Franz Liszt (1811-86)

[Josquin des Prez]

As it is, such remarks are continuing demonstration that you don't have a grasp on what a fact is.[/font]

Wagner was a genius. Liszt was not. That is as undeniable a fact as they come. I don't have to provide an explanation (even assuming such a thing was possible) because the truth inherent in this statement is self evident to anyone who has even the slighest stretch of artistic sensibility. You however conveniently chose to avoid denying those "facts", but you still want to object, ever so strongly, to the simple idea that I (I mind you) might have any specific knowledge or insight into so difficoult a subject. You want to accuse me of being dead wrong, always, without necessarily confirm or deny the truth inherent in my statements. You accuse me of having no grasp on what a fact is, and yet you are yourself prone of making statements of fact regarding my alleged ignorance. Pray tell, how do you know whether i am in fact wrong?

(unless we go on to say that, once Wagner had his go at advancing those harmonic ideas, he retrenched to arguably safer harmonic ground with his next opera)

It needs to be stressed of course that the advancement of harmony is not a great or important artistic goal in and of itself. Brahms made no advancement whatsoever in the field of harmony and he was still a greater artist then Liszt. I hope one day Grieg will come to realize the truth of this.

[Josquin des Prez]

One excellent aspect of this discussion, though, is to remind us the extent to which the Romantics were about restless expansion and pushing the envelope.  The Neo-Romantics would seem to have us believe that the Romantics were all about warm-&-fuzzy-dom.[/font]

Modernists of course would have us believe the Romantics were about restless expansion and pushing the envelope in their direction.

[Dax]

Wagner was a genius. Liszt was not. That is as undeniable a fact as they come. I don't have to provide an explanation (even assuming such a thing was possible) because the truth inherent in this statement is self evident to anyone who has even the slighest stretch of artistic sensibility. You however conveniently chose to avoid denying those "facts", but you still want to object, ever so strongly, to the simple idea that I (I mind you) might have any specific knowledge or insight into so difficoult a subject. You want to accuse me of being dead wrong, always, without necessarily confirm or deny the truth inherent in my statements. You accuse me of having no grasp on what a fact is, and yet you are yourself prone of making statements of fact regarding my alleged ignorance. Pray tell, how do you know whether i am in fact wrong?

Blimey.

So what do your friends call you? Benito?

[karlhenning]

Blimey.

So what do your friends call you? Benito?

He has friends? Nyuk-nyuk-nyuk . . . .

[karlhenning]

Modernists of course would have us believe the Romantics were about restless expansion and pushing the envelope in their direction.

You always were one to luxuriate in strawmen.

Liszt was not [a genius]. That is as undeniable a fact as they come.

Well, but what did the genius Wagner say? To Liszt, he said, "I am now convinced that you are the greatest musician of all times."

Now: did Wagner's genius fail him, that he made such an evaluation of Liszt?  Or is it possible for Liszt to be "the greatest musician of all times," without being a genius?

Nor was this an impression unique to Wagner.  George Eliot said that "Genius, benevolence, and tenderness beam from his whole countenance, and his manners are  in perfect harmony with it."

You have this dollhouse you play in, where everything depends on this guy being a genius, and that guy or gal not being a genius; a dollhouse (parenthetically) in which a gal is genetically incapable of genius.  If you like your little cartoony world, have at it.  But it is idiocy on your part to imagine that the arts world at large confines itself to your fond little imaginings.

[Scarpia]

You have this dollhouse you play in, where everything depends on this guy being a genius, and that guy or gal not being a genius; a dollhouse (parenthetically) in which a gal is genetically incapable of genius.  If you like your little cartoony world, have at it.  But it is idiocy on your part to imagine that the arts world at large confines itself to your fond little imaginings.[/font]

But it can fun when JdP and James go at it, and cartoon worlds collide. 

[karlhenning]

You've got a point there!

[DavidW]

Slightly off topic, but more enjoyable than posts about Wagner and genius is pop song and music video praising Liszt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BJDNw7o6so

[Josquin des Prez]

You have this dollhouse you play in, where everything depends on this guy being a genius, and that guy or gal not being a genius; a dollhouse (parenthetically) in which a gal is genetically incapable of genius.  If you like your little cartoony world, have at it.  But it is idiocy on your part to imagine that the arts world at large confines itself to your fond little imaginings.[/font]

To the contrary. Those are not merely my own little imaginings, but are fundamental truths which were quite common knowledge in the past. The real dollhouse is that created by 20th century liberalism. It is they (and you) who live in a comic book world made out of colored rainbows and flying ponies, where reality is suppressed in favor of conformable make believe fantasies. In the words of Francis Parker Yockey:

Liberalism is, in one word, weakness. It wants every day to be a birthday, Life to be a long party.

