One more proof: "In a piano lesson with Liszt, a student was playing the famous A-flat Major Polonaise by Chopin. At the moment when the left hand begins its relentless march in octaves, Liszt burst out: "Do I care how fast you can play your octaves!? What I wish to hear is the canter of the horses of the Polish cavalry before they gather force and destroy the enemy!"
@@datruzepp Liszt sweated a little then tackled it like a PRO. I heard of the Chopin étude played in octaves; that wasn't about speed. You gotta defend your crown when you're Liszt.
I heard Frederic Lamond say that when talking about his lessons with Liszt. He also said that Liszt said that it's not about interpreting the work as much as it is about recreating it.
I must quote this (from Anton Strelezki's 'Personal Recollections of Chats with Liszt', published London 1893) because in late March or early April of 1840, Liszt travelled from Dresden to Leipzig with Robert Schumann, and there, in a private performance, played Schumann's C Major Fantasie, Op.17, often considered as the greatest large-scale Romantic piano work after Beethoven. In 1869, Liszt recalled: "I remember the first time I played it to the great composer; he remained perfectly silent in his chair at the close of the first movement, which rather disappointed me. So I asked him what impressioin my rendering of the work had made upon him, and what improvements he could suggest, being anxious to hear the composer's ideas as to the reading of so noble a composition. He asked me to proceed with the 'March', after which he would give me his criticism. I played the second movement, and with such effect that Schumann jumped out of the chair, flung his arms around me, and with tears in his eyes, cried 'Göttlich! Our ideas are absolutely identical as regards the rendering of these movements, only you with your magic fingers have carried my ideas to a realisation that I never dreamt of !' " Perhaps we can take the accuracy of Liszt's recollection with a pinch of salt, but at that time in the early 1840s, both Robert and Clara Schumann deeply admired Liszt, for his pianism, learning, inexhaustible generosity, and open-mindedness. I have taken this information from the Alan Walker biography of Liszt. Thanks.
well many of the greatest composers and pianists heard Liszt and were shocked. Grieg, the Schumanns, Mendelssohn, Chopin....and no one can argue with these guys. It's as if Da Vinci said that so-and-so was a great polymath. Clara Schumann cried because she 'felt like a little schoolgirl'. Chopin said: 'I'd love to play my music with his technique'. Smetana said: 'I want to compose like Mozart and play like Liszt'. Grieg said: 'I could not believe it. I laughed. I laughed like an idiot'. These instances are just like badges of honor. History speaks for itself.
Yes Luigi all true. Liszt was in a league of his own. At 16 he was so inspired by violinist Paganini that he wanted to be the "Paganini of the piano". Grieg also was overwhelmed when Liszt transcribed and played his Concerto orchestral score by sight!! He cried. Liszt was by all regards the greatest sight reader of all time. Saint-Saens was very close.
Liszt could sight read almost anything, he improvised frequently and is a noteworthy composer himself, and revolutionized solo piano music that still stands to this day. There is no doubt he would still marvel today, and would help to show that musicianship and improvisation go hand in hand, instead of primarily associated with jazz.
Thank you, this was very interesting. Through Covid-19, my son, a music major, has been reading his music history book to me as we also listen to corresponding compositions, and look at the scores while following the music. I am illiterate in music, yet with great patience, my son has opened his world, and love for music to me, teaching me. It is never too late to learn. I happened to find this video this morning. It ties in well with our little studies! Hope to listen to more! Blessings!
"... we better leave the speed to the taxi drivers" "...it's false virtuosity, that belongs in the circus and not on stage" damn some concert pianists should read these quotes
Paul Hindemith said, "It is the curse of virtuosity that it can beget nothing but virtuosity. A civilization that demands virtuosity for virtuosity's sake and neglects all higher aspects of musical activity is doomed sooner or later to produce a nation-wide musical dementia, an effect similar to that of a universal and excessive use of narcotics."
@@karlakor The point it is not the "speed" its how you´ll use it. For example op31n2 3th movement ALLEGRETTO, but most pianist plays faster! yes it's in 3/8 BUT speed un UNDER the expression and music. On the other hand op57 3th movement the tempo is "ALLEGRO, MA NON TROPPO" 2/4 but at the end, he ask for "PRESTO" rigth THERE you have to use speed, when the composer ask you, and remember the op27,2 3th movemet "PRESTO AGITATO" it's so important the speed as the mood. Again speed is not the problem except ir you use it to impress (with a lot of practice nowadays anybody can reach very fast play) we are talking about music, Mozart wrote "the fuges should be played not too fast, to take the time for the ears to listen to the voices".
I'm surprised everybody thought Liszt played overly fast because the later generation did. That was never my impression. He was too great for that nonsense. He needed to prove nothing. If he wanted to he would have blown them all away but since that is not musical he wouldn't have done it. I wanted to find out how Liszt practiced not if he played fast or not. Thank you for the video but please consider doing a video on Liszt's practice routine and methods. That would be fun and enlightening. Regards.
A lot of the time, when travelling, I had a silent, portable, weighted piano keyboard that I would drill over and over certain techniques or passages of my repertoire 'between gigs', on trains, in carriages etc. If there was a part of a piece that I found annoying I would sometimes experiment with other approaches to execution (fingering mainly) to achieve the same result.
I read once about Chopin chastising Liszt about tampering with a piece of his, saying to play it exactly as written or don't play it at all. Liszt, being well known for taking great liberties with others music, told Chopin to play it himself then. Chopin played the piece and at its conclusion Liszt embraced Chopin in a hug (the two were close friends) and said "music such as yours should not be tampered with"...I wish I could remember the piece. I think it was one of the Ballades or Scherzos
Ive heard the story of Chopin taking issue with Liszt embellishing a piece of his, but I didn't know about the rest. I love the respect the two held for each other and the way these two monumental geniuses brought each other up.
What convinced me that equating 19th century virtuosity with superfast playing is wrong, was the description Czerny gave of his first meeting with the 8 year old Franz Liszt. To summarize: 'terrible technique, but an amazing talent'. Czerny obviously wasn't talking about technique, but about HOW Liszt played the music. With lots of expression and feeling, I image. Liszt loved Hungarian gypsy music. That's not particularly fast, but (as Herman Krebbers said it) has lots of 'goulash'. Lots of feeling, that in the best way can throw an audience into a state of what Flamenco artists call duende. I've experienced it in a shoddy pub in Granada with a guitarist that wasn't anywhere near as fast as Paco de Lucia. But this guy was 'magic'. That's what real music is all about. Not speed. '
Yes, but the thing is: does 'virtuosity' equal 'fast playing'? We often use them as synonyms but strictly speaking that is not correct. As a classical guitarist, I know plenty of pieces that are only mid tempo or even slow yet are difficult to play because of particular techniques, required phrasing or accentuation. So when Liszt is deemed a 'virtuoso' that doesn't mean that he played fast. In other words, although I liked this video, I wonder what Winters has proven here exactly.
I think you should listen to Hungarian Gypsy Music before you comment on it. It is extremely fast and virtuosic when they are playing dance music while extremely slow and parlando/rubato in style when playing listening music (hallgató - magyar nóta). Part of the standard Hungarian gypsy performance practice is to have almost frenetic improvised solos as they play variations on the tune.
I think that "he never gave the impression of playing fast" could be interpreted as that he did play fast just in a manner which contributed to the music, using his virtuosity as a tool to enhance the expression. I do truly believe that Liszt was able to do whatever he could have wished at the piano however also always chose to use his abilities to service the music and not the other way around.
This is so very right. Beautiful music happens when every note has time to be part of the music, and although very quick playing can excite, the most moving music is when the music communicates our deepest human feelings by singing to us. This may be fast or it may be slow, but it is always sincere.
