Talk:Franz Liszt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Franz Liszt:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Other : Comments from ACID:

References, sources. Making content more informative[edit]

In short: reference making should be improved drastically to achieve unambiguousness in the logic of sentence building with the focus on formulating claims be to pronounce the said claims with more informativeness. E.g., consider the manner of wording of a part from "Liszt's students": "Some of Liszt's students were disappointed with him.[n 22] An example is Eugen d'Albert, who eventually was almost on hostile terms with Liszt.[n 23] Felix Draeseke who had joined the circle around Liszt at Weimar in 1857, is another example.". I'm confident the sources, referred to, are hardly obtainable (if ever, since most of such literature remains the part of collectible rarities kept in a limited number of library repositories) by the most of readers and even if it were otherwise the German language of the original sources is another serious obstacle for non-German speaking readers. One more hurdle is inconsistency: you say A, then, please, follow up the initiated trend: tell us about B, C and the rest so that the reader would know what were exact reasons for the person to be dissatisfied with Liszt's teaching (or whatever else) in a wider contextual environment. "Some of Liszt's students…" - who? What happened between d'Albert and Liszt? "..were another example" - be more specific. Adding some text won't make the article inflated but provide clear insight. (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


I was wondering if two changes could be made to the templates of this page: first of all, removing modernist composers (Liszt was a romantic composer and is not even in the template), and secondly, could someone create a Liszt template? I 'm not sure how to, but i think that Liszt deserves one.---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurateedits (talkcontribs) 16:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hungarian composer?[edit]

The earliest known ancestor in the paternal line is the composer's great-grandfather Sebastian List [sic]. Sebastian was a cotter ("Söllner"), said to be born in Rajka, Moson county, in about 1703, where he died on January 7, 1793. (This is according to Burgenland Newsletters 93). Even if the Hungarians stick to this story - Franz Liszt ist of Austrian/German origin (both parents are German speaking Austrians of German origin), he was brought up in German, spent most of his live in the german-western region and was the father-in-law of Richard Wagner (not Hungarian either, as much as I know..:-). Argument against: Ádám Liszt was not an Austrian, even if he would have been 100% german, which he was not. Name Slezák is slavic, from Northern Hungary, now Slovakia. Origin of name Liszt is UNCLEAR! Liszt means flour in hungarian! List measn tree-leaf in slovakian and in croatian! Liszt also looks in some photographies sligthly mongoloid, which is associated more with magyars, especially early magyars of the conquest-era, beginning ca 895. Liszt mother WAS partially Austrian. She was half Austrian. That is not uncommon to hungarians since they are more mixed than any other nation in Europe. Even common hungarians seem to forget about this fact! Have a look on any hungarians family tree. See hungarian writers family tree on Wikipedia in the hungarian language! See származás. Even a nationalistic hungarian poet like Petöfi was hardly more than 1 /16 -magyar...(Petöfi was of mixed serbian, slovakian, german (german speaking maybee swiss), and hungarian ancestry but of around 3/4 slovak ethnicity) This is an example of how difficult it is to understand what is an ethnic hungarian. Ethnic hungarians usually have some magyar strain, but it is generally in minority! DNA tests also verify this. Maybee szekler-magyars in Transylvania an hungarian nobility are exeptions to this. Some hungarian families have shifted ethnicity back and forth during the centuries. Magyar to slovak to german to slovak to magyar and so on. Of course he was influenced by the Hungarian folkmusic and livestyle, but he was a German speaking Citizen of the Austrian monarchyItalic text. Also his birthplace - Raiding - is in Austria. So please don't make him a's jut not true.

Raiding is NOW in Austria, at the time of Liszt's birth it was in Hungary. This issue has been beaten to death so many times on this page I'm astonished it keeps coming back up. One's family ancestry need not determine one's nationality, and in those days there were many German-speaking Hungarians (especially in Liszt's native Burgenland.) Regardless of all the nit-picky fine points and philosophical detours one can take, the only really relevant fact at this point is that in the far vast majority of published writing on Liszt, he is known as a Hungarian composer, sometimes elaborated (correctly) as a Hungarian composer of Austro-German extraction. Wikipedia, as I must exhaustedly state for what seems like the thousandth time, is not the place for "correcting" published sources (even if one is completely and utterly convinced that the sources are ALL WRONG!!!). K. Lásztocskatalk 04:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

-- (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC) In 1811, when Listz was born, Raiding was located in the Austrian Empire, because only in 1967 the Kindom of Hungary, which was part of Austia-Hungary, was established. Second, the people of the Burgenland, where Listz was born, voted in a referendum to join Austria-not Hungary in 1914. Please, my Hungarian friends (my wife is from Hungary, I am from Austria), stop your self-deception and accept the truth. It is better for you in the long run.

Oh stop it with that revolting, condescending attitude. As I've explained till I'm blue in the virtual face, THE POINT IS we need to reflect PUBLISHED SCHOLARLY CONSENSUS. Miroslav Demko aside, books call him a Hungarian composer so we do too. K. Lásztocskatalk 03:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
First, Kingdom of Hungary was not "established" in 1967 but officially some 967 years earlier (clearly, you refer to the Ausgleich/Compromise in 1867); second, the only referendum you could think of regarding this area was not held in 1914 but in 1921 (14th December) in Sopron - due to this plebiscite Sopron remained in Hungary. Third, Raiding has a nice Hungarian name (Doborján), first mentioned in 1425 as Dobornya, and it belonged to the area of Kingdom of Hungary till 1920. 18:46, 12 January 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
"When he returned to his native Pest for a concert in 1840 after a lengthy absence, he addressed some remarks to his audience by declaring: “Je suis hongrois” (“I am Hungarian”), in French." "This ambiguity between his earnest nationalism and a fervently practiced internationalism is perhaps best summed up by Liszt himself, in a letter to a friend in 1873: “Man darf mir wohl gestatten, dass ungeachtet meiner beklagenwerthen Unkentniss der ungarischen Sprache, ich von Geburt bis zum Grabe, im Herzen und Sinne, Magyar verbleibe.” (“It must surely be conceded that, regardless of my lamentable ignorance of the Hungarian language, I remain from birth to grave, in heart and mind, Magyar.”)" [1] Gregorik (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The Croatian Dr Kuhac claimed plausible Slavonic (i.e.from Slavonia, then in the Kingdom of Hungary, or Slavic or Croatian) origin.[17]Sir William H. Hadow wrote that Liszt was an ethnical Hungarian.[18] In Walkers Liszt family-tree there are also germanized Magyar names (Schandor instead of Sándor) as there are germanized Slavic ones (Schlesak instead of Slezak)[19] to add to the general confusion. The German-Magyar battle over Liszt started first after Trianan 1920, when Váralja/Burgenland became Austrian. During the national-socialist (1933-1945)era all German biographers claim Liszt to be German. Liszt considered himself Magyar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

