in agreement with the
generally accepted opinions of that time (i.e., the late nineteenth-century),
as presented in earlier chapters. D'Indy's assertion that Chopin was ignorant
of counterpoint is questionable on even a cursory examination of many of
Chopin's scores. For example, the Allegro
maestoso from the piano sonata opus 58 shows possibly the clearest
influence of Bach in all Chopin's works, by exhibiting much independence of
voice movement. Gavoty maintains that d'Indy and his pupils' blind confidence
in scholarly schemes is far from desirable, and that it "accounts for their
perfect, inert sonatas - reinforced concrete to the marrow."
Gavoty does not agree with the idea that because it does
not obey the canons derived from the sonatas of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven,
opus 35 is an inferior work. He also disagrees with Schumann's comment that
"[o]ne would say that the Polish background has disappeared and that Chopin, by
way of Germany, is leaning
toward Italy."
Gavoty's reasoning is that the singing episodes of the sonata have nothing of
the cavatinas that liven the arias of Rossini or Bellini. He reiterates that
Chopin was a Polish composer and that "...the fate of his fatherland was a
constant concern of his."
Some of the most influential writings on Chopin in recent
years are those of Jim Samson. In his discussion of Chopin's opus 35, Samson
does not attempt to "disprove" Schumann; rather, he provides suggestions for
the unique characteristics exhibited in this sonata. These will be examined in
Chapter Nine. For now, it is worthwhile mentioning one of Samson's important
observations in his 1985 The Music of
Chopin, in which he states:
When [Chopin] returned to the sonata in 1839...he had already
proved himself a master of other lines of thought, musically speaking. The Sonata funèbre...is a dialogue between
these lines of thought and the German sonata principle. Like the Russian
symphony, it has been criticised often and vigorously for failing to achieve a
result which it never sought.
