Was Liszt the Kyle Landry of the 19th century?

[cuberdrift]

Apparently the YouTube user Kyle Landry is known for making many piano arrangements of famous music.

So is it right to call Franz Liszt an older Kyle Landry?

Liszt also made many renditions of famous music during his time.

What are your thoughts on this?

[doug123]

I am sure you will get "push-back" on this. I will.

Making transcriptions of other works did not begin with Liszt.

I think Kyle Landry is a talented person, but I do not see any connection at all.
None, zero, zip.   The fact they both made arrangements of famous pieces is too broad
to have any real meaning. Certainly one would not say "Franz Liszt is an older Kyle Landry"

Nope. 

Perhaps you might find more interesting answers if you reversed your question. 
"Is Kyle Landry aspiring to be like Liszt ?"

Not a knock on him at all, but they are leagues apart.

[adodd81802]

Accurate answer for a first post.

Arrangements it's not enough.

[visitor]

Liszt was an incredible composer and creative mind, he innovated and produced effects and exploited possible sound and limits of the instrument that previously had not been done or heard.

Liszt pushed traditional tonality and harmony into new impressionistic  like territory years before Ravel, Satie, Ibert, and Debussy (ex for Frank's foresight see nuages gris, villa d'este etc).

Crazy good orchestration skills.

Not sure i have heard of or read about some guy name Kyle as a composer of similar caliber and skill level.

Probably, the closest thing i have seen to someon in the spirit of Liszt and with a once in a lifetime talent for playing, composing, arranging/transcribing is
Peng Peng Gong.

[mjames]

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

found kyle landry's PS account.

[klavieronin]

Just watched a few Kyle Landry videos on YouTube… not even close my friend.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Funniest thread in a while. I hope KL's social life is up to Lisztian levels

[cuberdrift]

I'm trying to see the parallelism between Liszt himself and Landry-like figures these days.

Such Landrians include Jarrod Radnich of Pianoguys, for instance.

Face it.

Franz Liszt - composer who made the piano a superstar instrument, turning popular tunes into showy piano pieces.

Then after that, came a multitude of Lisztians up to now, including Landry and Radnich.

To shorten my point,

Can a general trend of composers turning popular tunes into virtuoso piano pieces be drawn from Liszt and Landry figures?

The similarity between the two is uncanny.

If you're a pianist, the easiest way to impress everyone is to simply take music they already know and turn it into a showy piano piece; this principle both Liszt and Landry seem to have exploited.

There has to be a name for this kind of genre of turning famous tunes into piano showpieces. I'd like to classify all composers who do this in this manner.

[visitor]

Funniest thread in a while. I hope KL's social life is up to Lisztian levels

haa hes probably a geuinely coo-l nice guy and talented.
Livin like Liszt....that would be epic
#LisztianGoals
 

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I'm trying to see the parallelism between Liszt himself and Landry-like figures these days.

Such Landrians include Jarrod Radnich of Pianoguys, for instance.

Face it.

Franz Liszt - composer who made the piano a superstar instrument, turning popular tunes into showy piano pieces.

Then after that, came a multitude of Lisztians up to now, including Landry and Radnich.

To shorten my point,

Can a general trend of composers turning popular tunes into virtuoso piano pieces be drawn from Liszt and Landry figures?

The similarity between the two is uncanny.

If you're a pianist, the easiest way to impress everyone is to simply take music they already know and turn it into a showy piano piece; this principle both Liszt and Landry seem to have exploited.

There has to be a name for this kind of genre of turning famous tunes into piano showpieces. I'd like to classify all composers who do this in this manner.

Sorry, but this is ridiculous, and I will try to explain.

Firstly, you're creating a false parallel in making it about Liszt. There are plenty of other 19th century arrangers the comparison might be more appropriately made with. Herz, Dohler, Prudent for example; transcribers who did their work on a less elevated level. Liszt's attention to detail regarding dramatic effect and the sheer ingenuity of his work are on a different level altogether. Landry's arrangements are competent, but certainly not exceptional. By comparing him to Liszt you're putting KL on a false pedestal. And I'm speaking as someone who writes and performs transcriptions..

