Chopin. or Liszt?

[lisztisforkids]

Two very different composers, people, pianist, from the same period...

[sauergrandson]

I don't think Liszt and Chopin to be part of the same period. Chopin died in 1849, and Liszt in 1886. Yes, they were born in 1810 and 1811 but... Maybe Liszt belong to two musical periods.

[nicko124]

Although I like both of them very much and probably none more than the other, I chose Liszt.

I did this because I have read a lot recently in variour threads (mainly older ones) about Liszt being inferior to many other composers in terms of composition.

I am also constantly hearing people say things like 'Liszt composed some nice pieces but very many bad ones'.

I don't agree with this, maybe it's just the fact that all of the pieces I have heard have been decent: but the only piece I can think of as being bad is the Burlow March. Leslie Howard also comments on it being boring and predictable in the cover booklet of the 'Liszt - Dances and Marches' Cd.

However, other than this piece I would struggle to think of many more that are terrible. Can someone Liszt some for me to see for myself?

Best

Nicko124

[chopinfan_22]

Chopin all the way.

[Kassaa]

Although I like both of them very much and probably none more than the other, I chose Liszt.

I did this because I have read a lot recently in variour threads (mainly older ones) about Liszt being inferior to many other composers in terms of composition.

I am also constantly hearing people say things like 'Liszt composed some nice pieces but very many bad ones'.

I don't agree with this, maybe it's just the fact that all of the pieces I have heard have been decent: but the only piece I can think of as being bad is the Burlow March. Leslie Howard also comments on it being boring and predictable in the cover booklet of the 'Liszt - Dances and Marches' Cd.

However, other than this piece I would struggle to think of many more that are terrible. Can someone Liszt some for me to see for myself?

Best

Nicko124

The mazeppa poeme symphonique (not the etude) would be pretty high on the crap lis(z)t.

[zheer]

Am drawn to Chopins piano music like haw an insect is drawn to a light bolb at night. 

[henrah]

I chose Chopin over Liszt because I like a lot more Chopin than Liszt. I also find Chopin much more accessible to me than Liszt.


But where would we be without peanuts
Henrah

[nicko124]

The mazeppa poeme symphonique (not the etude) would be pretty high on the crap lis(z)t.

I haven't heard that or is that the orchestral version of Mazeppa which certainly is not crap.

[brahmsian]

Tough call. Chopin seems more 'classy' than Liszt (early Liszt anyway). Liszt is great for bombast nail-ur-balls-to-the-wall type pieces, Chopin not so much. I can definatly appreciate both.

I voted for Liszt becuase I happen to be listening to his Niobe fantasy right now.

[panic]

To me Liszt is alternatively beautiful or thrilling, harmonically rich, and dramatically well-arranged but usually fairly shallow and unsubtle beyond that. Whatever he wants to show is usually pretty close to the surface and it's rare (it happens, but it's rare) that I pick up on something I didn't hear before the second or third time around. The Sonata is really one of the only Liszt pieces in which what's on the surface can be called the tip of the iceberg.

[emmdoubleew]

I am also constantly hearing people say things like 'Liszt composed some nice pieces but very many bad ones'.

Even a dedicated Liszt fan like me will agree though.

Do you know how much music liszt wrote? I'm pretty sure he wrote the most piano music out of any other composer in history. He just wrote pages after pages and has all these pointless opera transcriptions and sometimes stuff is just not going to turn out great if you work like that.

HOWEVER: I think his work has more depth and power than chopin's. For me, he takes more advantage of the sound of the piano. Chopin was known to make the piano sing, and his pieces always have this soft, singing tone quality. I LOVE Chopin, but it just gets a little boring after a while. On the other hand, a single listen of the 12 Transcendental Etudes will reveal Liszt' complete mastery of the piano's sound. He treats the piano like a percussion instrument in the Mazzeppa, like little chimes in the Feux Follet, like a singer in the Ricordanza, etc... I just don't see that level of depth in Chopin.

And his sonata speaks for itself.

