Liszt - up to the performer?

[throwawaynotreally]

.

[j_menz]

My advice, for what it's worth, is to learn them as written, and get a fair amount of Liszt under your belt before you start "improving" them. You need to understand what Liszt is doing first.  And some things can be embellished less problematically than others.  The flashier transcriptions, fine; the straight transcriptions (Beethoven Symphonies, Bach organ works etc) not so fine. Late Liszt an absolute no no.

Also, there are a few Siloti versions of Liszt pieces - study them - Liszt and Siloti worked together to revise a couple of his scores to reflect more accurately Liszt's own performance practice.

Also, bear in mind additions will not always be favourably looked upon - even if they are good ones - so avoid them in a competition/audition setting.

[liszt1022]

I'd say if you know your music theory and want to, say, trim some dense textures without affecting the harmony that should be OK. Especially in the transcriptions - even the straight ones like Beethoven, in my view. I would advise against removing voices though, like entire lines for a specific instrument. It's a case by case thing, and you don't want to get out of hand. I did rearrange a symphonic transcription of his, but I made sure to study the original orchestral score while doing so. And I was up-front about the result as a mix of Liszt's and my own. Basically, are you trying to play Liszt or play a piano version of the original orchestral work using Liszt as a basis?

I'm less likely to trim original Liszt, no matter the period. But like I said, case by case.

[pianoman1349]

There is a lot of creative things that you can do with Liszt without actually changing any notes.  A great example would be some of his operatic fantasies (specifically the Rigoletto paraphrase).

Using the Rigoletto paraphrase as an example, the performer essentially has two basic options for interpreting this work:  treat it as an authentic operatic performance; treat it as a virtuosic Liszt composition that happens to be based on an operatic theme.

For myself, I chose to play this work as close as possible to the original quartet from the opera that it was based on, achieving great success with a large audience of general music lovers and people who generally hate liszt.  Please note that I did follow every single marking indicated on the score, with the exception of the addition of an 8va found only on the Henle edition of the work.  On the flip side, I have also been criticized for playing in an radically un-Lisztian style.  This has actually happened on several competition panels where there would be a generally large discrepancy in the marks given by the adjudicators on either side (these included tenured piano professors from different universities throughout Canada).

My point is that you can be follow every indication and play every single note in the score of a work by Liszt and still have radically liberal and controversial performances

[blazekenny]

To the freedom of performing Liszt, i would say what applies to nearly everything from classical music - freedom isn´t arbitrariness. Arrau said that in a way Liszt´s pieces often aren´t really "finished" in sheet, Liszt being such a great improvisator. Although Liszt is my favorite composer, let´s face it - his pieces arent compositionally really great, and often you see cheap usage of many dimnished chords in a row etc. Thus, his music certainly needs big added value from the performer, but even more so, alot of taste and judgment.
I´ve heard counltess of pianists trying to do too much magic on Liszt and it just sounds ridiculous.

EDIT : I am also confirming 100% what pianoman says.

[stoudemirestat]

Although Liszt is my favorite composer, let´s face it - his pieces arent compositionally really great

Faced it. Conclusion: they are as great as any from his time! The piano works, at least.

[throwawaynotreally]

.

[blazekenny]

Faced it. Conclusion: they are as great as any from his time! The piano works, at least.

They might have beautiful melodies and might be played great. Besides some exceptions, like the b minor sonata, Liszt is compositionally just inferior to his contemporaries, like Chopin, Brahms, or Schumann.
He sure has invented alot of things - like the symphonic poem, or first modern music - he basically first came up with the Tristan motive, which was first featured in his song Lorelei. (Obviously, Wagner later used it to better success, but Liszt was first.) He was also the first to really heavily use the structure Bass-filling-melody.
So he was sure a genius. Yet, his music is just not harmonically satisfying for a trained ear. I still think that Liszt is a better music for humans. His music is a great choice for audiences and listeners, who know little about classical music. Remember, we are classical musicians, and in this hybrid discipline, which is not that popular, audience is our king.
I dont mean to offend anyone, I just find this thread interesting to discuss

[stoudemirestat]

