# Your opinions on Liszt's symphonies



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I just listened to Liszt's Dante and Faust symphonies yesterday. I'm having a little bit of trouble what to make of them. There were parts I thought were great. And then there were other parts I thought were just a bunch of repeating the same thing over and over again but switching up the key. Some parts seemed extremely bombastic and banal, but those parts also developed themes a bit at the same time, so maybe they were more forgivable? I'm not sure how well they held up as symphonies. They seemed like they would work much better if they were just bloated tone poems rather than symphonies. I know all that would do is change the name, which isn't really substantial, but symphony really does imply something specific that I was expecting and I'm not sure if these pieces held up to that. Maybe I'm just being a stickler with that point. There were other parts of this piece that were really beautiful too. 

So if you guys tell me your thoughts about these pieces, it might help me get my opinion about them together. Do you think they work as symphonies? Are they good? Not good? Which one is better? Any other comments you can think of would be good.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

violadude said:


> I just listened to Liszt's Dante and Faust symphonies yesterday. I'm having a little bit of trouble what to make of them. There were parts I thought were great. And then there were other parts I thought were just a bunch of repeating the same thing over and over again but switching up the key. Some parts seemed extremely bombastic and banal, but those parts also developed themes a bit at the same time, so maybe they were more forgivable? I'm not sure how well they held up as symphonies. They seemed like they would work much better if they were just bloated tone poems rather than symphonies. I know all that would do is change the name, which isn't really substantial, but symphony really does imply something specific that I was expecting and I'm not sure if these pieces held up to that. Maybe I'm just being a stickler with that point. There were other parts of this piece that were really beautiful too.
> 
> So if you guys tell me your thoughts about these pieces, it might help me get my opinion about them together. Do you think they work as symphonies? Are they good? Not good? Which one is better? Any other comments you can think of would be good.


Your description is spot-on and they are tone poems and not symphonies.
In fact Liszt invented the genre --I knew I'd get to use that word eventually.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I'd like to help, but am constrained by my upbringing, which asks me to be silent when I can't be kind (in some contortion of the concept).


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

They are both tone poems.

The Faust Symphony is one of Liszt's greatest works. It's also frequently maligned, neglected, and not given a fair shot as what it is, so I think it's important to give some professional value judgements of the work.

Leonard Bernstein: Unquestionably a masterpiece.
Leslie Howard: One of Liszt's three greatest works, along with the Piano Sonata and the oratorio Christus.
Maurice Ravel: An extraordinary symphony, that uses the same themes as the Ring cycle, but so much better orchestrated.
Bela Bartok: The first and third movements are two of the most successful movements of the entire 19th century.
Leon Botstein: Worthy of the distinction 'masterpiece' as much as any of the great symphonies of Mahler.
Alan Walker: One of the greatest of its kind for the time it was written.

As for myself? Well, I dearly love the piece and it is certainly one of my favourite symphonies. It is also one of the most richly programatic works of the era, and it needs some getting used to. One of Liszt's greatest virtues, often called 'banality' by others, is actually his restraint and simplicity. He never adds more than what's needed to convey a certain emotion or mood, all for the sake of transformation and the dramatic/psychological narrative. It's important to look at the big picture rather than each bar, the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts. He's also strikingly realistic. There's a passage in the first movement of the Faust Symphony with the 'dreaming' theme, combined with the strings seemingly endlessly rising and repeating over and over and over...and over. The tedium is intentional. You feel what Faust is feeling, and that leads directly to the 'Nostalgia' theme. Again, it's presented in a very simple form, but nothing more was needed. This is how the whole piece works. Complexity comes when the emotions become more complex, when different moods flow into and around each other. This way of composition may not appeal to some, but it was Liszt's way, and if one is interested in appreciating a highly original, and great composer, it's the way to go about it. I think that's the basis for getting a positive experience out of this music and being able to appreciate the whole. This work has so much ingenuity and originality pretty much everywhere you look: the radical harmony, the sophisticated thematic transformation, the programmatic nuances...it's one of the most forward looking and important of its age, as well as being a masterpiece. I find its neglect unfortunate, and I think the main reason is because people don't understand its nature, and don't attempt to as much as they would many other composers.

