Franz Liszt

[redbaron]

Liszt is one of my favourite composers but not everyone likes him and some people don't even take him seriously as a composer. However, as we all know, he was possibly the greatest pianist who ever lived. So what are your opinions. Genius? Overrated show-off? I'm sure that this will prompt some polarised opinions from people. So come on. Share your thoughts with me.

[thalbergmad]

I would not put him in the Great Composer bracket myself, but I do think that he was the greatest of transcribers. I enjoy him most for what he did to other peoples music as opposed to his original works.

The Sonata withstanding, he did not write much more that rings my bell.

Thal

[berrt]

Genius? Overrated show-off?

He was both. The first pop-star and an ingenious musician.
No polarized opinion from me 

B.

[mephisto]

He was one of the greatest composers who have ever lived, and sadly he is often NOT taken seriously. Wich is a shame!

[dnephi]

I agree with Meph.  He is one of the greatest composers ever to have lived.  His appreciation is not equivalent to his value because, like Scriabin or Barber, it takes time to really appreciate him.

Daniel

[thierry13]

Liszt composed lots of things to show off, had some lesser good compositions, but wrote quite a few amazind pieces on the musical point of view! Okay, that is no the majority of his works, but still, he has a surprinsingly huge output!

[webern78]

Second rate at best. Even his famed sonata isn't much. I can see why Brahms felt asleep during performance, i nearly did too.

[dnephi]

Second rate at best. Even his famed sonata isn't much. I can see why Brahms felt asleep during performance, i nearly did too.

He was exhausted, you know.  Regardless, this is a piece of music which takes some time to understand and appreciate.  It divulges its secrets slowly.

[gyzzzmo]

I dont think he's overrated. Ofcourse he was one of the greatest pianists, and although most of his works are transcriptions, he also wrote great pieces like Hungarian Rhapsodies, Liebestraum and etudes.

[Petter]

Quite promiscuous from what I gathered.

[thalbergmad]

Indeed, it is amazing how he found the time to compose.

Thal

[i heart xenakis]

I would call Liszt one of "The Greats" with no hesitation.  I feel like, along with Chopin, his inability to score for anything other than the piano very well sort of keeps him out of that category in a lot of peoples' minds though.  With that said, his music does not sound like any other, especially any of his predecessors, and for what it is, it is certainly the best.  I think many of his pieces are both "show-off" pieces and "great pieces" like Polonaise No. 2 and the Transcendental Etudes, but I also think he wrote many pieces that are truly masterworks for the piano, show-off or not, such as the Ballade No. 2, Annees des Pelerinage and particularly the Harmonies Poetiques et Religieuses.  And you can't deny how much effect on music he's had.  A lot of composers are either pioneers OR true musical geniuses; he was definitely a pioneer, and about as close to a musical genius as you can get.

[webern78]

I feel like, along with Chopin, his inability to score for anything other than the piano very well sort of keeps him out of that category in a lot of peoples' minds though.  geniuses; he was definitely a pioneer, and about as close to a musical genius as you can get.

Actually, unlike Chopin, Liszt scored fairly competent for anything that didn't involve a piano. Wasn't he the one who introduced the "tone poem"?

Still not first rate though.

[thierry13]

Actually, unlike Chopin, Liszt scored fairly competent for anything that didn't involve a piano. Wasn't he the one who introduced the "tone poem"?

Still not first rate though.

He was the inventor of the "tone poem", or symphonic poem as I heard it called more often. I do think Liszt was first rate everything : pianist, composer, conductor. Just like Rachmaninoff.

[rachfan]

I love Liszt's Transcendental Etudes, the Concert Etudes, the Annees de Pelerinage, Mephisto Waltz and the Sonata in particular.  He composed mostly for piano, but in large works for piano and orchestra or just orchestra, he was definitely not a great orchestrator, unlike Brahms, Mendelssohn or Schumann who could write very fine orchestrations.  If you look at the piano works, one thing that most people agree on is that the quality is not consistent.  Some pieces are works of pure genius.  For example, his Les jeux d'eau a la Villa D'Este is a landmark of the literature presaging the advent of Impressionism and Ravel's later Jeux d'Eau.  But some of Liszt's piano output is of inferior quality.  Another group, the late works, are experimental and  are considered quite interesting from a historical perspective, and are in their own class.  Liszt was once asked how history would judge his music.  His reply was that he would be most remembered for his treatment of harmony, which is, in fact, a hallmark of innovation in his music, making it what it is.  So he was probably correct in that self-assessment.  By the end of his life, Liszt had made important contributions as a pianist, composer, transcriber, pedagogue and conductor/champion of Wagner's music.  I believe he maintains a prominent place among composers, but is probably not one of the greatest.   Just my opinion.

[betoon]

please help me......since the long time I am searching for notes of Schubert-Liszt -Stanschen.
could somebody help me?It's my mail-szewanna@gmail.com .thanks very much.I love this pieces .I would like to play it on the examination(very,very,very much).

[harris27]

he is definatly a fantastic pianist and i love his hungarian  fantasy, i feel he is up there with  the genius'  of the classical era of pianist, definatly.

[indutrial]

By the end of his life, Liszt had made important contributions as a pianist, composer, transcriber, pedagogue and conductor/champion of Wagner's music.  I believe he maintains a prominent place among composers, but is probably not one of the greatest.   Just my opinion.

While he is certainly not one of the greatest (of all the texts I've read on harmony, structure, counterpoint his work is almost never cited for examples) he was certainly a fabulous composer and a revolutionary figure for the piano itself. He was obviously not a JS Bach, Mozart, or a Bartok (dare I say Xenakis or Ligeti) in terms of compositional innovation, but he certainly knew how to assemble nearly flawless pieces that continue to stand the test of time.

