Liszt's technique

[liszt-essence]

Here follows a quote out of "Personal memoires from conservations with Liszt by Strelezki"

I translated it myself, so sorry for all the errors and weird language.

I have read many letters and quotes about Liszt, his technique and it still amazes me. The man must have been an absolute genius at the piano.

Quote:
"I knew, that Tausig; with al his transcedental capacitities.. did not have this.. admirable touché and unparalleled tone that only Liszt had. I have seen Chopin's Berceuse been played by Tausig, Anton Rubinstein, Vol Bülow, Saint-Saëns and a great number of wonderful players. But this same piece, was so completely different the way that Liszt played it and he created such a completely different effect, that it was hard to believe it was the same Berceuse piece that I heard the other virtouso's perform.

Perhaps what will amaze the amateur-pianist the most is that, when I saw him play, I never saw liszt use any of his muscle-power. Which is the only appropiate term I can think of for the Fortissimo's of the modern virtuoso's.

The great charm of his playing did not ly in muscle power and force, but in the subtility, precision and delicacy of his playing.

As proof for this, I can assure my readers that I was astonished, after hearing Liszt's own arrangement of "Erlkönig" he left the piano without a single sign of transpiration or fatigue on his face or in his hands. Just a few weeks after this, I heard the same piece being performed by Anton Rubinstein who, judging by his physical appearance at the end of the piece had just stepped out of a shower while wearing all his clothes. And yet the pefromance of Liszt was just as lively as Rubinsteins and his fortissimo was just as powerful and overwhelming."

I just wished there was a recoding of the man today. Shame shame shame.

[opus10no2]

I believe this is relevant:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holmes_(actor)#Just_how_endowed_was_he.3F

just how great was Liszt's technique?

No doubt it was truly unique in his time, I find it hard to imagine he was in quite the same league as Hamelin for example, I feel standards have changed.

Many stories about Liszt are myth and legend, and it is indeed a shame we can't hear him to judge for ourselves.

[liszt-essence]

I believe this is relevant:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holmes_(actor)#Just_how_endowed_was_he.3F

just how great was Liszt's technique?

No doubt it was truly unique in his time, I find it hard to imagine he was in quite the same league as Hamelin for example, I feel standards have changed.

Many stories about Liszt are myth and legend, and it is indeed a shame we can't hear him to judge for ourselves.

Why do you find that hard to imagine opus?

[thalbergmad]

I just wished there was a recoding of the man today. Shame shame shame.

Me to, but thankfully many of his pupils left recordings, including Mortiz Rosenthal, who i have read modelled his own style close to that of Liszt. When we listen to Rosenthals recordings, perhaps we can glimpse how the great man himself sounded.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

No doubt it was truly unique in his time, I find it hard to imagine he was in quite the same league as Hamelin for example, I feel standards have changed.

Interesting, but i have always thought that pianists like Liszt developed technique that enabled them to play the compostions of the day.

Liszt had no Sorabji or Godowsky to play, so he did not develop the technique required to play them. However, if Liszt were alive today, i see no reason why he could not.

However, his style would probably not get him past the first round of a major piano competition.

Fascinating subject.

Thal

[liszt-essence]

I think he could play anything he would like. Including Sorabji or Godowsky or Hamelin

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I think that not only was Liszt capable of playing everything written in his time (let's face it, he sightread the Greig Concerto and, I have been told, Islamey), but if he had hypothetically been presented with Sorabji, Godowsky, etc, he would have evolved the pianistic techniques required to play it.

I think it is correct to say that standards are no longer the same, but I don't think this means that we can consider the greatest pianists of that era ie Liszt, Alkan, Chopin and Thalberg in any way inferior to the current big names. I think the situation now is that far more pianists are capable of playing the most demanding pieces they wrote, but that does not per se mean that these pianists are greater than Liszt et al. Who would you rather hear play Beethoven op.111 (historical curiosity aside)? Liszt or Hamelin?

