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

Hi Hershey:

You have been going through your own personal heck these past several days. With all that has been happening..broken contracts, broken promises, unexpected audiences. You must have the patience of a saint. I hope you have a few nerves that aren't shot to heck.

The word "aficionado" comes from the Spanish and Latin and means to "inspire affection." Wow...that covers the gamut! This lady obviously liked classical music; hence, she was an expert. Huh?? Wish it were that easy.

What is that saying" "Tis better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you a fool than to open it and let them know for certain."? Perhaps Ms. Margulies thought that your musical play was light fare and didn't call for an expert in musical history or knowledge. Well, she proved herself wrong. Or should I say...you proved her wrong.

We all know the pains you have taken to make certain that M.Chopin is as factual as it can be. That you constantly conferred with "the" expert, Kallberg, to help you get those facts straight would have definitely scared her away, if she had done a bit of her homework. I think if Ms. Marguleis knew about Kallberg and realized that you were a musician first and foremost, one who took what he was doing with all the reverence and dignity possible, she might have insisted that a music critic from the Arts and Culture section take over. She just got herself in... way over her "cultured" head.

And when did Chopin develop OCD?

I thought he washed his hands because he told his students not to touch the piano with dirty hands. Gosh, didn't the poor guy have enough problems without OCD?

Oh, Chopin was not very impressed with John Field's playing, either.

And Rellstab who once referred to Chopin's music (the Don Juan variations) as "vandalism perpetrated on Mozart's melody" as typical of a work originating in the "primitive roots of the Slav nations." Also., he later attached the nocturnes as charming romances when held up to a mirror (reflecting those composed by Field). And the etudes...he advised anyone attempting to play them to have a surgeon in advance, as permanent finger damage was unavoidable. People should tear Chopin's music into 1,000 pieces.

But he finally came around...he was the last one to do so (I am adding). But the damage was done. "This was the central tradegy of Chopin's life, explaining so much about him, and it was best put by one of his first biographers, Frederick Niecks:

'No artist can at heart be fully satisfied with the approval of a small minority; Chopin, at any rate, was not such a one. Nature, who had endowed him with the qualities that make a virtuoso, had denied him one, perhaps the meanest of all, certainly the least dispensable, the want of which balked him of the fulfillment of the promise with which the others had flattered him, of the most brilliant reward of his striving. In the lists where men much below his worth won laurels and gold in abundance, he failed to obtain a fair share of the popular acclamation. This was one of the disappointments which, like the malignant cancers, cruely tortured and slowly consumed his life.'

I recommend Tad Szulc's "Chopin in Paris," for more insight about Chopin from Niecks. It's pretty sad.

Anyhow, Hersh...an artist (why do I know you know this) has to have thick skin and a soft heart. It is by no chance of luck that you have both.

Take care,
Kathleen

Frycek:

John Field, a wine-imbibing Irishman credited with inventing the nocturne and much admired by Chopin, told musician friends afer meeting him during a 1832 Paris visit that Fryderyk's compositions were a "sickroom talent." The comment was repeated to Chopin, who later attended the two concerts given by Field.

(I am only guessing here...but it could be possible that this is when he was "not impressed" with Field's playing.) :rolleyes:

It is written that while Field composed short, airy, pictures of light, Chopin took the form and gave it a soul. I believe that's a fairly accurate description.

K

Just got up and those words of Ms. Margulies were whirling around in my mind like a cylone. I know some of my "ill will" is based on my adoration of the subject (both subjects, I should add), so I won't be too harsh on her. But there are just a few points that I would like to raise that I found distressing, to say the least.

"And the music lesson is less than a reasonably cultured person could hope for but perhaps more than a newcomer to music theory could understand." Did she really expect a piano lesson in this hour? Perhaps the right fingering of scales or the correct tempo of a mazurka? Didn't or couldn't she realize that the "lesson" was merely a theatrical device to present the subject? And to show the audience that Chopin was quite respected as a teacher. And to show his strong sense of responsibility to his students to give them the best he could. How much he enjoyed giving lessons. I believe this came across wonderfully? We saw a side of Chopin that we were not aware of. At least I wasn't.

