Les Regrets (GF Etonnants classiques) (French Edition)

This course aims at providing the students oral and written language activities, a systematic review of the fundamentals of French language, a basic knowledge on the origin and the development of the French language and a comprehensive survey of French medieval literature with special emphasis on the origin and development of French Theater 10th to 15th century.

Development of listening comprehension and oral expression. Overview of the history of France. The early texts in French literature, Importance of the oral tradition, study of the French epic i. Collectif , La Chanson de Roland, ed. Short, Livre de poche. Zumthor, Paul , La Lettre et la voix. One of the objectives of this course is to introduce the students to contemporary French life and society.

A survey of French Literature of the Renaissance will include masterpieces of French prose and poetry of the 16th century with special emphasis on the poetic movement. Language structures and vocabulary, improvement of writing abilities by introducing more complex language structures and vocabulary. Overview of the diversity of French culture.

Towards a definition of poetry, the functions of poetry, the originality of the French poetry of the Renaissance period with special reference to the work of Pierre de Ronsard including a comparative study with the English poetry of that time. This intermediate course intends to consolidate and expand the knowledge of the language.

Variation 4 excerpt from Herz, Le Crociato Paris: It may seem counterintuitive to base an analysis of the music press and pianism on a journal that ran for only two years in the mids. It is true that Le Pianiste was short-lived, and it is also true that like all journalistic writing, it is full of gossip, incomplete thoughts, musings, and opinion. Most studies of the music press have focused on journals with longer print runs, and their longevity has been seen as a testament to their quality or to their mass appeal. This sort of thinking, however, reflects modern ideas about the press more than the reality of the age.

It was more common for journals to open and close in a short period of time, and it was also common to lose money on these endeavors. The significance of any content in Le Pianiste has been further obfuscated by the misattribution of the identity of its authors. Without the knowledge of who was behind the writing, the ideas found therein, lacking context, have little meaning.

This discovery shows that Le Pianiste was not written by an ad-hoc group of contributors, like some of its competitors. Instead, Le Pianiste was written by just two people: These two people were lifelong friends and were schooled together under the same piano teacher, Louis Adam. Instead of reading the journal as a chronicle of time, with this knowledge, Le Pianiste can be read as a text, as a declaration of a sect, as a coterie journal of piano friends who grew up together in France and studied piano together at the Paris Conservatoire.

Like most of their generation, these men now bear a footnote in history, however, they were centrally involved in French music-making in the s, s, and s. It sets into relief the tensions of a rapidly changing society, such as those between amateur and professional, between high and low art, between the new and old generations, and between French ways of life and the influx of foreign habits brought by recent immigrants. Each year of Le Pianiste was continuously paginated, and my citations will therefore only mention the year and page number.

Translations, unless otherwise noted, are my own. It was not the first French journal devoted to music, as is sometimes assumed, but earlier attempts did not succeed in making music journalism a permanent feature of French life. Moreover, the Revue musicale helped set the tone and format for French music journalism during its unprecedented expansion in the mids, when specialist music journalism became firmly established in Paris. But soon after this announcement new rival music journals began to appear. In November, Lemoine began printing Le Pianiste.

Earlier French music journals include Les Tablettes do Polymnie — and La Correspondance des amateurs musiciens — Of these, only the Revue musicale and the Gazette musicale which merged together to become the Revue et Gazette musicale in have been the focus of any scholarly inquiry. The July Revolution of was heavily influenced, if not outrightly caused, by the propaganda of journalists who denounced restrictions on their work, and one of the first decrees of the new regime granted greater freedom to the press.

Le Pianiste was born in this environment when the press was seen as a way to mold and galvanize public opinion. Cambridge University Press, Le Pianiste claimed that the presence of it and other specialist journals put pressure on daily papers to include more musical content. Henry Lemoine, a music publisher, composer, and pianist, and Charles Chaulieu, a composer and pianist.

