# Alkan, Chopin, Liszt, and Schumann



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Four titans of the piano in the C19th:

*Charles Valentin Alkan* (1813-1888)
*Frederic Chopin *(1810-1849)
*Franz Liszt* (1811-1886)
*Robert Schumann* (1810-1856)

What are people's impressions of these four greats of the same generation? Comparisons? Favourite compositions & interpretations? You may even wish to rank them, but that's not strictly necessary. This is not a competition (I deliberately didn't set up a poll).

I've been listening to three of their piano sonatas: Alkan's the _Four Ages of Man_ & the B minor sonatas of Chopin & Liszt. There's a certain level of profundity achieved by all of them. The Alkan is for me the most wide ranging work, which covers so many aspects of emotion. The Chopin has this light, salon like feel. & the Liszt is a dark, epic, quite brooding work (in Horowitz's hands, anyway). I have also heard a number of Schumann's solo piano works, such as the _Fantasy in C, Traumerei_ & _Kreisleriana_.

If I was forced to pick one, I probably couldn't. They all portray the human condition in varying wonderful ways. & of course, they also write for the piano in different ways.

I know there are fans of these guys here, so what do you all think? Where there any other great pianist-composers of that generation whom I have left out?

EDIT: I realised Schumann was part of the same generation after I created the thread, that's why his name is not in the title. I have asked the mods to change this.


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

Andre said:


> Four titans of the piano in the C19th...If I was forced to pick one, I probably couldn't.


My thoughts exactly. It's Prokofiev, Bartok, Shostakovich, and Stravinsky all over again. But far closer, for me at least.

I think I'm drawn most to Alkan's orchestral quality (which is even more _orchestral_ on the piano) and overall originality (especially in terms of rhythms and tension, he could create some of the most hair-raising moments on the instrument!), Liszt's complex personality and enigmatic soul (a womanizer he may be, but an abbé too? His music tells me there's much more to this guy than we think), and Chopin's ear for lyrical beauty and chromaticism (unique in the annals of history) as well as the often underrated "tension" he can create (very introverted, but most easily felt when *playing* his works).

And Schumann? For me, he was the king of the Early-Mid Romantics, and his piano works are for me, the high point of Romanticism in general. Most of all I am attracted to the _love_ in his music - romance, familial love, eros, agape, affection, belonging, friendship, religious love, but most of all, just a _general, sincere love for life in general_. Love of breath, love of earth, love of existence. His music tells you that, _here_, we belong _here_, love _is_ here.

Anyways, thanks for making this thread. I'll be following it and make sure to butt in whenever I have the chance.

(As for their contemporaries - the piano music of Mendelssohn (1809 - it's a good output, but let's be realistic), Thalberg (1812 - probably the most widely acclaimed in his day), and Henselt (1814 - very influential and well-known in his day, but like Alkan, very eccentric) aren't really a match for the aforementioned. But then, very few pianistic outputs are.)


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

It's easy to rank these four: Schumann and Chopin are the best and about the same in quality and overall prestige as piano composers, followed by Liszt, and then some way behind is Alkan. Lists like this seem a bit phoney to me as they exclude the likes of other even greater titans of the 19th C some of whose piano works are at least as good (far better in my view) as any of those mentioned, most obviously Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Brahms.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Liszt and Chopin are among my favourite composers, Schumman I do like as well and Alkan I do not know yet as I should (I've heard his concerto for solo piano, his preludes and cello sonata). 

I disagree about Chopin as a light, salon like feeling music. I would say it is kind of sterepthype caused by rather big amount of waltzes he wrote in comparison to more concertante genres. But those waltzes are not for dancing. Indeed, his music is often very elegantly shaped and full of ornamentatiom, but I sense nothing like real salon music in his sonatas or ballades. 

Liszt is huge boner. Me too is quite fascinated with his personality. As for the music, I don't think it was really much darker than the others. I think that he had tendention to go really low on the keyboard which effected in striking, heavy bass lines and sometimes if can be received as dark. His music was as esoteric as many other great romantics. 

As for those then famous and now forgotten pianists, I've heard couple of them - Thalberg, Moscheles - nothing special. Sometimes even terrible. If you think that Liszt composed music just to show how good is he as a pianist, then listen to those fellows.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Alkan, Schumann, Chopin, Liszt. That's the order they have in my preferences. But as for who was better, it's impossible to say with this group (if I were to actually believe good composers could be superior to other good composers).