[i heart xenakis]

Actually, unlike Chopin, Liszt scored fairly competent for anything that didn't involve a piano. Wasn't he the one who introduced the "tone poem"?

Still not first rate though.

Just because he invented the Symphonic Poem doesn't mean his were particularly good =P  The Concerti and Faust Symphony should be enough to tell that Liszt was 2nd-rate at best when it came to orchestral stuff.

[shadow88]

For me, Liszt is one of the greatest composer. He has so many sides. He is not only a virtuoso, show master. He made so much deep music, it needs time to understand his pieces, but if you hear all of him often, you will begin really loving him!

[webern78]

Just because he invented the Symphonic Poem doesn't mean his were particularly good =P  The Concerti and Faust Symphony should be enough to tell that Liszt was 2nd-rate at best when it came to orchestral stuff.

His concertos are dreadful, but i found the rest enjoyable. I also like some of his late piano music. Nothing spectacular though, mind you. Art was the wrong path for Liszt. His calling was religion.

[indutrial]

His concertos are dreadful, but i found the rest enjoyable. I also like some of his late piano music. Nothing spectacular though, mind you. Art was the wrong path for Liszt. His calling was religion.

Yeah, because the world needed another priest. That's about as inane as saying that Xenakis should have stuck to being an architect and that Einstein should have kept his job as a patent clerk.

[webern78]

I was merely stating a fact.

[indutrial]

I was merely stating a fact.

If you're introducing facts, you shouldn't bury them in a heap of opinions.

Opinions in last post:
1.) His concertos are dreadful
2.) i found the rest enjoyable
3.) I also like some of his late piano music.
4.) Nothing spectacular though, mind you.

[webern78]

If you're introducing facts, you shouldn't bury them in a heap of opinions.

I think the fact Liszt real calling wasn't music should be obvious to anybody other then the aurally impaired.

[i heart xenakis]

I think the fact Liszt real calling wasn't music should be obvious to anybody other then the aurally impaired.

List of aurally impaired people:

Richard Wagner
Marc-Andre Hamelin
Ivo Pogerolich
Maurizio Pollini
Stephen Hough
Martha Argerich
Leonard Bernstein
Frederic Chopin
Ferruccio Busoni
Boris Berezovsky
Lazar Berman
Philippe Entremont
Vladimir Horowitz
Georges Cziffra
Simon Barere
Mikhail Pletnev
Yefim Bronfman
Sviatoslav Richter
Nicolo Paganini
Artur Rubinstein
Jorge Bolet


I'm fine with being in that group, thank you

[indutrial]

I think the fact Liszt real calling wasn't music should be obvious to anybody other then the aurally impaired.

You, know...when teacher introduces you Webern and other twentieth century composers, it's not to be viewed as a blank check to be dismissive and cocky about everything that's not equally complex.

[webern78]

You, know...when teacher introduces you Webern and other twentieth century composers, it's not to be viewed as a blank check to be dismissive and cocky about everything that's not equally complex.

It has nothing to do with complexity, there's just something fundamentally wrong with Liszt. He has all the markings of a genius, and i'm sure his IQ was probably through the roof,  but he seems to have absolutely no sense of music. He understood harmony, but that's about it. His music just sounds so clumsy, almost crude.

I once read a quote by Martin Luther regarding Josquin Des Prez which he described as: "master of the notes, must do as he wishes; other composers must do as the notes wish.".

I believe Liszt is an extreme example of somebody who was forced to do what the notes commanded.

[thierry13]

List of aurally impaired people:

Richard Wagner
Marc-Andre Hamelin
Ivo Pogerolich
Maurizio Pollini
Stephen Hough
Martha Argerich
Leonard Bernstein
Frederic Chopin
Ferruccio Busoni
Boris Berezovsky
Lazar Berman
Philippe Entremont
Vladimir Horowitz
Georges Cziffra
Simon Barere
Mikhail Pletnev
Yefim Bronfman
Sviatoslav Richter
Nicolo Paganini
Artur Rubinstein
Jorge Bolet


I'm fine with being in that group, thank you

I would add Brendel and Kocsis and of course me in this group.

[webern78]

Just to remove some of the negativity of this thread, can we shift discussion to Liszt late works for piano? Any good recordings you Liszt fanatics would like to recommend (i currently only own Howard). 

[dnephi]

I would heartily recommend the Csardas Macabre recording by Katsaris.

[steinway43]

In the list of aurally impaired people you might need to include Liszt as well. At the University of North Texas my first teacher was Larry Walz, a man who was a Liszt maniac. I sit as low as possible to play, not as high, as the cult of Liszt dictates, almost literally in a mentally ill way I might add.  In the very first lesson I remember discussing this ludicrous dogma about sitting high "because Liszt said so" and how people were commenting on how strange I was for going against that.

Mr. Walz then told me that Liszt was not only going deaf over the years but also likely suffered from tinitus, aka a ringing in the ears. This he gleaned from reading probably every document in existence connected to the man. There was mention of Liszt's letters, and in this he admitted that because of these facts I might very well have had a perfectly valid reason for not paying attention to the Liszt "edict." At any rate, it's obscenely preposterous to suggest any one composer is right about everything, end of story.

As a composer I think he wrote a few great works that will, and should, live on as long as classical music does, his Sonata in b minor,  his first concerto, a few smaller pieces, but some of his works strike me as what one composition teacher I knew called "finger music." Other things seem to be an exercise is sickening sweetness. I would call him a genius, without question, but I sometimes I wonder if his obsession with technique and frilliness kept him from writing more profound music. Then again...maybe he was just a bit shallow.