# Liszt is the most underrated composer on TC.



## Lisztian

In much the same manner as the wonderful DavidMahler made a thread about Schumann being the most underrated composer on TC, I present Franz Liszt with that same...honour? The man rarely ever gets discussed except for the occasional mention of his influence. There was only one list that Schumann was underrated in IMO and that's the top 25 composers. Everywhere else he has been represented VERY well. There are many Schumann fanatics about and they have given him terrific representation. Not Liszt, though. His representation all around has frankly been abysmal.

I'm going to leave my opening post at that, and go more in depth as the thread progresses and I get others thoughts (if many come out, again he does not get discussed often).

So? Thoughts?


----------



## Guest

I recently picked up a couple of Liszt albums:



















On the basis of these two albums, I would say that Liszt is really incredible. Of course these performances are also superb.

I have listened to lots of other Liszt before, which I liked well enough but didn't love. Now I need to re-listen to more Liszt as well as get a better sense of how he compares to Chopin et al. My assessment of Liszt is still evolving but it is definitely moving up.


----------



## science

I am part of the problem rather than part of the solution. 

But not with regard to his compositions for piano, which I admire as much or more than anyone's. 

It's the orchestral stuff that I don't know or appreciate well enough. I need to listen to them again and more often.


----------



## DavidMahler

Liszt is very underrated in general. It didn't help him in his time that he was so technically capable at such a young age, considered swoon-worthy by the females, and wrote an exhausting output. If you include his transcriptions he has 6 times the piano output of Chopin, and if you include every thing he wrote he composed as much as Bach practically, but the standard isn't nearly as high as Bach. But when he was great, there's hardly anyone greater

Someone please explain this:


----------



## Lisztian

BPS said:


> I recently picked up a couple of Liszt albums:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the basis of these two albums, I would say that Liszt is really incredible. Of course these performances are also superb.
> 
> I have listened to lots of other Liszt before, which I liked well enough but didn't love. Now I need to re-listen to more Liszt as well as get a better sense of how he compares to Chopin et al. My assessment of Liszt is still evolving but it is definitely moving up.


I haven't got those two CD's, but by all accounts they are blockbusters. I'm glad you liked them! What else by him have you heard?



> I am part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
> 
> But not with regard to his compositions for piano, which I admire as much or more than anyone's.
> 
> It's the orchestral stuff that I don't know or appreciate well enough. I need to listen to them again and more often.


What bothers me is when people consider him an inferior solo piano composer to Schumann, Chopin, Brahms, Schubert, etc. He is absolutely one of the very best - I don't think there are any better than him as solo piano composers, maybe his equal, but not greater. Beethoven MIGHT be an exception.

Liszt is somewhat of an enigma away from solo piano works though. He is quite uneven, and most of it is simply rarely played and hardly known. But, despite this, I believe that even if he had not written a single note for the piano, he would have been worthy of the rankings in the composers lists on this site that he got (23 and 25).

And the previous two points are not including his influence...I think that Liszt and Wagner are perhaps the two most important composers of the Romantic era.



> Liszt is very underrated in general. It didn't help him in his time that he was so technically capable at such a young age, considered swoon-worthy by the females, and wrote an exhausting output. If you include his transcriptions he has 6 times the piano output of Chopin, and if you include every thing he wrote he composed as much as Bach practically, but the standard isn't nearly as high as Bach. But when he was great, there's hardly anyone greater


I think something to consider with Liszt is that he left everything behind - warts and all. He left his less inspired efforts behind, his ridiculous virtuoso pieces from his earlier years, all the previous versions of his works that we know today...I think people tend to look and even judge Liszt on these things rather than the whole picture. He was a very complex and contradictory man, and his output is a shining example of that. But to me that is part of the beauty of Liszt. Here was a man who was not restricted, and did not care what others thought of him or his music. I've learnt to look past his less inspired efforts and his more showman like stuff, and distill the essence of Liszt, and to me that is not only one of the greatest composers of his time, but one of the greatest all around musicians and human beings of the 19th century.


----------



## Il_Penseroso

I wish I had this :


----------



## Lisztian

Il_Penseroso said:


> I wish I had this :


Me too, even if only as a reference.


----------



## DavidMahler

I recently got that box, I haven't listened to it yet, but I owned about 20 of those discs already and the playing is quite good. Thinking about a set like that is very exhausting though.


----------



## tdc

I think there are several baroque composers (ie -Monteverdi, Purcell, Rameau etc) that are probably more underrated on this forum than Liszt. Liszt _might_ be the most under-rated Romantic era composer on TC. But the Romantic era of music is the most popular all around on this forum as a result I think that there are many Baroque and even Renaissance composers that are more under-rated than Liszt.


----------



## Lisztian

DavidMahler said:


> I recently got that box, I haven't listened to it yet, but I owned about 20 of those discs already and the playing is quite good. Thinking about a set like that is very exhausting though.


From what i've heard of his playing both by listening online, and from reviews, his playing is consistently pretty good, but not great. In individual works (especially the better ones) you would be much better off with someone else, but overall it is a great reference to have.



> I think there are several baroque composers (ie -Monteverdi, Purcell, Rameau etc) that are probably more underrated on this forum than Liszt. Liszt might be the most under-rated Romantic era composer on TC. But the Romantic era of music is the most popular all around on this forum as a result I think that there are many Baroque and even Renaissance composers that are more under-rated than Liszt.


Okay I admit that saying he's the MOST is exaggerating, especially seeing as he is a well known composer - the same could be said about the Schumann thread. But he is definately up there. ONE of the most and MAYBE the most underrated of the Romantic era. But I guess in the end it's about discussing Liszt and whether or not people agree with him being underrated, and hopefully getting people to appreciate and look into the great man more.


----------



## Xaltotun

There's one Liszt composition that I really, really love - the Faust symphony. I like his piano works well enough but I'm rather lukewarm to solo piano in general. Also, I'd like to get to know his orchestral oeuvre better.

But, I absolutely adore Liszt as a person. If I could decide, every artist should be like him. Well, of course that would be silly and boring; I'm just trying to say that he gets a kind of respect from me that few other artists do.


----------



## violadude

Il_Penseroso said:


> I wish I had this :


 Me too!! .................


----------



## Guest

Lisztian said:


> What bothers me is when people consider him an inferior solo piano composer to Schumann, Chopin, Brahms, Schubert, etc. He is absolutely one of the very best - I don't think there are any better than him as solo piano composers, maybe his equal, but not greater. Beethoven MIGHT be an exception.


I tend to agree with you on this, although < warning > my opinion is based on a very small knowledge base. My sense is that Liszt has a greater range of expression than Chopin et al. in his compositions. Not to mention that Chopin was awed by Liszt's talent.



> What else by him have you heard?


I also have some Alice Sara Ott, which I like (but I may be blinded by her gorgeous appearance):



















For piano concertante, I have PC #1 (above), Concerto Pathetique, Totentanz (Arnaldo Cohen), and PC #2 (also Cohen). Of those I think I might like PC#2 best, but I'm not sure - I haven't heard them recently.

For orchestral, I have Faust Symphony, Preludes, Tasso, Mazeppa, Orpheus, Hamlet, and Mephisto Waltz. None of those have made a big impression on me, but then again I'm not a big fan of orchestral music.

For other solo piano, I have the full Piano Sonata (Argerich), Hungarian Rhapsodies (Jando), and the above Transcendental Etudes. Plus a couple of other odds and ends. None of these have floored me the way the Hamelin and Friere playing did, but I am overdue for a relisten.

I have ZERO chamber music by Liszt - which is a shame because I really love violin sonatas and cello sonatas especially. I'll have to look and see what he composed. Any suggestions?


----------



## Vaneyes

"Beware of missing chances; otherwise it may be altogether too late some day." 

- Franz Liszt


----------



## Lisztian

BPS said:


> I tend to agree with you on this, although < warning > my opinion is based on a very small knowledge base. My sense is that Liszt has a greater range of expression than Chopin et al. in his compositions. Not to mention that Chopin was awed by Liszt's talent.
> 
> I also have some Alice Sara Ott, which I like (but I may be blinded by her gorgeous appearance):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For piano concertante, I have PC #1 (above), Concerto Pathetique, Totentanz (Arnaldo Cohen), and PC #2 (also Cohen). Of those I think I might like PC#2 best, but I'm not sure - I haven't heard them recently.
> 
> For orchestral, I have Faust Symphony, Preludes, Tasso, Mazeppa, Orpheus, Hamlet, and Mephisto Waltz. None of those have made a big impression on me, but then again I'm not a big fan of orchestral music.
> 
> For other solo piano, I have the full Piano Sonata (Argerich), Hungarian Rhapsodies (Jando), and the above Transcendental Etudes. Plus a couple of other odds and ends. None of these have floored me the way the Hamelin and Friere playing did, but I am overdue for a relisten.
> 
> I have ZERO chamber music by Liszt - which is a shame because I really love violin sonatas and cello sonatas especially. I'll have to look and see what he composed. Any suggestions?


Unfortunately, Liszt was not a prolific chamber music composer. In fact he hardly wrote music in the genre at all, and of what he did write it is mainly arrangements (that I mostly haven't heard). However, there is this and this, neither of which I have heard, of the little that he did write (although there are probably some missing, Liszt's works are all over the place).

Here's an extract from that first disk though, a work i've discovered lately. Tristia - A late (1880) version of his remarkable piano piece Valee d'obermann, for trio. Like much late Liszt, it is very dark, and hauntingly beautiful.


----------



## Philip

love _les années_


----------



## Oskaar

When I am in the mood, The symphonic poems of Liszt is among the most rewarding to listen to.


----------



## Eviticus

I don't think he is underrated - i just don't think he is as popular. I've always found much of his music quite 'awkward'. But then virtuosity for the sake of virtuosity was always a turn off for me. 

To use a metaphor he's like Jimi Hendrix. Jimi Hendrix may have been the best guitarist of all time but he is never regarded amongst the greatest songwriters of all time. I'd much rather listen to something written by Kurt Cobain any day of the week. The same can be said when Liszt is compared to the likes of say Chopin and the other exceptional melodically gifted Romantics.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Liszt has his own Nokia ringtone:






It's built into the cheap Nokia cell phones, so if you have one, you can use it for free.


----------



## Oskaar

I will much rather listen to listen to Liszt than Chopin..., any day of the week! But that is me.


----------



## science

Any thoughts on the organ music?


----------



## Lisztian

Philip said:


> love _les années_


Me too. It's probably my favourite cycle of piano pieces by anyone not including the Beethoven Sonatas. I've been rather surprised how many knowledgeable posters have listened to it for the first time on here and thus changed their opinions of Liszt...And I think it has been VERY poorly represented on this site. I mean it was ranked 69th on the top 200 piano works, and above 300 on the classical music project...Which IMO is a joke.



> I don't think he is underrated - i just don't think he is as popular. I've always found much of his music quite 'awkward'. But then virtuosity for the sake of virtuosity was always a turn off for me.
> 
> To use a metaphor he's like Jimi Hendrix. Jimi Hendrix may have been the best guitarist of all time but he is never regarded amongst the greatest songwriters of all time. I'd much rather listen to something written by Kurt Cobain any day of the week. The same can be said when Liszt is compared to the likes of say Chopin and the other exceptional melodically gifted Romantics.


Liszt was very rarely virtuosity for the sake of virtuosity, and when he was it was usually to show off his technique. He was perhaps the greatest virtuoso pianist ever, and he did write a lot almost strictly to blow people away. His more virtuosic showpieces tend to be the best virtuosic showpieces in the repertoire. But that isn't the point. He also wrote a HUGE amount of music that, while often virtuosic, is for an entirely musical purpose (although I will admit Liszt could definately go a bit over the top regardless). Listen to the Sonata, the ENTIRE Années de pèlerinage, and Harmonies poétiques et religieuses. This is first rate MUSIC, rather than showpieces.



> Any thoughts on the organ music?


Liszt didn't write a huge amount of organ music, but of what he did write it is first rate. His colossal Fantasy and Fugue on the chorale Ad nos, ad salutarem undam is a masterpiece that, according to some, rivals the achievement of the piano sonata. Saint-Saëns called it 'the greatest organ work since Bach.' I love the piece (and also, the faithful piano transcription by Busoni is, to me, Liszt's second greatest solo piano work). He also wrote the Fantasie und Fuge über das Thema B-A-C-H, which is another staple of the repertoire. Both could be called over the top, but it depends who is listening. I have not heard the rest of his work for organ, I need to look into those works.

Here are two CD's that seem to cover a good deal of his organ stuff, although I myself have not heard them so I have no idea of the quality.

http://www.amazon.com/Liszt-Organ-Works-Vol-1/dp/B00005COXL/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1327141050&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Works-Organ-2-Liszt/dp/B00007DWM1/ref=pd_sim_m_2


----------



## peeyaj

What works of Liszt is the "most profound"? I mean "profound" as those approaching my favorite sonata, Schubert's Piano sonata no. 21?

I enjoy the Hungarian Rhapsodies very much..  He's one of the great admirers of Schubert (the Wanderer Fantasy is one of his favorites), so I liked him..  His transcriptions of Schubert's songs is superb.


----------



## Lisztian

peeyaj said:


> What works of Liszt is the "most profound"? I mean "profound" as those approaching my favorite sonata, Schubert's Piano sonata no. 21?
> 
> I enjoy the Hungarian Rhapsodies very much..  He's one of the great admirers of Schubert (the Wanderer Fantasy is one of his favorites), so I liked him..  His transcriptions of Schubert's songs is superb.


Approaching that Sonata? Well, I think Liszt's more profound piano works are his miniatures and extended miniatures. No question Schuberts no. 21 is music of a quality rarely encountered...although I think Liszt's sonata is at least its equal. But the more profound Liszt is found mainly in his late piano pieces. Some of the most dark and despairing piano music ever written. Among his earlier works there is a huge array, and some could be considered 'profound.'

Here are some works I would consider among his most profound for the piano...

Sonata
Vallée d'Obermann. (I think this is a VERY underrated work. A true masterpiece of program music).
Aux cyprès de la Villa d'Este (both).
Bénédiction de Dieu dans la solitude.
Pensée des morts.
Nuages gris.
La lugubre gondola II.

