Do you think Liszt is more important as the romantic hero, or the composer?

[lisztisforkids]

Liszt.... The pianist, of pianist.

[emmdoubleew]

I think they're too interelated for them to be considered seperately.

[pianistimo]

i think he had an ego problem (ie napoleonic) and needed to 'play the hero' to be worthy of his calling.  if he had taken a few steps backwards and rewritten his script - he would see that all the 'spirituality' in the world is nothing compared to the real thing.  it's fake and only lasts as long asyou live.  with Christ - we're talking forever.  forever to imitate goodness and holiness.  to be servants of God and our fellow man - and to give honor to those above us - and thus have an honored position as well for being humble. 

if you look at liszt transcriptions of bach you immediately see that it wasn't God that was blessing his spirituality in music.  he simply could not write music to God.  it was abhorrent to him actually.  nietzche was his hero and idol.  so, in God's own humor, did not allow him talent in that one small area (to write church music).  everything else was on the 'fantastic' side and quite technical and amazing.  so fluent and yet even with his '?walking on the water' piece - it didn't express the faith - but rather the doubt and the necessary imagination of the romantic story.  with bach, haydn, mendehlssohn and brahms you have a 'boldness' that is hard to describe - it's just there - for church music.

guess that importance is relative.  important to whom?  if we are important to each other - it's nice.  but, if we are important to God that's even more important.  hmm.  maybe to some it sounds like a copout - but really, living a balanced life isn't all piano (as someone else said) - so we have to not relativize ourself as compared to musical geniuses - but according to faith.  that someday we may have talent that is comparative according to the gifts of the spirit.  (not everyone has the pianistic capability that liszt did in piano - but perhaps in another gift we do).
 

[emmdoubleew]

Pianistimo, I absolutely respect your beleifs, but the fact your argument depends on them so much makes it not only unvalid for many of us, but we simply can't really relate to it.

[alzado]

This is a typical "Romantic Era" conundrum.

In the Nineteenth Century, persons were debating if Lord Byron was more the romantic hero than his own character, Manfred.

The whole issue is a trap. 

[g_s_223]

...
nietzche was his hero and idol.
...

Hmmm. Their dates are: Liszt 1811-1886 and Nietszche 1844-1900. By the time Nietszche had graduated in 1864, Liszt's career as pianist was largely over and he mainly conducted, q.v. https://www.d-vista.com/OTHER/Liszttime2.html . Therefore, I find it absurd to imagine Liszt would have had Nietszche as an idol.

The only idolatry in this circle was the short-lived admiration Nietszche had for Wagner (1813-1883).

[donjuan]

i think he had an ego problem (ie napoleonic) and needed to 'play the hero' to be worthy of his calling.  if he had taken a few steps backwards and rewritten his script - he would see that all the 'spirituality' in the world is nothing compared to the real thing.  it's fake and only lasts as long asyou live.  with Christ - we're talking forever.  forever to imitate goodness and holiness.  to be servants of God and our fellow man - and to give honor to those above us - and thus have an honored position as well for being humble. 

if you look at liszt transcriptions of bach you immediately see that it wasn't God that was blessing his spirituality in music.  he simply could not write music to God.  it was abhorrent to him actually.  nietzche was his hero and idol.  so, in God's own humor, did not allow him talent in that one small area (to write church music). 

 

oh bad.

Liszt was a very religious man, especially in his old age.  I really don't think you know what you're talking about.  You really should leave Christ out of this.

guess that importance is relative.  important to whom?  if we are important to each other - it's nice.  but, if we are important to God that's even more important.  hmm.  maybe to some it sounds like a copout - but really, living a balanced life isn't all piano (as someone else said) - so we have to not relativize ourself as compared to musical geniuses - but according to faith.  that someday we may have talent that is comparative according to the gifts of the spirit.  (not everyone has the pianistic capability that liszt did in piano - but perhaps in another gift we do).

Liszt wasnt just some nerd who sat around at his piano all day (dont worry pianistimo Im sure he had time to read his bible..).  From his letters, we see that he had many friends (a lot of lady friends too, if you know what I mean), consorted with all the great composers of the time. He was also known to give free lessons; he was a great teacher who influenced generations to come by teaching great people (Tausig, Eugene d'Albert, for example -look at this: https://home.earthlink.net/~marnest/discliszt.html) who would grow up and teach another generation.  From all these generations come some of the greatest musicians that ever lived.

