Chopin was Gay
Shi...@zorro.net
It seems a lot of people have problems with accepting that
Chopin was gay. Unfortunately, several biographers have gone
out of their way to refute or deny this.
And others have been over eager in presenting easily refutable
evidence that he was gay.
But here are some facts as picked up from one of his more accurate
biographies by a Polish author (I forget the title, but it was
published in the 50s.):-
There are several of Chopin's letters to his best friend Titus
referring to him as "My Dearest", "My Love", "My Life" etc. There are
letters that say "I kiss you on your mouth", "I want your mouth" etc.
There are letters that indicate that Chopin missed him. There are letters
suggesting that stories linking Chopin with young women were deliberate
rumours ( started by Chopin himself to cover up the fact that he was gay.
Quite understandable in that milieu)
There are other letters indicating physical desire and affection for
other male friends.
And as for his relationship with George Sands (who was indeed a women
and raised two children) several of her letters very clearly indicate that
their relationship was "chaste", "pure", that "Chopin was physically
indifferent to her" etc.
Their relationship was platonic and and probably filled the loneliness
in their lives. Chopin's best friend Titus had got married, and George
Sands was sick of the alcoholics and gamblers she kept running into.
The evidence is there, but often left out in most biographies.
Chopin was in all likelihood gay, and one need not resort to
ridiculous assertions like George Sands was a man to suggest that.
I think to know that Chopin was gay is helpful in understanding his music.
It probably accounts for the deep sorrow and melancholy that
pervades so much of his music, and must have arisen from being
unable to fulfill his personal longings in that regard. It also
suggests that he must have had a lot of courage to survive his plight
and gift to future generations, some of the most wonderful music
written for the piano.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Jason Sifford
Does it really? If sexual orientation accounts for melancholy in
Chopin, then what does it account for in Tchaikovsky? And what about
Rachmaninoff? What accounts for his melancholy? And what if we find
out tomorrow for sure that Chopin was not gay? Will his music lose
any of its power?
Okay, let the thread begin!!! :)
an...@anon.org
On Fri, 26 Sep 1997 20:22:58 -0600, Shi...@zorro.net wrote:
>It seems a lot of people have problems with accepting that
>Chopin was gay.
....simple because that's not true. It's really difficult to have
people accepting falsehoods, you know.
> Unfortunately, several biographers have gone
>out of their way to refute or deny this.
To refute or deny a falsehood is "unfortunate"?
>And others have been over eager in presenting easily refutable
>evidence that he was gay.
>But here are some facts as picked up from one of his more accurate
>biographies by a Polish author (I forget the title, but it was
>published in the 50s.):-
Please provide the name of the author, especially when you can't even
give the title of the book. If not, you are guilty of the very same
thing that you accuse others: "have been over eager in presenting
easily refutable [and unsubstantiated] evidence that he was gay."
>There are several of Chopin's letters to his best friend Titus
>referring to him as "My Dearest", "My Love", "My Life" etc. There are
>letters that say "I kiss you on your mouth", "I want your mouth" etc.
>There are letters that indicate that Chopin missed him.
Of course Chopin missed him. You said it yourself: they were close
friends. It is common knowledge that those expressions you referred
to were used in the 19th Century between intimate friends and not just
limited to people in a romantic relationship.
> There are letters
>suggesting that stories linking Chopin with young women were deliberate
>rumours ( started by Chopin himself to cover up the fact that he was gay.
> Quite understandable in that milieu)
Who wrote those letters and exactly what was written? I can quote
from my copy of Chopin Correspondence (collected by Von Sydow) that
George Sand herself also suggested Chopin was quite jealous (about
Sand, of course.) I'll take the book home from the office on Tuesday
when I will give the quote.
>There are other letters indicating physical desire and affection for
>other male friends.
Again please cite specific examples.
