Charles-Valentin Alkan

[Martijn]

According to Busoni, Charles-Valentin Alkan is one of the greatest composers in the history of the piano. Excellent pianists, such as Marc-André Hamelin, are playing this intriguing composer. Franz Liszt was enthustiastic about him. What is your opinion?

[martin_s]

I have heard very little Alkan indeed, about the only piece I can remember is the last of his studies. As far as I remember the theme sounded a bit like Rach III. Aa - ight? It was really good though and seemed very well written for the piano.
He also composed a symphony for piano solo iye??

[Hector_the_Crow]

I'm an Alkan convert myself. Actually, I didn't need much converting - all it took was a listen to a midi rendering of the study "Allegro Barbaro" (op 35, no. 5) and I was hooked. I listened to several midi versions of his compositions before I heard any of his music actually recorded. I didn't even think the music was playable - pieces like Allegro Barbaro, Comme le Vent, and Le Chemin de Fer seemed to require superhuman feats of virtuosity. Then I bought Jack Gibbons' two disc recording of the complete op. 39 etudes. That set simply blew me away. The concerto and symphony for solo piano are both masterpieces of the literature and it's a shame they aren't programmed more often. Even after all the great recordings of Ronald Smith, Raymond Lewenthal, Jack Gibbons, and Marc-Andre Hamelin, Alkan is still confined to the ranks of piano esoterica, along with Medtner (too cerebral my ass, I love that stuff!), Sorabji (anti-musical? sure, that's why I love it!), Catoire (I want to hear more of this guy, right now!), and Busoni (too bad he didn't write more original music as opposed to transcriptions).

But of course, Alkan's music requires an unusual degree of commitment. It's uniquely difficult, I've heard it described as "the most difficult music prior to Godowsky. I wonder, it is un-pianistic? I can't play music of that level of difficulty, so I'm not in a position to know. We've heard reports from Liszt and Busoni that Alkan was a great pianist, so he, like Liszt, was probably brilliant at utilizing the strengths and weaknesses of the instrument. But a lot of his music, especially the studies, seem to push the performer beyond any reasonable expectations. I'm reminded of something Dmitri Feofanov wrote in the liner notes to his recording of the Klindworth arrangement of the first movement of the concerto for solo piano, when referring to the original version. "The whole movement was worked out with the iron hand of a composer giving no thought to considerations of pianistic convenience." Sounds rather damning, but when transcendent performers like Gibbons or Hamelin play it, that doesn't seem to matter. I'm guessing that Charles, genius-lunatic that he was, freely went beyond the limits of playability (at least beyond the limits of ordinary mortals) in search of artistic expression - a tendency common to the greatest and most innovative composers.

[Martijn]

If anyone is interested in free Alkan sheetmusic, just mail me at: gjf.vromans@quicknet.nl

[Pianorak]

<< Even after all the great recordings of Ronald Smith, Raymond Lewenthal, Jack Gibbons, and Marc-Andre Hamelin, >> [Hector 't Crow]

I would also include Bernard Ringeissen among the truly great Alkan players.

[Martijn]

You can't compare Marc-André Hamelin with Bernard Ringeissen. Marc-André Hamelin is the greatest of all. Ringeissen isn't that good. Igor Roma is going to record some Alkan pieces on his own label.

[grelig]

Alkan is a superb piano composer and his music is very hard to be played but I wouldn't depict it as unplayable; actually if one understands it it becomes immediately playable, just like Liszt's Don Juan or Prokofieff's 2nd pianoconcerto or Bartòk's 2nd .
A few people plays it both because it is difficult and because if I  am a pianist, how long does it take to me to put in the repertoire -let's say- the Sonata and how many times can I play it in public if I am not so famous as Hamelin?

[groucho]

I'm curious to know how many of you have actually played any Alkan. I've played the Symphony for a while now and I find it extremely playable, and it was very easy to memorize. The absolute monsters are few and far between (though the concerto definitely IS difficult); most are within the grasp of anyone nudging semi-virtuoso status. Incidentally, a very good collection of Alkan's pieces is published by Dover at a very cheap price - it contains the Symphony and the Concerto, and a few others. As to recordings, I think Smith has the edge over the rest of the competition; he understands Alkan's soundworld very well (he's also written a fine book (2 vols. now published as one) on Alkan - well worth a read). I don't think anyone's mentioned Egon Petri yet; I have a pretty good recording of the Symphony by him. On a more negative note, Ringheissen is absolutely terrible, no grasp of the nature of Alkan's works at all (the only one worse is Laurent Martin). Jack Gibbons, whilst technically superb, doesn't really give the pieces any thought. If anyone isn't convinced by Alkan yet, just listen to Hamelin's LIVE recording of the Rondo from the Trois Grandes Etudes (Wigmore Hall)! I'm learnng that piece at the moment and, thank god, it's not as hard as it sounds (honest).

