Chopin or Liszt?

[eddie92099]

Who was the greater composer?
Ed

[e60m5]

Composer, Chopin, on the basis of what each wrote; however, Liszt did not often write to his full potential, caring more for virtuosic fireworks than substance in a piece, so it is hard to say which of the two would have come out on top had Liszt used his musical gifts to their fullest.

[eddie92099]

Thanks for the response - it is exactly what I wanted in order to start a debate.

I propose that Liszt was the greater composer. First and foremost, a composer must be judged by his greatest work (as a criminal is his greatest crime). There is no work written by Chopin greater than Liszt's Sonata in B minor. Secondly, Liszt was a far more revolutionary composer than Chopin, which also attributed to his greatness (for example, Nuages Gris anticipates impressionism, and the Bagatelle sans tonalite is in fact the first piece of atonal music). Furthermore, Liszt's invention of the symphonic poem and similar usage of literature in many of his solo piano works add to the spirit of musical revolution that makes a composer great. Finally, Liszt completely reinvented piano technique through his works and influenced a great many composers who came after him to write in the new style,
Ed

[e60m5]

Thanks for the response - it is exactly what I wanted in order to start a debate.

I propose that Liszt was the greater composer. First and foremost, a composer must be judged by his greatest work (as a criminal is his greatest crime). There is no work written by Chopin greater than Liszt's Sonata in B minor. Secondly, Liszt was a far more revolutionary composer than Chopin, which also attributed to his greatness (for example, Nuages Gris anticipates impressionism, and the Bagatelle sans tonalite is in fact the first piece of atonal music). Furthermore, Liszt's invention of the symphonic poem and similar usage of literature in many of his solo piano works add to the spirit of musical revolution that makes a composer great. Finally, Liszt completely reinvented piano technique through his works and influenced a great many composers who came after him to write in the new style,
Ed

Good points. I would personally disagree with the idea that there is no piece by Chopin greater than the Liszt B Minor; but that is a matter of personal opinion, not a debatable fact.

Whether or not the composer ought to be judged by their greatest works is a point I myself am not too clear on. Surely if a criminal is consigned to pickpocketing for much his life, and gains a reputation for doing so, and then happens to chance upon murder, he will still be, insofar as he is a criminal, a pickpocket; it is true that yes, he is a murderer, but by and large his life in crime has been determined by his predominant contribution to the crimescene. My opinion is that it is difficult to judge and to decide upon even the basis upon which to consider these two composers (lol) so it will be infinitely harder to compare them in the first place.

The thing about Chopin that strikes me every time I play or even hear him, is the Chopin-ness of the piece. (Very descriptive, I know...) The innovation in Chopin's Etudes and, to a lesser degree, the Préludes, cannot be denied as such; they were, and still are, revolutionary compositions relative to their contemporaries.

But, as you say, Liszt also made some major contributions to the pianistic world. As a composer, though, I wouldn't go so far to say as he was greater than Chopin.

Let's face it, anyway... those two are among the few men that are closest to Gods as it is! It would be hard to compare them under any circumstances! lol

[allchopin]

Ed,
you really should cure that obesession you have with the Sonata in B minor...  
You didnt really specify what aspect of the two composers were to be compared... as far as health, I mean, Liszt surely beats Chopin.  But as writers, I'd say that Chopin took the cake because he was far more thoughtful and deliberate in his meticulous pieces (in the majority of his works).  Liszt was first a showman, and his pieces are usually just that.  Often a composer will trip across an unbelieveable melody and come out victorious (Sonata in B minor!!!?) but, like e6 said, it's the majority rule.
But, man, Liszt sure was cool.

[eddie92099]

Often a composer will trip across an unbelieveable melody and come out victorious (Sonata in B minor!!!?) but, like e6 said, it's the majority rule.

I can think of many great Lisztian melodies off the top of my head,
Ed

[Hmoll]

Who's better, Chopin or Liszt? The answer is.....(drum roll).... BRAHMS!!

