Talk:Waltzes, Op. 70 (Chopin)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Sixteen Waltzes, Op. 39 (Brahms) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Chopin's "ideal"
This article currently identifies Chopin's "ideal" as his schoolmate, Tytus Woyciechowski.

This is in error, as explained on "Talk:Chopin", in the section "Chopin's homosexuality"; and at "Talk:Tytus Woyciechowski".

Chopin's "ideal" (in the original Polish, ideał – "person of [his] dreams") is clearly the young singer, Konstancja Gładkowska, of whom he was enamored. Nihil novi (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I have deleted the misinformation concerning Chopin's friend Tytus Woyciechowski
 * Nihil novi (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * thank you for spending so much time on editing, Nihil novi. But delete almost content is definitely not appropriate, since the improvements were added with citations.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is misinformation coupled with WP:COATRACK and WP:ACTIVISM. Mathsci (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Mathsci, please cool down a bit. I don‘t understand why you talk about misinformation and why you deleted relevant content. In this letter, Chopin writes about this waltz, about what was the inspiration for it, about how it should be played, so it is a very relevant source also for interpreters. That he composed it for Tytus is obvious, since he writes at the very end of the letter that he wanted to give Tytus pleasure with it, because he loves him madly. So the case seems to be quite clear, or not? And since these are the only indications Chopin makes about this piece, the quote is even more precious.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not?--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Response to your rhetorical question above.
 * Further, please see user:Smerus's and my comments on the matter at "Talk:Tytus Woyciechowski".
 * Best,
 * Nihil novi (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Well I did, and I couldn‘t find any good points or reliable sources in the discussion of the two of you there either, which would justify deleting almost the whole article here - which you did.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Happy new year, Nihil novi.
 * 1. Could you answer the questions please?
 * 2. And please explain also, why you wrote in the Chopin-Talk that you deleted my contributions but actually it was Mathsci who deleted it?
 * 3. And why do you believe, that it is an error, that Chopin‘s ideal was Tytus? You say it is clearly Gladkowska, but her name doesn‘t appear in the whole letter, the pronouns (like „nim“) are indicating a male, and even the translator David Frick told the Guardian it was possible that Chopin was referring to Woyciechowski. .--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The citation was from Professor John Rink's C.U.P. book Chopin: The Piano Concertos (1997). It is a WP:RS, explicitly mentioned in the discussion section of the RfC on Talk:Frédéric Chopin: Rink gives a long quotation where the "ideal" is discussed in its proper context. Please follow the reference there for Rink's quotation. If you have any questions with Rink's book, please ask at WP:RSN. This article is a classical music stub on a piece of piano music by Frédéric Chopin.
 * You should probably ask User:Nihil novi for clarification again, as he was the first user to notice the edits of the IPs from Zurich, which were followed by identical edits by your recently registered account. Mathsci (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, Nihil novi didn‘t answer question 3 by now. And a publication more than 20 years old like John Rink’s is probably outdated anyway. I‘ll have a look at it though.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry in Zurich
On 12 November 2020 there were two edits by IPs from Zurich, Switzerland, where Moritz Weber is based. They concerned Weber;'s theories about Chopin's personal life. The IPs' edits were reverted by another editor, User:Nihil novi. The edits were then reinstated by the newly registered account User:Chip-chip-2020. They had the same tone, content and German punctuation as the Zurich IPs. User:Chip-chip-2020 has a single purpose. To prove that all of Chopin's relationships with women were a sham and that Chopin has or or more male lover, drawn from his schoolfriends. That is more more less a summary of Weber's theory. In addition Weber's webpage refers to the Chopin entry for de.wikipedia.org, with a clickable link: there is a complaint that the Weber theory's about Chopin keep getting reverted. Mathsci (talk) 10:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear Mathsci, please remember the basic rules of Wikipedia. And remember, that this is the talk-Page of an article about a Waltz.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems clear that the Zurich IP edits of 12 November were made by you; so it is hard to assume good faith. As more experienced editors have noticed (those that brought Frédéric Chopin to WP:FA), your edits have been single purpose—to push the idea that Chopin might have been gay, and to diminish Chopin's connections with women. These edits to a musical stub seem unbalanced. Shoe-horning sexual material into an article on Chopin's early waltzes seems like WP:CPUSH. Mathsci (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Mathsci stop spreading such accusations on various talk pages, and remember the outcome of your request was void.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 09:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Score Excerpt

 * The recent edits to this stub on de.wikipedia.org, ca.wikipedia.org (catalan) and here on en.wikipedia.org by make no musical sense at all: see competence is required. The musical quotation only has 4 bars, so that the E-flat, two octaves above middle C. does not appear in the score. It occurs in the fifth bar, as cited in Chopin's Polish letters. The new material on the Polish letter, the photograph of Woyciechowski and the truncated musical quotation are WP:UNDUE. The edits of  are not justified by WP:RS and WP:V. Mathsci (talk) 08:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear Mathsci, in the quote by Chopin, the one you keep deleting, you can see that he is referring to the bassline, which obviously also culminates in an E-Flat. It should dominate till the E-Flat, so the dominance of the Bassline he is pointing out to his beloved Tytus. Since you started talking about it, it seems even more necessary that quote AND score excerpt should be shown in the article. Thanks for making this necessity even more clear!--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Chopin composed the third Waltz in D-flat major for Tytus Woyciechowski, who he often named „my dearest life“ in his letters. He added the manuscript to the following letter, in which he also gives some hints on the interpretation of the piece."„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." --Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

