![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
In order to not burden the very extended #Swiss-Radio-and-TV "outing" of Chopin section on this talk page any further, I suggest to continue post-implementation comments about the topic in this new section. Meaning, any topic of that context can be continued here (please refer to the subsection in the older discussion you wish to continue here if that is the case), as well as initiating new related topics. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Example of a new topic: see WP:DRN#Frédéric Chopin for a related discussion. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
sentimental "salon" style: I have not checked most of the sources, so I'm not sure about coordinate and cumulative adjectives and if comma usage and hyphenation here are OK.
One reason for this may be "demographic": If such a claim appears in the sources, attribution should be made, otherwise it sounds like WP:OR.
Such attitudes may also: Same issue. Toccata quarta ( talk) 07:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I've copyedited the section. Other than general CE (trimmed some quotes, corrected a couple of statements...) and reordering of the paragraphs (moved the letters to the top, and Kallberg's notes on nocturnes to the bottom), the content is more or less the same.[1] What are your objections? [2] François Robere ( talk) 21:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Here's a paragraph for paragraph comparison of both revisions. As you can see, it's essentially the same content. The main difference, other than various CE for readability and conciseness, is in the order of the paragraphs: Smerus's text starts with a reference to sexuality, then veers to musical interpretation, and only then gets to the core of the question - the letters. Moving the the second paragraph to the end makes the text much clearer:
Par. | Old | New | Par. |
---|---|---|---|
1 | The musicologist Antoni Pizá writes that "Chopin's sexual life has never failed to awaken the curiosity of music lovers and to generate discourse among experts". [1] | According to musicologist Antoni Pizá, "Chopin's sexual life has never failed to awaken the curiosity of music lovers and to generate discourse among experts". [1] | 1 |
2 | The music historian Jeffrey Kallberg says that in Chopin's time, "listeners to the genre of the piano nocturne often couched their reactions in feminine imagery", and he cites many examples of such reactions to Chopin's nocturnes. [2] One reason for this may be "demographic" – there were more female than male piano players, and playing such "romantic" pieces was seen by male critics as a female domestic pastime. Such genderization was not commonly applied to other piano genres such as the scherzo or the polonaise. [3] "To be associated with the feminine was also often to be devalorized", [4] and such associations of Chopin's music with the "feminine" did not begin to shift until the early twentieth century, when pianists such as Artur Rubinstein began to militate against a sentimental "salon" style of playing these works and when musical analysis of a more rigorous nature (such as that of Heinrich Schenker) began to assert itself. [5] | Perceptions of Chopin's sexuality may also have to do with his musical style. citation needed According to Kallberg, "listeners to the genre of the piano nocturne [in Chopin's time] often couched their reactions in feminine imagery". [6] Kallberg cites examples of such reactions to Chopin's work, [7] and suggests that one reason for this may have been demographic – there were more female piano players than male, and playing "romantic" pieces was often seen by male critics as a female pastime; page needed this in contrast to other piano music genres such as the scherzo or polonaise, where such genderization was uncommon. [8] This approach towards Chopin's music, which tied femininity with devalorization, [9] only started to change in the 20th century, when pianists like Artur Rubinstein began to militate against overly sentimental styles of performance, and when more rigorous musical analyses – for example by Heinrich Schenker – became established. [10] | 5 |
3 | Such attitudes may also have influenced opinion about the composer's sexuality; debate on this topic began to expand towards the end of the 20th century. Letters from Chopin to Tytus Woyciechowski in the period 1829–30 (when Chopin was about twenty) contain erotic references to dreams and to offered kisses and embraces. According to Adam Zamoyski, such expressions "were, and to some extent still are, common currency in Polish and carry no greater implication than the 'love'" concluding letters today. "The spirit of the times, pervaded by the Romantic movement in art and literature, favoured extreme expression of feeling ... Whilst the possibility cannot be ruled out entirely, it is unlikely that the two were ever lovers." [11] Chopin's biographer Alan Walker considers that, insofar as such expressions could be perceived as homosexual in nature, they would not denote more than a passing phase in Chopin's life. [12] Kallberg, writing in 1994, says that concepts of sexual practice and identity were