There are documented facts about a hungarian noble family in the 16th and 17th centuries from Nagyszeben, Transsylvania, the Listi family (alternatively spelled Liszt, Liszthi, Listius, Liszthy etc). They were barons of Köpcsény, which actually is in the area where the composers family lived in! This family lost all their fortunes.He (FRANZ LISZT!) tried himself to prove the relation to this family. It appears most plausible that the Liszt family should be credited as hungarian, but it was of mixed origin , as is the case with all hungarians. But of course slavs and germans could also be "genetically proud" of him. László of Vällingby, Stockholm

I personally think that it would be more appropriate to call Liszt an Austro-Hungarian composer. He is born in a German environment to German-speaking parents in what is today Burgenland in Austria and never spoke Hungarian. He called himself a "Hungarian" but Hungary at the time under the rule of the Austrian Emperor was a multi-ethnic country. Ethnic Hungarians made up less than 50 percent of the countrys population. One cannot simply ingnore the cultural coinage of a man and in Liszt's case German culture is undoubtedly predominating. Just compare to Georg Friedrich Händel. To my knowledge Händel never referred to himself as an 'Englishman'. --Furfur (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
J.F.Kennedy said during his visit to Germany "Ich bin ein Berliner". Surely, Germans don't claim now that J.F.K. was German. Simply because Franz Liszt said during 1 single concert in Hungary that he is Hungarian does not make him Hungarian. The guy did not even speak Hungarian. --Wikijasmin (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
JFK was, in a sense, joking. Liszt was not. But even if he would never had publicly self-identified as Hungarian, the above-quoted 1873 private letter settles this issue once and for all: "in heart and mind, I am Magyar". It would be a sheer betrayal of the man's intimate self-identification if any biographer would list him as anything other than Magyar after this point. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 08:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Scholarly consensus among German and Austrian scholars is, I'm quite sure, that he is Austrian. At least he entered the curricula of schools to be treated amongst German composers... Just fyi and fwiw. It might also be said that Burgenland became Austrian for a reason, and that Ödenburg, honored by the Hungarians as "most loyal", was most loyal to Hungary indeed, but is bilingual to this day.-- (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Lol, Liszt was that Austrian, as Chopin was French ;) You, Germans/Austrians, have such affliction that you claim everything and everyone valuable is of German origin or/and a German property. You must obviously see Europe as a big Germany, it is a real shock! It seems that nothing has changed since the Third Reich (Adolf Hitler was undoubtedly Austrian, that's for sure) :/ (talk)Maciej, Warsaw, Poland —Preceding undated comment added 19:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

"Ferenc" or "Ferencz"?[edit]

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". (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"? (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Good grief, Anonymous Scholar. Did Alan Walker steal your baby blanket in first grade or something? K. Lásztocskatalk 04:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

An evaluation of the two links strongly supports "Ferencz" as main version of Liszt's historical Hungarian name. This version is used in the newest edition of the Academic American Encyclopedia as well as in Michael Saffle's Guide to Liszt Research. (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

And Britannica uses "Ferenc Liszt"... The Liszt Ferenc Society and the Liszt Ferenc Memorial Museum bear these names for a reason.
There are about three times more English hits for the modern version. I repeat: feel free to add it as an archaic version used in Hungary at the time with references. But I don't want to argue anymore, I hope another editor will answer you, if you still have questions. Squash Racket (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There are Hungarian rules of orthography to settle this. Before 1922, cz was used to write the voiceless alveolar affricate /ts/. The Hungarian Academy of Sciences in its reform of 1922 abolished the use of cz and replaced it with the single letter c. Use of cz was kept in historical family names but not in given names. See Rules of Hungarian Orthography paragraphs 12, 87 and 157.
Thus the standard modern usage is Ferenc. Another example showing both the rule and the exception according to the modern usage is the name of Rákóczi Ferenc. Hollomis (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
So, what else to conclude from this than that Liszt's historical Hungarian first name was "Ferencz" instead of "Ferenc"? (talk) 08:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
That references support the other version more. Squash Racket (talk) 08:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
His original passport is the ultimate primary source. It is irrelevant for an encyclopedia what modern writers made of it. His first name in Hungarian was Ferencz. There can not be any debate. That an orthographic reform fifty years after the death of a person changes the person's name is absurd. That modern Hungarians use Ferenc should be mentioned as such. Kraxler (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Composer project review[edit]

I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This article is of generally good quality (talk page discussion aside), with clear potential to eventually become a Feature Article. While I am hardly expert on the factual details of Liszt's life and reputation, it seems to present a fairly good picture of his life. The section discussing his reputation and legacy is rightfully tagged for expansion -- there is no 20th-century appreciation, to name an obvious hole. I've made more detailed comments (including suggestions on reducing the article's size) on the comments page; questions and comments should be left here or on my talk page. Magic♪piano 17:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Colored Hearing[edit]

It is said that Franz Liszt had synesthesia, or a mixing of the senses.