[thalbergmad]

I would like to have heard Thalberg play Beethoven 4.

That would irritate the "follow the score" brigade.

Thal

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Would have been interesting.. just trying to imagine what his cadenza would sound like

Alkan playing Beethoven 3 would be interesting too - in this case we know what his cadenza sounds like.

Mind you, the Liszt-Thalberg duel would truly have been something to behold.

[henrah]

Mind you, the Liszt-Thalberg duel would truly have been something to behold.

Come on inventors of the time machine!!!

[debussy symbolism]

Quote:
Perhaps what will amaze the amateur-pianist the most is that, when I saw him play, I never saw liszt use any of his muscle-power. Which is the only appropiate term I can think of for the Fortissimo's of the modern virtuoso's.

The great charm of his playing did not ly in muscle power and force, but in the subtility, precision and delicacy of his playing.

Greetings.

I think that this knowledge is very important in that it sets Liszt as a figure not of relentless man power that so many people here associate him with, but a figure of delicacy and beauty.

[steve jones]

I believe this is relevant:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holmes_(actor)#Just_how_endowed_was_he.3F

just how great was Liszt's technique?

No doubt it was truly unique in his time, I find it hard to imagine he was in quite the same league as Hamelin for example, I feel standards have changed.

Many stories about Liszt are myth and legend, and it is indeed a shame we can't hear him to judge for ourselves.

Indeed. Its also work considering that keyboard virtuoso's are hardly the superstars they were in Liszt's day. Perhaps if Hamelin were taken back to the C19th he would be raved about in the same way Liszt was.

Obviously thats an insane thing to say, as the modern technique is derived from the music of these C19th masters! But is that no even more evidence to support that todays techniques may have transcended even the great masters of yester year? If nothing else is true, I think we'll all agree that as time passed, the human race will find a way to get bigger and better!

SJ

[ramseytheii]

I've posted this several times already, but it is always worth retyping, although I could jst copy and paste.    There are a lot of personal reminicies of Liszt worth reading, and this comes from Arthur Friedheim:

"Liszt's technique has been the subject of much discussion and conjecture on the part of those who never heard him.  Was it so prodigious, and has it been equalled since?  The answer is that it was truly prodigious but that in certain respects it has not only been equalled since, but also surpassed.  Moriz Rosenthal and L. Godowsky went beyond Liszt in specialized phases of mechanisme.  However, while Godowsky's chief metier was dexterity of fingers and Rosenthal concentrated on brilliance and power, Liszt shone in every department of technique and probably never has been approached as a builder of "orchestral" climaxes, overwhelming masses of sound and exciting effects."

Later Friedheim writes,

:..except for more counterpoint and more complexity in writing, the piano music of today demands nothing that was not known to Liszt in his ripest achievements.  I could go even further and hazard the logical opinion that Liszt would have developed in our time as he did in his own, and perhaps even shown us things altogether new in ideas and execution."

I agree with this, I think all the piano music that represented an "advance" in terms of demands of technique or sound production, were an "advance" from what Liszt had established, that is, basically everything.  Godowsky, Busoni, Bartok, Debussy, Ravel, Scriabin, these people were building off Liszt's achievements, so I don't doubt that Liszt could have mastered their music as well.  But it certainly makes for fun speculation!

Walter Ramsey

[jakev2.0]

I think Liszt was as amazing as people thought he was the 19th century, and would probably rank among the greatest virtuosi of all time. Here are some reasons I have for believing this:

1) The contemporary accounts of Liszt's playing come from some of the most eminent musicians and composers of his time. 

2)  If Liszt could play brilliantly the demanding repertoire that was available during his life-time (i.e., Goldberg Variations, Hammerklavier, etudes of Chopin/Alkan, and Feux Follets), what mystical force would stop him from playing Godowsky brilliantly as well?  So I agree with Ramsey, pretty much.