There's a few to get you started 

Yes! His transcriptions of Schubert's lieder, and the piano and orchestra arrangement of the Wanderer Fantasie are incredible. Liszt was unmatched when it came to transcription, both in scope and quality. Also, I remember watching a show recently about him. On either his writing desk or his piano he had three pictures of different composers in front of him (perhaps his greatest inspirations). I remember two of them were Beethoven and Carl Maria Von Weber - and I THINK the third one was Schubert. I cannot remember 100%, though.


----------



## peeyaj

Here are some of my favorite Liszt' transcriptions of Schubert's Lieder for the piano. Liszt successfully translated Schubert's poetic nature with perfect balance of originality and virtuosity.

*Der Erlkönig*

- Those triplets are scary! One of the most difficult piano piece.






*Gretchen am Spinnrade*






*Die Forelle*






*Standchen*


----------



## Lisztian

BPS said:


> I tend to agree with you on this, although < warning > my opinion is based on a very small knowledge base. My sense is that Liszt has a greater range of expression than Chopin et al. in his compositions. Not to mention that Chopin was awed by Liszt's talent.
> 
> I also have some Alice Sara Ott, which I like (but I may be blinded by her gorgeous appearance):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For piano concertante, I have PC #1 (above), Concerto Pathetique, Totentanz (Arnaldo Cohen), and PC #2 (also Cohen). Of those I think I might like PC#2 best, but I'm not sure - I haven't heard them recently.
> 
> For orchestral, I have Faust Symphony, Preludes, Tasso, Mazeppa, Orpheus, Hamlet, and Mephisto Waltz. None of those have made a big impression on me, but then again I'm not a big fan of orchestral music.
> 
> For other solo piano, I have the full Piano Sonata (Argerich), Hungarian Rhapsodies (Jando), and the above Transcendental Etudes. Plus a couple of other odds and ends. None of these have floored me the way the Hamelin and Friere playing did, but I am overdue for a relisten.
> 
> I have ZERO chamber music by Liszt - which is a shame because I really love violin sonatas and cello sonatas especially. I'll have to look and see what he composed. Any suggestions?


I was a bit busy when I gave my last reply to you, I was going to complete it later but then I forgot.

Anyway. It actually is not true that Chopin was in awe of Liszt's compositional talent. Chopin was in awe of Liszt as a pianist, but actually thought he was a pretty awful composer. I don't really blame him much though. For the most part, at that point Liszt's works were virtuoso opera fantasies that he wrote for showing off himself (although both some of these are very good pieces, and he had written other stuff for strictly musical purposes, but the virtuoso stuff was overwhelming). Liszt was nothing close to the composer we know today - Chopin's death was around the same time Liszt retired from the concert platform and started taking composing much more seriously. I believe Chopin actually said of Liszt's compositional ability that 'he is a master craftsman of no talent,' or something along those lines. But it is easy to see why someone like Chopin would think Liszt wasn't a great composer. (I mean, he called Kreisleriana and Carnaval by Schumann not music at all! Imagine what he thought of Liszt's more vulgar early side).

Of the works you mentioned...The Piano Concerti, while very good, are probably his weakest genre. While I disagree I don't even mind too much the Totentanz or the first PC not being selected for the classical music project yet (unfortunately I can't say the same about the top 100 keyboard concerti list and being okay with that), but I actually do agree with the ranking of the second. I agree with you that it's the best he wrote. I think it's a very underrated piece and I actually think it got its due credit there. Not up there with Brahms or Schumann, but a great mini concerto. The Arnaldo Cohen recording is actually supposed to be very, very good - but I have not heard him. My favourite for the Concerti and Totentanz is Zimerman. I think he gets them pretty much perfect.

With those orchestral works you actually pretty much have most of his best orchestral stuff, except for the Dante Symphony. But I think if you don't like orchestral works in general Liszt probably won't be the guy to change your mind. You never know, though.

For the solo piano stuff...The Transcendentals with Alice Sara Ott are supposed to be very good also. I actually don't know who I like here the the complete transcendentals, but Kissin has a CD with a few of them that he just owns. I need more complete sets though. The other stuff you mentioned I can't really say much. I would definately look into getting Berman in the complete Annees de Pelerinage. But overall yeah, just give the stuff you have a re-listening and be sure to update me!


----------



## kmhrm

peeyaj said:


> What works of Liszt is the "most profound"? I mean "profound" as those approaching my favorite sonata, Schubert's Piano sonata no. 21?
> 
> I enjoy the Hungarian Rhapsodies very much..  He's one of the great admirers of Schubert (the Wanderer Fantasy is one of his favorites), so I liked him..  His transcriptions of Schubert's songs is superb.


I think you can find something like this profound! 




I haven't listened much to Liszt. no symphonic poems, no faust symphony, no etudes or rhapsodies. But, something like sonata in B-minor was something very beautiful, subtle and exuberant.


----------



## TrazomGangflow

Simply put he was a genius of the piano, certainly at the same level as Beethoven, Chopin, and Schubert. I personally cherish his Schubert transcriptions. Liszt definately knew how to improvise. One quality I find enjoyable about Liszt is the variation in his pieces. He has a definate style but many of his works are on different ends of the spectrum. Some are fast paced and exciting, others are slow and mellow but have exquisite beauty. All of Liszt's piano works, however, seem to share an extreme intricacy and difficulty.

Most of the people on this site seem to thouroughly enjoy Liszt. Let's forget the unappreciation and start anew. Let's begin Lisztomania!


----------



## moody

*Liszt the Underrated.*

"...the most astonishing area of neglect, the piano music of this virtuoso composer, continues to be a largely unknown region the late works in particular which reveals an unsuspected inventiveness (many of them looking forward decades beyond Liszt's own time) remain to be discovered, not only by the listening public, but by the majority of performing pianists as well." That was written in 1962 and things have improved, but by how much ? Look at the examples given on this thread . We have gargantuan complete multi-disc packs of his works on the market, but who buys such things ? I cannot see the day that I would want one pianist playing all of anybody's works. For instance I think of Schnabel's "Emperor" Concerto as being the best ,but the 1st and 2nd concerti are a different thing--I like Gulda doing those.
Are many concert being given solely of Liszt's piano music, I think there were more in the 1950's. Radio stations like the ghastly Classic FM in Britain play an awful own version of THE Hungarian Rhapsody by a pianist who has no idea what's fitting or the correct mode for the period--that appears to be all. Apart from the two piano concerti from time to time.
You complain that your man is neglected on Talk Classical and you are right but I think this is partly an age thing. The most vociferous members here are very young and the young MOSTLY are not keen on solo instrumental recitals.Here are the statistics :
The solo and chamber forum 284 threads, vocal music 194 threads, opera 911 threads, Classical music discussion 4,088 threads.
As for chamber music , he wrote his Duo Sonata based on Chopin's Mazurka in C Sharp Minor, Op.6 between 1632 and 1835 but it was not published until 1963. It was discovered by the pianist Eugene List, boy do we owe him for all sorts, and Taken to Tibor Serly in NY. He prepared an edition with a few necessary adjustments.The Grand Duo Concertant based on a romance by Charles-Philippe Lefont was pub. 1852.the Romance Oubliee (1880) was actually written for a new invention called a viola alta, a large viola with a big sound. Epithalem (1873) for violin and piano, written for the marriage of a friend. he also wrote his Elegy No.1 (1874) and Elegy No.2 (1877) for violin and piano.
His late piano music, his organ music--listen to Via Crucis ( the 14 Stations of the Cross ) are where you'll find profound, in some places looking forward to Bartok.
He also wrote 72 songs many of which are very good indeed.


----------



## moody

Duo sonata dates should read 1832--1835, but I'll bet you didn't believe it anyway.


----------



## Polednice

Liszt is entirely overrated because I cannot denigrate his music enough.


----------



## Lisztian

TrazomGangflow said:


> Simply put he was a genius of the piano, certainly at the same level as Beethoven, Chopin, and Schubert. I personally cherish his Schubert transcriptions. Liszt definately knew how to improvise. One quality I find enjoyable about Liszt is the variation in his pieces. He has a definate style but many of his works are on different ends of the spectrum. Some are fast paced and exciting, others are slow and mellow but have exquisite beauty. All of Liszt's piano works, however, seem to share an extreme intricacy and difficulty.
> 
> Most of the people on this site seem to thouroughly enjoy Liszt. Let's forget the unappreciation and start anew. Let's begin Lisztomania!


It's not that people don't enjoy Liszt - most who give him a try do. I just think that for the most part there is something missing. Still prejudices and a shorter leash on the guy because of the old stereotypes and general uneducated opinion. Like maybe they give Liszt a try but at the recognition of fast semiquavers of octaves condemn him and don't give him enough of a shot. Liszt is a VERY original piano composer - his style of writing is very unique and takes some getting used to. An acquired taste. He also wrote such a huge range of music that he has pretty much something for everyone. I think in general if people truly gave him a chance, exploring a wide range of his music without prejudice or giving up - like you would with any other composer - he would be a lot more respected.

You need look no further than his representation overall on the many lists that TC love to make, as well as how little he is discussed that he is VERY underrated even though he is thoroughly enjoyed by some. I also understand that many tend to prefer orchestral works, but that doesn't change the fact that he is clearly seen as a lesser piano composer to someone like Chopin on here - which I firmly believe is not due to the music (much as I love Chopin). His stuff away from the piano is also uneven but good, as I mentioned earlier I believe if he didn't write a note for the piano he would be worthy of the 24th position (like he did get voted for) on this site - and someone like Chopin got 13th despite the fact that he did not write anything except for things involving the piano.

(By the way, I love you man. Someone who agrees with me. Sorry for the 'rant' on the inconsequential part of the last line you wrote when you are actually on my side - it was a general rather a personal thing. I agree, let's forget the unappreciation and start anew).


----------



## Lisztian

moody said:


> "...the most astonishing area of neglect, the piano music of this virtuoso composer, continues to be a largely unknown region the late works in particular which reveals an unsuspected inventiveness (many of them looking forward decades beyond Liszt's own time) remain to be discovered, not only by the listening public, but by the majority of performing pianists as well." That was written in 1962 and things have improved, but by how much ? Look at the examples given on this thread . We have gargantuan complete multi-disc packs of his works on the market, but who buys such things ? I cannot see the day that I would want one pianist playing all of anybody's works. For instance I think of Schnabel's "Emperor" Concerto as being the best ,but the 1st and 2nd concerti are a different thing--I like Gulda doing those.
> Are many concert being given solely of Liszt's piano music, I think there were more in the 1950's. Radio stations like the ghastly Classic FM in Britain play an awful own version of THE Hungarian Rhapsody by a pianist who has no idea what's fitting or the correct mode for the period--that appears to be all. Apart from the two piano concerti from time to time.
> You complain that your man is neglected on Talk Classical and you are right but I think this is partly an age thing. The most vociferous members here are very young and the young MOSTLY are not keen on solo instrumental recitals.Here are the statistics :
> The solo and chamber forum 284 threads, vocal music 194 threads, opera 911 threads, Classical music discussion 4,088 threads.
> As for chamber music , he wrote his Duo Sonata based on Chopin's Mazurka in C Sharp Minor, Op.6 between 1632 and 1835 but it was not published until 1963. It was discovered by the pianist Eugene List, boy do we owe him for all sorts, and Taken to Tibor Serly in NY. He prepared an edition with a few necessary adjustments.The Grand Duo Concertant based on a romance by Charles-Philippe Lefont was pub. 1852.the Romance Oubliee (1880) was actually written for a new invention called a viola alta, a large viola with a big sound. Epithalem (1873) for violin and piano, written for the marriage of a friend. he also wrote his Elegy No.1 (1874) and Elegy No.2 (1877) for violin and piano.
> His late piano music, his organ music--listen to Via Crucis ( the 14 Stations of the Cross ) are where you'll find profound, in some places looking forward to Bartok.
> He also wrote 72 songs many of which are very good indeed.


Great post!  While I do understand that mostly people aren't that into solo instrumental recitals compared to other things, it does not change the fact that Schumann, Chopin, Schubert, etc's piano works are very well represented while Liszt's simply are not, and generally seem to be considered lesser.


----------



## Lisztian

/Triple post.

While i'm here in this thread, I might as well post this. Yesterday I was randomly looking at solo piano recitals on youtube and I found this one by Kissin. I actually went to his playing of the same program in September, and listening to it again brought back good memories. It is an all Liszt recital (in Verbia, July 23 2011) including, in order:

Ricordanza, Etudes D'exécution Transcendante No.9.
Piano Sonata in B minor.
Funérailles (Harmonies poétiques et religieuses No. 7).
Les années de pèlerinage 1ère Année (La Suisse) No.6 - Vallée d'Obermann.
Les années de pèlerinage 2ème Année (L'Italie supplément) Venezia e Napoli.

Encores:

Liebesträume No. 3 in A-flat.
Soirées de Vienne, valse caprice for piano No. 6 (after Schubert D. 969 & 779).
Widmung (Liebeslied), transcription for piano (after Schumann).






Enjoy!


----------



## violadude

Lisztian, in the past I was one of those people who wrote Liszt off as a composer I didn't care much for. Having heard a few Hungarian Rhapsodies, a couple tone poems, a few etudes, and also the piano sonata, which I have always loved and thought was way more impressive than those other pieces I just mentioned. But thanks to your constants posts of obscure Franz Liszt pieces, I have definitely reconsidered my opinion of Liszts music and would love to explore his oeuvre in more depth at some point. Thanks for being so stubborn about the constant Liszt promotion.  It wasn't in vain.


----------



## Lisztian

violadude said:


> Lisztian, in the past I was one of those people who wrote Liszt off as a composer I didn't care much for. Having heard a few Hungarian Rhapsodies, a couple tone poems, a few etudes, and also the piano sonata, which I have always loved and thought was way more impressive than those other pieces I just mentioned. But thanks to your constants posts of obscure Franz Liszt pieces, I have definitely reconsidered my opinion of Liszts music and would love to explore his oeuvre in more depth at some point. Thanks for being so stubborn about the constant Liszt promotion.  It wasn't in vain.


