Talk:Franz Liszt

Archived and New

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)

Miroslav Demko revisited

A couple of days ago, searching with Google, I found that Miroslav Demko is no "historian, living in Switzerland", as our friend "Wizzard" put it, but "member-musicologist" of a rather nationalistic "Informal Economic Forum - Economic Club" ("Hospodársky klub") at Bratislava, where on January 26, 2006, he gave a lecture on "Patriotism from the history". It is this club that wants to have Liszt regarded as Slovak. Among the club's aims there is the astonishing following one:

we will dedicate time to introducing the genius of spirit and music, Franz Liszt, whose parents and mother tongue were Slovak, and who had never considered himself to be other than Slovak by origin, belonging to the nation and to the public, in general. The Administrator [of the "Hospodársky klub"] has asked I. Gašparovic, the President of the Republic, Ján Chryzostom Korec, the cardinal, as well as Ján Sokol, the Bratislava and Trnava archbishop and metropolitan in one person, for the support of this idea. In this connection, we appreciate exploring efforts and writing books of Dr. Miroslav Demko, our member-musicologist, university pedagogist and also composer, who lived twenty long years in the Swiss exile.

An annual report for the period September 28, 2004 - January 26, 2006, shows that the club had had no success. It is to be read:

neither official constitutional representatives have responded to club motions in connection with the great personality of F. Liszt.

Still in the newest entry (of February 21, 2008) there are complaints about

the fate of the most famous personality of Slovak decent, Franz Liszt, whom we still have not, so to say, discovered and refuse to accept. His active participation in the millennium celebrations of missionaries Cyril and Methodius in the Vatican (in 1868, in the presence of Pope Pius IX) means nothing to our current officials.

Hence the theory of Liszt's Slovakian origin is even in Slovakia regarded as nonsense.

During the second decade of 2005, Demko's "findings" were presented to some international personalities. In connection with this he wrote a German brochure about his views. (35 pages) However, neither with this brochure, nor with his prior book in French (107 pages, can be purchased via Internet, the price is falling) Demko found the least resonance in scholarly papers. In fact, with this German brochure Demko's international career as writer apparently ended. I couldn't find any further publication of him.

Working through the page of the "Hospodársky klub" leads to the impression that the relations between Slovakia and Hungary must be of highly problematic kind. Besides, there are conflicts with the Hungarian minority in Slovakia. From the perspective of the "Hospodársky klub" these problems are due to "biased, wrong" information from abroad. Thus the club tries to correct such "wrong views". Spreading the idea of the Slovakian Liszt is a part of this. There is much resemblance betwen their attempts of renaming Liszt as "František" and Nazi attempts of renaming Chopin as "Friedrich" and posing him as Arian.85.22.5.160 (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That's rather comical, and thank you for posting those illuminating findings. Unfortunately you are right in saying that Slovak-Hungarian relations are not the most friendly, and there's a lot of nationalistic nonsense on both sides. In this case though the Slovaks are simply making stuff up--yes, Liszt did take part in the Cyril and Methodius celebrations, but that no more makes him an ethnic Slovak than the fact that I enjoy dancing the pravo horo makes me a Bulgarian. His parents' German/Austrian ethnicity is quite well established, and rack my brains as I might, I can't remember a single instance of him going by the name František. K. Lásztocska^talk 16:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven´t study this specific case too much, but I think that if we won´t find any slovak-sounding name of Franz Liszt, it is not an argument. I doubt, you would find any slavic name in the Kingdom of Hungary before WWI.--Michalides (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

...and neither is the absence of any Slavic names in the KoH (an entirely other point, by the way) a valid argument. There is no logic--you might as well postulate that Zoltán Kodály's name was actually Zlatan, when reminded that he never once went by that name cite the absence of Slavic names in official use in the KoH at the time of Kodály's birth, and leap into a QED. There are plenty of famous Hungarians whose Slavic ancestry is well-established and never seriously questioned (Lajos Kossuth and Sándor Petőfi being two prime examples), but any supposed crypto-Slovak Liszt is simply unsupported by historical fact. K. Lásztocska^talk 16:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

