Why do you think Alkan will never be in the same league of Chopin and Liszt.

[presto agitato]

Im talking about the music he composed.

Chopin admired his tecnique however Alkan was a very bizarre person and a slave of his religious beliefs. I accept i only like a few works by Alkan (Sonata Four Ages, Concerto da camera in A minor and Le festin d'Esope) but it piss me off when some of you say that Alkan is as great as Chopin or Liszt.

Robert Schumann wrote the following about Alkan´s Etudes:

"A fast look to this volume reveals the taste of this French (Alkan), similar to the one of Eugène Sue and George Sand. It horrifies me the consideration of his compositions towards the art and the nature.

Liszt, at least, plays and improvises with certain spirit.  Berlioz, shows a little human heart here and there and it extends in force and daring. But i see here weakness, vulgarity  and a remarcable lack of imagination.

 The Etudes have names such as  "Aime moi", "Le Vent" and "Morte". Throughout fifty pages they are only distinguished in the fact that they contain notes without indication of how they must be played. Although i see few dynamics, i know how to play that type of music but the inner emptiness is compensated with outer emptiness.

In "Aime moi" we have an aqueous melody with a central section that is not related to the title. "Le Vent" presents a chromatic howl over an idea of Beethoven´s 7th symphony. In the last piece ("Morte") there is a horrible desert without nothing else that wood and stakes. We would feel inclined to protect the talent untamed, if this one existed or if there were something of music."   

Is a fact, he wrote hard music but perhaps that is the main reson what most of his compositions dont sound too good IMO.

Chopin and Liszt also wrote verey difficult music but the feeling and beauty of their works prevail over technique and speed.

Whats you opinion?

[thierry13]

Alkan is great. Alkan did great MUSIC. Hard, but really great. Listen to Marc-André Hamelin. It's full of life and power. I love it.

[steinwayguy]

Chopin and Liszt are much better than Alkan. His (Alkan's) music just doesn't sound good.

[brewtality]

 

[chromatickler]

 

seriously

[lostinidlewonder]

Chopin and Liszt are much better than Alkan. His (Alkan's) music just doesn't sound good.

You can make it though.

[pseudopianist]

I myself have not heard enough of Alkan to make a judgement but what I've so far was nothing that really got to me.

[Muzakian]

The only Alkan CD I have is Marc-Andre Hamelin's recording of the Symphony for Solo Piano, however it is easily one of my favourite discs. The opening movement of the Symphony alone is probably the single most impressive piano piece I know of; the sheer pathos is overwhelming. The Salut, Cendre de Pauvre is beautifully delicate and melodic. The Alleluia mightn't be the most complex or subtle work ever penned, nor was it intended to be - listening to this piece fills me with an indescribable gratitude for life itself. And anyone who criticises its "superficiality" should  first ponder the similarities it shares with Chopin's Op. 10 No. 11 Etude - you wouldn't want to criticise Chopin also, would you? I think there must be a hidden programme to the Op. 15. The successive Dies Irae, Aime-Moi and Le Vent themes culminating in two final deathly cold chordal stabs at the end of Morte - these must have had some importance to Alkan, surely. Can anyone fill me in on this one?
Regardless, at this stage Alkan is in NO way inferior to Liszt for me - although Chopin will forever be the greatest piano composer to my ears. The world could never have too many piano composers.  So don't write Alkan off if you haven't listened to him - you don't know what you're missing out on. Hmm, but I really need more Alkan recordings - I can never find any stocked 

[JP]

I think he's as amazing as the 2 you mentioned..   Take a listen to is op39.. Give yourself some time to warm-up to it, you will most probably end up loving it.. 

Liszt is different from Chopin, isnt he?  In a similar way, Alkan is also different. 
For various reasons he wasnt the popular choice of that time, but does that make him less good? 

Also his pieces are excellent for working your technique.. I have only done a couple of his works, but I can clearly tell they are technically demanding.  From a pianistic point of view, that itself is great.

[presto agitato]

  So don't write Alkan off if you haven't listened to him -

I have several recordings of his compositions.