 Good to hear I am making a difference around here, even if I must get annoying at times  I plan on continuing my stubborn Liszt promotion


----------



## moody

You may remember I mentioned (above) an own version of the 2nd Hungarian Rhapsody that I didn't approve of, well today I heard it again. The pianist bashes the keyboard playing through his tone, the arrangement is ridiculous and certainly not in the mode of Liszt it is completely execrable. On top of this for some strange reason the piano appears to be out of tune. Since I joined TC I wondered why this person had been attacked from all sides because I was not familiar with him--I don't really need to be. Anyway now I know why, yes you've guessed it was Lang Lang. This sort of nonsense is exactly why some people bridle at the mentioon of Liszt.


----------



## Lisztian

moody said:


> You may remember I mentioned (above) an own version of the 2nd Hungarian Rhapsody that I didn't approve of, well today I heard it again. The pianist bashes the keyboard playing through his tone, the arrangement is ridiculous and certainly not in the mode of Liszt it is completely execrable. On top of this for some strange reason the piano appears to be out of tune. Since I joined TC I wondered why this person had been attacked from all sides because I was not familiar with him--I don't really need to be. Anyway now I know why, yes you've guessed it was Lang Lang. This sort of nonsense is exactly why some people bridle at the mentioon of Liszt.


It is rather funny you mention that. My INTRODUCTION to Liszt was Lang Lang playing that same Horowitz arrangement of that Rhapsody. I was pretty much new to CM then and actually didn't mind it - loved me some bashy, crashy, (awful) playing! But now I listen to it and just shake my head, and tend to agree with you. However, to LL's credit, he has matured a lot as an artist. I saw him live twice in Sydney last year and thouroughly enjoyed myself. I thought his playing was first class.


----------



## moody

I feel bad now as Horowitz is one of my favourite people, but I don't retract my remarks.
Do a bit of stirring up we need some more participation.


----------



## Lisztian

moody said:


> Do a bit of stirring up we need some more participation.


Stirring up? Hmm. Well, without being false just to get attention...

Going through the lists on this site, here's where I think Liszt SHOULD, at the very least (being very generous to the 'opposition' IMO), be.

Top 200 Piano Works. This is where his representation is at its worst. By this list, Liszt is a far inferior composer to guys like Chopin, Schumann, Schubert...Even Debussy. He would have fared a LOT worse too if I hadn't come along half way through.

16: Piano Sonata: (Really? 16? I don't think ANY of the works in front should be in front of it. Maybe some tied, but I firmly believe there is not a solo piano work greater). Minimum ranking: 10. 
68: Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2: I personally wouldn't put it that high. Great piece, but probably deserving of low hundreds rather than here.
69: Années de pèlerinage: (How does a collection involving, among other very good works, Au bord d'une source, Vallée d'Obermann, Les cloches de Genève: Nocturne (42:48 on that video), Sposalizio, Petrarch Sonnets, Après une lecture de Dante: Fantasia Quasi Sonata, Aux cyprès de la Villa d'Este I and II: Thrénodie, Les jeux d'eaux à la Villa d'Este be at 69?). Minimum ranking: 25.
78: Études d'exécution transcendante: I firmly believe that this set is at least as great as either of Chopin's, but I won't push that. However, listen to 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, among other good to very good pieces. Minimum ranking: 50.
119: Harmonies poétiques et religieuses: (Okay, this is a tragedy like no other on the list. They are all good pieces (although some would disagree there), but how can a collection including Bénédiction de Dieu dans la solitude, Pensée des morts, Funérailles, Andante lagrimoso be at 119?). Minimum ranking: 30.
150: Mephisto Waltz No. 1: Fine.
185: Liebesträume. Again, i'd put it higher, but i'm fine with this. Honestly though, if Chopin or Schumann had written these pieces it would be top 100 at least.
190: Réminiscences de Don Juan: Fine.
200: Trois études de concert: Minimum Ranking: 150.

Honorable Mentions

(Mainly due to me)

Apparitions: Fine.
Ballades: ... I personally put his second up there with any of Chopin's. Minimum ranking: 50.
Consolations: At least should have made it!
Deux Légendes: Minimum Ranking: 150.
Grandes études de Paganini: Again, at least should have made it. 3 
Grosses Konzertsolo: Fine.
Hungarian Rhapsody No. 5: At least should have made it.
Hungarian Rhapsody No. 12: At least should have made it.
Illustrations de l'opéra L'Africaine: Fine.
La lugubre gondola II: Minimum Ranking: 150.
Mephisto Waltzes Nos. 2-4: At least should have made it.
Réminiscences de Norma: Minimum Ranking: 100.
Rhapsodie espagnole: Fine.
Sarabande und Chaconne aus dem Singspiel Almira: Fine.
Valses oubliées: Fine.
Hexaméron: Fine.

There are also many other works that at LEAST should have been honorable mentions, maybe better. Some of these are...

Zwei Konzertetüden.
Romance.
Mosonyis Grabgeleit.
Nuages gris.
Trauervorspiel und Trauermarsch.
En rêve. Nocturne.
Deux Polonaises.
Hungarian Rhapsody No. 1.
Les Adieux. Rêverie sur un motif de l'opéra Romeo et Juliette.
2 songbooks. Book 1 No 2. Book 2 No 1.

And many, many more. Combine all of them with his genius, unmatched transcriptions...

Piano Concerti

I'm the first to admit that his Piano Concerti are not among the greatest in the repertoire, or really among Liszt's best works. But still they deserve be better represented than what they were.

45: Piano Concerto No. 1: Fine, but i'd put it higher.
52: Piano Concerto No. 2: Minimum Ranking: 25.
98: Totentanz: Minimum Ranking: 75.

Symphonies.

68: Faust Symphony: Minimum Ranking: 40.

The Dante didn't even make it...I think it should at least have made it.

Choral.

I don't know Liszt's choral works well enough yet (i'm fairly new to them). But I think Christus should at least be a top 20.

Classical Music Project.

78: Piano Sonata in B minor. Minimum Ranking: 50.
155: Les Preludes: Fine.
165: Piano Concerto #2 in A: Fine.
313: Années de pèlerinage: Minimum Ranking: 100.

That's ALL he has. He has 4 entries. Here's some of his works that DEFINATELY should have made it so far.

Faust Symphony: Minimum Ranking: 150.
Harmonies poétiques et religieuses: Minimum Ranking: 120.
Christus: Minimum Ranking: 100.
Douze études d'exécution transcendante: Minimum Ranking: 250.
Ballades: Minimum Ranking: 300.
Fantasy and Fugue on the chorale Ad nos, ad salutarem undam (Originally an organ work, and the organ version is better, I just don't know about youtube recordings for that version): Minimum Ranking: 150.

Here are some others that probably should have...

Piano Concerto No. 1 in E flat.
Hungarian Rhapsodies.
Orpheus.

See, this is at LEAST how well I believe he should be represented. I actually think better than that, but again I managed to restrain myself very well I think compared to what I really think. There are also many works of his I don't know, or do know but don't know well enough, and also many I flat out forgot...Anyway, I demand you all listen to some of the links I linked and I DARE you to tell me i'm wrong! (Of course, there will always be personal taste).

(By the way, I do have way too much time on my hands. You don't need to tell me ).


----------



## kv466

Well sir, this is precisely the kind of thread I expected from you when you joined and I am glad to see you made one. I agree and wish I had all his piano music too. All I have are the recordings Earl Wild made along with the concertos by various artists and some others. Thanks for posting.


----------



## science

Lisztian said:


> Nuages gris


Yes, a great work. Have to agree with you.



Lisztian said:


> Totentanz


Personally, I like this better than the piano concertos, but then I'm a philistine.


----------



## Very Senior Member

Lisztian said:


> Stirring up? Hmm. Well, without being false just to get attention...
> 
> Going through the lists on this site, here's where I think Liszt SHOULD, at the very least (being very generous to the 'opposition' IMO), be.
> 
> etc


You obviously feel that Liszt has been short-changed in the various TC recommendation lists.

Why do you think this is the case? Are you of the opinion that not enough Liszt supporters turned out? Or are you suggesting that the members who did bother to vote in the various polls got it all wrong in some way, by not being sufficiently objective in their selections?

Alternatively, how would you react to the suggestion that simply because you are a Liszt fan not everyone is, and that you are possibly exaggerating List's alleged under-ratedness?


----------



## moody

Very Senior Member said:


> You obviously feel that Liszt has been short-changed in the various TC recommendation lists.
> 
> Why do you think this is the case? Are you of the opinion that not enough Liszt supporters turned out? Or are you suggesting that the members who did bother to vote in the various polls got it all wrong in some way, by not being sufficiently objective in their selections?
> 
> Alternatively, how would you react to the suggestion that simply because you are a Liszt fan not everyone is, and that you are possibly exaggerating List's alleged under-ratedness?


I tried to explain this in my post of January 21st, I believe that it holds water. This young guy believes in Liszt and is to be admired for his efforts. Some people do it for Liszt, some people do it for Schumann--you know how it is don't you?


----------



## Lisztian

Very Senior Member said:


> You obviously feel that Liszt has been short-changed in the various TC recommendation lists.
> 
> Why do you think this is the case? Are you of the opinion that not enough Liszt supporters turned out? Or are you suggesting that the members who did bother to vote in the various polls got it all wrong in some way, by not being sufficiently objective in their selections?
> 
> Alternatively, how would you react to the suggestion that simply because you are a Liszt fan not everyone is, and that you are possibly exaggerating List's alleged under-ratedness?


I'm not sure why this is the case. I do think that not enough Liszt supporters turned up. Especially in the piano works...I myself only turned up around half way through, and the extremely neglected Harmonies poétiques et religieuses cycle, among other works, would have been a lot more neglected if not for that. But past that i'm not entirely sure.

I am definately aware that is a possibility, and I probably am exaggerating a BIT. However, being as objective as I can POSSIBLY be, I do think I have a strong case. And also...even if i'm wrong...what's the harm? Maybe i'm wrong, maybe i'm right. Just something to think about, something to look into, and maybe more people will give him a chance.

No one has proved me wrong yet. I must ask, what is your opinion of Liszt?


----------



## Lisztian

science said:


> Yes, a great work. Have to agree with you.
> 
> Personally, I like this better than the piano concertos, but then I'm a philistine.


I like it better than the first, and think it is a really great piece - especially when Zimerman plays it. I personally think it's a top 50 piano and orchestra work...But I can definately see where people would criticize it, even if I disagree with most of those criticisms.


----------



## Lisztian

kv466 said:


> Well sir, this is precisely the kind of thread I expected from you when you joined and I am glad to see you made one. I agree and wish I had all his piano music too. All I have are the recordings Earl Wild made along with the concertos by various artists and some others. Thanks for posting.


Have you seen the DVD 'Wild about Liszt'?


----------



## Romantic Geek

Lisztian said:


> By this list, Liszt is a far inferior composer to guys like Chopin, Schumann, Schubert...Even Debussy. He would have fared a LOT worse too if I hadn't come along half way through.


It's your opinion, but I'm of the Chopin camp. I've always considered Liszt overrated, not underrated. To basically state that Liszt's piano music deserve to be above those so Chopin and Schumann, to me seems almost sinful. Those two were masters at writing for their instrument and deserve to be at the top of that list. On the other hand, I think there are a handful of composers whose piano works have been entirely neglected who could at least match the level of Liszt. I, for one, think Amy Beach may be a top 3 composer of piano music in the Romantic era, but no one plays her music.

Everyone plays Liszt. So wherever people place his music on these general lists (no pun intended) is where he deserves to be in my opinion. Maybe I'll appreciate him more in the future, but I do admit it is difficult to admire his flashy piano works as nothing more than virtuosic genius rather than compositional genius. Granted, he's the best virtuosic composer, but I don't think that means he's automatically a compositional genius either.

Of Liszt's music, I most appreciate his late organ works. When I'm in the mood, a few of his symphonic poems do, but I refuse to support his piano music when I think there's better piano music not being played at all.


----------



## moody

Romantic Geek said:


> It's your opinion, but I'm of the Chopin camp. I've always considered Liszt overrated, not underrated. To basically state that Liszt's piano music deserve to be above those so Chopin and Schumann, to me seems almost sinful. Those two were masters at writing for their instrument and deserve to be at the top of that list. On the other hand, I think there are a handful of composers whose piano works have been entirely neglected who could at least match the level of Liszt. I, for one, think Amy Beach may be a top 3 composer of piano music in the Romantic era, but no one plays her music.
> 
> Everyone plays Liszt. So wherever people place his music on these general lists (no pun intended) is where he deserves to be in my opinion. Maybe I'll appreciate him more in the future, but I do admit it is difficult to admire his flashy piano works as nothing more than virtuosic genius rather than compositional genius. Granted, he's the best virtuosic composer, but I don't think that means he's automatically a compositional genius either.
> 
> Of Liszt's music, I most appreciate his late organ works. When I'm in the mood, a few of his symphonic poems do, but I refuse to support his piano music when I think there's better piano music not being played at all.


Yes, he wrote a lot of virtuoso stuff but then so did Rachmaninoff, they made their living touring and giving concerts. But there is so much more to Liszt and if you have read this whole thread you would have seen this, so I'm surprised at your opinion because it most certainly is not a rounded one. As for Amy Beach, I wonder why no one plays her music. But like Lisztian here is your chance to start a campaign on her behalf. Lastly, you could sit and play Liszt for several days without having to play any flashy stuff. Also it is not true that everyone plays Liszt they used to 50 years ago or so but the concert halls don't see much of him---recordings yes!


----------



## Lisztian

Romantic Geek said:


> It's your opinion, but I'm of the Chopin camp. I've always considered Liszt overrated, not underrated. To basically state that Liszt's piano music deserve to be above those so Chopin and Schumann, to me seems almost sinful. Those two were masters at writing for their instrument and deserve to be at the top of that list. On the other hand, I think there are a handful of composers whose piano works have been entirely neglected who could at least match the level of Liszt. I, for one, think Amy Beach may be a top 3 composer of piano music in the Romantic era, but no one plays her music.
> 
> Everyone plays Liszt. So wherever people place his music on these general lists (no pun intended) is where he deserves to be in my opinion. Maybe I'll appreciate him more in the future, but I do admit it is difficult to admire his flashy piano works as nothing more than virtuosic genius rather than compositional genius. Granted, he's the best virtuosic composer, but I don't think that means he's automatically a compositional genius either.
> 
> Of Liszt's music, I most appreciate his late organ works. When I'm in the mood, a few of his symphonic poems do, but I refuse to support his piano music when I think there's better piano music not being played at all.