Who said it? And where and when? (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

yes, franz liszt had synesthesia. many other musicians and artists have synesthesia as well. the kind that liszt has is sound color.--Violarulez (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

And you know this how, exactly? Unless you are in reality, Franz Liszt, I can't really see what you could back that claim up with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Transcriptions section[edit]

Anyone care to translate the German phrase in this paragraph? I feel that a Google translate may not work well here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slapazoid (talkcontribs) 02:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look at n. (talk) 10:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

About the life of Liszt[edit]

Just to say it would be great if people would help out on the Life of Franz Liszt article. It does need some sections expanded like Liszt in Geneva, Meets Princess von Sayn-Wittgenstein, Failed Marriage Attempt and Threefold life, as well as there been suggestions for new sections. Not much seems to happen to this article, and I've done what I can, so please do help edit Life of Franz Liszt. I think its a vital part of Franz Liszt on Wikipedia. Ross Rhodes (T C) Sign! 16:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


I've created two articles about his compositions, Gnomenreigen and Waldesrauschen. It seems like articles about Liszt's compositions are extremely scarce, so I'll try and create some more. -download ׀ sign! 23:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC) Franz Liszt is very beautiful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Information related to Life of Franz Liszt[edit]

Just to say, if you wish to make major contributions to Life of Franz Liszt, please read the third comment on the discussion page. Where I have added a link showing much information needed for that article. Ross Rhodes (T C) Sign! 20:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions about Liszt's ethnicity[edit]

A sober assessment of Liszt's national origin must take into account the research which consistently establishes his Austro-German ethnicity.

Liszt's ethnic origins have been somewhat obscured by his own preferred identification as a Hungarian, which came from his father Adam Liszt who was apparently the first generation to spell the surname phonetically the Hungarian way instead ot the original German way, List. Some confusion may have arisen from the changing borders--Raiding was western Hungary at the time of Liszt's birth, 1811, but was transferred to the Austrian state of Burgenland after World War 1.[1][2]

  • There may have been an element of career opportunism in Liszt's identification with Hungary despite his apparent lack of any Hungarian forbears or familiarity with the Hungarian language. 88keys4me (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
There may be an element of original research in your interpretation of what the sources say. I don't see any confusion in the changing borders: at the time Burgenland belonged to Hungary. I don't see how it is relevant what happened to the territory after his death.
The article covers both his family's origin (German-speaking serfs migrating to Hungary) and his own nationality (Hungarian) based on reliable, English references. Squash Racket (talk) 05:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was already clear from my statement above that I was giving an opinion on what the sources say and was not trying to present it as a fact. I think it is an idea worth exploring, and that this is the place to do so.88keys4me (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it is potentially confusing as sources invariably refer to Liszt's birthplace as Raiding, Hungary--a place which has not existed for nearly a century.88keys4me (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
At the time (and before that for centuries) it was part of Hungary, so the sources — surprisingly — are correct. Squash Racket (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The sources may be correct that it belonged to Hungary at the time, but the fact that now it isn't Hungary continues to make for ambiguity.88keys4me (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I added the current location of the village. Squash Racket (talk) 11:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
That adds some clarity on the issue.88keys4me (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
This issue has been beaten to death in the archives. Liszt was of German ethnicity and Hungarian nationality. Such things were possible in those days. K. Lásztocskatalk 05:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Beaten to death in the archives? Perhaps, but I have found surprisingly little discussion on this subject in many standard biographies. There seems to be a lot of confusion, obfuscation and tendentious nationalistic drivel in many of the sources I have consulted. When I first checked the Liszt page on Wikipedia it described Liszt as having been "born into a family of ethnic Hungarians", which is patently false. Since then it has been changed back and forth--Hungarian, Austro-Hungarian, Hungarian again.88keys4me (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
ALL reliable sources describe him as Hungarian. The fact that his German-speaking great-grandfather moved to Hungary is mentioned in the article already. Squash Racket (talk) 11:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • ALL "reliable" sources are not reliable, or at least omit information. Liszt was an ultra-Romantic in the Romantic age. He was also a master at showmanship. Posing as a "Magyar" when it was propitious was part of that.88keys4me (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

He was of slovak ethnicity, and the mother tongue was slovak, according to Miroslav Demko. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Miroslav Demko is not a reliable source, it has already been pointed out, see archives. Squash Racket (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I won't meddle with people with an agenda on Wikipedia, but it's clear people with a Hungarian nationalist one have had too much leeway in this article, yes. /Keinstein (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The next time someone mentions Miroslav Demko I am going to VOMIT. No one writing here has a "Hungarian nationalist agenda," least of all me (I'm American!!) The only "agenda" I have is adherence to accepted, reliable, published, scholarly sources, the vast vast majority of which refer to Liszt as a Hungarian composer of German extraction. So, hyperventilating revisionists and easily-offended Slovaks notwithstanding, that is the reality the article must reflect. K. Lásztocskatalk 04:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't want to necromance, but seriously guys, this issue has been beaten to death time and time again. I remember taking part in this same discussion several months ago. Many people, who have extensive knowledge in the field (including one that I have great respect for, Antandrus) have shared their valuable input. It was established then and it remains now that Liszt is Hungarian by nationality and by ethnicity. This is the way it has always been and this is the way it should always be (the fact that nobles and aristocrats were educated in German does not necessarily make them such). Anything else is agenda pushing.

If you still have any doubts or an acute memory lapse (for some, at least) about this, I strongly suggest you take a look at the archive of this page. aNubiSIII (T / C) 04:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually: What sources agree, ergo hard facts, is that the first known of Liszts forefathers was Sebestyén/Sebastian. Everything else is guessing and/or wanting on ethnical grounds. These ethnical claims are germanic, magyaric and slavic. All are biased and driven by nationalist. The family name Liszt could be either of germanic, magyaric and slavic origin. That Sebastians father immigrated to Hungary is taken from the air. It is possible that the Liszts had german origins, but there had been Liszt i Sopron already in the early 15th century. Please read István Csekey! Even Walker should read him. There had also been Lists in Zagreb in the 16th century. Zagreb was within the Hungarian Kingdom but it was only populated to about 5 % magyars and 5 % germans together. List means leaf in some slavic. It means flour in hungarian. Why not make DNA test? Liszt looks mongoloid in some Daguerrotypes. In Sopron area Petcheneg tribes settled in the time of Árpáds conquest of the future kingdom. I mean, it is still an open question what ethnic background Liszt actually had. Everything indicates a mixed magyar (original hungarians), germanic and slavic origin, but this cant be proved either. László of Stockholm, of mixed hungarian origins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Liszt's technique[edit]