To play Liszt without a sense of playing deep from the innermost parts of the soul, is just playing notes on a paper score. Whatever piece of Liszt's repertoire I play I "must" feel it as if it's coming from inside of me. I've played Chopin, Beethoven, Debussy and others, but I derive more satisfaction from Liszt's compositions and play them the way I interpret them and not the way someone else does. It's my way of giving to those who hear me what music really is.
@@SWGR9311 yes. I think to take it further, at it's highest level music is a feeling that through some neurological process reaches our fingers, enabling us to share it. I'm also always amazed at the different sounds my students make while playing the same music.
@@jamescorneliustaylor6997 What makes it so humbling is that I never seem to play anything the same way twice. However, if is bringing out satisfaction not only to me but to those listening, I'm happy. Perfection is not the end goal, but rather when played my best I'm complete with the performance. A few of my favorite's of Liszt's are Un Sospiro, Consolations No. 3 in Db and Liebestraum. Chopin's preludes are wonderful. Beethoven's Pathetique and Moonlight Sonatas never tire out.
@@SWGR9311 I'm sure I heard it said somewhere that Liszt himself never played the same way twice. Strangely though, if you play a piece in a particularly pleasing way, it is frequently almost impossible to reproduce the feeling of that performance a second time.
Thanks for your talk, today's audiences don't realize that every (without exception) great musical artist who encountered Liszt and heard him play said he was in a class by himself (so it doesn't really matter what we think) Besides astonishing technical fluency, Liszt was often described as a seer, prophet, visionary, magician etc He was the ultimate artist - today we have plenty of competent musicians but few can realize the deep meaning in the Art.
Charles Blanchard That’s just not true. Liszt himself said at the time how he admired other pianists and wish he could play like them. He was an incredible player I’m sure, but what he have today is also incredible. I seriously doubt Liszt could rise above their talents.
Fascinating insight as usual Wim. I am compelled to thank you from the bottom of my heart for the work you do on your channel, you've turned me on to so many sources that have truly nourished my growth and understanding of music. Hope you are well :)
Virtuosity requires mastery at all tempi. The more expressively one plays slow melodic passages is the true indication of being a virtuosic master not how many notes one can play in rapid succession.
As a student, Lizst compositions remain outside of my scope at the moment. Interesting to hear the critique of piano gymnastics as though virtuosity became a sport. Actually, it's a relief to hear that. I understand however, that several pieces of piano music selected for students are geared toward well-rounded techniques for aspects which must include speed. Speed dominates a lot of it. The most impressive pieces I have come across for students come from the Anna Magdalena Notebook and Schubert. Schubert deserves special mention because I have come across a couple of his pieces and they are really customizable for students. Enjoyable to learn and they sound great.
Thank you for this insight. If someone could run like the wind, it would be shockingly interesting, but if someone could sound like the wind it would be endlessly captivating.
I think Liszt wanted expressiveness over the speed itself, but that people can play fast and play expressive at the same time, rather than emphasizing speed over the musicality. Cziffra for example in my opinon had the amazing sense of the Hungarian feeling for the Hungarian Rhapsodies, and he often plays them very fast. I think it is possible to play anything fast but also expressive with the speed. Great video by the way.
I was expecting to hear you name one main factor that make us think of Liszt as the greatest pianist in music history: his compositional work. One cant help to think only a superb pianist could conceive such technically demanding pieces as well as perfectly fitting for the instrument's idiom.
I'd like to thank you so much for making this inspiring video, which has drawn together many people. Thank you also to all those who have commented on your video as this like minded group feel makes me feel inspired to play.
Thanks so much, tremendous insight to musical values of the period. Your analysis is extemely helpful in understanding the spirits of the times in which the masterpieces were created. Something, that I personally think, would add depth to performances, beyond display of technical excellence or pursuit of most-accurate interpretations of surviving paperwork.
When my first husband was very young, he received a Master Class at the Paris Conservatory from Emil Sauer, a student of Franz Liszt, on "The Mephisto Waltz". When he was playing it, Sauer stopped him and said he was playing it too fast. He said always remember it is a waltz. He taught him to play it a little slower (not slow!) and with more expression. I wouldn't be surprised if "playing fast" back in Liszt's day wasn't quite so fast as they do today.
Very valuable insights from the texts you have read. I was thinking about the whole beat vs the tick tock and thought that I often say, 1 and 2 and ... that fits well with tick (tock) tick ...
It may not be my place to comment but I feel that various people - the presenter of the video included - are mistaking speed with bravura. From what I gather Liszt played pieces at a tempo he thought was appropriate. So pieces like Beethoven's Hammerklavier he may well have played fast. What sets him apart from his contempories, I believe, is that he wasn't concerned with bravura for the sake of showing of (although he was a showman) he obsessed, instead, with technique (as is evident in playing any of his piano music) as a means of expressing the soul, the sublime. Let me know what you think if you get round to reading all this.
Always nice to read feedback and thoughts here, James! Well, my point was in fact to state that Liszt did not play as fast as we might think he would. Widor, Schindler, Moscheles give a bit of context here. All speaking conditionally of course!
There is a physiologic tempo, yes, not related to bravura. I had hoped for some theory why the metronome numbers (by Beethoven and sometimes by other composers) are terribly wrong and I think our presenter has a video on that. However we should evaluate tempi based on the physiological mechanism of pitch and harmony. Can't help laughing when Valentina Lisitsa recorded "Il Contrabandista" and mentioned that this piece had the most number of notes per second EVER, - and still, she made it into music!
@@dibaldgyfm9933 BTW, I think Lisitsa is seriously overrated. Her playing doesn't hold a candle to the (seemingly) effortless, extremely polished playing of Josef Lhevinne - who is, in my estimation, at a level that CANNOT be exceeded. (and this is the opinion of a 66 yr-old man with many decades of practicing virtuoso Liszt, Chopin and Rachmaninoff)
@@noblerkin :: Thank you for an interesting comment. I know of Lhevinne only from some piano-roll recordings, let me see ... Ampico Piano Rolls, and one piece I remember was Nocturne i B major (H-dur) by Chopin, such a beautiful rendering is hard to get today. Yes that can not be exceeded; - but piano playing, music, is not a contest, there is a level where you must accept that it is a valid expression. Having recorded music of same piece and comparing different renderings is fun and interesting, but it is futile (most of the time) to claim "this is better than ..." Wow so you have played. I am 73, I am actually starting over because of impairment following chemo treatment, and I enjoy getting better to sight reading, but worse at "virtuoso pieces" (I was never a virtuoso, though ❤ )
Fascinating! It is such a pleasure to watch you in the process of discovery about these important points. I had begun to think about Franz Liszt, after our exchange two days ago on your beautiful recording of the Bach Well Tempered Klavier selection, BWV850. In some brief research on Liszt's performance history, the story I found was that after he heard an 1832 performance of Paganini, Liszt decided that he must practice more, and become a super-fast (“virtuosic”) player. Then, in the 1840s he became a sort of “rock star” of classical performance with ladies coming up after performance to pull out a lock of his hair, or touch his garments. This led Heine in 1842 to famously describe the phenomenon as “Lisztomania.” . . . This is the “modern” version one finds around the internet. It is very nice to think that his virtuosity was not at all about warp-speed tempos, but something else, very much more important. Thank you for bringing your musical sensitivity and knowledge of musical history to bear on this question so dear to our hearts.
I enjoyed your post and this is a first time on your channel. This reminded me of my College days. I did study formally and I appreciate how you structured your approach. Just like a class! Thank you.
Thank you for a fascinating talk. The reports of Liszt's playing are so interesting, yet so frustrating: there is always such a sense of awe from other great composers and pianists, but we yearn for something more substantial that we cannot have. Aside from Liszt, a summary of the point you want to make is that while reports of how pianists played described an increase in tempi, metronome markings went in the opposite direction, so either pianists were not playing faster and faster or the earlier metronome markings meant something different. Moreover, no recorded pianists have been able to match some of the earlier metronome markings, if read conventionally.