I never said his was better than those composer, I just don't think you can say one is better than the other. All geniuses in their own right. I do think Liszt was the most IMPORTANT of those, though.

I disagree with you about the whole 'Everyone plays Liszt. So wherever people place his music on these general lists (no pun intended) is where he deserves to be in my opinion.' I have mentioned heaps of reasons in this thread. I still think there are many prejudices and that people don't give him much of a chance, or if they do, a short leash. Maybe people look in the wrong places. There have been many instances on this site and others where I have seen very knowledgeable posters listen to something like the Annees de Pelerinage for the first time and thus changed their opinion of Liszt. No doubt there are many people who have given him a shot and not liked him, that's fine - but true for every composer. Also, Liszt is probably one of the most overplayed underplayed composers. Some of his stuff, like La Campanella, some Hungarian Rhapsodies, etudes, etc, are played very frequently. However, there is a HUGE amount of very good stuff that is not, some of his best works, and a lot that is played a bit, but probably not as much as it should be.

Yes, he was a virtuosic genius...but he was also a poetic, compositonal one too. Thinking of him as simply a virtuosic genius is very narrow minded. Some of his works are mainly virtuosity for the sake of virtuosity, many of them use virtuosity for MUSICAL purposes, there are a lot of notes, but it is all for the music. Most of these pieces have a great deal of poetry and compositional mastery in them, but often people just know they are listening to Liszt, hear lots of notes, and condemn him. And then there is another side...He has quite a wide output of stuff that is simply not flashy at all. Very high quality stuff at that.

What are some other composers who aren't being played that you believe to be better than Liszt? And I have heard a bit about Amy Beach but have not really listened to much...Any recommendations?


----------



## Lisztian

Might as well do some more stirring up, because i'm rather bored.

I forgot in my previous post to deal with his general ranking on TC: 24 I believe overall.

Look at someone like Chopin. On this site he consistently gets ranked in the low teens, and rightfully so. He is a GENIUS piano composer, who I admire for his piano music as much as anyone. But as I have made the argument...Liszt's piano music is in the same ballpark. There are examples of this throughout this thread so I won't get too much into that. So I would put Liszt in the mid to low teens, like Chopin, based on his solo piano output alone...

However, if Liszt had not written a single solo piano note, I STILL think he would be worthy of his TC ranking of the low to mid twenties. Look at the rest of his output...(for those interested i'll link the works that have not appeared in this thread so far).

Piano and Orchestra - Not Liszt's finest genre, and not up there with Brahms and Schumann, but he still wrote very good music here, and very groundbreaking music at that.

Piano Concerti 1, 2.
Totentanz.
Malédiction.
Fantasie über ungarische Volksmelodien.
De Profundis.

And other good works.

As Alan Walker said re Liszt's tone poems: 'Their historical importance is undeniable; both Sibelius and Richard Strauss were influenced by them, and adapted and developed the genre in their own way. For all their faults, these pieces offer many examples of the pioneering spirit for which Liszt is celebrated.' As an orchestral composer Liszt is rather uneven, but he DID write a lot of very good music that was revolutionary for its time. Even the worse stuff isn't as bad as it seems to be made out to be. However...Among his best work there you have...

Tasso, Lamento e Trionfo.
Héroïde funèbre.
Les Préludes.
Orpheus.
Hunnenschlacht.
Hamlet.
Mazeppa (ONLY if it's a good recording...This piece has so many poor recordings it's rather ridiculous. Most of them COMPLETELY miss the orchestral 'horse' effects that are quite central to the piece. I don't like any of the recordings on youtube).
Von der Wiege bis zum Grabe.
Eine Faust-Symphonie.
Eine Symphonie zu Dante's Divina Commedia.
Legendes.

And more, other works that i'm not too familiar with.

His Organ Music I am not familiar enough with. A disc of his organ works are near the top of my to-buy liszt. However what I do know, is that the Fantasy and Fugue on Ad Nos is almost to the organ repertoire as the Sonata is to the piano repertoire. Among his other music I know is the Präludium und Fuge über das Thema BACH, which is a staple of the repertoire. I have yet to hear his other organ music, but by all accounts it is very good.

His lieder, while not up there with Schumann or Schubert, are probably the next level below - up there with guys like Brahms and Beethoven.

I'm also not that familiar with his choral music, but i'm getting there. Of his works I know well here are some of my favourites.

Christus: I agree with Mark Carpenter who said: '"Christus" is music-making on the very highest order -- this is a score which can stand comparison with Beethoven's "Missa Solemnis" and Brahms' "German Requiem" and hold its head high along side these greatest of masterpieces.' It took me awhile to agree with him, but after becoming familiar with Helmuth Rilling's interpretation I most certainly do.
Psalms (Especially 13 and 137).
Via Crucis.
A GORGEOUS Ave Verum Corpus which I personally prefer to Mozart's celebrated setting.

And much more.

He also wrote some (although not much) chamber music which for the most part I have not heard. It is mainly arrangements. However a recent Gramophone review of some of his chamber music deemed the works worthy of the concert hall.

I still have a LOT more of his output to both explore and familiarize myself with, and I am looking forward to doing that.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Lisztian said:


> I never said his was better than those composer, I just don't think you can say one is better than the other. All geniuses in their own right. I do think Liszt was the most IMPORTANT of those, though.
> 
> I disagree with you about the whole 'Everyone plays Liszt. So wherever people place his music on these general lists (no pun intended) is where he deserves to be in my opinion.' I have mentioned heaps of reasons in this thread. I still think there are many prejudices and that people don't give him much of a chance, or if they do, a short leash. Maybe people look in the wrong places. There have been many instances on this site and others where I have seen very knowledgeable posters listen to something like the Annees de Pelerinage for the first time and thus changed their opinion of Liszt. No doubt there are many people who have given him a shot and not liked him, that's fine - but true for every composer. Also, Liszt is probably one of the most overplayed underplayed composers. Some of his stuff, like La Campanella, some Hungarian Rhapsodies, etudes, etc, are played very frequently. However, there is a HUGE amount of very good stuff that is not, some of his best works, and a lot that is played a bit, but probably not as much as it should be.
> 
> Yes, he was a virtuosic genius...but he was also a poetic, compositonal one too. Thinking of him as simply a virtuosic genius is very narrow minded. Some of his works are mainly virtuosity for the sake of virtuosity, many of them use virtuosity for MUSICAL purposes, there are a lot of notes, but it is all for the music. Most of these pieces have a great deal of poetry and compositional mastery in them, but often people just know they are listening to Liszt, hear lots of notes, and condemn him. And then there is another side...He has quite a wide output of stuff that is simply not flashy at all. Very high quality stuff at that.
> 
> What are some other composers who aren't being played that you believe to be better than Liszt? And I have heard a bit about Amy Beach but have not really listened to much...Any recommendations?


That's your opinion about his compositional mastery. I find his music interesting to talk about sometimes in my theory courses, but really when I break down his music in my mind, it is a lot more fireworks than poetry.

As far as Liszt being the most overplayed underplayed composer, isn't that the case with almost every composer? Maybe save Beethoven, there is a slew of repertoire by major composers that NEVER gets played. Seriously, who plays Piano Concerto No. 1 by Mozart on a regular basis? Who plays Symphony No. 10 by Haydn? Who plays Bach's Cantata #189 on a regular concert? Liszt is a major player in standard repertoire. It would be almost silly for any DMA candidate in piano not to have played Liszt at least once or twice on a program. Every composer has a wealth of works that no one ever plays.

As far as Amy Beach, just pick up any piece. I'm serious, they're all good. But there are many other composers that should get played more often. MacDowell's mature piano music is top notch. Of course, Alkan is another great candidate for his piano music. How about Leo Ornstein, one of the most productive composers in the early 20th century? It's almost impossible to find a recording of his stuff on Naxos, yet his complete works for piano come in 12 (!!!!) volumes, and some of it is sincerely top notch.

My point ultimately, is that there are many composers who I think have piano music as good, if not better, than Liszt and it goes unplayed because of composers like Liszt who are staples in the repertoire.


----------



## Lisztian

Romantic Geek said:


> That's your opinion about his compositional mastery. I find his music interesting to talk about sometimes in my theory courses, but really when I break down his music in my mind, it is a lot more fireworks than poetry.
> 
> As far as Liszt being the most overplayed underplayed composer, isn't that the case with almost every composer? Maybe save Beethoven, there is a slew of repertoire by major composers that NEVER gets played. Seriously, who plays Piano Concerto No. 1 by Mozart on a regular basis? Who plays Symphony No. 10 by Haydn? Who plays Bach's Cantata #189 on a regular concert? Liszt is a major player in standard repertoire. It would be almost silly for any DMA candidate in piano not to have played Liszt at least once or twice on a program. Every composer has a wealth of works that no one ever plays.
> 
> As far as Amy Beach, just pick up any piece. I'm serious, they're all good. But there are many other composers that should get played more often. MacDowell's mature piano music is top notch. Of course, Alkan is another great candidate for his piano music. How about Leo Ornstein, one of the most productive composers in the early 20th century? It's almost impossible to find a recording of his stuff on Naxos, yet his complete works for piano come in 12 (!!!!) volumes, and some of it is sincerely top notch.
> 
> My point ultimately, is that there are many composers who I think have piano music as good, if not better, than Liszt and it goes unplayed because of composers like Liszt who are staples in the repertoire.


I think it's a different kind of compositional mastery. Liszt understood music as well as pretty much anyone. He was a great conductor, probably the best transcriber of others music, he reviewed music, he brought to the fore composers music that no one else gave a chance. Liszt understood composition. However, he, like other progressives like Berlioz and Wagner chose to break new ground in how they composed. In works like the B Minor Sonata, the B Minor Ballade, Faust Symphony, Second piano concerto, etc - he used his own unique and highly effective form of Thematic Transformation. He wasn't conventional, he was a groundbreaking composer, who did things his own way for the most part. Maybe a lot of the time he did not reach any final consistency with his ideas, but he also did a lot of the time. And frankly many of his piano miniatures, and more large scale works, are pinnacles of the literature.

What you say is true. However, the works you mentioned are not among their best works. Mozarts first piano concerto is not close to one of his better efforts. With Liszt...masterworks like Pensée des morts, Bénédiction de Dieu dans la solitude, the Legendes, the two Aux Cypres pieces, many late works, are rarely played. These works are among his best work, however instead it's all too often the Rhapsodies and showstoppers that people think of when they think of Liszt.

And thankyou for bringing them to my attention, I will be sure to look into their music. I for one am a huge Macdowell fan, actually. I must ask you though, what works by someone like Beach compare to works like Bénédiction de Dieu dans la solitude, the Sonata, B Minor Ballade, Valee d'obermann, Dante Sonata, or even the Norma Fantasy? Or maybe shorter scale works like the Petrarch Sonnet 104, Au Bord D'une Source, Les Jeux d'eau a la villa d'este, La Lugubre Gondola II, etc?. I will bite my tongue if you are able to answer that, and also be very glad I have found a new great piano comoser! 

Okay. I do admit I have not looked into lesser known piano composers as much as I should, so I can't comment. However you have spurred me on to try them some more. Past neglected composers like Medtner and Alkan I have not listened to much. I will start with the names you mentioned.


----------



## Sator

I am always open to people saying "Amy Beach is under-rated just listen to her x,y,z". I have not been terribly impressed by Liszt, but would be extremely pleased to be enlightened if I have been too hasty in passing judgement. What I don't find particularly enlightening is when someone just repeats over and over that their pet composer is the greatest. I would find it much more helpful if the Lisztians could give us a recommendation of about 5 or so compositions, along with a succinct (or if you have the time a lengthy) reason* *why* they make Liszt the equal of Beethoven/Brahms/Wagner/Mozart etc etc. If you can come up with good recommended recordings that would also be helpful.

I look forward to being enlightened. Let the scales fall from my _ears_!

(*when I say a _*reason*_ why I don't mean things like "because it makes me cry, weep and wail uncontrollably" )


----------



## Romantic Geek

Lisztian said:


> I think it's a different kind of compositional mastery. Liszt understood music as well as pretty much anyone. He was a great conductor, probably the best transcriber of others music, he reviewed music, he brought to the fore composers music that no one else gave a chance. Liszt understood composition. However, he, like other progressives like Berlioz and Wagner chose to break new ground in how they composed. In works like the B Minor Sonata, the B Minor Ballade, Faust Symphony, Second piano concerto, etc - he used his own unique and highly effective form of Thematic Transformation. He wasn't conventional, he was a groundbreaking composer, who did things his own way for the most part. Maybe a lot of the time he did not reach any final consistency with his ideas, but he also did a lot of the time. And frankly many of his piano miniatures, and more large scale works, are pinnacles of the literature.
> 
> What you say is true. However, the works you mentioned are not among their best works. Mozarts first piano concerto is not close to one of his better efforts. With Liszt...masterworks like Pensée des morts, Bénédiction de Dieu dans la solitude, the Legendes, the two Aux Cypres pieces, many late works, are rarely played. These works are among his best work, however instead it's all too often the Rhapsodies and showstoppers that people think of when they think of Liszt.
> 
> And thankyou for bringing them to my attention, I will be sure to look into their music. I for one am a huge Macdowell fan, actually. I must ask you though, what works by someone like Beach compare to works like Bénédiction de Dieu dans la solitude, the Sonata, B Minor Ballade, Valee d'obermann, Dante Sonata, or even the Norma Fantasy? Or maybe shorter scale works like the Petrarch Sonnet 104, Au Bord D'une Source, Les Jeux d'eau a la villa d'este, La Lugubre Gondola II, etc?. I will bite my tongue if you are able to answer that, and also be very glad I have found a new great piano comoser!
> 
> Okay. I do admit I have not looked into lesser known piano composers as much as I should, so I can't comment. However you have spurred me on to try them some more. Past neglected composers like Medtner and Alkan I have not listened to much. I will start with the names you mentioned.


I would acknowledge what you said about Liszt, but I'm afraid whatever I'm going to write is going to be quite polemical and I'm not really wanting to go down that path. So for that, I'll let you think what you think and I'll think what I think and we'll call it a day? 

