Why would you ever study Liszt over Chopin?

[ChiarinaWieck]

With the exception of the b minor sonata or possibly even the years of pilgrimage, the musical output by Liszt lacks any real musical ideas that were so profound in other romantic composers at the time such as Schubert, Chopin, Mendelsohnn, Brahms, Schumann, Ect.
His piano music, which was only composed to show off his technique, is void of real emotion or musical engenuity. His etudes are probably the biggest waste of time and should be dropped from the repertoire. It is fortunate that he had his looks and his technique going for him because as a composer he falls dreadfully short.

[in_love_with_liszt]

Everyone, this girl has just sopken the ultimate insult possible of any composer, and without any justification at that. First of all Liszt was one of the most representative figures of the romantic era in his technique AND emotional output. I find Chopin's music to be a bit dry with the exception of the final Ballade compared to the works of Liszt. Your disrespect disgusts and hurts me that there are pianists out there with such an attitude toward any composer. It is my sole beleif that Liszt's goal was not merely to impress. It was to experiment, to do what had not been done, and ultimately to express himself. I suggest that you open your eyes and ears ChiarinaWieck, they've obviously been held tightly shut your entire life.

(Dropped from the repetoire!? Maybe you should be dropped off something too...)

[ChiarinaWieck]

It is my sole beleif that Liszt's goal was not merely to impress. It was to experiment

Yes, we all can experiment with arpeggios and scales or even GASP! double thirds...
but is it music........

[Allan]

Here we go again and again and again.  Yet another thread about the great composer,  Franz Liszt.  That he is so often talked about (and even more so performed) is a partial testimony to his greatness as a composer.

His concert etudes, Hungarian Rhapsodies, and concert transcriptions are wonderful works for the piano.  In addition, as an organist I can tell you that his Fantasy and Fugue on the G. Meyerbeer theme, "Ad Nos ad Salutareum Undam," is one of the great pieces for the organ written in the 19th century.  In fact, Saint Saens called "Ad Nos" the greatest piece written for the organ....since Bach!!  Great praise indeed.

[JK]

Liszt is not my favourite composer, although I do acknowledge that he was a great pianist and certainly wrote some very beautiful and significant music such as the pieces mentioned, I would be inclined to agree with some of what Chiarina Wieck has written. In my opinion (bear in mind this is my opinion and therefore I would ask people to have an open mind!) Liszts' music is popular because it is very accessible, entertaining to watch, has big tunes etc. I think this is possibly why people like him so much because he writes music that is relatively easy to understand. For example compare a piece of Liszt to say Schumanns' scens from childhood or a Brahms intermezzo, in my opinion it is harder to understand a Brahms intermezzo because it is a lot more subtle whereas Liszt is very openly emotional and sometimes I would even say predictable. Of course this doesn't mean that Liszt wasn't a great composer and it again comes down to the argument as to what music is and is not, what makes a composers' music great? This is impossible to answer as everyone has a different idea. As you may be able to tell I am trying to sit on the fence on this one because I know it would be arrogant of me to say that Liszt wasn't a great composer, clearly he was because so many people on this forum are moved by his music, including myself.

I think some of what the original poster has said is valid but some is certainly a little bit harsh. To say that his etudes should be dropped from the repetoire is going too far, yes I would agree that some of the transcendentals are not as good in terms of compositions as some of his other works, but there are some very fine pieces there all the same. I would also suggest that due to the nature of an etude, studies are never going to show off the composer at their absolute best. For example I find the Chopin c major etude a bit annoying!!!!

[Tash]

i believe that if you can't compose something as well as someone else then don't pay them out. just the fact that he contributed to the musical world and composed a hell of a lot of works that i think are amazing is enough for me to have respect for the composer, whether their compositions are 'void of real emotion' (but really, i think that's more dependant on the pianist rather than the composer, i think it's hard to compose something that doesn't contain any real emotion whatsoever).

people please stop paying out composers and pianists! sure we all have our favourites and others we don't like, but  honestly there's no reason to outright express your dislike for them for they deserve respect and appreciation for their contribution to the musical world even if for some it's better than others

[DarkWind]

where is donjuan? Anyways, Liszt is a great composer. Without him, there wouldn't be any Chopin. He wouldn't have had any idea of the possible virtuosity on the instrument. There wouldn't be any of the future piano pieces either. Everything would be really easy. Piano would be a waste, as everyone can play easy things, and we would be full of piano amateurs.

