The Development of the

Romantic Piano Concerto

A Closer Look at Beethoven, Chopin, and Brahms
Erika Gundesen, 14531081
12/8/2009

History 220 Final Paper

 The Development of the Romantic Piano Concerto
A Closer Look at Beethoven, Chopin, and Brahms

With the rise of the virtuoso performer in the nineteenth century, the solo concerto

became one of the most popular genres in the concert world; it was the ideal medium for

talented players to demonstrate their amazing skill. This artistic movement naturally caused

many new developments in the genre, to respond to the growing need for more technical

challenges. The importance of the concert hall as a performance venue for these works also

changed the scale and scope of the orchestral and solo writing, with many innovations

paralleling the progressive ideas in both symphonic and operatic genres of the time.

The piano was emerging as the dominant keyboard instrument during this period,

replacing the harpsichord as a favourite both in the home and the concert hall. Its sound was

much more powerful due to the use of hammers to hit the strings, rather than quills to pluck

them. The original piano (invented by Cristofori in the 18th century1) did not have the same

ability to project as the nineteenth-century instrument; in fact, what became known as the

“modern piano” sound did not really show up until mid-century. Some improvements made at

this time include thicker strings with increased tension and a cast iron frame.2

The idea of the solo concerto had been around since the time of Antonio Vivaldi and his

contemporaries; his influence extended to J.S. Bach, who wrote some of the earliest widely-

known keyboard concertos.3 The genre rose to prominence with the works of the First Viennese

1
Max Wade-Matthews and Wendy Thompson, The Encyclopedia of Music, (London: Anness Publishing, 2003), 227.
2 Wade-Matthews, Encyclopedia, 228-229.
3
Abraham Veinus, The Concerto, (New York: Dover, 1976), 39, 53.
School, the most celebrated keyboard writers of the 18 th century by far; Mozart in particular

wrote 27 keyboard concertos, more than any other single composer.4 They perfected the

formal and harmonic structure known as first-movement concerto form (sonata-allegro form

with a double exposition); established a schematic balance between the solo and ritornello

(orchestral) sections; and a clear order and separation of the movements. The orchestral

sonorities were also expanded to the level of a Classical orchestra, as in the eighteenth-century

symphony. 5

The nineteenth century saw the repertoire for this genre increase dramatically, with many

more Romantic composers choosing to fill Mozart’s shoes, though none wrote as prolifically.

Important figures such as Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Chopin, Liszt, and Brahms were

very influential as well as innovative. In this paper I will discuss the development of the

Romantic piano concerto through the analysis of three representative works, with focus on

formal and harmonic structure, and idiomatic writing: Beethoven’s Piano Concerto No.5 in E flat

Major, Chopin’s Piano Concerto No.2 in F minor, and Brahms’ Piano Concerto No.2 in B flat

Major.

When examining these works in detail, it is first of all important to look at their historical

context, which helps to illuminate what each composer was trying to achieve in this genre.

Beethoven wrote his fifth piano concerto in 1809, which is considered his middle phase of

composition.6 This was the turn of the century, the time of revolution throughout Europe;

4
Ibid, 72.
5
Ibid, 74.
6 Joseph Kerman et al, "Beethoven, Ludwig van," Grove Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com
Beethoven responded to these social influences as his style matured and became more

distinctive. This phase is best exemplified with his third symphony, the “Eroica,” which

introduced his “heroic” style. The fifth piano concerto (nicknamed “Emperor”) was actually

written while Napoleon’s troops were occupying Vienna, and the opening motive of the first

movement seems to consequently have a very military feel. 7 Beethoven’s works at this time

were often grander in scale, with an expansive, powerful sound. They were more complex,

lengthy, and overall very dramatic; he made changes to typical Classical structures such as the

symphony and the piano sonata.

This was also around the time Beethoven began to lose his hearing; he wrote the

Heiligenstadt Testament to his brothers in the summer of 1802.8 However, the fifth concerto

does not demonstrate this suffering but rather shows Beethoven to be the victor of the battle.

As pianist Claudio Arrau wrote: “Beethoven’s music represents struggle and victory [...] In the

sense that his life was an existential struggle for survival, Beethoven is our contemporary [...]

