# How Franz Liszt Has Revolutionized Piano and Classical Music



## Vitaliyka (Sep 28, 2016)

http://myfavoriteclassical.com/franz-liszt-revolutionized-piano-classical-music/


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

> Liszt showed the likes of *Brahms*, Rachmaninoff, Grieg, and many others what the piano could do


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

While the idea of making a text is great, this guy is collecting errors!!!!
It is full of wrong information:


> "Liszt was born nine years before Beethoven's death"


1827 - 1811 = 9 ???????


> "Erard was also the first piano maker to fit pedals under the piano"


Someone in an English cemetery is now furious...


> "Liszt changed the way the piano is positioned on the stage, placing it to the right of the stage and opening the lid toward the audience"


Dussek?


> "Liszt made a solo piano sound, at times, like a full orchestra - something that I don't think had been done before him (though I'd be happy to be proven wrong)"


There was an unknown called Ludwig Van...


> "Mozart died in 1791, just as the fortepiano (or simply, piano), the instrument we are all familiar with, was starting to emerge."


lots of harpsichord pieces from 1790's (?)


> "the instrument has a range of two additional octaves (14 extra white keys)"


yes, no black keys were needed those times


> "He was the first rockstar of Europe - he was Michael Jackson before Michael Jackson was Michael Jackson."


And he always entered the stage doing his "moonwalker"


> "In 1831 Liszt attended a concert of the Italian violin virtuoso Niccolo Paganini."


and left the hall only in 1832...


> To me - and this is the extremely uneducated opinion of an amateur classical music aficionado -


Now, that is true!

I think he is watching too much Lisztomania...
Unfortunately these mistakes are too much dangerous for history if perpetuated...

All the best
Artur Cimirro
P.S. I was trying to post this in his webpage, hoping he can remove it and make the necessary corrections, and I just notice probably the OP is the same writer of the text. And because of this I add I can't be more "nice" than this once I'm a professional of this area - nothing personal.


----------



## Vitaliyka (Sep 28, 2016)

Artur, thank you for a wonderfully educational response to my nonsense.


----------



## jailhouse (Sep 2, 2016)

his music is pretty boring


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

jailhouse said:


> his music is pretty boring


Why...because you say so?


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

jailhouse said:


> his music is pretty boring


Not to me. On the contrary, his piano music is marvelous.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

jdec said:


> Not to me. On the contrary, his piano music is marvelous.


I agree--Liszt's piano music is amazing. I love his orchestral music too. His symphonic poems are masterpieces of musical narrative! He really knew how to tell a story through music.


----------



## jailhouse (Sep 2, 2016)

Pugg said:


> Why...because you say so?


what? I stated an opinion, not a fact.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

jailhouse said:


> what? I stated an opinion, not a fact.


Sounds a lot like one.


----------



## arnerich (Aug 19, 2016)

I used to adore his music when I was younger. Now I'm 30 and I hardly listen to it or have a desire to play it.

I know pianists who love to play his stuff. I think there's an appeal to it's difficulty for both the performer and listener. I'll admit that a live performance of his music by a capable pianist is exciting and fun. But I feel like his music is more style than substance. For me something is missing. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

cimirro said:


> 1827 - 1811 = 9 ???????


Ha ha, oops.



> Dussek?


I can't believe that one got past me! Shame on me.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

The weird thing is, you ask "Who after Beethoven did the most to revolutionize piano playing?" and the answer's probably gonna be Liszt or Chopin, and yet it was maybe _Schumann_ who had the longest lasting influence in piano playing, by way of Debussy (though to give due credit, Ravel never sounds the same after you've heard Liszt's "Play of the waters at the Villa d'Este") - and on the other hand, Liszt still gets little credit for being (along with Glinka) the bridge from Schubert to Rimsky-Korsakov and thus to Stravinsky, so in the end he was maybe the more important influence on music _overall_ - by way of two Russian composers _not primarily admired for their piano writing_.


