What is wrong with me? I do not like Liszt...

[jimroof]

I have listened and played some Liszt, but I have never felt a strong MUSICAL urge to learn a single work of his.  I find his works two dimensional, as compared to Chopin's fully fleshed out roundness that is full of thought and depth. or Brahms' passionate thrusts into the psyche. 

Liszt is, to me, the 19th century incarnation of Eddie Van Halen.  Blazing technique that brings no tears nor tells no real tale of triumph or of heart break. 

I love Brahms.  I love Chopin.  I like Scriabin, Prokofiev.  I love Beethoven and Mozart.  In a different way I love Bach.  I adore Debussy.  Schumann... middle of the road.  Liszt?  I see him as the composer of technical hurdles that just happen to carry melodies.  If I was going to spend the time to master anything in the piano repertoire, I would have to be neck deep in the literature before I would even consider spending any of that time on Liszt.

OK... flame away...

[distantfieldrelative]

well, no one is perfect...lol
Liszt is an acquired taste.

[mjames]

It's okay, I understand how you feel. Though I unlike you I have only been acquainted with classical piano for 4 years. I feel like a lot of his stuff like you said is quite superficial and lacks depth, but a lot of his other stuff is also quite phenomenal. In the past year I've grown to like a few of his orchestral work. Imo his tone poems and his dante symphony are way more fuunnn than any of his solo piano stuff.

Liszt unlike Scriabin or Chopin is a very hit or miss composer but when he hits, oh god, i get orgasms!

[breiterff]

I'm with you, I'm not a Liszt fan. The only music I've heard of him that I actually like (love, even) is his sacred music and coincidentally it's his most neglected stuff.

[amytsuda]

You really don't like all of them? Like mjames says, I find some of his pieces are just indulgent. I think you will enjoy adding his B-Minor sonata on your repertoire list. I think that is one of the best piano piece ever written. Some selections from Annees are nice: Obermann, Sonnet 104, Dante Sonata, Les jeux d'eaux à la Villa d'Este.

Most of Liszt stuff will break my poor hands and I don't care about his etudes, transcriptions, HR, etc. But I will learn his B-Minor sonata one day.

By the way, I am enjoying your diary of Op 25 No 6. Please keep up the updates!

[jimroof]

You really don't like all of them? Like mjames says, I find some of his pieces are just indulgent. I think you will enjoy adding his B-Minor sonata on your repertoire list. I think that is one of the best piano piece ever written. Some selections from Annees are nice: Obermann, Sonnet 104, Dante Sonata, Les jeux d'eaux à la Villa d'Este.

Most of Liszt stuff will break my poor hands and I don't care about his etudes, transcriptions, HR, etc. But I will learn his B-Minor sonata one day.

By the way, I am enjoying your diary of Op 25 No 6. Please keep up the updates!

I will be updating my thread on 25/6 in the next few days.  Fact is, it is sort of coming and going as the day-by-day experience of it goes, but I know that it is like a yoyo being played with by someone riding up an escalator.  It is improving significantly week by week, but some days are definitely stronger than others.  Today the rising minor thirds scales were really easy up to about 65 for the half note, but the two handed broken diminished 7ths were not as cooperative.  I am going to do some very very slow practice on those few measures late tonight on my digital piano that is in my office. 

Will update the diary thread tomorrow or Tuesday.  I think I am about 4-6 weeks from recording it at home so all can see what 58 year old hands could do with it in a little over 3 months.

[virtuoso80]

...Blazing technique that brings no tears nor tells no real tale of triumph or of heart break. 

I love Brahms. 

See, that's interesting because to me Brahms is the least soul-bearing and most stand-away technician of all the 'great' composers. Compare him with Mahler or Shostakovich, who wear their hearts on their sleeves, and he's just a stuffy guy with a killer intellect churning out 'correct' and accomplished music with zero real humanity in it.