When I was studying my lineage, I found out, that surname of my ancestors was chandged several times and written by almost unrecognizable hungarian spelling, so I know what I am talking about. And it doesn´t mean, they were hungarians, but that names had to be written by hungarian grammar at that times. That´s why I´m against using the appearence of any name from age of KoH as an argument for proving it´s nationality.--Michalides (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. My own name has been similarly mangled by history, though in my case it's a botched Anglicization of the Hungarian original of my immigrant ancestors. But my name or yours are both irrelevant--the point is, there is no serious or verifiable evidence (besides Demko's made-up assertions) that Liszt was of Slovak origin, so we're not putting it in the article. K. Lásztocska^talk 21:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Chapter "technical innovations"

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 Józef Hofmann 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)

Liszt performing as boy at Baden?

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)

Additional remarks to Liszt's Etudes

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)

Liszt award/prize

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)

Origin of the theory of Liszt's "piano revolution"

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)

Shortened version of chapter "riginal songs"

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)

"Performing Style" section

This part is a disgrace in its current version, with misguiding generelizations, poorly choosed sources and even plain factual errors all over the place. Rewriting this section should be one of the more urgent tasks for this article, especially so as this is a highly relevant topic for someone with such a reputation in this field as Franz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.225.228.99 (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you please give some tiny bits of concrete details?85.22.23.42 (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

In the middle of the new year's eve celebrations here, but the first statement I reacted to was that "Liszt's playing during this period was in reviews described as very brilliant and very precise, like a living metronome". There is no citation showing who wrote he sounded like a living metronome, and even if there is a review somewhere using the phrase I for one would think twice before including it in an article attempting to characterize his playing. Even Liszt's earliest concert tours were, with very few exceptions, hugely successful and the vast majority of the extant reviews are highly positive. Even if 99% of them give very weak descriptions of how he actually sounded I can't really see they all describe someone playing like a living metronome. Furthermore, I know of no really good sources from the 1820s that describe how Liszt really sounded (other than in imprecise adjectives like "brilliant", "remarkable" etc), but one of the most detailed early descriptions can be found in the diary of Auguste Boissier from the winter of 1831/1832, and the picture that emerges there is a completely different one. From there we learn that Liszt was a pianist with an unusually fine sense of sound, with abandonment, charm and truth in musical expression as prime characteristics, that he was the enemy of stilted, affected and contorted expressions, and that it was a "liberated feeling" listening to him. All this in rather stark contrast to what is being portrayed at wikipedia currently.

Regarding the virtuoso years, the first biographical part has already been dealt with earlier in the article, and whoever wrote this then begins by saying that some of Liszt's contemporaries called him a charlatan performer (note some, and that specifically who, when and in what context are not mentioned), and then keeps building on this making it appear is if he actually was a charlatan! There are ample of evidence from highly distinguished musicians (Schumann, Mendelssohn, Alkan, etc) that show that he was in fact held in extremely high regard, far from "merely a fashionable virtuoso entertainer lacking inspiration" as is claimed here. If this statement has a source somewhere, I can imagine it is meant to point out that Liszt was at this time still not recognized as a composer of any greater merit. But in this section it is his piano playing we are looking at, and views on his abilities as a composer must not be confused with those on him as a pianist.81.225.228.99 (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Much is to be said to this. Unfortunately my free time is somewhat restricted today. Thus I must ask you for some patience.85.22.8.125 (talk) 10:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Mine has been the opposite today, so I have taken the chance to clear up the Repertoire section a little (also full of nonsense earlier), and have also slowly begun working on the Performing section. It is a considerable task to rewrite this one properly however, I could certainly use some help if there are more people here who feel like improving on it.81.225.228.99 (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Returning to the claim of those "misguiding generalizations, poorly chosen sources and even plain factual errors all over the place", the sentence, "Liszt's playing during this period was in reviews described as very brilliant and very precise, like a living metronome." says exactly that what everyone will take as impression when reading the reviews. Especially the term "like a living metronome" was taken from a review of a concert on April 11, 1826, in Marseille, to be found in: Eckhardt, Maria: Liszt à Marseille, in: Studia Musicologica Academiae Scientarum Hungaricae 24 (1982), p.165. Liszt was praised for his precision and his absolutely never changing the tempo. The reviewer then wrote:

cette précision remarquable est digne de rivaliser celle du métronome.