[panic]

Part of me thinks that the reason he tried to imitate other sounds and instruments in pieces was to sidestep his deficiencies in composing straight for the piano, particularly texturally. I understand that it's some sort of sacrilege not to worship the Liszt Sonata here, but that piece is very texturally simple most of the way through in comparison to Chopin, Brahms, Rachmaninoff and similar pianistic composers. Liszt's ability to build suspense and dramatic moments kind of makes up for it, but there are still a lot of spots which you can tell were chiseled out at the piano rather than devised in his head. Other than a few pieces in the Annees de Pelerinage and a few assorted others, I think the story is generally the same throughout most of his music as far as textures. Chopin, on the other hand, was such a master of pianistic composition that the music just flowed. You can tell he envisioned whole phrases in nearly their full textural form. I guess the reason why I respect Chopin's music more than Liszt's is that in Chopin's, the entire textural body of music keeps moving forward, whereas in Liszt's it is usually a single melody line or area of focus that moves and drags all the harmonic accompaniment along with it.

[emmdoubleew]

I guess the reason why I respect Chopin's music more than Liszt's is that in Chopin's, the entire textural body of music keeps moving forward, whereas in Liszt's it is usually a single melody line or area of focus that moves and drags all the harmonic accompaniment along with it.

I see your point.

But personally, I preffer the rich and inventive and sometimes zany harmonic accompaniements, while I think Chopin is too centered on melody. It's the same issue I have with Mozart.  For example, take the virtuoso part of the Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2. Can you even say it has a melody? It's just random, impressive brouhaha, yet the appeal is undeniable. It's so  neat and quirky while staying pleasant to the ears.

[panic]

Haha, yeah I agree. Liszt can be a blast to listen to sometimes. I doubt anyone ever had more fun composing for the piano than he did. There's a reason that all the Chopin "Piano Favorites" or something albums seem to be packed wall-to-wall with pretty, wistful nocturnes and serious etudes and longer pieces - his music is more brooding and serious, and sometimes it's just not as fun to hear. There are a lot more "Dude, that part's SICK" moments per Liszt listening than Chopin, in my personal experience.

[rimv2]

Haha, yeah I agree. Liszt can be a blast to listen to sometimes. I doubt anyone ever had more fun composing for the piano than he did. There's a reason that all the Chopin "Piano Favorites" or something albums seem to be packed wall-to-wall with pretty, wistful nocturnes and serious etudes and longer pieces - his music is more brooding and serious, and sometimes it's just not as fun to hear. There are a lot more "Dude, that part's SICK" moments per Liszt listening than Chopin, in my personal experience.

true true.

When ahm in a bad mood ah put on tha chopnocts, wear all black and look for sterdy points in the ceiling (hint hint).

But when ah desire tha fury....nuff said

[jas]

I think his work has more depth and power than chopin's. For me, he takes more advantage of the sound of the piano. Chopin was known to make the piano sing, and his pieces always have this soft, singing tone quality. I LOVE Chopin, but it just gets a little boring after a while.

I never understand where this weird misconception of Chopin's music came about. Have you listened to the scherzi, the sonatas, many of the polonaises, a significant number of the preludes, etudes, and even parts of some of the nocturnes? A lot of these have nothing "soft" about them and he does, albeit less often, even abandon the singing melodies he's so famous for. A lot of his pieces are aggressive and fiery, and some are incomprehensibly unmelodic.

On the other hand, a single listen of the 12 Transcendental Etudes will reveal Liszt' complete mastery of the piano's sound. He treats the piano like a percussion instrument in the Mazzeppa, like little chimes in the Feux Follet, like a singer in the Ricordanza, etc... I just don't see that level of depth in Chopin.

How can you claim that there is less depth in all of Chopin's music than there is in Liszt's TEs? Percussive/chiming/singing effects only hold water if there's enough musical content to keep people from getting bored; I personally lose interest when I listen to all but a handful of Liszt's pieces. The last movement of Chopin's third piano sonata is very rhythmic and percussive, a number of the preludes have a chiming quality to them, and you can find a lovely singing voice in almost everything he wrote - and this is all held together by a level of musical content that I personally don't see in Liszt. The use of the piano's capabilities in the TEs may be impressive, but I wouldn't call them "deep." I think Chopin's Etudes combine musicality with the technical problems much more successfully - if you hadn't heard them before you'd never know they're etudes. When I listen to Chopin's music I always find myself amazed at just how much of a musical imagination he had - the melodies, harmonic progressions and the way in which he uses the piano I think will always be unsurpassed. I've never thought that about Liszt (though, as I said, I do like some of his music).

And his sonata speaks for itself.

