Poor Man Chopin

It seems as though the significance of Chopin was created more through his contribution to the repertoire, than that of his donation to pedagogy. His incredible subtlety in shaping and pedaling is his gift to the modern piano technique. In many ways, his doleful repertoire is the top of the "most expressive" list (Though I would argue Beethoven pretty much had the "passion" button down pat). In many ways this chapter addresses something that has been on my mind for a while; the question of truly "understanding" the music.

Is it possible to truly comprehend the nuance of Chopin without having experienced a life similar in large amounts of grief and suffering? Or at least to have experienced the ups and downs that life has to offer, something that can hardly been done in 20 years? I have heard many people say that while many pianists can perform many difficult and wonderful musical compositions, but few can play Chopin with the tender profundity in which it was created.

There is a documentary made in 2006 called “Before the Music Dies”. It’s main premise is that many of the successful performers and “musicians” of today cannot compare to those of the previous generations, when musicianship was considerably more important than how you look in a bikini. Now, the “voices” of our generation are much younger, much more “beautiful” and have experienced little outside of their Beverly Hills mansion. Someone in the film suggested that if Aretha Franklin were to walk into American Idol, she would never place because of how she looked, despite her raw talent, and years of experience that give her the understanding and soul in her music. Would Chopin's fate be similar in modern times? My question is that what if our flashy technique and cheap thrills are the pretty faces we're hiding behind in order to celebrate more success.

This idea of musicality being just as, if not important than technique is something that was discussed in our Beethoven chapter. However, this idea comes up during the consideration of Chopin. Again, what if the early study of Chopin needs to be restricted to the simplest technical form, in order to concentrate more upon the meaning underneath, even if that proves to be a lifetime long process (which it surely will)? Chopin was most concerned with a supple technique, a singing cantabile (again, he suggests the study of Italian singers) and the "ceaseless reptition of a passage till it was understood..." (164). He also forbade his student Madame Dubois to practice more than 3 hours a day. Escpecially for the study of Chopin, what if sometimes, we were to spend smaller, very focused portions of practice time dedicated ONLY to the expression and musicality? I think the results could be tremendous.

Arthur Rubinstein says: "...that even the most difficult figurations of Chopin belong to creative music. Liszt cultivated technical previosity; the difficulties he contrived were a camouflage, and he exploited them for greater effect. Chopin was interested only in the musical idea, and the difficulties of his works are logically inherent in his thought...I can play a pyrotechnical Liszt sonata, requiring forty minutes for it's performance, and get up from the piano without feeling tired, while even the shortest etude of Chopin compels to be an intense expenditure of effort" (162).

When was the last time you were drained after a two minute long piece?