Beethovenian art that isn't musical

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by Nightklavier:
...the dull Brahms...

This shows that for whatever reason, you don't or can't really understand Brahms. There is nothing wrong with wanting to elevate Liszt, but it's not necessary to pull other great composers down in order to do so. I think the testimony of the legions of intelligent and experienced listeners who love Brahms would alert a less intemperate writer to the fact that, although he himself cannot feel it, there is a lot of greatness in Brahms.



[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited 12-16-2005).]

[Nightklavier]

Chaszz - The reason I "put them down" was only to accentuate my passion about Liszt. However, by no means did I intend to say that Brahms or Mendelssohn are not great. I mean, I frequently listen to Brahms symphonies for four hands on piano and it really is sublime music. I've got nothing against Brahms, but when comparing Liszt, my only point was to demonstrate the striking difference and reason why I think (and this is just my opinion) that Liszt is a more able and greater composer.

Liszt actually revered Brahms and in a way, I think all classical music listeners should. And when I say "dull Brahms"... well I must admit sometimes his works get a little tedious or even boring, but I'll also admit he's not totally dull and perhaps by unchecked impulse, I insulted him too much with that adjective.

Same goes for Mendelssohn - no insult intended; just used to make a sharp contrast with Liszt. Thank god for Mendelssohn, though, or we might not even know who Bach is.

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by Nightklavier:
Chaszz - The reason I "put them down" was only to accentuate my passion about Liszt. However, by no means did I intend to say that Brahms or Mendelssohn are not great. I mean, I frequently listen to Brahms symphonies for four hands on piano and it really is sublime music. I've got nothing against Brahms, but when comparing Liszt, my only point was to demonstrate the striking difference and reason why I think (and this is just my opinion) that Liszt is a more able and greater composer.

Liszt actually revered Brahms and in a way, I think all classical music listeners should. And when I say "dull Brahms"... well I must admit sometimes his works get a little tedious or even boring, but I'll also admit he's not totally dull and perhaps by unchecked impulse, I insulted him too much with that adjective.

Same goes for Mendelssohn - no insult intended; just used to make a sharp contrast with Liszt. Thank god for Mendelssohn, though, or we might not even know who Bach is.

It is good to see you correct yourself. I don't think it necessary to demean one composer to praise another. I recently spent a month listening to Brahms' Piano Quintet intensively, and I am full of admiration for this massive edifice of a work, which could easily be a major symphony... I am also, by the way, just beginning to get into Liszt.

[Beyond Within]

Liszt's flashiness is much too emphasized, but he seemed to be constantly trying to "prove" himself, and thus always came across as stilted.

He did have his beautiful moment, but quite drab next to Chopin.

Everyone must behold the fourth movement of Brahm's fourth symphony -- that theme and variations never fails to astound!

[MontrealPianist]

Originally posted by Beyond Within:
Liszt's flashiness is much too emphasized, but he seemed to be constantly trying to "prove" himself, and thus always came across as stilted.

He did have his beautiful moment, but quite drab next to Chopin.

Everyone must behold the fourth movement of Brahm's fourth symphony -- that theme and variations never fails to astound!

If someone has "flashiness" as you say, it is Chopin, not Liszt. Chopin's piece are much like Mendelssohn, very superficial. There is no profound theme, there's no intelligence in the music sequence. Liszt was 50 years before his time, the works at the end of his life surpass all his contemporaries. In fact, I'd say he was the heir of Beethoven in that regard. His Hungarian Rhapsodies surpass Chopin's Polonaise in every possible aspect of piano playing. His Sonata is a solar system above Chopin's. Chopin's conerto's are ridiculous, nothing more then a piano piece with a children's score for the orchestra. And I'm not even mention "Les Années de Pélerinnage". Ca c'est de la musique. The nocturnes are a product of Bellini, the Waltzes are superficial at best, the Mazurka are Polish folk songs, the Studies, while usefull, dont have the grander of Liszt's. The Scherzo's and Ballad's are his best works, but they aren't enough to put him above Liszt's genius.

