if they all do the same new thing, most of them will not get credit for it, the fame going to the one who most dramatically catches the public eye. * Thus a circle of young rebels eventually start fighting with each other, breaking away to promote their own version of the new style. Each one has to create their own niche. Chopin quite soon recognizes that he needs to do something to distinguish himself from Liszt and other dazzling pianists drawing the big crowds..

* To give just one example from the history of philosophy: Marx, Engels, Stirner, Bakunin and others in the aftermath of Hegel agreed that the Idealist philosophy must be replaced. But they soon quarreled with each other over what direction to go. Their quarrels were constitutive of what they create as they split up the post-Hegelian field.  Such quarreling itself was structured by what they had to do to make a distinctive reputation. In this case, Marx upstages all the others. See Collins, The Sociology of Philosophies,  for the worldwide historical pattern of creativity by opposition.


Chopin eventually becomes the prima donna of the Paris salons. One might describe him as delicate/aggressive; always polite and agreeable with his high-status friends and supporters, but frequently contemptuous of them in private. He is admired and promoted by Liszt, Mendelssohn, and Schumann, but he dislikes their styles and scorns their movement of “new German music” (i.e. post-Beethoven).   Berlioz, striving to establish a post-classical orchestral style, emphasizes the musical colour of instrumental combinations; but Chopin rejects the idea of an alliance and declares his preference for Bach and Mozart. The one Paris contact that Chopin does imitate is Bellini, an opera composer, whose way of writing arias Chopin adapted for piano melodies. The salon networks bring him together with the avant-garde of art and literature, including Balzac and George Sand. Delacroix is a close friend and supporter during Chopin’s growing illnesses, but Chopin dislikes Delacroix’s painting and finds nothing in common with his emphasis on colour over  form. Most of his friends are political radicals, but he himself becomes conservative, despising revolutions of any kind. Although in fact a social climber (or perhaps because), Chopin clings to the lifestyle and milieu of aristocracy. Opposing the main trends is Chopin’s niche.

Chronology tells the story. Chopin meets the cutting-edge musical networks during 1831-34 onwards. His most important works follow: the Preludes in 1837-41; Ballades and Sonatas 1839; Polonaises 1834-42; Mazurkas and Nocturnes 1830-46.

What Chopin gets from the avant-garde is not new tools of the trade. He acquires a sense of the competition in the field, a sense of where a distinctive niche can be found. His unique resources are the counterpoint he has learned from Bach’s disciple, combined with Bellini’s style of “never-ending” melody.

Beyond the Classic Style:  Tonic-dominant chord harmonies

Chopin is classified as a Romantic composer. In technical terms this doesn’t just mean a love-lorn sentimentalist, but a method of composing music that comes after the Classic style (Haydn-Mozart-Beethoven), which in turn followed the Baroque (Bach and Handel.) These categories are rather clichéd, and music historians tend to explain these shifts in terms of the psychology and emotions (or lack thereof) in the music. But you can actually see the shift in how the music is written-- and this is what determines what it sounds like. You can be as sentimental as you like, but if you can’t write the notes and harmonies in a particular way, it won’t work. So how did Chopin do it?

Chopin comes along when Classic composing techniques are morphing into something different. The core of Classic composition is the tonic-dominant pattern.

Tonic is the basic note in the scale of the key you are playing in. In the key of C major, these are the white keys of the piano, starting with C and going up the octave via D-E-F-G-A-B-C. The tonic chord is C-E-G. We can also call this 1-3-5. These intervals resonate well together and give a bright, cheerful sound.