[larse]

people please stop paying out composers and pianists! sure we all have our favourites and others we don't like, but  honestly there's no reason to outright express your dislike for them for they deserve respect and appreciation for their contribution to the musical world even if for some it's better than others

Excuse me, but to anyone ever lived, an opinion is always rightfully granted. You cannot say that just because someones better than you, you cannot say you dislike their actions. "I HATE Scarlatti and I wish he never lived". I can say that, though it's quite an unrespectable quote. But I have all my right to think about anyone whatever I would like to think about them, and I have the same right for outbursting it in any situation or location. That is called the freedom of speach.

However. About Liszt. Liszt was and is the greatest pianist who ever lived. Or so it is said, at least. Reckoned to be number two is Arthur Rubinstein, and so on. Liszt lived alot from touring with concerts where he merely ticked of the greatest trick ever to impress and be a hero. He also participated in alot of competitions where he always won with a piaece he wrote himself. A whole bounch of his pieces are written merely for show-off.

BUT!

Liszt grew up, and figured this life were not the life he wanted. After a while, Liszt became very religious, however experimental. His "Stücke ohne Tönart" (or something like that)..."Piece without Key"... Points forward to none other than Arnold Schönberg, and his students Alban Berg and Anton Webern. This points at his experimentalism. He used elements later picked up by Stravinsky and Bartok. He's a key figure in the romantic and Neo-Classic era, avantgardist and experimentalist. But Liszt was a romantic. His Valse Imprumpto, for instance, is one of the most beautiful works ever written and beats the hell out of that of Chopin, I think. Never say that Liszt was a mere showoff, because he weren't all that. He was a little, and I agree that some of his etudes are a little...unecessarily hard. But Liszt has more sides....

[Hmoll]

Alan Walker's 3 volume biography of Liszt, which came out in the '80s (or maybe '90s), has become very respected. You all should read it. It covers not only his piano music but his choral, symphonic, and  other compositions. Liszt was one of the most prolific composers since Bach, and certainly of the romantic era.
There's lots of his music I don't happen to like, esp. the opera transcriptions. But he was extremely influential as a composeer of piano music, and did compose some masterpieces.
At one time it was fashionable to pass off his music as empty virtuosity. No one really takes that stance very seriously anymore.  People who say his music should be dropped from the repertoire simply demonstrate their own limitations in understanding this composer.

[in_love_with_liszt]

I'm still puzzled how you would propose to "drop" someone from the repetoire, I mean I myself have composers that I don't like (Debussy, Schubert, Mozart) and yet I respect their lifetime of dedication and contribution to the musical world, and even grow to like certain peices each of them wrote. How would you physically "drop" someone from the repetoire in  the first place?...go around burning peoples music books? Oh oh, let me guess, on the way you'd also burn Jews and homosexuals...coughnazicough......

All I'm saying is keep and open mind, you might turn over a new leaf.

[donjuan]

With the exception of the b minor sonata or possibly even the years of pilgrimage, the musical output by Liszt lacks any real musical ideas.....only composed to show off his technique, is void of real emotion or musical engenuity. His etudes are probably the biggest waste of time and should be dropped from the repertoire. It is fortunate that he had his looks and his technique going for him because as a composer he falls dreadfully short.

Bite your tongue! That's my hero you are slamming there!!!! HE WROTE SOME OF THE GREATEST WORKS IN HISTORY, AND THE LAST THING WE SHOULD DO IS "DROP HIM FROM THE REPERTOIRE!"
oh, god- you make me sick.  
donjuan

[in_love_with_liszt]

I think some of what the original poster has said is valid but some is certainly a little bit harsh. To say that his etudes should be dropped from the repetoire is going too far, yes I would agree that some of the transcendentals are not as good in terms of compositions as some of his other works, but there are some very fine pieces there all the same.