Totentantz, Reminiscence of Don Juan, Obermann's Valley, The Transcendental Studies, the Paganini Studies, The Sonata in B minor, The Hungarian Rhapsodies, The Spanish Rhapsody. These are but a glimpse of his works!

[Peter]

Originally posted by MontrealPianist:
If someone has "flashiness" as you say, it is Chopin, not Liszt. Chopin's piece are much like Mendelssohn, very superficial. There is no profound theme, there's no intelligence in the music sequence. Liszt was 50 years before his time, the works at the end of his life surpass all his contemporaries. In fact, I'd say he was the heir of Beethoven in that regard. His Hungarian Rhapsodies surpass Chopin's Polonaise in every possible aspect of piano playing. His Sonata is a solar system above Chopin's. Chopin's conerto's are ridiculous, nothing more then a piano piece with a children's score for the orchestra. And I'm not even mention "Les Années de Pélerinnage". Ca c'est de la musique. The nocturnes are a product of Bellini, the Waltzes are superficial at best, the Mazurka are Polish folk songs, the Studies, while usefull, dont have the grander of Liszt's. The Scherzo's and Ballad's are his best works, but they aren't enough to put him above Liszt's genius.

Totentantz, Reminiscence of Don Juan, Obermann's Valley, The Transcendental Studies, the Paganini Studies, The Sonata in B minor, The Hungarian Rhapsodies, The Spanish Rhapsody. These are but a glimpse of his works!

Montreal! I don't share your views on Chopin at all and once again on this forum, great admiration for one composer (in your case Liszt) leads to denegration of their contemporaries. I notice on another thread your admiration for Bach and therefore I would have thought the polyphonic textures that abound in Chopin would appeal. Aside from a master of poetic sensitivity, he also wrote much that foreshadows Wagner.

As for Liszt, much is made of his being ahead of his time, yet his late music actually had little influence on the next generation as it was pretty obscure at the time. At its best it doesn't measure up to the early works of Debussy or Schoenberg, the two he is supposed to have influenced most. Liszt's orchestration is quite frankly bad, not that I make any claims for Chopin in that regard.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 12-23-2005).]

[Joy]

Whew! All this negative talk about Chopin.
Let's face it, no other great composer devoted himself as exclusively to the piano as Chopin. An inspired improviser, he composed while playing. For the concert-giving years 1828-32 he wrote brilliant virtuoso pieces and music for piano and orchestra; the teaching side of his career is represented by the studies, preludes, nocturnes, waltzes, impromptus and mazurkas. Chopin, I think, is admired for his great originality. While his own playing style was famous for its subtlety and exquisite delicacy.



------------------
'Truth and beauty joined'

[Nightklavier]

Regarding the "flashiness", I don't see why this is frowned upon. Where did this elitist view come from? Is some snobby fool saying to his wife as they watch a List concert, "Oh, dear, look at that messy run of chromatic octaves - what circus peforming primitive drivel!" I would be shouting, "Yea! Raise a storm of music! Bring power to the hall! Smash that piano!" Liszt's music is exciting and I can't understand this mindset that if he hits descending octaves, or repeats arpeggios and scales for an orchestral effect then he's only trying to show off. Look at the Dante Sonata. Descending octaves used in the most brilliant and haunting way.

Totentanz is another. Chromatic octaves at one point, but what a stirring masterpiece it is.

Personally, I would have loved to be in that 1840s scene in a salon with fainting women and Liszt filling the room with thrilling music.

The one thing Liszt did that seems underrated is his ability to create music that covers all emotions. "R.W. Venezia," the "La lugubre gondola's" and "Il Penesoro" all cover gloom and despair. "Un Sospiro" and the "Liebestraumes" cover the passionate love. Hungarian Rhapsodies and Transcendental Etudes create exhilirating dances and moods. "Dante Sonata" and "Totentanz" cover fear. His religious harmonies like "Stabat Mater" and "Sursum Corda" are triumphant hymns... I have to agree with MontrealPianist and press my original point that Liszt *is* a successor to Beethoven.

