# Etudes: Chopin or Liszt?



## Lisztian

Chopin's 27 (Op. 10, Op. 25, Trois Nouvelles) or Liszt's 24 (Transcendental, Paganini, 2 sets of Concert Etudes, Ab Irato)?

Who you got?


----------



## Taneyev

Both. No reason to select one and discard the other. But on Liszt, I prefer the first version of the transcendental.


----------



## Lisztian

Odnoposoff said:


> Both. No reason to select one and discard the other. But on Liszt, I prefer the first version of the transcendental.


Of course - it's all in fun. Not about discarding but just whose you prefer (by whatever criteria you feel like). Of course, I prefer Liszt's - doesn't mean I don't think Chopin's are terrific.

And do you mean that you prefer the Étude en douze exercices to the final Études d'exécution transcendante?


----------



## Taneyev

Yes. At least, not so well know and so often recorded. In fact, there are just a few recordings of those. And even if it's difficult to believe, they are harder than the transcendentals. Maybe that's why are avoided.


----------



## Ukko

Sorry to stick this in here, but ... I prefer the etudes by Alkan and Debussy. Really.


----------



## Lisztian

Odnoposoff said:


> Yes. At least, not so well know and so often recorded. In fact, there are just a few recordings of those. And even if it's difficult to believe, they are harder than the transcendentals. Maybe that's why are avoided.


Oh, I think you mean the Douze Grandes Études. There are three versions. The first one the Étude en douze exercices is the first one. These were written in his teens and are significantly easier than the next two versions. The Douze Grandes Études are the second version and the most difficult, and the final forms we know, the 'Transcendental Etudes,' are quite similar but have the difficulty significantly reduced. I recall hearing Marc Andre Hamelin calling the second set 'unplayable.' Of course, Leslie Howard played them but I haven't heard his recordings so I don't know how well.


----------



## Lisztian

Hilltroll72 said:


> Sorry to stick this in here, but ... I prefer the etudes by Alkan and Debussy. Really.


Yeah it was a bit of a narrow poll...but i'm just interested in peoples thoughts concerning these two composers Etudes.

Í'd also be interested in WHY people pick who they do.


----------



## moody

Lisztian said:


> Chopin's 27 (Op. 10, Op. 25, Trois Nouvelles) or Liszt's 24 (Transcendental, Paganini, 2 sets of Concert Etudes, Ab Irato)?
> 
> Who you got?


I've got them all and find Liszt's the more interesting.


----------



## joen_cph

Sorabji, Debussy, Scriabin - then Liszt ... and Chopin.


----------



## kv466

The who for me is Chopin. The why is simply because I love each and every note in the opus 10 and just about every single note of the remaining 15. While I love the exercises developed by Liszt, I do not love them as individual pieces of great music that I consider the Chopin etudes to be. Of course, here I am writing this and Un Sospiro is perhaps more gorgeous than any of the Chopin etudes. Nonetheless, they are buried deep within me. Also,...I'm still looking for my perfect Liszt etudes...already found my Chopin so that may have something to do with it.


----------



## mensch

Chopin, without a doubt. On of the great triumphs is that when listening to them you never have the feeling you're listening to a set of technical exercises. With Liszt's set I sometimes have that feeling, I think they have more in common with Debussy's book of Études. You can clearly hear they're very demanding pieces, but Chopin is more subtle in that regard.


----------



## Arsakes

Liszt beats Chopin any day of the weak


----------



## DeepR

Un Sospiro is gorgeous and La Campanella awesome, but I don't like most of the others. 

I choose Chopin & Scriabin for shared first place. Most beautiful and musical etudes IMO.

If you don't mind, some lesser played/known Scriabin etudes from Opus 8 to check out on youtube:
Op. 8 No. 4 (Sofronitsky), No. 5 (Richter), No. 8 (Horowitz), No. 11 (Horowitz)


----------



## Ukko

When I listen to either guy's etudes, which ain't often, it's Chopin's Op. 25; there's some good, strong Romantic music in there. But it's too familiar - same deal as his Ballades. The Op. 10 (amazingly) starts with number 1, which I detest. It gets better later on, but then the too familiar thing kicks in.