[Chris]

In Fact Alkan`s music is no mor than rubbish.....but ingenious rubbish!

[Hector_the_Crow]

Thanks for the fact, Einstein.

[geoffrey]

I would also say that the Symphony is not on the level of difficulty of the Concert for Solo Piano - or the Quasi Faust (Sonata's movement no. 2).  Egon Petri was a phenomenal virtuoso and his recording of the symphony is incredible when one realizes he was just tossing it off for some of his students to show them "how it goes."  Brother!  — Geoff

[trunks]

In Fact Alkan`s music is no mor than rubbish.....but ingenious rubbish!

Aww . . . come on my boy! I won't even call my own works rubbish - if some decades in the future I decide to put some gibberish notes on a sheet of blank score.

It's nice to freely express your dislike of any music (or any performance). But calling such music/performance 'rubbish' is not too nice - not exactly respectful to the composer/performer under discussion.

[comme_le_vent]

I think its evident that I love alkan.

Alkan as a pianist was deadly serious, and completely disdained virtuosity for its own sake.

liszt called alkan the greatest pianist he had ever heard, and he commented that alkan was the one person he would fear playing in front of.

alkan was the opposite of liszt, he didn't have a show-off bone in his body.

[stevie]

I think its evident that I love alkan.

Alkan as a pianist was deadly serious, and completely disdained virtuosity for its own sake.

liszt called alkan the greatest pianist he had ever heard, and he commented that alkan was the one person he would fear playing in front of.

alkan was the opposite of liszt, he didn't have a show-off bone in his body.

hahahaha, then why would he write music with such over the top virtuosity?

[panic]

Alkan grew out of virtuosity around op. 20 or so. Pieces like Le Preux and so forth are short on musical substance, but after that you start to see a style in which very little is just for show.

The key thing about Alkan's style is that almost nothing is useless. Things may be very tricky to play, but they are all very important to the music. Liszt's style is like a harder version of Chopin in which he sticks a lot of pointless virtuosity to make it harder. Take the Liebestraume No. 3: about a minute and a half in there's a showy run in the upper registers of the piano. There is absolutely NO reason why that should be in the piece. It's useless and just for show. Alkan's style contains no pointless virtuosity, but the style itself is SO much harder than Chopin's and even than Liszt's than it makes up for it in terms of technical challenges. Think of if Alkan had written the Hungarian Rhapsody No. 6. Neither of those musically useless fast runs in the middle of the piece would have been in there; Alkan would have found a more ingenious way to tie the sections of the piece together. But the material within those sections would probably have been harder, and thus the overall piece would have been. And audiences might think of it as virtuosity, but what it would be, and what the Alkan Concerto, Symphony, Grande Sonate, Sonatine, etc. are is just really difficult musical content. None of it is useless.

[brewtality]

Alkan grew out of virtuosity around op. 20 or so. Pieces like Le Preux and so forth are short on musical substance, but after that you start to see a style in which very little is just for show.

The key thing about Alkan's style is that almost nothing is useless.

39/1 sounds pretty useless to me.

[stevie]

Alkan grew out of virtuosity around op. 20 or so. Pieces like Le Preux and so forth are short on musical substance, but after that you start to see a style in which very little is just for show.

