Talk:Franz Liszt/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Hope it's Ok with all, I archived this page from where Archive 3 now leaves off. Thought it was definitely getting too difficult to scroll to bottom. Also, last point had been settled by consensus. FYI, to avoid redunancy and confusion, for an extended discussion on the nationality of Franz Liszt, please see here. Thank you. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 07:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

From my opinion the chapter should better either be deleted (for sparring space) or entirely rewritten. Without wanting to blame or insult anyone, some critical remarks may follow below.

Paragraph 1:

The first sentence is a typical Peacock term, if not wrong. Since the mentioned Etudes were composed in 1837-39, it is already from this utmost unlikely that afterwards no further development in Liszt's playing abilities can be detected. In fact, among Liszt's most difficult concert pieces are the Fantasy on melodies from Mozart's Figaro and Don Juan and the Konzertphantasie über spanische Weisen of 1842 and 1844-45 respectively. The last sentence of the paragraph is not typical for Liszt, since it is true for every professional player.

Paragraph 2:

Practically every single sentence is wrong.

Paragraph 3:

Having monstrous hands (Liszt didn't have them.) is no "technical innovation". The paragraph is nothing more than a most commonly used, very lame excuse for not playing Liszt's piano works.

Paragraph 4:

It was in spring 1841 when Anton Rubinstein started giving concerts as child prodigy. Until then he had already for himself "discovered the laws which govern the keyboard". (What "laws", by the way?) By that time there were further virtuosos with dazzling technical abilities (for example Thalberg, Döhler, Dreyschock and others.) They all played fast octaves, rapid passages, trills in all imaginable variants, daring leaps and much more besides, and not a single one of them had learnt piano playing from Liszt. Rachmaninoff's playing had much resemblance with that of

who did not study with Liszt. The claim, Rachmaninoff had from Liszt's works "discovered the laws which govern the keyboard", cannot be verified. Mentioning Paderewski is insulting for Liszt.

Paragraph 5:

The paragraph is full of Peacock terms.

Paragraph 6:

Concerning both events much is wrong.

In volume 1843 of the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik there is a very satirical essay "Kalkbrenners Apotheose". According to this, Friedrich Kalkbrenner had near the end of the 18th century invented piano playing. Shortly afterwards he came to Vienna where even Beethoven had to learn from him. Isn't there a strong resemblance with this article's chapter 2.4 at present state?85.22.24.149 (talk) 09:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this chapter ought to be rewritten. In fact the most significant Liszt's contributions to piano playing are not mentioned : the use of four bars in the first Petrarch's sonnett, the particuliar Lisztians rythmic pattern (see, for instance, the repeated notes in the first Mephisto-Waltz), the use of impressionists harmonies in the Villa d'Este or the Nuages gris… Moreover, schould this chapter be renamed : something like Liszt's pianistic heritage. Alexander Doria (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sir, it is not enough to say "practically every sentence is wrong" without giving us some concrete examples of what is wrong and how. K. Lásztocska^talk 19:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with the case of the Chopin etudes. There are two sources. One of them is a book by Ferdinand Hiller, according to which Chopin's etudes had been the only pieces which Liszt could not play "auswendig vom Blatt" ("from memory at sight"). Since "from memory at sight" seems to be contradictio in adjecto, the question what was meant remains open.

