Brahms and Liszt

[ramseytheii]

Yesterday i saw on TV a documentary about the life of Brahms.

According to Brahms, Liszt´s piano music was written in order to amaze ladies and when Brahms met Liszt, he said that the hungarian was not the best virtuoso and he was only good at playing fast octaves.

Schumman and Berlioz had the same opinion towards Liszt.

Were they jealous?
Do you think Brahms was better pianist than Liszt?

The anecdotes I've heard concerning the two, were Brahms falling asleep at Liszt's salon performance of his Sonata (during the Sonata); Liszt referred to Brahms' music (accurding to diarist Lachmund) as "not exciting, but hygenic,"; Brahms signing the anti-"New Music" (aka anti-Liszt/Wagner) Manifesto, but later regretting it; and Liszt sight-reading Brahms' rhapsody so wonderfully as to amaze Brahms.  I never read Brahms saying the first things you mentioned and I sort of doubt it, but would be interested to be proven wrong.  There is one alleged recording of Brahms in his grey years, but I think the massive documentation relating to Liszt's pianistic triumphs clearly puts him in a different category than Brahms as a pianist.   I like Brahms' music - no wait, I love it - but as far as understanding of what the piano can do as a piano, that was Liszt's goal, and his triumph.  The difficulties of the Brahms concerti are in Brendel's words, "unreasonable."  That is because they are not really pianistic.  Transcendental Etudes are damn hard, but the difficulty can be pianistically overcome.

Walter Ramsey

[pianistimo]

interesting, all these replies.  as i understand brahms and liszt - they were two different personalities with two different outlooks on music.  (as already stated) but, they had one thing in common.  a love for hungarian music and violins.  take liszt's paganini variations and brahms hungarian dances.  (and, of course, his good friend and violinist joachim who inspired his violin virtuoso tendencies at the keyboard). 

about hanslick, i read in einstein's 'music in the romantic era' that hanslick basically thought that 'music with it's own means alone cannot represent or express definite, individual feelings and emotions' - but perhaps what he meant is that some people do not feel these similarly, to the same extent, or even at all.  and, sometimes there is an overt spirituality that some try to avoid - to avoid 'worshipping' the pianist or his music.  of course, brahms didn't exactly have women falling all over him - so therefore a slight bit of jealousy and he had to equal the playing field.

ok. hanslick kind of did himself in by then saying about liszt/wagnerian public:  'curled up half-asleep in their easy chairs, these enthusiasts let themselves be carried away and rocked to and fro by the pulsations of the sound, instead of considering it with sharpened attention.  as it more and more increases, subsides, exhults, or dies away, it transports them into an indefinate state of feeling (hmmm- this kind of counters what he says before), which they are so innocent as to consider purely spiritual.  they form the 'most grateful' public and the one that is fit to discredit most surely the value of music.  the aesthetic feature of spiritual enjoyment escapes their listening entirely...the principle is the same whether one person sits there thoughtlessly comfortable or another is wildly delighted: the joy in the elementary aspect of the music.'

but, on that note (spiritual) liszt was the more generous and forgiving - and perhaps brahms a little too critical.  so, maybe both needed to find common ground and love each other despite differences.  obviously, people are also moved when they hear brahms.  but, it is a more controlled music.  almost as if brahms is telling u - don't get too emotional.  i think emotions were hard for him.  he had experienced a lot of loss.  music was a woman to him.  he wanted her pure and innocent and excellent.  liszt's ideal woman was probably the opposite.  now what is strange - is that brahms (according to another post) went for the hussies when he wanted to fill that appetite - and liszt to countesses and the like.  if only they could have changed girlfriends for a day.  (don't take this too seriously).  ok.  enough.

suppose that brahms couldn't have been any more help to clara than he was.  always there to support her and help her with the children.  a very faithful man - and probably was disappointed that he couldn't marry her.  she was probably disappointed, too, but not terribly because she was teaching him about love.  that people don't have to marry each other to love very much.  perhaps it was a Godly love and committment that would have sustained a very long relationship had it happened.  but, wasn't brahms a whole lot younger than clara?  maybe she thought he needed someone a lot younger.  too bad he never thought to marry anyone else. 

[moi_not_toi]

Yesterday i saw on TV a documentary about the life of Brahms.

According to Brahms, Liszt´s piano music was written in order to amaze ladies and when Brahms met Liszt, he said that the hungarian was not the best virtuoso and he was only good at playing fast octaves.

Schumman and Berlioz had the same opinion towards Liszt.