3) a) Anton Rubinstein was considered the greatest pianist after Liszt. Anton was the teacher of Josef Hofmann. Is what they said about Anton exagerrated? In my opinion, the recordings of his pupil are among the most virtuosic ever which leave the listener no doubt that Josef could have mastered any piece he wanted. If Anton was almost as good a pianist as Hofmann and Liszt was on the same level as Anton, then in my opinion the accounts of Liszt's virtuosity are justified.

3) b)  Around the turn of the century, people were raving at the virtuosity of people like Rachmaninov, Busoni, Godowsky, Lhevinne, and Friedman. Luckily, recordings exist of these dudes and support the claims that they were just as wikid as people said.  Lhevinne and co. were raved about in much the same way as Liszt, Alkan, and Anton Rubinstein - they hit the scene only three or so decades after the 19th century masters started to fade.

In my opinion, people are questioning Liszt based on little more than the time period in which he lived.

[Kassaa]

Alkan playing Beethoven 3 would be interesting too - in this case we know what his cadenza sounds like.

OMGOMG, do you have a high quality score of that cadenza? When I'm going to play one, it will be definately Alkan .

[mikey6]

I think that not only was Liszt capable of playing everything written in his time (let's face it, he sightread the Greig Concerto and, I have been told, Islamey),

I'm a bit sceptical of that - I mean anyone who can read notes can sight read.  The same with him playing the revolutionary study in octaves - how fast exactly can one manage it?  I'm not sure if these things are mentioned, or he just played through it.
That said coming from the reports and his own compositions, it's obvious that he had a phenomenal technique.  I mean, he had to re-write some of his own works coz he was the only one who could pull them off!

[pianowelsh]

I think possibly we underestimate the power of these people as performers. they were able to make people swoon and faint. it is perhaps their charisma that really swept people away rather than purely their technique - although im sure that their technique was very fine indeed. To me its actually more impressive when you look at it in context, with people like Chopin who really changed the way studies were written and created new technical styles of playing... people like Liszt who heard the virtuoso tricks of other instruments and just stole them and modified them to fit the piano, who thought in terms of creating new sounds and effects..to me thats where the real virtuosity of these great composers lay...it was more their minds than their fingers.  can you imagine hearing the liszt studies being performed for the first time with all the pyrotechnics, by someone who had a brilliant active and creative mind who was utterly behing the performance 100%, who achieved dynamic and voicing control unlike anyone else on the circuit - who to boot wasnt a bad looking young man (by all acounts). Then i think we begin to understand why these men were written about in the tumbling prose that we are familiar with. They were groundbreakers/movers and shakers..leading music performance in exciting new directions with real charisma and style..Unfortunately..there arent many around today that are doing the same thing. We have tons of great players but not many who are inventive and smoulderingly creative!

[mephisto]

3) a) Anton Rubinstein was considered the greatest pianist after Liszt. Anton was the teacher of Josef Hofmann. Is what they said about Anton exagerrated? In my opinion, the recordings of his pupil are among the most virtuosic ever which leave the listener no doubt that Josef could have mastered any piece he wanted. If Anton was almost as good a pianist as Hofmann and Liszt was on the same level as Anton, then in my opinion the accounts of Liszt's virtuosity are justified.

Great point.

[liszt-essence]

Cotemporary accounts of the people in his time is all we have now.

The myths and legends aside, there are many reliable sources as well. Like personal letters from people send to others, that were later discovered. Or articles published in musical magazines. Furthermore, often were these listeners great musicians themselves, who I believe, knew what they were talking about when they heard him play.

This letter was written by Chopin:
(source; "Liszt" by Sacheverell Sitwell)

"I write you this, without knowing, what my pen is writing down. Because at this very moment, Liszt is playing my etudes and he is taking me away from my own concious thoughts. I wish I could steal from him, the manner in which he plays my own etudes."