If we start on the 5th note and skip upward every other white key, we get the dominant chord: G-B-D-F. This is smoothest-sounding chord that isn’t the tonic. Other than its own octave (C-C an octave up or down), the micro-tone vibrations of C sound best with G. It is, so to speak, a resting place away from home.  The G chord or G-7th chord (with the F) creates a tension in the listener, but this tension is easily resolved by sliding into the tonic chord. G stays the same, since it exists in both chords; the other notes pivot around it: B goes up to C; D goes up to E, and F goes down to E or up to G. Melody notes don’t have to move very far to get from a tonic chord to a dominant chord, or vice versa.*

*The same principle applies to all other keys. Tonic is 1-3-5, counting from whatever note you start on;  dominant is 5-7-2-4 (or played in any other order, 2-4-5-7 etc.). Adding the 7th (F is the 7th note going up the G scale) to a dominant chord increases the tension, since there is one more note your ear is striving to resolve back onto the tonic chord.

The tonic-dominant system has been the normal mode in Western music ever since the mid-1700s. Most popular music uses it, even in the era when 20th century “serious” or “art” composers were using more and more dissonances and creating music that avoided resolving back to the tonic. In this respect, rock n’ roll and Beethoven are quite similar. Consider a simple example, the children’s nursery tune, here in the key of C major:

Mary had a little lamb  [E-D-C-D-E-E-E]  [accompanied by tonic chord C-E-G]
Little lamb [D-D-D] [dominant chord G-B-D]
Little lamb [E-G-G] [tonic chord]
Mary had a little lamb  [E-D-C-D-E-E-E]  [tonic chord]
Its fleece was white as  [E-D-D-E-D] [dominant chord] snow. [C] [tonic chord]

This is a typical song form. The melody is sung or played twice. Each time it goes from tonic to dominant back to tonic. Most rock n’ roll songs do this too, while adding a few more chords, notably the subdominant 4-6-1 (F-A-C in the key of C), or F-A-C-E flat (i.e. F 7th). This is the distinctive “blue-note”  of jazz and blues, since E-flat clashes with E of the tonic chord. Even with this cool-sounding dissonance, rock n’roll almost always resolves back to the tonic before long.

Chopin before and after he finds his niche

Chopin becomes simultaneously more old-fashioned and more modern as he developed his own style. His earliest work is more narrowly in the tonic/dominant style. For example, a waltz written in 1829, before he came to Paris, has a conventional sequence of chords in the accompaniment:

            Chopin  Waltz (1829)



The score is in D-flat major, and the chords as you read across the bottom clef are:

D-flat major [tonic], A-flat major [dominant], B-flat 7th, E-flat 7th, A-flat major [dominant], and again:
D-flat major, A-flat major, B-flat major, E-flat major, A-flat 7th, D-flat major [tonic].

This is mostly the cycle of fifths. A-flat major is the subdominant, the third most common chord in the classical style and its descendants. 

One can hear how much Chopin changed by listening to his Piano Concerto No. 1, written in 1830 before reaching Paris. It is an incongruous combination of orchestral effects in the style of Beethoven symphonies, loud blasts of chords in brass and massed strings, alternating with passages of lyrical piano, nice melodies with familiar chord progressions. It contains little that is memorable, nothing comparable to the haunting effects of his famous Preludes. If Chopin had composed nothing but this piano concerto, it would not be remembered. Chopin soon recognized this was not the direction he would make his mark, and composed no more music for large orchestral ensembles.

Chopin found his niche in music for the salon, not for large public concert halls. Big concerts had bigger payoffs (5000 francs or more-- multiply by a factor of perhaps 5 for current dollars) for the few piano concerts Chopin gave when desperate for money. But he felt uncomfortable in big halls, where his light touch did not carry well; and the exclusivity of private salons appealed to his sense of eliteness. Probably he felt out of his element, where he could not keep up with Liszt or Thalberg-- Chopin even said Liszt could perform his music in public better than he could himself.

Chopin’s peak and decline: hustling in the music market

Chopin came along at just the right time to specialize in intimate piano pieces. The lightweight piano of Beethoven’s day had been surpassed by stronger and more resonant pianos. It was one of the most explosive consumer markets of the industrial revolution. Pianos were now constructed with metal frames that did not warp and allowed tighter strings with stronger sounds all across the range from low base to high treble. And they began to be mass-produced, for an expanding middle-class whose prime form of entertainment, as well as claim for cultural status, was a piano in the home. By the 1840s, there were 60,000 pianos in Paris. Along with this came a demand for piano music. The economics of a composer’s career took a new direction. Where previously they had depended on patrons (or the hyper-competitive world of getting an opera produced), famous composers now could make a living by selling music scores. Music publishing had become big business.

