Chopin or Liszt?

[IgnazPaderewski]

What I am TRYING to say is that we are dealing with personal feelings about a piece, so while you can say "I much prefer the Liszt B minor to anything chopin wrote" you cannot say "Liszt is better than Chopin" because then you are attempting to objectively assess the qualities of the music but on subjective criterion (possibly without realising) such as personal feelings.

[eddie92099]

This from the person who started the thread entitled "Music that deserves to be neglected". Hypocrit,
Ed

[IgnazPaderewski]

I started the other thread just for people to express opinions about music they dislike. there is so much stuff about pieces people like, why not one about pieces they detest? If you had bothered to read what I wrote on that thread, I say that I am not trying to criticise the music (shostakovich), I just dislike it intensely! but I understand that this is probably my shortcoming rather than his. It doesn't alter my feelings though. So I am not being hypocritical. I don't understand why you are trying to attack what I am saying when it is obvious that you haven't read it properly. You are trying to maliciously dismiss what I say in a blanket general statement (you dont know what you are talkng about, this from the person who) rather than taking issue with specific things I said. You say "now apply [sh*t] to works by chopin and Liszt". It is not relevant (to aa discussion) trying to determine the greater of the two) to try and categorise individual compositions within the composers output.

I am just trying to get you to recognise that this word "greater" and all synonyms when applied to music is a subjective thing, and you cannot actually define which is better for everybody, just for yourself. You just don't seem to want to listen to what I say - you mention earlier "nobody would say that Kylie Minogue's latest single is a greater piece of music than Beethoven's Fifth Symphony". Yes they would, my brother for one. He would say the Beethoven is "gay" and the Minogue (oh god) woudl be "bangin" or the like. You are doing the same thing by saying Liszt is better than chopin - less crudely cos you are not a moron like my brother, but you are both expressing your feelings towards different music. Here comes the point...
There is no way of PROVING that kylie minogue is worse than beethoven, or Liszt worse than Chopin. I prefer easily Liszt to Chopin on the whole, as it seems do you, but there is no way of proving the superiority of one over the other factually.
Anyway. cheer up, you are being too serious.    

[fanaticalpianist]

Now that everyone is done bickering hopefully, How bout lets reconsider the topic, "Chopin  or Liszt:  who do you prefer and why?"


I love Chopin for his perfect Musicallness.  Every single piece he composed I think has great musical value and there are no added notes.  It is very difficult to make a transctipion of a Chopin piece, becuae they are so right and perfect.

At the moment, I enjoy listening to Liszt more.  His pieces contain much of the Musicallness of Chopin, but with added flare and bustling with electric energy.  Liszt does some amazing things with the piano that is like a drug to me.  It is truely like listening to an orchestra, and I love that.

[eddie92099]

It is not relevant (to aa discussion) trying to determine the greater of the two) to try and categorise individual compositions within the composers output.

You must judge a composer by his/her greatest work.

There is no way of PROVING that kylie minogue is worse than beethoven

I disagree,
Ed

[BoliverAllmon]

Then how do you prove which is greater in a non-biased way?

boliver

[eddie92099]

Then how do you prove which is greater in a non-biased way?

Ingenuity of harmony, creativity of orchestration, complexity of rhythms, harmonic tension of melody etc.
Ed

[BoliverAllmon]

Explain what the ingenuity aspect is. What makes for a good harmony and which is bad?

boliver

[eddie92099]

Explain what the ingenuity aspect is.

For example, harmonies that have not been used together before but don't just sound juxtaposed because they are used with skill and elements of the old style are kept (much of Beethoven's music is so great for this reason).

What makes for a good harmony and which is bad?

It is not the specific harmony, but the way in which the different harmonies are used. Why don't you listen to a piece of music that is widely accepted as "great", and then listen to a piece of music that isn't, and try and think of what makes the great one great. (It is not as easy as it sounds - Busoni said that one of the hardest things he ever learnt was how to distinguish between good Beethoven and bad Beethoven),
Ed

[IgnazPaderewski]

But some of the widely accepted great beethoven has a harmonic repertoire of about 3 chords, and the themes are just plain arpeggios (appassionata).

