Brahms vs Liszt - PF COMPETITION! -

[nilsjohan]

Who was the better composer, Brahms or Liszt? :-/

- a question that has been debated among pianists almost since ancient times.
Of course I know who was the better composer but I would like to hear your opinions!
The one who has the right answer together with the most convincing and unique motivations by November 30th 2001 will win a gorgeous...

Piano Forum T-shirt!!!

Rules: You can write as many posts as you like. It's the total impression of your opinions which will be considered. You are not allowed to use the modify function in this verbal battle (that will cause disqualification). If necessary, write a new post with a correction.

Good Luck!

[martin_s]

well, it is not That very difficult a question to answer though, is it?!

While Brahms just picks up the thread where Beethoven finished, Liszt much more developes the styles that inspired him (italian opera, Beethoven, Schubert to name a few) into something extremely personal and therefore turns more into a new Beethoven kind of figure that Brahms ever did. (What I mean is that Beethoven became the grand master for the generation following after him and influenced so many composers and so did Liszt. Just think of Wagner, Debussy, Ravel, Messiaen and so many others who all drew their inspiration from Liszt)
Liszt also so much more then Brahms interfere with artists in other areas contemporary (and not contemporary!) to him and not only in songs but in all his work. (thinkin' of Années de Pélérinage, Faust Symf. a.o.)
As far as the actual skills of composing are concerned I think, again, that there is no doubt about that Liszt has got more colours on his palette, although it needs to be said that he sometimes does not take time to really finish and develop his compositions - unfortunately. Just think of the original ending of the b-minor Sonata. Here Liszt at first was not able to resist the temptation to make a crash-bang-superficial ending but then fortunately came to his senses instead of running to the publisher, crossed out the flamboyant ending he just wrote and worked out that wonderfully solemn ending as we know it today.
Also just think of all the new techniques and textures Liszt invented, like metamorphos, reintroduction of ideomatic affects from the Baroque, not to mention the huge development in pianowriting and piano technique he stands responsible for.

A good example of how Liszt works much more innovativly then Brahms is what they both claim to be Hungarian styles. Where Brahms just sticks to what has traditionally been believed to be Hungarian, Liszt (eventually, having made the same mistake himself) explores the authentic Hungarian folkstyle. And following up that thread he re-invents modal writing (having many years earlier re-introduced (with Schubert's help) the triad-based mediantic style of the renaissance music!) and helps inspiring one of the 20th century's greatest composer, Messiaen.

Having said all that, some people always come with the (rather stupid!) argument: "but just think of all the chambermusic and great orchesteral pieces of Brahms. Liszt did not do any of that." But nor did Bach write any symfonies or Messiaen any much chambermusic... so, what makes great composer then?? What I just mentioned above? I think so.

Then it is of course from day to day what you likes the most Brahms or Liszt. As for me, I am not sure!

[Ckarrlozs]

Brahms the classicist vs. Liszt the avant-gardist

They were both Bachelors, they left two piano concerti, the piano sonatas were very personal expressions for both men...
These are just a few ideas popping up into my head that do not answer the whole debate that could also be "Schumann vs. Wagner"...

Overall Brahms' production, or at least what is available to us (as he destroyed quite a few works he didn't consider up to release), is from a compositional and objective point of view of higher quality that Liszt's.
It is rather irrelevant at this point to argue that Brahms was just an old timer. Liszt opened the doors for many of his contemporary colleagues, it is a fact and I will not deny it. His thirteen symphonic poems as an example, although rather unknow were the first of its kind based on thematic transformation.
But a question still arises: why are they being performed so little, as little as his chamber music and his sacred works are?

Brahms, as well as Bach or even Messiaen, all have a broader range of works that musicians and music listeners are familiar with, and that are performed on a regular basis all over the world. Anything from chamber music to orchestral music or sacred works. Just have a look at the most prestigious concerts hall's season programs!...

As a pianist I reckon many of Liszt's piano works are masterpieces but... he still doesn't play in the same league! He was a fabulous pianist indeed, a very cultured man, very original and innovative, but too many compositions he left to posterity are just not up to it.

Brahms was intelligent enough to admit even Wagner's genius but despite his novelty in the use of traditional elements, he still represents the peak of an era represented by Bach's, Haydn's or Beethoven's legacies, indeed their universal heir!

[Osqar]

"Who was the better composer, Brahms or Liszt?" is indeed a interesting question, but, if taking seriously, with only one thinkable answer. Although it is very important when you pick your choise that you´re certain what the question really is about. As i would like to show you, the debate on this forum sometimes misses its target. And sadly indeed, with a few miles sometimes.