Secondly, the comparison would be more appropriate had KL also written myriad piano + orchestra works, a groundbreaking sonata, innumerable solo works, religious music, symphonic poems etc etc etc.

[adodd81802]

No offence, comparing Landry to Liszt, is like going into Aldi, buying a 'roar' bar and comparing it to a Nestle Lion bar...

I could take twinkle twinkle from a grade 1 piece and embellish the S%8t out of until it's diploma level, I wouldn't compare myself to Liszt in the process.

[cuberdrift]

The point is not that Kyle Landry is as good as Liszt. The point as that the two have a similar occupation.

Sorry, but this is ridiculous, and I will try to explain.

Firstly, you're creating a false parallel in making it about Liszt. There are plenty of other 19th century arrangers the comparison might be more appropriately made with.

Thank you for your comment, ronde_des_sylphes.

This is true, but I thought that the epitome of this song-to-piano-showpiece genre would be none other than Liszt. So it would be best to compare Landry to no one else.

Liszt's attention to detail regarding dramatic effect and the sheer ingenuity of his work are on a different level altogether. Landry's arrangements are competent, but certainly not exceptional.

This kind of comment is what I was hoping to hear.

You have justified why you think Liszt is way better. Now it is clearer.

Secondly, the comparison would be more appropriate had KL also written myriad piano + orchestra works, a groundbreaking sonata, innumerable solo works, religious music, symphonic poems etc etc etc.

True, but I'm addressing the topic based on Liszt's occupation as a transcriber, not a composer of original works.

[visitor]

Even by op's "logic", the weak analogy would be more appropriate with a comparison of Liszt to someone like Percy Grainger or Leopold Godowsky.

Honestly i think we are being trolled and the premise is too ridiculous to be serious

[cuberdrift]

Honestly i think we are being trolled and the premise is too ridiculous to be serious

You might say this is partly true, but with it comes something rather serious in mind.

That is - is 19th century pop music "higher" than today's pop music?

This is the question I had in mind when I created this thread.

I have a tendency of thinking this:

Old Pop Music (Il Trovatore, etc.) > New Pop Music (Pirates of the Caribbean/Final Fantasy stuff)
Old Composers (Liszt, Thalberg)  > New Composers (Radnich, Landry)

By that argument,

Old Composers arranging Old Pop Music >> New Composers arranging new Pop Music.

However, so far, the argument by most people here seems to be more on Old Composers > New Composers, rather than Old Pop > New Pop.

Okay, I might be generalizing. It's more like Liszt > Landry, but in any case I thought that this reflects the Old Composer > New Composer thing, if only a little bit.

To sum it all up, what I am addressing here is the seeming bias towards old things. If it is older, then it is simply better (not that I completely disagree with this, of course).

[mjames]

Well it's not our fault that the peak era of piano music was in the 19th century.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

You might say this is partly true, but with it comes something rather serious in mind.

That is - is 19th century pop music "higher" than today's pop music?

This is the question I had in mind when I created this thread.

I have a tendency of thinking this:

Old Pop Music (Il Trovatore, etc.) > New Pop Music (Pirates of the Caribbean/Final Fantasy stuff)
Old Composers (Liszt, Thalberg)  > New Composers (Radnich, Landry)

By that argument,

Old Composers arranging Old Pop Music >> New Composers arranging new Pop Music.

....

Okay, I might be generalizing. It's more like Liszt > Landry, but in any case I thought that this reflects the Old Composer > New Composer thing, if only a little bit.

To sum it all up, what I am addressing here is the seeming bias towards old things. If it is older, then it is simply better (not that I completely disagree with this, of course).

There's an inherent fallacy in this. "Modern pop" hasn't been submitted to historical scrutiny, by its very nature. "Old pop", if you want to call it that, has, and by the nature of historical pruning we generally only hear what has been deemed good. So one would expect the "old pop" that has survived to be on average better. There's plenty 19th century stuff that isn't very distinguished, just the odds are you won't hear it. Go and find some Sydney Smith paraphrases (for example) and you should see what I'm getting at (bless those souls that have put the effort into recording them). Functional, but little more.