 Recorded music did not come along until the early 1900s. In the decades from 1830s through the 1890s, if you wanted to hear music other than by attending a concert, you needed a piano, someone in your home who could play it, and printed sheet music. Operas and orchestral music could be heard in piano arrangements. One of the ways that Liszt padded his income was arranging piano versions of popular operas. At the beginning of his Paris career, Chopin did a little of this too. But his niche was short pieces, like preludes, because they sold well. Obviously, Chopin was far from being a hack, but the economic dimension blended with his special skill. Chopin’s is probably the most beautiful music that an average piano player can perform, not to mention professional pianists and musicologists who see deep excellences in his scores.

Fame brought a composer publishing contracts and high-paying pupils. Concerts were the best way to fame, but Chopin preferred salons where he could pretend to be uncommercial, just another distinguished guest of the aristocracy. This caught him up in a cycle of expenditure. He dressed like a dandy, a style-setter in opera cape and pale gloves, dark gray trousers (no stripes), velvet waistcoat (with a small pattern). His rooms must have dove-gray wallpaper with a dark green border, “nothing loud or vulgar,” and needed a private entrance not shared by children or servants.To make the proper impression on aristocratic pupils, he kept a grand coach to arrive at piano lessons. It took him until the mid-1830s to work himself up to a comfortable level of fame and prosperity (charging $100 per lesson), while his expenses grew along with his status.

The combination of his economic situation, his spendthrift habits, and his need to keep up an aristocratic front probably contributed to Chopin’s declining health during his years of greatest fame. He found himself hustling more and more-- teaching six or seven pupils a day, attending several salons in the evening and playing piano into the small hours of the morning. He got some relief in the summer months, living in a country mansion where he had time to compose. His country hostess and mistress from 1838  (age 28) onwards was George Sand, pseudonym for Aurore Dudevant, an aristocratic heiress and quasi-divorcée, famous writer and exemplar of women’s sexual liberation. But living with Sand created its own strains, with her multiple affairs -- she had a fling with all the Paris celebrities-- and quarrels with her own children over their failed careers and arranged marriages. Chopin distanced himself from her in 1846-- henceforth no more idyllic vacations in the country. His last years were spent in the city, hustling even harder for pupils. In 1848, months of revolution and political turmoil in Paris drove away aristocratic patrons. Chopin finally had to accept an invitation to tour Britain. It was just the kind of public appearances he abhorred, in large halls where his playing could scarcely be heard. English weather and the constant strain of respiratory and digestive illnesses finished him off.

Chopin’s distinctive Style: Prelude in E minor

We can capture the distinctiveness of Chopin’s technique if we look at two of his compositions from 1837-9. I have chosen some of his simplest music, accessible even to persons with a slight acquaintance with reading music. The striking thing about Chopin is that he makes the simple sound beautiful, never banal or boring. How does he do it?

Let us start with Prelude No. 4 in E minor. The key is easy, only one sharp, and the tempo is Largo-- slow, dignified, unhurried. We will walk through it, starting with the melody in the upper clef; then the chords in the lower clef.*

I suggest that you play the upper or melody line on the piano, and also try to sing it.  Each bar or measure has 4 beats, and we will go through it bar by bar. Many of the bars repeat themselves, especially in the melody line.

For orientation, Chopin’s E minor Prelude begins and ends with the tonic/dominant sequence. (The tonic chord is E-G-B; the dominant in B - D sharp - F sharp.) What happens in between is what makes Chopin distinctive.

BARS 1-8

 
The melody line jumps an octave to high B [bar 1], holds it for 3 beats, then the 4th beat goes up to C [bar 2]. Same thing repeats for bars 3-4. Then it slowly descends through bars 7-8.