About Chopin, I have to disagree with any negativity harbored for the Polish genius. Chopin created his own musical language. No other composer wrote anything that sounds alike. His Nocturnes rank in the best "set" of any piano work and should sit right next to Beethoven's Piano Sonatas. His Etudes and Preludes mirror what Liszt does too: using minimal notes or time to convey as much emotion as possible.

Oh and Chopin's concertos are not "ridiculous". The middle movements from both, the "romanze" and "larghetto" are the most moving and romantic music. He uses orchestra just fine in those movements, but I agree the first and last are not as great. The scherzi are great virtuosic works with power and tenderness to be found everywhere. But I can't keep praising each form as I would like.

And Joy: You're right in every way. Did you know that there were many written accounts from listeners that knew Chopin's music well and they all declared his improvisations superior to any of his other works? Can you imagine?! Here we have profound ballades and original works in the etudes and his contemporary listeners say his improv is just as good, if not better? That just astounds me. What a gold mine we would have if someone notated his improvisations...

[Kalimac]

To each his own - I find a large amount of Liszt's work to be very turgid and uninteresting in a way I could never say of Beethoven or Brahms. Even if Liszt is a successor to Beethoven in greatness, he's far from being the closest descendant in style (except insofar as all 19th century composers were children of Beethoven). If there was a composer of Beethoven's time who was the closest ancestor of Liszt and Wagner, it was Weber.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Kalimac:
To each his own - I find a large amount of Liszt's work to be very turgid and uninteresting in a way I could never say of Beethoven or Brahms. Even if Liszt is a successor to Beethoven in greatness, he's far from being the closest descendant in style (except insofar as all 19th century composers were children of Beethoven). If there was a composer of Beethoven's time who was the closest ancestor of Liszt and Wagner, it was Weber.

I don't see any composer who followed Beethoven as being equal in greatness - who even approaches the late quartets or sonatas? The one composer who might have had he lived was Schubert - his last 3 sonatas, string quintet and Wintereisse show a composer of incredible spiritual profundity. Beethoven would probably have been appalled by most of Liszt's music!

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[MontrealPianist]

Originally posted by Joy:
Whew! All this negative talk about Chopin.
Let's face it, no other great composer devoted himself as exclusively to the piano as Chopin. An inspired improviser, he composed while playing. For the concert-giving years 1828-32 he wrote brilliant virtuoso pieces and music for piano and orchestra; the teaching side of his career is represented by the studies, preludes, nocturnes, waltzes, impromptus and mazurkas. Chopin, I think, is admired for his great originality. While his own playing style was famous for its subtlety and exquisite delicacy.

Albeniz and Liszt are two people that devoted themselves as much as Chopin to the piano. Liszt just happened to have more talent so he went on to grander things.

Chopin never wrote brilliant orchestral music as you say, he wrote mediocre works. Wether it's the harmony or the polyphony, his orchestral music was below the times standarts. I would very much like to know what Schumann thought of his concertos. I know he made fun of his style and in my opinion, rightfully so. It might be a personall thing, but I hate Chopin's music, I despise it. It offers nothing to the audience, it's early 19th century pop music. Fortunatly for me, many great pianists and composers share my dislike, I'm not that much of an outcast in that regard.

I'd also like to end by saying I have yet to see any originality in his works;
Polish folk, Bach and Bellini. I have no problem with having influences or merging styles, I do have a problem when there's no improvement(quite the contrary) made.

[mps1600]

First my disclaimer: Please understand that in no way do i pose as any kind of expert on either classical music or classical literature.

With that said i have to agree with the original poster about the parallel in tone between "Moby Dick" and Ludwig's music. While i often lose track of the details of chapter and verse, i know what stirs me. I had the same reaction to Melville's epic that i have to many of Beethoven's compositions. What it's over i just sit in stunned silence. I can almost see the Master standing at the podium after the last note has faded, turning to the audience and saying simply, "Any questions?" And of course, there are none.

And as for Ludwig not being a Romantic, i'm assuming you are talking about the traditional definition as one applies them to the various periods in the development and evolution of the arts. But i submit that while he may not have fit the mold of the Romantic period, he was without doubt a true romantic in his heart of deepest hearts.