I think this is crucial. An interpreter, being able to play a composers piano work in a way that is not only pleasing the composer, but actually makes him desire to be able to play his own work like the interpreter is doing.

[thalbergmad]

The same with him playing the revolutionary study in octaves - how fast exactly can one manage it? 

That was not Liszt, it was Dreyschock.

Liszt played the Op25 No2 with the right hand part in octaves.

Thal

[dnephi]

Now that is insane.  Revolutionary in octaves is playable by the average advanced pianist, assuming you ignore the notes that you don't have space for.

[sevencircles]

Many people think that the greatest technical musicians just become better and better with every generation just like athletes get better, I am not so sure about that.

The greatest technical jazz sax players during the 60:s were propably better then the best ones out there today.

Leonid Kogan and Jasha Heifetz did propably have better technique then the greatest violinists alive today.

In the days of Liszt there were a lot fewer  things to do and less distractions. The pianists in those days did propably practice more in general and they propably had a more original style since they were working more on there own without listening to recordings of their idols.

[thalbergmad]

WOW, Liszt became a great pianist withouth the Bernhard/Chang method.

Thal

[ramseytheii]

WOW, Liszt became a great pianist withouth the Bernhard/Chang method.

Thal

And Beethoven a great pianist without the Chopin Etudes, so...

Walter Ramsey

[jakev2.0]

WOW, Liszt became a great pianist withouth the Bernhard/Chang method.

Thal

Doubt it. If you don't follow Chang's methods, it's unlikely you get even past intermediate level.

[mephisto]

Bernhard's method is largely focused on Chopin's etudes and Liszt did play them.

[thierry13]

Bernhard's method is largely focused on Chopin's etudes and Liszt did play them.

He didn't only play them ... he could sight read them all. Wich means he could have improvised things of the kind of Godowsky by improvising at sight reading ... and even, who knows, maybe compose some over with time, wich could have been as hard, if not way harder than the Godowsky ones. I don't think Liszt's music PURPOSE was to be hard. He was only quite flashy and virtuosic, wich resulted to be hard, and lots of fun to play and hear. If he would have written things to push even his own technique to it's maximum ... ouch. He didn't compose anything he wouldn't have been able to sight read. If he would, he could have done so, and it would have been SO FUCKIN HARDER than Godowsky!!

[_____]

Recorded Mazeppa yet, Thierry?

[dnephi]

Frankly, there are some good things in Bernhard, but his method, as a whole, is wrong. 
Let's see some correctly played pieces using Bernhard's method at prescribed tempo with correct musicality beyond grade 8.   There's no way. No concert pianists use Bernhard.

You wanna read da practice revolution.

[opus10no2]

He didn't only play them ... he could sight read them all. Wich means he could have improvised things of the kind of Godowsky by improvising at sight reading ... and even, who knows, maybe compose some over with time, wich could have been as hard, if not way harder than the Godowsky ones. I don't think Liszt's music PURPOSE was to be hard. He was only quite flashy and virtuosic, wich resulted to be hard, and lots of fun to play and hear. If he would have written things to push even his own technique to it's maximum ... ouch. He didn't compose anything he wouldn't have been able to sight read. If he would, he could have done so, and it would have been SO FUCKIN HARDER than Godowsky!!

No.

[dnephi]

No.

Lol true.  That whole post is messed up. 

[thierry13]

Recorded Mazeppa yet, Thierry?

My end-session recital should be recorded. ( Beginning of december)

[dnephi]

My end-session recital should be recorded. ( Beginning of december)

Under 6 minutes?  Lol jk.  If you have the guts to play that in public, you have my admiration just for that.  Unless you fake it and stuff... but that takes even more guts, I'd say.  So either way you're hardcore if you want to perform it publicly.

[thierry13]

Under 6 minutes?  Lol jk.  If you have the guts to play that in public, you have my admiration just for that.  Unless you fake it and stuff... but that takes even more guts, I'd say.  So either way you're hardcore if you want to perform it publicly.