I do not know if you ever listened to the recordings of Frederic Lamond, who spoke about his time with Liszt at Weimar. Lamond recalls that in one class, Liszt stopped a student for playing fast, for Liszt what mattered more was if the student was able to capture the sound of the horses of the Polish cavalry galloping ( It is was one of Chopin's Polonaises).
Thank you Wim ..sorry ive not been on here in a while ..had a flu virus ..my Grandfather played Piano concerts all through Germany of Liszt works...i wish there were recordings ..Many thanks
Why is Liszt the greatest pianist of all times? Simply because he was praised as such by several of the greatest musicians of all times, even by those who were his enemies: Brahms, Clara Schumann, Tausig, Wagner, Berlioz, Chopin, etc.
I'm still a bit confused regarding the tempo Franz Liszt played with. I have no doubt Franz Liszt must have been one of the greatest pianists that ever lived and his way of playing very emotionally and with great technique must have been magnificient. If however, as these sources indicate, Franz Liszt "never" played fast I would find that very saddening, as some of his incredibly difficult pieces just sound way better when played at a very fast tempo. Liszt is reported to have been an incredible showman, I can very much imagine that he'd play at ridiculous speeds just to awe the audience, while also playing with an emotional understanding that's unparalleled. If you just look at his etudes d'execution transcendante (especially the 4th one) it becomes apparent that he was a technical showoff. I'd find it hard to believe he absolutely "never" played fast.
Is there? If you apply a fast tempo I would've thought you have to play fast to reach the tempo. This may just show my poor understanding of music theory
@@MathieuPrevot What I think he meant is that most of today's musicians tend to play "allegro movements" as a prestissimo (which literally makes no sense), at the expense of musical expression, accentuation and what the Germans call Agogik. If you play "like a taxi driver", you don't need to be musical, in fact it is often technically easier than applying "correct" tempos. By slowing down, you'll have to find new solutions to make the music attractive. Applying fast tempi just means applying the tempo the composer had in mind and not playing as fast humanly possible...
Thank you a lot for this amazingly interesting video.I have admired the figure liszt ever since I have heard his piano works.and your research work have had tremendous effect on the way I imagine him play now(for the best of course) and the way I play.Best of luck and health to you and your family
I think this description of liszt is very telling given all the other quotes that talk about his technical brilliance, certainly they initially seem to condltradict each other but it can be illustrated otherwise with a simple analogy in our own time. Growing up I learned the guitar because i was such a huge fan of jimi hendrix. And if you look at how people talked about jimi hendrix at the time (especially regarding sheer technical skill) everyone always says stuff like he played so fast and he was better than anyone else. I remeber a video i had of someone reminiscing about hendrix that he was the best guitarist in world and could play with his teeth better than most people could with their hands. Famously jeff beck after seeing jimi in london for the first time came home and said to his gf "I'm gonna give up playing because I've just seen the best guitarist I'm ever gonna see" So from all this, if you reconstructed a historical idea of jimi hendrix playing guitar, you'd easily get someone who was infinitely better than anyone alive. Bordering on perfect at everything possible. But we don't need to reconstruct it, we have tons and tons of video footage. And if you watch it knowing what the standard is today, jimi hendrix is pretty poor. If he came back and entered a guitar competition he wouldn't even place. He'd look like a poorly practiced amateur. Now there are many good reasons why hendrix its still considered greatest and most important guitarist ever (certainly i do), but technicality by today's standards is not one of them. And that's with video footage from only 55 years ago. God knows what it was like to witness liszt play in the 1840s compared to now. I suspect the same can be said of paganini. And it's why I'm convinced technical ability by the top top top virtuoso of any generation is at least on par if not better than the previous generation.
This is musicology at it's best. Greatly hearing about all these writings in context. Now if we were just able to nail down the tempi of "old school" vs. "new school" of a few classic pieces.
Hello, Tim! Nice description of 1840's:) Can you tell us anything about technical devices for palm stretching that were popular that years? Dactillion etc. They say Schumann got his hand hurt with one of such a devices.
I never really looked in that aspect to be honest, but as probably all of us, have seen some pretty scare devices... It would be a great idea to have all of those bundled (perhaps it has been done), since doubtlessly that would show the same curve as the wish to play faster and faster throughout the 19th century.
Bach wrote his well-tempered clavier in a 4-octave register from C to c. In Mozart,s time the register was increased to 5 octaves F to f), Beethoven still use the 5-octaves until his Kreuzer sonata.Then in his 3rd concerto, the upper register was increase by 7 notes to C and in his 5th concerto, increased by further 5 notes to the highest F, and in his latest sonatas, the lower register was increased by 5 notes to the lowest C. In the early works of Liszt, we can see ossia for the 78-key piano, though the 88-key piano of modern scale has appeared. But even in the early 20 century, there are still some 85-key piano (only to the highest A) and this is such an example of 85-key piano.
Beethoven heard him play as a child and was so impressed he lifted him up in the air. Liszt was great, Beethoven second. There are many great pianists.
I've found the keyboard connoisseur heaven! So here's a question: if the keyboard canon stopped right at 1840, and no work written after that was allowed in, would the standard repertoire be more, less, or equally difficult technically as it is right now? No Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Liszt, Rachmaninoff, Ravel, etc., but pianists would have to know more JS, WF, CPE, and JC Bach; Clementi, Hummel, D. Scarlatti, Haydn, and so on, in addition to all of Mozart, Beethoven, and most of Chopin. I'm genuinely asking as a non-keyboardist if the technical difficulty would be any less? If not, then I can definitely see that by 1840, young keyboardists were custodians of such a large repertoire that they were eager to compete with each other to see who could master this mountainous canon the 'fastest,' and on better keyboards than their forerunners.
It's more a speculative guess than a theory. If it were a theory, with the evidence presented one would necessarily come to the same conclusion as mr. Winters. But in this case, one could as easily come to the exact opposite result: single beat theory, which is the practice of almost all performing artists for as long as we record music. So mr. Winters is merely offering a different point of view.
And we still play like Arrau, like Paderewski, even like pianists of the sixties...? Exactly, it says absolutely nothing about how previous generations played.
Thank you very much for this excellent presentation! he historian has to weight evidence from multiple sources, and reason to plausible, if necessarily conditional, conclusions. You have done a brilliant exposition of this important topic. Bravo!
Nice! Now I have a good pretext that explains why I play so damn slow. "It's to better appreciate the music, bro" "Music? You took 10 minutes to play Chopin's Prelude 4!" "To appreciate the music..."
On the Dupré quote, "Liszt never gave the impression of playing fast" perhaps the emphasis should be on the word impression? Implying that Liszt was indeed playing "fast" but the impression was one of ease or comfort.
Who will tell? Could be. The context prevails to me always over single quotes, but I'm not claiming to have the truth... you know, if you play a really slow adagio and make long ornamentations in the right hand, many will walk away thinking I played fast. It's relative, I mean the term fast, the first train Liverpool Manchester on which Moscheles was, was described by him in a way you'd think he sat in a space shuttle. Yet the train drove at 27km /h.
I actually went and listened (to a pianist), after listening what you mentioned in connection with playing speeds and listened to the same music you (above) played and compared it to (i just listened to a male pianist) and was utterly surprised. It sounded as if he was playing the music at breakneck speed! 6 Nov 2021
I enjoyed your appraisal of Liszt's reported technique of virtuosity very much, but it may have been insightful to mention the influence on Liszt of Nicolo Paganini. Liszt described the first time hearing Paganini in concert as the most important influence on his music and performing style. I'm sure you know, Paganini was a showman as well as a virtuoso. He dazzled the crowds with spectacles of difficulties such as purposely breaking three of his violin strings and then proceeding to play pieces of great difficulty. If Liszt described him as the most important influence of his own style, then that must be an important clue as to how he himself approached technique in live performance.