("This remarkable precision is worthy of competing that of the metronome.")

There is no need for wondering, since Liszt's father had forced him to practice scales and brilliant etudes with metronome for several hours every day. On the other hand, as characteristic for Liszt, he was through all parts of his concert career, in Italy, Germany, Great Britain and France, frequently criticized for a lack of sensitiveness, expressiveness and emotions. Examples with regard to his first concerts in winter and spring 1822-23 in Vienna can be found in: Legány, Deszö: Franz Liszt, Unbekannte Presse und Briefe aus Wien 1822-1886, Wien 1984, p.17ff. Another example with a very detailed description of Liszt's concert habits is a letter of spring 1825 or 1826 by one Lecourt, himself advocate at Marseille, to Jenny Montgolfier, piano teacher at Lyon, to be found in the above cited essay by M. Eckhardt, p.168f.

"Huge success" of a virtuoso means that he gets a plenty of money and applause from the crowd. Very critical remarks with regard to this can be found in Liszt's book about Chopin. According to Liszt, persons of his audience had not attended his concerts for the purpose of listening to his music, but for the purpose of having listened to him and being able to talk about it. A couple of bars of a Waltz and a fugitive reminding of an emotion had been enough for them. Thus "huge success" as such has nearly nothing to do with artistic merits. A person with a prominent name who plays rapid passages and makes much noise with octaves will surely be adored by the crowd. Looking at the pop business of our days shows that even much less is sufficient. While it is obvious that most of those highly praised stars have practically no education at all and can hardly sing or play an instrument, they are nevertheless posed and by many accepted as great artists. This is not to say that Liszt was not able to do better things. At his concerts during his tours, however, he did not ask for aesthetics, but wanted to gain money and applause.

Auguste Boissier, mother of Valerie Boissier, wrote nothing else than that what every lady would write about her daughter's admired piano teacher. Liszt's own opinion with regard to his playing was more realistic. In the lesson of January 11, 1832, he told the ladies Boisssier that his playing was rather bad. For this reason he planned to give up his teaching career, concentrating all his forces on his development as artist instead. In fact, it had been nearly two years earlier when on April 29, 1830, he had for a last time performed in public. Since then he had had love adventures with several ladies, but done practically nothing in favour of his career as artist. At end of 1831 he had made the acquaintance of Chopin and Mendelssohn, both first rank artists who had arrived in Paris with a suitcase full of masterworks. Chopin's first impression of Liszt had been that he was a zero as pianist. Mendelssohn wrote in a letter to his sister Fanny that Liszt was the most dilettantish of all dilettantes. Liszt as composer did not yet exist. He was not “misunderstood” because of the “progressive style" of his compositions, but actually had written nearly nothing of artistic value.

The term "charlatan" was taken from a biographical essay (in fact a brochure of more than 100 pages) about Liszt, published in May 1843 under the name Duverger. It was presumably written by Marie d'Agoult and was authorized by Liszt himself, who read it before publication. "Charlatan" was meant as description of Liszt's performing style during the early 1830s in Paris. He wanted success, i. e. applause, at any cost. Due to his tricks and strange habits he was regarded as a person who wants to pose himself as genius, but exaggerates everything like a bad actor from the province. The sceptical view in the biographical essay was shared by Berlioz, d'Ortigue and many others, all of them close friends of Liszt. Their opinion is confirmed by descriptions in the contemporary press.

The term, "merely a fashionable virtuoso entertainer, lacking inspiration" was taken from Michael Saffle's book Liszt in Germany, p.211f. Saffle had collected and evaluated huge amounts of many hundreds of contemporary reviews. It was Saffle's conclusion that Liszt, since 1842 at least, was regarded merely as fashionable virtuoso entertainer, lacking inspiration. Saffle, himself rather fanatical admirer of Liszt, is worldwide recognized as top Liszt expert.