very different in Chopin's time, so modern interpretation is problematic. [13] | These are anchored in letters from Chopin to his friend Tytus Woyciechowski, which contain erotic references and invitations. However, music historian Jeffrey Kallberg writes that concepts of sexual practice and identity were very different in Chopin's time, so modern interpretation of the letters is problematic. [14] Historian Adam Zamoyski explains that such expressions "... were, and to some extent still are, common currency in Polish", and suggest little more than contemporary valedictions like "love...". According to Zamoyski, "the spirit of the times, pervaded by the Romantic movement in art and literature, favoured extreme expression of feeling." Zamoyski further claims that, "whilst the possibility cannot be ruled out entirely, it is unlikely that [Woyciechowski and Chopin] were ever lovers"; [15] while Chopin biographer Alan Walker believes that, insofar as they were, it was just a passing phase in Chopin's life. [16] | 2 |
4 | Based on these letters, a 2020 broadcast by music journalist Moritz Weber claimed that Chopin had an erotic involvement with Woyciechowski which had been deliberately ignored. [17] In Poland, the broadcast gave rise to discussion: conservatives in church and public life were upset, whereas the LGBT activist Bart Staszewski wrote, "Let's say it openly. Yes, Chopin was at least bisexual." A spokesman for the Fryderyk Chopin Institute commented, "Because Chopin was rather discreet about revealing his intimate life even to his closest friends ... it is difficult to build theories about this aspect of his life." [18] | Based on these and other letters, music journalist Moritz Weber claims that Chopin was romantically involved with Woyciechowski and other men - an history which he says was deliberately ignored by scholars. [17] Weber's 2020 broadcast, Chopins Männer ("Chopin's Men"), resulted in public discussion in Poland: while conservatives denied the claims, LGBT activists like Bart Staszewski saw it as an opportunity: "Let's say it openly. Yes, Chopin was at least bisexual." A spokesman for the Fryderyk Chopin Institute stated that, "because Chopin was rather discreet about revealing his intimate life even to his closest friends ... it is difficult to build theories about this aspect of his life." [19] | 3 |
5 | Research in this area also considered views of Chopin's other social contacts. Chopin's relationship with George Sand was certainly physical in its early stages. Sand claimed (not entirely reliably) that it ceased to be so after June 1839 until the end of their affair in 1847. [20] Sand's daughter Solange, aged 13 at the time, referred to Chopin in 1842 as "Sexless" ("Sans-sexe"), although in later years she seemed to display affection for him herself. [21] Chopin was a friend of the Marquis de Custine, who had been associated with homosexual scandals. A letter from de Custine to Chopin, inviting Chopin to visit, refers to the composer as an "inconstant sylph"; Kallberg recognizes the "impossibility of 'discovering' the truth" of what this may imply. [22] | Research in this area also considered Chopin's other known relationships, for example with author George Sand. Chopin's relationship with Sand was certainly physical in its early stages, but Sand claimed (not entirely reliably) citation needed that it ceased to be so a year into the affair. [23] Sand's daughter Solange, aged 13 at the time, referred to Chopin several years later as "Sexless" ("Sans-sexe"), although in later years she seemed to display affection for him herself. [24] Chopin was a friend of the Marquis de Custine, one of the period's prominent openly homosexual public figures. In a letter to Chopin, inviting him for a visit, de Custine refers to Chopin as an "inconstant sylph"; Kallberg states that it may be impossible to ascertain what he meant. [25] | 4 |
François Robere ( talk) 14:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
collapsed for clarity
|
---|
References
|
Thank you François / Francis for this side-by-side comparison. I like things in both of them. But for the overall general impression, I feel the "old" version is better because 1) it is more concise; 2) it doesn't require additional research of seeking out the needed citations; 3) most importantly, the "new" version brings up too many tangents which I find distract from the main point - which I find is not strong enough in either version. Does not Kallberg have a summary after which he summarizes the problem? - kosboot ( talk) 21:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Below I wrote: "A section combining Kallberg's "gender" material and the biographers' "sexuality" material is akin to WP:OR. So, the problem seems to lie less in the section title: the mishmash is in the section's content..." Similarly, rehashing the section's content, as in François's proposal, doesn't even begin to address the actual problem, which is a OR-like combination of two completely different narratives (Kallberg's "gender" narrative, which is a non-biographical reception topic, with the biographer's "sexuality" narrative, which is biographical). In the current version (left side of