Who was greater, Chopin or Liszt?

[the89thkey]

Self-explanatory...

[stoudemirestat]

Most would say Chopin. I prefer Liszt. I think he wrote as much great music and was far more versatile/far-reaching.

[j_menz]

Since you appear to have no compunction about telling others their posts are in the wrong place, I'm sure you won't mind me pointing out that this should go in the Polls board.

[the89thkey]

Since you appear to have no compunction about telling others their posts are in the wrong place, I'm sure you won't mind me pointing out that this should go in the Polls board.

Actually, polls related to repertoire are appropriate for the repertoire board, or indeed any board-related poll can go either in that board or the Polls board.

[the89thkey]

And we have poor Chopin with no votes at all...

[stoudemirestat]

And we have poor Chopin with no votes at all...

He will come out on top. Chopin is the darling of classical music lovers and especially pianists. Not necessarily saying he doesn't deserve to (it's a subjective thing), but it always happens.

[the89thkey]

He will come out on top. Chopin is the darling of classical music lovers and especially pianists. Not necessarily saying he doesn't deserve to (it's a subjective thing), but it always happens.

Well said, sir
I didn't vote because I'm actually not sure who I like better...

[vlh1992]

They are both amazing composers but Chopin has always been my favorite 

[werq34ac]

I feel that Liszt has contributed much more to music in general but Chopin contributed more to how to approach the piano as an instrument.

[stoudemirestat]

I feel that Liszt has contributed much more to music in general but Chopin contributed more to how to approach the piano as an instrument.

I don't think the latter is true, and one only needs to look at Liszt's opera fantasies, Hungarian Rhapsodies, Etudes (especially the second version of the Transcendental's, first of the Paganini) as well as some of his quasi-impressionistic works to see what I mean. Chopin was more influential as far as the poetic side, Liszt as far as what the piano was capable of...and I think the later composers for the piano (Scriabin, Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff, Debussy, Ravel, etc) benefited more from Liszt's innovations than Chopin's.

[bluthner]

Liszt is INCOMPARABLY the greater composer of the two, Chopin's being a marvellous and innovative talent for creating memorable melodies, fortuitous harmonies and advanced figurations, but Liszt's welding all three of these to an (I would say) unerring sense of the numinous and (on occasion) the diabolic, that lifts every bar of his music (barring a few trifles) way above the ultimately rather mundane level of most of the Polish genius's output.

Only, I think, the finale of the 2nd Sonata and a mere handful of the etudes and preludes come even close to the otherworldly fiery fury of even Liszt's moderately successful creations -- the songs, the Consolations, many of the operatic fantasies -- let alone the Ballades, the Legendes, the Sonata...

True, no second Chopin has ever been born, and (arguably) no one writing after Chopin -- including Liszt -- wrote outside of Chopin's influence. But even if NO ONE writing after Liszt would have written with any knowledge or acknowledgement of Liszt's influence, Liszt's achievement would still remain a standard and a benchmark for every bar of music composed after, say, 1845, in a way that Chopin's would not.

What is this 'greatness', anyway, that, by comparing Chopin to Liszt, we are attempting to define? Surely, not the capacity to please. Nor a matter of their influence on later composers or instrumentalists. Nor, the ability to create 'good' music -- which it should go without saying is common to both Chopin and Liszt ... and (arguably) to Lennon & McCartney as well. When we talk about greatness, we talk about this inexplicable quality that makes a person and his/her achievement (when we talk about greatness, as opposed to mere 'quality', these two cannot be separated from one another: we cannot think of Kant's  or Nietzsche's or Wittgenstein's philosophy without taking into account their persons -- but we CAN consider the merits of Heidegger's or Derrida's thought without considering Heidegger or Derrida) stand out as non-pareil. I can imagine a second Chopin. I cannot imagine a second Liszt. Contemporary audiences that considered Liszt a god weren't far wrong. Greatness inspires religion, rather than mere appreciation or admiration. And religion inspires dogma, rather than discussion. And dogma has it that there can be but ONE... etc.

Well, for my money, that ONE is Liszt, not Chopin. Amen.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Liszt is INCOMPARABLY the greater composer of the two,

*reading*

Ah, okay so that must mean he thinks that Liszt is better.  But wait a second..