[Jake]

Chopin and Liszt are much better than Alkan. His (Alkan's) music just doesn't sound good.

How can you back up an claim (that is meant to sound objective) with an opinion?

I have several recordings of his compositions.

You are taking what one composer said about another composer as a reason to not like a piece of music. If you did this for everything, you'd end probably up disliking all the greatest pieces in the repertoire.

Alkan's op 15 are some of his best compositions. I find it quite odd that you rate a Concerto de Camera as one of your favorite works of Alkan.

I myself have not heard enough of Alkan to make a judgement but what I've so far was nothing that really got to me.

You are a proud fan of Idil Biret! 

[Muzakian]

You are taking what one composer said about another composer as a reason to not like a piece of music. If you did this for everything, you'd end probably up disliking all the greatest pieces in the repertoire.

Precisely. Liszt in fact praised those same works Schumann tore apart.
"Monsieur Alkan's capriccios, which I have read and re-read many times since the day when they first gave me such a sweet sense of joy, are as distinguished as any composition could be, and, all bias of friendship aside, are the sort of music which should awaken great interest amongst musicians" - Franz Liszt on Alkan.
Schumann didn't like Liszt much either as I'm sure you know. Chopin had many unsavoury things to say about the music of Schumann, but he admired Alkan, as did Debussy some time later. I don't think any great composer has avoided the critique of other composers; Alkan is no exception.
It seems to me that many classical music lovers are intent on generating "Top 40" lists of composers and works. It is a frivolous task to begin with, for no two great composers ever attempted to write the same music. Scriabin never attempted to rewrite the moonlight sonata - his own sonatas could hardly differ more - so why try to compare? Alkan's oeuvre differs categorically from Chopin's and from Liszt's, as JP said, so comparison is almost impossible.

[bravuraoctaves]

 I try to like most music I hear.

[presto agitato]

More opinions? 

[Kassaa]

Well, the first movement of the symphonie pour piano solo is one of the most beautiful pieces ever written. But in other pieces Alkan just doesn't feel 'right' like Liszt and Chopin do.

[thalbergmad]

He did compose some great music, but he was capable of mediocrity. The greatness is harder to find than with Chopin or Liszt.

[happyface94]

His Festin D'Ésope (one of the studies) is quite interesting, but most people don't like it, as its notes, its hard to portray emotions in it, but Hamelin does a nice job, or Roma does too.

His Concerto has nice moments too, but I don't think he'll never be in the same league as Chopin who totally wrote music from his emotions, and his popularity and competitivity lead him to create the most beautiful pieces ever.

As a side note, Alkan removed himself from the public for a very long time before presenting his pieces, it is a bit hard to mature your music if you don't know the public's appreciation.

[Regulus Medtner]

"Why do you think Alkan will never be in the same league of Chopin and Liszt?"

 Are you assuming that this is a universal assessment and therefore asking all of us for its reasons? I, for one, think of Alkan as a major composer.

Schumann, the critic, has quite a few things to feel uncomfortable about. This is one of them.

Public perception of greatness is misleading. Think of Mahler symphonies or Schubert sonatas and what people in the past thought about them. Alkan may well be considered the new genius of tomorrow. And not because he got better with time!

PS. The fact of the difficulty of Alkan's music is not self-indulgent or a goal per se. Alkan was a formidable pianist and wrote music for himself to perform, for personal satisfaction. (So was and did Liszt. The means of their abilities informed their musical expression). His music indeed sounds bad and incoherent when played incorrectly and out of tempo but, that's true of all music. The performer's incompetence is not a valid reason to blame the music. The majority of Alkan's works are of impressively consistent high quality. Apart from the solo piano works, I urge anyone to investigate the chamber music, as well.

[hodi]

i know a lot of classical composers but i have NEVER HEARD OF Alkan until i entered this forum... he is so unknown!! can u tell me more about him and great compositions of him?

[happyface94]

He is a composer of the time of Chopin. His compositions aren't that bad, they're a bit hard to "find", I believe they're acquired taste. I'm sure you'll like the Festin D'Ésope, study that Hamelin is known for playing with ease even if its incredibly hard.