[he] exemplifies all the spiritual and psychic battles of the hero who is given superhuman tasks

to overcome and who, after untold struggles [...] emerges the victor and finally attains the

highest state of self-realization and illumination.”9

While he of course continued to compose until his death, this was truly the end of

Beethoven’s career as a virtuoso pianist; this could be the reason that the “Emperor” concerto

became his last. His playing had actually deteriorated so much that he did not premiere the

7
Veinus, Concerto, 142.
8
Wade-Matthews, Encyclopedia, 334.
9
David Dubal, The Art of the Piano, (Portland: Amadeus Press, 2005), 430.
fifth concerto himself; the first to perform it was Friedrich Schneider in 1811. 10 The relation

between composer and performer is intricate, and it was often the case during the Classical

period that the performer and composer of a concerto were one and the same. Beethoven

likely considered this to be very important, along with his famous contemporaries Haydn and

Mozart.11

The turn of the century was also important for the genre because of the new ideas and

trends that came with Romanticism, particularly with the composers that came immediately

after Beethoven in history. Rather than writing for rich patrons with specific tastes, the artists

of this time preferred something known as “self-expression,” very different than music “made

to order.”12 For this reason, the concerto actually became a less important orchestral genre to

composers, particularly in comparison with the symphonies and tone poems of the century; it

was often criticized as a shallow show-piece made specifically for virtuosos, rather than music

written for its own sake.13 Schumann and his “Davidsbündler” are known for making a stand

against such impressive sensationalism.

This is an interesting point, and it highlights the apparent bipolarity of the society that

revered virtuoso performers as the “rock stars” of the time, Franz Liszt naturally being the most

famous example, and at the same time happily embraced music written especially for

amateurs. This also relates to another genre of piano music, helped of course by the

10
Ibid, 430.
11
Veinus, Concerto, 129.
12
Ibid, 131.
13
Ibid, 132.
development of the instrument; most homes had a piano of convenient size, often an upright.14

Composers such as Schumann and Chopin are often best remembered for their small-scale or

“miniature” piano works. This idea of smaller forms is important to consider in Chopin’s piano

concertos, both composed around 1830; this will be discussed later on.

As in the development of the symphony, there came later in the nineteenth century a

situation of controversy between experimental or progressive forms of the concerto and what

was at the time called “conservatism.” Brahms is the best representative of the latter group,

and also an answer to the pleas of Schumann against meaningless showoffery, a “throw-back to

an earlier and superior conception of virtuosity.”15 Even Franz Liszt, criticized of this very thing,

called out for “a return to the higher purposes of the art.”16

Despite the apparent severity of Brahms’ forms and his “old-fashioned” love for extreme

thematic development as well as Renaissance and Baroque polyphony, he is still obviously a

Romantic; this becomes apparent in his idiomatic writing and his harmony, as well as his

expansion of the formal structure. However, his reverence for Beethoven (which could also

somewhat be called intimidation by the same) and Mozart is important in both his concertos.

In both of these later nineteenth-century works (the second concerto was premiered in 1881)

he “sought, and he succeeded, [...] in housing the new romantic spirit in the old classical

form.”17

14
Wade-Matthews, Encyclopedia, 228-229.
15
Veinus, Concerto, 230.
16
Ibid, 230.
17
Ibid, 234.
 The formal structure of all three concertos can be connected to the idea of first-

movement concerto form, directly related to sonata form (as I said earlier), to which there are

of course endless variations. In the overall form there are also similarities; Beethoven and

Chopin both use the more traditional three-movement structure, with only Brahms breaking

the trend and adding an additional movement to create a more epic or symphonic scale to his

already substantial work.

Beethoven is arguably the first to break with the double exposition that seemed set in

stone by his predecessors; the soloist in his “Emperor” concerto (as well as his fourth, but this

time with more powerful intent) enters with an opening gesture after a single chord from the

orchestra. I call this arguable because it is true that Mozart anticipated this gesture in his E flat

major concerto K271, written early in his life; however, “Beethoven gives the soloist’s

immediate intrusion more weight.”18 This opening functions more as a cadenza-like

introduction to the movement, containing no actual thematic material, although it remains a

part of the overall structure as it reappears later to introduce the recapitulation. A third

cadenza introduces the coda section, but it is much less substantial.

Despite this daring move, Beethoven chose to keep the double exposition format for the

first movement following the introduction. In this way he differs from Felix Mendelssohn, who

in 1845 boldly began his E minor violin concerto with the soloist introducing the first theme.19

However, the two expositions in Beethoven’s work are far from identical; the orchestra

introduces the two main themes (the first rather bombastic and military, the second shyer and

18
Ibid, 143.
19
Ibid, 188-189.
more lyrical, beginning in the tonic minor), which later undergo the most development and

variation in the development section of the movement. However, the solo exposition provides

contrast both harmonically – the second theme begins obscurely in b minor – and thematically,

adding a third military-sounding theme that seems to be a development of the triplet figure of

the first theme. This is followed by an identical codetta, leading into the next section.