*re-reading*

What the heck?!  That makes no sense!

[j_menz]

Liszt's achievement would still remain a standard and a benchmark for every bar of music composed after, say, 1845, in a way that Chopin's would not.

In 1850 Liszt was the same age that Chopin was when he died. That 1845 needs to be a bit more concrete to avoid the speculation that Chopin would also have matured musically had he lived, or to avoidthe obvious point that one is not comparing like with like.

[wiggityp]

Chopin far and away is the better composer: Much smaller output; much more diversity within his pieces (mood, character, especially technique); and grotesquely more efficient in his writing. Seriously Chopin could use half the notes that Liszt would and say the same thing with still more charm and eloquence. Rarely can one accuse Chopin of using bravado technique, whereas it really wasn't until later in his life that Liszt realized he could compose a piece without some grandiose inflated technique that rarely complimented the actual work. Granted Liszt has some supreme achievements: the B min Sonata, most of the Annees de Pelerinage, the harmonies poetique et religiueses (sp?); and then he has got a sizeable portion of good solid showpieces, some of the rhapsodies, etudes, opera paraphrases; and then he has scores and scores of other pieces that never see the light of day for the very good reason that they are insipid bits of fluff that make a lot of noise and fireworks and yet don't even begin to thrill.

It's funny that the two of them were friends/colleagues and obviously shared tips and such between them. I've always felt that Liszt was secretly jealous of Chopin's effortless grace and profundity in composition. Granted Chopin may have been a bit jealous of Liszt's techinique, certainly his fame and fortune, but I think Liszt would probably be the first person to say that Chopin was the superior composer and Chopin would probably agree, maybe adding that Liszt was the finer pianist which he probably was.

Overall I think Liszt's music just has too many notes. Often the notes are good notes, but there are still just too damn many of them. I often feel that I listen to Liszt just to hear a particularly beautiful segment of one of his pieces, within a framework of much less interesting filler; however, with Chopin every second of music organically evolves to the next to comment upon what came before and yet to serve the whole of the piece with sublime aplomb. Obviously both men are exceptionally skilled craftsmen, and I will possibly allow (there being no way to definitely tell at this point) that Liszt was probably the more skillful in that craft from a technical standpoint, but Chopin was profoundly more inspired and had far superior instincts to fuel his still extremely competent pianistic skill and compositional efficacy.

[p2u_]

Overall I think Liszt's music just has too many notes. Often the notes are good notes, but there are still just too damn many of them.

I'm afraid that in most of the cases, the performer is to blame for that impression. Liszt's music more often than not has a program, a story that has to be depicted in the performance for the notes to come alive. When I hear Sviatoslav Richter perform Liszt (the concertos, the transcendental etudes), then everything's just right. The same can be said about some things Claudio Arrau recorded (he got the culture second-hand through his teacher Martin Krause). And let's not forget Bolet's renditions of, for example, the Tannhäuser transcription. Oh, and Lazar Berman...
P.S.: This kind of polls is always unfair to the ones that are compared, because each in his own right is beyond compare.

Paul

[lostinidlewonder]

They both where alive at the same time. Just look at their concerts, Chopin's concerts lost money where Liszt make a killing. So the public back then already determined whose music was more popular at the time. Liszt was also a better pianist than Chopin.

But when it comes to your own preference who knows who is better that's just a conversation you should have with yourself, if you need others to tell you then you don't really know what YOU feel do you?

[celegorma]

They both where alive at the same time. Just look at their concerts, Chopin's concerts lost money where Liszt make a killing. So the public back then already determined whose music was more popular at the time. Liszt was also a better pianist than Chopin.

But when it comes to your own preference who knows who is better that's just a conversation you should have with yourself, if you need others to tell you then you don't really know what YOU feel do you?

So you are saying Liszt is the Justin Bieber of his time.

[lostinidlewonder]

Liszt was a lot more than that, royalty even changed their plans to listen to him, I don't think any would for Bieber or any other performer for that matter.  https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=42087.msg465071#msg465071

[korlock]

This is how I like explaining it. The redwood tree is the tallest, the sequoia is second tallest. The sequoia is the widest, and the redwood is the second widest. They were both very talented in several aspects of music, but depending on what you are judging them on one could come out on top barely scraping past the other.