Coming to Schumann, Mendelssohn, Alkan and "etc.". I'll skip those "etc." (whoever they are) and restrict myself to the others. Concerning Alkan, nothing more is known from him than that he heard Liszt's playing around 1830 in Paris and found it awfully brilliant. Nothing less, but nothing more. The very complex development of the relations between Liszt, Schumann and Mendelssohn can't be explained in short. (Nothing less than a rather thick book will do.) When in spring 1840 Mendelssohn met Liszt in Leipzig, he tried to give friendly help to him. Liszt had made enemies because of his arrogance. Mendelssohn thus arranged a joint concert with Liszt. In winter 1841-42 he met Liszt in Berlin. His opinion of Liszt's playing was now very sceptical. In one of his letters he gave an account of Liszt's playing the fugue of Beethoven's "Hammerklavier Sonata". According to this, Liszt had worked very fast and indistinct through the piece. Hitting many false keys, Liszt had here skipped some bars and there added some. Mendelssohn also mentioned Liszt's arrogance again. Another description can be found in Schumann's diary. On August 7, 1842, he met the actors Schröder Devrient and Charlotte von Hagn in Dresden. They were talking about Liszt's stay at Berlin. Schröder Devrient imitated in most ridiculous kinds Liszt's behaving. Without Liszt knew it, they were all laughing about him.

Schumann, who in spring 1840 had strong problems of his private life, by this time needed Liszt's help. Friedrich Wieck, father of Clara Wieck, had at the civil court at Dresden claimed, Schumann's piano works were unplayable. For the purpose of refuting this, Schumann had asked Liszt to play some of his pieces at one of his concerts at Leipzig. Thus Liszt played a selection of the Carnaval, and Schumann praised Liszt's performances in reviews. Since Schumann needed his own reviews as proof at the civil court, he published some of them under an anonymous name. (All this turned out as superfluous since the court did not take interest in the question whether Schumann's compositions were unplayable or not.) According to other reviews, Liszt's performance of a piano concerto by Mendelssohn had been very bad, and this even in technical respect. Clara Wieck, who had previously heard Liszt in spring 1838 in Vienna, found his performance of the selection from the Carnaval disappointing. She also criticized that Liszt was permanently looking at the score instead of playing from memory. Schumann in some of his reviews wrote excuses like, "An artist is no god." and similar kinds. From his private letters it is known that he actually did not like Liszt's compositions and his playing style. Liszt's arrogance was criticized by Schumann as well. After Liszt had in the beginning of December 1841 for a further time performed in Leipzig, he received a very dry review in the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik. According to this, it was at least not to be feared that anyone would follow the example as given by him. The impression from Clara Schumann's diary entries and private letters is much worse. Since 1842 Liszt was merely a caricature of an artist in Schumann's view.

As conclusion, it is my impression that Liszt had wasted much time and energy with his tours. Precisely this was Marie d'Agoult's constant complaint. His playing at his concerts and his seeking for the applause of Countesses and Barons were surely the mortal part of his personality. With his talents he would have better done, staying at home and composing his masterworks. In this case he would not have been Liszt, of course. So, the cat is biting the tail. This tension between different aspects of Liszt's personality is characteristic for him, and it doesn't make sense to hide it.85.22.5.103 (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I will try to stay civilized here, but your "scholarship" makes me so angry that I can't give any promises...

First, the reviewer's intention with the metronome remark as you give it here was quite different from how you put it at wikipedia. To say someone played like a living metronome like you did is a terribly hard thing to say on any pianist, but to say "The remarkable precision is worth of competing with that of the metronome" is something quite different. If you are going quote reviews, do it properly.

As to Mme Boissier, she did most certainly not say what "every lady would write about her daughter's piano teacher". She did much more than that in that her diary offers some real descriptive remarks about Liszt's playing, and for this her diary is the best source I am aware of from this time. Reviews of Liszt's playing seldom offers anything beyond "we have never heard the third movement played so brilliantly", or "we wish the opening sonata had been played more expressively" and similar which are virtually useless to posterity to try to build a picture of how he actually sounded. But Boissier's text does this, and it is thus a gold mine of first hand information.