It seems there's a sort of give and take. One can play a piece only so fast before compromising subtlety, precision, rhythm, feel, and so on. Most good pieces are worthy of not being played too quickly.
Moriz Rosenthal commented on the pianists of his day playing with greater speed than he ever did. Listen to some of his non-virtuoso recordings and his tempi are really quite measured. He was, of course, favourite pupil and friend of Liszt.
The trouble with the arts, music in particular, is that they are so subjective. Speed is okay, in my opinion, sometimes, but generally, again in my opinion, many nuances are lost in the frenzy of speed. Everyone plays La Campanella as fast as they can, but the first time I heard it, it was a recording of Jose Iturbi, playing it squeaky clean at a moderate tempo. All the fire and flash was there, but it didn't take speed to showcase them. It took feeling. Leonard Pennario, in my opinion, was great. He played everything too fast, but at least he put a little feeling in there. A classical pianist whom I respected once told me, "Playing fast is easy. Anyone can move their hands fast. Strive for cleanness and eveness. Speed will develop and then you can choose to play something fast or not." I think about that quote often.
In recent years too many concert pianists have attacked the piano music instead of playing it. More recently I have noticed some pianists are coming through who have a delicacy of touch. They flutter gently in passages that hitherto have been subjected to violent assault. I have started listening again.
I am so happy to have recently found you on UA-cam. I thought I was the only one who is appalled when I hear beautiful and well loved classical pieces played at an inappropriately fast tempo. I am often moved to leave a comment about this, but I am rarely agreed with by the others who are always expressing great admiration for the virtuosity of the performers! Your research is so interesting and informative and I greatly appreciate your own performances of many great works. Probably the thought that haunts many of today's performers is that if they do not play at maximum speed it will be said of them "they play at that tempo because they can't manage it any faster!" May I be allowed a silly joke here? Years ago I heard this limerick:- There was a young lady from Rio Who practiced a Beethoven Trio Her technique was scanty So she played it Andante Instead of Allegro Con Brio.
Soon I hope, Sean, we're heading to Potvlieghes workshop next week to discuss final dates, here's a playlist with some pf videos : ua-cam.com/play/PLackZ_5a6IWVmL5HeEuF-LemxgtOC3RLH.html
Thank you again for another very informative and interesting video! Just a thought, would you consider doing videos of book recommendations? It would be very interesting to see what some of your favorite sources are
That's planned for a long time, but the videos did not reach many, perhaps I'll try some more times. here are two older ones : ua-cam.com/video/gze1YQBbYoI/v-deo.html and ua-cam.com/video/yy3uuCwRyZA/v-deo.html
Ik was aangenaam verrast door de zeer poëtische uitvoeringen van Liszt’s oeuvre door de Russische pianist Arcadi Volodos. De aandacht ligt niet op het virtuoze, al heeft Volodos daar geen moeite mee, maar op het muzikale. Zijn cd ‘Volodos plays Liszt’ is dan ook een aanrader voor iedere Liszt-liefhebber.
Are you just giving us the highlights of your dissertation? These are top notch investigations in reconstructing the playing style of the 19th century. Very impressive work in understanding the the metronome markings of this period.
Congrats dear colleague, speed/tempo is relative indeed. Liszt never sounded like a horse race, conservatory students do. Conservatory destroys a lot, fortunately Chopin and Liszt escaped from it!
I always thought to myself that Horowtiz was the greatest pianist ever, and he could have been surpassed by Alexei Sultanov if the latter had passed on so early in his life. Then again, that famous story of liszt sight-reading chopin's etudes always comes to mind
@@devosiagian9578 see, this is why the "best" can never be objective. I love Hamelin and how he glides across the piano and how cziffra could set the standard for any performance. And horowitz holds a special place in my own heart, so it's really just up to preference.. And of course theirs also Argerich and Yudina, the list goes on
@@devosiagian9578 but to be completely honest, none have held my attention like Horowtiz. He made every piece he played his own. Rachs 3rd piano concerto and 2nd sonata. Chopin's mazurkas. His Mozart is gripping and his Scarlatti is mind boggling
I am not a pianist ; I play the violin. If you listen to me practicing, you will never hear me play very fast at all. I practice slowly and in a very focused manner until the piece becomes second nature. This way when I play the piece in tempo, I don't give off the impression of playing fast at all ; it's effortless. The focus is on the phrasing and on the music itself. But one should not assume the tempo I would pick for a performance based on the tempo I pick during practice. When I start getting comfortable with a slow tempo during practice, I slow down even more.
Thank you very much for the compliments, I thought everyone forgot about me laying in this grave
@Tuber Kinda cringey to be honest.
TheGregoryHD Nah it’ll get likes it was made4 days ago only reason
Hi, Mr. Liszt!
Hahahahaa hello mister franz
I need to write down a Chopin Liszt of such goofy YT comments.
(showing myself out now...)
One more proof:
"In a piano lesson with Liszt, a student was playing the famous A-flat Major Polonaise by Chopin. At the moment when the left hand begins its relentless march in octaves, Liszt burst out: "Do I care how fast you can play your octaves!? What I wish to hear is the canter of the horses of the Polish cavalry before they gather force and destroy the enemy!"
Vlad The Monster Nowadays we would just say, “you’re rushing.”
@@scarbo22 Liszt was an interpreter who saw through the notes. It's sad many still consider him a show-off.
Haha liszt was just jealous some dude unleashed octaves faster than him
@@datruzepp Liszt sweated a little then tackled it like a PRO. I heard of the Chopin étude played in octaves; that wasn't about speed. You gotta defend your crown when you're Liszt.
I heard Frederic Lamond say that when talking about his lessons with Liszt. He also said that Liszt said that it's not about interpreting the work as much as it is about recreating it.
I must quote this (from Anton Strelezki's 'Personal Recollections of Chats with Liszt', published London 1893) because in late March or early April of 1840, Liszt travelled from Dresden to Leipzig with Robert Schumann, and there, in a private performance, played Schumann's C Major Fantasie, Op.17, often considered as the greatest large-scale Romantic piano work after Beethoven. In 1869, Liszt recalled: "I remember the first time I played it to the great composer; he remained perfectly silent in his chair at the close of the first movement, which rather disappointed me. So I asked him what impressioin my rendering of the work had made upon him, and what improvements he could suggest, being anxious to hear the composer's ideas as to the reading of so noble a composition. He asked me to proceed with the 'March', after which he would give me his criticism. I played the second movement, and with such effect that Schumann jumped out of the chair, flung his arms around me, and with tears in his eyes, cried 'Göttlich! Our ideas are absolutely identical as regards the rendering of these movements, only you with your magic fingers have carried my ideas to a realisation that I never dreamt of !' " Perhaps we can take the accuracy of Liszt's recollection with a pinch of salt, but at that time in the early 1840s, both Robert and Clara Schumann deeply admired Liszt, for his pianism, learning, inexhaustible generosity, and open-mindedness. I have taken this information from the Alan Walker biography of Liszt. Thanks.
well many of the greatest composers and pianists heard Liszt and were shocked. Grieg, the Schumanns, Mendelssohn, Chopin....and no one can argue with these guys. It's as if Da Vinci said that so-and-so was a great polymath. Clara Schumann cried because she 'felt like a little schoolgirl'. Chopin said: 'I'd love to play my music with his technique'. Smetana said: 'I want to compose like Mozart and play like Liszt'. Grieg said: 'I could not believe it. I laughed. I laughed like an idiot'. These instances are just like badges of honor. History speaks for itself.
Liszt sight read an violin concerto by grieg and his cadenza from piano concerto
It blows your mind thinking there was a level of utmost supreme virtuosity .....and Liszt was the level above that
@@inazuma3gou Hurt his hand. Not broken.
Yes Luigi all true. Liszt was in a league of his own. At 16 he was so inspired by violinist Paganini that he wanted to be the "Paganini of the piano". Grieg also was overwhelmed when Liszt transcribed and played his Concerto orchestral score by sight!! He cried.
