Why would you ever study Liszt over Chopin?

[donjuan]

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

-Tony-

yes, he was- you can tell by the number of smilies after trhe comment.  Sarcasm doesnt transfer over the internet too well..

[Antnee]

 Sarcasm doesnt transfer over the internet too well..

Nahh...You think? ? ?  <----Sarcasm    

-Tony-

[larse]

Though...You should'nt be IRONIC! Sarcasm is actually much harsher and is originally out to roll over someone. Irony is the little brother which we seem to use here. If yo0u'd like sarcasms, listen to Prokofiev

[goansongo]

Why study Liszt over Chopin?  I think the real question is why study one composer instead of another?  And that question is much more easier to answer.  I mean, think about it, why do you eat one food over another?  Everyone has preferences...

[larse]

Yep. But you should be open and try out everything before you judge it. (This is a common speach :-/ )

[in_love_with_liszt]

g

Yep. But you should be open and try out everything before you judge it. (This is a common speach :-/ )

Anyone like peaches? lol sorry I get way to excited about typos....just go back to whatever we were discussing...*goes to get a peach*

[Sketchee]

Why study Liszt over Chopin?  I think the real question is why study one composer instead of another?  And that question is much more easier to answer.  I mean, think about it, why do you eat one food over another?  Everyone has preferences...

Why eat oranges when you can have an apple!

[bernhard]

I like fruit salad!

[larse]

Well, I don't... I like meat. And prefer Prokofiev and Shostakovic.

[Fastzuernst]

Chopin and Lizst both provided the piano repertoire with many important compositions and neither should be ignored. Lizst just happened to be the more prolific perfomer of the two. One could say that Liszt's personality played a role in making his music (expecially for piano) more popular, as some of his earlier piano music isn't very profound. Chopin on the other had rarely perfomed and his music has survived on merit. This is just an opinion, so don't bite my head off.

[larse]

OH YES! No, I wont. Chopin did not perform in the concert halls because he got so nervous. This is according to himself. Chopin played alot though, in less formal situations, such as tea parties and other aristocratic and cultural-developed occasions. He was also a famed tutor. And his ego was greater than that of any other. He openly spoke of how rotten Schumanns compositions were compared to his own, and how his genious was far above any other. Chopin also had several times in his life which were not too good. He died of tuberculosis(or whatever it's called in eng), which prior to his death caused alot of pain and suffering. He also went through the Polish revolution which demanded alot. (That's, of course, when he composed the Revolutionary Etude, Op 10 No 12).

Liszt is a severely different character. His pianistic abilities are beyond human to understand. And he was a showoff at first. An outrageous pianist, an easy life. But it did'nt turn that good at all, later. He developed as a human and started experimenting. Towards the end of his life he also became very religious, something that has set it's trails in his choir music, for instance.

Liszt was a great orhestrator, conductor and orchestral composer. Chopin was not. Liszt had an ear for other instruments which provided him with a great understanding for chamber music. Chopin did not. Liszt is reckoned to be the greatest pianist of all times. Chopin is not. Liszt experimented, especially harmonically, but also alot purely musically and melodically. Chopin did not. Liszt produced music where the piano did not take part in the score. Chopin did not.

I would put it this way: why study Chopin over Liszt?

[Fastzuernst]

I agree
Play whatever you wish!
Let the listener decide

[in_love_with_liszt]

Hmmm I learned in Music History that Chopin was always a very weak person, mentally and phsically. Thus he did not like touring and performing in the big concert halls because it exhausted him competely to the point of making him ill at times. He prefered small, private, aristocratic concerts as he was able to fill a small room up with sound less exhaustably than the massive stages.