>And as for his relationship with George Sands (who was indeed a women
>and raised two children) several of her letters very clearly indicate that
>their relationship was "chaste", "pure", that "Chopin was physically
>indifferent to her" etc.
And that was early in their relationship. Sand asked advice from
Chopin's best friend in Paris, Wojciech Grzymala, when she was still
"chasing" him. Again I'll give the specific letter from Sand when I
bring the book home on Tuesday. I'll also cite a specific example
when Chopin became upset because a friend betrayed to Sand the details
of his past relationship with Maria Wodzinska (to whom, surprise
surprise, Chopin was once _engaged_.) If relationships with other
women were only cover-ups, why would he need to be concerned? Sand
would have known all along and would have already laughed it off.
>Their relationship was platonic and and probably filled the loneliness
>in their lives.
Please give evidence that it was indeed "platonic." And are you
suggesting_only_platonic relationships can "fill the loneliness" in
people's lives?
> Chopin's best friend Titus had got married, and George
>Sands was sick of the alcoholics and gamblers she kept running into.
>
>The evidence is there, but often left out in most biographies.
So instead of making generalizations, please quote specific examples
of such evidence.
>Chopin was in all likelihood gay, and one need not resort to
>ridiculous assertions like George Sands was a man to suggest that.
>
>I think to know that Chopin was gay is helpful in understanding his music.
>It probably accounts for the deep sorrow and melancholy that
>pervades so much of his music, and must have arisen from being
>unable to fulfill his personal longings in that regard. It also
>suggests that he must have had a lot of courage to survive his plight
>and gift to future generations, some of the most wonderful music
>written for the piano.
What about Chopin's well-known love and nostalgia of his native
country Poland, from which he was separated for the second half of his
life? Is that not sufficient to account for his melancholy without
"resorting to the ridiculous assertion" that he was gay?
Andrew.
Brenda and Larry Clough
It's important to remember that until this century people weren't
slotted into categories like "gay" or "straight." We make that
distinction; they didn't.
Another historical note -- passionate letters were quite the fashion at
some periods. They don't necessarily mean what we would assume they
would mean, were they written by Marv Albert today. Nor did kisses bear
the sexual freight they do nowadays. Sometimes they had as much
significance as handshakes.
None of this, of course, addresses who Chopin slept with and why.
Unless he wrote a tell-all autobiography, we probably won't ever know
for sure.
Brenda
Harry
Jason Sifford wrote:
>
> Does it really? If sexual orientation accounts for melancholy in
> Chopin, then what does it account for in Tchaikovsky? And what about
> Rachmaninoff? What accounts for his melancholy? And what if we find
> out tomorrow for sure that Chopin was not gay? Will his music lose
> any of its power?
>
> Okay, let the thread begin!!! :)
Right. Here we go again, but since my last posting, I did ask my
current teacher who tells me that she read that he became gay after
several tragic affairs with women. I don't know much about being gay,
but a former teacher of mine was gay, and from what I've learned about
it, a person can be gay and not admit it even to themselves.
I don't think that having tragic love affairs can do it alone, because
if that were the case I'd have turned gay long ago, (in a deep
voice...and I haven't you know!!!(:-)) ). But I do have sympathy for
any group persecuted by society.
Yes, it's possible to have a trajic life without being gay. But if
there were letters written by Chopin saying to another man, "I want your
lips.", that's pretty strong evidence.
Either way, the power of his music speaks for itself, for sure, but
knowing who the composer was can only enrich our understanding of his
music... and life in general.
If he was gay, it would also mean that my former teacher, whom I've
never known to be wrong, was correct in this as well.
--
* Regards, Fred H. Williams, (alias "harry on the net")
*
* Money - A tool used by the rich to convince the poor
* that they have no power.
pTooner
Shi...@zorro.net wrote:
> It seems a lot of people have problems with accepting that
> Chopin was gay. Unfortunately, several biographers have gone
> out of their way to refute or deny this.
>
> And others have been over eager in presenting easily refutable
> evidence that he was gay.