I don't want, I will, it is agreed with me and my teacher since a long time, and NO, I am not faking it, at ALL. It won't be under 6 minutes, but I hope under 7, as long as I can play it clean. We will see when time comes ...

[dnephi]

Then, perhaps, I hope you don't mind my inquiry, what speed do you play the main theme first time with the chromatic thirds?  Do you follow Busoni's recommendation (112-116), which I deem extremely difficult, or do you do it more slowly and perhaps slower and more like the allegro patetico that we are told to execute in the 1838 version?

What fingering do you use :p?  What practicing methods?  Just slow, careful practicing?  What tips do you have?

Best of luck.  I'll cheer for you across the net and hope you do well. 

P.P.S. My teacher says she'll consider letting me try it after I play the Mendelssohn G Minor concerto and a few other pieces along the way lol.  How difficult did you find it?  Would you like a soapbox to stand upon?

Sincerely,

DB

[ralessi]

Although you guys are all making good points, I think you should think about even more of the music you listen to by today's virtuosi and read the articles and statements made by musicians of the 19th century.  Examples....

1.  Islamey is still listed among one of the most difficult pieces in the rep. he sight read it, to speed, and very well.

2. as mentioned....the Grieg a minor concerto.  Not one of the most difficult, but let's see ANY of today's pianists read it, in the original pen of grieg (which old manuscripts aren't too easy to read...at all) , then be told by Grieg that it was played too fast? oh...did I mention that he did all this in FULL SCORE?

3. Not among the most difficult achievments, a few hours before a last minute fill in, he picked up and looked at for the first time the Beethoven piano concerto in C minor.  He played it that night for memory with an improvised cadenza and was praised as the best performance of the piece in that concert hall. 

4. He sight read the mendelssohn concerti in concert...

5. He did sight read the HammerKlavier sonata....

6. Read any accounts of his playing even the most difficult rep from before his death, that today's society still sees as very mature and difficult.  They are mostly about how amazing he is....unless you get a few from people like Brahms, who still admitted to how amazing liszt was after they HATED eachother.  berlioz, and others that hated him. 

Other than him being an amazing pianist, he was the greatest musician to live.  Maybe some of his compositions don't show this, but do some research, and you'll agree. 

Ricky

[henrah]

That was not Liszt, it was Dreyschock.

Liszt played the Op25 No2 with the right hand part in octaves.

Thal

Yes, but at what speed? It means nothing unless a speed is indicated.

Plus, how can you fake the Mazeppa?

[liszt-essence]

What made Liszt such an amazing musician and pianist?

I think because of the following reasons:

First of all: Amazing talent

Second: Amazing teachers

Third: Amazing passion

Fourth: Practice sessions. It was not uncommon that he practiced for 18 (!) hours a day.

Fifth: Influence from contemporary musicians in his time.

Sixth: Although not a nessecity, he did had formidable hands and fingers that seemed to fit the piano perfectly.

Like Goethe said: The greeks would have placed a man with qualities like liszt among the demi-gods. We moderns must use less appealing surrogate-terms such as "a genius". One of the most commonly abused phrases one could imagine.

Although I think he did overdo it a little, I do agree with the genius part. I really think he was a genius at the piano, in the purest sense of the word.

[jas]

Yes, but at what speed? It means nothing unless a speed is indicated.

Plus, how can you fake the Mazeppa?

He played the first bar over and over, faster and faster, until he got it up to speed and played the entire piece. He was playing at a bit of one-upmanship with Dreyschock, who had played the Revolutionary in octaves. It was a competitive scene and Liszt was the most competitive of the lot.