A third man, Jules Delacour, served as an administrator and printer. Another French publishing house journal, the Gazette musicale, began two months after Le Pianiste in January ; it was run by the publisher Maurice Schlesinger. The fact that Henry Lemoine was the director and owner of Le Pianiste is never mentioned outright in the journal.

Minkoff, , In a passing note in the journal he is described as its treasurer. Berlioz, for instance, signed his name on his articles frequently, but he never owned a journal. Preface to Le Pianiste reprint, Geneva: Mainzer demanded to know who was insulting him, and his request went unanswered, so he made his own guess. In any case, there is sufficient evidence that shows that Lemoine was the owner. See anonymous preface to Minkoff reprint of Le Pianiste. For the discussion between Le Pianiste and Mainzer, see Le Pianiste an 2, — and —; and Gazette musicale 26 July , — Presumably if it had, Lemoine or Delacour or someone would have written to inform him of the error.

The attribution only appears in the second edition of , and therefore is far removed from the time and postdates the deaths of anyone involved. This has been a source of confusion: For reference, Table 1 shows all borrowed articles with known sources, Table 2 shows all borrowed articles with unknown sources, and Table 3 shows letters to the editor.

See Bibliographie de la France, , , description of Le Pianiste: A few of the lithographs are signed by another lithographer, Benard, but it is unclear why Delacour did not supply those. Delacour held the required licenses for printing. Delacour obtained his brevet de librarie bookselling license on 15 November and his brevet de lithographie lithography license on 5 July registered in Vaugirard.

The printing license was registered in Meudon because he was not able to obtain a license in Vaugirard, but Delacour eventually transferred it to Vaugirard in Bibliographie de la France, 15 September , p. He sold his license then registered in Vaugirard to his uncle Laurent-Theodore Delacour on 20 April Bibliographie de la France , p. Borrowed contributions of identified origin. Moniteur du Commerce an 2, 43— Borrowed contributions of unknown origin.

Masson de Puitneuf et M. Musard an 2, 4—5. Letters to the editor. Giorgio from Rome an 1, C[laude] Montal an 1, Georgette Ducrest an 2, Mazas an 2, Fontaine an 2, 79— The remainder of the articles in Le Pianiste are either unsigned, or signed by two names: Le Pianiste an 1, There is a precedent for this sort of arrangement in Parisian music journalism: They had studied piano together at the Paris Conservatoire in the first decade of the century and saw themselves as a part of a larger unified pianistic school, and the writing in Le Pianiste represents a similar, though not identical, point of view.

It also served as a public advertisement aimed to gather subscriptions. While the journal openly eschewed philosophy, this should not be confused with its being anti-intellectual: Lemoine and Chaulieu believed that artists and music lovers were a part of the same public, and that writing a journal aimed at pianists of all levels was possible. In particular, Lemoine and Chaulieu wanted to encourage French pianists and focus on the music heard in France. The prospectus also promised that every issue of Le Pianiste would dutifully publish a list of piano music that had been published in Paris the month prior so the journal might serve as a report of publishing activities.

Le Pianiste not only differed from Revue musicale in its tone and scope, but also in its price. The Revue musicale cost 30F a year for a subscription, and Le Pianiste only cost 7F for its first year the price was raised to 10F and frequency increased in its second year.

Outside of Le Pianiste, there were basically two models for music journalism: The Revue musicale was published weekly and cost 30F for a yearly subscription. None of these music journals had single issues for sale. Journal de musique Paris: Its length, however, made up for its infrequency. Le Pianiste noted in its second year prospectus that a journal that appeared only monthly was not subject to the stamp tax, and by increasing the frequency of the issues, the price would have to rise to pay the tax. Comparison of yearly subscription price of Le Pianiste and its competitors. Each issue featured a lithographed portrait of a famous pianist every other issue in the second year , 37 Two sheets in quarto.