[stevie]

i dont think his music is an aquired taste at all, at least for me, the moment i first heard festin i was hooked and from then on he has been my favourite piano composer.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I think there are two main reasons why Alkan does not currently approach the popularity of Liszt or Chopin.

Firstly, not very many people are willing to take the risk of playing his music. I suspect this is due to the technical difficulty.

Secondly, unlike "normal" Romantic era music, the primary element in Alkan is often RHYTHM, not melody, and perhaps, within the context of Romantic era music, this renders it less "accessible".

Perhaps perceptions will change with time; they sometimes do. In the UK at least, the general public perception of Liszt's music 50 years ago was, I believe, strongly tinged with the view that his music was that of a flashy charlatan.

[prometheus]

Because Alkan isn't famous. He isn't in the history book because he was a recluse.


Mayhe is music isn't the level of that of Liszt or Chopin, though one shouldn't take any  Schumann criticism that seriously, it would really not have mattered as long as Alkan is a respected figure. I mean, if you are going to listen to a Beethoven piece in the concert hall, paying 50 euros/dollars to see the performace and being just a simple rich 55 year old. Would you even consider that Beethoven's music might be not that good? No. People really don't care about how good the music is.

[da jake]

I wrote my IB extended essay on Alkan, so I know a fair bit about his contributions to romantic music.

There is no question that Alkan wrote a fair deal of crap - but so did everyone else. Alkan also wrote some totally unique masterpieces that would cement his status as one of the most important composers of the 19th century.

Morte of the Opus 15 ‘Morceaux’ anticipates the structural groundwork of romantic pianism. The Trois Grandes Etudes were the first notable examples of etudes for the hands separated and reunited.  The bass dissonances in Alkan’s violin duo were previously unheard of, and it is my opinion that this work as a whole is one of the very finest Violin Sonatas composed.  The Quasi-Faust movement of Alkan’s Grande Sonata was a landmark in the repertoire, and foreshadowed Liszt’s B minor Sonata. Alkan’s Symphony and Concerto from opus  39 demonstrate the composer’s ability to simulate orchestral textures on the piano and showcase his incredible sense of structure and his skill at large scale compositional form. The Festin D’Esope is probably the very finest theme and variations of the 19th century.  Some of his miniatures (i.e, Soupirs) look ahead to Debussy, while others anticipate Mussorgsky (Heraclite et Democrite), and Prokofiev (Musique Militaire)...and there is nobody else in the history of music who could have conceived such an incredible gothic effect in La Folle au Bord de la Mer, or Le Tambour Bat Aux Champs. He also wrote a "Funeral March for the Death of a Parrot" whose bizarre humour would have made Monty Python proud. 

Bach was not performed for almost a century after the composer’s death until Mendelssohn conducted St Matthew’s Passion in Berlin to great success.  The late sonatas of Schubert were virtually unknown until Schnabel championed them in the 1920’s. In both cases, great music was overshadowed by the fads of the time.

Alkan has been largely overshadowed due to the man's reclusive habits during his life, the music’s technical demands, and the difficulty that listeners have adjusting to Alkan’s unique and often puzzling aesthetics.  Still, a new generation of composers, pianists, and music fans are becoming exposed to Alkan’s best works through the recordings of such pianists as Marc-Andre Hamelin, and by simple word-of-mouth.  History has been cruel to Alkan and his music, but through its sheer quality, and creative genius, it will eventually receive the recognition it deserves.  One day, Busoni’s claim will be commonly accepted and the name “Alkan” will be spoken in the same breaths as the titans of 19th century keyboard literature, Brahms, Chopin, Liszt, and Schumann.

[redbaron]

Alkan is unbelievably dull. It may be music of an incredibly athletic nature but it's also incredibly forgettable. The first time I listened to a cd of his works I almost fell asleep through sheer boredom. Easily one of the most unenjoyable listening experiences I've ever had.

