Hershey - how lovely that you, and our mutual Hero, are appreciated by those who matter - real music lovers. And congratulations on your continued success!

Hi Sweet Young Man:

I have to say that as I read aloud the first part of your last paragraph, I got a little choked up. Just the idea that Chopin would have the knowledge of what his music means to so many "millions" (and I am not overstating that figure) and how their lives have been enriched by it and even enpowered by it, the image of this possiblity got to me.

We know that someday you plan on retiring to write your own music. But, I would hope that perhaps once a year, for a few weeks, you could do a bit of traveling to bring Chopin to cities, which have not had the opportunity to see and hear him.

You are right, or course. It is always the audience the actor hopes to please. And you have achieved this so remarkably.

For them and from me, thank you.

Kathleen

Dear Hershey,
Congratulations on the sold-out show! how wonderful and well-deserved! It must be so gratifying to hear directly from the audience how moved they are and how important what you are doing is for classical music in general and Chopin in particular. Thank you!.
I wanted to ask you about the last line of your post, though. I was surprised to see you put Liszt in as someone who you feel hurt Chopin to the point of deserving an upraised middle finger from him. You (and everyone else here ) no doubt knows I admire and respect Liszt as much as Chopin and it puzzles me to see him lumped in with hacks like Relstab and Field, especially since Liszt loved Chopin's music, promoted it, taught it, and played it probably as well as anyone ever has, and spoke and wrote admiringly of Chopin all his life. He and Chopin did have that falling out over the romantic assignation in Chopin's apartment (which was really inappropriate,no doubt) but that did not seem like an attack on Chopin (and certainly not his music) as much as thoughtless reckless youthful behavior. Were there other things you were referring to? I'm truly curious, not just trying to defend Liszt. I know Chopin did not like Liszt so much personally (they had very different personalities) but I like to think that if their spirits are somewhere still, they have left old misunderstandings behind and are able to appreciate each other as fellow geniuses and brothers in music.

Best regards,

Sophia

I think Hersh may be referring to Chopin's preceived jealousy of Liszt, not to anything Liszt deliberately did to hurt him. Also Field was not a hack. He was a respectable minor composer who didn't care for Chopin's music and said so in what was apparently a private conversation, not a deliberately savage review.

This part of the write-up about Hershey that Kathleen posted above has me intrigued:

The actor-pianist also plays the famous Nocturne, Op. 9, No. 2 with a recently discovered embellished cadenza in Chopin´s handwriting from 1834, the manuscript of which Felder owns.

Hershey - which embellishment is this? I know of the embellishment pencilled into Tellefsen's score, and there was the one he wrote out for Rosengardt - is this yet another?

If there is a world beyond this one, there will be no middle fingers to raise.

Of all the composers mentioned on this thread and others, perhaps only Beethoven beats out Chopin for "lasting" quality. And THIS is what I understood Hershey to mean. (Yeah, I know about Bach and Mozart, but I'm talking "piano.") Since we all are big fans of the piano that where our heart lies. And thus, it has to lie with Chopin. Who would have ever thought that frail whisp of a man could do such a thing?

Frycek: I did read that although Chopin was composing his own nocturnes at the age of 18 and although Field was once thought of as the father of the nocturne, it was Chopin that brought together the "heroic and the erotic."
Wow...Chopin erotic! Chopin did admire Field's and even taught his students to play them. Chopin was once told he had the "Field" touch by Kalkbrenner. "It made my soul rejoice," said Chopin in a letter. Did you know that Maria, Chopin's love, was once a student of Field's?' So...what does that mean? Who knows?

Sophia: As I continue to read more about Liszt, I can certainly understand why you would care for him so. He was someone I wished I had known.

Cheers to all,
Kathleen

Hi Again All:

While researching something else, I came across this funny "blurb."

The book is upstairs right now, and I am too tired to get it to do an exact citation, but it read something like this:

Chopin was extremely thin-skinned when it came to criticism of either his compositions or his virtuosity. One critic who had highly praised him on a previous occasion, gave him just a luke-warm review the second time, saying that Chopin will do very well, if only he could play louder (or words to that effect). It really wasn't a terrible review, just not as raving as the first one.