The rest of the movement passes fairly typically, with characteristic Beethovenian

processes of developing variation and sequences throughout the development section. It ends

with an extended dominant preparation, with the piano part developing the lyrical codetta

theme leading into the recapitulation; this is where the afore-mentioned second cadenza takes

place. The recapitulation re-states the three themes with appropriate keys for sonata-allegro

form (the piano once again dominating the innovative third theme) and leads to an extended

coda. This final section returns to the first theme once more and gives it more closure, ending

with three authoritative chords – synchronised between piano and orchestra – in the tonic key.

The following two movements, an expressive adagio and an exciting 7-part rondo

(ABACABA form), are joined; this was a typical gesture of the composer, another example being

his middle-period F minor sonata (nicknamed “Appassionata”). This also influenced the later

merging of movements with composers such as Liszt, whose B minor sonata can only truly be

played as a single entity.20 The playful opening theme of the rondo is hinted at during a

transitional period at the end of the second movement, bridging between the very obscure key

of B major (related only by an enharmonic common tone of D#) and the tonic E flat major once

more.

20
Ibid, 143.
 Another important thing to note is the addition of a cadenza in the final movement,

another Classical tradition, although it would usually be placed before the coda of the first

movement. This is apparent in the Mozart concertos as well as Beethoven’s earlier works, such

as the first concerto in C Major. Beethoven wrote this particular cadenza himself, another

influential step; cadenzas in the Baroque and Classical eras were mostly improvised, giving

composers less control. After Beethoven, composers always chose to write their own piano

cadenzas.21

In contrast to Beethoven’s great advances in formal structure, Chopin remains

surprisingly conservative in this respect for both his concerti. He retains Mozart’s form of

complete double exposition in the first movement, with no earlier interruptions from the

soloist; the first movement of the F minor concerto begins and ends with orchestra. The

traditional trills marking Mozart’s codetta and coda are also present in this movement. Both his

concerti are very sectional in the traditional three-movement form and thus stand apart from

the formal experimentation of the time; for instance, one of Liszt’s concerti is a single rhapsodic

movement.22

These pieces have actually been criticized for their formal rigidity, despite their

memorable poetic beauty; they are favourites among modern performers such as Emmanuel

Ax23. While Chopin obviously works off the Mozartian model, this is not a bad thing in the case

of his pianistic brilliance. As Robert Schumann claimed, “If a genius such as Mozart were to

21
John M. Harris, A History of Music for Harpsichord or Piano and Orchestra, (Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, 1997), 57.
22
Veinus, Concerto, 221.
23
Dubal, Piano, 453.
appear today, he would write Chopin concertos rather than Mozart ones.”24 This influential

duo of concerti stands apart in an era where the piano concerto could “only follow either the

epic and heroic path of Beethoven or the knockdown, drag-out showmanship of Liszt.”25

However, it must be said that Chopin was a composer of piano miniatures; he was

uncomfortable with larger forms.26 Thus the first greatest difference from the Mozartian model

is presented; Chopin is hardly concerned with the interplay between solo and ritornello.

Instead, the F minor concerto is much like one of his solo piano fantasies placed in an orchestral

context. Hardly any importance is placed on the orchestra part, and the most important

sections are the piano interludes. This shows the influence of Hummel more than Mozart,

another composer Chopin greatly admired.27 There have actually been a few attempts to re-

orchestrate the second concerto, but these were unsuccessful as they would have involved

changing the piano part; this would, of course, be unacceptable.28

The other major difference from Mozart and also from Beethoven is Chopin’s treatment

of his themes, which are never developed with the Classical methods perfected in Beethoven’s

symphonies and sonatas. The development section of the first movement actually presents

new material; otherwise, he simply elaborates on material that has already been presented,

without truly changing.29 One could perhaps see parallels to Liszt’s later process of thematic

transformation; however, the manner or mood in which the material is presented doesn’t

change dramatically either. Despite this, Chopin’s brilliant piano writing evades thematic
24
Kornel Michałowski and Jim Samson, "Chopin, Fryderyk Franciszek." Grove Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com
25
Veinus, Concerto, 225.
26
Ibid, 221.
27
Michałowski, “Chopin.”
28 Veinus, Concerto, 220-221.
29 Harris, History, 101.
immobility because of his poetic, idiomatic style (more on this later.) He also maintains control

of what one could call the “intensity curve” of each movement, giving it direction despite its

sectional nature.30 In addition, Chopin chooses not to include a cadenza, deviating once more

from Mozart; the improvisatory nature of his style in this piece seems to provide enough

virtuosic material that the entire piece could basically be considered a cadenza.31

