Do you think Liszt has gratuitious virtuosity?

[ranjit]

I've heard this very often, and would like to hear your opinions on it. Since I began listening to classical music, Liszt has pretty much been my favorite composer. And it is not just because he's "flashy", but because it sounds so imaginative, almost like he is painting a landscape. (Chopin, on the other hand, sounds like a bard recalling stories; it can be very potent, but is less "immediate". Liszt feels like it is happening in the moment.)

I've found that I'm much more sensitive to interpretation when it comes to Liszt when compared to Chopin, for instance. That is, I like Chopin played by a wider range of interpreters. Liszt seems to require a greater variety of touches, more attention to tone color, rubato, and a kind of "imagination" to pull off in a way that I appreciate. But when done well, it is stunning. I'm not just talking about late Liszt either, I even think his "bravura" pieces like Mephisto Waltz and Grand Galop Chromatique are brilliant.

To illustrate what I mean, Mephisto Waltz is often criticized for having very little musical value. But listen to Cziffra's recording starting from 7:54. It feels like molten lava, and I can't think of any other piece that can produce a similar effect. The arpeggios in the right hand which don't work in lockstep with the melody produce a brilliant effect. (The end of Totentanz also has a similar portion, which is also amazing.) The gradually building intensity works really well. And the crescendo from 8:35 to 8:45 wraps up the whole arc really well. There is almost a minute of playing at a loud dynamic range, and it gets slightly louder at the end, and it works brilliantly. I find that I don't appreciate it that much on a casual listen, but if I'm listening intently, I find so much value there.

This is just my personal experience. I would love to hear what you think about Liszt's music. Is there something I am missing which causes people to criticize Liszt so?

[cuberdrift]

Maybe if one's used to hearing the more "formal" sounds of Beethoven or Brahms they won't be accustomed to hearing the eccentric improvisatory-sounding nature of a lot of Liszt. From what I've read, he was one of the pioneers of an emerging "virtuoso" style of music in Paris in the early 19th century, which Beethoven's circle didn't dig, or something.

But Liszt has many fans, and he's rightfully at the top of the pantheon. I don't really mind those comments for the most part because for every hater there will likely be a fan, so he doesn't really need that much defending imo.

Personally, even if his middle period works are mostly some of my most-loved piano pieces, I'm not that big a fan of many of his early music, particularly the transcriptions. I feel that while he was an excellent transcriber, his real genius lay in his original works. I believe I've heard that these transcriptions were mostly showpieces which he sometimes performed to rake in cash.

Due to hearing his Apparitions (and the first teenage version of the Transcendental etudes; they deserve more attention in my opinion), I'm somewhat convinced that it was not age which turned him from showman to compositional great; he was a good composer all along, it just depended on what he wrote for (bravura arrangements as opposed to his original avant-garde works). He was inspired by Catholic philosophy from what I've read, and in his teenage years after his father's death he met with a monk (or a spiritual of some sort) who composed in a remarkably novel, avant-garde style free of compositional conventions. It's from this man that it is speculated that Liszt gained this aspect of him as a true Romantic and philosophical composer.

Since Liszt is a favourite of yours, might I suggest this documentary of his life, from childhood to his passing. Unfortunately it's in Hungarian and there are no subtitles, but it might be of interest to you (if you've not come across it before).

Some of the characters feel spot-on, at least with how I imagine their real-life personalities to have been; his father Adam as the demanding, obsessive stage-father; and the elderly Liszt's actor is spot-on in my opinion. How he dressed up as a Hungarian nobleman in a concert; his masterclasses; and so on.

[ranjit]

I recently found this essay defending Liszt by Alfred Brendel. It's a great read.

https://www.oocities.org/Vienna/2192/essays4.html

[ahinton]

The short answer to the question is "no"! Liszt's music is by no means all for the piano in any case. The late piano works and the liturgical ones are often quite spare in texture. When he does call for virtuosity aplenty, it is never gratuitous but always in service of the music itslf rather than that of "showmanship"; pianists who play Liszt principally to show off their keyboard prowess are usually successful only in showing up their vacuity. The nearest to "gratuitous virtuosity" anywhere in Liszt's copious output is arguably among the first versions of the Transcendental Studies which he soon came to regard as of sufficient immaturity as to warrant their later revision.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Some of the early versions of the Transcendental Etudes didnt need revising and in my opinion were better than the revisions. No.10 is the one that instantly springs to mind.
In his earlier operatic fantasies, notably works like the Niobe, i think he could be accused of gratuitous virtuosity, but that is not a critism and nor does it lessen the effect of any composition.
Many concerts were ended with "send them home happy" showpieces,

[ahinton]

Some of the early versions of the Transcendental Etudes didnt need revising and in my opinion were better than the revisions. No.10 is the one that instantly springs to mind.