[stoudemirestat]

Chopin far and away is the better composer: Much smaller output; much more diversity within his pieces (mood, character, especially technique); and grotesquely more efficient in his writing. Seriously Chopin could use half the notes that Liszt would and say the same thing with still more charm and eloquence. Rarely can one accuse Chopin of using bravado technique, whereas it really wasn't until later in his life that Liszt realized he could compose a piece without some grandiose inflated technique that rarely complimented the actual work. Granted Liszt has some supreme achievements: the B min Sonata, most of the Annees de Pelerinage, the harmonies poetique et religiueses (sp?); and then he has got a sizeable portion of good solid showpieces, some of the rhapsodies, etudes, opera paraphrases; and then he has scores and scores of other pieces that never see the light of day for the very good reason that they are insipid bits of fluff that make a lot of noise and fireworks and yet don't even begin to thrill.

It's funny that the two of them were friends/colleagues and obviously shared tips and such between them. I've always felt that Liszt was secretly jealous of Chopin's effortless grace and profundity in composition. Granted Chopin may have been a bit jealous of Liszt's techinique, certainly his fame and fortune, but I think Liszt would probably be the first person to say that Chopin was the superior composer and Chopin would probably agree, maybe adding that Liszt was the finer pianist which he probably was.

Overall I think Liszt's music just has too many notes. Often the notes are good notes, but there are still just too damn many of them. I often feel that I listen to Liszt just to hear a particularly beautiful segment of one of his pieces, within a framework of much less interesting filler; however, with Chopin every second of music organically evolves to the next to comment upon what came before and yet to serve the whole of the piece with sublime aplomb. Obviously both men are exceptionally skilled craftsmen, and I will possibly allow (there being no way to definitely tell at this point) that Liszt was probably the more skillful in that craft from a technical standpoint, but Chopin was profoundly more inspired and had far superior instincts to fuel his still extremely competent pianistic skill and compositional efficacy.

What you basically said here is that Chopin is a great composer that you really like, and also that at this point you both don't understand much of Liszt's music, and also don't comprehend the breadth and depth of his achievement.

[adari]

This is how I like explaining it. The redwood tree is the tallest, the sequoia is second tallest. The sequoia is the widest, and the redwood is the second widest. They were both very talented in several aspects of music, but depending on what you are judging them on one could come out on top barely scraping past the other.

You should probably stop using that analogy, seeing as Sequoia is a subfamily genus of redwood, thus making all sequoia trees redwoods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoioideae

[vsrinivasa]

You should probably stop using that analogy, seeing as Sequoia is a subfamily genus of redwood, thus making all sequoia trees redwoods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoioideae

Correct.

However, if the analogy were to work out, it would be quite accurate. Chopin and Liszt were great in different ways, and a comparison is impossible.

[cadenza14224]

Like usual comparisons between great composers, this is extremely subjective. And also a matter of taste.

I believe that Chopin was greater in his sense of melody and giving piano music great depth and nuance, and overall gave birth to new ideas to be portrayed via the piano.

I believe that Liszt advanced music, as a whole, much more than Chopin did because of his broader compositional output; and obviously the development of thematic transformation which lead to Wagner and leitmotif, and etc etc. His contributions are behemoths.

But whose music do I LIKE better? Most definitely Chopin.

[kevinhall]

There are NO pieces by Liszt (including the Sonata) that equal Chopin's masterpieces. The 4th Ballade, the Bacarolle, and the Polonaise-Fantasie have no rivals in Liszt's oeuvre.

[awesom_o]

Liszt was the greater arranger and the better master of orchestration.

Chopin was the greater composer of original music.

Only Liszt could have arranged and played all 9 Beethoven Symphonies for solo piano.

Only Chopin could compose the Polonaise-Fantasie.

[thorn]

Both were very different men whom we feel the urge to compare simply because they existed in the same space of time.

We can't compare the Liszt Sonata to any of the Chopin Ballades. We can't even compare the Liszt Ballades to the Chopin Ballades.

We could perhaps compare the treatment of the same opening idea in Chopin 10/9 with Liszt TE10 (I believe the Liszt existed first in the early version of the Transcendentals, for anyone who would ask). We could perhaps also compare Chopin's Hexameron variation with Liszt's Hexameron variation.