The overall key structure of the first movement is Classical and traditional as the form;

the main modulation is to the relative major in the second theme and continuing on into the

development section. Interestingly, the second theme remains in this new key in the

recapitulation, which also features a dramatically shortened first theme. Overall, Chopin’s

harmonies are extremely chromatic and can be compared to any of his solo works, for instance

any of the nocturnes (e.g. F# Major Op.15 No.2) or some of the etudes (e.g. A flat Major Op.25

No.1); his inflections are brief and do not upset the overall tonal structure, again resembling

improvisations.

The other two movements are, again, relatively traditional in form with similar harmonic

content. The second movement is in the relative key of A flat major, with a basic ternary form,

perhaps related to the typical three-part song structure of the time.32 The virtuosic finale is a

rondo with two themes in a basic form of ABA1B1. The B section has several different thematic

ideas, only a few of which are presented upon its return. The A theme is in the tonic key of F

minor; the B theme appears first in the relative major, and then for the final section the tonic

major. I believe this gives the almost painfully expressive minor-key concerto a sense of

30
Michałowski, “Chopin.”
31
Ibid, 101.
32
Michałowski, “Chopin.”
harmonic conflict and resolution, especially considering the extensive harmonic sequences of

this movement leading up to new sections. The final section doesn’t have a triumphant feel like

Beethoven’s “Emperor,” but it does have a sense of playful resolve, in the end, and ends with

powerful confirmation with chords from the orchestra.

Brahms’ second concerto in B flat was conservative (as was earlier stated) in its notion of

clear, comprehensible sections rather than the progressive merging of movements that was

common in concerti of his time. He also re-established the transparent first-movement

concerto form with traditional solo-ritornello interplay in his first concerto in D minor (1858).33

However, he demonstrates his love for the symphonic form by adding a fourth movement to his

later piano concerto, thus making the structure very familiar to connoisseurs of his symphonies:

sonata-allegro (with the added elements of concerto form), scherzo, slow movement, and

finale. The scherzo as a second movement demonstrates a relation with his first symphony

only, as the others use the form as a third movement.34

This concerto is considered a pianistic masterpiece, an immense reconstruction of the

form and style first established 22 years earlier with his first attempt at the genre: “The

interpenetration of solo and orchestral parts, as well as the addition of a scherzo to the normal

three-movement design, brings Op.83 closer to the genre of symphony than any other major

33
Veinus, Concerto, 229.
34
Harris, History, 94.
concerto of the nineteenth century.”35 Amusingly, Brahms (upon sending the score to a friend)

called this immense work some “little piano pieces” with a “tiny wisp of scherzo.”36

Brahms’ first movement shows the influence of Beethoven’s fourth and fifth concertos,

responding to a horn call in the first bar with a solo interruption, soon followed by an extensive

cadenza similar to the “Emperor” in spirit. The parallel to Beethoven continues with a double

exposition, with the orchestra introducing all the main themes which are then elaborated in the

piano’s exposition. The opening movement is the longest of the four, also similar to the

“Emperor.”

Like Beethoven again, Brahms was an excellent symphonic writer; this is evident in this

concerto as there is an immense amount of masterful interplay between soloist and orchestra,

making them almost equal partners in the process. This could perhaps be considered a throw-

back to early Baroque concertos, such as the works of Vivaldi; Brahms once again demonstrates

his knowledge of past ideas. This also presents a huge contrast to the Chopin concerto, where

the piano and orchestra sections were almost completely segregated. There are also fewer solo

cadenzas throughout, giving the piece a sense of unity between the two performing forces.

The movement proceeds with the typical two-theme sonata allegro process, with both of

the contrasting ideas basically in the tonic key of B flat, heading towards the dominant.