Again, I really don't think you know what you are talking about..

As for the vote, I said Composer.

[lisztisforkids]

Indeed, Liszt was a very religous man, and was torn between being a pianist and a preist.

[pianistimo]

maybe i should have said goethe - but nietzche represented pretty much the religious beliefs of liszt during the main part of his life.  he had a facination for the 'romantic' aspects of the bible - such as miracles - and for the story of goethe's faust (more aptly known as the devil).  basically, what we are dealing with in the spirituality realm is that amazing ability (paganini type) that is bordering the limits of human endurance and compositional feats of amazing inspiration.  it can be tempting to idolize anyone or anything like this.  houdini might be a rare example of the high level of accomplishment of what others would say is 'impossible.'

yet, for the simple folk such as myself and others - we take God as our hero and say that 'with God all things are possible.'  maybe just not right now (everything that we dream or want to be). 

but, after contemplation - i agree with emdoubleeww and the others here that see the good in liszt (because after all, he was a 'great' in the romantic era - with his pianism and composition).  back then, he was a 'religious experience' to some women - and it's hard not to feel the same about really good pianists today.  (i try to keep my personal feelings inside -b ut i can't help saying that the temptation to worship people's talent is sort of a waste - since all talent comes from God and whatever we have is given to us).

anyway- i should preface my words sometimes with imo.  according to einstein's 'music in the romantic era'  - 'liszt attacked the merely virtuoso musicians of the thalberg type, and accordingly had to outdo them in virtuosity.  in point of fact, moreover, he did so.  in his piano works are found technical ideas which were not only surprising in his own time but are still so today.'  for this, all pianists can't help but like liszt. (ok. so i don't worship him - but i do respect him).

[pianistimo]

einstein's book is really great on giving insight into liszt's background (although i'm sure there are many more books today - but it was a standard textbook when i went to school).  it continues: 'his art, however, consisted not merely of the transcription of technical peculiarities of the violin- or of any other instrument - to the piano.  it consisted not merely of the passages in octaves and tenths, the chromatic chord effects, the technique of leaps, the crossing of hands, the chains of trills, the arpeggios, the multitudinous differentiations in the dividing up of cantilena and ornament...but his art also consisted of a new technique of invention, especially in the harmony and recasting of motives.'

one of the pieces he composed was 'without signature of either time or key.'  that was from 'harmonies poetiques' 1834) and quite innovative and 'may serve as an original model of pure expression.' 

ok.  so i don't think i'd worship liszt as a hero but i guess that i think he's quite important as a pianist, composer and teacher. 

[pianistimo]

wagner's 'parsifal is one of the concluding documents of the romantic era.  the romantic movement began with a preference for the medieval; in the end, it dressed up a symbolic action in medieval costume.  it began with a preference for catholic mysticism; it ended up with the bell-tones and harpchords of the 'redemption of the redeemer.'  it separated art from life, and found at last a flight from life in an exhilarating art-experience, in intoxication through music. life and religion were replaced by art.'  quote from einstein's book pg. 245

 

[g_s_223]

Thinking politically incorrectly for a moment, isn't Liszt really a man's composer? How many women pianists of recent reknown excel in Liszt? None, really. Bach, Mozart, Schubert, Chopin, yes, but Liszt, no.

Let's put it frankly: you need balls to play Liszt.

[pianistimo]

i'm fine with that.  many of his pieces take tremendous physical effort to just get through, let alone play well.  no offense taken.  i'd say that maybe 1/3 to 1/2 of his music would be great for a woman - for me, getting into the balzy music like 'mazeppa' or whatever isn't my style anyway.  i don't really agree with the idea that man can overcome all odds (or that there is redemption in playing the most difficult music - not that he said that).  there's no shame in playing what you like - and playing it well.

women aren't limited anymore by what men say (in uni or elsewhere).  the women that want to excel in the more difficult pieces just simply will practice them and play them.  i don't doubt that helene grimaud pretty much plays whatever she chooses to play.  i heard her play rach.  but, will admit that it was a 'refined' rach - whereas a guy may play with more 'macho' whatever.  it brings out different qualities of the music.  both liszt and chopin had an undefinable understanding of the feminine side - and in many pieces there are portions that require the intuition of a woman to play as dreamily as he intended. 