[cuberdrift]

There's an inherent fallacy in this. "Modern pop" hasn't been submitted to historical scrutiny, by its very nature. "Old pop", if you want to call it that, has, and by the nature of historical pruning we generally only hear what has been deemed good. So one would expect the "old pop" that has survived to be on average better. There's plenty 19th century stuff that isn't very distinguished, just the odds are you won't hear it. Go and find some Sydney Smith paraphrases (for example) and you should see what I'm getting at (bless those souls that have put the effort into recording them). Functional, but little more.

I saw this one coming up.

Okay, so only the good ones last.

So the ones we still remember today are, of course, good.

A convincing argument.

In any case, no one seems to have refuted yet the fact that Liszt could be considered a predecessor to Landry; much better, but still, he seemed to have the same intent in mind.

"Look at me playing your favorite pop tune only in INSANE PIANO MODE" could be the longer title for the kind of genre these two dabble in.

Face it.

[nw746]

I think of Liszt as more the Helmut Lachenmann or Salvatore Sciarrino of the 19th century—someone whose interest was primarily in exploring timbre and colour, and new ways to use instruments.

Also, his arrangements of pre-existing music were not really based on the contemporary equivalent of pop music, which I guess would have been Johann Strauss II, but on the works of the contemporary avant-garde (Wagner, Berlioz) and composers who were primarily respected and enjoyed among a social elite (Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann etc)—specifically the rising middle class which was developing out of the industrial revolution. His emphasis was always on fidelity to the text; he was noted for very sober no-nonsense performances of Bach and playing Beethoven's Op. 106 sonata at the indicated metronome markings, and he saw his transcriptions as a way for him on his own to bring e.g. Berlioz's Fantastic Symphony or Schubert songs to a wider audience and make them more accessible, or to experiment with the sonic possibilities of the new pianos.

There definitely were composers who took popular music and made cool piano arrangements of it as a primary source of recognition, and Liszt himself did it as well sometimes (e.g. paraphrases on popular Swiss songs in Album d'un voyageur) but it was a pretty minor part of his musical output. In large part, he saw his role in arranging music as promotion of the musical canon to the new middle-class audience.

The most comparable present-day figure I can think of in that respect would be Fazıl Say or maybe Wendy Carlos (if she's still alive)

[ronde_des_sylphes]

In any case, no one seems to have refuted yet the fact that Liszt could be considered a predecessor to Landry; much better, but still, he seemed to have the same intent in mind.

"Look at me playing your favorite pop tune only in INSANE PIANO MODE" could be the longer title for the kind of genre these two dabble in.

a. "predecessor" really has completely the wrong connotations. If you said Landry was acting as an imitator of Liszt  (within this specific genre) I would be more inclined to accept it. "imitators" are very rarely as good as the original.
 
b. Landry's stuff is pretty generic and I don't think it qualifies as "insane piano mode". It's absolutely nowhere near Cziffra paraphrases, to give one pertinent example.

[doug123]

"That is - is 19th century pop music "higher" than today's pop music?

This is the question I had in mind when I created this thread."

Then why didn't you ask that question ? Why did you even pick Liszt ?
There are many great transcriptions before him from wonderful composers.

I fear there is a troll aspect to this indeed, so I won't through all the reasons why.
It's also an unfair question for Mr. Landry. It only invites bashing him, and I have never heard him
compare himself to Liszt. I think he would even be uneasy with the notion.

Almost all composers, and performers where expected to know how to do this. That is also why you also see a lot of theme and variations.

Regarding pop music now vs then. Well I was not a live back then, but clearly people like "Piano guys" etc. and do sell really well and get lots of views, so it is not that looked down on.

Also you seem be not know, or forget about Jazz pianist who frequently will use a Beatles song, Sting,  or something well known as the basis of their improv.

Lastly a lot of performers make their own transcriptions. As in this example.

There is simply to large of a sample pool to make any direct connection. Yes, both played piano, and made transcriptions. Not much else to make out of this

[ronde_des_sylphes]

...
It's also an unfair question for Mr. Landry. It only invites bashing him, and I have never heard him
compare himself to Liszt. I think he would even be uneasy with the notion.