And while many other journals included a piece of sheet music in each issue, usually a song, Le Pianiste did not. Expensive journals like the Gazette musicale often included a song in their supplement, as well. Le Pianiste was not in the business of sending pieces of music connected with it. Circulation and Subscribers Le Pianiste quickly became one of the most popular music journals. The date for this work is given as in library catalogs, but it was a serialized work sent in installments in the mail.

The first shipment was dated 16 November The date is likely the date it was bound into book form. The schedule is printed in the bound copy. Le Pianiste pointed out this error in its own pages. By comparison, Peter Bloom has suggested that the Revue musicale had, on average, about subscribers. This was a popular mode of reading consumption in the first half of the nineteenth century. If people could not afford to subscribe to their favorite periodicals, they could read them at a cabinet de lecture for much cheaper.

A cabinet de lecture contained seating and tables at which to read, and some even offered beverages and snacks. We know that Berlioz, or one of his friends, read Le Pianiste, because he mentions the contents of the journal in his Memoirs. Ellis notes around subscribers for , and in Dover Publications, , p. Letters that are signed include those by Aristide Farrenc, the publisher, and Albert Sowinsky, the pianist both wrote to correct small errors in the journal. Katharine Ellis has suggested that the readership for the journal was predominantly female.

There were other journals for fashionable music interest. Le Pianiste coveted a wide range of people with differing interests in music, and appears to have had a healthy circulation of various sorts of people, both amateur and professional, which was its goal. The small and closed administration of Lemoine, Chaulieu, and Delacour made the journal uniform and expressive, but it also made it vulnerable. Letter of 16 May However, despite the resumption of portraits, the situation at Le Pianiste continued to deteriorate. The last issues of the journal have little new content, and rely mainly on articles borrowed from other journals instead.

Chaulieu alone was writing new articles. In the last issue, Chaulieu explained that Lemoine was also indisposed due to family commitments. This is the point where we were at the beginning of this month, when the serious and possibly prolonged illness of one of our editors, and the temporary absence of another, suddenly called away from us by family affairs, came to interfere in our deliberations and prevents us, for a moment, to decide on our final plan. Delacour was the ill one and Lemoine must have been the editor that was too busy. He noted that Le Pianiste would not want to take new people on, because the trio of himself, Lemoine, and Delacour were too close and had worked together too long to consider any replacement, even temporarily.

For instance, portraits were scheduled for the next year: Notably, the last portrait to be found in Le Pianiste is that of Chaulieu himself, calm-looking with small wire spectacles, slightly wild hair, and one part of his vest unbuttoned See Figure 2. The choice of final portrait might be interpreted to be a last bit of indulgence in a dying enterprise. This is also the only known portrait of Chaulieu. The lead story of 1 November in the Gazette musicale 57Ibid. In fact, it was only one of two music journals left. The Gazette musicale wrote: At the same time that Revue musicale came to complete our efforts and our studies, the last small journal that still survived, le Pianiste, our unknown enemy, so to speak, and whose incognito anger was not the least worrying to us, has just given its last breath, the last feeble sound of a brass string breaking with a groan.

And after , I would argue, this sort of small journalistic enterprise would have been no longer possible. The following is the story of Le Pianiste, but it is also the story of the Louis Adam school and the politics of French pianism in the first three and a half decades of the nineteenth century. While Le Pianiste was written in the s, much of its value comes from the way in which it discusses and summarizes the recent past.

Lemoine and Chaulieu were firsthand witnesses and participants in French musical life in the first three decades of the century, and as some of the best students of Adam, they had access to elite and closed circles of musicians. When telling stories about the past, there is a natural tendency to emphasize events that turned out to be important and deemphasize those that did not. In other words, any story about the past is told in relation to the time of its presentation. In many cases, Lemoine and Chaulieu appear to be responding to musical trends or ideas that they have noticed in their present and attempting to explain something about them through a historical precedent.