For me, it's impossible to objectively judge.

[thorn]

I was thinking about this again this morning- specifically the Etudes. I wrote a paper on piano studies when at university and all of that also came back to mind.

I once read on this site that the person who could play all of the Chopin Etudes could tackle any of the Liszt, but it was not so the other way around.

I think this is because the Chopin Etudes are pure technique. In the same way that the Debussy Etudes are. (I'm talking about the essence- of course both sets need extra-technical skills in pulling them off).

The Liszt Etudes for me began in the above way (the Etudes en 12 exercises), but when he developed them into the Grand Etudes the purely technical aspect of them was lost in Liszt's then fascination with the stage and his own technique. The Grand Etudes are very much about Liszt displaying his own technique rather than piano technique itself. When he refined them into the Transcendentals, I don't believe they regained the aspect of being studies "for the piano". This idea of an Etude transcending the traditional sense of the genre can be extended to Kapustin and Ligeti (amongst others).

My copy of the Chopin-Cortot op.10 and 25 are always beside my piano because the exercises in them can be adapted to practically every piece I'm working on. I do have the Liszt-Cortot Transcendentals and Concerts but there is so much cross referencing to the Chopin. I think the Liszt Etudes are something to be learned in the same way we learn anything else. The Chopin are a guide to the majority of difficulties one can face with piano music.

I would still not say that this objectively make the Chopin Etudes better music than the Liszt Etudes- indeed I find the majority of the 24 quite cold and emotionally distant.

As I said in my other post, they were very different men.

[awesom_o]

The Chopin are a guide to the majority of difficulties one can face with piano music.

 indeed I find the majority of the 24 quite cold and emotionally distant.

I must admit I disagree with both of these statements. The second one I can't exactly disagree with. But I can certainly tell you that the more of the 24 you master, the less you will feel that way.

[thesixthsensemusic]

As far as the strengths of their important compositions are, concerned, Chopin was IMHO a greater composer of abstract works, Liszt a better composer of programmatic works. I have not yet heard a Liszt work that is, in a comparable way, as effective as the finest of Chopin's Mazurkas, Nocturnes or concertos. He comes very close on occasion (for example with his Liebesträume, Consolations, Vallée d'Obermann or Benediction de Dieu dans la Solitude) but not very often, and I have heard literally every single work Liszt ever wrote for piano that we know of, often over and over again (the 99 Liszt Cds of Leslie Howard I found a torrent for ages ago made this possible, and yes, I really like his interpretations)

Or the Ballades... those of Chopin are perhaps based on poems by Adam Mickiewicz but it's never been established beyond any doubt, and they appear to me to be more poetic in the sense that they INSPIRE one's mind to imagine things, than to follow a certain non-musical phenomenon and try to reproduce pictures of it in one's mind - as for example with Liszt's Dante Sonata, Der Weihnachtsbaum, or the scenes from the Swiss Alps in the Première Année de Pelerinage.

For example: Liszt's output of vocal music (and text almost inevitably makes it programmatic) is generally well-regarded, whereas Chopin's Polish Songs are in fact more popular in Liszt's piano transcriptions.

Liszt wrote a great deal of programme music, symphonic poems, religious works, works depicting certain scenes, works inspired by poetry or prose, which he labelled so himself, whereas Chopin was obviously very much inspired by things he saw, heard, and read, but none of his pieces are labelled in such a manner, nor does it actually matter how hard others have tried to label them for him in retrospect.

Of course Liszt is also a widely recognised composer of orchestral and choral works, but I still don't know wether composing an orchestral work is a bigger achievement than a piano work of the same quality and complexity. Orchestration is probably more a craft, more hard work and lots of practice, than reliant upon inspiration so I'd still be hesitant to let this topple the balance to Liszt's favour.

[awesom_o]

As far as the strengths of their important compositions are, concerned, Chopin was IMHO a greater composer of abstract works, Liszt a better composer of programmatic works.

......................but I still don't know whether composing an orchestral work is a bigger achievement than a piano work of the same quality and complexity.