However, Brahms uses modal mixture here and the development actually begins in F minor,

which adds an interesting chromatic twist that works well with his procedure of extreme

thematic development. Brahms develops tiny ideas extensively, everything from small

35
George S. Bozarth and Walter Frisch, "Brahms, Johannes," Grove Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com
36
Dubal, Piano, 438.
arpeggiated runs to the common dotted eighth and sixteenth rhythmic motive often used in the

exposition. A very strange change occurs in this section with a strange modulation to F sharp

major. However, the piece is so chromatic by this point that it works very well, eventually

moving back to the tonic key of the recapitulation through a common tone modulation: E# (the

leading tone) to the dominant. The lengthy movement then proceeds to re-state its themes

once more, at times with even more chromatic alterations, for instance a modulation to the

relative minor and the use of mixture chords such as bVI. The movement ends with a virtuosic

run up the keyboard and three final-sounding chords with piano and orchestra together. Once

again, the small parallels to the “Emperor” are very interesting.

The second movement, the scherzo, is actually the only one of the four not to take place

in B flat major; instead, it is in the relative minor, with a stormier character.37 The basic form is

ternary, with a beautiful central episode in D major that could cause the movement to be

classified as a scherzo and trio.38 The third movement, Andante, could almost be considered a

chamber music piece for piano and solo cello, once again in the tonic key with very intimate,

expressive themes. It should be especially noted that neither instrument shares a melodic

theme with the other.39 This movement demonstrates Brahms’ equal mastery of smaller forms,

as well as his Romantic spirit and integrity.40 The final movement is in sonata-rondo form with

five clear sections, each with a different mood, and moving through keys such as the dominant

and, obscurely, A minor. The final section is much faster, ending triumphantly and impressively

with three final tonic chords, as in the first movement.

37
Bozarth, “Brahms.”
38
Ibid.
39
Ibid.
40
Veinus, Concerto, 231.
 I will touch briefly on the idea of idiomatic writing in all three concertos; each had a

specific style, though all were virtuosic in their own way, and this style also transfers to their

solo keyboard works. Beethoven, Chopin, and Brahms were all extremely talented pianists,

which is part of the reason why their concertos have remained so popular; they understood the

nuances and the capabilities of the emerging instrument, and pushed it to its technical limits.

Beethoven introduces challenges in the fifth piano concerto such as fast, extensive scale

and arpeggio passages; sections with octave runs, or melody in octaves; long trills; and many

more very difficult elements. As the most symphonic of his concertos,41 the overall writing is

bigger, more expansive, and requires flexibility of the wrists and fingers to achieve the needed

power and grandeur.42 However, as in many Classical compositions, one of the main challenges

is control of the touch and the sonority; nothing should be too harsh, the gestures smooth and

logical, the overall idea of transparency maintained throughout. Although more projection is

needed in an orchestral situation, the technical approach to this concerto would be similar to a

sonata such as the No.21“Waldstein” or the No.29 “Hammerklavier.”

41
Kerman, “Beethoven.”
42
Please note that this is based on my own analysis of scores and recordings.
Courtesy of http://www.imslp.org

Chopin’s virtuosity in the F minor concerto is much different, derived (as was stated

before) from his essential identity as a miniaturist. Indeed, many themes and gestures can be

directly compared to some of his solo works; for example, the A theme of the finale has the

rhythmic feel and texture of a Polish mazurka, which speaks to the influence of nationalism.

The first two movements, on the other hand, are more in the style of his beloved nocturnes, for

instance the wide-spread arpeggiations as well as a highly ornamented melody.43 Indeed, the

parallel is so exact that I was able to find an exact rhythmic and idiomatic idea replicated

between the second theme of the first movement and Chopin’s C# minor Op. Posthumous

Nocturne.

Concerto:

(Courtesy of http://www.imslp.org)

Nocturne:

43
Michałowski, “Chopin.”
 Courtesy of http://www.imslp.org

The parallel to the nocturne extends to the vocal-like bel canto melody which is so

essential to any Chopin playing44; therein lies one of the greatest challenges, which is once

again the control of the sound. The melody must carry through uninterrupted (particularly in

the highly lyrical second movement), with uniformity of sound being the highest priority; any

kind of break disrupts the intimate poetry of the line.

Chopin was nicknamed the “poet of the piano,” and “although it is true that [his

influence] is immensely strong as regards to technical novelty and improvement, it is still

greater from a purely musical point of view, for no one has used the instrument to express

feeling so intimately as he has done.”45 His textures are also characterized by layered idiomatic

counterpoint, and subtle dynamic shadings which are also essential.46 Chopin seemed to know

the piano better than anyone, and every gesture – melodic or simply ornamental – perfectly fits

the hand.