Apologies if this has come up already but there is a book called "Famous pianists and their technique" by R. Gerig that goes into quite a bit of depth about Liszt's own teaching method, opinions and practises that might help expand the teaching section beyond the usual. For instance, what he called "la main morte" and his focus on slow practise. It also includes samples of his own five-finger exercises.Blurgezig (talk) 04:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Musical Works section...[edit] a bit biased, I think. "Many of Liszt's results were remarkable." "...a concert piece full of charming melodies." "they show him in much better light than works such as the paraphrase "Gaudeamus igitur"". I don't disagree with these statements, but they sound more like program notes than neutral encyclopaedic material. Fairweather01 (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Expressions like those will be found practically everywhere, even in scholarly publications. In Liszt's case they say that there are huge differences of style between different ones of his works. As such, as it seems, the said expressions include an objective statement with which nobody disagrees. In other words, they include objective truth. (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel the section comes off as uneven if there is no stand alone heading for original piano music. I am going to reformat this portion of the articl so that this comes across more cleanly.Drpainosaurus (talk)11:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


This section is incredibly extensive. So much so that it could really benefit from some form of organization other than alphabetizing. If anyone would be willing to pursue this undertaking it would be a huge service to the article.Drpainosaurus (talk)011:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


The "German-father" idea did not appeared until the Adolf Hitler's nazi regime. They didn't found original material proofs for the German origin of Sebestyén Liszt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

An early example of the "German-father" idea can be found in the Siebenbürger Volksfreund (a contemporary paper in Hungary), 1846, No.48, p.375. In a note of November 27, 1846, from Hermannstadt it is to be read that Liszt was an offspring of German parents and only by chance born in Hungary. Much earlier examples of similar kind can be found in French sources. Thus the "German-father" idea had noting at all to do with A. Hitler's astounding career. (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There aren't original proofs in the official letters for his father's German origin in his county and his city. Your letters are not contemporary. Perhabs this late letter refered for his mother's origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In the centenary of Liszt's birth, Hungarians waited for material proofs (contemporary documents) about the existence of sebastian List, but the austrians/germans hadn't original documents about Sebastian List. Therefore it remained fictitious person. Old foreign biographies of Liszt didn't mentioned these lineage. It was only Hitler's invention. Shameful that Hitler's fantasy & culture- politics survived many decades after WW2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

nationality (again)[edit]

Wow, so I've been reading all the back-and-forth on this page and I see I would be a fool to jump into it...but here goes. In the section "Early Life," all the ranting about clearly establishing his Hungarian nationality seems very out of place. It jumps from his birth to his later life to concerts he gave at other times all willy-nilly. From the perspective of a politically neutral reader, it's just in a terribly confusing style. Wouldn't it be better to take all the national stuff out of that section entirely and maybe create a separate sub-section to address the issue of his ethnicity and nationality? Obviously his Hungarian patriotism will be relevant in later sections, but why muddle up the section on his childhood with it? It's just bad writing, in the opinion of this humble ink-stained wretch. Florestanová (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

His nationality and ethnicity are being questioned around every two weeks, this is the most controversial issue in the article, so complete removal was a bit too fast. I'm adding it as a note if it annoys you in the text. Squash Racket (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I was advocating relocation of that material to a more appropriate section, not "complete removal." The notes are fine for now--perhaps later a short section describing the issues of his nationality could be created. Florestanová (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
After all those debates about Liszt's presumed nationality it should have become obvious that there is only a single solution of your problem. You must tell the readers of your article that still until today there are different opinions regarding Liszt's nationality. Since there is no need for returning to Miroslaw Demko's exceptional theory of a presumed Slovakian origin, there are exactly two alternatives. Liszt was either Austrian or Hungarian, no matter what he himself in certain parts of his life might have thought or said about it. So just write that these authors claimed, Liszt was Austrian (there are many of them, even Hungarian ones), while those authors decided that he was Hungarian. Of course you must also give a sketch of the reasons of the different parties. (A. Walker, who in vol.1 of his Liszt biography assured that he can't even understand the problem, has with this disqualified him himself.) A definitive decision between the two alternatives is beyond the scope of an encyclopaedia article. It's just a characteristic part of Liszt's personality that a simple answer to the question of his nationality doesn't exist. As far as I can see he was the only artist of the 19th century with this problem. (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
First of all, Liszt traveled on a Hungarian passport, which does not leave any doubt, legally. Second, the opinion, and statement, of the subject himself is of the utmost importance. Liszt himself declared he was Hungarian, so I think it extremely pretentious by an anonymous user to question him. Kraxler (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
From my own perspective it doesn't make any difference whether Liszt might be regarded as Austrian or as Hungarian at this placee. However, this is not the point. At first: Nationality in Hungary was not dependant on that what a person (for example Liszt) said about it, but exclusively dependant on his father's nationality. Liszt's father was - at least in France - regarded as "veritable Allemagne", i. e. as "true German". For this reason Liszt was regarded as German too. At second: If you'll look above to that (stupid) section "Nazi attempt", I put in an example that shows that Liszt's parents were even in Hungary regarded as Germans. At third: You may of course cite Liszt's Hungarian passport. However, this passport was from the beginning of 1840. (As it seems, this passport is lost.) Until then Liszt had had an Austrian one. So, you may as well regard Liszt as an artist who at a certain point of his career changed his nationality (or tried to do it).
Much more could be added to this issue. It is as least sure that until today there is no consensus regarding the nationality question, which is - in fact - a very complicated one. For the purpose of an encyclopedia article it should just be a matter of correctness to tell readers that no simple answer exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I forgot to sign. (talk) 09:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
"For the purpose of an encyclopedia article it should just be a matter of correctness to tell readers that no simple answer exists." There you are quite right. Nevertheless, Liszt's great-grandfather emigrated to Hungary, so Franz was a third-generation-born Hungarian, though of German (i.e. Austrian subjects who speak German) ethnicity. A copy of his Hungarian passport which he used after 1867 (when Hungary was re-established as a quase-independent country under the the same ruler as Austria) was published in one of his biographies. The fact that in the case of Austrian subjects their ethnicity is usually the defining characteristic (like Gustav Mahler and Franz Kafka who were born in what is now the Czech Republic, but were Austrians, not Czechs), and also the fact that his birthplace now (since 1919) lies in Austria, lead to a fruitless discussion. I think all these facts are stated in the article, so there is nothing hidden from the reader. Kraxler (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This immigration story is German speculation. There aren't contemporary papers to prove his father's German origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