Actually, Chopin and Liszt were both great composers, and are probably on equal footing.
They both influenced piano technique hugely.
I would say that Chopin's music was more consistently great than Liszt's music. True, Liszt wrote the B min. sonata - one of the monuments of piano lit. - but he wrote a lot of trash too - Don Juan Fantasy, for ex.  Chopin wrote great sonatas as well, and could say it all in a 19 minute sonata.
It's true, and Ed's right, Liszt was more experimental and revolutionary. However, that in and of itself does not translate to greatness.
I will always prefer Chopin's music to Liszts, but I might give Liszt the edge because he did not limit himself as much to piano music as Chopin did.

[Baw]

Who was the greater composer?

Had the question be "Who was the greater composer of piano music," then it would be a toss-up for me (though I often find myself enjoying Chopin's piano music more than Liszt's -- to my ears, Chopin's piano music is more consistently musical than Liszt's).

Without restricting the comparison to piano music, between Chopin and Liszt, I am partial to Liszt for being more innovative and more of a revolutionary.

[eddie92099]

The fact that Liszt wrote a lot of trash is completely irrelevant - a composer is to be judged by his greatest composition, as a criminal is his greatest crime (sorry to repeat myself!),
Ed

[shatteringpulse]

Why do you harbor such affection for the Sonata in B Minor? lol...

I would agree that Liszt is the greater of the two composers, but not just based upon his greatest "crime." Take the transcendental etudes, for example: they are the basis of modern piano technique. Of course Chopins op. 10 and 25 can be argued to be just as revolutionary--but are they really? On what grounds compared to those of Liszt? They are both titans inarguably. I think it eventually comes down to which a pianist prefers to play--and here is where I will throw out caution and delve into stereotypes! Chopin always strikes me as feminine--not perhaps in a bad way--but devoid of masculinity, save for the polonaises and some miscellaneous works of genius. As a male, I don't think Chopin is the grandest outlet for emotion, passion, and music for me--I think his compositions, for the most part (with some great exceptions), are filtered through a feminine lens. I think the psyche of a male falls better under Liszt command of composition and technique--not just for bravura, but for the strength, pride, sureness, and overall "masculinity" of his works. Liebestraum is a monument even compared to the fragile master nocturne of Chopin, Op. 48, No. 1. Now I'm not advocating Chopin is for the effeminate--of course not. But his composition and music project themselves, if they had to be through one sex, predominately through a female. I love Chopin, but I think it's easier to identify with Liszt. Disagree if you may! Hahaha...

The greatest composer, for the greatest number of great crimes? Rachmaninoff--the synthesis of Chopin and Liszt--but is he really an androgyny, or something unique?  

And for fairness...ironically, Argerich is, I believe, my favorite pianist--

[eddie92099]

Why do you harbor such affection for the Sonata in B Minor? lol...

I just think it's phenomenal  .

The greatest composer, for the greatest number of great crimes? Rachmaninoff--the synthesis of Chopin and Liszt--but is he really an androgyny, or something unique?  

And for fairness...ironically, Argerich is, I believe, my favorite pianist--            

Right on,
Ed

[Hmoll]

The fact that Liszt wrote a lot of trash is completely irrelevant - a composer is to be judged by his greatest composition, as a criminal is his greatest crime (sorry to repeat myself!),
Ed

Of course it's relevant. The fact that Liszt wrote a lot of empty virtuosic barn stormers when he could have written those pieces as great music speaks to his overall integrity, and consistency - thus his overall greatness.  That's one reason he is not on on the same level as Bach, Beetoven, or Brahms.

[eddie92099]

Of course it's relevant. The fact that Liszt wrote a lot of empty virtuosic barn stormers when he could have written those pieces as great music speaks to his overall integrity, and consistency - thus his overall greatness.  That's one reason he is not on on the same level as Bach, Beetoven, or Brahms.

