# Liszt's 13 Symphonic Poems



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

I understand that some of these works can be a bit bombastic, but they were hugely important to the development of the symphonic poem genre, most are enjoyable to listen, and a few are even excellent. I wouldn't mind a few of them being rehabilitated or at least recorded a bit more often. These are some of the more successful ones:

Mazeppa




Orpheus




Les Preludes


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

My favourites:

Essential: Les preludes, Tasso (lamento e trionfo), Von der Wiege bis zum Grabe
Important: Hungaria, Hunnenschlacht, Orpheus


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

It used to be that several of these works were common to hear in concert. Not so much anymore. Even Les Preludes, so well-known from its use in old serial cliff-hangers like Buck Rogers, has disappeared. I've been playing in orchestras for nearly 45 years and have only played three of them - each once: Les Preludes, Mazeppa, and Festklange. There are lots of reason for their neglect. They aren't great enough for major orchestras to tackle (although that hasn't stopped them from playing a lot of other lesser music) and they are quite difficult to play and the string writing is simply beyond the ability of amateur/community orchestras. Even during the Liszt centennial a few years back, there was very little interest in his music. I caught a performance of the Dante Symphony, but that was about it.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

While not doing so with tonality -- or lack of same -- Liszt was on the precipice of late 20th century orchestral development with his tone poems. His format, especially in the longer single movement ones such as Hungaria and What One Hears On the Mountain, regularly have development sections built off codas, which even as late as Bruckner led only to recapitulation. Liszt sometimes also developed off recaps, too. These are among reasons some of his tone poems seem to lack the same structure composers like Dvorak and Tchaikovsky gave theirs. As he showed regularly with piano and sacred choral music, Liszt was never afraid to take a chance or tread on ground heretofore virgin.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

larold said:


> Liszt was never afraid to take a chance or tread on ground heretofore virgin.


Yes. Liszt was a significantly important, 2nd rate composer. Inventive, willing to take risks, supportive of so many younger composers. Hugely important in the development of music, yet his own music has all but vanished from concerts. It may figure more in piano recitals, I don't know.


----------



## MusicSybarite (Aug 17, 2017)

I'm very fond of _Tasso_, _Heroïde funèbre_, _Orpheus_, _Les préludes_ and I like quite a bit _Ce quon entend sur la montagne_. That's all.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

_Les préludes_, one of the first "classical" music pieces I heard, remains one of the works that has endeared me to classical music. It is astounding and along with the B Minor Sonata ranks high on my "Favorite Pieces by Liszt List".

I do have a couple complete sets of Symphonic Poems by Liszt in my collection, and I occasionally revisit them, though not often. Still, whenever I drop the needle into the groove of a Liszt Symphonic Poem LP or press the Play on a Liszt SymPoem CD, I anticipate a thrill ride that will not fail to surprise and leave much to admire.

The Liszt work I revisit most often (and the Liszt work of which I have more versions in my collection than any other of the composer's works) is the B Minor Sonata. It remains to my ears one of the most profound works in the history of music. _Les préludes_ cannot compete with that profundity; but it does reach heights that can capture the imagination and turn a listener into a classical music fan.

Surprise yourself. Visit Liszt's music every once in a while, and perhaps a little more often. You will likely delight yourself quite often in the doing so. I know I do.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> Yes. Liszt was a significantly important, 2nd rate composer. Inventive, willing to take risks, supportive of so many younger composers. Hugely important in the development of music, yet his own music has all but vanished from concerts. It may figure more in piano recitals, I don't know.


I have difficulty thinking of a composer of Liszt's influence as 2nd rate, especially one that composed one of the candidates for the greatest work in its genre (namely, his Bm Piano Sonata). Liszt's symphonic (and other) music may not have had the same lasting impact as his piano music, but I don't see why that's a reason to relegate him to 2nd rate status.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

larold said:


> Liszt was never afraid to take a chance or tread on ground heretofore virgin.