I think your first statement is spot on! The two men had very different artistic personalities. Each knew where his talents lay. Liszt wasn't a composer of abstract works. He arranged many abstract works of other composers, but his own original music was mostly programmatic.

Chopin was a composer of absolute music.

The thing about your second statement is..... there are no piano works of the same quality and complexity as orchestral music.

So composing orchestral music is a bigger achievement, in my opinion. Piano music can certainly contain more subtleties... but it cannot be larger or grander than orchestral music.

So we can argue that Chopin was certainly the greatest piano composer who ever lived.... but other guys, like Schubert,  also wrote vast quantities of amazing, subtle, complex music for piano..... AND for all kinds of other instruments as well. So arguably that makes him the greater composer overall.

But back to Liszt.... I don't consider Liszt to be a truly great composer. He was certainly one of the greatest, most well-rounded musicians who ever lived. He was definitely more compelling as an interpreter, improviser, arranger, teacher, and all-around musician.

He composed some fine original music, don't get me wrong. But his other achievements were more significant, I think.

[david456103]

i think chopin is greater,ONLY because of how much harder and shorter his life was. The quality of their music, however, is the same to me.

[thesixthsensemusic]

The thing about your second statement is..... there are no piano works of the same quality and complexity as orchestral music.

So composing orchestral music is a bigger achievement, in my opinion. Piano music can certainly contain more subtleties... but it cannot be larger or grander than orchestral music.

So we can argue that Chopin was certainly the greatest piano composer who ever lived.... but other guys, like Schubert,  also wrote vast quantities of amazing, subtle, complex music for piano..... AND for all kinds of other instruments as well. So arguably that makes him the greater composer overall.

But back to Liszt.... I don't consider Liszt to be a truly great composer. He was certainly one of the greatest, most well-rounded musicians who ever lived. He was definitely more compelling as an interpreter, improviser, arranger, teacher, and all-around musician.

He composed some fine original music, don't get me wrong. But his other achievements were more significant, I think.

I partially agree, and at the same time disagree. Not sure here; Orchestral music is indeed grander, no one can argue against that. But the orchestra also offers a wider range of possibilities whereas a single keyboard instrument to be played by a single person is limited in its capabilities.

One could argue for both views: orchestral music being of a higher order (if written well) because it can be much more complicated and diverse and therefore a bigger achievement.

Or, the opposite: the piano being more limited, so an equally high quality piece of music written for the piano being a bigger achievement because its instrumentation is way more limiting.

I'm not sure which side the penny ends up toppling to here. Or wether or not it topples at all instead of miraculously balancing itself on the edge....

[mralkanesque]

They both have superiority over one another in several aspects. Neither is greater than the other. Liszt, out of ALL other composers, had the most unique ability to extract colors from the piano that would mimic an entire orchestra. In his compositions, you can hear virtually any instrument is you are willing to listen. No music prior, or since has created the same effect that Liszt did. Chopin on the other hand, was a genius of intimacy. He could translate the most basic and intimate of human emotions to the piano. His music is so easy to love at first hearing because it more closely relates to the individual than any other composer prior or since. Liszt and Chopin both have their strong and weak points. And to say that one is better than the other is pure rubbish. Its like saying that one religion is simply superior to another because showcases one particular trait, and all others are automatically inferior.

[thesixthsensemusic]

Liszt, out of ALL other composers, had the most unique ability to extract colors from the piano that would mimic an entire orchestra. In his compositions, you can hear virtually any instrument is you are willing to listen. No music prior, or since has created the same effect that Liszt did.

I can't disagree with Liszt being a truly orchestral piano composer, but he did have an equal in this field of composition: Alkan.

[mralkanesque]

I can't disagree with Liszt being a truly orchestral piano composer, but he did have an equal in this field of composition: Alkan.

          While I deem Alkan a genius composer, I don't think he had the same ''orchestral'' quality in his music that Liszt did. Alkan did a brilliant job writing the concerto and symphony for solo piano, (having played it myself it feels like your at the hands of an entire orchestra!) but in his other music, I simply don't ''hear'' a great amount of instruments. Where as Liszt made it a point to incorporate the entire instrumental spectrum into virtually everything he composed.  Can you provide a few links of music where you think Alkan has a similar effect so that I may better understand what you mean?

