To settle a dispute between a friend and myself i ask the simple question.
Who was the MORE talented composer for piano?
I won't state my view but i definitely have one.
Debussy
I can tell you only who I like better:
Chopin
Better yet:
Debussy
Best:
Tie! Beethoven and Mozart
Franz
Liszt.
Or Chopin. ;D
Liszt
I listened to Liszt's PC's recently and didn't find them as good as Chopin's.
I appreciate that none of them are considered essential, but I thought that Liszt's had too much 'showboating' [he deliberatly wrote them like that of course] and not much depth compared to Chopin's, especially his #2 while scored in a fairly basic way, have more depth and feeling. Check the 2nd movement from #2 for evidence ;)
Fred
"All of the above"
Chopin is better for me because of his poetic lyricism. Liszt doesn't have that but rather a harder, more technical flourish. I don't listen to Liszt much.
I'd prefer to listen to a random Chopin piece any time, any day $:)
On any given day: both!
Chopin, by a country mile. $:)
I much prefer Chopin in solo repertoire.
I like the Liszt piano concertos more though - nostalgia for the smurfs, perhaps; anyone else remember Gargamel? :D - but I really don't listen to them very much.
Quote from: Novitiate on November 05, 2007, 03:04:03 AM
I like the Liszt piano concertos more though - nostalgia for the smurfs, perhaps; anyone else remember Gargamel? :D
I cannot believe you mentioned The Smurfs and Liszt in the same sentence. That's inspired. :D
Difficult to choose really. As piano composers they are different from one another. Chopin is "delicate" with a hint of melancholia in practically all his piano pieces, piano music suited for salons (small audiences). Most of all I love his Nocturnes, Ballads, and Polonaises.
Liszt's piano music is more "bombastic" for lack of a better word, piano music intended for larger audiences...but the man was a BRILLIANT piano player. His Les Annees de Pelerinage and the Hungarian Rhapsodies are among the best compositions I have heard for the piano.
Net Result: Stalemate.
PS: If I were going to hazard a guess I would say c#minor would have picked Chopin. Am I right?
marvin
Quote from: marvinbrown on November 05, 2007, 03:21:26 AM
Difficult to choose really. As piano composers they are different from one another. Chopin is "delicate" with a hint of melancholia in practically all his piano pieces, piano music suited for salons (small audiences). Most of all I love his Nocturnes, Ballads, and Polonaises.
delicate? Have you heard scherzo 1, scherzo 3, preludes 8, 12, 16, 22, 24, sonata 2, ballade 1, 2, AND THE ETUDES? ? ? ? ?
Quote from: sidoze on November 05, 2007, 03:27:33 AM
delicate? Have you heard scherzo 1, scherzo 3, preludes 8, 12, 16, 22, 24, sonata 2, ballade 1, 2, AND THE ETUDES? ? ? ? ?
Yes I have sidoze I have most of chopin's piano compositions including all those you mention above. Perhaps I have been misunderstood. By "delicate" (notice how I used parenthesis in my original post) I was refering to Chopin's attention to nuances in music and his overall playing style when compared to Liszt's showmanship, I will withdraw the word if you insist :).
marvin
Chopin.
Quote from: marvinbrown on November 05, 2007, 03:21:26 AM
the man was a BRILLIANT piano player.
Too bad he couldn't compose for shit.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 05, 2007, 06:03:36 AM
Too bad he couldn't compose for shit.
Too bad Chopin couldn't orchestrate ......
Quote from: Herzog Lipschitz on November 05, 2007, 06:17:29 AM
Too bad Chopin couldn't orchestrate ......
Yeah, a real hindrance to somebody who wrote nearly exclusively for the piano.
The only sensible answer is: both. How can one live without Chopin's Ballades, say, or his Preludes, or Etudes, and, well most everything for solo piano? (I can live without his first sonata.) But I must ask the same question regarding Liszt's Annees de Pelerinage, and Consolations, and Harmonies poetiques et religieuses, and Transcendental Studies, and others. When it comes to the concertos, neither really floats my boat, though Liszt's a bit better.
Shocking. Over a page of responses, and I'm the first to say "BANANA!"
What is GMG coming to?
Quote from: edward on November 05, 2007, 07:58:18 AM
Shocking. Over a page of responses, and I'm the first to say "BANANA!"
What is GMG coming to?
edward, who's better Chopin or Liszt is irrelevant by now. If we can continue to generate discussion by comparing and constrasting the style, talent for orchestration etc. of Chopin and Liszt then I think this thread would have served its purpose, we might learn something new here after all- I am by no means an expert on either composer, all I know is what I hear, perhaps somebody here can shed more light on how the styles of these two piano composers differ or are similar if that is the case.
marvin
Quote from: orbital on November 04, 2007, 06:36:17 PM
I'd prefer to listen to a random Chopin piece any time, any day $:)
I love Liszt but Chopin is as important to me as oxygen.