They might have beautiful melodies and might be played great. Besides some exceptions, like the b minor sonata, Liszt is compositionally just inferior to his contemporaries, like Chopin, Brahms, or Schumann.
He sure has invented alot of things - like the symphonic poem, or first modern music - he basically first came up with the Tristan motive, which was first featured in his song Lorelei. (Obviously, Wagner later used it to better success, but Liszt was first.) He was also the first to really heavily use the structure Bass-filling-melody.
So he was sure a genius. Yet, his music is just not harmonically satisfying for a trained ear. I still think that Liszt is a better music for humans. His music is a great choice for audiences and listeners, who know little about classical music. Remember, we are classical musicians, and in this hybrid discipline, which is not that popular, audience is our king.
I dont mean to offend anyone, I just find this thread interesting to discuss

I wasn't offended. I just greatly disagree with the idea that "Liszt is compositionally just inferior to his contemporaries, like Chopin, Brahms, or Schumann." It needs to be said that it is entirely a matter of opinion. I think that the Sonata, Annees, Harmonies Poetiques, Etudes, Symphonies, Choral, Organ works and Lieder at least put him up with Schumann and Chopin, if not Brahms. Indeed, in Alfred Brendel's latest book, he claimed him to be the equal of Chopin and Schumann...

"Yet, his music is just not harmonically satisfying for a trained ear." Trained ears? Like Brendel? Arrau? Bolet? Hough? Barenboim? Cziffra? Kentner? Leslie Howard? Humphrey Searle?

[blazekenny]

I wasn't offended. I just greatly disagree with the idea that "Liszt is compositionally just inferior to his contemporaries, like Chopin, Brahms, or Schumann." It needs to be said that it is entirely a matter of opinion. I think that the Sonata, Annees, Harmonies Poetiques, Etudes, Symphonies, Choral, Organ works and Lieder at least put him up with Schumann and Chopin, if not Brahms. Indeed, in Alfred Brendel's latest book, he claimed him to be the equal of Chopin and Schumann...

I luckily have the document "Pianist´s A-V" by Brendel in my PC.
"Liszt’s outstanding piano works, among which I would only like to mention the B-Minor Sonata, Années de pélérinage, the Variations on “Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen,” La Lugubre gondola, and the finest of the Etudes, are for me on a par with those of Chopin and Schumann. His B-Minor Sonata surpasses, in originality, boldness, and expressive range, anything that has been written in this genre since Beethoven and Schubert."
Thats what he writes about Liszt´s works. He definitely doesnt think all of his works were genial. Sure, he was capable of writing masterpieces, but so what, he has thousands of piano pieces which just suck, compared to brahms or chopin, who have only high quality works.
I still think that while the b minor sonata is for me the greatest masterpiece, Liszt´s harmonical progressions are just inferior to other composers

[stoudemirestat]

Thats what he writes about Liszt´s works. He definitely doesnt think all of his works were genial. Sure, he was capable of writing masterpieces, but so what, he has thousands of piano pieces which just suck, compared to brahms or chopin.

Name some of his works that suck? Besides, due to the time in which he was living, as well as his position in society, there are many good reasons as to why some of his works aren't as good as others. A lot of it has to do with what he was trying to write...I believe he wrote at least as many good-great works as either Chopin or Schumann. In many of these works, people, like me (and many who are more qualified), have found his harmonic progressions to be profoundly beautiful. Besides, harmonic progression isn't everything. You've failed to mention his pianistic ingenuity, for one thing.

That being said, I noticed you said 'I still think' in your latest post. I'm fine with that. I just take issue with the way you stated that opinion at first.

[blazekenny]

At this point I would agree with Brendel, I dont think that many works despite the ones he listed are so great. Yeah, there are pieces I am not sure of, because we are so used to brutal interpretations (mephisto waltz 1), Athletical speed interpretations (hungarian, spanish rhapsodies) or overly sentimental interpretations (Liebesträume). Liszt is very fragile in terms of musical interpretations, much more than other composers. When someone gives a weak performance of i dont know, Chopins F# Barcarolle, people just know its the performers fault. While when you give a weak performance of the Spanish rhapsody, it just sounds disgusting and people start doubting about the composition itself. Whereas our piece preferences are a matter of opinion, this is a fact and keeps being confirmed at alot of concerts.
EDIT : just wanted to note my english sucks and cant really form my thoughts in the right words.