Were they jealous?
Do you think Brahms was better pianist than Liszt?

My teacher told me that Brahms considered himself to be a classical composer and wasn't fond of the Romantic movmt at all, even though unknowingly he was a part of it.
Liszt was all for supporting other musicians.
Brahms wanted to do it himself.
Liszt wrote for piano what Paganini wrote for violin.
Brahms wrote for the common man.

I think we can see that Liszt was the better, although they both rock.

[dnephi]

They wrote actually the same kinds of music at times.  Brahms probes the deep and powerful emotions with utmost feeling.  Liszt produces the same kinds of powerful sorrow.  For instance, in the very end of the main theme of "Mazeppa," Liszt employs a device known as the "Passacaglia" or a descending base line, to show the mourning spirit of his music in addition to the powerful incredible ride that is the rest of the piece!  I find his middle section quite similar to the Brahms Intermezzi. 
Liszt's virtuosic show-off spots really add to the music. 

I.E.-in the Mazeppa's octave passagework, there are "Random surges upward" which make it unpredictable and adds to the power. 

I don't like all of Liszt's music, but a lot of it is incredible.  As Busoni said, Bach is the Alpha of Pianoforte composition, and Liszt the Omega.  Brahms is great overall and especially in his symphonies, but as a pianist he is my favorite composer to play.

Brahms' piano concerti are fiendishly difficult but not pianistic.  For all that hard work, it's not even showy  .

[moi_not_toi]

They wrote actually the same kinds of music at times.  Brahms probes the deep and powerful emotions with utmost feeling.  Liszt produces the same kinds of powerful sorrow.  For instance, in the very end of the main theme of "Mazeppa," Liszt employs a device known as the "Passacaglia" or a descending base line, to show the mourning spirit of his music in addition to the powerful incredible ride that is the rest of the piece!  I find his middle section quite similar to the Brahms Intermezzi. 
Liszt's virtuosic show-off spots really add to the music. 

I.E.-in the Mazeppa's octave passagework, there are "Random surges upward" which make it unpredictable and adds to the power. 

I don't like all of Liszt's music, but a lot of it is incredible.  As Busoni said, Bach is the Alpha of Pianoforte composition, and Liszt the Omega.  Brahms is great overall and especially in his symphonies, but as a pianist he is my favorite composer to play.

Brahms' piano concerti are fiendishly difficult but not pianistic.  For all that hard work, it's not even showy  .

Actually, for a showpiece, I would suggest Hummel's Am Concerto. VERY VERY VERY Hard and it sounds great.

[ralessi]

It has been a while since I have been on here (music festivals abroad) and I come back to see comments like some of the ones posted on this thread?!?!?!?!? Everything about the musicians has been beaten to death on the thread and I realize this, but how can an involved pianist-musician actually say that Liszt wrote sh!t for music?  Like previously stated, people listen to pieces like the grand gallop, mazeppa, HR 2, and Campanella and base their decisions on things like that.  That is completely not cool for 2 good reasons...1, yes they are a bit flashier and there is plenty more rep of his.  BUT! (other than the gallop) those pieces are actually amazing works.  Lisztening to a good pianist play the 2nd hungarian rhapsody, the way it was meant to be played, or even playing it yourself, there is no way that you cannot see the amazing things he does with the instrument.  I dont even know why I posted all of that, but the point of all of this, is that Liszt was the greatest musician of all time.  His knowledge of the instrument surpassed anyone of his time, his technical abilities surpassed any of his time, and his music...well, yes he did write many dazzling things, which were very intentional, but his MUSIC was just as heartfelt and tender as ANY of the great pianist-composers.  Like you know that I am going to say, the B minor sonata is my favorite piece of solo music written for the piano.  There are so many elements in the piece that nobody compared to.  Listen to a good PERFORMANCE (not recording), and it will have you in tears.  As for the technique and musianship, all that bullshit talk needs to stop.  We are talking about the man who sight read Islamey, a Brahms Concerto, the Greig Concerto (in full score with instruments) and did exercises starting with a tenth (c to e) in scale and arpeggio patterns, then sped up and added the 3rd, the 5th, AND the octave....who the hell does that? Brahms sure couldnt.  For those that didnt know, Brahms main main instrument for a long time was the Violin, and he was regarded among the best of his day.  He was a bitter man and just coulnt see anyone being better than him.  Same goes for a lot of the others that said Liszt was a bad musician and pianist and whatever else.  All of those people at one point had some kind of spat with Liszt.  For every one person that degraded Liszts playing, there were 5 that praised him.  I have had a slight obsession with Liszt for years now and have read the biographies whether they are good, bad, or anything in between and I plan to apply for government grants through my school to study abroad in Italy and research the Italian influence on Liszts music.  By no means am i saying that every other composer to live sucked and liszt is better, but when it comes to certain things with Liszts music, many people have messed up ideas about him and these things need to be straightened.  I have a huge conspiracy theory about musicians today and Liszt, but that is another conversation.  Sorry if there was a bunch of senseless bullshit in this but i just kinda started writing and here i am. 