The Dante Symphony is probably the most maligned work written by a great composer in his maturity of the entire era. This is a work that has some great things but is also rather problematic in some ways. Many find it hard to deal with the bombastic and chaotic first movement with its endless strings of diminished chords and cymbal clashes, the long-windedness of the Purgatorio movement, and the Magnificat, as beautiful as it is, lacks gravitas (as is well known, Liszt neglected writing a paradise movement on Wagner's advice, and instead wrote this magnificat). As for me? I love it! 

The first movement will never work for some, but one has to admit that despite its 'banality' (and I hardly think it can be called that, given the originality of the whole movement) it certainly is very effective in depicting what it intends to, every bit as much as the Francesca da Rimini by Tchaikovsky some 20 years later. That's what Liszt was about. It's not necessarily about the way it's created, it's all about the effect, whether created by simplicity or complexity. That being said, the Dante Symphony is also one of the most harmonically radical works of its time. The use of progressive tonality, the harmonic irresolution of the Purgatorio, and the use of the whole tone scale in the magnificat. 

The Purgatorio uses some of the same devices as the first movement of the Faust Symphony. Many people have commented on Liszt's repetition in the opening section, written only in different keys. This is, again, the narrative. The change of keys signify a change in mood as you struggle to reach your goal and seemingly stay in the same spot. The repetitiveness is essential for the overall weight and degree of uncertainty. 

The Magificat is problematic, for me as well as many. It doesn't seem to actually conclude the piece. One understands Liszt's intention at the close to bring forth a mood of eternal peace and serenity, but I often find that it simply doesn't leave one feeling fulfilled. Some have tried the alternative, louder conclusion, but I just don't find it very effective. There are some great things in the magnificat, but I find that after the rather subdued purgatorio movement it doesn't carry enough weight and force, and the ending I generally find unsatisfactory. I hope one day to find a performance that convinces me of the ending. I recently heard Masur for the first time after neglecting him for ages and was as close to being convinced by the ending as anyone else, entirely because he gave the voices more weight and presence, as opposed to the usual otherworldliness, sacrificing short term beauty for a more fulfilling whole, but close as I was I still wasn't entirely convinced.

Still, it is certainly a worthwhile work with many great things and radical innovation, one that I feel deserves a greater reputation despite any quibbles here and there.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I'm glad you saw this thread Lisztian. You're like the official Liszt aficionado around here right now, so I trust your opinion. A lot of what you say makes sense. For some reason, I liked Dante a little better than Faust after a superficial listening. Life's funny I guess.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

violadude said:


> So if you guys tell me your thoughts about these pieces, it might help me get my opinion about them together. Do you think they work as symphonies? Are they good? Not good? Which one is better? Any other comments you can think of would be good.


I have never been able to sit through either work without a good bit of squirming, both physical and mental. But if I were as smart as Leonard Bernstein, I might like them!


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

violadude said:


> I'm glad you saw this thread Lisztian. You're like the official Liszt aficionado around here right now, so I trust your opinion. A lot of what you say makes sense. For some reason, I liked Dante a little better than Faust after a superficial listening. Life's funny I guess.


I, too, preferred the Dante over the Faust for a long time. It certainly packs a punch and is much more compact. With the Faust you need to be in the right mindset. But as i've lived with each for awhile now the Faust has all clicked for me (except certain parts in the final movement), while with the Dante, despite still enjoying it, some problems have come forth for me.

Out of curiosity, which recordings did you listen to?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Lisztian said:


> I, too, preferred the Dante over the Faust for a long time. It certainly packs a punch and is much more compact. But as i've lived with each for awhile now the Faust has all clicked for me (except certain parts in the final movement), while with the Dante, despite still enjoying it, some problems have come forth for me.


Do you mean certain parts of Mesphisto still bother you? or the Final Chorus?


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

violadude said:


> Do you mean certain parts of Mesphisto still bother you? or the Final Chorus?


The Mephisto, not the chorus. Sometimes I feel it lacks weight. Liszt's intention was to make it, in many ways, light hearted and trivial -the devil mocking Faust and trivialising his struggle- but of course there also needs to be some weight, the degree of danger and being completely at the devils mercy. I guess at this point I find the climax just before the Gretchen theme returns, just before the chorus, not.....scary enough.


----------



## Guest (Jun 23, 2013)

My opinion about Liszt's symphonies is that he wrote two of them.