The key thing about Alkan's style is that almost nothing is useless. Things may be very tricky to play, but they are all very important to the music. Liszt's style is like a harder version of Chopin in which he sticks a lot of pointless virtuosity to make it harder. Take the Liebestraume No. 3: about a minute and a half in there's a showy run in the upper registers of the piano. There is absolutely NO reason why that should be in the piece. It's useless and just for show. Alkan's style contains no pointless virtuosity, but the style itself is SO much harder than Chopin's and even than Liszt's than it makes up for it in terms of technical challenges. Think of if Alkan had written the Hungarian Rhapsody No. 6. Neither of those musically useless fast runs in the middle of the piece would have been in there; Alkan would have found a more ingenious way to tie the sections of the piece together. But the material within those sections would probably have been harder, and thus the overall piece would have been. And audiences might think of it as virtuosity, but what it would be, and what the Alkan Concerto, Symphony, Grande Sonate, Sonatine, etc. are is just really difficult musical content. None of it is useless.

i agree about something, but the cadenza passages in liszts solo works are part of his style, especially in the hungarian rhapsodies, it fits well with the loose and improvisational feel of the works, the 'show off' passages and runs sound really good! when they are played with flair and colour, im not saying its for everything, but i am just defending its musical worth.

and i have to disagree with le preux, i absolutely love that piece, its really magical, majestic, and powerful to me.

[panic]

It's not, brewtality. True, it's not one of his better pieces. A look at the sheet music, though, will reveal that it's just a normal and brilliant piece written in a very hard musical style, a style which is completely necessary to the way it is supposed to sound (like a wind). Every single note in that piece either contributes to the "comme le vent" windlike character or is part of the musical structure. There's no one note you can take out of 39/1 and say "the piece will still be fine and be the same without this one." That's the acid test. You can do that with a lot of Liszt and other composers, but not a lot of Alkan.

[burstroman]

Les Esquisses contain some of his most substantial music.  His etudes are fun too, for all of their excesses.

[sevencircles]

I would like to hear Hamelin record Comme le Vent.

I think he could learn to play it twice as fast as Jack Gibbons but playing it as fast as Alkan himself intended is something you have to sell your soul to the Devil to be able to to.

Anyone have reports of what Alkan´s own pianoplaying sounded like?

[I Love Xenakis]

Hahahahaha!!!!!!  "Alkan grew out of his virtuosity at Op. 20"


Besides Le Preux, his most difficult pieces have all been written after Op. 20-  to name a few: Solo Concerto Op. 39, Trois Grandes Etudes Op. 76 (his most difficult work by far), Symphony pour Solo Piano Op. 39, Grande Sonate Op. 33

[nanabush]

The Festin D'esope is CRAZY!!!!!!! It's insane!!!!  I listened to it and cannot imagine ever ever ever attempting it.  It's so furious at some points!!!  How could he begin to write that beast!!

[_chops]

I've heard a funeral march. it's beautiful...

    I feel like im standing in a giant cathedral... it's... majestetic.

first time I heard it thought it was a bit... dull.... but then after 2 times I realized that it was fantastic and beautiful... yes... alcan is a genious! overwhelming

anyone know abput the funeral march? does anyone know what it's really called?

[ahinton]

Hahahahaha!!!!!!  "Alkan grew out of his virtuosity at Op. 20"


Besides Le Preux, his most difficult pieces have all been written after Op. 20-  to name a few: Solo Concerto Op. 39, Trois Grandes Etudes Op. 76 (his most difficult work by far), Symphony pour Solo Piano Op. 39, Grande Sonate Op. 33

Leaving aside momentarily those multifarious questions of what is (pianistically) "difficult" to some and less so to others - and also bearing in mind that, in Alkan's case, the progressively high opus numbers are not always a reliable indicator of the dates of composition - the above statement is very largely correct and should accordingly be heeded by anyone wondering as to the veracity of the very questionable statement to which it was a necessary response.

Best,

Alistair

[panic]

I meant reckless, pointless virtuosity. Sorry.
Every element of the Concerto, the Symphony, the Grande Sonate and others is extremely important to the music and nothing is there just to impress people. When Alkan gets tough he's trying to depict, well, something that takes technically hard music to depict, and he knows that he has the technical skill to be able to stretch the limits of intense music, but nothing is in there just for show.

The Op. 76 etudes were composed at the same time as Le Preux, op. 17.

[maxreger]

panic, are you the idiot of the forum?

you are constantly making absurd remarks on threads I have seen around here...

ALKAN's music is not even close to liszt's mature works in form, harmonic content, motivic use...

you dont compose much I take it, because you keep spewing these stupid remarks about how ALKAN would have done this or that better then liszt, or how liszt stole something from alkan...

if you read some more, and though some more... and had better ears, you would realize you are going down a mistaken path.

I like ALKAN's work alot, but, you are just using your opinions (which have been suspect at best when an attempt of 'facts' was intended), to render a rather pathetic and fake verdict.