Yes, the sonata is great.

Jas

[chopinfan_22]

To Jas: Amen.

But personally, I preffer the rich and inventive and sometimes zany harmonic accompaniements, while I think Chopin is too centered on melody.

Without melody, you have no music. Anybody with talent at the piano can do the things that Liszt has done. I could go up to a piano, and start playing random chords and difficult finger movements if I've mastered the technique that requires them. Chopin, when he wrote, would not publish a work that was not perfect. If it was too long, he cropped it... too short, he added to it... not enough melody, he brought the melody out. He would not rest until the song was perfect. Now that takes talent. When listening to anything by Chopin, you cannot deny the perfection in his music. Don't get me wrong, Liszt wrote some very good music, his Liebestraume, Hungarian Rhapsody, and Sonata, just to name some.  While Liszt was considered the best piano virtuoso, Chopin was by far the better musician and pianist. To me... there is no comparison.

[stormx]

Chopin BY FAR 

[henrah]

I just played the Raindrop Prelude to myself, and something mystical and other worldly happened. I think Chopin had control over my fingers, as it felt like I wasn't doing anything at all at certain points :S But then I came back into conscious and played the rest ^_^



I think I'm in love with Chopin....
Henrah

[luda888]

Chopin > the rest

[chopinfan_22]

I think I'm in love with Chopin....
Henrah

You're one of many. I, too, am playing the Raindrop Prelude. I love it... one of my favorite pieces.

[g_s_223]

A very interesting topic: one worth exploring.

I'd like to give my view from a purely personal and subjective one: we can debate issues of melody, texture and form indefinitely. However when I play one of the pieces of Liszt I love, it speaks directly to me and allows me to express myself in a way the really very few other composers do; possibly only Schubert is similar in that respect. At the end of such a performance, I really feel the music has been a part of me. With Chopin, I feel the work is perfectly formed already and I have little to add, other than a perfected execution, which is not at all easy.

Liszt did write an awful lot of music, much of it of limited interest. However, for me, some of it gets to places where no other piano composer does.  There's also a link here I suspect to the Appolonian and Dionysiac principles, to which arguably every performer must take a relative position. Those of the former school will pick Chopin, the latter Liszt. It's also probably to do with one's attitude to creativity vs. reproduction (of the text). Cziffra and Horowitz, both very creative, excelled in Liszt.

Anyway, respect to both!  More views welcome!

[clef]

You both make great arguments, but I'm going to have to stick with peanuts...

[dough_mouse]

Definitely Liszt for me. I find that chopin is more one-dimensional; not to say that he only wrote sad pieces such as the nocturnes, but his particular style of composition is practically unvaried. I can hear almost any piece by Chopin and know that it's written by him because they all have this certain sound to them. Liszt, on the other hand, is much more varied, and although he has more showiness in his music, I think the emotion is just as deep. Also, I simply like to listen to Liszt's music much more. I cant really make any comparisons about playing their music though because I have never played a piece by chopin.

[alzado]

I think Chopin is more accessible to the amateur pianist.   I've just been playing through his collected waltzes (ed. Paderewski).  It is surprising how relatively easy many of them are. 

I do not know Liszt well, but I understand that much of his music is extremely hard.

So of those two composers, I appreciate the accessibility of Chopin, and will stick with him.

[steveie986]

Definitely Liszt for me. I find that chopin is more one-dimensional; not to say that he only wrote sad pieces such as the nocturnes, but his particular style of composition is practically unvaried. I can hear almost any piece by Chopin and know that it's written by him because they all have this certain sound to them. Liszt, on the other hand, is much more varied, and although he has more showiness in his music, I think the emotion is just as deep. Also, I simply like to listen to Liszt's music much more. I cant really make any comparisons about playing their music though because I have never played a piece by chopin.

You have never played a piece by Chopin? And you want to play a Transcendental Etude and a Scriabin etude? Hahaha. Not to mention your juvenile dislike for Bach, either...

The kids on the forum these days... I guess it's better for the children to be browsing piano websites rather than pr0n.

 

Love you lots, as always.