The same pattern occurs over and over: hold the main note for 3 slow beats, then a brief note upward, or drop to a new note, with long slow holds again.

BARS 9-12



Bar 9 continues descending, 3 beats A, 1 beat G-sharp. Bar 10 briefly livens up the melody line, with a little up-and-down riff of 8th-notes, settling in bars 11-12 onto F-sharp.

BARS 13-16



Finally, in bar 13, we get another little descending 8th-notes riff that gets all the way down to B-- repeating the starting note in the 1st measure--  before skipping up to high D-C-B, bringing us in bars 14-15-16 exactly where we were in bars 2-3-4.

Bar 13 is the half-way mark and the turning point in the Prelude. We have run through the melody once, and finally melody and chord are aligned on a B-7th chord; the dominant chord which should bring us home to E minor. Instead, it’s back to the top, and we run through the melody again, only this time with some new chord changes and a faster melody line.

BARS 17-26



I will skip bars 17-19, and pick it up again on the last note of bar 19: A leading to 3 beats of F-sharp in bar 20; and same thing again bar 20 into 21 at the end of which-- finally! F-sharp drops to E (home key). But not yet-- it teases us for two more measures (bars 22-23): 3 beats E, back to 1 beat F-sharp; and repeats.

Bar 24 looks we’re there-- but not if you look at the left hand, which throws us a switch, harmonizing E with a C-7th chord instead of E minor. We’ll finish up the last two measures below.

That is Chopin’s game: the melody note goes remote from home, then slowly drifting downwards, briefly punctuated with slight upwards teasing notes. In chordal terms, we jump an octave to the 5th (B, in the key of E minor); slide all the way down once; then back up again, slide down even further-- and a little surprise before we finally resolve into the home key.

Shortly we will look at the score again, this time for the bass clef (the left hand piano part). But first, consider how Chopin has combined elements from several styles, creating his unique sound.

Chopin’s ingredients: Baroque counterpoint plus Bellini arias

The melody line in Prelude No. 4  is unusual, compared to Classical style. At first glance at the written score, it looks simplistic. It has none of the ringing high notes, trills and vocal acrobatics favored by opera singers throughout the history of previous opera. It is just a long, slow, descent from B down to E. The descent is chromatic, and each step is held a long time-- it would be an opportunity for a singer to show off her voice quality. It is made even slower since in most bars the melody note is held for three beats, then takes a short upward step on the fourth beat. Everything about the melody echoes itself. 

These brief rising notes usually create suspended chord dissonances.  These passing dissonances are quickly resolved, although they keep on repeating.  They give interest and tension to the melody line: imagine what it would sound like if it were nothing but a straight descent from B down to F-sharp, with every note held for four beats or even longer. These suspended dissonances make the melody work. 

This type of aria was invented by Vincenzo Bellini, an opera composer from Naples who moved to Paris in 1834 and became a friend of Chopin. Bellini was known for the “never-ending melody”, his technique of stretching out the sequence of notes to create sweetness and emotion in the aria. Chopin in effect makes the piano sing a Bellini aria in the melody line, combining it with his chromatically shifting counterpoint in the accompaniment. The combination is the same that Puccini would use in the 1890s and early 1900s in operas with full-scale orchestration (instead of the tonic/dominant accompaniment Bellini still used). Think of the slowly descending aria “Vissi d’arte” in Tosca, or similarly nerve-melting moments in Madama Butterfly that leave you weak in the knees. Puccini is too sweet for some hardened music critics, and it is true that he is more of a culmination than a pioneer of new paths; but the point here is that the techniques that make such music work were created in the lineage Bellini/ Chopin/ Wagner/ Puccini. 