Chopin was mortified but said nothing at all to his friends about it although internally he was fuming. A short time afterwards, he told some people that this critic rarely came to Paris because he owed a lot of people a lot of money.



Well, we never said our hero was an angel, did we?

Kathleen

So, if he didn't discuss it with anyone, how do we know he was internally fuming?

Ha!! Good question, MaryRose. I will now have to go up and check that citation and let you know. I'm probably using a poor choice of words.


Kathleen

Sorry Kathleen. You must think I'm hounding you! Really I am just flying to the defence of my dear Hero.

No problem, MaryRose: To my way of thinking, he really doesn't need anyone to defend him. We can't and shouldn't judge genius as we do us "ordinary" folk.

Kathleen

Mary Rose, your remark about the inaccuracies in Niecks' biography immediately seemed spot on to me, as something didn't ring entirely true about it as concerns—based on what little I know of Chopin the man—his personality and sense of self.

I often have to remind myself that he was, after all, a mortal man, and therefore must have been at least occasionally subject to the baser thoughts that cross every human's mind from time to time. But, after all, everything you mention about the recognition he did indeed enjoy during his lifetime is true!

We also know Chopin was a spiritual man. If he was earnestly pious in private, this would surely imbue his character with humility regarding his own otherworldly gift. What was his fundamental feeling toward it, anyway? Did he fully appreciate the enormity of it?

I believe that an essential modesty and reserve would be in keeping with the dignity and grace with which Chopin handled his illness. Was he ever known to engage in histrionics of any kind? I doubt he shook his fist in the dark at the cruelty of his destiny, and I can't really imagine him railing against perceived slights to his talents, either!

Does this make sense? Or is it the baseless speculation and wishful thinking of a musical ignoramus who practically worships Chopin's music?

Steven

Chopin probably found playing the piano easier than breathing. He never mentions his "gift" in his letters, ocassionally he makes vague reference to specific composition or to "my music." He once jokingly remarked that if the piano thing didn't work out he'd try painting, that sloshing paint around had to be easier than composing. (He did draw well enough to give it a try.) So he was really quite matter of fact about his gift. He only boasts a little bit about his sucesses to his parents to make them proud. Once he stated the Kalkbrenner thought he sometimes played very badly without a discernable whine or wince. I'd say he was as confident of his gift as of his sight or of his hearing and gave it as little thought as it was so very much and so very early a part of him.

Hi Steven: (Sorry that I rather rambled a bit here.)


Chopin was well aware of his genius and intended to make the most of it. If he thought of it as a spiritual gift, I have no idea. I don't recall ever reading that he was thankful to God for it or if he just took it for granted or if he thought he earned or deserved it or whatever. I confess ignornance here. I do know that he thought the world of his first "piano" teacher, who was wise enough to let the young Chopin progress as he did. He was a kind and sweet young boy and young man. If you ever get a chance to read his letters, you will be bowled over by how caring he was and the concern he expressed for others, always.

I do know that he did not take kindly to criticism. He was deeply hurt by it. He couldn't let it roll off his back as easily, perhaps, as others. I think he was one with his music. So an attack on his music was, in essense, an attack on him and vice versa. He gave his absolute all to his creations, so it is easy to understand how he would feel hurt when not fully appreciated. I believe he thought his talents were so unique and so superior to others (and I do not mean that he was an egotist; he just KNEW he was the best, he just KNEW it, period). So when he did not get the admiration (and money also, for he thought his music should get the best price) he believed was due him, he grew angry and despondent. Of course, he did experience much fame and admiration during his lifetime, but at the end, it didn't serve him well at all. He died penniless; someone had to pay for his funeral and for the apartment he was living in. The money and the fame he had attained during his lifetime didn't mean much then.

But what he did have in richness were his friends. They surrounded him during those last days, weeping (and not just the ladies) and mourning the loss of this gentle and wonderous soul. He may have thought himself a failure, perhaps during those last few years, but he didn't get it, not the big picture, in my opinion. No man can be a failure and die with so many mourning him.

Chopin could get angry and could lose his temper. His students, specifically knew that he was not above throwing pencils across the room, and of course, there is that famous story about the number of beats in a mazurka, where Chopin stomped out of the room. And yet he could show huge amounts of patience and caring for his students. I believe the students who incurred his ire were the ones who did not come prepared for their lessons (who can blame him for that.)