François's table) the most problematic sentence is imho "Such attitudes may also have influenced opinion about the composer's sexuality" (starting #3): completely unreferenced; vaguish speculation; OR 1.0 while suggesting a link between two types of sources which is likely unsourceable, while neither the "gender" sources nor the "sexuality" sources suggest such link to the other type of sources, nor does a source outside both groups appear to suggest such link. François, in the proposal on the right side of the table, left this questionable sentence out, proposing instead, "Perceptions of Chopin's sexuality may also have to do with his musical style. citation needed" (second row in the table) – yeah, write some unsourceable personal impression and then slap a {{ cn}} at the end. Like that's going to fly... actually worse than the current version (at least it's honest in indicating there's no source for it but that doesn't compensate it being unacceptable for mainspace). So, seeing there's no opposition to my proposals to separate the "gender" material from the "sexuality" material (see below), I propose to proceed with it ASAP, and then we can forget about the OR additions that try to glue the "gender" topic to the "sexuality" topic, despite they being separated in scholarly literature, and no serious scholar ever having tried to stomp them together like Wikipedia editors are doing now. PS: FYI, please don't confuse François (which I am not) with Francis (which I am). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Above in the #A new attempt at consensus subsection I wrote: "the added images are also OK for me", meaning these images added by Chip-chip-2020:
I'd suggest we re-introduce at least the first of these images, for instance with the caption as proposed here (see →), for instance in the new Frédéric Chopin#Gender and sexuality in music and life section. Thoughts?-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
References
Thank you, Francis Schonken for your constructive input. I think it would be appropriate to add at least this picture of Tytus to the article. Since Chopin wrote so many long letters to him, and for example to Maria Wodzinska he didn‘t write any letter, but of her there is a picture in the article. One picture of Julian Fontana would be nothing but transparent too, and/or one of Matuszynski. They both lived with him for years in apartments on Chaussee-d’Antin. I would also suggest to add one quote from one of the letters Chopin wrote to Tytus, for example this one. Where Chopin writes very personally to him and also refers to a piece, including hints for the interpretation of that piece. And it contains also one example for the issue of mistranslations.
„I already, perhaps unfortunately, have my ideal, whom I faithfully serve, […] about whom I dream, [...] who this morning inspired the little waltz I am sending to you. Take note of one passage marked with a +. No one knows anything about this but you. How sweet it would be for me to play it for you, my dearest Tytus. In the trio, the bass line should dominate up to the high E flat of the upper keyboard in the 5th bar, about which it is unnecessary to write to you, because you feel it. […] Forgive me for sending you the waltz, […] but upon my word I wanted to give you pleasure with it, because I love you madly.“ Frédéric Chopin to Tytus Woyciechowski, 3.10.1829 [1] [2]
What do you think about that?-- Chip-chip-2020 ( talk) 12:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
References
For earlier presentations of, and discussion on, quotes from Chopin's letters, see, e.g.:
(bolded = contains side-by-side quote translation) -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
WP:TPG: if refactoring of a talk page discussion is opposed, attempts to repeat it should usually stop. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Francis Schonken, sure, I agree. And the previously suggested side-by-side translation undoubtedly should be preferred. But when I reread the whole letter I just found that the last sentences are also very telling and in my opinion clarifying. That‘s why I added them and I think if the Quote will be added to the article these last sentences should be included.-- Chip-chip-2020 ( talk) 11:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
-- Smerus ( talk) 13:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
21st century attempts to discern what they were or could have beenare about
the composer's sexuality. Gbear605 ( talk) 14:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
The section elevates the opinions of two non-notable individuals, Piza and Weber, over the vastly larger number of people who reject such speculation. This violates NPOV, specifically WEIGHT, and should not be published in this article. SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
On reflection I would be happy with 'Sexuality' as the title of this section, as it conforms to the opening sentences of the WP article Human sexuality: "Human sexuality is the way people experience and express themselves sexually. This involves biological, erotic, physical, emotional, social, or spiritual feelings and behaviors. Because it is a broad term, which has varied with historical contexts over time, it lacks a precise definition." Whether the section as it stands is appropriate for the article obviously remains in debate.-- Smerus ( talk) 09:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