I'm glad you posted this. It's a very fair point, and the comparison  is both invidious and uninvited..

[goldentone]

the weak analogy would be more appropriate with a comparison of Liszt to someone like Percy Grainger

Grainger is so bad I would almost prefer Kapustin, Visitor, if you hear my analogy.

[visitor]

Grainger is so bad I would almost prefer Kapustin, Visitor, if you hear my analogy.

good one. The comparo to percy was more in scope and output in terms if transcriptions and paraphases and composing and arranging for ensemble, percy though a lot for wind band

[cuberdrift]

Thank you once more for all your responses.

I think of Liszt as more the Helmut Lachenmann or Salvatore Sciarrino of the 19th century—someone whose interest was primarily in exploring timbre and colour, and new ways to use instruments.

Interesting.

Also, his arrangements of pre-existing music were not really based on the contemporary equivalent of pop music...

How about his Opera Paraphrases? Of what I know, opera was the height of entertainment at that time. I would consider opera to be pop music of his time.

but on the works of the contemporary avant-garde (Wagner, Berlioz)

This is where Liszt is more an Art than a Pop composer. But I'm talking about his Piano Showoff side, not his Deep Art side.

...and composers who were primarily respected and enjoyed among a social elite (Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann etc)—specifically the rising middle class which was developing out of the industrial revolution.

Are you saying that Beethoven et al. was more "elite" than Strauss? Interesting.

Anyways I would think that "music" during Liszt's time would generally be more "elitist" than today anyway. During that time, not everybody could afford to listen to music (discounting gypsy/folk music) and therefore it was the highups who could afford to produce this kind of music at all. But of course I'm veering off-topic here now.

His emphasis was always on fidelity to the text; he was noted for very sober no-nonsense performances of Bach and playing Beethoven's Op. 106 sonata at the indicated metronome markings...

Compositional elitism I would guess shone brilliantly mainly in the 19th century when musicians became perfectionists. Beethoven evoked terror among lesser artists by demanding that his art works were above and beyond the comprehension of mere mortals, therefore the only thing that the latter could do was to simply obey the divine code he wrote in his parchments.

From a negative viewpoint one may call it elitism; from a positive one, respect, honor, or reverence; Harry Potter book fans may bash Gambon's Dumbledore in the movies and wish that Harris had lived to play the role to the last movie, and this act would be in the name of "respect" from their viewpoint. Yet perhaps to those not well-versed in the books it would come across as elitism. Such fans may be labelled "purists", etc. But I am veering a bit off-topic again here, though I think this is a very interesting concept to sort out.

Liszt, who idolized Beethoven, of course would do such a thing. But again I'm talking about his Piano Showoff side.

...and he saw his transcriptions as a way for him on his own to bring e.g. Berlioz's Fantastic Symphony or Schubert songs to a wider audience and make them more accessible...

Now THIS is what I've been talking about.

But in Landry's case,

Landry is making the PIANO more accessible through the MUSIC.

Liszt made the MUSIC more accessible through the PIANO.

See the resemblance now?

In large part, he saw his role in arranging music as promotion of the musical canon to the new middle-class audience.

Thank you for your input, nw746. Things are getting clearer to me now.

Liszt promoted the music.
Landry promotes the piano.

Everyone could appreciate Weird Music because of Liszt's piano.
Everyone could appreciate the Weird Piano because of Landry's music.

Maybe the 19th century middle class saw Berlioz as too arcane.
Just as today's average folk see the piano as belonging to the boring, uninteresting, nonrelevant field of "classical" music.

And, it seems, both composers fight these notions using their talent. Interesting.

The most comparable present-day figure I can think of in that respect would be Fazıl Say or maybe Wendy Carlos (if she's still alive)

I don't know of Carlos, though Say is a lot more obscure than Radnich, or Landry, despite being a topnotch classical performer and already one of the more famous classical concert pianists.

Now to the next commenter...

a. "predecessor" really has completely the wrong connotations. If you said Landry was acting as an imitator of Liszt  (within this specific genre) I would be more inclined to accept it. "imitators" are very rarely as good as the original.