(I think that you get a better sense of the whole process of making symphonies in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries if you think of the two Liszt pieces as symphonies. He called them symphonies, for starters. Why? The answer to that will give you some information about the era and what its more prominent practitioners thought about genre.)

((Anyway, practically everything that everyone has mentioned so far has been part of my experience with these in years past. And practically none of it has anything to do with my current experience with these two beauties. They're good, clean fun, and no mistake.))


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Lisztian said:


> They are both tone poems.
> 
> The Faust Symphony is one of Liszt's greatest works. It's also frequently maligned, neglected, and not given a fair shot as what it is, so I think it's important to give some professional value judgements of the work.
> 
> ...


I was hoping you would turn up.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Lisztian said:


> Out of curiosity, which recordings did you listen to?


These ones


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I have some similar reaction as yours -- mainly, the more prominent themes seem to be more or less banal. That may sound, and seem, shallow, but anyone can tell you that this group of four notes, set of intervals, sounds to them simplistic -- in the negative aspect of simple -- or just flat out uninteresting. Ditto for a lot his harmonic usage. I think of Les Preludes, I think of deathly dull repetition of its very recognizable theme, also somehow cheap and banal.

The one Liszt work where I think many will agree on an apparent cohesive symphonic structure is the massive solo piano Sonata in B minor. That too, is more 'through composed,' but the architecture is, imo, more readily apparent, and it is a very large scale piece, archtypical of the 'grand' style. Again, for me, the choice of notes, themes, the harmonic realm just neither speak to me nor move me much.

That anyone might think and feel about those as I do _vs._ another finding them profoundly deep and emotionally resonant will probably never be concretely determined, even if put under the microscopes of the most genial of Scientists, Psychologists, Psycho-acousticians, and Neurologists ever assembled.

...and he was a truly great composer


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

One of his symphonic poems is also called symphony, "Berg-Sinfonie", so one could say that he wrote 3 with that overall title (Ce qu´on entend sur la montagne)


----------



## Ravndal (Jun 8, 2012)

joen_cph said:


> One of his symphonic poems is also called symphony, "Berg-Sinfonie", so he wrote 3 with that overall title


You linked _The Well Tempered Clavier_


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Ravndal said:


> You linked _The Well Tempered Clavier_


Thank you, the post has been corrected now.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

I think his piano music sounds better than thoses symphonies.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

I like the musical ideas he presents in the symphonies, but I don't particularly like the symphonies themselves. I don't like his orchestration, and the music sounds like it is supposed to be for piano rather than an orchestra. I always listen to the two-piano rendition of the symphonies instead of the original


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I love the Faust and I'm working on the Dante... but the Faust is, to me, a masterpiece. The Mephistoteles part sometimes sends shivers up my spine because it so effortlessly mocks the Faust theme... and if Faust the man is the best man there is, then Mephistopheles mocks that which is best in us, so casually and effectively. 

It is a rather literary work; it helps if you've read the book... but Liszt was a rather literary person, was he not?


----------



## isridgewell (Jul 2, 2013)

I have major issues with Liszt's orchestral output in general. Sadly I think the bottom line is that he was not a great orchestrator, testament to the fact that he gave the task largely to Joachim Raff on his behalf.

As a brass player, his orchestrations sit in an uncomfortable register and are not as weighty as they seem to crave!

One conductor described Les Preludes as if "Arthur Sullivan had composed the Ring Cycle!"


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

'meh' for the most of their duration

Of the Faust I like the Gretchen movement.
Of the Dante I like the first half of the Purgatorio and the ending Magnificat.

I also like his Christus.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

I will find out next month what I think during my Lizst month in April.


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

I must confess that I have yet to listen to any of Liszt's symphonies except for Faust. I shall listen to them as soon as possible.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

My initial impression of Dante was "pretty nice" and that has remained unchanged.
My initial impression of Faust was "meh" but something clicked at some point and now the first movement is totally awesome (i love the combination of mystery and bombastry), the last is pretty good but honestly am bit bored by the middle movement.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

