VIDEO: Prelude in E-flat Major BWV 852 by J.S. Bach

[michael_sayers]

Hi Everyone,

This interpretation was given to me by Franz Liszt.

Recorded on a N.Y. Steinway D.

[chopinlover01]

[alistaircrane4]

If this is from Liszt then I guess the records we have of his playing are false. Well he wasn't the best anyone. Much better pianists can be found among his contemporaries.

[perfect_pitch]

Actually, chopinlover... I think this picture would have been more appropriate...



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And then I'll have nothing more to contribute by way of recordings until several or many months from now.

I'm now officially reporting this as SPAM. This has gone on long enough. We didn't have to put up with SCP, I don't see why we have to put up with this.

[michael_sayers]

If this is from Liszt then I guess the records we have of his playing are false. Well he wasn't the best anyone. Much better pianists can be found among his contemporaries.

Hi alistaircrane4,

Due to technical impairment I didn't attempt to do some things with the music as intended, but the recording gives a good idea of the interpretation including even the triple octave rolls (which do appear in Liszt's piano music, for instance on the last page of the 2nd piano Legend).

[michael_sayers]

I'm now officially reporting this as SPAM.

Hi perfect_pitch,

Like most persons here, I don't make a living from music and I have no music related products or services which are for sale.  These are not junk emails.  The result: it is not spam for me to post recordings here.

In spite of the sonic quality, in the end I couldn't resist sharing these two lingering recordings of the Bach and the Grieg.  There really is nothing left to contribute now in terms of videos, and it will be this way for quite a while.

I was hoping for a bit of constructive criticism from you.

[michael_sayers]

 . . . I accidentally posted a reply here when I thought I was editing a post . . . us amateur grammarians . . .

[alistaircrane4]

Hi alistaircrane4,

Due to technical impairment I didn't attempt to do some things with the music as intended, but the recording gives a good idea of the interpretation including even the triple octave rolls (which do appear in Liszt's piano music, for instance on the last page of the 2nd piano Legend).

Exactly! Liszt's piano music. Not Bach's. You're being a Glenn Gould. Bach cannot be played like Liszt and Liszt cannot be played like Bach. The same goes for any composer. Each composer has their own character and style. Those works are to be played that way. You saying this was Liszt's interpretation is ridiculous because as a composer Liszt had more respect for the works of other composers and would not alter them if it was not approved let alone such drastic alteration as you seem to be employing. Out of curiosity, have you ever tried playing things as written by the composer? Another thing you claim on your website to play the concert etudes. I would like it if possibly you could post a recording of you playing either "Un Sospiro", "Gnomenreigen", or "Waldesrauschen" for research purposes.

[j_menz]

Bach cannot be played like Liszt and Liszt cannot be played like Bach.

One assumes you exclude the Liszt Bach transcriptions from that.

[alistaircrane4]

One assumes you exclude the Liszt Bach transcriptions from that.

Naturally. Transcriptions are different because the composer who writes the transcription imbues his own style into it. Thank you though for stating this now at least he cannot make a point out of the transcriptions.

[michael_sayers]

Exactly! Liszt's piano music. Not Bach's. You're being a Glenn Gould. Bach cannot be played like Liszt and Liszt cannot be played like Bach. The same goes for any composer. Each composer has their own character and style. Those works are to be played that way. You saying this was Liszt's interpretation is ridiculous because as a composer Liszt had more respect for the works of other composers and would not alter them if it was not approved let alone such drastic alteration as you seem to be employing. Out of curiosity, have you ever tried playing things as written by the composer? Another thing you claim on your website to play the concert etudes. I would like it if possibly you could post a recording of you playing either "Un Sospiro", "Gnomenreigen", or "Waldesrauschen" for research purposes.

Hi alistaircrane4,

Mozart was a true classical composer and I stick very close to the score in his music.  Some of his piano works are a bit romantic in content - such as the B Minor Adagio, the A Minor Rondo, the Fantasy and Fugue in C Major [what a great fugue!] - but even then I keep fairly close to the notation.

With the music of Liszt I tend to be very close to the score.  The interpretation might not always be conventional, but the notes involved tend to be exactly what is published.  Some of my interpretive ideas are from Liszt himself as he has been involved with me preparing his music for performance.

And with Rachmaninoff, and much 20th century music, I keep close to the notation.  For a living composer this always is the situation unless they approve of the deviations: I tell them, you want this to be really powerful here, the piece has gone through this structure for almost X minutes [and I detail the structure], this section here needs to be of high emotional power and import compared to everything else in the composition . . . this is where the music finally brings everything into laser focus and intensity with total and unsparing inner commitment . . . and it is up to you whether I go there or not.

About me playing the Liszt Concert Etudes, now that I am back in 1995 condition when I still practiced the piano regularly, I'll be performing these and will have some recordings to share.

There is a hold up due to difficulty of temperament: having to schedule performances at "random" dates years in advance is something that is a challenge.  I think it is better to have performances concentrated in a small window of time, and to have some option of down time between these "windows" and for thinking about music, deciding what to perform next, working on music compositions, et c., and then a build up to the next "window" of performing.

And I do have real world friends in Stockholm, and also family, and it wouldn't be nice for them if I were to just "disappear" for five to seven years from them because monumental Liszt recitals are strewn all over the calendars from 2015 through 2022 randomly like someone tossed confetti on them.

The fact that any performance has to be scheduled for years in the future, regardless of venue, and with no other order or structure to be experienced by the performer than just throwing a dart at a dart board, is concerning.  I understand that the venues have their schedules, but for very heavy weight performing there needs to be at least the ability to put everything in the same year across all the venues.  I can live with disappearing for a year.

Things weren't like this in the U.S.  In the U.S. there always are some possibilities to schedule near term performing at churches and other such venues.

Not that I am back in the condition of my teenage years, I've been in discussions with scheduling a tour involving charity performances at U.S. churches, all scheduled within a two to three month window . . . not spread out over seven years, which would be ridiculous especially with the economics and time involved for all the long haul flights back and forth across the Atlantic.

In Europe, this seem to not be something one could do.

[alistaircrane4]

Hi alistaircrane4,

Mozart was a true classical composer and I stick very close to the score in his music.  Some of his piano works are a bit romantic in content - such as the B Minor Adagio, the A Minor Rondo, the Fantasy and Fugue in C Major [what a great fugue!] - but even then I keep fairly close to the notation.