The second source is a letter to Ferdinand Hiller of June 20, 1833, of which you will find a short quotation in A. Walker's Virtuoso years, p.184. Walker cautiously avoided metioning that it was Liszt himself who wrote most parts of the letter. So, he can't possibly have been sitting at the piano for all the time. You'll find the complete letter here as No.6 in a translation to English. The letter shows that Liszt and Chopin had met for the purpose of writing the letter. As main part they were sitting together, scribbling and making jokes. In between Liszt played parts of the etudes, correcting the orthography. Since the etudes were published shortly afterwards (They were reviewed in the first issue, of November 1833, of the journal Le Pianiste.) , Liszt most likely played not from a manuscript, but from correction proofs. Besides, there is no hint that Liszt played "at sight". If you'll read Wlaker's next paragraph on his p.184, you'll see, by the way, that even he had to admit that in general Chopin did not like Liszt's playing in the least. So, Chopin's praise in the letter to Hiller was not the usual case, but a rare exception.85.22.13.57 (talk) 09:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I yesterday forgot to give a reply to Monsieur Doria. At first, I just don't know precisely what "impressionists harmonies" are. (Yes, my knowledge of music theory is apparently very poor in comparison with yours.) Perhaps you can help me? Concerning Nuages gris, I played the piece for several times, but cannot say that it is sounding "impressionistic". Composed in 1881, it is written in the Hungarian variant of G-Minor and ending with a dissonance. From Lina Ramann's diaries it is known that Liszt was very rapidly growing old. Besides, since May 1881, Janós Vegh was Vice-President, i. e. de facto President, of the Royal Academy at Budapest, and it is known that Liszt was rather irritated because of this. So, he might have been thinking of his own death, not knowing what would happen with him afterwards. With regard to the style of Nuages gris I cannot remember a single similar piece by Debussy or Ravel. Nuages gris was for the first time published not earlier than in 1927, by the way.85.22.20.119 (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure you could call Nuage Gris an impressionistic piece. However Villa d'Este is arguably an impressionistic piece. I'm not quite sure when the third volume of Années was published but Liszt certainly did have an influence on at least Ravel. This can be seen in Ravel's own Jeu d'eau where he uses a somewhat similar motif of that from Liszt's "Au Lac de Wallenstadt" from the first volume of Années. This is probably off topic but I do think it's interesting nonetheless. 198.166.19.56 (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Also I believe it's debatable whether the pieces you've mentioned are actually more difficult than the 1837-1839 studies. They're certainly longer and require much more endurance, but as far as pure technique is concerned there aren't many technical constructs in these concert pieces that weren't used in the studies. In fact the studies contain a number of techniques which, as far as I know, Liszt never actually bothered to use again. The opening bars of the 8th early Transcendental studies and the repeated single note octave motif in the 2nd come to mind. Liszt's compositional skills certainly improved but the early studies are as good an indication of Liszt's playing ability as any other of his pieces. 198.166.19.56 (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm going to go out on a limb and say the studies are better indications of his playing abilities than any other pieces simply because there's so much technique crammed into so few pages of music. 198.166.19.56 (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The opening motive of the 2nd Etude is just a quotation from Beethoevn's 5th Symphony. If it is your opinion that "the studies contain a number of techniques which, as far as you know, Liszt never actually bothered to use again", i'd like to see examples for it. My own point was different by the way. Giving an example for this, there is the famous part in the Sonnambula-Fantasy where the ricght had plays a long trill plus melody, while the left hand plays a second melody plus accompaniment. Nothing of this kind is included in the Etudes.85.22.11.136 (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how to show you examples, but you can obtain a score of the Douze Grandes etudes off of IMSLP. I'm talking about the opening motive of the 8th study, where Liszt asks to play very rapid five note scales while asking that certain notes (in all fingers) be accentuated in order to hear the main theme. This is actually quite a monstrous task to accomplish and none of the available recordings of the piece actual accomplish it. I don't even think bootleg recordings, just as Alexandre Paley, do. Thats one technique I've never seen in another piece by Liszt. The second motive I'm talking about in the second etude starts at the 7th measure. Here Liszt asks to play repeated octaves followed by single notes for an extended period of time. Techniques similar to this have been used by Brahms and others and even the exact technique has been used by Ignaz Friedman in his Paganini variations or Godowsky in a few of his works, though sparsely. The thing here though is that Liszt either asks for this technique for an extended period of time (like in the 2nd grande etude) or at very fast speeds (as in the 1838 version of La Campanella, here even Nikolai Petrov struggles a bit). Once again as far as I know Liszt never used the technique in any other piece, though I may be wrong. I'm not quite sure we're talking about the same point. I'm discussing Liszt's studies in a purely technical way, stating that most of his unreasonable techique can be seen here (a good example of this is the second version of the 4rth 1838 Paganini study). Even the example you gave me from the Sonnambula fantasy can be seen in the 9th grande etude -very- briefly (2 full measures after the first long pause. It's not of the same complexity, but it certainly is the same technique.) What I'm saying is that most of his (not all) technique can be connected to these sets of studies (for completeness we can also include the 1837-1838 etude de perfectionnement). I'm not the one who wrote the first sentence, but I do strongly believe its true. 198.166.19.56 (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The five finger example from the beginning of Etude No.8 (the later "Wilde Jagd") can as well be found in one of Schumann's early sketchbooks. Hence it appears to have been a common kind of exercise in those days. The repeated octaves followed by single notes can be found in Czerny's "Schule des Virtuosen" (published in April 1837). However, since it is my impression that this might develop to another one of those huge debates without neither end nor result, I'd like to remind you that once upon a time there was nice little thing that was called logic. Taking this perspective, there are several objections against your view. At first, a sentence with a beginning like the first one of paragraph 1 of chapter 2.4 ("Perhaps ...") is a Peacock term, giving no facts, but an indistinct guess. At second, Liszt's "piano-playing abilities" cannot be derived from the scores of his Etudes, since it must also be known, how he played them. Until now nobody ever solved this problem. At third, if you want to give characteristics of Liszt, you must find properties which are not exceptions but typical. Liszt's Etudes cannot be regarded as typical, since you admit (or presume) that certain ones of their difficulties were exceptions which he afterwards dropped. To this comes that with very few exceptions, Liszt nearly never played a single one of his Etudes. From the contemporaries' view he was the famous player of pieces such as Erlkönig, Galop chromatique, Hexameron and Andante finale from Lucia di Lammermoor. Hence "the best indication of his piano-playing abilities" comes from these pieces. For the purpose of an encyclopedia article the above arguments should be enough in order to show that at present state the first paragraph of the said chapter is full of unverified, questionable claims. The quotation from Schumann is nothing more than another guess, and the quotation from Walker is superfluous, not to say ridiculous, since it is to be doubted that Walker knows from own experience how to play Liszt's Etudes of 1837-39.

