Was Liszt THE greatest pianist ever?

[forgottenbooks]

I can accept that Liszt was one of the greatest pianists ever, but what basis do we have for saying that he was the greatest, since there are no recordings of his playing? How do we know that Rachmaninoff, Godowsky, Hofmann and others weren't as good as Liszt?

[nyiregyhazi]

I can accept that Liszt was one of the greatest pianists ever, but what basis do we have for saying that he was the greatest, since there are no recordings of his playing? How do we know that Rachmaninoff, Godowsky, Hofmann and others weren't as good as Liszt?

Well, there's not much to discuss, to be honest. We don't. Only people who are naive enough to believe myth and legend speak of him in those terms and think it actually amounts to objective reality. That's not to say he was probably overrated or that he can't have been even greater than them. But nobody really knows.

[precipitato]

agreed too. but IMO he's the best cos i love liszt!
also to see... composers compose what their are capable to play, and to see liszt's compositions... we can say its rather self-explanatory.

[keyboardclass]

We all stand on the shoulders on giants.  For much of the 19th century they were Hummel's.

[lostinidlewonder]

Obviously there are no recordings but we don't need that. I don't think any royalty in the 20th or 21st century made changes to their plans to accommodate for a pianists concert.

Some idea of Liszt's fame as a pianist might be gained from an incident at Pressburg, where nobility were so unanimous in their desire to hear him play that the Prince Palatine of Hungary had to cancel a levee because he warned that it clashed with Liszt's concert, and that if he persisted in holding it on that day, nobody would attend.

You may find this post useful.
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=42087.msg465071#msg465071

[keyboardkat]

agreed too. but IMO he's the best cos i love liszt!
also to see... composers compose what their are capable to play, and to see liszt's compositions... we can say its rather self-explanatory.

Have you seen Liszt's piano transcription of the scherzo from Berlioz' Symphonie Fantasique?   With all those octave leaps in the left hand?   Or the coda from the 14th Hungarian Rhapsody?
If he could really play exactly what he wrote, at the required tempo, he must have been a superman.   Even taking into account the lighter action and shorter key dip of the pianos of his time (although near the end of his life he tried a Steinway and liked it).

[nyiregyhazi]

Have you seen Liszt's piano transcription of the scherzo from Berlioz' Symphonie Fantasique?   With all those octave leaps in the left hand?   Or the coda from the 14th Hungarian Rhapsody?
If he could really play exactly what he wrote, at the required tempo, he must have been a superman.   Even taking into account the lighter action and shorter key dip of the pianos of his time (although near the end of his life he tried a Steinway and liked it).

True, but there are many pianists who play these works today. So, not that I'm wishing to suggest that it's unremarkable to do so- but if he could play them that doesn't exactly lay him a claim to being the greatest ever. If it does Leslie Howard has an equal claim...

[perfect_pitch]

True, but there are many pianists who play these works today. So, not that I'm wishing to suggest that it's unremarkable to do so- but if he could play them that doesn't exactly lay him a claim to being the greatest ever. If it does Leslie Howard has an equal claim...

Yeah, but considering Liszt transcribed so MANY pieces and songs from Schubert, Chopin, Beethoven, Saint-Saens etc... You have to give him credit for knowing the piano so intimately that he could arrange for piano so proficiently...

Does anyone know if Liszt had Perfect Pitch? If he did - I think that entitles him to another point for being one of the greatest pianists...

[nyiregyhazi]

Yeah, but considering Liszt transcribed so MANY pieces and songs from Schubert, Chopin, Beethoven, Saint-Saens etc... You have to give him credit for knowing the piano so intimately that he could arrange for piano so proficiently...

I'm not taking any credit away from him. I'm just saying that being able to play his works does not make him stand out from others who can play his works too. It certainly doesn't point to him being THE greatest. What would have made him stand out would be his artistry not his technique- considering that he spoke of how younger pianists like Rosenthal played his works faster than he could ever have imagined them going. We have no measure of that whatsoever.