In Prelude No. 4, the overall design is counterpoint, the style of composition that preceded Classical, and that dominated in the century leading up to Bach.  Counterpoint itself developed out of medieval music, which for centuries consisted of singing one line only. When more voices were added, each one followed its own melody. Counterpoint was a technique of singing or playing lines simultaneously, guided by rules for what kinds of relationships there could be between two notes heard at the same time. It had no tonic and no dominant. Various chord intervals were created as the music went along, but the chords were not driving the melody the way they do with Classical music. Chords did not resolve into each other, but just happened coincidentally as the result of the combined melody lines.

This is essentially what Chopin was doing. The E minor Prelude is harmonic to the extent that the melody and chord lines start out and end in the same key. But in between, they go their own way. The overall effect of the chords is a series of coincidences. To be sure, original counterpoint did not sound like Chopin; for one thing, he is much more chromatic than early counterpoint, and the development of keyboard instruments made it possible to play a lot more notes in faster rhythms. Chopin’s counterpoint is based on Bach. His set of 24 Preludes, in all the major and minor keys (more or less), is patterned on Bach’s systematic compositions displaying the possibilities of the clavichord. Bach is also similar since he composed in the early 18th century, when the tonic/dominant system was coming in, and thus combined elements of it with counterpoint. Chopin also sounds like Bach’s predecessors and contemporaries such as Pachabel and Albinoni, who ring through the changes of chords that arise above a chromatically changing base line.

The chord accompaniment line

BARS 1-8 AGAIN



Starting with bar 2, we are in E minor, because the left hand is playing G-B-E.  This is the E minor chord, except in inverted order; E is not at the bottom, which creates a little feeling of tentativeness, since the firmest chord would have the tonic note in the base line. The melody line above it -- high B-- also fits the E minor chord.

The left hand plays the E minor chord eight times in the bar, a steady strumming of eighth-notes in a rhythm that will be maintained until the final 3 bars (24-26). The only exception is bar 13,  where the melody has been played through the first time: the left hand holds a dominant-7th chord for 1 beat, followed by three beats of silence while the melody climbs back to the top to begin again.

A classic tonic/dominant composer would undergird the melody line with chords, not so much by strumming them repeatedly but breaking them into arpeggios (skipping up and down the notes of a chord, which gives a lively but harmonious quality to the “development” parts of a Beethoven sonata where he is elaborating on the theme). Chopin creates more variation in a different way: he gradually changes the strumming chords very slightly so that the harmony shifts. In Prelude No. 4, he changes one or two notes in the chord at a time, almost always descending a half-note. This gives a chromatic sound-- like going through all 13 white and black keys in the octave, and violating the straight-forward sound of a regular 7-note scale (also known as a diatonic scale).

In bar 3, the E minor chord keeps the top E but the lower notes drop to A and F-sharp for 4 repetitions; then the top E drops to E-flat for the next 4 reps; in bar 4, the top E-flat is still there but the bottom F-sharp drops to F natural; then the E-flat drops to D (2 reps), then A drops to G-sharp (2 reps).

If you trace with your finger across the base clef of the entire Prelude, you will see the bit-by-bit dropping of one note at a time happens 18 times while the melody line is first played through. Then back to the top again, dropping more rapidly the second time around. The whole Prelude, in both the melody line and the chord accompaniment, consists of a gradual downward flow.

This could sound mournful, but it’s beautiful. What keeps it from being boring? It’s the steady stream of key changes, many of them strange and surprising.

If you include the melody note as part of the chord underneath it, the Prelude starts out in familiar E minor; then shifts to something that sounds like B 7th except for the E held over from the previous chord-- this would be called a suspended 4th, since in a B chord E is the 4th note, and clashes with the expected D-sharp right next to it. This tension is soon resolved by dropping the E to E-flat (which is the same as D-sharp in the B chord); but then the F-sharp goes to F, creating another strange-sounding chord, which resolves into the next one (D minor 6th)-- and on and on.

Every once in a while there is a recognizable chord (E 7th in bar 5); but nothing is stable, the whole rhythm of the piece is to keep changing the chords note by note downwards.