[shas]

I know this was from a while ago but I  haven't bin about for a whils.

If you study Beethoven and Mozart. (at least for his time) Beethoven's harmonic progresions wher (meby not a huge amount) simpeler than Mozarts.
This doesn't make them any worse. Beethoven had such perfec(maby catch) themes and it was thes that rally made his fame. It's not a critisisem at all. I personlly enjoy  betthoven more than Mozart.

[eddie92099]

But some of the widely accepted great beethoven has a harmonic repertoire of about 3 chords, and the themes are just plain arpeggios (appassionata).

There are slightly more than three chords in the appassionata!

If you study Beethoven and Mozart. (at least for his time) Beethoven's harmonic progresions wher (meby not a huge amount) simpeler than Mozarts.
This doesn't make them any worse. Beethoven had such perfec(maby catch) themes and it was thes that rally made his fame. It's not a critisisem at all. I personlly enjoy  betthoven more than Mozart.

I'm sorry but you are wrong. I think you should go and listen to a bit more music,
Ed

[allchopin]

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

Thus the quality of music is purely subjective.  A piece of ordinary pop can be, subjectively, a better tune than a orchestral masterpiece by a famous composer if the former just awakens more, and stronger, feelings.

[eddie92099]

Thus the quality of music is purely subjective.  A piece of ordinary pop can be, subjectively, a better tune than a orchestral masterpiece by a famous composer if the former just awakens more, and stronger, feelings.

But there are objective ways of assessing which tune is best,
Ed

[Rach3]

Subjectivity... Martians might all agree Beethoven is worthless and Satie is the best and Telemann is very emotional and profound (it is), but the point being made is

BEETHOVEN IS THE GREATEST !!!

and that is what I stand with. And many agree. Let's not get ontological here.

...OR RACHMANINOFF !

[Rach3]

But there are objective ways of assessing which tune is best,
Ed

Agreed. Ex: Chopin's Bb-minor scherzo theme is objectively "better" than "Heart and Soul" (horrors!). Do the math.

[chopinetta]

whoa! not rach! i do think beethoven is the greatest composer but i disagree that it's a choice between beethoven or rachmaninoff. but that's your opinion and this is mine. so I am saying that it's a choice among mozart, beethoven, bach, etc. those that are famous even to the nonmusical ear.

[eddie92099]

I think Beethoven is the most important composer, but he is not my favourite,
Ed

[chopinetta]

that does make sense, Eddie! i strongly agree! beethoven is a very important composer. the most important, but clearly, he is not everyone's favorite.

[Rach3]

Rachmaninoff is my favorite, because of his increndible power and beautiful harmonies. Beethoven is one of my favorites, and he is probably one of the "Greatest" along with Johann and Wolf because every worthwile pianist appreciates his sheer genius.

[chopinetta]

which means that if rachmaninoff/rachmaninov is your favorite composer then he is your greates. leave it to that. generally, it's beethoven who has that title.

[Shagdac]

I don't think it's possible to judge 2 composers of such genious and pick one over the other. It's probably just what you prefer. I think of Liszt as being more dramatic and powerful, while Chopin more passionate. Right now I'm playing Liszt......if you'd ask a year ago, I would have said Chopin.  

[chopiabin]

Although I do enjoy Liszt, I find that he tends to cheapen many of his pieces by adding random cadenzas. He loved to show off his technique and with that purpose in mind. Rarely do I find Liszt's melodies as complicated or interesting as Chopin's, but he hypes them up with lots and lots of chromatic scale technique. In terms of piano music I would say that Chopin outweighs Liszt. Yes, Liszt wrote the B minor sonata, but Chopin wrote hundreds of pieces that are incredibly musical and considered some of the most important pieces in the repertoire. Chopin never cheapened things with showy fireworks, but he also wrote almost solely for the piano, so I don't know which one is the greater "all around" composer.