There is no need to continue pedestalizing Liszt.

Of COURSE he can be a predecessor so long as you accept that Liszt, too, was a "Turn Pop Song to Insane Piano Piece" guy.

Maybe they aren't at par with each other but Liszt certainly WAS like an older (and, okay, fine, I get it, greater) variant of Landry.
 

b. Landry's stuff is pretty generic and I don't think it qualifies as "insane piano mode". It's absolutely nowhere near Cziffra paraphrases, to give one pertinent example.

Alright, fine.

But I'd be surprised if you disagreed with Jarrod Radnich's blasted "Pirates of the Caribbean" showpiece as a Liszt-Showoffism offshoot.

"That is - is 19th century pop music "higher" than today's pop music?

This is the question I had in mind when I created this thread."

Then why didn't you ask that question ? Why did you even pick Liszt ?
There are many great transcriptions before him from wonderful composers.

I picked Liszt because I see him as the epitome of Pop-Song-to-Showoff-Piano-Piece genre.

And I had thought that Landry was also a Pop-Song-to-Showoff-Piano-Piece guy.

So I realized that Liszt was like Landry.

And THEN did I realize that people might not LIKE this comparison because Old Pop Music just has to be BETTER than today's trash.

And THIS is why I am now veering the topic to the question of why the Past is better than the Present.

Okay, I'm being generalizing again, but that's somehow the gist of it, I think.

(Btw I like how you quoted my statement by putting quotation marks and italicizing it instead of using the quote function. It makes my statement somehow sound more important by quoting it in an unconventional way. Maybe it's because you're a new member (you didn't use the [ quote ] function yet?) but in any case, I'm flattered. Now my statement feels like a newspaper headline. This is the power of style.)

I fear there is a troll aspect to this indeed, so I won't through all the reasons why.
It's also an unfair question for Mr. Landry. It only invites bashing him, and I have never heard him
compare himself to Liszt. I think he would even be uneasy with the notion.

I sincerely APOLOGISE for this unfortunate side-effect of this interesting discussion.

But I am NOT bashing anyone here. In fact it is the other users who keep trying to stress that Liszt is just simply BETTER. All I'm saying is that Liszt was like Landry. Any opinionated comments that may result from this statement I hope would be treated only in an intellectual light, and not in anyway that might cause harm, disrespect, or belittlement of any composer's music.

Almost all composers, and performers where expected to know how to do this. That is also why you also see a lot of theme and variations.

They may have done this and I am not saying that Liszt was the only one. But I think that he was THE one, i.e., the most well-known and iconic one for doing it.

There is simply to large of a sample pool to make any direct connection. Yes, both played piano, and made transcriptions. Not much else to make out of this

True.

But I thought that Landry today was THE Pop-Tune-to-Showoff-Piano guy and Liszt was ALSO a Pop-Tune-to-Showoff-Piano guy so Liszt was in fact LIKE Landry. And THEN I realize that some might say "Oh no 19th century music was more profound etc." and THAT is why it goes back to the question, Why-Is-The-Past-Better-Than-The-Present.

I myself do not blindly believe that the Past is better. I am just finding thrill and interest in examining this phenomenon.

_________________________________________________________________________________

P.S. Coincidentally (or not) enough, this thread is just above the thread "Epic Piano Arrangements." and discusses TODAY's music transcribed into Showoff Piano.

Why, isn't Liszt's "Miserere" from Il Trovatore an Epic. Arrangement.?   Grrr.

Just BECAUSE it's old and outdated it's no longer "Epic". Grr.  

(Ooooops no offense to perfect_pitch, of course!)

[visitor]

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Thank you once more for all your responses.

Interesting.

How about his Opera Paraphrases? Of what I know, opera was the height of entertainment at that time. I would consider opera to be pop music of his time.

This is where Liszt is more an Art than a Pop composer. But I'm talking about his Piano Showoff side, not his Deep Art side.

I can agree with this, reasonable enough, and he wrote rather a lot of them.. mid sixties, I think, though the Wagner ones tend to be serious in their remit.

Landry is making the PIANO more accessible through the MUSIC.

Liszt made the MUSIC more accessible through the PIANO.