I find most of Liszt's etudes to be very expressive, an amazing feat concidering the nature of the piece. The Paganini etudes (although I don't like "La Chasse"), and Transcendentals like "Chasse Neige," "Mazeppa," and "Wild Jagd" are beautiful and contain a plethora of emotional character, in Chasse Neige you can see a vivid picture of a snow plow struggling through a fierce snow storm, and in Wild Jagd this frenzied hunt is well-depicted to the listener. I think a matter of understanding Liszt's works lies in ones artistic ability to interperet and fantasize, visualize, and conceptualize.

[JK]

Without him, there wouldn't be any Chopin. He wouldn't have had any idea of the possible virtuosity on the instrument. There wouldn't be any of the future piano pieces either. Everything would be really easy. Piano would be a waste, as everyone can play easy things, and we would be full of piano amateurs.

Sorry to be so frank but this is rubbish in my opinion! Firstly to say that there would be no Chopin without Liszt, what do you mean?! Where's the proof of this? If Liszt hadn't written what he had then that doesn't mean that Chopin wouldn't have composed! To say there wouldn't be any future piano pieces is also rediculous, not everyone was inspired by Liszt alone, a lot of Romantic composers and future composers such as Brahms, Wagner, Schumann to name just three were influenced by Beethoven.

The world would be full of piano ameteurs, what???!! Are you having a joke? What about Rachmaninov to start with, and other composer/performers such as Saint-seans. I'm not saying that Liszt didn't influence future generations, of course he did, noone who had that amount of talent for playing the piano wouldn't leave a legacy, however he wasn't the THAT influencial, to the point that you have described where by you seem to think that if Liszt hadn't lived then music great music and performers would have simply stopped! Also what about Beethoven, now surely you're not telling me that he didn't write hard pieces, to suggest that everyone would be amateurs playing "easy" pieces when works such as the Hammerklavier exist is madness!!!

[abe]

I will say my peice.

I prefer Chopin over Liszt. While Liszt is catchy, and i do love listening to his works, and I acknowledge that he was an important figure in the Romantic period, not to mention probably being the most talented pianist ever, he sounds more like a super good pianist improvising cool peices to explore his own technical ability and the limits of what a piano can do. To me he is more of a pianist than a composer. This is not an insult, just a fact. Howitz, Kempf, and other such piano virtuosos wrote their own nifty piano peices, but they are among the great PIANISTS not COMPOSERS. However, I will say Liszt belongs in both categories, just he is more of a pianist.

[Motrax]

Although ChiarinaWieck's opinion was rather brusquely expressed, doing the opposite by spewing opposite rhetoric is no better. This is a forum for civilized discussion about piano, not a free-for-all political row.

Ahem! With that said...   I personally think that as a composer Liszt had many beautiful works, but he was not particularly consistant. This is not bad - he wrote enough beautiful music for a lifetime, and any composer will have some less-well received works. But some of his music does indeed seem somewhat blunt, lacking subtlety which would make it more personal. Some of his Hungarian Rhapsodies exemplify this view in my opinion. The second Hungarian Rhapsody, for example, though beautiful, presents itself as a little obtuse. The addition of a cadenza certainly gives the pianist enough opportunity to explore the piece further though - I think this is a stroke of genius, really... or the Mephisto Waltzes, I don't particularly care for those.

As a pianist, legend can make giants out of people. Undoubtedly Liszt was an incredible performer, but to name him the best pianist in history is too much. To really give a title like that, you must have first-hand experience listening to him (or a recording, of which there are none as far as I'm aware).

Just my two cents.

[Amorollo]

Also, i personally prefer chopin over liszt. But allow me to say this. I have to say Liszt's music did not show as much emotion as chopin's did because of this, Chopin went through a terrible life. He died at 39, half of his family hated him, his wife (divorced) didnt even go to his funeral. The only person that suppored him was his step-son. Chopin composed his mood in his music as a counterpart. (if he was sad he would compose a happy piece to cheer him up). Liszt had a normal life. Thats pretty much it. Liszt's profession was a Concert Pianist with Beethoven as a teacher, not a composer. Chopin's was a composer with a unknown violinist as a teacher. There music is different but Liszts wrote things that were ment for performance Chopin didnt. I think they are two totaly different people.