Liszt was by all regards the greatest sight reader of all time. Saint-Saens was very close.
@@inazuma3gou When you say broken, most people think BONE.
Liszt could sight read almost anything, he improvised frequently and is a noteworthy composer himself, and revolutionized solo piano music that still stands to this day. There is no doubt he would still marvel today, and would help to show that musicianship and improvisation go hand in hand, instead of primarily associated with jazz.
Thank you, this was very interesting. Through Covid-19, my son, a music major, has been reading his music history book to me as we also listen to corresponding compositions, and look at the scores while following the music. I am illiterate in music, yet with great patience, my son has opened his world, and love for music to me, teaching me. It is never too late to learn. I happened to find this video this morning. It ties in well with our little studies! Hope to listen to more! Blessings!
Wonderful!
Moments like those are why I love homeschooling my kids so much.
"... we better leave the speed to the taxi drivers" "...it's false virtuosity, that belongs in the circus and not on stage"
damn some concert pianists should read these quotes
absolutely right!!!
Paul Hindemith said, "It is the curse of virtuosity that it can beget nothing but virtuosity. A civilization that demands virtuosity for virtuosity's sake and neglects all higher aspects of musical activity is doomed sooner or later to produce a nation-wide musical dementia, an effect similar to that of a universal and excessive use of narcotics."
karlakor also part of music too
Totally agree!
@@karlakor The point it is not the "speed" its how you´ll use it. For example op31n2 3th movement ALLEGRETTO, but most pianist plays faster! yes it's in 3/8 BUT speed un UNDER the expression and music. On the other hand op57 3th movement the tempo is "ALLEGRO, MA NON TROPPO" 2/4 but at the end, he ask for "PRESTO" rigth THERE you have to use speed, when the composer ask you, and remember the op27,2 3th movemet "PRESTO AGITATO" it's so important the speed as the mood. Again speed is not the problem except ir you use it to impress (with a lot of practice nowadays anybody can reach very fast play) we are talking about music, Mozart wrote "the fuges should be played not too fast, to take the time for the ears to listen to the voices".
I'm surprised everybody thought Liszt played overly fast because the later generation did. That was never my impression. He was too great for that nonsense. He needed to prove nothing. If he wanted to he would have blown them all away but since that is not musical he wouldn't have done it.
I wanted to find out how Liszt practiced not if he played fast or not.
Thank you for the video but please consider doing a video on Liszt's practice routine and methods. That would be fun and enlightening.
Regards.
A lot of the time, when travelling, I had a silent, portable, weighted piano keyboard that I would drill over and over certain techniques or passages of my repertoire 'between gigs', on trains, in carriages etc. If there was a part of a piece that I found annoying I would sometimes experiment with other approaches to execution (fingering mainly) to achieve the same result.
@@franzliszt4302 what did you think of Chopin. I heard you guys had a falling out over George Sand
I read once about Chopin chastising Liszt about tampering with a piece of his, saying to play it exactly as written or don't play it at all. Liszt, being well known for taking great liberties with others music, told Chopin to play it himself then. Chopin played the piece and at its conclusion Liszt embraced Chopin in a hug (the two were close friends) and said "music such as yours should not be tampered with"...I wish I could remember the piece. I think it was one of the Ballades or Scherzos
it was a nocturne I think..
it was a nocturne for sure! i'm not sure but i think it is op9 no 2
Ive heard the story of Chopin taking issue with Liszt embellishing a piece of his, but I didn't know about the rest. I love the respect the two held for each other and the way these two monumental geniuses brought each other up.
@@DamianVarnum I am not sure about the respect. I heard that Chopin saying to Liszt: "Get your pigs out of my garden".
Probably nocturnes. His miniatures are his greatest compositions imo.
What convinced me that equating 19th century virtuosity with superfast playing is wrong, was the description Czerny gave of his first meeting with the 8 year old Franz Liszt. To summarize: 'terrible technique, but an amazing talent'. Czerny obviously wasn't talking about technique, but about HOW Liszt played the music. With lots of expression and feeling, I image.
Liszt loved Hungarian gypsy music. That's not particularly fast, but (as Herman Krebbers said it) has lots of 'goulash'. Lots of feeling, that in the best way can throw an audience into a state of what Flamenco artists call duende. I've experienced it in a shoddy pub in Granada with a guitarist that wasn't anywhere near as fast as Paco de Lucia. But this guy was 'magic'. That's what real music is all about. Not speed. '
Amen! Exactly right! Music and the interpretation of musical pieces is well done when it touches the heart and the soul of people.
Yes, but the thing is: does 'virtuosity' equal 'fast playing'? We often use them as synonyms but strictly speaking that is not correct. As a classical guitarist, I know plenty of pieces that are only mid tempo or even slow yet are difficult to play because of particular techniques, required phrasing or accentuation. So when Liszt is deemed a 'virtuoso' that doesn't mean that he played fast. In other words, although I liked this video, I wonder what Winters has proven here exactly.
I think you should listen to Hungarian Gypsy Music before you comment on it. It is extremely fast and virtuosic when they are playing dance music while extremely slow and parlando/rubato in style when playing listening music (hallgató - magyar nóta). Part of the standard Hungarian gypsy performance practice is to have almost frenetic improvised solos as they play variations on the tune.
In tango it's called "mugre"
@@gabithemagyar please recomend recording
I think that "he never gave the impression of playing fast" could be interpreted as that he did play fast just in a manner which contributed to the music, using his virtuosity as a tool to enhance the expression. I do truly believe that Liszt was able to do whatever he could have wished at the piano however also always chose to use his abilities to service the music and not the other way around.
Alfred Brendel wrote: " You must take Liszt very serously or else you risk to make a fool of himself".
Sooo true!!!
This is so very right. Beautiful music happens when every note has time to be part of the music, and although very quick playing can excite, the most moving music is when the music communicates our deepest human feelings by singing to us. This may be fast or it may be slow, but it is always sincere.
Thank you!
To play Liszt without a sense of playing deep from the innermost parts of the soul, is just playing notes on a paper score. Whatever piece of Liszt's repertoire I play I "must" feel it as if it's coming from inside of me. I've played Chopin, Beethoven, Debussy and others, but I derive more satisfaction from Liszt's compositions and play them the way I interpret them and not the way someone else does. It's my way of giving to those who hear me what music really is.
@@SWGR9311 yes. I think to take it further, at it's highest level music is a feeling that through some neurological process reaches our fingers, enabling us to share it. I'm also always amazed at the different sounds my students make while playing the same music.
@@jamescorneliustaylor6997 What makes it so humbling is that I never seem to play anything the same way twice. However, if is bringing out satisfaction not only to me but to those listening, I'm happy. Perfection is not the end goal, but rather when played my best I'm complete with the performance. A few of my favorite's of Liszt's are Un Sospiro, Consolations No. 3 in Db and Liebestraum. Chopin's preludes are wonderful. Beethoven's Pathetique and Moonlight Sonatas never tire out.
@@SWGR9311 I'm sure I heard it said somewhere that Liszt himself never played the same way twice. Strangely though, if you play a piece in a particularly pleasing way, it is frequently almost impossible to reproduce the feeling of that performance a second time.
Thanks for your talk, today's audiences don't realize that every (without exception) great musical artist who encountered Liszt and heard him play said he was in a class by himself (so it doesn't really matter what we think) Besides astonishing technical fluency, Liszt was often described as a seer, prophet, visionary, magician etc He was the ultimate artist - today we have plenty of competent musicians but few can realize the deep meaning in the Art.
Charles Blanchard That’s just not true. Liszt himself said at the time how he admired other pianists and wish he could play like them. He was an incredible player I’m sure, but what he have today is also incredible. I seriously doubt Liszt could rise above their talents.
@@slapmyfunkybass above who's talents?
