# Liszt Etudes d'execution transcenante "La Campanella" 1838 Original performance.



## JamieHoldham

*Liszt Etudes d'execution transcenante "La Campanella" 1838 Original performance.*

A piece everyone knows but hasn't heard, the original and extremely difficult La Campanella, the original composition from 1838 which only has 2 performances of it that I know of, that ethier have errors or aren't played at proper tempo because of the difficulty of it.

This performance, and it is a good one - by Nikolai Petrov, personally I watch the video at 1.25 speed to hear the piece at proper tempo.

As for the composition itself, I prefer it to the s141 version, and whilst it doesn't look as difficult and the leaps aren't as consistent, thats the immense difficulty of this version - the inconsistency and irregular patterns from page 2 onwards.

And if people dont like this version, atleast it gives a good insight into the potential capabilites a young and prime Liszt had as a pianst, composing something of immense difficulty such as this.


----------



## Vaneyes

*Yundi Li*


----------



## JamieHoldham

Vaneyes said:


> *Yundi Li*


Yep that's the later and watered down s140 version, nice performance though.


----------



## Pugg

György Cziffra plays La Campanella (the 4:25 version) 
If only I could play like this


----------



## JamieHoldham

^ Agreed, my favourite pianist, such great musicality and at the same time technical mastery.


----------



## DavidA

Pugg said:


> György Cziffra plays La Campanella (the 4:25 version)
> If only I could play like this


listening to Cziffra you have an idea how liszt might have played


----------



## cimirro

JamieHoldham said:


> personally I watch the video at 1.25 speed to hear the piece at proper tempo.
> ...
> something of immense difficulty such as this.
> ...


Nice recording. Petrov was a great pianist.
But there is something sounding strange (to me) in your comment and i'd like you to consider explaining me why you think so.

First, the speed.
The score says Allegro moderato (often around 116-120 bpm) in 6/8.
Petrov is faster than 140. So where do you find this "proper tempo" +1,25 than Petrov's around-140bpm?

I ask this because I always noticed some people speaking about pieces being played too slow to their tastes, but often it is not something related to the composer's original intentions..
One example is Alkan "Le Preux", several times I read people saying this pieces is always played slow, or "it is impossible to plat at tempo".
But this is not true. The score marks "Carrément" which means "firmly" (not "fast" nor "presto possibilie")

Second, and of less importance, what is "immense difficult" technically about this piece that you can't find in Mephisto Waltz No.1 (which is not among the most difficult pieces by Liszt)? The most difficult, for a student, probably is the repeated notes in the left hand (because it is not so often used in the main repertoire).
I remember some people saying the Rondo Fantastique sur "El Contrabandista", was the most difficult piece by Liszt, the arguments were something like "none accepted playing it live", "La Campanella on steroids", "Liszt was afraid", etc etc... while it was only a personal marketing in the reality.
Actually there is nothing "more impressive" in the piece, and is not the most beautiful piece of music Liszt wrote, and this is why rarely it is played. Technically few passages are really difficult for any "Liszt standard player".

Anyway, I love Liszt music, and i'm happy you posted this. i'm just wondering where people find information that some pieces must be faster when it is not mentioned in the musical score nor in any Liszt's personal letter.

All the best
Artur Cimirro
P.S. and please don't understand me wrongly, I love "speed" and "fast playing"!


