Liszt's technique

[sevencircles]

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.

Barere was a (when he was sober) stunning and  underrated pianist without any doubt.

Hofmann (in his prime) and Levinne were better though.

[jericho]

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.

Funnily, if we are going to accept your "Rubinstein-Hofmann" theorem or your "Teacher/Student Technique Equality" theorem which assumes that a teacher's technique is as good as his student, we can deduce many other things.

1. We may conclude that Beethoven's technique is almost as good as Liszt's since Beethoven=Czerny=Liszt.

2.If we assume that Liszt>Rubinstein where Liszt=Beethoven and Rubinstein=Hofmann, then Beethoven>Hofmann.

3. The problem is, if Liszt>Rubinstein, Liszt=Krauser=Arrau and Rubinstein=Hofmann, then Arrau>Hofmann. I have great respect for both pianist, but when it comes to technique, Hofmann is clearly in a different level from Arrau. If Hofmann>Arrau...A contradiction because this will lead to Rubinstein>Liszt.

4. If we assume that Alkan>Liszt. Georges Bizet who was the teacher of Alkan would also be better than Liszt. This would mean that Alkan and Bizet probably had better techniques than almost any pianist in history.. (Anyway, Liszt said that Alkan had the best technique he had ever seen, and he also considered Bizet as one of the top three pianist in Europe.)

*I was mistaken here. Georges Bizet and Alkan were both taught by Joseph Zimmerman. So, the statement Bizet=Alkan would still be a true.

5.Anyway it will also lead to things such as Michelangeli=Argerich=Pollini, Leschetizky=Schnabel=Paderewski. Neuhaus=Richter=Gilels

6. Lastly Leschetizky also studied with Czerny, so Leschetizky=Liszt. So did Paderewski and Schnabel have better techniques than Hofmann? Not by any stretch of imagination.

7.Therefore it is impossible to determine who was better than who if we simply base it from their piano teachers or their students.

[ahinton]

If we assume that Alkan>Liszt. Georges Bizet who was the teacher of Alkan would also be better than Liszt. This would mean that Alkan and Bizet probably had better techniques than almost any pianist in history.. (Anyway, Liszt said that Alkan had the best technique he had ever seen, and he also considered Bizet as one of the top three pianist in Europe.)

Excusez-moi? Georges Bizet - 1838-1875: Charles-Valentin Alkan - 1813-1888. Go figure!

Liszt did, however, hold Alkan in very high regard, so at least that much is true!

Best,

Alistair

[dnephi]

Excusez-moi? Geroges Bizet - 1838-1875: Charles-Valentin Alkan - 1813-1888. Go figure!

Liszt did, however, hold Alkan in very high regard, so at least that much is true!

Best,

Alistair

On the note of that, Sgouros was given a watch by a 20th piano monster in symbolism of the stopwatch, designating him as a very fast pianist 8-).

[jakev2.0]

@Jericho: My little equation doesn't really work like a geometric proof, sorry to say. It's the assumption that players of the early 20th century give a hint of what their teachers might have played like. That is not so hard to believe.

I made the assumption that Josef Hofmann's estimation of his own teacher as high as it was, considering his own immense talent and critical powers, was an indication that Rubinstein must have had some kind of comparable level of accomplishment on the piano. Also, contemporary accounts SUGGEST that Rubinstein was as great a virtuoso as Liszt, but with a different temperament, style etc.

@Opus 10 2 : Your argument about Godowsky is ridiculous.  Because Godowsky's Gnomenreigen is disappointing, you conclude Godowsky wasn't really a great virtuoso, and go as far to say that this shows that piano playing has come along way since then...Rachmaninov recorded his own Gnomenreigen at roughly the same time, and it is hands down the most mind-bogglingly technically precise, sharp, controlled, and fast recording of that piece ever. He makes virtuosos like Richter sound incoherent, Cziffra sloppy, and Sofronitsky downright haywire.

Anyway, Godowsky played his own music - brilliantly.  The public in Berlin said so when he played his Brahms 2, Tchaik 1, and a bunch of his own transcriptions. Godowsky was on form and caused a sensation the likes of which had never been seen* (this is significant, considering Busoni was the resident virtuoso at the time).  As Mephisto said, his recordings are a poor representation of what the man could accomplish. His contemporaries even said so. When people like Hofmann are saying that someone's playing has successfully realized the pozzibilities of the piano greater than any other human being's, we should take it seriously. By the way, If Libetta came to Godowsky's house he would get played under the table.

*and he called himself Tenacious G

[henrah]

and caused a sensation the likes of which had never been seen* 

*and he called himself Tenacious G

[jakev2.0]

Glad you got it. 

[liszt-essence]

The great power of liszt was that he was capable of transcedenting technique, and reach into the inner most aspect of music itself.

He was aware of every musical purpose behind a note, and not the notes self mattered to him. I feel most people are not aware of the complete spiritual engagement that he had to  the piano. He was ofcourse a very religous man, and the way he experienced his religion had tremendous effect on the piano.

He experienced mystical experiences in music itself, behind his piano. He was very much aware of the deeper sense of the things he played.

Although my personal beliefs explain his religious views are based on those experiences, and not the other way around. In fact, that is the very nature of the man himself that made his music so unique.

What makes Liszt so intresting from a pianistic point of view is the fact that he was

1) A performing virtuoso that showed off like hell and enjoyed it so very much for all the attention he got.

2) A very gifted and fine pianist that was also a spiritual man with an approach to music itself that went right into the core of his soul heart and being.

He was on top of that, the worlds best interpetrer for piano music. However, this had nothing to do with technique, sure, he had the required technique. But how he performed the music, through his technique, was the key.