With the music of Liszt I tend to be very close to the score.  The interpretation might not always be conventional, but the notes involved tend to be exactly what is published.  Some of my interpretive ideas are from Liszt himself as he has been involved with me preparing his music for performance.

And with Rachmaninoff, and much 20th century music, I keep close to the notation.  For a living composer this always is the situation unless they approve of the deviations: I tell them, you want this to be really powerful here, the piece has gone through this structure for almost X minutes [and I detail the structure], this section here needs to be of high emotional power and import compared to everything else in the composition . . . this is where the music finally brings everything into laser focus and intensity with total and unsparing inner commitment . . . and it is up to you whether I go there or not.

About me playing the Liszt Concert Etudes, now that I am back in 1995 condition when I still practiced the piano regularly, I'll be performing these and will have some recordings to share.

There is a hold up due to difficulty of temperament: having to schedule performances at "random" dates years in advance is something that is a challenge.  I think it is better to have performances concentrated in a small window of time, and to have some option of down time between these "windows" and for thinking about music, deciding what to perform next, working on music compositions, et c., and then a build up to the next "window" of performing.

And I do have real world friends in Stockholm, and also family, and it wouldn't be nice for them if I were to just "disappear" for five to seven years from them because monumental Liszt recitals are strewn all over the calendars from 2015 through 2022 randomly like someone tossed confetti on them.

The fact that any performance has to be scheduled for years in the future, regardless of venue, and with no other order or structure to be experienced by the performer than just throwing a dart at a dart board, is concerning.  I understand that the venues have their schedules, but for very heavy weight performing there needs to be at least the ability to put everything in the same year across all the venues.  I can live with disappearing for a year.

Things weren't like this in the U.S.  In the U.S. there always are some possibilities to schedule near term performing at churches and other such venues.

Not that I am back in the condition of my teenage years, I've been in discussions with scheduling a tour involving charity performances at U.S. churches, all scheduled within a two to three month window . . . not spread out over seven years, which would be ridiculous especially with the economics and time involved for all the long haul flights back and forth across the Atlantic.

In Europe, this seem to not be something one could do.

When I say follow the score I don't mean note wise I mean dynamics, tempi, and pedaling. I have seen your youtube channel and all of your videos suffer from quadruple fortissimo, drudgingly slow tempi, and drowning pedal.

[michael_sayers]

When I say follow the score I don't mean note wise I mean dynamics, tempi, and pedaling. I have seen your youtube channel and all of your videos suffer from quadruple fortissimo, drudgingly slow tempi, and drowning pedal.

Tempo, dynamics and pedaling, though are part of music interpretation.  And so are the notes of the particular arrangement of the music content for a piano (two hands is something different than voice with piano, a full orchestra, et c.).  What we have are the compositions and the melodic, harmonic and other such content, with an interpretation overlaid upon this and supplied by the composers for piano solo arrangements.

To make this more clear, one can consider:

1) The Italian Concerto of Bach in which a keyboard soloist plays both the orchestral and solo parts

2) same for the Concerto, and similar with the Symphony, of Alkan for piano solo

3) the numerous Liszt song arrangements for piano

4) Bach's reuse of material for varied instrumentation, and the fact that no one knows how he would have liked his music to be arranged for a modern concert grand piano

5) Leonard Bernstein's recordings of Beethoven string quartets but with full orchestra

6) Samuel Barber's very successful Adagio for Strings as orchestrated and not for string quartet

And so on . . .

To clarify, my Mozart (for example) is very close to the published arrangements by the composer . . . doubling of a bass line in octaves (for instance, and which I would never do in Mozart) does not mean that the performer has created a new music composition or that the performer is not following the score.

When I sight read, I do all of this automatically as part of interpreting the music.

[alistaircrane4]

Tempo, dynamics and pedaling, though are part of music interpretation.  And so are the notes of the particular arrangement of the music content for a piano (two hands is something different than voice with piano, a full orchestra, et c.).  What we have are the compositions and the melodic, harmonic and other such content, with an interpretation overlaid upon this and supplied by the composers for piano solo arrangements.

To make this more clear, one can consider:

1) The Italian Concerto of Bach in which a keyboard soloist plays both the orchestral and solo parts

2) same for the Concerto, and similar with the Symphony, of Alkan for piano solo

3) the numerous Liszt song arrangements for piano

4) Bach's reuse of material for varied instrumentation, and the fact that no one knows how he would have liked his music to be arranged for a modern concert grand piano

5) Leonard Bernstein's recordings of Beethoven string quartets but with full orchestra

6) Samuel Barber's very successful Adagio for Strings as orchestrated and not for string quartet

And so on . . .

To clarify, my Mozart (for example) is very close to the published arrangements by the composer . . . doubling of a bass line in octaves (for instance, and which I would never do in Mozart) does not mean that the performer has created a new music composition or that the performer is not following the score.

When I sight read, I do all of this automatically as part of interpreting the music.

I disagree. If a composer marks Forte you don't play it piano and say "Oh. It's just my interpretation." Any deviation from a written score is not an interpretation. The only change that should be made is rubato where noted. The composer didn't mark these things for fun. When you play these pieces the way you do it's so far from the score that it cannot even be called "interpretation." I'm very much looking forward to hearing your recording of the concert etudes. I want to see how you are compared to your "Contemporaries"

[michael_sayers]

I disagree. If a composer marks Forte you don't play it piano and say "Oh. It's just my interpretation." Any deviation from a written score is not an interpretation. The only change that should be made is rubato where noted. The composer didn't mark these things for fun. When you play these pieces the way you do it's so far from the score that it cannot even be called "interpretation." I'm very much looking forward to hearing your recording of the concert etudes. I want to see how you are compared to your "Contemporaries"

Everyone has a right to an opinion . . . yet maybe the point of view you are taking here on interpretation is a bit provincial?  The way Mozart was interpreted in 1815 was not like the way it is interpreted in 2015 - and this especially is true of Mozart's own performances of his piano concertos, one can read up on it.  There also is information available on Beethoven performing his own piano sonatas and concertos when what was heard as interpretation was very different than in 2015.

This obsession with following the score originated in 20th century, after the bulk of the great composers of piano music were dead.

Which isn't to say, of course, that one can not play Prokofiev and Schoenberg romantically on the piano.