Alkan receives first place for me, for the entire world he sets in place with each piece; Picturesque, yet clearly rendered by Classical conventions. He never fails to perform in his development of the motif, and his breathtaking creativity and dumbfounding subtlety. His naivette melodic progressions are wonderful, however much they can serve as a turnoff to those who aren't ready for serious study of his works. Predictable, with "superfluous" expression, and a knack for beating each theme to death almost like a set of variations? It's too bad people come to that kind of conclusion.

And to Aramis:

You can probably guess that I don't agree with you about Thalberg or Moscheles. If you haven't, I'd heartily suggest you listen to Thalberg's _Moses Fantasy_, _Sonnambula Caprice_, his emotional transcription of the _Lacrimosa_ from Mozart's Requiem, and his _Fantasy on themes of Mozart's Don Giovanni_.

If you are interested, you will find each of those compositions in this play list- http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=B5B0C2AF5EDB280C

Oh yes, and as for Moscheles, I would suggest you try his _Recollections of Ireland_. Let me know what you think.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Andre said:


> *Charles Valentin Alkan* (1813-1888)


Was he really that great? I don't really know his works. He certainly doesn't get performed as much as the other three.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth (Apr 14, 2010)

*Alkan* is certainly a respectable artist, but never popular nor loveable.
His ethos is rather heavy and dour.
Recommend, however, Dr. Ronald Smith's release:
http://www.amazon.com/Alkan-Piano-W...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1274186265&sr=1-1


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

My personal preference would be for Schumann... followed by Chopin and Liszt... although I'd be torn between the two. Alkan is certainly good... but I've yet to be convinced that he is the giant he is presented by some as being. Personally I find these four represent two somewhat opposed sides of Romanticism. Schumann rejected the excesses of Liszt and Wagner (and Alkan) for a return to a greater clarity or simplicity ala classicism. The same hold true of Chopin, for who Mozart remains a central figure. Too often I think that there is something of an assumption that dark brooding and flamboyant or virtuosic music is inherently "deeper"... more serious... but I find that too easy. Perhaps there is something of the salon to Chopin... but they go far deeper than that.

I'd immediately opt for Schumann of the four composers presented for the simple fact that he has the greatest range of works of real merit: works for solo piano, symphonies, concertos, and at the core: a body of lieder second only, perhaps, to Schubert. Liszt wrote a wonderful array of piano works ranging from exquisitely poetic to the most grandiose and flamboyant... but one must also credit him for his development of the tone poems and his efforts in bringing folk rhythms into classical music. Chopin is indispensable... if only for his nocturnes... but there is so much more... and for all his lightness he can also bring a certain sense of tragedy as well as a noble martial air to his work... while a sense of wistfulness is never far away. Like Mozart he seems forever dancing on the edge of death. Alkan? Again I have not listened enough to admit him within the same realm as the other three. I must admit that from what I have heard he is indeed a good composer and sadly forgotten for far too long... but so have many other composers.


----------



## Falstaft (Mar 27, 2010)

Aramis said:


> Liszt is huge boner.




For me, it's Liszt -- that B-minor sonata just rocks my socks off. But I must admit, I don't know much Alkan at all. Andre or anyone else, do you have recommendation for works/recordings I could start out with?


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Falstaft said:


> For me, it's Liszt -- that B-minor sonata just rocks my socks off. But I must admit, I don't know much Alkan at all. Andre or anyone else, do you have recommendation for works/recordings I could start out with?


Works to start out with? Here they are (the last one is the only one that is all that virtuosic)-

En Rhythm Molossique:





Super Flumina Babylonis:





His first two chants (No. 1 - 'Assez Vivement' and No. 2 - 'Sérénade'):





Quasi Faust movement (from his Sonate Les Quatre Ages):


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> And to Aramis:
> 
> You can probably guess that I don't agree with you about Thalberg or Moscheles. If you haven't, I'd heartily suggest you listen to Thalberg's _Moses Fantasy_, _Sonnambula Caprice_, his emotional transcription of the _Lacrimosa_ from Mozart's Requiem, and his _Fantasy on themes of Mozart's Don Giovanni_.
> 
> ...