Thank you for this great analysis of the great Liszt ! Expression in music is the heart of the art !
I strongly believe virtuoso playing is not playing fast, but playing legère and with expression, and having nice piano sound in the fingers.
Fascinating insight as usual Wim. I am compelled to thank you from the bottom of my heart for the work you do on your channel, you've turned me on to so many sources that have truly nourished my growth and understanding of music. Hope you are well :)
Thank you so much James, so great to read!
this is exactly how exploring a composer's pieces should be presented. thank you very much.
Fascinating, and SO important: thank you so much for putting these vital sources together and sharing them.
Great to read John, thanks for watching!
Virtuosity requires mastery at all tempi. The more expressively one plays slow melodic passages is the true indication of being a virtuosic master not how many notes one can play in rapid succession.
and vice versa
As a student, Lizst compositions remain outside of my scope at the moment. Interesting to hear the critique of piano gymnastics as though virtuosity became a sport. Actually, it's a relief to hear that. I understand however, that several pieces of piano music selected for students are geared toward well-rounded techniques for aspects which must include speed. Speed dominates a lot of it. The most impressive pieces I have come across for students come from the Anna Magdalena Notebook and Schubert. Schubert deserves special mention because I have come across a couple of his pieces and they are really customizable for students. Enjoyable to learn and they sound great.
What an amazing channel, this channel is what I have been searching for.
That's great to read! Welcome here!!
Totally agree!
As a History of Music lover this video is a gem. Thank you for your analysis.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Thank you for this insight. If someone could run like the wind, it would be shockingly interesting, but if someone could sound like the wind it would be endlessly captivating.
I think Liszt wanted expressiveness over the speed itself, but that people can play fast and play expressive at the same time, rather than emphasizing speed over the musicality. Cziffra for example in my opinon had the amazing sense of the Hungarian feeling for the Hungarian Rhapsodies, and he often plays them very fast. I think it is possible to play anything fast but also expressive with the speed. Great video by the way.
In his book "Testimony", page 53, Shostakovich recalls Glazunov's account of Liszt playing Beethoven. Much in accordance with this video.
Wonderful. Liszt was an amazingly humble genius, as all truly magnificent are. Beginning brash, ending wise. Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it!
nice analysis!
thank you so much for your videos! they are so enlightening, and fun to watch and listen to!
I was expecting to hear you name one main factor that make us think of Liszt as the greatest pianist in music history: his compositional work. One cant help to think only a superb pianist could conceive such technically demanding pieces as well as perfectly fitting for the instrument's idiom.
First sentence he says....
“one of the most ilLISZTrious pianists that history has known”
my favorite bit was the pronunciation of "Carnage-y Hall" LOL
He meant to say "the pianist at the top of the Liszt"
@@leandrusi4533 I once heard someone refer to that as "The "p-nis" on top of Liszt.".
I'd like to thank you so much for making this inspiring video, which has drawn together many people. Thank you also to all those who have commented on your video as this like minded group feel makes me feel inspired to play.
Thank you too!
Thanks so much, tremendous insight to musical values of the period. Your analysis is extemely helpful in understanding the spirits of the times in which the masterpieces were created. Something, that I personally think, would add depth to performances, beyond display of technical excellence or pursuit of most-accurate interpretations of surviving paperwork.
This is great stuff. THANK YOU for your passion and your sharing of knowledge, and love of music.
Speaking about Lemmens I am lucky to posess his Erard concert piano, from 1857 ...
Very interesting talk. I feel you brought forward the important points and provided in-depth info in a lively way. Thanks!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I never knew that Tom Cruse is so into piano
THATS NEWS TO ME, I DIDNT KNOW IT EITHER UNTIL I JUST SAW YOUR COMMENT HERE.
I am learning a ton from this channel thank you so much for these videos..
When my first husband was very young, he received a Master Class at the Paris Conservatory from Emil Sauer, a student of Franz Liszt, on "The Mephisto Waltz".
When he was playing it, Sauer stopped him and said he was playing it too fast. He said always remember it is a waltz. He taught him to play it a little slower (not slow!) and with more expression.
I wouldn't be surprised if "playing fast" back in Liszt's day wasn't quite so fast as they do today.
Very valuable insights from the texts you have read. I was thinking about the whole beat vs the tick tock and thought that I often say, 1 and 2 and ... that fits well with tick (tock) tick ...
It may not be my place to comment but I feel that various people - the presenter of the video included - are mistaking speed with bravura. From what I gather Liszt played pieces at a tempo he thought was appropriate. So pieces like Beethoven's Hammerklavier he may well have played fast. What sets him apart from his contempories, I believe, is that he wasn't concerned with bravura for the sake of showing of (although he was a showman) he obsessed, instead, with technique (as is evident in playing any of his piano music) as a means of expressing the soul, the sublime. Let me know what you think if you get round to reading all this.
Always nice to read feedback and thoughts here, James! Well, my point was in fact to state that Liszt did not play as fast as we might think he would. Widor, Schindler, Moscheles give a bit of context here. All speaking conditionally of course!
There is a physiologic tempo, yes, not related to bravura. I had hoped for some theory why the metronome numbers (by Beethoven and sometimes by other composers) are terribly wrong and I think our presenter has a video on that. However we should evaluate tempi based on the physiological mechanism of pitch and harmony. Can't help laughing when Valentina Lisitsa recorded "Il Contrabandista" and mentioned that this piece had the most number of notes per second EVER, - and still, she made it into music!
@@dibaldgyfm9933 BTW, I think Lisitsa is seriously overrated. Her playing doesn't hold a candle to the (seemingly) effortless, extremely polished playing of Josef Lhevinne - who is, in my estimation, at a level that CANNOT be exceeded. (and this is the opinion of a 66 yr-old man with many decades of practicing virtuoso Liszt, Chopin and Rachmaninoff)
@@noblerkin :: Thank you for an interesting comment. I know of Lhevinne only from some piano-roll recordings, let me see ... Ampico Piano Rolls, and one piece I remember was Nocturne i B major (H-dur) by Chopin, such a beautiful rendering is hard to get today. Yes that can not be exceeded; - but piano playing, music, is not a contest, there is a level where you must accept that it is a valid expression. Having recorded music of same piece and comparing different renderings is fun and interesting, but it is futile (most of the time) to claim "this is better than ..."
Wow so you have played. I am 73, I am actually starting over because of impairment following chemo treatment, and I enjoy getting better to sight reading, but worse at "virtuoso pieces" (I was never a virtuoso, though ❤ )
Liszt was always my favorite composer/musician/personality of that era.
I enjoyed listening to this very much.
Glad you enjoyed it
Fascinating, I love this THANK YOU!
Fascinating! It is such a pleasure to watch you in the process of discovery about these important points.
I had begun to think about Franz Liszt, after our exchange two days ago on your beautiful recording of the Bach Well Tempered Klavier selection, BWV850.
In some brief research on Liszt's performance history, the story I found was that after he heard an 1832 performance of Paganini, Liszt decided that he must practice more, and become a super-fast (“virtuosic”) player. Then, in the 1840s he became a sort of “rock star” of classical performance with ladies coming up after performance to pull out a lock of his hair, or touch his garments. This led Heine in 1842 to famously describe the phenomenon as “Lisztomania.” . . . This is the “modern” version one finds around the internet.
It is very nice to think that his virtuosity was not at all about warp-speed tempos, but something else, very much more important. Thank you for bringing your musical sensitivity and knowledge of musical history to bear on this question so dear to our hearts.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts here, Larry
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE AWESOME CONTENT!
I enjoyed your post and this is a first time on your channel. This reminded me of my College days. I did study formally and I appreciate how you structured your approach. Just like a class! Thank you.
Welcome aboard!
Yes, he's a good heart and obviously loves music...
