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!)
Topic: Was Liszt the Kyle Landry of the 19th century?