I disagree entirely,
Ed

[allchopin]

Hmoll: That's not to say that Bach, Beethoven and Brahms never had a bad day.  Everyone threw out trash, but I think Liszt did moreso than Chopin.  Also, this makes sense because Liszt wrote many more works than did Chopin.  I agree with shatter about Chopin's "feminity" but he had many equally powerful ones as well (and keep in mind he was sick half his life ).  Sadly to say, there really are no formulas for determing quality of music; thus it's all in the ear of the beholder.  But Ed, would you say that if I committed murder, and every year before that occurence I robbed hundreds of banks, my charge wouldn't be increased?  Sure it would- just like Liszt writing mountains of useless garbage to weed out one good murder .  And if you come across a one-hit wonder composer, would you still call him/her a good composer overall?

[thracozaag]

Brahms held periodic bonfires.

[allchopin]

Obviously not big enough ones.
No he's cool

[eddie92099]

Sadly to say, there really are no formulas for determing quality of music; thus it's all in the ear of the beholder.  

I disagree with that. For example, nobody would say that Kylie Minogue's latest single is a greater piece of music than Beethoven's Fifth Symphony.

But Ed, would you say that if I committed murder, and every year before that occurence I robbed hundreds of banks, my charge wouldn't be increased?  Sure it would- just like Liszt writing mountains of useless garbage to weed out one good murder .  And if you come across a one-hit wonder composer, would you still call him/her a good composer overall?

There is a passage from "Piano Notes" by Charles Rosen that you should read. Unfortunately I am away from home at the moment so I don't have the book with me. Specifically, he talks about a great pianist being judged by his greatest performance, regardless of the number of poor performances he gives (i.e. a pianist who gives one great performance and then five dreadful ones being greater than a pianist who gives six mediocre performances),
Ed

[allchopin]

I disagree with that. For example, nobody would say that Kylie Minogue's latest single is a greater piece of music than Beethoven's Fifth Symphony.

Ed you really should pick your battles.  Ill bet Kylie Minogue thinks that the single is better...
And if you disagree, what is the secret formula?

[eddie92099]

And if you disagree, what is the secret formula?

Just ask yourself what makes Beethoven's fifth better than Kylie Minogue and you have your answer!
Ed

[shas]

this is oviously an "unsetelable". however as far as someone beeing a revloutionary composer I'd have to argue that  Debussy was supirier in many way. It has taken years for even jazz to outnumber his chord repretoir.
Having said that I adore chopins fluent melodys and beutiful harmony, I also admir list clever and very vertuosic style. (think that Lizt was the (technically) better pianist but chpin was the better composer.
I love beethoven. and I bin thinkin. harmonically his music was actually far simpler than say Mozart but don't you just love his themes.

[Noah]

I love beethoven. and I bin thinkin. harmonically his music was actually far simpler than say Mozart.

What ??

[eddie92099]

I love beethoven. and I bin thinkin. harmonically his music was actually far simpler than say Mozart

Now try thinking using your brain,
Ed

[Jemmers]

Just to prevent further digression into...erm... Kylie, Mozart and Beethoven.... (weird seeing her name next to those 2)

Chopin was the better MUSICIAN. (key word!) but Liszt wasn't far behind. The way they wrote music (in terms of texture, but not tune) was probably on par (but different). Liszt was, by far the greater virtuoso.

Still, i prefer listening to Chopin. And that's the most important thing.

[DAwud7]

Just one thing too say too shatteringpulse chopin wrote Metrosexual music not feminine music.

[shatteringpulse]

I never thought of that...yes! Metrosexual...perfectly straight but feminine-tinged music, but just because of our cultural definitions of what is a man and what is a woman...genius! But the polonaises are certainly masculine--but still they maintain that exquisite touch and perfection--maybe perfect is femininity, and hence Chopin... .

I think musically, (I admit!) Chopin is superior. The substance conveyed by pieces like the op. 48, no. 1 nocturne, the F minor ballade, and the F minor fantasy...and certainly the savage emotion of the Polonaise Fantasie--certainly dwarves the constructions of Liszt. But Liszt's music is just that--a construction of an idea rather than a blatant idea. Chopin just chose "topics" of grander and more universal depth than Liszt, but Liszt works themselves--the mechanics and even the manipulation of the themes--may be, and probably are, superior to Chopin. I am frightened when I think of what Liszt could do to some of Chopin's works--imagine Liszt's composition of the Heroic Polonaise! Frightening! Liszt's musical constructions tower over Chopin, but the substance of Chopin's messages and themes and philosophies stand head to head with Liszt's towers. An epic duel--frozen by the death of the two--until the end--which is greater? It depends on the criteria for greatness--whether one judges as musicians or by philosophers.