As far as Beach, I think all of her piano works are very mature. Her Ballade, Op. 6 (!!!) is frankly at the level of Chopin's Ballades. But I think her most fantastic piano work is Variations on Balkan Themes, Op. 60. I just posted the link in her composer guestbook. I'll keep adding pieces there as I find free recordings for people to listen.


----------



## Lisztian

Sator said:


> I am always open to people saying "Amy Beach is under-rated just listen to her x,y,z". I have not been terribly impressed by Liszt, but would be extremely pleased to be enlightened if I have been too hasty in passing judgement. What I don't find particularly enlightening is when someone just repeats over and over that their pet composer is the greatest. I would find it much more helpful if the Lisztians could give us a recommendation of about 5 or so compositions, along with a succinct (or if you have the time a lengthy) reason* *why* they make Liszt the equal of Beethoven/Brahms/Wagner/Mozart etc etc. If you can come up with good recommended recordings that would also be helpful.
> 
> I look forward to being enlightened. Let the scales fall from my _ears_! .


First of all, i'm not going to say Liszt is the equal of Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Mozart, etc. I won't go that far. I think he is important as any of them, but I don't think the music overall matches up to them. I may like him better, but I won't go THAT far 

Also, what works by him have you heard? Liszt to me is like Chopin in that much of his best work is of the miniature variety, however he does have some very good larger scale works. As per your request for five or so compositions...(I must say though I won't be great with the 'why' part, i'm not one who is able to give good musical explanations for such things, if someone else could chip in there I would appreciate it). Also, if you don't mind listening on youtube, ALL of these are on youtube, and I will link them.

1. Christus Oratorio, Helmuth Rilling. Liszt considered this his greatest work, as does Leslie Howard, who calls it 'far and away the greatest Romantic oratorio.' This work actually reminds me a great deal of the symphonies of Mahler, in that a lot of it is chamber like music, contrasted with choral sections involving full orchestra and choir. Of course, it is much longer than Mahler's symphonies, usually at over three hours. Rilling clocks in at around 2 and a half hours, which is perfect. I think that most conductors tend to let it drag on WAY too much, much at the cost of the work. Liszt's orchestration was very inconsistent for his tone poems and symphonies, but in this later Christus it is pretty much flawless and very effective. http://www.amazon.com/Liszt-Années-...=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1327979519&sr=1-1

2. Piano Sonata - Krystian Zimerman. (This disc also includes other gems, mainly from his late period, like Funerailles, La Lugubre Gondola 2, La Notte, and Nuages Gris). Simply his best piano work. The Liszt Sonata is a masterpiece not only because of all the beauty it contains, but because the form of the work is remarkable and unprecedented for its time. Liszt creates an entire 30 minute musical canvas from 5 motifs, yet it never sounds repetitive, the opposite, really. He also manages to keep the traditional sonata form intact. It is basically a free, improvisatory large scale movement that still adheres to a very tight structure. Frankly, it also contains some of the most moving piano music from anyone. http://www.amazon.com/Liszt-Sonata-...=sr_1_3?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1327982596&sr=1-3

3. Faust Symphony, Leonard Bernstein, BSO (It may be difficult to find the individual parts). Similar to the Sonata in a sense. Using the same mastery of Thematic Transformation. He presents and transforms multiple themes in the first two movements, and then the finale is basically a parody of those movements. The motifs go on quite the journey through the work. The final movement contains a fugue and is really quite brilliantly orchestrated, and the instrumental section climaxes before the choir comes in with a truly moving reprise of the Gretchen theme. The choral section at the end is simply beautiful, and a perfect ending to the work. This was a very innovative work in many ways, both in the use of thematic transformation, effectively using a choir (not commonplace for the time, even if it had been done), and the opening theme also uses all 12 notes of the chromatic scale. It prefigures Mahler in its scope and effect. I do think that Mahler's best efforts surpass this, but still this is a masterpiece in its own right. Still, it took me a while to even enjoy this work, but now I simply love it after giving it time. http://www.amazon.com/Liszt-Faust-S...=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1327982923&sr=1-1

4. Années de pèlerinage (Complete) Lazar Berman  (All in a row, missing the Dante Sonata for some reason). The Années de pèlerinage is probably Liszt's greatest cycle of piano music. Overall it is around 2.5 hours of piano music. Why is it great? Well, first of all it's how broad the cycle is, how much it encompasses. Over the three years it encompasses moving romanticism, to works that look forward to impressionism (very far forward), to virtuosic fireworks, to the stark pessimism of his late years. And frankly, the music is superb. His full compositional style is evident here, making it a very good introduction to Liszt. http://www.amazon.com/Liszt-Années-...=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1327983102&sr=1-1

5. Bénédiction de Dieu dans la solitude, Claudio Arrau. One of his most neglected solo piano masterworks. I will leave the description of this work to Air, who pretty much took the words out of my mouth, here.


----------



## Lisztian

Romantic Geek said:


> I would acknowledge what you said about Liszt, but I'm afraid whatever I'm going to write is going to be quite polemical and I'm not really wanting to go down that path. So for that, I'll let you think what you think and I'll think what I think and we'll call it a day?
> 
> As far as Beach, I think all of her piano works are very mature. Her Ballade, Op. 6 (!!!) is frankly at the level of Chopin's Ballades. But I think her most fantastic piano work is Variations on Balkan Themes, Op. 60. I just posted the link in her composer guestbook. I'll keep adding pieces there as I find free recordings for people to listen.


Haha, alright then 

About her Ballade...it's funny I always say that about Liszt's second  I will surely give it a listen when I have the time, as well as the variations. And awesome! It's great that you're promoting such a lesser known composer. I actually read a couple of pages about her in a classical music book yesterday, apparently she was quite a remarkable prodegy...


----------



## brianwalker

Liszt, I'm interested in your view of other composers and their works, I hope that's ok. 

What are your thoughts on Parsifal, specifically the prelude to act I and act III? 

Here's a list of other works I'd like to hear your opinion of. 

1. Jupiter symphony 
2. Opus 132 
3. Schubert sonata 21. 
4. Beethoven sonata no. 28
5. Ravel's Miroirs 
6. Bach: cell suite no 6 - prelude, any prelude/fugue from the WTC, 

Feel free to indulge yourself and be however vague or specific, concrete or lyrical, at whichever length you prefer. 

I know this is irrelevant, but do you have a favorite novelist?


----------



## Lisztian

Alrighty then.

Firstly, i've only heard Parsifal once, around two years ago. At that time (even now, but not quite as much as then) I was not comfortable with works on such a large scale, so I did not think much of it. Opera is one of the main genres I have not looked into a lot, and when i've tried I haven't really taken to it. I am probably overdue for a re-evaluation of opera. I enjoy stretches of Tristan every now and then, but TBCH my main Wagner listening, and opera listening in general is Liszt's piano transcriptions and fantasies. The piano is and always has been my favourite means of expression.

The Jupiter Symphony is probably my favourite of Mozart's symphonies, but that is not saying a great deal because in general I am not a Mozart fan. I am not a fan of the classical period in general, although I can appreciate it in small doses. Especially Mozart, I don't know what it is but he just does not reach me, I feel the beauty but I don't appreciate it. 

Beethoven is another matter entirely. Probably my second favourite composer behind Liszt (and the only composer I will grudgingly acknowledge as a great piano composer than Liszt). However, his late quartets, while I have heard them, are not his works I am most intimately familiar with, which is a shame. His symphonies however are my second favourite behind Mahler, but, being me, his piano music is what touches me the most. Especially his mid-late period sonatas. 

Schubert's 21st sonata is one of my favourite works by anyone. I don't think there is a piano work in existence with more simple, profound beauty as the first two movements of that Sonata. I put it with the late sonatas of Beethoven and Liszt as the greatest sonatas ever written. However...I do find it gets a bit trivial after those first two movements, but that's just me, probably.

Beethoven's sonata No. 28 is probably my least favourite of his Op 100+ sonatas. I started learning it around 3 years ago but never did finish it. I acknowledge its beauty but I much prefer the other 4. It has nothing in it that really awes me, unlike the the final movement of 109, the Arietta in 111, etc (and the ENTIRE Hammerklavier).

Ravels Miroirs never really touched me either. I prefer to go to Debussy for Impressionistic piano music, but even then Impressionism is not a preffered genre. I do, however, love Ravel's piano concerto in G (one of my favourites, that second movement is...perfect) and Daphnis Et Chloe.

I'm also not Bach's biggest fan, but I acknowledge him as a musical god. I can listen to his music in small doses and feel the beauty, but when I go past those small doses it just gets bland and repetitive to me. Too intellectual for the most part. The cello suites are among my favourite works from him. I like his organ work, but I prefer the little i've heard from Liszt there. The WTC is one of my favourite things to listen to in very small doses, maybe a P and F every day sort of thing. The Goldberg Variations bores me after the beautiful Aria. 

Not irrelevant, you're basically trying to judge my artistic tastes and who I am as a whole. I do not have a favourite novelist, i'm not much of a reader in general. But that is not due to lack of interest, but rather mental health issues that make things like that difficult.


----------



## Lisztian

^^^I made a mistake on my 5 compositions post. I linked the last movement instead of the first. Here is the first.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

I own the entire piano works of Liszt on 99 CDs played by Leslie Howard. Therefore, I win this thread.


----------



## Lisztian

Your thoughts on the collection?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Lisztian said:


> Your thoughts on the collection?


Bought the (beautiful) box-set on sale. About 10% through it, so far very enjoayble thanks to Leslie Howard, whom I enjoy listening to. Of course, with such a large collection I concede that not every single disc will be the benchmark performance. That doesn't concern necessarily me, for it's good enough for me to have it all at my "finger tips" when I want a Liszt treat. In short, so far so good and I expect no big disasters given my positive experience with Liszt and performer.


----------



## moody

Sator said:


> I am always open to people saying "Amy Beach is under-rated just listen to her x,y,z". I have not been terribly impressed by Liszt, but would be extremely pleased to be enlightened if I have been too hasty in passing judgement. What I don't find particularly enlightening is when someone just repeats over and over that their pet composer is the greatest. I would find it much more helpful if the Lisztians could give us a recommendation of about 5 or so compositions, along with a succinct (or if you have the time a lengthy) reason* *why* they make Liszt the equal of Beethoven/Brahms/Wagner/Mozart etc etc. If you can come up with good recommended recordings that would also be helpful.
> 
> I look forward to being enlightened. Let the scales fall from my _ears_!
> 
> (*when I say a _*reason*_ why I don't mean things like "because it makes me cry, weep and wail uncontrollably" )


You see you really have to look at a thread before addressing it. Lisztian has put forward inumerable numbers of different types of Liszt compositions.


----------



## moody

Sator said:


> I am always open to people saying "Amy Beach is under-rated just listen to her x,y,z". I have not been terribly impressed by Liszt, but would be extremely pleased to be enlightened if I have been too hasty in passing judgement. What I don't find particularly enlightening is when someone just repeats over and over that their pet composer is the greatest. I would find it much more helpful if the Lisztians could give us a recommendation of about 5 or so compositions, along with a succinct (or if you have the time a lengthy) reason* *why* they make Liszt the equal of Beethoven/Brahms/Wagner/Mozart etc etc. If you can come up with good recommended recordings that would also be helpful.
> 
> I look forward to being enlightened. Let the scales fall from my _ears_!
> 
> (*when I say a _*reason*_ why I don't mean things like "because it makes me cry, weep and wail uncontrollably" )


Here is some enlightenment. I am pretty sick of comments by people who have apparently listened to a couple of Hungarian Rhapsodies and the piano concerti.
There is no doubt that Liszt was one of the genuine geniuses of all time. A composer who was a poet, a prophet, a pioneer and a saint. Nor is there any doubt that he was a charlatan, a ham, a show-off and a snob.
But he wrote music that Chopin would never have dreamed of . It ranges from introspective music with philosophico-religious programmes, to simple objective settins of folk songs and brilliant virtuoso show pieces. Any one who has not heard all of the following is not in a position to criticise--and there are plenty more.
Four Little Piano Pices 1865. utter simplicity, poetic insight, may lie behind Schoenberg's Six Pieces Op.19
En Reve,Nocturne 1865. Five Hungarian Folk Songs. Harmonies Poetiques et Relieuses. Extension of tonality in the direction of chromaticism. Sleepless, Quetion and Answer. Two versions . this is going in the direction of Bartok.. Hungarian Historical Portraits. Tone poems in memory of seven prominent men in political and artistic life. His last grand collection for piano.
Four Valses Oubliees. Christmas Tree Suite. 1875. Festive Polonaise 1876. 
Variations on Bach's Cantata " Weinen, Klagen. Sorgen, Zagen". Fantasy and Fugue on the Theme B-A-C-H. These two for piano or organ
Iin Festo Transfigurationis Domini Nostri Jesu Christi. There is a a link to Messiaen here
Choral the 14 Stations of the Cross
No flashy stuff here
You want more you can have more.


----------



## Lisztian

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Bought the (beautiful) box-set on sale. About 10% through it, so far very enjoayble thanks to Leslie Howard, whom I enjoy listening to. Of course, with such a large collection I concede that not every single disc will be the benchmark performance. That doesn't concern necessarily me, for it's good enough for me to have it all at my "finger tips" when I want a Liszt treat. In short, so far so good and I expect no big disasters given my positive experience with Liszt and performer.


Awesome! Yeah i've heard quite a few of his recordings, mainly online. While he does not play the more well known stuff at the level of masters like Bolet and Arrau and Richter, he still does give good, serviceable recordings. The great thing however is that he does the same to all of the lesser known works, so we get good, serviceable recordings of stuff you very rarely hear, and it will hopefully lead to many of those works being played more in the future!


----------



## violadude

Here's a beautiful Liszt piece I heard today that I liked a lot. Not too much showiness in this one.


----------



## Lisztian

^Yes, one of my favourite of Liszt's lesser known middle period pieces. Thanks for sharing!


----------



## Rmac58

Beautiful violaude, beautiful.

Thanks so much.


