Chopin as "Artistic Nullity"

I was not aware of this review. It must be understood that at that time there was much antagonism between Musician-Composers. We are talking about "great calibers". Mendelssohn, who had a rich life free from great suffering, could perhaps speak this way. Even his music, linear, happy, sometimes serious, makes it quite clear that he was a man without many inner struggles. In contrast, Chopin had a short, difficult, unhappy life. It is true that his acquaintance with Sand contributed to further upsetting his soul. The distance from his homeland, the news of the fall into Russian hands, etc., generated suffering compositions and not "ephemeral extravagances".

His studies, above all, represent a milestone, a manifesto, of the "new piano technique". They suggest everything that the Author would have wanted to write in the "Method of methods", which he barely managed to begin. His premature death led Schumann to write: "The soul of music has passed away from the world". His Music is the most performed and represents an aspiration for every young pianist. He too, like other Greats of music, expresses its essence deeply. There is in his Music a unique inspiration that makes it exist "always" and "forever".

I invite and encourage all young pianists to deepen their knowledge of Chopin, without thinking that he is too overplayed. It is true that many attempt the Author, but few find that "secret thought" of which He often spoke.

Nothing is "outdated" in his Music and the invention of his harmonies always comes fresh from the staff.

Jakob Ludwig Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy was certainly the greatest musician of all time, with an innate talent that no one has ever been able to boast, not even Mozart.

Like Mozart, he knew how to do everything, not only in music, but also, for example, in painting (he produced some watercolors of absolute significance). Here is one.

Unfortunately, in his maturity, he did not keep the creative promises of his adolescence, as he was enormously limited by the characteristics of the environment from which he came.

Mendelssohn was indeed born in Hamburg to an aristocratic family of Jewish origin; father a banker, mother a member of the notable Itzig family, grandson of the philosopher Moses. The family, a true Jewish economic power (the Mendelssohn bank played a significant role in breaking Napoleon's continental blockade), had renounced Judaism to embrace Lutheranism and had added, at the suggestion of his maternal grandfather who had done the same, the surname Bartholdy, enthusiastically adhering to the cultural model of the dominant German bourgeoisie.

As you can easily guess, this bourgeoisie was characterized by an extreme conservatism and, despite the fertile and effervescent musical and cultural fabric in which Felix was born, the fundamental characteristics of the education received soon imposed themselves, partly due to Felix's overly submissive character regarding family logic.

This situation, I believe, deprived us of much beautiful music, because the wings of Felix's creativity were irremediably clipped by conservatism (to create is to innovate, which is different from perfecting) and, therefore, today we are left only with works of great formal perfection, but with many repressed inspirations.

Not by chance, Mendelssohn was always suspicious of the innovative musical developments undertaken by his contemporaries. He didn't just shun Chopin, but also Berlioz, Liszt, and Meyerbeer, with whom he nevertheless had (tepid) friendly relations. It is no coincidence that, among musicians, he remained on excellent terms only with Ignaz Moscheles, who belonged to the previous generation and was equally conservative.

But I do not believe it was a matter of envy (to be clear, for example, Felix's piano skills were far superior to those of any of his contemporaries!), but rather a political and ideological struggle pushed to extreme consequences.

Rather, do not think he was the only one to use such words! Staying on topic, while Mendelssohn speaks well of Sand—which seems very strange, considering Sand's rebellious character and her revolt against the customs of the upper bourgeoisie to which both belonged (which highlights an unresolved side of Felix!)—Baudelaire speaks of Sand as a stupid whiner, whose ideas have the depth and delicacy of a street sweeper, and points to the moral abyss of men by the fact that they fall in love with such a slut!

Felix (as Baudelaire put it) ignored that there is something called History, which does justice to ideas and puts things (almost all of them) back in their place on the shelf.

A pity, because from what can be glimpsed of Mendelssohn when he was still a boy searching for his way, we have lost an angel!

Bye

For goodness' sake, I am not entering a loop (I am replying to myself!), but I would just like to clarify a possible misunderstanding.

Today, my wife and I were having lunch with the most excellent Paolo Pianoexpert and the tenacious and tough (because he resists him!) TheSimon, and a comment from Paolo made me realize that I had been misunderstood (he didn't yell at me, because he strives, albeit barely, to appear as an educated and decent person (!), but he attempted to snatch the plate of splendid mushroom fettuccine from me—which he had cooked for me just before—without succeeding, thanks to my extremely tenacious!!!! and very brave!!!! opposition and the fact that I immediately swallowed the plate with all its contents as soon as he began his threatening intervention).

When in my reply to Daniele I say that Mendelssohn "was surely the greatest musician of all time"", I am not referring to his activity as a composer (in which some have given him dust), because this is only one of the possible roles of a musician, but to the complex of musical talents that nature endowed him with and which he was able to utilize.

Not by chance, I conclude my intervention by saying that we have lost an angel, and here I truly mean to refer to his composing skills (which are easy to glimpse as potentially enormous), unfortunately hampered by the education he received and by his difficult character.

At this point, all I can do is hope that I have cleared up the misunderstanding and that I might regain another lunch invitation, or, if you really want me still, most excellent Paolo Pianoexpert, forgive me, most excellent Paolo Pianoexpert for dinner!!!!!

Ahhhhhhhhhh but with these lunches and dinners you won't be doing like Satié did with Debussy, will you!! Ahahahahahaha

Just kidding obviously, bye Gennarì!

Simone, I know there was some competition between Debussy and Satie (not Satié, the final 'e' was silent!) and that Satie died of liver cirrhosis after a few years of intense drinking. But, as you know, Paolaccio skimps on wine!.

