# Liszt & Rachmaninov



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Feel free to prove me wrong (I would like it if you did), but what I've gathered about them is that their pieces are, for the most part, incredibly technically challenging, but lacking in solid substance. I've never been one to be impressed with advanced technical abilities. To me, it's more about being moved by melody and overall drive the structure of the song provides.

Is this a correct assumption for the majority of their works, or is it not?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I would agree on Liszt but not for Rachmaninov. As old-fashioned as the latter's music sounds to me, I offer his Second Symphony, and Second and Third Piano Concertos as evidence that Rachmaninov could be both technically challenging and profound in substance.

Rachmaninov was a great melodist and to me that means solid substance.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

I find Rachmaninoff with more substance, even depth, than Liszt (not to say that Liszt's music is shallow or empty). Rachmaninoff's music, at times mawkish, is heart-on-the-sleeves in utterance and mannerism (and his orchestration is a typical Russian in heaviness and dark timbres, Tchaikovskian in fact). Examine his songs, operas, solo piano works, his symphonies (esp. the First).

Liszt strikes me more as brilliant and even innovative (the so-called father of symphonic poem as a genre). His piano music, at times flashy, demonstrate the other aspects in piano writing (and playing) not before realized. His Transcendental Etudes are good cases in point.


----------



## merlinus (Apr 12, 2014)

Since I can play through a fair number of these composers' pieces on the piano, I disagree completely with your assessment. There are wonderful melodies, evoking lots of feelings, with commensurate underlying structures in many of these.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

No, definitely wrong about Rachmaninoff. IMO, his preludes, etudes and other short piano works almost never emphasize technique for its own sake. They are little worlds unto themselves and have great depth and character.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Feel free to prove me wrong (I would like it if you did), but what I've gathered about them is that their pieces are, for the most part, incredibly technically challenging, *but lacking in solid substance.* I've never been one to be impressed with advanced technical abilities. To me, it's more about being moved by melody and overall drive the structure of the song provides.
> 
> Is this a correct assumption for the majority of their works, or is it not?


This is based ope an incredibly narrow view of 'solid substance'. I would say the innovations Liszt made to music are certainly solid substance whether one likes them or not. Just take the Sonata in B minor. Incredibly innovative - something that changed musical thought. Whether we like it or not that is solid substance.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

merlinus said:


> S*ince I can play through quite a number of these composers' pieces on the piano,* I disagree completely with your assessment. There are wonderful melodies, evoking lots of feelings, with commensurate underlying structures in many of these.


:tiphat::tiphat::tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

LIszt was both virtuoso and musical innovator, and his piano music is so variable in style and substance that no generalization about it makes sense. Listen to the _Annees de Pelerinage_, the _Harmonies Poetiques et Religieuses_, or the _Sonata_, and you'll find plenty of substance. All those opera paraphrases, not so much.

Rachmaninoff? A deep and poetic sensibility. No superficial displays of technique, though great technique is needed from the pianist.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> No, definitely wrong about Rachmaninoff. IMO, his preludes, etudes and other short piano works almost never emphasize technique for its own sake. They are little worlds unto themselves and have great depth and character.


What he said. Underestimating Rachmaninov is a common theme in the classical music world.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Liszt and Rachmaninov had two sides to them, definitely; The "Music for the sake of pleasing the crowd" and "Music for the sake of music." So you can't just tag their music as "lacking in solid substance."

Listen to Liszt Piano Sonata and Years of Pilgrimage. Both have virtuoso elements but are very musical and profound in their emotional depth.

Also try Rachmaninov- pretty much anything- and you will find it is very musical and does have solid substance.


----------



## keymasher (Nov 10, 2016)

I consider Liszt among my favorite composers, but his etudes have little to do with that distinction. While, of course, there is a fair amount of his output that feels superficial and leaves me cold, the pieces I gravitate towards strike me as tremendously personal. A few of the pieces I'd categorize like this would be his Ballade 2 (one of my single favorite pieces from the Romantic period), Funerailles, and the Bénédiction.

I also find his program music to be fascinating and certainly not lacking in substance. Among these I'd include the sonettos from Années de pèlerinage II, and hell (pun intended) the Mephisto Waltz.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

hpowders said:


> I would agree on Liszt but not for Rachmaninov. As old-fashioned as the latter's music sounds to me, I offer his Second Symphony, and Second and Third Piano Concertos as evidence that Rachmaninov could be both technically challenging and profound in substance.
> 
> Rachmaninov was a great melodist and to me that means solid substance.