The present debate shows again, by the way, that Liszt's decision of summer 1841, continuing his concert tours instead of returning to his planned masterworks, was one of the worst mistakes he ever made during all of his life. With this decision he not only destroyed his private life, but besides even posthumously could never escape the prison of being viewed as greatest virtuoso who ever lived, instead of being viewed as great composer. Can we now please come to the said chapter's other paragraphs?85.22.6.182 (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually really like to see this fragment from Schumann. This would be of great interest to me. Do you think I could obtain it somehow? Anyway, the repeated-octave technique can be found in Czerny's exercises, but at half the speed that Liszt indicates. That being said, you're right about the fact that Liszt only played a few of his studies (the 6th and the 9th grandes etudes, arguably the easiest of the set). Even though he clearly composed them for concert performance and not private study, we'll never know if Liszt was actually ever able to play them. Fair enough; You really should have mentioned this point first. Also I never really liked the second sentence. 198.166.19.56 (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm not clear on what I mean by "if Liszt was actually ever able to play them". He most likely was. The question is whether he was able to play them well, especially the more difficult ones. 198.166.31.27 (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The fragment by Schumann is part of one of his youthful diaries which were published quite a long time ago. If you took Liszt's Grandes Etudes from imslp.org, by the way, the metronome indications are not those by Liszt, but those by Busoni. The original editions have no metronome indications. Thus the question of the "correct" tempo is open. In general, it is not the present question whether Liszt was able to play his own etudes (for about half a dozen times he played the "Mazeppa" Etude in public), but whether a particular chapter of the present article is matching the standards of an encyclopedia.85.22.2.180 (talk) 09:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