Thank you for a fascinating talk. The reports of Liszt's playing are so interesting, yet so frustrating: there is always such a sense of awe from other great composers and pianists, but we yearn for something more substantial that we cannot have.
Aside from Liszt, a summary of the point you want to make is that while reports of how pianists played described an increase in tempi, metronome markings went in the opposite direction, so either pianists were not playing faster and faster or the earlier metronome markings meant something different. Moreover, no recorded pianists have been able to match some of the earlier metronome markings, if read conventionally.
I do not know if you ever listened to the recordings of Frederic Lamond, who spoke about his time with Liszt at Weimar. Lamond recalls that in one class, Liszt stopped a student for playing fast, for Liszt what mattered more was if the student was able to capture the sound of the horses of the Polish cavalry galloping ( It is was one of Chopin's Polonaises).
Hi Matthew, I know that clip, it's wonderful and I'll use it in a future video, thanks for sharing!
Thank you Wim ..sorry ive not been on here in a while ..had a flu virus ..my Grandfather played Piano concerts all through Germany of Liszt works...i wish there were recordings ..Many thanks
What was your grandfather's name?
@@noblerkin Hi his name was Emile Grimm..:)
Incredible!!!!!!! Thanks a zillion for sharing your amazing collection!❤💖💓💞💕😘💋🌹👏👏
Why is Liszt the greatest pianist of all times? Simply because he was praised as such by several of the greatest musicians of all times, even by those who were his enemies: Brahms, Clara Schumann, Tausig, Wagner, Berlioz, Chopin, etc.
I'm still a bit confused regarding the tempo Franz Liszt played with.
I have no doubt Franz Liszt must have been one of the greatest pianists that ever lived and his way of playing very emotionally and with great technique must have been magnificient.
If however, as these sources indicate, Franz Liszt "never" played fast I would find that very saddening, as some of his incredibly difficult pieces just sound way better when played at a very fast tempo.
Liszt is reported to have been an incredible showman, I can very much imagine that he'd play at ridiculous speeds just to awe the audience, while also playing with an emotional understanding that's unparalleled.
If you just look at his etudes d'execution transcendante (especially the 4th one) it becomes apparent that he was a technical showoff.
I'd find it hard to believe he absolutely "never" played fast.
There is a difference between 'playing fast' and 'applying fast tempi'!
Is there? If you apply a fast tempo I would've thought you have to play fast to reach the tempo. This may just show my poor understanding of music theory
"Fuck you, it's break neck speed time"bpm. Normally.
@@AuthenticSound What is this difference ? What mean each ?
@@MathieuPrevot What I think he meant is that most of today's musicians tend to play "allegro movements" as a prestissimo (which literally makes no sense), at the expense of musical expression, accentuation and what the Germans call Agogik. If you play "like a taxi driver", you don't need to be musical, in fact it is often technically easier than applying "correct" tempos. By slowing down, you'll have to find new solutions to make the music attractive. Applying fast tempi just means applying the tempo the composer had in mind and not playing as fast humanly possible...
Thank you a lot for this amazingly interesting video.I have admired the figure liszt ever since I have heard his piano works.and your research work have had tremendous effect on the way I imagine him play now(for the best of course) and the way I play.Best of luck and health to you and your family
Thanks Popo!
Intriguing.
Dank voor een inspirerende uiteenzetting!
yea, Lizst never played faster than quarter-note = 60 MM. That's why all the ladies swooned.
I think this description of liszt is very telling given all the other quotes that talk about his technical brilliance, certainly they initially seem to condltradict each other but it can be illustrated otherwise with a simple analogy in our own time.
Growing up I learned the guitar because i was such a huge fan of jimi hendrix. And if you look at how people talked about jimi hendrix at the time (especially regarding sheer technical skill) everyone always says stuff like he played so fast and he was better than anyone else. I remeber a video i had of someone reminiscing about hendrix that he was the best guitarist in world and could play with his teeth better than most people could with their hands. Famously jeff beck after seeing jimi in london for the first time came home and said to his gf "I'm gonna give up playing because I've just seen the best guitarist I'm ever gonna see"
So from all this, if you reconstructed a historical idea of jimi hendrix playing guitar, you'd easily get someone who was infinitely better than anyone alive. Bordering on perfect at everything possible.
But we don't need to reconstruct it, we have tons and tons of video footage. And if you watch it knowing what the standard is today, jimi hendrix is pretty poor. If he came back and entered a guitar competition he wouldn't even place. He'd look like a poorly practiced amateur.
Now there are many good reasons why hendrix its still considered greatest and most important guitarist ever (certainly i do), but technicality by today's standards is not one of them. And that's with video footage from only 55 years ago. God knows what it was like to witness liszt play in the 1840s compared to now.
I suspect the same can be said of paganini. And it's why I'm convinced technical ability by the top top top virtuoso of any generation is at least on par if not better than the previous generation.
This is musicology at it's best. Greatly hearing about all these writings in context. Now if we were just able to nail down the tempi of "old school" vs. "new school" of a few classic pieces.
Fantastic video once again Wim!
Hello, Tim!
Nice description of 1840's:)
Can you tell us anything about technical devices for palm stretching that were popular that years? Dactillion etc. They say Schumann got his hand hurt with one of such a devices.
I never really looked in that aspect to be honest, but as probably all of us, have seen some pretty scare devices... It would be a great idea to have all of those bundled (perhaps it has been done), since doubtlessly that would show the same curve as the wish to play faster and faster throughout the 19th century.
Very fascinating video regarding tempi and Liszt's style of playing. Thank you very much and you've given me much to think about!
Bach wrote his well-tempered clavier in a 4-octave register from C to c. In Mozart,s time the register was increased to 5 octaves F to f), Beethoven still use the 5-octaves until his Kreuzer sonata.Then in his 3rd concerto, the upper register was increase by 7 notes to C and in his 5th concerto, increased by further 5 notes to the highest F, and in his latest sonatas, the lower register was increased by 5 notes to the lowest C. In the early works of Liszt, we can see ossia for the 78-key piano, though the 88-key piano of modern scale has appeared. But even in the early 20 century, there are still some 85-key piano (only to the highest A) and this is such an example of 85-key piano.
Like some of the younger guitar players, speed is a sort of goal. But I think a lot gets sacrificed along the way.
Got to love your dedication and passion for the subject!
Speaking about Widor and Lemmens, I am Lucky to own Lemmens' Erard concert piano, big instrument from 1857 …
That... is fabulous !!
What a treasure! How did you acquire it? That must be a fascinating story!
Beethoven heard him play as a child and was so impressed he lifted him up in the air. Liszt was great, Beethoven second. There are many great pianists.
I've found the keyboard connoisseur heaven! So here's a question: if the keyboard canon stopped right at 1840, and no work written after that was allowed in, would the standard repertoire be more, less, or equally difficult technically as it is right now?
No Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Liszt, Rachmaninoff, Ravel, etc., but pianists would have to know more JS, WF, CPE, and JC Bach; Clementi, Hummel, D. Scarlatti, Haydn, and so on, in addition to all of Mozart, Beethoven, and most of Chopin. I'm genuinely asking as a non-keyboardist if the technical difficulty would be any less?
If not, then I can definitely see that by 1840, young keyboardists were custodians of such a large repertoire that they were eager to compete with each other to see who could master this mountainous canon the 'fastest,' and on better keyboards than their forerunners.
Very good video. I liked the info about the double beat theory that really helped.
It's more a speculative guess than a theory. If it were a theory, with the evidence presented one would necessarily come to the same conclusion as mr. Winters. But in this case, one could as easily come to the exact opposite result: single beat theory, which is the practice of almost all performing artists for as long as we record music. So mr. Winters is merely offering a different point of view.
A very illuminating video, thanks for uploading
Listen to Claudio Arrau Liszt recordings.
He was a pupil of a liszt pupil.
Liebestraum is my favorite
And we still play like Arrau, like Paderewski, even like pianists of the sixties...? Exactly, it says absolutely nothing about how previous generations played.