>
> But here are some facts as picked up from one of his more accurate
> biographies by a Polish author (I forget the title, but it was
> published in the 50s.):-
>
> There are several of Chopin's letters to his best friend Titus
> referring to him as "My Dearest", "My Love", "My Life" etc. There are
> letters that say "I kiss you on your mouth", "I want your mouth" etc.
> There are letters that indicate that Chopin missed him. There are
> letters
> suggesting that stories linking Chopin with young women were
> deliberate
> rumours ( started by Chopin himself to cover up the fact that he was
> gay.
> Quite understandable in that milieu)
>
> There are other letters indicating physical desire and affection for
> other male friends.
>
> And as for his relationship with George Sands (who was indeed a women
> and raised two children) several of her letters very clearly indicate
> that
> their relationship was "chaste", "pure", that "Chopin was physically
> indifferent to her" etc.
>
> Their relationship was platonic and and probably filled the loneliness
>
> in their lives. Chopin's best friend Titus had got married, and George
>
> Sands was sick of the alcoholics and gamblers she kept running into.
>
> The evidence is there, but often left out in most biographies.
>
> Chopin was in all likelihood gay, and one need not resort to
> ridiculous assertions like George Sands was a man to suggest that.
>
> I think to know that Chopin was gay is helpful in understanding his
> music.
> It probably accounts for the deep sorrow and melancholy that
> pervades so much of his music, and must have arisen from being
> unable to fulfill his personal longings in that regard. It also
> suggests that he must have had a lot of courage to survive his plight
> and gift to future generations, some of the most wonderful music
> written for the piano.
>
> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News
> ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Since he is long dead and unable to set the record straight, I think it
is despicable to bring up such nonsense. The only thing we know for
sure is that he wrote some of the greatest music for the piano ever
written. What his personal life was like is not relevant, and I find it
disgusting that people have nothing better to do than to speculate on
such foolishness. Don't bother to reply as I am telling my browser to
ignore this thread from now on.
Gerry
--
邢 唷��
Gil G. Silberman
On Sat, 27 Sep 1997 14:07:50 -0400, pTooner <glg...@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
>Since he is long dead and unable to set the record straight, I think it
>is despicable to bring up such nonsense. The only thing we know for
>sure is that he wrote some of the greatest music for the piano ever
>written. What his personal life was like is not relevant, and I find it
>disgusting that people have nothing better to do than to speculate on
>such foolishness. Don't bother to reply as I am telling my browser to
>ignore this thread from now on.
I don't think it is "despicable" or "nonsense" or "disgusting" to
speculate that someone may have been gay. What is despicable about
being gay? It was his choice whether to sleep with men or not.
Possibly not his choice who he found attractive. There was no AIDS in
those days.
We went through this debate about a year ago in a different context.
Last time it was about whether a *performer's* sexual orientation was
relevant. I said it was. The opinion was about half and half, with
some responses similar to the above.
There is an old joke, you know, it gets me in trouble every time I
tell it, about there being three kinds of pianists.
There are jewish pianists, gay pianists, and bad pianists.
Although considering Uchida's latest efforts we'll have to add
Japanese pianists. And then of course senior citizen pianists, they
are usually the best.
Why are we so fascinated with child prodigies, especially when they
usually don't have the technique or emotional depth to play well?
Music is an art, and more than any other art it comes from the heart.
It matters a great deal what is in someone's heart. Was it hard?
Bitter? Open? Full of love for family, country, lovers?
Sometimes you just listen, or play, a piece. Sometimes the technique,
the cleverness, the craft, is brilliant. Sometimes you imagine the
subject of a piece. Sometimes you daydream. Sometimes you study.
Sometimes you place it within the context of your life, or the
composer's, or his era. You are transported back to a different
place, a different time, you identify with the composer or his peers.
To my mind it is perfectly legitimate to wonder who the composer is.