[richterfan1]

Because he isnt , isnt that obvious? I Know he wrote many good and original pieces but, maybe you should name this topic "Why will Alkan never be in the same league of Chopin and Liszt"

[starstruck5]

I just like the fact that Alkan wrote to the best of his ability -some good, some not so good, but he was a dedicated artist and you have to respect that.  Also, I think it is good that a pianist can include an Alkan piece, which is going to be fresh to a lot of the audience -Yes, Chopin and Liszt and I supoose Schumann, wrote great pieces, but they are also played a lot -

I really don't know why he wasn't in the same league -I guess he never wrote anything as great as Un Sospiro -or the F Minor Ballade -also these composers wrote a whole load of famous pieces. Alkan didn't.

[richterfan1]

Im Long in the "piano world" and i have never heard anyone plays Alkan, Nobody even mentioned him never to me, Yet, everyone is playing Schumann and Chopin liszt ofc. Alkan is obviously very underrated, the question is why... Alkan DID some really good works!

[orangesodaking]

presto agitato, thanks for providing us with Schumann's review of Alkan's Op. 15, but you conveniently forgot to include LISZT'S review of the same set, which was a very positive review!

Regarding Alkan... I'm known of being a huge fan of his, but honestly, I think some of Alkan's music isn't very strong. However, he did important things for program music before Liszt did, and some of his composition techniques and melodic motifs were actually used by later composers (of course, he also learned a lot and used a lot from previous composers and contemporaries of him, too).

He spoke more directly in his music than Chopin or Schumann, but that makes his music no less valid.

I should actually stop typing now, because my blabber won't convince you... Only a personal experience with his music will. In the meantime, get on IMSLP and sight-read through his Nocturne in B Major, Op. 22. Contrary to what you will think at first, it is actually vastly different from Chopin's style of writing nocturnes in many ways (although he does make a humorous jab at Chopin right before the B section, who was his dear friend and neighbor).

I hope one day your eyes are opened to the greatness of Alkan's music and seeing why he is the missing link to the Romantic era.

[fftransform]

Schumann's music is more pedestrian and soulless than Alkan's, IMO.  While there are certainly things to criticize about typical Alkan, Schumann's particular criticisms are exceedingly ironic (perhaps he saw a bit of his own weakness in Alkan) considering who they're coming from.

[thalbergmad]

Schumann's music is more pedestrian and soulless than Alkan's, IMO.  

Agreed, but Schumann's music is also more pedestrian and soulless than painting the Forth Railway bridge.

Alkan does have some interest for me, but not a great deal. I once wasted 50 odd minutes listening to the so called "legendary" Hamelin performance of the Concerto for Solo Piano and it only just kept me awake. Forgetting the difficulty and speed much loved by some of us, you either have a reasonably lifeless work or a reasonably lifeless pianist. I have never worked out which is more appropriate.

Thal

[keyboardclass]

Liszt isn't in the same league!  Bach and Mozart are his exclusive companions (as Chopin was well aware himself).

[stoudemirestat]

Liszt isn't in the same league! 

You did not just say that.

Okay, how is Liszt not in the same league as Alkan?

[christovr]

Alkan strike me as a classicist in the sense that Brahms was.  His figuration for instance in the Concerto Op.39 is very Mozartian.  His harmonic language similarly reminds me of that composer.  However, he very rarely display inovation on a par with Brahms or such a distinct imdividual style.
I'm a fan of the Concerto in Klindworth's orchestrated version - very pianistic, effective and awesomely orchestraded and some hum-drum sections cut and other sections suitably extended.  At the core I still recognise what I would call Alkan's genius for dramatic pacing, novel handling of form, flare for melody and - especially - clever use of dissonance in service of an extremely facile piano writing.  However, some of his works certainly suffer from writing which is very ineffectual as far as the piano is concerned - resembling chorale textures (a similar weakness is atributed to Tchaikovsky: think of the second theme of the final movement of the Grande Sonata).  And who wrote broken triad accompaniments a la Clementi (C E G C E G C F A C F A) after Schumann has been around?

[octavius_trillson]

Very few composers wrote an abundance of, by most people's accounts, 'great' music and some composers wrote only a few great/good pieces, it just so happens Alkan belongs to the latter category and Schumann to neither.