Well marvinbrown you are correct in your guess. Chopin, to me, is so much deeper and more inspired than Listz. Though Listz's music is a technical marvel, Chopin's music is deceivingly difficult and complex. Though his music is much more subtle than Listz's (understatement), it does not need the intensity that Listz uses to get a powerful, if not more powerful, statement across. I think Chopin could compose like Listz if needed but i do not believe Listz could ever compose the more subtle, reflective pieces that were Chopin's "bread and butter." Agreed his orchestration was sub par.
Listz wows the crowd, Chopin moves the crowd.
Quote from: c#minor on November 05, 2007, 01:30:02 PM
Listz wows the crowd, Chopin moves the crowd.
On numerous occasions, I have been
moved by
Liszt, and
wowed by
Chopin .........
Without a question. Chopin.
Easily Liszt as a personal preference. A lot of his music is very extrovertly virtuosic, but what I find most fascinating is the way he can make even these pieces well worth hearing, and many of his flashiest pieces also have much depth. His struggle between his "job" as a concert showman, with his introvert side is fascinating, and his late pieces are entirely different from his youthful ones - him making this transition shows that he was a serious composer all along - and a relentlessly innovative one. I found that reading a good biography on him is a way into appreciating his music, he was a great man.
Quote from: Lethe on November 05, 2007, 02:00:03 PM
Easily Liszt as a personal preference. A lot of his music is very extrovertly virtuosic, but what I find most fascinating is the way he can make even these pieces well worth hearing, and many of his flashiest pieces also have much depth. His struggle between his "job" as a concert showman, with his introvert side is fascinating, and his late pieces are entirely different from his youthful ones - him making this transition shows that he was a serious composer all along - and a relentlessly innovative one. I found that reading a good biography on him is a way into appreciating his music, he was a great man.
Agreed he was a virtuoso in the fullest sense. And yes his pieces do have depth, but Chopin has the same degree of virtuosity (though not as "bombastic" and "showy.") That which separates them is Chopin's ability have such a powerful presence without having to "grab your attention" so to speak. At the same time Chopin can still "grab your attention" if he so chooses.
Quote from: Herzog Lipschitz on November 05, 2007, 01:35:46 PM
On numerous occasions, I have been moved by Liszt, and wowed by Chopin .........
I have also been moved by Liszt and wowed by Chopin, but even when Chopin wows me, he always moves me.
Quote from: Lethe on November 05, 2007, 02:00:03 PM
Easily Liszt as a personal preference. A lot of his music is very extrovertly virtuosic, but what I find most fascinating is the way he can make even these pieces well worth hearing, and many of his flashiest pieces also have much depth. His struggle between his "job" as a concert showman, with his introvert side is fascinating, and his late pieces are entirely different from his youthful ones - him making this transition shows that he was a serious composer all along - and a relentlessly innovative one. I found that reading a good biography on him is a way into appreciating his music, he was a great man.
Yes Lethe, I am glad you drew reference to Liszt's late piano pieces- those pieces are
dark, so very dark. I can not help but get the feeling that Liszt was wallowing in despair- in brief he had given up on life- a totally different persona if you will from the man who had written, earlier in his life, those wonderful lively Hungarian Rhapsodies.
marvin
on another note, although it might have something to do with the greater number of pianists who play Chopin compared to Liszt, I've also noticed that pieces by Chopin tend to have a much greater range of interpretation than those by Liszt (excluding the Bm Sonata anyway). Anyone want to hazard a guess on this or attempt to prove me wrong (goodluck)? :P
I prefer both on harpsichord
Quote from: bwv 1080 on November 05, 2007, 02:22:01 PM
I prefer both on harpsichord
Yes ........ but I prefer the virginal ........
Quote from: Herzog Lipschitz on November 05, 2007, 03:33:02 PM
Yes ........ but I prefer the virginal ........
Not for me, too messy the first time you play it
Why not Chopin and then Liszt?
Firstly Chopin because his Etudes became the new 'bible' for the improved instrument.
Later Liszt when he settled down from showmanship and became a serious composer (Chopin died in 1849).
Luckily Alkan remained a recluse.
Quote from: Herzog Lipschitz on November 05, 2007, 06:17:29 AM
Too bad Chopin couldn't orchestrate ......
Not so. He wrote a few works with orchestra - that's orchestrating in my book. ;D
Liszt does nothing for me.
Chopin simply because he wrote music that at least gets my interest.