Think of the movies Amadeus (as inaccurate as it was), Shine, the
Piano. . . Sid and Nancy. If we didn't care who the composer was, why
is the composer's name, birth and death year, listed right there on
the program, together with a bio?
No, I think some people are just afraid of sex, and particularly gay
sex.
Incidentally, I never considered Chopin's music very sexual, although
it is damn romantic. The melancholy is, to me, is a longing, a
rememberance, a sadness, some kind of depression. Beethoven is a lot
more sexy, as is Brahms. No, Chopin is very interior, and there is
such tragedy in his music. He crafted some of the most intimate,
detailed representations of sadness and thoughts pertaining to death,
and when you play the pieces one after another you see them. Play the
fantasie-impromptu again and again. . . actually, the preludes are
better for this, each one a different feeling, a little vignette, an
episode, each leading to the next.
There is a story, who knows if it is true, that Chopin composed the
raindrop prelude (D flat major) when he was in Mallorca waiting for
George Sand to come home because she had disappeared, and the repeated
notes are the pounding of rain on the ground, and the melody is the
unchecked racing of Chopin's mind, from fondness to loneliness to fear
to, finally, acceptance. I don't know if it is true, but you can get
a good interpretation out of the piece that way. Personally, I think
of repeated notes in Chopin as heartbeats, here and in the b minor
prelude, and the faltering at the end as death. There is an
unfinished quality to the ending of the B minor, that is answered,
much later, in the quiet transcendence of the D major.
I spoke last night with a woman who sees colors and shapes when she
plays. It takes her to a different dimension. She likes four hand
music, and is considering putting a piano in her office, a 1917
Steinway. Her business partners want a pool table, so they have to
work it out.
Tom Shaw
Brenda and Larry Clough wrote:
>
> It's important to remember that until this century people weren't
> slotted into categories like "gay" or "straight." We make that
> distinction; they didn't.
>
labor in prison for homosexual offenses in 1895.
TS
Tom Shaw
Gil G. Silberman wrote:
>
> On Sat, 27 Sep 1997 14:07:50 -0400, pTooner <glg...@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Since he is long dead and unable to set the record straight, I think it
> >is despicable to bring up such nonsense. The only thing we know for
> >sure is that he wrote some of the greatest music for the piano ever
> >written. What his personal life was like is not relevant, and I find it
> >disgusting that people have nothing better to do than to speculate on
> >such foolishness. Don't bother to reply as I am telling my browser to
> >ignore this thread from now on.
>
> I don't think it is "despicable" or "nonsense" or "disgusting" to
> speculate that someone may have been gay. What is despicable about
> being gay? It was his choice whether to sleep with men or not.
> Possibly not his choice who he found attractive. There was no AIDS in
> those days.
>
> We went through this debate about a year ago in a different context.
> Last time it was about whether a *performer's* sexual orientation was
> relevant. I said it was. The opinion was about half and half, with
> some responses similar to the above.
>
> There is an old joke, you know, it gets me in trouble every time I
> tell it, about there being three kinds of pianists.
>
> There are jewish pianists, gay pianists, and bad pianists.
>
> Although considering Uchida's latest efforts we'll have to add
> Japanese pianists. And then of course senior citizen pianists, they
> are usually the best.
>
> Why are we so fascinated with child prodigies, especially when they
> usually don't have the technique or emotional depth to play well?
> Music is an art, and more than any other art it comes from the heart.
>
>
It matters a great deal what is in someone's heart. Was it hard?
> Bitter? Open? Full of love for family, country, lovers?
>
your hero Beethoven.>
> Sometimes you just listen, or play, a piece. Sometimes the technique,
> the cleverness, the craft, is brilliant. Sometimes you imagine the
> subject of a piece. Sometimes you daydream. Sometimes you study.
> Sometimes you place it within the context of your life, or the
> composer's, or his era. You are transported back to a different
> place, a different time, you identify with the composer or his peers.