Regarding Saffle, I don't question his remarks, but I very seriously question your use of them. Looking this up now I see they are indeed used in the context of Liszt as a composer (even though I can't find the "lacking inspiration" part), and has absolutely nothing to do with his artistic value as a pianist. Liszt's development and recognition as a composer is another interesting story, but what, I wonder, do such opinions have to do with his "Performing Style"? The way you put it made it seem as if he wasn't taken all too seriously compared to other pianists. On the contrary, on the previous page even, Saffle writes "no one disputed seriously that he was the greatest living pianist, probably greatest of all time". As a pianist, he was thus held in very high regard.

As to the rest of your text, Liszt's mannerisms at the keyboard are well known, but to try to imply that he was a charlatan and a media production a la Lang Lang like you did at his very wikipedia article is frankly disgusting. You know perfectly well how the relationship between d'Agoult and Liszt was by 1843, and how she kept treating him for many years after this, and to hold up her article as a typical example is very poor judgement. Likewise in the case of the Schumanns, whose friendship with Liszt also went downhill from March 1840. Before their break he was full of praise of Liszt's playing. As to the poor performance of Mendelssohn's concerto, the Carnval numbers, and Schumann's "No man is a god" review, they all relate to the same concert as far as I recall, and Schumann's review continues with "and yet the visible strain under which Liszt played on this occassion was the natural consequence of all that he had been through" (which was a time of illness, a terribly hectic concert schedule and I believe even a long journey ending only on the morning of the concert, PLUS it should be mentioned that Liszt didn't know the Mendelssohn concerto - he played it through virtually at sight). No comment on how Liszt played the Caranval excerpts, but if you choose Clara to judge them it must again be remembered that they were not exactly best friends at this time and that they kept quarelling over how Schumann's music should be played for decades. Robert, by the way, reviewed more than just this of Liszt's concerts that month, and wrote most favourably of others where his music was not played. Did he need those for his court as well?

If you have no other business here than to throw dirt on Liszt and spread misinformation I suggest you spare wikipedia from your "research" - we can well do without it. I for one have had enough of all this drivel already, both regarding Liszt as pianist and his repertoire (a section which also bore your unmistakable quality of information, I assume you were the author there as well).81.225.228.99 (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear 81.225.228.99, I have much patience, but there are kinds of behaviour which I don't like in the least. It was your claim that in chapter "Performing style" there were "misguiding generalizations, poorly chosen sources and even plain factual errors all over the place". In addition to this you recently wrote that another chapter "was full of nonsense". It is also obvious that you want to pose yourself as if you were the one who as single person could decide at last how things were to be rewritten "properly". With an attitude as bold as this a person must have a bit more to offer than that what until now can be recognized in case of you. Regarding chapter "Performing style" I yesterday demonstrated that your claims, as offending as they had actually been put, were wrong. I could proceed, showing in details that everything you took away from the article had been correct while everything you put in was either misleading or wrong. Instead of doing this, I'd like to remind you that you are not at home but at Wikipedia at this place. There are some rules and policies which are obligatory for you. As far as it is your opinion that the work as done by others was "full of nonsense", you may think so. In this case please use this talk page and try to give better arguments than until now. For the moment I'll revert your edits, since the article has become not better, but worse. Much could be said to your previous posting again, for example that in spring 1840 Liszt and Clara Wieck could not possibly have "quarrelled for decades" (By this time they were friends.), and that the biographical sketch by Duverger (which you didn't read) was in fact authorized and distributed by Liszt. However, as long as you won't be able to change your attitude, reasonable arguments would be wasting my energy and obviously in vain.85.22.26.132 (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Up to this point you have not demonstrated that even a single one of my claims were wrong. All you have done is to show your ability to misquote reviews, take statements out of context and use biased sources. I commented on I believe every one of the points you made and my reasons for editing or removing them, and I can certainly point out your errors in the repertoire section as well if you wish. Furthermore, your ability to misquote people is apparently not limited merely to the Liszt litterature - I never wrote Clara and Liszt had "argued for decades" about Schumann's music by 1840, I wrote they KEPT ON quarreling for decades. And by March 1840 they were anything but friends. Liszt had taken sides against her father in the court you mentioned, and she wrote to Robert "This has cost me bitter tears and it is not right of you at all". To the best of my knowledge, she never said a nice word again about Liszt. Regarding Duverger, I have kept it as a reference in my edit of the text at wikipedia - all I did was to remove it as an example that Liszt was regarded as a charlatan during his virtuoso years, a claim I think you'll have a job to prove.