Most of Liszt's etudes are 'showpieces'; too much show, not enough music.

[there ought to be a curmudgeon emoticon]


----------



## DeepR

Kissin live is as good as or better than Pollini studio versions.


----------



## Lisztian

Hilltroll72 said:


> Most of Liszt's etudes are 'showpieces'; too much show, not enough music.]


While I completely respect your opinion, this point of view I have never quite understood - calling Liszt's Etudes too much show and not enough music. To me, the show doesn't have anything to do with it. He uses a virtuosic (and extraordinarily inventive for his time) language to create sublime musical pieces. It's very much like what Debussy did in the future - Liszt was pretty much the beginning of that language, and he didn't become obsolete with the coming on of Debussy because of the fact that his music was still completely romantic in style.

Of course, there are some Liszt etudes that aren't exactly first rate music...Mazeppa, for one (which is probably the most remarkably inventive of the lot and still carries with it an extraordinary power) and the last Paganini (also extraordinarily powerful but definitely not for everyone)...

But then there's the others, like...

Un Sospiro, which is 100% music. Virtuosic, but for the sake of music.






Paysage (Landscape).






Ricordanza (Rememberence): This one is full of delicate Cadenzas, but they are all in the name of music - to create an impression, create a musical narrative much like Debussy did much later. Busoni's description of this beautiful piece hits it right on the head: "a bundle of faded love letters."






Chasse-Neige (Snow storm): Same deal. Highly virtuosic, but it is 100% for the music. Busoni declared this the greatest and most accurate example of program music, and accurately described it as: "a sublime and steady fall of snow which gradually buries landscape and people."






And that's just four - at least half the rest I have similar sentiments to say about. I'm sure you already know these pieces, but i've simply never understood this accusation of the Transcendental Etudes being too much flash and not enough music.


----------



## moody

kv466 said:


> The who for me is Chopin. The why is simply because I love each and every note in the opus 10 and just about every single note of the remaining 15. While I love the exercises developed by Liszt, I do not love them as individual pieces of great music that I consider the Chopin etudes to be. Of course, here I am writing this and Un Sospiro is perhaps more gorgeous than any of the Chopin etudes. Nonetheless, they are buried deep within me. Also,...I'm still looking for my perfect Liszt etudes...already found my Chopin so that may have something to do with it.


The transcendental Studies are available in the following very famous versions.
Jorge Bolet, the Ensayo recordings.
Claudio Arrau's 1974 Concertgebouw recordings.
Georges Cziffra, EMI.


----------



## moody

You will get the usual nonsense trotted out by people who know nothing of Liszt. I would have thought you would be used to it by now.


----------



## Ukko

Lisztian said:


> But then there's the others, like...
> 
> Un Sospiro, which is 100% music. Virtuosic, but for the sake of music.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paysage (Landscape).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ricordanza (Rememberence): This one is full of delicate Cadenzas, but they are all in the name of music - to create an impression, create a musical narrative much like Debussy did much later. Busoni's description of this beautiful piece hits it right on the head: "a bundle of faded love letters."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chasse-Neige (Snow storm): Same deal. Highly virtuosic, but it is 100% for the music. Busoni declared this the greatest and most accurate example of program music, and accurately described it as: "a sublime and steady fall of snow which gradually buries landscape and people."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's just four - at least half the rest I have similar sentiments to say about. I'm sure you already know these pieces, but i've simply never understood this accusation of the Transcendental Etudes being too much flash and not enough music.


You are 'pickin' and choosin', guy.


----------



## Lisztian

Of course, but I will gladly list more if i'm asked to 

And moody, I don't mind. I'm just interested in peoples opinions. If I see one I disagree with I will challenge it, but that isn't the main idea. I love both these composers etudes, but i've always been interested in the reverence the Chopin ones (rightly) attract, as opposed to the criticism Liszt's attract. I am interested in hearing peoples opinions about both these composers Etude oeuvre's, and what their preferences are.


