Firstly, hello. Secondly, I love Alkan. Thirdly, even though I love Alkan, I cannot for the life of me see how anyone would put Alkan as a composer above Liszt in any way.
The following quote isn't with regard to composing, but I thought it was interesting.
Alexandre de Bertha wrote: 'Alkan told me on a number of occasions how distressed he was when he first heard the young Franz Liszt play and, noticing Liszt's already stunning virtuosity, felt immediately relegated to the shadows. He had shed tears of frustration over this throughout the entire performance and had been unable to sleep a wink the following night. This was a little adolescent "brainstorm" which didn't prevent the two momentary rivals from forming a good relationship at a later date. That friendship was to last until the death of the "King of Piano" who, throughout his life, never missed an opportunity to visit his old-time friend when staying in Paris.'
Maybe this is why Alkan was so reclusive. Maybe he felt that he had to match Liszt in technique. This is just a guess, of course, I have no real idea. But anyway we're supposed to be talking composition

I suggest you all read this regarding myths about Alkan.
https://www.jackgibbons.com/alkanmyths.htmNow, the following isn't directed at anyone in particular. Just some points I want to make about things I read on this thread.
There is a reason why Liszt's melodies are so predictable. It's because you've heard so much modern music. Liszt helped invent modern music. To people in Liszt's time, those predictable melodies would have been new sounding brilliance. Too many times old music is heard and critiqued using modern ears. Put the horse before the cart why don't you

Like I said, I love Alkan's music, it's brilliant. But Alkan's melodies often sound similar to Beethoven and are certainly more classical than futuristic. They are not as original as Liszt's music. Again, we have to think using a 19th century mindset. Liszt's melodies would have been highly original back then. Just cos you've heard them a trillian times in a trillian songs since liszt's death, doesn't mean that they weren't original or brilliant back then. Liszt was a hell of an inventor and went his own way. In Liszt's words 'I calmly persist in staying stubbornly in my corner, and just work at becoming more and more misunderstood.'
If there was a scale from 1 to 10 that represented music SCOPE. That is, the diversity of compositions in terms of musicality, technicality, originality. Liszt would get a big fat 10. His compositions over his lifetime were SO diverse. Alkan would be lucky to get a 5. Please understand that this does not mean that what he does in this 'scope' isn't good. I'm just pointing out a huge difference that cannot be ignored when comparing both composers.
Anyway

Alkan's music IS great and I DO love it and I think it should be played more. But c'mon, some of you are getting carried away with the whole better than Liszt thing.
If I sounded angry, I'm sorry, I wasn't at all! I definately don't have anything against anyone here. I'm just putting in my 2cents worth.
Thanks