" neither the pleasant session of competently played music " I really got upset with this remark. Hershey does not play competently. Anyone who has heard him will attest to this. Yes, we are used to recordings where not an error is made, but I (and I know thousands of others) believe that considering everything (even that warhorse of the piano at the Polish Embassy) that his playing is far from competent. Competent means "sufficient." I've listened to Hersh's Rhapsody in Blue (recorded live) and it never ceases to give me the chills. And I've worn out his CD of M. Chopin. I should live to be so "competent."

I believe Hershey took care of her comment about Chopin's anti-Semitism and that ridiculous women remark. Also Hershey was "right on" in his final few sentences about Margulies critical remarks. All in all, it was a good review, albeit one that was not completely grounded in knowledge. And I do like her last sentence about bringing classical music to a new audience.

As far as Chopin loving the limelight, the mimic...this is true, only to a point. He loved performing for those with whom he felt comfortable and accepted.

Niecks concluded that "opposition and indifference, which stiumulate more vigorous natures, affected Chopin as touch does the ""Mimosa pudica, the sensitive plant---they made him shrink and wither."

In what may still be the most insightful judgment of Chopin's personality , Niecks wrote that 'there was then, and there remained to the end of his life, something of a woman and a boy in this man.' And Niecks's opinion deserves to be taken most seriously. He knew, and interviewed Chopin's contemporaries and friends, from Liszt, Heller, and Delacroix to a large number of Poles and others who had known him over the years and he read all the correspondence he could find, along with diaries and journals.

(I don't know about the woman and boy in Chopin's nature. I suppose if we could stretch our imagination, we could see the boy. A child, wanting adulation, while also needing to be cared for. As for the woman...perhaps the sensitivity. Just a guess.)

Chopin's exaggerated sensitivity was undoubtedly the main rason for his reluctance to play in public as distinct from salons with only small groups listening to him. ..., "He once explained to Liszt: 'I am not at all fit for giving concerts, the crowd intimatidates me, its breath suffocates , I feel paralyzed by its curious look, and the unknown faces make me dumb (boy, I could have written this).

And Liszt noted correctly that "if Chopin suffered on account of his not being able to take part in those public and solemn jousts where popular acclamation salutes the victor; if he felt depressed at seeing himself excluded from them, it was because he did not esteem highly enough what he had to do, to do gaily without what he had not."

(I see now how he changed... from that self-confident. 'can do it all' person as he left Poland to a few years later. Just a shadow of his former self (image). Could this possibly be the reason?)

The above was taken from "Chopin in Paris" by Tad Szulc.

From what I can ascertain from all this and from what I wrote in yesterday's post, Chopin's inability to perform publicly kept him from being the "best" of this time. And although the music he composed was considered magnificent, it was expected that musicians had to perform. If they didn't, and even though their music was highly acclaimed, they were not the "victors" of the time. This is what made Chopin depressed (I believe this). I believe he believed he HAD to be the best.

Now, why and how did he develop such a fear? That is open to much speculation.

Perhaps, he was such a perfectionist that the thought of hitting a wrong note would destroy him.

Perhaps, because he was used to constant praise from early childhood on. Even at the age of 4, he was surrounded by those who admired and were astounded by his ability. He learned to accept this as a "given." As he got older and played for strangers, that praise was not always there, and this weakened his self-confidence and self-esteem.

Perhaps, because he grew up in a small community, with close friends and loving, doting parents, he acquired a super-ego. One that was crushed when he got to Paris and Vienna.

That he could not compete with the other "giants" of his time because of this "performance anxiety" must have thrown him in the depths of despair. Yet, there was no answer for him.

I often wonder if he secretly wished that he could be more like Liszt. How he admired his ability to "get out there" and wow the crowd. Something only Chopin could dream of.

Sad, but understandable and perhaps a clue to his mysterious nature.

Kathleen

For me, I am SO GLAD to have posted that silly review to inspire sch good research as above. It's wonderful - I don't have to read a book ever again, Kathleen, Frycek, MaryRose and gang do it for me - just check in here, and I remember exactly who Chopin is! SO GREAT really - and all with so much respect!