He was a showoff and could be quite inconsiderate of other musicians. Sir Charles Hallé (a pianist living in Paris around the same time as Liszt, Chopin, Thalberg, etc.) wrote in his autobiography:

The programme given in the ‘Salle du Conservatoire’ contained the ‘Kreutzer’ Sonata, to be played by Liszt and Massart, a celebrated and much esteemed violinist. Massart was just commencing the first bar of the introduction when a voice from the audience cried out ‘Robert le Diable!!’ At that time Liszt had composed a very brilliant fantasy on themes from that opera, and played it always with immense success. The call was taken up by other voices, and in a moment the cries of ‘Robert le Diable!’ ‘Robert le Diable!’ drowned the tones of the violin. Liszt rose, bowed, and said ‘Je suis toujour l’humble serviteur du public, mais est-ce qu’on désire la fantaisie avant ou après la Sonate?’ [‘I am always the humble servant of the public, but do you want the fantasy before or after the sonata?’] Renewed cries of ‘Robert, Robert!’ were the answer upon which Liszt turned half round to poor Massart and dismissed him with a wave of the hand, without a syllable of excuse or regret. He did play the fantasy magnificently, rousing the public to a frenzy of enthusiasm, then called Massart out of his retreat, and we had the ‘Kreutzer’, which somehow no longer seemed in its right place.

All contemporary accounts of Liszt's playing suggest he must have been phenomenal. But unlike most of today's pianists, he knew how to put on a show, heighten the drama.

How much do I wish I could travel back in time and live in 1830s Paris... (as an aristo, obviously).

[dnephi]

Yes, but at what speed? It means nothing unless a speed is indicated.

Plus, how can you fake the Mazeppa?

A.  Play zl*wly.  (IE 8:30+)
B. Miss lots of notes and still call it the Mazeppa
C. Play things out of place. 

And, this is optional I think, but Cortot says to take the middle section without slackening pace.  I think that's a bit harsz on the pianist.

[opus10no2]

Although you guys are all making good points, I think you should think about even more of the music you listen to by today's virtuosi and read the articles and statements made by musicians of the 19th century.  Examples....

1.  Islamey is still listed among one of the most difficult pieces in the rep. he sight read it, to speed, and very well.

2. as mentioned....the Grieg a minor concerto.  Not one of the most difficult, but let's see ANY of today's pianists read it, in the original pen of grieg (which old manuscripts aren't too easy to read...at all) , then be told by Grieg that it was played too fast? oh...did I mention that he did all this in FULL SCORE?

3. Not among the most difficult achievments, a few hours before a last minute fill in, he picked up and looked at for the first time the Beethoven piano concerto in C minor.  He played it that night for memory with an improvised cadenza and was praised as the best performance of the piece in that concert hall. 

4. He sight read the mendelssohn concerti in concert...

5. He did sight read the HammerKlavier sonata....

6. Read any accounts of his playing even the most difficult rep from before his death, that today's society still sees as very mature and difficult.  They are mostly about how amazing he is....unless you get a few from people like Brahms, who still admitted to how amazing liszt was after they HATED eachother.  berlioz, and others that hated him. 

Other than him being an amazing pianist, he was the greatest musician to live.  Maybe some of his compositions don't show this, but do some research, and you'll agree. 

Ricky

Hahaha, not all of this is true.

Godowsky, who was said by a Liszt pupil to have superior dexterity, has recorded Liszt's Gnomeriengen.

It is pitifully slow by modern standards.

He played the first bar over and over, faster and faster, until he got it up to speed and played the entire piece. He was playing at a bit of one-upmanship with Dreyschock, who had played the Revolutionary in octaves. It was a competitive scene and Liszt was the most competitive of the lot.

Revolutionary in octaves, at tempo, is undoubtedly harder.

And the 'impressive' thing about Liszt's feat is the supposedly 'impromptu' nature of it.

More likely ; the fact is that he probably practiced it alot in the upcoming weeks and tried to make it look like it was improvised on the spot.

[mephisto]

Hahaha, not all of this is true.