These instances tell us as much about the past as they do about the s. In the scant comments about Le Pianiste in secondary literature, this is often the case. There is a tendency in evaluating criticism to look for the first glimpse of a modern idea and to credit the people who first argued for a particular point of view. A surface glance at Le Pianiste, with its portraits and articles on Jan Ladislav Dussek and Daniel Steibelt, might make it appear to be out of time, and it is easy to assume its authors were conservative or suspicious of modern music.

But this would be an error. In evaluating criticism, Roger Parker notes that we tend to overemphasize the ideas that are familiar to us: I argue instead, that in many ways they represented something mainstream. The medium of the press also begs for a different type of analysis than does a book. A book, by its nature is meant to be permanent; it is written out of time as much as possible.

But a music journal has no such aspirations: Ideas are often presented in the music press in raw form, incomplete, and unbridled by years of hindsight. More importantly, however, the way the press was produced is intimately tied up in its meaning. Oxford University Press, , 4. Unwittingly, Lemoine and Chaulieu suggest that their generation was entirely wrapped up in the politics of virtuosity, so much so that by the mids, even those musicians who had been opposed to virtuosity were thought to be its practitioners.

But it was not only the commonly understood superficial aspect of virtuosity that bothered Lemoine and Chaulieu. Rather, the real problem was that virtuosity was unoriginal: The analysis 68Roger Parker mentions in Reading Critics Reading that critics and journals had biases, but this idea still has not permeated most analyses of the press. While Le Pianiste was written by just two people, it is much more than the product of two unique and unconnected voices.

The author cannot get his books published, and he tires of his poverty, so he becomes embroiled in the world of journalism. He learns of back door deals and intrigues, and more often than not, he is forced to write articles with a particular slant to satisfy some external need: He lives well, but has little money to himself, as he is wined and dined by various rich people who need access to his power. Nor does he appreciate their secret miseries. Dover, , In part, this is because the method of inquiry has mainly focused on criticism and not on the wider system of journalistic practices in which the criticism was written.

This system of practices, or the business of the press, includes legal, business, and social structures that had the potential to alter the outcome of articles, which, in turn, changes the way in which history itself is recorded in music journals, and the way in which we interpret the contents of those journals. For instance, Kerry Murphy has shown that some critics accepted bribes in exchange for positive reviews, but did not consider less obvious and more common ways in which musicians and critics might trade favors, such as exchanging tickets or writing complementary articles to secure future publishing contracts.

In some cases, one person might fulfill all three of these roles at the same time and need to negotiate their 4 I refer to this as a system, but it is not systematic in any way. Rather it is a loose smattering of interested behavior that is not visible in the articles we can read, but which I argue was central to the act of writing these articles down.

It was also business, laws, and tricks. What relates these activities to one another is the way in which they had the potential to alter the outcome of articles. UMI Research Press, , 61— Cambridge University Press, passim, esp. In this mixed musical world, any piece of journalistic writing had the potential for repercussions for the critic or the journal owner, and therefore, since a given critic would know about this potential, he would write always with a myriad of such issues in mind.

• BUY ON AMAZON'S NEVER EASY!
• Origine du nom de famille RUCH (Oeuvres courtes) (French Edition)?
• Future Health Now! Encyclopedia.
• Windjammers and Sea Tramps;
• Voices of Concern: Critical Studies in Church of Christism?

This presents a central issue in the analysis and comprehension of the nineteenth-century press. How can we tell which ideas were heartfelt and which were fabricated? To better understand how one might know when this invisible self-imposed censorship might be happening, this chapter will look at the business of the press from the ground up and help answer a number of fundamental questions: What were the requirements to start and run a journal? Was running a journal profitable?

History of French Literature from the Middle Ages to the French Revolution

What sorts of repercussions existed for writing positive, negative, or polemical articles? How did critics communicate with artists and how did journals communicate with each other? And what influenced the outcome of a given review? Answering these questions will help to identify areas of journalistic life that might influence the written word, and work toward creating an intellectual cosmos in which we can better interpret the contents of the nineteenth-century press.