See the resemblance now?

...

Liszt promoted the music.
Landry promotes the piano.

I don't think this is a great argument to promote your comparison. Liszt also promoted the piano, incidentally. Mssrs Pleyel and Erard would agree! You could substitute Little Richard for Landry, btw, and the argument wouldn't be any better or worse..

There is no need to continue pedestalizing Liszt.

Of COURSE he can be a predecessor so long as you accept that Liszt, too, was a "Turn Pop Song to Insane Piano Piece" guy.

Maybe they aren't at par with each other but Liszt certainly WAS like an older (and, okay, fine, I get it, greater) variant of Landry.

No, we should acknowledge context and he is the king here. There are pretenders to the crown: after all there are some cracking paraphrases by Thalberg, Pabst, Tausig and some others. You can't call Landry his successor: it is ridiculous. It implies a level of parity between them: moving from one king to the next. Does everyone who writes Lisztian paraphrases deserve such an accolade, because if so...

But I'd be surprised if you disagreed with Jarrod Radnich's blasted "Pirates of the Caribbean" showpiece as a Liszt-Showoffism offshoot.

Actually I don't mind it at all, though I prefer Wibi Soerjadi's almost entirely left hand only version.

I picked Liszt because I see him as the epitome of Pop-Song-to-Showoff-Piano-Piece genre.

And I had thought that Landry was also a Pop-Song-to-Showoff-Piano-Piece guy.

So I realized that Liszt was like Landry.

Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel. Some guy painted my kitchen. Are they alike? (Rhetorical question, and I'm aware this analogy is unfair.)

//

But I am NOT bashing anyone here. In fact it is the other users who keep trying to stress that Liszt is just simply BETTER. All I'm saying is that Liszt was like Landry. Any opinionated comments that may result from this statement I hope would be treated only in an intellectual light, and not in anyway that might cause harm, disrespect, or belittlement of any composer's music.

They may have done this and I am not saying that Liszt was the only one. But I think that he was THE one, i.e., the most well-known and iconic one for doing it.

True.

But I thought that Landry today was THE Pop-Tune-to-Showoff-Piano guy and Liszt was ALSO a Pop-Tune-to-Showoff-Piano guy so Liszt was in fact LIKE Landry.

See above ^^ :p

.
Why, isn't Liszt's "Miserere" from Il Trovatore an Epic. Arrangement.?   Grrr.

Just BECAUSE it's old and outdated it's no longer "Epic". Grr.  

(Ooooops no offense to perfect_pitch, of course!)

 

It's still epic. Is mine? Haha, just kidding. It's VERY Lisztian. *finds link*...

[cuberdrift]

Let me summarize the point of this entire thread:


Landry is a Pop Piano Showman. Wait, wasn't Liszt also THE Pop Piano Showman? That means he's just like Landry. But aaah you can't POSSIBLY suggest this - music in the past was way better! Liszt HAS to be better! But...WHY? Why do Old Things necessarily have to be better? Has Music Declined? If so, why?

I don't think this is a great argument to promote your comparison. Liszt also promoted the piano, incidentally. Mssrs Pleyel and Erard would agree! You could substitute Little Richard for Landry, btw, and the argument wouldn't be any better or worse..

Bah all right.

No, we should acknowledge context and he is the king here. There are pretenders to the crown: after all there are some cracking paraphrases by Thalberg, Pabst, Tausig and some others. You can't call Landry his successor: it is ridiculous. It implies a level of parity between them: moving from one king to the next. Does everyone who writes Lisztian paraphrases deserve such an accolade, because if so...

Hold on.

Of course Liszt is King. That's why I picked him. Old King of Pop Piano Showoffs.

But then I had thought that Landry was also King...of NEW Pop Piano Showoffs.

That's why I picked both to make my analogy.

I used both Kings to represent the genre of Pop Piano Showoff.

Then I wanted to hear from the forum members; Which is better, Old Pop Piano or New Pop Piano?

Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel. Some guy painted my kitchen. Are they alike? (Rhetorical question, and I'm aware this analogy is unfair.)

The problem arises here.