Oookay, but how writing variations and fantasias on popular themes can make anyone equal to Liszt, Chopin or Schumann? Even though those pieces are fine crafted I don't think that it makes them special, it is very typical for XIXth century virtuoso pianists to write such things, if they are sometimes performed it's good for them, but that doesn't give them place in the pantheon of greats.

I've heard their *independent* works: piano concertos and piano trios and I belive that they are not any better than concertos and trios of thousand other forgotten composers from romantic period - I'm familiar with such repertoire so I have good comparison on which I base this belief.


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

Opal said:


> It's easy to rank these four: Schumann and Chopin are the best and about the same in quality and overall prestige as piano composers, followed by Liszt, and then some way behind is Alkan. Lists like this seem a bit phoney to me as they exclude the likes of other even greater titans of the 19th C some of whose piano works are at least as good (far better in my view) as any of those mentioned, most obviously Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Brahms.


I think the OP's intention was to compare the pianistic outputs of composers born around 1810 - which would be Mendelssohn, Thalberg, Henselt, Chopin, Schumann, Liszt, Alkan, etc.

No wonder we've been celebrating so many bicentennials lately.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

About Chopin, I should have said that the man preferred playing in the salon rather than the concert hall. That's probably why I get this sense of great intimacy when listening to his music. I also remember reading somewhere that he was a great influence on later pianist-composers like Debussy (& maybe even Scriabin?).

As for Schumann, I agree with some of the contributors above that his music has a highly poetic quality. I'm more familiar with his _Piano Concerto _ (as played by Dinu Lipatti) than his solo piano works, but in that work, he seems to be building upon what Beethoven was doing in some of his own piano concertos, but in a unique way.

I've only started to get into a tiny part of Liszt's solo piano repertoire recently. I've got Horowitz's classic 1930's account of the _Sonata in B minor _& the _Funerailles_. This seems to my rather inexperienced ears (in the piano realm anyway), to be quite a dark & epic interpretation. I've also listened to Alfred Brendel playing the Sonata and some other works (a friend's cd), and this interpretation was (of course) very different, a totally different take on the music. It seems to me that when you start to listen to different interpretations of the same solo piano repertoire, you can pick up the differences much more easier than in other genres.

As for Alkan, I wouldn't underestimate him, especially just because he is less well known. Roland Smith was one of the first pianists to start recording his music back in the 1960's. But more recently, many good recordings have become available of this fine composer's music (such as of Marc Andre Hamelin, but I've got Alan Weiss on Brilliant who is pretty good. He is also on youtube). To me, Alkan does indeed sound more 'serious' than the other two, though he does have some lighter (more eccentric?) moments (the _Esquisses_ miniatures and the _Feast of Aesop _etude). I really like his _Sonate les quatre ages_, it was the first work I heard by him. It's a bit wierd how this musical picture of a man's life ends in the fifties, but I suppose that back then most people didn't live much beyond their fifties. Anyway, judging from the conclusion, it's a rather ambigious picture of a person's journey in life. It's not straightforward (is any of Alkan's music?), but from the time I heard Smith's interpretation as a teenager, it stayed long in my memory way after I had heard it. & generally (for me), much piano music seems to be about memories & the emotions associated with them. That's the aspect that I'm really beginning to enjoy in this repertoire.

I also read in the Brilliant Alkan cd set's liner notes that we really don't know why Alkan broke with tradition & composed a concerto for solo piano only (no orchestral accompaniment). The writer mentions that one reason could be that Alkan wanted complete control when performing the work, but this is only supposition. Certainly, the quality of orchestras & conductors was not as high in the C19th as it is now, and perhaps Alkan didn't want just anyone fooling around with his masterpiece. But who knows? He is one of the most enigmatic figures in the whole history of classical music. The cover of the Brilliant cd has a picture of a man standing with his back to the camera. Immediately, I thought this was an arty-farty gimmick, but was surprised to learn when reading the details inside that this is indeed none other than a portrait of the composer himself. Here you can see it on wikipedia (which also has an excellent article on the composer): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charles-Valentin_Alkan_standing.jpg

I haven't heard any of Thalberg's or Henselt's efforts, & only a token amount of Mendelssohn's (just went to a concert on the weekend where they played his 2nd piano trio, which was superb). But I'll have to check these out later...