No, he didn't shake his fist at God (ala Beethoven), he died very gently, at least "no longer" in pain. He did receive the last rites of the Church because he didn't want to die like a dog and he knew it would please his mother. But the priest had to come to him several times, trying to talk him into it. I believe it was to please his mother in the end. He may have held some disappointments with his Maker, and maybe this was the reason why he didn't take the rites the first time around. He finally did, however, give in. Perhaps, he thought better of it and managed to forgive his maker. Who knows?

If I remember correctly, I believe he did get angry with God for some reason, probably the whole Sand thing. He started dying physically right after it, so his spirit was slowly going also.

Anyhow, that's all I call think of off the top of my head. I know others will have more details and concrete examples.

My bottom line...Chopin was a human, but he was a genius. He was much loved while he lived on this earth, and he is even more loved now...not because of his personality or charm, but because of the magnificence of his music.

Kathleen

He got angry with God and called him a Moscovite when the Russians sacked Warsaw ending the November Uprising. He was in Stuttgart at the time, apparently having a breakdown.

Just back from MC - so much good stuff to catch up on here! But I must answer the question asked by MR - here you go - straight from the horse's mouth (pen???)

H

http://www.nifc.pl/=files/doc/269/kallberg_2006_en.pdf

Hershey - thanks so much for generously taking the time to give me the link about the recently discovered annotated scores. How wonderful to own such things.

Sotto Voce - I think your words "an essential modesty and reserve" describe Chopin's character very well, in his relationship to his genius as in all other matters. He must have known he was an extraordinarily musician; he'd have been stupid not to. Why, even his school report said "A genius!" Yet when praised as a young man, he replied "even a donkey would be able to do it when he had teachers as good as mine". I get the impression he accepted his dual supremacies as pianist and composer as gifts from God that he took deeply seriously, without flamboyance.

Thank you, Hershey, for the link from the mouth of the expert, Dr. Kallberg. I do think there is something strange going on, for just this morning, I was going to write you to ask if you thought it would be OK to write Dr. Kallberg for his opinion on what he thought Chopin thought of his own music.

And then this morning, I get on the computer and find a very interesting and informative, if not curious discussion link for discussion from the man, himself.

I admit I am no scholar (ha, that's has to come as no surprise), and I also admit that I had to read some of the sections in Dr. Kallberg's paper a few times to get the full meaning.

However, (nervy as I can be) I would like to respond to Dr. Kallberg's topic for discussion. And I will later today (my husband is having a 6 hour chemo treatment), and I have to either get a new mouse or a new computer.

Or course, everything I say will be extremely fundamental and/or obvious. But I would like relate some of the information I've read recently. As I said, most will be rather obvious, I am certain, but, somewhere in there, will be my opinion, for whatever it's worth.

Thank you, once again, for taking the time to post...considering how tired and busy you are.

My best,
Kathleen

Thanks for the link,Hershey! should be an interesting read.
Frycek, perhaps "hack" was too strong a word for Field .

Kathleen, best to you and your spouse as he goes through his treatment. Hang in there!

Sophia

Finally got my computer problems solved.

Hersh: Were there ever any official discussions or debates on Dr. Kallberg's findings/paper? I seem to recall a young girl, but I think she was in Rubinstein's life not Chopin's. She was rather a pen pal, I believe, and a very ardent fan. I'm sure if she were in Chopin's life, Dr. Kallberg would have "discovered" her.


Thanks much,
Kathleen

Hello All:

I read Dr. Kallberg's paper once again, and I thought it might be interesting for some of you to "discuss" some of the points he raised.

Please remember I am no scholar, especially on the subject of Chopin (I don't think it's necessary for me to once again remind everyone of this fact), but I hope you will join me in some "thought exchanging," if you will.

One of the first observations made by Dr. Kallberg has to do with Chopin's letters. How different they were from other composers'. His were mostly about "day-to-day" activties. Any of you who have the book: "Chopin Letters" (Dover edition) can attest to this fact. Dr. Kallberg points out that the letters of Beethoven, Schumann, Berlioz and Wagner were just filled with all kinds of observations and social commentaries. Chopin's were not. If one had to describe them as a whole, I would call them very practical, also kind and courteous, asking about the health and/or activities of others. In a word "chatty."