[Terry-Piano]

Lol ... he is overrated... seriously.... havent you heard all those stories... ( women fainted.. and the list goes on)

But don't get me wrong... I love Liszt and praise the impregnable fortress which we call his genius...all I'm saying is there will always be better pianists... It doesn't just STOP after Liszt (example : MARC-ANDRE HAMELIN ) I guess what I'm trying to say is that Liszt doesnt tower over all others... i see him as another composer conveying his ideas in the way he saw it(even in some more extreme ways than others)

Just to know he wrote what would become the transcendental studies at 14 year old.. that is something
And that most of the stuff he wrote then was harder than it is now..(or was it the second version that is harder ? ) thats even more amazing...yes hes worth mention and praise... but in my opinion Chopin brought more to piano music... of course this is debatable as with all opinions

[Saturn]

File this thread under "unintentional humor".

[Sketchee]

Just to know he wrote what would become the transcendental studies at 14 year old.. that is something
And that most of the stuff he wrote then was harder than it is now..(or was it the second version that is harder ? )

With most of the pieces he rewrote, the earlier versions were the harder versions.  They were rewritten to be more accessible to pianists of his day!

[bet33]

alot of mis information here again...

i'll fix a little of it,

the 12 studies that liszt wrote at 14 were very different and alot easier then the final "draft"... the first revision in 1838 is the HARD one, he then went back and fixed them again in the 1850's this time making them easier... some textures were too difficult for the newer pianos...

also, alot of chopin info on this thread is wrong...

[larse]

But don't get me wrong... I love Liszt and praise the impregnable fortress which we call his genius...all I'm saying is there will always be better pianists... It doesn't just STOP after Liszt  (example : MARC-ANDRE HAMELIN  )

Ehm. Not to be rude in any way.. But have you heard Liszt playing the piano? No, and neither has anyone else in these hysterical times. However, facts prove...Very, VERY, serious research has been put into this...that from the judge of serious musicians in serious statements, Liszt is crowned as the piano king of all times, from the early times and 'till today. Second place goes to our famed Arthur Rubinstein. And the rest I don't remember.

But I don't get why everyone's trying to find the BEST pianist and the NR 1 techical genious. because the curve is pretty flat on top...There are so many great musicians out there who don't get as much as a statement because they're not 'Nr 1 - 3 on the list'... I despise this pop-culture crowning within classical music. 'Top 10 musicians through all times'. pfft. It should be driven away.

[IgnazPaderewski]

Liszt is god.... never say a word against him..... really study the b minor sonata, then try and objectively assess why chopin is necessarily more worthwile... this topic shouldn't exist...

I remember a similar debate with ed

[ChiarinaWieck]

Ignaz Paderewski - one of the most over rated pianist of the twentith-century.

[Sketchee]

Ignaz Paderewski - one of the most over rated pianist of the twentith-century.

I think you have him confused with your mom! *JOKE*

(Sorry to sink down to CW's level but it's got to be a little funny at this point )

[in_love_with_liszt]

Hmmm Marc Andre Hamelin is incredibly overrated. I think he is one of the worser pianists....technically sure, he's good, but he squanders emotional textures to the unforgiving point. And ChiarinaWieck, unless IgnazPaderewski somehow went back in time and got himself killed before the year 2000, he's a pianist of the twenty-first century, and is most likely not the headcase like yourself (and I bet he knows what year it is!) Sorry I crack myself up.

[ChiarinaWieck]

I am sorry, but I was sure you all would know who
Ignaz Paderewski was. He WAS a famous pianist of the TWENTITH CENTURY, not the twenty first century. Let me put that in numbers for you 1900-1999 - the twentith century 2000-2099 - the twentith first century.
I was not attacking the person who took his name for this forum as an overated pianist.
Anyways, this original post was a bunch of crap. It is always nice to see pianists get so worked up! I do it all the time.

[donjuan]

Anyways, this original post was a bunch of crap. It is always nice to see pianists get so worked up! I do it all the time.

cmon, why dont you get a real hobby?  
(I know this sounds weird coming from someone like me with so many posts)

[amanfang]

Actually, doesn't the century start with the first year??  So the 20th century would be 1901 - 2000.  The year 2000 just kinda crowns the 20th century.