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

I think Liszt also leads to Ravel and Debussy; as you point out, the Play of the Waters was more or less directly ripped off by Ravel, and there's a clear transition in my mind between Liszt's late (minimalist/post-virtuoso) piano works of the 1870s and 1880s that anticipate the twelve-tone school and Debussy's impressionism. And with the master classes he gave to all comers, Liszt's influence on _pianists_ well into the 20th century, as opposed to _composers_, is not to be minimized.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

jailhouse said:


> what? I stated an opinion, not a fact.


Some folks are a bit too hyper-reactive if they see you as insulting a composer they favor.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

jailhouse said:


> his music is pretty boring


I disagree! I would replace "pretty" with "very".

Except for the B minor Piano Sonata which I like, I don't hear the greatness in Liszt that other posters hear here and some of my best friends on TC love Liszt, which in no way diminishes my fondness for them....:lol:

Dullsville for me too.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Please don't hate me for not appreciating Liszt.

My other qualities are good. I give to worthy charities and pet dogs being walked on the street.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

hpowders said:


> I disagree! I would replace "pretty" with "very".
> 
> Except for the B minor Piano Sonata which I like, I don't hear the greatness in Liszt that other posters hear here and some of my best friends on TC love Liszt, which in no way diminishes my fondness for them....:lol:
> 
> Dullsville for me too.


Liszt is one of my favorite composers, but I understand your point of view. In other threads, you've said that you don't care for program music. Since that was one of Liszt's specialties, I can see why you're not crazy about him.

As for me, I love both program music and "absolute" music. In fact, I'm probably one of the few people on TC who loves both Liszt and Brahms equally. Hmm...maybe this calls for a poll?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Bettina said:


> Liszt is one of my favorite composers, but I understand your point of view. In other threads, you've said that you don't care for program music. Since that was one of Liszt's specialties, I can see why you're not crazy about him.
> 
> As for me, I love both program music and "absolute" music. In fact, I'm probably one of the few people on TC who loves both Liszt and Brahms equally. Hmm...maybe this calls for a poll?


Did you see that phrase someone wrote on TC that "Liszt showed Brahms what to do" as far as composing for piano?

Did Liszt influence Brahms?


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

hpowders said:


> Did you see that phrase someone wrote on TC that "Liszt showed Brahms what to do" as far as composing for piano?
> 
> Did Liszt influence Brahms?


Not as far as I know. I remember reading that Brahms fell asleep while Liszt was playing his B minor sonata! :lol: Brahms disliked all that "music of the future" stuff, which was associated with Liszt and Wagner.

However, if anyone has any evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested in hearing it.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Bettina said:


> Not as far as I know. I remember reading that Brahms fell asleep while Liszt was playing his B minor sonata! :lol: Brahms disliked all that "music of the future" stuff, which was associated with Liszt and Wagner.
> 
> However, if anyone has any evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested in hearing it.


That's what I thought, but I wanted verification. Yes. The Liszt supporters hated Brahms as being hopelessly old-fashioned. Even Wagner gave Brahms a rather backhanded compliment that Brahms showed it was still possible to compose well, using the "old" forms.

Perhaps Brahms would have enjoyed one of the Richter performances of the B minor, better.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

hpowders said:


> Except for the B minor Piano Sonata which I like, I don't hear the greatness in Liszt that other posters hear here [...]


What about the Faust symphony?

Or, uh, the 2nd book of the "Years of Pilgrimage" (except the "Dante" sonata, which I'm pretty sure is the worst thing in it)?

Or the "Transcendental" etudes?

Or the 2 "Legends" of St. Francis of Assisi?

Like, I'm not saying this is necessarily the case with you, but I feel like Liszt generally gets screwed a lot because he's best known for maybe-not-all-that-good stuff like the 2nd Hungarian rhapsody & "Les preludes" - and then when people try to correct this they often go all the way overboard in the other direction and focus on obscurities from his last few years.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Bettina said:


> As for me, I love both program music and "absolute" music. In fact, I'm probably one of the few people on TC who loves both Liszt and Brahms equally. Hmm...maybe this calls for a poll?