I can't wait to embark on all of these pieces soon.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I can't comment too much on the pros/cons of the musical structure from a theoretical standpoint but for an actual listening experience I prefer the Dante, not least because of the Magnificat that closes it which is as beautiful a piece of choral writing as anything I've heard. I've been listening to the piano transcription recently and the choral ending still retains its impact. I can listen to the Faust without difficulty, but it strikes me as being less taut than the Dante - maybe the sheer length of it is clouding my judgement.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I like Liszt. The first I heard was_* Battle of the Huns*_ and *Mazeppa,* with Zubin Mehta/LAP. I think there was *Orpheus* on there, too.
The Faust Symphony is using augmented chords, which gives a sense of expansion, whereas the Dante Symphony seems more diminished-seventh. I suppose these "in between" harmonic qualities are what bore some listeners, because of the symmetrical, repeating nature of the intervals involved, M3 and m3. M3 produces an outward-going unstable fifth movement, while the m3 produces a collapsing fifth.
That's what Liszt is all about; harmonic fabric which is unravelling, going into chromaticism, tonality in question, undulating. As a pianist, Liszt understood these mechanisms very well, and their recursive, repeating nature. But that's the name of the game.
Repeating patterns, going up, taking us to new areas; constantly shifting tonality. Liszt is one of the first 'modernist' thinkers in tonal music, because of this concern with smaller, recursive intervals, eschewing the fourth and fifth. I find it fascinating.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I'd like to return to the matter of recordings. I have Bernstein's recording of the Faust symphony and none of the Dante symphony, so if I decide to explore, what do I need?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> My opinion about Liszt's symphonies is that he wrote two of them.
> 
> (I think that you get a better sense of the whole process of making symphonies in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries if you think of the two Liszt pieces as symphonies. He called them symphonies, for starters. Why? The answer to that will give you some information about the era and what its more prominent practitioners thought about genre.)
> 
> ((Anyway, practically everything that everyone has mentioned so far has been part of my experience with these in years past. And practically none of it has anything to do with my current experience with these two beauties. They're good, clean fun, and no mistake.))


I'm going to bump another old thread, not only for the pleasure of quoting that post but because I'm still hoping for some response to this one:



science said:


> I'd like to return to the matter of recordings. I have Bernstein's recording of the Faust symphony and none of the Dante symphony, so if I decide to explore, what do I need?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

The only one I know is Barenboim with the Berlin Phil, and I really like it.

A little bit of searching indicated that this opinion is backed by some very positive reviews on MusicWeb and Fanfare, whose opinions might count for more than mine.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> The only one I know is Barenboim with the Berlin Phil, and I really like it.
> 
> A little bit of searching indicated that this opinion is backed by some very positive reviews on MusicWeb and Fanfare, whose opinions might count for more than mine.


Thank you!

Do you use MusicWeb and Fanfare much? I have almost never used them. How much do you think I should trust them?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

science said:


> Thank you!
> 
> Do you use MusicWeb and Fanfare much? I have almost never used them. How much do you think I should trust them?


I don't use reviews much these days - I tend to rely on my own judgement. But I suppose I trust both sites enough that if I'm unsure I'll turn to them to see what they think, and use their opinions in my decision. My general policy is that if I can find multiple opinions about something, that's better.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> I don't use reviews much these days - I tend to rely on my own judgement. But I suppose I trust both sites enough that if I'm unsure I'll turn to them to see what they think, and use their opinions in my decision. My general policy is that if I can find multiple opinions about something, that's better.


That's reasonable.

I'm a pretty hardcore cynic. If someone is getting paid to sell me something....

I'm much rather know the opinions of 25 passionate amateurs than one expert who's on an interested payroll.


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

I've listened to both Dante and Faust, Faust I listened 3 or 4 times, but somehow I remember nothing from it.

With Dante, I have mixed feelings. I think his Dante Sonata is far superior in this case, which I absolutely adore.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> I don't use reviews much these days - I tend to rely on my own judgement. But I suppose I trust both sites enough that if I'm unsure I'll turn to them to see what they think, and use their opinions in my decision. My general policy is that if I can find multiple opinions about something, that's better.


Me, too. If you know the label, the conductor and the performers, then it's usually enough. I know what their standards are: I already have loads of their recordings to go by.

Recently, however, I have turned to reviews for opera, because there is so much consideration given to the quality of the voices, which is important to me. With Russian, for example, that wouldn't matter as much, since I don't speak Russian, but with German, French or English, I like to hear a native speaker. But, even then, I trust my ear when making the final assessment. If I don't like the soprano's fuller voice, I will opt for a recording with a brighter soprano, for example.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

science said:


> Thank you!
> 
> Do you use MusicWeb and Fanfare much? I have almost never used them. How much do you think I should trust them?