First he had talent, then he learned technique, then he become at a point where most people get stuck. That is: Pianists, who are so capable of playing everything technically, they have learned the ways, they have learned how to interpret but that's about it.

They do no go beyond this point. Very few do. Liszt did.

That is why Schumann bursted out into tears when liszt played his music, telling him that it was exactly how he had intended it.

I find there's nothing wrong with showing off your piano skills, why should you not?
There are lots of composers who write completely technical music, just for the sake of writing music that reaches the boundaries of what is humanly and technical possible.

Liszt dit that, so many others do it. What really is the difference between Liszt and them?

Liszt, had an almost super natural talent and capacity for understanding music, especially piano music and bring forth this music in such a unique way.

Why is this important? I think it's important because it stimulates us, pianists to think deeper and try to dig into ourselves to find out how and why he was so.

He was not a genius solely because of his technique, although he technique was amazing.

That is why I find it almost every recording of liszt's transcedental etudes boring as hell.

They all play the notes, they all play it fast or slow enough. And they even manage to put some emotion in it now and then. They use their pedals correctly, they use their FFF and their PPP and everything in between correctly. They use right tempo's but usually I find it  just boring as hell. Flashy, show off, hollow nothing to it really.

But they do not play it like Liszt did.

Liszt played it like Chopin did.

Liszt played it like Schumann did.

Chopin wanted to be able to play his own work like Liszt did.  He said it himself.

Liszt was technically liberated, he could play anything he like. He had no more problems with technique, no more struggle.

He transcended technique. He was free to make music, and play it exactly how he wanted to. As fine as possible, as loud as soft, whatever.

That is why I quoted the story about the Erlkönig piece. The seemingly effordless display of the piece tells me so much about him.

I dare say, Liszt was a liberated master pianist. An example to all of us.

In the most constructive and postive sense of the word

[jericho]

Excusez-moi? Geroges Bizet - 1838-1875: Charles-Valentin Alkan - 1813-1888. Go figure!

Liszt did, however, hold Alkan in very high regard, so at least that much is true!

Best,

Alistair

Oh, I got that from a site..it seems I was mistaken. George Bizet and Alkan had the same piano teacher, Joseph Zimmermann. So the Alkan=Bizet statement still stands. Anyway, Thank you for correcting me.

[henrah]

Liszt-essence, what do you define 'putting emotion into a piece' as? From a pianist's point of view, he/she might be pouring their heart and soul into a piece, yet the listener might not hear this.

I think 'emotion' in a piece can only be defined as the similarity between how a pianist plays a piece and how a listener percieves the piece to be played.

[opus10no2]

@Opus 10 2 : Your argument about Godowsky is ridiculous.  Because Godowsky's Gnomenreigen is disappointing, you conclude Godowsky wasn't really a great virtuoso, and go as far to say that this shows that piano playing has come along way since then...Rachmaninov recorded his own Gnomenreigen at roughly the same time, and it is hands down the most mind-bogglingly technically precise, sharp, controlled, and fast recording of that piece ever. He makes virtuosos like Richter sound incoherent, Cziffra sloppy, and Sofronitsky downright haywire.

Anyway, Godowsky played his own music - brilliantly.  The public in Berlin said so when he played his Brahms 2, Tchaik 1, and a bunch of his own transcriptions. Godowsky was on form and caused a sensation the likes of which had never been seen* (this is significant, considering Busoni was the resident virtuoso at the time).  As Mephisto said, his recordings are a poor representation of what the man could accomplish. His contemporaries even said so. When people like Hofmann are saying that someone's playing has successfully realized the pozzibilities of the piano greater than any other human being's, we should take it seriously. By the way, If Libetta came to Godowsky's house he would get played under the table.

No.

[jakev2.0]

No.

WRONG.

[donjuan]

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."

unreliable narrator.  You're right; it's a shame we can't judge for ourselves by hearing..

[ramseytheii]

Haha!  Brilliant!

Walter Ramsey

Funnily, if we are going to accept your "Rubinstein-Hofmann" theorem or your "Teacher/Student Technique Equality" theorem which assumes that a teacher's technique is as good as his student, we can deduce many other things.

1. We may conclude that Beethoven's technique is almost as good as Liszt's since Beethoven=Czerny=Liszt.

2.If we assume that Liszt>Rubinstein where Liszt=Beethoven and Rubinstein=Hofmann, then Beethoven>Hofmann.

3. The problem is, if Liszt>Rubinstein, Liszt=Krauser=Arrau and Rubinstein=Hofmann, then Arrau>Hofmann. I have great respect for both pianist, but when it comes to technique, Hofmann is clearly in a different level from Arrau. If Hofmann>Arrau...A contradiction because this will lead to Rubinstein>Liszt.

4. If we assume that Alkan>Liszt. Georges Bizet who was the teacher of Alkan would also be better than Liszt. This would mean that Alkan and Bizet probably had better techniques than almost any pianist in history.. (Anyway, Liszt said that Alkan had the best technique he had ever seen, and he also considered Bizet as one of the top three pianist in Europe.)

*I was mistaken here. Georges Bizet and Alkan were both taught by Joseph Zimmerman. So, the statement Bizet=Alkan would still be a true.

5.Anyway it will also lead to things such as Michelangeli=Argerich=Pollini, Leschetizky=Schnabel=Paderewski. Neuhaus=Richter=Gilels

6. Lastly Leschetizky also studied with Czerny, so Leschetizky=Liszt. So did Paderewski and Schnabel have better techniques than Hofmann? Not by any stretch of imagination.

7.Therefore it is impossible to determine who was better than who if we simply base it from their piano teachers or their students.