You can read the whole essay here. In my view, for what it is worth, an interesting but somewhat arcane essay. Its topic (a somewhat narrow one) is sexual/gender perception of C's music in his era - as Kallberg summarizes the topic "How then did sex 'speak' music - Chopin's music - in the 1830s and 1840s?" (p. 70). The article does not deal with C's personal sexuality other than metaphorically. Therefore I believe that extrapolating further from it would be WP:UNDUE for this article.-- Smerus ( talk) 13:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Kallberg is imo definitely a WP:RS. But why would moving his comments to the 'reception' part of the article be a 'relegation'? I don't quite understand you here. Kallberg's comments do not in fact relate to Chopin's life, they are about the the way his music was received (the assumptions made or implied by contemporaries in their perception of his music). Kallberg indeed seems to me to avoid making any assumptions or assertions about Chopin's sex life. I am not clear exactly what the parallel is with the Schubert examples you give. Basically it seems to me that Chopin wrote the letters to W. in his life, and they can therefore legitimately be placed in an account of his life. Kallberg is giving 20th/21st interpretations, and his comments can legitimately be placed in legacy. I would further add that although K's writings are (to me anyway) very interesting, they are hardly central to an acocunt of Chopin and that to rattle on about them at length in the WP bio article on Chopin would be WP:UNDUE. The option is always there w=fro anyone to creare an article on Chopin's sexuality should they wish to do so, as has been remarked.-- Smerus ( talk) 16:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Comments on "Small Fairy Voices"
|
---|
|
The Kallberg reference refers not to Arthur Rubinstein, born ca 1890, but to Anton Rubinstein -- a contemporary of Chopin. This invalidates any thesis that a feminized Chopin persisted for decades until a revisionist rediscovery in the twentieth century. Contemporaries and peers of Chopin never feminized his work and this narrative relates only to a stereotype of twentieth century gender and social norms. SPECIFICO talk 21:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
In order to not burden the very extended #Swiss-Radio-and-TV "outing" of Chopin section on this talk page any further, I suggest to continue post-implementation comments about the topic in this new section. Meaning, any topic of that context can be continued here (please refer to the subsection in the older discussion you wish to continue here if that is the case), as well as initiating new related topics. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Example of a new topic: see WP:DRN#Frédéric Chopin for a related discussion. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
sentimental "salon" style: I have not checked most of the sources, so I'm not sure about coordinate and cumulative adjectives and if comma usage and hyphenation here are OK.
One reason for this may be "demographic": If such a claim appears in the sources, attribution should be made, otherwise it sounds like WP:OR.
Such attitudes may also: Same issue. Toccata quarta ( talk) 07:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I've copyedited the section. Other than general CE (trimmed some quotes, corrected a couple of statements...) and reordering of the paragraphs (moved the letters to the top, and Kallberg's notes on nocturnes to the bottom), the content is more or less the same.[1] What are your objections? [2] François Robere ( talk) 21:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Here's a paragraph for paragraph comparison of both revisions. As you can see, it's essentially the same content. The main difference, other than various CE for readability and conciseness, is in the order of the paragraphs: Smerus's text starts with a reference to sexuality, then veers to musical interpretation, and only then gets to the core of the question - the letters. Moving the the second paragraph to the end makes the text much clearer:
Par. | Old | New | Par. |
---|---|---|---|
1 | The musicologist Antoni Pizá writes that "Chopin's sexual life has never failed to awaken the curiosity of music lovers and to generate discourse among experts". [1] | According to musicologist Antoni Pizá, "Chopin's sexual life has never failed to awaken the curiosity of music lovers and to generate discourse among experts". [1] | 1 |