The inexorable movement of Time, Destiny, History, the cruelty of accomplishment, sternness, heroism, sacrifice, superpersonal ideas, these are the enemy.  Liberalism is an escape from hardness into softness, from masculinity into femininity, from History to herd-grazing, from reality into herbivorous dreams, from Destiny into Happiness.  Nietzsche, in his last and greatest work, designated the 18th century as the century of feminism, and immediately mentioned Rousseau, the leader of the mass-escape from Reality. Feminism itself what is it but a means of feminizing man?  If it makes women man-like, it does so only by transforming man first into a creature whose only concern is with his personal economics and his relation to society,i.e., a woman. Society is the element of woman, it is static and formal, its contests are purely personal, and are free from the possibility of heroism and violence.  Conversation, not action; formality, not deeds.  How different is the idea of rank used in connection with a social affair, from when it is applied on a battlefield!  In the field, it is fate-laden; in the salon it is vain and pompous.  A war is fought for control, social contests are inspired by feminine vanity and jealousy to show that one is better than someone else.

Who has the more refined dollhouse then? Is it me, with my insistent stress on genius (an heroic ideal), or is it you, with your placid condescension, comfortable in your sense of superiority for adhering to the "sane" and "socially correct" opinion?

[Dax]

OK chaps! Joking over. Liszt does swing. Here's the proof - I recommend you go for Earl Bostic. Trouble is you have to do a bit of arithmetic first - but fear not: it doesn't take a genius to solve the problem.

http://music.tonnel.ru/?l=music&alb=41370

Having satisfied yourselves with Bostic, do try Charly Cotton.

[Josquin des Prez]

Ironically, my assessment of Liszt as a composer is concomitant with the opinion expressed in the original article posted by Grieg:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_works_of_Franz_Liszt

One point not normally discussed with Liszt but not unfamiliar to late-19th-century composers was his consciousness of working in the shadow of composers he considered giants. In Liszt's case, the shadows were those of Beethoven and Wagner He professed to find consolation and inspiration in their works. However, it is also possible their greatness may have had an effect on his own ability to compose. While he blamed his inability to complete compositions on his busy social calendar as late as the early 1870s, by the late 1870s he began to express fears of failing creativity on his part.

It seems Liszt himself was aware of the limitations of his creative genius.

[Scarpia]

To the contrary. Those are not merely my own little imaginings, but are fundamental truths which were quite common knowledge in the past.

These truths are evident to you alone?  Makes me wonder if you have a dissociative mental disorder.

[Josquin des Prez]

These truths are evident to you alone?

No, they are evident to a plethora of different people. Of course, such arguments being unacceptable in polite society their voice is rarely heard, which gives the impression only a rare few are capable of understanding certain ideas.

[karlhenning]

Slightly off topic

No worries! JdP's idiocy of taking every thread about 19^th-c. composers as an occasion to flog his suuuuupernal geeeenius boilerplate, is the immediate OT offense ; )

[jowcol]

It is not enough to be a Genius.  One must be a Super Genius,  such as the Esteemed Professor Wile. E. Coyote from the Acme Conservatory of Music

Here is Dr. Coyote demonstrating his pedagogical approach for playing the works of Liszt.  (Just to get us back on topic...)


I am particularly moved by the inherent greatness of his compositions, such as the Concerto for Road Runner in B Flat, (featuring the solo part for falling anvil) .

[karlhenning]

Incorporating the anvil into the orchestra? Geeeeenius!

[jowcol]

Incorporating the anvil into the orchestra? Geeeeenius!

I hate to split hares,

but the term  is SUPER Genius. 

And, by following that line of thought, Verdi would be a SUPER Genius by association, since he wrote the Anvil Chorus.

[MN Dave]

I hate to split hares, but that is SUPER Genius. 

And, by following that line of thought, Verdi would be a SUPER Genius by association, since he wrote the Anvil Chorus.

Well, Verdi thought of it first so it turns your Coyote Super Genius theory to mush. 

[jowcol]

Well, Verdi thought of it first so it turns your Coyote Super Genius theory to mush. 

You may think so, but there is a silent minority who still have the nobility of heart and purity of virtue to honor the Coyote.

[karlhenning]

Well, Verdi thought of it first so it turns your Coyote Super Genius theory to mush. 

And where do you suppose what's-his-name got the idea for his Neebeloong forge scene? ; )  Sheer geeenius, that Verdi!