According to chapter 1.1 there is a guess that Liszt may have first played in public at Baden at age eight. It is doubtful, however, whether the statement is true, and I never read anything about it. As far as nobody adds a reference to a reliable source, the statement is superfluous and should better be removed.85.22.6.182 (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Since nothing's happened, I'll take the said statement away.85.22.0.154 (talk) 09:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The above debate with user 198.166.31.27I has turned into a special debate about technical aspects of Liszt's Etudes. Since this seems to be a bit off topic in the above chapter, and since an adequate reply must be comparatively long, I'll put some additional remarks to this place. At first I must admit that yesterday I was on error regarding the edition of the Grandes Etudes at imslp.org. While the edition is indeed by Busoni, as can be seen from the annotations (signed with F.B.), it contains no metronome indications. I might have confused it with another edition, also by Busoni, but this time with metronome indications.

In Liszt's Etude No.8 (the later "Ricordanza") the trill plus harmonic figuration of the right hand in the second bar after the introduction is somewhat uncomfortable because of the interlocking hands. However, the device as such was nothing new, and I don't think that in this particular case "transcendental" skills are required. Better suiting examples for a comparison with Liszt's settings in his Sonnambula-Fantasy can be found in Theodor Döhler's Fantasies op.8 and 9 on melodies from the same opera. The two Fantasies were published in the first half of 1835. Döhler, student of Czerny, was born in Lucca where his family lived and where he was court pianist. His Fantasy op.9 was dedicated to the Marquise Virgine de Bocella. Her husband Cesare was a very close friend of Liszt and Marie d'Agoult. In late summer 1839 they lived in Lucca. Shortly afterwards Liszt composed his own Sonnambula-Fantasy. Döhler's two Fantasies are composed as theme, variations and finale. In one of the variations of his op.8 the right hand plays a long trill together with the same melody which is also in Liszt's Fantasy played by the right hand together with a long trill. The theme of Döhler's op.9 is the same melody as played in Liszt's Fantasy by the left hand. Thus Liszt had in a sense combined both.

Regarding the technical problem in mm.7ff of Liszt's Etude No.2., my citing Czerny was correct. A similar technical problem like that in Liszt's Etude can be found in No.45 of the "Schule des Virtuosen". The meter is 3/8 time, every bar filled with three octaves and three single notes, with metronome indication of 88 for whole bars. The key is A Minor as in Liszt's Etude, and some more resemblance with further ones of the technical problems in the Etude by Liszt can be detected. Since it was in March 1837 when Czerny met Liszt in Paris, it can hardly be doubted that Liszt got knowledge of Czerny's newest studies. Czerny's "Schule des Virtuosen" is a true school for virtuosos, by the way. A person who has successfully worked through these 60 studies has the fingers of Lang Lang or even a bit more. Especially the left hand has much more intricate problems to solve than in any piano work by Liszt.

Further examples for octaves with repeated single notes can be found in No.8 of Adolph Henselt's Etudes op.2 and in the piece "Reconnaissance" of Schumann's Carnaval op.9, both published in 1837 prior to Liszt's composing his Grandes Etudes. In Henselt's and Schumann's settings the order of octave and single note is inverted in comparison with Liszt's, but the analogy is still close enough. Henselt's tempo is Allegro, and Schumann's tempo Animato. Wilhelm von Lenz, in the last chapter of his book "Die großen Pianoforte Virtuosen unserer Zeit", published in the 1870s, called Henselt the true champion of all contemporary piano virtuosos. The book was read by Liszt, who agreed with this. (Liszt also wrote, Lenz had by far exaggerated Liszt's own role in Paris.) Henselt’s Etudes are very beautiful and worth playing, but with regard to Liszt the example by Schumann is more interesting. To this comes that Liszt most likely had no knowledge of Henselt's Etudes prior to spring 1838. In a letter to Schumann from the beginning of May 1838 he for the first time mentioned them, calling them quite nice but nothing more. In his later years he radically changed his mind. Henselt's Etudes were now jewels of the piano literature.