The ball is in your court now. It is time YOU point out the errors in MY text if you are going to revert them. Anyone is allowed to alter or expand it in the meantime (I am going to myself, it is not finished) providing the changes are backed up by modern research, but I will not allow your rubbish back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.225.228.99 (talk) 12:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please skip your personal attacks. If you are "angry, since you got the feeling to have lost a battle, don't post anything! Coming to your quotation from Clara Wieck's letter, it is well known in the Schumann literature and is correlated with the affaire at the civil court at Dresden. As such it has nothing to do with hostile feelings against Liszt. The fact that Liszt, Clara Wieck and Schumann were friends by that time is quite well known and can be confirmed with quotations from their letters. If you want more details in this respect you'll get them the other day.

Concerning your former claims, a person who absolutely never changes the tempo and who for this reason is compared with a metronome actually plays "like a living metronome". Whether this is "a terribly hard thing to say on any pianist" is merely a matter of taste. The long history of piano playing includes many different styles, and playing "like a living metronome" is one of them. Examples from the 20th century are early recordings of Friedrich Gulda who in that period of his career occasionally played like this. There were persons who liked it while there were others who preferred different styles. It is the same with Liszt, who during the 1820 certainly didn't take care of the musical taste of a person who 180 years later would be sitting at Wikipedia. and writing an article about him.

"As to Mme Boissier", I'd suggest imagining a piano teacher of our days who wants to take the poor information in her diary (additional parts with rather critical remarks about Liszt were published elsewhere) as "gold mine" for his own lessons. He would tell his students: "You must play with more expression since 176 years ago the famous Auguste Boissier had liked this." It would be ridiculous. The ladies Boissier returned to Geneva at end of March 1832, by the way. Thus Madame Boissier never had had a chance of watching Liszt's eccentric habits in the Parisian concerts he gave afterwards. His performing style during this period was totally different from that of the 1820s. There were further changes in later times (In a review of his "duel" with Thalberg on March 30, 1837, Liszt was described as noisily tappig the meter with his left foot.), and even Liszt's performing style of spring 1838, when Clara Wieck heard him in Vienna, was different from that of spring 1840, when she heard him in Leipzig. After his bankrupt in Great Britain in winter 1840-41 and the failure of his stay at London in May-June 1841 there was another change. Thus his playing style at concerts of the beginning of December 1841, when Schumann heard him in Weimar and Leipzig again, was different from that of spring 1840.

Your quotation from Saffle's Liszt in Germany, p.209, was nothing new at this place. (see n.4 in the present article's introduction) Unfortunately you did not mention Saffle's n.11, according to which there were contrary views as well. While Saffle tries to talk them away as they "seem to have been exceptions to a generally accepted rule", large amounts of those "exceptions" can be found. (A telling example is Saffle's n.193 on p.149 of his book.) According to Saffle's p.211f, Liszt's concerts were social events rather than musical ones. Due to Liszt's occasional lapses in performances of German masterpieces he was as main part juged from his playing his own fantasies and transcriptions. These pieces, however, according to Saffle, were usually evaluated primarily not as "musical works" but in terms of their spectacular technique. Thus Liszt was regarded as an overimaginative or even vulgar technician and not much more. In other words, he was regarded as a virtuoso, lacking inspiration.

As general remark: An encyclopedia is no part of a missionary station of an "Eternal Church of the Holy Franz". In other words, it is the task to adequately describe him without hiding such aspects of his personality which you don't like.85.22.126.155 (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is not much to add to this apart from what has already been said. Your last remark is incidentally precisely the reason I started this topic. It is for instance interesting to note that Alan Walker's biography on Liszt, generally considered the finest to have been published, doesn't agree with your view at all either - nor do I recall having ever seen any encyclopedia portray Liszt's virtuoso years the way you did. And yet you feel wikipedia should? Small wonder the backing-up of your claims have been very weak to say the least, and having seen examples of how you choose sources and "interpret" what is written I frankly don't know whether to laugh or cry. For the time being I will spend precisely the amount of energy on your arguments that they deserve - I will go and prepare lunch. 81.225.228.99 (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This is certainly no reasonable debating style.85.22.2.20 (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