[donjuan]

Thats pretty much it. Liszt's profession was a Concert Pianist with Beethoven as a teacher, not a composer.  

ummmm are you sure about that? I didnt think Beethoven was Liszt's teacher- Czerny and Salieri were.  When Liszt was a young boy, Beethoven kissed his forehead, but I really didnt think Beethoven taught Liszt.
donjuan

[DarkWind]

Sorry to be so frank but this is rubbish in my opinion! Firstly to say that there would be no Chopin without Liszt, what do you mean?! Where's the proof of this? If Liszt hadn't written what he had then that doesn't mean that Chopin wouldn't have composed! To say there wouldn't be any future piano pieces is also rediculous, not everyone was inspired by Liszt alone, a lot of Romantic composers and future composers such as Brahms, Wagner, Schumann to name just three were influenced by Beethoven.

The world would be full of piano ameteurs, what???!! Are you having a joke? What about Rachmaninov to start with, and other composer/performers such as Saint-seans. I'm not saying that Liszt didn't influence future generations, of course he did, noone who had that amount of talent for playing the piano wouldn't leave a legacy, however he wasn't the THAT influencial, to the point that you have described where by you seem to think that if Liszt hadn't lived then music great music and performers would have simply stopped! Also what about Beethoven, now surely you're not telling me that he didn't write hard pieces, to suggest that everyone would be amateurs playing "easy" pieces when works such as the Hammerklavier exist is madness!!!

The Hammerklavier is madness, yes, but still exists in some obscurity. Up until the time of Liszt, few pianists had even come to a tenth of his technical immensity. No one had any clue of the true limits of the piano until Liszt came along. He transcribed whole operas for piano. He wrote works like the Transcendental Etudes. Timelines in the future would have altered without his existence. Wagner would have lived in obscurity, as he was promoted largely by Liszt. There would be no one who could be influenced by Wagner. That drops a ton of inspiration down the drain. Then there were Anti-Wagnerians, who in retrospect, were inspired NOT to compose like him, and created unique and different music. Grieg's music wouldn't have been as great. Do you have any clue the tons of people that asked Liszt for help and advice? He was a major figure that changed piano playing for the better. He extended the limits and opened up new gates. As other people have said, he did the very modern pieces, and pieces like Les Jeux D'eau au La Villa d'Este had a profound influence and foretold the coming of Impressionism. Beethoven did write difficult pieces. But not only difficulty, but the actual music. He created a bridge between classical and romantic. Sure. But Liszt helped pave the way to future composers. There would me much less difficult piano pieces without him, without knowing the full potential that is the piano. Chopin would have composed. But he wouldn't have had as much influence and ideas. He knew Liszt very well. Wagner also "stole from Liszt," although no one can really notice since his operas are incredibly long. Sure, famous composers and musicians would have existed. But, not the same ones we have today.

As a pianist, legend can make giants out of people. Undoubtedly Liszt was an incredible performer, but to name him the best pianist in history is too much. To really give a title like that, you must have first-hand experience listening to him (or a recording, of which there are none as far as I'm aware).

Just my two cents.

We have tons of first hand accounts. I think sight reading the Grieg Piano Concerto and adding the orchestra, in the first time, is more than enough. Taking that Chopin Etude and introducing the extra octave while sight reading it. Having people faint at his performances, when did that last happen? Having people submit themes to him and he would improvise variations. He sightread what others struggled at. He played the Emperor Concerto with the four small fingers of his left hand. No doubt in my mind he was the greatest pianist ever.

[joeltr888]

Anyways, Liszt is a great composer. Without him, there wouldn't be any Chopin. He wouldn't have had any idea of the possible virtuosity on the instrument. There wouldn't be any of the future piano pieces either. Everything would be really easy. Piano would be a waste, as everyone can play easy things, and we would be full of piano amateurs.

Chopin had composed the lot of his etudes before he had even left Warsaw...  meaning he didn't learn a thing from Liszt about technique, although Liszt was undoubtedly the stronger of the two. If anything, it was Liszt who learned from Chopin. That said, Liszt composed a great wealth of beautiful piano music, simple or not.

As a side note, the majority of Liszt's music actually appalled Chopin, so I highly doubt the latter was standing by taking notes.