Cheers!
Ricky

[dnephi]

Please don't swear.  But I appreciate your support.  For me, the Mazeppa brings out the deepest, most powerful emotions. 

The forlorn feeling of being fallen...  The fury of the ride, the unpredictability, "Il Piu Forte Possibile!", the mourning, and the combination of them all.

Then the interlude which sings the sweetest songs of, for me, what could have been his has he not chosen to do wrong.  The melody here is the same tune that we hear in the main theme, transformed to be heavenly and divinely beautiful. 

The theme is recalled 4 times. 

1: The Fallen powerful theme of fury.

2. Then it is truncated to be in 3/4 instead of 4/4-Faster and more intense.  There is anticipation in the bass line which is very effective.  We go through an incredible tour de force of octaves.

3. Three notes to ecah part of the theme.  Truncated by grace-notes.  It is ironic because it is quiet.  Adds more to the music.

4.  After a three-layer build-up of tension we find ourselves in the cruel twist of fate.  We have D major which makes the dissonances even more provocative and mournful.  Yet it is martial, firm, and decisive. 

[moi_not_toi]

Amen. Who doesn't like mazeppa?

Please raise your hands so they can be chopped off.

[bella musica]

Not sure if this has much bearing on the topic, but Brahms' piano music has a much higher difficulty-to-effect ratio than Liszt's.  What I mean is, you can play a Brahms piece that is incredibly difficult but doesn't sound like anything particularly hard.  Liszt on the other hand turned out a lot of music that sounds impossibly difficult but is actually much easier to play than it sounds.

Of course, they both composed pieces that sound incredibly difficult and ARE incredibly difficult....

[moi_not_toi]

Not sure if this has much bearing on the topic, but Brahms' piano music has a much higher difficulty-to-effect ratio than Liszt's.  What I mean is, you can play a Brahms piece that is incredibly difficult but doesn't sound like anything particularly hard.  Liszt on the other hand turned out a lot of music that sounds impossibly difficult but is actually much easier to play than it sounds.

Of course, they both composed pieces that sound incredibly difficult and ARE incredibly difficult....

The question is, Who wants to play an extremely hard song that sounds easy? You want to impress for the most part.

[presto agitato]

you can play a Brahms piece that is incredibly difficult but doesn't sound like anything particularly hard.  Liszt on the other hand turned out a lot of music that sounds impossibly difficult but is actually much easier to play than it sounds.

TRUE

[lisztisforkids]

Amen. Who doesn't like mazeppa?

Please raise your hands so they can be chopped off.

  I cant stand Mazzepa. I, as a being have no personal conncetion with much of the music of Liszt.

[ralessi]

SO.....i went back to my handy dandy million page Liszt chronical and that documentary might have been a little weird...here is what i found.....

first of all....

"Together with violinist Ede Remenyi, the twenty-year-old Brahms arrived in Wermar on june 15th, 1853 and for the next ten days enjoyed Liszts hospitality at the Aletenburg.  Associated with this visit is the legend that Brahms fell asleep during Liszts performance of the B minor sonata, and was thereupon shown the door.  The story must be dismissed as a fabrication, not least because on his departure Brahms was presented with a cigar case by his well-disposed host.  We do know, however, that Brahms was invited back to perform his E flat minor Scherzo but that his courage failed him.  Liszt immediately played the piece at sight, using a scarcely legible copy, much to the astonishment of the composer.  It must non the less soon have become clear to Brahms that the course adopted by the so-called "new german school" was not his own.  Like joachim, he turned away from Liszt as a composer but continued to value the man and admire the pianist until the end of his life. "

this just furthers the fact that Brahms might have talked behind mr Liszts back, to some but....here is a letter and a few quotes of his (that were published with his conscent) 

To poet, Klaus Groth (1819-1899):
"We too, can play the piano,  but between the lot of us, we have only a few of the fingers from both of HIS hands...mr Franz Liszt..."

other quotes...
"He who has not heard Liszt play really cannot speak on the subject.  He leads the way, and then, a long way behind, there is no one else.  His piano playing was something unique, incomparable and inimitable."