> To my mind it is perfectly legitimate to wonder who the composer is.
> Think of the movies Amadeus (as inaccurate as it was), Shine, the
> Piano. . . Sid and Nancy. If we didn't care who the composer was, why
> is the composer's name, birth and death year, listed right there on
> the program, together with a bio?
>
few spicy details about his or her sex life.>
> No, I think some people are just afraid of sex, and particularly gay
> sex.
>
> Incidentally, I never considered Chopin's music very sexual, although
> it is damn romantic. The melancholy is, to me, is a longing, a
> rememberance, a sadness, some kind of depression. Beethoven is a lot
> more sexy, as is Brahms. No, Chopin is very interior, and there is
> such tragedy in his music. He crafted some of the most intimate,
> detailed representations of sadness and thoughts pertaining to death,
> and when you play the pieces one after another you see them. Play the
> fantasie-impromptu again and again. . . actually, the preludes are
> better for this, each one a different feeling, a little vignette, an
> episode, each leading to the next.
>
> There is a story, who knows if it is true, that Chopin composed the
> raindrop prelude (D flat major) when he was in Mallorca waiting for
> George Sand to come home because she had disappeared, and the repeated
> notes are the pounding of rain on the ground, and the melody is the
> unchecked racing of Chopin's mind, from fondness to loneliness to fear
> to, finally, acceptance. I don't know if it is true, but you can get
> a good interpretation out of the piece that way. Personally, I think
> of repeated notes in Chopin as heartbeats, here and in the b minor
> prelude, and the faltering at the end as death. There is an
> unfinished quality to the ending of the B minor, that is answered,
> much later, in the quiet transcendence of the D major.
>
> plays. It takes her to a different dimension. She likes four hand
> music, and is considering putting a piano in her office, a 1917
> Steinway. Her business partners want a pool table, so they have to
> work it out.
>
Tom Shaw
Brenda and Larry Clough
Tom Shaw wrote:
>
> >
> Gee whiz and all this time I though Oscar Wilde was convicted to hard
> labor in prison for homosexual offenses in 1895.
> TS
As a matter of fact, Wilde went to jail for sodomy, which was (and in
many jurisdictions still is) a crime. But there was no gay lifestyle
per se in his time. That's what I'm saying.
Brenda
Gil G. Silberman
On Sun, 28 Sep 1997 19:44:23 -0500, Tom Shaw <a000...@airmail.net>
wrote:
[my comments omitted]
>What has that got to do with the thread?
>What does this joke have to do with the thread?
> What does this paragraph have to do with the thread?
>Prove it.
> I dont really know but it would be more entertaining if we could have a
>few spicy details about his or her sex life.
>I certainly am afraid of gay sex.
>It must be nice to read all that crap into a piece.
>Right.
> And, pray, what has this to do with the thread?
>Tom Shaw
You, sir, are playing quite the Usenet kook. What's your problem,
dude? Brick fell on your head? Too much coffee?
You just announced that you are having so much trouble with this
thread about Chopin and his sexual orientation that you would no
longer read it. Now you are upset that I'm telling piano jokes and
commenting about the Preludes.
If the Internet is too taxing for you, I highly recommend
shuffleboard.
Basically, and in light of your earlier harassing email, I think you
are interested in carrying out some kind of personal vendetta against
me by badgering my posts. I am not interested.
shi...@zorro.net
I am not surprised by all the homophobia on this post.
Disappointed, yes - but not surprised.
Whys should it matter if Chopin was gay? May I ask then, why
has it been important for virtually every biographer to
speculate about all the relationships Chopin was supposed to
have had with women, when there is absolutely no evidence
to suggest that Chopin ever actually had a physical
relationship with any of them.
If Chopin's sexual preference is so irrelevant - what is
the need to sexually link him with George Sands who repeatedly
affirmed that her relationship with Chopin was "pure"
"chaste" and "platonic". For years she was attacked for
seducing Chopin, and yet even today, no one wants to believe
her when she denied she ever did seduce him.