----------



## Kieran

I'll go for Chopin, just for the purely subjective reason that I love his piano music, it affects me more than Liszt...


----------



## Taneyev

I should add Sergei Lyapunov's extraordinary Transcendental etudes, a kind of Russian Liszt.


----------



## mensch

Don't forget Godowsky's crazy studies on Chopin's etudes as well. They're mostly a technical feat and never surpass either Chopin's or Liszt's.








moody said:


> You will get the usual nonsense trotted out by people who know nothing of Liszt. I would have thought you would be used to it by now.


You just assume people with a different opinion know nothing of Liszt? Both sets of Études are masterpieces in their own right, I don't think anybody will dispute that.


----------



## Ukko

mensch said:


> Don't forget Godowsky's crazy studies on Chopin's etudes as well. They're mostly a technical feat and never surpass either Chopin's or Liszt's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just assume people with a different opinion know nothing of Liszt? Both sets of Études are masterpieces in their own right, I don't think anybody will dispute that.


Yeah. Chopin was trying to show what the piano could do; Liszt was showing what he could do. That is, I gather, the _standard perspective_. If true, the effect on the finished products is pretty subtle in places. Un Sospiro is an atmosphere piece; some of the etudes in Opus 25 are pretty wild.


----------



## mensch

Hilltroll72 said:


> Yeah. Chopin was trying to show what the piano could do; Liszt was showing what he could do. That is, I gather, the _standard perspective_. If true, the effect on the finished products is pretty subtle in places. Un Sospiro is an atmosphere piece; some of the etudes in Opus 25 are pretty wild.


It's especially true regarding Liszt's broad set of variations on popular opera themes of the day, for the simple reason they were the main event of his many recitals. I agree with the subtlety of the effect on the Études, though, they're easily one of Liszt best compositions.


----------



## Vesteralen

I like Schumann's Symphonic Etudes better than anything by Chopin or Lizst.


----------



## Ukko

Vesteralen said:


> I like Schumann's Symphonic Etudes better than anything by Chopin or Lizst.


Except that they are etudes in name only - even more so than Liszt's. They were going to be _called_ variations.

I like them a lot; not better than anything by Liszt though. Well, not better than anything by Chopin either.


----------



## Vesteralen

Hilltroll72 said:


> Except that they are etudes in name only - even more so than Liszt's. They were going to be _called_ variations.
> 
> I like them a lot; not better than anything by Liszt though. Well, not better than anything by Chopin either.


Oh yeah?


----------



## Ukko

Vesteralen said:


> Oh yeah?




Excellent.


----------



## kv466

moody said:


> The transcendental Studies are available in the following very famous versions.
> Jorge Bolet, the Ensayo recordings.
> Claudio Arrau's 1974 Concertgebouw recordings.
> Georges Cziffra, EMI.


Thanks, Moody! Of course, you know I don't care for 'famous' in the least but rather,...'great'.


----------



## moody

mensch said:


> Don't forget Godowsky's crazy studies on Chopin's etudes as well. They're mostly a technical feat and never surpass either Chopin's or Liszt's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just assume people with a different opinion know nothing of Liszt? Both sets of Études are masterpieces in their own right, I don't think anybody will dispute that.


You are presumptious to try to guess my motives. I am talking of people with no real opinion but who are spouting parrot- fashion stuff that they have heard from others, rather like "Brahms is very heavy and Germanic"'
If you want to see some of these types have a look at Lisztian's thread "Liszt Is The Most Underrated Composer on TC.


----------



## obwan

I voted for chopin only because I am more familiar with his etudes than liszts. In fact I didn't even know Lizt wrote any. So assumming that chopins are more famous with good reason I think its fair to vote for chopin on this one. Although I absolutely adore Liszt's hungarian rhapsodies and his liebestraum (no. ?) and mephisto walz.


----------



## Klavierspieler

obwan said:


> I voted for chopin only because I am more familiar with his etudes than liszts. In fact I didn't even know Lizt wrote any. So assumming that chopins are more famous with good reason I think its fair to vote for chopin on this one. Although I absolutely adore Liszt's hungarian rhapsodies and his liebestraum *(no. ?)* and mephisto walz.