Obviously, Chopin is not being a tonic/dominant composer. Or is he? The melody is played through twice. The first time it ends on B 7th-- the dominant, which should resolve into the tonic E minor. Now we are back in the normal universe, except that in bar 14 everything jumps back to the high B melody note and the chords start their chromatic journey downward again, with a few more surprises.

Look at the bottom line:

BARS 21-26




In bar 22, the melody line has finally ended its descent to the tonic E; but the chord underneath it is C, then C 7th. In bar 23, the left hand underneath the melody E goes to B-E-A, which is a suspended 4th; the next two eighth-notes resolve this chromatically into B-E-G-sharp-- we’re home, except this is a E major chord and we’re supposed to be in E minor. Two eighth-notes later we drop to the expected E minor-- except that now the melody line rises to a suspended F sharp, for one last bit of tension...

In bar 24: the suspended F goes back to E, but instead of finishing, the low B goes down to B-flat-- now we have a C 7th chord-- where the hell is this going? Chopin piles on the suspense, breaking the strumming rhythm of the entire Prelude by holding the chord for two beats. --- Then--- 2 beats of silence, as prolonged as the pianist wants to make it.

Now both hands are in the base clef: left hand playing low B in octaves; right hand playing E-F-sharp-B-E -- what the hell is this? it should be B-F-sharp-D-sharp to create the dominant chord leading back to E.  A half-note later, the chord resolves chromatically downwards, the E’s become D-sharps, we’ve got our dominant, leading to the final measure which is a full-scale whole note E minor chord: THE END.

In sum: the first chord of the entire prelude is the tonic E minor; at the half-way point between the first and second times through the melody, the chords go from dominant B 7th to E minor; and again in the last two chords to end on the tonic. In between, Chopin follows none of the normal chord transitions.*

* Not even the cycle of fifths, so common in Mozart and the Classicals: a succession of chord changes, each a fifth apart, each one acting as a dominant for the next tonic. The cycle of fifths is a staple of popular songs:

Twenty-six [C major] miles a- [A minor] cross the [D minor] sea [G 7th]
Santa Cata- [C major] lina is a- [A minor] waiting for [D minor] me [G 7th]
Santa Cata- [C major] lina [A minor] the island [D minor] of ro- [G 7th] mance [C major]

Chopin is a tonic/dominant composer at the beginning and end, while in between he follows an entirely different pattern of chromatic changes. These create a lot of strange-sounding but momentary dissonances. The reason Chopin could get away with this, and why he has been so enduringly popular ever since, is because the outer frame of his music is conventional. The audience recognizes the normal harmonies and chord sequences at the beginning and the end, and occasional points in between. It is like a journey away from home, but you eventually get back there. This is the essence of post-classical music (I am resisting calling it by the misleading cliché, “Romantic”). George Bernard Shaw, explaining Wagner to the English public in the 1890s, said that Wagner starts with dramatic but recognizable harmonies, then pulls further and further away (especially in vocal parts of his operas), creating a tremendous feeling of tension; so that when the tension is finally resolved in the climax, it is like a musical orgasm. Chopin is a lot quieter, but the principle is the same.*

* Musicologists have pointed out that many of Wagner’s most exotic chord effects are there in Chopin. Although they never met, Wagner worked in Paris in his struggling years of the early 1840s, and surely would have known Chopin’s music.

Dissonances as plot tension: Prelude in A minor

Try another Chopin Prelude, No. 2 in A minor. This one is even more blatantly disssonant, in the chords accompanying another sweet “never-ending” melody line.

PRELUDE NO. 2  BARS 1-8



Start by tracing the left hand.  The first three bars are exactly the same, 8 eighth-note chords per bar, the second and fifth chords clashing with the lower chord that makes a steady drone every other half-beat. This rippling alternation goes on slowly-- Lento-- all the way down to bar 19, when the melody line takes over and we get a traditional dominant-tonic conclusion.

