Liszt/Loonbohol comparison

[communist]

before i start Loonbohol asked to be compared to liszt so this is NOT useless flaming.

when Liszt was just 11 he played Beethoven piano concerto no.1 for Beethoven himself according to one of Liszt's journal entries. as oppose to Loonbohol who at the age of 11 played Gertrudes Dream Waltz, The Calvary Galop, and Song for Anna.

Liszt first composition was an opera written at the age of 14-15

listen to it here:

Loonbohol at the age of 15 you will notice some VERY stark differences in terms of compositional quality https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,31834.0.html


and theres my factual and well thought out comparison that Loonbohol ASKED for

[healdie]

wow that was harsh

but I struggle to understand why he wanted to be compared to liszt of all people

I do some composition and it really annoys me when people compare my work to someone elses

[pianisten1989]

Well... the opera was not the first composition of Liszt. He was invited by Diabelli to compose some variations on his waltz (Beethoven was an other composer who was invited, but refused at first, but then send his 32 variations) at the age of 9, I think.

Liszt also composed his transcendental etudes at the age of 15.

But, in difference to Loonbohol, Liszt could play all his compositions when composing them.

And he was more or less complete pianist at the age of 10-ish, since he could play any piece by sight reading, probably really difficult pieces aswell.

[thalbergmad]

Liszt also composed his transcendental etudes at the age of 15.

I hate to interject here, but it was the etudes en 12 exercices he wrote at 15.

The transcendental etudes were somewhat later and somewhat harder.

Thal

[pianisten1989]

I hate to interject here, but it was the etudes en 12 exercices he wrote at 15.

The transcendental etudes were somewhat later and somewhat harder.

Thal

Yes, ofc. I knew there was something that wasn't correct >.<

[term]

Man, that opera at 15 is kind of impressive. How unfortunate that he took the wrong road.

[loonbohol]

YES, It is not easy to be Lizst.
Thank you for posting

MY 15 year old Orchestra sucked a bit since I have no conductors.....

By the way I am going to improve my orchestra

I will post it here.

OK in reality I feel guilty of myself being wanted to be compared to Lizst.
SORRY.

[tds]

ok, now everyone knows the name of loonbohol

YES, It is not easy to be Lizst.

yeah but who is liszt?

[healdie]

I can think of better composers to aspire to than Liszt though, in my experiance outside the piano comunity he is not really taken that seriously

[kelly_kelly]

This is such a mean thread... He's 15; let him dream!

[communist]

This is such a mean thread... He's 15; let him dream!

I must admit this is a little offensive but he did ask for it and i am not trying to offend him.

[gerryjay]

I can think of better composers to aspire to than Liszt though, in my experiance outside the piano comunity he is not really taken that seriously

dear healdie:
would you mind if i ask you more about that? i'm actually curious about those contradictory perspectives depending on the background. btw, just another thread i was commenting the fact that, outside our piano meadows, rachmaninoff could be considered a second class composer.

anyway, my particular curiosity is due to the fact that i think that liszt is taken seriously even outside our community, as you put. his contribution to orchestral music is highly influential, perhaps as much as his piano one. however, if someone does not agree, i'd be very interested to know who and why.

best!

[gerryjay]

ah...almost forgotten to ask: what is this thread all about? as much as i did understand, one of our fellow members wish to be compared to liszt. is that?

well, herr von sacher-masoch seems to have many followers out there...

best!

[richard black]

I can think of better composers to aspire to than Liszt though, in my experiance outside the piano comunity he is not really taken that seriously

For sure there are some folks who are sniffy about Liszt, but more fool them. Quite apart from his virtuoso piano music - which is invariably well done, and some of it very highly original - elements of his orchestral writing were quite as revolutionary as that of Berlioz, and he was very influential. For a start, Wagner was indebted to Liszt, and look who followed in his footsteps!

[communist]

Carl Tausigs few piano are heavily inspired by Liszt

[healdie]

In regards to my earlier comment I was not disputing how influential Liszts music was he was one of the first composers to experiment with atonality and he created many new forms

but just when i am thinking of music I would i think there are very few occasions I would rather listen to the Liszt tone poems over say Strauss or Dukas etc (but of course this is subject to opinion)

sure Liszt is huge in the piano world but I have yet to meet say a flautist or cellist who holds his orchestral music in high regard, I have met even pianists who have not even heard of him

of course this is all subjective to me and my experiences maybe liszt just isn't as big in England as other countries, I don't know

but I have even read books that have said he is not taken too seriously in other areas of music

[gerryjay]

dear healdie:
first, let me say that i'm not arguing with you. i'm really curious, and you point out interesting points.

In regards to my earlier comment I was not disputing how influential Liszts music was he was one of the first composers to experiment with atonality and he created many new forms

those are the facts: he is one of the most influential composers of the 19th century.

but just when i am thinking of music I would i think there are very few occasions I would rather listen to the Liszt tone poems over say Strauss or Dukas etc (but of course this is subject to opinion)

well, that depends. a liszt-strauss (we are talking about richard strauss, right?) conundrum would be hot. to be honest, i don't know if i attended to more liszt or strauss live, nor have the slightest idea about which one is the most often played.
however, dukas is not a name in the same list, imho.

sure Liszt is huge in the piano world but I have yet to meet say a flautist or cellist who holds his orchestral music in high regard,

i never talked about this particular issue with a flautist or a cellist, so i can't compare. anyway, to be honest, the fact that his name didn't arise (in a striking way, so that i could remember now) in so many conversations with orchestral players, is remarkable. i can remember discussions about beethoven, brahms (well, brahms uses to be the mais focus), debussy, stravinsky, even stockhausen, but not liszt. i will pay attention to that.

