Franz Liszt

[Shiva]

Despite the intricacy of some of liszt's works, he never seemed to have gained the notereity of so many other pianists, why?

I have never had more fun playing piano in my entire life than playing Hungarian Rhapsody #2... (the one that used to be in that tom and jerry cartoon... ever since i first saw it, I'd always wanted to learn it. So i did, but only AFTER my hand became large enough to span the often 9ths written)


He had choral works, organ, piano, orchestral...


I know he wasn't "unknown", but is there some underlying reason he isn't on the same recognition level as , say, Rachmaninoff?

[Thorolf]

Originally Posted by Shiva

I know he wasn't "unknown", but is there some underlying reason he isn't on the same recognition level as, say, Rachmaninoff?

Who says he isn’t?

Just for the sake of the argument, I will say he isn’t for a moment, and when it comes to layman stardom, you might be right. But most pianists value Liszt, not least for his groundbreaking transcription work, to transcribe big romantic massive orchestral scores to just one piano: He was a pioneer in taking this art to a new level.



Regards

[Will Kirk]

Have you heard his Grand Galop Chromatique? He wrote that piece to deliberately to impress audiences

[MaestroX]

Liszt was fantasitc, I agree, but to really understand his works you have to recognise that he was a show off. He wasn't a composer of emotion based pieces, like his contemporary, Chopin. He was a performer. You just have to listen to his Trancendental Etudes, Sonata in B minor, Hungarian Rhapsodies, Mephisto Waltz and even his Liebestraumes to hear this.

I would say that he is on the same level of recognition as Rachmaninoff, and he was a great pianist, supposedly rivalled only by Chopin in performance.

I love the 2nd Hungarian Rhapsodie in C sharp minor, especially when it rises out of this drak section and bounces into the playful segment that they use in the Stella Artois adverts.

I also think that Liszt's life is hilarious. Running away from men who wanted him dead because he had slept with their wives.

I personally prefer Chopin and Rachmaninoff to Liszt, but he was still a fantastic composer and performer.

[Forte]

I'm more of a violin fan than a piano fan, but there's something about Liszt that just amazes me. Sure, he can't really be compared to Chopin for many reasons, but his interpretation for other pieces were definitely notable...Also considering that at his time, it was popular to take older pieces and revamp them. He wasn't the only composer/musician who did this.

His version of Paganini's "La Campanella" is definitely one of my favorites, and I can't see how anyone could dislike Hungarian Rhapsody #2...I love everything about the melody...from the bold beginning, to the soft yet elegant theme, and then of course to the fun ending...

Its pieces like that that make me want to learn the piano...

[kenm]

He was an important innovator of several compositional techniques. He first used the name symphonic poem, and wrote several orchestral works under that title in which he used unifying melodic phrases in a way similar to the leitmotiven of his son-in-law Wagner; he exploited the concept of thematic transformation in more detail than previous composers, as the B minor sonata illustrates; towards the end of his life, his harmonic idiom became very fluid, key often being indeterminate, and he foreshadowed the techniques of Debussy and Schoenberg.

Unfortunately, it is more difficult to write music with lasting appeal in a new style than by staying within a well-understood idiom. J S Bach was considered old-fashioned in his own lifetime, but used the old forms better than anyone else before or since; Haydn (string quartet) and Mozart (string quintet, piano quartet, piano concerto) used new ensembles, but their harmonic idiom was not particularly innovative. Composers who wrote major works in a new style of their own invention are very rare. The short list should be headed by Beethoven; other candidates (IMO) are Monteverdi, Chopin, Wagner, Debussy, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Bartok, possibly Dunstable, Janacek and Messiaen.

[Peter Bolton]

Historical comparisons between pianists are complicated by the time durations of the performers lives. In simple terms though, the big rivaly was between Liszt and Thalberg and in the showdown, Liszt won. You have already mentioned Chopin who improved his technique over time. Also on the top level was Mendelssohn and another fantastic pianist was Alkan. Neither should we forget Clara Schumann. Fanny Mendelssohn equalled her brother but rarely performed in public. Come to that, Beethoven was reportedly pretty hot on the keys!
I still reckon that Liszt was King.

[Will Kirk]

Is it known exactly how large his hands were?

[LethalBunny]

Liszt is just insane
I am learning liebestraum right now
the first cadenza is INSANE! =)
I can honestly say I think his music is the most... challenging whilst still being... acceptable.

[Peter Bolton]

I don't believe pianists in those days had unusually large hands. Stretch is the result of constant practice, especially at a young age. Fanny Mendelssohn for instance was a small woman and she was clearly capable of an octave between index and small finger in chords like (right hand) C E E' and (left hand) B B' D#' or even D# D#' Fx' (quite a stretch). She also uses 125 on F F# F' and F# G F#', which I find very awkward. Liszt was much more of a showman and his hands must have been bigger than Fanny's. Bear in mind though that pianos in those days had much lighter actions than the modern grand.