Of course, we only know Chopin why what he has written (and sometimes we have to rely on translations that might not be exactly true) or what was observed and written, first hand, by others. The book: "Chopin, Pianist and Teacher...as seen by his pupils" by Eigeldinger is an excellent source. I think these two books are the only "truth" if we really want to be picky. I'm not saying that other books do not contain useful and important information about our hero. But, if I had to choose...these two would be the ones I would most value.

Dr. Kalberg also pointed out that Chopin's best friends were some of the finest minds of the day. Delacroix, Sand and de Balzac to name a few. In the field of music, of course, Liszt, Schumann, and Mendelssohn. So, it is obvious, that he must have been able to "hold his own" among these great thinkers. And yet, nothing in his letters to give us a clue about depth of his thinking.

Any comments?

Thanks,
Kathleen

Consider his audience. Most of Chopin's surviving letters are to family and friends, not other musicians and he wrote about what would interest them, or what about them that interested him. Chopin was an acutely observant realist with a lively enough imagination to find the realities of the here and now interesting in themselves. He was a genius but not an intellectual, a compassionate man without a social agenda, a patriot who loathed politics. Indeed, he seems to have found most "great thinkers," "do-gooders" and "politicians" to be pompous, self righteous bores. Above all he was a reserved but loving man who did all he could to strenthen the personal bonds that meant so much to him. His letters reveal his humor, warmth, shrewness, practicality and affection but he didn't write or need to write to "express himself." He had a piano for that.

Another first-rate source of information about Chopin is Delacroix' journal. Delacroix was an intellectual as well as an artist and he gave us a glimpse of Chopin's deeper discourse about music, and enjoyed his mind as well as his music.

Excerpts:
Sunday 22nd April 1849[/b]
To Chopin after dinner. He is another man it does one’s heart good to be with, and one’s mind as well, needless to say.

Saturday, 7th April 1849[/b]
Went with Chopin for his drive at about half-past three….

I asked him to explain what it is that gives the impression of logic in music. He made me understand the meaning of harmony and counterpoint; how in music the fugue corresponds to pure logic, and that to be well versed in the fugue is to understand the elements of all reason and development in music. I thought how happy I should have been to study these things, the despair of commonplace musicians. It gave me some idea of the pleasure which true philosophers find in science. The fact of the matter is that true science is not what we usually mean by that word – not, that is to say, a part of knowledge quite separate from art. No, science, as regarded and demonstrated by a man like Chopin, is art itself, but on the other hand art is not what the vulgar believe it to be, a vague inspiration coming from nowhere, moving at random, and portraying merely the picturesque, external side of things. It is pure reason, embellished by genius, but following a set course and bound by higher laws….

Wow...thank you both. We may not be academic scholars in the "accepted" sense of the phrase, but your interest and knowledge in the man may say just as much as many elite thinkers.

Frycek: How perfect is your "observation." I agree, totally. The only thing I can add (and it's a very basic point) is that Chopin did not like to write letters. It may be that those other composers took great pride in writing as an opportunity to expound, who knows? But that was not for Chopin. So it would stand to reason that he did write only (as you say) to inform his family and friends of what would interest them and vice versa. He knew his spelling was terrible and he often would, according to the preface in the book: "Chopin's Letters," refer to many people using different abbreviations, etc. And, (so telling in my mind), he would get so angry with people who would not spell Polish correctly, yet he took little attempt to spell French right. To me, it seems, he just couldn't be bothered. Just another chore that took him away from what he really wanted to do.

Mr. Voynich (who wrote the preface in the book) said he found it difficult to know just how much space to allot to the frequently mentioned public affairs of Poland. "It depended on the place they held in Chopin's affections; and just what that place was I do not know, and doubt whether he did. His love for his native land....is beyond question; nor can there be any doubt of the sincerity of his sympathy with its desperate struggle against alien oppression. Yet that sympathy had strange bedfellows. That he took no part in the struggle need not surprise us; the wind bloweth where it listeth, and a creative artist, however keen his sympathies, must live under the compulsion of his art."