Why hold back emotional communication and one's innermost thoughts and dreams from an audience?  Sincerity is a requisite of integrity for an artist in any field, as is hard work (and hard work is admittedly something I neglected for many years, yet I still could play with sincerity and freedom).  There aren't any standard measuring sticks for what is aesthetically possible in the arts, except in music an effort to impose them on concert performers, starting especially in the 1950s, succeeded . . . yet this shall pass and it will happen in this century, already the hold of rigidity in classical music performance is loosing ground.

In life there are rules and requirements.

In art the only rule is to give, and to do so unsparingly and with all one's might.

[j_menz]

The way Mozart was interpreted in 1815 was not like the way it is interpreted in 2015 - and this especially is true of Mozart's own performances of his piano concertos,

Mozart's still playing? 

[8_octaves]

[...]
Why hold back emotional communication and one's innermost thoughts and dreams from an audience?  Sincerity is a requisite of integrity for an artist in any field, [...]

Hi Michael,

to the underlined part, I remember having read something about Carl Nielsen. Maybe he could answer this question, because he stated (I translate approximately) :

My inner feelings shouldn't concern other people.

"Approximately" means, that he actually, as stated in the German version which I took from my source, said it HARDER. : "Was gehen andere Leute meine innersten Gefühle an?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Nielsen

And here's a quotation from the WP-article, which describes the term "Objektivering". May be it is of interest to you, Michael?

"Objektivering"

By this term Nielsen meant an aesthetic approach wherein the instruments, or the players operating them, are given leave to assert their individual intentions, as interpreted by the composer.[66] At the time Nielsen was writing the Fifth Symphony, with its sometimes violent disruption by the snare drum, he also produced the Wind Quintet, Op. 43 for a group of wind players whom he knew well personally. He resolved to write a concerto for each man, but completed only the ones for flute and clarinet. The latter (1928) immortalizes a clarinettist known for being irascible, and uses this character as a means of commenting on the anxious world condition at the time.

Cordially, 8_octaves!

[alistaircrane4]

Everyone has a right to an opinion . . . yet maybe the point of view you are taking here on interpretation is a bit provincial?  The way Mozart was interpreted in 1815 was not like the way it is interpreted in 2015 - and this especially is true of Mozart's own performances of his piano concertos, one can read up on it.  There also is information available on Beethoven performing his own piano sonatas and concertos when what was heard as interpretation was very different than in 2015.

This obsession with following the score originated in 20th century, after the bulk of the great composers of piano music were dead.

Which isn't to say, of course, that one can not play Prokofiev and Schoenberg romantically on the piano.

Why hold back emotional communication and one's innermost thoughts and dreams from an audience?  Sincerity is a requisite of integrity for an artist in any field, as is hard work (and hard work is admittedly something I neglected for many years, yet I still could play with sincerity and freedom).  There aren't any standard measuring sticks for what is aesthetically possible in the arts, except in music an effort to impose them on concert performers, starting especially in the 1950s, succeeded . . . yet this shall pass and it will happen in this century, already the hold of rigidity in classical music performance is loosing ground.

In life there are rules and requirements.

In art the only rule is to give, and to do so unsparingly and with all one's might.

As a pianist it is not our jobs to convey our emotions or our thoughts when playing a piece. Our job is to show what the composer wanted to show. If you want to show your own emotions compose your own piece. Every great pianist knows this. They know it is not about them but about the music they create. They set aside their personal feelings or beliefs when playing. One of my favorite pianists of all time was thought to be a narcissist but he hated when people clapped after his performances. He thought they should not clap for him but clap for the composer. These were the thoughts of Michelangeli. If you consider the way you play things to be art then perhaps you should try to find people who like the way you play if possible. Playing the way you do shows no care for the composers will or direction.

[mjames]

I wonder what people think about Chopin ignoring his own fortissimo marks in his barcarolle during some performance in England, or Ruth Laredo ignoring Scriabins markings in her op. 19 recording. Like someone else said, ones feelings or thoughts about music should not be of a concern to you.

[michael_sayers]

As a pianist it is not our jobs to convey our emotions or our thoughts when playing a piece. Our job is to show what the composer wanted to show. If you want to show your own emotions compose your own piece. Every great pianist knows this. They know it is not about them but about the music they create. They set aside their personal feelings or beliefs when playing. One of my favorite pianists of all time was thought to be a narcissist but he hated when people clapped after his performances. He thought they should not clap for him but clap for the composer. These were the thoughts of Michelangeli. If you consider the way you play things to be art then perhaps you should try to find people who like the way you play if possible. Playing the way you do shows no care for the composers will or direction.

Hi alistaircrane4,

The great pianists include everyone from Chopin, Liszt, Beethoven and Anton Rubinstein, to Arthur Rubinstein, Van Cliburn, Maria Tipo and Leon Fleisher.

Our observation of the great pianists, and also of the great composers, differs, and this is okay.  In life, persons often will disagree about even the most important things.

[michael_sayers]

p.s. for alistaircrane4 - I do have supporters, and there are persons who believe in both old fashioned styles of piano playing and also in romantic style composition.  I am eventually going to find a new path in composition though . . . they might or might not like it, either way the beauty of not making money off of music is that one doesn't feel driven by survival demands to consider such things.

[stevensk]

-How do you combine the very sublime (0:47) whith the majestic (1:35, 3:55)? How do you do that? What are your thoughts?

[quantum]

With all this discussion on syntactic adherence, I wonder if certain critics have experienced working with a living composer. 

[liszt1022]

You're missing the point of Audition Room. You're using it as an extension of your Youtube channel (spamming.) All of the posts you've made have had different shades of the same reaction - people generally don't like what you're doing, and one or two find it "interesting." Those who do find it interesting can easily check out your other work on Youtube. Post something new - like, actually new, and that would be more fitting to the purpose of Audition Room. Why not start a thread of your own "interpretations" in Performance and update that with anything you want? You're making a lot of people angry and you're not changing anyone's mind. Please, for the good of the forum, stop.

[michael_sayers]

-How do you combine the very sublime (0:47) whith the majestic (1:35, 3:55)? How do you do that? What are your thoughts?

The interpretation is from Franz Liszt so it would be better to address these questions to him.

Would you like to see the score?

[michael_sayers]

You're missing the point of Audition Room. You're using it as an extension of your Youtube channel (spamming.) All of the posts you've made have had different shades of the same reaction - people generally don't like what you're doing, and one or two find it "interesting." Those who do find it interesting can easily check out your other work on Youtube. Post something new - like, actually new, and that would be more fitting to the purpose of Audition Room. Why not start a thread of your own "interpretations" in Performance and update that with anything you want? You're making a lot of people angry and you're not changing anyone's mind. Please, for the good of the forum, stop.