So you think Landry to be generic? I hadn't thought so. I thought he was the best among all of these kinds of piano-arranger showmen, for today's day.

That's why I compared him to Liszt.

But of course that doesn't mean Liszt isn't better.

Because, of course, Old Things are always way better, it seems.

It's still epic. Is mine? Haha, just kidding. It's VERY Lisztian. *finds link*...

I'll see to this one.

[doug123]

Sigh.....  I won't reply after this post to the thread. 

It's great you like Mr. Landry and Liszt. Yes, they both play piano and made arrangements
and as I have mentioned it is not a meaningfull connection.

I think we all get what you are saying, but you seem confused on the feedback.
No matter what anyone writes you continue with a "straw man" argument about how if music is old it is better.  I think you could start a new thread to ask this question as this will be marred by the Liszt/ Landry connection.

Here is the problem:  You have selected one very small contribution Liszt made, while excluding everything else to make a pretend connection to Landry.

Not a single thought enters my mind about wether music of today or 1900's is better.
I simply don't think like that. Also I am a composer, so if anything I lean towards today's music.

Here is a small list to show what does through my mind
_______________________________________________________________________
Made transcriptions of other works for piano

Liszt: Yes
Landry: Yes

These transcriptions were considered the height of virtuoso playing in each of their own time

Liszt: Yes
Landry: No

Considered the best performer of their time on their instrument

Liszt: Yes
Landry: No

As composer and performer pioneered new techniques and concepts

Liszt: Yes
Landry: No



Their original compositions are played by concert pianist across the globe

Liszt: Yes
Landry: No

Great conductor and orchestrator
Liszt: Yes
Landry: No (not that I am aware of)

Great teacher of music

Liszt: Yes - Grieg was one of his students
Landry:No (not that I am aware of -  I am sure he is very nice person and his students would enjoy working with him, but we don't know yet about their work)

Others will study their work and legacy in 50 years

Liszt: Yes
Landry: We don't know- hopefully he will enjoy good health and a good career.

_______________________________________________________________________

Please note that at no point did I suggest older music is better.  Other than Mr. Landry being really popular on Youtube, don't see the reason for the connection.

There are literally thousands of people making transcriptions for piano. Wouldn't Liberace actually be a better comparison ? (he could play like crazy !)

or Hiromi Uehara  who gets millions of views on Youtube.

or one of many "buskers" who are very talented

There are so many people who make very good piano arrangements and transcriptions that it seems random that you picked Mr. Landry.   Your own post seemed to mentioned Jarrod Radnich
who I would say gets even a wider audience and writes even more technically demanding transcriptions

[mjames]

Lol forget his vacuous "technically demanding" transcriptions, his style is so utterly generic to pop music it's hilarious. I'm listening to John Field atm and I'm pretty sure his music is at least a century ahead of Landry's in terms of harmonic content lol!

[visitor]

I agree w doug123

It is interesting that op focused on Landry, like doug and ronde pointed out, the analogy though weak at best and way flawed, it would stand to reason that a comparison might be better made for assessment with oh i dont know, any number of modern compiser pianists. Stephen Hough comes to mind, for more pop typeish maybe duke of pianeet ->Morishita has  incredible playing skills, his Alkan Recordings are great and he has made a name for himelf in recording a number of concert transcriptions albums CDs of mod pop type works, his arrangements seem to employ more creative use of pianistic embellishment devices as well
 Lot of examples on yt
This is his most recent arrangement just hit yesterday, the arranging and playing are orders of magnitude apart. Landry is a fine player with solid improv   chops , but this transcruption feels more polished and at a higher tier

Fyi sample of Alkan, two cds so far...
[ Invalid YouTube link ]

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Good stuff visitor. And whilst he's no longer with us, Earl Wild (where the Liszt comparison might have genuine legitimacy) was light-years ahead of Landry.

[visitor]

Good stuff visitor. And whilst he's no longer with us, Earl Wild (where the Liszt comparison might have genuine legitimacy) was light-years ahead of Landry.

yep. Thanks, and  If ever there was a case for pianist reincarnation , Wild would be it.
*Pleads with the Fates, give Wild back to us, we were not ready to lose him...