[kakeithewolf]

Technically, Chopin. The man wrote over 200 pieces in his short 35 year life. That's not even including whatever he was working on that was incomplete or sketches. Liszt lived 75 years and had made about 350 original pieces, a little more than half his number of transcriptions.

In terms of virtuosity? Liszt.

[ranniks]

Chopin has some extremely difficult pieces.

Liszt too.

Both win.

[perprocrastinate]

Since when does technical difficulty define the greatness of a composer?

Actually, I'm not sure what does define the greatness of a composer. But personally, I believe that Chopin was the greater composer because he was able to evoke such passion even with such a conservative nature.

[carpbear]

Liszt, hands-down.

Chopin wrote excellent, idiomatic and very difficult piano music, but he could not handle orchestration and did not write well for chamber ensembles or for voice.  Orchestras dread performing Chopin's music for orchestra and piano because the orchestral writing is so deadly dull.

Liszt also wrote excellent, idiomatic and very difficult piano music -- but was also equally skilled as a writer of Lieder, oratorios, symphonic poems. symphonies and choral music.  Liszt was an excellent conductor who premiered a number of compositions of the period.  Liszt made great innovations in the areas of musical form, invented the one-movement sonata which would be used by Scriabin, Prokofiev and Shostakovich and others; was probably the greatest harmonic innovator of the Romantic era; and exploited the use of dissonance, including unresolved dissonance.  Liszt had a third (late) period which was absolutely as astonishing as Beethoven's, where Liszt threw his spear as far into the 20th century as he possibly could, anticipating the impressionism of Debussy and Ravel, the expressionism of Bartok, and in some pieces even anticipating Schoenberg and Messiaen.   

Chopin was an amazingly gifted musician who could certainly make the piano do his bidding and bring forth colors not previously explored by other composers; but Chopin was no match for the musical juggernaut of Liszt.

[caryljamesthompson]

I am voting for Chopin, and here is why...

Chopin wrote amazing music! Not to say that Liszt did not, but Chopin CONSISTENTLY composed "hit after hit" pieces and sacrificed the majority of his life to his compositions.

It has even been said that Liszt was "jealous" of Chopin's composition skills!

However, Liszt was known to be a better public performer, dazzling audiences with his flashy style, outerworldly difficult pieces and wonderful technique!

Both of these geniuses commented on each other's strengths but Chopin's seems to benefit us pianists more than Liszt's did, and that is why Chopin has my vote! 

[mathiasf]

I believe Liszt makes some of the greatest works of piano music in general. I play a lot of Chopins works, and I do own more Chopin than Liszt, but while I enjoy playing Chopin, listening to Liszt while reading the notes meanwhile can be just the same or even a greater pleasure for me.

[awesom_o]

Both of these geniuses commented on each other's strengths but Chopin's seems to benefit us pianists more than Liszt's did, and that is why Chopin has my vote! 

I would argue that Liszt's most significant achievements in terms of benefit for us pianists are his transcriptions of the Beethoven Symphonies.

The only pianists alive who are adept at playing these awesome arrangements also happen to be extremely dedicated interpreters of Chopin's music.

For me personally, it wasn't until I developed the strength required to play all 24 Chopin Etudes daily that I could really begin to work hard on the Beethoven Symphony transcriptions and make good progress with them. For someone who can't yet play all of the Etudes by Chopin, many sections of the symphonies are just too challenging.

[j_menz]

I would argue that Liszt's most significant achievements in terms of benefit for us pianists are his transcriptions of the Beethoven Symphonies.

The only pianists alive who are adept at playing these awesome arrangements also happen to be extremely dedicated interpreters of Chopin's music.

I think many Lisztophiles would argue that his contribution extends well beyond these, worthy as they are.

As for the Chopin connection, it is true of Idil Biret, but who else? Katsaris perhaps. Howard, not really. And has Scherbakov recorded any Chopin at all?

Personally, I don't see any connection whatsoever with Chopin in these works, other perhaps than requiring a very well developed technique. But on that count, it is possible to develop the required abilities without necessarily being an "extremely dedicated" interpreter of Chopins music. And Chopin is little assistance in the phenomenal emotional and physical stamina required, or for the actual interpretation of Beethoven.