2 | The music historian Jeffrey Kallberg says that in Chopin's time, "listeners to the genre of the piano nocturne often couched their reactions in feminine imagery", and he cites many examples of such reactions to Chopin's nocturnes. [2] One reason for this may be "demographic" – there were more female than male piano players, and playing such "romantic" pieces was seen by male critics as a female domestic pastime. Such genderization was not commonly applied to other piano genres such as the scherzo or the polonaise. [3] "To be associated with the feminine was also often to be devalorized", [4] and such associations of Chopin's music with the "feminine" did not begin to shift until the early twentieth century, when pianists such as Artur Rubinstein began to militate against a sentimental "salon" style of playing these works and when musical analysis of a more rigorous nature (such as that of Heinrich Schenker) began to assert itself. [5] | Perceptions of Chopin's sexuality may also have to do with his musical style. citation needed According to Kallberg, "listeners to the genre of the piano nocturne [in Chopin's time] often couched their reactions in feminine imagery". [6] Kallberg cites examples of such reactions to Chopin's work, [7] and suggests that one reason for this may have been demographic – there were more female piano players than male, and playing "romantic" pieces was often seen by male critics as a female pastime; page needed this in contrast to other piano music genres such as the scherzo or polonaise, where such genderization was uncommon. [8] This approach towards Chopin's music, which tied femininity with devalorization, [9] only started to change in the 20th century, when pianists like Artur Rubinstein began to militate against overly sentimental styles of performance, and when more rigorous musical analyses – for example by Heinrich Schenker – became established. [10] | 5 |
3 | Such attitudes may also have influenced opinion about the composer's sexuality; debate on this topic began to expand towards the end of the 20th century. Letters from Chopin to Tytus Woyciechowski in the period 1829–30 (when Chopin was about twenty) contain erotic references to dreams and to offered kisses and embraces. According to Adam Zamoyski, such expressions "were, and to some extent still are, common currency in Polish and carry no greater implication than the 'love'" concluding letters today. "The spirit of the times, pervaded by the Romantic movement in art and literature, favoured extreme expression of feeling ... Whilst the possibility cannot be ruled out entirely, it is unlikely that the two were ever lovers." [11] Chopin's biographer Alan Walker considers that, insofar as such expressions could be perceived as homosexual in nature, they would not denote more than a passing phase in Chopin's life. [12] Kallberg, writing in 1994, says that concepts of sexual practice and identity were very different in Chopin's time, so modern interpretation is problematic. [13] | These are anchored in letters from Chopin to his friend Tytus Woyciechowski, which contain erotic references and invitations. However, music historian Jeffrey Kallberg writes that concepts of sexual practice and identity were very different in Chopin's time, so modern interpretation of the letters is problematic. [14] Historian Adam Zamoyski explains that such expressions "... were, and to some extent still are, common currency in Polish", and suggest little more than contemporary valedictions like "love...". According to Zamoyski, "the spirit of the times, pervaded by the Romantic movement in art and literature, favoured extreme expression of feeling." Zamoyski further claims that, "whilst the possibility cannot be ruled out entirely, it is unlikely that [Woyciechowski and Chopin] were ever lovers"; [15] while Chopin biographer Alan Walker believes that, insofar as they were, it was just a passing phase in Chopin's life. [16] | 2 |
4 | Based on these letters, a 2020 broadcast by music journalist Moritz Weber claimed that Chopin had an erotic involvement with Woyciechowski which had been deliberately ignored. [17] In Poland, the broadcast gave rise to discussion: conservatives in church and public life were upset, whereas the LGBT activist Bart Staszewski wrote, "Let's say it openly. Yes, Chopin was at least bisexual." A spokesman for the Fryderyk Chopin Institute commented, "Because Chopin was rather discreet about revealing his intimate life even to his closest friends ... it is difficult to build theories about this aspect of his life." [18] | Based on these and other letters, music journalist Moritz Weber claims that Chopin was romantically involved with Woyciechowski and other men - an history which he says was deliberately ignored by scholars. [17] Weber's 2020 broadcast, Chopins Männer ("Chopin's Men"), resulted in public discussion in Poland: while conservatives denied the claims, LGBT activists like Bart Staszewski saw it as an opportunity: "Let's say it openly. Yes, Chopin was at least bisexual." A spokesman for the Fryderyk Chopin Institute stated that, "because Chopin was rather discreet about revealing his intimate life even to his closest friends ... it is difficult to build theories about this aspect of his life." [19] | 3 |
