Perhaps due to his status as a refugee, afraid to reveal himself to his French or Polish hosts, as well as his chronic, debilitating illness, Chopin hid his real personality and thoughts behind a veneer of “ courtoisie.” As Liszt said of him, “ Chopin’s character is composed of a thousand shades which in crossing one another become so disguised as to be indistinguishable.” Or as the biographer Louis Esnault remarked: “ Chopin lent of himself sometimes, but gave of himself never.”Ĭhopin – of whom the Princess Belgiojoso said “ is greater than the greatest of pianists, he is the only one” – was entirely self-taught. The intensely private nature of Chopin – his desire to keep personal matters to himself – cannot be overlooked. As Debussy himself observed, “ By the very nature of his genius, the music of Chopin escapes any classification.”
As Jane Stirling, Chopin’s friend and ardent admirer observed: “ he was not like other men.” While devoid of any particular depth or subtlety, her description is revealing. He was a mixture of the Polish “ zal,” or spleen, and the French “ bon usage et bonne manière.” Anguished, yet aristocratic. In order to understand Chopin’s music, one must first acknowledge his twin Polish and French roots.
What about Chopin’s artistry, his music? What did Chopin’s contemporaries say? What insights can be gained from those that heard him play? A voluminous and sometimes misleading literature on Chopin already exists, in particularly regarding Chopin and Sand and their tortured relationship, of little importance to a musician. Marquis de Custine, in a letter to Chopin, April 1831.Īs a pianist and connoisseur of Chopin, I have always been fascinated by how Chopin’s contemporaries perceived him, be they friends, admirers or critics. ”It is not the piano that speaks, but a soul.” Long read guest post by Walter Simmons Witt