[precipitato]

Have you seen Liszt's piano transcription of the scherzo from Berlioz' Symphonie Fantasique?   With all those octave leaps in the left hand?   Or the coda from the 14th Hungarian Rhapsody?
If he could really play exactly what he wrote, at the required tempo, he must have been a superman.   Even taking into account the lighter action and shorter key dip of the pianos of his time (although near the end of his life he tried a Steinway and liked it).

yes, i have seem them all. thats why im saying liszt is the best pianist IMO! haha.

[sevencircles]

Chances are that Liszt wouldn´t do very well in a pianocompetition today. He was propably an amazing entertainer similar to what Hendrix was during the sixties in many ways. They propably lived a similar lifestyle too except that Liszt did less drugs and practiced a lot more.

It was propably his image more then his pianoplaying that made him so famous, his haircut was unlike any other man in those days.

[pbryld]

Chances are that Liszt wouldn´t do very well in a pianocompetition today. He was propably an amazing entertainer similar to what Hendrix was during the sixties in many ways. They propably lived a similar lifestyle too except that Liszt did less drugs and practiced a lot more.

It was propably his image more then his pianoplaying that made him so famous, his haircut was unlike any other man in those days.

Oh my god... *facepalm*

[richterfan1]

HAVE U EVER HEARD OF ANTON RUBINSTEIN ..... ( the forgotten genius)

"As a pianist he was regarded as a rival of Franz Liszt, and he ranks amongst the great keyboard virtuosos"

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Rubinstein

[49410enrique]

.

[keyboardkat]

I agree that Gottschalk was a much better composer and pianist than he is given credit for.   I have played "L'Union" in concert and I can vouch that it is anything but easy.  The middle portion, where you have to bring out the melody of The Star-Spangled Banner in the middle of blocked chords requires tremendous finger independence.  (Incidentally, the melody of The Star-Spangled Banner as transcribed by Gottschalk does not go exactly the way we all know it today.  Since Gottschalk lived closer to the time it became the national anthem, I have to assume that he knew a lot of things we do not, and that his version is closer to the original).

As far as Liszt's greatness as a pianist is concerned, yes, many can play his works today, but there are works which no one today attempts.   Look at the second version of the Transcendental Etudes, or the original version of the Paganini Etudes, which Liszt actually simplified!   Look at the original variations on La Campanella, with several things going on in the right hand simultaneously!   Liszt also could apparently sightread absolutely anything (you know the story of how he sightread a Grieg violin sonata for the composer, including the violin part which is now above, now below, now in the middle of the piano part, or how he played Grieg's piano concerto at sight, again for the composer).   He also devoted a part of each recital to improvisation.   This art has become lost in the classical field.

[sevencircles]

Liszt also could apparently sightread absolutely anything (you know the story of how he sightread a Grieg violin sonata for the composer, including the violin part which is now above, now below, now in the middle of the piano part, or how he played Grieg's piano concerto at sight, again for the composer).   He also devoted a part of each recital to improvisation.   This art has become lost in the classical field.

I know that Liszt spent months learning the Hammerklavier sonata as an adult so I guess he wasn´t the best quicklearner out there but then again if you are a perfectionist it takes a lot of time, Saint-Saëns could play any Beethoven sonata from memory at the age of 11 as well as many other pieces. I find that hard to believe unless he played the hardest sonatas at a slow tempo with some notes skipped here and there.

[keyboardkat]

As a youngster, Saint-Saens was called the greatest prodigy since Mozart.   Apparently he was one of these people who could do anything when it came to the craft of music.   As a result of his facility at composition and piano-playing, I would say some portions of his compositions are a bit glib (say, in the Fourth Piano Concerto).   But is there a more beautiful melody than "My Heart at Thy Sweet Voice" from Samson & Delilah?  

[keyboardkat]

And speaking of Liszt, there is this marvelous story:
Liszt used to place an urn at the front of the stage at his recitals.  Members of the audience could place pieces of paper with their requests into this urn, and when the time came, he would retrieve some of these requests and improvise on the tunes requested by the audience.  But one time, he retrieved a piece of paper which, instead of a musical request, had a life-philosophical question on it:  "Is it better to marry or to remain single?"

Apparently Liszt (like some celebrities today) was considered an authority on absolutely everything.   Well, Liszt considered the question for a moment and then gave this beautiful answer:   "Whichever course one chooses for oneself, one is sure to regret it!"