[tompilk]

i have to say liszt... i have downloaded the WHOLE piano Liszt music from teh torrent on www.pianosheets.org and i have to say there are a few that are boring - but no where near as much *snore* as all of teh other composers... and his Sonata (especially), TE's, Rhapsodies and Totentanz just beat everything I have heard so far - only challenged by Alkan's Op. 39 - Overture (which the last 2 mins are just so amazing, perhaps the best piano music ever IMHO).
Anyway, i do like loud and impressive music - but not just for it's loudness and impressiveness... but because i'm that sort of person... theres nothing like a bit of agitato, prestissimo or energico... as many chords as possible.
Anyways, Liszt Liszt Liszt.
His concertos, i dont think, are a fair representation of him - they are quite boring except for little bits in them... but thats more than i can say for the chopin concertos...
Tom
PS. Dont read this if you dont like bad jokes - "If you go shopping dont forget your 'Chopin Liszt'!"
a poor joke... i should be ashamed...

[jas]

You have never played a piece by Chopin? And you want to play a Transcendental Etude and a Scriabin etude? Hahaha. Not to mention your juvenile dislike for Bach, either...

You can't dismiss someone as juvenile just because they don't like Bach...

Definitely Liszt for me. I find that chopin is more one-dimensional; not to say that he only wrote sad pieces such as the nocturnes, but his particular style of composition is practically unvaried. I can hear almost any piece by Chopin and know that it's written by him because they all have this certain sound to them. Liszt, on the other hand, is much more varied, and although he has more showiness in his music, I think the emotion is just as deep. Also, I simply like to listen to Liszt's music much more. I cant really make any comparisons about playing their music though because I have never played a piece by chopin.

And you can't dismiss Chopin as one-dimensional just because you can recognise his music when you hear it! I can recognise Beethoven, Liszt,  Handel, usually Bach, usually Mozart (that's if I don't confuse him with Haydn), Ravel, Rachmaninoff, loads of composers. Some are very distinctive, some not so much. But that doesn't make them one-dimensional, it just means they have their own way of composing and their own idiosyncracies. But, since we're on the subject, there's a particular figuration that Liszt uses in loads of his pieces that, if you weren't sure, would make it blatantly obvious that it was him. If the piece was in G major it would go (sorry, the rhythm's not going to be very clear, but if you've heard you'll know what I mean): A--G-A-G---F#-G. Always! Well, nearly. I wouldn't say that makes him one-dimensional, though.

Jas

[tompilk]

i would say prokofiev is instantly recognisable, but that doesnt make him simple does it?!?!?
Tom

[elevateme]

chopin is the better composer, but liszt the better pianist

one time liszt was playing a chopin mazurka, and adding loads of his own stuff into it, and chopin waits for him to finish spectacularly before saying "if you can't play my pieces as they were written, then... don't play them at all." he then sits down and plays it, and liszt says, "forgive me, that is indeed how they should be played".

[tompilk]

chopin is the better composer, but liszt the better pianist

one time liszt was playing a chopin mazurka, and adding loads of his own stuff into it, and chopin waits for him to finish spectacularly before saying "if you can't play my pieces as they were written, then... don't play them at all." he then sits down and plays it, and liszt says, "forgive me, that is indeed how they should be played".

this is a good point...
I do not necessarily agree that chopin was a better composer, but this is a reasonable opinion that i would support...
TOm

[letters]

i prefer chopin because his music is more accessible both to play and listen too, but liszt has a lot more "wow" moments and is more fun to listen to and (try to) play. and i agree with whoever said chopin gets a bit boring after a while.

[florestan9]

To liszten to: Liszt
To play: Chopin

Many of my favorite piano works are written by Liszt (my #1 being the Don Juan fantasy), but Chopin is generally much more poetic and relaxing to listen to.  His B minor sonata (Chopin's, that is) is very moving, but then again so is Liszt's in a very different way.  I guess it depends on what mood I'm in.

[prometheus]

As far as I know the symfonic poems are pieces of high quality. I don't really remember Mazappa but surely these pieces aren't crap. And they are beyond anything that Chopin could have ever done.

I would say that Chopin understood the piano better but that Lizzt was the better composer.

[kriskicksass]

As far as I know the symfonic poems are pieces of high quality. I don't really remember Mazappa but surely these pieces aren't crap. And they are beyond anything that Chopin could have ever done.

I would say that Chopin understood the piano better but that Lizzt was the better composer.

