I suppose your position makes sense to someone who has been playing for awhile like us. I guess I just think it's easy to hear the emotion in Chopin, it doesn't need to be a fantastic player. His intention is discernable even through the shoddiest performance.
Ok, this makes sense.
Therefore, a terrible performace of a Chopin piece, still holds, for me, the magic of specific phrasings so indigenious to the Slavic region.
I believe later that Dvorak would come closest to capturing Chopin's nationalism... but it's not the same. To say Chopin is the best composer of all time would be, to me, a bit rediculous. But he is mine, and your favorite... why? Because the things that make his music so wonderful are not his use of polyphony, his chord progressions, or even his oh so famous apoggiatora.
Getting a little confused, here. Now we are relating nationalism to playing Chopin correctly? That may be so in many of the mazurkas where his Polish roots are unmistakable and we try to get just that right kind of accent on the 2nd or 3rd beat. But I think that a lot of his music could be written by a person from anywhere. I hear no Slavic tones in many nocturnes, ballades, preludes.
And it is
the use of his polyphony, chord progressions, notes, keys, all of that. But I’ve never heard the term ‘famous Chopin appoggiatura’. Please explain.
Therefore he is a sort of greatest composer, a genius without genesis, a motivator without motive. The world's first true tortured artist, and the world's last true Chopin recreationist.
This does not make sense to me. There were plenty of tortured artists before Chopin’s time. Right off the top of my head, and not too much before Chopin, I think of Mozart and Beethoven. And what exactly is a Chopin recreationist? That’s another new one on me.