----------



## JamieHoldham

cimirro said:


> Nice recording. Petrov was a great pianist.
> But there is something sounding strange (to me) in your comment and i'd like you to consider explaining me why you think so.
> 
> First, the speed.
> The score says Allegro moderato (often around 116-120 bpm) in 6/8.
> Petrov is faster than 140. So where do you find this "proper tempo" +1,25 than Petrov's around-140bpm?
> 
> I ask this because I always noticed some people speaking about pieces being played too slow to their tastes, but often it is not something related to the composer's original intentions..
> One example is Alkan "Le Preux", several times I read people saying this pieces is always played slow, or "it is impossible to plat at tempo".
> But this is not true. The score marks "Carrément" which means "firmly" (not "fast" nor "presto possibilie")
> 
> Second, and of less importance, what is "immense difficult" technically about this piece that you can't find in Mephisto Waltz No.1 (which is not among the most difficult pieces by Liszt)? The most difficult, for a student, probably is the repeated notes in the left hand (because it is not so often used in the main repertoire).
> I remember some people saying the Rondo Fantastique sur "El Contrabandista", was the most difficult piece by Liszt, the arguments were something like "none accepted playing it live", "La Campanella on steroids", "Liszt was afraid", etc etc... while it was only a personal marketing in the reality.
> Actually there is nothing "more impressive" in the piece, and is not the most beautiful piece of music Liszt wrote, and this is why rarely it is played. Technically few passages are really difficult for any "Liszt standard player".
> 
> Anyway, I love Liszt music, and i'm happy you posted this. i'm just wondering where people find information that some pieces must be faster when it is not mentioned in the musical score nor in any Liszt's personal letter.
> 
> All the best
> Artur Cimirro
> P.S. and please don't understand me wrongly, I love "speed" and "fast playing"!


2 things first, regarding difficulty compared to the Mephisto Waltz, that would probally require a in-depth and rather time consuming analysis, and so I will skip this since I don't compare the difficulty of this piece to any other apart from the original s141 version of La Campanella.

Second is the difficulty which I judge purely based on the score, notation and guesswork as I am not a pianist and I don't really know how hard this piece is too play, nor will I act as if I genuinely do.

Anyway as for the tempo, it just feels "proper" to me, it's a showoff piece as the young Liszt was and I imagine and enjoy the piece being played at a tempo I feel he himself would play it -- although not in his later years, certainly not.


----------



## Azol

Actually, La Campanella is the third piece from Liszt's _Grandes études de Paganini_, not _Études d'exécution transcendante_.

Cziffra: amazing performance! Thanks Pugg!


----------



## cimirro

Azol said:


> Actually, La Campanella is the third piece from Liszt's _Grandes études de Paganini_, not _Études d'exécution transcendante_.


JamieHoldham means "Études d'exécution transcendante d'après Paganini, S.140" 
which is a earlier version of "Grandes études de Paganini, S.141" and not related to "Études d'exécution transcendante, S.139"


----------



## cimirro

JamieHoldham said:


> 2 things first, regarding difficulty compared to the Mephisto Waltz, that would probally require a in-depth and rather time consuming analysis, and so I will skip this since I don't compare the difficulty of this piece to any other apart from the original s141 version of La Campanella.
> 
> Second is the difficulty which I judge purely based on the score, notation and guesswork as I am not a pianist and I don't really know how hard this piece is too play, nor will I act as if I genuinely do.


Now I understand you correctly. Thank you. Actually I also do not believe a discussion about "which is the most difficult work" will arrive at any place. I just know, as a player, both pieces requires same kind/level of hand techniques because the Liszt's pieces are always on my piano. i really love it 



JamieHoldham said:


> Anyway as for the tempo, it just feels "proper" to me, it's a showoff piece as the young Liszt was and I imagine and enjoy the piece being played at a tempo I feel he himself would play it -- although not in his later years, certainly not.