[donjuan]

Actually, doesn't the century start with the first year??  So the 20th century would be 1901 - 2000.  The year 2000 just kinda crowns the 20th century.

haha! check mate, Chiarina!!  The way you had it, there would have been a "0th century"!!
donjuan

[DarkWind]

It is always nice to see pianists get so worked up! I do it all the time.

You are pathetic.

[in_love_with_liszt]

No kidding. Go enlist yourself in a mental institution.

[ChiarinaWieck]

Check Mate? is this a competition? If it is I win at getting rise out of you! Come on guys! I think it is great to argue about topics regarding piano, isn't that what this is all about I certainly wouldn't want everyone to be on my side. BY the way, why isn't any one attacking the guy who hates Mozart? I know my arguement is worse than his and shouldn't even be considered, but I am amazed at how many have gien this post their time (myself included)
You can't claim that someone is God. I personally believe that Lizst was an incredible performer and composer but he is treated as a diety without just cause. He was just a person as you or me....

[donjuan]

arg! that's it!!
I dont want any more notification emails from this topic clogging up my email inbox....
Im out of here --> over and out!

donjuan

[Sketchee]

I am sorry, but I was sure you all would know who
Ignaz Paderewski was. He WAS a famous pianist of the TWENTITH CENTURY, not the twenty first century. Let me put that in numbers for you 1900-1999 - the twentith century 2000-2099 - the twentith first century.
I was not attacking the person who took his name for this forum as an overated pianist.
Anyways, this original post was a bunch of crap. It is always nice to see pianists get so worked up! I do it all the time.

Like I said, best to keep your mouth shut because the more you talk the more inept you seem.  It speaks just as much toward your personality as it does to any of ours.  If you can live with being such a person than that is your right, but you're a fool if you play with people like toys.  That's incredibly immature and at least you can admit that you're just being an ass.  In that case it seems you think you deserve every single negative comment you get.  Besides in all of your posts, you've only had one fact which makes your opinions baseless and worthless to me.  If you don't want to respect yourself or anyone else, then feel free to continue doing it "all the time."

I'm going to request that you're banned from this board though.  This is a privately owned forum and hopefully the moderators will appreciate that this is a discussion board.  If you want to play games, post a thread about games.  What you're admitting to is called trolling and is explicitedly forbidden on this board.

Honestly, my completely baseless opinion is that I think you're tracking back on your original post.  You made a bunch of stupid remarks and now you're trying to play yourself off as the one who knew it all along.  You're posts have almost facts or content so it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about or you don't even know how to use a search engine to check up on facts. And I think what you said originally about Paderewski was another mistake you're now trying to play off. Go away troll.

[Rach3]

What do you have against Paderewski?

[DarkWind]

She is trying to start the same utter crap that she did before but with a pianist. Her posts are of a negative effect to this community, and I think most people would agree that she best be suited to cease all posting immediately.

[ChiarinaWieck]

This whole forum is based on opinions. Professional and Non Professional. I feel sorry for you if you can't listen to other points of view. Sure they may be absurd (listen to republican/democrat talk radio for an example of this) but at least they are expressing another point of view. I have found this post to be very educational because I see what it is you like about Lizst and I have watched you defend it (some with great post, others were definately ridiculous attemps at insults). All in all this post will hopefully be remembered at a chance for all who have visited it to argue their reasoning for loving Lizst's music.  OVER and OUT! Peace Brothers.....

[Sketchee]

This whole forum is based on opinions. Professional and Non Professional.

This forum is based on facts and discussion of them.  This thread wasn't interesting because of your opinion, but because of the facts that others responded with as reasons to support their opinions.

I feel sorry for you if you can't listen to other points of view.

I think you missed the point.  A point of view isn't based on a whim or pure opinion.  People support their own ideas, cite their ideas and provide reasoning and evidence or at least examples.  You never had a point of view to listen to.

Sure they may be absurd (listen to republican/democrat talk radio for an example of this) but at least they are expressing another point of view. I have found this post to be very educational because I see what it is you like about Lizst and I have watched you defend it (some with great post, others were definately ridiculous attemps at insults).