Hi liszt1022,

I am sorry that I went ahead and posted the Bach and the Grieg.  It was after a long inner debate over the sonic quality of those two recordings, and I always reason better a week early than a day too late.  Things happen to men my age and quite unexpectedly - more often than one would suppose - so if I want to do something, I generally do it immediately rather than operate based on calculation and strategic delay.  Calculation and strategic delay to me says "manipulator/manipulative/second guesser".  I like direct and honest paths.  I don't play games with others or mess around.

I truly am through submitting videos here for quite a while.  You and everyone else here can count on it.

p.s. - Not that it matters, but I use YouTube because I can't get the SoundClick website to work properly.  I don't think it matters which web domain or company hosts the audio content - that doesn't seem critical.  What difference does it make which company I use?  YouTube is past peak anyhow, and on a relative basis.  According to what I've read, no one who owns YouTube can even make a profit off of it.

[perfect_pitch]

Everyone... I direct your attention to this post... over here - everybody looking???



                                               Michael Sayers
                                                        |
                                                        |
                                                        |
                                                       \ /

I am sorry that I went ahead and posted the Bach and the Grieg.  It was after a long inner debate over the sonic quality of those two recordings

Sorry to say, but the 'sonic quality' of those recordings suck. Sounds like it was pulled off from a tape from the 1980's, and the piano is quite badly out of tune - plus your pedalling is incredibly poor and unclean, and your interpretation is just awful. If you say 'Bach told me to play it like that' you will be labelled (more of a) loon (than you already are) for claiming such. I'm very convinced from your playing that the voices in your head were not Liszt, but merely your own delusions.

[alistaircrane4]

Everyone... I direct your attention to this post... over here - everybody looking???



                                               Michael Sayers
                                                        |
                                                        |
                                                        |
                                                       \ /



Sorry to say, but the 'sonic quality' of those recordings suck. Sounds like it was pulled off from a tape from the 1980's, and the piano is quite badly out of tune - plus your pedalling is incredibly poor and unclean, and your interpretation is just awful. If you say 'Bach told me to play it like that' you will be labelled (more of a) loon (than you already are) for claiming such. I'm very convinced from your playing that the voices in your head were not Liszt, but merely your own delusions.

I tried to tell him the same thing about the pedalling and sheer loudness of his playing. He informed me that that was how Liszt did it.

[perfect_pitch]

I tried to tell him the same thing about the pedalling and sheer loudness of his playing. He informed me that that was how Liszt did it.

I know...

...but your post didn't have a picture of a troll in it.    

[cbreemer]

How to rape and strangle Bach's heavenly prelude in the name of Liszt. It's way beyond bad taste, it is murder. I have yet to hear a worse performer and performance on the web. I suppose MS is chuckling at how he has this forum firmly by the balls and some people still go out of of their way to take him seriously. It is the highest art of trolling really.

[michael_sayers]

I tried to tell him the same thing about the pedaling and sheer loudness of his playing. He informed me that that was how Liszt did it.

Liszt required two concert grands for a full length performance as one could not adequately survive the consequences of his playing for such duration, and if he didn't like the first concert grand that was brought out he would play several strong chords on it then and there, breaking many strings and forcing the second instrument to be brought out at the start of the concert.  He was known as the "holy terror" of piano makers.  This is well documented.  A source that is not out of print for this and that one doesn't have to visit a library to find a copy of is: Alfred Dolge's Pianos and Their Makers (1911, 482 pp., ISBN 0-486-22856-8).  Alfred Dolge was involved in the production of piano materials, including felts, and the selection of the wood for piano sound boards, and he knew his trade, all the ins-and-outs of pianos, and also the piano makers themselves, very well.

Pianists in 2015, when they play Erard grands, Boisselot & Fils grands, et c., don't have this effect on the instruments.

One might suspect that on a middle of the 20th century concert grand, Liszt would depart leaving keys broken up inside the action as did Ervin Nyiregyhazi in his prime - this is reported by U.S. conductor James Sample who had Nyiregyhazi as a guest performer many times in the 1940s.  Broken piano keys seem to have been a core reason that conductors were reluctant to have Nyiregyhazi as a soloist, despite the audience acclaim and excitement.  Audiences, and especially those in California where he lived for many decades, fervently admired Ervin's playing.  Arnold Schoenberg did too, and he even said so in a letter to Otto Klemperer.

[8_octaves]

[...] A source that is not out of print for this and that one doesn't have to visit a library to find a copy of is: Alfred Dolge's Pianos and Their Makers (1911, 482 pp., ISBN 0-486-22856-8).  

Hi Michael,

yes, it's in the internet archive: https://archive.org/search.php?query=Dolge%20Pianos%20and%20their%20makers, where at least vol. I can be downloaded as pdf. The others I haven't checked yet. Thxx!

And greetings from 8_octaves!

[michael_sayers]

Hi Michael,

yes, it's in the internet archive: https://archive.org/search.php?query=Dolge%20Pianos%20and%20their%20makers, where at least vol. I can be downloaded as pdf. The others I haven't checked yet. Thxx!

And greetings from 8_octaves!

And greetings to you, my friend!

I owned a copy years ago that was produced by Dover Publications, Inc.  The title may still be in print by that publisher but I don't have the latest indexes here of books, music, et c., in print, to consult, and the Dover Publications, Inc., website is a bit difficult for me to use.

[michael_sayers]

By the way, I included this item on a programme for a Bach festival in 1999.  It (and the other material, which included the B-flat Major Invention arrangement) was played with total accuracy on that occasion.  The music director was complimentary, as were audience members who said I should do more such performances of Bach interpretations.

There was ONE person, way back in the audience, who kept shaking his head and flailing his arms about, and who "stalked" me angrily afterwards.

I think I may finally have figured out who that lone person was: it probably was perfect_pitch!  

[michael_sayers]

I'm very convinced from your playing that the voices in your head were not Liszt, but merely your own delusions.

Facts are:

1a) Liszt gave me this interpretation by playing it through my body at a piano a few days previously; though he can play through me unimpeded, that is the only time this has happened

1b) Due to lack of practice and the resultant technical impairment, I did not do everything as intended - but I think I did pretty well for someone who hadn't otherwise touched a piano in many months (or even at all in the three years since I burned out in 1995?)

and

2) Liszt has given me indirect proofs that this is no fantasy.  He knows all things about music - a fantasy can not supply information which one has to research to verify.