Godowsky, who was said by a Liszt pupil to have superior dexterity, has recorded Liszt's Gnomeriengen.

It is pitifully slow by modern standards.

Stupid remark. Almost all pianist who lived around the same time as Godowsky praised him extremely much, yet when you listen to these other pianists recordings you will hear that they are light-years ahead of Godowsy's sad recordings. Based on that it is obvious that Godowsky's recording don't show him at anywhere near his best(Horowitz said that in an intervew too). Pluss Godowsky complained a lot about the recording prosses talking about how he always had to play the left hand so loud etc

[henrah]

Hahaha, not all of this is true.

Godowsky, who was said by a Liszt pupil to have superior dexterity, has recorded Liszt's Gnomeriengen.

It is pitifully slow by modern standards.

Superior dexterity does not determine the speed at which one plays. Saying that, the speed that Godowsky recorded Gnomenreigen - no matter how slow - does not give an accurate representation of his true possible dexterity and speed. In fact, I find the Gnomenreigen is a far more beautiful piece when played slowly, except in the section with repetitive bass notes. That section needs speed and fury to come off well. But the introduction is far more beautiful when played slowly.

[jas]

Revolutionary in octaves, at tempo, is undoubtedly harder.

Definitely. Though Cramer said Dreyschock had two rights hands, so maybe it wasn't for Dreyschock! He practiced like a madman, though.

And the 'impressive' thing about Liszt's feat is the supposedly 'impromptu' nature of it.

More likely ; the fact is that he probably practiced it alot in the upcoming weeks and tried to make it look like it was improvised on the spot.

Probably. But I don't think he'd have been incapable of doing it off the bat. As you say, it wouldn't be as hard to do in octaves as the Revolutionary would be. Also, I think that it wasn't necessarily the (seemingly?) impromptu nature of it that made it so impressive as just the fact that he did it at all. Pyrotechnics like those were still in the relatively early stages. That kind of playing just hadn't been heard by some. When he played it he was in Vienna, which wasn't quite the hotbed of crazy virtuosity that Paris was.

[iumonito]

Such a long thread and yet some important points not made yet:

At the time all those reports were being written there were far fewer supervirtuosi.  In his time there were probably a dozen people who could play Liszt's music.  Today there are more than 120,000.

At the time those reports were written Serkin had not been head of Curtis piano department for any period of time.  Accuracy was not an appreciable goal.  There was no expectation that the player would play just what's written on the page.

There were no recordings.  How can you know how good those "sight-readings" of Grieg and Balakirev were?

With proper training anyone with talent can read from an orchestral score.  There is a class at Julliard, and people get good at it with practice.  Understand the harmony, pick the good moving parts and the melody and play accompaniment in comparable texture.   If you train yourself, you certainly can do it (particularly anything with a language not much past Wagner.

All that said, I love Liszt's music, his was a great innovator, and I think by and large his music is under played.

[opus10no2]

Stupid remark. Almost all pianist who lived around the same time as Godowsky praised him extremely much, yet when you listen to these other pianists recordings you will hear that they are light-years ahead of Godowsy's sad recordings. Based on that it is obvious that Godowsky's recording don't show him at anywhere near his best(Horowitz said that in an intervew too). Pluss Godowsky complained a lot about the recording prosses talking about how he always had to play the left hand so loud etc

No, in all of his recordings nothing displays unparalleled dexterity, and just proves that what was unique back then, is rather commonplace nowadays.

The Chopin Scherzo no4 is his technically most impressive recording.

Nerves make people play FASTER, not slower.

Superior dexterity does not determine the speed at which one plays. Saying that, the speed that Godowsky recorded Gnomenreigen - no matter how slow - does not give an accurate representation of his true possible dexterity and speed. In fact, I find the Gnomenreigen is a far more beautiful piece when played slowly, except in the section with repetitive bass notes. That section needs speed and fury to come off well. But the introduction is far more beautiful when played slowly.