If we judge a composer's greatness by the number of great pieces they wrote (and I think we do), Alkan will probably never be regarded as being the equal of Liszt or Chopin, but if we judge by quality rather than quantity we are forced to seriously consider labeling certain unappreciated composers greats.

In my opinion composers like Alkan, Godowsky, Busoni and Medtner especially, have, at their best moments, proven themselves to be at least equal to, if not better than most of the great composers one would normally mention.

[redbaron]

Very few composers wrote an abundance of, by most people's accounts, 'great' music and some composers wrote only a few great/good pieces, it just so happens Alkan belongs to the latter category and Schumann to neither.

I think Alkan and Schumann both belong in that category. I don't think I'll ever 'get' Schumann.

[christovr]

I think (contrary to general opinion) that Schumann was a greater master of variation form than Brahms.  These things are somewhat subjective but I think it can hardly be argued that Alkan left us a single example of his even being able to rise above extreme mediocrity as a composer of variations.  The fact that someone like Franck produced something of the calibre of his Symphonic Variations does not invite comparison with Alkan as to their relative greatness, it only points out that Alkan does not deserve to be compared with mature Liszt or late Chopin or Schumann as he - to my mind at least - did not embody the spirit of romanticism as much as he was a vestage of classical ideals more like Mendelssohn, if you wish.  I'm not talking superficially, I refer to artistic creed.  I like to think that many other pianists like myself will admit to like the likes of supposed lesser composers like Saint-Saens - even have a passion for their music - while experience has taught them that the music of few romantic composers offer enough substance to keep one occupied for a life-time as does Schumann-Chopin-Liszt.  These three alone stand head and shoulders above other greats (think Russians and Spaniards) based on the vastness itself of their output for the piano.

[christovr]

In my opinion composers like Alkan, Godowsky, Busoni and Medtner especially, have, at their best moments, proven themselves to be at least equal to, if not better than most of the great composers one would normally mention.

+1 for Medtner (just don't make the mistake of comparing the best moment of a 'not so great' composer with the worst moment of a 'great' composer.  If best is compared with best it might yield a different picture...

[octavius_trillson]

+1 for Medtner (just don't make the mistake of comparing the best moment of a 'not so great' composer with the worst moment of a 'great' composer.  If best is compared with best it might yield a different picture...

The same can't be said of all the would-be great composers, but in Alkan's case, when comparing his Op.39 etudes with Chopin's etudes, I personally believe Alkan's set to be superior and one can hardly argue that Chopin's etudes are his worst moment, though I, and likely anyone else, would agree they aren't his best. I regard Chopin's minor key ballades to be his best compositional output and to be frank, Alkan, in anything he wrote, does not compare, not even close.

A composer like Medtner on the other hand, displayed a voluminous talent for piano composition and wrote music in such a distinct style, the likes of which had never been seen before, that -to me- he is Chopin's equal. To make such a major departure from that era's compositional staple and still be able to produce an inspired, rich variety of musical serenity, on par with any Chopin ballade, is indubitably greatness of the highest order.

I think (contrary to general opinion) that Schumann was a greater master of variation form than Brahms.  These things are somewhat subjective but I think it can hardly be argued that Alkan left us a single example of his even being able to rise above extreme mediocrity as a composer of variations.

If we restrict ourselves to piano composition, as the composers we are discussing were very much pianists also, what would you say is a better set of variations than Alkan's Le Festin d'Esope or Godowsky's Passacaglia on Schubert's Unifinished Symphony, and are they really not of the same standard as say, Schumann's Symphonic Etudes or Brahms Paganini Variations to you?

[iratior]

When it comes to criticizing Alkan, my advice to Schumann would have been that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.  Alkan did for Aesop's Fables musically what LaFontaine did for them literarily;  LaFontaine has stood the test of time and so will Alkan.  Considering that the subject shares its timeless excellence with that of the Greek tragedies, the Greek philosophies. the Roman architecture, the Latin language, the Roman Pagan religion and other treasures from ancient times, I think that's a pretty solid credential for Alkan.