I understand you, maybe, if you would like to think about it at all, you may consider that the "showoff" of Liszt is not exactly always related to speed - and I'll try to explain partially why:
Normally people know he used to play and compose virtuoso music. But not often people know he was very interested is giving as much information as possible for the player in his scores. He used several new marks that are not even used today like the different kinds of rubatos (see the piece "Lyon" for example) and he was very strict concerning the differences of a marcato playing, a martellato playing, a spicatto playing, a staccato playing, etc.etc.
So, no doubts, he wrote some pieces that need playing fast, but more than this, he made music which must impress by the sound effect.
With this in mind, I can't imagine that Liszt would play his own piece faster than what he wrote in the score, because he had the option to write "Pesto" as he did several times in his works. 
On the other hand, I also think it is quite interesting when you can play the music with all the emotion and also with a great speed - my only "rule" (for myself, or course) is to keep the musicality.
One example: Willhelm Von Lenz mentioned Tausig playing the Chopin's left hand octaves from the Polonaise Op.53 in a speed and clearity he (Lenz) couldn't play even with his two hands. Based on this, and because I'm working in the Tausig project, I decided to do something similar (audio on youtube) - so for a standard Chopin playing, that can sound "wrong"... 

All the best
Artur


----------



## lextune

JamieHoldham said:


> Second is the difficulty which I judge purely based on the score, notation and guesswork as I am not a pianist and I don't really know how hard this piece is too play, nor will I act as if I genuinely do.


I am a pianist. And I will tell you this about "levels of difficulty": what is prohibitively difficult to one pianist, might seem not particularly hard at all to another pianist.

We all have our strengths, and relative weaknesses. Every hand is different. Hence the impossibility of there being a "hardest piece ever written".


----------



## millionrainbows

Who got executed? Was Liszt there?


----------



## millionrainbows

I like Evginy Kissin for this kind of virtuoso playing. This is a striking early picture of him. Amazing talent, hard worker, good attitude.


----------



## cimirro

millionrainbows said:


> Who got executed? Was Liszt there?


In Liszt times, probably only Liszt himself, as far as I know, 
as I said, he had already made better works. This is part of his first works with opus numbers, that means, long before his mature compositional style (and revisions), and not related to his great virtuoso etudes in its first versions. And his works with opus were never mentioned by Liszt himself as great works later in his life as far as i remember.

By the way, the first great players of Liszt's music (not including any work with opus by Liszt in their repertoire if i'm not wrong) were Bülow, Klindworth and Tausig (they were "great" according Liszt himself).









All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## cimirro

millionrainbows said:


> I like Evginy Kissin for this kind of virtuoso playing. This is a striking early picture of him. Amazing talent, hard worker, good attitude.


I admit I only heard him playing the "standard difficult" Liszt, none of the virtuoso paraphrases yet. (did he recorded some?)


----------



## millionrainbows

cimirro said:


> I admit I only heard him playing the "standard difficult" Liszt, none of the virtuoso paraphrases yet. (did he recorded some?)


I'm not sure what specifically you refer to. Kissin is well-associated with Liszt. Here's La Campanella:


----------



## cimirro

millionrainbows said:


> I'm not sure what specifically you refer to. Kissin is well-associated with Liszt. Here's La Campanella:


Yes, I mean the paraphrases on Don Juan, Norma, Sonnambula, etc
Kissin, as far as I know, only plays the "standard Liszt" not the "extravagant virtuoso" (and the technical differences are huge)


----------



## lextune

Kissin has a recording of several of the Liszt Transcendental Etudes that is fantastic. Once can only wish he played them all. 

These are "standard" Liszt pieces I suppose, (compared to the earlier 1837 Douze Grandes Études versions), but basically the height of virtuosity anyway. Things like Douze Grandes Études, the more obscure operatic transcriptions, the Album d’un Voyageur (which contains the earlier versions of the pieces that would make up the Années de pèlerinage), etc. etc. are curiosities. Less 'musical' versions of pieces that Liszt would come to make greater. 
The fact that Kissin ignores such things for the completed works makes perfect sense, and should not be seen as evidence that the other works are beyond him technically, (I am not saying that you are implying that, just clarifying). They are simply beneath him musically. 

He also played the Rhapsodie espagnole in his Carnegie Hall debut. In that setting, as a 19 yer old, it is a truly jaw dropping live recording. And I would argue that it was as "difficult technically" as any piece of piano music can be.


----------