[chopinlover01]

Brahms to me is great when played well, but dull meandering cat meowing when it isn't. That is, the things like the Intermezzi (slow melodies and things like that). Some of his early stuff is nice (the F minor sonata comes to mind, though even that feels like a letdown oftentimes), but a lot of it was him showing off, as was the case with Liszt.
I think Liszt is given a little less credit than he deserves; he's definitely less consistent than other composers, but even so called "showoff" pieces like the E flat concerto have wonderful moments.

[immortalbeloved]

EVERYTHING OMG . .  . no just kidding. Maybe you are just a Clara Schuman worshiper. Clara hated Liszt because he supported an artist who was being sued by her rather crazy father. She never had the forgiving personality he did.

Personally, Liszt, after Mozart and Beethoven, was one of the main reasons I started learning the piano. I hope to add his un sospiro, his famous sonata, his etudes to my rep (and his Beethoven transcriptions).

But everyone has their opinion. But, in the hopes that this might work, why not give his un sospiro a shot right now? Just listen to it; I think once you hear it you will want to learn it.

[pencilart3]

There is nothing wrong with you.

I firmly believe (what a surprise, huh? ) that Liszt and Chopin cannot be compared. And by that I don't mean that Chopin is better. That would contradict my last statement. I believe that they are such different styles it may as well be Baroque and Modern. That being said, I believe that the trick to Liszt is finding the right interpretations. Often times, the fault belongs to the performers, not the pieces themselves. I think his Transcendentals nicely capture some Liszt-like qualities. Here is my favorite performance of them. Live too. Dang.

Anyway, try 28:47. The part at 29:24 kills me. 31:21 is a nice variant.

45:20 is sick. Just sick.

#12 is one of the most musically interesting etudes, in my opinion. 56:24 is quite unique and beautiful.

3:23 is very beautiful and ignored.

#11 is great

The Liebestraum is perhaps over rated. Still, it deserves a very high rating, esp. when played by Mr. Goldman

2:15 is amazing. And the chord at 2:22 is striking.

Here is a fun little etude

Anyway, this is a little sampler of some of my favorites. La Crapinella is not on my favorite liszt, needless to say, but Yundi did do a nice job on it. Although Frederic's music is special to me in a way that Franz's never will be, Liszt does appeal to me in a unique way that no other composer does.

[outin]

I don't care for Liszt either, so obviously there's nothing wrong with you 

[irrational]

I used to think Liszt lacked depth as well, but then I listened to more of the less commonly played pieces and I somewhat changed my mind.
I think there is a lot of depth to Liszt, but much of it is hidden by the common repertoire abusing Liszt as virtuoso pieces as well as the transcriptions that was constantly demanded of him.
I am not saying he is the most amazing composer, but I certainly think he is underrated.

I thoroughly enjoy his Meditations, Consolations, Legends, Ballades, Csardas etc.

[handz]

I dont know,   but you seem to have some aversion to him. I myself not like his show off, virtuosic cadenzas which usually not fit to the music and are there just because he can, but many many many of his piano pieces are best there is, Liebestraume, Un Sospiro, Transcendental etudes, Mephisto waltz.. ooof many many many, emotional, deep, well written music.

[briansaddleback]

Liszt? I like him the least.

[visitor]

with few exceptions I pretty much only like his later period works (from about the time he joined the clergy and mellowed out a little w/ the flashy hijinks, although those Op1 varations are great, they sound so Schubert like, they're hard not to like).

but yeah after this, only really like from period around and after Les jeux d'eaux à la Villa d'Este'

[adodd81802]

.

[pencilart3]

I forgot the obvious consolation. It is a very nice piece.

[adodd81802]

.