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Jan 7, 2010)

Who is Alkan?????????????? ok kidding. I don't rank him as a great. I consider Chopin, Liszt and Schumann to be great pianists and great composers for the piano, but Alkan, I consider merely a great pianist.


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

ScipioAfricanus said:


> Who is Alkan?????????????? ok kidding. I don't rank him as a great. I consider Chopin, Liszt and *Schumann to be great pianists* and great composers for the piano, but Alkan, I consider merely a great pianist.


You mean, he _may have become_ a great pianist (according to Wieck, the "finest in Europe"). That said, his significant other did most of _that_ work for him. (Which brings me to the point? Does _she_- born 1819- count? I mean I'm not really a big fan of her works, though I'm aware that she wrote quite a bit. To me, Clara's works lacks the "driven" masculine aspect that all the great composers have/had. The beauty of the work, though apparent, seems to always fall apart. Maybe my mind just doesn't work the same?)

It's really a pity that some people dismiss Alkan just because he doesn't have the reputation of the other three. I mean, the original goal of this thread was not to "rank" the four and consider them equals, but to merely discuss composers from this time period (decade?) who have great outputs for solo piano. And Alkan, Andre believes, is one of them. Many members (including me) agree with his sentiment.

And who wants a thread with just Chopin, Liszt, and Schumann?


----------



## nefigah (Aug 23, 2008)

I had never heard Alkan before this thread, and I think I just might be in love. Thanks for leading me to him, all!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Air said:


> ...It's really a pity that some people dismiss Alkan just because he doesn't have the reputation of the other three...


Agreed. Although he might not be as famous, his star has been rising again since the 1960's. For this, we can largely thank the very talented pianists who have decided to play & record his music, which is possibly the most difficult & complex of his time. To my ears, only Balakirev's (a composer not amongst those of this generation) _Islamey_ sounds as difficult & involved as some of Alkan's solo piano works. But that doesn't mean playing Liszt's _Sonata in B minor _is easy either, it's just that that mountain has been climbed by many more pianists than have attempted Alkan. I would love to see Alkan performed live here in Sydney, but that's very unlikely to happen (unless someone like Marc Andre Hamelin comes out here again & includes some in his program. We also have an Australian pianist - whose name escapes me - who has recorded his works for ABC classics, maybe I should investigate her concert schedule?)...


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth (Apr 14, 2010)

Suppose you heard the anecdote of how Brahms fell asleep in a chair in front of Liszt as he was performing the infamous b-minor Sonata.

If you like those guys, some might try Stephen Heller:

http://www.amazon.com/Stephen-Helle...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1274282146&sr=1-1

Edit: oh, and Mozkovsky and Godovsky.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Well, Brahms must obviously have been very very tired!!! That's an interesting anecdote, SM.

Last night I was listening to some *Chopin & Alkan*. I agree with other people after re-hearing Chopin's own _*B minor Sonata *_(the slow movement especially), that there is some darkness there just under the surface. & funnily enough, that work for me has a Schumannesque feel about it, very intimate & warm (as Air was describing the latter above). I read on wikipedia that Chopin wrote this sonata (his third & final one) after Schumann made criticisms of his previous sonata (the famous second). Basically, Schumann said that Chopin's _Sonata No. 2_ lacked cohesion & unity, so scholars think that maybe Chopin wrote the following sonata as a response to that. Other than that, I can't comment, as I haven't heard any of his other piano sonatas, but I look forward to getting into them at some stage down the track.

I also listened to what is reputed to be Chopin's only work for two pianos, the _*Rondo in C major, Op. 73*_. This was an early work, written in his teens (rearranged from a solo piano piece and not published until after his death in 1855). Here I detected some counterpoint which was somewhat reminiscent of Bach and especially Beethoven. I'll listen to it again today, it was on an LP (the details I'll put on current listening), recorded on Everest in 1960 with Pierre Luboshutz & Genia Nemenhoff. They sounded quite brilliant, I wouldn't mind getting something of theirs on cd, if it's been reissued?