[comme_le_vent]

what are they ways to judge a tune objectively?
motivic unity? motivic juxtaposivity?

i could improvise a tune over the 'hey jude' chord progression, what would make the original 'objectively' superior to my improvised melody?

[eddie92099]

what are they ways to judge a tune objectively?

Charles Rosen answers your question in "Schoenberg",
Ed

[comme_le_vent]

charles rosen cant answer my question cos im strapped for cash...YOU answer it, seeing as your so clever and all....

[eddie92099]

I don't really want to recite a chapter from a book! Go down to a library,
Ed

[trunks]

Hi eddie and friends,

I see no point arguing over this topic. It's like arguing over "is Princess Diana more beautiful or Prince William more handsome?" or "Which is the better pasta - spaghetti or macaroni or lasagne?" Where is the objective definition? How do you define the yardstick?

Both Chopin and Liszt are great in their own ways. Both are in many ways unique. So is Beethoven, so is Bach, so is Brahms, so is Rachmaninov, so is Skriabin, so is Schumann, so is Schubert, so is Grieg . . . and the list goes on and on. For the audience, to each his own.

Art is nothing to be compared. Art is to be appreciated, to be enjoyed and to be perceived. Otherwise you don't like it at all. No comparison.

[rachlisztchopin]

im a little late in joining the debate guys but only a very ignorant person would say kylie minogue was better then beethoven

[shas]

in my opinion thats very true but for the sake of argument I have to say that unfortunatly many people would disagree with that last coment.

[rainmaker]

   hi eddie!
 you know what? sssssssssss, you better take that topic back, we don't ask things liket that never ever . it does things to you!
 sincerely,
    rainmaker

[Nightscape]

Its easy to say that some composers were better at composition than others....
like Bach being better than Telemann, Mozart better than Salieri (hehe... Amadeus), etc.  Although Chopin and Liszt were contemporaries, it is really very hard to judge them against each other.  For one thing, Chopin died in 1849 and Liszt in 1886, so obviously Liszt had more time to perfect his craft.  Chopin wrote really great music... keeping in mind he did this all under the age of 39.  Liszt by comparision, would have been very busy touring as a concert pianist from age 25 to 35 so.... by the time Liszt was 39 certainly Chopin's music was more developed, in a more mature style than Liszt.  But Liszt did not stay the same - his music drastically evolves as he ages.  After Chopin's death, Liszt begins to embark on some very, very big compositional projects.  He wrote ochestral standards like "Les Preludes" and his piano concertos.... and massive piano works like his Sonata, and the Annes de Pelerinage.  He also wrote large choral works.  Music was Liszt's life- he truly believed in the power of music and kept writing, improving, and experimenting up to his death.  It is sad that Chopin did not live beyond age 39, because he would surely have given us some great music - composers tend to write their best later in life.  Yet for such a short life, Chopin created music that far surpasses some of his longer lived predecessors.

In the end.... you cannot compare them fairly, just as you cannot compare Bach and Stravinsky fairly.  So instead of asking "Chopin or Liszt?" you should be saying "Chopin and Liszt!"

[the_prodigy]

i make thread about this subject and i get yelled


but you.......................


the_prodigy

[chozart]

both are excellent composers in their own respects
sometimes I dislike something about one that I like with the other, but there are still so many things that I admire

however, ... I find Chopin a tad overrated :/
I guess it's because.. of people themselves

when people hear Chopin, they're like "oh, how beautiful, it's Chopin"
when people who don't really know much about piano hear Chopin they usually go "OMFG IT'S CHOPIN HOW GORGEOUS"
when people hear Liszt, they're like "oh, how masterful, it's Liszt"
when people who don't really know much about piano hear Liszt they usually go "Oh... that's neat.."

I don't know.. it's hard to explain
but it's like people in a way have made me like Chopin less. I mean, he's AMAZING, but it's just that he's become like the "epitome of romantic music," which sort of pisses me off.

I think Liszt, in comparison with Chopin, is undercredited.

I find Liszt's music so much richer.. more complex... and I find it more personal (I'm not saying "Oh yeah Liszt > Chopin or anything).. but actually, in part because of people  >_o