The truth is no one objects to any biographer linking
Beethoven or Mozart or any other great composer with the
opposite sex based on the flimsiest evidence. Yet, even
when presented with fairly reasonable evidence - that
a composer may have been attracted to members of the
same gender - it becomes scandalous - illogical.
I have spent a lot of time reading several of Chopin's
biographies and came to the conclusion that he was gay only
after reading several of his (and George Sands) letters that weren't
quoted or included in any other biography. (And what I quoted was
just a small sample of what could be used to infer that he
must have been gay.)
I stand by my conclusion - but will not be surprised if there
are those that will be offended, or remain unconvinced.
My post was really for those few who are gay or gay-friendly and others
not threatened by inferences they don't like.
an...@anon.org
All right. Here are my quotes as promised. If no one's going to
defend Chopin properly from such false allegations about his
sexuality, I'll take up the responsibility.
This is my source:
Selected Correspondence of Fryderyk Chopin. Collected and annotated
by Bronislaw Edward Sydow. Translated by Arthur Hedley. Published by
William Heinemann Ltd, London: 1962.
>> There are letters
>>suggesting that stories linking Chopin with young women were deliberate
>>rumours ( started by Chopin himself to cover up the fact that he was gay.
>> Quite understandable in that milieu)
>
>Who wrote those letters and exactly what was written? I can quote
>from my copy of Chopin Correspondence (collected by Von Sydow) that
>George Sand herself also suggested Chopin was quite jealous (about
>Sand, of course.) I'll take the book home from the office on Tuesday
>when I will give the quote.
Page 228, letter #205. George Sand to the actor Pierre Bocage in
Paris. [Nohant, summer 1843]:
...As for the jealousy of a certain young man [Chopin] over a
certain old woman, it is calming down -- it had to, for lack of
sustenance. But I cannot say this malady is completely cured or that
one does not need to spare it by concealing the most innocent things.
The old woman had made the mistake of supposing that sincerity and
honesty of purpose were the best remedies. I have advised her to say
nothing of the letter from a certain old fellow [viz. Bocage, himself
a former lover] for whom she can easily preserve in silence an eternal
and loyal friendship.
>>And as for his relationship with George Sands (who was indeed a women
>>and raised two children) several of her letters very clearly indicate that
>>their relationship was "chaste", "pure", that "Chopin was physically
>>indifferent to her" etc.
>
>And that was early in their relationship. Sand asked advice from
>Chopin's best friend in Paris, Wojciech Grzymala, when she was still
>"chasing" him. Again I'll give the specific letter from Sand when I
>bring the book home on Tuesday.
Pages 151 - 161, letter #121. George Sand to Wojciech Grzymala in
Paris. [Nohant, June 1838] This is an immense letter that would take
the recipient "six weeks to go through," in Sand's words.
> I'll also cite a specific example
>when Chopin became upset because a friend betrayed to Sand the details
>of his past relationship with Maria Wodzinska (to whom, surprise
>surprise, Chopin was once _engaged_.) If relationships with other
>women were only cover-ups, why would he need to be concerned? Sand
>would have known all along and would have already laughed it off.
Mlle de Rozieres was a pupil of Chopin whom George Sand had engaged to
teach her daughter Solange. De Rozieres had become involved in an
affair with Antoni Wodzinski, Maria Wodzinska's brother, and was
making an exhibition of herself. This was all very embarrassing for
Chopin since it meant that de Rozieres would learn from Wodzinski the
full story of the engagement between himself and Maria and would
doubtless pass it on to George Sand, with whom she was far too
intimate for his liking. Letters to illustrate this point:
Page 202. George Sand to Mlle de Rozieres. Nohant, 20 June 1841:
Let me tell you one of our secrets. A certain person is
irritated against you for reasons I do not know. This attitude does
not make sense and is almost like a disease. I really do not know how
you have manage to wound him so deeply. He is full of spite towards
you -- not that he says a single word which you might not hear.