No, I have heard most of his existing recordings.

Don't get me wrong, he was an incredible pianist, with a unique sound, and great musical ideas, but i feel in his era, he was at least equalled by the likes of Barere and Friedman.

[opus10no2]

Probably. But I don't think he'd have been incapable of doing it off the bat. As you say, it wouldn't be as hard to do in octaves as the Revolutionary would be. Also, I think that it wasn't necessarily the (seemingly?) impromptu nature of it that made it so impressive as just the fact that he did it at all. Pyrotechnics like those were still in the relatively early stages. That kind of playing just hadn't been heard by some. When he played it he was in Vienna, which wasn't quite the hotbed of crazy virtuosity that Paris was.

Even still, Liszt's octave prowess can never be said to be unmatched.

Personally, if I studied the Op25no2 and had it memorised, I could, on the spot, pull off a rendition with the right hand in octaves, but not at tempo, the tempo would lock in with the security of practice.

Anyway, I'm not sure if you know it, but one of the Godowsky studies has a version of the 25/2 with all of the right hand in octaves(with a few inner notes added too - ala25/10).
Francesco Libetta plays this etude stunningly, and I feel it is a much more beautiful and interesting piece than the original Chopin, mostly because of the amazing passionate left hand renivention.

Anyway, with Libetta having some of the world's best octaves at present, I think it would be safe to assume that he at least equals what Liszt was able to do.

Especially in an area of technique such as octaves, which has alot less to do with coordination and 'dexterity' than all other techniques, it's just about raw muscle/nerve firing speed alone, in which, as has been proven in all areas of sport, the overall standard has improved quite dramatically over time.

[opus10no2]

In conclusion, the only thing I must make clear is that I have the utmost respect for these gifted musicians, especially Liszt, for excelling in their own time and advancing the art of pianism to the level it is today, but that I only dislike the belief that they are unmatched due to 'legends' which pass through the ages. But..

We , indeed, must never forget that the greatest musicians and pianists today, are standing on the shoulders of giants.
We may be technically better, but we are better BECAUSE of them.

[thalbergmad]

Such a long thread and yet some important points not made yet:

At the time all those reports were being written there were far fewer supervirtuosi.  In his time there were probably a dozen people who could play Liszt's music.  Today there are more than 120,000.

The term, "fit for at most 12 pianists in the world" was if i remember used when talking about the 1838 version of Liszts Etudes.

The number of people who can play those probably has not increased dramatically.

The few recordings that have been made are far from satisfactory.

There might well be 120,000 pianists that can play Liszt, but much fewer that can play the hardest works and even less that can play them properly.

Thali

[ahinton]

The term, "fit for at most 12 pianists in the world" was if i remember used when talking about the 1838 version of Liszts Etudes.

The number of people who can play those probably has not increased dramatically.

The few recordings that have been made are far from satisfactory.

There might well be 120,000 pianists that can play Liszt, but much fewer that can play the hardest works and even less that can play them properly.

Thali

All this is undoubtedly true. One of the problems about that "120,000" is that far too many pianists feel it incumbent upon them to develop the physical facility and mental/physical co-ordination to be able to rattle off Liszt's works without giving sufficient thought to why they are as they are (no surprise there, though). For all that they are full of interest, the 1838 version of the Transcendental Studies is not only stupendously difficult in Lisztian terms but also somewhat unrefined, too (as Liszt himself came to realise); his revisions were, I think, less attempts to simplify them as endeavours to improve and refine them.

In terms of sheer mechanical difficulty, even these early studies of Liszt rank lower than the most challenging works of Alkan, of whom Liszt himself seems to have been somewhat in awe; they were nevertheless ground-breaking (not to mention finger-breaking!) works of which Alkan would have been aware, although one of the most significant aspects of their respective development of pianism in the mid-19th century is just how very different these two great pianist-composers were.

Best,

Alistair