[DarkWind]

Chopin had composed the lot of his etudes before he had even left Warsaw...  meaning he didn't learn a thing from Liszt about technique, although Liszt was undoubtedly the stronger of the two. If anything, it was Liszt who learned from Chopin. That said, Liszt composed a great wealth of beautiful piano music, simple or not.

As a side note, the majority of Liszt's music actually appalled Chopin, so I highly doubt the latter was standing by taking notes.

The exact opposite of influencing is...? It can make people choose a different direction, like saying "I don't want to compose like that!" So he influenced Chopin in a rather strange way, but you can't deny it. There's too much difference in their music not too deny how Liszt's music made Chopin not want to compose like that.

[DarkWind]

ummmm are you sure about that? I didnt think Beethoven was Liszt's teacher- Czerny and Salieri were.  When Liszt was a young boy, Beethoven kissed his forehead, but I really didnt think Beethoven taught Liszt.
donjuan

He didn't although Czerny was a pupil of Beethoven, so in a way he did learn from Beethoven . Beethoven kissed Liszt on the forehead after he played one of Beethoven's Trios, i think the Archduke(?) and adding the other instruments in with the piano.

[benji]

His piano music, which was only composed to show off his technique, is void of real emotion or musical engenuity.

What an ignorant statement. You would need to listen to all of his music to make a generalization of that calibur. Plus, you cannot make an exception of the Années de Pélerinage. There are more pieces in this set than there are Beethoven Sonatas! And while most of these pieces require vast technical skill, they are full of emotion and ingenuity!

On an unrelated note, I favor Chopin over Liszt, only because I lack the technique to play Liszt.   :-/

[in_love_with_liszt]

I've noticed this-the average person dubs a piece of music "Romantic" or "emotional" if it contains depressing themes and an overall feeling of sadness. The educated, artistically proficient pianist realizes that there are in fact many human emotions, not just those revolving around depression, death and sorrow. Chopin had a somewhat unfortunate life, true, and therefore almost all of his music is very similar, containing depressing themes and coveying his sadness, giving his collective works a somewhat bland flavor, or more appropriately a very distinctive character. Liszt on the other hand experimented with other emotions that are somewhat more exciting emotions-happiness, humored, anger, and even wrecklesness. Therefore the opinion of many pianists (My teacher and her teacher included) is that Chopin is the "Romantic era for dummies." The layers delicately worked into Liszt's music require the utmost musicianship to begin to grasp, and eventually understand. I am pleased to see that some people know of Liszt promoting other composers he saw promise in such as Berlioz, Wagner, Alkan(although Alkan eventually receded into the shadows by his own choice) and many other performers. EVERY person is entitled to their personal opinion. It doesn't bother me that some of you say you don't like Liszt or find his music un-romantic. It saddens me to see people-pianists at that-not respecting fellow musicians and composers. Classical music has a slowely dying audience as is, we certainly don't need to be eating each other from the inside out-composers, performers, all musicians alike.

[Hmoll]

    Chopin had a somewhat unfortunate life, true, and therefore almost all of his music is very similar, containing depressing themes and coveying his sadness, giving his collective works a somewhat bland flavor, or more appropriately a very distinctive character.

Chopin's music is quite varied. Take a set of pieces like the preludes. You can't say all of them - or even most of them - convey the same emotion (op28 # 1 and #3 depressing? sad?) There is an incredible amount of variety in those pieces.
Look at the variation that exists in the waltzes, mazurkas, and even the polonaises - which are overall heroic pieces.
Each one of the Scherzos are quite different. Same with the Ballades. The Barcarolle is very different from anything he wrote.

[in_love_with_liszt]

Chopin's music is quite varied. Take a set of pieces like the preludes. You can't say all of them - or even most of them - convey the same emotion (op28 # 1 and #3 depressing? sad?) There is an incredible amount of variety in those pieces.
Look at the variation that exists in the waltzes, mazurkas, and even the polonaises - which are overall heroic pieces.
Each one of the Scherzos are quite different. Same with the Ballades. The Barcarolle is very different from anything he wrote.