Marcy


------------------
- and those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music ~Nietzsche

[Nightklavier]

MontrealPianist - Have you heard Chopin's Ballades, Scherzi, Sonatas and Etudes? How can you call that mediocre? You know, there is a school of thought that just from Chopin's contributions to those forms, they think Liszt falls extremely short (I disagree) and that Chopin is superior in every way to all of his contemporaries.

Forget Chopin's Piano Concertos. That's like looking at Beethoven's Piano and String Quartets as a representation of his music. Look at all four of Chopin's Scherzi and Ballades. Listen to each Etude. For the sake of respect, just listen to some individual works like Prelude No. 24, the Polonaise Op. 40 No. 2, the Waltz Op. 34 No. 3 and the Largo movement from the Piano Sonata No.3 and tell me that's mediocre. Those samples from Chopin are outstanding. They do better than anything Schumann ever did, in my opinion.

As for his originality, I don't know what managed to tarnish your perspective on this, but Chopin's originality is profoundly existent and so distinct that it makes Mendelssohn, Berlioz and Wagner look unoriginal. That melancholy and delicate sound that can be found in *all* of his works - it doesn't make the works boring or like "pop music". Like I said in a previous post, it's a musical language.

But to balance this a bit, I will say that I don't like Chopin's Mazurkas at all. Most of his Waltzes leave me lukewarm as well. So if you're getting your opinion from looking at those "Polish" sounding pieces, then I understand. But until you've heard Chopin's major works (and his Piano Concerto's are not major to me) you can't possibly impune him for anything. Give him one more chance.

Liszt thought him good enough that he had his some of his pupils practice Chopin and Beethoven almost exclusively.

[MontrealPianist]

Originally posted by Nightklavier:
MontrealPianist - Have you heard Chopin's Ballades, Scherzi, Sonatas and Etudes? How can you call that mediocre? You know, there is a school of thought that just from Chopin's contributions to those forms, they think Liszt falls extremely short (I disagree) and that Chopin is superior in every way to all of his contemporaries.

Forget Chopin's Piano Concertos. That's like looking at Beethoven's Piano and String Quartets as a representation of his music. Look at all four of Chopin's Scherzi and Ballades. Listen to each Etude. For the sake of respect, just listen to some individual works like Prelude No. 24, the Polonaise Op. 40 No. 2, the Waltz Op. 34 No. 3 and the Largo movement from the Piano Sonata No.3 and tell me that's mediocre. Those samples from Chopin are outstanding. They do better than anything Schumann ever did, in my opinion.

As for his originality, I don't know what managed to tarnish your perspective on this, but Chopin's originality is profoundly existent and so distinct that it makes Mendelssohn, Berlioz and Wagner look unoriginal. That melancholy and delicate sound that can be found in *all* of his works - it doesn't make the works boring or like "pop music". Like I said in a previous post, it's a musical language.

But to balance this a bit, I will say that I don't like Chopin's Mazurkas at all. Most of his Waltzes leave me lukewarm as well. So if you're getting your opinion from looking at those "Polish" sounding pieces, then I understand. But until you've heard Chopin's major works (and his Piano Concerto's are not major to me) you can't possibly impune him for anything. Give him one more chance.

Liszt thought him good enough that he had his some of his pupils practice Chopin and Beethoven almost exclusively.

I didnt listen to those pieces, I played them and I will reiterate my point; Chopin's music is mediocre because it is superficial. I highly doubt he put as much thought in his works as his contemporaries and if he did, it furthers my opinion on him being a mediocre composer. Every pianist can play Chopin, but not every one can play other composers. Thats because the difficulties are not as tremendous and the few pieces there are such difficulties are not numerous enough. I do agree that Mendelssohn is unoriginal and an even more mediocre composer, his Variations are one of the few bright spots of his compositions. The regular classical fan often regards Chopin as the romantic musical poet of the 19th century, to me, its Tchaikovsky.

But I have to repeat myself, how is Chopin's work original when it is theft of Bellini, Bach and Polish folk? Chopin's noctures are supposedly "profound", I'd say Bellini was profound, Chopin just happened to take his style.