----------



## Sator

Lisztian said:


> First of all, i'm not going to say Liszt is the equal of Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Mozart, etc. I won't go that far. I think he is important as any of them, but I don't think the music overall matches up to them. I may like him better, but I won't go THAT far
> 
> Also, what works by him have you heard? Liszt to me is like Chopin in that much of his best work is of the miniature variety, however he does have some very good larger scale works. As per your request for five or so compositions...(I must say though I won't be great with the 'why' part, i'm not one who is able to give good musical explanations for such things, if someone else could chip in there I would appreciate it). Also, if you don't mind listening on youtube, ALL of these are on youtube, and I will link them.
> 
> 1. Christus Oratorio, Helmuth Rilling. Liszt considered this his greatest work, as does Leslie Howard, who calls it 'far and away the greatest Romantic oratorio.' This work actually reminds me a great deal of the symphonies of Mahler, in that a lot of it is chamber like music, contrasted with choral sections involving full orchestra and choir. Of course, it is much longer than Mahler's symphonies, usually at over three hours. Rilling clocks in at around 2 and a half hours, which is perfect. I think that most conductors tend to let it drag on WAY too much, much at the cost of the work. Liszt's orchestration was very inconsistent for his tone poems and symphonies, but in this later Christus it is pretty much flawless and very effective. http://www.amazon.com/Liszt-Années-...=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1327979519&sr=1-1
> 
> 2. Piano Sonata - Krystian Zimerman. (This disc also includes other gems, mainly from his late period, like Funerailles, La Lugubre Gondola 2, La Notte, and Nuages Gris). Simply his best piano work. The Liszt Sonata is a masterpiece not only because of all the beauty it contains, but because the form of the work is remarkable and unprecedented for its time. Liszt creates an entire 30 minute musical canvas from 5 motifs, yet it never sounds repetitive, the opposite, really. He also manages to keep the traditional sonata form intact. It is basically a free, improvisatory large scale movement that still adheres to a very tight structure. Frankly, it also contains some of the most moving piano music from anyone. http://www.amazon.com/Liszt-Sonata-...=sr_1_3?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1327982596&sr=1-3
> 
> 3. Faust Symphony, Leonard Bernstein, BSO (It may be difficult to find the individual parts). Similar to the Sonata in a sense. Using the same mastery of Thematic Transformation. He presents and transforms multiple themes in the first two movements, and then the finale is basically a parody of those movements. The motifs go on quite the journey through the work. The final movement contains a fugue and is really quite brilliantly orchestrated, and the instrumental section climaxes before the choir comes in with a truly moving reprise of the Gretchen theme. The choral section at the end is simply beautiful, and a perfect ending to the work. This was a very innovative work in many ways, both in the use of thematic transformation, effectively using a choir (not commonplace for the time, even if it had been done), and the opening theme also uses all 12 notes of the chromatic scale. It prefigures Mahler in its scope and effect. I do think that Mahler's best efforts surpass this, but still this is a masterpiece in its own right. Still, it took me a while to even enjoy this work, but now I simply love it after giving it time. http://www.amazon.com/Liszt-Faust-S...=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1327982923&sr=1-1
> 
> 4. Années de pèlerinage (Complete) Lazar Berman  (All in a row, missing the Dante Sonata for some reason). The Années de pèlerinage is probably Liszt's greatest cycle of piano music. Overall it is around 2.5 hours of piano music. Why is it great? Well, first of all it's how broad the cycle is, how much it encompasses. Over the three years it encompasses moving romanticism, to works that look forward to impressionism (very far forward), to virtuosic fireworks, to the stark pessimism of his late years. And frankly, the music is superb. His full compositional style is evident here, making it a very good introduction to Liszt. http://www.amazon.com/Liszt-Années-...=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1327983102&sr=1-1
> 
> 5. Bénédiction de Dieu dans la solitude, Claudio Arrau. One of his most neglected solo piano masterworks. I will leave the description of this work to Air, who pretty much took the words out of my mouth, here.


Sorry for the belated reply, but I will keep an eye out for those works. It's always good to review and revise one's views of composers. Personally, I have so many composers on the neglected list it is hard to know where to start.


----------



## Eviticus

violadude said:


> Here's a beautiful Liszt piece I heard today that I liked a lot. Not too much showiness in this one.


Oo I like this one.


----------



## Lisztian

Eviticus said:


> Oo I like this one.


See, not taking a shot at you at all, but that's the thing. In one of your earlier posts in this thread you made the claim that you aren't too fond of Liszt, and you imagine others aren't, because he was virtuosity for the sake of virtuosity. Yes, he definitely did have that side. But as I mentioned earlier in the thread he wrote pieces for that purpose, pieces that use virtuosity strictly for musical purposes, and pieces that simply don't use it at all - and everything in-between.

So, following the examples of the wonderful men Moody and violadude I will make a short list of pieces by him in the latter category. This list will be ruthless in not allowing anything that could remotely be considered flashy, even if it is not flashy at all but could possibly be percieved as flashy due to some sort of stereotype, and any other composer would get away with it completely. (Heck I wouldn't even think of listing something like the Ballade Ukraine that violadude mentioned).

But I digress, here are a few.

Études d'exécution transcendante No. 3. Paysage.
Aux cyprès de la Villa d'Este II: Thrénodie.
Romance.
Consolations (all six). (All can be found at that link).
In festo transfigurationis Domini nostri Jesu Christi.
Nuages gris.

If you want more, ask. There are MANY more. This is a good start. I demand everyone in the 'Liszt is all virtuosity' camp to stop whatever you're doing and listen to these pieces, and then re-evaluate.


----------



## Eviticus

Lisztian said:


> See, not taking a shot at you at all, but that's the thing. In one of your earlier posts in this thread you made the claim that you aren't too fond of Liszt, and you imagine others aren't, because he was virtuosity for the sake of virtuosity. Yes, he definitely did have that side. But as I mentioned earlier in the thread he wrote pieces for that purpose, pieces that use virtuosity strictly for musical purposes, and pieces that simply don't use it at all - and everything in-between.
> 
> So, following the examples of the wonderful men Moody and violadude I will make a short list of pieces by him in the latter category. This list will be ruthless in not allowing anything that could remotely be considered flashy, even if it is not flashy at all but could possibly be percieved as flashy due to some sort of stereotype, and any other composer would get away with it completely. (Heck I wouldn't even think of listing something like the Ballade Ukraine that violadude mentioned).
> 
> But I digress, here are a few.
> 
> Études d'exécution transcendante No. 3. Paysage.
> Aux cyprès de la Villa d'Este II: Thrénodie.
> Romance.
> Consolations (all six). (All can be found at that link).
> In festo transfigurationis Domini nostri Jesu Christi.
> Nuages gris.
> 
> If you want more, ask. There are MANY more. This is a good start. I demand everyone in the 'Liszt is all virtuosity' camp to stop whatever you're doing and listen to these pieces, and then re-evaluate.


haha I think i mentioned my biggest gripe was his awkward tempo's. He was very accustomed to playing as the mood took him and as the Romantic period progressed he seemed to abandon works of consistent tempo's for what sounds like more experimental stuff. In other words he produced many works that seem to squeeze an awful lot in very few measures and the next minute very little in an equal number of measures. This kind of 'accordian' effect throughout a piece has never really appealed to me unless the themes are very strong.

This sort of thing is also evident in your first two recommendations; whereas violadudes recommendation is far more balanced and has a really good theme (as does the romance you pointed out).

You have to remember my favourite composers are; Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin - all of which produce big memorable themes. Harmonics are secondary to me. So bearing all this in mind, I am still open for you to use your experience of Liszt to throw some things you think would fit the bill my way. In fact i welcome them.

Just to give you an idea of the Liszt i like:-





Or something like Consolation No.3


----------



## moody

EVITICUS.
I don't see your point about Liszt's tempi. You say that he played as the mood took him, but are you saying that he composed as the mood took him? If so good, as I imagine most composers do exactly that ,but still considered carefully before committing to paper. We will have to consult with our resident composer" avant garde". But in any case they are two very different activities surely? He most certainly wanted to move from the overtly romantic stuff of earlier times that had served their purpose. The Liebestraum that you quote is easily the most schmaltzy and the most popular of the three that he composed. But it is very hackneyed and it should be remembered that it started life as a love song and was adapted as a solo piano piece later. So it had to have a big tune really didn't it? Liszt did quite purposely go for what could be called "experimental stuff" as he did left the virtuoso style behind . As we've mentioned in an earlier post he approached Bartok, Schoenberg and it seems Messiaen---But that's not possible so they actually approached him. I am not a musician but do not expect the type of example provided by the Liebestraum to appear in a composer's later works and I certainly would not with Liszt. As for your favourites, Beethoven lived to 63 years and progress showed throughout his career. A person who is happy with the "Moonlight" sonata way well not be with the Op.111, I wasn't when I was young. Someone who enjoys the "Archduke" trio might actively dislike the late chamber works. Tchaikowsky was 53 years when he died and there is not much of any great progress in his later years, it is all much of a muchness although all good stuff ! His solo piano music is charming but of no great import, Dvorak mansged 63 years but although he lived to 1904 there exists nothing very "modern" in his output, his piano music is second rate and his concerto poor. Chopin of course only lasted 39 years but I don't see him continuing to churn out nocturnes, waltzes and polonaises for ever. No, I am quite sure there would have been radical changes as time passed.Mozart was only 35 at his demise--the mind can only boggle as to where he might have gone! Liszt, however, was 75 when he met his end .I do not expect to have an easy time with his later music such as "Unstern", but he didn't want me to have. He gave himself no easy ride either as he was undoubtedly questing both regarding music and life. I have had no reason to question tempi although from experience I am sure something would have impinged on my conscience if it felt "wrong". But then, judging from your list, you would not enjoy the late works in any case. I think you enjoy the upfront stuff best and what's wrong with that? I.m keen on your choices too except some ambivelence towards Chopin. Liszt in fact went farther and deeper across a larger span than any of your choices. If you have a decent collection of his music play some of the first, some from midway and then some of the last--the contrast is incredible. He influenced forward-looking contemporaries and anticipated 20th century ideas and trends. He invented the symphonic poem, developed the concept of thematic transformation and made radical departures in harmony. I think that in the case of late Liszt you are looking for something which is not there.
Lastly, I think that Lisztian will agree that the heading of this thread has been very satisfactorily proved and I hope that doubters have been given something to ponder. There is however one more area to consider and that will be coming soon in our next exciting episode.


----------



## Eviticus

Dear Moody-
Reading back my explanation is a little hard to understand but then it is hard to explain. I suppose tempo was the wrong reference as his tempo's could stay the same but his style would frequently change during a piece. Much of the works i have heard from Liszt no matter how planned out they probably are sound like him making them up on the spot. One moment he is playing adagio, the next he's blazing various runs and it's hard to understand the core rhythm. This is the reason i find him awkward. His progressiveness is to be admired as is the depth he explored piano music and other forums but that does not mean i have to like the music. 

I admire Beethoven greatly but his later period is not as enjoyable as his heroic period and some of his later sonata's are no where near as enjoyable as "Pathetique", "Moonlight" or "Waldstein". I listen to a Mozart piano concerto, a romantic Beethoven sonata, a Schubert impromtu, a Chopin nocturne or prelude and i hear the notes anticipated by those prior in a seamless line, delivering the strong melody in consistent rhythms and the music appears effortless. This is the style i am drawn to. I do not hear this in Liszt often at all. 

Mozart, Schubert, Beethoven, Chopin and Saint Saens piano music has something far more appealing to me so far I'm afraid.


----------



## moody

Eviticus said:


> Dear Moody-
> Reading back my explanation is a little hard to understand but then it is hard to explain. I suppose tempo was the wrong reference as his tempo's could stay the same but his style would frequently change during a piece. Much of the works i have heard from Liszt no matter how planned out they probably are sound like him making them up on the spot. One moment he is playing adagio, the next he's blazing various runs and it's hard to understand the core rhythm. This is the reason i find him awkward. His progressiveness is to be admired as is the depth he explored piano music and other forums but that does not mean i have to like the music.
> 
> I admire Beethoven greatly but his later period is not as enjoyable as his heroic period and some of his later sonata's are no where near as enjoyable as "Pathetique", "Moonlight" or "Waldstein". I listen to a Mozart piano concerto, a romantic Beethoven sonata, a Schubert impromtu, a Chopin nocturne or prelude and i hear the notes anticipated by those prior in a seamless line, delivering the strong melody in consistent rhythms and the music appears effortless. This is the style i am drawn to. I do not hear this in Liszt often at all.
> 
> Mozart, Schubert, Beethoven, Chopin and Saint Saens piano music has something far more appealing to me so far I'm afraid.


You know what it is don't you--you're just an old romantic!


----------



## Lisztian

Eviticus said:


> Dear Moody-
> Reading back my explanation is a little hard to understand but then it is hard to explain. I suppose tempo was the wrong reference as his tempo's could stay the same but his style would frequently change during a piece. Much of the works i have heard from Liszt no matter how planned out they probably are sound like him making them up on the spot. One moment he is playing adagio, the next he's blazing various runs and it's hard to understand the core rhythm. This is the reason i find him awkward. His progressiveness is to be admired as is the depth he explored piano music and other forums but that does not mean i have to like the music.
> 
> I admire Beethoven greatly but his later period is not as enjoyable as his heroic period and some of his later sonata's are no where near as enjoyable as "Pathetique", "Moonlight" or "Waldstein". I listen to a Mozart piano concerto, a romantic Beethoven sonata, a Schubert impromtu, a Chopin nocturne or prelude and i hear the notes anticipated by those prior in a seamless line, delivering the strong melody in consistent rhythms and the music appears effortless. This is the style i am drawn to. I do not hear this in Liszt often at all.
> 
> Mozart, Schubert, Beethoven, Chopin and Saint Saens piano music has something far more appealing to me so far I'm afraid.


Your claims are understandable, I think. Liszt, especially in and around his middle period, pretty much epitomized romanticism, fantasy, freedom, all that. If you don't find satisfaction in that style, that's fine. Liszt was a great melodist, although not as consistent as guys like Schubert, Chopin, and Tchaikovsky. He himself said that his harmonies were the best feature of his music for the most part, so again if harmonics don't mean that much to you a lot of his music may not be a good fit. Liszt was very original, he was very different from composers like Chopin and Schubert. Advice I like to give in regards to listening to Liszt is not to expect anyone else but Liszt. Listen to LISZT, not Chopin. You also said you don't really like his later, experimental side, so all in all it does not seem like a good fit for you.