Second Symphony certainly doing the trick! Very delicate first movement so far, not anything like the Rach I've conceived in my brain thus far and pleasantly changed!


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Feel free to prove me wrong ...[Rachmaninoff & Liszt] incredibly technically challenging, but lacking in solid substance....
> Is this a correct assumption for _the majority _of their works, or is it not?


 [my italics]

Play the opening of Rachmaninoff's Concerto No.3; you're likely struck by the simplicity of the melody as well as it's great depth. And such hallmarks pop up all through this Russian master's work. If I were to choose only one melody-maker to live with for the rest of my life I couldn't do wrong by choose Rachy. (And I won't even mention the third movement of the Cello Sonata, but if I did I would say that I can't recall a time in recent years when I've played this one on record or CD without repeating the movement ... two or three or seven times. What the word "sublime" was invented to describe.) So ... I challenge the notion you pose when it comes to Sergei R.

Liszt? He surprises. Yes, there is a lot of bombast. But if you pick through his complete solo piano music there are many sublime surprises. Beautiful melodies couched in often simple technical terms (in comparison to some of his stuff). I wouldn't want to live with no music except only my box set of "The Complete Liszt Piano Music" by Leslie Howard. But I could if I had to. And I could enjoy much much of it without ever dipping into the bombast. Liszt can certainly satisfy our intellectual/emotional side without having to always tap into our animal natures. Just gotta find the right pieces.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Second Symphony certainly doing the trick! Very delicate first movement so far, not anything like the Rach I've conceived in my brain thus far and pleasantly changed!


What do you think about the slow movement's clarinet solo? Any substance there?


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

I didn't know that there actually still was serious doubt about Liszt's solid substance. When I hear people expressing there doubts about Liszt I often wonder if they maybe only heard Liebestraum? Because if they would really listen to his works they can't be serious cant they?

I think Liszt's sonata in B-minor has enough solid musical substance to outclass many composers' complete works. Sometimes I even wonder if it maybe outclasses Beethovens' late piano sonatas. Besides that there's enough solid substance in his work to stand next to the big names. It would be silly to start naming works because I still have the feeling I have to discover a lot. 

Of course there's a certain ambiguity in his personality due to his popstar charisma but I guess it's normal that people start to doubt ones' musical substance when women start to faint at your feet, I get that all the time, only in my case it IS in fact my lack of musical substance that causes these doubts ;-)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Razumovskymas said:


> I didn't know that there actually still was serious doubt about Liszt's solid substance. When I hear people expressing there doubts about Liszt I often wonder if they maybe only heard Liebestraum? Because if they would really listen to his works they can't be serious cant they?
> 
> I think Liszt's sonata in B-minor has enough solid musical substance to outclass many composers' complete works. Sometimes I even wonder if it maybe outclasses Beethovens' late piano sonatas. Besides that there's enough solid substance in his work to stand next to the big names. It would be silly to start naming works because I still have the feeling I have to discover a lot.
> 
> Of course there's a certain ambiguity in his personality due to his popstar charisma but I guess it's normal that people start to doubt ones' musical substance when women start to faint at your feet, I get that all the time, only *in my case it IS in fact my lack of musical substance that causes these doubts* ;-)


With some popular musicians it seems to be the lack of substance that causes the women to faint. Beethoven, poor fella, never got the knack of it.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Jeez, where were all you Rachmaninoff lovers when he needed you most in the recent polls??


----------



## Selby (Nov 17, 2012)

Liszt: Années de pèlerinage

Filled with substance, IMO. Stuffed with substance. 
Jalapeño popper is to cream cheese as Années de pèlerinage is to substance.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

hpowders said:


> What do you think about the slow movement's clarinet solo? Any substance there?


Yes, most definitely!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Razumovskymas said:


> I didn't know that there actually still was serious doubt about Liszt's solid substance. When I hear people expressing there doubts about Liszt I often wonder if they maybe only heard Liebestraum? Because if they would really listen to his works they can't be serious cant they?
> 
> I think Liszt's sonata in B-minor has enough solid musical substance to outclass many composers' complete works. Sometimes I even wonder if it maybe outclasses Beethovens' late piano sonatas. Besides that there's enough solid substance in his work to stand next to the big names. It would be silly to start naming works because I still have the feeling I have to discover a lot.
> 
> Of course there's a certain ambiguity in his personality due to his popstar charisma but I guess it's normal that people start to doubt ones' musical substance when women start to faint at your feet, I get that all the time, only in my case it IS in fact my lack of musical substance that causes these doubts ;-)


Well, in real time Louis Spohr was considered a superstar composer. Now he's dullsville. Hero worship at the time means nothing.