His teacher was taught by Liszt
thank you very very very much, my friend!
Liszt went into the Twilight of his life as
Abbe Liszt.
Needed the serenity of
The Monastery.
This is a great Channel.
Illuminating.
Thank you very much for this excellent presentation! he historian has to weight evidence from multiple sources, and reason to plausible, if necessarily conditional, conclusions. You have done a brilliant exposition of this important topic. Bravo!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Very good to bring a touch of the remarkable music times in the life times of the Romantics out to us in Australia
Liszt is at the top of the list! InTeReStInG
Do you watch twoset? the " InTeReStInG" is showing something
@@anotherhumanbeingblyat8935 yup lmao
Nice! Now I have a good pretext that explains why I play so damn slow.
"It's to better appreciate the music, bro"
"Music? You took 10 minutes to play Chopin's Prelude 4!"
"To appreciate the music..."
On the Dupré quote, "Liszt never gave the impression of playing fast" perhaps the emphasis should be on the word impression? Implying that Liszt was indeed playing "fast" but the impression was one of ease or comfort.
Who will tell? Could be. The context prevails to me always over single quotes, but I'm not claiming to have the truth... you know, if you play a really slow adagio and make long ornamentations in the right hand, many will walk away thinking I played fast. It's relative, I mean the term fast, the first train Liverpool Manchester on which Moscheles was, was described by him in a way you'd think he sat in a space shuttle. Yet the train drove at 27km /h.
:0
@@AuthenticSound Mighty interesting
I actually went and listened (to a pianist), after listening what you mentioned in connection with playing speeds and listened to the same music you (above) played and compared it to (i just listened to a male pianist) and was utterly surprised. It sounded as if he was playing the music at breakneck speed! 6 Nov 2021
I enjoyed your appraisal of Liszt's reported technique of virtuosity very much, but it may have been insightful to mention the influence on Liszt of Nicolo Paganini. Liszt described the first time hearing Paganini in concert as the most important influence on his music and performing style. I'm sure you know, Paganini was a showman as well as a virtuoso. He dazzled the crowds with spectacles of difficulties such as purposely breaking three of his violin strings and then proceeding to play pieces of great difficulty. If Liszt described him as the most important influence of his own style, then that must be an important clue as to how he himself approached technique in live performance.
It seems there's a sort of give and take. One can play a piece only so fast before compromising subtlety, precision, rhythm, feel, and so on. Most good pieces are worthy of not being played too quickly.
Moriz Rosenthal commented on the pianists of his day playing with greater speed than he ever did. Listen to some of his non-virtuoso recordings and his tempi are really quite measured. He was, of course, favourite pupil and friend of Liszt.
Stop assuming that speed = empty virtuosity. Sometimes that is the case. However, faster tempi often enhance the intended effects of the piece.
The trouble with the arts, music in particular, is that they are so subjective. Speed is okay, in my opinion, sometimes, but generally, again in my opinion, many nuances are lost in the frenzy of speed. Everyone plays La Campanella as fast as they can, but the first time I heard it, it was a recording of Jose Iturbi, playing it squeaky clean at a moderate tempo. All the fire and flash was there, but it didn't take speed to showcase them. It took feeling. Leonard Pennario, in my opinion, was great. He played everything too fast, but at least he put a little feeling in there. A classical pianist whom I respected once told me, "Playing fast is easy. Anyone can move their hands fast. Strive for cleanness and eveness. Speed will develop and then you can choose to play something fast or not." I think about that quote often.
In recent years too many concert pianists have attacked the piano music instead of playing it. More recently I have noticed some pianists are coming through who have a delicacy of touch. They flutter gently in passages that hitherto have been subjected to violent assault. I have started listening again.
I am so happy to have recently found you on UA-cam. I thought I was the only one who is appalled when I hear beautiful and well loved classical pieces played at an inappropriately fast tempo. I am often moved to leave a comment about this, but I am rarely agreed with by the others who are always expressing great admiration for the virtuosity of the performers! Your research is so interesting and informative and I greatly appreciate your own performances of many great works. Probably the thought that haunts many of today's performers is that if they do not play at maximum speed it will be said of them "they play at that tempo because they can't manage it any faster!" May I be allowed a silly joke here? Years ago I heard this limerick:-
There was a young lady from Rio
Who practiced a Beethoven Trio
Her technique was scanty
So she played it Andante
Instead of Allegro Con Brio.
welcome, glad you're here
@@AuthenticSound
Thanks - so am I!
very interesting..when will the Pianoforte arrive Wim?looking forward to more videos on Chopin and Liszt
Soon I hope, Sean, we're heading to Potvlieghes workshop next week to discuss final dates, here's a playlist with some pf videos : ua-cam.com/play/PLackZ_5a6IWVmL5HeEuF-LemxgtOC3RLH.html
Thank you again for another very informative and interesting video! Just a thought, would you consider doing videos of book recommendations? It would be very interesting to see what some of your favorite sources are
That's planned for a long time, but the videos did not reach many, perhaps I'll try some more times. here are two older ones : ua-cam.com/video/gze1YQBbYoI/v-deo.html and ua-cam.com/video/yy3uuCwRyZA/v-deo.html
Ik was aangenaam verrast door de zeer poëtische uitvoeringen van Liszt’s oeuvre door de Russische pianist Arcadi Volodos. De aandacht ligt niet op het virtuoze, al heeft Volodos daar geen moeite mee, maar op het muzikale. Zijn cd ‘Volodos plays Liszt’ is dan ook een aanrader voor iedere Liszt-liefhebber.
Are you just giving us the highlights of your dissertation? These are top notch investigations in reconstructing the playing style of the 19th century. Very impressive work in understanding the the metronome markings of this period.
Thank you so much. Working hard on a new book on all of this together with Lorenz Gadient!
I thought that Liszt himself had said he admired the playing of some others and considered them better than himself.
I've read that too.
the only thing better than him is crack
Pretty much just Alkan.
So interesting.
Congrats dear colleague, speed/tempo is relative indeed. Liszt never sounded like a horse race, conservatory students do. Conservatory destroys a lot, fortunately Chopin and Liszt escaped from it!
you shared with us wisdom, for free. im realley grateful to you.
I always thought to myself that Horowtiz was the greatest pianist ever, and he could have been surpassed by Alexei Sultanov if the latter had passed on so early in his life.
Then again, that famous story of liszt sight-reading chopin's etudes always comes to mind
Nope, M.A.Hamelin, John Ogdon, Nikolai Petrov, Georges Cziffra and many others deserve the place
@@devosiagian9578 see, this is why the "best" can never be objective. I love Hamelin and how he glides across the piano and how cziffra could set the standard for any performance. And horowitz holds a special place in my own heart, so it's really just up to preference.. And of course theirs also Argerich and Yudina, the list goes on
@@devosiagian9578 but to be completely honest, none have held my attention like Horowtiz. He made every piece he played his own. Rachs 3rd piano concerto and 2nd sonata. Chopin's mazurkas. His Mozart is gripping and his Scarlatti is mind boggling
@@Wosudhehqaxb9169 Thinking about Pollini
@@jsphotos oh my word pollini is magnificent!!
Is it just a dream to hear you playing the "Transcendental etudes"? Thank you very much for all the information.
I love your approach. Thank you!
A nice video, also for me, to learn about Liszt and Widor.
I love this channel!
Thanks!!
I am not a pianist ; I play the violin. If you listen to me practicing, you will never hear me play very fast at all. I practice slowly and in a very focused manner until the piece becomes second nature. This way when I play the piece in tempo, I don't give off the impression of playing fast at all ; it's effortless. The focus is on the phrasing and on the music itself. But one should not assume the tempo I would pick for a performance based on the tempo I pick during practice. When I start getting comfortable with a slow tempo during practice, I slow down even more.
I'm loving your channel thank you