(Maybe Mr.Voynich forgot that Chopin was all ready to join his friends in the fight but was talked out of it. He was very young at this point, and I believe his passion took over his reasoning.)

We can only assume that those letters of his that did not survive were pretty much the same. I, personally, enjoyed his humor, which I wonder were in such evidence in the letters of other composers.

I admire the way you say that Chopin used his letters to keep those who were important to him, close to him. I believe this tells so much about the man, himself. And I doubt if the letters of other composers were meant to do the same. This is but one of the traits of Chopin that endears us to him. And, of course, he used the piano as his means of expression, for here is where he felt the most comfortable and here is where he knew he could make all the commentary he needed or wanted to. Thank you so much, Frycek.

MaryRose: I don't have the Delacroix book, so thank you so much for sharing some of his comments with us. That Delacroix was considered an intellectual as well as an artist, and what he had to say about Chopin's "thinking" is priceless. There was been some disagreement about whether we could consider Chopin an intellectual. But the fact that obviously Delacroix consider him as one may be important to some.

The definition of an intellectual (according to Webster)...

a : of or relating to the intellect or its use b : developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : RATIONAL c : requiring use of the intellect *intellectual games*
2 a : given to study, reflection, and speculation b : engaged in activity requiring the creative

In the second exerpt you provided, there is the discussion of the fugue, which I have often read that Chopin considered the ultimate not just in music, but in thinking, in genius.

Another quote by Delacroix: "True science does not constitute a separate branch of knowledge from art. On the contrary, science, when envisaged like this and demomstrated by a man like Chopin, is art itself."

In my humble opinion, and my gratitude to both of you, I believe that Chopin was, indeed, the perfect definition of an intellectual. For I believe that music is the highest of all art forms, and in all thinking. And the fact that Chopin understood that, and proved it by the music he created, leave little doubt in my mind.

I don't know if Dr. Kallberg would be interested in our "discussion" but we will keep it here and we will leave it up to Hershey to notify Dr. Kallberg as to our "meanderings."

Tomorrow, another topic. And I do hope that you will continue to provide your opinions as you have done so today. I believe they are very valuable, very!!

Regards and, again, thank you!
Kathleen

On the subject of other composers' letters - you really do get a good impression of a person's true character in their unguarded writing, don't you! In Chopin's I think we can see early on warmth, humour and depth of feeling freely displayed to the good Polish friends and family who were the recipients of his letters. He was very unselfconscious and open. Then as time goes on he visibly becomes more and more sophisticated, until by the end he is somewhat sad and bitter, but still with that rich vein of wit and kindness towards others.

I read a slim volume of Beethoven's letters many years ago and I am left with the memory of someone who was rather full of false pride - trying to seem superior in birth than he really was, expecting others to value him greatly, that sort of thing. I always think that sort of sentiment stems from an inferiority complex and I felt sorry for Beethoven, but it didn't make me like him as a person.

Then there is Mozart's correspondence - vibrant, crude, amusing, affectionate, racy, even approaching the pornographic in parts (but we shouldn't blame him for that as those were private letters to his wife). Well worth a read to get a glimpse of his charming personality!

Wow...MaryRose: I must get those books of letters to which you refer. I'll try Amazon as I doubt my library would carry them.

Yes, I also enjoyed reading Chopin's letters. Those early ones were quite funny. One addresssed to a friend said that all had heard that he (the friend) had died and everyone was mourning. Then there is news that he is alive. Well, Chopin asks...are you alive or dead. If you are dead, then I will tell the cook not to prepare your favorite meal (or words to that effect), but if you are alive, I am angry at you for not writing me. And so on...so cute, really. One can't help but get a real sense of his sincere kindness and caring. And always with humor, even near the end...referring to his big nose, etc. Pretty tearful stuff.

As far as Beethoven, I, also felt very sorry for him, considering his pain and his obvious loneliness, which he brought on himself. I read once that he was so conscious of his poor manners and brash behavior that he actually enrolled in charm school. Whether he finished or not, I don't know. But considering his upbringing as opposed to that of Chopin's, it is not surprising that he felt the need to "toot his own horn," for he certainly did not get the childhood love, attention and encouragement that is so essential, I believe, to a strong sense of self-worth and confidence. And, of course, he wasn't raised the gentleman, as Chopin was. He was essentially on his own right after his mother died.