[allchopin]

Actually, saying that Liszt was a better virtuoso doesn't make sense either.  Just because Chopin  didn't write "impossible" music all the time like Liszt doesn't mean that he didn't have the capability.  He just didn't need to flaunt cadenzas at every turn- but I think that he could stand up to Liszt technically.  After all, he wrote his etudes in his late teens...

[Rach3]

I would NOT want to see Liszt's version of the Heroic Polonaise. That piece gets mistreated enough as it is, in Polish politics on TV they have these horrendous "patriotic" performances of it, complete with 1812-style cannons and stuff (it's BAD).

Can anyone here so much as NAME the complete works of Chopin and Liszt? There. Very quiet.

I think we are working too much with stereotypes of the composers than the composers themselves. Chopin NOT an incredible virtuoso?
-Finale from b minor sonata (INCREDIBLE)
-F-minor ballade
-Scherzi 1, 3
-Rondos (show-off pieces)

I think the numerous pieces of Annees de Pelerinage alone classify Liszt as a "great". On a side note I just heard Stephen Hough preform the entirety of Suisse in one sitting... when Liszt was not showing off, he wrote very beautiful and unpretensious music (excluding of course the Orage). Look at Chapel de Guilliame Tell, in the hands of a great pianist, traumatic. Minimum virtuosity. And the wandering From the Source (I think), I forgot the French, hardly the raging masculine hyperoctaves we have reduced him to. And of course the Petrarch sonnet 104, and the first piece from Italy, and Obermann valley, and there is one haunting melody from somewhere in there which I can't place... Annees de Pelerinage is not an EXCEPTION to Liszt, it is five hours of GENIUS which is would be no less incredible even if he wrote a DOZEN hungarian rhapsodies.

Oh and a suggestion: find your favorite Chopin Scherzi recording, and listen to #3, at full volume. That might change this post a bit.

At their greatest, Chopin and Liszt can not be compared.



And now for a brief hijack: I think BRAHMS is the best of all!!! Absolute mastery of form, supreme passion, ultimate tragedy. The F minor quintet! And of course vicious technique, highly virtuosic at times.

[eddie92099]

Actually, saying that Liszt was a better virtuoso doesn't make sense either.  Just because Chopin  didn't write "impossible" music all the time like Liszt doesn't mean that he didn't have the capability.  He just didn't need to flaunt cadenzas at every turn- but I think that he could stand up to Liszt technically.  After all, he wrote his etudes in his late teens...

"I wish I could borrow from Liszt how to play my own etudes." Chopin
Ed

[fanaticalpianist]

Liszt has said himself in a letter that his music is not superficial.  

People interpret all the glitter and glitz as meaningless, I'd say it is a reflection of his exhuberance as a composer...and he liked to make the girls faint


Liszt was a better musician.  He does 2 things that Chopin did not.  He Composed Symphonies, and he Conducted (don't think Chopin did this), along with all the other things.


Some say that Liszt wrote a bunch of trash, have you listened to it?    I have around 500 of His compositions, and although they may not all be great, there is no trash, it is all good.


Some of my Favs from Liszt

Dante Sonata:  Simply brilliant, my fave piece from him

Les Preludes
Paganini Etudes
Transcendental Etudes
Orpheus
Rigoletto paraphrase
Spinning Chorus transcription
La Danza, Hamelin's Transcription
Les jeux d'eau de la Villa d'Este
Concert Etudes
Vienne Caprice 3,4,6
Hungarian Rhapsodies
Piano Concertos 1,2,De profundis
Hexameron
Romantic Fantasy
Rhapsody Espanogle
Waltz De Bravoura
Gunoud Waltz
Mephisto Waltz - Very overplayed though
Concert Paraphrase on Donizetti's 'Lucia di Lammermoor'
Miserere aus Trovatore (Bellucci)
[Bellucci] -04- Aida - Danza sacra e Duetto finale
Totentanz
Reminiscences De Don Juan


I may have missed a few, but those are some of His Most excellent works imo.