[larrys]

Don't feel bad, I prefer Liszt to Bach, much of which I find dull and soulless. (I do like some Bach, just not as much as other composers)

[pencilart3]

Easily forgotten,

Well actually it was my favorite Liszt piece when I was ages 7-11. IDK what happened to it lol

[huaidongxi]

my $.02 as an unschooled piano banger.  would agree that the work expended on learning most liszt compositions would be better invested elsewhere, for many of us.  the most proficient players, going by the recordings, wrestle with making the compositions truly musical, out of the barrage of notes.  as a virtuoso attention grabbing performer he bowled audiences over with quantity, and his musicality probably prevailed.

as a listener, will express a minority view.  some of his transcriptions are vivid transferences of the orchestra into two handed piano.  they fulfill one area of piano fantasy, expressing a specific musical experience, whether from nature or a symphony orchestra, into piano.  two favorites of mine, LvB's sixth symphony, and the Tannhaeuser overture.  Ardeeva has an epic journey through the latter in a live performance that isn't quite as even and secure musically as Bolet's, but her effort and commitment are inspiring in themselves; there's no video of Bolet, but there is vintage film of Moiseiwitsch that gives us a glimpse of what old time romantic pianism was like.

[mjames]

See, that's interesting because to me Brahms is the least soul-bearing and most stand-away technician of all the 'great' composers. Compare him with Mahler or Shostakovich, who wear their hearts on their sleeves, and he's just a stuffy guy with a killer intellect churning out 'correct' and accomplished music with zero real humanity in it.

When I was first getting into classical music I thought of composers like Brahms and Bach boring, but the more I started learning about forms and counterpoint I began to start liking it. I think his 4th symphony pretty much sold me into him. The sheer amount of detail in it is just amazing, even now after 4 years I'm still finding new things in it.

To me the beauty about Brahms, like Bach, is in the craftsmanship. I think if you look at it from that point of view it makes it easier to not only appreciate him but to fall in love with him too.

I think Liszt is given a little less credit than he deserves; he's definitely less consistent than other composers, but even so called "showoff" pieces like the E flat concerto have wonderful moments.

Agreed! It's hard for me to like an entire transcendental etude but each pieces contains some pretty wonderful moments; especially the no. 10!

[rubinsteinmad]

Some people just don't have the technique to appreciate Liszt. And some are just pessimestae, people who only look at the flaws at the things they don't appreciate. And there are some who are just plain jealous of the magnificent capabilities of Arrau, Kissin, Khodolenko, etc (yet may not even know it.). As a result, they vent their jealousy on Liszt (but they might not know it). The last option is some people are just too dumb to understand the beauty of Liszt, despite years of experience.

Which one are you?

[outin]

Some people just don't have the technique to appreciate Liszt. And some are just pessimestae, people who only look at the flaws at the things they don't appreciate. And there are some who are just plain jealous of the magnificent capabilities of Arrau, Kissin, Khodolenko, etc (yet may not even know it.). As a result, they vent their jealousy on Liszt (but they might not know it). The last option is some people are just too dumb to understand the beauty of Liszt, despite years of experience.

And of course some people are just too immature to understand why other people do not always appreciate similar things as they do   

[ahinton]

I'm not sure why this thread has extended to two dozen posts when your question as posed in its title is clearly answered there as well!

Best listening recommendations to cure you of your ailment? Années de pèlerinage, the songs, Ad nos ad salutarem undam and, perhaps above all, works that do not include the piano such as the symphonic poems.

Good luck - and good listening!

Best,

Alistair

[stevensk]

I dont like Liszt either. -Shallow and bombastic

[ahinton]

I dont like Liszt either. -Shallow and bombastic

With how much of Liszt's music are you familiar enough to lead you to such a conclusion?

Best,

Alistair

[jimroof]

With how much of Liszt's music are you familiar enough to lead you to such a conclusion?

Best,

Alistair

Frankly, not that much.  But everything I have heard has failed to induce me to look into it any further.  I was hooked on Chopin when I was 5 years old from hearing one Polonaise. 