When the winds and the might of inspiration flow through one's body, one knows that it is real.  Whether you believe or not is up to you.  Abusing members here because they believe something you do not believe in - this is beneath you and it is unacceptable for you to do this.

Persons browse the forums who might consider becoming members, and perhaps posting/sharing something, and then they read your abuse.

I'm not a moderator here, so I can't give you a temporary ban or anything like it, but I would do this if I could.  I believe in free speech, yet this is a private zone technically, and messages (with insinuations) beyond the pale, such as in many of your posts, and that one can speak from any public sidewalk in N.Y.C. do not actually have a right to be published at this website.

At least I have contributed recordings and (for the most part) the willingness to have a sane and civil discussion about them.

[alistaircrane4]

Facts are:

1a) Liszt gave me this interpretation by playing it through my body at a piano a few days previously; though he can play through me unimpeded, that is the only time this has happened

1b) Due to lack of practice and the resultant technical impairment, I did not do everything as intended - but I think I did pretty well for someone who hadn't otherwise touched a piano in many months (or even at all in the three years since I burned out in 1995?)

and

2) Liszt has given me indirect proofs that this is no fantasy.  He knows all things about music - a fantasy can not supply information which one has to research to verify.

When the winds and the might of inspiration flow through one's body, one knows that it is real.  Whether you believe or not is up to you.  Abusing members here because they believe something you do not believe in - this is beneath you and it is unacceptable for you to do this.

Persons browse the forums who might consider becoming members, and perhaps posting/sharing something, and then they read your abuse.

I'm not a moderator here, so I can't give you a temporary ban or anything like it, but I would do this if I could.  I believe in free speech, yet this is a private zone technically, and messages (with insinuations) beyond the pale, such as in many of your posts, and that one can speak from any public sidewalk in N.Y.C. do not actually have a right to be published at this website.

At least I have contributed recordings and (for the most part) the willingness to have a sane and civil discussion about them.

Your music is abuse. Liszt did not play that way for every piece. He was a composer and respected other composers intentions. I believe that you have a serious issue with many things forget voices and your mental state as others have stated. You have simple delusions or too much time on your hand to be able to commit this pollution. You stated that you had to schedule performances for years in advance. I think the organizers are hoping you will forget by then. It would be best for the people who will pay money to hear the music and then you come out playing it.

[8_octaves]

[...] Nyiregyhazi as a guest performer many times in the 1940s.  Broken piano keys seem to have been a core reason that conductors were reluctant to have Nyiregyhazi as a soloist, despite the audience acclaim and excitement.  Audiences, and especially those in California where he lived for many decades, fervently admired Ervin's playing. [...]

Rehi Michael,

I spotted that you mentioned Nyiregyhazi often. I think I only had heard of him 1 or 2 times in the past, before you mentioned him, so I looked in YT, and found this:

This man is a thunderstorm. I like some things he does VERY VERY much (e.g. non-percussive touch and wrist UP to get MAXIMUM POWER (instead of "hammering" from the air, ) ), so I will from time to time listen to other recordings of him, but for the moment I'm really, really impressed. Some time ago I had linked somewhere a video of another very "dangerous" man, Kilenyi, who was student of Dohnanyi, too, as was Nyiregyhazi, as I could read in WP! Thank you, again!

Cordially, 8_octaves!

[michael_sayers]

Your music is abuse. Liszt did not play that way for every piece. He was a composer and respected other composers intentions. I believe that you have a serious issue with many things forget voices and your mental state as others have stated. You have simple delusions or too much time on your hand to be able to commit this pollution. You stated that you had to schedule performances for years in advance. I think the organizers are hoping you will forget by then. It would be best for the people who will pay money to hear the music and then you come out playing it.

If we are honest about it, based on this sort of thinking it can be concluded that anyone who plays this music on a piano is violating the intentions of J.S. Bach.  I just don't think of the great composers' intentions as being circumscribed in that way - remember that J.S. Bach was a very practical composer - and even if their intentions were such as you describe [historical sources for this claim, if any?], everyone has a right to play freely and not to submit to any manifestation of musical tyranny regardless of its origination.

Liszt's musical mind is very universal and all embracing. He even could duplicate both the sound/tonal palette and the style of other top pianists.  He did not have any of the limitations which you ascribe to him.

About my own performing, when I audition I get the performances.  I've seen one of the calendars here - the overloaded calendars are an issue for all classical musicians in Sweden and at any level of performance.

[michael_sayers]

Rehi Michael,

I spotted that you mentioned Nyiregyhazi often. I think I only had heard of him 1 or 2 times in the past, before you mentioned him, so I looked in YT, and found this:

This man is a thunderstorm. I like some things he does VERY VERY much (e.g. non-percussive touch and wrist UP to get MAXIMUM POWER (instead of "hammering" from the air, ) ), so I will from time to time listen to other recordings of him, but for the moment I'm really, really impressed. Some time ago I had linked somewhere a video of another very "dangerous" man, Kilenyi, who was student of Dohnanyi, too, as was Nyiregyhazi, as I could read in WP! Thank you, again!

Cordially, 8_octaves!

Hi 8_octaves,

Yes, that is the way, power and quality with size of tone achieved from key surface and originating from deep sources of motion when necessary, and not the pinging, poking and banging at the keys which many pianists do.

Nyiregyhazi wasn't only about power though, at least not in the fortissimo sense . . . you might like listening to this . . .

[alistaircrane4]

If we are honest about it, based on this sort of thinking it can be concluded that anyone who plays this music on a piano is violating the intentions of J.S. Bach.  I just don't think of the great composers' intentions as being circumscribed in that way - remember that J.S. Bach was a very practical composer - and even if their intentions were such as you describe [historical sources for this claim, if any?], everyone has a right to play freely and not to submit to any manifestation of musical tyranny regardless of its origination.

Liszt's musical mind is very universal and all embracing. He even could duplicate both the sound/tonal palette and the style of other top pianists.  He did not have any of the limitations which you ascribe to him.

About my own performing, when I audition I get the performances.  I've seen one of the calendars here - the overloaded calendars are an issue for all classical musicians in Sweden and at any level of performance.

I don't "ascribe" any limits to him. He put them there himself but like I said he was not the best even in his eyes. Ask him he bowed down to a few of his contemporaries as composers and pianists.

[michael_sayers]

I don't "ascribe" any limits to him. He put them there himself but like I said he was not the best even in his eyes. Ask him he bowed down to a few of his contemporaries as composers and pianists.