[prometheus]

I really find it bizarre to suggest that gender would make a difference in music.

[donjuan]

Thinking politically incorrectly for a moment, isn't Liszt really a man's composer? How many women pianists of recent reknown excel in Liszt? None, really. Bach, Mozart, Schubert, Chopin, yes, but Liszt, no.

Let's put it frankly: you need balls to play Liszt.

Janina Fialkowska doesn't have balls..

[pianistimo]

maybe it's the physical endurance and raw passion.  it might have seemed out of place in the 19th century.  now we're in the 20th and women don't care if they make men have to compete to stay on the top.  but, i think we suffer from stress if we push too hard.  for me, having a family is stress enough.  i try to play music that unstresses me - so not always technically the MOST difficut - but difficult enough that i learn something.  if a woman doesn't have a family - she's probably got a lot more energy to put into piano 100% and really there's nothing stopping them from going wherever they desire.  usually, you see a sort of 'trend' in most pianists careers that wavers towards or away from certain composers.  for me, i like schumann's miniature style of writing.  also, his poeticism is more on the 'german' side - whereas liszt was sort of an international type of composer.  appealing to maybe a wider audience at the time.  when i first heard some of schumann's lieder, i was very impressed with the 'romanticism' of that.  it is for a smaller audience and very 'homey' and yet impressive in it's own right.  he details elements of what i consider 'romantic' vs. the 'romance of art/philosophy/religion' that was more pronounced in liszt.  i know robert schumann had his own beliefs, too, but kinda stuck within the general boundaries he reserved for himself.  (yes, i know he was a little crazy).  but, he was extrememly creative, too, like liszt - and created an imaginary world that gave him space and yet dictated somewhat his limitations. 

[donjuan]

maybe it's the physical endurance and raw passion.  it might have seemed out of place in the 19th century.  now we're in the 20th and women don't care if they make men have to compete to stay on the top.  but, i think we suffer from stress if we push too hard.

i dont think you really meant to say what you just said.. 

[Kassaa]

Janina Fialkowska doesn't have balls..

And Anna Kravtchenko who gave an extremely intense rendition of the Liszt sonata some years ago hasn't either.

[pianistimo]

oops.  21st century.  what was i thinking?  was really tired the other night (which proves a point in my case).  i have limited time and i like to play what i play as well as possible.  if i take really big pieces - it would be a couple of years before i'd play them well.  so, that's why i like smaller pieces.

even though i am a woman, i kind of agree about certain pieces made for a man.  perhaps hand span does have something to do with things.  i've learned a lot of 'tricks' to make chopin work for my smaller hands - but it is still a limitation that someone with bigger hands doesn't have to deal with.

mozart is fairly easy for me - though i'm learning more about interpretation.  maybe it's not always how difficult the music is that you play - but how well you play whatever you choose to play.  there's an elegance, too, to how one puts together a concert.  you can sort of 'fudge' with combining bigger pieces with smaller - and also, combine a vocal concert with piano concert.  i don't like to feel completely exhausted when i've played. 

[donjuan]

oops.  21st century.  what was i thinking?  was really tired the other night (which proves a point in my case).  i have limited time and i like to play what i play as well as possible.  if i take really big pieces - it would be a couple of years before i'd play them well.  so, that's why i like smaller pieces.

*smacks head* I didnt even notice the century thing!  I was refering to the implicit sex stuff you wrote by accident!

women don't care if they make men have to compete to stay on the top.  but, i think we suffer from stress if we push too hard.

ay me.. 

[pianistimo]

who is ay me?  and anna kravatchenko--- i though she was a tennis player?  does she play the piano, too?  i must be sufferring some kind of mental down if i am getting things so mixed up.  it all started with not remember the date of each day.  i ask my kids when i write notes - what's the date today. 

every few years you'll hear of a fantastic  woman pianist.  alicia dellarocia was one of my favorites.  i like her spanish music and flair for the dramatic.  there's another lady i found the other night who plays bach extrememly well - from britan.  and, here and there women that i didn't know about.  maybe they are not promoted as much?  i don't know.  anyway - i think it comes down to energy level, if you have a family - or your family is grown, how hard you push yourself. 

for me, i have to last until the last one is grown - so don't want to burn out.  the youngest is four.