Chopin: Saint or...

[bernhard]

Chopin Lovers:

Have a look at this provocative biography and tell me what you think (I liked it)

http://www.musicweb.uk.net/classrev/2002/Dec02/Chopin_Wright.htm

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[LiszTMaN]

The biography makes Chopin Sound like the worst composer ever in the history of music. It's controversial, but i loved it.  

[Antnee]

Chopin was not a great composer by any means

[tickledivory]

Yes, it's true. Chopin was not a great orchestrater. And yes, he was not a great moral hero. But, to write him and Schubert off as "very limited composers" is really head tripping of the worst kind.

Of course they're limited. The question is, what did they do with what they had? I think they did a hell of a lot more than Mr. Wright  gives them credit for.

When he says of Chopin's music,"Too much of it is Salon music, monotonously in three time," and "But there will always be pieces that I will play," he proves that what he lacks in heart, he makes up in ego.

[Rach3]

Yes, its all vapid salon music, ballads and waltzes and the like... no music there...

[Balakirev]

It's good but now I want to read those letters

I think I like Chopin better that way!

But I don't think everything is true.

[bernhard]

It's good but now I want to read those letters

I think I like Chopin better that way!

But I don't everything is true.

You may be interested in this DVD (I haven't seen it, but I am thinking of ordering it):

http://www.nitro-movies.com/Mystery-Of-Chopin--The-_-The-Strange-Case-Of-Delphina-Potocka.html

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[Tash]

let's not be COMPLETELY biased and degrade almost every single aspect of a person

[Motrax]

Indeed, whether factual or not, that article was plainly, openly insulting to Chopin. THe author should be more careful to keep his essay objective if he wants to make such a controversial statement about Chopin.

The article itself is written in a rather poorly organized manner, skipping frantically from one idea to another as if he has already lost his argument and is simply trying to retain some fleeting shred of credibility.

Not that I necessarily disagree with him, but this sort of sensational bilge is more fit for tabloids than any intellectual circles.

-Motrax, who's practicing to be a critic because he might end up on that awful path one day.

[Balakirev]

It's funny how Historians get to different conclusions even if they all have acces to the same information

Thx for the DVD I am going to Rent it looks interesting. Does not have a good rating though.

[Nightscape]

Sounds like the author is trying to "be different" from the masses by denouncing greats like Schubert, Schumann, and Chopin and turning to more obscure composers.

[thracozaag]

Chopin Lovers:

Have a look at this provocative biography and tell me what you think (I liked it)

http://www.musicweb.uk.net/classrev/2002/Dec02/Chopin_Wright.htm

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

 
 *shock* *horror* Chopin was *gasp* a human being?!?!  With faults!?!?
 And that famous story with Meyerbeer, Chopin was being told that his own rhythm was off in a piece that was a rhythm intrinsic to his homeland.  I would have punched Meyerbeer.
 Nothing amuses me more than these supposed "experts who have a billionth of the talent these great composers possessed to suddenly turn around and disparage these composers because of their lifestyle and personality flaws.  And yes, Chopin was a bad orchestrator, obviously he wasn't perfect.  Read his letters to his friend Titus...it seems that Chopin was bisexual.

koji

[Antnee]

All in all, this article,though interesting, seemed to try to feed us some interesting little known info, but at the same time, have Mr. Write shove his opinions of Chopin down our throats. It's almost like he was saying it like, "yeah he did this and that... and said this to her and that to him...and contrary to what professionals and pianists believe, he is a shitty composer with only a few decent pieces behind him...Why? Because I say so, and I'm the f***ing man."
He provides no reason for Chopin being a bad composer other than he mentiones he only composed in the smaller forms. Like another poster said... It's almost like he wrote this merely to be different and attract attention to himself. Shame on him for not just organizing a good Bio on chopin and keeping all of the distracting opinions to himself...

-Tony-

[Eusebius_dk]

Thanks for bringing the article. I'm happy to see different opnions about the masters of music history, eventhough I don't always agree.

When that is said, I think it's necesarry to take Chopin in defence on some of the issues mentioned in the article.