But if you think the excerpt should include also the higher E-Flat in the right hand I can upload another one easily.--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC) , for this classical music sub-stub, WP:CIR also applies. On Page 89 of the 1987 edition of "Chopin, Pianist and Teacher, as Viewed by His Pupils", Jean-Jacques Eigeldinger writes of Op. 70, No. 2: ""Although he never had the Waltzes [of op. 70] published, Chopin valued them highly, at least the one in F minor. I often heard him play it, and how incomparably! This nostalgic piece could be entitled Malinconia."" Of No. 3, he quotes nine bars from a letter of Chopin: ""In the trio, the bass melody must dominate until the violin's E-flat in the fifth bar ... but I don't need to tell you, because you'll feel it anyway."" In Talk:Frédéric Chopin, the words straightwashing, homophobic and heteronormative have been introduced by. George Sand used "Chip Chip" as one of her pet names for Frédéric Chopin. Mathsci (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your edits at the moment amount to vandalism, because your WP:single purpose account is disrupting the current RfC on "Chopin and sexuality". In an WP:UNDUE way, you have attempted to expand a small neutral musical stub with edits which (a) are musically inaccurate (5 bars with the E-flat in the treble clef absent) and (b) add improperly sourced homosexual POV-pushing about Chopin and his schoolfriends. Ignoring the RfC on Talk:Frédéric Chopin indicates that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Ask User:Johnuniq on why you cannot provide your homosexual narrative on Chopin & friends while the RfC is still being conducted. The same applies to your edits on cottaging and Chopin. Mathsci (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's not vandalism as defined here—please don't misuse that term. It is civil POV pushing which is tendentious editing. Pushing too hard will result in blocks. Wait for Talk:Frédéric Chopin to finish although that is likely to be a significant wait due to the extraordinary verbage on that page. Johnuniq (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll need to digest that another day. I suppose if I examined article history I could see the relevance of the above extracts, and I'll try to do that later. I see that I wrote some advice here (permalink). Part of that was "I believe there is absolutely no evidence about Chopin's sexuality so however obvious a conclusion might be, any source which declares something in this area as known fact is, by definition, not reliable because it is just someone's opinion." How accurate is my assessment about "no evidence"? Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A few biographers have discussed Chopin's adolescent Polish letters from 1829–1830. They have acknowledged that there are a few homoerotic references at the end of his letters; these are in keeping with early 19th-century modes of expression. The same biographers have cautiously given their personal opinions about these parts of the letters, but without drawing any conclusions. Mathsci (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The file File:Waltz op. 70,3.jpg has been listed for deletion on Commons since 9 January 2021. The claim is that User:Chip-chip-2020 created the file, but that is false. Again WP:CIR applies. Mathsci (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

CD liners by Jeffrey Kallberg
All of these are WP:RS as Jeffrey Kallberg, Professor of Music at the University of Pennsylvania, is one of the world experts on Chopin. The pianist Angela Hewitt writes her own CD liners for Hyperion Records. In a same way, the CD liners for the Harnoncourt-Leonhardt Bach cantatas were written by Alfred Dürr, one of the main authorities on Bach. The recordings of John Eliot Gardiner were also written by Christoph Wolff, a Bach authority of the next generation. Having an image of Tytus Woyciechowski is WP:UNDUE (see the bio). On wikipedia, the relations between Chopin and his women are accurately described. They are mentioned in the article without having portraits or photographs. Mathsci (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * With numerous English translations already existing of Chopin's Polish Letters, I don't believe that wikipedians should be making their own personal attempts, as if they were professionals. The description by Eigeldinger about the Trio in No. 3 is musically accurate; the corresponding linguistically-correct passage by Frick does not convey the technical musical sense as accurately (his translation is now available on-line).


 * In Chopin's long letter, has combined the quote on the Trio with the quite separate closing paragraph of the letter. Here Chopin addresses flirtatious pleasantries to Titus—cherry-picking which seems WP:UNDUE without commentary. That context has been provided elsewhere by Chopin biographers; so omitting commentary is misleading. There was also consensus in the RfC on the topic of Chopin's sexuality. On the other hand, over the years, biographers and music historians continue to debate these ambiguous and inconclusive matters; the particular period prior to 1840 shows different social mores, as mentioned by expert commentators. Frick's translation of the closing sentences of Chopin's letter of 3 October 1829 reads:


 * "Just imagine: I lost my bundle as I was returning from Miss Bronikowska’s wedding party! But enough of that, because I might bore you with empty pieces of news, and I would never want to do anything that wouldn’t please you. If you are able, write me two words and you’ll make me happy again for several weeks. Forgive me for sending you the waltz, which perhaps will make you angry at me, but upon my word I wanted to give you pleasure with it, because I love you madly."


 * Who knows how that last sentence can be interpreted? Mathsci (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Mathsci it’s interesting and eye-catching that you prefer to namedrop musicologists in the article rather than quoting Chopin’s original words. Especially Eigeldinger in this context: on the named page of his book he is doing nothing else than quoting from Chopins letter. Not adding one thought by himself, but concealing the last phrases of the letter which are about the waltz again and very clear to understand. Moreover a CD-booklet might not be a very reliable source anyway. Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "I wanted to give you pleasure with it, because I love you madly." Also the original in polish couldn’t be more clear: "chciałem Ci nim przyjemność zrobić, bo Cię szalenie kocham." 2001:1711:FA4E:7AA0:64E6:89B2:64F6:C134 (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I was pinged in an edit summary. Is this the same dispute as occurred at Frédéric Chopin? @Chip-chip-2020: I don't see that text in the main article where it could conceivably belong (if not WP:SYNTH). Trying alternatives of putting it in other articles would be a misuse of procedure. Please don't do that. If my vague recollection is correct, you must not edit war in an attempt to force the text into other articles given that a very long RfC failed to reach consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)