[presto agitato]

Alkan is overrated in my opinion

[stevie]

Alkan is overrated in my opinion

 by whom?

he is obviously underplayed, and underappreciated, to say he is overrated would only be true if you were to consider him one of the greatest composers of all, which he is too inconsistent to be, but at the height of his genius( ie - symphony for solo piano) he wrote some of the greatest piano music ever.

[ryguillian]

[H]e is obviously underplayed, and underappreciated, to say he is overrated would only be true if you were to consider him one of the greatest composers of all, which he is too inconsistent to be, but at the height of his genius( ie - symphony for solo piano) he wrote some of the greatest piano music ever.

Whether or not a composer is overplayed or underplayed depends on his value as a composer. If a good composer has no performances then he would certainly qualify as underplayed. Conversely, if a bad composer has even one performance then we might say that he's overplayed. Thus, to make a judgement as to whether or not a composer is underplayed is also making a judgement of his value as a composer. And, in the case of Alkan, I think we've all heard enough clamorous romantic trash.

God bless,

Ryan

[I Love Xenakis]

Well, if Alkan is indeed just another worthless romantic composer, then why is he being championed by so many of the top pianists of the world, and why are so many of the current top composers writing music based on his compositions?  Just some food for thought.


Maybe he's just for us elite, eh?  The dumb people don't get him, eh Ryan?  ^^

[ryguillian]

Well, if Alkan is indeed just another worthless romantic composer, then why is he being championed by so many of the top pianists of the world, and why are so many of the current top composers writing music based on his compositions?  Just some food for thought.

Alkan is a fad composer. There was a time when it was popular to play a Busoni transcription at concerts and yet we don't see this happening very often anymore.

Maybe he's just for us elite, eh?  The dumb people don't get him, eh Ryan?

With Alkan, there really isn't much to "get"—he pretty much slaps you in the face with whatever he is trying to convey.

—Ryan

[I Love Xenakis]

With Alkan, there really isn't much to "get"—he pretty much slaps you in the face with whatever he is trying to convey.

—Ryan

Maybe that's just what you think because you don't get it?

[ryguillian]

Maybe that's just what you think because you don't get it?

No, I must not be capable of understanding the profundity of C.-V. Alkan and his music. Clearly, it requires an atrophied mind such as yours.

—Ryan

[I Love Xenakis]

No, I must not be capable of understanding the profundity of C.-V. Alkan and his music. Clearly, it requires an atrophied mind such as yours.

—Ryan

Well, as little sense as the word "atrophied" made there, I'll use it.


DATZ RITE!  And I'm proud to be among other atrophied minds such as Hamelin, Pace, Pollini, Libetta, Gibbons, Smith, Finnissy and Liebermann, not to mention Liszt, Thalberg and Busoni who all respected and revered him  ^^

[g_s_223]

I think Alkan is a "pianist's composer".

I really can't see an average well-educated (but non-specialist) classical music lover turning up to a piano recital of Alkan works and getting much out of it.

Whereas, with a similar concert of Liszt's works, or even more so, Chopin's, such a person would find it fully satisfying.

There is a distinct lack of depth in Alkan. But the impressive surface textures do make up for that, at least for pianistically-inclined listeners.

[I Love Xenakis]

Lack of depth?  Listen to the Preludes Op. 31 or Esquisses Op. 63


I'm sure you'll find a satisfactory amount of depth.

[ahinton]

Hahahahaha!!!!!!  "Alkan grew out of his virtuosity at Op. 20"


Besides Le Preux, his most difficult pieces have all been written after Op. 20-  to name a few: Solo Concerto Op. 39, Trois Grandes Etudes Op. 76 (his most difficult work by far), Symphony pour Solo Piano Op. 39, Grande Sonate Op. 33

Hahahahahaha indeed! Of course this is true. Whilst one must be careful when referring to Alkan's opus numbers (as they do not always provide a reliable indicator of when particular works were composed - consider especially the three studies Op. 76, for example), the suggetion that Alkan "grew out of his virtuosity" at the time when he wrote his Op. 20 is indeed patently absurd. That said, virtuosity for its own sake was never - as an earlier contributor has already noted - a matter of great interest to Alkan. He had far better and more important things to explore - and he explored them, alongside that great virtuosity.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Lack of depth?  Listen to the Preludes Op. 31 or Esquisses Op. 63


I'm sure you'll find a satisfactory amount of depth.