One little addition about Field - if I am not mistaken (and I may be, so K, MR, or F to the rescue...) when Chopin pplayed for Kalkbrenner - over the possibility of the lessons early on in Paris, Kalkbrenner commented that Chopin "had the style of Cramer and the touch of Field" which he later reported in his letter home "pleased him very much..." so he must have known something of Field - that Field, whose nocturnes are UNPLAYABLE (sorry - but talk about "sick room talent." Field is a sickroom talent, in one key, going from I-V-I-IV-I with nary a sign of music...) it amazes me firstly that anyone couldn't see the massive invention of Chopin, but that someone who composed like Field should have anything to say at all is just staggering.

But that's what we see about the world - never changes... much more of the same. The fact is, Frycek got it right, I am a target, every night, and there are those who are gratuitous and silly like Field, and then there are those who understand and supportive. I don't make claims to be anything other than what i am, a working artist who brings music and stories to the public - as large a public as can be. And if someone's oh so pure aesthetic is aggaravated by what I do (and Lord knows, it goes on a whole lot - ) it just is what it is... there are lots of people who do 'get it' - and I am always reminded of what was said about our dear Chopin in his day... I should be such a sickroom talent!

XOXOX H

Really though, I don't think we need to slam JOhn Field just because he didn't appreciate Chopin. I like Field's nocturnes very much and play two of them. Chopin also thought enough of them to use them fairly extensively in his teaching. They do require a delicate touch and are easily spoiled.

Okay, okay, I give in... but I must say, john field isn't Chopin, and what can i say, i have a very negative reaction to folks who are just nasty for whatever reason. And Field was nasty to Chopin, unnecessarily and gratuitously.

Sure John Field requires a delicate touch, everyone does - but it really is simplistic stuff - even for the period.

Hi Hershey,
I can't imagine putting myself out there every night as you do, and I admire it greatly. With a few notable exceptions, a lot of critics are really not all that knowledgeable and their opinions are just that, one more opinion that may or may not hold much water. Interesting how some of the greatest (Chopin, Liszt, Beethoven) got panned by some of the big name critics of the day ... The world was obviously not ready for them.

Sophia

Quote from Kathleen:
From what I can ascertain from all this and from what I wrote in yesterday's post, Chopin's inability to perform publicly kept him from being the "best" of this time. And although the music he composed was considered magnificent, it was expected that musicians had to perform. If they didn't, and even though their music was highly acclaimed, they were not the "victors" of the time. This is what made Chopin depressed (I believe this). I believe he believed he HAD to be the best.


HI Kathleen
I think Chopin also was in a sense the victim of bad timing. Previously, solo piano had been a small chamber event rather than a concert hall one. It was Chopin's bad luck to come of age when this was changing, not to mention coming at the dawn of the virtuoso age, when Paris was full of pianists all jockeying for position as the preeminent virtuoso of the day. None of this worked in Chopin's favor in that he disliked the large concert hall and the competitive arena approach to piano playing. And understandably so. Luckily this did not stop him (and perhaps inspired him) in putting his feelings into some of the most beautiful music ever written.

Sophia

Hi Sophia: I was so happy to learn someone of your knowledge and background sort of agrees with me. Every time I open my mouth (or give my fingers free rein), I am often afraid I will eventually eat those words. A little mayo would make them easier to swallow.(Gulp)

I honestly don't know what time would have been best for Chopin. I've read he belonged in the future, but Good Lord, not in this future. Maybe where and when he belonged has yet to be created.

Frycek: Really had intention of bashing Field. I know you like some of his nocturnes. And who am I to criticize him when I can't put four notes together to create a tune.

I believe at that time (and perhaps at all times) people have always had the tendency to downgrade the work of others in order to upgrade their own. Some musicians were above such behavior, which only proved the depth of their character...Liszt, Schumann and others.

And, of course, we can only go on what we read, in most cases. And everyone, everyone, has his/her own agendas.

There were a few references to Field and Chopin in the book: "Chopin: The Man and his Music" by James Huneker. One has only to read the "Introduction to the Dover Edition" to learn the while Huneker was a passionate and deeply committed admirer of Chopin, much of what he wrote came from the heart and not the head. Not all, mind you. He did use Niecks's wonderful 2 volume biography often, but he didn't fully trust it because Niecks's built his work on Liszt, Schumann and Sand.