However, it is not simply unreasonable, but impossible to debate with you, good sir from Germany, since you utterly refuse to concede that a single one of your conclusions might be incorrect, and rather than debating us on issues, you resort to ludicrous accusations that we are caught in a "quasi-religious fervor" (as you once accused me) and now that we are trying to build an "Eternal Church of the Holy Franz" by "hiding such aspects of his personality which (we) don't like." Except the simple fact of the matter is that none of us are trying to "hide" anything, and if we object to one or another of your absurd dissertations it is simply because it is utterly unsupportable, plainly unscientifically-determined, illogical, politically-motivated, blatantly self-contradictory, assuming of poor faith, or with pretensions to clairvoyancy. Do you not realize that you, an unknown and anonymous amateur identified only with a series of IP addresses, are the sole and lone proponent of many if not all of your "theories"? If I may, good sir, it appears to be you that is caught up in a quasi-mystical fervor better suiting a cult leader, with approximately the tolerance for opposing viewpoints as one would expect to find in Torquemada, and the self-righteous paranoia about enemies attempting to "hide" your revelations and "cover up the truth" as is commonly found in conspiracy theorists and UFO-watchers. You will undoubtedly accuse me now of "personal attacks," and you may be right, but frankly I have long since stopped caring. You have no moral high ground here and even less scholarly high ground, and so I will say quite plainly that your theories are nonsense, you could rightly be described as an intellectual charlatan or even a simple quack, and most of all, you are rude and disruptive and have nearly driven me away from Wikipedia for good. And now, given that I have already prepared and eaten my lunch today, I will instead go make myself a nice cup of tea. K. Lásztocska^talk 20:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Liszt's playing the "Hammerklavier Sonata"

At end of chapter 2.3 someone added the traditional story of Liszt's presumed playing Beethoven's "Hammerklavier Sonata" in Paris. However, this is just another one of the fairy tales as invented by Lina Ramann. She had in the Revue et Gazette musicale of June 12, 1836, found the article "Listz" (sic!) by Berlioz. Berlioz wrote, Liszt had "more than once" performed at the salons Erard. In a later part of the article Berlioz mentioned a Sonata by Beethoven with a "divine" Adagio. Ramann, in her Franz Liszt als Künstler und Mensch, gave a translation to German of the article. At the point where the Sonata is mentioned, she added "(op.106)", the opus-number of the "Hammerklavier-Sonata", but this is not included in the original. As further source Ramann took an article by Joseph Mainzer (one of Schumann's Parisian correspondents) in the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik of 1836. According to Mainzer, Liszt had on one day performed at the Salons Erard and on the next day at the Salons Pleyel. Mainzer, however, did not mention any piece by Beethoven at all.

Liszt's personal copy of Ramann's book shows that Mainzer's account was in parts wrong. Liszt added the remark, "Gar kein Pleyel" ("No Pleyel at all"). From another article in the Revue et Gazette musicale it is known that Liszt had performed twice at the Salons Erard. The dates can be taken from Liszt's letters to Marie d'Agoult. He had performed on May 18 and on May 28, 1836. The first occasion was a kind of private concert to which Liszt himself had invited the audience. According to Berlioz in his article "Listz", Liszt had exclusively played own compositions. Some of them are known from one of Liszt's letters to Marie d'Agoult. He had played his Fantasies "Les Puritains" and "La Serenata e l'Orgia". In addition to this, Berlioz mentioned Liszt's Fantasy "La Juive". Berlioz also mentioned a Fantasy "Il Pirata", but this was corrected by Liszt in his personal copy of Ramann's book to "Puritaner". According to Meyerbeer's diary, the private concert on May 18 took place at midday and had a duration of an hour. Since this time would already have been filled with the "Hammerklavier-Sonata" alone, Liszt can't possibly have played it at this event.