As for now, there is only one person (nick: martin_s) who argues that Liszt is the greater one of the two. Why he (?) is doing that, still remains a bit of a mystery, and i will start with a few commentaries of his post. Martin_s`s  argumentaion is mostly based on three statements; 1. that Liszt, and not Brahms, was a "Beethoven kind of figure" in the sense that Liszt, and not Brahms, had a great influence on his future composer colleagues, handing over a package of different new techniques. 2. that Liszt interfered greatly with other artists, in other fields of art. 3. that Liszt didn´t (!)write much of chambermusic and great orchestral pieces (indeed a odd argument).
In a very well-written post martin_s uses these theses in a way which at first could look very convincing, but i would recommend any reader not to be fooled by all the nice work.
So what is the truth then? Of course it would be a bit presumptous to claim to have the whole truth, nothing but the truth....and so on, but a few misunderstandings need to be challenged. Let´s start with the question about influence on composers-to-come, that is the importance as a musical inspiration. As even the nick Karloss mentions there in fact i s a great musical inheritance from Liszt (mostly Debussy, Ravel and Messiaen) but one could ask oneself where this inheritance stands today? Who took up the baton after Messiaen?? If you instead look at Brahms, it´s quite clear that, in our point of view, we have much more to thank Brahms for.
It is common konwledge that already in his lifetime Brahms was a graet model for younger composers. Particulary of course in Germany, where Wagner´s music at that time was a bit disapproved of. A few name to mention would be Reger, Schoenberg, Busoni, Hindemith and indeed abraod with Elgar, Vaughan Williams and, why not, Fauré. They all absored Brahms different techniques in ther own way thus leading us in to the 20th century. In a way, Brahms here become the father of what we call modern music. This fact is very often competely and cunnigly hidden from us, and especially from those who claim that Liszt was the saviour the music was waiting for. Maybe the most convincing piece of evidence of this is the speech ("Brahms the Progressive") that Schoenberg made, originally as a a radio talk, in 1933. Schoenberg in this recommendable reading admires by other things the richness of harmonics, ability to spin themes, abundance of scale degrees and claiming the importance of Brahms leading the way to a "unrestricted musical language". Later on, worldclass modernists as Berio and Ligeti (Trio for french horn, vn, and pf. Hommage a Brahms!!) payed their respect.
As shown, Liszt does not have the unique position in musical history that martin_s want us all to believe, and certainly not as a inspiration for others.

To be continued....

[Osqar]

The point is, however, that this isn´t quite what is asked about in the original question!! A great composer makes great music, and a great source of inspiration makes great results. For others! We´ve all seen that the inspirational part fits Brahms as well as Lizst (oh yes, we all agree!). Let´s argue about great music.
In my opinion music is, above all, an art commited to please the ear. One can admire all the textures and advanced contrapunctual buildings etc etc in a piece, but if you don´t like what you h e a r, you probably wont like the piece. At the same time, I don´t see how a group of "experts", whoever they may be, can define and decide what great music, that is great listening, really is about. It seems that the only way of telling great music (by great composers) from less great music (by less great composers) is to find out what people would like to hear. So ...lets make an experiment. Let us, randomly pick a concerthall at any location in the world. Once that is done, look into the general program of the year´s concerts. Count the pieces of Brahms and Liszt. I´ll bet my Blüthner grand piano that in 95 per cent of the case you´ll come up with a victory for Brahms.
The truth is, cold as it may be for some Liszt-admirers out there, that people want to here the pieces of Brahms agian and again. Simply because it´s such a great music!
The argument from presumably martin_s now would be: "But Liszt masterpieces then....B-minor sonata, Dante symphony, Faust symphony...they are frequently played!" Although I won´t lower myself to calling this "rather stupid" , I would strongly recommend you all to remember that the time has been nice to Liszt here. The reason (ok ok...o n e of the reasons) we have this masterpieces by Liszt is because he made such a huge amount of pieces, and it was mainly, sad but true, rather poor music. However, since he had talent, now and then a great masterpiece is revealed from his pen.
Look above, where martin_s claims, or at least strongly indicates, that Liszt did not write much of chamber music and great symphonic works. Again the truth is hidden from us. The fact is that Liszt worklist of symphonic/great orchestral pieces outnumbers Brahms´! Look for yourselves if you dont believe me. But obviously there is a reason why the symphonic poem "Hamlet" (comp. 1858, C 765) is a rare experience these days (and by the way, so much for interference with litterature...) or why it is almost impossible to enjoy "Hymne de lénfant a son réveil" (1865) in a church this friday. As for chamber music, martin_s appearently doesn´t think Quatour pour la Fin du Temps by Messiaen is worth mentioning as great chambermusic (although it is by the rest of the musical society spotted as one of the great of our time), but maybe martin_s has Liszt`s Elegie I (pf, hp, hmn. 1874) or Liszt´s Grand duo for violin and piano in mind?!

For a really short version of this post, i would finally like to answer the question by martin_s: "What makes a great composer then?"
The simple answer is "Great music!", and there lies also the answer to the original question, where, as from now, there really cant be any doubt.
"Johannes Brahms" !!

[nilsjohan]

The winner is...

...who gets the first Piano Forum T-shirt ever!

[donjuan]

the competition is over.. But hey, that's kind of cool how nils offers that T shirt!  We should all get one, and maybe Ill recognize you guys if I ever see you..

[DarkWind]

Liszt!!!  

STOP BUMPING OLD THREADS.

[Motrax]

Wonder why Nils doesn't participate like this anymore...  

[thomas_williams]

Interesting!

Although I like both composers, I agree that Brahms is the best!

BTW, luda888, thank you for bumping this thread-- I probably never would have found it otherwise.  (I discovered the forum about a year after the time of this PF competition.)