<snip> So I took care not to speak to him of the chief topic of your
letter or to read out any sentences referring to him. We should have
a whole day of sulking, gloom, suffering and strange behaviour. I
tried to bring him round by assuring him that Wz. [Antoni Wodzinski]
would not come here. He went up the air, saying that if I was so sure
it was apparently because I had told Wodzinski the whole truth. To
which I replied Yes -- and I thought he would go crazy. He wanted to
leave the house, saying that I was making him look like a ridiculous,
jealous lunatic, that I was causing trouble between him and his best
friends, that my gossiping with you was the cause of it all, etc ....
I can't ask you to come here into a wasps' nest. You may well ask:
Why is he annoyed, why is he set against you? If I knew, I would know
the source of this illness and I might cure it: but with such an
impossible constitution as his one can never be sure of anything.
<snip>
Page 199, letter #169. Chopin to Julian Fontana in Paris. Nohant.
Friday night [20 August 1841]:
<snip> Don't say too much about me to Dessauer; don't even
mention that I am looking for a place -- not even to Antoni, for he
will tell Mlle de Rozieres and she will make God knows what gossip and
cackle about it, and the whole thing will come back to me here in a
queer roundabout way ... you know how they often make a mountain out
of a molehill ... you know how some story passes from mouth to mouth,
grows enormous and becomes something quite different. I could tell
you a lot, but I will only say that, starting from the most innocent
things which I have written to you, fantastic stories have come back
here, thanks to that person. <snip>
It is ironic that, even 148 years after Chopin's death, these very
sentences are still so fitting a description of the groundless "gay"
allegations.
Andrew.
Tom Shaw
shi...@zorro.net wrote:
>
> I am not surprised by all the homophobia on this post.
> Disappointed, yes - but not surprised.
>
> My post was really for those few who are gay or gay-friendly and others
> not threatened by inferences they don't like.
>
think that the majority of piano players were either gay or liberal?
What disappointed you but didn't surprise you, specifically? And
certainly your comments were not merely inferences, were they?
TS
Ronnymn
>Another historical note -- passionate letters were quite the fashion at
>some periods.
A good analogy is Mozart and his scatalogical language and more. At first
hearing (reading) one thinks he must have been "half nuts" until one finds out
that his mother did likewise-as so did other "folks" in those days.-- it was
again, a fashion we cannot quite understand.
an...@anon.org
On Tue, 30 Sep 1997 01:01:50 -0600, shi...@zorro.net wrote:
<snip>
>Whys should it matter if Chopin was gay? May I ask then, why
>has it been important for virtually every biographer to
>speculate about all the relationships Chopin was supposed to
>have had with women
Indeed? Then you have read "virtually every" biography of Chopin.
Please give us a partial list, if not a full one, of such biographers,
along with the relevant parts of those biographies and the dates of
publication. Was Niecks one of those?
>, when there is absolutely no evidence
>to suggest that Chopin ever actually had a physical
>relationship with any of them.
<snip>
I see. Prudish and Discreet are synonyms of Homosexual. Corollary:
it's raining, but your hair and your clothes are dry. Can I make such
a claim that you must have rain gear like an umbrella or a raincoat?
What if you just didn't go outdoors?
Again, "gay-friendliness" is not a substitute for logic in any
argument.
Andrew.
an...@anon.org
On Tue, 30 Sep 1997 01:01:50 -0600, shi...@zorro.net wrote:
>I am not surprised by all the homophobia on this post.
>Disappointed, yes - but not surprised.
The label "homophobia" is not a panacea for arguments unsupported by
any solid proof.
>Whys should it matter if Chopin was gay? May I ask then, why
>has it been important for virtually every biographer to
>speculate about all the relationships Chopin was supposed to
>have had with women, when there is absolutely no evidence
>to suggest that Chopin ever actually had a physical
>relationship with any of them.