Did your "contributions" fall in the great category or the insults category?  

All in all this post will hopefully be remembered at a chance for all who have visited it to argue their reasoning for loving Lizst's music.  OVER and OUT! Peace Brothers.....

[catchketchup]

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.

Have you even heard, Liszt's Nocturnes, Consolations, Liebestraum, Sonnets? You haven't heard 10% of Liszt's entire works. Liszt's Etudes are only for technical display? What about Transcendental Etudes Nos. 3, 9, 10, 11 etc... The lyrical concert Etudes? I seen a stupid youtuber called "randomwashback", who used to say "Mozart's music is mostly childish, people who like his music are those who follow superficial ideals. All views are biased".
He lost the debate he against me, sadly. He's backed into a corner and doesn't talk anymore, apparently, he knew nothing of the great works by Mozart.
You're just like randombackwash, who pretended to be a "know-it-all" and presumed to say ignorant things about a great composer.
"Us Musicians are predictable?" I don't know what you're implying. If you're not here to have meaningful discussions, what are you here for? Putting Liszt down, just because you like Chopin better? In reality, the composer Liszt was never mediocre than Chopin, Brahms, etc.
I suggest you listen to TE no.9 Ricordanza before starting your research on Liszt.

The guy here who said "Liszt's Transcendentals not really emotional/musical" or something has to do some major research as well. He has no EAR to hear the great poetry of Liszt Etudes.

[perfect_pitch]

Erm... you're about 5 years too late for anyone to care, this thread practically died in Mid 2004.

[antichrist]

paderewski is as famous as horowitz, and both were rated as the best pianists ever
I've seen him playing HR2, not so exciting , some parts were great tho

[demented cow]

These Liszt-sux-compared-to-Chopin threads come up periodically (a bit like the perenial Beatles-fans-vs.-Stones-fans hatefests). This time the recommendation is to drop Liszt from the repertoire for being a technique showoff. I don't understand. Is the claim that 'Harmonies du Soir' or 'Benediction de Dieu dans la Solitude' weren't written by Liszt? And why do/did serious students of music like Alfred Brendl, Claudio Arrau, Willhelm Kempf etc. admire and play Liszt?
The title of this thread, if taken seriously, would entail that no Liszt piece is better than even the worst Chopin piece. So Liszt's sonata is worse than Chopin's 1st sonata? Or are the Chopin octave or sixths etudes or 10/2 better than 'Un Sospiro' or 'Mazeppa' or 'Harmonies du Soir'? These Chopin pieces aren't bad, but as compositions they are not on the same level as the Liszt ones.
BTW I'm not saying that everything Liszt wrote is good, or even that Chopin wasn't a better composer. I don't agree with all the Liszt defences above. I don't think he influenced Chopin, for instance. Chopin thought Liszt's compositions were primitive. But he said the same about Beethoven.

[mcdiddy1]

The simple fact they years after his death and that we mention his name among piano greats such as Beethoven and Chopin answers your own question about his validity as a composer. He had a unique personality and his own unique way of approaching composition. He is more associated with the technical masterpieces he created the same way we all associated Beethoven with his Moonlight Sonata. He wrote important orchestral compositions and we forget about the period where he wrote music with a more religious subtext. The idea that Liszt should be dropped and that he never had great ideas is pretty silly. If your idea of a great composer is someone who has beautiful melodies  and influenced other composer, had his own unique style, creatively found ways to say new things musically, or created music that expanded where people though people could go then you would have to include Liszt in that category along with Beethoven and Chopin and all the composers we talk about today.

[gyzzzmo]

I dont know of you guys, but i never heard Liszt playing, so i cant really say anything about it. Maybe he was some sort of Lang Lang, with alot of notes but crappy musicality in his play.

