Piano Battle Royale! Liszt vs. Chopin

[AnthonyAthletic]

Who do you prefer?

My choice is Liszt. One of the most amazing pianists this world has ever seen.

Don't recall ever seeing him play, myself.

Any DVD's of him knocking about?

[Conor71]

Im a pretty big Chopin fan so he gets my vote!

[listener]

winner to battle Thalberg?

[starrynight]

Lizst's reputation may have increased in more recent years, though I doubt it is anywhere near what it was within the classical field in his own time.  Chopin's reputation has taken fewer dips really so it's expected he takes the lead.

[Klaze]

Some years ago I was casually dismissing Chopin as empty salon music, but I'm glad I've come to my senses; Chopin it is!

[quintett op.57]

Chopin, beyond doubt. Liszt is the Paganini of the keyboard. And while I love that sort of gymnastics, it wears thin. Chopin only grows deeper.

What's not deep is probably your knowledge of Liszt pieces. Your comparison to Paganini is absolutely unrelevant.

Paganini was a genius for 1 thing: getting the best out of a violin or a viola. You can argue that he was week regarding the rest.

Liszt piano pieces his fabulously rich, innovative and various, not only regarding piano playing but also harmony, thematic development or, obviously, tonality.
And he was nearly as innovative regarding orchestration.

I guess you ignore much of his orchestral pieces. As a fan of Haydn, you would have appreciated if you had come to knew them.
You can't be insensible to his orchestrations and thematic transformations.

[mahler10th]

What's not deep is probably your knowledge of Liszt pieces. Your comparison to Paganini is absolutely unrelevant.

Paganini was a genius for 1 thing: getting the best out of a violin or a viola. You can argue that he was week regarding the rest.

Liszt piano pieces his fabulously rich, innovative and various, not only regarding piano playing but also harmony, thematic development or, obviously, tonality.
And he was nearly as innovative regarding orchestration.

I guess you ignore much of his orchestral pieces. As a fan of Haydn, you would have appreciated if you had come to knew them.
You can't be insensible to his orchestrations and thematic transformations.

Unnecessarily scathing?     ***raises eyebrow***  Methinks so.   

[Ten thumbs]

And why isn't Alkan in the poll?

If you start to bring in other pianists, where would you end?
Thalberg?
Felix Mendelssohn?
Fanny Mendelssohn?
Dussek?
Clara Schumann?
Who else have I forgotten?

I vote for Chopin because I love his lyrical power.

[North Star]

Well I don't think Thalberg would stand a chance with Chopin, Liszt, or Alkan. Nor do I really believe that many people would vote Alkan, but after Chopin, it isn't so easy to choose the second.

[B_cereus]

Funnily enough... I was once asked at a job interview to say who was better, Chopin or Liszt? (I had listed classical music and piano under my interests). I opined that Liszt was probably the better pianist, but Chopin was probably the better composer, IMO.

Thinking they were into classical music too, I then tried to explain my opinion with a more indepth discussion and was in the middle of rambling on about the Liszt B minor sonata... when it became apparent they had little idea of what I was talking about. They had asked me the question just to test whether I was lying on the CV about my interests 

[Gurn Blanston]

What's not deep is probably your knowledge of Liszt pieces. Your comparison to Paganini is absolutely unrelevant.

Paganini was a genius for 1 thing: getting the best out of a violin or a viola. You can argue that he was week regarding the rest.

Liszt piano pieces his fabulously rich, innovative and various, not only regarding piano playing but also harmony, thematic development or, obviously, tonality.
And he was nearly as innovative regarding orchestration.

I guess you ignore much of his orchestral pieces. As a fan of Haydn, you would have appreciated if you had come to knew them.
You can't be insensible to his orchestrations and thematic transformations.

Well, next time let me know in advance which one you prefer, and I will vote for your preference instead of my own. Frankly, I like Paganini more than Liszt but that wasn't the question. I have a great number of Liszt's works, orchestral and solo, and I am not just enamored of them. But then, I don't really care for Romantic music anyway, and to me, Liszt epitomizes it.

[DavidW]

But then, I don't really care for Romantic music anyway, and to me, Liszt epitomizes it.

Yeah you like that challenging music-- Boulez, Stockhausen, Xenakis etc   You know really anti-romantic no sentiment approach.

[Gurn Blanston]

Yeah you like that challenging music-- Boulez, Stockhausen, Xenakis etc   You know really anti-romantic no sentiment approach.

There's something to be said for that...

[springrite]

They are so different that it'd be a hard choice. But Liszt get my vote on account of longevity and quality and quantity of women.

[North Star]

Funnily enough... I was once asked at a job interview to say who was better, Chopin or Liszt? (I had listed classical music and piano under my interests). I opined that Liszt was probably the better pianist, but Chopin was probably the better composer, IMO.

Thinking they were into classical music too, I then tried to explain my opinion with a more indepth discussion and was in the middle of rambling on about the Liszt B minor sonata... when it became apparent they had little idea of what I was talking about. They had asked me the question just to test whether I was lying on the CV about my interests 

Homer Simpson: We were talking about chocolate
new Springfield nuclear plant owners: That was ten minutes ago!

[Lethevich]

Frankly, I like Paganini more than Liszt

My eyes got a migrane from reading that.

[Gurn Blanston]

My eyes got a migrane from reading that.

That's OK, I don't mind. It's not like I said I like either of them more than Haydn...

[chasmaniac]

What's not deep is probably your knowledge of Liszt pieces. Your comparison to Paganini is absolutely unrelevant.

Paganini was a genius for 1 thing: getting the best out of a violin or a viola. You can argue that he was week regarding the rest.

Liszt piano pieces his fabulously rich, innovative and various, not only regarding piano playing but also harmony, thematic development or, obviously, tonality.
And he was nearly as innovative regarding orchestration.

I guess you ignore much of his orchestral pieces. As a fan of Haydn, you would have appreciated if you had come to knew them.
You can't be insensible to his orchestrations and thematic transformations.

I asked for Schroeder. Where's Schroeder?

[Ten thumbs]

They are so different that it'd be a hard choice. But Liszt get my vote on account of longevity and quality and quantity of women.

Maybe but it would take quite a number of women to overcome George Sand.

[Karl Henning]

Chopin, beyond doubt. Liszt is the Paganini of the keyboard. And while I love that sort of gymnastics, it wears thin. Chopin only grows deeper.

What's not deep is probably your knowledge of Liszt pieces. Your comparison to Paganini is absolutely unrelevant.

Actually, Liszt himself invites the comparison. Per Wikipedia:

Liszt first heard Paganini in April 1831 and was so entranced by the unfettered expressiveness of his playing, and Paganini's ability to use his legendary technical ability for purely musical ends, that the young Liszt immediately declared his intention of achieving upon the piano an equivalent new technical mastery in order to unleash musical thoughts which had remained hitherto inexpressible.

We find, then, that Gurn's speaking of Liszt as the Paganini of the [piano] is pithy and apt.