How is a source from 1846, provided to you in the above section, not contemporary for a guy who lived from 1811-1886 not contemporary? There are letters from him in his native tongue German. So how can his parents not be German? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The division was so marked between Austria and Hungary that there was no common citizenship: a person was either an Austrian or a Hungarian citizen, and no one was allowed to hold dual citizenship.[13][14][clarification needed] The difference in citizenship also meant that there were always separate Austrian and Hungarian passports, never a common one.[15][16]

The Empire of Austria and Kingdom of Hungary had always maintained separate parliaments. (See: Imperial Council (Austria) and Diet of Hungary.) Legally, except for the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713, common laws have never existed in the Empire of Austria and the Kingdom of Hungary. All laws, even the ones with identical content such as the compromise of 1867, had to pass the parliaments of both Vienna and Budapest. They were published in the respective official media, in the Austrian part it was called Reichsgesetzblatt, and was issued in eight languages.

Despite the fact that Austria and Hungary shared a common currency they were fiscally sovereign and independent entities.[17] From 1527 (the creation of the monarchic personal union) to 1851 the Kingdom of Hungary maintained its own customs borders which separated her from the other parts of the Habsburg-ruled territories.[18]Kukoricajanika (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Some critical remarks[edit]

Due to your incredibly strong dependency on the fabulous ideas of Alan Walker, whom as single author you like to adress as "the vast majority of published scholarly literatur about Liszt", there is a huge number of errors and mistakes in your article. In other cases you are just reproducing weasel terms which nobody can possibly verify. For the purpose of giving some examples, I'll take a critical look at the article's introduction and give some comments to some of your claims.

Liszt received the rank as "Ritter Franz von Liszt" with diploma of October, 30, 1859, after it had been excluded that he had Hungarian forbears of nobility rank. For this purpose officials had searched in archives. They had found several "Liszts" who however had all been criminals. It may have been this reason for which Liszt didn't like to take one of them as ancestor. He accepted that no Hungarian forbears existed and was then nominated as Ritter Franz von Liszt. At this moment at least he was no Hungarian, but an Austrian nobleman.

On March 2, 1867 (not 1865), the rank was transferred to Eduard Liszt, who on January 31, 1817, had been born as youngest child of Liszt's grandfather Georg Adam List. Also Eduard Liszt was of Austrian nationality. He received the rank as "Ritter von Liszt" with diploma of May 4, 1867. A detailed account of the affair can be found in: Békefi, Ernö: Franz Liszt. Seine Abstammung - seine Familie, in: Hamburger, Klara (ed.): Beiträge von ungarischen Autoren, Budapest 1978, p.28f. As opposite to Alan Walker (your sole source), Hamburger is one of the leading Hungarian Liszt scholars of newer time.

In the second paragraph you had better done mentioning that Liszt was in every aspect, also as virtuoso, a very controversially disputed artist. During the times of his tours he was frequently criticized for his eccentric playing style, the quantities of wrong keys he hit, his arrogant attitude towards his audience and much more of similar kind. Many of the contemporaries, especially those who were themselves artists, preferred Thalberg. Besides, your second sentence is full of weasel terms. Between Liszt's playing at his concerts and piano playing of today there is a distance of more than 160 years. Nobody can possibly still listen to his playing. A comparison of Liszt's playing with that of later virtuosos is therefore impossible. After this it doesn't make any sense claiming that Liszt could be regarded as "greatest pianist of all time". A statement of such kind, at best a kind of a quasi religious belief, has nothing to do with encyclopedia style. The same applies to the claim of Liszt's influence on "the modern development of the art" of conducting. As opposite to R. Wagner and Hans von Bülow, Liszt was also in this respect a controversially disputed figure. Many of the contemporaries were convinced that he had as conductor nearly no skills at all. After this your claim of Liszt's so-called influence is lacking credibility. In any case it can't be verified.

While it is true that Wagner was supported by Liszt, he did not "as a benefactor" support Hector Berlioz, Camille Saint-Saëns, Edvard Grieg and Alexander Borodin. (Yes, I know, the famous A. Walker likes to claim such things.) He neither "invented" the Symphonic Poem. Instead, he composed several Overtures as generations of composers had done it before him. Since February 1854 he called them "Symphonic Poem", a term which he had overtaken from Wagner. Also the "concept of thematic transformation" was nothing new in Liszt's time. While from Liszt's own perspective the body of his sacral works should have been the most important part of his oeuvre these works don't even exist in your view. Also the huge masses of transcriptions and fantasies on popular melodies (among them the Hungarian Rhapsodies) are totally absent, and this in spite of the fact that Liszt is famous especially for these works. Liszt'S favorite genre of piano music was fashionable salon music, by the way. Whether Liszt's Symphonic Poems are to be regarded as "most notable" works (another weasel term) or just as examples for forgotten music like the symphonic works of Carl Reinecke might be a matter of taste. Today, with very few exceptions, they are nearly never performed. (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, Mr. Anonymous. I will correct the date in the introduction. For the "weasel words", I totally agree with you, but I must refrain from editing so to not cause an edit war: your conclusion that they express a "quasi religious belief" is absolutely correct. Kraxler (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
As long as no further reaction comes, I'll start doing it myself the other day. (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Go right ahead, but I would prefer that you choose a user name to log in and write a few words (nothing compromising...) on your user page. This is not obligatory, but anonymous users have not such a good position when it comes to controversial content or to disagreements about the text. Kraxler (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Yay! It's like last year all over again. You may want to read through the archives before editing, Anonymous, just to make sure you don't edit what we've already been through numerous times. (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not necessary to read the archives. The article is full of WP:Words to watch#Puffery and WP:Weasel words, and has a general worshipping character. Anyone can, and should, edit this. Dear Nr. 156..., you (as another anonymous user) can not tell anybody not to edit anything. Kraxler (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I never said nobody should edit this. I know there a lot of weasel words, but there also a lot of other material covered in the other 7 or so archives. Please, read the archives before making any -major- edits. (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
If you want good information on the symphonic poems of Liszt, you should go to the Wikipedia page. It is a featured article, as well as fortunately having a good number of citations that are not Walker. As for thematic transformation, it doesn't say that Liszt created it. Rather, he further developed it. Please note the difference. (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
For a good discussion on Liszt's contribution to the symphonic poem, go here: Also I'm not quite sure how you can say Liszt took the term from Wagner. That's not a generally accepted fact. " (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

