Chapter 10

I like the description of Thalberg’s practicing habits, to “play musically at all times,” (p. 174) including technical work with scales, and arpeggios. Adding crescendos, decrescendos, and different articulations, etc. to technical work, I believe, is a more favorable approach than Liszt’s, who according to Auguste Boissier, “reads in order not to be bored” while working on technique (p. 182). When working on actual music though, Liszt does not want “purposeless or mechanical study,” as Boissier writes later.

It’s hard to know for sure how much Liszt engaged in histrionics on stage, due to contradictory accounts of his playing. Boissier attests that he was not motivated by a desire to “show off at the expense of good taste. He does not play for others but for himself.” (p. 184) Schumann believed that poetry would be lost if Liszt had to be heard behind a screen (p. 179)… I don’t think this should have to detract from a performance.

While we will never know exactly how he performed, we can look at his compositions for evidence of theatrics, which I think are hard to miss. I do love Mazeppa as much as anyone else, but in my opinion, the musical benefit I would gain by its study does not outweigh the technical struggle, as it would with any Beethoven Sonata. While composing, the thoughts of what effects that certain musical and technical devices would have on the audience never seemed far from Liszt’s mind. The effect on the audience of Beethoven’s music, on the other hand, was probably never a motivating factor for his compositions. This is all of course just my own speculation - but for me, Liszt’s music occasionally lacks genuineness inherent in some other composers.

I was surprised that Liszt did not seem to advocate use of the upper arm. It was also interesting that he started working with students only after they had already developed a competent technique.

On page 183 Liszt’s advises, “Have patience with yourself. Your future is ahead of you. Rome was not built in one day.” This was valuable for me since I often try to improve very fast… it would be better to let things gradually improve a little more naturally, without trying to take shortcuts.

Chapter 10

It’s so nice to know Liszt was actually a human being. It is especially comforting to have read how he was commented by Czerny in the earlier chapter. He is actually ‘not that perfect’!

The benefit of an early success to an artist is an arguable topic to think about. Just as Czerny commenting Liszt, I incline more to the idea of keeping away from the public before a certain maturity is established. Some say if Mozart wasn’t touring at his young ages he could have achieve even greater. But obviously that’s not true in Liszt’s case. I believe there’s many factors deciding if a musician could finally succeed, and they just work differently to each person.

Liszt established the definition of ‘performer’ nowadays. He started recital. He is the first to perform memorized. And people is obsessed about him. See how many descriptions of ‘his eyes’, ‘his hair’, ‘his clothes’, ‘he walked’, ‘he breathe’!, ‘he kiss’...appeared in the chapter. Music wasn’t anymore the only focus of the crowd. Liszt became more than just a famous pianist. He is a star, almost God. Sadly though this is a phenomenon pretty similar to our society. Besides music, you also need to have a place in market to make you success, no better by the outlook appearance, or personality, or whatever gimmick you can give.

Surprisingly though Liszt despite being a God-like performer, he also took his teaching very sincerely. So far I think he is the guy that took well care of all aspects, e.g. composition, performance and teaching, at the same time. However that is obviously not we’re following these days. In my point of view, nowadays musician are too much being labeled under different streams of music, not much would be considered as ‘all around’ like Liszt does. Even narrowed to only considering performers, still I think we’re divided into the academe and the conservatoire stream. Maybe things changed through time and now we’re just too busy to be all-rounded, or maybe there’s not much that would have the talent that can be compared with Liszt.

Liszt

Liszt obtained great success in his early years in Paris. He eventually defeated his competitor Thalberg, won the public's favor. But I was very impressed by Thalberg's ideas on technique and tone: "learn, study and TEST the beautiful art of singing". After reading his ideas, I could imagine how much beautiful singing tone this pianist could make.

 

Like other famous composers such as Chopin, Mozart, Liszt was not really interested in the piano teaching at least in his early years. He didn't win the reputation as a good teacher until his Weimar years. I doubt his teaching methods when he was in 20s. He asked a new beginner to practice scales and chord two hours everyday. It definitely would make the beginner feel very bored. Before him, Chopin even didn't allow his students to practice more than three hours.