What does this have to do with the fact that he doubled bass lines in octaves, had a free musical pulse and tempo, a massively wide range of dynamics, and that the didn't even play his own music in a way that matches the published notation?

It seems like I am talking about one subject re. Liszt, and you are discussing another subject re. Liszt.  I am well aware of his praise and support of lesser pianists and composers, including many composers whose work has disappeared from the repertoire since his day.

[perfect_pitch]

I hate to say Alistaircrane...



Just leave Michael to his delusions of grandeur, while we continue operating in the real world.

[michael_sayers]

I hate to say Alistaircrane...



Just leave Michael to his delusions of grandeur, while we continue operating in the real world.

There isn't anything wrong with playing Bach's music on a modern concert grand, or with this interpretation.  Hearing Bach's music properly "orchestrated" for a N.Y. Steinway D just isn't what you are accustomed to.  He was a very pragmatic man, and would reuse his material for varied instrumentation without thinking, "I can not do this because I am violating the notation and also the original instrumentation", et c. . . . his reuse of his own material isn't just copying and pasting the notes, and he surely would not notate for the piano as for a clavichord or harpsichord,  . . . it would be much more like his organ works, except it would be oriented to use the resources of a grand piano.

As discussed already, even on a harpsichord or clavichord the player would be expected to embellish, and to double lines in octaves depending on the pedals of the instrument and the taste/sensibility of the player.  That was standard practice back in the day when Bach's clavier music was composed.

The other issues suggested in this thread are that the playing involves fortissimo and use of the sustain pedal.  Bach's music can be fortissimo, and in adapting his music for instruments like the one here I am sure that fortissimo would be involved, and also the sustain pedal.

If musicians had to keep to original instrumentation then almost 100% of all performances and recordings of 19th century and earlier music would be unacceptable.  Modern grand pianos don't even have a una corda pedal, they have just the due corda pedal renamed incorrectly as an una corda pedal.  One of Beethoven's pianos had five pedals on it.

Saying that a performance or recording doesn't agree with the original instrumentation of the music and the arrangement for that instrumentation is not the same thing as criticizing it.  All that is given is a general observation.

The Bach-Busoni Chaconne is okay even though it is based on music for a violin.

And this recording here, of Bach's Prelude in E-flat Major, BWV 852, on a concert grand piano rather than a harpsichord or clavichord is okay.

The question is: in playing music on other than the original instrumentation, have the properties and resources of the new instrumentation been taken into account and utilized?  Here, as with the Bach-Busoni Chaconne, the answer is "yes".

[ahinton]

Facts are:

1a) Liszt gave me this interpretation by playing it through my body at a piano a few days previously; though he can play through me unimpeded, that is the only time this has happened

How did he do that, especially given that he's been dead for almost 130 years? Fact? Quoi?

1b) Due to lack of practice and the resultant technical impairment, I did not do everything as intended - but I think I did pretty well for someone who hadn't otherwise touched a piano in many months (or even at all in the three years since I burned out in 1995?)

Those fundamental shortcomings didn't stop you posting it, though.

2) Liszt has given me indirect proofs that this is no fantasy.  He knows all things about music - a fantasy can not supply information which one has to research to verify.

See answer to 1a.

When the winds and the might of inspiration flow through one's body, one knows that it is real.

Real is one thing; Liszt still active today is quite another.

Whether you believe or not is up to you.  Abusing members here because they believe something you do not believe in - this is beneath you and it is unacceptable for you to do this.

I do not seek to abuse anyone (not that you've suggested otherwise and I've refrained from contributing to this thread until now in any case). It is no, however, unacceptable for a forum member to state that this is not a matter of belief or disbelief but one of fact or fantasy; what you seek to present here has it alleged origins in the latter and this cannot realistically be denied.

Persons browse the forums who might consider becoming members, and perhaps posting/sharing something, and then they read your abuse.

Those persons will likely have read and heard your offering first and would accordingly be discouraged by these rather than what you describe as abuse but which in fact is refutation of fantasy presented as though fact.

At least I have contributed recordings and (for the most part) the willingness to have a sane and civil discussion about them.

But what you have detgermined not to recognise is the sheer impossibility of conducting "sane and civil discussions" of things that are blatantly not sane but presented as though they are.

I cannot disagree in principle with most of the criticisms that have been aired here; to suggest that what you're doing has somehow been given to you by a composer who died in 1886 would be a gross insult to the memory of Liszt if it were taken seriously.

Finally, I also caught a piece on here from you called For Sarah, or some title like that (I've no time to look it up now; at least you didn't claim that you got anything of it from Liszt, but I am astonished that you have the temerity to post such material here. I have no idea who Sarah is, but I feel sorry for her.

I am also sorry to have to write in this way, but to do otherwise would be dishonest of me and to fall silent instead might look either like cowardice or that I didn't care.

Best,

Alistair

[michael_sayers]

Hi Alistair,

You are someone for whom I have the utmost respect, and there is no need to apologize.

And with all due respect, I think we both can conclude that most of the discussion here is not about a recording of a work of the performing arts.  It is about the title, or the recorded work's origin, et c. . . . things that are not included as part of the audio.

What if, instead of from Liszt, I were to say that it came to me in a dream (or a nightmare as some might allege!), or what if I said here is this recording of "something" but I absolutely refuse to disclose anything about its origination and process of development whatsoever?  None of this would change the recorded sound which has been submitted for discussion.  I could have declared the title as "123456".  I mention this because someone in another thread said it was impossible to critique a recording because the title was incorrect [and this, even though the title was correct].

Another thread's recording couldn't be discussed on because a pianist played some notes and note durations differently than what I notated in one of my own scores.  The absence of 100% alignment of the two disabled the capacity for objective criticism.  I was penalized, in a sense, for providing background information on the recording and the collaboration of the performer and the composer.  Maybe someone doesn't like the composition?  That is okay.  This doesn't mean that performers and composers are not allowed to collaborate.

The impression is (and please forgive the cliche): it is always easier to attack the messenger than the message.

The message here is that when composing or arranging for an instrument, one takes the instrument into account, and sometimes even the requests of specific performers. Performers and composers collaborate, they do not work in isolation.

If persons here think that the music of Bach should only be played on the original instrumentation, this is within their rights to conclude.  Maybe musicians who approve of such things as the Bach-Busoni Chaconne would be better able to make observations on what is presented here in recorded sound, rather than talk about the messenger who happened to give some background on the origination as composers sometimes will do and which is much better than to post a link with no additional information.