No, Chopin was no ferfect man, neither was Haydn, Mozart or even Bach. As far as I know we still have an article from an old Vienese news paper saying that the great composer of the city, Ludwig van Beethoven, had to spend antoher night at the police station after - once again - looking through his neighbours windows with binoculars, in order to spot nude women!

Chopin didn't like jews, the author are gathering small anecdotes about his hate to jews - without telling us, where he got these stories from (neither I can't prove that the Beethoven story is true, but notice, this story is true "as far as I know"). Besides, antisemitism was very strong in Europe at that time, and I don't think his opinions where much different than for the rest of the population.

Chopin was jealous at Liszt, but Glenn Gould was jealous at Horowitz! Can it be surprising that even great masters can feel themselves "threatened" by other masters?

In the article we hear the old story about Chopin's bad orchestration. Yes, it could be better, but didn't Chopin write the two conerti when he was between 18 and 20? In comparison Beethoven published his opus 1 at 22! Furthermore he wrote the concerti at a time when he was trying to promote himself as a pianist, and the virtuoso piano part came first. No doubt he has been in a hurry writing the orchestral score!

What defines a great composer? Are you a great composer if you write a bunch of grand works? Many a terrible composer has written awfully many bad large-scale works, and no one wants to listen to it. On the other hand, Chopin is still popular in the recital programmes, the audience love his music, many young pianist as well as great interpreters spend most of their lives dedicated in playing his music. And, see how many composers who have been influenced by his works.

As for the women and his desires: Is it strange that a man is crazy about women? Artur Rubinstein is said to have had a mistress in every city on earth, did that make him into a bad pianist?

Afterall, this piece of unscientific musicological work should be put in the trash bin where it belongs, just as the music of Chopin (and Schubert for that matter) will remain in our hearts for time and eternity...

[pianiststrongbad]

I believe the writer of that article should be lynched for the good of society.  Schubert was in my mind one of the greatest composers- Erlkonig, Die Forelle, Unfinished Symphony, Wanderer Fantasy, sorry but these are not limited works.  Neither are any of Chopins peices in my mind.  

[steve]

Chopin was a "jew-hater"?   Wasn't he best friends with Alkan?

[thracozaag]

I believe the writer of that article should be lynched for the good of society.  Schubert was in my mind one of the greatest composers- Erlkonig, Die Forelle, Unfinished Symphony, Wanderer Fantasy, sorry but these are not limited works.  Neither are any of Chopins peices in my mind.  

 Schubert is my absolute favorite composer; I guess that makes me a fool.

koji

[larse]

'Limited', I think, should not be used in this matter. It's a commonly known fact that Chopin had troubles with writing large-scale works, or rather...music which did not focus on the piano. He has some great chamber music, but his orchestral pieces, compared to Beethoven, Berlioz and other great orchastrators, are not very satisfying. That is...his orchestrating in itself is quite sucky sucky....

With Schubert it was different. Schuberts Symphonies are not only greatly composed, well written and exceptionally orchestrated. They are also beautiful. I cannot see the flaws here. Schubert wrote in a more 'classical' style than Chopin. Which is only natural because of the time perspective. But where are Schuberts limits?

Hatred of jews were a common matter at that time. I do not doubt for a second that Shubert, Liszt, Berlioz, blabla, hated jews as well. Everybody hated jews and gipsies. They were looked upon as a plague, and they lived in their own slum-quartres in Prague, Warzaw, Budapest, everywhere. 'Like rats'. Mahler was long disliked because he was jewish.

Chopin was not a good person and a women-lover. He was good at courtesing young upper-class women, and without any doubt sleeping with them. Though, I don't really care about how many women he slept with..

There's alot of arguments used in the text that confuses me. It's not because they're wrong or misplaced, buit because they're just said in a very bad way. Almost every argument can be summed up and explained out of time and character. There's nothing new and revolutionary about Chopin. Though, I guess many people have a romantic vision of a romantic composer. I still like his music...

[Fastzuernst]

Chopin?
Insert Schumann's name into this article and no one would know the difference!

[Fastzuernst]

Those who may not understand, that last post was a joke
Its nice to see a controversal post once and a while!