Chopin died young. Liszt had about 50 more years to mature as an artist/composer than Chopin did. Had Chopin lived as long as Liszt, there's no way of knowing where he would have gone. I doubt he would have ever composed orchestral music (he didn't even bother to orchestrate his piano concerti), but right around the 4th Ballade and 4th Scherzo you can hear something...different in his music. You have to wonder if his nearing death caused him to write deeper music or if it simply stopped him from writing in what would have become a new style for him. No one will ever know.

(I forgot to include up there that I think that during Chopin's lifetime, he was the far superior composer and were it not for his consumption would have been the finer pianist. That being said, I happen to believe that by the end of his life Liszt was a good musician, or at least a far better one than some are willing to believe.)

[jas]

Chopin died young. Liszt had about 50 more years to mature as an artist/composer than Chopin did. Had Chopin lived as long as Liszt, there's no way of knowing where he would have gone. I doubt he would have ever composed orchestral music (he didn't even bother to orchestrate his piano concerti), but right around the 4th Ballade and 4th Scherzo you can hear something...different in his music. You have to wonder if his nearing death caused him to write deeper music or if it simply stopped him from writing in what would have become a new style for him. No one will ever know.

(I forgot to include up there that I think that during Chopin's lifetime, he was the far superior composer and were it not for his consumption would have been the finer pianist. That being said, I happen to believe that by the end of his life Liszt was a good musician, or at least a far better one than some are willing to believe.)

I agree with everything you said. Well, almost. I think Chopin could have equalled Liszt as a pianist had he not been so ill, but I don't think he'd be prone to the kind of showmanship that made Liszt so popular.

It's sad to think of all the music he could have written but didn't get the chance to.

[thorn]

i found this a while ago https://www.xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/chopin_liszt.html

while it is overly narrow minded and pretty naive and childish... i can see where parts of it are coming from. thought i would share it with people to add more to the discussion

i prefer Liszt... simply because he was fantastic and he knew it... making arrogant comments such as "the concert is me"... also the way that he refused to accept violinists as the elite group of virtuosi, and brought the piano into that category and beyond

i can see where the Chopin as a better composer idea comes from... sometimes Liszt's music can tend to substitute musicality for difficulty...

but for me... Liszt just has that x-factor that Chopin could never come anywhere near

[raskolnikov]

i found this a while ago https://www.xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/chopin_liszt.html

That guy really lost all of his credibility with this statement:
"Liszt is the father of impressionism, an entire genre of piano music, of which Brahms, Bizet, Rachmaninov, Ravel, Debussy all kowtow and pay homage."

Anyone who thinks Liszt, Bizet, Brahms and Rachmaninoff are impressionists really need to have their ears cleaned out with a hammer and chisel.  As far as forms go, Liszt got the idea of the etudes from Chopin and the symphonic poem from Berlioz. Not to mention that  he was inspired to write insanely difficult music after listening to Paganini.  So about all of his arguments are bogus, and Liszt really wasn't as innovative as that person would lead you to believe.

And on top of that, he expects to convice people that Liszt is better just by insulting Chopin 's music.

[ted]

I like them both. I answered Chopin because his music seems less pattern based, more organic, less structured or homogeneous than that of Liszt. Liszt had an enormous vocabulary of keyboard formations and devices which he applied to wonderful effect in any musical situation. However, there seems to me to be a certain uniformity in how he applied his huge vocabulary. With Chopin, extra notes are inserted not commensurate with the "No 10 Meccano Set" approach of Liszt. Chopin rarely uses straight scales and obvious figurations. His figurations almost always defy uniformity and repeats. If a pattern is present, its rhythm, grip and harmony are more often thrown out of coincidence, making the musical effect more organic and interesting.

The right hand of Winter Wind is a case in point. What at first appears to be a repetitive pattern is actually anything but. The rhythm and grip often fall in fours against the prevailing musical feeling of sixes; many of the arpeggiated figures have an ambiguity of chord and accent. These things give it a sort of organic life. The overall form is beautiful, but it is the beauty of nature, not the beauty of finely constructed architecture. On the other hand, in say, Mazeppa, the accompanying figurations are very clearly defined, like lots of brilliant building blocks set into a framework.

That is the main musical difference as I perceive it; they were both great. Some people prefer the beauty of a leaf or a shell and others that of a fine cathedral or a jewel in its setting. In the end it is what best fits your type of brain.