There also was an issue in these forums with one of the Bach-Busoni Chorale Preludes, which I know is not on the original instrumentation and that it therefore can not be as originally notated by Bach.  Everyone knows this, just like I know that right now (in Stockholm) the sun is out.

And so the discussions digress into talk of recording dates [and I listen to recordings as far back as the dawn of recorded sound], piece titles, the authenticity of the compositional process, the history of piano playing, if it is as originally notated and as such is for the original instrumentation, et c.

Digging down to the issue of "belief": I'll be waiting for a scientific proof that all music is only to be performed as notated and therefore only upon the original instrumentation.  This proof won't happen because science and music are two very different areas of knowledge and of knowing.  And if it did happen, there aren't enough 19th century grand pianos to go around for every pianist who wants to 19th century piano music on the original instrumentation and with a real una corde pedal - it simply is impractical and totally unrealistic to always demand original notation/instrumentation from performers.  In some instanced the original instrumentation might even be not only a specific century of pianos, or a specific make of pianos, but a specific piano.

Many pianists play the Bach-Busoni transcriptions, and other Bach transcriptions, on grand pianos, and this will continue regardless of the dominant viewpoint in this forum.  And as you know, there is a particular item which might be considered "Bach-Sorabji", of which I am sure you approve.

p.s. - What is wrong with For Sarah?  I am open to civil criticism, yet you didn't say what its compositional issues are, just that perhaps I ought to be embarrassed by it.  The composition dates to 2008, and the part writing of the fortissimo chordal section was redone a few years ago.

[themeandvariation]

Bach left hardly any articulation when it comes to his keyboard music..  One can notice similar motivic gestures in his violin writing where he does include phrasing… as well in his choral .  This gives one a sense of his 'punctuation'… In the choral phrasing one can also pick up an emotional content: that of the words - which implies a certain 'dynamic' quality.  These ideas can be translated to his keyboard works...
 In his keyboard writings,  many refer in tempo to dances… thus giving a clue as to the speed…  These are interpretive helpers… His architecture is already perfect….
As far as the period instrument is concerned, Bach himself was interested in the piano, and offered critique to Silberman… who at first felt insulted, but then decided to follow his advice…(the action being too heavy among other things…)  To my mind, one can more clearly hear the polyphony and articulation on the piano … rather than a harpsichord…  (the clavichord, being perhaps closer to the idea of the piano, yet too quiet for performance..)  
But the (well tempered) Tuning aspect is hardly discussed with regard to piano …  I have heard a few piano recordings, with the tuning trying to approximate  how he was hearing pitch relationship….  This is a very curious thing…because, when a piano plays in this tuning, the ability to hear this pitch relationship is much clearer… (than a harpsichord) to my ear…  There is a whole sound universe there that is little heard on the piano…  the site : LARIPS.com  tries to describe how they cracked Bach's tuning code…. There is one recording on a piano there to give one an idea… though it suffers from ambient 'live' noises… There are a few others that have tuned pianos similarly ….  Thought i would throw that idea into the pot, as i feel it is quite a game changer….  (Equal Temperament  came about (partly) to unify tuning, as valve instruments evolved and orchestras got bigger… ) …Bach's harmonic quality was definitely more nuanced; more complex… each key (signature) had its own character …. the chromatic steps, a little more jagged…. And to hear That on a piano, Is quite something to my ears…(like a revelation)  ….
Cheers!
(ps… it has been said that getting the articulation wrong, is like putting a period in the middle of a sentence…)

[ahinton]

Hi Alistair,

You are someone for whom I have the utmost respect, and there is no need to apologize.

Thank you, but I still feel that there is such reason because, as I wrote, i do not at all like writing in the vein which I nevertheless felt impelled to do on this occasion.

And with all due respect, I think we both can conclude that most of the discussion here is not about a recording of a work of the performing arts.  It is about the title, or the recorded work's origin, et c. . . . things that are not included as part of the audio.

I've not quibbled with the title or the origin (if by the latter you mean solely that it was you that played what you've uploaded).

What if, instead of from Liszt, I were to say that it came to me in a dream (or a nightmare as some might allege!), or what if I said here is this recording of "something" but I absolutely refuse to disclose anything about its origination and process of development whatsoever?  None of this would change the recorded sound which has been submitted for discussion.  I could have declared the title as "123456".  I mention this because someone in another thread said it was impossible to critique a recording because the title was incorrect [and this, even though the title was correct].

My issue here is your allegation that aspects of this were a "gift" from Liszt. The quality of what you have presented is one matter; your assertion that Liszt had some utterly improbable input into it is quite another.

Another thread's recording couldn't be discussed on because a pianist played some notes and note durations differently than what I notated in one of my own scores.  The absence of 100% alignment of the two disabled the capacity for objective criticism.  I was penalized, in a sense, for providing background information on the recording and the collaboration of the performer and the composer.  Maybe someone doesn't like the composition?  That is okay.  This doesn't mean that performers and composers are not allowed to collaborate.

I don;t know what you're talking about here but, if you're still on the subject of what you assert that Liszt gave to you, then I rest my case.

The impression is (and please forgive the cliche): it is always easier to attack the messenger than the message.

The message here is that when composing or arranging for an instrument, one takes the instrument into account, and sometimes even the requests of specific performers. Performers and composers collaborate, they do not work in isolation.

Indeed so, but I have not sought to separate the messenger from the message here, other than to question what you allege to be the source of the latter.

If persons here think that the music of Bach should only be played on the original instrumentation, this is within their rights to conclude.  Maybe musicians who approve of such things as the Bach-Busoni Chaconne would be better able to make observations on what is presented here in recorded sound, rather than talk about the messenger who happened to give some background on the origination as composers sometimes will do and which is much better than to post a link with no additional information.

This isn't about the instruments upon which any composer's music ought best to be played according to this person or that, as I had hoped to have made clear.

There also was an issue in these forums with one of the Bach-Busoni Chorale Preludes, which I know is not on the original instrumentation and that it therefore can not be as originally notated by Bach.  Everyone knows this, just like I know that right now (in Stockholm) the sun is out.

And so the discussions digress into talk of recording dates [and I listen to recordings as far back as the dawn of recorded sound], piece titles, the authenticity of the compositional process, the history of piano playing, if it is as originally notated and as such is for the original instrumentation, et c.

Again, none of these considerations are ones with which I have taken issue.