Then I listened to cd 1 of the Brilliant classics Alkan 2 disc set, played by Alan Weiss. The selections from the _*Esquisses Op. 63 *_are pretty amazing. _No. 10 Increpatio _was so dissonant & edgy, it could have easily been written in the C20th, not in the middle of the C19th! _No. 11 Les soupirs _reminded me strongly of Debussy. The etude _*Le Festin d'Esope Op. 39 No. 12 *_("The feast of Aesop") is also pretty dissonant in parts, very quirky time signatures, and sounds like a devil of a thing to play. Then the _*Grande Sonate "Les quatre Ages" Op. 33*_, which is simply put, sublime. It may be true that Weiss' very vigorous & forceful interpretation may not be to everyone's taste (at least it sounds that way, compared to what I remember of Roland Smith's interpretation which I heard as teenager in the '90's). But Weiss is also capable of lyricism & poetry, as in the slow (third) movement of the Sonata. After acquainting myself with Weiss' interpretation, I will get some reissues of Smith's, as I want to compare them. They are both excellent...


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth (Apr 14, 2010)

Andre said:


> _Chopin's own *B minor Sonata *(the slow movement especially), that there is some darkness there just under the surface._


Indeed *Chopin's Third Sonata* (*Op. 58*) is one of his greatest, most abstract and metaphysical compositions.

Good readings abound, but it's remarkable that this is the only *Chopin Glenn Gould* recorded:

http://www.amazon.com/Glenn-Gould-M...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1274367131&sr=1-1

I would also advocate readings by *Ousset*, *Kempff*, *Pires*, and *Katsaris*. (Haven't heard *Ohlsson*'s.)

(You didn't say, Andre, who was playing on your recording...)


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Sebastien Melmoth said:


> (You didn't say, Andre, who was playing on your recording...)


Kathryn Selby, one of our finest pianists here in Australia. I got the cd after a concert I attended of her piano trio "Trioz" on the weekend. Apart from Chopin's _B minor Sonata_, she also plays Bartok's Sonata & Beethoven's _Pathetique_. It was a live recital she recorded here in Sydney last year.

Of the pianists you mention, I really like Katsaris. Heard a friend's cd of him playing the Chopin waltzes, and I was deeply moved. It's the most moving Chopin I have ever heard, not only colourful, but quite profound as well...


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth (Apr 14, 2010)

In the late-1990s Sony issued a series of Chopin by Cyprien Katsaris which garnered much attention and really blew everybody away.
Not only is his technique brilliant, but his interpretative insight is astounding and original.

You may be able to pick up some of his Sony OOP recordings from third-party vendors.

Two of his excellent sets have been reissued on by Apex and some obscure French label:

http://www.amazon.com/Chopin-Ballad...=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1274444074&sr=1-7
(Ignore the idiot 'reviewer'!)

http://www.amazon.com/Chopin-Valses...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1274444158&sr=1-2

Both are superb!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Radio 2mbs FM in Sydney (www.2mbs.com) are broadcasting a series of programs devoted to the music of *Robert Schumann *(he was born 200 years ago this year). Last night I heard a program devoted to some of this piano works:

Piano Sonata No. 1
Fairy Tales for piano, violin, cello (or viola?), clarinet
Carnival Jest from Vienna (played by V. Ashkenazy)
Symphonic Etudes (played by S. Richter)

I tuned in about a third of the way through the sonata, and had no idea the program was on. But about ten minutes into listening to it, I realised that it must be none other than the music of Schumann. He had such a strong, recognisable & unique style. This often happens if this is the case with a composer, I tune in the radio, and easily recognise who it must be, even if I only know a handful of their key works. Anyway, it's not fool-proof (once I thought Dukas was Zemlinsky! Oh well...).

Anyway, getting back to Schumann, I really like his slower and more quiet movements - they really grab me. It's not only the poetry, but also those "soft" almost "blurry" notes, a bit like Debussy. So my favourite moments from the broadcast were the slow movements of the _Fairy Tales _and_ Carnival Jest. _ The former cut out during the exquisite slow movement (they had problems with that cd), which was a pity as I was enjoying the clarinet's almost mournful sound (reminiscent to me to Brahm's chamber works using that instrument). I didn't hear the sonata right through, so I'll hold back comment on that. The most virtuostic piece was the _Symphonic Etudes_, it sounded as difficult as anything else in that realm. Theme and variations are not my favourite genre, but I enjoyed listening to it for the first time.

I've vowed that I will now listen as much to radio as my own cd's & lp's. Most times I tune in, I often hear something I've never heard before. & often, it's a key work of the composer. To all of you around the world, you might be interested in dropping in to have a listen to 2mbs, they do internet streaming. It's my favourite and most-listened to radio station...


----------