No. filler text


----------



## mensch

moody said:


> You are presumptious to try to guess my motives. I am talking of people with no real opinion but who are spouting parrot- fashion stuff that they have heard from others, rather like "Brahms is very heavy and Germanic"'
> If you want to see some of these types have a look at Lisztian's thread "Liszt Is The Most Underrated Composer on TC.


I thought your comment was directly aimed at some of the members who recently posted an opinion in favour of Chopin. If not, my mistake.

Brahms wás German, right? And he was rather corpulent, so the posters in Lisztians thread do have a point if they consider him "heavy" and "Germanic".


----------



## moody

mensch said:


> I thought your comment was directly aimed at some of the members who recently posted an opinion in favour of Chopin. If not, my mistake.
> 
> Brahms wás German, right? And he was rather corpulent, so the posters in Lisztians thread do have a point if they consider him "heavy" and "Germanic".


I just love someone with a sense of humour??
There was no mention in Lisztian's thread re: Brahms, My point was that I have heard this comment made about Brahms' music many times and it is patently nonsense.
In Liszt's case such comments as "flashy","empty", "all show", etc.etc. these from people who have probably listened to a handful of Hungarian Rhapsodies 
Too many posts are published without real thought or knowledge behind them.
One member said he voted for Chopin because he was more familiar with Chopin's than Liszt's. Then in the next sentence admitted he didn't actually know that Liszt wrote any !! Also as Chopin's were more popular they must be better, or words to that effect. Informed opinion or what?
It might have been a good idea to have gone off and listened to some of the Liszt pieces.
I know nothing about Ligetti, when he comes up and he does I therefore say nothing.


----------



## mensch

moody said:


> I just love someone with a sense of humour??
> There was no mention in Lisztian's thread re: Brahms, My point was that I have heard this comment made about Brahms' music many times and it is patently nonsense.


I know what your point was and calling all of Brahms' music "heavy" and "Germanic" is indeed utter nonsense. Therefore my last statement regarding Brahms' physical presence was meant sarcastically.



> In Liszt's case such comments as "flashy","empty", "all show", etc.etc. these from people who have probably listened to a handful of Hungarian Rhapsodies
> Too many posts are published without real thought or knowledge behind them.
> One member said he voted for Chopin because he was more familiar with Chopin's than Liszt's. Then in the next sentence admitted he didn't actually know that Liszt wrote any !! Also as Chopin's were more popular they must be better, or words to that effect. Informed opinion or what?


It's interesting to see how much of the 19th century Lisztomania still prevents a lot of people from seeing the quality in his musical output, from the quality of his original works to the (relatively more humble transcriptions) of Schubert's songs and (orchestral) works by other composers.


----------



## lilmoz

i think chopin's études are better!!


----------



## Ukko

lilmoz said:


> i think chopin's études are better!!




Hey, you are not alone. You get no points though, unless you tell us why.


----------



## Lenfer

I'd rather listen to *Chopin's* études but I prefer playing *Liszt's*. I can't offer a particular reason as to why sorry *Hilly*.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I like Szymanowski's etudes along with those by Skryabin, Chopin and Liszt. They all bring something different to the party and I can't claim to totally favour one composer over the others.


----------



## Ukko

Lenfer said:


> I'd rather listen to *Chopin's* études but I prefer playing *Liszt's*. I can't offer a particular reason as to why sorry *Hilly*.


Then you get a D-.


----------



## Nadia

I voted Liszt, I love th 1852. revision of Douze Grandes. Mazeppa is my favorite. Liszt's etudes don't have a didactic value (if you can play the '36. edition, you probably can't gain more technique than you already have ), while the didactic value of Chopin's etudes is high. But I wouldn't go to a recital that has the Chopin or even Chopin-Godowski etudes in it. I can listen to the Treanscendentals for hours and hours and never feel bored.


----------



## DeepR

Fun fact: Henselt, Scriabin and Prokofiev all wrote an etude with the same opus number that I like very very much: Op. 2 No. 1 !


----------