Digging down to the issue of "belief": I'll be waiting for a scientific proof that all music is only to be performed as notated and therefore only upon the original instrumentation.  This proof won't happen because science and music are two very different areas of knowledge and of knowing.  And if it did happen, there aren't enough 19th century grand pianos to go around for every pianist who wants to 19th century piano music on the original instrumentation and with a real una corde pedal - it simply is impractical and totally unrealistic to always demand original notation/instrumentation from performers.  In some instanced the original instrumentation might even be not only a specific century of pianos, or a specific make of pianos, but a specific piano.

Many pianists play the Bach-Busoni transcriptions, and other Bach transcriptions, on grand pianos, and this will continue regardless of the dominant viewpoint in this forum.  And as you know, there is a particular item which might be considered "Bach-Sorabji", of which I am sure you approve.

Yet again, I am not taking issue with any such things in principle; it is your assertion that you have taken from Liszt (in some improbable way) things that have given rise to the performances that you have uploaded.

p.s. - What is wrong with For Sarah?  I am open to civil criticism, yet you didn't say what its compositional issues are, just that perhaps I ought to be embarrassed by it.  The composition dates to 2008, and the part writing of the fortissimo chordal section was redone a few years ago.

It's little more than a random bunch of scales and arpeggios - no structure, no substance, no perceptible attempt at harmonic, melodic, contrapuntal, rhythmic or pianistic ingenuity; it is no concern of mine as to whether of not you should be embarrassed by it per se - just that you ought, in my humble opinion. to be embarrassed about having uploaded it here.

Who IS Sarah? and why is she commemorated in the title of this piece of what I have - again, with regret and due apologies - to describe as musical emptiness?

Best,

Alistair

[alistaircrane4]

What does this have to do with the fact that he doubled bass lines in octaves, had a free musical pulse and tempo, a massively wide range of dynamics, and that the didn't even play his own music in a way that matches the published notation?

It seems like I am talking about one subject re. Liszt, and you are discussing another subject re. Liszt.  I am well aware of his praise and support of lesser pianists and composers, including many composers whose work has disappeared from the repertoire since his day.

You are ridiculous. You keep bringing up things that no one has mentioned in hopes of trying to prove a point that you can never in your life prove. I told you nothing of your doubled bass lines only of your terrible peddling, dynamics, and tempi. Those are the problems. Also be some type of reject to seriously say that no one questions the Bach-Busoni Chaconne's differences from the original in hopes of proving your point. No one would say anything because it is supposed to be different it is a transcription for a different instrument. This has nothing to do with your playing. I don't know if you suffer from mental issues perhaps senility but it is beyond any of us. You say we don't back up our claims but we all do. It just isn't good enough for you and you come up with delusional retorts. Liszt did not support lesser composers and pianists. He supported Schumann who by many means is a better composer and he held Chopin higher in regards to pianism. The written accounts of Liszt's playing cannot even be compared to those of Chopin's. Liszt would frequently prefer to have Chopin play over himself. Don't be a fool. Just kindly leave the bored. I'm henceforth resigning from this particular thread in hopes of keeping my sanity which your stupidity has slightly diminished.

[diomedes]

I'm henceforth resigning from this particular thread in hopes of keeping my sanity which your stupidity has slightly diminished.

I generally am opposed to going out of my way to make negative remarks, but i've been watching the circus pass for too long:

There's no progression to this and the only reason it got this far is because everyone keeps coming back and fanning the flame. I'd be interested to see people realize how ridiculous this scenario is and how much time people waste on it.

I'm sorry but to the OP, for the sake of tradition and the composers works that collective culture and artists respect, if you insist on producing as you are, be so decent as to indicate that you are altering their material: Bach-Sayers Prelude in E flat, Chopin-Sayers Prelude in c etc.

I'm rather disappointed in myself for being drawn into such a conversation.

[michael_sayers]

You are ridiculous. You keep bringing up things that no one has mentioned in hopes of trying to prove a point that you can never in your life prove. I told you nothing of your doubled bass lines only of your terrible peddling, dynamics, and tempi. Those are the problems. Also be some type of reject to seriously say that no one questions the Bach-Busoni Chaconne's differences from the original in hopes of proving your point. No one would say anything because it is supposed to be different it is a transcription for a different instrument. This has nothing to do with your playing. I don't know if you suffer from mental issues perhaps senility but it is beyond any of us. You say we don't back up our claims but we all do. It just isn't good enough for you and you come up with delusional retorts. Liszt did not support lesser composers and pianists. He supported Schumann who by many means is a better composer and he held Chopin higher in regards to pianism. The written accounts of Liszt's playing cannot even be compared to those of Chopin's. Liszt would frequently prefer to have Chopin play over himself. Don't be a fool. Just kindly leave the bored. I'm henceforth resigning from this particular thread in hopes of keeping my sanity which your stupidity has slightly diminished.

Hi alistaircrane4,

The post addressed to Alistair Hinton was a general one intended as a summary of the situation.  Yes, you haven't complained about doubling bass lines in octaves, it was perfect_pitch who did this regarding a recording of BWV 999.  The Prelude in E-flat Major, BWV 852, here is being played on a different instrument than what Bach had in mind . . . a pipe organ, a clavichord, a harpsichord and a grand piano - all of these are keyboard instruments, and yet are different from one another.  A clavichord with its p-pp range is as different in sound from a modern N.Y. Steinway D as is a violin, in my opinion.  The Bach-Busoni Chaconne uses the full range of dynamics of a modern concert grand, and so does what is heard with the recording submitted for this thread.

Re. Liszt's praise of lesser composers, the great Robert Schumann was not one of the lesser composers of whom I was thinking.

You are right that Liszt held Chopin in very high regard as a pianist.  What wikipedia says, about Paganini's violin playing being the dominant creative catalyst for Liszt, is suspect.  There is an interview with Moriz Rosenthal from the 1940s.  In it, Rosenthal says that Liszt confided to him that Chopin's piano playing was the catalyst, but Liszt did not want to publicly give credit to a pianist.

It does seem nonetheless that Liszt succeeded in reaching the very top as a pianist.  His humility might have prevented him from acknowledging this, yet outside observers for the most part - and certainly his most intimate students - seem to have held him in the very highest regard.  Liszt, in his letters, has no praise for himself: in his mind, none of it is about him.

I apologize if I have offended you in some way.  I didn't come here to have biographical discussions of the 19th century composers and pianists, and personally I as well am finding the subject to be inappropriate for this thread.