If you ever get the chance to read this book, I strongly recommend it. If ever a man loved Chopin, Huneker did and he makes no excuses for it.

He writes: "The real Chopin life has yet to be written, a life that shall embrace his moral and physical natures, that will not shirk his marked abnormalities of vision, of conduct, and will not bow down before that agreeable fetish of sawdust and molasses called 'Frederic Chopin,' created by silly sentimentalists and rose-leaf poets. Chopin, with all his imperfections full blown; Chopin, with his consummate genius for giving pain as well as taking pain; Chopin, the wonder-worker is a fruitful and unexploited subject for the devout biographer."

Then Mr. Huneker (several years later) writes this biography (mostly using the essays of others). When he add his own words, they are so flowerly and beyond comprehension, even the more ardent follower of Chopin and his music has to shake her/his head. It's a loving tribute, no doubt. But very far from what we know of as the truth. Still, very wonderful reading.

Here is what is written about John Field (for what it's worth):

"John Field has been described as the forerunner of Chopin. The limpid style of this pupil and friend of Clementi, his beautful touch and finished excecution, were certainly admired and by the Pole. Field's nocturnes are now neglected--so curious are Time's caprices--and without warrant, for not only is Field the creator of the form, but in both his concertos and nocturnes he has written charming, sweet and sane music. He rather patronized Chopin, for whose melancholy pose he had no patience. 'He has a talent of the hospital," growled Field in the intervals betwen his wine drinking pipe smoking. ...there is some truth in this...Chopin, seldom exberantly cheerful, is morbidly sad and complaining in many of his nocturnes. The most admired of his compositions, with the exception of the valses, they are in several intances his weakest. Yet he ennobled the form originated by Field, giving it dramatic breath, passion and even grandeour.

And I could go on and on...but the aroma of roses is getting to me.

Cheers to all,
Kathleen

I just wanted to cite an example of how one author views our hero. Whom do we believe? I personally believe none...at least completely. This may sound corny, but I believe what my heart is telling me, for it has proven to be a quite honest in the past.

Hi Kathleen
Thanks, but never underestimate your own degree of knowledge and background regarding M. Chopin! I would love to see someone of Alan Walker's stature and scholarship write a comprehensive biography of Chopin. What a work that would be!

Sophia

Just catching up....

Hershey: better to have an idiot review but your public voting with their feet, so to speak, than vice versa!

Kathleen: I'm sure when you wrote "he did develop an aristocratic demeanor. True, he believed this was the responsibility of an artist...to always appear a bit above the common" you didn't mean to suggest that Chopin's manner was an affectation. His upbringing from his earliest years gave him the manners of an aristocrat ("a prince" said George Sand) and he couldn't help that any more than I can help my London accent

Also Justyna was of noble blood herself even if penniless and one reason that noble families entrusted their sons to the Chopin's boarding home was that Justyna was able to polish their manners and help turn them into young gentlemen. Beyond that one of Chopin's childhood playfellows was the nephew of the czar. "Raised on the laps of princesses" was no exaggeration. He came by his aristocratic manners from earliest childhood example and from a natural refinement. Anything less would have been an affectation.

It's possible you people are too serious for something fun like this, but since it's Chopin-oriented you might enjoy!

http://www.pianoworld.com/ubb/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/32/4821.html

I've never read the Niecks biography (aside from quotations from it that appear routinely and reverentially in others' writings about Chopin), and found this paragraph most poignant. (Thanks, Kathleen!)

It saddens me to think of Chopin's perception of lack of proper respect and recognition accorded his music and his resulting disappointment—especially in light of the worshipful devotion that he would forever inspire in the legions of musicians and music-lovers worldwide who lead Chopin-centric lives.

Could he ever have imagined people like me, who would be introduced to his music in infancy as though it were a secret sustenance? People for whom his music represents the pinnacle of human achievement and exultation, who have continued to find nourishment in it throughout our lives, and for whom his music would become a lifelong preoccupation?

Best regards to all,

Steven

You know, I think this is one of Niecks' many inaccuracies. I've never noticed Chopin bemoaning a lack of fame in any of his letters. I think he was completely admired during the whole of his lifetime from early youth until death. His concerts were sold out, his lessons were more expensive than anyone else's, he was revered and adored by nearly everyone he met. Add to this a natural modesty - a shrinking from the limelight- and it doesn't ring true that he was embittered due to lack of acclaim.