I would certainly like to think that such depth would be perceived in these and other Alkan works. There is always the risk that people will be tempted to promote the notion that Alkan - or indeed even Liszt, Chopin, Medtner, Godowsky et al who have contributed so very much to the literature of the piano - principally addressed the pianistic cognoscenti only, or at least mainly. I think that this is nonsense. Why, otherwise, would Boulez and Carter, for example, have expressed such admiration for Chopin? (OK, I admit that Boulez was something of a pianist at one time, although one could hardly say the same of Carter). No - whilst none of these composers (except Liszt) ventured far or often outside their chosen medium of the piano, what they each contributed went well beyond the kinds of expression that could only - or best - be appreciated by keyboard aficionados.

Best,

Alistair

[stevie]

I think Alkan is a "pianist's composer".

I really can't see an average well-educated (but non-specialist) classical music lover turning up to a piano recital of Alkan works and getting much out of it.

Whereas, with a similar concert of Liszt's works, or even more so, Chopin's, such a person would find it fully satisfying.

There is a distinct lack of depth in Alkan. But the impressive surface textures do make up for that, at least for pianistically-inclined listeners.

i disagree on both counts, alkan's best music has as much, if not more depth than comparable works by chopin and liszt.

im not sure how you measure depth, his music is often quite complex, harmonically rich and unique, innovative, rhythmically driven, with beautiful melodies on top.

and i showed alkan to a couple non pianists, they thought his music was great and asked who it was, when i told them it was an unknown composer that was hardly played, they couldnt believe it. mildly

[stevie]

Whether or not a composer is overplayed or underplayed depends on his value as a composer. If a good composer has no performances then he would certainly qualify as underplayed. Conversely, if a bad composer has even one performance then we might say that he's overplayed. Thus, to make a judgement as to whether or not a composer is underplayed is also making a judgement of his value as a composer. And, in the case of Alkan, I think we've all heard enough clamorous romantic trash.

God bless,

Ryan

 

that is in correct, weve all heard enough guillotine randomly from you

[panic]

Alistair, I'm puzzled as to why you quoted the same response to a statement of mine twice even after I corrected myself in response to it...

Ryan, it seems like you don't have a lot of appreciation for music that tries to convey anything outside of itself. The stuff you seem to like sticks to what it is and never tries to represent anything else, and that's perfectly respectable, but it's a bit disheartening to see you call almost anything from the Romantic era trash because it's not concise and tightly wound and you don't see the theme keep cropping up every 15 seconds. I say it has meaning. There is music in which, for example, a modulation from minor to major or vice versa actually matters and actually represents something, believe it or not.

maxreger, yes, you were right on the Liszt thing and I should have backed down on that. I'm just asking you and other people to look beyond the difficult and complicated textures in Alkan and observe the musical structure. The way Alkan ties ideas together, and how he roams freely without ever losing eloquence, is done with a touch that Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert and Chopin would have been proud of, and that Liszt tried to reach in composition and succeeded several times but a lot of times only approximated. You clearly know more about Liszt than I do, but with Alkan I believe the case is somewhat reversed. I don't want to go off on a whole tangent about "look at this, look at that" because the last time I tried that, it clearly failed. Alkan shouldn't be well known because he's hard to play. He should be known for, in a good number of his works, having a sense of structure and navigation that Chopin and the great composers of the Classical era would be proud of. Please don't dismiss Alkan as romantic trash. Romantic trash would be useless amounts of flying double octaves everywhere that have no relation to the music, ridiculously simple harmonic and melodic ideas, uneloquent connections between themes and sections, and the like. Alkan is the opposite of those after about op. 20, and even before that a number of his pieces are very intelligently and admirably constructed.
I'm also curious as to what the Liszt mature works are that far outshine Alkan, and that's not a sarcastic comment at all.

[maxreger]

panic:

Alkan's contribution to the musical language of the 19th century, and his harmonic, melodic, motivic, structural implications... are not of the same contribution to western music as that of LISZT, CHOPIN, etc.

Thats all I have to add on that, I dont mean to belittle alkan's work in the least, as he does have many worth while works.