Schumann's Carnaval, composed 1834-35, was at end of June 1837 published in Paris as gift for the subscribers of the Revue et Gazette musicale. Hence also Liszt must have received it. There is little doubt that the person whom he recognized when looking at "Reconnaissance" was nobody else than him himself. Schumann had taken a melody very similar to the melody of No.11 of Liszt's youthful own Etudes op.6. In 1839, in one of his letters, Schumann asked Liszt to play one of his works at one of Liszt's planned concerts in Leipzig. It was Liszt's suggestion, taking a selection of the Carnaval. He afterwards asked Schumann, which ones of the pieces of the cycle he should play. Schumann in return suggested taking "Préambule", "Reconnaissance" and "Marche des "Davidsbündler" contre les Philistines". (Liszt then played a selection of 10 pieces instead.) Thus also Schumann appears to have identified "Reconnaissance" with Liszt. After Liszt had in summer 1837 received the issue of the Revue et Gazette musicale with the Carnaval as gift he went to Italy. Shortly afterwards, in September 1837, he started composing his Grandes Etudes. So, not only Czerny but also Schumann can be suspected as Liszt's model with regard to the said technical problem in his Etude No.2. While still much is uncertain, it should at least have become clear that Liszt did not "revolutionise piano technique in almost every sector."85.22.28.127 (talk) 09:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Since no further contradiction has come, my views regarding Liszt's presumed "revolutionising piano playing" are apparently accepted. Thus I'll wait for another week and then delete the said chapter.85.22.1.87 (talk) 10:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No contradiction in sight. Thus I'll delete the chapter. The free space will be needed for more important things. A still missing chapter about Liszt's sacral works, for example.85.22.5.252 (talk) 10:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There is an award named after Liszt. Could someone help me with more information about this award? --STTW (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

There are several "Franz Liszt competitions" for piano playing, two of them at the "Hochschule Franz Liszt", Weimar. Is it this what you meant?80.144.82.188 (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I it was an award for piano competition. It is some how funded by the Hungarian government? --STTW (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I have little doubt that there will be one at the "Franz Liszt Academy" at Budapest. However, all this has not much to do with Liszt. His name was occupied by (nearly) everyone for (nearly) everything. (A star and even a race of monkeys was named after him.) You could as well ask for a catalogue of cities and towns where there is a "Franz Liszt Street" or a "Franz Liszt Place". There will be several thousands all over the world.85.22.17.106 (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he's referring to the Franz Liszt Prize awarded annually by the Zeneakademia in Budapest. K. Lásztocska^talk 19:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The theory of Liszt's revolutionising piano playing was apparently an invention of Lina Ramann. She had in November 1876 asked Liszt whether his "Umwälzung der Klaviertechnik" ("Revolution of piano technique") had been due to Paganini's Caprices. on December 1 Liszt wrote to this that it was his biographer who had to decide, since he himself was unable to take an objective point of view towards his foolish own productions. It was his only consolation that they could have become even worse after all.

Lina Ramann's "decision" can be found in her Franz Liszt als Künstler und Mensch, Erster Band, Zweites Buch, p.106. According to this, Liszt's hands had been rather small and could hardly stretch a 9th. From Paganini's Caprices, according to Ramann, Liszt took the idea how to play wider intervals, and this was his entire "revolution". Ramann's theory is of course wrong. There were others who wrote wide intervals as well (for example Schumann, Chopin, Henselt, Thalberg, Döhler, Dreyschock and many further ones). To this comes that the theme of Liszt's Clochette-Fantasy was not taken from Paganini's Caprices, but from a violin concerto, and that there are no extraordinarily wide intervals in this particular piece. It is to be presumed that Liszt himself read Ramann's theory with astonishment.85.22.19.160 (talk) 09:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "La Clochette," the theme does indeed come from the "La Campanella" theme (itself an old Italian folk song) of the third movement of Paganini's Violin Concerto No. 2. I'm unclear as to your point in this section--is it to say that Liszt did not spark any revolution in piano technique, or simply that the Caprices were not the impetus? K. Lásztocska^talk 19:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