I see you were somewhat mislead by my statement, as I also like many works by Chopin, however what I meant was that he had a very distinctive sound. Not that this is a bad thing, however I beleive Liszt had much more of a variety of pieces. But I would agree that some of the pieces you listed are slightly different while still highly resemblent of the character Chopin composed in. Notice this is why I did not make a definitive generalization about the character of his music, merely a suggestion of my personal opinion concerning the bulk of many of his works. Chopin, like Liszt was an increidble influence on the future of music and within his repetoire lies some truely geinius thoughts, something he shares with Liszt and all the greats.

[Sketchee]

Liszt's Anees de Pelerinage is one of my favorite works by any composer.  It's emotional content is pretty apparent.  It's one of his greatest works which he wrote several variations of and the pieces in it vary in difficulty.

Yes, we all can experiment with arpeggios and scales or even GASP! double thirds...
but is it music........

That's actually a pretty silly statement.  Chopin used all of these things and many of his works rely a lot on them.  What made Chopin and Liszt great is they could say more with a third and a scale than most other composers.  Look at the runs of scales in Chopin's Prelude 28 No 24.

Anyway, Liszt's chord progressions were pretty revolutionary in themselves and the chords themselves took advantage of 7ths and 9ths and greater.  Nuages Gris is easier than Fur Elise. Speaking of which, we could select any small handful of works by Beethoven, Chopin or Liszt and form any number biased opinions.  Which pieces are we talking about here Chopin and Liszt both experimented in chromaticism which is an element that characterizes  the Romantic period.

It would be much more worthwhile in my opinion to learn about their works and learn the musical language in the historical and theoretical sense.  Yes, everyone has their right to have their opinion but there's a difference between an ignorant opinion and one rooted in facts.  If I were to think this is an opinion of the second type from the statements made, I'd have to think the starter of this thread has taken extensive theory courses and critically gone through and analyzed scores by each composer and several others of the time like Dreyschlock to form such a scientific conclusion to strike him [Liszt] from the repertoire.  I seriously doubt that though.

A few people in this thread have actually expressed why they like Chopin or Liszt better musically.  Anyway, it's not our job to teach and preach about the history of Liszt.  He wrote hundreds of pieces and discussing every one of them would be tedious.  

Liszt admired Chopin and Chopin admired Liszt.  I, for one, will continue playing pieces by both composers and learn from what each had to say.  

[bernhard]

Er...

Do we really have to choose?

Best wishes,
Bernhard

[donjuan]

Liszt admired Chopin and Chopin admired Liszt.  I, for one, will continue playing pieces by both composers and learn from what each had to say.  

If you listen to Funerailles, you can almost hear Liszt's bittersweet tribute to Chopin.

Furthermore, I understand what In_Love_With_Liszt was trying to say.  Chopin's music may not be 'sad', but many works do have the same wistfulness - the same unfulfilled longing and feeling that emotions are being held back, for the sake of trying not to break down crying.  Chopin had some of the most sensitive motifs, and would often use repetition to express them, as we can plainly see in the waltzes and mazurkas.  Liszt would take a motif and develop it to express in his own way.  This is hard to describe, but when I listen to Chopin, it is like I am reading a romantic novel- a very Good romantic novel that, when read carefully, can affect all the senses.  When I listen to Liszt, it is like watching a romantic movie, or an Opera in the theatre, where the emotions are laid out in front of me for me to take in and react.

So, in conclusion, the only person in this thread who doesnt know what they are talking about is our ignorant friend who started it.  Hang your head in shame!  No one can say Liszt or Chopin is better than the other, they are different and are experienced differently for different people,  BUT THEY ARE BOTH WORTHY COMPOSERS, AND NEVER SAY LISZT SHOULD BE DROPPED FROM THE REPERTOIRE!!!!!!!
donjuan    

[maxy]

Dark Wind pretty much said it all.  I mean just listen to Feux-follets, Harmonies du soir and Jeux d'eau.  Strange how some parts can remind us of Debussy, Ravel and Rachmaninov...  His impact is much larger than most would like to admit.  I do not think there would be a Wagner if Liszt had  not been there before.  

Still, some Liszt pieces are not very interesting.  But we must consider that unlike Ravel or Brahms, he did not destroy the works he did not like...  He dared to try different stuff and he evolved.  In comparison, composer such as Chopin and Mozart were static.  Perfection from the very beggining, their styles were set. (which is fine!)