Faculty Of Arts – University Of Peradeniya

Though it was a small and short-lived paper, Le Pianiste provides an excellent case study of the sorts of business practices involved in nineteenth-century French music journalism. Lemoine and Chaulieu were journalists, composers, teachers, and publishers. In these capacities they wrote criticism about new music, and sometimes published the music of the artists they reviewed. They received criticism in other journals for their new pieces, and sometimes their critics might have been composers whose works had been reviewed by Le Pianiste.

Lemoine and Chaulieu also sought and received contracts for their own compositions from rival publishing houses, some of which had their own music journals. These activities sometimes disagreed with one another, and Lemoine and Chaulieu faced consequences in one part of their professional lives for actions carried out in another.

Furthermore, Lemoine and Chaulieu were atypically open about the business of the music press in Le Pianiste in that they called attention to the conflicts of interest that arose between their various musical enterprises. This chapter will begin by discussing the laws governing music journalism in the early s. While the establishment of political censorship is cited by political historians as one of the reasons that the July Revolution of occurred, how this changing legal landscape affected non-political journals has received little attention.

Many journal owners of this period lost money on their ventures, but they recouped their losses in other indirect ways, namely as I argue, through the exertion of power and authority that would earn them favors or perks and a valuable air of prestige. This chapter will trace the flow of money, favors, and influence that made journalism worthwhile for journalists and owners, and also susceptible to corruption. This chapter will culminate in an investigation of the professional risks and rewards of journalistic activity by analyzing the anatomy of an extended rivalry between Le Pianiste and the Gazette musicale.

The feud between these journals illustrates how journals functioned as sources of power for their owners, and demonstrates a variety of actions and reactions in the mixed world of composing, journalism, and publishing, from two men who worked in all three fields. What Lemoine and Chaulieu wrote in Le Pianiste affected their whole professional life.

The Press and the Government To understand French music journalism of the s, it is important to know something about the press at large during this time. Longman, , Breaking the law risked penalties, fines, and imprisonment, and journals were required to register, provide declarations, and deposit every issue with various government offices. The government also monitored the activities of each journal and printer. While the responsibilities of journalism feature prominently in political histories of this time, there is remarkably little written about the legal requirements for music journalism in music scholarship.

Opera in Paris, — Amadeus Press, , — However, non-cautioned papers were still subject to other restrictions. Loi du 18 juillet , art. Collingham notes that some political papers were printed at random intervals to evade the cautionnement. Collingham, The July Monarchy, Journals not subject to the caution would have to declare the following in advance: The law listed 5 items that must be mentioned in the declaration, but journals that were exempt from the cautionnement only had to provide items 1, 2, and 5.

A slightly different set of information was recorded in the Bibliographie de la France: The declarations for the relevant journals in the Bibliographie are as follows: Bibliographie de la France Gazette musicale de Paris, 29 item ; Le Pianiste, item Not anyone could be a printer: The government dossier on Delacour shows that he had a license to be a bookseller which included permission to own a cabinet de lecture and a license to be a lithographer, but that he had tried in vain to obtain a printing brevet. His requests were denied because Paris already had the maximum number of printers allowed.

Delacour then found an illegal solution. He set up a pseudo-shop in Meudon, a town just outside Paris, and obtained a printing license there while he ran the business in Vaugirard. The government caught up with him in , and after lengthy deliberations and a discussion of his story, surprisingly awarded him a brevet in Paris with no consequences for his previous behavior.

For instance, a non-political journal like Le Pianiste could not print political news or commentary, as it had not paid a cautionnement nor declared its political intent beforehand. I will be discussing this incident in more detail in a forthcoming article. It is possible that the article was simply ghostwritten by someone in Le Pianiste.

Reconstructing the situation from the letter, it seems that the piano, as a manufactured good, was given different legal protection than paper media like music scores and journals. For Le Pianiste, the lithographs for which it was known were made illegal by the September laws. Delacour was a lithographer by trade and there were new restrictions on his work, and likely increased delays. There was more oversight, more work, and more risk involved in publishing. It is possible that when the 29 Collingham, — Loi du septembre titre III. Turning a Profit Or not Laws, at least, were fairly predictable, but the economics of owning a music journal were anything but.