New article - Lisztomania[edit]

I have created a new article on Lisztomania (the old one had to do with the movie and not the condition). I thought Liszt fans would want to check it out and help make it better. Remember (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If an editor moves an established page, it is expected that incoming links to the old name be checked. There are now a large number of incoming links to the article Lisztomania which refer to the film. I suggest to move the article to a new name, say Lisztomania (condition) and undo the move of the film article, or modify all links which refer to the film to the new name Lisztomania (movie), starting with Template:Ken Russell. The former course of action seems simpler to me, but it will probably require administrative rights. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
PS: Further discussion at Talk:Lisztomania. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

See Talk:Anna Liszt#Merge proposal for discussion about doing away with the separate article on his mother. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 17:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

DjKrisz' edits[edit]

Today's 12 edits 16 edits by DjKrisz (talk · contribs) introduced two poorly formatted and poorly sourced paragraphs which seem to be overly lengthy verbatim quotes. I suggest to revert to the previous version. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, it seems that after 31 edits DjKrisz had a change of mind. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


Hey guys. I think it's about time to do something with the Legacy section of this page. At this point, it's overly long, and contains more information than is needed in a Wikipedia article. Any ideas for this? (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems like much of the information on the Royal Academy in Budapest especially should go toward an article on that subject. Also, there is still apparently nothing (unless I missed it) on Liszt's impact on 20th century music or composers, a deficiency that was noted in the Composers Review some time back. This really should be addressed. Jonyungk (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

A year and a half and nothing in this section has changed... I may have to be the one to do it. Any suggestions? (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Push toward FA?[edit]

This article has improved considerably since I edited the "Life" section some time back. There are still sections that need in-line citations but it would be good otherwise to put the article through Peer Review to see what further improvements could be made to eventually make this a Featured Article. My thoughts: Wouldn't it be nice to have this article as TFA on Liszt's birthday in 2011, which would be his bicentennial? Jonyungk (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I was struck by the elegance in phrasing more than once. It reads like a labor of love. Nice work! - Ac44ck (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment left at village pump[edit]

An anonymous editor left the following comment at WP:Village pump (proposals) today. Since it really belongs here, I've moved it. —C.Fred (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance of where such postings might belong, please delete once addressed, but I wanted to ask if someone can address the grammar/etc. issues at this posting. Thanks!
[Edit: re. content such as "Lina Ramann[8] who wrote a biography credits Liszt as ethnical hungarian. Another biographer, the german Peter Raabe[9], wrote that Liszts german origin could not be proved. Biographer Bekefi could not find Sebastian Liszts birth records on german ground.Sir William H.Hadow wrote that Liszt was ethnical hungarian."]
{Re-Edit--heh--this problem appears to be compounding even as I write this, this section now reads
"[note 3] His father would only use Hungarian when dealing, as steward, with the folk of the village in which the family settled.[6] Nonetheless, a source credits Franz Liszt as Hungarian.[7] Lina Ramann[8] who wrote a biography credits Liszt as ethnical hungarian. Another biographer, the german Peter Raabe[9], wrote that Liszts german origin could not be proved. Biographer Sándor Bekefi could not find Sebastian Liszts birth records on german ground. The croatian Dr Kuhac claimed plausible slavonic (i.e.from Slavonia then in the Kingdom of Hungary or slavic or croat) origin.[10]Sir William H.Hadow wrote that Liszt was ethnical hungarian.[11] In Walkers Liszt family-tree there are also germanized magyar names (Schandor instead of Sándor) as there are germanized slavic ones (Schlesak instead of Slezak)[12] to add to the general confusion. The german-magyar battle over Liszt started first after Trianan 1920, when Váralja/Burgenland became Austrian. During the national-socialist (1933-1945)era all german biographers claim Liszt to be german. Liszt considered himself magyar. As his father and his own children he was a hungarian citizen with hungarian passport. Liszt's father played the piano, violin, cello, and guitar."} — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 14:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Under Performing Style: what "extravagant liberties" were taken with "Sonata quasi una fantasia"?[edit]

Berlioz indeed mentioned those minor inconsistencies, but his account was hardly critical. If you want to demonstrate Liszt's "extravagant liberties," then this would be a good place to mention a far more pretentious malfeasance: A certain concert performance in 1835 featuring an orchestral adaptation of the adagio sostenuto. Although he properly presented the next two movements at the bench, there can be no absolution for such an indignant arrangement. (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact Liszt was heavily criticized for his performing style in the two movements which he actually played on the piano. The orchestral arrangement of the first movement was not made by Liszt himslf by the way. (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Budapest Airport is now officially called "Budapest Franz Liszt International Airport"[edit]


Arpadapo (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Happy 200th birthday, Franz Liszt[edit]

You've given me a lot of pleasure, and you keep on giving. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

(it's already 22 Oct where I am)

In connection with this, 2011 was celebrated as the Liszt Ferenc Year, with a number of musical and festival program throughout the year and around the globe. Further info can be found on official website of the events, that also offers a lot to read, although I don't know how suitable these info for the article are. In addition, his birthday, 22 Oct was celebrated as the World Liszt Day with a number of concerts from Seoul to Paris. (further info here). I don't know if any of these fit into the article, but even if not, the site is at least a good stuff to read for some interested. Cheers, Thehoboclown (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

added burial site ... but ...[edit]

You know, huge chunks of this article are still missing cites and seem to be Original Research (opinons) - I have the Watson book and the New Grove, but the Walker books and others are at the University Library and not convenient for me - I do hope this gets cleaned up at some point. - HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Organ music[edit]