5 | Research in this area also considered views of Chopin's other social contacts. Chopin's relationship with George Sand was certainly physical in its early stages. Sand claimed (not entirely reliably) that it ceased to be so after June 1839 until the end of their affair in 1847. [20] Sand's daughter Solange, aged 13 at the time, referred to Chopin in 1842 as "Sexless" ("Sans-sexe"), although in later years she seemed to display affection for him herself. [21] Chopin was a friend of the Marquis de Custine, who had been associated with homosexual scandals. A letter from de Custine to Chopin, inviting Chopin to visit, refers to the composer as an "inconstant sylph"; Kallberg recognizes the "impossibility of 'discovering' the truth" of what this may imply. [22] | Research in this area also considered Chopin's other known relationships, for example with author George Sand. Chopin's relationship with Sand was certainly physical in its early stages, but Sand claimed (not entirely reliably) citation needed that it ceased to be so a year into the affair. [23] Sand's daughter Solange, aged 13 at the time, referred to Chopin several years later as "Sexless" ("Sans-sexe"), although in later years she seemed to display affection for him herself. [24] Chopin was a friend of the Marquis de Custine, one of the period's prominent openly homosexual public figures. In a letter to Chopin, inviting him for a visit, de Custine refers to Chopin as an "inconstant sylph"; Kallberg states that it may be impossible to ascertain what he meant. [25] | 4 |
François Robere ( talk) 14:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
collapsed for clarity
|
---|
References
|
Thank you François / Francis for this side-by-side comparison. I like things in both of them. But for the overall general impression, I feel the "old" version is better because 1) it is more concise; 2) it doesn't require additional research of seeking out the needed citations; 3) most importantly, the "new" version brings up too many tangents which I find distract from the main point - which I find is not strong enough in either version. Does not Kallberg have a summary after which he summarizes the problem? - kosboot ( talk) 21:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Below I wrote: "A section combining Kallberg's "gender" material and the biographers' "sexuality" material is akin to WP:OR. So, the problem seems to lie less in the section title: the mishmash is in the section's content..." Similarly, rehashing the section's content, as in François's proposal, doesn't even begin to address the actual problem, which is a OR-like combination of two completely different narratives (Kallberg's "gender" narrative, which is a non-biographical reception topic, with the biographer's "sexuality" narrative, which is biographical). In the current version (left side of François's table) the most problematic sentence is imho "Such attitudes may also have influenced opinion about the composer's sexuality" (starting #3): completely unreferenced; vaguish speculation; OR 1.0 while suggesting a link between two types of sources which is likely unsourceable, while neither the "gender" sources nor the "sexuality" sources suggest such link to the other type of sources, nor does a source outside both groups appear to suggest such link. François, in the proposal on the right side of the table, left this questionable sentence out, proposing instead, "Perceptions of Chopin's sexuality may also have to do with his musical style. citation needed" (second row in the table) – yeah, write some unsourceable personal impression and then slap a {{ cn}} at the end. Like that's going to fly... actually worse than the current version (at least it's honest in indicating there's no source for it but that doesn't compensate it being unacceptable for mainspace). So, seeing there's no opposition to my proposals to separate the "gender" material from the "sexuality" material (see below), I propose to proceed with it ASAP, and then we can forget about the OR additions that try to glue the "gender" topic to the "sexuality" topic, despite they being separated in scholarly literature, and no serious scholar ever having tried to stomp them together like Wikipedia editors are doing now. PS: FYI, please don't confuse François (which I am not) with Francis (which I am). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Above in the #A new attempt at consensus subsection I wrote: "the added images are also OK for me", meaning these images added by Chip-chip-2020:
I'd suggest we re-introduce at least the first of these images, for instance with the caption as proposed here (see →), for instance in the new Frédéric Chopin#Gender and sexuality in music and life section. Thoughts?-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
References
Thank you, Francis Schonken for your constructive input. I think it would be appropriate to add at least this picture of Tytus to the article. Since Chopin wrote so many long letters to him, and for example to Maria Wodzinska he didn‘t write any letter, but of her there is a picture in the article. One picture of Julian Fontana would be nothing but transparent too, and/or one of Matuszynski. They both lived with him for years in apartments on Chaussee-d’Antin. I would also suggest to add one quote from one of the letters Chopin wrote to Tytus, for example this one. Where Chopin writes very personally to him and also refers to a piece, including hints for the interpretation of that piece. And it contains also one example for the issue of mistranslations.