Liszt has flash, but no 21st century panache.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Yes, most definitely!


Glad you liked it. It's meltingly beautiful! I'm waiting for my phone to ring so me and my Buffet Crampon R13 Clarinet can play it with some youth orchestra.

I already bought the black hair dye to blend in with the youths.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

To be honest I agree with the OP in a general sense, and I used to be a fairly hardcore pianist who played Liszt and Rachmaninov (maybe not that well, but whatev, I was a lazy little ****.) 

However, I CERTAINLY think they have moments in their harmonies that are of great expressivity, either very delicate or uniquely forceful but having that awesome romantic harmonic power to rival any other composer. I think Liszt can be rather tasteless sometimes and Rachmaninov doesn't always have the urgency that other composers do but they certainly reached awesome heights. The moments are too numerous and scattered throughout their output to document but I really think some of Liszts' transcendental etudes (and other etudes), his piano sonata, his piano concertos, and his tone poems are littered with these unique, elegant, inspired and powerful moments.

Rachmaninov is supposed to have set that every piece has a 'climax' and I think you can definitely hear that in his most popular works (i.e., his piano concerti), and of course such moments are among the most memorable in music most will ever hear. I really have to listen to his symphonies some time though.


----------



## Adam Weber (Apr 9, 2015)

Rachmaninoff lacking in "moving melodies"? Huh. Haven't heard that one before. Normally the criticism goes: 

"Yes, well, it's very pretty, but it's empty. Just pretty and virtuosic." 

As for drive, they're music is... well, it always seemed very driven to me. Lots of bang-pow etudes, preludes, etc., and great sweeping symphonies and concertos that will (or should) blow anyone away. Like Gaspard de la Nuit said above me, most of Rachmaninoff's works have a notable climax. If you like that, cool. If you don't, that's fine too. But to say their music isn't driven... that seems a little odd. I'm not sure that's exactly what you said (internet communication is always fuzzy), but if that's what you're looking for in music, Liszt and Rachmaninoff shouldn't disappoint. 

Some advice (and who doesn't want advice from an internet stranger?): Don't worry too much about cliches. Listen to the music like you know nothing about it (within reason: try not to forget tonal harmony or what a chord is! ). Make up your own mind and just have fun with it. :tiphat:


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

my favourite piece by Liszt is his Les Preludes (orchestral version), I'm not really moved by his piano works, except maybe his first concerto. i like Rachmaninov more for his solo works, just heard his orchestrated stuff too much to care, or maybe because of the mud!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> my favourite piece by Liszt is his Les Preludes (orchestral version), I'm not really moved by his piano works, except maybe his first concerto. i like Rachmaninov more for his solo works, just heard his orchestrated stuff too much to care, or maybe because of the mud!


I'm enjoying Les Preludes (orchestral version)!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> With some popular musicians it seems to be the lack of substance that causes the women to faint. Beethoven, poor fella, never got the knack of it.


I understand some women did faint in Beethoven's presence. Seems to have had to do with his personal hygiene though.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> What he said. Underestimating Rachmaninov is a common theme in the classical music world.


So is overestimating him. lol


----------



## Selby (Nov 17, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I understand some women did faint in Beethoven's presence. Seems to have had to do with his personal hygiene though.


The same was said of Thomas Hobbes.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> my favourite piece by Liszt is his Les Preludes (orchestral version), I'm not really moved by his piano works, except maybe his first concerto. i like Rachmaninov more for his solo works, just heard his orchestrated stuff too much to care, or maybe because of the mud!


Uh-oh, Phil!! Now you've done it!! ;-)


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Phil loves classical said:


> my favourite piece by Liszt is his Les Preludes (orchestral version), I'm not really moved by his piano works, except maybe his first concerto. i like Rachmaninov more for his solo works, just heard his orchestrated stuff too much to care, or maybe because of the mud!


Mud is good. Good stuff grows out of mud.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Mud is good. Good stuff grows out of mud.


Might be good for agriculture, but for orchestral music?? Nah, not so good...


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Liszt, Liszt: Piano Sonata in B minor.:angel:


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Pugg said:


> Liszt, Liszt: Piano Sonata in B minor.:angel:


Rachmaninoff, Rachmaninoff: Piano Sonata in B-flat minor.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> Rachmaninoff, Rachmaninoff: Piano Sonata in B-flat minor.


Also good one, preferably by: Yevgeny Sudbin


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

Selby said:


> Liszt: Années de pèlerinage
> 
> Filled with substance, IMO. Stuffed with substance.
> Jalapeño popper is to cream cheese as Années de pèlerinage is to substance.