I think a section on the organ music would be appropriate, since it's currently not covered at all, and is indeed significant in the 19th century organ literature. HammerFilmFan, I see you've tried to start one here. In my opinion it should be less about quality or greatness but more factual, to start. If you like I could draft a paragraph from the Grove article and you could add something from your reference. (I have to disappear for the day so it won't be right away.) Antandrus (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As it turns out, the current article by Alan Walker in the online New Grove (2001) is very different from the enormous article by Humphrey Searle in the 1980 edition -- in fact there is more information on the organ music in the 1980 article. I'd like to quote Derek Watson's book as well. Antandrus (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
OK I've written a paragraph, incorporating a bit from all three sources. Feel free to edit of course. HammerFilmFan -- or anyone else with Derek Watson's book -- please fact-check my ref to page 286. I can see enough in Google Books' "snippet view" that I think I'm getting it right, but it would be good to be able to read a couple more lines. Antandrus (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The style I used incorporated both a small direct quote and a paraphrase, entirely in line with Wiki style and rules, from a Reliable Source praised by Alan Walker, etc. I will be keeping a watch on the article for further vandalism/original research POV by user Bbb23. Thanks. Another incident and will escalate to administrative RFC. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

musical achievments or legacy additions[edit]

Currently, the article does not mention many of Liszt's "firsts" - whether one is a great admirer of his music, dismissive of his work, or finds a middle ground of enjoying his better pieces and being ambivalent about his music that may seem to be mere 'flash,' (and of course, our personal opinions are completely irrelevant - Wiki is about verifiability, not "truth"), we have to acknowledge that the vast majority of critical opinion concludes:

  1. He "invented" (at the very least coined the term) the 'symphonic poem' (tone poem.) I know this touches off serious debate in some quarters, as extra-musical ideas are clearly present in the works of some of Beethoven's works, for example - but under the narrow definition of what "symphonic poem" is or entails, Liszt surely must be given credit [that some of his tone poems are rather anemic in musical quality is beside the point.]
  2. Early on he "anticipated the chromaticism of Wagner, the Impressionism of Debussy and Ravel, the rhythmic complexity of Bartok and Stravinsky," and to some extent the atonality of Schoenberg.
  3. He was the first to introduce the organ in symphonic works. (It should be noted how this is different from, say, a Handel organ concerto from the Baroque period.)
  4. He was the first to give a "piano recital" per se - coining the term.
  5. He introduced some modern conducting techniques (perhaps histrionically?) to indicate dynamics and so on via gestures or facial expression (please note that this is not a statement of his quality as a conductor, for which there is much controversy.)

-some examples of scholarly sources for these conclusions are THE LIFE AND WORKS OF FRANZ LISZT by Jeremy Siepmann, Derek Watson's LISZT, and the Engel/Siegmeister article in THE NEW MUSIC LOVER'S HANDBOOK; the Walker books are inconveniently some 40 miles away at the university library and I won't be going that way for some weeks, but those with immediate access to them can find cites within them that also reflect the same things-

Remember, that despite the undoubted braggadocio of his early years, in his later life Liszt was (like many other composers) doubtful of his musical accomplishments even to the point of wishing that his works were withdrawn from public performance, as being misunderstood or presented in too grandiose a manner. Taking this into account should resolve the personal editorial feelings of both the "Brahmsians" and fans of the "New German School" that contribute to Wikipedia in acknowledging his legacy in the article and prevent the improper edit-wars against Reliable Sources. After contributing to and editing hundreds of articles on Wiki as far back as 2005 from three different continents (Australia, England and the U.S.A. - each under a different ID respectively due to breaks in between relocating due to my career,) I've become as tired of that behavior as I'm sure most of you have. Other RS's [avoiding cranks and personal blogs] that contradict the majority opinion are of course desired and should be cited to show the minority scholarly view - all to the betterment of the article.

I can write up a draft for this paragraph. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears that a statement at the beginning of the entry on Liszt is not correct. Please correct the statement if, after your investigations, you discover that the statement is in fact false because you are potentially misleading music students.

'Some of his most notable contributions were the invention of the symphonic poem, developing the concept of thematic transformation as part of his experiments in musical form and making radical departures in harmony.'

'Liszt was regarded by many as the supreme piano virtuoso of the 19th century, but he was also active as conductor, teacher, and author...his creative imagination, despising routine, gave birth to some of the most daring and progressive compositions of the era...Liszt's vast musical output traverses virtually every musical genre...his works abound with formal and harmonic innovations - many of them anticipating 20th century - but ironically THE OFT REPEATED STATEMENT THAT HE 'INVENTED' THE SYMPHONIC POEM DOES NOT SURVIVE SCRUTINY (he initially attached the title to piece that he himself had previously called concert overtures), NOR DOES THE IDEA THAT 'THEMATIC METAMORPHOSIS', A PROMINENT FEATURE OF SO MUCH OF HIS OUTPUT, REPRESENTS ANYTHING MORE NOVEL THAN THE PRINCIPLE OF THEMATIC VARIATION FOUND IN MUSIC FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL.'

The second quote is taken from the 2002 Oxford Companion to Music edited by Alison Latham, page 698 (the entry on Franz Liszt). This book is in the bibliography of your (the wikipedia) entry so I don't know how this was overlooked. Please correct it thank you.

Kind regards,

matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

But that's a single writer's opinion; many others disagree and generally credit Liszt with the "creator" of the symphonic poem.HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


Formerly from List of people with synesthesia:

"When Liszt first began as Kapellmeister in Weimar (1842), it astonished the orchestra that he said: 'O please, gentlemen, a little bluer, if you please! This tone type requires it!' Or: 'That is a deep violet, please, depend on it! Not so rose!' First the orchestra believed Liszt just joked; more later they got accustomed to the fact that the great musician seemed to see colors there, where there were only tones."

— Anonymous, as quoted in Friedrich Mahling, p. 230. (Translation by Sean A. Day.) ---- Quoted from an anonymous article in the Neuen Berliner Musikzeitung (29 August 1895); quoted in Mahling, Friedrich. 1926. "Das Problem der 'Audition colorée: Eine historische-kritische Untersuchung." Archiv für die Gesamte Psychologie; LVII Band. Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft M.B.H. Pp. 165-301. Page 230. Translation by Sean A. Day.