And there ar probably 1000 I haven't even heard, at www.iclassics.com you can hear the first minute of the entire works of Liszt played by Leslie howard.

[eddie92099]

His

,
Ed

[Rach3]

How dare you get a post count for something like that? I'll never catch up!

Oh I get it!  

But why would He write the Mephisto waltz?

[allchopin]

I believe that Liszt copied Chopin's ideas.  After all, he was born a year later, so we should give Chopin the benefit of the doubt.  

[Noah]

Reminiscences De Don Juan

[BoliverAllmon]

I thought Liszt was already hailed as the greatest pianist around (which meant he played his own compositions) when chopin unleashed the fury of his first set of etudes. I thought liszt though younger may have started earlier than chopin.

boliver

[liszmaninopin]

I lean towards Liszt as being more multitalented and composing a large number of things.  Chopin was by a very considerable margin a composer for piano, and if it was a comparison of who was the better composer for piano, I might give Chopin a slight edge.  However, Liszt did it all, and did it usually very well, so I say he is the better composer.

[bernhard]

But let us not forget that Chopin died at 39 and Lizst at 75. Would it not be fairer to compare only Liszt's output from before 39?

[allchopin]

I thought liszt though younger may have started earlier than chopin.

Actually you bring up a good point.  I'm really not sure when Liszt began playing in regards to Chopin, but I know that they were exalted as geniuses before the age of 10.  I don't care to research it at the moment- perhaps someone knows when these two virtuosos made their debuts?

[bop...boo]

Well Chopin and Liszt both did start pretty early but their upbringings were different.  Liszt had a more formal training and studied with czerny and got his technique into shape.  Chopin was primarly self taught.  I think his only teacher was a violin player.

figuring out whose better is impossible because both composers did what they wanted to do.  Chopin only cared about one instrument and that was the voice.  Everything he composed and all of his technique was influenced by singing.  his phrasing, his runs, everything was to be played like a singer sang it.   The piano allowed him to do everything he felt nessasary in music.  I think we could all agree that his music has a song like quality to it and I think we could all agree that Chopin made his point.  He gave performers knew piano techniques that he created and that helped support his philosophy of piano playing.

Liszt was all about pushing the piano's capabilities to the max.  he was all about effects and the orchestra and colors.  He was a busy man and always being influenced.  He would transpose symphonies and operas to be played on the piano, he created a whole set of etudes that supported his philosophy of piano playing.  He had the ability to create symphonic poems on the piano.  It was a totally different approach to the piano then Chopin.  

Both composers had a remarkable influence on piano playing and teaching.  Both were extremely succesful in doing what they wanted to.  So i think the question boils down to which composer's style do you like best.  

and for what it's worth I'm pretty sure Liszt would give his vote to Chopin.

[johnreef]

Do you, bop...boo think that opus 10#1 and opus 25#10 have anything to do with the human voice?

[IgnazPaderewski]

"Composer, Chopin, on the basis of what each wrote; however, Liszt did not often write to his full potential, caring more for virtuosic fireworks than substance in a piece, so it is hard to say which of the two would have come out on top had Liszt used his musical gifts to their fullest" - e60m5

That is the biggest load of bollocks that I have read on this forum. How much of Liszt's music do you know? Liszts work is fantastic, and it is misinformed philistines like you wich ensure that he is still thought of as an unmusical showman. SOME of Liszt's work is unabashedely for show purposes, but they succeed in what they are trying to do - show off the pianist. But most of his "difficult" music is hard BECAUSE HE COULD PLAY IT, and it was not hard for him. I cite the transcendentals, which are wonderful pieces of music. pretty damn difficult, but great music, the difficulty is perhaps more obvious but no less incidental than the appassionata. A great deal of Liszt's output is not even mechanically taxing, so a statement like your gives the impression that you are regurgitating an early twentieth century english pseuds opinion of the maestros ouevre (perhaps adding a slice of your own based on a knowledge of a total of about 3 works of his). Ridiculous.

