Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum Just for those totally devoted to Chopin

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