Having said that, I've often wondered if he would be surprised at the devoted following he has had ever since his death. I can't help suspecting he might have just accepted it gracefully as the natural due, not of him, but of his music.

Good Morning All:

I just wanted to thank you all for the great posts. I am still alive, but am contemplating homicide of my mouse. Not the four-legged kind, but the one that is suppose to go where you want it to go on your computer screen. I know I've probably dropped it a thousand times in the last 6 months, but still...

So, I leary of posting anything "wonderful" for fear my words will disappear where all those socks go that don't come out of the dryer.

Frycek: Thank you for that reminder about Chopin's mother. Indeed, she was "to the manner born," and I believe she was responsible for instilling in her children not only the manners of the noble, but also a strong sense of dignity and self-respect.

Welcome back, guys!! Gerg and Sotto Voce, we missed you. I think Hershey might have been feeling he was the only male in this female fan club.

Gerg: I think your question about Chopin's preludes is wonderful, and I don't know why you wouldn't think it "worthy" of being posted on the DtC thread. The reason I say this is I have received about a dozen PM's from people who tell me how much they love our site. They write that they read it everyday and how they have learned so much about Chopin. They also add they since they don't "know" anything or very much about him, they are hesitant to post anything for fear of looking stupid. It really breaks my heart to read these messages because the point of this whole site was to get as many people who might be curious, like, love or just admire Chopin to join in. Yes, we do have a couple of experts here (and you know who you are), but I, for one, am not one. I only know what I have read and so much from what I have read here. People are just fearful that their questions might appear foolish. WHAT CAN WE DO to get these people (and more) to join us. We have to do something to let them know that we are not a bunch of elite eggheads! I saw that someone posted a question about Chopin's preludes on another post. Something about there being 24 preludes and yet someone was going to play the #25 and the #26. I hope someone answered the question. (I was in the middle of my battle with my mouse at the time.)

To answer your question about the preludes, Greg. The first one I remember hearing that made an impression on me (I had to be about 15 or so) was the one I am playing for the "concert," the 17th. As I have mentioned before, I do not paint any pictures in my head where I listen to Chopin's music. I don't think it's because I have no imagination, I just think his music is so pure and perfect that no picture could possibly contain it. Does that make any sense?

Sotto Voce: You know your writing is so elegant that I am quite intiminated answering you. But I will do so anyhow, for that's what we're all about here. You are correct, I believe, that Chopin might not have shown his disappointment or jealousy outwardly, but I do believe he suffered these internally. We have all heard about his "wise cracks" at others' music and playing. Don't you think that these sarcastic statements were just a form of anger turned inward? I just can't believe that he was not angry when others, who didn't have an ounce of the genius he had, were being lauded...while he, because of his reluctance and fear, had to content himself with writing music (of course, the world's most beautiful...but he didn't know this at the time [wish he did]) and by giving piano lessons. And I know he saw no shame in this.

I have a tendency to use sarcasm when I am trying to be funny, telling a joke, whatever. And I was told by a psychologist that this was an outward sign of inner anger. And, you know what? After I did some soul searching, I had to admit there was some truth in this. Perhaps a lot of truth.

Now, I am only using myself as an example, but I believe that because of Chopin's inability to exhibit jealousy or self-pity, he, instead, made less of others' music and ability. Not all, of course. How he admired Liszt's playing, but not his music. In fact, when you think about it, there were very few musicians of his day that he admired. Singers, yes...but composers, not that many. You might argue that he honestly thought that their work was of poor quality, and you could be right. But no man, I believe, is so perfect that he doesn't harbor a bit of envy or regret every once in a while.

Gee, it appears lately that I have been putting our hero down. I hope you know that this is far from my intention. Perhaps I want to make him be more human. I don't know. But I do know that I have nothing but complete reverence and utter devotion to him and his music.

Now...you can attack me.

See you again when my mouse and I have become friends once again, or I get a new one.