[stoudemirestat]

At this point I would agree with Brendel, I dont think that many works despite the ones he listed are so great. Yeah, there are pieces I am not sure of, because we are so used to brutal interpretations (mephisto waltz 1), Athletical speed interpretations (hungarian, spanish rhapsodies) or overly sentimental interpretations (Liebesträume). Liszt is very fragile in terms of musical interpretations, much more than other composers. When someone gives a weak performance of i dont know, Chopins F# Barcarolle, people just know its the performers fault. While when you give a weak performance of the Spanish rhapsody, it just sounds disgusting and people start doubting about the composition itself. Whereas our piece preferences are a matter of opinion, this is a fact and keeps being confirmed at alot of concerts.
EDIT : just wanted to note my english sucks and cant really form my thoughts in the right words.

To start with, I apologise if anything I took issue with was due to any kind of language barrier.

"Liszt is very fragile in terms of musical interpretations, much more than other composers. When someone gives a weak performance of i dont know, Chopins F# Barcarolle, people just know its the performers fault. While when you give a weak performance of the Spanish rhapsody, it just sounds disgusting and people start doubting about the composition itself."

It's not the composers fault if a performer gives a weak performance of a piece, and it's not a sign of a poor composer if a weak performance means that people start doubting the piece, while they don't doubt it if it's played well: especially seeing as in writing his works, the pianist and the capabilities Liszt had in mind were those of the great man himself! You said people just know it's the performers fault: that sounds as if going by reputation rather than listening without prejudice and with a background of attempting to understand a mans music via recordings and study. You also happened to pick one of Chopin's most profound and latest works and compared it to one of Liszt's most extroverted and flashy, one that can be seen in the light of the typical Lisztian stereotypes. The Spanish Rhapsody is a great piece for what it tries to be.

[stoudemirestat]

At this point I would agree with Brendel, I dont think that many works despite the ones he listed are so great.

Fair enough. I disagree  But that is certainly a matter for debate.

[awesom_o]

It's true though, when a person performs Chopin badly, everyone blames the person who played.

When people play Liszt badly, everyone blames Liszt.

[stoudemirestat]

It's true though, when a person performs Chopin badly, everyone blames the person who played.

When people play Liszt badly, everyone blames Liszt.

Very true. It's not as simple as his detractors like to believe: that there is a problem with the music. Prejudices and snap judgments against Liszt have been around since his lifetime. He still doesn't get the leeway or the attempts to understand with an open mind that others do. Judgement isn't as withheld. Personally I have had much enjoyment and come to admire many of his works that I had been lead to believe were junk. Never again will I be quick to judge his music, nor consider a exciting, pianistically brilliant virtuoso piece as inherently lesser than something more 'profound.'

[blazekenny]

Whatever, Liszt is still my most beloved composer and have played many of his pieces.  I am of the opinion that Liszt´s music is inferior in the harmonical aspect. But I never said Liszt is junk. I think his motivic work is genial. Ability to unite a big form using a couple of motives, which mingle into each other. (I am looking at you, E flat concerto, b minor sonata) The music isnt any less overwhelming just because of his harmonies. You know, for example, his Dante symphony´s main theme is based on all 12 tones, using all forms of cheap augmented triads. Without this, we wouldnt have such a beautiful Dante symphony

[stoudemirestat]

Whatever, Liszt is still my most beloved composer and have played many of his pieces.  I am of the opinion that Liszt´s music is inferior in the harmonical aspect. But I never said Liszt is junk. I think his motivic work is genial. Ability to unite a big form using a couple of motives (I am looking at you, E flat concerto, b minor sonata) The music isnt any less overwhelming just because of his harmonies. You know, for example, his Dante symphony´s theme is based on all 12 tones, using all forms of  cheap augmented triads. Without this, we wouldnt have such a beautiful Dante symphony

So, in music, beauty doesn't equal greatness? He affects you more than any other composer, yet he's not as good as the ones that don't affect you as much? I think when it comes to beauty, whether something is 'cheap' or not is irrelevant: especially when many of the 'cheap' things were rather novel at the time and are still effective. Besides, there are many things he did that could not in  any way be described as cheap.

That's just my opinion, though, as yours is yours.

[j_menz]

So, in music, beauty doesn't equal greatness?

Beauty may be a form of truth, but not all truth is beauty, Keat's opinion notwithstanding.

So in music, truly beautiful may equate to greatness, but greatness does not require beauty.

BTW, go listen to Chopin's songs and come back and say he didn't have his off days. And yes, I mean songs!

[stoudemirestat]

So in music, truly beautiful may equate to greatness, but greatness does not require beauty.

Oh I certainly agree with that. I didn't mean to suggest that only something 'beautiful' is great. While I suggested that beauty equalled greatness: 2+2 = 4, but as does 3+1.