The Prelude is in A minor, but you wouldn’t know it until the very last chord (bar 23). The beginning measures are especially ambiguous, since the left hand plays two-finger chords. The melody line doesn’t start until bar 3, so in the first two bars, we hear only two notes at a time: E-B / A-sharp-G / E-B / G-G octave / E-B / A-sharp-G / E-B / G-G. 

E-B is an open fifth, the tonic and dominant notes of the E scale; but is it major or minor? Open fifths have a hollow sound. The second chord has G as its upper note, which fills in the minor third-- we are in  E minor. --except that the low note is A-sharp, a very dissonant combination.

Another way to say it is that the middle note of the E chord wavers between B and A-sharp. B is the 5th of the E chord, but A-sharp is an augmented 4th-- if you play A-sharp and B together, the result is is a grating sound, especially when the other notes anchor it in the E chord. Chopin softens the dissonance by having it appear only in two of the eight chords in a measure; the E chord gets the 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 7th repetitions, the dissonant A-sharp-G chord gets the 2nd and 6th, while a bland G-G octave gets the 4th and 8th.

The effect is that the accompaniment is constantly going in and out of harmony, “in and out of tune”.

The same pattern repeats throughout the Prelude. In bars 4-8, the basic chord is D-B, then D-A, then G-E-G,  then B-F-sharp; and so on throughout. The 2nd and 6th chords in each measure create a harsh dissonance, while the 4th and 8th chords usually soften it. This goes on all the way down to bar 19.

Chopin gets away with what in the 1830s would have been considered a horrible dischord. In one respect he pours it on: if it had been played fast it might have just sounded like a passing ripple, but it is played Lento-- you can’t avoid hearing it. But you soon get the idea-- this piece is driven by the device of going in and out of key, in a predictable pattern.

PRELUDE NO. 2  BARS 9-23




Now for the melody line. The melody is simple; it has four phrases, all with the same shape.

In bars 3-7, we start with E, held for three and one-half beats, then down to B (the 5th of the E chord) for a half-beat, and up to D. Then D is held five and one-half beats (ignoring a little F-sharp-E grace note), down to A (its 5th) for a half-beat, and up to B, which is held for 6 beats (including a little syncopated repetition of B). Altogether, the melody first time through moves very lazily from E to D to B. We then get four beats of silence in the melody line, while the left hand continues its alternating harmonic and dissonant chords.

Second time through (bars 8-12), the same pattern is shifted up to B, down to A (with the same grace notes), and then to F-sharp (with the same syncopation). Another silence (7 beats long) in the melody line.

Third time through (bars 14-19), same pattern starting in A, down through F-sharp, to D. After a 2-beat silence, we get:

Fourth time the same melody starts, but more quickly (bar 20): D three and one-half beats-- (including the grace notes), down to A (its 5th).  But then (bar 21) B is added above it, both held for two beats.  B above A, no other notes: what is this? it could be a segment of a B 7th chord, ambiguous because the left hand is silent.

Then two firm chord changes: resolving the A-B into G-sharp-B with E below it-- an E major chord-- not the B 7th we expected; but then comes a full B chord (B-D-sharp-F-sharp-B). Bar 22 repeats the conventional dominant/tonic closing even more emphatically: two beats E major chord, two beats E 7th. The ending (bar 23) is a full-fledged A minor chord rippling from low A upwards.

This is the first time Chopin gives us an A minor chord, although the piece is titled Prelude in A minor. One might call it an A-minor tease. Also, a tonic/dominant tease, since Chopin has been playing with ambigous and dissonant chords all the way through. No worries: in the end, all is revealed; the cycle of fifths is firmly repeated: B-7th-E /  B-E7th /  A minor. Your tradition-accustomed ear is cleansed. It was all a dream, and now you are waking up.

The History of Dissonances: Mozart’s quick resolution

Dissonances of course had been used before. A mild dissonance had been a staple of Classical compositions, certainly since the time of Mozart:

                        MOZART MINUET K.6




In the 8th bar, Mozart plays F-sharp in the right hand against G in the left; but this resolves on the very next note, upper line going up to D, lower line down to D and G-- i.e. resolving into the G chord. He does it again in bar 16, this time playing a B above a low C, then resolving it into a C chord for the ending.