Surprisingly, owning a journal often meant losing money, as many papers were not solvent. Nor did a journal make money through advertisements, which were only beginning to be published in the daily papers, and had not yet appeared in music journals of the s. Many nineteenth-century music journals, like Le Pianiste or the Gazette musicale, were connected to publishing houses. The advertisements would have been in the form of positive reviews, philosophical musing, general publicity, or even fiction.

This power then is a type of capital that may be transformed into monetary gain in another setting. Since a journal owner held this power, musicians might ingratiate themselves with him to gain access to that influence and to secure good reviews. The German poet Heinrich Heine, who lived in Paris from until his death in , was well aware of this when he noted the following about Maurice Schlesinger: In a similar fashion, it has been alleged that Meyerbeer used his wealth to pay critics for positive reviews, but Murphy notes that instead critics would have relied on Meyerbeer for personal loans.

This sort of agreement is much more indirect than paying someone for positive reviews, though the outcome is nearly identical. Instead it was more common for a critic or owner to earn benefits from his articles in more subtle ways. For instance, theaters or artists would give critics free tickets. In Illusions perdues, Balzac suggests that these tickets were provided for purposes other than attending at no cost.

Rather, the artists would give many tickets, maybe dozens, so the critic could resell them to others and earn some money through their sale. The Modern Library, , 57 and An Art and a Business New York: Once, the failure to give tickets resulted in no review at all; in its place, Le Pianiste mentioned that an article would not be written since no tickets were received.

Lambert, by the fact that Le Pianiste had often spoken well of her pianistic ability, and she had failed to acknowledged the journal with tickets and invitations. Consequences for Bad Behavior Being a musician and a critic in this milieu were not mutually exclusive activities, however. Musicians were also critics, publishers were critics, musicians were publishers, and everyone had to negotiate the needs of their various positions.

Customers who bought this item also bought

If good behavior earned a person rewards and positive reviews, what would be the consequences for bad behavior? What if allegiance or favors to one person earned retaliation from another? Le Pianiste provides an interesting perspective on these matters because the men involved in its production were critics, publishers, and working musicians with various publishing contracts of their own.

Concert held at Salle Chantereine. She was from a musical dynasty: Her first name is unknown. Their doing so was certainly an attempt to discredit others and promote the fairness of their own journal, but some part of it was a wholesome attempt to expose the trickery found in certain articles. The majority of this activity centered on two rival journals: Le Dilettante, owned by Franz Stoepel, a musician, and the Gazette musicale, owned by Maurice Schlesinger, a publisher. The substance of these feuds shows the ways in which journals might be used to promote personal power, and how public, private, and business life were not separated in these early publishing house journals.

Finally, it provides new insight into the ways that publishing house journals operated behind the scenes. While the article did not mention Le Pianiste by name, the journal was clearly its intended target. No article in Le Dilettante was ever signed, no one made any claim of ownership in the journal, and its owner also remains unknown in modern scholarship. This may suggest that Stoepel was unhappy with the merge. Franz Stoepel was Prussian who had lived all over the German states and in London before moving to Paris in His establishing of Le Dilettante would be consistent with his past endeavors.

The journal mocked his group piano classes based on the Logier system and made fun of his advertisements that claimed he was a professor. Possibly to avoid any libel suit, Le Pianiste often referred to Stoepel with nicknames: This exchange, however, cannot compare to the complex relationship between Le Pianiste and Gazette musicale, but serves as an important background layer to the subsequent interactions with the Gazette.

The Gazette musicale is considered to be one of the most important music journals in nineteenth-century France. The journal was unpopular at first and its early life was marred by a series of scandals: Pendragon Press, , 5. Behind the gossipy nature of the accounts of this rivalry, there is a lesson about contemporary journalistic ethics.

