# Liszt and superficiality: Grand Galop Chromatique



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

When the music of Franz Liszt is talked about, the dichotomy of works of superficial showmanship and works with actual substance is often invoked. What people seem to mean is that these things are somewhat in balance, and Liszt remains a mysterious chimera, a beautiful head with a grotesque body or something like that. It seems that the final verdict is that verdict cannot be given: much evidence on both accounts.

And the evidence on the account of superficial showmanship always remains the same: the _Grand Galop Chromatique._ It's always the piece that is mentioned. Along with Liszt's playing style and fainting ladies, although these shouldn't be considered when we're evaluating Liszt the composer.

Well, some time ago I actually heard the GGC for the first time. I expected furious rage, little substance, but sensual effects to the maximum effect. Things that would show that while there's not much musical worth in the piece, it's at least the result of some great effort. That I would hear Liszt desperate to make an impression. But - there was none of that. What I heard was a fun and silly encore piece, a piece to make the listener smile, and not in the way when you smile when you're hearing the finale of Mozart's Jupiter symphony, but more like a grin. There was clearly minimal effort by the composer, as intended (even if the piece required some effort from the musician). But I have hard time imagining anyone ever taking the piece seriously. So, my point is that it shouldn't be brought up (at least, as often as it is) when we are evaluating Liszt as a composer (for piano, or otherwise). It's pointless to list it alongside _Harmonies poétiques_, _Années de pèlerinage_ or the _Sonata in b minor_. That's like listing Mozart's _Leck mich im Arsch_ alongside the _Requiem_ in order to make a fair comparision.

I must say, though, that Liszt's piano music is a vast oeuvre and I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough of it to make a fair assessment of him as a composer. All I know is that composers should not be evaluated so that non-serious, little pieces are given as much weight of evidence as serious pieces - whether we look at them objectively or through the composer's evident intentions.


----------



## TwoPhotons (Feb 13, 2015)

I wouldn't say that GGC was the result of minimal effort from the composer - it uses new-sounding and "twisty" harmonic progressions which I think would've shocked the listener almost as much as the actual virtuosic display of the pianist. It might be a silly encore piece but it's still skillfully composed, in my opinion!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Xaltotun said:


> When the music of Franz Liszt is talked about, the dichotomy of works of superficial showmanship and works with actual substance is often invoked. What people seem to mean is that these things are somewhat in balance, and Liszt remains a mysterious chimera, a beautiful head with a grotesque body or something like that. It seems that the final verdict is that verdict cannot be given: much evidence on both accounts.
> 
> And the evidence on the account of superficial showmanship always remains the same: the _Grand Galop Chromatique._ It's always the piece that is mentioned. Along with Liszt's playing style and fainting ladies, although these shouldn't be considered when we're evaluating Liszt the composer.
> 
> ...


I agree that a composer shouldn't be judged by the likes of this:






Such music exists for just the sort of thing Cziffra is doing in that clip, and Liszt himself did: showing off. The public enjoyed it. Liszt made money. He also got tired of it and chose to spend more time writing interesting music and lending Wagner money. There's enough of that - interesting music, I mean - to get him respect.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I agree that a composer shouldn't be judged by the likes of this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bravo Liszt! Bravo Cziffra!!! Its only 3 minutes 4 seconds - and I like it (both the music and the performance) as they are fun and lively.

Yes, Liszt wrote a fair bit of short, flashy pieces like this - often for encores or in response to challenges or sometimes, just to 'show off' as did a lot of composer/virtuosi of his time and later. Of course, there are (plenty) of people who regard this type of thing as evidence that Liszt isn't to be taken seriously as a composer - not that I agree with them


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Xaltotun said:


> All I know is that composers should not be evaluated so that non-serious, little pieces are given as much weight of evidence as serious pieces - whether we look at them objectively or through the composer's evident intentions.


I agree that apples should not be compared with oranges, but still I think supposedly "non-serious" pieces deserve as much respect as do "serious" pieces. Just because their goals are different doesn't mean those goals are less worthwhile.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> I agree that apples should not be compared with oranges, but still I think supposedly "non-serious" pieces deserve as much respect as do "serious" pieces. Just because their goals are different doesn't mean those goals are less worthwhile.


But I think that in terms of time and effort at least, composers have invested a lot on one group, and not so much on the other - even if they have treated it with respect and made their best effort there also. I also suspect that if we'd ask them, they might say that the "serious" group is more worthwhile.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Xaltotun said:


> But I think that in terms of time and effort at least, composers have invested a lot on one group, and not so much on the other - even if they have treated it with respect and made their best effort there also. I also suspect that if we'd ask them, they might say that the "serious" group is more worthwhile.


Well yeah, by and large people treat "serious" things more seriously, which is only to be expected.

I guess all I'm saying is, the _Grand galop chromatique_ may not be as profound as Bach's _St Matthew Passion_ but on the other hand the _St Matthew Passion_ is nowhere near as much fun as the _Grand galop chromatique_. Fun and profundity get equal time in my book.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> Well yeah, by and large people treat "serious" things more seriously, which is only to be expected.
> 
> I guess all I'm saying is, the _Grand galop chromatique_ may not be as profound as Bach's _St Matthew Passion_ but on the other hand the _St Matthew Passion_ is nowhere near as much fun as the _Grand galop chromatique_. Fun and profundity get equal time in my book.