 

Fortunately, he began his teaching career in his late year. He not only have written twelve volumes of Technical Exercises but also invented the class system of teaching which allows thirty or forty students learn one piece together at the same time. I also doubt the possibility of this teaching method. Unlike the group piano we have right now, only one student could touch the piano in Liszt's class. The students may get some ideas, but the problems they have couldn't be solved directly by themselves.

 

From many description of his students, it looks that his personality, teaching methods were widely accepted by his students in his late year. Compared to his early teaching, it was a big change. But I think it makes sense. The way how he thought and taught is totally different as the time passed by. Anyway, the contribution Liszt made to the development of piano technique is immense.

---

使用Messenger保护盾2.0，支持多账号登录！ 现在就下载！

Chapter 10: Liszt!

Franz Liszt: The First Rockstar.

Where, o where to begin...

As pianists we are deeply indebted to Liszt for so many things. He was the first to play from memory to play music that he didn't compose. He pretty invented the modern recital and master class. He was a fine composer, amazing pianist and I would even go so far as to say dramatist. He was an expert at conjuring emotions and I think that is one of the reasons people liked him, that, and his giant personality.

I will defend Liszt's music to the death. I happen to greatly like Liszt's music, and while there is a great deal of glitz in his music, that's not what draws me in, though it is amazing what kinds of sounds he can get from the piano. What fascinates me is him as a person and how his compositions directly affect what is going on in his life. He skillfully conjures up images, idylls, emotions, and even religion with stunning effect. Virtuosic runs add excitement, are often very musical, fit well under my fingers, and aren't just hard for the sake of being hard.

His technique (what little presented) was a bit surprising. When I think Liszt, I definitely think whole body technique with the proper balance of strength and suppleness. So when they mentioned that he didn't really play from his arms, I didn't quite buy it and can't imagine not using the whole arm. As far as head position (leaned slightly back) I think this was a good idea, for the sake of listening. I know when I'm most involved in pieces I'm leaned slightly back to hear how sound resonates in the hall (though mostly unconsciously). Those exercises on diminished chords were quite the workout and would be most excellent for stretching fingers.

One last thing, it was nice to read that Liszt was actually human. That he could have a bad day and not give a very good lesson for the student. Also, that he got sick of pieces and forbid people to play them. I love that!

And finally *only if you want to and you don't need to watch the whole thing but it's good for a few laughs*, for either a brilliant or terrible portrayal of Liszt as a rockstar, check out the following clip from Lisztomania (either a brilliant or terrible movie):

Kissed By Liszt

Ah, to be a beautiful, aristocratic woman in the 19th century. Were I fortunate enough to stumble upon a time machine, I would surely go back to a private parlor concert to see our "wizard" of pianist friend Franzie, and kick Madame d'Agoult out of her chair. Even if I couldn't convince him that I was married and wanted to have illegitimate babies, perhaps I could generate a situation in which I could at least end up with a kiss on the cheek, which I would indubitably refrain from washing until I could return home, save his DNA and somehow have it injected into my fingers.

The "Greatest of all 19th century pianists" was literally compared to Jesus (p.173). A fact that was unknown to myself until I read on, deeper into the chapter. Liszt was pretty much incredible. He expanded the dynamic range of the instrument, he used his arm weight in unconventional ways, he was the most influential in revealing some of our most important repertoire to the public, and he took long vacations to have anonymous children with married women under different names. Let's just say he broke some boundaries.

Nonetheless, he will go down in history as being one of the most important pianists EVER. AND he owned a Steinway! As we go, the study of the history of piano pedagogy becomes more and more relevant today, because we actually see instruments getting very close to what we have today. What impressed me the most about this chapter was Liszt's "midlife analysis" or "I'm going to be crazy and practice 10 hours a day to be the best pianist in the world" period, as I commonly refer to it. Liszt says:

"I had been playing the piano for years, and had concertized with great public acclaim. I thought I was marvelous. Then one day as I realized that I failed to express the feelings and emotions which oppressed me, I decided to make a thorough analysis of myself. This proved to me that I did not know how to play a trill properly and that neither of my octaves nor certain aspects of my chord playing were satisfactory. I set to work and soon my whole approach was radically changed" (183).

This is something that I have always wanted to do. It's slightly more impossible in my life, but can you imagine going back to the basics, and re-learning how to play the piano? Personally, I advocate playing scales, and technical exercises regularly, even at the college level (a thought also shared by several of my teachers). Everyone has surely developed some bad habits over the years, and in my mind there can only be many benefits from taking time to re-evaluate, slowly and patiently re-work, and to eventually evolve as a pianist. Though exercises are certainly not the only way to do this, it has always been a fantasy of mine to take a year (or perhaps longer :) ) and "start over", so to speak.