I agree that they didn't all need it but some benefited from it, methinks.

In his earlier operatic fantasies, notably works like the Niobe, i think he could be accused of gratuitous virtuosity, but that is not a critism and nor does it lessen the effect of any composition.

No, indeed it doesn't, which is why they espouse virtuosity that is never gratuitous, i.e. for its own sake; Liszt was far too fine a composer to stoop to that!

Many concerts were ended with "send them home happy" showpieces

Indeed but, even then, Liszt rarely sacrificed musical values just for the sake of achieving that.

(You nearly wrote "happy ending" there, Thal!)...

Best,

Alisztair

[thalbergmad]

If the same musical effect could be had by more simplistic  means, I don't think gratuitous is the wrong expression. Liszt in his 20's wasn't the finished article nor was he too refined. He was a product of 1830's musical scene.
Many composers used "display" in some of their works:
Thalberg- Moses Fantasy
Parish-Alvars- Norma Variations
Kalkbrenner- Effusio Musica
Paganini- Le Stregthe
Dreyschock- Concert Piece Op.22
Henselt- Donizetti Variations
Tausig- Ending to Chopins 1st piano concerto.
The list is endless.
I think you should stick to the Plinkers.

[ahinton]

If the same musical effect could be had by more simplistic  means, I don't think gratuitous is the wrong expression.

Indeed, although I'm unconvinced that examples of this in Liszt are more than exceptions to the rule, so to speak - and all early ones, as you say.

Liszt in his 20's wasn't the finished article nor was he too refined.

The same could be said of most of us!

He was a product of 1830's musical scene.

Yes, although I think that he also influenced that scene significantly.

Many composers used "display" in some of their works:
Thalberg- Moses Fantasy
Parish-Alvars- Norma Variations
Kalkbrenner- Effusio Musica
Paganini- Le Stregthe
Dreyschock- Concert Piece Op.22
Henselt- Donizetti Variations
Tausig- Ending to Chopins 1st piano concerto.
The list is endless.

Of course (althoug no lis[z]t can be endless).

I think you should stick to the Plinkers.

Who/what are they? and why and how should I "stick" to them?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Your expertise lay with the plinkers.

[ahinton]

Your expertise lay with the plinkers.

How can it? (and, even if I possess any such expertise, it shold be "lays" rather than "lay"). In any case, I don't even know who they are! - so perhaps would could explain for the benefit of anyone interested.

By the way, I was a "Lisztian" (if there can be such a thing) from around the time when you were a small child and I still am; Liszt was, without question, one of the most important composers of the 19th century - and by no means only for his vast and significant contribution to piano literature!

Best,

Alisztair

[robustperson]

My opinion is Liszt was working toward expanding the expressive capability of the piano. For this he should be celebrated taste not withstanding. 

It's necessary to rely a fair amount on effects to accomplish this due to the nature of the instrument. How they are played, personal preference, and historical context are key to judging whether or not they are over the top.



 

[visitor]

No
 It is absolutely essential. I have seen that tom and  Jerry and the bugs and Daffy episode a bunch of times , it's critically important

[robustperson]

@visitor   You are a fan of Yakov Gimpel? I have some recs if you want. He has a fine pedigree.

[robustperson]

Here is this pianist in a bit of a vapid a gratuitously virtuoso work by a minor composer.

[thalbergmad]

By the way, I was a "Lisztian" (if there can be such a thing) from around the time when you were a small child and I still am;

Wisdom does not always come with age.

[ahinton]

Wisdom does not always come with age.

No, indeed it doesn't but, since my admiration for Liszt has never wavered with the advancement of years (indeed, the opposite has been the case as I've come to know more of his work), the reason (if any) your reference to this seems unclear.

Best,

Alistair

[mikey6]

Rezpek da Pimp 

Also, yes, given his superstar status, there is an element of showing off when he wants to.

[cranston53]

Perhaps.

The other problem with Liszt is that too much of his music was published. Less is sometimes more.

[piano_pal]

Pianos back in Liszt's time were easier to play than today's modern grands. And Liszt's orchestral approach to the piano did tend to fill the measures with seemingly extra notes. But when you depend exclusively on your playing to pay the bills, maximizing the musical experience for the audience isn't quite the same as gratuitous virtuosity. Liszt's virtuosity and showmanship were always paid for with the price of a ticket. The virtuosity  was pre-calculated, not gratuitous.

[thalbergmad]

Having played a 1846 Erard, I am not sure i concur with your initial statement.

[ahinton]

Having played a 1846 Erard, I am not sure i concur with your initial statement.

Indeed; in fact, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the demands placed upon pianos from the time of Batthoven's late sonatas through Chopin, Liszt and Alkan to Brahms and others later in the 19th century were a significant influential factor upon the design and manufacture changes that the instruments went through during that period.

Best,

Alistair