I find * Musicweb* to be very reliable and very informative - I'd trust the reviewer's judgement to be informed opinion (that I may or may not agree with). I think the reviewers there are all submitted by people who are not paid (beyond being allowed to keep the disc, I think?)


----------



## JACE (Jul 18, 2014)

Headphone Hermit said:


> I find * Musicweb* to be very reliable and very informative - I'd trust the reviewer's judgement to be informed opinion (that I may or may not agree with). I think the reviewers there are _*all submitted by people who are not paid (beyond being aloowied to keep the disc, I think?)*_


Yes, this is correct, HH.

I only know because I've reviewed a few Charles Ives recordings for them.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

science said:


> Do you use MusicWeb and Fanfare much? I have almost never used them. How much do you think I should trust them?


Reviews can be helpful guides, but they will not tell you what you like best. Time and again, I see 5* reviews given by Gramophone or BBC for recordings of British origin that didn't get the same level of appreciation elsewhere. I have used MusicWeb, the two aforementioned sites, the Independent, Allmusic and, not to be forgotten, the oftentimes much more important fan reviews on Amazon. The number of 4* and 5* fan reviews versus the 1* and 2* reviews and the reasons given, can be telling... and can tell much more than a paid reviewer. In the end, you are the one listening to the recording, so go by your own criteria. If they should change over the years, there are a host of other recordings available.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

science said:


> I'd like to return to the matter of recordings. I have Bernstein's recording of the Faust symphony and none of the Dante symphony, so if I decide to explore, what do I need?


*Beecham on EMI *- a double CD which is very enjoyable (despite the caveats in the review below)

Review from allmusic: "Back in its day, Thomas Beecham and the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra's 1958 recordings of Liszt's "Faust" Symphony and tone poem Orpheus were greeted with heartfelt gratitude by the listening public. Here were performances of tremendous power but wonderful delicacy, of terrific sophistication but marvelous tenderness, of high-minded idealism and deep-in-the-body sensuality that seemed to capture all the aspects of Liszt's multifaceted genius. In this nearly half-century-later reissue, Beecham and the RPO's performance still sounds grand, if not quite so grand as it sounded then. The caveat is not for the playing -- the Royal Philharmonic was then one of the finest London orchestras and its playing here combines brilliant polish with a very un-English passion -- nor is it for the conducting -- Beecham was then one of the very finest English conductors and his direction here combines compelling commitment with unstoppable joi de vivre. No, the caveat is for the recording itself, which, while it sounded great in the early days of stereo, here sounds dim, distant, and dated in this 2005 reissue. Also, additional caveats may be the inclusion of Constantin Silvestri and the Philharmonia's rough and ready recordings of Liszt's Les Préludes and Tasso and Beecham's over-the-top recording of Liszt's hellbent for glory setting of Psalm XIII. Still, anyone who loves the works will want to hear Beecham's recordings of A Faust Symphony and Orpheus, still arguably among the finest performances of either work ever recorded."


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

JACE said:


> Yes, this is correct, HH.
> 
> I only know because I've reviewed a few Charles Ives recordings for them.


Ah .... I knew the reviewers could be trusted :tiphat:


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Headphone Hermit said:


> I find * Musicweb* to be very reliable and very informative - I'd trust the reviewer's judgement to be informed opinion (that I may or may not agree with).


I like that site. One thing that makes it distinctive is the number of lengthy, multi-disk reviews in which the author makes it clear s/he is trying to get a handle on a particular composer or genre. There are frank opinions about performances etc., of course, but you often get the sense that you're reading a labor of love.

*p.s.*

That's great, JACE.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

science said:


> I'd like to return to the matter of recordings. I have Bernstein's recording of the Faust symphony and none of the Dante symphony, so if I decide to explore, what do I need?


You need the one I have, of course 









Conlon/Rotterdam

It was recommended right here on TC by one of the resident Liszt fans. It was originally released on Erato in 1986. I have done a number of searches, but I am unable to locate the post. The member claimed that Conlon was sort of a Liszt expert. In any case, it is a fine recording at a sensational price.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Thank you, guys! I'm goin' shopping.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

brotagonist said:


> I have used... the Independent....


This is true, but I actually meant to say the Guardian, which I use 10 times as often as the Independent.


----------