Mozart composed this when he was six years old, and it was quite standard-sounding music for that time (1762). The value of the temporary dissonance is easy to hear. If you play it G over G, C over C, it takes away some of the interest of the piece.

This was a general principle, well understood by composers ever since the tonic/ dominant system came into use. Dissonances drive the music forward, because the ear wants them to resolve into another note. The rules of composition told you how to do this, and to do so more or less immediately. Dissonances play the same role in music as plot tension does in literature.

Dissonances are even more important for tension-creating in Chopin, since he doesn’t resolve them in the conventional way. They are much more frequent, and give a distinctive bitter-sweet quality to his music. Mozart’s music is clear and sweet because he got the most out of tonic/dominant harmonies with the briefest of dissonances. With Chopin, if you change the dissonant notes to harmonies-- as one can easily do with Prelude No. 2 on the piano-- it loses its quality.

Chopin can be considered the first composer in the modern style (usually considered to come after the Romantic style). But he knew how to please his audience, and he didn’t take it too far. The pathway to modern music would increase the dissonances and put off their resolution until later, or not at all.

Chopin and Mozart: dying young

Chopin died in 1849, age 39. In this he resembles Mozart, who died at age 35, in 1791. They lived in different music-market conditions. Mozart had to work harder, because the amateur market for piano scores was as yet small. In his last years, he was simultaneously producing operas-- not just composing and directing them; taking commisions for church masses; giving orchestral concerts, chamber music, anything that paid. No wonder Mozart wrote so much music-- Opus numbers mounting over 600--- he needed the money. Like Chopin, Mozart was a spendthrift, renting posh apartments in Vienna and keeping up with aristocratic fashion as best he could. Mozart literally worked himself to death, staying up all night trying to fulfill commissions. There were a lot of pages to write out-- even if he composed tunes and harmonies in his head-- since he did large-scale works requiring scores for many instruments and voices. Chopin wrote fewer pieces -- reaching Opus 68-- and these were shorter and had fewer instrumental parts. But Chopin spent more time hustling than Mozart, in a daily grind, out on the streets of Paris no matter his bad health, making visits to give lessons and entertain salons.

The image of Chopin as a Romantic artist following his spontaneous impulses is far from the truth. He worked hard over his music, obsessively revising, a self-driven perfectionist. It was not Romantic fatefulness that killed Mozart and Chopin at an early age; nor were they starving artists whose time had not yet come. They had opportunities to become famous and make a lot of money, but neither had a salaried position or a steady income. They lived among the wealthy elite and disguised themselves as one of them, but they had to hustle every day, piece-meal for what the music market could give them. Both worked constantly and under a lot of strain. Whenever there was a temporary setback, they had to hustle even harder. Both died struggling, to do what they did so well, just one more day.

It is tempting to exclaim, what couldn’t they have done if that hadn’t died so young! On the contrary, it is easy to see what they would have done if they had survived their last sickness. It would have been more of the daily grind, with all its strains and susceptability to illness. They were like boxers who couldn’t afford to leave the ring, taking more and more punches until the final knockout.

Liszt, whose career as pianist more or less parallels Chopin’s, escaped alive. How?  Liszt made a great deal of money on concert tours-- more whole-sale income than piece-meal. He was not a spendthrift. And he retired from touring at age 38, taking a salaried position as musical director for the court at Weimar, where he composed at a leisurely pace, and promoted the works of other new musicians, having made the transition from entrepreneur to patron. He lived to 75.


References

Benita Eisner. 2003. Chopin’s Funeral. Random House.

Harvard Biographical Dictionary of Music. 1996. Harvard Univ. Press.

The Cambridge Music Guide.  1985. Cambridge Univ. Press.

Charles Rosen. 1995. The Romantic Generation. Harvard Univ. Press.

Randall Collins. 1998. The Sociology of Philosophies. Harvard Univ. Press.