[Philip Daniel]

Chopin Lovers:

Have a look at this provocative biography and tell me what you think (I liked it)

http://www.musicweb.uk.net/classrev/2002/Dec02/Chopin_Wright.htm

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

Well....
Mozart was a "mediocre" orchestrator, too.

Chopin was not terrible at large forms, or even bad...his were just different, united in tonal color and narrative structure rather than cyclicaly like all his contemporaries.
There is a greater sense of structural unity in his works than any of his contemporaries, even the most gifted like Berlioz or Schumann, but none of the romantics can be compared with the classical masters, except maybe Mendelssohn, who himself had plently of faults which keep him from being a "great" composer, if Chopin isn't considered a great composer.

Chopin made up for his uninterest in orchestration through his mastery of polyphony, unrivalled except by Schumann & Mendelssohn in his generation and the greatest since Mozart, his sensitive sense of spacing, his genius for Bel-Canto style melody which even Liszt could not equal, his ability in heterophonic counterpoint, or "making one voice out of many voices," his genius for harmony, and the neoclassicism which is much more succesful than that of Robert & Clara Schumann and equal with Mendelssohn's. Who cares if he hated Jews such as I am, I despise the Samaritans, Zoroastrians, and dislike the Catholic & Russian Orthodox religion.

[Philip Daniel]

Chopin?
Insert Schumann's name into this article and no one would know the difference!

I couldn't agree more. Schumann was also a fervent anti-semite and as bad an orchestrator as Chopin, but at least tried hard at orchestration. Schumann was slightly inferior in every way from Chopin except in harmonic rhythm and sometimes voice-leading, though rarely. Schumann was a nutcase and a Protestant, Jew-hating arsehole. Though I can't say I blame him, for although I am a very pious Jew, I think many of my fellow Jews are indeed insult-worthy . I call those Jews "goyishe kop", although I absolutely despise Yiddish, the remedial language of some of my ancestors.

[Philip Daniel]

Chopin was a "jew-hater"?   Wasn't he best friends with Alkan?

Yes. As I said previously, it was a fashion at the time to despise the Jews. All his saint-worshipping, Mary worshipping contemporaries did. But he still had a heart for certain people. He was friends with Hiller, Alkan, Benjamin Disraeli, Rothschild, Heine, Moscheles, Mendelssohn & others who were Jewish through-and-through, although Mendelssohn, Disraeli & Heine converted to Christianity. Interestingly, only Heine converted out of choice, but idealized Judaism his whole life.

[Philip Daniel]

I couldn't agree more. Schumann was also a fervent anti-semite and as bad an orchestrator as Chopin, but at least tried hard at orchestration. Schumann was slightly inferior in every way from Chopin except in harmonic rhythm and sometimes voice-leading, though rarely. Schumann was a nutcase and a Protestant, Jew-hating arsehole. Though I can't say I blame him, for although I am a very pious Jew, I think many of my fellow Jews are indeed insult-worthy . I call those Jews "goyishe kop", although I absolutely despise Yiddish, the remedial language of some of my ancestors.

Don't think I hate the Jews; I wouldn't trade my Judaism for anything. I am not a Spinozaist, I believe Halacha, the Law, is one of the greatest things in Judaism.
(Okay, please don't ban me.)
Back to topic. My conclusion:
All composers are great in their own way, so a hierarchy of composers is futile. That article is not worth a second read; it was uneducated and false. Saying that Chopin was not an intellectual and philosopher is untrue, since he wrote some plays at a very young age and read many of the classics. His intellect was as great as Liszt's, if not slightly greater. Plus, he was one of the most ingenious composers of his generation, alongside Schumann & Berlioz. No intelligent musician can deny that.

[Daevren]

I agree a bit with the bio. Chopin was a very limited composer. He wrote plain short piano works that are perfect. But his larger works are poor in form and orchestration. He was not an intellectual. He was just a normal person gifted with musicality.

And about how he treats woman, I read a small bio on him and I didn't get the impression he was that wrong.

If he was, and alot of man are, then that is very bad. It makes him a less good human.