Another thing, what kind of ridiculous discussion of this if the goal is to decide who is the "greater" composer? what is your criterion? and ed, how can you say that the liszt b minor is "greater" than anything by chopin? they are writing completely different styles of music, and what you are basically saying is that there is no work of chopin that moves you as much as the Liszt Sonata. Me too, but that does not mean it is a "better" piece, I dont think there is such thing. it is an enormously subjective term which cannot really be subtanstiated by any objective evidence. Chopin and liszt are so completely different, there is no point comparing their stature as composers, just accept they are both very great masters in different ways, and leave it there without the need to impose an unnofficial hierarchy upon the creators of the standard repertoire. But Ed, whilst I disagree totally with your whole idea of a better composer, I do agree with some of the points you made about him. This whole discussion reminds me of when some guy I know said to a mutual friend that I was a moron for not replying in the affirmative when asked whether the Bach Chaconne is "better" than the Rachmaninoff 3rd. Just how would the Bach be better? it is a totally different style of music - it may be a better demonstration of Chaconne form, but that is it. So I replied that I thought neither was "better". Nevertheless, I was met with scorn, which is what I anticpate in this forum with comments like "so would you say that Liszt Don Juan is as good as the Hammerklavier". but well see. I think fanaticalpianist has the right idea about Liszt.

[bop...boo]

Do you, bop...boo think that opus 10#1 and opus 25#10 have anything to do with the human voice?

yes of course.  in  opus 10#1 The melody line is in the base and I am sure Chopin would ask his students to sing the line in order to phrase it.   The harmony in the right hand must support this melody and must also sing and be phrased like the voice would sing it.

in opus 25#10 the entire point of the middle section is to be able to sing in octaves that is why it is marked ben Legato and the fingering is 3 4 5.  Both Op10 #1 and Op 25 #10 require very supple wrists.   This is Chopins point.   In the beggening of the octave etude Chopin wrote in hidden melodies that should sing.  These etudes are about creating a smooth legato sound that the human voice already contains.

[dj]

i think liszt was obsessed with the chromatic scale, thats what all his cadenzas sound like anyway. i actually do like liszt quite well, but no one can be compared to chopin, his every note has a meaning and purpose and i can never get tired of listening to his works, even if they're the same ones over and over.

[eddie92099]

Another thing, what kind of ridiculous discussion of this if the goal is to decide who is the "greater" composer? what is your criterion? and ed, how can you say that the liszt b minor is "greater" than anything by chopin? they are writing completely different styles of music, and what you are basically saying is that there is no work of chopin that moves you as much as the Liszt Sonata. Me too, but that does not mean it is a "better" piece, I dont think there is such thing. it is an enormously subjective term which cannot really be subtanstiated by any objective evidence. Chopin and liszt are so completely different, there is no point comparing their stature as composers, just accept they are both very great masters in different ways, and leave it there without the need to impose an unnofficial hierarchy upon the creators of the standard repertoire. But Ed, whilst I disagree totally with your whole idea of a better composer, I do agree with some of the points you made about him. This whole discussion reminds me of when some guy I know said to a mutual friend that I was a moron for not replying in the affirmative when asked whether the Bach Chaconne is "better" than the Rachmaninoff 3rd. Just how would the Bach be better? it is a totally different style of music - it may be a better demonstration of Chaconne form, but that is it. So I replied that I thought neither was "better". Nevertheless, I was met with scorn, which is what I anticpate in this forum with comments like "so would you say that Liszt Don Juan is as good as the Hammerklavier". but well see. I think fanaticalpianist has the right idea about Liszt.