Is this worthy of inclusion somewhere, with or without the explanatory quote? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Has now been removed from that article, presumably because of doubts over its source, but may still be of interest here. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I have checked the indexes in the three volumes of Alan Walker's biography of Liszt and there is no mention at all of synesthesia. An anonymous article in a musical journal devoted to covering current topics, like the Neue Berliner Musikzeitung, is far from what can be called a reliable source, especially given the amount of fabulation that surrounds this composer. The argument is not very strong if only one single reference can be provided. Musicarius (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Audio samples needed![edit]

This article needs some audio clips. Anyone have any thoughts? I was thinking at least Les préludes. -- (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. I think it's quite shocking there is not a single audio file here. That work would be a good place to start. (By the way there are a total of 102 images available at Commons). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Liszt in Weimar - grammar?[edit]

"Liszt having arrived in Rome on October 21, 1861, the Princess nevertheless declined, by the late evening, to marry him."

This needs to be revised. I can't tell what it is trying to say though. Lekro (discuss) 21:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It needs to be read in context (as everything always does). They went through many difficult hoops to gain permission to marry. They set the date to coincide with his 50th birthday. He arrived in Rome the previous night, ready for the big day. But that night, she had learned that further roadblocks had been placed in her way, including confiscation of her estates. So at the eleventh hour she decided not to go through with the marriage, despite all their earlier efforts to make it happen. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok- thanks. I will revise it to "Although Liszt arrived in Rome on October 21, 1861, the Princess declined to marry him that evening." Lekro (discuss) 23:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Looks good -- thanks! Antandrus (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Flying trapeze[edit]

The section on the 1830's/Paganini influence describes Liszt's style (without a specific citation) as "the 'flying trapeze' school of piano playing." The flying trapeze was not invented until 1859. How could this description have been used at the time? Rigadoun (talk) 06:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


I have reverted today's addition of an infobox, which was added without discussion. Please can editors discuss here whether or not an infobox should go ahead - and provide please reasons for or against - before installing one. I remind editors that a unanimous resolution of arbitrators was that "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article". Thanks,--Smerus (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

We need an infobox in this article. --Lálálá9999 (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Why on earth do you believe such a thing?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Freemason category[edit]

Liszt was not notable as a freemason. See the instruction at Category:Freemasons. The category should not be added here. Kraxler (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing at all about it in the Grove article, which strives to attain balance in important matters. Seems to be a case of "yes he was a member but that's all." So by the instruction at the category, I agree. Antandrus (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


This article is an awful ragbag, often with extensive discussion of minutiae and leaving out major factors. Needs an extensive cleanup.--Smerus (talk) 09:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Details, please? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The pianistic duel with Thalberg[edit]

This affair chez Princess Belgiojoso on 31 March 1837 is a pretty famous episode, after which the Princess decreed "Thalberg is the finest pianist in the world, but Liszt is unique". But I can find no reference to it in any of the three articles or their talk pages. Is there a reason for this omission? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

References from somewhere above[edit]

  1. ^ Walker, Franz Liszt: The Virtuoso Years, 1811-1847, p. 33-34
  2. ^ Watson, Liszt, p. 3

Not Frantz, Ferenc[edit]

Since Ferenc Liszt or rather Liszt Ferenc was undoubtedly a Hungarian composer, why the article is titled with a german-sounding name (Frantz)? ~~Maciej, Warsaw, Poland — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The answer lies in WP:COMMONNAME. Favonian (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2017[edit]

We noticed that information on Liszt's role as a conductor is missing. His conducting debut was in Jan of 1840 in Pest conducting Beethoven's Choral Fantasy and Mozart's Die Zauberflöte overture.

We suggest adding a section quoting "Liszt as a conductor" much like "Liszt as a pianist." Liszt pioneered the idea of being the "musician in chief," and using overarching gestures to convey musical idea and expression. In his manifesto titled "On Conducting," Liszt wrote that "We are helmsman, not oarsman." He was noted for his use of facial expression and use of body position to convey dynamic and feeling as he tried "to get the players to work as one." He also introduced the use of rubato in the orchestra which was unheard of at this time in orchestral music.

[1] Duwillconductor (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Alan Walker, et al. "Liszt, Franz." Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press, accessed January 9, 2017,
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JustBerry (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Follow-up comment: @Duwillconductor: It seems as though you have highlighted the lack of his role as a conductor and proposed adding a section called "Liszt as a conductor". I have the following questions for you:
  • Would you like to create a section titled "Liszt as a conductor" after the "Liszt as a pianist" section?
  • What would you like to add in the section? Do you want to add the following sentences: Liszt pioneered the idea of being the "musician in chief," and using overarching gestures to convey musical idea and expression. In his manifesto titled "On Conducting," Liszt wrote that "We are helmsman, not oarsman." He was noted for his use of facial expression and use of body position to convey dynamic and feeling as he tried "to get the players to work as one." He also introduced the use of rubato in the orchestra which was unheard of at this time in orchestral music.? If so, is that information supported by the Oxford Must reference you provided?
Just seeking some clarification here. --JustBerry (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Late Works[edit]

In the section Late Works, it says: Liszt experimented with "forbidden" things such as:

  • parallel 5ths in the "Csárdás macabre" and
  • atonality in the Bagatelle sans tonalité and
  • Pieces like the "2nd Mephisto-Waltz" are unconventional because of their numerous repetitions of short motives

Cool. Then it continues:

  • Also characteristic are the "Via crucis," as well as Unstern!, Nuages gris, and the two works entitled La lugubre gondola of the 1880s.

My concern is that it's left ambiguous what all five pieces are "also characteristic" of. Are they all characteristic of all three forbidden thing(s) -- the parallel 5ths? atonality? and repetitions of short motives? Or instead some combination thereof? Or are all five pieces characteristic of being "late works" in some other ways? Thanks, Nei1 (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, yes, obviously this should be rewritten as something like 'also showing experimental characteristics are'....but the whole article is so poorly written that every time I start to get motivated to tidy it up I give way instead to silent weeping and nervous breakdown.....Smerus (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I know just how you feel. "I carry a deep sadness of the heart which must now and then break out in editing". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

legacy, popular culture[edit]

I don't think it would be too trivial to note that the repeated use of Liszt's music in animated cartoons speaks to him having a familiarity to the general public that is rivaled by few others....PurpleChez (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a source to support that inference? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)