"Anyone who really wants to know what Liszt has done for the piano should study his early operatic fantasies.  They represend the rudiments of modern piano technique."

hope you enjoy!

Cheers!
Ricky

[moi_not_toi]

  I cant stand Mazzepa. I, as a being have no personal conncetion with much of the music of Liszt.

Any specific reasoning for this feeling?

[xavierm]

It has been a while since I have been on here (music festivals abroad) and I come back to see comments like some of the ones posted on this thread?!?!?!?!? Everything about the musicians has been beaten to death on the thread and I realize this, but how can an involved pianist-musician actually say that Liszt wrote sh!t for music?  Like previously stated, people listen to pieces like the grand gallop, mazeppa, HR 2, and Campanella and base their decisions on things like that.  That is completely not cool for 2 good reasons...1, yes they are a bit flashier and there is plenty more rep of his.  BUT! (other than the gallop) those pieces are actually amazing works.  Lisztening to a good pianist play the 2nd hungarian rhapsody, the way it was meant to be played, or even playing it yourself, there is no way that you cannot see the amazing things he does with the instrument.  I dont even know why I posted all of that, but the point of all of this, is that Liszt was the greatest musician of all time.  His knowledge of the instrument surpassed anyone of his time, his technical abilities surpassed any of his time, and his music...well, yes he did write many dazzling things, which were very intentional, but his MUSIC was just as heartfelt and tender as ANY of the great pianist-composers.  Like you know that I am going to say, the B minor sonata is my favorite piece of solo music written for the piano.  There are so many elements in the piece that nobody compared to.  Listen to a good PERFORMANCE (not recording), and it will have you in tears.  As for the technique and musianship, all that bullshit talk needs to stop.  We are talking about the man who sight read Islamey, a Brahms Concerto, the Greig Concerto (in full score with instruments) and did exercises starting with a tenth (c to e) in scale and arpeggio patterns, then sped up and added the 3rd, the 5th, AND the octave....who the hell does that? Brahms sure couldnt.  For those that didnt know, Brahms main main instrument for a long time was the Violin, and he was regarded among the best of his day.  He was a bitter man and just coulnt see anyone being better than him.  Same goes for a lot of the others that said Liszt was a bad musician and pianist and whatever else.  All of those people at one point had some kind of spat with Liszt.  For every one person that degraded Liszts playing, there were 5 that praised him.  I have had a slight obsession with Liszt for years now and have read the biographies whether they are good, bad, or anything in between and I plan to apply for government grants through my school to study abroad in Italy and research the Italian influence on Liszts music.  By no means am i saying that every other composer to live sucked and liszt is better, but when it comes to certain things with Liszts music, many people have messed up ideas about him and these things need to be straightened.  I have a huge conspiracy theory about musicians today and Liszt, but that is another conversation.  Sorry if there was a bunch of senseless bullshit in this but i just kinda started writing and here i am. 

Cheers!
Ricky

Amen and then some.

[lisztisforkids]

Any specific reasoning for this feeling?

 Liszt music to me seems to be very much intune with the public-even his most personal works. It seems his music can relate to the general masses... Brahms is not like that at all. His music is very diiferent, none of it is about technique or impressing the ladys. Its all very well constructed, there is not one note to many and not one to few. His music is about the other side of what it means to be a human , instead of fire and brimestone he writes music that to me is much more real than something like Mazeppa. I really dont care if Liszt could sight read the Greig concerto or not, I like music not a circus show.. Undoubtly, Liszt is a great composer, he just seems to me to be a fake in much of his music (GGC for example). Its true that Brahms music is not pianistic, but Brahms music is not about the piano either...
 

 And Mazzepa sucks as a composition

[moi_not_toi]

After hearing the story of Mazeppa, I think it makes more sense.

Yes, his music is in tune with the public. That's what he was all about. He just wanted everyone to KNOW that he was the best.

Brahms is great, but he just isn't quite as spectacular.

Liszt was a socialite. How can you expect his personal pieces to not connect with people?


Oh, and GGC is one of my favorite pieces. It's just entertaining (which in my opinion is another one of the main points of music.)

[bella musica]

The question is, Who wants to play an extremely hard song that sounds easy? You want to impress for the most part.

I think this is exactly why you are more likely to hear Liszt at a concert than Brahms.

[gorbee natcase]

(Brahms and Liszt) is rhyming slang in Sheffield for Pissed

[moi_not_toi]

I think this is exactly why you are more likely to hear Liszt at a concert than Brahms.

yes, I do believe that Brahms should get more concert performances, but the ratio of Brahms:Liszt should always be above 1:1 in my opinion.

