Liszt

[zoolander]

We all know that Franz Liszt were able to amaze his audiences by his stunning technical and musical capabilities.
And we have all heard some stories (sightreading the handwritten script of Griegs a minor etc..).
But what was Liszts weaknesses? Did he have any? Or was he just superhuman like it could sound?

[allchopin]

yes id say closer to superhuman   - however, i have also heard that he actually wrote some of his music harder than he could even play- actually to the point of impossiblility (i dont konw which ones- im sure someone has played all of his stuff).  But you konw, people have mastered his works, so there must be people out there that were (or ARE) better than him. they are superhuman too  

[debussy_lover]

It's certainly true that many of Liszt's early works verge on the impossible.  I'm speaking especially of the first versions of both the Paganini Etudes and the Transcendental Etudes.  Another extraordinarily complex and difficult work is the Fantasy on La Campanella, which I believe is listed as Op 2.

Could Liszt play these perfectly?  We'll never know - but there are a number of pianists playing these days that seem to have the superhuman technique necessary.  Another thing to consider is that pianos in Liszt's day had lighter actions than a modern Steinway, which would naturally make things easier.

The final question is whether or not it's worth playing these difficult pieces.  A clue to the answer to this question is that Liszt himself revised extensively his earlier works, making them more pianistic and far simpler to play.

The final published version of the Etudes mentioned above, while still difficult, are perfectly playable.  In addition, they are more musical and poetic, which I believe was Liszt's ultimate goal.  The main purpose of music is to express and communicate, and sheer difficulty alone does not do that.

[allchopin]

so theres two different versions of every one of his etudes? i would like to see the original versions,

[debussy_lover]

The Dover reprint of Liszt's Etudes comes in two volumes, and contains all the versions each work.  

Volume One has the Etude in Twelve Exercises, Op 1 (the first version of the ideas that would later become the Transcendental Etudes - written when Liszt was very young), the first, incredibly complex, version of the TE, and the final version we all know today.  

Volume Two has the first and second versions of the Paganini Etudes, as well as the Fantasy on La Campanella.

[ned]

Leslie Howard has recorded all of Liszt's piano works, including alternate versions, for Hyperion, including the savage first version of the Transcendental Etudes.  You might be interested in getting it.

Howard's playing is superb. You can also find the sleeve notes on the web before ordering a particular CD.

I have his set that includes the early version of the Sonetti del Petrarca. It makes for a fascinating comparison.

He also records the Schubert song transcriptions in the full version as well as the Ossia piu facile version.

And there is a lot of Liszt's music in this enormous CD project that you never heard before.

Ned

[ramseytheii]

We all know that Franz Liszt were able to amaze his audiences by his stunning technical and musical capabilities.
And we have all heard some stories (sightreading the handwritten script of Griegs a minor etc..).
But what was Liszts weaknesses? Did he have any? Or was he just superhuman like it could sound?

I have a couple of items to contribute to this.  One is from Arthur Friedheim, one of Liszt's more famous students, who wrote a memoir partly about his studies with Liszt, and partly about his career afterwards.  Concerning Liszt's technique, he wrote;

"Liszt's technique has been the subject of much discussion and conjecture on the part of those who never heard him.  Was it so prodigious, and has it been equalled since?  The answer is that it was truly prodigious but that in certain respects it has not only been equalled since, but also surpassed.  Moriz Rosenthal and L. Godowsky went beyond Liszt in specialized phases of mechanisme.  However, while Godowsky's chief metier was dexterity of fingers and Rosenthal concentrated on brilliance and power, Liszt shone in every department of technique and probably never has been approached as a builder of "orchestral" climaxes, overwhelming masses of sound and exciting effects."

Wagner said in a letter to Liszt that he thought L. was the "greatest musician in the world."  That being said, when he first met Liszt, Wagner was not a known composer, and was just invited to a piano concert of L's.  He went and heard it and in his words, from his autobiography, wrote, "I listened to several of his most brilliant pieces... and went away with nothing more than a feeling of stupefaction."  He does not mean it positively, but rather that he found Liszt's performance more overwhelming than profound.  Liszt himself regretted some of his earlier performances, especially his way of ornamenting composers such as Chopin, Beethoven and Mozart, and became a different musician in his later years.  He was so great as to be able to transform his weaknesses into his strengths.