You're whole attitude boils down to one thing - every composition is equal, every composer is equal. I don't have much to say on this, only that it is so far from correct that I urge you to go and see a psychiatrist,
Ed

[IgnazPaderewski]

No, you are inventing things that I haven't said. Every composition is not equal. Occasionally composers write pieces not representative of their abilities, or stuff that is just crap. Some composers are so completely devoid of ability that it makes you want to cry. But you are trying to compare two composers who have both composed wonderful pieces which I think is something that you cannot do - Chopin ballade no.4 and liszt sonata are not better or worse than each other, they are just great music. So your sarcastic and arrogant dismissal of what I have to say is founded upon a misguided interpretation of what I actually wrote. I suppose I had better leave this topic alone, because rather than arguing you are rather prepared to sneer.

[eddie92099]

No, you are inventing things that I haven't said. Every composition is not equal. Occasionally composers write pieces not representative of their abilities, or stuff that is just crap. Some composers are so completely devoid of ability that it makes you want to cry.

So there is a hierarchy.

But you are trying to compare two composers who have both composed wonderful pieces which I think is something that you cannot do - Chopin ballade no.4 and liszt sonata are not better or worse than each other, they are just great music. So your sarcastic and arrogant dismissal of what I have to say is founded upon a misguided interpretation of what I actually wrote. I suppose I had better leave this topic alone, because rather than arguing you are rather prepared to sneer.

Would you like to place these pieces in the hierarchy which you stated exists? Or does everything by Chopin and Liszt fall into the top stratum of the hierarchy? Clearly, it does not,
Ed

[IgnazPaderewski]

If 1 thing is sh*t and another is good then you could loosely term that a heirarchy. But, you are trying to compare things that are both completely different but still great and impose a hierarchy, but on what criterion? My point is that it there is no way that you can factually prove that one is better than the other, it is a subjective matter that boils down to individual perception and impressions of a piece, not an objective assessment of the pieces qualities which would be a) so wholly irrelevant that it is you who should see the psychiatrist and b) impossible. If you can prove with some sort of evidence from the text that one is "better" than the other, without sentences such as "X is more emotionally powerful than Y" or "X is more revolutionary than Y" then I will concede that I am wrong. Until then, no.

[eddie92099]

Why don't you stop thinking of witty replies and give what you write a moment's thought. You say "If 1 thing is s**t and another is good then you could loosely term that a heirarchy". Now think of what it is that makes you term one thing "s**t" and the other "good". Now apply that to works by Chopin and Liszt. Then we can progress,
Ed

[Rach3]

Ed, you seem to have either entirely missed or selectively ignored the greater part of Padarewski's arguments. Both Chopin and Liszt have composed hundreds of excellent works, for us to judge as "absolute greatest" and "not quite as great" would be BLASPHEMOUS.

just accept they are both very great masters in different ways

leading to

You're whole attitude boils down to one thing - every composition is equal, every composer is equal. I don't have much to say on this, only that it is so far from correct that I urge you to go and see a psychiatrist,
Ed

Patently false and immature.

Now apply that to works by Chopin and Liszt.

I absoutely refuse to apply the s-word to either composer.

[IgnazPaderewski]

Thankyou, Rach3.
Ed, you are not reading what I wrote - so why don't YOU stop thinking of cutting put-downs and actually read what I have written, because your last post has nothing to do with my argument whatsoever. Are you being intentionally obtuse? By the way, for one so keen on definitions, none of my posts on this article are "witty". You have begun to discuss a different issue to the one I am discussing, about the quality of individual compositions within 1 composers oeuvre rather than (what I am discussing) imposing a hierachy upon two great composers. So read what I have written properly before you dismiss me.

[Jemmers]

Not meaning to barge in.

But this is a simple case of people having different opinions. As we all know, art is not definitive. You cannot simply say "B minor sonata is better than anything Chopin composed". The only thing you can say for sure is that "I THINK/BELIEVE/FEEL/OPINE that the B minor sonata is better than anything Chopin composed."

That said, it is important not to try to impose one's artistic opinions upon another. I'd say the same applies to religion, as they are both matters of perspective.

In that respect, I think ed's aggressive "Liszt rocks" stance is quite overbearing.