I have a feeling Liszt trod on many a virgin's grounds. (sorry, couldn't resist)


----------



## Colin M (May 31, 2018)

It is ironic that I caught this post. I was about to ask the audi3nce about Smetana and the My Country poems. Thanks for sharing this champion of a unique musical style. 


christomacin said:


> I understand that some of these works can be a bit bombastic, but they were hugely important to the development of the symphonic poem genre, most are enjoyable to listen, and a few are even excellent. I wouldn't mind a few of them being rehabilitated or at least recorded a bit more often. These are some of the more successful ones:
> 
> Mazeppa
> 
> ...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Part of the problem with Liszt is that conductors don't understand his music any more, and so nobody knows how to play it. I think this is a problem with Romantic music in general. Schumann said that the important thing in performing music is not playing the notes but how we get from one note to another. Wagner emphasized the need to find the essential melodic gesture of the music and vary the expression and the tempo accordingly. Mahler is known to have performed with great rhythmic flexibility. He also esteemed the conducting of Willem Mengelberg, and we are fortunate to have a number of recordings by Mengelberg to give us an idea of what authentic Romantic style was like. One of these is of Liszt's _Les Preludes_, and though the recording quality is poor we can hear that Mengelberg is uninhibited, flexible and imaginative, unafraid to take risks and press or hold back the tempo, free with string portamento, and able to find meaningful gestures in Liszt's rhetoric where our conductors see only notes. Everyone who loves Liszt, and everyone who thinks he doesn't, should hear this:


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Part of the problem with Liszt is that conductors don't understand his music any more, and so nobody knows how to play it.


Amen to that! So many younger conductors are like robots - play the score as written, no rubato, no feeling. Portamento is a lost art in string playing. Now, I'm not suggesting for one minute that I approve of some older practices, like taking cuts. I don't even like re-orchestrating what a composer wrote. But conducting like Mengleberg does in the Liszt is just wonderful - and would be laughed out of the concert halls nowadays and skewered by critics.


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

Maybe Liszt's two greatest contributions to this genre were "Tasso: Lament and Triumph" and "From the Cradle to the Grave". I agree with the poster Art Rock's opinion above concerning both Tasso and Grave as an essential Liszt works.

"Tasso: Lament and Triumph" was perhaps the most satisfying overall tone poem:





"From the Cradle to the Grave" was the final tone poem written much later in life.


----------



## Biffo (Mar 7, 2016)

Fairly recently I worked my way through Haitink's complete set of the symphonic poems and found it a pretty dismal experience. I only enjoyed Les Preludes and Orpheus; the rest I found repetitive and long-winded, even the shorter ones outstayed their welcome. I don't think it was the fault of Haitink. I have some of the works, including Tasso, from Karajan and Silvestri and they didn't persuade me either. 

Like some other posters and I enjoy Liszt's piano works but his orchestral works elude me. Many years ago I tried 'Christus', after an enthusiatic recommendation, and found that a dud as well.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Many of the symphonic poems were collaborative affairs. He was learning orchestration and dependent on others in the beginning:



> When Liszt started writing symphonic poems, "he had very little experience in handling an orchestra ... his knowledge of the technique of instrumentation was defective and he had as yet composed hardly anything for the orchestra."For these reasons he relied first on his assistants August Conradi and Joachim Raff to fill the gaps in his knowledge and find his "orchestral voice". Raff, "a gifted composer with an imaginative grasp of the orchestra", offered close assistance to Liszt. Also helpful were the virtuosi present at that time in the Weimarian Court orchestra, such as trombonist Moritz Nabich, harpist Jeanne Pohl, concertmaster Joseph Joachim and violinist Edmund Singer. "[Liszt] mixed daily with these musicians, and their discussions must have been filled with 'shop talk.'" Both Singer and cellist Bernhard Cossmann were widely experienced orchestral players who probably knew the different instrumental effects a string section could produce-knowledge that Liszt would have found invaluable, and about which he might have had many discussions with the two men. With such a range of talent from which to learn, Liszt may have actually mastered orchestration reasonably quickly. By 1853, he felt he no longer needed Raff's assistance and their professional association ended in 1856. [unquote]
> 
> Sometimes Raff resented the help he was given Liszt and felt that he was sacrificing his own career on his behalf. But Liszt was a tremendously hard worker as he left his career behind as a concert pianist and learned a great deal from others, though his tone poems usually attract mixed reviews as he was learning to orchestrate and get a greater feel for composing for the orchestra. He had big ideas for large-scale orchestra works whether successfully executed or not at the time. He was ambitious. Sometimes Liszt and Wagner sound like two peas in a pod.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