There are very few works by Chopin that fail to convey a rich sense of musicianship and depth of expression.  I feel that I could pick 10 Chopin works at random and maybe ONE of them would not want me to hear more.  I have yet to experience anything from Liszt that affects me in that manner.

I feel that Liszt to Chopin is sort of like country music to Yes.  Rarely does a country song reveal anything to me other than what I totally expected and saw coming up main street front and center.  Yes (the band) surprises and ventures into new musical expressions and motifs.  Maybe that is a bad analogy, but suffice it to say that Lizst does not, for me, evoke any curiosity or create any sense of surprise.

[pencilart3]

I think Alistair was referring to stevensk's comment

[jimroof]

I see that now... but the shoe fit me perfectly too...

[preludetr]

I agree to some extent. I can appreciate Liszt but I wouldn't consider him to have the musical depth of, say, Chopin. I would make an exception for the "Annees de Pelerinage" sets, which are excellent pieces of music with a lot of maturity and depth.

[ahinton]

I think Alistair was referring to stevensk's comment

I was indeed, although it could equally well apply to the OP.

Comparing one's reactions to Chopin's music with those to Liszt's is risky on several grounds; firstly Chopin's music comprises just a handful of songs, two piano concertos, three chamber works and a raft of piano music mostly written over a period of just 20 years, whereas Liszt's output include a vast number of sacred and secular choral works, orchestral pieces including thirteen symphonic poems, several pieces for piano and orchestra, a handful of small chamber works, organ music and some 70 songs for voice and piano as well as a vast corpus of piano works (including transcriptions) composed over a period of some 60 years.

Liszt's style developed even more than did Chopin's during his composing career (which is hardly surprising, given the length of that career) and, whilst the influence of Chopin on Liszt is detectable at times in some of the music that Liszt wrote during Chopin's lifetime (a fact that I have no doubt Liszt would gladly have acknowledged), he moved in many more directions than Chopin ever did or wanted to do (and that's not meant as any kind of value-judgement of either composer).

It is lerhaps also worth noting that, whilst both composers were active as teachers, Liszt was also active as a conductor.

Best,

Alistair

[preludetr]

Some people just don't have the technique to appreciate Liszt. And some are just pessimestae, people who only look at the flaws at the things they don't appreciate. And there are some who are just plain jealous of the magnificent capabilities of Arrau, Kissin, Khodolenko, etc (yet may not even know it.). As a result, they vent their jealousy on Liszt (but they might not know it). The last option is some people are just too dumb to understand the beauty of Liszt, despite years of experience.

Which one are you?

This is why forums need to have a 18+ age limit.

[pencilart3]

This is why forums need to have a 18+ age limit.

whoa there buddy

[jimroof]

Some people just don't have the technique to appreciate Liszt. And some are just pessimestae, people who only look at the flaws at the things they don't appreciate. And there are some who are just plain jealous of the magnificent capabilities of Arrau, Kissin, Khodolenko, etc (yet may not even know it.). As a result, they vent their jealousy on Liszt (but they might not know it). The last option is some people are just too dumb to understand the beauty of Liszt, despite years of experience.

Which one are you?

I am neither jealous or dumb. 

I am opinionated.  Liszt does nothing for me.  I have no motivation to play his music.  For me there is no payoff for the effort extended to learn it.  I find immense satisfaction in the works of other composers.  I find no such satisfaction in Liszt.  The fact that he composed over such a long period of time does nothing to change my mind.  If anything, that means he had all kinds of time to grow and mature, but instead, we have the 20 something Chopin composing rings around Liszt when Liszt is given a long life to accomplish something really musically noteworthy.

BTW, if I DO have jealousy, it would be for how the greats play Chopin...

[rubinsteinmad]

Well, I guess we all have our irrational grudges.

I used to irrationally dislike Greeks and Chinese peoples and Koreans.

[rubinsteinmad]

And saying Liszt lacks depth is.. well..... not appreciated.  Also, it is ignorant. (Though I, as well, have many moments of ignorance.)