Btw, some people are more entertainers like Liszt (i suppose). Do this make his compositions worse? Chopin and Rachmaninov have alot of notes too, why are they okay then to study? :p

[demented cow]

I dont know of you guys, but i never heard Liszt playing, so i cant really say anything about it. Maybe he was some sort of Lang Lang, with alot of notes but crappy musicality in his play.

Why not read something before speculating like this. There are stacks of reports of his playing. The virtuoso side of Liszt's playing was undeniable, but read the account of the musicality and attention to detail in Liszt's performance of the Hammerklavier Sonata  in Schonberg's book 'The Great Pianists'. There was also an essay by Alfred Brendl (hardly somebody who admires superficial showoffs) defending Liszt, calling him the 'greatest Beethoven interpreter of his century'.
And don't forget all the serious, non-showoff music he transcribed for piano. Bach organ music, the Beethoven symphonies. I even found transcriptions of parts of Mozart's Requiem on youtube recently. Does anybody think that this laborious work was done in order to play up to the gallery? Isn't it more that he loved this music and wanted to make it more accessible to people in the pre-recording age?

[mcdiddy1]

I dont know of you guys, but i never heard Liszt playing, so i cant really say anything about it. Maybe he was some sort of Lang Lang, with alot of notes but crappy musicality in his play.

Btw, some people are more entertainers like Liszt (i suppose). Do this make his compositions worse? Chopin and Rachmaninov have alot of notes too, why are they okay then to study? :p

What does having a lot of notes have to do with musicality? I agree with you about how you can make judgments on how great Liszt was because nobody here was alive to hear it. What is the standard of greatness at the piano anyways? To me it doesn't matter how great he was technically but more about music and his interpretation and unfortunatly all we have is the music. I don't think its fair to bash any musician who steps in front of thousands and in some case millions of people a year to put their heart and soul on display and say their crappy musicians. Anyone who has stepped on a recital stage in front of thirty people and felt the anxiety creep in ( which should be everyone on this form) knows what it feels like. You may not like his interpretation but to say he has bad musicianship is not necessarly accurate.

We should study Chopin and Rachmaninoff for the way to choose to organize the notes to create ideas....not simply because they wrote many notes. Million of composers wrote many notes and we  don't know their names for a reason. They have reached a standard in people's hearts the way they have unifing themes, craftmanship,  just to name a few.

[gyzzzmo]

Ehm, why would anybody study only Liszt or only Chopin? They both have great works, just differently.

[gyzzzmo]

Why not read something before speculating like this. There are stacks of reports of his playing. The virtuoso side of Liszt's playing was undeniable, but read the account of the musicality and attention to detail in Liszt's performance of the Hammerklavier Sonata  in Schonberg's book 'The Great Pianists'. There was also an essay by Alfred Brendl (hardly somebody who admires superficial showoffs) defending Liszt, calling him the 'greatest Beethoven interpreter of his century'.
And don't forget all the serious, non-showoff music he transcribed for piano. Bach organ music, the Beethoven symphonies. I even found transcriptions of parts of Mozart's Requiem on youtube recently. Does anybody think that this laborious work was done in order to play up to the gallery? Isn't it more that he loved this music and wanted to make it more accessible to people in the pre-recording age?

I can speculate whatever i want, since its afterall, only 'speculating'. And there is not that much point in reading alot of stuff about Frans Liszt before 'speculating' something, because things written in that Romantic period is very different from our current perspective, Alfred Brendel never heard Liszt playing either. And maybe you find it offensive if somebody might have been a virtuoso entertainer, but i dont care so much, because he wrote alot of beautiful things.