The relationship that developed between the owners and editors of these two papers may be unmatched in nineteenth- century music journalism: The creative means by which the men exerted control over one another illustrates, as a case study, how music journalism functioned as a source of power for journal owners, and offers new avenues for critical interpretation of contemporary criticism. Behind the Gazette, Le Pianiste saw a Prussian publisher, Schlesinger, who had ties to the German states and who had German artists in his catalog. Schlesinger still had a tangible 60 Schlesinger also freely discussed these happenings in the Gazette.

The Gazette, from the start, belittled French musical taste and musical institutions and offered German alternatives in their place.

• Avatar: The Last Airbender - The Search Part 3.
• Informebook.
• Informebook Archives - Chez Iluze.
• Ians Pursuit.
• In 7 Tagen fit fürs Bewerbungsgespräch (German Edition).
• Les catholiques français sous loccupation (Documents Français) (French Edition).

Even in the impure journalistic world that I have painted, the Gazette stood out among its contemporaries for its lack of subtlety and finesse in promoting its interests. Le Pianiste complained that the Gazette was unabashed in advertising for its own titles at the expense of others.

Over the course of its first year, in addition to announcing that French music was bad and that French music criticism was poor, the Gazette said that France had no decent method for learning music, that French orchestras did not play Beethoven as well as German ones, and that the Paris Conservatoire did not create good musicians.

Despite the aristocratic disdain that is affected for journals less expensive than the Gazette des Allemands, which has superiority over others only by its subscription price, Le Pianiste will nonetheless pursue its self-imposed task of signaling, like a vigilant sentinel, all the charlatanism, nonsense, and impertinence contained in certain papers that deal with the musical art form. Henri Herz, Rossini, and Hummel.

As noted earlier, Herz had successfully sued Schlesinger for libel, and Le Pianiste saw in this and subsequent behavior something other than aesthetic arguments. Le Pianiste alleged that in his shop, Schlesinger forced people to buy music that he published, even when they did not want to. See also response in Le Pianiste an 1, In this little comedic sketch, the editor unfailingly replies that he does not have what she wants but he has something by Schunke. The article closes with the editor speaking to himself after the transaction: As a music publisher, Schlesinger had a reputation for printing works with mistakes.

Le Pianiste mentioned this issue often, by pointing out errors and generally rebuking Schlesinger for the quality of his editions. This care is all the more necessary in view of the particular nature of the works of Chopin, which often slip into faults, despite all the precautions that the editor takes to 78 Le Pianiste an 2, Thus, for example, the treble clef is missing in the first and third measures of the sixth staff, page 7; the same for the first measure of the eighth staff; the bass clef has been forgotten in the fourth measure of the 10th staff, page 16, and the treble clef is missing again in the first and fifth measures of the 12th staff, same page; not to mention the many wrong notes that exist here and there.

Second, since the obvious solution to the problem of wrong notes was to consult another edition, and since people were already doing this, the article suggesting so was almost insulting. Le Pianiste responded sarcastically to the advice with a sense of exasperation: Le Pianiste believed that anyone skilled enough to play Chopin would know when a clef was wrong, and that the Gazette would be more helpful if it pointed out less obvious note mistakes.

That the overseer is distracted, negligent, or that the Gazette puts him to sleep while reading the proofs of his own journal? Harvard University Press, , — See also Chopin First Editions Online. In any case, Le Pianiste believed that all music had value, from the most simple and unassuming to the most complex and ambitious, and here it showed that this aesthetic was a source of national pride.

Letter of January 1, See also Le Pianiste an 1, footnote. The advertisement in the Le Constitutionnel repeated the same list from the masthead. The poem printed in Le Pianiste alleged that the Gazette had amassed a larger group of editors than it had subscribers, and delivered this message in a silly tone meant to reflect the subject and its actions. The poem is as follows: Et longue elle est assurement! And long it was assuredly! In one instance, the Gazette accused Le Pianiste of plagiarism. The accusation seems to have rankled Lemoine and Chaulieu.