[hunkyhong]

i think its so funny that they are even spoken in the same sentence, because they are complete opposites. Brahms's and liszt are two completely different composers and individuals. i'm going to be biased and say that brahms's music could sweep up liszt's cheezy compositions. Brahms's grasp of harmonies and colors and textures are out of this world, but liszt's is more or less simplistic and well...cheezy. most of his works are kind of annoying to my ear. Granted, they are really technical and showy, but in terms of musical, not so much. But i will say that he had technique and he had big hands! i have always had an appreciation for brahms over liszt, but i will admit that liszt has talent to create a story with the pianoforte!

[hunkyhong]

i meant "storm"

[akonow]

Hmmm... I was under the impression that this was supposed to be a discussion about virtuosity in regards to Brahms and Liszt but it seems that it's devolved into an argument of who is the better composer. Nevertheless, I would like to give my two-cents worth on both questions. I believe that Liszt played the piano like it was second-nature; I mean, it was mentioned earlier that he sight-read Grieg's concerto and I think that's something very few people can say they've done. Addressing the question of who is the better composer, it's purely a matter of taste. It's like saying oranges are better than chocolate because they have vitamin C. It wouldn't be wrong for someone to say that chocolate is better because it's sweeter... Yes, they have different qualities that interest different people and that makes them incomparable. At least that's what I think. You may tell me I'm an idiot if you think so.

[webern78]

You can`t imagine how much I want to kill yuo for that post.

The feeling is mutual. Liszt, the most heartfelt and deep of composers? What alternative reality did you spawn from, exactly?

[pianistimo]

do you think that of the two, liszt was more the 'man of the world?'  he constantly reinvented himself according to his travels, ventures, and poets/artists/people that he spoke to.  he seemed very open minded about some things and very generous.  more of a risk-taker (good or bad)

brahms, to me, seems more on the spiritual side. kind of guarded.  and probably not going to be changing styles or looking for lots of new forms.  he was a prodigy of the schumann's - yet maintained his own style of composing.  i think he picked up on robert schumann's penchant for 'miniatures' instead of large flashy ones - and making each measure 'count.'  whereas, liszt kind of went for the overall impression.  you get an impression of something rather than a very very detailed account.

it was interesting to read all these replies.  there isn't much comparison between the two.  don't you think that both can be appreciated?  i find that whatever is on a pianists recital program - as long as they understand the composer a bit -they can pull it off.  you can't play liszt like brahms and certainly visa-versa - even with the paganini variations.  brahms didn't really care about the virtuosity - but just was expressing that he COULD do it if he wanted.

maybe paganini is the link?

the german requiem is really something to hear sung.  it is incomparable in matching music with german text and the outcome was spectacular - however dull and boring some might think it.  the reason i like brahms composing wayyy over busoni - is that there is no mixing styles with any other composer's (copying sort of).  brahms was definately himself.  just like beethoven (and liszt/chopin).  they were each composers in their own right.  busoni's piano concerto seems like a plagarizm of styles and you actually hear each of the composer's of the time walking by you - in each of the areas.  next time you all listen - see if you can't hear many of the composers of the day.  however, busoni is GREAT arranger. 

[tds]

questions:
1. would you go to an all brahms recital?

2. would you go to an all liszt recital?

me answer:
1. yes
2. yes

[thierry13]

1. would you go to an all brahms recital?

2. would you go to an all liszt recital?

1.HELL YES!

2.HELL YES!

[avetma]

What if they were on same time?

[pianistimo]

liszt.  and that comes from someone who loves brahms - but thinks his piano music is a little bit stinky compared to his quartets, symphonies and SONGS.  i would go to an all brahms vocal recital over liszt piano recital.  and a schumann/brahms vocal recital would be even better.

[healdie]

They came from very different backgrounds which will have had an impact on their technical and musical assets, I have no doubt that Brahms was not a brilliant pianist but had different ideas about what music should be and this is what makes everyone different they were bothe very different in charecter Liszt was a woamanizing extrovert while Brahms was more introverted and this shows particually in his symphonies.

maybe this is why Brahms is considered a better composer because Freud believed that Sex drive can be succefully channeled into art so maybe Liszt released all of this inner energy on women rather than art?

plus Brahms was nurtured by Schumann who was against virtuosity for the sake of it, i find Brahms music more personal but if i wanted to impress a gathering of people i would play LIszt