[pbryld]

I agree that Gottschalk was a much better composer and pianist than he is given credit for.   I have played "L'Union" in concert and I can vouch that it is anything but easy.  The middle portion, where you have to bring out the melody of The Star-Spangled Banner in the middle of blocked chords requires tremendous finger independence.  (Incidentally, the melody of The Star-Spangled Banner as transcribed by Gottschalk does not go exactly the way we all know it today.  Since Gottschalk lived closer to the time it became the national anthem, I have to assume that he knew a lot of things we do not, and that his version is closer to the original).

As far as Liszt's greatness as a pianist is concerned, yes, many can play his works today, but there are works which no one today attempts.   Look at the second version of the Transcendental Etudes, or the original version of the Paganini Etudes, which Liszt actually simplified!   Look at the original variations on La Campanella, with several things going on in the right hand simultaneously!   Liszt also could apparently sightread absolutely anything (you know the story of how he sightread a Grieg violin sonata for the composer, including the violin part which is now above, now below, now in the middle of the piano part, or how he played Grieg's piano concerto at sight, again for the composer).   He also devoted a part of each recital to improvisation.   This art has become lost in the classical field.

Liszt also simplified the Transcendental Etudes. It's the first version of them that is the hardest.

[nyiregyhazi]

Liszt also simplified the Transcendental Etudes. It's the first version of them that is the hardest.

The first version is easy.The second version (of three) is the hard one.

[pbryld]

The first version is easy.The second version (of three) is the hard one.

Ah, I thought there were only two. The ones played today are the 3rd version, right?

[keyboardkat]

That is correct, the version played today is the third version.   The second version seems, in places, almost unplayable at the required tempi.  But Liszt, one assumes, could play them.
You could also take a look at the original versions of the Paganini Etudes.

[precipitato]

who knows if liszt was still alive he might be the only person to play cirucs galop

[pianoplayjl]

probably not but he is most likely the greatest pianist in his day.

[perfect_pitch]

who knows if liszt was still alive he might be the only person to play cirucs galop

Actually... I heard even Liszt was gob-smacked by the talents and Pianism of Charles Valentin-Alkan.

I'd say he'd be the one who could play it, if it was close to possible.

[pianoplayjl]

I read on wikipedia that only Thalberg can match liszt's technique, i think.

[pianoplayjl]

From pg 307-Franz Liszt-Music an appreciation by Roger Kamien
      .........Paris, a city where romanticism flourished and a magnet for virtuoso performers, was Liszt's home during his teens and twenties. when he was nineteen and already accalimed as a brilliant pianist, Liszt was overwhelmed by the virtuosity of the great violinist Paganini. The unheard-of effects Paganini drew from his violin drove audiences into a frenzy;people half suspected he had been taught by the devil. Young Franz Liszt was determined to become the Paganini of the piano. He withdrew from the concert stage for a few years, practiced from eight to twelve hours a day, and emerged as probably the greatest pianist of his time. to dispaly his own incomparable piano mastery, Liszt composed his TRANSCENDENTAL etudes and made piano transcriptions of Paganini's violin pieces. 'My piano,' he wrote,'is my verg self, my mother tongue, my life...A man's fingers have the power to reproduce the harmonies which are created by hundreds of performers.'Once, following an orchestral performance of a movement from Berlioz's FANTASTIC SYMPHONY, Liszt played his own piano arragement of the movement and made a more powerful effect, than the entire orchestra. He toured Europe tirelessy between 1938 and 1847, playing mainly his own piano music and receiving unprecedented public adulation.
      This is the most detailed account of Liszt  I've seen so far, although there may be many out there more detailed.