  

[emmdoubleew]

I never understand where this weird misconception of Chopin's music came about. Have you listened to the scherzi, the sonatas, many of the polonaises, a significant number of the preludes, etudes, and even parts of some of the nocturnes? A lot of these have nothing "soft" about them and he does, albeit less often, even abandon the singing melodies he's so famous for.

I have all the nocturnes, mazurkas, scherzi, ballades, etudes and sonatas. I don't know how much more work he has composed but I doubt much more. And quite the large majority have a vrey soft, easy-listening feel. They're all incredible, some more than others, but they get tiring. Even the etudes.


I think this stops being a matter of proving who is the superior composer and starts being who you prefer. Personally I everytime I listen to the TEs I feel like bawling and jumping off rooftops to see if I can fly. Less chopin does that for me.

I just think Liszt is a more quirky composer, which, in my opinion, is really great.

Without melody, you have no music. Anybody with talent at the piano can do the things that Liszt has done. I could go up to a piano, and start playing random chords and difficult finger movements if I've mastered the technique that requires them.

Sure, go ahead. We will see if in 200 years you still have an enormous international fanbase.

Chopin, when he wrote, would not publish a work that was not perfect. If it was too long, he cropped it... too short, he added to it... not enough melody, he brought the melody out. He would not rest until the song was perfect. Now that takes talent.

That word seems to be rather "obessive" than "talented." No doubt Chopin was talented, but if you are trying to explain to a non-classical-listener why he was, I beg you not to tell him what you told me. You wouldn't be proving anything.

While Liszt was considered the best piano virtuoso, Chopin was by far the better musician and pianist. To me... there is no comparison.

Clearly though "chopin_fan" implies some level of bias.




Well, it really all gets right down to opinion. I feel like Chopin is the Mozart of romantic music, while Liszt is more like Beethoven in that he has taken more risks and done more experimentation (although I think Beethoven is a much superior composer, but that's another story). That's why I like Liszt better. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE CHOPIN. I've played way more Chopin than Liszt actually (probably due to difficulty ) but Liszt music still appeals more to me.

Maybe it's because Chopin was so meticulous and Liszt more spontaneous.

[steve jones]

I have to confess to being a Chopin man, though and through. I dont dislike Liszt, but find him way less appealing at this moment in time. Maybe in the future this will change?

SJ

[prometheus]

Without melody, you have no music.

That goes for all elements of music so it doesn't matter. With this you imply that melody is more important based on this argument. But the same goes for harmony and rhythm.


Furthermore, if you really prefer melody then how can you like western music? Western music sacrificed melody for harmony. Melodically western music is very shallow and limited because of technical limitations.

Anybody with talent at the piano can do the things that Liszt has done. I could go up to a piano, and start playing random chords and difficult finger movements if I've mastered the technique that requires them.

Uuh, so?

Chopin, when he wrote, would not publish a work that was not perfect.

Funny that his most popular work is a work he hated and ordered burned because he did not have the guts to do it himself.

If it was too long, he cropped it... too short, he added to it... not enough melody, he brought the melody out.

If Chopin really composed like this he would only have been able to produce utter crap.

He would not rest until the song was perfect.

Songs?

While Liszt was considered the best piano virtuoso, Chopin was by far the better musician and pianist. To me... there is no comparison.

You have heard them play both?

You can't deny Liszt turned out to be a visionary composer. Liszt may have had a slow start with his career focussing on performing but he really made progression. I can't really say that about Chopin. Eventhough he died too early, which is in his disadvantage eventhough it is not his fault he is a lesser composer because he died too early, I can't really find progression on his works. It seems that he was very much static in his development. So one can claim he may have developed into a great composer if he lived longer there is no reason to assume this.

Lizst and Chopin had very different personalities. Chopin was a natural, someone with a innate understanding about how a piano should sound. Liszt was an intellectual. He used the power of his mind. He read literature and philosophy. He thought about what music should become and he experimented with harmony.

[emmdoubleew]

Lizst and Chopin had very different personalities. Chopin was a natural, someone with a innate understanding about how a piano should sound. Liszt was an intellectual. He used the power of his mind. He read literature and philosophy. He thought about what music should become and he experimented with harmony.

YES! Could not agree more. This is why I love Liszt: he is much more interesting and mentally challenging to listen to IMO for this reason. Chopin is a little too much easy listening to keep me  insterested for extended periods of time.