However, there are some exceptions. You said you liked his third consolation, what do you think of the other ones? They all are in the style you seem to like and are very beautiful. There are other singular works like the Romance I mentioned and the Canzone Napolitana. What about the late Fünf Klavierstücke? (7:40-15:18 in that video. There are some other pieces there that may or may not interest you too). Utmost simplicity, but rather beautiful (may not be your type, though). What about his first Ballade? (Although that is probably not your type. Strong themes glittered by various harmonics, really in that free romantic style I mentioned). In that same style, what about Un Sospiro?

What do you think of some of his larger scale works? Do you like the Sonata? What about the Bénédiction de Dieu dans la solitude? 

I do think there are Liszt piano works for pretty much everyone. If you don't like these there are more I can recommend. Trial and error  Tell me what you think of them.


----------



## Eviticus

moody said:


> You know what it is don't you--you're just an old romantic!


:lol: I prefer this diagnosis far more than the one about me being out of mind on the overrated thread more recently.


----------



## moody

THE SONGS OF LISZT.
Liszt may be lauded as the inventor of the tone poem or the high priest of romantic pianism, but the idea of Liszt the song writer has been unjustly overlooked. He wrote in excess of eighty songs but a bare handful are known in any way at all. He used texts by Goethe, Heine, Hugo, Lenau, Rellstab, Schiller and even Tennyson "Go Not Happy Day"(not a winner!). The problem has not been helped by a scarcity of reliable printed editions and the many alternative versions, this was a feature of his piano pieces of course. In 1930 a pupil and friend of Liszt wrote :"Out of the huge of his lieder and songs every singer always chooses the same one: "Es muss ein Wunderbares sein". The situation today is certainly improved but not by a great enough degree. The songs for solo voice are probably the least known of Liszt's large and wide ranging output. Mind you, he did not do much of a marketing job on them himself some were printed long after composition. He came to song via the piano, his first were written after made transcriptions of Rossini and Schubert songs In fact he arranged twenty of his own songs for piano. There are altogether four versions of the Petrarch sonnets, two each for voice and piano. These, as in the case of the three Liebestraume, are probably better known in their piano rather than their vocal versions. He wrote in five languages in a free variety of forms and sometimes reset a poem entirely without reference to the musical material in his first attempt. This means that sometimes a song has been recorded in two or even three of its versions, sometimes without proper identification. Nevertheless, most of his songs and lieder are worth hearing and many of them are excellent.I am not going to make a long list for your edification as you will probably have to buy them by the dozen anyway. But the following are among the best and especially for first timers: Die Drei Zigeuner ( The Three Gypsies),
Die Lorely, O lieb so lang du lieben kanst (O love as long as you can}This is the famous Liebestraum and it is hard to forgive Liszt who came up with tune of a lifetime and failed miserably to come up with a convincing song. No wonder he he turned it into a concert piece , but all was not lost ! The tenor Tito Schipa made an arrange ment of it which is fully acceptable and has been recorded a number of times. Es muss ein Wunderbares sein ( how wondrous it must be The love of two souls..The Petrarch sonnets for tenor ,Jose Carreras recorded them for Acanta in 1987, along with three Schubert Italian songs and three unusual Wagner lieder. Oh,Quand Je Dors (Oh, when I sleep come to my bed),
Take time out to investigate you may be in for a pleasant surprise. Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, Hildegard Behrens, Philip Langridge and Margaret Price have all recorded a good selection.


----------



## Eviticus

Lisztian said:


> Your claims are understandable, I think. Liszt, especially in and around his middle period, pretty much epitomized romanticism, fantasy, freedom, all that. If you don't find satisfaction in that style, that's fine. Liszt was a great melodist, although not as consistent as guys like Schubert, Chopin, and Tchaikovsky. He himself said that his harmonies were the best feature of his music for the most part, so again if harmonics don't mean that much to you a lot of his music may not be a good fit. Liszt was very original, he was very different from composers like Chopin and Schubert. Advice I like to give in regards to listening to Liszt is not to expect anyone else but Liszt. Listen to LISZT, not Chopin. You also said you don't really like his later, experimental side, so all in all it does not seem like a good fit for you.
> 
> However, there are some exceptions. You said you liked his third consolation, what do you think of the other ones? They all are in the style you seem to like and are very beautiful. There are other singular works like the Romance I mentioned and the Canzone Napolitana. What about the late Fünf Klavierstücke? (7:40-15:18 in that video. There are some other pieces there that may or may not interest you too). Utmost simplicity, but rather beautiful (may not be your type, though). What about his first Ballade? (Although that is probably not your type. Strong themes glittered by various harmonics, really in that free romantic style I mentioned). In that same style, what about Un Sospiro?
> 
> What do you think of some of his larger scale works? Do you like the Sonata? What about the Bénédiction de Dieu dans la solitude?
> 
> I do think there are Liszt piano works for pretty much everyone. If you don't like these there are more I can recommend. Trial and error  Tell me what you think of them.


It just occurred to me i never responded to this - how rude!

Lots of questions here though so i may not answer all in this. I like all the consolations yes but 3 is my favourite. I am not that keen on the b minor sonata. I have always struggled to get in to it. As for the Canzone Napolitana - it is enjoyable too (especially about half way through). I actually like a couple of pieces from the transcendental studies - and enjoy watching pianists try and tackle No.5.

I will say thank you for pointing out the first ballad though. I really like that one.


----------



## moody

Eviticus said:


> It just occurred to me i never responded to this - how rude!
> 
> Lots of questions here though so i may not answer all in this. I like all the consolations yes but 3 is my favourite. I am not that keen on the b minor sonata. I have always struggled to get in to it. As for the Canzone Napolitana - it is enjoyable too (especially about half way through). I actually like a couple of pieces from the transcendental studies - and enjoy watching pianists try and tackle No.5.
> 
> I will say thank you for pointing out the first ballad though. I really like that one.


Polite I like.


----------



## Lisztian

Eviticus said:


> It just occurred to me i never responded to this - how rude!
> 
> Lots of questions here though so i may not answer all in this. I like all the consolations yes but 3 is my favourite. I am not that keen on the b minor sonata. I have always struggled to get in to it. As for the Canzone Napolitana - it is enjoyable too (especially about half way through). I actually like a couple of pieces from the transcendental studies - and enjoy watching pianists try and tackle No.5.
> 
> I will say thank you for pointing out the first ballad though. I really like that one.


May I ask which Transcendental's you like? I simply love them. People think they are all about the virtuosity but they are not. I think they, especially the last 4, reach rarely matched heights of pianism.


----------



## Eviticus

I like all of the transcendental's especially 4 - 7. 8 and 9 are a bit weaker for me (I'm not keen in the intro to 8 but it gets better).

As for Ballade No.2 I am not too fond. I don't dislike it but i don't particularly like it.
Did i mention i like some of the pagannini etudes?


----------



## afterpostjack

Xaltotun said:


> There's one Liszt composition that I really, really love - the Faust symphony. I like his piano works well enough but I'm rather lukewarm to solo piano in general. Also, I'd like to get to know his orchestral oeuvre better.
> 
> But, I absolutely adore Liszt as a person. If I could decide, every artist should be like him. Well, of course that would be silly and boring; I'm just trying to say that he gets a kind of respect from me that few other artists do.


The Faust symphony is great. His (orchestrated) Hungarian Rhapsodies are also great works.


----------



## Lisztian

Eviticus said:


> I like all of the transcendental's especially 4 - 7. 8 and 9 are a bit weaker for me (I'm not keen in the intro to 8 but it gets better).
> 
> As for Ballade No.2 I am not too fond. I don't dislike it but i don't particularly like it.
> Did i mention i like some of the pagannini etudes?


Interesting how tastes differ  I like all of them, as you said you do. I'm not particularly fond of 4-7 (4 is alright but I MUCH prefer the tone poem, 5 I like, but one of my least favourites, 6 I love, actually, and 7 is in the same league as 5), and 9 is actually one of my absolute favorites. My favourites right now are 3, 6, and 9-12.

I like the Paganini's too, especially 1 and the ubiquitous 'La Campanella.' However I do prefer the Transcendentals.


----------



## Arsakes

Despite that some of his works was like DJs of today(!), His Hungarian-related works, Mazeppa, Mesphisto Waltz, Totentanz, Prometheus, Wilde Jagd and his many other works were great.


----------



## brianwalker

Lisztian said:


> I think something to consider with Liszt is that he left everything behind - warts and all. He left his less inspired efforts behind, his ridiculous virtuoso pieces from his earlier years, all the previous versions of his works that we know today...I think people tend to look and even judge Liszt on these things rather than the whole picture. He was a very complex and contradictory man, and his output is a shining example of that. But to me that is part of the beauty of Liszt. Here was a man who was not restricted, and did not care what others thought of him or his music. I've learnt to look past his less inspired efforts and his more showman like stuff, and distill the essence of Liszt, and to me that is not only one of the greatest composers of his time, but one of the greatest all around musicians and human beings of the 19th century.


Virgil was a fine psychologist, wanting to burn the Aeneid.


----------



## jdk

I would of never thought he'd be underrated here which is very surprising.


----------



## Lisztian

jdk said:


> I would of never thought he'd be underrated here which is very surprising.


Just saw this thread being revived...I'm not quite as fanatical and, perhaps, tunnel visioned as I was, but I still think Liszt is very underrated around here (well, at most places). Many people still seem to see him as a virtuoso pianist rather than a great composer, and so often do I see discussion about him tainted with prejudice, misunderstanding, double-standards, and flat out falsehoods.


----------



## clavichorder

Lisztian said:


> Just saw this thread being revived...I'm not quite as fanatical and, perhaps, tunnel visioned as I was, but I still think Liszt is very underrated around here (well, at most places). Many people still seem to see him as a virtuoso pianist rather than a great composer, and so often do I see discussion about him tainted with prejudice, misunderstanding, double-standards, and flat out falsehoods.


You are so like me with my various fanatical periods that its not even funny! And yes, I can never let go of a composer or style who/that I once elevated above all others as my personal preference, despite the fact that I am less fanatical. Think Medtner, CPE Bach, clavichords...


----------



## Lukecash12

In my opinion, Liszt produced a few of the most mature solo piano pieces. This is purely musically motivated:






That piece right there is more mature than a lot of Beethoven's output.


----------



## Lisztian

^Interesting. One of my friends loves that work and considers it one of Liszt's very finest. I like it well enough, but only as a nice, somewhat over-repetitive piece rather than something particularly great and profound as he finds it.

As for his works being musically motivated, i'd say probably 95% of what he wrote after 1848 were 100% musically motivated, and also very many before that.


----------



## Lukecash12

Lisztian said:


> ^Interesting. One of my friends loves that work and considers it one of Liszt's very finest. I like it well enough, but only as a nice, somewhat over-repetitive piece rather than something particularly great and profound as he finds it.
> 
> As for his works being musically motivated, i'd say probably 95% of what he wrote after 1848 were 100% musically motivated, and also very many before that.


You find it repetitive the way he reworks the theme? I've always found it very atmospheric. He takes his time with the development, and yes is repetitive enough to work out the theme with a couple of different crochets, but I listen to the different parts and they seem like different places to me. Not only are they rhythmically different, but they have some other musical elements that separate them. Liszt just really took his time telling that story, and it strikes me as one of his most mature pieces.


----------



## Lisztian

Lukecash12 said:


> You find it repetitive the way he reworks the theme? I've always found it very atmospheric. He takes his time with the development, and yes is repetitive enough to work out the theme with a couple of different crochets, but I listen to the different parts and they seem like different places to me. Not only are they rhythmically different, but they have some other musical elements that separate them. Liszt just really took his time telling that story, and it strikes me as one of his most mature pieces.


Yes, see this is the sort of thing i'd usually be telling someone else. But i've never really gotten this piece. I need to listen to it again...I usually put Arrau on, i'll try Bolet this time.


----------



## Xaltotun

I'll use this space to officially thank Lisztian for making me permanently more interested in Liszt. Thanks to his/her postings, I've come to realize for example Liszt's choral and sacred music, and I've become inspired to dig deeper into Liszt's catalogue. I've also liked what I've heard so far. So... Thanks!!


----------



## Lukecash12

Xaltotun said:


> I'll use this space to officially thank Lisztian for making me permanently more interested in Liszt. Thanks to his/her postings, I've come to realize for example Liszt's choral and sacred music, and I've become inspired to dig deeper into Liszt's catalogue. I've also liked what I've heard so far. So... Thanks!!


Yes, so many people are even unaware of his symphonic work.

Check out these two sacred works, you guys:










Not your typical Liszt, eh?


----------



## Lisztian

Xaltotun said:


> I'll use this space to officially thank Lisztian for making me permanently more interested in Liszt. Thanks to his/her postings, I've come to realize for example Liszt's choral and sacred music, and I've become inspired to dig deeper into Liszt's catalogue. I've also liked what I've heard so far. So... Thanks!!


Very glad to hear it! You're welcome.


----------



## moody

I think this thread is a tribute to Lisztian's fortitude. It also proves that if you supply information clearly and with accurate backup information you will succeed in raising interest.
You will note that he didn't just repeat "Liszt" at every opportunity in whatever context thereby probably causing the opposite effect to the one hoped for.
If one looks back across the whole thread it has been quite a sterling task attempting to get the message out to all and sundry
The main thing is that it has caused members to look deeper and to ask questions.
As for Liszt and his standing in the world of music-- it is very high indeed.
Everyone is of course permitted to like or dislike whichever composer they choose,but to equate Liszt with the likes of Amy Beach and MacDowell is fairly risible.
Another point I would like to make is that we should not divide Liszt up into the frivolous and the serious .He comes as a package and I see no mileage in denigrating part of his output.
In the case of the Hungarian Rhapsodies he genuinely thought that he was doing an important job by using Hungarian peasant tunes ,unfortunately they were not the real thing but they are still amazing works.
In the case of his various types of paraphrases,whether operatic,lieder or symphonic,they are important and often spectacular.But they were also a way of spreading musical knowledge long before recordings and radio were available.
Perhaps the final proof of Liszt's standing is the number of very eminent pianists whom have played and recorded his works on a regular basis.
Moritz Rosenthal,Percy Grainger,Arthur Friedheim,Paderewski, Busoni's great pupil Egon Petri and his pupil Earl Wild,Cortot,Richter, Claudio Arrau,Edith Farnadi, Alfred Brendel,Peter Katin, Idil Biret,Shura Cherkassky,Gina Bachauer,Robert Casadesus,Charles Rosen,Leonard Pennario,Byron Janis,
Gary Graffman and Emil Gilels.-----they have not spent much time on Amy Beach or MacDowell or Alkan for that matter!
But you will notice that there are quite a few Chopin "specialists" among them.
As Alfred Brendel said "Why is Liszt,that genius of a composer for the piano,the victim of so many misunderstandings and misjudgements?" Well, it seems that these famous names saw through this and enfolded him to them regardless.