On May 28 Liszt gave a dinner for some of his friends. (Dinner was at late afternoon in France.) They afterwards went to Erard where Liszt played his Waltz op.6, again his Fantasy "La Serenata e l'Orgia", and a fraction of one of his Swiss pieces to them. The repertoire is known from one of Liszt's letters to Marie d'Agoult. Neither at this event Liszt played anything by Beethoven.

Working through Berlioz' "Literary works" and through his letters to Liszt leads to the result that he indeed frequently mentioned a "divine" Adagio by Beethoven which had been played by Liszt. In one of his essays, however, Berlioz also mentioned the key of the Sonata. It was C-sharp Minor, while the key of the Adagio of the "Hammerklavier Sonata" is F-sharp Major. Hence Liszt had played not the "Hammerklavier Sonata", but the first movement of the so-called "Moonlight-Sonata" op.27/2, a rather easy piece. He had neither done it at the Salons Erard, but at Ernest Legouvé's home. The event was described by Berlioz, and in nearly identical kind by Legouvé in his Memoirs as well. According to these sources, it had been absolutely dark when Liszt played the piece, and Berlioz was weeping like a willow. Since it was dark and Berlioz' eyes were full of tears, he can't possibly have compared Liszt's playing with a score. This part of his article "Listz" was an exaggeration, and there are some more of them besides. The first Virtuoso who played the "Hammerklavier Sonata" in public was not Liszt, but Mortier de la Fontaine, by the way.

As additional remark to the affair, there are many points in the "Hammerklavier Sonata" where it is until today controversially disputed which notes are to be played. If a person just repeats the old legend with regard to Liszt without mentioning problematic aspects of Beethoven's score (for example A. Walker), he just shows that his knowledge of the "Hammerklavier Sonata" is very poor. In the second paragraph of chapter 2.4 nearly everything is misleading and wrong. The term "severe", as used in this particular context, is a Weasel word.85.22.23.42 (talk) 11:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

"Ferenc" or "Ferencz"?

There is a problem with regard to the spelling of the Hungarian version of Liszt's first name. In the present introduction it is "Ferenc", which is in accordance with the spelling as used by some Hungarian authors of our days. However, in Liszt's Hungarian passport of 1874, as reproduced in: Óváry, Joséf: Ferenc Liszt, Budapest 2003, p.29, the spelling is "Ferencz" instead. On p.28 of Óváry's book there is even a facsimile of a short musical example, signed by Liszt himself as "Liszt Ferencz". At the door at Liszt's apartment at the Royal Academy at Budapest there was a table, as reproduced in: Hamburger, Klara (ed.): Franz Liszt, Beiträge von ungarischen Autoren, Budapest 1984, between p.192 and 193. The first part of the inscription is in Hungarian and the second part in German. In the German part Liszt's name is "Franz Liszt", and in the Hungarian part "Liszt Ferencz". A further example is a caricature of 1876 on the same page. It shows Liszt as "Szt. Liszt Ferencz" ("St. Franz Liszt"), with a long queue of small children in front of him. Below the caricature there is a (somewhat modified) quotation from the Holy Bible: "Engedjétek hozzám jönni a csodagyermekeket, mert övék a jövő zenéjének orzáka." ("Let the tot prodigies come to me, for the kingdom of the music of the future will be theirs.") From my impression, thus the spelling "Ferencz" seems to be a better choice than "Ferenc".85.22.3.32 (talk) 10:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ferenc. Even if the old Hungarian "Ferencz" version was used then, reliable sources today — both Hungarian and English — mention the modern Hungarian "Ferenc" version. Squash Racket (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Liszt is certainly a poor fellow at this place. His personality and his biography are more and more substituted with Alan Walker's collected fantasies and fairy tales again, and now he is not even allowed to have decided between different spellings of his own name. Is it this what is used to be called "objectivity" or "encyclopedia style"?85.22.100.20 (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a matter of verifiability and common English usage today. Google Books (English hits as of January 2009):

• "Ferencz Liszt"
• "Ferenc Liszt"

Compare the two numbers. It is encyclopedic though to mention the "Ferencz Liszt" version appeared in his passport/was used in Hungary as the common Hungarian spelling of the name at that time. Please add the references too. Squash Racket (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)