Instead, I know nothing about lunches and dinners. But what, did one of the two cook and the other eat?

Ciao

Peace!!!!! I would never dare to scold our trusted Musicologist!!!!! I only wanted to emphasize that the definition seemed a bit exaggerated to me. So what can be said about Liszt?, so what can be said about Mozart? Of.......etc. Every Great one has been Great. And he was Great even when compared with many other super Musicians who couldn't hold a candle to them!!!!!!

No Issue

Mendelssohn was great...... perhaps (I disliked him a little!!!!)

Satie often went to Debussy's house.... but the latter discovered that he was only his friend because he cooked well!!!!!!! After all, what could the great Author of Pelléas et Mélisande expect from someone who said: "enough with music to be listened to with your head in your hands"?

To Gennarino, therefore I owe a plate of pasta with mushrooms and truffles, the confiscated one, while tied and gagged to his chair, he suffered the visual torture of the image of the Pianoconcerto Staff licking their lips for that excellent dish. His diet gains, but his.... "SPIRIT" suffers (said in the 'Montezemolo' style).

Ok. Next time... "pianoconcerto" style fettuccine (all members will be informed of the recipe!!!!!! So hurry up and complete your REGISTRATION!!!!!!)

P.S. Cooking is also art. Painting or playing with a ladle is a beautiful thing. The base of the recipe is the pictorial background where the foreground element "of certain effect" emerges (the dominant flavor), the accompanied melody, the melodramatic singing, ....everything is similar in "sense" and in "nature". The way of "doing things".

It's not that I find Mendelssohn particularly likable either; moreover, as I was telling you, he must have been quite hysterical and choleric.

Instead, this idea of Satie frequenting Debussy for the cooking was something I was missing! Thanks to Simone then for the scholarly citation.

Leave me with just one small consideration: I believe that both Satie and Debussy were great artists. In fact, if knowing how to cook is an art, knowing how to eat is an equally exquisite art!!!

Well !!!So... "slow and progressive chewing" ....perhaps to the beat of music. At the table, one can well combine Music with the pleasure of the palate. So, welcome to the diners.. as long as, as Kant used to say... "no fewer than three, no more than nine" (No fewer than the Graces, no more than the Muses)

Bon appétit

P.S. Satie was truly an eccentric: he wrote letters to his own address and wore the same outfit for 34 years. His Music is filled with "nonsense" phrases and everything for him was "against the grain". Debussy, on the contrary, was refined and, although innovative, his harmony did not follow precise rules. Once they asked him a question specifically about the rules he followed in Composition. He replied: "I follow my pleasure"..... In fact, he also cooked very well!!!!!!

DanielePiano wrote:

(Chopin tells of Chopin pages 120-121 - Mendelssohn's review in Musical World)

... ah, but still

Hi everyone, I am only reading this topic, and since I am reading Rattalino's book "Chopin racconta Chopin" I would like to clarify that what was reported

by DanielePiano does not seem correct to me; that is, the book does not state that the review in Musical World was written by Mendelssohn.

In describing his arrival in London in 1848, Chopin writes on page 121:

"...London was still all for Mendelssohn, who had passed away just a year ago and had been the darling of the young Queen Victoria.

And almost eight years earlier, Musical World had reviewed my Mazurkas op. 33 in a manner that was even more than insulting...", followed by the

text of the review that you have already read and which DanielePiano reported.

In my opinion, it is not written that Mendelssohn wrote this review; this does not change the fact that enviously existed just as they do today.

Bye

Gianni

So the question reopens. It could have been some expert from Musical World who reviewed Chopin's Mazurkas!

gianni69 wrote:

In my opinion, it is not written that it was Mendelssohn who wrote this review

... indeed

Hi.....I also read the book and it doesn't seem to me that this sentence was said by Mendelssohn who, among other things, held Chopin in the highest esteem, even if he did not share certain nuances such as "rubato"...... which are understandable, since all the great musicians who brought innovations at the beginning were subject to criticism, even harsh, because not everyone was open to the new and the different....but this is part of music history. Mendelssohn could not have said this....among other things he often visited Chopin, invited him to various concerts....instead, I quote a letter (you can find it in J.J. Eigeldinger's book "Chopin viewed by his pupils") from Mendelssohn written to his mother specifically regarding Chopin:...." -I cannot tell you, dear Fanny (Mendelssohn's older sister and a highly talented pianist), that once again I find your judgment of Chopin does not do him enough justice; perhaps when you heard him, he was not quite in the right mood to play, something that happens to him frequently. But as far as I am concerned, he enchanted me once again...and I am convinced that if you and Papa had listened to him while he performed, as he did, some of his best pieces, you would have said the same. In his way of playing there is a radical originality combined with such mastery that he truly deserves the name of perfect virtuoso. Thus, since every form of perfection is dear to me and is a source of enjoyment for me, this day, spent in Chopin's company, has given me profound pleasure.....". (F.M. Bartholdy).eee EeeEEEee EEEee

.....Sorry for the EeeEEEee....they happened involuntarily, most likely a letter got stuck. As far as George Sand is concerned.....I have read enough to understand how much harm she did to our beloved Chopin, for which....No comment.

And anyway, speaking of premature departures and how much has been stolen from and not given to the world, I often find myself thinking about what Chopin could still have given us if he had lived longer. Or if he had even just lived his short life without being consumed by illness, by the coughing fits that gave him no respite and let's face it..... dedicating oneself to music in these conditions must have been often nerve-wracking. For the rest, it is a pleasure reading you!