Finally in Brahms, we have a different sort of virtuosity. The B flat major concerto is

actually considered one of the most difficult in today’s concerto repertoire; only the greatest

performers have truly mastered it, such as Richter and Rubinstein.47 While the writing is still

idiomatic, with a great sensitivity to sonority, it is much more awkward and less intimate than

Chopin’s style. It is very expansive, with large chords that can be awkward, requiring great

strength and flexibility as well as control. There are also large leaps and arpeggiated runs; in

44
Ibid.
45
“Frederick Chopin.” The Musical Times (51, no.805, 1910): 147.
46
Michałowski, “Chopin.”
47
Dubal, Piano, 438.
one memorable section, the piano imitates the simple opening horn call with arpeggiated

octaves.

An overarching melody is not as prominent in this type of writing; the little cells that

Brahms develops can be as simple as a gesture, which thus becomes thematically important to

the form as was stated earlier. However, one of the greater challenges here is most likely the

same as in the Beethoven and Chopin concertos: the issue of control. The concerto should

have a certain ease (again, this is based on recordings and score analysis) and never sound

really heavy or bombastic, which is a risk with such “large” writing.

Courtesy of http://www.imslp.org

Courtesy of http://www.imslp.org

To conclude, these three concertos are a great representation of the variety of styles and

ideas in form and virtuosic writing present in the nineteenth century, developing the genre into
a major art form so popular that it is regularly part of the concert repertoire of orchestras

worldwide. Idiomatic gestures, formal and key structures from this time were extremely

influential in the coming decades; an excellent example is the second concerto of the Late

Russian Romantic Sergei Rachmaninoff, written in the early 20th century.

The concerto begins with an introduction by the soloist, showing the influence of

Beethoven’s last concertos. Rachmaninoff brings the idea of Chopin’s vocal, overarching

melody to an even greater level, and also contains an overall harmonic conflict and resolution

similar to the F minor concerto. The concerto begins in C minor and ends triumphantly in C

Major, perhaps with some influence from Beethoven’s heroic style; it’s hard to say for certain.

The interplay between performing forces and masterful orchestration could show a

continuation of Brahms’ ideas, and many of Rachmaninoff’s virtuosic figurations show his

influence as well. Examples include extended arpeggiation passages, and areas of dense chords

requiring great power and flexibility from the pianist.

The reputations of many of the greatest pianists are based on their performances of the

great concertos, and many of the most well-known works are from the nineteenth century. The

piano concerto remains the leading genre for pianistic expression in public; solo recitals are rare

in comparison. The Romantic piano concerto has achieved this musical celebrity because of the

range, depth and variety of sounds possible on the modern instrument, as well as the vast

assortment of repertoire that combines exciting orchestral collaboration with great virtuosity

and emotionally moving expressivity.

 Bibliography
Books and Articles:

Bozarth, George S. and Walter Frisch. "Brahms, Johannes." Grove Music Online. In Oxford Music
Online. http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com (accessed November 22, 2009).

Dubal, David. The Art of the Piano: Its Performers, Literature, and Recordings (Revised and
Expanded Edition). Portland: Amadeus Press, 2005.

Harris, John M. A History of Music for Harpsichord or Piano and Orchestra. Lanham, MD: The
Scarecrow Press, 1997.

Kerman, Joseph, et al. "Beethoven, Ludwig van." Grove Music Online. In Oxford Music Online.
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com (accessed November 24, 2009).

Michałowski, Kornel and Samson, Jim. "Chopin, Fryderyk Franciszek." Grove Music Online. In
Oxford Music Online. http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com (accessed November 24, 2009).

Veinus, Abraham. The Concerto. New York: Dover Publications, 1976.

Wade-Matthews, Max and Wendy Thompson. The Encyclopedia of Music: Instruments of the
Orchestra and the Great Composers. London: Anness Publishing, 2003.

“Frederick Chopin.” The Musical Times 51, no.805 (1910): 145-150.

Musical Scores:

Beethoven, Ludwig van. Konzert für Klavier und Orchester Nr.5, op. 73. Leipzig: Breitkopf &
Härtel, 2003.

Brahms, Johannes. Piano Concerto No.2, op.83. London: Ernst Eulenberg, 1900(?)

Chopin, Fryderyk. Konzert f-moll für Klavier und Orchester, op.21. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel,
1979.