TC Award for Best Analogy of 2017 nominee!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Both Piano Sonatas mentioned above by Rach and Liszt didn't quite do it for me, but reinforced the notion I made in the OP.

Sorry, don't mean to offend anyone, it's just not to my taste.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Sorry, don't mean to offend anyone, it's just not to my taste.


... yet. (You may like them later, and that would not be unusual)


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

jdec said:


> ... yet. (You may like them later, and that would not be unusual)


There were portions of the Rachmaninov Sonata that were beautiful and other portions that were what I would consider lacking in substance. It felt really uneven.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Selby said:


> Liszt: Années de pèlerinage
> 
> Filled with substance, IMO. Stuffed with substance.
> Jalapeño popper is to cream cheese as Années de pèlerinage is to substance.


I relistened to this, at least the 1st year, and you are totally right.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Come on people! SVR's Symphonic Dances, preferably in 2 piano version. Liszt had his moments, but I submit that he achieved substance over virtuosity less often than Rachmaninov. Liszt at his best was brilliant and innovative, but hit his best less often and less reliably than SVR.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

No, you're wrong on both accounts.
You know what they say, assumption is the mother of all...
Time to explore their works better.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I'm loving Rach's Piano Concerto No. 3. This is great!

It's on a CD I picked up with Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto No. 1.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm loving Rach's Piano Concerto No. 3. This is great!
> 
> It's on a CD I picked up with Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto No. 1.


Is that with Van Cliburn?


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm loving Rach's Piano Concerto No. 3. This is great!
> 
> It's on a CD I picked up with Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto No. 1.


Who's playing ans who is the conductor?


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate (May 24, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Feel free to prove me wrong (I would like it if you did), but what I've gathered about them is that their pieces are, for the most part, incredibly technically challenging, but lacking in solid substance. I've never been one to be impressed with advanced technical abilities. To me, it's more about being moved by melody and overall drive the structure of the song provides.
> 
> Is this a correct assumption for the majority of their works, or is it not?


Have you listened to much of Rachmaninov's works? Yes, his piano works can be technically challenging, but I'm not sure how you can listen to the 2nd symphone, the Elegiac Piano Trios, the 2nd and 3rd Piano concerti, or his religious choral music and not hear moving melodic music.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Pugg said:


> Who's playing ans who is the conductor?


Martha Argerich; Riccardo Chailly: Berlin Radio Symphony Orchestra


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Ekim the Insubordinate said:


> Have you listened to much of Rachmaninov's works? Yes, his piano works can be technically challenging, but I'm not sure how you can listen to the 2nd symphone, the Elegiac Piano Trios, the 2nd and 3rd Piano concerti, or his religious choral music and not hear moving melodic music.


It can be implied from what I've said above that I am searching for the ones I like and checking out the suggestions in the thread. I believe I stated I enjoyed the second symphony!


----------



## lextune (Nov 25, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Is this a correct assumption for the majority of their works, or is it not?


It is not.

Liszt composed prolifically. Much of his early works could fit your description, ("incredibly technically challenging, but lacking in solid substance"), but Liszt quickly became a master of form. His best works from all his periods stand up to any formal analysis.
Later Liszt composed reams of beautiful music that is as simple technically as any piano music can be: (Nuages gris, Funf Klavierstuck, many other late works).

Rachmaninov composed much less, and might be said to be looking back, (Liszt very much wanted to push music as far forward as he could), but Rachmaninov's melodies are beloved the world over. Often they are simple and elegant.

Overall neither composer fits your assumption very well....


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Pieces like this are pretty much the essence of romantic piano music, to me at least. If this is superficial and lacking in substance, well, then everything is.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Ditto for this piece:


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

I don t know about the substance and technically issues, those are beyond my understanding . I like their music and that's sufficient for me.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DeepR said:


> Pieces like this are pretty much the essence of romantic piano music, to me at least. If this is superficial and lacking in substance, well, then everything is.


I Listened to the first movement, spectacular!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DeepR said:


> Ditto for this piece:


This is awesome too, beautiful!


----------



## merlinus (Apr 12, 2014)

Yes, and eminently playable for someone like me, unlike a goodly amount of his works.


----------



## Dave Whitmore (Oct 3, 2014)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Second Symphony certainly doing the trick! Very delicate first movement so far, not anything like the Rach I've conceived in my brain thus far and pleasantly changed!


I just bought this one today. I'm going to listen to it next!


----------