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

We all know that Franz Liszt were able to amaze his audiences by his stunning technical and musical capabilities.
And we have all heard some stories (sightreading the handwritten script of Griegs a minor etc..).
But what was Liszts weaknesses? Did he have any? Or was he just superhuman like it could sound?

I have a couple of items to contribute to this.  One is from Arthur Friedheim, one of Liszt's more famous students, who wrote a memoir partly about his studies with Liszt, and partly about his career afterwards.  Concerning Liszt's technique, he wrote;

"Liszt's technique has been the subject of much discussion and conjecture on the part of those who never heard him.  Was it so prodigious, and has it been equalled since?  The answer is that it was truly prodigious but that in certain respects it has not only been equalled since, but also surpassed.  Moriz Rosenthal and L. Godowsky went beyond Liszt in specialized phases of mechanisme.  However, while Godowsky's chief metier was dexterity of fingers and Rosenthal concentrated on brilliance and power, Liszt shone in every department of technique and probably never has been approached as a builder of "orchestral" climaxes, overwhelming masses of sound and exciting effects."

Wagner said in a letter to Liszt that he thought L. was the "greatest musician in the world."  That being said, when he first met Liszt, Wagner was not a known composer, and was just invited to a piano concert of L's.  He went and heard it and in his words, from his autobiography, wrote, "I listened to several of his most brilliant pieces... and went away with nothing more than a feeling of stupefaction."  He does not mean it positively, but rather that he found Liszt's performance more overwhelming than profound.  Liszt himself regretted some of his earlier performances, especially his way of ornamenting composers such as Chopin, Beethoven and Mozart, and became a different musician in his later years.  He was so great as to be able to transform his weaknesses into his strengths.

Walter Ramsey

[tompilk]

so theres two different versions of every one of his etudes? i would like to see the original versions,

there are three of each version...
Tom

[mikey6]

I heard that Liszt had to re-arrang emost of his pieces coz he was the only one that was able to pull them off!  but on top of that, he was unwilling to publish aything unplayable - he was attempting to arrange the Beethoven SQ's but couldn't do it - there's a challenge for someone!

[brewtality]

The thing is that Friedheim could not have heard Liszt in his prime, when he practised 10+ hours a day.

[ramseytheii]

The thing is that Friedheim could not have heard Liszt in his prime, when he practised 10+ hours a day.

That's a very good point.  Still, I don't see Liszt as the absolute end in piano technique.  Friedheim said that Godowsky excelled Liszt in some pianistic ways; I would imagine that that is true, no matter which Liszt we are talking about, the 25 year old, or the 70 year old.  There are challenges in the music of Godowsky, Scriabin, Rachmaninoff, Messiaen, that you just don't find in Liszt; not that Liszt the man could not master these things, which we will never know, but clearly piano technique developed after his death.

Of course none of that goes towards answering the original question about Liszt's "weaknesses," but I would imagine the only one we can gleam from historical reports would be his earlier tendency to ornament the music of the Great Masters, something for which Chopin publicly reprimanded him.  Later in life, however, people commented on the "severity" of Liszt's playing, meaning his reduction of means and hightening of effect from that reduction.  Even his tempi became slower, and someone somewhere (I should find it) said, that, "surprisingly," it was more effectual for performance in whatever piece.

Walter Ramsey

[debussy symbolism]

Greetings.

I don't know, but being able to sightread the Chopin Etudes, Concertos, Islamey and Hammerklavier at speed speaks for itself.

[nanabush]

Wasn't Hammerklavier the only Beethoven Sonata he couldn't sightread (something like that..) or am I completely confused 

[brewtality]

Wasn't Hammerklavier the only Beethoven Sonata he couldn't sightread (something like that..) or am I completely confused 

Yep, and probably the only one he didn't embellish on.

[tompilk]

he really must have practised way too much as a kid... or was actually god reincarnated as they say, as I am beginning to believe...
Tom

[lisztisforkids]

he really must have practised way too much as a kid... or was actually god reincarnated as they say, as I am beginning to believe...
Tom

 Mozarts Requiem=Proof of God.