----------



## science

Lisztian said:


> Yes, see this is the sort of thing i'd usually be telling someone else. But i've never really gotten this piece. I need to listen to it again...I usually put Arrau on, i'll try Bolet this time.


What piece are you guys talking about? (I do not listen to music on youtube, so I couldn't use the link. But your discussion is interesting.)


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> What piece are you guys talking about? (I do not listen to music on youtube, so I couldn't use the link. But your discussion is interesting.)


We were talking about Il Lamento.


----------



## MROWE

Is Liszt underrated? It is all in who you talk to. Perhaps, in the USA he is, but not in Europe. As for the USA, a large part of the problem is the difficulty of his pieces. Even his best known works are monumental achievements for the amateur to play. It is a pity, but it is probably true that easier pieces draw more interest. Liszt is unlike Chopin in the sense that when Chopin was alive, amateurs had difficulty with playing his works, but with the advancement of time, amateurs were able to play them. Liszt is so difficult that the advancement of time has produced only the rare amateur who can tackle his works. The only bet that I can see to heighten Liszt awareness is to devote more time to his works on the radio. But of course people who listen to classical radio likely already appreciate Liszt to some degree. We are in a decaying society and I'm afraid that even the best know composers will likely begin to feel the pangs of being forgotten (if they haven't already).


----------



## Lisztian

science said:


> What piece are you guys talking about? (I do not listen to music on youtube, so I couldn't use the link. But your discussion is interesting.)


Il Lamento, the first piece from the Trois études de concert. If you're interested, here are two great volumes with this piece (really, essential Liszt):

http://www.amazon.com/Liszt-The-Com...1-2-spell&keywords=liszt+piano+concerti+arrau

http://www.amazon.com/Liszt-Piano-W...F8&qid=1351268923&sr=1-1&keywords=liszt+bolet

Both of these pianists epitomise the anti-showman, fully musical (and both, obviously, were first rate musician's) approach to Liszt - and that's why they're two of the very best Liszt pianists.


----------



## Ukko

Lisztian said:


> Il Lamento, the first piece from the Trois études de concert. If you're interested, here are two great volumes with this piece (really, essential Liszt):
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Liszt-The-Com...1-2-spell&keywords=liszt+piano+concerti+arrau
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Liszt-Piano-W...F8&qid=1351268923&sr=1-1&keywords=liszt+bolet
> 
> Both of these pianists epitomise the anti-showman, fully musical (and both, obviously, were first rate musician's) approach to Liszt - and that's why they're two of the very best Liszt pianists.


Ah, maybe this is why you tend to ignore Cziffra. He seems to me to have been the premier advocate/performer of Liszt's piano music in the latter half of the 20th C. ... but he was a showman in early/middle Liszt - as was Liszt. Cziffra played late Liszt with angst in every phrase, maybe too much of it for some folks.

Anyway, he is the pianist I think of as 'the Liszt guy'.


----------



## Lukecash12

MROWE said:


> Is Liszt underrated? It is all in who you talk to. Perhaps, in the USA he is, but not in Europe. As for the USA, a large part of the problem is the difficulty of his pieces. Even his best known works are monumental achievements for the amateur to play. It is a pity, but it is probably true that easier pieces draw more interest. Liszt is unlike Chopin in the sense that when Chopin was alive, amateurs had difficulty with playing his works, but with the advancement of time, amateurs were able to play them. Liszt is so difficult that the advancement of time has produced only the rare amateur who can tackle his works. The only bet that I can see to heighten Liszt awareness is to devote more time to his works on the radio. But of course people who listen to classical radio likely already appreciate Liszt to some degree. We are in a decaying society and I'm afraid that even the best know composers will likely begin to feel the pangs of being forgotten (if they haven't already).


This seems to me to be more of an issue of amateurs being ignorant of the numerous and accessible piano pieces written by Liszt. There is tons of Liszt out there that an amateur can play. Dances, sonatas, easier etudes, chamber works, variations, you name it. His harder etudes aren't even my favorite to play.


----------



## Lukecash12

Here's a real head spinner by Liszt:






It's got non-tertiary and constant modulation, it uses all kinds of effects the organ has to offer, with very interesting text instructions, it has some great counterpoint in it, some wicked foot pedal "trills", and it uses chorale melodies along with the ever pervasive and chromatic main motif. At some points it's completely tonal, sounds even baroque, and at other points it uses chords with non-tertial harmonies, modulating repeatedly, with suspended chords, and other chords not unlike the Tristan chord.


----------



## Lisztian

Lukecash12 said:


> Here's a real head spinner by Liszt:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's got non-tertiary and constant modulation, it uses all kinds of effects the organ has to offer, with very interesting text instructions, it has some great counterpoint in it, some wicked foot pedal "trills", and it uses chorale melodies along with the ever pervasive and chromatic main motif. At some points it's completely tonal, sounds even baroque, and at other points it uses chords with non-tertial harmonies, modulating repeatedly, with suspended chords, and other chords not unlike the Tristan chord.


It is one of Liszt's finest works. Leslie Howard believes it deserves to be compared (and it has been) in achievement to the Sonata. I wouldn't go that far, but it is one of his masterpieces. Liszt himself considered it "one of my least bad productions."


----------



## PetrB

zOMG! Since we know how critically influential TC is worldwide, that needs correcting.


----------



## Lukecash12

PetrB said:


> zOMG! Since we know how critically influential TC is worldwide, that needs correcting.


And it's good to recommend and show pieces of Liszt's that would otherwise not be heard about, here. People around the world would probably like to know that Liszt did all kinds of other stuff, too.


----------



## KenOC

Hilltroll72 said:


> Anyway, he is the pianist I think of as 'the Liszt guy'.


Agree on Cziffra. If Liszt's not fun, then there's not much reason left to beat a path to his door.


----------



## Lisztian

KenOC said:


> Agree on Cziffra. If Liszt's not fun, then there's not much reason left to beat a path to his door.


Which works have led you to this conclusion? Performed by who?


----------



## clavichorder

I really dig this movement of "From the Cradle to the Grave"


----------



## Lisztian

clavichorder said:


> I really dig this movement of "From the Cradle to the Grave"


Thanks for sharing. A rather obscure work, but one of Liszt's finest orchestral works. I believe that's Arpad Joo's recording, and while he's probably my first choice for Liszt's complete symphonic poems, and he does the outer movements of this one well, I feel he underplays the struggle here in this middle movement. I like Haitink here:

3:58:10 - 4:00:42.






Incidentally Haitink would be my second choice for the complete symphonic poems. He underplays some of them but his musicianship is always top notch - which is rare in this somewhat uncompetitive field.


----------



## Resurrexit

I agree very underrated by a lot of listeners. Maybe because he did not write symphonies!?  I have noticed a lot of bias towards composers of symphonies by a lot of classical fans I know...


----------



## Morimur

Liszt may be underrated but countless others are even more so: Nono, Lutosławski, Stockhausen, Berio, Messiaen, Scelsi, Ligeti, etc.


----------



## violadude

Resurrexit said:


> I agree very underrated by a lot of listeners. Maybe because he did not write symphonies!?  I have noticed a lot of bias towards composers of symphonies by a lot of classical fans I know...


He wrote two symphonies actually. But they are not numbered in a traditional way (instead they are named, Faust and Dante).

They aren't the best symphonies ever, either, in my humble opinion.


----------



## Resurrexit

violadude said:


> He wrote two symphonies actually. But they are not numbered in a traditional way (instead they are named, Faust and Dante).
> 
> They aren't the best symphonies ever, either, in my humble opinion.


Oh that is true. But they are not traditional symphonies, no? Maybe they were not his best strength. Maybe that is why is he underrated...


----------



## Cosmos

He's definitely underrated because people only focus on his more "show-offy" pieces and rate him off of those. I'm trying to get more into his music (cuz I kinda stopped listening to him for a while) and am rediscovering some of his masterpieces
- Piano Concerto 2
- The Three Ballades (including the Ballade-Ukraine)
- The Dante Sonata and the B minor Sonata
- Dante and Faust Symphonies
- Symphonic Poems
- Vallee d'Obermann


----------



## hpowders

Water seeks its own level and I believe the same holds true for composers.

Liszt is not underrated. His music simply doesn't demonstrate enough staying power, when compared to the output of the usual popular suspects.

He had a good run with the Les Preludes theme being used in the old Buster Crabbe Flash Gordon series.


----------



## shangoyal

hpowders said:


> Water seeks its own level and I believe the same holds true for composers.
> 
> Liszt is not underrated. His music simply doesn't demonstrate enough staying power, when compared to the output of the usual popular suspects.
> 
> He had a good run with the Les Preludes theme being used in the old Buster Crabbe Flash Gordon series.


I can imagine Debussy smirking behind that poker face.


----------



## moody

hpowders said:


> Water seeks its own level and I believe the same holds true for composers.
> 
> Liszt is not underrated. His music simply doesn't demonstrate enough staying power, when compared to the output of the usual popular suspects.
> 
> He had a good run with the Les Preludes theme being used in the old Buster Crabbe Flash Gordon series.


I can only suppose that your Liszt and my Liszt are two different composers.


----------



## Ukko

moody said:


> I can only suppose that your Liszt and my Liszt are two different composers.


"His music simply doesn't demonstrate enough staying power" is a statement that I can visualize in an animated cartoon. It sails across the screen, bumps into, say, the piano sonata, and crumbles into its constituent letters - which burst into flame as they fall. Before reaching any surface they become ashes, which disperse into nothingness.

Poof.


----------



## moody

Resurrexit said:


> I agree very underrated by a lot of listeners. Maybe because he did not write symphonies!?  I have noticed a lot of bias towards composers of symphonies by a lot of classical fans I know...


Chopin wasn't much of a one for symphonies coming to think about it.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

moody said:


> Chopin wasn't much of a one for symphonies coming to think about it.


or Berlioz!

how many did Monteverdi write? or Bach? Purcell slipped a bit here too. as did Josquin ...... yawn!


----------



## Guest

moody said:


> Chopin wasn't much of a one for symphonies coming to think about it.


Yes, but Chopin counters this by being one of the only composers that non-classical fans listen to. "So pretty".


----------



## Oskaar

Lizst is complex and somthimes difficult. His show off peaces is far from his best. He can be deep and dark, and have many layers. There have been a while since I listened to him, but he is rewarding to me if I give him time. I was thinking a bit of drawing a line to Dickens, or even Edgar Allan Poe, but that is maybe to go over the top..


----------



## lupinix

I especially like his second piano concerto, totentanz and some of his later, totally not show-offy works (for instance nuages gris)

I'm not a big fan of a lot of his early works though, but nevertheless respect him very much and think he might be one of the most innovated composers of the last two centuries (?)
I don't think he is that underated, maybe he might be a bit more than chopin (which is, after Mozart and Beethoven, a name many nonclassical people also have heard of, like also Tchaikovsky and Brahms). I should add though, that to me Chopin is a really great composer with a lot of depth and darkness, to which I certainly don't listen just because it's "pretty" or something like that


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

With Liszt's large-scale pieces I find the same occasional problem I have with Aho and even with Messiaen, that is the inconsistency in quality within a piece. One gets a wonderful moment which is then rendered banal via a mediocre follow up. I love his "dark" aesthetics and his own neomodalism. Perhaps the rise in academical appreciation/cult of Debussy has been detrimental to the reputation of Liszt.


----------



## Bulldog

I consider Liszt one of the great composers. He is somewhat underrated by that misinformed opinion that he was a composer of superficial and virtuosic music. Whatever, I reap substantial rewards when I listen to his piano music.


----------



## tdc

Richannes Wrahms said:


> With Liszt's large-scale pieces I find... inconsistency in quality within a piece... One gets a wonderful moment which is then rendered banal via a mediocre follow up. I love his "dark" aesthetics and his own neomodalism.


These are precisely my thoughts on most of the Liszt works that I have listened to. There are some things I like, but most of what I like are just parts within a piece later neutralized by mediocrity or cheeziness. There are some very standout moments though, and a few pieces I consider "keepers". There is no denying the guy was innovative.


----------



## hpowders

moody said:


> Chopin wasn't much of a one for symphonies coming to think about it.


If he was, he managed to keep the music well-hidden.


----------



## merlinus

As an amateur pianist, there are wonderful Liszt pieces that are playable, for me. These include a few of the Transcendental Studies (Harmonies du soir, Paysage, Preludio), Un Sospiro, Tre sonetti di Petrarca, Nocturne no. 3, a few of Harmonies poetiques et religieuses, and even the B-Minor and Dante sonatas and Vallee d'Obermann.

Any others I might consider?

And thanks to everyone for this thread!


----------



## Brad

Resurrexit said:


> I agree very underrated by a lot of listeners. Maybe because he did not write symphonies!?  I have noticed a lot of bias towards composers of symphonies by a lot of classical fans I know...


Not too long ago I had this same thought but then realized that his unique take on the symphony was the symphonic poem (along with the dante and faust symphonies)


----------



## DeepR

Quote: "Liszt, who stands over the nineteenth century with one hand in Beethoven’s and the other in Debussy’s."
Beethoven was Liszt main hero and Liszt was an inspiration for Debussy. Debussy met Liszt in Rome and Liszt played Au Bord D'une Source for him. Nuff said.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

I think Liszt was a very talented and innovative composer. I don't think his music is superficial; Liszt had his own language. He also wrote excellent orchestral works. Don't know why he's underrated.


----------