Funny sightreading story: I heard the first piece submitted by a composer that could not be read by Liszt was the Ballade by Fauré.

[Sketchee]

Chopin asked for his unpublished manuscripts to be burned after his death as well. Unfortunately (or fortunately) a few of them survived to be published. posthumously

[belvoce]

ChiarinaWieck, as always, your opinion is your own. You are free to think what you please. However, you might as well keep that thought in your head or to yourself. I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish by posting it here. Sure every composer has his/her shortcomings, but they also have strengths. Plus, everyone has opinions, and opinions are are opinions and not facts. Just becuase I like Schubert's music the best and practically don't like Debussy (at the moment) doesn't mean that you need to have the same beliefs too.

[pianiststrongbad]

While, I do realize this is your opinion.  I realize this is my own:  Pull your head out of your ass and wake up to reality.  First of all, Liszt's Transcendental Etudes are very technically challenging- the purpose of an etude.  Liszt's Etudes are also musical.  The Chopin Etudes, are nice for technical studies, but very few of them develop past two themes.  Regarding Liszt's Rhapsodies, these are some of the finest peices ever written.  I am pretty sure any fool would recognize rhapsody 2 and say I have heard that before.  He might not know the name of the peice, but he would know how it goes.  The Paganini Etudes are also amazing.  Influenced by the virtuoso violinest.  Did he lack musicality also in your opinion?  Seriously, take your opinion and fall of the face of the earth.  

[cziffra]

Why would you ever study Liszt over Chopin?

We aren't you, Chariana.  People that aren't you think differently to you.  Did you realise this?

[donjuan]

We aren't you, Chariana.  People that aren't you think differently to you.  Did you realise this?

Chariana hasnt responded for quite a while..
makes you wonder...

[Tash]

Excuse me, but to anyone ever lived, an opinion is always rightfully granted. You cannot say that just because someones better than you, you cannot say you dislike their actions. "I HATE Scarlatti and I wish he never lived". I can say that, though it's quite an unrespectable quote. But I have all my right to think about anyone whatever I would like to think about them, and I have the same right for outbursting it in any situation or location. That is called the freedom of speach.

quote]

sorry i was more referring to the blunt outright comments such as the one this thread was started with because they're stupid and to a degree, ignorant. like why even make a thread to specifically insult a great composer/pianist? i'm not a fan of stupid arguments that are based primarily on subjective opinions and probably written just to flare a lot of tempers. and i'm probably being a complete hyprocrite right now so i think i'll just stop typing...

[bet33]

id like to start, by saying i dont like to get involved in these threads (usually).  

but here goes... the origional poster has allready proven to be a complete fool, the amount of crap he/she has written is plain and simple to read... but, lets indulge her...

the mere facts go down like this: it is clear that this person has not HEARD liszt... that person has heard a few "tunes", and nothing else...

i wont even go about recommending things on liszt, he was at times an un-even composer in his output (he did live for the concert hall, the musical "recital", which he invented as we know it today, btw)... but his contributions are some of the most profound and important of the 19th century...

from his advancement of tonal harmony to his later contributions to new tonal systems (have I lost the origional poster allready?!)...

to his re vamp on form, and structure...

his religious music, be it his missa choralis, or  the christus oratorio...

his output is tremendous, and ground breaking...

with no liszt there would have been a  huge gap in how music has evolved... from a harmonic stand point, from a stand point of the composers after franz...

i have read all 3 volumes on liszt by WALKER, and they are insightful...

liszt is a genius, and if this eludes any body, it is a short coming on their part... and not liszt's...

in the end, people might dog franz... but, make no mistake about it, the greatest pianist ever was an even more important composer... for the 19th century... and for today...

there is worth in most of the pieces he composed, and some truly go down as the most important works of the 19th century...

long live the memory, of franz liszt...





robert

[bet33]

also, id like to kake one final, harsh statement...

it makes me sad to realize that the majority of the people who have responded to this thread (more or less the majority) strike me as being very anti-musical... and will, in all likelyhood, never make it as musicians in any way shape or form.

