Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Chopin's sadism

Charles Rosen, in his book "The Romantic Generation", mentions the physical pain that virtuoso pianists sometimes endure. He mentions, at page 383 of his book,that Chopin's emotional intensity is revealed in the physical intensity required of the performer:

"Chopin's sadism is usually more subtle than that of his contemporaries, and in most of his work actual pain is associated with emotional violence."

"In the etudes of Chopin, the moment of greatest emotional tension is generally the one that stretches the hand most painfully, so that the muscular senation becomes--even without the sound--a mimesis of passion. Perhaps that is what lies behind Rachmaninoff's reported reaction to Alfred Cortot's recording of the etudes, almost the cruellest observation ever made by one pianist about another: 'Whenever it gets difficult, he adds a little sentiment.'"

"...The hand of the performer literally feels the sentiment. This is another reason why Chopin often wanted the most delicate passage played with the fifth finger alone, the powerful cantabile with the thumb. There is in his music an identity of physical realization and emotional content that is paralleled by the identity of tone-color and contrapuntal structure."

****

The above-mentioned line about Rachmaninoff's comment on Cortot was recounted in Harold Schonberg's bio of Horowitz. Horowitz was visiting Rachmaninoff in Switzerland in the late 1930s. Horowitz said that he walked into Rach's apartment while Rachmaninoff was listening to a recording of Chopin etudes. Rachmaninoff was laughing so hard that his dentures almost fell out, according to Horowitz. Horowitz asked "What's so funny?". Rachmaninoff answered "Cortot. Whenever it gets difficult, he adds a little sentiment."

"Whenever it gets difficult, he adds a little sentiment." If that statement was made by Rachmaninoff about Cortot, I wonder why Rosen proceeds as though it referred to Chopin himself in his next paragraph.

Overall, I think Rosen's suggestion of "Chopin's sadism" for the supposed reasons he cites is a paradigm of taking a predetermined belief (opinion, view, mindset, etc.) and then looking for evidence, however tenuous, to support its validity. I prefer the opposite approach, viz. that conclusions instead be drawn from evidence that makes a clear and compelling case on its own.

I would be interested in more specific citations that would give credibility to something as imaginative and hyperbolic as "In the etudes of Chopin, the moment of greatest emotional tension is generally the one that stretches the hand most painfully, so that the muscular sensation becomes--even without the sound--a mimesis of passion." That's not only fanciful, IMHO, but thoroughly vague as to the specific musical sources of the phenomenon he alleges.

Having studied only about half of the etudes personally, maybe a "mimesis of passion" awaits. I haven't encountered it yet, nor anything resembling what Rosen describes.

More broadly, isn't his contention contrary to the received wisdom that Chopin's writing lies well under the fingers? Maybe that characteristic is absent only from the climactic apices of "the etudes"?

Disclaimer: I haven't read the book in question, and my comments are based solely on the extracts from it in the OP.

Steven

Is there a correspondence of great emotional tension with wide stretches in the etudes? Is that a safe generalization, regardless of Rosen's conclusion? Just curious.

Tomasino

"Overall, I think Rosen's suggestion of "Chopin's sadism" for the supposed reasons he cites is a paradigm of taking a predetermined belief (opinion, view, mindset, etc.) and then looking for evidence, however tenuous, to support its validity. I prefer the opposite approach, viz. that conclusions instead be drawn from evidence that makes a clear and compelling case on its own."

****

Rosen likely bases his views on his own experience as an eminent pianist and musicologist.

Also, Rosen devotes three long chapters of his book to Chopin. He regards Chopin as a great genius, and one who has been unjustly slandered for being incapable of writing "larger" forms of music. In fact, Rosen credits Chopin for having greater mastery of counterpoint and part writing than any of Chopin's contemporaries.

That says nothing about the hard evidence that supports those views. If Rosen feels "actual pain," examples should be provided as a matter of course for what is otherwise an outlandish claim. As he is indeed a respected musical scholar, I suspect there has got to be more to his presentation than those brief quotations suggest.

Tomasino, I think it goes beyond not standing up as a safe generalization. Of the 27 etudes, it's difficult for me to think any examples.

Maybe it's in the hand of the beholder—or completely subjective, in any event. How, after all, does one precisely define "the moment of greatest emotional tension," anyway? Could there be a consensus that distinguishes such a moment from all the other moments of just-plain-ordinary emotional tension?

Steven

This is exactly what I was talking about in another thread. There are such a wealth of musicologists who talk about music as generally as possible and avoid saying anything specific, or more to the point, anything worthwhile.

I've looked at a couple and sometimes yes, sometimes no. YES: op. 10/9 NO: 10/12, 10/2, 10/1, 25/6

Regardless, these are just my opinion. Rosen's argument is not a rationally defensible one.

Chopin just wants you to relax. Then you'll enjoy it.

Chopin - sadistic? Good grief! If any of the composers of his time could be termed such, it would have to be Liszt. So much of his music is impossible to play for most, and I would venture the reason why. The human hand wasn't made to endure such torture.