Interesting point. Although I mostly approach all music as "absolute" and mostly don't care about any program I find it hard to get into Brahms. Liszt to me is pure magic, he's one of my favorite composers but I must admit that sometimes it feels as if he's tricking me. As if Liszt has all the tricks and Brahms has no tricks at all.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Vitaliyka said:


> Artur, thank you for a wonderfully educational response to my nonsense.


That was very gracious and gentlemanly of Vitaliyaka to respond in that way! Maybe Artur Cimirro could get some good investment advice from him!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I like Liszt's piano music, and the tone poems. That's about all of it, right? 

I did get a box set of his complete organ works, and I must say I was disappointed at how conservative it sounded.

I guess the Church really toned him down. I liked him better when he was "touring" and had groupies! :lol: :devil: :angel:


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Razumovskymas said:


> Interesting point. Although I mostly approach all music as "absolute" and mostly don't care about any program I find it hard to get into Brahms. Liszt to me is pure magic, he's one of my favorite composers but I must admit that sometimes it feels as if he's doing a tricking me. As if Liszt has all the tricks and Brahms has no tricks at all.


Yes, Liszt's tricks are dazzling--the pianistic fireworks and the colorful harmonic effects!

However, I think that Brahms has some tricks too, but they're different tricks--more abstract in a way. More along the lines of contrapuntal wizardry, or clever ways of developing a theme. The last movement (Passacaglia) from his 4th symphony is a case in point. (Sorry for hijacking this Liszt thread and making it all about Brahms...Liszt would hate me for that! :lol


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Actually that is a quite funny thing.
Brahms is always remembered as opposite to Wagner, partially it is true, of course - he didn't want the people to mention his name as a Wagnerian since he was not.
But Brahms helped to make the orchestral parts (handwriting) for a Wagner premiere (thanks to Tausig who was a great friend of both),
Several times Brahms discussed with people speaking good things about Wagner music.
So, Brahms was not against Wagner, he didn't want to compose in the same direction - these are completely different things.
Wagner, on the other hand, never cared about music that was not going in the same direction of his ideas (and often when a composer was doing something too "new", he became furious (or afraid?). Anyway he said some good words when listening Brahms playing the piano in their only meeting.
I easily enjoy both.
Brahms meet Liszt the first time in 1853 if i'm not wrong. He was not impressed by Liszt as composer, only as player (Liszt played Brahms Scherzo op.4 from the manuscript at sight).
At the premiere of Liszt Sonata, Brahms slept during the piece (later claiming he was too tired because had just arrived from a trip), and Clara Schumann disliked the work. On the other hand, Hanslick (a conservative) made an interesting critic about the playing which is very helpful to understand how it probably sounded.
Brahms and Tausig were very interested in development of piano technique and they speak about it several times. One can see similarities between Brahms exercices and Tausig ones. Also Brahms ranked Liszt paraphrases as the biggest contribution to piano technique so far.
So, Brahms was not a blind man as some may think.
On the other hand, I remember I read somewhere Clara Schumann left the concert hall where was announced a performance of Liszt's piece. And her writings about Liszt's death were unnecessary in my opinion.

Liszt, on the other hand was not a Wagnerian, Wagner was a Lisztian. The New German School was not primarily influenced by Wagner but by Liszt, But after Wagner's festivals Liszt became "Wagner's Father-in-law" only (Thanks to Cosima's acts) and his orchestral music became less and less played, while his piano music still remains because of Liszt's great students like Bülow, Friedhein, Lamond, d'Albert, Sauer, Menter, and several others.
I really love his orchestral music. And he wrote too much piano music which is still unknown to the public (take Howard's 90+ CDs of Liszt's piano solo works as example)



millionrainbows said:


> That was very gracious and gentlemanly of Vitaliyaka to respond in that way! Maybe Artur Cimirro could get some good investment advice from him!