[catchketchup]

These Liszt-sux-compared-to-Chopin threads come up periodically (a bit like the perenial Beatles-fans-vs.-Stones-fans hatefests). This time the recommendation is to drop Liszt from the repertoire for being a technique showoff. I don't understand. Is the claim that 'Harmonies du Soir' or 'Benediction de Dieu dans la Solitude' weren't written by Liszt? And why do/did serious students of music like Alfred Brendl, Claudio Arrau, Willhelm Kempf etc. admire and play Liszt?
The title of this thread, if taken seriously, would entail that no Liszt piece is better than even the worst Chopin piece. So Liszt's sonata is worse than Chopin's 1st sonata? Or are the Chopin octave or sixths etudes or 10/2 better than 'Un Sospiro' or 'Mazeppa' or 'Harmonies du Soir'? These Chopin pieces aren't bad, but as compositions they are not on the same level as the Liszt ones.
BTW I'm not saying that everything Liszt wrote is good, or even that Chopin wasn't a better composer. I don't agree with all the Liszt defences above. I don't think he influenced Chopin, for instance. Chopin thought Liszt's compositions were primitive. But he said the same about Beethoven.

Chopin said, "Mozart, Beethoven, Hummel are the masters of us all". He never said Beethoven's compositions are primitive. His Sonata No.2 shows his admiration for Beethoven piano sonatas No.12, No.32. Liszt did influence Chopin. The octave passages of Nocturne Op.48 No.1  are considered "Lisztian" by experts.

[catchketchup]

I dont know of you guys, but i never heard Liszt playing, so i cant really say anything about it. Maybe he was some sort of Lang Lang, with alot of notes but crappy musicality in his play.

Btw, some people are more entertainers like Liszt (i suppose). Do this make his compositions worse? Chopin and Rachmaninov have alot of notes too, why are they okay then to study? :p

people said Liszt had the strength to break piano strings but also had the level of musicality to make everyone weep. I can't find the exact quote.

[gyzzzmo]

people said Liszt had the strength to break piano strings but also had the level of musicality to make everyone weep. I can't find the exact quote.

Year 2261: somebody wants to form an opinion about president Obama and manages to find a quote from Fox News. Wouldnt really be representive would it?
Thats why i said that i dont know how great he played, since i never actually heard him play. Maybe he was a show pianist with mainly huge technique and less musicality like Lang Lang (or maybe he also had genius musicality?). I dont know.


About Liszt/Chopin compositions:
Theyre both very different: Chopin wrote beautiful pianomusic, but alot of the same style and his orchestra pieces are pretty crappy if i may say. He could only compose really good stuff for piano.

Liszt his pianomusic is abit less than Chopin's to my opion. Theyre often variations of a melody, a melody he often didnt make up himself either (though theyre very nice variations!) But he was much better than Chopin at composing for orchestra and i think he was technically better than Chopin (his more-demanding pieces might be an indication for this). Plus he introduced a new type of music.

[mompal]

  As far as I'm concerned, Chiarina Wieck (fine reincarnation, ain't it?!) is absolutely right here.  To me personally Liszt was a very superficial showmaster. Most of his music lack even a reasonable amount of depth and genuine poetry. Maybe he was more or less the Piano Paganini of his time. Great technical skill and ingenuinity, poor musical imagination, except, indeed, for the b-minor sonata, which I find an exceptionally fine master piece. But compared to Schumann and Brahms, to name just two famous romanticists, he's not nearly up to par.  In my opinion there are quite a few composers who deserve much more attention (such as e.g. Harald Genzmer [1909-2007] whose music I recently discovered and am totally enchanted with. Nough said. Bye, bye, Dr. Franz......

[edwardweiss]

 Well of course none of us has heard Liszt play-but there are plenty of contemporary reports from very significant musicians which enable us to conclude that there was far more to his playing than mere technical skill. The list of his taught-for free pupils is enough, goddammit, to put the dunces' cap on any of his detractors here. Of course I am not talking about his later years when lack of practice and good brandy had taken its toll. If Liszt is such a poor composer-why did Rubinstein, Busoni, Von Bulow, Stradal, Rosenthal,  Lhevinne, Rachmaninoff, Barere, Moiseiwitch, Grainger, Petri, and an endless list of other great or at least significant pianists play his works? Posts such as this are simply vexatious and pointless. And the real answer is-I would and indeed have studied them both-it isn't a choice like either going to the movies or the ball-game on a Saturday.