I didn't know there were 13 of them. I have 4 from a bargain bin CD I found for a dollar. It was worth the dollar. I can't imagine listen to the rest.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Part of the problem with Liszt is that conductors don't understand his music any more, and so nobody knows how to play it. I think this is a problem with Romantic music in general. Schumann said that the important thing in performing music is not playing the notes but how we get from one note to another. Wagner emphasized the need to find the essential melodic gesture of the music and vary the expression and the tempo accordingly. Mahler is known to have performed with great rhythmic flexibility. He also esteemed the conducting of Willem Mengelberg, and we are fortunate to have a number of recordings by Mengelberg to give us an idea of what authentic Romantic style was like. One of these is of Liszt's _Les Preludes_, and though the recording quality is poor we can hear that Mengelberg is uninhibited, flexible and imaginative, unafraid to take risks and press or hold back the tempo, free with string portamento, and able to find meaningful gestures in Liszt's rhetoric where our conductors see only notes. Everyone who loves Liszt, and everyone who thinks he doesn't, should hear this:


Thanks for this. I agree that the performance of 19th century music has been lost to history. I have no idea why people don't seem to 'get it' any more, but recordings and performances these days show that they just don't.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

shirime said:


> Thanks for this. I agree that the performance of 19th century music has been lost to history. I have no idea why people don't seem to 'get it' any more, but recordings and performances these days show that they just don't.


It's particularly frustrating in that we have ample documentation from the early days of recording which allow us to hear musicians whose interpretive approaches are quite strikingly different from those of today. One aspect of this is that while so many modern performances sound essentially the same, performances then often differed greatly from one another, showing that the creative spirit in performance that we associate with improvisation in the Baroque era was not banished in subsequent eras but merely expressed in different ways. I've long lamented that the HIP movement has not caught up with the Romantics; certainly Roger Norrington's lilting waltz through _Tristan_'s prelude is an embarrassingly abortive effort at "authenticity."

I'm inclined to lay some blame on the deliberately anti-Romantic vein of 20th-century culture, the "machine age," which exalted science and technology, gave rise to "machines for living" as an architectural concept, had composers with oversized craniums thinking that "total serialism" was a viable idea for musical composition, and made being "cool" socially desirable. Moreover, the increasing importance of recordings seemed to make being "correct" obligatory; the desire for "perfect" execution was inimical to spontaneity and risk-taking. Over the course of the century people apparently just forgot how to make now-historical styles of music speak, or were simply afraid to take a chance on hitting a wrong note. I've noticed that attempts to project emotion now tend to involve slowing music down and wallowing melancholically, as if being "expressive" were a solemn duty. Would today's audiences and critics even accept a seemingly impulsive (though actually quite well thought-out) performance like Mengelberg's?

Here's another stunning Mengelberg example of how differently they felt music back then:






THAT is Romanticism - the language of the heart, words spoken in the moment they're felt, arms thrown open wide to embrace life in laughter and tears, correctness be damned!

But don't get me started... :lol:


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

There are a few young conductors who seem to get it. They take chances that more illustrious conductors won't. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Check out the Tchaikovsky Pathetique from Teodor Currentzis for something totally "wrong". He happens to love Mahler, but so far hasn't recorded any. Another one to watch is Tugan Sohkiev.


----------