Yes he was. Sometimes (yes, I'm being nice about myself), when the subject is music I'm a "pain in the a-nswer". 
Hey, that's something I know nothing about... investments... I can't even imagine how it works... but if he keeps a bad feeling about me I'll be broken in the first trying :lol: (hope not).

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Since Liszt wrote for the piano, maybe his ideas were too 'pianistic' in these; things like ascending triads, long arpeggios, things that show facility rather than being pure idea.

On the other hand, I really like Mazeppa and the tone poems.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

cimirro said:


> Liszt, on the other hand was not a Wagnerian, Wagner was a Lisztian.


True. And, of course, Liszt was a Berliozian.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Magnum Miserium said:


> True. And, of course, Liszt was a Berliozian.


In order to be correct I would add he was a Beethovenian, Czernyan, Chopinian, a Berliozian, a Paganinian, a gypsyan - all untill 50's (there are more influences later)
The problem is that the major influence of Berlioz in Liszt is not complete (like is the Liszt-Wagner) at all. The "Instrumentation treatise", the "idée fixe", and the art interests they shared are the biggest influence.
But, while Liszt's orchestration can sound like Berlioz sometimes, the piano music is not sounding "Berliozian" (only the structures are similar)
And remembering, Liszt made a revision in Berlioz Benvenuto Cellini - that means they both influenced each other at some point.

Berlioz is great, and hardly I see people who listened his music often - a pity

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

cimirro said:


> In order to be correct I would add he was a Beethovenian, Czernyan, Chopinian, a Berliozian, a Paganinian, a gypsyan - all untill 50's (there are more influences later)
> The problem is that the major influence of Berlioz in Liszt is not complete (like is the Liszt-Wagner) at all. The "Instrumentation treatise", the "idée fixe", and the art interests they shared are the biggest influence.


I don't think the influence of Liszt on Wagner is nearly complete either. Wagner's dramaturgy comes from Meyerbeer; his orchestra, and his conception of serious music as something distinct from entertainment or education and closer to ritual, come directly from Berlioz; and his counterpoint comes from Schumann (what Charles Rosen called "heterophony": https://books.google.com/books?id=R1SjAx7tY8IC&pg=PA199).


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Magnum Miserium said:


> I don't think the influence of Liszt on Wagner is nearly complete either. Wagner's dramaturgy comes from Meyerbeer; his orchestra, and his conception of serious music as something distinct from entertainment or education and closer to ritual, come directly from Berlioz; and his counterpoint comes from Schumann (what Charles Rosen called "heterophony": https://books.google.com/books?id=R1SjAx7tY8IC&pg=PA199).


Yes, I agree with you, 
I mean the concepts are one thing. The "sound result" is other.
What I mean is Wagner sounds like Liszt (not his early music of course) - in sound - harmonic/melodic
While Liszt doesn't sound like Berlioz in sound, they shared the same ideas around music. That's it. 
I was mentioning only the characteristics of the written sound

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## Francis Poulenc (Nov 6, 2016)

People often underestimate the impact his Faust Symphony had on musical development, giving all the credit to Wagner. The Faust Symphony actually has the first ever attempt at a tone row.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

cimirro said:


> What I mean is Wagner sounds like Liszt (not his early music of course) - in sound - harmonic/melodic
> While Liszt doesn't sound like Berlioz [...]


That is a valid point.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Francis Poulenc said:


> People often underestimate the impact his Faust Symphony had on musical development, giving all the credit to Wagner. The Faust Symphony actually has the first ever attempt at a tone row.


If that's a "tone row," then so are "Non si pasce di cibo mortale" from the act 2 finale of "Don Giovanni" and "Ihr stürtzt nieder Millionen / Ahnest du den Schöpfer, Welt?" from the first part of the coda to Beethoven's 9th symphony.