Its sad that people can hear music that is so ground breaking from a harmonic, melodic, and rhythmic stand point (as is much of liszt's output for piano, orchestra, choir, etc) and hear mere "arpeggios, and scales"...

it shows an absolute lack of musical insight, as well as a poor ear, immaturity, etc.

Seems to me people hear a difficult passage and only see bpm's and and notes per second... not lines and contour, rhythmic pulse and phrasing.

People here seem to suffer from what most musicians i know suffer from, they think they are listening. When in fact they are judging, in fact mis judging...

good night,

robert

[ChiarinaWieck]

I knew I could get a rise out of you
Us musicians are so predictable.....

[donjuan]

I knew I could get a rise out of you
Us musicians are so predictable.....

k, we arent all american here..
but, I'll say what I want to say as if I were:
hmmm, will, ah reckn yo kand aint naided round this here neck uh the woods boy, now git!

seriously, why the hell are you even here?  This is a respectable forum with respectable people.  Quit wasting our time!

[DarkWind]

k, we arent all american here..
but, I'll say what I want to say as if I were:
hmmm, will, ah reckn yo kand aint naided round this here neck uh the woods boy, now git!

seriously, why the hell are you even here?  This is a respectable forum with respectable people.  Quit wasting our time!

Well put, donjuan! Seriously, Chiarina, what are you trying to do? What do you expect from us? "OH I AGREE LISZT IS TEH SUCK IM A FOOL CAN'T WALK STRAIGHT!!11!1!11!1one!!1?" We of course defended such a composer of the highest caliber!

[abe]

hey now lets not be harsh. I appreciated Charinaweick for starting this thread, because I got to read this fun, interesting, and enlightening topic? Perhaps she doesn't hate Liszt, but was merely using the best method of getting good responses (for the most part): posing a negative question. Why are people flaming this person for what she wrote? After all, she was only asking why. She wasn't condemning liszt or anything. She just wanted to know the answer to a simple question. And I think she got more that she bargained for.

[donjuan]

hey now lets not be harsh. I appreciated Charinaweick for starting this thread, because I got to read this fun, interesting, and enlightening topic? Perhaps she doesn't hate Liszt, but was merely using the best method of getting good responses (for the most part): posing a negative question. Why are people flaming this person for what she wrote? After all, she was only asking why. She wasn't condemning liszt or anything. She just wanted to know the answer to a simple question. And I think she got more that she bargained for.

abe, are you out of your mind?! read this!

I knew I could get a rise out of you
Us musicians are so predictable.....

She didnt come to debate and learn, she just came to post an outlandish statement, and pretend to be interested, so she could "get a rise" out of us, and waste our efforts to discuss something.

[cziffra]

kind of like hitler, in a way

[Sketchee]

I knew I could get a rise out of you
Us musicians are so predictable.....

We've already went on about the right to an opinion, but maybe you should quit while you're severely behind.  First you claim to know so much about Lizst, and now you claim to have some foresight about all musicians. Just another blanket statement with nothing behind it so far.

You may in fact be very wise, who knows, not that you need to prove that to us but ever heard the saying "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

[abe]

Forgive me, i hadn't read the thread in its entirety.

I was wrong in my assessment of Chiarinaweick's motives.

[Antnee]

I knew I could get a rise out of you
Us musicians are so predictable.....

Now this I just don't understand. You come here to a respectable forum, with many decent and a few professional pianists, who instead of practicing, come here to help others and themselves gain knowledge about the piano and its music. You have robbed many of us of our time, which we devoted to trying to help you understand that your statement was extremely biased and that it just isn't true. But then out of nowhere you claim that you basically just started a thread to 'get a rise out of us'. I'm sorry, but if your worthless life revolves around wasting our time and trying to make people mad over the internet, then you really need to think about how big of a loser you are. Go F*** yourself man...

-Tony-

[Terry-Piano]

Liszt is the most overrated pianist of all time  

[DarkWind]

Liszt is the most overrated pianist of all time  

Too much popularity is not enough for Liszt's greatness.

[in_love_with_liszt]

Liszt is the most overrated pianist of all time  

I'd say if you can't do any better than him he's by no means overrated.

[Antnee]

Guys...I think Terry-Piano was just kidding.... right?

-Tony-