Liszt advocates slow practice, hands separately, practice sessions dedicated to specific aspects of the piece, and a supple technique (not to mention practicing scales in octaves for two hours a day, but conceivably that was just for poor Valerie). What didn't he get? Apparently he knew it all, except for the fact that he was an advocate of the Handguide and Chiroplast, which is why I will end by suggesting that even "God" has a pay-off price.

The Original Boy Band

Oh Liszt, why? Why did you have to be so good? Why did you have to play such hard stuff? Why by yourself? Why in profile? Why from memory?! Over one hundred years after Liszt's death, and still, I am not the only one (I hope) who despairingly asks these questions.
Liszt became one of the first great concert pianists, as the term is applied today, and years later, pianists are still struggling to emulate his style because, as hard as that style may be to echo, the idea of millions of screaming fans fainting and fighting to get closer so they can see a classical pianist play is undeniably appealing.
And that is at least a large part of why Liszt did what he did; for the fame, the glory, and the adulation. And we should be thankful for him, for the mania he inspired, because it made what we are popular, and the profession we aspire to, that of performance pianist, more accepted. Liszt was the first great superstar, like The Beatles, except that where there were four of them, there was only one of him, and his hair was probably better.
Liszt's playing, and his composing were groundbreaking in their beauty and virtuosity, and he was a highly respected pedagogue. However, I find some of his ideas on technique to be contradictory, or at least confusing. For example, he advocated playing with the "palm of the finger," but then later, on page 185 it is mentioned that Liszt advocated a higher bench, so that the forearms are slanted down. Attempting to play with the palms of the fingers, while the arm is slanted downward, seems to me to be very hard on the wrists. In this, as in other contradictory areas, I would take one piece of advice, and leave the other. I like the idea of playing with the palm of the finger, especially for certain passages, since thinking about a cushion would change how I play, if playing in this position does not actually change the sound in and of itself (does it matter what we press the key down with, as long as we worry about how we press it down?).
Liszt's exhortation that we should always search for expression while we play is a good one, and perhaps a way to make even the most crazy virtuosic passages more bearable. This ability to express emotion is what distinguishes us from machines, so we have no excuse in not taking full advantage of it. This goes along with Liszt's advice about self analysis. Too often, especially when I am left alone to study by myself, over a break, perhaps, I become too complacent with my own technique. Stringent self analysis, helped by reading books on technique (such as this one!) and listening to recordings of great pianists may go a long way towards remedying this problem.
Franz Liszt revolutionized piano playing, taking performance practice in particular further than anyone has since, and paving the way for our modern pianism. And in considering all this, I am left with just one more question; who did he say Beethoven's piano sonatas were by, if he didn't credit Beethoven?

Even though Chopin and Liszt were both great musicians during the same decade and only a year apart in age Chopin had a great influence on Liszt. In his own way I think Liszt was following Chopin in his musicality. "Chopin's creative output and pianistic style were to have a great refining influence on Liszt, particularly in directing him to the best and most serious of the piano literature." (172) Liszt may well have been all technique and unrestraint without Chopin's musical guidance. Chopin directed him to Beethoven, by 1832 Lizst had mastered all of his sonatas but when he performed them he did not give the composers name because Beethoven was considered boring. (172) So why was Liszt so idolized during his time and Beethoven not? Did temperament have anything to do with it? Liszt seemed to have an ideal temperament for performance, he enjoyed the status and glory, he liked being the center of attention.

Addressing the lessons Liszt gave to Valerie I found it useful reading. The importance of octave study I thought was especially true as well as the "elementary exercise" he talks about, the one for freeing your fingers. I think both of these exercises would be useful to remember in my own practicing as well as for teaching later on. Another point I want to remember as a pianist and teacher one day is the idea of not having "purposeless mechanical study." Liszt states it nicely, he wants us to "always search for expression." I think it is easy to forget about the musicality of scales and finger exercises. One tends to just play through them with no regard for shaping and dynamics. The point he makes about having patients with yourself and not cutting conners is another good thing to remember not only as a student but for teaching as well.