----------



## Francis Poulenc (Nov 6, 2016)

Magnum Miserium said:


> If that's a "tone row," then so are "Non si pasce di cibo mortale" from the act 2 finale of "Don Giovanni" and "Ihr stürtzt nieder Millionen / Ahnest du den Schöpfer, Welt?" from the first part of the coda to Beethoven's 9th symphony.


I disagree. One cannot consider neither that nor the similar passage in the last movement of Mozart 40 a tone row.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Yeah well one can't consider the passage in the "Faust" symphony a tone row either.


----------



## Francis Poulenc (Nov 6, 2016)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Yeah well one can't consider the passage in the "Faust" symphony a tone row either.


Not true. It's the only one out of the provided examples that cannot be tonally explained.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Francis Poulenc said:


> Not true. It's the only one out of the provided examples that cannot be tonally explained.


That's not what makes a tone row a tone row.


----------



## Francis Poulenc (Nov 6, 2016)

Magnum Miserium said:


> That's not what makes a tone row a tone row.


A tone row isn't simply a melody with all 12 chromatic tones in it. There's more to it than that.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Francis Poulenc said:


> A tone row isn't simply a melody with all 12 chromatic tones in it. There's more to it than that.


Yeah, there is. Which is why the passage in the "Faust" symphony isn't a tone row.


----------



## Francis Poulenc (Nov 6, 2016)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Yeah, there is. Which is why the passage in the "Faust" symphony isn't a tone row.


I suggest you read up on tone rows. Here are some resources that can get you started:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_row
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve-tone_technique


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Francis Poulenc said:


> I suggest you read up on tone rows.


But I'm not the one who thinks Liszt wrote one.


----------



## Francis Poulenc (Nov 6, 2016)

Magnum Miserium said:


> But I'm not the one who thinks Liszt wrote one.


You're the one who thinks he didn't, which is you should read up on tone rows.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Francis Poulenc said:


> You're the one who thinks he didn't [...]


Because he didn't

Also, aren't you the guy who said contemporary classical music "sucks" the other day? Do you even listen to actual 12 tone music?


----------



## Francis Poulenc (Nov 6, 2016)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Because he didn't
> 
> Also, aren't you the guy who said contemporary classical music "sucks" the other day? Do you even listen to actual 12 tone music?


I do think it has low musical value, but at least I know what it is, seemingly unlike many others around here.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Magnum Miserium said:


> I don't think the influence of Liszt on Wagner is nearly complete either. Wagner's dramaturgy comes from Meyerbeer; his orchestra, and his conception of serious music as something distinct from entertainment or education and closer to ritual, come directly from Berlioz; and his counterpoint comes from Schumann (what Charles Rosen called "heterophony": https://books.google.com/books?id=R1SjAx7tY8IC&pg=PA199).


And his Leitmotiv comes from Von Weber


----------



## lextune (Nov 25, 2016)

arnerich said:


> I used to adore his music when I was younger. Now I'm 30 and I hardly listen to it or have a desire to play it.
> 
> I know pianists who love to play his stuff. I think there's an appeal to it's difficulty for both the performer and listener. I'll admit that a live performance of his music by a capable pianist is exciting and fun. But I feel like his music is more style than substance. For me something is missing. Just my 2 cents.


If you liked Liszt's virtuoso works when you were younger, (like him when he wrote them), you may now enjoy his late music.

If you are not familiar with Liszt's late piano works I suggest you try those out. Very little to no technical difficulties. Beautifully haunting harmonies (La lugubre, RW-Venezia). New simplicities (Nuages gris). Striking bleakness (Unstren-Sinistre).


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

By the way, probably few noticed it, the most funny act by the OP is the text is kept with all the mistakes *untill now*, 
but if you want to read it now, you need to give your personal contact... 
I'm afraid I'll not be invited to celebrate the thanksgiving day with him :lol:


----------