Cheer to all,
Kathleen

I feel very strongly that Chopin's music is for everyone: There's something, somewhere in his output for every musical taste and skill level. And I'm not content to merely listen, either—I advocate partaking of the music with the hands as well as the ears! Chopin's students were, by and large, dilettantes and amateurs—yet they found the composure to play in his presence, and he encouraged them. Chopin's music inspires that same empowerment in me today as an amateur musician with a singular devotion.

I feel equally strongly that discussion of Chopin and his music are for everyone. Nobody should feel intimidated because different people will invariably differ. I had almost no formal music education, so I've had to try to learn enough theory beyond what I absorbed as a kid just to be able to feel somewhat confident conversing with people who actually got to go to school and study music! But imagine the inadequacy I might feel in the presence of professional musicians and those who have advanced degrees in music, or compared to a true master who not only shares my passion for Chopin but can play most of his oeuvre from memory, too!

It's all about learning, and we're all on the same path—just at different points. And I can tell you from personal experience that there's no better company than being among other Chopin lovers. So, to all the lurkers out there: Join in! By virtue of what we share, this is your spiritual home—and you are unequivocally welcome here.

Steven

As I mentioned before, Steven...you are one eloquent gentleman. Very gloriously stated.

I don't know where Hershey is now, maybe still in CA and still doing M. Chopin. While I was trying to look up his schedule (such a globe-trotter), I came across this write-up from the Geffen Theater that I thought would be of interest.

************************
Monsieur Chopin, the romantic middle movement of Felder´s composer trilogy, features the story and elegant piano music of Polish composer Fryderyk Chopin (1810-1849). Based on an actual piano lesson occurring in Paris on March 4, 1848, Hershey Felder as Monsieur Chopin reveals secrets about the art of the piano and composition to his students, as well as secrets about himself. Felder´s studies on Chopin have taken him to the composer´s residences and locales of composition, plus in-depth examinations of the composer´s life and manuscripts, and general period history. Included in the creative process is a scholarly relationship with the United States´ foremost author and professor of Chopin Studies, Dr. Jeffrey Kallberg, a Professor of Music and Chairman of the Music Department at the University of Pennsylvania. Felder performs several of Chopin´s greatest works, including Polonaise "Héroique," Op. 53; Polonaise "Militaire," Op. 40; Grande Valse Brilliante, Op. 18; Nocturne, Op. 27, No. 1, plus a selection of Mazurkas and Preludes. 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.
************************

I wish we all could get a chance to see him one day in this heart-rendering tribute to our hero. He's something else!!

Cheers to all,
Kathleen

...Still Chop-ining away - the real tribute to the hero is that the production is COMPLETELY sold out in a major theatre, on a major stage, in a major city - this is the first time in the Geffen (and Westwood theatre's - the previous name before Geffen gave funds to rebuild it andw e're going back lotsa years and lotsa major stars) that a production has had every ticket sold before it enters that week of performances. Sure - it's a nice that I happen to be the guy doing it - but let's face it, it's the material. The folks want the story - and they want to hear this great music live, and they want to understand something about where it has come from. That's really all...

As some of you know, in the "salon" section of M. Chopin, I respond to my "students and guests'" musical requests, and questions in the character of Chopin, much as our beloved fellow may have, had he been in a good mood... tonight one of the nicest things happened. A man raised his hand, said " I want to say something to YOU." I say in a heavy Polish accent. YOU, WHO? " He says "YOU. The man behind M. Chopin." He doesn't let me off the hook - so I give in. "Allright... what would you like to say..." and he says/ "Just one thing..."

"THank you for bringing us something so new, so different, so beautiful, so meaningful, and so well done." And the audience absolutely roared with applause.

And that's when I know that no reviewer, no nasty moron, no know-it-all can ever disuade me from how wonderful the "people" are. As a collective, audiences do "know." And I love and respect them. Sure I've gotten lotsa superlative reviews from lotsa knoweldgable folks - and we always remember the couple of lousy ones - but on the discussion above of what would Chopin think of what happened to his legacy?

I think he'd be damn proud of just how many people really understand just how beautiful his artwork is. Whether his personality would readily accept it is another story - but I can only think that somewhere deep down - he's happily giving Liszt, Rellstab, Field, and anyone else who ever hurt him - the finger.

Sweet Dreams all....H