From my opinion Liszt took part in a general development of piano music, but did not "spark any revolution in piano technique". Any attempt of describing that so-called revolution was until now in vain at least. The question of his rank as composer is entirely independent of all this. It can be seen when comparing him with Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin and many others. They are quite well recognized as classical masters without being suspected to have revolutionised piano playing. So, why not the same with Liszt? Concerning the Clochette-Fantasy, I just mentioned it since it was mentioned by Lina Ramann as example.85.22.14.151 (talk) 10:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The shortened version of chapter "Original songs" has become a little bit too short. It is very important that there must be some remarks concerning the volume of six songs as published by Liszt in the beginning of 1844, but for this time without the title "Buch der Lieder". It is due to the fact that the story as told in the three volumes would otherwise be incomplete. The first volume of the "Buch der Lieder" is a kind of private album of the "Family Zyi", i. e. of Liszt and Marie d'Agoult together with their daughter Blandine. The second volume is commencing with "Oh! quand je dors" ("Oh! when I'm dreaming"), a love song in Italian style, composed for Marie d'Agoult for the occasion of her birthday on December 31, 1841. The following five songs are reflecting aspects of the couple's relation until summer 1842. On November 11, 1842, in Frankfurt am Main, Liszt received a letter of Marie d'Agoult which he understood as immediate end of his relation with her. A couple of days later, on a steam boat, he passed Nonnenwerth, for this time all alone. With tears in is eyes he remembered his past and then composed the song "Nonnenwerth" with refrain "Maria, kehre wieder!" ("Mary, please return!"). In letters to Marie d'Agoult he promised to finish his concert tours in spring or summer 1843. In June 1843, when they met at Nonnenwerth again, Liszt told Marie d'Agoult, the isle would be either the temple or the grave of their love. Unfortunately, their stay of summer 1843 was even more catastrophic than that of summer 1841. Nonnenwerth thus turned out as their grave, and the third volume of Liszt's songs is strongly correlated with this scenery. Another example, illustrating the same events, is the Norma-Fantasy, by the way. The published version was made in autumn 1843 at Rolandseck near Nonnenwerth.

In the beginning of November 1843, as soon as Marie d'Agoult had returned to Paris, she started writing her novel "Nélida". There is little doubt that Liszt knew of this. By the same time he at his side asked Gustav Schilling at Stuttgart to write a praising book about him. Schilling wrote the book Franz Liszt, aus nächster Beschauung dargestellt, where he posed Liszt as the most intelligent, most genial and most benevolent person of all times. With an oeuvre, merely comprising of transcriptions of popular melodies, Schilling posed him as a composer whom even Beethoven could hardly match. It was this book which was later taken by Lina Ramann as source of her Franz Liszt als Künstler und Mensch. In this book Liszt is nothing less than a Jesus Christ of the 19th century. Still later it was Alan Walker who took Ramann's book as model for his own books about Liszt. While Walker's productions are by some of you still read as if they were parts of the Holy Bible, the true origin of most of Walker's exaggerations and most of the well known legends was Liszt's particular situation in autumn 1843.85.22.5.252 (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Good sir, please, please spare us the snide remarks. I thought you had moved past such petty snippery. None of us read Alan Walker's books "as if they were parts of the Holy Bible," and I am well aware that over-reliance on any one source, Walker or otherwise, is simply poor scholarship. Speaking of sources, however, it is incorrect to suggest that Lina Ramann was Walker's sole source--the bibliographies at the end of all three volumes are very long, so however much anyone may disagree with Mr. Walker's conclusions, no one can realistically suggest that he didn't do his research. K. Lásztocska^talk 20:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If this is your present opinion, I was wrong and apologize for it.85.22.23.42 (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It is and has always been my opinion. I appreciate your apology. K. Lásztocska^talk 15:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)