[nearenough]

Alkan is trite and forced. He had few interesting ideas and seems take the most mechanical and banal sequences of notes and hammer away at them hoping they will turn into music. Often these are transmogrified into pounding octaves with added scales here and there and crashing chords artificially adding to the "difficulty" I believe for difficulty's sake. He is uninspiring and predictable in a childish way. Alkan is to music what doggerel is to poetry.

Yes, there are a few good things which I greatly enjoy (the Hamelin performance of whatever it is). But the other night I was trying to listen to the Esquisses (?sp) and they just ramble on like weak soup with nothing whatever catchy or memorable. Try the Allegro Barbaro on You Tube for an interminable aimless machine gunning set of octaves.

He wrote a lot of stuff and from the sheer volume one would expect some interesting pieces just by accident. That's the best I can say about him right now.

[ahinton]

Alkan is trite and forced. He had few interesting ideas and seems take the most mechanical and banal sequences of notes and hammer away at them hoping they will turn into music. Often these are transmogrified into pounding octaves with added scales here and there and crashing chords artificially adding to the "difficulty" I believe for difficulty's sake. He is uninspiring and predictable in a childish way. Alkan is to music what doggerel is to poetry.

Yes, there are a few good things which I greatly enjoy (the Hamelin performance of whatever it is). But the other night I was trying to listen to the Esquisses (?sp) and they just ramble on like weak soup with nothing whatever catchy or memorable. Try the Allegro Barbaro on You Tube for an interminable aimless machine gunning set of octaves.

He wrote a lot of stuff and from the sheer volume one would expect some interesting pieces just by accident. That's the best I can say about him right now.

Then I'm sorry for you.

The best and most consistent sense in this entire thread has been written by da jake. Comparisons are often odious and those presented here by some contributors are at least as odious as any that I can immediately call to mind. Schumann's contribution to the upper echelons of piano virtuosity (in the best and most meaningful sense of that term) may not quite be of the order of those of Chopin, Liszt and Alkan, or indeed of those of Busoni, Godowsky, Rakhmaninov and Medtner in later generations, but he is still a force with which to be reckoned. Too much effort in setting any one of these composers against any other is bound at best to be counter-productive and unenlightening and at worst to be potentially destructive. On the other hand, in the cases of Schumann, Chopin, Alkan and Liszt, one of the most fascinating and thought-provoking factors is that these four composers, all born within the space of some three years, had so much to contribute to the literature of the piano that we continue to explore some two centuries after those births. It's a grave mistake to expect of Schumann what Chopin gave us, just as it is to expect of Liszt what Alkan did; what all four did for piano music in the middle of the 19th century is a combined legacy of colossal importance, a fact that has been duly recognised by many important pianists and composers (and others) since.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Then I'm sorry for you.

Why on Earth feel sorry for someone who simply does not care for Alkan???

Nearenough obviously gets his musical enjoyment from other composers.

Thal

[j_menz]

I think there are two reasons Alkan is not better known and better appreciated.

1)  He has the reputation for being incredibly difficult.  Certainly much of his work is, and the recordings out there concentrate on those pieces.  There is a fair bit of relatively easy Alkan and until that gets into the syllabuses and people actually play it, he's starting from well behind.  The easier pieces are really quite stunning. His barcarolle is my favourite barcarolle ever!

2)  I'm not sure people have quite got used to how to listen to him (or play him).  He doesn't fit so easily into the pure romantic school, where he is constantly compared to Chopin.  I see him as the first impressionist composer instead, clearly rooted in the romantic but pointing the direction to Debussey and Ravel (both of whom studied his works).

[sundjinox]

Alkan,Schumann,Chopin and Liszt are so different,you can not compare them,each of these composers is unique in his own time and cultural surroundings.Schumann with his dreamworld of the Davidsbuendler and Liszt in his virtuoso world for instance.Artist always critisize other artists,Clara Schumann had other ideas of Alkan and did meet him some times.Chopin wanted that Alkan take over his pupils after his(Chopin's) death and so on.Each composer has its own lovers and enemies.Lewenthal has brought Alkan under the attentionof the whole musical world,resulting in  a mass of articles,dissertations,LP's and CD's.and recitals.