>
>If Chopin's sexual preference is so irrelevant -
On the contrary, it IS relevant, simply because the difference between
fact and fabrication *is relevant*. If you insist on calling
certain composers "gay", why not start with Tchaikovsky? And then
see anyone would disagree.
>what is
>the need to sexually link him with George Sands who repeatedly
>affirmed that her relationship with Chopin was "pure"
>"chaste" and "platonic". For years she was attacked for
>seducing Chopin, and yet even today, no one wants to believe
>her when she denied she ever did seduce him.
You keep talking about evidence. But you never give any such but only
unsupported, generalized statements. If there is any, please cite
them, or stop making unsubstantiated claims.
>
>The truth is no one objects to any biographer linking
>Beethoven or Mozart or any other great composer with the
>opposite sex based on the flimsiest evidence. Yet, even
>when presented with fairly reasonable evidence - that
>a composer may have been attracted to members of the
>same gender - it becomes scandalous - illogical.
So *exactly where* is such evidence you keep talking about?
>I have spent a lot of time reading several of Chopin's
>biographies and came to the conclusion that he was gay only
>after reading several of his (and George Sands) letters that weren't
>quoted or included in any other biography.
Enlighten us. Cite your reference and show us the letters.
>(And what I quoted was
>just a small sample of what could be used to infer that he
>must have been gay.)
You never gave any quotes but your very own statements. In fact, I
doubt whether you know the proper usage of the word "quote." Unless,
of course, my news server has not been giving me all messages. But it
is only your second message on this topic in the past few days, right?
>I stand by my conclusion - but will not be surprised if there
>are those that will be offended, or remain unconvinced.
Of course. How can anyone be convinced of clear falsehoods?
>My post was really for those few who are gay or gay-friendly and others
>not threatened by inferences they don't like.
Or those who don't require hard facts to back such inferences.
Andrew.
Sorcerer
Gil G. Silberman wrote in article <342d8151....@snews.zippo.com>...
>On Sat, 27 Sep 1997 14:07:50 -0400, pTooner <glg...@bigfoot.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Since he is long dead and unable to set the record straight, I think it
>>is despicable to bring up such nonsense. The only thing we know for
>>sure is that he wrote some of the greatest music for the piano ever
>>written. What his personal life was like is not relevant, and I find it
>>disgusting that people have nothing better to do than to speculate on
>>such foolishness. Don't bother to reply as I am telling my browser to
>>ignore this thread from now on.
>
>I don't think it is "despicable" or "nonsense" or "disgusting" to
>speculate that someone may have been gay. What is despicable about
>being gay? It was his choice whether to sleep with men or not.
>Possibly not his choice who he found attractive. There was no AIDS in
>those days.
Gil, pTooner has a point. Chopin's reputation obviously mattered very much
to him, and it is for him, or his relations, to cast his public figure to
their liking. The fact is that such allegations are highly political, and
highly politicized. But that's only part of it.
The real point is that now "gay" is the "reason" for Chopin's particular
sensitivity? That implication is more than a bit insulting.
And, more to the point -- what IS the point? Chopin did as he did. The
music matters, and has nothing ostensibly to do with sexuality per se. He
wrote, particularly, things called Nocturnes and Preludes, etc., and nothing
that praised either heterosexuality or homosexuality.
This only shows how smarmy the original author was -- trying to horn in on
someone who might have bitterly resented being lumped into any category.
Certainly, during his lifetime, Chopin was an individualist to the very
core. He merits better use from all of us than being trumped up for "Gay
Realism" much as Art was permanently disfigured in certain totalitarian
regiemes having to conform to "socialist realism" as it did to religious
realism in earlier epochs.
Let's all get a life, huh? And let Chopin, and whatever his personal
secrets may, or may not, have been, rest in peace.
Regards,