Schlesinger probably had fewer options for professional retaliation which make the actions he did take all the more creative and astonishing: Letter dated 3 March This was intended as an insult, and Chaulieu understood it as such. Le Pianiste discussed this matter of pricing, formatted as a discussion between two people. The first person introduces the subject, and the second does not see the connection, so the first replies: Well sir, two pieces by the same author, which appear on the same day, which have the same scope, and which are published by the same editor, and one of which sells for 5 fr.

Chaulieu did not publish any music with Schlesinger after this incident. It seems rather puzzling that Schlesinger was willing to lose money in sales just to embarrass Chaulieu, but this incident shows the lengths to which one could go to ruin an enemy. From a certain standpoint, however, this loss of income was small compared to what Schlesinger might risk by a more public display of spite. Journalistic activities did not result in equal and opposite reactions, and for someone who was composer, critic, and publishing partner, like Chaulieu, it was an especially messy business.

The merger made the Revue et Gazette musicale the largest musical paper in Paris. The request was denied. But looking at journalism as a function of power makes it possible to draw upon general patterns. For instance, we understand better that a publisher who owned a journal would use it in a different way than would a composer who wrote for that journal: Does a positive review mean that a piece was beloved or just that the article was written by its publisher? Does the fact that a musician was unpopular mean that his music was deplored or just that he was a cantankerous person who tended to make enemies out of critics?

Answering these questions will require much further research into the press, as well as publishing, society, and audiences, not to mention taste and aesthetics. But for the time being, foregrounding the various practices that make up the business of the press provides an entry point into understanding the cultural system of the French music journalism in a more accurate and meaningful way.

This discussion not only provides new information about reception history and canon formation in the s, but also helps to reconstruct musical activity and taste in France in the first two decades of the century. Typically, the lead article in the first issue of a nineteenth-century music journal featured an important musical figure, intended to set the tone for, or represent, the aesthetic stance of the journal. For example, the Gazette musicale , a more progressive, romantic journal, opened with an article on Beethoven, and the Revue musicale , a more conservative journal, began with Mozart.

Even from the point of view of s Paris, there is something asynchronous about this choice: Clementi was not popular by that time and articles about him are difficult to find in the contemporary French press outside of Le Pianiste. Placing Clementi at the start of Le Pianiste, however, was not emblematic of a dominant aesthetic stance, but was part of a larger strategy by its authors to reclaim the importance of a specific group of musicians, Muzio Clementi, Johann-Baptiste Cramer, Daniel Steibelt, and Jan Ladislav Dussek, and to preserve their legacies in the public imagination.

Understanding these forces also provides new insight into some of the factors that influenced the formation of the musical canon in the nineteenth century, and what was lost as it was formed. Background and Context Centrally important to understanding Le Pianiste is the fact that its two authors, Lemoine and Chaulieu, had grown up together and studied at the Conservatoire with the famous piano pedagogue, Louis Adam. Because of this shared formational training, Le Pianiste was in part an organ for Lemoine and Chaulieu and the legacy of the Paris Conservatoire that they embodied.

Schirmer, , — Despite this success, however, the writing in Le Pianiste exhibits unease, especially surrounding a new attitude among the younger generation, invoked by the use of the popular insult perruque, or periwig. As slang, no stable definition exists, but the term was used against older people to mean that someone was out of touch, stuffy, or desiccated. Les Regrets French Edition.

Editorial Reviews Language Notes Text: An independent scholar, she has taught literature and writing since She lives in Oakland, California. Product details File Size: Flammarion June 13, Publication Date: June 13, Sold by: Not Enabled Screen Reader: Enabled Amazon Best Sellers Rank: Share your thoughts with other customers.

Write a customer review. Showing of 2 reviews. Top Reviews Most recent Top Reviews. There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later. Mass Market Paperback Verified Purchase. If you ever wondered where that whole "Holy Grail" deal came from, look no further: That's where the grail first appeared.