I have read a few biographies on ALKAN, and researched plenty about his life and music. I have most of his recorded works, and have studied many of his scores. I know the composer pretty well, but, not as I know Liszt (so, you may know more about him then me)

He is overall, a very different composer then Liszt was, closer to Chopin in harmonic implication and structure, if you are to compare to another famous 19th century pianist.

Liszt is again, simply one of the most important composers in the 19th century, and someone you cannot take lightly IMO. Aesthetics aside, there is too much there in his expansion of harmonic and structural control and development.

Alkan is important, no doubt, but... his compositions do not hold the historical weight (not popularity btw, actual significance), to compare with Liszt's contribution to the century directly after his own.

(again, we are having this conversation in 2 threads, so this is for you mostly)...
 

[panic]

Okay, yeah. I understand what you mean now, and you're absolutely right. And, no, I underestimated your knowledge of Alkan - it would have to be pretty in-depth.

[I Love Xenakis]

Nobody here is saying Alkan is more important than Liszt o.o

Or at least if they are I'm not paying attention to them.  And Alkan always reminded me more of Brahms than Chopin for some reason.



Also, why do you write COMPOSERS' NAMES LIKE THIS?

[stevie]

it is understood that a composers 'importance' is measured by the innovation and originality in his works, but is his greatness too?

its interesting to compare who was the greater composer, liszt or alkan.
alkan was very innovative, his works have their own voice, and when i hear a new alkan work, it surprises me often, but still it always has that alkan stamp.

but yes, liszt was more innovative overall.

why dont we compare alkan's greatest work with liszt's?

the symphony for solo piano, with the b minor sonata (my choices, but many would agree they are their respective greatest works)

i prefer the symphony, but ive grown to live the sonata too.

which is a greater work?

[etudes]

Nobody here is saying Alkan is more important than Liszt o.o

Or at least if they are I'm not paying attention to them.  And Alkan always reminded me more of Brahms than Chopin for some reason.



Also, why do you write COMPOSERS' NAMES LIKE THIS?

no no he wrote liszt        only just ALKAN

[panic]

I'm not sure about the Symphony (don't care for the minuet, although the other three movements are great), but I would definitely consider the Grande Sonate to be superior to the Liszt Sonata. The latter is a superb pianistic work; the former is both a superb pianistic work and has some of the most beautifully woven musical imagery I have ever heard. I would consider it Alkan's best, second best the Concerto.

And yes, stevie, I would consider Alkan overall a better composer than Liszt in average quality. Not in quantity, though, and since he holed himself up in a room for most of his life, not in influence, either. It's a bit unfortunate - Liszt had probably hundreds of disciple composers, Alkan had about ten, the most significant of which was Sorabji, another guy that holed himself up in a room for his life. I wish that Alkan had had more influence, but perhaps Liszt carries over better as far as influence because although he was exploratory in harmonies and progressions and all, his stuff is rarely a huge challenge to follow and understand musically, so you can see and follow the original harmonies fairly easily.

[I Love Xenakis]

I think the Symphonie and the Trois Grandes Etudes Op. 76 are better than the Liszt Sonata in B Minor.

[maxreger]

"...his stuff is rarely a huge challenge to follow and understand musically, so you can see and follow the original harmonies fairly easily"

this is just opinion and untrue at that... Liszt harmonically is alot more difficult to follow then Alkan.

His harmonic work, and language is something Alkan never got close to, Alkan's music is much more tonally functional and simple then Liszt's much more mediant harmonic work... things break down in terms of functions with Liszt, where as they dont behave that way inside Alkan's music...

op 76 better the the sonata? maybe in terms of aesthetic taste, and technique... but not musically and not in what it brought to the table in terms of re difining sonata form in the latter part of the 19th century.

[panic]

I personally disagree with the op. 76 being better* (the middle one is overdone), and I understand your point maxr. Although, what do you mean by break down in terms of functions? I've never seen Liszt being as clever with putting a theme in different guises as, say, your namesake composer, although I need to listen to the B-A-C-H variations.

Imagine, though, if the Grande Sonate hadn't been finished at such an untimely moment and had had as much influence on the piano sonata as the Liszt B minor. We might have had people, inspired by that work, writing the pianistic equivalent of Mahler symphonies (there is only one extended piano work that I've ever seen that's as packed with meaning as a Mahler symphony, and that's the Sonate).

*Although they did foreshadow a lot of the one-hand works that were written around the turn of the century.