That he managed to compose all that he did is amazing to me. He knew his worth, for he was the reigning king during his lifetime, which, of course, went right to his head. Again, a result of not being raised correctly. And thus, thinking of himself the way he did, his letters would reflect his superiority complex. In most cases, when we come across people like this, we can say thay they are really feeling inferior, but I don't think this was the case with Beethoven. He was so very self-assured. I doubt if he ever had a doubt about his abilities. The only time when he wondered if he could go on (not if he had the ability to create) was, of course, in Heiligenstadt.

I read the book: "Beethoven's Hair." The poor man sufferred, I believe, physically, much more than Chopin. And, to make it worse, he had no real friends during those final days as Chopin did. His story is a tragic one. But his music comes from heaven. I don't how, but it does.

No matter how my heart goes out to Beethoven, it belongs to Chopin.

Thanks, MaryRose
Kathleen

maryrose,
thanks for the excerpts from Delacroix' journal. Those are just fascinating and a window into Chopin's thinking about music and art. I'd love to read more.

Kathleen,
Re: Beethoven- no doubt the man was complex and "difficult". But look what he was up against--an alcoholic abusive father, loss of his mother at an early age, responsibilities for his younger siblings, disappointment and frustration in love, early deafness- just about the worst thing that can happen to a musician, difficulty in getting his music (especially the later and more radical compositions, understood or accepted), terrible GI problems and now as the evidence is coming out- probably lead poisoning which can affect the personality and mind as well as the body. He actually could be very funny and supposedly had a great sense of humor and humanity. His last words were "Applaud, friends, the comedy is over."

Yes, he knew what he was (the greatest musician of his time) and did not shy from it-- but he was right!

Sophia

Just to follow up on my last post --

I think it's also important to put Beethoven into the social context of his time. He was one of the first composers to break out of the system of being employed by and beholden to nobility. Yes, he had patrons, especially early in his career, but he worked to be a self-made and self-employed man, not "owned" as a court musician or kapellmeister. This was a revolutionary age, and he believed in more egalitarian and democratic ideals. Hence, possibly, the rejection of courtly dress and manners, and the pride he took in living by his own abilities and accomplishments. This might be the source of some of his comments that might sound like "false pride".

Sophia

But he also added "van" to his name to give the false impression he was of noble blood; not all that egalitarian or rejecting of courtly values, eh? That was just one side of a complex and in many ways admirable human being.

Hi Sophia:

I agree. Beethoven was the greatest musician of all time. I can't see how anyone could possibly dispute this, but I'm sure they are some who might.

And he certainly was a revolutionary in so many ways. He was the bridge into the "romantic" era. His music boggles the mind.

I remember treating my sister to a concert of his 9th. Beside the huge orchestra (for which he has to be given credit), there were about 300 people singing in the chorus. I had goosebumps on my goosebumps. It was magnificient beyond words. I agree totally that his upbringing accounted for much of his behavior, but I love the fact that he thumbed his nose at the society of which he wanted so desparately to be a part.

I do believe that, at the beginning, he wanted to belong. But he soon saw how shallow these aristocrats were. You are correct in that he was for a more democratic society; however, he thought that because of his genius, he should be given special treatment and regard. So ?????, I guess that democracy applied to everyone but him. I can't blame him for thinking this. He was certainly far from average.

To a prince, he once remarked that there were many princes, but only one of him. And how true that was.

I read that he also loved his wine, as did his father. I would think that seeing what his father turned into and hating him because of it, he would have hated the stuff, but I guess he got some pleasure from it. And, maybe it helped to deaden the pain, physically and emotionally.

But lead was involved in making of wine in those days. Some experts believe that this could have been the source of all his troubles. The very thing that gave him a bit of pleasure may have been responsible for many of his illnesses, perhaps even his deafness. I don't believe they have even found a cause for it. Some think it was because of those terrible blows to the head given by his father, but, again, doctors say this is not the case. And they found no nerve damage.

I know we will never see another like him. But he certainly has given us enough music to last a lifetime or two.

Thanks, Sophia
Kathleen