As Frycek mentioned, Chopin always stressed "facilement," as in "easy does it."

And while I do not have the technical skill to play any of his etudes, I have discovered that listening to all of his works for the past 50 years, and playing many for the last four, that the greatest moments of emotional tension (IMHO) often come from one note in the RH against just one note in the LH. The 10/3 and 28/4 perhaps the two greatest emotional pieces that Chopin composed are so because of the melody line and not due to any crashing together of impossibly difficult chords.

But then I am not a musicologist, so what do I know?

Kathleen

OT, yes, but this caught my eye.

My introduction to Cortot was the very recording Rachmaninov was listening to. Mind you, I knew the Pollini and Ashkenazy recordings, so the standards were impossibly high, but Cortot sounded almost like a pianistic Florence Foster Jenkins.

Forget organizing the notes into any coherent musical statement, Cortot struggled just to hit the right notes. Very distressing- any pianist playing like that today would be laughed off the stage... and as for applying to Curtis?

Most bizarre of all, I went on to read all this praise of Cortot, both in American and Brit periodicals. Some pianistic specialists consider Cortot absolutely tops. I admit my appetite for Cortot vanished on the spot and I haven't really investigated much else, but I do have to ask: what the heck are people hearing in Cortot that I'm not?

One flummoxed Argerich fan.

I wonder of Rubinstein, too, heard Cortot's apparently risible performance and decided not to risk putting himself on the receiving end of Rachmaninoff's (or anybody else's) dentition.



Steven

I have it on very good authority, from a pupil of a pupil of Cortot, that Cortot absolutely fell apart when he tried to record and that his recordings give no real idea of what the man was capable of doing.

I can understand why a student would say that, but I hope I'll be forgiven for a bit of skepticism. It doesn't make much intuitive sense to me. If Cortot "absolutely fell apart" in the studio, why did he make so many recordings?

My teacher (an IU-trained DMA, tenured professor at a fine music school) spoke very highly of him. His perspective was the Cortot had one chance to play a piece, have it recorded for all time, and must have been enormously frightened by the prospect. He then went on to say that the technical foibles notwithstanding, he had "such incredible musicianship and phrasing."

By then he probably needed the money.

I am not sure if you are aware, but Rosen is an extremely controversial musicologist. His work on the sonata form and classical style are definitive, but his writings on other subjects are often controversial. Other musicologists either detest or adore him.

The same goes for his playing. It is very cold, calculated, and antiseptic. Technically controlled, but totally intellectualized and rigorously unsentimental.

Thus, Rosen is not by any means a definitive source.

That being said, I greatly admire his writings for the most part, and even had occasion to hear him play live. Afterwards, I mentioned that i have read the Sonata Forms book, to which he replied "That's the one with the best jokes."
However, his playing of Chopin's Waltzes, Barcarolle, and F Minor Ballade set me off from Chopin for months! The other pianists who went with me just couldn't stand the ballade .

Takehome message: Take it all with a grain of salt and a dash of pepper.

I've read all of Rosen's books on music (he has also written on other subjects, i.e. poetry, but have not read them), and whilst I don't always agree -cf Mendelssohn- he makes a solid case for sometimes wayward opinions. For all that, I'd never want to take him on in an argument!

I've heard Rosen live in several Mozart concertos, and had much the same impression. Like Alfred Brendel, I wouldn't want to hear him play Chopin.

And yet...FV... you met the great man! I would be honoured.

From what I have heard: Cortot even recorded the Beethoven 32 .. but it was very sloppy that producers were very embarrassed to release!!

But again: was Rachmaninoff making fun of him or was he just putting a general comment?
Also notice he does not comment on his technique.

I love many of Cortot's Chopin etudes recordings. Did you listen to his Op.10 No.12 or even better the Op.25 No.7!!?

I just wonder given Rachmaninoff's comment how he would have played them himself. He didn't even leave us one for eternity.

Music is not different from other disciplines in that people tend to specialize and perhaps excel in only one or rarely a couple of areas. I do not expect concert pianists to be musicologists or to write about the art and science of music, neither do I seek the artistry of musicologists when I want to attend a concert..
Thus the fact that Rosen is not a great perfomer does not diminsih his credibility when he discusses Chopin. (FV:"Thus, Rosen is not by any means a definitive source." Me: sure; nobody is, but his lackluster playing does not diminish the value of his input).

Having said that, I also would have liked him to be more "scientific" in giving examples that support his statements, thus agreeing with literal-minded and not so sotto voce Steven...

I absolutely love most of the comments. I had been planning to post a comment when the thread first started, but refrained out of a wish not to criticize the original post. Well, a whole lot of people beat me to it, and I have very much enjoyed their comments. The original post that started this thread sums up why I went to law school: even though I was an English major, I could not stand reading stuff like that in the world of literary criticism, and I equally dislike it in any other realm. Not that the law is exempt from this kind of commentary, but at least one can avoid it if one tries.