Now I understand you, you were talking about the point of view of the listener, while I was talking about the point of view of the composer. Agreed to a large extent!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I think the GGC is a great piece of virtuoso writing and also great fun. The thought that every piece has to be serious is nonsense. Music should be fun as well. It is the sort of piece which is a high wire act. And don't forget many of the virtuoso pieces Liszt wrote were to extend the range of the piano. And to judge a composer on the work like this without taking into account all of his other pieces seems a bit superficial in itself


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Beethoven had his 'Rage over a lost penny' after all. It maybe has more thematic substance than the Grand Gallop, but they are both more or less in the range of 'fun pieces,' and as someone who likes to feel like I can play piano, I'm glad they wrote them as stepping stones. We aren't judging Zez Confrey much for his Kitten on the Keys or Dizzy Fingers(and every other 'novelty rag' that he is mostly known for these days) or Jelly Roll Morton for his 'Finger Breaker.' Both are very fun pieces.

Would not be as fun if I didn't at least have the option of trying my chops such pieces before moving onto the most celestial Chopin Ballades, or even those mighty but succinct Rachaminoff Etude Tableaux.


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

I have heard a bit of Liszt. More than most people I suspect. And from what I can gather, his music can occasionally be superficial. I think it's typical human nature to focus on what's lacking rather than focus on the larger portion of the pie that isn't. I really challenge you to ask these people how much of Liszt's music they've heard to call him 'superficial'.


----------



## Marinera (May 13, 2016)

Well, Liszt composed enough good pieces to save him from obscurity, and that should suffice in my opinion. 

There is a saying that your work is only as good as your worst work, and in this case I don't agree. To me he is as good as his best, because that's what I listen to most, and he has plenty of it.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2016)

When it's played like this, musical merit is the last thing on my mind!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Anyone who has heard Liszt's organ works will see that these are decidedly un-virtuosic, even 
'laid back.' Maybe his early years as a showman (and cocksman) are manifest in the showy works, and his later religious works are evidence of the taming of the ego, and submission to God.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Kontrapunctus said:


> When it's played like this, musical merit is the last thing on my mind!


Incredible! One might imagine Liszt himself playing it like that!

People who regard this as superficial miss the whole point of it. It is a piece which sets out to define and display piano technique, rather as a gymnastic display sets out to show the possibilities of the human body. To say GGC is not profound is just like saying a gymnastic display is not profound. It does not intend to be as it works in a different realm.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Incredible! One might imagine Liszt himself playing it like that!
> 
> People who regard this as superficial miss the whole point of it. It is a piece which sets out to define and display piano technique, rather as a gymnastic display sets out to show the possibilities of the human body. To say GGC is not profound is just like saying a gymnastic display is not profound. It does not intend to be as it works in a different realm.


It sounds better played like this:






If it didn't sound like a nice piece, no one would consider the virtuosity interesting, and people might not even register it as virtuosity, they same way that people who don't like modernist music don't think of Carter's "Night Fantasies" as anything more than noise.

It's a great show piece because it sounds like a great show piece, not because it's difficult to play. So I think you should give Liszt credit for that as a composer, even more than as a pianist.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> It sounds better played like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nicely played but with none of Cziffra's almost diabolical quality.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Nicely played but with none of Cziffra's almost diabolical quality.


I much prefer Cziffra's interpretation too - I find his performance much more convincing - it seems as if he understood the piece much better than Lisistsa


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Lisitsa may be taking it too seriously as music. Her performance doesn't tell us any more about the piece than Cziffra's, because there's nothing more to tell. 

On the other hand, she might play it like Cziffra if she could.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Lisitsa may be taking it too seriously as music. Her performance doesn't tell us any more about the piece than Cziffra's, because there's nothing more to tell.


This is the point of contention, isn't it? Some people think there's music and genius in these Liszt pieces, some don't see it. Who's to say which side is wrong?

That said, I don't think either of these performances is an ideal one. I can appreciate the wildness of the Cziffra, and while Lisitsa makes the piece sound more like music, I'd like to hear a performance that does both at the same time. Or maybe I'm just too slow for the Cziffra.

By the way, Brendel's essays on Liszt are very appropriate for this thread:

"In reality, Liszt stood in angry opposition to the drawing-room virtuosity of his time. He was first and foremost a phenomenon of expressiveness -- Schumann called him 'Genie des Vortrags' ('a genius of interpretation')...."

"It is a peculiarity of Liszt's music that it faithfully and fatally mirrors the character of its interpreter. When his works give the impression of being hollow, superficial and pretentious, the fault lies usually with the performer, occasionally with the (prejudiced) listener, and only very rarely with Liszt himself."

"Liszt's piano music depends to a great extent on an art that makes us forget the physical side of piano-playing. Yet it tends to be a vehicle for players of mere manual ability who lack any deeper musical insight."

"....one still finds a weakness for a certain type of virtuoso who, unmindful of Classical rules, seems to be at his best whenever -- to put it bluntly -- the greatest possible number of notes has to be crowded into the shortest possible space of time. Composers as dissimilar as Liszt and Rachmaninov are sometimes mentioned in the same breath, as if genius and the art of elevated conversation were only one step apart."


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Headphone Hermit said:


> I much prefer Cziffra's interpretation too - I find his performance much more convincing - it seems as if he understood the piece much better than Lisistsa


Fascinating comparison. Much as I admire Lisitsa' s Rachmaninov recordings, her admittedly brilliant performance of the Liszt seems too detached, as if unwilling to get totally involved with the piece as Cziffra does.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2016)

Pat Fairlea said:


> Fascinating comparison. Much as I admire Lisitsa' s Rachmaninov recordings, her admittedly brilliant performance of the Liszt seems too detached, as if unwilling to get totally involved with the piece as Cziffra does.


I find that statement to be true with all of her recordings that I have heard. Good technique, but she seems to gloss over the musical content by not phasing clearly, bringing out voices, etc.


----------