I have met even pianists who have not even heard of him

well, i excuse myself, but a pianist that doesn't know liszt is something unnaceptable. every pianist is free to don't like liszt, or to don't play liszt, but that is clearly a background failure. what comes next? bach, beethoven?
now-a-days, i think that not knowing thalberg or alkan is a flaw. liszt? please, give a cd and some sheet to this fellow bud, and save his soul.

of course this is all subjective to me and my experiences maybe liszt just isn't as big in England as other countries, I don't know

this is what i'm most amazed about: how those things can change, from the uk to the usa, from europe to south america, from japan to italy. there are some standards, but even the perception of those is somewhat different.

but I have even read books that have said he is not taken too seriously in other areas of music

could you please quote the source of that, please? i need to read this book!

best!

[healdie]

well there is very little about Liszt in the book so i will quote exactly from the book

" In certain circles Franz Liszt is still not taken seriously as a composer, and this reason lies in his brilliance as a performer - Liszt the argument goes was all self promotion and no substance, the accusation is nothing new. In 1874 the critic Edward Hanslick wrote "the main objection against Liszt is that he imposes a much bigger abusive mission on the subject of his work namely either to fill the gap left by the absence of musical content or to justify the atrociiousness of such content as there is"

and yes i was refering to Richard Strauss whose knowledge fo the orchestra I believe is unparreled and I would certanly say his orchestral works are performed much more than Liszts, Don Juan Also Sprach Zarathustra and Don Quixote I would say are performed on a much more freqent basis than say the Dante or faust symphonies by Liszt

[gerryjay]

"In certain circles Franz Liszt is still not taken seriously as a composer, and this reason lies in his brilliance as a performer - Liszt the argument goes was all self promotion and no substance, the accusation is nothing new. In 1874 the critic Edward Hanslick wrote "the main objection against Liszt is that he imposes a much bigger abusive mission on the subject of his work namely either to fill the gap left by the absence of musical content or to justify the atrociiousness of such content as there is"

dear healdie:
what a review! however, hanslick critic may be read with a grain of salt: we can't forget that he was the most striking of wagner's critics (and the most passionate brahms defensor), and liszt was a step aside. anyway, it is directly related to what we are talking about: differences in perspective.
my curiosity now lies in one information: where was that book (the one you quote) written?
best!

[healdie]

I can't find out where it was written because the book over the years has gone through a few revisions so there are numerous authors and editors but at a guess I would say it is a British or American book

[pianisten1989]

ah...almost forgotten to ask: what is this thread all about? as much as i did understand, one of our fellow members wish to be compared to liszt. is that?
best!

Well, Loonbohol had "Compare me to Liszt. I have play (some) Chopin etudes at the age of (something), who else than Liszt could do so?"-Something like that.

So here it is.

[healdie]

well, i excuse myself, but a pianist that doesn't know liszt is something unnaceptable. every pianist is free to don't like liszt, or to don't play liszt, but that is clearly a background failure. what comes next? bach, beethoven?
now-a-days, i think that not knowing thalberg or alkan is a flaw. liszt? please, give a cd and some sheet to this fellow bud, and save his soul.

LOL Well I know the guy would not like Liszt anyway (romantic period is not his favourite) but I don't see it as a background failure yes he made some huge innovations but then so did guys like William Byrd and he is not played by all pianists so does not been familiar with him also a background failure?

[gerryjay]

I can't find out where it was written because the book over the years has gone through a few revisions so there are numerous authors and editors but at a guess I would say it is a British or American book

nevermind, thanks anyway looking for it.
best!

[gerryjay]

Well, Loonbohol had "Compare me to Liszt. I have play (some) Chopin etudes at the age of (something), who else than Liszt could do so?"-Something like that.

So here it is.

hi, pianisten.

thanks for the info. btw, it's interesting to notice the ego trips of some young pianists (and their parents), that think they are enfants prodiges and/or some kind of next superhero. well, dreaming is free to everybody... the pity is how hard the pavement floor is to get smashed to.

best!

[gerryjay]

LOL Well I know the guy would not like Liszt anyway (romantic period is not his favourite) but I don't see it as a background failure yes he made some huge innovations but then so did guys like William Byrd and he is not played by all pianists so does not been familiar with him also a background failure?

dear healdie:
yes! i think that not knowing and playing byrd, for a living pianist, is something absurd, unnaceptable. let me, please, clarify two points:
- it does not apply to older generations, because they were not aware of byrd, for instance, and - by their time - they were developing the practice of other periods;
- by no means i propose that everyone should love byrd and give thematic recitals of his music.

that said, i believe that a musician must have a broad and extensive formation. given the case of a pianist, i think that he must know music from the middle ages to 2009, and actually play music from the middle ages to 2009. further, it is highly welcome to know the basic and have the experience of playing related instruments, at least the harpsichord and the organ (unfortunately, is not that easy to find a clavichord or spinet).

notice that i include in that list a serious bunch of popular music of all sort: art tatum, the doors, radiohead.

of course, if a guy is an amateur, and play only for fun, he can do what he want, and that's it.

best!