[fftransform]

Even if Liszt could "play" the first version of the Transcendental Etudes (there are only two versions; the non-existent "first version" that people here are mentioning were selections from a set of exercises, some of which he then based the first version of some of the TE's on), how we define "play" is very important.  If one looks at how pianists closer to Liszt's time, like Nyiregyhazi or Cortot, "played" works, then to say that Liszt could "play" those works, in the sense that we now use the word, is possibly inaccurate.  However, by that logic, one would certainly say that Alkan was the greatest pianist; I believe that some of his works are notably more difficult than Liszt's most difficult works (version 1 TE's, Grosse Konzert-Phantasie Uber Spanische-Weisen, Illustrations du Prophete).  As well, Liszt said that Alkan's technique surpassed his own.  But considering the infinitely more difficult works that have cropped up in the past 100 years (Xenakis, Finnissy, Sorabji, Barrett, Hoban, etc.) that Liszt or Alkan never would have even had the chance to "prove themselves" on, it's 100% impossible to speak as to whether they were more technically adept than some pianists who can play works by the aforementioned, post-Romantic composers, because there is no way to compare them.  Ian Pace is one such pianist, and once commented that Alkan's Le Preux, "doesn't look too bad," and that Opus Clavicembalisticum, "doesn't present anything that's insurmountable," and he does play quite a bit of Liszt and Alkan.  As well, it's important to remember that Liszt was certainly the most famous pianist of his time; Lang Lang is the most famous pianist of ours.  Doesn't mean a whole lot when you think about it that way.

[pianoplayjl]

It's not fair to say that the 20th century works are more difficult than Liszt because I wouldn't call them music. Liszt is what I would call difficult and music. All you would have to do for the 20th century music is to bang here and there. The more modern composers would have a chance to examine the past works by the masters of music. they would have a chance to 'improve' music and redefine what is difficult. So, what i'm saying is that 21st century music would be more difficult than 20th, 20th more difficult than 19th, and so on. So, Liszt, in my opinion, is one of the handful of composers who have composed the most difficult music, in terms of technically and musically and emotionally. Sorabji is not what I call music. I think his pieces mostly are technical in difficulty. But that's jsut me.

[nyiregyhazi]

Even if Liszt could "play" the first version of the Transcendental Etudes (there are only two versions; the non-existent "first version" that people here are mentioning were selections from a set of exercises, some of which he then based the first version of some of the TE's on),

I presume you're not actually familiar with these twelve exercises, from your description? As I recall, around ten of the Transcendental Etudes are derived extremely directly from the corresponding exercise (of which there are exactly twelve). In some cases, such as the F minor and Mazeppa, the original material is collossally fleshed out and expanded upon. In the case of the first study, it's actually not too far at all from the finished version. However, there is every reason to refer to these as being the first version of the studies. It's not a case of mere passing similarity.

[fftransform]

I presume you're not actually familiar with these twelve exercises, from your description? As I recall, around ten

So you don't even know if we're talking about eight, nine, ten, eleven or twelve.  I take it you're around 10% sure that you know what you're talking about?

[precipitato]

there's 12 transcendental etudes and there are 3 versions, of which the second is the toughest and the ones we hear today is the third...

So you don't even know if we're talking about eight, nine, ten, eleven or twelve.  I take it you're around 10% sure that you know what you're talking about?

[nyiregyhazi]

So you don't even know if we're talking about eight, nine, ten, eleven or twelve.  I take it you're around 10% sure that you know what you're talking about?

I don't claim to have a photographic memory- which is why I stated it approximately. However, the wording in your post made it pretty clear that you were making a "correction" based upon 2nd hand information, rather than speaking from a position of pesonal familiarity with the works. Having both played through and looked at the specific pieces, I am in a position to be able to say that there is a good deal more than a few passing similarities. In the vast majority of cases, both the 2nd and 3rd version of each Etude is clearly a direct reworking of the corresponding Etude in Liszt's initial set of exercises.

[mike_lang]

I can accept that Liszt was one of the greatest pianists ever, but what basis do we have for saying that he was the greatest, since there are no recordings of his playing? How do we know that Rachmaninoff, Godowsky, Hofmann and others weren't as good as Liszt?

I don't think we actually can say that he is THE greatest (nor can we honestly say that of anyone at all).  What we can ask is for what reasons we consider him a great pianist and artist.

For my part, I would cite his innovations in orchestral-sounding pianism (which perhaps he learned as he transcribed Beethoven's symphonies?) and explorations into the far reaches of extended tonality toward the end of his life.  He was an experimenter, and on that count, he left pianists and musicians overall with an enormous legacy.

Mike

[pianoplayjl]

If he was not the greatest pianist of all time then I'd say he was the greatest pianist out of his contemporaries or 19th century.