„I already, perhaps unfortunately, have my ideal, whom I faithfully serve, […] about whom I dream, [...] who this morning inspired the little waltz I am sending to you. Take note of one passage marked with a +. No one knows anything about this but you. How sweet it would be for me to play it for you, my dearest Tytus. In the trio, the bass line should dominate up to the high E flat of the upper keyboard in the 5th bar, about which it is unnecessary to write to you, because you feel it. […] Forgive me for sending you the waltz, […] but upon my word I wanted to give you pleasure with it, because I love you madly.“ Frédéric Chopin to Tytus Woyciechowski, 3.10.1829 [1] [2]
What do you think about that?-- Chip-chip-2020 ( talk) 12:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
References
For earlier presentations of, and discussion on, quotes from Chopin's letters, see, e.g.:
(bolded = contains side-by-side quote translation) -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
WP:TPG: if refactoring of a talk page discussion is opposed, attempts to repeat it should usually stop. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Francis Schonken, sure, I agree. And the previously suggested side-by-side translation undoubtedly should be preferred. But when I reread the whole letter I just found that the last sentences are also very telling and in my opinion clarifying. That‘s why I added them and I think if the Quote will be added to the article these last sentences should be included.-- Chip-chip-2020 ( talk) 11:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
-- Smerus ( talk) 13:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
21st century attempts to discern what they were or could have beenare about
the composer's sexuality. Gbear605 ( talk) 14:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
The section elevates the opinions of two non-notable individuals, Piza and Weber, over the vastly larger number of people who reject such speculation. This violates NPOV, specifically WEIGHT, and should not be published in this article. SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
On reflection I would be happy with 'Sexuality' as the title of this section, as it conforms to the opening sentences of the WP article Human sexuality: "Human sexuality is the way people experience and express themselves sexually. This involves biological, erotic, physical, emotional, social, or spiritual feelings and behaviors. Because it is a broad term, which has varied with historical contexts over time, it lacks a precise definition." Whether the section as it stands is appropriate for the article obviously remains in debate.-- Smerus ( talk) 09:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
You can read the whole essay here. In my view, for what it is worth, an interesting but somewhat arcane essay. Its topic (a somewhat narrow one) is sexual/gender perception of C's music in his era - as Kallberg summarizes the topic "How then did sex 'speak' music - Chopin's music - in the 1830s and 1840s?" (p. 70). The article does not deal with C's personal sexuality other than metaphorically. Therefore I believe that extrapolating further from it would be WP:UNDUE for this article.-- Smerus ( talk) 13:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Kallberg is imo definitely a WP:RS. But why would moving his comments to the 'reception' part of the article be a 'relegation'? I don't quite understand you here. Kallberg's comments do not in fact relate to Chopin's life, they are about the the way his music was received (the assumptions made or implied by contemporaries in their perception of his music). Kallberg indeed seems to me to avoid making any assumptions or assertions about Chopin's sex life. I am not clear exactly what the parallel is with the Schubert examples you give. Basically it seems to me that Chopin wrote the letters to W. in his life, and they can therefore legitimately be placed in an account of his life. Kallberg is giving 20th/21st interpretations, and his comments can legitimately be placed in legacy. I would further add that although K's writings are (to me anyway) very interesting, they are hardly central to an acocunt of Chopin and that to rattle on about them at length in the WP bio article on Chopin would be WP:UNDUE. The option is always there w=fro anyone to creare an article on Chopin's sexuality should they wish to do so, as has been remarked.-- Smerus ( talk) 16:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Comments on "Small Fairy Voices"
|
---|
|
The Kallberg reference refers not to Arthur Rubinstein, born ca 1890, but to Anton Rubinstein -- a contemporary of Chopin. This invalidates any thesis that a feminized Chopin persisted for decades until a revisionist rediscovery in the twentieth century. Contemporaries and peers of Chopin never feminized his work and this narrative relates only to a stereotype of twentieth century gender and social norms. SPECIFICO talk 21:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)