[visitor]

And saying Liszt lacks depth is.. well..... not appreciated. 

lol
to each their own. but i'm in agreement with you on this one to the extent that we concur Liszt could be as deep as the ocean.

Again my main line is that with few exceptions (ie those cool early Schubert like variations i posted above), late Liszt post him + the church, is where his progressiveness and 'years ahead of his time' talent shines. The keyboard pyrotechnics and virtuosic hijinks subside and take a back seat to incredibly forward think harmonic planning and experimentation that hints at the impressionism and very late romantic tonal center ambiguity.

ie

[jimroof]

lol
to each their own. but i'm in agreement with you on this one to the extent that we concur Liszt could be as deep as the ocean.

Again my main line is that with few exceptions (ie those cool early Schubert like variations i posted above), late Liszt post him + the church, is where his progressiveness and 'years ahead of his time' talent shines. The keyboard pyrotechnics and virtuosic hijinks subside and take a back seat to incredibly forward think harmonic planning and experimentation that hints at the impressionism and very late romantic tonal center ambiguity.

ie

I watched both performances from start to finish.  I remain unchanged in my opinion.  In fact, both pieces sounded like something I could improvise all day long with one ear tied behind my back, only I would never think to overuse tremolos like that.

[briansaddleback]

Nothing wrong in not liking Liszt. I don't prefer to listen to him either.

[outin]

lol
to each their own. but i'm in agreement with you on this one to the extent that we concur Liszt could be as deep as the ocean.

Whether deep or shallow makes little difference, if it's boring

[visitor]

Whether deep or shallow makes little difference, if it's boring

great point and just as valid. Theres nothing wrong w not liking liszt. Its similar to how incredibly boring i find bobby schumann is or how unmoved and uninterested i become when it comes to the non mazurka stuff  of fred chopin.

[bzzzzzt]

Composers I don't like:

Schumann
Berlioz
Liszt
Wagner
Chabrier (hate him)

Generally the mid to late 19th century except for Chopin and Brahms.  Don't know why, but after 25 years of listening to classical music widely and often, I doubt my tastes are going to change now.

[rubinsteinmad]

I In fact, both pieces sounded like something I could improvise all day long with one ear tied behind my back, only I would never think to overuse tremolos like that.

How about prove it?

[larrys]

I find it hard to imagine people find him dull when I listen to something like this, especially when reading the score (or trying to!)

[rubinsteinmad]

  In fact, both pieces sounded like something I could improvise all day long with one ear tied behind my back, only I would never think to overuse tremolos like that.

Humble, are you?

[jeu_perle]

It's difficult to judge Liszt. Leslie Howard's incredible journey through his repertoire fills up 99 CDs. Think about that for a moment. Are we sure that we know Liszt? One factor that must be kept in mind is that a lot of his compositional output(and his transcriptions) was intended simply to please concert audiences, who wanted to see more of his widely heralded virtuosity. This is in stark contrast to many other composers we study today, and serves to explain why his output is variable in quality. His Anneés de Pelerinage are some of his most famous "artistic" works, and it really shows. Despite his virtuosic legacy, he is completely capable of writing beautifully with comparatively simple resources:

Some of his Consolations are brilliant too, and the aforementioned B minor sonata is supposed to be a work of genius. And then there's his Mephisto series, Faust symphony, concertos, thirteen symphonic poems, Hungarian rhapsodies .. you get the idea.

I don't intend on forming a complete opinion on Liszt any time soon, and I think that's the right perspective for me. You never know when you'll be utterly surprised by what he did -

or simply left bedazzled.

[pencilart3]

The liszt goes on and on

[adodd81802]

.

[jimroof]

How about prove it?

My comment was not meant to impress anyone with my improvisational abilities as much as it was to convey my lack of appreciation for Liszt's works.  It all strikes me as being obvious and rather shallow.  That means my improvisations are also probably obvious and shallow - a confession of sorts.